88 replies to this topic

[TGO]

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?

Well, the film you see is actually a second production of the movie. There was a first shot at Pinewood starring Peter Finch, in which they spent 7 million dollars on 15 minutes of usable footage. The second production brought in Mankiewicz and Burton and Harrison, and threw money at them to get them, and spent money on HUGE sets AND there's a whole 2 and half hours of cut footage. On the doc they do say a lot of that budget went into private hands. In one instance, they production posted a note to "share your paper cups."

[NVT]

Possible reasons for the high costs

Currency exchange rates
More action means that more designer suits have to be destroyed in the production.
Certain people feel that they deserve a pay rise.
The film is being financed by a real life criminal organisation.
The increasing petrol prices.
Funding a new charity.
They are also going to start the production of Bond 23.
A-list cameo.
Because they know that the have a winner and can afford to splash out....

[Mr Ashdown]

Few years ago, a budget breakdown for Ridley Scott's "Black Hawk Down" found their way onto the net, via one of those screenwriting participation sites. This breakdown was, purportedly, the unofficial figures, and it was swiftly taken off the website when lawyers got involved.

Because the numbers were *staggering*.

Not just for the expected Big Bucks Shots -- helicopters exploding, thousands of extras shooting up the place, buildings collapsing, and so on.

But for things like camera lenses, insurance policies for the production, travel expenses, set design (for a movie shot largely on location, the set design budget was eye-wateringly expensive), catering, vehicle transportation, etc, etc.

We all know that movies are expensive to make; but I'll bet only the accountants know how *really* expensive they are. I can well believe the $250mil price tag for "Quantum of Solace", as a conservative budget -- I expect its upwards of that figure.

Edited by Mr Ashdown, 17 March 2008 - 01:16 AM.

[6Joker9]

I find it quite preposterous if that

[007forever]

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.

Well, I think Kim's personal fortune is more than that amount....and let's assume he can still squeeze more penies out of the country, the country itself will certainly be worth more, hehe

And, I commented much ealier that I was not happy about QoS's reported running time to be 120 mins exactly. Again, my wish is to have the movie as long as possible, my eyes will be glued to the screen even if it runs for a whole day!

Anyway, my point is, since they are spending that sort of money, pleaes please make the $$ go a longer way by extend the running to to at least 150 mins.

[HildebrandRarity]

Anyway, my point is, since they are spending that sort of money, pleaes please make the $$ go a longer way by extend the running to to at least 150 mins.

If the run time goes up a lot, the number of viewings per day at the theatre goes down...which means less tickets sold. This means the movie has to be "very good" to get to box office revenue numbers that makes sense to justify a $230 mil production budget.

Long run times are fine for fan boys but not necessarily for the general public.

[Skudor]

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?...

Yes. And no. In the West End (central London) they easily go over the $20-25 mark. My local cinema out in the provinces charges something over

[RivenWinner]

I don't know. Personally, I just find it mind boggling how expensive some films are to make, although I completely understand where all the costs come from.

Still though, I don't know. Hopefully this thing won't spiral out of control, and hopefully it will still remain a good film (which I think it will be).

Nothing like blowing a $250+ budget and ending up with a sucky film that even the masses won't buy tickets for...lol

[Ian-FZer007even]

Truthfully, I laughed @ the budget $230 mill for one movie! I enjoy Bond very much so, but when they try to sell the film by making-up a budget to make it sound expensive and flashy. Then it's rather un-gentleman like --

If I'm not mistaken: The Lord of the Rings trilogy was made for $280 mill and they made a great return for all three. Be it any kind of business or gambling, one has to have a limit to MAXIMIZE his return. I wonder who's the financial budget person on this particular production? Quick, somebody needs to call the FINANCIAL ACTION TASK FORCE --

[Skudor]

Isn't this budget just a sign of them taking Bond as prime movie real estate again? Throwing millions at it to give us something spectacular!

[Shrublands]

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?

The early Bond films are famous for being VERY cheap, (With Dr No having a straight to drive-in budget).

Cleopatra is famous for being by far (to this day, inflation adjusted) the most expensive film ever made. Its profligate attitude to spending wastefully is legendary.

Yes, $44 million is the conservative total.

[Skudor]

A big part of the reason for Cleopatra's huge cost was the complete mess they made of making it, right?

[Shrublands]

A big part of the reason for Cleopatra's huge cost was the complete mess they made of making it, right?

Building all the Egypt and Rome sets on the back-lot at Pinewood and then never using them due to bad weather. Re-building them all in Italy. Endless delays to do with Taylor

[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?

The early Bond films are famous for being VERY cheap, (With Dr No having a straight to drive-in budget).

The return on the early Bond movies is akin to Blair Witch territory...even moreso because the net profit (although similar in nominal dollar turns) on the first two Bonds is worth a multiple, inflation-adjusted.

I wonder just how rich Brocolli and Saltzman (before he ran into trouble in the earlier 70s) became by the end of the 1960s...and I wonder what Barbara Broccoli is worth (?).

[Skudor]

I'm very curious as well - given the length of time etc. etc. they should be incredibly rich. Ten digit dollar values. But it all depends on to what extent they own the income from those movies - after all they didn't put up the money for them.

[Shrublands]

I'm very curious as well - given the length of time etc. etc. they should be incredibly rich. Ten digit dollar values. But it all depends on to what extent they own the income from those movies - after all they didn't put up the money for them.

