Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Give the public what they want: Box office, theatregoers and the myth of the perfect Bond Movie
chrisisall
Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
Here are the grosses as of December in adjusted dollars
source: http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php
1. Thunderball $1,014,941,117
2. Goldfinger $912,257,512
3. Skyfall $876,720,000
4. Live and Let Die $825,110,761
5. You Only Live Twice $756,544,419
6. The Spy Who Loved Me $692,713,752
7. Casino Royale $669,789,482
8. Moonraker $655,872,400
9. Diamonds Are Forever $648,514,469
10. Quantum of Solace $622,246,378
11. From Russia with Love $576,277,964
12. Die Another Day $543,639,638
13. Goldeneye $529,548,711
14. On Her Majesty's Secret Service $505,899,782
15. The World is Not Enough $491,617,153
16. For Your Eyes Only $486,468,881
17. Tomorrow Never Dies $478,946,402
18. The Man with the Golden Gun $448,249,281
19. Dr. No $440,759,072
20. Octopussy $426,244,352
21. The Living Daylights $381,088,866
22. A View to a Kill $321,172,633
23. License to Kill $285,157,191
As you can see, MR, DAF, QOS, and DAD are very high up, while DN, TLD and LTK occupy some of the lower rungs.
One might say that MR followed a big success, Connery's return was strongly embraced in DAF, QOS followed a hit, and DAD followed a strong entry, and that DN, TLD & LTK were mediocre efforts.
But what this list tells me is that the general film-going public cares less for any semblance of who any of us here know as James Bond, and more about Bond as a brand name of entertainment. Why are the two stupidest movies at # 8 & 12, and not 22 & 23? The answer is entertainment value. A good time at the cinema. Bond was not yet a proven brand name for DN (even FRWL underperformed, given its extreme high quality) , and Dalton's movies did not (back then) a fun time make.
Some here like to say that Brosnan sucked, and that the film-going audience has voted Craig a better Bond with their box office dollars, yet Brosnan's movies have made nearly what Craig's have to date. So does that mean he's very nearly as good a Bond as Craig?
Make a 'perfect' Bond movie with a great actor doing a fantastic interpretation of Fleming's character and you make money?
Not really.
Tic all the 'Bond boxes' and the public will get what they want?
In part.
Make them laugh, wow them or get them dizzy (preferably all three) and they leave the cinema telling their friends they should all see the the movie to have a great time?
By George, I think I've got it.
In conclusion, I count us (the hard core fans) lucky when glimpses of James' real character are slipped into a 007 film. And I hope someday for another Bond movie as simple & elegant as TLD or DN... but I won't be holding my breath.
Thoughts?
source: http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php
1. Thunderball $1,014,941,117
2. Goldfinger $912,257,512
3. Skyfall $876,720,000
4. Live and Let Die $825,110,761
5. You Only Live Twice $756,544,419
6. The Spy Who Loved Me $692,713,752
7. Casino Royale $669,789,482
8. Moonraker $655,872,400
9. Diamonds Are Forever $648,514,469
10. Quantum of Solace $622,246,378
11. From Russia with Love $576,277,964
12. Die Another Day $543,639,638
13. Goldeneye $529,548,711
14. On Her Majesty's Secret Service $505,899,782
15. The World is Not Enough $491,617,153
16. For Your Eyes Only $486,468,881
17. Tomorrow Never Dies $478,946,402
18. The Man with the Golden Gun $448,249,281
19. Dr. No $440,759,072
20. Octopussy $426,244,352
21. The Living Daylights $381,088,866
22. A View to a Kill $321,172,633
23. License to Kill $285,157,191
As you can see, MR, DAF, QOS, and DAD are very high up, while DN, TLD and LTK occupy some of the lower rungs.
One might say that MR followed a big success, Connery's return was strongly embraced in DAF, QOS followed a hit, and DAD followed a strong entry, and that DN, TLD & LTK were mediocre efforts.
But what this list tells me is that the general film-going public cares less for any semblance of who any of us here know as James Bond, and more about Bond as a brand name of entertainment. Why are the two stupidest movies at # 8 & 12, and not 22 & 23? The answer is entertainment value. A good time at the cinema. Bond was not yet a proven brand name for DN (even FRWL underperformed, given its extreme high quality) , and Dalton's movies did not (back then) a fun time make.
Some here like to say that Brosnan sucked, and that the film-going audience has voted Craig a better Bond with their box office dollars, yet Brosnan's movies have made nearly what Craig's have to date. So does that mean he's very nearly as good a Bond as Craig?
Make a 'perfect' Bond movie with a great actor doing a fantastic interpretation of Fleming's character and you make money?
Not really.
Tic all the 'Bond boxes' and the public will get what they want?
In part.
Make them laugh, wow them or get them dizzy (preferably all three) and they leave the cinema telling their friends they should all see the the movie to have a great time?
By George, I think I've got it.
In conclusion, I count us (the hard core fans) lucky when glimpses of James' real character are slipped into a 007 film. And I hope someday for another Bond movie as simple & elegant as TLD or DN... but I won't be holding my breath.
Thoughts?
^ 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
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2798/skyfall-box-office-sonys-highest-grossing-film..-ever-918.2-million/p43#Item_1270
Feel free to join in.
None of Brozzers movies made the top ten. Craig has got all three of his films in the top ten grosses.
Nice try though.
