The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[bjmdds]

Lukewarm? You call $167 million lukewarm? CR is on par with half of the Brosnan films concerning the unreliable adjusted numbers. Besides, it doesn't matter. CR will be referred to as the highest grossing Bond film by everything except DCNB.com and you BJ. At least until a future Bond film surpasses $167 million.

and 300 which stars Gerard Butler has already made $174 million in 3 weeks time. had Butler been chosen as Bond I wouldn't have complained.

Paco, do you feel Butler,now 37, could do it after Craig's 3 films end? He has the right look, correct height, and can act. All he would need in 2010 is Broccoli's interest.

yeah, I do think Butler could do the role in 2010. that's only in 3 years. 40 isn't too old. but at this point I think Butler may be on to bigger pastures. I believe he may be starring in Zach Snyder's adaptation of the Watchmen, next. If that proves to be a hit, and believe me that's a big IF, he may be too expensive for the penny pinching Broccoli family. the point is 300 may well cross that 200 million mark that seems to be the bar for success in the US.

I agree with you about the tight-fisted Broccoli gal not looking to spend money on a Jackman, or a Butler, per se. Maybe she will surprise us next time around and shell out another $10 million to take in an additional $100 million, with a bigger named, known actor, to play Bond.

[The Sweeney]

the point is 300 may well cross that 200 million mark that seems to be the bar for success in the US.

So what you are saying is Brosnan's films were not a success in the US then?

[The Sweeney]

Sweeney, with fewer admissions over DAD, factoring in curiosity and a new concept for Bond, you would have thought there would be a dramatic increase in ticket sales, not slightly less. Look at Dalton 2 to Brosnan 1, for example. In any case, I admit CR grossed more than the $100 million in the USA I thought it would, but it did not overwhelm the box office in the USA as it did in the UK, your home, as compared to DAD. We will see if the USA take exceeds CR's in 2008, for that will be a good judge. Bond 22 will be tough to top the international take of CR as well.

I wouldn't have thought there would be a dramatic increase in the US with CR. Brosnan was very popular, and Craig was a complete unknown prior to the release. He was more well-known here in the UK. But that table shows CR is roughly on a par with Brosnan's takings in the US (at least 2 of his films). It didn't drop dramatically, as some expected.

In fact, the doubters expected CR to do considerably less in the US, not more!

Also, GE was released after a 6 year gap, when LTK before it was the result of a waning series by the 80's. Bond had lost its popularity by 1989. I guess the curiousity factor after 6 long years brought the big BO figures in for GE, plus Brosnan was well-known in the US already.

[stockslivevan]

the point is 300 may well cross that 200 million mark that seems to be the bar for success in the US.

So what you are saying is Brosnan's films were not a success in the US then?

Even I made that clear enough yet some are still singing "300/Museum made $200 million but CR didn't!"

What Bond film has?! Esspecially after BJ claiming CR wouldn't be on par with the Brosnan films, suddenly he claims he expected it to get $200 million and as if it wasn't a success.

Point: In the US, Casino Royale was successful as half of the Brosnan films. If you disagree, then that means you believe GoldenEye and The World is Not Enough were unsuccessful as well, correct?

Infact, why are we even comparing Craig's first film with Brosnan's last? Shouldn't we be comparing it to Brosnan's first to be more fair? Oh, of course not. Because then you'd lose on that argument. My bad.

[Captain Nash]

Does anyone else feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall.
I can see why the good people at other sites locked your similar topics bj.
It's like being on a carousel.

[bjmdds]

the point is 300 may well cross that 200 million mark that seems to be the bar for success in the US.

So what you are saying is Brosnan's films were not a success in the US then?

Even I made that clear enough yet some are still singing "300/Museum made $200 million but CR didn't!"

What Bond film has?! Esspecially after BJ claiming CR wouldn't be on par with the Brosnan films, suddenly he claims he expected it to get $200 million and as if it wasn't a success.

Point: In the US, Casino Royale was successful as half of the Brosnan films. If you disagree, then that means you believe GoldenEye and The World is Not Enough were unsuccessful as well, correct?

Infact, why are we even comparing Craig's first film with Brosnan's last? Shouldn't we be comparing it to Brosnan's first to be more fair? Oh, of course not. Because then you'd lose on that argument. My bad.

I never expected it to approach anything near $200 million,let alone $100 million in the USA, but those who are endeared to CR, feel Craig is the best Bond ever, and Eon would have loved to have hit that number in the USA. Given that, I am only pointing out that CR was not the blockbuster in the USA it might have been, as is evidenced by the fewer tickets sold.

[bjmdds]

Does anyone else feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall.
I can see why the good people at other sites locked your similar topics bj.
It's like being on a carousel.

These 'good' people at the other sites you mentioned are of your common thought. If you do not enjoy the ride on the 'carousel', kindly step off the ride.

