152 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Every new Bond flick always seems to end up among the top five biggest grossers of its year internationally, while barely scraping into the US Top 10.

Basically, what I'm saying is that Bond's popularity in America seems to be but a shadow of its popularity elsewhere. Were it not for its enormous international popularity, I don't see that the Bond franchise would be viable. The US market alone wouldn't be big enough to support it, and I don't believe that one can say the same for other franchises.

Home-grown action/adventure franchises (BAD BOYS, DIE HARD, LETHAL WEAPON, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, RUSH HOUR, THE TERMINATOR, etc. etc.) seem to go through the roof at the US box office in a way that Bond doesn't.

Do mass audiences in the States consider Bond too British? Do they prefer heroes wrapped in the Stars and Stripes?

[DieAnotherDay57]

I agree the 007 movies do make lots of money in the US and in other countries but it makes way more in places like Europe and Asia. I guess its because theres less bond fans in the US or something like that .

[ray t]

i'd say americans (i'm a canadian, btw) consistantly account for 30 to 37 percent of bond's global box office.

this ill-concieved myth about bond not being popular in america is poppy-****! the last i checked, america's population is less than 1 percent of global population and i'm VERY certain that it is less than 25 percent of the worlds movie-going population. (an idiot could infer that)

so...i'd say americans spend a disproportionately greater amount on bond than the rest of the world. u do the math.

also:

bond is a global brand with a 20 film history...the (mostly DEAD)franchises you cite, whithered away after 4 films...they are not even in the same league, my friend!

as for stars and stripes and movies going thru the roof, the last i checked, luke/anakin skywalker, frodo baggins and harry potter were far from being US citizens...those heros out-gross the "homies" in their own domestic market by far. see what i'm saying?

plus terminator is different from die hard and bad boyz...arnie may be naturalized, but he's originally of austrian stock...as for mel gibson, i belive he's still an aussie.

also T3 has not outgrossed DAD in us domestic...so that point is incorrect

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t

i'd say americans (i'm a canadian, btw) consistantly account for 30 to 37 percent of bond's global box office.

You're Canadian? For some reason, ray t, I always had you down as a Brit, posting from the UK. Apologies!

Originally posted by ray t

bond is a global brand with a 20 film history...the (mostly DEAD)franchises you cite, whithered away after 4 films...they are not even in the same league, my friend!

Well, those franchises are dead now (most of 'em), but at the time they were pulling in far more punters in the US than the average Bond flick does. Of course, the Bond series has amazing longevity and is still going strong (perhaps stronger than ever), but I'm just not convinced that it's as big in the US as it is elsewhere.

Originally posted by ray t

as for stars and stripes and movies going thru the roof, the last i checked, luke/anakin skywalker, frodo baggins and harry potter were far from being US citizens...those heros out-gross the "homies" in their own domestic market by far. see what i'm saying?  

I see what you're saying (although the heroes of STAR WARS do have American accents and are obviously intended to represent the American rebels who overthrew the wicked Brits), but I'm just talking about the action/adventure side of things.

In a nutshell, it seems to me that Joe Blow in America would take xXx over 007, while Joe Blow in the rest of the world would take 007 over xXx.

[zencat]

Originally posted by Loomis
In a nutshell, it seems to me that Joe Blow in America would take xXx over 007, while Joe Blow in the rest of the world would take 007 over xXx.

Well, all you need to do is look at the box office take of xXx compared to the box office of DAD to know that's not true. Americans will maybe try on new heroes from time to time, but Americans love James Bond. Always have. Always will.

[ray t]

No...i think youre being much too general (not incorrectly so), loomis.

point:

T3 is likley to gross LESS than DAD...almost a fact...wait and see!

Die Hard (with a vengence) released in '95, grossed $US 100M...LESS than GoldenEye's US$106M (domestic)...that's a fact, my friend.

