88 replies to this topic

[Jim]

From Variety of yesterday's date, buried in something dull about studio financing; many thanks to zencat for the tip-off.

MGM relied on its shareholders to finance half the budget of the $230 million Bond film "Quantum of Solace" as well as the $60 million "Pink Panther 2," but it will need considerably more funding to pay for the kind of slate Parent has been brought on to generate. The studio is exploring the possibility of reviving a campaign to find coin for the MGM Film Franchise Fund, an effort it pulled back on last year when the market went soft.

Variety, 13 March

Two hundred and thirty million dollars?

My immediate reaction rhymes with "clucking bell".

Two hundred and thirty million dollars?

If that's true - note "if" - then isn't that a touch, well, obscene?

[doubler83]

Action. Action. Action. Action. Action.

Wowza!!

Obviously the 30 minute PTS is going to take a big chunk of that budget.

What are they trying to do? Make a CGI spectacular like Spider-Man? Not even the crap that was Die Another Day cost that much.

For God's sake. Cubby must be turning in his grave.

If it's true.

Edited by doubler83, 14 March 2008 - 08:21 AM.

[dinovelvet]

Two hundred and thirty million dollars?

My immediate reaction rhymes with "clucking bell".

Two hundred and thirty million dollars?

If that's true - note "if" - then isn't that a touch, well, obscene?

Yeah, IF it is true (and as they're only midway through shooting, and we don't know who is supplying that number), it is at the high end of the spectrum, and is probably from a combination of action scenes and shooting in what, five different countries, but bear in mind the huge amount of product placement that'll be covering a lot of this, from Coke Zero to Virgin to the suits, cars, and so on. Just for comparison's sake, some recent blockbusters and their costs :

Spider-man 3 : $258 mil
Pirates at world's end : $300 mil
Superman returns : $270 mil

Even Ratatouille and Bee Movie, which as far as I know were done by a few people sitting in front of computers, cost $150 million each.

So, obscene? Probably. Par for the course? Definitely.

[dinovelvet]

What are they trying to do? Make a CGI spectacular like Spider-Man? Not even the crap that was Die Another Day cost that much.

For God's sake. Cubby must be turning in his grave.

Haven't heard that one in a while , and the PTS is not going to be 30 minutes long, either. Its the locations. Filming in places like Panama and Chile tends to be more expensive than when you pretend the Pinewood backlot is North Korea. EON are going the extra mile here when they could easily pull a DAD and film on a beach in Wales, so why not be glad we're getting some genuine exotic locales instead.

[Colossus]

They should've just payed the extra coin and gone to North Korea eh??

[Jim]

They should've just payed the extra coin and gone to North Korea eh??

Could probably buy North Korea for $230 million.

I appreciate that the weakness of the dollar is such that $230 million is probably about ten pence, but it's still a sod of a lot of money to spend on a film, isn't it? A quarter of a billion dollars? Darfur says "hiya" and cheeky old Burkina Faso would wave its hand if it had the strength.

Spider-man 3 : $258 mil
Pirates at world's end : $300 mil
Superman returns : $270 mil

Money well spent.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Did we ever hear what the 'official' cost for CR was?

[ionut]

i guess not

[Simon]

Thought these things were usually knocking around the $130m mark.

I find it strange they allow for a budgetry increase of another $100m - this of course on the assumption that we, the public, Ever knew how much these things cost.

[Shrublands]

What are they trying to do? Make a CGI spectacular like Spider-Man? Not even the crap that was Die Another Day cost that much.

CGI effects are not as expensive as doing things for real! Building a set in a computer is cheaper than building it in a studio. Taking hundreds of people around the world is more costly then using CGI back drops. Organizing and filming gigantic and dangerous stunt work is very expensive

[Single-O-Seven]

Wow, you could almost build 40 six million dollar men for that price!

[Loomis]

They should've just payed the extra coin and gone to North Korea eh??

Could probably buy North Korea for $230 million.

$400 million, actually. I've looked into it.

