1228 replies to this topic

[A Kristatos]

Arlington, my friend, you really have a warped view of the world of movies.

The film cost only around $100 Million and will make more then $1 Billion when all the chips are counted. In case you need more understanding, $1 Billion is $1,000 Million.

So Q0S is actually an outstanding success. No other Bond movie or motion picture in 2008 had that much money given to it by multi-national conglomerates.

Use your intelligence, my friend. Look at the big picture, Arlington.

HildebrandRarity, always so 'polite' in your posts and 'restrained' in your judgments.
I don't going to argue with your patronizing attitude in math, until you show some maturity (anyhow, if you are actually still a child... my apologies).

If you want to believe that QOS is perfect in every aspect including BO, then you're free to think that QOS even bigger than TB at the BO, through some forced calculation of numbers. Personally I'm capable to accept that my personal tastes doesn't have to be perfects.

Yes but there's no point in comparing Thunderball to Quantum Of Solace, eventhough they are 2 of my 3 favourite Bond films.

It's like comparing Ben-Hur to Gladiator...two movies that were over 40 years apart from a box office point of view.

Thunderball had a budget of $7 million and grossed about $155 Million over months and years. It's profits (half of gross minus cost) of about $70 million were enjoyed by the participants 40 odd years ago.

Quantum only cost $100 Million and will have generated about $575 million in two or three months. It's profit (575/2 - 100) of about $185 million PLUS another $500 million to come from rentals, cable, terrestrial tv deals and in-flight deals plus first-run dvd sales and double dips, not to mention sales of the game on XBox and DS, far outsrips Thunderball profits.

You see?

Q0S is the MOST PROFITABLE BOND MOVIE EVER!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but according wikipedia QOS didn't cost $100 million but $230, more than the double, as you can see.

Just what is it with your constant attempts to prove QOS an underperformer Mr. Beech? I've been reading this thread on and off the last two months and all I see is your obsession to point out how "bad" this movie has been in order to defend your dislike for it! Come on! It's the number grossing Bond movie of all time, and still top 10 when you adjust for inflation!

Why don't you try to do something more constructive for a change?!

Edited by A Kristatos, 27 January 2009 - 04:01 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Just what is it with your constant attempts to prove QOS an underperformer Mr. Beech? I've been reading this thread on and off the last two months and all I see is your obsession to point out how "bad" this movie has been in order to defend your dislike for it! Come on! It's the number grossing Bond movie of all time, and still top 10 when you adjust for inflation!

Why don't you try to do something more constructive for a change?!

If you have been reading carefully my posts you will notice that I have stated several times that I like QOS, and I have never said it's a failure, but a mild successe between the context of the EON series. I mean if I affirm that of a film that it's in the 9th spot among 22 entries, I believe is a mathematical observation, not a judgment.

QOS it's not my fauvorite Bond movie, but definitely it's not one I dislike (If you ask me the only one that I dislike is LTK, and even so I see it from time to time, 'cause it's a proper Bond flick after all. Besides that, I despise a little of the Brosnan era, but that's it. I like all the rest of the 007's films).

The things is that being a fan of something, in this case Bond movies, doesn't make me blind in front of the reality of these films. For instance, my favourite Bond movie is CR, but I don't have problems with admit that isn't flawless, and that its success was important at the BO, but not as huge as the likes of TB or GF. And all of this, doesn't prevent me to love CR.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 27 January 2009 - 08:34 AM.

[blueman]

Got it.

Meanwhile, QOS is looking to finish around $580m worldwide. Coolness.

[HildebrandRarity]

I mean if I affirm that of a film that it's in the 9th spot among 22 entries, I believe is a mathematical observation, not a judgment.


The things is that being a fan of something, in this case Bond movies, doesn't make me blind in front of the reality of these films. For instance, my favourite Bond movie is CR, but I don't have problems with admit that isn't flawless, and that its success was important at the BO, but not as huge as the likes of TB or GF. And all of this, doesn't prevent me to love CR.

