477 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

Bad news indeed. One can only hope that SONY wants Bond badly enough to offer MGM a buyout sum that they can´t refuse.

By the way - wasn´t THE TOPCAPI AFFAIR also a MGM project?

[DamnCoffee]

I wonder what this holds for the future of Bond 23.
I have a VERY bad feeling that we won't see Craig as Bond again.

[Tybre]

Well that's not what I wanted to hear.


How the hell are they in so much debt?

Higher-ups are spendthrifts?
Invested in total bombs?
I could probably go on all day with guesses

Edit:

If MGM manages to hold out long enough, they might be able to recup some of their losses. According to the interwebs, MGM/Fox have overseas distribution rights on The Hobbit. There's no way in hell that will be a bomb.

[sharpshooter]

I have a VERY bad feeling that we won't see Craig as Bond again.

I think we will, but it will be a long time between drinks - hence limiting his era. Which would be very unfortunate.

[Trident]

If MGM manages to hold out long enough, they might be able to recup some of their losses. According to the interwebs, MGM/Fox have overseas distribution rights on The Hobbit. There's no way in hell that will be a bomb.

I'm not sure if this is relevant any more. As deep as MGM is in debt, they hardly can manage to raise necessary funds to keep current operations running. Anything beyond that, any major project (and Hobbit as well as Bond would doubtlessly be major projects) is effectively outside their operation range until the situation changes for the better. Now the problem is, from a certain point onwards there will be players who aren't interested in MGM's survival any more. Because the quicker the ship sinks the cheaper these players can get their pound of flesh.

The logical move would be to push these sure bet projects, especially Bond, as fast as possible to the screen. But if MGM had left the necessary capacity to act, they certainly would have done so already. Conclusion for me is they haven't got the strength left.

[Loomis]

I don't understand the pessimism on this thread. Bond will find a new home as easily as the cutest little puppy at the pound. And why are people already writing their farewell notes to Daniel Craig? The man is a mere 41 years old - Moore, Dalton and Brosnan hadn't even got started as Bond by that age.

Sheesh. I mean.... perspective, people.

What I do think may be a concern for the filmmakers is just how much these Bond films seem to be costing nowadays. According to one article I read (sorry, no link, so y'all gonna have to take my word for it), QUANTUM OF SOLACE was the ninth most expensive film of all time. Allow me to repeat that: The. Ninth. Most. Expensive. Film. Of. All. Time. It damn well doesn't look it, does it? Sure, it's the kind of flick that would obviously cost a pretty penny, but I can't for the life of me fathom how it could have wound up with such a mammoth budget as to rate as one of the ten costliest productions ever.

Anyone here able to explain this?

[Tybre]

Wikipedia also has it down as ninth. Interestingly, Pirates 3 apparently surpassed Spider-Man 3's mammoth budget, knocking SM3 down to second. List is here, if anyone's curious.

[Loomis]

Thanks. I'm not surprised to see that virtually all of the films listed are heavily FX-driven affairs. What the heck is QUANTUM OF SOLACE doing on this list, though? How come it came in at almost twice the price of THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM? (It's also odd to see none of the STAR WARS prequels mentioned.)

[Trident]

I don't understand the pessimism on this thread. Bond will find a new home as easily as the cutest little puppy at the pound. And why are people already writing their farewell notes to Daniel Craig? The man is a mere 41 years old - Moore, Dalton and Brosnan hadn't even got started as Bond by that age.

Sheesh. I mean.... perspective, people.

What I do think may be a concern for the filmmakers is just how much these Bond films seem to be costing nowadays. According to one article I read (sorry, no link, so y'all gonna have to take my word for it), QUANTUM OF SOLACE was the ninth most expensive film of all time. Allow me to repeat that: The. Ninth. Most. Expensive. Film. Of. All. Time. It damn well doesn't look it, does it? Sure, it's the kind of flick that would obviously cost a pretty penny, but I can't for the life of me fathom how it could have wound up with such a mammoth budget as to rate as one of the ten costliest productions ever.

Anyone here able to explain this?

