333 replies to this topic

[Achtung74]

Ahhh... of course.  I had meant to compare to SP, SF, and MI 5, but failed to quote the previous poster.

[Dustin]

But of course LTK beats them all with $150 million worldwide on a $30 million budget for a 5:1 return.

Well, good that you mention LTK, there is a handy comparison to be made, namely Lethal Weapon 2 from the same year.

The is no verified budget given for that one, for whatever reason. But we may safely assume a budget between the $ 15.000.000 of the first and the $ 35.000.000 of the third entry in that series. Let's be generous and assume 30.000.000. We can safely do that since Lethal Weapon 2 had a b.o. of $ 221.900.000.

I think when you look at that rate, 7 and a bit of small change, you will notice a considerable difference. It will also become obvious why the series was in great trouble at that point. Finally it illustrates how fundamentally the market has changed in terms of budgets and box office returns. A different world not even 30 years ago.

[Hockey Mask]

This is a complete guess but I'm thinking...

The movie business is seen as a a series of gambles. Each movie is a placing a bet and seeing what's odds you made once the returns came in. I believe EON knew they were lowering their returns when they made their bet "safer" by having Craig and Mendes return and by increasing the budget. Throwing money at the screen has long been thought of as a easy return. I doubt I made any of this clear but just a thought.

I will say that I believe EON was disappointed in US reviews and think there will be some sort of reaction to it to rectify that for Bond 25.

[Dustin]

The thing is, as you point out, in that gamble Eon set on black and went home with the money 24 times. They must be doing something pretty right. Broccoli - if memory serves - once said as long as a Bond film returns a single dollar profit he will continue to do them. Well, a single dollar may be a bit extreme but they are still far away from anything resembling a loss.

Now for lowering their returns, I think they were aware about the exceptional nature of SKYFALL, no doubt about it. But each Bond film - in these financial terms - has to compete with the same segment of the market at roughly the same time, namely here M:I.

Eon/MGM/Sony not only brought Mendes back - I doubt it was ever an option to go without Craig into this - also a lot of other players got either the same pay cheque or a bigger one. As it stands now they invested $100.000.000 more to earn $200.000.000 less. I doubt that was the aim. At a guess I would say a rate of 3.5 - 4 would have been a realistic assumption. The strongest competitor has shown 4.5 is possible in the market even in the supposedly weaker summer.

[Guy Haines]

This whole arguement about box office and SPECTRE reminds me of a similar "game of expectations" in my new line of politics.

On the face of it, lose an election and you lose - no question. But you can also be perceived as a loser if you still win, but not by as much as predicted. Or, perversely, you can still be perceived as the "big winner" if you come second - but a close second in a race where at the outset you hadn't got a prayer of winning. (Fringe parties in particular are adept at turning such defeats into moral victories.)

So we have SPECTRE doing well - extremely well by all accounts at the box office but because it hasn't surpassed SF it is somehow a failure.

Numbers aside, I think there's something in the view put forward earlier, I think on this thread, that certain in the media had already decided in advance that since SP couldn't possibly surpass SF's success it was by definition a "failure" even if it still made more money than most in 2015. That and the novelty of having an acclaimed director at the helm which helped with SF isn't there with SP - we know what Sam Mendes can do with Bond from SF, so expectations for SP are really more of the same rather than same but different.

One other thing has stymied SP to an extent - the elephant in the room - the Sony leaks. These revealed what appeared to be a production with script and budget difficulties a year ago. Did this set a subconscious narrative in the minds of some in the media that no matter what the box office take, SP was already a failure? I wonder. It shouldn't have in my view because SP has turned out to be a great success generally, if not quite the box office phenomenon that was SF.

[Dustin]

Absolutely. The leaks gave the public an idea about the behind-the-scenes politics of SPECTRE long in advance. This is never a good thing for a production. When such things are revealed after the fact there is an entirely different emphasis to it simply because of 20-20 hindsight. Here we knew about serious doubts cast on the affair from the go. And we've also seen that a lot of the issues were not really solved with decision but rather halfheartedly. For the critics this is the perfect target.

There is a saying about the public better not being aware how sausage is made. Evidently true.

[Hockey Mask]

The leaks never really gave me any insight I didn't think was happening already in just about every production.

Does anyone think the leaks hurt box office receipts or influenced negative reviews? Nobody likes to see mom and dad fighting but IMHO I don't think so.

