The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[bjmdds]

As Mr. Ed's theme song goes, " A loss is a loss of course, of course". If Craig's film does not show a decent profit, after arrogantly INCREASING the production budget from CR by anywhere from $50 million+, that is NOT good for Eon, is it? Factoring in inflation, this film is down substantially from CR, by OVER $100 million in box office revenue. The experiment has hopefully ended. Maybe SONY will have a big announcement in 2010. I doubt they rush into production of The Bond Ultimatum so quickly in early 2009. MGW said he needs a rest. Sony's executive board may have another idea in mind. Let's hope so. QOS is done here and in the UK.

[stockslivevan]

We'll see BJ, we'll see. My money is on another Craig Bond film. If he gets the boot, you win.

[English Agent]

It is reported movie's producers keep only up to 55% of the box office revenue in the USA and only 40% internationally. Is this fact? If so, why should the movie theatres keep so much? Isn't 20% enough for them? The producer has all the expense, including advertising and marketing in addition to the film production as well. Why should the theatre owners keep 45-60%?

Yes, those figures do tie up with what i have read about how a films BO is broken down.....................BUT
they are just a general average.

i.e Why nowadays studios put so much emphasis on a films opening, is because this is where they get the biggest percentage of a films gross. A studio can get upto 80% of the take from an opening weekend.
The percentage of the BO take due to the studio, goes down during a films run, this makes sense as lets say towards the end of a films run, a theatre way be screening a film with only a handful of people in the theatre, therefore if lets say the cinema took $100 for this showing then they would want to give a lot less of this back to the studio, as it would not be economically viable for the theatre to show the film in the first place!!

EA

[English Agent]

Good to see u back here 'Stocks'

Yes the BO for QOS is diminished by its huge production cost.

Its sad that the items of the film which cost a fortune to make, such as the big action sequences, were greatly undermined by the directing and editing....which basically reduced their impact on the audience.
I personally found the (cheaper to make) quieter dialogue scenes in QOS to be much better.

Personally i dont think that amount of money is needed to make a great Bond film.............in fact QOS showed that spending a lot of money doesn't make a great movie.
I still can't believe that Sony and EON gave a relatively free hand to a director and his team who were an unknown quantity in this type of film.......and on the evidence of QOS i don't think they will do that again for a while.

In regards to Bond 23.........isn't it going back to be made by MGM not Sony, that might have quite an impact on the direction of the franchise.

As to MGW saying that Bond 23 could be 3 years in the waiting, because he needs a rest........well in my opinion he can take a rest, and let everyone else carry on and make the next picture for a release in 2 years time.

EA

[English Agent]

Thanks for the insight guys. You certainly know more about this than I do.
Either way, my only real concern is what I thought of the film itself. Sadly it didn't match my expectations.

You should spread some of this info on CBn and MI6, as they are all back-slapping and congratulating each other at the moment on how well QoS has done at the BO.

'Sweeney' as you've said 'its the film itself' that is the most important thing to us Bond fans, thats why i too was very deflated after seeing the film on initial viewing.

I think the reason some of us follow the financial side of films, is its a sort of barometer to how popular a film is around the world, and the figures are used to give a guideline as to how well the films compare against each other through the years, and also to see how the franchise matches up against other film series.
Plus, as film fans we like to see our favourites perform well, as it should quarantee we get another film made.

If you want info on films or TV programmes go to the 'IMDb' site.

If you want info on a films boxoffice try 'BOXOFFICEMOJO' , here u get records of a films US performace daily, but International figures weekly and also budget info.

EA

[Kristatos]

High budget or not, the fact that it has made $525 so far says that there were a lot of audiences that wanted to see the flick featuring an actor who BJ claims wouldn't draw in that much at the BO after CR's use of "curiosity factor".

But look at the pattern. Strong opening weekends followed by huge drop-offs positively scream "poor word of mouth" and suggest that few people are going to see the film more than once.

[English Agent]

High budget or not, the fact that it has made $525 so far says that there were a lot of audiences that wanted to see the flick featuring an actor who BJ claims wouldn't draw in that much at the BO after CR's use of "curiosity factor".

But look at the pattern. Strong opening weekends followed by huge drop-offs positively scream "poor word of mouth" and suggest that few people are going to see the film more than once.

In respect to what you have just said, i noticed today that after 7 weekend showings in the UK, QOS and CR had grossed around GBP 49.6 mill. QOS is definitely not lasting as well as CR, in fact CR has caught up with QOS after trailing some 3 million over the last few weeks (and with a lower ticket price).
CR did very well over the Xmas period, QOS should also do well, but will it be playing at a significant number of cinemas to make the most of the opportunity.
I've noticed that my local mulitplex has QOS down to 2 showings a day during workdays, and no showings at the weekend!

Overall though, QOS has done very well in the UK and should end up with at least GBP 51 mil, but it wont reach CR's total of around GBP 55.5 mil.
Unfortunately for the studio, the dramatic events in the financial world, means QOS's tally when converted into dollars, falls someway short of the tally taken for CR.

EA

[stockslivevan]

High budget or not, the fact that it has made $525 so far says that there were a lot of audiences that wanted to see the flick featuring an actor who BJ claims wouldn't draw in that much at the BO after CR's use of "curiosity factor".

But look at the pattern. Strong opening weekends followed by huge drop-offs positively scream "poor word of mouth" and suggest that few people are going to see the film more than once.

