No Time To Die: Production Diary

19499509529549552507

Comments

  • I'm hoping for downbeat personally. I'm all for a change in direction to something more fun and straightforward but save that for the next guy. Now Craig is back they have to go all out. Doesn't have to be a straight YOLT adaptation I suppose but keep that same grim, surreal atmosphere and all the important stuff (garden of death).

    The worst thing they could do now is have Craig back and not bother with Blofeld or any of that. If they sweep SP under the carpet and give him a straightforward Bond film then what's the point? They have the perfect opportunity to finally do YOLT right, and if they're going to insist on Craig being back instead of a fresh start (when SP worked as an ending) they'd better use it. That's been what's keeping me excited. I wanted a fresh start but I've been okay with the idea of Craig returning because one of the best Bond's ever, one of the closest to the books and the best actor to play Bond doing my favourite Bond novel justice? Can't really complain there. But if they bring him back and don't take anything from YOLT or follow up from SP at all then I really don't see the point.

    Basically, if they're not going to give us the Bond/Blofeld showdown we've been waiting for and are instead going for a change in direction with Craig then they may as well have given us a proper fresh start. I'm confident that's the direction they're going in though. Say what you will about Purvis and Wade but they seem to know Fleming, and Craig wants to go out on a high, what better way than how he started: giving a brilliant critic silencing performance in a really well done adaptation of one of the original novels (the best one imo). If they do YOLT and do it well it has a good chance of seeing my favourite Bond film. Yeah it'd be a depressing ending but it'd also be a perfect one and they can easily do something more fun for Bond 26. But for now they shouldn't worry about going too dark because it'd be a waste of a great opportunity.

    Bond 25 (please call it Shatterhand) should have the bleakest atmosphere of the series imo. If they wanted a change in direction they should have got a new actor. But for now don't blueball us. I want a Bond who's a broken alcoholic givento be a new lease of life when he has the chance to kill his arch nemesis, with a finale that has him swimming past sharks and scaling the walls of a castle built on a volcano to have one last showdown against an insane samurai Blofeld, who's holed up in his suicide garden. That's a very dark premise so it should be a dark film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    I love the more gritty, darker stuff and even I'm looking forward to something bighter and more fun. The brooding has to stop. But easier said than done now we know that DC will return. Im struggling to see how they can set the right tone with this one given all of the drama/bagage that comes with the DC Bond
    I'm totally with you. It's all a bit perplexing but I'm willing to keep an open mind and see what they come up with. Rather more excited for B26 to be honest and hope they churn that one out much faster.
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    You really think they spent $450m marketing SP?

    I'm prepared to be proven wrong but this seems a bit OTT surely?

    I think SP needed at least half a billion to break even, probably more. It was somewhat justified since they just came off SF and there was a lot of built-in hype. What built-in hype is there this time? I don't know, but are likely headed into treachourous territory with Bond 25, especially if they can't rein in the budget to at least 200 million.

    Yep. Even if marketing costs were at an unrealistic conservative $100million it would need $600million to break even.
    I can't imagine Sony did too well out of that, given the reports of what they made on SF. This is probably why the distribution thing has gone on for so long.

    I personally find it very telling that SP was still running well into 2016 ( much, much longer than SF) in some theaters to get those box office numbers. I really can't imagine that the popular demand for it was hefty enough for such a long run.
    I was watching it closely. The damn thing took forever to get over the $200m number. That's what they were shooting for. After it got there, they pulled it.

    No, it really had limited buzz after the first week stateside. All everyone was talking about was SW. Completely the opposite reaction existed for SF, which had TDK type watercooler conversations going on for weeks. Word of mouth was immense with the prior film.
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    I love the more gritty, darker stuff and even I'm looking forward to something bighter and more fun. The brooding has to stop. But easier said than done now we know that DC will return. Im struggling to see how they can set the right tone with this one given all of the drama/bagage that comes with the DC Bond
    I'm totally with you. It's all rather perplexing but I'm willing to keep an open mind and see what they come up with. Rather more excited for B26 to be honest and hope they churn that one out much faster.
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    You really think they spent $450m marketing SP?

