Talk:List of most expensive films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
NA
This article has been rated as NA-importance on the priority scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 8, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of most expensive films article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] 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. 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. 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.


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

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)

[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. 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

[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 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 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. 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)

[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)
Image:Personalemail.jpg
200px
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)

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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Band of Brothers

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)

[edit] Golden Compass

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Add new movies here

[edit] 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)


[edit] Spiderman

cite news | author = Diane Garrett | title = Red carpet becoming more global | publisher = Variety | date = 2006-06-28 | url = http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117963193.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 | accessdate=2007-04-17}}

  • 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Number One?

Number One of bthe most expensive Movies in Dollar is missing

[edit] 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

[edit] Beowulf

Beowulf (2007 film) cost $150 million. 24.175.73.181 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)