The goal of /r/Movies is to provide an inclusive place for discussions and news about films with major releases. Submissions should be for the purpose of informing or initiating a discussion, not just to entertain readers. Read our extensive list of rules for more information on other types of posts like fan-art and self-promotion, or message the moderators if you have any questions.
Ridley Scott's 'All The Money In The World' Reshoots To Cost In Excess of $10 million
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
I wonder if it will make up for the money the film would have lost if Spacey wasn't removed.
Edit: 3 months later it only made $46 million on a $50 million budget. Hard to say
Spacey would kill this movie at the box office dead. I think the $10 million will be outweighed by the positive attention critics will give to reshooting Spacey's scenes. It makes Ridley Scott look better, too, for both doing the right thing and accomplishing a tremendous task under extreme time constraints. It's definitely the right thing to do.
I think what'll at least help a little bit here is that they would have been close to a locked cut of the movie.
Meaning that they'll know exactly what they need shot-for-shot for Spacey's replacements, almost down to the frame, so they won't really have to shoot more than they need for an edit (because essentially the edit has already happened).
They'll basically be able to trace over Spacey's scenes like a weird sort of 1:1 storyboard.
It will be super weird being Christopher Plummer right now, though, and I wonder how much room he will really have to put his stamp on the character/performance. Probably not a lot.
It would be fascinating to see both cuts, someday. I think the edit was locked until the re-casting, so a "Spacey cut" exists. I think the only limitation on Plummer is matching some of the footage already shot that can't be reshot. He will have to use the same costume, most of the same blocking, and not change a word of dialogue. But within those boundaries, it's a perfectly normal acting assignment, I would imagine.
Oh a Spacey cut definitely exists. Just saw a trailer in front of Killing of a Sacred Deer and it featured Kevin Spacey pretty heavily.
Is there another trailer? The only one I've seen barely shows him. Just flashes of him throughout the trailer, the reveal clip in the desert (likely to illicit surprise from the audience at the make-up quality), and the clip where he answers the reporter's question with "None" and then walks away.
Normally I'd agree with you, however I think the heavy use of prosthetics and aging makeup was already a mark against Spacey's chance of an expressive performance. I haven't heard if they are going to continue in that direction with Plummer, but I hope not. It was already gimmicky Oscar bait to begin with. Plummer is such an expressive actor that it's be a disservice to cover him up. Besides, the dudes old. No need to make him look older.
My understanding was the Scott wanted Plummer from the get-go. Having Plummer would have meant they probably wouldn't even have needed to use such extensive make up.
I can tell you one thing, they're not winning the best make up award anymore if that's what they were going for. Congrats to the make-up crew of Darkest Hour (the Winston Churchill movie) for winning your Oscar.
I think of the 10m as purely to market the movie.
this movie would've probably gone under the radar if not for the whole spacey thing. 10mil for a production like this is a drop in the bucket for all the free and positive press it's now generating. people are starting to talk about this movie now and will have it circled on their calendars.
Insurance probably covered the cost of the reshoots. Unfortunately the movie was a disappointment.
Comment deleted by user
I wouldn't. I wouldn't call him a great actor because his range is extremely limited. It isn't surprising at all that he's a creep given that he can only play creeps convincingly.
Comment deleted by user
A great actor has range. Spacey has none.
Comment deleted by user
Polanski hasn't got nearly the sort of attention Spacey has in media. I mean the Spacey scandal has been the biggest thing on the news for like a week.
Because Polanski committed a crime almost forty years before social media tuned everybody in to every single scandal. All the people who constantly bring up Polanski in these threads don't seem to be able to view things with any sort of historical context. Yeah, he's a rapist and should have went to prison; nobody knows about it because average Joes on the street don't know about filmmakers in general, and they damn sure don't know about a crime that happened twenty years before they were even born. Nobody is going to protest that.
Media is a fickle thing. Now he is already in the Background with Louis CK having the focus on him. Give it 6 months and a few more scandals and people wouldn't even remember.
That movie would be dead with Spacey same way after Birth of Nation after that story about director. Extremly positive buzz and promises to get big box-office and tons of awards were gone in a week.
The Polanski thing happened decades ago. Not that it makes it better, but it's not like the general public knows about it unless you're a film fan.
Everyone knows who Kevin Spacey is.
