Superman Returns The Budget (merged)

[Cmill216]

Has this been posted already:
http://www.canmag.com/news/4/3/3877

 

[Binker]

Theres no way its THAT expensive. Singer said it was lower than 200M.

Wasn't shooting in Australia to save the dough of money?

 

[DorkyFresh]

Has this been posted already:
http://www.canmag.com/news/4/3/3877

argh....once again they're taking into account the PAST projects BEFORE brian singer was aboard.

i love this quote...

There’s no way it could cost less than $250m based on what they green lit. It was $200m with first director McG before Bryan Singer took over. When Bryan took over they had to re-shoot. I figure it’s anywhere between $290m and $300m at this time.

reshoot?............reshoot what? what was Brian reshooting? wasn't Brian Singer doing his OWN version of Superman? yes, yes...he was. that means Brian never reshot ANYTHING.

if these guys are as misinformed about the production of Superman Returns as to think Brian Singer was reshooting for what McG had planned then i'm VERY less likely to take his word on what the budget for Brian Singer's (not Burton's or McG's) Superman is.

 

[biggles2000uk]

argh....once again they're taking into account the PAST projects BEFORE brian singer was aboard.

i love this quote...



reshoot?............reshoot what? what was Brian reshooting? wasn't Brian Singer doing his OWN version of Superman? yes, yes...he was. that means Brian never reshot ANYTHING.

if these guys are as misinformed about the production of Superman Returns as to think Brian Singer was reshooting for what McG had planned then i'm VERY less likely to take his word on what the budget for Brian Singer's (not Burton's or McG's) Superman is.

They didn't reshoot anything, it was all pre-production stuff.

The guy who wrote it doesn't know what he's talkin about.

As an accountant this is my interpretation of how WB would account for the money they have spent in the past to get the project off the ground.

The money spent previusly does not make up part of the budget for this film. It would go under as an expense. They can only show this expense as a profit (intangible asset) if they are certain that it will bring future economical benefit to the company, which is not the case.

As the previous attempts did not materialise they would have to write off the expense and show the impact on their books.

The other method would be to have a provision already set up failed projects, which in this case the amount spent would be taken off that provision.

Again, this is my interpretaion, as i only do insurance accounting i don't know how movie studios would account for their loss. In either case, they cannot show what they spent previously as part of the budget for their new film as it does not give a fair and true value to their account's

 

[Pickle-El]

Here is the point people seem to be missing. I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHO CALLS WHO A HATER! It was meant to show the irony of people complaining about trolls doing the same thing, thats all. Being called a hater isn't trolling just like trashing the movie isn't trolling. I was being ironic to show the over sensetive nature of this board. Sigh...

I think C.Lee is trying to hint to you that you're walking a thin line around these boards at the moment (Why else would he quote your every post?). Don't you notice how threads you post in end up turning into a 'Matt talk' sooner or later?

I'm not labeling you or anything, but lately, every thread I read has you and anyone
going at it. If I'm wrong, by all means let me know.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Again, this is my interpretaion, as i only do insurance accounting i don't know how movie studios would account for their loss. In either case, they cannot show what they spent previously as part of the budget for their new film as it does not give a fair and true value to their account's

explained BEAUTIFULLY!!! bravo mate!

 

[Pickle-El]

For the record, I doubt this movie (especially without 10 A-listers) costs much more than 200 Million. The numbers just don't add up......

I remember a time when Harry Potter and The Goblet Of Fire was rumored over 300 Million dollars as well. (Much like Spiderman 3 is already being rumored)

 

[Matt]

I think C.Lee is trying to hint to you that you're walking a thin line around these boards at the moment (Why else would he quote your every post?). Don't you notice how threads you post in end up turning into a 'Matt talk' sooner or later?

I'm not labeling you or anything, but lately, every thread I read has you and anyone
going at it. If I'm wrong, by all means let me know.

Last I checked debate wasn't against the rules, and I have broken none of the terms of service. If I am wrong, C. Lee can feel free to correct me and let me know exactly what rule I have broken.

 

[Pickle-El]

Either way, he's giving oh-so subtle 'hints'...I think I've seen this game played before on this forum.

 

[Matt]

Either way, he's giving oh-so subtle 'hints'...I think I've seen this game played before on this forum.

C. Lee and I are on fair terms. He knows if he needs to contact me, he can PM me and I will talk about any problem like a man, and by that same merit, C. Lee is a man and I do not think he needs nor wants you speaking for him.

 

[gdw]

Which only means he doesn't know what he is talking about either way. Not that he is dumb or that he is lying, just that he is not a reliable source for whatever reason. It's all speculation upon speculation upon speculation at this point.

AGAIN, read my whole post and it explains how he was NOT lying, and DID/DOES know what he is talking about.

