1228 replies to this topic

[dee-bee-five]

Yet to understand where all this actually gets us.

Quite. By any objective assessment, QoS is a blockbuster. Except to those who wish to throw sticks at it for whatever reason, and to them it's a disappointment. C'est la vie.

[YOLT]

The revenues are ok. The problem is with the budget. Where did all the 230m$ or so is gone ? To the Aston Martins?

[blueman]

Yet to understand where all this actually gets us.

Quite. By any objective assessment, QoS is a blockbuster. Except to those who wish to throw sticks at it for whatever reason, and to them it's a disappointment. C'est la vie.

Thread summation. Lock it.

[jamie00007]

The revenues are ok. The problem is with the budget. Where did all the 230m$ or so is gone ? To the Aston Martins?

The budget is totally irrelevent to anyone other than Eons accountants. As fans, we look at the boxoffice because it is a way to guage to popularity of the films. How much Michael and Barbera pocket in the end isnt really whats relevent, all that matters is that huge numbers of people are still going to see Bond.

As to where the money went, I imagine hauling a production of hundreds of people around 6 countries isnt exactly cheap.

[YOLT]

The revenues are ok. The problem is with the budget. Where did all the 230m$ or so is gone ? To the Aston Martins?

The budget is totally irrelevent to anyone other than Eons accountants. As fans, we look at the boxoffice because it is a way to guage to popularity of the films. How much Michael and Barbera pocket in the end isnt really whats relevent, all that matters is that huge numbers of people are still going to see Bond.

As to where the money went, I imagine hauling a production of hundreds of people around 6 countries isnt exactly cheap.

Ofcourse it isnt cheap, its not being expected to be. But 230m$ is just too much. If I am not wrong its the most expensive film of 2008. Up to 150m$ is ok, for me however I am satisfied with what they have done.

Anyway why would I worry. If they are still in profit than make it 300m$ or even more.

[HildebrandRarity]

Hildy,

I know this will come as a shock, but Sony, MGM and Eon do not use the commanderbond.net message boards to create their box office estimates, despite all the wisdom shared here.

What they do is to make calculations based on title awareness, surveys on want-to-see factor, and market research on posters, trailers, television spots, official website hits, and closer to release, advanced ticket sales. They look at similar films, their patterns at the box office, and then they make projections. These are often a bit more informed than those on message boards, but none can obviously top...

Keep dancing...

Bonita, I want you to give us a number Sony projected for Casino Royale. You obviously have an 'in' there. So please share.

I'm very curious to know what the projection was. I'd particularly like two numbers:

1) From the day they set the budget...which I imagine would be before the Craig-as-Bond-6 announcement, say September 2005; and

2) From one month prior to the world premiere.

It's a legitimate request. Please share...

[Bonita]

Hildy,

I know this will come as a shock, but Sony, MGM and Eon do not use the commanderbond.net message boards to create their box office estimates, despite all the wisdom shared here.

What they do is to make calculations based on title awareness, surveys on want-to-see factor, and market research on posters, trailers, television spots, official website hits, and closer to release, advanced ticket sales. They look at similar films, their patterns at the box office, and then they make projections. These are often a bit more informed than those on message boards, but none can obviously top...

Keep dancing...

Bonita, I want you to give us a number Sony projected for Casino Royale. You obviously have an 'in' there. So please share.

I'm very curious to know what the projection was. I'd particularly like two numbers:

1) From the day they set the budget...which I imagine would be before the Craig-as-Bond-6 announcement, say September 2005; and

2) From one month prior to the world premiere.

It's a legitimate request. Please share...

Hildy,

I have none of those numbers. I'm not sure they exist in the way you think they exist. What I did have was a conversation the Saturday the film opened where there was optimism that the movie could break $200 million. Before the UK opening, I had a conversation with someone supposedly "in the know" who felt from the "want to see" numbers that $225 was not out of the question.

While I have some reasonable understanding of how studio marketing research works, it is not my line of country. Sarcasm aside, I do respect that your projections for domestic box office have been apparently pretty good.

