WTF??? Spider-Man 3 Cost $300 Million To Make???

[DOCTOR 30]

No, this has gone far beyond what is necessary.

It cost $300 million to make Spiderman 3???

WTF is IN the movie to cost that much???

[mortenb]

Dunno, but I got tickets to see it on may 5th..

[Yngwie]

the majority of that $300 million was probably spend on special effects and other useless shit.

[SxDx]

it will probably make at least twice that...maybe 3x wordwide.

takes money, to make money

[czarina]

We Are In Wrong Industry!

[ADL Josh]

damn, this one should be really good then

[shekinah]

We'll lets see for all the effects used for us to judge if it's worth all the money

[madawgz]

are you fucking serious :|

[DOCTOR 30]

Originally Posted by Yngwie

the majority of that $300 million was probably spend on special effects and other useless shit.

Thar ain't that many special effects in the fucking world worth $300 million!

The CG that's used nowadays was supposed to be developed so that the costs of movie making would drop not rise to unprecedented proportions! It's not like the actors even do their stunts anymore since most of the action is computer generated imagery.

There's no way in fuck they could justify that much money unless someone is padding budgets or bilking the production.

[mortenb]

Does it really matter? It is nice with a bit of mindless entertainment every now and then and I really don't think you need to worry about the producers losing money on this movie

[BAKO]

sick with it

[Splum]

Originally Posted by DOCTOR 30

No, this has gone far beyond what is necessary. It cost $300 million to make Spiderman 3??? WTF is IN the movie to cost that much???

I think thats marketing costs included, usually when you say a movie costs "x" amount to make you dont include marketing costs, but thats still a fuckload of cash.

[DOCTOR 30]

Originally Posted by Splum

I think thats marketing costs included, usually when you say a movie costs "x" amount to make you dont include marketing costs, but thats still a fuckload of cash.

With a movie franchise that has both previous movies in the top ten of all time you don't need a $100 million budget to advertise it.

Even if the movie cost $150 million to make that's still too much money.

An ad budget is usually for a big budget movie $50 million minimum which is
still too much if you ask me.

I'm sure the movie will be awesome but $300 million is fucking ridiculous. They'll make it back easy in video games for sure though.

[ztik]

Over paid, over priced, shit.

People hear movie and they jack up their prices

[Farang]

I'm gonna see it.. just because of it's budget

[Angelo22]

Its a godfucking shame all that money is spent on some movie
when you could feed africa for 50 years with all that money

[D]

People are a big cost.

People everywhere.

All those names you see at the end of the movie most likely have money in their pocket that came outta that "budget"

Then there's everyone else... advertisers, promoters, the guys that do the movie posters (I know the guy that did Spiderman 2's lenticulars, and I think he's working on the 3's, as well... and they do pay him well) - each having their own subset of people who expect to get paid.

Those of you who feel Spiderman 3 won't need advertising to become another blockbuster hit probably don't truly understand why the first 2 Spiderman movies became blockbuster hits... being a good movie is only part of the equation.

And it's Spiderman 3... a movie that's most likely going to be another 'top 10 box office pulls of all time,' so people are just taking their piece of the pie before the turn.

If the movie's gonna easily clear 600 mil, what's the problem with spreading the wealth a bit among those who created it instead of just using it exclusively to line the pockets of the production execs?

It's not like that 300 mil goes down in some pit never to be seen again... it gets spread all over Hollywood.

[Ravage]

They will at the very minimum break even at the box office.

Then, they'll make a huge killing in the DVD sales. Since Toby doesn't want to do another one, and neither does the Director, I wouldn't be surprised if the drop a trilogy edition a couple months after the single drop of Spidey3.

[baddog]

Stars aren't cheap

[Michaelious]

The morphing ability of Sandman requires alot of CGI, that will be costly.

[jonesonyou]

Originally Posted by czarina

We Are In Wrong Industry!

I guess

[clickhappy]

I think the franchise has made over $2Billion so far on only 2 movies, so that number is nothing to keep it going strong

[schneemann]

I don't care how much it costs to make as long as it has another Kirstin-Dunst-in-the-rain-wearing-a-white-shirt-with-cold-nipples scene in it.

[jimmy-3-way]

Originally Posted by schneemann

I don't care how much it costs to make as long as it has another Kirstin-Dunst-in-the-rain-wearing-a-white-shirt-with-cold-nipples scene in it.

Right on, newb!!

[Penthouse Tony]

Originally Posted by shekinah

We'll lets see for all the effects used for us to judge if it's worth all the money

shouldn't you judge it on ROI?

[schneemann]

Originally Posted by jimmy-3-way

Right on, newb!!

Yeah, cuz 520+ posts makes me a 'newb'

[jimmy-3-way]

Originally Posted by schneemann

Yeah, cuz 520+ posts makes me a 'newb'

user=81726

Welcome to reality, newb.

[beemk]

you guys sure know a lot about the movie business, you must make millions yourselves since you know so much more than the professionals.

[paprika]

for $300 mil it should be one of the best movies of the decade

[Doctor Dre]

Originally Posted by DOCTOR 30

With a movie franchise that has both previous movies in the top ten of all time you don't need a $100 million budget to advertise it.

