477 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

What if TPTB went back to making one Bond film a year until MGM were out of the red and out of debt?

It might not be the best of plans, but it could work.

That could be one way of going about it, but I doubt that MGM would have enough money to get this going forward. If Sony were to come in and provide major financial assistance to MGM to help get Bond going, then possibly, but if they were to make a Bond film every year until MGM was out of debt, we would have a more Bond films than we would know what to do with.

I also don't think that this is realistic, however, as Broccoli and (especially) Wilson have already shown that they need some time in between films. Both would almost assuredly burn out if they had to produce a film every year until MGM got out of debt.

[mcdonbb]

yeah yeah not drama queening here but here are my two biggest fears.....

first forget the logo but what if we loose the Bond theme and the gunbarrel logo???

second and even more so what if Bond does go the way of Buckaroo Banzi!!!!

I do not want to see Bond go down with the ship!!!!

Is there any lawyer in the group that can shed some light??? gratis of course

(Great Im desperate Im calling for lawyers...hey Wilson is a lawyer!! Okay I can hold on to that yeah yeah...where's my meds?)

[Tybre]

1. Bond won't go the way of Buckaroo Banzai. Banzai was nowhere near as hot as a commodity as Bond.
2. The title sequence isn't exactly a trademark of MGM. We may lose it as it is presented now, but I think pretty much every studio recognizes it as a staple of Bond films, and something they would leave intact.
3. The gunbarrel existed well and before MGM came into the picture, and it will exist well and after MGM leaves the picture.

[jaguar007]

What he said. Danjaq/EON own the gunbarrel logo, theme music, etc. Yes, MGM (through their purchase of UA) are partial owners of Bond, but if they sold Bond to another studio (or if another studio purchased MGM) those would transfer to the new owners just as they transfered to MGM in 1981 when they purchased UA.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I think what most of the "doom and gloomers" are worried about is paralysis through bankruptcy. They're worried that MGM will cling to the Bond series till their final breath even though they won't have the money available to fund Bond 23 due to their massive debt, and, as a result, nothing will happen for the length of the bankruptcy proceedings, which could take an indefinite amount of time.

While it does make the most sense for MGM to get Bond 23 greenlit ASAP, if they don't get the cash flow from their creditors then they can't do it no matter how much they (or EON) want to. In the long term, Sony is the best option for the new home for 007, but who knows when or if they will ever get the rights?

This is my personal view of Daniel Craig's prospects for starring in Bond 23 should there be a long hiatus between films regardless of whether MGM retains the rights to 007:

We all know that the James Bond series can take a three-year break between films and continue with the same 007 actor (see TMWTGG-TSWLM and TWINE-DAD), so a three-year wait is nothing for Craig-lovers to worry about. I also think a four-year break can have a returning 007 actor--provided he's a popular James Bond such as Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan, and Craig. But I think that a five-year break between films necessitates a new James Bond 007 actor regardless of popularity as it's too far separated from the previous entry while also providing the series a fresh start and a good opportunity to introduce 007 to a new generation.

[Trident]

Well, I fail to see the drama here (to say nothing of the aristocracy queening it ).

What I see is facts, and it would seem others do too:

MGM needs money more than fame

From the article:

It is unclear whether the studio will have the financial means to co-finance two "Hobbit" movies with Warner Bros.' New Line Cinema that are planned to begin production next year unless it can get the interest payment relief it is asking for and its hands on a lot of dough. Also hanging in the balance is the fate of the 23rd installment of MGM's popular 007 Bond movie series.


A few other headlines:


MGM's Bankruptcy Could Mean Bad News For James Bond, The Hobbit

MGM Said to Seek $3.7 Billion Debt Restructuring, Forbearance

The Fate of 'The Hobbit' Hanging on a Balance




MGM's finacial debacle is a fact, also MGM's crucial role as part owner of the Bond franchise. I think it's neither pessimistic nor melodramatic to expect a heavy impact on (at least) Bond 23.

This is not simply a case of one's plastic being revoked because one bought a Hummer when all one could reasonably afford was a bicycle. This is a former major player in Hollywood caughing up blood, alone in the middle of the night, down in some creepy cellar. Does anybody here honestly think the competitors didn't taste the blood in the waters around MGM? That they will just smile and wish MGM a get-well-soon? Make no mistake, there will a lot of pressure on this case and apart from MGM and a group of shareholders and creditors nobody is really particularly interested in MGM coming out of the troubled waters. Perhaps even least of all EON themselves.

The Bond franchise will not suffer any damage from one or two years delay, neither will EON have to face starvation. They can lay back and confidently watch the outcome of almost any development. Why should they agree to a rushed production and a potentially mediocre film just to come to the aid of the party? Why ever? Bond will return. It's just a question of when.

[Zorin Industries]

It just would not feel or look right at all. I never got use to seeing the Sony Picture log as part of the movie.

Apologies, but that is a weak reason for not wanting Sony back in the loop. That says more about fans preciousness (not wanting to rock the boat) being apparently more important than the future of the series.

I guess 1990 and 2009 have more in common than I expected!!

How?! (don't answer)...

What if TPTB went back to making one Bond film a year until MGM were out of the red and out of debt?

It might not be the best of plans, but it could work.

It is not Eon Productions responsibility to help bail out MGM. And this film a year idea is ridiculous. Have you tried making a Bond film every year? It would be physically impossible - certainly on the scale of Bond productions now.

And you have failed to address the time factor of even promoting the film in every territory necessary? There simply wouldn't be enough time.

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.

??!!

[Trident]

Zorin, what do you make of this development?

[Zorin Industries]

Now I'm afraid MGM will make Bond 23 look cheap and poorly produced.

Possibly... but Eon Productions won't.

[Zorin Industries]

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.

Eon Productions do not "skimp". Obviously your definition of "splurged" is different to theirs - and the audience members for Bond it seems. Bond does it - where possible - for real.

And I think folk should be careful when slapping on labels like "Third World countries" to regions of the world they only have any awareness of through, dare I say, Making-Of-Bond featurettes. In the instance of SOLACE, Eon demonstrated its wider ethos of not just wanting to push out a film and wanting to shoot it anywhere for the cheapest price. Coming into a region, securing the goodwill and support of the locals as well as leaving - where necessary - a legacy (such as improved infrastructures, schools and medical services) is very important to Eon Productions. Shooting on the backlot at Pinewood is sort of missing the point and certainly undermining why people at Eon HQ make Bond films. It certainly isn't solely to make money. And never has been.

This is not simply a case of one's plastic being revoked because one bought a Hummer when all one could reasonably afford was a bicycle. This is a former major player in Hollywood caughing up blood, alone in the middle of the night, down in some creepy cellar.

To be fair, that has been MGM and a great many studio's reality since the dawn of Hollywood.

[Loomis]

And I think folk should be careful when slapping on labels like "Third World countries" to regions of the world they only have any awareness of through, dare I say, Making-Of-Bond featurettes.

No you dare not say. You've no idea where other CBners have and haven't travelled. I admit, though, that I haven't been to Chile, but if I were to go I'm sure I'd spend a lot of time saying things like: "Ain't none of you pointy heads ever seen an airplane before?"

Coming into a region, securing the goodwill and support of the locals as well as leaving - where necessary - a legacy (such as improved infrastructures, schools and medical services) is very important to Eon Productions.

Wait. Are you seriously saying that Eon goes off round the world to make films and leaves new schools, clinics and improved roads in its wake? I'm not disputing this, but I'd like to know more. With any examples you may have to hand.

[blueman]

Blueman has it.

The bottom line is, sitting on Bond without doing something with it, is the worst idea. "Reports of Bond's death have been greatly exaggerated."

But there's nothing that can be done with Bond if there's no money, which is currently the case with MGM. The best thing for MGM would be to get Bond 23 into production and not sit on the franchise, but that's not a realistic option for them because they don't have anywhere near enough money to move forward with the franchise. They also can't sell the franchise because doing so would mean the absolute end of MGM's existence.

Sony puts up the budget and splits MGM's share of the profits: 23 will make $500 mil, half of MGM's $250 mil (assuming MGM's 51% ownership equates to that or thereabouts) is a cool $125 mil profit on their investment, MGM takes home the same for sitting on their fat contemplating their imminent demise. Or am I missing something...

I guess the DVD sales, split that too why not. Money will be made, just gotta get the attorneys to get it figured out on paper.

[Zorin Industries]

And I think folk should be careful when slapping on labels like "Third World countries" to regions of the world they only have any awareness of through, dare I say, Making-Of-Bond featurettes.

