1228 replies to this topic

[sharpshooter]

It's hard to deny the 60s phenomenon. But at the same time that phenomenon is all but impossible to have happen now.

Indeed. These current batch of films are doing very well, though. Well done to all involved.

[dinovelvet]

Oddly enough, if you look at the theater count for January 9, QoS isn't even listed in the 50 rankings. Mojo also has it at #2 on the Bond chart with CR still at #1.

http://www.boxoffice...d=jamesbond.htm

This is at odds with SONY's release today which claimed QoS is at #1, and put CR's total at $167m compared to the $167.4m on Mojo's site. Who's right? Remember, everyone claimed QoS did a $70m+ weekend initially before the actual figures trimmed it to $67m a day later

I'm wondering if the movie's being pulled?

No, they just don't have the theater info yet. Its not suddenly dropping from 800+ theaters to zero...its still listed at at least one theater in my area, anyway. Probably moving to the cheapo/second run theaters right about now, which might even give it a small box office boost.

[HildebrandRarity]

Oddly enough, if you look at the theater count for January 9, QoS isn't even listed in the 50 rankings.

I'm wondering if the movie's being pulled?

Check out this thread - specifically post #3 - from early last week:

http://debrief.comma...p...=52696&st=0

They didn't have Quantum's data then and the same is likely the case this time.

[jamie00007]

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

Thats exactly right. Until someone comes up with some kind of formula that takes into account all the factors you mentioned, comparing the admissions of movies four decades apart is completely pointless.

Also, the old movies didnt have the home market to compete with. People wanted to see a film, they had to see it at the movies. No waiting for it to come out on DVD or movies-on-demand or the rest of it. Many people (myself included) now wait for most movies to come out on DVD. So DVD sales and rentals are admissions in a way, people are paying to see the film. And those sales should be included in any fair comparison of admissions.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Everybody is talking here about Us numbers, but what about the rest of the grosses... I found this, in the other (Bond) site.

"Casino" still holds the worldwide box office record for the franchise with $594.2 million.Since it opened on Nov. 14, "Quantum" has made $550 million worldwide, said studio Columbia Pictures.

The story is very different across the Pond in 007's native Britain. "Quantum" is just shy of $80m compared to "Casino Royale"s record-breaking $106m in the UK. Back in October, MI6 projected that progress in the UK would tougher despite record openings. "Quantum" proved critic-proof as mixed reviews failed to impact negatively on its record breaking opening weekend, but drop off was greater than "Casino" as word of mouth was not as positive.

http://www.mi6.co.uk...d...=mi6&s=news

Some people say that QOS underperform in the US, but I think that where really underperform is in the UK, and maybe (still waiting for Japan results) worldwide. Although, overall, doesn't seem like a big failure, 'cause the numbers are better than all of the eighties and nineties's Bond, at least.

My point here, is that QOS seem to break the so called premise (usually argued to defend LTK's poor BO in America) for which the 'serious' bombs in the US, whereas in UK/Europe achieve notable success.

[Bonita]

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

Thats exactly right. Until someone comes up with some kind of formula that takes into account all the factors you mentioned, comparing the admissions of movies four decades apart is completely pointless.

Also, the old movies didnt have the home market to compete with. People wanted to see a film, they had to see it at the movies. No waiting for it to come out on DVD or movies-on-demand or the rest of it. Many people (myself included) now wait for most movies to come out on DVD. So DVD sales and rentals are admissions in a way, people are paying to see the film. And those sales should be included in any fair comparison of admissions.

Actually, worldwide admissions is the absolute BEST comparison. I have NO IDEA where those numbers came from, but ticket sales are the best measure of a film's theatrical success. Ticket sales do not note how many people saw a film. My 14 admissions to TSWLM in '77 are all different tickets, but not a different person, obviously. If one thousand guy pay to see The Dark Knight one hundred times each, well, that's still 100,000 admissions.

Home Entertainment markets are separate markets. So is television. Admissions are the purest measure of success for your film's initial release.

If you want to know how many individuals have ever seen a particular film, your best bet is to do some really sophisticated polling and extrapolate.

Keep dancing...

[jamie00007]

The story is very different across the Pond in 007's native Britain. "Quantum" is just shy of $80m compared to "Casino Royale"s record-breaking $106m in the UK. Back in October, MI6 projected that progress in the UK would tougher despite record openings. "Quantum" proved critic-proof as mixed reviews failed to impact negatively on its record breaking opening weekend, but drop off was greater than "Casino" as word of mouth was not as positive.

