Maybe EON pares things down a bit with Bond 25, especially if they are gambling on a new Bond actor. Paring down doesn't mean a cheap looking, lower level production either. More budget friendly locations can be substituted that can look just as good and exotic and here's something I'd like to see: a little less bombast but more real suspense, intrigue, and cat and mouse which would create more thrills for less $$$.
In my humble opinion, the notion of 'Social Justice Warrior' films, etc., as examined on previous pages of this thread, should have a thread of its own...freeing this one up to actually discuss rumours etc about the next James Bond actor.
Agreed. I come to AJB to get away from these nonsense debates. Start your own thread if you need to sound off. I'll be sure not to click on it. 8-)
Well, you were the one who did ask what "SJW" meant. The public reception for Suicide Squad as a trend indicator is a relevant topic for Bond 25, just as the kind of "message" for the new Bond's branding is relevant. As much as I'm not inclined to like movies like Suicide Squad (and other franchises that audiences today watch, like The Fast and the Furious), it's these popular tastes that will dictate to studios what direction to take. I personally think the insightful look into Bond's history has run its course and fear the producers might actually consider taking the shallow, cheap sensory route of Suicide Squad...which cannot be so easily dismissed if it does ultimately produce a respectable ROI.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Suicide Squad has been absolutely decimated by critics. And after a potentially strong opening weekend based solely on a couple of good trailers and empty hype, it's box office performance is very likely to tank. So I think the message should be don't make a crap film with an incoherent plot.
The movie has made $270M worldwide and $175M to make- that is called a success. I am sorry you don't like the movie but the movie is going to make a profit.
The message is don't make a SJW movie and be creative.
We don't know if it's going to make a profit at the box office. The production cost was $175 million and the marketing cost was probably about $100 million. To break even it will have to make something north of $550 million. So far, its made about $267 million.
Am I missing something? If the production cost is $175 million and marketing is $100 million, wouldnt $275 million be the total cost of the movie and therefore its breakeven amount?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
So you don't need to pay any taxes / investers / shareholders ? Or finance your next project ?
for every $ spent you need to get $3 back to be in profit. Getting $2 back means
you only break even.
No wonder my lemonade stand hasn't gotten anywhere in 30 years! ) Since my last post, I've found that an additional element to break even analysis is the split revenues with the exhibitors/theaters...and of course those other things you mentioned, like taxes. But over and above the magical break even amount is the targeted or desired return on investment, which is what actually amounts to profits that pay back investors over and above their investment, and shareholders if any, their dividends.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Marxism didn't work out, so we got into organized crime )
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
No matter who or what, Bond will keep one foot in reality and never return to complete silliness or they risk being seen as satire or spoof. As absurd as this may sound, with all the superhero and crazy stuff that dominates cinemas these days, a contemporary Bond film is like a La Carre Cold War thriller. I actually believe if Craig does not return, EON will need to maintain or possibly up the Bond as badass quotient to stave off any negative comparisons with Craig.
I saw a list of the most popular movies of 2015. Top of the list were CGI-heavy fantacy movies such as Jurasic World, but SPECTRE was the most watched movie happening in the "real" world. :007)
No matter who or what, Bond will keep one foot in reality and never return to complete silliness or they risk being seen as satire or spoof. As absurd as this may sound, with all the superhero and crazy stuff that dominates cinemas these days, a contemporary Bond film is like a La Carre Cold War thriller. I actually believe if Craig does not return, EON will need to maintain or possibly up the Bond as badass quotient to stave off any negative comparisons with Craig.
Tastes change. I never would have thought that 1890s beards, Nazi haircuts, bell bottoms, vinyl records, or 1980s videogames would return, but here we are. Since the Bond films follow trends, all it will take is for some megahit that camps it up to point in the direction for Broccoli and company to follow.
No matter who or what, Bond will keep one foot in reality and never return to complete silliness or they risk being seen as satire or spoof. As absurd as this may sound, with all the superhero and crazy stuff that dominates cinemas these days, a contemporary Bond film is like a La Carre Cold War thriller. I actually believe if Craig does not return, EON will need to maintain or possibly up the Bond as badass quotient to stave off any negative comparisons with Craig.
Tastes change. I never would have thought that 1890s beards, Nazi haircuts, bell bottoms, vinyl records, or 1980s videogames would return, but here we are. Since the Bond films follow trends, all it will take is for some megahit that camps it up to point in the direction for Broccoli and company to follow.
