The Budget (merged)

[BT18]

In the misc films forum someone said the budget for Supes was going to be "way over 200 million". Is this true ? Maybe this could be the official budget thread or something.

[Morg]

I thought Harry Potter was in the 300 millions range?

[Michael Corleone]

Harry Potter was around 130 million dollars. I'm not sure if Returns is the most expensive, but it's certainly up there. I know Titanic was 200 million. All I've heard is 200 mill or more. Nothing concrete. It's certainly going to be ONE of the most expensive..but the most...who knows.

[Pickle-El]

If it's WB's most expensive movie as Singer or Dougherty I believe said, then it will be in the 200 Million range. However, being that they are filming in Sydney (where it's cheaper) I'd say it's closer to 180-190 Million. (which is a lot for filming in Australia. Not even the Matrix Movies cost as much to make)

[buggs0268]

Harry Potter was around 130 million dollars. I'm not sure if Returns is the most expensive, but it's certainly up there. I know Titanic was 200 million. All I've heard is 200 mill or more. Nothing concrete. It's certainly going to be ONE of the most expensive..but the most...who knows.I think Titanic got to 240 mill. That is why he had to go to Paramount for the extra money. That is why it is a 20th Century Fox and Paramount Production.

[Excel]

it was me and according to imdb and austrailian newspaper,its budget is "limitless". hell some guy said he asked singer how much it was and he said "it changes...it keeps getting bigger" i believe it went.

[gdw]

That wasn't Singer who said that, but it was someone on the production.

As for Titanic, it was $200 mill, the same as Spider-man II, both currently hold the highest, produced, film budget.

It is the Goblet of Fire, the most recent Harry Potter movie that is rumoured to be in excess of $300 million.

[Michael Corleone]

That wasn't Singer who said that, but it was someone on the production.

As for Titanic, it was $200 mill, the same as Spider-man II, both currently hold the highest, produced, film budget.

It is the Goblet of Fire, the most recent Harry Potter movie that is rumoured to be in excess of $300 million.


Not disputing your claim of Potter but 300 mill seems WAY to high. I can't honestly think of what would push the production that high. CGI while pricey wouldnt do it. Locations I suppose could but that would mean it shot all over the world. I have yet to read the book so I have no idea how detailed it is. Any thoughts? Just curious as to what could honestly push it to over 300.

[sf2]

it was me and according to imdb and austrailian newspaper,its budget is "limitless". hell some guy said he asked singer how much it was and he said "it changes...it keeps getting bigger" i believe it went.
i think Dougherty said so. one of the planet posters asked him the question.

[coast city]

the fact that it's going to be well over 3 hours could jack up the budget. as well, the kids can only work 4 hours a day. that means longer time on locations, studio, etc. don't know if that accounts for 300 mil, but it certainly elevates an already expensive movie.

[Gamma Ray]

I don't see why this should be such an expensive movie, but if every dollar they spend makes it better then I don't see why they shouldn't have a big budget.

[Mentok]

Potter wont be the most expensive film ever made... that was just marketing BS.

I believe adjusting for inflation CLEOPATRA is still the most expensive film ever made.

[sf2]

the fact that it's going to be well over 3 hours could jack up the budget. as well, the kids can only work 4 hours a day. that means longer time on locations, studio, etc. don't know if that accounts for 300 mil, but it certainly elevates an already expensive movie.
well over 3 hours??? where did you get that?

[Mentok]

Singer has only said "Its going to be as long as it has to be."

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

Singer has only said "Its going to be as long as it has to be."

now... that is very precise, wouldnt you say? :rolleyes:

[TheVileOne]

I dunno, a year ago I thought it was going to be War Of The Worlds, which I think was originally reported as well over $200 million. Or at least that's what the news reports were saying.

[Mr. Freeze]

No it was rumored to be , but the actualy facts pointed it out not to be as much as it sounded to be

But what do i care the movie still sucked

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

No it was rumored to be , but the actualy facts pointed it out not to be as much as it sounded to be

But what do i care the movie still sucked

War of the Worlds was disappointing... :( :down

[TheBat812]

War of the Worlds was disappointing... :( :down
fo sho... that movie blew..

[coast city]

well over 3 hours??? where did you get that?

I'm just assuming, considering the book is over 600 pages, and there's not much room for cutting. originally they were going to make 2 movies out of it, then there was talk of having an intermission. I'm not sure precisely how long it will be, but i think it's safe to assume at least 3 hours.

[BT18]

Potter wont be the most expensive film ever made... that was just marketing BS.

I believe adjusting for inflation CLEOPATRA is still the most expensive film ever made.

I believe adjusted it's Lawrence of Arabia but I'm not talking about adjustments for inflation.

[clark_kent89]

well over 3 hours??? where did you get that?
I heard somewhere that Singer said it was just over 2 hours

[Excel]

well,cleopatra-adjusted-is over 300 million.

[green]

The Potter rumors were just that rumors.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Goblet_of_Fire_(film)


Early internet rumours suggested that the film had an astronomical budget of well over $300 million, making it easily the most expensive movie of all time. However, this proved to be false, as the final budget is now estimated to be $130 million.

This isnt quite up to date but pretty close...
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html

[Ralph C]

so I guess it does have the highest budget ever. Why isn't that bigger news?

[Mr. Socko]

Superman Return's budget will be around 200 million, possibly more making it one of the higest budget films ever.

[Superchan]

To be honest, singer never said that superman returns cost over a quarter billion, he said that WB have spent more than a quarter billion on the franchise, which will include the 60+ million (LSOK estimated it at 68 million) they've spent on previous attempts and maybe the giant marketing that WB is planning for the movie. I still remember a report way back saying the budget was only 90 million, this is just to give you an idea of how inaccurate budget reports can be.

[Kevin Roegele]

To be honest, singer never said that superman returns cost over a quarter billion, he said that WB have spent more than a quarter billion on the franchise, which will include the 60+ million (LSOK estimated it at 68 million) they've spent on previous attempts and maybe the giant marketing that WB is planning for the movie. I still remember a report way back saying the budget was only 90 million, this is just to give you an idea of how inaccurate budget reports can be.

:up:

Spider-Man 2 cost $200m+, so it's sensible to assume Warner Bros would spend a similar ammount on their flagship superhero.

[Superchan]

oh and I should add one more thing, donner's original cost around 55 million dollars, which was astronomical back then, cos big movies in the 70s cost in the 15-25 million dollar range normally.

[Azrael24]

don't know where you folks are gettiing your info...the movie is around $250mil

[Showtime]

http://www.entertainment.news.com.au/story/0,10221,16673176-7485,00.html?from=rss
http://network.news.com.au/images/h14_dailytelegraph.gif (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/?from=ni_story)
By Michael Bodey

September 21, 2005
IT has taken steely resolve but finally Superman Returns is nearing the screen. But at what cost?

The revisioned Superman tale, filming at Sydney's Fox Studios, could well be the most expensive film of all time.


Variety reported its director Bryan Singer acknowledged its budget is approaching $326 million - that would top Titanic's $250 million and Waterworld's $225 million.

But the director of upcoming Harry Potter film Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire, Mike Newell, is now claiming the title.

"I think of myself as being really lucky," he said.

"I'm going to make the most expensive film ever. These things are not like ordinary films they are world events."

And the cost of the film, due here on December 1? Reportedly $305 million.

Special effects, not actors' salaries, are driving the ballooning budgets, although Superman Returns has years of development costs to sink as well.

At times during its 11 years of painful development, it looked as doomed as the planet Krypton.

At different moments along the tortuous path, the Warner Bros studio had Tim Burton, Wolfgang Petersen, Brett Ratner or Lost creator J.J. Abrams directing and Nicolas Cage as Superman. There was even thought of a "Superman v Batman" feature.

X-Men director Bryan Singer now has the reins of a film which he has promised will reference 1978's Superman: The Movie and 1980's Superman II and feature the late Marlon Brando in a return as Jor-El.


The film also stars Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and Blue Crush's Kate Bosworth as a jilted Lois Lane, who rejects Superman (Brandon Roth) after he returns to Earth after a five-year absence.

She even writes a column for The Daily Planet stating "The world doesn't need a saviour. And neither do I."

Hollywood is banking on Superman Returns to dominate cinemas mid-2006, along with The Da Vinci Code, X-Men 3 and the remake of The Poseidon Adventure.
It will be released here June 29.

Most expensive films ever
Superman Returns (2006) $326 million
HP and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $305m
Titanic (1997) $200m
Spiderman 2 (2004) $200m
Dinosaur (2000) $200m
Waterworld (1995) $175m
Wild Wild West (1999) $175m
Van Helsing (2004) 170m
Polar Express (2004) $170m
Terminator 3 (2003) $170m
Alexander (2005) $155m
Speed 2 (1997) $150m
Batman Begins (2005) $150m
Troy (2004) $150m
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) $150m
Armageddon (1998) $150m
Lethal Weapon 4 (1998) $140m

[Excel]

bs.

[Pickle-El]

I call BS too....otherwise, 75-100 Million of that total is from past projects that failed to be realized.

[FEAR THE KNIGHT]

http://www.entertainment.news.com.au/story/0,10221,16673176-7485,00.html?from=rss
http://network.news.com.au/images/h14_dailytelegraph.gif (http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/?from=ni_story)
By Michael Bodey

September 21, 2005
IT has taken steely resolve but finally Superman Returns is nearing the screen. But at what cost?

The revisioned Superman tale, filming at Sydney's Fox Studios, could well be the most expensive film of all time.


Variety reported its director Bryan Singer acknowledged its budget is approaching $326 million - that would top Titanic's $250 million and Waterworld's $225 million.

But the director of upcoming Harry Potter film Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire, Mike Newell, is now claiming the title.

"I think of myself as being really lucky," he said.

"I'm going to make the most expensive film ever. These things are not like ordinary films they are world events."

And the cost of the film, due here on December 1? Reportedly $305 million.

Special effects, not actors' salaries, are driving the ballooning budgets, although Superman Returns has years of development costs to sink as well.

At times during its 11 years of painful development, it looked as doomed as the planet Krypton.

At different moments along the tortuous path, the Warner Bros studio had Tim Burton, Wolfgang Petersen, Brett Ratner or Lost creator J.J. Abrams directing and Nicolas Cage as Superman. There was even thought of a "Superman v Batman" feature.

X-Men director Bryan Singer now has the reins of a film which he has promised will reference 1978's Superman: The Movie and 1980's Superman II and feature the late Marlon Brando in a return as Jor-El.


The film also stars Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and Blue Crush's Kate Bosworth as a jilted Lois Lane, who rejects Superman (Brandon Roth) after he returns to Earth after a five-year absence.

She even writes a column for The Daily Planet stating "The world doesn't need a saviour. And neither do I."

Hollywood is banking on Superman Returns to dominate cinemas mid-2006, along with The Da Vinci Code, X-Men 3 and the remake of The Poseidon Adventure.
It will be released here June 29.

Most expensive films ever
Superman Returns (2006) $326 million
HP and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $305m
Titanic (1997) $200m
Spiderman 2 (2004) $200m
Dinosaur (2000) $200m
Waterworld (1995) $175m
Wild Wild West (1999) $175m
Van Helsing (2004) 170m
Polar Express (2004) $170m
Terminator 3 (2003) $170m
Alexander (2005) $155m
Speed 2 (1997) $150m
Batman Begins (2005) $150m
Troy (2004) $150m
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) $150m
Armageddon (1998) $150m
Lethal Weapon 4 (1998) $140m

So in other words if this movie doesnt make TITANIC money it's going to be seen as the biggest mistake in WB history... Hope they enjoy throwing their money away because there is no chance that this movie will smell 326million at the us boxoffice...

[CConn]

There is no way in hell SR is costing $326 million.

None, zero, zilch.

[The Sage]

There is no way in hell SR is costing $326 million.

