Talk:List of most expensive films

Pirates listed twice

Why is Pirates...Black Pearl listed twice, one for $140 million, and another for $125 million? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.77.37 (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2006

Number One?

Number One of bthe most expensive Movies in Dollar is missing

What about transformers 1 and 2: revenge of the fallen

THese movies are very expensive !!! Tranformers 2 cost them 225 million IT SHOULD BE ON THE LIST!!!

Avengers IW & EG cost $1B?

According to director Joe Russo, Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame each had a budget of $500 million, making them the most expensive films. Is this considered a good source? https://www.murphysmultiverse.com/avengers-infinity-war-and-avengers-endgames-production-budget-was-1-billion/ TdanTce (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly very compelling, and plausible. The director should have a pretty good idea how much these films cost, although he may have not factored in the rebate (i.e. the tax credits Disney was able to claim back). The root source appears to be Screencrush; they also take a pop at Wikipedia there, although it is patently clear that we are getting the figures from Deadline Hollywood, so I find it strange that the author is taking a swipe at our article. Russo literally concedes the "true" budget hasn't been reliably reported, and the reason for that is because the studios don't give out this information. I will look into it this weekend, and see if HMRC have updated their tax records. Personally I think we are low-balling, and 500 mil per movie is probably near the mark. Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've done some digging and have found the financial records logged in the UK tax database. After its tax rebate Infinity War and Endgame cost a combined $1.255 billion. I have logged the transactions below. The years cover the tax year i.e. 2020 covers the 2019/20 tax year. The amounts reflect when the production was invoiced, not when the money was spent (hence transactions logged in 2020/21). Unfortunately it took a fair whack of original research to dig out the information so we can't use these figures, but I can confirm that what Russo said is correct. The combined production costs exceeded $1 billion. Betty Logan (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a stupid question, but if your research confirms Russo's figures, can we not consider his quote a good source and update the table? Even his "lowballed" estimate of $500 million each puts them at the top. TdanTce (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not a stupid question. The films cost over $500 million, and that is what Wikipedia should be recording. I think we could update the article using Screencrush as a source. The Russo brothers have acknowledged the cost; they directed the films so should have a pretty good idea, and financial records bear them out. However, I think this highlights a serious problem with this page. There are many other films I can look up and the end cost bears no relation to the figures on this page. The Force Awakens also cost $500–600 million after factoring in its rebate. We need to solve this problem of these financial records being published for us all to see, but not being allowed to use them because they constitute original research. So what I have decided to do is submit a Freedom of Information request to Inland Revenue for a full list of films, their costs and rebates. Betty Logan (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Separate from all that, their wiki pages claim they were filmed back to back. Even with the costs listed, that would put them over the Hobbit trilogy. Is there a reason they don't qualify for back to back? 207.138.192.28 (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to take two separate budgets for two different films, and treat their sum as one budget for a single production. While there clearly is a correlation, sometimes the "single" budgets can double-count costs, or the budget of the joint-production may exclude costs if extra work is undertaken at a further date on just one film (this was the case for one of the Pirates films, which had re-shoots and did not count towards the joint budget). I don't think anybody disputes that the films together cost roughly $1 billion (the audited accounts that I reproduced below show this to be the case), but we are restricted by policies such as WP:TRUTH. We need a reliable source that gives us a combined figure. I agree it is a ridiculous situation though; both the director and teh British government say the films cost over $1 billion. I will have a look around the internet this weekend to see if I can turn up anything useful we can use. Betty Logan (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Production costs for "Assembled productions III" (Infinity War and Endgame combined)

Year	Gross amount (£ sterling)	Tax credit (£)	Net cost (£)	Net cost ($ US)
2017	247,515,120	10,246,243	237,268,877	293,649,600
2018	429,947,106	11,009,900	418,937,206	558,582,941
2019	293,453,342	11,638,538	281,814,804	359,457,658
2020	28,089,932	1,146,630	26,943,302	34,587,037
2021	3,902,419	206,319	3,696,100	5,084,044
2022	3,424,232	111,740	3,312,492	4,084,454
Total	1,002,907,919	34,359,370	971,972,781	1,255,445,735

Question

@Betty Logan: just curious, how come all the table entries are sole amounts with no ranges? (where applicable) Thanks - wolf 00:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

If the ranges were to be added to the chart then the ranks wouldn't make sense, which is why we don't have ranks at List of biggest box-office bombs. If you take the new Avatar as an example, then theoretically it could be ranked in any of the top five spots, depending on its true cost. So if you are going to have ranks then you have to pick a number. In this case the "official/audited" budget takes precedence, but when we are entirely reliant on estimates or anonymous sources then the lower-bound estimate is used. Again, using Avatar 2 as an example, there are multiple sources putting it in the 350–400 range, with Deadline at 460 as an outlier. The sources are very vague about the actual cost, but they all agree the film cost north of $350 million. There is no reason why the ranks can't be removed and replaced with ranges like what is done at the bombs article, but the format of this article was already well established before I took it one and I have simply never attempted to restructure it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If you decide to make changes and include ranges, (like with list of b.o.bombs), lemme know... I'm happy to help if I'm able. Cheers - wolf 07:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Avatar Way Water

