GoodGuy
Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Joe D.
But there's another wrinkle; as Good Guy posted, the filming for TTT was an enormous expense, but then add the cash the producers "wasted" on hiring Akira Kurosawa to direct the Japanese scenes, only to later fire him for attempting to "cast friends and business associates in key roles in the film's Japanese segments as a quid-pro-quo for later funding of future films. Twentieth Century Fox was not amused by this, and finally, the breach became the cause for Kurosawa's dismissal from the project."
Well, according to most sources (incl. imdb IIRC), Kurosawa had been lured into the project: he was told David Lean would direct the US segments - so he said he'd be in. As this turned out to be a false info, Kurosawa did everything to get fired (on purpose), possibly because he couldn't just leave the project (penalty clause). Maybe he figured that it was a very commercial approach and anything but an "arty" project, too. Kurosawa's work always had an arty touch, as a director - he was rather an artist than a plain craftsman, in all of his approaches. David Lean had a rep. to create epic - if not lengthy and glorifying - movies, which still had an arty touch, expecially regarding the photography.
quote:
re IMDb, "Of all the time and money spent by Akira Kurosawa, less than one minute of the film he shot is in the final release version." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066473/trivia
There was a great deal of $ spent and mis-spent on this film, so there had to be cuts somewhere, and apparently it was in the cast.
You don't know how much of the budget had been "burned" that way, actually. I think you're drawing a false conclusion there:
Artist fees are usually being negotiated before a project starts.
For example, half of Patton's budget ($12 Mill.) was spent for renting military equipment from the Spanish military (they had built German bombers and fighters under license 'til way after the war), but there was still enough money for hiring A-actors, and Patton featured George C. Scott with Karl Malden as supporting actor, at least.
Rod Steiger, Lee Marvin, Robert Mitchum and Burt Lancaster all turned down the lead role, only John Wayne was really hot for the lead role, but he got turned down by the producer. Quite some of the lead role's lines were cheesy, egomaniacal or not sufficiently backed up by sources/wittnesses, so I can see why these actors had passed the offer.
Same with Tora, I'm sure many A-actors passed as they may have thought that Tora would just be another cheesy war movie, at a time where ppl were raging against the War in Vietnam.
Hiring 3-5 A-artists would have made the production costs of Tora only marginally higher, as most of the characters have rather short parts. Same with "Midway", filming of Robert Mitchum's complete cast in Midway took one day only.
Mitchum got $870,000 for his fully-blown leading part in "Ryan's daughter" (1970/71), but he usually got between $150,000 and $400,000 (Moses) for leading parts during the late 60s...
I doubt that he or any other A-artist received a similar amount (ie. 800+ k) for their short casts in Midway. That movie was packed with characters, just like Tora, but most had rather short appearances.
The only mega-salary paid in 1971 was the then astronomical amount of around $1.4 million bucks Sean Connery had received for his comeback as James Bond in "Diamonds are forever".
Although it was an astronomical amount, it seems that the worldwide success and revenue of the Bond series justified that offer. Still, no other actor in the world made that amount of money in 1971, afaik.
That said, you seem to overestimate the average fee for an A-artist back then, and you underestimate the cost-saving effect you get if you build your own flying replicas of planes, as you don't have to pay exorbitant daily rental fees for the equipment (like for Patton mentioned above, or like "Apocalypse Now" - mil. equipment was rented from the Philipine Army, which [along with a typhoon] almost killed the project, the shooting took 16 months, it went severely over budget). While building your own planes etc. may be a big investment regarding material and manpower, initially, it actually helps to save costs once you have the equipment ready, as you don't risk to get way over the budget with fees for rented equipment, in case the shooting doesn't progress as expected.
Also, usually, if a production gets close to the budget limit, directors and producers have to come up with ideas how to reduce costs... they may just cancel scenes with costly effects and equipment, or use some cheaper replacements, like miniatures, RC-models, etc.
The German director Roland Emmerich (Universal Soldier, Independence Day) is well known for his habit to optimize procedures and lower costs even during the actual shooting, often resulting in the production costs falling way below the budget limit at the end of the project, for example.
Still, you don't save costs by cutting the actor's salaries during the shooting, as contracts are made before the actual shooting starts, and Tora's budget should have been sufficient to finance a few A-actors AND SFX, as in many movies of the time, the sum of the actor fees amounted to 15% (or even less) of the production costs, with "Diamonds are forever" being an absolute exception at the time, as Sean Connery's salary alone amounted to 20% ($1.4 million) of the budget ($7.2 million).
< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 12/7/2009 1:42:51 PM >
_____________________________
"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
|
Printable Version
D-Day - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread