<![CDATA[Interesting to see that a movie with the majority of its scenes shot in a pair of offices had such a big budget. (About]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Lions for Lambs

spookyrat1 — 13 years ago(April 02, 2013 06:05 AM)

Interesting to see that a movie with the majority of its scenes shot in a pair of offices had such a big budget. (About 150% greater than The Hurt Locker!)Hope it didn't just go on a big salary bill.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/243870/interesting-to-see-that-a-movie-with-the-majority-of-its-scenes-shot-in-a-pair-of-offices-had-such-a-big-budget-aboutRSS for NodeSun, 17 May 2026 10:42:14 GMTTue, 05 May 2026 01:40:01 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting to see that a movie with the majority of its scenes shot in a pair of offices had such a big budget. (About on Tue, 05 May 2026 01:40:04 GMT]]>Blubonnet_Spearman — 9 years ago(May 19, 2016 11:29 AM)

Considering the stars and other talent involved, 35 million is very efficient

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2046688https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2046688Tue, 05 May 2026 01:40:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Interesting to see that a movie with the majority of its scenes shot in a pair of offices had such a big budget. (About on Tue, 05 May 2026 01:40:03 GMT]]>ndenton-1 — 10 years ago(May 05, 2015 11:43 PM)

Redford, Cruise and Streep must have been paid 10 million each. The rest went into the propaganda budget (To buy off the critics).

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2046687https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2046687Tue, 05 May 2026 01:40:03 GMT