This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Does anyone have any objection to combining this list and the List of most expensive films (inflation)? Instead of two pages, we could have just one with both lists, under the title "List of most expensive films." PBP 23:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I've got no problem with that. Qutezuce 01:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Why does Pirates of the Carribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl appear twice on the list? This HAS to be inaccurate. MAFW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.53.64.71 (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2006
Narnia movie issue
The non-inflation adjusted chart lists the Narnia movie with a cost of $180,000,000 in 2005. The inflation-adjusted chart as of 2005 does not list Narnia anywhere. Wassup?
Capnned 23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Because the inflation from 2005 to 2006 really wouldn't be anything. Bignole 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see what you are saying. Bignole 02:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
How, in the list adjusted for inflation, is Pirates of the Caribbean in the Top 5? It is very recent, and more expensive films from the same year feature below it ??? How does this work? Also, shouldn't the total cost of the LOTR films divided by 3 put at least Return of the King on the list somewhere? Saccerzd 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been corrected. The-numbers.com and Boxofficemojo.com are listing two different numbers. BOM is also fan edited and the site tends to report the first thing it hears as if it is fact. It is still listing Superman Returns as 260 million, when Singer has already detailed that it is not near that. I also removed Black Pearl, which was listed twice. As for LOTR, each one had it's own budget. Bignole 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Pirates 2
I added Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, since it was still missing from the list.
The problem is that IMDB.com gives an estimate of 225 million dollars, but this is way too heigh, since the Pirates 2 & 3 movies are shot "back-to-back", meaning together.
Of both of these movies would cost 450 million dollars toghether, the studios would be able to produce less movies in a 2 year period!
Besides, the risk would be too high, it it would flop..
Pirates 1 costed a fine $125,000,000, so part 2 & 2 are expected to be in the same range.
The-numbers.com is a site for industry professionals, and they give a budget of 150,000,000 - which sounds being the corrent one. see here Patrick1982 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that 150 isn't correct. I have conversed with the guy, because I gave him the correct figure for Superman Returns and the link to the interview where Singer confirms the budget, and he says he knows his is a little low, but that BOM.com is high. There was a rumor that the budget was 450 mill for both movies together. The problem is that it's never as cut and dry as just dividing the budget between the two, because sometimes you need more and sometimes you don't need as much. BOM.com and other sites list 225 for each (which again doesn't make sense when Pirates 3 is still filming). That is why Pirates is not on the list until an interview with someone from the film (director, producer) states precisely what the budget was. Budgets are so high these days that someone will find out the truth. Bignole 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have conversed with the guy --> what guy are we talking about?
I can see your point about waiting for confirmation about more official sources (i.e. director, studio, producer), but what if this never comes?
Even more, there are allready a lot of movies in the article's list, that have budgets from IMDB.com that are also estimates. The real budgets are just as goos as never given out in the open (Titanic's 200 could have been either 197,305,261 or 204,199,845 for instance).
IMHO there are 2 options: wait until:
[*] DVD release of Pirates 2 (december 2006)
[*] Theatre release of Pirates 3 (may 2006)
[*] DVD release of Pirates 3 (oktober? 2007)
OR: place the 150 number in at the moment, as a compromise. The 1st option takes just too long and perhaps never comes at all!
The guy that runs The-Numbers.com. (click the image on the right to see the email)File:Personalemail.jpg
It's better to not list a number at all then to list a number you know is false. IMDb has been extremely wrong lately, so I would look at BOM and The-Numbers and try googling the titles to find a source for the real thing. There isn't a budget on the article pages that is why there isn't one here. If you know a number is false then you shouldn't report it. The problem is that it's like Superman Returns. People add what they want. WB originally said that the budget was 184.5 mill, then Bryan Singer said that it was 250 mill, after the film was finished (during an interview) he said that WB originally gave 184.5 million but that it ended up being 204 million because of a certain scene that went over budget. As for anything being "345,345,345", that detailed, you will have a hard time finding any that way. They usually don't nickel and dime the details to the public just a rounded price. Bignole 23:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Template
Whay are the years lined up all neatly in the first chart but not the second? I think the first looks better, but either way I think they should be the same.167.206.128.33 23:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That's cause there is no column for "year" in the second chart. Feel free to adjust the table to match the first table, just make sure you do so properly (i.e. follow the guidelines that the other has) and use "preview" to make sure of what you have before you save it. Bignole 23:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
missing Superman Returns
Superman Returns is missing in the list for adjusted for inflation.
I've put Superman Returns on both lists.
APAD 20:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Cost per minute?
What about adding a heading that divides the cost of production by the running time (in minutes)? It might be perfect, but it might be a bit better comparison of cost; for instance, yes, War And Peace 'cost' $560M adjusted, but it was 484 minutes long. That means it cost about $1,157,024. However, Waterworld $229M adjusted, but only ran 136 minutes, for a cost per minute of about $1,683,823. PolarisSLBM 02:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Where are you getting these "adjusted" figures from? You cannot simply say "one minute of production cost ....." Bignole 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Inflation adjustment dated?
Exactly how does one use 2005-era inflation adjusted dollars for a 2007 film? Spider-Man 3 is coming out in May 2007, and is listed under "Inflation adjusted" with it's 2007-dollar budget, dollar-for-dollar the same. And it's being compared to Cleopatra, the budget of which was calculated using 2005 dollars. Unigolyn 07:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Who knows. Most of the information on this page is unverified, or only verified using BoxOfficeMojo (which doesn't cite its own sources). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
edit: I've seen below about LOTR, but the POTC question remains. Saccerzd 22:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Metropolis should be on the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.8.237 (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2006
The page title is misleading and should be changed ! It MUST indicate that this is a list which has not been corrected for inflation (which is quite a meaningless list when trying to compare the "cost" of movies which were made YEARS apart). How could anyone compare the expense of movies in a fair way if inflation is not taken into consideration ??? I mean, if a movie costs 100 million in 2005 and a movie in 1970 also costs 100 million, the number's the same, but there's a BIG difference in the "expense" !— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.237.254 (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2005
The page clearly states that inflation is not taken into account, and it links to List of most expensive films (inflation), which does take into account inflation. Qutezuce 01:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok but the page title does not state this, it simply says "List of most expensive films". the fact is a lot of people wont really read the detials before the list, they would just go straight to the list. I'm not saying the fact that people do this is someones fault, but we should at least try and be as clear as possible with the titling of the page, which this pages title is not. The addition of "(without inflation)" at the end of the title I believe should be made for clarity sake.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.237.254 (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2005
I think that most people would not assume a list of films is adjusted for inflation. They would think that it was the raw amount the movie cost unless otherwise stated. Qutezuce 09:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you should indicate that these are the final production costs. Because I remember how Pearl Harbour was originally tagged around $100 M but its budget ballooned much higher as production was under way. Same deal with Titanic, I believe it doubled its original cost during production. Some films like X-Men were greenlighted with a fixed $75M budget, and the crew wasn't given any additional funds. --Madchester 07:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The article says that "costs may change during production", but if you want to make it more explicit and add a note thats fine by me. Qutezuce 03:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah i agree, this is just a list of movies which state their final production cost figure in money value for the year the film was produced in! This has got nothing to do with relative expense of movies compared to other movies. As i said, a movie with a production cost of 100 million in 2005 and 100 million in 1970, - while the production cost "number" is the same, there's a BIG difference in the "expense" ! Cleopatra (1963) is the most expensive movie ever made, in todays money costing 286 million, but in 1963's money its production cost was 25 million and so the way this so called "most expensive movie" list is made it doesn't even feature in it ! This is absurd ! This list has got nothing to do with relative expense of movies. Its just a "highest movie production cost figure from the year it was made" list - which is just a meaningless list. We should get rid of this pointless page altogether actually. At the very least the title must change. - Sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.237.254 (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2005
You make very good points, the problem is that there is no one definitive measure of inflation (see the Inflation article for some of the methods used to measure inflation). So there are many different ways to calculate a list of most expensive films when inflation is taken into account. Inflation may have been higher in the film business than most other industries, or it may have been lower, another reason any inflation adjusted list may not be accurate. Over the years the international market and DVD market has given Hollywood a larger potential audience, and hence allowed them to spend more on budgets, one could adjust movie budgets based on total Hollywood movie industry yearly audience. One could even come up with ideas for lists that might do a better job than inflation at assessing the true costs of movie: calculate inflation only based on the rental prices from Panavision or calculate inflation prices based solely on the average salary per movie of the leading actors.
