The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[Mazer Rackham]

In reply to the above, the statement i was making was that the opening for QOS was big for a Bond film in the current times in the US.
It was just a shame that QOS was a poor film, if not then the grosses in the North American market could of been quite substancial.

I could spend bleedin hours going into all the details of BO revenue vs budgets vs admissions, as i have done in the past, but most of us know the general picture, and i have just come back from evening school learning Italian, had a few beers (hiccup) and i don't want to fall asleep at the computer whilst typing in a mind numbing list of stastistics.

Ciao

EA zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The opening was impressive however the warning signs were there when numbers started slipping late Saturday into Sunday. Getting in the top 100 isn't the feat is used to be. Inflation is a bitch.

[The Sweeney]

DAD and CR had smaller opening grosses than QoS but performed well after opening weekend, which allowed the studio to book a profit right from box office on.

Yeah yeah....we know QoS made a loss overall, with its ratio of spending compared to what they made. That wasn't the point I was making.

The point was its opening weekend. Even if its not BIG in your world, it was still reasonable. And it proved one thing. People wanted to see more of what they saw in CR - ie. the actor had not put them off.

The predictions from many of the anti Craig gang was that CR would flop miserably....when it didn't, people thought people would stay away from QoS. The opening weekend proved otherwise...regardless of how well it performed overall.

And now here we are talking about Craig in Bond 23. The losses cannot have been that significant, otherwise Craig would not be asked back for a third time round. But regardless of that, the topic in hand was QoS's opening weekend - it proved people were not put off by Craig.

That was the only point I was making, and the facts are there. You can try and hide behind any other stat you want, but we are 3 films down now, and probably one still to go.....

[Alessandra]

In reply to the above, the statement i was making was that the opening for QOS was big for a Bond film in the current times in the US.
It was just a shame that QOS was a poor film, if not then the grosses in the North American market could of been quite substancial.

I could spend bleedin hours going into all the details of BO revenue vs budgets vs admissions, as i have done in the past, but most of us know the general picture, and i have just come back from evening school learning Italian, had a few beers (hiccup) and i don't want to fall asleep at the computer whilst typing in a mind numbing list of stastistics.

Ciao

EA zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The opening was impressive however the warning signs were there when numbers started slipping late Saturday into Sunday. Getting in the top 100 isn't the feat is used to be. Inflation is a bitch.

LOL I think most governments would like to borrow that last sentence of ours

It's just that there are so many things now to be taken into account in terms of expenses for a movie that the box office gross needs to be HUGE for it to allow the studio to break even immediately, let alone book a profit. Advertising costs are in the 100s of millions, and they are not calculated in production costs obviously, so adding those to the already ridiculously high production costs for action movies makes it VERY hard for a studio to have actual profits. Either the movie is a mega blockbuster or there's no profit. Obviously most of the gains aren't at the box office but in DVDs now, so that's where the profits come in, but if a movie doesn't do very well at the box office, rarely it has great DVD sales (unless it's a comedy, with comedies the deal is different). Basically an action movie needs to do well both at box office AND in DVD sales for studios to have a profit. Which of course isn't exactly that easy to accomplish.

And it proved one thing. People wanted to see more of what they saw in CR - ie. the actor had not put them off.

Totally disagree with this. People didn't want to see more of what they saw in CR: people were told they were going to see a DIFFERENT Bond in QoS and a MUCH more traditional one at that. They were disappointed, it showed and the studio booked a loss with QoS. And, once again as I said before, people go to see Bond, not the actor. I made the example of my brother and his friends exactly for that reason. My brother thinks Craig is miscast as Bond but he went to see the movie anyway because he hoped to see a good action movie. He isn't obsessed with Bond, and neither are the two friends who went with him to see it. They go to the movies because they like going to the movies. They like action movies so they check them out when they're released. That's what most of the general public does. It has got NOTHING to do with Daniel Craig, and everything to do with the fact a new Bond movie/action movie is out. So they went to see it regardless, and all were disappointed. Which is what happened with most of the people who went to see QoS, and the reason why the studio booked a loss. That is the point I was making and the facts are there (studio booked a loss).