Edited by Hockey Mask, 19 December 2015 - 01:01 PM.

[seawolfnyy]

I don't think the leaks played much of a part. It may have in regards to reviewers, but not to the average movie goer. I think Spectre, which will probably end its run around $850-900 million, will be a success. However, when compared with the other mega blockbusters of 2015 (Avengers 2, Furious 7, Jurassic World and some other movie whose title escapes me atm ), it may just be seen as falling short.

[Dustin]

Well, I suppose there is a difference between knowing in theory what goes on backstage of a production - most ventures of such proportions and with so many cooks stirring the brew are probably bound to have similar issues in number, if perhaps not in detail - and actually seeing the curtains drawn back on some of the works even before shooting began.

Will it have influenced the box office? Surely not directly; people either want to see the new Bond or they don't. But I feel the leaks influenced some of the critical reaction.

So how then came that gap between SKYFALL and SPECTRE to be? I really think it's simply down to the fact SPECTRE didn't appeal in the same way SKYFALL did. Fewer people went to rewatch, more people wait for the DVD. And some casual audiences just didn't care.

[SecretAgentFan]

I really think it's simply down to the fact SPECTRE didn't appeal in the same way SKYFALL did. Fewer people went to rewatch, more people wait for the DVD. And some casual audiences just didn't care.

 

That´s my opinion, too.  The repeat business just wasn´t there as much as with SKYFALL.

 

Personally, I don´t think that the anniversary or the Olympics gave SKYFALL the edge.  If one considers all the advertising for SPECTRE one must conclude that neither less nor more people knew there was a new Bond film coming.

 

I suspect that the reviews and word-of-mouth were the deciding factor this time.  

 

Looking at the countries in which SPECTRE did very well, one can see that reviews were more friendly.  In the US, where box-office was not as great, the reviews were pretty savage.

 

In the end, it´s always about non-fans.  If a genre film can reach people beyond the fanbase it has the chance to do spectacularly well.  Look at AVATAR.  Look at THE LORD OF THE RINGS or HARRY POTTER.  Those were box office behemoths because they became a cultural phenomenon which people thought they had to see just to keep up with the conversation.  

 

SKYFALL had the arthouse-appeal with Mendes and a universally lauded Javier Bardem as a most delicious bad guy.

 

SPECTRE was probably considered as reheated Mendes, with a Christoph Waltz who seems to have overstayed his welcome after two Oscars-by-Tarantino.  Not a must see - only a will probably see.

[rubixcub]

I will go on record as saying I WAS anticipating / expecting SP to make more money than SF simply based on the precedent that, for those stars whose tenure lasted a 4th film, the 4th film grossed higher than the 3rd even with typically lesser reviews and, in fact, was their highest-grossing of their respective lots.

 

The difference, in part, is the influx of social media since 2002 and points before, with spoilers and reviews coming so much faster, and the ability of same to dampen buzz and affect business.  I think that, given the lesser reviews for SP, fewer audience members have returned to see it a 2nd time in theaters than did for SF.

 

Dave

[Dustin]

Difficult to judge how much influence the London Olympics or the Diamond Jubilee really did have on SKYFALL's performance. Sure, for Britons and the people in the Commonwealth it was all mighty dandy and huge and whatnot, smashing good fun, even the Olympics, which Londoners initially didn't look forward to all that much.

But did this collective hype and balming of the often-tortured national soul of Britons really sell that much more tickets? Outside the UK people didn't care all that much either way and they still flocked into theatres to see SKYFALL. I'd think the greater influence was Bond's anniversary. And the real event that pushed SKYFALL so high was the film itself, a film you could appreciate without being a die-hard fan.

Whereas SPECTRE is very much more a fest for fans that tries to take along the casual audience and can't win them over quite as good as they wanted.

[Turn]

I recall on my first screening of SF hearing some teen girl kept singing the theme song before the film and makes me wonder if she wandered in with her friends because they liked the song. Same with the group of teens that I had to get to shush during the same screening. They seemed more interested in trading seats and texting till I asked them to stop. Some go to a film just to get out of the house. Who knows why they picked SF. That house was full on the second night it was out.

 

On my screening of SPECTRE, also second night it was out, the house was nearly all adults as far as I could tell and not completely packed. Nice as far as not having to ask them to behave, but made me wonder why it wasn't more full. Of course, it was playing nearly on the hour at that multiplex.

