The film industry has largely stopped sharing production budgets, leaving less than 4% of movies with any public data, and when tested, many of the figures we do have prove to be unreliable.
Our world is NUTS!!! But this one can be solved. Let's set some guidelines on Budget Reporting. Stephen I think you need to give us 10 Rules For Accuracy In Film Budget Reporting. We will do it. NonDē will do it. FilmStack will do it. We can let the Studios & GSPs lie through their teeth but the non-dependent will speak truth. LFGGGG!
I already do a version of this and there's just a massive amount of data no one looks at ("no reported budgets" is a friendly amendment to "no public data" because data exists independent of the reporting). People just don't look for this stuff.
Is there interest in some sort of regular update of this stuff?
e.g. let's look at three films (because I looked up all three of them this week) whose data codes as "no one knows" based on Follows' data aggregation but which is pretty darn easy to find. Sydney Sweeney is in the news today for Christy and she had an "unknown budget" film on apple called "Echo Valley" - however, that's just malarky. The producers have publicly stated, before the film came out, that it had a budget of $44,598,990 and it was approved for a NJ tax incentive of $11,167,228.
If you pull these incentives focused data you also quickly just see how much of a hodgepodge budget reporting looks like. e.g. you can't reconcile the most commonly cited budgets for Bugonia and Poor things - one looks like it was reported pre-incentive ($55M Bugonia) and one post ($35M poor things) based on the company house fillings
There's nothing stopping any of the trades from reporting this, they just don't look for it. It's all there in black and white on the relevant government website.
Similarly, Die My Love (directed by Lynne Ramsay and starring Jennifer Lawrence) made people interested in Ramsay's prior film You Were Never Really Here which had a gross spend of 5,858,663 and a NY tax incentive of $1,671,520. The only wrinkle here is that you wouldn't be able to access this data on the film's release and that's when the main budget information is posted.
More interesting is something like JLaw's A24/AppleTV+ film Causeway. You can't get a full and complete budget from public records but prior to release could could easily see "Untitled Soldier Film" spent $11,418,551.00 in "Louisiana Expenditures" (though I believe that really means "qualified expenditures" which includes stuff like a per individual cap). If you submitted a freedom of information act request (and paid a couple of bucks) you could get more information from the state about the film's budget.
But, of course, "Louisiana Expenditures" != "full budget." To cite another example, Sinners had a pre-incentive budget of over $100M (which makes sense given reported trade budget) but you can only see $68M of that from public tax incentive. These aren't even FOIA requests, they're just reading government websites.
Thanks for laying this out. I completely agree. My name is Andie Huff and I work with The Numbers, where a major part of my role involves researching and verifying budgets through the same resources you mentioned such as state incentive filings, public company disclosures, and government reimbursement databases.
We see the same pattern you described. Many “unknown” budgets are not actually unknown. They are simply unreported in the trades or confused because of pre incentive versus post incentive numbers, partial filings, or differences in the trades and quotes that get repeated as fact. Looking directly at the incentive documents often reveals information that contradicts the commonly cited figures.
Your examples match exactly what we have been tracking. Echo Valley is a good illustration since its budget is publicly stated in the NJ filings despite being listed as unknown in most places. The differences you noted between Bugonia and Poor Things are the same discrepancies we find when reconciling pre rebate and post rebate numbers. The data trails for films like You Were Never Really Here, Causeway, and Sinners also show how fragmented and inconsistent these public records can be.
At The Numbers we are actively using these sources to identify discrepancies and improve accuracy in our database. It is detailed work because the information is scattered across so many systems, but the underlying data is there if you know where to look.
I would love to continue this conversation and explore the idea of a regular update series highlighting newly available budget information and clarifying conflicting reports. This kind of transparency would benefit everyone. If anyone wants to discuss further, drop us a line at research@the-numbers.com!
Not all government records are the same though. Incentive numbers are likely accurate as the films have to turn in receipts. But the budget numbers on film permits are completely self reported and not confirmed in any state I've shot in. As a location manager I try to get real numbers from UPMs but who knows what they are basing it on and sometimes they don't answer and I need to get the application in and just ballpark it.
Thanks for sharing. With all the latest over spending failures, I imagine these numbers will be more vague and befuddling in the future.
