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

[IrishFightin]

That was in Chicago too, in the old post office

The scee ws, Up until the point of Fichtner's reentrance into it.

That was filmed in england, so no one could get an early view of the Joker (IE, Extras)

 

[Mikesimus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sophocles_Budget_Page.png

 

[Staxeon]

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.

Wow, really? You went there? That seems like a mature way to validate an arguement.

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.

I have to ask the question....why do you care? Minus the limited shooting in Hong Kong this is money pumped into the domestic economy, what's the issue? So Nolan shot primarily with practical effects and location shots instead of on green screens and sets, film is considered an art form, why are you critisizing the size of the preverbial brush used by the artist?

The studio backed it and paid for it, greenlit production along the way. They're the ones who would take a loss if the ticket sales and such didn't meet or exceed production costs. The end product is, in my opinion, an epic film. For one, why do you have to put a price tag on the production, and for two, what does it matter if its $150M or $180M?

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

BTW... Is it true that The Dark Knight is up to 195 million dollars worldwide now?

Just checking DeaDheaD's sig!

 

[Mr. Credible]

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.

you're right, i don't. i don't work in the "biz" like so many here claim to.


i'm basing this on comparison to many, many movies that were bigger, looked more expensive and yes, "flashier", but cost much, much less to make.

 

[mavsmaniac21]

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

just quit now. you couldnt be more annoying

 

[DeaDheaD]

BTW... Is it true that The Dark Knight is up to 195 million dollars worldwide now?

Just checking DeaDheaD's sig!

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=darkknight.htm

 

[DeaDheaD]

you're right, i don't. i don't work in the "biz" like so many here claim to.


i'm basing this on comparison to many, many movies that were bigger, looked more expensive and yes, "flashier", but cost much, much less to make.

Like what movies?

 

[namtaB]

On location filming is very expensive. You need to pay up to the city, businesses, etc. Anything you do that disrupts normal business is something you need to pay for (ie. lost profits). Even for small scenes a lot of time and preparation goes into them. All this costs time and money.

 

[CaptainClown]

We shall use Transformer as a comparison. It used many sets which weren't as expensive, could cgi most of their shots did not need as many stunt men to do all the crazy insane stuff they were doing in the dark knight. Did not have to actually build a working vehicle. It did not have to go on location to any site most of the scenes were shot on a stage I bet. Did not use miniatures, at least I don't think it did, and if it did it didn't show. Imax cameras, exploding a real building.. eh you could go on.

 

[CaptainClown]

On location filming is very expensive. You need to pay up to the city, businesses, etc. Anything you do that disrupts normal business is something you need to pay for (ie. lost profits). Even for small scenes a lot of time and preparation goes into them. All this costs time and money.

Ya seriously, Especially the funeral scene. That definitly cost business a lot.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

you're right, i don't. i don't work in the "biz" like so many here claim to.


i'm basing this on comparison to many, many movies that were bigger, looked more expensive and yes, "flashier", but cost much, much less to make.

But no one here is criticizing the movie under what you deem to be worthy for it's budget. Point being, Nolan knew what was needed to make this movie... whereas you have no concept, so why criticize.This movie looks far better than Spider-man 3 which was much more expensive for example.


Warner Bros. made an investment... trusted in the director, crew and cast... then dived right in.


The result?...

 

[Mr. Credible]

okay, i'm officially tired of discussing this. i didn't make this thread to get flamed, i just wanted to ask a question, and i got exactly what i expected: a lot of people blindly defending the movie as "the best masterpiece EVAR BLAH BLAH !! how could you not agree with me?!?!!", mixed in with a few logical responses.

 

[DieSmiling]

what? there wasn't.

two face was probably the biggest one, and it was a very good effect, but even then, i hardly think it cost more than a few million for what little screen time he had. everything else (characters, vehicles, locations) were obviously all real. there may have been a digital batman thrown in during a few of the flying scenes.

i mean, action and cgi are undoubtedly the most expensive things to do. but there just wasn't a lot of big action in this movie. just a few car chases and fist fights, really.

There was loads of CGI, it was just subtle stuff that was so well done you didn't notice it.

 

[CaptainClown]

We didn't say this movie is amazing, we are justifying why it cost so much. Hell this movie could suck and I would still be explaining why it was so expensive.

 

[Staxeon]

We shall use Transformer as a comparison. It used many sets which weren't as expensive, could cgi most of their shots did not need as many stunt men to do all the crazy insane stuff they were doing in the dark knight. Did not have to actually build a working vehicle. It did not have to go on location to any site most of the scenes were shot on a stage I bet. Did not use miniatures, at least I don't think it did, and if it did it didn't show. Imax cameras, exploding a real building.. eh you could go on.

Huh?