No you dare not say. You've no idea where other CBners have and haven't travelled. I admit, though, that I haven't been to Chile, but if I were to go I'm sure I'd spend a lot of time saying things like: "Ain't none of you pointy heads ever seen an airplane before?"

Coming into a region, securing the goodwill and support of the locals as well as leaving - where necessary - a legacy (such as improved infrastructures, schools and medical services) is very important to Eon Productions.

Wait. Are you seriously saying that Eon goes off round the world to make films and leaves new schools, clinics and improved roads in its wake? I'm not disputing this, but I'd like to know more. With any examples you may have to hand.

It is not their "agenda" as such, but it is their practice - when the need arises and the opportunities to help are apt, practical and - I imagine - not patronising. Eon Productions / Danjaq have always lent beneficial support to a whole multitude of causes - sometimes ones they encounter and understand by travelling the globe in the context of Bond, and other times via the many people who cross their paths.

I will say from personal insight that benevolence (for want of a better word) has been part of the Broccoli mantra as much as anything else. Sharing the wealth of Bond - where feasible and possible - was something Cubby did from day one. One example that is outlined on some documentary somewhere mentions a time when Bond was shooting in a gambling city. Cubby didn't want the crew to receive all their pay at the end of the week as he suspected some crew members might fail on the gaming tables leaving very angry wives back home. I think the story goes that Cubby (a staunch gambler himself, in a good way) paid the crew some of their wages, but not all. The crews and he hit the tables and - when no-one was looking - Cubby went round all the crew and gave them some of his own cash to have a flutter or two and unwind after the busy week filming (and without leaving penniless family back in Blighty).

That is just one example. I know of others, but this is not the context for me to discuss here.

[Orion]

I just took time to read the article in full and it seems to me there is nothing to say Bond 23 won't get made, on the contary the point is MGM's debtors want them to go into banruptsy to get their money out, in which case MGM would have to sell their assets, so Bond 23 would get made, just under a different company. MGM are trying to use their assets to make films and get their money out that way. Either way Bond 23 is going to get made. Just who the money comes from is in doubt.

Edited by Orion, 28 September 2009 - 10:16 AM.

[Trident]

I just took time to read the article in full and it seems to me there is nothing to say Bond 23 won't get made, on the contary the point is MGM's debtors want them to go into banruptsy to get their money out, in which case MGM would have to sell their assets, so Bond 23 would get made, just under a different company. MGM are trying to use their assets to make films and get their money out that way. Either way Bond 23 is going to get made. Just who the money comes from is in doubt.

Did I state anything different???

[Orion]

I just took time to read the article in full and it seems to me there is nothing to say Bond 23 won't get made, on the contary the point is MGM's debtors want them to go into banruptsy to get their money out, in which case MGM would have to sell their assets, so Bond 23 would get made, just under a different company. MGM are trying to use their assets to make films and get their money out that way. Either way Bond 23 is going to get made. Just who the money comes from is in doubt.

Did I state anything different???

Nope, not that i can see reading back. There are just one or two people who havnt read the article properly and are panicking into thinking it means we wont get another Daniel Craig Bond film, so i was trying to concisely point out if anything it means we're definitly going to get one because, as the aritcle points out, Bond is a very valuble asset.

[Loomis]

And I think folk should be careful when slapping on labels like "Third World countries" to regions of the world they only have any awareness of through, dare I say, Making-Of-Bond featurettes.

No you dare not say. You've no idea where other CBners have and haven't travelled. I admit, though, that I haven't been to Chile, but if I were to go I'm sure I'd spend a lot of time saying things like: "Ain't none of you pointy heads ever seen an airplane before?"

Coming into a region, securing the goodwill and support of the locals as well as leaving - where necessary - a legacy (such as improved infrastructures, schools and medical services) is very important to Eon Productions.

Wait. Are you seriously saying that Eon goes off round the world to make films and leaves new schools, clinics and improved roads in its wake? I'm not disputing this, but I'd like to know more. With any examples you may have to hand.

It is not their "agenda" as such, but it is their practice - when the need arises and the opportunities to help are apt, practical and - I imagine - not patronising. Eon Productions / Danjaq have always lent beneficial support to a whole multitude of causes - sometimes ones they encounter and understand by travelling the globe in the context of Bond, and other times via the many people who cross their paths.

