Superheroism On A Budget
July 10, 2006 5:49 AM   Subscribe

Hero Tomorrow. Superman Returns had a budget of $260M. X3? $210M. So what kind of superhero film can you make for a mere $100K? Check out Hero Tomorrow, making its big screen debut next week at the San Diego ComicCon.
posted by grabbingsand (31 comments total)
 
Jeez, I had no idea that movie budgets were cresting 200M these days, how on earth do they ever make it back? X3 is a sequel done on the heels of the previous sequel so I don't see how it could possibly make the 3x budget necessary for everyone to profit handsomely.
posted by mathowie at 6:11 AM on July 10, 2006


I'm sorry... wtf $260M? In what universe? LOTR--which is six times the length, and at least a hundred times the movie--had a total budget of about $350M.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:14 AM on July 10, 2006


Spider-Man 3? $300M.
posted by grabbingsand at 6:15 AM on July 10, 2006


I'd like to know how much of that money is marketing budget, how much is salaries, how much is overhead and how much is actual 'we're shooting a movie etc.'
posted by ao4047 at 6:15 AM on July 10, 2006


Jeez, I had no idea that movie budgets were cresting 200M these days, how on earth do they ever make it back?

Promotions, international sales, pay-per-view, DVDs, etc. They make it work.
posted by Mr. Six at 6:18 AM on July 10, 2006


In no way does that Hero Tomorrow trailer make me want to see the film, though I applaud the "low" budget attempt at the genre.

Also, kinda hard to maintain your secret identity when you've got a headful of dreads, no?
posted by dobbs at 6:32 AM on July 10, 2006


Ska is dead.
posted by ryanissuper at 6:37 AM on July 10, 2006


X3 is a sequel done on the heels of the previous sequel so I don't see how it could possibly make the 3x budget necessary for everyone to profit handsomely.

Considering that X3 brought in $107 million just in its first three days, I think it's safe to say that they'll make back that $210 million fairly quickly.
posted by magodesky at 6:37 AM on July 10, 2006


Jeez, I had no idea that movie budgets were cresting 200M these days, how on earth do they ever make it back?

Well, even Waterworld made money. It's a big world out there.
"The movie received rather mixed reviews, but audiences were shocked by the film's lavish $175-million budget. The movie was intended to have a cost of approximately $100 million but a series of transportations problems (since the movie was shot in the ocean off Kawaaihae), bad weather, sea-sickness from some of the cast, as well as a mysterious accident (in which one of the atolls went loose, killed a marine and crushed a number of boats) caused the budget to soar. Also adding to the multi-million dollar budget was Kevin Costner's posh seaside bungalow at an exclusive Hawaiian resort. All this made it the most expensive movie as of that time. It earned $88 million in the US and managed to recover its budget abroad."
posted by oddman at 6:44 AM on July 10, 2006


how on earth do they ever make it back?

DMCA
posted by rough ashlar at 6:47 AM on July 10, 2006


Ska is dead.
Please remove your urine from my wheaties bowl.
posted by craniac at 6:56 AM on July 10, 2006


Also, kinda hard to maintain your secret identity when you've got a headful of dreads, no?

True, but if Superman can hide his secret identity by putting on a pair of glasses...
posted by banished at 6:57 AM on July 10, 2006


I meant... if Clark Kent can hide HIS secret identity... woooops, kinda let the cat out of the bag there.
posted by banished at 6:58 AM on July 10, 2006


The $260m number being batted around on Superman is said to include the costs of previous abortive attempts at reviving the franchise, but it doesn't include so-called P&A (for prints-and-advertising) costs, which are likely north of $100 million.

But who knows what the actual (or "budgeted") cost was, because the studio doesn't issue that kind of stuff in press releases.

Incidentally, one of the reasons Superman used the Genesis, the fancy-pants new digital camera from Sony and Panasonic, was that by working in the all-digital domain, they could actually reduce the total budget of a very effects-heavy movie.
posted by Joey Bagels at 7:38 AM on July 10, 2006


Joey Bagels, that was taking a hell of a risk. I thought if you used the Genesis device where there's already life, it would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:51 AM on July 10, 2006


If I had to be rescued by a superhero I think I'd chose one whose costume didn't look like it was made out of old stockings and used toilet paper...
posted by Tokil at 9:04 AM on July 10, 2006


Considering that X3 brought in $107 million just in its first three days, I think it's safe to say that they'll make back that $210 million fairly quickly.

To be profitable in Hollywood, you don't just make the money you spent back, that would be a loss for the studio. You generally have to make 3 times the cost of a movie to make profit for the studio after all the actor salaries, ticket sales percentage, and marketing budgets are worked out.

