Hi all, I've seen sahara and I'm quite satisfied but I would like to do some consideration about the budget.

The movie cost 130 $ of dollars (spider man 1 cost 139$), I think they spend bad this budget they have. Very few trailer on tv and not so much spot on radio or cinema press... Maybe they should get a bigger cast or a more famous director...

Anyway, the movie topped at every chart in the world, in the usa it make 49$ of dollars that are a good result but not an exciting result even if we think the next week will be released XXX2, a very bad competition to do with. I think it should arrive to a 110$ dollars of gross worldwide, not too much....After this consideration what you think about my argument? Are you trustful on a sequel (matthew speaks about his will to make the sequels and the bristol bay signed for the rights of all the books)?

Sorry for not perfect english..

Hiya, |bahamut w:

I'm not sure where you are from, but I know here in Canada, Sahara was very heavily promoted. It seemed almost every commecial break from my favorite shows I was seeing an add for Sahara!
I for one look forward to a sequel, but it might be a good idea to adapt a book that would have need of fewer special effects and thus a somewhat lower budget. Time will tell, I suppose!

I've adapted some of my novels to screenplay--it's not really that hard--and while Clive's stuff is a lot different than my own, I'm thinking of trying to do a treatment for a future Pitt movie based on one of the other novels.

I don't know what the industry is looking at as the next movie--I think Inca Gold is a poor fit for the screen, but then there's no rule that says the movie has to be anything like the book (or if there is such a rule, the studio will break it)

If anyone has a good line on what the next title might be--or just wants to suggest one--let me know. I need some inspiration.

I'm pretty sure Night Probe would be the next Pitt novel brought to the screen if Sahara rakes in some more money. Night Probe, Sahara, and Inca Gold were the first three Pitt novels to be signed for movie rights.

now I remember why I never wanted Hollywood to make Dirk Pitt movies.

Night Probe would make a horrible action adventure flick. It moves very slowly and deliberately, with lots of politics and anicllary characters. While the Bond...er, Shaw vs. Pitt showdown would be epic, it isn't terribly spectacular.

Which means that a movie called Night Probe would look a heck of a lot less like the novel than Sahara.

Frankly, I think Treasure, while not my favorite Pitt, would translate best. There are a lot of big visual scenes there--the plane crash landing in the beginning, the ski jump, the cruise ship raid. hmmm....time to get to work.

@foss gly, I' m Italian... Here the advising of the movie was sufficient, sure lesser than that make for the ring 2 or Be cool (very sh---y film), in every case it seems the spots worked well as you can see from the link below :
http://www.cinemaplus.it/leggi-boxoffice.asp?id=114

I think the next film should be Shock Wave, or night probe! I hope they will make a much better film and more close to the book, damn sahara is 80% invented.

My question is, if sahara reach 110$ (just making a hypothetical prevision)dollars of gross worldwide did they make another film even if they not recovered the total amount invested (130)?

Of course the profit wll be more higher when the dvd come out.

I think so. If the film is able to even out its budget/box office draw or even if they are a little short then the producers will consider, most likely, a sequel.

They will see that the film has selling power to the movie going audience and it will most likely:

1) Have most Pitt fans going to see it
2) People who liked Sahara (non-Pitt fans) go and see it
3) People who haven't seen a Pitt film or read a book, will be interested and go see it.

More promotion, probably the same budget but if a sequel is made I think it will do better then Sahara and the possibility is likely (except for the lawsuit....) :blink:

If they do I think they should play up on the "Matt M. is back as Dirk Pitt", and then in the trailers have "You saw him first in Sahara, now he's back in Treasure (I hope!) :P :lol:

I'm kinda confused as to how Sahara cost 130 million bucks. I just watched Hitchhikers Guide and it was a special effects fest and it cost 40 million from what I've read. Mathew M and Steve Z and Penelope C are not big names and I doubt they command 20 million bucks a movie. Sahara has a few special effects but it ain't no Star Wars, so where did the money go? I've just started reading Disney War and it seems Michael Eisner spirited away 100 millon bucks in payment and stocks from Disney in the last 5 years. Maybe his son, who directed Sahara, learned something from his old man!!!!!. I just think there is no way that it cost 130 million to make Sahara. I also read somewhere that the distributers take 50% of the movie takings so Sahara needs to make over 200 million to break even. I don't think that will ever happen in a month of Sundays. Sequel........ I don't think so. Pity, but given the movie's box office averageness and Clive's 100 million law suit I think we have seen the last of Dirk Pitt on the big screen. Again a pity because I really liked Sahara and I thoght the cast did a good job. The direction was good but the editing sucked. I hope the DVD is 3 hours long because of all the bits they put back in.

Pete

I agree with flying doctor. Where the hell the money disappear?Really a budget not well used.

however I hope they will recover much of the amount invested by the selling of the dvds so they could make another film.

Sahara did a good job in the charts but not enough.

In all fairness, what I've read/heard about Hitchhiker's Guide was that it cost in the neighbourhood of 80-90 million dollars, though this is still considerably cheaper than Sahara's budget.
As for the massive SFX in Hitchhiker's Guide, many, if not most, are computer generated. As the price of producing computer animated imagry has dropped, so too does the budget.

Besides the Special Effects involved there is construction, logistics, supplies and have you ever read the credits? Most big production movies have several hundred if not a thousand people working on a movie. And then there's the cost of fim, the advertising and publicity costs alone are enormous. Hollywood is a large industry that involves many people of all kinds of skills. So I am surprised if a movie can be made reasonably and still come across as well-written, well-acted, well-directed, and credible and actually tell a story. And a certain number of actors draw big salaries and sometimes a percentage of either the grosses or net income. I would love to see Cycllops and Treasure adapted and done very well. They would be eye-popping adventures.