Lethal Weapon 4, released in '98, grossed 130 mil...the average of TND and TWINE in '97 and '99 were not too dis-similiar.

as for rush hour and bad boys...hav'nt seen 'em ...and besides, WHO CARES!!!...i certainly dont!!!!!

so i think bond still is significant:

Finally:

DAD US$160 mil (US domestic)....XXX (i believe) us$ 144 mil.

bond ruled over it. bourne identity and sum of all fears didnt even come close!!!


ya see my point?

[solitaire]

I am an american....and I think americans do like Bond. He's certainly an icon in the U.S....but americans like "american heroes",and no matter how you slice it Bond is a true blue brit. The Bond films do well here,and will probably continue to do so in the future.....Harry Potter and Lord of the rings are examples of films set in Britain that have blasted the U.S box office,but they are fantasy films not based in reality. The Star Wars films are american films set on other worlds....those films are really classic westerns set in space.

People relate to heroes that represent their ideals and way of life...it's like that everywhere. There are plenty of american films that don't do well in other markets because people just don't get them.

[ray t]

i've looked into this in the past and i'd say only the UK market spends more on bond on a per capita basis than the US/Canadian ("US Domestic") market.

germany and france, of the big nations, are next...but still a LONG way behind America.

look it, the US market is SO important, that 'relative failure' in it means sure death for a 007 (OHMSS and LTK, anyone?)

[DanMan]

Terminator 3, the third installment of what is considered to be one of the greatest action/sci-fi franchises of all time grossed $13 million less than DAD in the U.S. xXx, which was marketed as a new breed of secret agent and an american James Bond (the TV spots even said "Move over James Bond) and it was outgrossed by DAD by $16 million in the US.

[DLibrasnow]

I think it's true that the American public veers more towards home grown product than imported movies. I know some friends of mine preferred to think of DAD as the "new Halle Berry movie"....I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
By the same token I think British movies with British actors and British themes do better with British audiences.
In the international market though, a person in Japan or Korea who has no American or British points of reference is less likely to discern the difference between a British or American movie.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

I think it's true that the American public veers more towards home grown product than imported movies. I know some friends of mine preferred to think of DAD as the "new Halle Berry movie"....

That's the kind of attitude I'm on about.

Check out DAD's position among the highest grossing films of 2002 in the US (http://www.boxoffice...?yr=2002&p=.htm), and its position among the highest grossing films of 2002 internationally (http://www.boxoffice...early/2002a.htm). Number five in the international list, but it doesn't even crack the US top 10.

[DanMan]

If DAD had grossed $430 Million any other year, it would of been in the US Top Ten. 2002 was a BIG year for the Box Office and DAD still did amazing.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by ray t
i'd say americans (i'm a canadian, btw) consistantly account for 30 to 37 percent of bond's global box office.  

Historically, American (and probably Canadians too) have been more of a movie-going public than the British, so saying that the North American box office accounts for 30 to 37 percent of Bond's global box office really has no relevence.
What is a more telling statistic is where the Bond movie ranks with other movies. The Top 10 list from the US when compared to the Top 10 international list.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

What is a more telling statistic is where the Bond movie ranks with other movies. The Top 10 list from the US when compared to the Top 10 international list.  

Precisely, DLibrasnow. That's the point I was trying to make with my above post, and the basis for my suggestion that international audiences are much hotter for Bond than American audiences are.

What was the last Bond flick that really shook the States? At a guess - a guess, mind you - I'd say THUNDERBALL. Since then, America's kind of taken a back seat in the whole Bond phenomenon. Throughout the Moore, Dalton and Brosnan years, the Bond films tended to do terrific business all over the world but only good business in the US.

Look at a film like SIGNS. DAD took much more internationally, but SIGNS totally thrashed it at the US box office. And MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING took nearly $100 million more than DAD in the States!