That stated: Something, if you have yet to cover, would be the basic budget breakdown elements - Cost of: Above the Line, Actors, Crew, including post, VFX in budget tiers 5-20M 20-50M 50-100M, something like that. Throughout my career I have seen press releases lamenting the cost of the crew for very expensive studio films, then justification for filming anywhere, but in say the USA. Is there really a Savings one wonders when the budget exceeds 30M It would be curious to see percentages of budget allocation relative to overall budgets, regardless of unions.
I love this kind of data analysis, Stephen! Very nicely done! FYI, at least in the indie film space, more exact data could come from the Guilds/Unions which use fixed budget thresholds: For example if SAG released even broad stats on how many films in a given year are using the Ultra Low Budget contract (under $300k) vs Moderate Low contract ($300k-up to nearly a million) those would be good data points for you. As you say, it’s too easy for filmmakers to lie or just hide budget numbers from press. But it’s much harder to obfuscate to the Guilds. Whether the Guilds release this info publicly, I’m not sure.
Thank you for another informative article addressing an important issue! I became painfully aware of this problem when I was writing the business plan for my new project and needed to do a profitability analysis of comparable films. These were all movies in the ultra-low budget category. The data was scarce and one source often contradicted the other. I noticed the trend you mentioned, that is, at this budget level, costs are often underreported, to demonstrate being cost-effective or to make a claim to the type of indie / underdog status that would increase the film’s cachet. However, seeing the IMDB credits of some of these movies made me question the budget numbers I found on the internet. A fully staffed camera / electrical department, consisting of crew members with a track record, for a movie that supposedly cost under $1 million? I doubt it. So I ended up using AI to estimate the budget of the films based on cast and crew list, length, union status, production value, camera used, etc.
I am not sure what could be a solution to this. Especially in the indie world, I feel we need to deliver realistic business plans for investors who are willing to risk their $. And there’s no business plan without comps… One way to solve this problem could be to form an informal data exchange between producers.
Really great piece! I do a podcast (The Nostalgia Test Podcast) and I will be using The Numbers from now on, so thank you for that. I was curious if you think we're moving back into an indie film renaissance? We've had a few indie filmmakers on and even though the movies aren't huge blockbusters and/or have A-list or even C-list actors in them, there's this joy and love of the medium that comes from these artists. What does anyone think here? Thanks!
Another (not good) reason to obscure budget info might be to hide it from the unions if the budget got bigger somewhere in the middle of production—after the union paperwork had been signed, since scale is determined by budget tiers.
On the indie side, I wonder if there would be a benefit to withholding the budget from potential distributors who are weighing out a deal (fairly or unfairly) partially based on those numbers.
(Posted this comment on Ted Hope's repost of your original. I'll repeat it here to make sure you and others get to see it. Great work.)
Love all the details you bring to the table on the topics you investigate. It is interesting that while budgets are being more and more hidden (at least to the public at large,) the "sales" figures of distribution (e.g. the actual views of streamers obfuscated in statistics that mean the most to them but are hard to translate, if at all, into the traditionally understood industry metrics,) are just as elusive to get a clue. Add to that the self-defined delusions of calling a film a "No budget" or "micro-budget" film when clearly SOME compensation was given, even if not traditionally monetary exchange of the deferred or donated efforts of professionals helping the project along. It's gotten to be impossible to have a conversation about a true budget unless you have to fill out a form to qualify for the different levels of union scales (e.g. SAG-AFTRA Ultra Low Budget.) It's hard to convince my clients that to seek funding successfully they have to have a handle on an actual cost to complete their film all the way through to distribution (and likely beyond,) before the money people would start to consider backing your project. We live in weird times, self-weirded, actually.
A fascinating insight into the publishing of budgets. I'd say some of the reasons budgets are rarely published now is that, avid movie goers judge a film before they see it by what they think it cost to make. Would they go and see Top Gun if they thought it cost $20M rather than $200M? They know a good action movie costs $150M plus, (even if it didn't!). The other reasons are the studio not wanting to expose budgets to scrutiny for tax reasons and profitability. And embarrassing poor box office of course. Lord of the Rings was a case where the film made huge at the box office but the studio kept the relationship between the cost and the box office low, so they were less liable for paying large share of profits to actors, producers etc.
You're right, these days true budgets are rarely available, we can only guess and compare to similar movies. People know of course, they're just not allowed to say, but sales agents are likely to know the best, as they have to sell a movie and hopefully at a profit.
