Bond Comparative Box Office Showings

ForYourEyesOnly

Just a compilation of Bond's performances in the worldwide box office relative to other films of its year. I will indicate their placement based on worldwide box office gross, then list the films that beat it as well as any major films that it beat, and the margin of box office disparity for both. This might help give an impression of which Bond actor was the "biggest" in cinema, relative to their times. Of course, we should keep in mind that box office isn't everything and there could be various factors that influence the figures.

Figures I cite will be relative to the time and will not be adjusted for inflation.

SEAN CONNERY
Dr No
2nd in 1962 @ $59.6 mil
Lost to: Lawrence of Arabia ($17.7 mill)
Beat: The Longest Day ($9.5 mil), How the West Was Won ($9.6 mil)

From Russia With Love
2nd in 1963 @ $78.9 mil
Lost to: Cleopatra ($40.9 mil)
Beat: It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World ($18.9 mil)

Goldfinger
1st in 1964 @ $124.9 mil
Lost to: None
Beat: Mary Poppins ($9.6 mil), My Fair Lady ($49.9 mil)

Thunderball
2nd in 1965 @ $141.2 mil
Lost to: The Sound of Music ($145 mil)
Beat: Doctor Zhivago ($19 mil)

You Only Live Twice
3rd in 1967 @ $111.6 mil
Lost to: The Jungle Book ($94.2 mil), The Graduate ($3.3 mil)
Beat: Bonnie and Clyde ($41.6 mil), Guess Who's Coming To Dinner ($41.6 mil)

Diamonds Are Forever
1st in 1971 @ $116.0 mil
Lost to: None
Beat: Billy Jack ($18 mil), Fiddler on the Roof ($35.4 mil), The French Connection ($64.3 mil)

GEORGE LAZENBY
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2nd in 1969 @ $82.0 mil
Lost to: Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid ($24.3 mil)
Beat: Midnight Cowboy ($19.8 mil)

ROGER MOORE
Live and Let Die
4th in 1973 @ $126.4 mil
Lost to: The Exorcist ($314.9 mil), The Sting ($37.9 mil), American Graffiti ($13.6 mil)
Beat: Enter the Dragon ($36.4 mil)

The Man With The Golden Gun
4th in 1974 @ $97.6 mil
Lost to: The Towering Inferno ($42.1 mil), Blazing Saddles ($23.3 mil), Emmaneulle ($2.4 mil)
Beat: The Trial of Billy Jack ($8.6 mil), Young Frankenstein ($11.3 mil)

The Spy Who Loved Me
4th in 1977 @ $185.4 mil
Lost to: Star Wars ($465.5 mil), Close Encounters of a Third Kind ($118.4), Annie Hall ($78.6 mil)
Beat: Smokey and the Bandit ($57.1 mil), The Goodbye Girl ($83.4 mil)

Moonraker
1st in 1979 @ $210.3 mil
Lost to: None
Beat: Alien ($3.7 mil), Rocky II ($10.1 mil), Star Trek: The Motion Picture ($71.3 mil), Kramer vs Kramer ($89.4 mil)

For Your Eyes Only
2nd in 1981 @ $195.3 mil
Lost to: Raiders of the Lost Ark ($194.6 mil)
Beat: Porky's ($69.6 mil), On Golden Pond ($76 mil)

Octopussy
3nd in 1983 @ $187.5 mil
Lost to: Return of the Jedi ($287.4 mil), Flashdance ($18.4 mil)
Beat: Terms of Endearment ($23.3 mil), Never Say Never Again ($27.5 mil)

A View To A Kill
5th in 1985 @ $152.6 mil
Lost to: Back to the Future ($228.5 mil), Rocky IV ($147.9 mil), Rambo: First Blood Part II ($147.8 mil), Out of Africa ($113.6 mil)
Beat: The Color Purple ($6.3 mil)

TIMOTHY DALTON
The Living Daylights
4th in 1987 @ $191.2 mil
Lost to: Fatal Attraction ($128.9 mil), Beverly Hills Cop II ($108.8 mil), Dirty Dancing ($22.8 mil)
Beat: 3 Men and a Baby ($23.4 mil), Good Morning, Vietnam ($67.3 mil), Lethal Weapon ($71 mil)

Licence to Kill
12th in 1989 @ $156.2 mil
Lost to: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade ($318 mil), Batman ($257 mil), Back to the Future Part II ($175.8 mil), Look Who's Talking ($140.9 mil), Dead Poets Society ($79.7 mil), Lethal Weapon II ($71.7 mil), Honey, I Shrunk The Kids ($66.5 mil), Ghostbusters II ($59.2 mil), The Little Mermaid ($55.1 mil), Born on the Fourth of July ($4.8 mil), The War of the Roses ($4 mil)
Beat: Driving Miss Daisy ($10.6 mil), Black Rain ($22 mil)

PIERCE BROSNAN
GoldenEye
4th in 1995 @ $352.4 mil
Lost to: Die Hard with a Vengeance ($13.7 mil), Apollo 13 ($2.8 mil), Toy Story ($1.9 mil)
Beat: Pocanhontas ($6.3 mil), Batman Forever ($15.9 mil), Se7en ($25.1 mil)

Tomorrow Never Dies
4th in 1997 @ $346.6 mil
Lost to: Titanic ($1.8402 bil), The Lost World: Jurassic Park ($272 mil), Men in Black ($242.8 mil)
Beat: Air Force One ($31.4 mil), As Good as It Gets ($32.4 mil), Liar Liar ($40.2 mil)

