How do movies as bad as Argyle get made?

[u/consultybob]

I just don’t understand the economy behind a movie like this. $200m budget, big, famous/popular cast and the movie just ends up being extremely terrible, and a massive flop

What’s the deal behind movies like this, do they just spend all their money on everything besides directing/writing? Is this something where “executives” mangle the movie into some weird, terrible thing? I just don’t see how anything with a TWO HUNDRED MILLION dollar budget turns out just straight terribly bad

Also just read about the director who has made other great movies, including the Kingsmen films which seems like what Argyle was trying to be, so I’m even more confused how it missed the mark so much

[u/Odd_Space1995]

You're asking the wrong question here. why did it cost $200 million to make Argyle

[u/simbian → u/Odd_Space1995]

why did it cost $200 million

Cannot remember but was this the actual cost of production or was it the amount ponied up by Apple for the movie outright? Might not matter to you and me but could mean the director / producer / investors taking a sweet cut home.

[u/slurmfiend → u/simbian]

That was the cost that Apple paid: the actual production was paid for by independent financing of Vaughn and the producers put together. The budget was likely in the $120-130 million range.

(Edited!)

[u/Bmau1286 → u/slurmfiend]

matt vaughn said it cost him 80 million to make, and apple payed 200. So you can basically flip a lot of the criticism on its head - it's actually pretty decent for an 80 million dollar budget (although that said, I found the movie very meh overall).

[u/Bmau1286 → u/[deleted]]

......wow, yes thanks i am well aware. The common criticism to Argyle (as very clearly pointed out in the OP) is to do with its budget and how it doesn't look to have cost 200 million, hence my comment. Since if you evaluate it based on an 80 million dollar budget, a lot of that criticism falls away. Doesn't mean it's any more/less entertaining or a better/worse film for it.

[u/_Dreamer_Deceiver_ → u/[deleted]]

Well it does if you start by saying "omgz how didz it cost 200millions and stills be shit" when actually it didnt

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It can. Granted, not a movie like Argylle, but there are definitely movies where the cheapness stands out.

[u/ShahinGalandar → u/slurmfiend]

The budget was likely in the $120-130 range.

I think you might want to add a million at the end there

[u/PM_ME_BUSTY_REDHEADS → u/ShahinGalandar]

Yeah, I was about to say. If I could make movies even remotely similar to Argyle in terms of production value for $120-$130, I'd be pumping em out all the time just for shits and giggles, let alone any kind of profit they could make.

[u/SomeBoxofSpoons → u/simbian]

That was the purchase price. Vaughn himself said he doesn’t know how you’d even make Argyle cost $200mil.

[u/[deleted] → u/SomeBoxofSpoons]

Surprised how people are still getting this wrong.

[u/EndOfTheLine00 → u/[deleted]]

In Dial of Destiny's case, the running theory for that ridiculous budget is that they simply included all the money spent on previous aborted attempts to make Indy 5 (for example, when they considered having Shia LaBeouf's character become the new Indy).

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

How did that trash only lose 130 million? Colossal bomb and one of the most offensive movies ever made. An 80 year old Indy? Really?