I don't think this is the end of Bond, or of Craig's Bond. But it doubtlessly is an issue that will halt production on Bond 23 until the MGM business is sorted out. And this may take some time. EON can not just pack their bags and say farewell. If they could they'd have done so already; the MGM crisis isn't exactly news and as has been pointed out, there must be a host of other potential players wanting to join in on the party.

Regarding the overflowing budget of QOS, I think this is just what you get with globetrotter films. It's inevitable, you shoot in five, six, seven, whatever countries and that means a nice pricetag just for logistics, shipping and travel. And you don't go to all these expenses just to shoot a backyard either (well, sometimes you do). The different locations are amongst the most exotic, exclusive and indeed 'picturesque', meaning you almost certainly have to pay a King's ransom to use such locations to whomever is responsible for giving you permission.

Now, it's of course debatable if all this money is spent well, especially as compared to other, much cheaper productions. But one also has to bear in mind that there are not many globetrotter films left any more. At the moment I can't think of another production in the past 10 years to use its different worldwide locations to the same extent a Bond film does. This is something that must inevitably distort the competition to Bond's disfavour.

[Piz Gloria 1969]

If you were playing Bond & EON had money problems would you've accepted a pay cut so that EON would make ends meet easier ?

I think I would've.....within reason of course....lol

[tdalton]

EON can not just pack their bags and say farewell. If they could they'd have done so already; the MGM crisis isn't exactly news and as has been pointed out, there must be a host of other parties wanting to join in on the party.

This is precisely the problem that EON is facing. As you said, if they could have left for the significantly greener pastures of Sony/Columbia, they would have done so a very long time ago. But, unfortunately, they can't do so, and MGM is going to hold onto the Bond franchise as long as they possibly can, which will ultimately stall production for a significant period of time.

I knew that we would be facing a long hiatus at some point in the near future, but I was hoping that Craig would at least get to finish his tenure in the role before it happened. Oh well, another great Bond tenure cut short. Thanks MGM.

[Turn]

I wonder how much the current regime at Eon's loyalty is to MGM as opposed to how Cubby would have been, although he was upset enough 20 years ago to shop it around.

What I don't want to see is the momentum and fresh approach ushered in by CR and QoS with Craig in the role to diminish the longer the next film gets put off. The next big thing comes along and Bond gets dismissed as your father or grandfather's series in terms of interest, although there will always be a loyal fan base. They've worked hard to make the series relevant again to a new generation and they can't lose that.

[Joe Bond]

EON can not just pack their bags and say farewell. If they could they'd have done so already; the MGM crisis isn't exactly news and as has been pointed out, there must be a host of other parties wanting to join in on the party.

This is precisely the problem that EON is facing. As you said, if they could have left for the significantly greener pastures of Sony/Columbia, they would have done so a very long time ago. But, unfortunately, they can't do so, and MGM is going to hold onto the Bond franchise as long as they possibly can, which will ultimately stall production for a significant period of time.

I knew that we would be facing a long hiatus at some point in the near future, but I was hoping that Craig would at least get to finish his tenure in the role before it happened. Oh well, another great Bond tenure cut short. Thanks MGM.

I agree that they can't just pack their bags and go to another studio but I just don't agree with you pestimistic view on the situation. First there are two different types of bankruptcy, reorganization and liquidation, I believe that reorginization allows a company to be relieved of any debts to creditors until they can recover but they should be able to keep most of their assets especially ones that are important to the company to make money. Liquidation is when a company would have to liquidate its assets to the creditors. The article sounds like liquidation but the problem is we don't know which one it is for sure. I don't know which situation MGM would be in but if they went into reorginazion it would not be that bad of thing but liquidation would be bad. The thing is I don't understand how lack of rumors equates to a delayed or haulted pre-preduction since maybe its due to EON just getting the script in good enough shape before they hire a director or set a release date. Plus, according to the article MGM is trying to get a deal done with its creditors and what if a deal is made wouldn't that fix this problem in the short term or until they can get Bond 23 and The Hobbit into produciton. The other thing is that I don't think the reason Quantum of Solace had such a big budget was because its a globetrotting film since CR was a globbtroting film and it wasn't that expensive but fell into the average for action blockbusters like Star Trek so they really don't need another QoS budget but a budget on par with CR. Until there is offical confirmation that MGM will go into the Ch. 7 Bankruptcy or word that Bond 23 will be delayed. I just don't like people already saying Craigs era is going to be shortened when they don't know whats going to happen and don't know the specifics of the situation. All this pessimism is based on the chance that MGM MAY go into bankruptcy and its not a given untill they actually do this. Additionally, if MGM does keep the rights to the Bond series as long as they can, whats the use if they can't get a Bond film released or even in production or release any more of the films on Blu-ray so it would make sense to me that you would rather make a deal with another studio to help fund Bond 23 and get some of the profits rather than not being able to get any profits at all if this was the situation they were in.

