Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire" Production Costs

This is topic "Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire" Production Costs in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002901

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 01-25-2004, 02:47 AM:

I was reading this morning that the (way) upcoming "Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire" (2005) will cost $308 million to make! Isn't that just crazy? Are they really banking on making so much off that to justify the initial costs?

quote:
Director Mike Newell says that this flick is going to cost — are you ready for this? — $308 million, making it the most expensive movie ever made. Plus, it may be four hours long, with an intermission. (The Movie Box, Sunday Mail) Source

Anyone have an idea what the current leader is for most exspensive movie?

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-25-2004, 02:49 AM:

Part of the production cost is so high because I am going to play the villain. Sorry, but quality costs!

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 01-25-2004, 05:05 AM:

I'm going to predict a split release ala Reloaded and Revolutions. Warner would have to be crazy to do it any other way.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 01-25-2004, 06:19 AM:

The average intake worldwide from the two harry potter movies was about 750 million. This installment will in fact be split in two, ala matrix 2 and 3. I expect that these will be better than the matrix sequels however, considering the source material.

Plan on that 300 million making about 1.5 billion over two installments. Call it a good investment.

Ciao

Dave

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-25-2004, 09:10 AM:

I could make that picture for half that amount.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-25-2004, 10:09 AM:

And I bet...with all that money they aren't going to budget for a 65mm shoot...you have to cut costs somehwere. [Roll Eyes]

Steve

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-25-2004, 08:38 PM:

I could make that picture for twice that amount.

Where's my Hi8 video camera?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-26-2004, 12:02 AM:

Does "Titanic" still hold the lead for most expensive movie ever made? That's also inquiring about the "single movie" record, not two or three films made at one like the case of the LOTR movies or the forgettable "Matrix" sequels.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 01-26-2004, 12:19 AM:

I think 'Pearl Harbor' may have been more expensive to make than 'Titanic'...

-Aaron

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 01-26-2004, 01:31 AM:

Estimates are

Titanic $200m
Marketing $40m

Pearl 140m
Marketing $70m