CommanderBond.net

From Variety of yesterday's date, buried in something dull about studio financing; many thanks to zencat for the tip-off.






Two hundred and thirty million dollars?

My immediate reaction rhymes with "clucking bell".

Two hundred and thirty million dollars?

If that's true - note "if" - then isn't that a touch, well, obscene?

Action. Action. Action. Action. Action.

Wowza!!

Obviously the 30 minute PTS is going to take a big chunk of that budget.

What are they trying to do? Make a CGI spectacular like Spider-Man? Not even the crap that was Die Another Day cost that much.

For God's sake. Cubby must be turning in his grave.

If it's true.

This post has been edited by doubler83: 14 March 2008 - 08:21

Yeah, IF it is true (and as they're only midway through shooting, and we don't know who is supplying that number), it is at the high end of the spectrum, and is probably from a combination of action scenes and shooting in what, five different countries, but bear in mind the huge amount of product placement that'll be covering a lot of this, from Coke Zero to Virgin to the suits, cars, and so on. Just for comparison's sake, some recent blockbusters and their costs :

Spider-man 3 : $258 mil
Pirates at world's end : $300 mil
Superman returns : $270 mil

Even Ratatouille and Bee Movie, which as far as I know were done by a few people sitting in front of computers, cost $150 million each.

So, obscene? Probably. Par for the course? Definitely.

Haven't heard that one in a while , and the PTS is not going to be 30 minutes long, either. Its the locations. Filming in places like Panama and Chile tends to be more expensive than when you pretend the Pinewood backlot is North Korea. EON are going the extra mile here when they could easily pull a DAD and film on a beach in Wales, so why not be glad we're getting some genuine exotic locales instead.

They should've just payed the extra coin and gone to North Korea eh??

Could probably buy North Korea for $230 million.

I appreciate that the weakness of the dollar is such that $230 million is probably about ten pence, but it's still a sod of a lot of money to spend on a film, isn't it? A quarter of a billion dollars? Darfur says "hiya" and cheeky old Burkina Faso would wave its hand if it had the strength.



Money well spent.

Did we ever hear what the 'official' cost for CR was?

i guess not

Thought these things were usually knocking around the $130m mark.

I find it strange they allow for a budgetry increase of another $100m - this of course on the assumption that we, the public, Ever knew how much these things cost.

CGI effects are not as expensive as doing things for real! Building a set in a computer is cheaper than building it in a studio. Taking hundreds of people around the world is more costly then using CGI back drops. Organizing and filming gigantic and dangerous stunt work is very expensive…. And so on.



Isn’t it amusing that people doubt what they read in Variety but accepted what was put about by The Mirror?

The Mirror story about them spending three months making a PTS all set in Italy filming in Pinewood and Panama was a load of rubbish. (Presumably they were going to spened two weeks filming in Italy to make the whole of the rest of the film largely set in South America )

This budget from Variety, whilst a bit high, (I was imagining something just under $200 million) is probably reliable information.

Wow, you could almost build 40 six million dollar men for that price!

$400 million, actually. I've looked into it.

But, yes, it does seem a tremendous amount for a film that:

- Has no major stars. Craig won't be getting a (in their heyday) Schwarzenegger-/Stallone-/Willis-type fee. I presume.

- Will have an up-to-the-hilt budget subsidy via blanket product placement.

Box Office Mojo reports a budget of $110 million for THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, which is obviously the film that must be dragged into threads like this one as a point of comparison with the latest Bond. So, yeah, $230 mil does indeed appear a suspiciously large amount of wonga.

Man, it's a far, far cry from the fag end of the Dalton era, eh?

Anyone here who knows finance/the film biz like to try their hand at a breakdown of this figure so that we can get some kind of idea as to how it's being spent? Hildebrand? Zorin?

I feel concerned but not alarmed. Actually, I'm more relieved knowing that the reported 3o-minute PTS is simply a load of malarkey. A half-hour lead-in would sure throw off the overall proportions.

It's a lot of money if it's true. Doesn't mean it won't be spent wisely.