It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
LOL, hey, I also enjoy discussing :-). I find this an interesting topic.
That was in 2015. The Chinese influence on box office grosses has exponentially increased. "M: I - Fallout" grossed $181 Million in China. So a $160 Million isn't such a bad prediction. "Hobbs & Shaw" already grossed $163 Million, and that Fast&Furious-spin-off is doing considerably worse than "Furious 8".
Not really. SP was the 26th highest grossing film at the box office in China in 2015 - Rogue Nation managed to gross $135 million there compared to the $83 million from SP. The grosses have barely managed to increase slightly since (for Hollywood productions, aside from the outlier that is the recent Avengers film, obviously). I'll be surprised to see B25 hit $160 million but I've been wrong before.
What do you mean with "not really" then? It's only logical that after 4,5 years, during which Chinese box office grosses have increaed tremendously, this 'new normal' for action blockbusters in China, around $150 Million, will be achieved.
Sorry for the word 'exponentially', which is obviously incorrect. "Rogue Nation" dates from 2015, "Fallout" increased pretty big on that one, and it premiered 3 years later.
I don't think it's that black-and-white really. Hence I think $180 to $210 Million is way too much to ask for (which the by you mentioned franchises could gross more easily in China). But a 'small' $160 Million for a 'unknown' Bond-franchise could be achievable.
Additionally, from an actual financial perspective, studios only take around 25% of a film’s final Chinese box office tally. Typically the number is closer to 50% in other territories. So your film has to be a runaway success in China to be considered profitable to the studio.
But, as I’ve said, China does give a film that extra push and bigger bragging rights if it helps push a move closer to $1 billion.
It’s surprising that Eon didn’t cast a Chinese actress to give the film a bigger boost in that territory. They should have cast Gemma Chan as Nomi
I think NTTD will make somewhere between $80-100m in China. That’s disappointing – but not a flop.
And kids will continue to get into them. But it’s a totally different landscape now. The Bond films aren’t doing anything too different to what they’ve always done, but culture evolves and the all-consuming worlds Disney oversees are more aligned with the modern kids’ need for content that is voluminous and delivered with unrelenting frequency. It’s not so much that EON can’t attract ‘kids’, but there’s no real need to make it a focus. They don’t really have a platform to indulge kids who aren’t naturally going to gravitate towards it regardless.
As a kid yes, but not because they were aimed at me. Quite the opposite.
I'm saying that American blockbusters in China, in terms of 2015 grosses, have not really increased in any consistent, major way in 3-4 years to the degree that one could assume NTTD would actually double the amount that SP made in China.
Of course, SF made even less than SP did, so it may just be a case of Bond not necessarily wowing and impressing overseas in that region, yet the likes of M:I seems to put asses in seats there. I guess the film will speak for itself, it depends.
In fact, the very first Bond film I tried watching was TND when I was 11 years old. After the garage scene I switched it off after getting painfully bored, and wouldn't give Bond another chance until years later. But that's really more on TND being a shit film.
I know Bond films at a certain point became more geared towards families and a lot of people here grew up watching Bond as kids and strongly associate watching them with their families, but IMO Bond just works better as something geared towards adults. I rather have more Bond movies like FRWL than YOLT.
It's indeed a very personal thing. But therefore I'd like people in here to challenge their own personal tastes in favor of those who are younger than us. I understand that back in the 1960's and 1970's there wasn't really other stiff blockbuster-competition. Hence young kids -even Pierce Brosnan as a 9-ear old watching GF- automatically were destined to watch Bond films more freuquently in cinema than many other Oscar bait. Bond basically dragged cinema audiences out of an elitist group of viewers.
Hell, even my parents (now 71 and 69 years old) never went to cinema in the early/mid 1960's. I recall my mum's first cinema experience was "The Sound Of Music" in 1965, but that was about it. They both grew up in large families. Both my grandparents were pure farmers, lived in the 'Dutch Bible Belt' (countryside), and were quite poor. So Bond slowly made cinema more mainstream.
That function is gone now. And in a way I would like to change that a bit I guess. Look, personally, Daniel Craig is my Bond. Hhe brought emotional gravita to the Bond character. He is the kind of Bond Connery always wanted to play. And he continues to play that until next year's "No Time To Die".
