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
Eh ? No it isn't. CR only sold 12 millions more tickets world wide than DAD. LALD sold 19 millions more tickets than DAF, and GE sold 42 millions more tickets than LTK. CR has barely improved financially over the Brosnan era. To be a huge improvement fiancially over the Brosnan era, CR should have grossed over 700 millions dollar world wide, which it didn't come close of. The financial improvement that CR made is mediocre. CR should have sold atleast 100 millions tickets world wide to be a good improvement over the Brosnan era. The fact is Brosnan made very good box office numbers, and Craig's films didn't improve much on them.
In terms of financial improvements over his direct predecessor, Brosnan wipes the floor with Craig.
Great point! DC's involvement was controversial and as they say there is no bad press. I think it only helped bring people to the box office for CR.
All this chart does is prove that Craig was a huge success. This 12 million increase over DAD in ticket sales is phenomenal considering the huge decrease in american viewership.
Over the series' existance, the magic number, or sweat spot is 33%. If there are 33% of Gross coming from the US and 67% International, we have great numbers at the Box office. In terms of ticket sales, the number is slightly lower since there is a greater revenue per US ticket sales than the worldwide box office.
Going back to this sweat spot of 33%, if the number is low, under 29%, there are clearly a lack of American viewers which explains the lack of gross revenue. On the other side, if the number heads higher, around 37%, there is a lower number of International viewers but the financial effect isn't nearly as impactful due to the higher percentage of revenue per american viewer.
Looking at these values, we can identify the unpopular Bond with the American audiance:
% of Domestic Gross
Connery's movies starting with GE range 37% to 44.6% (TB)
OHMSS: 25.2%
Live And Let Die: 36.7%
Average Moore movee ~ 28%
The Living Daylights: 26.8%
Licence To Kill: 22.2%
GoldenEye: 30.2%
Tomorrow Never Dies: 37.6%
The World Is Not Enough: 35.1%
Die Another Day: 37.3%
Casino Royale: 28.2%
Quantum of Solace: 28.7%
Similar analysis can be done with adminssion, but not all information can easily be accessible for each movie. This still clearly shows that Craig isn't popular with American audiances. Pierce Brosnan was, and therefore the 12 million hike in admissions shows that he's an absolute phenomenal success for the International market.
This isn't just passable improvement, it's a huge undertaking, one that they may not heve been able to dream of.
I don't think Connery is an any possition to comment on the other Bonds. That glass house of his was built well.
More's the pitty. It must do wonders for his ego.
I forgot to mention being voted the SEXIEST MAN ALIVE :p
Only because I asked to be left out of the poll. :-\"
=)) =))
I think I have a good chance ;)
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=4619807836&set=t.509922836&type=3&theater
Best thing about Dalton was the seriousness of the part, there was a drastic minimum on the campy humor of his predecessor, Bond became agressive again, Dalton brought some steel and teeth back to the role. Some people think he was too cardboard, or dull, uninteresting etc, I can see where they're coming from, but some are honest enough to see his qualities and what a good Bond he was
Brosnan makes Bond 17 in 91 and Bond 18 in 93. The next four movies are what they are for real, but Brosnan makes a movie 2004 and a Bondian rendition of CR in 2006. After that he is replaced by Craig.
Connery would do 6 movies (counting NSNA).
Moore would do 9.
Brosnan would do 10.
Craig would be working on his third movie in 2012.
Hmm..... I think Moore could have made his final film in 1989, thus making 9 films. Hiatus, then Brosnan starts in 1995 all the way till 2012, with films in '95, '97, '99, '02, '05, '07, '09 and '12, thus a total of 8 films. And Connery making OHMSS... So
Connery : 7 films 1962-1971
Moore : 9 films 1973-1989
Brosnan : 8 films - 1995-2012
Fassbender : 2014- onwards.
One slight modification and we have a real winner ;)
Moore's age was never a real problem with me as he really brought his touch to the role. Dalton aged very well too, could have portrayed an older agent very well. But we're in the minority here who enjoy this aspect, I'm sure the critical mass would take a 20 year old Bond over a 55-60 year old one any day. Still nice territory to explore though.
I'd have no problems with a 60+ years old Moore, at 55+ years old Dalton and 57+ years old Brosnan as Bond. I'd actually welcome it in open arms. I think Dalton could have been Bond from 1995 till 2007, and Brosnan could have started in 2009... until when will be based on how well will he age in the upcoming years.
Moore could have also done a final film in 1989, so the 80's would be the Moore decade.
http://www.listal.com/list/my-ultimate-james-bond-timeline
:D
Job done, nice :-)
People moan about his acting in Bond but its miles better than some of his earlier stuff.
Really?
http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/30263230