The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[Napoleon Solo]

The thing is, you can't even bring this subject up at other 007 message boards without getting denounced as a heretic. I realize given the feelings of most posters here that there's more interest. But honestly, regardless of who's playing Bond, this subject ought to be of interest at any 007 message board without a bunch of insults and accusations occurring. Somebody made a major miscalculation in the escalation of Quantum's budget compared with CR's.

[English Agent]

The thing is, you can't even bring this subject up at other 007 message boards without getting denounced as a heretic. I realize given the feelings of most posters here that there's more interest. But honestly, regardless of who's playing Bond, this subject ought to be of interest at any 007 message board without a bunch of insults and accusations occurring. Somebody made a major miscalculation in the escalation of Quantum's budget compared with CR's.

Exactly

[Alessandra]

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17p6125 ... iginal.jpg http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17p61ej ... iginal.png Great fun, right Ale? It's more like One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest rebooted. FBF, if this film outdoes CR or QOS at the box office just label society as a bunch of loons.

PLEASE! I want to be spared this horror!

I do not know about the Munsters, but NBC actually has GOOD quality shows and some of the very good shows get cancelled because people are STUPID. (as in the viewers). Some of the stuff NBC has is WAY better than most of the network stuff (for example, The Firm is excellent and has a first-rate cast but it is SMART and DARK, hence people don't watch it. Prime Suspect was very good and praised by many actors of even rival networks, yet people didn't watch. Thankfully people do watch Smash, that I love, but it remains to be seen whether they'll keep it up for another season). For next season they have at least two very good new shows: Chicago Fire (about firemen squads, with Taylor Kinney and Jesse Spencer) and Revolution, the new JJ Abrams show for which I saw the trailer, it looks GREAT. The problem isn't NBC products, the problem is the way people perceive the network because of the WAY TOO MUCH reality TV they injected in their programming over the past few years. Now they're making up for it but it'll take time before people switch to it again. Hopefully Chicago Fire and Revolution will do it. IN short, NBC needs to review their marketing strategy. I don't understand how they even mess it up, given they have USA Network that is ONE SUCCESS AFTER ANOTHER on cable, and is by far the cable network with the best average in terms of quality and success of their shows... just use the cable channel strategy and adapt it to network (which apparently IS what NBC will be doing next season, so fingers crossed).

The more I see about Skyfall, the more depressed I get for the Bond franchise. Seriously, I can't believe this dude who looks like an ordinary, inelegant blue collar type at best is James Bond. Go watch freaking Bourne if that's what you want.

[Blowfeld]

The thing is, you can't even bring this subject up at other 007 message boards without getting denounced as a heretic. I realize given the feelings of most posters here that there's more interest. But honestly, regardless of who's playing Bond, this subject ought to be of interest at any 007 message board without a bunch of insults and accusations occurring. Somebody made a major miscalculation in the escalation of Quantum's budget compared with CR's.

Exactly

I am a heretic..... Now, in 2002 I drank the cool aid like most others. I didn't think DAD was a masterpiece and was looking forward to Pierce's fifth where they would tone it down again. When the headlines were "biggest and bestest Bond ever!!!" I believed it. After Craig I started looking at Bond with a more discerning eye.

For most fans I think they feel patriotic, loyal, believing in the franchise. Also there is the fear after the disastrous LTK nearly killing the franchise nobody wants to revisit. GE brought Bond series back to healthy and it was a new golden age of decent movies and profitable Bond business. Unfortunately it was DVD and other video propping Bond up.

I think the CR model was a successful because of smaller cost compared to QOS, I don't think EON will go willing back to smaller budgets, they get chose was the money is spent on they pay themselves to make the movies, got to be the best job in the world where money pours in from every direction and they can do no wrong.

For Bond the realities do no match the fantasies of the money side of the business.
Just think if DAD had been released in 2006 if it lost money in theaters 2002 in it would have made a lot of money in 2006 just with inflation The DAD model is the model EON has to go back to. Maybe Sony MGM made them go back to it for Skyfall?

Say it with me "heretic and proud!"

[Alessandra]

RE: the money spent and the advertising costs. Sony DID say they spent about $400 mln to promote QoS, which is INSANE. But the normal figure for a big movie is around $150 mln.