    I'm prepared to be proven wrong but this seems a bit OTT surely?

    I think SP needed at least half a billion to break even, probably more. It was somewhat justified since they just came off SF and there was a lot of built-in hype. What built-in hype is there this time? I don't know, but are likely headed into treachourous territory with Bond 25, especially if they can't rein in the budget to at least 200 million.

    Yep. Even if marketing costs were at an unrealistic conservative $100million it would need $600million to break even.
    I can't imagine Sony did too well out of that, given the reports of what they made on SF. This is probably why the distribution thing has gone on for so long.

    I personally find it very telling that SP was still running well into 2016 ( much, much longer than SF) in some theaters to get those box office numbers. I really can't imagine that the popular demand for it was hefty enough for such a long run.
    I was watching it closely. The damn thing took forever to get over the $200m number. That's what they were shooting for. After it got there, they pulled it.

    No, it really had limited buzz after the first week stateside. All everyone was talking about was SW. Completely the opposite reaction existed for SF, which had TDK type watercooler conversations going on for weeks. Word of mouth was immense with the prior film.

    Let me take a wild guess. All this water cooler talk was mainly about the dead of M, wasn't it?
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 1,985
    Like some have said before. EON would not have spent all that time getting the rights to Blofeld and Spectre just to blow it all in 1 film. With Craig coming back, Blofeld and Spectre will return that's for sure. Madeline is still a ? for me but she will probably be back as well.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    I love the more gritty, darker stuff and even I'm looking forward to something bighter and more fun. The brooding has to stop. But easier said than done now we know that DC will return. Im struggling to see how they can set the right tone with this one given all of the drama/bagage that comes with the DC Bond
    I'm totally with you. It's all rather perplexing but I'm willing to keep an open mind and see what they come up with. Rather more excited for B26 to be honest and hope they churn that one out much faster.
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    You really think they spent $450m marketing SP?

    I'm prepared to be proven wrong but this seems a bit OTT surely?

    I think SP needed at least half a billion to break even, probably more. It was somewhat justified since they just came off SF and there was a lot of built-in hype. What built-in hype is there this time? I don't know, but are likely headed into treachourous territory with Bond 25, especially if they can't rein in the budget to at least 200 million.

    Yep. Even if marketing costs were at an unrealistic conservative $100million it would need $600million to break even.
    I can't imagine Sony did too well out of that, given the reports of what they made on SF. This is probably why the distribution thing has gone on for so long.

    I personally find it very telling that SP was still running well into 2016 ( much, much longer than SF) in some theaters to get those box office numbers. I really can't imagine that the popular demand for it was hefty enough for such a long run.
    I was watching it closely. The damn thing took forever to get over the $200m number. That's what they were shooting for. After it got there, they pulled it.

    No, it really had limited buzz after the first week stateside. All everyone was talking about was SW. Completely the opposite reaction existed for SF, which had TDK type watercooler conversations going on for weeks. Word of mouth was immense with the prior film.

    Let me take a wild guess. All this water cooler talk was mainly about the dead of M, wasn't it?
    No, M never came up in the conversations I had with people. There was just a genuine excitement about the film - the kind where people mention it in passing conversation almost as an obligation to let someone know there's something they have to watch. I remember that with TDK as well.

    Others were taking parents and grandparents to see it. Even I insisted that my folks go to watch it with me on 2nd viewing (the first Bond film they've seen in a theatre since Moore retired). They loved it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Like some have said before. EON would not have spent all that time getting the rights to Blofeld and Spectre just to blow it all in 1 film. With Craig coming back, Blofeld and Spectre will return that's for sure. Madeline is still a ? for me but she will probably be back as well.

