1228 replies to this topic

[MrKidd]

Are we friends now?

I bloody hope so.

Beginning to understand why half my pension's disappeared if this is the manner in which financial persons conduct themselves.

Jim - you are so right! You are spot on! The uneducated sharks that work on wall street beggers belief! Anyway, I'm through, I want to kiss and make up (but not in a homosexual Bond villian kind of way). I respect Hildy's Bond knowledge and fandom - I want to love without the fear of rejection. Am I just dreaming?

No, but you are beginning to annoy.

Not sure why you're being so tetchy there, mister - I'm only being light hearted..and I'm sincere - I'm bored with arguing and would much prefer to talk nice Bondy things.

I guess I'd want more than a "Who knows?" throwing up of the hands. Seems cop-outty for someone so in-the-know about finanicialmacal-type stuff.

okaaayy, if you say so...sorry I ventured a reply now!

[Jim]

Are we friends now?

I bloody hope so.

Beginning to understand why half my pension's disappeared if this is the manner in which financial persons conduct themselves.

Jim - you are so right! You are spot on! The uneducated sharks that work on wall street beggers belief! Anyway, I'm through, I want to kiss and make up (but not in a homosexual Bond villian kind of way). I respect Hildy's Bond knowledge and fandom - I want to love without the fear of rejection. Am I just dreaming?

No, but you are beginning to annoy.

Not sure why you're being so tetchy there, mister - I'm only being light hearted..and I'm sincere - I'm bored with arguing and would much prefer to talk nice Bondy things.

I recommend almost any other thread on these forums, then. This one appears only to create and sustain sterile arguments, accidentally on purpose or otherwise. The air of injured innocence amongst those perpetuating the "debate" is pretty thin.

[MrKidd]

Are we friends now?

I bloody hope so.

Beginning to understand why half my pension's disappeared if this is the manner in which financial persons conduct themselves.

Jim - you are so right! You are spot on! The uneducated sharks that work on wall street beggers belief! Anyway, I'm through, I want to kiss and make up (but not in a homosexual Bond villian kind of way). I respect Hildy's Bond knowledge and fandom - I want to love without the fear of rejection. Am I just dreaming?

No, but you are beginning to annoy.

Not sure why you're being so tetchy there, mister - I'm only being light hearted..and I'm sincere - I'm bored with arguing and would much prefer to talk nice Bondy things.

I recommend almost any other thread on these forums, then. This one appears only to create and sustain sterile arguments, accidentally on purpose or otherwise. The air of injured innocence amongst those perpetuating the "debate" is pretty thin.

I think you're taking it too seriously, I can't believe anybody's genuinely offended by a blogging board!

[Jim]

I think you're taking it too seriously, I can't believe anybody's genuinely offended by a blogging board!

Try to, and thereby embrace a new experience. Life is richer with them. As another one, read the forum rules. I am encouraging your development.

[MrKidd]

I think you're taking it too seriously, I can't believe anybody's genuinely offended by a blogging board!

Try to, and thereby embrace a new experience. Life is richer with them. As another one, read the forum rules. I am encouraging your development.

Development in what? Don't need it but ta anyway.

So
- no obscene language
- no cyber bullying
- everyone giving as good as they get
- Bond related
- people enjoying discussing something that they're interested in.
- light hearted banter
Isn't that what a forum is for???

Edited by MrKidd, 03 January 2009 - 11:51 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Beginning to understand why half my pension's disappeared if this is the manner in which financial persons conduct themselves.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear about your pension, Jim. We "de-risked" our pension portfolio in November of 2007 a few months after the credit markets started to suggest an impending armageddon and it was down only 7.5 percent in 2008.

And, it wasn't me conducting themselves in the manner you suggest during the sillyness in the previous page.

I, generally, kept cool under the verbal attack while the homosexual Bond villian tried to goad me into misbehaving.

Aren't you proud of me? Haven't I matured since the old days?

[MrKidd]

Beginning to understand why half my pension's disappeared if this is the manner in which financial persons conduct themselves.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear about your pension, Jim. We "de-risked" our pension portfolio in November of 2007 a few months after the credit markets started to suggest an impending armageddon and it was down only 7.5 percent in 2008.

And, it wasn't me conducting themselves in the manner you suggest during the sillyness in the previous page.

I, generally, kept cool under the verbal attack while the homosexual Bond villian tried to goad me into misbehaving.

Aren't you proud of me? Haven't I matured since the old days?

