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

[Hole Shot]

The logic that CGI is more expensive than practical effects and set pieces just blows my mind. I mean seriously, can someone explain to me how that even makes sense? I mean, I could see with certain sequences it might save a little cash doing things practically, but overall I just can't see how doing things practically would be cheaper especially when you consider the effects shots and sets in this film.

Wall-E cost the same to make as TDK, FWIW.

 

[zanos]

I didnt see it mentioned but Nolen said in some interview (cant find the link now) that filming in IMAX double production costs. The cameras are bigger and needed stonger riggings. Well worth it if you've seen the IMAX version.

If that's true that's really a dumb way to spend money. I'd rather that money be spent on 3 more amazing looking action sequences than on something so frivolous as IMAX which most ppl won't ever see it in. This is the entire crux of the argument about whether Nolan can manage a big budget or not and it appears he can't.

 

[The Mighty Wind]

If that's true that's really a dumb way to spend money. I'd rather that money be spent on 3 more amazing looking action sequences than on something so frivolous as IMAX which most ppl won't ever see it in. This is the entire crux of the argument about whether Nolan can manage a big budget or not and it appears he can't.

Huh?

Well, let's see, you and the rest of us really shouldn't care period how the money is spent. All we want to see is a good film, and by almost all accounts, Christopher Nolan has given it to us.

Who should care about the money? Warner Bros, the company trying to profit from the film. Given that The Dark Knight is setting records across the board in IMAX, I would say that the money that Warner Bros. invested into the IMAX portion of the film was certainly worth it.

Also, this film was loaded with action sequences. Anymore would have very likely made the story extremely cumbersome.

I can see the logic in what Mr. Credible was asking, though I certainly don't see why anyone would get upset over how a studio's money was spent.

You on the other hand zanos, seem to have brand yourself through your avatar with your mindset.

 

[Knight_Of_Steel]

They didn't use any uber dumbass CGI or fight stalling Slow Motion. This would mean that they had to come up with more moves, stunts, real special effects, machines, equipment, ect...

 

[BaleISBatman4ev]

i mean, seriously? $180 million? where did it all go? there was hardly any cgi in the movie, and not a lot of big expensive set pieces/toys/etc... and i doubt bale, ledger, oldman or eckhart's paychecks were THAT big.

transformers was budgeted at $140 million, and it had tons of cgi, and some of the best to date as well. hellboy 2 was only $85 million, and is one of the most lusciously beautiful movies i've ever seen. iron man only cost $140, too.

anyone have any idea how this movie was so damn expensive? i just didn't see it on the screen.

Its amazing how little people know about filmmaking. It also saddens me that unless a movie has ****ty CGI (spiderman 3, superman returns) thats the only way people notice "how much money" was spent.

Not only does Dark Knight have a lot of CGI, it hides it very well because it is actually WELL done, which means its not screaming out at you "IM FAKE AND COST A LOT OF MONEY TO RENDER". FIlms the scope of Dark Knight, with the locations, hundreds of days of shooting, New IMAX technology, absolute all star cast,basically shutting down parts of cities with hundreds of extras, these things don't come cheap.

 

[chaseter]

^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.

 

[zanos]

Huh?

Well, let's see, you and the rest of us really shouldn't care period how the money is spent. All we want to see is a good film, and by almost all accounts, Christopher Nolan has given it to us.

Who should care about the money? Warner Bros, the company trying to profit from the film. Given that The Dark Knight is setting records across the board in IMAX, I would say that the money that Warner Bros. invested into the IMAX portion of the film was certainly worth it.

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.

Also, this film was loaded with action sequences. Anymore would have very likely made the story extremely cumbersome.

I can see the logic in what Mr. Credible was asking, though I certainly don't see why anyone would get upset over how a studio's money was spent.

You on the other hand zanos, seem to have brand yourself through your avatar with your mindset.

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?

 

[chaseter]

^If you haven't watched Dark Knight and are going off of assumptions and hearsay then you have no credibility here.

