Spidey 3 Budget and Marketing Revealed?

[Cmill216]

SOURCE: Variety

Massive global launches can add more than $100 million to tentpoles' already hefty pricetags once prints, advertising and cost of mobilizing talent are added in. (Blake says Spidey's launch didn't cost that much.)

Regardless of the cost, meticulous planning is required to pull off such large-scale launches: Sony had to lock "Spider-Man 3" six weeks early so that it could get enough prints -- 10,000 worldwide -- dubbed in various languages.

"There's no doubt about it -- it's a pretty big operation," Blake said. "It's not a matter of cost, it's a matter of time."

On the plus side, studios may pay bigger bucks on the making of sequels -- "Spider-Man 3's" official budget is $258 million -- but they cost less to launch than untested tentpoles, since awareness is already there. Blake says the studio is spending less on promoting "Spider-Man 3" than "Spider-Man 2," which cost less to promote than the original "Spider-Man."

"That's what makes real blue-chip franchises so valuable," Blake said. "You don't have to spend as much."

Studios also rely on promo partners to defray marketing costs. "And 'Spider-Man' certainly has no shortage of that," Blake said.

 

[<borkis>]

So how much of that $258 million is marketing?

Let's assume right now the split is,
$200 million for the movie
$58 million for advertising


That's a pricey movie!

 

[Cmill216]

So how much of that $258 million is marketing?

I'd like to believe that since there have been constant reports for the past year that the production budget was over $250 million, that the 258 figure here is WITHOUT marketing.

 

[Catman]

Yup...a lot of money! But I'm sure they'll make their money back. I'm confident that Spidey 3 will be a huge hit!

 

[rockportspidey]

Indeed!

 

[Kevin Roegele]

So how much of that $258 million is marketing?

Let's assume right now the split is,
$200 million for the movie
$58 million for advertising


That's a pricey movie!

$258m is just the movie itself.

 

[buddha182]

Sounds good... It's going to make almost $1 bil... And it's already got itself covered in terms of product placing and promotional partnerships and licensing. They're sitting on a pot of gold for sure despite this high of a budget.

 

[demitri_vampiro]

258 mil? wan't that the cost of 2 LotR movies?
if the movie is gonna cost so much isn't it better to shoot 2 movies back to back?

 

[tzarinna]

Wishful thinking.

 

[CrashNburn]

sounds great to me!!

 

[spiderguy89]

So how much of that $258 million is marketing?

Let's assume right now the split is,
$200 million for the movie
$58 million for advertising


That's a pricey movie!

No...the $258 Million is how much the production of the movie cost...Marketing costs are totally seperate...and the article said that the marketing wasn't quite 100 Million...typically normal marketing is around 30-50 million...but w/ S3 massive marketing strategy im guessing it is around 70 or 80 million...

 

[Catman]

True, the movie probably cost a little TOO much but with Sandman and Venom I'm sure we'll see the money on the big screen.

 

[spiderguy89]

Well they are already predicting it to make more than 100 Million on opening weekend...so im guessing around 150-160 opening weekend w/ a total of 450-470+ million so im sure it will make it's money back...

 

[Catman]

And thats without counting worldwide box office and DVD sales/rentals. Plus all the merchandise.

 

[Naite22]

This is just NUTS!!!! SM-2 cost an impressive 210 mill! SM-3 costs 258 mill!!!! It's really EXSTREMELY HUGE!!! No doubt the most expensive movie ever made, and this one WON'T be topped for many years! I just dont see it happen! The spidey movie's has EARNED their rights to go out HUUUGE, and that they are!

 

[J.Howlett]

Double post.

 

[J.Howlett]

It's just plain stupid to spend that kind of money on a film. 258 million dollar budget with a marketing campaign for this type of film in the 80 million dollar range and you'll barely make any profit.

Granted, I understand it's Spider-Man but that's just too much. For 258 million, it better have the best visual effects and action that I've ever witnessed in a film. On the visual effects side, I just don't see that happening with At Worlds End and Transformers, this summer.

 

[Naite22]

It's just plain stupid to spend that kind of money on a film. 258 million dollar budget with a marketing campaign for this type of film in the 80 million dollar range and you'll barely make any profit.

