1228 replies to this topic

[blueman]

To what do you contribute that smallish discrepancy, bonita? Seems about right for CR's more crowd-pleasing love story to have made a few quid more than QOS's darker revenge tale, at least to me anyway. It's not uncommon for back-to-back Bonds, both very similar yet with a small difference or two, to have slightly differing BO numbers... I'm thinking of GF and TB, and TSWLM and MR - both examples of the earlier (and better IMO) film earning less, and understandably so in those two instances IMO. Doesn't make GF and TSWLM lesser efforts, does it?

[Jim]

Ah, the joy of catching up...

Some pages ago, Hilderbrand resorted to his long-disproved argument that Bond's worldwide total for QoS is only down in the UK because of exchange rates. In the post in question, he asserted that QoS had made the same amount in the UK as CR. This is simply false and wrong.

Casino Royale made 55.5 million POUNDS in the UK.

As of January 2, QoS had made less than 51 million POUNDS in the UK.

This number is SMALLER than CR's number. Since Hilderbrand wanted to mock the potential math skills of those making statements about international numbers, we should ask him:

Has QoS made MORE or LESS money in the UK than CR?

Have ticket prices in the UK gone UP or DOWN between Nov. 2006 and Nov. 2008?

Was it CORRECT or INCORRECT to say that the difference between the UK grosses was due to exchange rate fluctuations?

Was it HONEST or DISHONEST to proclaim that QoS was performing at the same level as CR in the UK?

Could your 13 YEAR OLD figure out that there is an easily quantifiable difference between 55.5 and 51?

Hopefully, we can now return to some relatively more polite exchanges, because some rude sods should hopefully either shut up, apologize for their tone, or at least be a bit more civil and less mocking.

Keep dancing...

...and so the good-natured fun continues into another week.

Unless, believing all this sterile sniping to be contrary to the forum rules, I shut the thread.

[HildebrandRarity]

Ah, the joy of catching up...

Some pages ago, Hilderbrand resorted to his long-disproved argument that Bond's worldwide total for QoS is only down in the UK because of exchange rates. In the post in question, he asserted that QoS had made the same amount in the UK as CR. This is simply false and wrong.

Casino Royale made 55.5 million POUNDS in the UK.

As of January 2, QoS had made less than 51 million POUNDS in the UK.

This number is SMALLER than CR's number. Since Hilderbrand wanted to mock the potential math skills of those making statements about international numbers, we should ask him:

Has QoS made MORE or LESS money in the UK than CR?

Have ticket prices in the UK gone UP or DOWN between Nov. 2006 and Nov. 2008?

Was it CORRECT or INCORRECT to say that the difference between the UK grosses was due to exchange rate fluctuations?

Was it HONEST or DISHONEST to proclaim that QoS was performing at the same level as CR in the UK?

Could your 13 YEAR OLD figure out that there is an easily quantifiable difference between 55.5 and 51?

Hopefully, we can now return to some relatively more polite exchanges, because some rude sods should hopefully either shut up, apologize for their tone, or at least be a bit more civil and less mocking.

Keep dancing...

...and so the good-natured fun continues into another week.

Unless, believing all this sterile sniping to be contrary to the forum rules, I shut the thread.

http://www.imdb.com/...12-19&region=uk

It's good to use pre-Christmas data, isn't it? Using the number from December 19th as per above, no doubt, helps your post

LOL!

Now, pay attention and note the following:

http://www.boxoffice...2...k=01&p=.htm

Now, do the following:

Take the $79,953,825 number and divide by the exchange rate used at the top of the page i.e. 0.6879 and tell me what you get.

You should be getting 55,000,000. If not, then something's definitely wrong.



So, if both movies are around 55,000,000 Pounds, what factor, other than the Pound falling so dramatically, accounts for one being 108,000,000 dollars and the other being 80,000,000 dollars?

Why do you continue to dispute the fact that the Pound has declined hard, thus impacting UK box office numbers when reported in US dollars? It's a fact.

Lastly, Q0S is still playing in UK theatres, so there's more still to come from it.

