The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[bjmdds]

http://cdn.ballerstatus.com/wp-content/ ... 00x399.jpg Omega Watches Preps 'Skyfall' (007) Edition Of Seamaster Planet Ocean Timepiece. It is water-resistant up to 600 meters, and features 007 branding throughout, including the 7 o'clock position on the face. Who will rush out and buy the product placement? Where's Ale? James Bond is seen waiting at London's National Gallery: http://i2.cdnds.net/12/23/618x450/movies_skyfall.png Real Bond material.....NOT ..............he looks like he belongs in The Dead Poets Society (a film I happen to like).

[Omega]

I'll admit to surprise Madagascar 3 took number 1 this weekend, I didn't think the last Madagascars did those kind of numbers.

[FormerBondFan]

Saw 3 today. It's really good and funny.

[bjmdds]

Where's FBF? The anti-viral film medicine to vanquish Bond 23 opens November 28 in New Zealand. That will all but bury it internationally with the vampires of Twilight. It won't even take until December to finish off DC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18339087

[FormerBondFan]

Where's FBF? The anti-viral film medicine to vanquish Bond 23 opens November 28 in New Zealand. That will all but bury it internationally with the vampires of Twilight. It won't even take until December to finish off DC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18339087

It'll take more than just vampire and Middle Earth citizen to help us win the war.

[Kristatos]

The traditional Bond has been absent 10 years now. Bond 23 will tank weekend two and we need John Carter reviews out of the UK for 2 weeks prior to it's invasion here so the virus will be inoculated already and the public will be immune to it, right FBF?

The reviews of John Carter were generally positive. It was Disney's own marketing errors that scuppered it, not least dropping the "of Mars" from the title.

[FormerBondFan]

10 years ago, there were a lot of promoting going for DAD from the start of 2002. Looking back, ABC was showing the old school Bonds every Saturday as a way to celebrate the franchise's 40th anniversary and to promote DAD. Now they don't this year. It feels that there's not much celebrating going on or at least not yet. BJ and Kris....any thoughts?

[Kristatos]

10 years ago, there were a lot of promoting going for DAD from the start of 2002. Looking back, ABC was showing the old school Bonds every Saturday as a way to celebrate the franchise's 40th anniversary and to promote DAD. Now they don't this year. It feels that there's not much celebrating going on or at least not yet. BJ and Kris....any thoughts?

ITV is showing all the Bonds, but that has more to do with them being on the verge of losing them to Sky. There was a lot of buzz about Spyfail when the trailer was released, but it seems to have died down a bit now.

[FormerBondFan]

10 years ago, there were a lot of promoting going for DAD from the start of 2002. Looking back, ABC was showing the old school Bonds every Saturday as a way to celebrate the franchise's 40th anniversary and to promote DAD. Now they don't this year. It feels that there's not much celebrating going on or at least not yet. BJ and Kris....any thoughts?

ITV is showing all the Bonds, but that has more to do with them being on the verge of losing them to Sky. There was a lot of buzz about Spyfail when the trailer was released, but it seems to have died down a bit now.

Did LTK have any product placement before release?

[Gala Brand]

The traditional Bond has been absent 10 years now. Bond 23 will tank weekend two and we need John Carter reviews out of the UK for 2 weeks prior to it's invasion here so the virus will be inoculated already and the public will be immune to it, right FBF?

What is this "traditional Bond" film of which you speak? Are both FRWL and MR "traditional Bond films"? I see nothing in common except both have a main character named James Bond.

[FormerBondFan]

The traditional Bond has been absent 10 years now. Bond 23 will tank weekend two and we need John Carter reviews out of the UK for 2 weeks prior to it's invasion here so the virus will be inoculated already and the public will be immune to it, right FBF?

What is this "traditional Bond" film of which you speak? Are both FRWL and MR "traditional Bond films"? I see nothing in common except both have a main character named James Bond.

Traditional Bond is the one from Sean to Pierce.

[bjmdds]

Traditional Bond=NO Cr-egg. The month before Bond 23 I am sure Spike cable channel and BBC-America will be playing old Bond films. This Bat flick just might do $250 opening weekend in the USA if the theatres show it on multiple screens because it is 2 hours and 45 minutes in length. Nobody believed what the Avengers did. People might be shocked at how well the Bat does.............and Spidey doesn't.

[FormerBondFan]

Traditional Bond=NO Cr-egg. The month before Bond 23 I am sure Spike cable channel and BBC-America will be playing old Bond films. This Bat flick just might do $250 opening weekend in the USA if the theatres show it on multiple screens because it is 2 hours and 45 minutes in length. Nobody believed what the Avengers did. People might be shocked at how well the Bat does.............and Spidey doesn't.

