Skyfall: Billion Dollar Bond

1495052545582

Comments

  • quantumofsolacequantumofsolace England
    Posts: 279
    I'm abso-bloody-lutely delighted! God I feel so damn proud to be a James Bond fan.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,577
    I'm abso-bloody-lutely delighted! God I feel so damn proud to be a James Bond fan.

    You alone gave a huge amount of $$$ to Skyfall's BO intake. I bow to you, sir. ^:)^
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,109
    I didn't expect SF to hit the billion Mark before the new year. This is phenomenal.

    [Dr.No voice] 1 Billion dollars, Mr.Bond![/Dr.No voice]

    That feels so good to say.
  • Posts: 202
    Way to go, EON.

    Now write a very big check for Sam Mendes and get him back for Bond 24.
  • quantumofsolacequantumofsolace England
    Posts: 279
    I'm abso-bloody-lutely delighted! God I feel so damn proud to be a James Bond fan.

    You alone gave a huge amount of $$$ to Skyfall's BO intake. I bow to you, sir. ^:)^

    You're most gracious, sir. I'll do my best to add a few dollars more in 2013 - but it looks like SF finishes at my local Cineworld today. Boo! Still, there are other cinemas.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,109
    There's a 6:45 showing of SF at my local cineworld.
  • Posts: 229
    Box office France for Skyfall is up 49% with 115000 tickets sold. The total is now 6.816.000M tickets sold.
    I think 7M tickets sold could be reached for 007. :D
  • My parents are finally going to see it on Weds. That'll be another 10 quid towards its takings at least.
  • Posts: 12,401
    Amazing stuff! Whatever it takes now is an absolute bonus?!!! With China still to open, surely it will overtake Thunderball now?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 37,395
    RogueAgent wrote:
    Amazing stuff! Whatever it takes now is an absolute bonus?!!! With China still to open, surely it will overtake Thunderball now?

    There's not a doubt in my mind of that. In a short while, it will overtake TB.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,577
    It needs less than 37 mil at this point, surely. TB is about to be knocked off its pedestal. Now seems an appropriate time to repost one of my fan arts:
    8258233067_0a411ddffd_b.jpg
    :D
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    Billion dollar baby.
  • BennyBenny Classified Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 12,812
    Amazing results for Skyfall, who amongst us could've predicted just a few months ago how well this film would be recieved?
    One billion dollars for a film that is not 3D, or the final chapter in a series is quite the achievment. It proves that no only does James Bond as a series have more legs in it, but Daniel Craig has without doubt been accpeted by moviegoers worldwide as James Bond also.
    I'm sure the grosses will continue to rise in the coming weeks/months. Just how far is anyones guess.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,577
    8330830121_a9ccf53601_b.jpg
    <:-P
  • Posts: 5,745
    @Brady, I took the liberty of posting that in the original post :) ( Like 3 hours ago. Step up your game. ;) )
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,577
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    @Brady, I took the liberty of posting that in the original post :) ( Like 3 hours ago. Step up your game. ;) )
    Haha, thanks! It is just nice to have our dreams become a reality. I think we can all appreciate Skyfall as a great film, but never thought it would rise to this level on BO intake and accolades alike.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 37,395
    I never believed it would have a possibility of surpassing 'The Dark Knight Rises' and claiming the #2 spot for the year.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 21,297
    SF, as of this point

    =

    one-billion-dollars-c-01.jpg0ce2f314-3887-4a24-a819-3b5d1a92163fLarger.jpg

    Wow! I'm extremely proud of Bond now.
  • Yes, this is incredible. I thought we'd be crawling towards a billion dollars now because of the drastically reduced number of screens in North America.

    As for the CraigNotBond crowd, they seemed to shut up quite a bit (at least outside of their own site) once CR surpassed DAD. I can't even imagine the bitterness they must feel about SF hitting a billion dollars. Of course, they might use it to justify how they have "superior tastes" to the masses and how this puts them in the small, elite group of "true" Bond fans (in their own minds, of course).

