Why are your budget/gross figures for some movies different than those listed by another source? Why do you have budget/gross data on some movies and not others?
Movie grosses reporting isn't an exact science. Studios and distributors
have started disclosing detailed figures only recently; the information
for films released over 15 years ago are therefore very sketchy. The
longer you go back in time, the less reliable the information becomes.
Some sources often erroneously report theatrical rentals as grosses. On some
old or foreign films, only rental figures may be available instead of
grosses, and vice-versa.
The info on movie budgets is even harder to find: studios are usually
very reticent when it comes to discussing how much a film cost,
especially when a movie performed poorly at the box-office. Additionally, reported
budgets may change over time due to escalating costs (Waterworld and
Titanic are two high profile examples) or costs may be difficult to
calculate (the salary for a star or director may be part of a sum agreed
for a package deal consisting of several films).
Reported budgets may also vary greatly depending on whether they only
include the cost of producing/shooting the film (the so-called 'negative
cost') or also additional expenses (like prints and advertising). For
low-budget movies, the promotional expenses can often be much larger
than the negative cost (see for example The Blair Witch Project).
Whenever possible/available, our budget figures refer to a film's
negative cost, unless otherwise indicated.
Did this answer your question? Yes: Return to the IMDb homepage No: Back to previous choice - Top help menu