    But if he's only returning for one more, will they wrap that storyline up then? No way they'd be stupid enough to blow it all in one film, but two isn't any better. Curious if we get another cliffhanger and try and kick off the Spectre angle once again with a new actor.
  • Posts: 19,339
    At the end of the day I don't mind CraigBond and WaltzBlofeld coming back of course,2 powerhouse actors,and Waltz will undoubtedly get more screen time to develop his Blofeld this time.

    Hinx doesn't bother me either way but I would prefer a new henchman,as otherwise we are heading back into SP 2 territory.

    Madeleine shouldn't even be discussed,she was a Bond girl,end of.
    All they have to do is someone mention her to Bond ,and Bond to say a throwaway remark like "she wasn't the girl I thought she was" ,and then that's it,move on.
  • Posts: 1,985
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Like some have said before. EON would not have spent all that time getting the rights to Blofeld and Spectre just to blow it all in 1 film. With Craig coming back, Blofeld and Spectre will return that's for sure. Madeline is still a ? for me but she will probably be back as well.

    But if he's only returning for one more, will they wrap that storyline up then? No way they'd be stupid enough to blow it all in one film, but two isn't any better. Curious if we get another cliffhanger and try and kick off the Spectre angle once again with a new actor.

    2 is def not enough IMO. If I had it my way this movie be a 2 parter with the latter being more closely to YOLT but since it's not gonna be I think they can close the Blofeld storyline in the one. Especially if this film is gonna be another close to 3 hour movie which it likely will be. I just hope they will have enough time to kill Madeline off and still do a proper YOLT adaptation.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Voice of the reason, @barryt007!
  • Posts: 11,425
    I'm hoping for downbeat personally. I'm all for a change in direction to something more fun and straightforward but save that for the next guy. Now Craig is back they have to go all out. Doesn't have to be a straight YOLT adaptation I suppose but keep that same grim, surreal atmosphere and all the important stuff (garden of death).

    The worst thing they could do now is have Craig back and not bother with Blofeld or any of that. If they sweep SP under the carpet and give him a straightforward Bond film then what's the point? They have the perfect opportunity to finally do YOLT right, and if they're going to insist on Craig being back instead of a fresh start (when SP worked as an ending) they'd better use it. That's been what's keeping me excited. I wanted a fresh start but I've been okay with the idea of Craig returning because one of the best Bond's ever, one of the closest to the books and the best actor to play Bond doing my favourite Bond novel justice? Can't really complain there. But if they bring him back and don't take anything from YOLT or follow up from SP at all then I really don't see the point.

    Basically, if they're not going to give us the Bond/Blofeld showdown we've been waiting for and are instead going for a change in direction with Craig then they may as well have given us a proper fresh start. I'm confident that's the direction they're going in though. Say what you will about Purvis and Wade but they seem to know Fleming, and Craig wants to go out on a high, what better way than how he started: giving a brilliant critic silencing performance in a really well done adaptation of one of the original novels (the best one imo). If they do YOLT and do it well it has a good chance of seeing my favourite Bond film. Yeah it'd be a depressing ending but it'd also be a perfect one and they can easily do something more fun for Bond 26. But for now they shouldn't worry about going too dark because it'd be a waste of a great opportunity.

    Bond 25 (please call it Shatterhand) should have the bleakest atmosphere of the series imo. If they wanted a change in direction they should have got a new actor. But for now don't blueball us. I want a Bond who's a broken alcoholic givento be a new lease of life when he has the chance to kill his arch nemesis, with a finale that has him swimming past sharks and scaling the walls of a castle built on a volcano to have one last showdown against an insane samurai Blofeld, who's holed up in his suicide garden. That's a very dark premise so it should be a dark film.

    Agreed. Would be bizarre for DC to go out with some sunny, breezy entry. It would not frankly be a fitting end.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 4,619
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Like some have said before. EON would not have spent all that time getting the rights to Blofeld and Spectre just to blow it all in 1 film.
    Imagine you own the film rights to a property, except one relatively tiny piece. Would you not want to get that piece even if you were not planning on using it?
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Madeleine shouldn't even be discussed,she was a Bond girl,end of.
    Nonsense. The whole point of her character and the whole point of Spectre's ending was that she wasn't just a Bond girl. She is the woman Bond hoped Vesper was, the woman he can settle down with.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Voice of the reason, @barryt007!

