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

JaredJones

New member
Jun 8, 2015
452
0
0
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, costs around 140 million dollars to make [http://uproxx.com/filmdrunk/2014/08/unofficial-set-visit-ant-man-begins-shooting-in-san-franciscos-bum-filled-tenderloin/] 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 [http://www.latino-review.com/news/hot-rumor-batman-v-superman-budget-dwarfs-upcoming-justice-league-budget] (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 [http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-budget-justice-league/] 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 movie [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455326/] was able to be produced on the cheap.

Permalink
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
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.
 

Space Jawa

New member
Feb 2, 2010
551
0
0
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?
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
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.
 

Imre Csete

Original Character, Do Not Steal
Jul 8, 2010
785
0
0
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.
 

Spaceman Spiff

New member
Sep 23, 2013
604
0
0
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?
 

Ralancian

New member
Jan 14, 2012
120
0
0
The films "one part", Justice League will be two.
maddawg IAJI said:
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.
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
JaredJones said:
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.
 

JaredJones

New member
Jun 8, 2015
452
0
0
Space Jawa said:
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.
 

The Great JT

New member
Oct 6, 2008
3,721
0
0
Better not suck, then! No really, they can't afford it sucking. My hopes aren't very high, but fingers crossed.
 

K12

New member
Dec 28, 2012
943
0
0
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.
 

WouldYouKindly

New member
Apr 17, 2011
1,431
0
0
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 said:
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
 

Ralancian

New member
Jan 14, 2012
120
0
0
K12 said:
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.
 

circularlogic88

Knower of Nothing
Oct 9, 2010
292
0
0
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.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
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.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
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.
 

P-89 Scorpion

New member
Sep 25, 2014
466
0
0
K12 said:
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.
 

flying_whimsy

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,077
0
0
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.
 

Shiftygiant

New member
Apr 12, 2011
433
0
0
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 (!)