Our world is NUTS!!! But this one can be solved. Let's set some guidelines on Budget Reporting. Stephen I think you need to give us 10 Rules For Accuracy In Film Budget Reporting. We will do it. NonDē will do it. FilmStack will do it. We can let the Studios & GSPs lie through their teeth but the non-dependent will speak truth. LFGGGG!
I already do a version of this and there's just a massive amount of data no one looks at ("no reported budgets" is a friendly amendment to "no public data" because data exists independent of the reporting). People just don't look for this stuff.
Is there interest in some sort of regular update of this stuff?
e.g. let's look at three films (because I looked up all three of them this week) whose data codes as "no one knows" based on Follows' data aggregation but which is pretty darn easy to find. Sydney Sweeney is in the news today for Christy and she had an "unknown budget" film on apple called "Echo Valley" - however, that's just malarky. The producers have publicly stated, before the film came out, that it had a budget of $44,598,990 and it was approved for a NJ tax incentive of $11,167,228.
If you pull these incentives focused data you also quickly just see how much of a hodgepodge budget reporting looks like. e.g. you can't reconcile the most commonly cited budgets for Bugonia and Poor things - one looks like it was reported pre-incentive ($55M Bugonia) and one post ($35M poor things) based on the company house fillings
There's nothing stopping any of the trades from reporting this, they just don't look for it. It's all there in black and white on the relevant government website.
Similarly, Die My Love (directed by Lynne Ramsay and starring Jennifer Lawrence) made people interested in Ramsay's prior film You Were Never Really Here which had a gross spend of 5,858,663 and a NY tax incentive of $1,671,520. The only wrinkle here is that you wouldn't be able to access this data on the film's release and that's when the main budget information is posted.
More interesting is something like JLaw's A24/AppleTV+ film Causeway. You can't get a full and complete budget from public records but prior to release could could easily see "Untitled Soldier Film" spent $11,418,551.00 in "Louisiana Expenditures" (though I believe that really means "qualified expenditures" which includes stuff like a per individual cap). If you submitted a freedom of information act request (and paid a couple of bucks) you could get more information from the state about the film's budget.
But, of course, "Louisiana Expenditures" != "full budget." To cite another example, Sinners had a pre-incentive budget of over $100M (which makes sense given reported trade budget) but you can only see $68M of that from public tax incentive. These aren't even FOIA requests, they're just reading government websites.
Exactly - resourced journalism FTW!
Thanks for laying this out. I completely agree. My name is Andie Huff and I work with The Numbers, where a major part of my role involves researching and verifying budgets through the same resources you mentioned such as state incentive filings, public company disclosures, and government reimbursement databases.
We see the same pattern you described. Many “unknown” budgets are not actually unknown. They are simply unreported in the trades or confused because of pre incentive versus post incentive numbers, partial filings, or differences in the trades and quotes that get repeated as fact. Looking directly at the incentive documents often reveals information that contradicts the commonly cited figures.
Your examples match exactly what we have been tracking. Echo Valley is a good illustration since its budget is publicly stated in the NJ filings despite being listed as unknown in most places. The differences you noted between Bugonia and Poor Things are the same discrepancies we find when reconciling pre rebate and post rebate numbers. The data trails for films like You Were Never Really Here, Causeway, and Sinners also show how fragmented and inconsistent these public records can be.
At The Numbers we are actively using these sources to identify discrepancies and improve accuracy in our database. It is detailed work because the information is scattered across so many systems, but the underlying data is there if you know where to look.
I would love to continue this conversation and explore the idea of a regular update series highlighting newly available budget information and clarifying conflicting reports. This kind of transparency would benefit everyone. If anyone wants to discuss further, drop us a line at research@the-numbers.com!
Best
Andie Huff
The Numbers / Nash Information Services LLC
Thanks Andie, I just sent you a DM.
Not all government records are the same though. Incentive numbers are likely accurate as the films have to turn in receipts. But the budget numbers on film permits are completely self reported and not confirmed in any state I've shot in. As a location manager I try to get real numbers from UPMs but who knows what they are basing it on and sometimes they don't answer and I need to get the application in and just ballpark it.
I definitely think there is a FilmStack audience for this sort of thing Joseph. Please publish publish publish.
Thanks for sharing. With all the latest over spending failures, I imagine these numbers will be more vague and befuddling in the future.