[ray t]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


Historically, American (and probably Canadians too) have been more of a movie-going public than the British, so saying that the North American box office accounts for 30 to 37 percent of Bond's global box office really has no relevence.
What is a more telling statistic is where the Bond movie ranks with other movies. The Top 10 list from the US when compared to the Top 10 international list.

actually, the purest most relevant statistic would be to see precisely what percentage of the Global movie box office the US represents (including india, eastern europe, south america, etc) and IF that number is less than 30 percent, and bond pulls in more than 30 percent, u have the best possible answer.

so, to me, that 30-37 percent number is totally relevant

also, i find americans tend to spend their time watching A LOT of JUNK and TRASH on tv and the theatre....so to say bond is not in the US top 10 isnt exactly saying much about the 'average' american movie-goer's TASTE and STYLE vis-a-vis the 'average' international movie-goer.

in addition (and i can personally vouch for this) N. American discretionary income/spending lends itself to multiple viewings of childrens movies such as (last year) SCOOBY DOO and ICE AGE where a parent or two (ie me and my daughters mom) are forced to go...thus boosting its ranking.

so, to ME certain stats are more relevant than others... each to their own.

btw, i am in no way taking a 'dig' at the US/americans. if it were not for america, we'd be living under nazi rule...

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by ray t
btw, i am in no way taking a 'dig' at the US/americans. if it were not for america, we'd be living under nazi rule...

Well, the 20 million Russians who fought and defeated 78% of Hitler's armies (killing 85 German soldiers for every 10 the combined US/UK/other allies killed) might have something to say about that but never mind.

My question for this thread is: do you think that *comparatively* speaking, the American audience for Bond has shrunk from, say, the Connery and/or Moore years? Or would that be the case for ALL audiences, American and otherwise? The advent of the internet has made serious inroads into both TV and films as a source of leisure, after all. And that's not just in the US.

I do think that James Bond for Americans simply does not figure very much in pop culture as an icon the way he did in the past. I think today that he's just one among many action heroes, not terribly unique or distinct from the array of other action films. I think his uniqueness has been lost; thus his significance as both a cultural icon and a source of innovative filmmaking trends has been lost as well.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by ray t


actually, the purest most relevant statistic would be to see precisely what percentage of the Global movie box office the US represents (including india, eastern europe, south america, etc) and IF that number is less than 30 percent, and bond pulls in more than 30 percent, u have the best possible answer.

so, to me, that 30-37 percent number is totally relevant

But the point I was making was that America is much more of a movie going culture than the UK or other countries. Essentially Americans go to the movies more than Europeans, therefore the fact that the USA accounts for 30-37 percent of the Bond global box office is irrelevent because it in no ways indicates how "hot" the American audience is for Bond.
In the US people routinely (and in mass) go to the new opening picture on the opening weekend, wether they are interested or not. What truly makes a movie stand out in the US market is what kind of repeat business it generates.
With this in mind, the most telling statistic is how the Bond movie fared compared with the competition. What rank did DAD hold in the international Top 10, compared to the US Top 10? This is the only statistic that can answer the question of this thread.

[Dr.Carl Mortner]

Come on - we're talking about a 40 year-old franchise, people. Look at any given general interest magazine from the States from back in the '60s and you'd almost think that this fictional character of James Bond was part of the Holy Trinity. Americans didn't just LIKE James Bond; they practically worshipped his fictional lifestyle.

I do notice, however, that America has been more reluctant than most other countries to embrace the post-Connery Bonds. Moore did really well, but I think he may have also contributed a lot to Bond's "English" image. Connery was not distinctly British, aside from his Scottish accent. I think Americans think of Connery as a more refined and sexual John Wayne, while Moore embodied traits that were more stereotypically English. And, seeing as Brosnan is Moore-lite rather than the Connery he desperately tries to be, that impression remains.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t

so to say bond is not in the US top 10 isnt exactly saying much about the 'average' american movie-goer's TASTE and STYLE vis-a-vis the 'average' international movie-goer.

