Masters on "Spider-Man 3" budget

email this story
read comments (36)
post a comment

Despite an angry studio publicist's denial, Radar's Kim Masters is reporting in a just-up Radar piece that Spider-Man 3 (Columbia, 5.4) has surpassed 1963's Cleopatra as the most expensive movie ever made. With the enthusiastic go-go support of Sony chairperson Amy Pascal, Sam Raimi's third and presumably final Spider-flick cost $350 million, she writes, compared to Cleopatra's inflation-adjusted budget of $290 million.

Add a guesstimated $150 million in marketing costs and Spider-Man 3's final tally will be $500 million, according to Masters' calculations.

Spider-Man 3 is pretty much ding-proof -- the fanboys are going to break down the doors no matter what -- but Masters' article will muddy the waters. Add this to the so-far tepid reviews and the spreading awareness and/or growing prejudice that revved-up, cranked-up CG extravaganzas are dead-end sits because of their constant war between their two halves (being 50% exciting in an obvious thrill-ride sense and 50% numbing in a sensory-overload sense, which leads to 100% depression by the time the third act rolls around), and the stage is set for U.S. ticket-buyers to go into it with a skeptical, perhaps even bordering-on-sourpuss attitude.

An absurdly expensive movie of this proportion -- whether it cost $270 million or $300 million or more -- means at the very least that Spider-Man 3 was a huge corporate pig-out for all the major creative players. And now you, Mr. and Mrs. Paycheck, are expected to show up at theatres on May 4th and pay your ten bucks so the machine can keep rolling and all the fat players can go to the trough again and again. Keep it rolling, keep it rolling...support the elite Hollywood profligates! They would be lost without you.

"On the surface, Spider-Man 3 has all the ingredients of a box-office slam dunk -- Ã‚Âspectacular special effects, an obsessive fan base, and a roster of bankable stars," Masters writes. "Moreover, its two previous installments have grossed $1.6 billion for the studio.

"Even before filming began in January 2006, [director] Sam Raimi promised to pull out all the stops for his third Spidey film (likely the last he'll direct in the series). He wasn't kidding. As production dragged on into late summer (it had been scheduled to conclude in June), stories about the project's ballooning budget started popping up all over town. But in the end, even the most hyperbolic of observers may have underestimated the final tab.

"Industry insiders claim that Sony spent $350 million or more on production alone. With marketing and promotion factored in, the total price tag will approach half a billion dollars, positioning Spider-Man 3 as the most expensive movie of all time.

"Still reeling from a flurry of bad press on its PlayStation 3 gaming console, Sony isn't eager to claim this honor. A studio spokesman angrily rejects the $350 million estimate as a 'complete fabrication,' insisting that production costs didn't exceed $270 million. One of the film's producers, Laura Ziskin, also disputes the higher total, albeit in a less forceful manner. "I refuse to say the [real] number because it makes me choke," she tells Masters. "Spider-Man 3 was a super- expensive movie -- the most expensive film we've ever made. But there's no way you can get to $300 million."

"Reports of Sony's record-breaking gamble have created a stir among entertainment insiders, seeming to evoke some combination of schadenfreude and envy. "Those are crazy numbers," remarks one leading industry figure.

"I don't think this sets a great [precedent] for any of us," complains a top executive at a rival studio. "It's beyond the beyond. The problem isn't that other studios will now feel liberated to drop $300 million on a movie. The real danger is that it makes the $200 million movie seem not quite so bad. And the risks of that can be absolutely devastating."

"Noting Sony's long and storied history of overspending, the head of another studio asks, "Where is the corporate oversight? Who's demanding accountability? How is it that they're repeatedly able to conduct themselves in this manner?"