[Revelator]

I'd say the leaks definitely harmed the critical and popular reception of Spectre, because critics and audiences tend to hear about them and think "troubled production," so when they view the film they succumb to confirmation bias. And Craig's public bellyaching compounded the problem--his complaints about the ordeal of making the film received far more publicity than anything else he said to the press. (Lest it seem I'm bashing Craig, I'll say that he had every right to complain, but doing so in a way that sabotaged the publicity department's work was inconsiderate and harmful.) The public pays less attention to the specific details of leaks, but the broad message they received through the press--"this film has problems"--must have affected the pre-release buzz. And Craig's public performances helped influence the mindset of the American critics, who collectively shrieked "even the lead actor is tired of Bond! So are we!"

Yet I notice many of the American critics who knocked Spectre for being derivative are now praising the new Star Wars for the exact same quality! By contrast look at Spectre's critical reception in Britain, which looked far more kindly (perhaps over-kindly) at the film's borrowings.

[SecretAgentFan]

Who actually was aware of the leaks?  Only us nerds who scan the internet for every bit of information.  The majority of the general ticketbuyer couldn´t care less and didn´t know.  I actually asked some friends about the leaks before SPECTRE was released - and nobody knew or remembered.  It was so one year ago...

 

As for Craig´s "slash my wrists"-quote - exactly the same effect.  Nobody cares, nobody reads this and actually thinks: How ungrateful!  Now I will not watch this movie!  In fact, "bad news are good news" applies for PR, it just makes people aware: Oh, another Bond film!

 

I guess it´s more interesting to debate whether the three years waiting period between the films is really doing them any good after all.  

 

My take: the idea of making every film an event through this schedule does not work at all.  The contemporary movie audience needs to stay in contact with its obsession, otherwise it forgets about it and loses interest.

 

Marvel knows this and goes for the annual two-film punch.  Disney will be very successful with offering one Star Wars film per year.  Warner/DC will try to follow suit.

 

A Bond film every three years will have to face the challenge to raise awareness again and again, instead of building on audience anticipation.

 

IMHO, of course.  

[Revelator]

Who actually was aware of the leaks?  Only us nerds who scan the internet for every bit of information.  The majority of the general ticketbuyer couldn´t care less and didn´t know.  I actually asked some friends about the leaks before SPECTRE was released - and nobody knew or remembered.  It was so one year ago...

 

As for Craig´s "slash my wrists"-quote - exactly the same effect.  Nobody cares, nobody reads this and actually thinks: How ungrateful!  Now I will not watch this movie!  In fact, "bad news are good news" applies for PR, it just makes people aware: Oh, another Bond film!

 

I think there was a considerable amount of awareness of the leaks--the story even appeared in Gawker, the most famous gossip site on the web. Craig's conduct also picked up a good deal of traction, though mostly on the internet as well. I don't think people were angry at him; it was more a matter of dampening their enthusiasm for the film. If even the star complains about making it and his role, then that might dissuade the public. As for the American critics, I think it's clear that the leaks and Craig's words helped set their frame of mind.
 

I originally favored having a Bond film every three years because I thought it would give the crew time to nail down the script. So much for that...

But it might still be a good idea. Disney might try ramming Star Wars films down the public's throat each year, but the current film is likely a big hit because it's the first one in a decade.

And I presume that if Marvel's annual two films starred the exact same single character, the public would tire of them.

[Dustin]

I think trying to go back on a two-year schedule would nowadays afford a vastly different setup for the entire Eon operation. It's repeatedly been called for by Eon's partners that they step up the game with a new film every other year but to me it seems they really operate at their limits as is. From what little insiders and Broccoli/Wilson themselves let us know about their customs Eon indeed seems to be a relatively small workforce with a 'family' culture for turning such a massive wheel. And work on these productions obviously is a most draining task.

So it would either mean even deeper involvement more frequently into an already most consuming task. Or giving up some of that family culture and growing the business with outside talent of a kind. I have my doubts about both options but Eon may have to face some kind of decision regarding either option.

Wilson lately gave a pretty in-depth interview and when the topic of leaks came up I think he said, yes, there were some over the years - but always from the outside, never from their own people. This is the kind of ship they keep, they know practically all their workforce by name for many years now. I don't see them giving up this kind of control and trust easily.