The south of 200 mill was refering tio what was budgeted for the film. Meaning what they looked at it and said "this is how much this should cost, here's your budget."

The film, at the point he said that, was costing around the same amount, and was expected to head closer to 200mill after effects and what not.

The 14 Billion dollar comment, from what Singer was refering to, was the amount of money that has been spent trying to get the project off the ground.

The amount they (wb) has sunk into it all together.

This number would be refering to the money spent on SR AND ALL PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO GET IT GOING!!!!!

Three different amounts.

The amount they film was budgeted for - around $184 million
The amount actually spent on the film - pushing $200 million, by now probably just north of it now (Singer gave an estimate saying it would probably still be south of 200)
AND
The amount spent on EVERYTHINF TO DATE, ALL THINGS SUPERMAN FILM RELATED AFTER SUPERMAN IV !!!!!! - $250 mill +

 

[Excel]

w.b.-204 million

 

[Pickle-El]

Okey Dokey then...

 

[Pickle-El]

w.b.-204 million

That sounds very accurate. Australia doesn't cost near as much as the states to film.....Which is another reason Begins was so expensive, shootin on location in various parts of the globe.

 

[Showtime]

AGAIN, read my whole post and it explains how he was NOT lying, and DID/DOES know what he is talking about.

The south of 200 mill was refering tio what was budgeted for the film. Meaning what they looked at it and said "this is how much this should cost, here's your budget."

The film, at the point he said that, was costing around the same amount, and was expected to head closer to 200mill after effects and what not.

The 14 Billion dollar comment, from what Singer was refering to, was the amount of money that has been spent trying to get the project off the ground.

The amount they (wb) has sunk into it all together.

This number would be refering to the money spent on SR AND ALL PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO GET IT GOING!!!!!

Three different amounts.

The amount they film was budgeted for - around $184 million
The amount actually spent on the film - pushing $200 million, by now probably just north of it now (Singer gave an estimate saying it would probably still be south of 200)
AND
The amount spent on EVERYTHINF TO DATE, ALL THINGS SUPERMAN FILM RELATED AFTER SUPERMAN IV !!!!!! - $250 mill +

If you read my post that you are replying to above, I specifically pointed out that I didn't think that he was lying. I also think that whether or not he knows the budget or not, you definately don't. You're formulating answers using logical examination of speculation to calculate an estimate, this still doesn't mean that you know what the final budget is.

 

[DorkyFresh]

yes but we DO know that everyone who keeps hinting that WB is spending $300 plus on Singer's Superman are including figures from BEFORE he was brought on board...

...so we know the budget since Singer was brought on board is NOT $300.

 

[VGPOP]

Can someone tell me how much WB is spending on the marketting? $50 million? $100 million?

And if there's a link on that report.

 

[Pickle-El]

And here is where the 260 Million came from.....

Although Cohen has virtually no indie experience, she is widely respected, in part because of her deft management of some of the studio's top grossers, including some of the "Harry Potter" pics and "Superman Returns."

As much as changes are being made to its indie arm, though, Warners will continue to be graded on the performance of its tentpoles.

There will be even more pressure on "Superman Returns" to perform when it is released next month, not only for the expectations that are being placed upon it but because it cost well more than "Poseidon."

All told, Warners has spent $260 million on the Man-of-Steel pic -- $200 million on the production budget, another $20 million it will get back in tax incentives from Australia, where the pic was shot, and $40 million in prior pay-or-play deals. Warners has high hopes for Singer's pic and believes it will post strong returns for the studio.

http://www.variety.com/VR1117943708.html

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

All told, Warners has spent $260 million on the Man-of-Steel pic -- $200 million on the production budget, another $20 million it will get back in tax incentives from Australia, where the pic was shot, and $40 million in prior pay-or-play deals. Warners has high hopes for Singer's pic and believes it will post strong returns for the studio.

Shouldn't those 20 million in tax incentives be subtracted instead of being added to the budget?

 

[dark_b]

here is a nice example of how to throw money away.

 

[SpiderMarc]

Returns cost apx. $200-260 million to make....A big budget, but like X1 this movie is setting up the big payday ala X3 (see this article http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/risky_business_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003019246). X-3 made $$ because of what Singer did in X1 and X2....

It has made $340 million worldwide. WB wants to keep Singer, not just in hopes of another Superman flick, but because of his other projects (see the hit House anyone?).

I can't wait until it's officially announced that he's doing a sequel to come out in '09....GET it DONE.

 

[J.Howlett]

If you add everything in (budget, marketing, prints), Returns cost probably around 300 million. If you're just going by the budget, it's 209 million.

Either way, WB will break even once all the revenues come in for this film...namely DVD and TV rights.