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
Pretty much, but I mentioned Police Story so my post was better :P
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Many other sites and forums are using the same and this seems to be some kind of standard used and accepted by many.
As for the number of tickets sold, Skyfall should come in second place behind Thunderball, if you devide the number of Casino Royale's admissions by it's gross.
A massive Bond film either way. I'm happy.
Best. PTS. Ever.
(Actually I think it was after the titles but you get the general idea.)
Blew me away when I was a kid. I think Police Story is still the best film Jackie has done (and I'm sure I read somewhere that he thinks the same).
Absolutely. Has to be in the top 10 greatest action films of all time.
Why oh why did Jackie go to America?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=bond23.htm
(Compare Dec. 24 - Jan. 1 to Dec. 10 - Dec. 20)
A very interesting trend, indeed. There's obviously still some steam left in the US - $300 million should be a guarantee.
DOMESTIC
#1) Skyfall (tie)
Prior to 2012, no Bond film had ever reached $200 million domestically (not accounting for inflation, obviously). Not only did James Bond celebrate his 50th cinematic birthday this year with an extremely well-received film, a hit theme song from Adele and some of the best marketing synergy any franchise has ever captured, but he stormed past $200 million and gunned for $300 million. That's a figure which Skyfall will hit in the early weeks of 2013.
The film will end its run as the third-highest grossing 2D film of 2012 and fourth overall. That marks the best yearly rank for a Bond title in more than 33 years. By comparison, Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale each finished ninth in 2008 and 2006. In terms of tickets sold, Skyfall reached a level only previously seen in the franchise with 1964's Goldfinger and 1965's Thunderball. Impressive, Mr. Bond.[/quote]
OVERSEAS
#1) Skyfall (tie)
What else can be said about Daniel Craig's third outing as 007? For starters, Skyfall, through December 31, achieved $706 million internationally and has yet to open in China--meaning a final overseas gross of at least $750 million is all but guaranteed at this point. For the international year, that will position the Bond flick as the highest grossing 2D release of 2012 and second highest among all films behind The Avengers.
All-time, Skyfall appears to be heading toward the second-best 2D gross in international history, behind only Titanic and--we project--topping The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King's $742.1 million. Skyfall's current $706 million overseas tally blew past the previous high for the franchise: Casino Royale's $426.8 million. If all of this wasn't enough, the film seized the aforementioned perfect storm of marketing synergy at the hub of all things Bond when it topped Avatar last month as the United Kingdom's highest grossing movie in history with $158+ million -- a drastic increase from Casino Royale's 2006-leading $105.9 million U.K. gross.
Once again: Impressive, Mr. Bond...and very commendable.
I think my favourite thing about these stats is that it appears to have really captured a market not many other films do. When you look at stuff like The Avengers you're talking a huge influx of fanboys, something like Titanic was fangirls, SF seems to have converged somewhere in the middle which is great for the future of Bond. If they can keep on the right track and bring in the $$$ then it can only be good for us as fans. I think they felt a little nervy pre-Skyfall (reflected in the budget) with QoS underpeforming somewhat, but now that the B.O. has almost doubled they'll hopefully have renewed vigour and energy and we'll get a good portion pumped back in for 24.
QoS started great off the back of CR but didn't have decent word-of-mouth. Now that they've raised their game every single one of the millions of cinema goers who contributed to the $1bn will be waiting for 24.
I also think you can look forward to an influx of new Bond fans thanks to 'Skyfall'. Pre-Skyfall you already had those Bond fans. But it always meant that in reviews (IMDB for instance) there was always a group of 'Bond haters'; people who skipped Bond because it was Bond.
With 'Skyfall' I think that has changed substantiously. I also think that the rather young, new fanboys of 'The Dark Knight' and Christopher Nolan's films will now look forward in great anticipation to the 24th Bond film.
I can remember all the negativity surrounding the pre-production of J.J. Abrahms 'Star Trek' in 2009. Trekkies hated it when Abrahms admitted he wanted to attract a new influx of fans and when he wanted to uplift the production scale to 'Star Wars'-like proportions. Well, it worked. Moreover, afterwards the fast majority of conservative Trekkies loved it.
