289 replies to this topic

[ACE]

... but one thing that I know for abso-frickin-lutely is that this film will not make more money than Die Another Day, adjusted for inflation or not.

Hmmmmmm. Gravity's Silouhette. Generally, you always write with intelligence and insight. You are provocative but passionate. I understand why you thought CR would not perform as well as DAD but it seems, thankfully, CR may outgross DAD domestically and worldwide. Time will tell.

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

LOL!

Vicarious Weenie Measurement Ahoy!

See Sony revenue and admission figures for previous Bonds here
http://debrief.comma...showtopic=24993

For some information about film finance, profitability and exhibition,
See posts #23 and #39 and the thread here
http://debrief.comma...p...c=36532&hl=

Anyway you, ahem, slice it, Casino Royale is a phenomenal success.

[HildebrandRarity]

See Sony revenue and admission figures for previous Bonds here
http://debrief.comma...showtopic=24993

Fantastic stuff ACE.

Your numbers above basically indicate to me that:

1) the Connery Bonds of Goldfinger-Thunderball-YOLT were the original Star Wars or Lord Of The Rings of their era, i.e. mammoth in their box office takings.

Indeed Thunderball and Goldfinger are about 24th and 38th or there abouts on the ALL TIME list of blockbusters in America inflation adjusted;

2) The time value of money is hard to beat...either that or the time value of money is misleading; and

3) The early wealth created by the Broccoli family is so huge that no single studio boss can dictate what the Broccoli family (especially Barbara Broccoli) can do with James Bond.

[Dr. Noah]

See Sony revenue and admission figures for previous Bonds here
http://debrief.comma...showtopic=24993

Fantastic stuff ACE.

Your numbers above basically indicate to me that:

1) the Connery Bonds of Goldfinger-Thunderball-YOLT were the original Star Wars or Lord Of The Rings of their era, i.e. mammoth in their box office takings.

Indeed Thunderball and Goldfinger are about 24th and 38th or there abouts on the ALL TIME list of blockbusters in America inflation adjusted;

2) The time value of money is hard to beat...either that or the time value of money is misleading; and

3) The early wealth created by the Broccoli family is so huge that no single studio boss can dictate what the Broccoli family (especially Barbara Broccoli) can do with James Bond.

Sure they can. They wanted Dalton out, not Broccoli. John Calley threatened to pull the funding for GE.

[ACE]

See Sony revenue and admission figures for previous Bonds here
http://debrief.comma...showtopic=24993

Fantastic stuff ACE.

Your numbers above basically indicate to me that:

These are NOT my numbers...

1) the Connery Bonds of Goldfinger-Thunderball-YOLT were the original Star Wars or Lord Of The Rings of their era, i.e. mammoth in their box office takings.

Indeed Thunderball and Goldfinger are about 24th and 38th or there abouts on the ALL TIME list of blockbusters in America inflation adjusted;

Was there any doubt? Bond films are PHENOMENAL. Not only in terms of financial success but endurance and industry standards. Bonds pioneered wide releases and "franchise" film-making where the release of a film drove a number of ancillary commercial vehicles. Bond films made special effects, design, editing, musical, marketing, sonic innovations and incumbated generations of film-makers and technicians.

Leaving aside the heights of the 1960s, just take the recent Cubby-less Bond film run since 1995. Regardless of what you think of Brosnan/Craig-era Bonds (I like them), to have ever increasing global box office grosses, increasing critical credibility, cultural pervasiveness and cross-market endurance in all areas is unique. To have that appeal without major A-List talent is even more astonishing. But to maintain that over 5 consecutive sequels which are themselves no.s 17 to 21 in a series will probably be unequalled. We take Bond's success for granted but no Bourne, XXX, Superman, Batman, Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter etc will ever match these stats.

2) The time value of money is hard to beat...either that or the time value of money is misleading; and

3) The early wealth created by the Broccoli family is so huge that no single studio boss can dictate what the Broccoli family (especially Barbara Broccoli) can do with James Bond.

