What is Digg?137 Comments
- Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+122"And chances are you haven't even heard of the first one. Because it was actually made way back in 1963."
Unlike you, not everyone was born yesterday. - nonsapiens, on 10/12/2007, -2/+111Christ-dammit Forbes...
I want to choose when to see the next page, I do *not* want it flipping to the next page for me... - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -3/+107God I hope that the "Chances are you've not heard of the first one" line is sarcastic.
- LucasKane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+88Chances are I saw Cleopatra when I was 10 and they even said during the commercial it was the most expensive movie ever made!
- kwai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+80"And chances are you haven't even heard of the first one."
Except for every single time someone puts together a list of the most expensive movies ever made... - stoopidguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+68It says all figures are in 2006 dollars, so it is already adjusted for inflation.
- blindot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+601. Cleopatra - $290.2 million
2. Superman Returns - $268.5 million
3. Titanic - $250.2 million
4. Waterworld - $231.6 million
5. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - $223.1 million
6. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines - $219.5 million
7. Spider-Man 2 - $212.8 million
8. King Kong - $212.3 million
9. X-Men The Last Stand - $209.3 million
10. Wild Wild West - $206.4 million
11. Speed 2: Cruise Control - $201.4 million
12. The 13th Warrior - $193.2 million
13. Troy - $186.8 million
14. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe - $184.6 million
15. The Polar Express - $174.3 million
16. (tie) Lethal Weapon 4 - $173.1 million
16. (tie) Armageddon - $173.1 million
17. Van Helsing - $170.7 million
18. Superman - $163.9 million
19. The Matrix Reloaded - $165 million
20. (tie) Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World - $164.1 million
20. (tie) The Matrix Revolutions - $164.1 million
21. The Perfect Storm - $164 million
22. Alexander - $163.8 million
23. The World Is Not Enough - $161.9 million - dw2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39If only they could just stick it all on one page instead of having that stupid auto-advance BS
- peleken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32Interesting article. But is it just me or is the Forbes website the most annoying site ever?
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32Are you joking? Have you actually sat through all of the credits on a big-budget movie? Every one of those people have been paid, and they're not working for minimum wage, on movies productions like that I'd assume every one of them is a union worker. The stars of the movie and the director are paid tens of millions.
- moley, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37That comment makes no sense at all.
- Bemistape, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Forbes' List of Hollywood's Most Expensive Movies... everything is in 2006 dollars.
1. Cleopatra...$290.2 million
2. Superman Returns... $268.5 million
3. Titanic...$250.2 million
4. Waterworld...$231.6 million
5. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest...$223.1 million
6. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines...$219.5 million
7. Spider-Man 2...$212.8 million
8. King Kong...$212.3 million
9. X-Men The Last Stand...$209.3 million
10. Wild Wild West...$206.4 million - griz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25What I think the submitter meant to say was,
"Most expensive movie made...EVER" - Ellsass, on 11/05/2008, -1/+24He said that cost generally correlates to quality. It wasn't the most grammatically correct statement, but it was understandable. Sheesh.
- bobothn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22And to think clerks only cost $27,575 to make. I think some one is wasting a lot of money in the movie industry. Clerks 2 was only $5,000,000.
- LatvianHedgehog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Production, advertising, salaries.
- BigDumbYak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Hmm, apparently it was the mysterious Hugh Jackson that played Wolverine, but his evil(?) twin Hugh Jackman was in VanHelsing.
Good job Forbes. - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Actually advertising isn't usually included in the film offical "budget", which is just the cost of making the movie, not marketing it.
- teaguehopkins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17@nonsapiens (#6339127)
Agreed. Better yet, why couldn't they just put all the movies on one page. Forbes has an incredibly frustrating website design. - ExSlashdotter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Only one per page (with 5 ads)? I guess I'll never know what #2 was...
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Master and Commander was pretty damn good. Not life-changingly-great, but definately not bad. There are some scenes that I think of, even though I saw it years ago.