Is that US dollars or pounds though? If its US dollars the difference between CR and QoS is easily explained away by the difference in the exchange rate.

Also tired of articles like that mentioning things like "critic-proof as mixed reviews failed to impact negatively" etc. Its the second best reviewed Bond movie in 13 years according to RT! And way ahead of the likes of Brosnans films aside from GE. Seriously, if DAD's reviews didnt stop it from being huge, why is it surprising that QoS's (much better) ones would?

[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

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...

I think population increase and added new markets (all the ex-Soviet, China and third world countries) may equal the affects of films relaesed, DVD and pirate downloading etc.

If you want whats todays 60s' 007 films and their affect look like, I can say: Harry Potter. The films never been under 800m$ WW and 250m$ in US. Do I like them: No. I have never even watched one of them. But thats the reality.

Bond is underperforming comparing the 60s. But its still in the top 10 of WW revenues. Ok. I found it. It will be much more easier to compare: In which place are the films. Is it in the top 10 chart or not ? That may give another point.

Also to Mr. Arlington: Any idea about EXCHANGE RATES ?

[dee-bee-five]

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

But since the same can be said of any film's receipts from 1964/65 compared with an equivalent 2008 movie, this argument is spurious. Accountants may adjust figures to take into account inflation; what they can't quantify is changes in social mores/movie-going patterns. So, in a way, it isn't fair because one isn't comparing like with like.

[Col. Sun]

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

But since the same can be said of any film's receipts from 1964/65 compared with an equivalent 2008 movie, this argument is spurious. Accountants may adjust figures to take into account inflation; what they can't quantify is changes in social mores/movie-going patterns. So, in a way, it isn't fair because one isn't comparing like with like.

And in the 1960's movies were only seen in the cinema; there was no dvd, no pay-per-view, and tv premieres for films were held back much longer, in the UK it was 5 years before a theatrical film played on BBC or ITV and this remained the case until the mid-70's. When the Bond films got their tv premiere it was a HUGE deal and as a small kid I recall the excitement that Dr. No was screening prime time Sunday night. Everyone at my school stayed in that night to watch it! Only in the past decade has the window for tv premieres reduced more and more until now even a huge blockbuster can turn up on terrestrial tv within 2 years (sometimes only a year) of its theatrical release.

More than two-thirds of the QOS audience are sitting at home waiting for the DVD release or pay-per-view -- and in these formats, as with CR, the film will make a fortune again. It's almost like a huge re-release for the film.

Things have changed a great deal since the 60's.

[sorking]

Actually, worldwide admissions is the absolute BEST comparison. I have NO IDEA where those numbers came from, but ticket sales are the best measure of a film's theatrical success. Ticket sales do not note how many people saw a film. My 14 admissions to TSWLM in '77 are all different tickets, but not a different person, obviously. If one thousand guy pay to see The Dark Knight one hundred times each, well, that's still 100,000 admissions.

Home Entertainment markets are separate markets. So is television. Admissions are the purest measure of success for your film's initial release.

So you don't agree with any of the other factors raised? You don't think home video, piracy, download or TV broadcast impacts on ticket sales at all?

They're not wholly separate markets. DVD rights are sold in advance to help finance films in the first place - ditto TV sales. They absolutely factor into the original production in a way that wasn't the case before. Even the cost of bonus material can, in same cases, be included in the main film's budget.

Admissions from one film the the next, fair enough; admissions between films 40 years apart? Not even close. I mean, for initial release, okay - say the first three months. Still not really comparable, but okay. But the numbers we have from the 60s include runs that go well over a year, runs that include time that home video and TV have, in part, swallowed up - and are now included in any studio calculation when financing a film.

If the makers don't ignore it, we certainly can't. The market has changed too much to simply line one up against the other.

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...

I think population increase and added new markets (all the ex-Soviet, China and third world countries) may equal the affects of films relaesed, DVD and pirate downloading etc.

You may think it, but that leaves it a long, long way from being true. 100 times the population have 200,000 times the media available. It doesn't simply balance out one to one.

If you want whats todays 60s' 007 films and their affect look like, I can say: Harry Potter. The films never been under 800m$ WW and 250m$ in US. Do I like them: No. I have never even watched one of them. But thats the reality.