Film budget should be listed as 405 million. Than the budget is in the middle estimate range. Why would the lowest number get picked? Than entire range gets ignored. Thats 111 million 111 possible numbers if the range is accurate. Super unlikely budget happens be 350 on the dot the lowest number in the range when theres 110 other numbers could land on. Middle is fairest option and does not ignore entire budget estimate range. If every website lists 350 million as the low range doesnt mean thats accurate or even close the real number. 69.117.142.49 (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What you are proposing is WP:Original research. None of the sources put the budget at $405 million. Most of the sources go with $350 million, while The Hollywood Reporter goes with 350–400, and Deadline is an outlier at $460 million. So even if original research were not against policy, $405 million would not be representative of the reported budget. Your suggestion would also have implications for other entries on the list too e.g. Age of Ultron would have to be "upscaled" to $430 million since its upper-bound estimate is $495 million. Why the lowest number? As explained above, all the sources agree that the film cost at least $350 million, so that is the only number we can be really sure of. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Star Wars

I don't think that Star Wars 7 and 9 budget is too high, Forbes clearly make a mistake. 151.28.43.200 (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

They're not. The account filings are publicly accessible from HMRC. Betty Logan (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that isn't a reliable source 95.245.197.56 (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It is discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Budgets_revisited_/_Caroline_Reid_and_Forbes.com. HMRC is a rock solid source (unless Disney are committing tax fraud) and Caroline Reid is a seasoned journalist with a relatively high profile in the UK. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

is obvious that Disney is committing tax fraud or the movie is a massive flop ans it wasn't because Disney made two others sequels. 95.245.197.56 (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You would need to provide evidence of that. We don't remove sourced claims simply because editors disagree with the source. Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Link to past discussion about additional budget sources has been archived and moved Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_81#Budgets_revisited_/_Caroline_Reid_and_Forbes.com. -- 109.78.198.193 (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Please note carefully that figures quoted might not include all production costs, and may only include UK based spending that has to be declared for tax breaks. USA spending and some post production might not be included in the financial records provided for UK tax credits. Also even if you take the sources at face value, it doesn't seem entirely clear to readers that figures being listed here are only the 'net cost after tax credits, not the gross total up front spend, the actual production budget that had to be put up to get the film made. I disagree entirely with the parent post, if anything Forbes (and this Wikipedia list article) are low-balling it, not stating the full costs in the accounts, and those are still not necessary the real total costs for the whole production. Hollywood accounting! -- 109.78.198.193 (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The accounts submitted to HMRC will include all of the costs up to the end of the fiscal year in which the report covers. The way the Film Tax Relief fund works is that an incorporated company is set up just for the production of the film. The "company" houses all of the costs incurred from pre-production, filming and post-production. This will also include any costs incurred outside of the tax jurisdiction. Obviously, the tax credit is only applied to the expenditure that qualifies, but the tax return covers the complete expenditure on for the film for any given year. The reason the full expenditure has to be logged is because qualification for the credit depends on a minimum of UK core expenditure of 10%. If you have a full set of tax returns (which can stretch to 2–3 years after the film is made) then in principle you will have a complete record of the full expenditure on the film (barring development, marketing and distribution costs).

As for whether the "gross" or the "net" represents the "true" budget, it depends on how you look at it; the gross figure represents the market value of the production, while the net figure represents the sum of money that is ultimately spent and has to be recouped. I don't think it is a question that concerns this article. We prioritise net to be consistent with the other figures in the article, which are mostly estimates which traditionally represent the net figure. It is is true that sometimes the sources don't always make the distinction. The article isn't perfect, it can only be as good as its sources at the end of the day. Betty Logan (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"it depends on how you look at it". As a reader of an encyclopedia I hope things would not depend too much on interpretation and that articles would be clear and not misleading, and avoid presenting incomplete information as if it was definitive. (I believe the price paid and money spent up front is true the cost, irrespective of getting rebates cashback or tax credits later.) In most cases believe readers are better served by providing a range than by switching to a single figure without clear consensus.

As an occasional editor of an enclopedia I thought there would be a guideline to make this clearer, but aside from the Template:Infobox film advising editors to keep both sources I haven't seen any better advice on this. In the case of this list article I can understand making some simplifications and generalisation and doing the best with the available sources but my concern is editors looking at this article then in good faith removing details from the film articles (lead section and Infobox in particular) isntead of trying to explain in the article body. (Again as I said before I'd be very surprised if the UK records included all the post production and USA located costs.) -- 109.78.198.193 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't really make much sense to have a range in a ranked table. The net figure is the industry "standard" for presenting budgets, because from the studio's perspective this is the sum that must be recouped once the film has been completed. You either have a list of net figures, or a list of gross figures, but mixing them would make the chart inconsistent. Since most gross figures are unavailable this list compiles net figures (which are widely available), which is made clear in the lead. When a source provides both a gross figure and a net figure the gross figure is included in a note. Betty Logan (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Rowspans and numerical precision