    Love the last paragraph. And speaking of brains, that crew reminds me of dinosaurs in 3 different ways.

    1. Dinosaurs had huge bodies, and as smug as that crew is they must think they are 50 feet tall among Bond fans.

    2. Most dinosaurs had incredibly small brains in ratio to their bodies and were, relatively speaking, highly stupid. That fits.

    3. Dinosaurs are extinct. As are their points about Craig failing as Bond.

    SF hitting a billion dollars is absolutely incredible and that must be killing those wannabees.

    :))
  • Posts: 12,401
    DarthDimi wrote:
    SF, as of this point

    =

    one-billion-dollars-c-01.jpg0ce2f314-3887-4a24-a819-3b5d1a92163fLarger.jpg

    Wow! I'm extremely proud of Bond now.

    @-) And just think we slog our guts out at work to get these bits of paper that control all of our lives! And we will never earn that in our lifetimes! Makes ya think don't it?
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 12,717
    RogueAgent wrote:
    And we will never earn that in our lifetimes!

    Ah don't think like that ;)



    You have to be optimistic about these things. Ah alright it'll never happen, but I can dream.

    And yep, this entire post was an excuse to quote Only Fools. Sue me :P
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 11,119
    So cute....to see all Bond fans getting crazy like a bunch of kindergarten kids >:D<. In fact, I am cute used to 'Skyfall' being the biggest Bond of our times :-). I also think, that we fans/forummembers are partially to 'blaim' for this success. If you stay positive, if you....truly believe in Bond as a franchise....then everything is possible. Then even journalists take a quick look at this fantastic forum, and then articles like these 'suddenly' show up. This article was published in The Daily Telegraph on October 14th, way before the actual premiere ;-):
    Skyfall set to be 'most successful’ James Bond film

    The latest 007 instalment Skyfall is set to be the most successful James Bond movie of all time and is predicted to make more than $1 billion (£622 million) at the box office. By Edward Malnick, and Melanie Mulhern

    When its producers were so short of money they had to suspend planning of the latest Bond movie, Hollywood was both shaken and stirred.

    Now, the critics have delivered their verdict, and there is good news for 007: Skyfall is on its way to becoming the most successful film in the 50-year history of the franchise.

    It has been met with universal praise following its preview and is expected to storm to the top of the box office. Experts said the stunts were some of the best ever seen in a Bond film and one critic wrote that the dramatic opening sequence should merit an Oscar in itself.

    Robbie Collin, the Telegraph’s film critic, said the action scenes were “the most beautiful in Bond’s 50-year career”.

    Predicting Skyfall would be a “stratospheric hit”, he described the 23rd Bond film as “dazzling” and “utterly audacious”.

    The early signs of success will be welcomed by Skyfall’s producers after work on the film was suspended in 2010 when Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, its studio, fell into severe financial difficulties. It was later rescued a deal that put a US firm, Spyglass Entertainment, at MGM’S helm.

    The film, Daniel Craig’s third appearance as 007, received four and five-star reviews yesterday in the Daily Telegraph, Times, and Daily Mail, and in Empire magazine.

    Experts (yeah well, dear writer, perhaps WE fans/forummembers are those experts :-P)predicted it could rival the success of Christopher Nolan’s two Dark Knight films, both of which earned more than $1 billion (£622m) at the box office.

    Last night, Jane Crowther, editor-in-chief of Total Film magazine, said: “Nostalgia for Bond is at such a high now surrounding the anniversary.

    “It is also a film that invites repeat viewings with its complex and rich script and performances. I think it has taken lessons from Dark Knight and, therefore, could do just as well in its takings.”

    The reviews, following the film’s first preview in London, prompted widespread excitement about the film and thousands of comments on social networking websites.

    The film is likely to make international stars of Bérénice Marlohe, 33, a French actress who plays one of Bond’s love interests, and Ben Whishaw, a 31-year-old British actor who plays Q, the MI6 quartermaster.
  • Posts: 1,098
    Reality Check:-

    Well i follow BO performnaces of films, so i thought i'd put into check the reality of 'SF' s box office success.........which though exceptional........

