SPECTRE | 11/6/15 | Final Trailer on Page 126! | Twitter reactions coming in, STID 2.0?

[TalismanRing]

3 hours ago, John Marston said:

 

 

 

Check out the overseas thread. Apparently it can possibly reach 900m overseas alone 

 

It's biggest O/S markets were Europe, Australia, Japan and Russia.  Russia's currency against the $ is down about 50% from 2012 and the rest are down 20-25%.   It has to do significantly better business than Skyfall to make as much $.  Even with China expanding (and it didn't expand for MI5 that much and that was a far bigger franchise in China than Bond)  it might not match the $800m O/S of Skyfall because I doubt it will have the long legs it had in many markets.

[MrFanaticGuy34]

OMG......now people who have seen it and hated it....really just wishes it to fail more rather than succeeding, box-office wise.  

 

Way too harsh.....just because some of you didn't like it, doesn't actually translate to "Oh, yeah.....let's make it bomb so hard"  kinda thing.  Ain't gonna happen.

Edited November 5, 2015 by MrFanaticGuy34

[TalismanRing]

7 minutes ago, Joel M said:

In Skyfall, Bond sipped more obviously from a Heineken bottle in a bar scene, and the company — for which Craig has appeared in character as 007 in adverts — is believed to have shelled out £28 million for the privilege. This in itself paid for almost a third of the film's £94 million budget.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3285408/Making-killing-17-different-brands-linger-screen-new-Bond-film-Spectre-007-profits-endorsement.html#ixzz3qdcASbfJ 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Bond's product placement deals are so huge that makes the budgets a moot point. It's not just because it's a huge franchise, it's because Bond is like the ultimate male icon. I'm pretty sure all the brands that target men probably paying way more money to be in a Bond movie than in Transformers or superhero movies.

 

A lot of product placement money is not in $ but in mutual marketing deals like the Heinken TV and print ads featuring or highlighting Bond.  

 

If the budget was a moot point there wouldn't have been Sony and MGM execs pulling their hair out over the a "mid 300ms" budget and begging Brocolli to make cuts - like having it rain, using a different location or cutting down on the number of train cars used.

[MrFanaticGuy34]

dp.

Edited November 5, 2015 by MrFanaticGuy34

[WrathOfHan]

After listening to Double Toasted's review, I think I'll skip this in theaters. I like the franchise but it's not one of my go-to's and I didn't like QOS and Skyfall so I doubt I'll care for this with how mixed reviews are.

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, Joel M said:

In Skyfall, Bond sipped more obviously from a Heineken bottle in a bar scene, and the company — for which Craig has appeared in character as 007 in adverts — is believed to have shelled out £28 million for the privilege. This in itself paid for almost a third of the film's £94 million budget.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3285408/Making-killing-17-different-brands-linger-screen-new-Bond-film-Spectre-007-profits-endorsement.html#ixzz3qdcASbfJ 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Bond's product placement deals are so huge that makes the budgets a moot point. It's not just because it's a huge franchise, it's because Bond is like the ultimate male icon. I'm pretty sure all the brands that target men probably paying way more money to be in a Bond movie than in Transformers or superhero movies.

That is just plain silly.Anybody who thinks the product placement can bring in 300 Million shows his total ignorance of the film business.

The main benefit the Bond films get from product placement is free advertising. You can't turn on the TV without seeing an ad featuring Bond using some product. ..which SONY/EON did not have to pay for. It a mutually benficial deal where both sides get publicity. The idea that companies pay tens of millions of dollars in cash for product placment in Bond or any other film...is just plain wrong. Whatever cash is payed is  secondary to free marketing for the film company. The idea that EON can largely finaince the Bond films through product placment is nonsense. It's main value for the studio is free marketing.

This is true for all films. Guaranteed, McDonald's did not pay a huge amount of money to Fox for being able to give out Peanuts toys. It's a deal where the studio gets free marketing,and Mickey D's gets associated with a popular franchise.

 

Edited November 5, 2015 by dudalb

[bapi]

My main problem is that twist from Austin Powers. It's just so unreal, so unbelievable... that all four Craig movies were built around something so stupid and ridiculous.

[dudalb]

42 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

After listening to Double Toasted's review, I think I'll skip this in theaters. I like the franchise but it's not one of my go-to's and I didn't like QOS and Skyfall so I doubt I'll care for this with how mixed reviews are.

I will go this weekend...I have seen every Bond movie in the theters since "THe Spy Who Loved Me" (Actually, I have seen every Bond film in theaters courtesy of the Bond Festivals that the Classic movie theaters in major cities often have) and will not break the tradition.

