If it is true about the $150 million, this EON's desperation "Hail Mary" to save the franchise. Another LTK failure will be the death of the franchise as we know it.
The story says it's Sony making this offer. Which is a curious thing to do for a studio that isn't signed to distribute the next two films.
But why let facts get in the way of a good story ? )
My default mode is to say that story is nonsense, but assuming it's true, it could mean that Sony/MGM/EON have reworked their deal and Sony is ready to be the distributor but only if Craig is back.
Movies are so expensive now that producers aren't willing to take risks on untested concepts. Daniel Craig as Bond is a tested concept. Tom Hiddleston* as Bond is an untested concept and the producers may not be willing to bet $300 million on an untested concept.
Where did this two film rumor come from? If Craig does return it will be for one more film only. Consider his age and the physical strain each of these films puts on him. I find it highly unlikely they will churn out two films back to back. Craig's my favorite Bond and its a cool idea but I'm also a realist in that hes no spring chicken anymore and the momentum seems to be leaving him.
Just to give a counter idea, With the Popularity of the Marvel movies, Hiddleston has quite
A large ............. Fan base too. So wouldn't be a huge gamble
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
If it is true about the $150 million, this EON's desperation "Hail Mary" to save the franchise. Another LTK failure will be the death of the franchise as we know it.
The story says it's Sony making this offer. Which is a curious thing to do for a studio that isn't signed to distribute the next two films.
I had that same thought this morning. Although it could be that Sony has offered to bankroll Craig's salary as part of their pitch to be re-upped as distributor. The only other big franchise that Sony is part of is "Spiderman" (which is once more being re-booted after a disappointing sequel to the last reboot ). Sony may be desperate to remain part of the Bond franchise, at least if Craig is involved. The track record at the box office for Bond films for over 50 years is unprecedented. No Bond film has come close to losing money and box office disappointments have been few and far between. Even when Bond experiences adversity (law suites resulting in long delays between films, a disappointing box office draw, etc) Bond always rebounds back to the top. The other thing regarding the $150 million and the overall budget of the films, if I'm not reading it wrong, the "article" seemed to imply that the $150 million was for two films, shot back to back. With the entire budget for a single more modest action film these days typically coming in at $100 million, Sony could be looking at $150 million for two sure fire hits as a worthwhile investment. Ironically, as is too often the case, we are dissecting and analyzing something that may be a complete fiction. ) -{
Just to give a counter idea, With the Popularity of the Marvel movies, Hiddleston has quite
A large ............. Fan base too. So wouldn't be a huge gamble
Very true. He has been in supporting roles in bigger films than any Bond actor had ever done before Bond.
Just to give a counter idea, With the Popularity of the Marvel movies, Hiddleston has quite
A large ............. Fan base too. So wouldn't be a huge gamble
Very true. He has been in supporting roles in bigger films than any Bond actor had ever done before Bond.
Absolutely, Hiddleston is a household name compared to Craig at the time of CR. Hiddleston is definitely the "safe" choice to follow Craig.
He has a good amount of recognition with the general public (especially in the USA unlike some other British actors), is different enough from Craig to avoid too much direct comparison, fits the "classic" Bond mold better but has shown he can do "hard and "gritty" and can definitely bring a certain cruel and dark humor back to roll without it looking forced. Sometimes the "safe" choice is the right choice.
I would put Aidan Turner in that category also. Turner does remind me of a young Timothy Dalton in the way he recites lines and the intensity he puts forth. He's kind of Dalton's head on a Craig-like body. After watching the first season of Poldark, I was really impressed by Turner's tough physicality, something I had no idea he possessed previously. I can see how EON could have a tough time choosing between the two.
Hurrraaay!.... I've finally, after several years of trying, managed to join this lovely forum.... Thank you Simon for fixing registration .... Sadly I've missed all the Skyfall and SPECTRE action, but I am very excited to see where we are heading next.
It was DC that fueled my more recent and deeper passion for 007 (though I've been a fan since childhood) and therefore would love to see him continue in the roll for at least one more outing. Having said that, if he chooses to leave I feel Hiddleston would be an almost perfect candidate to replace him, and better than the other potential actors mentioned thus far... IMHO. I loved his role as the The Night Manager and feel his charm, coupled with a darker, tougher side (but rather less thuggish) would be a perfect balance to carry some of Craig's attributes over.
