Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Tron 2’s Budget $300 Million? Most Expensive Movie of All Time?

Posted on Thursday, April 9th, 2009 by Peter Sciretta

tron new logo

Could Disney really be spending $300 million on the Tron sequel? Buried in a recently published article in the Vancouver Sun is the following paragraph:

Vancouver post-production units are salivating at the prospects presented by the Disney remake of Tron, which carries a whopping $300 million budget and opportunities aplenty for effects and digital polish. The 1982 version of the film starring Jeff Bridges blazed new trails in computer graphics and you can bet Tron 2.0 will push much further down the pixel path.

Some of you might remember that Time Magazine recently incorrectly attributed a $300+ million budget to James Cameron’s Avatar, but the studio was quick to extinguish those claims (The correct figure was “in excess of $200 million.”) So it is very possible (more than possible, likely) that the Vancouver Sun has the wrong number, but it also isn’t completely out of the question. But for now lets mark this as rumor.

They also inaccurately call the sequel a “remake”. Disney revealed a new title for the film at ShoWest, the same exact title for the first film - Tron. And from what I understand from the leaked bits so far, the plot is somewhat similar to the first film. The whole thing is actually kinda confusing, so I could understand how they could get mixed up.

Spider-Man 3 producers insistedthat the film’s budget didn’t exceed $270 million, but some reports claimed a number closer to $350 million. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End had an estimated budget of around $300 million. But aside from those two films, no film has officially crossed the $240 million budget mark. You can see a nice list of film budgets on wikipedia, although keep in mind that  studio released numbers and actual numbers are always much different.

via: FilmDrunk

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Comments 

Related Posts

Tags

3D, Action/Adventure, Disney/Pixar, Rumors, Sci-Fi, Sequels, ,

  • Nick G.
    This is completely useless information.
    If Disney doesn't spend 300 million on a Pirates of the Caribbean film - which would surely be a succes - then why in the name of everything that is obvious would they spend more than a 'Pirates'-budget on a reboot of a more then 20-year old film. Think for a minute... they're a company, not a brainless person.

    My guess would be that the budget is actually between 100-200 million$, US dollar that is, just like A Christmas Carol, Alice in Wonderland, Prince of Persia, and a lot more of those blockbuster-ish films...

    And it's not being released in the summer, it's actually december.
  • man
    it doesnt even matter if its good or not, daft punk is doing the soundtrack
    and that is why i will show up
  • freemachine
    Studio budgets always puzzle me because you're never really sure if they include everything it took to get the film into the theaters. For example, does the dollar amount listed for "Titanic" include the cost of building the world's largest seawater sound stage Baja California? Reportedly, this facility cost tens of millions of dollars to build. Another example would be the cost of promoting Watchmen. Wikipedia lists the budget as $120 million, but I expect that this figure doesn't reflect the millions of dollars that Warner and Paramount spent promoting the film. I recall seeing previews and posters for Watchmen back during the holiday season. Contrast this to Indiana Jones 4, which modestly rolled out it's commercials, etc. less than a month before the movie opened. So what is the actually cost of Titanic when you figure in the tank, and what's that final cost of Watchmen when you figure in the relentless promotion campaign?
  • I know Disney can afford the initial estimate but I'm thinking this is a rumor. I think if Disney really wanted to go all out for a movie, it would be for a new Pirates movie, not Tron.
  • Well how much it ever will cost, I too hope that they use the money not only for the effects but for a good script, too. Liked the first one - probably still had a good old (Commodore) C64 at the time I saw it for the first time...
  • Mayroth
    Why make a sequel? With the CG we have now why not just remake the original?
  • Does Disney just want to through away 200 mil. And isn't this realeasing in summer? Not a good time.
  • flagnod
    Wow. It better be in 4- or 5-D then. Not just glasses, but sensory inputs for your nose/mouth, hands, and nips.
  • Capt Howdy
    Write your comment here...
  • Capt Howdy
    I worked for Disney for many years. they have a habit of fudging the numbers. I expect a rebuttal from them soon but that doesnt mean its not true.
  • 790
    Spend that money disney. Haha. I'll never see this 3-D reboot.
  • Nick
    Didn't Superman Returns have the budget of $270 million?
  • According to wikipedia, Superman Returns' budget was $209 Million.
  • wasnt that after the tim burton film too??? didnt that money go into the new budget aswell??? im not to sure on it
  • wikipedia also says that they didn't add that money from previously failed projects. If they did, I think the budget would have been around $350 million.
  • Listen, it is likely only 150 Million US.

    I am by no means an expert in Canadian Tax Incentives but first there is US/Canadian currency exchange at 20%, then there is a labour tax credit incentive of 25%, and regional tax credit of 6%. There is also the Digital Animation & Visual Effects 15% tax credit, and seeing as the entire movie is shot in 3-D it could be argued that all costs involved in every frame that goes through the camera is subject to this incentive.
  • Seth
    They're adding the ongoing costs from Return of the Jedi.
  • Marshall
    The first thing that springs to my mind hearing that it's a sequel, but kinda a remake, is Evil Dead 2. That was a "sequel" and continued the story, but was basically remaking the original with new material and a higher budget. Kinda sounds like they're doing the same thing here. Also for the record, Tron was the frickin' shiz. To say otherwise is blasphemy.
  • Can you exaggerate a little more? $300 mil cmon!
  • Dan
    Hint to the studio: Spend at least half the budget on making the perfect script.