I'd be very surprised if the allegations against Polanski haven't hurt the box office for his films.
I'd say 90% of moviegoers don't even know about it.
Polanski's output for the last twenty or twenty-five years has been primarily films aimed at the arthouse and independent crowds; they were never going to have huge box-office runs to begin with.
Carnage - $27.6m
The Ghost Writer - $60.2m
Oliver Twist - $42.5m
The Pianist - $120m
The Ninth Gate - $58.4
A combined total of $308.7m in the last 18 years of his career, and almost every movie he makes is loaded with A-list actors. The only genuinely art-house film on his resume in the last twenty years was Venus in Fur.
Comment deleted by user
Polanski also was forgiven by his victim, not that it matters, what he did was still awful. I also think the 70’s was a different time in general, had Polanski scandal happened today, he would be crucified by all.
True. But maybe, just maybe, the fact that Polanski is a brilliant filmmaker had something to do with his career thriving in the wake of his scandal.
I mean, it's the right thing to do from a PR perspective? But is it really the right thing to do? Just strip Spacey's name from all advertising and put him at the bottom of the credits and be done with it. He's not recognizable in the film anyway.
It would have been interesting if they had let Spacey go uncredited, but this is the right thing to do - not just for PR, but for the movie. Plummer was Scott's first choice. Spacey was the studio's choice, and he required make-up that audiences find offputting. When the first images of the movie were released, the makeup was a major topic, and not in a positive way. Plummer is the right guy for the job, Spacey was not, and changing midstream will be good for PR.
They couldn't even do that if they wanted to, could they? Isn't it a SAG thing?
Good point. I was thinking of Ed Norton being uncredited in Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, also a supporting role. Maybe that wasn't an option. It's also a little late, since they've already begun advertising the movie as starring Spacey.
Probably the case. His contract likely has certain requests for publicity so if they still use it, they likely have to follow the contract. Tearing it up is easier.
Yeah, when i saw stills of Spacey in the makeup I was wondering why Ridley Scott had pulled the whole "put young-ish actor in old age makeup" again, since that was one of Prometheus's big criticisms.
Yeah, even very good makeup is a distraction. I think reshooting the movie is going to help in every conceivable way. Spacey may be a good actor, but Plummer is a great one, he doesn't need makeup, and he isn't an alleged sex offender.
Also, I think that as long as Plummer is at all good in his performance, the story behind his casting makes him a frontrunner for an Oscar nom at least (if not win), and that PR is good for the film as well.
It is the right thing to do. This film would be forever tainted even if Spacey unrecognizable and uncredited. Ridley is saving his work and work of many others in the long run.
Tainted to you, maybe, but not to me. I was in the process of rewatching House of Cards when all the allegations broke and the show wasn't really tainted in my mind. I would feel differently if I were watching a documentary about Kevin Spacey himself, but we're not - we're watching a fictional character on TV. I don't care who plays him.
I don't think the other actors want to be associated with it. Mark Wahlberg's image is pretty important, and he'd likely not want those scenes in the general public considering everything that's going on.
You really think so? I can't imagine that many people would have boycotted the movie.
Yea, I imagine the movie would get hit, but it wouldn't be as significant as people want to believe.
There aren't very many precedents for this, but if you look at movies like Heaven's Gate that are preceded by bad press, it colors the reaction of the critics and the public and kills the word of mouth, and a good movie has to wait decades until people can look at it clearly. This wouldn't flop as hard as Heaven's Gate, obviously, but bad press usually equals bad box office.
Agreed. I am very unhappy about the accusations but I still had every intent on seeing this movie when Spacey was going to be in it. Guess I'll be seeing it without him, and that's fine too.
Would Spacey get to keep the money he was paid to do his part?
I don't see why not. He may even be getting a percentage of the profits.
A contract's a contract. That's why you have insurance for this kind of stuff.
Plus they want it to be an awards contender. Spacey would kill the movie in that way too.
Don't bet on it.
A substantial portion of America really doesn't like being told they are misogynistic or racist or whatever else, even or especially when they are. This particular wave of scandals will really, really upset a small number of people, somewhat upset a reasonable number and wash off the backs of the vast majority. Hollywood will pretend to care for a bit and it'll be business as usual soon enough.
Maybe not the public, but it will taint how critics review the film, and how they review the performers and director, and the reviews will effect the box office. This is the kind of movie that needs strong reviews to succeed.