That's now what I'm being referred as in such a short space of time?! I guess I deserved it - funny comment - I kinda like it But, come on - our tit for tat was not a fraction of what you give and take on the floor - our stuff was harmless - no cry babies here, right? As for pensions, yeah, well I'm genuinely sorry, no, disgusted, for the whole mess that's been caused by the greed and stupidity of wall street. With present company excepted of course. But I guess that's a discussion for another site..

Edited by MrKidd, 03 January 2009 - 05:44 PM.

[MrKidd]

And same for Twilight, and for...

I can assure you that Twitlight's fan base was much narrower than James Bond's. Their box office was front loaded, and then had nowhere to go but down. The core demographic for Twitlight was teen girls; 007 has a much broader demographic.

Lots have recent releases have opened strong. Problem is legs, and no film released since the recession hit in the US has grossed over $175m. That's freakin' huge. I think this might be another one of those bone-headed theories re the Craig era you have to eat... sorry about that, but I suspect you're used to it by now.

I'm not disagreeing that the economy is a factor, but I don't think it's the biggest factor to explain why QoS underperformed, assuming of course that you believe it underperformed. Look, $550 million is nothing to sneeze at, but most industry experts expectations were........considerably higher. If Marc Forster were in a black leather chair I'd be electrocuting him right now.

Is this an underperformance along the lines of THE DALLAS COWBOYS? No. It's not that big of a debacle. In fact, it's not a debacle at all; only an admission that the film could have done better, and should've done better given all the talent, momentum, and advertising that it had behind it.

But to stay consistent, I believe a film gets the box office that it earns and deserves. Based upon audience and critical reaction to QoS, I can see why it did not hit $200 million domestically. I think if it had been a better film the recession would not be a factor; because it was not as good as CR, and also much shorter, some people chose not to spend their precious, scarce dollars on the the theatrical run and now will wait for the dvd.

"Bone-headed theories"? I think not. I predicted that CR would be a huge bomb and that Craig would be soundly rejected in the role; I was wrong. I then predicted that QOS would open to between $70-80 million dollars in the U.S., and I was almost dead on with that assessment, even at a time when some of you all were predicting a $40 million dollar opening weekend. So I'm 1 for 2 in the Craig-era analysis department.

The $67 million dollar opening for QOS shows that there was a huge audience waiting to see Craig's second Bond film, recession, depression, or not. All the film had to do was generate positive referrals and repeat business; it did, but not anywhere near the amount that was generated by CR.

This seems like a sensible and level headed post. I guess because it mostly agrees with my take on QoS BO, I suppose! ie really good, but would have done bigger business if the movie was better received. I really don't think its that controversial a statement to make.

Edited by MrKidd, 03 January 2009 - 05:45 PM.

[blueman]

The one thing in all that that strikes an off note: the premise that as it's perceived to have underperformed cuz it's not as good as it should've/could've been. I'd counter with - it's better than any Bond fan has a right to expect. And thus suffered slightly at the BO as films that focus on character and plot tend to do (and tossing out the recession for a moment ). And that's not a bad thing at all for series: we all went and saw it regardless, but from reading the praise threads lots of people went and saw QOS who either never liked Bond films or expected them to always be of a certain type (ie stupid actioners), and found to their surprise something that was quite else. It's fascinating to me that many Bond fans view QOS as non-standard Bond fare that it gets downgraded (Forster did a poor job, muddled story/narrative, etc.) when many of these first-timers comment what a surprise QOS is for exactly opposing reasons (Forster did a great job directing, the story was fresh and extremely well-told, etc.).

Mindless Bond entertainment is a great BO draw - see DAD. But quality story-telling and intelligent and (oh yes, I'll go there) auteur/arthouse-style directing in a Bond film can also make great gobs of cash, here and around the world. EON took a mighty big chance in casting Craig in CR, and many were the reviews that noted his best quality - his acting - was indeed taken advantage of in CR. IMHO it's great to see EON take another step in that same direction and make a Bond film that relies even more heavily on such things as great character/plotting/acting/directing. It ain't DAD or even CR, and this Bond fan is extremely giddy about it. But yeah, if QOS was bigger and dumber, it would've made more money, sure, I'll concede that point. Hell, I'll concede anything at this point as this is the first time since '69 I got the Bond film I wanted (nod to CR, very very close, and TND, just like the silly thing). Talk it down all you guys like, it's done more than enough BO to ensure EON will make a third Bond film along similar lines, and that's an awesome thing IMO.