None, zero, zilch.

I even doubt it's costing 250 million to make. At least in American dollars.

[Excel]

the only way is

-70 million from old movies
+250 for returns
=320

[Pickle-El]

So in other words if this movie doesnt make TITANIC money it's going to be seen as the biggest mistake in WB history... Hope they enjoy throwing their money away because there is no chance that this movie will smell 326million at the us boxoffice...

:rolleyes:

As I said in another post to you...stop jumping to conclusions FEARTHEKNIGHT. That post you JUST made is EXACTLY why I called you out in that other thread....watch and learn son.

250,000,000.00 USD = 325,527,191.12 AUD
United States Dollars to Australia Dollars 1 USD = 1.30211 AUD

[CConn]

I even doubt it's costing 250 million to make. At least in American dollars.I do as well.

[Excel]

lol wow. it means 326 austrailian dollars or 250 million us. dollars. good call pickle

[sf2]

Variety reported its director Bryan Singer acknowledged its budget is approaching $326 million - that would top Titanic's $250 million and Waterworld's $225 million.
wow... just wow...

[BT18]

wow... just wow...

in AU dollars

[Man-E-Toys]

Singer quoted the budget being at $250 million and possibly rising in an interview at the san diego comic con. I'm sure someone can find the link.

[sf2]

in AU dollars

so Titanic isn't USD$250 million and Waterworld isn't USD$225 million???

[FEAR THE KNIGHT]

Funny because neither Waterworld or Titanic or most of the movies on the list for that matter were filmed in Australia... So why would they compare those budgets if SR is really $326million in Australia dollars, and $250 in US dollars?

Sorry Pickel your theory holds no water...Nowhere does it say on that link that its AU money... Try reading the whole thing next time before you rush to conclusion... :o


the only way is

-70 million from old movies
+250 for returns
=320

That actually makes sense... :up: :cool:

[Superchan]

I think 325 mill is redicules, not even Abrahams script would've cost that much, I just can't believe that they would spend that much on the movie. Also, we have no idea how much they've spend on the previous attempts, but all reports point to 50 million+.

[BT18]

I think 325 mill is redicules, not even Abrahams script would've cost that much, I just can't believe that they would spend that much on the movie. Also, we have no idea how much they've spend on the previous attempts, but all reports point to 50 million+.

IN AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS

Jesus Christ.

[BT18]

Funny because neither Waterworld or Titanic or most of the movies on the list for that matter were filmed in Australia... So why would they compare those budgets if SR is really $326million in Australia dollars, and $250 in US dollars?

Sorry Pickel your theory holds no water...Nowhere does it say on that link that its AU money... Try reading the whole thing next time before you rush to conclusion... :o

That actually makes sense... :up: :cool:

why would it matter where they were filmed if they're just comparing the most expensive movies of all time to it?

[FEAR THE KNIGHT]

why would it matter where they were filmed if they're just comparing the most expensive movies of all time to it?

If they were to compare the most expensive movies then they would have to put them in the same currency...

By the way who ever did the math on this is wrong... Because it's more like this.
250,000,000.00 USD = 324,036,016.11 AUD
United States Dollars = Australia Dollars
Check here http://www.xe.com/ if you doubt me.

This alone proves Pickel-el's theory wrong... By a million, and some change heh...

But lets say they were spending $324 aud dollars then they would still be spending $250million american dollars.
Hence that would actually be the production cost.

If the movie was $326million, and they compared it to those others then yes its $326million american dollars, and not AUD dollars.
If not they would put the right currency that was used for the movie.
It would look like this... $326M AUD But the AUD is nowhere in that website.
Since thats missing then it becomes clear that were talking about AMERICAN DOLLARS.. Get it?

Oh, and for the movie to brake even it would have to gross around $700million domestically... Another major problem since no movie ever has got to $700million.
And with the competition this movie has there is little chance this movie will see even a Quarter of that money.

[BT18]

The 250 million figure is not exact, it's the general area, used most likely because it's a nice, round, number.

[FEAR THE KNIGHT]

The 250 million figure is not exact, it's the general area, used most likely because it's a nice, round, number.

Yeah it's more like $326million lol

[The Sage]

Yeah it's more like $326million lol

I doubt that. I even doubt the 250 million. That's more than McG wanted for goodness sake.

[Antonello Blueberry]

According to Variety it's 250millions, but we'll know the official final figure (that's probably not the real one) in June.

[The Sage]

250,000,000.00 USD = 325,527,191.12 AUD
United States Dollars to Australia Dollars 1 USD = 1.30211 AUD


326,000,000.00 AUD Australia Dollars = 251,836,458.09 USD United States Dollars

[Alonsovich]

I doubt that. I even doubt the 250 million. That's more than McG wanted for goodness sake.

That figure could very well include the marketing costs...

[BT18]

250,000,000.00 USD = 325,527,191.12 AUD
United States Dollars to Australia Dollars 1 USD = 1.30211 AUD


326,000,000.00 AUD Australia Dollars = 251,836,458.09 USD United States Dollars

Yeah, I can't believe that people have such a difficult time with this notion.

[Showtime]

It's Australian money, not American. I should have written that when I posted but I thought most would get it since its an Australian article.

[dark_b]

the big question is: who cares how much did the movie cost.it is not our money. and if it makes only 100 mil..... so what?
if the movie is good i dont care what the other people think. and i dont care if it will become a blockbuster or if they get an oscar.

i dont understand this.

[scifiwolf]

Box Office Mojo has Titanic's budget listed at $200 mil, with the marketing at $40 mil. Add and round, and this is why people are saying $250 mil for Titanic. Given the scope of what we've seen from the Superman Returns production, I wouldn't be at all suprised if the budget is indeed around $250 mil. In all likelyhood, it's probably that, as some of you have stated, part of that figure (at least $60 mil of it) was spent over the last two decades trying to get another Superman movie in theaters. That would bring the budget down below $200 mil (USD), which seems reasonable if the AUD is of lower value than the USD.

[Antonello Blueberry]

the big question is: who cares how much did the movie cost.it is not our money. and if it makes only 100 mil..... so what?

So, you won't see another Superman movie for years in that case.

[dark_b]

So, you won't see another Superman movie for years in that case.we have two mega superman movies from reeve. and if i like singers than i have enough superman movies for my life.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

I'm willing to bet under 200 million..the fact that there isn't an origin story so you do not see Krypton explode and all that helps the budget..It must be below 200 million because warner bros turned away other directors because of there estimate of the budget, Also take into account they have a fairly unknown cast..apart from spacey bosworth..that would bring the budget down.the only expensive part of theis movie are the sets and effects.

[Metropolis_Man]

at least it isnt like in the billions. They forgot to mention that.

[Showtime]

I'm willing to bet under 200 million..the fact that there isn't an origin story so you do not see Krypton explode and all that helps the budget..It must be below 200 million because warner bros turned away other directors because of there estimate of the budget, Also take into account they have a fairly unknown cast..apart from spacey bosworth..that would bring the budget down.the only expensive part of theis movie are the sets and effects.

I am thinking about taking that bet.

[M.O.Steel]

I'm willing to bet under 200 million..the fact that there isn't an origin story so you do not see Krypton explode and all that helps the budget..It must be below 200 million because warner bros turned away other directors because of there estimate of the budget, Also take into account they have a fairly unknown cast..apart from spacey bosworth..that would bring the budget down.the only expensive part of theis movie are the sets and effects.

Just because it's not an origin sotry doesn't mean they're not gonna show krypton explding. Also, there's more images of krypton than any of the other movies.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but i would be really really surprised if the movie's budget is actually under 200 mil.

[terry78]

$250 mil? Even if that is the case, that better be gigantic space battles vs. giant cockroaches or something for that amount.

[Alonsovich]

$250 mil? Even if that is the case, that better be gigantic space battles vs. giant cockroaches or something for that amount.

Starship Troopers was made in 1997... :o :p

[Excel]

if wild wild west was 175 million, supes is def. 200 million

[terry78]

Giant mechanical spider vs. Supes, here we come. Strangely, seeing him take that thing would've actually been more fun.

[Alonsovich]

Giant mechanical spider vs. Supes, here we come. Strangely, seeing him take that thing would've actually been more fun.

I don't know... I think Supes stopping a giant kryptonite meteorite could be fun too...

[M.O.Steel]

I don't know... I think Supes stopping a giant kryptonite meteorite could be fun too...

Where is this coming from? Was there something i missed about superman saving a meteorite heading towards earth? Interesting.

Alon, did you notice there's some guy at the end of you avator that is dressed up like spiderman, but isn't actaully spiderman. Funny...

[M.O.Steel]

Giant mechanical spider vs. Supes, here we come. Strangely, seeing him take that thing would've actually been more fun.

Yeah, i don't see why people have a problem with this. That would serve up some good action if the spiders belonged to LEX. I hope something like that is in this movie, even if it's not actually spider, some sort of robot.

[Alonsovich]

Where is this coming from? Was there something i missed about superman saving a meteorite heading towards earth? Interesting.

Alon, did you notice there's some guy at the end of you avator that is dressed up like spiderman, but isn't actaully spiderman. Funny...

One of the reports of the supermanhomepage.com and the report of the filming on the 12 Apostles in Australia, turning them into giant kryptonite rocks on the ocean.

And yes... absolutely noticed. Why do you think Spidey doesn't have his suit underneath...?:D

[Chaos Bringer]

Oh, and for the movie to brake even it would have to gross around $700million domestically... Another major problem since no movie ever has got to $700million.
And with the competition this movie has there is little chance this movie will see even a Quarter of that money.

what movie out in this time frame makes you think that Superman has hard competiton? X3? nah, different audience. Poseidon - who cares !
Superman is really a universal character, much more than Spider-Man or Batman. So much so that on his 50th Birthday he made the cover of Time magazine.
Truth is - IF this movie gets a critical thumbs up it really DOES have the chance of making it large. Because it will do mighty in theatres and overseas that the momentum will be carried onto DVD and every uber geek will want the double disc special edition will Singer slime on serialed copies. count on it.
I don't think Routh has the look, I really think Spacey is a great actor but that's about all that sells me as watching him become Lex. Don't even get me started on Lois or that suit...but I'll be there day 1 - and so will you.

[Maze]

http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=15303 :eek:

[Maze]

sorry , just saw that there is already a thread on that subject

but $326 million!!damn..

Closed this please , mods, thanks.

[Guyverjay]

Hmm it will have to make buttload just break even Domestic

[Showtime]

326 Million Australian Dollars

[Bad Superman]

http://bartlettcommunications.com/images/stock/concepts/merge.jpg

MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERGE WITH

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199394&page=3

[Bad Superman]

Double post

[Billy Batson]

Can this get any better?
:eek:ver 300Million dollars!
:confused: DAMN!

[FEAR THE KNIGHT]

If this movie cost 326million american dollars then it would have to make close to 700million just to brake even.... Stick a fork in this one folks... It's done!

[musclesforsupes]

Yea this will be hard to make even if this is true.

[K-pax]

Not likely. It won't even have giant robots or any supervillains, so what could they spend all that money on besides sets and Spacey's fat paycheque.

[Bad Superman]

I hope that in 2012 anyone **cough**Sony**cough** but WB gets Superman.

[FEAR THE KNIGHT]

Yea this will be hard to make even if this is true.

no movie has ever made 700million domestically... Don't expect this one with the competition it has next year to even get a quarter of that.
The WB people have lost their collective minds allowing a budget like this lol.
Well it makes sense it is the WB they over pay for bad products all the time.. Look at the Harry Potter nonsense that they make into movies... I have never understood the fascination with HP, and I have seen the first two movies which by my taste are 2 of the worst movies ever made.
I like kid's movies as much as the next guy but those movies are lost on me...
Besides the books were rip off's from another childrens book called Larry Potter so I don't really appreciate plagiarism either...But anyway some how the Potter movies make money.

