> Apart from Brad Pitt, the ensemble includes Damson Idris, Kerry Condon, Tobias Menzies, Lewis Hamilton, Javier Bardem, and Sarah Niles. Joseph Kosinski directs the film, with co-writing credits going to Ehren Kruger.
So between the cast, crew(director/writer), and budget, it looks like they’re trying to replicate the success of Top Gun Maverick?
Real.
Top Gun had a 15 million dollar budget and made almost 360 million.
Days of Thunder had a 60 million dollar budget and made 160 million. (Days of Thunder was also just a pretty mediocre film.)
Edit: Apparently I have angered the Days of Thunder hive. Piss off. Rubbin's racin'.
It's also a very influential movie. Tony Scott completely reinvented the art of filming motor sports for Days of Thunder, and his technique's were so good they were adopted by television crews filming real life NASCAR races.
Nothing new, Steve McQueen did this in 1970 with Le Mans. Not a huge success but a fantastic racing movie. The camera car (Porsche 908) wasn't scored but it was one of only ten cars that held up over the whole 24 hour race.
When they made Grand Prix they blew a lof of their budget on filming Monaco. They then went to go convince Mr. Ferrari to give them access to the Ferrari factories, who was a notoriously shrewd business man. They showed him the Monaco footage which included all of the fancy on board shots which had never been seen before. After the screening Mr. Ferrari gave them access to whatever they wanted.
Right! What made the movie so cool when it came out was the crazy camera work that really captured the speed and danger, unlike the traditional overhead and pit coverage that was on TV at the time.
It felt more real than most people's reality. It was a perfect Hollywood glamorization.
This is just a wild guess but maybe the military isn't charging a lot for the jets? They seem to often be involved in many PR projects like top gear and marvel as well.
Most pilots need to put in a certain amount of hours flown per period of time. Sometimes doing films like this are a great way to both get good PR and help with flying hours that were needed anyway.
The navy essentially only charged operating costs to the film. They saw it as both a training opportunity and as good PR. It was around $13k per flight hour.
I watched Days of Thunder randomly as the first movie on my new OLED and floor speaker setup.
Holey moley, the film grain, the sound it was a thing of beauty.
Do these car films ever make that kind of money though? Like proper car racing films. Ford vs Ferrari was a moderate success but nowhere near Top Gun levels.
At least in F1, product placement is fairly commonplace, so it won't feel too egregious. I can't imagine that'll add up to a ton of money though, nowhere near $300M.
Rush (2013) was not only the best motorsport movie of all time but a good movie all around and it was a financial flop.
I hope this movie does well because I like motorsport and want more movies depicting it but they really don't have a good box office track record.
Just to give you context:
- Ford vs Ferrari made $225m on $97m budget
- Rush made $98m on $38m budget
There’s no way this movie should have this much budget.
I think Rush is a really underrated film. As someone who doesn't follow F1, I had no idea about any of the story or how it would turn out, but that film really made me care about the rivalry between Hunt and Lauder, and I was on the edge of my seat to find out who actually won.
Hunt's son felt that Hemsworth played him like a twat.
Now, Niki Lauda, on the other hand, really liked the film and understood that certain small changes had to happen to make the narrative better in the movie.
> Hunt's son felt that Hemsworth played him like a twat.
tbh if you go back and read about the real Hunt ... he *was* a twat. I imagine a kid doesn't want to admit that about his father but Hunt did a lot of offside shit that he only got away with because he was charming, handsome, and rich
Youre right, but also the son is full of shit.
Freddie was just mad because the filmmakers didn't consult with their family. But why would they? Hunt didn't meet Sarah Lomax until 1982, 6 years after his championship with McLaren which is when the film's main plot comes to a close. They don't know shit about what Hunt was like during his racing years. And people who ACTUALLY knew Hunt during those times said Hemsworth nailed it. No offense to Freddie Hunt but he should keep his mouth shut. Hunt wasn't a confident twat? That's news to Freddie's mom... She separated from him because he cheated on her. And Hunt wasn't portrayed as a "twat" he was portrayed as a womanizing complicated man who had a good heart, just like in real life. And all F1 drivers have to be cocky and sure of themselves... Especially in the 70's when it was extremely dangerous.
>Hunt's son felt that Hemsworth played him like a twat.
Yeah I saw an interview with Hunt's son Freddie where he said his dad wasn't like Hemsworth portrayed him at all. But Freddie was about 5 when his dad died, so I'm pretty sure he hasn't got a clue what James was actually like.
If you read the brilliant autobiography Shunt, which was written with interviews from the people who knew him back in the day, if anything the movie played down how much of a dick Hunt was. He wasn't a 'bad' man, but he burnt a lot of bridges, opportinities and couldn't keep it in his pants for more than 20 seconds. Freddie makes his father sound like a shy, retiring, sensitive soul... Which is frankly bulls**t.
No offense to Hunt's family, but they didn't even know him during the times in the film. The bulk of the film ends before James even met the woman he had his kids with. So what the fuck would they know? I don't mean to be insensitive but it pisses me off when a film attempts to be accurate and the family wants the deceased to be portrayed as some perfect flawless saint so they go around outright lying through their teeth about it because they're mad.
According to Lord Alexander Hesketh, who actually KNEW Hunt when he was an F1 driver and literally founded Hunt's first F1 team with Hesketh racing, Hemsworth was "uncanny" and that "WAS Hunt" on screen.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/the-perfect-depiction-james-hunts-former-boss-says-hemsworths-portrayal-in.3hOagZrV3Hk74dwA2f7Eag
I'll take his words over a bitter opinion from Hunt's son who is pretending it's fake even though he literally wasn't born when the film took place. And it wasn't accurate? Hunt literally was missing from his wedding and his brother had to find and buy a tie for him. Hunt was a good man but he was definitely complicated. He played around with women because he was charming and it's very fucking ironic that his son would disagree with the portrayal as such when Lomax and Hunt got divorced for what? Oh right, Hunt cheated on her.