But, yes, it does seem a tremendous amount for a film that:

- Has no major stars. Craig won't be getting a (in their heyday) Schwarzenegger-/Stallone-/Willis-type fee. I presume.

- Will have an up-to-the-hilt budget subsidy via blanket product placement.

Box Office Mojo reports a budget of $110 million for THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, which is obviously the film that must be dragged into threads like this one as a point of comparison with the latest Bond. So, yeah, $230 mil does indeed appear a suspiciously large amount of wonga.

Man, it's a far, far cry from the fag end of the Dalton era, eh?

Anyone here who knows finance/the film biz like to try their hand at a breakdown of this figure so that we can get some kind of idea as to how it's being spent? Hildebrand? Zorin?

[dodge]

I feel concerned but not alarmed. Actually, I'm more relieved knowing that the reported 3o-minute PTS is simply a load of malarkey. A half-hour lead-in would sure throw off the overall proportions.

[AngryPolarBear]

It's a lot of money if it's true. Doesn't mean it won't be spent wisely.

[DanMan]

I can't believe people are actually upset over the budget being that high. If anything we should be grateful that we're gonna' get a Bond film in the vein of the 60's and 70's mindset of large scale and adventure as opposed to the 80's when Bond films weren't considered important enough to warrant a high budget.

You can bet your *** that come November, we're gonna' be in for a hell of a ride.

[Loomis]

You can bet your *** that come November, we're gonna' be in for a hell of a ride.

Oh, definitely.

Not upset about the high budget myself. Just a little baffled.

[DanMan]

If anything, this news just has me really excited. It's great to see that Bond is finally back on the A-list.

[Johnboy007]

To steal a quote from Zefram Cochrane, "Sweet Jesus!"

Not having read any of the spoilers I am really curious to see how they manage to spend such a huge amount of money.

[Righty007]

They have to pay Al Pacino for his cameo as Blofeld some how!

[MattofSteel]

Variety is usually quite reliable, but this is absolute bull crap.

There's no way QoS is costing 230 million dollars to film. Absolutely no way. They MAY be incorporating a marketing budget into that, which makes me feel confident in how we're going to see this thing promoted.

But there is absolutely no way, in this day and age, that a Bond film in a supposedly more realistic vein following on from Casino Royale will cost 230 million. The other budgets highlighted above were ridiculously effects heavy films - we're talking literally thousands of effects shots per picture. QoS is not an effects film. There will be effects shots, but absolutely nothing near those levels.

No way. No way do the Bond budgets go from "north of 100 million" (MGW) to significantly north of 200. Unless marketing, promotion, etc. is rolled into that.

[MkB]

Spider-man 3 : $258 mil
Pirates at world's end : $300 mil
Superman returns : $270 mil

Money well spent.

Yes, probably obscene... But it's not spent, it's invested. After all, cinema is an industry like any other, and investing some million dollar in it is probably not more obscene than investing them in, say, manufacturing video or scrabble games.
PS: I'm not a hardcore supporter of the scrabble game / cinema industry, but it's just the way it goes...

[HH007]

I really hope that isn't true (in fact I sincerely doubt that it is), $230 million is an obscene amount of money to spend on a motion picture.

[jaguar007]

It could just be the rate of exchange. The film could be fiananced with the Euro dollar, just north of the budget of CR, but with the current state of the American dollar compared to the Euro, could translate to over $200million.

I don't know the exact exchange rate, just a guess on my part.

[SecretAgent007]

Variety is usually quite reliable, but this is absolute bull crap.

There's no way QoS is costing 230 million dollars to film. Absolutely no way. They MAY be incorporating a marketing budget into that, which makes me feel confident in how we're going to see this thing promoted.

Totally agree. The first thing I thought was that, it the story is true, the marketing budget was part of that number.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Blondes do have more fun it seems.


It is obscene but then again...instead of "Paralysis" we have a confident,globe trotting, kicking attitude Eon.And I would have assumed the $230M included the marketing...so, yeah, that's alotta bread. Let's hope it's on the screen, sans CGI overload.

