Talk:List of most expensive films/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

List of Changes - March 1, 2021

1. Justice League: Included Director's Cut costs.
2. Avengers: Infinity War: Updated Deadline's converted budget with their profit report from 2019.
3. The Lion King: Updated budget to $260 million as per Deadline, Variety and Box Office Mojo.
4. Avengers: Age of Ultron: Updated budget to $250 million as per Deadline, Forbes and Box Office Mojo.
5. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice: Updated budget to $250 million as per Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, Forbes and Box Office Mojo.
6. The Fate of the Furious: Updated budget to $250 million as per Variety and Box Office Mojo.
7. Spectre: Updated budget to $245 million as per Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter.
8. Transformers: The Last Knight: Updated budget to $217 million as per Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Box Office Mojo.
9. Rogue One: Updated budget to $200 million as per Deadline and Box Office Mojo.
10. Removed Maleficent ($180 million) and Beauty and the Beast (160 million) as per Deadline & Box Office Mojo and Deadline, Variety and Box Office Mojo respectively. (Check respective pages for references)
11. Added Furious 7 ($250 million) and Toy Story 4 ($200 million) as per Deadline & Variety and Deadline & The Hollywood Reporter respectively. ~Rajan51 (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo is notorious for listing incorrect budgets, or at least not updating them when no information comes to light. The budgets for Disney films produced in the UK can be obtained from HMRC in the following tax year for example, which is where some of the higher figures comes from. I am happy to work through the figures with you and review them but sweeping changes are likely to result in incorrect or out of date information being added to the article. What do you say to my offer? We work through the figures on this talk page and make sure they are correct? Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. But how do we determine which reference should be used in case of conflicts with other sources? ~Rajan51 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a fairly basic procedure:

1. If we can source an "official" cost from a studio spokesperson or a properly audited figure from a reliable source we use that.
2. If we can't source a factual figure and have to rely on an estimate then we use the lowest estimate to rank the film, and include other figures in the note.
3. We deduct tax credits from the final budget since this rebated income. If the film receives a subsidy instead that is included in the budget because it is money that was spent.

Betty Logan (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

How do we determine which source is reliable? ~Rajan51 (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Most mainstream sources are reliable: Variety, Deadline, Box Office Mojo etc are all reliable, but sometimes they just have different figures. Each budget and the sources have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Betty Logan (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have two questions: 1) In cases of conflicts between reliable sources, we use the lowest estimate right? 2) I can see that FilmLA's publications are used extensively on this page. Is it a reliable source? ~Rajan51 (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

FilmLA is a reliable source. It is an organization that obtains filming permits for productions in LA and arranges subsidies, so its information is usually very credible, especially for films actually shot in LA. Betty Logan (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) Is its information credible for films shot outside LA? 2) What happens if its figures contradict with other reliable sources such as Variety and Deadline? ~Rajan51 (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say there is no reeason to treat it as less creidble than other sources for films outside LA. It is a well-researched document. If it conflicts with the other sources then it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes you can end up with more than one legitimate figure. That is just how estimates work. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added sub-sections below to keep this organised. While working on this list I also maintained an index of sources at User:Betty_Logan/budgetrefs which might be useful to refer to. Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Justice League

Resolved

Currently the chart lists the budget for the theatrical cut and mentions the extra $70 million in a footnote: [1]. I believe this is the correct approach because the director's cut is ostensibly a separate production with its own budget. If you spend extra money re-cutting and shooting new footage for a new version of the film it doesn't really count towards the original budget. For example, the listed budgets for the original Star Wars movies do not include the cost of the 1997 special editions. Every film in the main chart lists the budget for a single production, so adding two budgets together for two versions of the film compromises the integrity of the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

