333 replies to this topic

[Professor Pi]

SPECTRE is ahead of every Jason Bourne movie, every Mission Impossible movie (will surpass Rogue Nation domestically, already has globally), ahead of every Indiana Jones Movie, is already the 49th top grossing movie of all time, will pass Spiderman this week, and is now at $820M.  If Skyfall fell in line with the Bond movie gross trajectory, it would have been $700M, and SPECTRE would be proclaimed a hit and a success.

 

All is well in the world of Bond, friends.

[tdalton]

 

All is well in the world of Bond, friends.

 

indeed, although there will be some who will continue to argue that it isn't.  

 

Only on the internet can making $820+ million dollars, and making more than all but 49 other movies in the history of cinema, be considered a "failure".  

[SecretAgentFan]

Remember Sony´s assessment of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2?  

 

Studio accounting specialists look at the actual numbers and projections in a very different way than people checking boxofficemojo.com.

 

Once again, nobody will consider SPECTRE a flop.

 

But everybody involved hoped it would equal SKYFALL´s success or even top it.  That will hardly be possible.  And in that regard it is definitely a disappointment.

[blueman]

Everybody involved? Really? You mean only us fanboys and girls can figure out SF benefitted from being an event movie? Reporters may use that logic, sure, but I'd bet $820+ mil EON and Sony are not disappointed in the slightest.

[Professor Pi]

Remember Sony´s assessment of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2?  

 

Studio accounting specialists look at the actual numbers and projections in a very different way than people checking boxofficemojo.com.

 

Once again, nobody will consider SPECTRE a flop.

 

But everybody involved hoped it would equal SKYFALL´s success or even top it.  That will hardly be possible.  And in that regard it is definitely a disappointment.

 

That would mean YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM are also disappointments as only Moonraker matched Thunderball's inflation adjusted grosses.  Therefore, the only "successful" Bond moves are Connery's first four, Moonraker, and Skyfall.  All others paled in comparison to their predecessors ... and yet they kept getting made.

[SecretAgentFan]

Nobody´s talking about the 60´s, 70´s or 80´s here.  And nobody´s even thinking about not making another Bond film.  But things have changed considerably.  Financing a movie is such a complex decision, made by the numbercrunchers, and the creative people have to answer to them.

 

All I´m saying (and I get the feeling that is not popular around here at all): EON and the studio (that will be distributing future films) will have to react to SPECTRE´s underperforming.  And yes, it did underperform according to expectations, since movies are a business which needs to grow (in their eyes).  

 

"The Amazing Spider-Man" is a perfect example.  At more than 800 million dollar box office it was considered a disappointment, and plans for another installment with that team were scrapped and another reboot deemed necessary.

 

"Star Trek Into Darkness" - also, not growing enough.  The studio actually asked itself: why can´t "Star Trek" gross more?  Their plan: hire Justin Lin as director, to bring in more "fast & furious"-action.

 

"Skyfall"´s billion dollar business was fantastic - and it also will be a curse.  Because from that point onwards the people in charge will ask themselves with every movie now: why didn´t it gross as much as "Skyfall" - or even more?

 

I´m looking into my crystal ball here, of course, but I predict this: the new distributor will push for changes.  And despite EON trying to hold on to Daniel Craig - in the end that won´t matter.

[dtuba]

But if not Daniel - than who? Would putting a new actor into the role be considered more of a box office risk than keeping Craig? It's not like there is a Brosnan-like obvious choice out there who is guaranteed to sell tickets. Keeping Craig for one more film might be considered a "safe" bet.

[tdalton]

There's no way that Craig gets pushed out by a new distributor.  If the goal is to return the franchise to its billion dollar status, it might help to retain the guy who donned the tux when that actually happened.  

 

What's going on with all of this talk about SPECTRE being a failure is the projection of individual disappointment onto the film's financial prospects.  $820+ million and a ranking of around 48th on the all-time list of highest grossing films is not a failure, but is being spun that way in the media and elsewhere because there is a preference for Skyfall over SPECTRE.  If SPECTRE is a failure because it didn't gross over a billion dollars, then they may as well fold up shop on the franchise right now, because I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the films in the franchise moving forward will similarly be classified as "failures".

[Dustin]

Everybody involved? Really? You mean only us fanboys and girls can figure out SF benefitted from being an event movie? Reporters may use that logic, sure, but I'd bet $820+ mil EON and Sony are not disappointed in the slightest.