"To be fair, Sony is hardly the only studio spending big bucks on tent-pole projects. Shrek the Third blows into multiplexes two weeks after the new Spidey film, with Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End right behind it. Next come the Fantastic Four sequel and Steve Carell's Evan Almighty. Then, on Independence Day weekend, Transformers hits the screen. "None of these projects was cheap. Indeed, the third installment of Pirates may also sail past the $300 million mark. But in contrast to the Spider-Man series, the second Pirates film outperformed the original and grossed more than a billion dollars. (Spider-Man 2 took in $783 million, or about $40 million less than its predecessor.)

"Sony's free-spending ways have been evident ever since the Japanese electronics giant acquired Columbia Pictures in 1989, causing much consternation among competitors who feel pressure to match the studio's largesse. The first chairmen in the Sony era, Jon Peters and Peter Guber, spent so much money that the studio wound up taking a $3.2 billion write-down. The two were eventually fired, but business continued as usual. In 1996, chairman Mark Canton blew the roof off star salaries by awarding Jim Carrey an unprecedented $20 million for his role in The Cable Guy, a film that disappointed at the box office. Soon after, Canton was also gone.

"To many observers, though, the budget for Spider-Man 3 represents a terrifying new frontier, even for Sony. As other studios try to cut costs, Pascal has continued in Sony's profligate tradition.

"The only woman currently heading up a major studio, she also happens to be one of the most popular executives in the business," Masters concludes. "That's largely because she seems to have a genuine love for movie-making at a time when many of her peers are fixated on the bottom line. 'Amy's greatest strength is her intuitive, creative ability,' says a longtime associate. 'Her greatest weakness is that she lets that same ability get completely separated from any sense of fiscal restraint.'"

Zinneman and "Jackal"<< previous | next >>"Star Wars" again

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 23, 2007 at 8:43 AM

comment #1

Balthazar says ...

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I cannot find one tentpole/popcorn movie that I'm excited about this summer.

If I missed them all, I think I'd be fine.

And that is kind of unusual for me, because I can usually find at least one summer flick to get excited about and look forward. ... Now it's all just a bunch of "bleh"

Posted by Balthazar at April 23, 2007 9:45 AM

comment #2

Rich S. says ...

"Keep it rolling, keep it rolling...support the elite Hollywood profligates! They would be lost without you."

But, Jeffrey, how many posts have you devoted to CGI extravaganzas over the past couple years? The studios aren't the only ones who would be lost without these blockbusters.

Posted by Rich S. at April 23, 2007 9:48 AM

comment #3

dre says ...

I don't know about "so far tepid reviews" (it's 4 for 5 so far at rotten tomatoes, including levy and HR), but Brad posted a pretty funny diss on the franchise's use of aunt may

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/news.php?id=5854

i actually like aunt may in the second movie but to each his own

Posted by dre at April 23, 2007 9:50 AM

comment #4

le corbeau says ...

There's still only one Cleopatra, though. The reason is, it's not just a matter of inflation-adjusting, but of the size of the potential market-- Spiderman 3 will make money in countries that didn't exist on the movie map in 1964, like South Korea or India, not to mention DVD sales. There's a much bigger pie to make money from today. Where Cleopatra cost more than any movie had ever returned in rentals up to that point; it could have become the biggest hit of all time and still lost money. The equivalent figure today wouldn't be a movie over $300 million, it'd be a movie over a billion.

Posted by le corbeau at April 23, 2007 10:10 AM

comment #5

vansmith says ...

oceans 13 in june is a must see...and i heard predator vs alien prt 2 is out later this year, spidey will be fun for a thurs afternoon after the fanboys wet themselves...

Posted by vansmith at April 23, 2007 10:17 AM

comment #6

wayne76 says ...

I agree with Balthazar. Not too much to get worked up about this summer, as far as the tentpoles go. I can't wait for Knocked Up, of course. I suppose nostalgia puts Transformers sort of on the radar, but I'm well aware that it has a great chance of sucking donkey balls.

Posted by wayne76 at April 23, 2007 10:20 AM

comment #7

Craig Kennedy says ...