I will say from personal insight that benevolence (for want of a better word) has been part of the Broccoli mantra as much as anything else. Sharing the wealth of Bond - where feasible and possible - was something Cubby did from day one. One example that is outlined on some documentary somewhere mentions a time when Bond was shooting in a gambling city. Cubby didn't want the crew to receive all their pay at the end of the week as he suspected some crew members might fail on the gaming tables leaving very angry wives back home. I think the story goes that Cubby (a staunch gambler himself, in a good way) paid the crew some of their wages, but not all. The crews and he hit the tables and - when no-one was looking - Cubby went round all the crew and gave them some of his own cash to have a flutter or two and unwind after the busy week filming (and without leaving penniless family back in Blighty).

That is just one example. I know of others, but this is not the context for me to discuss here.

Interesting. Thanks.

[Gobi-1]

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.)

George Lucas know hows to keep a film under budget. Compared to the majority of bloated over budget films the Star Wars prequels were bargains. They each cost around 115 million each to make. Plus the fact he financed the trilogy himself made him be as tight with the budget as possible.

The Lord of the Ring films were also relatively cheap each film produced between 94 and 96 million dollars.

Even though Lucas and Peter Jackson were quite economical with their trilogies their next films cost significantly more. Indy 4 was budgeted at 125 but went 60 million over costing 185 to make. Jackson's next film King Kong cost a massive 207 million or the price of two LotR films.

I'm rather disturbed by how quickly budgets for sequels/follow are going up. I'm hoping the budget for Bond 23 is significantly lower. There's no reason why these films should cost so much.

[Joe Bond]

I'm rather disturbed by how quickly budgets for sequels/follow are going up. I'm hoping the budget for Bond 23 is significantly lower. There's no reason why these films should cost so much.

Exactly and they could be more creative with a lower budget plus Quantum of Solace doesn't look like a $200 million film while Dr. No doesn't look like a 1 million dollar film since they were more creative with the budget and made it look more expensive than it really was.

[Zorin Industries]

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.)

George Lucas know hows to keep a film under budget.

Yes - that is always possible when it is your own money. How can you go over budget when you hold the funds? (!).Compared to the majority of bloated over budget films the Star Wars prequels were bargains. They each cost around 115 million each to make. Plus the fact he financed the trilogy himself made him be as tight with the budget as possible.

The Lord of the Ring films were also relatively cheap each film produced between 94 and 96 million dollars.

Even though Lucas and Peter Jackson were quite economical with their trilogies their next films cost significantly more. Indy 4 was budgeted at 125 but went 60 million over costing 185 to make. Jackson's next film King Kong cost a massive 207 million or the price of two LotR films.

I'm rather disturbed by how quickly budgets for sequels/follow are going up. I'm hoping the budget for Bond 23 is significantly lower. There's no reason why these films should cost so much.

I get rather disturbed with the online economics of people who look at random figures the magazines say without the added insight of where a budget goes and what exactly is at stake for each and every film.

I'm rather disturbed by how quickly budgets for sequels/follow are going up. I'm hoping the budget for Bond 23 is significantly lower. There's no reason why these films should cost so much.

Exactly and they could be more creative with a lower budget plus Quantum of Solace doesn't look like a $200 million film while Dr. No doesn't look like a 1 million dollar film since they were more creative with the budget and made it look more expensive than it really was.

??!!

That's because 1 million in 1961 was not 1 million in today's money. And to be fair - DR NO is of its time and its budget. Audiences are different. Filmmaking is different. Film consumption is different. It's impossible to compare SOLACE and DR NO in that framework of reference.

[Joe Bond]

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.)

George Lucas know hows to keep a film under budget.

Yes - that is always possible when it is your own money. How can you go over budget when you hold the funds? (!).Compared to the majority of bloated over budget films the Star Wars prequels were bargains. They each cost around 115 million each to make. Plus the fact he financed the trilogy himself made him be as tight with the budget as possible.

The Lord of the Ring films were also relatively cheap each film produced between 94 and 96 million dollars.

Even though Lucas and Peter Jackson were quite economical with their trilogies their next films cost significantly more. Indy 4 was budgeted at 125 but went 60 million over costing 185 to make. Jackson's next film King Kong cost a massive 207 million or the price of two LotR films.

