289 replies to this topic

[dinovelvet]

And if the "gamers" were so interested in 007, why did EA drop its line of Bond games (and eventually its entire contract) after Craig came onboard? You'd think with all these gamers out there in love with the idea of having Craig as Bond that there'd be a videogame adaptation coming out. Woops! I forgot, they cancelled it once they saw Craig was cast as Bond.

That's a good try, but let's do the truthful version now - EA's last two Bond games, Goldeneye Rogue Agent, and From Russia With Love both bombed, as did just about all their other movie based tie-in games like Catwoman, Lord of the rings, Batman Begins, etc; they were well known for churning out bland, by-the-numbers movie tie-ins. Nobody wanted another EA Bond game, period, and EA knew it.

[tdalton]

And if the "gamers" were so interested in 007, why did EA drop its line of Bond games (and eventually its entire contract) after Craig came onboard? You'd think with all these gamers out there in love with the idea of having Craig as Bond that there'd be a videogame adaptation coming out. Woops! I forgot, they cancelled it once they saw Craig was cast as Bond.

That's a good try, but let's do the truthful version now - EA's last two Bond games, Goldeneye Rogue Agent, and From Russia With Love both bombed, as did just about all their other movie based tie-in games like Catwoman, Lord of the rings, Batman Begins, etc; they were well known for churning out bland, by-the-numbers movie tie-ins. Nobody wanted another EA Bond game, period, and EA knew it.

Agreed. Even though I'm very much in favor of Craig's casting, I'm not sure that I could have brought myself to get another EA Bond game, after the last few have been outright awful. I don't think that it had anything to do with Craig's casting as Bond, but, as was said above, that it had to do with the rapidly declining quality of the games (namely GE:RA and FRWL).

[Onlooker]

You guys do know Sony only owns 20% of MGM, right? They are distributing it so they probably have put up some $$, but they don't control Bond.

Providence Equity Partners (29%)
Texas Pacific Group (21%)
Sony (20%)
Comcast (20%)
Credit Suisse (7%)
Quadrangle Group (3%)

That's the breakdown of MGM's ownership.

That may be so, but its rather misleading. I'm not sure about Comcast, but all the rest are purely investment houses which would know next to nothing about films and film making and would have made the investment based on Sony representing them on the production side. Yes, they may well squeal if things go badly, but they'll either follow Sony's lead or sell their shares. The only other option would be to buy Sony out and find another studio to take their place and that's pretty unlikely, bearing in mind that Sony is probably the largest and, at the moment, most successful film conglomerate in the world.

Edited by Onlooker, 30 October 2006 - 09:35 AM.

[Daltonfan]

Don't forget about the impact of exchange rates.
In November 2002, one euro was worth $0.99. Today, one euro is worth $1.27. A british pound was worth $1.56 in 2002 and is now worth $1.90.

DAD took $59m in the UK. With current exchange rates and no allowance for inflation, this would be $72m today.
In France, DAD took $23m. With current exchange rates, this would be $30m. The overseas market is even more important than it was four years ago.

Hollywood movies are financed with money raised worldwide. Few of them are truly american.

[Bon-san]

I was watching a very popular film just two days ago (and already forgot what it was) and listened to the commentary and the director said that the film "had just made its money back".

[NOTE: Italics and underline added]

If this account is completely true, this kind of thing would tend to very much undermine your status as a legitimate source of information.

Perhaps you were just wanting to make a point, and weren't able to cite a suitable film title. Which would just be lazy and disingenuous. And still undermine your status as a legitimate source of information.

And yes, I'm picking on you for the jingoistic nonsense upthread.

[doublenoughtspy]

If we are discussing the US market - Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton had fewer US admissions in their first outing than their predecessor's last film.

[HildebrandRarity]

I was watching a very popular film just two days ago (and already forgot what it was) and listened to the commentary and the director said that the film "had just made its money back".

[NOTE: Italics and underline added]

If this account is completely true, this kind of thing would tend to very much undermine your status as a legitimate source of information.

Grav is as far removed from being a legitimate source as you can possibly get in these forums. His views are horribly tainted with an admitted anti-DC/CR bias.

His low ball estimates are so off the mark, they're laughable.

His $200-300 million worldwide gross number for CR belies global reality and highlights an insular and miopic American world view which determines his thinking.

