The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[bjmdds]

The votes are in: Do you want Daniela Cr-egg fired after Bond 23? On a score of 1-10, where 1 means not so strong feelings to fire him to a perfect 10 which means throw the bum out -------- http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/asset ... ts-467.jpg

[FormerBondFan]

So I think that TDKR underperforming would be a good thing - it's about time all this angst got purged from popular cinema.

Like BJ said, TDKR has potential to beat Avengers' US opening weekend numbers. Afterall, the Bat has a history of being an opening weekend record holder in U.S. with every installment (except B&R and BB). Even if the Bat's final round becomes this year's top grosser at the US box office and surpasses TDK's overall numbers, it's still no match for Avengers or the upcoming Hobbit as far as worldwide numbers are concerned.

[FormerBondFan]

And I agree with this too. I also think that Batman will give us actual catharsis, since Nolan's Batman is a hero worth rooting for. His sacrifices and final triumphs over his enemies are genuinely moving, in a way that sociopath Daniel Craig mindlessly murdering people never can be.

I also want to add that Chris' Batfilms do have humor in them. Examples like Bruce Wayne falling asleep during a meeting scene early on in TDK and Morgan Freeman's jokes on new Batsuit protecting against cats (reference to Batman Returns). As for Bale (as Bruce Wayne), he is as funny as Pierce was during his days as Bond.

And even though Chris' Bat is placed in reality, there are some fantastical elements in them, such as hallucinations from Scarecrow's drugs in BB. And let's not forget that BB and TDK aren't the only superhero films grounded in reality. Iron Man films starring Robert Downey Jr. are one of these examples even though they are more lighthearted than Chris' Bat. As realistic as the Bat and Iron Man are on film, they're still superior to DC's Bond. Afterall, everything is preferable over Bond these days.

[Blowfeld]

More on the numbers behind the BO.

Short version if Skyfall cost $400 million total it will need a minimum of $700 million to break even. Also more proof QoS did not break even.

Only two of eight major movies released last month are clearly destined to make a profit — and one of them is, surprise!, Marvel’s The Avengers — according to SNL Kagan’s latest monthly tally. The firm says that The Avengers is likely to generate more than $2B in revenues from all sources (excluding merchandise sales) on total costs of $473.2M. The 4.24 ratio of expected revenues over costs is well above the 1.75 threshold that Kagan says establishes a film as clearly profitable. To account for revenue splits, expenses and variables that analysts can’t determine, the firm classifies films with a ratio of less than 1.75 but more than 1.40 as being in a gray area while those below 1.40 are deemed probably unprofitable. By that measure, Fox Searchlight’s The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel fared well, with a ratio of 2.60 ($169.6M in revenues on $65.2M in costs). Columbia’s Men In Black 3 is on the bubble with 1.53 ($687.2M over $450.0M). Films likely to spill red ink include include Universal’s Battleship ($450M over $401.8M), Paramount’s The Dictator ($171.6M over $176.1M), Warner Bros’ Dark Shadows ($279.3M over $293.4M), Warner Bros’ Chernobyl Diaries ($59.4M over $87.4M), and Lionsgate’s What To Expect When You’re Expecting ($66.8M over $121.5M).

[Napoleon Solo]

More on the numbers behind the BO.

Short version if Skyfall cost $400 million total it will need a minimum of $700 million to break even. Also more proof QoS did not break even.