[HildebrandRarity]

...maybe if you try really hard, you could find a 'mathematical' way to put your favourite Bond movie as more successful at the BO than TB.

Actually, i've made no secret of my admiration of/for Thunderball and Connery's performance in it. I have said many times that Connery's performance in Thunderball is about on par with Daniel Craig as Bond.

Thunderball, in fact, was my favourite James Bond movie for decades...until Daniel Craig came along, perhaps superior if you view Bond as the pantherine predator exhibiting extreme sexual machismo and magnetism.

I think Thunderball is Top 3 and in there with CR and Q0S...with Q0S having the slight edge.

[Bonita]

Ah, the joy of catching up...

Some pages ago, Hilderbrand resorted to his long-disproved argument that Bond's worldwide total for QoS is only down in the UK because of exchange rates. In the post in question, he asserted that QoS had made the same amount in the UK as CR. This is simply false and wrong.

Casino Royale made 55.5 million POUNDS in the UK.

As of January 2, QoS had made less than 51 million POUNDS in the UK.

This number is SMALLER than CR's number. Since Hilderbrand wanted to mock the potential math skills of those making statements about international numbers, we should ask him:

Has QoS made MORE or LESS money in the UK than CR?

Have ticket prices in the UK gone UP or DOWN between Nov. 2006 and Nov. 2008?

Was it CORRECT or INCORRECT to say that the difference between the UK grosses was due to exchange rate fluctuations?

Was it HONEST or DISHONEST to proclaim that QoS was performing at the same level as CR in the UK?

Could your 13 YEAR OLD figure out that there is an easily quantifiable difference between 55.5 and 51?

Hopefully, we can now return to some relatively more polite exchanges, because some rude sods should hopefully either shut up, apologize for their tone, or at least be a bit more civil and less mocking.

Keep dancing...

...and so the good-natured fun continues into another week.

Unless, believing all this sterile sniping to be contrary to the forum rules, I shut the thread.

http://www.imdb.com/...12-19&region=uk

It's good to use pre-Christmas data, isn't it? Using the number from December 19th as per above, no doubt, helps your post

LOL!

Now, pay attention and note the following:

http://www.boxoffice...2...k=01&p=.htm

Now, do the following:

Take the $79,953,825 number and divide by the exchange rate used at the top of the page i.e. 0.6879 and tell me what you get.

You should be getting 55,000,000. If not, then something's definitely wrong.



So, if both movies are around 55,000,000 Pounds, what factor, other than the Pound falling so dramatically, accounts for one being 108,000,000 dollars and the other being 80,000,000 dollars?

Why do you continue to dispute the fact that the Pound has declined hard, thus impacting UK box office numbers when reported in US dollars? It's a fact.

Lastly, Q0S is still playing in UK theatres, so there's more still to come from it.

Dear Hildy,

In the UK, they use a currency called the POUND STERLING. They actually collect this form of money in exchange for tickets. Without any conversions necessary, they KEEP TRACK of box office grosses in the UK using POUNDS STERLING.

So rather than using IMDB's exchange rate, then trying to convert it back, why not do what I've been saying: check out the grosses in the original currency. I think it was pretty obvious this is what I was doing. My data is from UK Box Office, January 1-4, 2009. Should I now "Laugh out loud" at you, or simply shake my head.

Go to: http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/15097

This is the UK government site.

And since QoS pulled in a whopping 164,055 POUNDS that weekend, I think we can work under the assumption, wild speculation though it may be, that the film will not go on to do another four million pounds before dropping out of the 125 cinemas where it is still playing.

So, now that you've been handed a little first-hand evidence, answer the questions I asked.

And...just think about not being quite so mocking in your tone, because you can be made a fool much less easier if you are not quite so cocky.

Keep dancing...

[HildebrandRarity]

Ok, fine. You win.

Happy?

Q0S is the worst piece of garbage ever and it's done horribly in the UK and it's going to be pulled from UK cinemas tonight and the difference between 51 Mil Pounds Stirling and 55 Million Pounds stirling is what accounts for Q0S doing $80 Mil v CR doing $108 Mil.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

...maybe if you try really hard, you could find a 'mathematical' way to put your favourite Bond movie as more successful at the BO than TB.

Actually, i've made no secret of my admiration of/for Thunderball and Connery's performance in it. I have said many times that Connery's performance in Thunderball is about on par with Daniel Craig as Bond.

Thunderball, in fact, was my favourite James Bond movie for decades...until Daniel Craig came along, perhaps superior if you view Bond as the pantherine predator exhibiting extreme sexual machismo and magnetism.

I think Thunderball is Top 3 and in there with CR and Q0S...with Q0S having the slight edge.

HildebrandRarity, tell me, do you're intentionally missing the core of my point (again) because you can't handle it, or you definitely don't understand a little of sarcasm??

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Ok, fine. You win.

Happy?

Q0S is the worst piece of garbage ever and it's done horribly in the UK and it's going to be pulled from UK cinemas tonight and the difference between 51 Mil Pounds Stirling and 55 Million Pounds stirling is what accounts for Q0S doing $80 Mil v CR doing $108 Mil.

That’s a very mature response.

I don't want to sound condescending, but part of growing up, is learn to accept different views and that your personal taste (in this case QOS), doesn't have to be popular with everybody- for instance, if someone said that CR isn’t flawless I don’t get mad, because even I can recognize that my favourite Bond movie is far from perfection-. When you learn to deal with that, you will not longer feel the necessity to make forced 'arguments' to defend even the impossible.

I don't have any problem to discuss with any other fan of QOS (or any other movie), but your posts are becoming increasingly unreasonable.

[HildebrandRarity]

Tell you what...i'll not post anything in this thread for a week so that you and the others can enjoy bashing the movie without my interference.

Have fun.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Tell you what...i'll not post anything in this thread for a week so that you and the others can enjoy bashing the movie without my interference.

Have fun.

Bashing??

The world is not in black & white. Personally, I like QOS, but I don't love it. I think it's a good movie, but definitely not great, others bond fans hate it, love it, mildly dislike it, etc. But if you prefer to see the things with the predicament of who aren't with me are against me, well, that's your thing.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 11 January 2009 - 07:24 PM.

[YOLT]

I love boxoffice part the most Begining from atleast 3 months from relase to atleast 3 months after it, an all-time high disscussion thread. Full of both numbers and emotions. It seems we will be here until March I think, when we can see the final number.

[blueman]

Always funny reading the various "I didn't like it so it'll tank at the BO" and "EON will have to change its tune" posts. Even the "I thought it was fine but yadda yadda yadda" posts are amusing, gotta qualify everything it seems (and yes I do it too). Seems the only peeps who are truly unhappy about QOS's BO:

- A couple Sony execs, guess they never looked at other recent Bond follow-ups

- Some critics, who were expecting Craig to straighten his tie and talk dirty

- Charitable-minded fans, who liked it but don't think it's all that good

QOS could've been Campbellized and made more money, sure, but glad EON trusted this one to a better director and we got the film that we did ($200m ceiling be damned! ). Considering this is the most successful follow-up in this modern era, EON would be wise to make 23 along similar lines (can't wait for the spinning heads to launch into orbit over that, he he).

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

QOS could've been Campbellized and made more money, sure, but glad EON trusted this one to a better director and we got the film that we did ($200m ceiling be damned! ). Considering this is the most successful follow-up in this modern era, EON would be wise to make 23 along similar lines (can't wait for the spinning heads to launch into orbit over that, he he).

When you say 'Campbellized', you're talking about the option of have made QOS with less trendy-bournesque action sequences??

[Bondian]

Anyone know the figures of the toffee/salted popcorn sales?

[Safari Suit]

I believe the popcorn sold better than toffee.

