The Official Budget & Box Office Thread

[Crook]

Yeah, because superhero fighting a superpowered villain equals hundreds of millions more at the boxoffice, right?
Let me check again how much "The Incredible Hulk" did at the b.o.

1) TIH sucked

2) Not much incentive to watch it because of the lukewarm response to the previous film

 

[matrix_ghost]

I'll say it before and i'll say it again.
If WB wants to make a "proper" superman movie with good action sequences , i can't see the budget being any lower then 200 million UNLESS WB and/or the director decides to shoot the movie like 300 or SW ( total blue screen shoot). And even then i still think you're looking at a budget of around 150 million.

Many directors complain due to problems when shooting blue screen and it's certainly not for everyone.
Now of course given the performance of Superman Returns , many are saying that WB can basically "force" a director ( like singer...) to shoot a movie using the 300 method. But if WB decided to get a high profile director , chances are the director will still have enough freedom to do as he wishes. Take Singer for example. Before the hate he got with Superman Returns , he was quite a "beloved" director. He made a critically acclaimed movie ( Usual Suspects) and directed two very succesful comic book movies. ( X1 and X2).
SO when WB saw that he wanted to make SR , they gave him carte blanche.

Of course WB now will probably be looking very tightly at the budget increases etc. But imagine if suddenly Christopher Nolan goes to WB and says to them " Hey guys , i wanna do the superman sequel".
Do you honestly think the Chris Nolan is gonna agree with these studio demands if the exec. say this :
" okay chris. But here's the deal.
1 We don't want to budget to go higher then 150 milion
2 To keep the budget down we're gonna shoot the entire movie against a blue screen. "

Think about it.

 

[SatEL]

The fact is they could still re-boot a few years after the possibly failed sequel, if they re-boot, and it does TIH numbers, we wont be seeing Superman on the big-screen for a LONG time.

You guys really need to get real, if WB has two Superman films that flops. There wont be a reboot for a very long time I dont mean 5yrs or the likes I mean Superman will be placed on the back burner, all you have to do is use common sense if it fails twice they arnt going to touch Superman again for a very very long time. Superman will be placed in limbo whether a sequel fails or a reboot, some of you are so desperate for a sequel to Singerman that you spout stupid and ludicrous statements. I want a reboot but will openly admit that if it was to fail that would be it for Superman and its also the same for a sequel, WB wont see it as a sequel or reboot failing they will see it as Superman failing and will see him as a poor investment choice with a small target market not worth pursuing.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

A Superman movie could and should be done for under 150 million.
Here's some examples:
Fantastic Four: rise of the Silver Surfer (6 superpowered characters, 120 million $ budget)
Matrix reloaded (real sets, built sets, expensive star, 127 million $ budget)
Watchmen (100 million $)
None of them had digital sets.

 

[matrix_ghost]

A Superman movie could and should be done for under 150 million.
Here's some examples:
Fantastic Four: rise of the Silver Surfer (6 superpowered characters, 120 million $ budget)
Matrix reloaded (real sets, built sets, expensive star, 127 million $ budget)
Watchmen (100 million $)
None of them had digital sets.

I disagree.
You're looking at the Matrix Reloaded as a standalone pic but it has been filmed along with Revolutions. The VFX budget of both movies was shared with each other , not to mention the fact that they worked alomost 4 years on certain shots alone.
Different thing with Supes.

As for Watchmen , most of the action is grounded in the real world. Dr Manhatten looks like comic book character. yes i know he's a CG human but he doesn't look like a REAL human.
He also doesn't fly around but just walks on the ground and destroys everything.
Again different with supes

Last but not least FF.
Let's look at the characters
1 The Thing. Wears a make up suit.
2 Alba as Invisible Woman. She's an invisible woman
3 Johnny Storm. Okay he're i'll agree with you. They got the effects mostly right. Right up till the moment he get the powers of the thing andMr fanstastic. That Cg creation was really not that good.
4 Mr fantastic. Really should i even continue. He still looked fake.

Look at comparable movies like say Pirates Of the Carribean ( which feature CG humanoids) and SPider-man ( extensive use of CG humans).
And look at their budgets. It's sky high.

Again it's really up the studio and the director to decide just with what kind of scope they're going with . If they're keeping it small and confined like the first spider-man movie or Hancock then yes i think a Superman movie can be made with 150 million and real sets.

However if they're going for a grand shots like what we got in spiderman or for example epic shots like superman saving the plane , then i really can't see a proper superman movie being made with less then 200 million AND real sets

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

I disagree.


