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
And a real funny videoblog:
Is it better if a movie makes more of its revenue in the U.S.?
How much money does a movie need to make to be profitable?
The highest profile example of a film that bombed in the U.S. but made tons of money overseas was The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which made only about $100 million domestically but made about $270 million overseas. And a similar thing happened with the previous Narnia movie, Prince Caspian. Another big film that made way more money overseas than domestically was Terminator Salvation.
So if a film does incredibly well overseas but flops in the U.S., does that make it a hit? As with everything else to do with box office, the answer is "it depends." But generally, domestic revenue seems to be be better for studios than overseas revenue, because the studios take a bigger cut of domestic revenue.
According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number.
Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that the studios get even less from China; 20-25%.
That is not a surprise. The Chinese muscle us out of everything by taking a piece of the pie (in every industry), and Western companies acquiesce, disgracefully, to increase revenue and overall profits (if not per item profit) at the expense of continuing to sell us down the river.
That's the unfortunate power of 'large markets' and the allure it has for profit making enterprises. We saw it with Bond in the mid 80's/early 90's kissing up to the large US market too.
Soon we may even have a permanent recurring Asian cast member inserted in just to appeal/pander to that market.
Rant over...
Gustav granted the Swedish version of TGWTDT was very good (personally prefer Fincher's a rarity as I usually find original language versions superior) but the sequels were in all fairness TV movies that captured none of the class of the original and were a complete missed opportunity and robbed us of a great trilogy.
The Hollywood version was all set to change that with Fincher at the reins so some of us feel we were cheated out of some greatness and the fact that the BO factors into this when you consider the likes of Terminator Genisys which has had hugely underwhelming BO will most likely get a sequel seems very unfair.
Sadly, the imbeciles over there appear not to understand this, and also seem not to realize what creative brilliance Fincher had given them. Nor do they appear to realize the gift Daniel Craig had given them by being available for 3 long years between SF and SP. Therefore, we, the audience, suffer due to the their obvious incompetence.
Lord knows what kind of mess they would have made of James Bond if not for Babs, Michael and Craig.
As I said elsewhere, these knuckleheads deserve to lose the James Bond franchise for the disrespect they have given the Milennium series.
Sorry, I have no respect for them whatsoever.
Agreed. And all the people who keep praising all three Swedish versions stump me. The first one was good, the 2nd and 3rd were made for TV films and hardly worthy of all the raves. There was a huge potential audience for the English language versions. Probably the biggest problem was Fincher insisting on a huge budget. Had it been more reasonable, I think we might have seen the next 2. It's also sad that now that there is a 4th book coming out, there is some major unfilmed territory to exploit. When you think of the junk that Sony produced in the last few years (Interview, the Lone Ranger etc.) while passing on this, it is a testament to what jerks Sony management has been.
Same goes for movies. Hollywood still is the "Mercedes" of the movie industry. And on top of that, I think every now and then an escapist blockbusters, which ALSO criticize certain geopolitical developments, comes through, is being understood by the Chinese, and is perhaps the only example where cencorship doesn't work!
A movie like "Skyfall" is off course a Bond film. But director Sam Mendes also gave it some thematical gravita, by criticizing the very aspect of espionage. Well, that part wasn't cencored out huh! So I think it's only good that "our" blockbusters are so succesful over there.
And also an important lesson from the entertainment industry: "Give the people what they want". And on average "we" want this. Period.
That's because I totally misread the title of the thread. Gold star for me for the day!
The negativity is as follows:
We are getting more and more dumbed down blockbusters. They don't even have to make sense any more. Just more and more explosions and the like. That's because of two things imho:
1. a population in the west that is increasingly 'ADD' & can be appealed to with the lowest common denominator.
2. an increasing foreign population viewing Hollywood movies that seems to prefer action oriented fare/explosions to in depth characterizations and stories.
I admire Nolan and EON (recently) for bucking that trend. I think most other movies are playing into it (Terminator, Jurassic, Marvel for the most part etc.). That's just my opinion though.
I don't appreciate seeing quality films like TGWTDT not getting sequels because some bean counter accountant at Sony doesn't think it will appeal to the squeemish audiences in certain countries or doesn't have the vision to craft a strategy that will make it work. That's not on for me.
As I said, Nolan and EON are, for now at least, the exception rather than the rule.
By the way, the lowest common denominator is happening with cars as well. Mercedes and BMW today are nothing like what they were 20 yrs ago. They are just like any other car (with more power) but with a prestige badge. Mercedes in particular was in a completely different league 20 yrs ago (built to a standard rather than a price), until Toyota Lexus came along, cleaned up the huge US market, and forced Mercedes to go down market to compete. Some Mercedes designs these days are a disgrace (CLA for instance) and nothing like the quality, timeless cars they put out in the past. However, they surely are making more money now in total (but not per unit) compared to the past. Same goes for movies. Margin compression leads to an inferior product but more revenue in total.
As Bond said in TND: "first rule of mass media......GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT!". Indeed. It's sad.
Thankfully, though, the world can keep spinning because films like 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2' (4.2/10 rating on IMDB and a 6% on RT) make $103 million on a $30 million budget. People vote with their mouths too often and not their wallets.
Same here. I don't have access to independent cinema so readily where I live either.
I agree @Creasy47. Money does talk, and it's a pity because I find that movies in particular are becoming more and more slapstick and brainless.
TV on the other hand, for the most part, is becoming more and more brilliant and fascinating with all the great shows that are out there these days. That's one area where there is hope I think.
