The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[Gala Brand]

QOS had $2.4 billion in total revenue?

Two concepts you need to understand. Infinite time horizon and present discounted value. Infinite time horizon assumes that 10,000 years from now giant mutated cockroaches will be renting QOS DVDs (and no doubt commenting about the size of Craig's ears). I kid. There are formulas for calculating revenues over an infinite time horizon.

Present discounted value is what those future revenues are worth today.

[Gala Brand]

I don't particularly want to stick up for QOS because I thought it was a mediocre film. However, I thgink you're wrong on the financials. According to Wikipedia, QOS had a production cost of $200 million. Britain has a 20% tax credit for film expenditures in Britain. Obviously much of the expenditures were overseas, but the other countries involved probably had similar tax credits (or more). So after the credits you're looking at $160 million. Then there are the product placements. In Skyfall product placements are valued at $45 million. Let's say it was $30 million for QOS. So you're looking at $130 million out of pocket. I don't know where the $150 million marketing cost came from, but assuming it to be correct, you're looking at $280 million, which given the 1.75 ratio and a BO of about $600 million makes it a money maker.

But all this is irrelevant. One of the posters linked to an article stating that 80% of the revenue was "downstream" i.e. post BO. This is consistent with what I've read elsewhere. In the case of QOS this would suggest downstream revenue of $2.4 billion, making it a big money maker. Now this may be calculated over an infinite time horizon and you'd need to calculate the present discounted value to get an approximation of what that means in today's dollars, but no matter how you slice it, it's a ton of money.

Except S O N Y said they spent over $400 million dollars to produce and market QOS. After whatever tax breaks they got.

Craig says it as well, where is the disconnect?

Is there a guy in the frigging grassy knoll I don't know about cause magic bullets are flying everywhere.

$2.4 billion? So MGM went bankrupt in 2009 why again? These movies make so much money man all those studios are crazy!!!!! One Bond movie made 2.4 billion!!! Those jive turkeys wouldn't bid $2 billion* for the whole f-ing studio! Some crazy suckas out there!

Time Warner has offered $1.5 billion to acquire the company, while rival bids from Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. and billionaire Len Blavatnik's Access Industries have come in below that, according to people familiar with the matter.

“This movie costs a lot of money to make, it costs as nearly as much again if not more to promote” – Craig

the combined marketing and development budgets for the film were estimated as high at $400 million.

The only credible source that I found regarding the cost for QOS was this quote from the NYT. "The combined production and marketing budgets are estimated at about $400 million, although Sony places the number lower because of tax credits."

Using the 1.75 formula puts QOS in the gray zone if total costs are $400 million. Since costs were less than $400 million (net of tax credits) then it was probably a money maker.

[Gala Brand]

Your post was interesting 'gala brand' and informative, but when you got to the $2.4 billion bit............i think you made a miscalculation somewhere.

The 80% figure for downstream revenue is commonly accepted. Far more people see movies on DVD, pay-per-view, cable, Hulu, Netflix, etc. than see them at the movie theatre. The $2.4 billion is over an infinite time horizon. The present discounted value of that revenue stream would be much less.

[English Agent]

Your post was interesting 'gala brand' and informative, but when you got to the $2.4 billion bit............i think you made a miscalculation somewhere.

The 80% figure for downstream revenue is commonly accepted. Far more people see movies on DVD, pay-per-view, cable, Hulu, Netflix, etc. than see them at the movie theatre. The $2.4 billion is over an infinite time horizon. The present discounted value of that revenue stream would be much less.

I still dont know how you arrived at a figure of $2.4 billion, when the theatrical BO for QOS was just under $600 mil, on top of that as the film was not as well received as prior films such CR, its DVD sales were relatively poor as well, from what ive seen QOS had around $45 mil in DVD sales in the US.
Now imagining, lets say QOS made another $100 mil in DVD sales abroad, then adding TV rights as well, i still cant see how we end up any where close to $2.4 billion. I would of thought an overall figure of $800 mil would be more realistic.
If someone can show me some figures otherwise.....

EA

[Gala Brand]

Your post was interesting 'gala brand' and informative, but when you got to the $2.4 billion bit............i think you made a miscalculation somewhere.

The 80% figure for downstream revenue is commonly accepted. Far more people see movies on DVD, pay-per-view, cable, Hulu, Netflix, etc. than see them at the movie theatre. The $2.4 billion is over an infinite time horizon. The present discounted value of that revenue stream would be much less.

