152 replies to this topic

[Dr.Carl Mortner]

"But I do wonder why the likes of CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING and SIGNS outgrossed DIE ANOTHER DAY in the United States, but not internationally"

Catch Me If You Can - A lighthearted comedy based on a real-life incident and directed by Steven Spielberg. You do the math. Plus, it was just a good solid movie that did what it did better than Die Another Day tried to do its thing. Has anyone considered the fact that DAD did a helluva lot of business for a movie A LOT of people actively disliked??? Imagine the business had DAD simply been a better movie!!!

My Big Fat Greek Wedding - Romantic comedy. People dig romantic comedies these days, and far more so than action. Plus it had that whole word of mouth thing going on.

Signs - I personally didn't care for Signs, but it is a film by a director who is a critical and audience flavor of the month. And, let's face it, The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were really quality films.

[Dr.Carl Mortner]

Speaking of 2002 movies, I don't think DAD should have outgrossed Minority Report, which I thought was a masterpiece (and one - along with A.I., which I also loved - proves that the Spielberg name does not always bring in huge numbers).

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Dr.Carl Mortner

"But I do wonder why the likes of CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING and SIGNS outgrossed DIE ANOTHER DAY in the United States, but not internationally"

Catch Me If You Can - A lighthearted comedy based on a real-life incident and directed by Steven Spielberg. You do the math. Plus, it was just a good solid movie that did what it did better than Die Another Day tried to do its thing. Has anyone considered the fact that DAD did a helluva lot of business for a movie A LOT of people actively disliked??? Imagine the business had DAD simply been a better movie!!!

My Big Fat Greek Wedding - Romantic comedy. People dig romantic comedies these days, and far more so than action. Plus it had that whole word of mouth thing going on.

Signs - I personally didn't care for Signs, but it is a film by a director who is a critical and audience flavor of the month. And, let's face it, The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were really quality films.  

I'm not wondering why those films did well. At the risk of starting to seem like a stuck needle on a record, I'm wondering why they did much better than DAD in the States, while DAD did much better than them outside the States. All of them were big international hits, but it seems that Americans much preferred CATCH, WEDDING and SIGNS to DAD, while non-US audiences much preferred DAD to CATCH, WEDDING and SIGNS.

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Again it's because Bond does sooo well in so many different territories, and very very few films do that. If a film makes it to the top 10 or so in almost every territory it adds up... to a ALOT. A Bond film needn't be top 5 in every territory to finish top 5 WorldWide it just has to perform well enough in a lot of territories.

DAD was in the top 3-4 in the UK but around top 10 in say France, Germany, Australia (similar to the US) and I believe lower in Japan, Italy and Spain. But it also did very well in India, Russia, The Phillipines, Sweden, Brazil, South Africa etc.... and not many films appeal to and play that consistently well in that many disparate countries. Compare the way the Bonds perform to say the Austin Powers films, the last two have been HUGE in the U.S., have done very well in the U.K. and Australia and pretty much pfttt business in the rest of the world.

I think the glass ceiling for Bond now comes more from it being a 40 year old series and not the hot new thing. But hey it does pretty darn well for a little "foreign" film.

Oh and CATCH made $4m more than DAD in the U.S., hardly much better. MBFGW, everyone went to see it to see why everyone went to see it, the hoopla wasn't enough to lift the abysmal TV series made of it which was mercifully soon cancelled. Sometimes certain films in some years just have hype. Really should XXX, Ice Age and Scooby Doo have made more than Minority Report and Lilo & Stitch in the U.S? Not IMO but they did. Hell I'm still trying to figure out why anyone including me went to see Matrix Reloaded!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra

If a film makes it to the top 10 or so in almost every territory it adds up... to a ALOT.   A Bond film needn't be top 5 in every territory to finish top 5 WorldWide it just has to perform well enough in a lot of territories.

DAD was in the top 3-4 in the UK but around top 10 in say France, Germany, Australia (similar to the US) and I believe lower in Japan, Italy and Spain.  

So would it be correct to say that just about the only country Bond does really well in is the UK, and that it merely performs reasonably well everywhere else?

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Yeah, that's about it except that Bond performs in the UK better than really well. Last year only HP and TTT outstripped it, and it was within a million of say AOTC and Monster Inc (depending on conversion rates it might have done better than both actually in US $'s). If released this year it would be the highest grossing film so far, better than The Matrix Reloaded et al. It may do unbelievably well in sevral of the smaller territories like Holland ans Sweden or The Phillipines but I don't have yearly numbers for them.

[Dr.Carl Mortner]

"All of them were big international hits, but it seems that Americans much preferred CATCH, WEDDING and SIGNS to DAD, while non-US audiences much preferred DAD to CATCH, WEDDING and SIGNS."

Again, I want to point out that there is presently less of an audience for action flicks in general in the U.S. than even a few years ago, while in many other countries they continue to thrive. Sure, The Matrix Reloaded was huge this summer, but Terminator 3 did middling business. And I already addressed the excellent Minority Report, which starred a major BO draw and was directed by Hollywood's Number One director. It does seem that people are becoming more and more drawn to family films and romantic comedies than action.

I still say that if DAD was a bit better movie, it would have went through the roof. As it is, it did phenomenally well for a movie that inspired such hatred...

[ray t]

Originally posted by Loomis


Seems I may be wrong about Americans and James Bond. But I do wonder why the likes of CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING and SIGNS outgrossed DIE ANOTHER DAY in the United States, but not internationally. .....

loomis, u are begining to dissappoint me.

you've almost capitulated (thanks largely to MBE's FANTASTIC posts in this thread) but you seem to be totally missing the point:

how well do YOU think 'catch me if you can 2 or 3", 'my big fat greek wedding II or III', or 'signs 2 or 3' will do in relation to bond 21 or bond 22?

do u see the point i'm trying to make? those were 'fresh new movies'. you are comparing bananas and pumkins to creme brule'......there is simply no comparison

the fairest comparison could be 'the jack ryan movie part 20' or 'die hard 20' or 'bourne identity 20' to Die Another Day....there aint no comparison

why not give it up, old friend?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t

how well do YOU think 'catch me if you can 2 or 3", 'my big fat greek wedding II or III', or 'signs 2 or 3' will do in relation to bond 21 or bond 22?

do u see the point i'm trying to make? those were 'fresh new movies'. you are comparing bananas and pumkins to creme brule'......there is simply no comparison

the fairest comparison could be 'the jack ryan movie part 20' or 'die hard 20' or 'bourne identity 20' to Die Another Day....there aint no comparison

Of course there is no comparison to the longevity of the Bond series, but then the longevity of the Bond series is not in dispute. If you were to say to me that the Bond films have been enormously popular for 40 years, I wouldn't disagree with you. But that's not the topic at hand. I'm wondering why Bond seems - note the word "seems" (despite possible appearances, I'm not on a crusade here to "prove" anything) - to be less popular in the States than elsewhere.

The Bond films are not "fresh new movies" outside the US, but they still seem to do better on an international basis than the films that whip them at the American box office.

Am I making any kind of sense? Do you see what I'm asking?

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

The Bond films are not "fresh new movies" outside the US, but they still seem to do better on an international basis than the films that whip them at the American box office.

Am I making any kind of sense? Do you see what I'm asking?

Yes, understood and the answer is they don't, the US is Bond's strongest market outside of the UK (proportionally speaking) and a stronger market for the last 4 films than it has been in years. Maybe the real question is where is the combined International love for Austin Powers, Signs, Catch Me If You Can, Chicago et al?

Honestly, if Bond wasn't so ingrained in the US pop consciousness we wouldn't have 1001 Bond rip-offs and winks and nods all over the film and tv screen. The Bond theme wouldn't play at Yankee stadium when the home team was gearing up for a big inning. In just the last week their wouldn't be an article in the paper comparing Barry Bonds to James Bond (Bond won by the way 3-1 on points) and a SCO executive during his key note address to stockholders wouldn't have used clips from TND and delivered a speech about how their company was besieged by code thieves but that like Bond they'd vanquish their enemies.

[Dr.Carl Mortner]

I've spent enough time on this thread, but I have just a bit more to say -- promise;P.

I think we all need to stop worrying about how "popular" the Bond films are. Isn't it more important that we like them and that they make enough money so they can film more Bond movies?

Frankly, if Bond became too trendy, I probably wouldn't like the movies anymore. I tend to be like that -- I like things a few years after the hype has worn down. That way I can enjoy them in peace. For example, I can listen to a Nirvana song now without some pissant music critic telling me how much Kurt Cobain was a martyr for his generation.

If I was alive in the '60s, I probably would have hated James Bond just because people would never shut up about how great the movies and books were. I prefer this situation of a large cult following because, quite frankly, people are sheep and I prefer a little individuality in my likes and dislikes.