Well, not quite true. UA Corp are the corporate partners of Bond with Danjaq. Eon is the service company who make the films for the corporate owners. Eon are beholden to the Bond studio du jour who have budget limitations and casting vetos as well as, believe it or not, competent creative suggestions. BTW, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson run a joint partnership. One does not have more clout than the other, whatever it might seem. And yes, they are very, very, very rich. And that was before they ever started producing Bond movies!

[Mr_Clark]

See Sony revenue and admission figures for previous Bonds here
http://debrief.comma...showtopic=24993

Fantastic stuff ACE.

Your numbers above basically indicate to me that:

1) the Connery Bonds of Goldfinger-Thunderball-YOLT were the original Star Wars or Lord Of The Rings of their era, i.e. mammoth in their box office takings.

Indeed Thunderball and Goldfinger are about 24th and 38th or there abouts on the ALL TIME list of blockbusters in America inflation adjusted;

2) The time value of money is hard to beat...either that or the time value of money is misleading; and

3) The early wealth created by the Broccoli family is so huge that no single studio boss can dictate what the Broccoli family (especially Barbara Broccoli) can do with James Bond.

Sure they can. They wanted Dalton out, not Broccoli. John Calley threatened to pull the funding for GE.

Do you have any factual proof that they wanted Dalton out? Dalton left on his own free will.

[ACE]

See Sony revenue and admission figures for previous Bonds here
http://debrief.comma...showtopic=24993

Fantastic stuff ACE.

Your numbers above basically indicate to me that:

1) the Connery Bonds of Goldfinger-Thunderball-YOLT were the original Star Wars or Lord Of The Rings of their era, i.e. mammoth in their box office takings.

Indeed Thunderball and Goldfinger are about 24th and 38th or there abouts on the ALL TIME list of blockbusters in America inflation adjusted;

2) The time value of money is hard to beat...either that or the time value of money is misleading; and

3) The early wealth created by the Broccoli family is so huge that no single studio boss can dictate what the Broccoli family (especially Barbara Broccoli) can do with James Bond.

Sure they can. They wanted Dalton out, not Broccoli. John Calley threatened to pull the funding for GE.

Do you have any factual proof that they wanted Dalton out? Dalton left on his own free will.

Dr Noah is right, I'm afraid. There is no factual proof apart from anecdotes from studio executives and an excellent article in American Premiere magazine circa Jan/Feb 1996 which outlines the battle for Dalton and the Aston Martin. The Broccolis wanted to retain him but the studio vetoed the idea. Of course, the deal was that Dalton was to say he left of his own free will.

[Loomis]

It's a hit, yes, but it doesn't seem to me to be a real smash, at least not in the United States. I was hoping for CASINO ROYALE to do BATMAN BEGINS-type business, or even Bourne-type business, but I guess that just ain't possible for whatever reason or reasons. Particularly disappointing given the unprecedented level of anticipation and critical acclaim for CR - I guess we're looking at lower grosses for BOND 22.

[Brock Samson]

It's a hit, yes, but it doesn't seem to me to be a real smash, at least not in the United States. I was hoping for CASINO ROYALE to do BATMAN BEGINS-type business, or even Bourne-type business, but I guess that just ain't possible for whatever reason or reasons. Particularly disappointing given the unprecedented level of anticipation and critical acclaim for CR - I guess we're looking at lower grosses for BOND 22.

?
(boxofficemojo)

Batman Begins

Domestic: $205,343,774
+ Foreign: $166,510,009
= Worldwide: $371,853,783

In release 142 days.

Bourne Supremacy

Domestic: $176,241,941
+ Foreign: $112,258,274
= Worldwide: $288,500,215

Opened July 23rd 04
Close Date: December 23, 2004

VS. CR:

Domestic: $115,876,024
+ Foreign: $195,575,283
= Worldwide: $311,451,307

In Release: 17 days

I'm not a big cheerleader, it's only money after all but it's a bit early to say that, surely?

