49 replies to this topic

[Tarl_Cabot]

New 007 + long delay between films = success.

[Harmsway]

I think that CR will get to about $25 million on opening weekend, certainly enough to warrant a second Craig Bond film.  After that, though, I think that Sony will probably look to change the lead actor and try to push for Clive Owen or Hugh Jackman at that point.

I think CASINO ROYALE will do much better than $25 million opening. I think it'll hit somewhere around $40 million in the U.S. Domestic opening weekend.

[eddyellis]

New 007 + long delay between films = success.

I think that the delay between DAD & CR will play as a factor in the sucess of CR - I for one will be chomping at the bit for another cinematic Bond experience, and I've only been seeing them at the multiplexes (and been a fan since) TND.

PLus theres the interest factor of a new James Bond "lets see how this chap does". These, and other factors will get people into the cinema, then its up to Craig's performance, the script, direction and overall production to grab the audience and make them want to come back for seconds.

[Loomis]

I'm not a box office expert by any means, but I think there may be a couple of reasons for King Kong's disappointing returns at the box office.  First of all, they spent so much time marketing the film that it may have ended up being a bit too much for the general public.  Once you keep forcing the same thing at the public for an extended period of time without stopping, generally they're not going to want it anymore.  After seeing countless King Kong advertisements, tie-ins on late night TV with the talk shows, countless other tie-ins and reminders all over TV and such, I began to not want so see the movie.  Another thing that kept me away, however, is how fake the whole thing looked.  I'm not a huge fan of CGI, especially when it looks as fake as everything on the advertisements for the film looked.  So, for me, those are two things that kept me away and kept several other people I know away, but I can't speak, obviously, for everyone else, though.

I didn't think the effects in KING KONG looked fake at all when I saw the film (at the Odeon Leicester Square - this is definitely one for the big screen, and the biggest and best you can find). In fact, they blew me away like nothing I've seen since T2 and JURASSIC PARK. Bloody good film too.

A couple of factors I reckon may have contributed to disappointing box office: the three-hour running time (which very nearly put me off), and the fact that, while it looks (especially given all the tie-ins) as though it's a kids' film, it's way too dark and scary for very young children (although the same is true of JURASSIC PARK, and that raked it in).

[J.B.]

CR could be a great Bond film (by my standards), but I don't think that would necessarily mean it would be successful at the box office...

New 007 + long delay between films = success.

I think that one thing to remember (and we have talked about before) is that there are two audiences that go to Bond films. There are the general public people who love Bond overall as a film and icon and will always go to the movie because of the formula these films use in their scripts. The second type of people who go are the ones in this forum (me included) who really study Bond, read the books, have real preferences over minute details to the point that we will talk about it and give our opinions about everything concerning Bond films.

I think this film is going to do well overall because of the mystery of this new bond and the publicly known "revamping" that the franchise is trying to do...as a result everyone will go and see it to find out if this Bond has the stuff they like. How EON portrays Craig in the PR they do before it hits theatres will also help people accept another Bond after a popular one was bumped. However, should Craig not go over well in the PR and then the film, then EON will see the disappointment more in the second film than the first when people dont return to the next film. But I think they will still go to this first one to see whether Craig meets up with Brosnan's portrayal.

As for the second type of people (the Bond enthusiasts), we will always go to the Bond films. Even if you have said you wont go to this new one b/c you are mad at EON I would bet you that when the film hits the screen you will be there to see it out of curiosity. The suspense is going to be there for how Craig is as Bond and for how EON has revamped this franchise. Also, we will tend to like this Bond quicker than the general public type because the general public is a shallower group in terms of Bond and who he is and what he should be. And, this bond and film is supposed to be the closest to Fleming's Bond than ever before. That may be hard for the general public to take but not for us to take becuase we have read the books and discussed it here at CBn.

So, the first film's receipts may not tell the tale of how the franchise will do in the long term. The second film may tell the bigger tale.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Even if I don't agree with the direction 100%, I'll still be first in line to see any new Bond film. Or preferably making some absurd trip to get to a premiere...

[Andrew]

I have been alittle unsure in the past few weeks but some reason this Craig interview has put me in a good feeling about this film again.

[blueman]

One thing about Kong: it's actually getting better receipts as it goes along, there may be good box office this weekend if word of mouth continues to grow. I saw it midnight Tuesday (first showing!), and it's awesome, truly the one movie to see this year. Watts is incredible in it, and that CGI ape should get a best actor nod.

An incredible, incredible film (and I usually hate those sfx-fests, but Peter Jackson does eveything right with this story, IMO).

[tdalton]

I have been alittle unsure in the past few weeks but some reason this Craig interview has put me in a good feeling about this film again.

