54 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

Well, folks, there's been a lot of speculation over the budget of CASINO ROYALE. It seems we finally have a number - $72 million dollars. Seems appropriate.

It's listed in the yellow box on this page of the EMPIRE magazine article.

[kneelbeforezod]

thats remarkably low isn't it? should help the profit margins...

[Harmsway]

thats remarkably low isn't it? should help the profit margins...

It's definitely low compared to DIE ANOTHER DAY's $150 million, but is *excellent* for profit takings. It's hard to make back money on a huge film like DIE ANOTHER DAY because of budget, but CASINO ROYALE's seems managable and very profitable for the studio.

I think this can be attributed to a few factors: The primary studio shooting occurred in Prague, rather than Pinewood, and was probably cheaper in that regard; CASINO ROYALE does not require expensive special effects work; CASINO ROYALE does not have actors that come with hefty price tags.

[Binyamin]

And yet the producers have said it would be similar to DAD's budget, did they not? Does this lower production cost mean that CR will have more of a margin to be considered a financial success, or am I reading too much into things here?

Edit: two people said the exact same thing as me while I was typing. Blasted internet.

Edited by Binyamin, 27 July 2006 - 04:25 AM.

[Harmsway]

And yet the producers have said it would be similar to DAD's budget, did they not?

They apparently lied - it's not the best press to say, "Yeah, this Bond film's going to be a lot cheaper than the last one."

[Fro]

I wouldn't take what they say as absolute confirmation of the budget.

They screw up some of the plot in the rest of the article, so they didn't do their fact-checking.

[TerminalLon3some]

I have heard $72 million for a while now, so I am assuming that the number is correct. This can only be good news because it just further confirms how 'down to earth' this film is going to be. No need for ridiculous budgets like we saw with DAD.


Take 'er easy
-matt

[Shrublands]

And yet the producers have said it would be similar to DAD's budget, did they not?

They apparently lied - it's not the best press to say, "Yeah, this Bond film's going to be a lot cheaper than the last one."

Right, if it comes from Empire it must stand a better chance of being true than information directly from the producer himself. The same magazine also says that Solange is the wife of Le Chiffre in the film, by the way.

Someone was probably told 72 million Pounds at the junket in the Bahamas (where all of Empires

[Tarl_Cabot]

Good. $72M is plenty to make a Propr Bond thriller.

[Gobi-1]

Bravo EON. A very smart move. I was hoping they would slash the budget in half. The last two film cost way to much to make. Wouldn't it be great if Casino Royale's opening weekend topped the budget. It could be possible.

[Qwerty]

Sounds like a manageable amount. Hope it helps the profits for Casino Royale.

[Harmsway]

And yet the producers have said it would be similar to DAD's budget, did they not?

They apparently lied - it's not the best press to say, "Yeah, this Bond film's going to be a lot cheaper than the last one."

Right, if it comes from Empire it must stand a better chance of being true than information directly from the producer himself. The same magazine also says that Solange is the wife of Le Chiffre in the film, by the way.

Well, I was always suspicious of that comment by EON - there was no way CASINO ROYALE should have been so expensive (especially with the budget-saving moves they were taking), and so I always assumed it was a sort of lie just to indicate that Bond wasn't skimping. I have a hard time imagining the film cost anything more than just over the $100 million line.

And considering films like V FOR VENDETTA were made for around $50 million, I think CASINO ROYALE could plausibly hit the $70 million range.

[Loomis]

Impossible to know at this point whether this figure of $72 million is accurate (or even remotely accurate). As has been mentioned, Empire may have got it wrong, pounds may have been assumed to be dollars....

If it is accurate, though, it means that CASINO ROYALE has a budget roughly the same as that of THE BOURNE SUPREMACY.

[Simon]

Yeah - this was what I was thinking - in which case, fine.

And I am sure Damon will be earning more than Craig at this point.

