Oh what I could shoot with a fraction of this...

A

alveraz

Veteran
Found this over at TMZ.com...


"According to a special report from Glenn Bunting of the Los Angeles Times, the people behind the legally troubled 2005 movie, "Sahara," shelled out more than $350,000 to keep the actors fit, fed and and fabulous -- leaving the film's budget, well, in the dust.

In the report, set to be published tomorrow, Bunting claims he has obtained official documents verifying the outrageous expenditures, which include:

Penelope's (Cruz) hairstylist -- $135,550
Penelope's dialogue coach -- $125,804
Matt's (McConaughey) Personal trainer -- $67,977
Matt's Personal Chef -- $48,893

With costs like these, it's no wonder the film reportedly needed a colossal $130 million budget!"



.
 
I think its interesting these two particlar actors posture against all these international social injustices and support human rights campaigns, yet spend a hundred grand on a hairstyle. The hypocracy makes me ill. I especially love the 100K for a dialect coach. Coupled with her terrible acting (nothing new here) her English was still piss-poor. The 'coup de grace' however was the piece of crap film they created. Maybe they could have taken her to Supercuts and spent the 100K on a re-write.

If any of you strike it big as a producer/director I hope you have the balls to stand up to this type of nonsense when an agent makes his contractual demands.
 
Last edited:
While I agree the costs are ridiculous, stars are given the big bucks because they're expected to draw an audience and help a film turn a profit. They're recognizable, attractive, and an integral part of a movies marketing campaign. It's about branding.

And I don't believe people will gravitate to films simply because they're interesting. We've grown up with the "star system" and the aura surrounding actors and movies. Until we get rid of that, personal trainers and celebrity stylists will continue to be necessary evils.
 
alveraz said:
I think its interesting these two particlar actors posture against all these international social injustices and support human rights campaigns, yet spend a hundred grand on a hairstyle. The hypocracy makes me ill.
Click to expand...

Right on... and Ditto.
 
alveraz said:
I think its interesting these two particlar actors posture against all these international social injustices and support human rights campaigns, yet spend a hundred grand on a hairstyle.
Click to expand...

How exactly is that hypocrisy?
 
Do you know how much money the guy who wipes their collective a$$holes make?

I'm sure it's less than a chef but more than a hair stylist.

Unless it is the chef...:zombie_smiley:
 
Mark Harris said:
How exactly is that hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

Look at some of the campaigns they supported in the past against world-wide hunger relief. Have any idea how much a hundred grand can support a small village in rural parts of Africa? Obviously I'm being extreme with this to make a point but you get my drift. These are unnecesary indulgences in a production used to gain leverage for star attachment and its clearly out of control.

And for Issac to call this a 'necessary evil' is absurd to me. We know they are hired for draw, that does not justify a hundred grand for a hairstyle, I don't care how Hollywood lipsticks this pig, it aint reasonable.

Again, not to start an argument. I understand your points Isacc, but I also think that is typical studio-fair rhetoric we have all heard a million times to justify this absurdity. That does not make it right and will never change as long as we as members of the industry support it.

Either way, forums like this are breading grounds for the next 'big thing' (hopefully), so I think it's important for us to bring issues like this to the surface regardless of our stance. I'm not saying we need to raise in arms against 'the man', I'm just saying it's worth a second look.

I'd love to hear more thoughts on this.
 
alveraz said:
Look at some of the campaigns they supported in the past against world-wide hunger relief. Have any idea how much a hundred grand can support a small village in rural parts of Africa? Obviously I'm being extreme with this to make a point but you get my drift. These are unnecesary indulgences in a production used to gain leverage for star attachment and its clearly out of control.

And for Issac to call this a 'necessary evil' is absurd to me. We know they are hired for draw, that does not justify a hundred grand for a hairstyle, I don't care how Hollywood lipsticks this pig, it aint reasonable.

Again, not to start an argument. I understand your points Isacc, but I also think that is typical studio-fair rhetoric we have all heard a million times to justify this absurdity. That does not make it right and will never change as long as we as members of the industry support it.

Either way, forums like this are breading grounds for the next 'big thing' (hopefully), so I think it's important for us to bring issues like this to the surface regardless of our stance. I'm not saying we need to raise in arms against 'the man', I'm just saying it's worth a second look.

I'd love to hear more thoughts on this.
Click to expand...

Well considering the fact that, compared to the world's problems, making a movie at all is an unnecessary indulgence, I have a hard time getting worked up about those expenses. Esp when those people maybe do do a lot for the charities the "posture for." Cruz does. I don't know much about Matthew McConaughey.

Besides which, what makes you think these stars demanded these things? I have no trouble believing that a studio would spend that kind of money to keep their investments looking good...

Anyway, I agree that the movie business is full of fat, but we could sit here and pull a thousand things that are unreasonable. Frankly, why are crews fed? I understand way out on location, but if you're shooting in NYC, why not take your ass to th deli and buy your own lunch LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD?

But I hardly think these two are any more hypocritical than the rest of us. I am positive, P. Cruz has donated more money than any 100 of us on this board to the charities she supports, so...