[MrKidd]

Hilly, don’t get upset – noone’s bashing your ‘near masterpiece’ – seriously nobody is. In fact, I think everyone you’ve got annoyed with has liked the movie. Ok that’s not true of Dog Bond – but she’s perfectly entitled to her opinion, isn’t she? I believe the point being made is BO. Biggest opening weekend by FAR, scraped past CR total. This makes QOS, a hit – yes, a hit, a big one in Bond terms, so calm down & don’t fret, people still like James Bond, but a hit that has disappointed relative to its potential. Did you know that out of the top 50 all time openers – the only movies to have a lower ‘multiplier’ are Hulk (the original one), the Simpsons (atually the same multiplier as QOS)), X-men 3 and Spiderman 3 – all acknowledged to be disappointments by most (I believe). Interesting too that it’s now been released that total BO is actually slightly up/stable from last year. Attendance is 4% lower but ticket prices have gone up – so you’re deflation/recession theory doesn’t look so ‘obvious’ now does it?
I don’t know why you’ve got yourself so emotional – its pretty self evident.

Anyhow, the real controversy is the popcorn-toffee debate. The only way you can say popcorn has most sales is if you count concession sales rather than pick-n-mix. Toffee sales have a natural ceiling in North America and demand for popcorn is directly linked to the weakening pound against dollar. And if you say otherwise then its just because you hate toffee and want to see the bad old days of Werthers originals

Edited by MrKidd, 12 January 2009 - 12:03 AM.

[blueman]

Hilly, don’t get upset – noone’s bashing your ‘near masterpiece’ – seriously nobody is. In fact, I think everyone you’ve got annoyed with has liked the movie. Ok that’s not true of Dog Bond – but she’s perfectly entitled to her opinion, isn’t she? I believe the point being made is BO. Biggest opening weekend by FAR, scraped past CR total. This makes QOS, a hit – yes, a hit, a big one in Bond terms, so calm down & don’t fret, people still like James Bond, but a hit that has disappointed relative to its potential. Did you know that out of the top 50 all time openers – the only movies to have a lower ‘multiplier’ are Hulk (the original one), the Simpsons, X-men 3 and Spiderman 3 – all acknowledged to be disappointments by most (I believe). Interesting too that it’s now been released that total BO is actually slightly up/stable from last year. Attendance is 4% lower but ticket prices have gone up – so you’re deflation/recession theory doesn’t look so ‘obvious’ now does it?
I don’t know why you’ve got yourself so emotional – its pretty self evident.

Also amazing - with so many things "wrong" about QOS, how/why did audiences take to it so well? A so-so actioner that was a "bad" Bond film... just doesn't make sense. Guess it's just one of those $550m anomalies.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Anyhow, the real controversy is the popcorn-toffee debate. The only way you can say popcorn has most sales is if you count concession sales rather than pick-n-mix. Toffee sales have a natural ceiling in North America and demand for popcorn is directly linked to the weakening pound against dollar. And if you say otherwise then its just because you hate toffee and want to see the bad old days of Werthers originals

I think the mathematical result of all this contorversy, should finally prove that QOS is the biggest Bond of them all at the BO (and in the hearts of the entire population of the world)!!

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

'Quantum of Solace' Contributes To Record UK Box Office In '08

Bond, The Bat and ABBA rule the box office

Tell you what...i'll not post anything in this thread for a week so that you and the others can enjoy bashing the movie without my interference.

Have fun.

Let's all try to calm down in here. Above all else, it's only money and not even our own.

[blueman]

Anyhow, the real controversy is the popcorn-toffee debate. The only way you can say popcorn has most sales is if you count concession sales rather than pick-n-mix. Toffee sales have a natural ceiling in North America and demand for popcorn is directly linked to the weakening pound against dollar. And if you say otherwise then its just because you hate toffee and want to see the bad old days of Werthers originals

I think the mathematical result of all this contorversy, should finally prove that QOS is the biggest Bond of them all at the BO (and in the hearts of the entire population of the world)!!

Throwing in the towel, too? Wise man.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Anyhow, the real controversy is the popcorn-toffee debate. The only way you can say popcorn has most sales is if you count concession sales rather than pick-n-mix. Toffee sales have a natural ceiling in North America and demand for popcorn is directly linked to the weakening pound against dollar. And if you say otherwise then its just because you hate toffee and want to see the bad old days of Werthers originals

I think the mathematical result of all this contorversy, should finally prove that QOS is the biggest Bond of them all at the BO (and in the hearts of the entire population of the world)!!