My point is that the only objective way of listing the most expensive movies is by listing their actual budgets, any other way is subjective. I know that this does not give a truly accurate picture of the costs of movies but there is nothing that can be done about that. We can include supplemental lists (like an inflation adjusted list) to try to get a true picture of the movies costs, but such lists always have a measure of inaccuracy. (Just to be clear I have nothing against adjusting for inflation, I think it is a good way to get an idea of movie budgets.) Qutezuce 03:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
One thing that would help is to indicate the years for each movie, instead of just a couple of remakes. Which Tarzan, for instance? (I assume it's the Disney animated version, but that is MY guess.) Perhaps making it clear that this is as of 2005, and making a 3rd list of most expensive movies at the time of release would be the beat solution. CFLeon 23:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Each movie is linked to the correct article for the film, which lists the years, so you don't have to guess which film it is. I added a year column. As for the idea of making a 3rd list, I think that is a good idea, but we would need to find a source of such info. Qutezuce 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The article states in the preface that only movies open to the general public are listed, but The Golden Compass is listed, which will not be released until fall of 07. Am I missing something? Mikealot 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if maybe Band of Brothers should be on this list. I know it's a miniseries and not one movie, but the 2007 edition of Guinness World Records cites it as the most expensive miniseries at $125m. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmeric13@aol.com (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
If you can work up the Guiness citation I don't see why not. At least, we could have a little side-bar that includes it. $125 million is a lot for a film, so its even more so for a mini-series. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing
I think we need to do a better job of actually finding reliable sources. We cannot just trust BoxOfficeMojo.com, IMDb.com (which has become increasingly unreliable lately), or even The-Numbers.com, when they do not provide a source for their information. We should try and find actual interviews, or sources that at least confirm that someone connected directly to the film actually said "the budget was.....". We don't use IMDb.com as a reliable source in FA articles anymore, so citing it here isn't going to work either. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This is in connection with what we talked about above. Your suggestion can even more create inconsitency. Different people can have different views of "what they think" is the budget of a film. The directors assesement could be very well different to a producers assesment. What if they made a comment about their movie and it is not the same? Which should we trust. What if the only person who commented about the budget of the movie was the cameraman? or the art director? or what if there are no one? Again, we can use this comments in that movie page itself or we can use their comments as TAGs but not as the main source. Again, The data should be uniformly gathered and went through the same procedure and came from same assesment.67.101.145.37 04:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but the people who actually work on the film have a better idea of what their budget is. The producer writes all the checks, I think he would know. The director hears about not going over budget from the producer, so I think he would know. Why would a cameraman even be interviewed about the budget? I could see a production director being interviewed, but who even interviews cameramen anyway? Generally, if you are going to have "confusion" over a budget then you have to see what it is. I read one source that said "the studio" said Superman Returns budget was 209 million. Here's two things with that, first it isn't a drastic difference from 204 million, there's always +/- for anything. That is why we don't have exact figures, because no one says "oh the budget was 123,235,234.34" They round. Secondly, people may not know the exact figure, but know about where it was. Show me when one person said "the budget is this" and another said "no the budget was 40 million more than that", when they are both connected directly to the film. I highly doubt you can. An interview with someone who made the film, saying what the budget is, is more reliable than BOM saying "I heard from a source" (which they don't even do that). What source? Who is this source? There isn't any point in debating this any longer, because you don't understand what Verifiability is. We have to be able to check information, whether it's easy or not. BOM can say "We got it from Variety, when they interviewed Bryan Singer". Ok, great, that is verifiable content. It would be better to have the actual Variety interview, but regardless, we at least know where they got their information. Unfortunately, they don't do that. Thus, we cannot verify if they are pulling our legs or telling the truth. We cannot check to see if they have out dated information, or if other sources are just missing something they found. It's all about verifiability. If you don't like checking sources then you came to the wrong place. Sourcing isn't about finding the easy way to answer a question, it's about finding the most encyclopedic, reliable way to answer the question. If I cannot verify information that is given on a site, then I cannot use that information. I might as well make it up myself, because that's just as reliable. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok how do you know again that they do not disclose where they got their information? You only assume that it came from out of nowhere. Again, Why not study the website in question more carefully? Read their policy? QUESTION THEM, If needed each individual movies if you are not contended. and CONTACT THEM, I am sure its accesible.67.101.145.37 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you are posting on two different sections and missing what I said. I have contacted them, and they do not repond. I have contacted them about Superman, Pirates, many films. They don't respond. I have sent them emails with links to interviews that contradict what they have, they ignore them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ill contact them, but once they are proven cooperative, Then this whole thing would be moot and everything you said as well. But if in fact they do not cooperate then they should not be considered anymore. Reagardless, this page will change. It will take time but it will happen.67.101.145.37 04:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
For starter, I have found this on thier website:
How/where you get your information? How accurate/reliable is it?
The information in the Internet Movie Database comes from various sources. Though we do some active gathering of information, the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you. In fact, about 70% of our staff is dedicated to processing the massive amounts of information we receive and add to the database every week. In addition to using as many sources as we can get our hands on, our data goes through a large number of consistency checks to ensure it's as accurate and reliable as possible. However, there's absolutely no substitute for an international team of movie buffs with an encyclopedic knowledge of trivia and a large assortment of reference works (and we include in this group many of our loyal contributors). Our main sources of information are on-screen credits. We also rely on press kits, official bios, autobiographies, and interviews. Given the sheer size (approx. 900,000 titles and 2.3 million names) and the nature of the information we list, which is often subject to change especially on yet-unreleased films or long-running TV series, occasional mistakes are inevitable and, when spotted/reported, they are promptly verified and fixed. That's why we welcome corrections and submissions. However keep in mind that our service is provided for the information of users only. It is not provided with the intention that users rely upon the information for any purposes. Accordingly, IMDb shall under no circumstances be liable for any loss or damage, including but not limited to loss of profits, goodwill or indirect or consequential loss arising out of any use of or inaccuracies in the information. All warranties express or implied are excluded to the fullest extent permissible by law. Please see our terms of use/copyright information for further details.
And From BoxOfficeMojo. I am not sure if you need to be a member to request for any information but I have found this on theit site:
DATA & CUSTOM RESEARCH
Standard data feeds are available for daily, weekend, weekly and many other box office charts and can be delivered via an XML feed or by e-mail in Excel or tab-delimited format. Custom research is also available and can be compiled in a variety of formats. To request a quote for these services, please send your request to Sean Saulsbury at sean@boxofficemojo.com.
I found this and claim: "Box Office Mojo is regularly quoted in such publications as the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Bloomberg, Forbes and has appeared on CNN, CNBC, Access Hollywood and Fox News among other television broadcasts" Again the question if BO MOJO is not reliable enough for you, then what is?67.101.145.37 05:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
What that says is that they will send you weekly updates of box office information, not a link to their source. As for the other, USA Today can quote them all they want, I've seen them do it, but that doesn't change the lack of verifiability on BOM's part. How many people reported that first image of Heath Ledger as real? That didn't make it real, as a matter of fact, it turned out to be a fake. We didn't use it because we cannot verify it. The same reason we aren't using the new image of Ledger, that just about everyone and their mother believes is real, but have not verifiability to say that it is official. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
At World's End
At Box Office Mojo, it says that the budget of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End was 300 million dollars.
I know, but I can provide a link to an article where it's clear that Disney has never reported such a number. An above discussion concerned the verifiability of BOM, IMDb, and the-numbers when it comes to information regarding the budget. The problem with these sites is that they don't provide us with a source to verify how they attained this information, which is part of verifiability. Thus, we cannot accept their budgets. This entire article consists of this problem, but the reason I'm against PotC specifically, is because I've read a bunch of articles that either give differing numbers, or say that Disney hasn't actually given a number and that they won't release the real number to the public because of the size of the amount. There seems to be a lot more secrecy involved with the two Pirates sequel's budgets than with most other films. There was lots of rumors about Superman Returns' budget, until Singer finally sat down in an interview and answered the question, which turned out to be no where near what the rumors were. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Speed 2: Cruise Control
Firstly, I'd like to point out that this movie was a piece of crap and shouldn't appear on any list anywhere so that it's memory will eventually be forgotten. Also, it's listed as costing $110,000,000 in 1997, which is inflation adjusted to $198,800,000 (80.7% increase). Is it just me, or does anyone else think this doesn't sound right? Actually, I know it's incorrect. I mean, it was made in 1997, not 1987. If anyone doubts me, look at Titanic (made the same year) adjusted from $200,000,000 to $247,000,000 (23.5% increase). It makes me wonder how much else of the list is incorrect.
Wrong, or factually unverifiable? I can't tell you how much is wrong, but I can tell you that there are only two budgets on this list that are verifiable, and that is Spidey 3 and Superman Returns. The rest are taken from Box Office Mojo, and you can see my opinion about that in the above sections. I think most of the "adjusted" budgets are from Forbes, and Forbes was using the Box Office Mojo figures. What I say, is we verify all of the "unadjusted" budgets film by film, and then determine what the current inflation rate is and adjust the budgets ourselves. I don't know the inflation rates, but I know Forbes used a Superman Returns budget of 270 million, and not the 204 million reported by Bryan Singer. Bignole 02:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
One chart
I think we should have a single chart for real dollars and inflation adjusted dollars and use the sort function on the column. Any thoughts? This way both sets of data can be compared. IT might help to have a comments column so that alternate figures can be quoted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think one chart is good, and I also think it should list the adjusted figures *first*. Really, sorting by the unadjusted figures is just utterly pointless. --193.128.72.68 09:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Size
We probably should trim the size of this list. 100 million isn't what it used to be, and I think the 30+ names barely clearing 100 million don't need to be mentioned. I'd like to propose that we make the cutoff rank #20 for both lists. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this deceptive link, in the argument for deletion it has been used as a relibale source to replace the IMDB source, but no nmber is mentioned in the article at all, it just mentions the Spiderman movie as over $100M. Its more appropriate for the SM article not here, pretending to support the number used in the chart. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
IMDB vs all others
I am restoring the reference to IMDB for SupRet for comparison. All other info comes from IMDB and so should this number for comparison. BIGNOLE: If your premise is that IMDB is unreliable, here is chance to show it, by leaving in the number to show that they can be in error. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Most expensive films (inflation adjusted, 2005 dollars)
Someone has added films here with dates for 2006 and 2007 without mentioning if the numbers have been deflated to be harmonized with the movies using 2005 dollars. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Pirates 3
Why is Pirates 3 listed on the non-adjusted films but not the adjusted for inflation films? Technically, Pirates 3 would rank #1 on both lists but is notably absent from the second list. 72.49.194.69 07:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua
I put this note earlier, but I don't think anyone saw it there. The Golden Compass is listed in the article, but the movie isn't due out until winter of 2007.72.81.57.198 04:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, now that it's out, could we have Golden Compass put back into the list? Several articles put the budget at 90 million GBP or about 200 million USD though initially it was said to be 150 million USD. 219.74.172.143 (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The golden Compass
The new film [[1]] the golden compass says the budget is 250 million dollars but it is not on the list. Just thought I would try to help. Thanks, Joey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.45.242 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
HerrDirektorHD (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC) According to [[2]] IMDb and [[3]] BoxOfficeMojo the actual budget is $180,000,000. However, according to [[4]] The Numbers, it is $250,000,000. As the project passed from one director to another during years, it could be a similar case than the Superman Lives/Returns affair. I've added the film to the list with the confirmed $180,000,000, if it happens to be more than that, change it.
By the way, why is Troy after Waterworld and Terminator 3 with a budget $5 M bigger than each one? Where's the mistake? Troy's budget or Troy's place? Thanks. HD. HerrDirektorHD (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Lord of the Rings, and "inflation-adjusted" question
I note that the Lord of the Rings movies are not in these lists, which they surely should be owing to their cost... but I also know that they were financed as a package rather than as individual movies. This causes distinct problems, especially as far as the inflation adjustment is concerned. Although i don't know the figures myself, may I suggest that if the figures are found and added, the cost gets split equally in terms of inflation adjusted cost, and then the dollar-figure cost is calculated from there, with an accompanying footnote for each column (this is, of course, unless separate figures for the three are actually known...). Any thoughts?
Also, what the heck does "inflation-adjusted" tally to in this case? What year is being used as the base year, and what country's average inflation rate is being used? As it stands there is simply too much missing information for the information in that table to be meaningful. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
According to IMDB the budgets for The Lord of the Rings films were US$93 millionUS$94 million and US$94 million respectively. Which means that they are below the US$100 million threshold that appears to have been applied to the main list.
