29 replies to this topic

[quantumofsolace]

QoS. It has not done well with the average crowd. It's not done briliantly well with a large proportion of Bond fans. But it's still being watched by millions around the globe. It's obvious that Craig wil be back and from his interviews you can see that he is ready for a more traditional Bond film.
After the negative reviews will they cut the budget for the next film?

[Vauxhall]

QoS. It has not done well with the average crowd. It's not done briliantly well with a large proportion of Bond fans. But it's still being watched by millions around the globe. It's obvious that Craig wil be back and from his interviews you can see that he is ready for a more traditional Bond film.
After the negative reviews will they cut the budget for the next film?

Who is the "average crowd" that it hasn't done well with? Surely the record breaking box office suggests that it has pleased the general public?

Anyway, if there is a budget cut, it will be due to the financial climate rather than negative reviews.

[tdalton]

I doubt that there will be any cutting of the budget for Bond 23 based on QoS box office returns. The move back to MGM could prove to alter the budget, though, as I'm not sure that MGM by itself can afford to put as much money into the film as Sony was able to. It should be interesting, though, to see how that whole situation unfolds. But, I don't see them lowering the budget just because of the box office for Quantum of Solace.

Edited by tdalton, 24 November 2008 - 04:26 AM.

[BlackFire]

Not well with average crowd? From what I've read, average crowd loved the movie.. it was the Bond fandom who gave mixed reviews and likes to the movie, mate.

And cutting the budge.. remember Craig said something about the economical problem and that they can't afford to waste money so I think EVERYTHING will be planned on a very strict way.

[SecretAgentFan]

If Jim has taught us anything then not go on reading posts after sentences like these...

QoS. It has not done well with the average crowd.

[supernova]

I can't understand the process of movie making when we are talking of hundreds of millions of dollars in production costs. Why isn't a movie filmed according to an in-depth production story book of the movie? Plan what you are going to film and film it. Marc Forster seems to have been a real waster -- with discarded footage costing as much as the finished movie. Thats just unnecessary waste.

[dinovelvet]

QoS. It has not done well with the average crowd. It's not done briliantly well with a large proportion of Bond fans. But it's still being watched by millions around the globe. It's obvious that Craig wil be back and from his interviews you can see that he is ready for a more traditional Bond film.
After the negative reviews will they cut the budget for the next film?

Yes, unless they don't.

[Mister E]

Now, why is it again that people are saying this movie is failing or failed?

[jaguar007]

Now, why is it again that people are saying this movie is failing or failed?

At least this movie is not bombing as bad as DAD bombed

[SecretAgentFan]

I can't understand the process of movie making when we are talking of hundreds of millions of dollars in production costs. Why isn't a movie filmed according to an in-depth production story book of the movie? Plan what you are going to film and film it. Marc Forster seems to have been a real waster -- with discarded footage costing as much as the finished movie. Thats just unnecessary waste.

First of all: yes, you don´t understand the process of movie making.

Second: Why do you think Mar Forster has been a "waster"?

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Now, why is it again that people are saying this movie is failing or failed?

IMO it's because they like to project their opinions onto everyone else (ie; "I don't like it so no one else can")

The figures don't lie, and QoS is doing quite well.

[quantumofsolace]

If Jim has taught us anything then not go on reading posts after sentences like these...

QoS. It has not done well with the average crowd.

You still went on reading.

You know that QoS hasn't been a hit with the average moviegoer. It's doing well financially, so far, but that's a different thing to being well liked. Go to any film site and look at the thoughts about this film and they are not encouraging. Some good reviews but mostly people are disappointed. QoS having a 'record breaking' opening weekend won't mean much next time. This could harm the next film in terms of it's budget and what it earns in its opening weekend

[SecretAgentFan]

If Jim has taught us anything then not go on reading posts after sentences like these...

QoS. It has not done well with the average crowd.

You still went on reading.

Yes. Because I did not listen to Jim. What I deeply regret. And for someone who chose the screen name "quantumofsolace" you´re quite keen on telling everybody that QOS is not well liked. Although you do admit that it is a record breaking success.

What is wrong with you?

[Quantumofsolace007]

i went with the name Quantumm of solace and i thihnjk QOS is doing great it wil surely pass Casino Royale's fgigures and any budget cuts will be due to ecnomnic stability versus anything else.


perhaps 2010 is the perfect time to take a huge chance and make a bond film titled 007 in new york


kidding kidding

[Quincy]

Well I don't see why they would cut the budget. They already got it back haven't they. The movie has the largest Bond opening OAT.

[Mister Asterix]

QoS. It has not done well with the average crowd. It's not done briliantly well with a large proportion of Bond fans. But it's still being watched by millions around the globe. It's obvious that Craig wil be back and from his interviews you can see that he is ready for a more traditional Bond film.
After the negative reviews will they cut the budget for the next film?

What are you on about? Quantum of Solace has made $15 million more than Casino Royale in the US after its second weekend and that’s with Casino Royale having the long Thanksgiving holiday for its second week.

Quantum of Solace is so far more successful than Casino Royale by healthy percentage.

[Qwerty]

If anything, they'll probably just end up spending even more on Bond 23.

[sharpshooter]

If anything, they'll probably just end up spending even more on Bond 23.

Precisely. Given that the film is breaking Bond box office history.

[HildebrandRarity]

I don't see the budget being less than 200 million for Bond 23.

In fact with a lower Pound in relation to when Bond 22's budget was set (Summer 2007), it'll be cheaper to make Bond 23 at Pinewood.

So, they may save money there and put it into something else like other locations, writers, stunt team, FX...and paying Daniel more as per contract.