    Thanks pal..
    I would rather Camille came back ,if they insist on bringing back a Craig Bond girl for a 2nd time.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    SP's box office was impressive. The decline in the US was precipitous and disconcerting however. Some have excused that by suggesting SF was an anomaly. That's true. It was, but the simple fact is the continuation narrative shouldn't have lost so much % box office stateside. It didn't connect, and I'm quite sure EON will consider that when looking at whether to continue this story so directly 4 years on.

    As I've said before, the US still controls the global media narrative. There is a reason Craig announced his return on Colbert.

    US market only: Skyfall sold something like 38 million tickets (No. 3 007 film behind Thunderball and Goldfinger, ahead of You Only Live Twice). SPECTRE sold 23 million, lowest of Craig's four films.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Voice of the reason, @barryt007!

    Thanks pal..
    I would rather Camille came back ,if they insist on bringing back a Craig Bond girl for a 2nd time.

    I'm sure it'll never happen but she'd be the one I'd love to see return, as well. It'd be more believable to me, her returning over Madeleine.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    SP's box office was impressive. The decline in the US was precipitous and disconcerting however. Some have excused that by suggesting SF was an anomaly. That's true. It was, but the simple fact is the continuation narrative shouldn't have lost so much % box office stateside. It didn't connect, and I'm quite sure EON will consider that when looking at whether to continue this story so directly 4 years on.

    As I've said before, the US still controls the global media narrative. There is a reason Craig announced his return on Colbert.

    US market only: Skyfall sold something like 38 million tickets (No. 3 007 film behind Thunderball and Goldfinger, ahead of You Only Live Twice). SPECTRE sold 23 million, lowest of Craig's four films.

    Which suggests the film performed exceptionally well outside the US?

    It's a circular debate, and obviously the US remains the most important single market, but there is a world and a demand for Bond outside of America. Some Bond films that have performed poorly in the US have done very well in the rest of the world. SP was a big BO success, period, regardless of where those bums came from.
  • Posts: 1,031
    I've always wanted them to do a proper YOLT adaptation. They've never done Blofeld right in the films. It would be great if they finished him off in a good way - a proper showdown with Bond. Hope they don't do a DAF - did he die? What was that, have ITV cut part of the film?

    FYEO - is it Blofeld, oh wait let's just have him in there but not name him with an obscure piece of dialogue to annoy Kevin McClory.

    Let's have a proper end to Blofeld.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    SP's box office was impressive. The decline in the US was precipitous and disconcerting however. Some have excused that by suggesting SF was an anomaly. That's true. It was, but the simple fact is the continuation narrative shouldn't have lost so much % box office stateside. It didn't connect, and I'm quite sure EON will consider that when looking at whether to continue this story so directly 4 years on.

    As I've said before, the US still controls the global media narrative. There is a reason Craig announced his return on Colbert.

    US market only: Skyfall sold something like 38 million tickets (No. 3 007 film behind Thunderball and Goldfinger, ahead of You Only Live Twice). SPECTRE sold 23 million, lowest of Craig's four films.
    Yes, our conversation was about the US market. It did quite poorly there as you note.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    I'm hoping for downbeat personally. I'm all for a change in direction to something more fun and straightforward but save that for the next guy. Now Craig is back they have to go all out. Doesn't have to be a straight YOLT adaptation I suppose but keep that same grim, surreal atmosphere and all the important stuff (garden of death).

    The worst thing they could do now is have Craig back and not bother with Blofeld or any of that. If they sweep SP under the carpet and give him a straightforward Bond film then what's the point? They have the perfect opportunity to finally do YOLT right, and if they're going to insist on Craig being back instead of a fresh start (when SP worked as an ending) they'd better use it. That's been what's keeping me excited. I wanted a fresh start but I've been okay with the idea of Craig returning because one of the best Bond's ever, one of the closest to the books and the best actor to play Bond doing my favourite Bond novel justice? Can't really complain there. But if they bring him back and don't take anything from YOLT or follow up from SP at all then I really don't see the point.