[Loomis]

Regarding the overflowing budget of QOS, I think this is just what you get with globetrotter films. ... At the moment I can't think of another production in the past 10 years to use its different worldwide locations to the same extent a Bond film does.

How about THE BOURNE SUPREMACY and THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM? How come QUANTUM OF SOLACE costs almost twice as much as the last Bourne flick? (And almost three times as much as the second Bourne?)

Simply doing a bit of shooting in Italy and South America cannot possibly account for QUANTUM's status as the ninth most expensive film ever. And I'm baffled as to what did account for it. Is Craig on about $25 million a Bond movie these days? Did Forster trouser $10 million for his directing fee? I think the answers to those questions are no and no, but even if they were yes and yes I'd still have trouble pinning down the reason for the movie's $200 million price tag.

I just don't like people already saying Craigs era is going to be shortened when they don't know whats going to happen and don't know the specifics of the situation.

Quite. It's just typical CBn Bond fan overreaction.

[Royal Dalton]

I think Bond 23 should be okay, unless MGM gets bought out by another crook like Parretti. Then it could be in serious trouble.

[Syndicate]

As I have said before, I hope that James Bond stay with MGM/UA. It belong to theme, there was a reason that it started out that way. It just would not look right at all if became Liongate's, Disney's(and their own subcompanies), Sony Pictures, Fox and Warner Bros. to name some. That is like saying if Disney had major problems and some stuff went here and some went there. It just would not work or right at all. There is a reason for every thing like why James Bond is MGM/UA's and produce by Eon, and why Disney is Disney with Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goffy, pluto, Disneyland, Disney World, Snow White, Aladdin, Touchstone Picture and other stuff that is theirs. I think God knew this long before the first day it happen, like say 65 years before it, that that is how it should be. So what is happening now or could happen is not what God wanted.
It be ok that other studios like Warner Bros helping MGM/UA release some of their valt of movies on DVD, like Signing In The Rain, Gone With The Wind, An American In Paris, The Three Musketeers, Viva Las Vegas and Jail House Rock. As long as they don't own it now. Which could mean the MGM/UA name and logo, could disappear forever from the credits and at the start of the movie.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Perhaps a little bit of historical information might help here. Back in 1975 Harry Saltzman got way over his head in debt and tried to sell his half of Eon Productions, without Cubby knowing. Cubby got United Artist, his stepson Michael and the best lawyers to defend his share. United Artist bought out Saltzman and was the proud owner of 51% of the James Bond films and Danjac/Eon.

Cubby's interest was safe but he had handcuffed his company's interest to United Artist. This was not a bad thing at first since Cubby enjoyed a healthy business relationship with UA and Arthur Krim.

However, director Michael Cimino makes the (at that time) astronomical $40 million dollar waste of celluloid HEAVEN'S GATE and bankrupts United Artist. Looking for a quick buyer, UA merges with MGM and creates MGM/UA in 1982. The proverbial handcuffs just got tighter around Cubby's wrist. Why, because MGM is now the majority co-owner of the Bonds and Danjac/Eon.

They now control the money which is why the Bond films continued to have the same $30 million budget from 1979 until 1989. Of course $30 million could not afford a space station budget in 1989 dollars and that is why LTK looks cheaper in comparison.

Now MGM is not stupid when it comes to their crown jewel. They will not let go of Bond this easily. In fact, they are hoping to acquire the money they need to finance the next slew of films including Bond 23. But this is where it gets difficult for Eon and the fans.

Eon cannot make a move until their 51% controlling partner says so. Whether that be for monetary reasons or lawsuits, Eon cannot make a move until MGM says they can. Eon can make other films but the Bonds will most likely be on hold until MGM is completely liquidated and Eon has their new partner. This could be anything from SONY to anyone such as Donald Trump and the legalities of this situation could take years to work out.

