88 replies to this topic

[MkB]

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

Mmmh... So, Bondian, you think the new Chitty Chitty Bang Bang will be a flying Aston Martin?

[Harry Fawkes]

Chitty chitty what? Bang bang that sounds cool

[Skudor]

OK - a quarter of a billion dollars for a couple of hours of entertainment does seem like a lot.

Then again it's not so much compared with the pirate and spider and supey movies. Why shouldn't Bond have a budget in line with those movies? And if they spend it on locations and quality action then I'm all for it.

[Santa]

The word obscene does seem the most appropriate here. I'm trying not to think about the amount of starving people that could feed (and still have enough left over to buy me a new frock). Makes me feel quite ill, actually.

[HildebrandRarity]

It's not about feeding people, etc.

It's a business which cares about returns. Spending $195 million (while other corprations who have tie-ins spend an additional $50 million to help advertise the film) in order to potentially generate $750 million (if the movie is "good") of which the studio gets half (i.e. $375 million) is a hell of a return on investment. Add the gravy of another $750 million from terrestrial and cable tv contracts worldwide, dvd rentals and sales, airplane viewings and other such "ancilliary revenue" and you are laughing all the way to the bank over the next two years. Finally, add in the extra revenue of the past 21 movies and then you're laughing all the way to the bank for years to come...

Then the question is: which mansion do I buy next and should I add another Rolls Royce to the collection?

[Loomis]

The word obscene does seem the most appropriate here. I'm trying not to think about the amount of starving people that could feed (and still have enough left over to buy me a new frock). Makes me feel quite ill, actually.

I know what you mean, but I think I'm with the Rarity here, and I'm as left as you can get. (Well, except on those issues where I'm more, like, on the right. ) It's not as though Eon and co. are behaving like the British government and taxing people up the wazoo, ostensibly for good reasons, and then pissing it away on white elephants, and things like MPs' grotesque expenses (or like the National Lottery ploughing over a million pounds into the budget of ST. TRINIAN'S - yeah, really amazing "good cause" there). What Eon and co. are doing is using their own money - broadly speaking - on a business venture that will create a lot of trickle-down employment all over the world and also, I suggest, spread rather a lot of happiness. It's not companies like Eon that are the villains - it's the politicians and the so-called charities (oh, and the banks, which should not be bailed out a la Northern Rock when they go tits-up). IMO, anyway.

[Skudor]

Considering that at least 40 million people watched CR in the cinema ($600 million box office, $15 a ticket, one viewing only) then this is a production cost of just over $6... for two hours of quality entertainment. Is it worth it? Well, we pay $15 to watch so I'd say yes (seven pounds a ticket in the UK).

And as Loomis points out making a movie is very labour intensive, so it's all going to the pockets of thousands of people all over the world. More to some than others, but such is life.

[plankattack]

$230 million?

Well, I heard the price of eggs was going up but.....

[Gobi-1]

I agree that it's an obscene amount of money but I think it has more to do with the fact that the cost of making movies has gone out of control then overspending by the Broccolis and studio.

[Bondian]

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

Mmmh... So, Bondian, you think the new Chitty Chitty Bang Bang will be a flying Aston Martin?

I recon. Maybe it will be invisible to. I can image Bond's words of "Oh, Chit" when he cannot find it.

I agree with this quote from 'Bowfinger';

Dave: But movies cost millions of dollars to make.
Robert K. Bowfinger: That's after gross net deduction profit percentage deferment ten percent of the nut. Cash, every movie cost $2,184.

[Professor Dent]

OK - a quarter of a billion dollars for a couple of hours of entertainment does seem like a lot.

Then again it's not so much compared with the pirate and spider and supey movies. Why shouldn't Bond have a budget in line with those movies? And if they spend it on locations and quality action then I'm all for it.

I think the main difference here is that these movies had tons of CGI & groundbreaking special effects. $230 million for a Bond movie budget seems way too high. I realize location shooting is expensive (& well worth it) but it isn't like this is the first Bond movie to go on location. This price makes Waterworld seem like a bargain.

