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
Disappointing for whom? They all still cracked a billion and brought in major returns after following on from a film that had serious novelty or a huge advantage. Now more than ever, I'm convinced that you haven't a clue what you're actually talking about. The Last Jedi followed on from the first Star Wars film in a decade. Fallen Kingdom was the sequel to the first Jurassic film in 14 years. Both respective predecessors had MASSIVE hype. Age of Ultron just wasn't as good as The Avengers. Fast 8 followed on from a film that got a major financial boost due to a tragedy. This is exactly what I mean by contextualising your figures rather than just observing cold numbers and actually understanding what caused them to inflate and drop back down.
Well, eh, yeah. He is the current Bond, after all. It's not exactly fair to compare his box-office to that of Brosnan, or Moore, or anyone else.
I'm expecting Bond 25 to do very well. People will undoubtedly turn up in droves to see Craig off. But the logic you're applying here is very questionable - you're mixing up personal opinion and facts.
Welcome to the boards, by the way.
Considering production costs is interesting, but that's really more the concern of the filmmakers and producers. Their balance sheet isn't so much my concern.
Absolutely. It's always enlightening to delve into where the money is being spent, of course. Thankfully, the future of Bond hasn't ever really been in jeopardy because of low box-office.
Indeed, but at the same time it wouldn't hurt for them to trim that budget. Spending $300 million + on one film is ridiculously too much, and it guarantees that you're going to need a huge box office success to warrant the price that was paid.
I honestly don't know how any Bond film could warrant being north of $180 Million, especially with Mission: Impossible - Fallout costing roughly that amount with all of its insanity.
Thanks for the figures. I can use IMDb too. The $245 million is a production budget figure, which more often than not does not include money spent on marketing. The figure you provided for The Last Jedi is an approximate figure which some have included marketing costs in and some haven't.
Anyway, I'm bored arguing about numbers for a film that won't have to worry about them - you're not going to make too many friends around here with that kind of dickish attitude.
But my point is that 300 million represents a much smaller percentage overall, because Force Awakens made 2 billion, and Jurassic World made 1.65 billion. I think Furious 7 made 1.5 billion also. So the percentage drop is not as steep, even if the amount is the same.
Right the guy who ends his comment with dickish is going to be a Friend , I would rather have not...the last Jedi marketing budget was much higher which wasn't include in it.
Spectre day of the dead festival alone cost 40 million, clothes/cars/planes/chopper/ and other props, Spectre set in Sahara desert, explosion made a Guinness record,
I didn't say 300 Million about those 3 films but their sequel after them just as Spectre after skyfall
You know what, I don't think anyone has ever mentioned that before! Thanks for the info.
My thoughts exactly, how much tickets have been sale and inflation as well
That's rich coming from you.
Purely accounting for the theatrical BO alone:
(245×2)+150=640
That 640 = SP's breakeven point in which the profit of 240 is now divided up amongst theatres, Sony, MGM and EoN.
Earned more than thrice it's budget you say? That's some impressive alternative calculating you've got going on.
Skyfall earned 5 -6 times of it's budget just the like the rest of them and Spectre earned 3-4 times of it's budget just as the rest of them.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Learn to take correction.
Didn't understand about 640 ? Please elaborate
For a film to break even it needs to double it's production budget and add a seperate marketing budget to it. A film of this size usually has a marketing budget of anywhere between $150M and $200M.
You've been confusing revenue with profit.
Lol 200 million for marketing budget of Spectre .... skyfall production budget was 200 million
Spectre promotional and marketing budget was 100 million which was shared by heinken(33%)/Aston Martin/Mexico governor gave 20 million to eon production.
Especially when you get the impression that the movie had a lower budget. 1/3 of the score was pretty much rehashed from the previous film, whereas the car chase felt empty and very underwhelming (when I drove to Rome there were cars everywhere), the ending of the movie was shoehorned because the setpiece for the fallen helicopter had already been built and they did not want to waste more money. Most of the budget was pretty much spent on the PTS and the guiness world record explosion no one cared about.
Previous Bond films also proved that you can make a masterpiece with a lower budget as long as you've got a good script and a director who understands Bond.
The marketing budget being $100M or $150M or even $200M doesn't make a difference to the overall principle of how profit is determined and the numbers ultimately are still within the same ballpark figure, give or take $50M.
Lastly, it doesn't matter who's footing the bill. Various brands pay for product placement to help finance these films but guess what, they all fall under the PRODUCTION/MARKETING BUDGET which the film expects to see enough returns on to generate a PROFIT. Ideally a sizable one.