If I may be so polite as to provide you with an extraobservation: You're NOT making a full mathematical observation when you bring in Goldfinger and Thunderball into the debate that involves films 45 years apart...and, honestly, you are somewhat 'being blind in terms of the reality' of the box office/post-box office of the films from 1964/5. And here's why:

Those films from the mid 60s didn't make any money from dvd rentals, cable rentals, in-flight movie deals and game licences...PLUS...they didn't get 50 Million Pounds from Ford, Coca Cola, Avon, Heineken Plisner, Smirnoff, Omega, Sony Ericson, etc. like Q0S did.

Why do you not want to take this into consideration? Even Casino Royale didn't get the enormous amounts of money that Q0S got from the corporate tie-in partners or from the gaming licence sales to XBox and Nintendo.

Why don't you want to be more objective about this, Arlington? Do you not see the enormous profitability of Q0S, especially beyond the box office (which, adjusted to the value of the Pound in the UK, will have even made MORE than CR)?

I fail to understand why you don't want to take ALL factors into consideration.

[SPOTTER]

You cannot compare films at the box office. You can do it for fun using the ticket inflation rule but it is NOT very accurate. I repeat it is NOT very accurate!

Some people on here are taking these inflated figures a little too seriously. QOS is not in 9th place in the Bond series. God knows where it is. The average price for a cinema ticket on BOX OFFICE MOJO etc is in dollars. These are not accurate figures, only rough guides and to be honest there not even that. In the U.K. QOS is currently £4 miilion behind CR's final gross. CR's total of £55 million in 2006 was worth $106 million U.S. QOS's £51 million is currently worth only $80 million. Surely people realise that £4 million is not $26 million so what's happening boys and girls? The pound is NOT worth as much in 2008 as it was worth in 2006!

Someone else has also mentioned about The Dark Knight taking £49 million in the U.K. to QOS's £51 million but the former is ahead in dollars. You cannot even compare films that are released in the same year because what I have just written is proof of what a difference a few months can make.


I would like to know how many people have seen QOS compared to CR. That would be interesting. I think the figures would be a lot closer than people think.(I will repeat this one more time. YOU CANNOT FIND THIS FIGURE BY USING THE TICKET INFLATION METHOD, DUH!)

When I'm next on here I don't want to see anymore QOS being compared to TB and all that nonsense. It cannot be done. We are living in a completly different world. Things are done a lot differently. You can only look at each film individually. If a film has made more than it has cost then it has done well. It is successful. You can't say that the people at SONY expected $700 million + for QOS and were really gutted when it didn't happen. That is twaddle! James Bond is a massive franchise. QOS is going to make the suits an absolute fortune with dvds, tv deals ect, etc and that's all there is to it.

[HildebrandRarity]

People who want to compare Thunderball to Quantum Of Solace should ask themselves the following:

How much money did Thunderball make in dvd/blu-ray rentals, cable tv rentals, in-flight movie deals and XBox/Nintendo game licence sales back in 1965 and 1966?

Care to provide a dollar figure for the above?

Let me provide a hint: No one had video players of any kind. There was no cable tv. Movies were not shown on flights. There was no Thunderball video game.

Unlike today, people had no choice but to go see the movie at the theatre. They didn't have the choice of in-home viewings only 4 months after release...

[dee-bee-five]

People who want to compare Thunderball to Quantum Of Solace should ask themselves the following:

How much money did Thunderball make in dvd/blu-ray rentals, cable tv rentals, in-flight movie deals and XBox/Nintendo game licence sales back in 1965 and 1966?

Care to provide a dollar figure for the above?

Let me provide a hint: No one had video players of any kind. There was no cable tv. Movies were not shown on flights. There was no Thunderball video game.

Unlike today, people had no choice but to go see the movie at the theatre. They didn't have the choice of in-home viewings only 4 months after release...

Quite. It's absurd to compare the box office takings of films made 43 years apart. It proves nothing and makes as much sense as comparing the box office returns of Thunderball with one of the hits of 1922...

[HildebrandRarity]

Quite. It's absurd to compare the box office takings of films made 43 years apart.

But they still do...It's as if they get this preverse sexual pleasure from doing so. A kind of fetish for numerical masturbation.

[blueman]

Yeah, that's why I kinda just look at the modern era Bonds, from GE on. Although at some point that'll need to be adjusted, sure. The all-time ranking of admissions is also kinda interesting.

