crusading_saint wrote:
Aha - rumors, then. I'll stick with trusted sources, thank you. In fact, after researching it, the only mention of a $260m price tag I can find is a rumor attributed to 'rival studio chatter'. Not the most trustworthy source, is it? Spider-Man 3 is quite a different example - rumors abounded for months that Sony was downplaying the costs - same with Pirates 3 the same summer. Budgets can't stay a secret for too long in Hollywood. In comparison, QOS was reported at one number, and remained the same since then. All evidence points to my figure. Of course, neither you nor I are taking into account the tax breaks the film is reportedly taking advantage of, but since there's no way to find out that figure, it can't be taken into account.
Not a rumor, a trusted source. But I take your point. Iwill add that I know of several other insiders thatrefer to higher cost in $260 range. Either way Quark is easily a 230m movie. In a way it's the exact same thing that the spider-man 3. Sony finally settled of about 260m for that film but it is widely accepted that isn't necessarily accurate.
There were memos from February-March 08 that talked about 230m cost, and that was before the delays and disasters. Also pre-production cost to consider.
I'm going to need some sources on that - QOS was not marketed nearly as much as Spider-Man 3 (though you seem to be impying it was, which I can't agree with), and Spider-Man 3 cost $120m for marketing. I think my estimate of $80m is sound. By comparison, The Dark Knight, also released this year, spent $100m on advertising, and QOS was not marketed as heavily. I stand by my figure.
Free tickets and the 30ft poster don't come cheap. Sony's own numbers for CR was 120m marketing. I think DAD was around 90 to 100m worldwide as well.
Quark's marketing was there in force if you didn't see perhaps they didn't get their monies worth. But watch a TV recording (w/commercials) from November and you should see at least one Quark ad.
For most big movies 50m to 80m will be spent in North America alone. Examples- "Alexander"cost $155 million to make and $60 million to market
domestically
Iron Man had 75m marketing budget.
The Dark Knight had (in May 2008) a marketing budget of 150m, they also used a lot viral marketing as well.
Lets see from the two sources I have read: the Times had it £50m total and the other at +$36m over CR
50 million pounds was what I had read, too. Hence, $75-80m (at the time, anyway. It would be less now, given that the pound is in freefall)
Nope, that was the old contract. New contract has different provisions including a % ("a sliding salary.. Based on BO and merchandising"). Brozza never got a %. He barely got just under £10m. Part of the disinformation after Craig was hired was that Brozza wanted 30m and a %. Later it came out that he wanted £10m, the % I'm not sure if any bothered to confirm that.
That's not a % - it just means that his salary for the next picture will depend on how much QOS makes. He's not getting a cut of the net or gross profits. And I do seem to be wrong about Brosnan. Oh well.
There is another report where it goes into more detail. One of the points it touched on is a % of the movies earning, gross or whatever not sure what the specifics are, but there should be a % , possibly a sort of bonus + the next deal.
Lets try something. CR cost 150m, my sources have total cost w/marketing at 270m, not considering all of the additional advertising for tie in products like Heineken which come as more of a bonus. CR made 594m total. What was the take home profit?