Only two of eight major movies released last month are clearly destined to make a profit — and one of them is, surprise!, Marvel’s The Avengers — according to SNL Kagan’s latest monthly tally. The firm says that The Avengers is likely to generate more than $2B in revenues from all sources (excluding merchandise sales) on total costs of $473.2M. The 4.24 ratio of expected revenues over costs is well above the 1.75 threshold that Kagan says establishes a film as clearly profitable. To account for revenue splits, expenses and variables that analysts can’t determine, the firm classifies films with a ratio of less than 1.75 but more than 1.40 as being in a gray area while those below 1.40 are deemed probably unprofitable. By that measure, Fox Searchlight’s The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel fared well, with a ratio of 2.60 ($169.6M in revenues on $65.2M in costs). Columbia’s Men In Black 3 is on the bubble with 1.53 ($687.2M over $450.0M). Films likely to spill red ink include include Universal’s Battleship ($450M over $401.8M), Paramount’s The Dictator ($171.6M over $176.1M), Warner Bros’ Dark Shadows ($279.3M over $293.4M), Warner Bros’ Chernobyl Diaries ($59.4M over $87.4M), and Lionsgate’s What To Expect When You’re Expecting ($66.8M over $121.5M).

Would these calculations be in the ball park?

Quantum production cost: $230 million

Quantum marketing and distribution: $230 million

Total cost: $460 million

Quantum ticket sales: $600 million (this is rounded up just to keep the math simple)

Quantum revenue kept by studio; $600 million times 60 percent (or $600m times 0.6): $360 million.

$360 million minus $460 million equals $100 million deficit?

"Mind you, all of this is pure guess work."

[tehmanis]

Quantum production cost: $230 million

Quantum marketing and distribution: $230 million

Total cost: $460 million

Quantum ticket sales: $600 million (this is rounded up just to keep the math simple)

Quantum revenue kept by studio; $600 million times 60 percent (or $600m times 0.6): $360 million.

$360 million minus $460 million equals $100 million deficit?

"Mind you, all of this is pure guess work."

i'm curious napoleon solo: how do you get those figures from? do you read their audited financial statements?

[A Crag-like face]

More on the numbers behind the BO.

Short version if Skyfall cost $400 million total it will need a minimum of $700 million to break even. Also more proof QoS did not break even.

Only two of eight major movies released last month are clearly destined to make a profit — and one of them is, surprise!, Marvel’s The Avengers — according to SNL Kagan’s latest monthly tally. The firm says that The Avengers is likely to generate more than $2B in revenues from all sources (excluding merchandise sales) on total costs of $473.2M. The 4.24 ratio of expected revenues over costs is well above the 1.75 threshold that Kagan says establishes a film as clearly profitable. To account for revenue splits, expenses and variables that analysts can’t determine, the firm classifies films with a ratio of less than 1.75 but more than 1.40 as being in a gray area while those below 1.40 are deemed probably unprofitable. By that measure, Fox Searchlight’s The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel fared well, with a ratio of 2.60 ($169.6M in revenues on $65.2M in costs). Columbia’s Men In Black 3 is on the bubble with 1.53 ($687.2M over $450.0M). Films likely to spill red ink include include Universal’s Battleship ($450M over $401.8M), Paramount’s The Dictator ($171.6M over $176.1M), Warner Bros’ Dark Shadows ($279.3M over $293.4M), Warner Bros’ Chernobyl Diaries ($59.4M over $87.4M), and Lionsgate’s What To Expect When You’re Expecting ($66.8M over $121.5M).

Would these calculations be in the ball park?

Quantum production cost: $230 million

Quantum marketing and distribution: $230 million

Total cost: $460 million

Quantum ticket sales: $600 million (this is rounded up just to keep the math simple)

Quantum revenue kept by studio; $600 million times 60 percent (or $600m times 0.6): $360 million.

$360 million minus $460 million equals $100 million deficit?

"Mind you, all of this is pure guess work."

I took Napoleon's algarithm and used it on all the previous Bond films. All of the Cubby/Harry movies made a profit under this formula, even financially less successful films like OHMSS, TMWTGG, AVTAK and LTK (LTK had a profit of $30 Million using this method). NSNA also made about a $30 Million profit, and the notoriously over-budget spoof CR with David Niven even managed to make $1 Million profit for Colombia Pictures.

The formula seems to break down in the post Cubby era. Here is the profit margin for the studio using Napoelon's forumal for the Brosnan and Craig films:

GE: $92 Million
TND: -$12 Million
TWINE: -$36 Million
DAD: -$10 Million
CR: $59 Million
QOS: -$108 Million

Now, something must be missing from this formula. If TND really lost money, there's no way TWINE's budget would have been increased (which it was - same with DAD). The Brosnan movies were definitely profitable. Those of us who are old enough to remember that period recall how MGM seemingly limped along from year to year, desperate for the next Bond film to come out to help them avert bankruptcy.

So while I think something did go wrong with QOS (there are too many reports of cost-cutting on SF for there not to be some truth to this), I'm not convinced by this formula. Is it leaving out home video revenue (which started to dry up right about the time QOD came out - and as Mazer has said several times, Craig has not sold well on DVD)? I'm not sure.

[Napoleon Solo]

Quantum production cost: $230 million

Quantum marketing and distribution: $230 million

Total cost: $460 million

Quantum ticket sales: $600 million (this is rounded up just to keep the math simple)

Quantum revenue kept by studio; $600 million times 60 percent (or $600m times 0.6): $360 million.

$360 million minus $460 million equals $100 million deficit?

"Mind you, all of this is pure guess work."

i'm curious napoleon solo: how do you get those figures from? do you read their audited financial statements?

No, not at all, not claiming to have done so (hence the quote from M in You Only Live Twice).

But here's where I got the component pieces:

1) The $230 million production budget for Quantum of Solace has been mentioned various places. Here's one:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/JamesBond.php

2) It's often repeated that movies cost as much to distribute and promote as they do to make. One of those of people is Daniel Craig;

http://news.moviefone.com/2012/04/16/da ... 1334609899

Specific quote: "This movie costs a lot of money to make, it costs as nearly as much again if not more to promote, so we go where we can. " (He's referring to product placement).

3) In terms of percentage, i09 had this article: http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-d ... profitable

Specific quote:
These deals often protect the theaters from movies that bomb at the box office by giving the theaters a bigger cut of those films. So if a film only makes $10 million at the box office, the distributor will get only 45 percent of that money. But if a film makes $300 million at the box office, then the distributor gets up to 60 percent of that money.

You can actually look at the securities filings for the big theater chains, to look at how much of their ticket revenues go back to the studios, points out Stone. So for example, the latest quarterly filing by Cinemark Holdings, shows that 54.5 percent of its ticket revenues went to the distributors. So as a ballpark figure, studios generally take in around 50-55 percent of U.S. box office money.

So I took the reported/estimated Quantum budget, doubled it to estimate total cost. Then took the worldwide box office, rounded it up to $600 million (it was short of that). Multiplied $600 million by 0.6, essentially the maximum figure mentioned in the io9 story about studio percentage of box office.

Like I said, "pure guesswork."

[Napoleon Solo]

Quantum production cost: $230 million

Quantum marketing and distribution: $230 million

Total cost: $460 million

Quantum ticket sales: $600 million (this is rounded up just to keep the math simple)

Quantum revenue kept by studio; $600 million times 60 percent (or $600m times 0.6): $360 million.

$360 million minus $460 million equals $100 million deficit?

"Mind you, all of this is pure guess work."

i'm curious napoleon solo: how do you get those figures from? do you read their audited financial statements?

No, not at all, not claiming to have done so (hence the quote from M in You Only Live Twice).

But here's where I got the component pieces:

1) The $230 million production budget for Quantum of Solace has been mentioned various places. Here's one:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/JamesBond.php

2) It's often repeated that movies cost as much to distribute and promote as they do to make. One of those of people is Daniel Craig;

http://news.moviefone.com/2012/04/16/da ... 1334609899

Specific quote: "This movie costs a lot of money to make, it costs as nearly as much again if not more to promote, so we go where we can. " (He's referring to product placement).

3) In terms of percentage, i09 had this article: http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-d ... profitable

Specific quote:
//These deals often protect the theaters from movies that bomb at the box office by giving the theaters a bigger cut of those films. So if a film only makes $10 million at the box office, the distributor will get only 45 percent of that money. But if a film makes $300 million at the box office, then the distributor gets up to 60 percent of that money.

You can actually look at the securities filings for the big theater chains, to look at how much of their ticket revenues go back to the studios, points out Stone. So for example, the latest quarterly filing by Cinemark Holdings, shows that 54.5 percent of its ticket revenues went to the distributors. So as a ballpark figure, studios generally take in around 50-55 percent of U.S. box office money.//

So I took the reported/estimated Quantum budget, doubled it to estimate total cost. Then took the worldwide box office, rounded it up to $600 million (it was short of that). Multiplied $600 million by 0.6, essentially the maximum figure mentioned in the io9 story about studio percentage of box office.

Like I said, "pure guesswork." It is guesswork based on available facts, but not a comprehensive set of facts. But remember, The Girl With the Dragon Tatoo had a $100 million budget, worldwide ticket sales of not quite $300 million and lost money. That's not me saying that, that's MGM saying that:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/enterta ... treet.html

Did Quantum sell a lot of tickets? Absolutely. But did it sell enough tickets to justify a $230 million budget? Maybe not. Few movies do.

[Napoleon Solo]

More on the numbers behind the BO.

I took Napoleon's algarithm and used it on all the previous Bond films. All of the Cubby/Harry movies made a profit under this formula, even financially less successful films like OHMSS, TMWTGG, AVTAK and LTK (LTK had a profit of $30 Million using this method). NSNA also made about a $30 Million profit, and the notoriously over-budget spoof CR with David Niven even managed to make $1 Million profit for Colombia Pictures.

The formula seems to break down in the post Cubby era. Here is the profit margin for the studio using Napoelon's forumal for the Brosnan and Craig films:

GE: $92 Million
TND: -$12 Million
TWINE: -$36 Million
DAD: -$10 Million
CR: $59 Million
QOS: -$108 Million

Now, something must be missing from this formula. If TND really lost money, there's no way TWINE's budget would have been increased (which it was - same with DAD). The Brosnan movies were definitely profitable. Those of us who are old enough to remember that period recall how MGM seemingly limped along from year to year, desperate for the next Bond film to come out to help them avert bankruptcy.

So while I think something did go wrong with QOS (there are too many reports of cost-cutting on SF for there not to be some truth to this), I'm not convinced by this formula. Is it leaving out home video revenue (which started to dry up right about the time QOD came out - and as Mazer has said several times, Craig has not sold well on DVD)? I'm not sure.

See my previous reply with the link to the io9 story. In the 1990s/early 2000s, according to the article, studios were able to get a higher percentage of ticket sales. So it may be the basic method is OK, but one of the variables was different (say studios got 70-75 percent instead of 50-55 now). Also, as the story states, the actual percentage varies from film to film. MGM may have gotten a higher percentage of sales than average. Again, "pure guess work" on my part but not entirely taken out of thin air.

[A Crag-like face]

More on the numbers behind the BO.

I took Napoleon's algarithm and used it on all the previous Bond films. All of the Cubby/Harry movies made a profit under this formula, even financially less successful films like OHMSS, TMWTGG, AVTAK and LTK (LTK had a profit of $30 Million using this method). NSNA also made about a $30 Million profit, and the notoriously over-budget spoof CR with David Niven even managed to make $1 Million profit for Colombia Pictures.

The formula seems to break down in the post Cubby era. Here is the profit margin for the studio using Napoelon's forumal for the Brosnan and Craig films:

GE: $92 Million
TND: -$12 Million
TWINE: -$36 Million
DAD: -$10 Million
CR: $59 Million
QOS: -$108 Million

Now, something must be missing from this formula. If TND really lost money, there's no way TWINE's budget would have been increased (which it was - same with DAD). The Brosnan movies were definitely profitable. Those of us who are old enough to remember that period recall how MGM seemingly limped along from year to year, desperate for the next Bond film to come out to help them avert bankruptcy.