The business end of movies doesn't mean too much to me, but I find it kind of amusing the 'angry' studio spokesman wouldn't cop to $300 million by drawing the line only 10% lower.

If reports are true and this is a new record, it'll be interesting if it causes anything to actually change in Hollywood, but it seems like there's one of these stories every couple of years accompanied by much hand wringing and prophesies of doom, but nothing ever really seems to change.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at April 23, 2007 10:25 AM

comment #8

DarthCorleone says ...

...and the stage is set for U.S. ticket-buyers to go into it with a skeptical, perhaps even bordering-on-sourpuss attitude.

Project much?

Posted by DarthCorleone at April 23, 2007 10:31 AM

comment #9

jeffmcm says ...

There's a good story here buried under Wells's overeager bitterness. 95% of the general public doesn't care in any way about what a movie's budget was.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 23, 2007 10:36 AM

comment #10

Noah says ...

This will be the most expensive film to reach a US theater...until Pirates 3.

Posted by Noah at April 23, 2007 10:41 AM

comment #11

DavidF says ...

Once you've included the link do you need to quote the whole article? I haven't seen Wells have such a sight-unseen hard-on for something in ... I dunno, at least a week!

This being a blog I'm all for him voicing his opinions but he's increasingly reviewing movies (usually badly) based on gut feelings without having even seen them - and then doing it again and again and again and again and again.

As someone pointed out in another thread he'll even review other movie reviews to make his point. It's riddiculous unsubtantiated crap and hearsay - it ain't journalism.

I hope this IS a good movie because if Wells sees it and likes it I envision his mind blowing up from the conflict. There's no possible way he can retract at this point and a description of having seen the movie and NOT liking it won't even make a psychic dent, having already run 20 articles to that effect.

I think he should establish a ratio of, say, 5 articles on movies he likes to 1 article on movies he hates instead of the current 23 to 1 ratio the other way. If we can get that going I don't even care whether he sees them or not. Which is cool cuz neither does Wells.

Posted by DavidF at April 23, 2007 10:51 AM

comment #12

Balthazar says ...

After painstaking research, I found one minor popcorn film that I am looking forward to: Stardust.

I'm a big Gaiman fan and read the book. Intriguing cast for Stardust and maybe it will be some sort of compelling combination of the BBC Neverwhere series and, say, The Princess Bride

Posted by Balthazar at April 23, 2007 10:59 AM

comment #13

Pelham123 says ...

To suggest that it's only "Fanboys" excited about this movie is beyond ludicrous. I know a number people (men & women), civilians in the movie game, and they are well aware "Spider-Man 3" is coming soon and are more than ready to see it. I hate the idea of spending $300M on any entertainment and I really haven't cared much for the franchise, but this is money that will not be lost (unless the movie really is a big stinker.)I mean this might earn $150m in the first week in the States alone. Also, Aunt May, the most annoying character EVER in comic book history. She was dying for twenty years in the comic. I don't know if they finally axed the old bird.

Posted by Pelham123 at April 23, 2007 11:09 AM

comment #14

RoyBatty says ...

Wells seems to think he can dog pile a film using only he, himself and him.

Sorry, but the Masters article isn't going to make one iota of difference, simply because it's coming out too late (never mind that it was written for Radar). The film comes out in only about a week and Mr & Mrs Paycheck just aren't wired in enough to get the word that fast.

It is funny that admiting the film cost $250-270M isn't a problem, but saying $300 gives them hives.

Wells has them dead-to-rights about one thing, this thing reeks of a corporate pig-out. To put that into a perspective, consider this: REVENGE OF THE SITH, which has as many if not more CGI effects, costs $113M. And here's the big rub, with the exception of Maquire and Dunst, several actors on SITH have made more than anyone on SPIDER 3 will, thanks to Lucas' well-known profit sharing.

Posted by RoyBatty at April 23, 2007 11:14 AM

comment #15

count.olaf says ...