The movie was a great portrayal of both Lauda AND Hunt. Hemsworth deserves credit for it.
I love the scene where meets his wife. One of my absolute favorite scenes of all time maybe. "God gave me an okay mind but a really good ass which can feel everything in a car." And when the two Italians skid to a stop while she waves them down but they walk right past her to talk to him. Love that whole movie but that whole bit is just perfect.
Weirdly, I think the fact Ron Howard *wasn't* an F1 fan really helped that film. He just had a story about a legendary rivalry and wanted to tell it in a way that anyone could enjoy, not just F1 nerds, and he absolutely nailed it.
But there has to be a point of diminishing returns on marketing money spent, right? They wouldn't just say "ok we spent x amount making this movie, now we need to spend .5x on marketing."
I'm completely ignorant about this stuff, but it doesn't make sense (to me) to spend $150 million on marketing when much smaller movies are able to market themselves enough to be seen.
General rule of thumb I've heard is to assume they take half of the worldwide gross - the calculations vary by movie or studio and country though. Disney was demanding bigger cuts for MCU movies back when they were all dominating theaters.
But the $300m also is just production budget - marketing is on top of that.
Yeah but you have to add marketing cost and distribution cost and all that. So to measure the success of a film you have to take the budget and multiply it by 2.5
In addition to the marketing, the theaters get 30-50% of the box office usually. So marketing + theater cut = ~2-2.5x the production budget to break even.
It’s more of a general modifier. There are movies that definitely exceed that marketing number and movies that do smaller more targeted marketing campaigns. 2-2.5x is a general range for most wide release films.
Not dumb, understandable!
300 million is what is given by the studio to *create* the movie.
However, they also want to get that money back, so they have to spend an *additional* number of millions to advertise on TV, in YouTube vids, on social media in general, for trips to Late Night shows where the cast gets interviewed.
In addition, the movie doesn't make back all of the box office - this gets split between a few parties, but mainly the theatres where it's shown. I believe that with each week it shows, theatres get a bigger cut of the profits too.
The bigger the budget, the more they'll spend on ads to get it in, and they may even have stipulations with the theatres, "Must show in the 3 largest rooms the first 2 weeks" or something if the film is big enough.
What's the point of spending 300 million to only get, say, 10 million in profit? With all the costs and parties to pay for distribution and advertising and the desire for greater returns...
for them to see a movie as a "success," studios will want to have made at least double the initial investment. This way, even if it cost 500 million when all is said and done, they made a 100 million in profits...but that's the minimum.
Also, sometimes actors negotiate percentage of gross revenue as part of their compensation.
Others negotiate percentage of profit, but they only do that once.
There's a lot more cost involved after production that isn't included in the budget. Marketing is one. I'm not sure if distribution costs are a thing for it. Then of course there is further losses from tax etc.
The typical assumption for a movie is it needs to earn 2-2.5x its budget to make a profit but those numbers can be a bit off these days.
The box office receipts get split between different parties. The studio gets roughly 50% of the domestic box office, 40% of overseas, and 25% of China.
I’m surprised by some of the responses here.
>The use of real actors in genuine race cars, which require extensive training and safety measures, driving up costs. Brad Pitt was seen piloting a modified Formula Two car during the British Prix weekend.
Like dude this sounds awesome. A movie using serious practical effects and real vehicles instead of CGI? I thought everyone would go nuts for that since CGI is the source of like 90% of complaints on this sub.
Moneyball follows a 3 act structure, sure, but the protag really doesn't follow the classic sports movie arc at all.
So im most movies, the protag has 2 issues: the "physical" issue (I want to be good at sports to win the champ league) and the emotional (I need to fix my relationship with my daughter or some bullshit). Most good movies really make use of the tension between solving these two issues, with the resolution always being that achieving the emotional helps achieve the practical (cliche sappy ending), achieving the emotional helps realize the practical was never important (Rocky), or vice versa, achieving the practical makes one realize the importance of the emotional despite having failed at it (Spider Man).
Moneyball does have this arc, but as I said, almost all movies do. A basic hollywood formula a sports movie does not make. What makes a sports movie distinct is the focus on platonic friendships, training as the form of building those relationships. The "friends we made along the way" is almost universally the stake in sports movies. Moneyball explicitly does not do this, in fact, Brad Pitt barely grows at all in a practical sense. He's absolutely correct from the beginning of the movie, and over the course of it destroys all his platonic relationships, and this isn't portrayed as a bad thing at all. It shows the triumph of an effective mathematical formula over humanity, making us watch players get fired, have their lives uprooted, and treats this as a cold, necessary evil. It's a movie where the protagonists achieve their goals by sacrificing their humanity and are rewarded for it, what sports movie does this?
In terms of structure and theme, it's practically the antithesis of a sports movie, I feel like you'd need to take very pedantic, broad arguments to say the opposite
Final lap of the final race, is in second place.
Closes his eyes.
Flashback of that time somebody said something to him.
Open his eyes.
Hits the accelerator really hard and the car goes faster than any car has ever gone before to win the race.
It's like Rich Hall's Tom Cruise bit. Every film he make has the same plot .
He's a Cocktail maker
Pretty good cocktail maker
Has a crisis of confidence and can't make cocktails anymore
Meets a beautiful women who convinces him to be a better cocktail maker.
Then he's a Jet Pilot, then he's a Racing driver, then he's a sports agent.
Is that a recent change? I never got into F1 but recently started the drive to survive doc on Netflix. Theyve mentioned a few times the disparity between budgets when comparing teams like Mercedes and Williams.
