$200+ mil budget?
-
yatgohoyan — 9 years ago(July 09, 2016 11:11 AM)
There are films from the time this came out that look a lot better and with lower budgets. Batman Begins still looks good and cost a good $50mil less to make.
This film was a waste of money and it shows, along with it being one of the dullest films I've ever seen. -
clh-1 — 9 years ago(July 09, 2016 10:05 PM)
At the time, WB were swearing it was closer to $175 million after Australian tax rebates (the reason McG backed out was he didn't want to do the flying). Though since they shot in Australia, it's possible some of the higher estimates were in Australian dollars, which in 2006 were the equivalent of about 75 US cents.
Give Blood Today
God Bless! -
-
spawnerdawner2004 — 9 years ago(September 03, 2016 11:29 PM)
This looked like a made for TV movie THEN & NOW.
What really bothered me was how often they paid homage to far far superior movies Superman the Movie and Superman II.
This movie wasn't at all epic, or well written, or acted. It was just strange all around. -
amormortua — 9 years ago(September 05, 2016 06:49 AM)
You just don't really see that money onscreen
Besides the fact that something like 50 mln $ has been added to the budget after aborting projects like "Superman Lives", watching the "Superman Returns" I see that 'money on the screen' and I remember very vividly how I was sitting in the theatre 10 years ago amazed by the scope of the picture. Rarely you may see a picture which would have this amount of sets of such size and detail. Money spent on 'Superman Returns' are money well spent from my point of view.
In my mind there's no point in comparing it to the "Man of Steel", it's a completely different movie thematically and visually. WB/Snyder's vision for this story was impossible to accomplish using practical sets, unlike Singer's, who wanted to recreate the world established by Richard Donner in 1978 and only when it was necessary opted for cgi-models. Singer's world is much more tangibile to me than what Snyder/WB presented in "MoS", although I recognize that an improvement has been made on "Batman v Superman", which I consider much more interesting picture overall. -
TRhett — 9 years ago(November 17, 2016 10:10 AM)
That's a huge amount of money now, let alone ten years ago
The equivalent of almost $250,000,000 today, actually. I just caught this for the first time (BION), and I thought the same thing - "THAT cost $250M??" . . . But I think most people don't fully appreciate how RIDICULOUSLY expensive even the smallest frame-by-frame CGI is.
I watched "30 Days of Night" with the commentary once, and they were talking about how incredible the special effects in that film were/are (they were about as far from Barrow, AK as you can get - New Zealand - and basically, EVERYTHING but the characters and a few buildings are CG). They were done by Peter Jackson's company WETA . . . which he pretty much "created" to do the "Lord of the Rings" films, and has now become one of the best in the world. The director piped in, "Yes, they are the best . . . and also INCREDIBLY expensive. Studio execs cringe when you mention it. But, you get what you pay for."
So, bottom line, I think this film contained a LOT of CGI that people didn't even realize was CGI (for instance, shooting NY from odd angles and erasing/adding structures to make it look like a different city - until they are airborne, and you can see the dark void of Central Park and the famous NY street grid, among other things).