As the title says, what film was the most expensive to produce (this does not count distribution and advertising costs)?
Are you adjusting for inflation?
Does the Lord of the Rings trilogy count as one film? (as they were all made in one long sequence)
No, I guess I’ll have to limit it to those having a single release date or something.
Corollary: was this movie, whatever it was, any good?
There are a couple of lists of expensive films on Wikipedia, both inflation-adjusted and not.
Whom do you believe?
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=56184
It cost 10 million dollars to make “The Brown Bunny”?
'Em are some darned funny numbers! 
Where’d the extra money go, they must’ve spent $300 in gas money, a couple hundread on camera guy and …hmmm somone left that movie with a lot of money in their pocket.
Of the top 10 inflation adjusted:
Cleopatra (1963) $286,400,000
Titanic (1997) $247,000,000
Waterworld (1995) $229,000,000
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) $216,400,000
Spider-Man 2 (2004) $210,000,000
King Kong (2005) $207,000,000
Wild Wild West (1999) $203,400,000
Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997) $198,800,000
The 13th Warrior (1999) $190,700,000
Troy (2004) $184,300,000
4 are universally considered to have sucked, one was an ok film but not particularly successful and one was the biggest chick flick ever.
Cleopatra (1963) got mixed reviews, won four Oscars, and was nominated for five more (including Best Picture and Best Actor). I’ve seen it twice, and I like it.
[quick teleport into cafe society]
Only 4??? :eek:
methinks you are being far too generous. Only King Kong would come close to being worth the money spent on it though. I havent seen the 13th warrior (has anyone?) but I have had the misfortune to see the rest.
[back to GQ]
I watched Tro for 20 minutes, then sent it back to Netflix.