According to that, Dr. No still has the biggest profit margin.
DR. NO was a b-movie. A bit like the Blair Witch Project, nobody counted on it being a hit. From Hollywoodâs perspective the films only really took off with GOLDFINGER.
1 Like
Yea, I understand that. Iâm just pointing out how Dr. No made 60 times its budget. Even by todayâs standards, that is impressive. The highest grossing film ever, Avatar, only made ~10 times its budget.
But then over 50 years of theatrical reruns and retrospectives didnât exactly hurt DR. NO either. Anyway, back to BOND 25 news, what news there isâŚ
All of this is moot unless you adjust for inflation, and the following numbers have beenâŚ
(ROI is return on investment, or profit)
1 Like
Still moot, as you then need to take into account the number of cinemas the film was shown in, repeat theatrical runs, social attitudes of the times, the format the film was shown in, economic stature of all areas the film was shown etc etc All come down to the same point - how much money a film made is only useful if you get paid by it or as an extra line in marketing.
1 Like
Thatâs all very true - I would just add that that would make sense when comparing numbers over decades - say, Dr. No to Spectre - but not as much when comparing within eras, and I posted those numbers only to compare QOS to SF, which were only a few years apart.
Anywho, as Dustin said, on to Bond 25 newsâŚ
Though an economic crash and changes in the ruling parties in the UK and US between QOS and Skyfall starting their respective productions would mean, even in only 4 years, it still applies.
But, yes, back to Bond 25 news. anyone got feelings as to which way itâs going to lean - more Bond or more Boyle?
1 Like
Maybe there will be a kitchen sink element to 25?
I once had the idea that Bond begins a relationship with a single mum and has a choice to make between an instant family or his spy career. Two very different worlds. And the film would end with him remaining a spy.
True Lies.
a film where I honestly rooted for the villain.
I think that was an idea toyed with in early drafts of QoS, in which, Bond discovers that Vesper had a daughter.
1 Like
Yup, and further mootness offered since now, versus the 60âs, 70âs, 80âs etc., there is a trend, or option to wait until it comes out on DVD or any number of the various streaming platforms to view.
Those figures never get counted towards final figures.
In other words, there is almost little or no point in ever comparing numbers across so many decades and fashions - irrespective of adjusting for inflation.
âŚwhich is exactly what I said after I posted the numbers!
You guys realize I drew no conclusions from the numbers, right? I simply posted them.
1 Like
To get back to BOND 25 while also incorporating the numbers (which will never be 100 % accurate simply because the films are still in circulation / can be bought and consumed, but still those numbers do show how profitable they were during their initial run - so they are relevant):
SKYFALL was an anomaly. Bond films are hugely profitable but they are not the b.o. juggernauts they were during the 60´s, and they always played better internationally than in the U.S.
BOND 25 also has to compete now in a totally different marketplace, with the Marvel movies definitely sucking all the air out of the box office worldwide, leaving even the Star Wars movies fighting to keep their dominance.
How does BOND 25 fit in there? Thatâs the real question and problem right now.
The action movie genre has been taken over by THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.
The Bond films have established themselves for almost six decades now - which means the current target group (14-24 years of age) will know the films as something their dads and granddads already knew. But they will mainly know (and like) the films of their era, meaning the Craig era.
However, Craig has only done four movies during his tenure. And that is a problem simply because the target audience does not have a lot of movies to draw their enthusiasm from.
This is why BOND 25 has so much pressure to perform well. If it does not even approach the 1 billion mark internationally, if it even falls short of half a billion, the value of the brand will be determined as dangerously diminished. And this will affect its future tremendously because BOND 26 will have to star a new actor as Bond who again has to win over the audience.
Casting a new Bond will, of course, also have its advantage. If the new guy convinces it will start the cycle anew and the target audience will want to see the next films with him.
But BOND 25 definitely has to interest the current generation and persuade them that they shall catch it in theaters and not wait for the film to land on home video or streaming platforms eventually. Since SPECTRE was not a film that was loved and embraced, it will be an uphill battle.
Bond, of course, has often recovered from less favorably received entries. But that always happened in previous, easier times. Now, Bond´s biggest enemy is probably the oversaturation of the market and the complacency of an audience who rather stays at home.
Full disclosure: I myself, previously an avid moviegoer, choose to stay at home mostly and catch new movies there, because it is cheaper and more convenient. Workload is shrinking my time to drive to the next town to watch a movie in a decent theatre, too.
Bond films, naturally, still have a special place in my heart so I will make time to see those on the big screen.
But I wonder how long that will actually stay that way? If other films have lost their drawing power for me because I was disappointed so often, how many disappointing Bond films will I want to see during their initial run?
7 Likes
Drilling into the numbers is interesting. Worldwide at the box office, the top ten contains 3 Craigâs, 3 Mooreâs and 4 Conneryâs , all adjusted for inflation are 25% higher than the best of the Mission Impossible series, Fast and Furious beats them on 2 occasions then Bond tracks 30% higher.
What is worth noting is all Mooreâs came in the 70s , with a huge drop in the 80s, trend continues until Brosnan brought the series to Mission Impossible levels of box office. Craigâs era has seen the filmâs make the staggering level of box office not seen since the 60s and 70s.
Canât wait for 25!
2 Likes
This is more like it! So much pessimism around here atm. Whatever people think about certain aspects of certain films, something is clearly going very right and Eon are doing their job: keeping Bond going! This has to be more important than catering to the whims of a small group of Bond nuts like us! Weâve got a new film on the way with a great lead and an exciting British director⌠whoop whoop!!!
3 Likes
As secretagentfan said: to many young people, the Craig tenure is too short to draw much enthusiasm from. Marvel keep the candle burning with multiple releases each year, while Bond only has one film every four years. Excitement canât survive such a long wait. (The Force Awakens made it, after a decade, because no one was waiting for it - Star Wars was supposed to be over).
For the franchise to survive, we need a film every two years, which will let young people know that this is something worth following.
I´m afraid so.
In a way, GOLDENEYE was THE FORCE AWAKENS for Bond. Many years of waiting and then a celebration of known tropes.
2 Likes
This idea that a young audience has no attention span is remarkably ageist, and not even new - itâs older than Bond is.
EON has marketed Craig era Bond as a prestige item, similar to how Sherlock or a Christopher Nolan film is marketed, and for the most part thatâs worked, the films have been profitable and well reviewed, better than Bond films generally were for a VERY long time - including QOS and Spectre despite what people on here have convinced themselves. It has allowed them to turn their longer gaps (that they canât control) into a plus, rather than the Marvel model of fast food film making - highly enjoyable at the time, but forgotten in a few months. Yes, Spectre didnât do as well as Skyfall, but it was still the third most profitable film on 2015 - without looking it up, can you name 1 and 2?
You can deduce it easily so Iâm not giving a prize.
2 Likes