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
It's not sad. It's a reality that has been going on for decades. Hell, it was James Bond himself who gave rise to the terms "Box Office" and "Blockbuster". So I think it's quite inconsistent what you're saying here.
Secondly, I think it's not Hollywood who created this interest and who transferred this interest to the 'normal people' and other heavy 'web surfers'. I think it's the internet and the social media who did this. Not Hollywood. Perhaps this topic facilitates these arguments against this focus on box office figures. But it didn't just happen out of the blue.
There are people who simple 'like' movie marketing. Hence why websites like boxoffice.com and boxofficemojo.com....and this topic exist. I can understand you don't like it. But do not forget that for such websites, there are even more....way more movie critics websites. Websites that are about the personal movie tastes of people, websites that are about moviemaking in the first place, or websites that are focused on critics/reviews, from professional journalists to.....public opinion ratings. Hell, it's even one of the biggest reasons why MI6Community exists as a highly succesful forums.
And again @RC7: You're welcome to post in here. But......if it's out of irritation or criticism towards this so called 'box office phenomenon', then why are you still posting in here? If you ignore this topic, you won't let irritation about this reality get the better of you no?
The average movie goer has never really cared about box office figures and never will. As for the box office "subculture", it has existed for a loong time, and it isn't significantly larger now than it was 10 years ago. I have been closely following movie industry news for about 15 years, and box office related news are not more prominent now than they were 10-15 years ago.
I'm not averse to Box Office, I understand its relevance and I wouldn't dismiss it completely out of hand. Up until about five to ten years ago I'd certainly have been able to reel off the top ten of all time. It was pretty much pub quiz trivia.
Now, cinema has changed so dramatically it's no longer a case of if a film will break the top ten, but when. There's a boring inevitability to it. Add to that the fact that Frozen, Transformers and Furious 7 all reside in the upper echelons, and any sense of romance surrounding a film being a 'mega-hit' just evaporates into thin air for me. Which is ironic really, because the 'romance' of summer blockbuster cinema has evaporated for me. Now it's a case of -here comes the next behemoth for three weeks, rakes in a shit load and then we're on to the next. Job done, suits are happy, who cares if it was sub par? No chance to relish or savour it before you have to part with another £20 because this one is 3D.
It's much larger, especially in fan communities, and if you think otherwise you're kidding yourself. It's in part because you have about 5 movies a year that can break the top 5-10. It's basically become a dick-measuring contest for franchise fans. Re. Bond, I've been on fan forums for 15 years + and I've never seen so much discussion surrounding Box Office, to the point where fans are worrying about it being a $900m failure. Get a grip. The whole thing is cyclical.
Merely stating my point of view. I think you need reminding sometimes that this is a discussion forum. If people don't want to 'discuss' they can always start a blog. That way anything and everything can be written as a statement of fact and not be challenged.
Maybe not 15 years ago, but back in 2006, when CR came out, there was just as much discussion surrounding Box Office as there is now.
even with adjusting for inflation SF was bigger than the ever biggest bond success Thunderball
I've explained before that this may not be entirely true. We are comparing a film made and released in 1965 with one made and released in 2012.
All we're doing to 'inflation adjust' is apply a CPI adjustment, which is just a % increase based on a broad basket of goods (including groceries and gas/petrol).
If you consider the amount of error that is baked into that general CPI % adjustment, over 47 yrs, you can see that it's not a reliable way to compare apples with apples.
There really is no proper way to do it, because ticket price inflation/deflation more moves with technology (dvd, vhs, 3D, Imax etc.), as well as audience viewing habits/culture rather than moving with the price of groceries or gas/petrol. Moreover, we don't have a clue how to properly measure global viewing audiences in 1965 (some of that information was not tracked around the world).
Both were very successful films that had profound impacts on the spy genre (SF's is being felt now in the amount of spy movies being released).
But even then, from all the 22 James Bond films, "Skyfall" came closest to "Thunderball's inflation corrected box office figure.
That is very true @Gustav_Graves, but with the benefit/assistance of pricier IMAX theatre receipts globally (again one more thing the 'inflation adjustment' fails to account for). That benefited SF much more than QoS or CR (or any of the previous Bond films).
Where I am for example, JW is getting its 3rd full week with a lock on 3D VIP/AVX theatres - that is really helping its gross.
Ooowh, but let me be clear. James Bond, The Dark Knight, and also Furious 7, didn't have the advantages of 3D. IMAX yes, but not 3D. And that's quite unique among blockbusters that are mostly strictly 3D sci-fi/fantasy films. So if you take that into account, movies like "Skyfall", "The Dark Knight" and "Furious 7" did perhaps even better, way better.
Absolutely. As I said in my post from earlier today on the previous page, I think SF may in fact have been the #1 film of 2012 (bigger than Avengers) in terms of pure ticket sales, since it did not have the benefit of 3D inflated prices.