The World Is Not Enough
7th in 1999 @ $361.8 mil
Lost to: Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace ($665.2 mil), The Sixth Sense ($311 mil), Toy Story 2 ($123.2 mil), The Matrix ($101.7 mil), The Mummy ($14.8 mil), Notting Hill ($2.1 mil)
Beat: American Beauty ($5.5 mil), Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me ($49.8 mil), Runaway Bride ($52.3 mil), Stuart Little ($61.7 mil)

Die Another Day
6th in 2002 @ $432 mil
Lost to: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers ($494 mil), Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets ($435 mil), Spider-Man ($389.7 mil), Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones ($267.4 mil), Men in Black II ($9.8 mil)
Beat: Signs ($23.8 mil), Ice Age ($48.7 mil), My Big Fat Greek Wedding ($63.3 mil), Minority Report ($73.6 mil), Catch Me If You Can ($79.9 mil)

DANIEL CRAIG
Casino Royale
4th in 2006 @ $599.6 mil
Lost to: Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest ($466.6 mil), The Da Vinci Code ($158.6 mil), Ice Age: The Meltdown ($61.3 mil)
Beat: Night at the Museum ($25.1 mil), Cars ($137.6 mil), X-Men: The Last Stand ($140.2 mil), 300 ($143 mil), Mission Impossible III ($201.7 mil), Superman Returns ($208.5 mil), Happy Feet ($215.3 mil)

Quantum of Solace
7th in 2008 @ $586.1 mil
Lost to: The Dark Knight ($418.5 mil), Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ($200.5 mil), Kung Fu Panda ($47.3 mil), Hancock ($38.3 mil), Mamma Mia! ($23.7 mil), Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa ($17.8 mil)
Beat: Iron Man ($0.9 mil), WALL-E ($51.3 mil), The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian ($166.4 mil), Sex and the City ($170.8 mil), The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor ($185 mil), Twilight ($193.5 mil)

Skyfall
2nd in 2012 @ $1.1086 bil
Lost to: The Avengers ($411 mil)
Beat: The Dark Knight Rises ($23.7 mil), The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey ($87.5 mil), Ice Age: Continental Drift ($228.8 mil)

Spectre
6th in 2015 @ $880.7 mil
Lost to: Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens ($1.1853 bil), Jurassic World ($789.7 mil), Furious Seven ($653.3 mil), Avengers: Age of Ultron ($524.7 mil), Minions ($282.8 mil)
Beat: Inside Out ($23.1 mil), Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation ($179.8 mil), The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 ($227.3 mil), The Martian ($251.4 mil), Fifty Shades of Grey ($309.7 mil)

ForYourEyesOnly

Average Film Box Office Ranking Per Actor
Sean Connery: 2 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 1 / 6 = 1.8333333

George Lazenby: 2

Roger Moore: 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 / 7 = 3.28571428571

Timothy Dalton: 4 + 12 / 2 = 8

Pierce Brosnan: 4 + 4 + 7 + 6 / 4 = 5.25

Daniel Craig: 4 + 7 + 2 + 6 / 4 = 4.75

Therefore they'd be ranked:
Connery - 1.8333333
Lazenby - 2
Moore - 3.2857
Craig - 4.75
Brosnan - 5.25
Dalton - 8

Average Bond Film Ranking Per Decade
1960's: 2 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 2 / 6 = 2

1970's: 1 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 / 5 = 2.8

1980's: 2 + 3 + 5 + 4 + 12 / 5 = 5.2

1990's: 4 + 4 + 7 / 3 = 5

2000's: 6 + 4 + 7 / 3 = 5.6666666

2010's: 2 + 6 / 2 = 4

Therefore they'd be ranked:
1960's - 2
1970's - 2.8
2010's - 4
1990's - 5
1980's - 5.2
2000's - 5.66666

Couple of Observations
- Bond really was bigger back in the day. In its first 25 years, Bond was always top 5 in the box office (and it was only 5th once). In the next 25 years, the majority of Bond films have been outside of the top 5, with one instance of not even being in the top 10.

- Bond topped the box office twice in Connery's era, once in Moore's, and never again since.

- Since FYEO in 1981, Bond's never managed to get to 2nd place again, except for SF in 2012, with the aid of Bond's Olympic appearance and 50th anniversary.

- In fact, it hasn't even managed 3rd place since OP, again disregarding SF.

Here are the instances where, even unadjusted for inflation, a Bond flick has failed to beat its predecessor at the box office in terms of gross:
YOLT -> TB

OHMSS -> YOLT

TMWTGG -> LALD

FYEO -> MR

OP -> FYEO

AVTAK -> OP

LTK -> TLD

TND -> GE

QoS -> CR

SP -> SF

Quite a few of these are simply a Bond actor's sophomore effort not being able to beat his debut, which is fine. TB, MR and SF were unusually big draws, so I don't blame their successors for failing to match them.

Still, you can notice the rather interesting trend of Bond films declining in box office performance during the 80's. With the exception of TLD, each Bond movie in that decade was making less than its predecessor even with unadjusted figures. I feel that the end of the larger-than-life feeling of Bond after Moonraker contributed to this, as well as the rise of more consistent blockbuster action movies.

Anyway, feel free to discuss anything of the things I posted here.

bondjames

Thanks for doing this @ForYoureEyesOnly. Very detailed.

Your point is well taken, since you are comparing within a particular year for cultural relevancy in comparison to other entries for that year. It's an appropriate way to look at it, because an inflation adjustment across multiple years can never truly be accurate, especially on a global basis, due to the approximations and estimations being made regarding ticket prices. Furthermore, there are always years when the overall box office tends to be higher (a rising tide lifts all boats?) and vice versa.