[pedroarmendariz]

studios might have needed the american market desperately to crown their movie a success back in the days, but to win that market now it's just for show. the world has become smaller and the new market of dvd's and television have made a flop at the theaters a possible franchise (see austin powers: imom). no offense to our british members, but nowadays monarchies don't rule as much as before. they're only there for national pride and symbolism. bond won't need the american market for cr to be a success, but it will come in handy to make money in it. the world loves daniel craig and so does america, fortunetly. beating dad or not at the numbers game won't determine whether cr is a hit or a flop. the true fans love it and the final numbers won't lessen their opinion of it. ltk wasn't widely accepted when it came out, but now is a great classic to watch on tv or on dvd.

[Loomis]

It's a hit, yes, but it doesn't seem to me to be a real smash, at least not in the United States. I was hoping for CASINO ROYALE to do BATMAN BEGINS-type business, or even Bourne-type business, but I guess that just ain't possible for whatever reason or reasons. Particularly disappointing given the unprecedented level of anticipation and critical acclaim for CR - I guess we're looking at lower grosses for BOND 22.

Why lower? Are you saying Craig can't maintain the momentum? This did happen with Brosnan's TND (overall worldwide gross fell although the US chunk of the pie increased) but it's still too early to tell what will happen with Bond 22.

True, it's way too early, but I don't think BOND 22 will do as well simply because it won't have the bums-on-seats-boosting novelty factor of a new actor as 007, or the same amount of hype and anticipation as CASINO ROYALE.

BTW, going by Box Office Mojo, it seems that CR has now overtaken BORAT to be the 15th highest grossing film of the year in the States, with a haul of $116,912,681.

Anyone with any good guesses as to the final US gross and whether it'll end up in this year's Top Ten?

[DanMan]

I'd say somewhere between $155-170 milion would which would put it in about 7th place.

[dinovelvet]

True, it's way too early, but I don't think BOND 22 will do as well simply because it won't have the bums-on-seats-boosting novelty factor of a new actor as 007, or the same amount of hype and anticipation as CASINO ROYALE.

BTW, going by Box Office Mojo, it seems that CR has now overtaken BORAT to be the 15th highest grossing film of the year in the States, with a haul of $116,912,681.

Anyone with any good guesses as to the final US gross and whether it'll end up in this year's Top Ten?

Hmm, I think i...when it hits $150, it has secured a top ten spot. As for worldwide, probably one of the top five (its already ninth). Possibly fourth, I think it should be able to nudge past CARS (461 mil).
Anyway, I don't see how you can already rule out Bond 22 as doing better. It will have the novelty of "the last one was really good" and a genuine audience interest in where the continuing story goes next, and it WON'T have the "Well I dunno about this Craig guy..." whining.

[Loomis]

Hmm, I think i...when it hits $150, it has secured a top ten spot.

When it hits 150?

Anyway, I don't see how you can already rule out Bond 22 as doing better. It will have the novelty of "the last one was really good" and a genuine audience interest in where the continuing story goes next, and it WON'T have the "Well I dunno about this Craig guy..." whining.

Good points. But I still see CR doing more or less just "business as usual" in terms of recent Bond performance. Given the casting of a new 007, the hype, the marketing muscle of Sony and, of course, the quality of the film, my expectations had been considerably.... higher.

[Tinfinger]

Is Casino doing well because of a new Bond and a new style or the fact there really isn't any real competition?

[dinovelvet]

Hmm, I think i...when it hits $150, it has secured a top ten spot.

When it hits 150?

Yes

Granted, it'll be a slow crawl at the box office for CR from hereon out, but it took DAD until January to hit 150, and February for 160.

[kneelbeforezod]

True, it's way too early, but I don't think BOND 22 will do as well simply because it won't have the bums-on-seats-boosting novelty factor of a new actor as 007, or the same amount of hype and anticipation as CASINO ROYALE.

As you say, it's way too early, but I actually think the opposite. I think that this film has been so well received by people that by the time of Bond 22 the anticipation will be even greater.