    Basically, if they're not going to give us the Bond/Blofeld showdown we've been waiting for and are instead going for a change in direction with Craig then they may as well have given us a proper fresh start. I'm confident that's the direction they're going in though. Say what you will about Purvis and Wade but they seem to know Fleming, and Craig wants to go out on a high, what better way than how he started: giving a brilliant critic silencing performance in a really well done adaptation of one of the original novels (the best one imo). If they do YOLT and do it well it has a good chance of seeing my favourite Bond film. Yeah it'd be a depressing ending but it'd also be a perfect one and they can easily do something more fun for Bond 26. But for now they shouldn't worry about going too dark because it'd be a waste of a great opportunity.

    Bond 25 (please call it Shatterhand) should have the bleakest atmosphere of the series imo. If they wanted a change in direction they should have got a new actor. But for now don't blueball us. I want a Bond who's a broken alcoholic givento be a new lease of life when he has the chance to kill his arch nemesis, with a finale that has him swimming past sharks and scaling the walls of a castle built on a volcano to have one last showdown against an insane samurai Blofeld, who's holed up in his suicide garden. That's a very dark premise so it should be a dark film.

    Very well said. I think that's what we're in for with Bond 25. Very bleak, brooding and reflective. They've done this too many times now to not do it again.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I just want the budget for Bond 25 to be reasonable. They can accomplish a lot with a modest budget and if they
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Well SP was very well received in the UK and many other places, but the US was more lukewarm. However, the film still made nearly $900 million world-wide, and that's not lukewarm. SP wasn't quite SF in those terms, but it was still a box office winner. In Hollywood the bottom line is the BO result. I don't think they will skimp on Bond 25.

    True but the domestic market is the most important market and is where the studios get most of their profit. SP had a budget of $250million and when you factor total cost of marketing, you're looking at a total spend close to $700million with a worldwide total gross of $880million which isn't all that impressive really.

    $880 million theatrical box office is impressive - simple as that.

    That's revenue. Not even close to profit.
    Getafix wrote: »
    You really think they spent $450m marketing SP?

    I'm prepared to be proven wrong but this seems a bit OTT surely?

    That's not what I said. Even then at best they would have spent a minimum of $150million. You have to double the budget and then add marketing costs to break even.

    The box office figure of $880 million is a very strong theatrical performance, that's all there is to it.

    In broad terms I agree but for individual/specific cases not really. When you're expenditure on a project is close to you're total revenue and the profits are further divided up, there's barely anything left. If EoN were a charity then fine but they're a profit-centric business. Worse yet, the most money studios and production companies get comes from the domestic market. There's a reason why films, especially tentpoles that do so well overseas and do poorly stateside are given no regard. The amazing spider-man 2 (crap film) made slightly more money domestically and earned $709million total. Had a budget of $255million and a reported marketing budget if at least $180 million. Spider-Man is bigger than Bond in every way and yet they had no choice to reboot everything...again for the second time 2 years later.
    Trying to determine where the profit line is (or was) is extremely difficult (Impossible even) unless you are right inside the machine and know exactly how the revenue is divided - it's very complex and different from film to film.

    It's not that difficult. The numbers are out there and even then they dont have to be precise down to the correct decimal. Knowing how breakeven works within the film industry gives a general overvue strong enough to determine ballpark figures.
    One reason the studios love franchises, Bond being one of the most successful and long running, is because every film in the series has an extended or a long shelf life - and that's were further profits lie.

    That's ancillary revenue which is all well and good but for face value success and for deals and investments to be made sooner or at all the BO numbers are absoloutly critical.
    Even the least financially successful Bond, LTK, which I worked on, made profit - and that I heard directly from one of the producers.