Also, I wasn't among those who said it was going to be a flop. I was among those who said they hoped it would do well because that's what the franchise needed. So that argument is completely lost on me.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to pay an actor out of his contract? That is why Craig is remaining for Bond 23, not because they didn't have significant losses with QoS. MGM is bankrupt and they cannot afford to pay him out of his contract AT ALL. So while they DID have significant losses with QoS (ask someone who has access to data, you'll be surprised), they can't afford to put other significant losses on top of those, that's for sure. They would have had to pay him out of his contract AND spend other money to hire a new actor. MGM cannot do that right now, plain and simple. On top of the fact of course they needed to have the movie out ASAP for the well-known financial reason and that hardly works well with casting a new person. Which is why I kept saying that despite things not looking good at all, I wasn't going to think Craig wouldn't do Bond 23 unless they had made no announcement by mid-February. I'm neither stupid nor blind. I was perfectly aware that a movie out in 2012 meant the last Craig outing, and that's exactly what's happening. The problem was only whether they were or weren't going to be able to release the movie by 2012.

[mcbride007]

Clive Owen would have been a great Bond. It is a bit late for him to take over from Daniel Craig for several Bond movies now.

[The Sweeney]

Totally disagree with this. People didn't want to see more of what they saw in CR: people were told they were going to see a DIFFERENT Bond in QoS and a MUCH more traditional one at that.

I never recall the marketing towards QoS showing us a more traditional Bond. The marketing around QoS was that we would get more of the same that we had in CR. In fact, it was the first time EVER that the Bond franchise had a direct sequel.

The movie poster, with a grim looking Craig holding a huge gun, echoed the sentiments exactly. Bond was out for revenge. The poster didn't display a more light-hearted Bond at all. There would be no Q, no gadgets, no Moneypenny. In this one, he doesn't even utter the infamous line. QoS didn't point towards invisible cars, double-taking pigeons, Tarzan yells, or underwater tie-straightening. It just promised more of the same that we had in CR. We were even told the film would continue 3 minutes after where we left off in CR.

And you know what. People flocked to the cinema on the opening weekends to see more of what they saw in CR.....

And seeing as the highly accurate DCINB crystal ball of the future is out again, I predict Craig will return as Bond in Bond 24. I was right about QoS, when the naysayers were saying CR would be his only outing, I was right about Bond 23, when the naysayers said he would only do 2, and maybe I will be right about Bond 24, when the naysayers are claiming this will be his last film.

Babs holds all the cards, not MGM. She decides whether Craig stays or goes. And my money is on Craig staying for the 4 films he originally stated he would do, and that his contract stated he will do.....

[oscartheman]

Don't know how many he will or will not make there are contracts and ways out of them.He could drop dead from the same thing John Ritter had tomorrow.He could walk off.The studio could decide not to pay until Bond is recast.Before production starts I don't consider it a done deal.Sweeney they did talk up Qos being a more traditional film obviously it wasn't didn't stop them from saying it was going to be.Is your memory getting as bad as Nash

[bjmdds]

Let Cr-egg do a remake of the "spoof" version of Casino Royale, with Joan Rivers as M, and Betty White as Moneypenny, and Henry Kissinger as Q, and you will have my full support of him as Bond, ONLY in that setting.

[The Sweeney]

Don't know how many he will or will not make there are contracts and ways out of them.He could drop dead from the same thing John Ritter had tomorrow.He could walk off.The studio could decide not to pay until Bond is recast.Before production starts I don't consider it a done deal.Sweeney they did talk up Qos being a more traditional film obviously it wasn't didn't stop them from saying it was going to be.Is your memory getting as bad as Nash

I never recall this. Do you have a link to prove it?
All I remember is Wilson saying there will be more action in this one, but I never remembered reading or hearing that the more traditional elements will return. On the contrary, they stated loud and boldly this will continue where CR left off, and would have no gadgets, Q or Moneypenny.