Wow... from pigs wallowing in it, to robots, to Mr. & Mrs. Paycheck.... I'm moving up in the Wild World of Wells!

Posted by count.olaf at April 23, 2007 11:32 AM

comment #16

D.Z. says ...

"In 1996, chairman Mark Canton blew the roof off star salaries by awarding Jim Carrey an unprecedented $20 million for his role in The Cable Guy, a film that disappointed at the box office."

The paycheck actually made sense at the time. The guy was huge. Hell, who knew Carrey was going to succeed better with the same angle when he did the Truman Show?! But yeah, I seriously don't see why Spidey 3's so expensive, and how they're gonna afford three more movies at the rate they're going... http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=19999

Balthazar: "After painstaking research, I found one minor popcorn film that I am looking forward to: Stardust."

Just rent "Castle in the Sky" or "Howl's Moving Castle" instead. Same thing, but it looks less low-budget.

Peltham: I'm sure it'll have a big opening, but will it actually make a profit? Remember what happened to Van Helsing?

Speaking of the PS3... http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/playstation-failure.php

Posted by D.Z. at April 23, 2007 11:43 AM

comment #17

CambridgeCat says ...

Everyone is missing the point here. What did you guys expect after AQUAMAN broke Spiderman 2's box office record? If they wanted to remain the top comic book movie franchise they had to up the ante. It's as simple as that.

Posted by CambridgeCat at April 23, 2007 11:53 AM

comment #18

storymark says ...

"Just rent "Castle in the Sky" or "Howl's Moving Castle" instead. Same thing, but it looks less low-budget."

Wow. DZ saying someone is ripping off an Asian filmmaker, while proving he knows nothing about the movie in question. Shocker!

Just another day at HE.

Posted by storymark at April 23, 2007 11:55 AM

comment #19

Balthazar says ...

D.Z. -- I've seen all the Miyazakis and really enjoy the two you mentioned. Stardust is live action, though, with an intriguing cast. ... Maybe a little bit of Ladyhawke in there, too, which is neat because Pfeiffer is in this flick, too.

Posted by Balthazar at April 23, 2007 11:59 AM

comment #20

jeffmcm says ...

DZ's above posting proves him to have been a liar when he said "Wells hates spam so I don't want to promote stuff here" and then he clogs the site with links - but only links about stuff he doesn't like, never about anything that he likes, because DZ is a Hater.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 23, 2007 12:03 PM

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

I'm not promoting shit. These are stories related to the main article. If I was spamming, I'd be making posts for links featuring cock-extending pills.

Posted by D.Z. at April 23, 2007 12:15 PM

comment #22

Arran says ...

I'm not so shocked Spidey cost that much. More surprising is that The Holiday cost $100m.

Posted by Arran at April 23, 2007 12:30 PM

comment #23

Hallick says ...

"Spider-Man 3 is pretty much ding-proof -- the fanboys are going to break down the doors no matter what"

How much do so-called "fanboys" actually bring to the box office on an opening weekend? 20 to 30 million? Has anyone ever broken that bloc down financially?

For Spider-Man 3 to feel safely successful coming out of the gate, it'll have to do what? Over $100 million minimum? The only way this thing is ding-proof is if Joe Schmo and kin come out of the woodwork too, right?

Posted by Hallick at April 23, 2007 1:39 PM

comment #24

Craig Kennedy says ...

Spam or no...DZ's link was amusing. I think it's a little early to be giving the last rights of PS3 (I mean to the extent that I care one way or the other), but amusing is amusing. And where do I get these cock-extending pills I keep hearing so much about anyway?

Posted by Craig Kennedy at April 23, 2007 1:46 PM

comment #25

storymark says ...

Hallick,
Yuou're forgetting that to Jeff, anyone who goes into a movie like this without having already made up their mind to hate it is a "fanboy".

Posted by storymark at April 23, 2007 1:47 PM

comment #26

RoyBatty says ...

CambridgeCat - Are you serious? POTC 2 broke the AQUAMAN record like 3 weeks later. Get with the times, bro.