Yes, I had noticed previously that Bond films started to decline in 'relative' box office rank terms in their year of release in the 80's. MR truly was the end of an era in many ways.

Dalton's LTK is the one that truly took a beating, as most of us know. OHMSS is a big surprise, because even though the film was seen as a relative failure in box office terms on release, it did very well in terms of global rank for the year. TMWTGG is another surprise, coming in 4th for its year. That was the year of the first oil shock too, which likely impacted exchange rates, inflation and prices in ways that we aren't accounting for.

SF's rank is quite impressive given it was beaten only by a 3D release (Avengers). If the Marvel entry didn't have the higher priced tickets, then the box office difference between the two films would have been closer. Having said that, one must also remember that both SF and SP benefited from far more higher priced IMAX showings.

What I can glean from the data is that in prior years, we had a few monster hits that ran away with the box office for a particular year. The films at the top seem a little more bunched together these days, apart from a few mega blockbusters that come along once in a while like SW-TFA or JW.

Again, thanks for the analysis and data. Good stuff.

bondjames

One thing I noticed is how TDK destroyed QoS globally in 2008, but 'sequel' SF beat 'sequel' TDKR very slightly in 2012. Quite an achievement, given how badly LTK was soundly thrashed by Batman (and so many other major names) in 1989. Nolan's last most likely suffered quite a bit at the North American box office on account of that depraved lunatic who massacred a bunch of people in a theatre on opening night though. I know I was a little concerned about visiting a theatre for a bit after that. Also worth noting that GE beat Batman Forever globally.

Birdleson wrote: »

It is also interesting to note how the surrounding films have gone from a nice mixture of more mature cinema and adventure fare ('60s and '70s) to decades where we see very little reprieve from the CGI/Big Action/Blockbuster..

Yes, there's definitely more of the CGI junk and the Disney/Pixar type kiddie fare at the top of the pile these days.

It's surprising to see films like Annie Hall, Kramer vs. Kramer or Guess Who's Coming to Dinner near the top of the box office lists in prior years. There was also that 'horror' thing that was going on in the mid 70's.

Birdleson wrote: »

I've often saids, as have others around my age, that pre-80s there was an excitement and singular anticipation that went well beyond the diehard fans when a new Bond film was coming out. It was everywhere. I definitely grew up in the glory days of Bond and in the glory days of cinema.

My parents mentioned that to me as well. It seems like Bond was definite 'event cinema' at one point and that's not quite the case these days (SF's recent almost 'sleeper hit' success excepted). I have to say, when I watch the old Bond films in the context of when they were made, I'm always so amazed by how far ahead of the curve they were on stuntwork and practical effects. Much better than many of the contemporary entries imho. So I'm not surprised by the relative yearly box office rank. As we said on another thread, FYEO seemed to mark a bit of change (in terms of box office ambitions), and I wonder if B25 will as well after recent excesses.

ForYourEyesOnly

@Birdleson — Saw your original post, but it's alright. :) Was intending for relative performances, hence why I didn't adjust.

Anyways, you're right. The 70's started the trend of commercial blockbusters but it was in the 80's that the action dynasty was born, and Bond was slowly left behind. Bond was definitely in his prime in the 60's.

@bondjames — Agreed on almost everything. Not sure if TMWTGG being 4th in 1974 is that much of an achievement given that the year didn't produce any particularly big films.

Glad someone else noticed the little rivalry between Bond vs Batman. Currently it's 2-2, although Bond was technically advantaged in 1995 and 2012. But never mind that. :) Also interesting to note that TLD beat Lethal Weapon by $71 mil in 1987, then in 1989 Lethal Weapon II reciprocated that disparity over LTK.

LTK was the last one released in summer, IIRC. Easy to understand why given the results, but I think that was the point where it became universally known that Bond (at least on its current course) couldn't compete with all the action blockbusters anymore. Bond himself turned into that sort of thing in the 90's with Brosnan, but at least it meant holding his own at the box office. On the other hand, LTK did suffer from poor marketing and the sudden name change, so we can be a bit more lenient for that.

Also interesting to note that TWINE beat Austin Powers by less than $50 mil. I think you mentioned in another thread how close a Bond parody came to matching Bond himself. Definitely a lowlight of the series.

I am also surprised that QoS managed to beat Iron Man.

ForYourEyesOnly

Birdleson wrote: »

I'm not just talking box office. It was the zeitgeist, if you will. As popular as SF was, it didn't come close to infiltrating the group public consciousness of those Bond films of old. It didn't have that mass presence on television (talk shows, commercials, monologues, etc.).

Makes sense. I think Bond coming out in the 60's was a big advantage after all the spy-types and film noirs that were popular in the 40's and 50's. And also because the novels were popular (I think sales rocketed in the US after JFK mentioned that FRWL was one of his favorites). From the 70's onwards, things changed and we started having those monster hits, summer blockbusters etc. Huge franchises started coming out, which wasn't really a thing before. Cinema changed dramatically and it's understandable that Bond has struggled to keep up since.

Still, Bond's record over more than half a century has been commendable. We might be lamenting the box office and pop culture decline of Bond, but he's easily still the most popular spy in the world and still has a 23/24 hit at being the box office top ten, over fifty long years.

bondjames

@ForYourEyesOnly, yes I agree on TMWTGG, but it's still surprising to see it at #4, given how widely it's seen as a total failure (although I think the first oil shock may have impacted box office takings because inflation can really mess with people's behaviour). Same goes for OHMSS (which even Michael Wilson said didn't do as well as they would have liked in an interview). Good catch on Lethal Weapon. I hadn't noticed that and it further shows that Dalton sputtered with his 2nd entry.