[FormerBondFan]

Let Cr-egg do a remake of the "spoof" version of Casino Royale, with Joan Rivers as M, and Betty White as Moneypenny, and Henry Kissinger as Q, and you will have my full support of him as Bond, ONLY in that setting.

And how about letting this individual do a serious unofficial Bond movie?

[Blowfeld]

I never recall this. Do you have a link to prove it?
All I remember is Wilson saying there will be more action in this one, but I never remembered reading or hearing that the more traditional elements will return. On the contrary, they stated loud and boldly this will continue where CR left off, and would have no gadgets, Q or Moneypenny.

Go back to 2006 & 2007 interviews with most the of the key players indicated there were going to be changes in Bond 22 to take it along more traditional Bond lines. Daniel I believe even said there was going to be more humour.

Say more traditional or mixing in elements, either way it can leave people with different impressions, different expectations I remember it now however I had no recollection of it before. Poorly put.. For me it's like knowing a fact and not actually remembering it after somebody else says it. Call it the quiz show effect, I live in the moment where Bond is concerned all the different facts get dismissed as new more solid ones come about.

No one is attempting to get one over on you Sweeney, we may disagree about the extent of seriousness but there was all kinds of stuff like Bond 22 was supposed to be as long as CR, Gadgets were coming back, Vesper was going to return, so on and so forth. Some of it was redefined as 2008 got closer and the script finished just before the strike started. Consider how these things go, of all things Craig was talking about finding an actor for Q three years ago.

Immediately after CR the early word was the next one was going to be more in line with the old 007, to my mind this was over turned as the script was finished. However thinking about it in the months before QOS was in theatres there may have been a play made to convince people a TRADITIONAL Bond fare was in-store, around the time the oil homage to GF was leaked. Honestly I was so busy I don't recall if that was the case or not. To me I don't see how any could expect Bond 22 (or 23) to be anything but continuations of CR. I think they did exactly that, they built up on the humdrum elements of Craig performance, the world his '007' was supposed to inhabit and put them on steroids. It was a massive misfire, I doubt anything was learned form it since Bond 23 is being approached in precisely the same manner.

[The Sweeney]

No one is attempting to get one over on you Sweeney, we may disagree about the extent of seriousness but there was all kinds of stuff like Bond 22 was supposed to be as long as CR, Gadgets were coming back, Vesper was going to return, so on and so forth.

I didn't there were many here trying to get one over on me...I look at many of you as friends on here, despite the differerence in opinion. And don't get me wrong about QoS either. In many ways I wished it had flopped miserably at the BO - therefore EON may try harder with Bond 23. I'm actually not trying to defend QoS with what I'm saying here...I'm just pointing out the facts as I know them regarding QoS. As for what was said in the press in the build-up, there were lots of mixed messages flying about as I recall - more humour from one quarter, the most violent Bond film ever from another.

The bizarre thing is, we actually got neither....

[English Agent]

No one is attempting to get one over on you Sweeney, we may disagree about the extent of seriousness but there was all kinds of stuff like Bond 22 was supposed to be as long as CR, Gadgets were coming back, Vesper was going to return, so on and so forth.

I didn't there were many here trying to get one over on me...I look at many of you as friends on here, despite the differerence in opinion. And don't get me wrong about QoS either. In many ways I wished it had flopped miserably at the BO - therefore EON may try harder with Bond 23. I'm actually not trying to defend QoS with what I'm saying here...I'm just pointing out the facts as I know them regarding QoS. As for what was said in the press in the build-up, there were lots of mixed messages flying about as I recall - more humour from one quarter, the most violent Bond film ever from another.

The bizarre thing is, we actually got neither....