Whatever is happening behind the scenes I hope the process does not take too long... we need more Bond sooner rather than later.
I really hope DC stays for two more films. He's been my favourite Bond since Connery and it's nice finally being the same age as the actor that plays Bond. -{
Pussy Galore: “My name is Pussy Galore.”
Bond: “I must be dreaming.”
Daniel Craig is not my favorite Bond, but I will be so incredibly annoyed if we once again get another Blofeld trilogy (which I suspect is what is happening now with the series) where the Bond actor does not stay the same throughout the story. I have no complaints about George Lazenby, but how awesome would it have been for Sean Connery to appear in OHMSS? Now practically 50 years later I fear we're about to get a repeat of that.
If the movie follows the events of OHMSS with a different actor than Craig in one of the greatest James Bond performances ever, it's going to be a repeat disappointment. I doubt I'll be around 50 years from now for the next shot at this.
This whole '£150 million for two more Bonds' story doesn't sit right with me.
Of course there are financial benefits of playing Bond but that shouldn't be the only reason you want to do it. If you only play Bond for the money, you're doing it for the wrong reasons.
I'm a big fan of Craig's and the direction he's taken the series but no actor is bigger than the role. If he doesn't want to do it then fine, let him be. SPECTRE acted as a nice end to his few films anyway. It wasn't left on a cliff hanger really.
He's also not been the most complementary about the series, even though the 'Slash wrists' comment was taken out of context. I just don't fully understand the furore over making sure Craig comes back. The series survived when Connery and Moore left, and it will survive when Craig stands down.
"You are about to wake when you dream that you are dreaming"
This whole '£150 million for two more Bonds' story doesn't sit right with me.
Of course there are financial benefits of playing Bond but that shouldn't be the only reason you want to do it. If you only play Bond for the money, you're doing it for the wrong reasons.
I'm a big fan of Craig's and the direction he's taken the series but no actor is bigger than the role. If he doesn't want to do it then fine, let him be. SPECTRE acted as a nice end to his few films anyway. It wasn't left on a cliff hanger really.
He's also not been the most complementary about the series, even though the 'Slash wrists' comment was taken out of context. I just don't fully understand the furore over making sure Craig comes back. The series survived when Connery and Moore left, and it will survive when Craig stands down.
If history is about to repeat itself then I vote Lazenby returns!!!
Welcome Mark00Mark. You'll have a good time here. We disagree many times, but we keep things civil (usually) and respectful.
Thank you Howard.... I've seen much good banter (and yes most of it civil :007) ) in the years I've been reading these forums.... Its nice to be able to finally join in -{
The argument that producers should be happy to take a risk on a new Bond actor because Craig worked out well is flawed.
CR cost $100 million to make. Its advertising budget was less than half that. The break even point at the box office was about $275 million in 2006 dollars. When adjusted for inflation, all Bond films had made that, so there was little risk.
Bond 25 with a relatively unknown actor will still cost at least $275 million in P&M costs and will need $600 million at the box office to break even (since Chinese theaters only pay 25% back to the producers). Bond 25 could make $500 million at the box office ($150 million more than the latest Bourne picture, which featured a big name actor) and still be a huge financial flop.
Fewer people are buying movie tickets, audiences seem to be getting tired of sequels, box office generally is down. This is a tricky time for EON/MGM with no director/no distributor/and no Bond and I'm not sure they're up to it.
Don't forget though that Skyfall cost $80m less than Quantum of Solace did, and grossed about double the amount. And then SPECTRE upped the budget and made less than SF.
It's less to do with Craig and more to do with the script, storytelling and fans of the series as a whole.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
Indeed, Casino Royale the best of this bunch with the lowest budget. However beautiful locations and a great script (though of course Fleming helped)
Nov 22, 2002 Die Another Day $142,000,000
Nov 17, 2006 Casino Royale $102,000,000
Nov 14, 2008 Quantum of Solace $230,000,000
Nov 08, 2012 Skyfall $200,000,000
Nov 06, 2015 Spectre $300,000,000
Fewer people are buying movie tickets, audiences seem to be getting tired of sequels, box office generally is down. This is a tricky time for EON/MGM with no director/no distributor/and no Bond and I'm not sure they're up to it.