    Without that, it isn't worth seeing....
  • Sad isn't it, if they do do that: spend 1.5 million on a final script.

    That's one lucky group of writers.
  • I wouldn't think that Tron 2 would have a large enough established fanbase for Disney to pump that kind of money out. The Pirates movies were huge, so Disney knew it'd make it's money back, but I don't think most general audiences have ever seen/remember the original Tron.
  • Tron will rock! However, I seriously doubt that Disney will dump $300 M or even $200 M on a film like Tron.
  • Frank
    Tron is such a nerdy movie, I highly doubt that it has such a large budget. None of my family or friends even know about the original movie, and they couldn't care less if there's a sequel to be made.


    I call bullshit.
  • And to think, all three Lord of the Rings films were made with only $270 million, making each individual film around $90 million, and they were three hours long. Oh, the good ol' days.
  • Pure genius, my friend. Pure genius.
  • A friend once asked me "Why aren't movie adaptations (the one exception being The Dark Knight) good anymore?"
    To which I responded, "Because Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings and all the other film makers realized it wasn't worth trying anymore."
  • That's got to be a mistake. Pirates and Spiderman were both sequals of very successful movies - the original Tron might have a cult following but it's no Pirates or Spiderman.
  • Budgets like this make me sick.

    Transformers was a huge, realistic effects-heavy movie and that only cost 151.
    This is Tron, and the effects aren't supposed to be photo-real in a real world.

    I generally seem to hate the super-high budget movies. Pirates 3? Terrible. Spidey 3? Even worse. High price tags do not win prizes. Put 100 million of that money to good use.
  • I'm not sure how Transformers looks on the books, but I'm sure all the in-film advertising (i.e. General Motors, US military, etc.) helped to keep the budget at a moderate level.
  • shadow
    Bullcrap. No studio would spend that much on a movie that's predessor tanked at the box office and with no popular director attached.
  • Wow I don't think enough younger people know about TRON for them to be spending 300 million on. Hopefully the large budget will translate to a great film with awesome effects.
  • question. could studios look at giving a budget to a film by not thinking of say box office receipts and take a look down the road say 20 years and be like we can make so much money on new dvd's blu rays and such. or are they really just looking at box office. cause trons still got its fan base pretty damn good right now and how long has it been since it came out???
  • The market for movie making now adays is almost ALL dependent on the idea of post-theatrical release. All movie makers bank on DVD/Blu-Ray sales to gain a profit, as most movies require a lot more money to make than they once did and hardly ever break even from theatrical releases.
  • makes sense to me
  • WTF. TRON was such a crappy, laughable, horribly made movie and they're wasting their money on a sequel to such a horrendous movie.
  • I have to agree I was never impressed with the original film besides the special effects for the time....let's hope they end up making a good "film" focusing on story rather than making it a CGI exercise for the effects company....while I liked the test footage from Comic-Con last summer... we have no idea if this will end up the way of Race To Witch Mountain/At World's End or something good ...don't forget Disney hasn't always had great live-action films...I think after the Pirates trilogy they've taken on a few too many projects putting them a little quickly into production...

    Let's hope Disney starts production soon on John Carter of Mars...I'd rather see it made instead of Sorcerer's Apprentice or Toy Story 3...do we really need another Toy Story or Nicolas Cage wearing a odd wig in a bad movie?

    the numbers sound odd considering most of the money is going into post-production which really shouldn't be costing as much as these effects companies are charging to studios...I always feel that if it's not in camera they're saving money but these bloated budgets tell a different story...considering the Troublemaker Studios effects team can do the same level as most companies with limited funds..seems very suspect to me
  • both you guys are correct. Tron was visually stunning, but lacked a good story. This reboot (or remake or sequel or w/e) will probably be a thousand times better, no doubt.
  • To be honest, when I saw Tron, I liked the visual effects and the idea behind it. But it seemed like everything was so lifeless (Bridges being the exception), almost to the point where it's dull. I kinda agree with you.

    I think people like Tron for it's visual flair, moreson than the movie itself. Or I could be completely wrong.

    Think about this: I'm an advocate on remaking 'bad to average' movies and make the new version better. So I can apply my reasoning to this sequel.
  • they could keep it at the budget of the original and i'd still be fine with it.
  • it's funny in that Vancouver article, they stated that it's a remake, which it's not, and that states the working title of "Tron 2.0" as if it's a direct sequel.
  • wouldnt 2.0 mean an upgrade of some sort or would it have to be tron.2 or ton 1.2 to be an upgrade i unno
  • Corey
    Could that 300 million be in canadian dollars, maybe?
  • I think that would make more sense. It would bring the budget 'down' to $244 million, which seems a lot more reasonable.
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.