Don't say that 'Sweeney', as i seem to remember that after LTK's dismal perofrmance in the US in the summer of 1989.......Cubby, stated that he'd thought Bond had probably had its day'.......also didn't he try to sell his company or share in it in the early 1990's?

I mean what film studio is going to finance a new film to $100's mil in production and marketing costs, if they lost a shed load of money on the previous film? It could be curtains for the franchise, BUT i know what you'll trying to say.

EA

ps:- when i say 'Curtains' i'am not talking about 'Drapes' or 'le tende'.

[Kristatos]

I mean what film studio is going to finance a new film to $100's mil in production and marketing costs, if they lost a shed load of money on the previous film? It could be curtains for the franchise, BUT i know what you'll trying to say.

Everyone was surprised to see a third Narnia film after Prince Caspian flopped, but that was something of a special case, as it was bailed out by the head of Walden Media, a billionaire who is also a devout Christian. He clearly had a higher motivation than just money, but not many franchises could rely on someone digging into their own pockets in that way.

[English Agent]

Ale

'Buongiorno.........come stai oggi'

Reading your recent posts about BO in America...........i've got a question for you about Bond BO in ITALIA.

How is it, unlike the other major European countries........the Italians dont appear to be as enthusiastic about Bond as the BO figures suggest?

A Bond film is lucky to get a double digit BO take there from a population of just under 60 mil, yet much smaller countries in Europe contribute just as much BO revenue.

'Perche?'

EA

[Mazer Rackham]

No one is attempting to get one over on you Sweeney, we may disagree about the extent of seriousness but there was all kinds of stuff like Bond 22 was supposed to be as long as CR, Gadgets were coming back, Vesper was going to return, so on and so forth.

I didn't there were many here trying to get one over on me...I look at many of you as friends on here, despite the differerence in opinion. And don't get me wrong about QoS either. In many ways I wished it had flopped miserably at the BO - therefore EON may try harder with Bond 23. I'm actually not trying to defend QoS with what I'm saying here...I'm just pointing out the facts as I know them regarding QoS. As for what was said in the press in the build-up, there were lots of mixed messages flying about as I recall - more humour from one quarter, the most violent Bond film ever from another.

The bizarre thing is, we actually got neither....

Don't say that 'Sweeney', as i seem to remember that after LTK's dismal perofrmance in the US in the summer of 1989.......Cubby, stated that he'd thought Bond had probably had its day'.......also didn't he try to sell his company or share in it in the early 1990's?

I mean what film studio is going to finance a new film to $100's mil in production and marketing costs, if they lost a shed load of money on the previous film? It could be curtains for the franchise, BUT i know what you'll trying to say.
EA

ps:- when i say 'Curtains' i'am not talking about 'Drapes' or 'le tende'.

Cubby was and he wasn't trying to sell Bond. Master of positioning himself he was playing hardball, there was the deal about Bond rights everybody is familiar with, there was also the deal where MGM was pushing back about sharing the profits, they had lost money on the last few Bonds and felt they were getting hosed as a partner (LTK wouldn't make a dime until a year or two after Brozza revived Bond).

Cubby was never going to sell Bond, there were interested parties who were serious about buying, they were going to get the funding and get to work. They were approaching it with plans for 10 films. (true plans, 1st story, 2nd story and on out, not the smoke and mirrors routine of late.) Every time the stirrings of an outside party being interested started the interested parties were warned off with very succinct words.

Also remember in the nineties when Lazenby slagged off Brozza, much was made of it years later when the studio was attacking Cubby's Bond to market Babs Bond. At the time he was seen by most fans as a bitter old man, however that was the time the rival series was starting to pick up steam and Lazenby thought he'd have a shot at it.