However if they're going for a grand shots like what we got in spiderman or for example epic shots like superman saving the plane , then i really can't see a proper superman movie being made with less then 200 million AND real sets

And I disagree with you.
The Spider-Man and POTC sequels had those kind of budgets mainly because stars and actors asked for a lot more money after the success of the first one. BB and TDK too are so expensive mainly for the ridiculous cachet all the actors are getting for their roles.
Morgan Freeman himself admitted he was never paid as much as for the Batman movies.
And for SR they have already digital libraries of the city and of Superman that can be reused for the VFX.
And are you sure they're not planning back to back movies to cut expenses and do them before the 2013 like they did for Matrix?
So, I think a Superman movie can be done for less than 150 million $.

 

[dark_b]

And I disagree with you.
The Spider-Man and POTC sequels had those kind of budgets mainly because stars and actors asked for a lot more money after the success of the first one. BB and TDK too are so expensive mainly for the ridiculous cachet all the actors are getting for their roles.
Morgan Freeman himself admitted he was never paid as much as for the Batman movies.
And for SR they have already digital libraries of the city and of Superman that can be reused for the VFX.
And are you sure they're not planning back to back movies to cut expenses and do them before the 2013 like they did for Matrix?
So, I think a Superman movie can be done for less than 150 million $.

i dont think actors paychecks are inside those production budgets.

 

[matrix_ghost]

And I disagree with you.
The Spider-Man and POTC sequels had those kind of budgets mainly because stars and actors asked for a lot more money after the success of the first one. BB and TDK too are so expensive mainly for the ridiculous cachet all the actors are getting for their roles.
Morgan Freeman himself admitted he was never paid as much as for the Batman movies.
And for SR they have already digital libraries of the city and of Superman that can be reused for the VFX.
And are you sure they're not planning back to back movies to cut expenses and do them before the 2013 like they did for Matrix?
So, I think a Superman movie can be done for less than 150 million $.

And again i'll have to disagree with you
It is true that salaries take up a good deal op the budget for sequels , but i doubt that it is a massive increase , so much so that the bdget rises way above the 200 million mark.
If that were the case we'd see budgets of 200 million of the Harry Potter movies. But so far the budget has never gone higher then 180 million despite many of the actors getting paid with each movie AND an ever growing list of british actors.

Morgan Freeman can say that he has never been paid as much as when he's playing in BB and TDK , but then again as Morgan Freeman really been a commercial actors. Most of his movies are indie flicks with occasional big movies like DreamCatcher , Deep Impact etc

However there are other factors , aside from the salaries , that still can make the budget of these movies go skyhigh.
Shooting things real. On real sets , real locations. TDk cost 185 million. Yet if you look at the action it's mostly real. CGI is used to a minimum , like crowd animation and city extensions with the occasional CG batman appearing.
That's because Batman himself isn't a guy who constantly flies over his city or the world and doing stuff like saving a city from natural disasters.
Nolan shoots most of his stuff in camera.
Now compare the first shots of SPiderman saving Gwen Stacy in Spider-man3.
Let's see it's guy swinging thru a city , a crane messing up a skyscraper with a girl falling down and spiderman going thru concrete debri and capturing her.
Well good luck shooting that with live action.
Or how about the fight in SPider-man 2 with Spidey and Doc Ock.

Digital libraries are used in creating VFX but nothing is ever the same. Shots are constantly updated . I remember reading in Spider-man 3 Cinefex issue where they still had to create quite alot of CG buildings for the movie. Those buildings were put ino the foreground , the spiderman 2 buildings were combined in the fore-and-back ground shots and the spiderman 1 buildings were placed all the way back.
Digital library yes , but hardly the same.
ANd i haven't even started with the digital doubles.
Digital doubles are very tricky. Mess up one little thing and the audience can almost instantly be turned away. One of the great things about movies like POTC is that many people didn't realise Davey Jones was a CG character. He looked real. That is something that alot of CGI artists are striving for. PHOTOREALISM.
The more human your CG character is , the more difficult it becomes to create a CG character. It still costs a huge amount of money to get those shots right.


Oh and also you mentioned back-to-back shooting.
I doub the studio would go for back to back shooting if they're still struggling with relaunching Superman. The disadvantage of shooting things back to back is to get everything right the first time. Fail there and you've basically doomed future sequels.

 

[matrix_ghost]

double

 

[matrix_ghost]

i dont think actors paychecks are inside those production budgets.

It has to be included
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_budgeting

 

[SatEL]

And I disagree with you.
The Spider-Man and POTC sequels had those kind of budgets mainly because stars and actors asked for a lot more money after the success of the first one. BB and TDK too are so expensive mainly for the ridiculous cachet all the actors are getting for their roles.
Morgan Freeman himself admitted he was never paid as much as for the Batman movies.
And for SR they have already digital libraries of the city and of Superman that can be reused for the VFX.
And are you sure they're not planning back to back movies to cut expenses and do them before the 2013 like they did for Matrix?
So, I think a Superman movie can be done for less than 150 million $.