It was indeed a wise move to switch to November releases with GE, but even that space is busy these days with SW and possibly Avatar. I really think they may have to reconsider that slot for B25. Early spring might be the best bet going forward.
---

@Birdleson, thanks for clarifying. I wonder why that change occurred? MR certainly was a far more ambitious project in comparison to FYEO, and that could perhaps explain it, or perhaps the competition just became more 'sexy' on account of advances in special effects and what not. That was around the time the 'blockbuster' came of its own after the massive SW.

ForYourEyesOnly

@Bondjames — Bond as a franchise, like the character, needs to be adaptive. Blockbusters are being thrown around in December a lot recently (including SW). Thankfully Bond 25 (assuming it's in 2018) will be spared the wrath of Star Wars, and Avatar 2's in 2020, so Bond will probably manage to avoid that too. Still, they really do need to consider the best times to release Bond flicks instead of pretending they're on par with the December hits.

For what it's worth, even Bond in his prime paled in comparison to the smash hits. Thunderball, which is still the highest grossing (adjusted for inflation) bar SF, was beaten by The Sound of Music which more than doubled its gross. But such monster hits were rare in the 60's, unlike today. We've got films surpassing the billion mark every year now, and soon it'll be 1.5 billion, then 2, etc.

bondjames

Agreed @ForYourEyesOnly. These guys are in a bit of a bind going forward. If they want to retain their yearly box office rank, there will be pressure to increase the CGI (SP's building collapse and other nonsense demonstrated this) to compete against the increasing craziness of the FF series, or up the stunt quality to compete with the likes of Cruise (although he won't be doing MI forever). On the other hand, they are also being boxed in by inventive and highly successful franchises like Kingsman.

I'm curious to see what direction they take. Either they go big, which could make things more cartoonish, or they go small, which most likely will result in a higher quality but more niche product offering.

ForYourEyesOnly

@bondjames - I reckon we've had our period of Bond being more down-to-earth. We're going to head back to the overindulgent side of Bond IMO, which will probably be a big draw at first but they have to get out before Bond turns into a caricature.

bondjames

@ForYourEyesOnly, I certainly am hoping for a more indulgent Bond done properly to excess, at least for a few films. I think we're long overdue for that after the Craig era, but they will need the right actor to pull it off. I agree though that it will probably only be able to work for a few films before they will have to reset again. That's the thing about Bond - it must continue to evolve and change to survive.

ForYourEyesOnly

@bondjames - What are your thoughts on them remaking the series and trying to modernize it all? I'm kind of against it but I'm trying to consider what they'll manage with it.

bondjames

@ForYourEyesOnly, I'm not too keen on the idea of them remaking the films. I wasn't all that keen on the reboot idea either because it creates a parallel timeline, but accepted it because it was all the rage after Nolan did it with Batman, and because the Bond/Vesper backstory hadn't been done before.

I was also against the idea of them bringing Blofeld back. I liked how they introduced Quantum in QoS, and felt it should have been taken forward from there, rather than retro-fitting it into the Spectre organization as they did in SP. That seemed like an unnecessary retrograde step which I didn't like.

Personally, I'd just like them to move forward with modern compelling contemporary stories which reflect Fleming's (and the film's) ethos and spirit, incorporating unused elements of the novels as they go along. I think they did that quite well in the past.

peter

How is Bond being boxed in by Kingsman? The first film made a worldwide total of $414,351,546 (Domestic: $128,261,724; Foreign: 286,089,822). The sequel hasn't been released, yet, but, I wouldn't be surprised to see these numbers slightly dip...

A flawed Bond film, SPECTRE, pretty much universally accepted as such:

Worldwide: $880,674,609
Domestic: $200,074,609
Foreign: $680,600,000

A mediocre 007 film destroyed a new, fresh franchise in the markets we're looking at... I don't think KM is boxing in Bond... sorry, @bondjames

MI:5:

Worldwide: $682,714,267
Domestic: $195,042,377
Foreign: $487,671,890

... so... again...:

A flawed Bond film, SPECTRE, pretty much universally accepted as such:

Worldwide: $880,674,609
Domestic: $200,074,609
Foreign: $680,600,000

TMFU

Worldwide: $109,845,109
Domestic: $45,445,109
Foreign: $64,400,000

Once again, a universally accepted, mediocre Bond pic in SP:

Worldwide: $880,674,609
Domestic: $200,074,609
Foreign: $680,600,000

C'MON @bondjames and @noSolaceleft and @Mendes4Lyfe , these numbers don't lie. On a weak effort, ppl still came to see DC as Bond... imagine what would happen if he delivers something marginally better than SP? Ppl connect to his Bond, sorry... And you guys know, as much as I do, the world wide web kills films in their first weekend, since word of mouth is so quickly distributed... But SP still delivered big box office-- not on behalf of goodwill from the previous pic (jeez boys, look at how transformers, and other films this summer, King Arthur, and its ilk, died on the weekend- whether it was new, or had "goodwill" from previous instalments, they died from bad word of mouth...

Although peeps were disappointed in SP, it still DESTROYED the competition. And by a fairly large margin.

bondjames

peter wrote: »

How is Bond being boxed in by Kingsman? The first film made a worldwide total of $414,351,546 (Domestic: $128,261,724; Foreign: 286,089,822). The sequel hasn't been released, yet, but, I wouldn't be surprised to see these numbers slightly dip...

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. My point is that creatively they are being boxed in due to the competition. The big box office side of things is increasingly being owned by CGI related fare (like FF) or class leading big stunt driven fare (like MI). The lower box office end of things is being dominated by films like Kingsman, which push the envelope combining comedy with novel interpretations of the spy genre (riffing off classic Bond).

