The Dark Knight Christian Bale Says : "We Left It Wide Open".

[ultimatefan]

i thought a third film was already a given?

Only if the second´s a hit, but I wouldn´t worry about that.

 

[Crook]

Let's just hope the budget isn't too high for TDK. Not really liking the news that it's 200 million.

 

[ultimatefan]

Let's just hope the budget isn't too high for TDK. Not really liking the news that it's 200 million.

It indicates the studio is happy with the results they got with BB. I think there´s a strong prospect for the sequel to make more money, considering the positive perception of BB, the strong DVD sales and the fact that The Joker will be there. I think the only reason why BB wasn´t a bigger blockbuster is the bitter taste left by B&R still was in people´s mouths.

 

[Crook]

Oh no doubt it's good news that the studio is confident with the franchise. 200 million to me just seems way overdone for a Batman film. I mean not even the most sfx-laden blockbuster films are done for that type of dough. It's nice that Nolan can rest easy filming anything he wants due to having the finance, but I still think that much money is unneeded. Directors get more creative if money isn't readily available.

Plus there's the whole profit margin thing. It'll get profit, but it could've gotten much more if the budget was less.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Oh no doubt it's good news that the studio is confident with the franchise. 200 million to me just seems way overdone for a Batman film. I mean not even the most sfx-laden blockbuster films are done for that type of dough. It's nice that Nolan can rest easy filming anything he wants due to having the finance, but I still think that much money is unneeded. Directors get more creative if money isn't readily available.

Plus there's the whole profit margin thing. It'll get profit, but it could've gotten much more if the budget was less.

I doubt we need to worry about Nolan's creativity. He doesn't seem to be the type of director who wastes his budget. If he's got $200 to work with, it's likely he will do everything possible to make sure it all ends up there on the screen.

James Cameron's big blockbusters were known for going over budget, and most of the time the results were spectactular.

 

[ultimatefan]

I doubt we need to worry about Nolan's creativity. He doesn't seem to be the type of director who wastes his budget. If he's got $200 to work with, it's likely he will do everything possible to make sure it all ends up there on the screen.

James Cameron's big blockbusters were known for going over budget, and most of the time the results were spectactular.

Yeah, and from what we´re seeing Nolan isn´t using the money to make a CGI fest or anything, but to portray the climate of social chaos in Gotham, which should give a great sense of epic scope to TDK.

 

[Baba Ghanoush]

Oh no doubt it's good news that the studio is confident with the franchise. 200 million to me just seems way overdone for a Batman film. I mean not even the most sfx-laden blockbuster films are done for that type of dough. It's nice that Nolan can rest easy filming anything he wants due to having the finance, but I still think that much money is unneeded. Directors get more creative if money isn't readily available.

Plus there's the whole profit margin thing. It'll get profit, but it could've gotten much more if the budget was less.

That's only relevant in so far as whether a sequel is greenlit. Ironically, even films which make back double their budget in BO tickets sales are actually money losers for studios when advertising, print, movie theater cuts, and other costs are all factored in.

Studios don't make their profits from theatrical releases, they make them from DVD sales and tv licensing. Mainly b/c the profit margin is significantly greater on DVD sales and costs associated with a tv program are not borne by the studio but rather the licensee.

All that really matters is whether TDK makes enough to warrant another sequel.

 

[ultimatefan]

That's only relevant in so far as whether a sequel is greenlit. Ironically, even films which make back double their budget in BO tickets sales are actually money losers for studios when advertising, print, movie theater cuts, and other costs are all factored in.

Studios don't make their profits from theatrical releases, they make them from DVD sales and tv licensing. Mainly b/c the profit margin is significantly greater on DVD sales and costs associated with a tv program are not borne by the studio but rather the licensee.

All that really matters is whether TDK makes enough to warrant another sequel.

Yeah, well, but the BO still is considered at least a strong indicator of how the movie should perform with the other income sources. Rare movies don´t bring the money invested back, but some take too long to break even and make a profit, those are the flops. At least taking back your production budget in the domestic BO still is considered the safest indicator that a movie should bring a decent profit for the studio after all income is accounted for.

 

[Baba Ghanoush]

Yeah, well, but the BO still is considered at least a strong indicator of how the movie should perform with the other income sources. Rare movies don´t bring the money invested back, but some take too long to break even and make a profit, those are the flops. At least taking back your production budget in the domestic BO still is considered the safest indicator that a movie should bring a decent profit for the studio after all income is accounted for.

