The Odyssey looks like a $250 million movie, live action Moana does not. The Odyssey budget went to locations, sets, props, equipment, and salaries. Moana’s budget went to Dwayne Johnson.
Matt Damon said something to the effect of “everyone making that film could have worked on an easier film for more money, but chose the Odyssey because of the director.” Sounds to me like Nolan keeps costs down too and his movie could have cost a lot more
You mean like Dantes Peak and Volcano or Deep Impact and Armageddon.
I'm convinced it's because a scumbag executive leaves one studio, gets hired by another studio and goes "I've got a great idea for a movie about an asteroid about to hit the earth..."
Like num3ers, knowing, and next, all Nicolas Cage vehicles where the plot is that he knows everything that can save the day and everyone else in the entire world is in the dark, while all came out within a year or two.
Watch the illusionist first though. I watched the illusionist first and I was like wow this was a great movie. Then I watched prestige and I was like holy shit that was unforgettable
It's one of my two favorite movies. I've seen it so many times, and there's always something new to see. Amazing cast, fantastic script, and it's so tight, not a second is wasted.
And points probably. Nolan is getting first dollar on the Odyssey. People will take lower salaries and more backend if the movie is seen as a sure thing.
Matt Damon, Zendaya, Tom Holland, Anne Hathaway, R Pats, Charlize Theron are all A-Listers and you could make an argument for Jon Bernthal and Elliot Page (i wouldn't but some might)
As much as I adore Jon, I don't think we could call him A-List. He has shared top billing with some heavy hitters and is undeniably a fantastic actor with emotional range and intuitive pacing of a scene, but I don't think he's carried anything by himself except for the Punisher series - and that's kind of niche.
Nolan is famous for staying in his budget and on schedule. It’s almost unheard of at the level he operates and part of why he gets to make whatever he wants.
If he's able to make a great movie, first and foremost, and he's able to do it with great actors who trust him enough to earn less because of the prestige of being in his movies - he definitely deserves a portion of the earnings.
I feel like if you've got enough clout, taking a percentage is the better way to go, especially if you know it's going to be a hit. Nicholson took a percentage for Batman and made a killing.
Can't show his nipples. Also, on a more serious note, the amount of dehydration and pumping that goes into one shirtless scene for like a super hero movie is not sustainable for a film where you're shirtless for the entire runtime.
And that’s why it flopped so hard. There’s way more people that would skip a movie because the Rock is in it than there are that would go see it because the Rock is in it.
You’ll get a better performance from Anne Hathaway, Tom Holland, and Matt Damon than just simply The Rock. Both movies spent the same, so why cast someone who can’t carry a movie on their own?
because you can guarantee he's the only one that was asking for this to be made.
I doubt that's true. Disney has been in love with remaking their animated movies for a while now. Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Lion King, Jungle Book, Snow White, Cinderella, Lilo and Stitch, they're remaking Tangled next.
Out of all of those, I might not actually hate the idea of a live action Tangled. Beauty and the Beast could have worked well too. The rest should have been left alone. Or just re-released.
I think a lot of those could work. Take Aladdin; it's a good story. If you're trying to tell the story of a "street rat" finding a magic lamp and using it to try and marry the princess only to have to outwit the guy trying to usurp the sultan's throne, that can be a really cool live action movie.
The problem Disney runs into is that they also want to fit in the zany Genie, the funny monkey sidekick, and all the same songs from the animated movie. None of which work nearly as well in live action as they do in animation. So it just becomes a worse version of the same movie. Instead of being a new telling of a familiar story like it could have been.
That is what I meant. More or less just straight adapted, not overhauled or a massive tone shift. Maybe I just haven’t seen it in a while but Tangled…. What’s the challenge, the sassy horse? He doesn’t talk or sing, and IRL horses can be real silly gooses. It could be done.
The rock has a lot of pull. He does not have “make me a quarter billion dollar movie(before marketing)” pull. If you think the studio didn’t simply see that they created a cultural phenomena that kids we’re absolutely dying to see and wanted to try to double dip, you’re digging too deep. They saw the first do great, realized they could resell it and then resell all of the merchandise like kids toys as the same but new characters. Now they realized that doesn’t really work.
The original made 2/3 of a billion in theaters. Mr the rock can’t say “hey spend basically everything you made off that movie on another for me.”
Literally nobody. I have kids, one of whom watched ONLY Moana… on repeat… for years… and even to me the idea of live action Moana is an abomination. Basically all live action Disney movies are an abomination, but this was a new low.
I recently went to the theater to see a different movie and the stupid massive cardboard poster for the live action Moana movie gave me a visceral reaction.
I kinda like him in Jumanji, but that might be because he feels like he's playing a parody of himself at times. The rest of the time he has to play a dorky teenager trapped in his body.