Please dont state things if you cant get your facts right, Him and Micheal Caine said they have never been paid so much for doing so little thats what they said.

 

[Superfreak]

Please dont state things if you cant get your facts right, Him and Micheal Caine said they have never been paid so much for doing so little thats what they said.

nitpicky little whiner. He didn't get it wrong, just incomplete

 

[SatEL]

nitpicky little whiner. He didn't get it wrong, just incomplete

Oh **** you idiot, you call me a "nitpicky little whiner" so what excatly are you doing now? He made a mistake and I simply corrected him.

 

[TheBatman1979]

I disagree.
You're looking at the Matrix Reloaded as a standalone pic but it has been filmed along with Revolutions. The VFX budget of both movies was shared with each other , not to mention the fact that they worked alomost 4 years on certain shots alone.
Different thing with Supes.

As for Watchmen , most of the action is grounded in the real world. Dr Manhatten looks like comic book character. yes i know he's a CG human but he doesn't look like a REAL human.
He also doesn't fly around but just walks on the ground and destroys everything.
Again different with supes

Last but not least FF.
Let's look at the characters
1 The Thing. Wears a make up suit.
2 Alba as Invisible Woman. She's an invisible woman
3 Johnny Storm. Okay he're i'll agree with you. They got the effects mostly right. Right up till the moment he get the powers of the thing andMr fanstastic. That Cg creation was really not that good.
4 Mr fantastic. Really should i even continue. He still looked fake.

Look at comparable movies like say Pirates Of the Carribean ( which feature CG humanoids) and SPider-man ( extensive use of CG humans).
And look at their budgets. It's sky high.

Again it's really up the studio and the director to decide just with what kind of scope they're going with . If they're keeping it small and confined like the first spider-man movie or Hancock then yes i think a Superman movie can be made with 150 million and real sets.

However if they're going for a grand shots like what we got in spiderman or for example epic shots like superman saving the plane , then i really can't see a proper superman movie being made with less then 200 million AND real sets

How about all three Lord of the Rings film budgets were under 100 million dollars. And those movies are over 3 hours long each. You're going to tell me they can make those movies for under 100 million and we can't make a Superman film for 150 million?
come on.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Again yes, it can't be made for 150 million IMO.
I don't have time to write a long reply ( family visit) but ask yourself this.


If , by your logic , Peter Jackson was able to make 3 movies for 300 million ( again 100 million per pic) , why did he need 207 million to make King Kong ?
If you're able to answer that question , you'll understand why a proper superman movie can't be made for under 200 million.

 

[dark_b]

Again yes, it can't be made for 150 million IMO.
I don't have time to write a long reply ( family visit) but ask yourself this.


If , by your logic , Peter Jackson was able to make 3 movies for 300 million ( again 100 million per pic) , why did he need 207 million to make King Kong ?
If you're able to answer that question , you'll understand why a proper superman movie can't be made for under 200 million.

the main creature was one of the most complex rendered monkeys on screen?
all the details plus 90% of fur?

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Again yes, it can't be made for 150 million IMO.
I don't have time to write a long reply ( family visit) but ask yourself this.


If , by your logic , Peter Jackson was able to make 3 movies for 300 million ( again 100 million per pic) , why did he need 207 million to make King Kong ?
If you're able to answer that question , you'll understand why a proper superman movie can't be made for under 200 million.

Yet Iron Man and TIH can be made for $140 and $150 million respectively? SR2 can be made for under $200 million, no doubt.

 

[SymbioteKal-El]

You guys really need to get real, if WB has two Superman films that flops. There wont be a reboot for a very long time I dont mean 5yrs or the likes I mean Superman will be placed on the back burner, all you have to do is use common sense if it fails twice they arnt going to touch Superman again for a very very long time. Superman will be placed in limbo whether a sequel fails or a reboot, some of you are so desperate for a sequel to Singerman that you spout stupid and ludicrous statements. I want a reboot but will openly admit that if it was to fail that would be it for Superman and its also the same for a sequel, WB wont see it as a sequel or reboot failing they will see it as Superman failing and will see him as a poor investment choice with a small target market not worth pursuing.

Come down from your high-horse baby-cakes, its nothing to do with whether I like SR or not, I am just thinking rationally, I wouldnt be bothered what we got, re-boot or sequel, but I think with a sequel there is still the chance to re-boot in 5-10 years. WB are NEVER going to give up on Superman, him and Batman are their cash-cow, no matter how bad his movies do, another one will come out sometime down the line, maybe your blind bias against SR is stopping you from seeing this.

