Is Quantum Of Solace the worst ever James Bond film?

[FelixLeiterRocks]

Look, Die Another Day didn't tank, and neither did Casino Royale or QOS. I don't think the differences between them are stark enough to call any a financial failure. They are all successes.

But they're not. QOS needs to make $600 million in order to show a profit, due to its outsize budget. It seems unlikely to do so. No Bond film has ever lost money before, in the entire 46-year history of the franchise, not even LTK. Hopefully, one money-loser won't be enough to kill the franchise, but it may cause some heads to roll.

That's rediculous. Sony isn't stupid, they had an idea based on previous films what this one was going to pull in. They wouldn't spend 200 million if they didn't think it would get it back. There are other revenue streams that aren't just related to box office take. Wheather it's product placement, or DVD sales, they will make a profit on this.

[James]

According to two other forums I browsed today QoS is the least profitable James Bond film currently because of its huge production costs. They were expecting and needed to make more money than they have with this film. They may have to cut costs to justify a third Craig film.

[FelixLeiterRocks]

Please post the links. While I agree the production costs seem to have gotten out of hand for a film that has little if any CGI, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest a 3rd film won't be greenlit.

[katied]

QOS isn't a big offender,CGI wise,But it *is* pretty obvious where it was used

[FelixLeiterRocks]

QOS isn't a big offender,CGI wise,But it *is* pretty obvious where it was used

The only time I noticed it was durring the riverbed scene and the freefall from the airplane. I agree though the CGI wasn't of great quality. From what I understand the biggest production costs were in the decision to film in Chile.

[katied]

Yup. The smoke coming from the plane engine? f-a-k-e FAKE.

[wrenchhands]

Oh well, scaled production costs can't be that bad of a thing. Story is what I care about.

And the only time I really noticed the CGI was the fall through the glass in the fight.

[katied]

That was fake...and possibly in Haiti as well(in the hotel room when he fights Slate)

[James]

Please post the links. While I agree the production costs seem to have gotten out of hand for a film that has little if any CGI, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest a 3rd film won't be greenlit.

I read this on the MI6 and Cbn box-office threads. I can't be arsed to find the exact link. No one said that a third film won't be greenlit but that a third Craig outing might have to scale down the budget after the ho and indeed hum box-office of QoS.

[wrenchhands]

So, let it. Again, story is prime, not effects and locales.

[Kristatos]

How do you figure?

A $200 million budget, according to Box Office Mojo. The general rule of thumb in Hollywood is that a film has to make back 3 times its budget at the box office in order to be considered profitable. That's why Superman Returns was considered a flop, despite a fairly respectable BO take.

[stockslivevan]

How do you figure?

A $200 million budget, according to Box Office Mojo. The general rule of thumb in Hollywood is that a film has to make back 3 times its budget at the box office in order to be considered profitable. That's why Superman Returns was considered a flop, despite a fairly respectable BO take.

And ironically it made more than Batman Begins. The main concern shouldn't be whether it made a profit, but how much the films draw in audiences. If we kept applying with the former then there hasn't been a big profit for Bond films since GE, which was only 60 million compared to the 110-200 range. Funny that when film going habits have dropped budgets have rose.

[FelixLeiterRocks]

How do you figure?

A $200 million budget, according to Box Office Mojo. The general rule of thumb in Hollywood is that a film has to make back 3 times its budget at the box office in order to be considered profitable. That's why Superman Returns was considered a flop, despite a fairly respectable BO take.

That's funny you mention Batman Begins, because by your definition Batman Begins was not profitable.

[Kristatos]

That's funny you mention Batman Begins, because by your definition Batman Begins was not profitable.

True, but it broke the magic $200 million barrier in the US (something no Bond film since YOLT has done, in today's dollars), so I'm guessing that was enough to get TDK greenlit. Like James says, QOS probably did well enough to keep the series alive (I hope), but Bond 23 may get scaled back, and some mid-level studio flunkeys will probably find their heads on the chopping block as punishment.

[wrenchhands]

It's only been like a month. And we're in a shitty recession.

So, I don't think it's done bad enough to condemn the Craig era, although I'm sure you guys are looking at the fist opportunity to jump on him.

[Kristatos]

It's only been like a month. And we're in a shitty recession.

So, I don't think it's done bad enough to condemn the Craig era, although I'm sure you guys are looking at the first opportunity to jump on him.

If you've been reading the forum, one thing that unites both pro and anti factions has been the belief that a good story is more important than a huge box office take. You just sound like you're sulking over the fact that QOS is underperforming at the box office and projecting your petulance onto us.

[wrenchhands]

It's only been like a month. And we're in a shitty recession.

So, I don't think it's done bad enough to condemn the Craig era, although I'm sure you guys are looking at the first opportunity to jump on him.

If you've been reading the forum, one thing that unites both pro and anti factions has been the belief that a good story is more important than a huge box office take. You just sound like you're sulking over the fact that QOS is underperforming at the box office and projecting your petulance onto us.

No I'm arguing that an underperformance doesn't make the direction Craig is going, what I consider a good story, a bad idea as some think. It's barely under performing.

[FelixLeiterRocks]

It's not underpeforming. It's getting about the same take as Twighlight and Four Christmases. I understand the anti-Craigites love to rag on this movie, but it's not underperforming.

[Kristatos]

It's getting about the same take as Twighlight and Four Christmases.

Twilight - $37 million budget (in profit after 9 days, maybe less when overseas grosses are added)
Four Christmases - $80 million budget
Pond of Wood - $200 million budget

See the difference?

[FelixLeiterRocks]

Sony spent the money, and they knew about how much it was going to draw based on the previous films. That's the part you don't seem to get.