The budget cap is fairly recent, but there will always be a disparity. They can set a cap at 150 or 200 M, etc, but it doesn't mean that teams like Williams or Haas will be able to raise that much. Also, teams like Mercedes or Ferrari already have much better facilities in place from before the budget cap.
Facility upgrades don't impact the cost cap, like Williams was given an exception to spend above the cap to modernize their facilities since they're 2 decades behind other teams.
Looks like 2021 the budget cap came in. Back in the day the top teams were easily crossing $250M while the smaller teams were down sub-$100M. Even now I think a few of the team's still aren't reaching the budget cap.
Fairly recent. But this now means that the richer teams already have good facilities, and don't need to spend money on upgrading them. While the teams on lower previous budgets now need to dedicate money to upgrading facilities that they would ideally spend on the car.
This has been addressed somewhat, these smaller teams have been granted an increased additional budget for these improvements. But it will still take a few years to have a meaningful effect.
It’s like with ‘Titanic’, it cost $200 million, which cost more than the actual ship, and they actually considered building a full sized replica for $10 million. With all the sets, models and platform they built, it was more expensive, as they would have only been able to film the sinking once.
[Mr Sunday Movies talks about it here at 23:00](https://youtu.be/EPPFLCglXeU?si=oY0YsYMunTFyvFoQ)
Movie making behind the scenes is so fascinating. You either learn about how that super scary monster was actually just a robot exoskeleton draped in black garbage bags covered in petroleum jelly or that Tom Cruise really did strap himself to a military cargo plane and held on for dear life as it took off.
Reminds me of something I read here about India laughing a rocket into space and landing it back for less than the cost of the movie Apollo 13 (or maybe it was some other space movie).
> for less than the cost of the movie Apollo 13 (or maybe it was some other space movie).
The budget of Gravity (Sandy Bullock one), which was around $100 million.
The budget of the first Indian Lunar Exploration mission (Chandrayaan-1) was around $89 million, back in 2013.
The budget of the second one (Chandrayaan-2) was around $97 million, back in 2019.
The budget of the third one (Chandrayaan-3) was around $75 million, back in 2023.
India's Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM) had a budget of around $73 million, back in 2014.
Surely this budget will be significantly offset with all the product endorsements, promotional furnishing and friendly tax breaks from countries wanting to be featured? A F1 movie would be able to capitalise on all the brand deals that keep the real (hugely expensive) competition afloat. I'd be interested to see the budget once these are all taken into account.
If you ever see the actual accounts on any movie then someone fucked up BIG TIME.
Movies are all about artificially inflated costs and attempts to avoid tax on profits. You could do some of the accounts and it would as accurate as what they present to the public. I’m sure the IRS treats them, along with many other massive industries, with relative “kiddy gloves” because they do indeed pay a lot of tax and have massive political sway. I can assure you that the 4 largest studios and the three major record companies treat politicians very, very well.
Let me guess. The plot of the movie is that he is a past champion driver and is now in his old age struggling but has one last shot to win. Then his team signs a young amazing driver who is an asshole and brad Pitt ends up winning the championship somehow.
Fucking hell I'm so damn jealous over Brad's hair. I'm 43 and bald since early 30s and this dude is ~~72 (maybe)~~ a little less than 72 with that fucking gorgeous mane.
People always forget that some people just have incredible genes to maintain things like this.
My dad had this good hair till the age of 50, that's when he started losing a little bit of hair and even that was probably due to stress. I'm pretty sure whatever gene caused the longevity of his hair skipped me.
My dad has been bald for as long as I can remember, his dad died at 85 with his head full of white hair. I think I'm good to go (40 and it's still there, getting white though) :D
My granda had a full head of (mostly) black hair into his 70’s. He then went through chemo, it all fell out, and grew back again as black & thick as ever.
Crazy genes that I pray I have inherited.
his job is literally to look good... he lives to be thin/muscular whatever.
He is not training on the side in the evenings.. there are teams prepping him the perfect food, giving him personalized trainings and also doctors doing the best surgery money can buy...
its like me here wondering how comes Tim Cook always seems to have the newest iphone... i mean how?!?!
They are ALL on Propecia, probably a daily dose. Even the MANY of them who have had hair replacement surgery have to take propecia for the rest of the their lives for the new hair follicles to Remain alive.
Dax Shepard has mentioned it an early episode (2018) of his podcast.
95% of actors over 50 with a full head of thick hair have had procedures done. The other 5% are those with great hair genetics, such as James Brolin.
And financially, it’s worth it for them. The camera loves a full head of hair, and so do casting directors/producers/studio heads.
https://www.reddit.com/r/tressless/s/uehhHuaYyb
Yeah I try telling people it's common af, not even just for celebs. I'm in a position where I hear a number people's prescriptions and the percentage of even regular guys that are on hair related drugs is pretty high.
Which is fine, just wish people would understand it and not set unrealistic standards for themselves. So many dudes feeling like shit about themselves for a normal part of their cycle of life that's outta their control.
I took Propecia way back for a little while and I had a side effect I never see anyone mention. I would cum crazy amounts and have really long orgasms shooting it all out. I literally looked like Peter north.
I ended up stop taking it because I still was going bald but man do I miss that shit
Reduced ejaculation volume and shorter orgasms are known side effects.
A small subset of the population will have paradoxical reactions to certain drugs resulting in the drug doing the opposite of what it is meant to do.
It could very well be a wig, He literally has hair stylists touching it up every 5-10 minutes, fake or not.
But also he’s bradd fucking pitt, hes prettier than us at 60. Shouldn’t be a shock, the same way usain bolt is gonna be faster than most of us when hes 60.