Throwing in the towel, too? Wise man.

Just throwing a theory that could be acceptable for some QOS fans

[blueman]

Anyhow, the real controversy is the popcorn-toffee debate. The only way you can say popcorn has most sales is if you count concession sales rather than pick-n-mix. Toffee sales have a natural ceiling in North America and demand for popcorn is directly linked to the weakening pound against dollar. And if you say otherwise then its just because you hate toffee and want to see the bad old days of Werthers originals

I think the mathematical result of all this contorversy, should finally prove that QOS is the biggest Bond of them all at the BO (and in the hearts of the entire population of the world)!!

Throwing in the towel, too? Wise man.

Just throwing a theory that could be acceptable for some QOS fans

I misread you then, thought it was all nonsense... I couldn't follow it anyway. Then again I'm one of those lost souls who actually liked QOS, so feel free to write me off (along with the other losers who so wrongheadedly contributed to that $550m, boy are we stupid! ).

[jaguar007]

The Popcorn sales greatly outweighed the Toffee sales. I like popcorn, toffee is crap. People mearely wanted to TRY the toffee, but most went back to the original popcorn.

Seriously, So what if QoS made slightly less money than CR! FYEO made much less money than MR, TMWTGG made less than LALD etc, but the Bond film series continued. QoS was still a great success and rest assured, unless a meteor hits the planet and destroys earth - there will be a Bond 23 and that is all that matters.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Anyhow, the real controversy is the popcorn-toffee debate. The only way you can say popcorn has most sales is if you count concession sales rather than pick-n-mix. Toffee sales have a natural ceiling in North America and demand for popcorn is directly linked to the weakening pound against dollar. And if you say otherwise then its just because you hate toffee and want to see the bad old days of Werthers originals

I think the mathematical result of all this contorversy, should finally prove that QOS is the biggest Bond of them all at the BO (and in the hearts of the entire population of the world)!!

Throwing in the towel, too? Wise man.

Just throwing a theory that could be acceptable for some QOS fans

I misread you then, thought it was all nonsense... I couldn't follow it anyway. Then again I'm one of those lost souls who actually liked QOS, so feel free to write me off (along with the other losers who so wrongheadedly contributed to that $550m, boy are we stupid! ).

Well, I couldn't write you off, 'cause, as any good Bond fan, I also contributed to that $550m. But in that opportunity, I didn't left the multiplex feeling that I had just watched a near-masterpiece, I just thought that I had watched a mildly good Bond movie... please, don't feel that I loose my mind for make that judgment.

[blueman]

Anyhow, the real controversy is the popcorn-toffee debate. The only way you can say popcorn has most sales is if you count concession sales rather than pick-n-mix. Toffee sales have a natural ceiling in North America and demand for popcorn is directly linked to the weakening pound against dollar. And if you say otherwise then its just because you hate toffee and want to see the bad old days of Werthers originals

I think the mathematical result of all this contorversy, should finally prove that QOS is the biggest Bond of them all at the BO (and in the hearts of the entire population of the world)!!

Throwing in the towel, too? Wise man.

Just throwing a theory that could be acceptable for some QOS fans

I misread you then, thought it was all nonsense... I couldn't follow it anyway. Then again I'm one of those lost souls who actually liked QOS, so feel free to write me off (along with the other losers who so wrongheadedly contributed to that $550m, boy are we stupid! ).

Well, I couldn't write you off, 'cause, as any good Bond fan, I also contributed to that $550m. But in that opportunity, I didn't left the multiplex feeling that I had just watched a near-masterpiece, I just thought that I had watched a mildly good Bond movie... please, don't feel that I loose my mind for make that judgment.

Nah, that's fair.

[Bonita]

Ahhh, it feels more civil in here already.

