X3 budget info

Discussion in 'X-Men 1, 2 & 3' started by liamoversion2, May 15, 2006.

  1. liamoversion2 Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't know if this has been posted already but I got this off IMDBpro:


    Forget Costs of Stars; Studios Pay Most for FX
    [SIZE=-2]15 May 2006 (StudioBriefing)[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]Escalating special effects costs have boosted the budget of Sony's Spider-Man 3, scheduled for release on May 4, 2007, to between $250 million and $300 million, the Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend, citing people close to the studio. The newspaper also said that at least three other films relying heavily on special effects will see their budgets exceed $200 million. They include 20th Century Fox's X-Men sequel ($210 million), Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($225 million) and Warner Bros.' Superman Returns ($261 million). Commented the Journal: "The price tags underscore that effects, not stars, sell big movies these days." It also noted that the skyrocketing costs have result in increased tensions between the studios, trying to keep costs down, and the effects houses.[/SIZE]
     
  2. redwn7 Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    and this means .... nothing?



    - The creator of I salmon peace for pudding.
     
  3. sebaa Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    0
    wow!!! 210 millions alot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and is 1,45minutes??? noooooooo!!
     
  4. Spidey 2007 Renegade

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    4,799
    Likes Received:
    50
    movies are getting so expensive now a days..... i remember when 100 million was alot!! now i guess in a couple years we'll be getting 400-500 million dollar budget movies....
     
  5. YJ1 Armed and Dangerous

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Messages:
    3,287
    Likes Received:
    5
    I can guarantee you that this is exaggerated BS. There's NO WAY X3 broke 200 million and NO WAY Spider-Man 3 will break 300 million.

    "Citing people close to the studio" is another term for disgruntled employee wanting to make a film look bad by putting pressure on it.
     
  6. Super Flight Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    3,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    i thought x-men 3 was the most expensive film fox has made....where did i hear that from? i cant remember, it was one of you guys! spreading false info.....though it could be true i have no idea....
     
  7. Balthus Dire Punishment Continues

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    12,710
    Likes Received:
    0
    How the hell can any movie cost $210 million dollars? Like, seriously...what the hell could they possibly spend all that money on?
     
  8. Super Flight Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    3,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    Partys, room service charges, and kids meal toys
     
  9. Spidey 2007 Renegade

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    4,799
    Likes Received:
    50
    lmfao, x3 did have over 200 mil people. ALLLOOT OF IT went to marketing, and actors, ect.... overall id say about 150 mil for the movie itself....

    but it definatly had over 200, lol... what do they SPEND THE MONEY ON?!?! camera equipment, SETS, locations, the entire crew, visual/special effect, STUNTS/Wires, costumes/makeup, Musical score and alot more..... We should have had a higher budget, then this movie would have really been killer....

    sheesh guys... you expect to havea 500 dollar budget and it be any good? lol....
     
  10. BMM Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,057
    Likes Received:
    48
    I can understand X3 having a high budget (that's not necessarily a bad thing) . . . they had to renegotiate the entire cast as well as convince and hire all new employees, the film easily has tons of effects shots, which are already expensive enough as it is, let alone when they have to be completed in a faster amount of time due to a tight schedule.
     
  11. Spidey 2007 Renegade

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    4,799
    Likes Received:
    50
    exactly, and thats just the surface...
     
  12. Enlight Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    King Kong is three hours long and over ninty percent of it involved special effects. Most of the effects were average or above(excluding sea rocks and brotosaurus stampede) It came to 207 million without advertising. I don't think special effects is really what is causing the rise in film bugdets. Maybe some but we are taking about a 60 million dollar jump. By X3 standards King Kong needed 400 million + budget. I wonder what kind a film that would have been. Now if workers are getting paid by how long they work in can take up to six months to finish special effects for a movie. More effects, the longer it takes, more money workers demand. In the case of X3 I think it is due to trying to speed the production process up and advertising.
     
  13. BMM Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,057
    Likes Received:
    48
    Yeah, I just think it's the extra cost at having to do things in a shorter amount of time . . . people have to work harder and longer to get out a decent product in a specified time frame, especially given the opprotunity cost of those people having to take the extra time to focus on X3 when they could be using it on other clients--therefore the cost to X3 will be higher.
     
  14. Visionary Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Messages:
    16,080
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one but the studios actually know how much these films cost. And when they don't tell, people will make up their own budget. Although I'm not saying that they're cheap to make.
     
  15. Spidey 2007 Renegade

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    4,799
    Likes Received:
    50
    lmao, the money goes everywhere it can go. not just SFX
     
  16. DRob Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    U got to think about it they did have to rush the production quite a bit. And think of this, a lot of films these days are delayed which costs more cash than u might think.
    And just because a flick costs a lot a dough don't mean it'll be a smash.
    Posidon-160mil. budget=$22mil. opening

    people acually do see movies because there're really good not beacause they give a damn about visual effects.
     
  17. The Guard Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2002
    Messages:
    33,959
    Likes Received:
    1,289
    The cast doesn't get paid out of the main budget, I don't believe. I think X3 had a budget of somewhere between $150-170 million.
     
  18. Spidey 2007 Renegade

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    4,799
    Likes Received:
    50
    exactly... thats whats special about x-men, they have a great story, and this one amps the action, and it will draw people no matter what... alot of people WANT more action from x-men so many will love this...wait....what am i talking about... lol

    i got confused with the review thread...um:o

    yes yes, SFX doesnt always ensure a hit!:up: but the point stands... it does take a **** LOAD of money to make a movie thats will be packed with action and emotion etc.... 200 mil definatly isnt out of the question...
     