    True its fantastic that the film has grossed so much, but is it the most successful Bond?......no sorry it isnt. Remember that 'TB' had a gross which today would be equivalent to around $600 mil for its North American release alone, and 'GF' wasnt that far behind. If you take into account attendance figures then 'SF' lags 'TB' by a massive margin............i mean we are talking at least a difference of around 15,000,000 minimum.
    Also you need to take into account the population of the US is now over 311mil, it was around 200 mil in 1965/66, so a much larger percentage of the population saw a Bond film then.
    Yes, 'SF' has done unbelievably well in International markets, but so did 'TB' and 'TB' didnt have the luxury of being able to play in China, Russia or India.
    I mean 'SF' has become no1 film alltime in UK numerically wise, but i doubt its attendance figure here matches 'TB's massive 15.6 mil admissions, though its probably quite close.
    Conclusion 'SF' yes massive hit..........but not a mega-blockbuster as per 'TB'..........the facts speak for themselves.
    The adjusted inflation figures are a rough guide and vary somewhat, but you cannot ignore the fact that 'TB' had a far greater admissions, and that at the day is the proof of the pudding.........ie.....number of people who actually went to see the film, and in this case we are going backt to 1966 when there were a helluva lot less people in the world.
    Sorry to be a killjoy........coz i thought 'SF' was excellent., just putting things into perspective. :)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 37,395
    @mepal1, 52 pages in, and we can assure you that we've brought that up. Nobody (should be, anyway) is saying that SF is the most successful Bond film...yet. Many of us are speaking of how close it's coming to beat TB, and with China's release coming soon, it's sure to do that.

    We also know that the 60's didn't deliver a great way of advertising like the Internet allows, or message boards/forums, but still, talking overall inflation, SF is coming close to becoming the most successful Bond film of all time. We can't say 'Well, it should be TB, because if it had opened in these places, then...', because we just don't know.
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 5,745
    mepal1 wrote:
    Reality Check:-

    Reality Check:-

    We're only 30 Million off, and still have China to open in. So your saying two films only 30 Million apart are nowhere near as successful as each other when they've both broken records and passed the Billion mark?

    What reality do you live in?
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 11,119
    mepal1 wrote:
    Reality Check:-

    Well i follow BO performnaces of films, so i thought i'd put into check the reality of 'SF' s box office success.........which though exceptional........

    True its fantastic that the film has grossed so much, but is it the most successful Bond?......no sorry it isnt. Remember that 'TB' had a gross which today would be equivalent to around $600 mil for its North American release alone, and 'GF' wasnt that far behind. If you take into account attendance figures then 'SF' lags 'TB' by a massive margin............i mean we are talking at least a difference of around 15,000,000 minimum.
    Also you need to take into account the population of the US is now over 311mil, it was around 200 mil in 1965/66, so a much larger percentage of the population saw a Bond film then.
    Yes, 'SF' has done unbelievably well in International markets, but so did 'TB' and 'TB' didnt have the luxury of being able to play in China, Russia or India.
    I mean 'SF' has become no1 film alltime in UK numerically wise, but i doubt its attendance figure here matches 'TB's massive 15.6 mil admissions, though its probably quite close.
    Conclusion 'SF' yes massive hit..........but not a mega-blockbuster as per 'TB'..........the facts speak for themselves.
    The adjusted inflation figures are a rough guide and vary somewhat, but you cannot ignore the fact that 'TB' had a far greater admissions, and that at the day is the proof of the pudding.........ie.....number of people who actually went to see the film, and in this case we are going backt to 1966 when there were a helluva lot less people in the world.
    Sorry to be a killjoy........coz i thought 'SF' was excellent., just putting things into perspective. :)

    Even your arguments aren't a true factcheck. If you say EITHER 'Skyfall' is the most succesful Bond film ever OR that 'we need to do a factcheck because 'Skyfall' can never do the business 'Thunderball' did in the USA': Both remarks are hard to prove.

