The Amazing Spider-Man Spider-Man Reboot budget thread: What is the real actual budget?

[Kevin Roegele]

I don't understand why people are pretending to have knowledge in areas that virtually none of us have any knowledge in. You're basing the budget according to other movies which does not make sense, it's all about how they distribute the budget. Plain and simple. A 50M budget movie vs. the same movie with a 100M budget could blow it out of the water. If the 50M uses its funds correctly and has small name actors it'll make a hell of a lot better movie than the 100M movie that brings in bigger names. It's all about how they prioritize the money, that's it. All these people fussing about 80M when they have no idea what they're talking about.

You can gain an insight by looking at other movies budgets. Amazing is a Spider-Man movie, it's not going to be a complete departure. We also know it's going to released in summer blockbuster season. We know it will have a lot of stunts and special effects. Presumably the Lizard will be a CGI creation. It's hard to see how this could all be afforded on a budget of $80m, which is only slightly more than the original X-Men movie, ten years ago.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I just hope if the budget actually is $80 Million, that we get some great action scenes.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Even if it's 100 milliion, thats a ridiculous budget for a franchise as big as Spidey... especially when its common knowledge the amount of cgi and massive sets required is large.
Nowadays in Hollywood you won't even get your butt scratched for 80 million. That's just pR on an average summer blockbuster.

You're pretty close. In 2007, the average budget for a Hollywood movie was $70.8 million. http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/CameraObscura.htm

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I don't understand why people are pretending to have knowledge in areas that virtually none of us have any knowledge in.

Welcome to the internet. Where everyone is a PHD in everything.

 

[Goku Goes Crazy]

80 million is plenty. District 9 was made with only 30 million. Look at the scope and CGI of that film.

 

[chaseter]

Yes but nothing really happened until the last 1/3 of the movie. The cgi looked good I agree.

 

[Diamondhead]

80 million is plenty. District 9 was made with only 30 million. Look at the scope and CGI of that film.

yep! these day one can do amazing things with talent and the right programs
I think that most budget is probably what they expect the movie to bring at the box office
otherwise we would never had sequel

 

[Spider-Boy]

80 million is plenty. District 9 was made with only 30 million. Look at the scope and CGI of that film.

Prime example! Thank you.

You only know 80M when it's compared to other movie budgets, that's all. You don't know the actual potential of 80M, nobody does. It's all about comparison to other movies and although it's the only way of 'trying' to be accurate, it doesn't make it accurate.

We think of 80M as pocket change when compared to other big Blockbusters, but 80M is tons. Besides the jokes people will make about the suit, does it look like they cheaped out on anything?

 

[Mace Bloodstone]

Gwen's head band looks cheap!!

Spoiler

 

[Robin91939]

X-Men Origins: Wolverine had a $150 million budget and while it had some very good looking action scenes (the Logan/Creed vs Deadpool scene, notably) most of the CG (down to the claws) looked very cheap.....check out the insert shots of the jet in the first 10 minutes.....


It all comes down to the talent behind the money and how wisely the money is spent and utilized....

A large portion of that $150 million, I'd say upwards of $20 million, went to Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber (most to Jackman)....I'm not privy as to how much Ryan Reynolds made...

In The Amazing Spider-man, Garfield was locked up before his Golden Globe nomination and the wave of acclaim that came from his performances is The Social Network and Never Let Me Go. So, his pricetag was pretty low. The villain actor, Rhys Ifans, isn't an A-list star--not by a long shot. This isn't like the 80's-90's Batman franchise where the "villain of the week" was an A-list celebrity (Nicholson, DeVito, Pfeiffer, Carrey, Jones, Thurman and Schwarzenegger). The most prominent and acclaimed actors in The Amazing Spider-man are older actors (Sheen and Fields) who are undoubtably taking pay cuts to get work in a big film like this at this stage of their careers...

This film, can look terrific if they spend the money in the right places...and it seems, by the quality (and low priced) cast they've assembled that they are on the right track...Spider-man is the draw, they don't need Brad Pitt to draw a crowd...

Seeing them do practical stunts is also promising....everything thus far has been encouraging.

The one thing I do not get is: Why did they lower the budget for the 4th film in the franchise (even though it is a reboot) after Spider-man 3 was made for $258 million and made over $890 million world wide (not including merchandise and DVD/Blu Ray).....I don't get the downsizing...

Anyway, just my two cents....


Can it be done cheap and still look great? Yes.
Have big budget films in the past looked cheap while they were made for huge price tags? Yes.

We'll have to see how it turns out.

