Skyfall: Billion Dollar Bond

Gustav_Graves

Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

Allthough I did like 'Licence To Kill', it wasn't able to 'win' from 'Crocodile Dundee', 'Batman', 'Jack Ryan', 'Lethal Weapon', 'Indy Jones' and 'Die Hard'. Had 'Licence To Kill' grossed more than $250 million worldwide, then MGM/UA/EON would certainly have been talking a bit more swiftly to get the legal problems solved.

Oh yes, a swindler with criminal records of dubious business do care about franchises and would never have tried to make quick and easy money from a credulous bank etc... Really, dont re-write history.

For your info, worldwide, The Living Daylights did less than the movie of about the same year from Indiana Jones franchise, Batman franchise, Back to the Future franchise (two of them), Lethal Weapon franchise, Jack Ryan franhise, Ghostbuster franchise, Die Hard franchise, Home Alone franchise, Crocodile Dundee franchise, Beverly Hill Cop franchise... Is it a "flop" for you ?

And yet they did another one 2 years after.

And A view to A kill ? It's even closer to TLK score than TLD. It did half of Rocky IV, half of Rambo, half of Indiana Jones, half of Beverly Hills Cop, half of Ghosbusters, etc, etc. And yet they did another one 2 years after too...

Putting the blame on LTK for the 6 years hiatus is overlooking it was NOT as sub-"Bond"-standard as some think. The hiatus has nothing to do with LTK.

Hey easy guys :-). I admitted my mistakes for God sake hehe. When it comes to comparing 'Licence To Kill' will similar franchises, I took the movies between 1987 to 1990. Just to compare......

And to get things straight, I liked 'Licence To Kill'. But when listing it in a TOP 25 of Bond titles, 'Licence To Kill' ends up somewhere in the bottom. And please, focus also on the positives I say about 'Skyfall'....

Germanlady

Thought I'd put the attention back to where the focus should be - in the present not in the past.
Just have a look at the thread title and I find it strange, that one would answer to this news with a post regarding a film, that's way in the past, like it is more important.

..and don't bother ripping me apart. I am on my last legs anyway, like I said. Its getting more and more weird here. But hopefully, there is new and interesting stuff to talk about in one years time. We'll see...

htall90

What is going on?

Suivez_ce_parachute

Tobester95 wrote:

There was no Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, Crocodile Dundee or Ghostbusters movie out in 1987. Batman, Home Alone and Die Hard hadn't even started.

I used the same 2/3 years range Gustav Graves used. If LTK is a flop according to his proof, then I think I showed that TLD was too, and I could show that AVTAK and Octopussy were too (it did 1/3rd of Star Wars franchise movie !).

Personally, I think none were...

Suivez_ce_parachute

Gustav_Graves wrote:

And please, focus also on the positives I say about 'Skyfall'....

But stop re-writing history please. The unpredicted $$$ of Skyfall makes you write comments about the past that are not reasonable, your vision is clouded by the financial success...

No "big name" for Bond until now really ? What about one of the greatest British writer of the century, for instance ?

Tobester95

Germanlady wrote:

Thought I'd put the attention back to where the focus should be - in the present not in the past.
Just have a look at the thread title and I find it strange, that one would answer to this news with a post regarding a film, that's way in the past, like it is more important.

..and don't bother ripping me apart. I am on my last legs anyway, like I said. Its getting more and more weird here. But hopefully, there is new and interesting stuff to talk about in one years time. We'll see...

I agree, that's for another thread. Let's get back to this one, anyone wanna place any bets on Skyfall reaching $1 billion? Bets starting at £100 ;)

001

Tobester95 wrote:

Germanlady wrote:

Thought I'd put the attention back to where the focus should be - in the present not in the past.
Just have a look at the thread title and I find it strange, that one would answer to this news with a post regarding a film, that's way in the past, like it is more important.

..and don't bother ripping me apart. I am on my last legs anyway, like I said. Its getting more and more weird here. But hopefully, there is new and interesting stuff to talk about in one years time. We'll see...

I agree, that's for another thread. Let's get back to this one, anyone wanna place any bets on Skyfall reaching $1 billion? Bets starting at £100 ;)

It could reach $1 billion depending on the new releases in the usa this week and elsewhere.

Daniel might get a bonus to add to his salary for the film (someone said $17 million,wow).

Creasy47

@001, Daniel won't receive any bonus. He doesn't get any of the backend profit.

Germanlady

Creasy, I read, he might get a bonus for certain reached marks, but no backend, that's right.

Creasy47

Germanlady wrote:

Creasy, I read, he might get a bonus for certain reached marks, but no backend, that's right.