We're talking about the return-of-investment rate for every dollar acquired for SPECTRE's budget. That was presented in glowing lights since that of SKYFALL exceeded expectations. Also with the need to compete with a production that was bound to turn up with an even better one. Investors tend to listen to what they want to hear, you know. A similar example would be that stellar future MGM was promised after their last little financial indisposition. I remember a guy blowing in that horn like he was selling shares himself...

[Dustin]

There's no way that Craig gets pushed out by a new distributor. If the goal is to return the franchise to its billion dollar status, it might help to retain the guy who donned the tux when that actually happened.

I'm not sure about that. It depends.

Craig will be able to do one more at the most, then the pressure will be on to recast anyway, no matter how good BOND 25 does. In the past Eon has actually been very faithful to their lead actors, but I doubt they will be sailing as hard with the wind as they did with Moore. Moore did two films too many, which prevented recasting with another actor or bringing in Dalton earlier. Much of the problems the series had was due to this run that seemed much longer than the actual 12 years.

So if the next studio partner has its eyes already on a candidate and if that actor is one Eon house has on their list too...

Then I think anything is possible.

[tdalton]

If Craig is forced out by the new distributor, they'd probably better brace themselves for more "failures" like SPECTRE because they're not going to cross the billion mark with the new guy.  

[blueman]

 

Everybody involved? Really? You mean only us fanboys and girls can figure out SF benefitted from being an event movie? Reporters may use that logic, sure, but I'd bet $820+ mil EON and Sony are not disappointed in the slightest.

We're talking about the return-of-investment rate for every dollar acquired for SPECTRE's budget. That was presented in glowing lights since that of SKYFALL exceeded expectations. Also with the need to compete with a production that was bound to turn up with an even better one. Investors tend to listen to what they want to hear, you know. A similar example would be that stellar future MGM was promised after their last little financial indisposition. I remember a guy blowing in that horn like he was selling shares himself...

 

Okay - what investors? Who are these people and where do they say they're disappointed? If these mysterious somebodies have gone on record, then fine.  But this all reads like fanboy projection to me, barring a smoking gun.

[Dustin]

Everybody involved? Really? You mean only us fanboys and girls can figure out SF benefitted from being an event movie? Reporters may use that logic, sure, but I'd bet $820+ mil EON and Sony are not disappointed in the slightest.

We're talking about the return-of-investment rate for every dollar acquired for SPECTRE's budget. That was presented in glowing lights since that of SKYFALL exceeded expectations. Also with the need to compete with a production that was bound to turn up with an even better one. Investors tend to listen to what they want to hear, you know. A similar example would be that stellar future MGM was promised after their last little financial indisposition. I remember a guy blowing in that horn like he was selling shares himself...

Okay - what investors? Who are these people and where do they say they're disappointed? If these mysterious somebodies have gone on record, then fine. But this all reads like fanboy projection to me, barring a smoking gun.

What happened to your knowledge of the film industry? At the end of 2010 you seemed to know a lot about it. Caught the wrong spin since?

You know as well as I do productions get their funds also by investors stepping on for individual productions. These are offered to private equity funds of varying background, debt holders, some pension funds and the like. Normally that's done with shiny catalogues giving an overall financial plan going over anything from six to thirty pages, the projected earns and return of investment rates, including tax incentives where applicable.

Figures cover a corridor of projected earns but that of course always is an optimistic estimation, in line with the intention to acquire funds in a competitive market. And you will find that projection was largely based on SKYFALL figures, simply because that was the last field test and there was no reason to expect its successor would do worse. That would be like saying new-MGM would still be the same run-down house solely dependent on Bond for survival. Wouldn't sell the deal. Would sound like fanboy projection...

When all is said and done and you look at your returns and then look at that shiny Roman numeral III headed 'Finance' and the figures don't exactly arrive where you hoped they would you may still have made money; just not as much as was promised.

Will these 'mysterious somebodies' go on record then? Well, depends how far fantasy and reality differ. I think some may write up the odd ugly memo. Perhaps call their underlings nasty names, 'snake oil merchants' or something like that. A few may actually go as far as to call up spin doctors to help them explain what is in effect always happening all the time, in the industry and in economics in general. Some may even swear 'never again!' - doesn't much matter, most will be back on board for BOND 25 again, regardless if the returns are a success or below reasonable expectations.

I hope this answers your questions, blueman.

[SecretAgentFan]

If Craig is forced out by the new distributor, they'd probably better brace themselves for more "failures" like SPECTRE because they're not going to cross the billion mark with the new guy.  