[bjmdds]

The Bourne Ultimatum comes out this August. The second film took in $176 million in the USA in 2004, surpassing what CR did in the USA in 2006, especially factoring in inflation.. The 'tone' of the trailer looks even more like Craig's character portrayal of Bond, and the two competing franchises are becoming quite similar in style. It will be interesting to see how well received this third film will do, and if it surpasses the $200 million mark this time in the USA. It was not as popular with the international set last time.

[paco chaos]

the point is 300 may well cross that 200 million mark that seems to be the bar for success in the US.

So any film that goes below that bar is a flop?
I wouldn't mind betting that any potential Craig replacement has either :
A). Already been screentested and earmarked for the role down the track.
B). Is a complete unknown and will be yet another surprise. But with even bigger shoes and more of an expectation than Daniel Craig.

I'll opt for A. I think Eon have someone in mind to replace Daniel Craig when he retires from the role. But it's not Butler. I'll put money on it.

I don't doubt that Butler wont be the next Bond. too bad. their loss.
as for 200 million being the bar for success, well 10 years ago 100 million was a big deal in the US market. But since a large number of so-called blockbusters now cost about that much to make, it makes the smaller films seem less successful, regardless of how much they make. films like Pirates of the Carribean 2, are making all films seem like failures. I never said that Casino Royale was a flop. far from it. but it's not the runaway success that some on this board seem to think. it did make more money than Die Another Day in the US, but in the scheme of things, not that much.
I may be guilty of being biased against Daniel Craig's performance in Casino Royale, probably more so against Eva Green, but I see alot of Craig supporters speaking in absolutes. "Casino Royale is the most successful Bond film of all time." "Craig is greater than Connery!" "All women find Craig attractive." blah, blah, blah. I may be in the minority, but I don't believe in absolutes. sorry.
I used to think that most anybody would find Roger Moore to be inferior to most Bonds, yet I met a 21 year old guy who proved me wrong by telling me that Moore was his favorite. so much for absolutes.

[The Sweeney]

the point is 300 may well cross that 200 million mark that seems to be the bar for success in the US.

So what you are saying is Brosnan's films were not a success in the US then?

Even I made that clear enough yet some are still singing "300/Museum made $200 million but CR didn't!"

What Bond film has?! Esspecially after BJ claiming CR wouldn't be on par with the Brosnan films, suddenly he claims he expected it to get $200 million and as if it wasn't a success.

Point: In the US, Casino Royale was successful as half of the Brosnan films. If you disagree, then that means you believe GoldenEye and The World is Not Enough were unsuccessful as well, correct?

Infact, why are we even comparing Craig's first film with Brosnan's last? Shouldn't we be comparing it to Brosnan's first to be more fair? Oh, of course not. Because then you'd lose on that argument. My bad.

I never expected it to approach anything near $200 million,let alone $100 million in the USA, but those who are endeared to CR, feel Craig is the best Bond ever, and Eon would have loved to have hit that number in the USA. Given that, I am only pointing out that CR was not the blockbuster in the USA it might have been, as is evidenced by the fewer tickets sold.

And by your reckoning, neither were the Brosnan films either....

[bjmdds]

2006's revenue bar for any film's success is a great deal higher than that of 2002. If any film makes a profit, it is a financial success. If people like a film, it is an artistic success. There is a difference though when 'blockbuster' status is used in financial success. In 2002, in the USA, DAD was more of a success than CR was in 2006, that is all I am saying.

[bjmdds]

the point is 300 may well cross that 200 million mark that seems to be the bar for success in the US.

So any film that goes below that bar is a flop?
I wouldn't mind betting that any potential Craig replacement has either :
A). Already been screentested and earmarked for the role down the track.
B). Is a complete unknown and will be yet another surprise. But with even bigger shoes and more of an expectation than Daniel Craig.

I'll opt for A. I think Eon have someone in mind to replace Daniel Craig when he retires from the role. But it's not Butler. I'll put money on it.

I don't doubt that Butler wont be the next Bond. too bad. their loss.
as for 200 million being the bar for success, well 10 years ago 100 million was a big deal in the US market. But since a large number of so-called blockbusters now cost about that much to make, it makes the smaller films seem less successful, regardless of how much they make. films like Pirates of the Carribean 2, are making all films seem like failures. I never said that Casino Royale was a flop. far from it. but it's not the runaway success that some on this board seem to think. it did make more money than Die Another Day in the US, but in the scheme of things, not that much.
I may be guilty of being biased against Daniel Craig's performance in Casino Royale, probably more so against Eva Green, but I see alot of Craig supporters speaking in absolutes. "Casino Royale is the most successful Bond film of all time." "Craig is greater than Connery!" "All women find Craig attractive." blah, blah, blah. I may be in the minority, but I don't believe in absolutes. sorry.
I used to think that most anybody would find Roger Moore to be inferior to most Bonds, yet I met a 21 year old guy who proved me wrong by telling me that Moore was his favorite. so much for absolutes.

I find the comparison to Connery ridiculous and totally agree with you. Craig has been deemed by Campbell the best actor to portray Bond, but Connery IS Bond, no debating that. His replacements have been just that, replacements, some though, a lot better than others.

