What is Digg?51 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 smithco (1) says:
Well, as Titanic proved, a big pile of money spent does not make a good movie. But, as Batman Begins showed, comic book movies with classic characters can be very, very good. Here's hoping ...
--------------
The 12yr old kid disses one of the greatest box office hits. You never get a lack of these comments at digg. - pibby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It better be good, damnit! :P
- Shatneresque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Around the time Waterworld came out, I read an article saying Cleopatra was still the most expensive movie ever. IMDb says it cost $44 million in 1963. Inflation calculators put that at $269 million in 2005 dollars.
Some of the budgets being thrown around these articles are larger, but as others have mentioned, it's hard to know how accurate they are. - einsteindesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They are writing off a decade of development. Kevin Smith, Tim Burton, Peter Guber, and a half-dozen other writers, producers and directors have all been given paychecks to make this thing work. In fact, Tim Burton has a pay-or-play, so not only does WB have to pay him $6 million to NOT direct the movie, but he did a 100% rewrite, to the tune of a cool million.
So take about $15 million on the books, plus administrative costs, overhead for 10 years, and you can -- on paper -- attribute about $30 million to development. NOT including any r&d on the effects.
The actual film will cost about $200-225 million, which doesn't sound quite so insane for a 2005 tentpole. Singer will get $20 million, Schuler/Donner will get the same if not more. Spacey will get points, too. So that $225 reaches $300 when you add the producer, director, Spacey, and development.
So there. - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Disney's "Dinosaur" cost around $400 mil, but they will never admit it.
- spyres, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not Dugg because the information is questionable at best.
Don't believe me?
Read the article and note they give two completely different budgets for Titanic and Waterworld in the article and in the embedded table of "most expensive movies ever".
If they can't even get the numbers consistent within their own article.... - Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1sooooooo, hollywood's goin to jack the prices up again by next summer to re-coup the cost. what a surprise.
- XorSystem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here is hoping that we don't get another Waterworld....
- emblym, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Titanic only cost 200 mil not 250 like the title says.
- gatorsrule21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How can you people say Titanic was a bad movie???
- Tanpreet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't know. This might just be a rumor. We'll just have to wait for the official numbers. Also, Titanic was a great movie.
- CompIsMyRx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Waterworld was the most expensive movie. Around 400 mil I believe.
- compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Gl4di4tor
Lollerskates, definitely. - JimJimBinks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The reason this movie is so expensive is they're counting all the times it was in development and didn't get made. Back when Tim Burton had signed on to direct and Nicolas Cage signed on to play Superman about 5 years ago, they both got paid even though the movie wasn't made. It was in their contracts. Also, when Bret Ratner was making the movie a couple of years ago before dropping out they had spent a lot on pre-production. Same thing when Mc G was set to direct. So with the budget counting all those times, it's a wonder it's not higher.
- blhack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0why do people hate on waterworld so hard? I loved that movie...
- capajc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I question the facts of any article that can't even get the spelling of the film's lead actor's name right.
Yikes. - reaver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's way too much, especially since the movie will make 150 mil tops.
- KingAR_II, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why would they put 305 into harry potter?
- didit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0nick cage as superman? ewwwww! he's a fine actor, but not the superman type. maybe superman's dad or gardener, but not superman.
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0that's likely $AU 326, still way too much. Drop on another 30-50 mil for marketing and you've got yourself a studio that's way too invested in this flick for it to bomb.
- SuperMoonMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Even if this movie is pretty good, it won't live up to the hype. You just can't hype a movie to this extent: the movie will not live up to it. This amount of money on a movie is nearly disgusting. Seriously, there are so many more things that that money could be spent on rather than a movie.
- Abraxis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They're going to raise peoples' expectations about this movie to a point that they can't deliver on. Hope I'm wrong.
I'm sick of major hollywood roles going to people who look 18 years old. I agree, this guy is too young. - dmann, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah....