At the moment, MGM will sell everything before they sell Bond. Which means Barbara and Michael and the fans will endure a long hiatus. Personally I do not think we will see Bond 23 in 2011. Maybe 2012 which would be the 50th anniversary and a great time to bring OO7 back. But I have my doubts.

The sad part is the MGM library and other artifacts will most likely be auctioned off to separate bidders and the studio with the most brilliant film library will disappear. Other jewels such as music soundtracks hidden in their vaults could be lost forever when someone, who could care less, decides the reel to reel tapes are old and not worth keeping.

Bottomline, this is one royal mess and, unless Eon can work out an arrangement, we the fans will be waiting another 6 years + for Bond 23 with a new M, a new Moneypenny, a new Q, and , dare I say it, a new Bond.

My only regret over this situation was I wish MGM allowed SONY to keep Bond. I felt that SONY was willing to allow Eon Produtions carte blanche in their decision making and thus allowing more creative moves. Now I'm afraid MGM will make Bond 23 look cheap and poorly produced.

[Trident]

I agree that they can't just pack their bags and go to another studio but I just don't agree with you pestimistic view on the situation. First there are two different types of bankruptcy, reorganization and liquidation, I believe that reorginization allows a company to be relieved of any debts to creditors until they can recover but they should be able to keep most of their assets especially ones that are important to the company to make money. Liquidation is when a company would have to liquidate its assets to the creditors. The article sounds like liquidation but the problem is we don't know which one it is for sure. I don't know which situation MGM would be in but if they went into reorginazion it would not be that bad of thing but liquidation would be bad.

Erm, no, that wasn't what I meant with what I wrote previously. Thing is, EON may be one of the players not interested in MGM's continued wellbeing. No matter what kind of disaster MGM is heading for now, it urgently needs money. Which may be leading eventually to another forced and rushed production; something EON definitely doesn't want. Likewise EON will be interested in a relationship with a stable and finacially potent partner; something MGM will most likely not become again anytime soon, if at all. You see, for us fans it's all about Bond 23. For EON it's about Bond, period; they can easily afford to sit back and wait till the dust settles.

Regarding the overflowing budget of QOS, I think this is just what you get with globetrotter films. ... At the moment I can't think of another production in the past 10 years to use its different worldwide locations to the same extent a Bond film does.

How about THE BOURNE SUPREMACY and THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM? How come QUANTUM OF SOLACE costs almost twice as much as the last Bourne flick? (And almost three times as much as the second Bourne?)

Simply doing a bit of shooting in Italy and South America cannot possibly account for QUANTUM's status as the ninth most expensive film ever. And I'm baffled as to what did account for it. Is Craig on about $25 million a Bond movie these days? Did Forster trouser $10 million for his directing fee? I think the answers to those questions are no and no, but even if they were yes and yes I'd still have trouble pinning down the reason for the movie's $200 million price tag.

Well, because it's wasn't just a bit of shooting with QOS, but in fact most of the film. I've seen EON's invasion of Karlovy Vary for CR and I would estimate the involved personnel at about 250 people. I feel sure that would be about the average number of people for most given location shooting, and while a considerable part of them will be hired on location the hard core of the production staffers would have to be busy with flying around the world nonetheless. And, while I'm not sure I think the Bournes didn't have the same amount of different locations QOS had.

[danslittlefinger]

I wonder what this holds for the future of Bond 23.
I have a VERY bad feeling that we won't see Craig as Bond again.

I do too. Always have done. 3 films tops.

If you were playing Bond & EON had money problems would you've accepted a pay cut so that EON would make ends meet easier ?

I think I would've.....within reason of course....lol

That might help and yes I would.

[jaguar007]

I would not be surprised if SONY have already had talks with MGM regarding Bond 23.

[Mr. Somerset]

I would not be surprised if SONY have already had talks with MGM regarding Bond 23.

Thank you. That is the optimism I like to hear!

I don't doubt it a bit. I must say, though I would be saddened if MGM went the way of, say RKO, and some of the other legendary studios that are no longer with us. I have a fondedness for the old 30s and 40s classics from MGM and always enjoy hearing the lion roar.