"Consider, for example, Warner Bros.' movie The Negotiator, with Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey. It was efficiently produced for $43.5 million, scored a world box office of $88 million, and appeared to be a modest success. In fact, Warner Bros. collected only $36.74 million from its theatrical release after it had paid check-conversion and other collection costs, the theaters had taken their cut, and the MPA had deducted its fee. Meanwhile, to corral that audience, Warner Bros.' advertising bill was $40.28 million, and its bill for prints, trailers, dubbing, customs, and shipping was another $12.32 million. So, after the movie finished its theater run, without even considering the cost of making the movie, Warner Bros. had lost $13 million. Why? For every dollar Warner Bros. got back from the box office, it shelled out about $1.40 in expenses, which was about average, if not slightly above par, for studio movies."

The negotiator made $45 million domestic BO. So as pointed out in the article, even if a film doubles its budget in domestic and worldwide BO it does not bring in a decent profit after all income is accounted for. The opposite is true, they lose money.

http://www.slate.com/id/2124078/

 

[Steelsheen]

its a good interview, nothing really new though.

and its the same way Bale answers story questions during shooting: polite but non-descript.

 

[dark_b]

It indicates the studio is happy with the results they got with BB. I think there´s a strong prospect for the sequel to make more money, considering the positive perception of BB, the strong DVD sales and the fact that The Joker will be there. I think the only reason why BB wasn´t a bigger blockbuster is the bitter taste left by B&R still was in people´s mouths.

hmmm we could talk about this.

fact is that this is WB. its the same studio who spent more then 20 milions for catwoman. now somone will laugh at hes computer because i said a idiotic number 20 milions. well i wouldnt spend more money on that movie.
but this is WB. its also the same studio that made batman & robin.
ohhh could it be that they spend more money on B&R because tehy were happy with the results of BF?

and at the end its the same studio who spend 200 milions on a movie called superman returns. but lets not forget the facts here. WB spend more then 20 milions on superman 5. so this money was spend. for example on cage,burton,....
and after all that time all the money they make a superman movie with a budget of 200 milions ...............and it has no action

a big budget superman movie realesed in summer that is a chick flick. dont get me wrong i liked SR when it came out. today not so much. but how dumb do you have to be? i just hope they will be now smart enough that if they do a sequel that they will not dumb it down.

but hey its WB.

so forgive me that i can not be positive when it comes to WB and the budget.

what if we found out in 2008 that they spend 300 milions on TDK? before someone says tha tthis is not possible ....i was just givving an example. WB is dumb enough IMO.
TDK would bomb. and why? because WB thought....that it will make a lot of money.


thats how i see it.

 

[ultimatefan]

hmmm we could talk about this.

fact is that this is WB. its the same studio who spent more then 20 milions for catwoman. now somone will laugh at hes computer because i said a idiotic number 20 milions. well i wouldnt spend more money on that movie.
but this is WB. its also the same studio that made batman & robin.
ohhh could it be that they spend more money on B&R because tehy were happy with the results of BF?

and at the end its the same studio who spend 200 milions on a movie called superman returns. but lets not forget the facts here. WB spend more then 20 milions on superman 5. so this money was spend. for example on cage,burton,....
and after all that time all the money they make a superman movie with a budget of 200 milions ...............and it has no action

a big budget superman movie realesed in summer that is a chick flick. dont get me wrong i liked SR when it came out. today not so much. but how dumb do you have to be? i just hope they will be now smart enough that if they do a sequel that they will not dumb it down.

but hey its WB.

so forgive me that i can not be positive when it comes to WB and the budget.

what if we found out in 2008 that they spend 300 milions on TDK? before someone says tha tthis is not possible ....i was just givving an example. WB is dumb enough IMO.
TDK would bomb. and why? because WB thought....that it will make a lot of money.


thats how i see it.

I´m not idealizing the studio, that´s how any studio works. I´m not talking about confidence that the movie´s good - even though all indicates it´s gonna be - but confidence on the movie´s success based on the success and positive perception of the previous movie, something they didn´t have with Catwoman, which was an attempt at launching a new franchise, and Superman Returns, which was supposed to be what Batman Begins was, a reinvention of a burned out old franchise.

 

[cryptic name]

Oh no doubt it's good news that the studio is confident with the franchise. 200 million to me just seems way overdone for a Batman film. I mean not even the most sfx-laden blockbuster films are done for that type of dough. It's nice that Nolan can rest easy filming anything he wants due to having the finance, but I still think that much money is unneeded. Directors get more creative if money isn't readily available.