Posted by RoyBatty at April 23, 2007 2:13 PM

comment #27

thatmovieguy says ...

"How much do so-called "fanboys" actually bring to the box office on an opening weekend? 20 to 30 million?"

The makers of SNAKES ON A PLANE, CLERKS II and GRINDHOUSE must dearly wish that the "fanboys" had that kind of box office clout; apparently, most of them are too busy writing about themselves and their endless fascinations with Jessica Biel/Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan/Scarlett Johannsson, etc. to actually visit a theater. When I read somewhere that the "fanboys" who had seen SPIDER-MAN 3 didn't like it, my initial thought was, "Oh no! Now it will only make $247 million domestically instead of $250 million!" Remember last summer when -- according to Entertainment Weekly -- that crowd was supposedly going to reinvent the film industry as we know it by turning SNAKES into a runaway box office success? To quote Alec Baldwin in STATE AND MAIN, "Well, that happened!"

Posted by thatmovieguy at April 23, 2007 2:20 PM

comment #28

christian says ...

i thought all this studio product placement at least meant films would get cheaper since they're pimping, but apparently all you get when pepsi saddles up is more fucking pepsi ads...

Posted by christian at April 23, 2007 2:25 PM

comment #29

RoyBatty says ...

Christian - no, it just means they can claim the film hasn't earned a profit yet because the Studio will pull a disappearing act with the placement dough and not add it to the film's revenue.

Posted by RoyBatty at April 23, 2007 2:59 PM

comment #30

Reedyb says ...

I could care less how much a movie costs to make. As long as my ticket price isn't proportionate.

Although I do remember an episode of the Lucy Show (the color one from the 60's where she worked in the bank) and she was trying to decide which movie to see. My memory may be apocraphyl, so please forgive me if I miss a detail or two.

The choice was between a movie set after the end of the world with two lovers on a deserted island or a huge epic with a cast of thousands. They decided to see the movie with the cast of thousands because it meant they were being more fair with their money or getting more for their money or something like that.

Unless Sony is suddenly taking money away from 3rd world relief efforts to fund Spidey 3, I say bring it on!

Posted by Reedyb at April 23, 2007 3:03 PM

comment #31

CambridgeCat says ...

RoyBatty,

I said "top comic book movie franchise" and the POTC movies are NOT based on comic books like Spiderman and Aquaman are. Try to keep up. I swear some people have no grip on reality.

Posted by CambridgeCat at April 23, 2007 5:22 PM

comment #32

SaraMichelle says ...

Having seen the film this afternoon, and after completely disagreeing with Jeff and thinking the second chapter is one of the best comic book films ever, I have to (sadly) admit I think - especially if the movie really cost that much - Sony is going to be incredibly unhappy. This one is going to make less that part two did.

Posted by SaraMichelle at April 23, 2007 5:29 PM

comment #33

le corbeau says ...

"The makers of SNAKES ON A PLANE, CLERKS II and GRINDHOUSE must dearly wish that the "fanboys" had that kind of box office clout"

What did Serenity make? That's probably the upper limit-- $40 mil or something.

We live in a fan boy culture, but actual fan boys are only a small part of it...

Posted by le corbeau at April 23, 2007 5:54 PM

comment #34

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: I actually don't get why Serenity was made in the first place, considering Firefly got cancelled after one season.

Posted by D.Z. at April 23, 2007 6:33 PM

comment #35

le corbeau says ...

Because it sold a hell of a lot of DVDs for a canceled TV show nobody ever heard of.

Serenity was fairly cheaply made, so even though it wasn't the hit Universal had hoped for, it did all right and I think will point the way in the next few years, not for people making movies from failed TV series, but for people making new episodes of canceled TV series just for DVD and syndication/overseas sales. Cut out the meddling networks and go straight to the fans...

Posted by le corbeau at April 24, 2007 6:49 AM

comment #36