Counting just the autobots they built 5 working vehicles, plus all of the sector 7 vehicles. They shutdown parts of LA to film the final battle scene, they also filmed on Edwards Air Force base, Holloman Air Force base, and several location in New Mexico for the desert scenes.

And exploding? This was a Michael Bay picture, everything explodes.

 

[Mr. Credible]

okay, i'm officially tired of discussing this. i didn't make this thread to get flamed, i just wanted to ask a question, and i got exactly what i expected: a lot of people blindly defending the movie as "the best masterpiece EVAR BLAH BLAH !! how could you not agree with me?!?!!", mixed in with a few logical responses.

 

[DeaDheaD]

okay, i'm officially tired of discussing this. i didn't make this thread to get flamed, i just wanted to ask a question, and i got exactly what i expected: a lot of people blindly defending the movie as "the best masterpiece EVAR BLAH BLAH !! how could you not agree with me?!?!!", mixed in with a few logical responses.

who said that?

 

[CaptainClown]

Huh?

Counting just the autobots they built 5 working vehicles, plus all of the sector 7 vehicles. They shutdown parts of LA to film the final battle scene, they also filmed on Edwards Air Force base, Holloman Air Force base, and several location in New Mexico for the desert scenes.

And exploding? This was a Michael Bay picture, everything explodes.

Didn't they just customize cars already? Also when I mean functioning vehicles, I am thinking about how the Bat-pod actually works in real life. The Transformer vehicles seem to have worked before just with added stuff on it. I could be wrong on this because I have not watched the makings of Transformers.

As for shutting down LA, they only really used one part of LA for the final battle which wouldn't cost as much as shutting down a whole city. The Air Force bases would be costly I would imagine but the desert in New Mexico doesn't sound like they are disrupting business there at all.

 

[echostation]

allah give him grace... give him strength to fight his battles... hi hudim

 

[Anita18]

okay, i'm officially tired of discussing this. i didn't make this thread to get flamed, i just wanted to ask a question, and i got exactly what i expected: a lot of people blindly defending the movie as "the best masterpiece EVAR BLAH BLAH !! how could you not agree with me?!?!!", mixed in with a few logical responses.

That is where you are wrong. I defend Nolan blindly.

<-- Nolan fangirl.

 

[NickyTea]

There are many many things that make a movie cost. Things most don't think about. (catering, loding, insurance, whatever)

I will, however, focus on something someone said specifically: That this isn't an effects film.

Sorry, but, 700 effects shots is nothing to sniff at.

Most of these you don't notice. That's why you get this illusion of it being "Not an effects film."

The fundraiser scene...take a look at some of those production shots. Everything out the windows was composited in post.
This plus a million other tiny effects such as wire removal, stabiliztion, and general cleanup get ignored because they are invisible.

I have an eye for this stuff, and I still have no bloody idea how the shot of Joker falling was done.

 

[TheScarecrow]

CGI isn't more expensive.

Let's not forget how much Nolan hates CGI. They purchased two (the one doubling for the hospital and the one in England) buildings to blow up. Buildings don't exactly come cheap.

 

[echostation]

I think Mr Credible has a point in a way but overall there are hardly ANY directors who can give as much bang for the buck as Michael Bay... seriously, HARDLY any other directors... maybe Peter Jackson, maybe given the 300 million total spent on the trilogy of LOTR and 200 mill for King Kong

But there are HARDLY any other directors out there who are as cost efficient as these two and I'm sure there might be a couple more I'm forgetting, maybe Spielberg? all I'm saying is that ultimately what's the point when you're just taking Transformers as an example... Transformers is again a Michael Bay film, he's one of the few guys who can really make a 1 mill dollar film look like a 20 mill dollar film, he's just one of those types who knows that

And that's not criticizing Nolan, it's obvious to me just how well spent the 180 million was in this picture, TDK WAS HUGE in scope, I could see it totally... It's not like Superman Returns which went just way overboard since Singer sucks generally at fiscal responsibility but Nolan wasn't like that... things were just so well technically, professionally and slickly done you can see it definitely cost at least 160 mill to make the film...

Not everyone is gonna be a jackson or bay in terms of look and even then... Transformers may have had huge scope and action and stuff but much of it was in the background and tackily choreographed...

 

[DeaDheaD]

Didn't they just customize cars already? Also when I mean functioning vehicles, I am thinking about how the Bat-pod actually works in real life. The Transformer vehicles seem to have worked before just with added stuff on it. I could be wrong on this because I have not watched the makings of Transformers.

As for shutting down LA, they only really used one part of LA for the final battle which wouldn't cost as much as shutting down a whole city. The Air Force bases would be costly I would imagine but the desert in New Mexico doesn't sound like they are disrupting business there at all.

Bay also had a cheaper cast, and also Bay was begging for more money