But I can tell you, Sony (and MGM before it, and Fox to follow) has wanted Bond to be bigger in the US. Sony really thought they had a great shot with Quantum to break out huge - over $200 million. All the signs were there. The audience wasn't. Maybe that's because Bond can only reach so high in the US, or maybe it is that despite how much I enjoyed the film, general audiences found it didn't deliver certain things they wanted. I believe Sony is inclined to believe the later, but they won't be distributing the next Bond.

All that said, the film will make everyone wealthier. No one will go hungry. I would happily take 1% of the net of Quantum to finance my retirement.

Keep dancing...

[HildebrandRarity]

Hildy,

I know this will come as a shock, but Sony, MGM and Eon do not use the commanderbond.net message boards to create their box office estimates, despite all the wisdom shared here.

(...etcetera...)

Keep dancing...

Bonita, I want you to give us a number Sony projected for Casino Royale. You obviously have an 'in' there. So please share.

I'm very curious to know what the projection was.

Hildy,

I have none of those numbers.

Before the UK opening, I had a conversation with someone supposedly "in the know" who felt ... that $225 was not out of the question.

But I can tell you, Sony (and MGM before it, and Fox to follow) has wanted Bond to be bigger in the US. Sony really thought they had a great shot with Quantum to break out huge - over $200 million. All the signs were there. The audience wasn't.

You don't have the projections?

So...you can't dispute what most on CBn were thinking back in late 2005 all the way into October 2006...that Craig's casting had genuine risks vis-a-vis Brosnan (something you fail to mention)...and that most in their right mind at the time held their breath with respect to CR's grosses (because of not only an unknown actor for US audiences, but because of the re-boot which toned-down the formulaic elements that accompanied the bankable Brosnan.)

That wasn't just me...most CBners held their breath in wonder of whether or not CR would do 'ok' and if Craig would be able to make it to Bond 22.

OK, now let's take at look at pure logic in the world of business...

The budget for CR was the SAME as DAD four years on (i.e. it was lower, adjusted for recorded inflation). The setting of the budget most likely took place between the time the film's title was announced and when DC was announced (Aug - Oct 2005).

To continue...

When an organization sets a budget, they project revenues as well. It's normal practice. Wouldn't you agree?

So, if you're a prudent profit-seeking organization why would you expect revenues on an unknown quantity (DC, reboot) to be WAY higher when the budget you've set is actually less (inflation-adjusted) than the movie which preceeded it...a movie which did $430 Mil global ($160 Mil US)?

So, if you're honest with yourself, then they probably had a realistic projection which would be about in line with the previous Bond (DAD) at the time the budget was set. I'm sure they were hoping for something in line with DAD, adjusted, knowing that DC and the re-boot were risks.

Wouldn't you agree?

Now, your Sony "in the know" person, i'd suggest, was being more than just a little optimistic on CR in the US in relation to his/her budget guys.


Back to Q0S...

If these people "in the know" got CR "wrong", then wouldn't they have learned a valuable lesson on a movie with supposedly lesser acclaim?

In other words, given all the above, why would anyone at Sony think Q0S would get to $200-225 mil when even a movie as well received as CR couldn't pull in more than $170 Mil?.



It wouldn't surprise me if there were firings at Sony quite honestly. But Broccoli and Wilson got their production fee and share of profits...and Bond 23 is a guarantee...so...


...what do you say about audiences not being there for Madagascar 2 which supposedly should have been a sure fire 200+ [Madagascar 1 was $193 mil in '05, WALL-e and Kung Fu Panda around $220 mil this Summer]?

...and you still didn't answer my question about your Marley & Me post...you expect it to go $200+ Mil...?

[Mike00spy]

There was only one problem: audiences didn't relate to the film.

And the proof of this is what? A guess? Did you call Gallup and have them do a scientific poll on audience reaction? Did you then figure out what those audience members told others? Did the ones who loved it tell more people than the ones who didn't "relate?" What was the impact of positive reviews? Did the negative reviews actually make people stay away? What about the people who heard both positive and negative reviews? What did they do?