Unlike Wild Wild West which cost about 175million, and only brought in about 113million oh, and that garbage.
Those nice folks at the wb sure do like to open their wallets, and spend on bad movies.
Polar Express cost them 170million, and only brought in about 45million...
Troy also cost them 150million, and brought in about 130million so they lost money there also.
Seems like they over pay for most of their movies, and only a few have brought them back money in the last decade...
But all those budgets don't compare to 326million! Thats insane!
Heck anything over 200million is just down right insane imo...

[Backdrifter]

no movie has ever made 700million domestically... Don't expect this one with the competition it has next year to even get a quarter of that.
The WB people have lost their collective minds allowing a budget like this lol.
Well it makes sense it is the WB they over pay for bad products all the time.. Look at the Harry Potter nonsense that they make into movies... I have never understood the fascination with HP, and I have seen the first two movies which by my taste are 2 of the worst movies ever made.
I like kid's movies as much as the next guy but those movies are lost on me...
Besides the books were rip off's from another childrens book called Larry Potter so I don't really appreciate plagiarism either...But anyway some how the Potter movies make money.

Unlike Wild Wild West which cost about 175million, and only brought in about 113million oh, and that garbage.
Those nice folks at the wb sure do like to open their wallets, and spend on bad movies.
Polar Express cost them 170million, and only brought in about 45million...
Troy also cost them 150million, and brought in about 130million so they lost money there also.
Seems like they over pay for most of their movies, and only a few have brought them back money in the last decade...
But all those budgets don't compare to 326million! Thats insane!
Heck anything over 200million is just down right insane imo...

Pretty much, you're an ignorant bafoon. Did you even look into that Larry Potter thing or did you just hear that somewhere and now you pretend like you know what your talking about...because the author of Larry Potter lost her case because her book was NOTHING like Harry Potter...but it's not like you've actually read the books to make any kind of educated opinion or anything.

Oh, btw, most movies make a large portion of their profits in DVD sales. But whatever, you're the expert.

[MatchesMalone]

Ahem. Let's go over this again.



AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS.



They shoot movies in Australia because it is cheaper there. As in, the conversion rate from US to Australian currency is favorable, and they do not tax the living hell out of you like most American cities/states.

[Pickle-El]

This should be merged, but JESUS you people will start to harp on ANYTHING. This proves that some just want to use this as ANOTHER argument to say SR will fail. Once again for the little kiddies:

250,000,000.00 USD = 325,527,191.12 AUD

United States Dollars to Australia Dollars 1 USD = 1.30211 AUD

Singer acknowleged this at Comic Con...he said it keeps going up. But he also pretty much rounded off around 250.

This was an Australian paper, remember that folks. Shotty journalism, they couldn't even spell 'Routh' correctly.

[ultimatefan]

Ahem. Let's go over this again.



AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS.



They shoot movies in Australia because it is cheaper there. As in, the conversion rate from US to Australian currency is favorable, and they do not tax the living hell out of you like most American cities/states.
But still, the article compares the budget with the budgets of other expensive movies and these movies are listed with the American dollar budgets (Spider-Man 2 - 200m, BB - 150m and so on) and it STILL says SR is 326 millions.

Even if SR makes 700 m in the BO, which is not all that easy, they will depend on DVDs and associated business to make a significant profit. And the HP budget doesn´t sound too easy to compensate, either, especially when the series has been dropping on the BO. Hollywood is really going nuts.

[MatchesMalone]

The article is adding the over 100 million in the aborted productions of the previous attempts into that factor. It says so right in the article:

"Special effects, not actors' salaries, are driving the ballooning budgets, although Superman Returns has years of development costs to sink as well."

It also says VARIETY reported the budget as 326 million. Can anybody confirm that?

[Milkman95]

no movie has ever made 700million domestically... Don't expect this one with the competition it has next year to even get a quarter of that.
The WB people have lost their collective minds allowing a budget like this lol.
Well it makes sense it is the WB they over pay for bad products all the time.. Look at the Harry Potter nonsense that they make into movies... I have never understood the fascination with HP, and I have seen the first two movies which by my taste are 2 of the worst movies ever made.
I like kid's movies as much as the next guy but those movies are lost on me...
Besides the books were rip off's from another childrens book called Larry Potter so I don't really appreciate plagiarism either...But anyway some how the Potter movies make money.

Unlike Wild Wild West which cost about 175million, and only brought in about 113million oh, and that garbage.
Those nice folks at the wb sure do like to open their wallets, and spend on bad movies.
Polar Express cost them 170million, and only brought in about 45million...
Troy also cost them 150million, and brought in about 130million so they lost money there also.
Seems like they over pay for most of their movies, and only a few have brought them back money in the last decade...
But all those budgets don't compare to 326million! Thats insane!
Heck anything over 200million is just down right insane imo...

This has got to be one of the most UN-INFORMED posts I've ever read on these boards. Simply hilarious. Here's your lesson for the day:

Troy:

Budget - $175m
Worldwide Gross - $497.3m

Yeah, that movie tanked alright........what a joke. That's not even including DVD sales.

Polar Express:

Budget - $165m
Worldwide Gross - $283.1m

Again, does not include DVD sales.

The Harry Potter franchise is absolutely HUGE for WB. Here's another lesson for you:

Chamber of Secrets:

Budget - $100m
Worldwide Gross - A WHOPPING $876.6m

Don't make me list how much money the other HP films made. Please do some research before making a fool out of yourself again........

[Antonello Blueberry]

The article is adding the over 100 million in the aborted productions of the previous attempts into that factor. It says so right in the article:

"Special effects, not actors' salaries, are driving the ballooning budgets, although Superman Returns has years of development costs to sink as well."

It also says VARIETY reported the budget as 326 million. Can anybody confirm that?
Variety reported the budget as being 250 million American dollars.

[Showtime]

This should be merged, but JESUS you people will start to harp on ANYTHING. This proves that some just want to use this as ANOTHER argument to say SR will fail. Once again for the little kiddies:

250,000,000.00 USD = 325,527,191.12 AUD

United States Dollars to Australia Dollars 1 USD = 1.30211 AUD

Singer acknowleged this at Comic Con...he said it keeps going up. But he also pretty much rounded off around 250.

This was an Australian paper, remember that folks. Shotty journalism, they couldn't even spell 'Routh' correctly.

Thank you. I feel like I am talking to statues when I tell them Australian. I should have made it more clear when I posted the original article. I have caused a uprising.

[Milkman95]

Sorry Pickle, you're mistaken. The $326m includes all the aborted money spent over the years on salaries and pre-production costs. That $326m number is correct.

[ultimatefan]

The article is adding the over 100 million in the aborted productions of the previous attempts into that factor. It says so right in the article:

"Special effects, not actors' salaries, are driving the ballooning budgets, although Superman Returns has years of development costs to sink as well."

It also says VARIETY reported the budget as 326 million. Can anybody confirm that?
Well, it has to be acknowledged cuz the project had a damn bunch of false starts over the years, you had an actor cast at one point, production designs, costume tests and stuff. WB walked blind on this for a long time.

[Showtime]

Sorry Pickle, you're mistaken. The $326m includes all the aborted money spent over the years on salaries and pre-production costs. That $326m number is correct.?

I missed that? I thought it was Australian dollars as well?

[Antonello Blueberry]

Sorry Pickle, you're mistaken. The $326m includes all the aborted money spent over the years on salaries and pre-production costs. That $326m number is correct.
And where did you get this piece of information?

[MatchesMalone]

Variety reported the budget as being 250 million American dollars.

250million (production budget) + 76million (previous aborted projects) = 326 million.

[ultimatefan]

Variety reported the budget as being 250 million American dollars.
I guess that´s the budget of this production alone, without the false starts money accounted. Even so, that´s a damn lotta benjamins.

[Showtime]

250million (production budget) + 76million (previous aborted projects) = 326 million.

Right but that still means the budget is 250 million not 326 million. I thought it was Australian money. Good thing I am not a reporter.

[Milkman95]

The $326m dollar number is correct. Stop with this Australian dollar stuff. Read the article.

That huge number includes money spent over the last 11 years on Burton and Cage's $20m dollar salaries and pre-production costs with Burton, McG, Ratner, McG again, and now Singer.

[conan69]

"That $326m number is correct."

Yea they spent about 100M over the years in preproduction that went nowhere. Theyve been spending money on Superman Returns since the mid90s!

It was 100 M before Singer even got involved in the film.

[Showtime]

:confused: Budget is still 250 million though....so no Australian dollars.

[Milkman95]

^Exactly. Please read the article, that's where I got the info.................

[Milkman95]

And where did you get this piece of information?

Please read the article..........

[Pickle-El]

Sorry Pickle, you're mistaken. The $326m includes all the aborted money spent over the years on salaries and pre-production costs. That $326m number is correct.

I think the converted numbers I just posted is WAY too much of a coincidence, don't you? Of ALL the numbers we could come up with from 1-? It just so happens that when you convert 250 Million american, it comes out to 326 Million Austrailian (rounded off)?

I Just don't see it......

[Antonello Blueberry]

No, I think the 250million figures already counts the money they spent in the previous attempts. They're shooting in Australia (cheaper than USA), they have no big names, Spacey excluded, that were the biggest voice of expenses in "Batman begins", sure they're spending lots of money on sets and VisualFX and previz, but that doesn't justify that number...

[MatchesMalone]

The $326m dollar number is correct. Stop with this Australian dollar stuff. Read the article.

That huge number includes money spent over the last 11 years on Burton and Cage's $20m dollar salaries and pre-production costs with Burton, McG, Ratner, McG again, and now Singer.

The article irresponsibly factored that in, then. WB ate that money. False starts are factored into yearly fiscal plans, and when the money goes out with no product to offset cost, it is red-lined and accounted for in budget adjustments for the company as a whole. In other words, WB does not factor in those previous attempts and the money spent there. This article is creating some kind of hype about the budget for no reason, and inaccurately.

[Milkman95]

The article irresponsibly factored that in, then. WB ate that money. False starts are factored into yearly fiscal plans, and when the money goes out with no product to offset cost, it is red-lined and accounted for in budget adjustments for the company as a whole. In other words, WB does not factor in those previous attempts and the money spent there. This article is creating some kind of hype about the budget for no reason, and inaccurately.

That's exactly what's happening. I'm sure WB didn't officially report anything on the budget yet. I'm going by the article, and they're including all the past aborted production costs it seems.......

[Pickle-El]

200 million-dollar babies
As budgets soar and DVD levels off, film studios rethink fiscal blueprints

By CLAUDE BRODESSER, BEN FRITZ
advertisement



Related
Numbers don't lie -- or do they?


Film News Around This Date

More bucks for F/X bangs
9/4/05 6:00am

Can laffers travel?
9/4/05 6:00am

Bond in battle royale
9/4/05 6:00am

Cayla outlines Gallic mandate
9/4/05 6:00am

Russia revs up fall actioners
9/4/05 6:00am

New pix face bio hazard
9/4/05 6:00am

Summer winds down with 'Island' still tops
9/4/05 6:00am

Montreal gets taste of others
9/4/05 6:00am

Current news....


Film Jobs

Executive Assistant---TEMP, NY
MTV Networks

International Marketing Manager, Los Angeles, CA 90036
WPT Entertprises Inc.

FREELANCE Marketing Producer, mtv.com (2 SPOTS), NY
MTV Networks

More film jobs
powered byvarietycareers.com

BOX OFFICE TOP TEN
Sponsored by:
Weekend: Sep. 16 - 18, 2005
* in millions
1 Just Like Heaven
$16.4
2 The Exorcism of Emily Rose
$14.9
3 Lord of War
$9.4
4 The 40 Year Old Virgin
$6.0
5 Cry Wolf
$4.4

6 The Transporter 2
$4.0
7 The Constant Gardener
$3.6
8 Red Eye
$2.9
9 Wedding Crashers
$2.5
10 March of the Penguins
$2.5
view full chart view box office news
It took 90 years for the film business to cross the unthinkable threshold of the $100 million budget. It's taken only 10 years to reach the next watershed.

