"Spider-Man 3" Producer Explains Bigger Budget
Sequel budgets always get higher as they have to top their predecessors. But when the franchise is "Spider-Man," the studio tends to loosen the checkbook. Producer Laura Ziskin explained why "Spider-Man 3" had to cost more than the previous two.
"Sam’s appetite and I believe the audience’s appetite, I don’t think we could put out a third movie and say, 'We’re going to give you less than we gave you the last time,'" she said. "I think we feel that we have to raise the bar. We said that to Sony going in so our visual effects budget was probably 30% higher and I think that’s reflected in the number of action sequences, the scale of the sequences and the complexity of course of Sandman. And then the talent obviously made more money in each successive movie which they well deserved. So that’s where the increase in the budget came." [The budget is estimated by some at up to $350 million in production costs alone.]
Below the line, as they say, everything was equal. "From a production standpoint, we were pretty equivalent to the last movie in terms of our production period. The shooting costs, there was a cost of living increase but not a huge one. The biggest increase in the budget which I think you see reflected in the movie was in the visual effects."
Sandman was a brand new concept for visual effects teams. From analyzing the physics of sand to creating a scene where a human being forms in the grains, VFX supervisor Scott Stokdyk spent three years raising the bar.
"We have to prepare these sequences before the script is completely written, so sometimes these sequences have to be developed and the script gets written. We know basically what’s going to happen in the story and these events have to take place. The storyboarding of that sequence and the conceptualizing and the conversations with Sony Imageworks probably was our first conversation about the visual effects of the movie. That shot was delivered two weeks ago yesterday. The very last shot in the movie. So that’s how long. That shoot took almost three years to create."
"Sam’s appetite and I believe the audience’s appetite, I don’t think we could put out a third movie and say, 'We’re going to give you less than we gave you the last time,'" she said. "I think we feel that we have to raise the bar. We said that to Sony going in so our visual effects budget was probably 30% higher and I think that’s reflected in the number of action sequences, the scale of the sequences and the complexity of course of Sandman. And then the talent obviously made more money in each successive movie which they well deserved. So that’s where the increase in the budget came." [The budget is estimated by some at up to $350 million in production costs alone.]
Below the line, as they say, everything was equal. "From a production standpoint, we were pretty equivalent to the last movie in terms of our production period. The shooting costs, there was a cost of living increase but not a huge one. The biggest increase in the budget which I think you see reflected in the movie was in the visual effects."
Sandman was a brand new concept for visual effects teams. From analyzing the physics of sand to creating a scene where a human being forms in the grains, VFX supervisor Scott Stokdyk spent three years raising the bar.
"We have to prepare these sequences before the script is completely written, so sometimes these sequences have to be developed and the script gets written. We know basically what’s going to happen in the story and these events have to take place. The storyboarding of that sequence and the conceptualizing and the conversations with Sony Imageworks probably was our first conversation about the visual effects of the movie. That shot was delivered two weeks ago yesterday. The very last shot in the movie. So that’s how long. That shoot took almost three years to create."
Related Items
| Celeb: | Laura Ziskin |
| Movie: | Spider-Man |
| Spider-Man 2 | |
| Spider-Man 3 |
(1-20 of 23 posts) | Reply
on May 02 2007 09:18 AM They shouldn't have to explain this. It's their business. As long as the movie is good, it doesn't matter what the budget it. Unfortunately, there will always be people who can't cope with the fact that not every movie is (supposed to be) a low-budget art flick. (Reply to this) |
on May 02 2007 10:40 AM In reply to this comment (#863564) [b]oh I agree!!![/b] I agree 100% I can't stand the RT sheeps on here who just repeats and copies every critisism just to make them believe they are smart and delusions of knowing what they are talking about! who cares if this movie will costs about $500 mil! People have no clue how complicated and how much time and money it takes to make a huge spectacular movie these days! The bar is being raised higher and higher with every blockbuster new flick! None of this will matter come MONDAY MORNING when we hear the BO numbers shattering and utterly crushing all records and numbers in the record books! I can't wait to see this!! (Reply to this) |
on May 02 2007 10:47 AM I'm a huge Spiderman fan, but for some reason I have a bad feeling about this. Maybe it's the fact that Kirsten Dunst sings 2 songs and Spidey cries. Not the kind of wimpiness I expect from a Spiderman movie. Hope this is not the let down Pirates 2 was. (Reply to this) |
on May 02 2007 11:04 AM Wimpiness? *shakes head* (Reply to this) |
|
on May 02 2007 11:28 AM In reply to this comment (#863567) In my hometown of Whoville, wimpiness is a word we use to describe weakness. If the Grinch sang or cried we'd call him a wimp. Like the Grinch, Spiderman is not supposed to cry. Although even the Grinch cried when he saw Jim Carey's portrayal of him, but then again who didn't? (Reply to this) |
|
on May 02 2007 12:00 PM In reply to this comment (#863568) guess you missed the part where peter parker cried in spiderman 1? (Reply to this) |
|
