The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[bjmdds]

A loss = a flop Sweenster. Way underperforming CR= a flop Sweenster.....this is how it probably all came to pass......September, 2005, in a villa in Italy, dinner between MGW, Amy Pascal from Sony, and Ms. Broccoli.......Ms. B:"so guys, I want Daniel Craig to be the next Bond for us, OK?"........MGW:"Why? He looks like Putin, not Bond, is too short, and has no classy looks as well, and is blond haired. What's going on Barb? Now I see why you were supposedly away on business the last 10 days and came home exhausted"........Amy Pascal: "What's wrong with Pierce Brosnan again, or Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen or James Purefoy or Sam Worthington, or people like that, if we try a new actor? Daniel Craig? Who is he?".....Ms. B:"he would be great as Bond for us. Trust me. We should also consider copying the very intriguing Bourne movie that came out recently. We now have the rights to Casino Royale so let's do something off the wall. Let's start over, forget Daddy's legacy, and reboot the whole shebang! The people won't care. They eat up anything we serve them anyway and keep coming back for more!"......MGW:"Barb, just give me a cameo and I will go along with anything you want. I am tired. I think I will take a nap out on the porch now"......Amy Pascal:"OK Barb, now that 'stuffy' is going to sleep, what gives with this nobody Craig and why sack Pierce now?"......Miss B:"Let me just say that Daniel is the perfect choice for this role and will come real cheap too. Pierce wants $25 'mill' and a percentage of the net too! Danny, I mean Daniel, comes for peanuts and I, I mean we, can control him.".......Amy Pascal:"So who is going to tell Pierce the bad news?"....Ms. B:"Leave that to me"........and so, history was written and we have the results before you........It's time to rewrite history again.

BJ, QoS has not flopped at the cinema. It's you wishful thinking again. Currently it is alongside TND and TWINE in terms of BO figures. In that case, are they flops too.....?

If they lost money prior to DVD sales, yes, but did those films make a profit? You are measuring success comparing a 2008 film's box office to those in the 1990s, yet what was the profit margin in 1997 and 1999?

[The Sweeney]

BJ, QoS has not flopped at the cinema. It's you wishful thinking again. Currently it is alongside TND and TWINE in terms of BO figures. In that case, are they flops too.....?

Depends. Did they have $200 million production budgets (in 2008 dollars)?

I've absolutely no idea. You lot are more clued up with budgets, BO figures, inflation adjusting, etc. and take far more of an interest in the subject than I do.

But if QoS had flopped dismally at the BO, and was losing money by the second, don't you think this would have been breaking news everywhere? No one has reported this as being a spectacular flop. If anything, it is the total opposite. All I keep reading about in articles is how well this has performed at the BO.

Now either the press are all lying through their back teeth, and BJ is 100% spot on that this film has tanked big time at the BO, or BJ is clutching at straws again and looking to twist this to fit his own agenda.

I think it must be the former. The press are born liars and BJ is usually always spot on with his predictions......

[Kristatos]

But if QoS had flopped dismally at the BO, and was losing money by the second, don't you think this would have been breaking news everywhere? No one has reported this as being a spectacular flop. If anything, it is the total opposite. All I keep reading about in articles is how well this has performed at the BO.

Two things. First of all, a good opening weekend goes a long way to creating the perception of success. For example, the films Last Action Hero and Demolition Man did similar business at the box office, yet the latter was portrayed as a hit and the former as a flop. Why? because Demolition Man debuted at number 1 in the US box office chart while Last Action Hero, on release at the same time as the box office steamroller that was Jurassic Park, didn't.

Secondly, if the film was a spectacular flop, it would indeed be news (do a news search on Delgo, for example). But it isn't, it's merely slightly disappointing. That, in itself, isn't particularly newsworthy. QOS's box office returns would be the news equivalent of "people in Athens rather cross at government".

[bjmdds]

Eon won't go out and say they expected QOS to big a mega hit and it has not lived up to their expectations when at the same time they STILL praise the director and Craig. Again, where will the remaining over $100 million come from now at the box office, PRIOR to DVD release,to break even? Aside from Japan and next week being Christmas-New Year's last ditch effort, this film is D-O-N-E!

