Support NeoGAF

[Nerevar]

Superman costs soar

By DEREK ROBINS
Sun Online
THE new Superman movie looks set to become the most expensive film of all time with estimates that its budget has risen to nearly $300m.

Costs for Superman Returns starring Brandon Routh as the Man of Steel and Kevin Spacey as baddie Lex Luthor have risen so much because of expensive special effects and re-shoots, say experts.

David Poland, editor of Movie City News, said: “From what I gather it will be the most expensive film ever.

“There’s no way it could cost less than $250m based on what they green lit. It was $200m with first director McG before Bryan Singer took over.

“When Bryan took over they had to re-shoot. I figure it’s anywhere between $290m and $300m at this time.”

Makers Warner Bros claim that the film cost much less at $204m.

Other movie industry insiders have put the film’s costs at between $250m and $261m – making it much more expensive than the $207m spent on the King Kong re-make and the $200m spent on Titanic and Spider-Man 2.

The most expensive scene in Superman Returns which opens in the States on June 30 is thought to be one in which the superhero stops a burning plane from crashing.

If this is true - wow. WB must be shitting their pants with all the negative buzz surrounding this.

 

[tedtropy]

The movie has exchanged hands so many times that it's not really fair to compare its budget to movies that have actually had a stable director/crew.

 

[Willco]

No, that figure is not true. It includes the pre-production budget for all Superman concepts prior to this film, including the McG and Ratner productions that were on the verge of filming and the rather hefty pay or play contracts handed out to Tim Burton and Nic Cage when they were involved. I'm not sure how this figure has continued to circulate. I know an Austrailian rag also reported the budget in Aussie dollars, which was substantially larger than regular Uncle Sam's bills, and people thought that the US budget as well.

Last I heard, Singer's production was around $135 million.

 

[Mr Mike]

Journalism!

 

[SteveMeister]

No, that figure is not true. It includes the pre-production budget for all Superman concepts prior to this film, including the McG and Ratner productions that were on the verge of filming and the rather hefty pay or play contracts handed out to Tim Burton and Nic Cage when they were involved. I'm not sure how this figure has continued to circulate. I know an Austrailian rag also reported the budget in Aussie dollars, which was substantially larger than regular Uncle Sam's bills, and people thought that the US budget as well.

Last I heard, Singer's production was around $135 million.

Well, since McG, Ratner, Cage and Burton were all involved at one point in "a project to make a new Superman film," I'm not so sure it's inappropriate to consider the ENTIRE budget. Singer's production may have only cost $135M, but WB did spend money on "the project" before Singer came online.

 

[norinrad21]

How much was Kevin Costner's piece of shit water movie?

 

[FoneBone]

No, that figure is not true. It includes the pre-production budget for all Superman concepts prior to this film, including the McG and Ratner productions that were on the verge of filming and the rather hefty pay or play contracts handed out to Tim Burton and Nic Cage when they were involved. I'm not sure how this figure has continued to circulate. I know an Austrailian rag also reported the budget in Aussie dollars, which was substantially larger than regular Uncle Sam's bills, and people thought that the US budget as well.

Last I heard, Singer's production was around $135 million.

Where the fuck are you getting that from? By ever single other account I've read, it's way over 200 million.

 

[heavy liquid]

How much was Kevin Costner's piece of shit water movie?

It was the most expensive at the time (in 1995). $175 million, and only grossed about half that.

2005 dollars would put it at about 229 million.

 

[Rabid Wolverine]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/trivia

Very good short read on how the project came to be.


Hugh Laurie was cast first in the role of Perry White. However, the popularity of his TV show "House, M.D." (2004) caused schedule conflicts. Frank Langella was then cast.

That so would have rocked.

 

[jett]

It was the most expensive at the time (in 1995). $175 million, and only grossed about half that.

2005 dollars would put it at about 229 million.

Waterworld grossed like 255 million worldwide.

 

[Alex Teh Lerge]

Spider-man 3 is costing $250 - $300 million

 

[tedtropy]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/trivia

Very good short read on how the project came to be.


Hugh Laurie was cast first in the role of Perry White. However, the popularity of his TV show "House, M.D." (2004) caused schedule conflicts. Frank Langella was then cast.

That so would have rocked.

Great, now I have to continue living in this world knowing that, in some alternative dimension, Hugh Laurie played Perry White...and it was awesome.

 

[Instigator]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/trivia

Very good short read on how the project came to be.