 

[the_monk]

Not quite sure I agree on the idea that the CG was "well-done". It seemed rather obvious to me that something was CG because it stuck out like a sore thumb when so many of the stunts were real. The wall-flip, the ejection, the helicopter were all fairly obvious CG. Didn't take away from the movie, though.

 

[Anita18]

If that's true that's really a dumb way to spend money. I'd rather that money be spent on 3 more amazing looking action sequences than on something so frivolous as IMAX which most ppl won't ever see it in. This is the entire crux of the argument about whether Nolan can manage a big budget or not and it appears he can't.

IMAX theaters are selling out days ahead because it's been hyped as the first feature film to use the technology. It does add to the hype, even if only 900 theaters across the US are going to show it. It also forces people to go to the theater to view it, because hey, if it's filmed in IMAX, it must be really really awesome to see even if it's on a regular screen.

And the film didn't need 3 more action sequences, amazing or not. But you haven't seen the film, so you wouldn't know.

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.

Have you seen any other Nolan movies?

I have seen every one of them, and I can tell you straight up that TDK does not resemble ANY of them in scope, not even BB. This film is a huge step up for him.

 

[zanos]

IMAX theaters are selling out days ahead because it's been hyped as the first feature film to use the technology. It does add to the hype, even if only 900 theaters across the US are going to show it. It also forces people to go to the theater to view it, because hey, if it's filmed in IMAX, it must be really really awesome to see even if it's on a regular screen.

And the film didn't need 3 more action sequences, amazing or not. But you haven't seen the film, so you wouldn't know.


Have you seen any other Nolan movies?

I have seen every one of them, and I can tell you straight up that TDK does not resemble ANY of them in scope, not even BB. This film is a huge step up for him.

Well alot of ppl would probably say X2 was a huge step up for Singer from X-Men but ultimately it was still visually disappointing despite the fact that he was given 110 million dollars to shoot it. Alot of ppl have eventually come to realize this just like you and everyone else will with TDK. It just takes a little time for the initial high to wear off.

 

[TNC9852002]

Well alot of ppl would probably say X2 was a huge step up for Singer from X-Men but ultimately it was still visually disappointing despite the fact that he was given 110 million dollars to shoot it. Alot of ppl have eventually come to realize this just like you and everyone else will with TDK. It just takes a little time for the initial high to wear off.

X2 was incredible back in 2003, so was Spider-Man back in 2002 and Spider-Man 2 in 2004. It's amazing how we can look back in such a short amount of time and notice how dramatic the gap in achievement of visual effects have become.

-TNC

 

[chaseter]

Not quite sure I agree on the idea that the CG was "well-done". It seemed rather obvious to me that something was CG because it stuck out like a sore thumb when so many of the stunts were real. The wall-flip, the ejection, the helicopter were all fairly obvious CG. Didn't take away from the movie, though.

The helicopter was the only obvious CGI to me...

 

[Anita18]

Well alot of ppl would probably say X2 was a huge step up for Singer from X-Men but ultimately it was still visually disappointing despite the fact that he was given 110 million dollars to shoot it. Alot of ppl have eventually come to realize this just like you and everyone else will with TDK. It just takes a little time for the initial high to wear off.

I always did think the X-men movies were highly overrated, so that argument won't fly with me.

And the aerial shots will always be gorgeous in TDK, because they were shot on location, and in IMAX. I highly doubt they will be suddenly considered "ugly" after the initial high wears off.

But what can I say, I'm a HUGE sucker for aerial shots.

 

[byte19]

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.

ugh.... i'm getting real tired of so-called know-it-alls who think somewhere, in their extremely warped minds, they know what i like and dislike. please go back to criticizing the 2 friends you know, and stop trying to think great ppl here on this board are going to follow you. if some do, it's on their terms, not Dr. Phil.

 

[Downhere]

Well alot of ppl would probably say X2 was a huge step up for Singer from X-Men but ultimately it was still visually disappointing despite the fact that he was given 110 million dollars to shoot it. Alot of ppl have eventually come to realize this just like you and everyone else will with TDK. It just takes a little time for the initial high to wear off.