I was out for drinks with a few friends last week and one famously still uses a tiny flip phone. The uninitiated always make fun of him for it, but I know that one day again people will offer him hundreds for it because it will be THE thing to own and to be seen using! Surprised the hipsters haven't already re-discovered them actually.
Im sure the tides will turn and we will go full circle etc and return to mini phones again!!!
I remember when we all had bricks for phones etc everybody wanted that tiny Motorola that you flipped shut!! Also remember when at uni the Matrix Nokia was all the range with is flip out section
In response to The Domino Effect's on the flip phone - I still use one and I'm a graphic designer. Why? Because I only need a phone to make phone calls - I don't even have the internet on it. That's why I have an IPad. I just cannot watch videos or internet graphics on "dumb" phones - just too small for me and I don't need to be hooked up 24/7. I know people today think it's necessary for their very survival but I do fine without them. I even still have a land line. Why? Because from personal experience I know bad storms (like the hurricanes I've been in) knock out cell towers. Only the land line kept me in touch with family members. Just ask emergency centers why they still use them.
Getting back to the next Bond - I don't believe Craig will return for any further Bond films for one reason - his health. I saw him interviewed about the role after SP and he went through the list of injuries he endured in the all the films and I cringed just listening to him. It seemed to me that he discussed with the director and writers about having the ending in SP done in the way it was so that there was a semi-finality to it ...it wasn't exactly an out and out statement of never returning, but more of a way of letting the audience know that though he may not return in the role, the character would certainly return and the series would continue. I just believe he feels he did his part in the series and since he's aging and not looking forward to having to do the necessary physical training it takes to do the stunts as well as keep getting injured, he wanted to leave and move on with his career and life.
In response to The Domino Effect's on the flip phone - I still use one and I'm a graphic designer. Why? Because I only need a phone to make phone calls - I don't even have the internet on it. That's why I have an IPad. I just cannot watch videos or internet graphics on "dumb" phones - just too small for me and I don't need to be hooked up 24/7. I know people today think it's necessary for their very survival but I do fine without them. I even still have a land line. Why? Because from personal experience I know bad storms (like the hurricanes I've been in) knock out cell towers. Only the land line kept me in touch with family members. Just ask emergency centers why they still use them.
Getting back to the next Bond - I don't believe Craig will return for any further Bond films for one reason - his health. I saw him interviewed about the role after SP and he went through the list of injuries he endured in the all the films and I cringed just listening to him. It seemed to me that he discussed with the director and writers about having the ending in SP done in the way it was so that there was a semi-finality to it ...it wasn't exactly an out and out statement of never returning, but more of a way of letting the audience know that though he may not return in the role, the character would certainly return and the series would continue. I just believe he feels he did his part in the series and since he's aging and not looking forward to having to do the necessary physical training it takes to do the stunts as well as keep getting injured, he wanted to leave and move on with his career and life.
The way SP ended was just the right send off for his portrayal of Bond. He has his car back, hes in love again, he defeated his arch nemesis and he drives off with a smirk on his face.
I do hope he comes back for one more. Casino Royale was sublime but for me Spectre was a big disappointment even though it did well at the box office. One more lap with a great script would be a nice way to sign off with.
In response to The Domino Effect's on the flip phone - I still use one and I'm a graphic designer. Why? Because I only need a phone to make phone calls - I don't even have the internet on it. That's why I have an IPad. I just cannot watch videos or internet graphics on "dumb" phones - just too small for me and I don't need to be hooked up 24/7. I know people today think it's necessary for their very survival but I do fine without them. I even still have a land line. Why? Because from personal experience I know bad storms (like the hurricanes I've been in) knock out cell towers. Only the land line kept me in touch with family members. Just ask emergency centers why they still use them.
Getting back to the next Bond - I don't believe Craig will return for any further Bond films for one reason - his health. I saw him interviewed about the role after SP and he went through the list of injuries he endured in the all the films and I cringed just listening to him. It seemed to me that he discussed with the director and writers about having the ending in SP done in the way it was so that there was a semi-finality to it ...it wasn't exactly an out and out statement of never returning, but more of a way of letting the audience know that though he may not return in the role, the character would certainly return and the series would continue. I just believe he feels he did his part in the series and since he's aging and not looking forward to having to do the necessary physical training it takes to do the stunts as well as keep getting injured, he wanted to leave and move on with his career and life.