An editor has implemented an edit using row spans to merge the dollar figures, and removing the precision range for Superman in the adjusted table. I will take these in turn:

1. Row spans are used for the ranks because the films occupy a shared position i.e. they convey information. Merging the budgets simply removes duplication and is actually confusing because the formatting could be misinterpreted by an uninformed reader to indicate that the films share a budget. The fact that some of the budgets are identical is simply incidental, and there is no inherent connection between the films that row-spanning would imply. Removing a small amount of duplication has very little impact on the overall size of the article—you literally shave 1kb off a 150kb page! On an aesthetic point row spans also make it more difficult to read across on narrow screens.
2. The other problem is the precision range for Superman. The problem here is that budget has precision to $1 million, but the inflation adjustment takes it from 2-digits to 3-digits. Mathematically you cannot do that: you either have to go from 2-digits to 2-digits or from 3-digits to 3-digits. If you use the 2-digit approach then $55 million inflates to $250 million (i.e. 2-digit precision). If you want 3-digit precision then you have to inflate $54.5 million and $55.5 million as a proxy for $55 million. This is basic high school math.

I have reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO for now, and hopefully we can get a few more opinions before any more changes are made. Betty Logan (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead

An editor has repeatedly added cherry-picked examples to the lead, that do not particularly exemplify the topic of the article in any meaningful way. There is no particular reason to highlight the recent Indiana Jones or Mission Impossible films over more costly examples higher up the list. One of the films that the anonymous editor keeps adding—The Flash—does not even qualify from the list. These choices are examples of listcruft, or WP:RECENTISM, and unlike the other examples in the lead (which qualify on the basis of being the most expensive or being a previous record-holder) it is not clear why they are even being mentioned. I would remind the editor that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and if you are going to highlight examples in the lead of an article there has to be clear encyclopedic reason why they are being elevated above other films on the list, otherwise it is simply editing that does not conform to WP:NPOV. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Betty Logan It's very notable in fact. Why? Because of a recent trend of superhero-film and franchise fatigue, with mega-blockbusters becoming more and MORE expensive in "recent" time, and now this bottoming out of these movies in a major way.

Yes, wikipedia may not be news but it is a forever-evolving, 'living-archive of sorts' to capture press-consensus and information in real-time in a neutral encyclopedic 'journalistic' format.

You are, at best, making a case for a personal preference here and there is no hard and fast rule against including the aforementioned films in the way they are included- despite you loosely citing wikipedia policy that really doesn't apply to this content.

If you are truly a stickler for the rules, I'm reminding you to WP:AGF and learn to WP:COMPROMISE, as that is also part of "the rules" here. If others come along on their own and remove it for their own personal tastes, then I will likely not be so invested because of the prevailing consensus. So please don't WP:CANVASS for your decidedly pot-kettle WP:NPOV. 2601:282:8100:32A0:9CB1:5324:555D:32CA (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Fatigue for certain genres and franchise in general does not matter because this is not an article about that, and the edit doesn't even provide that "context" anyway. The rationale for included it is blatant recentism, editorializing, and generally misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia. Hell, the appropriate films named in the lead ARE recent examples. There is no need for a "recent" example bc there are four films that are less than 10 years old, three of which are five or less years old. These examples don't add anything, and the justification for adding them is clear editorializing and off-topic besides. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol That's good feedback. It's an evolving scoop and story at this point, and a crossroads I'm eager to explore about these expensive-films is merging with their failure to recoup their costs in the age of streaming and post-covid.

As far as my interest about this "expensive films article goes" I decided to look into this myself BEFORE I author anything else, a little deeper dive as it were, and see how other 'more objective folk' (like yourself) feel-- for my own personal understanding.

I definitely believe there is a place for this here, but I'm still reading articles on the matter-- given this aforementioned uptick of mega-blockbuster films spiraling out of control in budget and what it says about the history of them in general. So I want to see if there's a more cogent manner to include it if and before I do.

Thanks for your input and thank you also for being WP:CIVIL. 2601:282:8100:32A0:9CB1:5324:555D:32CA (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I am not interested in being used as an avenue through which to be passive aggressive or outright aggressive to Betty Logan or any other editors, especially because I am outright agreeing with Betty Logan and am making an argument identical to theirs in different words. I also advise you to read up on the original research policy. I do not know that there is a place in the lead, or in the article at large, for what you are trying to include, and I advise that you be cautious because this article is not meant to be an essay of your personal findings. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol I was actually being civil. There was nothing passive-aggressive about my words. Don’t put words in my mouth again. Not here for your WP:soapopera with your ‘friend’ here.

And the talk page is about discussing things like this as an alternative to WP:OR, for which I agree. Hence my self-revert on the article itself. If you’re WP:nothere to be WP:civil or AGF with those you disagree with then I guess my horse will remain higher than your WP:Soapbox. Cheers indeed 2601:282:8100:32A0:80E1:A586:1ACA:6325 (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Black Widow

That movie costs 288 million, right below Dead Reckoning. Shouldn’t that be on there? 2603:6080:6004:85C:DD03:DC9B:4C6E:22CB (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)