Why are superheros film so expensive.

[Wild_Child]

TThe budget for x-men 1 film was 75 million dollars.It was pretty well spent for a superhero film. The amazing spider-man 220 million.Was it really with almost 3 times the amount as x-men 1. I watched them both and I don't see the difference in special effects. Okay so maybe the amazing spider-man had good CGI like the scene where peter-parker turns into spider-man.Was it really worth 3 times the amount as x-men 1 though?

[Lord Bravery]

Inflation. Stuff costs more these days. And whilst X-Men does still hold up, it's not really that big a movie, in terms of scale and CGI as todays superhero films.

Although I can't quite fathom how ASM cost as much as Avengers.

[Chiasm]

Inflation. Stuff costs more these days. And whilst X-Men does still hold up, it's not really that big a movie, in terms of scale and CGI as todays superhero films.

Although I can't quite fathom how ASM cost as much as Avengers.

Inflation doesn't explain everything.

The movie Sucker Punch that came out last year was made for $80 million. It has extensive and fantastic CGI - far more than any superhero movie.

[Lord Bravery]

Inflation doesn't explain everything.

The movie Sucker Punch that came out last year was made for $80 million. It has extensive and fantastic CGI - far more than any superhero movie.

True. But then sometimes there is certain deals with CGI companies. Also tax discounts etc.

For example, Peter Jackson with WETA. The entire LOTR trilogy cost like, 400 million. Ridiculous really. Each LOTR film looks like it cost 200 million dollars. Return of the King in particular wouldn't surprise me if it cost like, 300 million. Same with Jim Cameron and ILM.

Also it just depends on the director and producers and how efficient they are.

Look at Green Lantern. Did that really look like a film that cost 200-250 million dollars?

[Simbob4000]

TThe budget for x-men 1 film was 75 million dollars.It was pretty well spent for a superhero film. The amazing spider-man 220 million.Was it really with almost 3 times the amount as x-men 1. I watched them both and I don't see the difference in special effects. Okay so maybe the amazing spider-man had good CGI like the scene where peter-parker turns into spider-man.Was it really worth 3 times the amount as x-men 1 though?

The first X-Men movie wasn't a very big movie. The Perfect Storm, Cast Away, Gladiator, 102 Dalmatians, Mission: Impossible 2, Charlie's Angels, The 6th Day (the Arnold Schwarzenegger clone movie), The Patriot, Little Nicky, Supernova, the two Mars movies; those are just a few of the films that cost more than X-Men did that came out the same year, and most of those weren't just a little bit more either.

True. But then sometimes there is certain deals with CGI companies. Also tax discounts etc.

For example, Peter Jackson with WETA. The entire LOTR trilogy cost like, 400 million. Ridiculous really. Each LOTR film looks like it cost 200 million dollars. Return of the King in particular wouldn't surprise me if it cost like, 300 million. Same with Jim Cameron and ILM.

Also it just depends on the director and producers and how efficient they are.

Look at Green Lantern. Did that really look like a film that cost 200-250 million dollars?

They were able to do Lord of the Rings for what they did because they shot the thing as one being movie, so they didn't have to pay the actors a huge sum of money to come back for the next movie. They also did a lot of stuff practically, and shoot the movie in New Zealand were it was cheaper.

[Lord Bravery]

They were able to do Lord of the Rings for what they did because they shot the thing as one being movie, so they didn't have to pay the actors a huge sum of money to come back for the next movie. They also did a lot of stuff practically, and shoot the movie in New Zealand were it was cheaper.

True. That goes along with the thing about directors and producers being efficient with their money.

[BrotherUnitNo_4]

Inflation. Stuff costs more these days. And whilst X-Men does still hold up, it's not really that big a movie, in terms of scale and CGI as todays superhero films.

Although I can't quite fathom how ASM cost as much as Avengers.

You have to figure in the equipment used to shoot in 3D. Then there are things like pretty much the entire school fight being CG, the web-slinging, every second the Lizard is on screen. That kind of stuff adds up. That's why it was kind of silly to give Reynolds a CG suit in Green Lantern. Every second he's in that thing they're paying extra money for him to just stand there.

[JCAll]

Hollywood accounting. There's no point trying to figure out where money goes in Hollywood.

[icctrombone]

You might be missing that the salaries are a factor. What do you think it cost to pay Downey,Jackson Scarlet etc? Avengers cost 220 to make. Maybe 100 of it went to the stars.

[Lord Bravery]

IIRC Downey was the highest paid with 10 million plus a percentage of the gross. Avengers looks like a 200 million dollar film though. I thought a lot of ASM was done practically? I know the part where he's swinging under the bridge is practical.

[icctrombone]

Now that you mention it, They couldn't have spent too much on salaries on the Spider-man movie. There are lots of relative unknowns.

[Personamanx]

Like all films a huge chunk of the budget is there because it's assumed that everything will be messed up on the first go. Re-shoots, multiple version of special effects, ETC.

It adds up.

[carabas]

IIRC Downey was the highest paid with 10 million plus a percentage of the gross. Avengers looks like a 200 million dollar film though. I thought a lot of ASM was done practically? I know the part where he's swinging under the bridge is practical.

I don't think that practical stunts are necessarily cheaper than CGI.

[carabas]

Like all films a huge chunk of the budget is there because it's assumed that everything will be messed up on the first go. Re-shoots, multiple version of special effects, ETC.

It adds up.

Yeah, I guess that's why Green Lantern was so expensive a movie.

[Personamanx]

Yeah but what you see in a final finished film is only a small fraction of the total budget. Most of the budget for the actual making of the movie is never seen on screen.