    Why? For the exact reasons you are mentioning. It's like saying 'China and the USA together would not have been world powers today if they only did colonialization in the way Holland did in the 17th century' :-S.

    Fact is: Both examples are incomparable. That is a fact. And when you leave these faulty comparisons out, you can still say that 'Skyfall' is the most succesful film in its genre for today's standards. THAT'S why I prefer comparing 'Skyfall' with recent movies like 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

    And still then you need to see comparisons into perspective. But that does not make me less excited about what 'Skyfall' did. I am excited, I will stay excited....and I have actually become a bigger Bond fan because of 'Skyfall' :-).
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 11,119

    This article gives me goosebumps.....truly. Dalton is right....also with the comparisons he makes :-).

    Actually.....you should see TLD, LTK, CR, QOS and SF in a row. That's great movie stuff.
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 1,098
    Oh dear...

    The trouble with inflation adjustment figures is that the conversion factor is so questionable, and is solely based on the US inflation index, but even then there are quite a varied number of box office figures published amonst various BO sites for inflation adjusted figures of films in the US.

    All i was trying to say is.............at the end of the day its attendance figures that are a true reflection of a films success, and in this case 'SF' doesnt match those of 'TB'.

    btw;- i loved 'SF', and its success is fantastic.

    'SF' actually needs to surpass $1.3 Billion to surpass 'TB'.

    Its all a case of simple mathematics.

    The source that someone has used earlier on in this thread appears to be incorrect (which is not uncommon, where BO is concernd).

    Thunderball grossed $141.2 mil worldwide (63.6 US and 77.6 Internationally)

    ok..........now based on general consensus its estimated that 'TB's US gross would equate to just under $600 mil nowadays.
    In fact BOmojo has an adjusted figure of $582 mil.

    Now that gives you a multiplication factor of 9.15.
    If you then apply this to the International figure of 77.6...this gives us $710 mil

    now add the 2 figures together ie 582 + 710 = 1292 or near as dammit $1.3 bil.

    If you still dont believe me, check out this webpage www.soundonsight.org for more detailed info, and believe it or not they come to the same figure as well, though slighly higher.

    Mod edit: double post merged into one.
  • mepal1 wrote:
    Oh dear...

    The trouble with inflation adjustment figures is that the conversion factor is so questionable, and is solely based on the US inflation index, but even then there are quite a varied number of box office figures published amonst various BO sites for inflation adjusted figures of films in the US.

    All i was trying to say is.............at the end of the day its attendance figures that are a true reflection of a films success, and in this case 'SF' doesnt match those of 'TB'.

    btw;- i loved 'SF', and its success is fantastic.

    I understand what you are saying, but there are factors on the other side of the equation as well.

    Quite a few guys at my gym downloaded Skyfall and watched it at home rather than going to pay to see it at a theatre. So SF exists in a world where it is harder to get people out to the cinema, so a billion dollars is even more impressive of an achievement.

    When I was a kid big studio releases would stay in the theatres for several months (I still have some of the newspaper ads for The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark proclaiming "11th month!"). If you really wanted to go see a film you saw it in a theatre; now people can wait 3 or 4 months for the DVD which lessens the "need" to see it in a theatre. So again, a billion dollars in this environment is pretty fantastic.

    Movies don't get re-releases now like they did in the past. How many times was TB re-released in the 60s? This ups its BO take in a way that SF can't compete with which again makes SF's total very impressive.

    Finally, we have a much more fractured entertainment landscape than we did in the 60s. Movies are not the "events" that they were for my parents' generation - I'm not sure of the attendance patterns in the 60s but I know in the 30s the average person went to the movies 3 times every week.

    Now, this is not to say that you're wrong to bring up the points that you do, it's simply to say that we can never compare TB and SF in an "apples to apples" comparison because of the different times they were released in. Taking certain factors into account, SF may be far behind TB. But taking other factors into account might mean that it's already much more successful than TB...we'll never be able to answer that.

Sign In or Register to comment.