As for the event character of the films, there is the problem that you are always chasing the next big thing with this. But the films seldom live up to the promise. Over the last ten years - well, nine actually - we've only had two real events worth mentioning: CASINO ROYALE with its unique casting and the last of the untouched - by Eon - Fleming stories. And SKYFALL with Mendes at the helm, a unique villain and a storyline that implies an abyss beneath the scrubbed surface of Eon-Bond's world. These were the two real events and both QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SPECTRE tried more to sail in the direction of their immediate predecessors than creating their own unique kind of appeal.

What BOND 25 would need now would be some bold move, only we already see signs of the obvious on the horizon. If the aim for the next film is indeed to hit theatres in 2017 they will have to start work pretty soon. But the real task would probably be to avoid the obvious traps now.

[Guy Haines]

QoS to an extent had to follow where CR led - the ending left the audiences who actually cared, as opposed to the casual viewer wondering what happens next, and whether Bond would find the persons responsible for Vesper's betrayal, anguish and decision to commit suicide. (Curiously, the next Bond novel after Casino Royale did not, of course take that route, save for Bond's resolve to take on Smersh whenever and wherever.)

 

QoS therefore ended up almost as CR part II.

 

SF, on the other hand, didn't lend itself to a sequel, at least on the surface. It looked like a genuine one-off,  a great one, but not a typical, "routine" Bond film. SP didn't have to follow on from SF, but the screenwriters couldn't resist "digging deeper" into Bond's past. I guess when one makes a Bond movie in which the latter part goes back to his childhood pile and the film makes piles and piles of money, the temptation is to go over it all again - "Skyfall times 10" I think is how Daniel Craig himself described it. One aspect alone of this "digging" should, on reflection have been resisted - the highly unlikely link between Bond and Oberhauser/Blofeld. SP would work perfectly well with Bond taking on the villain because of what he is doing now. Perhaps some other way of explaining how Bond knew who Blofeld was could have been established - maybe he was an enemy agent Bond had long thought dead, and a name other than Franz Oberhauser could have been used - or maybe that name without the link to Bond's childhood.

 

My point here is that SF did extremely well because it was a great film, if not, in the eyes of some - like my relation - a great Bond film. SP is, for all its flaws, a great Bond film imho but the writers aspired to make it like SF whilst including nods to the classic era. It could either be one or the other but not both. Perhaps some of the poor reviews stateside were down to reviewers expecting "Skyfall revisited" alone in this new film, especially with Sam Mendes at the helm, and not finding it.

[SecretAgentFan]

I wonder whether EON actually could not pull off a two-year-rhythm again.  They were able to for many years.

 

I get the feeling that the whole "oh, these films are so difficult to pull off"-explanation is just an excuse for not saying: It is a drag getting DC to commit again, and Mendes always wants to do theatre and we have to wait for him.

 

I really believe they would have made SPECTRE for a 2014 release if they had not waited for Mendes.

[Dustin]

Well, it would certainly not be impossible to achieve. But since they only hire a certain kind of director and since the people on their shortlist are probably very much in-demand it's obviously also a question of fitting Bond into the schedule of their respective candidates.

As far as has been reported Eon asked back every director in the last few years, obviously always after the work has been turned in and deemed good after Eon's tastes. Chances are they again asked Mendes back. Whether he declines right from the go or asks for time to ponder, they can only start looking for other names once they have his definite answer.

[Dustin]

My point here is that SF did extremely well because it was a great film, if not, in the eyes of some - like my relation - a great Bond film. SP is, for all its flaws, a great Bond film imho but the writers aspired to make it like SF whilst including nods to the classic era. It could either be one or the other but not both. Perhaps some of the poor reviews stateside were down to reviewers expecting "Skyfall revisited" alone in this new film, especially with Sam Mendes at the helm, and not finding it.

For me the main difference is that for all its holes - and there were numerous huge ones in its fabric - SKYFALL just hit a near-perfect balance overall, tonally, in its photography, in its richly engaging story.

SPECTRE on the other hand has some awesome parts that really shine, some beautiful photography and direction. But the whole package never comes close to SKYFALL simply because it crams too much into the deal. Discussing it you always end up pointing out the good parts, not the film as a whole. You can see why people love it, but you can just as well see why they don't.

The general audience identifies SPECTRE of course as a Bond film. Whereas SKYFALL was a film with Bond - and on closer inspection he wasn't even the main hero in that.

