This is from memory and others may correct me, but films credited at the time of release as the most expensive ever made, besides the ones you mentioned (although I'm actually not sure about THE ROBE) were GONE WITH THE WIND (Selznick, 1939; at 4 million), WILSON (20th-Fox, 1944; at 5.2 milion), DUEL IN THE SUN (Selznick, 1947), THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (Paramount, 1956; at 13.5 million), BEN-HUR (M-G-M, 1959; at 15 million), MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY (M-G-M, 1962; over $20 million). CLEOPATRA (20th-Fox), at over 40 million in 1963 dollars, was so out of line for its time that it stood as the most expensive , when adjusted for inflation until, I believe, the last decade. This meant that some of the wildly over-produced epics of the late sixties, such as DR. DOLITTLE (20th-Fox, 1967; 19 million), HELLO DOLLY (20th-Fox, 1969; 20 million), PAINT YOUR WAGON (Paramount, 1969; 20 million), and TORA, TORA, TORA (20th-Fox, 1970; 20 million) did not qualify as most expensive, although they did bring their studios close to the brink, from which the studios were rescued by selling themselves to larger parent companies, followed by a belt-tightening that was maintained through most of the seventies, when box-office blockbusters such as THE GODFATHER and JAWS were produced comparatively cheaply. In the nineties, CLEOPATRA has finally been surpassed and nearly every year, it seens, brings a new "Most expensive film ever made," from TERMINATOR II to TRUE LIES to WATERWORLD to TITANIC. The tag itself may be without much meaning, except as a statistic for the film trivia books. There are so many ways now for films to make money that even these expensive films of the nineties all broke even, if they didn't actually turn a profit. TITANIC itself seems an aberration in the "most expensive" genre simply because in its way it seems perfectly tight and controlled, whereas virtually all the films on my list--and others I could have named (the '79 STAR TREK; 42 million and HEAVEN'S GATE in 1980 at 36 million)--are defined by a look and feel of excess, and an impression of disproportion and waste. The audiences who have been coming out of TITANIC shaking and crying (based on anecdotal evidence from over the weekend) don't care what it cost and really aren't reminded of it by the film. It may be the first anti-materialist blockbuster. Dennis Bingham Indiana University Indianapolis On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 [log in to unmask] wrote: NO CARRIER > In light of the promotion of "Titanic" as the most expensive movie > ever made, I've been wondering about earlier films that would also > qualify (i.e., the most expensive movie ever made, up to that point). > "Birth of A Nation" and then "Intolerance" come to mind, and I think > I've heard the same about 20th-Century-Fox's "The Robe" in the 50s. > Of course, I recall the same hype from "Terminator II" and > "Waterworld." I think the fascination is revealing--both of the > close tie between technological innovation and filmmaking (special > effects) and of the grandness of scale of mass media (the most > expensive film will attract the most people). My question is: are > there other films that merited the title "most expensive fim to > date"? > > Thanks for your help, > > Chris Ames > Dept. of English > Agnes Scott College > 141 East College Ave > Decatur, GA 30030 > [log in to unmask] > > ---- > Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite > http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite > ---- To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]