30 replies to this topic

[return of the saint]

According to the recent Times report:

"Amy Pascal, chairman of Sony Pictures, which will be raising the

Edited by return of the saint, 08 September 2005 - 03:12 PM.

[Spoon]

[Shrublands]

Edited by Shrublands, 08 September 2005 - 03:10 PM.

[return of the saint]

Ah yes - I misread.

I'm slightly dissapointed now. I was quite excited about the prospect of a $70m Bond film.

[Mister Asterix]

Just think what they could get in Canadian dollars.

[ACE]

Doh!

Or Ethiopian birr

[Loomis]

[quote name='return of the saint' date='8 September 2005 - 15:02']"Amy Pascal, chairman of Sony Pictures, which will be raising the

[Shrublands]

Ah yes - I misread. 

I'm slightly dissapointed now.  I was quite excited about the prospect of a $70m Bond film.

I remember reading that DAD was

Edited by Shrublands, 08 September 2005 - 03:24 PM.

[return of the saint]

Still more than they spent on the uber glossy GoldenEye and with the same director toboot.

I'm thinking a low-key down-and-dirty espionage thriller doesn't need a $130million budget. For that sort of money you get explosions, jet planes, sports cars, glamour girls and <gag> CGI.

[tonymascia1]

Absolutely, agreed, returnofthesaint...

Here's a quote from Michael Wilson, from many moons ago:

"We always start off trying to make another From Russia With Love, and usually wind up with another Thunderball..."

What's past is prologue, perhaps?

[return of the saint]

Argument for $70 and not

[ACE]

If Eon and Sony could make it for $70 million and still generate roughly a billion dollars in revenue when all markets and ancillaries are accounted for, I'm sure they would.

[Shrublands]

Still more than they spent on the uber glossy GoldenEye and with the same director toboot. 

I'm thinking a low-key down-and-dirty espionage thriller doesn't need a $130million budget.  For that sort of money you get explosions, jet planes, sports cars, glamour girls and <gag> CGI.

But James Bond films are not low-key down-and-dirty espionage thrillers.

Plus what you could buy for $60m back in the mid 90s you can

[return of the saint]

I believe Universal managed just about that that with Bourne. But I grant you that certainly seems to be the exception.

Certainly the more money the better - if every penny is spent wisely. Unfortunatly, I think the temptation is there, when you have mega-millions to spend, to spend it on of flashy effects, over-the-top mise-en-scne and over-rated oscar winning actresses. Yes Bond isn't down-and-dirty, but I do think he often spend a bit too much time 'over-the-top'.

Perhaps a budget of around $100 - $110 would be a happy medium. I think that a budget like this might mean that the director has to fill the screen with a little bit less 'crash-bang-wallop', and therefore a little bit more plot - which is what I'm hoping for out of CR.

Edited by return of the saint, 08 September 2005 - 04:15 PM.

[ACE]

Bourne Identity - Worldwide Gross $213.6 mil US DVD sales gross $89.2 mil
Bourne Supremacy - Worldwide Gross $288.2 mil US DVD sales gross $93.0 mil

DAD - Worldwide gross $456 mil US DVD sales gross $80.6 mil

DAD probably did better internationally but cost double the Bournes.

DAD probably made much more in ancillary markets.

Bourne is not a good comparison as Bourne has only run to 2 films whereas DAD is Bond 20.

[callmejames]

[quote name='Loomis' date='8 September 2005 - 15:15'][quote name='return of the saint' date='8 September 2005 - 15:02']"Amy Pascal, chairman of Sony Pictures, which will be raising the

[return of the saint]

Both Bournes were better as films than DAD though, and from my point of view, I'd rather a better film than a big box-office.

Looking at your figures Universal managed to make 2 Bourne films for the price of 1 Bond film, and between them the two Bourne films brought home a lot more than Bond (both in the cinema and on DVD - $684m compared to $536m). (I grant you two films can cost twice the amount in prints and promotion - but I'm thinking that there weren't as many Bourne prints - for each film - as there were DAD prints, and the launch of Bourne is more low-key than Bond - so Bourne probably still comes out as a clear profit leader [perhaps excluding product placement].) As you say, that's not bad for a film franchise with no built in fan-base.