Hugh Laurie was cast first in the role of Perry White. However, the popularity of his TV show "House, M.D." (2004) caused schedule conflicts. Frank Langella was then cast.

That so would have rocked.

General Zod was supposed to be in the movie? They should have tried harder to make it happen.

 

[Sapiens]

No, that figure is not true. It includes the pre-production budget for all Superman concepts prior to this film, including the McG and Ratner productions that were on the verge of filming and the rather hefty pay or play contracts handed out to Tim Burton and Nic Cage when they were involved. I'm not sure how this figure has continued to circulate. I know an Austrailian rag also reported the budget in Aussie dollars, which was substantially larger than regular Uncle Sam's bills, and people thought that the US budget as well.

Last I heard, Singer's production was around $135 million.

well, to be fair, this is the film where they will see the payoff for all of their investments. so in a way, it was the most expensive

Unless they released superman films I wasnt aware of in the last 10 years

 

[Matrix]

Where the fuck are you getting that from? By ever single other account I've read, it's way over 200 million.

Everything ive read says the budget is just south of 200$ million,more like the 185$ million range.

Not sure where you got way over 200 million and I'm not sure where Willco got such a low number.

 

[Suburban Cowboy]

Everything ive read says the budget is just south of 200$ million,more like the 185$ million range.

Not sure where you got way over 200 million and I'm not sure where Willco got such a low number.

ok, so the movie either cost 135, 185, 200, way over 200, or 300.


I approve of this thread.

 

[Willco]

Actually, I apologize, I got my superhero budgets messed up. Begins cost like $135, and Returns is like $185. I thought it was reverse. It could be over $200 million with reshoots, but nowhere close to Spidey 3's $300 million.

 

[Matrix]

Actually, I apologize, I got my superhero budgets messed up. Begins cost like $135, and Returns is like $185. I thought it was reverse. It could be over $200 million with reshoots, but nowhere close to Spidey 3's $300 million.

Now this is right.

 

[Solo]

All the more this will hurt WB and the chances at another Supes movie in the near future if Supes bomba.

 

[Matrix]

All the more this will hurt WB and the chances at another Supes movie in the near future if Supes bomba.

Wont hurt WB,will hurt Supes fans Shit who knows what will really happen,they already have talked of Singer not doing Logans run and being back to direct the next Superman.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business...poseidon/2006/05/19/1147545526886.html?page=2

 

[Willco]

All the more this will hurt WB and the chances at another Supes movie in the near future if Supes bomba.

Not really. Critical reaction and fanbase reaction is much more important to Warner Bros. than dollar figures at the box office. Warner Bros. is in a unique position.

Unlike Sony, which relies exclusively on how the Spider-Man movies perform at the box office and store shelves, because the only merchandise money they make has to be tied directly to the film license, Warner Bros. makes money off the entire license because they own DC Comics.

It's the reason why even though Batman Begins underperformed for Warner Bros. at the box office, it was an overwhelming success. It sold the entire back catalog of past Batman titles, and spurred sales of merchandise related to both old and new animated series, books, graphic novels, toys, etc.

Warner Bros. new strategy is to try and create films that resonate with the fanbase, but test well with the mainstream, instead of try and create toy-selling monsters, which is what almost killed the Batman franchise. Because of their unique position with the license, a healthy film franchise that doesn't necessarily make Spider-Man dollars, is far more valuable to Warner Bros. than Spider-Man is to Sony.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Yeah, other than a eye-opening spending fact, it's kind of meaningless if it's just over the years of development hell before actually being a filmed movie since WB has countless films made and money made already to offset this (or actual losses from movie failures too).


As for Spider-man 3, $300 million?! Movie budgets are getting out of hand. Filming in New York doesn't help matters I guess either.

 

[Matrix]

Also these movies sell a ton of dvd,some movies do better once they hit dvd.

How well did Begins sell on dvd?

 

[Willco]

I think the budget is a little excessive, but with the brand strength of Spider-Man right now, making Spidey flicks is like a license for Sony to print money. Until the first sequel flops.

Also these movies sell a ton of dvd,some movies do better once they hit dvd.

How well did Begins sell on dvd?

It was tops for awhile and it sold very, very well. Warner Bros. made more than their money back on the project, but what was more important than a dollar amount is the fact that people are now talking about Batman sequels without automatically adding the word "sucks" right afterwards.

 

[heavy liquid]

Waterworld grossed like 255 million worldwide.

Right. I was looking at the domestic gross which was only about $88 mi.

