My favourite was the poster who said that Craig should advise them on the series after he leaves the role.Captain Nash wrote:Could you be a little more specific Capt.Dom ?Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote: Nash, I think you might be needed back at MI6. I had a look at the thread over there about this news and some of the members are in need of a straightjacket.
Well clearly that poster is spot on.Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:My favourite was the poster who said that Craig should advise them on the series after he leaves the role.Captain Nash wrote:Could you be a little more specific Capt.Dom ?Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote: Nash, I think you might be needed back at MI6. I had a look at the thread over there about this news and some of the members are in need of a straightjacket.
) as they are here at Dcinb ( 
) 
Well, if you increase the budget you hardly make the film more profitable, quite the opposite. You may make the film more spectacular in theory, but in practice, the higher the budget, the more tickets you need to sell to make a profit. This is not much different from the QoS budget that was around $230 mln (the declared one). I don't think an increased declared budget makes much difference when it's such a small margin. ETA: HOLD THE HORSES. I had read POUNDS instead of DOLLARS. Ok then it's the other way round. They're decreasing the budget which DOES make sense given the situation they're in. They have no choices. And a lower budget just makes the figures at the box office easier to keep up with. Considering QoS was a disaster in terms of DVD sales (and anyway a loss for the studio at the box office) and that they cannot afford to book a loss given the situation MGM is in, I would say increasing the budget wasn't possible at all, and even declaring the same one. So they declared a smaller one. Bottomline, given the situation they need a far better performance. Just to make an example... Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler's romantic comedy "The Ugly Truth" had a budget of $38 mln and brought in freaking $200 mln at the box office alone. THAT is making heaps of money at the box office. Not to mention comedies are huge on DVD sales, so I can't even begin to think how much that went up after DVD sales. They need to make triple the money as the budget to actually make a decent profit. In Heigl's case they clearly made a lot more than that. In QoS's case, they were about $100 mln short, since it cost $230 mln (at the very least) and they made $586 mln. I don't think QoS budget was over inflated, quite the opposite. I think in this case they're lying more than ever about the actual costs of the movie, but that's another matterAlso i read that the budget for the new film will be around $150 mil mark (?), well do people here think thats in response to the over inflated
budget for 'QOS', or an attempt to make the new film potentially more profitable.
Re: The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......
QOS was in the bargain bins at places like Target and Walmart here pretty soon after it came out on DVD.Rather telling, I think.English Agent wrote:Hi Ale
Was at Lake Garda over Xmas, lovely place (am learning Italian).
In regards to Bond 23, i can't see them being able to make Bond 23 any cheaper than QOS, without some major changes, such as the reduction in the orchestrated action scenes.
I read somewhere that the opening car chase in QOS cost 12 million pounds to film............what a shame that that action sequence impact was somewhat reduced in fashion by some over zealous editing.
Not surprised QOS had poor DVD sales, as the film was generally not liked (shame!)
EA
Code: Select all
DAD $142m (242 total cost) -MGM didn't make money on this until Home Video and according them made more money on DAD than any Bond movie they had previously partnered with EON.
CR $150 ($270 total Cost) -
QOS $230/280 + at least 120m P&A (BTW other sources are confirming Sony paid $400m for Quark -although they break the cost down differently)Hi EA!English Agent wrote:Hi Ale
Was at Lake Garda over Xmas, lovely place (am learning Italian).
In regards to Bond 23, i can't see them being able to make Bond 23 any cheaper than QOS, without some major changes, such as the reduction in the orchestrated action scenes.
I read somewhere that the opening car chase in QOS cost 12 million pounds to film............what a shame that that action sequence impact was somewhat reduced in fashion by some over zealous editing.
Not surprised QOS had poor DVD sales, as the film was generally not liked (shame!)
EA
I know, right? I didn't quite put two and two together appropriately until I saw the whole DVD sales part. If DVD sales had been good, they could have made a profit. But that wasn't the case. As far as box office, QoS didn't do well at all in the US, and while it did much better worldwide, it still wasn't enough for box office to grant them to make a profit. Thing is, lots of angles aren't considered. Box office money doesn't all go to the studio at all. Only 1/3 of it does. There's distributor, theater and studio sharing the box office revenue, and the distributor is the one who gets the biggest share. And the studio will then have to pay actors, producers and writers with THEIR share of box office revenue. Hence why they need to make at the very least 3 times the production costs at the box office (or anyway in general) to break even. There was a very good article about this that I read a few years ago, here's the DVD as opposed to box office importance part:Box Office Mojo has the budget for QOS as $200 million and the worldwide box office as a little under $600 million. If a film has to make back 3 times its production budget in order to break even, then that does indeed make it the first Bond film to lose money. Weird as it may sound, I hadn't realised that. I thought it was a film that was just about saved at the cinema by its strong opening weekend (a holdover from the popularity of CR), but which tanked on DVD and Blu-Ray.