That could be interesting. I wonder what the bonus might look like, as I'm sure the film has passed the $800 million mark by now.

001

Creasy47 wrote:

@001, Daniel won't receive any bonus. He doesn't get any of the backend profit.

I read somewhere that he got $1 million extra after the success of casino royale.
Don't know if it's true or not.

Gustav_Graves

Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

And please, focus also on the positives I say about 'Skyfall'....

But stop re-writing history please. The unpredicted $$$ of Skyfall makes you write comments about the past that are not reasonable, your vision is clouded by the financial success...

No "big name" for Bond until now really ? What about one of the greatest British writer of the century, for instance ?

Are you finished?? You read this? I stopped rewriting history!

Gustav_Graves wrote:

TheWizardOfIce is right. I thank him, he gave the correct historical facts. But let's not discuss that narcist director Michael Cimino. I mainly tried to say why 'Licence To Kill' was a flop from Bond standards. Yes. It earned itself back. Yes. It grossed 5 times the amount of its production budget.

But in this movie business, my sole opinion is that Bond should crush all other franchises. It should be, it should always be the trendsetting standard for other action/spy franchises.

Still, I am entitled to my own opinion. And this topic is about the box office figures of 'Skyfall'. I am entitled to say what I want to say. And I am entitled to give my own arguments for what I think could result in another box office smasher for Bond 24.

Does the success of 'Skyfall' cloud my historical judgment a bit? Yes. But does it mean that my commercial point of view regarding 'Skyfall' and current day movie business is crap? No. I keep in mind what the cinema audience wants and I am extremely well aware of trends in today's movie business. Around that knowledge I build my predictions. Ok?

And now back on topic please and stop attacking, when I already admit defeat on the points you mentioned.

Gustav_Graves

Tobester95 wrote:

Germanlady wrote:

Thought I'd put the attention back to where the focus should be - in the present not in the past.
Just have a look at the thread title and I find it strange, that one would answer to this news with a post regarding a film, that's way in the past, like it is more important.

..and don't bother ripping me apart. I am on my last legs anyway, like I said. Its getting more and more weird here. But hopefully, there is new and interesting stuff to talk about in one years time. We'll see...

I agree, that's for another thread. Let's get back to this one, anyone wanna place any bets on Skyfall reaching $1 billion? Bets starting at £100 ;)

I am not sure if it will happen. I'd say 'Skyfall' will reach around $970 million, surpassing 'Goldfinger' on Samuel001's list of inflation adjusted box office grosses.

I was checking the foreign box office figures so far. The foreign total in my calculations per country is $524.8 million. BoxOfficeMojo is already reporting $571.2 million. So there is still like $46.4 million that cannot be traced back from the list of foreign countries on BoxOfficeMojo.

Having said that, BoxOfficeMojo expects MGM will report anytime soon, making the figure of $571.2 million climb even more. Also, several countries are updating their figures not that frequently, so that their totals go until November 17th or 18th.

Suivez_ce_parachute

Gustav_Graves wrote:

And now back on topic please and stop attacking, when I already admit defeat on the points you mentioned.

Then if you're so knowledgeable in movie business, do you know why your comparison between Thunderball's adjusted billion box office, and the current race of Skyfall to reach it, is essentially meaningless - and this, just from a business point of view, it has nothing to do with subjective opinion.

It's a major point always overlooked in such rankings, and it diminishes a lot the real incredible success GF/TB/YOLT etc were compared to nowadays. When I'll tell you what point it is, everybody will say "of course !", but everybody actually forgets it, I noticed.

The 60s and even later Bond box office are far from "worldwide". No Russia. No China. No Eastern Europe. No communist countries at all...

Also, it's actually a nightmare to be 100% sure, because some studio take that into account and include later releases, but even any eventual GF release after Goldeneye (first Bond released in Russia, LTK was not) would not have as much as Skyfall is doing now, the true Bondmania has passed.

What's why only looking at the $$$ gives the feeling Skyfall is GF again... But, consider Germany. Western Germany in 1965 box office for GF ? 12 M tickets sold for less than 60 M persons. Skyfall today in Germany re-unified ? Half of it for 50% more persons... That gives a far better idea of what Bondmania really was...

Oh, and yes, it also a serious factor to consider before "analyzing" the difference between LTK and GE success :)

lahaine

Creasy47 wrote:

@001, Daniel won't receive any bonus. He doesn't get any of the backend profit.

But he will be going from 17 million to 30 million for the next Bond film. So he's not out of Pocket

Germanlady

Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

And now back on topic please and stop attacking, when I already admit defeat on the points you mentioned.

