"X-men: The Last Stand is the most expensive movie, FOX has ever made"

[Lightning Strykez!]

What's not to believe? I don't think you guys are taking all of the variables into account here. Consider:

* Shortened shooting schedule means multiple units filming in various locations all over the country simitaneously

* Actor's inflated salaries due to renegotiations--I wouldn't be surprised if $50 million just went to paying the cast alone (I know Halle is in the $12-15 million range and Hugh is likely in that same bracket as this film's leading man AND executive producer)

* SFX--no brainer--hundreds of shots

* Marketing costs (the studio will top their efforts for Fantastic Four and you know how thorough they were with promoting that production)

*Bringing in multiple SFX houses to get the jobs done quickly (rush jobs = bigger $$$ and it's not like this film won't have the creme of the crop from companies like WETA, et al)


When you add up the huge costs incurred just from the above items, you can see that $220 million is not a lot of money--it can very quickly get eaten up. If they can spend $100-plus million on an origin film for F4 (with B-list cast members) how much more are they going to cough up for this huge sequel to their most successful *current* franchise?

To compare it to SR makes no sense because there are completely different circumstances here. SR doesn't have the star power (with the exception of Spacey) to command that much $$$ to secure a cast. It was shot in Australia, and the production had much more time to craft that project--which means not having to cut corners to get the job done on time. Whenever you have to cut such corners and still ensure high quality you're going to have to spend bigger bucks.

$220 million is hardly unrealistic in the least, comrades.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Ummmm.....where is Caliph's avatar?

So most expensive movie eh?

 

[ultimatefan]

What's not to believe? I don't think you guys are taking all of the variables into account here. Consider:

* Shortened shooting schedule means multiple units filming in various locations all over the country simitaneously

* Actor's inflated salaries due to renegotiations--I wouldn't be surprised if $50 million just went to paying the cast alone (I know Halle is in the $12-15 million range and Hugh is likely in that same bracket as this film's leading man AND executive producer)

* SFX--no brainer--hundreds of shots

* Marketing costs (the studio will top their efforts for Fantastic Four and you know how thorough they were with promoting that production)

*Bringing in multiple SFX houses to get the jobs done quickly (rush jobs = bigger $$$ and it's not like this film won't have the creme of the crop from companies like WETA, et al)


When you add up the huge costs incurred just from the above items, you can see that $220 million is not a lot of money--it can very quickly get eaten up. If they can spend $100-plus million on an origin film for F4 (with B-list cast members) how much more are they going to cough up for this huge sequel to their most successful *current* franchise?

To compare it to SR makes no sense because there are completely different circumstances here. SR doesn't have the star power (with the exception of Spacey) to command that much $$$ to secure a cast. It was shot in Australia, and the production had much more time to craft that project--which means not having to cut corners to get the job done on time. Whenever you have to cut such corners and still ensure high quality you're going to have to spend bigger bucks.

$220 million is hardly unrealistic in the least, comrades.

I´m okay with all the factors you mentioned... I just don´t think the BO for either of the X-Men movies appear to justify that level of investment... To spend 220m on production budget alone, plus marketing and exhibitors´ share, your movie needs to make big money, like 550-600m worldwide at least, and no X-Men movie came close to that. King Kong cost a bit less than that, made 540m ww and it was called a bit of a disappointment - that is, until it became a phenomen on DVD, but that´s kind of a special circumstance...

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I´m okay with all the factors you mentioned... I just don´t think the BO for either of the X-Men movies appear to justify that level of investment... To spend 220m on production budget alone, plus marketing and exhibitors´ share, your movie needs to make big money, like 550-600m worldwide at least, and no X-Men movie came close to that. King Kong cost a bit less than that, made 540m ww and it was called a bit of a disappointment - that is, until it became a phenomen on DVD, but that´s kind of a special circumstance...

I think the domestic gross of X2 justifies it to an extent. It shows potential.

But what I'm saying is the studio may have spent all of these monies out of circumstantial necessity and not just to say "We spent $200 million" for bragging rights. FOX is not exactly talking this up much--it's the industry insiders who are.

If they had had longer production time, they likely wouldn't have spent so much. The other thing to consider too is that this is allegedly the last film--so it needs to top X2 in terms of effects, etc. All of that costs much dollarage.

 

[LEX]

Ummmm.....where is Caliph's avatar?

So most expensive movie eh?

He doesn't need one, of course.

 

[P_Fullmz]

The hype around this movie is way bigger then it ever was for the first two films. I think the $220 million is definitley justified considering how they have been marketing this movie to death (which is a very good thing).

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

The hype around this movie is way bigger then it ever was for the first two films. I think the $220 million is definitley justified considering how they have been marketing this movie to death (which is a very good thing).

Your first post eh? Welcome to Hypesteria.

 

[Bastila]

Lets hope its worth their money then lol

And of course it will.