[Joe Bond]

The one thing in all that that strikes an off note: the premise that as it's perceived to have underperformed cuz it's not as good as it should've/could've been. I'd counter with - it's better than any Bond fan has a right to expect. And thus suffered slightly at the BO as films that focus on character and plot tend to do (and tossing out the recession for a moment ). And that's not a bad thing at all for series: we all went and saw it regardless, but from reading the praise threads lots of people went and saw QOS who either never liked Bond films or expected them to always be of a certain type (ie stupid actioners), and found to their surprise something that was quite else. It's fascinating to me that many Bond fans view QOS as non-standard Bond fare that it gets downgraded (Forster did a poor job, muddled story/narrative, etc.) when many of these first-timers comment what a surprise QOS is for exactly opposing reasons (Forster did a great job directing, the story was fresh and extremely well-told, etc.).

Mindless Bond entertainment is a great BO draw - see DAD. But quality story-telling and intelligent and (oh yes, I'll go there) auteur/arthouse-style directing in a Bond film can also make great gobs of cash, here and around the world. EON took a mighty big chance in casting Craig in CR, and many were the reviews that noted his best quality - his acting - was indeed taken advantage of in CR. IMHO it's great to see EON take another step in that same direction and make a Bond film that relies even more heavily on such things as great character/plotting/acting/directing. It ain't DAD or even CR, and this Bond fan is extremely giddy about it. But yeah, if QOS was bigger and dumber, it would've made more money, sure, I'll concede that point. Hell, I'll concede anything at this point as this is the first time since '69 I got the Bond film I wanted (nod to CR, very very close, and TND, just like the silly thing). Talk it down all you guys like, it's done more than enough BO to ensure EON will make a third Bond film along similar lines, and that's an awesome thing IMO.

I tend to agree to this but I am a Bondfan and I enjoyed QoS more than CR. I think its made more than enough money but it will undoubtably make more when DVD sales are accounted for especially if MGM gives us a good DVD. I actually think CR made so much money because like Craig said in an interview people went into CR expecting the movie to be bad but were suprised how good it was and QoS did not have this advantage. I believe QoS will make more money domestically but just barely and it will most likely not outgross CR with its worldwide gross but I still think this will not swade Eon to go back to make another CR since like you said DAD made a lot money but they decided to make a change anyway.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'm not disagreeing that ___ _______ __ _ factor, but I don't think it's the biggest factor to explain why QoS underperformed, assuming of course that you believe it underperformed. Look, $550 million is nothing to sneeze at, but most industry experts expectations were........considerably higher.

Based upon audience and critical reaction to QoS, I can see why it did not hit $200 million domestically.

I predicted that CR would be a huge bomb and that Craig would be soundly rejected in the role; I was wrong. I then predicted that QOS would open to between $70-80 million dollars in the U.S., and I was almost dead on with that assessment, even at a time when some of you all were predicting a $40 million dollar opening weekend. So I'm 1 for 2 in the Craig-era analysis department.


All the film had to do was generate positive referrals and repeat business; it did, but not anywhere near the amount that was generated by CR.

Firstly, I don't agree with your assumption Q0S has underperformed. Underperformance, in itself, implies a comparison to something else. So what are you comparing it to? CR's grosses? "Industry Experts"? Or me?

- If you compare it to CR's grosses...well, it's doing better! LOL

- If you compare it to "Industry Experts"...well, show me three examples with links to prove what you suggest.

- If you compare it to me...well, first let's look at history:

I was the first one here on CBn (under the user name 'ray t' back in 2002) to say DAD would gross north of $425 Mil world-wide when most "experts" were saying a safe $350 Mil, i.e. the average of the first three Brosnans. Then:

I was one of the first (if not the first) here on CBn to say CR would do at least $550 Mil worldwide when you and the other CraigNotBonders were saying it would tank and do $250-$350! Then:

I, on the eve of the Royal Premiere back in late October, was also the first one to say that "I wouldn't go banco on $600 Mil worldwide yet" in a thread I started which highlighted the decline of the major James Bond currencies (ie the UK Pound, the Euro, Swiss Franc, Canadian/Australian dollars and the Northern European Kroners) in September/October.

So, judging by history, you should be going off what i've been forcasting...and i'm not even in the "industry"! LOL So much for "Industry Experts."

Regarless, you need to show us three links to you "industry experts".

