Per Deadline, TSG covered half of the $63M net budget for ’28 Years Later: The Bone Temple’, of which a collective $15M went to Danny Boyle, Alex Garland, and producer Peter Rice. Sony spent an additional $70M on marketing.
Per Deadline, TSG covered half of the $63M net budget for ’28 Years Later: The Bone Temple’, of which a collective $15M went to Danny Boyle, Alex Garland, and producer Peter Rice. Sony spent an additional $70M on marketing.
Where’s the financial sense in green-lighting part 3 at this point?
wallabyenthusiast on
how’d they spend $70m on marketing? hardly saw anything for this except a few ads on social media while scrolling
ThinWhiteDuke00 on
What exactly did they spend 70m on ? Irresponsible budgeting all round tbh especially given a movie that reuses much of the sets, costumes etc from the previous shouldn’t be bloating to a 60m production.
Bone Temple is a smaller “scale” movie to 28 Years, especially in regards to setpieces.
RedactedNoneNone on
Owning IP is worth gold. $15 million for a 28 days later sequel
Vadermaulkylo on
How did they possibly spend that much on marketing ?!
I never saw one trailer before any movie in a theater save for Primate, my theater and another one near me didn’t even have any posters of it up, I never once saw an ad for it, no tik tok or instagram promotions, never saw a posters besides one, etc etc. I’ve said this here but this is the least marketed high profile movie I’ve ever seen in my life. I’m sincerely baffled because I even theorized Sony probably only spent 20m-ish on marketing because I saw so little.
And meanwhile it was the opposite for Part 1. I practically couldn’t escape its marketing.
Chessh2036 on
Do you guys think the third film still gets made? Or are we screwed?
Holiday_Parsnip_9841 on
There’s an unusual amount of visibility in the finances of these films because of the documents and charges filed by 28 YEARS LATER LIMITED with Companies House.
The gross budget for Bone Temple was 63M. Combining film incentives from the UK and other jurisdictions could get that down to about net 48.
If the principals are getting paid a combined 15M from the company’s net profits (instead of out of the budget), that squares the financial gap and, if I’m understanding UK tax rules correctly, means most of their pay is capital gains instead of income.
NOT-Coy-Harlingen on
And now Cillian Murphy/his agent will be demanding his $15M for the 3rd one.
$60M before a single frame is filmed.
BillRuddickJrPhd on
That’s literally the entire budget of ‘Bring Her Back’.
Never-Give-Up100 on
I don’t think I’ve seen a single trailer for this movie except when I went looking for it on YouTube. Compared to 28 years later where I feel like it was in front of every horror movie I saw in theaters
KingMario05 on
So: Better than the worst case, but still a disastrous debut. Shame. Really hope it legs out enough to keep Part 3 alive. (I assume the new Netflix deal means they probably will, but it’d be nice to know for sure.)
MaxProwes on
UK tax documents implied the budget is around 50 mln, 62 is the budget of Part 1.
12 Comments
Geez! That’s a steep hill
Where’s the financial sense in green-lighting part 3 at this point?
how’d they spend $70m on marketing? hardly saw anything for this except a few ads on social media while scrolling
What exactly did they spend 70m on ? Irresponsible budgeting all round tbh especially given a movie that reuses much of the sets, costumes etc from the previous shouldn’t be bloating to a 60m production.
Bone Temple is a smaller “scale” movie to 28 Years, especially in regards to setpieces.
Owning IP is worth gold. $15 million for a 28 days later sequel
How did they possibly spend that much on marketing ?!
I never saw one trailer before any movie in a theater save for Primate, my theater and another one near me didn’t even have any posters of it up, I never once saw an ad for it, no tik tok or instagram promotions, never saw a posters besides one, etc etc. I’ve said this here but this is the least marketed high profile movie I’ve ever seen in my life. I’m sincerely baffled because I even theorized Sony probably only spent 20m-ish on marketing because I saw so little.
And meanwhile it was the opposite for Part 1. I practically couldn’t escape its marketing.
Do you guys think the third film still gets made? Or are we screwed?
There’s an unusual amount of visibility in the finances of these films because of the documents and charges filed by 28 YEARS LATER LIMITED with Companies House.
The gross budget for Bone Temple was 63M. Combining film incentives from the UK and other jurisdictions could get that down to about net 48.
If the principals are getting paid a combined 15M from the company’s net profits (instead of out of the budget), that squares the financial gap and, if I’m understanding UK tax rules correctly, means most of their pay is capital gains instead of income.
And now Cillian Murphy/his agent will be demanding his $15M for the 3rd one.
$60M before a single frame is filmed.
That’s literally the entire budget of ‘Bring Her Back’.
I don’t think I’ve seen a single trailer for this movie except when I went looking for it on YouTube. Compared to 28 years later where I feel like it was in front of every horror movie I saw in theaters
So: Better than the worst case, but still a disastrous debut. Shame. Really hope it legs out enough to keep Part 3 alive. (I assume the new Netflix deal means they probably will, but it’d be nice to know for sure.)
UK tax documents implied the budget is around 50 mln, 62 is the budget of Part 1.