I agree about your inflation related questions. The list is basically just a copy of the one in Forbes (linked to at the start of the list). So whatever information Forbes provided about their calculations are what we have. Qutezuce 07:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right about the sources but your reasoning is unfair, Qutezuce. The Lord of the Rings film should be considered as a package (as Grutness says) even though it was released in three parts. If we were to use your criteria, then War and Peace's figures would be different in the "inflation-adjusted list" as this classic film was released in four parts during the 60's. There might be other movies in the lists which were released in more than one part and are being considered as a whole.
I suggest that the Lord of the Rings film trilogy be considered as a whole, the same as War and Peace. The fact that "separate figures for the three are known" wouldn't make any difference (there's no reason to believe that separate figures for the four parts of War and Peace are impossible to reckon).
If these changes are done, The Lord of the Rings film trilogy would be in first place in the "not adjusted for inflation list" with $280.000.000. I feel my arguments are strong enough to do this edition - otherwise they should modify War and Peace's figures. Since the latter would be more impractical, I'm editing the article. Please at least read my arguments before undoing the edition.--Quinceps (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Cost per minute of film time?
It would be great if someone wanted to take the runtimes of these movies and figure their cost per minute. Anyone feel like taking that on?
Jstohler 17:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be irrelevant data since we have not actually verified the mass majority of the budgets. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be pretty indiscriminate information that if anyone really wanted to know, they could calculate for themselves. I mean, what's next, re-calculating the cost/minute rate based on stuff added on the extended DVD? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna go against the flow here and say that I think it's a pretty good idea and I think that you should be the one to work it out. While your at it, why do you work out what were the most expensive movies ever made per minute footage shot, including both out-takes and deleted scenes. Or maybe you could find out the hundred most expensive movies made in the third world. On second thought, maybe it isn't such a good idea. Holymolytree2 05:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This is actually a very good idea, out of which you will find that - minute-for-minute - Poseidon, with a running time of around 93 minutes, is the most expensive single film made to date.--Carfax6 12:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carfax6 (talk • contribs)
Quantum of Solace
I've heard that $230 million is production plus advertising. So that might need to be remedied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.163.62 (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Iron Man
Iron Man stands incorrectly in this list,it should be down below Armageddon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.144.148 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Various errors.
The article states:
These lists contain only the films that are already released to the general public, and no films that are still in production, post-production or just announced films, for the reason that these costs can still change in the production process.
Yet Quantum of Solace, which has not yet been released to the general public, is included.
Also, the non-adjusted list has several items apparently listed out of order! Superman Returns is listed in the #2 spot at $204,000,000, which is less than the figures listed by the movies in the #3-#6 spots. Iron Man is listed in the #10 spot at $140,000,000, which is less than the figures listed by the movies in the #11-#37 spots. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines is listed in the #15 spot with $200,000,000, which is more than the figures listed by the movies in the #10-#14 spots.
For me, seeing adjusted figures would be most valuable. There are old films that were considered outrageously expensive...that tends to get lost in today's inflated money.
Also, adjusted figures may be a better way to introduce foreign films into the list.
Perhaps a better figure than either adjusted or unadjusted would be cost vs. gross. That gives a sense of whether the film was commercially successful -- which is as important as a fairly abstract figure about how much a movie cost.
I don't think this will work in this article, but it would be interesting for articles on expensive movies to make some mention of where the money went to. Was it for special effect? Or to pay expensive stars? E.g., Star Trek was expensive partly because of the special effects, while Lost in Space was put off the air partly because the stars' salaries started taking an increasingly large share of the budget.
Each time a film gets added to the chart it has to be renumbered which is a bit cumbersome with over 50 films on the chart. It's not unusual for a film to cost $150m these days so maybe we should use that as the cut off figure? Melody Perkins (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Forbes??
Would it not be better to merge "Most expensive films according to Forbes (adjusted for inflation)"
section with the "Other noteworthy budgets (adjusted for inflation)" ?
I realise that the Forbes was adjusted to 1 year , n some of the others to other years. But it would not be a difficult calculation to adjust them all to the same year.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.194.69 (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well actually it would be difficult because i) we don't know which inflation measure was used and ii) we don't really have any official sources for the budgets. The films on the Forbes list are only comparable to other films on the Forbes list. If you start adding films where the inflation was done in other ways and from different sources then you could end up with a list where films would chart in different places. You have to ask why Metropolis and Star Trek didn't feature on the Forbe's list in the first place...Forbes is the only chart of inflated budgets so I think it's best not to compromise it. For films that maybe should be on the list but are not, they can be listed separately underneath, but I think it should be made explicit that these adjusted budgets are not determined in the same way and were not ranked by Forbes. Melody Perkins (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Chart Order
Currently the unadjusted chart is ranked by IMdb budget estimates. Obviously given the nature of inexact information regarding budgets the estimates can vary. While it may be sensible to list the alternative estimates it also seems sensible to retain the IMDB chart order, otherwise the chart is meaningless. You end up with a dispute over a film's ranking. An editor has recently become disruptive by changing the order to reflect the estimates from his chosen sources. It seems to me that we either retain the IMDB chart order for the chart to have any meaning or we simply list the films alphabetically and not have a chart. Either way, if the chart system is going to be changed it should be discussed fully here first, so can people please keep an eye on it please. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I see no discussion between two editors so have removed it from WP:3O.--Otterathome (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The editor in question doesn't have an account and his IP keeps changing so there is no way to contact him about it. When I put a discussion notice on the article page he just removed it so there isn't much I can do really. I asked for a third opinion to try and break the article out of the edit war cycle. I've made my case on the discussion page, I can't physically force another editor to engage in discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd say you should follow wp:BRD, as you seem to be doing. Leave messages on the anon's talk page. If they continue to revert, report them as disruptive at wp:AN. NJGW (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Contradiction
How can the production costs for Star Trek: The Motion Picture be $163m dollars in this article, yet its own article says it was a modest $46m (with reference)?
It is supposedly the inflated cost, whereas I imagine the $46m is the original production cost? The inflated cost isn't referenced so it probably should be removed anyway. I will add a "fact" tag for the time being. Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hell's Angels only cost $50m-$160m depending on which inflation measure you use. Betty Logan (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Chart order 2
At the moment the budgets are charted off the IMDB amounts. It seems silly to arbitrarily select a source for the chart order, expecially when there are concerns noted above over the site being a reliable source. As you can see I've been working through the films adding reliable sources from places like The New York Times, Variety etc, so there is now better sourced information to rank the films from.
Given the nature of budget estimates, they often differ from source to source and that has to be taken into account. I'm against arbitrarily 'picking' a source to rank by. I am also against the idea of averaging the amounts given by the sources or picking the most frequently cited amount, since this system would be open to manipulation by adding more sources. My solution would be to rank using the lowest common denominator; case in point: some sources say GI Joe cost $170m, and some $175m, but while the figures don't match they both agree that the film cost at least $170m. In view of that, my suggestion would be to rank off the lower amount, but include the higher amount as an alternative estimate. In the case of films where we have an official figure I'm of the opinion that the films should always be ranked by the official budget with any further estimates included as an alternative estimate.
I'll hopefully finish sourcing the remaining films on the chart over the next week and will then implement the new chart structure if no-one has any objections. Betty Logan (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
SOURCES
Concerns have been expressed about the reliability of sources such as IMDB, The Numbers and Box Office Mojo on account of them not saying where they got their budget estimates from. In view of this there is no consensus on using IMDB and Box Office Mojo for budget information so they should be avoided. The Numbers is a reliable source ONLY in the cases where it states where the information came from. In the cases of films where it doesn't it should be treated like IMDB and Box Office Mojo as not a reliable source.
The best sources for budget information for Hollywood films and among the most accurate are:
Most mainstream newspapers are acceptable but the above provide the most comprehensive coverage of budget information. Trade magazines are also a good place to look:
For budgets for international films, the best place to start would be with mainstream native newspapers. The BBC is usually a good place to start and offers global news coverage. For international films, the budget should preferably be sourced in its native currency WP:WORLDVIEW. To be charted it needs to be converted to US dollars since this is the dominant currency of the charts, but do not perform the currency conversion yourself since this would constitute original research which is prohibited. The converted amount in dollars would depend on the exchange rate which is updated on a daily basis. To chart the film, another reference should be provided which gives the budget in converted dollars, and both the native and converted amounts should be included.
If you wish to discuss a source or query these guidelines please start a new section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Logan (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hobbit, Avatar, and 2012
Should we add hobbit, Avata, and 2012??????? All of thease movies has HUGE budgets but they are not out yet.
No. Films aren't added to the list until they are released since the budget can change during production and post-production. Betty Logan (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Avatar is already out. Shouldn't it be on the list??62.169.102.143 (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
So Wrong.
This list is so inaccurate I'd suggest taking it down.
Someone should consult an industry professional. Some numbers are grossly underestimated from $67-$200 million. While a few others are so grossly exaggerated numbers "leaked" before the opening of a failing franchise. This has become common practice, and sometimes the only way to get people into theaters. Also, if you don't break a record on a holiday weekend it's considered a failure.
Some publications are dedicated to legitimate industry journalism. While most others are the film biz equivalents of grocery store tabloids, knowingly filled with gossip and hearsay, which is occasionally, reprinted by other legitimate news agencies outside the industry. The New York Times doesn't reprint news from OK or US magazine. But that's what's happening with this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.167.238 (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
So Wrong.
This list is so inaccurate I'd suggest taking it down.
Someone should consult an industry professional. Some numbers are grossly underestimated from $67-$200 million. While a few others are so grossly exaggerated numbers "leaked" before the opening of a failing franchise. This has become common practice, and sometimes the only way to get people into theaters. Also, if you don't break a record on a holiday weekend it's considered a failure.
Some publications are dedicated to legitimate industry journalism. While most others are the film biz equivalents of grocery store tabloids, knowingly filled with gossip and hearsay, which is occasionally, reprinted by other legitimate news agencies outside the industry. The New York Times doesn't reprint news from OK or US magazine. But that's what's happening with this list.
A big name doesn't mean a source isn't a gossip mag. And the popular internet movie "dictionary" is pretty arbitrary as well. The only pages that are fairly accurate are for those frustrated enough to hire someone to monitor their page, and spend the considerable amount of time it takes work with the source to correct it. Also, that site is run by Data Entry sources hired by Amazon, not film industry people. And understand little or nothing about the info they are posting. So irritating.
Ask someone from the industry to help you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.167.238 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
We'll stick to professional journalism thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Most expensive films... created in the United States?