Bond is underperforming comparing the 60s. But its still in the top 10 of WW revenues. Ok. I found it. It will be much more easier to compare: In which place are the films. Is it in the top 10 chart or not ? That may give another point.

But 'underperforming' is relative to one thing: the original financing. Not to a film from four decades earlier. You have to wilfully ignore, or over-simplify, too many factors to make that kind of comparison.

Potter may be the closest thing, you're right.

Though unless that franchise recasts the lead five times and continues to make movies until the 2040s, 'underperforming' is still the wrong word. If 'Potter 22' manages to hold on to 800m (adjusted) in a few decades time, fair enough. But Bond isn't just competing in the current market, it's competing against itself, against the fact that people can see an old Bond movie every Bank Holiday in the UK. The history affects audience choice - 60s Bond didn't have that history.

How would Potter do today if there had already been 21 Potter films available since the early 60s?

Again I say - simplistic math just won't do the job.

[HildebrandRarity]

"Quantum" is just shy of $80m compared to "Casino Royale"s record-breaking $106m in the UK.


Some people say that QOS underperform in the US, but I think that where really underperform is in the UK

No it it didn't.

The Pound was 1.98 on Dec 1, 2006.

The Pound was 1.48 on Dec 1, 2008.

Q0S didn't underperform at all. The UK Pound did.

My point here, is ...

CR's UK numbers were INFLATED beacuse of an INFLATED Pound in late 2006.

Since then, The Pound is down 25 percent.

Accordingly, Q0S's grosses are also down 25 percent in US Dollar terms.

HOW MANY ING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS?!

[Jim]

"Quantum" is just shy of $80m compared to "Casino Royale"s record-breaking $106m in the UK.


Some people say that QOS underperform in the US, but I think that where really underperform is in the UK

No it it didn't.

The Pound was 1.98 on Dec 1, 2006.

The Pound was 1.48 on Dec 1, 2008.

Q0S didn't underperform at all. The UK Pound did.

My point here, is ...

CR's UK numbers were INFLATED beacuse of an INFLATED Pound in late 2006.

Since then, The Pound is down 25 percent.

Accordingly, Q0S's grosses are also down 25 percent in US Dollar terms.

HOW MANY ING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS?!

Ideally until you explode.

[HildebrandRarity]

Ideally until you explode.

The operative word is IMPLODE.

That's what is going to happen with the UK Housing Prices, UK Manufacturing, UK Employment.

Happy?


...as an aside...

The US just released it's Employment Report for December:

Another 524,000 jobs lost in December...following on the heels of the 584,000 jobs lost in November.

...but, appearently, recessions...no,make that depressions...should have provided a boost for Q0S.

[Jim]

Ideally until you explode.

The operative word is IMPLODE.

That's what is going to happen with the UK Housing Prices, UK Manufacturing, UK Employment.

Happy?

Bashful.

Or probably Doc.

[HildebrandRarity]

Ideally until you explode.

The operative word is IMPLODE.

That's what is going to happen with the UK Housing Prices, UK Manufacturing, UK Employment.

Happy?

Bashful.

Or probably Doc.

...and, of course, English Pension Plans.

IMPLOSION!

The term of the day for the Snow White crowd.

[Jim]

Ideally until you explode.

The operative word is IMPLODE.

That's what is going to happen with the UK Housing Prices, UK Manufacturing, UK Employment.

Happy?

Bashful.

Or probably Doc.

...and, of course, English Pension Plans.

IMPLOSION!

The term of the day.

...and is now Grumpy.

Was Bored a dwarf? I forget.

[HildebrandRarity]

Ideally until you explode.

The operative word is IMPLODE.

That's what is going to happen with the UK Housing Prices, UK Manufacturing, UK Employment.

Happy?

Bashful.

Or probably Doc.

...and, of course, English Pension Plans.

IMPLOSION!

The term of the day.

...and is now Grumpy.

Was Bored a dwarf? I forget.

Certainly the 1.1 million human beings who just lost their Jobs late last year in the US won't be bored looking for employment.

Haven't you heard? Recessions are good for box office. People with no money love to spend their time at the movies...eventhough time is all they have to spend.

[The ides of Mark]

Certainly the 1.1 million human beings who just lost their Jobs late last year in the US won't be bored looking for employment.

Haven't you heard? Recessions are good for box office. People with no money love to spend their time at the movies...for time is all they have to spend.