This is from finance gurus who write about making movies profitable and AUDIT companies: the studios now take in about 40% of the gross if a movie is successful (because the biggest percentage goes to distributors and theaters) AND then they have to pay taxes on it. So do your math. There is no way in hell that a movie is profitable for the studio unless it rakes in AT LEAST three times as much its production costs at the box office. And while DVD sales made a HUGE difference before, and made films profitable, now that's not the case anymore. (QoS had LOUSY DVD sales.) QoS DEFINITELY made the studio book a significant loss. That's a known fact in the business, end of the story.

And this is not from "the internet" this is from people who audit film companies. How do I know? Because I've worked for Bloomberg for almost 7 years, that's how. I had access to that stuff.

In any case, there's a very compelling and well-written article about the subject from Edward J. Epstein, who isn't a journalist but an economist, specialized in Hollywood finance, who explains the hows and whys. And people just need to LEARN from it and shut the hell up, instead of sitting on their "I'm such and such fan and his movies only rake in profits" soap box.
Here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_ ... ing.2.html

[English Agent]

'Ale' didnt you mean Sony spent well over $400 mil for QOS in total, otherwise your $400 mil marketing cost plus production cost would of made QOS cost over $630 mil to make!

[FormerBondFan]

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17p6125 ... iginal.jpg http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17p61ej ... iginal.png Great fun, right Ale? It's more like One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest rebooted. FBF, if this film outdoes CR or QOS at the box office just label society as a bunch of loons.

No, we're going to see in this monster as James Bond once DC retires.....if Bond 23 outdoes both CR and QOS at the box office even by one tiny bit (especially here in the US) just like when QOS surpasses CR in the US by little.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFdIGYfYXJw[/video]

Ask shaken if you're not familiar with this fellow.

[Alessandra]

'Ale' didnt you mean Sony spent well over $400 mil for QOS in total, otherwise your $400 mil marketing cost plus production cost would of made QOS cost over $630 mil to make!

Gosh, yes, sorry!

Anyway that theory stating a movie needs to make 1.75 times its costs to break even is inaccurate for another major reason: it doesn't take taxes into account at all. And those are a LOT of money, deducted from that already small portion of the gross that the studio brings in. To break even, a movie needs to make 3x its production costs. Plain and simple and from ECONOMISTS, not from the internet. The Harry Potter figures explain why that 1.75 theory is inaccurate. A $1bln-grossing Potter movie actually LOST money. And there's the sheet attached to the article on io9, and we saw it here when it was leaked, a long time ago, it's not like anyone is making anything up. The figures for the Potter movie, leaked from WB memo, are there for everyone to see. It's not spec, those are FACTS. People need to start eating humble pie first off, and second they need to realize they don't know ANYTHING about Hollywood finance if they think that box office gross equals profits. IT DOES NOT. It's like saying that SALES for a company equal profits. As anyone who's worked in finance and anyone who's done basic math knows, you can have massive sales, but if you also have massive expenditure, there's no profit WHATSOEVER. It's called GROSS for a reason.

And while the vast majority of the Craig fanboys and of the movie-going public knows precious NOTHING about finance, that financial statement about Harry Potter has it all black on white. There's NO escaping from it. Grossed $1bln and LOST money. Even a HUGE box office gross does NOT equal a profit for the studio. At all. And it takes far more than 1.75 times the costs to break even.

[A Crag-like face]

Brosnan's flicks made money on DVD sales or else they would have been 3 flops at the bean counters desks?

Yes, i agree i'am sure the Video and DVD sales put the later Brozza's film into profit.

I think after CR, the money men at SONY, lost their heads.....i mean QOS would of had to of made around $800 mil at the box office just to break even!
It could of been possible based on QOS's first weekend performances around the globe if the film had been a classic....unfortunately for ther studio and Bond fans it was a bleedin shambles of a film!

The money men did indeed lose their heads. I remember watching the film a little over a week after its release and I was one of three people in the theater! I think they read the great critical reviews of CR, and combined with the great box office, went nuts. Giving $230 Million to QOS as the official budget (heaven knows how much money the film cost in all) was insane, particularly given the approach the film took. It would have been like the money men at UA/MGM in 1988 saying, "well, this Dalton fellow did well in the last outing, so we'll more than double the budget of his next film, and we want it to be really dark and gritty". The film was really dark and gritty (and according to Mazer tooka LONG time to turn a profit), but it was at least made for about teh same budget as TLD.

QOS went very dark and gritty (and shake-camy) and it had a massively larger budget than its predecessor. Not a good business model. . .