There seem to be no non-U.S. films on this list at all. I understand that this might be because data isn't available for other countries, but surely there are a few non-U.S. films which could fit into this sort of list ideally (i.e. War and Peace (1968 film), which even without inflation adjusted should probably be on the top list). Perhaps we should indicate the U.S.-centric basis of this. --Fastfission 19:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Is that dollar inflation or rouble inflation ?Eregli bob (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
If War and Peace cost the equivalent of $100 mil in the mid 60s then that's the equivalent of $650 million today using US inflation, and the sources we have peg the inflated cost at "nearly $700 million" so I suspect they've used the US inflation measure. Technically the cost in the native currency should be inflated and then converted to dollars, but its a question of finding a source that does it that way. Betty Logan (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a pretty good reason why non-US films don't appear on the list of most expensive films. They're not expensive. 'War and Peace is a case in point. Firstly, it's not one film, but four (a bit like Lord of the Rings), released in successive years and only occasionally shown in its eight-hour entirity. Secondly, the $100 million (1967 price) is what the film would have cost if made in the West. In the communist worker's paradises everyone could be made to work for peanuts. Consequently, the film is estimated to have cost $30 million, for four movies. A lot of money, but not enough to make the list.--Johann Schlinker 23:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a source the verifies that War and Peace's budget was in fact 30 million, and that the 100 million was only if it had been filmed in the US, then I concur that it should be removed. But, if you do find the 30 million, please find the adjusted amount as well. Bignole 23:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It certainly belongs on the list of films adjusted for inflation. Not until Titanic 70 years later did people ever spend this kind of money on a film again!
Also, which other film in history temporarily bankrupted its production studio?
What about "Heaven's gate" ?Eregli bob (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Heaven's Gate cost $42 million in 1980 which is about $150 million today. It was an expensive film, but not quite expensive enough to make the list. Betty Logan (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
But didn't Heaven's Gate bankrupt the studio ? That was the question being posed.Eregli bob (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
SOURCE CHEATING
This is an old trick here at Wikipedia: when you can't find a source, just find anything that remotely ties into the subject and hope nobody actually reads it. Case in point: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. The supposed source for the numbers is an L.A. Times article (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/10/business/fi-pirates10). Yet, if you actually read that article, the supposed $450/300M figure is never mentioned. It was simply a story about the opening weekend grosses for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Which of course means the entire list is thrown into limbo. If I were to start checking the other "sources" will the entire thing fall apart? RoyBatty42 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You've obviously overlooked it. From the cited article for the $450 million figure: Disney wagered an estimated $450 million to make back-to-back follow-ups to its surprise 2003 smash "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" -- only to see critics greet the latest installment with mixed reviews. The $300 million figure is sourced through a different article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Superman Return Budget Dispute
3 reliable sources, IMDB.com, Box Office Mojo.com and Forbes.com all cited Superman Return to have a $270M budget, One user (I highly assumed to be a Superman fanatic) keep on insisting that it only has a $204M budget. the $204m figure is from the-numbers.com which only include, I beleive, the production budget and not the marketing and everything else like the 3 said reliable sources. If we are going to follow the figures at The-numbers.com then we have to change the whole chart as it does not coincide with the other 3 sources. For example X-men: the last stand has an est. $210M in the other 3 sources but the numbers.com only cite having only $150M.—The preceding unsigned
There is no "dispute". They are not listing the "marketing" additions for Superman Returns, because those figures were released by Forbes, and BOM, and IMDb long before there was marketing for Superman Returns. What I told you is that they are listing the previous Superman films that didn't get off the ground, but people were still paid. They even say so
in several magazines, with the "if you include the costs of the other superman films...". Sorry, but when you list "expensive films" it generally is supposed to be the production costs. Now, there is that nice statement at the top (that YOU tried to remove) that says Promotional costs (i.e. advertisements, commercials, posters, etc.) are not included. Again, Singer's quote of 204 million as the budget, beats out any speculation on BOM.com's part. Here is that nice interview with SingerBignole 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I believe that the The-numbers.com figure actually came from the directors quote. And actually the-numbers.com aren't even confident with their figure as they put a disclaimer
"Note: Budget numbers for movies can be both difficult to find and unreliable. Studios often try to keep the information secret and will use accounting tricks to inflate or reduce announced budgets.
The data we have is, to the best of our knowledge, accurate but there are gaps and disputed figures. If you have It seeadditional information or corrections, please let us know at corrections@the-numbers.com."
But who can really verified the official budget? certainly not the director unless he is one of the producers. Only the studio executives can really say and verified this but they don't really tell the exact numbers. The execs estimated a 270M before the release and thats where Mojo, Imdb forbes and other sources got their figure. With Superman lower than expected Box Office receipt of course the Director would downplay the budget. It would be more trustworthy if he had said the real Budget before Superman was release rather than waiting for everything to happen and made an assessment after all the facts. Anyway, If we are to follow the-numbers.com then you need to change everything else.
The "promotional cost etc" is not really the issue here the one we should worry about is the consistency of the figures we are presenting so that it can be truly say as reliable. If you are using different sources like quotes and mixing it with others then its not gonna work. We should only be following one reliable source.
The director would know his own budget, he has a producer right next to him the entire time, but just to answer your question he did help produce it. His production company was on of the one financing the film. Second, The-numbers is using the link I gave you as their source, I know this because I have the email correspondence between myself and the owner of the site, where I gave him the link. The execs didn't estimate 270 million before the release. Where is your source? Show me some quotes that say that. Either way, that is an estimation before the release, and BOM.com has the uncanny ability to ignore whatever happens when a movie has been released and not check on their data. I cannot guarantee the figures of the other films, just SR because I found the original quote from Singer (AFTER the film was released) talking about the budget. I would think that someone that new what the actual budget (184.5 mill) was, and that they had to go over it for several shots that they wanted was actually keeping tabs, which is part of the director's job. You are making it seem as if directors simply ignore their budgets and are just like "oh, who cares...i'll spend what i want". You have some things to learn if that's the case. BOM.com doesn't list a source for their figures (Forbes is probably using BOM.com as is IMDb.com). Bignole 14:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This is simply a case of fanaticism. I know you will defend this argument to death, It would not be worth it to challenge you. Even I, do not really care whether Superman's budget is due to past failed movies or what or if the director was one of the producer. The figures that all I am concern of. You simply implying that the only movie they(imdb, mojo and forbes) made a mistake on was Superman Returns. So what about the others? All I am saying that if you gonna use one source then make it sure everything is consistent to that source. To me, BOmojo, Imdb, Forbes are much more realiable source than "The-numbers.com" If everyone here wants to use "the-numbers.com" source then make sure everything is consistent with the cite. You simply singling out one movie (presumably your favorite) and making a "self research" (like relying on directors quote) for it so that your movie would look good on paper. Or like what the-numbers.com "using tricks to inflate or reduces movie budget". I know many Superman fans can not accept the fact that Superman Returns is one of the most expensive movie ever made and it was a disappointment at the B.O. This would not be an issue if Superman indeed had a B.O. success. This why many people are losing faith in Wikipedia its becoming more subjective than being objective.67.101.47.53 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not imply anything, try and read what I write please and do not make assumptions. I am not going to go through every single film and compare and look up sources for each. I personally don't like using BOM, Numbers, or anything that doesn't provide an actual quote with someone attached to the film that can say for sure what the budget is. Forturnately, when I'm at work I tend to read MSNBC.com, and it had the interview Singer conducted with Newsweek talking about the budget, that is why I gave it to The-Numbers (who originally didn't have the 204 million figure). The problem is that YOU don't know how to actually cite anything. You think that you should simply use one source, that doesn't even tell you where they get their information from. I have a source that comes from the directors mouth, which is more reliable than an unnamed source from Box Office Mojo. You have no case. As for your other assumptions about me, yes I do like Superman, but no I didn't like the film. I personally thought the movie sucked and was highly disappointed, but that doesn't detract me from finding reliable information for Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Generally IMDb, BOM, Numbers have their figures right, but when it comes to statistical numbers it's best to go to the horse for that, and since Spider-Man 3's budget is "said" to be close to 250 million, and is often cited as "going to be the most expensive movie ever made" (non-adjusted of course), you'd think that those same people would go "oh wait...doesn't BOM say that Superman Returns cost 270 million??". Oh. wait. they aren't saying that. Maybe that is because they actually check sources before posting them. That's all i have to say. Your whole argument is based on the fact that you think I'm some sort of fanatic who shouldn't trust an interview with the director, while you should trust some unknown person adding content with NO VERIFIABILITY on their website. Riiiiight. You have luck in the future with that sort of outlook on not just encyclopedias, but with life in general. Bignole 21:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, yes you are a Superman fan whether you liked the movie or not. So everything would be bias. It shows on your actions. How Official was Singers quote? or was it as official as the one at BOM or Imdb? So do we need to find every interview with Directors of other movies? why you do not trust BOM, Forbes???(I thought they could get some law suit if they show wrong facts) and Imdb. I'm pretty sure these trusted website done these things objectively and professionally as possible. I'm pretty sure you can call them and they can give you their scientific method on how they do these things. But due to your bias, you do not even consider that they actually do that and will just make your own research. Again only the executives can make that official but they don't really do that. So the directors quote is just as good as the BOM estimation. The only thing is the director made the estimation after knowing the relatively poor showing at BO of Superman Return (which is understandable). trustworthy? why he did not tell the truth right from the beginning in first place? I'm pretty sure he would have a different answer if SR had had been great in box office. And remember the reason why Superman Return budget here in Wikipedia is not consistent with every other trusted website out there is because of your bias.
There is no lawsuit for printing those types of wrong facts. It says nothing about character of the studio, or the film. Printing 270 million instead of 204 million is not liable or slander, so there's no lawsuite, it's simply "wrong". All it means is that they didn't call up the studio and ask personally, they relied on unsourced information (which is typical of BOM and IMDb-the latter once had Aunt May as Carnage for Spider-Man 3, that's really reliable.). "How official is Singer's quote"...what kind of question is that. A quote is a quote, there is no "officiality" to it. It was an after release interview, and the question (if you read it you could answer your own questions) was about "Your movie has been plagued by budget rumors. At one point, reports were that it was over $300 million.", to which he clarifies and explains what the budget actually was, and what the budget finally stopped at once filming. There is no guessing at it, he tells you what Warner Brothers gave them, and then tells you that it went over budget because of a particular scene that he wanted to shoot. Sorry, but "every other trusted website" can be linked back to one source of the 270 million budget, which doesn't account for anything. The Superman Returns page uses the Singer quote, it's the most reliable. The problem lies only with YOU, because you are just hell bent on trusting anything you read, and don't try and do a little research to see what is what. Again, you provide no sources. I've read most of them, and if you look at where they get their intel you can trace it back to either IMDb or BOM.com, and IMDb gets its info from BOM.com. Anyway, have a nice day. Maybe one day you'll understand. Bignole 22:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
First thing, I will quote myself "This is simply a case of fanaticism. I know you will defend this argument to death". what I meant on "how official singer's quote" was because you were treating it as the official one set in stone one. Do not worry I already understand that due to your bias Wikipedia would never be really a trustworthy website.