Bond is back.

[Bondian]

Quantum of Solace will be the flagship appearance of 'Chitty Chitty Kiss-my Gang Bang'.

There's also a cameo appearance by Pierce Brosnan as a Bus Conductor.

[HildebrandRarity]

buy[/i] North Korea for $230 million.

$400 million, actually. I've looked into it.

But, yes, it does seem a tremendous amount for a film that:

- Has no major stars.

Anyone here who knows finance/the film biz like to try their hand at a breakdown of this figure so that we can get some kind of idea as to how it's being spent? Hildebrand? Zorin?

Let me see.

Since April of 2006 (the mid point of CR's production, let's pretend) the US Dollar has declined 18 percent on a trade-weighted basis.

Since DAD was bugdeted at $140m and CR four years later was budgeted at $150m (inspite of saving about $15 mil from Brosnan's salary to DC's salary), a "dollar decline-weighted" number for Q0S would be about $182 million.

Add about 5 percent for inflation and you get about $191 million. Add DC's salary increase and you get to (say) $195 million.

$195 million would be the "adjusted" PRODUCTION budget. Then there is the "marketing" budget (which is not included in 'budget' numbers generally). For James Bond the marketing budget can get to, now days, about $45-55 mil. This for Bond movies is normally covered by corporate tie-in partners who pay for product tie-in advertisements and supply the production too (like Aston Martins, etc.)

So the numbers dont seem that problematic given that my early projections for QOS at world-wide box office comes in at about $750 million. A tidy profit looks on the offing given the studios normally get half of the box office. Of course, tv, dvd rentals and sales and airings on airplanes add, lets be generous, another $750 million.

And, since it's James Bond, you get to sell the back catalogue...yet again! How much is that worth?

So you spend $250 million and get back, what, $1 to (possibly) $2 billion (over the very long run)? Is that a good investment?

Was Dr No a good investment at $1 million? Was Thunderball at $7 million? TSWLM at $27 million? Moonraker at $32 million? GoldenEye at $60 million? Die Another Day at $140 million? CR at $150 million?

You bet!

[Tarl_Cabot]

Does filming at Pinewood make such a huge difference? Wasn't Prague a bargain cost+tax wise? If it's a top notch Bond film than the average fan will see it 3 to 4 times instead of once or twice. That help$.

[Jimbo007]

Wow, I never talk on here anymore... I should try to more often

Anyways, $230 million seems WAY too much, even with the actual locales that they are using. However, I do recall Barbara saying at the press conference or an interview during that time that before cutting Switzerland as a location and something else (two large ideas were cut, they had said), that the budget of the movie was already way too over-budget. Anyone recall this?

Definitely they'll be using more money than CR ($150-$170 as a guestimate) but $230 million is just too obscene.

[Loomis]

buy[/i] North Korea for $230 million.

$400 million, actually. I've looked into it.

But, yes, it does seem a tremendous amount for a film that:

- Has no major stars.

Anyone here who knows finance/the film biz like to try their hand at a breakdown of this figure so that we can get some kind of idea as to how it's being spent? Hildebrand? Zorin?

Let me see.

Since April of 2006 (the mid point of CR's production, let's pretend) the US Dollar has declined 18 percent on a trade-weighted basis.

Since DAD was bugdeted at $140m and CR four years later was budgeted at $150m (inspite of saving about $15 mil from Brosnan's salary to DC's salary), a "dollar decline-weighted" number for Q0S would be about $182 million.

Add about 5 percent for inflation and you get about $191 million. Add DC's salary increase and you get to (say) $195 million.

$195 million would be the "adjusted" PRODUCTION budget. Then there is the "marketing" budget (which is not included in 'budget' numbers generally). For James Bond the marketing budget can get to, now days, about $45-55 mil. This for Bond movies is normally covered by corporate tie-in partners who pay for product tie-in advertisements and supply the production too (like Aston Martins, etc.)

Well, I think that explains it very nicely. Cheers.