Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Thread

Author
Nicholas




Did anyone see this news story?

http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/04/kim_masters_spiderman.php

Seems that Spider-Man 3 may have cost $500 million!
Golly Gee Willickers!


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Alextron




I think Marvel getting into the movie industry is a BAD idea. Most big profile movies never recover what money was spent to make them. Stick to what you know.

Good lord, 500!?

> Did anyone see this news story?
>
> http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/04/kim_masters_spiderman.php
>
> Seems that Spider-Man 3 may have cost $500 million!
> Golly Gee Willickers!


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Blargh




But Marvel didn't spend the money, Sony did.

> I think Marvel getting into the movie industry is a BAD idea. Most big profile movies never recover what money was spent to make them. Stick to what you know.
>
> Good lord, 500!?
>
> > Did anyone see this news story?
> >
> > http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/04/kim_masters_spiderman.php
> >
> > Seems that Spider-Man 3 may have cost $500 million!
> > Golly Gee Willickers!


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP
smpinoy




> I think Marvel getting into the movie industry is a BAD idea. Most big profile movies never recover what money was spent to make them. Stick to what you know.
>
> Good lord, 500!?
>
> > Did anyone see this news story?
> >
> > http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/04/kim_masters_spiderman.php
> >
> > Seems that Spider-Man 3 may have cost $500 million!
> > Golly Gee Willickers!

First of all the news is just rumor...no confirmation yet by the producers. The producers said its just below 300

Actually spider-man movies saved Marvel from bankruptcy. Marvel going to movies was a good idea. Most movies dont recover from the money spent but we are talking of our beloved spider-man. Thanks to the movies spidey became the number one in licensing in 2004 and one of the top 5 most profitable fictional character in 2002 and 2004.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Comp




> I think Marvel getting into the movie industry is a BAD idea. Most big profile movies never recover what money was spent to make them. Stick to what you know.
>
> Good lord, 500!?
>

In fact, the vast majority of films, not counting very small independent releases, do make their money back, in the DVD market if not in theaters. There are very few bombs.

Still, the $500 million figure is high. And surprising, because Raimi is well-known for his ability to get a lot done on a little budget. But Marvel and Sony expect this film to be huge, and it will be huge. I don't know if it can beat Pirates 2 from last year, but I think this one is going to open bigger and gross more than the original Spider-Man.

It's an investment, for sure, but I can't see it not paying off.

-Comp


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Surt




> > I think Marvel getting into the movie industry is a BAD idea. Most big profile movies never recover what money was spent to make them. Stick to what you know.
> >
> > Good lord, 500!?
> >
>
> In fact, the vast majority of films, not counting very small independent releases, do make their money back, in the DVD market if not in theaters. There are very few bombs.
>
> Still, the $500 million figure is high. And surprising, because Raimi is well-known for his ability to get a lot done on a little budget. But Marvel and Sony expect this film to be huge, and it will be huge. I don't know if it can beat Pirates 2 from last year, but I think this one is going to open bigger and gross more than the original Spider-Man.
>
> It's an investment, for sure, but I can't see it not paying off.
>
> -Comp

They sure are advertising heavily. Over here in Europe you have very regular commercials of Spidey 3, the cinemas here have started preorders for the cinemas. Here in Norway I got a ticket for the fourth of May, booked online, and just 30 minutes after it opened, the 18:00, 21:00 and 24:00 showings were fully booked.

They are showing Spider-Man 1&2 on tv over the course of this and next week. Long time ago since I experienced hype like this in any movie. Yeah Pirates 2 and Shrek 2 is prolly what comes the closest.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP
Spiffy





> Still, the $500 million figure is high. And surprising, because Raimi is well-known for his ability to get a lot done on a little budget.

Right. It makes little sense that Raimi could EVER spend that much. Unless the effects house REALLY screwed up and quadruple charged them.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.2pre on Linux
Kaine




from an interview on SHH! with Arad, Ziskin and Curtis (Producer team of SM3)

SHH!: What did it cost?
Curtis: I don't know.
Ziskin: Good answer.

SHH!: Is it true this movie cost $250 million?
Ziskin: I never have said the number of any "Spider-Man" movie ever from the first one, but you're in the ballpark.

original article:
http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=5551

so it's far from $500 million, just the half of it, and so even cheaper than SM2, which was around $280 million.










> > I think Marvel getting into the movie industry is a BAD idea. Most big profile movies never recover what money was spent to make them. Stick to what you know.
> >
> > Good lord, 500!?
> >
>
> In fact, the vast majority of films, not counting very small independent releases, do make their money back, in the DVD market if not in theaters. There are very few bombs.
>
> Still, the $500 million figure is high. And surprising, because Raimi is well-known for his ability to get a lot done on a little budget. But Marvel and Sony expect this film to be huge, and it will be huge. I don't know if it can beat Pirates 2 from last year, but I think this one is going to open bigger and gross more than the original Spider-Man.
>
> It's an investment, for sure, but I can't see it not paying off.
>
> -Comp


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.7 on Windows Server 2003
btzillaguy




This is unconfirmed, but I heard some people discussing the Spider-Man 3 budget over the radio (on a local Dallas, TX station).