I'm rather disturbed by how quickly budgets for sequels/follow are going up. I'm hoping the budget for Bond 23 is significantly lower. There's no reason why these films should cost so much.

I get rather disturbed with the online economics of people who look at random figures the magazines say without the added insight of where a budget goes and what exactly is at stake for each and every film.

I'm rather disturbed by how quickly budgets for sequels/follow are going up. I'm hoping the budget for Bond 23 is significantly lower. There's no reason why these films should cost so much.

Exactly and they could be more creative with a lower budget plus Quantum of Solace doesn't look like a $200 million film while Dr. No doesn't look like a 1 million dollar film since they were more creative with the budget and made it look more expensive than it really was.

??!!

That's because 1 million in 1961 was not 1 million in today's money. And to be fair - DR NO is of its time and its budget. Audiences are different. Filmmaking is different. Film consumption is different. It's impossible to compare SOLACE and DR NO in that framework of reference.

It is unfair to compare them but I did not mean to compare them my point was that Dr. No did not look like a million dollar film compared to other films during that era, I am pretty sure I heard a crew member on the making of documentary say as much. For example, the movie The Great Escape which came out a year later looks about the same from a budget perspective than Dr. No yet The Great Escape has a budget of $4 million. When talking about Quantum of Solace I was trying to say that I don't see its budget on the screen compared to other 200 million dollar films during this age. I would go as far as to say that if you did not tell me the budget for CR and QoS before I saw them for the first time I probably would have said that CR was the more expensive film since CR has better special effects than QoS and both have a good variety of locations. I admit to not knowing Eon and the industry like you Zorin but I don't see how giving Bond 23 a lower budget like the amount CR got would be a bad thing.

[mcdonbb]

1. Bond won't go the way of Buckaroo Banzai. Banzai was nowhere near as hot as a commodity as Bond.
2. The title sequence isn't exactly a trademark of MGM. We may lose it as it is presented now, but I think pretty much every studio recognizes it as a staple of Bond films, and something they would leave intact.
3. The gunbarrel existed well and before MGM came into the picture, and it will exist well and after MGM leaves the picture.

Thanks Tybre...kinda had a moment. Makes sense now if I wouldnt had had a panic attack.

And oh yeah thanks Banzai not Banzi...

[mcdonbb]

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.)

George Lucas know hows to keep a film under budget.

Yes - that is always possible when it is your own money. How can you go over budget when you hold the funds? (!).Compared to the majority of bloated over budget films the Star Wars prequels were bargains. They each cost around 115 million each to make. Plus the fact he financed the trilogy himself made him be as tight with the budget as possible.

The Lord of the Ring films were also relatively cheap each film produced between 94 and 96 million dollars.

Even though Lucas and Peter Jackson were quite economical with their trilogies their next films cost significantly more. Indy 4 was budgeted at 125 but went 60 million over costing 185 to make. Jackson's next film King Kong cost a massive 207 million or the price of two LotR films.

I'm rather disturbed by how quickly budgets for sequels/follow are going up. I'm hoping the budget for Bond 23 is significantly lower. There's no reason why these films should cost so much.

I get rather disturbed with the online economics of people who look at random figures the magazines say without the added insight of where a budget goes and what exactly is at stake for each and every film.

I'm rather disturbed by how quickly budgets for sequels/follow are going up. I'm hoping the budget for Bond 23 is significantly lower. There's no reason why these films should cost so much.

Exactly and they could be more creative with a lower budget plus Quantum of Solace doesn't look like a $200 million film while Dr. No doesn't look like a 1 million dollar film since they were more creative with the budget and made it look more expensive than it really was.

??!!

That's because 1 million in 1961 was not 1 million in today's money. And to be fair - DR NO is of its time and its budget. Audiences are different. Filmmaking is different. Film consumption is different. It's impossible to compare SOLACE and DR NO in that framework of reference.

It is unfair to compare them but I did not mean to compare them my point was that Dr. No did not look like a million dollar film compared to other films during that era, I am pretty sure I heard a crew member on the making of documentary say as much. For example, the movie The Great Escape which came out a year later looks about the same from a budget perspective than Dr. No yet The Great Escape has a budget of $4 million. When talking about Quantum of Solace I was trying to say that I don't see its budget on the screen compared to other 200 million dollar films during this age. I would go as far as to say that if you did not tell me the budget for CR and QoS before I saw them for the first time I probably would have said that CR was the more expensive film since CR has better special effects than QoS and both have a good variety of locations. I admit to not knowing Eon and the industry like you Zorin but I don't see how giving Bond 23 a lower budget like the amount CR got would be a bad thing.

