›

Bond Movies By Return On Investment

ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
edited December 2017 in Bond Movies Posts: 1,984
Once again, I'm bored so I'll do another financial list. This time, I have calculated the Return On Investment (R.O.I.) of all the Bond movies and ranked them accordingly. The R.O.I. formula is (Total Revenue - Total Cost) / Total Cost x 100, given as a percentage. This is a better indication of the productivity of the Bond franchise than sheer gross figures. Some very interesting results.

1. Dr No (5309.09%)
2. Goldfinger (4063.33%)
3. From Russia With Love (3845.00%)
4. Thunderball (1976.47%)
5. Live And Let Die (1705.71%)
6. Diamonds Are Forever (1511.11%)
7. The Man With The Golden Gun (1307.14%)
8. The Spy Who Loved Me (1224.29%)
9. You Only Live Twice (880.58%)
10. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (822.86%)
11. Skyfall (639.07% - 454.30%)
12. For Your Eyes Only (596.07%)
13. Octopussy (568.00%)
14. Moonraker (519.53%)
15. GoldenEye (486.50%)
16. A View To A Kill (408.00%)
17. The Living Daylights(377.80%)
18. Licence To Kill (333.89%)
19. Casino Royale (296.13%)
20. Spectre (259.47% - 252.28%)
21. Tomorrow Never Dies (208.09%)
22. Die Another Day (204.15%)
23. Quantum of Solace (189.00%)
24. The World Is Not Enough (168.00%)

Obviously, the early Bonds, which had very small budgets but were massive hits worldwide, have by far the highest ROI's. From then on, budgets escalated and grosses did not necessarily follow (certainly not to a comparable magnitude), so our ROI's suffer. Still, the 70's movies acquit themselves well. The 80's perform worse still but have some decent figures. GoldenEye performs solidly, but from TND onwards we hit the blockbuster era with monstrous budgets and so our ROI's have suffered greatly since. The exception is Skyfall, due to its disproportionately high gross, which allows it to get back into the top half. All the other post-1995 films sit at the bottom.

The good news is that Bond hasn't really been financially threatened at any point, which accounts for the series' longevity. The movies have always been greatly profitable. However, it is interesting to see that smaller-scale pictures with lesser budgets like TMWTGG and FYEO tend to do well, whereas giant-scale, huge budget adventures like MR and films in the Brosnan and Craig eras have not been as successful. Also, films that are popularly decried for their low grosses (OHMSS, TMWTGG, and especially LTK) do surprisingly well since they worked off clipped budgets. Despite being pounded on for its performance at the box office, LTK is actually more profitable than all of the succeeding Bonds except GE, while OHMSS and TMWTGG are surprisingly in the top ten.
«1

Comments

  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    edited November 2017 Posts: 3,342
    Interesting analysis @ForYourEyesOnly

    I wonder what would happen today if Bond were to go super low budg and have a 10m film. It will never happen, but interesting to consider whether fans would be turned off by the lack of huge stunts and glamour. It would have to be a damn good story driven mission and made with not yet established actors and crew.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited November 2017 Posts: 1,984
    MooseWithFleas wrote: »
    Interesting analysis @ForYourEyesOnly

    I wonder what would happen today if Bond were to go super low budg and have a 10m film. It will never happen, but interesting to consider whether fans would be turned off by the lack of huge stunts and glamour. It would have to be a damn good story driven mission and made with not yet established actors and crew.

    I don't think it's impossible to do something like FYEO again. But certainly we will never see anything as spartan as the early Connery flicks again.

    I would argue that the glamour has been a strong aspect of cinematic Bond since the 60's. As soon as they got into the flash and verve with GF, TB and YOLT it kind of became a staple. The cinematography had to be good, if not the sets and score as well. Otherwise, points are definitely lost for critics and the wider fanbase alike. Arguably the reduced glamour of Glen's five 80's adventures was responsible for a general decline in box office revenue.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited November 2017 Posts: 1,984
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Straight adaptation of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.

    It's a cool concept, but I would say the extended absence of Bond would be a killer for the film's popularity.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,525
    Thank you, @ForYourEyesOnly . That is an interesting list. As @Birdleson wrote: a lot to contemplate. It's impressive to see a totally bananas film like TMWTGG rank so high.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Thank you, @ForYourEyesOnly . That is an interesting list. As @Birdleson wrote: a lot to contemplate. It's impressive to see a totally bananas film like TMWTGG rank so high.

    Any time. It's a bit disheartening to see the modern films have been so much more wasteful than those of the past, but they're still very profitable.
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,023
    Are the revenue figures inflation adjusted?
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    vzok wrote: »
    Are the revenue figures inflation adjusted?

    What do you mean? I did the percentages based on the values at the time, which is the most accurate. There should be no dramatic change if you make the adjustments for inflation (ie. the ranking should stay the same) but you may get some variations in the figures.