[blueman]

Seems, audiences related to QOS as if it were a Bond film. Weird.

[Qwerty]

UPDATED...

'Quantum of Solace' - Box Office Details

CommanderBond.net rounds up all the latest details (Updated Weekly)

[Kristian]

Hildy,

I know this will come as a shock, but Sony, MGM and Eon do not use the commanderbond.net message boards to create their box office estimates, despite all the wisdom shared here.

What they do is to make calculations based on title awareness, surveys on want-to-see factor, and market research on posters, trailers, television spots, official website hits, and closer to release, advanced ticket sales. They look at similar films, their patterns at the box office, and then they make projections. These are often a bit more informed than those on message boards, but none can obviously top...

Keep dancing...

Bonita, I want you to give us a number Sony projected for Casino Royale. You obviously have an 'in' there. So please share.

I'm very curious to know what the projection was. I'd particularly like two numbers:

1) From the day they set the budget...which I imagine would be before the Craig-as-Bond-6 announcement, say September 2005; and

2) From one month prior to the world premiere.

It's a legitimate request. Please share...

Hildy,

I have none of those numbers. I'm not sure they exist in the way you think they exist. What I did have was a conversation the Saturday the film opened where there was optimism that the movie could break $200 million. Before the UK opening, I had a conversation with someone supposedly "in the know" who felt from the "want to see" numbers that $225 was not out of the question.

While I have some reasonable understanding of how studio marketing research works, it is not my line of country. Sarcasm aside, I do respect that your projections for domestic box office have been apparently pretty good.

But I can tell you, Sony (and MGM before it, and Fox to follow) has wanted Bond to be bigger in the US. Sony really thought they had a great shot with Quantum to break out huge - over $200 million. All the signs were there. The audience wasn't. Maybe that's because Bond can only reach so high in the US, or maybe it is that despite how much I enjoyed the film, general audiences found it didn't deliver certain things they wanted. I believe Sony is inclined to believe the later, but they won't be distributing the next Bond.

All that said, the film will make everyone wealthier. No one will go hungry. I would happily take 1% of the net of Quantum to finance my retirement.

Keep dancing...

Bonita, I agree with you. As much as I love the Bond films, I agree that it has "limited" appeal in the U.S. I think if any Bond film had the chance to clear $200 million, it was QOS. I firmly beieve Forster and Broccoli were really trying to go for the younger, hip BOurne crowd with this one. Thing is: they don't want substitutes, and let go of QOS hand fairly quickly. Add to that the general dissatisfaction of many Bond fans over QOS's Bourne-like style, and the general state of the economy, and you can see why QOS underperformed.

I love QOS. I think it's a great BOnd film, but it caught "A perfect Storm" of misfortune with a dissatisfied Bourne Crowd, a dissatisfied Bond crowd, and the general death of the economy.

Enough of us loved the film, but not enough to generate the word of mouth that fueled and propelled CR forward.

As mentioned before, EON should just content themselves with B.O. in the $140 - $170 million range, and forget about trying to clear $200 mil or competing with Bourne.

[blueman]

Also: CR's love story is all fluffy kittens compared to QOS's revenge tale. I would think that would make a difference at the BO, regardless of the relative "quality" of each film (although I prefer QOS, I can accept the argument that they're, for all intents and purposes, equal in that regard - just different, hence the differing BO, but whatevs, both rock ).

[Jim]

Yet to understand where all this actually gets us.

Quite. By any objective assessment, QoS is a blockbuster. Except to those who wish to throw sticks at it for whatever reason, and to them it's a disappointment. C'est la vie.

Thread summation. Lock it.

Unfortunately, it appears that we have to keep dancing. Whatever that's meant to mean.

[dee-bee-five]

You can see why QOS underperformed.

It's odd how this statement seems to be becoming the prevailing wisdom when all the global numbers suggest otherwise.

But I guess if nothing else it merely goes to reinforce the old adage that there are lies, damned lies and statistics...

[Simon]

Does anyone have the numbers for how CR performed in Japan?

Just curious as to whether there will be enough of a jump to clear the CR hurdle.