Even if the movie cost $150 million to make that's still too much money.

An ad budget is usually for a big budget movie $50 million minimum which is
still too much if you ask me.

I'm sure the movie will be awesome but $300 million is fucking ridiculous. They'll make it back easy in video games for sure though.

Okay Mr Hollywood... tell me what success movies you've put out so far ?

This really aiin't none of your business how they spend their money on their movies. Just don't go see it if it pisses you off.

There is a reason why the first two movies were succesfull... the brand AND the great advertising.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by DOCTOR 30

The CG that's used nowadays was supposed to be developed so that the costs of movie making would drop not rise to unprecedented proportions! It's not like the actors even do their stunts anymore since most of the action is computer generated imagery.

At the moment high quality CG is very expensive to create, usually far more expensive than the respective non-CG methods that would be required to replicate it... not to mention many scenes would be impossible to do w/o CG.

As for 300 million dollar movies, this movie really isn't that far off from other movies of the same caliber. The new pirates movie will cost $225-300 million, the previous pirates movie cost $225 million... Superman Returns was $270 million. The cost to create high quality CG movies will continue to rise for at least a decade or more.

wait wait wait

did you guys say there won't be another spiderman after this? :O

[g$$$]

Spiderman for 300 M? DAYAM thats a shit load

[Tanya_AWP]

Wow! can't wait to see what costs them $300!!!!

Originally Posted by beemk

you guys sure know a lot about the movie business, you must make millions yourselves since you know so much more than the professionals.

haha exactly...a bunch of webmasters questioning the guys who actually have the 300 million to spend

[DOCTOR 30]

Originally Posted by Doctor Dre

Okay Mr Hollywood... tell me what success movies you've put out so far ?

This really aiin't none of your business how they spend their money on their movies. Just don't go see it if it pisses you off.

There is a reason why the first two movies were succesfull... the brand AND the great advertising.

It never ceases to amaze me when some knucklewalking throwback typing with his feet while catching fried banana slices tries to invalidate other people with some asscrack wisdom.

I would go through how much I've had invested in Marvel and CGI etc. but you probably wouldn't understand it unless Washoe was nearby to spell it out to you in sign language.

Fuckin' kids get computers and try to high horse threads.

Fake gangsta' rapper shit head.

[EURBottomLine]

Probably 200MM for the movie and 100MM for marketing and distribution...

[Meeper]

Im sure they will make that back real quick. Should be a good one.

[KrisKross]

Originally Posted by Michaelious

The morphing ability of Sandman requires alot of CGI, that will be costly.

Yep. The CGI effects for Sandman reportedly put the film $100 million over budget. They took two years to develop.

[sniperwolf]

oh damn!!very expensive film eh..well, for sure this will be a blockbuster..just saw the trailer last week and i know, its very worth to spend money and time!!

[LittleSassy]

that's pretty big numbers spent on that movie...hope the movie will be as good as $300M they spend on making it

[DOCTOR 30]

Originally Posted by KrisKross

Yep. The CGI effects for Sandman reportedly put the film $100 million over budget. They took two years to develop.

Okay, here's where I disagree. Back in the 90s Microsoft's Soft Image software was THE software for doing CGI. My pal Tony was the #1 salesman and part of the developement team for Soft Image. Tony literally developed the first well done CGI cartoon character and we worked on that thing for a year.

I remember when the hardware was Silicon Graphics hardware costing $50k and the software was $20k so in order to seat someone it cost a minimum of $50k. Tony and Microsoft used to send out that software and hardware for free for tax purposes for schools and non profits and churches. Then when I was about to seat 30 of my students with the software the hardware in general got better via desktops. Didn't need Silicon Graphics anymore. Price of the software dropped drastically. That continued for a whole nother year.

Nowadays the average desktop has more computing power than what was used on Jurassic Park. They used to send people to classes that cost like $1k an HOUR to learn software like Soft Image and Photoshop back in the day.

We saw the cost of using CG as dropping like a rock as the software options like MAYA and other CG programs came into play and with bigger badder hardware.

Nope.

Costs are going up and there's no fucking reason for it except perhaps competency and artistic finesse. You can see it in a lot of adult websites that use CG. 99% of them look exactly the same. Stiff figures etc.. However every once in a while one guy will have some CG toons that look real good.

You can see some real crappy CG on some tv commercials the best CGI is the stuff you didn't even know was CGI.

The program menus we have to work on as they make the Photoshop menu look like toy alphabet blocks. You wouldn't believe how unnessesarily complicated some programmers can make a program! The more complicated the system the more time the learning curve.

Now the CGI programs are so advanced that we end up back to square one, you have to have some artistic good old fashioned drawing skills and painting skills and storytelling skills to stand out above the crowd.

If the success curve has gotten that distant then the top CGI guys can call for high end money. That's good news for me and my guys though! Especially with the new tools for doing what's called squash and stretch animation and other old fashioned techniques to new end techniques.

[SamAdams26]

They should be paying the movie goers because we have spend 2 hours watching Kirsten Dunst give us her stupid looks. I swear she looks lost in any role she plays.

[Steve Awesome]

Don't be hating on my Kirsten. I'd hit that daily.