It's true, it didn't have the same score as CR on Rottentomatoes. It's lesser score, however, certainly isn't holding it from surpassing CR, is it?

Lastly, inspite of CR's supposedly "better" word of mouth, why did CR only generate a number which, it turns out, is so easily surpassable by a film with the supposedly lesser word of mouth?

[MrKidd]

The model would be something like the Bourne films, or Batman, or Pirates - each new film generating more BO than the last. CR brought in a whole new wave of fans and became a new standard to beat after the PB films. After monumental DVD sales and hype for the new movie not to say the stellar opening weekend - Q0S would have been all set to beat CR's total easily in the US - ie north of 200 - but its relative legs weren't there. The people who liked CR went to see QoS but there wasn't the uplift of the other franchises. Many people on this forum liked the movie, that's great, but the general audience buzz and appeal and therefore word of mouth doesn't seem to there, hence the similar numbers to CR rather than a Bourne like beating of the previous film (I'm talking North America here).
Your prediction of 170-80 is all well and good - you predicted the BO correctly - but it doesn't invalidate the points above.

Edited by MrKidd, 03 January 2009 - 11:19 PM.

[blueman]

The general audience appeal for QOS seems about what it was for CR, judging by the BO numbers. Not big heaps of more, but also not any less. Which is outstanding considering, unlike those other franchises you cite, QOS didn't go down the "let's dumb things down to sell more tickets" highway with its foot slammed down on the gas. Of the three franchises cited - Bourne, Batman, and Pirates - all had lesser sequels IMHO (and for my money both Batman films sucked eggs). Yes, the sequels made more money, but they were far more product-like fare cashing in on the success of the first film than stand-alone artistic successes. IMHO. Only QOS out of that buch of sequels even tried to raise the bar, much less succeed as it so thoroughly did.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Considering the film is 40 minutes shorter than CR, which should have played in its favour, shows you cannot build on a previous film's success just by adding more action and reducing plot (not to mention Sony's agressive marketing campaign). Funny how Americans care only about what films make domestically. If it depended on that, Eon would have probably quit making them by now.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Looks like they had to make more action. I usually like action-laden Bond films (like Licence to Kill, GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies), but I also love the classy films like From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and Casino Royale who had a very rich plot.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

The general audience appeal for QOS seems about what it was for CR, judging by the BO numbers. Not big heaps of more, but also not any less. Which is outstanding considering, unlike those other franchises you cite, QOS didn't go down the "let's dumb things down to sell more tickets" highway with its foot slammed down on the gas. Of the three franchises cited - Bourne, Batman, and Pirates - all had lesser sequels IMHO (and for my money both Batman films sucked eggs). Yes, the sequels made more money, but they were far more product-like fare cashing in on the success of the first film than stand-alone artistic successes. IMHO. Only QOS out of that buch of sequels even tried to raise the bar, much less succeed as it so thoroughly did.

I'm not a Batman fan but either Batman film puts QOS to shame. I agree about the Bourne and Pirates sequels. Truly awful they are and a lot what's wrong about QOS is because of trying to go the Bourne way (just as LALD trying to go the Shaft way, MR trying to go the Star Wars way and LTK trying to go the Die Hard way).

[HildebrandRarity]

The general audience appeal for QOS seems about what it was for CR, judging by the BO numbers. Not big heaps of more, but also not any less. Which is outstanding considering, unlike those other franchises you cite, QOS didn't go down the "let's dumb things down to sell more tickets" highway with its foot slammed down on the gas.

Agreed 100 percent!

QOS was never intended to be CR 2 and inspite of 'dissapointing' some of the CR 'Lovers', it's doing quite fine.

I mean the idea that it's struggling to get by CR is pure and unadulterated rubbish!

QOS is about to eclipse CR's entire run (consisting of over 90 days) this weekend after 52 days!

LOL!

HELLO!!!

And why has no one answered my above question???

The question was:

Lastly, inspite of CR's supposedly "better" word of mouth, why did CR only generate a number which, it turns out, is so easily surpassable by a film with the supposedly lesser word of mouth?

[jaguar007]

Considering the film is 40 minutes shorter than CR, which should have played in its favour,

Tell that to the producers of Titanic.

[HildebrandRarity]

Considering the film is 40 minutes shorter than CR, which should have played in its favour,

Tell that to the producers of Titanic.

...or the LORT and Harry Potter flicks.

