Submit your own Neatorama post and vote for others' posts to earn NeatoPoints that you can redeem for T-shirts, hoodies and more over at the NeatoShop!

The 10 Most Inexplicably Expensive Movies Ever Made

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End cost $300 million to produce. Oz the Great and Powerful is said to have cost $325 million. And that doesn't include the cost of marketing, which can be just as much, or even more, than production costs. Of course, the costs are worth it when the movie makes a profit, but that's a gamble. Flavorwire take a closer look at ten movies that cost way more than they should have, considering the finished product. For example, Tangled cost  $260 million.  

This one is likewise puzzling — another Disney production whose cost seems way out of proportion with the product onscreen. Tangled is a nice enough throwback to the classic Disney style, an old-school effort to contrast the Pixar present. So why did it cost more than any of Pixar’s fancy, high-tech efforts? Did Snow White and Cinderella cost that kinda bread? Hand-drawn animation is presumably more expensive, but with this movie’s bloated budget and six-year production schedule, they must’ve been averaging a cell a day, followed by a caviar lunch.

Where did the money go? Who knows! Link  -via Geekosystem

Miss Cellania,

Hi! Just wanted to drop a line to offer my input. The article you're linking to represents the worst in journalism, if one could even call it that. The segment you reference implies rather strongly and even more so, inaccurately, that Tangled is a film produced in the medium of hand-drawn animation. Clearly it is not. Furthermore, it postulates that hand-drawn animation is more expensive to produce than digital/computer animation. This is as unfounded a point as it is moot. "Presumably" hand-drawn animation is more expensive? Why presume anything if it can be researched within the few seconds it takes to type "[film title] + budget" into Google. For instance, according to Wikipedia, The Frog and The Princess (medium: majority of it is hand drawn) had a budget of $105 million. That same year, 2009 found Pixar releasing Up (a computer/digitally-animated film). It's budget? $175 million. That's about as close of a comparison as you can make - - same year, both a big studio film that strives for the best in quality. In those side by side comparisons, hand-drawn animation appears to have been cheaper. Is that always the case? Nope.

Which brings me to my next point. The article finds itself in the unenviable position of continuing the stereotype that animation is a genre. Movies are movies. Period. Stop-motion, hand-drawn, computer/digitally animated, live action, hybrids. These are mediums. Budgets will vary greatly. So was Tangled really inexplicably expensive? Hmmm...not really. Had the author, Jason Bailey over at Flavorwire desired to produce a compelling piece, he could have made what appears on its outer-most surface "inexplicable" actually quite enlightening. The production was in development for 6 years and was marred by change-ups in directors (including losing Disney animator legend Glen Keane at its helm along the way). Now had this Jason-fella wanted to make something great, he could have looked into why all that happened and presented it in a fascinating fashion. What he did instead is write a fluff piece with one section so full of easily recognizable inaccuracies that I can't even bother reading the rest for fear I maybe reading a future Snopes entry. What is so Neato about that?

I apologize if this comment leads you to believe I'm an ass. I AM an ass. However, a fair amount of people seem to like me just fine, sometimes even because it. I can be quite charming. This post angered me and I had some time to kill in an airport so I collected my thoughts and offer them here. Thanks for reading and maybe taking a moment to consider that you could elevate the type of things to which you link on this site, which I sincerely do find to be Neato much of the time.

Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
  3 replies
What's weird is that the article suggests that Tangled is a "throwback to the classic Disney style" and "Hand-drawn animation" "averaging a cell a day". But anyone looking at even one still from it (such as the one on this page!) can see that it's 3D, not hand drawn! Not sure if the rest of their article is any more accurate than that obvious howler!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Because it looks 3D. 2D animation has a certain look. the little mermaid, 101 dalmations, they look hand drawn. I've not seen tangled either but it's 3D models and lighting and cameras. (3D as in modelled in the computer and rendered, rather than 3D as in 3D glasses)
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Just to clarify, I don't think anyone here is in any way angry at you for your neatorama post. Just bemused by that portion of the original article on flavorwire.
I'd say that to anyone who has seen animated films, their 3D/2D mistake would be the equivalent of saying "I loved the wizard of Oz but I really wish it was in colour" or conversely "The Artist was a great film but the actors voices were terrible!" Anyone seeing a still from Toy Story (3D) and a still from Aladdin (2D) would be able to see that they are totally different in style, and the same is true of Tangled - it's very clearly in the 3D Toy Story style rather than the hand drawn 2D style. It makes me wonder if they were confusing Tangled with one of Disney's other movies.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
  2 replies
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 18 comments

Email This Post to a Friend
"The 10 Most Inexplicably Expensive Movies Ever Made"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.


Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More