As per Director's cut, "A director's cut is an edited version of a film that is supposed to represent the director's own approved edit." The director's cut of Justice League is a modified version of the film, so I believe the correct approach would be to list the total production budget used in the production of the film and mention in a footnote that it includes the budget used for the director's cut as well. ~Rajan51 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be synthesis. If I were to buy up Gone with the Wind (which cost 4 million to produce) and spent $100 million adding a load of CGI effects to it then that wouldn't mean Gone with the Wind cost $104 million. If you look at the Star Wars articles for example, they don't add the cost of the special editions to the original budget. It is in effect a new production that uses old footage. Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If you were to buy Gone With the Wind and edit it, that wouldn't change the production budget since you are not the one who made the moie. But when the film's own director steps in to deliver his cut of the film which is to be officially released, it makes sense to include the production budget he used for making his cut. As far as the Star Wars special editions are concerned, we don't know how much it cost for Lucasfilm to edit the original film. Besides, mentioning the Star Wars Prequels and using it as an example just sounds like WP:WHATABOUT ~Rajan51 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

To approach this from another direction, are there any high profile sources that are adding to the two budgets together. For example, is Box Office Mojo, Deadline or Variety now saying that the budget was $370 million? Betty Logan (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Not that I know of. But it is clear that the theatrical cut had a production budget of $300 million and the director's cut has a production budget of $70 million. Therefore, the total production budget of Justice League is $370 million. ~Rajan51 (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that they spent $300 million on the theatrical version and then spent $70 million on a new cut, but that is two budgets for two different productions, regardless of whether it was spent on different versions of the same film. Wikipedia shouldn't be creating precedents. For example, books and various tracker sites don't add in the budgets for the Star Wars special editions. This is also the case for the Avatar special edition too. While the Avatar (2009 film) article lists the special edition budget in the infobox, it does keep them separate. If sites like Box Office Mojo and Deadline started adding the budgets together there would be a strong argument for doing here too, but if they don't we would be undertaking WP:Original research. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Since there is no report from any major trade stating that the film's budget is $370 million, I guess we can consider just the $300 million for the theatrical cut. But I believe we should atleast include the $70 million budget for the director's cut in the film's infobox similar to Avatar. ~Rajan51 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. Betty Logan (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There still seems to be some objection about including the budget for the director's cut separately in the film's infobox, so I have created a discussion for it at Template talk:Infobox film#Budget for Rereleases and Director's cuts. ~Rajan51 (talk) 5:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Avengers: Infinity War

Resolved

 – Figure has been updated to $325 million

In the note accompanying the film's budget, it is mentioned that Deadline's estimate of the film's production budget was $316 million. However, a year later, in its annual report on most profitable films, Deadline mentioned that the budget of the films was $325 million. So which one is to be used? ~Rajan51 (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

In a case where a source revises its previous figure it makes sense to use the revised the figure, so I agree with you that this should be updated to $325 million. Betty Logan (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Lion King (2019 film)

Resolved

There doesn't seem to be much variation here. Deadline put it at $260 million while a source told The Hollywood Reporter that it cost "roughly $250 million". The film could have cost $255 million and both publications would be technically right. Pretty much everyone agrees it cost at least $250 million, but perhaps slightly more than that. I think the current approach of ranking it at $250 million and adding a note for $260 million [2] is the most logical approach. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Since the $250 million figure given by The Hollywood Reporter is "rough" as per the article and three other reputable sources state that the budget was $260 million (Deadline, Variety and Box Office Mojo), I think the best approach would be to use the $260 million figure provided by the three mentioned above. ~Rajan51 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That does make sense. I can go along with that provided we retain the note to add a bit of context. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Avengers: Age of Ultron

The current source used for the film's budget is FilmLA's report for 2015, according to which the Disney spent $444 million for the film out of which $79 million was offset by payments from the UK's tax authority as explained by this note. This directly contradicts numerous reports across different points of time stating that the film's budget was $250 million. These reports include reports by: Deadline, Forbes, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The Wrap, Los Angeles Times, The Telegraph and Box Office Mojo. It looks like the $365 million figure is a mistake might have been arrived at by including other expenditure by Disney outside the film's production budget in areas like marketing. ~Rajan51 (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's not a mistake. Some of the Disney films are complicated. If you film in the UK you can submit your accounts to the UK Treasury and get a tax rebate on the "core expenditure". Core expenditure is defined as "expenditure incurred on production activities (pre-production, principal photography/animation shooting/designing/producing and post production)". It definitely does not include marketing. What's more, once these accounts are submitted you can access them roughly a year later.