[Trident]

Perhaps a little bit of historical information might help here. Back in 1975 Harry Saltzman got way over his head in debt and tried to sell his half of Eon Productions, without Cubby knowing. Cubby got United Artist, his stepson Michael and the best lawyers to defend his share. United Artist bought out Saltzman and was the proud owner of 51% of the James Bond films and Danjac/Eon.

Cubby's interest was safe but he had handcuffed his company's interest to United Artist. This was not a bad thing at first since Cubby enjoyed a healthy business relationship with UA and Arthur Krim.

However, director Michael Cimino makes the (at that time) astronomical $40 million dollar waste of celluloid HEAVEN'S GATE and bankrupts United Artist. Looking for a quick buyer, UA merges with MGM and creates MGM/UA in 1982. The proverbial handcuffs just got tighter around Cubby's wrist. Why, because MGM is now the majority co-owner of the Bonds and Danjac/Eon.

They now control the money which is why the Bond films continued to have the same $30 million budget from 1979 until 1989. Of course $30 million could not afford a space station budget in 1989 dollars and that is why LTK looks cheaper in comparison.

Now MGM is not stupid when it comes to their crown jewel. They will not let go of Bond this easily. In fact, they are hoping to acquire the money they need to finance the next slew of films including Bond 23. But this is where it gets difficult for Eon and the fans.

Eon cannot make a move until their 51% controlling partner says so. Whether that be for monetary reasons or lawsuits, Eon cannot make a move until MGM says they can. Eon can make other films but the Bonds will most likely be on hold until MGM is completely liquidated and Eon has their new partner. This could be anything from SONY to anyone such as Donald Trump and the legalities of this situation could take years to work out.

At the moment, MGM will sell everything before they sell Bond. Which means Barbara and Michael and the fans will endure a long hiatus. Personally I do not think we will see Bond 23 in 2011. Maybe 2012 which would be the 50th anniversary and a great time to bring OO7 back. But I have my doubts.

The sad part is the MGM library and other artifacts will most likely be auctioned off to separate bidders and the studio with the most brilliant film library will disappear. Other jewels such as music soundtracks hidden in their vaults could be lost forever when someone, who could care less, decides the reel to reel tapes are old and not worth keeping.

Bottomline, this is one royal mess and, unless Eon can work out an arrangement, we the fans will be waiting another 6 years + for Bond 23 with a new M, a new Moneypenny, a new Q, and , dare I say it, a new Bond.

My only regret over this situation was I wish MGM allowed SONY to keep Bond. I felt that SONY was willing to allow Eon Produtions carte blanche in their decision making and thus allowing more creative moves. Now I'm afraid MGM will make Bond 23 look cheap and poorly produced.

Many thanks for a most informative and interesting post. I didn't know the better part of this detail, had only a rough idea of this background. Thanx for filling us in!

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

My only regret over this situation was I wish MGM allowed SONY to keep Bond. I felt that SONY was willing to allow Eon Produtions carte blanche in their decision making and thus allowing more creative moves. Now I'm afraid MGM will make Bond 23 look cheap and poorly produced.

Yes, they are my worries too. However, the Bond producers talent is twofold; making the films themselves and protecting the legacy. I'm sure (or at the very least I hope), that the latter of the two is in full force at the moment.

[Germanlady]

All of this sounds awfull but on the other hand, I am absolutely sure, they are aware that having a too long gab might hurt their pockets real bad, as the Bond franchise is hot NOW. So, where money is involved, people normally are able to work together to get their fair share. This might be the reason, they´ll work it out in good time for 2011.

I couldn´t care less, if I never see the lion again but have a decent Bond in good time.

Edited by Germanlady, 26 September 2009 - 07:21 PM.

[double o ego]

I couldn´t care less, if I never see the lion again but have a decent Bond in good time.

I couldn't agree more. Tbh, I think Bond 23 as well as the continuation of Craig's era isn't as bleek as people think it is. I think Wilson may have anticipated this and got started on Bond 23 earlier than initially planned. That being said, I think MGM will either fast track Bond 23 or another studio may put down an offer that'll knab Bond. Either way, if it means a cheaper and leaner budget compared to QoS, I'm all for it. When there's too much money put towards a film, things usually turn out bad and become overblown. A leaner budget will make for a much more creative and exciting film.

