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
I agree brand name is important and in many cases will ensure a hit regardless of whether the film itself is good or bad, which is why in my earlier post I mentioned that the Bond series is a cash cow and if, God forbid, we were to get another QoS we could still be looking at a gross of over $700million.
SF grossed about 200 M Euros (I mean : in the countries where Euro is used, it grossed that). So to create this worldwide $ figure, at one moment, you have to decide which rate to use, and well, for instance :
So today it means around 260 M$ (and UK had not the Euro, so yes, the US weighs less than Europe for Bond...).
But in 2008, had you think the dollar would have continued its trend (imagining 1Euro = 2 $ for 2012), and had you predicted a good estimate amount of euros (200M), then you would have had 400 M$ in your computation. A +160M$ bonus, and with only one currency taken into account.
With other currencies, the rate change can be even more impressive
So all in all, in a "worldwide $1bn" gross, the impact of currency exchange variation could be up to 300M$ or even more, realistically over a few years. Meaning all prediction for the next 2/3 years should be made with a 20 to 30% pinch of salt at the least, unless you're a brilliant economist who can predict the future rates (and then you can become rich very fast).
I'd be more impressed to read predictions on a given country, there are far less factors to allow people to be lucky :) Remember that for instance, people still disagree about whether or not SF is a success in China :)
I may live in the country where the result of SF was the most unexpected actually (even if "experts"now can "explain" it after the fact). SF is the first #1 yearly for Bond in France ever (unless the more serious figures that will be available later this year change that, you never know !).
Your sheer objective realism.......makes us all happy Mr France (:|
I agree with this. I don't think anyone can suggest it will make 1bn next time around. But it's fair to assume it will make 700m minimum off the back of SF. QoS was set up to smash it out of the park, CR did a Batman Begins, allowing for QoS to do a TDK, but it just wasn't up to it. Everyone was salivating to see what Craig's second Bond would be like, and when it didn't deliver, word of mouth put pay to any hopes of genuine BO success. If they get it right with 24 it can by all means go from strength to strength. Personally I think it will take an epic effort to pull it off. Mendes and the casting of the lead villain will go someway to determining 24's success IMO.
Oh, and I think Logan has it all to prove. I'm banking on him delivering something genuinely brilliant, rather than something hyped by the PR department.
Did you like SF?
Imaging trying to predict Bond 24 score in the US rather than this worldwide figure. Then you start to list the competition, to wonder about the effect of the other big blockbusters released before and after, etc.. Much more "interesting", but much more difficult (I wouldn't dare it), here you won't have 300M$ of random noise to allow luck for everyone :)
I liked it far, far more than "I, Robot" :) but it's not a "classic" like "Blade Runner" IMO, it actually is too self-conscious in the way it tries to be classic... To me CR is still the best DC Bond, you feel they got lucky to have the result they had, it works so well on many levels. Gee, CR had a "B&W Bond", and yet it didn't feel "arty" !
I agree Casino Royale set up QoS so well thats why it open so big despite only a two year gap but poor WoM met it fell fast. Poor WoM is more important today then ever before due to Fb, twitter and social media in general. Still Bond 24 will break several franchise records at least e.g Opening day and Opening weekend.
That's a great point mate. I was talking to a friend about this very issue, in the pub earlier.
I agree it is very good but is not quite a classic if i'm being objective it's not a game changer either like TDK was recently.
Absolutely, the appetite that was there for QoS, will be there again for 24, no doubt. Let's hope this time it can capitalise on it.
Also remember that I explained several times here that GF/TB were not the box office tsunami some think it was (but still very very successful !). And yet, I find GF a classic for sure !
GF is one of my favourites, and was a game changer for the franchise. I also think both CR and SF have been game changers too. CR changed the tone completely from DAD, and SF has pushed it one step further, both creatively and financially.
The franchise is probably the healthiest right now than it has been since 1964/65.
With that I do agree. Off course no real re-match of the 1960 Bond films. Though it comes close.....
You both make valid points which I find to be very true. Also, @RC7's comment about mass media is spot on. With media outlets like twitter and facebook and other social media platforms being critical to the sustainability of BO takings by way of word of mouth/reviews, the landscape of determining a movie's success has changed. Look at the new die hard film. Die Hard 5 is failing fast and is is suffering an onslaught of criticism everywhere. Needless to say, it's going to have an adverse effect on the film's overall gross. As you guys also mentioned, QoS lost it's legs due to it's lukewarm reception but still did better than it probably should have thanks to the success of CR.
On the flipside, a film like SF when first viewed exclusively to the media and press, as soon as the movie was over, twitter was on fire with reports on how awesome it was. SF is out on dvd already and is still playing in a few cinemas, it's success has been wholly recognised and here in the UK, the dvd is being advertised on tv as the winner of the best bafta british movie. I'm sure it will win something at the oscars and as @htall90 mentioned, with the strong possibility of Mendes returning and the casting of the villain as well as the overwhelming success of SF in general, Bond 24 is going to be hyped and marketed greater than before.
