Batman vs. Superman Rumored to Be the Most Expensive Movie Ever Made

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Batman vs. Superman Rumored to Be the Most Expensive Movie Ever Made

"You don't owe this world anything...except half a billion dollars."

Superhero/comic book movies are an expensive endeavor. Securing top-level talent both in front of and behind the camera, shutting down entire city blocks to film, and the CGI!! Oh, the CGI. The point is, it's no small wonder that the average Marvel film costs around 140 million dollars to make these days.

But with Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, rumor has it that Warner Bros. and DC Comics have quite literally outdone themselves, shattering the previous record for the highest budgeted movie ever made.

According to a recent report published by The Latino Review (an understandably sketchy source, I know), the budget for Dawn of Justice should come in at around a whopping $410 million dollars when all is said and done. You read that correctly: 410. MILLION.

"A number of factors may have contributed to the exorbitant cost of production (assuming this report is accurate), including the decision to bring in bigger name actors such as Ben Affleck, the increased cost of practical effects, and the extension of the film's shooting schedule," writes Screen Rant while looking over the numbers.

"While Man of Steel may have been an expensive movie to make, bringing in characters like Batman, Wonder Woman, and Lex Luthor call for an escalation of the set-pieces - meaning costs will inevitably go up, too."

If accurate, that means Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice would not only surpass this year's Avengers: Age of Ultron ($279.9 million) as the most expensive superhero movie ever made, but would also cost some $32 million MORE than Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, the previous record holder.

The lesson here? Don't place a colon in the middle of your movie title unless you want it to go WAY over budget. Unless it's actually written out as "colon" -- that and that alone is how the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie was able to be produced on the cheap.

Permalink

Oh no, they're doubling down on it? I... I really hope it works because there's not an easy way to come back from this.

1) Am I remembering correctly that the movie is being split into two parts, and if so 2) Is that $410mil total, or just for the first half?

Good. If it worked for WaterWorld, I see no reason it won't work here!

I would make the argument that Ben Affleck isn't as famous as he once was and that Marvel gets some pretty big names for their films as well, such as Micheal Douglas in Ant-man, Scarlett Johansson and Robert Downey Jr. And I can't imagine the rest of the cast isn't requesting bigger payouts from their contracts each phase.

That said, 410 million might be the total of both parts of the film. Age of Ultron cost about 280 million and they had to drop a small city and make a 100 Spader bots to rack up that total.

While I don't think it's going to tank harder than the Battle of Kursk, but I don't see how can it make back enough money to please the executives.

Wow that's a lot of money. I hope they've got things well planned.

Is it BvS that's split into two films (would really explain the high production cost) or is it Justice League that's split into two? maybe both?

The films "one part", Justice League will be two.

maddawg IAJI:
I would make the argument that Ben Affleck isn't as famous as he once was and that Marvel gets some pretty big names for their films as well, such as Micheal Douglas in Ant-man, Scarlett Johansson and Robert Downey Jr. And I can't imagine the rest of the cast isn't requesting bigger payouts from their contracts each phase.

That said, 410 million might be the total of both parts of the film. Age of Ultron cost about 280 million and they had to drop a small city and make a 100 Spader bots to rack up that total.

Downey Jr. barely had a career left when he took up Iron Man, Johansson I believe was going through a dry spell. Douglas signed up long after the cash cow was really being milked.

Affleck on the other hand is going through a renaissance similar to Matthew McCoghnhey especially on back of Argo and Gone Girl.

JaredJones:
The lesson here? Don't place a colon in the middle of your movie title unless you want it to go WAY over budget.

Yes, we all know colons are super expensive. Especially when they have cancer, and there's nothing more carcinogenic than Zack Snyder directing.

Space Jawa:
1) Am I remembering correctly that the movie is being split into two parts, and if so 2) Is that $410mil total, or just for the first half?

I believe you're thinking of the upcoming Justice League movies, which are also being directed by Snyder and will have a combined budget of somewhere around $500 mil.