I think something similar is happening to 'Skyfall' now. Until 'Skyfall' Bond fans were, understandably, a bit sceptical and conservative at times. Not to mention the gunbarrel-sequence. But post-Skyfall, the current Bond fans, which we can find on these forums, have changed a bit too. They understand now that Bond has been truly uplifted as a franchise. From now on Bond is indeed bigger than pre-Skyfall.
And I haven't talked about myself yet. Yesterday I bought the Taschen 007 Archives Book. I can fully admit that I have become more nerdy, more fanatical thanks to 'Skyfall' :-P.
The performance of SF makes you realise how QOS underperformed given the success of CR, and the goodwill of that film giving QOS a strong initial boost at the BO.
It makes you wonder how badly QOS would of done if that had been DC's first Bond film!
Anyway......i hope the producers dont let the success of SF go to thier heads, as it apparently did after CR.
What we want now is consistency in the franchise, and to keep Bond, Bond and not to try to morph him into other cinematic characters ala Bourne.
What pleased me about SF, was that the producers had obviously responded to the negative comments (to put it mildly) about the shaky-cam, and abysmal quick cut editing of OQS, which in places made the film almost unwatchable, and had gone back to using the traditional Bond team to make the film.
All in all......i hope for future great Bond films........and i hope we dont have to wait too long for the next one.
If the producers apply the same consideration to Bond 24 as they did to SF then we could have another Billion dollar Bond film in the future...........hopefully.
:)
I do agree. 'Skyfall' does not necessarily put the bar incredibly high for Bond 24. Like the Nolan-Dark Knight-franchise, it is now solely a matter of consistency. Don't get nervous dear Michael, Barbara. Just go into pre-production like you are making a movie that is not 'the best Bond of all times', but a movie that has the same kind of quality 'Skyfall' has. And then it'll be much easier to repeat a Billion Dollar success, like 'The Dark Knight Rises' did after 'The Dark Knight'.
That's what's happening now with the Craig era.....something that in the pre-Craig-era was not the case. 'LTK' was a great film, but a shitty money making machine. 'DAD' was a shitty film, but a fantastic money making machine. 'CR' and especially 'SF' are both.
I can recall that many fans on this forum said "Bond should not pretend to become Oscar-worthy stuff. Bond should stay Bond" and "Bond should only focus on serving us fans in creating a great movie first". I always found that way too conservative. Bond should do both: Become a high quality, Oscar-worthy movie AND become a great marketing/money machine.
Even more so, I think Babs and Michael know this know. Harry and 'Cubby' were always struggling to find that balance, in making it happen both. Babs and Michael might even control the franchise better than 'Cubby' and Harry did before them. That's why I admire Barbara and Michael so much.
I may be giving audiences in general more credit than they deserve but I think in a world where we are essentially governed by mass media, I think audiences may be more savvy these days compared to 20 odd years ago in what qualifies as a good movie, irrespective of how much money the movie makes.
I'm not expecting Bond 24 todos another billion dollars but I do expect it to make around 700 million at least. It's also possible that Bond 24 could be the best movie in the universe and make around 700million but it's not necessarilly reflective of a drop in quality. Making money is critical obviously but a good movie is a good movie and I think audiences today have shown some capacity to understanding this.
It should be a great movie first and foremost. Whether that makes it Oscar-worthy is irrelevant. Most of my favourite movies, and ones I consider some of the best movies ever made were neither nominated nor won Oscars. I don't think we should get too carried away with the Oscar buzz surrounding Skyfall. As great as it is, they bowed to the pressure with ROTK and gave it best picture/director because they had no choice. If they'd let the moment pass without recognising Jackson's acheivement they would have been slaughtered. The stars have aligned in this, the 50th year of the franchise, and it seems a similar thing could happen. It's an opportune moment for the academy to recognise B+M, EON, the Bond 'family' in some form but I don't think we are moving into to some new era of Oscar-worthy Bond cinema.
Nonsense.
I'd rather have a good film that underperforms than a successful bad one. Give me TLD and LTK over DAD any day. There will always be ups and downs in any franchise. Craig benefitted from the dismal retrospective response to DAD much in the same way Star Wars VII will benefit greatly from the perceived lack of quality in the prequels. They're doing fine as they are but this Oscar talk is just a red herring, their sole aim should be to make a great film. Whether the audience take to it is out of their hands.