The way SP ended was just the right send off for his portrayal of Bond. He has his car back, hes in love again, he defeated his arch nemesis and he drives off with a smirk on his face.
The last five minutes are great and that's how Craig's Bond should go out.
In response to The Domino Effect's on the flip phone - I still use one and I'm a graphic designer. Why? Because I only need a phone to make phone calls - I don't even have the internet on it. That's why I have an IPad. I just cannot watch videos or internet graphics on "dumb" phones - just too small for me and I don't need to be hooked up 24/7. I know people today think it's necessary for their very survival but I do fine without them. I even still have a land line. Why? Because from personal experience I know bad storms (like the hurricanes I've been in) knock out cell towers. Only the land line kept me in touch with family members. Just ask emergency centers why they still use them.
Getting back to the next Bond - I don't believe Craig will return for any further Bond films for one reason - his health. I saw him interviewed about the role after SP and he went through the list of injuries he endured in the all the films and I cringed just listening to him. It seemed to me that he discussed with the director and writers about having the ending in SP done in the way it was so that there was a semi-finality to it ...it wasn't exactly an out and out statement of never returning, but more of a way of letting the audience know that though he may not return in the role, the character would certainly return and the series would continue. I just believe he feels he did his part in the series and since he's aging and not looking forward to having to do the necessary physical training it takes to do the stunts as well as keep getting injured, he wanted to leave and move on with his career and life.
The way SP ended was just the right send off for his portrayal of Bond. He has his car back, hes in love again, he defeated his arch nemesis and he drives off with a smirk on his face.
The last five minutes are great and that's how Craig's Bond should go out.
The previous 45 minutes, not so great.
Yeah, to me Spectre seemed to signify that the Craig era has run its course.
I don't know if it really is time to move on; I don't think it was the preference of EON and their partners to move on. However if Daniel Craig is ready to move on then move on we shall.
EON wants Craig back because it will be difficult to get a distribution deal done without him. At least one favorable to EON and MGM.
Why would this be more of a factor now compared to the new deal made for CR with a new Bond? Particularly when the last change of Bond showed a higher box office return. And seeing how Craig couldn't keep the box office numbers up with his last Bond film, I'd think that a new partner may welcome a new Bond.
EON wants Craig back because it will be difficult to get a distribution deal done without him. At least one favorable to EON and MGM.
Why would this be more of a factor now compared to the new deal made for CR with a new Bond? Particularly when the last change of Bond showed a higher box office return. And seeing how Craig couldn't keep the box office numbers up with his last Bond film, I'd think that a new partner may welcome a new Bond.
1. Casino Royale was relatively cheap to make, about $100 million in 2006 dollars. That would be about $150 million in 2016 dollars. Can EON make a Bond film for $150 million?
2. Marketing costs have soared. The cost of marketing a blockbuster has almost doubled since 2006.
3. Everybody recognizes now that Sony had a terrible deal. Half the production costs plus 100% of the marketing costs in exchange for 20% of the box office net. No other studio is going to do anything close to that deal even with Craig. Without Craig, it's hard to see any deal being made.
Casino Royale cost no more than $200 million production and marketing, so net started at about $400 million, which was less than DAD made. It wasn't much of a gamble. The fact is, most people realize that Craig "resurrected" the franchise and it's unlikely that the new guy will do anything close to SF or even SP numbers.
If you're a distributor, with Sony's deal you're looking at paying out about $300 million for 20% of the proceeds above about $825 million (plus getting your money back). There's a very good chance that the new guy's box office ends up in Rogue Nation territory ($680 million) or less, in which case you've lost a ton of money.
To get a favorable distribution deal, EON would have to be able to show it can make a good Bond film for $150 million or less. I don't know if they can do that.
We have no idea what's going on behind the scenes with respect to EON/MGM's negotiations with a new distribution partner (unless one of the insiders has some knowledge and would like to speak up ). Negotiations for a deal like that are likely to take months, if not years, and while the identity of the next Bond may be a factor, I doubt it's a crucial factor.
EON wants Craig back because it will be difficult to get a distribution deal done without him. At least one favorable to EON and MGM.
Why would this be more of a factor now compared to the new deal made for CR with a new Bond? Particularly when the last change of Bond showed a higher box office return. And seeing how Craig couldn't keep the box office numbers up with his last Bond film, I'd think that a new partner may welcome a new Bond.
1. Casino Royale was relatively cheap to make, about $100 million in 2006 dollars. That would be about $150 million in 2016 dollars. Can EON make a Bond film for $150 million?