Not really the point of the topic but I saw more special effects in QoS. They could afford to do all the stuff they couldnt before like the freefall sequence that was scrapped from GoldenEye.

[Zorin Industries]

It is unfair to compare them but I did not mean to compare them my point was that Dr. No did not look like a million dollar film compared to other films during that era, I am pretty sure I heard a crew member on the making of documentary say as much. For example, the movie The Great Escape which came out a year later looks about the same from a budget perspective than Dr. No yet The Great Escape has a budget of $4 million. When talking about Quantum of Solace I was trying to say that I don't see its budget on the screen compared to other 200 million dollar films during this age. I would go as far as to say that if you did not tell me the budget for CR and QoS before I saw them for the first time I probably would have said that CR was the more expensive film since CR has better special effects than QoS and both have a good variety of locations. I admit to not knowing Eon and the industry like you Zorin but I don't see how giving Bond 23 a lower budget like the amount CR got would be a bad thing.

I would disagree about THE GREAT ESCAPE. The higher budget is visible in its cast, production values, cinematography, stunt work and marketing.

You have to remember that whatever the budget really was for QUANTUM OF SOLACE (and be careful believing what is reported as being the budget - it won't have come from any official sources, i.e. Eon / Sony) there are so many more factors to pay for nowadays. There are bigger crews, bigger studio staff, higher actors fees, higher supporting actors fees, script development costs, location scouting (DR NO was the first Bond - imagine the time and expense necessary to source new locations for the 23 007 entry - it all takes time and time costs), expensive post production...it all adds up.

I do agree that in principle any future Bond film can cost less than ROYALE or SOLACE. EYES ONLY cost less than MOONRAKER for example. It is not an admission of lesser quality. But when no-one knows how much was really spent on the films (well certainly no-one here), it is futile to compare what might be to what might have been cost wise.

One thing I will say - Eon Productions do not waste a penny unless they have to. And I don't mean to imply they are tight. They are resourceful. And that is why they have survived.

[Trident]

One thing I will say - Eon Productions do not waste a penny unless they have to. And I don't mean to imply they are tight. They are resourceful. And that is why they have survived.

This is what I would have guessed based on their long history of producing this series. We certainly hadn't seen 22 entries if EON's Bond hadn't been deemed a lucrative investment by the industry; effectively the only ones who will ever really know where their quid went and how many pennies it earned.

[Terry]

All very interesting and worrisome as well. There's a book titled "Critical Concepts In Media And Culture Studies", Edited by Thomas Schatz that features a chapter on the 007 series and it goes into some detail on the arrangement that Broccoli and Saltzman put together with United Artists. Problem is, for some reason, this book is quite rare and can be very expensive. I've seen it offered for over $1,000. To add a bit to the confusion, in the excellant Issue 4, Volume 1 of GOLDENEYE magazine (this is issue is devoted to the movie of the same name) John Cork tells us (on page 5) that, "In the 1980's, Cubby and Dana Broccoli bought out United Artists' 50% share of Danjaq, which UA had obtained from Harry Saltzman in 1975. As sole owner of Danjaq, Broccoli maintained total creative control over the James Bond product, but MGM/UA were increasingly demanding greater involvement. By the summer of 1990, relations with MGM/UA had deteriorated to a point of high frustration for the officers of Danjaq." Also, as one might recall, Broccoli offered Danjaq for sale during the period between LICENCE TO KILL and GOLDENEYE. He wouldn't have been able to do so unless he had sole ownership of the product. It appears there still is some kind of contract for MGM/UA to fund 100% of the movies with Danjaq holding all creative control. Details on how it all works would be an excellant article for one of the Bond fan magazines to write up.