 

[jett]

Spider-man 3 is costing 300 million? WTF? That can't be right.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Spider-man 3 is costing 300 million? WTF? That can't be right.

Seriously, what the hell do you spend it on?! That's like $150 million per hour of the movie!

 

[Kabuki Waq]

Spidey costs 300 mil?



wtf why the fuck was the CG so shitty?

 

[Alex Teh Lerge]

uhmm Spiderman 3 will cost $300 million. Spider-man 2 won an oscar for CGI, if you havent seen the train fight than please dont comment on CGI.

 

[Solo]

Spidey costs 300 mil?



wtf why the fuck was the CG so shitty?

Can I use your time machine? I want to go check out WWII. Thanks.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

uhmm Spiderman 3 will cost $300 million. Spider-man 2 won an oscar for CGI, if you havent seen the train fight than please dont comment on CGI.

I guess it's the inconsistency of some of the shots, but yeah there were some really amazing looking sequences.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

uhmm Spiderman 3 will cost $300 million. Spider-man 2 won an oscar for CGI, if you havent seen the train fight than please dont comment on CGI.

i have seen the train fight... who hasnt seen teh train fight? the only reason it was so great was the choreography. The CG was pretty bad.

 

[Alex Teh Lerge]

I guess it's the inconsistency of some of the shots, but yeah there were some really amazing looking sequences.

Spider-man 1 was not consistent but it hought spider-man 2 was very well done.

 

[Alex Teh Lerge]

i have seen the train fight... who hasnt seen teh train fight? the only reason it was so great was the choreography. The CG was pretty bad.

right, in this shot it switches in the same shot from CGi to real stunt man, very bad cgi indeed.

 

[Matrix]

Can I use your time machine? I want to go check out WWII. Thanks.

:lol

 

[Kabuki Waq]

right, in this shot it switches in the same shot from CGi to real stunt man, very bad cgi indeed.

how does a still shot prove anything? In motion i honestly felt the CG was crap.

 

[Alex Teh Lerge]

ok

 

[Simo]

Not really. Critical reaction and fanbase reaction is much more important to Warner Bros. than dollar figures at the box office. Warner Bros. is in a unique position.

Unlike Sony, which relies exclusively on how the Spider-Man movies perform at the box office and store shelves, because the only merchandise money they make has to be tied directly to the film license, Warner Bros. makes money off the entire license because they own DC Comics.

It's the reason why even though Batman Begins underperformed for Warner Bros. at the box office, it was an overwhelming success. It sold the entire back catalog of past Batman titles, and spurred sales of merchandise related to both old and new animated series, books, graphic novels, toys, etc.

Warner Bros. new strategy is to try and create films that resonate with the fanbase, but test well with the mainstream, instead of try and create toy-selling monsters, which is what almost killed the Batman franchise. Because of their unique position with the license, a healthy film franchise that doesn't necessarily make Spider-Man dollars, is far more valuable to Warner Bros. than Spider-Man is to Sony.

It's also worth mentioning that Legendary Pictures is picking up half of the tab for the budget for Superman Returns and did so for Batman Begins so it's not as much a gamble for WB in the first place.

 

[Pachinko]

Even if the total tab after all these years is sitting at 300 million plus , in some ways if the movie isn't has bad as some believe it may work out becuase it'll repopularize a whole franchise- comics toys, tv games, etc.

I'm curious what spiderman 3 is gonna cost , seeing as 2 was 200 million and 3 is likely to me muchmore extravagent.

 

[Dan]

We all know Superman Returns has cost Warner Bros a lot, but it doesn't really matter.

And why is anyone even taking this article seriously? Look at their big source:

David Poland, editor of Movie City News, said: “From what I gather it will be the most expensive film ever.

“There’s no way it could cost less than $250m based on what they green lit. It was $200m with first director McG before Bryan Singer took over.

“When Bryan took over they had to re-shoot. I figure it’s anywhere between $290m and $300m at this time.”

What the fuck is he talking about? He acts like McG shot the film and then Singer came in and redid everything.

 

[Willco]

It's also worth mentioning that Legendary Pictures is picking up half of the tab for the budget for Superman Returns and did so for Batman Begins so it's not as much a gamble for WB in the first place.

This is true, but for the time being, Legendary Pictures practically is Warner Bros. They're based on the lot if my memory serves me correct. And now they've got their hands in Warcraft!

What the fuck is he talking about? He acts like McG shot the film and then Singer came in and redid everything.

It's Superman II all over again!