The Official Budget & Box Office Thread

[Superman-Prime]

1) TIH sucked

But TIH got a lot better with good story and much improved, better than Ang Lee's HULK.

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

I want to shoot Ang's head because he made the HULK movie looked so bad. Stupid and uttercrap. Completely lame and ******ed. That's why the people don't want to see TIH because they think it's a sequel to Ang's HULK.

I was hoping that TIH would earn more money than their budget, but noooope. That means there won't be a sequel of TIH.

 

[GreenKToo]

IMVHO, The marketing is what hurt Hulk. It's like they didn't care about it at all. I.M. got all the attention.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

A lot of people rank on Ang Lee's version of The Hulk, but I guess I'm in the minority that liked it. Yes, I did find massive problems with the early portions of the film in terms of pacing (some major condensation should've been done ala' TIH) but it was still a well-acted, well-written film with deeper character exploration than most non-genre films even do. Not to mention that Hulk wasn't a wiener like in the new film.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

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.

I think that the budget could be drastically reduced if they went about EVERYTHING in a more economical method. If Whedon could produce Serenity for approx. $40 million and Bay can do Transformers for $150, then Superman should be okay. These are a few of the things that could be done next time around to save money:

1. Use of more physical flight shots for takeoffs (where the hell was the XYZ rig we heard so much about?)
2. Less full-CG modeling for close-up shots and instead use green screen
3. Don't build every set custom i.e. use a real office building for the Planet scenes instead of spending a truckload building the damn thing
3. Simplify the Superman costume and reduce costs on those suits
4. Hire lesser known but qualified actors for new roles instead of star-hunting
5. Minimize overall FX-use and only use shots when absolutely required to tell the story instead of pulling a Wachowski at every possible turn
6. Use physical FX/wirework at all possible times for super-fight scenes

 

[I Am The Knight]

I want to shoot Ang's head because he made the HULK movie looked so bad. Stupid and uttercrap. Completely lame and ******ed. That's why the people don't want to see TIH because they think it's a sequel to Ang's HULK.

Wow. What a dumb comment.

 

[C. Lee]

I want to shoot Ang's head because he made the HULK movie looked so bad.

And some people wonder why the majority of the world doesn't take comic book fans seriously.

Stupid and uttercrap.

That's a matter of opinion. Many consider Ang's "Hulk " as the most intelligent and emotionally compelling rendering of a comic based movie.

Completely lame and ******ed.

Invoking "******ed" in a review of a movie is like invoking "Hitler" in an argument with someone....it make the user lose all credibility. Next you'll be saying that Ang gave people cooties.

That's why the people don't want to see TIH because they think it's a sequel to Ang's HULK.

Yes, the average filmgoer (who didn't like Ang's cerebral and angst driven instead of slam bang action filled movie) believed that TIH was a direct sequel to Hulk......but they also believed that Batman Begins was a direct sequel to Batman and Robin. So the non IM or TDK type numbers for it can be blamed on inadequate advertising and the minor amount of knowlege the average movie goer has for the content of films as opposed to us "internet comic book message board geeks".

I was hoping that TIH would earn more money than their budget, but noooope. That means there won't be a sequel of TIH.

I think it's still a wait and see situation on this...although the situation between the producers and Edward Norton could be more of the deciding vote on it.

 

[TheBatman1979]

IMVHO, The marketing is what hurt Hulk. It's like they didn't care about it at all. I.M. got all the attention.

Well I honestly thought that putting two movies within a month of each other was unwise. Movies are usually out for 2 to 3 months in theaters, opening another film that close to one you just opened, especially two same genre films, is going to have an effect on their ticket sales. Iron Man happened to be the winner in this case.

 

[Dark Knight]

I don't why some of you think that is a must to have a 200 million budget for a Superman movie. Where do you get this way of thinking from?

A solid kick a$$ sequel that will be a much better overall film than SR can easily be made with a 155-170 million dollar shooting and effects budget.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't why some of you think that is a must to have a 200 million budget for a Superman movie. Where do you get this way of thinking from?

A solid kick a$$ sequel that will be a much better overall film than SR can easily be made with a 155-170 million dollar shooting and effects budget.

Luckly those people are few. The fact is the studio wasted money on SR, there wasn't any reason that that story should have cost over 200mil to tell. That was a 130 to 140million dollar story in a 200 million dollar body, at most.

 

[Superark]

Luckly those people are few. The fact is the studio wasted money on SR, there wasn't any reason that that story should have cost over 200mil to tell. That was a 130 to 140million dollar story in a 200 million dollar body, at most.

Exactly. There is no reason WB should have ever gave the first Superman movie back onscreen after 20 years that kind of budget.

Even if the movie had a lot of action and a super villian, it was irresponsable of WB to have that budget for first of what they hoped to be the start of a franchise.

 

[GreenKToo]

150 mill budget should be plenty. Let's just hope they don't get edit happy again.

 

[Dark Knight]

Luckly those people are few. The fact is the studio wasted money on SR, there wasn't any reason that that story should have cost over 200mil to tell. That was a 130 to 140million dollar story in a 200 million dollar body, at most.