I agree that it would be DOA if Spacey was still in it, but I don't think the general public really cares about Scott doing the reshoots in such a short amount of time.
Don't get me wrong, it's extremely impressive, but the average person doesn't really know that
How is it, "the right thing to do"? Spacey already got paid so it isn't doing him any harm to be cut out.
Not many actors have been cut from movies and replaced by another actor after the movie was finished because of alleged sexual misconduct. It may even be the first time this has ever happened. Having this happen to him will absolutely harm his reputation. He's a leper in Hollywood and this movie might have been his last chance to appear in a major motion picture with Oscar potential. I imagine he is devastated.
I doubt his minor roll in this movie is really at the top of his list of concerns at this point.
Maybe not the top, but I'm sure Spacey cares and is disappointed.
I'm not sure it qualifies as a minor role when it'll cost the studio $10 million to reshoot his scenes....
I'm not sure exactly how it works but actors get also paid once the movie is released and starts making money (residuals.
By reshooting his scenes, Spacey got his paycheck but I imagine his name won't be in the credits and the residual checks will got to Plummer.
Residuals are payments for television work every time that gets broadcast. Usually not very much at all unless you're a castmember of Friends.
Movie actors may get a share of the profit. However, movies never, ever make any money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
If an actor is a powerful box office draw they may get a share of the box office takings (Fun Fact: Jack Nicholson made money from Batman Returns despite not even being in it)
This, undoubtedly, is the math that went into this decision.
Speaking of which, Baby Driver totally lucked out with its release timing.
Well, there's also publicity they might gain for this. I had never heard of this movie until now.
I can't imagine that many people would have boycotted the movie.
I'm sure some advertisers would have refused to promote the film. The added attention this is getting might create more interest when it comes out too
Comment deleted by user
The big difference here is this movie isn't out yet. Any project he's got a hand in that is in pre-production, shooting or in post is getting canned or shelved.
They're certainly not going to go back through his filmography and digitally remove him from everything but I would expect to see less of his films on television and cable. You probably won't catch K-Pax on FX any time soon.
Shouldn’t be a problem, they’ve got all the money in the world.
Have an upvote
have a kitkat
Gimme a break
Gimme a break
Break me off a piece of that fancy feast!
Football cream
FOOTBALL CREAM IT's FOOTBALL CREAM
Snap into a Slim Jim!
chance the rapper ?
We're both chance the rapper
Don’t mind if i do, thank you kind redditor.
They spent another 10m to get ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD. That ROI.
But according to the trailer, Kevin SPacey is the one who has to cough up the money.
That's why they buy insurance. They'll probably make money on this.
The publicity the film's getting for the recasting is far greater than whatever marketing could've generated for $10 million. Not a particularly bad decision financially, although I do hope we'll get to see Spacey's performance one day. 20th Century Fox thought it was Oscar-worthy.
Sony, not Fox. Weird to be seeing a Scott production with out that logo, eh?
Completely right, I tweaked. Very weird indeed, Fox has released 7 of his last 10 films.
Do you think the general public knows enough or even cares that he was replaced? I'm not so sure. I think replacing him will be a fairly quiet undertaking outside of big film fans. I do think though there'd be a huge 'outrage' if it were to come out with him in it though.
It's kind of a unique case. I think it's funny that most people who would be outraged over him starring in an upcoming film probably wouldn't see it anyway.
Just my two cents, I wasn't really following this movie until I heard about the allegations about Kevin Spacey's conduct. I saw the trailer after the rumors that he was probably going to be cut from the movie. I think now I'll probably be seeing the movie when it's released, just to see how it turned out after all of this and to form my own opinion.
It's a little bit of a shame though because I was very impressed by the original trailer and thought that Spacey looked fantastic in it. But Christopher Plummer is a great actor too and he'll probably help bring a little more gravitas to the character, from being an actual elderly man and his deeper well of acting experience.
Just an anecdote: my mother whp is a very casual moviegoer/netflix watcher told me about this. She never follows movie news normally. So yeah, I'd say a lot of people are hearing about this.
I mean my parents knew about it and they don't know dick all about movies. I think the general public knows.
True. As the director of marketing at a small, independent studio, let me tell you, we are constantly looking for ways to get free press.
Comment deleted by user
They were prepping an Oscar campaign for his performance ya jabroni.
