The Amazing Spider-Man The Official Marc Webb Thread

[Showtime]

Like I said, a budget "in the range" of $80 million for a character like Spider-Man (who requires money to be spent to properly pull off) is not a good sign. I assumed the roof Sony was putting over Webb would be around $150-$175 million. But under $100 million? Stan Lee and Steve Ditko weep...

Uncle Ben is rolling over in his grave.

 

[craigdbfan]

Can't believe the $80 mil budget rumor is being defended at all.

There's no way it can be true. Wolfman for crying out loud is getting $85 mil and a movie that will be released in 2012 based on Spider-Man who's every single movie before this one has been $140-260 mil will be $80 mil?

THR is reliable but they can't be right with this one. At least I hope for the sake of seeing quality Spider-Man action and effects for 2 hours.

Warner Brothers was able to invest $150 in Watchmen which they knew was only going to be a one time deal and rated R at that.

Can Sony at least give a franchise that has made over 2 billion in the BO a respectable budget.

I mean come on, thats really not asking for much.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

God knows how Hitler is going to take this news...

 

[JP]

I don't understand why we, as fans, need to worry about the budget. We're not the ones making the movie. . .

 

[Kanon]

But if the movie looks cheap, we are the ones watching

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

I don't understand why we, as fans, need to worry about the budget. We're not the ones making the movie. . .

Because there is the realistic fear it will come off looking cheap as Hell. Paramount spent around $225 million to make Star Trek and Fox in excess of $500 million on Avatar. Every penny of that is on the screen. Sony doesn't even want to spend $100 million on the Spider-Man reboot. Doesn't exactly show their confidence in the product.

 

[Nathan]

Well, I doubt the budget is true anyway. But if it is, it'll be tricky, but it's possible to do with only $80 Million. One thing's for sure then, there won't be any epic swinging moments at the end of the Movie. Then again, it'd be a rehash anyway.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

The $80 million figure came from the official trades (in this case Hollywood Reporter). It's legit - not a rumor.

 

[spider-neil]

I think spider-man is 'doable' with 80m but no way can they shoot it in new york. also sony imageworks are expensive, I'd give the VFX to tippet studios or digital domain.

 

[Nathan]

Well, tricky it is then. It's time to think "Practical, practical, practical."

 

[craigdbfan]

I don't understand why we, as fans, need to worry about the budget. We're not the ones making the movie. . .

Because budget has a lot to do with what your going to see on the screen.

Its a good indicator in what direction the studio is taking the character we enjoy watching.

Never hurts having the same budget or more from previous films.

Once again to put things in perspective. Batman Begins (ex: a reboot which was far less demanding in effects in comparison to the SM films) film had a budget of $150 mil in 2005 the last Spidey film in 2007 had $260 mil.

Sony now decides to reboot (thats fine) but decides to spend $80 mil on a franchise that has proven itself highly profitable?

It doesn't really make sense.

 

[JP]

The $80 million figure came from the official trades (in this case Hollywood Reporter). It's legit - not a rumor.

Firstly it says "in the range"

Secondly, nothing is ever set in stone.

Thirdly, Sony isn't going to make a movie that looks cheap. Not where their biggest franchise is concerned.

Fourthly, I always love the beginning process of movies where we all need to freak out over one sentence we read in one article and debate it for the next year and a half.

 

[craigdbfan]

Exactly its nothing but a rumor so far as only THR (a reliable source but could be wrong) has reported on it.

Nonetheless its a worrying rumor. False or not.

 

[JP]

Eh, I don't care what goes into a movie.I care about the final result.

 

[spider-neil]

Well, tricky it is then. It's time to think "Practical, practical, practical."

which actually may help spidey to look more realistic.

example: train fight where spidey and ock are on the side of the train, that could have been done practically by tilting the train by 90 degrees (so the side is flat with the floor) and standing ock and spidey on the top and then flipping it back 90 degrees so it looks like spidey and ock are on the side of the train.

 

[chamber-music]

God knows how Hitler is going to take this news...

You just broke the Godwin's Law

t:

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

The fact that they even have "a range" around $80 million is a horrible sign. Your average tentpole is made around $130-$150 million nowadays. Hell, more and more are actually exceeding $200 million.

The first Spider-Man cost around $150 million to pull off back in 2002. Close to ten years later (with the current value of the dollar and looking at how budgets have gone up) and they're aiming at under $100 million is not good. At all.

 

[spider-neil]

Firstly it says "in the range"

Secondly, nothing is ever set in stone.

Thirdly, Sony isn't going to make a movie that looks cheap. Not where their biggest franchise is concerned.

Fourthly, I always love the beginning process of movies where we all need to freak out over one sentence we read in one article and debate it for the next year and a half.

they may be thinking smaller budget requires a small return to turn a profit

 

[spider-neil]

how much did BB cost? that has almost no VFX at all.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

how much did BB cost? that has almost no VFX at all.

Around $170-$180 million.

 

[craigdbfan]

how much did BB cost? that has almost no VFX at all.

Around $170-$180 million.

Most sources say $150 mil but seeing as studio always give lower numbers it was probably around what Jamie put.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

im so excited about webb directing...i wanna see what he can do...but 80 mill sounds disasterous...ick

 

[JP]

BB also has Michael Cain, Morgan Freeman, Katie Holmes, and Liam Neeson. . .

 

[spider-neil]

BB also has Michael Cain, Morgan Freeman, Katie Holmes, and Liam Neeson. . .

yeah, it has a very expensive cast

 

[craigdbfan]

BB also has Michael Cain, Morgan Freeman, Katie Holmes, and Liam Neeson. . .

Spider-Man had relatively inexpensive actors for the exception of Williem Dafoe.

It cost $140-150 mil. That was considered a lot back then and it still is today although for a Spider-Man movie that isn't much (after SM2 & SM3).

Thats why $80 million no matter how you put it, wouldn't be the greatest piece of news if true.