 

Um, that´s probably what the sceptics said when EON was casting Craig after Brosnan delivered one of the biggest grossing Bond films ever...

[tdalton]

Which, at the time, was $599,045,960, a far cry from Skyfall's billion+.  

 

The public may be curious about a new Bond, but they're not going to launch Bond #7 into the billion dollar club.  Bond most likely won't reach a billion dollars again until the ticket prices rise to the point where it becomes fairly routine for films to break that barrier.  

 

The fact that there has even been a discussion about SPECTRE being a financial "failure", though, while it's sitting at $820+ million dollars and somewhere between 48-50th on the all-time list of highest-grossing films is, quite frankly, ridiculous.  I'm also quite surprised that there hasn't been some revisionist history to suggest that Casino Royale was a "failure".  After all, it was beaten out at the US box office by a movie about talking penguins.  But, then again, there's no revisionist history needed on that film since those making the argument against SPECTRE find Casino Royale to be a worthwhile entry.

 

If EON is really upset about SPECTRE only making $820 million to date, which I would assume they're most likely upset about because of the profit margin not matching that of Skyfall, maybe they should revisit this idea that Bond has to travel to five or so countries in each film.  They did a terrible job of showcasing the locations in SPECTRE, and given the amount of money necessary to move such a large crew around, this is probably where they lost a big portion of the profit margin.  That's on them, though, not the general public for only dropping $820 million on the film.

[SecretAgentFan]

Once again, nobody is talking about a failure.  It´s just that expectations were higher.

 

And at the time of DAD, a billion dollars for a Bond film were unheard of.  To actually reboot with a controversial (at first) actor showed lots of guts.  And EON will have the courage again, no doubt.

[Dustin]

Which, at the time, was $599,045,960, a far cry from Skyfall's billion+.

The public may be curious about a new Bond, but they're not going to launch Bond #7 into the billion dollar club. Bond most likely won't reach a billion dollars again until the ticket prices rise to the point where it becomes fairly routine for films to break that barrier.

The fact that there has even been a discussion about SPECTRE being a financial "failure", though, while it's sitting at $820+ million dollars and somewhere between 48-50th on the all-time list of highest-grossing films is, quite frankly, ridiculous. I'm also quite surprised that there hasn't been some revisionist history to suggest that Casino Royale was a "failure". After all, it was beaten out at the US box office by a movie about talking penguins. But, then again, there's no revisionist history needed on that film since those making the argument against SPECTRE find Casino Royale to be a worthwhile entry.

If EON is really upset about SPECTRE only making $820 million to date, which I would assume they're most likely upset about because of the profit margin not matching that of Skyfall, maybe they should revisit this idea that Bond has to travel to five or so countries in each film. They did a terrible job of showcasing the locations in SPECTRE, and given the amount of money necessary to move such a large crew around, this is probably where they lost a big portion of the profit margin. That's on them, though, not the general public for only dropping $820 million on the film.

Emphasis added, evidently.

tdalton, you already pointed it out yourself. It all depends what kind of expectations you had when you went into the adventure. C'mon, let's not play dumber than we are here, the profit margin is the only real proof of the cake for controlling. And that will cause raised eyebrows even if it's only a mere twenty cents behind on the dollar, as projected before SPECTRE got the green light.

You are perfectly right, you first have to find a production of this scale making similar money globally, especially in the current economy. But the fact remains the year is coming to an end and the accountants have to close their books, not much more time left to dress the window and make balances shine. Every single cent that didn't turn up as promised is a missing cent now from their point of view. And - in contrast to MGM - studios like Sony with their Columbia-TriStar operation produce a huge output all year round and their best earning productions have to pay for a lot of below-par performers. Such is business.

[tdalton]

And all of that just goes back to my original point.  If EON/Sony/MGM decides to make a film that is so expensive and does so with such a poor script, knowing that they would have to make it into the Top 10 on the all-time list in order to get their return on investment, then they're idiots.  Plain and simple.  They were the ones that allowed the production costs to balloon to whatever number it ultimately reached and they were the ones that put themselves in position to earn less on the dollar.  They were the ones that made the decision to go forward with such a poor script, and then to change writers and have the hack duo of P&W overhaul the whole thing.  After they've put themselves, and the competent people who worked on the film that have no control over this nonsense, they can't be the least bit surprised or disappointed when they don't get their return on investment, which would have been nearly impossible to pull off.  

 

Honestly, them being disappointed that they only earned $820 million is like someone going to Vegas, playing roulette and placing a bet on purple, and then being disappointed that they didn't win.

