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'll happily admit that the Bronson Era was far more successful than most of the John Glen era (FYEO actually pulled in a nice amount in 81) but it certainly wasn't a "new level" of success. The Bond series had done much better with the Connery films of the 60s and the Moore films of the 70s (minus TMWTGG).
Simple, don't engage in discussions then. Why should you get angry? He's simply making an observation.
Thankyou gentlemen. I'm not criticizing Brosnan's performances or his character. I'm merely stating that the Brosnan Era was a period of relatively average success when looking at the Bond franchise as a whole. It was neither a peak nor was it a valley. It was a nice even steady flow of money that I'm sure satisfied EON but was hardly Christmas for them either.
Still not sure why any of that prompts anger.
Can either agree or disagree ( it's called a discussion ;) ) although
I'm certain most of us know what someone is really doing when they
Use insulting or provocative language. :)) looking For a fight anyone ? :D
you cannot talk away the fact that all 4 Brosnan movies were the 4 most successful Bond movies by far before CR.
Do you really think a producer, a studio or someone else gives a sh** what Thunderball's gross might be worth today?? Or what it would be worth in relation to day DAD??
The only thing that matters is what the movie is grossing TODAY because you cannot spend any money that was generated 50 years ago.
Unbelievable what lame arguments people get when they cannot admit that Brosnan put the franchise to new heights. Even BB + MGW said so.
Added: If some people insist on adjusting the inflation in such lists then they should do it properly and adjust everything, the budget, the marketing costs, the profit...then the picture would look completely different again.
Actually yes profit margins do matter. If you were making x amount of dollars 20 or 30 years ago and making y amount of dollars today but x amount went further for you in the long and short runs than I thing that does factor in. What's "unbelievable" here are the excuses some delusional fans will make up to protect their hero from factual information.
They wanted a reboot with a younger actor, so Pierce was not contracted
For another. No big conspiracy or mystery. The producers wanted to go
in a different direction with a new actor. Happens all the time in business.
Almost as much? DAD grossed $431 mil. Adjusted for inflation that comes out to $574 mil. CR grossed $599 mil. Adjusted that comes out to $712 mil. That's not even close to being almost the same. But I don't why I bother putting down numbers. Brosnan's fans have their own version of history.
1 Skyfall $1,108.6
2 Casino Royale $599.0
3 Quantum of Solace $586.1
4 Die Another Day $432.0
5 The World Is Not Enough $361.8
6 GoldenEye $352.2
7 Tomorrow Never Dies $333.0
Do you honestly believe EON is interested in theoretical numbers of 60's Bond movies.
Or do you think Cameron is crying in his sleep because theoretically Gone With The Wind was more successful than Avatar??
Sorry, but this argument with inflation adjusted figures is lame.
I'm not protecting a hero. My hero is Timothy Dalton who is, sadly, the one that was viewed as a failure in general.
But people who obviously cannot stand Brosnan's movies take every chance to try to prove how "wrong" he was. (I don't mean you necessarily, just saying).
Anyway, I understand some people look at those inflation adjusted statistics. I like statistics too. But they are not how success of a movie is measured.
DoubleOhhSeven, you appear to be correct. ;) so apologies for that I
Always thought the made similar amounts.
ROI figures (Return on Invest).
Neither Craig's nor Brosnan's movies were the most profitable.
QOS even is last, and Skyfall below Goldeneye!!
It seems movies nowadays simply cost to much to make as much profit as decades ago.
Made a fortune.
The thing about the Brosnan era is the precipitous declining ROI. DAD did reverse that somewhat, but at some cost to the franchise's credibility, particularly in a post-911/Austin Powers era. So I think EON had no choice but to reboot, and with the CR rights in hand, it was a no-brainer.
What's quite evident from the above list is how exceptional Martin Campbell is as a director. Not only did he deliver two of the franchise's best (particularly in the last 40 yrs or so) but he did it with class leading levels of ROI while introducing a new Bond actor each time. A genius when it comes to Bond and definitely up there with Young as one of the greats.
Amazing that DN is still the one with the highest ROI, and also amazing that the often drubbed TMWTGG was actually quite successful.
Keep in mind also that the above stats do not include the marketing budgets, which have also increased dramatically over the yrs, further reducing ROI. That's why increased product placement is, sadly, inevitable, as studios try to recover marketing costs through product tie-ins.
DAD was much more successful than the Bourne Identity ($431m box office vs $214m box office)
Why? Casino Royale wasn't an origin story. It didn't require recasting and it certainly didn't require a reboot.
CR gave them a promotable excuse for reboot, but would have served just as well (or for me, better) as a Broz finale.
The ROI table is not nonsense, it's just one way to try to figure out which movies were more successful than others.
Of course all you mentioned should be counted in as well, but there is no information available anywhere to have a final number of profit to a movie.