The discussion was about 'yearly rank' and the Bond brand retaining its position. Not about DC. The simple fact remains that SP lost >30% of its box office in comparison to its immediate predecessor in its largest market (and one that will be increasingly important going forward, as I mentioned on another thread, on account of exchange rate movements). This despite being a direct sequel. No other major franchise offering in 2015 suffered such a loss.

peter

@bondjames

SP- universally NOT as good as SF critically- plays in the FF sandbox.

Stunt-driven competition like M:I, at its very best, still lost against a mediocre Bond.

KM didn't even compete.

Same with TMFU.

SP lost 30% (mainly via the US market), however, it was still lofty when compared to other franchises like transformers that were killed after its first weekend this year...;

Recognizing that SF is an outlier, and most Bond films don't accumulate 1.2 billion bucks at the box office, SP's almost $900 million should be seen as a "holy-crap- how did that happen?"...

But ppl keep moving the goal posts: SF was an outlier, but; SF vs SP lost 30% of SF revenue... which means... what??? SF was an outlier. As, I believe, you have even stated. Which means the 1.2 billion is inflated off of many elements.

A normal Bond film, on average would do, what?? $550-$600 million... with inflation and flukes? $700 million, like the past Sony Spider-mans??

SP, in an age where word of mouth kills films in its first weekend, still made $880 million... that ain't fluke, but does show audience appetite-- even with a mediocre product.

That's the intangible that makes Bond, and DC Bond, very awesome...

bondjames

Again, this is not about DC but about Bond's yearly rank. I tried to explain that earlier but it seems to have been lost. Moving on.

peter

I'm not talking about DC, @bondjames, I'm talking about a mediocre Bond film vs the competition. The numbers don't lie.

EDIT: P.S. please read what I wrote, @bondjames

bondjames

I did read it. Nothing new there (I'm quite familiar with all of those numbers and perspectives) and I have nothing more to add except once again, the discussion is about 'yearly rank'. Over and out.

peter

@bondjames, you're usually a thoughtful man, so I am confused by your replies: I'm not talking about DC, I'm talking about Bond films and the fact that you say he's boxed in by the competition; but the numbers show that, no, Bond, even with a word of mouth, and critical mediocrity of the last film, shows that the franchise is, pretty much, head and tails, above the competition.

So, I am being sincere in saying: what are you saying?

If this is frustrating to you, please PM me and we can continue this conversation. But, to be clear, I'm not being purposefully contrarian to your view. I just look at what you wrote:

"These guys are in a bit of a bind going forward. If they want to retain their yearly box office rank, there will be pressure to increase the CGI (SP's building collapse and other nonsense demonstrated this) to compete against the increasing craziness of the FF series, or up the stunt quality to compete with the likes of Cruise (although he won't be doing MI forever). On the other hand, they are also being boxed in by inventive and highly successful franchises like Kingsman."

The numbers show that Bond isn't in competition with M:I films, since a mediocre SP still beat a top-level M:I stunt-glorified film; and other "contenders" like KM and TMFU ended up being pretenders at the box office vs a weak Bond entry.

I sincerely look forward to what exactly it is you're saying about rankings, especially considering a weak 007 outing still blew the competition out of the water?

Numbers don't lie.

SF was an outlier, yet a clumsy follow up still made almost $900 million.

I think you're an intelligent man, so I am curious to see what you meant by Bond competing against franchises he beats, or continues to beat at the box office??

Best,

P

bondjames

In order to understand what I'm saying one can't look at things linearly.

Going forward (for which we don't have data points), the Bond franchise has increasing competition. That competition comes from the CGI laden fare which captures box office (particularly globally), and from the more niche but far more inventive (due to lack of historic creative constraints) fare as well. In order retain its 'yearly rank' and actual box office (which is what this thread discussion is about), they will have to consider carefully what direction they take with the series in the context of such competition.

That competition in 2015 could very well have impacted the public's perception of the last Bond film, because those films had a lot of buzz and were looked upon quite favourably either as new franchises or as critically impressive entries in long running franchises. Some had fancier CGI stunts, some had fancier real stunts, some had more interesting characters, some had better humour etc. etc. This is what I mean about boxing in (from all sides). They either reinforced or created very successful franchises in their own right which in some cases didn't exist a decade ago.

Yes, of course Bond still leads the pack. I wouldn't have expected anything less at this point (and especially coming off SF's outsize success).

I wasn't suggesting that the MI series is going to surpass Bond in global box office. That is strictly a 'Cruise vehicle' and not a 50 year franchise. It is firmly dependent on its lead actor unlike the Bond franchise, which has existed for multiple decades and will exist after Craig passes the torch. I wasn't suggesting that FF is a Bond competitor either (although they are increasingly infringing in the spy space, and there are rumours the next one could go to space). Nor Kingsman (although there were some very neat Bondian touches in the first film).

None are direct competitors, but indirectly and in unison they have an effect on a future James Bond film's ability to impress (in relative terms) a global audience, and consequently on a future James Bond film's ability to be a culturally impactful benchmark with a high 'relative yearly rank'. They chip away at Bond's superiority little by little, irrespective of how they do at the box office in comparison. They are not constrained by the same expectations and the same history that Bond films are, and that gives them a creative advantage.

peter

After re-reading this, I apologize, in advance, @bondjames, but what you said seemed to open up several connecting thoughts:

I absolutely agree, @bondjames that, yes, the marketplace is crowded. With each passing decade, Bond has had to face more and more competitors, and now, any popcorn flick seemingly has to scream at its audience (LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT THIS SPECTACLE OF CGI ROBOTS CRASHING INTO EACH OTHER!! LOOK AT THE COLORS!! LOOK AT YOU HAVING A SEIZURE (oops)).

