Spider-Man 3 To Become Most Expensive Movie Ever… Will It Hurt The Movie?

There’s an interesting article over at Radar Online that takes a look at the skyrocketing budget for Spider-Man 3. It’s looking likely that it will become the most expensive movie to date, with rumours of a current production price tag over $350 million (and that doesn’t even include marketing). The current highest budget belongs to X-Men: The Last Stand, which topped out at $210 million. But does more money spent lead to more money earned? And more importantly, does it make for a better film?

If anything, an overinflated budget seems to make the movie an easy target for critics and moviegoers (ie. Waterworld, which cost $175 million back in 1995, became a laughing stock in the media). It seems like there may already be a Spider-Man 3 backlash brewing, with rumours of poor test screenings and Tobey Maguire saying it was just “okay”. Regardless, I’m pretty sure that Spider-Man 3 will make a TON of money and I don’t think they have anything to worry about (this despite the fact that Spider-Man 2 brought in $40 million less than the first). I also have a strong feeling that this will be my personal favourite of the series. What do you think? Is this massive spending out of character for Sam Raimi? Is Sony getting too greedy? Are you one of the naysayers rooting for Spider-Man 3 to fail?

  • Henrik

    I pre-ordered my ticket the time the clock went to 00.01 8 days ago, picked it up yesterday.

    Thursday May 3rd at 00.01 I will be hooting for this movie along with 1200 nerds. It’s gonna be awesome. I can’t wait for this movie, even though I was pensieve about the whole Venom thing, not really a big fan, I much prefer the old-school villains, the new TV spots have pretty much won me over. I think it’s going to be awesome.

    The backlash is brewing though, as this movie will definitely have a very tough time outdoing Spider-Man 2 which was *so good*.

  • I’m excited, but I definitely agree that topping Spider-Man 2 is going to be really tough. I didn’t even like the first movie, but I walked out the theater with a big smile on my face after seeing 2. I’m hoping we some more of Raimi’s Evil Dead-like stylings (like the Operating Room scene). So awesome.

  • lars

    I was so excited to see it… after the credits came up today, my feelings were mixed. Its definately not the best of the three movies.. overall. technically it is, of course. There are many good scenes, including some kickass action (feels like less then spidey II) and very few funny stuff (could be more). I dont want to spoil anything or say its a failure. The movie is good but just not what I hoped it would be…

  • Henrik

    As for wether or not a budget makes a film better or worse, I won’t say that is the case in general, but when it comes to summer blockbusters, it usually does make the film better. The bigger the FX budget, the better the movie. Spider-Man 2 spent something like 55 million dollars on visual effects, and it definitely improved the movie, compared to how the first one was, even when you take into account the “inflation rate” of effects progression over the 2 years. I thought Spider-Man 2 had effects that were way better than anything coming out at the time, and that is solely because they had the raw cash to throw at it.

    If this cash is put to use to create the same leap forward in regards to the visual effects side of things, I think it will improve the movie. If it’s being used to pay Topher Grace… maybe not so much. Is X-Men 3 the highest budget ever though? Really? I guess it makes sense because they had a shorter timeframe to make it, they would have to spend more cash to get it done, but it certainly doesn’t look like the biggest production in history.

  • Yeah, I heard more about Superman Returns having a huge budget than I did about X-Men 3, but maybe it was smart for them to be quiet about it. According to that Radar Online article, Cleopatra would actually still be the most expensive movie ever made if you account for inflation (it works out to $290 million!).