Even 50 years after Dr. No, Dr. No still makes money.
That's why it's common practice to look at box office numbers and judge a movie's success by those numbers as I said initially.
But then it looks like Brosnan's movies were highly successful and that info doesn't go well with some people.
Box office on its own is not a good measure as it ignores both the cost and the inflation in ticket prices, which is highly relevant.
The commonly quoted inflation adjusted numbers give some indication of relative box office strength over time (and so are certainly more relevant than an unadjusted number), but it's just an indication. As I've mentioned elsewhere, an inflation adjustment is just a CPI adjustment, so it does not account for ticket price variations over time, new technology (like IMAX etc.), competing media (like DVD, TV, internet etc.), changes in buying habits etc.
Yet another indication of relative success and cultural significance (but not profitability) is yearly worldwide box office rank. In that respect, the stats are as follows (based on available info from stats-a-mania tme):
DN - 1
FRWL - 2
GF - 1
TB - 2
YOLT - 3
OHMSS - 2
DAF - 1
LALD - 3
TMWTGG - 4
TSWLM - 4
MR - 1
FYEO - 2
OP - 2
AVTAK - 5
TLD - 4
LTK - 12
GE - 4
TND - 4
TWINE - 8
DAD - 6
CR - 4
QoS - 7
SF - 2
With the increasing cost of making a Bond film these days, the films have to make a ton of money to remain profitable, and they have to stay in the top 5-10 of the yearly rank, irrespective of total gross, imho. Top 1, 2 or 3, like OP, MR, SF, FYEO, LALD, DAF, OHMSS, YOLT, TB, GF, FRWL, DN would be even better
No. DAD cost $80m more than Bourne to make but earned $215m more at the box office. So DAD was $135m more profitable than Bourne at the box office alone.
But my point was about the fan theory that Eon wanted to ape the popularity of Bourne. It's not logical because DAD was demonstrably more popular than Bourne.
Sorry to disagree but a table purporting to depict return on investment is of course a nonsense when it excludes the major sources of revenue for almost half of the entries.
That's how you have come to the conclusion that "it seems movies nowadays simply cost to much to make as much profit as decades ago" and it is an incorrect conclusion as it's based on faulty data.
As you are aware of this, I'm surprised that you are confident enough to say that "neither Craig's nor Brosnan's movies were the most profitable" especially as they are the two eras in which home media has been most profitable (particularly Brosnan's era).
The other issue here is home media dollars is very hard to track, given that different divisions at the companies are involved, and presumably there are different divisions of profit as well. Have seen years of arguing about this on trek sites and Paramount's creative accounting in the feature area (which is why there was a near audit in the mid 80s, at which point TREK suddenly became profitable for those with net points) might be nothing compared to what it was with their homevid division. You can talk gross dollars on homevid, but there aren't even general rules I've found to evaluate those numbers, like the 2x or 2.5x rule for negative cost vs gross return (or the similar multiplier when evaluating rental take vs gross.)
They could've taken it back down to earth for a final Brosnan film like they did with Roger Moore in FYEO, or gone in an entirely new direction with a new actor (like they eventually did with Dalton in TLD). Based on Craig's success I think you can say that they made the right decision. I'd really like to see them go younger with the next actor though so that they can stay in the role for a big longer.
But I'm not sure I understand how that is a particular mark of success? A studio is not aiming for a high multiplier - access to capital isn't a problem - it's aiming for a big profit. A film that makes a profit of $200m is more valuable than a film that makes a profit of $100m, regardless of budget.
(On a multiplier rationale, the most successful spy film of the 21st century isn't Bond or Bourne or Mission Impossible but probably The Lives of Other - made for $2m and grossed $77m.)
Assuming he fulfils his contract and makes another film in 2019, Craig will be the longest-serving actor in the role.
Okay if you want to judge the franchise's success that way than my point still stands. Bronson in no way, shape, or form brought the series to new levels of success. As I stated above, the franchise's financial success peaked with Connery. Not even someone with half a brian would ever claim that the Bond series was bigger with Brosnan in the 90s than with Connery in the 60s. Connery made Bond a cultural phenomenon in the 60s. Brosnan, not so much. Any way you slice it, Brosnan's run was nowhere near the most successful for the series at that time or any other.
You have to also consider the time and place. Thunderball grossing $141 million (an absolutely absurd amount of money in the 60s) meant infinitely more for the success of EON than Die Another Day grossing $431 million (a good but hardly phenomenal sum by 2002 standards). The same way Skyfall joining the billion dollar club in 2012 meant more for the business credibility of James Bond than anything in the Brosnan Era.
Exactly, we don't the information you asked for in a previous post. All we can judge the films on are the info we do have. And they all point to Connery be the most successful Bond.