The Dark Knight how in the world did this movie cost $180 million?

[The Battousai]

Because you touch yourself at night.

Nice

 

[The Guard]

I thought salaries weren't included in the actual budget figure. It would appear filming in Chicago ate up quite a chunk of it, though.

 

[Anita18]

Wassn't TDK the 2nd biggest budget movie of all time?

Not even close. A good number of films have had budgets upwards of $200 million.

 

[The Mighty Wind]

I thought salaries weren't included in the actual budget figure. It would appear filming in Chicago ate up quite a chunk of it, though.

Salaries are included and usually take up a major chunk of most movies' budgets depending, of course, on who's involved.

 

[Rogzilla]

no, i just have common sense.

i know that a lot of movies shoot in locations like hong kong and chicago.

i know that this wasn't a big special effects movie.

and i know that from what was shown on screen, there was a lot of money wasted if this thing cost $180 million.

and i really don't think that this movie had 700 fx shots. 700 cgi AND practical effects stunts, together, maybe. hell, the matrix revolutions had about 1,000 cgi shots, and i think we all know that that movie was practically head to toe cgi, and it only cost $150 million to make.

sorry, my concensus is that nolan doesn't know how to properly utilize a budget.

i know this movie is the new fanboy wet dream, and i liked the movie quite a bit, too, and i know that it's like, blasphemy to say anything negative about it, nolan, heath or bale on this board, but still. this movie should not have cost this much. no way.

How much should it have cost? Just because it didn't have CGI in nearly every shot doesn't mean it wasn't expensive.

Maybe because they did so many practical explosions. Maybe cause they blew up a bunch of buildings? Maybe cause they built multiple Batmobiles that actually worked? Maybe cause they flipped a Semi halfway through the film? Not a miniature, not a model, a real semi. Had multiple batsuits, costumes, make up, a cast of great actors, a character with half his face gone (they had to erase parts of his face and fill in background, long and expensive) and of course, filming in IMAX is expensive.

Sorry man, but there is more to good filmmaking than CGI. Nolan got $180 million to make this film, and if this is what he got...well, I would love to see what he could make with MORE! :-P

 

[zanos]

Not even close. A good number of films have had budgets upwards of $200 million.

Name this "good number" I only know of three from recent history.

 

[Anita18]

Name this "good number" I only know of three from recent history.

bkey put up a link in the previous page.

1. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - $300,000,000
2. Superman Returns - $270,000,000
3. Spider Man 3 - $258,000,000
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - $225,000,000
5. King Kong - $207,000,000
6. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian - $200,000,000
7. Spider-Man 2 - $200,000,000
8. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines - $200,000,000
9. Titanic - $200,000,000
10. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - $185,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films

Not adjusted for inflation, so those are more recent ones.

Ouch, now I feel bad for Narnia 2. I think it just struggled to $140 domestic.

 

[GoldenState]

Actual stunts where things ACTUALLY blow up, cost a lot more than CGI effects.

The cast cost a hefty fee too, this was a sequel to a big movie.

185 is not bad at all anyways, it's only 35m more than Batman Begins.

 

[GoldenState]

All these big films cost 150m+ these days

Heck, even Wall-E cost 180m

 

[hame4479]

SR did not cost 270 million period. That movie was budgeted at 225ish, maybe if you count all of the Superman projects that failed to get off of the ground in between franchises but there is no way, same goes for PC 3 I don't believe those number for a second. But between the cast, the huge stunts, the on location work, and the pretty near flawless cg of course it would cost upwards of 180 mil. Hell the Incredible Hulk cost 150 and it didn't have set pieces that were anywhere near this size or a cast like this. Hell the cast had to of eaten a huge chunk out of the budget.

 

[hame4479]

^Exactly...why I love Nolan and most critics do too is that he does as much practical stunt work as he can and uses very very realistic CGI when it is needed. The scene in BB when Bats drops down the stairs with all the bats flying around was completely CGI and looked 100% real...amazing.

No it wasn't that was a practical stunt with cgi'd bats, that was not purely cg.

 

[hame4479]

People are watching Batman on Imax because of all the hype the movie is getting. It's not because ppl are so impressed with Imax.



You and I very likely have very different ideas of what qualifies as a decent action scene and a great one. I have not seen the film but I watched BB and that kind of tells me what I need to know about Nolan's directorial style. I'm sure you and many others thought Burton's original Batman was "loaded with action" too. I've never been so bored in my life. As for my avatar I don't see what a cartoon bumblebee has anything to do with TDK. You must realize you've lost all credibility right?