Comparing GE/TND and CR/QOS: inflation-adjusted, TND made about $60m less than GE; right now QOS is about $80m behind CR's inflation-adjusted total. If Japan coughs up $20m as expected we're looking at remarkably similar numbers. Par for the course - except as Hildy points out QOS has the most tie-in money of any Bond, bet that matters to somebody's pocketbook.

[HildebrandRarity]

The all-time ranking of admissions is also kinda interesting.

The thing about admissions is that in the 1960s there was no hope of watching a movie anywhere but at the cinema in which blockbusters played for months and months and even a whole year or more. The 1960s Bonds didn't make it to tv until the 1970s!

Now, you can wait about 4 or 5 months and see it at home on various formats. There's a lot of choice.

How do you 'adjust' for the above significant change in viewing patterns?

[blueman]

Yup. That's why it's only interesting, and not gospel.

[dee-bee-five]

How do you 'adjust' for the above significant change in viewing patterns?

You can't. Which makes these comparisons, as you rightly suggest, pointless. When I was a kid, back in the late 60s/early 70s, you grabbed your chance to see a Bond when it first came out because, unless it came round in a double bill, you weren't going to see it again as they hadn't even started showing on TV then.

And let's take this away from Bond for a moment and look at Mamma Mia! Everyone's going on about what a big hit it's been. Deservedly so in my book because it's a hoot. But if we were to compare it with The Sound of Music (released the same year as Thunderball), making the same adjustments for inflation, I reckon we would see the same pattern as in the QoS/TB comparisons.

Times change. And viewing patterns change. Thirty years ago Coronation Street topped the ratings with 27 million viewers. Now it's lucky if it gets 11 million. But it still tops the ratings...

It seems pretty desperate stuff to try and "prove" QoS has underperformed, as some appear intent on doing, by referring to the box office/admissions of Thunderball. Stable mates they might be but it is not a like-for-like comparison.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Quite. It's absurd to compare the box office takings of films made 43 years apart.

But they still do...It's as if they get this preverse sexual pleasure from doing so. A kind of fetish for numerical masturbation.

No, I don't get a " preverse sexual pleasure from doing so or a kind of fetish for numerical masturbation". But I whish you luck in that type of pursuing, if you finally get that 'invitation', that you want from Dog Bond....just kidding!!

... I don't care about profitability, let's that EON (or Danjaq for that case) and the studios involved analyze that. As a fan I really care about the popularity of the Bond series, that's is expressed in the pure BO results-particularly, I would dare to say, in the admission ones-.

If the producers received $ 100 million I can care less, I mean good for them, but that doesn't make a movie more popular.

And regarding admission even fans of QOS (not you, of course), have showed where QOS really stands... do you need some reminder?? Here it is (courtesy of blueman's post):

"Here's the lastest admissions ranking (worldwide, via some dude over at MI:6, so FWIW), in millions.

1. Thunderball - 166.0
2. Goldfinger - 130.1
3. From Russia with Love - 95.3
4. Live and Let Die - 91.6
5. You Only Live Twice - 91.5
6. Casino Royale - 91.5
7. Moonraker - 85.1
8. The Spy Who Loved Me - 84.0
9. GoldenEye - 81.2
10. Die Another Day - 78.6
11. Quantum of Solace - 77.5
12. The World Is Not Enough - 77.1
13. Tomorrow Never Dies - 75.5
14. For Your Eyes Only - 72.9
15. Dr. No - 72.1
16. Diamonds Are Forever - 70.3
17. On Her Majesty's Secret Service - 62.4
18. Octopussy - 59.5
19. The Man with the Golden Gun - 51.6
20. The Living Daylights - 48.9
21. A View to a Kill - 44.5
22. Licence to Kill - 39.1

(this is a different listing than I'd seen, so QOS is still behind DAD...)

