Budget...Rising?!

[Cmill216]

What happened to the reports saying the budget of the 4th Harry Potter movie was OVER $300 million?

They faded away in a cloud of magic dust.

 

[TheVileOne]

They faded away in a cloud of magic dust.

You mean just like this report will?

 

[Cmill216]

You mean just like this report will?

Not really, cause it's been a well known fact for a while that this film was going to be uber-expensive. Now we're getting more confirmation that is the case.

 

[Sean Adisano]

Not really, cause it's been a well known fact for a while that this film was going to be uber-expensive. Now we're getting more confirmation that is the case.

hehehehe...chris said uber

 

[James"007"Bond]

From the Studio Briefing Movie News section of IMDb:



EDIT: I expect Powder to be adding this to the FAQ thread, or at least move this there.

Again, this is something I predicted and talked about ages ago and got chastised for it. Whats even more disturbing is that sm3 wont even look as though it cost $200million to make.

 

[Cmill216]

Whats even more disturbing is that sm3 wont even look as though it cost $200million to make.

Did you look into your crystal ball to figure that one out, or are you just being blatantly pessimistic? It's the former isn't it?

 

[Reikowolf]

who cares what the budget is so long as the vision for the movie was pulled off and they stand to make money versus the budget.

 

[Visionary]

With worldwide cume, DVDs and merchandising...they've already made billions. Sony/Marvel get upfront fees (see HASBRO deal) from licensees before the film is even completed, and the Spider-Man franchise has 100s of licensees, SM3 is already paid for. Sony probably pays very little to nothing of the production budget, the licensees are basically paying the bulk of it. This is what happens when you have a franchise that everyone wants to be apart of.

 

[Reikowolf]

With worldwide cume, DVDs and merchandising...they've already made billions. Sony/Marvel get upfront fees (see HASBRO deal) from licensees before the film is even completed, and the Spider-Man franchise has 100s of licensees, SM3 is already paid for. Sony probably pays very little to nothing of the production budget, the licensees are basically paying the bulk of it. This is what happens when you have a franchise that everyone wants to be apart of.

spot on!

 

[SLYspyder]

PoC 2/3 were filmed back to back... they should've done the same with SM 3/4... now they are going to give us some crap ass 5 minute version of Venom and say goodbye forever...

what makes you think Spider-Man's most popular villain will appear in the movie for a short time and be gone forever? You better believe he'll be back

 

[CrypticOne]

Well this is good news. The movie is gonna look beautiful, thats all.

 

[faceplant]

it will be quite visually stunning.

 

[Reikowolf]

"you will believe a man can swing" lol

 

[zanos]

The reason why the sfx budget has gone so high is because they're developing some sort of revolutionary new cgi technology that will make Kirsten look hot. I personally think it should be spent elsewhere but I'm not in charge of this film.

 

[el brujo138]

Holy ****, that´s a lot of money!

Hopefully this means that Sandman is going to look awesome. But "bigger budget" doesn´t always mean "better movie" but hopefully "bigger budget" means more action and more Spider-Man and less Peter whining about his love life.

 

[CrashNburn]

The reason why the sfx budget has gone so high is because they're developing some sort of revolutionary new cgi technology that will make Kirsten look hot. I personally think it should be spent elsewhere but I'm not in charge of this film.

i'm with you on this one.lol!!

 

[Reikowolf]

Holy ****, that´s a lot of money!

Hopefully this means that Sandman is going to look awesome. But "bigger budget" doesn´t always mean "better movie" but hopefully "bigger budget" means more action and more Spider-Man and less Peter whining about his love life.

AKA: Van Helsing

 

[el brujo138]

AKA: Van Helsing

Van Helsing had a big budget?

Anyways I liked Van Helsing, I went in wanting 2 hours of action, monsters and one-liners and I got exactly what I wanted.

 

[Reikowolf]

It's true Van Helsing was made as an homage to the 1930's universal monster flicks

but the lack of real locations makes you question exactly where did all the money go!?

I mean, yes CGI is expensive... but come on!
I'm not 100% on it's budget but I remember hearing it being around 170million

The indiana jones movies were each made for less

 

[Cmill216]

Van Helsing had a big budget?

Reportedly, $170 million.

 

[el brujo138]

170 milion for Van Helsing? You guys have to be joking! It didn´t even look that expensive, it felt and looked like a B-movie, like one of the old classic monster movies.

Movie making is getting way to expensive now a days, King Kong cost like 200milion to make, Superman 250 milion and now Spider-Man is costing even more.

 

[Reikowolf]

170 milion for Van Helsing? You guys have to be joking! It didn´t even look that expensive, it felt and looked like a B-movie, like one of the old classic monster movies.

Movie making is getting way to expensive now a days, King Kong cost like 200milion to make, Superman 250 milion and now Spider-Man is costing even more.

my point exactly.
Van Helsing was supposed to look like a b monster movie but with that budget they could have at least chosen real locations.

at least with King Kong they filmed all over New Zealand and even used the CGI to create a 1930's NY.

CGI is getting more expensive but if you're going to go over 100million.. you better film somewhere extravegant.

Spider-man is pretty much all real locations because he's always swinging through the city.
Not to say that they couldn't pull it off with a lower budget but if you have a movie that is garanteed to gross at least 400million... there ya go

 

[el brujo138]

my point exactly.
Van Helsing was supposed to look like a b monster movie but with that budget they could have at least chosen real locations.

at least with King Kong they filmed all over New Zealand and even used the CGI to create a 1930's NY.

CGI is getting more expensive but if you're going to go over 100million.. you better film somewhere extravegant.

Spider-man is pretty much all real locations because he's always swinging through the city.
Not to say that they couldn't pull it off with a lower budget but if you have a movie that is garanteed to gross at least 400million... there ya go

Yeah, Spider-Man can probably afford to cost that much. But not every movie that costs 200+ to make is a guaranteed hit, King Kong didn´t make nearly as much as people predicted. I don´t even know if the upcoming Superman movie is guaranteed to make a huge profit.

 

[Reikowolf]

Yeah, Spider-Man can probably afford to cost that much. But not every movie that costs 200+ to make is a guaranteed hit, King Kong didn´t make nearly as much as people predicted. I don´t even know if the upcoming Superman movie is guaranteed to make a huge profit.

you have to remember that Kong was made out of love tho

Peter Jackson could make any movie he wanted after his oscar and he chose the movie that got him into directing.

it's true that universal took a hit financially making it. but the DVD sales should even it out...
I think P. Jackson owes them a hit now though
stupid contracts.

 

[Bullseye]

Between $250 million and $300 million is a large budget.

They will have no problem making a nice profit off this film, all they have to do is utter the word "Venom" and everyone goes and sees the film.