Too much was spent on Quark, $400m, it doesn't take much to figure out nobody has made dime on it except for the producers who paid themselves upfront. Hopefully this will be all the impetus needed to reduce the budget. The under 150m figures would be accurate for the studio needs, if Babs acquiesces. holy s**t that would be something! This is where I expect a fight, a war of personalities over funding and other aspects. If she rolls over and quietly scales back then we'll all know Bond was in more trouble than anyone suspected.

[Alessandra]

Ale

'Buongiorno.........come stai oggi'

Reading your recent posts about BO in America...........i've got a question for you about Bond BO in ITALIA.

How is it, unlike the other major European countries........the Italians dont appear to be as enthusiastic about Bond as the BO figures suggest?

A Bond film is lucky to get a double digit BO take there from a population of just under 60 mil, yet much smaller countries in Europe contribute just as much BO revenue.

'Perche?'

EA

EA

"Bene, grazie! E tu?"

Per quanto riguarda gli italiani e Bond...

I have often wondered about it and I think truth is that Italians aren't all that passionate about Bond in general as of late. I can safely say we sure aren't passionate about DC's Bond as we're a very, how can I word it, "aesthetically driven" country? (if we exclude the shambles of our government ) Craig doesn't sit well with the "good-looking canon" we have here. Style and aesthetics do matter here so I think the lack of them (even in DAD, other than that ridiculously great Halle Berry bikini there wasn't the usual amount of stylish clothes and locations we get in a Bond movie) makes people quite lukewarm about the most recent installments of the franchise. Again, I include DAD because while Brosnan was definitely very appreciated in general, not simply as Bond, the movie did at points lack the stunning visual aspects (great clothes, great locations etc) that make a Bond movie a Bond movie.

I also think people go way less to the movies now so that for sure has an impact on Bond, too. Still, we're one of the biggest markets in general terms, so I think the whole Bond problem is really more related to the lack of the sophistication and beauty the movies had up until TWINE. Curiously, they used B&B Italia furniture for one of the scenes in QoS and the opening car chase was filmed in my backyard... yet it wasn't a big success and actually as I have previously explained here, lots of people took offense for that ridiculous car chase ending bit, you enter the tunnel in Lake Garda and exit the tunnel in Siena... 400 km south of here and in another region? That was just beyond bad, I can't believe they were so arrogant as to film something in such an implausible way. Guess this is another one that accounts for Forster's total lack of coherence

I think if they get back to a more traditional type of Bond movie, with an actor that looks the part, plenty of beautiful places, gadgets, nice clothes etc there may be an improvement, but probably it won't be that sensational. I don't think the public here is all that interested in Bond in general as of late. Probably also due to the fact there's much more movie offer than there ever was before, so the public is much more divided. The fact we get Bond movies MONTHS later compared to others also doesn't help, as those who are curious to see it will just find a pirated version (and trust me people here know how to do that ) before it hits the theatres.

[Alessandra]

No one is attempting to get one over on you Sweeney, we may disagree about the extent of seriousness but there was all kinds of stuff like Bond 22 was supposed to be as long as CR, Gadgets were coming back, Vesper was going to return, so on and so forth.

I didn't there were many here trying to get one over on me...I look at many of you as friends on here, despite the differerence in opinion. And don't get me wrong about QoS either. In many ways I wished it had flopped miserably at the BO - therefore EON may try harder with Bond 23. I'm actually not trying to defend QoS with what I'm saying here...I'm just pointing out the facts as I know them regarding QoS. As for what was said in the press in the build-up, there were lots of mixed messages flying about as I recall - more humour from one quarter, the most violent Bond film ever from another.

The bizarre thing is, we actually got neither....

Don't say that 'Sweeney', as i seem to remember that after LTK's dismal perofrmance in the US in the summer of 1989.......Cubby, stated that he'd thought Bond had probably had its day'.......also didn't he try to sell his company or share in it in the early 1990's?

I mean what film studio is going to finance a new film to $100's mil in production and marketing costs, if they lost a shed load of money on the previous film? It could be curtains for the franchise, BUT i know what you'll trying to say.
EA

ps:- when i say 'Curtains' i'am not talking about 'Drapes' or 'le tende'.