From what they were saying the movie cost roughly $300-350 million to make and $150-200 million for marketing/etc., bringing the combined cost to around $500 million.

When you consider total worldwide theatrical grosses and the eventual DVD and Blu-Ray DVD sales and rentals, I'm sure it'll more than make back that money.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 on Windows 2000
dave




> I think Marvel getting into the movie industry is a BAD idea. Most big profile movies never recover what money was spent to make them. Stick to what you know.
>
> Good lord, 500!?

Well of course they do. Otherwise, they'd go out of business. You have to factor in the cut they get for all fo the toys and burger king meals and DVDs.

If SM3 really did cost 500 mill and they only made 200 mill, I think they'd make up the rest in merchandising.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Erik!




> In fact, the vast majority of films, not counting very small independent releases, do make their money back, in the DVD market if not in theaters. There are very few bombs.

That's changing quick... DVD returns have been shrinking from the highs of, well, 03-04. TV DVD rescued returns the last round. I'm not saying Spidey won't bring in a chunk of change, but 'vast majority' isn't the case anymore. (Sales growth has gone down this last year.)



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows 2000
Shaun Musgrave




By the looks of things, this article is just rumour-monging. They even have quotes from the people working on it saying it came in under $300 million. I think I'd take Laura Ziskin's word over a random entertainment rag's.



> Did anyone see this news story?
>
> http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/04/kim_masters_spiderman.php
>
> Seems that Spider-Man 3 may have cost $500 million!
> Golly Gee Willickers!


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Nicholas




> from an interview on SHH! with Arad, Ziskin and Curtis (Producer team of SM3)
>
> SHH!: What did it cost?
> Curtis: I don't know.
> Ziskin: Good answer.
>
> SHH!: Is it true this movie cost $250 million?
> Ziskin: I never have said the number of any "Spider-Man" movie ever from the first one, but you're in the ballpark.
>
> original article:
> http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=5551
>
> so it's far from $500 million, just the half of it, and so even cheaper than SM2, which was around $280 million.
>

There seems to be some dispute about whether the movie cost $250-$280 million or $350 million. The rest of the money is for advertising and promotion. Either way, it's definitely at the top(if not over the top)of money spent on producting a single movie. Does anyone know how this rates next to multiple same-time productions like Pirates or Lord of the Rings?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I think Marvel getting into the movie industry is a BAD idea. Most big profile movies never recover what money was spent to make them. Stick to what you know.
> > >
> > > Good lord, 500!?
> > >
> >
> > In fact, the vast majority of films, not counting very small independent releases, do make their money back, in the DVD market if not in theaters. There are very few bombs.
> >
> > Still, the $500 million figure is high. And surprising, because Raimi is well-known for his ability to get a lot done on a little budget. But Marvel and Sony expect this film to be huge, and it will be huge. I don't know if it can beat Pirates 2 from last year, but I think this one is going to open bigger and gross more than the original Spider-Man.
> >
> > It's an investment, for sure, but I can't see it not paying off.
> >
> > -Comp


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Starwolf




We might be mixing up production with production PLUS post-production costs. A movie this big gets a lot of marketing, and that costs money.
Of course, I vaguely remember reading that George Lucas recouped all the money he spent on EPISODE I before it opened through all the production of toys and action figures.


> from an interview on SHH! with Arad, Ziskin and Curtis (Producer team of SM3)
>
> SHH!: What did it cost?
> Curtis: I don't know.
> Ziskin: Good answer.
>
> SHH!: Is it true this movie cost $250 million?
> Ziskin: I never have said the number of any "Spider-Man" movie ever from the first one, but you're in the ballpark.
>
> original article:
> http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=5551
>
> so it's far from $500 million, just the half of it, and so even cheaper than SM2, which was around $280 million.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I think Marvel getting into the movie industry is a BAD idea. Most big profile movies never recover what money was spent to make them. Stick to what you know.
> > >
> > > Good lord, 500!?
> > >
> >
> > In fact, the vast majority of films, not counting very small independent releases, do make their money back, in the DVD market if not in theaters. There are very few bombs.
> >
> > Still, the $500 million figure is high. And surprising, because Raimi is well-known for his ability to get a lot done on a little budget. But Marvel and Sony expect this film to be huge, and it will be huge. I don't know if it can beat Pirates 2 from last year, but I think this one is going to open bigger and gross more than the original Spider-Man.
> >
> > It's an investment, for sure, but I can't see it not paying off.
> >
> > -Comp


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows 2000

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software