The Bat's round 3 is already breaking records. I tried to buy the ticket for the midnight showing in IMAX theaters around my area yesterday, but they're already filled up. What's left is a fake IMAX at an AMC theater.

And oh yeah, Chris' Bat is still escapism with some humor even though it's gritty and realistic.

[Gala Brand]

Traditional Bond=NO Cr-egg. The month before Bond 23 I am sure Spike cable channel and BBC-America will be playing old Bond films. This Bat flick just might do $250 opening weekend in the USA if the theatres show it on multiple screens because it is 2 hours and 45 minutes in length. Nobody believed what the Avengers did. People might be shocked at how well the Bat does.............and Spidey doesn't.

So the David Niven/Woody Allen/Peter Sellers "Casino Royale" is traditional Bond (no Craig), but the Craig "Casino Royale" isn't. What about the Barry Nelson "Casino Royale"?

[Alessandra]

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"

I HAVE WORKED, not am working. Have worked, for almost 7 years. And you can stay assured I'm not gonna go public with figures that aren't accessible to the everyday person like you, who by the way didn't even BOTHER reading the article I attached, or you'd have the decency to say "that's right, since this is an ECONOMIST and not a journalist writing about it, I will stay silent and accept the fact that those who actually KNOW the business are explaining to me how, based on how much the studios get of the box office gross (which is the lowest percentage out of all those involved) there's no way the studio can have made a profit with QoS." Instead you're still going on? And questioning me? I don't need your approval, nor do I want the approval of someone who denies evidence even when their idol Craig throws it to their face.

And the Harry Potter balance sheet is attached as photograph to the story from io9 that was linked here before. So clearly you don't read anything and don't pay attention to any detail or link, you just keep on going trying to trash talk others. Which means I won't bother from now on. I gave you a link that explains the hows and whys of everything from an ECONOMIST (thus someone you can't contradict because he knows what he's talking about, and far more than any of us) but you're still going on like this? Goodbye.

Sweeney, the studios go on working even when there's massive financial failure, which QoS definitely was. The figure I had was close the one that was quoted previously ($100 mln loss). Though it was less than that from what I had been told, but close. I spoke about it with Mazer privately back then, there's written PM evidence Just like they kept on going after the Dalton era, they keep on going now (especially because Babs is obsessed). Sony HAD pulled out and they were looking for a new distributor, remember? Then they found an agreement given EON owes Sony a ridiculous amount of money. And, MGM was in zero condition to pull out from anything seen as they're DESPERATE and Bond is the only big franchise they have. Especially if they lost money with QoS they'd want another movie to make up for it, because it's Bond, it's a franchise and after all these years they are hoping people WILL go see it. So of course things went on.

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?

yes, the article is from 2005 so things have only gotten WORSE since. The percentage the studios get is always the same... (it's not 18% btw, it's around 40% but then there's taxes and other costs to deduct) except they don't have DVD sales to help them as much anymore. BUT meantime other things have started: digital downlowads, itunes, all that. They don't make up for DVD sales, but they are starting to help them with revenue. The point is WHO makes the money. Distributors make the money nowadays, not studios, unless a film is HIGHLY successful and promoted in a very sensible way AND budgeted in a very sensible way as well. And, unless they create a sensational success, the money for the studio comes in only VERY long-term, not short.

What makes studios make money? Romantic comedies first and foremost. Cost WAY less than big movies (a romantic comedy with BIG star cast costs around $35 mln to make) and they make a lot of money not just at the theaters, but especially after on DVD. Those movies haven't been much affected by the fall in DVD sales. It's the type of movie that people (women especially and I am one of them, if I like a rom com I always buy the DVD after) just buy regardless. THe big movies are a measure of how studios are capable of promoting their business but they often don't make nearly as much of a profit as a successful romantic comedy (example: The Ugly Truth with Gerard Butler and Katherine Heigl made a RIDICULOUS amount of money... the studio made a big profit with it from box office already...). In short, the business model for the future is spending WAY less money to make a movie (Immortals had a relatively low budget for the movie it was, and they didn't spend much on promotion either, yet they raked in a lot of money at the box office) and managing to contain advertising costs as well. Otherwise, unless you have a guaranteed MAJOR success, you're going to lose money for a long while as a studio before you see a profit (if at all).

[bjmdds]

Those do not factor into the equation. A comedic farce is not in the realm of Bond.

