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
Of course Bond has constantly been more or less on our radar since '62. So why would things be different now than say in the late 90s when Bond was also going strong yet DC and Marvel were still struggling to get anything cinematic done? I honestly think that these Craig films hit the right notes and this time at the right moment (versus the unfortunate cases of e.g. TLD and LTK). SF must have already capitalised on the current franchises-are-hot movement because it made almost twice what CR had made yet it's certainly not twice as good a film. ;-) But everything fit. Adele fit, Craig fit, the 4 year gap fit... And so I think that SP will already be able to coast on a lot of SF goodwill. If indeed it can top our expectations by being somewhat bigger, possibly more action-driven and less "you're too old for this, James", who knows, it could bring 007 back into the top 10. That is until the next Cap America, Avatar, Avengers, Star Wars, ... comes out. ;-)
For the record, I find TB superior to GF.
I don't expect the producers require it to top Skyfall to see it as successful. Let's remember the last highest grossing Bond film in adjusted terms (Thunderball) wasn't topped in terms of Box Office until Live and Let Die, and not beaten in undajusted terms for 47 years.
To answer the question, there are many factors behind a franchise film's success: capturing public mood (like Bond in the mid-60s, or Moonraker catching the space craze, post-Star Wars), a reaction to the quality and popularity of the previous entry (Thunderball, arguably), events outside of the film (the deaths of Heath Ledger and Paul Walker), casting (arguably Halle Berry - awful, but considered a big get at the time). So, I agree - Die another Day isn't the best Brosnan, Moonraker is certainly not the best Moore, Skyfall isn't the best Craig, and it is debatable whether Thunderball is the best Connery.
That is no small asset though. How many Oscars did Christoph Waltz win? His fame may be even superior to his predecessor.
Two Oscars within 3 years.
No small feat. Not a guarantee for success but certainly an asset.
I don't think either of them had then the respect Waltz has now. Lee was a B movie horror actor, as for Walken someone corrects me if I am wrong but his big roles were considered behind him when he did AVTAK.
In that context, it's more necessary for the film to be able to stand on its own, quality-wise to make more money than its predecessor. It cannot necessarily just ride SF's coattails as a franchise entry, because there is a new story to be told with new characters/cast etc... In the 53 years of Bond films, we've had ups and downs precisely because of that.....some films sit better with the public and others do not, despite the fact that they are all entries in the longest running movie franchise. I prefer the following films to their predecessors quality wise, and they each made more money than the immediately preceding film: FRWL, TB, LALD, TSWLM TLD, SF.
I did not like the following films quality-wise as much as their predecessor & they made less money: YOLT, MR (made less than TSWLM on an inflation adjusted basis which is relevant since the oil shock sent inflation spiking), & TND.
Better quality does not necessarily mean more box office in other franchises either (witness Empire Strikes Back vs. Star Wars, or Godfather 2 vs. 1 or even the superior Spider Man 2 vs. 1). Most of the time, it actually results in less box office (which is in line with the thesis). Worse quality does not necessarily mean better box office either (Ultron vs. Avengers, Lost World vs. Jurassic Park etc. etc.).
So I don't think there's really a pattern to it. SP could be a better film and still make less money. However, it could be a worse film, and could make more money, or vice-versa..
The more important factors to determine what happens box office-wise, as has been noted, will be competition in the theatres, ticket prices, availability in the best/priciest theatres, exchange rates in major markets, and marketing (including title song and word of mouth). Depending on how these last factors play out, the film could either be more successful than SF (unlikely due to that film's momentous status as the 50th anniversary film and the lack of serious franchise competition during its release), or less so (but only slightly, since China and the US are likely to have higher grosses for SP compared to SF), irrespective of its quality.
<font color=blue size=7><b>By the end of this year, we will have 26 Bond films.</b></font>
(The 50s CR television episode doesn't fully qualify as a Bond film IMO but who knows, some might argue we have 27 Bond films altogether.)