And, amusingly, he has the temerity to come here to trash talk everyone while completely lacking the balls to make a wager after displaying the faux swagger of a betting man in post 9 of HF v CR thread.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 30 October 2006 - 06:00 PM.

[Bon-san]

Frankly, I find the discussion of box office grosses immeasurably boring. I long for the days, likely never to return, when box office receipts were just a footnote in the critical discussion of films.

The comparison of the relative box office mojo of given Bond actors amounts, to my mind, to nothing more than vicarious weenie-measuring.

[HildebrandRarity]

ANYBODY, and I do mean *ANYBODY* that says that this film will earn more than Die Another Day (adjusted for inflation or not) is as out of touch with the realities of today's marketplace as you can get.

Not only will Craig not be a hit with audiences, but he will, in all probability, signal the end of this franchise as we know it

What's your highest probable estimate for CR World Wide? It's ("in all probability") low enough to signal the "end of this franchise as we know it", I imagine? What do you think that number is?

[VisualStatic]

Well, to add fuel to the fire....

My perdiction:

$15-25m opening weekend US

[Skudor]

Frankly, I find the discussion of box office grosses immeasurably boring. I long for the days, likely never to return, when box office receipts were just a footnote in the critical discussion of films.

The comparison of the relative box office mojo of given Bond actors amounts, to my mind, to nothing more than vicarious weenie-measuring.

The topic may be boring, but the discussion is anything but.

[JimmyBond]

What global reality? Whose global reality? Yours? ANYBODY, and I do mean *ANYBODY* that says that this film will earn more than Die Another Day (adjusted for inflation or not) is as out of touch with the realities of today's marketplace as you can get.

Not only will Craig not be a hit with audiences, but he will, in all probability, signal the end of this franchise as we know it (hey, I've got no "legitimacy" as a Bond fan, so I may as well go waaaaaay out on a limb).

And with that little diatribe, you my friend, are the one that's lost touch with reality.

When I first started reading your posts, you seemed fairly intelligent, and while I didnt agree with your opinion of the script, I respected it, because you actually took the time to make logical arguments. Now? Now you're making sweeping statements and passing them off as facts, which any person can clearly see is merely your opinion. How do you know Casino Royale (and Craig) won't be a hit with the audiences? Have you seen the film?

No legitimacy? Hell I'll go one step further, you have no credibility anymore.

[dinovelvet]

Well, to add fuel to the fire....

My perdiction:

$15-25m opening weekend US

$15 million is an absolutely laughable estimate, period, its likely to make close to that on its first day. You might want to read this :

http://www.deadlineh...g-neck-and-neck

[morganhavoc]

With the rather poor selection of films released this year, Casino Royale will be successful and most likey be in the top ten for the year. It's not up against much it's opening weekend ( Happy Feet my be a shocker, but I will be surprised), and Deja Vue the following weekend may open well. But all and all it should do fairly well.
Sony will make it's money back in two ways: tickets receipts and because they are the distributor, they get an extra cut of the ticket price too.
As far as the orginal question, the USA market is the most important indicator to Hollywood to judge if a film is successful or not. If a film flops in USA and is a hit overseas, it's still a flop and a sequel will not follow, unless it made 4 or 5 times the box office overseas than it did in the USA and even then it would still be doubtful.
You can try and spin a lot of different factors to try and get around this fact, but if it flops in the USA , it's a flop.

Not that I think CR will be.

Edited by morganhavoc, 30 October 2006 - 09:06 PM.

[triviachamp]

As far as reading that link above...yeah, I read it. And it told me almost nothing concrete. So much for their "exclusive". What's more, I've seen films with great test scores by preview audiences (not what we're talking ab out here, but close enough) absolutely bomb at the box office and films with poor test scores become huge hits. I think it was Steven Jay Rubin's The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia that mentioned LTK's wonderful test scores with preview audiences, and that film ultimately got flushed down the loo by audiences. So it's very much still a wait-and-see situation with Casino Royale.

Well, tracking is not a measure of preview audiences thoughts on a film, it is a measure of public awareness, quite different. BO tracking is a much more accurate predictor of Box Office than test scores. You are clutching at straws aren't you?

Edited by triviachamp, 30 October 2006 - 09:22 PM.

[stromberg]

You are clutching at straws aren't you?