[SecretAgentFan]

No.

 

First of all, in the movie business nothing can really be pre-calculated.  And nobody sets out to spend too much money.  Just the opposite.

 

But the costs for making a movie are constantly rising, and there is no unity of vision on any project of this magnitude.  There are always many, many conflicting views, and the most difficult thing is to steer these into the most coherent direction one can. 

 

And that is even before the shooting starts, with all its variables that determine constant reactions and changes.

 

If it were possible, believe me, the studios would find a way to make a film without risking all these elements.

 

The wonder that it actually was possible for over 50 years now to continually deliver a Bond film can only be attributed to EON.  They know how to handle these highly complicated productions and steer them through the harshest conditions.

 

And writing a great Bond script, obviously, is also the most difficult task.  Hell, writing any great script is tremendously difficult, even for the masters of the craft.  If you get a firm deadline for a release date, it gets even more nightmarish.  Especially if it´s not just the creative people who weigh in but also the numbercrunchers and marketing people.  Those now have the deciding input before approving a script.

 

Also, let me state once again, that nobody will cry about the grosses.  In fact, EON/SONY will be happy that SPECTRE did so well.

 

But they nevertheless will have to answer to the moneymen who don´t really care about the product or how all these things are cyclical or how this or that factor made it more difficult to gross more.

 

They will point towards their predictions and the reality, measure the difference and state: we expected more.  Next time, we need more.

 

If you want to call someone incompetent or idiotic, feel free to address those people.

[Dustin]

Agreed, there possibly could - and should - have been some point when somebody just called 'Stop!' Only productions on this scale are probably closer to launching a new model of car, there are several different stages, plenty of executives who have their say, a long period to set huge wheels in motion. When that clockwork is finally moving you don't just push a pause button. Remember QOS's troubled production? The pressure to earn money was fierce enough to push on regardless of all concerns. 'Hit the ground running' was the slogan chanted back then; I remember well enough...

Anyway, SPECTRE earned its money and a nice enough profit. Whatever else is decided behind the closed doors of the fifth floor is not for us to reason with either way. And it's certainly not a conspiracy of revisionists, just the natural way things work.

[tdalton]

Before I take my leave, just a point to clarify:

 

 

If you want to call someone incompetent or idiotic, feel free to address those people.

 

I did.  Those comments were directed at EON and Sony and nobody else.  

[Dustin]

Not to worry.

[blueman]

I guess I'm still waiting for some evidence of SP being a disappointment to the people who made and distributed it...supposition (even educated supposition) is neat and all, but an actual comment or three would be nice (from someone other than Brosnan). Too much to ask?

SP is right up in the neighborhood of SF, without benefit of being an event film. Just not seeing it as not meeting reasonable hypothetical expectations. Reminds me of the QOS box office discussion, as if CR too wasn't an event film (really odd for me as both QOS and SP are superior films, IMHO, so maybe toss out my humble take as too biased, and SP is a letdown at the box office and didn't meet expectations, sure).

[Dustin]

I guess I'm still waiting for some evidence of SP being a disappointment to the people who made and distributed it...supposition (even educated supposition) is neat and all, but an actual comment or three would be nice (from someone other than Brosnan). Too much to ask?

Well, look at me, I'm still waiting for all that stellar output MGM was supposed to produce after becoming 'new and improved'. Didn't happen either...

But I digress. Okay then, let's see if we can approach the topic from a different direction. According to your - no doubt just as educated supposition - there should be a great number of smiling faces behind the works of SPECTRE; people drunken with bliss from counting their considerable profits and ready to sign blindly any contract MGM might offer them for the mere chance to have a similarly ecstatic experience three years from now.

Let's see those faces, okay? Can't be all that difficult to find them...

Blueman, we both know there will be no such thing since the people in the know keep mum about their exact figures. If for example pension fund XYZ turns up with actual returns only around 88 per cent of the projected sum, with no way of catching up on the missing 12 per cent till end of December (or afterwards) that result can be anything from a minor drawback to a real disaster. But you are hardly going to hear about it unless you are either managing that fund, one of its investors - or the tax officer responsible for it. People rarely feel the urge to brag about the things that went not according to plan.

Once more I have to wonder what happened to your knowledgeable grasp on the matter? Supposition, as you put it, is the most we have in this case. And you are perfectly aware of this, so I'm at a loss why you pretend to be ignorant of the fact.

But past experience, together with a number of better known examples, give a pretty good idea where a production stands in terms of break-even point, profit zone and so on; so it's indeed a pretty well educated supposition, thank you.

