1228 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

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

Dog Bond's...A woman.

[YOLT]

Good news. The number of 549m$ is right. Qwerty said that "The foreign numbers were from an earlier weekend session. They will be updated accordingly." So 50m$ to go. While US numbers arent good, international numbers arent that bad. 600m$ we are coming

[dee-bee-five]

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.

I think this is what may be called a very welcome dose of common sense...

[Mike00spy]

I'm not convinced of Rarity's theory of Bond being bound by a bracket around $160m-$167m. The last Bourne film trounced its predecessor by about $50m simply because it was good. QoS did not get the same kind of feedback from the general masses, it was mixed.

I remain convinced that a great Bond film with great word of mouth can hit $200m in the USA.

The Bourne series is released in the summer.

The Bourne series hasn't had 24 films.

The comparisons are not valid.

PS: the website you mnetion does say that CR's US admission was 23.2

Edited by Mike00spy, 07 January 2009 - 11:47 PM.

[Mike00spy]

The Bourne series is released in the summer.

The Bourne series hasn't had 24 films.

The comparisons are not valid.

PS: the website you mnetion does say that CR's US admission was 23.2

Bond has avoided USA Summer for 20 years now and prefers the Thanksgiving-Christmas season. If they wanted the summer crowd they'd go after it, but for logistic reasons, no longer do.

And Bond is compared to Bourne very much these days....

I am well aware of the history of its past releases.

I feel they are missing out on a good chunk of money by not releasing in the summer.

And just b/c Bourne and Bond are compared doesn't mean the comparisons are valid.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'm not convinced of Rarity's theory of Bond being bound by a bracket around $160m-$167m.

I remain convinced that a great Bond film with great word of mouth can hit $200m in the USA.

I never said it was bounded by a dollar number. I'm talking about admissions. So let's get that straight.

So, in a few years, when Bond 23 gets 25 mil admissions and ticket prices are about $8, then, if you do the math, Bond 23 (or Bond 24) will get to $200 mil. It shouldn't be a problem if there's some ticket price inflation some years down.

I'm talking admissions, my dear.

[HildebrandRarity]

Arguably, if that Harry Potter movie was released around Thanksgiving, it would have gone far north of $200m in spite of the hurdles used as excuses.

This is why I think you have this under-handed streak about you. Harry Potter does nearly $300 Mil whether the movie is or not!

The first one did $317 Mil.

So now we're comparing Harry Potter to Bond. Lovely!

Potter never had a $200 Mil hurdle to begin!

250 mil would be considered medioce for it, the last I checked.

[Bonita]

Arguably, if that Harry Potter movie was released around Thanksgiving, it would have gone far north of $200m in spite of the hurdles used as excuses.

This is why I think you have this under-handed streak about you. Harry Potter does nearly $300 Mil whether the movie is or not!

The first one did $317 Mil.

So now we're comparing Harry Potter to Bond. Lovely!

Potter never had a $200 Mil hurdle to begin!

250 mil would be considered medioce for it, the last I checked.

This is Hildy's method of argument. He says, "films can't do 200m in this environment." You say that a Harry Potter film would have gone far north of $200m."

Hildy responds acting like you have just said the most amusingly ignorant thing ever, and complains that Bond can't be compared to Harry Potter (or Bourne, but apparently to Madagascar 2).

If you open at $67 mil. and only do $170 mil, this is a strong sign that the audience is not staying with the film. Simple point. No Bond film has ever opened bigger in recent times, nor dropped faster. Comparable films, whether by time-frame or by genre, do better. Twilight, which opened a week later but was roundly noted as not having "legs" is in over twice the theaters as Quantum and pulling in almost 5 times the weekday business. Seems teenage girls must have a lot more disposable income than 25+ guys, I guess. Maybe you should be hitting them up to invest with you. Why does Bourne Supremacy open similarly and go on to do so well compared to Quantum? Maybe it works better for audiences.

And why did MGM place Bond in a November release slot with GoldenEye (taking December only once with TND)? Ah, they did their market research and felt that Bond films were movies that DADS would take the family to see over holiday periods, and that if they could hold on from Thanksgiving through Christmas and New Years, they would get the equivalent of what Bond could do in the summer, and the competition would be Oscar-bait and not huge action films.

And, Hildy, despite the notion that you will certainly ask more off-point follow up questions, I will, answer:

As you have noted, and I have said, CR was not a film American audiences were eager to embrace. DAD had a few advantages. Americans liked Brosnan. They were comfortable with him as Bond. The film had the freakin' Best Actress Winner in it the year she won. Not bad. So DAD did well despite its short-comings. Craig was not well-sold to American audiences. Film didn't open as strong, but still came very close to DAD's gross. Why? Good word of mouth.

And we get back to something that seems hard for folks to understand: How Hollywood measures success. First measure: How did your film open?
Second measure: What was its multiplier after it opened? (did it make 2.5 times opening weekend? 3 times? 3.5 times?)

Higher the multiplier, the more you are considered a success. Get both - a la The Dark Knight - and you are a box-office smash.

Lower the multiplier, ESPECIALLY WITH A GOOD OPENING WEEKEND, and your film is considered not to have connected with general audiences.

QoS will have a much lower multiplier than Casino Royale, but a much better opening weekend. The industry considers this to mean it was a mediocre film with a great marketing campaign.

Lastly, HIldy, you are just simply wrong about the 70% being only due to currency fluctuations. In the UK, Casino made way more than DAD. And why do you keep saying that RUSSIA was a new territory for Bond? Every Bond film from GoldenEye on has played in Russia! China was, as far as I know, the ONLY new territory for Casino. It did do $11 million there, but that number is very heavily cut by the Chinese government's take. The main motivation for releasing there is to undercut piracy (although I'll happily live off the interest to $11 million - don't want to sound like it's not a nice hunk of money. It's just not money that really travels back to Sony as freely as the $50 million from Germany (as opposed to the $33 million German movie-goers shelled out for DAD tickets). Seems like there's not much of a ceiling for Bond in Germany, eh?

Fun exchange rate math, btw:
Germany uses the Euro. 11/2002 it was roughly $1 = 1 Euro, but the Euro rose by 33%. So DAD's German gross, adjusted not for inflation but for currency would be: $43 million. I have NO CLUE what ticket inflation was in Germany, but CR still pulled in another $7 million above the currency exchange in Germany.

Finally, to those who say comparing Bond to Bourne or Potter or Indiana Jones is not appropriate, well, let me say that at one time, Bond was the biggest, baddest franchise in the world. There was no on on the block that UA needed to fear when it came time to release a Bond film. Why can't a Bond film break through today? Why can't Bond do better. Batman wen from television phenomenon, to Sat. morning animated joke, to hit films starting in 1989, and a seamless re-invention a few years ago. Indiana Jones comes back with amazing box office. Why not Bond?

That is the frustration for me. As a huge fan who loved the film (but found the action editing to be terrible), I shook my head as family members told me how ambivalent they were, how they didn't think it was glamorous enough, that they couldn't understand the plot. So few understood that Bond was preparing to kill Camille at the end, a moment that amazed me to watch.

So yes, the film will line pockets. It didn't lose anyone money. It is part of the franchise and will keep making money. But it didn't live up to its potential. And that's the bottom line.

Keep dancing...

[blueman]

CR = love story = better BO.

QOS = revenge story = lesser BO.

I really don't think we need to look farther than that. CR had sweep where QOS had grit. Sweep wins every time.

Still think it's kinda incredible a revenge-story Bond like QOS is even doing anything close to the BO CR the love-story Bond did. Yet it is. If peeps are moaning over "missed potential" cuz QOS could've been a sequel more like Spiderman 3 or Pirates 3, jeez I'm damn glad EON didn't go down that route and instead gave us a healthy dose of Fleming-style Bond. It's not gonna leap tall BO buildings, but 52nd place all-time ain't a bad consolation prize.

QOS is doing Bond-type biz at the BO even going out on a rare limb for Bond, doesn't seem to be anything else to it IMO. Win-win. But the really odd thing is QOS looks to finish roughly $20m behind CR, worldwide. Isn't that about the exchange rate turn around? Where's the fire again? Oh yeah, in Sony exec's pants. Whatevs.

[Jim]

This is Hildy's method of argument. He says, "films can't do 200m in this environment." You say that a Harry Potter film would have gone far north of $200m."

Hildy responds acting like you have just said the most amusingly ignorant thing ever, and complains that Bond can't be compared to Harry Potter (or Bourne, but apparently to Madagascar 2).

*giggle*

I've noticed

Y'see, that's what's really getting on my willy about this thread - not so much the mass debate about someone else's money, which is neither here nor there (and certainly not here), but the general undercurrent, far too frequently bubbling to the surface, of personal digs, from all "sides".

Please stop doing that and get back to whatever pleasure is otherwise derived from this analysis.

[Loomis]

As you have noted, and I have said, CR was not a film American audiences were eager to embrace. DAD had a few advantages. Americans liked Brosnan. They were comfortable with him as Bond.

Speak for yourself. I mean, not that I'm American. Yet.