Granted, I understand it's Spider-Man but that's just too much. For 258 million, it better have the best visual effects and action that I've ever witnessed in a film. On the visual effects side, I just don't see that happening with At Worlds End and Transformers, this summer.

On TRANSFORMERS I could agree with you, that one seems to be huge too... but as far as Pirates 3 and its CRAPPY worlds end goes, I'm not the least bit worried!!! Spidey 3 will knock the **** out of that movie!!!! Such overated CRAP! never can seem to stress that enough...

 

[Catman]

SM-2 cost an impressive 210 mill!

Yeah, but that only had Doc Ock. This has Sandman, Goblin II, and Venom.

 

[Naite22]

Yeah, but that only had Doc Ock. This has Sandman, Goblin II, and Venom.

Venom is in the movie for the last fight-sequence and for the last fight-sequence ONLY! It depends on what they choose to spend money on.

 

[J.Howlett]

Naite22,

I'm not talking about the films themselves. I'm talking about visual effects. Between the three films, Spider-Man 3 will probably be the best overall. But, in terms of visual effects, I'd easily put Spider-Man 3 third overall.

No disrespect but Sony Pictures Imageworks isn't in the same league, yet, with Weta Digital but they are getting damn close and they're not in the same universe as ILM. Nobody really is. And it shows in their work over the last 10 years.

Spider-Man came out in 2002. Its visual effects are severely outdated compared to Episode I The Phantom Menace that came out three years before.

 

[Naite22]

^ I agree that the effects (some of them) in the first Spider-Man was...well...UGLY! I think the effects that I've seen from the trailer's and clips from "TransFormers" are FLAWLESS, I really do... How can something so UNrealistic look so damn 100% believable!!!... I do however know that it's definitly something else to create giant metal looking machines and than creating real looking CG human faces! They've really pulled it off in "Spider-Man 3", for the first time ever! In "Superman Returns" it was quite obvious that it was CG... Looked very plastic-like.... It's really quite incredible what they've done in SM-3... It doesn't look flawless, but damn near close! But out of ALL the big blockbuster films coming out this summer, SM-3 has more than likely been the toughest to make CG wice!... For the first time ever it looks believable enough for me to buy it as something that's really happening! The things that I see going on, action-wice, in SM-3 (from what I've seen) are faaaar more impressive than the action I've seen from both "TransFormers" AND Pirates 3. That's coming straight from the heart. It's so incredible what they've pulled off with SM-3! It's that kind of action you just dont wanna see come to an end, while the action in films like Pirates are drawn out to the point where it's down-right boring.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

$258 million is a ton of money for a budget of a film. I mean it's not as bad as $300 million but it's still up there. personally, I think this film is going to rock and there are alot of things that prove that. and one of those things is the budget of this film. both Spidey1 and Spidey2 had alot less budgets than Spidey3 did but they were still amazing!!!! films. atleast now we know that Spidey3 will be an amsazing film due to the budget. and I really think it's going to make alot more than $100 million opening weekend. I mean just look at the stuff we have seen. the effects of this film are looking absoloutley amazing and the storyline is looking breathtking. all those things are very important things that need to be grerat and quite frankly I think they really are fantastic.

 

[J.Howlett]

Naite22,

In terms of realistic human CG, ILM has pulled that off flawless with digital doubles in Episode II and Episode III, not to mention the maligned, underrated masterpiece of this genre, Hulk.

To me, so far from the trailers, the CG humans in Spider-Man 3 still have that rubbery look that Ock had in Spider-Man 2. I mean, they look good but they're definitely not flawless.

The closets any visual effects company has gotten to pulling off realistic human characters or humanoids are ILM with Hulk, various digital doubles in the Prequels, and Davy Jones in Dead Man's Chest (Best Visual Effects Character Ever, even if I thought Dead Man's Chest was horrific.) and Kong and Gollum by Weta.

I'm hoping Sony Pictures Imageworks can do that with Spider-Man 3 but it just seems a small advancement to the work they did in Spider-Man 2.

I will say that it is interesting that we haven't seen a lot of Sandman yet. That might be the visual effects surprise for this film.

 

[Naite22]

^ we'll see... we'll see