44 replies to this topic

[rafterman]

I think Trek will drop from the top ten before Bond does, now that's a failure, looks like the second biggest loss for that franchise...

[Felix's lighter]

My thoughts:

Bond will never hit $200 million domestically because the series does not appeal - for the most part - to teen and twentysomething women and girls. Despite Jinx and being equal to Bond blah blah blah, most women still think of Bond movies representing women as half-naked playthings hanging from chandaliers.

Look at the Top Ten movies of the year. Most - if not all - of them had a significant amount of gender-neutral, cross-generational appeal. Bond movies are still seen as the extreme end of "guy movie" spectrum because of the character's rampant womanizing.

However, if EON were to cut down on this for the sake of box office appeal, they would cease to be Bond movies. You just can't win. Maybe it is time to call it a day once Brosnan leaves - a string of high-grossers notwithstanding.

[Peter]

Although my local theater has cut the number of screens, both the 7 and 10 shows of DAD were sold out last night. I thought that was pretty good. I even went early (6:30) to get the tickets, so they were sold out far in advance.

[rafterman]

I guess Bond doesn't drag in the teenager girls, but there are plenty of women that like them, but they're mostly older or enlightened or have actually watched them and don't just spout out that Bond is sexist nonsense, Bond's a long running series and well past it's ginormous grossing status days, but if other series like LOTR or HP or Spider-Man were to last forty years they would certainly decline, it's a credit to Bond that it still makes money while not doing the gigantic numbers, look at Thunderball adjusted for today and it's like 800 million, that's the kind of money these young blockbusters make...

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Felix's lighter
My thoughts:
Bond will never hit $200 million domestically because the series does not appeal - for the most part - to teen and twentysomething women and girls ... Bond movies are still seen as the extreme end of "guy movie" spectrum  because of the character's rampant womanizing.

I think the Bond films do have "a significant amount of gender-neutral, cross-generational appeal", indeed the series has just about the widest audience out there.

I suppose that the fanboyish, collecting element (i.e. us) is largely a "guy thing", but as far as general audiences go, the franchise seems to attract more or less everyone. I've even seen a fair few senior citizens at screenings (who no doubt saw the 1960s outings during their theatrical runs), who almost certainly wouldn't be interested in checking out, say, xXx.

As rafterman suggests, Bond films no longer do "gigantic numbers" because they have been appearing for so long, and so frequently, that they are part of the moviegoing scenery rather than anything that can be hyped as "fresh".

[Loomis]

If anything, the problem is not that the Bond films don't appeal to women but that they are not aimed at the very young, unlike HARRY POTTER, LORD OF THE RINGS, SPIDER-MAN and STAR WARS. Generally, it's only by sewing up the preteen audience that you get a genuine box office colossus (TITANIC being an exception to that rule).

[Carver]

Well, Bond does sort of appeal to girl, look at the growing number of ladies on this forums and others. Bond shouldn't appeal to youngsters really, as the basic thing that it are about are sex, violence, drinking and killing, so nothing for childdren there. Although LTK was on over the top 15 rated, Bond should be rated PG or lower, as children shouldn't go to see it really. Also, Bond spawns spoofs, which also add to its popularity. People may think that after 40 years, its getting too old and we need something else, but after GE, TND, TWINE and DAD, I think MGM would be mad to drop Bond now:)

[rafterman]

doesn't seem to appeal to the youngins like in the sixties does it? kids today seem more into being wizards than ultra cool guys who shag lots and shoot guns, Bond is something you kind of come into when you get a little older, I know ten year olds that care more about going to Hogwarts than Eton...

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis
If anything, the problem is not that the Bond films don't appeal to women but that they are not aimed at the very young, unlike HARRY POTTER, LORD OF THE RINGS, SPIDER-MAN and STAR WARS. Generally, it's only by sewing up the preteen audience that you get a genuine box office colossus (TITANIC being an exception to that rule).

I don't think this is a problem. I don't want them to make the Bond movies kiddie proof...I'd prefer a 007 movie with a hard edge that doesn't pull any punches.

[SeanValen00V]

Whatever happens, DAD has been succesful, forget the numbers, lets not talk about changing Bond's way, less violence, lower cerificates etc so the studio can get more money, where's the fun in that.


Most important thing, make Bond movies for you to enjoy, stay largely faithful, don't sell out too much for more bucks over creativity, in the end story telling will suffer.

12 A rating as now, since Goldeneye is about right for Bond, no need to go back to PGs, got a good flemming thing going that allows more secret agent grittyness. Cheers for Dalton LTK, rubbing off on some of Pierce's films, we need the danger and violence to bring 007's license to kill or be killed to life.

DAD's budget was big, I'm sure they don't need to spend the same like that for Bond 21 30 or 40 million less, have a good story, good balance of action, and Bond 21 will be more profitable most likely, sometimes its not how much money you want to spend on screen, but if you really need it for a great bond film. They could make a Bond film for 70 million I say, with Pierce-popular as Bond, and still get a big profit.

How much did Goldeneye cost? I remember it being at least half of what DAD's budget was.

[DLibrasnow]

Of course Pierce wasn't demanding as much money when Goldeneye was made. He was an untested Bond actor then, now I think his salary is about $5 million per picture, but I could be wrong...

[Martin Aston]

GoldenEye cost 55 million. Brosnan now gets between 10 and 15 million per Bond film.

[DLibrasnow]

Yeah, I knew that he charges a hefty fee.

[Gogol]

I just don't think the box office numbers matter. Bond was a success. Most everyone liked the movie and went to see it. To be worrying about it's final numbers just seems a little silly. Let's hope Eon can do it again for Bond 21!

[DLibrasnow]

I think it's important in order to show that Bond is not out of date. It seemed really important (for example) to some people that DAD beat xXx