The 10 Most Inexplicably Expensive Movies Ever Made

Disney’s Oz the Great and Powerful is out this Friday, in case you haven’t looked at a magazine or a television or the side of a bus recently, and while we know it’s a big-budget would-be Mouse blockbuster, attempting to replicate the astonishing (and frankly inexplicable) success of Burton’s Alice in Wonderland three years back, we still had to pick our jaws up off the floor when we got a look at its monster budget: $325 million in production and marketing costs. Yes, you read that right: 325. No extra numbers in there.

Look, there’s no question that creating flying CG monkeys and putting expressions on James Franco’s face are expensive propositions, but seriously: 325 million dollars. As big and bright and boisterous as the movie looks, that still seems way out of proportion with what anyone in their right mind should spend on a movie. But we’ve come a long way from the days when movie observers were shocked by the $44 million spent on Heaven’s Gate or $115 million on True Lies; big movies routinely cost in the hundreds of millions, by the time you pay stars, pony up for special effects, and stick ads for them on every vertical surface. But some movies cost so much, we’re not sure where the hell the money went. For example:

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
Cost: $300 million

Oz’s $325 million price tag could end up making it the most expensive movie ever made. The previous record holder is this, the third film in the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, released in 2007, and while we know it costs a few bucks to buy Johnny Depp’s eyeliner and animate some pirate ghosts, why did this thing cost $300 million? Don’t they just shoot these movies on the Pirates rides at DisneyWorld? (It’s been a while since I’ve seen any of them.) One thing we can be sure of: they didn’t spend all that money buying an airtight script.

Filed Under:

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
radfahrerwilli 7 pts

How did you manage to miss "Cutthroat Island", the Geena Davis vehicle that bankrupted Carolco and pretty much killed whatever was left of her film career?  This turkey's budget was almost $100 million, and ended up with a box office take of only only $11 million.

Wavescorx 6 pts

Jason Bailey,Hi! Just wanted to drop a line to offer my input. This article represents the worst in journalism, if one could even call it that.  One segment I'd call into question is the bit about Tangled, which you imply strongly (and inaccurately) is a film produced in the medium of hand-drawn animation. Clearly it is not. Furthermore, it postulates that hand-drawn animation is more expensive to produce than digital/computer animation. This is as unfounded a point as it is moot. "Presumably" hand-drawn animation is more expensive? Why presume anything if it can be researched within the few seconds it takes to type "[film title] + budget" into Google.For instance, according to Wikipedia, The Frog and The Princess (medium: majority of it is hand drawn) had a budget of $105 million. That same year, 2009 found Pixar releasing Up (a computer/digitally-animated film). It's budget? $175 million. That's about as close of a comparison as you can make - - same year, both big studio films that strive for the best in quality. In those side by side comparisons, hand-drawn animation appears to have been cheaper. Is that always the case? Nope. Which brings me to my next point.The article finds itself in the unenviable position of continuing the stereotype that animation is a genre. Movies are movies. Period. Stop-motion, hand-drawn, computer/digitally animated, live action, hybrids. These are mediums. Budgets will vary greatly. So was Tangled really inexplicably expensive? Hmmm...not really. Had you desired to produce a compelling piece, you could have made what appears on its outer-most surface "inexplicable" actually quite enlightening. The production was in development for 6 years and was marred by change-ups in directors (including losing Disney animator legend Glen Keane at its helm along the way). Now had you wanted to make something great, you could have looked into why all that happened and presented it in a fascinating fashion. What you did instead is write a fluff piece with one section so full of easily recognizable inaccuracies that I can't even bother reading the rest for fear I maybe reading a future Snopes entry.Please write better things.  I don't have time to read crap, especially when so much of my time waiting for my plane to board is spent having to write a response like this.Best, Travis

Wavescorx 6 pts

 Wavescorx Last point I neglected to mention the first time:  Cell is misspelled.  Should be "cel" when in regards to animation.  However, actual painted cels have been out of use by Disney since 1989.  Ok, I'm done.

rickcortes 6 pts

 Wavescorx You should've written this article. Clearly this Jason Bailey guy is a high-caliber hack.

danceswithpeeps 5 pts

I remember watching some show when I was a child about the making of Cleopatra.  There was talk about how expensive the costumes were, but the part I remember is that they made a pair of stockings out of gold for Elizabeth Taylor to wear.  They actually used real gold to make the thread then knitted them out of the thread.  The stockings were worn for one scene where she descends a flight of stairs.  At that time they had cost $3,000.  I have no idea how much they would cost now with the current price for gold.

 

Several years later I watched the movie just to see that scene, but it had apparently been cut for runtime on television.

Hemera 5 pts

I like 13th Warrior, and to be fair, as far as the budget goes, there were a lot of scenes that were cut. And the dark parts of the moving had a purpose, to show the terror of an attach by a believed-to-be-supernatural enemy and to show the claustrophobic nature of a most-likely suicidal trip into the enemy's cave dwellings.. You can see the production design very clearly in all of the un-dark moments.

DarinJohnHocking 6 pts

 Hemera I also liked that movie, but remember wondering at the time why Antonio Banderas was clearly slumming in a movie with what looked to me to be fairly low production values.

belassoff 5 pts

If you are including marketing costs, then your answer is marketing. Marketing is expensive and most studios don't count it in the cost of making the movie.

KOF 7 pts

 belassoff These are the negative costs, the actual costs of production from what I can tell.  Marketing costs are a separate expense, and they can be equal to or, in some cases 2.5X the actual cost of making the movie.

Runaway costs in films have a lot to do with re-shoots and "firm bids" from VFX companies (i.e. the studio OK's a "top" budget and the contractor will do everything like clock in OT, etc. to drive the cost there).  But, a lot of this is, ahem, the fuzzy accounting that Hollywood uses which is secretive as whatever the President's password is for an executive order.

Here's one example: contract terms on above-the-line (i.e: stars) items.  A studio will pay an actor, let's say $10M but they will also pay the 10 percent due to the agent and another 15 percent due the manager and 5 percent to the lawyer.  So, $10M becomes $13M.  Add in per-diems/weekly expenses for the star for hotels, personal entourage, wardrobe, petty cash while on location and this could run in the 100s of thousands a week while shooting.  That ain't salary.  Follow, so far?  Now, if a star is asked to return to re-shoot something, and it's past a certain date - like 3 months after wrapping - the contract could stipulate the studio must pay the actor $1M a day (in the $10M level example) plus expenses for taking the "performer" away from whatever it she/he is doing.  Hollywood is a small place and everyone back-splashes everyone else because it's all stockholders' money.  The sacrificial lamb is the Chairperson of the studio.  Once costs spiral out of control, the studio head has no choice but to finish the film, even if she/he knows the people below have been robing the left pocket to pay the right.....

 

Sorry for the long missive.  

 

Read Edward Jay Epstein's "The Hollywood Economist" - as good a layperson's read on how this stuff works.  Wildly fun and eye-popping.....

 

(i'm not Mr. Epstein or endorsing the book, just trying to shed light on a good post by Flavorwire :-))