Great post. I think EON/MGM may be prepared to move on from Craig if they must but I get the feeling that they are going to exhaust every opportunity to bring to try and bring him back before doing so. I don't think EON was anticipating Craig moving on after four films. I also believe that EON has no concerns regarding Craig's age. Some folks here seem to get too caught up with the age factor for Craig. By today's standards, late 40's to mid 50's is not an issue for an action hero provided the actor in question looks fit and formidable. Also, the Bond character allows a decent amount of flexability when it comes to Bond's age. The great fly in the ointment here is Craig himself. If he is adament about not returning, huge money or not there is no other option but to move on and move on they will. I have no doubt that there will be a new Bond film released by late fall 2018, Craig or no Craig. Making Bond films is what EON does (yes I know they do some smaller side projects) and MGM's survival is literally dependent on Bond. I do have a bit of a wonky conspiracy theory however. It was intimated in the "article" about the $150 million offer by Sony that Craig's resistance to return was a clever ploy on his part to get a huge contract. Could it be that Craig, EON (as we know Craig and Barbara are close) and MGM are conspiring to get Sony to foot the entire bill for Craig's salary? This way, Craig returns for a huge payday, Sony is back on board, EON and MGM save a boatload of money on Craig's salary. Farfetched yes, but we have to entertain ourselves in some way in this time of no Bond.
The argument that producers should be happy to take a risk on a new Bond actor because Craig worked out well is flawed.
CR cost $100 million to make. Its advertising budget was less than half that. The break even point at the box office was about $275 million in 2006 dollars. When adjusted for inflation, all Bond films had made that, so there was little risk.
Bond 25 with a relatively unknown actor will still cost at least $275 million in P&M costs and will need $600 million at the box office to break even (since Chinese theaters only pay 25% back to the producers). Bond 25 could make $500 million at the box office ($150 million more than the latest Bourne picture, which featured a big name actor) and still be a huge financial flop.
Fewer people are buying movie tickets, audiences seem to be getting tired of sequels, box office generally is down. This is a tricky time for EON/MGM with no director/no distributor/and no Bond and I'm not sure they're up to it.
If Tom Hiddleston is indeed the next Bond, at least they won't have to worry about a relative unknown in the role. If Craig would indeed going to get $150 million for two films, that's a huge financial risk considering a new actor would be paid only a fraction of that. With that salary for Craig, the next two films would have to do better than Spectre to make money. People are already excited for a new Bond actor, and that could possibly help the films more than Craig with a bloated salary could. This isn't the same situation as bringing Connery back for DAF. Nobody then was ready for someone else as Bond, whereas people now are more than ready for a replacement. A number of people told me they were disappointed that Craig came back for Spectre instead of Idris Elba!
DC as Bond now guarantees huge money so I imagine investors still want him, product placement, sponsorship, marketing etc due to his overall success as Bond. I imagine there must be a lot at stake for these companies if he comes or goes as nobody can predict how a new Bond will be accepted hence its always a risk.
Importantly (since we are talking about this 150 million dollar rumour) I also think we forget about home video sales - I believe they make a killing on DVD, Blu Ray sales etc which is something we always forget about when we are guessing profits and box office success
Skyfall (2012)
Home Market Performance
Domestic DVD Sales $47,855,222
Domestic Blu-ray Sales $52,432,568
Total Domestic Video Sales $100,287,790
100 million dollars in the US alone by the looks of it.
In the UK I cannot find final ££ however...
"Released in February, the Blu-Ray and DVD editions of Daniel Craig's third outing have sold over 2.8 million units in the UK so far this year".
Thats prob close to 300 million pounds in the UK (prob over 400 million US dollars back then)
In a nutshell - huge money outside Box Office performance and thats just the UK and USA!!
DC as Bond now guarantees huge money so I imagine investors still want him, product placement, sponsorship, marketing etc due to his overall success as Bond. I imagine there must be a lot at stake for these companies if he comes or goes as nobody can predict how a new Bond will be accepted hence its always a risk.
Importantly (since we are talking about this 150 million dollar rumour) I also think we forget about home video sales - I believe they make a killing on DVD, Blu Ray sales etc which is something we always forget about when we are guessing profits and box office success
Skyfall (2012)
Home Market Performance
Domestic DVD Sales $47,855,222
Domestic Blu-ray Sales $52,432,568
Total Domestic Video Sales $100,287,790
100 million dollars in the US alone by the looks of it.
In the UK I cannot find final ££ however...
"Released in February, the Blu-Ray and DVD editions of Daniel Craig's third outing have sold over 2.8 million units in the UK so far this year".
Thats prob close to 300 million pounds in the UK (prob over 400 million US dollars back then)
In a nutshell - huge money outside Box Office performance and thats just the UK and USA!!
It's a lot more complicated than that. First, I don't think you meant to say that 2.8 million units sold in the UK translated into 300 million pounds. Second from your numbers it would appear that top-end DVD sales for Skyfall were maybe $200 million worldwide. But there are costs:
"With the advent of the DVD, home video has become a vast retail business, with studios selling both new and past titles, as well as television programming such as The Sopranos, Friends, or Chappelle's Show, at wholesale prices that can go as low as $5 a DVD. Studios, which have meticulously analyzed these costs, estimate that manufacturing, shipping, and returns costs average 12.4 percent; marketing, advertising, and returns costs average 18.5 percent; and residuals paid to guilds and unions for their members and pension plans come to 2.65 percent."
So gross profits are about two-thirds of sales, about $130 million. But the producers have to split that with the sellers (I don't think you can buy a SF DVD directly from MGM). Amazon, for example, takes half the sales price. So a DVD that sells for $20, $10 goes to Amazon (Best Buy and other retailers have similar arrangements--when you see a DVD selling for a discounted amount, that's coming out of the retailer's share). So, a DVD that retails for $20, $6.50 goes in costs and $10 goes to the retailer, leaving . . . . $3.50 per unit. That means SF made the producers maybe an additional $35 million (tops) in DVD sales, which isn't inconsequential, but SF's DVD sales were much higher than SP's and there's no guarantee that Bond 25 will do anything like SF's numbers in terms of DVD sales.
MGM's deal with Sony was that Sony got a percentage of DVD sales, but MGM also has a deal with FOX regarding DVD distribution, so I don't know how many ways that's split.
Of course, you also have to add in DVD rentals (online streaming) and TV licensing, which can actually be more lucrative than the DVD sales in some cases, but it often takes many years for those rights to pay off.
It's also my understanding that EON doesn't participate in DVD sales/rentals of Bond films. They exchanged those rights with MGM together with an agreement that EON wouldn't have to fund their one-half of production & marketing and an assignment of all of the Bond film copyrights. So, DVD sales/rentals and possibly TV licensing don't matter to EON. Their revenues are 100% from the box office (although they may also make money on ancillary sales since they own 100% of the copyright, but I doubt there's that much money to be made in James Bond action figures).
So, in short, no studio is going to make a deal where they think they're going to lose money at the BO and make it up in DVD sales because those revenues are too uncertain and too low.
If Tom Hiddleston is indeed the next Bond, at least they won't have to worry about a relative unknown in the role. If Craig would indeed going to get $150 million for two films, that's a huge financial risk considering a new actor would be paid only a fraction of that. With that salary for Craig, the next two films would have to do better than Spectre to make money. People are already excited for a new Bond actor, and that could possibly help the films more than Craig with a bloated salary could. This isn't the same situation as bringing Connery back for DAF. Nobody then was ready for someone else as Bond, whereas people now are more than ready for a replacement.
I reckon even a George Lazenby type - with some prior acting experience, I don't mean someone literally picked with zero acting experience/training - would work and, as you say, save EON/studio millions. The new actor would be a great marketing tool to get people interested. "We must see Bond 25 to see this new guy in the role!"
I would imagine that would be plan C though.
Plan A might be to tempt Craig back with some obscene amount, and plan B would be to cast the likes of Hiddleston or some other actor currently in tv/films. But plan C is possible. Let's be brutally honest, do you think the average Joe and Jane Shmoe went to see Casino Royale caring what theatre productions, tv shows, films Craig had one? I doubt it. It's not that important. The backstory to the next Bond actor isn't important. The studio seem to be fixated on the notion Craig can't be replaced, but he can. Craig replaced Brosnan and the next guy will replace Craig. And most people will accept it.