But that doesn't mean Bond will use CGI as spectacle. I'm guessing here, but the CGI in the opening sequence of SP seemed to be a choice: there was this set-piece, and, from a budget point-of-view (and perhaps technical), it would be easier to take this building down using a mix of CGI and practical (after all, Mendes had to cut corners to save up for his money-shot explosion).

The only time I can think where Bond used CG as pure spectacle was in DAD. Otherwise, it seems to me, that the effects used are to save on budget and/or for technical reasons (we can show Camille and Bond jumping out of a plane, rather than far away shots of stuntmen performing).

I'm not saying this is right, it just seems to be the way of modern filmmaking (outside of Cruise and Nolan).

Saying that, I think the Bond producers should go back to as many practical stunts as they can (falling out of an airplane in MR may've been a complex shooting experience, and, I'm guessing, it took days to execute (if not weeks, plus the pre-planning of the choreography), but that sequence is still thrilling today). CGI has somewhat made us lazy and less creative in our execution.

Circling back to what you wrote above, I do agree the marketplace is crowded and noisy. Bond WILL have to stay on his toes. I don't think he'll be overwhelmed with CG in the future (or at least I hope not); they do have to get back to practical, as they've historically done, but can't ape a Cruise film (the non-stop set pieces in TND, although well done, was exhausting, and, the climax of Rambo-Bond was mentally disorienting to me!); they should celebrate the uniqueness of this character moving forth, and see what makes him special and what makes him standout, vs all the the noise.

In fact, a quieter Bond film, that's made with class (a great soundtrack, wonderful locales), with a strong character who's in danger (without CGI explosions and whatever ADD editing and images other films pour into their "moving-pictures"), with casting strongly and creating a memorable foe; this may be the antidote to continue Bond's reign.

I guess this all gets back to one thing: story. A great story. A great story that stands on its own two legs, and doesn't need trickery or gimmicks to appeal to the mass market (brother-gate). But just a great story, and from that flows a top-quality film (a la CR).

A great story with compelling characters, in its simplicity, seems to be the remedy to drown out all the noise (or at least in my opinion). Easier said than done though, right? The modern popcorn flick seems to be built on "the path of least resistance"- forget creativity, if we can put it together on our computer, we save time and money, put everything on greenscreen and create the world later (George Lucas and his pre-quels, Zack Snyder, Michael Bay, and their ilk)...

Again, I can't see 007 ever slipping completely down this rabbit-hole, and EoN, through 55 years of a constantly changing landscape, appear to know what they're doing more than any of us on this forum (when they have a slip, they seem to listen and correct the errors of what came before). As someone had recently said: what makes these guys unique at EoN is that it is a family business. Babs and co. can't hide behind their mistakes by pushing our attention onto the next film in their universe; they have to take their lumps, and rebound stronger with the next picture.

bondjames

No worries @peter. I just didn't feel like getting into the the explanation earlier in the night as I was in the middle of watching OP. My apologies for tuning out.

Regarding CGI in Bond films - I believe it has become offensively prevalent of late (particularly in SP). There were several landscape shots which were CGI augmented. Now, I don't care if they do that, as long as it's not apparent to me. Unfortunately it was, and terribly so. It may have been done due to time constraints or perhaps due to expediency, but the bottom line is I personally found it disgraceful for a franchise that has for so long set the standard when it comes to practical effects & location filming. That building collapse took me right out of the film, as did the yellow filter and most of the augmented locations. It just looked 'unnatural' (not quite like a DC studio film, but close enough to be uncomfortable). In one of my earlier posts on this thread I noted that MR was one of the last films where it felt like Bond was setting the technical standard in comparison to comparable Hollywood blockbusters. Since then, the opposition has come a long way relatively speaking, which could to some extent explain why Bond has not moved up on a 'yearly rank' basis (apart from the SF outlier).

Now, how to fend off such competition? Like you said, I think it's by making the best damn film you can make with an engaging and thrilling story. One solution may be to go down the SF route, which is to give us, on a relatively small budget, a low key intense thriller (but without the personal angle). Could such a film make the kind of money that SF made? Perhaps not, but I would prefer that direction than any attempts to outdo franchises like FF. GE or CR are other examples.

Sadly, we have an audience now that is used to cheap thrill CGI spectacle. The kind of disposable trash that makes a buck today but is forgotten tomorrow. I don't want Bond to ever go down that path (and as I said, I think they have gone a long way in that direction with the pathetic last effort), and would prefer they do things for real as you said, but we must recognize that this is far more costly to do. It's interesting that you mentioned Cruise and Nolan as exceptions to the modern filmmaking style. I agree, and that is why I am huge proponents of both (particularly the latter). They get it. By not resorting to obvious augmentation and by doing things for real where possible, they create films that resonate & are remembered. While watching OP yesterday I was reminded more of Cruise's last two efforts and Nolan's PTS for TDKR more than I was any recent Bond film. The fact that both know how to make money while doing that is also something that impresses me. Bond used to do that as well. Time to get back to it.

Where I disagree with you is to attribute 55 years of success purely to EON. It was far more than that. A series of exceptional directors, actors, composers, cinematographers etc. operating under the influence of Cubby's tireless drive and control which delivered the timeless legend that is James Bond on film. It should never be taken for granted that this can continue indefinitely and consistently without clear direction, vision and commitment. I remain to be convinced that such is the case.

peter

Don't get me wrong @bondjames , many wonderful components came together (under the EoN banner) that made 007 such a colossus (Maibaum, Barry, Young being just three super-stars). However, I think Babs, although different than Cubby, still learned much from him. And she's got balls: DAD turned the page onto CR; Henry Cavill was dropped for the short, blond DC; QoS (a film I have learned to love), turned the page onto SF...