  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited December 2017 Posts: 1,984
    @Birdleson - Yeah, I imagine inflation adjustments only add higher rates of error and variability to the mix. In this case, it's all relative, so there's nothing wrong with using the true values (which would be the most accurate as well since they're not distorted by any adjustments).
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,985
    So what's up with those perennial disappointments ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, and LICENCE TO KILL.
    Over-performing, I mean.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,985
    It's an undeniable success I've heard denied. Not recently, though.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited December 2017 Posts: 1,984
    Worldwide, it came in at second place to Butch Cassidy. So hardly a poor performance, just one failing to live up to the previous heights of the Bond franchise.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    This is not cool for the Dalton anti-fans... ;)
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited December 2017 Posts: 1,984
    Note that these are figures of profit relative to the budget size of each film. A list on the absolute value of the films' profits could result in a significantly different order, and that would need to be adjusted for inflation to make a worthwhile list. I can try that if anyone's interested.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,525
    I'd be interested, @ForYourEyesOnly .
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Interesting list which exposes the Craig era as not the runaway success we are all led to believe with not even the behemoth of SF troubling the top 10 (or even overtaking the 'failures' of OHMSS or TMWTGG).

    It's somewhat concerning that the bottom are exclusively populated by the post Cubby era with SF the sole exception, but as already noted nothing spectacular.

    At the end of the day it was Sean and Rog who delivered the best bang for your buck with their 13 all in the top 16.

    This list would seem to suggest that despite the fact that we were being told post SF that Bondmania hasn't been this high since the 60s the truth is they have been facing a downward curve of diminishing returns since the end of the Rog era, although given Rog himself was down on Sean it's actually been downhill ever since DN!
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited December 2017 Posts: 1,984
    @TheWizardOfIce Indeed, though of course DN has a unique position in that it was an unexpected worldwide hit. Budget was tiny but it smashed theatres worldwide. Goldfinger's probably the most pertinent success story here as it was more calculated.

    This does help to explain Bond's predicament and perhaps why it's taking so long to pump out the films. Bond is still big in the cinema world, but it's taking ever-more money to keep it that way. At the moment it's sustainable, but we might need someone to shake things up after Craig. I guess it also shows the decline of Bond with the rise of various other franchises. As @Birdleson's said on many occassions, Bond is no longer the coolest kid on the block, just one among many.

    Also note that SF has a wide range, and I took the highest figure. The lowest figure actually loses out to GoldenEye and comes in at 15. So not terribly impressive and actually concerning given SF's special marketing privileges.

    @DarthDimi - Thanks! I'll do it tomorrow.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited December 2017 Posts: 9,117
    ForYourEyesOnly wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce Indeed, though of course DN has a unique position in that it was an unexpected worldwide hit. Budget was tiny but it smashed theatres worldwide. Goldfinger's probably the most pertinent success story here as it was more calculated.

    This does help to explain Bond's predicament and perhaps why it's taking so long to pump out the films. Bond is still big in the cinema world, but it's taking ever-more money to keep it that way. At the moment it's sustainable, but we might need someone to shake things up after Craig.

    Also note that SF has a wide range, and I took the highest figure. The lowest figure actually loses out to GoldenEye and comes in at 15. So not terribly impressive.

    @DarthDimi - Thanks! I'll do it tomorrow.

    Very true about DN. GF probably the high water mark.

    I would say TMWTGG one of the ones they should take most note of going forwards. A pretty small budget but coming home in 7th and this despite being a pretty poor film.

    You simply don't need to spend 250m and burn most of it on pointlessly indulgent explosions.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited December 2017 Posts: 1,984
    @TheWizardOfIce Agreed. I don't know what Michael Bay nonsense they're going after, but SP wasted the biggest budget of Bond history on a bunch of pointless explosions at Blofeld's base. Why??? Make something like the Ken Adam sets of old etc. Something that is guaranteed to stick in the audience's mind after watching the movie, even if said movie is utter shit.

    For instance, SP is far less memorable than MR despite trying much harder to be the better film. It just doesn't pay off, in my opinion. Bond's ability to capture the fantasy of reality, so to speak, was what was so appealing. We need to get back to that. The magic of Bond has been lost.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    ForYourEyesOnly wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce Agreed. I don't know what Michael Bay nonsense they're going after, but SP wasted the biggest budget of Bond history on a bunch of pointless explosions at Blofeld's base. Why??? Make something like the Ken Adam sets of old etc. Something that is guaranteed to stick in the audience's mind after watching the movie, even if said movie is utter shit.

    For instance, SP is far less memorable than MR despite trying much harder to be the better film. It just doesn't pay off, in my opinion. Bond's ability to capture the fantasy of reality, so to speak, was what was so appealing. We need to get back to that. The magic of Bond has been lost.

    Where did all the money go on SP?

    To be fair a decent amount of location shooting compared to the sets and green screen backdrops of SF but after that?

    The money spent on the Astons was very indulgent and the less said about the explosion the better.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,525
    Ludicrous payments for actors and actresses, marketing, expensive equipment, ... Yeah I wish I could see what all those hundreds of millions spent on the film have actually bought us that is visibly present in the finished product.

    It's an interesting list, but ROI lists usually are since we're mostly seeing the absolute figures on wiki or boxofficemojo. If you make a film for a total cost of 400 million but it makes a staggering 1,200 billion, it would only take the 19th spot on @ForYourEyesOnly's list. For it to take the number 1 spot, it would have to go several orders of magnitude higher than anything we've ever seen in the history of film.

