San Francisco...NOT

[Doctor Who?]

Ok if they didn't really go to San Francisco How did this movie cost six million dollars?

I mean it has about 8 actors in it and four sets,how can that cost $6 million?

[goflyblind]

they went through about five dozen editors. wiseau-ass can be suicide inducing in large quantities, you know.

[doggans]

Salaries, food, and film stock (despite ALSO having the HD camera) eat up a good chunk of any movie's budget.

[Doctor Who?]

But still $6 million?!

I mean really.  It doesn't look like it was shot with a state of the art camera and I mean come one $6 million for a movie that takes place on four sets and with a small cast?!  If the dollar is that worthless we are in trouble.

[Thrifty]

But still $6 million?!

I mean really.  It doesn't look like it was shot with a state of the art camera and I mean come one $6 million for a movie that takes place on four sets and with a small cast?!  If the dollar is that worthless we are in trouble.

Movies are pricey.  Still, I imagine a chunk of that 6 million went to the billboard that was on a prominent street in Los Angeles for several years.

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

But still $6 million?!

I'm starting to suspect it was for the rights to use the song "Happy Birthday to You".

[doggans]

It doesn't look like it was shot with a state of the art camera

It's not the camera that matters, it's the actual film stock. That stuff's expensive. And knowing Wiseau's ignorance, he probably threw a lot of money at whatever aspect of production he didn't understand. Rental of the studio probably also ate up a good chunk of the budget.

All that said, six million is still pretty cheap for a movie. I've seen worse-looking movies that cost a lot more money. (Not MUCH worse-looking, but still).

[Thrifty]

But still $6 million?!

I'm starting to suspect it was for the rights to use the song "Happy Birthday to You".

I have my doubts that Wiseau even knew it was still under copyright.

[MerryWanna]

But still $6 million?!

I'm starting to suspect it was for the rights to use the song "Happy Birthday to You".

I have my doubts that Wiseau even knew it was still under copyright.

Well I sure didn't.  Ye gods! That song gets used everywhere, though. 

[MerryWanna]

Ok if they didn't really go to San Francisco How did this movie cost six million dollars?

Wiseau: The Six Million Dollar Man Schlub

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

But still $6 million?!

I'm starting to suspect it was for the rights to use the song "Happy Birthday to You".

I have my doubts that Wiseau even knew it was still under copyright.

That's what I mean....add in the cost of the lawsuit settlement....

[Thrifty]

But still $6 million?!

I'm starting to suspect it was for the rights to use the song "Happy Birthday to You".

I have my doubts that Wiseau even knew it was still under copyright.

Well I sure didn't.  Ye gods! That song gets used everywhere, though. 

That's understandable.  You wouldn't expect a song like that to be under copyright.  I didn't know until I read it on Snopes a few years ago.

Obviously you're not going to be sued for singing Happy Birthday to someone in your home, or at a party at a public establishment.  You do run the risk of being sued if you put it in a movie or TV show without clearing the rights.

It's probably on TV/movie less than you think though.  Pay attention to birthday scenes, and you'll notice that quite often, directors will chose to compose and perform their own unlicensed knock-off instead of ponying up the licensing fees for Happy Birthday.  It's really not that hard to come up with an informal and generic birthday jingle.

[Thrifty]

But still $6 million?!

I'm starting to suspect it was for the rights to use the song "Happy Birthday to You".

I have my doubts that Wiseau even knew it was still under copyright.

That's what I mean....add in the cost of the lawsuit settlement....

I can just imagine the rights holders going to court.  They don't really care about the song being used without permission; they're just angry about it being besmirched by being featured in The Room.  Like Mike's riff... "Well, roses enjoyed a good 5,000 year run as symbols of love and beauty."

[Plastic Self-Cleaning Duck]

But still $6 million?!

I'm starting to suspect it was for the rights to use the song "Happy Birthday to You".

I have my doubts that Wiseau even knew it was still under copyright.

Well I sure didn't.  Ye gods! That song gets used everywhere, though. 

That's understandable.  You wouldn't expect a song like that to be under copyright.  I didn't know until I read it on Snopes a few years ago.

Obviously you're not going to be sued for singing Happy Birthday to someone in your home, or at a party at a public establishment.  You do run the risk of being sued if you put it in a movie or TV show without clearing the rights.

And this was another case of "It's been public domain for all these years but we just proved we have right to it somehow so now it's ours" like It's A Wonderful Life.

Meaning that anyone who used the song in a movie, etc before that date was safe.

[Darth Macho]

Here's some of the conclusions me and a few local (L.A.) friends came to regarding how Wiseau wasted money making The Room.

He went into Birns & Sawyer (a camera rental company) and purchased a 'Beginning Director's Package'. No such thing is advertised by Birns & Sawyer. So it's a good guess that the sales team took him for a ride. Part of the 'package' includes a high-end 35mm camera, an Arriflex BL, which probably cost about $85,000-$150,000. It's a sexy beast of a camera. Wiseau purchased everything instead of renting. In addition he rented studio space from Birns & Sawyer, most likely at inflated 'Beginning Director' prices.

According to IMDB and Wikipedia the shooting schedule was 8 months and involved a crew of 400. The Room would've taken no more than 1 month to complete with a responsible Producer and/or Director. I'm assuming he went through several versions of a cast/crew and reshot the whole thing at least three times (like Waterworld). There's probably two extra versions of The Room in his cutting room.

Rather than claim to be a film student and get free film from Kodak he probably walked in bragging about being a big-shot and demanded their best stock. And if we assume an 8:1 shooting ratio (and add more for special incompetence) it's likely than he used in excess of 100,000' of film. At about $1 a foot.

Film processing and color timing is expensive, about $150,000. And I'm sure he processed the footage with himself and Lisa #'s 1 & 2, Mark #1, etc.

He had original music composed for the film and produced a soundtrack CD to go along with the movie. That's gotta be pricey.

And the billboard. Advertising on a major Hollywood street for 5 years has got to run up a huge bill.

Of course now he's made that money back and is essentially living Ed Wood's dream but in the beginning he blew a lot of cash for no reason other than self-aggrandizement. He's like Howard Hughes gene-spliced with a bus-stop crackhead.