So while I think something did go wrong with QOS (there are too many reports of cost-cutting on SF for there not to be some truth to this), I'm not convinced by this formula. Is it leaving out home video revenue (which started to dry up right about the time QOD came out - and as Mazer has said several times, Craig has not sold well on DVD)? I'm not sure.

See my previous reply with the link to the io9 story. In the 1990s/early 2000s, according to the article, studios were able to get a higher percentage of ticket sales. So it may be the basic method is OK, but one of the variables was different (say studios got 70-75 percent instead of 50-55 now). Also, as the story states, the actual percentage varies from film to film. MGM may have gotten a higher percentage of sales than average. Again, "pure guess work" on my part but not entirely taken out of thin air.

The differing percentages from decade to decade would make sense. The 90s was a boom time for movies, and so the studios might well have kept more for themselves. But we seem to be living in a downturn in the film industry (as well as most industries, it seems) where there are too many studios chasing too few moviegoers. Thus only two movies released in the last month making money so far.

[tehmanis]

No, not at all, not claiming to have done so (hence the quote from M in You Only Live Twice).

But here's where I got the component pieces:

1) The $230 million production budget for Quantum of Solace has been mentioned various places. Here's one:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/JamesBond.php

well its still budget, and we still don't know the actual production cost figures yet, and those budget figures you mention is from internet source.

2) It's often repeated that movies cost as much to distribute and promote as they do to make. One of those of people is Daniel Craig;

http://news.moviefone.com/2012/04/16/da ... 1334609899

Specific quote: "This movie costs a lot of money to make, it costs as nearly as much again if not more to promote, so we go where we can. " (He's referring to product placement).

Daniel is not an accountant my friend (and the previous Bond also) an actor can talk whatever he want to say about figures, but the actual results is not in their area of expertise..

3) In terms of percentage, i09 had this article: http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-d ... profitable
Specific quote:
//These deals often protect the theaters from movies that bomb at the box office by giving the theaters a bigger cut of those films. So if a film only makes $10 million at the box office, the distributor will get only 45 percent of that money. But if a film makes $300 million at the box office, then the distributor gets up to 60 percent of that money.

nice formula i must said, but again if you don't know the actual production cost those kind of formula is purely speculations, and cannot apply to all studios, since those article is good read anyway

So I took the reported/estimated Quantum budget, doubled it to estimate total cost. Then took the worldwide box office, rounded it up to $600 million (it was short of that). Multiplied $600 million by 0.6, essentially the maximum figure mentioned in the io9 story about studio percentage of box office.

its rough formula my friend,do you think all studios can make 0,6 from every deal?

Like I said, "pure guesswork." It is guesswork based on available facts, but not a comprehensive set of facts. But remember, The Girl With the Dragon Tatoo had a $100 million budget, worldwide ticket sales of not quite $300 million and lost money. That's not me saying that, that's MGM saying that:.

if the MGM saying that i can accept it about 90%

Did Quantum sell a lot of tickets? Absolutely. But did it sell enough tickets to justify a $230 million budget? Maybe not. Few movies do.

i wonder can you make this pure guesswork on Licence to kill? or any Brosnan non Bond movies?

[bjmdds]

DVD sales I believe are extra and that is where they can churn a profit after the theatre run. This is Q's department. Let's ask him.

[Mazer Rackham]

No need for guess work about the older films.

LTK was in the red for years and years staying there until after GE revitalized the franchise (92m total cost, 156m worldwide gross). I've posted the exact numbers of the studios take numerous time I don't feel like trying find them right now.

On average the Brozza's movie netted UA/MGM 130m in the bank each time at bat. The exception was DAD which gave the largest profit in their history of the partnership.

One part that confusing people is when the studios say we set a record and sold so many millions in product placement, most people assume -logically these monies reduce the P&A cost of the movie, it does but only to reduce them to the range admitted, say DAD had 120m in P&R this total is after the product placement sales are calculated.