Broccoli and Saltzman negotiated a 50% share of profits for 100% finance. The deal was Danjaq owns the Bond licence and Eon makes the films so they get 50%, the studio gets 50% for finance and distribution.

This has become more convoluted since Saltzman sold his half of Danjaq to UA (and UA merged with MGM… and MGM were sort of acquired by Sony…and some say the Broccolis reacquired the share along the way… but not so that they can walk away from whoever owns UA… who knows?)

The Broccolis are the only constants, they have done very well out of the whole thing, they own a minimum of 25% of all profits from the start to now.

[Skudor]

[quote name='Shrublands' post='853901' date='26 March 2008 - 14:37'][quote name='Skudor' post='853893' date='26 March 2008 - 13:46']I'm very curious as well - given the length of time etc. etc. they should be incredibly rich. Ten digit dollar values. But it all depends on to what extent they own the income from those movies - after all they didn't put up the money for them.[/quote]

Broccoli and Saltzman negotiated a 50% share of profits for 100% finance. The deal was Danjaq owns the Bond licence and Eon makes the films so they get 50%, the studio gets 50% for finance and distribution.

This has become more convoluted since Saltzman sold his half of Danjaq to UA (and UA merged with MGM

[HildebrandRarity]

It would not surprise me if Barbara and her clan is worth anywhere from $500 million to north of $1 billion.

George Lucas is one of, if not the ONLY, movie-oriented individual I can say is worth more (LOL...I mean monitary net worth. )

George, with impeccably fortuitous hind-sight, worked out the ancilliary deals back in 1976/77 and he didnt have to share anything with anyone...unlike BB/MW who probably have IFP and the Fleming estate as well as the studios (UA/MGM, Sony/Columbia) to deal with.

[SecretAgent007]

Another reason Cleopatra's budget was so high is that the studio was not producing other films during this time (all resources went to the film) and they tacked the costs of running the studio into the budget.

[HildebrandRarity]

...the studio was not producing other films during this time (all resources went to the film).

I guess there's a reason why my grandpa told me not to put all my eggs in one basket. I suppose they didn't believe in diversification in those days.

[Robinson]

Here's the rundown via wikipedia on Cleopatra's budget issues:

http://en.wikipedia....tra_(1963_film)

$230 million's gotta include marketing costs for QoS. By the time the accountants get through with this film, QoS will be seen as having lost money despite taking in close to $1 billion at the B.O. LOL

[HildebrandRarity]

By the time the accountants get through with this film, QoS will be seen as having lost money despite taking in close to $1 billion at the B.O. LOL

What kind of math are you doing, my friend?

Let's say Q0S generates $750 million world wide. Half of that will go back to the studios, the other half to the theatre owners.

That leaves $375 mil to Eon/Danjaq/MGM/Sony/Columbia. Even IF it costs $230 mil (Which I think is way too high a guestimate), the movie makes a profit of about $145 million for the studios....BEFORE dvd sales/rentals, cable and regular tv, etc.

145 divided by 230 is a 63 percent return on investment. The US stock market will be lucky to return 7 or 8 percent this year and US Bonds are only yielding 4 percent.

I'd take 23 percent in a heart beat, let alone 63 frikkin' percent! LOL!

Dont fool yourself, this movie is going to keep certain people rich for years to come.

[Daddy Bond]

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.

Without looking up the current going rate, isn't it approximately 1 pound = 2 dollars??? Most of the items I buy from Amazon UK double in price when I pay in dollars.

[Robinson]

By the time the accountants get through with this film, QoS will be seen as having lost money despite taking in close to $1 billion at the B.O. LOL

What kind of math are you doing, my friend?

Dont fool yourself, this movie is going to keep certain people rich for years to come.

Certain people except Uncle Sam.

[Skudor]

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.

Without looking up the current going rate, isn't it approximately 1 pound = 2 dollars??? Most of the items I buy from Amazon UK double in price when I pay in dollars.

Yep. It's around $2 per

[RivenWinner]

According to this list on Wikipedia, which lists the top 34 most expensive films ever made, The World is Not Enough was the most expensive Bond film produced to date, when adjusted for inflation. It's budget, in 2005 dollars was $159,800,000. Die Another Day was the next most expensive Bond film made, adjusted for inflation, coming in at $156,000,000.


Casino Royale is not on this list, but according to Box Office Mojo, it's budget was about $150 million.


http://en.wikipedia....expensive_films


Honestly, I highly doubt that this film will cost $230 million to make; that doesn't even make sense. Maybe, maybe, maybe that's including marketing costs, just maybe, but still, it seems to large of a sum, especially for a film that does not feature heavy intensive CGI.

Edited by RivenWinner, 29 March 2008 - 09:17 PM.

[Skudor]

According to this list on Wikipedia, which lists the top 34 most expensive films ever made, The World is Not Enough was the most expensive Bond film produced to date, when adjusted for inflation. It's budget, in 2005 dollars was $159,800,000. Die Another Day was the next most expensive Bond film made, adjusted for inflation, coming in at $156,000,000.


Casino Royale is not on this list, but according to Box Office Mojo, it's budget was about $150 million.

So they're throwing an extra $100m at Quantum of Solace if the report is correct (and I'm inclined to believe it considering the size of the production and the sheer number and exoticness of the locations).

[sark]

Was it Variety or someone else who reported that CR would cost significantly more than it turned out to?

[Colossus]

WOw interesting about TWINE being most expensive. You'd think DAD was.