Perhaps for Sony generating big box-office through a mediocre blockbuster would be preferable to generating a good film with mediocre returns. The thing is, I'm a fan and not a distribution company - I'd take the good film any day. In fact I'd rather they saved a little bit of their money for promotion (I do enjoy the build up as well as the film) and they cut back on the whizz-bangs just a little bit. Perhaps they could give us a good film, and make some big money as well - maybe even reinvigerate the franchise while they're at it.

To reiterate my main point: I'm just a little surprised that with all this 're-boot' talk the budget suggests 'more of the same' rather than a 'back-to-basics' approach.

[ACE]

The thing is, I'm a fan and not a distribution company - I'd take the good film any day. 

To reiterate my main point: I'm just a little surprised that with all this 're-boot' talk the budget suggests 'more of the same' rather than a 'back-to-basics' approach.

I agree. But Bond is not Bourne. Don't confuse the two.

But the budget (if reported correctly) in real terms is significantly less than DAD (esp. with 4 years between and the bad dollar rate).

I think Eon and Sony are very cost conscious and want this Bond to be a FYEO type affair. Nothing suggests it is business as usual from the single location, moving of some of the production to Prague, replacing the James Bond, and the emphasis on the script.

Why so pessimistic so early based upon a probably unknown budget?

[DLibrasnow]

Well one reason the budget is less is they don't have to give an overpaid actor like Pierce Brosnan a multi-million dollar deal to play a role which he seems to have resented anyway.

[return of the saint]

Not pesimistic: hopeful but surprised.

My understanding is that initial budgets usually go over - so if the Times article is based on any truth I would expect a budget of around $130-$135million. Given that Brosnan is gone (and therefore money is saved), they are talking of a single locations (money saved) and are talking of shooting in prague (more money saved), I begin to wonder what all this money is going to be spent on. And I imagine we are talking explosions and expensive machinery (ala past Purvis and Wade scripts) - perhaps also Halle Berry style casting. I am both surprised by this - and hopeful that I am wrong (hopeful and surpsied - you see?)

If you look at a typical movie of today with that sort of budget you tend to be looking at a big blow-away effects-laden mini-plot action blockbuster. I listed some above. It was my understanding that the 're-boot', about which much has been spoken, was going to bring Bond back down to earth - not only in terms of plot, but also in terms of taking the franchise away from the blow-away action blockbuster genre (which is suffering this year at the US BO), and more towards the cool yet credible sphere of Bourne and to some extent the Guy Richie inspired movement of Brit flicks. So - I'm quite surprised to see

[ACE]

S'awright!

[return of the saint]

Just done a quick (not very scientific) check.

I think the the budget of FYEO was about 10% less than Moonraker.

At $128million CR would be about 10% less that Die Another Day.

So perhaps it is about right for a perceivable 're-boot' in approach.

[TheSaint]

I was about to start a similar thread but, I see Mr.Ogilvy beat me to it. Here's what I don't get...the budget for Casino is touted at

[XXX]

It's all relative. Even with the big blogbusters, the production itself rarely costs more then 70m$.
Just the other day I cam across those
http://www.edwardjay....com/budget.htm
http://www.edwardjay.../laracroft1.htm

American films, but very interesting to see where all the money goes. And how technically you could make them much more efficient.

[ACE]

It's all relative. Even with the big blogbusters, the production itself rarely costs more then 70m$.
Just the other day I cam across those
http://www.edwardjay....com/budget.htm
http://www.edwardjay.../laracroft1.htm

American films, but very interesting to see where all the money goes. And how technically you could make them much more efficient.

Never a truer word said. Having just produced a feature film myself and prepping more projects (but small, British, tax-led productions) I know exactly where the money goes.