Let's start with a simple example, John Carter (film). The budget was widely reported to be $250 million at the time. It was actually possible to look up the accounts (see [3]) and see that the total core expenditure came to $306.6 million. Disney also got a rebate of $42.9 million, leaving a net budget of $263.7 million. That is fairly close to £250 million so the budget was accurately reported for the most part.

This is not the case for Age of Ultron, where the true cost was far higher than the $250 million that was reported upon the film's release. These are the costs that were available through the UK Treasury:

• As of November 2014: Costs of $316.7 million (rebate of $50.7 million) [4]
• Film LA reports costs of $444 million (and rebate of $78.5 million).

If you factor in the rebate the net budget as given by Film LA is $365.5 million, which incidentally is what The Numbers also has down). The problem with Box Office Mojo is that they haven't updated the budget since the film's release. In the case of deadline, they filed their report in March 2016, but the 2014/2015 accounts were not submitted to the Treasury until March 2016, so there is no way they could have seen them. Betty Logan (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the Forbes article you mentioned, Disney had spent $330.6 million on the film and got back $50.7 million. While the article states that this was the amount spent since production began in 2014, it is not specified whether this is just the production cost or includes other costs too. On the other hand, it also contradicts with the other reports which were released from months to years later where they mention that the production budget was only $250 million. Besides, this Forbes article released near the end of April 2016 still stated that the budget was $250 million which also matches with the $250 million that Deadline specifically mentioned as Net Production Cost. ~Rajan51 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The costs submitted to the Treasury for Film Tax relief are "core expenditure". This is very carefully defined as production activities (pre-production, principal photography/animation shooting/designing/producing and post production). It does not, and cannot include marketing. Most sources reported $250 million because that was the estimated budget at the time. But these were estimates and not the fully audited figures. The accounts were not accessible until late 2016/2017 when the true costs were revealed. The only problem is very few publications update their info, so we are stuck with inaccurate and outdated information. Film LA is pretty good in this regard because they access the real accounts and update their figures, which is why we use them on film articles. The Numbers also updated its figures in this case too. You can read more about Film Tax relief at https://stephenfollows.com/film-tax-breaks-by-the-numbers/. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have two questions: 1) As per the article you mentioned, it is applicable for films with production activities in the UK. Does FilmLA's report include the entire production of films like Age of Ultron whose productions were distributed across multiple countries and not just the UK? 2) Is it possible to access the accounts submitted to the Treasury directly? ~Rajan51 (talk) 4:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The way it works is that a tax shelter is set up for the film. You can claim back 25% of all the UK core expenditure, or alternatively 20% of the total core expenditure (whichever is lowest). To qualify as a UK production over 50% of the expenditure must be in the UK. Obviously to claim the maximum amount you need to submit all the costs. However, there may be production costs that the Treasury do not accept as a "core production" cost that might otherwise be included in the budget. But in such cases the HMRC figures would under-estimate the budget, not over-estimate it. As far as I am aware the Treasury don't put the accounts on the internet, you would need to file a freedom of information request to the Treasury, which is presumably how the Forbes writer and FilmLA got the information. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I can see that they'd have to submit the total costs to get the tax incentive from the UK, but do they include the incentives they get from other countries in their submission to the UK treasury? For example, South Korea was one of the countries Age of Ultron was filmed in apart from the UK, so is the tax incentive (if any) from Korea included in the report? ~Rajan51 (talk) 5:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't honestly know, but I highly doubt that an incentive from another country would count as "core production expenditure". For example if you spend $50 million in South Korea and you get a $10 million rebate, I would guess you would submit the difference i.e. $40 million. That is how other tax rebates ordinarily work in the UK. Alternatively, the Treasury may exclude all $50 million if it has been put through a different tax regime. But in that case the accounts would be under-estimating the budget, not over-estimating it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• If FilmLA is really that much of an issue they have a Twitter account at https://twitter.com/filmla. If you have one you could always ask them the Ultron budget and see what they say. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If we're to ask for budget details on twitter, I believe it would be better to contact multiple sources such as Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, etc and get the range (if any) for the budget. ~Rajan51 (talk) 5:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem here is that you want to replace factual, audited figures from the submitted accounts with the original estimates that were published at the time, without taking into account that more accurate information is available. Per WP:AGE MATTERS, if a source is prepared to investigate and obtain a factual figure then we should not cling to older sources, just because they user a more widely circulated figure. AS we saw with the Furious 7 budget, the $190 million was more widespread but the circumstances can change. This is exactly the same here. New information became available a year or so after the film's release and FilmLA (and Forbes in some cases) published it. If you are actually challenging that FilmLA has accessed the accounts you can possibly find out by simply asking them. Betty Logan (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I have just taken a look at this one. There isn't much difference between 250 and 263. The Hollywood Reporter says it was "at least 250". I wouldn't be surprised if the 250 figure is just a rounded version of 263. The thing you have to appreciate with estimates like 200, 250, 300 etc is that they tend to be very, very approximate. I don't really see a contradiction between the sources here: 263 is consistent with "at least 250". The only real question is whether we peg it to 250 or 263. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Forbes and Box Office Mojo both reported budgets of $250 million while Deadline mentioned that the 'Net Production Cost' was $250 million while also stating that the film 'cost' $260 million in the same report. ~Rajan51 (talk) 5:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The Fate of the Furious