Even last night at Comic-Con, Quentin Tarantino was saying that when he is done with film in a few years, he wants his new medium to be television, because his scripts tend to go on for hours and he could really let his work shine in a miniseries, which is absolutely true. He had a four-hour cut of 'Django Unchained' that'll never see the light of day because the general moviegoing audience doesn't want to sit through something like that, but imagine how great a four or five part miniseries would've been.
Don't get me wrong, the film itself is outstanding and impressive, but I would've also enjoyed seeing what he could've done on, say, HBO or Cinemax. However, I won't take this off course anymore; all I hope is that SP explodes at the box office so we get more and more Bond! If that's the one shining light I get out of most movies anymore, then so be it.
The way Hollywood works now makes the likelihood of auteurs like, Wes Anderson, or genre film makers like, Guillermo Del Toro, becoming mainstream film makers, more difficult. Any director/s that shows promise is snapped up by a studio and given a choice of 'property'. Look at Josh Trank, he went into F4 and was then offered a gig on SW (which has thankfully failed to materialise), but after Chronicle I wanted to see him be given a chunk of cash to make a Josh Trank film.
Only directors like Nolan and Cameron can court studios for sizeable investment in an 'original vision'. There are directors out there capable of making huge mainstream classics, but restricting them to either working independently, or moving from 'property' to 'property' isn't realising their potential. I get the distinct impression that film makers like John McTiernan, Richard Donner, or Robert Zemeckis wouldn't exist these days, or at least not in the way they did and they certainly wouldn't have a list of great original works to their names.
I think of the 80s films I grew up watching as a kid like, Labyrinth, The Princess Bride, The Goonies, Ghostbusters, Karate Kid, The Dark Crystal, Romancing the Stone... these films would struggle to see the light of day in 2015 because the market is geared towards 'big budget behemoth, low budget indie or Oscar-bait'. A huge amount of those movies that used to operate in the middle-ground just don't get made anymore and that's a shame. Ghostbusters was made on a budget of $30m (the same as AVTAK) that's a hefty wedge to hand to a man with two films on his CV to make a high-concept, genre film, but it happened.
It's not all doom and gloom. Pixar still have the ability to turn out high quality stuff with mainstream appeal and there are breakout hits popping up here or there, there are always pros and cons, as there are to every aspect of the industry, but to pretend everything is rosy is short-sighted.
I saw it. In the theatre. As I said, slapstick nonsense. It will do well I'm sure, but it looked truly awful.
Yeah, and for the very same reason people want to go back to the 'good old days', the nostalgic past. I think that sense of nostalgia sometimes is cluding our critics as well. Was "Ghostbusters" a marvellous gem? According to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters/?search=ghostbusters it was, but most of it is nostalgia. Because I don't see a difference in quality between "Ghostbusters" and "Pixels". I think sometimes we're ranting a bit too much.
That's also a matter of opinion. Back in 1984 people "loved it".
No one is 'ranting' too much. I'm stating where I think the industry is at, while you're convinced it's in rude health because you judge most things by numbers. However, you're going to have to put up a better argument than 'Pixels looks just as good as Ghostbusters did in the 80's', because if you're seriously suggesting that then I want some of what you're smoking. Mentioning Ghostbusters has nothing to do with nostalgia, it's a stone cold classic. Anyhow, irrespective of whether you like the film or not, you yet again fail to see my point that 'Ghosbusters' is a high-concept, original idea that didn't have an inbuilt audience other than fans of the actors. Pixels is built around some of the most famous video games of all time, so while it may look interesting to you, its hardly the vanguard of genuine originality.
I think this is wonderful funny 'free viral marketing' for "Minions" :-P. By the way, it's quite shocking to see how many Facebook profiles have been 'minionized' lately :-P. At least....in my buddy list.:
1. --> $ 1,520,593,707: "Furious 7" (They just passed "The Avengers" in the 'All Time Global Box Office Ranking'; now 3rd!)
$ 351,032,910: Box office USA
$ 390,910,000: Box office China
$ 778,650,797: Rest of the world
2. --> $ 1,472,854,541: "Jurassic World" (Now the 2nd highest grossing film of 2015, but can you believe that this one will pass "Furious 7"??)
$ 595,627,430: Box office USA
$ 228,740,000: Box office China
$ 648,487,111: Rest of the world
3. --> $ 1,388,692,001: "Avengers 2: Age Of Ultron" (Now the 3rd highest grossing film of 2015. 3rd, but still 6th 'All Time'!)
$ 455,392,001: Box office USA
$ 240,110,000: Box office China
$ 693,190,000: Rest of the world
And let's not forget the impressive results of the two biggest animated films of 2015: Pixar's "Inside Out" (raving reviews) and Universal's "Minions". Both films will now certainly break the $800 Million global box office mark:
7. --> $ 441,686,341: "Inside Out" (Despite "Jurassic World" opening one week before, it had an impressive opening weekend of $ 90,440,272)
$ 145,502,830: Box office USA
*not opened yet in China*
$ 151,800,000: Rest of the world
8. --> $ 433,271,467: "Minions" (Impressive opening weekend of $ 115,718,405, though "Despicable Me 2" had stronger holdover)
$ 289,886,341: Box office USA
*not opened yet in China*
$ 287,768,637: Rest of the world
I don't think "SPECTRE" will enter the TOP 3 of this year's highest grossing blockbusters. Which sounds quite.....weird, if you still think "SPECTRE" will gross more than $ 1.2 Billion worldwide. It shows what an insane box office year 2015 is. I predict "SPECTRE" will be a bigger success than "Skyfall". And there's a slightttt chance it can pass the $1.3 Billion, but I don't think so....
Me too ;-). But who would have guessed that we would be talking about such figures for agent 007 in 2009 or 2010??