China was, as far as I know, the ONLY new territory for Casino.

Well, there was also Vietnam, I think (he notes pedantically).

[dee-bee-five]

So yes, the film will line pockets. It didn't lose anyone money. It is part of the franchise and will keep making money. But it didn't live up to its potential. And that's the bottom line.

I agree with this apart from the last two lines. The real bottom line is that QoS didn't live up to its potential if that is how one wishes to interpret the figures. Alternatively, QoS is an unqualified blockbuster if that is how one wishes to interpret the figures. Hey ho...

[Byron]

I wonder why the film made so little money in Italy. Much more money was made in France (roughly the same population as Italy) and even in Spain (which has a much smaller population than Italy).

Is this specifically QOS related (bad reviews/word of mouth) or a more general trend in that the Italian movie-going public aren't into Bond films?

[HildebrandRarity]

This is Hildy's method of argument. He says, "films can't do 200m in this environment." You say that a Harry Potter film would have gone far north of $200m."

Hildy responds acting like you have just said the most amusingly ignorant thing ever, and complains that Bond can't be compared to Harry Potter (or Bourne, but apparently to Madagascar 2).

*giggle*

I've noticed

Y'see, that's what's really getting on my willy about this thread - not so much the mass debate about someone else's money...but the general undercurrent, far too frequently bubbling to the surface, of personal digs, from all "sides".

What i'm saying is that even Madagascar 2 couldn't pull $190 mil, let alone $200 mil.

The first Madagascar did $193 Mil in 2005. Then, this summer, Kung Fu Panda and WALL-e did about $220 Mil each.

So, under all reasonable - even conservative - thinking, Madagascar 2 was the more sure fire movie this Christmas to go above $200 mil, i.e. only another $8 mil more than the first one.

It's managed 'only' $177 mil and running out of steam.

Harry Potter has a way bigger fanbase with the average HP doing $280 mil in the US this decade. So, to compare Bond 22 to HP makes no sense. Madagascar 2 is the more direct and reasonable comparison.

As for The Dark Knight...how many TDKs are out there? How many super-hero filcks (which, in fact, are generally more popular in the US than Bond) have one of their main actors die of an accidental prescription drug overdose during post-production thus elevating the hype? Not too many.

Bond admissions in the US have a ceiling (i'd say 26.5 million admissions) and the more "over-the-top" ones are generally more popular ('Spy, Moonraker, DAD) in the US than the more realistic ones (LTK, CR, Q0S).

So I think we should really be comparing Bond to Bond in the US.

Ok?

Lastly, when I said CR had more new markets than DAD I meant that there were WAY more screens for CR than DAD in Russia, India, China and Eastern Europe as a result of the rising level of wealth or middle class in those jurisdictions between early 2000s and 2006. Those economies were growing rapidly during that 4 year period and more screens were made available for CR than DAD. It was a natural progession.

[YOLT]

I wonder why the film made so little money in Italy. Much more money was made in France (roughly the same population as Italy) and even in Spain (which has a much smaller population than Italy).

Is this specifically QOS related (bad reviews/word of mouth) or a more general trend in that the Italian movie-going public aren't into Bond films?

It seems northern Europeans (Germanics-Nordics) are saving 007. Maybe its because Criag is blonde too

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

'Quantum of Solace' Becomes Highest Grossing James Bond Film In US

$167.1 million gross--and counting--surpasses 'Casino Royale' record

[HildebrandRarity]

How many super-hero filcks (which, in fact, are generally more popular in the US than Bond) have one of their main actors die of an accidental prescription drug overdose during post-production thus elevating the hype? Not too many.

B-b-b-but what about THE CROW? Brandon Lee died on the set of an accidental gun shot wound, yet that movie didn't make much money.

Who?


Regardless, you still haven't answered my questions I posed to you.

[HildebrandRarity]

'Quantum of Solace' Becomes Highest Grossing James Bond Film In US

$167.1 million gross--and counting--surpasses 'Casino Royale' record

Wonderful!



Quantum has bucked the trend of Moore and Dalton's second outing in a DOWN year for both admissions and box office in the US!

A tremendous and an historic achievement!

Congratulations to Broccoli, Wilson and Craig!!!

[YOLT]

'Quantum of Solace' Becomes Highest Grossing James Bond Film In US

$167.1 million gross--and counting--surpasses 'Casino Royale' record

Wonderful!



Quantum has bucked the trend of Moore and Dalton's second outing in a DOWN year for both admissions and box office in the US!

A tremendous and an historic achievement!

Congratulations to Broccoli, Wilson and Craig!!!

