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

[IrishFightin]

New York is much more expensive

 

[DeaDheaD]

then they shouldn't have shot there. that's a ridiculous price to pay.

Shouldn't have shot where?

 

[Hyzer]

Weren't the IMAX cameras given them to them for free, as a sort of experiment?

 

[smooth3006]

this movie cost $180 million to make ? how can that be ? the hulk was all cgi and it didn't cost near that.

 

[DeaDheaD]

Weren't the IMAX cameras given them to them for free, as a sort of experiment?

No, plus they broke one.

 

[Anita18]

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

Hey, at least he didn't pay millions to plant a cornfield for a shot that lasts 10 seconds, and wasn't necessary for the plotline. Or cut a sequence that cost $10 million.

(Sorry, when someone complains about Nolan not knowing what to do about money, I can't help but take cheap shots at Bryan Singer. )

BB had a $150 million budget, and it was reported that Nolan only used $135 million of it.

Location shooting was an important aspect of this film, so that didn't go to waste. Nolan also doesn't believe in having a second unit, which costs more, I think.

IMAX also costs 4x as much to film with, because of the rate the cameras go through film stock, and the costs of re-developing everything to hold the thing.

 

[Anita18]

Weren't the IMAX cameras given them to them for free, as a sort of experiment?

They were, but they still had to pay for the film and developing. Film stock's not cheap.

 

[IrishFightin]

The cost in chicago was apparently 45 million dollars, I hear it was 17.

Still, Chicago is the cheapest big city in the nation.

Given the fact the majority of the movie was filmed here. 93 percent. The notable exceptions being the Reveal of the Joker and The hong kong part.

It cost more. As opposed to the movies that use one or two shots of Chicago.

Chicago was the cheapest, and the better choice.

 

[Bat-Mite]

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.

In other words, it wasn't pretty/flashy enough for you. Let's see.. they had to build a whole new batsuit from scratch.. had.. I think it was 26 Joker coats made for Heath Ledger to wear throughout the movie.. bought a building for the express purpose of blowing it up, had to move the actors and crew to Hong Kong and then PAY HK for the right to film there, I'm sure. All of this stuff starts to add up big time as you go along. Until you've seen how much money was spent for what, I really don't think you should be throwing accusations around about the guy not knowing how to budget a movie. The fact that it DOESN'T look like a CGI'd up typical comic book movie shows that the CGI that they did use was very high quality.. which was the same for Begins. Isn't CGI best when you can't even tell it's CGI?

 

[IrishFightin]

Yeah, Im sure the Candy factory cost a few million. That large a building in chicago. Maybe nine or 10 millon, I dont know.

 

[CaptainClown]

miniatures, on sight location, stunt teams, use of really ritzy locations. BLOWING UP REAL BUILDINGS!

 

[CaptainClown]

They were, but they still had to pay for the film and developing. Film stock's not cheap.

Oh god qft... thank god for student discounts..

 

[Mr. Credible]

Ok, what in the hell are you talking about? i work in film too and i'm sorry if this comes off as disrespectful, but it seems like in your point of view, if a movie doesn't have computer generated green monsters fighting in New York City or a bunch of CGI robots and iron men running around then they must have wasted their money? They shot this around the world, they have an ensamble cast full of academy award winners/nominees, they do things practically (which costs time, effort and money) and they blow a million things up.

I can;t believe anyone with a straight face can say they didn't utilize their money efficiantly.

no, i don't think that at all, but i think we'd all agree that cgi is much more expensive than doing things practically, which this movie seems to prefer. and many, many movies (which i listed) have done ridiculous amounts of cgi and still cost tens of millions less than the dark knight.

and i really can't believe that people are defending the fact that nolan chose to shoot in chicago, knowing it would cost him $45 million, when he could have hired a second unit to go there, get the landscape and background shots and what not, and then film the other stuff on a set, like 90% of directors would have done... saving him probably $30 million, easy.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Is it not true that Nolan came significantly under budget for both BB and TDK?

Doesn't seem insufficient to me.

Terrible thread - I mean, you have no concept of a production of a movie.