Studio productions are huge, profligate, vehicles for all sorts of spends (development, R&D, payoffs on title rights etc). The actual cash spent compared to money's worth on screen are 2 different things altogether. I can well imagine where $128 million will go.

BTW, the negative budget for DAD was $142 mil. In 2002.
The dollar rate and time elapse since 2002 will mean that the effective, comparative budget for CR will be significantly less than that of DAD.

MR had a budget of $34 mil (latest Sony figures)
FYEO has a budget of $28 mil.

But the dollar rate and interest charges in 1980 made the effective FYEO budget significantly lower than just a $6 mil differential.

While people adjust box office for inflation, they never do the same for budgets. Dollar rates and interest charges (studio movies are debt financed) fluctuate making the real spend of budgets difficult to compare on just a figure for figure basis.

Edited by ACE, 09 September 2005 - 12:10 PM.

[Alessandra]

[quote name='TheSaint' date='9 September 2005 - 02:50']I was about to start a similar thread but, I see Mr.Ogilvy beat me to it. Here's what I don't get...the budget for Casino is touted at

[Alessandra]

It's all relative. Even with the big blogbusters, the production itself rarely costs more then 70m$.
Just the other day I cam across those
http://www.edwardjay....com/budget.htm
http://www.edwardjay.../laracroft1.htm

American films, but very interesting to see where all the money goes. And how technically you could make them much more efficient.

Never a truer word said. Having just produced a feature film myself and prepping more projects (but small, British, tax-led productions) I know exactly where the money goes.

Studio productions are huge, profligate, vehicles for all sorts of spends (development, R&D, payoffs on title rights etc). The actual cash spent compared to money's worth on screen are 2 different things altogether. I can well imagine where $128 million will go.

BTW, the negative budget for DAD was $142 mil. In 2002.
The dollar rate and time elapse since 2002 will mean that the effective, comparative budget for CR will be significantly less than that of DAD.

MR had a budget of $34 mil (latest Sony figures)
FYEO has a budget of $28 mil.

But the dollar rate and interest charges in 1980 made the effective FYEO budget significantly lower than just a $6 mil differential.

While people adjust box office for inflation, they never do the same for budgets. Dollar rates and interest charges (studio movies are debt financed) fluctuate making the real spend of budgets difficult to compare on just a figure for figure basis.

on this "comparing apples to pears" stuff..
you CANNOT judge on what the dollar was worth compared to the pound at a certain period. macroeconomics is a FAR more complicated thing than just this, and it simply cannot work by making such comparisons.
It doesn't mean ANYTHING that now the dollar has been depreciated and in the 80s or 90s or whenever it was at its peak (thus according to some of you, the budget was significantly higher). things depend on the cost of life, on interest rates of central banks, on oil prices, on the stock market.. ALL of this influences currencies. So since in the 1980s NOTABLY the economy was going in a certain way because governments were AMASSING OUTRAGEOUS DEBTS and EVERYONE was living not to the standards they were supposed to given their income, but to FAR HIGHER standards, it doesn't make ANY sense to compare.
I'll make a soccer example (now THIS is my business) to have you understand.
Zidane moved from Juventus to Real Madrid for 130 billion lire, about 83.4 million dollars. SUCH a figure now, is UNTHINKABLE in the soccer market.
Prices of player transfers have gone WAAAAAAAYYYY down because simply they were making agreements at prices which were absolutely OVER the real financial possibilities of everyone. The ONLY one who spends big money is Abramovich, Florentino Perez has stopped making crazy transfers himself..and in any case it's huge news nowadays when we have a transfer worth 50 million euros.. which is FAR LESS than what was paid for Zidane. That's because people have come to realise that it couldn't work the way it was and the prices have gone down. BUT IT DOESN'T AT ALL MEAN THAT THE CLUBS ARE OF LOWER QUALITY OR PLAYERS ARE LOWER QUALITY. it's a different market environment, and prices are down because players COST LESS.
is it CLEAR?? even if with those comparisons (which I rehiterate are wrong) the budget seems lower it doesn't mean ANYTHING....

