› › ›

Sam Mendes to direct Bond 24?

1…3132343637…42

Comments

  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    So both Mendes and Daniel are finished with their current work in January. Both come off theater work, which might not be all that easy but not exhausting like shooting a movie blockbuster. So both could be in good shape to start not too soon after januay. What do you think? Would they decide on a summer/fall shooting to release in summer or even May15?


    How on earth did Sony only get 30 mill? Where did all the profit go then?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited May 2013 Posts: 12,480
    I want them to shoot asap of course, but I still prefer my Bond in the fall. Just my instinctive feeling about when I most enjoy seeing my Bond films.

    Confirmed: Mendes is in maybe
    Confirmed: Mendes is out
    Confirmed: Mendes is in
    Confirmed: Mendes is maybe
    Confirmed: Mendes is, oh honestly, who knows. ...

    I do hope he does it - without any more back and forth - and we get Bond 24 no later than 2015. Please, powers that be, give us a really truly CONFIRMED director soon, sometime this summer at the latest.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Why is fall better then summer? Personally I would love summer as that would enable the to get the next for 17.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Only because I like seeing Bond in the fall. Just part of what I look forward to in autumn. I am okay with it being released during the summer blockbuster time because I feel it will be a strong film, I am not concerned about competition (although the producers may disagree). I just like my Bond in Oct/Nov. Only a personal whim, that's all. If it's a huge help to get the movies out quicker (still quality is my #1 concern), then bring it out in May, sure.
  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    edited May 2013 Posts: 388
    Germanlady wrote:
    How on earth did Sony only get 30 mill? Where did all the profit go then?

    I think it would be more like $50m for Sony in pure profit.
    From the $1b dollar box office, I'd estimate it would work roughly like this:

    50% ($500m) retained by cinemas
    - $500m remaining

    $210m - repays the production budget to MGM / Sony
    - $380m remaining

    $200m P&A spend (marketing and distribution costs) repaid to Sony
    - $180m remaining

    $10m, say, bonuses paid to Mendes, Craig, Dench and Bardem
    - $190m profit remaining

    $142.5m (75%) goes to Danjaq / MGM
    $47.5m (25%) goes to Sony

    Don't forget though that is only for the cinema box office. The film will make much more money (for many decades) for television rights and home entertainment.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I, for one, really enjoy your informative posts, SirJames. Thanks.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited May 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    *Sigh*...and so far I have been made ridiculous for my previous posts in this topic \:D/.
    Don't worry, you still are ! (by not mentioning all the directors who have no Oscar and who were as much part of the lists as the rest). Have you seen Ender's game 2 min trailer, it's made for people like you :)
    Sir_James_Moloney wrote:
    Don't forget though that is only for the cinema box office. The film will make much more money (for many decades) for television rights and home entertainment.
    [/quote]

    And Sony won't see any of it I think (international television rights for MGM and domestic rights+ home video for Fox, no ?). Rumors say that Sony got less than your theoretical computations (much more marketing costs ?). So in the end Sony, who basically took all the risks (financing the movie, marketing it), is not earning much (Bond fans are not rushing to buy Sony Vaios and Xperia phones when going out of the movie, the free ad part is very hard to quantify - Bond did not use a Sony tablet in Skyfall, which is their real current hit !).

    That's why all the stories about the new stockholder wanting Sony Entertainment to stop playing with Sony's money, and making the lowest margins of all the big studios. He explained with Sony Entertainment having to deal as a "true" company, profits would rise (and others stockholders seemed to agree). The battle is ongoing. All the stuff about contracts being discussed may be linked to all that...

  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    If your maths is right, that would then apply for ALL pr4oductions made. Like this, none of the studies would ever see any money. Half is going to the theaters? Really?

    With a maths like this, they haven't even earned enough to make the next one.
  • Tounet77Tounet77
    Posts: 68
    SharkBait wrote:
    Let's just hope it will be released in November, next year. Don't want them to waste Craig's talents, while he waits 3-4 years between the releases of each of his Bonds.

