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
Ooohh it's like being at school. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT (my moneys on the frenchman :P )
Well, no one seriously dares to list "top inflation adjusted worldwide gross movies" for a reason though ! The list would change dramatically depending on the currency you choose, and well, for WW gross, there is no "currency"... For SF, the result look like its box office will be made very roughly of 30% US$, 25% Euros, 20% Pounds, around 10% Yuan, etc... SF may well be last Bond movie with US$ having the largest part as a matter of fact (if the $ long term trend continues, which is unpredictable actually).
Then between 1965 and 2012, inflation for $ means you do x7. But for 'Euros' (I choose Franc for the reference, it's even more complex), you do x9. And for Pounds you do x15... Computation : Impossible.
About Gustav_Graves, an anecdote for the readers here : I never reported when he posted several times in a row on multiple occasions (he even posted 5 times in a row once). I never reported anyone, in fact.. When I posted twice in a row, "someone" reported me to the moderators instantly, and "someone" even posted a smiley clapping when the moderators acted :) I don't feel like the one having a problem really :)
Some people on the other hand badly wants SF to "beat" TB according to some scientifical proof (and ironically, everyone forget about BoxOfficeMojo's method then, while it is THE site here for everything else about box office ;) ).
You all laugh and flick your collars up because, while you sit there talking about those of us who (for some reason) "badly" want SF to beat TB, you're in the opposite boat: you refuse to believe that SF beat TB.
I never once said that I wanted SF to "badly" beat anything, either, so you can go ahead and just drop that.
Wow this really is like school. Gustav grassed you up to the teachers so now it's all kicking off.
Why don't some people here want Skyfall to beat Thunderball ?
Both are Bond movies, Skyfall is a huge success as well as Thunderball ajusted inflation or not. So I'm happy to see a Bond film succeed.
When I was a kid I NEVER could have imagined this. What a fantastic time to be a Bond fan.
Anyone know how much of the profit Eon gets in percentage?
Well, all those who thinks this is meaningless won't make articles to say the core of the article is meaningless !
And this site and many many others have announced one week ago that SF in China was a failure, do you believe them ? :)
Hint : I never claimed and I'll never claim TB is the #1 Bond movie either (unless I feel like doing some provocation given the atmosphere here). Quite a shock, possibly ;)
I wrote that Bondmania was not here again though, but it happened in 1965 mostly outside the box office business actually... I also "diminished" the success of GF and TB to the eye of mepal1, I think, by reminding GF was never #1 weekly in the US, and TB only one week... I know it's easy to try to dismiss me as an elder people (as once written on the front page of this site !) who wish to claim "I lived through the real success of Bond in 1965", but I'm not old enough sorry ! Btw my name here comes from a Roger Moore 007, one of the "weakest", I'm not a purist !
All my explanations why ranking SF #1 is not trivial are basically met only with "The Internet disagrees with you" though, nothing on the explanations themselves.
First, moderators have been warned of my messages solely on that topic... I could go and copy/paste 5 times in a row "SF is #1 yoohoo !" I feel I'd have never been flagged :) SF being #1 is clearly something important to some persons.
I've written several times SF was a mega success ("like TF and GB"), how can makes me sound like someone trying to diminish the success ? That's only if some think it is very important to say "MORE THAN" TF and GB !
Here I was even one the very first to give details why TDKR would be beaten in most countries outside the US ! (Same year release and market-to-market are far less meaningless, IMO, except for China, a market that changes significantly every month). I was also the first to say the reports of failure in China were very lousy reportings (and that was AFTER the "SF does better than TB" arguments had started here !)
How do you analyze the fact that no one dares to make rankings of "worlwide gross adjusted for inflation", despite all the tons of box office webpages you can access ?
They dare to do "adjusted domestic grosses", or "ticket adjusted domestic grosses " (the BOM method), or "worldwide gross", but "adjusted worldwide gross" ? No. Why Bond could be the only movies that could be ranked this way ?
And when BoxOfficeMojo writes SF is #1 of the Bond, they're talking unadjusted. That $1.04bn figure for TB is nowhere to be found on BOM, I think. It's just someone at the AFP putting the WW figure of TB 1965 in some American inflation calculator.
