It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
What I'm worried more about, as you could read on page 14, is the real-time profits, the ROI, of the upcoming Bond-film. Box office figures alone don't do it anymore. If NTTD grosses worldwide a mere $725 Million, but if, at the same time, it manages an ROI of more than 550%......now THEN I will be happy :-).
You know a similar ROI won't ever happen? XD
NTTD looks like another 200 millions production + maybe 150 millions for marketing and other costs...
BTW, I don't care too much about this, but the movie must gross more than what Fallout did. :D
P.S. Wasn't the production budget for Spectre 245 millions? On box-officemojo they say 245. You're reporting 300.
Obviously! The same counts for me. I can't wait to see NTTD. It's one of the reasons I felt so adamant to peek on this forum again.
But there's more than just that film. I just hope the Bond-franchise on the whole becomes (financially) more healthier. Because when that happens we fans could perhaps witness less breaks between Bond productions (Goodbye "The Rhythmn Section", goodbye "Film Stars Don't Die In Liverpool", goodbye 'Harry Saltzman-mentality'), a more fresher attitude towards the character Bond, and even a higher quality film on the whole.
On the positive side: there might already be some diversification plans with regard to Lashana Lynch playing (rumoured) 007. There could very well be a spin-off in the making, which personally would interest me greatly. You could then have one 'Nomi-008' film every 1,5 years, followed by a real James Bond-007' film 1,5 years later and vice versa. Financially I think it would make the Bond-franchise healthier.
So my adage would be: I will be happy if NTTD turns out a great Bond-film, and at the same time the Bond-franchise management-wise and financially gets healthier, so that also in the long-term we can enjoy wonderful films from the Bond-franchise in a slightly more rapid fashion and with more quality too.
Box office figures to me as such don't interest me much either. But a healthy Bond-franchise is what all Bond-fans would appreciate.
This is all I care about, really. I just want a damn good, cracking installment, particularly one that'll wrap up the Craig era in a wonderful way. Make a great film first and foremost and let the end product and word of mouth speak for itself worldwide.
I mainly used figures from The-Numbers.com and BoxOfficePro.com, not BoxOfficeMojo: https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Spectre#tab=summary. Also I digged into the SonyLeaks a bit and previous film business articles (I linked to those). The $300 Million production budget for SP to me sounds quite accurate. In any case ROI's of recent Bond-films have been relatively abysmal to say the least. Would be good for the Bond-franchise if it can improve profits-wise.
Or let the film rest a few years.
We weren't ready for OHMSS in '69, but we were a few years later. I'm happy with the OHMSS we've got. Had they made it more easily digestible as a follow-up to YOLT, we may not be appreciating the film the way we do today. Same with LTK.
If NTTD is a bloody good Bond film but not the one people want today, it'll remain a bloody good Bond film that people may rediscover a few years from now. If it's a film that pleases the masses but fails to impress us otherwise, it'll stay a let-down.
Okay got it.
But that's what worries me. In 'Blockbuster-land' that luxury style of thinking is a no go. And frankly, my fear is that if that happens, that in the near future we only get one Bond-film once every 4,5 years, then the Bond-franchise might slowly become extinct from our collective consciousness (I say slowly). I already know people, especially young ones, who have never heard of James Bond.
I'm not only thinking of what I want. Because then I could agree with your notions @DarthDimi. I'm a patient guy. Really (37 now). But what worries me is the franchise at large. I think everyone in here would agree that it would be better for the franchise if it's being managed better. Not because I want it, but because I would love to see new young people being infected as much by Bond as they are by Marvel.
So as a follow-up I say:
Good for me: If NTTD is a bloody good Bond film but not the one people want today, it'll remain a bloody good Bond film that people may rediscover a few years from now.
Way better: If NTTD is a bloody good Bond film and at the same time it's exactly the kind of film people want today, then it'll not only remain a bloody good Bond film that people may rediscover a few years from now…...but can also be seen as a bloody good entry that is a trendsetter/standard bearer as witnessed instantly by massive amounts of people coming April.
At least the last one was more or less 'Cubby's' motto no?
Why does the ROI % interest you more than the actual dollar profit?
Both actually. But the actual Dollar profit is much harder to predict in the absence of exact marketing budget investments. And on the whole, ROI and real-time profit interest me more than just plain out-of-perspective box office grosses.
