The Wrestler

S

Snapper123

Well-known member
So I just watched The Wrestler, and while Mickey Rourke, Evan Rachel Wood, and the semi-elaborate wrestling scenes were no easy penny, it is completely irrational that something like that cost 6 Million Dollars to create. Now, was it a heavily marketed film? Yes. Could have been a major part of the budget there. Did they probably take all the official permit and insurance steps? Most likely. And did they use two famous talents, as well as some elaborate scenes? Yes. Did the film on 16mm as well as using Zeiss lenses? Yes.

But none of that, in my opinion, counts for 6 Million Dollars. That is a lot of money for what I could have filmed myself. The production budget, discounting the wrestling scenes, could not have been more than $1,000. There are DSLR people making films like this for free. What gives? Who throws 6 Million Dollars into a film like that? Who has that amount of money for what is essentially a completely sloppy, run-and-gun wide angle documentary filmed in grocery stores and trailers. I could do that, if I weren't so worried about actually making a better film that that. Where in the world are producers for this crap, and where can I sign up?

Now, it's not to say it was a bad movie, if it was made for a $100,000 budget (more appropriate) and filmed on DSLR or digital, then it would have even been revolutional in some ways. The story pulls you in and it's a good movie to watch. But who in the hell knew that going into it and throwing 6 Million Dollars into it? I even thought the film danced on a fine line of entertaining, and I almost tried to picture the filmmakers using an incredibly low budget just to sit through it and wonder how they did things. I just don't see where a film like this requires that type of money, if I had 1% of that type of money, I could make a masterpiece!

Any thoughts?
 
The Brown Bunny apparently cost $10 million, also shot on Super 16, and it's just Vincent Gallo driving around most of the time. I find that far more perplexing that The Wrestler's budget. Maybe Chloe Sevigny got paid $9.5 million for her infamous scene (kidding, of course).

But seriously, with the salaries of everyone involved, the film, the lab costs, the post production expenses (sound design, etc) it all just adds up.
 
Last edited:
Mickey Rourke + Evan Rachel Wood + Marisa Tomei + Over 20 real wrestlers who probably got half decent paychecks = You probably have a few million right there. Filming permits + Liability insurance (not sure how this works in regards to stunts, but I'm sure it's more than usual) + Location costs (supermarket, strip club, a nice size auditorium filled with extras, etc.) = Another nice chunk of change. 1st class wrestling training for Rourke + Stunt coordinators + Travel for all these people since filming took place in three states = More money. Everyone behind the scenes need to get paid too. Oh, and don't forget Clint Mansell. Yeah, this moviemaking stuff adds up real quick and sneaks up on you.

Not to disparage DSLR people, but I doubt they could have made this film to its same effect. A somewhat reasonable facsimile? Perhaps, but it would take a very special talent with an above DSLR average budget. And I didn't even like The Wrestler that much.
 
Oh, and I don't know what prime lenses, camera, and lights they used, but I'm sure the rental budget adds up on a 40 day shoot. Oh, and don't forget set design costs and craft services. Oh, and...etc. etc. ad nauseum
 
Snapper123 said:
I just don't see where a film like this requires that type of money, if I had 1% of that type of money, I could make a masterpiece!

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I have a few. Why are you letting money stop you? Other people have made Features for next to nothing that have appeared in theaters nationwide. In fact, some filmmakers even got their big break through short films.
I think that maybe you underestimate just how difficult it is to make a great feature, let alone a masterpiece.

Not trying to come off as rude here, just sick of people acting like it's easy. As if big budget = great film.
We all know that's not the case.

As for The Wrestler, I loved it. Not a movie I'll watch too often but I thought it was great.
 
Snapper123 said:
So I just watched The Wrestler, and while Mickey Rourke, Evan Rachel Wood, and the semi-elaborate wrestling scenes were no easy penny, it is completely irrational that something like that cost 6 Million Dollars to create. Now, was it a heavily marketed film? Yes. Could have been a major part of the budget there. Did they probably take all the official permit and insurance steps? Most likely. And did they use two famous talents, as well as some elaborate scenes? Yes. Did the film on 16mm as well as using Zeiss lenses? Yes.