FYI, if you use the pounds instead of the dollar as the choice of currency, the TB figure rises up about 10/15% (and it's meaningless too). Euro (a currency that is as important as US$ for SF) ? It didn't exist in 1965, no real computation available, a good hint it would be really meaningless... And if you extend the BOM method to the worlwide figure, it's even significantly larger (and still meaningless). And if you do the computation on similar markets (the less meaningless method I think, but still meaningless), then SF looses about 200/250M$...
PS : I feel I'll quote this thread in 4 years, when possibly 5 movies per year crush today's
SF gross, even "adjusted by the AFP". Will this mean SF was not successful in the end (some box office ranking hysterics are calling The Hobbit a failure, you know...) ? No of course and I think then you'll start to hear what I say when you'll need something to answer to those who will say in a few years SF is now outside the top #20 etc, that Bond is the past etc... (Internet loves backlash :) )
PPS : Believe it or not, in "AFP-Relaxnews", the ones who created this $1.04bn figure everyone is quoting for weeks, the F means France :) [This is Agence France Presse]
PPPS : For those who were here 6 years ago, do you remember all the hysteric fuss about Casino Royale being beat by Happy Feet (yes, digging up my past to answer Gustav_Graves's silly "newcomer" comment woke up many memories) ? Who remembers now that epic thread ? Who cares now about Happy Feet ?
Even if it sticks in some people’s craw, can’t we all just acknowledge and agree for once that this is a great achievement.
Ah, how many people were here when CR in US was not #1 in its release because of Happy Feet ? You feel this thread is epic and heated ? At that time, we had craignotbond mentally ill members ("death threats", yes !) making tons of it...
That's not to say that when they do have amazing figures, that I'm not impressed - or when they're underwhelming that I'm disappointed. It's just a natural reaction, but I KNOW, that we've got a good film. Any shortcomings are just bad judgement on others' behalf!
I think you're in denial of the irrational importance some carry to the fact that "SF beat TB" as you've written on several occasions (while claiming not to bother at all about it - and obviously if you've been following BoxOfficeMojo for years as you claimed the post before, that's not for the statistics you claim you don't care about, but for the nice HD photos there I suppose :) ).
(Hey... can we stop? The arguments are becoming annoying now!)
All of you, in fact. Keep the playground fighting to private messages 8-|
I'm also not sure why you keep bringing up being flagged or 'spammy': not once have I flagged you for anything. Sure, you're irritating me because you keep logging me into a group I'm not, but I still have yet to flag you. Take up your anger with those who have, not me.
Hey, I'm not the one saying I don't care about the facts :)
So, more facts about China :
In one week, that's simply almost the whole amount of French viewers who went to see Skyfall there (France about 7M viewers total, China about 6.2M in one week !)
And yet, with the $-$ pair of glass, one would rather say that France has brought 60M$ to Skyfall gross total, while China has brought "only" 35M$ in its first week. Quite telling about the difficulty to compare different countries (and not even talking about different times) eh ? China has 20 times more citizens than France, 4 times the US, so you see the potential once they start having theaters a bit more everywhere than now, and ticket prices rise to the rest of the world's standards...
More data : Skyfall has about 50% of the viewers of the week in China (which, IMO, makes the 5.500+ figures (about half the screen) more likely than the 8.800+ although it's really hard to be sure, frankly).
I think I have proven that BOM was very inaccurate with China box office in particular, and I've given better source (PS : BOM WAS rather good in the past, it's Amazon who killed it).
This uncertainty makes all this ranking competition quite ridiculous... I can find examples of studios fudging box office #1 week number for PR reasons, also. Etc...
while on one of the most popular pirate sites (where DVD quality was available around the 3rd of January...), it's 7.6 (far, far, far less voters though). The "haters" are there though, and their online activity is probably why so many "experts" reported the word of mouth was bad.
Indeed. Been saying that for quite some time already. It's a big, shaken-not-stirred cocktail of reasons why 'Skyfall' will be hittint $1.1 Billion worldwide.
I'll go through things here step by step.
Right the argument over whether 'SF' had overtaken 'TB' as the highest grossing Bond film, started some weeks ago here.