 

[CaptainClown]

There really is a difference in shooting shots of CHicago then filming on a stage vs. Actually shooting in Chicago. THat is one thing I love about Nolans films, it feels like they are really there. Unlike Transformers which shows a couple exteriors of the Hoover dam then the inside is just a set.

 

[samsnee]

So because the CGI and effects aren't blatantly noticeable on-screen, it shouldn't have cost that much? Would you pay more something that looks cheap or something that looks real?

 

[DeaDheaD]

no, i don't think that at all, but i think we'd all agree that cgi is much more expensive than doing things practically, which this movie seems to prefer. and many, many movies (which i listed) have done ridiculous amounts of cgi and still cost tens of millions less than the dark knight.

and i really can't believe that people are defending the fact that nolan chose to shoot in chicago, knowing it would cost him $45 million, when he could have hired a second unit to go there, get the landscape and background shots and what not, and then film the other stuff on a set, like 90% of directors would have done... saving him probably $30 million, easy.

Doesnt that prove that cgi is less?

 

[IrishFightin]

Yeah, Using 180 million of a planned budget (of 180 million), Christ. Its like hes trying to stick to the damn budget. How unknowledgeable of a man who had a movie make an opening weekend record. To actually use the money he was budgeted.


I went to pick up my paycheck today, you know, the money I earned based on my past performance and the agreement I entered into.

I said Nahh, gimme 75 percent, That's all I NEED.

 

[DeaDheaD]

There really is a difference in shooting shots of CHicago then filming on a stage vs. Actually shooting in Chicago. THat is one thing I love about Nolans films, it feels like they are really there. Unlike Transformers which shows a couple exteriors of the Hoover dam then the inside is just a set.

Or the Star Wars prequel, which looks like a movie projector on a blue screen

 

[Mikesimus]

The cost in chicago was apparently 45 million dollars, I hear it was 17.

Still, Chicago is the cheapest big city in the nation.

Given the fact the majority of the movie was filmed here. 93 percent. The notable exceptions being the Reveal of the Joker and The hong kong part.

It cost more. As opposed to the movies that use one or two shots of Chicago.

Chicago was the cheapest, and the better choice.

That was in Chicago too, in the old post office

 

[Anita18]

and i really can't believe that people are defending the fact that nolan chose to shoot in chicago, knowing it would cost him $45 million, when he could have hired a second unit to go there, get the landscape and background shots and what not, and then film the other stuff on a set, like 90% of directors would have done... saving him probably $30 million, easy.

Nolan, as a director, does not believe in having a second unit. He's never had one.

That makes him a rock star, in my eyes. Nothing's too small for him - he wants to oversee everything.

 

[ultimatefan]

I think the lots of practical effects and stunts took a lot of the cost. The hospital blowing up? It was a real-size building. The swat guys hanging from a building? The stuntmen hang from a real building. The truck flipping over 180 degrees? A real size truck.

 

[CaptainClown]

So because the CGI and effects aren't blatantly noticeable on-screen, it shouldn't have cost that much? Would you pay more something that looks cheap or something that looks real?

Ya Nolan seemed to mostly use CG for touch ups. Like Two-face, who was mostly make up with CGI enhancements. All the chases were miniatures enhanced by CG, and everything else was cg. Man I loved the look

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Yeah, Using 180 million of a planned budget (of 180 million), Christ. Its like hes trying to stick to the damn budget. How unknowledgeable of a man who had a movie make an opening weekend record. To actually use the money he was budgeted.


I went to pick up my paycheck today, you know, the money I earned based on my past performance and the agreement I entered into.

I said Nahh, gimme 75 percent, That's all I NEED.

LOL t:


Nolan knows what he is doing...

Plus, I would much rather see a 180 million dollar movie like this than watch cheap looking, horrible choreographed CGI robots fighting.

 

[Anita18]

no, i don't think that at all, but i think we'd all agree that cgi is much more expensive than doing things practically

If it's more expensive, then why is everyone doing it?

It'd be much more practical to make movies cheaper, so getting a return in box office is easier.