The average amount of money spent on blockbuster films seems to have exploded in the past fifteen years or so. In 1998, Titanic's $200 million budget was seen as unbelievably extravagant but if it was released last month, it would most likely be considered par for the course. In the past few years we've seen films like Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End, Man Of Steel, and Avatar cost well over $200 million and, in the case of At World's End, climbing as high as $300 million And this isn't just down to inflation. If you take a blockbuster film from the late 1990s or early 2000s and adjust its budget for inflation, apart from a few notable exceptions like Titanic, they'll usually be around the $100 million to $150 million mark. Obviously the world's economic climate has changed, particularly with extensive CGI now being a standard feature of the vast majority of films, and the price of standard expenses like labour and construction materials may have changed in recent years. But then again, cinema ticket and DVD prices are increasing as well so we can draw the conclusion that studios are actively spending larger amounts of money on films. In purely business terms, this is a decision that can have some bad repercussions (As we learnt from The Lone Ranger) and these are four reasons why it would make sense financially for this trend to reverse and for film budgets to be scaled back...