The annonymous user is right, this is a case of an orginal research. The list should be uniformly coherent with one credible source, which ever that source may be decided. And not coming from multiple sources. Otherwise, the list would be deemed as an original creation of Wikipedia.67.101.145.37 22:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hardly. You should read original research. As of right now, there are only two films on that list that actually cite their information, the others rely on information from Box Office Mojo, or The-Numbers, or IMDb.com....which are all user submitted, and don't list their sources. BOM.com lists Pirates 2 as $225 million, yet there is no source to verify that. I have a source that says that Disney has been purposefully lying about the costs of both of those sequels because they have been so high, and they won't release an official statement saying what either one of the budgets were. You don't just take a website's word for it, when they say "oh, this is the budget...and I ah..got it from an insider". You check their sources, and if their sources have sources, then you check those. And you check until you find the base source, the one that started it all. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is you would open a Pandora's box with this kind procedure. If everyone agrees that the IMDB should be use then everything should be accordance or consistent with it, and same with other sources if there is an agreement. The list now is becoming an original creation from wikipedia users because they use multiple sources. Information like rankings should always comes from one primary source. A source that everyone should agree upon and not by the individual editors own convenience. Consequently users could just put citation after citation from God knows where. Thus, the list will become more unreliable and inconsistent.67.101.145.37 01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, that's the proper way to determine verifiability. The rule with IMDb is, unless you are using it to cite a list of works, like someone being credited in a film, then nothing they post is reliable. Why? Because it is user submitted. Learn original research. Using multiple sources is fine. If you use 1 source, then are are creating a problem when that source isn't reliable itself. BOM, IMDb, the-numbers = not reliable when it comes to budget information. BOM is good for box office numbers, not for film budgets. Where they get their box office numbers from is clear, where they get their budgets from is not. No, "god knows where"? If the citation is reliable then it can be used. When it comes to budgets, reliability goes to the place that actually can specify someone in particular that actually quoted them a budget number. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes using multiple sources is good if we are making the article itself, However we are only dealing with one piece of information here. We should treat an information like "list of rankings" as one body of information and not divisible. Like a "quote" it should not be presented in out in context. Like taking or adding something out of it. Using multiple sources in ranking means, information are not uniform, uses different procedures or method and can cause chaos. Many pages has been plague by this problem because of such procedure, just take a look at List of metropolitan areas by population.67.101.145.37 01:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is not a reliable source anywhere that can verify any of these budgets. Especially, when any one "reliable source" is contradicted by a direct quote from someone connectedly directly to a film. Box Office Mojo lists Superman's budget at 270 million dollars, yet they don't say where they get their information. Bryan Singer, the man that directed the film, has stated that the budget was 184.5 million, but that it went over budget and the final number was $204 million. That's 60+ million shy of what Box Office Mojo states. Sorry, but it isn't reliable when it comes to budgets, just like IMDb isn't reliable on anything other than cast members. That's the way it is, sorry if you don't like it, but we aren't going to ignore the unreliability of a site just because they have to provide a list of information already made out. No source to verify their information = not reliable information. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of which source should be use, like I said, it should be consistent with the rankings we present here. If you think imdb or box office mojo or the-numbers.com are not reliable enough for you. It does not necessarily mean it is also true from other users. You should seek first a consensus before amending the listings. You can certainly use a note or an asterisk besides an information in doubt and make additional comments about it and put your citations. Like you said in the case of Superman. In this way everything can be explained without amending the original source.67.101.145.37 01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, only this page seems to detach from what is considered reliable. IMDb is considered unreliable on anything that is more than "actor plays character", by just about everyone here at Wikipedia. The few that think IMDb should be used are the ones that don't understand verifiability and reliability. If they don't say where they got their information, then it isn't verifiable, thus it can't be used. I could go through and put a {{cn}} tag on every film on this list, because they are not cited by a reliable source. That's time consuming, and there aren't enough people that monitor this page to actually care to find those sources. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the only problem here is you have a problem with the main source which this page uses,. It does not necessarily mean it is also true from other users. If it is then, why IMBD, or BO Mojo etc are still being allowed here at all, if the wikipedia community shares your view? They should forbid the use IMBD, or BO Mojo etc as a reference if that is the case. Again, If you think imdb or box office mojo or the-numbers.com are not reliable enough for you, Then what is? How would you know that their information are not reliable enough where you have no really strong proof of that. It seems the only proof you have is about Superman. Why don't you write an e-mail to them (IMDB or BOMOJO) and inquire about their procedure how did they get their information so you would understand better and verify their method. I am pretty sure they are happy to help you with that. So that is my suggestion for your issues about the sources used.
But again, brining back to my main point, using multiple sources in such thing (List/Ranked), is dangerous, It will create a list ORIGINAL to wikipedia (which should be forbidden). Multiple sources uses different methodology, information/data gathering and will cause inconsistency thus, resulting to unreliability.
Let me give you an analogy, let say we want to make the "list of cities with the most dogs". We have three sources from different agency A B & C. Agency A say Huston has the most, while B and C says its New York. Why Agency A had it different? Because Agenecy A included the dog population in the "Metro Area" while Agency B & C only included their dog population within the city limits, Thus they would have different results because they used different procedures and defenitions. These are just hypothetical and I am trying my best to come up with an analogy.
Again, hypothetical speaking, likewise to this situation, Maybe BOmojo include production costs and marketing costs while IMDB only include production cost. It would be unwise to mingle their information because they use different methods of gathering and calculating data. You see where am I going here? Using different sources means mingling datas that can result to inconsistency.
So, what should we do here is to present everything IN TACT. If needed 2 or 3 or more seperate lists, coming from what the community agree upon reliable sources. Or only 1 agreed upon source and secondary datas for can be implemented as tags.
So lets take your example Superman. Superman in the BO mojo data shows that it is the most expensive movie ever made. So it should be on the top of the list, but since your doubting it and found a reliable source that refuted, then TAG it give your citation and cite that BOmojo included the production costs of the past failed Superman Movie. Do it like that and not the other way around. Again, the main source should always be intact.
I hope you understand my explanation, pardon for the leghnt of it. But if you read it carefully, I think you would get the idea very well. I don't know how to explain this more better.67.101.145.37 03:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, IMDb isn't allowed as a source. The first thing you see during an FAC is the criticism of any information that uses IMDb. Box Office Mojo is used for box office information. IMDb is only allowed in external links because, regardless of its reliability, it is still a site that holds a lot of information not always covered in Wikipedia. External links do not follow the policy of reliable sourcing, because that isn't what they are designed for. There are plenty of pages that use IMDb like it's God, but they aren't FA articles. For Superman, we don't know what BOM is including, because they don't say. That is the entire point. Again, read Verifiability. As for you analogy on the city with most dogs. Box office mojo shows "production" cost as a separate cost. It clearly says "Production cost" on BOM.com. If they included marketing, then they aren't saying that. BOM doesn't say where they get their info, that is the point of verifibility. There is no analogy to it. I can give you one. I say "the production of this movie is this, of that movie is that, and of those movies are those". Who is to say I'm right? I don't say where I got my information, just say that it's from the "inside". Who is to say I didn't make it up, or that I didn't get the wrong information, or that I got projected information but never updated after it changed? No one, because I didn't say where I got it specifically, so they can't check it. That is verifiability. BOM doesn't say where they get their information, so we can't check it. If we can't check it then it isn't verifiable and thus should not be used. That's policy. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Which brings back to my suggestion. Your issues about the sources is not really my concern at all. Becasue you could easily verify how they gathered their information by contacting them. You don't know where they came from because you do not want to know it. You only assume that it came from out of nowhere. Why not study the website in question more carefully? Read their policy? and CONTACT THEM, I am sure its accesible.
For the analogy, I am speaking "hypothetically" explaining that differnt sources may use and can use different methodologies. You could read them again.
