The Hobbit Trilogy Costs Over $500 Million

the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-headerJust when you thought that big Hollywood productions couldn’t get more expensive, Peter Jackson and his trilogy of movies based on JRR Tolkien’s The Hobbit set the bar higher.

According to financial documents filed in New Zealand, The Hobbit movies have cost Warner Bros. over $561 million through March 31st.

Up to March 31st, The Hobbit trilogy had 266 days of principal photography. The production costs don’t include two months of pickup shoots and any post-production costs needed to complete the last two films. When you throw those additional costs into the mix, the cost of the trilogy is likely to top $600 million when all it said and done.

For comparison, The Lord of the Rings trilogy only cost $281 million to produce. The previous most expensive simultaneous production of movies was for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End which combined for an estimated expense of between $450 million and $525 million.

It’s not like this isn’t money well spent, though. The worldwide box office gross for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was just over $1 billion. That doesn’t include about $81 million ($98 million NZD) in government funding from a film production incentive program. So before the final two movies in the trilogy are released, Warner Bros. have already made their money back on the trilogy.

Source: AP

Unknown's avatar

About Steve Murray

Steve is the founder and editor of The Lowdown Blog and et geekera. On The Lowdown Blog, he often writes about motorsports, hockey, politics and pop culture. Over on et geekera, Steve writes about geek interests and lifestyle. Steve is on Twitter at @TheSteveMurray.

Posted on October 7, 2013, in TV/Movies and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. Too bad the Hobbit sucked.
    JAckson’s not gonna get any more money from me, I’ll tell you that much.

    Like

    • I kind of wonder how the movie would have been if they stuck with two movies instead of making that late switch to three movies. I feel as though stretching the source material made the movie feel a bit stretched out. I just never got hooked into this one. Maybe if it was only two movies… But if ifs and buts were candy and nuts…

      Like

      • I wouldn’t have minded two movies but the first one was two hours long AND needlessley padded. They really should’ve just done this in one film.

        Although it did get me to reading the book again.

        But you know the next one is gonna be a mess–middle child syndrome–no real beginning and no ending.

        Like

Leave a reply to Ensis Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.