JAMES BOND: NO TIME TO DIE starring Daniel Craig (2021)
3 3

445 posts in this topic

On 11/24/2021 at 7:20 AM, ▫️ said:

The only question is how much was the cost of delaying the movie for 16 months? 

The Hollywood Reporter quoted an (unnamed) source as saying interest expense was ~$1 million per month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2021 at 7:22 AM, Bosco685 said:

I'm sure you are confused. Especially when in your own mind you have been proclaiming how much this film was going to lose.

One thing THR is not accounting for that is always a big balance sheet credit across the Bond franchises is product placement revenue. Like Disney who started the trend decades ago, Eon Productions makes this a focus of all its planning.

The modernization of James Bond’s brand partnerships

Some of the brands:

And with No Time To Die you have a few companies driving the brand placement as a strategy.

And with the Bond brand especially, other companies rushed in to be part of this.

So yes, I feel like THR shorted its own analysis by not taking the full film balance sheet into consideration.

:headpat:

Fair point.

But it's funny that for often you accuse others of "moving the goal posts" here you're doing the same - ignoring your longstanding apples-to-apples comparison of simply theatrical production costs to worldwide revenue to suddenly (when it suits your thesis) introducing things like marketing costs, DVD sales and product placements.

So here, you're comparing apples to hand grenades.

On the one hand,

1) This Bond film didn't need to make money. 16-month delay enabled Amazon to buy MGM - they're looking at the long-term profitability of the franchise, not No Time to Die alone

2) Yes - product placement revenue is likely significant (reports were $45 million for Skyfall).

3) The thrust of the Variety article is that - despite being the biggest global earner of the pandemic, the film will fail to break-even theatrically - no one's disputing it may eventually make a profit.

On the other,

1) Like PVOD / DVD sales and merchandising revenue, in traditional shorthand break-even / profitability analysis, product placement is counted as off-set against marketing expense. So it's irrelevant vs. the production cost vs. theatrical take equation.

2) Nearly every film has significant product placement revenue - yet you yourself don't subtract that from your production multiples in your charts.

Hell - I went to Audi's premiere party for Spider-Man: Far From Home. 3 weeks pre-release, open bar, goodie bags, etc. It was fun. Even personally knowing the product marketing team at VW and watching the film with them, I couldn't tell you how much they paid for product placements in Far From Home, Endgame, etc.

3) Not only were there reports of potential re-shoots because the original Nokia phones featured in the film were then 2+ years old by release, but much of the product placement revenue here was likely cancelled out by:

1) the interest cost on the 16-month delay and 

2) The uncomfortable truth that the marketing campaign likely cost over $100 million - given that it started nearly two years before release - yes, the hard cost of trailers, posters, etc. don't change, but the bulk of marketing spend goes to distribution (TV air time, etc.). $100M would have been standard marketing spend for this film had it never been delayed. As it was, the multiple delays meant far more distribution spend than normal, as it was spread over years, particularly as the release date kept shifting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2021 at 2:41 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Fair point.

But it's funny that for often you accuse others of "moving the goal posts" here you're doing the same - ignoring your longstanding apples-to-apples comparison of simply theatrical production costs to worldwide revenue to suddenly (when it suits your thesis) introducing things like marketing costs, DVD sales and product placements.

So here, you're comparing apples to hand grenades.

Spoiler

On the one hand,

1) This Bond film didn't need to make money. 16-month delay enabled Amazon to buy MGM - they're looking at the long-term profitability of the franchise, not No Time to Die alone

2) Yes - product placement revenue is likely significant (reports were $45 million for Skyfall).

3) The thrust of the Variety article is that - despite being the biggest global earner of the pandemic, the film will fail to break-even theatrically - no one's disputing it may eventually make a profit.

On the other,

1) Like PVOD / DVD sales and merchandising revenue, in traditional shorthand break-even / profitability analysis, product placement is counted as off-set against marketing expense. So it's irrelevant vs. the production cost vs. theatrical take equation.

2) Nearly every film has significant product placement revenue - yet you yourself don't subtract that from your production multiples in your charts.

Hell - I went to Audi's premiere party for Spider-Man: Far From Home. 3 weeks pre-release, open bar, goodie bags, etc. It was fun. Even personally knowing the product marketing team at VW and watching the film with them, I couldn't tell you how much they paid for product placements in Far From Home, Endgame, etc.

3) Not only were there reports of potential re-shoots because the original Nokia phones featured in the film were then 2+ years old by release, but much of the product placement revenue here was likely cancelled out by:

1) the interest cost on the 16-month delay and 

2) The uncomfortable truth that the marketing campaign likely cost over $100 million - given that it started nearly two years before release - yes, the hard cost of trailers, posters, etc. don't change, but the bulk of marketing spend goes to distribution (TV air time, etc.). $100M would have been standard marketing spend for this film had it never been delayed. As it was, the multiple delays meant far more distribution spend than normal, as it was spread over years, particularly as the release date kept shifting.

 

'Apples to hand grenades'? :roflmao:

No. Just facts. Just the facts, ma'am! Bond is one of the biggest product placement franchises other than Disney overall that started the official trend by forming a department that specialized in establishing product placement arrangements.

:baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be the first movie in history that needs a billion to break even. OR, maybe it has been profitable but not so much that they can’t fudge the numbers and call it a loss to get a tax break. Seriously, no one really knows what actual figures are out there for any movie do they? They can say anything. We just know what the box office is bringing in. We have a general idea of production budget and maybe marketing. But these guys use movie math and can probably write them off like a gambling debt. It’s not as simple as the budget/box office charts posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2021 at 2:22 PM, ▫️ said:

This may be the first movie in history that needs a billion to break even. OR, maybe it has been profitable but not so much that they can’t fudge the numbers and call it a loss to get a tax break. Seriously, no one really knows what actual figures are out there for any movie do they? They can say anything. We just know what the box office is bringing in. We have a general idea of production budget and maybe marketing. But these guys use movie math and can probably write them off like a gambling debt. It’s not as simple as the budget/box office charts posted.

That has always been the challenge with Hollywood Accounting.

How Hollywood Accounting Can Make a $450 Million Movie 'Unprofitable'

Quote

Here is an amazing glimpse into the dark side of the force that is Hollywood economics. The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.

 

How can a movie that grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget not turn a profit? It comes down to Tinseltown accounting. As Planet Money explained in an interview with Edward Jay Epstein in 2010, studios typically set up a separate "corporation" for each movie they produce. Like any company, it calculates profits by subtracting expenses from revenues. Erase any possible profit, the studio charges this "movie corporation" a big fee that overshadows the film's revenue. For accounting purposes, the movie is a money "loser" and there are no profits to distribute.

Another case study how if they don't want to pay out revenue sharing agreements anything can be noted as failing at the box office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it last night. Now that was a good movie wrapping up all the characters across the five-film arc.

But that ending. So emotional. I can see why some would be twisted over the wrap-up to the Daniel Craig Bond. But certainly an ending no other Bond film delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Following reports that No Time to Die would lose millions for the studio, MGM has responded with an official statement (via CinemaBlend). The longtime James Bond production studio debunked said reports, noting the film's continued box office success and its video-on-demand numbers as proof of it turning a profit for MGM. See the studio's statement below:

 

"Unnamed and uninformed sources suggesting the film will lose money are categorically unfounded and put more simply, not true. The film has far exceeded our theatrical estimates in this timeframe, becoming the highest grossing Hollywood film in the international marketplace and passing F9 to become the highest grossing Hollywood film since the pandemic. With the PVOD release of the film already doing stellar home viewing business, all while continuing to hold well theatrically, No Time To Die will earn a profit for MGM, both as an individual film title and as part of MGM’s incredible library."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2021 at 9:19 AM, Bosco685 said:

 

This is nothing new that we didn't hear a week ago. In fact, it's almost the same quote.

They're admitting it will lose money theatrically, but *eventually* make money via PVOD and lifetime (i.e., future) DVD sales, streaming licensing, etc.

Edited by Gatsby77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2021 at 5:31 PM, Gatsby77 said:

This is nothing new that we didn't hear a week ago. In fact, it's almost the same quote.

They're admitting it will lose money theatrically, but *eventually* make money via PVOD and lifetime (i.e., future) DVD sales, streaming licensing, etc.

vested.gif.a45084c0e2238233319959a2c5ef0f11.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 11:57 AM, Bosco685 said:

Saw it last night. Now that was a good movie wrapping up all the characters across the five-film arc.

But that ending. So emotional. I can see why some would be twisted over the wrap-up to the Daniel Craig Bond. But certainly an ending no other Bond film delivered.

Did you like the pre-score opening scenes Bosco? And where do you rate it among the five? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2021 at 10:52 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Did you like the pre-score opening scenes Bosco? And where do you rate it among the five? 

First off I had credit on file with VUDU. But even with that, it was worth the overall $15 it cost me (normally $19.99).

Billie Eilish doing the opening theme at first surprised me. But then once I heard it, I liked it. It felt like a musical wrap-up of the five-film franchise.

For me, the ranking is:

  1. Skyfall - This movie just blew me away how much it touched on James Bond's past and the intensity of the story
  2. Casino Royale - You knew the traditional story approach had changed to a more brutal theme
  3. No Time To Die - This just feels right as the culmination of all that Daniel Craig's character had experienced
  4. Spectre - This movie had me so worked up to see it with those early intense trailers and then the latter part of it fizzled
  5. Quantum of Solace - The true film that drove home the point his Bond was a brawler but the story didn't keep it all together

I don't compare these to other Bond films as each actor brings their own franchise value to the table. But I have really enjoyed this sub-franchise ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2021 at 7:52 PM, Bosco685 said:

For me, the ranking is:

  1. Skyfall - This movie just blew me away how much it touched on James Bond's past and the intensity of the story
  2. Casino Royale - You knew the traditional story approach had changed to a more brutal theme
  3. No Time To Die - This just feels right as the culmination of all that Daniel Craig's character had experienced
  4. Spectre - This movie had me so worked up to see it with those early intense trailers and then the latter part of it fizzled
  5. Quantum of Solace - The true film that drove home the point his Bond was a brawler but the story didn't keep it all together

I don't compare these to other Bond films as each actor brings their own franchise value to the table. But I have really enjoyed this sub-franchise ride.

Interesting. I’m gonna have to go with:

  1. Casino Royale
  2. TIE - Skyfall / No Time to Die 
  3. SPECTRE  
  4. Quantum of Solace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll play along.

1. Spectre - Yes this isn't a typo.

2. Casino Royale

3. No Time to Die

4. Quantum of Solace

5. Skyfall

 

And for reference. Favorite Bond Actor List.

1. Sean Connery

2. Timothy Dalton

3. Roger Moore

4. Pierce Brosnan

5. George Lazenby

6. Daniel Craig

 

Looking forward to the reboot. But I think the series with the current production team might be unable to make anything better than an action movie Bond at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3