While you might not like the movie, it's pretty obvious they spent money on it, because it's all on screen.
-the movie has a strong visual look. The sets, set decoration, costuming, makeup, CGI, lightening techniques, camera placements, are all top of the line. Plus, they had to pay a lot of crew members to bring all of that together.
-The movie had at least two stars who were still considered top tier actors at the time the movie was made. That couldn't have been cheap.
-The movie was filmed in a variety of locations and different settings. Moving around a cast & crew of 100's isn't cheap, feeding them, lodging them, etc. doesn't come cheap.
-It was a union / guild movie. Filming anything union always costs more.

It's because it was shot in 4 countries (Us,Canada,uk,Luxembourg)

This message has been deleted.

no way this cost 42 million. im calling b.s.

We know the actors/actresses were not paid much, in fact, the caterer probably was paid more. I guess they tried to market the Hell outta it

a) I know more about film budgeting than you do. That I can promise.
b) It was more an exasperated "This film was garbage, how did they waste so much money on it?" kind of claim. Also, that $40 million would not have the marketing budget included. It never does.
-AP3-
'The future is no place to place your better days. . .'

Well, films cost money regardless of their quality. And $40 million isn't really that steep for a film shot on 35mm, and on purpose built soundstages.
Some cost considerations to take into account when budgeting a film
Payment for cast, crew and extras
Set construction
Costumes
Camera/equipment rental
Transportation
Film stock
Catering
Post production facilities
Publicity/Advertising/etc

This message has been deleted.

I just dont know
x__________x
What happened, Hollywood, what happened to your movies?