Skyfall: Billion Dollar Bond

1212224262782

Comments

  • What a financial failure...
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 277
    OwenDavian wrote:
    What a financial failure...
    Lol
  • Posts: 157
    OwenDavian wrote:
    What a financial failure...

    Will they ever do a Bond film again?
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,632
    Sarcasm, my friend...
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 277
    ha genius.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 13,355
    Should Skyfall earn $1 billion, here's who would get what:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/daniel-craig-james-bond-skyfall-390090

    This also confirms the news in 2007 after Casino Royale was correct. Back then, Craig did sign on for four more.
    htall90 wrote:
    The lowest form of wit :))

    Yet the funniest.
  • It's truly unique that we Bond fans can witness something that Bond fans back in 1964/1965 witnessed with 'Goldfinger' and 'Thunderball'.

    Money is not everything...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 40,967
    @Suivez_ce_parachute, you're correct, but I think what he is getting at is that it's nice to see the Bond series, almost fifty years after TB accomplished $1B in inflated earnings, doing the same thing again.

    It's insane that Craig was paid $17 million to do a film that looks like a hell of a lot of fun to make.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 2,015
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Suivez_ce_parachute, you're correct, but I think what he is getting at is that it's nice to see the Bond series, almost fifty years after TB accomplished $1B in inflated earnings, doing the same thing again.
    But, well, FRWL/GF/TB created a legend, it was Bondmania.. and Skyfall's using it, it's not making a new Bondmania again. And IMO, it's not even making it stronger. I mean, it was reported by many that there were lots of cheers when the DB5 appeared on screen. In 40 years, do you think a large audience will cheer because of a Skyfall reference in Bond 39 ? :)

    It's tempting to imagnie that Skyfall is FRWL, and to think that the next will look like GF, if the Broccoli continue to use the zeitgeist (TDK meant blockbusters should be serious, so 007 was. Well, now Avengers brought back the fun...). But I don't think any comparison with the 60's is meaningless, really.

    The good news is that we won't have a parodic spy movie with Craig's brother, then.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    I'm not talking about a "new Bondmania," I'm speaking of the amount of money it's making.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 2,015
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I'm not talking about a "new Bondmania," I'm speaking of the amount of money it's making.

    Then, consider that in 64/65, GF and TB did probably less than their final score everyone's talking about here. The final figures probably includes the re-release of the late 60's, the 70's and the 80's, and we're not talking about very little figures, I don't know for all the countries, but it may add up to 5% (which would mean TB didn't actually do 1$bn adjusted on its first release... - I write that even though putting 'adjusted' in any sentence make it almost meaningless most of the time.. in 10 years, TB will be a large adjusted billionnaire despite zero more actual $ spent in the theaters for it :) ).

    I put "probably" because it's a nightmare to know the true figures with box office (even today). In some French forums, we have the luck to have contributors from within the industry who can give live figures for the country, and they tell you to forget any hope to have rigourous data for any old movie (except for rankings).
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    @Suivez_ce_parachute, you're correct, but I think what he is getting at is that it's nice to see the Bond series, almost fifty years after TB accomplished $1B in inflated earnings, doing the same thing again.
    But, well, FRWL/GF/TB created a legend, it was Bondmania.. and Skyfall's using it, it's not making a new Bondmania again. And IMO, it's not even making it stronger. I mean, it was reported by many that there were lots of cheers when the DB5 appeared on screen. In 40 years, do you think a large audience will cheer because of a Skyfall reference in Bond 39 ? :)

    It's tempting to imagnie that Skyfall is FRWL, and to think that the next will look like GF, if the Broccoli continue to use the zeitgeist (TDK meant blockbusters should be serious, so 007 was. Well, now Avengers brought back the fun...). But I don't think any comparison with the 60's is meaningless, really.

    The good news is that we won't have a parodic spy movie with Craig's brother, then.

    Why doesn't it make the franchise even stronger? I think the Bond franchise depends on the money it brings in.

    Guess what happened shortly after 'Licence To Kill': A 6 year hiatus. Bond was in shambles after 'LTK's lacklustre performance. United Artists was going bankrupt, because they were almost solely depending on Bond. Nothing else.

    The money 'Skyfall' brings in now, is nothing more than excellent news. I just can't think of any doomsday scenarios right now. I even hear that Bond 24 will be difficult to make now, because 'Skyfall' is so huge. Well, NOT! The success of 'Skyfall' now gives EON, Danjaq, MGM, Sony the best of the best formula to continue on the same excellent road.

    'Skyfall' has upgraded the Bond franchise from a 'good money maker' to 'big extreme money maker, Christopher Nolan-style'. This is extremely good news, not bad news.
  • Posts: 6,601
    I would think, the money this is making with the involved success on all levels is indeed VRY important to what 24 might be able to bring on the table in terms of cast and crew. We can say, that it has this incredible cast/cew aftera rather unfortunate QOS, but had this one failed, talent would turn their backs on the francise. Now, every door will be wide open.

    So yes, money IS important and also, money comes from the audiences, who flog up for this in droves and hence, enjoy it. So - IMO this is pretty much a new Bondmania.
  • Germanlady wrote:
    I would think, the money this is making with the involved success on all levels is indeed VRY important to what 24 might be able to bring on the table in terms of cast and crew. We can say, that it has this incredible cast/cew aftera rather unfortunate QOS, but had this one failed, talent would turn their backs on the francise. Now, every door will be wide open.

    So yes, money IS important and also, money comes from the audiences, who flog up for this in droves and hence, enjoy it. So - IMO this is pretty much a new Bondmania.

    Yup, I think Bond fans should be prepared for another dreamcast for Bond 24.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote:
    I would think, the money this is making with the involved success on all levels is indeed VRY important to what 24 might be able to bring on the table in terms of cast and crew. We can say, that it has this incredible cast/cew aftera rather unfortunate QOS, but had this one failed, talent would turn their backs on the francise. Now, every door will be wide open.

    So yes, money IS important and also, money comes from the audiences, who flog up for this in droves and hence, enjoy it. So - IMO this is pretty much a new Bondmania.

    Yup, I think Bond fans should be prepared for another dreamcast for Bond 24.

    I would hope the money is spent on the development process and the production, lavish production values for 24 would be top of my list. Aside from Dan, they can incorporate one name actor, other than that I say go for brilliant actors who don't necessarily cost the earth. There are a lot out there and I think they tend to work better for Bond.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 2,015
    Guess what happened shortly after 'Licence To Kill': A 6 year hiatus. Bond was in shambles after 'LTK's lacklustre performance. United Artists was going bankrupt, because they were almost solely depending on Bond. Nothing else.

    I was already an "active" fan at that time, close to the head of the French fan club, and this is a definite re-writing of the history just to make again here your point about LTK being a "flop". UA went essentially bankrupt because of Heaven's Gate a few years before, not because of a movie who ended #11 worldwide !

    The fact that Albert Broccoli retired from the business amonst many other things is worth to mention, for instance. Also, the bank who helped then stopped backing the new MGM/UA's weird owner (who had already being sentenced to jail for previous business matters) - the main reason of the hiatus IMO - was a famous French bank at the heart of many scandals at that time, so we were well aware of that here. At that time, Bond was as usual considered a licence worth investing for, to say the least, but legal matters had to be clarified before because of what the owner did with MGM/UA. At that time, to many, "True Lies" was considered the "Bond" movie that could be made because a Bond movie could not be made.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Guess what happened shortly after 'Licence To Kill': A 6 year hiatus. Bond was in shambles after 'LTK's lacklustre performance. United Artists was going bankrupt, because they were almost solely depending on Bond. Nothing else.

    I was already an "active" fan at that time, close to the head of the French fan club, and this is a definite re-writing of the history just to make again here your point about LTK being a "flop". UA went essentially bankrupt because of Heaven's Gate a few years before, not because of a movie who ended #11 worldwide !

    The fact that Albert Broccoli retired from the business amonst many other things is worth to mention, for instance. Also, the bank who helped then stopped backing the new MGM/UA's weird owner (who had already being sentenced to jail for previous business matters) - the main reason of the hiatus IMO - was a famous French bank at the heart of many scandals at that time, so we were well aware of that here. At that time, Bond was as usual considered a licence worth investing for, to say the least, but legal matters had to be clarified before because of what the owner did with MGM/UA. At that time, to many, "True Lies" was considered the "Bond" movie that could be made because a Bond movie could not be made.

    Well said Monsieur.

    The reason for the 6 year delay was down to a legal battle between EON and UA over Bond TV rights being flogged off on the cheap.

    Get your facts straight Gustav.
  • Guess what happened shortly after 'Licence To Kill': A 6 year hiatus. Bond was in shambles after 'LTK's lacklustre performance. United Artists was going bankrupt, because they were almost solely depending on Bond. Nothing else.

    I was already an "active" fan at that time, close to the head of the French fan club, and this is a definite re-writing of the history just to make again here your point about LTK being a "flop". UA went essentially bankrupt because of Heaven's Gate a few years before, not because of a movie who ended #11 worldwide !

    The fact that Albert Broccoli retired from the business amonst many other things is worth to mention, for instance. Also, the bank who helped then stopped backing the new MGM/UA's weird owner (who had already being sentenced to jail for previous business matters) - the main reason of the hiatus IMO - was a famous French bank at the heart of many scandals at that time, so we were well aware of that here. At that time, Bond was as usual considered a licence worth investing for, to say the least, but legal matters had to be clarified before because of what the owner did with MGM/UA. At that time, to many, "True Lies" was considered the "Bond" movie that could be made because a Bond movie could not be made.

    Well said Monsieur.

    The reason for the 6 year delay was down to a legal battle between EON and UA over Bond TV rights being flogged off on the cheap.

    Get your facts straight Gustav.

    LTK didn't do so well, even when you adjust for inflation. It made back its money however.
    But even now, if you stuck Bond in the summer sandwiched between other major franchises it wouldn't do so well (I'M LOOOKING AT YOU AMERICA.)
  • Posts: 277
    i Still don't understand how a film that made back it's budget nearly 5 times over is considered a flop?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Because some believe you're not a blockbuster if you're made on the cheap.
  • Posts: 277
    On the Cheap back then the most expensive film ever made was Rambo 3 it cost $58 million to produce so $32 million was a lot proportionally back then.
  • Posts: 1,052
    I don't think the performance of LTK was that big a deal, sure it made less than previous films but it was still a pretty big hit internationally compared to what else was around, LTK and the TMWTGG both did big business abroad both these films suffered at the US box office, LTK with the competition and TMWTGG being released only a year after LALD and getting horrible reviews. But I'm pretty sure without legal wrangles both these films would have had follow ups within two years.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,119
    Guess what happened shortly after 'Licence To Kill': A 6 year hiatus. Bond was in shambles after 'LTK's lacklustre performance. United Artists was going bankrupt, because they were almost solely depending on Bond. Nothing else.

    I was already an "active" fan at that time, close to the head of the French fan club, and this is a definite re-writing of the history just to make again here your point about LTK being a "flop". UA went essentially bankrupt because of Heaven's Gate a few years before, not because of a movie who ended #11 worldwide !

    The fact that Albert Broccoli retired from the business amonst many other things is worth to mention, for instance. Also, the bank who helped then stopped backing the new MGM/UA's weird owner (who had already being sentenced to jail for previous business matters) - the main reason of the hiatus IMO - was a famous French bank at the heart of many scandals at that time, so we were well aware of that here. At that time, Bond was as usual considered a licence worth investing for, to say the least, but legal matters had to be clarified before because of what the owner did with MGM/UA. At that time, to many, "True Lies" was considered the "Bond" movie that could be made because a Bond movie could not be made.

    Well said Monsieur.

    The reason for the 6 year delay was down to a legal battle between EON and UA over Bond TV rights being flogged off on the cheap.

    Get your facts straight Gustav.

    TheWizardOfIce is right. I thank him, he gave the correct historical facts. But let's not discuss that narcist director Michael Cimino. I mainly tried to say why 'Licence To Kill' was a flop from Bond standards. Yes. It earned itself back. Yes. It grossed 5 times the amount of its production budget.

    But in this movie business, my sole opinion is that Bond should crush all other franchises. It should be, it should always be the trendsetting standard for other action/spy franchises.

    Allthough I did like 'Licence To Kill', it wasn't able to 'win' from 'Crocodile Dundee', 'Batman', 'Jack Ryan', 'Lethal Weapon', 'Indy Jones' and 'Die Hard'. Had 'Licence To Kill' grossed more than $250 million worldwide, then MGM/UA/EON would certainly have been talking a bit more swiftly to get the legal problems solved.

