Spider-Man, Spider-Man, costs whatever a spider can ...’
Spider-Man 3 opens Friday, and Ed Adams (of “Ed Loves Bacon” fame) and I agree that it’s the best film of the three. No matter how much one likes the film, however, the most truly amazing thing about Spider-Man 3 may be how much it costs.
This Reuters story from early April estimated production costs of more than $250 million. More recently, Kim Masters of Radar and Slate has written here and here that the actual price tag – which Sony Pictures vehemently denies – may be more than $350 million. (!) Masters adds, “The studio says the film cost a mere $270 million, which keeps it under the inflation-adjusted cost of the longtime ‘most-expensive-ever’ title holder, Cleopatra ($290 million in today’s dollars). Still, as far as we can tell, Spider-Man 3 is the most expensive picture ever admitted to.”
I’m surprised that the cost of making movies doesn’t inspire more commentary. I remember in the 1980s, the entertainment press would go crazy over reports of the expense of films like Heaven’s Gate, Ishtar and Waterworld. Then Titanic had the biggest budget ever – something like $200 million – but when it became the most financially successful movie in history (not adjusted for inflation), the expense of films seemed to fade as a hot-button issue. Maybe it’s finally coming back. Reportedly Superman Returns cost more than $260 million, and Masters estimates that Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End will cost nearly $300 million. The main reason these particular films cost so much is primarily due to the increased expense of and reliance on CGI effects.
Photo © 2007 Columbia Pictures