Do you think Batman: Year One could've been made with Joker's budget?

[Brightburn1985]

Of 55 Million Dollars? I know after Batman Begins, nobody wants yet another Batman origin story but I think if Batman, himself wasn't such a clear-cut hero or villain, and it took place in the same universe as Todd Phillips Joker, but Batman and Joker themselves, never meet until they reference Joker with a modified Batman: Year One, Jim Gordon interal-monlogue, it just might be enough to make people go see it.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Definitely

 

[Batmannerism]

No.

Joker is about the decent of a man into madness. It's a character drama which doesn't necessarily require a great spectacle.

Batman is about a rise from tragedy and requires a degree of spectacle -- hence the bigger budget. It doesn't need to be a record breaking budget but if TDK was made for 180 million in 2008, and BB for 150 million in 2005 then to make a great Batman origin film you're going to need to spend some serious coin.

 

[Boom]

A Batman movie can absolutely be done with a <$100 million budget, but it'd have to be a very stripped-down take that focuses more on the detective aspect of the character. Not to say there couldn't be action scenes, but you're certainly not going to get the kind of spectacle you typically see. Then it becomes a question of whether or not an audience would be interested in a Batman movie like that.

 

[CaveatImperator]

Then it becomes a question of whether or not an audience would be interested in a Batman movie like that.

I certainly would be.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

The question is actually, could you make a Year One that would be SUCCESSFUL and GOOD on the Joker's shooting budget.

Nope. Not in a million years, and certainly not one that would deliver even the minimum of what the audience would expect from a, nay, demand from a film with Batman as the main character in it.

I think it's romantic for fans to think something along these lines every time a film like Joker or Deadpool come along. Deadpool has great fights and SFX for it's budget, but I don't think anyone would compare it in terms of scope, production values and cast of Nolan's TDKT. Because the budget affects so many things, like who you can afford to play your characters, how much time you get to shoot on location and what you can do once you get there. Fight choreography, things like any stunt sequence with the Batmobile, production design... these are never cheap. Joker had almost none of the elements of an average action thriller, or even hard edged detective crime film. It's then also a gamble in terms of the creatives. Phillips and Miller and their team were able to strike gold. But there's no guarantee of that with everyone else being put in charge.

It's of course not an impossibility but committing to such an approach means you have to have an incredibly tight script, top of the line performers that are willing to work for cheap, and have ways to draw in the audience with minimal to no spectacle... These are improbable hurdles for a film with Batman at the center getting hamstrung money wise. The audience has expectations. Now... Pump that budget up to $75-$90 million and a stripped down (in comparison to what's come before) Batman movie might be a bit more plausible in my eyes.

 

[The Endless]

You could do it for under 100 million quite comfortably. Not quite as low as Joker and the first Deadpool.

Deadpool 2 was still under 100 million and had some big sequences. Batman doesn't even need to go to that level really.

 

[OutOfBoose]

55 will be probably a bit low. There's some stuff that requires costumes, complex sets and action, plus good actors salaries. But under 100 is very possible without compromising quality.

 

[SupermanFan]

No but I don’t think it would take a ton more though. You could probably adapt Year One for about $80-100 million. Which would be substantially cheaper than the average Batman movie.