2. Marketing costs have soared. The cost of marketing a blockbuster has almost doubled since 2006.
3. Everybody recognizes now that Sony had a terrible deal. Half the production costs plus 100% of the marketing costs in exchange for 20% of the box office net. No other studio is going to do anything close to that deal even with Craig. Without Craig, it's hard to see any deal being made.
Casino Royale cost no more than $200 million production and marketing, so net started at about $400 million, which was less than DAD made. It wasn't much of a gamble. The fact is, most people realize that Craig "resurrected" the franchise and it's unlikely that the new guy will do anything close to SF or even SP numbers.
If you're a distributor, with Sony's deal you're looking at paying out about $300 million for 10% of the proceeds above about $825 million (plus getting your money back). There's a very good chance that the new guy's box office ends up in Rogue Nation territory ($680 million) or less, in which case you've lost a ton of money.
To get a favorable distribution deal, EON would have to be able to show it can make a good Bond film for $150 million or less. I don't know if they can do that.
I think its highly doubtful that any Bond film, with Craig or not, will be able to top SF's immense success and popularity anytime soon.
We have no idea what's going on behind the scenes with respect to EON/MGM's negotiations with a new distribution partner (unless one of the insiders has some knowledge and would like to speak up ). Negotiations for a deal like that are likely to take months, if not years, and while the identity of the next Bond may be a factor, I doubt it's a crucial factor.
Wilson originally said that a new distribution deal would be done last January or February.
Now he says it's MGM's problem to get a new distributor, which isn't exactly true as it's EON's job to get a script written, cast a new Bond, and find a new director, all of which impact the distribution deal.
They should just turn Bond 25 over to Christopher Nolan and let him make the Bond film he wants to make and Warner Brothers would be on board in a millisecond.
But that probably won't happen.
I don't say that because I'm a huge fan of Nolan (I'm not) but because that's probably the best way forward for the Bond franchise.
it's unlikely that the new guy will do anything close to SF or even SP numbers.
Why is this unlikely? SPECTRE was panned by critics (and many fans) and still made tons of money. What evidence do you have that the next Bond can't do the same, or better?
The biggest factor here, which you point out and I agree, is the budget. They need to keep it down. SPECTRE looked and felt bloated.
EON wants Craig back because it will be difficult to get a distribution deal done without him. At least one favorable to EON and MGM.
Why would this be more of a factor now compared to the new deal made for CR with a new Bond? Particularly when the last change of Bond showed a higher box office return. And seeing how Craig couldn't keep the box office numbers up with his last Bond film, I'd think that a new partner may welcome a new Bond.
1. Casino Royale was relatively cheap to make, about $100 million in 2006 dollars. That would be about $150 million in 2016 dollars. Can EON make a Bond film for $150 million?
2. Marketing costs have soared. The cost of marketing a blockbuster has almost doubled since 2006.
3. Everybody recognizes now that Sony had a terrible deal. Half the production costs plus 100% of the marketing costs in exchange for 20% of the box office net. No other studio is going to do anything close to that deal even with Craig. Without Craig, it's hard to see any deal being made.
Casino Royale cost no more than $200 million production and marketing, so net started at about $400 million, which was less than DAD made. It wasn't much of a gamble. The fact is, most people realize that Craig "resurrected" the franchise and it's unlikely that the new guy will do anything close to SF or even SP numbers.
If you're a distributor, with Sony's deal you're looking at paying out about $300 million for 20% of the proceeds above about $825 million (plus getting your money back). There's a very good chance that the new guy's box office ends up in Rogue Nation territory ($680 million) or less, in which case you've lost a ton of money.
To get a favorable distribution deal, EON would have to be able to show it can make a good Bond film for $150 million or less. I don't know if they can do that.
I now understand you points. I hope EON can make a Bond film for $150 million since it didn't need to spend as much as it did on SP, though if Craig comes back again that would be impossible since he would want a higher salary than he got in the last film. Getting a new Bond would certainly curb costs in that area.
I maybe being naive, but if Eon put out a well written film with a good story, good soundtrack, and well acted then surely people will pay to see it? Even if Bond 25 only broke even surely in this vein bond 26 would make a profit.