  19. TNC9852002 Banned User

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Messages:
    30,720
    Likes Received:
    1
    The cast probably took 75m.. :p

    -TNC
     
  20. Celestial Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    0
    Any up-front payments to the cast are included in the main budget. This is the "$20m" type payments you hear about. The bigger stars may also get a percentage of the profits and that wouldn't be included.

    I was stunned to read about the deals being struck for Rush Hour 3 - $25m for Chris Tucker (further info). I don't think anyone was paid quite as much for X3 but it shows the premium paid to get an actor back to a successful franchise.
     
  21. phoenix_force Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,936
    Likes Received:
    0
    is the $210 just the effects?
     
  22. Iceman Daffy Duck Vs The Joker

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    165,103
    Likes Received:
    43,827
    All those budgets are very high compared to recent years. I suppose the biggest films have to spend to compete.
     
  23. narrows101 Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,039
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/68736.htm

    $UPERMAN BUDGET IS UP,
    UP AND AWAY By SARA STEWART

    May 18, 2006 -- IT'S a bird, it's a plane, it's ... the sky-high cost of making "Superman Returns."

    The new Man of Steel flick, due out June 30, is the culmination of a long, long, long process - one that's had a rotating cast of directors and stars, and drawn a steady stream of Warner Bros. funds since the project began in the early 1990s.

    The current version, with "X-Men" director Bryan Singer at the helm, finally began production last spring - as the studio and eager audiences sighed with relief.

    But given Singer's penchant for high-end special effects and copious reshoots, some in Hollywood have speculated that the film's sizable budget has since ballooned to nearly $300 million.

    "From what I gather, it will be the most expensive film ever," says box office expert David Poland, editor of Movie City News.

    "There's no way the picture could cost less than $250 million, based on what they green-lit. And they green-lit $200 million with [previous director] McG. Then they started production, and then they got rid of McG, and then they started with Bryan, and finished, and then had to reshoot.

    "I figure it anywhere between $290 and $300 million at this point," he concludes.

    Edward Jay Epstein, author of "The Big Picture: Money and Power in Hollywood," takes a different view of the calculation, saying that estimates shouldn't include money for so-called "pay or play" deals with previous participants - a list that includes Brett Ratner, Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, J.J. Abrams and Nicolas Cage - who were eventually cut out.

    "There has been a long odyssey of Warner Bros. attempting to make this movie," he concedes, "but those costs would have been written off. The only way a movie like this could cost anything approaching [$300 million] is if you have someone like Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg each getting 16 percent of the gross."

    The exact, ultimate price tag of the new "Superman" has become a hot topic as the film nears opening day. Variety has said it's $250 million; last week, the Wall Street Journal reported $261 million.

    Both of which drew protests from Warner Bros. suits, who insist the movie's costs are being incorrectly interpreted and inflated.

    "The number - after tax credits - is around $204 million," Susan Fleishman, executive vice president of corporate communications for Warner Bros., said in a prepared statement.

    But even that "Titanic"-sized budget would seem to be exorbitantly high for a movie featuring no huge movie stars - Kevin Spacey's the highest-profile, and he ain't that high - and a dubious need for extravagant special effects.
    After all, the story's main conceit is a guy in tights who can fly. And, as Poland snarks, "the technology in flying has not improved that much."

    "Based on the trailer, it doesn't look like one of the most expensive movies ever," says Brandon Gray, publisher of BoxOfficeMojo.com. "They could be saving the good stuff for the actual film, of course - but that's an uncommon practice. Usually they show every special effect in the trailer."

    In an effort to track down a possible source of the "Superman" money pit, The Post pored over the film's second trailer with special-effects expert Eric Hanson, who's worked on CG-heavy films including "The Fifth Element" and "The Day After Tomorrow."

    The biggest and potentially most expensive scene in the trailer, he says, seems to be the one in which Superman (Brandon Routh) stops a fiery plane from crashing.

    "It's probably a [computer-generated] double," he says, "and it will definitely be a CG double for action sequences like when he's on the wing of the plane. It could be a live-action face. But things like the cape are definitely going to be computer graphics.

    "This is a good example of a shot that has to withstand pretty close scrutiny. There's a fair amount of budget that will go into that."
    Hanson says a big-budget film like this one will typically spend six to nine months before shooting even begins on CG research and development, plus a year of actual production time. "You're probably looking at 300 to 400 artists," he estimates.

    Ultimately, Hanson says, the price tag for CG work in films like this is about $1 million per minute. "I'd wager probably half the film is effects," he says, "but it could be higher."

    Given the film's estimated 150-minute running time, that's $75 million right there.

    But as Epstein points out, "it all depends on what comes out on the screen. It makes no difference to me how expensive a movie is. Warner Brothers is the most profitable movie studio there is - I would assume that whatever the film costs is what they value it at."

    No matter what the final price tag is, one thing's clear: "Superman" had better be able to leap opening-day box office records in a single bound.
    [email protected]
     
  24. Enlight Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    If WB are willing to spend 250+ mil on SR I wonder how much they are going to spend on the next Harry Potter movie which have been bringing in 850 + mil consistantly.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"