[Simon]

The word obscene does seem the most appropriate here. I'm trying not to think about the amount of starving people that could feed (and still have enough left over to buy me a new frock). Makes me feel quite ill, actually.

Quite, but it is not just films that cost $230m.

Buildings, Telephony networks, Corporations all cost a lot more. So are you saying that so long as nothing in the corporate / capitalist world costs more than a half a mil with commensurate returns, then the kids can carry on starving? Am presuming not; ergo it must be ok for a film to cost this much....

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

Variety: 'Quantum' Budget A Leap Above Previous Bonds

Report suggests latest 007 film will cost $230 million

[K1Bond007]

I bet it's closer to 180-190 million. 230 seems extreme. Granted the dollar ain't what she used to be so maybe that factors.

Maybe, like Casino Royale the initial budget numbers are just really bad conversions.

[[dark]]

Now on the CBn main page...

Variety: 'Quantum' Budget A Leap Above Previous Bonds

Report suggests latest 007 film will cost $230 million

I was hoping the budget would be miniscule so I could title this article "Quantum of Dollars".

[tdalton]

OK - a quarter of a billion dollars for a couple of hours of entertainment does seem like a lot.

Then again it's not so much compared with the pirate and spider and supey movies. Why shouldn't Bond have a budget in line with those movies? And if they spend it on locations and quality action then I'm all for it.

I think the main difference here is that these movies had tons of CGI & groundbreaking special effects. $230 million for a Bond movie budget seems way too high. I realize location shooting is expensive (& well worth it) but it isn't like this is the first Bond movie to go on location. This price makes Waterworld seem like a bargain.

This does seem like a very high amount for the budget of a Bond movie. I doubt (and I would hope) that they wouldn't be going for the more groundbreaking special effects that films like PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and SPIDERMAN were going for, so hopefully all of this money is going towards something good, but it still seems like an absurd amount of money for a Bond film. It'll be interesting to see where all of this money is going towards, and hopefully they do something good with it rather than using it on bad special effects like they did with DAD.

[Germanlady]

When the first Behind-the-scene bit came out, I remember people saying, how awsome the locations (rooms and Siena galery etc. ) were looking and how good it is to actually BUILD those. I believe its more costly to make things for real than covering them through CGI. Add going to locations with probably MORE staff than needed for earlier Bonds when traveling, more security perhaps etc.etc.

For me this only shows they are going for as much quality as possible with THEIR money, not ours and if they

[Mr. Blofeld]

This does seem like a very high amount for the budget of a Bond movie. I doubt (and I would hope) that they wouldn't be going for the more groundbreaking special effects that films like PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and SPIDERMAN were going for, so hopefully all of this money is going towards something good, but it still seems like an absurd amount of money for a Bond film. It'll be interesting to see where all of this money is going towards, and hopefully they do something good with it rather than using it on bad special effects like they did with DAD.

Indeed; let's hope they're not building a secret volcano lair on the backlot at Pinewood...

[Santa]

The word obscene does seem the most appropriate here. I'm trying not to think about the amount of starving people that could feed (and still have enough left over to buy me a new frock). Makes me feel quite ill, actually.

I know what you mean, but I think I'm with the Rarity here, and I'm as left as you can get. (Well, except on those issues where I'm more, like, on the right. ) It's not as though Eon and co. are behaving like the British government and taxing people up the wazoo, ostensibly for good reasons, and then pissing it away on white elephants, and things like MPs' grotesque expenses (or like the National Lottery ploughing over a million pounds into the budget of ST. TRINIAN'S - yeah, really amazing "good cause" there). What Eon and co. are doing is using their own money - broadly speaking - on a business venture that will create a lot of trickle-down employment all over the world and also, I suggest, spread rather a lot of happiness. It's not companies like Eon that are the villains - it's the politicians and the so-called charities (oh, and the banks, which should not be bailed out a la Northern Rock when they go tits-up). IMO, anyway.