This apparently came about as a member here , stumbled across an inflation adjusted list, based on the US consumer index (i'll come back to this later).
This list, for some misguided reason, was taken as gospel as the definitive Bond alltime list, and was published on the front page of MI6, quite sometime ago, with the headline 'whichever way you look at it 'SF' is the biggest Bond film of alltime' (or words to that effect).
Having personally followed Bond BO for some decades, this came as a surprise as i knew there were alternative lists which didnt agree with this.
When i posted the alternative information and links with reasons for this information, i was attacked by a small number 'people' here for making such posts.
It saddened me that as Bond fans, some people here were not flexible in their approach to other peoples findings on the subject, and could only respond with sarcastic comments, and not with any facts of their own.
This has not only happened to me, but to other members here who have information on the subject as well.
The fact is there is no definitive list to Bond's alltime BO inflation adjusted, and i'll give the reasons.
There have so far been 2 basic ways of determining inflation adjusted figures, one has been by using the consumer inflation index, or by using cinema ticket price inflation.
Both are based on the US market..........unfortunately what applies to the US doesnt apply to countries elsewhere around the world, as inflation has varied greatly from country to country over the past 50 years, and the cinema ticket prices also varies.
An example would be my own country the UK, where ticket prices have more than doubled in the past ten years or so, but this doesnt apply to every country.
Its unfortunate, but due to the differing ways of counting inflation, this has led to a great deal of error margin, when calculating historical BO figure. In the case of 'TB' this can be as much as $300 mil, which is quite a margin.
The only true way to compare films BO from different era's, is if either the admission figures were known for each country, or the inflation index of each country was worked out separately.
So, where does this leave us..............well, at the end of the day none of us knows what the true comparitive figures are, maybe the studios have more detailed records, but they sure as hell arn't going to divulge that info with the public for various reasons.
Its possible someone could do thier own research into the subject, but it would be very costly and time consuming.
Today, i contacted 'Boxofficemojo' and i asked them a few questions........one of them was did they have a worldwide adjusted alltiime list.... their answer as expected was , no, because it would be impossible to calculate.
Secondly, i asked them if they kept admission records, again they said no.
Other questions i asked were, why in their foreign section, they didnt have BO figures for Switzerland.........they answered, because they didnt have a reliable source.
Finally, i asked why they had changed their BO gross for 'CR'.....thier reason was that they had been given a revised figure from the studio, upon 'SF's release...hence $599 mil, is now the official figure.
I suppose another thing to consider about the BO run of 'SF' is that despite the numerous reports of when 'SF' has broken a BO record, we have never so far been told that the film has become the highest grossing Bond film, taking inflation into account....from any source, whether it be the trade papers such as 'Variety' or 'Hollywood Reporter', the BO sources, or even the studios and EON themselves.
The reasons are obvious, either the film has not reached that benchmark, or more likely because no one actually knows!
Therefore, until i read otherwise, the history books still state 'TB' as the highest grossing Bond film in history.
But...even as we debate the subject, 'SF' is still doing stellar business in China, so who knows, maybe by the end of its run it could be the highest grossing Bond ever......but how will we ever know.
To sum up.......some people reading this thread will think, for god sake what the hell does it matter, 'SF' has been a fantastic success, and we should rejoice in that...and hope the next film does even better, as it will surely guarantee we get to see many more Bond films in the future.
My only beef here, is that some members want to create their own facts, and grossly misrepresent them for thier own end, and in doing so undermine other fair minded members who are only just trying to post thier findings on the subject!
I hope that members here, take this post as a fair and just one to the subject in hand.
Thanks :)
No, @Suivez_ce_parachute. Because I said myself on January 18th the following down below in this topic. And I say it again to you: In order to make a good prediction, you need to be more of a trendwatcher instead of a numbercruncher like you.
People in here, myself included though, were already getting 'high' from the first Monday screening reviews in China. That alone is stupid, as cinemas in Europe and the USA on a Monday are rather 'dead' as well.
Anyway, read down below what I said. By the way @Germanlady? I have respect for your opinions. I simply disagree on them sometimes :-).
Exactly!
I'm sure everyone agrees with that.