Yep...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

A lot of people rank on Ang Lee's version of The Hulk, but I guess I'm in the minority that liked it. Yes, I did find massive problems with the early portions of the film in terms of pacing (some major condensation should've been done ala' TIH) but it was still a well-acted, well-written film with deeper character exploration than most non-genre films even do. Not to mention that Hulk wasn't a wiener like in the new film.

Agreed, for me, Ang's Hulk is one of THE best CB movies ever made, it has a level of intellegence, maturity, and respect for its audience that few CB movies have been able to replicate, I enjoyed TIH, but Ang's effort was far superior if you ask me.

Luckly those people are few. The fact is the studio wasted money on SR, there wasn't any reason that that story should have cost over 200mil to tell. That was a 130 to 140million dollar story in a 200 million dollar body, at most.

Agreed, SR should not have cost $200 million. Especially when Spacey was the only big cast member.

 

[TheBatman1979]

I don't why some of you think that is a must to have a 200 million budget for a Superman movie. Where do you get this way of thinking from?

A solid kick a$$ sequel that will be a much better overall film than SR can easily be made with a 155-170 million dollar shooting and effects budget.

Some people tend to think large budget=good movie. And then there are those that think FX are so expensive that there's no way a movie can be made cheaply. It's simply not true. The question is how much money are you willing to spend to make the movie, then you figure out ways to do what you want to do within that budget.

Of course if Warner really wants to spend 200 million dollars I could always sell them some moon rocks I found in my back yard

 

[Nixon]

I know you've got to factor in the money saved by GM's product placement participation but how much did Bay make Transformers for?

 

[Superark]

Budgets for movies are just getting ridiculous IMO. I mean Spider-Man 3 had a budget of $258 Million. Though that movie made a ton of money, it easily could have cost way less than that.

 

[Superark]

I know you've got to factor in the money saved by GM's product placement participation but how much did Bay make Transformers for?

I think it was around 150-160 mill

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Budgets for movies are just getting ridiculous IMO. I mean Spider-Man 3 had a budget of $258 Million. Though that movie made a ton of money, it easily could have cost way less than that.

Maguire, Dunst, Franco and Raimi probably had huge pay hikes though and the movie had more visual effects shots, with the three villains and Spider-Man. Spider-Man 1 cost 140mil, Spidey 2 200mil and Spidey 3 258mil. It's ridiculous and you are probably mostly right but it's hike in budget wasn't any worse than the first one to the second one, as a matter of fact they are about the same.

The budget should have been less because the overstuffed movie should have dropped SandMan or Venom but I don't think it would have ever been lower than say 230mil.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I know you've got to factor in the money saved by GM's product placement participation but how much did Bay make Transformers for?

Budget was officially $150 million, which is astonishing if you ask me, as the SFX are simply stunning.

 

[Showtime]

Bump

 

[Herolee10]

Despite what I've read, I can't imagine a big scale project like this having only 175 Million dollars for its production budget. 190 or even 200 would be more realistic.

Also, I'd imagine that regardless of what the budget for this film is, that Warner Bros. would hope that this film definitely passes the Box Office results that SR had, which was 391 million (at least).

If anything, I think they're hoping for a 500 million BO Draw.

 

[DKDetective]

Despite what I've read, I can't imagine a big scale project like this having only 175 Million dollars for its production budget. 190 or even 200 would be more realistic.

Also, I'd imagine that regardless of what the budget for this film is, that Warner Bros. would hope that this film definitely passes the Box Office results that SR had, which was 391 million (at least).

If anything, I think they're hoping for a 500 million BO Draw.

$175 million seems perfectly reasonable to me. The Dark Knight was only $180 million despite its star studded cast and the recent Star Trek with its high quantity of dazzling ILM special effects only had a budget of $150 million.

 

[Micromind]

I just love that fact that many critics and fans inflate the DC movies budgets and down play the Marvel movie budgets, I mean look at some of the Marvel movie, i don't believe the budgets they have put, but If they are accurate then how are DC movies so expensive ?


TiH(2008)-Production Budget: $150 million
Iron Man(2008)-Production Budget: $140 million
Thor(2011)-Production Budget: $150 million
Cap America(2011)-Production Budget: $140 million

--------------------------------------------------
Superman Returns(2006)-Production Budget: $270 million
The Dark Knight(2008)-Production Budget: $185 million
Green Lantern(2011)-Production Budget: $200 million

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

There is no Marvel v DC because Warners doesn't make very many comic book movies, plus stop trying to turn this into a versus situation.

I'm so tired of this whining from both Marvel and DC fans. I myself hate a large part of both fan bases and that the companies that produce their films have huge problems and turn out a lot of bad and mediocre product.

175mil is fine if you believe that the budget won't blow up later like it does for every blockbuster film.

 

[jb007]

It will come down to a couple of factors as to how this movie does.

1. How it's marketed. That's the basis of so many films.

2. Word of mouth. If it's good people will turn out in droves because they read about it or heard about it from a trusted source.