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
Yes..........hitting the $300 mil for 'SF' will certainly look good in the record books, and i agree, the final total could just ease past the $300 mil mark, but it will take sometime, coz after the xmas and NY holiday period, and the continued reduction in theatre counts, the film will be down to earning much smaller sums daily now!
At least the blu-ray release is only a month and a half away!
But we can say that if we limit SF to the markets TB had, it's about 900M$ final (I did a back of an envelope computation earlier). And we don't even had to wait for China, as it is a market TB didn't have :)
I confess I don't understand why BoxOfficeMojo is so popular here :) The latest big mistakes I could find there, I found them while I double checked Gustav Graves' data about China. It turned out every figure or close to it, of BOM he gave was wrong. It even forgot totally Taken 2 China box office, while it has already been released and left the Chinese screen at the time of the message (and I checked, the China box office of Taken 2 is still not available on BOM).
Mod edit: double post merged into one.
Apart from that, the 1.037M$ figure from the AFP-RelaxNews was trivially obtained by multiplying the 141M$ worlwide 1965 TB figure obtained from various sources by the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation change from then until now.
The irony is that Box Office Mojo prefers to use TICKET inflation rate, and this is our newcomer's way of computation, which indeed concludes that the result is then north of 1.3bn$.
Both are doomed to be wrong though.
Even without inflation, by just counting tickets it's not trivial at all to do comparisons. The front page said with no hesitation SF was more successful in France than TB because 7M is more than 6.6M (or even less with re-releases). But well, 7M/60M potential viewers total (2012), vs 6.6M/40M potential viewers total (1965), already headaches appear if you try to conclude something ! :)
I dare say DN/FRWL/GF/TB was a bit the equivalent of today's Marvel Movies, an impressive run of frequent releases ending with a blast, in a genre full of "fanboys", based on already popular characters outside the movie medium,etc . And to give a sense that the 1960's cinema was nothing like today, never forget than in the USA for instance Zhivago did twice more than TB and Sound of Music almost three times ! Imagine a historical drama "for the parents" doing Avengers x2 today...
Mod edit: double post merged into one.
Of that I have no doubt. I'm pretty well up on my film history.
You of course will be deducting all revenue from TB’s gross from re-issues and double bills that went on right up to when it stopped showing internationally in cinemas in the mid 70s I take it – As it is a market that Skyfall does not have.
Just to be on the safe side, better limit TB's tally to what it took in the first 8 to 10 weeks. We are trying to be like for like, aren’t we?
'TB' s figures and other Connery films of the 60's are of their INITIAL theatrical run only!
They do not include the numerous re-runs.
Remember after the success of 'GF'............'DN' and 'FRWL' were released as a double bill in the US.............and these films made as nearly as much again as on first release.
Show me where you get that information from.
Because i have asked BO sources this question myself.
If you look at BO figures some sources have a mark against a film, if its BO tally is based on re-releases.
If you think that TB was released simultaneously (worldwide, or even in one particular country) as SF was, you miss one major point of the 60's cinema...
Hm, some people badly wants SF to beat historical records... See you in 10 years, folks :) I'm sure when a standard blockbuster will beat it because of China, exchange rate, etc, you'll more opened to discussions about the difficulty to compare :)
It is standard practice to include re-issue revenue in a box-office tally. By no means are all films re-issued, those that are get marked accordingly and the gross added on.
Hence why you get such large numbers for two film that were not even given that much of a first release in the U.S.
I suppose we could always fall back on the old 10-years worth of inflation argument
:)
Anyway 'SF' has so far taken about $20,000,000 in Switzerland.
'SF' still going strong in UK, was upto $164,000,000 by 30/12/12.
(I'm answering for other readers)
When someone posted an "analysis" that LTK was a flop because of the box office figures, it was quite contested too.
Here it's a bit weird to see so many arguments given to prove that SF is #1, with all the others almost taboo (the elephant in the corridor that is the US box office for instance when comparing GF/TB and SF).
For instance, the fact that SF's 7M viewers beat GF & TB's 6.6M (about 6 with re-releases) in France made the front page, the only foreign country given there I think. The fact that in Germany SF 7.5M has still to beat GF & TB 12M each is nowhere to be found (figures from an usually reliable source). And I'm not even talking about the viewers +50% variation in France between 65 and now, and even more between 2012 Germany vs 1965 Western Germany.
Mod edit: double post merged into one.
'Sightandsound' Nov 30th 2012
The above quote is an extract on Bond's BO performance over the years. It could be that 'SF' is now 2nd, or could be after SF's China release, BUT!
@Suivez_ce_parachute, don't quote me - someone may have contested LTK's numbers of the French/German comparisons, but I didn't.
Ive quoted the numbers, see recent posts here.......or do your own research!
;)
Nobody has worldwide admissions numbers for films from the '60s. It's all pure guesswork. As it would be today, too, as very few countries count it that way now either.
If someone doesn't like the way inflation is calculated on one side of the argument, they can't throw out statements like 'more people saw film X' when there are no numbers to back it up either.
Except in France. Because they count things the right way. Yey.
Rubbish, at least here in America. Skyfall is doing well because it's a great movie. The trailer did its job and sold the movie well. The Queen and the Olympics had NOTHING to do with America's box office success. Featuring Adele on the soundtrack probably brought in some of has die hard fans, but the rest was traditional marketing followed by positive word of mouth.
Bond 24 will have a better box office numbers in America, regardless if the story is good or not. Dark Knight Rises had a better box office than Dark Knight even though Dark Knight was the far superior movie. People were just hyped up to see the sequel of a blockbuster.
As for China, they have very weak copyright laws. Newspaper articles that say Skyfall will open in China in February are usually followed by a bunch of comments from English-speaking expats living in China that Skyfall has already been shown in the theaters and released on DVD! With the copyright issue, I wonder why the distributes did not open in China as one of the first markets. By the time it officially opens, everyone that wanted to see it, would have already seen it.
I heard you. But I also gave in and then I came with arguments why 'Skyfall' is still succesful for today's standards.
Rubbish? No guesses where you can stick it! Seeing as you had trouble using the quoting system, I understand if you need help in finding out where.
So you are telling me with all seriousness that the huge global audience for the Olympics including America did not help put the forthcoming Bond film into the public's consciousness? That's right, Sony or EON did it for the sake of it.
Let me tell you, that the publicity of the Queen's participation made it a huge draw! And Americans are drawn to the myth of British royalty. American news networks will devote inordinate amounts of time to any crap they can get on the royal family. The amount of Americans I met in the States who asked me if I live near Buckingham Palace is incredible. They think England is Disney F'ing World!
So tell me in all seriousness that it had no impact on the box office? Look how much more SF took than CR and QOS. Why? CR got great reviews and word of mouth too, so why far less?
As for the SF trailer. I thought it was bland and it was not what made me go see it. It certainly did not scream it was Bond compared to a Brosnan movie. Subtly yes! SF had an incredible hype machine behind it. Sony used the synergy of all the arms of their corporation. Anything with the name Sony like a mobile phone had SF attached to it.
Yes SF had great word of mouth, but it was also blatantly aimed at non-Bond fans. The amount of people I know that went to see it who do not like James Bond films is staggering. They went on the basis that they were told it is nothing like the Bond of before and a serious piece of film making.
Exactly.
And it’s interesting, isn’t? That in France (a well documented participant in Bond Mania in the 60s) it can be demonstrated that Skyfall has sold more tickets than GF and TB.
But I bet there are those who can tell us why that doesn’t matter too.