Plus there's the whole profit margin thing. It'll get profit, but it could've gotten much more if the budget was less.

i think a lot of that budget will go to paying the actors. also, nolan has a tendency to shoot as much as he can practically (in camera) and that tends to get expensive what with building sets and setting squibs and rigging explosions. a lot of people tend to forget that Tim Burton's Batman was one of the most expensive movies ever made at the time, and that was mainly due to the elaborate sets and the actors involved.

 

[Crook]

There are no big-name actors in TDK though. At least ones that warrant huge paychecks.

No question a bulk of the budget is being used for the Chicago filming, getting the city to shoot a whole evacuation scene must've cost a pretty penny.

 

[Mr. Socko]

This is cool news.

 

[explode7]

This 200M is very worrying for a Batman movie. Knowing the kind of character that Batman is I doubt it will make much money at the BO to make any kind of significant profit it any. It will probably get its profits in DVD sales but definitely not at the BO. I mean c'mon Die Hard 4 cost 110M and that had some really mind blowing expensive looking scenes and it was 2hrs and 10 mins. My question is where is all this money going? Is Nolan and Co. stealing it for their own personal gain and WB knows no better since they give him what he wants due to the huge success of BB? Something doesn't smell right. Look at Iron Man its budget is 130M from what I've heard and thats going to have huge vfx scenes done by an expensive vfx company ILM.

 

[Mr. Socko]

WTF a $200 MILLION BUDGET!


I remember last year, it was rumored the budget would actually be smaller than the BB one because they've already created huge sets like the narrows and sorts

 

[stonecold]

haha wtf? you have to be joking .. '200 million is very worrying' .. what?? people talking like they are experts. are you seriously suggesting nolan takes the money for his own gain?!, that WB 'knows no better'? dude..dont worry so much!! 'something doesnt smell right'!!!! for christ's sake ... paranoia of the highest order explode7

lol im seriously worried guys.. maybe we should consider that maybe the Nolans have actually taken $90 million for themselves ( at least )!

the film is going to cost loads cos the shoot is epic.. like BB - a serious amount of time, hi quality fx, location, set builds, stunts..big name actors, huge film .. its a prestige project, its no secret that The Dark Knight is a big film, as big as it gets. they want it to rock, to be legendary, of course BO is a big consideration, but they know to trust Nolan and co to make a heavyweight film. 200 mil is them looking after what is to them a superior investment in franchise and talent, and giving us an even more awesome dose of what triumphed in the previous movie.

 

[explode7]

^Well brothers who thief together......

 

[TheBatman072]

This 200M is very worrying for a Batman movie. Knowing the kind of character that Batman is I doubt it will make much money at the BO to make any kind of significant profit it any. It will probably get its profits in DVD sales but definitely not at the BO. I mean c'mon Die Hard 4 cost 110M and that had some really mind blowing expensive looking scenes and it was 2hrs and 10 mins. My question is where is all this money going? Is Nolan and Co. stealing it for their own personal gain and WB knows no better since they give him what he wants due to the huge success of BB? Something doesn't smell right. Look at Iron Man its budget is 130M from what I've heard and thats going to have huge vfx scenes done by an expensive vfx company ILM.

One great big gigantic eyeroll.

 

[saint sinner x]

First of all, it makes perfect sense that the budget is 200million dollars. This movie seems to have more action then begins, this movie seems to use CGI for many things, such as joker blowing things up, scarecrow's crazy toxin joint and of course more things being blown up. The only thing I'm worried about is the fighting because we have no idea of the fighting in the movie and of course the way that Nolan will direct the action, plus filming 4 scenes imax cameras doesn't come cheap. Especially "major action scenes". I bet you two million dollars that one of those scenes will be when joker blows the ships up. Oh well, can't wait until next month, they better come with a bang and with some style in wizard world.

 

[Fresh Tendrils]

Excuse me if this has been said already...

Christian Bale: We left it wide open.
Michael Scott: Thats what she said.

 

[Abaddon]

Beat me to it.

 

[Crook]

First of all, it makes perfect sense that the budget is 200million dollars. This movie seems to have more action then begins, this movie seems to use CGI for many things, such as joker blowing things up, scarecrow's crazy toxin joint and of course more things being blown up.

Regardless, I'd bet my cell phone that overall, it'll still have less action/spectacle than most blockbusters of the past 5 years. Which imo, is the only justifiable reason for having such a bloated budget for a summer movie, short of paying for highly expensive actors in the movie.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Where did the number $200 million come from for the budget of TDK? Can someone point me to that article? This is all I could find:

Revenue estimate is $50 million for the first half of the year. It includes the $30 million expected from the latest Batman movie, “The Dark Knight,” which has a projected $150 million budget.

http://www.reelchicago.com/archive.cfm?storyID=1609