Again, my whole point is not wheter IMDB or BO MOJO or The-numbers are realiable or not BUT wheter should we use multiple sources and create this ORIGINAL LIST.67.101.145.37 04:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No you can't. I've tried, repeatedly. I've also supplied them with information that contradicts what they have. They don't respond. The only reponse I've ever gotten from anyone is from the gentleman that operates The-Numbers.com. I'd love it if BOM provided their sources, but they don't. Please, contact them for me if you think it is that easy. I've tried for many different films. What you just suggested was that we ignored reliability and verifiability (two policies by the way), in favor of not having a list that gets its information from multiple sources? Please, read those two policies carefully. Multiple sources are better than 1 source. It confirms a very important thing, "verifiability". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I alreay talked about, my side about using mutiple sources on "rankings" and creating an ORIGINAL LIST and yet you are just keep on giving me links after links without even bother summarizing them for more understanding. OK I will try to contact them, it will take time, but once I got a them to reply and cooporate This page will change67.101.145.37 04:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Note, you'll have to prove they responded too. And not simply a "copy/paste" job. screencapture of the actual email. You can black out your address for privacy purposes, obviously. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
What made you think that I will just make things up? If you said what they really are then I should not be on thier side as well. Like I said It will take time, since I have othet things in my life, but I will do my best.67.101.145.37 04:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi the Budget is actually $270 million for Superman Returns not $209 milluion info comes from BOM who got it directly from the Studio Warner Bros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.21.253 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
War and Peace
If it cost $700 million to make, why isn't it at No.1, or even on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.224.133 (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
If we were certain it cost $700 million then it would be. The US sources claim it cost $100 million back in 1960s, but the Russian sources say it cost under $10 million. In estimating the cost the US sources most probably based their estimates off what it would cost to make in the US since the financial data wouldn't have been available back then (as an example the expense in hiring 100,000 extras would have been considerable but it turns out that they were supplied free of charge by the Soviet army). In the Soviet Union everything was price controlled from the salaries of the stars to the cost of the costumes and the financial records for the film give the exact cost. However, the 100 million figure is so widely reported now that the myth is more or less regarded as a fact, so we inlcuded them both here to remain neutral, but we chart by the lower estimates. Betty Logan (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The Hobbit
Why was "The Hobbit" deleted from the page? It's the most expensive production of all time now, I even sourced it. It cost $500 million. Here is a source. It's even the same source used on the Hobbit's page for the budget. Charlr6 (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Films that have not been released are not included for good reasons. No-one knows how much a film has cost until it has been made and the bills paid. Sometimes a studio will cut a budget and sometimes it will go over budget. Sometimes production will not even be completed. It has been a long-standing convention to not add films to the list until they are playing in theaters. This has been the criteria for the list since it was started, and accepted by every editor since, and we don't change list criteria to suit our own point of view. If you think there is a valid reason for altering the inclusion criteria for the list then you are going to have to obtain a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I changed the article before you wrote in here. But it seems like you are the only other editor on this article by looking at this talk page. So if I asked right now and we had a little discussion whether it should include films that are still in production, what would you say? I mean you want a 'consensus' so what do you say? It's been reported for $500 million and the studio trusts Peter Jackson after the very high success of Lord of the Rings, so they know they are going to get the budget back and they probably won't be changing it. But the $500 million is for both films together I believe so then it could be $250 million for each film, but that means it could be added in the "joint-productions" part. But if you want a discussion and a consensus then what do you say? Or are you just going to say 'you can't change it to suit your own point of view', when in some way it seems that you want this article to cover your point of view of films that HAVE been released. And I wasn't moving it round to suit my view, I was adding in facts. And when I changed it, the article for about ten minutes WAS about released and future films. We can change the article around so then it can cover films that have been released and films that are being released soon. Or we could have a little section on future films with reported high budgets, that might seem more convenient and have a note saying that the budget might change because of budget cuts or the film going over-budget but it will be updated as soon as it can. What do you think about that idea? Charlr6 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
We do not add WP:SPECULATION to articles. There is no way anyone can know for sure how much the film will cost until it has been made, not even the producers. For example, it was claimed that Avatar was going to cost $500 million too and in the end it only cost half that much. For that reason films are not added until they are released, and that is how it has always been since this list was started. That rule was in place before I ever edited on this article, and I've always respected it with every other editor who has worked on the article, because it is a sensible rule that is consistent with the editing policy. Every film on this list was only added once it was released, and there is absolutely no reason to make The Hobbit a special case. On Wikipedia there is no WP:DEADLINE, so it can be added once it is released and sources nearer the time confirm its price. Betty Logan (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Following it to the New Zealand source, it is from before production even started and makes a lot of claims but nothing solid with the anonymous source coming up with "close to or around $500m", which could be $475 for all that means. Needs more reliable source or needs to wait until more reliable source becomes available before it can be claimed it is hte most expensive production of all time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Just looked, doesn't seem like anyone has gotten rid of the budget on The Hobbit (2012 film) page. I'm surprised you Darkwarriorblake (didn't see your name on the edit list, funny how you arrive as we are having problems on other pages) and Betty Logan haven't gone and changed it. And you do know a film can get its budget before production, if they didn't then there wouldn't be any more to spend ON production. But are we going to keep this SPECULATION to The Hobbit article? Look at the budget, as of the time I am writing this it says $500 million and has a reference to the site I used for here. Is that going to be taken off as that obviously can't be put there as its a speculation like you said. Are you going to take it off? Charlr6 (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
What's the Hobbit page got to do with this list? This is a list of the most expensive films that have been released (as per consensus). The Hobbit hasn't been released. What goes on the Hobbit page doesn't need to stick to that same consensus. GimliDotNet (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The Hobbit page has the $500 million budget put on the info box, THATS why it is relevant. Why is it allowed to be SPECTULATED on that page, but not on here? It's contradicting if its allowed here but not on the other pages. If you don't believe it isn't ok to go here, then go over to the Hobbit's page and say why you don't think it should go there. SIMPLE. Charlr6 (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Because the consensus on this list is that only released films are to be included. Might I suggest you read the policies on civility before continuing to make comments on other editors motivations. GimliDotNet (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
"On other editors motives?" I wasn't criticising anyone and said "You are a bad editor". I was basically saying that I was surprised none of you have gone onto the page and got rid of it. And you are linking me a page on being civil? On the edit list for this article Betty Logan wasn't civilised by TYPING IN CAPITAL LETTERS! Yes, the consensus on this list is for films that haven't been released but Betty Logan said that "we do not add speculation for articles" and that "there is no way anyone can know for sure how much the film will cost", and because she said that, then I'm surprised the budget wasn't taken down on the Hobbit's page, unless the speculation changes from this page and The Hobbit's page, even though I referenced the exact same reference. If the budget hasn't actually been fully reported and the article was released before the film entered production, well then it's still speculation, and The Hobbit's page shouldn't "speculate" what the budget is on the info box. Charlr6 (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Your comments to Darkwarriorblake above are not civil. Nor is any user under any obligation to go editing any other pages. You can if you wish be bold and remove the content from the other page. GimliDotNet (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
My comments aren't civil? Neither is he as he practically stalked me to this page. I just found it funny how I haven't seen his name on the edit page for this article but after we are having disagreements on other pages he comes onto here. Quite a big coincidence, I'm not saying he isn't allowed, I'm just saying that its kind of funny. And what pages exactly are you asking me to remove my content from? Charlr6 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
He's not stalking you, I posted a request at the Film Project asking for some third opinions. Since I was trying to be fair to you I didn't present my argument there, I asked editors to come to this page and read the discussion here and Dark Warrior Blake didn't show up in this discussion until I posted the request. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
My bad, I'm sorry for assuming that, it just felt like it after myself and him were having problems on another page. Charlr6 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It is not unusual to see a film's prospective budget recorded on the film article (although there are even some WP:CRYSTAL elements even to that), but saying The Hobbit's budget is $500 million is not the same as saying it cost $500 million. The Hobbit can't cost $500 million until the money has been spent i.e. filming, the special effects and post-production have been completed. Once the negative is locked only then can it be known how much the film cost. If The Guinness Book of Records compiled a list of most expensive productions I don't think they would include a film that hasn't completed the production. Even if they run a tight ship on The Hobbit and bring it in on $500 million to the cent, it still hasn't cost $500 million until the film has finished production. Every film on the list has been subject to the same criteria and personally I think it works well—you need a line in the sand and limiting the list to released films has worked well until now. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
If this were 1 Dec 2012, it might be a moot point to be arguing over the budget and whether it's valid to put on Wikipedia. But it's still February, so it's premature to add it. As the policy states, Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a cyrstal ball, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of facts. Publishing the projected and reported budget fits into all those categories if the film had not been released, especially since the final filming just started. They still have to edit the sucker, which will include the addition of special effects, which probably can't be all accounted for until they have film footage to correspond to it. Let's not forget any voiceovers the actors may need to do, which means studio time, audio engineers. Oh yeah, there's advertising. By the time December rolls around, that budget will probably be over whatever figures are in the press right now. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Apparently Men in Black 3 cost $375 million, I'm not sure if that is true or not but on the actual Wikipedia page at the current moment I am writing this, the budget is listed as this, and its source is the website I listed above.
As previously said by an editor on the page, The Hobbit has been reported to cost a lot, but said that shouldn't be included on the list because of it being released later this year, and in the time until December it could have budget cuts or the budget could go up or they might finish the film under budget. But as Men in Black 3, has JUST came out (soon in some places), then if this $375 million budget is true, then it should be listed on here. Because there aren't going to be any budget cuts or for the film to finish under budget just as the film is being released, the closest thing would be if they pull it from a full theatrical release to a limited release and that would cost too probably.
But I'm personally not sure if the budget is true or not, I just thought I'd bring it to here for consideration if it DOES turn out to be the biggest budgeted film.
