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
The leaks of Sony contained the insiders' estimation of the ROI of Skyfall and Spectre. Quite different from the PR, as you can imagine.
I am a ranking junkie. I love it :-). That's my explanation. And predicting where "SPECTRE" will come in...in that ranking PLUS the final "score" or box office money....is for me damn exciting :-).
Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens 2.2 billion
Avengers: Age of Ultron 1.9 billion
Furious 7 1.9 billion
SPECTRE 1.4 billion
Jurassic World 1.3 billion
Ant Man 1 billion
Terminator Genisys 975 million
The Hunger Games: Monkingjay - Part 2 950 million
Mad Max: Fury Road 950 million
Mission Impossible 5: Rogue Nation 750 million
A very interesting article @ggl007. Thanks for posting.
It's intriguing to note that MR did not gross as much as TSWLM worldwide in constant $, despite having a budget of almost double, which will likely come as a surprise to many. Similarly, all the remaining PB Bond films were less profitable than GE, which is what I always suspected. They had to spend more and more money to get a weaker % return.
Both of the above facts likely led to the changes in tone that followed - e.g. FYEO was much more toned down compared to MR, and CR was a reboot after DAD. So decreasing profitability may have been as much a reason as any for the change in tone.
----
Some other things that stood out for me are:
1. QoS's relatively astronomical budget compared to CR - surprising especially since the film came out only 2 yrs later.
2. The immense profitability of the early Connery films
3. The precipitous drop off in box office gross between LALD & TMWTGG
4. The fact that LALD grossed more than TSWLM in constant $.
5. The absolutely horrendous gross of LTK
----
What I would be cautious with is the inflation adjustments. That is a very simplistic way of looking at changes in the price index over 50 odd years (using the US bureau of labour statistics inflation calculator) for the following reasons:
1. the CPI varies tremendously between countries and yet they are only using US CPI data
2. the CPI index is a broad average and does not necessarily reflect the changes in the price of movie tickets which do not necessarily move with the CPI %. As an example, there was a very disruptive OPEC 'oil price shock' around the time LALD came out. It's possible that ticket prices did not get adjusted with the CPI during this time, which may be negatively impacting TMWTGG's gross.
3. the CPI index does not account for technological changes and the effect on movie prices (e.g 3D etc.)
4. the CPI index does not reflect the variation in the pace of change in technology and ticket prices across countries and locations.
5. the CPI may be more accurate for the budget (since it is likely priced in US $ and the CPI calculator is a US calculator) but not so relevant for the worldwide gross
Having said that, it is nearly impossible to properly account for price inflation over this long a period - so the inflation calculator used is probably as good as any - just take the numbers with a 'pinch of salt'. The more relevant comparison is between successive/consecutive movies (since ticket prices will likely not have varied so much during that time) and more importantly, the budget to worldwide gross ratio (or profitability) for each movie, since both #'s are from the same period.
"Furious 7" will not reach the 1.9 Billion worldwide :-). Also "Ant-Man" still needs to prove itself, as it is a kick-off film for the Marvel-character, thuis not an established franchise yet. I'd say something like this:
--> $2.05 Billion: "Star Wars 7: The Force Awakens"
--> $1.55 Billion: "Avengers 2: Age Of Ultron"
--> $1.40 Billion: "Furious 7"
--> $1.25 Billion: "SPECTRE"
--> $1.15 Billion: "Minions"
--> $1.10 Billion: "Jurassic World"
--> $1.00 Billion: "The Hunger Games 4: Mockinjay Part 2"
The movie industry is already predicting that 2015 could eventually give us 6 films crossing the 1 Billion Dollar mark. I put a 7th in that list, albeit barely: "Hunger Games".
Hahahaha you're dreaming.
Yes, true. But although "Furious 7" is doing insane stuff right now, $1.9 Billion is 200% out of the question. I think $1.4 Billion is possible....at most.
http://pro.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2015-05-01-north-america-thursday-night-report-avengers-age-of-ultron
Whereas the first "Avengers"-film managed to have an incredible opening weekend of $207.44 Million, "Avengers 2" saw a sharp decline on Saturday, making the opening weekend accumulating to $187.66 Million.
It's still a massive figure though, though not as record-breaking as the first "Avengers". In a way the opening weekend comes closer to the $147.19 Million that "Furious 7" made.