Director Bryan SingerBryan Singer acknowledges that the budget of "Superman Returns" is hovering near $250 million, though Warner Bros. execs are mum.

Other studios are working on mega-pics with budgets north of $150 million: Disney's back-to-back "Pirates of the Caribbean""Pirates of the Caribbean" sequels, Paramount's "Mission: Impossible 3," Sony's "Spider-Man 3," Universal's "King Kong" and two other pics from WB, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" and a remake of "The Poseidon Adventure."

Production budgets are hard to pinpoint (thanks, in part, to currency exchange rates and complex tax rebate deals), and the final costs are fiercely protected by the studios. The result is a "Rashomon" effect, as enormous budgets are spun differently by the studios and the press.

Most of the execs working on the above pics profess their budgets are just $150 million. But some say they're significantly higher.

All of these films can plausibly be justified in advance as sound investments.

But given the changing state of the ancillary market, does Hollywood's current fiscal strategy still make sense?

In computing breakeven, number crunchers assume that a tentpole's profitability won't come chiefly from theatrical box office: The all-purpose savior for films these days is DVD. But it's not clear if this economic model is still valid, since the DVD market for films is no longer displaying the explosive growth of the last few years.

Hollywood is beginning to wonder if there will be a breaking point -- and the question doesn't affect only tentpoles. As studios funnel funds into mega-pics, they have less coincoin for other movies, which frustrates filmmakers and squeezes mid-budget pics out of the pipeline.

That means more cartoons, spinoffs and remakes -- with more special effects -- and fewer serious-minded studio projects for adult auds.

In theory, a high pricetag for the right movie makes perfect sense.

Say a studio spends $200 million on a film and another $100 million for marketing. Assume the film grosses $400 million at the global box office (with half of that returned to the studio), $100 million net for homevideo and $100 million for worldwide TV.

Allowing for first-dollar gross participants -- virtually every $200 million film has at least one, with the director and maybe a star or two -- the studio is at breakeven.

The problem comes if the film doesn't hit those figures. Last year, eight pics grossed more than $400 million worldwide. This year, only four so far have reached that benchmark.

A few franchises justify such colossal budgets: The next "Spider-Man""Spider-Man" and "Harry Potter" will taptap into a vast pre-sold audience. But for other films, Hollywood may soon realize that $200 million doesn't make sense.

In the past, the budgets for a few films have crept up to astonishing levels. The pricetag of Fox and Paramount's "Titanic""Titanic" (1997) kept rising until it reached the neighborhood of $200 million.

The 1995 "Waterworld" was pegged at $175 million. Disney's "Dinosaur""Dinosaur" (2000) cost a bundle, but a lot of that was for research and development on technology for merging animated characters with live-action backgrounds.

"Titanic" hit a record $1.9 billion globally; "Waterworld" grossed $264 million worldwide; and "Dinosaur" grossed $356 million.

Though star salaries get plenty of media attention, they're not the real culprit in the rising costs. Many expensive pics, including "Superman" and "Potter," don't have a star with anything close to a $20 million payday. And below-the-line workers are earning what they did 20 years ago.

Many in the film bizbiz say that the cause is visual effects, whose results are eye-popping -- and budget-popping.

With a $150 million movie, one-third often goes to effects. Director Sam RaimiSam Raimi estimates that f/xf/x accounted for "at least 40% of the budget" on Sony's "Spider-Man" films. And some effects extravaganzas can take that figure higher.

The solution is careful preparation.

Jim GianopulosJim Gianopulos, co-chairman of Fox Films -- well known for its cost containment -- says, "In theory, effects should be cheaper these days. It's a growing field with a lot of emerging talent. The problem with overages is a lack of proper planning."

Most filmmakers have sufficient experience at lighting a scene or editing a sequence. But with effects, Gianopulos says, "The biggest challenge is getting a handle on something you can't see. If a scene in camera doesn't turn out the way they'd visualized it, they shoot it again. When you experiment with different choices in the world of effects, things get expensive very quickly."

Experts in the f/x community argue that filmmakers aren't making it easy to plan effectively.

But efficiency gains can't make up for rising demands for more and better effects, driving overall effects budgets to the point where they can approach $100 million.

"There's just so much that has to be spent on the R&D for the CG technology," explains Raimi. "It's like ('Spider-Man' visual effects supervisor) John Dykstra says: 'Never mind raising the bar; you can't even see where the bar is going to be in 2007 in order to wow people in the theaters.' "

The number of effects shots in the "Spider-Man" films bears this out: In the first pic, Raimi notes there were 470 effects shots. In the second there were 850. And the estimate for "Spider-Man 3"? More than 1,000. "King Kong" will have more than 1,200.

The market for CG-animated movies, which are essentially 80 straight minutes of special effects, is illustrative. Basic CGI pics, like Vanguard's "Valiant," which Disney released in August, can be made for $40 million.

But when a PixarPixar or DreamWorks wants to push the limit with something auds have never seen before, costs can shoot up over $120 million -- and that's for a movie with relatively low talent costs and no expenses like sets, location shoots or a union crew.

But the appetite among moviegoers for new CGI f/x appears insatiable. When it comes to investing money in new CG technologies, studio don't necessarily save money. They're merely meeting the higher standards of an increasingly jaded audience.

Even when a movie fails to connect, its special effects could raise expectations for all the studios. James CameronJames Cameron's "The Abyss" grossed just $54 million in U.S. theaters but introduced the industry to morphing, which later became a staple of sci-fi actioners.

"If we are going to compete with the Internet and videogames and everything else that is out there distracting people," explains the manager of one director, "then we damn well better give 'em something they've never seen before."

There is a certain irony here, given the rising costs and the worries over revenue streams.

The $200 million budget is becoming more common -- but if the next crop of $200 million pics don't pan out at the box office, such films could become an endangered species.


http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117928502?categoryid=13&cs=1&s=h&p=0

[Antonello Blueberry]

Please read the article..........
Already read it, and I have with me the issue of Variety of September 5-11. with Brandon in costume on the cover, that details the rising cost of movies, with Superman's budget of 250million as the new benchmark.

[conan69]

Nic Cage and Tim Burton both got paid millions for Superman even though they didnt do anything. They both had "play or pay" contracts(I think thats what theyre called).

I remember hearing the 100M figure back in the late 90s,when Coronas Coming Attractions was still operating after Burton walked away from the project.

[Milkman95]

I think the converted numbers I just posted is WAY too much of a coincidence, don't you? Of ALL the numbers we could come up with from 1-? It just so happens that when you convert 250 Million american, it comes out to 326 Million Austrailian (rounded off)?

I Just don't see it......

All the other films are listed in American dollars, so why should SR be any different? It doesn't matter where the film is being shot.

The article talks about all the aborted production plans, so they're including that number with the actual SR budget.......

[Gamma Ray]

Its still a huge budget/gamble.

[Showtime]

The article irresponsibly factored that in, then. WB ate that money. False starts are factored into yearly fiscal plans, and when the money goes out with no product to offset cost, it is red-lined and accounted for in budget adjustments for the company as a whole. In other words, WB does not factor in those previous attempts and the money spent there. This article is creating some kind of hype about the budget for no reason, and inaccurately.

Thank you. So whether or not it's Australian dollars the budget is 250million and this report is trying to embellish what is already a huge budget.

[Milkman95]

Its still a huge budget/gamble.

Not really. $326m budget including past productions means about $400m with advertising and marketing more than likely. Let's say it takes in $300m domestic, with another $200m overseas for a $500m worldwide take. Then add in merchandise and DVD sales, you're talking probably $650m on the low end..........not to mention the long term plans of sequels...........

[Milkman95]

Thank you. So whether or not it's Australian dollars the budget is 250million and this report is trying to embellish what is already a huge budget.

I'd say that's accurate. A $250m budget for the film itself then add in the $76m for past aborted pre-production costs, just like Matches said earlier.....

[Showtime]

All the other films are listed in American dollars, so why should SR be any different? It doesn't matter where the film is being shot.

The article talks about all the aborted production plans, so they're including that number with the actual SR budget.......

You're right...I had thought and written it was Australian Dollars. When I posted the article I didn't verify either way but later I had claimed it was Australian Dollars. I did read the article but completely missed the boat it seems. Now that I read it again I can see what you're saying.

[Bad Superman]

This should be merged, but JESUS you people will start to harp on ANYTHING. This proves that some just want to use this as ANOTHER argument to say SR will fail. Once again for the little kiddies:



WOW you are way too sensitive about this. The currency issue is a legitimate question. Take a Valium. :o

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

I really don't think the budget is that much...no matter how technical you get..warner would not put up that kind of cash whaen they wouldn't do it for other directors.

[Showtime]

I really don't think the budget is that much...no matter how technical you get..warner would not put up that kind of cash whaen they wouldn't do it for other directors.

What's the bet...I'm game..

[Milkman95]

The budget is $250m. Add in the aborted $76m for pre-production costs from the other projects Robo, and there you have it......

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

The budget is $250m. Add in the aborted $76m for pre-production costs from the other projects Robo, and there you have it......


show off.

:D

;)

[Showtime]

show off.

:D

;)

That's ShowTIME...oh you aren't talking to me.

[Milkman95]

show off.

:D

;)

Can't take credit for that - Matches figured it out........... :)

[Showtime]

Can't take credit for that - Matches figured it out........... :)

Ehh take credit...Matches won't mind...he's good like that.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

Can't take credit for that - Matches figured it out........... :)


then matches is a showoff.

;)

[Nightwing1977]

This has got to be one of the most UN-INFORMED posts I've ever read on these boards. Simply hilarious.

Don't make me list how much money the other HP films made. Please do some research before making a fool out of yourself again........

Not surprised FEAR said that. He keep saying it going to fail & becoming so anti-SR. What a surprise from him. :rolleyes:

[dark_b]

like i said it before.... i dont care how superman turns out at the BO.if the movie is good than its YEAH BABY.
i just think that 250 mil is way to much for a movie. people lets be real. the question is : what are they doing? are they shoting two versions of superman? a kid version and a porn version? enough of the jokes.
maybe the money was going into some researches for CGI ? are they building sets like in batman begins? are they filming some huge action scene?

[Milkman95]

Not surprised FEAR said that. He keep saying it going to fail & becoming so anti-SR. What a surprise from him. :rolleyes:

Well, he can have his opinion about SR, that's fine. But when you post something that's so WAY OFF like he did is unacceptable. It was quite entertaining though.........

I guess FEAR thinks money only counts in the United States and nowhere else........

[Michael Corleone]

The budget is $250m. Add in the aborted $76m for pre-production costs from the other projects Robo, and there you have it......


yeah you can add it to the budget for this film now but it's pointless. You are going to figure in budget and payouts of a film long since been forgoten but everyone except fanboys? Im sorry but that money has long since been made up for, made back, hell it's even went through the IRS..It really only should be put into that budget number for giggles because in the eyes of people at WB thats old money. So technically yes its part of the budget but when you get right down to it...they wrote that cash off a while ago. That's what a pay or play deal is....doesnt matter if they have to eat the cash they have to eat the cash.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

Well, he can have his opinion about SR, that's fine. But when you post something that's so WAY OFF like he did is unacceptable. It was quite entertaining though.........

I guess FEAR thinks money only counts in the United States and nowhere else........



How very small minded he must be.

[Bad Superman]

I wonder how much the videogame will cost? $85.99 a pop?? :D

[Michael Corleone]

The films budget is 250 million....you can add all the other money if you want but that wasnt for this film and Warner wont see it as the same film either.

[Milkman95]

^Let's hope so. All video games are junk and a waste of time............

