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.
The Bourne movies have (surprisingly) kept cost down. But as a rule of thumb you're right. That's why surprise hits like Twilight and Mama Mia that cost under $40m to $50m are such a boon to the industry.
FelixLeiterRocks wrote: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.
So Sony increased the budget in the full knowledge and expectation that QOS would make less money than CR. Riiight.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
There were no expectations it would make 200 million domestically. Only 4 movies this year broke the 200 million mark and none so far this holiday season, and most likely no others will. The next closest to 200 is Madagascar at 165, by the end of it's BO run QOS will end up at least that much if not in the 170's.
Please post me one legitimate news article stating that Sony viewed QOS as a failure.
FelixLeiterRocks wrote:Please post me one legitimate news article stating that Sony viewed QOS as a failure.
Yeah, like studio spokescritters ever come right out and say that their films are failures. Can you find a legitimate news article saying that United Artists viewed Heaven's Gate as a failure?
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
FelixLeiterRocks wrote: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.
You don't seem to get that Sony threw as much as $350m (including advertising) at this film, TO TURN A PROFIT - they're not doing this for their health!,
their consumer electronics devision, is down in sales, they NEED Bond's Box Office money, which so far, hasn't shown a dollar of profit
Neither the name "Frosty" nor any other name
or character in this post is meant to portray
a real company of actual person
I can show you a ton of articles showing studio execs were unhapy with film performances. Superman Returns is probably the most notable example.
I agree the budget got out of hand for this film. I don't know why or how, but Sony shelled out the money and the response to the film has been mostly positive.
I've also been pretty honest about how this film had problems. But overall I thought it a good film and a good conclusion to the events in CR. The film had the largest opening of any Bond film in England, yes that is partially due to inflationary reasons, but none the less they keep all the records in current rates.
The bottom line is the subject of this thread. "Is this the worst Bond film," and by any objective measure the answer is no. Sure this is due alot to opinion, but the vast majority response to this film and to Casino Royale was extremely positive. The only negative reaction to this film, is due to the fact that CR was not only a great Bond movie, but a great movie period, and QOS ends up being somewhat of a letdown.
Wheather a film is successful or not, does not make it a good or bad movie. Cinderella Man is one of the best films I've seen, but it was a "flop" according to the box office. Die Another Day was the biggest Bond moneymaker at the time it was released, but it is a horrible film by any stretch of the immagination. I don't know how many movies Madonna must appear in before people get a clue that she can't act. But as bad as it was, I don't know if I can say it was the worst, because any true Bond fan would admit there have been numerous horrible Bond films, of which I will list the ones on my worst list, in no particular order:
Moonraker
The man with the Golden Gun
A View to a Kill
Octapussy
Diamonds are Forever
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World is Not Enough
Die Another Day
There are probably some others I could mention, but these are the worst in my opinion. And yes I listed a Connery film, because it was patently obvious that Connery only did that film for money. If memory serves he was paid 2 million dollars for the roll which would be like 25 million today. Jill St. John was probably the most annoying Bond girl in memory, with Dennis Richards running a close second.
To call Diamonds are Forever a good Bond film is an insult to all the great work Connery did in the series, like FRWL, which is my personal favorite of his.
FelixLeiterRocks wrote: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.
You don't seem to get that Sony threw as much as $350m (including advertising) at this film, TO TURN A PROFIT - they're not doing this for their health!,
their consumer electronics devision, is down in sales, they NEED Bond's Box Office money, which so far, hasn't shown a dollar of profit
The film will be in theaters for at least another month or two and is still performing big internationally. Besides I already said I agree the budget was out of hand, but it was Sony's fault for this happening.
The one thing you guys leave out in the equasion is we are seeing some of the worst economic conditions in years, so your straw man arguments don't hold water.
The thread started out as "Is QOS the worst ever Bond film?". My answer is a resounding no.
As for Box Office, QOS is not as profitable because of it's budget, I think it's still getting good raw box office, enough to keep this vision going and not condemn their new imagining of Bond.
Also, I could give a rats ass about profit. CSI gets 9 seasons, with two spins offs (at 7 seasons and 5 seasons each). That's 21 seasons of CSI. Shows like Deadwood or Arrested Development get castrated in their third seasons. The public is stupid. Take a look at who we put into office or on music charts.
CR and QOS are taking Bond in a new, original, fresh direction. Good. There's been 40 years of gadgets girls and crazy schemes. Deal with the change, it'll only be a movie or two more.
Scissorhands: "The public is stupid. Take a look at who we put into office or on our music charts". I agree 100%. That is why I cannot believe Daniel Craig was chosen for the role or why people rush to see him as Bond. This new, original,and fresh direction you see Craig taking Bond in is anything but. Original? New? Fresh? Did you watch the Bourne trilogy? That was original, new,and fresh, if you like that type of spy genre film. Craig is anything BUT Bond.