Resolved

I have just taken a look at this. Sources are very consistent on this budget: they all say $250 million. Film LA also has this figure down as $250 million but also mentions an incentive of $20 million. It is possible this was a subsidy and not a tax rebate so I am happy to revise this figure to 250. Betty Logan (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Spectre (2015 film)|Spectre

I have taken a look at Spectre. Nearly all the sources put the budget at $245 million or $250 million. These seem consistent to me because $250 million may be just a rounded amount. FilmLA also has a figure of $250 million and lists an incentive of $20 million. It's not clear if this is a subsidy (meaning the budget was $250 million) or a tax rebate (resulting in a net budget of $230 million). I have changed the cost to $245 million and added a note covering all the other possible figures. Hopefully this is a sufficient outcome for this film. Betty Logan (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Transformers: The Last Knight

Resolved

I have just taken a look at this. The studio itself stated the cost as $217 million, so we should probably prioritise this figure and include the Film LA figure in a note. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If the studio itself has stated that the cost was $217 million, I don't see the need to include FilmLA's figure in a note. ~Rajan51 (talk) 7:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Studios are not exactly famed for being truthful when it comes to their finances. They often try to downplay costs so it does not affect their share prices negatively. One famous example is Avatar: its official budget was $237 million, although those in the know say its true cost was around $280 million after tax rebates. If the figure came from independently audited accounts that would be different, but official statements while important should be treated with caution. Ultimately we are not a mouthpiece for the studios, so we must at least acknowledge other credible estimates per WP:DUE. Betty Logan (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

According to FilmLA's report, the film got an incentive amounting to $21 million in Michigan. There is no mention of incentives from other locations that were involved in production. It looks like they were unable to access the incentives for the other locations, hence stating that the budget was $239 million by subtracting just the $21 million Michigan incentive from the $260 million gross budget would be incorrect. On the other hand, the budget has been reported to be $217 million by both Variety and Box Office Mojo. ~Rajan51 (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It is most likely the case they published the figure that Paramount released. It is very difficult to get budgets corroborated unless they gets leaked, somebody talks off the record or (like in Disney's case) the accounts are submitted to a tax authority. For that reason I agree that the official figure is the primary figure here (as is the case with Avatar) and if you check the table you will see it is now ranked off the official budget. However I still believe it is important to document alternative estimates (as we did we Avatar). Betty Logan (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then. ~Rajan51 (talk) 5:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Furious 7

