Pirate meter's still running
Hollywood Wiretap had the link first, but columnist Jim Hill (of Jim Hill Media) is reporting that "studio insiders who have actually worked on the Pirates sequels are saying that -- thanks to all of the elaborate FX sequences in Dead Man's Chest and At World's End -- the combined production costs of these two films is now well north of $600 million.
"And let's keep in mind that we're just talking about production costs [and] not the additional $100 million that a studio typically has to spend in order to properly launch a summer blockbuster. That $600 million was supposedly spent on just producing those two motion pictures, not on their promotion and marketing.
"And let's not forget that [director] Gore Verbinksi hasn't actually finished shooting the third Pirates sequel yet. Sets are being built on the Burbank lot right now for [certain] At World's End scenes [and] according to studio staffers that I've spoken with, it's going to take Gore at least six more weeks of shooting before he gets everything that he needs to complete At World's End. Which means -- in essence -- that the meter's still running on this incrediblyexpensive project. And that the final combined production costs of these back-to-back "Pirates" sequels could eventually reach as high as $650-$700 million.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 9, 2006 at 3:45 PM
comment #1
DaveSpite says ...
I have a friend who worked as a PA on the Spider-Man 3 set and he told me that the word on set is that Spidey 3 will be the most expensive movie ever made. Production costs are apparently already over $300 million and, Sony has basically given Sam Raimi a blank check, since 1&2 made so much money and Spidey is Sony's only in-house franchise at the moment. Funny that the Spidey and Pirates cost is only now coming public when Titanic's over 200 million price tag was the top story during the film's entire production.
Is Hollywood better at keeping secrets or are film fans just non-plussed at spending $350 million on a summer movie?
Posted by DaveSpite at August 9, 2006 4:30 PM
comment #2
Anonymous says ...
DMC has already done $750-mil and counting, plus video, cabe, etc. They'll be fine. Part 3 will be all profit.
Posted by Anonymous at August 9, 2006 4:31 PM
comment #3
Drew McWeeny says ...
CHEST would have to do 1.3 billion in box office for WORLD'S END to be "all profit"
Posted by Drew McWeeny at August 9, 2006 4:47 PM
comment #4
Hopscotch says ...
I've heard rumors that the Matrix Sequels were about $200M a pop, and Revolutions went over budget with its fight scenes.
Spidey 3 IS going to be the most expensive movie all time, then will be eclipsed by James Cameron's new movie...IF a studio(s) has the brass balls (and small brains) to greenlight it.
No one cares how much a movie costs when it's a success. It's only when it flops to people say, "Can you believe that." Titanic was different because it was a) period piece b) had no stars other than the director and c) 3 hours long. These are both fantasy / sci-fi / teen movies that are sequels, so it makes some sense that Titanic got more scruitny because it's b.o. potential was a huge question mark for the entire production.
Posted by Hopscotch at August 9, 2006 5:02 PM
comment #5
Daniel Zelter says ...
Jeff: Now you know why Nina got fired.
Posted by Daniel Zelter at August 9, 2006 5:05 PM
comment #6
Bridup says ...
DiCaprio was a star before Titanic. Not the HUGE one he became after, but Romeo vs. Juliet the year before had primed his base enough to get him notable above-the-title billing.
Posted by Bridup at August 9, 2006 5:40 PM
comment #7
Rich S. says ...
Though his numbers don't sound far off, you should probably take anything Jim Hill says with a grain of salt. He is legendary among Disney geeks for being completely full of crap.
Posted by Rich S. at August 9, 2006 5:51 PM
comment #8
Hopscotch says ...
DiCaprio was known before Titanic, sure. But a Star?? Don't think so.
Posted by Hopscotch at August 9, 2006 6:04 PM
comment #9
Wrecktum says ...
Jim Hill has a lot of contacts at Disney feature animation and even more at WDI and Parks, but his studio info and specuation has always been weak, weak, weak. Just read his incorrect boxoffice analysis on Cars to see what I'm talking about.
Don't get me wrong, Pirates 2 and 3 are undoubtably outrageously expensive, but I suspect Hill's numbers are needlessly inflated.
Posted by Wrecktum at August 9, 2006 6:54 PM
comment #10
sandekat says ...
This 'story' is hilarious, but I'm sorry for you sake, Jeff, that it didn't come out about 7 weeks ago before Pirates made off with most of the cinema money in the entire world.....talk about taking the wind out of the sails of another potential 'Waterworld'!
These pirate movies cost a bomb to make and the hurricane season last year did more than destroy New Orleans. Fortunately everyone and their third cousin was more interested in nattering on and on and on about the Superman budget than pondering what filming on open water in the Caribbean in hurricane season must cost....add top notch special effects and wowza........but Mr Hill's ludicrous story about the grim Disney execs and their empty Xmas stockings is a knee slapper.
Posted by sandekat at August 9, 2006 7:15 PM
comment #11
allen says ...
600 mil, 300 mil, even 200 mil - disgusting, and usually, not that entertaining either.
Posted by allen at August 9, 2006 7:39 PM
comment #12
Larry says ...
