Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
Nicholas

In Reply To
Kaine

Subj: Re: $500 million? Great Googamooga!
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 04:02:41 am EDT
Reply Subj: Re: $500 million? Great Googamooga!
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:14:08 pm EDT

Previous Post

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

> 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
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software