The Dark Knight Slow DK News Wednesday, Here's this...

[sasquatchs]

The Mayor said $45 million was coming to the city, pretty sizeable portion of the budget.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

The Mayor said $45 million was coming to the city, pretty sizeable portion of the budget.

The Mayor said TDK would generate 45mil for the city with the new jobs etc. that the DK would bring in, not take 45 mil from DK's budget.

 

[Steelsheen]

well the $45M has to come from somewhere

 

[JackBauer24]

The reason BB was so expensive and the reason TDK will be even more is precisely because it isn't CG-heavy. Real epic movie-making, without CG, costs a hell of a lot. Building real sets costs more money than having CG bluescreen sets. Shooting on location probably costs even more than that for all the chaos they have to cause to cities. Real stunts cost money. Real car chases cost a LOT of money. Blowing stuff up costs money. Seriously, the sheer logistics of shooting an enormous movie like TDK mostly in real locations and without CG are staggering.

Not to mention that Nolan still opts for shooting on film as opposed to digital - and with the IMAX sequences as well TDK's budget will likely be through the roof.

I think my point is, money is spent on more than CGI.

 

[jtfaria]

They should've kept it at 150 mill imo. There's no need for 200 damn million to be spent on a Batman movie. Hell, Transformers was made for less than that, and it has groundbreaking effects.

In the case of TRansformers, 'groundbreaking effects' is quite literakky true.

 

[jtfaria]

Akk! Sorry about the typos!!

 

[Baba Ghanoush]

The reason BB was so expensive and the reason TDK will be even more is precisely because it isn't CG-heavy. Real epic movie-making, without CG, costs a hell of a lot. Building real sets costs more money than having CG bluescreen sets. Shooting on location probably costs even more than that for all the chaos they have to cause to cities. Real stunts cost money. Real car chases cost a LOT of money. Blowing stuff up costs money. Seriously, the sheer logistics of shooting an enormous movie like TDK mostly in real locations and without CG are staggering.

Not to mention that Nolan still opts for shooting on film as opposed to digital - and with the IMAX sequences as well TDK's budget will likely be through the roof.

I think my point is, money is spent on more than CGI.

This is exactly right. The film 300 was purely green/blue screen with extensive CGI and all shot on a closed soundstage. Budget of 300 was $60 million.

There's no question the budgetary aspects of on location filming are extraordinarily high. Money aside considering the nightmare of organization that goes into location shooting plus the lack of complete control over such an environment, I'm impressed with how much location filming Nolan is doing on TDK.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

How much location shooting did Nolan do for BB?

 

[ronzpeed]

What was the budget for B89?

 

[The Only Woj]

big budgets worry me. it's FAR easier to succeed (and turn a profit) on a lower budget. look at the first Spider-Man (in comparison to the others). There were a couple things in Begins that were excessive, things that were there clearly because it was a summer movie and had a big budget. Still could have been there, but toned down and cost less. either way, TDK should be great. hopefully great enough to be profitable.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

The reason BB was so expensive and the reason TDK will be even more is precisely because it isn't CG-heavy. Real epic movie-making, without CG, costs a hell of a lot. Building real sets costs more money than having CG bluescreen sets. Shooting on location probably costs even more than that for all the chaos they have to cause to cities. Real stunts cost money. Real car chases cost a LOT of money. Blowing stuff up costs money. Seriously, the sheer logistics of shooting an enormous movie like TDK mostly in real locations and without CG are staggering.

Not to mention that Nolan still opts for shooting on film as opposed to digital - and with the IMAX sequences as well TDK's budget will likely be through the roof.

I think my point is, money is spent on more than CGI.

That's what I was trying to say in my last post.

Well put JB24.

 

[Darknightnomis]

What was the budget for B89?

35 mil.

It made it back in the first week or so.

 

[Masculine_Worm]

Batman 1989 wasn't that good.

 

[DeaDheaD]

B89 as a movie was good but the graphics on gotham sucked.

 

[Masculine_Worm]

I don't know, I thought everything sucked. The story was too random.

 

[DeaDheaD]

The story was told well, but I get more annoyed with Nicholson's performance everytime i see it, plus Batman is supposed to be dark(and better when done in a dark tone), but burton used way too little lighting for the movie, unless you have a hi-def tv some moments are just completely black. Thats my only two complaints about it.