<![CDATA[budget: 25 million?????]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Klute

Gf6 — 17 years ago(November 14, 2008 08:11 AM)

Really? 25 million for a movie like this in 1971 isnt that a lot. 25 million back then is what 100 million in todays money. A movie like this costing 100 million is pretty unlikely or what

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/184252/budget-25-millionRSS for NodeTue, 12 May 2026 16:13:29 GMTTue, 28 Apr 2026 17:27:58 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to budget: 25 million????? on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:28:06 GMT]]>Woodyanders — 6 years ago(November 11, 2019 07:07 PM)

Actually, the budget was 2.5 million.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548136https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548136Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:28:06 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to budget: 25 million????? on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:28:05 GMT]]>L0GAN5 — 10 years ago(February 08, 2016 12:25 AM)

Yeah Fonda was just coming off an oscar nom and Sutherland a smash hit with MASH. Neither of them would have been cheap, and there was quite a bit of location filming too in New York.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548135https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548135Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:28:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to budget: 25 million????? on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:28:04 GMT]]>Kompressor_Fan — 10 years ago(January 07, 2016 03:52 AM)

And Donald Sutherland was just coming off of MASH the year before, which had made an astounding amount of money, so I'm betting his payday had just risen substantially, as well.
The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548134https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548134Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:28:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to budget: 25 million????? on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:28:03 GMT]]>TheHungryAndAngryShow — 10 years ago(January 06, 2016 03:58 PM)

Even that seems a bit high, but I think Jane Fonda was a pretty sought after actress at that time, so I am guessing she wasn't cheap, unlike her character.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548133https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548133Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:28:03 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to budget: 25 million????? on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:28:02 GMT]]>Kompressor_Fan — 10 years ago(January 06, 2016 03:50 PM)

$2.5 million for this film in 1971 would be realistic.
The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548132https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548132Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:28:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to budget: 25 million????? on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:28:01 GMT]]>TheHungryAndAngryShow — 10 years ago(November 27, 2015 12:33 AM)

The budget is now listed as 2.5 million, not 25, so I am guessing that was a typo.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548131https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548131Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:28:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to budget: 25 million????? on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:27:59 GMT]]>turinturambar30 — 17 years ago(January 24, 2009 12:36 AM)

Especially since Star Wars was made in 77 for about 10 million.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548130https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548130Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:27:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to budget: 25 million????? on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:27:59 GMT]]>L0GAN5 — 17 years ago(November 14, 2008 02:25 PM)

It says its an estimate, and I think a wildly inaccurate one. Wikipedia says the budget is $8m but doesn't give a source, but seems a bit more realistic - about $30m in today's money. IMDB has the rentals revenue down as $8m, so I'm wondering if they have got the amounts the wrong way around.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548129https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1548129Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:27:59 GMT