But none of that, in my opinion, counts for 6 Million Dollars. That is a lot of money for what I could have filmed myself. The production budget, discounting the wrestling scenes, could not have been more than $1,000. There are DSLR people making films like this for free. What gives? Who throws 6 Million Dollars into a film like that? Who has that amount of money for what is essentially a completely sloppy, run-and-gun wide angle documentary filmed in grocery stores and trailers. I could do that, if I weren't so worried about actually making a better film that that. Where in the world are producers for this crap, and where can I sign up?

Now, it's not to say it was a bad movie, if it was made for a $100,000 budget (more appropriate) and filmed on DSLR or digital, then it would have even been revolutional in some ways. The story pulls you in and it's a good movie to watch. But who in the hell knew that going into it and throwing 6 Million Dollars into it? I even thought the film danced on a fine line of entertaining, and I almost tried to picture the filmmakers using an incredibly low budget just to sit through it and wonder how they did things. I just don't see where a film like this requires that type of money, if I had 1% of that type of money, I could make a masterpiece!

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...


Any thoughts? Yeah: LOL!
 
Snapper123 said:
Now, it's not to say it was a bad movie, if it was made for a $100,000 budget (more appropriate) and filmed on DSLR or digital, then it would have even been revolutional in some ways. The story pulls you in and it's a good movie to watch. But who in the hell knew that going into it and throwing 6 Million Dollars into it? I even thought the film danced on a fine line of entertaining, and I almost tried to picture the filmmakers using an incredibly low budget just to sit through it and wonder how they did things. I just don't see where a film like this requires that type of money, if I had 1% of that type of money, I could make a masterpiece!

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

It costs money to hire a crew to pull off a film like this on a small budget and within a small period of time. I think it's very easy to talk on forums without lifting a finger to do anything. :)

Please, make something better on a dslr and prove us all wrong. Have you ever made a film?
 
Snapper, please post the budget for that masterpiece you can shoot with your DSLR for $100K. You should have no problem at all raising $100K since you're able to achieve production value equivalent to a $6M feature film with professional crew. If you can demonstrate these mad skills you will be perused by investors until you die.

Considering in-kind value I spent about $150K to shoot a 20min short film over 4 days. Nobody was paid close to rate and the camera package was a freebie. And that was only 3 locations. High production value costs a lot of money to achieve.
 
Snapper123 said:
But none of that, in my opinion, counts for 6 Million Dollars. That is a lot of money for what I could have filmed myself. The production budget, discounting the wrestling scenes, could not have been more than $1,000. There are DSLR people making films like this for free. What gives? Who throws 6 Million Dollars into a film like that? Who has that amount of money for what is essentially a completely sloppy, run-and-gun wide angle documentary filmed in grocery stores and trailers. I could do that, if I weren't so worried about actually making a better film that that. Where in the world are producers for this crap, and where can I sign up?

. . .

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Sure. That it's amazing how many people think this until they actually try it.
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
Snapper, please post the budget for that masterpiece you can shoot with your DSLR for $100K. You should have no problem at all raising $100K since you're able to achieve production value equivalent to a $6M feature film with professional crew. If you can demonstrate these mad skills you will be perused by investors until you die.

Considering in-kind value I spent about $150K to shoot a 20min short film over 4 days. Nobody was paid close to rate and the camera package was a freebie. And that was only 3 locations. High production value costs a lot of money to achieve.
Click to expand...


What's even crazier is that he said $1K for the production budget. It's insulting to think that wanting proven artists to bring their exceptional talents to a project with cheap equipment and for no/low pay is becoming more expected. Because that's what you're saying with a $1K production budget. Project triangle: good, fast, cheap--pick any two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top