Wasnt CRs' number 167,4 ? If so where is the 0,3 ? Btw international numbers are 3 times better than US between Monday-Wednesday making it 383m$. We can end 390m$ or even more except Japan for the international numbers. If Japan can give us 35m$ we can pass CRs' total number of 594m$ Worldwide.

[[dark]]

If Japan can give us 35m$ we can pass CRs' total number of 594m$ Worldwide.

Given that's nearly double what Casino Royale took in Japan, it's unlikely.

[HildebrandRarity]

Wasnt CRs' number 167,4

I think the final "official" number the studios ended up using was $167,000,007.

LOL

[YOLT]

If Japan can give us 35m$ we can pass CRs' total number of 594m$ Worldwide.

Given that's nearly double what Casino Royale took in Japan, it's unlikely.

But;

a) Japan Yen appreciated against the dollar
Indiana Jones made 53m$ this year
c) Craig's Golden Compass made 33m$

I am just hoping. Anybody has any idea in how many theathers will QOS play in Japan ? Indiana Jones started with about 700 and CR about 400.

[Arbogast777]

I feel like I'm raining on QOS's parade by posting this, but when you adjust for inflation (which is only fair), U.S. box office numbers look like this...

"Quantum of Solace" $167,100,000
"Goldfinger" $477,360,000
"Thunderball" $538,560,000

[blueman]

The previous two Bonds had beyond-the-norm (for the series) dynamics: DAD had the most obvious stunt-casting ever with Halle Berry, take her out of that pic and bet it takes a $20+ hit in US BO. CR was a tragic love story, something that hasn't been in a Bond in 39 years, and if there's anything US audiences love (more than belle du jour or jokes), it's a love story and that's good for some extra BO IMO.

QOS on the other hand went for straight Bond, no gimmicks. And performed up to par (more or less) with those other two films. Had EON inserted some heart-wrenchingly tragic and Bond-specific storyline, or cast Angelina Jolie in it, I'm sure the extra BO would've been there for QOS to perform as some seem to have expected. At this point, I'm up for agreeing with the dog bonds and bonitas, QOS did indeed "underperform" by uberBond standards by not handily surpassing its immediate predecessor. But again the far more important aspect of this BO discussion is that QOS has done the biz it's done without the benefit of anything extraneous, just Bond (and "poorly done" Bond at that ). EON pulled out all the stops, made a great Bond film (sans poster girl or Oprah book club styling), and hit a home run. Great news for the series IMO, and hopefully EON simply does it again with 23: gives us a great Bond/no chaser adventure.

[YOLT]

I feel like I'm raining on QOS's parade by posting this, but when you adjust for inflation (which is only fair), U.S. box office numbers look like this...

"Quantum of Solace" $167,100,000
"Goldfinger" $477,360,000
"Thunderball" $538,560,000

Well yes this is the truth. While James Bond is in the second golden age after the sixties its too far away reaching it. Both GF and TB seems really unreachable. The aim for the producers has to be passing the big 70's films like LALD, TSWLM and MR. That will be enough. In every single aspect reaching the days of Connerys' is IMPOSSIBLE.

[HildebrandRarity]

Wonderful!



Quantum has bucked the trend of Moore and Dalton's second outing in a DOWN year for both admissions and box office in the US!

A tremendous and an historic achievement!

Congratulations to Broccoli, Wilson and Craig!!!

Actually, Brozza fu...er...bucked the trend with his second outing

Worldwide receipts took a tumble overall though.

PS I do prefer Craig as Bond....

I know. But it was an UP year for box office and admissions.

I know. And in an UP year blah, blah...

PS I know.

[sorking]

I feel like I'm raining on QOS's parade by posting this, but when you adjust for inflation (which is only fair), U.S. box office numbers look like this...

"Quantum of Solace" $167,100,000
"Goldfinger" $477,360,000
"Thunderball" $538,560,000

This is where direct comparison falls down, of course. Because audiences, the market...everything is different now. How much did Goldfinger make in TV and home rentals and sales in the three years following its release? And how much will QoS make?

When a film stays in theatres for, say, a full year the BO can't directly compare. With fewer TVs at home, and certainly never one per person, the ways in which people consumed these media was massively different. The lengthy theatrical run could, say, be compared by adding modern home video rentals, but it's still not a level playing field.

The number of films and TV shows being made, the bazillions of other media asking for your intention, the nature of people to see 'whatever's on at the cinema' and, these days, be far more unwilling to see something twice when it'll be on telly in a short while anyway...it's too much difference to simply apply a quick inflation conversion.

[blueman]

CR = love story = better BO.

QOS = revenge story = lesser BO.