Then if you're so knowledgeable in movie business, do you know why your comparison between Thunderball's adjusted billion box office, and the current race of Skyfall to reach it, is essentially meaningless - and this, just from a business point of view, it has nothing to do with subjective opinion.

It's a major point always overlooked in such rankings, and it diminishes a lot the real incredible success GF/TB/YOLT etc were compared to nowadays. When I'll tell you what point it is, everybody will say "of course !", but everybody actually forgets it, I noticed.

There are not that many people here, who actually DO something apart from posting their opinion. If you can do better, then DO it. This guy is doing a good job putting the numbers together, he proved, that he is open to being corrected, so why don't you just let him do his self appointed job or do it yourself?

Gustav_Graves

Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

And now back on topic please and stop attacking, when I already admit defeat on the points you mentioned.

Then if you're so knowledgeable in movie business, do you know why your comparison between Thunderball's adjusted billion box office, and the current race of Skyfall to reach it, is essentially meaningless - and this, just from a business point of view, it has nothing to do with subjective opinion.

It's a major point always overlooked in such rankings, and it diminishes a lot the real incredible success GF/TB/YOLT etc were compared to nowadays. When I'll tell you what point it is, everybody will say "of course !", but everybody actually forgets it, I noticed.

The 60s Bond box office are far from "worldwide". No Russia. No China. No Eastern Europe. No "communist" countries at all...

Also, it's actually a nightmare to be 100% sure, because some studio take that into account and include later releases, but even any eventual GF release after Goldeneye (first Bond released in Russia) would not have as much as Skyfall is doing now, the true Bondmania has passed.

What's why only looking at the $$$ gives the feeling Skyfall is GF again... But, consider Germany. Western Germany in 1965 box office for GF ? 12 M tickets sold for less than 60 M persons. Skyfall today in Germany re-unified ? Half of it for 50% more persons... That gives a far better idea of what Bondmania really was...

You know, thanks for your insight. I admire your knowledge. And apparently, you have better control over historical facts. Still, I don't really like your tone?

Suivez_ce_parachute

Germanlady wrote:

There are not that many people here, who actually DO something apart from posting their opinion.

I think I did on the 18 november when answering why Skyfall would beat TDK overseas and not just only in the UK, and by giving insights of the markets left to open. There's nothing really new in the last 10 days. Also, if he acknowledges I'm bringing in some info, it's probably because I actually do :) My posts are actually quite heavy on data, you even wondered why people bothered to discuss LTK box office I remember !

About the tone, don't forget I'm not bilingual at all, don't read too much in it. And in particular I don't make definitive claims about box office because I feel like an expert (compare with Samuel001 posts :) ). My prediction for Skyfall in China ? I posted "between 20M$ and 120M$". I challenge anyone who claim to be able to have less fuzzy "realistic predicition"on this market to be able to give any real demonstration. No one knows...

And given the lists that keeps on being posted about comparison between the 60s Bond and nowadays Bond that gives the feeling the phenonemon is the same, I felt I had to remind everyone that the markets were completely different. And that today is no "Bondmania", it was a true unique event of the 60s I'm afraid.

RC7

Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:

And given the lists that keeps on being posted about comparison between the 60s Bond and nowadays Bond that gives the feeling the phenonemon is the same, I felt I had to remind everyone that the markets were completely different. And that today is no "Bondmania", it was a true unique event of the 60s I'm afraid.

Absolutely. How we'd love it if it were the case, but it's not. This is nowhere near Bondmania. Was LALD also Bondmania? No.

oo7

do you know this guy?

It's Hulk Hogan. when he shows up the crowd goes crazy, its called hulkimania.
now every couple of years or more Bond shows up. guess what.
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZGwG21NaRSI?version=3&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZGwG21NaRSI?version=3&hl=en_GB"; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

RC7

oo7 wrote:

do you know this guy?

It's Hulk Hogan. when he shows up the crowd goes crazy, its called hulkimania.
now every couple of years or more Bond shows up. guess what.
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZGwG21NaRSI?version=3&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZGwG21NaRSI?version=3&hl=en_GB"; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Ha ha, is this an insight into your mind @oo7?

Creasy47

lahaine wrote:

Creasy47 wrote:

@001, Daniel won't receive any bonus. He doesn't get any of the backend profit.

But he will be going from 17 million to 30 million for the next Bond film. So he's not out of Pocket

$30 million for 'Bond 24?' I read $20 million the other day. What a serious increase.

JimThompson45

htall90 wrote:

The lowest form of wit :))

Or highest, if one believes what the Spartans did.