There's evidence that she learns from her mistakes.

SP was a cluster-f*** from the beginning. Bad choices were made in which Babs and MGW have to stand guilty as charged. A writer and director were, seemingly, given free-range, and once they saw what they were left with, it was almost too late (and in some ways it was; the smart choice would have been to pull the plug on their release date, and start from scratch).

Babs is a sharp person. It will be interesting to see how she bounces back from SP.

bondjames

Indeed @peter, and at least from my perspective, I hold Craig partially accountable for SP. He is the one who insisted on Mendes (even when the latter said he was done with the series after SF). In retrospect, he should not have done that. I agree with suggestions in the production thread that he should be given less control in creative decision making going forward. I'm not all that impressed with Bab's female empowerment shtick either, which reared its head in TND to DAD. I'm all for it conceptually, but one has to always remember that Bond is the star of the show. It has to be handled deftly in a Bond film.

On a related note, I just read an interview in GQ where Judi Dench comments on Craig. She says the following:

"I think he's loved working with Skyfall's director Sam Mendes. I actually worked with Sam when he was a little boy in the theatre, so I know him very well. You feel very sure in Sam's hands and I think that's something that matters to Daniel. Well, every actor likes it if you feel somebody's on the bridge."

It suggests to me that Craig's return is highly contingent on the script and the director for B25.

peter

@bondjames, Craig will be back, as you say, only if the script and director are up to snuff-- absolutely agree on this point.

And @RC7 has mentioned, he's under the belief that the script is being written with DC in mind.

Whether he's back or no (and I am partial to his return to send him off in the right manner), I do except EoN to deliver...

PrinceKamalKhan

"SEAN CONNERY
Dr No
2nd in 1962 @ $59.6 mil
Lost to: Lawrence of Arabia ($17.7 mill)
Beat: The Longest Day ($9.5 mil), How the West Was Won ($9.6 mil)

From Russia With Love
2nd in 1963 @ $78.9 mil
Lost to: Cleopatra ($40.9 mil)
Beat: It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World ($18.9 mil)

Goldfinger
1st in 1964 @ $124.9 mil
Lost to: None
Beat: Mary Poppins ($9.6 mil), My Fair Lady ($49.9 mil)

Thunderball
2nd in 1965 @ $141.2 mil
Lost to: The Sound of Music ($145 mil)
Beat: Doctor Zhivago ($19 mil)

You Only Live Twice
3rd in 1967 @ $111.6 mil
Lost to: The Jungle Book ($94.2 mil), The Graduate ($3.3 mil)
Beat: Bonnie and Clyde ($41.6 mil), Guess Who's Coming To Dinner ($41.6 mil)

Diamonds Are Forever
1st in 1971 @ $116.0 mil
Lost to: None
Beat: Billy Jack ($18 mil), Fiddler on the Roof ($35.4 mil), The French Connection ($64.3 mil)

GEORGE LAZENBY
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2nd in 1969 @ $82.0 mil
Lost to: Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid ($24.3 mil)
Beat: Midnight Cowboy ($19.8 mil)

ROGER MOORE
Live and Let Die
4th in 1973 @ $126.4 mil
Lost to: The Exorcist ($314.9 mil), The Sting ($37.9 mil), American Graffiti ($13.6 mil)
Beat: Enter the Dragon ($36.4 mil)

The Man With The Golden Gun
4th in 1974 @ $97.6 mil
Lost to: The Towering Inferno ($42.1 mil), Blazing Saddles ($23.3 mil), Emmaneulle ($2.4 mil)
Beat: The Trial of Billy Jack ($8.6 mil), Young Frankenstein ($11.3 mil)

The Spy Who Loved Me
4th in 1977 @ $185.4 mil
Lost to: Star Wars ($465.5 mil), Close Encounters of a Third Kind ($118.4), Annie Hall ($78.6 mil)
Beat: Smokey and the Bandit ($57.1 mil), The Goodbye Girl ($83.4 mil)

Moonraker
1st in 1979 @ $210.3 mil
Lost to: None
Beat: Alien ($3.7 mil), Rocky II ($10.1 mil), Star Trek: The Motion Picture ($71.3 mil), Kramer vs Kramer ($89.4 mil)

For Your Eyes Only
2nd in 1981 @ $195.3 mil
Lost to: Raiders of the Lost Ark ($194.6 mil)
Beat: Porky's ($69.6 mil), On Golden Pond ($76 mil)

Octopussy
3nd in 1983 @ $187.5 mil
Lost to: Return of the Jedi ($287.4 mil), Flashdance ($18.4 mil)
Beat: Terms of Endearment ($23.3 mil), Never Say Never Again ($27.5 mil)

A View To A Kill
5th in 1985 @ $152.6 mil
Lost to: Back to the Future ($228.5 mil), Rocky IV ($147.9 mil), Rambo: First Blood Part II ($147.8 mil), Out of Africa ($113.6 mil)
Beat: The Color Purple ($6.3 mil)

TIMOTHY DALTON
The Living Daylights
4th in 1987 @ $191.2 mil
Lost to: Fatal Attraction ($128.9 mil), Beverly Hills Cop II ($108.8 mil), Dirty Dancing ($22.8 mil)
Beat: 3 Men and a Baby ($23.4 mil), Good Morning, Vietnam ($67.3 mil), Lethal Weapon ($71 mil)