[Col. Sun]

Does anyone have the numbers for how CR performed in Japan?

Just curious as to whether there will be enough of a jump to clear the CR hurdle.

CR did about $19 million in Japan.

QOS is expected to do about the same.

I'd guess the final World-Wide BO for the film to end up around $570 million -- $20 odd million less than CR -- but still a big sum and clearly a hit.

I think we all feel Eon and particularly Sony hoped to cross the $600 million mark and beat CR; but there's little doubt that the film has divided people (as expressed on this site). I loved it - not as much as CR though -- but many of my friends felt it was confusing and not fun enough - but really like Craig still.

I bet Eon take this onboard and Bond 23 will be lighter and more classically Bond.

[Hotwinds]

So it looks like QOS has about 50 million to go as of 1/5/09 to match QR. I dont think it will make it.
It was primed to do much better after people saw it on DVD and realized how good the franchise shifted.
That is proven by the initial take in at the box office I think.
Unfortunatly the editing making the all the action almost boring because you cant tell whats going on did the film in in the end.
I would like to know how this happens so much today in action scenes since Bond is not the only culprit?
I have been complaining about it for many years now.
I guess I should start writing letters to the producers.

[HildebrandRarity]

The car chase was done horribly and so was the scene with Slate's death.

Horses for courses. I love them both and I grew up watching the Connerys.



For all of Casino Royale's acclaim and high rottentomatoes scores, it was mired at $167 Mil. A mere $7 Mil above DAD's US total. After four years of pent up Bond demand.

LOL.

Why?

No one want's to admit that Bond admissions have a certain 'band' attached to them in the US.

And as I said in the previous page, the US announces it's Jobs report for December on Friday morning at 8:30 NY time.

It's going to be one ugly mother[censored]er.

Ladies and gentlemen, get ready for the biggest monthly destruction of jobs EVER in the US...

The job losses in the US in the final quarter of 2008 will have proven to be mind-blowingly dismal, following on the heels of the stock market crash of Sept/Oct.

There has not been a $200+ Mil movie in the US since the Summer. Madagascar 2 SHOULD have been that movie...it's done not much better than Q0S.

[Simon]

Does anyone have the numbers for how CR performed in Japan?

Just curious as to whether there will be enough of a jump to clear the CR hurdle.

CR did about $19 million in Japan.

QOS is expected to do about the same.

I'd guess the final World-Wide BO for the film to end up around $570 million -- $20 odd million less than CR -- but still a big sum and clearly a hit.

Many thanks.

[HildebrandRarity]

Does anyone have the numbers for how CR performed in Japan?

Just curious as to whether there will be enough of a jump to clear the CR hurdle.

CR did about $19 million in Japan.

QOS is expected to do about the same.

I'd guess the final World-Wide BO for the film to end up around $570 million -- $20 odd million less than CR -- but still a big sum and clearly a hit.

Many thanks.

But as I said in a previous post, the Yen has rallied since Dec, 2006. From 119 to 93.

This implies that the $19 Mil from Japan will be $24 Mil.

Hope that helps.

[kneelbeforezod]

Here's a scientific analysis of what actually happened with Batman and Bond's box office:

Batman Begins, coming off an artistically disastrous previous Batman film, opens to very good reviews, and does damn good box office, but nothing amazing. Word of mouth spreads that it really is damn good, and the DVDs fly off the shelves... expectation grows for the sequel... it opens to great reviews, people are blown away, "HOLY THIS IS GREAT!", box office soars.

Casino Royale, coming off an artistically disastrous previous Bond film, opens to very good reviews, and does damn good box office, but nothing amazing. Word of mouth spreads that it really is damn good, and the DVDs fly off the shelves...
expectation grows for the sequel... it opens to fairly good reviews, people generally think it's OK, "YEAH IT WAS OK I GUESS", box office stays roughly the same.

[HildebrandRarity]

Here's a scientific analysis of what actually happened with Batman and Bond's box office:


(Batman)...expectation grows for the sequel... it opens to great reviews, people are blown away, "HOLY THIS IS GREAT!", box office soars.