JimThompson45

lahaine wrote:

Creasy47 wrote:

@001, Daniel won't receive any bonus. He doesn't get any of the backend profit.

But he will be going from 17 million to 30 million for the next Bond film. So he's not out of Pocket

Wow. That's quite the raise!

Suivez_ce_parachute

RC7 wrote:

Absolutely. How we'd love it if it were the case, but it's not. This is nowhere near Bondmania. Was LALD also Bondmania? No.

Let's continue with putting all these "adjusted" lists into perspective.

At first, one may think.. Hm ? "Adjusted", LALD and Skyfall are the biggest post-Connery era success ? Well you definitely need a world class singer for a Bond movie to perform so good at the box office ! It should be #1 on the producer's shopping list.

That's always a good thing, sure.

But frankly, why is LALD so high compared to others ? Doesn't is sound a bit weird ?

Well, there's a not-so-little bias : it's the last Bond movie released before the "insane" inflation rates of the 1974/1981 period.

I mean : unadjusted :

LALD 1973 : 35 M$ US / 91 M$ overseas / 126M$ WorldWide
TSWLM 1977 : 46 M$ US / 138 M$ overseas / 184 M$ WorldWide

But "adjusted", in these four years between 1973/1977, LALD gains an "insane" bonus with respect to TSWLM, and now in the lists people see "LALD adjusted" at more than 800M$ and "TSWLM adjusted" at less than 700 M$ !

Unadjusted, we have 47% more after 4 years "only", after adjustment, we have 17% less ! I'm puzzled where this 60% bonus come from, actually. Some inflation calculators tell me it should be closer to 40...

But anyway, all this adjustment is essentialy due to the petrol crisis. The ticket price didn't gain as much. Far from it.

According to Box office mojo, in the US, between 1973 and 1977, the ticket price gained "only" 25%.

1977 $2.23
1976 $2.13
1975 $2.05
1974 $1.87
1973 $1.77

And then if you adjust these figures not with respect to the price of petrol, but to the respect with the price of ticket, then TSWLM becomes a bigger success than LALD : it then did 47-25=22% more .

Somehow, although being a completely wrong computation (US ticket price as a basis for the whole world, box office figures that are less reliable than they look...) it feels closer to the truth :) [For France for instance - here box office is available as 'number of ticket sold' for years - : LALD : 3M cinemagoers, TSWLM : 3.5 M cinemagoers : 16% more]

Also, at that time, release dates around the globe were spread over 6 months or more. We're talking about results that will be 10% different if you bother to adjust every country, or if you only do one big correction for once. The list on the Internet are probably of the second kind. So, IMHO, all these lists should be taken with a 100M$ pinch of salt. And don't forget the huge difference of markets before the 1990s (China, Russia, Eastern Europe, etc = 0$ worldwide). Make it a 200M$ pinch of salt when comparing to today.

Note that Box Office Mojo proposes a "ticket inflation adjusted list", but only for the US (it would be a nightmare to track ticket prices in every country).

TB is listed as 600M$ US there (#28), GF 520 M$ (#42), YOLT 285M$. YOLT is #193 in this top 200 list, the last of the Bond movies to appear.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

So, when talking about movie business, and not petrol crisis, SF may indeed the first Bond to come back at YOLT level, but Bondmania was well, twice that at least (and don't forget SF has far more markets, make it three times...).

There's also a Bond ticket adjusted list actually !

http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm

So instead of that "petrol price adjusted" worldwide top 10 :

1. Thunderball 1965 Sean Connery $1,014,941,117
2. Goldfinger 1964 Sean Connery $912,257,512
3. Live and Let Die 1973 Roger Moore $825,110,761
4. Skyfall 2012 Daniel Craig $789,544,082
5. You Only Live Twice 1967 Sean Connery $756,544,419
6. The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 Roger Moore $692,713,752
7. Casino Royale 2006 Daniel Craig $669,789,482
8. Moonraker 1979 Roger Moore $655,872,400
9. Diamonds Are Forever 1971 Sean Connery $648,514,469
10. Quantum of Solace 2008 Daniel Craig $622,246,378

we have (for the US only alas)

1 Thunderball UA $593,912,000 $63,595,658 12/21/65
2 Goldfinger UA $526,422,000 $51,081,062 12/22/64
3 You Only Live Twice UA $285,077,700 $43,084,787 6/13/67
4 Skyfall Sony $227,655,200 $223,067,688 11/9/12
5 Moonraker MGM $222,408,900 $70,308,099 6/29/79
6 Die Another Day MGM $219,017,200 $160,942,139 11/22/02
7 Tomorrow Never Dies MGM $213,674,800 $125,304,276 12/19/97
8 From Russia, with Love UA $211,705,700 $24,796,765 4/8/64
9 Diamonds Are Forever UA $210,865,000 $43,819,547 12/17/71
10 Casino Royale Sony $201,903,700 $167,445,960 11/17/06

Well, somehow in line with the informal knowledge Roger's "true hit" was Moonraker :) And a far denser list, that Skyfall will leave for the first time since YOLT...

thelivingroyale

I don't think SF is todays TB or that we're in a new age of Bondmania. Tons of films make this much money these days, does that mean that we're also in Batmania, Avengersmania and Avatarmania?