Better not suck, then! No really, they can't afford it sucking. My hopes aren't very high, but fingers crossed.

Could DC go bankrupt if this is a flop? They're clearly not willing to be second to Marvel, they either win of destroy themselves in the process.

Say what you like about big business but greed isn't the problem, envy is.

Schadenfreude activated.

Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will result when this one flops. Seriously, I have almost no positive feelings about how this movie will do, but I do love when massive ventures that people spent entirely too much money on come crashing down. It's like the joy you get when a big old highrise gets precision demolished.

Imre Csete:
While I don't think it's going to tank harder than the Battle of Kursk

I'm stealing that line to use among my history major friends

K12:
Could DC go bankrupt if this is a flop? They're clearly not willing to be second to Marvel, they either win of destroy themselves in the process.

Say what you like about big business but greed isn't the problem, envy is.

You mean Time Warner Net Income 3.7 billion in 2013?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner

Nope not a chance worst it will do is stop them trying a shared universe plan, but they can probably stick at it for 2-3 movies with marginal success before giving up.

I can tell I'm not going to like it. It has Zack Snyder as director and David Goyer as writer. I can take or leave Snyder's directing style but to me, Goyer is just loathsome in his writing.

That said, this is one of those movies that is "too big to fail." It has too many big names attached to it and features two of the most iconic superheroes in the history of comics. Even if it is a flat out terrible movie, it won't matter. My biggest concern with this movie is that they're going to do the exact same thing Amazing Spider-Man 2 and completely frontload this movie with stuff that they want to set up for future movies instead of doing an actual self-contained story.

This is supposed to be the Flagship of their Justice League movie franchise. They've got direct competition with Marvel but they have an advantage over Marvel - they own the movie rights to all their characters.

Can they recover from the lackluster movies of the past? Time will only tell.

Either way, I'm interested in how this is going to go. I thought Man of Steel was alright for a movie, no reason to see it twice, but I wouldn't write it off as terrible.

At the same time Marvel is producing decent work but Age of Ultron didn't make as good an impact as Avengers 1. Will Civil War do better?

The one thing I can say is that when these two behemoths compete the spectacle can only be good for movie goers.

Somehow I'm finding this hard to believe. Sure, there are going to be some big set-pieces. But Age of Ultron not only had to have big action pieces, it had to bring back a whole stable of actors who are emblematic of their roles, most of whom are doing pretty darn well on their own, thank you very much. By contrast, Ben Affleck's better-known work of late (excepting Gone Girl) has been on the other side of the camera, Cavill isn't especially well-known for anything outside of Man of Steel, and while I like Eisenberg, he isn't exactly a headliner.

And while Snyder is certainly known for big visuals, most of his work hasn't been bank-busting. 300 cost $65 million, Sucker Punch $82 million, and most of what we've seen in previews thus far doesn't suggest ambitious use of scenery; it suggests studio lots and green-screen.

Admittedly, Man of Steel, at $225 million, was the one film to buck this trend. But if BvS costs nearly twice that much to make, I have to think that something has gone very wrong.

K12:
Could DC go bankrupt if this is a flop? They're clearly not willing to be second to Marvel, they either win of destroy themselves in the process.

Say what you like about big business but greed isn't the problem, envy is.

No, because DC has been owned by Time Warner a $58 billion+ company since Warner and Time merged in 1989.

Wow, it's like Star Citizen but in movie form. :P

Honestly, I want the movie to fail. I've been hating the DC movies since Dark Knight. Sadly, (and as someone else said) it's too big to fail. Between having the most iconic super heroes and the big names starring or direction, I just don't see how this won't draw enough people in to be a success. It'll be Man of Steel all over again: it won't be good, but it'll be financially successful enough to make DC keep going in the same vein.

I wish DC would just stick to their animated stuff; still hoping for a theatrical release of an animated Kingdom Come.