[bjmdds]

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"

I HAVE WORKED, not am working. Have worked, for almost 7 years. And you can stay assured I'm not gonna go public with figures that aren't accessible to the everyday person like you who by the way didn't even BOTHER reading the article I attached, or you'd have the decency to say "that's right, since this is an ECONOMIST and not a journalist writing about it, I will stay silent and accept the fact that those who actually KNOW the business are explaining to me how, based on how much the studios get of the box office gross (which is the lowest percentage out of all those involved) there's no way the studio can have made a profit with QoS. Instead you're still going on? And questioning me? I don't need your approval nor do I want the approval of someone who denies evidence even when his idol Craig throws it to his face. And the Harry Potter balance sheet is attached as photograph to the story from io9 that was linked here before. So clearly you don't read anything and don't pay attention to any detail or link, you just keep on going trying to trash talk others. Which means I won't bother from now on. I gave you a link that explains the hows and whys of everything from an ECONOMIST (thus someone you can't contradict because he knows what he's talking about, and far more than any of us) but you're still going on like this? Goodbye.

Sweeney, the studios go on working even when there's massive financial failure, which QoS definitely was. The figure I had was close the one that was quoted previously ($100 mln loss). Though it was less than that from what I had been told, but close. I spoke about it with Mazer privately back then, there's written PM evidence Just like they kept on going after the Dalton era, they keep on going now (especially because Babs is obsessed). Sony HAD pulled out and they were looking for a new distributor, remember? Then they found an agreement given EON owes Sony a ridiculous amount of money. And, MGM was in zero condition to pull out from anything seen as they're DESPERATE and Bond is the only big franchise they have. So of course things went on.

And yes, the article is from 2005 so things have only gotten WORSE since. The percentage the studios get is always the same... except they don't have DVD sales to help them as much anymore. BUT meantime other things have started: digital downlowads, itunes, all that. They don't make up for DVD sales, but they are starting to help them with revenue. The point is WHO makes the money. Distributors make the money nowadays, not studios, unless a film is HIGHLY successful and promoted in a very sensible way AND budgeted in a very sensible way as well. And, unless they create a sensational success, the money comes in only VERY long-term, not short.

This girl knows her onions folks and I never question her sources nor figures. I do not think it is fair that the studios who do the films get less than those who show it and distribute it. How did the studios ever allow it? If I see a movie at an AMC theatre in NYC and pay $13.00 for a ticket, why should more of that go to a distributor and the theatre than the studio that actually made the film? It makes no sense.

[bjmdds]

Saturday, Jul. 21, 2012: The Dark Knight Rises
Time of Show:
5:00 pm
IMAX
Ticket Quantity
Adult: x $19.00 =
Senior: x $15.50 =
Child: x $15.50 =
The 8:30pm show is sold out at the AMC Lowe's Kips Bay theatre already. The regular film is now raised to $14.00 now for adults That means Bond 23's regular screen price will be over $14.00 for those who choose to waste their money

[Alessandra]

This girl knows her onions folks and I never question her sources nor figures. I do not think it is fair that the studios who do the films get less than those who show it and distribute it. How did the studios ever allow it? If I see a movie at an AMC theatre in NYC and pay $13.00 for a ticket, why should more of that go to a distributor and the theatre than the studio that actually made the film? It makes no sense.

Because without distributors and theaters there's no business whatsoever for the studio. Once upon a time, the studios used to produce AND distribute the films, as in they owned the distribution companies too, but now it's way too much of a risk. Because if you fail and you have both production and distribution expenses on your budget, you are RUINED. Both distributors and theaters have a lot of expenses of their own, it's not like the studio is the only one spending money. In old Hollywood days the studios owned everything (Including theaters) then things changed because the economy changed and people stopped going to the movies as much, so they "outsourced" what they had, until it became a separate branch entirely. No distributor and no theaters, no business at all for the studios. So that's why the distributors especially get a big percentage. If you have a good distributor, you'll have your movie in way more theaters (and countries) and that'll allow you to make more money. If the theaters are nice, people are more likely to go see a movie. And all that.

And there's what Kristatos said about the theaters as well. It's not like they don't have expenses, and they have often been held hostage by the majors... then they rebelled. And studios had to put up with it, because without them there's nothing they can do. The theaters are the ones selling the tickets that make up the gross. The theaters are the ones spending millions in maintenance, rent, all that. There are so many factors that contribute to a movie. Point is, the profit is much more of a long-term financial project now. Which is why we can now safely say that QoS lost money. DVD sales were beyond terrible, it wasn't a success on TV, it didn't keep up at the box office. they booked a loss with QoS, and this being a franchise, it's further reason for them to bank on the following movie. While a "one-shot" movie has no way of making up for possible losses, a franchise can.

[bjmdds]

She knows her cippolas Tehmanis. There is your answer.