[Loomis]

I agree that they can't just pack their bags and go to another studio but I just don't agree with you pestimistic view on the situation. First there are two different types of bankruptcy, reorganization and liquidation, I believe that reorginization allows a company to be relieved of any debts to creditors until they can recover but they should be able to keep most of their assets especially ones that are important to the company to make money. Liquidation is when a company would have to liquidate its assets to the creditors. The article sounds like liquidation but the problem is we don't know which one it is for sure. I don't know which situation MGM would be in but if they went into reorginazion it would not be that bad of thing but liquidation would be bad.

Erm, no, that wasn't what I meant with what I wrote previously. Thing is, EON may be one of the players not interested in MGM's continued wellbeing. No matter what kind of disaster MGM is heading for now, it urgently needs money. Which may be leading eventually to another forced and rushed production; something EON definitely doesn't want. Likewise EON will be interested in a relationship with a stable and finacially potent partner; something MGM will most likely not become again anytime soon, if at all. You see, for us fans it's all about Bond 23. For EON it's about Bond, period; they can easily afford to sit back and wait till the dust settles.

Regarding the overflowing budget of QOS, I think this is just what you get with globetrotter films. ... At the moment I can't think of another production in the past 10 years to use its different worldwide locations to the same extent a Bond film does.

How about THE BOURNE SUPREMACY and THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM? How come QUANTUM OF SOLACE costs almost twice as much as the last Bourne flick? (And almost three times as much as the second Bourne?)

Simply doing a bit of shooting in Italy and South America cannot possibly account for QUANTUM's status as the ninth most expensive film ever. And I'm baffled as to what did account for it. Is Craig on about $25 million a Bond movie these days? Did Forster trouser $10 million for his directing fee? I think the answers to those questions are no and no, but even if they were yes and yes I'd still have trouble pinning down the reason for the movie's $200 million price tag.

Well, because it's wasn't just a bit of shooting with QOS, but in fact most of the film. I've seen EON's invasion of Karlovy Vary for CR and I would estimate the involved personnel at about 250 people. I feel sure that would be about the average number of people for most given location shooting, and while a considerable part of them will be hired on location the hard core of the production staffers would have to be busy with flying around the world nonetheless. And, while I'm not sure I think the Bournes didn't have the same amount of different locations QOS had.

Not the first one, perhaps, but certainly its sequels. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM and QUANTUM OF SOLACE were both shot in six countries. I'd suggest that the Tangier chase is a longer and more elaborate action scene than any action scene in QUANTUM, and I'd imagine that Matt Damon is a significantly more expensive actor to employ than Daniel Craig. On the face of it, I can't see QUANTUM being a much greater challenge than ULTIMATUM in terms of logistics, hiring, special effects and so on. In fact, I'd expect the two films to cost about the same. Yet QUANTUM supposedly cost twice as much as ULTIMATUM. Which seems very odd to me, although I don't pretend to understand film financing.

[Germanlady]

I couldn´t care less, if I never see the lion again but have a decent Bond in good time.

I couldn't agree more. Tbh, I think Bond 23 as well as the continuation of Craig's era isn't as bleek as people think it is. I think Wilson may have anticipated this and got started on Bond 23 earlier than initially planned. That being said, I think MGM will either fast track Bond 23 or another studio may put down an offer that'll knab Bond. Either way, if it means a cheaper and leaner budget compared to QoS, I'm all for it. When there's too much money put towards a film, things usually turn out bad and become overblown. A leaner budget will make for a much more creative and exciting film.

They could make a film that depends on the plot and dialogue and with DC in the lead, they have somebody, who can pull it off quite easily.

[dinovelvet]

I agree that they can't just pack their bags and go to another studio but I just don't agree with you pestimistic view on the situation. First there are two different types of bankruptcy, reorganization and liquidation, I believe that reorginization allows a company to be relieved of any debts to creditors until they can recover but they should be able to keep most of their assets especially ones that are important to the company to make money. Liquidation is when a company would have to liquidate its assets to the creditors. The article sounds like liquidation but the problem is we don't know which one it is for sure. I don't know which situation MGM would be in but if they went into reorginazion it would not be that bad of thing but liquidation would be bad.