The reaction to QOS wasn't my concern, that's another matter. My concern was how many people were going into the film. BJ claimed CR's success only happened because of curiosity factor with Craig's debut and that QOS wouldn't make at least half of what CR made because not a lot of people really liked CR afterall and that all the raving reviews were just internet hype. However, QOS opened big, suggesting that EON struck a cord with CR and lots of folks were excited to see the next film with Craig. As it turned out, it got mixed reviews. People either liked it or outright hated it, but almost universally everyone said it didn't live up to the last film proving once and for all that CR was a success that haters tried to denounce.

[bjmdds]

I never said TBM would make 1/2 of what CR did. I thought it would open to $52 million in the USA, and it exceeded that. I said it would underperform CR in the USA and at least tie CR internationally. Once I saw it, I thought it would be front loaded hype and be done here in the USA by Christmas. The film had to make money with the cost of ticket prices up 10% over 2006 and twice the number of screenings per day as CR had. THAT is why TBM is an abject failure. With all it had going for it, with Potter out of the way, with the ridiculous number of screenings per day, with 2008 being a stellar year for movie goers, to UNDER perform as it has is a NEGATIVE. Question: has there EVER been a USA debut weekend of $67 million by a film that did not exceed $200 million at its end in the USA? If so, what would that film be? If no, TBM made more history, and NOT good history. Do not fret Craig and reboot lovers. We will all be united if Jackman takes over in 3 years after MGW takes his rest and Broccoli gets over her crush on the aging Craig.

[stockslivevan]

So now you admit that CR was an utter success?

[katied]

I never said TBM would make 1/2 of what CR did. I thought it would open to $52 million in the USA, and it exceeded that. I said it would underperform CR in the USA and at least tie CR internationally. Once I saw it, I thought it would be front loaded hype and be done here in the USA by Christmas. The film had to make money with the cost of ticket prices up 10% over 2006 and twice the number of screenings per day as CR had. THAT is why TBM is an abject failure. With all it had going for it, with Potter out of the way, with the ridiculous number of screenings per day, with 2008 being a stellar year for movie goers, to UNDER perform as it has is a NEGATIVE. Question: has there EVER been a USA debut weekend of $67 million by a film that did not exceed $200 million at its end in the USA? If so, what would that film be? If no, TBM made more history, and NOT good history. Do not fret Craig and reboot lovers. We will all be united if Jackman takes over in 3 years after MGW takes his rest and Broccoli gets over her crush on the aging Craig.

Sorry,but I don't think Craig is going to be given the boot just because his second Bond film was less of a success than the first.If that were the truth.there would be a long line of former Bonds.

[stockslivevan]

I never said TBM would make 1/2 of what CR did. I thought it would open to $52 million in the USA, and it exceeded that. I said it would underperform CR in the USA and at least tie CR internationally. Once I saw it, I thought it would be front loaded hype and be done here in the USA by Christmas. The film had to make money with the cost of ticket prices up 10% over 2006 and twice the number of screenings per day as CR had. THAT is why TBM is an abject failure. With all it had going for it, with Potter out of the way, with the ridiculous number of screenings per day, with 2008 being a stellar year for movie goers, to UNDER perform as it has is a NEGATIVE. Question: has there EVER been a USA debut weekend of $67 million by a film that did not exceed $200 million at its end in the USA? If so, what would that film be? If no, TBM made more history, and NOT good history. Do not fret Craig and reboot lovers. We will all be united if Jackman takes over in 3 years after MGW takes his rest and Broccoli gets over her crush on the aging Craig.

Sorry,but I don't think Craig is going to be given the boot just because his second Bond film was less of a success than the first.If that were the truth.there would be a long line of former Bonds.

Especially considering TMWTGG made a huge drop after LALD. In fact, I think Connery was the only Bond to have his first film bested by his second.

[katied]

To say nothing of replacing Craig with someone who is, IMO even wronger(is that even a word? *shrug* ) for the role

[stockslivevan]

I always thought Jackman would make a good Bond, but I never considered the possibility of him getting the role to be a reality. Especially after he became a household name back in 2000. He's simply too much of a film star for EON to consider, given their history of casting relatively unknowns and TV stars.

And BJ, initially you never considered that QOS would make it big because of the lack of curiosity factor. I remember quite well. It wasn't until the hype truly built up that you realized you had to move goal posts to make the odds seem slimmer.

[katied]

Exactly.Thus the reason that,say,no matter how much fanboys want it, there is a very slim chance that Christian Bale would be hired(just to give an example of the names that have been bandied about )

[stockslivevan]

Worthington might have a chance as the next Bond, by 2014 of course. Maybe Cavill, hopefully when he actually starts to look less of a boy and more of a man. But at the moment Craig is Bond and will remain for quite awhile, whether the anti-Craigers like it or not. Even Kris acknowledges this.

[katied]

As do I. I might not like the man much but even I am a bit WTF?! at the idea of firing Craig for one misstep. If this seems like I am defending him, I assure you,I'm not.

[bjmdds]

So now you admit that CR was an utter success?

It made money for Eon. I personally thought it was a ridiculous film for number 21.

[katied]

Eh, to do CR properly it really was necessary to reboot.Stating the obvious,but there is no way that Pierce could have done CR.It wouldn't have been as bad as Rog doing AVTAK,with him being too old and out of shape,but it would have been close.

[stockslivevan]

So now you admit that CR was an utter success?

It made money for Eon.

Financially, yes but it was also a critical success.