They certainly have, now that QoS outgrossed CR in the US.
As for the inflation-thingy, EON and Sony should only spend their money when the dollar and the pound are back to normal. How's that for inflation adjustment?

[YOLT]

Actually, worldwide admissions is the absolute BEST comparison. I have NO IDEA where those numbers came from, but ticket sales are the best measure of a film's theatrical success. Ticket sales do not note how many people saw a film. My 14 admissions to TSWLM in '77 are all different tickets, but not a different person, obviously. If one thousand guy pay to see The Dark Knight one hundred times each, well, that's still 100,000 admissions.

Home Entertainment markets are separate markets. So is television. Admissions are the purest measure of success for your film's initial release.

So you don't agree with any of the other factors raised? You don't think home video, piracy, download or TV broadcast impacts on ticket sales at all?

They're not wholly separate markets. DVD rights are sold in advance to help finance films in the first place - ditto TV sales. They absolutely factor into the original production in a way that wasn't the case before. Even the cost of bonus material can, in same cases, be included in the main film's budget.

Admissions from one film the the next, fair enough; admissions between films 40 years apart? Not even close. I mean, for initial release, okay - say the first three months. Still not really comparable, but okay. But the numbers we have from the 60s include runs that go well over a year, runs that include time that home video and TV have, in part, swallowed up - and are now included in any studio calculation when financing a film.

If the makers don't ignore it, we certainly can't. The market has changed too much to simply line one up against the other.

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...

I think population increase and added new markets (all the ex-Soviet, China and third world countries) may equal the affects of films relaesed, DVD and pirate downloading etc.

You may think it, but that leaves it a long, long way from being true. 100 times the population have 200,000 times the media available. It doesn't simply balance out one to one.

If you want whats todays 60s' 007 films and their affect look like, I can say: Harry Potter. The films never been under 800m$ WW and 250m$ in US. Do I like them: No. I have never even watched one of them. But thats the reality.

Bond is underperforming comparing the 60s. But its still in the top 10 of WW revenues. Ok. I found it. It will be much more easier to compare: In which place are the films. Is it in the top 10 chart or not ? That may give another point.

But 'underperforming' is relative to one thing: the original financing. Not to a film from four decades earlier. You have to wilfully ignore, or over-simplify, too many factors to make that kind of comparison.

Potter may be the closest thing, you're right.

Though unless that franchise recasts the lead five times and continues to make movies until the 2040s, 'underperforming' is still the wrong word. If 'Potter 22' manages to hold on to 800m (adjusted) in a few decades time, fair enough. But Bond isn't just competing in the current market, it's competing against itself, against the fact that people can see an old Bond movie every Bank Holiday in the UK. The history affects audience choice - 60s Bond didn't have that history.

How would Potter do today if there had already been 21 Potter films available since the early 60s?

Again I say - simplistic math just won't do the job.

There is no end in what you say. You simply say that 60s' numbers and todays numbers or affects or sucess cant be compared. I think they can. You are neglecting the affect of population growth and new markets. If so what happened in 1969 (OHMSS) or 1974 (TMWTGG) ? Its simple they underperformed with previous and some upcoming films. And just look at the 80s. The dark age of Bond. I liked what was produced but not too many liked it. LTK was a flop, not maybe financiallly but with LTK they came to an end of going down and down in the 80s. and we paid it with 6 years.

If you look at previous posts you will see that I want the sucess of QOS not failure. I like Craig and I want the series to continue. I want sucess financially. But this doesnt change the facts. Bond was the "Star Wars", "Harry Potter", "Dark Knight", "LOTR" etc in the 60s. It still is sucessfull but not in that way. It would have been in the top 3 if we were in the 60s not just in 10.

[sorking]

There is no end in what you say. You simply say that 60s' numbers and todays numbers or affects or sucess cant be compared. I think they can. You are neglecting the affect of population growth and new markets.

Not at all. I massively acknowledge both. Indeed, they factor into the same point - that direct comparison is impossible.

So far as I can tell you assume the population and market factors allow a direct relationship to the modern numbers for one reason: because you want them to.

Thinking that one factor basically equals another is an opinion, not a fact. Show me numbers that prove one directly allows the other and I'd happy eat an Aston!