[marktmurphy]

Perhaps the marketing budget will be huge

[Kingdom Come]

How excited should anyone be knowing that this film is costing about half of the cost of last one? lol

[kneelbeforezod]

The Sun article in the spoilers section says "65 million pounds"... though I would trust Empire a lot more than The Sun

[JimmyBond]

How excited should anyone be knowing that this film is costing about half of the cost of last one? lol

Well, for all the money the last one cost, it still looked surprisingly cheap (Brosnan not going to Iceland, the cheesy "special effects" etc.). If they can make a better looking film for less, than that's what gets me excited.

[Harmsway]

The Sun article in the spoilers section says "65 million pounds"... though I would trust Empire a lot more than The Sun.

65 million pounds? Then it would be about $120 million, if converted. Hard to say which it is at this point.

[kneelbeforezod]

How excited should anyone be knowing that this film is costing about half of the cost of last one? lol

If all that matters to people is throwing money at the screen, then may I point them in the direction of the timeless movie magic that is Pirates of The Caribbean 2...

[Qwerty]

though I would trust Empire a lot more than The Sun

I as well.

[DLibrasnow]

If all that matters to people is throwing money at the screen, then may I point them in the direction of the timeless movie magic that is Pirates of The Caribbean 2...

Which just happens to be the most successful movie so far this year and set a record on how fast it reached the $100 million box-office mark.

Did I mention that I loved 'Pirates of The Caribbean 2'...Keira Knightley -- meow!

[Bondesque]

As I said once before CR should have come in with a budget less then DAD. No over the top CGI, no hollywood high profile supporting cast, a director that is low to mid level (in terms of his box office success) and a new non A-lister as Bond.

I will say that the talent level of the cast, including Craig is higher then that of DAD.

This budget is a great move and frankly, I think that CR will bring in a very nice profit!

[Harmsway]

Which just happens to be the most successful movie so far this year and set a record on how fast it reached the $100 million box-office mark.

Arguably due less to the film's quality, but rather due to the huge success of the first film.

[Genrewriter]

72 million, eh? Wow, changing up actors makes a difference in more areas than I thought.

[kneelbeforezod]

If all that matters to people is throwing money at the screen, then may I point them in the direction of the timeless movie magic that is Pirates of The Caribbean 2...

Which just happens to be the most successful movie so far this year and set a record on how fast it reached the $100 million box-office mark.

Did I mention that I loved 'Pirates of The Caribbean 2'...Keira Knightley -- meow!

Oh of course its huge at the box office, I know that! Undoubtedly set to be one of the biggest smashes of all time.

I just meant a great film doesn't depend on budget. And for the record, I thought Pirates 2 was verging on awful.

[killkenny kid]

. And for the record, I thought Pirates 2 was verging on awful.

The same here.

[Jim]

$72 million is still an obscene amount of money, really.

[Publius]

If true, good news. Even if it's actually 72 million pounds, that's still 133 million in today's dollars, reasonably below DAD's $145 million or so budget four years ago. Whatever the amount is, that's that much less CR has to make than DAD to still be considered profitable and a success.

Anyway, considering I've seen some fantastic movies on dirt cheap budgets, I highly doubt most of the millions beyond a certain point improve quality. Hell, they may even hurt it, as seen in DAD with high-price "actors" who couldn't act (Berry) and expensive CGI that looks worse than some of that used in movies ten or more years before.

The budget for TSWLM (no "gritty" picture) was about 8% of its worldwide gross, whereas it was 33% for DAD, yet they both sold a comparable number of tickets. Bond films have become questionably bloated in recent years with little noticeable return to boast.

Edited by Publius, 27 July 2006 - 04:10 PM.

[Fro]

I really doubt it's only a $72 million budget. Bourne Identity cost $75 million to make, and it seems like Casino Royale's action sequences should cost a lot more money. What they shot at Pinewood can't be cheap to do either.

Granted, you can take out a few million for Matt Damon's salary for Bourne ($10 million) versus Craig's for Casino Royale ($3 million, I think folks have said), but inflation wipes out the money you gain there.

I think $100-120 million seems to be a correct figure. The action in this movie isn't cheap (rather, it seems to be completely state-of-the-art), plus it's been a fairly long shoot with a decent amount of location shooting.

Edited by Fro, 27 July 2006 - 04:28 PM.