I just don't see X3 ever making a penny over 300M worldwide, even after DVD sales in a year from now, much less the 600M it would take to get the studio ahead.
posted by mathowie at 9:15 AM on July 10, 2006


This looks like a documentary, not a superhero film. In other words, it looks cheap. One of the things I'm learning as a low budget filmmaker is how to make cheap equipment look expensive on screen.
posted by Poagao at 9:15 AM on July 10, 2006


The movie was intended to have a cost of approximately $100 million but a series of transportations problems (since the movie was shot in the ocean off Kawaaihae), bad weather, sea-sickness from some of the cast, as well as a mysterious accident (in which one of the atolls went loose, killed a marine and crushed a number of boats) caused the budget to soar.

God, that would suck. To be born, get through childhood and school, make your way through the world, join and survive the military, only to have the concluding chapter of your life be Waterworld.
posted by JHarris at 9:53 AM on July 10, 2006


According to this website X3 is now at the $425 million mark, and it is still open in many places, plus DVD sales to come of course.
posted by biffa at 10:04 AM on July 10, 2006


The music is sucky, but the film looks good. I'd see it . . . for free.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:12 AM on July 10, 2006


To be sure, Hero Tomorrow looks like it might be good in the way a film like Existo is good. And by "good," I mean truly and utterly bizarre in a way that makes it worth watching with a roomful of snarky folk all armed with beer.
posted by grabbingsand at 10:45 AM on July 10, 2006




Movies do not cost this much to make. It's a series of tax shelters and international license transactions that push the "cost" up this high, but the actual street cost - hiring cast, working on pre- and post-production, shooting, etc. - doesn't approach these levels.

In addition, the reason they release these insane figures is a form of advertising - the public has an expectation about a $200 million movie in terms of effects, action etc, i.e. the higher the dollar cost, the more effects, etc.

In addition, advertising the $200 million price tag differentiates the value of the big budget movie over other movies in the theater to the public that pays the same price for a ticket regardless of the movie.

Of course, none of this makes for a better movie. See Pi, Primer, Memento, etc.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:46 AM on July 10, 2006


Momento was a good movie.
posted by meh at 10:58 AM on July 10, 2006


Maybe that last line was confusing. I meant that higher budgets don't make for a good movie, and cited examples of low budget movies that I thought were good.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:04 AM on July 10, 2006


This site has some interesting stats re: production budgets vs. domestic and worldwide gross.

As for Hero Tomorrow, I'd probably rent it - if there were no $250m blochbusters in...
posted by sharpener at 11:41 AM on July 10, 2006


I'm sorry... wtf $260M? In what universe? LOTR--which is six times the length, and at least a hundred times the movie--had a total budget of about $350M.

Hundred times the movie indeed. But I also suspect that filming away from North America didn't hurt keeping the cost down.

Another thing. If LOTR cost $350 million and brought in almost 3 billion at the box office (and that's not counting the DVD sales avalanche that followed) how the hell did the infamous Hollywood accountants make that show a loss?
posted by Ber at 12:50 PM on July 10, 2006


First, superheroes are so last week. PIRATES are the new hawt.

how the hell did the infamous Hollywood accountants make that show a loss?
They've made great advancements since the still-alive-great Art Buchwald made a very positive stink about it years ago. Hollywood's best special effects are in its Books.

Yeah, Hero Tomorrow had too much of an 'indie look' to work for me, even on a parody level. The ugliest films about Superheroes are the documentaries shot at comic book conventions.

The part in the website about the difficulty getting "clearance" to show comic book covers in a comic book shop was interesting... like the reason "WKRP" will never be on DVD (in its case, music clearances). Just another reason to hate the Copyright Nazis and their allies the Evil Axis of Product Placement.
posted by wendell at 3:11 PM on July 10, 2006


I just don't see X3 ever making a penny over 300M worldwide

Well then you're not looking carefully enough, because X-Men 3 has already made $436.8 million, and the DVDs aren't even out yet.
posted by willnot at 4:36 PM on July 10, 2006


Worst. Superhero costume. Ever.</comicbook guy>
posted by EndsOfInvention at 5:39 PM on July 10, 2006


First, superheroes are so last week. PIRATES are the new hawt.

Hipsters may have abandoned the superhero in favor of pirates, but the post-hipsters are getting ready for the next batch of cowboy movies. The genre hearkens to the retro sentiment of pre-Cold-War America and opens up the plaid-shirt roughneck look after a few years of shirt n' tie Clarkentian fashion statements.

Plus, the only special effects budget you need for a Western is $6 for a tumbleweed.
posted by sixacross at 10:18 PM on July 10, 2006


« Older Geek goddesses/calendar girls   |   Touch of Evil (Zombies)? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments