548 replies to this topic

[x007AceOfSpades]

Let's not forget that with Thanksgiving next week, people will be going to see this as well.

[Double-0-Seven]

According to Box Office Mojo, Skyfall is officially the highest grossing Bond film of all time unadjusted for inflation:

Domestic: $161,337,000
Foreign: $507,900,000

Total: $669,237,000

I'm astonished. The funny thing is - there's still more to come! Well done EON, Craig, Mendes, and everyone involved!

I'll be surprised if they don't try to get Mendes back for the next couple films.

[jsteed]

According to Box Office Mojo, Skyfall is officially the highest grossing Bond film of all time unadjusted for inflation:

Domestic: $161,337,000
Foreign: $507,900,000

Total: $669,237,000

I'm astonished. The funny thing is - there's still more to come! Well done EON, Craig, Mendes, and everyone involved!

I'll be surprised if they don't try to get Mendes back for the next couple films.

Very excited, it might have a shot to earn 900 million worldwide. Even adjusted to inflation that would be an impressive accomplishment.

[nickjb007]

Could it be the first billion dollar Bond film?

[Double-0-Seven]

Adjusted to inflation, $900 million worldwide would put it just behind Thunderball as the most profitable Bond of all time, and ahead of Goldfinger I'm I'm not mistaken (or at least in that ballpark). In other words, it'll be the first Bond movie to match the success of Connery during the Bond craze of the sixties. Seems appropriate for the 50th Anniversary!

I initially predicted around $800 million worldwide based on the success, but it seems like $1 billion isn't exactly out of the question. We'll see. In any event, this is incredibly exciting.

[K1Bond007]

Adjusted to inflation, $900 million worldwide would put it just behind Thunderball as the most profitable Bond of all time, and ahead of Goldfinger I'm I'm not mistaken (or at least in that ballpark). In other words, it'll be the first Bond movie to match the success of Connery during the Bond craze of the sixties. Seems appropriate for the 50th Anniversary!

Inflating worldwide figures is kind of a wash. There's a lot of variables (none of which line up nicely - average price of a ticket, currency exchange) and at the core you need to have the correct numbers to begin with. If you simply take Thunderball's $141 million and adjust at the US rate of inflation (consumer price index and also probably the easiest road) that gives you: $1,036,887,630. Goldfinger would follow at $931,983,650.

[Simon]

Inflating worldwide figures is kind of a wash. There's a lot of variables (none of which line up nicely - average price of a ticket, currency exchange) and at the core you need to have the correct numbers to begin with. If you simply take Thunderball's $141 million and adjust at the US rate of inflation (consumer price index and also probably the easiest road) that gives you: $1,036,887,630. Goldfinger would follow at $931,983,650.

Including the facts like;

People couldn't say, 'I'll wait until it comes out on DVD' thereby reducing a box office take entirely.
Films took decades to arrive on TV, not the one or two years of today.
There was less competing with film releases for entertainment in 1965 than today; TV channels, Video Games, DVDs, kicking down bus shelters.

Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be to at least add a modern film's take plus initial DVD sales run which may account for the first point above but then of course those prices can't be compared.

I think it is just a pointless exercise over a span of 50 years. Maybe to compare the Twilight or Harry Potter films which started and stopped in the same decade...

[Mr_Wint]

900 million worldwide is way too much for Bond.

[LordAsriel]

Inflating worldwide figures is kind of a wash. There's a lot of variables (none of which line up nicely - average price of a ticket, currency exchange) and at the core you need to have the correct numbers to begin with. If you simply take Thunderball's $141 million and adjust at the US rate of inflation (consumer price index and also probably the easiest road) that gives you: $1,036,887,630. Goldfinger would follow at $931,983,650.

Including the facts like;

People couldn't say, 'I'll wait until it comes out on DVD' thereby reducing a box office take entirely.
Films took decades to arrive on TV, not the one or two years of today.
There was less competing with film releases for entertainment in 1965 than today; TV channels, Video Games, DVDs, kicking down bus shelters.

Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be to at least add a modern film's take plus initial DVD sales run which may account for the first point above but then of course those prices can't be compared.

I think it is just a pointless exercise over a span of 50 years. Maybe to compare the Twilight or Harry Potter films which started and stopped in the same decade...

No, it wouldnt' be more accurate because you'd then have to add to the box office gross of the sixties films all what comes from their re-release in tne next following years. And if there's more competing today, you, on the other hand, have the fact that population have grown, people are richer, there are new markets. How else could you explain that a movie like "Avengers" outgrossed "Thunderball" even adjusted for inflation. The fact is that in 1965 James Bond was a phenomenom like "Avengers" was this year. And "Skyfall" will be nowhere close to be such a phenomenom.