Charlr6 (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The production cost of MIB3 is $215 million. That source quotes the LA Times article which states that the cost of the production is $250 million, and along with the cost of the distribution and marketing the total is $375 million (see http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-men-in-black-20120514,0,6384646.story). This is a list of production costs, we don't document the marketings costs because they are only announced for a few films. For example, Avatar had marketing costs of $150 million, so its total expense was $387 million. The Avengers cost $320 million when you factor in marketing. The Men in Black 3 article actually uses the wrong amount, since {{Infobox film}} states: "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (i.e. advertisements, commercials, posters, etc)." The real question is whether the film costs $250m or $215m, since there seems to be some discrepency; however this article clarifies the matter by pointing out the studio got a $38 million rebate from New York with the film ultimately costing $215 million. So basically the final figure for the film is $215 million, but if you don't include the rebate then it would have been $250 million, and if you add in the marekting and distribution costs too that is where the $375 million comes from. Betty Logan (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah I see, I did think it was a bit fishy with its production budget apparently being that much. And as you said that apparently the 'marketing costs' don't always get announced, then I can see why it wouldn't be included if only a few films have the marketing costs released. Charlr6 (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess it could be done, it would make it consistent with the highest-grossing article. It could even use the collapsible templates too. It would need a reasonable threshold, like a billion or half a billion to keep it at a reasonable size. Betty Logan (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Brave
Resolved
Why isn't the 2012 film Brave not included? That one has a budget of $185 million. 75.84.150.132 (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it up. I'll check it out, see if there are any official sources for it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Amazing Spider-Man budget
An editor keeps initiating this edit, changing the budget ranking for The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) from $200 million to $230 million. The problem though is that that the budget for The Amazing Spider-Man is unknown. There has been no official statement by Sony regarding its cost, and there have been FOUR reported amounts:
I don't accept the editor's reasoning that the other figures are just "general amounts". They are all general amounts because they are estimates. The $230 million figure is not an exact amount because it is an estimate, so is no more exact than "around $200 million", or indeed "cost the studio about $215 million to produce" or even "$220 million-budgeted". They are all estimates from reliable sources that demonstrate that cost is actually unknown, so as estimates they should all be given equal weighting as per WP:WEIGHT. That means that all four figures should be represented in the article, which they are done via this note: The official cost of The Amazing Spider-Man is unknown; however, various estimates put its cost at $200 million,[153] $215 million,[155] $220 million,[156] and $230 million.[157]
However, since the article has to rank the budgets then a value must be selected for the rank. The consensus for years has been to rank by the lower budget estimate since in the case of Spider-Man, all sources agree at least $200 million were spent on it, but they don't all agree $230 million were spent on it. As per the sources and editing conventions on this article, I don't believe that selecting the upper budget estimate is the correct action. Betty Logan (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Listening to what you said I am in agreement of what you said. Not only in this article but in the film article as well. Which we have had some problems with when it comes to sources as well. Jhenderson777 14:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
As i've mentioned the majority of sources coming out have been listing the 230 million dollar figure. Box Office Mojo is generally very accurate on this matter. As i've mentioned while yes the consensus is over 200 million the figure that is listed the most prominently is 230 million. It is misleading to list the film under the of 200 million budget header when 230 million is the figure most reported. Duhon (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Many sources just copy these figures from other sources so there really is no way to substantiate which figure is really the most accurate unless they clarify where they are getting the information from. What we do have is a range of figures from a bunch of reputable sources, and Box Office Mojo dosn't trump those: one example where BOM is wrong is Sahara (2005 film) which we have down as $160 million but which BOM have down at $130 million; now we know that the film cost $160 million because its accounts where audited in a high profile court case, but yet BOM has a figure that is way off. These other sources such as Variety and Wall Street Journal obviously have their reasons for reporting the figures they do, and we can't discount them. {{Infobox film}} recommends listing all estimates providing a budget range, which we have clarified with a note, so it is not misleading if people read the information which is actually given to them. When there is a discrepency we use the lower bound figure since all the sources at least agree that much was spent, so making an exception in one case would make the whole article inconsistent. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the 230 million dollar budget is the one i have seen listed most. Perhaps placing the amazing spider-man at some mid-point between 200 million and 230 million would make sense? Simply due to first looks many would take the official budget to be 200 million dollars when glancing over the chart, when the majority of sources place the budget at a figure higher than that.Brodey (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
$230 million doesn't get the best hit rate, at least on google; 220 million gets the most hits, followed by 215 million, and then 230 million, while 200 million is impossible to assess because there are so many hits for it passing 200 million at the box-office. But the main problem is by arbitrarily picking an amount or using an average would make the chart inconsistent, and would in fact need to be totally re-written if we were to have a new ranking system for the films. If you actually read the lede and the accompanying note then the expenditure is clearl. It's not the purpose of the chart to list "best guess" estimates, the chart lists the amounts that we *know* has been spent on the film. We know 200 million has been spent, but we can't be sure of the any amount above that figure. We cannot rank by "best guesses", Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should document factual information, so the only other solution is to remove films where there is more than one estimate. Betty Logan (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Betty, this article has a well established consensus, if we change this for Spiderman then there are dozens of films we'd have to change as well. The lower band range is fine, most of the reported figure sites fall under WP:TABLOIDGimliDotNet (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The Dark Knight Rises
According to BoxOfficeMojo The Dark Knight Rises' budget was 250m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.183.89 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If you read the accompanying note and LA Times source, it states "The Dark Knight Rises" cost between $250 million and $300 million to produce. However tax credits brought that total closer to $230 million, said people familiar with the movie's economics but not authorized to discuss them publicly. To that end the Box Office Mojo is consistent with that, but the LA Times is more specific about how much was actually spent. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Nazi propaganda film Kolberg is also quoted as being the most expensice film ever [1] with an estimated cost of $500 million USD. Does anyone have a way of confirming the inflation adjustment of "more then 8 million marks in 1945" = $500 million? (IMO this is hard to believe considering the run-away inflation of the mark at the time.) Obviously wartime inflation of Reichsmarks greatly complicates things, but wiki and some military channel documentary both claim this as the top of cost list, hands down, no contest. Can anyone confirm? Nwilde (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I put it through Wikipedia's German inflation calculator, and it comes to $38 million. It sounds like a similar mistake to what is made with Metropolis. The allies replaced the Reichsmark with the Deutsch mark at a rate of 10:1. The value of the DM was pegged to the dollar, and by definition the RM was ten times higher than the DM. I think a lot of the estimates don't realize that the RM and the DM are two different units, and that you actually have to divide the inflated RM value by 10 to get the DM equivalent. As a result Metropolis is incorrectly said to have cost $200 million (it cost about $25 million), and a similar thing goes on with Kolberg. Betty Logan (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That sounds a lot more reasonable. Thanks!Nwilde (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
This movie is not present, even though it cost 195 million dollars. I would add it myself, but I have not edited this page before. Please add it. I added a tag that should be removed once this updated. --Dagko (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I've added it, although New Line say it cost 185 not 195. Betty Logan (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
World War Z
Someone add World War Z. It now has a confirmed budget of $400 million, making it the most expensive film ever. CynicalCinephile (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
World War Z (film) cost $190 million according to the article. In any case it does need to be added to the list. Coinmanj (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Production budget AND Marketing Budget?
Are these figures both production AND Marketing budget? Sometimes they are merged together and sometimes they are not. Sometimes a marketing budget can be between 25 - 40 million dollars. How do we know if the figures given do include the marketing budget for some but not others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.202.40 (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
What
Is the most expunge film series ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The Hobbit Trilogy
There has been released new information about the budget of the trilogy and apparently $561 million has been spent so far on the trilogy.
It isn't an over-all budget, but obviously if that is how much has been spent on the films, should put this information on "Most expensive multi-film productions" as number 1?
That is obviously higher than the 2nd and 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean film which were joint also just like this trilogy.
No, only films that have been released are added to the list. The individual costs for each film can be added as the films are released (An Unexpected Journey is already on the top chart), and the total for the trilogy will be added when the third one comes out. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
adjusted multifilm?
Shouldn't there also be a table for multifilm productions in the adjusted section? -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Silent era? Color era? Digital era?
No list for the silent era to go with the sound era? And shouldn't the sound era be split when color film becomes common? Or when digital projection/filming became common? -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The table is a bit complicated to update so I thought I'd point it out here so an expert can do it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.71.87 (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The article is probably confusing it with At World's End, the third Pirates movie which is generally regarded as the most expensive film ever. No other source seems to regard On Stranger Tides as the most expensive film ever. Indeed, our own article places its cost at $150-250 million and even the upper-bound estimate would only make it the fourth most expensive film ever. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Franchise
So Ive notcied for past couple of years there was only five top "biggest budget multi-productions" on here. I added the Hobbit, then I saw you Betty took it away, then added it back in again, as well as Twilight?
So now there are six, so if we are gonna do that, shall we add four more so we show the top ten? Back to the Future 2 & 3 could go in there? There was nothing wrong with my edit, so I don't understand why you took it away, then added it back in later. Like said, saw five on her past few years, now six, so should we add other multi-production budgets on too? 92.237.149.249 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The chart is not a top 5; all productions and films that had budgets that exceed $150 million are listed. Twilight still qualifies regardless of whether there are five productions or six, while Back to the Future probably doesn't. The Hobbit was only temporarily removed from teh chart for a few minutes. Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
why does it only have to list ones that have gone over 150? there is nothing stopping us from doing other ones, and there aren't that many other multi-film productions. in the future there will be with Avengers 3 two-parter which is likely to be back-to-back, and then Avengers 2, 3 and 4. obviously can't mention those at moment. But there is nothing stopping us from showing other ones 92.237.149.249 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
$150 million is a fairly common price for a big production now. If we added productions with budgets of just $150 million it would add about another 30 films to the list and take the chart size over 100 films, which would arguably go beyond the mandate of this list. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
But there aren't a great amount of multi-film back-to-back productions. Unless we mentioned others elsewhere? And also inflation?92.237.149.249 (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The cost of the Back to the Future films was $80 million and that's not expensive by today's standards. Even adjusted for inflation it's not that expensive. It was attempted for Superman 1 & 2 but that was aborted after the producers ran out of time and money. Then you've got the 1960s War & Peace which like Back to the Future wasn't all that expensive ($67 million at today's prices). Back-to-back productions is a recent trend really and there hasn't been that many of them. But ultimately if it's not "expensive" it is beyond the scope of this list. Betty Logan (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
What if they were expensive for the time, is that not relevant? Charlr6 (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes it's relevant, and we have the adjusted list and the timeline to accommodate contemporary and inflated records. Currently we don't have an adjusted chart for multi-film productions because there isn't much to adjust for since it's a relatively recent trend. However, it is a feature which will need to be added if the trend continues. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Huge changes undertaken without discussion
A huge number of changes have been undertaken on this article resulting in aesthetic alterations, the removal of content and unsourced changes. No reasons were provided in the edit summaries accompanying these changes. I have reverted these changes but the edit summary box does not provide sufficient space to outline the numerous problems with these changes:
The central alignment of numerical figures: [5]. The figures in this list were "right" aligned, per the convention of English-language financial records.
The "rounding" of figures in the record-holder section: [6]. Typically, figures are most informative when rounded to three or four significant figures so that they can be effectively discriminated between. Given the nature of the timeline i.e. films costing $1 million upwards, the rounding threshold is set to $1,000. This allows films costing under $10 million to be rounded up to four significant figures. This is consistent with how we round budgets in the other charts i.e we don't round down films costing $135 million to $100 million, or films costing $175 million to $200 million. Obviously with films costing $100 million we don't round them to a $1,000, but they are still rounded to three or four significant figures.
The alteration of the budget for Superman in the adjusted chart: [7]. The adjusted figure was changed from $197–201 million to $199 million. The reason the list has a range rather than an exact figure is due to numerical precision: by inflating the budget we are changing a two-digit figure into a three-digit figure, and to do this numerical precision requires us to bound the error i.e. 55 can be represented as anything from 54.5 to 55.4 in three digits.
The removal of the "official" notes: [8]. There is a very good reason for the presence of this note in that film budgets are generally not released and the figures are more often than not leaked or estimated by journalists. In the case where the studio has officially released the figure the list distinguishes these figures from estimates.
The relocation of the "most expensive productions" section: [9]. It is not a bad idea creating a separate section for it, but it does not make sense to relocate it after the adjusted data.
The removal of back-to-back productions from the timeline: [10]. This is sourced content that is integral to the article. There is no excuse for removing it. If the editor believed the data could be better presented then they should have started a discussion on the talk page to discuss the various options. Simply deleting important and sourced data from an article is a destructive act.
The alteration of sourced content: [11]. Both Rambo 3 and Who Framed Roger Rabbit have had their figures altered so they are now inconsistent with the sourcing. The source for Roger Rabbit actually includes the full budget breakdown, and the accompanying note explains why there are discrepancies with other reported figures.
The removal of sourced content: [12] and [13]. No explanation has been given for removing these entries. Removing The Ten Commandments is particulalrly troublesome: i) if you round it to two digits then its budget would be $1.5 million, which puts it on par with When Knighthood Was in Flower (this goes back to the earlier problem of overly aggressive rounding and why it is important to round to three or four digits); ii) the figure reported for The Ten Commandments is the exact figure from DeMille's production records, while we don't know the exact figure for When Knighthood Was in Flower i.e. it may have cost more than Ten Commandments but, without an official record of the figure there is no way of knowing for sure.