Bond 24 just needs to deliver the goods, which I'm sure it will and we're definitely going to see some impressive BO takings.
Nothing will ever replicate the 60's Bondmania - different time, different era. Bond was all new then. But what we have now is incredible for modern times, especially considering Bond is now 50 years old at the cinema, and has reached a peak not seen since the 60's.
I'm afraid Bond 24 will have the same world context too (otherwise, it'll be good news for everyone though). All the other franchises with superheroes, magic or space fights, are happy with CG to cut costs (Iron Man is possibly the optimal CG character), so will Bond 24 avoid the CG costs cut race ? That's my concern.
No more mega-sets because it's too expensive ? SF chose CG to create a virtual island based on a true one but probably no one from the team went there, and it felt weird to me on the big screen (only static shots each time the island is featured, I never got a sens it was something "real"). CR's use of the airport, on the other hand, was top notch, CG was there too, but not central.
This may not be a bad thing. Every time EON get money to play with, riding on the success of a previous Bond film, they often go one step too far with an OTT film in terms of spectacle, and end up failing disasterously.
Think YOLT after TB, MR after TSWLM, even QoS after CR. With QoS we had more locations crammed in than any other Bond film, yet look how well that turned out.
If EON have to still be cautious with their pennies for Bond 24, hopefully they'll focus more on script rather than spectacle.
Give me a down-to-earth, modest FYEO, TLD, CR or SF and day of the week over some crap like DAD.
Exactly! DAD is a perfect example of this.
Now you are taking it too far the other way. No, not that extreme.
LTK has possibly the most clever script of the franchise, IMO (the way Bond makes Sanchez thinks everyone around him betray him, etc, it edges on the Mission : Impossible template actually, with even the usual incident in the plan - the ninjas - that means he has to go into impro mode to fall back on his feet). And yet very few would consider it a classic I think.
GF's script is far less sound, but well, it's GF ! The DB5 scene has no use in the plot (all the gadgets turn out to be useless : 007 is captured and the girl is killed), but it's a classic scene. In SF, the DB5 is used efficiently, 007 needs it to kill a first batch of goons, it's one more gadget Moore's 007 would have typically relied upon...
I think "TV" each time I read someone wants a good script first, and less spectacle. Movies can go happily with plot holes, because you're there for two hours. TV requires solid script so you come back every week.
Funny enough I love LTK. It's in my all-time top 5 favoutites.
At the end of October there was a new cinema that opened here and everyone wanted to see a movie in that cinema. And the movie that opened the cinema was SF. Now-4 or so months later the movie is still showing in the cinema.
PS: I've come across an interesting comparison to make some realize how much counting with dollars can tell a different story : Germany box office for 2012.
Here's BoxOfficeMojo counting it in dollars (others sources gives different figures, it looks like the usual BOM foreign underestimations, not enough to change the ranking)
1 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey WB $91,296,151
2 Skyfall Sony $85,166,247
3 Intouchables Senator $79,066,638
4 Ice Age: Continental Drift Fox $67,098,539
Now here are the attendances figures from various sources :
1. 8.9M Ziemlich beste Freunde (Intouchables)
2. 7.7M Skyfall
3. 6.7M Ice Age 4 - Voll verschoben
4. 6.4M Der Hobbit - Eine unerwartete Reise 3D
3.5M more viewers for Intouchables than for Hobbit, and yet Hobbit is claimed to be #1 in Germany thanks to the 3D tickets AND the $/EUR changing about 15% in the months between the releases in favor of the Hobbit !
More than 1M more viewers for Skyfall, and yet people will say the Hobbit beat Skyfall in Germany, thanks to the 3D mostly I guess !
Really even "X is bigger than Y" is a sentence that needs to be defined with Box office :) In ten years, when people will only look en passant at BOM data (I think BOM will still be here in ten years "alas"), they will think the Hobbit crushed the German box office and explain other sources telling otherwise should be forgotten ! Even though no one actually spent a single dollar to see a movie in Germany in 2012 ;)
PPS ; To conclude, a special one for Gustav Graves :
Box Office Mojo Nederlands for Skyfall :
Feb3 : Gross-to-date 25,523,954 $
Feb10 : Gross-to-date 25,100,238 $
Negative growth :) Almost half a million less, almost the negative of the US box office of the week ! Boring reason indeed, but fun consequences ! Did some viewers complain and had their "dollars" back ?
[The Euro gross still goes up every week though obviously : Dutch Film Distributors say 18.7M and18.8M Euros, respectively]