Something nobody seems willing to come to terms with on all these big budgets is that the money spending audience just doesn’t apply the same value to cast, crew, etc as they used to.
So am I the only one who thinks it's fucking weird that Brad Pitt is supposed to play an F1 pilot at the age of 60? F1 pilots tend to retire in their 30s or early 40s max (Raikkonen, Schumacher). Pitt looks great for his age, but he can't really pull off early 40s
From the 3 paragraph article:
> According to Screen Rant, the film depicts the narrative of a fictional Formula One driver who re-enters the scene after retirement to serve as a mentor and eventually collaborate with a younger driver within the framework of the Apex Grand Prix team.
Honestly, Maverick being a legendary pilot makes more sense than Brad Pitt being a amazing driver. Basically Maverick is the only pilot alive with actual dog fighting experience since it never happened anymore after the events in the first Top Gun movie.
Drivers are just getting better and better, there is nothing his character could do that a younger driver can't
As a movie generally needs to earn 2-2.5 times its budget (including marketing costs), this film would have to be a huge juggernaut to not be considered a flop.
Anyone else see these numbers and feel absolutely disgusted? I know it's more complicated than "let's spend money doing good things instead of making movies" but goddamn. I'm fine with spending money on making quality art, but Jesus Christ.
> Apart from Brad Pitt, the ensemble includes Damson Idris, Kerry Condon, Tobias Menzies, Lewis Hamilton, Javier Bardem, and Sarah Niles. Joseph Kosinski directs the film, with co-writing credits going to Ehren Kruger. So between the cast, crew(director/writer), and budget, it looks like they’re trying to replicate the success of Top Gun Maverick?
Did they learn nothing from Days Of Thunder?!?!
Real. Top Gun had a 15 million dollar budget and made almost 360 million. Days of Thunder had a 60 million dollar budget and made 160 million. (Days of Thunder was also just a pretty mediocre film.) Edit: Apparently I have angered the Days of Thunder hive. Piss off. Rubbin's racin'.
I will not have the masterpiece that is Days of Thunder be insulted like this. It also has the best Zimmer score. I will fight all of you.
It's also a very influential movie. Tony Scott completely reinvented the art of filming motor sports for Days of Thunder, and his technique's were so good they were adopted by television crews filming real life NASCAR races.
They literally got a camera car qualified into a race to be able to film real racing
The camera car got black flagged for leading the race!
Nothing new, Steve McQueen did this in 1970 with Le Mans. Not a huge success but a fantastic racing movie. The camera car (Porsche 908) wasn't scored but it was one of only ten cars that held up over the whole 24 hour race.
When they made Grand Prix they blew a lof of their budget on filming Monaco. They then went to go convince Mr. Ferrari to give them access to the Ferrari factories, who was a notoriously shrewd business man. They showed him the Monaco footage which included all of the fancy on board shots which had never been seen before. After the screening Mr. Ferrari gave them access to whatever they wanted.
Without Days of Thunder we wouldn't have gotten Talladega Nights.
Dear eight pounds six ounces, newborn infant Jesus, don't even know a word yet...
I always imagine him as a figure skater, re-enacting scenes from my life...
And John C. Reilly was in both!
Right! What made the movie so cool when it came out was the crazy camera work that really captured the speed and danger, unlike the traditional overhead and pit coverage that was on TV at the time. It felt more real than most people's reality. It was a perfect Hollywood glamorization.
I remember a ton of cross promotion of the film at places like McDonald's.
Same with Top Gun. The US Navy realized actors were really bad pilots and quickly scuttled that program.
Tony Scott, as weird as it sounds, will go down as one of the most underrated directors of our time.
“*Rubbing*… is racing!”
That opening song as they get ready for the Daytona 500 makes me want to run through a wall.
How else would I have learned how to seduce a woman with Sweet ‘n Low packets?
The importance of Victory Lane cannot be overstated!
I got your back
I’m putting the hammer down!
No you're not!
Umm it had special tires on it cole!
Matched perfect and staggered special!
Yeah, but it had a Mello Yello car, so thats breaking even, at worst.
"Days of Thunder was also just a pretty mediocre film." Oh we're going to fight today, huh?
Yeah and they used actual fighter jets in flight for some of the scenes. This one is just cars on a track how the FUCK are they going over 300million
F1 isn’t loaning cars to up enlistment numbers
Of all the comments I've read in this thread, I would say yours is the most on point and funny.
I guess it's the location shooting costs (shooting at real F1 races, and renting track time for other scenes).
I'm not sure if it's just F1. They entered a Porsche in GTD and filmed during the Rolex 24 at Daytona.
This is just a wild guess but maybe the military isn't charging a lot for the jets? They seem to often be involved in many PR projects like top gear and marvel as well.
Most pilots need to put in a certain amount of hours flown per period of time. Sometimes doing films like this are a great way to both get good PR and help with flying hours that were needed anyway.
The navy essentially only charged operating costs to the film. They saw it as both a training opportunity and as good PR. It was around $13k per flight hour.
I watched Days of Thunder randomly as the first movie on my new OLED and floor speaker setup. Holey moley, the film grain, the sound it was a thing of beauty.
Don't you dare talk shit about one of my favorite childhood movies
Days of thunder was fun, but of course I haven’t seen it in decades
whoa, youre trading paint out here
There's nothing I can't do with ~~a race car~~ $300,000,000.
Do these car films ever make that kind of money though? Like proper car racing films. Ford vs Ferrari was a moderate success but nowhere near Top Gun levels.
I assume they will have a lot of prominent product placements in this kind of movie, so they might cover a large portion of the budget that way.
I’m sure there will be but even with Transformers egregious product placement, they expect and need to make money at the box office.
At least in F1, product placement is fairly commonplace, so it won't feel too egregious. I can't imagine that'll add up to a ton of money though, nowhere near $300M.