Contrast with the BO numbers:

1) Thunderball: $989,798,019
2) Goldfinger: $950,851,612
3) You Only Live Twice: $658,440,000
4) From Russia With Love: $657,190,588
5) Live And Let Die: $647,200,000
6) Casino Royale: $642,322,532
7) Dr. No: $602,478,011
8) Moonraker: $593,196,812
9) The Spy Who Loved Me: $588,624,215
10) GoldenEye: $580,608,243
11) Quantum of Solace: $549,601,400
12) Die Another Day: $526,359,783
13) Tomorrow Never Dies: $523,679,798
14) The World Is Not Enough: $504,144,305
15) Diamonds Are Forever: $497,745,454
16) For Your Eyes Only: $497,382,733
17) Octopussy: $421,428,571
18) On Her Majesty's Secret Service: $408,845,070
19) The Man With The Golden Gun: $369,522,994
20) The Living Daylights: $346,213,810
21) A View To A Kill: $304,396,044
22) Licence To Kill: $278,504,399
"

Why don't we talk about this HildebrandRarity??!! As you can see QOS is not at the top nor at the bottom, more in the middle zone. Or is it a biased observation of mine, and you have some 'numbers' to explain this 'oddity'.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'd, of course, argue that Q0S has MASSIVELY OUTPERFORMED Thunderball because Q0S got 50 Million Pounds worth of tie-ins and will get another $500-600 Million in dvd/blu-ray rentals and sales, cable tv, in-flight contracts and XBox and Nintndo licenses that Thunderball NEVER got!



Your numbers, Arlington, are old, btw...and they don't take into account currency moves, which, as you already know, have had a big impact within the last year.

[dee-bee-five]

Here's the lastest admissions ranking (worldwide, via some dude over at MI:6)


I take it all back. Now I'm convinced... (he writes sarcastically)...

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I'd, of course, argue that Q0S has MASSIVELY OUTPERFORMED Thunderball because Q0S got 50 Million Pounds worth of tie-ins and will get another $500-600 Million in dvd/blu-ray rentals and sales, cable tv, in-flight contracts and XBox and Nintndo licenses that Thunderball NEVER got!



Your numbers, Arlington, are old, btw...and they don't take into account currency moves, which, as you already know, have had a big impact within the last year.

Well if my numbers are old, let's see the final numbers for QOS in a couple months (and I'm talking about admission, 'cause I think that's the better way to see popularity, not a "gospel" but the best that you can have right now), and then compare with rest of the EON series, or let's just do the comparisson, as blueman suggests, just from GE onwards... I don't want to depress you but I doubt that QOS would be on top. And again, if anybody doesn't understood, that would not make a failure or a disappointment of QOS, IMO, at least.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 27 January 2009 - 08:10 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

I'd, of course, argue that Q0S has MASSIVELY OUTPERFORMED Thunderball because Q0S got 50 Million Pounds worth of tie-ins and will get another $500-600 Million in dvd/blu-ray rentals and sales, cable tv, in-flight contracts and XBox and Nintndo licenses that Thunderball NEVER got!



Your numbers, Arlington, are old, btw...and they don't take into account currency moves, which, as you already know, have had a big impact within the last year.

Well if my numbers are old, let's see the final numbers for QOS in a couple months (and I'm talking about admission, 'cause I think that's the better way to see popularity, not a "gospel" but the best that you can have right now), and then compare with rest of the EON series, or let's just do the comparisson, as blueman suggests, just from GE onwards... I don't want to depress you but I doubt that QOS would be on top. And again, if anybody doesn't understood, that would not make a failure or a disappointment of QOS, IMO, at least.

But the fact remains said comparisons have as much value as comparing Thunderball with the exploits of Rin Tin Tin in the 1920s.

[Zorin Industries]

I'd, of course, argue that Q0S has MASSIVELY OUTPERFORMED Thunderball because Q0S got 50 Million Pounds worth of tie-ins and will get another $500-600 Million in dvd/blu-ray rentals and sales, cable tv, in-flight contracts and XBox and Nintndo licenses that Thunderball NEVER got!

Actually, THUNDERBALL was one of the first Bond films to get a massive marketing push via many products and tie-in licensing.

[dee-bee-five]

I'd, of course, argue that Q0S has MASSIVELY OUTPERFORMED Thunderball because Q0S got 50 Million Pounds worth of tie-ins and will get another $500-600 Million in dvd/blu-ray rentals and sales, cable tv, in-flight contracts and XBox and Nintndo licenses that Thunderball NEVER got!