It's certainly a big pot with different hands in different things. I think as primarily Bond fans we forget that there are so many marketing tie-ins to a Bond film. Craig's recognition as Bond with the general public plays a large part in that. He is in print ads, commercials, etc. Bond is an industry unto itself beyond just films. Ironically, Hiddleston may be looked at as fitting the bill as far as replacing Craig marketing-wise better than the other candidates. With regards to the budgets of subsequent films, it wouldn't surprise me if things tighten up a biwhich isn't always a bad thing artistically.
First, I don't think you meant to say that 2.8 million units sold in the UK translated into 300 million pounds.
Whoops I put an extra naught!
$200 million Skyfall DVD worldwide (if online figures are correct) of course has to be broken down with all involved (like the box office takings no doubt) but its still significant revenue for the machine which makes Bond regardless which party (Sony / MGM / EON / Retailer)
Kind of like a nice bonus
There is an article online that values the whole franchise, could of course be crap but it values something like the home video catalogue at 2 billion, merchandising another 2 billion and actual film franchise over 9 billion. Will see if I can find it
EDIT: Specialists at the London School Of Marketing have estimated the Bond brand has generated £9bn from box office sales with £2bn from DVD sales and £2bn from merchandising and co-marketing.
Comments
My default mode is to say that story is nonsense, but assuming it's true, it could mean that Sony/MGM/EON have reworked their deal and Sony is ready to be the distributor but only if Craig is back.
*I'm not picking on Hiddleston particularly.
A large ............. Fan base too. So wouldn't be a huge gamble
I had that same thought this morning. Although it could be that Sony has offered to bankroll Craig's salary as part of their pitch to be re-upped as distributor. The only other big franchise that Sony is part of is "Spiderman" (which is once more being re-booted after a disappointing sequel to the last reboot
Very true. He has been in supporting roles in bigger films than any Bond actor had ever done before Bond.
Absolutely, Hiddleston is a household name compared to Craig at the time of CR. Hiddleston is definitely the "safe" choice to follow Craig.
He has a good amount of recognition with the general public (especially in the USA unlike some other British actors), is different enough from Craig to avoid too much direct comparison, fits the "classic" Bond mold better but has shown he can do "hard and "gritty" and can definitely bring a certain cruel and dark humor back to roll without it looking forced. Sometimes the "safe" choice is the right choice.
I would put Aidan Turner in that category also. Turner does remind me of a young Timothy Dalton in the way he recites lines and the intensity he puts forth. He's kind of Dalton's head on a Craig-like body. After watching the first season of Poldark, I was really impressed by Turner's tough physicality, something I had no idea he possessed previously. I can see how EON could have a tough time choosing between the two.
It was DC that fueled my more recent and deeper passion for 007 (though I've been a fan since childhood) and therefore would love to see him continue in the roll for at least one more outing. Having said that, if he chooses to leave I feel Hiddleston would be an almost perfect candidate to replace him, and better than the other potential actors mentioned thus far... IMHO. I loved his role as the The Night Manager and feel his charm, coupled with a darker, tougher side (but rather less thuggish) would be a perfect balance to carry some of Craig's attributes over.
Whatever is happening behind the scenes I hope the process does not take too long... we need more Bond sooner rather than later.
Lovely to be here -{
Mark.
You might want to take a look at http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/45180/introduction-how-to-use-the-forum/ which is our introduction for new members, and introduce yourself at http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/34154/welcome-comings-goings/page/71/
Any questions, feel free to ask. {[]
Bond: “I must be dreaming.”
If the movie follows the events of OHMSS with a different actor than Craig in one of the greatest James Bond performances ever, it's going to be a repeat disappointment. I doubt I'll be around 50 years from now for the next shot at this.
Of course there are financial benefits of playing Bond but that shouldn't be the only reason you want to do it. If you only play Bond for the money, you're doing it for the wrong reasons.
I'm a big fan of Craig's and the direction he's taken the series but no actor is bigger than the role. If he doesn't want to do it then fine, let him be. SPECTRE acted as a nice end to his few films anyway. It wasn't left on a cliff hanger really.
He's also not been the most complementary about the series, even though the 'Slash wrists' comment was taken out of context. I just don't fully understand the furore over making sure Craig comes back. The series survived when Connery and Moore left, and it will survive when Craig stands down.
