# Talk:Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

The German-language bits in this film are as silly as they are funny...I mean Dr Totenkopf? Dringlichkeitsfreigabe???? (unsigned)

I was under the impression that silliness was the point. Willy Logan 02:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Have removed this line: "the fact that Germany operates zeppelin airline does not point to historical outcome" from the first paragraph of the "Synopsis" section.
It makes no sense in the context of victors of world war 1, zeppelins where produced into the late 30's and did many transatlantic flights. Liamdavies 03:07 AM, 20th September, 2007 (+10 UTC)

Not to mention the German headlines in the beginning are pure gibberish that may only look like German to an Anglophone. What's even worse is that the German newspaper is actually the Völkischer Beobachter, but not with its historical logo at the top. What they're using in the film looks like a poor imitation of a typical 1950s-style American newspaper logo, with the name of Völkischer Beobachter in a generic blackletter font like Olde English. --87.180.197.207 (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Postmodernism has manifestations in many modern academic and non-academic disciplines:...film.... A postmodern approach to art thus rejects the distinction between low and high art forms. It rejects rigid genre boundaries and favours eclecticism, the mixing of ideas and forms. Partly due to this rejection, it promotes parody, irony, and playfulness, commonly referred to as jouissance by postmodern theorists" - Postmodernism
I'm wondering if a section on postmodernism in this film would be interesting. --Viriditas 23:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although Postmodernism is a dominant trend nowadays and somewhat  prerequisite for retrofuturism, I don't think it's important enough to merit a section in this article. Also, I think the "see also" link to Postmodernism might be misleading, and I will remove it if nobody objects. I mean, Postmodernist philosophy isn't really ever expressed in the movie, and it might give readers the impression that the movie is about postmodernism or expresses postmoern ideology. michaelb Talk to this user 17:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey are we sure the movie is set in 1939?  Doesn't the scientist at the beginning of the movie say "...before the first World War", implying that there has already been a SECOND World War?  Just a thought. (unsigned)

This quote seems to be an error on the screenwriter's part. (Before WWII, WWI would have been referred to as "the Great War".) Everything else in the movie seems to hint pretty clearly to 1939, though. -- Syzygy 12:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


### Art Deco and postmodernism?
I get a real feeling of a late Art Deco stylization about this movie.  It reminds me at times of Fitz Lang's Metropolis, old Flash Gordon episodes, The Rocketeer, the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building and various other aspects of Art Deco style.  Although its synthetic 1939 would be at the late end of Art Deco classification, nevertheless one can feel some of the inspirations for the movie.  It positively oozes an Art Deco affectation or a kindly pastiche IMO.  Perhaps it would not be inappropriate to draw some parallels with this heavy stylization of the movie as it is not even remotely obvious when one approaches this article.  Aethandor (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a very interesting story behind this movie? I read an article (in Wired?) about a couple of months before it launched. Apparently the guy behind it had been at work on it for almost a decade, all on his own, working at a software company in the day time and rendering the movie on a cluster of old Macs in his basement in the night. I don't know how exaggerated the article in question was, but surely there was some truth to it, and it's interesting enough to be part of this article. (unsigned)

I added a section on the production of the movie. Hope this helps. Count Ringworm 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a name for the (horrible) color processing that the images suffered?

Yeah: Hollywood. *baddum ch* Thank you. Cybertooth85 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the washed-out look was deliberate.--65.113.254.254 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a name for the genre of retro science-fiction inspired by the 1930s? As in Crimson Skies and The Gernsback Complex.
You know, zeppelins, aerodinamics, death rays.
Retropunk? Aeropunk? (unsigned)

Dieselpunk. Atypicaloracle (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC).