Daniel Craig $2,168,755,860
Pierce Brosnan $2,043,751,904
Oh, I did. It may be that everything is better kept to one thread perhaps, or not. The mods with decide.
Inflation sure puts everything out of perspective to a degree, mind.
He'
But its not to do with grosses. He is putting the hypothesis that the dumb extravaganza Bonds do better at the box office.
Its not just a box office debate.
I'm also wondering if it's possible to make a 'perfect' Bond movie whilst satisfying the need for a mega-hit...
Looking at the list though, all this seems to prove Bond rides the wave of popularity with the ups and down as we know them.
Perfect is a point of way, remember. No such thing as a 'perfect' Bond film.
And yeah, I'm using 'perfect' in a loose way here, clearly.
He makes a fair point. Phrasing it like he did is misleading as, whether a Bond is 'good' or not is subjective. If you use the widely held theory that is prevalent on this forum that, B.O. equals success then perhaps he was better than some people give him credit. After all, any criticism I lay at Skyfall's door is countered by its B.O. success.
I will choose to interpret the debate here as the battle between Flemings character and the cinematic Bond brand (feel free to make up your own minds as to which of those constitutes 'good'). Looking at the list the over-the-top-box-ticking-what-the-public-expects-of-a-Bond-film style has a much greater presence in the top half of the list.
In fact the 5 films closest to Flemings character - DN, FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, CR - have a highest ranking of 7 whereas the 5 'dumbest' (for want of a better word) extravaganzas that skirt closest to Austin Powers territory - YOLT, DAF, TSWLM, MR, DAD - are all in the top 12, with GF and TB (2 films that just get away with successfully mixing Fleming with the cinematic Bond) also in there.
I dont think theres anything revelatory here - the general public never really care for a serious dose of Fleming - as Laz and Dalton discovered with their films.
However it seems that perhaps they have grown up a bit as Craigs 3 films, in which he portrays a fairly Fleming-esque Bond (I find comparisons difficult as we are now so far removed from the original character) are all top 10.
The misguided fools out again.
I actually like Craig. Just sayin'. :)>-
Me too. The Craig defenders snap harder than those they dislike however.
I adore Craig, and don't like being generalized with the pack you are referring to. Cheers.
I would doubt it mate. I think CR and SF have already pushed it as far as it can go. To get the big box office you are always going to need to bring it some of the sort of people who go to watch Transformers and similar shite. And they arent going to flock to a film that doesnt at least tick a few of the cinematic Bond cliches such as big explosions, the DB5, 'shaken not stirred', gadget laden cars etc, etc. To be fair there are quite a few on here who would also be aghast at films without these elements.
I would say the only hope of seeing the Fleming books properly adapted would be on the small screen like Holmes with Jeremy Brett in the 80s. There is no way EON and Sony would risk their cash cow by upsetting the apple cart too much.
That said I'm pretty happy with the line SF trod and if we have to have little nods to the cliches like the DB5 being shoehorned in at every oppurtunity to please the masses and get them parting with their money then I suppose its a small price to pay to guarantee the series will keep going.
Nicely said, @TheWizardOfIce.
I concur!
Gentlemen my cup runneth over with such fulsome praise.
Although you're both quite correct of course: that Wizard sure does speak some sense!
^:)^
Seriously then, are the days when a return to smallish Bonds over? No more FYEO, TLD or even GE? Has the franchise backed itself into the Billion-Only-Club?
Our world is changing, and IMO Bond movies have to scale down in production pounds/dollars and return to their early Sixties roots where good story & good profitability was more important than instantaneous & intoxicating financial gratification based upon creativity-by-committee.
Or am I a dinosaur?
ROAAAAR.
GF had it all. A bigger than life villain, a tough henchman, great over the top master plan by the villain, hot women, cool gadgets. AND SEAN CONNERY IN HIS PRIME. Despite the fact that Bond was fairly incompetent in the movie...which gives it a black eye (minor flaw)
The closest to a perfect Bond film would have to be CASINO ROYALE. A Bond with some heart, a killer as well. Hot chick. Good villains, and a believable and easy to follow story.
And you don't see the irony of your post?
Good post Wiz, can't really add much more. I always thought the only way there would be a truly Fleming-esque adaptation would be, like you say, on the small screen or if someone like myself won the lottery and self-funded a MR period film for my own pleasure. Very indulgent the latter one. I think 99% of the audience are waiting for Cinematic Bond and 1% are hoping for a good smattering of Fleming. Thankfully, when done the right way, the 99% can be subconciously fed Fleming without even realising and love it. If they keep the balance right it should keep chugging along.
Understanding why some films are higher grosses than others is all to do with the mood of an audience in any given year (Thunderball did so well as it was on the crest of the Bond wave - Bondmania peaked), how the films are promoted (SF was a masterclass in this as were several earlier films), and ongoing popularity of the actor (Brosnan was popular).
I agree with the consensus about Fleming's work, and I have said it myself many times over the years on here - 12 one hour (or 90 minutes) long TV adaptations, set in the 50s and 60s, representing the novels in their correct order, properly adapted from Fleming's books.
I know Eon wouldn't risk this, but I wish they would.
This is the dream. Maybe for the 100th?
As long as the current series continues I cant see they would risk diluting the publics desire for Bond or the TV version coming out better (as has happened with the Cummerbatch/Downey Jnr Holmes - although both are pretty successful all the same).
After the let down that was (or is technically) the 50th I wouldn't expect much anniversary wise in the future.