What is Digg?77 Comments
- roastedbagel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+50I wouldn't be surprised if they made that all back with sales though...*hoping this movie kicks serious ass*
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33If they do not get that back in sales, they will get it back in merchandise. The first ever black-outfitted Spiderman doll will be sold, along with Venom.
- jejeje666, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Not to worry, folks. They'll make it back with UMD sales.
- Res0ndf7, on 10/12/2007, -12/+37I want to see Kirsten Duncst naked......mmmm yummy
- Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26And the bluray disk will cost $89. Then they'll release spiderman 3.1 on bluray for $99. Then spiderman 3.5 with collectors packaging for $129. Then spiderman 3 reloaded for $149 with a COA proving that you were dumb enough to buy it.
That's how they're going to make the money. - AriaStar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29How the hell can this cost more to produce than Titanic? They pretty much rebuilt the entire goddamned ship.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18You're not missing much.
- MeThePeople, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20google it
- rcran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I can't imagine justifying that amount of money to make a movie.
I'm sure I am not the only one who feels they could do more with a half a billion dollars. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Here we go... Spiderman 3 is 140 minutes. That breaks down to roughly 3.5 million per minute of footage. The mighty Captain EO has been dethroned. :)
- cambrown99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Sony's been overspending for everything with a 3 at the end lately
- karmakungfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The writing in Spider-Man 2 was quite good. The script was penned by Michael Chabon, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his novel The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. It's not often you get one of the best modern novelists to write a high-budget action film.
As for Doctor Octopus yelling "No..." poorly has less to do with writing and more to do with acting, anyway. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Yeah, even better than Kazaam.
- anitab83, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10That's pretty tough to make back. If the movie grosses $800 Million, that doesn't mean the production companies see that much. They only see close to 100% of the gross the first 2 weekends, after that the theaters get a much larger share.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I can't digg you down enough.
- audiodude34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
- noots, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6intial reviews, although positive arn't rating it that high, around 7/10 - 8/10, apparantly they have tried to cram too much into it.
- louiemantia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I saw it last Friday. Good movie, but I'm not sure if it was worth that much. They don't use ILM for their FX, and Danny Elfman didn't score the music this time around.
The opening credits were cool though. - bigtizzle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No, Superman Returns cost a reported $270 million, and even that figure is subject to much debate. Some people inflate the budget of the film itself by factoring in some of the costs that were associated with previous failed attempts at reviving the franchise between 1990 and 2006.
I honestly can't imagine how Spider-Man 3 could have cost $500 million. Until something concrete is offered I'll be chocking this up to wild speculation. - ubercow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4gameflyer, this is digg. when it has to do with sony and the number is 500, the number in people's heads will increase itself to 600, or sometimes even as high as 699.
- AssProphet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Do you honestly think their investors would let them spend that much on a movie and not market it like crazy? From an investment standpoint, it only makes sense. They need to do whatever they can to secure a return. I know it seems silly to some of us, but that's how hollywood budgets work.
- x0nIMIn0x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sony has it's own top-flight FX house, Sony Imageworks, in Culver City.
http://www.sonypictures.com/imageworks/
They won the academy award for SP2. I don't know how many of the crew from that show returned, though. John Dykstra, the VFX supe from Spider-Man 1 and 2, did not contribute his experience to the third. - RoadDoggFL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Mmm, can't wait until Sony makes $0 of it back from me.
- DICKENS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4i don't buy it.
i call ***** on this one.
Budget $258 million
I wouldn't expect the marketing budget to be as much as the production budget...i mean jesus, have you seen all the articles about this movie? all that sweet sweet free advertising. they could have spent $0 on marketing and still, awareness of this movie would exceed 80%.
I mean, i've almost seen the whole movie in little 3-7min snippets on the internet...but i still can't wait to see it on IMAX. - crysys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So you would rather explain how and why evil/infected Spiderman took the time to think up and sew up a whole new suit? I'd love to see that explained away in a believable manner.
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Your experience in making forum signatures would help them out? WOW LOL H4RDCORE! The Spiderman graphics always look tack sharp.
- ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most major films have an equal budget on marketing and production. No joke. If you don't believe me ask someone in the industry... like... me.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You are lost. Star Wars IV cost about $15 million.