[Zorin Industries]

All very interesting and worrisome as well. There's a book titled "Critical Concepts In Media And Culture Studies", Edited by Thomas Schatz that features a chapter on the 007 series and it goes into some detail on the arrangement that Broccoli and Saltzman put together with United Artists. Problem is, for some reason, this book is quite rare and can be very expensive. I've seen it offered for over $1,000. To add a bit to the confusion, in the excellant Issue 4, Volume 1 of GOLDENEYE magazine (this is issue is devoted to the movie of the same name) John Cork tells us (on page 5) that, "In the 1980's, Cubby and Dana Broccoli bought out United Artists' 50% share of Danjaq, which UA had obtained from Harry Saltzman in 1975. As sole owner of Danjaq, Broccoli maintained total creative control over the James Bond product, but MGM/UA were increasingly demanding greater involvement. By the summer of 1990, relations with MGM/UA had deteriorated to a point of high frustration for the officers of Danjaq." Also, as one might recall, Broccoli offered Danjaq for sale during the period between LICENCE TO KILL and GOLDENEYE. He wouldn't have been able to do so unless he had sole ownership of the product. It appears there still is some kind of contract for MGM/UA to fund 100% of the movies with Danjaq holding all creative control. Details on how it all works would be an excellant article for one of the Bond fan magazines to write up.

Not that old book?! God, I had that one at film school. I think I still have a good condition copy somewhere.

Whilst more light can be shed on the circumstances, I would warn caution against any book that purports to say how it was with Danjaq & MGM/UA & MGM at that time as academically minded film theory books tend not to be allowed in on every meeting the Broccolis had with whoever. But it may be a start to some.

I found this online

http://books.google....C...ond&f=false

It is some of the book you mention though I don't think there is mention of Bond much - though there have been many reprints and revised editions of that book. It is one of the mainstay film theory tomes - especially when it comes to American cinema and what is known as Classical Cinema.

[Tybre]

Thanks for the link, Zorin. Ought to make an interesting read.

[Joe Bond]

It is unfair to compare them but I did not mean to compare them my point was that Dr. No did not look like a million dollar film compared to other films during that era, I am pretty sure I heard a crew member on the making of documentary say as much. For example, the movie The Great Escape which came out a year later looks about the same from a budget perspective than Dr. No yet The Great Escape has a budget of $4 million. When talking about Quantum of Solace I was trying to say that I don't see its budget on the screen compared to other 200 million dollar films during this age. I would go as far as to say that if you did not tell me the budget for CR and QoS before I saw them for the first time I probably would have said that CR was the more expensive film since CR has better special effects than QoS and both have a good variety of locations. I admit to not knowing Eon and the industry like you Zorin but I don't see how giving Bond 23 a lower budget like the amount CR got would be a bad thing.

I would disagree about THE GREAT ESCAPE. The higher budget is visible in its cast, production values, cinematography, stunt work and marketing.

You have to remember that whatever the budget really was for QUANTUM OF SOLACE (and be careful believing what is reported as being the budget - it won't have come from any official sources, i.e. Eon / Sony) there are so many more factors to pay for nowadays. There are bigger crews, bigger studio staff, higher actors fees, higher supporting actors fees, script development costs, location scouting (DR NO was the first Bond - imagine the time and expense necessary to source new locations for the 23 007 entry - it all takes time and time costs), expensive post production...it all adds up.

I do agree that in principle any future Bond film can cost less than ROYALE or SOLACE. EYES ONLY cost less than MOONRAKER for example. It is not an admission of lesser quality. But when no-one knows how much was really spent on the films (well certainly no-one here), it is futile to compare what might be to what might have been cost wise.

One thing I will say - Eon Productions do not waste a penny unless they have to. And I don't mean to imply they are tight. They are resourceful. And that is why they have survived.

Good point. I forgot about the cast for The Great Escape so that was probably a bad example and since you know a lot about EON then I trust you on this one but you did mention that any future Bond film can cost less than CR or QoS I agree with you there as well but I don't think they really need to have a budget cheaper than CR just as long as they don't overspend on a product then I am all for whatever budget they choose.

[jaguar007]

To add a bit to the confusion, in the excellant Issue 4, Volume 1 of GOLDENEYE magazine (this is issue is devoted to the movie of the same name) John Cork tells us (on page 5) that, "In the 1980's, Cubby and Dana Broccoli bought out United Artists' 50% share of Danjaq, which UA had obtained from Harry Saltzman in 1975. As sole owner of Danjaq, Broccoli maintained total creative control over the James Bond product,

ok, I did not dream that. I thought Broccoli had purchased UA's share of Bond at some point.