People are seeing this in Imax solely because large portions were shot in the format, that is a fact, me and others have stated this for months and seen it since its release for that reason alone in Imax. And if you haven't seen the film then don't even bother talking about it or Nolan's directorial style, wich by the way is leagues ahead of most of the hacks you probably idolize. The action in this film is intelligent, brutal, and miles ahead of what BB displayed. So you have officially lost all credibility. Right?

 

[hame4479]

It cost less than I thought it would have, 180 mill pretty cheap for a sequel, I would love to know the marketing costs though.

Can you say out of this ****ing world, because they must have been!

 

[zanos]

bkey put up a link in the previous page.

1. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - $300,000,000
   [*]Superman Returns - $270,000,000
   [*]Spider Man 3 - $258,000,000
2. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - $225,000,000
3. King Kong - $207,000,000
4. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian - $200,000,000
   [*]Spider-Man 2 - $200,000,000
   [*]Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines - $200,000,000
5. Titanic - $200,000,000
6. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - $185,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films

Not adjusted for inflation, so those are more recent ones.

Ouch, now I feel bad for Narnia 2. I think it just struggled to $140 domestic.

Wow alot of these are just embarrassing especially the ones I highlighted since I actually saw those. Needless to say this just proves my point that alot of directors simply don't know how to use a budget efficiently. Nolan is no different based on what I saw in BB. For the record I've never seen the pirate movies or Narnia so I can't comment on those but I'd be willing to bet they were too much. Also Indiana Jones is not a 200 million dolllar film and I haven't seen this either. Bottomline is even James Cameron who's known for being the first to break industry budget barriers won't even be going over 200 million on his new film Avatar which will be shot in 3D using a completely new technology so I don't know how anyone can justify the expense of all these 200 million or near 200 million films.

 

[P.F. Geraci]

CGI these days is like the equivalent of outsourcing jobs to another country. And the money spent in Chicago was well worth it because the movie looked beautiful. That was one of my only small gripes with Batman Begins was that a lot of it felt like it took place in a bubble (because a good portion of it was shot on sets). Chicago let The Dark Knight breath.

 

[byte19]

bkey put up a link in the previous page.

1. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - $300,000,000
2. Superman Returns - $270,000,000
3. Spider Man 3 - $258,000,000
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - $225,000,000
5. King Kong - $207,000,000
6. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian - $200,000,000
7. Spider-Man 2 - $200,000,000
8. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines - $200,000,000
9. Titanic - $200,000,000
10. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - $185,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films

Not adjusted for inflation, so those are more recent ones.

Ouch, now I feel bad for Narnia 2. I think it just struggled to $140 domestic.

wow, what a list. seen all of them, and didn't give a **** about the budget! oh and let's go out and see more movies! cause if you feel the need to down a movie and not be even close to seeing it? maybe we need to have a tall can of shut the **** up juice!

 

[Ace of Knaves]

the simple fact of the matters is which is more expensive addin chicago in via green screen and cgi n all that crap, or actually basically hiring out the use of chicago for 6-8 months? it must of been well expensive to close down lower wacker and the other main roads to basically blow them up!!

 

[gazzilla8000]

Spiderman 3's budget was poorly managed, no way it should have cost that much, even with all the sfx.

 

[nathan andrew]

you're kidding right? Did you stay for the credits? Each and every single one of those people are getting paid for their job, most of the on salaries. Every story boarder, production artist, prop maker, stage setter, light rigger and so on needs to be paid for months of service. Let's not even mention the actor's wage, the cost of shooting (much higher in IMAX) post-production, viral marketing (cost millions to market as well) and I wouldn't doubt if the producers are calculating their salary into the figure as well. Just because you didn't see it on the screen doesn't mean it didn't cost a fortune to produce. $180 million is what it took to make this movie possible so that you could even watch it.

 

[LadyVader]

If that 180 million includes all the actors paychecks and the marketing, then I think we should ask Nolan how he managed to spend ONLY 180 million.

 

[DeaDheaD]

If that 180 million includes all the actors paychecks and the marketing, then I think we should ask Nolan how he managed to spend ONLY 180 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_budget#Lara_Croft_Tomb_Raider:_The_Cradle_of_Life

Actor salaries are part of the production budget, some actors even have a percentage based incentive, Heath has been reported to be able to get over 20 million for his role if the movie does well, it all goes to his family.