    I totally agree. I want my Bond with Craig every 2 year !!! (stamps his feet and gets very red in the face)

    More seriously : for me, the sooner the better ! Craig is so good it's a shame to waste so much time between each of his appearances. A this rate, he will get past fifty for his last ones :-(
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited May 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Germanlady wrote:
    If your maths is right, that would then apply for ALL pr4oductions made.

    There's a wikipedia entry about things like that :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
    Germanlady wrote:
    Half is going to the theaters?

    The ratio changes over time (theaters'ratio is less and less weeks after weeks, hence the 50% share probably an over estimate with Skyfall's duration in theaters)
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,847
    Sigh really would prefer Refn or Black was not the biggest fan of skyfall.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    If your maths is right, that would then apply for ALL pr4oductions made.

    There's a wikipedia entry about things like that :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
    Germanlady wrote:
    Half is going to the theaters?

    The ratio changes over time (theaters'ratio is less and less weeks after weeks, hence the 50% share probably an over estimate with Skyfall's duration in theaters)

    How I read this is, that they DO make profits, but to keep it, they find ways to show, there is none.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited May 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Germanlady wrote:
    How I read this is, that they DO make profits, but to keep it, they find ways to show, there is none.
    But note in this case that Eon/Danjaq has a strong property. They're not a young author selling the right to his first book without any clue if it will attract audiences all around the world. So Sony can't rip them off as described in the wikipedia entry, and they end making far less than them (while taking all the risks in the short term at least).

    Ie ; if Skyfall had been a failure meaning the end of Bond, Sony would have loose a lot, and Eon/Danjaq would have lost "nothing" (their property would now be zero, though. If they had been in debt in exchange for some share of that property, they would have had lots of problem otherwise).

    Don't forget I'm not a native English speaker, so I may not use the good financial terms, even if it's quite clear in my French mind :)

  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Oh, no worries, I would probably not understand all those high term expressions anyway.

    Dump question: How much in % do EON/Danjaq / MGM provide and how much Sony?
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited May 2013 Posts: 2,015
    For the risks ? I'd say that Danjaq only earns money now that all the trials are over :), and that EON spends the money needed to gather everyone so they agree how to play with Sony and MGM's money, with the % ratio super secret about all this. I don't think at all the 75/25 deal for profits means that Sony only funded 25% of the movie and marketing. I think that Sony being perceved as a milk cow for outsiders has a lot to do with the hedge fund asking for all this to stop and Sony/Sony Entertainment be more rewarded with real cash ("free ads" is not enough).
  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    edited May 2013 Posts: 388
    4EverBonded wrote:
    I, for one, really enjoy your informative posts, SirJames. Thanks.

    Thanks @4EverBonded. My pleasure!
    Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:
    And Sony won't see any of it I think (international television rights for MGM and domestic rights+ home video for Fox, no ?).

    My guess would be that Sony's profit share would entitle them to some profits (but maybe not 25%) of TV and home ent. But it's just a guess. The deal struck between Sony and MGM is apparently very complex. As financier, I would be very surprised if they didn't have a profit share beyond their distribution deal.
    Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:
    Rumors say that Sony got less than your theoretical computations (much more marketing costs ?).

    It could be higher marketing costs. I've also heard rumours that the SF production budget was actually €240m (the same as QoS) which could also help account for it. Plus there are lots of other little bits and pieces that will go out to collection agents etc.
    Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:
    So in the end Sony, who basically took all the risks (financing the movie, marketing it), is not earning much (Bond fans are not rushing to buy Sony Vaios and Xperia phones when going out of the movie, the free ad part is very hard to quantify - Bond did not use a Sony tablet in Skyfall, which is their real current hit !).

    I think Sony only partially financed the movie (with MGM.) And the P&A costs will also cover Sony's distribution fee. So even if the film made no profit at all, Sony would still have done quite nicely out of it...
  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    Posts: 388
    Germanlady wrote:
    Dump question: How much in % do EON/Danjaq / MGM provide and how much Sony?