DVD sales are tricky, no doubt CR and QOS/Quark underperformed in this arena, regardless they bought in money but take the example of $50 million in dvd sales for Quark not all of that is profit. Maybe half goes to the studios coffers and most of the time after the distributor and other partners get their cut it's not even half. When the prices drop precipitously it gets even murkier.

Skyfall needs to be a 300m film total (or less) to safely make a profit. Profit is key without it MGM/Sony have cause to dismiss the actor.

[English Agent]

Umm.........looking at these profit figures!

Firstly i agree that i had seen somewhere a few years ago the breakdown of TWINE's finances, and it had made a slight loss.

Regarding TND & DAD not sure about them.......ie DAD had a budget of around $142 mil and marketing of around $38 mil, so i cant see how that film made a loss.

QOS i'am sure made a big loss, though i dont believe the marketing budget was the same as production budget ie $230 mil, probably more like $100mil, anyway product placement pays a lot off on Bond films marketing bills.....but which ever way you look at it QOS must of lost a lot of money, as it wasnt even a good seller on DVD, like CR was.

Too this day i cant see how EON managed to blow $230 mil on a 90 minute movie, which didnt have large amounts of CGI or huge sets.
In comparison Ridley Scott managed to produce 'Prometheus a sci-fi epic' with its 3D cgi scenes and vast film sets for $100 mil less.................so where are EON blowing their production money away???

[English Agent]

'Mazer'................if you find your figures, please could you show us them here!!

One point, if QOS did make a big loss, then SF has certainly got to deliver or the franchise is doomed, do you agree?

Thanks. EA

[Mazer Rackham]

d**n it I looked it up in spite of myself.

LTK 92m total cost, 156m total box office, studios take 60m .

From the studio's POV -Not worth getting out of bed for.

Time for another drink.

Cheers!

[Mazer Rackham]

Umm.........looking at these profit figures!

Firstly i agree that i had seen somewhere a few years ago the breakdown of TWINE's finances, and it had made a slight loss.

Regarding TND & DAD not sure about them.......ie DAD had a budget of around $142 mil and marketing of around $38 mil, so i cant see how that film made a loss.

QOS i'am sure made a big loss, though i dont believe the marketing budget was the same as production budget ie $230 mil, probably more like $100mil, anyway product placement pays a lot off on Bond films marketing bills.....but which ever way you look at it QOS must of lost a lot of money, as it wasnt even a good seller on DVD, like CR was.

Too this day i cant see how EON managed to blow $230 mil on a 90 minute movie, which didnt have large amounts of CGI or huge sets.
In comparison Ridley Scott managed to produce 'Prometheus a sci-fi epic' with its 3D cgi scenes and vast film sets for $100 mil less.................so where are EON blowing their production money away???

No the craggy one is right, they put as much or more in the P&A. I was called all kinds of names for saying it but later Sony - SONY- admitted to spending at least $400m on QOS.

d**n it I'm looking at the numbers now, I need to get off the PC and back to what I was doing before this.

Leaving theaters plenty of Brozza films were in the red, but remember it was turned around in no time. Average profit for the studio was in the range of $130m.
GE had a profit of 36m
TND had a loss of 62m
TWINE had a loss of 60m
DAD had a loss of 36m

Cheers!

[bjmdds]

Brosnan's flicks made money on DVD sales or else they would have been 3 flops at the bean counters desks?

[English Agent]

Brosnan's flicks made money on DVD sales or else they would have been 3 flops at the bean counters desks?

Yes, i agree i'am sure the Video and DVD sales put the later Brozza's film into profit.

I think after CR, the money men at SONY, lost their heads.....i mean QOS would of had to of made around $800 mil at the box office just to break even!
It could of been possible based on QOS's first weekend performances around the globe if the film had been a classic....unfortunately for ther studio and Bond fans it was a bleedin shambles of a film!