I'm also feeling a bit better about the film now that some of the details of the film have been confirmed by Craig (someone inside the production instead of the tabloids and newspapers, etc.). But, I've still got a bit of nervousness hanging around as well, and most of that is still about the "Bond Begins" aspect of the whole thing. I think that they can pull it off successu=fully, but I think that it would have to be done falwlessly for that to happen, and I'm not sure whether or not they can do that. But, I hope that they just put the best film possible out there, and a film that does the Casino Royale novel justice.

[SecretAgentFan]

Tdalton, what is "flawless"? Can anybody do something absolutely "flawlessly" and have everyone agree that it was done "flawlessly"?

C

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 23 December 2005 - 09:25 AM.

[tdalton]

So, can CR become a box office sensation? I actually doubt it. The golden times of box office are over, IMO. And the studios will wake up and push simultaneous release dates for movies in the cinema and on DVD. This is sad because the movie going experience can be wonderful. But we, the audience, have wrecked it.

I'm sure that I'm part of a small minority on this, but I actually am looking forward to the day when they go with simultaneous, or "same-day" DVD releases for films.

And, I agree with you that CR will probably not be a box office sensation as the older Bond movies became during their time.

[Harmsway]

I'm sure that I'm part of a small minority on this, but I actually am looking forward to the day when they go with simultaneous, or "same-day" DVD releases for films. 

No matter how good a home theatre I have, it'll never match the magic of watching a movie on a giant screen in a communal experience with an audience. As much as the moviegoing experience needs an upgrade, I haven't seen a home theatre (and I've seen some AMAZING home theatres) that matches the experience in terms of magic.

That said, I think we've reached a peak where movies will start to appear more and more on DVD and will be making their money primarily there, rather than in theatres. But I'll be sad when theatres stop existing - no matter how you put it, movies like KING KONG just won't work as well in home theatres.

[PierceConneryMoore]

Opening Weekend:$40mil DAD opened with $47mil & TWINE opened with $35m so just under TWINE in ticket sales.

US Total:$150m $10mil below DAD & by inflation, it would be the 11th highest grossing Bond film between Goldeneye with $156.48mil & FYEO with $143.36m

Worldwide Total:$400m A little below DAD.

[PierceConneryMoore]

Oh, here's a list of what all the Bond movies would make if released in 2005:

In Order

1.Thunderball $478.72m
2.Goldfinger $424.32m
3.You Only Live Twice $230.4m
4.Die Another Day $177,285,664
5.From Russia With Love $171.52m
6.Tomorrow Never Dies $170.88m
7.Diamonds Are Forever $165.12m
8.The World Is Not Enough $159,911,808
9.Moonraker $159.36m
10.Goldeneye $156.48m
11.For Your Eyes Only $143.36m
12.Octopussy $137.6m
13.The Spy Who Loved Me $134.4m
14.Live And Let Die $128.64m
15.Dr.No $121.6m
16.On Her Majesty's Secret Service $94.08m
17.A View To A Kill $90.24m
18.The Living Daylights $83.84m
19.The Man With The Golden Gun $65.6m
20.Licence To Kill $55.68m

[PierceConneryMoore]

And just to add more info, here are the inflated openings for the Brosnan films:

Goldeneye:$38,554,493
TND:$35,057,788
TWINE:$44,748,355
DAD:$51,852,161

[Donovan]

Any perceived failure of "King Kong" at the box office simply cannot be attributed to anything done by the studio, filmmakers, or marketing. Box office is down across the board. People aren't going to see movies these days. That is a situation every film is faced with. Frankly, I think "Munich" is going to bomb in part by this trend and due to the timing of its release. I for one am not interested in paying money to get depressed. And seeing the Israeli athletes murder in the beginning of the film will most definately be depressing.

I can turn the news on and get depressed for free instead.

"Casino Royale" is taking some pretty brave choices. With the Brosnan Bonds, the producers and studios successfully cultivated a new generation of fans...a great percentage of which were the young boys whol loved the video games, and girls of all ages who were there to see Brosnan (does it seem reasonable to assume that women were taping up pictures of Connery or Moore in their work areas back in the day? I didn't think so either).

By reintroducing Bond in the way they are (new and distinctly different face, first mission, possibly less action...film very well might look low budget to fit in with the gritty tone of the story) they are cutting loose the Brosnan fans in the hope they can get new ones. I don't see how it can be argued that the masses who loved Brosnan as Bond, casual Bond fans/movie goers, are going to be looking forward to seeing the new film.

[spynovelfan]

Oh, here's a list of what all the Bond movies would make if released in 2005:

In Order

1.Thunderball $478.72m
2.Goldfinger $424.32m
3.You Only Live Twice $230.4m

Rather a drop-off!

Interesting that Brosnan ranks so much higher in this than everyone but Connery.