[A Crag-like face]

'Ale' didnt you mean Sony spent well over $400 mil for QOS in total, otherwise your $400 mil marketing cost plus production cost would of made QOS cost over $630 mil to make!

Gosh, yes, sorry!

Anyway that theory stating a movie needs to make 1.75 times its costs to break even is inaccurate for another major reason: it doesn't take taxes into account at all. And those are a LOT of money, deducted from that already small portion of the gross that the studio brings in. To break even, a movie needs to make 3x its production costs. Plain and simple and from ECONOMISTS, not from the internet. The Harry Potter figures explain why that 1.75 theory is inaccurate. A $1bln-grossing Potter movie actually LOST money. And there's the sheet attached to the article on io9, and we saw it here when it was leaked, a long time ago, it's not like anyone is making anything up. The figures for the Potter movie, leaked from WB memo, are there for everyone to see. It's not spec, those are FACTS. People need to start eating humble pie first off, and second they need to realize they don't know ANYTHING about Hollywood finance if they think that box office gross equals profits. IT DOES NOT. It's like saying that SALES for a company equal profits. As anyone who's worked in finance and anyone who's done basic math knows, you can have massive sales, but if you also have massive expenditure, there's no profit WHATSOEVER. It's called GROSS for a reason.

And while the vast majority of the Craig fanboys and of the movie-going public knows precious NOTHING about finance, that financial statement about Harry Potter has it all black on white. There's NO escaping from it. Grossed $1bln and LOST money. Even a HUGE box office gross does NOT equal a profit for the studio. At all. And it takes far more than 1.75 times the costs to break even.

Alessandra, does this mean that it's impossible (or nearly impossible) for a person who is not a film insider to tell if a film really has made a profit? If $1 Billion Harry Potter films can lose money, than The Avengers might be losing money (unlikely, but how would I know differently?).

Also, the article you linked to in the earlier post is from 2005, before the DVD market collapsed along with the world economy circa 2008. If box office still only 18% of studio profit, or has that number changed significantly since then?

[English Agent]

At the end of the day.....somehow some of the studios must be making money on their films, or the whole industry would collapse.

Obviously DVD sales and rentals are also very important, plus future TV rights.

Regarding DVD sales of CR and QOS in the US?........CR grossed some $81mil but QOS only grossed $45mil........it goes to show if a film is bad it loses money in all its money making markets!

[Napoleon Solo]

re: the 1.75 times and 3 times formulas.

Based on the Deadline Hollywood story, I think the 1.75 times formula refers to TOTAL costs (production, plus distribution and marketing) while the 3 times formula refers to production cost only. In other words, I don't think that's the same thing. Here's how Deadline Hollywood described it:

//The firm says that The Avengers is likely to generate more than $2B in revenues from all sources (excluding merchandise sales) on total costs of $473.2M. //

As Alessandra points out, even 1.75 times total cost may not be enough to produce a profit.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo had a reported production budget of $100 million and worldwide ticket sales of $291 million and lost money, according to MGM executives. So the movie didn't quite make 3 times production costs and was a money loser.

[katied]

I'm a heretic and I don't care who knows it! I'm done giving beeatch Babs my money. DONE.

[tehmanis]

re: the 1.75 times and 3 times formulas.

Based on the Deadline Hollywood story, I think the 1.75 times formula refers to TOTAL costs (production, plus distribution and marketing) while the 3 times formula refers to production cost only. In other words, I don't think that's the same thing. Here's how Deadline Hollywood described it:

//The firm says that The Avengers is likely to generate more than $2B in revenues from all sources (excluding merchandise sales) on total costs of $473.2M. //

As Alessandra points out, even 1.75 times total cost may not be enough to produce a profit.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo had a reported production budget of $100 million and worldwide ticket sales of $291 million and lost money, according to MGM executives. So the movie didn't quite make 3 times production costs and was a money loser.

Yes sometimes movies with high quality stories and plot didn't always make huge profit, in the other hand movies with idiotic plot and garbage stories like Die another day, Mamma-mia, Resident evils franchise, do make profit, i think general audience like crap movies to entertain their life.

[tehmanis]

RE: the money spent and the advertising costs. Sony DID say they spent about $400 mln to promote QoS, which is INSANE. But the normal figure for a big movie is around $150 mln.