These numbers tell the story. Ticket sales from theaters provided 100 percent of the studios' revenues in 1948; in 2003, they accounted for less than 20 percent. Instead, home entertainment provided 82 percent of the 2003 revenues. In terms of profits, the studios can make an even larger proportion from home entertainment since most, if not all, of the theatrical revenues go to pay for the prints and advertising required to get audiences into theaters. (Video, DVDs, and TV have much lower marketing costs.)
This profit reality has transformed the way Hollywood operates. Theatrical releases now essentially serve as launching platforms for videos, DVDs, network TV, pay TV, games, and a host of other products. Even so, the box-office totals are losing their traditional influence. Up until a few years ago, the results from the U.S. box office largely drove secondary markets, especially video. If a film had a huge opening, the video chains would order 200,000 or more copies (at $60 or more apiece wholesale) for rentals. But this buying formula ended when consumers began buying DVDs at mass retailers. By 2004, Wal-Mart was accounting for more than one-third of the studios' revenues in video and DVD.
Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:The sky at Night is a splendid title for Bond. This man can be the villian:
Ah patrick Moore I'll always remember this guy as gamesmaster (d**n channel4 for axing thisCapt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:The sky at Night is a splendid title for Bond. This man can be the villian:
). QOS $230/280 + at least 120m P&A (BTW other sources are confirming Sony paid $400m for Quark -although they break the cost down differently)
The advertising costs are actually just about right if compared to the average other studios have spent ever since 2005 (and I'll get to it by linking and quoting the entire article about box office written by an ECONOMIST, so not based on opinion but on actual numbers, about it). So this means QoS was a major loss for them. CR for sure gave them a good profit, QoS was the exact opposite, especially considering DVD sales were disastrous.I think this sums it all up very, very well. And, in short: QoS was far from being a success for the studio. People think those box office numbers for QoS are great. They are not.Gross Misunderstanding
Forget about the box office.
By Edward Jay Epstein
Posted Monday, May 16, 2005, at 2:55 PM ET
The media, by treating the box-office grosses released on Sunday afternoons as if they were the results of a weekly horse race, further a misunderstanding about the New Hollywood. Once upon a time, when the studios owned the theaters and carted away locked boxes of cash from them, these box-office numbers meant something. But nowadays, as dazzling as the "boffo," "socko," and "near-record" figures may seem to the media and other number fetishists, they have little real significance other than to measure the effectiveness of the studios' massive expenditures on ads.
To begin with, the Sunday numbers are not actual ticket sales but "projections" furnished by Nielsen EDI, since the Sunday evening box office cannot be counted in time to meet the deadlines of the morning papers. Variety, to its credit, corrects the guess estimates on Monday with the actual weekend take. Yet even these accurate numbers leave in place four other confusions about who earns what.
First, the reported "grosses" are not those of the studios but those of the movie houses. The movie houses take these sums and keep their share (or what they claim is their share)—which can amount to more than 50 percent of the original box-office total. Consider, for example, Touchstone's Gone in 60 Seconds, which had a $242 million box-office gross. From this impressive haul, the theaters kept $129.8 million and remitted the balance to Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista. After paying mandatory trade dues to the MPAA, Buena Vista was left with $101.6 million. From this amount, it repaid the marketing expenses that had been advanced—$13 million for prints so the film could open in thousands of theatres; $10.2 million for the insurance, local taxes, custom clearances, and other logistical expenses; and $67.4 million for advertising. What remained of the nearly quarter-billion-dollar "gross" was a paltry $11 million. (And that figure does not account for the $103.3 million that Disney had paid to make the movie in the first place.)
Second, box-office results reflect neither the appeal of the actual movies—nor their quality—but the number of screens on which they are playing and the efficacy of the marketing that drove an audience into the theaters. If a movie opens on 30 screens, like Sideways or Million Dollar Baby, there is obviously no way it can achieve the results of a movie opening on 3,000 screens. And how do studios motivate millions of moviegoers—mainly under 25—to go to the 3,000 screens on an opening weekend to see a film no one else has yet seen or recommended? With a successful advertising campaign.
Studios spend $20 million to $40 million on TV ads because their market research shows that those ads are what can draw a movie's crucial opening-weekend teenage audience. To do that, they typically blitz this audience, aiming to hit each viewer with between five to eight ads in the two weeks before a movie's opening. The studios also spend a great deal of money testing the ads on focus groups, some of whom are wired up to measure their nonverbal responses. If the ads fail to trigger the right response, the film usually "bombs" in the media's hyperbolic judgment. If the ads succeed, the film is rewarded with "boffo" box-office numbers.
Third, the "news" of the weekend grosses confuses the feat of buying an audience with that of making a profit. The cost of prints and advertising for the opening of a studio film in America in 2003 totaled, on average, $39 million. That's $18.4 million more per film than studios recovered from box-office receipts. In other words, it cost more in prints and ads—not even counting the actual costs of making the film—to lure an audience into theaters than the studio got back. So while a "boffo" box-office gross might look good in a Variety headline, it might also signify a boffo loss.