[Mamadou]

At this point, I'm starting to become more in favor of the direct to DVD releases now. It's just too much of a hassle to go to the theater anymore. At least from the comfort of my own home, I can make sure that I have the best experience possible watching the film with no distractions that have become a mainstay at the movie theaters nowadays.

Hear, hear. I was just thinking of all the things I have to do to have the best theatre experience: wait at least two weeks after the opening (depending on the film--I still haven't seen Harry Potter), go to the 9:30 showings, etc. But my main means of watching movies is my DVD player. I can't bring a whole pizza box into a theatre, nor get them to screen "Lawrence of Arabia" ; )

I sometimes think that with this box office downturn we should just put movie theatres out of their misery. It was only slightly encouraging to read this week that my local movie theatres were installing cell phone jammers. But I wouldn't invest too much in DVD rental places either. I think pay-per-view will be the way of the future (once they start offering half-decent movies). It's already starting to happen with stuff like iTunes Music Store, which now is selling music videos and some TV shows for so many bucks per episode.

As for EON angling for a new audience, I know I'm interested in seeing CR, since I've read the book twice (along with others in the series). I was also arguably too young to see the movies for most of the Brosnan era (certainly for "Goldeneye"), and was barely born in time for Dalton. So I wouldn't be surprised if EON hooked some new fans, because on IMDB the Brosnan fans seem pretty damn prejudiced against Craig.

[tdalton]

At this point, I'm starting to become more in favor of the direct to DVD releases now. It's just too much of a hassle to go to the theater anymore. At least from the comfort of my own home, I can make sure that I have the best experience possible watching the film with no distractions that have become a mainstay at the movie theaters nowadays.

Hear, hear. I was just thinking of all the things I have to do to have the best theatre experience: wait at least two weeks after the opening (depending on the film--I still haven't seen Harry Potter), go to the 9:30 showings, etc. But my main means of watching movies is my DVD player. I can't bring a whole pizza box into a theatre, nor get them to screen "Lawrence of Arabia" ; )

I sometimes think that with this box office downturn we should just put movie theatres out of their misery. It was only slightly encouraging to read this week that my local movie theatres were installing cell phone jammers. But I wouldn't invest too much in DVD rental places either. I think pay-per-view will be the way of the future (once they start offering half-decent movies). It's already starting to happen with stuff like iTunes Music Store, which now is selling music videos and some TV shows for so many bucks per episode.

As for EON angling for a new audience, I know I'm interested in seeing CR, since I've read the book twice (along with others in the series). I was also arguably too young to see the movies for most of the Brosnan era (certainly for "Goldeneye"), and was barely born in time for Dalton. So I wouldn't be surprised if EON hooked some new fans, because on IMDB the Brosnan fans seem pretty damn prejudiced against Craig.

Well said. For me, it's not really even the prices so much as it's all the cell phone use and the talking that goes on during the movies. After I saw Syriana a couple of weeks ago, I realized that there may only be 3 or 4 movies that I ever see in theaters again. I mean, seriously, the guy next to me was leaning over me the whole movie after being asked countless times to stay in his own seat and he kept reading the subtitles outloud every time they were there (and there was a good amount of subtitltes in that film). It's just too much of a hassle, and, whether or not they actually do go to same-day releases is irrelevant for me, there's only 3 or 4 films maximum that I'll be seeing in theaters ever again (MI:3, CR, Munich, and leaving one space open for a surprise hit film that I'm not aware of now). After those 3 or 4, I'm done with the theaters.

[J.B.]

"Casino Royale" is taking some pretty brave choices. With the Brosnan Bonds, the producers and studios successfully cultivated a new generation of fans...a great percentage of which were the young boys whol loved the video games, and girls of all ages who were there to see Brosnan (does it seem reasonable to assume that women were taping up pictures of Connery or Moore in their work areas back in the day? I didn't think so either).

By reintroducing Bond in the way they are (new and distinctly different face, first mission, possibly less action...film very well might look low budget to fit in with the gritty tone of the story) they are cutting loose the Brosnan fans in the hope they can get new ones. I don't see how it can be argued that the masses who loved Brosnan as Bond, casual Bond fans/movie goers, are going to be looking forward to seeing the new film.

This is partly what I was saying earlier about the general public. From the receipts of the the Brosnan films and the video games and other things on top of that, this new direction seems to be a gamble to some extent.

Oh, here's a list of what all the Bond movies would make if released in 2005:

In Order

1.Thunderball $478.72m
2.Goldfinger $424.32m
3.You Only Live Twice $230.4m

Rather a drop-off!

Interesting that Brosnan ranks so much higher in this than everyone but Connery.

Roger Moore said it best when Brosnan was introduced as the new Bond. He said he would be at least as good as Connery and maybe better. For sure he thought he would be better than himself. That's Roger for you...