[YOLT]

Inflating worldwide figures is kind of a wash. There's a lot of variables (none of which line up nicely - average price of a ticket, currency exchange) and at the core you need to have the correct numbers to begin with. If you simply take Thunderball's $141 million and adjust at the US rate of inflation (consumer price index and also probably the easiest road) that gives you: $1,036,887,630. Goldfinger would follow at $931,983,650.

Including the facts like;

People couldn't say, 'I'll wait until it comes out on DVD' thereby reducing a box office take entirely.
Films took decades to arrive on TV, not the one or two years of today.
There was less competing with film releases for entertainment in 1965 than today; TV channels, Video Games, DVDs, kicking down bus shelters.

Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be to at least add a modern film's take plus initial DVD sales run which may account for the first point above but then of course those prices can't be compared.

I think it is just a pointless exercise over a span of 50 years. Maybe to compare the Twilight or Harry Potter films which started and stopped in the same decade...

If you are making a consideration please think on both sides.

On the otherside dont forget that:
1) population was much lower ( 3 billion in 1960, 7 billion now - over %100 increase ) http://en.wikipedia....orld_population
2) most of the countries didnt had a chance to see a 007 movie ( ex-soviet countries, china etc. e germany )
3) buying a dvd doesnt mean that you didnt watch it in the theaters.
4) There were less cinemas even in the developed west.

[Shrublands]

3) buying a dvd doesnt mean that you didnt watch it in the theaters.

True – but back in the 60s and 70s, when people wanted to see a film again months or even years after its release, there were re-issues and double bills, all adding to a film’s cinema box office take. Now we have DVD, Blu-Ray and pay per-view to contribute to a film’s profitability. Studios will always try to exploit the best way to deliver their product to the customers using what technology is available.

[YOLT]

3) buying a dvd doesnt mean that you didnt watch it in the theaters.

True – but back in the 60s and 70s, when people wanted to see a film again months or even years after its release, there were re-issues and double bills, all adding to a film’s cinema box office take. Now we have DVD, Blu-Ray and pay per-view to contribute to a film’s profitability. Studios will always try to exploit the best way to deliver their product to the customers using what technology is available.

Still the 60s had cons and pros. However to give an example in the Turkish movies of 60s and 70s you can hear music from the 007 movies. I have even heard TMWTGG. Bond was something else in those days. It was the trend setter not the follower.

[Simon]

All good points, the three guys above. Didn't think of them.

I think, irrespective of what people agree or disagree with in terms of how to make a comparison more comparable, that is an ultimately fruitless exercise.

No one today creates a business model based on something created in the 1960's, so why try to compare the sales results of products 50 years apart. We may just as well compare postage stamp sales between the '60s and '10s - they are two entirely different environments now.

Still, I suppose in the absence of any other more sane way to play with numbers, it'll do. Ish.

[Shrublands]

No one today creates a business model based on something created in the 1960's, so why try to compare the sales results of products 50 years apart. We may just as well compare postage stamp sales between the '60s and '10s - they are two entirely different environments now.

Exactly, or it's like saying that a song can only be called successful if people go out to a shop and buy it on vinyl - different worlds.

[Double-0-Seven]

Look at the madness I've begun since my last post in this thread!

I just think it's amazing how well it's doing. This is the closest I'll ever get to experiencing "Bond-mania" - everywhere I go someone is talking about the film. The box office is outstanding, the film is outstanding, and it's the 50th Anniversary on top of all of that. What a great time to be a Bond fan! I haven't been this excited over Bond since the announcement in early 2005, before Craig was even cast, that Casino Royale would be the next Bond film.

Back then, I was excited that I'd be able to see a Fleming adaption rather than a totally original story on the screen. Once Craig was cast the excitement continued to build as I was so eager to see how the film would fare. Needless to say, I was not disappointed. Just like now - when I walked out of the theater on November 9th, I knew the hype wasn't for nothing.

[nickjb007]

It's a great time to be a Bond fan.

[The Dove]

http://www.hollywood...-reaches-391791

Skyfall has now become the TOP grossing James Bond film of ALL time...$669.2 million taken world wide at the box office!!

[Elvenstar]

Is it possible for SF to get $100 mil in China?
I kind of doubt it. But 'Ghost protocol' as I remember earned $100+ there
so...

Edited by Elvenstar, 21 November 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[Hockey Mask]

US Box Office

Day 11 (Monday)
CR: $1.7 million
QoS: $2.2 million
SF: $4.0 million

Total
CR: $95.7 million
QoS: $110.9 million
SF: $164.9 million

Edited by 00Hockey Mask, 21 November 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[Shrublands]

US Box Office

Day 11 (Monday)
CR: $1.7 million
QoS: $2.2 million
SF: $4.0 million

Total
CR: $95.7 million
QoS: $110.9 million
SF: $164.9 million

...and word is that there was a good increase on that already good Monday, for a Tuesday take of around $6m.
That will take Skyfall past the total US gross of CR and QoS.