If so what happened in 1969 (OHMSS) or 1974 (TMWTGG) ? Its simple they underperformed with previous and some upcoming films. And just look at the 80s. The dark age of Bond. I liked what was produced but not too many liked it. LTK was a flop, not maybe financiallly but with LTK they came to an end of going down and down in the 80s. and we paid it with 6 years.

I'm not sure what your point is here. "What happened in 1969"? A film made less than expected, performed less well to it's immediate predecessor. I'm not disputing that anywhere am I?

'Underperform' is a reasonable term when based on expectation of the producers at the time, and when comparing a film to one released within a couple of years of the last one. Any more than five yours and you have to make some adjustments to your criteria. Ten years, and those adjustments become major. 40, and you're basically into science fiction; the models required need to be infinitely sophisticated. "I think this is probably about the same" doesn't cut it.

"Underperformed compared to the 60s" is a nonsense statement. It doesn't mean anything and is wholly unprovable when you factor in any small amount of reasonable 'real life' criteria such as listed here by myself and others.

If you look at previous posts you will see that I want the sucess of QOS not failure. I like Craig and I want the series to continue. I want sucess financially. But this doesnt change the facts. Bond was the "Star Wars", "Harry Potter", "Dark Knight", "LOTR" etc in the 60s. It still is sucessfull but not in that way. It would have been in the top 3 if we were in the 60s not just in 10.

But would it have been if the films had started in 1920 and Connery was the sixth 007?

You see my point - you're comparing the 22nd film in a series with the second Batman. (Or, okay, the 6th if we play fair, since both series include a reboot.) You're comparing two worlds that differ hugely, and saying it's okay because you think you can.

I wouldn't get away with saying "I think QoS has made 900 million" because it's provably untrue. Believing a thing isn't enough, and I see no proof that the change in available audience directly equals - one to one - a negation of both mass media alternatives AND a half-century of cultural influence.

I agree - still - with you that Potter is a good model. But it doesn't mean it all lines up exactly and we can make sweeping statements.

[blueman]

What M told Bond in GE, about being a dinosaur, is true about the series to a certain extant: with societal changes since the 50s/60s, Bond doesn't hit all the pop-culture notes that say a Spiderman does today. Audiences seem to like their heros to dress up these days, or at least push greater envelops of reality ("Wanted," "Shoot 'Em Up," "Crank," etc.). Bond himself kinda ushered in that sensibility back in the 70s with TSWLM and MR (only to have that rascal Indy run away with it, lol). As markets expanded - in all sorts of ways re above posts - so did offerings, and I think Bond settled into relative complacency, best summed up by Brosnan's films. Not such a bad thing, but not the trailblazer (and BO champ) that the series once had been (nor to be exected these days, again re the above reasons posted).

The more gritty and realistic heros have been few and far between of late. "Die Hard" sorta kicked that off, but Hollywood didn't seem to get it right off and settled for buddy pics, it seems ("Lethal Weapons" all over the place). The Bourne films stand out as not the norm - I doubt anybody predicted the hit the first one would be become. EON rightly recognized that audiences were there for Bond the way he used to be as much as they were for uberBond, and made the savvy switch to Craig and the reboot. QOS is even more so all the above, and still pulling in that audience - good on EON/Forster/Craig/et al. From recent comments it would seem EON is going to introduce maybe a smidge more of that gool ol' TSWLM OTT stuff, and if handled as well as the heart in CR and the grit in QOS, no reason to think they can't pull it off, maybe even break that elusive $200m modern-era ceiling. Exciting times, great to see the series so strongly forging ahead, instead of paddling around in the soap-opery doldrums ala TWINE/DAD.

IMHO it's a pretty unexpected and amazing thing EON has pulled off with the Craig era, never would've thought they'd go there and do what they've done from looking at the Brosnan years. Very pleased, also pleased that audiences have responded so well to his films, hopefully EON can keep Bond Bond for a while, as it's awesome to have him back after so long.

Rant off.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

"Quantum" is just shy of $80m compared to "Casino Royale"s record-breaking $106m in the UK.


Some people say that QOS underperform in the US, but I think that where really underperform is in the UK

No it it didn't.

The Pound was 1.98 on Dec 1, 2006.

The Pound was 1.48 on Dec 1, 2008.

Q0S didn't underperform at all. The UK Pound did.

My point here, is ...

CR's UK numbers were INFLATED beacuse of an INFLATED Pound in late 2006.

Since then, The Pound is down 25 percent.