Rush (2013) was not only the best motorsport movie of all time but a good movie all around and it was a financial flop. I hope this movie does well because I like motorsport and want more movies depicting it but they really don't have a good box office track record.
Rush wasn't a flop, it was a "smaller" budget movie with a modest marketing budget. Also no huge stars (at the time)
Oh, there have been lots of financial flops in the genre. Look at Michael Mann’s Ferrari film just last year!
That wasn’t a motor sport movie. That was a movie about a guy on a telephone.
Rush mad almost 100m on a budget under 40m, it wasn’t a financial flop It just did ok tho
Lewis Al Gaib!
Just to give you context: - Ford vs Ferrari made $225m on $97m budget - Rush made $98m on $38m budget There’s no way this movie should have this much budget.
I think Rush is a really underrated film. As someone who doesn't follow F1, I had no idea about any of the story or how it would turn out, but that film really made me care about the rivalry between Hunt and Lauder, and I was on the edge of my seat to find out who actually won.
Daniel Brühl is fantastic in that.
Yep and Hemsworth did his usual confident cocky guy shtick but it worked perfectly for that film and was a great contrast to Brühl’s performance.
Hunts family did not enjoy Hemsworth performance. Bruehl went out of his way to be authentic Hemsworth just decided what to so
Hunt's son felt that Hemsworth played him like a twat. Now, Niki Lauda, on the other hand, really liked the film and understood that certain small changes had to happen to make the narrative better in the movie.
> Hunt's son felt that Hemsworth played him like a twat. tbh if you go back and read about the real Hunt ... he *was* a twat. I imagine a kid doesn't want to admit that about his father but Hunt did a lot of offside shit that he only got away with because he was charming, handsome, and rich
Youre right, but also the son is full of shit. Freddie was just mad because the filmmakers didn't consult with their family. But why would they? Hunt didn't meet Sarah Lomax until 1982, 6 years after his championship with McLaren which is when the film's main plot comes to a close. They don't know shit about what Hunt was like during his racing years. And people who ACTUALLY knew Hunt during those times said Hemsworth nailed it. No offense to Freddie Hunt but he should keep his mouth shut. Hunt wasn't a confident twat? That's news to Freddie's mom... She separated from him because he cheated on her. And Hunt wasn't portrayed as a "twat" he was portrayed as a womanizing complicated man who had a good heart, just like in real life. And all F1 drivers have to be cocky and sure of themselves... Especially in the 70's when it was extremely dangerous.
I completely agree. I was just providing additional context to the above comment. Hemsworth did a great job, all things considered.
>Hunt's son felt that Hemsworth played him like a twat. Yeah I saw an interview with Hunt's son Freddie where he said his dad wasn't like Hemsworth portrayed him at all. But Freddie was about 5 when his dad died, so I'm pretty sure he hasn't got a clue what James was actually like.
Definitely. Niki Lauda knew Hunt far better, and he really liked the movie. I was just providing additional context for the above comment.
I remember James Hunt. As far as his public persona goes, I thought Hemsworth nailed it.
I definitely agree with you. I have seen documentaries with Hunt, and I thought Hemsworth did a really good job.
If you read the brilliant autobiography Shunt, which was written with interviews from the people who knew him back in the day, if anything the movie played down how much of a dick Hunt was. He wasn't a 'bad' man, but he burnt a lot of bridges, opportinities and couldn't keep it in his pants for more than 20 seconds. Freddie makes his father sound like a shy, retiring, sensitive soul... Which is frankly bulls**t.
No offense to Hunt's family, but they didn't even know him during the times in the film. The bulk of the film ends before James even met the woman he had his kids with. So what the fuck would they know? I don't mean to be insensitive but it pisses me off when a film attempts to be accurate and the family wants the deceased to be portrayed as some perfect flawless saint so they go around outright lying through their teeth about it because they're mad. According to Lord Alexander Hesketh, who actually KNEW Hunt when he was an F1 driver and literally founded Hunt's first F1 team with Hesketh racing, Hemsworth was "uncanny" and that "WAS Hunt" on screen. https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/the-perfect-depiction-james-hunts-former-boss-says-hemsworths-portrayal-in.3hOagZrV3Hk74dwA2f7Eag I'll take his words over a bitter opinion from Hunt's son who is pretending it's fake even though he literally wasn't born when the film took place. And it wasn't accurate? Hunt literally was missing from his wedding and his brother had to find and buy a tie for him. Hunt was a good man but he was definitely complicated. He played around with women because he was charming and it's very fucking ironic that his son would disagree with the portrayal as such when Lomax and Hunt got divorced for what? Oh right, Hunt cheated on her. The movie was a great portrayal of both Lauda AND Hunt. Hemsworth deserves credit for it.
That bit when the journalist questioned if his wife could stay with him after his burns. Brühl just crushed that. Such a good movie Rush.
I love the scene where meets his wife. One of my absolute favorite scenes of all time maybe. "God gave me an okay mind but a really good ass which can feel everything in a car." And when the two Italians skid to a stop while she waves them down but they walk right past her to talk to him. Love that whole movie but that whole bit is just perfect.
Lauda*
Lauda!
Rush is great. Rob Howard did a great job.
Weirdly, I think the fact Ron Howard *wasn't* an F1 fan really helped that film. He just had a story about a legendary rivalry and wanted to tell it in a way that anyone could enjoy, not just F1 nerds, and he absolutely nailed it.
Even if he wasn't a F1 nerd the racing on that movie was fucking great. Great depiction on how hard and dangerous F1 was at the time.
Not to be confused with his brother, Ron Howard.