Finally, and most important, the fixation on box-office grosses obscures the much more lucrative global home-entertainment business, which is the New Hollywood's real profit center. The six major studios spoon-feed their box-office grosses to the media, but they go to great lengths to conceal the other components of their revenue streams from the public, as well as from the agents, stars, and writers who may profit from a movie.
Each of the major studios, however, supplies the real numbers to its trade association, the MPAA, including a detailed breakdown of the money they actually receive, country by country, from movie theaters, home video, network television, local television, pay television, and pay-per-view, which is then privately circulated among the six studios as "All Media Revenue Report." (To see these private data click here.)
These numbers tell the story. Ticket sales from theaters provided 100 percent of the studios' revenues in 1948; in 2003, they accounted for less than 20 percent. Instead, home entertainment provided 82 percent of the 2003 revenues. In terms of profits, the studios can make an even larger proportion from home entertainment since most, if not all, of the theatrical revenues go to pay for the prints and advertising required to get audiences into theaters. (Video, DVDs, and TV have much lower marketing costs.)
This profit reality has transformed the way Hollywood operates. Theatrical releases now essentially serve as launching platforms for videos, DVDs, network TV, pay TV, games, and a host of other products. Even so, the box-office totals are losing their traditional influence. Up until a few years ago, the results from the U.S. box office largely drove secondary markets, especially video. If a film had a huge opening, the video chains would order 200,000 or more copies (at $60 or more apiece wholesale) for rentals. But this buying formula ended when consumers began buying DVDs at mass retailers. By 2004, Wal-Mart was accounting for more than one-third of the studios' revenues in video and DVD.
For merchandisers like Wal-Mart, DVDs are a means to lure consumers, who may buy other products, into the store. The box-office numbers are of little relevance (especially since it's teenagers who create huge opening weekends, and they cannot afford to buy more profitable goods like plasma TVs). Instead of box-office results, merchandisers look for movies with stars such as Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, or Arnold Schwarzenegger, who have traction with their highly desired older customers. For example, whereas the sophisticated mind-bending love story Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind had a dismal seventh-place finish in the box-office gross sweepstakes—earning a mere $8.1 million for the theaters during its opening weekend—thanks to the presence of recognizable names like Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet, it did extremely well on DVD, selling more than 1.5 million copies during its first week in the stores.
Hard to deny or disagree with.shadowonthesun wrote:And what about all those Bond fans who aren't members of an internet forum? Or casual cinemagoers who are new additions to the Bond fan group and may not have seen all twenty-two films? Or people who enjoyed the films, but don't define themselves as Bond fans? Should they be overlooked when they no doubt have an opinion of some kind as to what the next film should be like? EON has to make a film that appeals to absolutely everybody, which is pretty much imposible. Just look at these very forums: there are so many contradictory opinions that it would be impossible to give everyone here what they want. Some people want Craig's run of films to keep going the way they are. Some want a return to the Age of Brosnan; others to the Day of Lazenby. Some people want David Arnold to score it, while others want John Barry back. And who's to say that what we want is even the right thing for the franchise? Look of the quality of some of the posts that get made around here - I myself would not entrust the franchise to some people around here, and there are doubtless people who would not entrust the future of it to me. The notion that we somehow have more claim to the future of the franchise and that we know what is best is blatantly wrong. EON has to appeal to everyone, not just the people on a fan forum.
Perfectly stated. And, if one has to go by the general public, then the general public went to see the first 20 and the number of people who went to see the first 20 is certainly FAR superior to the number of people who went to see the last two. Not to mention 20 movies doing well for sure overrule 2 doing well (actually, one doing well, only CR). In short, don't fix it if it ain't broken. And to this let's add that per previous posts, QoS was a LOSS for the studio, not a profit. DAD remains the movie that made them make their highest-ever profit. Yes, that's counting CR as well. So, I'd say it's not difficult to do the math based on the general public.Powder Puff wrote:I loved the first 20 Bond movies and hated the last two.
Powder would advise casting a Bond in the vein of the first five actors and making a movie in the style of the first 20, Instead the Bond series is cursed by the influence of the modern ghastly reboot fashion and the presence of old fish face as James Bond.
But if Bond 23 is anything like QOS i'll not be buying the DVD and will have to content myself with the Older Movies and let the World continue with this new "Low calorie, or Bond Lite " Verson. Lucky I'm in the position of being able to watch preview showings of Movies ( so am glad to say they never got a penny out of me for QOS in the cinema 
) So i'll give Bond 23 a look, But my Hopes arn't High. I'm just hoping it's not Bonds "All Time Low " 
YOU BOUGHT CR AND EVEN QOS?????? You must be a Death Eater!!!!!!!Thunderpussy wrote:Like Power Puff, I Love the 62 to 02 Bonds,I even have a soft spot for NSNA & the 67 CR. But I now call myself a Classic Bond Fan.I did Buy CR for my collection and sadly did add QOS