QoS DEFINITELY made the studio book a significant loss. That's a known fact in the business, end of the story.

can you define the accurate figures of the loss ale? since you have access to the data?

And this is not from "the internet" this is from people who audit film companies. How do I know? Because I've worked for Bloomberg for almost 7 years, that's how. I had access to that stuff.

SInce you know about everything can you share the data?, if you don't i can say you just like gossiping about this movies was loss profit or those high profit. Or your sources is just another imaginer audit firm?

[bjmdds]

Ale knows exactly what she is stating as FACT Tehmanis. She does not carelessly throw out figures without knowing the details. As an aside, Napolean Solo, you should get a kick out of this, given your call sign here. I just returned from the http://www.supermegashow.com Saturday night concert for 2 hours. My friends and I were eating in the Irish pub on the hotel premises of the convention site. Who walks in, wearing weird sneakers and literally sits down at a table for 2 directly 3 feet to the left of me by himself? None other than Robert Vaughn, aka Napolean Solo, the original Man From U.N.C.L.E I noticed him immediately and he sat to my left, we said hello to him, he shook our hands, I asked him how the daytime convention was, and he said it was very crowded, and we left him alone. What we found weird was his mannerism and what he ordered. He asked the waiter to bring him a bowl of vanilla ice cream with 3 scoops, nothing else, and the check with the ice cream. He ate the bowl of ice cream quickly, took out some paper dollar bills, called over the waiter to pay it, told us to have a nice evening, and left. While he was eating the ice cream, another patron of the pub came over to him while he was eating his ice cream and told him he was a fan and appreciated his work and Vaughn acknowledged a thank you to him. He wore these weird sneakers and seemed lost at times and depressed. It's hard to believe this guy was in Superman III 29 years ago as the key villain. We did not bother him as he devoured his 3 scoops of vanilla ice cream for dinner. I have met some interesting people in the restaurants of these convention hotels over the years.

[Omega]

RE: the money spent and the advertising costs. Sony DID say they spent about $400 mln to promote QoS, which is INSANE. But the normal figure for a big movie is around $150 mln.

QoS DEFINITELY made the studio book a significant loss. That's a known fact in the business, end of the story.

can you define the accurate figures of the loss ale? since you have access to the data?

And this is not from "the internet" this is from people who audit film companies. How do I know? Because I've worked for Bloomberg for almost 7 years, that's how. I had access to that stuff.

SInce you know about everything can you share the data?, if you don't i can say you just like gossiping about this movies was loss profit or those high profit. Or your sources is just another imaginer audit firm?

If Daniel Craig and a host of news reports about the true break down of movie cost and profit are not enough what would be?

[The Sweeney]

Somehow Quark must have made money somewhere overall. I cannot believe it was such a massive financial failure, otherwise EON would be bankrupt, Sony would have pulled out of the franchise completely, and another Bond film starring Craig would never see the light of day.

Or am I missing something here....

[tehmanis]

Ale knows exactly what she is stating as FACT Tehmanis.

yup because she is working at Bloomberg only ale have the privilege to say the word "fact"

[Kristatos]

A I just returned from the http://www.supermegashow.com Saturday night concert for 2 hours. My friends and I were eating in the Irish pub on the hotel premises of the convention site. Who walks in, wearing weird sneakers and literally sits down at a table for 2 directly 3 feet to the left of me by himself? None other than Robert Vaughn, aka Napolean Solo, the original Man From U.N.C.L.E I noticed him immediately and he sat to my left, we said hello to him, he shook our hands, I asked him how the daytime convention was, and he said it was very crowded, and we left him alone. What we found weird was his mannerism and what he ordered. He asked the waiter to bring him a bowl of vanilla ice cream with 3 scoops, nothing else, and the check with the ice cream. He ate the bowl of ice cream quickly, took out some paper dollar bills, called over the waiter to pay it, told us to have a nice evening, and left. While he was eating the ice cream, another patron of the pub came over to him while he was eating his ice cream and told him he was a fan and appreciated his work and Vaughn acknowledged a thank you to him. He wore these weird sneakers and seemed lost at times and depressed. It's hard to believe this guy was in Superman III 29 years ago as the key villain. We did not bother him as he devoured his 3 scoops of vanilla ice cream for dinner. I have met some interesting people in the restaurants of these convention hotels over the years.

He was very good in Hustle, too. I think an old man should be allowed his little eccentricities. If he just wants three scoops of vanilla ice cream, then that's his right.