I heard wal mart is also promoting managers from within!
I would have liked to see the version with Kevin Spacey. Can they really reshoot all those scenes within 10 days without sacrificing a great deal of quality? The article says they'll have to edit him into some existing scenes but I'm wondering how hamfisted that will feel.
Did you see Gladiator? Oliver Reed was dead in a couple of his scenes. (You know what I mean!) Ridley Scott knows the value of not going nuts with tech.
Spacey himself was reported to have worked about 8 to 10 days on the film
Comment deleted by user
It was literally shot this summer, from May to August. Source. So it’s unlikely that they’ve changed too much on the looks department.
Plummer is on board so he's good, and it's been confirmed that an inconvenient return for Wahlberg and Williams is in place
He mostly only has scenes with Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams and they both agreed to return for the reshoots.
Reshoots in that amount of time will be expensive but really not absurdly difficult. The most time consuming aspect will probably be locking in locations and permitting.
Also, editing people into scenes is not unusually or especially difficult. It happens all the time for various reasons. For instance, Patrick Stewart never set foot on the Smelting Plant exterior set in Deming, New Mexico for Logan.
Edit: Forgot to say what movie Patrick Stewart was in.
Am I a bad person for still wanting to see spacey act?
nope. think of it like an alcoholic. you can hate the disease without hating the man.
Admire the art, not the artist.
I'll probably still watch the work he's done already, but I wouldn't be okay with him getting work in the industry again any time soon.
He's still one of the most revered actors alive. Him being a pervert didn't change that. Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby are still great films.
That being said, I really doubt his cut will ever see the light of day.
Comment deleted by user
I've always found him to be a ham
Gonna have to disagree there
I can imagine the headlines being very creative if this film tanks at the BO.
How much money would they have had to spend if Kevin Spacey wasn't a creep?
They should put out a preview with a notice at the beginning “NOW WITH 0% SPACEY”
All the Money in the World, coming soon to a theater near you... Now with 100% less Kevin Spacey.
Kevin Spacey NOT coming to a theater near you.
I'm sure they have the money
I wonder if this is so necessary? I mean.. yeah, he was accused but is it worth to reshoot so much of a movie because of that?
I doubt that Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams would agree to promote the movie if they didn't.
The question is, who is actually going to see this movie now? I'm predicting a bomb.
Actually, the film might see a little increase due to this whole ordeal. I have a few friends interested in seeing how well integrated into the film the Getty scenes are. If Spacey was in it, people would avoid due to the pedophilia. Now it's possible newer viewers might attend just to see what all the hullabaloo was about.
Comment deleted by user
Oscar hype? Kevin Spacey was the frontrunner, now he's not in the movie. "For your consideration" moved to Wahlberg and Williams. I highly doubt either performance is all that spectacular and especially since Ridley hasn't exactly had a stellar decade thus far. I'm betting this movie will do less than LBJ.
Michelle Williams is being highly touted and is historically an actress in contention. But yeah probably just mailed it in.
The Martian was literally nominated for BEST PICTURE. Even if you don't like his work, it's still a critical success.
Sure, it got nominated. So did 9 other movies that year.
Just to be clear, you don't think getting nominated for best picture is impressive?
Way back, months ago, when I first saw the ads for it, I was interested in seeing it because Spacey was in it. Now that he's gone, I'm less interested.
I'm actually happy they're doing this. Before everything exploded, I was looking forward to seeing it, but we'll see if I'm the only one.
It's actually more interesting now because they're making this change with less than two months to go before the release.
I just want to point out while spacey's actions are disgusting it's quite sad that entire movies will be condemned just because of his involvement. Think about all the effort many others put into them just to have one person ruin it.
A trailer for this showed before my screening of Murder on the Orient Express. As soon as Spacey's name showed up, there was a very audible murmur of disapproval from nearly everyone present.
I think the money spent for reshoots is a good idea, considering how badly the movie would perform if Spacey were still attached.
This move is going to be worth the money, but my question is how are they going to market this movie with 6 weeks to go when they can't show 1 clip of the film's most interesting character in trailers?
Apparently the role was between Oldman and Spacey, made the wrong choice. Though they should have just hired an older actor in the first place than doing the whole old man makeup stuff
Plummer was Scott's first choice.
If I remember correctly, this is false information that gained traction when Plummer got announced. I will look into it to see if I am correct or not.