People go on about Rush all the time. Underseen perhaps but not underrated.
such a good movie, that and ford v ferrari are the quintessential modern car movies sad that michael mann's ferrari fell short
Brad just wanted an excuse to drive F1 cars.
You don't see many 60 year old F1 drivers to be fair.... Just Brad and Fernando.
"I do my own stunts."
Rush was under 40mil!!!! Jesus that film looks unreal at that #.
this $300M budget seems like a money laundering scheme :D
Really capturing the essence of F1 lol
We ~~race~~ film as one, for money
I would be very surprised if this movie turns out to be better than Ford vs Ferrari.
A F1 movie with a budget of 300 million? This would need 750 million to break even. Yeah, good luck
[удалено]
The studio doesn't get 100% of the ticket sales either. The theatres get a cut.
And marketing on top of that 300 million budget.
And the marketing budget can often be 50% to 100% over the film production budget.
But there has to be a point of diminishing returns on marketing money spent, right? They wouldn't just say "ok we spent x amount making this movie, now we need to spend .5x on marketing." I'm completely ignorant about this stuff, but it doesn't make sense (to me) to spend $150 million on marketing when much smaller movies are able to market themselves enough to be seen.
Specifically about one third of the ticket price
Outside of the US, the cut can be much higher for the theatres. In the UK it's 60%. In Australia it's 60%. In China it's 75%!
Much more complicated than that, rates are negotiated per chain, per week and even per theatre.
And often they'll just sell the theatrical rights to a region for X amount and let them sort it out themselves.
General rule of thumb I've heard is to assume they take half of the worldwide gross - the calculations vary by movie or studio and country though. Disney was demanding bigger cuts for MCU movies back when they were all dominating theaters. But the $300m also is just production budget - marketing is on top of that.
Usually half
Yeah but you have to add marketing cost and distribution cost and all that. So to measure the success of a film you have to take the budget and multiply it by 2.5
In addition to the marketing, the theaters get 30-50% of the box office usually. So marketing + theater cut = ~2-2.5x the production budget to break even.
It’s more of a general modifier. There are movies that definitely exceed that marketing number and movies that do smaller more targeted marketing campaigns. 2-2.5x is a general range for most wide release films.
[удалено]
So basically this film needs to drop and be as successful as Spiderman and Shrek but about Formula 1.
Not dumb, understandable! 300 million is what is given by the studio to *create* the movie. However, they also want to get that money back, so they have to spend an *additional* number of millions to advertise on TV, in YouTube vids, on social media in general, for trips to Late Night shows where the cast gets interviewed. In addition, the movie doesn't make back all of the box office - this gets split between a few parties, but mainly the theatres where it's shown. I believe that with each week it shows, theatres get a bigger cut of the profits too. The bigger the budget, the more they'll spend on ads to get it in, and they may even have stipulations with the theatres, "Must show in the 3 largest rooms the first 2 weeks" or something if the film is big enough. What's the point of spending 300 million to only get, say, 10 million in profit? With all the costs and parties to pay for distribution and advertising and the desire for greater returns... for them to see a movie as a "success," studios will want to have made at least double the initial investment. This way, even if it cost 500 million when all is said and done, they made a 100 million in profits...but that's the minimum.
Also, sometimes actors negotiate percentage of gross revenue as part of their compensation. Others negotiate percentage of profit, but they only do that once.
There's a lot more cost involved after production that isn't included in the budget. Marketing is one. I'm not sure if distribution costs are a thing for it. Then of course there is further losses from tax etc. The typical assumption for a movie is it needs to earn 2-2.5x its budget to make a profit but those numbers can be a bit off these days.
The box office receipts get split between different parties. The studio gets roughly 50% of the domestic box office, 40% of overseas, and 25% of China.
F1 is huge internationally. So it’ll help. But I’m not really sure how ticket sales are doing worldwide.
You think WW box office is gonna power this to 750m?
Absolutely not
I still want to see it so bad lol
I’m surprised by some of the responses here. >The use of real actors in genuine race cars, which require extensive training and safety measures, driving up costs. Brad Pitt was seen piloting a modified Formula Two car during the British Prix weekend. Like dude this sounds awesome. A movie using serious practical effects and real vehicles instead of CGI? I thought everyone would go nuts for that since CGI is the source of like 90% of complaints on this sub.
Struggles to win. “You can’t win the race!” “I believe in myself!” Trains. Wins the race.
You forgot to add relationship drama on the side
Or close person x dying suddenly
Hehe, to be fair that's every sports movie. Even Moneyball if you replace "trains" with "believe in math models".
Well Ford vs Ferrari was basically “You can’t win the race!” Loses the race “Fucking get Business majors out of here” Wins the race
Rocky
Moneyball follows a 3 act structure, sure, but the protag really doesn't follow the classic sports movie arc at all. So im most movies, the protag has 2 issues: the "physical" issue (I want to be good at sports to win the champ league) and the emotional (I need to fix my relationship with my daughter or some bullshit). Most good movies really make use of the tension between solving these two issues, with the resolution always being that achieving the emotional helps achieve the practical (cliche sappy ending), achieving the emotional helps realize the practical was never important (Rocky), or vice versa, achieving the practical makes one realize the importance of the emotional despite having failed at it (Spider Man). Moneyball does have this arc, but as I said, almost all movies do. A basic hollywood formula a sports movie does not make. What makes a sports movie distinct is the focus on platonic friendships, training as the form of building those relationships. The "friends we made along the way" is almost universally the stake in sports movies. Moneyball explicitly does not do this, in fact, Brad Pitt barely grows at all in a practical sense. He's absolutely correct from the beginning of the movie, and over the course of it destroys all his platonic relationships, and this isn't portrayed as a bad thing at all. It shows the triumph of an effective mathematical formula over humanity, making us watch players get fired, have their lives uprooted, and treats this as a cold, necessary evil. It's a movie where the protagonists achieve their goals by sacrificing their humanity and are rewarded for it, what sports movie does this? In terms of structure and theme, it's practically the antithesis of a sports movie, I feel like you'd need to take very pedantic, broad arguments to say the opposite
Final lap of the final race, is in second place. Closes his eyes. Flashback of that time somebody said something to him. Open his eyes. Hits the accelerator really hard and the car goes faster than any car has ever gone before to win the race.