But since my supposition doesn't cut it for you - and yours not for me - we will have to continue to disagree. What other way would there be to support the argument either way?

Of course we could always wait till the proceedings for MGM's next distribution partner are under way. There is always a chance the odd spin doctor turns up and drops a line or two about how they want things presented. How funny that will be...

[Hockey Mask]

I don't know anyone who expected SP to beat SF at the box office. Why should we assume the producers did?

[blueman]

I don't know anyone who expected SP to beat SF at the box office. Why should we assume the producers did?

Thank you.

[Dustin]

I don't know anyone who expected SP to beat SF at the box office. Why should we assume the producers did?

Well, for one thing the gap between SPECTRE and SKYFALL is not all that wide and can still end up even closer. It's not as if the one is a total loss in comparison to the other, the latter simply did better. Did the producers expect a repeat of their Grand Slam? They are long enough in the business to know they would need some luck to get there again. But they certainly tried going for it; you don't play in that league to aim for second place. You always aim for the best possible performance. You don't produce with a substantially bigger budget to go for 90 or even 98 per cent of SKYFALL's returns. You always aim higher.

Of course you can never be sure where to end up with your work. Future returns will shift the emphasis, home entertainment is still growing stronger, the cinema experience is not everything for a growing number of people. And finally people in the industry, Spielberg among them, cast doubts on the future of the ever-growing budgets of mega-blockbusters. Many expect that one of these productions will crash in the future and that such a crash would change the game considerably for all players.

For the moment all that we know for sure is that Bond was considered good enough for that kind of huge budget; and not with a mind to come home just behind SKYFALL.

[blueman]

 

I don't know anyone who expected SP to beat SF at the box office. Why should we assume the producers did?

For the moment all that we know for sure is that Bond was considered good enough for that kind of huge budget; and not with a mind to come home just behind SKYFALL.

 

I think you need to be okay with that last bit being your opinion. If you could also dial down the condescension that would be nice too.

[Jim]

 

 

I guess I'm still waiting for some evidence of SP being a disappointment to the people who made and distributed it...supposition (even educated supposition) is neat and all, but an actual comment or three would be nice (from someone other than Brosnan). Too much to ask?

Well, look at me, I'm still waiting for all that stellar output MGM was supposed to produce after becoming 'new and improved'. Didn't happen either...

But I digress. Okay then, let's see if we can approach the topic from a different direction. According to your - no doubt just as educated supposition - there should be a great number of smiling faces behind the works of SPECTRE; people drunken with bliss from counting their considerable profits and ready to sign blindly any contract MGM might offer them for the mere chance to have a similarly ecstatic experience three years from now.

Let's see those faces, okay? Can't be all that difficult to find them...

Blueman, we both know there will be no such thing since the people in the know keep mum about their exact figures. If for example pension fund XYZ turns up with actual returns only around 88 per cent of the projected sum, with no way of catching up on the missing 12 per cent till end of December (or afterwards) that result can be anything from a minor drawback to a real disaster. But you are hardly going to hear about it unless you are either managing that fund, one of its investors - or the tax officer responsible for it. People rarely feel the urge to brag about the things that went not according to plan.

Once more I have to wonder what happened to your knowledgeable grasp on the matter? Supposition, as you put it, is the most we have in this case. And you are perfectly aware of this, so I'm at a loss why you pretend to be ignorant of the fact.

But past experience, together with a number of better known examples, give a pretty good idea where a production stands in terms of break-even point, profit zone and so on; so it's indeed a pretty well educated supposition, thank you.

But since my supposition doesn't cut it for you - and yours not for me - we will have to continue to disagree. What other way would there be to support the argument either way?

Of course we could always wait till the proceedings for MGM's next distribution partner are under way. There is always a chance the odd spin doctor turns up and drops a line or two about how they want things presented. How funny that will be...

 

 

 

 

 

How tremendously constructive.

[Dustin]

I don't know anyone who expected SP to beat SF at the box office. Why should we assume the producers did?

For the moment all that we know for sure is that Bond was considered good enough for that kind of huge budget; and not with a mind to come home just behind SKYFALL.

I think you need to be okay with that last bit being your opinion. If you could also dial down the condescension that would be nice too.

I already agreed to disagree with you, blueman. What more do you want exactly? As for opinion, yours is as good as mine. Trust me, I'm not here to put a certain spin on things; I merely give my - educated, thanks again - opinion on the matter. I severely hope that doesn't collide with your intentions, then we're fine.