I would say that half of that was paying off the all star roster of writers and directors who have been signed to versions of the film. The movie was 100-150 million in the hole before Singer was even hired. Tim Burton, Nic Cage, Wolfgang Peterson, Andrew Kevin Walker, Michael Bay, Brett Rattner, JJ Abrams, Kevin Smith, Jon Peters, and those are just the ones I can think of, all got paid for this movie, yet didnt actually ever MAKE it. It's an expensive movie, no doubt, but hardly the most expensive production ever, if you take the 11 years of devel - exobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0erk, digg doesn't like PHP tags, anyway, this is from the article:
Most expensive films ever
Superman Returns (2006) $326 million
HP and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $305m
Titanic (1997) $200m
Spiderman 2 (2004) $200m
Dinosaur (2000) $200m
Waterworld (1995) $175m
Wild Wild West (1999) $175m
Van Helsing (2004) 170m
Polar Express (2004) $170m
Terminator 3 (2003) $170m
Alexander (2005) $155m
Speed 2 (1997) $150m
Batman Begins (2005) $150m
Troy (2004) $150m
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) $150m
Armageddon (1998) $150m
Lethal Weapon 4 (1998) $140m - exobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0GG submitter for reading the article:
- tynin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah there is too much hate against Waterworld in my opinion. It was decent, and rather enjoyable to me. Seemed like the news media told everyone the movie sucked and everyone just bought into it... but oh well.
As for Titanic... I'm ashamed to admit, I cried during the movie, but only during the scene that showed the two old people in bed holding each other, waiting for the water to rise. Totally hit me hard, but my biggest fear is drowning so I guess I set myself up for a few emotional moments.
While I agree that is a HUGE pile of cash to throw at a movie, but whatever, as long as the movie rocks I'll be happy. - dd240sx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0so much money for these movies and majority of them suck except batman and LW4
- Tagskill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wish the rock was superman.....he would have been the much better choice....even though he IS Black :P
- Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0bout damn time they spent some serious money on this superman hero! Gonna be better than spidey man with his panty hose one haha
- nolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0unfortunately i have bean unable to find the variety article but i did read it the other day
what it said was this: Bryan singer directer of the upcoming superman picture says that the budget is nearing 250 million. thoughout the ninety's fox also spent around 85 million on the project in various forms.
that is were you get your high number. In regards to some of the other things in the article waterworld cost a little over 120 million the fourth harry potter movie is going to come in at under 150 million the speed 2, Armageddon, and lethal weapon 4 numbers are also wildly high - Kindred420, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i think it will be good and with the overseas release,should make its money back quickly. the footage looks very nice.
- Cheirdal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looks like they went with a 70's looking Christopher Reeve look for Clark Kent. That doesn't bode well for me.
- dukem72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's only my opinion but they should off use the actor from Smallville (Tom Welling I believe) instead. I think Smallville's producers have a better idea and vision of Superman's story overall. Besides it would be like a continuation to the tv series. What you guys think?
- snowboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I see lower numbers here
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/SPRMN.php
I din't realize that waterworld was so spendy... what did they need to buy for that movie, water?
Waterworld:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1995/0WTRW.html
But hey it doubled there investment. - Shatneresque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Trivia page for Cleopatra:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0056937/trivia - pfister_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Everyone loves to use raw dollar amounts because they keep going up. For instance, if you adjust for inflation, Titanic is actually the 6th highest grossing movie of all time: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
Anyone have information on the most expensive films after the budget is adjusted for inflation? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I also want to add; notice how none of these movies were any good :)
- eN1X, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I really don't like Superman at all..BUT due to the amount of money they spent on this film, I am expecting it to be a damn good movie!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And Hollywood wonders why they can't make any money?
- jackusage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0that'll make it even more of a flop. Superman looks like a baby in this movie.
- history1me, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yeah, it will suck big time.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"SUperman V: The Quest for Money" -- the suckiest movie... EVER.
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It seems a extremely insanely huge mis-use of money..
I can see spending a $1million or something on a film.. But 300mil? Think how many small 3rd world countrys that could save..
- Ben - Linuxrocks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Just because you guys don't like Titanic doesnt mean it isnt the highest grossing movie in history.
- dvdcr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1yeah titanic sucked sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo bad, dont kwno why they give it so many oscars...
- smithco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Well, as Titanic proved, a big pile of money spent does not make a good movie. But, as Batman Begins showed, comic book movies with classic characters can be very, very good. Here's hoping ...
- tryferos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Most expensive flop ever...
- sinfony, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I cannot conceive of how they spent $300 million making a movie.
I'll go ahead and guess that much of it was spent on special effects, and that the special effects will nevertheless be as bad as they always are in big Hollywood action movies. - Gl4di4tor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Rock, can't wait to dl it.
- wardrive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0 No matter what, it's not going to be as awesome as Kevin Smith would have written it. He had written the script, but that fag Tim Burton ***** his script up.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is