[The Sweeney]

Secondly, if the film was a spectacular flop, it would indeed be news (do a news search on Delgo, for example). But it isn't, it's merely slightly disappointing. That, in itself, isn't particularly newsworthy. QOS's box office returns would be the news equivalent of "people in Athens rather cross at government".

Exactly Kris. This film has not been a spectacular flop, as BJ thinks it is. Slightly disappointing is probably the best way to describe QoS.
BJ's now moving the goal posts again. Before, he said no one would turn up to see this in the US, because Craig is so unpopular Stateside. Now that this has done relatively good business in terms of how many people have actually seen it, he now has to turn the argument on its head again, by saying `well, it may have done better than I expected at the BO, but look how much it cost EON/Sony. It hasn't made a profit for them.'

Whichever way you want to look at this, judging by BO draw alone, Craig is as popular as Brozza was with the general public. Facts are facts. CR and QoS are in line with the same kind of figures that Brozza drew. There has been no spectacular drop in terms of how many people wanted to see this. If anything, it took everyone here by suprise by how well it did in its opening weekend. Why? If people hated Craig as much as BJ suggested, why did so many people flock to see it? Surely everyone would have stayed away after seeing how crap Craig was in CR.

Also, it would be interesting to know how much EON/Sony make outside of BO figures. I wonder how much they make from sponsorship deals for instance...?

[The Sweeney]

Eon won't go out and say they expected QOS to big a mega hit and it has not lived up to their expectations when at the same time they STILL praise the director and Craig. Again, where will the remaining over $100 million come from now at the box office, PRIOR to DVD release,to break even? Aside from Japan and next week being Christmas-New Year's last ditch effort, this film is D-O-N-E!

If it cost 200 mil to make, and has done 500 mil at the BO, where is the loss? By my reckoning, this has made $300 mil so far....?

[Mazer Rackham]

If it cost 200 mil to make, and has done 500 mil at the BO, where is the loss? By my reckoning, this has made $300 mil so far....?

It didn't, from in house estimates it cost 260m to make + 100m to 200m for advertising (Sony is trying for rebates and tax incentives to get the cost down. Don't know how keen Panama is on giving rebates ).
Its not as cut and dry as it makes X amount, it cost Y amount, therefore it made money. The entire amount of the each ticket sold is not going into the profit pit.

Remember LTK cost 47m to make and advertise, made 156m worldwide ( all 1989 figures) and still had not recouped its initial investment after seven years (after GE was released).

I think Quark will make them some money but given the division I don't think it will be much. Certainly not as much as they were relying on. Nobody spends 300m to barely make that back.

[Kristatos]

If it cost 200 mil to make, and has done 500 mil at the BO, where is the loss? By my reckoning, this has made $300 mil so far....?

Hollywood accounting, mate. A film has to make back three times its production budget in order to make a profit, due to marketing and distribution costs.

[Mazer Rackham]

LTK more than tripled the initial cost to make it but did clear into profit for a long time. Eventually it did cross over to the black through rentals thanks mainly to revitalized interest in the series after 1995.

Using the LTK model where 332% didn't clear profit then at 200m low ball estimate Quark needs to make 664m to be on the same footing as LTK. At the higher estimates of 220-260 + advertising and other promotion it needs to clear 700m to 800m. (The same calculation for GE give us a minimum of 232m to be even with LTK and it made 353m (1995 figures) before rental and video sales)

Don't take these number too seriously, it is not a rule only an example for the sake of argument. But it should serve as an example of what's going on behind the scenes.

[Kristatos]

Don't take these number too seriously, it is not a rule only an example for the sake of argument. But it should serve as an example of what's going on behind the scenes.

What he said. The 300% figure is only a general rule of thumb, the actual figure varies from film to film.

[The Sweeney]

Thanks for the insight guys. You certainly know more about this than I do.
Either way, my only real concern is what I thought of the film itself. Sadly it didn't match my expectations.

You should spread some of this info on CBn and MI6, as they are all back-slapping and congratulating each other at the moment on how well QoS has done at the BO.

[katied]

I liked QOS more than I thought I would but perfect?Good heavens, no!

[The Sweeney]

I got this info from CBn -

Q0S cost less than it's budget of $200 Million because the studios didn't have to pay that much to make it. The corporate tie-in partners who had products placed in Q0S paid the studios, thus lowering the $200 Million by about $60 Million thereby making the movie only cost $140 million out of studio pockets.