(Bond)...expectation grows for the sequel... it opens to fairly good reviews, people generally think it's OK, "YEAH IT WAS OK I GUESS", box office stays roughly the same.

I agree.

Also, Batman has always done better than Bond since 1989 in the US. The Americans also love the more "OTT" Bonds than the "grittier" ones. Generally.

I don't know if Batman is or should be part of the Q0S equation in this thread. How do you account for Indy's 2008 grosses...Indy's reviews were worse than Quantum's, no?

I think the US loves it's own heroes more and especially the super-heroes. Those are plain facts.

[kneelbeforezod]

I don't know if Batman is or should be part of the Q0S equation in this thread.

Possibly not, but it's the leap in box office from BB to TDK that many people felt might have been repeated to some extent from CR to QOS.

How do you account for Indy's 2008 grosses?

Hmmm... I would hazard a guess that if you tell people a Bond film is awful, a significant chunk of them will not bother watching it. But if you tell people the new and unbelievably highly anticipated Indy film is terrible... they watch it regardless, they just have to see for themselves. As with Phantom Menace. Something like that.

[HildebrandRarity]

Perhaps Bond should be an American Period character involved with the Supernatural or Aliens OR an American with a Cape and, possibly, Cowl.

OR

Perhaps, a main supporting character in Q0S should have been played by a heart-throb, and then (unfortunately for them and their family) accidentally died of a prescription drug overdose during post-production thus helping Q0S to push through 200+ Mil?

Once again, Shame CR (for ALL of it's IMMENSE acclaim) couldn't do any better than DAD.

[Bonita]

Hildy,

I know this will come as a shock, but Sony, MGM and Eon do not use the commanderbond.net message boards to create their box office estimates, despite all the wisdom shared here.

(...etcetera...)

Keep dancing...

Bonita, I want you to give us a number Sony projected for Casino Royale. You obviously have an 'in' there. So please share.

I'm very curious to know what the projection was.

Hildy,

I have none of those numbers.

Before the UK opening, I had a conversation with someone supposedly "in the know" who felt ... that $225 was not out of the question.

But I can tell you, Sony (and MGM before it, and Fox to follow) has wanted Bond to be bigger in the US. Sony really thought they had a great shot with Quantum to break out huge - over $200 million. All the signs were there. The audience wasn't.

You don't have the projections?

So...you can't dispute what most on CBn were thinking back in late 2005 all the way into October 2006...that Craig's casting had genuine risks vis-a-vis Brosnan (something you fail to mention)...and that most in their right mind at the time held their breath with respect to CR's grosses (because of not only an unknown actor for US audiences, but because of the re-boot which toned-down the formulaic elements that accompanied the bankable Brosnan.)

That wasn't just me...most CBners held their breath in wonder of whether or not CR would do 'ok' and if Craig would be able to make it to Bond 22.

OK, now let's take at look at pure logic in the world of business...

The budget for CR was the SAME as DAD four years on (i.e. it was lower, adjusted for recorded inflation). The setting of the budget most likely took place between the time the film's title was announced and when DC was announced (Aug - Oct 2005).

To continue...

When an organization sets a budget, they project revenues as well. It's normal practice. Wouldn't you agree?

So, if you're a prudent profit-seeking organization why would you expect revenues on an unknown quantity (DC, reboot) to be WAY higher when the budget you've set is actually less (inflation-adjusted) than the movie which preceeded it...a movie which did $430 Mil global ($160 Mil US)?

So, if you're honest with yourself, then they probably had a realistic projection which would be about in line with the previous Bond (DAD) at the time the budget was set. I'm sure they were hoping for something in line with DAD, adjusted, knowing that DC and the re-boot were risks.

Wouldn't you agree?

Now, your Sony "in the know" person, i'd suggest, was being more than just a little optimistic on CR in the US in relation to his/her budget guys.


Back to Q0S...

If these people "in the know" got CR "wrong", then wouldn't they have learned a valuable lesson on a movie with supposedly lesser acclaim?