[Guy Haines]

My point here is that SF did extremely well because it was a great film, if not, in the eyes of some - like my relation - a great Bond film. SP is, for all its flaws, a great Bond film imho but the writers aspired to make it like SF whilst including nods to the classic era. It could either be one or the other but not both. Perhaps some of the poor reviews stateside were down to reviewers expecting "Skyfall revisited" alone in this new film, especially with Sam Mendes at the helm, and not finding it.

For me the main difference is that for all its holes - and there were numerous huge ones in its fabric - SKYFALL just hit a near-perfect balance overall, tonally, in its photography, in its richly engaging story.
SPECTRE on the other hand has some awesome parts that really shine, some beautiful photography and direction. But the whole package never comes close to SKYFALL simply because it crams too much into the deal. Discussing it you always end up pointing out the good parts, not the film as a whole. You can see why people love it, but you can just as well see why they don't.
The general audience identifies SPECTRE of course as a Bond film. Whereas SKYFALL was a film with Bond - and on closer inspection he wasn't even the main hero in that.

I guess If I had had a hand in SP I might have 1) looked to the first Craig film for inspiration in terms of style, if not storyline of course - though certainly the Bond/Madeleine relationship has echoes of Bond/Vesper, 2) junked most of the "classic" nods and winks to the 60s and 70s. The DB5 - OK because it's been in almost throughout the Craig run, but I don't need to sit there in the cinema thinking "that reminds me of that bit out of [insert Bond film here] to know that I'm watching a Bond film. One or two nods - OK. Too many gives the impression the writers have run out of ideas, and as before, 3) ditched the Bond/Oberhauser link whilst establishing some other way in which Bond had seen this villain before but thought him dead - I suggested one way in an earlier post on this thread.

If I'm honest though, none of the three points above ruined my enjoyment of SP - I didn't come away from the film in the same mood as when as a teen I first watched MR - an epic movie from which my only abiding memory was a gondola hovercraft, a drunk and a double taking pigeon! ;-)

[A Kristatos]

I'd say the leaks definitely harmed the critical and popular reception of Spectre, because critics and audiences tend to hear about them and think "troubled production," so when they view the film they succumb to confirmation bias. And Craig's public bellyaching compounded the problem--his complaints about the ordeal of making the film received far more publicity than anything else he said to the press. (Lest it seem I'm bashing Craig, I'll say that he had every right to complain, but doing so in a way that sabotaged the publicity department's work was inconsiderate and harmful.) The public pays less attention to the specific details of leaks, but the broad message they received through the press--"this film has problems"--must have affected the pre-release buzz. And Craig's public performances helped influence the mindset of the American critics, who collectively shrieked "even the lead actor is tired of Bond! So are we!"
Yet I notice many of the American critics who knocked Spectre for being derivative are now praising the new Star Wars for the exact same quality! By contrast look at Spectre's critical reception in Britain, which looked far more kindly (perhaps over-kindly) at the film's borrowings.

Some great points regarding the similarities between "Spectre" and "Star Wars". "Star Wars" was lauded for being a throwback to the original films, while "Spectre" was trashed for the same thing. Go figure!

Anyway, some great's posts regarding this topic of whether this film is a box office "failure" are not. As I stated before, I don't think I would call this film a failure, and those associated with the film shouldn't call it a failure either. I would say though that many would call it a slight disappointment, especially the way the box office has tanked this week, though you can blame "Star Wars" for that. I would say though that this is a downward trend that needs to be watched, and I'm sure EON will tweak things somewhat before the next movie is filmed. There is no reason for wholesale panic, though. To me, a failure is not a drop off from the previous movie. A failure though would be a movie that's barely breaks even or loses money. "Spectre" however still made a solid profit. So on that level, I would not consider "Spectre" a failure. But I'm sure based on the box office drop off, EON will institute a slight course correction before Bond 25 is filmed.

[Dustin]

Not all of those nods really did SPECTRE a favour. They were mainly included for us fans - because of course many of us clamoured for "classic" Bond since day one of Craig in the role. Some would doubtlessly better have been left well alone, even though they still serve their purpose. For the box office such elements mean that at least you know from the go what you are going to get, not a bad thing in itself.

[Professor Pi]

They were able to fulfill two year cycles when they had an in-house director, writer, and plenty of Fleming stories to adapt.  They need to take a long term approach, instead of one film at a time--by the seat of their pants--boom or bust--outlook.  It seems like they're always starting from scratch the day after the most current Bond film is released.  They also never seem confident enough in their property, often mimicking other franchises, rather than defining their own brand as was done in the 60s.

