According to multiple sources, John D. Rockefeller like spending, production delays, and over-the-top marketing campaigns may have swollen Spider-Man 3’s budget to over five hundred million dollars. That’s more than one hundred times the loot of the Great Brinks Robbery. How could any studio fork over that much moolah? I realize that Spider-Man 2 duped audiences into forking over eight hundred million but still. What kind of return on your investment is that? Casinos give you a better percentage on a black jack.
Naturally, the open-pocketed production company is denying this. They’ve ballparked the figure at around two hundred and seventy million. Great! Nice effort, Columbia. Do you realize you could have bought practically the entire United States an item off Wendy’s dollar menu for that astronomical monetary figure? Selfish bastards.
So where did all the money go? Inconveniently, I don’t have the budget spread sheet in front of me, but here’s my best guess. They spent fifty million to pay Dunst, Maguire, Raimi, and everyone else. Then they raked-off twenty million for sets and twenty million for CGI effects. The marketing will probably cost around sixty million. And what’s left? Three hundred and fifty million bucks to throw a party of Motley Crue-like proportions with hookers, blow, and lots of Lil’ Jon pimp cups.
If all goes well, Spider-Man 3 will tank, taking with it whoever thought this was a good idea. But sadly, Americans will eat up the third Peter Parker chronicles, and Columbia executives will be hailed as visionaries. I know where I’ll be on May 4th…. buying seven baked potatoes and a double stack at Wendys for my ticket price. I can almost taste the ketchupy good decisions.
Comment on “Spider-Man 3 Most Expensive Movie Ever”
Note: This website is not meant for use by minors. The views expressed in the comments section below are not our own. This section is intended for discussion of the topic in the post above. Disagreement is encouraged, however comments which attack, insult, or threaten the author in a personal manner won't be published. Similarly, comments that we deem to be poorly worded, or wildly off topic will also not be approved and may be mocked. For free, uncensored, unfettered, and possibly dangerous discussion visit our forum.
The point is if you spend $500,000,000 on a movie and rake in $800,000,000 you only make a profit of $300,000,000.
If you'd been a bit more frugal in your spending, your profit margin would've been far higher. Who ends up getting the blame? Not the studio for over-spending. No, the consumer gets accused of piracy. That's the reason their movie isn't making money.
You can't call the declining ticket sales card if your spending so much money making a movie that it's physically impossible to make that money back though box office receipts. There's only so many people around to spend $10 a time to see your product.
It feels like Hollywood studios just throw money at the wall with these tentpole movies with no regard to where or how it's being spent, no wonder so many of them end up in legal disputes.
This site is operated by Cinema Blend LLC. For advertising inquiries, contact Gorilla Nation. CinemaBlend.com is a private, independently owned website which is intended only as entertainment. The views expressed on this website may or may not reflect those of its owner. Don't take us too seriously.
According to multiple sources, John D. Rockefeller like spending, production delays, and over-the-top marketing campaigns may have swollen Spider-Man 3’s budget to over five hundred million dollars. That’s more than one hundred times the loot of the Great Brinks Robbery. How could any studio fork over that much moolah? I realize that Spider-Man 2 duped audiences into forking over eight hundred million but still. What kind of return on your investment is that? Casinos give you a better percentage on a black jack.
April 27th, 2007 at 01:51
WTF?
YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD WHO HAS HOPES THIS MOVIE TANKS!