Accordingly, Q0S's grosses are also down 25 percent in US Dollar terms.

Excuses more, excuses less...

The thing is, beyond my or your personal taste, CR is overall more popular than QOS, with critics and moviegoers, judging by rottentomatoes.com % and current worldwide box office's dollars - adjusted to inflation- . In fact, this seems to be the only site where Forster's work has its good amount of popularity, and even here is down in the poll.

That that doesn't necessarily make Craig's debut better than its sequel (that's subjective), but you seems that stubborn in deffend your favourite Bond movie until the impposible, that it seems that your missing this reality.

Or you would dare to argue that DAF is more popular than GF?

Of course, you can tell me that you never mention the word popularity, in your posts. But let's be serious, behind all this numbers the thing in discussion is popularity, not personal taste, and it seems that your love for QOS is making you to rise a little bit preposterous arguments.

[Bonita]

A few words about how to enjoy looking at financial figures for movies:

When you want to look at a baseline number as to how movies on initial release stack up, the best number is TICKETS SOLD. That number weeds out inflation.

Many want to say that this number skews towards the 60s. Sure, but that skewing can be seen across the marketplace. ALL films today get DVD releases, television sales, etc. So ALL movies in today's market are impacted by these realities. Thus, according to boxofficemojo.com, Thunderball sold more tickets than The Dark Knight. But Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace, sold $80 million more in tickets. Titanic sold just under $400 million more in tickets! (all of these are domestic figures).

With ticket sales, you can track overall trends. Was this a year with increasing numbers going to the movies? Or fewer people going to the movies? You can track if DVD sales are hurting attendance.

So, if Mary Poppins and The Lion King sell about the same number of tickets, you could certainly argue that The Lion King might have a greater market share, because total admissions were lower in 1994 than 1964, but I don't actually have those numbers.

You can look at ticket sales and do some quick math re: total population, numbers of screens, all sorts of things.

But since we know that despite DVD sales, etc., there still are films, such as Spider-Man, which can sell more TICKETS than say, Goldfinger sold in 1964, we can safely say it is possible for a genre film to be as successful today as Goldfinger was in 1964.

This isn't to say that any Bond film that doesn't do Spider-Man type business ($400 mil domestic, un-adjusted for inflation) is a disappointment, but it isn't unreasonable to aspire to a Bond film that can do at least half the ticket sales of Spider-Man.

Keep dancing...

[dinovelvet]

What M told Bond in GE, about being a dinosaur, is true about the series to a certain extant: with societal changes since the 50s/60s, Bond doesn't hit all the pop-culture notes that say a Spiderman does today. Audiences seem to like their heros to dress up these days, or at least push greater envelops of reality ("Wanted," "Shoot 'Em Up," "Crank," etc.). Bond himself kinda ushered in that sensibility back in the 70s with TSWLM and MR (only to have that rascal Indy run away with it, lol).

I agreed with your post blueman, but I must jump in and say that Wanted wasn't as big as Bond in the US or worldwide (though apparently only cost $75 mil to make, maybe EON could take a cue from that). Shoot 'em up was a box office disaster, making $12 mil in the US, and Crank $27 million (though turned a profit, as it only cost $12 mil to make). So these "hyper" action movies aren't really making it in the mainstream, I suspect its a short lived trend (let's see how Wanted 2 does without Jolie!)

[blueman]

What M told Bond in GE, about being a dinosaur, is true about the series to a certain extant: with societal changes since the 50s/60s, Bond doesn't hit all the pop-culture notes that say a Spiderman does today. Audiences seem to like their heros to dress up these days, or at least push greater envelops of reality ("Wanted," "Shoot 'Em Up," "Crank," etc.). Bond himself kinda ushered in that sensibility back in the 70s with TSWLM and MR (only to have that rascal Indy run away with it, lol).

I agreed with your post blueman, but I must jump in and say that Wanted wasn't as big as Bond in the US or worldwide (though apparently only cost $75 mil to make, maybe EON could take a cue from that). Shoot 'em up was a box office disaster, making $12 mil in the US, and Crank $27 million (though turned a profit, as it only cost $12 mil to make). So these "hyper" action movies aren't really making it in the mainstream, I suspect its a short lived trend (let's see how Wanted 2 does without Jolie!)