We'll probably never get the insane popularity the 60s films had. Still, it's great that it's making this much, should definetly help Bond 24.

Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:

The 60s and even later Bond box office are far from "worldwide". No Russia. No China. No Eastern Europe. No communist countries at all

Wow actually I'd never thought of that. Imagine how much TB would've made if the films around that time were actually released worldwide.

Germanlady wrote:

Thought I'd put the attention back to where the focus should be - in the present not in the past.
Just have a look at the thread title and I find it strange, that one would answer to this news with a post regarding a film, that's way in the past, like it is more important.

There's only so much we can discuss about SF making money. "Look, it's making lots of money, great, maybe it'll make more money than this film, maybe it'll make a billion" wash, rinse and repeat.

Did you feel left out so you tried to steer the discussion back to a Bond film you cared about/have seen? And if somebody calls LTK a flop then yeah I'm going to call them out on it.

Germanlady wrote:

..and don't bother ripping me apart. I am on my last legs anyway, like I said. Its getting more and more weird here. But hopefully, there is new and interesting stuff to talk about in one years time. We'll see...

So you're leaving soon but you'll pop up again when Bond 24 is announced? See you in a bit then.

Gustav_Graves

Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:

Germanlady wrote:

There are not that many people here, who actually DO something apart from posting their opinion.

I think I did on the 18 november when answering why Skyfall would beat TDK overseas and not just only in the UK, and by giving insights of the markets left to open. There's nothing really new in the last 10 days. Also, if he acknowledges I'm bringing in some info, it's probably because I actually do :) My posts are actually quite heavy on data, you even wondered why people bothered to discuss LTK box office I remember !

About the tone, don't forget I'm not bilingual at all, don't read too much in it. And in particular I don't make definitive claims about box office because I feel like an expert (compare with Samuel001 posts :) ). My prediction for Skyfall in China ? I posted "between 20M$ and 120M$". I challenge anyone who claim to be able to have less fuzzy "realistic predicition"on this market to be able to give any real demonstration. No one knows...

And given the lists that keeps on being posted about comparison between the 60s Bond and nowadays Bond that gives the feeling the phenonemon is the same, I felt I had to remind everyone that the markets were completely different. And that today is no "Bondmania", it was a true unique event of the 60s I'm afraid.

Thanks for your insights. But you forget one big thing. If you do not want to compare the success of 'Skyfall' with the 1960's Bond films 'Goldfinger' and 'Thunderball'. Which in my opinion is stupid, because if you HAVE to compare, inflation adjusted prices are good to compare, depending on the political situations at these times. Simply....mention these circumstances them and keep comparing....carefully.

At the same time, you can compare 'Skyfall' carefully with other, similar franchise action/spy films that have been produced around the same time as 'Skyfall'. From that point of view we think 'The Dark Knight' and 'The Dark Knight Rises' are huge, very huge box office smashers. If there is no Bond mania, then Batman caused at least a little Batman mania. A mania that fits in our times and not the 1960's off course.

Having said just THAT, suddenly 'Skyfall' is a big moneymaker like the last two Batman movies as well. And that's quite an accomplishment.

robboadam

Wasn't this supposed to be a forum listing the Box Office number updates?

I keep going onto here thinking something's happened and we've had new numbers, and all I get is silly arguments (not to offend anyone, but they are.....)

Germanlady

thelivingroyale wrote:

So you're leaving soon but you'll pop up again when Bond 24 is announced? See you in a bit then.

Yup, think so. By then, we have actually something to talk someting about and might not - me included - get into arguments all the time. ;)

AgentJM7

Germanlady wrote:

thelivingroyale wrote:

So you're leaving soon but you'll pop up again when Bond 24 is announced? See you in a bit then.

Yup, think so. By then, we have actually something to talk someting about and might not - me included - get into arguments all the time. ;)

Sorry to see you taking leave, @Germanlady

I for one always appreciated your contributions. Hope to see you back 'round here soon!