    Eon / Danjaq provide no finance at all (In fact, Eon are paid for their work on the film.)

    Sony and MGM provide the production finance. I would guess it's 50/50 but that's just a guess...

    Sony provide all the P&A finance because they are the distributor.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Germanlady wrote:
    So both Mendes and Daniel are finished with their current work in January. Both come off theater work, which might not be all that easy but not exhausting like shooting a movie blockbuster. So both could be in good shape to start not too soon after januay. What do you think? Would they decide on a summer/fall shooting to release in summer or even May15?

    Pre-production would begin with Mendes in February, so filming would begin nearer the end of the year again, I would think. The extra time would be best used for a November 2017 film afterwards. It will be a three year gap this time but being so far ahead, no one will want to let that happen again. One film every two and a half years on average, isn't too bad going.
  • bondbat007bondbat007
    Posts: 1,407
    So now we have Showbiz411 saying that Mendes is back for both Bond 24 AND 25 and that it is a two parter. I'd take this one with a grain of salt though but it's always possible

    http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/05/28/daniel-craig-persuades-skyfall-director-sam-mendes-to-return-for-more-bond
  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    Posts: 388
    Germanlady wrote:
    If your maths is right, that would then apply for ALL pr4oductions made. Like this, none of the studies would ever see any money. Half is going to the theaters? Really?

    With a maths like this, they haven't even earned enough to make the next one.

    Most independent films make no profit at all at the box office - it all comes from television and DVD (if at all.) But all parties get paid for their work so the only people who really lose out are the financiers!
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    bondbat007 wrote:
    So now we have Showbiz411 saying that Mendes is back for both Bond 24 AND 25 and that it is a two parter. I'd take this one with a grain of salt though but it's always possible

    http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/05/28/daniel-craig-persuades-skyfall-director-sam-mendes-to-return-for-more-bond

    Regardless of these reports being true or not one thing is sure, the cat (Mendes back) is out of the bag, now we need to know when will the game re-start.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Well, if this happens it would mean '15 and '17 could happen and I'd go as far to say, are being aimed for.

    I wonder if we'll get news Mendes is back for both and the releases dates for the pair of films in the same press announcement.
  • Risico007Risico007
    edited May 2013 Posts: 9,847
    Wait so Mendes is 100% confirmed now? Man ok I will not say anything about the film till at least the trailer but at least it isn't Ang Lee sorry but Hulk was seriously a bad movie.

    Was hoping for 2014 Refn and the title Risico oh well...
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Nothing is confirmed yet. EON may wait a while to confirm it themselves.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,847
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Nothing is confirmed yet. EON may wait a while to confirm it themselves.

    So there is a chance that it will be Refn Risico and 2014?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited May 2013 Posts: 13,355
    Well, maybe but everything is pointing to Mendes for now. He is the top choice and make no mistake, EON will get him.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    The good thing is Mendes is already familiar with everything that concerns making a Bond film (graduated with honours, I would add) and has obviously come up with ideas for the future while he was doing SF. He knows about Logan's drafts and I would go as far as saying he probably contributed to the original stories being developed. That means, in my opinion, pre-production could be shortened as in fact it started even before SF came out. Someone else stepping onto the director's chair at this point would have a lot of work to do, Mendes will just have to re-acquaint himself with the material. I wouldn't rule out a late 2014 release just now.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    If Mendes doesn't start work full force until January, how long will he need? Filming would have to be underway by March for 2014, so it will be tight.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Reports (true or not) seem to suggest they want to rush it as soon as possible.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited May 2013 Posts: 13,355
    They do, but all this effort would be better put on getting ahead of the game on Bond 25, should Mendes do that too, allowing it to come out soon after. You'd expect better films that way, as well.

    I suppose it all depends on how much Mendes knows and how far along work is. Are they location scouting yet? For a release next year, they should be by now.

    Also, let's remember, every release date for November next year has been taken, unless EON are willing to let Bond share.
Sign In or Register to comment.