In other words, given all the above, why would anyone at Sony think Q0S would get to $200-225 mil when even a movie as well received as CR couldn't pull in more than $170 Mil?.



It wouldn't surprise me if there were firings at Sony quite honestly. But Broccoli and Wilson got their production fee and share of profits...and Bond 23 is a guarantee...so...


...what do you say about audiences not being there for Madagascar 2 which supposedly should have been a sure fire 200+ [Madagascar 1 was $193 mil in '05, WALL-e and Kung Fu Panda around $220 mil this Summer]?

...and you still didn't answer my question about your Marley & Me post...you expect it to go $200+ Mil...?

Hildy,

Wow, it is amazing to watch you dance with your arguments. Let's fire people at Sony because Bonita doesn't have a firm projection on CR's box office the day they set the budget? Whatever.

Okay, let me take up my morning and explain this to those who might care (I'm sure you will not care, but here goes...):

If you are setting a budget for a franchise film, the old formula used to be that sequels would garner X percent of the box office if done well. This, of course, changed over time. But for a very long time X was lower than 100. In the 1980s, that equation changed. You had films like First Blood followed by Rambo. You could have a film like Terminator followed by T2. The Bond's, which were not on the rise at this point were shown as an example of how to build a tentpole franchise - a series that a studio could rely upon to return consistent income. Once a series reached a critical mass, there would be a guaranteed audience of a certain size out there. The Bond television catalogue brought in huge numbers, and the larger that catalogue, the more the value of the catalogue. VHS became a huge cash cow for the studios. Bond was huge on VHS, and later DVD. Studios began to see the post-theatrical life of films as where they made the majority of their profits on most titles. From that, you can see how a studio like New Line would take a title like Austin Powers, which had a budget of under $20 million, and grossed in North America only $53 million (and only $13 mil. foreign), and produce a sequel that seemed all out of proportion: $33 million budget, but grosses at $206 million domestic and $105 foreign. New Line would have been very lucky to have taken back $33 million in profit from the release of Austin Powers (and odds are they took in more like $25 million). Now, why did New Line take a "risk" on this film? Did they just love Mike Myers and Jay Roach? No. They saw what the DVD and VHS did of Austin Powers. It became a must-own, and its sales more than justified the budget. In the old days, you would look at the releasing double-bills, but today, you just look at the power of your catalogue to cross-promote titles. Iron Man will drive sales of old animated Iron Man shows and sales of Iron Man comics and graphic novels.

So, how do you figure out if you want to spend $150 mil to $200 mil on a Bond? Well, you certainly look at how Die Another Day did, but you also look at the sales figures of the Bond catalog on DVD. Wow! They are pretty good. And the films perennially sell as part of a television package. That's another source of income for the titles. And unlike, say, the Austin Powers films, the Bonds generally do a good bit more internationally than domestic. International DVD home entertainment markets are growing as more and more people get more televisions, DVD players and laptops across the globe. So you add up all those potentials, not just theatrical box office, and you get a base number that seems safe. What is the "bottom" that a Bond film will do domestic box office? I don't have a number, but what would you say, Hildy? Could you see a Bond coming in at less than $100 million domestic? $120 mil?

Now, GoldenEye did just under 70% of its theatrical internationally. TND, TWINE and DAD did between 62%-65% internationally. You can tell us how the currency exchanges were then and whether this fluctuation just represents currency movements or not. But Bond presents a pretty consistent ratio to me. So if you take the "bottom" domestic theatrical and say that will only be 40% of your theatrical, your probably safe. Pretty simple to do the math on what your DVD and television sales will be if you have the spreadsheets from the studio. Of course, we don't. But that's how you figure out if the budget is justified.

But that is not the box office target. That's not what you *hope* you might make.

Now, for Casino Royale, let's take it for granted that the film was a risk. But you had a new studio that really wanted Bond. They were enthusiastic about the chance to sell Casino Better than MGM had sold Die Another Day. That's a natural impulse. But audiences might have hated Craig, or just been uninterested, a la Dalton or Lazenby. But there is also the chance that audiences will love Craig. You just don't know until the film gets out there.

