Jason

They were all so ecstatic that something was going to beat Luca$ at the box office (AOTC came out about the same time) that they forgot that Spider-man sucked.

Actually, I liked Spider-man, but $210 million for a single sequel is insane. Did the even spend that much to make all three LOTR movies?

TCG

Yes, I really enjoyed the first one. hopefully the budget will make the SFX look better, bc they didnt look great the first time. but the FX didnt make the first movie, the story and characters did.

AGuyNamedMike

I'll go see it. I went to see the first just to see Bruce as the wrestling emcee. Well, and the highbeams on the otherwise uninteresting Ms. Dunst. Anyway, it was better than Daredrivel.

Dr. DVD

$210 million? Doesn't that make it the most expensive film in history?

Also, I thought T3 cost about $170 million, unless WB is trying to hide how much they spent.

jaeufraser

Yes, 210 would be the biggest movie ever, beating out the previous recordholder, Titanic with 200 million dollars.

T3 was 170 million dollars, but I don't think Warner Brothers paid for it. Pretty sure it was a smattering of foreign financing.

Anyway...hope this turns out well. While it is an insanely high budget, I imagine salaries and rights and licenses are absolutey astronomical. I imagine we won't see a lot of that money.

PJsig08

The first one was a joke.

I hope this one flops, but of course it won't. When are movies gonna cost a billion dollars to make? 2005?

devilshalo

Sony picked up the tab and took international distribution.

reapersaurus

I really don't see how this is real dollars they're quoting.
This has to be Hollywood Monopoly money, or something, because there's no way that Spiderman 1 was that expensive, much less the sequel (with almost all the design work already done) being this absurdly expensive.

They've gotta be rolling a lot of extra extraneous costs up into that budget.
Studious do creative bookkeeping like that all the time.

LivingINClip

Let's see here..

They gave Sam Rami $130 Mil or so to work with on the original Spier-man and he still couldn't give us decent customes / CG, so they upped it this time around in hopes the film will look impressive, yet I really doubt it.

DRG

Nowadays Hollywood filmmakers don't seem to make ANY attempt to be clever about finding ways to make their movies. Whatever tool is at their disposal, go for it and worry about the cost later. Seriously, $210 million? $130 million for a Charlie's Angels movie??? And going to Box Office Mojo, some of these budgets are nuts as well:

Seabiscuit - $87 mil
It's a wonderful movie, but you can't tell me there wasn't a way to make this for less.

Out of Time - $50 mil
It's a simple police thriller, with a few minor stunts. I know Denzel comes at a price, but come on! They were making this exact same type of movie ten years ago for a fraction of the cost.

Anger Management - $75 mil
$75 mil for a simple comedy? Yeah, star budgets, yada yada. Seriously, even if Adam and Jack pocketed $20 mil apiece you're still spending $35 mil on a basic comedy... the original Austion POwers cost $16.5 mil, Dumb & Dumber cost $17 mil (and $7 mil of that went to Carrey).

I'm aware there is inflation, but come on. In 1989 they made a huge deal out of Batman's record budget of $35 mil. Now studios pay over twice that for something that is far less complicated to shoot? I know I pay more on the stuff I buy than in 1989, but not THAT much more.

reapersaurus

I agree -
it completely baffles me how companies that companies that want a PROFIT from their product would 'allow' such outrageously overpriced costs to put their movies in a bad financial hole from the get-go.

I seriously doubt if these movies actually cost this - I think it's more likely that it's an accounting flim-flam, to gain them more profits in the long run (thru insurance, or taxes, or something).

TCG

like "The Producers"?

maybe the budgets are inflated to get press. apparently, any press is good press.

Shonn

Heh, I also wonder whey some of these movies cost so much. Look at 2fast2furious, it cost twice as much as fast to make and didn't look any better. In fact I thought it looked worse due to excessive CGI use, many of the stunts could have been done without the crappy CGI. There are some directors that can stretch a dollar though, Robert Rodriguez immediately comes to mind, but yes many aren't trying to save money like they could.

LivingINClip

Anyone know how much the entire LOTR: Trilogy has costed?

Michael T Hudson

It was the same way with Disney a few years ago with Pearl Harbor. From what a I recall the week of the big premire on the air craft carrier a few thousand people were laid off. It upsets me but what are you going to do.

Michael T Hudson

94,94, and 104 from IMDB.

Krug

I think they had to pay $20mil for each of Doc Oct's tentacles...

devilshalo

I'm already looking for a new job (as a precaution).

bdshort

What an incredibly large amount of money. If they can make a huge 10+ hour epic fantasy movie with fantastic sets and FX (The entire LORT:EE) for around $300 million, it amazes me that a 2 hour action movie that probably isn't nearly as complicated costs 2/3 as much.

Brian

eedoon

That's because they make it simultaneously like they're making one movie. They'll only have to pay for one movie production instead of three, while we (the audiences) got to pay three times to watch them all.