And now it'll be a very interesting battle between "Avengers 2: Age Of Ultron" and "Furious 7". The latter now stands at a global box office total of $1,428,539,000, which comes very close to the 2012 "Avengers"; $1,518,594,910.
I think with current budgets (think about hiring expensive cast members, like Christoph Waltz, and indeed big crew members like director Sam Mendes) and current sizes of productions it's nearly impossible to have a Bond film every two years.
It's similar to the late sixties as well. At one point the producers decided to produce one Bond film every two years instead of every year. For the most part because the leading actor became fed up with it.
And also, you can't compare the Marvel universe with the Bond films. Many fans tend to forget that this so called "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is build on several individual "character franchises" (I'm still quite baffled why no one in here is mentioning this):
--> "franchise" Iron Man (three films)
--> "franchise" Thor (two films)
--> "franchise" Captain America (two films)
--> "franchise" The Avengers (two films)
And all these sub-franchises all have cast/crew listings that are completely different from one character-franchise to the other.
You can't expect the Bond producers to "fight" this @Germanlady. Simply because in its current state the Bond franchise stays unique as a "one character franchise". There were talks in the years after DAD to create a spin-off franchise based on the character Jinx. I'm glad they didn't do it, because ultimately it'll lead to saturation. It'll "steal" fans away from the original Bond franchise.
You can see it with the individual character franchises from Marvel. Yes, "The Avengers" is doing tremendously well, but on the expense of the "one-character franchises". Films like "Thor" and indeed the very good "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" could not gross $800 Million or more!
So therefore I say: I'm completely happy with one Bond film every three/four years. It has proven itself decade after decade. From the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" we STILL have to see if it can hold interest among the public in 5, 10 or....30 years from now. Buena Vista/Disney/Marvel are experiencing their own "Golden Age", that Bond experienced in the early 1960's. Just wait until that "Golden Age" starts to fade away....
This is what I am afraid of. Lets hope, the film delivers and the judgement is gonna be at least a bit fair regarding BO expectations. I know, its not impossible to do really well.
I need to work on my faith.... ;;)
I thought you said that Bond should not have waited until 2015 to come with a new film....and that "SPECTRE" should have begun production one year earlier....
"They will compare one Bond to how many heroes together in one film and to a bunch of cars, doing one incredible stunt after the other etc. "
Just keep making good movies, and scale back the budget on action if need be as far as I'm concerned (CR had less than DAD and was a far, far superior film, as was SF) so as to maintain profitability.
Don't go chasing the action market please! It inevitably leads to a dumbing down of movies.
Thank you.
So....I gave my reaction to that and why I disagree with you :-). Bond is a very unique franchise. And although it mildly incorporates cinematic trends (Bruce Lee in 'TMWTGG', blackxploitation in 'LALD', Star Trek/Wars in 'MR', Lethal Weapon/Die Hard in 'LTK', Batman Begins in 'CR', The Joker/Dark Knight in 'SF') ever since the first Bond film DN, it stays unique. I'm totally, completely, not worried about the future of the Bond franchise.
$1,466,555,135
It now has a serious shot of crossing the $1.5 Billion
In the meanwhile, also "Avengers 2" is doing staggering work. Its global box office take now stands at:
$0,875,802,397
Though in China, "Avengers 2" is slightly lagging behind on the first day opening record last month of "Furious 7". These absolutely pales to "Skyfall"s opening day in China though, back in early 2013:
1st day opening box office "Furious 7":....$55.74 Million (Sunday)
1st day opening box office "Avengers 2":.$32.48 million (Tuesday)
1st day opening box office "Skyfall":........$05.10 million
Nahh, not for me ;-). I always had a weird kind of passion for scores and figures. Also, this is a separate passion from my other passion: my actual love of films and cinema.
It makes me happy yes, if SP will be succesful, but it's not a "must" for me. Moreover, there's basically no other news about the production of "SPECTRE".....
Just from the trailers and clips, I have a feeling it won't be a great film. Maybe decent, maybe even not bad, but not great. And by great, I mean the greatness that a film needs to have a strong financial hold after the opening weekend. I expect this film to be successful, but I'd be more comfortable putting the worldwide total at around $700-$750 million.
Now let's see if I eat my words! I'm a massive Jurassic Park fan, and did enjoy the sequels for what they were. I truly hope the film is excellent, but I do have reservations.