Talk:List of most expensive films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of most expensive films article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

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. 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" !

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. Tnikkel 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.

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. Tnikkel 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. Tnikkel 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

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.) Tnikkel 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. Tnikkel 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Combining 2 Most expensive films... created in the United States? 3 Lord of the Rings, and "inflation-adjusted" question 4 Narnia movie issue 5 Pirates listed twice 6 Pirates 2 7 Template 8 missing Superman Returns 9 Metropolis

[edit] Combining

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. Tnikkel 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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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 mocvies. 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 million US$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. Tnikkel 07:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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

Nevermind, I see what you are saying. Bignole

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

[edit] Pirates listed twice

Why is Pirates...Black Pearl listed twice, one for $140 million, and another for $125 million?

[edit] 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

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!

Patrick1982 23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The guy that runs The-Numbers.com. (click the image on the right to see the email)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Metropolis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_%28film%29 That cost about $200million in todays money. Where is it on the list? Source - http://www.moria.co.nz/sf/metropolis.htm Popher 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)