[HUMAN]

The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions cost $200 million together. I'm anxious to see how Superman Returns uses it's $250 million. We must have some fantastic superfight or something coming.

[lujho]

Arg. The figure of $326 million, IS Australian dollars.

Whenever as Australian paper talks about a dollar amount without saying what country it is, they're talking about Australian dollars.

Now look at the article. The give the budgets of Titanic and Waterworld in AUD amounts, converted from the American amount. It's NOT in US dollars.

But look at the sidebar of the biggest budgets. For the same movies they just give the american amounts. They've erroneously mixed and matched Australian and US dollars without specifying the difference. Everything on that list after Superman Returns and HP:GOF looks like it was cut and pasted from some list without converting the values to AUD, whereas SR and HP:GOF were converted.

The figure of $76 million from previous development attempts added to the current $250 US is just pulled from thin air (or rather, whoever came up with that theory (matches?) simply found the difference between 250 and 326). That is NOT what is going on.

The $250 US presumably *includes* the previous money spent on development. The $326 is purely the $250 US converted. Pure and simple.

Poor show on the paper's part - they should have converted ALL values to AUD, or just left them as USD and specified the values as such.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/lujho/SupermanReturnsBudget.jpg

[MatchesMalone]

Arg. The figure of $326 million, IS Australian dollars.

Whenever as Australian paper talks about a dollar amount without saying what country it is, they're talking about Australian dollars.

Now look at the article. The give the budgets of Titanic and Waterworld in AUD amounts, converted from the American amount. It's NOT in US dollars.

But look at the sidebar of the biggest budgets. For the same movies they just give the american amounts. They've erroneously mixed and matched Australian and US dollars without specifying the difference. Everything on that list after Superman Returns and HP:GOF looks like it was cut and pasted from some list without converting the values to AUD, whereas SR and HP:GOF were converted.

The figure of $76 million from previous development attempts added to the current $250 US is just pulled from thin air (or rather, whoever came up with that theory (matches?) simply found the difference between 250 and 326). That is NOT what is going on.

The $250 US presumably *includes* the previous money spent on development. The $326 is purely the $250 US converted. Pure and simple.

Poor show on the paper's part - they should have converted ALL values to AUD, or just left them as USD and specified the values as such.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/lujho/SupermanReturnsBudget.jpg

I admit, I did pull the 76 million out of my behind. But it seems plausible that that amount was spent on past production attempts.

However, while interesting, your assertions about the conversions for Titanic and Waterworld are not consistent with US-AU conversion rates. So either the article is just full of errors, or something is drastically wrong with the table to the right.

[The Sage]

Arg. The figure of $326 million, IS Australian dollars.

Whenever as Australian paper talks about a dollar amount without saying what country it is, they're talking about Australian dollars.

Now look at the article. The give the budgets of Titanic and Waterworld in AUD amounts, converted from the American amount. It's NOT in US dollars.

But look at the sidebar of the biggest budgets. For the same movies they just give the american amounts. They've erroneously mixed and matched Australian and US dollars without specifying the difference. Everything on that list after Superman Returns and HP:GOF looks like it was cut and pasted from some list without converting the values to AUD, whereas SR and HP:GOF were converted.

The figure of $76 million from previous development attempts added to the current $250 US is just pulled from thin air (or rather, whoever came up with that theory (matches?) simply found the difference between 250 and 326). That is NOT what is going on.

The $250 US presumably *includes* the previous money spent on development. The $326 is purely the $250 US converted. Pure and simple.

Poor show on the paper's part - they should have converted ALL values to AUD, or just left them as USD and specified the values as such.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/lujho/SupermanReturnsBudget.jpg

Thank you. :up:

[lujho]

However, while interesting, your assertions about the conversions for Titanic and Waterworld are not consistent with US-AU conversion rates. So either the article is just full of errors, or something is drastically wrong with the table to the right.

True, the amounts don't quite match up and I didn't even bother checking to see that they did because they seemed roughly right, but having now checked them with a currency converter, they're roughly in the ballpark (for a lazy journalist anyway - but the Waterworld budget is pretty close to the current conversion rate). And it also depends on when the conversion was done - maybe the amount for Titanic was pulled from an old article.

It's silly to give budgets of US films as converted Australian amounts anyway, because the exchange rate changes too much - the number would be meaningless or misleading in a few months or years.

A few years ago, our dollar was at the lowest I've even seen it, around 50 cents US. So if this article had been written then it'd be reporting that Superman Returns has a budget of $500 million.

There is no doubt, there's some bad reporting going on in the article with regards to currency - it makes SR and HP:GOF look much more expensive than the other films than the really are.

[Bad Superman]

http://www.halloweenuniverse.com/media/Copy_of_FW8500_SPLITTING_HEADACHE_.jpg

What a splitting headache

[lujho]

http://www.halloweenuniverse.com/media/Copy_of_FW8500_SPLITTING_HEADACHE_.jpg

What a splitting headache

It might be a tumour.

[blades_shades]

It's NOT Austrailian #'s since all the budgets on that list match with the US #'s.

[MatchesMalone]

It might be a tumour.

http://homepage.smc.edu/balm_simon/IMAGES/astro%201b/MARS/total_recall.jpg

It's NOT A TUMOUR!!!

[lujho]

It's NOT Austrailian #'s since all the budgets on that list match with the US #'s.

ARGH!! I just explained that the article mixed US with Australian amounts willy nilly, it uses US for the list (except for the first 2 spots) and Aus. in the article. Otherwise how could the budget for Titanic be both $200 mil. US AND $250 mil. US? How can Waterworld be $175 mil US AND $225 mil. US?

Look at the bloody image I posted.

[Bad Superman]

It might be a tumour.

http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/photos/Darkman0.jpg

Just got checked. Doctor says I'm fine.

[Michael Corleone]

Arg. The figure of $326 million, IS Australian dollars.

Whenever as Australian paper talks about a dollar amount without saying what country it is, they're talking about Australian dollars.

Now look at the article. The give the budgets of Titanic and Waterworld in AUD amounts, converted from the American amount. It's NOT in US dollars.

But look at the sidebar of the biggest budgets. For the same movies they just give the american amounts. They've erroneously mixed and matched Australian and US dollars without specifying the difference. Everything on that list after Superman Returns and HP:GOF looks like it was cut and pasted from some list without converting the values to AUD, whereas SR and HP:GOF were converted.

The figure of $76 million from previous development attempts added to the current $250 US is just pulled from thin air (or rather, whoever came up with that theory (matches?) simply found the difference between 250 and 326). That is NOT what is going on.

The $250 US presumably *includes* the previous money spent on development. The $326 is purely the $250 US converted. Pure and simple.

Poor show on the paper's part - they should have converted ALL values to AUD, or just left them as USD and specified the values as such.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/lujho/SupermanReturnsBudget.jpg


This thing has all kinds of number wrong. 305 for Harry Potter? Where the hell did they get that number? Everything I've read and even searched for says GOF has a budget of 130 million. Thats 170 million AUD. As for Superman...250 Million is exactly 327 million AUD. It's in Austrailian dollars. But Im still confused as to where they got the 305 for Harry Potter.

[FEAR THE KNIGHT]

Pretty much, you're an ignorant bafoon. Did you even look into that Larry Potter thing or did you just hear that somewhere and now you pretend like you know what your talking about...because the author of Larry Potter lost her case because her book was NOTHING like Harry Potter...but it's not like you've actually read the books to make any kind of educated opinion or anything.

Oh, btw, most movies make a large portion of their profits in DVD sales. But whatever, you're the expert.

You call me an ignorant bafoon but it seems that your the one who doesn't know a thing about what your talking about.
Yes the courts ruled against her case but guess what her books were published first, and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Harry Potter books are a rip off from the Larry Potter books when you compare the two.
Now if you really want to do that here... READ THIS!
Comparison of books and characters

The Muggles in Stouffer's book are different from those in Rowling's. What was allegedly infringed was the term—not characters or story ideas—although Stouffer's book has on its front cover a castle in the mountains by a lake (the same setting as Hogwarts (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=7bl2ilq5q6fjd?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Hogwarts&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc04b) school).

Harry Potter's mother is Lily, similar to Larry Potter's friend Lilly. Harry Potter's first name rhymes with Larry, and the last names are identical. Harry and Larry both wear glasses and have black hair. Larry's hair is wavy; Harry's is "unruly". Larry Potter does not appear in The Legend of Rah and the Muggles—he is a character in a series of activity books created by Stouffer and reprinted recently. There is confusion about whether Larry actually had a last name in the original activity books, which are now impossible to find.

The names Nevils and Nimbus also appear in Stouffer's books. ("Nimbus" does not appear in The Legend of Rah and the Muggles but in an unpublished book by Stouffer.) In Rowling's books, there is a character named Neville Longbottom (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=7bl2ilq5q6fjd?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Neville+Longbottom&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc04b), and a brand of flying broomstick is Nimbus 2000 (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=7bl2ilq5q6fjd?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Nimbus+2000&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc04b).

As you can tell both are pretty much the same thing with slight changes.
This is a case of the little guy trying to take on the bigger guy who stole from them.
You really think that the little guy who has not even a 10% of the amount of money as the big guy is going to win?
GIVE ME A BRAKE! The courts in this country is not set up to help the little guy but to help the rich.
Notice how any celeb who kills someone gets off but if you or I were to kill our spouse like OJ we would be in the chair a week later.
Don't be silly, and don't be ignorant kid just grow the hell up, and before you attack someone try doing your homework.

Here compare the two books for yourself...

http://www.realmuggles.com/news/compare.html

Anyway im done with you....

[FEAR THE KNIGHT]

Ahem. Let's go over this again.



AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS.



They shoot movies in Australia because it is cheaper there. As in, the conversion rate from US to Australian currency is favorable, and they do not tax the living hell out of you like most American cities/states.

DUDE you dont seem to understand its AMERICAN DOLLARS!
Just because its from a website thats ran in astralia does not make it astralian dollars.
They would have to then compare everyone of those movies in their currency.
They compared the movie to other big budget movies which were all in american dollars... IT WOULDNT MAKE SENSE TO DO THAT IF SR WAS NOT IN AMERICAN DOLLARS!
GET IT?

[Excel]

i dont know what to believe other then superman is going be easily the most expensive film ever made.

[Excel]

ya know what....w.b. is the most successful studio in the last five years. im sure they can easily afford to spend 400 million this project.

[FEAR THE KNIGHT]

This has got to be one of the most UN-INFORMED posts I've ever read on these boards. Simply hilarious. Here's your lesson for the day:

Troy:

Budget - $175m
Worldwide Gross - $497.3m

Yeah, that movie tanked alright........what a joke. That's not even including DVD sales.

Polar Express:

Budget - $165m
Worldwide Gross - $283.1m

Again, does not include DVD sales.

The Harry Potter franchise is absolutely HUGE for WB. Here's another lesson for you:

Chamber of Secrets:

Budget - $100m
Worldwide Gross - A WHOPPING $876.6m

Don't make me list how much money the other HP films made. Please do some research before making a fool out of yourself again........

Can you please take some reading lessons!?
I never said the potter movies were not a big hit for the WB I said they were ALL BAD MOVIES!!
Then I spoke about how they were plagiarizing another book that had very similar characters like one called LARRY POTTER!
The movies are bad movies...The fact that they make money is not in question!

AS for those movies, TROY & Polar Express yes they eventually made there money WORLD WIDE back but in the US domestically they didn't do very well.
They didn't bring back there budget.

Oh, and incase you didn't know this SUPERHERO movies don't do well outside of the US.
This is another problem for the movie... Which again is why I was speaking about domestic numbers, and not World Wide numbers...

So why don't you put a lid on it already man!


250million (production budget) + 76million (previous aborted projects) = 326 million.

