Budgets on pro skimovies.

jibbpeter

jibbpeter

Active member
Yeah, I'm that kind of guy who occationally likes to click around on imdb and see how large budgets and income big Hollywood-movies has/had. And the other day i got curious about how much money professional skimovie companies get to make their films, so yeah here we are.

I think (not 100% sure) that Field had just around 2.6M$ on Supervention, and "In To The Mind" had around 4M (some guy that workes for one of the sponsors ranted about it in a thread under an alias not long ago)

I'll assume that companies like Stept doesn't need nearly that much funds on their productions, but their films is just as amazing as the more well funded flicks.

But what about the rest? Matchstick shoots only on 16mm and 35mm film and that's expensive as fuck!! And all the trips around the world with heliskiing on top of that!

I know that the skimovie industry isn't big money (yet) and get most of the funds from sponsors, but how tight is it really? Do they mostly get a solid proffit from their dvd's/bluray etc..., or does it happen from time to time that they don't?

I know that this matter is something many of those companies want to keep private and i respect that, but if some of you/them care to share that would be awesome!

Like i said, im just curious.

 
I don't really know too much when it comes to production value, but luckily Obama can cover medical bills which must slash at least $260,000 per movie.
tumblr_m7zwncbyn41qalk92.gif
 
I remember the discussion about Travis Rice's movie budget for The art of Flight being around $10,000,000usd. And that this was about ten times the amount of msp's budget. These were figures being thrown around on Internet forums. So I'm not exactly sure how much validity there was to any of them.
 
On imdb it says that AOF had 2M$. Does this mean MSP usually has around 200k then?Still a pretty decent budget imo:)
 
well tgr's underground contests have 100,000 cash purse so they seem to have a bit of dough just lying around
 
About as much as you would put into making a ski movie. Can't speak for Stept but 4bi9 pays for everything out of their pockets and gets very very small support (in comparison) from sponsors. You don't need a ton of money to make a movie but the majority of guys who shoot and ski with 4bi9 have jobs outside of skiing.
 
im calling bullshit, I see over 500k in heli time alone.

The only way that its 500k is if they don't count the money it cost them to get the footage they already had (stock footage), which apparently a lot of that was used
 
I doubt over 500k in heli time. Looking at average price on the internet it seems to be about $1,500/hour to rent a 5 seater chopper. So even if they're spending 2 grand an hour that's 250 hours.

I highly doubt any production company puts 250 hours on a heli over a season. That's a 40 hour week every week for 6 months.
 
I really don't know what to believe anymore. 3 mill NOK sounds a bit small I must admit, but two norwegian newspapers said 3-5 mill NOK.

Most importantly, the movie is fucking great!
 


Just to make this right.

I wonder who made that IMDB about Being There, because we did not have 10million NOK to make that film. Thats crazy! We had 1,2 million NOK, which is around 200K USD.
 
What the fuck? Who does that? Also for the page of Supervention on Imdb it stood 16M NOK under budget some time ago, I assumed "you" would put that back after the release, but it never came back. Now i know why. Its fucking disrespectfull to do something like that! Contact imdb and ask them to take it down, im sure they can see who made it and ban that user, if that's wat you want ofc.

 
I'm pretty sure I heard rice say it was around 2 mil. I can't remember where I heard it though.
 
Sponsors do support 4bi9 with money, but not until the movie was actually made. What mike was saying (and i said before) they paid for everything while they produced the movie "hoping" to get money from sponsors after they saw the movie.
 
student loans, credit card bills, rent, (massive) equipment costs, gas etc. arent covered by free gear and it isn't by any means a 1-1 trade off. Just because you receive free gear does not mean that you have the purchase value on hand to put towards something else. Often times you would just make do without. Money is extremely, extremely tight in the ski industry- especially if you are not one of the old guard who has posted up with a stable of sponsors and turns over the same formula year after year- noone of that old guard is leaving the marketplace so for anyone coming up or younger companies, a bottleneck is formed.
 
I mean skiers having fresh gear is cool, but what do you think they had before they got sponsored? Its not like they didn't have ski pants before they got sponsored. Like I said, we have jobs, we could buy ski pants or skis if we wanted, it doesn't effect the production of a movie.
 
Making ski movies is probably the most 1% thing a person could do for a job. Literally unnecessary, that being said its soul purpose is marketing no matter who is doing it. It's a giant advertisement, so if people are creating a ski film with sponsors thats all it will ever be. A giant contrived advertisement.

A necessary evil to keep the stoke alive in the sport, but in the end its to create revenue not to push the sport. That just happens along the way.
 
Apparently most of the TGR "b team" athletes have to pay out of pocket for heli time to shoot for movies. Info was from a solid source
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top