[MrFanaticGuy34]

Just a reminder for people that haven't seen Spectre and are going to see it.........don't get too disappointed if not evrything is what you expected.

 

Cause, tbh......not all Bond films can be perfect. (clears throat, QoS)

 

Keep the expectations low.

[dudalb]

6 hours ago, Goffe said:

They will lose money with Spectre, the question is only how much.

 

It needs 1b WW to profit, and upon seeing the critical reception, I doubt it will get anywhere near that number.

Nonsense. The break even point is being quoted as 600 Million. No Bond movie has ever lost money..even those who had dissapointing box office like OHMSS and Man with the Golden Gun were very profitible films....it's just that some are more sucessful then others.

They will make a good profit off of SPECTRE. If they want a huge cash cow they will have to find a way to cut costs on the next one. Babara needs to follow the example of her father who,when a film went vastly overbudget,tooks paints to cut costs on the nest.

[grim22]

6 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Nonsense. The break even point is being quoted as 600 Million. No Bond movie has ever lost money..even those who had dissapointing box office like OHMSS and Man with the Golden Gun were very profitible films....it's just that some are more sucessful then others.

They will make a good profit off of SPECTRE. If they want a huge cash cow they will have to find a way to cut costs on the next one. Babara needs to follow the example of her father who,when a film went vastly overbudget,tooks paints to cut costs on the nest.

 

EON, The Broccolis and MGM will make money for sure, whether Sony will or not is a different question. Sony made a grand total of 57M from Skyfall's 1.1B WW gross.

[RobinHood26]

-

Edited January 9, 2019 by Jay Hollywood

[TalismanRing]

4 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Nonsense. The break even point is being quoted as 600 Million. No Bond movie has ever lost money..even those who had dissapointing box office like OHMSS and Man with the Golden Gun were very profitible films....it's just that some are more sucessful then others.

They will make a good profit off of SPECTRE. If they want a huge cash cow they will have to find a way to cut costs on the next one. Babara needs to follow the example of her father who,when a film went vastly overbudget,tooks paints to cut costs on the nest.

 

The break even was suggested by Variety to be $650m supposing the budget was $250m and the marketing $100m. That budget number is in dispute, courtesy of the e-mails (mid 300ms) and that math seems a bit off even with a $250m budget.

 

The largest single expense in the budget is the up front producers fee - somehow I don't think Barbara is cutting that unless it's the only way they can get another studio deal.  The Bond deal for Sony is not that financially lucrative. They come in a distant third in making a profit off these movies to MGM and EON.

[tigerstrp1]

The Man with the Golden Gun cost 7 mil and made 97.6.

 

I think it did fine.

[Dementeleus]

3 hours ago, Goffe said:

350m budget, 150m marketing at the very least (the norm for a big blockbuster), the studio only gets 50% of the gross, China gross being a bigger piece of the cake (which would mean less money since the studio only takes 25% from it). There is still the hefty producers' fee that we know nothing about.

 

I'm sure ancillary revenue will make up for it, though.

 

I don't usually argue for product placement covering a significant portion of the budget, but we already know that Sony does a ton of PP for the Bonds, and gets quite a bit of cash from that. Adjusting for this, they're spending much less than the $350m.

[bapi]

21 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

I don't usually argue for product placement covering a significant portion of the budget, but we already know that Sony does a ton of PP for the Bonds, and gets quite a bit of cash from that. Adjusting for this, they're spending much less than the $350m.

Do Sony actually receive any money from product placement? I thought the deal is just to distribute and co-finance Bond movies plus they'll able to show some of their Sony products?

[bapi]

28 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

The break even was suggested by Variety to be $650m supposing the budget was $250m and the marketing $100m. That budget number is in dispute, courtesy of the e-mails (mid 300ms) and that math seems a bit off even with a $250m budget.

 

The largest single expense in the budget is the up front producers fee - somehow I don't think Barbara is cutting that unless it's the only way they can get another studio deal.  The Bond deal for Sony is not that financially lucrative. They come in a distant third in making a profit off these movies to MGM and EON.

100M for marketing just seems way too low. I mean Sony spent 185-190M on The Amazing Spider-Man 2's marketing campaign and that was after they already sold merchandise rights back to Marvel...

[TalismanRing]

3 minutes ago, bapi said:

100M for marketing just seems way too low. I mean Sony spent 185-190M on The Amazing Spider-Man 2's marketing campaign and that was after they already sold merchandise rights back to Marvel...

 

Cross promotional product placement deals should help lower the cost of marketing for Bond

[Bond Bug]

Allegedly, they saved 20 million in tax incentives and rebates, by choosing Mexico as one of the locations. 

[bapi]

RottenTomatoes  --  62%

MetaCritic  --  61