Maybe this might help: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/christopher-plummer-replace-kevin-spacey-all-money-world-1056450
So?
That's just a drop in the bucket for a big studio film
Its budget was $40m according to Variety so that's 25% more, not insignificant
Doesn't seem like a lot
And apperently Spacey only shot for 10 days - yikes
This is insane.
I'm going to wait until I could see the Spacey and Plummer cuts back to back.
I’m glad we don’t have to watch Spacey’s old man makeup for however many hours the film is. It looks so weird and distracting.
I want there to be a Kevin spacey director's cut version and a Christopher plummers version so we can contrast and compare.... too soon?
Good. Maybe they don't use the makeup now. I can never take actors in so much make-up seriously. It just makes it cringy instead of immersive.
I wonder if it would be a little unfair if Christopher Plummer ends up being nominated for best actor at the Oscars.
The studio must really think they have a slam dunk here. And awareness is very high plus its coming out during the christmas season. Bold move Cotton.
Spacey and Plummer are high profile actors. But Williams is one of the main reasons I want to see this. She's so good.
Watched Murder on Orient Express last night and trailer for ATMITW played beforehand. Now, I hadn't seen the trailer yet and when they kept hiding Spacey's face I thought it was a reshot trailer. Come to find out, the trailer is just shot to have this HUGE Spacey reveal at the end. They couldn't have written that kind of mess. Never heard silence so deafening as when the trailer ended. Why are they still showing this right now???
This seems hugely unnecessary.
Spacey is a good actor, no doubt about it. This movie is going to be remembered for recasting Kevin Spacey after sexual assault allegations. Even if it is good it'll always be remembered like that.
Too bad. With Kevin Spacey in the movie I was planning on watching it.
Same. Very little interest in seeing this now. Spacey was my only real draw to see this movie.
I have to wonder if the movie would have made a lot of money if they kept him in. People love a train-wreck . . .
I'd like to see some production photos of Plummer in action, but they may choose to hide it all until the release date.
But hopefully we get an updated trailer (with Plummer), as Sony will have to remind some ppl out there that this will be All The Money In The World 2.0, sans Spacey.
It's spending that or just get the movie shelved.
It will be interesting to see how they do it. Will they make Christopher Plummer looks like Kevin Spacey's character in the film or will he be more like himself. If they make him up like Spacey they may not need to re-shoot any over the shoulder shots or things from a distance. If they leave him as he is then they have to re-shoot every since shot he's in.
Is the bond completion firm paying for that? Cause they can be nasty.
Are they going to sue Spacey for it? Or withhold his pay?
Wtf, the movie's barely going to gross $10 million!
Pre-sales for foreign regions probably exceeded the total budget already. People thought that Gods of Egypt was a bomb, but they had pre-sold the movie enough that it only needed to make about $10 million to break even, and Gods of Egypt probably cost 2-3x what All the Money cost. They are going to be fine.
Your argument doesn't really make sense if you take it to it's logical conclusion.
The movie is going to bomb -> But they already pre-sold the movie, so it's fine -> Why are they spending millions to fix it then?
It will still help the box office, I just doubt the movie is in any danger of losing money. $10 million won't make that big of a difference. What they really want to do is make a good movie and win awards; the award buzz was good until the Spacey allegations. Also, Plummer was Scott's first pick, and Spacey is wrong for the role. He had to wear makeup that people find distracting (just read the comments on the trailer). So, this is the right move from every POV: box office, overall movie quality, and awards potential.
Get a judge to force Spacey to refund his paycheck.
I don't understand why we need to end Kevin Spacey's career over these. Jackie Chan is a much bigger douchbag and a womanizer, yet westerners doesn't give a shit about those scandal.
I was going to see this movie because I am an ardent supporter of the LGBTQR community, but replacing Spacey due to TOTALLY FAKE accusations with nobody hack actor Christopher Plum has lost my interest. No thanks!!!
Ya know, I'm not a fan of the whole /s thing happening nowadays. I think it makes posts feel a bit cheaper. In this case though, it probably would have been reassuring. But hey-fuck it... Have an upvote.
As another Reddit user commented:
So the studio execs made a business decision to remove Kevin Spacey from the movie to save it.
2/10, go back to /tv/
Sony are f**king stupid, I thought they have money problems...