Comments
Well, you were the one who did ask what "SJW" meant. The public reception for Suicide Squad as a trend indicator is a relevant topic for Bond 25, just as the kind of "message" for the new Bond's branding is relevant. As much as I'm not inclined to like movies like Suicide Squad (and other franchises that audiences today watch, like The Fast and the Furious), it's these popular tastes that will dictate to studios what direction to take. I personally think the insightful look into Bond's history has run its course and fear the producers might actually consider taking the shallow, cheap sensory route of Suicide Squad...which cannot be so easily dismissed if it does ultimately produce a respectable ROI.
Am I missing something? If the production cost is $175 million and marketing is $100 million, wouldnt $275 million be the total cost of the movie and therefore its breakeven amount?
for every $ spent you need to get $3 back to be in profit. Getting $2 back means
you only break even.
No wonder my lemonade stand hasn't gotten anywhere in 30 years!
Marxism didn't work out, so we got into organized crime
I was out for drinks with a few friends last week and one famously still uses a tiny flip phone. The uninitiated always make fun of him for it, but I know that one day again people will offer him hundreds for it because it will be THE thing to own and to be seen using! Surprised the hipsters haven't already re-discovered them actually.
I remember when we all had bricks for phones etc everybody wanted that tiny Motorola that you flipped shut!! Also remember when at uni the Matrix Nokia was all the range with is flip out section
Getting back to the next Bond - I don't believe Craig will return for any further Bond films for one reason - his health. I saw him interviewed about the role after SP and he went through the list of injuries he endured in the all the films and I cringed just listening to him. It seemed to me that he discussed with the director and writers about having the ending in SP done in the way it was so that there was a semi-finality to it ...it wasn't exactly an out and out statement of never returning, but more of a way of letting the audience know that though he may not return in the role, the character would certainly return and the series would continue. I just believe he feels he did his part in the series and since he's aging and not looking forward to having to do the necessary physical training it takes to do the stunts as well as keep getting injured, he wanted to leave and move on with his career and life.
The last five minutes are great and that's how Craig's Bond should go out.
The previous 45 minutes, not so great.
Why would this be more of a factor now compared to the new deal made for CR with a new Bond? Particularly when the last change of Bond showed a higher box office return. And seeing how Craig couldn't keep the box office numbers up with his last Bond film, I'd think that a new partner may welcome a new Bond.
1. Casino Royale was relatively cheap to make, about $100 million in 2006 dollars. That would be about $150 million in 2016 dollars. Can EON make a Bond film for $150 million?
2. Marketing costs have soared. The cost of marketing a blockbuster has almost doubled since 2006.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hollywood-struggles-721818
3. Everybody recognizes now that Sony had a terrible deal. Half the production costs plus 100% of the marketing costs in exchange for 20% of the box office net. No other studio is going to do anything close to that deal even with Craig. Without Craig, it's hard to see any deal being made.
Casino Royale cost no more than $200 million production and marketing, so net started at about $400 million, which was less than DAD made. It wasn't much of a gamble. The fact is, most people realize that Craig "resurrected" the franchise and it's unlikely that the new guy will do anything close to SF or even SP numbers.
If you're a distributor, with Sony's deal you're looking at paying out about $300 million for 20% of the proceeds above about $825 million (plus getting your money back). There's a very good chance that the new guy's box office ends up in Rogue Nation territory ($680 million) or less, in which case you've lost a ton of money.
To get a favorable distribution deal, EON would have to be able to show it can make a good Bond film for $150 million or less. I don't know if they can do that.
Wilson originally said that a new distribution deal would be done last January or February.
https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/22/bond-25-news-to-watch-for-in-2016/
Now he says it's MGM's problem to get a new distributor, which isn't exactly true as it's EON's job to get a script written, cast a new Bond, and find a new director, all of which impact the distribution deal.
They should just turn Bond 25 over to Christopher Nolan and let him make the Bond film he wants to make and Warner Brothers would be on board in a millisecond.
But that probably won't happen.
I don't say that because I'm a huge fan of Nolan (I'm not) but because that's probably the best way forward for the Bond franchise.
Why is this unlikely? SPECTRE was panned by critics (and many fans) and still made tons of money. What evidence do you have that the next Bond can't do the same, or better?
The biggest factor here, which you point out and I agree, is the budget. They need to keep it down. SPECTRE looked and felt bloated.
I now understand you points. I hope EON can make a Bond film for $150 million since it didn't need to spend as much as it did on SP, though if Craig comes back again that would be impossible since he would want a higher salary than he got in the last film. Getting a new Bond would certainly curb costs in that area.