The Dark Knight Rumor - The Dark Knight's Budget To Be...

I'm not surprised, it seems to me that every blockbuster needs to cost that much these days, even if it doesn't get its money back at the Box Office :rolleyes: Although, I thought costs would be kept low since they've already built some of the sets they need from the previous film?
 
I wouldn't think it would be that high..most things are already built..didn't they keep the sets erected? i would imagine changes to the bat cave..and a few new sets..

interesting.
 
Maybe its something to do with the new Tax Rates on filmamking in the UK?.....

However, to me that budget still seems a little to high. Frankly I don't think that estimation is correct, though I could be wrong.
 
I agree I don't think it's that high, but who knows? And if it is MAN are we going to be in for a ride!
 
man . . . say hello to some kick @$$ effects sequences!!
 
Hope this ish is debunked. :down

150 mill was already pushing it for a Batman film (but I'll give that a pass due to foreign costs). 200 mill is way overboard, there's no need for it. Plus now it makes it harder to get a good profit, which means if TDK just barely goes above it's budget, then another sequel isn't even guaranteed.
 
Whoa! If it's that much, what kind of suprise does Nolan have for us.
 
Crooklyn said:
Hope this ish is debunked. :down

150 mill was already pushing it for a Batman film (but I'll give that a pass due to foreign costs). 200 mill is way overboard, there's no need for it. Plus now it makes it harder to get a good profit, which means if TDK just barely goes above it's budget, then another sequel isn't even guaranteed.

I don't know . . . seems to me there's not really such a thing as a budget that's too high (unless of course it's overbudget); the sequel WILL be made unless this thing TOTALLY flops, which it will have $50 million laying around extra to make it kick that much more @$$, meaning it WON'T flop
 
^ha, the only thing it will flop is a full house, yuk yuk yuk
 
Damn thats a lot I hope it can make it all back.
 
DV8 said:
I don't know . . . seems to me there's not really such a thing as a budget that's too high (unless of course it's overbudget);
For a film about a hero with essentially no powers, and whose villains don't require any sort of sfx magic...I believe there is such a thing as overbudgeting. This isn't a sci-fi film, where many things have to be created from scratch. Hell, SM2 had a 200 mill budget, and that thing was effects-heavy. I find it hard to believe TDK would even need half of those effects work.

the sequel WILL be made unless this thing TOTALLY flops,
The sequel will probably be made as long as the budget is made back. But even then, that may force WB to put a certain hold on Nolan because the second film wasn't that successful, so I'd rather they avoid that altogether. Even if this film makes 240 million, which in Hollywood standards is damn good, that's a lesser profit than the first one.

which it will have $50 million laying around extra to make it kick that much more @$$, meaning it WON'T flop
I wouldn't go touting that so surely, bigger/better/badder effects are not a guarantee of a huge hit.
 
Hmm, I really don't think a Batman movie needs that much. Superman, yeah okay, he does all that flying ****. But for Batman? Hmmm.
 
Its about what I expected it would be.
 
That budget is ridiculous. Didn't the director of the upcoming Hulk movie say his budget is like 120 million?

Wow. 200 million is crazy, especially for a Batfilm....Well ya 'know, some of that will be going to the stars. I mean Bale's gotta be getting like 10 million this time around, 3-4 million to oldman, 4-5 for caine hmmmm.... like 6 to holmes if she comes back and let's not forget ledger who is now oscar nominated(probably gets about 7 million himself)

and let's not forget the mystery actor who will be playing Dent(who I'm very sure will be another A or B lister like Owen or Law...hopefully Pheonix but i digress...)

so like 40 million may be going to actors alone.....
200 million....didnt they learn from Superman that big Budget does't equal Big Cash Flow.....Damn POTC: Dead man's Chest!



Owen or Law will be Dent......heed the warning
 
200 million is a good numbers.... thats the kind of budget you need...
 
I'm expecting some new areas of Gotham made with that money.
 
Well, $200 mill is about the average budget for a big movie nowadays. The last Pirates of the Caribbean movie was $225 M, Superman Returns $270 M, Spider-Man 2 was $200 M, and I'm thinking Spidey 3 will be closer to $300 M. It's kinda sad that movies can cost this much. Just a few years ago, I couldn't fathom how the first Spidey film could have possibly cost $130 million.
 
I think this is too high, I mean stuff like most of Gotham, the Tumbler, etc would be used over from Begins. I would hope that we don't have a lot of high price CGI special effects. I would be surprised if it ended up being much higher than 150m.
 
Rizor said:
Well, $200 mill is about the average budget for a big movie nowadays. The last Pirates of the Caribbean movie was $225 M, Superman Returns $270 M, Spider-Man 2 was $200 M, and I'm thinking Spidey 3 will be closer to $300 M. It's kinda sad that movies can cost this much. Just a few years ago, I couldn't fathom how the first Spidey film could have possibly cost $130 million.
Look at all those films. Superman, Spider-Man, Doc Ock, Kraken, Davy Jones, etc. Notice something? All these guys need tons and tons of sfx work, because a lot of the things they do wouldn't be possible done practically.

That's a huge difference from Batman. I'm sure they could spend that money and not waste it, but it's unneeded. This should be the superhero franchise WB could fall back on because it's the least expensive and therefore a lesser risk.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"