How to ensure movie profits:

*Sequel to movie public were 'eh' about.
*Release trailers and screenshots and stuff public are 'eh' about.
*Make it needlessly complex and impenetrable to causal viewers.
*Immediately order franchise that people are 'eh' about.
*Immediately sign co-star onto a sequel even though no one has seen the movie.
*Let it cost $410 Million.

I'm seeing this working out perfectly. It's just too big to fail (!)

Abomination:
This is supposed to be the Flagship of their Justice League movie franchise. They've got direct competition with Marvel but they have an advantage over Marvel - they own the movie rights to all their characters.

Can they recover from the lackluster movies of the past? Time will only tell.

Either way, I'm interested in how this is going to go. I thought Man of Steel was alright for a movie, no reason to see it twice, but I wouldn't write it off as terrible.

At the same time Marvel is producing decent work but Age of Ultron didn't make as good an impact as Avengers 1. Will Civil War do better?

The one thing I can say is that when these two behemoths compete the spectacle can only be good for movie goers.

Civil War lost a lot of my faith when Marvel said that Daniel Brühl who's playing the bad guy Baron Helmut Zemo won't be wearing a costume (yep the bad guy is another white guy in a suit 'sigh').

Callate:
Somehow I'm finding this hard to believe. Sure, there are going to be some big set-pieces. But Age of Ultron not only had to have big action pieces, it had to bring back a whole stable of actors who are emblematic of their roles, most of whom are doing pretty darn well on their own, thank you very much. By contrast, Ben Affleck's better-known work of late (excepting Gone Girl) has been on the other side of the camera, Cavill isn't especially well-known for anything outside of Man of Steel, and while I like Eisenberg, he isn't exactly a headliner.

And while Snyder is certainly known for big visuals, most of his work hasn't been bank-busting. 300 cost $65 million, Sucker Punch $82 million, and most of what we've seen in previews thus far doesn't suggest ambitious use of scenery; it suggests studio lots and green-screen.

Admittedly, Man of Steel, at $225 million, was the one film to buck this trend. But if BvS costs nearly twice that much to make, I have to think that something has gone very wrong.

The budget is a rumour and we have no idea if it's including marketing costs which in the case of some of the Marvel films would have doubled the production budgets.

K12:
Could DC go bankrupt if this is a flop?

Nope. Its WB footing the bill, and as you know they have some serious income.

Worst that will happen if it flops is that there wont be any more DCCU movies... which may not be a bad thing, all things considered.

One thing is for certain: I'm not going on opening weekend. I'll keep my fingers cross that it's good, heck with some luck it might even redeem the failings of man of steel... but I'm not holding my breath. And honestly a big bank roll does not help to alleviate my concerns.

At the heart of it are 2 problems:
1) I like Batman, and I'd love to see him punch Supe's lights out with a kryptonite ring, but honestly I don't see how there is going to be much of a fight let alone enough tension to power a whole movie.
2) Using this as a vehicle to get to the justice league is going to take some very serious writing gymnastics. They are working off of a Superman movie, so they still have to introduce Batman and how he's tied in AND set up a literal David vs Goliath of a battle... THEN introduce a half dozen other characters.

If I didn't know better I'd swear it was going to be an adventure movie where Batman goes on a quest to collect the strongest warriors from around the world to fight the evil Übermensch. And then *TWIST* they all team up to fight the TRUE evil: Jesse Eisenburg in a suit!

Thats a big budget, any guesses for what city they're going to haphazardly demolish without any self awareness in this film? Not-Washington D.C.? Not-Philadelphia? Not-Boston? Not-New York, again?

Well, all good studio execs know that the more money you poor into a movie, the better it will be. That's why Transformers is one of the greatest films of all time, and Lars Von Trier is a hack.

P-89 Scorpion:
The budget is a rumour and we have no idea if it's including marketing costs which in the case of some of the Marvel films would have doubled the production budgets.

Yes, I'm aware it's a rumor, which is part of why I said "I'm finding this hard to believe [reasons]."