Yea that's pretty much what I was thinking also... There is no way they could actually spend 326million on a movie with 1 well known actor, and a bunch of no names...
I mean the clips we have seen so far have not shown any real reason for the cost to be so high..
Your post makes the most sense on here...

[y2jversion1]

From: http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199978&page=2

Arg. The figure of $326 million, IS Australian dollars.

Whenever as Australian paper talks about a dollar amount without saying what country it is, they're talking about Australian dollars.

Now look at the article. The give the budgets of Titanic and Waterworld in AUD amounts, converted from the American amount. It's NOT in US dollars.

But look at the sidebar of the biggest budgets. For the same movies they just give the american amounts. They've erroneously mixed and matched Australian and US dollars without specifying the difference. Everything on that list after Superman Returns and HP:GOF looks like it was cut and pasted from some list without converting the values to AUD, whereas SR and HP:GOF were converted.

The figure of $76 million from previous development attempts added to the current $250 US is just pulled from thin air (or rather, whoever came up with that theory (matches?) simply found the difference between 250 and 326). That is NOT what is going on.

The $250 US presumably *includes* the previous money spent on development. The $326 is purely the $250 US converted. Pure and simple.

Poor show on the paper's part - they should have converted ALL values to AUD, or just left them as USD and specified the values as such.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/lujho/SupermanReturnsBudget.jpg

I admit, I did pull the 76 million out of my behind. But it seems plausible that that amount was spent on past production attempts.

However, while interesting, your assertions about the conversions for Titanic and Waterworld are not consistent with US-AU conversion rates. So either the article is just full of errors, or something is drastically wrong with the table to the right.

[MatchesMalone]

Hehehehehe

[lujho]

This thing has all kinds of number wrong. 305 for Harry Potter? Where the hell did they get that number? Everything I've read and even searched for says GOF has a budget of 130 million. Thats 170 million AUD.... But Im still confused as to where they got the 305 for Harry Potter.

Perhaps there are rumours going around that the Potter budget is actually closer to $230 US (around $300 AU)? I don't know if that's the case, but it's what I inferred - budgets are very often under-reported, there might be a big difference between the "official" cost of HP:GOF and the real cost.

[Evelisse]

lol, did they build the Fortress Of Solitude out of real crystals?

[dark_b]

i think that budget for the movie was 180 mil.......... the other money was spend because singer has become very fancy :)

[JamalYIgle]

sorry , just saw that there is already a thread on that subject

but $326 million!!damn..

Closed this please , mods, thanks.

Currency Conversion Results
Symbol Australian Dollar Exchange
Rate
AUDUSD=X 326,000,000 Sep 22 0.7626 USD-X 248,623,787.6278 0.7626 0.7629
Add to Portfolio Set Alert Download Data
That should end all this so called controversey.

[ultimatefan]

You call me an ignorant bafoon but it seems that your the one who doesn't know a thing about what your talking about.
Yes the courts ruled against her case but guess what her books were published first, and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Harry Potter books are a rip off from the Larry Potter books when you compare the two.
Now if you really want to do that here... READ THIS!
Comparison of books and characters

The Muggles in Stouffer's book are different from those in Rowling's. What was allegedly infringed was the term—not characters or story ideas—although Stouffer's book has on its front cover a castle in the mountains by a lake (the same setting as Hogwarts (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=7bl2ilq5q6fjd?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Hogwarts&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc04b) school).

Harry Potter's mother is Lily, similar to Larry Potter's friend Lilly. Harry Potter's first name rhymes with Larry, and the last names are identical. Harry and Larry both wear glasses and have black hair. Larry's hair is wavy; Harry's is "unruly". Larry Potter does not appear in The Legend of Rah and the Muggles—he is a character in a series of activity books created by Stouffer and reprinted recently. There is confusion about whether Larry actually had a last name in the original activity books, which are now impossible to find.

The names Nevils and Nimbus also appear in Stouffer's books. ("Nimbus" does not appear in The Legend of Rah and the Muggles but in an unpublished book by Stouffer.) In Rowling's books, there is a character named Neville Longbottom (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=7bl2ilq5q6fjd?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Neville+Longbottom&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc04b), and a brand of flying broomstick is Nimbus 2000 (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=7bl2ilq5q6fjd?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Nimbus+2000&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc04b).

As you can tell both are pretty much the same thing with slight changes.
This is a case of the little guy trying to take on the bigger guy who stole from them.
You really think that the little guy who has not even a 10% of the amount of money as the big guy is going to win?
GIVE ME A BRAKE! The courts in this country is not set up to help the little guy but to help the rich.
Notice how any celeb who kills someone gets off but if you or I were to kill our spouse like OJ we would be in the chair a week later.
Don't be silly, and don't be ignorant kid just grow the hell up, and before you attack someone try doing your homework.

Here compare the two books for yourself...

http://www.realmuggles.com/news/compare.html

Anyway im done with you....

The comparisons are way too superficial to call rip-off. A lot of these elements are common to a number of fantasy stories.

On the topic... anyway, 250 m is still a damn buncha money, and we´re not even counting marketing costs... Even if this makes 700 m, it´s gonna need the DVDs and merchandise to make a good profit.

[MatchesMalone]

The comparisons are way too superficial to call rip-off. A lot of these elements are common to a number of fantasy stories.

On the topic... anyway, 250 m is still a damn buncha money, and we´re not even counting marketing costs... Even if this makes 700 m, it´s gonna need the DVDs and merchandise to make a good profit.

Let's say marketing is 100mill. That's 350mill right there. If this movie makes 700mill, that's 350mill pure profit. Quite a success.

[Milkman95]

Let's say marketing is 100mill. That's 350mill right there. If this movie makes 700mill, that's 350mill pure profit. Quite a success.

That it is. It doesn't need anywhere NEAR $700m to turn a good profit......not when you're adding in DVD sales and merchandise into the mix. I'm thinking $500m worldwide would be sufficient for theatres, then add in DVD's and merchandising and we're up to at least $650m.....

[MatchesMalone]

That it is. It doesn't need anywhere NEAR $700m to turn a good profit......not when you're adding in DVD sales and merchandise into the mix. I'm thinking $500m worldwide would be sufficient for theatres, then add in DVD's and merchandising and we're up to at least $650m.....

I agree.

[ultimatefan]

Let's say marketing is 100mill. That's 350mill right there. If this movie makes 700mill, that's 350mill pure profit. Quite a success.

It´s not pure profit because the studio takes about 55% of the gross, the rest is exhibitors´ share. So it does need the DVDs, merchandise, etc.

[Retroman]

326 Million with no supervillains? Yeah right!

[FEAR THE KNIGHT]

326 Million with no supervillains? Yeah right!

Isn't Brainiac rumored to be in the movie?
Maybe most of the 326million is going for the fx surrounding that character, and his fight scenes with Superman.

[Retroman]

Isn't Brainiac rumored to be in the movie?
Maybe most of the 326million is going for the fx surrounding that character, and his fight scenes with Superman.
Last i heard Luthor was the only villain....

[Michael Corleone]

Oh my god people...I guess no one reads anything that is actually posted. This movie costs 250 million (American). Adjust that to Austrailian dollars and it comes out to 327 million. The movie's budget was said to be 250 million months ago and it still is 250 million. Nothing has changed. Damn one Austrailian report quotes it in Austrailian dollars and it confuses the hell out of people. There really isnt anything new being said here people.

[Backdrifter]

You call me an ignorant bafoon but it seems that your the one who doesn't know a thing about what your talking about.
Yes the courts ruled against her case but guess what her books were published first, and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Harry Potter books are a rip off from the Larry Potter books when you compare the two.
Now if you really want to do that here... READ THIS!
Comparison of books and characters

The Muggles in Stouffer's book are different from those in Rowling's. What was allegedly infringed was the term—not characters or story ideas—although Stouffer's book has on its front cover a castle in the mountains by a lake (the same setting as Hogwarts (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=7bl2ilq5q6fjd?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Hogwarts&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc04b) school).

Harry Potter's mother is Lily, similar to Larry Potter's friend Lilly. Harry Potter's first name rhymes with Larry, and the last names are identical. Harry and Larry both wear glasses and have black hair. Larry's hair is wavy; Harry's is "unruly". Larry Potter does not appear in The Legend of Rah and the Muggles—he is a character in a series of activity books created by Stouffer and reprinted recently. There is confusion about whether Larry actually had a last name in the original activity books, which are now impossible to find.

The names Nevils and Nimbus also appear in Stouffer's books. ("Nimbus" does not appear in The Legend of Rah and the Muggles but in an unpublished book by Stouffer.) In Rowling's books, there is a character named Neville Longbottom (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=7bl2ilq5q6fjd?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Neville+Longbottom&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc04b), and a brand of flying broomstick is Nimbus 2000 (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=7bl2ilq5q6fjd?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Nimbus+2000&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc04b).

As you can tell both are pretty much the same thing with slight changes.
This is a case of the little guy trying to take on the bigger guy who stole from them.
You really think that the little guy who has not even a 10% of the amount of money as the big guy is going to win?
GIVE ME A BRAKE! The courts in this country is not set up to help the little guy but to help the rich.
Notice how any celeb who kills someone gets off but if you or I were to kill our spouse like OJ we would be in the chair a week later.
Don't be silly, and don't be ignorant kid just grow the hell up, and before you attack someone try doing your homework.

Here compare the two books for yourself...

http://www.realmuggles.com/news/compare.html

Anyway im done with you....

yes I am aware of all of this. However it is not plagarism. And yes you are still ignorant. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.

[Nightwing1977]

That it is. It doesn't need anywhere NEAR $700m to turn a good profit......not when you're adding in DVD sales and merchandise into the mix. I'm thinking $500m worldwide would be sufficient for theatres, then add in DVD's and merchandising and we're up to at least $650m.....

So true. It don't need to get it money back from only just box office. Anything that has to do with SR related stuff like DVD, video games, clothing, etc. count. I'm sure SR will make enough profit to be a success & give WB their money back from the money of making the movie.

[Superchan]

thats some shabby journalism! its as if they mixed and matched things to make their point... :down
In any case, superman will possibly be the most expensive movie of today, especially when considering the 50 million + (according to singer himself) they wasted on previous attempts. But superman will easily make it back and then some.......so I think WB are making a good investment

[CGHulk]

I read in an interview somewhere that by fiming the film in Australia, WB would save 30 million only, so the budget is Visual Efects and overlay costs from Burton's film, McG's and Ratner's!

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:BBqLbbboL-UJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9189573/site/newsweek/+steely-man+newsweek+%2430-million&hl=en Right here highlighted in pink!

[Nightwing1977]

http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/photos/Darkman0.jpg

Just got checked. Doctor says I'm fine.

Now that a face that would only make a mother scream. :eek: :eek:

[TheBat812]

the 250 mill includes the money spent on the other productions, i think. It was then converted to australian dollars.

[sf2]

what's the big deal??? why can't SR have a budget of USD326,000,000?

[CConn]

what's the big deal??? why can't SR have a budget of USD326,000,000?1). A budget of $326 million would give SR absolutely no room for error at the box office. It would have to be the biggest movie of the year. It would have to make Spider-Man numbers. And that's just for WB to break even. Which brings me to...

2). With a $326 million dollar budget, WB would need, at least, a $326 million box office return in the US to warrent a SR sequel. While that's not unlikely, it is very possible SR will not make those types of numbers, and thusly, we fans will be left with a single, very expensive, Superman movie. No sequel, or sequels. A poor profit on SR, could also cause WB to poorly fund, or not fund at all, several other of its superhero franchises. Such as Wonder Woman, The Flash, and Green Lantern. As a comic fan, I most certainly don't want to see any of those films done half-assed, or even worse, not done at all simply because WB spent so much on a single Superman movie.