That stated: Something, if you have yet to cover, would be the basic budget breakdown elements - Cost of: Above the Line, Actors, Crew, including post, VFX in budget tiers 5-20M 20-50M 50-100M, something like that. Throughout my career I have seen press releases lamenting the cost of the crew for very expensive studio films, then justification for filming anywhere, but in say the USA. Is there really a Savings one wonders when the budget exceeds 30M It would be curious to see percentages of budget allocation relative to overall budgets, regardless of unions.
Yup, here you go! https://stephenfollows.com/p/how-do-film-budgets-change-as-they-grow
I love this kind of data analysis, Stephen! Very nicely done! FYI, at least in the indie film space, more exact data could come from the Guilds/Unions which use fixed budget thresholds: For example if SAG released even broad stats on how many films in a given year are using the Ultra Low Budget contract (under $300k) vs Moderate Low contract ($300k-up to nearly a million) those would be good data points for you. As you say, it’s too easy for filmmakers to lie or just hide budget numbers from press. But it’s much harder to obfuscate to the Guilds. Whether the Guilds release this info publicly, I’m not sure.
Insightful article!
Thank you for another informative article addressing an important issue! I became painfully aware of this problem when I was writing the business plan for my new project and needed to do a profitability analysis of comparable films. These were all movies in the ultra-low budget category. The data was scarce and one source often contradicted the other. I noticed the trend you mentioned, that is, at this budget level, costs are often underreported, to demonstrate being cost-effective or to make a claim to the type of indie / underdog status that would increase the film’s cachet. However, seeing the IMDB credits of some of these movies made me question the budget numbers I found on the internet. A fully staffed camera / electrical department, consisting of crew members with a track record, for a movie that supposedly cost under $1 million? I doubt it. So I ended up using AI to estimate the budget of the films based on cast and crew list, length, union status, production value, camera used, etc.
I am not sure what could be a solution to this. Especially in the indie world, I feel we need to deliver realistic business plans for investors who are willing to risk their $. And there’s no business plan without comps… One way to solve this problem could be to form an informal data exchange between producers.
Really great piece! I do a podcast (The Nostalgia Test Podcast) and I will be using The Numbers from now on, so thank you for that. I was curious if you think we're moving back into an indie film renaissance? We've had a few indie filmmakers on and even though the movies aren't huge blockbusters and/or have A-list or even C-list actors in them, there's this joy and love of the medium that comes from these artists. What does anyone think here? Thanks!
Another (not good) reason to obscure budget info might be to hide it from the unions if the budget got bigger somewhere in the middle of production—after the union paperwork had been signed, since scale is determined by budget tiers.
On the indie side, I wonder if there would be a benefit to withholding the budget from potential distributors who are weighing out a deal (fairly or unfairly) partially based on those numbers.
(Posted this comment on Ted Hope's repost of your original. I'll repeat it here to make sure you and others get to see it. Great work.)
Love all the details you bring to the table on the topics you investigate. It is interesting that while budgets are being more and more hidden (at least to the public at large,) the "sales" figures of distribution (e.g. the actual views of streamers obfuscated in statistics that mean the most to them but are hard to translate, if at all, into the traditionally understood industry metrics,) are just as elusive to get a clue. Add to that the self-defined delusions of calling a film a "No budget" or "micro-budget" film when clearly SOME compensation was given, even if not traditionally monetary exchange of the deferred or donated efforts of professionals helping the project along. It's gotten to be impossible to have a conversation about a true budget unless you have to fill out a form to qualify for the different levels of union scales (e.g. SAG-AFTRA Ultra Low Budget.) It's hard to convince my clients that to seek funding successfully they have to have a handle on an actual cost to complete their film all the way through to distribution (and likely beyond,) before the money people would start to consider backing your project. We live in weird times, self-weirded, actually.
A fascinating insight into the publishing of budgets. I'd say some of the reasons budgets are rarely published now is that, avid movie goers judge a film before they see it by what they think it cost to make. Would they go and see Top Gun if they thought it cost $20M rather than $200M? They know a good action movie costs $150M plus, (even if it didn't!). The other reasons are the studio not wanting to expose budgets to scrutiny for tax reasons and profitability. And embarrassing poor box office of course. Lord of the Rings was a case where the film made huge at the box office but the studio kept the relationship between the cost and the box office low, so they were less liable for paying large share of profits to actors, producers etc.
You're right, these days true budgets are rarely available, we can only guess and compare to similar movies. People know of course, they're just not allowed to say, but sales agents are likely to know the best, as they have to sell a movie and hopefully at a profit.