That last notion I agree with. And in this discussion I tend to take NTTD a bit separately from the long-term future of the franchise. Besides all the pre-production problems, NTTD is in production now. And it seems everything is being run smoothly (as directed by Fukunaga). So yes, NTTD has that unique privilege in that it will be there regardless of profits or losses.
Then again, I'm just hoping our beloved franchise will be managed with a more 'hands-on' mentality after NTTD. Also, the Bond-franchise for me is also a very interesting discussion subject from an economic point of view :-).
Depends a bit how you look at it. If you read my article, then every party in this conglomerate 'EON-MGM-Sony' (formerly) or 'EON-MGM-UA-Universal' (new situation) gets a portion/percentage of the profits. (We do know EON screw Sony tremendously) https://spycommandfeatures.wordpress.com/bond-confronting-changing-media/
In my article I tried to make distinction between pure marketing/promo costs of the actual film (direct) and the lucrative Danjaq/EON sponsorship-branch of business, which are more indirect marketing costs when compared to the actual film.
They have to lol. Universal is bigger/powerful (Comcast) than Sony. So I wouldn't be surprised if Universal slammed with some shoes on the negotiation table sitting opposite MGM and EON (UA Releasing/Annapurna perhaps more silent). It would be better if NTTD's 'official' production budget does not go past the $200 Million. And marketing/distribution costs less than $90 Million.
I’m not sure that’s true. Bollinger will no doubt act on that level to a degree (they still provide marketing), but with Heineken I’m pretty sure their side of the deal is that they provide marketing - see the ad filmed last year. It’s a better deal for EON. As they might say, ‘Do we look like we need the money?’.
That sponsorship marketing stuff is basically going directly in the pockets of EON/Danjaq. It won't be used -as such- as direct marketing investments on the actual film. This whole sponsorship stuff is basically an entire separate, indirect branch of the Bond franchise. The nice side-effect that it results in lots of free NTTD publicity, commercials and online/written ads.
The question is: Less Bond-films in cinema per every 4/5 years also means in the long-term the brand 'Bond' becomes less lucrative. Not to mention Marvel, who sooner or later simply have a better deal for Heineken.
What makes me curious is also the direct marketing investments from movie companies like MGM, Universal and UA.Releasing into the Bond-films. That's an entire, more direct, ballgame of marketing.
I think the singer chosen for the theme will also play a part in this.
Now, none of this matters to the quality of the movie, of course. But this is the box office thread.
@RC7 Been quickly looking for a reputable link. BBC claims Heineken paid $45 mill to feature in skyfall. Considering you’re maybe talking 50 years of advertising that’s not bad. Just wish it was red stripe...
I disagree. Granted, those may be more "legitimate" or more "correct" ways of judging the finances of films, but between BOMojo and what the average newspapers releases, it's mostly about the absolute figures. With Endgame surpassing Avatar, I don't recollect any of the excitement focussing on ROI's or the such. A few people were keen to point out that with inflation adjustments, Gone With The Wind is still at number 1. That was pretty much it. Absolute figures are one way to look at things, and not necessarily incorrect.
The Bond-franchise here is in troubled, actually...bad financial waters, not Marvel. What Kevin Feige is doing is exactly what Cubby did in the 1960's, albeit under different circumstances geopolitically and geoeconomically. But Feige….he admires Cubby. So Marvel (Disney) can focus on those box office gross figures (ticket sales) while not worrying too much about ROI and profits. With Bond that's now, unfortunately, a different story. Look at SP. That Bond-flick barely broke even. Barbara and Michael...…..they pumped millions on all those expensive bespoke DB10's, but without a clear plan.
Also don't forget that even with inflation corrections the Return-On-Investments of GWTW where unbelievably huge. Nowadays costs in movie business have skyrocketed, even for Marvel. But at least Marvel appeals to larger audiences than Bond. Is it that much to ask for….for Bond to appeal to larges audiences? Are we really that fed up with at least parts of Cubby's vision? What Kevin Feige, Kathleen Kennedy and Tom Cruise can, can not be done by Barbara & Michael? Come on.....
I just read "When Harry Met Cubby"...…..and it saddens me to say that Barbara and Michael nowadays treat the franchise more like Harry did, and not like Cubby did. Especially in between two Bond-productions. And that's not a positive conclusion.
Indeed. What saddens me is that most of that sum goes straight into the banks of Danjaq, and will not be used to actually (co-)finance a Bond-film or a next Bond-film. That's what…makes me get an unsettling feeling!Thanks for that link @Matt007 ;-).