jarrod said:
letsdance said:
jarrod said:
letsdance said:
Kasz216 said:
letsdance said:
Kasz216 said:
letsdance said:
jarrod said:
letsdance said:
jarrod said:
letsdance said:
jarrod said:
leo-j said:
that's really sad..
the game is 5 hours, and the budget was higher than MGS4s potentially.
Very sad |
Eh, more than twice as many people worked on MGS4, and it was in development twice as long... pretty sure it's budget likely dwarfed Heavenly Sword's.
|
I doubt it. I think Kojima went the more traditional way in developing the MGS4. Ninjatheory was very ambitious in their developing with facial mocap and voicing famous people.
|
Uh, you know MGS4 used far, far more extensive mocap (including facial capture) than HS, right? Just check the credits, MGS4's mocap credits alone rival the entire R&D teams for many other games. MGS4 also had a huge voice cast, extensive CG and the entire network infrastructure R&D for MGO in there. If you credit check, MGS4 credits almost 400 people!
And that's just production
, we're not even talking about promotional budgets...
|
They didn't have andy serkis. All those voice actors probablly got a couple of grand with the Snake maybe getting 100k. Niko in GTA4 only got 100k. I bet andy got a few million.
|
Andy who?
Sorry, just pour through the credits yourself (MGS4, Heavenly Sword). There's pretty much no way HS was a higher cost production than MGS4...
|
Andy alone probably got paid as much as all of MSG4s entire cast.
|
I think you overestimate the cost of high level voice acting. I mean, Mike Myers got 10 million for Shrek 2. That's a movie, I'd be surprised if anyone in a videogame makes more then 500K VA.
|
A movie that was shorter than HS along with the fact that no game has had a VA who is as well known as "MY PRECIOUS" ontop of the fact that it just wasnt in the sound studio he also had to act it out. Unlike Mike. I bet Andy put more time in HS than mike in Shrek. I bet if a game studio was like "Hey mike we got a job for you. We want you to spend a year or two of your life in a sound studio and motion capture and we'll give you 500k" he'd say "fuck off I'm gonna make another shrek for 20 times that"
|
Jobs aren't paid based on how hard the work is. Jobs are paid by how valuable the work is.
Mike Myers work in Shrek 2 was way more valuable then Andy's in HS.
Shrek 2 had a budget of 150 million. It made just short of a billion... just in theatres. Not counting DVDs, Merchandising etc..
Heavenly sword made what... 90 million... of which... they didn't even see 30% of that money?
You think they spend 30 million on 2 voice actors? What kinda sales do you think they expected?
|
LOL way to pull a figure out of your ass and into my mouth.
BTW this is for Jarrod "The hobbit actors, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan received bonuses of between 430,000 and 560,000 per film. Bernard Hill and Ian McKellen earned 312,000 per film, with Liv Tyler making a little less."
I'd say it was very likely Smeagol got paid more than Liv. So... Thats near 900k in just bonus'
|
Can you cite that
? Because in his tell-all-book, Sean Astin complained about getting paid only $250,000 for the entire trilogy.
|
Sean Astin was a no name before the films. His role wasn't very important either(Not like frodo or gandalf). They could have casted anyone for it. He was the dummy that accepted a 83k a movie contract. I'm sure he probablly could have negotiated better pay. Especially since the movies had over 100 million budget per title.
Heres the source The London Daily Mail (5 December 2003)
|
Sam's character was the 2nd most important Hobbit in the films after Frodo. If not for Sam, they'd have lost to Sauron (lol!). He's one of the central characters, up there with Smeagol, Gandalf, Strider, etc.
Sean Astin was in The Goonies. That makes him a bigger pre-LOTR name than Andy Serkis, and I'd argue he's probably bigger post-LOTR name too given the general public can actually recognize him... $250k for 2 years work, for a lead role in a $100m+ trilogy is pretty shameful, but we really don't know how anyone was paid given Sean's the only one who went on record with it.
Also, the Daily Mail is a tabloid. Have a more reputable source?
|
The Goonies was considered as one of the biggest box office disappointments of the year when it was released in 1985. It was thought to be one of the biggest hits of the year because of the producers and directors like Spielberg but Gremlins (several other films) destroyed it at the box office. Sure, it did become a cult phenomenon later on but it was never as hugely popular as you may think (if it were, it would have got a sequel). Only a mild success at best. And LOTR happened 20 years after that so Sean Astin was a no-name actor by then.
Also, those other factors have nothing to do payment to actors. Sometimes studios pays more to cameo role than to main actors. If an actor agreeds to play the main role $1, studio won't pay anything more than $1. If a cameo from the famous actor costs $1 million, the studio might be happy to for that too.
Now, we must think about Andy Serkis. Character of Gollum was more important to the plot than Sam. Although Sam was more in the movies, he was never as important as Gollum. Sam was mainly a side character in movies. Gollum was also a huge technical achievement while Sam is just a normal character, nothing more. Gollum is going to be remembered for a long time after release of the movies while Sam is going to be forgotten in a short time. This would lead me to believe that Andy Serkis is worth more than Sean Astin.