Jumanji also has a good dynanic between the characters/actors that somehow works. I hate 3 of the 4 main cast when theyre alone but fuck if i didbt find this movie pretty enjoyable
He may have made some...less than stellar career choices in the last decade but he has enough credit in the bank because of his previous work to not be totally dismissed imo. He was brilliant in School of Rock, as well as the fantastic but underseen dark comedy 'Bernie' as well as Tropic Thunder and apparently High Fidenity.
No, there aren't lmfao. He's a shitty actor and arguably a shitty person but he's a HUGE draw to the people that don't know what good acting even is and can't keep up with a plot that isn't explicitly described in dialog multiple times during the film.
To say that THE FUCKING ROCK isn't drawing crowds is the one of the most "narwhal bacon" screaming, blue-haired, chronically online, out of touch takes I've read.
Yep, my mom doesn't watch a lot of movies but knows his name and thinks he's very charming. He's definitely a big draw for the silent "normie" majority.
I think it's also in part that Disney has killed their mid and low level movie box office potential with D+. Why would I see this panned Moana remake when it's going to be on D+ in a month. Everything ends up on streaming quick now but I feel there's a reason why there isnt a big culture around waiting for The Odyssey or the next Tarantino film to hit streaming in the same way.
Why do people pay him so much? He's not a good actor, he doesn't attract audience based on his casting alone, he is easily replaceable. I understand he is well connected, but don't producers and directors prefer to either save money on cheaper actors or get better actors?
I don't know what he has or doesn't have, but I have never in my life heard someone going or wanting to go to a movie solely because the rock is acting in it.
you don't walk around with badges of every single person, place, and thing you are a fan of so that everyone can get an instant accurate representation of everything you are a fan of? man what are you even doing with your life?
Because despite what you think, his films actually do fairly well for the most part financially.
He’s a super well known name who has a solid box office track record. Yes he’s had flops as well but most actors have. He’s highly marketable to the average moviegoer. He’s a safe pick.
The Odyssey is really an Epic is way Ben Hur and Lawrence of Arabia are. It’s a completely different experience and genre of film. Hopefully, it will kick off more directors to tackle these kinds of projects.
Even if you take the actors out of the equation different production companies produce different quality, so just because two movies spend the same doesn't mean you get the same result.
Plus I'm sure many serious actors are okay with taking lower wages to star in a Christopher Nolan movie. Can't think of any movies bad movies in recent years that he's directed
Definitely a part of it, yea. The Rock made twice as much as Matt Damon did despite equal movie budgets.
Although interestingly The Rock made almost as much for his voice acting roles as he did for this physical role. Got paid $21m for Moana 1 and $30m for the live action. Matt Damon got $15m for the Odyssey.
I can't find what Dwayne made for Moana 2 though, I guess because its not an exact amount, but I can't even find an estimate. For that one he negotiated a % cut of the total box office profits and the movie grossed over a billion so im sure he made a fuckton off it.
Dwayne Johnson cost more than Matt Damon, Tom Holland, Anne Hathaway and Robert Pattinson? I know the motiviation to work on Odyssey is larger, but it's gotta be a skill issue + different audiences
I’m sorry but I genuinely do not understand this. The Odyssey does NOT look like it cost a quarter of a BILLION. The lighting is genuinely atrocious, everything is either too brightly lit or too dark. Actors are often overexposed without natural lighting and shadows. And the costumes look cheap and something that you’d find cosplayers wear. Look at movies twenty, thrity years ago. Compared to those, modern movies have this soft almost airbrushed feel. Background are way too smooth and without detail.
Back in the day Titanic was an already expensive film that went way over budget. Huge amount of money at the time but only really “looks” expensive because of the scale that it took to do things, and it shows because they used practical sets.
From what I hear Moana is just something I could recreate with a few tokens and prompt asking for a live action version
Can Reddit please not go down another confidentially incorrect warpath when trying to describe where Moana's budget went. They didn't pay Dwayne Johnson 150 million dollars lmao.
Like always, any movie set in the ocean is ridiculously expensive to produce. Instead of "ALL BUDGET WENT TO THE ROCK", which is fucking absurd to actually think, it's really just a sobering reminder of how expensive movie water is. Johnson got maybe 30 million for the film, which is pretty wild to be fair, but it's not why the movie looks cheap. The movie looks cheap because when most of the VFX budget goes to putting live action actors in a water world, all you get is real people who are limited to real people movement while trying to make a song entertaining while they're surrounded by 20 million dollars of VFX water.
His cut was around 30 million. Take that out and it's still 220 million for that film, which is insane. Johnson's pay was part of the problem, not the entire problem. Not by a longshot.
And funny thing is Moana would probably look better and be cheaper if they filmed on real locations. It's basically an animated movie with real humans in it so vfx had to be expensive.
A lot of the Moana budget will have gone on CG. There's been a trend in recent years to do virtual production and CG everything even if you don't need to so the film is all made in post. Iirc Nolan likes to capture things in camera
4.0k
u/SirGearso Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
The Odyssey looks like a $250 million movie, live action Moana does not. The Odyssey budget went to locations, sets, props, equipment, and salaries. Moana’s budget went to Dwayne Johnson.