But once it is out there, you have all sorts of data. And that data suddenly shows that Casino is playing like gangbusters to UK audiences and getting very good "highly recommend" and "see again" numbers in the US. But the US opening is low. Casino plays great based on that $40 million opening weekend, but US audiences started a bit skeptical. UK, the film does a whole other level of business. Everyone is happy with the UK and all the international business, but the film does a hair under 72% of its box office international. Again, I don't know the exchange rates. Maybe that buys you a good hunk of that. But the UK / US differential can be looked at in pounds and dollars. Based on that, Casino became a "must-see" film in the UK. It did not in the US. That was a disappointment, but more so after the fact. Probably the biggest disappointment was that they couldn't build excitement more to open Casino bigger.

But maybe there was a ceiling on Bond? Hmmm. This didn't seem likely. Bourne - a similar franchise - was doing very well in the US. Bourne Identity did a bit over $120 million in the US. The second Bourne (Supremacy) did $176 million. But, hey, Sony thought, we've re-booted Bond. The first film lays the groundwork for the second. Casino's success will propel Quantum - the most direct sequel in Bond history - to greater heights. Plus, let's look at the DVD sales: Casino does 4.85 million in domestic DVD sales, bringing in $77 million dollars gross in 2007 alone. So Sony felt the potential for US box office growth was there. And they had pretty good reasons to feel this way. They also were getting a shorter film - one more show a day - and by this point, there was little doubt about Craig's ability to be accepted as Bond.

So, Quantum opens bigger, but falls much faster. It will sell fewer tickets.

Maybe it is the economy. I don't think so. But that's a point we can simply agree to disagree upon.

Christmas holiday ticket sales are really good this year, as was noted by the NY Times. Had overall sales fallen, I think you would have a point. A 1% drop for the year seems pretty nominal to me.

Why did Madagascar 2 not do the business of Kung Fu Panda or Wall-E? Good question. How many $200 million-grossing films have EVER opened that early (Nov. 7)? I don't know. Memorial Day weekend was very good for Madagascar. Two weeks before Thanksgiving break may not have been prime for the sequel. Or, it could be the economy.

How much will Marley & Me make? I am not a professional prognosticator, but I'll go with $160 million domestic. Of course, this film does not have one of the most famous characters in fiction in it. It has two medium-sized stars and is not a sequel. It has no major effects, just a story that seems to really appeal to audiences. Marley & Me's success seems to undercut the notion that the economy is hurting the box office proportionally to say, retail sales. Here's the analysis of Christmas weekend per Brandon Gray on Boxoffice Mojo:

"The increase over last weekend was over 125 percent, one of the biggest bumps on record, and the timeframe was the highest-grossing three-day December weekend ever with a $200 million tally (although it didn't crack the Top Five in terms of attendance)."

Wow, that's pretty good!

Gray's analysis of Quantum's opening weekend doesn't make it sound like the crash cometh as far as box office: "Quantity doesn't propel the box office as Quantum of Solace, the sole new nationwide release of the weekend, showed. With overall business at $148.5 million, the weekend had higher attendance than the comparable timeframes of the past three years, when there were a greater number of new titles."

"HIGHER ATTENDANCE"

Now, Thanksgiving weekend was down. "A ten-year low," but only slightly down from the previous year according to Mojo.

Gray also noted, re: Quantum:"The first weekend jump from Casino Royale to Quantum of Solace is reminiscent of the increase of The Bourne Identity to The Bourne Supremacy, and Quantum's debut packed essentially the same firepower as The Bourne Ultimatum's $69.3 million start. "

So maybe other professional box office watchers were optimistic that Quantum would do closer to $200 million. And just maybe, the film isn't appealing to audiences the way Casino did.

But Quantum will do what Quantum will do.

keep dancing...

[yolt13]

I'm always tempted to get into these box office discussions to celebrate milestones, etc. Unfortunately, every time I start reading one of the threads, I'm put off by all of the spin and scientific analysis.

"How do the numbers compare when adjusted for inflation?"