on May 02 2007 12:09 PM yeah. Peter Parker isn't exactly a mans man. he is a wimpy dork who got bitten by the right/wrong spider. The term wimpiness is irrelivent here. People like spiderman not just because of visual effects. People relate to Spiderman more because he is relatable. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 02 2007 12:30 PM just so you guys know, movie budgets are rarely what they claim to be. often times, the studio will throw a number out there because it gives a film a certain clout, either lower or higher than the actual cost. in other words, if their advertised budget is lower than the actual cost, they're able to say "look what we did on a shoestring" and if it's higher, it creates a buzz. in this case, every article written about the movie's budget is advertising for the movie, in a way. they like the press. it intrigues people, and viewers say "i want to see just how much they raised the stakes". (Reply to this) |
|
on May 02 2007 12:46 PM i dont know why sand is such a huge concept. im pretty sure that the mummy films had sequences similar to spiderman and it didnt cost 500 million to do (Reply to this) |
|
on May 02 2007 12:47 PM seriously i'm a huge fan of the movies and am going to see it this weekend - i just hope on monday it will be a "grindhouse box office repeat" just because that would be so funny - next to impossible for happening though - but if it did i would have a heart attack at my computer (Reply to this) |
on May 02 2007 12:58 PM Why is RT doing all of does it matter I won't be able to see this on opening weekend so I will try the weekend after but still nobody cares what the production budget is the movie will easily make it back unless it $500 million which it is not. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 02 2007 01:46 PM In reply to this comment (#863569) Peter Parker cried, not Spiderman. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 02 2007 02:29 PM In reply to this comment (#863575) Uh, I don't want to spoil the movie for you or anything, but... Peter Parker and Spider-man are the same guy. (Reply to this) |
on May 02 2007 04:28 PM In reply to this comment (#863576) Hahahahahaha!!!! I knew it! I got you now Spiderman! Thanks kid! (Reply to this) |
on May 02 2007 04:35 PM This movie will be great none the less, ppl complaining about Parker crying,etc-thats for the emotional effect! Spider Man is a human story which is why they go to the trouble of showing everyday problems in Parkers life( i.e. Spider Man 2). I dont know why pple keep complaing. These movies are the best thing that has happened to comic book heroes since Richard Donners first Superman movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 02 2007 04:37 PM In reply to this comment (#863576) [b]WELL, DUHHHH![/b] You had to go and do it, didn't' you? Yes, everyone here except for J Jonah Jamieson knew that Peter Parker and Spiderman was the same guy. Now thanks to you Jamieson is going to print this 'secret' in the Daily Bugle and Spideman rman is going to be toast. Thanks a lot bub, I hope you're happy. (Reply to this) |
on May 02 2007 04:42 PM In reply to this comment (#863580) Cindy Lou, I don't know what you're on today, but I want whatever it is! (Reply to this) |
|
on May 02 2007 08:39 PM I'd rather have a more impressive story than more gargantuan effects. There were many, many smaller-scope storylines in the Spider-man comics(even involving Venom) which were truly page-turning and emotionally catching. The REAL spectacle is in how a story engages it's audience. it doesn't sound like Spider-man 3 is going to manage very well where it counts. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 03 2007 07:05 AM Someone can have my theatre seat--I am going to pass on Spider-man 3 even though I was first in line for Spider-man 2 (Reply to this) |
on May 03 2007 07:30 AM In reply to this comment (#863583) Don't worry, it'll be filled. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Links
Related Articles
Most Discussed
- Tomatometer Watch: Will Avatar Live Up To The Hype? (236)
- Awards Tour 2009: Golden Globe Noms Here! (133)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Girlpower Rules Again with Princess at #1 (70)
- Awards Tour 2009: Inglourious Basterds Lead Critics Choice Noms (43)
- Awards Tour 2009: Avatar Best Picture at NYFCO! (38)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 1 (37)
- Weekly Ketchup: James Cameron Plans a Fantastic Voyage (33)
- The Effects of Where the Wild Things Are (30)
- Robert Downey Jr. talks Sherlock Holmes & Iron Man 2 - RT Interview (21)
- Critics Consensus: Princess, Invictus Are Certified Fresh (21)
Latest News
- Awards Tour 2009: Golden Globe Noms Here! (133)
- What We're Watching on Blu-ray from Paramount Pictures! (4)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: Inglourious Basterds and a Hangover (9)
- Awards Tour 2009: Avatar Best Picture at NYFCO! (38)
- Awards Tour 2009: The Hurt Locker Wins New York Film Critics Circle! (6)
- Awards Tour 2009: Inglourious Basterds Lead Critics Choice Noms (43)
- Awards Tour 2009: LAFCA: The Hurt Locker Tops List (12)
- Awards Tour 2009: The Hurt Locker Dominates Boston Society of Film Critics (18)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Girlpower Rules Again with Princess at #1 (70)
- Weekly Ketchup: James Cameron Plans a Fantastic Voyage (33)
Latest Interviews
- Robert Downey Jr. talks Sherlock Holmes & Iron Man 2 - RT Interview (21)
- Director Ruben Fleischer Talks Zombieland (2)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Eric Bana talks Love the Beast - RT Interview (12)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (23)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (8)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (15)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (23)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (9)
- Wolverine Creator Len Wein Talks About the Film (28)
Latest Features
- The Effects of Where the Wild Things Are (30)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 2 (7)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 1 (37)
- Five Favorite Films With Avatar's Sam Worthington (55)
- Exclusive: The World of Where the Wild Things Are (10)
- Sundance 2010: RT's 10 Most Anticipated Movies (42)
- 10 Horrifically Profitable Films (46)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (106)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (107)
- Five Favorite Films With Zombieland Director Ruben Fleischer (25)
IGN RSS Feeds