    Making a profit isn't being disputed. What I'm looking at are the actual margins to see how profitable these films are. Looking at LTK's numbers (box office, marketing and budget), before profit sharing the film would have secured about $23million on it's $36million budget. Once that 23million is divided up, what did EoN go home with? A number not worth boasting about i can tell you that. These films aren't made to lose money, nor to just break even or walk away with a barely there profit. In any case we'll see what numbers get thrown at Bond 25 together up and running and see how that turns out.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Making a profit isn't being disputed. What I'm looking at are the actual margins to see how profitable these films are. Looking at LTK's numbers (box office, marketing and budget), before profit sharing the film would have secured about $23million on it's $36million budget. Once that 23million is divided up, what did EoN go home with? A number not worth boasting about i can tell you that. These films aren't made to lose money, nor to just break even or walk away with a barely there profit. In any case we'll see what numbers get thrown at Bond 25 together up and running and see how that turns out.
    Precisely. It's all about return on investment and risk. The higher the investment, the higher the risk. The box office is rather volatile these days too, from what I can see.

    This will probably be a lower key character based affair. Fewer locations. More immersive. Fewer action set pieces. The anti-SP. That's my guess.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    SP's box office was impressive. The decline in the US was precipitous and disconcerting however. Some have excused that by suggesting SF was an anomaly. That's true. It was, but the simple fact is the continuation narrative shouldn't have lost so much % box office stateside. It didn't connect, and I'm quite sure EON will consider that when looking at whether to continue this story so directly 4 years on.

    As I've said before, the US still controls the global media narrative. There is a reason Craig announced his return on Colbert.

    US market only: Skyfall sold something like 38 million tickets (No. 3 007 film behind Thunderball and Goldfinger, ahead of You Only Live Twice). SPECTRE sold 23 million, lowest of Craig's four films.

    Which suggests the film performed exceptionally well outside the US?

    It's a circular debate, and obviously the US remains the most important single market, but there is a world and a demand for Bond outside of America. Some Bond films that have performed poorly in the US have done very well in the rest of the world. SP was a big BO success, period, regardless of where those bums came from.

    Better outside the U.S. (relatively) than inside it.

    Anyway, I looked it up. Skyfall was in US theaters for 108 days. SPECTRE was in US theaters for 154 (and well after it was available on home video).

    On day 108, SPECTRE's gross was $199,778,275.

    A lot of movies would have loved to get $200 million US gross. But somebody apparently decided they needed a nice, round number.



  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Let's wait until we start getting info on story/location before we start speculating on budgets. It's almost as if some people want it to fail. They've been making these movies for a long time and, trust me, they ain't short of a few bob. I'm pretty sure they don't need us telling them how to production manage a tent pole flick. Whenever they spunk money up the wall, which can be irritating, they can afford it. If SP had been Ritchie's King Arthur this may be a valid discussion, but I'm sure they have it in hand to a large degree.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Madeleine shouldn't even be discussed,she was a Bond girl,end of.
    Nonsense. The whole point of her character and the whole point of Spectre's ending was that she wasn't just a Bond girl. She is the woman Bond hoped Vesper was, the woman he can settle down with.
    I only got that from Smith's song to be honest. Not from Craig's reactions. I hope he shows more enthusiasm if she's back.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    RC7 wrote: »
    Let's wait until we start getting info on story/location before we start speculating on budgets. It's almost as if some people want it to fail. They've been making these movies for a long time and, trust me, they ain't short of a few bob. I'm pretty sure they don't need us telling them how to production manage a tent pole flick. Whenever they spunk money up the wall, which can be irritating, they can afford it. If SP had been Ritchie's King Arthur this may be a valid discussion, but I'm sure they have it in hand to a large degree.