Bourne Identity was very well received and made a nice amount of money on its initial run... but by the time the sequel came out, people had seen it on dvd, and Bourne had really earned a place in people's hearts/homes. Supremacy was even bigger. Unless they screw it up, I think the same thing will happen with The Dark Knight and Bond 22.

[dinovelvet]

Is Casino doing well because of a new Bond and a new style or the fact there really isn't any real competition?

There's been a movie taking the No.1 spot from CR every weekend since its release, as well as the Bruckheimer produced action thriller Deja Vu which is going for the exact same audience. How is that not "any real competition"...?

[A Kristatos]

[quote name='Loomis' date='5 December 2006 - 16:15' post='663606', my expectations had been considerably.... higher.
[/quote]

Okay, just don't let Blofeld flush you through that hole in the floor!

[kneelbeforezod]

Is Casino doing well because of a new Bond and a new style or the fact there really isn't any real competition?

No. People love this film. I've heard so many reports of applause at screenings.

And it's doing well despite the fact that far less children must be watching it because it's that much darker.

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 05 December 2006 - 10:34 PM.

[Tinfinger]

By any real competition, I am talking major blockbuster franchisers like Harry Potter or a Peter Jackson movie...by that token, I am sure Sony's next big movie will push it down the charts...Rocky! Rocky!

Edited by Tinfinger, 05 December 2006 - 11:01 PM.

[stromberg]

By any real competition, I am talking major blockbuster franchisers like Harry Potter or a Peter Jackson movie...by that token, I am sure Sony's next big movie will push it down the charts...Rocky! Rocky!

Ah, I see you're creating a new urban Bond legend. Until now, it was always "LTK failed because of stiff competition." (now debunked). From now on it'll be "CR was a success due to the lack of

[Dr. Noah]

[quote name='stromberg' post='663657' date='5 December 2006 - 23:09']
[quote name='Tinfinger' post='663652' date='6 December 2006 - 00:00']
By any real competition, I am talking major blockbuster franchisers like Harry Potter or a Peter Jackson movie...by that token, I am sure Sony's next big movie will push it down the charts...Rocky! Rocky!
[/quote]

Ah, I see you're creating a new urban Bond legend. Until now, it was always "LTK failed because of stiff competition." (now debunked). From now on it'll be "CR was a success due to the lack of

[DanMan]

Dr.Noah's last paragraph should be read over and over and over again. People need to realize that for the first time possibly since FRWL, the Bond franchise has a global monster-smash hit that is also one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the year.

[EWKDSMB]

i'm a harry potter fan as well as a JB fan

and let me tell you as an avid harry potter fan, to those HP fans who have read the books the HP movies are a major disappointment.
they are not faithful to the books , they chop change and miss bits out. they make the series seem like a kids series when JK ROWLING (THE AUTHOR) is on record as saying she never intended the books to be a childrens series. anyone who has read the books could tell you that.

all in all the only reasons HP movies do so well is because of hype and fans like me who go see the movie anyway. i went in hope that they would not muck up GoF my second favourite book in the series. i came out with my blood boiling.
also kids love the magic and broomsticks etc and understandably miss the emotional points one because they are kids and two because the filmakers forgot to put them in, thniking us adults would appreciate them tearing our wonderful seiries to pieces.

also the excellent cast helps.

i have to say i've not much hope that they will do better with OOTP
but if they muck up HBP i will be raging. alan rickman easily the best actor in the films deserves to show off every ounce of skill he has in hbp.
ok rant over

my point is that i would not judge a bond film against a hp film. this jb film is better than any harry potter film. it is interesting JB will do well because of fans, but there was so much negativity surrounding DC that it's doing so well is a pleasure and nothing should take that away

[kneelbeforezod]

Yup. Now it's "$150 million is only good if it's against Harry Potter." A month ago they were predicting it would tank. Now the highest worldwide gross in years only means anything if it's against Lord of the Rings or it's more than Thunderball.

