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
You alone gave a huge amount of $$$ to Skyfall's BO intake. I bow to you, sir. ^:)^
[Dr.No voice] 1 Billion dollars, Mr.Bond![/Dr.No voice]
That feels so good to say.
Now write a very big check for Sam Mendes and get him back for Bond 24.
You're most gracious, sir. I'll do my best to add a few dollars more in 2013 - but it looks like SF finishes at my local Cineworld today. Boo! Still, there are other cinemas.
I think 7M tickets sold could be reached for 007. :D
There's not a doubt in my mind of that. In a short while, it will overtake TB.
:D
One billion dollars for a film that is not 3D, or the final chapter in a series is quite the achievment. It proves that no only does James Bond as a series have more legs in it, but Daniel Craig has without doubt been accpeted by moviegoers worldwide as James Bond also.
I'm sure the grosses will continue to rise in the coming weeks/months. Just how far is anyones guess.
<:-P
=
Wow! I'm extremely proud of Bond now.
Love the last paragraph. And speaking of brains, that crew reminds me of dinosaurs in 3 different ways.
1. Dinosaurs had huge bodies, and as smug as that crew is they must think they are 50 feet tall among Bond fans.
2. Most dinosaurs had incredibly small brains in ratio to their bodies and were, relatively speaking, highly stupid. That fits.
3. Dinosaurs are extinct. As are their points about Craig failing as Bond.
SF hitting a billion dollars is absolutely incredible and that must be killing those wannabees.
:))
@-) And just think we slog our guts out at work to get these bits of paper that control all of our lives! And we will never earn that in our lifetimes! Makes ya think don't it?
Ah don't think like that ;)
You have to be optimistic about these things. Ah alright it'll never happen, but I can dream.
And yep, this entire post was an excuse to quote Only Fools. Sue me :P
Well i follow BO performnaces of films, so i thought i'd put into check the reality of 'SF' s box office success.........which though exceptional........
True its fantastic that the film has grossed so much, but is it the most successful Bond?......no sorry it isnt. Remember that 'TB' had a gross which today would be equivalent to around $600 mil for its North American release alone, and 'GF' wasnt that far behind. If you take into account attendance figures then 'SF' lags 'TB' by a massive margin............i mean we are talking at least a difference of around 15,000,000 minimum.
Also you need to take into account the population of the US is now over 311mil, it was around 200 mil in 1965/66, so a much larger percentage of the population saw a Bond film then.
Yes, 'SF' has done unbelievably well in International markets, but so did 'TB' and 'TB' didnt have the luxury of being able to play in China, Russia or India.
I mean 'SF' has become no1 film alltime in UK numerically wise, but i doubt its attendance figure here matches 'TB's massive 15.6 mil admissions, though its probably quite close.
Conclusion 'SF' yes massive hit..........but not a mega-blockbuster as per 'TB'..........the facts speak for themselves.
The adjusted inflation figures are a rough guide and vary somewhat, but you cannot ignore the fact that 'TB' had a far greater admissions, and that at the day is the proof of the pudding.........ie.....number of people who actually went to see the film, and in this case we are going backt to 1966 when there were a helluva lot less people in the world.
Sorry to be a killjoy........coz i thought 'SF' was excellent., just putting things into perspective. :)
We also know that the 60's didn't deliver a great way of advertising like the Internet allows, or message boards/forums, but still, talking overall inflation, SF is coming close to becoming the most successful Bond film of all time. We can't say 'Well, it should be TB, because if it had opened in these places, then...', because we just don't know.
Reality Check:-
We're only 30 Million off, and still have China to open in. So your saying two films only 30 Million apart are nowhere near as successful as each other when they've both broken records and passed the Billion mark?
What reality do you live in?
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a447831/skyfall-deserves-an-oscar-says-timothy-dalton.html
Even your arguments aren't a true factcheck. If you say EITHER 'Skyfall' is the most succesful Bond film ever OR that 'we need to do a factcheck because 'Skyfall' can never do the business 'Thunderball' did in the USA': Both remarks are hard to prove.
Why? For the exact reasons you are mentioning. It's like saying 'China and the USA together would not have been world powers today if they only did colonialization in the way Holland did in the 17th century' :-S.
Fact is: Both examples are incomparable. That is a fact. And when you leave these faulty comparisons out, you can still say that 'Skyfall' is the most succesful film in its genre for today's standards. THAT'S why I prefer comparing 'Skyfall' with recent movies like 'The Dark Knight Rises'.
And still then you need to see comparisons into perspective. But that does not make me less excited about what 'Skyfall' did. I am excited, I will stay excited....and I have actually become a bigger Bond fan because of 'Skyfall' :-).
This article gives me goosebumps.....truly. Dalton is right....also with the comparisons he makes :-).
Actually.....you should see TLD, LTK, CR, QOS and SF in a row. That's great movie stuff.
The trouble with inflation adjustment figures is that the conversion factor is so questionable, and is solely based on the US inflation index, but even then there are quite a varied number of box office figures published amonst various BO sites for inflation adjusted figures of films in the US.
All i was trying to say is.............at the end of the day its attendance figures that are a true reflection of a films success, and in this case 'SF' doesnt match those of 'TB'.
btw;- i loved 'SF', and its success is fantastic.
'SF' actually needs to surpass $1.3 Billion to surpass 'TB'.
Its all a case of simple mathematics.
The source that someone has used earlier on in this thread appears to be incorrect (which is not uncommon, where BO is concernd).
Thunderball grossed $141.2 mil worldwide (63.6 US and 77.6 Internationally)
ok..........now based on general consensus its estimated that 'TB's US gross would equate to just under $600 mil nowadays.
In fact BOmojo has an adjusted figure of $582 mil.
Now that gives you a multiplication factor of 9.15.
If you then apply this to the International figure of 77.6...this gives us $710 mil
now add the 2 figures together ie 582 + 710 = 1292 or near as dammit $1.3 bil.
If you still dont believe me, check out this webpage www.soundonsight.org for more detailed info, and believe it or not they come to the same figure as well, though slighly higher.
Mod edit: double post merged into one.
I understand what you are saying, but there are factors on the other side of the equation as well.
Quite a few guys at my gym downloaded Skyfall and watched it at home rather than going to pay to see it at a theatre. So SF exists in a world where it is harder to get people out to the cinema, so a billion dollars is even more impressive of an achievement.
When I was a kid big studio releases would stay in the theatres for several months (I still have some of the newspaper ads for The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark proclaiming "11th month!"). If you really wanted to go see a film you saw it in a theatre; now people can wait 3 or 4 months for the DVD which lessens the "need" to see it in a theatre. So again, a billion dollars in this environment is pretty fantastic.
Movies don't get re-releases now like they did in the past. How many times was TB re-released in the 60s? This ups its BO take in a way that SF can't compete with which again makes SF's total very impressive.
Finally, we have a much more fractured entertainment landscape than we did in the 60s. Movies are not the "events" that they were for my parents' generation - I'm not sure of the attendance patterns in the 60s but I know in the 30s the average person went to the movies 3 times every week.
Now, this is not to say that you're wrong to bring up the points that you do, it's simply to say that we can never compare TB and SF in an "apples to apples" comparison because of the different times they were released in. Taking certain factors into account, SF may be far behind TB. But taking other factors into account might mean that it's already much more successful than TB...we'll never be able to answer that.