Well, I'm not in any way putting down Americans, or suggesting that they have no taste or style because they don't like Bond films as much as people elsewhere do (that would be an absurd thing to say).

Originally posted by Jaelle

I do think that James Bond for Americans simply does not figure very much in pop culture as an icon the way he did in the past.  

Originally posted by Dr.Carl Mortner

I do notice, however, that America has been more reluctant than most other countries to embrace the post-Connery Bonds.

Agreed. And yet the common perception seems to be that Dalton was the Bond who "lost" America. In fact, US audiences had cooled on Bond even before Moore made his first 007 outing.

[ray t]

Originally posted by Jaelle


Well, the 20 million Russians who fought and defeated 78% of Hitler's armies (killing 85 German soldiers for every 10 the combined US/UK/other allies killed) might have something to say about that but never mind.

My question for this thread is:  do you think that *comparatively* speaking, the American audience for Bond has shrunk from, say, the Connery and/or Moore years?  Or would that be the case for ALL audiences, American and otherwise?  The advent of the internet has made serious inroads into both TV and films as a source of leisure, after all.  And that's not just in the US.

I do think that James Bond for Americans simply does not figure very much in pop culture as an icon the way he did in the past.  I think today that he's just one among many action heroes, not terribly unique or distinct from the array of other action films.  I think his uniqueness has been lost; thus his significance as both a cultural icon and a source of innovative filmmaking trends has been lost as well.

ok not to nitpik, my dear, but then the commies would be controlling things...

anyway...i think in connery times we did not have 87 television channels from which to choose, no video/computer games, no dvd rentals, no internet, and less holidaying than we now do in north america.

in addition, its hard to be original after 20 movies and within a genre that has begged borrowed and stolen from bond itself...but they are trying...so lets give 'em some slack...

finally, u dont see people going ga-ga these days as they did with the beatles...that pop icon thing went out the window in 1966/67 for bond.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by ray t

finally, u dont see people going ga-ga these days as they did with the beatles...that pop icon thing went out the window in 1966/67 for bond.

You obviously haven't been to many concerts lately ray...that pop icon is alive and well, and still kicking

[Jriv71]

I try not to look at the box office stats too often to determine if a film is a success or a failure. Numbers can mean whatever you want them to mean. (If the Hulk people thought it was gonna make ten bucks, they'd say it did very well, but since everyone was expecting more, well, you get the point...)

But as far as the original question, do we like Bond films less than people in other countries? Or do we prefer American heroes? Those are really two very different questions. First of all, I don't necessarily think we prefer American heroes, because someone like XXX comes along, and what is he called...an American James Bond. And inevitably, subsequent sequels (if there are any) eventually fail. God, even Batman tanked after two films. And even a person on the street who can't tell you who the Hell "M" is or Bill Tanner, knows James Bond; thinks he's James Bond when he's driving, or wearing a tuxedo, or doing anything else in a suave manner.

American TV and pop culture is littered with "James Bond" references, even by people who don't know the first thing about the films. Maybe that's a round-about answer: Americans love James Bond, or the idea of "James Bond" if not the films, themselves. Ask a stranger about "A View to a Kill" and they'll say, "Yeah, I think I've seen that one" when what they really mean to say is, "Yes, I've heard the song."

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t

ok not to nitpik, my dear, but then the commies would be controlling things...

I thought you said the Nazis would be in charge.

[ray t]

Originally posted by Loomis


I thought you said the Nazis would be in charge.

nazis, commies, imperial japan....east-west-north...all points on a compass, each as stupid as the other:D

give me the so-called freedom of the anglo-saxon capitalist world any day;)

[ray t]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


You obviously haven't been to many concerts lately ray...that pop icon is alive and well, and still kicking

well, old chum, the folks here in toronto broke the record for a paying audience when 450,000 (limit imposed) fans attended the SARS relief concert for toronto headlined by the Rolling Stones, AC/DC and Rush in late july.

what i meant, is that the hysteria that accompanied the beatles has been unsurpassed in scale. similarly with bond with the zenith being THUNDERBALL.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Saw Rush last summer in Chicago for the 4th time. Awesome!

