Budget of $1 Billion

>Budget of $1 Billion

Attached: 1109295F-3450-4EAD-89BE-B4DCD31F060A.jpg (1200x600, 77K)

...to earn $1 trillion

fucking billion panther

and it shows

this and Black Panther are cleaning up at the oscars for sure

To make billions

Attached: 1521569781465.png (640x1136, 461K)

Source? Also, what's the highest movie budget so far?

Marvel realized they can cut corners on their cgi quite a few movies ago. Some stuff will look good and other things look pathetic. Normalfags don't care.

>Budget of $1 Billion
>for two movies
>including marketing cost

so each movie costs around 250 million

I don't see any error here, but if you post the picture of Tony Stark and Spiderman from the trailer, you'd see where the mouse jew cut corners.

What ugly ass design. This looks like out of a Warcraft cinematic and does not scream Thanos to me at all.

If it really does include the marketing for both films then that budget isn't that noteworthy.

Nice.

Warcraft cinematics are unironically better than MCU movies

they're also better than the warcraft movie

nobody would ever make a feature length film at that quality cause the ROI would never be worth it

>Steppenwolf.jpg

I thought it looked fine until the golem scene

It’s mostly just the paychecks for the actors.

At least that played out like a boss fight in the game. Lothar, the warrior, taunting the boss to keep his attention while he went though different phases and Khadgar the mage kiting the add to the right spot. And then leveling up with a yellow flash of light after winning.

Now I have to rewatch the entire movie. Thanks user.

I think it was the third Pirates of the Caribbean

Or JUSTice league, if what niggas were saying about it's budget were true

>You're going to love me

Attached: 1368340.jpg (245x277, 12K)

it was the moon landing.
they contracted Kubrick to stage it. but he required it to be filmed on location so NASA had to build an actual rocket and go to the moon

>implying the moon landing wasn't faked in mars

Nice.

"On Stranger Tides" came to cost more than "At World's End" but, as others have mentioned, I imagine that that is purely because of the price of the actors.

"At World's End" was simply impossibly high-budget - and it shows, by the fact that very few (if any) films match its visuals 7 years later.