"Is this a failure when compared to (insert franchise here)?"

"What is the conversion rate from Yen to Euros to US dollars to livestock, and how does this affect the film's bottom line?"

Etc., etc., et. al.

With all due respect to everyone here, I'm not an economist. I'm just a Bond fan, looking at the financial achievements of the latest film in the simplest of terms - Is it perceived as a success or failure by the industry and the moviegoing public, and how will its tallies affect the future of the franchise. Here's my bottom line:

By this coming weekend, QoS will have surpassed CR's $167 mil total gross in the US. It will have done so in 8 weeks, compared to the 17 weeks it took CR to reach that figure. Add to that the fact that QoS is also likely to surpass CR's worldwide (and all-time franchise high) gross before its run ends and you have what can be called, in no uncertain terms, an unqualified success on every relevant front.

Maybe it's not THE DARK KNIGHT (other than TITANIC, what is?). Maybe inflation adjustment makes it's final total less impressive to people for whom a half billion dollars isn't an impossible sum of money. Maybe it won't out earn CR in some countries or territories. Maybe its success will remain a footnote in box office history, overshadowed by TDK, IRON MAN, and a few other headline-grabbing hits of 2008. In the end, though, no one except those who wanted it to fail and those who always see the dark cloud (even if it isn't there) rather than the silver lining would call QoS anything less than a bonafide box office hit.

[HildebrandRarity]

Hildy,

Wow, it is amazing to watch you dance with your arguments.

...

keep dancing...

I'm dancing? I'm dancing?



I continue to maintain that there is a bounded market for James Bond in the US.

I continue to ask, rhetorically of course, why didn't Casino Royale do any better than Die Another Day in the US, dispite a giant rottentomatoes number?

And if Casino Royale couldn't do better than Die Another Day in the US, why would QOS do WAY better than Casino Royale, given it's rottentomatoes score was lower?

Do you not see what i'm getting at?

AND

The reason CR's Internation gross was 70 odd percent of total was because the Pound was elevated in Dec 2006 (1.98) in relation to Dec 2002 (1.57) and Dec 2008 (1.48) and also because CR played in more new markets than DAD, namely Russia, China and India and Eastern Europe.

Do you not see that?

[YOLT]

Add to that the fact that QoS is also likely to surpass CR's worldwide (and all-time franchise high) gross before its run ends [snip]

Nope.

It all depends on Japan. Indiana Jones made 53m$ in Japan this year. I am not saying that it will but there is still possibility. Even it makes the same amount of addmissions of CR it will pass CRs' revenue because of the appreciation of Yen against dollar.

Sony just put pressure on some tv channels in Japan to show YOLT the following weeks. It will make difference

Domestic: $166,901,736 30.4%
+ Foreign: $382,065,847 69.6%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= Worldwide: $548,967,583


These numbers are from boxofficemojo. Well dogbond it seems CBN or boxofficemojo is making a mistake of about 4-5m$. You said you trusted on boxofficemojo. So what dou you think now ?

Even US gives another 3-4m$ I think our total will be around 560m$ without Japan.

I looked at the numbers and Nordics-Germanics are keeping 007 up. Germany in the lead, with still may be giving up to another 2m$ from now on.

It will be close really close. I see you 600m$

[yolt13]

Add to that the fact that QoS is also likely to surpass CR's worldwide (and all-time franchise high) gross before its run ends [snip]

Nope.

And the entire point of my post is once again completely missed. Thanks, Dog Bond, for helping point out just what I was saying about the unpleasant, nitpicking nature of these box office discussions.

If, for some reason, QoS doesn't surpass CR's worldwide total, it will still have outperformed it in the States, and have been one of the most successful fims in the world for 2008 (indeed, the 52nd highest grossing movie of all time to date). So your "nope", though brilliant and insightful (and demonstrating your uncanny ability to accurately predict the future), in no way invalidates the rest of what I wrote.

Sad, that I have to explain things to a guy who purports to be a fan of both Bond and Doctor Who.

Edited by yolt13, 07 January 2009 - 07:16 PM.