Personally,  I liked the reference to the SHIELD Helicarrier better...
J.User_talk:Michael Reiter
I think it looks much more like Cloudbase.  The Helicarrier was also influenced by Cloudbase, but is less of a direct copy.  Check out this page, [1] follow the links, then see what you think.
Can anyone offer an opinion re: Luther Arkwright? I never heard of it before. Anyway, it has to be newer than Captain Scarlet, since graphic novels didn't exist in the 60s. SpaceCaptain 01:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've found a picture of the craft in question. [2] I still say the one in Sky Captain looks most like Cloudbase. SpaceCaptain 01:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The craft on the cover of the Luther Arkwright comic is a Prussian ship, there are other types in the series, including British User:Sleaf 00:51, 07 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Well, I can't make the call unless I see the British ship for myself. All the other flying carriers I've seen are just versions of a basic concept; the one in Sky Captain is Cloudbase with a Union Jack and rotors instead of jets. If there's one in Luther Arkwright that looks the same, then it' also a copy of Cloudbase.SpaceCaptain 03:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a source for the statement in the introduction that Oliver's voice was dubbed? My understanding is his dialogue was created from soundclips of the actor so his own voice could be used. 23skidoo 02:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe the Spectrum Cloudbase is predated by Marvel Comics' SHIELD Helicarrier by at least three years...  Given that Captain Scarlet came out in 1967, and that Strange Tales (Marvel Comics) came out in 1964. User_Talk:Michael_Reiter

Okay, SHIELD and the Helicarrier predate Cloudbase. But there are many fictional incarnations of the hovering aircraft carrier, and hs latest one most closely resembles Cloudbase in its overall configuration. (The Helicarrier, in most depictions, is much thicker and has a more curved design.) SpaceCaptain 00:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"Casper van Dien would have played a much better Sky Captain. His appearance is both simliar to that of a CG character which might have blended better with the substantial amount of CGI effects the movie makes use of. His acting talents, similar to those used in his role as Johnny Rico in Starship Troopers could have helped build the character of Sky Captain into something more memorable." - How is this NPOV? Salmon

Interesting filmfor several reasons beyond technical landmark status. I enjoyed it, but I was constantly confused regarding what it wanted to be.  Was it an all out comic-book romp?  The line about "World War I" would then almost be justified in this alternate 1930s (almost). But there is more substance to it than just an elongated art-deco daydream, and its damn near impossible to nail it down exactly.  This article has a way to go, but I'm afraid I don't have the answer if there is one.  Definetely room to expand.  Agreed?

People don't call a World War I in any timeline until WW II has already started, particularly a timeline in which there's no obvious lead up to a second major war. "The Great War" or "The World War" would have been much better choices.Joncnunn 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the year can be pinned down much more than just 1930s; Towards the beginning there is a clip from our 1939 movie "Wizard of Oz", which can probably be assumed to have been come out at the same time in this timeline, especally with so many other details seeming to fit perfectly with that as the year. Joncnunn 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "steampunk" and "dieselpunk" rubbish because this is best classified as pulp fiction. It's absurd to label things like this as "dieselpunk" or Jules Vernes' writings as "steampunk." It's not even a real literary label. (unsigned)

{{endspoiler}}
I hate when I don't know where should I read, the next section, perhaps? I believe it should have an spoiler end anyway, right? Dunno. 200.230.213.152 03:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The craft piloted in this film aren't really amphibious so much as aerial/submersible.  Should the text actually point to an article that compares them to aircraft like the Spruce Goose? Geeman 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure about this, but is it considered okay to cite multiple websites with different titles in the same entry, when they are clearly consecutive parts? (The ref in question is Edwards, "The Making of Sky Captain - Parts 1-3".) --Pentasyllabic 00:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

They keep refrencing "world war one" in the film, but if the film is setup before WW2 then why the hell do they call the Great War "World War ONE"? Major goof in the film.  G 23:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably because if they'd have called it "the Great War" most people wouldn't have know what they were talking about. Most people don't know that was was it was called before it was renamed after World War II. Val42 17:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Just speculation, but perhaps there was an international conflict in the alternative world big enough to be called World War II; though it would seem to have occurred earlier than the WWII in our World, and almost certainly not as big (apparently big enough to give certain technologies a boost)...  -Logotu (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the quote in the article cited. Should it be periods intead of period? --Gbleem 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Two quotes from that section:

"Conran and Avnet were able to cut costs considerably by shooting the entire movie in 26 days [...] on high-definition video using a Sony HDW-F900 [...]" (N.B. These cameras record digital video.)
"After each day of shooting, footage was edited and sent overnight to editors in L.A. who digitized it and sent it back."
What did they have to digitize? Maybe what these editors in L.A. really did was something along the lines of removing the bluescreen background and tracking camera movements from markers in the background? I have no clue, but obviously the statements quoted above can't both be right. 86.59.11.23 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for spotting this. --J.D. 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the following from the Cast section as an unsourced statement (which was also breaking the structure of the section):

An interesting aspect of the film was the extreme high-tech animation.
All actors in the movie were completely animated using motion trackers on the actors while they acted then transferring them into a computer where they were animated into the film.  This lead to a breakthrough in animated films.
I have no proof on hand but I'm pretty sure that it's wrong - they were not animated, just filmed against a blue screen.  If I'm wrong about this, the text can be put back into the article with an appropriate source. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct.  On the DVD there are some of the scenes that they filmed before the special effects were applied.  I was surprised that even in the scenes in the office, most of the frame wasn't of physical objects. — Val42 (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I really liked to the movie and came to wikipedia to find out more at him/them and if they have any new projects planed, there's virtually no info on this. Could someone please find some? 209.74.19.157 (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some kind of ref to the fact that the film has some similarities to Crimson Skies?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.11.54 (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 

There are 7 things that must pass before an article reaches GA status. I have reviewed it and the result is as follows:

Well-written: Pass
Factually accurate: Pass
Broad: Pass
Neutrally written: Pass
Stable: Pass
Well-referenced: Pass
Images: Pass
Well done, the GA has passed successfully Bob talk 23:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment The article does meet the GA criteria, though could use a few more reference citations. There are also some external links in the body of the article that need to be removed, per the manual of style (only internal wikilinks belong in the body of articles; external links only go into the 'external links' section at the end). Dr. Cash (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the crossover films category as it does not seem appropriate.  This film does not contain a crossover between two previously separate fictional worlds.  My understanding is that this film is entirely self-enclosed.  Yes? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is worth working into the article, but I ran into an interesting quote from the professional magazine Cinefex. "Ned Gorman: Whether or not we see more ditigal sets will depend, I think, on what happens with Sky Captain...Even if Sky Captain doesn't go over big, it will be one of those fulcrum films that pushes a new concept. Tron was one of those." (p. 64, Jan 2005)
I'm not sure the article at the moment properly emphasizes just how radical this movie was? Piano non troppo (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is an INCREDIBLE movie. It deserved to make much more money than it did. I was looking forward to the sequel. Hopefully they'll do it or reboot the movie someday.108.23.147.17 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's odd that the movie is set in 1939, the Sky Captain is flying a P-40 Warhawk (first introduced in 1938) with Flying Tiger colors (a unit not active until 1941) which appears to be one of the later variants (I think it's a P-40D, as it lacks the .50 caliber machine guns firing through the propeller and has the larger airscoop), and they make references to Joe flying in China, further implying that the origin of his ship's distinctive shark-mouth warpaint is that he flew in the American Volunteer Group with the Chinese Air Force. The airplane aside, we have the Hindenburg III. This implies there have been at least four ships in the Hindenburg-class, which means that (most obviously) the first Hindenburg did not explode -- possibly because Luftschiffbau Zeppelin was able to secure adequate helium from the United States or because they found some science-fiction alternative lifting gas -- an event that sounded the death knell of large-scale dirigibles. But I can't help but notice that Hindenburg III lacks the distinctive Nazi markings on the rudders. While this may be just to avoid putting huge swastikas in the opening of the film, it does lead to an interesting bit of alternate history being implied. The entire reason that the zeppelin had those markings is because Luftschiffbau Zeppelin could not afford to complete the airship in the first place, and had to turn to the Nazi Party for money. It's 1939; Hindenburg started flying in March of '36, three years after Hitler became Chancellor. In the three years since Hindenburg started making her transatlantic flights (and two years after the original blew up at Lakehurst in our reality) they have launched at least two more Hindenburg-class vessels (the original took something of the order of five years to build) and War World II was begun in September of that year. If there are no Nazi markings on Hindenburg III, and none of the depicted crew are wearing Deutsche Zeppelin-Reederei GmbH badges, then who is in charge of Germany in the Sky Captain universe? Atypicaloracle (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC). 