Okay, I'll spot you "Shoot 'Em Up." But those other two are getting sequels, like those stupid "Transporter" films... just seems there are much, much more hyper-realism actioners being made these days than, say, "The French Connection" type gritty-realism films. Makes sense with changes in audiences/audiences' tastes IMO. Heck even looking at Bond in the 60s, from DN to YOLT was a massive shift IMO (and while popular a wrong one for Bond, again IMHO).

[Sniperscope]

Excuses more, excuses less...

The thing is, beyond my or your personal taste, CR is overall more popular than QOS, with critics and moviegoers, judging by rottentomatoes.com % and current worldwide box office's dollars - adjusted to inflation- . In fact, this seems to be the only site where Forster's work has its good amount of popularity, and even here is down in the poll.

That that doesn't necessarily make Craig's debut better than its sequel (that's subjective), but you seems that stubborn in deffend your favourite Bond movie until the impposible, that it seems that your missing this reality.

Or you would dare to argue that DAF is more popular than GF?

Of course, you can tell me that you never mention the word popularity, in your posts. But let's be serious, behind all this numbers the thing in discussion is popularity, not personal taste, and it seems that your love for QOS is making you to rise a little bit preposterous arguments.

The reality is Mr A-B that QoS has been a relative success. End of story. Despite all of the negative press it has done extremely well. Your obsession with finding supposed empirical evidence to to support the notion that QoS is a failure is wonky to say the least. You claim that anyone who defends Forster et al is subjective and down to personal tast yet you happily claim the validity of rottentomatoes' ratings but it is also subjective and down to personal taste.. It's a review site for heaven's sake! Now that's "preposterous." Popularity is subjective. It is completely guided by the whims of fashion, zeitgiest and any number of factors that I can't be bothered to list because you should know them. And btw Forster was not the man solely responsible for this film. Have you ever looked at the end credits? To blame Forster for ever deficiency in this film is tiresome and immature. Where's the rant against the sainted Haggis? He wrote the thing afterall.

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 January 2009 - 01:14 AM.

[blueman]

I think it's fair to look at the reviews, but with a critical eye.

Most negative reviews of QOS mirror negative comments here (and on other fan boards), ie it just wasn't what the viewer was expecting for a Bond film. Doesn't tell me whether the film was any good or not, just reflects the reviewers' biases. That many people seemingly share the same biases is not surprising, as the film is definitely not "normal" Bond. Which IMHO is a good - no, great - thing if normal Bond means recent: the dreck of the 80s shellacked with the derivitiveness of the Brosnan films. Bring on more "abnormal" Bonds!

[sorking]

But since we know that despite DVD sales, etc., there still are films, such as Spider-Man, which can sell more TICKETS than say, Goldfinger sold in 1964, we can safely say it is possible for a genre film to be as successful today as Goldfinger was in 1964.

This isn't to say that any Bond film that doesn't do Spider-Man type business ($400 mil domestic, un-adjusted for inflation) is a disappointment, but it isn't unreasonable to aspire to a Bond film that can do at least half the ticket sales of Spider-Man.

All good and fair points.

Still, I think that aspiration has to be measured against the realities Blueman points out - the zeitgeist that created 007 doesn't exist any longer, and while it bends to fit the culture, it can only bend so far - and the enviable problem of having such a huge legacy.

With Bond movies so ubiquitous, with two-dozen films on TV rotation and a sense of 'seen one seen 'em all' among the public (not to mention a harsh critical expectation where everybody has their ideal Bond film in their head)...well, it's enough to be at the top at all.

It'd be nice to do insane money, but sheer ubiquity pretty much prevents that from happening. Still being atop the box office, across magazine covers and front pages after 22 films, and yet described by some as underperforming...it's crazy. Because it's unlike anything. Ever.

Seriously, running this long and still being this huge is unprecedented. It's miraculous and bizarre. What franchises get close? Horror movies mostly - Nightmare of Elm Street or Friday the 13th. Which progress with lowering budgets, lowering returns, and eventually obscurity, a remake, and sequels that you hope make their money back on DVD.

In world where Planet of the Apes went from huge cultural shockwave to crappy finale in five films - plus one weak 'reimagining' - here we are worrying about being only just in the top ten for the year after film 22. About whether a few million one way or the other means this film is more or less vital than the last.

We're the most spoiled, lucky fanbase in the world.

Edited by sorking, 10 January 2009 - 01:53 AM.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I wish this thread was about the 'Quantum of Solace' - Box Art Details instead.