Even if DAD was a "disappointment", one should consider the plight of the Star Trek franchise. I haven't seen Nemesis, but virtually everyone (including Trekkies -- come to think of it, ESPECIALLY Trekkies) describe it as a turd that can't be polished. And keep in mind that Star Trek has been a part of the public consciousness for nearly as long as Bond has been.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra

Yes, understood and the answer is they don't, the US is Bond's strongest market outside of the UK (proportionally speaking) and a stronger market for the last 4 films than it has been in years.  Maybe the real question is where is the combined International love for Austin Powers, Signs, Catch Me If You Can, Chicago et al?  

Perhaps the crux of the matter is that action movies, not just Bond movies, tend to do extremely well at the international box office; that nothing sells on a global basis like guns, car chases and explosions.

Even action pictures that flop in the US - including even something as quintessentially, flag-wavingly American as RAMBO III - often do absolutely tremendous business overseas.

Here's an Indian's view of Bond's worldwide appeal (from http://fecolumnists....ontent_id=24568):

007: The Licence To Entertain

Last Sunday over lunch in winter sunshine, a friend colleague started off a conversation about Die Another Day and how fast-paced it was when compared to earlier James Bond films. Then there was more dialogue, perhaps more time to make love, while now it was all bang, bang! This writer replied that these films have changed over time and that the actor Pierce Brosnan is as good as any of the earlier ones portraying Bond.

What indeed has changed over time? It is interesting that most of us have a view on the Bond phenomenon as it has evolved these last 40 years. When this writer saw the film later that evening, the first thought that crossed one

[Dr.Carl Mortner]

That was a great article! Thanks for posting it...

[DanMan]

Very, very, very good article.

[Loomis]

Yes, it's a pretty good piece, isn't it? Given your feedback, I think it merits its own thread with a chance to be noticed by more people. I'll create a new thread for it now....

[ray t]

Originally posted by ray t
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?

one FINAL comparrison:

DAD: US$160 mil....Bad Boyz II: US$ 132 mil (as of late Aug...so it will likely end at less than $140)

how do u like that?:cool:

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t

how do u like that?:cool:  

Very much indeed.

But on the other hand, DAD made only $20 million more than what BAD BOYS II is likely to make? Pathetic. Americans just don't give a damn about Bond.:mad:
















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Nah, just kidding.

[DLibrasnow]

Let's look at the TV ratings for the Bond movies on the ABC network....they were so successful last year that ABC pulled them from the schedule half way through the run.

[ray t]

no no, loomis....no backpeddling, old boy....your original post said this:

Originally posted by Loomis


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

now you're saying bond is only likely to make $20 mil more than bad boyz II....

that is truly WEAK.

WEAK WEAK WEAK

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t

now you're saying bond is only likely to make $20 mil more than bad boyz II....

You're the one who provided that information.

[ray t]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
Let's look at the TV ratings for the Bond movies on the ABC network....they were so successful last year that ABC pulled them from the schedule half way through the run.

yet another WEAK argument.

ABC recycled 25 year old programming, d'brow. i remember watching those same bonds in 1976, 77 and 78 on ABC.

(the only recyled programming that works on network tv in the us is "the ten commandments" at easter time (if at all))

i didnt watch those bonds last year because i have the videos AND dvds

there are probably hundreds of thousands like me who've got the bonds and can enjoy it commercial free and at their own leisure

WEAK WEAK WEAK:D:p

[ray t]

Originally posted by Loomis


You're the one who provided that information.

yea...i provided info that dis-proved the 'home-grown-movie-thingy-going-thru-the-roof-in-a-way-bond-cant' theory. but instead of finally capitulating, my friend, u took the intellectually devious tact of inferring that bond making more (M.O.R.E.) than b.b.2. is hardly much of a feat.

tsk tsk!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t

instead of finally capitulating, my friend, u took the intellectually devious tact of inferring that bond making more (M.O.R.E.) than b.b.2. is hardly much of a feat.

Intellectually devious? What am I, Dr Evil? *Heavy sigh* Look, that post of mine was a joke, hence the "Nah, just kidding" bit at the end with the .

