54 replies to this topic

[Double-Oh-Zero]

...it means that CASINO ROYALE has a budget roughly the same as that of THE BOURNE SUPREMACY.

Christ, Loomer, must you reference Bourne every chance you get?



I mean, honestly. Next you'll be claiming that "Bond's testicles after the carpet beater scene are probably very similar to that of Bourne's if they were to endure a good walloping in the next one."

Anyway, $72 million seems reasonable, even when you throw in an extra few million for marketing. It still seems like a big honkin' sum of money when compared to, say, Clerks II, which was made for 5 mil. Yes, I know that's an unforgivably ludicrous comparison on my part (21st entry of one of the biggest moneymakers in cinematic history vs. talky independent film that features a donkey show), but oh well.

[Natalya]

$72 million is dirt cheap by today's standards.

[shady ginzo]

as dozens of you have said already, 72 Mil is very cheap for any "blockbuster" movie nowadays, not least bond. But assuming the figure is correct I don't think it's too difficult to believe. No one involved is particularly expensive, They've got Craig who's much less demanding on the purse than Brosnan, I can't see Michael Campbell robbing them of much and the support cast are hardly the biggest names in the business, a very difference scenario to having Brosnan star with helle berry in a special effects bonanza with a song by Madonna!

Sure, there must be savings being made elsewhere, but these steps along with basing the film in Prague certainly help when you're trying to half Die Another Day's budget. seems like so long ago when Wilson and Campbell told us at a press conference that they'd be lucky to keep it within the budget of the last movie

[MarcAngeDraco]

72 mill would be great news! With that budget the film should be as down to earth as I have hoped and it is guaranteed to turn a nice profit in just the US alone...

I really hope this is true!!

[Fabio_Maranzano]

"No need for ridiculous budgets like we saw with DAD"
1) Daniel Craig as 007;
2) Lower Budget.
What`s next?
3) A digital animated or a cartoon 007?
When I go to the movies I want to be excited, not bored...

[Johnboy007]

And from that alone you gather it will be boring?

[Jericho_One]

Give the man his invisible car and his tidal waves!

[Publius]

"No need for ridiculous budgets like we saw with DAD"
1) Daniel Craig as 007;
2) Lower Budget.
What`s next?
3) A digital animated or a cartoon 007?
When I go to the movies I want to be excited, not bored...

I don't know about you, but I'm more excited by a stuntman (or the real actor if we're lucky) performing a truly death-defying stunt, harnesses or not, than a poorly animated, obviously CGI sequence. With the former also being cheaper, we can have the best of both worlds.

[kneelbeforezod]

"No need for ridiculous budgets like we saw with DAD"
1) Daniel Craig as 007;
2) Lower Budget.
What`s next?
3) A digital animated or a cartoon 007?
When I go to the movies I want to be excited, not bored...

I wonder what percentage of the moviegoing public think like this... that lowering the budget makes the film worse?

I don't know about you, but I'm more excited by a stuntman (or the real actor if we're lucky) performing a truly death-defying stunt, harnesses or not, than a poorly animated, obviously CGI sequence. With the former also being cheaper, we can have the best of both worlds.

Amen to that

[Pussfeller]

"No need for ridiculous budgets like we saw with DAD"
1) Daniel Craig as 007;
2) Lower Budget.
What`s next?
3) A digital animated or a cartoon 007?
When I go to the movies I want to be excited, not bored...

Actually, I think #3 describes DAD pretty well.

[Righty007]

"No need for ridiculous budgets like we saw with DAD"
1) Daniel Craig as 007;
2) Lower Budget.
What`s next?
3) A digital animated or a cartoon 007?
When I go to the movies I want to be excited, not bored...

The script is far from boring.

[Johnboy007]

I've got a question (for the sake of discussion):

Do you think Sony may have been a little tentative to stake a lot of money in this film given the relative uncertainty of Craig and the previous few lackluster films?

[killkenny kid]

I've got a question (for the sake of discussion):

Do you think Sony may have been a little tentative to stake a lot of money in this film given the relative uncertainty of Craig and the previous few lackluster films?

Yes, I feel that is what there was thinking. And they seem very happy with Craig. So we get Bond 22 in 2008. And look for a bigger budget.

[AnGer 007]

$72.000.000? Sounds about right.

Casino Royale looks quite cheap. Nowhere near the budget of big summer blockbusters like Superman Returns and Pirates Of The Caribbean 2.

I thought that the budget would be pretty low from the moment the producers chose low-profile Craig as 007 and other no-name actors as well.

In fact I am surprised they didn't shoot Bond 21/Bond 22 back-to-back to save even more money. (That would fit the reboot story as well).

Of course big budgets and A-list actors don't guarantee good movies...

[Nimsworth]

Just as a comparison what was Goldeneye's budget compared to Licence To Kill's?

[AnGer 007]

Just as a comparison what was Goldeneye's budget compared to Licence To Kill's?

Licence To Kill: $40,000,000 (estimated)
GoldenEye: $80,000,000 (estimated)

(source: www.imdb.com)

[DamnCoffee]

[Harmsway]

Well, BBC confirmed the $72 million dollar (39 million pounds) figure in the "Pinewood burns" article (here).

So it seems CASINO ROYALE really *did* slash its budget.

[Dr. Noah]

Well, BBC confirmed the $72 million dollar (39 million pounds) figure in the "Pinewood burns" article (here).

So it seems CASINO ROYALE really *did* slash its budget.

Yeah. They spent on the entire movie what they would've had to pay Brosnan to star in it.

[killkenny kid]

[quote name='mharkin' post='579160' date='29 July 2006 - 13:18']

[Dr. Noah]

Goldeneye also had a made for tv feel to it.

Yeah, but they also kept slashing the budget while it was in production, which hurt the effects and continuity coverage. Still, in terms of tone and character it's MUCH better than the other Brosnan films. Campbell knows his Bond.

[Harmsway]

Goldeneye also had a made for tv feel to it.

Yeah, but it doesn't seem that CASINO ROYALE will be suffering from that - partially because CASINO ROYALE isn't straining to be an "epic" Bond film like GOLDENEYE was so desperately attempting to be.

[zencat]

Trouble with all this is stated budget amounts are usually BS (or, yes, this is the original planned "budget", but not what the movie ultimately ended up costing). They never admit (publicly) to how much a movie really costs. But it's always more than any number you'll read, sometimes a lot more.

[Harmsway]

Trouble with all this is stated budget amounts are usually BS (or, yes, this is the original planned "budget", but not what the movie ultimately ended up costing). They never admit (publicly) to how much a movie really costs. But it's always more than any number you'll read, sometimes a lot more.

True, but CASINO ROYALE has an especially low reported budget, and I don't see any reason why they'd want to fib any great amount. At most, I'd say we're looking at $100 million for CASINO ROYALE.

[AnGer 007]

[quote name='mharkin' post='579160' date='29 July 2006 - 20:18']