 

[cyke93]

What's not to believe? I don't think you guys are taking all of the variables into account here. Consider:

* Shortened shooting schedule means multiple units filming in various locations all over the country simitaneously

* Actor's inflated salaries due to renegotiations--I wouldn't be surprised if $50 million just went to paying the cast alone (I know Halle is in the $12-15 million range and Hugh is likely in that same bracket as this film's leading man AND executive producer)

* SFX--no brainer--hundreds of shots

* Marketing costs (the studio will top their efforts for Fantastic Four and you know how thorough they were with promoting that production)

*Bringing in multiple SFX houses to get the jobs done quickly (rush jobs = bigger $$$ and it's not like this film won't have the creme of the crop from companies like WETA, et al)


When you add up the huge costs incurred just from the above items, you can see that $220 million is not a lot of money--it can very quickly get eaten up. If they can spend $100-plus million on an origin film for F4 (with B-list cast members) how much more are they going to cough up for this huge sequel to their most successful *current* franchise?

To compare it to SR makes no sense because there are completely different circumstances here. SR doesn't have the star power (with the exception of Spacey) to command that much $$$ to secure a cast. It was shot in Australia, and the production had much more time to craft that project--which means not having to cut corners to get the job done on time. Whenever you have to cut such corners and still ensure high quality you're going to have to spend bigger bucks.

$220 million is hardly unrealistic in the least, comrades.

that is so true and look at the cast of people we have halle, ian, patrick, hugh, .. everyone from x1 is here. salaries alone are a lot. but $220 is nothing, the movie will gross at least that amount in the US alone, not to mention all the other countries it will be released in. i bet you total gross of the film us + the rest of the world will be in the $500-$600 range .Theres also merchandise, which i dont think will be a huge profit for fox a nice bonus. then theres the big money maker, the DVD release, especially if it is during christmas time, dvd sales and rentals will be huge.

 

[GothicPowerMix1]

It could also be the SHORTEST Movie FOX has ever made

 

[Pickle-El]

The budget for X3 is $220 million. I'm not sure if that sum is sans marketing or not.

2 weeks ago Variety pegged it at 150 sans Marketing. That's the latest and most reputable industry source I've read.

 

[Anton Oksehud]

It could also be the SHORTEST Movie FOX has ever made

LOL..... A high $/minute-ratio

 

[*xmenfan*]

cool thanks Anton

 

[Pickle-El]

That 220 Million dollar figure to me would have to include marketing and a bit of a budget overrun. (If true)

150 Initial budget ballooning to 170 I can see that.
220 is about 70 Million more than the 150 Total they spent on X2....hmmmm
Initial budget goes from X2's 110 to 220 if it ISN'T including Marketing...I CANT see that. Fox was having a cow with FF re-shoots and 20 Million extra.

 

[P_Fullmz]

Thanks Lightning Strikez!

 

[ultimatefan]

I think the domestic gross of X2 justifies it to an extent. It shows potential.

But what I'm saying is the studio may have spent all of these monies out of circumstantial necessity and not just to say "We spent $200 million" for bragging rights. FOX is not exactly talking this up much--it's the industry insiders who are.

If they had had longer production time, they likely wouldn't have spent so much. The other thing to consider too is that this is allegedly the last film--so it needs to top X2 in terms of effects, etc. All of that costs much dollarage.

hmmm, still is a damn lotta money... We´ll see.

 

[liamoversion2]

I think 220 is quite realistic. I've been giving this a lot of thought lately.

You know despite the fact that we've been told time and again that the scope of this movie is huge, has anyone stopped to question that? I mean the only truly massive and hugely expensive set piece involves the Golden Gate Bridge move. After that, it's relatively small stuff, unless there's a plethora of set pieces that haven't been showcased in the trailers yet.

But when you take marketing costs and salaries out of 220 you're probably left with something in the lower regions of 95 - 120. The film that we've seen in the trailers looks like a movie that would have been made for that kind of money, excluding salaries etc. Not that much of leap from X2 at all really!

Titanic was a different story entirely - not nearly as many actors to pay huge salaries to. Most of the money went straight into the movie and it shows. I hear the costume budget alone was something like 9 Million.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

2 weeks ago Variety pegged it at 150 sans Marketing. That's the latest and most reputable industry source I've read.

Wasn't it Variety that reported that Hugh Jackman was playing Clark's father in SR?

Ahem.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

220 mill? I ighly doubt that, just for production cost but for all things including marketing then yes...I guess so...

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

But if we want this to make money we have to see it multiple times...King kong made like $8 mill profit in AMerica ($217 + mill) and it cost $200 mill to make...get to the theatres b*tches!

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Premiere Magazine stated the 220 million figure.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

Don't always beleive what you read. I'm Hugh Jackman.

 

[Electrix]

Anything above $200 million and I'm happy.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

But in the end, you'll only spend $40-$100 on the movie and merchandise...so what's the point

 

[Prognosticator]

I don't know if this needs a seperate thread (Mods, please delete/merge/whatever) if need be.

I just talked to the FOX representative in Denmark, and she told me, I could quote her for this:

"X3 is the most expensive movie FOX has ever made, with a bigger shooting budget than Titanic, The Day after Tomorrow, SW III, etc... This is a true blockbuster movie!!!"

Just a little bit of info, I don't know how much this means, but she sounded REALLY confident in the movie...

I SINCERELY doubt it! This sounds like complete heresay. I don't discredit that you heard this; only that the person who told you is either into telling tall tales or believing them