But after that, the Craig-era is over. Period. The end. Goodbye and thank you Daniel. So I guess I am already thinking ahead a bit. I think it's time to go to a more family friendly Bond after Daniel Craig. Perhaps an era that's slightly more reminiscent of Brosnan. But I also realize cinema audiences can't be fooled anymore. Even Marvel really sought the fringes of what is considered R-Rated recently. The gutting death of Spidey in "Avengers 3", chopping off the head of Thanos in "Avengers: Endgame" and the death of "Iron Man", which in many ways reflected the death of Tracy, 'M', Wolverine, Vesper and many other on-screen emotional death scenes.....that's a new normal, even for younger cinema audiences. And even Bond may have paved the way to this new normal.
So talking about more or less 'family-friendly' is perhaps also a discussion with lots of nuances and grey zones. The question I ask myself is this though:
Do we want the Bond-franchise to stick its head in the sand and stay what it is? Or do we also think about the youngsters among us for whom Bond becomes less and less a known character in the blockbuster climate of today? Do we want the Bond franchise to maintain the Craig-style for years and years to come? Or do we think ahead and do something 'different' with the franchise after next year's leave of Daniel Craig?
As for post-Craig, I think Eon will go down the Marvel/Kingsman and try and focus on making fun films, and boost that franchise mentality that Hollywood seems obsessed with these days.
And they all make money. Lots and lots of money.
But none of them are like the Bond series. Nothing in the history of cinema is like the Bond series.
They might not make mega dollars like Marvel and Star Wars. The stunts might not quite be up there with the likes of MI. Though it's debatable. Bond still has jaw dropping stunt work.
But that's ok. Bond isn't Marvel or Disney. Bond is Bond, and he still makes money for all concerned. And he still puts bums on seats. I don't want Bond become predictable or overused.
I enjoy Star Wars, Marvel, Indy and MI. But Bond is the fine wine I enjoy, over the house wine of the competition.
Very well said, Benster!
If the "billion-dollar BO takes" is suddenly a criterium, then Bond is out of his game. SF was a freak accident, an undisputed success but also a special case. And it's fine if that success isn't repeated soon.
For a long time, MR held the record. None of the '80s films came close. Were they worse than MR? Were they rejected by audiences? No, of course not. But MR was a big hit, one of the few Bonds beefed up to be able to play with the big boys up there in the stars. A Bond on steroids, but not the norm.
My point is that Bond doesn't have to go for "ultra". Bond is Bond, a special something for a special occasion. Bond is when you dress up nicely, take the wife out for dinner, then to see the movie, then to go home and make love and the next morning call your boss and tell him you won't be coming in today. The excitement is not in the mega-event that brings every teen, tween and adult to the theatre for a Red Bull induced stupor and a guaranteed billion-plus milestone; the excitement is in being a part of something that has inspired generations.
When people say, "I was there, opening night, for The Excorcist", I go, "wow, I'm jealous". But when people say, "I was there, opening night, for The Spy Who Loved Me", I go, "I wish I could have experienced that moment" and bloody mean it.
I think you've both perfectly encapsulated what makes Bond so special and not like anything else. It's owed such a great debt.
I don't like them all but I hope while I'm alive they'll still appeal to my tastes. Even at 47 I'm utterly on the edge of my seat waiting for No Time To Die, no other film next year even Tenet which I'm hugely looking forward to will generate the same kind of excitement and feeling as the new Bond and @DarthDimi I wasn't at the opening night of SWLM but I did see it on original release aged 5 and like seeing Star Wars on the big screen first time round, it's one of those experiences I'm never likely to forget.
So damn the box office if NTTD isn't a billion dollar smash and just does similar or just below business to SPECTRE, so be it. I doubt it will spell the end of this film series that we all so love so much despite some doom mongering out there.
I like a fine dining, you can indulge in McDonald's and Burger King if you like.
Why is that?
First of all, I reckon this topic is about a plain simple subject: box office talks. But I tried to make a point here that talking without any perspective about '$1 Billion Dollar Bond's' is pretty senseless really. There are more aspects to take into consideration.
Regardless of that, box office talks should not blindly be connected with its quality. And I'm sorry but it's a bit sad that this is being blown up a bit. It can very well happen that a high-quality film fails to deliver at the box office, while a bad film simply can create a 'click' and becomes a huge box office hit.