I still dont know how you arrived at a figure of $2.4 billion, when the theatrical BO for QOS was just under $600 mil, on top of that as the film was not as well received as prior films such CR, its DVD sales were relatively poor as well, from what ive seen QOS had around $45 mil in DVD sales in the US.
Now imagining, lets say QOS made another $100 mil in DVD sales abroad, then adding TV rights as well, i still cant see how we end up any where close to $2.4 billion. I would of thought an overall figure of $800 mil would be more realistic.
If someone can show me some figures otherwise.....

EA

If "downstream" is 80% of total revenues that means that Box Office is 20% of total revenues. Since QOS Box Office was about $600 billion, and assuming that QOS is an average film in terms of revenue streams, then total revenues are $3 billion and "downstream revenues" are $2.4 billion.

[Gala Brand]

According to Wikipedia domestic DVD sales were $45 million two-and-a-half years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_of ... mbers1-142

I know for a fact those numbers are higher now because I bought a QOS DVD ($5 at WalMart) about a year ago.

[English Agent]

Your post was interesting 'gala brand' and informative, but when you got to the $2.4 billion bit............i think you made a miscalculation somewhere.

The 80% figure for downstream revenue is commonly accepted. Far more people see movies on DVD, pay-per-view, cable, Hulu, Netflix, etc. than see them at the movie theatre. The $2.4 billion is over an infinite time horizon. The present discounted value of that revenue stream would be much less.

I still dont know how you arrived at a figure of $2.4 billion, when the theatrical BO for QOS was just under $600 mil, on top of that as the film was not as well received as prior films such CR, its DVD sales were relatively poor as well, from what ive seen QOS had around $45 mil in DVD sales in the US.
Now imagining, lets say QOS made another $100 mil in DVD sales abroad, then adding TV rights as well, i still cant see how we end up any where close to $2.4 billion. I would of thought an overall figure of $800 mil would be more realistic.
If someone can show me some figures otherwise.....

EA

If "downstream" is 80% of total revenues that means that Box Office is 20% of total revenues. Since QOS Box Office was about $600 billion, and assuming that QOS is an average film in terms of revenue streams, then total revenues are $3 billion and "downstream revenues" are $2.4 billion.

i could understand it if the BO accounted for approx 80% of a films revenue, but otherwise........um?

[English Agent]

According to Wikipedia domestic DVD sales were $45 million two-and-a-half years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_of ... mbers1-142

I know for a fact those numbers are higher now because I bought a QOS DVD ($5 at WalMart) about a year ago.

..........i believe 'BJ' also bought the QOS DVD, but only so he could use it as a coaster for his beer glasses!

[Gala Brand]

Your post was interesting 'gala brand' and informative, but when you got to the $2.4 billion bit............i think you made a miscalculation somewhere.

The 80% figure for downstream revenue is commonly accepted. Far more people see movies on DVD, pay-per-view, cable, Hulu, Netflix, etc. than see them at the movie theatre. The $2.4 billion is over an infinite time horizon. The present discounted value of that revenue stream would be much less.

I still dont know how you arrived at a figure of $2.4 billion, when the theatrical BO for QOS was just under $600 mil, on top of that as the film was not as well received as prior films such CR, its DVD sales were relatively poor as well, from what ive seen QOS had around $45 mil in DVD sales in the US.
Now imagining, lets say QOS made another $100 mil in DVD sales abroad, then adding TV rights as well, i still cant see how we end up any where close to $2.4 billion. I would of thought an overall figure of $800 mil would be more realistic.
If someone can show me some figures otherwise.....

EA

Here is an interesting article from the London School of Economics that confirms the 80% figure. Total revenues for films made in the US were $50 billion (2008) and total revenues from Box Office were $10.6 billion (2009). Only 10% 0f the population goes to the movies. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27040/1/The_bu ... lsero).pdf

[English Agent]

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27040/1/The_bu ... vies(lsero).pdf

I coulnt access this page even after logging in!

[bjmdds]

If I am reading this correctly, is the assumption that 100 years from NOW QOS will have made $2.4 billion in total revenue over a century of torment of it's rotten existence in the annuls of film history and marketing products?

[bjmdds]

According to Wikipedia domestic DVD sales were $45 million two-and-a-half years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_of ... mbers1-142

I know for a fact those numbers are higher now because I bought a QOS DVD ($5 at WalMart) about a year ago.