EDIT: Slightly over optimistic there, Tuesday is now looking like $5.6M. Which is still very good,

[YOLT]

US Box Office

Day 11 (Monday)
CR: $1.7 million
QoS: $2.2 million
SF: $4.0 million

Total
CR: $95.7 million
QoS: $110.9 million
SF: $164.9 million

...and word is that there was a good increase on that already good Monday, for a Tuesday take of around $6m.
That will take Skyfall past the total US gross of CR and QoS.

EDIT: Slightly over optimistic there, Tuesday is now looking like $5.6M. Which is still very good,

Great numbers. Skyfall has exceeded my expectations. It seems it will pass LALD easily. However it better not pass 1 billion or I have to stop writing here Also getting too much will increase the standards for the future films. Any 007 movie without passing 200m USA and 800mWW will be seen as unsucessfull from now on. ( not inflation adjusted ofcourse ).

[Hockey Mask]

US Box Office

Day 12 (Tuesday)
CR: $1.7 million
QoS: $2.9 million
SF: $5.6 million

Total
CR: $97.5 million
QoS: $113.9 million
SF: $170.5 million

[Hockey Mask]

US Box Office Unadjusted
SF $170,595,344 ( 1)
CR $167,445,960 ( 2)
QOS $168,368,427 ( 3)
DAD $160,942,139 ( 4)
TWINE $126,943,684 ( 5)
TND $125,304,276 ( 6)
GE $106,429,941 ( 7)
MR $ 70,308,099 ( 8)
OP $ 67,893,619 ( 9)
TB $ 63,893,619 (10)
NSNA $ 55,432,841 (11)
FYEO $ 54,812,802 (12)
TLD $ 51,185,897 (13)
GF $ 51,081,062 (14)
AVTAK $ 50,327,960 (15)
TSWLM $ 46,838,673 (16)
DAF $ 43,819,547 (17)
YOLT $ 43,084,787 (18)
LALD $ 35,377,836 (19)
LTK $ 34,667,015 (20)
FRWL $ 24,796,765 (21)
OHMSS $ 22,774,493 (22)
TMWTGG $ 20,972,000 (23)
DN $ 16,067,035 (24)

Edited by 00Hockey Mask, 21 November 2012 - 07:16 PM.

[Hockey Mask]

_{US Estimated Ticket Sales
TB 74,800,000 ( 1)
GF 66,300,000 ( 2)
YOLT 35,904,000 ( 3)
MR 28,011,200 ( 4)
DAD 27,584,000 ( 5)
TND 26,911,200 ( 6)
FRWL 26,663,200 ( 7)
DAF 26,557,300 ( 8)
CR 25,428,700 ( 9)
TWINE 24,853,800 (10)
GE 24,403,900 (11)
QOS 23,449,600 (12)
SF 21,927,400 (13)
OP 21,553,500 (14)
TSWLM 21,003,900 (15)
LALD 19,987,500 (16)
FYEO 19,716,800 (17)
DN 18,902,400 (18)
NSNA 17,597,700 (19)
OHMSS 16,038,400 (20)
AVTAK 14,176,900 (21)
TLD 13,091,000 (22)
TWTGG 11,215,000 (23)
LTK 8,732,200 (24)}

Edited by 00Hockey Mask, 21 November 2012 - 07:14 PM.

[Guy Haines]

Purely anecdotal, no statistics involved, but, I've been to see SF at my local multiplex again tonight. I had hoped to get in for the 7 p.m. showing. I couldn't as it was sold out. Had to wait until 8 p.m. This nearly a month into its run here in the UK, on a wet Wednesday night in November, at a multiplex in the heart of "Robin Hood's County", as it says on the signs as you enter Notts. And with the new Twilight film as competition.

I'd say the 40 something government agent is giving the teenage vampires a run for their money in my neck of the woods.

(Incidentally, I was amused that one of the advertisements before the film was for the Scottish Tourist Board - understandably - with the line, at one point, that "the welcome is always warm in Scotland." A bit more than warm up at Skyfall Lodge, I'd say! ;-) )

[Hockey Mask]

Aren't all Wednesday's wet in the UK?

[Guy Haines]

Aren't all Wednesday's wet in the UK?

Not necessarily! ;-) Another point - if you are paid weekly over here it may be on a Friday to Thursday basis. By Wednesday the funds start to run out. Yet my local multiplex was doing a roaring trade last night. Anyway, it is encouraging that Bond seems to be drawing them in nearly a month later.

[JCRendle]

Aren't all Wednesday's wet in the UK?

Yet my local multiplex was doing a roaring trade last night.

Orange Wednesdays?

[Simon]

Would they still do those considering Orange is now EE - everything is being rebranded.

[JCRendle]

Yes, a text I received from Orange before they switched to the EE signal said that Orange Wednesdays would stay the same - as will service plans etc.