    Yes, but anything under 200 seems very unlikely. 180 at the bare minimum, if they make it about the characters and tighten up the story from where they left SP. They won't go any lower than that, and they won't go higher than 220 if I were to guess.
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    I love the more gritty, darker stuff and even I'm looking forward to something bighter and more fun. The brooding has to stop. But easier said than done now we know that DC will return. Im struggling to see how they can set the right tone with this one given all of the drama/bagage that comes with the DC Bond
    I'm totally with you. It's all rather perplexing but I'm willing to keep an open mind and see what they come up with. Rather more excited for B26 to be honest and hope they churn that one out much faster.
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    You really think they spent $450m marketing SP?

    I'm prepared to be proven wrong but this seems a bit OTT surely?

    I think SP needed at least half a billion to break even, probably more. It was somewhat justified since they just came off SF and there was a lot of built-in hype. What built-in hype is there this time? I don't know, but are likely headed into treachourous territory with Bond 25, especially if they can't rein in the budget to at least 200 million.

    Yep. Even if marketing costs were at an unrealistic conservative $100million it would need $600million to break even.
    I can't imagine Sony did too well out of that, given the reports of what they made on SF. This is probably why the distribution thing has gone on for so long.

    I personally find it very telling that SP was still running well into 2016 ( much, much longer than SF) in some theaters to get those box office numbers. I really can't imagine that the popular demand for it was hefty enough for such a long run.
    I was watching it closely. The damn thing took forever to get over the $200m number. That's what they were shooting for. After it got there, they pulled it.

    No, it really had limited buzz after the first week stateside. All everyone was talking about was SW. Completely the opposite reaction existed for SF, which had TDK type watercooler conversations going on for weeks. Word of mouth was immense with the prior film.

    Let me take a wild guess. All this water cooler talk was mainly about the dead of M, wasn't it?
    No, M never came up in the conversations I had with people. There was just a genuine excitement about the film - the kind where people mention it in passing conversation almost as an obligation to let someone know there's something they have to watch. I remember that with TDK as well.

    Others were taking parents and grandparents to see it. Even I insisted that my folks go to watch it with me on 2nd viewing (the first Bond film they've seen in a theatre since Moore retired). They loved it.

    Okay. I stand corrected.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Let's wait until we start getting info on story/location before we start speculating on budgets. It's almost as if some people want it to fail. They've been making these movies for a long time and, trust me, they ain't short of a few bob. I'm pretty sure they don't need us telling them how to production manage a tent pole flick. Whenever they spunk money up the wall, which can be irritating, they can afford it. If SP had been Ritchie's King Arthur this may be a valid discussion, but I'm sure they have it in hand to a large degree.

    Yes, but anything under 200 seems very unlikely. 180 at the bare minimum, if they make it about the characters and tighten up the story from where they left SP. They won't go any lower than that, and they won't go higher than 220 if I were to guess.

    Cool.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I wonder how much craig will charge- that will obviously affect how big the budget is.
    Maybe 30 mil
  • Posts: 4,619
    How much do you think a movie the scale of Dr. No would cost nowadays without marketing? Around 75 million USD?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    How much do you think a movie the scale of Dr. No would cost nowadays without marketing? Around 75 million USD?

    Less, I think. 60 million?
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Making a profit isn't being disputed. What I'm looking at are the actual margins to see how profitable these films are. Looking at LTK's numbers (box office, marketing and budget), before profit sharing the film would have secured about $23million on it's $36million budget. Once that 23million is divided up, what did EoN go home with? A number not worth boasting about i can tell you that. These films aren't made to lose money, nor to just break even or walk away with a barely there profit. In any case we'll see what numbers get thrown at Bond 25 together up and running and see how that turns out.
    Precisely. It's all about return on investment and risk. The higher the investment, the higher the risk. The box office is rather volatile these days too, from what I can see.

    This will probably be a lower key character based affair. Fewer locations. More immersive. Fewer action set pieces. The anti-SP. That's my guess.

    That might be a mistake in my opinion. That way SP was perceived by many they need to go all in this time. 'All in' in the inspired kind of way not the Mendes approach. They just have to make up for what was wrong with SP. The last thing they need is a word of mouth along the lines of "you know this one is a little bit slower and more low key".
Sign In or Register to comment.