[ray t]

i know, loomis...just having fun ribbing u and d'snow

as an aside, the one movie that was head and shoulders above Die Another Day by a mile was Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers.

it doubled DAD's gross domestically as well as internationally, and in my view, deserved it success in a way that many other (forgetable) 'blockbuster' films didnt. it had EPIC written all over it.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t

i know, loomis...just having fun ribbing u and d'snow

Yeah, I know. It's cool.

[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.

And I still feel this way. It's relatively early days, of course, but it's far from a sure thing that CASINO ROYALE (current US gross as reported by Box Office Mojo: $115,876,024) will enter this year's American Top 10.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III has taken $133,501,348 this year at cinemas Stateside, while 2004's THE BOURNE SUPREMACY pulled in $176,241,941. Two recent franchise films popularly regarded as flops, BATMAN BEGINS and SUPERMAN RETURNS, managed $205,343,774 and $200,081,192 respectively.

Once again, Bond seems to be doing reasonable, but certainly not spectacular, business in the US of A, and this is with the novelty factor of a new (and highly acclaimed) face in the role, well over a year of very heavy free publicity, and easily the best reviews the series has ever had. Strikes me that America still prefers its own franchises.

Thoughts?

[Seannery]

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.

And I still feel this way. It's relatively early days, of course, but it's far from a sure thing that CASINO ROYALE (current US gross as reported by Box Office Mojo: $115,876,024) will enter this year's American Top 10.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III has taken $133,501,348 this year at cinemas Stateside, while 2004's THE BOURNE SUPREMACY pulled in $176,241,941. Two recent franchise films popularly regarded as flops, BATMAN BEGINS and SUPERMAN RETURNS, managed $205,343,774 and $200,081,192 respectively.

Once again, Bond seems to be doing reasonable, but certainly not spectacular, business in the US of A, and this is with the novelty factor of a new (and highly acclaimed) face in the role, well over a year of very heavy free publicity, and easily the best reviews the series has ever had. Strikes me that America still prefers its own franchises.

Thoughts?

I think Bond is really an Anglo-American franchise anyway. Plus the hyper-competitive USA market is so big with so many different types of competing films that Bond has a lot of company here.

[Mister Asterix]

And I still feel this way. It's relatively early days, of course, but it's far from a sure thing that CASINO ROYALE (current US gross as reported by Box Office Mojo: $115,876,024) will enter this year's American Top 10.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III has taken $133,501,348 this year at cinemas Stateside, while 2004's THE BOURNE SUPREMACY pulled in $176,241,941. Two recent franchise films popularly regarded as flops, BATMAN BEGINS and SUPERMAN RETURNS, managed $205,343,774 and $200,081,192 respectively.

Once again, Bond seems to be doing reasonable, but certainly not spectacular, business in the US of A, and this is with the novelty factor of a new (and highly acclaimed) face in the role, well over a year of very heavy free publicity, and easily the best reviews the series has ever had. Strikes me that America still prefers its own franchises.

Thoughts?

[mra]I

[Loomis]

I think Bond is really an Anglo-American franchise anyway.

True, or, if anything, it's actually a fully paid-up Hollywood franchise (in terms of financing, which after all is where - pardon the pun - the buck stops). What I mean is: Americans prefer their own action heroes to the Brit Bond.

Plus the USA market is so big with so many different types of competing films that Bond has a lot of company here.

True of all markets, surely? And more or less everything you get, we get. Yet we - along with, erm, the rest of the world - give more business to Bond than to, say, Jason Bourne, Ethan Hunt or the X-Men, whereas cinemagoers in the States do the opposite.

What exactly is it going to take for Americans to start drinking the same Kool-Aid that all other peoples are partial to when it comes to Bond?

[Seannery]

I think Bond is really an Anglo-American franchise anyway.

True, or, if anything, it's actually a fully paid-up Hollywood franchise (in terms of financing, which after all is where - pardon the pun - the buck stops). What I mean is: Americans prefer their own action heroes to the Brit Bond.

Plus the USA market is so big with so many different types of competing films that Bond has a lot of company here.

True of all markets, surely? And more or less everything you get, we get. Yet we - along with, erm, the rest of the world - give more business to Bond than to, say, Jason Bourne, Ethan Hunt or the X-Men, whereas cinemagoers in the States do the opposite.

Well in a way my two strands fit together--yes all markets get most of the same movies but the USA I would submit has always been more hyper-competitive with change and the new--Americans like the "new" a lot. Bond in the 60's was new, very british(so that wasn't the key factor) and HUGE. It's still very british but no longer shiny and new. Still popular but not spectacularly so in the USA.