However, it was something of a failure because it relied "too heavily" on something called "plot", and hordes of preteens stayed clear. However, it still grossed $210,000,000 which is very respectable. I just think it's an underrated / underwatched movie. - gr3yn3t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Well, because Forbes is designed "for the business man"
Apparently the average businessman is using 640x480 and doesn't like to scroll down pages...
thus, autoplay... :[ - kirb59y, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I read a report the other day that said Spider-man 3 had overtaken Cleopatra and reached somewhere in the $500 million range... http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/04/spiderman_3_the_500_million_mo.html
- bickdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13When making a top whatever, always start with the number 1, and if possible don't make the whole list available at a glance.
Very well done... - sedawk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13This auto-advance is TERRIBLE!! WTF! I'm reading the second page, some one comes into my office, hand's me a fax, and we chat for a minute. I look back to the screen and now I am on page five. "Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb!"
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15That has nothing to do with why they weren't on this list. They weren't on this list because George Lucas knows how to make money stretch like no one else can. He made Star Wars for $11 million (which was actually over-budget). The most expensive Star Wars movie was Attack of the Clones at $120 million. That's not even close to being on this list.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17I'm surprised whoever submitted said he hasn't heard of "Cleopatra"
hmm...I guess not everyone is a movie buff. I was going to mention however that 2/3 were absolute *****. - omgomgomg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12yay another list that starts from #1 ! we at Forbes, are idiots!
- washcapsfan37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Considering it's *Hollywood's* most expensive films, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's only American films.
- Intrepion, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18hey, I was born yesterday... I mean... gaa gaa goo goo
- cresswga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I think Rawpulse was referring to the report from last week that Spider Man 3 actually went horribly over budget putting it's actual budget around $350m which will go up to $500m when advertising costs are added.
And also James Cameron's Avatar is rumoured to have a $300m budget. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I think the production costs would've been much higher if he didn't get the script from one of those Bazooka Joe bubble gum comics.
- TheKingInYellow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9cleopatra? never heard of it. in fact i didn't even think they started making movies before 1980. what the hell?
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I'm pretty sure the budget for the trilogy was around $300 million. The advantage they had was they shot the entire thing back-to-back, so that kept the budget way down for each film. One thing this list helps to point out is that CGI has actually lowered budgets, not inflated them.
- petdance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8You kids and your lack of history! Radio stations calling music from the 1980s "retro"!
Get off my lawn! - driftin079, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Obviously.
- GRTWHT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Maybe not the worst ever, but definitely in the top 10 of my list.
- benguild, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Useless, it doesn't cache the other pages...
- smallestmills, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7There's a stop button on the page so you can advance yourself. Only took me 6 pages to figure that out.
- jmoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I was pretty much with you until you said Lethal Weapon 4 was funny...sorry, it was garbage. Go watch the first two, they were great, everything that came after sucked. 13th Warrior is actually not that bad, but nothing to get excited about.
- echeese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Where does all this money go, anyway? I mean, $100 M is a LOT of money.
- tical2756, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Why wasn't War and Peace on this list??
- nottidredd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If CGI lowered the cost. Why was "The Polar Express" on the list? Tom Hanks is just greedy I guess.
- Vic333, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"what about lord of the rings?"
LotR had low overhead because they worked outside of the Hollywood system. - Jshnlsn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I too was wondering how LotR didn't appear on this list. It seems to me even though the movies were shot back to back, and they used a great deal of CGI, they also had to reinvent the wheel in regards to a few things (like M.A.S.S.I.V.E. their computer simulation.)
Does MASSIVE count as a cost of production? It should. - petdance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yes, there is a list of the movies that made the most money.
- antny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Apparently a lot of the expense of 'Cleopatra' was down to Elizabeth Taylor's salary ($1 million at the time), her illness, scrapped footage (6 months worth) and stolen props worth several million $
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"It shows that budget obviously does have relevance to quality"
Except half those movies were terrible, and barely made any profit at all. Sure, a few of the best movies of all time were also the most expensive, but that alone does not a correlation make. - spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I really don't see how Hawaii was the only winner on Waterworld when the Studio made a $100 million profit on box office alone. Add merchandise, DVD sales, TV rights etc and that's some serious money
- Brodels, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The fact that Star Wars doesn't even make a single appearance is a great credit to George Lucas IMO.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is