..........i believe 'BJ' also bought the QOS DVD, but only so he could use it as a coaster for his beer glasses!

NO money is spent by me on ANY Cr-egg product whatsoever. If someone gave me a free copy, it would become a frisbee to toss.

[English Agent]

According to Wikipedia domestic DVD sales were $45 million two-and-a-half years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_of ... mbers1-142

I know for a fact those numbers are higher now because I bought a QOS DVD ($5 at WalMart) about a year ago.

..........i believe 'BJ' also bought the QOS DVD, but only so he could use it as a coaster for his beer glasses!

NO money is spent by me on ANY Cr-egg product whatsoever. If someone gave me a free copy, it would become a frisbee to toss.

OK 'BJ' ........... BTW:- what do u make of this $2.4 billion thing for QOS

[bjmdds]

I don't know if that is actual dollars made as of today OR potential future dollars that some drunken actuary tabulated when bombed out of his or her mind

[bjmdds]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TTxJH7JB53Y/T ... 00/jla.jpg Hollywood's only concept these days.

[Gala Brand]

If I am reading this correctly, is the assumption that 100 years from NOW QOS will have made $2.4 billion in total revenue over a century of torment of it's rotten existence in the annuls of film history and marketing products?

Hmmm, something like that. Except it'll be $3 billion when the Box Office is included.

[English Agent]

If I am reading this correctly, is the assumption that 100 years from NOW QOS will have made $2.4 billion in total revenue over a century of torment of it's rotten existence in the annuls of film history and marketing products?

Hmmm, something like that. Except it'll be $3 billion when the Box Office is included.

$3 billion........what? somethings gone very awry here!

[bjmdds]

$2.4 biilion is this imaginary 80% additional revenue to the 20% $600 million already done at the box office gross only. FBF, read this: "The debut also topped the previous opening-weekend record for a Bond flick, $47 million for 2002's "Die Another Day. Adjusting for inflation, Sony's "Quantum of Solace" easily drew a bigger audience than that installment, the last Bond adventure featuring Pierce Brosnan. Based on 2002 admission prices, about 8.1 million tickets were sold for "Die Another Day" in the first weekend, compared to 9.8 million for "Quantum of Solace." Make sure you get these minions to stay home in the UK and the USA.

[Mazer Rackham]

In good movie years the studio will make a few hundred million on Bond, in off years I have to look it up for more precise numbers, but Bond video revenue does help float MGM (30% of total MGM revenue in a good year) were talking at the most a hundred million of so. Years back it was 25m to 50m and those were off years without new DVD releases so that's probably around there with no new movies. (QOS and all of MGM's newer movies only brought in 80m)
Some video deals have funny ways they are calculated. Costing more up front or in the backend depends what kind of bundles they are putting together.

But it is no where near the billion mark, total revenue for big studios will be lucky to see one billion -in a year of blockbusters.

Now there is a crazy way of accounting, saying oh Coke or Motorola help to advertise the movie and that was worth, whatever, say 100m so it's counted in plus column but there is no real revenue and Motorola or whoever never came close to spending that kind of money. It's a crazy gimmick that looks good on the sheets somewhere.

The $400m minimum cost is solid Sony owned up to it during the hiatus and before they came back to Bond. Remember they were out after Quark/QOS. They even admitted to spending more advertising CR than they previously had. There also are industry publications with these number, including the cost Sony admits to for QOS -$230m. Sony has a history of talking up misleading numbers during the PR phase, MIB 3, Spider-man 3 for example.

Taking a loss at the BO is not unusual (3 out of 4 Brozzas) the crazy amount spent on QOS make it the exception to the rule. If Skyfall can be brought back in budget or hell I'd cut advertising and let the partners flog it, the series can be profitable. The rule of thumb is as much or more in P&A. A domestic movie with virtually no advertising and a medium theater count is 50m to 75m. It cost more every year because the advertising cost go up regardless of anything to do with the production budget. (same advertising dollars buying less each year)

There is one thing that does help Skyfall and that's inflation, they have to sell fewer ticket to cross the threshold. It does upset the studios to sell fewer ticket but the money coming in is key. Also exchange rates can be killers.

[FormerBondFan]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TTxJH7JB53Y/T ... 00/jla.jpg Hollywood's only concept these days.

Reboot Green Lantern but NOT the Bat.