-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Superman Returns' budget flies past Titanic's and Waterworld's
- Thread starter ManaByte
- Start date
- Status
nextgeneration
Member
Wow, this movie better deliver!
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
These budgets are getting out of hand. And I thought Spider-man 2's $200 million budgest was insane!
The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy was cheaper to make than this movie!!
Must be one of the worst movie money management ever!!
The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy was cheaper to make than this movie!!
Must be one of the worst movie money management ever!!
soundwave05
Member
Hollywood studios are just out of control.
Warner Bros. is probably desperate to make a franchise out of this, so they'll invest whatever amount of money into the first one hoping it makes the movie better, but its just an ass backwards way to make a movie IMO.
Although from what I understand, this budget figure includes all the prior Superman movies WB had in development beginning way back with Tim Burton's version in the 1990s that was slated to have Nicolas Cage as Supes :lol
Apparently Burton still got like several million dollars even though that version was never made.
Warner Bros. is probably desperate to make a franchise out of this, so they'll invest whatever amount of money into the first one hoping it makes the movie better, but its just an ass backwards way to make a movie IMO.
Although from what I understand, this budget figure includes all the prior Superman movies WB had in development beginning way back with Tim Burton's version in the 1990s that was slated to have Nicolas Cage as Supes :lol
Apparently Burton still got like several million dollars even though that version was never made.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Let's face it, Hollywood has some of the worst spending issues when it comes to movies. Some of these budgets have my head scatching, when a film like "Wedding Crashers" cost $40 million you can't help but go "WTF?"
Smiles and Cries
Member
:lol :lol :lol
the year 20XX
Member
Aren't they using old Brando footage? At this point they should just go ahead and reuse the rest of Superman 1 as a cost-cutting measure.
the year 20XX
Member
ManaByte said:
Yeah, but isn't Superman Returns a 2-hour movie broken into 1 part?
RonaldoSan
Member
300 million dollars and they couldn't even get the right cape color!?
Doublesith
Member
That's just insane! For comparison, here's the production budgets of this summer's big f/x flicks:
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith: $113 miilion
War of the Worlds: $132 million
Batman Begins: $150 million
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith: $113 miilion
War of the Worlds: $132 million
Batman Begins: $150 million
norinrad21
Banned
ManaByte said:
:lol :lol :lol
Pudding Tame
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Well, you need to understand the reasons for big name directors and actors doing that. As they would be essentially putting their careers on hold for a project that may or may not even make it to filming. If everything goes south without that clause, than they just lost a bunch of money they could have made on other projects during the period they were under contract.
norinrad21
Banned
All i can say to that kind of money being thrown around is world am cry...
A fucking movie star in Europe would be lucky to make a million euros, where else trash actors like Cage are being paid millions to read scripts.
His only worthwhile movie was raising Arizona :lol :lol :lol
A fucking movie star in Europe would be lucky to make a million euros, where else trash actors like Cage are being paid millions to read scripts.
His only worthwhile movie was raising Arizona :lol :lol :lol
Well, as noted in the article this "budget" figure includes all the pay-for-play payments that were needed for Burton and Cage, and all the other costs included in the numerous failed attempts to get this film started earlier on.
Actually, I think a $300+ budget for a Harry Potter film is riskier given the fact that I believe each subsequent film in that series has made less than the last - someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that though.
Actually, I think a $300+ budget for a Harry Potter film is riskier given the fact that I believe each subsequent film in that series has made less than the last - someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that though.
As some have said, remember that the $326M figure goes all the way back to the early 90's when Burton was originally working on it. And to the mid 90's when smith worked on it. then to jj abrams, then McG, the Brett Ratner. Money was also paid to Cage and probably hundreds of others over the years.
$326M for a movie that's taken almost 15 years to make isn't that bad.
$326M for a movie that's taken almost 15 years to make isn't that bad.
That's deceptive at best.Doublesith said:
Episode III obviously doesn't include a paycheck for Lucas, since he funded the film himself. Plus, he owns ILM and Skywalker Sound, which may or may not affect that total depending on how it was calculated.
War of the Worlds also doesn't include pay for Spielberg or Cruise, who both had large backend deals.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
With a budget like this, WB is obviously not expecting to make their cash back on this movie, but are hoping to build a franchise that will allow them to recoup the costs over the long run. It's doubtful that Superman will make $350 million, at least domestically. Figuring in the rest of the world, and DVD sales, if the movie is good, they should do ok, and greenlight a sequel they can make money on.
Don't the studios say that for a movie to be considered a success it needs to make three times it's budget back? I've seen that figure tossed about, and mentioned a number of times, but it's kind of scary when you think about it.
Don't the studios say that for a movie to be considered a success it needs to make three times it's budget back? I've seen that figure tossed about, and mentioned a number of times, but it's kind of scary when you think about it.
for a movie to be profitable, overall gross for ticket and DVD sales has to be three times the movies budget AND marketing. this includes substantial theater percentages after the first few weeks, DVD creation, manufacturing and shipping, print shipping, etc. So Superman will basically have to see $1B from ticket sales and DVD sales worldwide to be profitable.