Well, the Völkischer Beobachter appears in that collection of international headlines at the start, and the page does have a photo of the German Reichstag diet assembled in the Krolloper building, with a giant Imperial Eagle and a swastika behind Hitler at the speaker's desk. So, all that (minus the weird new logo they created for the newspaper and the gibberish they tried to pass for the German language in the headlines) is pretty much like in our timeline. So my best guess would be that the main difference here is that Luftschiffbau Zeppelin obviously didn't have to turn to the Hitler government for money to finish their dirigibles. --87.180.197.207 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
And I just now noticed another chronological oddity: When Polly takes photos inside the frozen vault in Nepal, her camera just automatically flashes every time she takes a picture. In our timeline, the latest flash technology available in 1939 were flashbulbs in use since the late 20s, they required special units that had to be attached to cameras or be handheld in the other hand, and every bulb could only be used for one single flash. No such flash unit can be seen on or connected to Polly's camera. While based on the gas-filled tube invented in 1938, electronic flashes that you could use for as many flashes until your batteries went down were not around prior to the 1960s, and it took at least until the 1970s that cameras with in-built electronic flashes with no additional units were around. So it seems that the Sky Captain timeline also differs from ours in that respect that they have in-built electronic flashes by the late 1930s. --87.180.197.207 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
And finally, in a vein similar to equivalent discussions over at the article 2001: A Space Odyssey, when they release the animals from the rocket, air pressure would immediately drop due to their altitude and kill both of them. At least that's what would happen in our universe. --87.180.197.207 (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did they "reanimate" an already dead actor? Thanks in advance --Animiertes Fleisch (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In the opening scenes when the machines are entering the city and Polly is describing the scene to her editor over the phone, the dialogue is exactly the same to a part of the dialogue from Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre on the Air adaption of the War of the Worlds.
The sound effect for the giant robot machines laser's (or heat rays) is the same sound effect used in the original film adaption of The War of the Worlds starring Gene Barry.
In the scene where Joe and Polly meet after dressing in new clothes in the Lamasery, the view they have of Shangri-La is the same view from the original movie "Lost Horizon". Robc007 (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Robc007, 21 Oct 2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robc007 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013173553/http://www.greencine.com/article?action=view&articleID=148 to http://www.greencine.com/article?action=view&articleID=148
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016194801/http://www.scorenotes.com/reviewArchive/skycaptain.html to http://www.scorenotes.com/reviewArchive/skycaptain.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070806003221/http://filmfreakcentral.net/notes/kconraninterview.htm to http://filmfreakcentral.net/notes/kconraninterview.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070806003221/http://filmfreakcentral.net/notes/kconraninterview.htm to http://filmfreakcentral.net/notes/kconraninterview.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?SID=9895
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071105052735/http://movies.about.com/od/theworldoftomorrow/a/skyjude072404.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/theworldoftomorrow/a/skyjude072404.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108043048/http://movies.about.com/od/theworldoftomorrow/a/skycapt090104_2.htm to http://movies.about.com/od/theworldoftomorrow/a/skycapt090104_2.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224074622/http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/May2005/29/c4772.html to http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/May2005/29/c4772.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204055354/http://pulp.mindchamber.net/article.php?article=9 to http://pulp.mindchamber.net/article.php?article=9
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The article says "It is an example of "Ottensian" (pre-WWII) dieselpunk.[3]"
I suggest that it's not dieselpunk, even though it starts in October 1938 and then moves to March 1939.  First of all, according to the Dieselpunk entry, "The "punk" in "dieselpunk" can be interpreted as a rejection of contemporary society[69] and contemporary styles.[28]"  I don't get a sense of the contemporary society or styles being rejected in the movie, but rather celebrated.  The only one who rejected it is the long-dead Dr. Totenkopf, who came to regret his rejection before he died and asked forgiveness.  If there is a word that is opposite to "punk" then this movie is an example of it:  "diesel[not]punk".
Second, dieselpunk is set in the interwar and immediate postwar period.  The movie is set in an alternate universe.  This is an obvious statement, given the fanciful things Polly would like to photograph:  flying robots, rayguns, Shangri-La, a flying Royal Navy aircraft carrier, dinosaurs, spaceship, etc.  But in this alternate universe, the political situation is different.  The newspaper at 00:03:53 makes this clear.  Germany seems to be de-militarized and not Nazi, Russia is perhaps not communist, America is not isolationist, England has strength and confidence, and the League of Nations exists.  There IS conflict:  Japan invaded China; Italy invaded Ethiopia; and a Spanish civil war is underway.  But the tensions that led to WWII in September 1939 are not present.  Therefore it's not set in an dieselpunk's interwar period...so isn't really dieselpunk.
One can imagine that in this alternate universe, WWI ended earlier with less destruction to the Western soul - maybe because America got involved earlier.  And perhaps there was an earlier WWII in which the Flying Legion had a role, and technologies were developed.
I'm fascinated by this; and wonder if there's are any other stories that are "diesel[not]punk".Fr. Rick Lorenz 16:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjlorenz (talk • contribs)  