Don't have to. Why? Because CR's success or failure isn't that important to me. Clearly it's of paramount importance to some of the Craig-supporters on this board, because they keep creating new threads to talk about the issue.

Oh, I was under a different impression. My bad.

But then again, there are people who claim that they buy the 'Playboy' just because of the interesting stories and interviews, and this is said to really happen among Bond fans, too .

[Skudor]

And everytime I'm just the slightest bit closer to liking Craig, I come across the rudest, snobbiest Craig fans imaginable, and my view of him goes right back in the crapper.

So your dislike of Craig stems from his fans?

[triviachamp]

Of course you'll be able to prove this. Right?

Well just for starters DMC had some of the highest awareness ever and it broke the opening weekend record. It also showed that FOOF and Superman wouldn't do too hot and guess what! They didn't. Oh and it showed a collapse for MI3 just before it opened. This isn't too say they are 100% accurate of course.

Oh and it actually measures Box Office, which is much more accurate than the views of a few audiences.

Seriously, for all the talk from the Craig-supporters about "acceptance" and "tolerance" of his looks, some of these same Craig-supporters are the most intolerant people I've found. Some of y'all absolutely cannot stand to find one person who doesn't want to melt down their gold, make an image of Craig, and proceed to dance around it with a tamborine. And everytime I'm just the slightest bit closer to liking Craig, I come across the rudest, snobbiest Craig fans imaginable, and my view of him goes right back in the crapper.

Replace "Craig" with Brosnan then I agree.

Edited by triviachamp, 30 October 2006 - 10:23 PM.

[Publius]

While I agree the probability of that weekend take is low, it's not impossible. Other Bond films have dropped anywhere from %35-50 from previous Bond films. Happened between YOLT and OHMSS, and between LALD and TMWTGG, and between TLD and LTK. So it has happened before. It's not totally out of the realm of possibility.

The biggest decline was between LALD and TMWTGG, which saw a drop of over 40%. The second biggest was between YOLT and OHMSS, and that was only 25%. For CR to make less than $30 million opening weekend would be a drop of 50% from DAD (and to make $15 million would be a drop of 75%).

I just don't think there's precedent for that (since we're citing the examples of history), given that the circumstances around my first two examples are so different than now. In the case of TMWTGG, I don't know why it fared so poorly, but I'm sure the rapid-fire release dates since DAF didn't help, maybe not enough people liked it (a la LTK), and perhaps there were other issues in play.

In the case of OHMSS, it was the first time someone other than Connery was Bond, spymania had worn off (already noticeable with YOLT's drop-off from TB), the lead actor quit before the movie was even released, and again, I'm sure there were other issues I'm overlooking or not familiar with.

Here, we have the first Bond movie in four years, the second longest gap in series history. The longest gap was before GE (which made double what LTK did), and the third was TSWLM (which made over 50% more than TMWTGG). In the case of the last three Bonds, their debuts have not only been more successful than the rest of their films, but more successful than the one before.

If CR makes as much as DAD did opening weekend (adjusted), it'll make close to $55 million. If it makes what DAD did unadjusted, it'll still make over $45 million. If CR is as overall successful in the US as DAD (adjusted), it'll make over $180 million. If it makes as much as DAD did unadjusted ($160 million), it'll still be a real drop of 15%. A real drop of 25% still means over $130 million.

In light of all that, I think both history and simple economics are on CR's side to clear your benchmark and even a majority of the predictions I've seen here. This is still its race to lose...which I don't think it will.

[Publius]

Excellent post. CR is also tracking very well, unless someone can post something to the contrary to show that it will debut poorly.

The naysayers are mainly relying on their own negative wishful-thinking and are apparently ignorant of current movie polls as well as the facts and figures that you posted so eloquently.

Thank you. But I just realized, I incorrectly cited the gap prior to TSWLM as the third longest, when it's now the fourth. The third is actually that between TWINE and DAD. Although even then, DAD made more money than TWINE, so my point still stands.

[HildebrandRarity]

Don't forget about the impact of exchange rates.
In November 2002, one euro was worth $0.99. Today, one euro is worth $1.27. A british pound was worth $1.56 in 2002 and is now worth $1.90.

DAD took $59m in the UK.

In France, DAD took $23m.

Excellent point, Daltonfan!