[Sniperscope]

Lastly, inspite of CR's supposedly "better" word of mouth, why did CR only generate a number which, it turns out, is so easily surpassable by a film with the supposedly lesser word of mouth?

The answer would seem to be obvious, HR and that's why noone wants to talk about it! In the face of some pretty vitriolic and missing the point reviews since it opened, QoS appears to be going brilliantly. Well done everyone at EON for taking the risk (and believe me QoS is the bigger risk in so many ways compared to CR). It's clearly payed off!

Edited by Sniperscope, 04 January 2009 - 03:04 AM.

[Bonita]

The general audience appeal for QOS seems about what it was for CR, judging by the BO numbers. Not big heaps of more, but also not any less. Which is outstanding considering, unlike those other franchises you cite, QOS didn't go down the "let's dumb things down to sell more tickets" highway with its foot slammed down on the gas. Of the three franchises cited - Bourne, Batman, and Pirates - all had lesser sequels IMHO (and for my money both Batman films sucked eggs). Yes, the sequels made more money, but they were far more product-like fare cashing in on the success of the first film than stand-alone artistic successes. IMHO. Only QOS out of that buch of sequels even tried to raise the bar, much less succeed as it so thoroughly did.

The simple fact is that Quantum of Solace has not attracted the audience that Casino Royale brought to cinemas. This evidence is extremely clear (and I love the movie).

Box office drop is far ahead of Casino. The film is in 891 cinemas as of Friday, down from 1874 on December 24. Casino Royale was in 2214 cinemas before the Christmas week films opened (on Friday, December 22 in 2006, rather than Christmas Day this year), and had only dropped to 1266 cinemas on Friday, Jan. 5. Daily box office on New Years weekdays was over $550,000. For QoS it is around $450,000. Casino did $1.4 mil on New Years Day. QoS did $430,000. Christmas week for Casino: It does more than 1 million on ever day except Christmas Eve. Chistmas Week for QoS: Only two days does it top $500,000.

Admissions are solidly down from Casino. I don't have firm numbers, but simple math will do. Ticket prices have gone up. Average prices have jumped by just about $.35 - .40 since Casino was released. So let's say that's a 5% jump. Is Quantum going to beat Casino's box office by 5%? It needs to do $175,818,000 to accomplish that task. Now, Casino Royale still made 12 million at the US box office after January 2. QoS would only need to make 9.6 million more. Can it do it? Not likely. Casino grossed $1.338 million on Saturday, January 6 alone in 2007. It grossed $3 million in the four Saturdays of January alone. Anyone want to bet on QoS's take from today (Jan. 3)? It won't be close.

Casino had stronger legs than QoS. As of January 2, 2007, Casino had grossed $155,695,610. It had played for 47 days. QoS, after 47 days (Dec. 30, 2008) had grossed $164,948,000. QoS is the winner? Well, you don't measure box office legs by looked at those numbers. Let's try it where we see how the films played after opening weekend:
Casino: $155,695,610 - $40,833,156 =114,862,454 gross after opening.
QoS: $164,948,000 - $67,528,882 = $97,420,128 gross after opening.
That's roughly $17.5 million more that Casino grossed since opening day than Quantum has grossed with higher ticket prices.

Quantum has more shows that Casino. Quantum is forty minutes shorter than Casino. On weekends and holidays, it shows five times a day. Casino generally showed only four times a day. This means it is underperforming Casino (after opening weekend) despite more chances for viewers to see the film.

Quantum will return less of a profit. Forget all the stuff about exchange rates. It's true, but let's look at the equation this way: Casino cost $150 million (roughly) and Quantum cost $200 million roughly. Those numbers are unaffected by ticket inflation, economic crisis, stock market collapse.

The end result is this:
Sony (a company that will not distribute the film on DVD) expected a movie that would have a solid chance at breaking $200 million US and doing an additional $500 million foreign. It won't even be close.

While I would be immensely happy to have a small slice of the profits on this film, it is a bitter disappointment for Sony and the Bond producers. They have a great Bond, and this film opened with a very energized fan base that was far larger than any Bond since Moonraker. And those fans have all-too-often, been disappointed.

I love the film. I have a review up and you can search for it. But I get the same comments from friends. Can't tell what's going on. Editing is a mess. Didn't think the villain was big enough (one said they thought he was a warehouse worker when they saw him, and that wasn't a good thing).

Keep dancing...

[HildebrandRarity]

LOL!