Resolved

Sources seem to be split on this. While I accept there are plenty of sources reporting the budget as $250 million, there is also a ton of them for $190 million too (see the Furious 7 entry at User:Betty_Logan/budgetrefs). I don't see any reason to prioritise the 250 figure over the 190 figure in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

According to Variety, the film was completed using unseen footage of the late Paul Walker and stand-in body doubles which led to the film's budget spiralling up to $250 million which was also acknowledged by Deadline in its profit analysis report for the film a year after its release. ~Rajan51 (talk) 8:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I didn't know that. Betty Logan (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

So, it can be updated then right? ~Rajan51 (talk) 9:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but it probably needs a note too explaining the circumstances of the budget increase. You are welcome to do this, but if you don't know how I will sort it out a little while later today. Betty Logan (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have updated it. ~Rajan51 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Toy Story 4

Resolved

According to reports from Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter and Box Office Mojo, the budget for the film is $200 million. I request for it to be added to the list. ~Rajan51 (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I remember this. The Hollywood Reporter reported that it was produced for "nearly $200 million". It is highly likely the other sources have just rounded to $200 million. It is very unlikely that a film cost exactly $200 million, it is most likely little under or a little over. The Hollywood Reporter seems quite sure it was just under. Betty Logan (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I have changed my mind of this one. While I believe the Hollywood Reporter is correct about this, I think many of the films we have listed at $200 million will have been rounded to that value. In some of the cases some of those films would have just come in under $200 million, so it seems anomalous to leave out Toy Story 4 if we are to have consistency. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Snyder Cut

Should Zack Snyder's Justice League be added with a total budget of $370 million? TdanTce (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say probably not, unless there are reputable sources that start saying it cost $370 million. So far all the sources I have seen say it cost $70 million. Sources generally treat special editions as separate productions (see Star Wars, Avatar etc) and don't tack on the cost. I suppose it is a matter of perspective at the end of the day, but it is a perspective that sources don't appear to adopt. Betty Logan (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

New page

Hi I started a List of most expensive sports films and it is now in drafts and wondering if anyone wants to help with it Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

New section that combines productions with films?

I would be interested in a list that combines expensive back to back productions (Hobbit trilogy) with expensive films (Avengers Age of Ultron). Would there be any opposition to this? It would be adjusted for inflation and included in its own section. Anonymous-232 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If there wasn't any opposition to this they wouldn't be listed separately in the first place. It isn't an apples-for-apples comparison so there is little encyclopedic value in combining them. It would just be trivia. Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic value of the page then? Anonymous-232 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

To document information in a manner that is consistent with how it is published in reliable sources. There is no value in comparing things that are not directly comparable. Betty Logan (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2022

Avatar: The Way of Water has a budget of 460 million according to DEADLINE. I suggest it be placed at the top. 2601:CB:8200:1650:A427:F1C6:94B2:AB22 (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: The alternative Deadline figure has been added to the note for Avatar 2. I haven't revise the chart position since only Deadline appears to be reporting this figure, with the majority of sources reporting 350–400. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Black Adam

Per Hollywood Reporter, Black Adam reportedly cost $260 million. I cannot make this change as I don't have a Wikipedia account, but this would place it in a tie for 13th place for the list unadjusted for inflation and 36th when adjusted. 2604:3D09:727F:9500:F9FC:498E:ED09:2EF6 (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In another article The Hollywood Reporter states that the film cost "more than $190 million", and states that two sources put the budget at $230 million. Variety report the budget as $195 million while Deadline go with a general "$200 million", reflecting the vagueness of estimates. The only real consensus here is that it was greenlit at $190 million and costs ballooned to over $200 million. I think there is a strong case for adding it to the article in some way, but I see no good reason to pick an outlier based on just one article. Betty Logan (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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)