OHMSS was also a tragic love story and also with a new guy playing Bond, (who was probably panned far less than Craig ever was), yet OHMSS wasn't as big a hit as the Connery films before or after it. I'm not too convinced the love story by itself was a big BO draw for CR, but the overall package. Casino Royale might be more remembered for the torture sequence than anything else.

Craig wasn't replacing The Guy, apples and Volvos IMO. For general audiences I would guess the love story figures more, FWIW.

Some admissions figures, worldwide and in millions:

5. Casino Royale - 90.29
6. Moonraker - 85.10
7. The Spy Who Loved Me - 83.10
8. You Only Live Twice - 81.70
9. GoldenEye - 81.20
10. Die Another Day - 78.60
11. The World Is Not Enough - 77.10
*12. Quantm Of Solace - 76.00
13. Tomorrow Never Dies - 75.50

*and counting...

Obviously CR takes the cake, but QOS is right there in thick of modern-are Bonds, may even move up a spot or two depending on how the remaining international admissions go. Interesting that TND is ranked much higher when going by adjusted BO, just goes to show what currency fluctuations can do (hint hint).

[YOLT]

I feel like I'm raining on QOS's parade by posting this, but when you adjust for inflation (which is only fair), U.S. box office numbers look like this...

"Quantum of Solace" $167,100,000
"Goldfinger" $477,360,000
"Thunderball" $538,560,000

This is where direct comparison falls down, of course. Because audiences, the market...everything is different now. How much did Goldfinger make in TV and home rentals and sales in the three years following its release? And how much will QoS make?

When a film stays in theatres for, say, a full year the BO can't directly compare. With fewer TVs at home, and certainly never one per person, the ways in which people consumed these media was massively different. The lengthy theatrical run could, say, be compared by adding modern home video rentals, but it's still not a level playing field.

The number of films and TV shows being made, the bazillions of other media asking for your intention, the nature of people to see 'whatever's on at the cinema' and, these days, be far more unwilling to see something twice when it'll be on telly in a short while anyway...it's too much difference to simply apply a quick inflation conversion.

But dont forget the population factor. US population nearly doubled in the last 50 years. Nothing can change that the 60s' were the golden years of 007. And we are far away. Even when you look at the admissions 60's are really ahead.

The most appropriate numbers will be Worldwide because while 60's had its advantages, however nowadays not only west is watching the films. 60's still rules but not 3 times more. Only 1,5-2

[sorking]

I feel like I'm raining on QOS's parade by posting this, but when you adjust for inflation (which is only fair), U.S. box office numbers look like this...

"Quantum of Solace" $167,100,000
"Goldfinger" $477,360,000
"Thunderball" $538,560,000

This is where direct comparison falls down, of course. Because audiences, the market...everything is different now. How much did Goldfinger make in TV and home rentals and sales in the three years following its release? And how much will QoS make?

When a film stays in theatres for, say, a full year the BO can't directly compare. With fewer TVs at home, and certainly never one per person, the ways in which people consumed these media was massively different. The lengthy theatrical run could, say, be compared by adding modern home video rentals, but it's still not a level playing field.

The number of films and TV shows being made, the bazillions of other media asking for your intention, the nature of people to see 'whatever's on at the cinema' and, these days, be far more unwilling to see something twice when it'll be on telly in a short while anyway...it's too much difference to simply apply a quick inflation conversion.

But dont forget the population factor. US population nearly doubled in the last 50 years. Nothing can change that the 60s' were the golden years of 007. And we are far away. Even when you look at the admissions 60's are really ahead.

The most appropriate numbers will be Worldwide because while 60's had its advantages, however nowadays not only west is watching the films. 60's still rules but not 3 times more. Only 1,5-2

Cinema admissions alone still ignores too many viewers. How many more people watched it as pirate download? Or figured they'd wait for the DVD, or TV broadcast? Or who played the game and figured that'd give them a good enough idea?

Any quick-numbers attempt to prove which was 'more successful' is on a hiding to nothing, to be honest. It requires a massively complex study featuring the kinds of research and mathematics that make my head go all swimmy.

The population doubles, but how many more films are released? How many more TV shows are there? Competition is a massive factor - the other things vying for your buck. Twice as many people have 200 times as many things to choose from. So 'success' is much harder to measure than simple one-to-two (for the doubled pop) math based on ticket sales.

It's hard to deny the 60s phenomenon. But at the same time that phenomenon is all but impossible to have happen now. The culture turns on a whim so much faster; even the biggest, most impactful movie can't have the depth, breadth and duration of public response. Asking the modern Bond to compare directly to the 60s success is literally impossible...