I don't have firm numbers, but simple math will do. Ticket prices have gone up. Average prices have jumped by just about $.35 - .40 since Casino was released. So let's say that's a 5% jump. Is Quantum going to beat Casino's box office by 5%? It needs to do $175,818,000 to accomplish that task.


Keep dancing...

Show me the proof that ticket prices are way up since CR!

We're in the midst of economic deflation where everything except Rolls Royces and Ferraris are DOWN in price.

I've been looking for concrete ticket price data. Do you have it?

What if I told you I saw Q0S today and paid only $6 for the ticket, but $6.49 for the popcorn? Would you believe me? Well, believe me because I did!!!

I remember paying $10 per ticket for CR.

SHOW ME CONCRETE TICKET PRICE DATA!!!

Keep dancing...

[Bonita]

LOL!



Show me the proof that ticket prices are way up since CR!

We're in the midst of economic deflation where everything except Rolls Royces and Ferraris are DOWN in price.

I've been looking for concrete ticket price data. Do you have it?

What if I told you I saw Q0S today and paid only $6 for the ticket, but $6.49 for the popcorn? Would you believe me? Well, believe me because I did!!!

I remember paying $10 per ticket for CR.

SHOW ME CONCRETE TICKET PRICE DATA!!!

Keep dancing...

My data is from Boxofficemojo.com

Please see this link: http://www.boxoffice...ut/adjuster.htm

Got better figures? If so, reveal them. I'm happy to see stronger evidence than I have presented. I have no agenda. But the facts are the facts. And I do love the film. But it is not performing the way Sony hoped. Alas.

I am glad you love the film. I'm glad you are enjoying seeing the film at discounted prices. I don't know where you are seeing it or what theater. I paid more money to see QoS opening night than the "average" 2008 ticket price of $7.08. I also paid more than $7.08 to see Casino, but I go to good first-run cinemas, and they tend to charge top dollar. And I usually miss discounted shows because of work. Alas.

Keep dancing...

[blueman]

Bonita, I love all your numbers and dates and raw data, but your last two paragraphs have as much value as any of my subjective comments. Producers that are "bitterly dissappointed," fans complaining about the editing and the villain... C',mon. It's doing the biz it's doing, guessing the producers' mindsets and projecting out a few comments to across-the-board opinion isn't really in line with rest of your post. But as far as opinions do go, I can see where you might think that way. I think everybody who went to see QOS loved it to pieces, but didn't have the mad money to see it more than two times or so - unlike in 2006, when EVERYBODY had tons of disposable income and went back to see CR like 12 times or so.

Unless you have access to EON/Sony, or have been doing exit polls, seems QOS is doing, for all intents and purposes, about the same biz as CR (and, although some discount this, in a recession), and people are fine with it (haven't read about any picketing, lol).

[Bonita]

A few other words about ticket prices: I used an estimate of 5% on the jump in prices. This is because prices often go up just as Christmas movies are hitting theaters. So while the boxofficemojo.com numbers actually show a jump from $6.55 per ticket in 2006 to $7.08 in 2008 ($0.53), I assumed a smaller leap of only $0.35. Why? Because I assumed that some portion of Casino's gross came as the annual jump in ticket prices took hold.

But very open to other figures.

So I was working with the idea of a lower jump in prices over the past two years.

Keep dancing...

Bonita, I love all your numbers and dates and raw data, but your last two paragraphs have as much value as any of my subjective comments. Producers that are "bitterly dissappointed," fans complaining about the editing and the villain... C',mon. It's doing the biz it's doing, guessing the producers' mindsets and projecting out a few comments to across-the-board opinion isn't really in line with rest of your post. But as far as opinions do go, I can see where you might think that way. I think everybody who went to see QOS loved it to pieces, but didn't have the mad money to see it more than two times or so - unlike in 2006, when EVERYBODY had tons of disposable income and went back to see CR like 12 times or so.

Unless you have access to EON/Sony, or have been doing exit polls, seems QOS is doing, for all intents and purposes, about the same biz as CR (and, although some discount this, in a recession), and people are fine with it (haven't read about any picketing, lol).

Blueman,

I have access to those who work at Sony, but, of course, can't give names or relationships. You don't have to believe me. No problem.

Um, you might want to actually check out reviews on QoS (both fan and pro reviews are summarized on rottentomatoes.com). I don't need to go to exit polls, but if you think everyone loved the film, you are deluding yourself. That's fine. Blame the economy. That's not the problem.