3). SR doesn't need a $326 million dollar budget. Now, obviously, I don't know much about the production, but I bloody well know a movie being shot in Australia, with a mostly no-name cast, and no special effects laden supervillians and battles does not need $326 million. So, thusly, if Singer and Company are spending that kind of money, they are wasting a gigantic sum that could be better spent on an SR sequel, or even another WB film.

[LostSon88]

This gets me wondering though:

How much do you think the WB has spent just to revive the Superman Franchise?

"Superman Reborn" I believe cost the studio almost 90 mil just in preproduction w/ script revisons, pre-production costs, Burton, etc.

Superman Lives I'm guessing cost the studio a couple mil considering the pre-production drama ranging from the script to the director musical chairs from Ratner to McG to (supposeably) M. Night Shamalayan

And now Superman Returns is at a supposed budget of 250+.

I'm guessing that over half a billion has been spent on "Superman 5"

Seriously, SR is going to have to do very...VERY well.

[Mentok]

This gets me wondering though:

How much do you think the WB has spent just to revive the Superman Franchise?

"Superman Reborn" I believe cost the studio almost 90 mil just in preproduction w/ script revisons, pre-production costs, Burton, etc.

Superman Lives I'm guessing cost the studio a couple mil considering the pre-production drama ranging from the script to the director musical chairs from Ratner to McG to (supposeably) M. Night Shamalayan

And now Superman Returns is at a supposed budget of 250+.

I'm guessing that over half a billion has been spent on "Superman 5"

Seriously, SR is going to have to do very...VERY well.

The official word from WB that costs in the last decade or so (trying to get a new film off the ground) are 65-75 Million.

[sf2]

1). A budget of $326 million would give SR absolutely no room for error at the box office. It would have to be the biggest movie of the year. It would have to make Spider-Man numbers. And that's just for WB to break even. Which brings me to...

2). With a $326 million dollar budget, WB would need, at least, a $326 million box office return in the US to warrent a SR sequel. While that's not unlikely, it is very possible SR will not make those types of numbers, and thusly, we fans will be left with a single, very expensive, Superman movie. No sequel, or sequels. A poor profit on SR, could also cause WB to poorly fund, or not fund at all, several other of its superhero franchises. Such as Wonder Woman, The Flash, and Green Lantern. As a comic fan, I most certainly don't want to see any of those films done half-assed, or even worse, not done at all simply because WB spent so much on a single Superman movie.

3). SR doesn't need a $326 million dollar budget. Now, obviously, I don't know much about the production, but I bloody well know a movie being shot in Australia, with a mostly no-name cast, and no special effects laden supervillians and battles does not need $326 million. So, thusly, if Singer and Company are spending that kind of money, they are wasting a gigantic sum that could be better spent on an SR sequel, or even another WB film.
is that your problem? it's their money, why you keep sweating for them??? and if they think it's viable, why not???
are you the financial planning super expert???

[Octoberist]

326 million...200 million.....230 bazillion..

Either way, it's A LOT OF MONEY. I hope to GOD that SINGER knows what he's doing (I think he does) but MY GOD, I would be a nervous wreak if I was Singer if the budget went past 200.

[The Game]

I think the film will make the money back, but will it impress the movie going folk and critics who knows

[Superchan]

The official word from WB that costs in the last decade or so (trying to get a new film off the ground) are 65-75 Million.

really? cos I heard no such thing, singer said several times that WB spent around 50 mill on pervious attempts (but then again, he could've been intentionally downplaying the amount of money wasted on this project).

[ultimatefan]

Well, let´s see...

Let´s say the budget is 250 m production. We can guess marketing costs around 100 m. Let´s say SR makes 650 m ww - which is a damn good figure, these days. So, 350 m go to pay budget and marketing. We can guess about 300 m, give or take, as exhibitors share. So a figure of 650 m would be simply for the movie to break even. Of course there´s a lot of money to be had on DVDs, merchandise, TV deals, etc. But say for whatever reason the movie makes 500 m, which for almost any other movie, even a blockbuster, would be considered a terrific result, in this case would be disappointing... That´s a damn high bet.

[Mentok]

really? cos I heard no such thing, singer said several times that WB spent around 50 mill on pervious attempts (but then again, he could've been intentionally downplaying the amount of money wasted on this project).

WB said that as of 2004, the costs incurred in the Superman process were 65-75 Million.

Those costs dont come out of SR earnings. They have already been absorbed by other WB films.

Still, its alot of money to deal with in the end.

[Showtime]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=5935

Found this on Comic Book Resources in the September 23rd Superman Returns update:

Also numerous readers (including a math professor, which was kind of impressive) pointed out to note that yesterday's (http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=5933) staggering estimate of the budget on the film was calculated in Australian dollars. Which, apparently, are smaller than US dollars, and therefore you need more of them. Or something like that.

[Mr. Socko]

A $326 million dollar budget is too much IMO

[Batman1939]

My uncle bought todays newspaper and it had a little article on Superman Returns. The news was that the filming will start shooting again in 2 weeks and that Superman Returns is going to be the biggest budget for a movie of all time.

[Batman1939]

link:
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,16846242-5001025,00.html

[Super Kal]

horray! maybe we'll get to see new footage like we did with the car scene...

[Sverdlovski]

Thanks for the info!

BTW, I don't think the prodution stopped just becasue of Singer's birthday...

[Mentok]

Nah, the break was not just for Brians birthday.

[Batman1939]

singer might have been drunk lol.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Finally something newsworthy. :up:

[batman44]

yay, news.

[superhey]

My uncle bought todays newspaper and it had a little article on Superman Returns. The news was that the filming will start shooting again in 2 weeks and that Superman Returns is going to be the biggest budget for a movie of all time.


Superman Returns is the biggest budget for a movie of all time.

The top five::supes:

1. Superman Returns(2006): 326 millions$
2.Harry Potter(2005) 305 mILLIONS$
3.Titanic(1997) 200 millions$
4.Spidernab 2 (2004) 200 millions
5.Dinosaur(2000) 200 millions$

[The Sage]

I still think that budget is in Australian currency.

[Mentok]

Its an Australian publication so it must be in AU$ not US$. They tend to state if it a different currency.

[batman 833]

Okay first i think this has great importance and most not be overlooked, they have just said that SR will be one of the most if not the most expensive movie of all time so it is much like in the 300,million something and going up, by the time it hits theaters it will be even more so i just hope that the money here is well used, i dont want to critisize but for example spidey 2 which was good had a 200 mill. budget and i still dont know where all that money go, i know special effects are expensive, but it is ridiculous, i just hope that when we see SR , we can see the quality onscreen.

I hope they put this money on the creation of great special effects, we know that no matter how much you do with the actor, there are some things that the actor can't do specialy in a movie like this so i expect and hope an almost photorealistic superman flying and doing all the flight stunts that a real person can't do, i want to be in the theater and say wow is that cg or a stunt double, i want to get confused between the real and digital brandon(superman)Routh.

maybe you guys think that this thread has no sense but yes it does, this days producers and directors get huge budgets for some movie and the final product some times ends up looking like half the budget they were given, i am worried about this movie, i havent seen almost a thing that tells me this will be the great superman movie we have been waiting for, but i still have faith in singer that he will deliver a great superman movie just like nolan did with batman. what do you guys think.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

New thread for this? :confused:

[Mr : Parker]

if you pay yor actors a 20 mil . then are you fast on a budget of 200 mil.

[Retroman]

Found this interesting bit. Another reason why the budget is so high (besides the effects, locations, sets and stars).....

August 31, 2005
The small, open-plan office near Town Hall hardly fills me with visions of lancing dragons alongside Orlando Bloom, but agency no. 1 claims to be one of Sydney's foremost. I'm smartly dressed and the staff are ingratiating. I fill out a form, then my interviewer - let's call her Annie - whisks me over to her desk. She tells me the rate of pay differs according to job type. A feature film such as Superman Returns, for example, pays extras $260 a day for a minimum of four hours' work. "A lot of that can be standing around," Annie says, "but you're fed the whole time. Breakfast, lunch and dinner. The most incredible buffets."
An extra I speak to later agrees the food is good. However, extras have their own eating areas, distinct from the lead actors, so it's not all glitz and glamour. "You're treated like dirt on set, hardly noticed at all," this extra says. Days can be long and tiresome. She clocked up more than 16 hours a day on the Fox Studios set, most of which was sitting around.
Source: http://radar.smh.com.au/archives/2005/08/a_tale_of_two_f.html

[Anita18]

The more I read about this budget, the more I worry. Wasn't it just months ago when people were asking where the $135-$150 million in BB went? (Well, I thought it looked great..) And now people are okay with SR's possible budget being almost twice that? If SR doesn't deliver in terms of special effects, you bet people will be harping. I'll be one of them...There's spending money on making the best possible movie, and then there's just plain wasting it, which is what Singer seems to be doing at times.

ETA: How much do you guys think BB's crew is paying to keep the Gotham sets intact in those airplane hangars in England? I don't hear anything about that...

Building sets is expensive, sure, but I'm always amazed at the costs that CGI seems to accumulate. With something like Superman, where he's flying around during the day, it'll be very very difficult to make that look realistic. I love the Matrix trilogy, but I'll be the first person to admit that the flying scenes left much to be desired. I don't even know if technology has advanced that much to make the lighting on people NOT look cartoonish. BB's crew actually had it easy cause their main character dressed in black AND worked at night. I think they were just smart, LOL....

[Excel]

the press seem to be making a big deal about the budget, much like in 1978

[Excel]

one thign the man of steel has over any film of 06 is its most likely to be that film thats merchanide is huge too. thats where jon peters comes in.

this is the guy who made over 750 million dollars from BATMAN merchandise in 1989. he knows how to market the movie and how to market toys to kids. if superman get 550 million at the box office, it wouldnt break even, but with TOYS and dvds thered be an overwhelming profit. In a sense peters is correct when he says toys are more important the box office, but he changed his movies to get godo toys. superman doesnt have a batmobile or batwing to hot selling items, but i wouldnt be surprised if they find a way to make lex's boat something awesome to play with.

[Retroman]

Orginally mentioned on the SHH newspage was this article from the Sydney Morning Herald on budget(... :eek: ) and the upcoming filming of major sequences in Sydney.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

It's big, it's costly; it's the Superman movie

October 17, 2005

And the super-budget blockbuster is being shot in Sydney, writes Garry Maddox.

Jimmy Olsen - or at least the actor playing him - calls it "a behemoth of a movie".

And the director, Bryan Singer, has said the budget is close to $US250 million ($333 million).

That makes Superman Returns, which has been filming in Sydney, one of the most expensive Hollywood movies to be shot anywhere.

While Hollywood budgets are notoriously difficult to pinpoint, it is likely to be more expensive than King Kong, Mission: Impossible 3, the two Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and Spider-Man 3, though less than the next Harry Potter movie.

With insiders suggesting there is about a month of filming to go, what is remarkable is how low-key and undisruptive the shoot has been for a movie contributing more than $100 million to the NSW economy.

The chief executive of the NSW Film and Television Office, Jane Smith, said the production was worth more to the state than The Matrix, which cost almost $100 million, though not as much as the two sequels, which cost more than $420 million.

The contribution to the economy has included wages for cast, crew and extras, accommodation, travel and construction as well as studio and equipment hire.

An estimated 80 per cent of filming has taken place at Fox Studios, with a crew of 800 at one stage. The rest has been shot around Sydney and rural NSW.

While it will have some big action sequences, Singer has described it as "first and foremost a love story" with Superman realising that his true love, Lois Lane, has moved on with her life.

After a break, reputedly to allow the charismatic filmmaker to celebrate his 40th birthday in the US, filming is resuming soon. One crew member said "a few more street sequences" and "some fairly major action pieces" are still to be shot.

While nothing is confirmed for Fox Studios when Superman flies out, there are other so-called runaway Hollywood movies seeking a location that could end up in Sydney. Without naming movies, the new chief executive of AusFilm, Mark Woods, said a familiarisation tour of Hollywood studios this month indicated reasonable prospects for runaway productions in each of the eastern states next year.

