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
Glad to see someone can read. ;)
Yes I caught that after the fact.
Of course technically all the grosses are international.
The Brits here are much too kind.
Just jesting with you sir.......and of course us Brits are kind (well i'am anyway). :)
Ok ..I'm sorry. Yes yes you are very kind. Thanks :)
Note: All amounts adjusted using CPI Calculator from http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. All grosses based on reported dollar amounts and don't mean to represent ticket sales. "Rentals" (the rough amount of money the studio took from the gate) are calculated with the studio's domestic (US and Canada) percentage being 51%, international percentage being 39% and China percentage at 25%. Budgets don't take into account advertising budgets and grosses don't take into account rereleases and double features from the earlier films.
Spectre - $12 418 472 / 2 774 917 viewers
Skyfall - $25 198 552 / 3 240 617 viewers
Quantum of Solace - $18 054 093 / 2 822 206
Casino Royale - $9 080 000
Obviously the fall of the ruble has hurt the US$ earnings.
Source: http://www.kinopoisk.ru/box/best_rus/view_all/1/
Nevertheless, Spectre is poised to finish in the top 5 all-time for adjusted worldwide gross. That's nothing to scoff at. It was only a couple of years ago that it was unthinkable for a new Bond film to give Goldfinger and Thunderball a run for their money.
This is wonderful work :-)! I just took a quick glance at it. And it's funny to see SP follows SF similar to how YOLT followed TB ;-).
Well done............good list............goes to prove the point, that even with inflation added to the budgets of the older films...........those films just were more profitable!
Also goes to show that the BO performance of OHMSS was a lot better than many of the later Bond films.
One thing that's notable is the early Bond films didn't have the benefit of extensive product placement deals. It's rumored that Brosnan and Craig era films have their budgets almost entirely offset by such deals. We won't know about it, but it's something to think about when you see those 007 branded bottles of Belvedere and Heineken.
Here's a smaller portion of the graph in chart form:
Thanks @Tubes, that's really cool :)
It seems like it will make more than 800m easily and if Sony doesn't think that 800m is not good enough (it needed 650m to break even) they can literally go F themselves..
If they give it enough theaters, SP will pass $200 million domestic and should easily pass $800 worldwide, probably even reaching $850 or $900 million depending on what the holiday weekdays do.
Great graph!
but...SF with bigger budget than SP..that doesn't seem right..
That's funny ...all those bashers griping about America BO and American tastes. The graph indicates pretty consistently that the domestic BO performance almost mirrors the international BO.
With Craig, international vs. domestic has increased again, as it did with Moore & Dalton, meaning they are relatively less popular stateside compared to internationally.
Having said that, you're correct.....they do mirror each other relatively nicely overall on the graph.
Thank you and that's true as well.
Looking at it closer you can see the greater dip with Dalton ...note also FYEO.
The 80s saw a steady decline but Dalton's two rebounded a bit internationally.
Of other note after GE the budgets increased greater than the domestic BO which stayed almost flat.
I still don't think this is necessary.....they can make a decent Bond film for far less than $200m if they really put their minds to it, and then they wouldn't be so dependent on crazy product placement.
Sometimes the spectacle is not necessary....just the quality. They learnt that with CR & even GE, which really were so dialed back on the 'spectacle' compared to the later Brosnan vehicles, and yet hailed as some of the best and just as entertaining. However, it looks like we're back to the old habits again. Only a new Bond actor will refocus the minds, because the risks of failure increase and so they start working smarter.
Yes, I agree.
Interesting that SP cost the same as QOS, actually probably far less, given inflation adjustments on Quantum's budget (IA works both ways) and greater product placements on Sf and SP. To me, most of the money for SP is up there on the screen. I'm stumped about why QOS cost so much, unless there was a lot of bungled costs due to the strike, because the locations and action were so-so, Craig had a low salary, and Foster wasn't getting much either. Craig and Mendes cost a ton no doubt on SP, as did the extensive location and action work.
Granted published budget figures are total junk, as studios are never truthful about budgets. But SP's figures aren't fudged much due to the leaks. MI5 and MM are just two 2015 films with phony budget figures. MI5 shut down for 2 weeks to rewrite and reshoot the ending, which of course was never factored into its published budget. SP has already grossed more than twice what Mad Max did (MM was my favorite action film in years), will gross nearly $175/200m more than the Martian (and I'm counting China), and will ultimately gross about 150-170 more than MI5. A few posters and some press will bitch about it being a "disappointment" for whatever reasons they can gen up. I guess it depends on your "perspective" as I never thought its BO would equal SF's. Among the many advantages SF had, the ER factor alone killed a sizable % of SP's BO compared to SF's.
Besides emergency services of course.
I'm tired. Ready for the weekend lol.
Yep, that's it. I bet GG at some point will do a full out evaluation of exactly how badly ER hurt SP vs SF. Obviously it hurt all films this year, but SP was constantly being compared to SF's BO, and as noted above, it was mentioned in here months ago but most of us ignored it, but I still still think the leaks which set SP up for a negative narrative in the press, the weaker title song, the lack of the Olympic promo and the 2015 spy competition all hurt. SP is still strong in Europe and GB, in fact it appears to be doing pretty well almost everywhere. I don't think it will do $900m any longer, but hopefully it will reach $850 with Japan and other markets still not yet played out. $200 US ain't bad, it just seems not so hot when constantly compared to SF. But it will still do more in both the US and OS than MI5, MM and other far better reviewed films.
Yes and I forgot some mentioned that here long ago. I even remember now reading about the ER concern going into the summer movie season.
Exactly. The best Bond films are not spectacles, at least I don't see them as such. FRWL, OHMSS, CR, TLD, DN.