The rule of thumb is 2 times that budget to break even and 2.5 times to make profit.

So, in order to make money, Q0S has to have a theatrical run of about $400 millio. Q0S will make over $1,000 Million, i.e. $1 Billion, once it hits dvd and rentals and flights and terrestrial tv in 2 years.

[Mazer Rackham]

Part of the problem is Sony. Once they became involved the advertising budget went through the roof. 100m+ on advertisement! That alone can kill of profit.

[Kristatos]

Q0S will make over $1,000 Million, i.e. $1 Billion

Or $1 milliard if you're using British billions.

[Mazer Rackham]

I got this info from CBn -

Q0S cost less than it's budget of $200 Million because the studios didn't have to pay that much to make it. The corporate tie-in partners who had products placed in Q0S paid the studios, thus lowering the $200 Million by about $60 Million thereby making the movie only cost $140 million out of studio pockets.

The rule of thumb is 2 times that budget to break even and 2.5 times to make profit.

So, in order to make money, Q0S has to have a theatrical run of about $400 millio. Q0S will make over $1,000 Million, i.e. $1 Billion, once it hits dvd and rentals and flights and terrestrial tv in 2 years.

Um,
yes, no, sorta.

Quark cost the studio out of pocket 260m, now Sony has been working hard to get those costs down, 200m might be achievable but the 140m is pure spin and wishful thinking. Even at the Pippi Longstockings 140m its got another 100 to 200m in promotional cost. Lets use the low ball 240m, 600m is need at 2.5.

Don't forget that for CR Sony gave itself the total cost of the movie in advertising. (240m to 270m) That was no a lose proposition for them, probably did the same for Quark. So in way they could argue that no movie ever cost them money and only makes it, but we know thats not true.

Quark will make them money but falls short of where it needed to be.

1b is a bit out there. Eventually it should, I doubt there is bond movie that hasn't
Immediately is will probably do 150m to 200m rentals, DVD sales are hard to say, depend how much the 1st week sells, how much they discount them, and how long they can stay at full retail. TV 20m for 5 years (maybe)

[Mazer Rackham]

You should spread some of this info on CBn and MI6, as they are all back-slapping and congratulating each other at the moment on how well QoS has done at the BO.

I wouldn't, the Quark BO can't shift Hancock Worldwide or US. * Hancock sucked BTW
Quark didn't do dismally bad, neither did to do really well. It is a warning, one that can't be ignored in the long run.
Fixable? Hell yes! The main lesson is they should not spend a lot to make them!

They really went wild spending on this one. I don't know why they did, perhaps they thought they couldn't fail yo make 600m + and I don't know why it was reined in earlier by sony

[bjmdds]

It is reported movie's producers keep only up to 55% of the box office revenue in the USA and only 40% internationally. Is this fact? If so, why should the movie theatres keep so much? Isn't 20% enough for them? The producer has all the expense, including advertising and marketing in addition to the film production as well. Why should the theatre owners keep 45-60%?

[Kristatos]

It is reported movie's producers keep only up to 55% of the box office revenue in the USA and only 40% internationally. Is this fact? If so, why should the movie theatres keep so much? Isn't 20% enough for them? The producer has all the expense, including advertising and marketing in addition to the film production as well. Why should the theatre owners keep 45-60%?

Movie theaters aren't the only other people who get a cut of the proceeds. There's the distributor, the advertising firms who market the film and various sundry other people who need to be paid. Edit: oh, and don't forget the cast and crew!

[stockslivevan]

I think people need to look at this at a different perspective, meaning non a producers'.

High budget or not, the fact that it has made $525 so far says that there were a lot of audiences that wanted to see the flick featuring an actor who BJ claims wouldn't draw in that much at the BO after CR's use of "curiosity factor". My main concern isn't whether it made a profit with its ridiculous budget, but how much audiences were drawn in. When it comes to that aspect, Craig's future as Bond looks bright. The only concern Sony should have next time is to not spend so much money on their films. Bond will never make Batman money, it never has touched that kind of success since the Connery era and Sony should recognize that.

$525 million is impressive, it's just the budget that makes it less attractive. Had it been the same budget as CR no one would complain.