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
CR certainly does not look 'cheap' imho.
If you do an internet search you can find out how much of the profits the above listed got for SF. I seem to remember Sony only got $57 mil, the others got a better percentage of the profits.
Very good point @Mepal1. That's absolutely true. The profits will be distributed to EON, MGM and Sony. Of which Sony, under this current distribution deal, is the big lower.
Add on top of that the general rule that a movie starts to break even, only after the worldwide gross has roughlay doubled the initial production budget amount, and you then see that there's not so much to be happy about......money-wise.
Looking at the initial investment figures, at least EON was expecting to surpass the worldwide gross of "Skyfall", whereas Sony obviously and understandably were much more critical towards EON.
Like I previously said in my two articles, Michael and Barbara need to stop thinking that they can spend money so lushly as their father did in the 1960's and 1970's. The money has to be spend much wiser, and the "Cubby" motto "The money is on the screen" has to be shelved. Unless the story is so damn good, that huge investments have to be made.
Look, $876 Million indeed looks wonderful, but looks can be deceitful. Bond has to fight bigger stuff (Marvel, Furious, DC, star Wars), but the first fight will be won with smart investments and a damn good story.
Can't agree with that. Where SF and SP may give the impression of looking more expensive rests within their respective cinematography. The overall production values in CR just looks much better and better utilised than the last 2 Bond entries. They spent their money well in Craig's first outing.
I agree, for CR EON really got their act together, and apart from being a top notch film story and action wise, the film also looked very classy.
Unfortunately the film makers lost their heads on the next film!
*insert non-EON approved gif of Orlov pulling himself along the train tracks*
Nice
I love that scene ...not SP crawling though :( would prefer cross line then collapse.
Still good take.
These estimates in the Sony leaks were made before the budget went higher than expected. And we still don't know (and probably never will) the effect of Craig's knee injury, which had an effect probably deeper than 2 weeks of "holidays". In the leaks thread, someone claimed to have been told by Mendes how it affected some things in the shooting (and it was probably true IMO).
What we know is that they had to ask people to be on the set just in case they could shoot someting (ie : Seydoux described as "a prisoner of the Bond company" by the director of the movie she could not make the promotion of).
Just imagine you're the head of the studio who is dealing with EON about the future of the franchise, and compare how you can trash the value of the franchise after SF and after SP... That's their job, in brief, they take all the risks, so they need the better deal they can for them. Just being "less than SF" is already something to trash talk about !
I'm afraid "Bond should be big in China" is what may have the more influence in the future (it did less than Kingsman, almost half of Mission:Impossible, and for the future, the China market is "the place to be" for the number guys, alas). When it's time to cast a new Bond, I really hope EON will fight, but I'm afraid their partners will ask for "star power", and no risk. I can imagine The Rock as a new henchman, for instance :( [Nothing against the guy, but it's just too "safe"]
N.American gross this weekend = est $170,000 for a running total of $199,270,327
Basically SP made only around $1.5 mil worldwide in the last week.
Film is virtually at the end of its run theatrical run now. :(
jpbox-office.com/fichfilm.php?id=14888
yea, we're going to end so stupidly close to 200m, but without crossing it.
I want it to make $199,999,999.
Story first reported here, based on Sony leaks: (story is behind a paywall, but you can get around it by plugging the URL into Google)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/pursuit-of-james-bond-film-rights-kicks-into-high-gear-1446156132
MGM profits $175 million, Eon received $109 million, Sony profits $57 million.
If SPECTRE *matched* Skyfall's box office, Sony would have received $38 million because of the higher budget. With SPECTRE have a lower box office, Sony's profits are lower than that.
Absolutely. Though I think the brand 'James Bond' also indirectly results in profits and awareness for movie companies. Especially for 2015's biggest loser: Warner Bros.
Can anyone explain exactly how this deal works between MGM-EON-Sony (or A N Other)?
Sony don't seem to get much out of it, financially or creatively
One of the reasons, I think, for the continued success of the franchise is EON's guardianship of the 'brand'. What's MGM's role?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/01/26/box-office-while-star-wars-broke-records-spectre-grossed-nearly-900m-worldwide/#57382946510f
Well its good to see 'Scott Mendelson of Forbes' giving a positive outlook on SP and the Bond franchise, as this was the man who wrote a review of the film, stating that he thought SP was the worst Bond film of the last 30 years. :-O
Anyway, its clear he gets his BO figures from BoxOfficeMojo.
As he has stated, it does look like SP will fall short of grossing $200 mil in N.America by about 5 cents, as the film is done now, in theaters.
It was a shame that SP didn't perform better in N.America, but it was clear that the film didn't appeal to American audiences as it had done to Europeans, maybe a culture thing.
Though i do agree that SP was a love it, or hate it type of film, and didn't have the fun element of an over the top type villain as SF did.
Regarding SP's position in BO terms in relation to other Bond films in the franchise in the N.American market is not a clear and cut situation.
Mr Mendelson mentions that SP will fall in last place, against the other Craig Bond films, but this is based on BOMojo's estimated admissions, and BO inflation chart.
In fact when SP started its run in November, BOMojo had QOS's BO inflation adjusted figure somwhere around the $195 mil mark, then upped it to $201 mil before Xmas, and then recently upped the figure to $204 mil. Umm.......i think a $9 mil increase in just 3 months is way off. In fact BOMojo have been reducing the admission figures for SP, even though more people are still seeing the film. Anyone who uses BOMojo's adjusted ticket figures, can clearly see their system doesn't quite work correctly.
I personally think the other big BO site 'The-Numbers' has a more representative figure for inflation, as they originally gave QOS's adjusted figure as around $197 mil, and now quote it as $198,7 mil.
Where do you live? :)
OK. :)
Haha, no, i'am a very friendly person?
Did you think i was some sort of 'axe wielding homicidal maniac' ? :-O