FelixLeiterRocks wrote: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.
You don't seem to get that Sony threw as much as $350m (including advertising) at this film, TO TURN A PROFIT - they're not doing this for their health!,
their consumer electronics devision, is down in sales, they NEED Bond's Box Office money, which so far, hasn't shown a dollar of profit
The film will be in theaters for at least another month or two and is still performing big internationally. Besides I already said I agree the budget was out of hand, but it was Sony's fault for this happening.
The one thing you guys leave out in the equasion is we are seeing some of the worst economic conditions in years, so your straw man arguments don't hold water.
It's a matter of historical fact, that Hollywood was practically created off the back of the great depression,
people went to the cinema in their millions, to get away from their troubles, and there's nothing to suggest that they wouldn't today?.
General Box Office takings don't appear to be down that much in most areas, if at all?.
Neither the name "Frosty" nor any other name
or character in this post is meant to portray
a real company of actual person
bjmdds wrote:Scissorhands: "The public is stupid. Take a look at who we put into office or on our music charts". I agree 100%. That is why I cannot believe Daniel Craig was chosen for the role or why people rush to see him as Bond. This new, original,and fresh direction you see Craig taking Bond in is anything but. Original? New? Fresh? Did you watch the Bourne trilogy? That was original, new,and fresh, if you like that type of spy genre film. Craig is anything BUT Bond.
As was pointed out earlier, alot of Bond films have been reactionary (see Moonraker). Yes, the action in Craig's films is reminicent of Bourne, yet the characters are fundamentally different. Bond is still Bond. If you don't think a guy who hides in the dark in his targets office and then chats it up with his target before killing him, isn't Bond, then I don't know where you've been for the last 45 years.
Again this is the kind of stuff people can't stand, when you say "the public is stupid" and equate it to "if you like Daniel Craig you're stupid". If you don't like the guy, fine by me. Just keep in mind you aren't the sole arbiter on what is Bond and what isn't.
FelixLeiterRocks wrote:
It's a matter of historical fact, that Hollywood was practically created off the back of the great depression,
people went to the cinema in their millions, to get away from their troubles, and there's nothing to suggest that they wouldn't today?.
General Box Office takings don't appear to be down that much in most areas, if at all?.
You guys can't play the "adjusted for inflation" card when it suits your needs and then ignore it when it goes against your point. Box office is way down where it was a year ago. Last year three films released at the Holiday season were over the 200 million mark. I Am Legend, National Treasure: Book of Secrets, and Alvin and the Chipmunks. This year there has not been one film this Holiday season to break 200 million.
Your argument about the great depression is a mute point. There was no TV, there was no DVD, there was no way to see a movie other than in the theater. You cannot compare the box office of that era until now. People will go see a movie in opening weekend, and most will not see a repeated viewing of that movie.
I'd rather have the Bond movies rip-off Bourne to tell Bond's story than rip-off past Bond and repeat the same crap over and over and over.
If Casino Royale or QOS was the first Bond ever, I'd probably just call it crap and a rip-off. But because we're seeing a character we know and love through a new lens, it's much better.
Craig is Bond. Change happens. This is the change of the moment. Good on them.
FelixLeiterRocks wrote:[Last year three films released at the Holiday season were over the 200 million mark. I Am Legend, National Treasure: Book of Secrets, and Alvin and the Chipmunks. This year there has not been one film this Holiday season to break 200 million.
It could just be that there's nothing out there to inspire people to go out and see something? - there's nothing out there that I'm going to bother with.
When it comes to this economic down-turn card you keep on using?,
there seemed to be some $70m worth of people who saw QOS on it's U.S. opening, and £15m worth of cinema-goers, for the U.K. opening,
so there was PLENTY of cash for QOS then! ,
then the BAAAAAAAD word of mouth came out, and the film started to sink.
FACT.
FACT.
FACT.
Neither the name "Frosty" nor any other name
or character in this post is meant to portray
a real company of actual person
To answer the question, Quantum Of Solace is the worst ever James Bond film. I have the Jason Bourne films at home. I don't need to see Eon's bandit attempt to mimic them. Next time they should consider making a film with a script.
"I’m looking for Commander Bond and not an overgrown stunt-man." - Ian Fleming
FelixLeiterRocks wrote:I can show you a ton of articles showing studio execs were unhapy with film performances. Superman Returns is probably the most notable example.
While it was still on release?
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
Facts seem to be dismissed. You are correct Frosty. $67.5 million was spent on TBM's opening weekend. It has tumbled quite precipitously since and now should go off the charts. As I said on another thread, QOSTBM took in day 25($500,000+) yesterday in the USA what CR took in day 49($500,000+) here. The UK will NEVER surpass the $105 million CR did, and inflation adjusted, forget it. DAD has more USA admissions than QOSTBM has to date. Facts, which all show a definite disenchantment and a realization that the public is tiring of this mimicry.
,
