Phil Connolly Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 40 minutes ago, Richard Boddington said: 149 million? How on earth did they spend that much? R, I think they shot a big chunk on digital, which as we know is the most expensive shooting format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted November 28, 2019 Author Share Posted November 28, 2019 (edited) It cost 159 million because, first of all, the deaging is extremely costly (and half of the film features fully deaged Pesci, De Niro and Pacino), there is also an enormous amount of sets, locations. The money is all there on the screen. @Phil: you're being ironic I'm guessing but anything involving deaging HAD to be shot digitally, it was Pablo Herman (ILM)'s demand. Anything else (basically half as Prieto said, he had it checked in editorial) is 35mm film, so that also means any inserts, 2nd unit stuff. Edited November 28, 2019 by Manu Delpech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2019 Share Posted November 28, 2019 35 minutes ago, Manu Delpech said: The money is all there on the screen. Quite frankly after budgeting and making six feature films, I don't think so. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted November 28, 2019 Author Share Posted November 28, 2019 They also had to use a three camera array (one Red Helium, two Alexa Minis as witness cams) for all the deaged portions and sometimes had up to nine cameras per scene, meaning 9 focus pullers obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 And with that cast and high end crew, salaries were through the roof, probably a good fifty percent of the budget. I fell asleep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted December 18, 2019 Premium Member Share Posted December 18, 2019 4 hours ago, Chris Burke said: And with that cast and high end crew, salaries were through the roof, probably a good fifty percent of the budget. I fell asleep They didn't need that cast. In fact, if they had younger people and aged them up for the ending, it would have been far better. I think it was a mistake to do what he did, it just didn't work and it made for an uninteresting feature. It would have been fine as a mini-series and nobody would have cared about the slow pace story or the de-aging effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Perera Posted December 18, 2019 Premium Member Share Posted December 18, 2019 (edited) i felt the de-aging thing looked ridiculous personally.....too distracting and reminded me of the reaction I had seeing Pacino in Dick Tracy shot by Storaro in 1990......but I really enjoyed the film, I give it a 9/10....he could have done a Sergio Leone 'Once Upon a Time in America' shot by Tonino Delli Colli with younger actors but hey....I speak as a fan..... Edited December 18, 2019 by Stephen Perera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now