Actually, THUNDERBALL was one of the first Bond films to get a massive marketing push via many products and tie-in licensing.

It also benefitted from being released at the very height of Bondmania. A level of interest that has never been matched since, nor will be (and which had nothing to do with the quality of the dreary - in my opinion - film itself).

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Here's the lastest admissions ranking (worldwide, via some dude over at MI:6)


I take it all back. Now I'm convinced... (he writes sarcastically)...

dee-bee-five, if you didn't notice (or read with accuracy), that phrase-alongside the numbers- that I wrote were a quote from an early post of blueman.

Anyhow, do you really believe that there's a huge change in this numbers over these weeks, with only the successful opening of Japan?? I mean, Japan it's important but itsn't USA, or like UK- for EON-, at least.

[dee-bee-five]

Here's the lastest admissions ranking (worldwide, via some dude over at MI:6)


I take it all back. Now I'm convinced... (he writes sarcastically)...

dee-bee-five, if you didn't notice (or read with accuracy), that phrase-alongside the numbers- that I wrote were a quote from an early post of blueman.

Anyhow, do you really believe that there's a huge change in this numbers over these weeks, with only the successful opening of Japan?? I mean, Japan it's important but itsn't USA, or like UK- for EON-, at least.

I'm sorry but if I actually understood what the question was in that final paragraph, I'd try to answer you.

[Judo chop]

If the success of a Bond movie is to be estimated, it should be estimated relative to the BO successes of other movies released at that time. As already pointed out, successes of the films should not (cannot) be determined relative to each other, across generations.

QOS is successful, and that’s what matters. However, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty rankings of these things:

1. How does Thunderball measure up when compared to the top-10 grossing films of 1965? (#1? #5? Doesn’t qualify?)
2. How does QoS measure up when compared to the top-10 grossing films of 2008?
3. Now compare.

That’s the best we can do.

[dee-bee-five]

Here's the lastest admissions ranking (worldwide, via some dude over at MI:6)


I take it all back. Now I'm convinced... (he writes sarcastically)...

dee-bee-five, if you didn't notice (or read with accuracy), that phrase-alongside the numbers- that I wrote were a quote from an early post of blueman.

Anyhow, do you really believe that there's a huge change in this numbers over these weeks, with only the successful opening of Japan?? I mean, Japan it's important but itsn't USA, or like UK- for EON-, at least.

I'm sorry but if I actually understood what the question was in that final paragraph, I'd try to answer you. (I'm not being sarcastic, by the way, I just don't grasp what you're getting at.)

[Qwerty]

UPDATED...

'Quantum of Solace' - Box Office Details

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

[dee-bee-five]

If the success of a Bond movie is to be estimated, it should be estimated relative to the BO successes of other movies released at that time. As already pointed out, successes of the films should not (cannot) be determined relative to each other, across generations.

QOS is successful, and that’s what matters. However, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty rankings of these things:

1. How does Thunderball measure up when compared to the top-10 grossing films of 1965? (#1? #5? Doesn’t qualify?)
2. How does QoS measure up when compared to the top-10 grossing films of 2008?
3. Now compare.

That’s the best we can do.

Exactly. But even then, prevailing economic factors/social mores have to be taken into account. For instance, escapist musicals were hugely popular during the Depression (an interesting echo with Mamma Mia!, perhaps?) so anyone making comparisons between the admissions of screen musicals in the 1960s and the 1930s, say, would have to take that into account.

[sorking]

Lord, are people still trying to pretend you can compare the 60s market with that of the 00s? Using primary school maths and no adjustment data whatsoever?!

I mean, did I miss some news item about the release of a crazy drug into the water supply or something?

[dee-bee-five]

Lord, are people still trying to pretend you can compare the 60s market with that of the 00s?

They are, alas. And nothing seems able to deter them...

[Judo chop]

If the success of a Bond movie is to be estimated, it should be estimated relative to the BO successes of other movies released at that time. As already pointed out, successes of the films should not (cannot) be determined relative to each other, across generations.