[Tarl_Cabot]

I have a book that adresses this question. 'The suited hero:James Bond, dressed to kill'. Americans are not as classy as Europeans and other people around the world. America is a dressed down culture; our manners are casual.Good intentions and manners are not the same thing but most people don't know the difference.

We don't have regular formal occasions.People here wear shorts and flip flops in 5 star hotels.We don't have royalty in America so we worship the ****ing Kennedys and celebrities.I think that's why Bond is both popular and also not REALLY popular: He is popular because we envy his lifestyle of frequenting fancy locals, casinos in black tie, Operas, Race tracks and various places where rich, aristocratic people congregate...

Bond's apeal is a double edged sword. What many of us admire about him is also what makes it hard to relate to him for lots of people. The majority of America listens to country music and drives a pick up truck. So, the blue collar heroes tend to be bigger at the box office. This is only my theory...

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

My question for this thread is: do you think that *comparatively* speaking, the American audience for Bond has shrunk from, say, the Connery and/or Moore years? Or would that be the case for ALL audiences, American and otherwise? The advent of the internet has made serious inroads into both TV and films as a source of leisure, after all. And that's not just in the US.

Shrunk from the Connery hey day of TB yes, but as far as admissions go the last 4 Bond films did better in the U.S. than any Moore film except Moonraker, and TND and DAD has more admissions since any Bond in the U.S. since YOLT. As for box office, adjusted for inflation only Moonraker cracks the top 10, the others are all Connery's (4 at the top) and Brosnan's.

http://www.boxoffice...nd/adjusted.htm

http://www.klast.net/bond/boxoff.html

And comparing Bond films, now after 20 in a series to the first couple of films in a series or stand alone family or action films well they're just not really comparable. Series usually begin to bore people and die out after 3 or 4 and the numbers decrease.... that's happenned with Bond to a certain extent and then it's turned it around in cycles, and now is definitely an up cycle. Almost 3 times as many people saw GE as saw LTK (and almost twice as many who saw TLD and AVTAK) and the numbers have stayed or increased from that level. Pretty impressive for a now 40 year old franchise.

In the past 8 or so years thinking purely action/adventure genre films I can only think of the Mission Impossibles, The Matrix and Rush Hours doing better in the U.S. T3, XXX, Tomb Raider, Charlies Angels, Bad Boys, SWAT, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon IV, Bourne Identity, Jack Ryan and on and on.... they haven't done as well. Now is Bond in the U.S. as HUGE as it is in the U.K., no, but it's comparable to how it does in say France & Germany when you look at year end lists. The International numbers of Bond are just so huge because it plays well in all corners of the globe from Europe to Asia to South America etc... few films do that.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by solitaire
Harry Potter and Lord of the rings are examples of films set in Britain that have blasted the U.S box office,but they are fantasy films not based in reality.

But Bond movies are also fantasy films not based in reality...

[Blofeld's Cat]

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra
And comparing Bond films, now after 20 in a series to the first couple of films in a series or stand alone family or action films well they're just not really comparable.  Series usually begin to bore people and die out after 3 or 4 and the numbers decrease.... that's happenned with Bond to a certain extent and then it's turned it around in cycles, and now is definitely an up cycle.  Almost 3 times as many people saw GE as saw LTK (and almost twice as many who saw TLD and AVTAK) and the numbers have stayed or increased from that level.  Pretty impressive for a now 40 year old franchise.

In that 40 year space of time world populations have increased (some may say drastically) thus potentially supplying a higher participation level for later movies in the series. I guess the increase of participation has negated any waning of interest in the franchise. Which, of course, is a very good thing.