Which certainly is possible.
Which certainly is possible.
heavy liquid
Member
Every time I see Brandon Routh dressed as Clark Kent, I can't help but think of Jason Schwartzman in Rushmore.
Pudding Tame
Member
Kung Fu Jedi said:
I'll have to agree with borghe on this, If this was something like Waterworld or Titanic where you were dealing with an unknown comodity you would have a point. But this is SUPERMAN!!! There isn't a more iconic charecter out there. (With maybe the exception of Dracula) Even my Junior High and Elementary school students in Japan know who Superman is! (Don't ask me how as they have probably never even seen the original movies)
This movie would need to have catostrophically horrific word of mouth not to do well.
when i heard this movie was going to be made by Brian i knew it wouldnt suck.
but as time went past and we got to see some photos and video i started to doubt it more and more and from what we have seen so var i have a feeling it wont deliver.
The casting for superman couldnt have been worse, everytime i look at the guy i just break out in laughter.
i just hope that the trailer will get me all superman geeky again as i really want this movie to Not suck!
go brian go
but as time went past and we got to see some photos and video i started to doubt it more and more and from what we have seen so var i have a feeling it wont deliver.
The casting for superman couldnt have been worse, everytime i look at the guy i just break out in laughter.
i just hope that the trailer will get me all superman geeky again as i really want this movie to Not suck!
go brian go
Warm Machine
Member
teiresias said:
Grosses for Harry Potter:
1st was $980
2nd was $880
3rd was $790
Even if no. 4 continues the 100 million downtrend it'll still be one hell of a profitable movie.
They could spend outrageous amounts of money on filming the next few movies but they would still do better than break even over the entire series just because the previous films grosses have already paid for making the next ones. No worries though, Harry 4 was done for $130million
you are definitely in the minority with this one. been reading X-Men since Fall of the Mutants including reading everything since giant-size, along with maybe like 20-30 original issues (yeah I didn't make it through all of the original run).
moral of the story, Singer did the franchise great justice, especially given the history of the team starting with Giant-Size to current.
moral of the story, Singer did the franchise great justice, especially given the history of the team starting with Giant-Size to current.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
borghe said:
AHAHAHAHAHA im sorry exactly what character besides professor xavier was like their comicbook counterpart? Im sorry what character was even a GOOD change from their comic book counterpart was it Ultra Mystique, or Short Bus Sabertooth? Wisecrackin Wolverine? Geritol Magneto?
Those movies were horrible, and i was always worried about them when i heard Singer say "you cant just do those characters like they are in the comics". Why was i worried well because Sin City, Batman Begins, and Spiderman all seem to proove that statement is BS. Spiderman looked, talked, fought, and acted like the general spiderman that people have known over time, Sin City was freaking panel for panel, and Batman Begins is the batman we know and love...little more dark knight than detective comics but its still the core character.
Xmen could've been far better than those 2 movies IMO.
gee. the point was, which wolverine does he take? the wolverine from hulk 181? wolverine from giantsize 1? wolverine from 94 (there was a difference). Wolverine from the post Patch era. Wovlerine from the post-weaponX era? or how about cyclops? the kick ass leader from the early issues? or the whiny "oh jean oh jean" from the phoenix saga and madeline pryor saga? the kick ass leader again from the early jim lee series? or how about whiny scott from morrison's run? I could go on forever. There is no definitive take on any character in the mythos because they have been remade so many time's it's not funny. Singer took bits from every era for each character, and created characters with those pieces that a mainstream audience could relate to. but the key there is each character is still in tune with parts from their comics' histories. Wisecracking wolverine? take a look at the early issues of MArvel Comics Presents or Claremont's Wolverine from 1988. Hell, definitely Sam Kieth's Wolverine or Walt Simonson from Meltdown. Mystique had been turned into a physical agent style character a while before the movie hit in 2000. and spot for spot, if you say there was anything wrong with magneto that just proves the point. Magento was perfect. A little older, but Marvel fails to acknowledge what it would REALLY be like to have a MAgneto that could have existed as a boy in WWII. Aside from his appearance his mannerisms and dialogue were perfect with Magneto.
And your comparisons of spider-man and batman are pointless. the characterstics of both characters have remained virtually identical since, ewll, batman since aparo and o'neill in the 70's, and spider-man since his birth. neither of those characters since those points have seen even 1/10th the personality makeover any single x-man has seen in the pages of one of the 4 dozen comics they've probably been in since their respective introductions.
And your comparisons of spider-man and batman are pointless. the characterstics of both characters have remained virtually identical since, ewll, batman since aparo and o'neill in the 70's, and spider-man since his birth. neither of those characters since those points have seen even 1/10th the personality makeover any single x-man has seen in the pages of one of the 4 dozen comics they've probably been in since their respective introductions.
- Status