A Breakdown of $200+ Million Budgets

[GoldenAgeHero]

50 bucks an extra aint nothing. but i doubt building sets can give you taht kind of budget

 

[matrix_ghost]

IMDB further reports some stuff of the wall street journal :

Forget Costs of Stars; Studios Pay Most for FX


Escalating special effects costs have boosted the budget of Sony's Spider-Man 3, scheduled for release on May 4, 2007, to between $250 million and $300 million, the Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend, citing people close to the studio. The newspaper also said that at least three other films relying heavily on special effects will see their budgets exceed $200 million. They include 20th Century Fox's X-Men sequel ($210 million), Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($225 million) and Warner Bros.' Superman Returns ($261 million). Commented the Journal: "The price tags underscore that effects, not stars, sell big movies these days." It also noted that the skyrocketing costs have result in increased tensions between the studios, trying to keep costs down, and the effects houses.


I think that this definately is the case with todays blockbusters.
While technology for CGI is getting better and cheaper , it still requires alot of manhours to create those images.
Especially when you have movies where the VFX slate is huge but needs to be delivered in a relatively short time , the studios need to pay alot of money in order to get those VFX done.

If you look at ILM and Weta , they both have done some amazing work on the SW prequels and LOTR. And still on a relative low budget , compared to other big budget blockbusters.
All 3 LOTR movies were made for i think 300 million , but the post prod schedule was years long.
With each SW prequel , i think the post prod slate was 2 years for each movie.

Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions wer made for 300 million , and 100 million was invested for the VFX.
The VFX pos prod schedule was 4 years.

So that is , i think why those numbers for the VFX are so high.
THere are also other factors.
If you look at the spidey movies , they're all shot in the states and it's just very expensice to shoot in the states...particularly in the big cities such as NY.
With POTC , they have to build ships and costumes .

 

[TheSumOfGod]

Star Trek: First Contact and Hellboy are two of the best looking movies ever made (imo), yet they only cost respectively $56 million and $60 million. You just need to know where to go for the best, least costly make-up, costumes, visual fx and sets.

 

[Cinemaman]

I still don't believe it.

Sorry, but it is unbelieveble for Spidey 3 and SR having more than $240m budget.

 

[TheSumOfGod]

I still don't believe it.

Sorry, but it is unbelieveble for Spidey 3 and SR having more than $240m budget.

The only reason SR has a $255 million budget is because they've incorporated the $65 million they wasted in years of pre-production on OTHER Superman projects (Donner again, Burton, McG, Ratner...). The actual cost of SR is only $190 million.

 

[Cinemaman]

The only reason SR has a $255 million budget is because they've incorporated the $65 million they wasted in years of pre-production on OTHER Superman projects (Donner again, Burton, McG, Ratner...). The actual cost of SR is only $190 million.

$185m. And pre-production money doesn't have connection with the real official budget.

 

[Movies205]

I still don't believe it.

Sorry, but it is unbelieveble for Spidey 3 and SR having more than $240m budget.

What do you base your disbelief on? Unless you work in the 'biz, I find it incredulous to believe one set of numbers against another.

 

[Cinemaman]

What do you base your disbelief on? Unless you work in the 'biz, I find it incredulous to believe one set of numbers against another.

Look, I just think so. I would more believe official numbers than numbers from magazine.

 

[Movies205]

Look, I just think so. I would more believe official numbers than numbers from magazine.

Magazines jobs are to report things, the Wall Street Journal as far as I know is a credible source. So I just find what your saying a bit silly, now to not take as much stock in it is different. But to tottally dismiss it especially since, I'm assuming here based on your response to my last post, you don't work in Hollywood seems again silly to me.

 

[Cinemaman]

Magazines jobs are to report things, the Wall Street Journal as far as I know is a credible source. So I just find what your saying a bit silly, now to not take as much stock in it is different. But to tottally dismiss it especially since, I'm assuming here based on your response to my last post, you don't work in Hollywood seems again silly to me.

And what then? If I dont believe it, you cant make me to believe it.

It is my opinion.

 

[Cinemaman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFJjAx3NbQQ

This is what I believe, $185m budget and thats all what we can say about budget.

Singer confirmed it.

 

[DACrowe]

Yes but this is a matter of fact where opinion is irerelavent.

Singer (as most directors do) never admits when a movie goes overbudget and tries to play down what would otherwise be negative buzz. But when you have Boxoffice Mojo, the Wall Street Journal, Entertainment Weekly (which is owned by AOL Time Warner I might add) and Time Magazine all saying that it went over budget with predictions usually around $220 million to the most extreme being $261 million.....then you have to take into account that it is likely that is at least cost over $200 million.

SFX are always going up and judging by the trailer's over dependence on CGI and that is without a single shot of New Krypton, it is not hard to believe it went over budget. But hey so did SM2, Troy, even Titanic.

Just because a media spin job tells you something doesn'tt mean you have to defend it nor does it mean something as trivial (to us that is, as none of us have share holding in Time Warner I believe or money put into this movie) as the ballooning budget of a summer movie.