If history is about to repeat itself then I vote Lazenby returns!!!
He prob need the money!
Thank you very kindly sir -{
Thank you Howard.... I've seen much good banter (and yes most of it civil :007) ) in the years I've been reading these forums.... Its nice to be able to finally join in -{
CR cost $100 million to make. Its advertising budget was less than half that. The break even point at the box office was about $275 million in 2006 dollars. When adjusted for inflation, all Bond films had made that, so there was little risk.
Bond 25 with a relatively unknown actor will still cost at least $275 million in P&M costs and will need $600 million at the box office to break even (since Chinese theaters only pay 25% back to the producers). Bond 25 could make $500 million at the box office ($150 million more than the latest Bourne picture, which featured a big name actor) and still be a huge financial flop.
Fewer people are buying movie tickets, audiences seem to be getting tired of sequels, box office generally is down. This is a tricky time for EON/MGM with no director/no distributor/and no Bond and I'm not sure they're up to it.
It's less to do with Craig and more to do with the script, storytelling and fans of the series as a whole.
Nov 22, 2002 Die Another Day $142,000,000
Nov 17, 2006 Casino Royale $102,000,000
Nov 14, 2008 Quantum of Solace $230,000,000
Nov 08, 2012 Skyfall $200,000,000
Nov 06, 2015 Spectre $300,000,000
Great post. I think EON/MGM may be prepared to move on from Craig if they must but I get the feeling that they are going to exhaust every opportunity to bring to try and bring him back before doing so. I don't think EON was anticipating Craig moving on after four films. I also believe that EON has no concerns regarding Craig's age. Some folks here seem to get too caught up with the age factor for Craig. By today's standards, late 40's to mid 50's is not an issue for an action hero provided the actor in question looks fit and formidable. Also, the Bond character allows a decent amount of flexability when it comes to Bond's age. The great fly in the ointment here is Craig himself. If he is adament about not returning, huge money or not there is no other option but to move on and move on they will. I have no doubt that there will be a new Bond film released by late fall 2018, Craig or no Craig. Making Bond films is what EON does (yes I know they do some smaller side projects) and MGM's survival is literally dependent on Bond. I do have a bit of a wonky conspiracy theory however. It was intimated in the "article" about the $150 million offer by Sony that Craig's resistance to return was a clever ploy on his part to get a huge contract. Could it be that Craig, EON (as we know Craig and Barbara are close) and MGM are conspiring to get Sony to foot the entire bill for Craig's salary? This way, Craig returns for a huge payday, Sony is back on board, EON and MGM save a boatload of money on Craig's salary. Farfetched yes, but we have to entertain ourselves in some way in this time of no Bond.
Indeed, people are hung up here on Craigs facial features. The truth of the matter is that he is super physically fit and most birds fancy him
I think he has a few films in him before he hits the later films of Connery, Moore and Brosnan with regards to age, looks and fitness
If Tom Hiddleston is indeed the next Bond, at least they won't have to worry about a relative unknown in the role. If Craig would indeed going to get $150 million for two films, that's a huge financial risk considering a new actor would be paid only a fraction of that. With that salary for Craig, the next two films would have to do better than Spectre to make money. People are already excited for a new Bond actor, and that could possibly help the films more than Craig with a bloated salary could. This isn't the same situation as bringing Connery back for DAF. Nobody then was ready for someone else as Bond, whereas people now are more than ready for a replacement. A number of people told me they were disappointed that Craig came back for Spectre instead of Idris Elba!
Importantly (since we are talking about this 150 million dollar rumour) I also think we forget about home video sales - I believe they make a killing on DVD, Blu Ray sales etc which is something we always forget about when we are guessing profits and box office success
Skyfall (2012)
Home Market Performance
Domestic DVD Sales $47,855,222
Domestic Blu-ray Sales $52,432,568
Total Domestic Video Sales $100,287,790
100 million dollars in the US alone by the looks of it.
In the UK I cannot find final ££ however...
"Released in February, the Blu-Ray and DVD editions of Daniel Craig's third outing have sold over 2.8 million units in the UK so far this year".
Thats prob close to 300 million pounds in the UK (prob over 400 million US dollars back then)
In a nutshell - huge money outside Box Office performance and thats just the UK and USA!!