Here, we have the first Bond movie in four years, the second longest gap in series history. The longest gap was before GE (which made double what LTK did), and the third was TSWLM (which made over 50% more than TMWTGG). In the case of the last three Bonds, their debuts have not only been more successful than the rest of their films, but more successful than the one before.

If CR makes...as much as DAD did unadjusted ($160 million), it'll still be a real drop of 15%. A real drop of 25% still means over $130 million.

In light of all that, I think both history and simple economics are on CR's side to clear your benchmark and even a majority of the predictions I've seen here. This is still its race to lose...which I don't think it will.

Also good points, Publius.


The thing is the trolls from that anti-Craig site can't see beyond their shallow prejudices. Plus they don't have the balls to lay their money on the line.

I'll bet those cowards $1000 US that Casino Royale will make more than their highest estimate of $300 million world wide. But they are too chicken sh!T to take the bet.

Speaking of which, where's Gravity's Silhouette?

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 31 October 2006 - 03:26 AM.

[Jim]

Now on the CBn Forum Policy page:

"Continuing any needless arguments"...

This thread, and certain members' participation in it, is teetering on the brink.

Please calm down. It's only (other people's) money.

Quite how anyone would wisely wager between two anonymous usernames on a free internet site that requires no credit details as a guarantee defeats me.

I'll bet those cowards $1000 US that Casino Royale will make more than their highest estimate of $300 million world wide. But they are too chicken sh!T to take the bet.

Speaking of which, where's Gravity's Silhouette?

Please moderate your language and do not try to skirt the auto-censor.

In answer to the second question - I neither know nor care.

[HildebrandRarity]

Quite how anyone would wisely wager between two anonymous usernames on a free internet site that requires no credit details as a guarantee defeats me.

I'll bet those cowards $1000 US that Casino Royale will make more than their highest estimate of $300 million world wide. But they are too chicken sh!T to take the bet.

Speaking of which, where's Gravity's Silhouette?

Please moderate your language and do not try to skirt the auto-censor.

In answer to the second question - I neither know nor care.

Apologies, Jim.

As for my part, I'd transfer my credit card details to you on the $1000. Then, i'd donate $500 of my winnings (if I won) to CommanderBond.net.

[CM007]

Don't forget about the impact of exchange rates.
In November 2002, one euro was worth $0.99. Today, one euro is worth $1.27. A british pound was worth $1.56 in 2002 and is now worth $1.90.

DAD took $59m in the UK.

In France, DAD took $23m.

Excellent point, Daltonfan!

Here, we have the first Bond movie in four years, the second longest gap in series history. The longest gap was before GE (which made double what LTK did), and the third was TSWLM (which made over 50% more than TMWTGG). In the case of the last three Bonds, their debuts have not only been more successful than the rest of their films, but more successful than the one before.

If CR makes...as much as DAD did unadjusted ($160 million), it'll still be a real drop of 15%. A real drop of 25% still means over $130 million.

In light of all that, I think both history and simple economics are on CR's side to clear your benchmark and even a majority of the predictions I've seen here. This is still its race to lose...which I don't think it will.

Also good points, Publius.


The thing is the trolls from that anti-Craig site can't see beyond their shallow prejudices. Plus they don't have the balls to lay their money on the line.

I'll bet those cowards $1000 US that Casino Royale will make more than their highest estimate of $300 million world wide. But they are too chicken sh!T to take the bet.

Speaking of which, where's Gravity's Silhouette?

Would you be prepared to make that bet with someone who has already seen the Movie because there

Edited by CM007, 31 October 2006 - 01:07 PM.

[tonymascia1]

Box Office Mojo lists DAD's worldwide box office figures at USD 432 million.

There's no reason to think CR won't do better than USD 300 million around the globe.

With inflation, four years between Bond movies, and, most importantly, a good movie, CR should exceed DAD's take.

[Harmsway]

It is exceedingly unlikely that CASINO ROYALE will outdo DIE ANOTHER DAY.

I think a fairly conservative and probably accurate estimate is $130 million stateside (which was about M:I:III's stateside pull), $200 million outside of the US, which would still give a total gross of $330 million total. I think it has a chance of doing better than that (I think the worldwide market will offer more than $200 million - perhaps $230 million).

[Publius]

You're telling us that an actor who is a total unknown, unconventional looking, and extremely controversial for a sizable portion of the fans, is somehow going to come along and make as much or more money than the highest grossing picture of the previous actor who happened to be very popular? Sorry, that's just not plausible.