Keep dancing...

[blueman]

Since when do bad reviews equal bad BO, or unhappy viewers? Especially for a genre release like a Bond film??? Aren't they planning "Saw 6" or whatever number they're up to? Not a good gauge IMHO.

And specifically about those bad reviews for QOS: how many don't whine about all those missing quaint Bondisms that same said reviewers usually whine are there? "It was a bad Bond film cuz it didn't meet my expectations for a traditional Bond film (that I usually don't like anyway)" isn't a review, it's just a reviewer standing up and saying "I'm stupid, yet somehow I get paid to do this and you don't!"

However I am intrigued by your "insider" gossip re studio peeps being dissappointed by the BO. That kinda scoop is rare with EON but I would certainly credit what say about it (even if it bucks my POV, lol), you hardly come across as a crazy fanboy type (I think I've got that all sewn up ), so I officially take back the comment about that paragraph... and will even do some thinking on the other one. I'll get back to you.

[Bonita]

Blueman,

I love the movie. I wish the action scenes were cut differently, but I think Craig is amazing in the movie and there are some scenes that are wrenching for me to watch (in a good way).

I, too, wish this film great success in cinemas, on DVD, Blu-ray and other formats in the future.

I just want to be realistic about whether the film is a theatrical success, and that means looking at data unbiased by my enjoyment of the movie.

Gossip: Sony hoped for $200 mil plus US. They really wanted $225 US. Casino's spectacular sales on DVD led the studio to believe that they could make this figure. The studio wanted the film to be edgy, but didn't like some of the complexities of the script (which I've never seen). They pushed for a film under 2 hours (as did others). Not much more to report than that except that before the film opened in the UK, the projection was still over $200 mil US. Only after the initial UK reviews did the studio start looking at a quicker drop and lower overall gross.

Keep dancing...

[blueman]

That all makes a lot of sense, thanks for sharing. I guess the moral to that story is, that Bond fellow can be a slippery dude. Not sorry Sony didn't get their extra millions, if that meant we get such a gem as QOS.

[Invincible1958]

LOL!

I don't have firm numbers, but simple math will do. Ticket prices have gone up. Average prices have jumped by just about $.35 - .40 since Casino was released. So let's say that's a 5% jump. Is Quantum going to beat Casino's box office by 5%? It needs to do $175,818,000 to accomplish that task.


Keep dancing...

Show me the proof that ticket prices are way up since CR!

We're in the midst of economic deflation where everything except Rolls Royces and Ferraris are DOWN in price.

I've been looking for concrete ticket price data. Do you have it?

What if I told you I saw Q0S today and paid only $6 for the ticket, but $6.49 for the popcorn? Would you believe me? Well, believe me because I did!!!

I remember paying $10 per ticket for CR.

SHOW ME CONCRETE TICKET PRICE DATA!!!

Keep dancing...

It's about the average ticket price of the whole country. Not about the ticket price of one theatre.

[HildebrandRarity]

My data is from Boxofficemojo.com

Please see this link: http://www.boxoffice...ut/adjuster.htm

Got better figures? If so, reveal them.

Keep dancing...

I knew you'd come up with that or this:

http://www.natoonlin...ticstickets.htm


Only last week, when we were still in 2008, that link of yours had an EST (estimate) beside the 2008 price. Now they moved it to the 2009 price.

You think BOM is the Bible? Fine. But BOM does not correct for a few things, such as currency moves.

And if you note, the big deflationary move took place in September/October/November...look at pump fuel/gasoline prices...they PLUMMETED later in the year, AFTER the summer. That's deflation. There's data everywhere that shows retail prices of every kind fell between the summer months and the end of the year.

To suggest movie theatres raised prices at Christmas, when there were pre-Christmas sales happening everywhere else in consumer goods and services is folly.

You simply can't take one number for an entire year and apply it to every single movie. That's the hard-and-fast way, but it's not necessessarily the correct or true thing.

Anecdotally, I paid $6 to see Q0S for the 7th time yesterday...I was paying $10 to see CR for the 7th time back in early January of 2007.

It's about the average ticket price of the whole country. Not about the ticket price of one theatre.

O, I understand, Invincible. But i'm suggesting that you simply cant apply one price for the whole country for the entire year given that the US experienced HUGE deflation in the final 3rd part of the year.

Where were gasoline prices at the pump in the summer?

Where were they in December?

If you drive a car, you'll know.