Huffington Post article is from this week, Cheebs. I can also point to several other editorials rallying around the $200 million figure. The $160 million isn't sourced, the same as the $200 million figure isn't sourced. Why? Because Hollywood studios hardly reveal real figures anymore.
Even if Nolan came in under budget, to believe the smallest figure is ridiculous. Hollywood production budgets are
always higher than published; studios don't want people to harp on big-budget flicks and reduce backlash.
Again, if you believe he shot that film for $160 million.

I can also find tons of links.
Failing to include a $100 in marketing.

What a bomb.