X2's visual effects disappointing? I thought Singer did very well with the budget he had to work with, which let's face it, isn't near as high as many of the other big films at the time. I still think the effects work on Nightcrawler is some of the best I've seen.

 

[infamous]

stupid thread, stupid question.

 

[Pseudobulbar]

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

Part of that $180 million was a $400 check to me- I was an extra for a few days. Know what I did? Sat around and played cards or watched them filming for 95% of the time they had me (or ate really good food). They had us just in case- they blew lots of money on things to be sure they could enhance the artistic quality of everything.

Not that the "extra" budget was a big deal, but I could tell they pulled out all of the stops for this so that Nolan could do whatever he wanted. Clearly, it is paying dividends...

 

[Downhere]

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

I'm not sure, but I think it does have to be up there, although I think there are other films that cost more.

And that must have been awesome watching the crew film.

 

[bkey]

Well alot of ppl would probably say X2 was a huge step up for Singer from X-Men but ultimately it was still visually disappointing despite the fact that he was given 110 million dollars to shoot it. Alot of ppl have eventually come to realize this just like you and everyone else will with TDK. It just takes a little time for the initial high to wear off.

You haven't even seen the movie yet. Stop complaining.

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

Not even close. All of these had bigger budgets.
1Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End2007$300,000,0002Superman Returns2006$270,000,0003Spider Man 32007$258,000,0004Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest2006$225,000,0005King Kong2005$207,000,0006The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian2008$200,000,000=Spider-Man 22004$200,000,000=Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines2003$200,000,000=Titanic1997$200,000,00010Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull2008$185,000,000

edit: sorry, that chart is screwed up. Here's the link though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films

 

[jtfaria]

Look at all the well known actors they got onboard this thing, even those with bit parts. They don't come cheap.

There was an ET piece on Ledger that pegged his take on the film at $20 million. That will probably include some type of profit-sharing, but the figure was given BEFORE the film opened and any profits were known. So, Ledger's time alone cost around $20 mill of that $180 mill. For argument's sake, let's say that Bale, Freedman, Oldman, Gyllenhal, and each Nolan were had on the cheap - $10 mil apiece. That's another $60 million, so we're up to $80 million total, just for that small but important group of contributors.

It's actually quite EASY to see where the money went. This thread is absurd.

 

[The Mighty Wind]

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.

Yeah, I'm sure the fact that TDK is dwarfing the previous records has nothing to do with the fact that this is the first movie to actually employ IMAX technology.

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?

The action styles in Begins and The Dark Knight are pretty distinct from one another. The action's still kinetic but there is a lot more room to see it, as well as much more action period, along with plenty of action beyond simple fight scenes.

And sorry, but as much as taking an (admitted) cheap shot at an avatar that celebrates a bunch of giant robots who fight in streets might not be an effective argument, it's not even close to the credibility drop off of someone who has yet to even watch the movie in question.

 

[The Mighty Wind]

There was an ET piece on Ledger that pegged his take on the film at $20 million. That will probably include some type of profit-sharing, but the figure was given BEFORE the film opened and any profits were known. So, Ledger's time alone cost around $20 mill of that $180 mill. For argument's sake, let's say that Bale, Freedman, Oldman, Gyllenhal, and each Nolan were had on the cheap - $10 mil apiece. That's another $60 million, so we're up to $80 million total, just for that small but important group of contributors.

It's actually quite EASY to see where the money went. This thread is absurd.

Ledger could not possibly have had the position to demand $20 million. He's a once Oscar nominated actor with a spotty Box Office record.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

why in the world did this thread even start?

Because you touch yourself at night.

 

[hegele]

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

Not at all. Spider-man 3, Terminator 3 and Superman Returns budgets were $250 Million. And there are number of others that were more than 180.

Also, if you add inflation, i doubt TDK would even be in the top 15, War & Peace is the most expensive, followed by Cleopatra.

also- thats so cool you were an extra, nice recap! I'm jealous, haha