[Gobi-1]

A large budget does not mean there will be lots of CGI. Batman Begins which features little CGI and real stunts and sets cost $150 million to make.

[return of the saint]

SOME OF YOU ARE SERIOUSLY COMPLAINING ABOUT A (AND I SPEAK FROM FINANCE POINT OF VIEW, WORKING AT BLOOMBERG I DO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT) GOOD AND POSSIBLY HIGHER THAN EXPECTED budget????????? that's insane!!

I don't think I've been complaining - just observing that the $130million mark usually means a film in the comic-book action genre.

To me this is a surprisingly high budget given the talk of a Bond 're-boot'.

"I'm a fan, I'd prefer a better movie than a good box office result"

Erm, yeah - I stand by that. I'd rather one good Bond movie than a sring of rubbish (by that I mean crap) ones (wouldn't you rather one good Bond movie than a Bond equivalent of xXx and xXx2??).

To me the notion of 're-booting' Bond was kind of taking it back to the beginings (as a franchise). Going back a few steps in budget. Perhaps losing a bit of box-office, but saving a bit on production costs. Then over time, building back up again (budget and Box-Office)- building the audience back through the production of credable yet entertaining movies. 're-booting' so to speak.

A large budget does not mean there will be lots of CGI. Batman Begins which features little CGI and real stunts and sets cost $150 million to make.

I'm not 100% sure, but I seem to recall a fire breathing horse, quite a few CGI snakes, and a significant amount of digitally enhanced scenery. But yeah - though I am still a Batman pursit (i.e. hope that one day we will see a Batman movie with no rubber suit) this is an example where they used the money to get it (almost) right. I wonder how many more examples like this IMDB throws up?

However the money may be spent, I stand by my suggestion that generally speaking a $130+ budget means over-the-top comic-book adventures, and that this does not appear to be the budget of a 're-boot' movie (as I was hoping the term 're-boot' would mean).

---edit----


Just another little point to try and clarify what I am getting at:

Budgets (from relatively recent recent years) of films with a kind of 'Bondian' feel (stylish, sophisticated, fun, blockbuster, goodie vs baddie stuff).

$150+ = Far-out blockbuster action (Van Helsing, SpdierMan, Terminator 3)
$140 - 150 = Your talking sci-fi Bond elemtns now (MIB2, Matrix Reloaded)
$120 - 130 = Often tends to be action driven [no brainer] Adventures (Sarah, MI:2, Charlies Angles 2, the Island)

$100 - 110 = Can provide Bond style but often with no location (Ocean's 12, Mr. & Mrs Smith) Or perhaps something like National Treasure. This is perhaps where I expected CR to fall.

$80 - 90 = You often see Bond done cheap and badly aournd this mark (xXx, xXx2) or occasionally done quite well (Enemy of The State)
$65 - 80 = Qute credible espionage stuff like Bourne & the Jack Ryan film
$50+ = Stuff like The Thomas Crown Affair & Catch Me If You Can
$10+ = Stuff like Layer Cake & The Tailor of Panama

Granted some of these films are a bit old, and their budget would now be more than stated here (Enemy of the State for eg would I'm sure jump up one band).

But, given the CR looks like it won't have the named cast of say Mr and Mrs Pitt (Smith that is), Nick Cage, Will Smith or Mr Clooney et al - I'm sure Eon could manage do get the style and locations (and everything else that went along with Ocean's, The Smiths and National Treasure) for around the $100 figure.

The thing is, generally speaking, other than seeing Bond done cheap (and badly - xXx), the lower the budget the closer yuo get to my hoped for vision of Casino Royale.

Edited by return of the saint, 09 September 2005 - 04:59 PM.

[XXX]

Oh come on, CGI is not evil.
CGI is just as fine as any other visual or post-production effect. I hear nobody complaining about the AVID (digital editing) or digital soundmixing...

As long as it looks good and couldn't have been done efficiently for real, who cares?!
The REAL problem is the concept of those scenes in DAD.

Edited by XXX, 09 September 2005 - 05:04 PM.