So I actually agree with you @DarthDimi: my point is as well that Bond should not just blindly go for "ultra". Bond is Bond, and history shows that mild changes and a certain mild dose of 're-inventing the wheel' can do wonders. "Die Another Day" did that by applying the larger-than-life quality of "Moonraker". It worked. It was a huge box office hit. And it stayed a pure Bond-film with all elements of the Bond-formula.
But so did "Casino Royale". It went back-to-basics, it was a certain reboot, and by getting 'back to Earth', going back to the Fleming novel, it was a different film than "DAD". But the big audience loved it. It was a huge box office hit. Despite re-inventing elements, it was in its core a pure Bond-film.
What I disagree with, is how you see the Bond-films only as a limited event for those people who dress up nicely, take the wife out for dinner, etc. That's just being romantic. And I think we all know that if Bond only focuses on an audience like that, then it will be problematic.
Bond is an event film with red carpet premieres of mass proportions across the globe. Fact. Bond is foremost escapism too, and if you say that it's not EON's task to make sure that also families and kids go to see a Bond-film, than that does not bode well for the future. Even kids like escapism. And even kids love to indulge in thoughts that are about luxury casino settings in black-tie, or being handed over an Aston Martin by the company.
So all I say is this: Bond can do both, appeal to the young and old, appeal to women and men. And Bond has always done that. It never helped by sticking the head in the sand and not trying to appeal to large audiences. You can do both, create a wonderful Bond-film with all its formula-elements applied and strengthening the Bond-brand for the future by doing something about financial and organizational matters.
And again, this is a box office topic. Saying one thing does not mean instantly that you can't agree with other things :-).
+1
Though I'd have to leave out the wife and the dinner. Usually it's with my Dad, followed by a few pints. The sentiment is the same though.
If each film is slowly making less money, with ticket prices rising I should add, then it’s simple tour going on a downward not upward trend.
I don’t really understand the point you’re making, if there is one? These films will attract families and children in the way they always have, so nothing has changed there. What’s changed is the landscape, where certain franchises now acutely target a younger demographic. That isn’t Bond’s business. Of course, they aren’t going to push that market away, but there’s no reason for them to prioritise it over others either. This will be a thrilling event movie for ‘everyone’ (with good taste of course - and you can’t force that).
My points were:
--> Discuss the box office figures with more perspective (if you enjoy being in this topic), taking into account not just grosses, but also profits and ROI.
--> Deliver some good ideas on how the Bond-franchise can improve itself in the long-term future (10 to 15 years from now or so), even if you are conservative and want nothing to be changed).
--> Managing and planning pre-production of Bond-films better in a post-Craig environment (stop these long breaks when an actor is asking for it, no non-Bond productions, positively influencing social media (yeah you MGM!), contracting directors in a much earlier phase...if you want A-list directors, restructuring ownership).
--> Making budgets more lean (The Bond films are doing something wrong to that respect when compared to other action blockbusters).
Look @RC7. This is a box-office topic. I am fascinated about the financial and business side of filmmaking. You can say "why bother worrying if you can't influence it". But like in other topics, in which we criticize Bond-films from other (quality) perspectives (story, acting, etc), we are also unable to influence those aspects (I mean, would you say that fan art is also a useless thing, because those fan designs won't be used anyway by the Bond producers?). We are on this forums to show off our opinions about Bond, how useless and time-inefficient being on a forum sometimes may seem (I for instance couldn't stop my urge not to return here, because "No Time To Die" is premiering soon :-D!).
In my case, and in the case of this topic: I just disagree with the notion that the Bond-franchise should be a solid unchangeable thing. I disagree with the fact that a proven success story should therefore not be tampered with (Bond can also make itself irrelevant in the long-term).
I think there's a lot that needs to be improved about the Bond-franchise. Many people don't like to hear it, or skip this topic because of it. Fine. But I'm not the kind of guy that blindly agrees how the producers do these Bond-films. The Bond-brand will never die, but it can be mothballed randomly for years. And then obviously it's an event film, but for all the sinister reasons. Bond shouldn't be mothballed for such long periods. The more profits a new Bond-film makes, the more the producers can do to proactively create more of these 'thrilling event movies' decades to come.