Hopefully this explains why certain things are done a certain way in this list. By all means suggestions to improve the article are welcome but please do not undertake such alterations again without consulting editors on the talk page first. Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Further comment Yet further stylistic alterations have been made to the article, reintroducing the central alignment of the financial figures and replacing the asterisks note with color coding for officially acknowledged budget figures. The centralization of the numbers has been reversed several times now and a full explanation was given above: the reason the budgets are right-aligned is because it is a convention of English-language sources to right justify financial sums in charts/tables/accounts etc. There is a reason why numbers are automatically right justified if you type them into a cell in Excel. Currently there is WP:NOCONSENSUS to alter the alignment so the current alignment should remain in place unless there is agreement to alter it. Secondly, removing the asterisks and replacing them with colored cells violates WP:COLOR, which states: "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." Betty Logan (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the two Mockingjay parts should be added to the back-to-back films section. They were filmed back-to-back, and adding their costs together puts them in the list range. --Dagko (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Adding up the costs would be WP:SYNTHESIS, since the sum of their respective individual costs do not necessarily reflect the combined cost. For example, some costs such as salaries may be counted twice, and the second film may have incurred futher costs after the first film was released (and thus doesn't count as a "combined" cost). If you can source a figure for the cost of the combined production then by all means add it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Here we go: Vanity Fair puts the combined cost at $300 million. I will add it shortly. Betty Logan (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
New Star Wars film
Star Wars The Force Awakens budget is 200 million, should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.7.84.43 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
n/a
What's with the three sections with a rank of "n/a"? 172.56.18.132 (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
There is numerical inaccuracy in the Superman entry due to inflating its budget precision from 2-digits to 3-digits i.e. $198-201 million. It is not clear if it is ranked #45 or #51, so the last few entries are not ranked. Betty Logan (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Batman vs. Superman
Batman vs. Superman has a budget of $250 million but why isn't it listed in this article? 173.55.37.52 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Somebody has added it, but the lead prescribes that only films that have been released are admitted to the list (third paragraph). I guess it wasn't on because the film isn't actually released until tomorrow (March 23rd). Betty Logan (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
hello
dose any one want to help with a animated version of this page.15:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Recent edit breaks formatting and source doesn't actually state listed cost
The Variety article listed in ref 1 http://variety.com/2007/more/news/big-budget-bang-ups-1117963551/ Does not indicate a cost of $500 Million for Spiderman 3. The only cost it lists is an acknowledged cost of $258 Million
In addition the changes have broken the formatting.
I signed up to wikipedia to post this issue, so I'd rather not make the reversions myself. Thanks. YoHo1975 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I apologise for the mess and factual inaccuracies you encountered. Ideally the edits that corrupted the article should have been reversed within minutes of occurring by the anti-vandal patrol but it seems to have slipped the net. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we cut the first list to 50 films.82.38.157.176 (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
It would be impossible to cut it down to 50 films because there are many films that occupy the same position, which is why the article uses a "threshold" approach". I think the adjusted chart is around the right size but the nominal chart is over a hundred films now and I agree it needs to be trimmed a bit. While $150 million is still expensive it is a fairly common "tentpole" budget these days so I suggest raising the threshold to (and including) $200 million, which would leave the top table with 42 films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: I see that info/note now for what is included. However, can we add this info in the lead somewhere as prose? IE potentially at the end of the first paragraph like such: "The back-to-back production on the films Avengers: Infinity War and its untitled sequel have an estimate $1 billion budget, which would the highest ever." Or something like that. Just so the info is on the article, though not in the tables? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Well if you read the third paragraph of the lead it makes it clear that the article only documents films that have been released, for one reason or another. It doesn't make sense to add films to the lead that are not then added to the tables. A film can't be a record-holder until it is released anyway so it would be WP:CRYSTAL to add it. Ultimately no other films will be added until they are released so I don't think we should make an exception in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The only reason I thought for including it was because we are linking to this article from the Infinity War article(s) and if a user comes to here from there, they may look to add the information as I did. And given that it has a high potential to be correct in its amount once it does release and will eventually become a record, that seems like something to make a mention of in some form, despite the films having not released yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I have been maintaining this article for a few years now and it's not unusual for huge figures to circulate and then change once the film is released: Avatar was rumored to cost $500 million and then when it came out the studio said it cost $237 million, with independent sources putting the "true" figure closer to $280 million (once you factor in the 40 mil spent on the 3D R&D), which is principally why the rule was introduced. I think $1 billion for two films is such an extraordinarily high figure—and suspiciously rounded—that each part would cost about 500 mil each, which is almost twice as much as any other Marvel film. Heck, throw in the marketing and these films won't even break even by making a billion dollars each! Personally I'm calling "bullshit" on that figure: it's very possible that this may well beat The Hobbit for cost but by holding back until the films are released we will be in a better position to add accurate information and Wikipedia won't be disseminating false facts. Betty Logan (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on List of most expensive films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This chart seems all over the map. Is it based on the net cost or the gross? Right now, it seems like both. I understand that there are notes indicating when certain films got subsidies, but subsidies didn't magically make the film cost any less overall--the only reduce the out of pocket to the producers; the overall gross cost is a constant and represents the actual spend. The other problem with noting subsidies is that not all amounts are known for all films. Justice League 100% got the incentive from the UK, but since we don't know the actual amount, it's gross budget is listed ($300M). If that's the case, shouldn't all the others list gross? Foodles42 (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The article records net negative cost: "Listed below is the net negative cost: the costs of the actual filming, not including promotional costs (i.e. advertisements, commercials, posters, etc.) and after factoring in any tax rebates or credits." It deducts subsidies and tax credits because as a rule this is usually the figure that is given out by production studios or circulating in the media, so it is easier to obtain. For instance, if you look at the budgets for Disney's British productions it tends to be the net budget that is released; for example, Disney stated that John Carter cost $250 million, where in fact the gross cost of the film was over $300 million, which can be corroborated by the HMRC audit. Most of the figures that are logged on Box Office Mojo are in fact approximate net figures; for example, they have Batman vs Superman logged at $250 million but the gross cost of the production was in reality $325 million. This is why I am slightly dubious that the $300 million budget of Justice League is supposedly a gross cost (less than Batman vs Superman if that is true). Do we think it is realistic that a follow-up film with a bigger cast will cost less? How do we know this $300 million figure is the "gross" cost and not the "net" cost? While there are good arguments both ways for logging gross cost vs net cost (and I actually agree with both sides) we have to work within practical considerations: it will be virtually impossible to track down the gross cost of every film that was subsidised or received a tax credit, whereas we can realistically hope to locate a "net" cost for every picture. Therefore the approach taken here is to chart the net cost (which is possible) and add a note for the gross cost (when it is possible to locate such a figure). If there are amounts on this chart that are definitely a gross cost rather than a net cost, then it needs to be corrected. Ultimately an article like this is never going to be 100 percent correct so we just have to make it the best we can with what we can source. Betty Logan (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I see your point and it's hard to argue for another approach given the case you make. So you suspect the Justice League cost is well north of $300 million? I did see the film last night and while places like British Columbia and New Zealand are in the credits for their post production tax credits, I didn't see the UK film program mentioned. Not sure if the UK requires a logo or just a mention (or maybe neither?). But if they only require a "thanks" mention, I may have missed it. Foodles42 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no way to be completely sure, but as a rule the net cost is more likely to be publicised and I would expect the gross cost to be more than Batman vs Superman. I could be wrong though. FilmLA will probably address the subsidy issue in their 2018 report and we can clarify the issue then. Often the information trickles out in the months following release. It took us about a year to get the correct figure for The Force Awakens. Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The reality is this article is never going to be perfect, and if I am honest I think it is very far from perfect. Just look at how far out the estimates were for certain Disney films until the real figures came out via HMRC. Sometimes they are tens of millions out, and in the case of On Stranger Tides it was more than $100 million out; we are dealing with very, very approximate figures in most cases. When the real Disney figures started coming out a couple of years ago I was surprised at just how far out some of these figures are, and I can't honestly say I have a whole lot of faith in some of the figures listed here. Who is to say if On Stranger Tides is really the most expensive film ever? A few years ago there were rumours that Avatar was getting on for half a billion. In that sense I wonder if a ranked chart is a best way of doing it, and perhaps it might be better stuctured like List of box office bombs which also deals with very vague information. On that page we list all the films that could potentially be in the top 100 (by lower and upper bounds) and order them alphabetically. I think that format would work here, and we could have several columns: net cost, gross cost, lowest reported figure, highest figure etc. My worry with the current format is that we are disseminating propaganda rather than facts we can actually vouch for. Betty Logan (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
How are value changes in currencies taken into account?
How is the list taking inflation and changes in purchasing power into account? Would it be possible to show the original budgets, but to only compare the budgets after taking into account the inflation? Cleopatra's budget was 44 million in 1963, and with high inflation, it'd be some 363 millions today and it should be on the list of most expensive films. Titanic was 200 million 1997, and taking inflation into account, it'd compare to 304 million end of 2017.
If the inflation is not taken into account, I feel like we could as well be comparing different currencies.
I don't quite understand what you are asking. The inflation adjusted list uses Wikipedia's built-in inflator which uses the general CPI, which is common for inflation adjustment. The reason Cleopatra's budget does not adjust $363 million is because its production budget was only $31 million and not $44 million, the rest being marketing costs which we don't include in these tables. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Endgame for the Adjusted Inflation section
Resolved
It would still be very high at $356 million Awesomegaming (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Missing Back-to-Back infinity war and endgame
the section mentioned above needs to add those film if we consider could be above the hobbite Trilogy
I agree. Is Infinity War and Endgame one production? If so, the costs would be higher than The Hobbit trilogy, and I say that as a huge The Hobbit fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulo G. G. Ribeiro (talk • contribs) 14:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
We have a joint production cost for The Hobbit, we don't have one for the Avengers films. The expenses have been catalogued separately and you can't just add them together because that would be WP:SYNTHESIS. If a joint production cost is published then it will be added to the table. Betty Logan (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Wings
1927 film Wings had a $2 million budget, so it should be listed on the "record holders" table.
The table says Ben-Hur (1925 film) had a $4 million budget so Wings was not a record holder. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Toy Story 4
there's Toy Story 3, but despite released 9 years later, no Toy Story 4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.54.84.27 (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Toy Story 4 reputedly cost less than $200 million according to sources. Betty Logan (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Rise of Skywalker
it had a big budget — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.119.231 (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
Done Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)