QOS is successful, and that’s what matters. However, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty rankings of these things:

1. How does Thunderball measure up when compared to the top-10 grossing films of 1965? (#1? #5? Doesn’t qualify?)
2. How does QoS measure up when compared to the top-10 grossing films of 2008?
3. Now compare.

That’s the best we can do.

Exactly. But even then, prevailing economic factors/social mores have to be taken into account. For instance, escapist musicals were hugely popular during the Depression (an interesting echo with Mamma Mia!, perhaps?) so anyone making comparisons between the admissions of screen musicals in the 1960s and the 1930s, say, would have to take that into account.

Ok, no musicals. The only time Bond sings is in Dr No, so that leaves us free to analyze the out of everything else!

You’re right. One possible flaw to the algorithm is that we must consider genre. If, for some reason, the ‘escapist-action-spy’ genre went through its own social depression, and people just did not care about that kind of film as much as they cared for slashers, musicals, foreign and all the others, then Bond in particular would have been suffering at the Box Office compared to the other films of the time. But I don’t think there’s any argument that that was ever the case.

The real flaw of the algorithm is that we’re finding common ground for all the Bond films by comparing them to the surrounding films of the time. But of course surrounding films themselves are not a constant. What if, for example, 1965 was a piss-poor year for film in general. If there’s simply no good competition, of course Thunderball would soar to the top and look golden. Compared to 1985, if there was all kinds of great stuff going on for people to choose from, AVTAK might not look as pretty in the rankings.

But, it’s still the best we can do. I’ll leave it to others to get the numbers.

[dee-bee-five]

If the success of a Bond movie is to be estimated, it should be estimated relative to the BO successes of other movies released at that time. As already pointed out, successes of the films should not (cannot) be determined relative to each other, across generations.

QOS is successful, and that’s what matters. However, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty rankings of these things:

1. How does Thunderball measure up when compared to the top-10 grossing films of 1965? (#1? #5? Doesn’t qualify?)
2. How does QoS measure up when compared to the top-10 grossing films of 2008?
3. Now compare.

That’s the best we can do.

Exactly. But even then, prevailing economic factors/social mores have to be taken into account. For instance, escapist musicals were hugely popular during the Depression (an interesting echo with Mamma Mia!, perhaps?) so anyone making comparisons between the admissions of screen musicals in the 1960s and the 1930s, say, would have to take that into account.

Ok, no musicals. The only time Bond sings is in Dr No, so that leaves us free to analyze the out of everything else!

You’re right. One possible flaw to the algorithm is that we must consider genre. If, for some reason, the ‘escapist-action-spy’ genre went through its own social depression, and people just did not care about that kind of film as much as they cared for slashers, musicals, foreign and all the others, then Bond in particular would have been suffering at the Box Office compared to the other films of the time. But I don’t think there’s any argument that that was ever the case.

While I agree with the thrust of your argument, I think there is evidence that the action-spy genre went through a decline from the mid-80s until the release of True Lies - possibly as a result of the global political changes at the time - and the box office receipts of AVTAK and LTK in particular reflect that.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Here's the lastest admissions ranking (worldwide, via some dude over at MI:6)


I take it all back. Now I'm convinced... (he writes sarcastically)...

dee-bee-five, if you didn't notice (or read with accuracy), that phrase-alongside the numbers- that I wrote were a quote from an early post of blueman.

Anyhow, do you really believe that there's a huge change in this numbers over these weeks, with only the successful opening of Japan?? I mean, Japan it's important but itsn't USA, or like UK- for EON-, at least.

I'm sorry but if I actually understood what the question was in that final paragraph, I'd try to answer you. (I'm not being sarcastic, by the way, I just don't grasp what you're getting at.)

Well it's very simple I'm just proposing to you the same that I proposed to HildebrandRarity let's just do the comparisson, (as blueman suggested), just from GE onwards with the admission numbers in a couple of months when QOS will be out of theaters.

I already doubt that QOS will be in the first spot of the last six Bond movies. But that again (I'm getting a little tired of state this) isn't failure or a disappointment to me, and that definitely doesn't make me like less QOS.

I mean, GE could have better admission than QOS, but I really preffer this Forster's work many times more, over that Brosnan's debut.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 28 January 2009 - 04:09 AM.