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

[Jick]

^^ $220 million.

When was that confirmed?

I'm suprised the budget was so high for this movie. I understood why they wanted to lower down the costs substantially on this film.

One of the reasons Spider-Man 4 was cancelled was because the cost kept going higher and higher on each film and people were always expecting more.

They couldn't really keep up with the costs so believed going for a much cheaper reboot from scratch would benifit them more.

But this film is now the same cost as Spider-Man 2, and while I'm not complaining, it makes me worried that by the 3rd film (if there is one) it would be too expensive to produce anymore. Which is why I was quite happy with the slightly cheaper approach.

Sums my thoughts.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

When was that confirmed?

A little over 2 weeks ago, I think.

 

[Jick]

Hmmmm, where?
I rarely miss these kinds of news, but I haven't really been following it.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

It's somewhere on this page.

http://www.moviehole.net/201141034-norton-doing-fury-road-reveals-villain

 

[©KAW]

But this film is now the same cost as Spider-Man 2, and while I'm not complaining, it makes me worried that by the 3rd film (if there is one) it would be too expensive to produce anymore. Which is why I was quite happy with the slightly cheaper approach.

Budget too small, we b----. Budget too big, we b----. Isn't life grand? These types of films usually stop at the third film anyway. This won't be a Harry Potter type deal.

 

[Ken-Kaniff]

900 million $

 

[The Joker]

It's somewhere on this page.

http://www.moviehole.net/201141034-norton-doing-fury-road-reveals-villain

Finally some confirmation.

$80 million my ass

 

[Ajendo]

warriordreamer is clearly still sleeping. In what world is 80mill slightly cheaper than 220mill??

The fact that anyone here actually believed a budget of 80mill for a spidey movie to be true just goes to show how logic and reason has forsaken and reduced minds to be nothing more than baron matter.

However, Kaw mentioned the potter movies, what's the budget of those movies? What ever it is, the movies make a killing at the BO and I'm pretty sure the budgets of each of those movies are roughly the same. Who's to say a similar financial strategy wont be implemented for these rebooted spidey movies?

 

[©KAW]

My point is, you won't be getting The Amazing Spider-Man part 7. It simply won't last as long as an ongoing franchise with the same cast.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Finally something we agree on. I don't see any superhero franchise lasting that long.

 

[Mary Jane Watson]

^^ Finally something we agree on. I don't see any superhero franchise lasting that long.

Harry Potter did it. Except that "superhero" part

 

[mclay18]

One of the reasons Spider-Man 4 was cancelled was because the cost kept going higher and higher on each film and people were always expecting more.

That's not the primary reason. Sony and the producers kept changing the script around and demanding Raimi put different characters in. Raimi stepped down because he didn't want to endure another Spider-Man 3 fiasco. Had Sony given Raimi the creative freedom to do Spider-Man 4 as well as prep time, I'm sure the company would've looked at ways to trim the budget down (aka shooting in states with rich tax rebate programs and a shorter filming schedule).

And I would've been fine with a scaled-down fourth film. More isn't always better.

 

[Ajendo]

My point is, you won't be getting The Amazing Spider-Man part 7. It simply won't last as long as an ongoing franchise with the same cast.

That's obviously true. These films will be released every 2 years or so. Garfield is what 28/29 as of now. The number of films with the existing cast isn't the issue. This film with a budget of over $200million doesn't necessarily mean for every subsequent film the budget needs a massive cash injection to top the last, regardless of how much revenue/profits are made.