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

[Staxeon]

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.

I think Optimus was rebuilt from a pretty much junked semi. But you're corect on the customization, the other vehicles were given to Bay by GM for free and customized (which is why they were all GM, he couldn't pass up the chance at free cars).

I'm not sure how many days they filmed in LA, and how that all works out with the city and such as far as a dollar amount. But its LA, I hear they have a department in city hall dedicated to working with filming productions, thats all they do. All scenes shot on Air Force bases were on the movie dime. Including time paid to real soldiers for acting, jet and helicopter fuel for any fly-bys, etc, so that no tax dollars were used for the filming of a movie.

 

[Norman Bates]

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.

Get educated rather than just using your so called "common sense".

 

[Rikxiepoo]

Its simple:

Live action stunts, filming in Chicago, lots and lots of things getting blown up and destroyed (building the sets then blowing them up costs quite a bit), all the equipment costs (imax cameras, building the batpods and maintenance of them and the tumbler), crew and actors salaries, etc

You can definitely tell the movie was big and therefore cost more than begins.

If you want a movie were the budget was ridiculously high but the movie itself did not show exactly how it all got spent, try Spider-man 3.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Bay films quicker. Nolan took his time on TDK, it took about 7 months to film which is a pretty long time I assume. This film also had more CG shots than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The difference is that it was less noticeable in this film, that type of CG costs bunches.

 

[CaptainClown]

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

OH yes. The difference between the casts is like eight tracks vs vinyl.

 

[DeaDheaD]

I think Optimus was rebuilt from a pretty much junked semi. But you're corect on the customization, the other vehicles were given to Bay by GM for free and customized (which is why they were all GM, he couldn't pass up the chance at free cars).

I'm not sure how many days they filmed in LA, and how that all works out with the city and such as far as a dollar amount. But its LA, I hear they have a department in city hall dedicated to working with filming productions, thats all they do. All scenes shot on Air Force bases were on the movie dime. Including time paid to real soldiers for acting, jet and helicopter fuel for any fly-bys, etc, so that no tax dollars were used for the filming of a movie.

You know Begins cost 150 mill, same as TF, TDK is the sequel, sequels are always more expensive, check back in a year and see what TF2 costs

 

[DeaDheaD]

OH yes. The difference between the casts is like eight tracks vs vinyl.

I missed something.........what?

 

[DeaDheaD]

Bay films quicker. Nolan took his time on TDK, it took about 7 months to film which is a pretty long time I assume. This film also had more CG shots than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The difference is that it was less noticeable in this film, that type of CG costs bunches.

Indy 4 was 5 million more, cost-wise

 

[CaptainClown]

I think Optimus was rebuilt from a pretty much junked semi. But you're corect on the customization, the other vehicles were given to Bay by GM for free and customized (which is why they were all GM, he couldn't pass up the chance at free cars).

I'm not sure how many days they filmed in LA, and how that all works out with the city and such as far as a dollar amount. But its LA, I hear they have a department in city hall dedicated to working with filming productions, thats all they do. All scenes shot on Air Force bases were on the movie dime. Including time paid to real soldiers for acting, jet and helicopter fuel for any fly-bys, etc, so that no tax dollars were used for the filming of a movie.

Thats cool to hear. I didn't realize GM gave them free cars, even though I should have saw that coming. DId the optimus semi like transform or did they just make it a functional semi?

The LA shots and air force shots seem like it would cost a lot more. However we are forgetting the number one trick in the Michael Bay play book. Circling a certain location over and over and splicing them in within scenes, gives the movie a weird grand feeling.

 

[Darth-IronMan]

$180mil minus 60mil marketing is $120mil production.

Half of that $120mil would have gone on Actors alone.

Thats $60mil production est. probably far less when you factor in crew pay.

Movies still don't cost much to make it's just when you get bandwagon jumping costs skyrocket and thats one of the reasons these big budget flicks have fake shooting names. Actors and marketing typically cost more that the production budget of any film.

 

[Staxeon]

Thats cool to hear. I didn't realize GM gave them free cars, even though I should have saw that coming. DId the optimus semi like transform or did they just make it a functional semi?

The LA shots and air force shots seem like it would cost a lot more. However we are forgetting the number one trick in the Michael Bay play book. Circling a certain location over and over and splicing them in within scenes, gives the movie a weird grand feeling.

Yeah, free cars is hard to turn away from. He didn't want Jazz to be such a small car (the pontiac soltice) but hard to argue with free, plus access to the camero which still isn't even in mass production. Optimus didnt transform or anything. Just rebuilt so that it would actually drive under its own power, and the custom paint job of course.

 

[Hole Shot]

I missed something.........what?

not a record collector, eh?

 

[Downhere]

$180mil minus 60mil marketing is $120mil production.

Half of that $120mil would have gone on Actors alone.

Thats $60mil production est. probably far less when you factor in crew pay.

Usually, the production budget does not include marketing.

But either way, this movie looked expensive so I don't understand how anyone can say where did they spend the money. Flawless stunts, practical effects and CGI cost lots of money.

 

[kyuubijavi1]

eh CGI doesnt make a movie good and when you know actors actually do the things there paid for and so do the stunt men then you actually get your self a pretty good movie cause TDK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transformers and way more plus they used a whole city to film the movie closing off streets and junk like that must cost alot blowing up buildings, cars and so on not to mention a trip to hong kong

this movie spent 180 and it was well spent and there going to double maybe triple what they put in by the end of the movies run

 

[StorminNorman]

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

Who are you to say what Nolan should or should not of payed for. What an idiotic, stupid comment that reeks of arrogance.

This movie cost a lot of money because it relied upon real effects over CGI.

 

[CaptainClown]

not a record collector, eh?

Records FTW!

 

[Dannyboy3D]

This movie cost $180 million for one plain & simple reason...




GAS PRICES.

 

[CaptainClown]

um... k... then by that logic transformers should have been insane.

 

[BMM]

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

... and The Incredible Hulk looks cheaper as a result.

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.

That's not necessarily true at all.

But either way, this movie looked expensive so I don't understand how anyone can say where did they spend the money. Flawless stunts, practical effects and CGI cost lots of money.

No kidding.

 

[Downhere]

This movie cost $180 million for one plain & simple reason...




GAS PRICES.

Yeah, I'm sure the gas for the Tumbler is pretty costly.

 

[In a Pickle]

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.

On a set? Are you ****ing kidding me? Thank god you didn't make this movie.

 

[IrishFightin]

Thats true Danny Boy-o


Hundred of barells of GASOLINEEE!!!!

120 bucks a pop back then.

Yeha, gas had everything to do with it.

 

[CaptainClown]

While organizing the budget.
10 mil - Actors
10 Mil - cgi/special effects
10 mil - location shots etc.
150 mil - gas....

 

[In a Pickle]

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.

Frankly, everyone here thinks you're being ignorant. Many people have tried to explain to you why it cost $180 mil, but you're plugging your ears like a child and refusing to listen. Don't go spewing stuff that you have no idea about and expect to be taken seriously. Do some research and educate yourself.

 

[byte19]

i'm glad some certain person left this thread, cause he was gonna get char-broiled!! "they shouldn't shoot here"? lets get them over to your 4 skyscraper downtown that is Lexington hick-ville!!! i ain't in "the biz", but i know he could have went were he grew up at and shot the film there.

oh wait, he grew up in CHICAGO!!!

don't try to play my city like a punk ever again, i'll get banned talking 'bout your sorry butt.

practical f/x cost more than cgi to make cause it real.