Said Smith: "There's still considerable interest in coming to shoot here ... even though the Australian dollar is relatively robust. Sydney is a city that people are prepared to come and spend a substantial amount of time in. They like the fact that it's quite cosmopolitan." Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/film/its-big-its-costly-its-the-superman-movie/2005/10/16/1129401140756.html

[Retroman]

:supes: bigger than.....

KING KONG
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/king_kong/andy_serkis/kingkong1.jpg
Director: Peter Jackson (LOTR Trilogy)
Cast: Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody, Jack Black, Andy Serkis, Jamie Bell
Budget: 150 Million+
Release: December 2005 (worldwide)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360717/combined


MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3 aka MI:3
http://cache.eonline.com/Reviews/Movies/Megaplex/Flick/Images/fph.mission.imposs.090205.jpg
Director: JJ Abrams (Lost, Alias, Felicity)
Cast:Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ving Rhames, Laurence Fishburne, Billy Crudup, Simon Pegg, Michelle Monaghan, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Keri Russell and Maggie Q.
Budget: 135 Million+
Release: May, 2005
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317919/combined


PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST
http://www.twitchfilm.net/pics/POC2-small.jpg
Director: Gore Verbinski(The Ring)
Cast: Johnny Depp, Keira Knightley, Orlando Bloom, Geoffrey Rush, Bill Nighy, Naomie Harris, Stellan Skarsgård, Yun-Fat Chow.
Budget: 140 Million+
Release: July, 2005
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383574/combined


SPIDER-MAN 3
http://www.heroisemacao.theblog.com.br/spiderman3_01.jpg
Director: Sam Raimi
Cast: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, JK Simmons, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace, James Franco, Elizabeth Banks, Dylan Baker
Budget: 200 Million +??(speculation on my part)
Release: Summer 2007
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/combined

[The Game]

And the point of this thread is???????????????????????????

[Retroman]

It's pointless. Close...

[Sverdlovski]

And the point of this thread is???????????????????????????

It's pointless. Close...

:up:

Thanks a bunch, Retroman.

[Retroman]

^^^No problem.

[gnr]

No way Supermans gonna make much of profit at the us box office

[Excel]

damn...superman-in terms of scope-is going to be HUGE....

[gnr]

It ll never be as big as star wars this year.

[TheBat812]

yes, it will be. if it is a good movie, it will be.

[KaptainKrypton]

Holy crap. This is huge, dude. Chances are they'll have all of the principal photography done in time to make one sweet-@$$ trailer for release with Harry Potter. Man, Superman will own next summer. :up:

[OobeDoobBenubi]

It ll never be as big as star wars this year.

It has the possibility to make MORE then what Star Wars did this year. WB just have to Market it right etc

[gnr]

It hasnt got the popularity star wars has, or as much intrest. Even though so many geeks on the net tried to put sw down it still did awesome. Superman just hasnt got the balls :P $250 million is stupid

[Saph]

Even if it makes a crap load of money, I doubt it'll be able to beat it's budget. Maybe it'll make back it's budget, but it'll only gain a few million. That budget is huge!

[happy]

250 for the movie, 100 for advertising.

the movie making north of 400 million.

yes, there will be a profit.

[Saph]

250 for the movie, 100 for advertising.

the movie making north of 400 million.

yes, there will be a profit.
Um, how exactly are you certain that it will make 400 million?

Good movies these days make about 200 million. SR will have to be pretty spectacular to get 400 million..

[gnr]

Yeah there no way it ll make more than ROTS or ROTK - doublt it ll even do as good as Spiderman 1 or 2. Itll prob make 200 - 300..I dunno

[happy]

considering it's a superhero movie, with batman underperforming (we all know it did, but did well enough considering how crappy the summer movie season did), and that's it a rather large established name, we can use spider-man 2 as a guide.

[Binker]

I think that budget is bad. I mean what if SR is not a success, or doesn't gross enough, Singer would be in big trouble.

[gnr]

doulbt itll make the top 16 all time domestic

[gnr]

I mean I think Spiderman 3 has already got alot more intrest and popularity than superman. I like Superman though but Dont think it ll do top.

[happy]

I think that budget is bad. I mean what if SR is not a success, or doesn't gross enough, Singer would be in big trouble.

you have to wonder if the 250 includes the years of development it spent in limbo.

most movies also make more money on dvd than they ever do in theaters. so the threatrical run will make up for cost of production and marketing.

even making 300 million domestically, it'll do at least 200 overseas. 500 million and then dvd sales. no this movie will never bomb. it will make money.

[batman44]

With this big budget I guess we can expect some HUGE Superman sequences.

[Excel]

well, look at it this way

superman merchandise is already big as is, imagine how big it will b when theres ahuge movie to peak interest again. add in thayt it should do north of 600 million at theww box office....

so that 200 million box office prophet, 300 million in orfit from dvd sales/rentals, and then as much 1 billion in merchandise.

the profit will be big. their spending this much ot make the movie good....this is money well spent cause theyll earn it back for sure. see thats what makes w.b. beter the fox.

fox spent 100 million on fantastic four and earned 325 at the ww box office. a 225 million dollar profit. but the sequel doesnt have any pre-filming hype. dvd wontsell too well, and the sequel wont be as big.

w.b. spent 200 million on batman begins. it earned 370 at the ww box office. a 170 million profit. but it has tons of pre-filming hype for the sequel becuase so many peple liked the first one(unlike ff). the dvds are alread selling preorders through the roof, and the sequel will be huge.

again you guys, this is money well spent.



its like this

my box office predictions-

325 domestic
425 over seas=
750 at box office
1 billion in merchandise(atleast, as superman alreay sells over nearly half a billion in merchandise by name alone, imagine when a sick new movie comes out, what thatll do to it)
200 million in dvd sales
100 million in rentals=
man of steels return public=2.05 billion in total

2,050
- 250 budget
- 125 ww marketing
=1.75 billion for w.b.

superman will be asy money people, as unlike just about every other movie that summer, he'll be more then just a movie. hell be like star wars was this year-a movie event that makes money from stuff other then the box office.

[gnr]

supermans not gonna make 2 billion ...in that case sw must have made about 3 billion including toys games etc

[Flame on!]

According this thread, both Mission: Impossible 3 and the Pirates sequel have already come out.

[Excel]

supermans not gonna make 2 billion ...in that case sw must have made about 3 billion including toys games etc

it probably did. its star wars!where do you think george lucas gets all his money?

[Hunter Rider]

According this thread, both Mission: Impossible 3 and the Pirates sequel have already come out.

:confused:

[BlindPanzer]

its like this

my box office predictions-

325 domestic
425 over seas=
750 at box office
1 billion in merchandise(atleast, as superman alreay sells over nearly half a billion in merchandise by name alone, imagine when a sick new movie comes out, what thatll do to it)
200 million in dvd sales
100 million in rentals=
man of steels return public=2.05 billion in total

2,050
- 250 budget
- 125 ww marketing
=1.75 billion for w.b.

superman will be asy money people, as unlike just about every other movie that summer, he'll be more then just a movie. hell be like star wars was this year-a movie event that makes money from stuff other then the box office.

$350 box office is way too optimistic. Revenge of the Sith made $380 million but.... thats Star Wars... the next biggest gross this year was War of the Worlds with $230. This movie is not going to get Star Wars numbers. You must also keep in mind we have been like in a 3 year slump in theaters, the numbers are just going to keep going down. I would think $200-250 range domestically is a bit more realistic, and that would be the best case scenario.

[Pickle-El]

$350 box office is way too optimistic. Revenge of the Sith made $380 million but.... thats Star Wars... the next biggest gross this year was War of the Worlds with $230. This movie is not going to get Star Wars numbers. You must also keep in mind we have been like in a 3 year slump in theaters, the numbers are just going to keep going down. I would think $200-250 range domestically is a bit more realistic, and that would be the best case scenario.


So what, in this genre, the only proven 'blockbuster' status is reserved for Spider-man films? :confused:

[BlindPanzer]

So what, in this genre, the only proven 'blockbuster' status is reserved for Spider-man films? :confused:

Look I'm not doubting the quality of the movie, I'm sure its going to be good, just like I'm sure it'll do good in theaters. Spiderman :spidey:made a lot of money because the genre was still not stale of comic book films back in 2002. You keep thinking that $250 domestic is not that great, when its actually very good gross. It's just that in my own opinion I don't see it going past $300 million domestically. It just doesn't have the fanbase for it. (my opinion):)

[Excel]

325 is very doable for the man of steel.

[Hunter Rider]

I think about $250M is the likely US gross,the 2 major obstacles will prevent it being more IMO

[Excel]

if supermans is just a ghood movie, then itll get 250. its great-ala spiderman-itll get 300.

[Hunter Rider]

if supermans is just a ghood movie, then itll get 250. its great-ala spiderman-itll get 300.

I think POTC2 will prevent that whether it's good or not

[Pickle-El]

^
Assumming POTC2 can replicate the absolute surprising BO of its predecessor. This one will actually have to be *at least* as good as the original to hit close to 300 Million itself....remember, that in and of itself is no gaurantee.

[Cinemaman]

The budget is about $250m, as Singer said.

[Excel]

it wont...heres how i see. longest yard and madagascar openedto a combined 95 million and totaled a combined 345, so im calling it madayard.

may 20th weekend-star wars opens. totals 380 million
may 27th-madayard opens-opens totals 345.

its possible for 2 325 million dollar + film to open after weekend cause madaascar abd longest yardeach opened the weekend after stars and they didnt stop star wars from getting 380 million ad star wars didnt stop them from geting alot either. i think we might just be over estimating their effects on eachother.

[Binker]

So what you're saying is; Superman is as big as Star Wars, and iconic as Batman, that the budget isn't as big of a deal if the movie is good and word of mouth proves that.

[Excel]

yes, i am.

[Hunter Rider]

So what you're saying is; Superman is as big as Star Wars, and iconic as Batman, that the budget isn't as big of a deal if the movie is good and word of mouth proves that.

Superman isnt as big as Star Wars, at least not from a fanbase worldwide perspective

[Excel]

no but supermans is as big as a star wars movie though-spideys getting there-n that there are so many otherways ot make money off the movie other then the box office.

[C. Lee]

Superman isnt as big as Star Wars, at least not from a fanbase worldwide perspective
Or...is it that the Star Wars fanbase is more vocal and fanatical....so there seems to be more of them than the many regular Superman fans who don't dress up every month at conventions and start "Kryptonian" quasi religious groups?

[Hunter Rider]

Or...is it that the Star Wars fanbase is more vocal and fanatical....so there seems to be more of them than the many regular Superman fans who don't dress up every month at conventions and start "Kryptonian" quasi religious groups?

Well just taking from my expieiriences in this country,no one cares about superman that i know and everyone loves the OT and i think that is the thing,the OT has basically won over every genration and have been a constant part of popular culture in nearly every country except apparently Italy:confused:

[C. Lee]

I wasn't aware that SW wasn't popular in Italy...interesting.

It's just that I think the fan base is large for both Superman and Star Wars...but feel that the SW guys are a little more vocal. Many kids love Supes and many love SW....it's a hard call.

[Hunter Rider]

I wasn't aware that SW wasn't popular in Italy...interesting.

It's just that I think the fan base is large for both Superman and Star Wars...but feel that the SW guys are a little more vocal. Many kids love Supes and many love SW....it's a hard call.

Perhaps my view differs from yours due to me being in the UK,here Batman is a lot more popular than Superman,and so is Spiderman,Thats what make me say that on a worldwide level SW has the biggest fanbase,in the US alone it may be closer
As for Italy,I read that in an interview with Mcallum the other day in Total Film where he spoke about the ROTS DVD,He said for some reason Sci-Fi is a hard sell in Itlay