Licence to Kill
12th in 1989 @ $156.2 mil
Lost to: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade ($318 mil), Batman ($257 mil), Back to the Future Part II ($175.8 mil), Look Who's Talking ($140.9 mil), Dead Poets Society ($79.7 mil), Lethal Weapon II ($71.7 mil), Honey, I Shrunk The Kids ($66.5 mil), Ghostbusters II ($59.2 mil), The Little Mermaid ($55.1 mil), Born on the Fourth of July ($4.8 mil), The War of the Roses ($4 mil)
Beat: Driving Miss Daisy ($10.6 mil), Black Rain ($22 mil)

PIERCE BROSNAN
GoldenEye
4th in 1995 @ $352.4 mil
Lost to: Die Hard with a Vengeance ($13.7 mil), Apollo 13 ($2.8 mil), Toy Story ($1.9 mil)
Beat: Pocanhontas ($6.3 mil), Batman Forever ($15.9 mil), Se7en ($25.1 mil)

Tomorrow Never Dies
4th in 1997 @ $346.6 mil
Lost to: Titanic ($1.8402 bil), The Lost World: Jurassic Park ($272 mil), Men in Black ($242.8 mil)
Beat: Air Force One ($31.4 mil), As Good as It Gets ($32.4 mil), Liar Liar ($40.2 mil)

The World Is Not Enough
7th in 1999 @ $361.8 mil
Lost to: Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace ($665.2 mil), The Sixth Sense ($311 mil), Toy Story 2 ($123.2 mil), The Matrix ($101.7 mil), The Mummy ($14.8 mil), Notting Hill ($2.1 mil)
Beat: American Beauty ($5.5 mil), Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me ($49.8 mil), Runaway Bride ($52.3 mil), Stuart Little ($61.7 mil)

Die Another Day
6th in 2002 @ $432 mil
Lost to: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers ($494 mil), Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets ($435 mil), Spider-Man ($389.7 mil), Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones ($267.4 mil), Men in Black II ($9.8 mil)
Beat: Signs ($23.8 mil), Ice Age ($48.7 mil), My Big Fat Greek Wedding ($63.3 mil), Minority Report ($73.6 mil), Catch Me If You Can ($79.9 mil)

DANIEL CRAIG
Casino Royale
4th in 2006 @ $599.6 mil
Lost to: Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest ($466.6 mil), The Da Vinci Code ($158.6 mil), Ice Age: The Meltdown ($61.3 mil)
Beat: Night at the Museum ($25.1 mil), Cars ($137.6 mil), X-Men: The Last Stand ($140.2 mil), 300 ($143 mil), Mission Impossible III ($201.7 mil), Superman Returns ($208.5 mil), Happy Feet ($215.3 mil)

Quantum of Solace
7th in 2008 @ $586.1 mil
Lost to: The Dark Knight ($418.5 mil), Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ($200.5 mil), Kung Fu Panda ($47.3 mil), Hancock ($38.3 mil), Mamma Mia! ($23.7 mil), Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa ($17.8 mil)
Beat: Iron Man ($0.9 mil), WALL-E ($51.3 mil), The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian ($166.4 mil), Sex and the City ($170.8 mil), The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor ($185 mil), Twilight ($193.5 mil)

Skyfall
2nd in 2012 @ $1.1086 bil
Lost to: The Avengers ($411 mil)
Beat: The Dark Knight Rises ($23.7 mil), The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey ($87.5 mil), Ice Age: Continental Drift ($228.8 mil)

Spectre
6th in 2015 @ $880.7 mil
Lost to: Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens ($1.1853 bil), Jurassic World ($789.7 mil), Furious Seven ($653.3 mil), Avengers: Age of Ultron ($524.7 mil), Minions ($282.8 mil)
Beat: Inside Out ($23.1 mil), Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation ($179.8 mil), The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 ($227.3 mil), The Martian ($251.4 mil), Fifty Shades of Grey ($309.7 mil)"

Thanks for posting this list, @ForYourEyesOnly. Do you have this same box office information as well as its ranking on the annual 1983 list for Connery's non-official Never Say Never Again?

PrinceKamalKhan

Birdleson wrote: »

He has it included under OP. But I don't know if that is it's actual order placement.

Thanks. I overlooked that. Only $27.5 mil for NSNA? I remember that OP outgrossed it but I think that amount must have been just been the rentals for Connery's non-official Bond rather than the full gross.

bondjames

PrinceKamalKhan wrote: »

Birdleson wrote: »

He has it included under OP. But I don't know if that is it's actual order placement.

Thanks. I overlooked that. Only $27.5 mil for NSNA? I remember that OP outgrossed it but I think that amount must have been just been the rentals for Connery's non-official Bond rather than the full gross.

Just to clarify, the $27.5m is not the absolute gross for NSNA, but rather the differential between OP and NSNA. So to get NSNA's gross, subtract that amount from OP's gross.

All the figures for the other films are also differentials from the base Bond film in each case.

ForYourEyesOnly

@PrinceKamalKhan Yes, @bondjames hit the nail on the head here. The only absolute grosses I included were for the Eon Bond films of the years themselves. The other figures I provided were the difference in gross only.

But I'll make it easy for you — NSNA grossed $160 million in 1983 US dollars.

Mendes4Lyfe

Are these productions actually becoming bigger in scale? I know they have a lot more time now to plan, compared with the 60's, but have they actually gotten bigger or just kept pace with inflation? I once heard that adjusted for inflation Thunderball is one of the top earning Bond films. So if that is true of the gross, is it true of the budget also?

I'm just curious if these films are actually becoming more elaborate or they are just taking advantage of new technologies that save costs.