Edit looks like SPECTRE did $35 million in US for home video
It's a lot more complicated than that. First, I don't think you meant to say that 2.8 million units sold in the UK translated into 300 million pounds. Second from your numbers it would appear that top-end DVD sales for Skyfall were maybe $200 million worldwide. But there are costs:
"With the advent of the DVD, home video has become a vast retail business, with studios selling both new and past titles, as well as television programming such as The Sopranos, Friends, or Chappelle's Show, at wholesale prices that can go as low as $5 a DVD. Studios, which have meticulously analyzed these costs, estimate that manufacturing, shipping, and returns costs average 12.4 percent; marketing, advertising, and returns costs average 18.5 percent; and residuals paid to guilds and unions for their members and pension plans come to 2.65 percent."
So gross profits are about two-thirds of sales, about $130 million. But the producers have to split that with the sellers (I don't think you can buy a SF DVD directly from MGM). Amazon, for example, takes half the sales price. So a DVD that sells for $20, $10 goes to Amazon (Best Buy and other retailers have similar arrangements--when you see a DVD selling for a discounted amount, that's coming out of the retailer's share). So, a DVD that retails for $20, $6.50 goes in costs and $10 goes to the retailer, leaving . . . . $3.50 per unit. That means SF made the producers maybe an additional $35 million (tops) in DVD sales, which isn't inconsequential, but SF's DVD sales were much higher than SP's and there's no guarantee that Bond 25 will do anything like SF's numbers in terms of DVD sales.
MGM's deal with Sony was that Sony got a percentage of DVD sales, but MGM also has a deal with FOX regarding DVD distribution, so I don't know how many ways that's split.
Of course, you also have to add in DVD rentals (online streaming) and TV licensing, which can actually be more lucrative than the DVD sales in some cases, but it often takes many years for those rights to pay off.
It's also my understanding that EON doesn't participate in DVD sales/rentals of Bond films. They exchanged those rights with MGM together with an agreement that EON wouldn't have to fund their one-half of production & marketing and an assignment of all of the Bond film copyrights. So, DVD sales/rentals and possibly TV licensing don't matter to EON. Their revenues are 100% from the box office (although they may also make money on ancillary sales since they own 100% of the copyright, but I doubt there's that much money to be made in James Bond action figures).
So, in short, no studio is going to make a deal where they think they're going to lose money at the BO and make it up in DVD sales because those revenues are too uncertain and too low.
I reckon even a George Lazenby type - with some prior acting experience, I don't mean someone literally picked with zero acting experience/training
I would imagine that would be plan C though.
Plan A might be to tempt Craig back with some obscene amount, and plan B would be to cast the likes of Hiddleston or some other actor currently in tv/films. But plan C is possible. Let's be brutally honest, do you think the average Joe and Jane Shmoe went to see Casino Royale caring what theatre productions, tv shows, films Craig had one? I doubt it. It's not that important. The backstory to the next Bond actor isn't important. The studio seem to be fixated on the notion Craig can't be replaced, but he can. Craig replaced Brosnan and the next guy will replace Craig. And most people will accept it.
Whoops I put an extra naught!
$200 million Skyfall DVD worldwide (if online figures are correct) of course has to be broken down with all involved (like the box office takings no doubt) but its still significant revenue for the machine which makes Bond regardless which party (Sony / MGM / EON / Retailer)
Kind of like a nice bonus
There is an article online that values the whole franchise, could of course be crap but it values something like the home video catalogue at 2 billion, merchandising another 2 billion and actual film franchise over 9 billion. Will see if I can find it
EDIT: Specialists at the London School Of Marketing have estimated the Bond brand has generated £9bn from box office sales with £2bn from DVD sales and £2bn from merchandising and co-marketing.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/spectre-movie-james-bond-brand-worth-13bn-off-back-monster-box-office-dvd-sales-1525914
This bit is interesting if true (I guess so since Connery took percentage for DAF)
James Bond in numbers:
£13bn: Estimated worth of entire James Bond brand
£25m: Daniel Craig's reported salary for Spectre
£750m: Amount 2012's Spectre grossed at box office
£47m: Salary Sean Connery is said to have received from Diamonds Are Forever (adjusted for inflation)