 

[TheBatman1979]

Again yes, it can't be made for 150 million IMO.
I don't have time to write a long reply ( family visit) but ask yourself this.


If , by your logic , Peter Jackson was able to make 3 movies for 300 million ( again 100 million per pic) , why did he need 207 million to make King Kong ?
If you're able to answer that question , you'll understand why a proper superman movie can't be made for under 200 million.

What are you basing this on? King Kong not only had CGI rendered shots of it's main character but fight scenes with other CGI rendered characters. Most of that movie is the highly detailed CGI renderings which is why it was so expensive. Suprman does not need as many renderings as King Kong. Hell, TDK was shot for 185 million and it shot in two very expensive locations (hong kong and Chicago) they even bought and blew up an entire building.

There's ways to get around not having a 200 million dollar Superman budget.

 

[dark_b]

What are you basing this on? King Kong not only had CGI rendered shots of it's main character but fight scenes with other CGI rendered characters. Most of that movie is the highly detailed CGI renderings which is why it was so expensive. Suprman does not need as many renderings as King Kong. Hell, TDK was shot for 185 million and it shot in two very expensive locations (hong kong and Chicago) they even bought and blew up an entire building.

There's ways to get around not having a 200 million dollar Superman budget.

i heard greenscreen is not so expensive

for example if they would build a nice kent far set in australia they would do the outside with green screen. but they needed a real far for like....3 scenes

really greenscreen and some smart locations in vancouver is the way to go.sets should not be to detailed. the details in SR were to much. why do i care if they had written newspapers on the table?

 

[Excel]

I don't know. TIH was a reboot and it barely made more than the first. I'm not saying a Superman reboot couldn't or wouldn't make more than S.R., but it does worry me.

IMO, you would have to have a slamdunk of a director, an awesome and WELL known actor for the villain role, outstanding writers, plus marketing on par with TDK's or otherwise the public will think it's just a sequel to S.R.

HULK in 2003 was muchmore hated than SR. And Hulk pretty got the look, style, and feel right.

The man they need to Abrams. Its obvious from his script he knows what he is doing. One lok at an MI3 trailer and he had the perfect style and sense of flare for Superman. Cloverfield was a huge success. Star Trek, dunno how much money itll make because the name brand isnt high, but its gonna make Star Trek a lot more popular than it is right now.

He has the internet fanbase in his palm; landing Abrams to helm the next Superman would be ideal for W.B. Hes one of the rare directors who can make a film that is easily to sell to audiences as a crowd pleaser while taking itself seriously to work for critics.

Hes the next big director along with Nolan, not Singer.

 

[C. Lee]

nitpicky little whiner. He didn't get it wrong, just incomplete

Oh **** you idiot, you call me a "nitpicky little whiner" so what excatly are you doing now? He made a mistake and I simply corrected him.

This is to both of you.....discuss and debate without resorting to calling people rude names....or I will get angry.

 

[stargazer]

HULK in 2003 was muchmore hated than SR. And Hulk pretty got the look, style, and feel right.

The man they need to Abrams. Its obvious from his script he knows what he is doing. One lok at an MI3 trailer and he had the perfect style and sense of flare for Superman. Cloverfield was a huge success. Star Trek, dunno how much money itll make because the name brand isnt high, but its gonna make Star Trek a lot more popular than it is right now.

He has the internet fanbase in his palm; landing Abrams to helm the next Superman would be ideal for W.B. Hes one of the rare directors who can make a film that is easily to sell to audiences as a crowd pleaser while taking itself seriously to work for critics.

Hes the next big director along with Nolan, not Singer.

No thanks. Didn't MI:3 made only $133 mil domestic? And it has an score rating of only 63% with top critics at rottentomatoes. Also, it seems that its dvd sales weren't that good, according to thenumbers site, it only sold $25 mil on its first weekend, and for the next one the drop was of about 72%.

SR, on the other hand, got a rating score of 73% with the top critics, made $200 mil domestic, and made about $35, 749, 000 mil on dvd sales on its first week, and $19 mil on its second. SR was more popular, right? And SR didn't even have superfights or a supervillain. It was mostly a romance movie; I'm pretty sure that with more action aka superfights (and a good story, of course), a sequel would do much better at the BO.

Singer > JJ

 

[GreenKToo]

If Singer were to go, i'd have no problem with Abrams directing. His previous script did get some rewrites so that Lex was no longer Kryptonarian ect.

 

[Superark]

If Singer were to go, i'd have no problem with Abrams directing. His previous script did get some rewrites so that Lex was no longer Kryptonarian ect.

The question is how many rewrites? Just the fact that he wrote such a bad script makes me not want him to have anything to do with a Superman film regardless of whatever rewrites.