So far it's perhaps the strongest 2nd placed feature ever. Here are some showdowns:
"Inside Out" vs. other Pixar standalone films:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=pixog.htm
Pixar's "Inside Out vs. non-Pixar film "Frozen":
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=frozenout.htm
After 11 days in cinema "Frozen" stood at a good $96,437,874 in the USA, but "Inside Out" stands at a terrific $192,061,039 (!!) domestically. Only Disney's/Pixar's animated film "Toy Story 3" did better after 11 days in the US: $235,811,275.
And these were the final global box office results for these animated films:
--> $1,063,171,911: Pixar's "Toy Story"
--> $1,274,219,009: Disney's "Frozen"
Pixar's "Inside Out" currently stands globally at:
--> $0,273,561,039: Pixar's "Inside Out"
And it doesn't even have a perfect syndicated global release, like "Minions" will have.
The good thing about this news is:
A) "Inside Out" could actually be the first highly rated and critically acclaimed movie that has a chance at reaching $1.0 Billion this year. Currently, the Pete Docter (1 Oscar win) directed animated film, stands at an incredible 98% on RottenTomatoes, 8.8/10 on IMDB and 93% on Metacritic. And it is already compared with other Pixar masterpieces like "Up" and "Wall-E".
B) It could have a very strong holdover, as it still needs to open in many other big countries across the globe, China included.
The other big story is "Jurassic World", which already grossed $1,252,399,254 worldwide, and will post definately outgross "Avengers 2: Age Of Ultron", which now settles at:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=usblockbuster.htm
The movie is now compared with "Avengers 1" and "Avatar", as people think this could actually gross much more than many people, myself included had anticipated. Perhaps it even goes past the $1.75 Billion and will grab 1st place at the 2015 global box office ranking from "Furious 7".
I could care less about these Pixar/Disney animated things, although I know they always do well because the kids go for it (and the parents inevitably tag along, pushing up the grosses)...
You're kidding no? I think "Monster's Inc.", "Wall-E" and "Up" were not just....simple animation movies ("Minions" will be like that by the way), but thematically they were very much movies for grown-ups. Just have a look at this premise:
I just can't get into the animation thing myself. I'd much rather watch real actors doing their thing even if the film is mediocre, than a brilliant animated film.
The only animation/motion capture movie that I've watched is Tintin, and that's only because I read the books when I was a kid (and so could draw on my inner kid to forgive the fact that I was not watching real actors). I enjoyed it by the way and am looking forward to the sequel.
QoS did $586m and CR did $599M. With increased ticket prices, possible blitz marketing and IMAX, as well as increased China grosses, I think they're on course for about $900m to $1bn, and possibly slightly more when it's all said and done. It will depend on spy fatigue and how long they get the run of the good theatres before HG-Mockingjay 2 comes in.
First couple of weeks should be very strong and they may be able to get $600m - $700m globally in just the first two weeks based on the compressed release date schedule. It's after that (staying power) where the possible issue lies imho. I don't think it will have the staying power that SF had due to SF7, so it will probably have to do at least $700m in the first two wks to have a decent shot at $1bn when it's all said and done.
Agreed! At least Bird is working on it right now but this movies should have come out years ago.
$1.2 Billion.....easily. Especially given the fact that those big ones are also slightly helping each other (Jurassic World, Furious 7, Avengers 2, Minions, Inside Out, Hunger Games 4, Star Wars 7)
Lol no way. SP can make that much with very little effort.
Then Jurassic Park and James Cameron's boat movie set new standards altogether, and the 90's was the real birth of the box-office generation.
Sad really - seeing what a 'movie' like "Furious 7" can generate... it doesn't bode well for the future of film making.
Certainly 'Hollywood' film making. It's difficult to see how a movie like Ghostbusters would get made in 2015. A completely original vehicle. A high-concept genre movie with no nostalgia to drive it and with no literary past or inbuilt audience to feed it. That's what I miss most about Hollywood these days. Even if there is a break-out, they just flog it to death.
Good analysis. Studio execs are timid being.
Other than 'Inception' I cannot think of another modern day equivalent (with a big budget behind it) to which those criteria are applicable... and even that would never have been green-lighted without Nolan's success on the Batman franchise.
Absolutely, 'Inception' is a really good example. Like you say, though, only Nolan would have the power to not only do it, but keep it a singular film. He must've earned WB around £1.5bn before they greenlit it, also knowing they had a sure-fire billion with his final DK film. I may be misremembering, but I'm sure I heard somewhere that it was effectively WB's gift to him, following his huge success with Batman.
I don't think there has been a big budget film outside of the aforementioned Inception that has been based on an original creative concept and that has cracked the top 10 in the US in the past 5 yrs.
So in a way we can't really blame Hollywood if the public seems to want more of the same old same old. With increasing box office grosses for predictable/uncreative fare, it seems that this is what we actually want.
FF7 is a terribly tragic example of this imho.
I cannot agree more. I will elaborate on this later. I'm in the train now hehe.