Marketing costs certainly could double the cost of the movie, that's true. And if that's how the number is being cited (production plus marketing in the same pot), it would make for a highly misleading comparison if viewed against the production budgets of other high-profile movies. But it's notoriously hard to get hold of marketing budgets, especially so long before the movie actually releases. It's actually easier for me to believe that the number came out of thin air, wild speculation, or something that was overheard and misunderstood than that it's an accurate quote coming from the sum of production and marketing costs.

So to be clear: If BvS's [production] costs do in fact come to $410 million or more, I will be inclined to take that as a sign that things have gotten out of hand on the movie, and perhaps that some significant mis-management has taken place.

But I am aware that the stated number is highly under-sourced, as even the article's author is quick to note.

MarsAtlas:
Thats a big budget, any guesses for what city they're going to haphazardly demolish without any self awareness in this film? Not-Washington D.C.? Not-Philadelphia? Not-Boston? Not-New York, again?

Probably Not-New York and Not-New York, and Not-New York from the first movie will see the aftermath of that movie.

Fun having more then one Not-New York in a setting isn't it? More Not-New York to destroy because of that.

Oh boy, imagine if the film was a total bust?! Well ok it will probably still make alot of money even if it turn out the movie suck.

Scarim Coral:
Oh bog, imagine if the film was a total bust?! Well ok it will probably still make alot of money even if it turn out the movie suck.

But will it rake in that Billion Dollars? Because that's what they need to break even, and I don't think it'll make it.

I believe you're thinking of the upcoming Justice League movies, which are also being directed by Snyder and will have a combined budget of somewhere around $500 mil/

No they won't this movie has to win and it has to win big to justify it's budget. I dunno but while I don't think it will tank I suspect that it will do just poorly enough that the big wigs will have to gather round and have serious talks about weather or not they should push on with this expensive super hero nonsense.

Damn, grimdark is getting more expensive per ounce.

MarsAtlas:
Thats a big budget, any guesses for what city they're going to haphazardly demolish without any self awareness in this film? Not-Washington D.C.? Not-Philadelphia? Not-Boston? Not-New York, again?

When are they going to demolish Not-Los Angeles? Or hell, do us all a favor and do a redo of Returns with the climax being sending the actual city into the sun because reasons.

Callate:

P-89 Scorpion:
The budget is a rumour and we have no idea if it's including marketing costs which in the case of some of the Marvel films would have doubled the production budgets.

Yes, I'm aware it's a rumor, which is part of why I said "I'm finding this hard to believe [reasons]."

Marketing costs certainly could double the cost of the movie, that's true. And if that's how the number is being cited (production plus marketing in the same pot), it would make for a highly misleading comparison if viewed against the production budgets of other high-profile movies. But it's notoriously hard to get hold of marketing budgets, especially so long before the movie actually releases. It's actually easier for me to believe that the number came out of thin air, wild speculation, or something that was overheard and misunderstood than that it's an accurate quote coming from the sum of production and marketing costs.

So to be clear: If BvS's [production] costs do in fact come to $410 million or more, I will be inclined to take that as a sign that things have gotten out of hand on the movie, and perhaps that some significant mis-management has taken place.

But I am aware that the stated number is highly under-sourced, as even the article's author is quick to note.

I agree with both of you. It looks like Hollywood accounting might be at play here. They could easily throw out an impressive number to raise the hype of the film. With DC's current cinematic reputation, I doubt they would risk that much money producing one film.

I hope this remarkably turns out to be a great movie, but I won't lie, I'll be laughing so hard if this movie flops. Warner Brothers is trying so hard to compete against Marvel and they've been trying to add so much grit and darkness to their latest films, it makes it almost silly. And I doubt that Zack Snyder's learned from the fuck-ups of Man of Steel.

If this movie fails, it will obliterate (decimate means to reduce by one tenth) DC's efforts in the movie industry.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.