entertainment.news.com.au— The Daily Telegraph reports that the New Superman movie, being directed by Bryan Singer, has topped $326 Million dollars--- making it more expensive then Titanic ($250 Million).
Sep 24, 2005View in Crawl 4
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.
Yeah 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.
jackusageSep 24, 2005
that'll make it even more of a flop. Superman looks like a baby in this movie.
linuxrocksSep 24, 2005
Just because you guys don't like Titanic doesnt mean it isnt the highest grossing movie in history.
compu73rg33kSep 24, 2005
@Gl4di4torLollerskates, definitely.
exobotSep 24, 2005
erk, digg doesn't like PHP tags, anyway, this is from the article:Most expensive films everSuperman Returns (2006) $326 millionHP and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $305mTitanic (1997) $200mSpiderman 2 (2004) $200mDinosaur (2000) $200mWaterworld (1995) $175mWild Wild West (1999) $175mVan Helsing (2004) 170mPolar Express (2004) $170mTerminator 3 (2003) $170mAlexander (2005) $155mSpeed 2 (1997) $150mBatman Begins (2005) $150mTroy (2004) $150mCharlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) $150mArmageddon (1998) $150mLethal Weapon 4 (1998) $140m
Closed AccountSep 24, 2005
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.
tyninSep 24, 2005
Yeah 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.
shatneresqueSep 25, 2005
Trivia page for Cleopatra:<a class="user" href="http://imdb.com/title/tt0056937/trivia">http://imdb.com/title/tt0056937/trivia</a>
en1xSep 26, 2005
I 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!
Closed AccountSep 29, 2005
And Hollywood wonders why they can't make any money?
Closed AccountSep 29, 2005
I also want to add; notice how none of these movies were any good :)
snowboarderNov 28, 2005
I see lower numbers here<a class="user" href="http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/SPRMN.php">http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/SPRMN.php</a> I din't realize that waterworld was so spendy... what did they need to buy for that movie, water?Waterworld:<a class="user" href="http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1995/0WTRW.html">http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1995/0WTRW.html</a>But hey it doubled there investment.