You are talking about how much it grossed. And that was actually about $800 million worldwide.
Adjusted for inflation, Gone With the Wind wins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films - u8myfoood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He doesn't sew a new suit, the suit is the symbiote... the new suit would be the space creature itself...
- sparklemotion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2500 million? Evil Dead (also by San Raimi) still rules and that was done with a very, very limited budget. "The cheaper they are, the better they are, in the case of Monster Movies" (Frank Zappa)
- melbourne28, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So far.....wait for Spiderman 4's budget
- crysys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You know what, your right. But I bet your also guilty of selfishly spending your own money as you see fit. What did you eat for lunch today? If it was anything other than a bowl of rice you spent more than you needed to. That was money that could have gone to feeding starving kids in *insert third world nation here*.
What do you spend on internet access per month? Couldn't that money be better used funding an AIDS program in some poor country elsewhere?
People watch out for number one first and foremost. It's a fact of life, deal with it. Just be thankful that any money is donated to altruism. - scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's all bean counter smoke and mirrors to do with taxes.
- bsdfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You're kidding, right? The original Star Wars was very low budget, which is why it stunned everyone with it's excellent CGI/script. It was 11 million dollars in 1977, which is equivalent to 37 million today. I don't feel like checking your Titanic number, but judging by your wild fantasy about Star Wars' costs, it is most certainly wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope - dn11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I highly doubt it. according to boxoffice mojo the "production budget" was $270. I don't think they spent over $500 million on marketing. regardless it says the worldwide gross was only like $390 - so i think it would have been considered a flop if they spent twice as much.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm - Gameflyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Great math Einstein, $500MM - $350MM = $150 Million.
- x0nIMIn0x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I had the dubious pleasure of working on this film, and I've never seen money thrown away the way it was on this production.
Sam Raimi and Sony just couldn't get on the page about anything. They covered their bases by spending incredible amounts of money on shooting as many possible options as they could, instead of following a tightly storyboarded outline as most effects heavy shows do. Poor Sam. It's no wonder he's saying he may duck out of SP4.
On a related note, I hear Pirates of the Caribbean 3 was insanely expensive for Disney. Tickets are already being sold online for opening day, and some reels still can't printed because not all the visual effects are finished yet. - spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1$500 million may be a bit much according to the producers of the movie.
http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=5551
"SHH!: Is it true this movie cost $250 million?
Ziskin: I never have said the number of any "Spider-Man" movie ever from the first one, but you're in the ballpark." - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8I'm just hoping the script isn't ruined. I mean, Sandman as the Ben Parker killer? That completely ruins the central reason he became Spider-Man. That had better have been a trailer fluke. I know I can't be the only one that got pissed off about the writing in Spider-Man 2. I mean, Doc Ock putting his hands up in the air and screaming "Nooo!" was just horrible.
- RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So much money and the CGI still looks circa 2002.
- CaptainChad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here is the actual article, linked to by the site that's been dugg:
http://radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/04/kim_masters_spiderman.php - LMaxey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y
- peterandbeer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They will definitley make that back and more through all of the ticket sales, and later the dvds, plus all of the other stuff like games, and toys
- callidusdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was hoping the article would list what the most expensive film BEFORE SM3 was, and how much THAT movie cost as a means of comparison.
- crysys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Cry more comic book guy. I bet you were pissed that the X-men weren't wearing yellow spandex too. When will you realize that a change in presentation format requires a change in delivery? All your expectations are based on print, those expectations just won't cut it on the screen. Things have to be just a little bit more believable to successfully suspend the audiences disbelief.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The LOTR trilogy cost about $300 million (films), plus $150 million (promotion).
- dn11, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3didn't they spend like $200 million + marketing costs for the entire LOTR trilogy? $500 million seems way over the top for any movie. i just can't fathom spending half a billion dollars making a movie - regardless of it's box office potential
- mal1964, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does that in include soda and popcorn?
- osarhan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1thats a sinful amount of money to spend on a movie! how many malaria or river blindness tablets could a been bought for that much money, you could of done so much to benefit the world but they made a movie instead!
-
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is