Erm, no, that wasn't what I meant with what I wrote previously. Thing is, EON may be one of the players not interested in MGM's continued wellbeing. No matter what kind of disaster MGM is heading for now, it urgently needs money. Which may be leading eventually to another forced and rushed production; something EON definitely doesn't want. Likewise EON will be interested in a relationship with a stable and finacially potent partner; something MGM will most likely not become again anytime soon, if at all. You see, for us fans it's all about Bond 23. For EON it's about Bond, period; they can easily afford to sit back and wait till the dust settles.

Regarding the overflowing budget of QOS, I think this is just what you get with globetrotter films. ... At the moment I can't think of another production in the past 10 years to use its different worldwide locations to the same extent a Bond film does.

How about THE BOURNE SUPREMACY and THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM? How come QUANTUM OF SOLACE costs almost twice as much as the last Bourne flick? (And almost three times as much as the second Bourne?)

Simply doing a bit of shooting in Italy and South America cannot possibly account for QUANTUM's status as the ninth most expensive film ever. And I'm baffled as to what did account for it. Is Craig on about $25 million a Bond movie these days? Did Forster trouser $10 million for his directing fee? I think the answers to those questions are no and no, but even if they were yes and yes I'd still have trouble pinning down the reason for the movie's $200 million price tag.

Well, because it's wasn't just a bit of shooting with QOS, but in fact most of the film. I've seen EON's invasion of Karlovy Vary for CR and I would estimate the involved personnel at about 250 people. I feel sure that would be about the average number of people for most given location shooting, and while a considerable part of them will be hired on location the hard core of the production staffers would have to be busy with flying around the world nonetheless. And, while I'm not sure I think the Bournes didn't have the same amount of different locations QOS had.

Not the first one, perhaps, but certainly its sequels. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM and QUANTUM OF SOLACE were both shot in six countries. I'd suggest that the Tangier chase is a longer and more elaborate action scene than any action scene in QUANTUM, and I'd imagine that Matt Damon is a significantly more expensive actor to employ than Daniel Craig. On the face of it, I can't see QUANTUM being a much greater challenge than ULTIMATUM in terms of logistics, hiring, special effects and so on. In fact, I'd expect the two films to cost about the same. Yet QUANTUM supposedly cost twice as much as ULTIMATUM. Which seems very odd to me, although I don't pretend to understand film financing.

The difference between CR's $150 mil and QOS' $200+ mil can be found in the use of 'developing'/third world locations like Panama and Chile. They could have skimped and filmed round the back of Pinewood with some palm trees, but they splurged and went out there.

Bear in mind also that companies were putting up big bucks to have their products featured in QOS, e.g. Coke, Heineken, Smirnoff, Omega, Virgin, Ford, etc etc, which offsets a large chunk of the production budget. I realize this doesn't exactly answer the question of WHY it was so expensive, but it does perhaps explain how they were able to spend so much on it.

[Loomis]

The difference between CR's $150 mil and QOS' $200+ mil can be found in the use of 'developing'/third world locations like Panama and Chile. They could have skimped and filmed round the back of Pinewood with some palm trees, but they splurged and went out there.

Sorry if I'm being naive, but if we're talking "developing" countries, wouldn't they be cheaper? Surely labour costs in Chile are lower than in, say, Berlin (or at Pinewood). Besides, BOURNE 3 shot in Morocco.

Bear in mind also that companies were putting up big bucks to have their products featured in QOS, e.g. Coke, Heineken, Smirnoff, Omega, Virgin, Ford, etc etc, which offsets a large chunk of the production budget. I realize this doesn't exactly answer the question of WHY it was so expensive

Indeed.

[jaguar007]

As I have said before, I hope that James Bond stay with MGM/UA. It belong to theme, there was a reason that it started out that way.

Remember, UA is the original distributor of the Bond films, MGM did not buy UA until 1981, so we never had the MGM logo on the first 20 years of Bond films. I can't remember off the top of my head which was the last Bond movie to feature the UA logo (might have been TND), but they no longer do. UA is no longer involved in the distribution of the BOnd films.