Screenwriter C. Robert Cargill has confirmed the originally reported budget of $70m was an intentional inflation by the producer of the film. The direct confirmed to Cargill the true budget to be $34m. 2603:8001:9901:335C:39A5:FA6C:F460:65B1 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a non-self-published reliable source Celjski Grad (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if $34 million really is the 'true' figure, and I can't see how that was calculated by that person on BlueSky. Either way, people are using different definitions of "budget" here. I'm sure Paramount would have a view here based on how much they paid. Regardless, something here is probably worth a footnote in the article after the 'official' figure. From this recent Variety article:
But in retrospect, because a film’s success these days is whether it makes money or not, it didn’t do the ultimate thing it was supposed to. As it was, there’s a lot of misconceptions about what the film cost. Like I said, when we first started making it, our budget went from $3 million to $10 million, in that range. The film ultimately cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $12 million or something like that. That additional money wasn’t from me, it was making it color. Also, Paramount had a “Mission: Impossible” film that wasn’t going to be ready, so they needed something for their winter release. I didn’t promise it because at the time it was simple math to tell you how long it was going to take us, because our little meager render farm could generate only so many frames per hour. So that’s when additional money came online to kind of buy more computers. There was also a lot of money at stake for [financier Aurelio de Laurentiis], who sold it. And that’s where the budget discrepancy, I think, comes from: he made a lot of money off the sale of the film, and we didn’t apply that to the film itself. But again, even as a $12 million film, I think it would’ve been regarded as very successful, but not as whatever the projected budget was in the end. And Paramount did pay a lot of money, but that was above my pay grade, as they say. [Question:] So the $70 million that was previously reported refers to the cost of selling it to Paramount, or that Aurelio made from picking up distribution? I know what Paramount paid for the film when we had 10 minutes of footage that we ended up showing to every studio in town. Aurelio was claiming the film costs a lot more than it did, and it looked like it. So the amount being bid on the film was high — high enough that I heard that Aurelio bought a soccer team with the amount of money. So somebody probably did lose a lot of money, but it wasn’t because of this film. That is sort of where the disappointment comes from … my naivete. You make these things, and Aurelio took a gamble himself certainly, and if he made a profit on it, good for him. I think it came a little bit at my expense, if not a lot, but that is business. But that sort of made the effort harder in terms of what the film had to make back.
(my bolding) Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)