Great post.
Cheers.
That is your opinion. I love the Bond franchise, apart from the movies, also. The entire brand, the family behind them. And as I am into marketing a lot, I'd say it's just better for all of us that Bond is BOTH an exquisit Bond film AND a good marketing/money machine. That's how it should be if you ask me.
But....that's exactly what I said no?
As a film maker I'm implying that the film itself should be paramount. If you start considering external factors such as marketing too early then you become a slave to capitalism and wind up with a peice of crap. The marketing department and the producers can worry about the B.O. - the creative team should be allowed to do their job without such factors hanging above them. It's always in the back of your mind but you create what 'you' feel is good, not pander to the whims of others. Then you have a great film which in turn 'should' generate money. If it doesn't, who cares? You still have a great film.
I do agree with that. But I do think that exactly THAT is the case with 'Skyfall'. Almost no product placement bothered me. Bond has always been a big marketing machine. And part of the production budget came from Heineken.
That's the beauty of 'Skyfall': Every aspect of the film, from marketing to the actual creative moviemaking process worked without 'eating too much from each other'.
At that moment, I think capitalism -the money- can actually contribute to the creative process. How else would EON be able to hire such expensive Oscar-worthy actors/crew?
It's not that black and white either.
Absolutely. In fact even if Bond 24 is the best Bond ever and smashes SF out of the park I'm pretty sure it won't hit these figures.
SF benefitted from the unbelievable global marketing boost of the Olympics and I think the box office that appearing with the Queen gave amongst casual cinemagoers shouldn't be underestimated.
If people start expecting a billion every film they're going to be disappointed.
SF had a perfect storm of circumstances - the jubilee, Olympics, 50th and a good film - which is impossible to replicate.
Although thinking about it Batman Begins did modest business and the combination of a good film and Heath Ledgers performance and death was enough to tip TDK over the billion dollar mark. TDKR didn't have such a publicity boost and was an inferior film but still seems to have surfed TDKs billion dollar wave so maybe Bond 24 can keep these high numbers going.
But personally I'd much rather a better film than SF and hit $500 mil than chase the billion at all costs.
Also the marketing was so heavy for SF. It makes CR or QOS look like they were in comparisson less publicised. QOS for a budget of $200 million and making just under $600 million worldwide was considered a break even film. A film must make 2.5 to 3 times it's budget before profit is attained.
Bear in mind that half of QOS's takings go to the cinema chains. $600 million worldwide is not clear profit for the studio. And a $200 million investment is expected to make a billion in reality. Why? Because you need profit plus a huge amount for the budget of the next film.
Why was Bond 23 cancelled in 2010? Because Sony were afraid that spending $200 million is a huge gamble.
As for popularity. That to me is not a barometer of quality. Transformers Revenge Of The Fallen was the greatest shit I ever saw yet still did amazing. Moonraker was huge and considered artistically a weak entry for Bond.
Yes LTK underperformed but still made 5 times it's budget which means it was not a flop. It just underperformed in the USA. It was released against Batman and Indiana Jones. It was a hit internationally and had a higher certificate too. In the UK it was 15 so the Parental Guidance audience was unable to see it.
Would SF had done as well if it came out the same time as Twilight as well as The Hobbit?
Since LTK, no Bond movie has had a summer release date. Had SF gone up against The Dark Knight Rises, then imagine how much it would lose in box office revenue?
Sony/MGM released SF at the optimum time. They got it right and the studio is under good management. That makes a difference. And SF was marketed as not just a Bond film but a film that appeals to people of the action genre. And Sam Mendes is an A list director who has a huge following on his own. Let's not take that out of the equation.
I mean a good studio team, will not release a film at any old time, but will look into different countries holiday periods, and will try to release a film at the beginning of this period to get as many of the public a chance to see the film.
I think that 'SF' has a very good chance of making decent money in China, as the films release date of 21st January, is very close to the Chinese Spring Festival period which starts i believe on the 9th February.........and i will be there!
Source: http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm-145646/box-office/