Also, if you really think she is terrible, check her out when Pedro gets his hands on her. I never ever thought she was at all attractive, but she is absolutely luscious in Volver. And good too. Also, very good in All About my Mother.
 
Good points Mark. I do agree it seems almost trivial when looked at from a wide angle, but I do wonder what would happen if the extraneous spending was actually studied, detailed out and exposed by a third party. I dont mean the available Line Producer budgets but I mean some kind of analysis or comparison.

I wonder if something like this exists. Anyway. I would imagine the results would lead us to revisit our indifferent and numb attitudes we take on this subject. I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill, just interested in the subject.

As far as Penelopes 'giving heart', thats relative to her income and cant be debated. To say she gives more than anyone on DVX is moot. We're all poor filmmakers here, not high paid Spanish actresses. And to compare all this and retort, 'then why feed crew?' is not fair nor relevant to the subject matter. Of course they need to be fed and I don't understand the comparison.

Lastly, I think its interesting that you guys always start out with, "i think they spend too much too, but..." or something similar before you justify their actions. I mean, if you guys dont agree with it, then why do you back it up? Interesting.

Oh, and since when is art an unecessary indulgence? You find creating film synonimous with hiring a hairstylist for a hundred grand? I guess I was wrong, I dont think I agree with any of your points :)
 
Last edited:
true. but the hair stylist is an important job. same with dp gaffer makeup director..... im sure the dp got 2500 a day. so assuming the shoot is 100 days why not pay a top notch hair stylist 1000 a day.....
 
Some of these expenses are "unnecessary" some are not. The problem is that it's often hard to tell which is which. For example, the hairstylist controversy is BS. Folks, a good hair style is extremely important. It's more important than many other things. People pay attention to hair - especially for a woman lead. Some of that effect is subconcious - as often is the case in art. You may think: any old hairstylist could do the job - wrong, wrong, wrong. If you think that, clearly you have no experience getting really good haircuts. The kind where you've got a handful - sometimes only ONE artist-hairstylist who can deliver that high a quality. It's not for nothing that top haistylists can make a fortune, or charge $800 an hour. It's supply and demand. If you've only got a handful of people who can do it, and they are all busy - well, you get to pay a ton of cash to get those services. Supply and demand - like anywhere else. If you're too stupid to realize that it makes a difference, well, then your film will suffer. If you don't understand or have experience with hairstylists, you may very well think that one is as good as another - nothing could be further from the truth. There are the top hairstylists - and they're classes better than the 99% of the rest. You get what you pay for.

If the services of that hairstylist cost $200K, but result in a $4 million addition at the box office, well, they paid for themselves. You think that can't happen? You don't know much about film marketing research then. Detailed studies show how women in particular will sometimes go to a movie - sometimes more than once - only because they liked the hairstyle or clothes of an actress. Sometimes a huge part of an entire career is built on hairstyle, with droves and droves of people tuning in for that reason... Jennifer Anniston, anyone? Do you realize how obsessed people are about her hairstyle? If you didn't realize that, you're simply ignorant.

Now, perhaps the personal cook was excessive - I don't know, not having seen any research on the impact of cooks on film returns. I certainly agree that there is waste, even tremendous waste. However, picking just WHAT is waste... aaah, that's the trick. Hairstylist may well have not been the waste at all!
 
OldCorpse said:
Now, perhaps the personal cook was excessive - I don't know, not having seen any research on the impact of cooks on film returns.
Click to expand...

Hehe... lets talk about weight and physique requirements in these folks' contracts.
Having a personal chef would be mission 1 if I had to 'eat right' in order to go my
job.

Whats funny is that all this is coming out cause Cussler ended up with another
bad movie from his books. If it'd worked, they'd all be geniuses :)

Oh.. about food on a set. Get three production people in a room and the most
common topic is gonna be catering/craft services on sets and anecdotes about
best/worst experiences.

Just worked on a set that was easily the best. Second was 'Buddy Pharoah' from
like 2001 :) Worst was Clueless.
 
OldCorpse said:
I certainly agree that there is waste, even tremendous waste. However, picking just WHAT is waste... aaah, that's the trick. Hairstylist may well have not been the waste at all!
Click to expand...

Dave: But movies cost millions of dollars to make.
Robert K. Bowfinger: That's after gross net deduction profit percentage deferment ten percent of the nut. Cash, every movie cost $2,184.

:)
 
Mark... you're freakin' brilliant. This thread has been a blast to read...

I've always felt an emotional duality about the movie business... but it does piss me off when an actor or rock star makes me feel guilty for not sending half my pbj to the third world... when the next time you see them on tv it's to be led around one of several vacation homes.

I could care less about people being rich... I have no problem with wealth... but don't do pretentious speeches or songs about how nobody is caring for the poor and then drive a limited edition bentley home from the studio. Drive the car and buy the houses... or cry for the poor... but don't do both.
 
Besides which, what makes you think these stars demanded these things? I have no trouble believing that a studio would spend that kind of money to keep their investments looking good...
Click to expand...

Bottom line right there. Cruz needs the sexy hair. And lets face it the women must see Mathew because in every movie he loses his shirt somewhere. Hollywood knows what sells man. Those expenses are a drop in the bucket to the producers.
 
mchzwveyig.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top