Den of Geek says:
... The Princess And The Frog reportedly cost around $105m to make, and took in $104m at the US box office. Elsewhere, it added $162m to its total, meaning from cinemas alone, it brought in $267m.
Tangled's figures are scarier. Because, on face value, it did well. It took in $199m in the States, $389m elsewhere, and before it hit DVD and Blu-ray, it had grossed $588m from cinemas alone. The problem? The negative cost, before marketing and distribution, was apparently a staggering $260m.
These are the kinds of commentaries that are crazy-making. Because despite the qualifiers ("apparently," "reportedly"), they give the impression that the public-record shows what this or that motion picture actually cost.
Now, somewhere deep in the catacombs of the Disney Co. or Time-Warner or Viacom, some overworked accountant has a record of what amount of loot was spent on which picture. But nobody in InternetLand knows. Everyone is guessing. Entertainment companies cook the books all the time, for any number of reasons. It's been going on since the days of the Nickelodeon.
Tangled may or may not have cost a quarter billion dollars. It all depends on what the studio chooses to tally. Development on the feature started while Shrek Uno was still a gleam in Jeffrey Katzenberg's eye, so the picture was in its gestation period a looong time. And there were a lot of salaries riding on Rapunzel's long, silky hair.
But let us drill down to the nub, shall we? Nothing prevents our fine entertainment conglomerates from moving costs to some other movie's production number, or charging development to "studio overhead" to make stockholders less unhappy or participants of "net" profits less rich. Long ago, charges for Disney's Oliver and Company were shifted to Disney's Great Mouse Detective, just like that. And back when Warner Bros. Feature Animation, then located on Brand Boulevard in sunny Glendale, was circling the drain, a mid-level exec told me:
"Know how much Quest for Camelot really cost? Up above two hundred million dollars. But the main lot just went ahead and put a big piece of that onto feature animation's overhead." ...
(This was probably a wise thing to do, since the picture grossed a towering $22 million domestically, and it wouldn't have looked real good to have a theatrical cume that was 10% of production costs.)
But to the larger point (yet again): When somebody writes about how much a movie cost, or how much a movie made (and remember, there are various cash flows from lots of sources over lengthy periods of time) they are most likely using inaccurate data.