Can these insiders give an actual dollar-for-dollar breakdown, because I'd love to see exactly what the money is spent on.
Posted by Larry at August 9, 2006 8:36 PM
comment #13
Daniel Zelter says ...
I'm guessing it's spent on coke, Larry.
Posted by Daniel Zelter at August 9, 2006 8:49 PM
comment #14
Anonymous says ...
Jeffrey - I basically hate you and everything you represent (bitterness because you're not doing what the people who you bitch about are doing), but I must give you credit where due. Above you give credit to Hollywood Wiretap for reporting this story first....however, I must correct you. YOUR site was the first to carry this little tidbit of information back on June 29. See the following post and direct link:
"Why has no one picked up on the fact that Pirates 2&3 are costing well north of $600 million in total production costs alone?! Everyone is too busy saying that Superman is the most expensive film of all time, but no one even mentions Pirates. Corruption, production problems and so much more equal this $600+...and then throw on top of it the gigantic amounts of $$$ that Disney will spend to market them. Anyone out there???????"
Posted by: at June 29, 2006 09:18 PM
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2006/06/masters_on_supe.php
Posted by Anonymous at August 9, 2006 9:08 PM
comment #15
BrandonT says ...
Aside from Davey Jones and some of his crew, I thought the FX in DMC were rather sub-par. If those figures are anywhere near to being true, then the studio was ripped off.
Posted by BrandonT at August 9, 2006 10:26 PM
comment #16
Sam Jones says ...
Even if Pirates 2 and 3 each cost $500 million total (can't believe I just wrote that-the world has gone mad!) each from beginning to end, Dead Man's Chest is looking to make that billion dollars on its own. If Pirates 3 or package deals of all three films on DVD, etc. make that much, it's still a billion dollars these 3 movies may haul in. Either way, these films and the Spidey flicks are mindboggling in terms of production costs, but it is even crazier to me that they will still make money hand over fist.
Posted by Sam Jones at August 10, 2006 4:43 AM
comment #17
bward says ...
This is like arguing over sports star salaries, perspective. How much will the Pirates franchise mean to the studio for the next ten or twenty years, box sets, blu ray, toys, re-releases, cable fees, etc, etc, etc. These movies are the horses that pay the freight for the small, arty, risky movies the studios make. perspective.
Posted by bward at August 10, 2006 5:55 AM
comment #18
sam jones says ...
bward hit the nail on the head. These movies will make tons of cash, but I would disagree on one point. I don't think Disney is going to take all of these earnings and dump them into risky movies. By firing all those people and cutting their slate of films for next year, Disney has sent a clear signal that it is going to be more of the same from here on out. More movies like The Pacifier that will rake in cash and will be able to spawn (and I mean that in a bad way) direct to DVD spinoffs and sequels a la Lion King 25 and 4/7 or whatever.
I'm not a Pirates hater either, so I suppose one could imagine more out of box blockbusters in the future from Disney since this one did so well. The stories are always the same, so the reimagining of them is what is important. Pirates is pretty far out there in terms of characters and story compared to most comic flicks, big actioners, etc. Love it or hate it, you can't put Johnny Captain Jack in the same box as Wolverine, Spidey, Tom Cruise, or Superman. Probably the same reason those Harry Potter flicks make so much cash. The appeal of the hero stretches so far past the fanboys.
At any rate, I just wouldn't count on Disney doing anything new, different, bold, or exciting with all this cash and publicity.
Posted by sam jones at August 10, 2006 6:29 AM
comment #19
clarkman says ...
> These movies are the horses that pay the freight for the small, arty, risky movies the studios make.
All I see from Disney are small, artless, shitty movies. Even their Miramax offerings have been stale of late.
Posted by clarkman at August 10, 2006 7:53 AM
comment #20
Tony says ...
I always find these budget quoting stories quickly growing into tall tales, even within the crew of the actual productions. David's probably partially right in the estimates; meaning split the difference between the announced numbers and the feared numbers. I'm not saying I know but from experience the reality is somewhere in between. DavidSpite is right though, Hollywood IS better at keeping budgets secrets. We've had tons of 200+ budgets people just haven't been aware of and the news tend to look at budgets when they have an axe to grind or the negative publicity makes a good story.
Posted by Tony at August 10, 2006 8:32 AM
comment #21
allen says ...
clarkman you are right, what arty, risky movies coming from Disney / BV?
It is a false assumption that the fat earnings from the pirates flicks are invested in quality films - what, more Mike Bay pictures?
Posted by allen at August 10, 2006 3:31 PM
comment #22
Anonymous says ...
>>These movies are the horses that pay the freight for the small, arty, risky movies the studios make. perspective.
A valid point. Except it's never happened.
1989's Batman didn't pave the way for a bevy of 'risky' art films at Warners Nor did 1999's 'Phantom Menace' mean Lucas would start making experiemental films.
And Spider-Man in 2002 didn't lead to anything worthwhile from Sony.
POTC will make its money back and so much more. It is a wonderful business move.
But it won't buy better films.
Posted by Anonymous at August 11, 2006 2:30 AM