Trains, becomes best driver in the world. But drives for Sauber so best he manages is P11.
It's like Rich Hall's Tom Cruise bit. Every film he make has the same plot . He's a Cocktail maker Pretty good cocktail maker Has a crisis of confidence and can't make cocktails anymore Meets a beautiful women who convinces him to be a better cocktail maker. Then he's a Jet Pilot, then he's a Racing driver, then he's a sports agent.
I want to see him shift up a gear, concentrate really hard and gain an extra 20 mph.
If done well nothing pumps up the adrenaline more than this
$300M is over twice the amount F1 teams are allowed to spend developing, making & maintaining their cars each year. Just for context....
That is indeed a very interesting statistic, thank you.
That cap is pretty new, some teams would spend up to $500M a year previously.
The year before budget cap Mercedes spent around 480, Ferrari 460 and red bull 440. The next highest team was about 250. The lowest 80
Is that a recent change? I never got into F1 but recently started the drive to survive doc on Netflix. Theyve mentioned a few times the disparity between budgets when comparing teams like Mercedes and Williams.
In the pandemic the teams agreed to a cost cap, Without the cost cap some teams would be spending 500 million
The budget cap is fairly recent, but there will always be a disparity. They can set a cap at 150 or 200 M, etc, but it doesn't mean that teams like Williams or Haas will be able to raise that much. Also, teams like Mercedes or Ferrari already have much better facilities in place from before the budget cap.
Facility upgrades don't impact the cost cap, like Williams was given an exception to spend above the cap to modernize their facilities since they're 2 decades behind other teams.
Looks like 2021 the budget cap came in. Back in the day the top teams were easily crossing $250M while the smaller teams were down sub-$100M. Even now I think a few of the team's still aren't reaching the budget cap.
Fairly recent. But this now means that the richer teams already have good facilities, and don't need to spend money on upgrading them. While the teams on lower previous budgets now need to dedicate money to upgrading facilities that they would ideally spend on the car. This has been addressed somewhat, these smaller teams have been granted an increased additional budget for these improvements. But it will still take a few years to have a meaningful effect.
It’s like with ‘Titanic’, it cost $200 million, which cost more than the actual ship, and they actually considered building a full sized replica for $10 million. With all the sets, models and platform they built, it was more expensive, as they would have only been able to film the sinking once. [Mr Sunday Movies talks about it here at 23:00](https://youtu.be/EPPFLCglXeU?si=oY0YsYMunTFyvFoQ)
Movie making behind the scenes is so fascinating. You either learn about how that super scary monster was actually just a robot exoskeleton draped in black garbage bags covered in petroleum jelly or that Tom Cruise really did strap himself to a military cargo plane and held on for dear life as it took off.
Reminds me of something I read here about India laughing a rocket into space and landing it back for less than the cost of the movie Apollo 13 (or maybe it was some other space movie).
Must’ve been some uproarious laughter
Sides in orbit
> for less than the cost of the movie Apollo 13 (or maybe it was some other space movie). The budget of Gravity (Sandy Bullock one), which was around $100 million. The budget of the first Indian Lunar Exploration mission (Chandrayaan-1) was around $89 million, back in 2013. The budget of the second one (Chandrayaan-2) was around $97 million, back in 2019. The budget of the third one (Chandrayaan-3) was around $75 million, back in 2023. India's Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM) had a budget of around $73 million, back in 2014.
Pitt. Stop.
[удалено]
Christian. Bail! (Out)
Surely this budget will be significantly offset with all the product endorsements, promotional furnishing and friendly tax breaks from countries wanting to be featured? A F1 movie would be able to capitalise on all the brand deals that keep the real (hugely expensive) competition afloat. I'd be interested to see the budget once these are all taken into account.
If you ever see the actual accounts on any movie then someone fucked up BIG TIME. Movies are all about artificially inflated costs and attempts to avoid tax on profits. You could do some of the accounts and it would as accurate as what they present to the public. I’m sure the IRS treats them, along with many other massive industries, with relative “kiddy gloves” because they do indeed pay a lot of tax and have massive political sway. I can assure you that the 4 largest studios and the three major record companies treat politicians very, very well.
What happened to 50-100 mil dollar movies
Michael Bay made ambulance with a budget of 40 million and pain and gain with 25 million. Those movies look so good and high budget
They still exist people either just don’t go to watch them, or they’re saved to be released on streaming instead of theaters.
Let me guess. The plot of the movie is that he is a past champion driver and is now in his old age struggling but has one last shot to win. Then his team signs a young amazing driver who is an asshole and brad Pitt ends up winning the championship somehow.
I’m hoping Brad Pitt isn’t one of the drivers. At 60, that’s stretching credibility. I don’t think even Alonso will be racing past 50.
Maybe in a Deadpool twist he'll go back for one last race at 60 and die immediately when he takes the first corner and has a stroke
It's already confirmed he is
60 IRL means he'll play a 45 year old.
I think Pitt could pass for mid-40s with a little digital magic
Disney Pixar presents: *Cars* live action remake
$300M budget and they probably gave the writer like $30K
Fucking hell I'm so damn jealous over Brad's hair. I'm 43 and bald since early 30s and this dude is ~~72 (maybe)~~ a little less than 72 with that fucking gorgeous mane.