Cubby was and he wasn't trying to sell Bond. Master of positioning himself he was playing hardball, there was the deal about Bond rights everybody is familiar with, there was also the deal where MGM was pushing back about sharing the profits, they had lost money on the last few Bonds and felt they were getting hosed as a partner (LTK wouldn't make a dime until a year or two after Brozza revived Bond).

Cubby was never going to sell Bond, there were interested parties who were serious about buying, they were going to get the funding and get to work. They were approaching it with plans for 10 films. (true plans, 1st story, 2nd story and on out, not the smoke and mirrors routine of late.) Every time the stirrings of an outside party being interested started the interested parties were warned off with very succinct words.

Also remember in the nineties when Lazenby slagged off Brozza, much was made of it years later when the studio was attacking Cubby's Bond to market Babs Bond. At the time he was seen by most fans as a bitter old man, however that was the time the rival series was starting to pick up steam and Lazenby thought he'd have a shot at it.

Too much was spent on Quark, $400m, it doesn't take much to figure out nobody has made dime on it except for the producers who paid themselves upfront. Hopefully this will be all the impetus needed to reduce the budget. The under 150m figures would be accurate for the studio needs, if Babs acquiesces. Holy s**t that would be something! This is where I expect a fight, a war of personalities over funding and other aspects. If she rolls over and quietly scales back then we'll all know Bond was in more trouble than anyone suspected.

I think the fact the figures going around are way lower now is very telling, but you're right, if she DOES accept to scale back that will most definitely tell us that Bond was in more trouble than anyone suspected.

Cubby was a great businessman and a savvy producer. His daughter clearly learnt absolutely NOTHING. And the fact they're going for Bond 23 with the exact same pattern they had for QoS shows they have learnt nothing even from the horror that was QoS. Not that EON cares, they bring home their money in any case. It's MGM that should step in much more decidedly, but with the current financial situation they're desperate to release the movie ASAP, so I don't think they have time to redo things the way they want them and least of all they can waste time arguing with Babs. The fact their writer had a fallout with the other two over the summer and then was replaced by Logan indicates how deteriorated the situation has become.

[English Agent]

Thanks for the reply 'Ale'............non che male!

I'am only at the 'intermediate stage of ITALIAN' at the moment, but for an Englishman i'am doing pretty good at learning your language.

I have had many holidays in Italy, and love the sunshine, culture and food.

In the UK in winter when films are released we tend to flock to the cinemas to see new films, as its too bleedin miserable in the evening to do anything else!

Here there is something special about a new Bond film, and when a new film comes out there is a great deal of media attention, and the attendance figures are high.............if this scenrio were the same in the North American market then Bond would continue to still be huge.
But, alas in recent years the Bond franchise has relied on the International grosses to make a big return, to keep the franchise alive.

Its interesting to note that in North America, its the smaller Canadian market which contributes a bigger percentage slice per population of that market.

In regards to BOND, i wonder how CUBBY would of reacted to the last few films. In general i think he would of been quite impressed, at the Brozza films and the first Craig film, but somewhat dismayed at QOS. His motto was 'to show the money on the screen', but i feel a lot of money was wasted on QOS, but thats just my opinion.

Ciao for now

EA

[English Agent]

I was cycling around Lake Garda, at XMAS, pigging freezing it was, but at least i got back to the hotel alive, which would of not been the case if DC in his Aston Martin, and the baddies in the ALFA's driving recklessly had been around at the time!

EA

[English Agent]

The success to a Bond film, in priorites, is to get a decent well contructed story sorted first.

i.e the story drives the film with good characterisations of the cast, with the action then fitting in between............and not the other way round.

EA

Blimey i seem to be writing a lot of posts recently.......but i'am making up for the time i've been away from this site.
I'am sure i resort to a more usual posting pattern soon?