›

James Bond Film Budgets

M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
edited May 2017 in Bond Movies Posts: 538
rC4uALZ.png
Source: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/James-Bond#tab=summary

The biggest relative increases were:
* DN -> FRWL (doubled)
* GF -> TB (tripled)
* TMWTGG -> TSWLM (doubled)
* TSWLM -> MR (doubled)
* AVTAK -> TLD (1.5x)
* LTK -> GE (1.5x)
* GE -> TND (doubled)
* CR -> QOS (doubled)

The noted decreases in funding were:
* YOLT -> OHMSS
* OHMSS -> DAF
* MR -> FYEO
* DAD -> CR

Noted surprises:
Quantum of Solace was much more expensive than I thought for being a minimalist movie, but it had a lot of action scenes and much of the expensive scenery got cut out in the choppy editing. For Your Eyes Only was still pricey despite being a return-to-form film. Diamonds Are Forever ended up being cheaper than its predecessor in spite of Connery's large salary and a bunch of set pieces. It seems like the action scenes tend to cost more. The early Moore films managed to pack a lot of color and humor on a cheap budget, but Dalton onward, things got more realistic.
«1

Comments

  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Are you sure about CR, I was pretty sure that one was 150 mil
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Those numbers (gross as well as budget) are not inflation adjusted. So they are misleading, especially during the oil crisis of the 70's. That was a time when costs shot through the roof so nominal budgets for films that came one another may paint an inaccurate picture).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 8,079
    A Bond film today can be made 150 million dollars, easy. Just reintroduce the element of actual sleuthing and save the action for the really big moments. If you tighten up the pace of the film, and look for creative ways to dole out information, people won't even miss the action.
  • dragonskydragonsky
    Posts: 2,491
    The Spectre one looks unrealistic, I doubt SP had 300m production budget
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,079
    dragonsky wrote: »
    The Spectre one looks unrealistic, I doubt SP had 300m production budget

    It was 245m, I think.
  • TokolosheTokoloshe Under your bed
    Posts: 2,667
    I remember Cubby saying that the audience​should see every dollar on the screen, or words to that effect.

    I see that as him saying that a big budget has to be justified by making a better film. Are QOS and SP twice the films that CR is?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Tokoloshe wrote: »
    I remember Cubby saying that the audience​should see every dollar on the screen, or words to that effect.

    I see that as him saying that a big budget has to be justified by making a better film. Are QOS and SP twice the films that CR is?
    No, they definitely are not. In the Craig era, less (in terms of budget) has definitely been more. Both SF & CR were made for less than their predecessors.
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    dragonsky wrote: »
    The Spectre one looks unrealistic, I doubt SP had 300m production budget

    It was 245m, I think.
    $300M was the gross. I believe $245M is after incentives (Aston, Mexico, Heineken and that sort of thing etc.).
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 538
    bondjames wrote: »
    Those numbers (gross as well as budget) are not inflation adjusted. So they are misleading, especially during the oil crisis of the 70's..

    Very good point. When I get time, I'll calculate the ROI and adjust for inflation too.
    Tokoloshe wrote: »
    I remember Cubby saying that the audience​should see every dollar on the screen, or words to that effect.

    I see that as him saying that a big budget has to be justified by making a better film. Are QOS and SP twice the films that CR is?

    CR was shot mostly indoors. For film standards, the casino was really cheap. I wonder if the first half-hour of the movie costed more to shoot than the entire rest of it.
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    A Bond film today can be made 150 million dollars, easy. Just reintroduce the element of actual sleuthing and save the action for the really big moments. If you tighten up the pace of the film, and look for creative ways to dole out information, people won't even miss the action.

    I agree. 100%. In fact, I think a lower budget inspires film makers to be creative. Indie film-makers for example are extremely resourceful with the little funds they have.

    Next Bond film should have a budget cap of 200m.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Those numbers (gross as well as budget) are not inflation adjusted. So they are misleading, especially during the oil crisis of the 70's..

    Very good point. When I get time, I'll calculate the ROI and adjust for inflation too.
    Here is some analysis from thejamesbonddossier. For some reason the site does not seem clear on some browsers now (I'm not sure if they are still active). I had saved the charts a while back and am including them below.

    All of the raw data is sourced from a site called The Numbers

    This is non-inflation adjusted (so pretty much meaningless) US/Canada and worldwide gross:
    HFrUHgv.png

    This is inflation adjusted US/Canada domestic. TB is tops:
    4P3m1Ji.png

    This is inflation adjusted worldwide gross. Take this with a pinch of salt because it's very difficult to properly inflation adjust gross over 50+ years (how do you reliably determine how these various country's ticket prices inflated over that time?). Still, someone tried to do it, and it's the best data we have. SF is tops on gross but note that the earlier films were much more profitable:
    Z9YQu9Y.png

    This is worldwide ROI (using data from the previous chart). The first three films are by far the most profitable, but LALD & DAF are surprise hits:
    yBmuadU.png

    This is an attempt to determine US audience size (using average US ticket prices at certain times when the films were released). TB wins again:
    LjejRcP.png

    This is an attempt to determine worldwide audience. It has a lot of assumptions however, most notably average ticket price. Since that is not published for all locations (especially going back 50 years), the analyst has used US ticket prices during the respective timeframes. Not an accurate way to do it, but again it's the best we have. Discount these results though on account of the false assumptions:
    GtIkk0D.png

    Hope that helps.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 538
    The correlation in the ROI is basically that all Bond films sell fairly well, so lower budget tends to mean more ROI.

    But sometimes a lower ROI isn't bad. Spectre had a bloated budget and a smaller profit than Skyfall, but MGM also made hundreds of millions in profits.

    Thrift may be the worst possible outcome because profits are (a) taxed and (b) not invested.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The real surprise on that ROI chart above is TMWTGG. That was around the time of the first oil OPEC shock I believe, and I wonder if inflation screwed with that film's box office too.
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    Posts: 6,844
    Perhaps the huge ROI for DAF, LALD, and TMWTGG has also to do with the films' relatively low budgets with Bond still being for the public an enormous entity. Though the budget may dwindle, Bond is still Bond, whether facing a single opponent on an island or having out laser battles in outer space.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    True. I sometimes think Bond doesn't need the big money thrown at it. There will always be an audience for her Majesty's finest, and more recent entries like CR/GE also prove that money isn't necessary in excess for a critical and relative commercial hit.
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,023
    bondjames wrote: »

    This is an attempt to determine worldwide audience. It has a lot of assumptions however, most notably average ticket price. Since that is not published for all locations (especially going back 50 years), the analyst has used US ticket prices during the respective timeframes. Not an accurate way to do it, but again it's the best we have. Discount these results though on account of the false assumptions:
    GtIkk0D.png

    Hope that helps.

    Interesting. So in bums on seats terms Spectre did good.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    vzok wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    This is an attempt to determine worldwide audience. It has a lot of assumptions however, most notably average ticket price. Since that is not published for all locations (especially going back 50 years), the analyst has used US ticket prices during the respective timeframes. Not an accurate way to do it, but again it's the best we have. Discount these results though on account of the false assumptions:
    GtIkk0D.png

    Hope that helps.

    Interesting. So in bums on seats terms Spectre did good.
    As mentioned, take these stats with a huge pinch of salt. The analyst used the average US ticket prices to convert all the worldwide data going back 50+ years, which will necessarily mess up the results. Moreover, I don't think he/she accounted for IMAX tickets, which boost the gross of more recent entries. The domestic chart which precedes this one is more accurate because it's only US/Canada and the ticket price used for conversion at least corresponds to the gross.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    The real surprise on that ROI chart above is TMWTGG. That was around the time of the first oil OPEC shock I believe, and I wonder if inflation screwed with that film's box office too.
    You mean that in between the calculation of the production cost and the calculation of the b.o. results inflation was so strong due to the OPEC shock?

    I wish Bond productions would be limited to 100 or 150 million and dealt with as @Mendes4Lyfe suggests:
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    A Bond film today can be made 150 million dollars, easy. Just reintroduce the element of actual sleuthing and save the action for the really big moments. If you tighten up the pace of the film, and look for creative ways to dole out information, people won't even miss the action.
    James Bond is primarily a sleuth disguised as a wealthy businessman.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The real surprise on that ROI chart above is TMWTGG. That was around the time of the first oil OPEC shock I believe, and I wonder if inflation screwed with that film's box office too.
    You mean that in between the calculation of the production cost and the calculation of the b.o. results inflation was so strong due to the OPEC shock?
    That's what crossed my mind, yes. Or even that ticket prices hadn't adjusted to increased input costs (somewhat like what's happening in the UK these days with the fall of Sterling - it took a while for price adjustments to seep through). So perhaps TMWTGG's gross is understated on conversion.
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,802
    Which is why in France, we count the number of butts in the seats. This gives us a more accurate representation of a movie's success (or failure). You can find the results for Bond here :

    https://mi6community.com/discussion/5523/box-office-wise-how-does-bond-compare#latest
  • TokolosheTokoloshe Under your bed
    Posts: 2,667
    Do bums on seats calculations also take into account the global population at the time?

    There are a lot more people in the world now than in 1963...
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,079
    It's interesting that the 2 biggest films out at the moment have a budget of 125 million and 149 respectively. There is a trend to less bloated budgets it seems.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Tokoloshe wrote: »
    Do bums on seats calculations also take into account the global population at the time?
    No, they don't and it's a good point. That's why nothing will ever surpass the cultural impact of the early Bond films imho. It's because they dominated the landscape in terms of the proportion of people who saw it in comparison to those who could.
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    It's interesting that the 2 biggest films out at the moment have a budget of 125 million and 149 respectively. There is a trend to less bloated budgets it seems.
    It sure seems that way, yes. I think some big films haven't performed as well as expectations and the market is becoming less predictable. Inevitably that leads to a more cautious investment perspective by the studio execs. That bodes well for the next Bond film imho.
  • stun_harvestingstun_harvesting
    Posts: 337
    It's interesting to note the declining ROI of Bond films. The early Bond films were clearly better in that regard.

    Off-topic, but I'm surprised to learn that LTK took in less at the box office than even 1967's spoof Casino Royale. But I don't tend to hold LTK's box office performance against it, as I believe it was hurt by a backflip in the marketing campaign (sudden title change) and the fact that it was released next to The Last Crusade, Batman and all the other films dominating 1989. Though it does seem that the beating it took at the box office has kept the producers from releasing another Bond flick in the summer.
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,802
    Do bums on seats calculations also take into account the global population at the time?

    There are a lot more people in the world now than in 1963...
    Quote

    Yes, and for a long while, a big part of the world's population couldn't even see a Bond movie in the theaters.
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,400
    I'd be curious if someone could explain the GE budget to me. Merely two years later, they decided to double the budget for GE's sequel. Why didn't GE get the same treatment?

    What was the logic for them tightening the purse-strings? Was it because Bond was a brand in jeopardy, after 6 years in the wilderness and Dalton's less than stellar financial run? Nonetheless, it seems an odd move to bet the resurrection ofthe franchise on such a meagre budget.

    Having said that, Martin Campbell is a genius for making such a lavish and well crafted film for half the price he did with CR. There's nothing in GE that looks like it was done on the cheap.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    I'd be curious if someone could explain the GE budget to me. Merely two years later, they decided to double the budget for GE's sequel. Why didn't GE get the same treatment?

    What was the logic for them tightening the purse-strings? Was it because Bond was a brand in jeopardy, after 6 years in the wilderness and Dalton's less than stellar financial run? Nonetheless, it seems an odd move to bet the resurrection ofthe franchise on such a meagre budget.

    Having said that, Martin Campbell is a genius for making such a lavish and well crafted film for half the price he did with CR. There's nothing in GE that looks like it was done on the cheap.
    Yes, it was precisely because Bond had been away for 6 long years, the landscape had changed (no more Cold War), & because LTK was a financial disaster at the box office. They honestly didn't know if Bond could survive and MGM/UA wanted to test the waters.

    Once it was a smash, they upped it for TND. The same thing happened with CR, but to a lesser extent. In both cases, Campbell delivered a ground breaking film on a smaller budget than his successors.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2017 Posts: 15,690
    @bondjames I know you really love analyzing stuff like this, so I present you with something very interesting: the chart you posted about the inflation-adjusted US gross for the entire franchise puts LTK in 24th place with around $80 million. In comparison, 'Captain America: Winter Soldier' made $259 million domestic (4th biggest hit in 2014). And here's the kicker: LTK was more successful in France than 'Winter Soldier' (1.8 million tickets sold for Winter Soldier, 2 million tickets for LTK).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @DaltonCraig007, actually LTK's budget was $80m (unadjusted). The US gross was actually $66m. It's one of 4 films not to make back its budget in US gross (the others being SP, QoS & TWINE).

    Yes, I have definitely read that LTK was more successful overseas than in the US, and the gross shows that (it had a '4.5 X' factor, which only SP, LALD & TMWTGG come close to matching).

    Dalton just didn't catch on in the US.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited June 2017 Posts: 9,020
    The worldwide audience list is very flawed.
    QOS over DAD and GE is simply not true.
    In almost every single available country that released ticket sales numbers QOS did considerably worse than DAD or GE.
    Also CR is way too high in that chart. It was less successful than DAD.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    The worldwide audience list is very flawed.
    QOS over DAD and GE is simply not true.
    In almost every single available country that released ticket sales numbers QOS did considerably worse than DAD or GE.
    Also CR is way too high in that chart. It was less successful than DAD.
    Yes, as I said when posting it, the inflation adjusted worldwide numbers are basically meaningless, because the analyst used false assumptions when attempting to determine the result (he pretty much said so). I know that CR and QoS didn't do as well as DAD or GE globally. TSWLM should be much higher too.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @bondjames
    I will do the homework and provide figures for Switzerland, Germany and Austria.
    It's one of the most important markets for Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.