Superman Returns The Budget (merged)

I thought Harry Potter was in the 300 millions range?

 

Harry Potter was around 130 million dollars. I'm not sure if Returns is the most expensive, but it's certainly up there. I know Titanic was 200 million. All I've heard is 200 mill or more. Nothing concrete. It's certainly going to be ONE of the most expensive..but the most...who knows.

 

If it's WB's most expensive movie as Singer or Dougherty I believe said, then it will be in the 200 Million range. However, being that they are filming in Sydney (where it's cheaper) I'd say it's closer to 180-190 Million. (which is a lot for filming in Australia. Not even the Matrix Movies cost as much to make)

 

I think Titanic got to 240 mill. That is why he had to go to Paramount for the extra money. That is why it is a 20th Century Fox and Paramount Production.

 

it was me and according to imdb and austrailian newspaper,its budget is "limitless". hell some guy said he asked singer how much it was and he said "it changes...it keeps getting bigger" i believe it went.

 

That wasn't Singer who said that, but it was someone on the production.

As for Titanic, it was $200 mill, the same as Spider-man II, both currently hold the highest, produced, film budget.

It is the Goblet of Fire, the most recent Harry Potter movie that is rumoured to be in excess of $300 million.

 

Not disputing your claim of Potter but 300 mill seems WAY to high. I can't honestly think of what would push the production that high. CGI while pricey wouldnt do it. Locations I suppose could but that would mean it shot all over the world. I have yet to read the book so I have no idea how detailed it is. Any thoughts? Just curious as to what could honestly push it to over 300.

 

i think Dougherty said so. one of the planet posters asked him the question.

 

the fact that it's going to be well over 3 hours could jack up the budget. as well, the kids can only work 4 hours a day. that means longer time on locations, studio, etc. don't know if that accounts for 300 mil, but it certainly elevates an already expensive movie.

 

I don't see why this should be such an expensive movie, but if every dollar they spend makes it better then I don't see why they shouldn't have a big budget.

 

Potter wont be the most expensive film ever made... that was just marketing BS.

I believe adjusting for inflation CLEOPATRA is still the most expensive film ever made.

 

well over 3 hours??? where did you get that?

 

Singer has only said "Its going to be as long as it has to be."

 

now... that is very precise, wouldnt you say?

 

I dunno, a year ago I thought it was going to be War Of The Worlds, which I think was originally reported as well over $200 million. Or at least that's what the news reports were saying.

 

No it was rumored to be , but the actualy facts pointed it out not to be as much as it sounded to be

But what do i care the movie still sucked

 

War of the Worlds was disappointing...

 

fo sho... that movie blew..

 

I'm just assuming, considering the book is over 600 pages, and there's not much room for cutting. originally they were going to make 2 movies out of it, then there was talk of having an intermission. I'm not sure precisely how long it will be, but i think it's safe to assume at least 3 hours.

 

I heard somewhere that Singer said it was just over 2 hours

 

well,cleopatra-adjusted-is over 300 million.

 

The Potter rumors were just that rumors.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Goblet_of_Fire_(film)


Early internet rumours suggested that the film had an astronomical budget of well over $300 million, making it easily the most expensive movie of all time. However, this proved to be false, as the final budget is now estimated to be $130 million.

This isnt quite up to date but pretty close...
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html

 

so I guess it does have the highest budget ever. Why isn't that bigger news?