-R

 

[TheWallCrawler]

X-Men Origins: Wolverine had a $150 million budget and while it had some very good looking action scenes (the Logan/Creed vs Deadpool scene, notably) most of the CG (down to the claws) looked very cheap.....check out the insert shots of the jet in the first 10 minutes.....


It all comes down to the talent behind the money and how wisely the money is spent and utilized....

A large portion of that $150 million, I'd say upwards of $20 million, went to Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber (most to Jackman)....I'm not privy as to how much Ryan Reynolds made...

In The Amazing Spider-man, Garfield was locked up before his Golden Globe nomination and the wave of acclaim that came from his performances is The Social Network and Never Let Me Go. So, his pricetag was pretty low. The villain actor, Rhys Ifans, isn't an A-list star--not by a long shot. This isn't like the 80's-90's Batman franchise where the "villain of the week" was an A-list celebrity (Nicholson, DeVito, Pfeiffer, Carrey, Jones, Thurman and Schwarzenegger). The most prominent and acclaimed actors in The Amazing Spider-man are older actors (Sheen and Fields) who are undoubtably taking pay cuts to get work in a big film like this at this stage of their careers...

This film, can look terrific if they spend the money in the right places...and it seems, by the quality (and low priced) cast they've assembled that they are on the right track...Spider-man is the draw, they don't need Brad Pitt to draw a crowd...

Seeing them do practical stunts is also promising....everything thus far has been encouraging.

The one thing I do not get is: Why did they lower the budget for the 4th film in the franchise (even though it is a reboot) after Spider-man 3 was made for $258 million and made over $890 million world wide (not including merchandise and DVD/Blu Ray).....I don't get the downsizing...

Anyway, just my two sent....


Can it be done cheap and still look great? Yes.
Have big budget films in the past looked cheap while they were made for huge price tags? Yes.

We'll have to see how it turns out.

-R

That's an excellent point my thoughts exactly

 

[Catman]

District 9 was made with only 30 million.

That's because they didn't use any unions.

 

[Naite22]

80 million, my ass... There's no way in hell that this movie only cost so much. It's definitely more like 140-50 mill. And they KNOW that they'll earn it back, easily. Who freaken ever said 80mill in the first place!??? There hasn't been anything official about it!

 

[MrSpyder]

Doesnt matter on the budget, just a good movie for me

 

[NinjaCarm]

80 million, my ass... There's no way in hell that this movie only cost so much. It's definitely more like 140-50 mill. And they KNOW that they'll earn it back, easily. Who freaken ever said 80mill in the first place!??? There hasn't been anything official about it!

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Doesnt matter on the budget, just a good movie for me

The point is that a limited budget MAY limit the director's vision.

 

[Mace Bloodstone]

Sucker Punch (rumored) around $80 million (looked good) and so far no outrageous actor salaries in this movie.. There's a difference between a low budget B cable movie and a big screen blockbuster working within a budget.

 

[©KAW]

Zack snyder is one of those directors who can do amazing things with tiny budget (300 was only 60 million )

Marc webb is not.

I dunno, Sucker Punch was a CGI nightmare. Here's hoping that Superman doesn't look anything like that mess.

 

[Ajendo]

The point is that a limited budget MAY limit the director's vision.

A limied budget MAY also force inspired creativity increasing the director's vision. Terrence Young God bless his soul would attest to this.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

The point is that a limited budget MAY limit the director's vision.

This is true, unfortunately.

 

[©KAW]

A limited budget MAY also force inspired creativity increasing the director's vision. Terrence Young God bless his soul would attest to this.

This is the way I look at it too, some directors get access to the CGI world and they don't know what the hell to do with it. Some use it as a tool to enhance a story and other use it as a crutch to tell a story. Most importantly, most directors simple can't make CGI look good on screen and others create great looking effects--and this happens no matter how HUGE/SMALL the budget is.

 

[chaseter]

I dunno, Sucker Punch was a CGI nightmare. Here's hoping that Superman doesn't look anything like that mess.

Suckerpunch had amazing cgi. That wasn't the nightmare. Snyder has visuals down perfectly.

 

[©KAW]

My eyes bled. The people in the film were so disjointed from the CGI, I thought the so-called actors were sitting in a room watching a movie.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

A limied budget MAY also force inspired creativity increasing the director's vision. Terrence Young God bless his soul would attest to this.

But an audience who has already seen three movies of glorious, sweeping shots of Spidey swinging through the skyscrapers is going to want the same thing, IN 3D. Not inspired creativity on a (relatively) low budget.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Location filming is expensive, this is why comparing it to Sucker Punch and 300 is not a good idea.