[eddychaput]

Ticket sales in North America (where I am) dropped dramatically this past weekend, its second since the release on November 14th. Some silly teenage vampire movie (which apparently isn't even any good) kicked QOS's . Still, it has made over 100 million in the US alone, not counting Canada.

Add that to that global total and QOS is making some darn good money. However, I see it running out of steam quickly. Casino Royale played in cinemas for a really long time in 2006. Somehow I don't see that happening with QOS, especially if the sales continue to drop as they are.

[mister-white]

Considering that it's going back to MGM, which I think is a horrible move, and they pretty much have nothing (look at how all of the recent MGM-only stuff has had no press, no marketing, and done nothing at the box office, compared to MGM/ Sony co-productions), a budget cut is a given. Probably wouldn't be much more than $100 million. And forget any of the marketing.

[sorking]

I can't understand the process of movie making when we are talking of hundreds of millions of dollars in production costs. Why isn't a movie filmed according to an in-depth production story book of the movie? Plan what you are going to film and film it. Marc Forster seems to have been a real waster -- with discarded footage costing as much as the finished movie. Thats just unnecessary waste.

I think the one thing we're pretty clear on is how well planned Forster was. It's been commented on by the producers, and he's...well know for his specificity.

What discarded footage? Apart from a one-minute scene at the end? Alternate takes, varying angles? Hi, welcome to professional movie production, where scenes are shot from more than one camera position and each scene is shot more than once.

Considering that it's going back to MGM, which I think is a horrible move, and they pretty much have nothing (look at how all of the recent MGM-only stuff has had no press, no marketing, and done nothing at the box office, compared to MGM/ Sony co-productions), a budget cut is a given. Probably wouldn't be much more than $100 million. And forget any of the marketing.

$100m seems insanely low and unlikely, though it's a bit soon to second guess the other deals that will be done.

It's also worth remembering that the budget doesn't stand alone. There are a lot of other factors - tax breaks, for example - that turn one number on paper to a larger (or smaller) number in practice. And it ain't like Eon don't have the experience.

So, that said, I wouldn't rule out the next production having its main studios outside the UK...

[HellIsHere]

Producers are stupid if they do not save on production costs. A higher production budget for Bond 23 does not mean excellent reviews or higher audiences... but it will represent a lower return on capital employed! Bring the budget to the Casino Royale level! I think the QoS budget was an atrocity (the most expensive film of the year?, even more expensive than Dark Knight!).

[Pierce - Daniel]

The bigger budget came from Sony, it meant they were able to fly off to all the locations Forster wanted to shoot in and carry out all those stunt scenes. But the main thing is Sony have alot of money to burn and they had alot of it to burn on Bond after CR. When EON return to MGM I'd expect things to return much more CR type standards in terms of budget, especailly without Forster returning.

[Zorin Industries]

Producers are stupid if they do not save on production costs. A higher production budget for Bond 23 does not mean excellent reviews or higher audiences... but it will represent a lower return on capital employed! Bring the budget to the Casino Royale level! I think the QoS budget was an atrocity (the most expensive film of the year?, even more expensive than Dark Knight!).

And your experience of budgeting a film came from where?

[BoogieBond]

The Bond 23 budget, if cut, I don't think it will be much. Maybe to CR levels, maybe say 175 mill rather than the supposed 200 mill that was spent for QOS. I mean didn't MGM back Die Another Day, which hardly looks cheap. The budget was supposedly 142 mill back in 2002.
I think MGM know that Audiences expect the money to be on screen for a Bond film, that is a pre-requisite, to take audiences to glamorous locations and plenty of spectacular action.

Edited by BoogieBond, 27 November 2008 - 12:44 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Ticket sales in North America (where I am) dropped dramatically this past weekend, its second since the release on November 14th.

There was no drama at all. And expect it to rise again on the third weekend. Yes, because of Thanksgiving.

Some silly teenage vampire movie (which apparently isn't even any good) kicked QOS's .

Even if you (or even I) consider "Twilight" to be silly, it was and will be a force to be reckoned with. It´s based on a wildly successful series of books, has a built-in teenage audience and therefore the potential to be the next "Harry Potter"-like bohemoth.

And whether it is good or not has never been a factor for box office returns. "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" anyone?

"Twilight" was fully expected to cut into QOS´ box office. But the teenage audiences are always fickle, eager to hop on the next craze. Bond definitely is not that big a draw for the average teenage girl. And those have made "Twilight" such a big success.

[Simon]

QoS. It has not done well with the average crowd. It's not done briliantly well with a large proportion of Bond fans. But it's still being watched by millions around the globe. It's obvious that Craig wil be back and from his interviews you can see that he is ready for a more traditional Bond film.
After the negative reviews will they cut the budget for the next film?

Ah.

Incisive and, crucially, accurate.

Do you work in journalism, per chance?

[joshkhenderson]

Personally, I feel that if QoS can do this with $230 million, but Dark Knight only needed $185 mil, there is no way that EON can keep getting this ridiculous amount of money for Bond. It's still very profitable, but is a cut to $175 million or so really that bad?

[5 BONDS]

If Jim has taught us anything then not go on reading posts after sentences like these...

QoS. It has not done well with the average crowd.

You still went on reading.

You know that QoS hasn't been a hit with the average moviegoer. It's doing well financially, so far, but that's a different thing to being well liked. Go to any film site and look at the thoughts about this film and they are not encouraging. Some good reviews but mostly people are disappointed. QoS having a 'record breaking' opening weekend won't mean much next time. This could harm the next film in terms of it's budget and what it earns in its opening weekend

True.