› ›

007 Facts... Can anyone guarantee the accuracy of this?

LicenceRevokedLicenceRevoked
edited December 2012 in Trivia & Games Posts: 204
I'm quite sure Craig has said 'Bond, James Bond' at least twice now.
Also I had no idea Brosnan was that deadly with a kill count at 76...

6098366_700b.jpg

Comments

  • LicenceRevokedLicenceRevoked
    Posts: 204
    Also as much as I love Quantum of Solace (being up there in my top 3), I really don't know how it managed to be more expensive to make than CR...!!!
  • MalloryMallory
    Posts: 2,165
    LicenceRevoked wrote:
    Also as much as I love Quantum of Solace (being up there in my top 3), I really don't know how it managed to be more expensive to make than CR...!!!

    If I were to speculate, one reason maybe that the production crew prepped locations and filming equipment for the Purvis and Wade script, only for Haggis to then throw a lot of that out quickly, so they wasted money there.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited December 2012 Posts: 14,582
    LicenceRevoked wrote:
    I'm quite sure Craig has said 'Bond, James Bond' at least twice now.
    Also I had no idea Brosnan was that deadly with a kill count at 76...
    Yep, Craig has said 'Bond, James Bond' twice now (CR/SF), and it is indeed Brozza- not Craig who has the over-developed trigger finger! ;)
    LicenceRevoked wrote:
    Also as much as I love Quantum of Solace (being up there in my top 3), I really don't know how it managed to be more expensive to make than CR...!!!
    Could it have something to do with all the Astons used- not to mention the one going over the cliff during production? Whoops!
  • LicenceRevokedLicenceRevoked
    Posts: 204
    Looking at the infographic above, there appears to be a swell in profits when a new Bond arrives, except in the case of Live and Let Die. Also many of the films which many Bond fans consider to be the worst entries e.g MR, DAD, QoS actually perform relatively well for their respective time periods...

    We can see Roger Moore's movies were extremely profitable going on to earn on average 11 times their production costs... GoldenEye also did extremely well. So what happened on TND and TWINE that they didn't perform as well? DAD did exceptionally well and is in my opinion atrocious, compared to Brosnan's first three...
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited December 2012 Posts: 9,117
    Hmm - seems like maybe they are not counting SF as Craig has said 'Bond, James Bond' twice now and kissed 5 women: Solange, Vesper, Fields, Camille and Severine (are we counting M on the forehead as a 6th?).

    However if they are not counting SF Craig's kill count seems way too high I think just for CR and QOS?

    Interesting to note that DN is still the most successful in terms of giving you a return on your investment - 59 times its budget whereas TB didn't even make 20 times its budget and SF is only just going to make a return of 5 times. Mind you if you if you ever get the opportunity to invest Bond films seem to be better than gold - you always make several times your money back and they seem pretty recession proof into the bargain.
  • LicenceRevokedLicenceRevoked
    Posts: 204
    Excellent point. Regarding the production costs, I wonder if they include / are adjusted for inflation or they're the straight values. Regarding Dr. No a 5900% return on investment is amazing. Do you reckon it's because there were fewer cinemas, less choice and so it was a much bigger deal? Not that a new Bond nowadays is ever not a big deal...

    I'm curious if a Bond film today could be made for the same price as Goldfinger and if so could it make a similar profit to what Skyfall has made!

    Case in point, the Twilight films are very very cheaply made compared to say the Potter films, and rake in loads!
  • BondWillReturnBondWillReturn
    Posts: 816
    LicenceRevoked wrote:

    I'm curious if a Bond film today could be made for the same price as Goldfinger and if so could it make a similar profit to what Skyfall has made!

    A Bond film in this day and age for 3 mil. I think even Robert Rodriguez would struggle with that (his films usually run between 9 and 15 mil.) Maybe Nick Love could pull it of, he made The Sweeney (2012) for less that 2 mil. and I thought that was a great movie and looked to be made for a lot more!

  • MalloryMallory
    Posts: 2,165
    LicenceRevoked wrote:
    Do you reckon it's because there were fewer cinemas, less choice and so it was a much bigger deal? Not that a new Bond nowadays is ever not a big deal...

    A number of things. There were less entertainment options in the 60's (no video games, internet, limited personal travel) so the cinema was one of only a few options, especially for a family. I dont know if there were more cinemas, there are probably more screens nowadays, but films definately were in the cinema for a longer period of time, more months than meer weeks. As there was no home video market (DVD's etc) the film would have been re-released in cinemas, providing more revenue.

    Plus there was no internet, no VHS tapes, no piracy. You had to go and see it in a cinema, otherwise you wouldnt have seen it.

    And because it was released internationally over an extended period of time that probably saved money on 35mm prints and marketing materials.

    So, all in all, its not hard to see how they made such an enormous amount of money.
  • SuperheroSithSuperheroSith SE London
    Posts: 578
    Can you get 9GAG from the App Store?
Sign In or Register to comment.