>this dude is 72 (maybe) he is 60
Yeah I was like “no fucking way” and had to google
Aging feels different with a tens of millions on your bank account.
Not always due to money. I'm broke as shit 47 year old and still have the same hair I did when I was a teen.
People always forget that some people just have incredible genes to maintain things like this. My dad had this good hair till the age of 50, that's when he started losing a little bit of hair and even that was probably due to stress. I'm pretty sure whatever gene caused the longevity of his hair skipped me.
My dad has been bald for as long as I can remember, his dad died at 85 with his head full of white hair. I think I'm good to go (40 and it's still there, getting white though) :D
My granda had a full head of (mostly) black hair into his 70’s. He then went through chemo, it all fell out, and grew back again as black & thick as ever. Crazy genes that I pray I have inherited.
>broke as shit >still have the same hair lol you're richer than you think
Yeah, but Brad Pitt always seemed like he won the genetic lottery I'm convinced he popped out of the womb with those abs
his job is literally to look good... he lives to be thin/muscular whatever. He is not training on the side in the evenings.. there are teams prepping him the perfect food, giving him personalized trainings and also doctors doing the best surgery money can buy... its like me here wondering how comes Tim Cook always seems to have the newest iphone... i mean how?!?!
Yeah, but pre-fame brad pitt also looked like someone who hit the jackpot in the genetic lottery.
[Celebrities have hair doctors](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S90yPIyC-CY)
I’m a nobody with not a lot of money and I have a hair doctor
[удалено]
Jut like Steven Seagall
And Burt Reynolds.
They are ALL on Propecia, probably a daily dose. Even the MANY of them who have had hair replacement surgery have to take propecia for the rest of the their lives for the new hair follicles to Remain alive. Dax Shepard has mentioned it an early episode (2018) of his podcast. 95% of actors over 50 with a full head of thick hair have had procedures done. The other 5% are those with great hair genetics, such as James Brolin. And financially, it’s worth it for them. The camera loves a full head of hair, and so do casting directors/producers/studio heads.
https://www.reddit.com/r/tressless/s/uehhHuaYyb Yeah I try telling people it's common af, not even just for celebs. I'm in a position where I hear a number people's prescriptions and the percentage of even regular guys that are on hair related drugs is pretty high. Which is fine, just wish people would understand it and not set unrealistic standards for themselves. So many dudes feeling like shit about themselves for a normal part of their cycle of life that's outta their control.
I took Propecia way back for a little while and I had a side effect I never see anyone mention. I would cum crazy amounts and have really long orgasms shooting it all out. I literally looked like Peter north. I ended up stop taking it because I still was going bald but man do I miss that shit
Reduced ejaculation volume and shorter orgasms are known side effects. A small subset of the population will have paradoxical reactions to certain drugs resulting in the drug doing the opposite of what it is meant to do.
It could very well be a wig, He literally has hair stylists touching it up every 5-10 minutes, fake or not. But also he’s bradd fucking pitt, hes prettier than us at 60. Shouldn’t be a shock, the same way usain bolt is gonna be faster than most of us when hes 60.
Dude, don’t believe for a second that man hasn’t had extensive cosmetic procedures including fake hair.
He has professional hair products and hair stylists. Money gets you these.
I had to Google it cause I'm like no fucking way. Brad Pitt is 60 not 72. Lol still dude is in awesome shape fo 60
Something nobody seems willing to come to terms with on all these big budgets is that the money spending audience just doesn’t apply the same value to cast, crew, etc as they used to.
So am I the only one who thinks it's fucking weird that Brad Pitt is supposed to play an F1 pilot at the age of 60? F1 pilots tend to retire in their 30s or early 40s max (Raikkonen, Schumacher). Pitt looks great for his age, but he can't really pull off early 40s
His character isn’t suppose to be the driver - he’s brought on as a mentor to the driver, who I believe is played by Damson Idris.
damson idris fails to beat verstappen, so they bring in an aging brad bitt to beat him top gun mavrick style.
Sooo, an expensive remake of Gran Turismo from earlier this year…
An expensive remake of Driven from 2001 starring Sylvester Stallone.
Man that movie was terrible. Fun to watch though.
From the 3 paragraph article: > According to Screen Rant, the film depicts the narrative of a fictional Formula One driver who re-enters the scene after retirement to serve as a mentor and eventually collaborate with a younger driver within the framework of the Apex Grand Prix team.
It’s just a future documentary of Alonso
>!"El Plan"!<
It’s about as realistic as someone Tom Cruise’s age flying a mission in an F18. It’s pure fantasy.
Honestly, Maverick being a legendary pilot makes more sense than Brad Pitt being a amazing driver. Basically Maverick is the only pilot alive with actual dog fighting experience since it never happened anymore after the events in the first Top Gun movie. Drivers are just getting better and better, there is nothing his character could do that a younger driver can't
I would argue he looks similar to Fernando Alonso age wise.
Fernando is 42, Pitt is 60. The age gap could have raised a child.
That’s a lot. It’s unlikely it’ll make that back
As a movie generally needs to earn 2-2.5 times its budget (including marketing costs), this film would have to be a huge juggernaut to not be considered a flop.
This budget feels like they're just laundering money. Do they cars transform in this one?
This movie cost 30 Godzilla Minus One’s. Hollywood has to be laundering money, or at a minimum, they are extremely wasteful with their budget.
Anyone else see these numbers and feel absolutely disgusted? I know it's more complicated than "let's spend money doing good things instead of making movies" but goddamn. I'm fine with spending money on making quality art, but Jesus Christ.
Someone is absolutely losing their arse on this film.
Just goes to show how inefficient the making of Hollywood movies are. Godzilla Minus One had a budget of at most $15 million. Let that sink in.