 

Meanwhile, Star Wars raked in $250M globally in a day, and has already filmed part of episode VIII.  And Marvel MCU has three films in production and ten more on the docket.  That's confidence.

[A Kristatos]

Not all of those nods really did SPECTRE a favour. They were mainly included for us fans - because of course many of us clamoured for "classic" Bond since day one of Craig in the role. Some would doubtlessly better have been left well alone, even though they still serve their purpose. For the box office such elements mean that at least you know from the go what you are going to get, not a bad thing in itself.

Well we got that modern interpretation of a classic Bond film in "Spectre", but I have a feeling this type of film will be a one off, at least as long as Craig is around.

Edited by A Kristatos, 20 December 2015 - 05:03 PM.

[Dustin]

Not all of those nods really did SPECTRE a favour. They were mainly included for us fans - because of course many of us clamoured for "classic" Bond since day one of Craig in the role. Some would doubtlessly better have been left well alone, even though they still serve their purpose. For the box office such elements mean that at least you know from the go what you are going to get, not a bad thing in itself.

Well we got that modern interpretation of a classic Bond film in "Spectre", but I have a feeling this type of film will be a one off, at least as long as Craig is around.

The problem is, if that style is kept up into the next film they risk becoming their own spoof. Craig's strong sides lie elsewhere, it would be better to send him in directions other Bonds haven't been before him. Though you want of course to take the traditional fans along for the ride.

[SecretAgentFan]

IMO, and I ramble on again, what felt fresh in SKYFALL - the personal drama, the London setting, the nods to classic Bond - already felt reheated and overdone in SPECTRE.

 

My hope is that BOND 25 will lose all those elements again and move forward instead of sideways.

[Hockey Mask]

U.S. Box Office thru Seventh Weekend
01. $304,360,277 Skyfall
THE FORCE AWAKENS 3-DAY TOTAL $247,996,675
02. $193,921,132 SPECTRE
03. $168,368,427 Quantum of Solace
04. $167,445,960 Casino Royale
05. $160,942,139 Die Another Day
06. $126,943,684 The World is Not Enough
07. $125,304,276 Tomorrow Never Dies
08. $106,429,941 GoldenEye
09. $ 70,308,099 Moonraker
10. $ 67,893,619 Octopussy
11. $ 63,595,658 Thunderball
12. $ 55,432,841 Never Say Never Again
13. $ 54,812,802 For Your Eyes Only
14. $ 51,185,897 The Living Daylights
15. $ 51,081,062 Goldfinger
16. $ 50,327,960 A View to a Kill
17. $ 46,838,673 The Spy Who Loved Me
18. $ 43,819,547 Diamonds Are Forever
19. $ 43,084,787 You Only Live Twice
20. $ 35,377,836 Live and Let Die
21. $ 34,667,015 License to Kill
22. $ 24,796,765 From Russia, with Love
23. $ 22,774,493 On Her Majesty's Secret Service
24. $ 20,972,000 The Man with the Golden Gun
25. $ 16,067,035 Dr. No

U.S. Box Office - Adjusted Inflation thru the Seventh Weekend
01. $623,832,000 Thunderball
02. $552,942,000 Goldfinger
03. $315,602,300 Skyfall
04. $299,439,300 You Only Live Twice
05. $233,613,400 Moonraker
06. $230,050,800 Die Another Day
07. $224,439,200 Tomorrow Never Dies
08. $222,371,000 From Russia, with Love
09. $221,487,900 Diamonds Are Forever
10. $212,075,200 Casino Royale
11. $207,280,700 The World is Not Enough
12. $203,528,900 GoldenEye
13. $195,570,000 Quantum of Solace
14. $187,840,000 SPECTRE
15. $179,756,400 Octopussy
16. $175,172,400 The Spy Who Loved Me
17. $166,695,600 Live and Let Die
18. $164,438,400 For Your Eyes Only
19. $157,646,000 Dr. No
20. $146,765,000 Never Say Never Again
21. $133,760,000 On Her Majesty's Secret Service
22. $118,235,300 A View to a Kill
23. $109,179,100 The Living Daylights
24. $ 93,532,900 The Man with the Golden Gun
25. $ 72,826,900 License to Kill

Edited by Hockey Mask, 22 December 2015 - 05:05 AM.

[blueman]

Agree SAF, those same things were addressed in SF, and in a rather more non-Bondian way than say SP. Which may explain the former's broader appeal, maybe?