I hate seeing illegitimate $300 mil worldwide box office takes in two weeks, It's just too damn easy. 94% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, best reviews for a Bond film ever, a 93% fan approval rating on the same site, and there you go. Cheap. Easy. What a shame...

lol beautifully put.

I think mr Tinfinger was the chap who, after CR's very healthy opening weekend, was saying "well... its the second weekend that's really important, what are you guys going to say when it drops over 50%?".

Needless to say, it dropped 24%. And thus, brand new excuses had to be hastily concocted.

[K1Bond007]

i'm a harry potter fan as well as a JB fan

and let me tell you as an avid harry potter fan, to those HP fans who have read the books the HP movies are a major disappointment.
they are not faithful to the books , they chop change and miss bits out. they make the series seem like a kids series when JK ROWLING (THE AUTHOR) is on record as saying she never intended the books to be a childrens series. anyone who has read the books could tell you that.

Not to get off on a side discussion here, but I gotta say I think you're in the minority here as am I, no doubt considering I'm not exactly in the target market. I've read the books, I'm a fan, and I didn't care for the first two films. #3 and #4 were good though. They actually took risks there. The books are far too large to faithfully adapt so clearly they had to chop and change stuff around. All the better for it. The reason why I dislike #1 and #2 is that they were poor movies. They were graphic story books, not movies.

[HildebrandRarity]

It's a hit, yes, but it doesn't seem to me to be a real smash, at least not in the United States. I was hoping for CASINO ROYALE to do BATMAN BEGINS-type business, or even Bourne-type business

I don't think your hopes were that high, my old friend. Here is a quote of yours from page one:

"DIE ANOTHER DAY didn't even crack the 2002 US box office top ten. Safe to say that CASINO ROYALE will make this year's top ten, though, and I'll venture a prediction: number seven."

Going into the debate your hopes/expectations were certainly not in the "smash" range. Indeed, from your own DAD comparison, you were expecting CR to be 7th...which is by no means chump change.

Fine, Pirates 2, Ice Age 2 and Da Vinci may have been 'smash' hits but I saw all three of them at the theatre and all three of them were inferior to Casino Royale in almost any category, from my own point of view.

As for Bond being a 'smash', it's been 1979 since a Bond movie was a 'smash' in America.

What's truly telling is that the very first post suggested greater International success which is exactly what is happening. Part of that success is down to foreign currency appreciation in US $ terms which is a mere accounting technicality.

The fact is that the box office in America is on the wane...has been on the wane in recent years due to all sorts of reasons.

Further, for a picture to clock in at 2h 24m and basically emulate DAD without either a known '007 star' or a non fantastical plot is truly interesting. Look at the 4 'smash' hits...3 of them kid pics with lots of cgi...the other a hyped movie with Tom Hanks. CR, I think, is holding it's own and holding steady.

I thought the longer run time and the adult situations would have had the tendency of capping the US gains...but it isnt/hasnt thus far

That remains very interesting indeed.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 07 December 2006 - 02:50 AM.

[K1Bond007]

It's been 1979 since a Bond movie was a "smash" in America.

What? GoldenEye through Die Another Day were "smash hits" in America. I don't know what you're talking about. All of them were roughly on the same level and even two of them (TND and DAD) surpassed Moonraker. Being in the top 10 doesn't mean anything.

[HildebrandRarity]

It's been 1979 since a Bond movie was a "smash" in America.

What? GoldenEye through Die Another Day were "smash hits" in America. I don't know what you're talking about. All of them were roughly on the same level and even two of them (TND and DAD) surpassed Moonraker. Being in the top 10 doesn't mean anything.

I watched Moonraker on opening weekend. It was regarded as a great summer action adventure. It was a smash hit and finished 2nd that year at the US box office. Inflation adjusted it beats the Brosnans hands down.

I think Loomis' definition of "smash hit" in America would be "top 4 or 5" with a gross in the $200 Mil + territory inflation adjusted. I don't mean to speak for him, but I think that's what he's implying his definition to be. Is that right, Loomis?

[Jim]

Is that right, Loomis?

If it doesn't answer you, will you start betting against it?