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
With the Star Wars series picking up speed & Yearly releases we will fairly soon fairly soon see if that is till the case in a few years time when Bond has its next release and Star Wars on its third.
I think Bond will still be ahead of them all, though.
It's a 25 movie franchise as CR67 an NSNA have been (rightly) counted.
And it's very impressive. The return-per-film is obviously far lower for Bond but it's the fact that the series has lasted for so many instalments over so many decades that is the achievement. No other franchise has retained popular support and attracted audiences to nearly the same level.
That said, I wonder about their definition of "franchise" - would be interesting to see the numbers for Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan and Frank L Baum's Oz saga, to name a few.
Yes, well we'll see if Star Wars and Harry Potter can still gross over a billion dollars at age 50.
I am wondering this as well because they have Marvel Cinematic Universe and Spider-Man and X-Men listed separately. Technically speaking, shouldn't Spider-Man and X-Men be included in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? I think that they should rename the category to The Avengers Universe or something to that effect.
And Jaws have 4 movies not 3.
The Marvel Cinematic Universe refers to the interconnected superhero movies appearing in the Avengers. Spider-man and the X-Men aren't connected to that group.
You could almost say they were the bookends. B-)
I count 3 x Ironman 2 X Hulk 1 Capt America 1 Thor and 1 Avengers which totals 8 films, yet the graph only includes 7
Let me guess, the first Ang Lee Hulk is considered stand-alone and not part of the Marvel universe which followed. I don't quite get why that distinction would be made though, considering all the Batmans have been lumped together, and there was even lose continuity between the two Hulk films.
Also I can't make out a 4th Reeve Superman. Then again I can barely make out the 4th Jaws film. Maybe Superman 4 is an even thinner sliver.
Are you just questioning the name of the franchise? Marvel chose that name for it.
Did they even clear £1 mil between them? Does anyone know of anybody who every went to see a Carry On in the cinema. I suppose the fact that they were literally made for nothing is how they managed to keep going for so long.
They were largely made for the UK domestic market and only sold internationally to some Commonwealth countries so their overall box office was pretty low.
It was indeed low. Although some of them cost less than 100k, which won't surprise many people. I think some of the earlier ones like 'Nurse' actually topped the UK B.O. in their year of release. Granted, we're still probably talking peanuts in the late 50's. On the subject, I still think Carry On Screaming is a minor masterpiece.
And Carry On Camping may have beaten OHMSS to the UK box office. Only a "Bond source" (and numerous copy/paste of it) give OHMSS as a #1, while more general sources give Carry On Camping.
Well, the next Bond movie after OHMSS topped the world box office, so the affront was soon forgotten :)
Hulk 2 was effectively a re-boot but not a clean re-boot.
If the two sets of Batman films can be lumped together then there is no reason not to include both Hulk films IMO.
I understand you reasoning. The Batman films should too be separated.