    A good example of high ROI is Saw (2004). It made a fairly decent (given the genre) but otherwise unimpressive 100 million. But the film had only cost a little over 1 million to make. The Blair Witch Project (1999) made close to 250 million on a 60 000 dollar budget! Talk about spending a little and making a lot.

    It would be interesting to cut budgets for the next Bond film and bring someone in who can do a lot with very little. In other words, leave the egos out of it. Fat paychecks? Gone. You're in it for the art. Take after take after take? Be good and get it right the first time or the second. Cut out all the luscious indulgences. But will the larger audiences, spoiled by all those Disney marvels (pun intended), pay up for a sober Bond film?
  • vzokvzok
    edited December 2017 Posts: 4,023
    ForYourEyesOnly wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    Are the revenue figures inflation adjusted?

    What do you mean? I did the percentages based on the values at the time, which is the most accurate. There should be no dramatic change if you make the adjustments for inflation (ie. the ranking should stay the same) but you may get some variations in the figures.

    That was why I asked. Often inflation adjusted figures are used and they can introduce inaccuracies.

    Very interesting list, by the way.

    Is there a list for ticket sales per movie?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Great list @ForYourEyesOnly. Presumably that list only includes the production costs? I ask because marketing costs have increased exponentially over the years as well, and that will negatively impact the return on investment of the more recent films in a more pronounced manner. The same goes for the fact that Bond increasingly earns more of its total revenues overseas, where the profit to the studio is less due to financial arrangements with distributors etc (not included in the above).

    Finally, the 3 way split (MGM/EON/Distributor) currently at work also impacts the final profits to each, with EON/MGM disproportionately benefiting at the expense of the distributor. So the final return to the distributor is far less.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited December 2017 Posts: 1,984
    @bondjames - Good observations. I was calculating this based purely on gross though, not return to MGM. And I took my information from a table listing just "budget", which I assume includes marketing costs.

    @TheWizardOfIce - Agreed. They really need to consider what they're spending their money on.

    @Vzok - Not one that I can immediately find on Google. Somebody here posted ticket numbers for a few European countries, but I've yet to find one for worldwide.

    @DarthDimi - Yeah, it's unfortunate that we now see more and more money being needed to maintain invisible material. You are right on the overall costs inflating to a huge degree. If SP wanted to get the same ROI as DN, it'd have to make over $13.5 billion today. Which is of course, impossible. I doubt we could see anything like Connery's first four again.

    Anyway, looks like I have some business today so I may not be able to get that list done. I'll post it here whenever I can though.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,525
    Take your time, good sir.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @ForYourEyesOnly. I'm quite sure that your cost numbers do not include the marketing costs, because they are rarely disclosed. When they disclose 'budget', it's normally only the production component.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    @bondjames - Even more concerning if that's the case, as the marketing costs would've surely only increased in modern times.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Exactly @ForYourEyesOnly. Moreover, give the relative lack of traction in the US domestic market (except for the SF anomaly) over the past twenty odd years, even more marketing $ have to be disbursed overseas in a scattered global fashion to bring in the gross. That can't be cheap to do and local tastes must be accounted for.

    The increased cost issue is not just a Bond matter however. It's affecting the entire industry, and that's why there are new models developing (such as the Netflix streaming approach and even the move to tv, where characters can be developed over a longer time period) and also why the movie theatre business is increasingly becoming a blockbuster one.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    @bondjames - Indeed, it is affecting the entire industry. Bond should be ahead of the curve though. :)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Just drop ego and 'reputation' and invest modestly in real talent (anyone remember Goldeneye?) and they will come and fill seats.
  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,882
    Birdleson wrote: »
    US at least.

    Top-grossing films (U.S.)

    Rank Title Studio Gross
    1. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid 20th Century Fox $102,308,889[1]
    2. Midnight Cowboy United Artists $44,785,053[2]
    3. Easy Rider Columbia $41,728,598[3]
    4. Hello, Dolly! 20th Century Fox $33,208,099[4]
    5. Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice Columbia $31,897,253[5]
    6. Paint Your Wagon Paramount $31,678,778[6]
    7. True Grit Paramount $31,132,592[7]
    8. Cactus Flower Columbia $25,889,208[8]
    9. Goodbye, Columbus Paramount $22,939,805[9]
    10. On Her Majesty's Secret Service United Artists $22,774,493[10]

    That's an interesting list in several ways. Butch Cassidy is understandable as it reaches a broad audience. I find Midnight Cowboy's placing surprising due to its mature themes and X rating, albeit what would be a basic R rating these days. I'm also surprised by Paint Your Wagon's inclusion as I'd always heard that was a huge bomb and Hello Dolly was popular despite being the last of the big musical productions of the time.

    Easy Rider I believe was also R but was huge with the young audience and did a lot of repeat business as it was released during the summer and was popular at drive-ins. I always thought Disney's The Love Bug was a pretty big success at the time, so I'm surprised it's not included here as it was very family-oriented.
Sign In or Register to comment.