    The competition strong? Yes. An excuse to develop a poor marketing/promotion campaign and to strip Bond's Britishness off? No.

    For that reason alone, 'Skyfall' is setting a lot of groundbreaking and inspiring standards. That's what the discussion is about no? About 'Skyfall' and its success. And how 'Skyfall', in my opinion, can much easier stay in this 'pleasure wave of success' right now.

    To ride the pleasure wave even more, in this article Chris Corbould blends into the discussion about Bond 24:
    http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a440974/dark-knight-rises-christopher-nolan-would-make-a-great-bond-film.html
    And BoxOfficeMojo finally started comparing 'Skyfall' with 'Inception' instead of 'Quantum Of Solace':
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=skyfallinception.htm

    This is what the success of 'Skyfall' causes: If Sam Mendes can't do it, we always have Christopher Nolan. A few decades ago it was quite unthinkable to 'play' with such big names for a Bond movie. On the contrary, Bond producers were even afraid of bringin in big names as well.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 2,015
    Allthough I did like 'Licence To Kill', it wasn't able to 'win' from 'Crocodile Dundee', 'Batman', 'Jack Ryan', 'Lethal Weapon', 'Indy Jones' and 'Die Hard'. Had 'Licence To Kill' grossed more than $250 million worldwide, then MGM/UA/EON would certainly have been talking a bit more swiftly to get the legal problems solved.

    Oh yes, a swindler with criminal records of dubious business do care about franchises and would never have tried to make quick and easy money from a credulous bank etc... Really, dont re-write history.

    For your info, worldwide, The Living Daylights did less than the movie of about the same year from Indiana Jones franchise, Batman franchise, Back to the Future franchise (two of them), Lethal Weapon franchise, Jack Ryan franhise, Ghostbuster franchise, Die Hard franchise, Home Alone franchise, Crocodile Dundee franchise, Beverly Hill Cop franchise... Is it a "flop" for you ?

    And yet they did another one 2 years after.

    And A view to A kill ? It's even closer to TLK score than TLD. It did half of Rocky IV, half of Rambo, half of Indiana Jones, half of Beverly Hills Cop, half of Ghosbusters, etc, etc. And yet they did another one 2 years after too...

    Putting the blame on LTK for the 6 years hiatus is overlooking it was NOT as sub-"Bond"-standard as some think. The hiatus has nothing to do with LTK.



  • edited November 2012 Posts: 117
    For your info, worldwide, The Living Daylights did less than the movie of about the same year from Indiana Jones franchise, Batman franchise, Back to the Future franchise (two of them), Lethal Weapon franchise, Jack Ryan franhise, Ghostbuster franchise, Die Hard franchise, Home Alone franchise, Crocodile Dundee franchise, Beverly Hill Cop franchise... Is it a "flop" for you ?

    There was no Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, Crocodile Dundee or Ghostbusters movie out in 1987. Batman, Home Alone and Die Hard hadn't even started.

    This isn't a personal thing. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was actually in the top 10 movies of 1969, yet the studio labelled it a disappointment. That's what Licence to Kill was.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    I'm seeing $794,300,577 on BoxOfficeMojo now.
  • Why doesn't it make the franchise even stronger? I think the Bond franchise depends on the money it brings in.

    Guess what happened shortly after 'Licence To Kill': A 6 year hiatus. Bond was in shambles after 'LTK's lacklustre performance. United Artists was going bankrupt, because they were almost solely depending on Bond. Nothing else

    For the last time LTK wasn't a flop. It doesn't matter if you have some dream of Bond beating everything at the box office that it failed to live up to, it made over 5 times it's budget.

    It didn't do that well in America but like I said, if SF had gone up against TDKR that wouldn't have either. LTK was also a 15 and had terrible advertising. And it STILL wasn't a flop.

    The series did not go on hiatus because of LTK. It was because of a bunch of legal stuff.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,139
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I'm seeing $794,300,577 on BoxOfficeMojo now.

    Might as well just call it $800Million.

    Sheeeeeeyit. When it's all said and done, SF can actually make a $billion.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I'm seeing $794,300,577 on BoxOfficeMojo now.



  • Germanlady wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I'm seeing $794,300,577 on BoxOfficeMojo now.



    And???
Sign In or Register to comment.