 

[dcpuser]

no, i just have common sense.

i know that a lot of movies shoot in locations like hong kong and chicago.

i know that this wasn't a big special effects movie.

and i know that from what was shown on screen, there was a lot of money wasted if this thing cost $180 million.

and i really don't think that this movie had 700 fx shots. 700 cgi AND practical effects stunts, together, maybe. hell, the matrix revolutions had about 1,000 cgi shots, and i think we all know that that movie was practically head to toe cgi, and it only cost $150 million to make.

sorry, my concensus is that nolan doesn't know how to properly utilize a budget.

i know this movie is the new fanboy wet dream, and i liked the movie quite a bit, too, and i know that it's like, blasphemy to say anything negative about it, nolan, heath or bale on this board, but still. this movie should not have cost this much. no way.

There are so many things wrong with that post I think it ruptured the sheer fabric of space. Do you realize costs involve more than simply CGI? There's staffing and all of the associated costs including catering/support/maintenance. There's the salaries of the actors. There's the location costs. There's logistics costs. There's production costs. Let's also factor in something called inflation and rising costs of EVERYTHING in the States but then we're delving into economics here and that might be too "complex". Why did he choose Chicago? Nolan wanted an AUTHENTIC look of Gotham and not some CGI-ed nightmare like Spider-Man's NYC. That's why he spent that amount of money to re-create the sets in a LIVE environment.

Yeah my post might have come off as high and mighty but I feel your arrogant post only deserves an equal response in kind. No go back to your simple life of budgeting how much money you have for lunch and leave large scale budgets to actual PROJECT MANAGERS.

Thanks!

 

[Anita18]

SR did not cost 270 million period. That movie was budgeted at 225ish, maybe if you count all of the Superman projects that failed to get off of the ground in between franchises but there is no way, same goes for PC 3 I don't believe those number for a second.

That number comes from Box Office Mojo. I know there's a lot of debate over how much SR actually cost, but the most important thing is that it definitely cost over $180 million, which is more than TDK and what we're pointing out here.

you're kidding right? Did you stay for the credits? Each and every single one of those people are getting paid for their job, most of the on salaries.

Since Nolan is working with his main crew for 7 months on end (no second unit), he's also paying them longer. Many of them have worked with him before, so they might have gotten a pay raise from BB.

 

[The Shape]

No offense to you, Mr. Credible, but you are very dense. This absolutely was a "big special effects movie". Let's count up the action sequences.

1. Parking lot fight with Scarecrow and the faske Batmen -- included explosions, hand-to-hand combat, and a jump onto a van from pretty high up, with no CGI

2. Hong Kong retrieval of Lau -- included on-location filming in Hong Kong, CGI, and practical stunts

3. The party scene -- hand-to-hand combat, practical stunts, and CGI (fall from the window)

4. Chase sequence -- probably one of the more expensive chases in history, which included a ****-load of practical stunts (stunt driving, explosions, 18-wheeler truck flip, actual working Batpot built and ridden), some CGI, and filmed on location in Chicago...all of it.

5. Conclusion of film -- Two Face (some CGI), ferries, and huge action sequence in the construction site (which was actually the unfinished Trump Chicago, so more money down the drain)

There are plenty of large-scale action sequences in this film, and the special effects are top notch in every one of them. Then, factor in the actor's salaries, IMAX technology, building sets, costumes, props, and everything else in the movie, and you have $180 million.
I'm frankly surprised they didn't go way over, now having seen the film. Sure, there wasn't huge CGI sequences in every scene, but that's where much of the expense came from. The reason films like the Matrix sequels used a ****load of CGI was because you couldn't do half of those things practically. Nolan STRIVED to do everything he could practically, which is much more difficult and often more expensive. Yeah, CGI is expensive, but usuing logic, which do you think is more expensive: rendering a CGI truck flip, or shutting down a major sreet in Chicago and rigging an actual 18-wheeler to do a 180 flip in a stunt that has never been done before on film?

 

[Perdition]

Wow alot of these are just embarrassing especially the ones I highlighted since I actually saw those. Needless to say this just proves my point that alot of directors simply don't know how to use a budget efficiently. Nolan is no different based on what I saw in BB. For the record I've never seen the pirate movies or Narnia so I can't comment on those but I'd be willing to bet they were too much. Also Indiana Jones is not a 200 million dolllar film and I haven't seen this either. Bottomline is even James Cameron who's known for being the first to break industry budget barriers won't even be going over 200 million on his new film Avatar which will be shot in 3D using a completely new technology so I don't know how anyone can justify the expense of all these 200 million or near 200 million films.

I'm glad twelve people will see avatar