Again, where do you get this "sizeable portion of fans" stuff? And how is it that GoldenEye did so well when Brosnan had only an 80s TV show to his name? Don't you think some fans were taken aback by his unBondian prettiness and relative shortness, dark hair or not? And did you read over my previous post, where I list (yet again) just some of the factors CR has going for it (even while overlooking the strong possibility that there's plenty of demand for what we look to be getting to compensate for what we might lose)?

Even if you discount the Berry/40th anniversay factor, it still took Brosnan four films to cross the $400 million dollar mark. I believe you're well-intentioned, but misguided. There's no way SONY is expecting the film to do that well, and MGW has as much as said it.

GoldenEye had more than enough admissions to cross the $400 million mark were it to have been released in 2002. In fact, all of the Brosnans did. In 2006, $400 million is a considerably easier feat than in 1995, or even 2002. Hell, all of the Brosnans would be around or above $500 million in today's dollars.

The odds are not in Craig's favour. Brosnan reversed an entire decades worth of declining fortunes that had spanned across two different actors. After Moonraker, admissions for all of Moore's films kept declining, eventually just bottoming out with Dalton. Then to have to come in and try and resurrect the series FROM THAT? You think that's easy? Brosnan doesn't get enough credit around here for revitalizing this series.

Actually, I think he gets far too much credit, and that the combination of a 6.5 year gap and the deep rut Bond was in made it easier to climb out. GoldenEye could have starred Sean Bean or any number of other actors and still have been a phenomenonal success. I doubt Brosnan would have made TLD perform better, I doubt Brosnan could have "saved" LTK, and I doubt he was anything more than one of the right men, at the right time.

Brosnan's momentum is exactly that: his. It doesn't belong to Craig, and anyone who thinks that because the series was on a roll under Brosnan that it will continue under Craig is mistaken. Very mistaken.

I think what's mistaken is assuming that the success of the Brosnan movies can be attributed so largely to him. If that's the case, this doom-and-gloom rhetoric was inevitable no matter what, unless we went with another mannequin and churned out more of the same product. And Bond would survive on that. Sure.

[jaguar007]

I don't know if CR will make more than DAD or not and my only concern is that it makes enough money for EON and SOny to continue with Craig and the current direction rather than revert back to another DAD style story.

One thing that CR and Craig may have going for it are the non Bond fans. I know plenty of people who have not seen a James Bond movie in the theater in ages. This change in formula may be what it takes to drive them into the theater even if it is just out of curiosity factor.

[Harmsway]

It is exceedingly unlikely that CASINO ROYALE will outdo DIE ANOTHER DAY.

I think a fairly conservative and probably accurate estimate is $130 million stateside (which was about M:I:III's stateside pull), $200 million outside of the US, which would still give a total gross of $330 million total. I think it has a chance of doing better than that (I think the worldwide market will offer more than $200 million - perhaps $230 million).

I don't expect Casino Royale to even do $130 million in the U.S. I think $103-106 million is more realistic, and that's at the higher end of my range of expectations. If the film crosses the $100 million dollar barrier in the U.S., Sony will be pleased.

You see, I think that's far too low. Time will tell, but I really do think you're underestimating CASINO ROYALE. It's not going to be the greatest hit the franchise has ever seen, but it's not going to do as dismally as you predict (if CASINO ROYALE has pulled in only $100 in the US, then it *has* failed).

Too many people have drunk the Craig-flavored Kool-Aid, and are now believing with religious fervor that the film will make a minimum of $500 million worldwide. It's not going to happen.

This is true.

[Harmsway]

Actually, I think he gets far too much credit, and that the combination of a 6.5 year gap and the deep rut Bond was in made it easier to climb out. GoldenEye could have starred Sean Bean or any number of other actors and still have been a phenomenonal success.

Wow, a bold and provocative comment. I like that. Well, November 17th will certainly help put that in perspective for us.

Not necessarily. November 17th only judges how well Daniel Craig fairs in 2006, following Pierce Brosnan. Not how well GOLDENEYE would have done with Sean Bean in 1995, following Timothy Dalton.

On a side note, Sean Bean is my favorite Bond-who-never-was. I think he would have been brilliant, and would have stood a great chance of winning the public's favor in 1995.