Someone asked me what I thought was the reason for the dip in UK box office, and whether this was love story vs. revenge. I think both kinds of films can do very well at the box office: Death Wish and Walking Tall were huge revenge film hits in the 1970s, for example. But that may be it. The more I personally think about it, I believe that there were some major audience attachment issues with the action editing, a feeling that the villain wasn't big enough, and not enough people who were prepared for such a direct sequel.

I loved the film. I found parts confusing. I still can't swear I know what Mathis and Bond meant talking about "cover names." It took me four viewings to "see" the two shots of M leaving the interrogation room, but it still looks like she got shot at one point. I was three viewings in before I realized Camille was pulling the pistol from under her skirt on the boat with General Medrano. I still don't know what Bond does that makes the last Zodiac flip in the air. First time I saw the film, I'm wondering which guy is hanging upside down near the floor and who is on the scaffolding. Now, I'm willing to forgive this stuff because, well, I love this character and I'll see the film more than once and other aspects of the script blew me away. But more casual fans, I think once you lose them, they can enjoy parts of the film just fine, but they aren't coming back a second time with their buddies or girlfriends saying, you gotta see this!

The part that is so infuriating to me personally, is that all these things could have easily been fixed.

But I could be wrong.

BTW, the weekend estimates are out in the US. Bond is not on the list having failed to crack the top 35 films in release. Same weekend 2007 for Casino Royale, well, let's just say that it was still doing over a million a weekend through the weekend of January 19th.

As others note, the good news is that the film didn't bomb. Quite the contrary, it made more money than I'm likely to ever see in my lifetime. And they will make another one.

Keep dancing...

[Bonita]

One more thing...

I was thinking about a way to illustrate why the box office fall off is so frustrating to the studio.

Think about it this way:
If Quantum of Solace had done the exact same business of Casino Royale AFTER opening weekend (where Quantum makes $67 mil and Casino makes only $40 million), Quantum's total box office would have been $194 million. And if your film opened bigger than the previous film, you might expect it to do at least as well as its predecessor for the remainder of its run.

Keep dancing...

[blueman]

One more thing...

I was thinking about a way to illustrate why the box office fall off is so frustrating to the studio.

Think about it this way:
If Quantum of Solace had done the exact same business of Casino Royale AFTER opening weekend (where Quantum makes $67 mil and Casino makes only $40 million), Quantum's total box office would have been $194 million. And if your film opened bigger than the previous film, you might expect it to do at least as well as its predecessor for the remainder of its run.

Keep dancing...

But for the type of story it is compared to CR, it's a small and expected drop. IMHO. If there were widespread issues with audiences having trouble following the story or action, I'd expect a much more severe drop. Isn't there.

In the end, QOS is performing at the BO like a modern Bond should, no more no less.

[dinovelvet]

BTW, the weekend estimates are out in the US. Bond is not on the list having failed to crack the top 35 films in release. Same weekend 2007 for Casino Royale, well, let's just say that it was still doing over a million a weekend through the weekend of January 19th.

It hasn't failed to crack anything; Sony just hasn't put out the info, or probably aren't tracking it. They got their "QOS is the highest grossing Bond movie ever" headline, and I dare say aren't too bothered in keeping track of the last remaining $3-$4 million that will trickle in.
There are also no theater counts on BOM, but moviefone shows it is in eight theaters within a 25 mile radius of me, so its still out there, and its not suddenly going to go from over $1.1 mil last weekend to zero (or less than the $17,500 made by "Wendy and Lucy" from five theatres)

[sorking]

One more thing...

I was thinking about a way to illustrate why the box office fall off is so frustrating to the studio.

Think about it this way:
If Quantum of Solace had done the exact same business of Casino Royale AFTER opening weekend (where Quantum makes $67 mil and Casino makes only $40 million), Quantum's total box office would have been $194 million. And if your film opened bigger than the previous film, you might expect it to do at least as well as its predecessor for the remainder of its run.

Keep dancing...

Well to be fair, I doubt they hold to a simple 'bigger opening equals bigger take' expectation. The film's a direct sequel and as such, given the success of CR, you'd expect the BO to be front-loaded. I doubt the money men hadn't accounted for that in their expectations.

One doesn't expect all films to follow the same, simple pattern.