Oh yes, totally, and I'm not really left at all - I'm more 'spread very thin all over the place'. And it's not like I spend all my spare cash on feeding the poor (although I did once, when I was a student, give my last fiver to my favourite tramp and my friends had to feed me for the rest of the week...)but for some reason this did make me wonder if the world hasn't got its priorities completely over tit. Although I'll still be watching the film when it comes out, obviously .

[Flash1087]

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.

My question is, how did you find out how much North Korea would cost to buy...and what were you planning on doing with it?

[Publius]

Even if this is just the production budget (which I doubt), it's not necessarily a bad thing if they know what they're doing. Sure, the later Brosnan films suffered from the "if we just throw money around and forgot about everything else it'll still be good" problem, but the 80s films suffered from the opposite problem: having too little financial support, which was painfully evident in the final product. I want my Bond movies to look and feel like a real cinematic experience, not a glorified TV show.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Well, we pay $15 to watch so I'd say yes (seven pounds a ticket in the UK).

Wow Skudor, is that really the typical price for a movie ticket in the UK?...

[craigbegins]

Well, we pay $15 to watch so I'd say yes (seven pounds a ticket in the UK).

Wow Skudor, is that really the typical price for a movie ticket in the UK?...

One of the benefits of being a student.. (slightly)cheaper cinema tickets

Also " !!!!" at that budget! I guess they had to get Pacino somehow

[stamper]

Why are people acting like that money is trown in the sea ? All this money goes towards paying good workers in several countries, and helps fight unemployment and allows the industry to develop. It's all good, who cares if it's insane, it's not like just one guy pockets it all.

[TGO]

Why are people acting like that money is trown in the sea ? All this money goes towards paying good workers in several countries, and helps fight unemployment and allows the industry to develop. It's all good, who cares if it's insane, it's not like just one guy pockets it all.

Exactly...its not like this is the budget of Cleopatra or anything...44 million dollars in 1963 money. REAL location shooting is always expensive.

[HildebrandRarity]

Exactly...its not like this is the budget of Cleopatra or anything...44 million dollars in 1963 money. REAL location shooting is always expensive.

Really? WOW!

Dr No was budgeted at $1 million in 1962 and From Russia With Love, even with its location shooting, was no more than $2.5 million. Goldfinger's budget in 1964 was about $4.5 million.

So Cleopatra's was 10 times the budget of Goldfinger? UNBELIEVABLE! You sure about that?

[TGO]

Exactly...its not like this is the budget of Cleopatra or anything...44 million dollars in 1963 money. REAL location shooting is always expensive.

Really? WOW!

Dr No was budgeted at $1 million in 1962 and From Russia With Love, even with its location shooting, was no more than $2.5 million. Goldfinger's budget in 1964 was about $4.5 million.

So Cleopatra's was 10 times the budget of Goldfinger? UNBELIEVABLE! You sure about that?

Its *famous* for paying Elizabeth Taylor one milion dollars to play the part. There's a great documentary on the 3 disc DVD about the whole making of.

[HildebrandRarity]

Yes I knew about the $1 million to the young and sultry Liz Taylor...but what about the other $43 mil? What did they do with that?

It wasnt chump change then. (SPECTRE's extortion demand of the NATO powers in Thunderball was $250 million or 100 m Pounds Sterling...which was a massive sum then, as a point of reference.)

[MkB]

Yes I knew about the $1 million to the young and sultry Liz Taylor...but what about the other $43 mil? What did they do with that?

They paid Richard Burton!

[HildebrandRarity]

Ha Ha! I can only imagine that the accountants and money men did not have a tight control and there was a huge budget overrun...that they went beyond schedule and what not...and some egos may have been involved given that Taylor and Burton were bigger than Pitt/Jolie AND Beckham/Posh Spice COMBINED at the time.

Forester especially, and the Bond production crew generally and historically, like to story-board everything so as to possibly avoid over-runs. Good hands, i'd say.

And, as I and others in this thread have mentioned, If they spend $195 mil (or $230-odd million) to generate $1.5 billion in revenue for everyone (including theatre owners) around the planet, then there's food on a lot of tables...Rolls Royces and Mansions for 2 or 3...but food in the belly for the multitudes.