[stockslivevan]

2006's revenue bar for any film's success is a great deal higher than that of 2002. If any film makes a profit, it is a financial success. If people like a film, it is an artistic success. There is a difference though when 'blockbuster' status is used in financial success. In 2002, in the USA, DAD was more of a success than CR was in 2006, that is all I am saying.

Which is why we have something called ticket sales and inflation adjusting, something you have been bringing up a lot for quite awhile. Craig's films are not that far apart from the predecessors.

[The Sweeney]

2006's revenue bar for any film's success is a great deal higher than that of 2002. If any film makes a profit, it is a financial success. If people like a film, it is an artistic success. There is a difference though when 'blockbuster' status is used in financial success. In 2002, in the USA, DAD was more of a success than CR was in 2006, that is all I am saying.

More of a success? By how much more? We are talking small numbers here.

And if we were having this discussion last year, you wouldn't have agreed that DAD would be only marginally more successful in the US. You thought CR would have had no chance getting anywhere close to the DAD figures.

And regarding blockbuster status, it has been a blockbuster worldwide (which is more important) but are we not allowed to say this now. Should we say `Blockbuster everywhere in the world except for one particular country, where it was still a moderate success, just not a huge blockbuster'.....

And ticket sales (not inflation adjusted figures) between CR and DAD are not that far apart either. So again, was DAD not a blockbuster in the US either....?

[Captain Nash]

2006's revenue bar for any film's success is a great deal higher than that of 2002. If any film makes a profit, it is a financial success. If people like a film, it is an artistic success. There is a difference though when 'blockbuster' status is used in financial success. In 2002, in the USA, DAD was more of a success than CR was in 2006, that is all I am saying.

More of a success? By how much more? We are talking small numbers here.

And if we were having this discussion last year, you wouldn't have agreed that DAD would be only marginally more successful in the US. You thought CR would have had no chance getting anywhere close to the DAD figures.

And regarding blockbuster status, it has been a blockbuster worldwide (which is more important) but are we not allowed to say this now. Should we say `Blockbuster everywhere in the world except for one particular country, where it was still a moderate success, just not a huge blockbuster'.....

And ticket sales (not inflation adjusted figures) between CR and DAD are not that far apart either. So again, was DAD not a blockbuster in the US either....?

Well if that's all you're saying why do you have to go over the same sh*t again and again?
Just so you know bj, there are more countries outside the all important US. As The Sweeney said it's still a Blockbuster film whether you like it or not, Massive success huge. You can keep your inflation adjusted figures and your ticket sales and shove 'em where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned. Daniel Craig is not the best Bond ever and Casino Royale likewise is not the best Bond film. But both did what many predicted they wouldn't and couldn't. Now when the truth is revealed they can't admit it. What a poor loser you are.

[agent english]

Blimey

Lets get a few things straight.

The US market, though mightily important in the film world, is not the
be all for a films success.

To put things into perspective...........CR grossed internationally almost
as much as DAD did worldwide.........so one could say the US gross was
the icing on the cake for CR.

The Bond films are liked and accepted by audiences worldwide, unlike
many other franchises.

People here who blab on about the BOURNE series should look at the
worldwide figures. The totals are massively below the Bond films.

Another point when people here compare DAD to CR in its boxoffice
performance taking into account inflation since 2002.
Dont forget you should use the same rules to adjust a films budget
over the same period.

Blimey

Come on lads be sensible, its easter.

If not i'll send you some eggs (not chocalate....the ones from ALIEN)

[James]

I find the comparison to Connery ridiculous and totally agree with you. Craig has been deemed by Campbell the best actor to portray Bond, but Connery IS Bond, no debating that. His replacements have been just that, replacements, some though, a lot better than others.

Remember BJ that when Campbell was making GoldenEye he was slagging off Dalton and comparing Brosnan to Cary Grant. I give no credibility to anything that comes out of Campbell's big gob.

[Captain Nash]

Remember BJ that when Campbell was making GoldenEye he was slagging off Dalton and comparing Brosnan to Cary Grant. I give no credibility to anything that comes out of Campbell's big gob.

I was gonna say. Comparing Brosnan to Cary Grant is an insult to Cary Grant. What was he thinking?

[bjmdds]

I find the comparison to Connery ridiculous and totally agree with you. Craig has been deemed by Campbell the best actor to portray Bond, but Connery IS Bond, no debating that. His replacements have been just that, replacements, some though, a lot better than others.

Remember BJ that when Campbell was making GoldenEye he was slagging off Dalton and comparing Brosnan to Cary Grant. I give no credibility to anything that comes out of Campbell's big gob.

Campbell and Dench both changed their tunes,Campbell did not get Visnjic, Dench did not get Brosnan, and Broccoli got what she wanted. It is very true that the USA is no longer as significant in the total gross of a Bond film, as it only accounted for 28% of the CR's revenue, as compared to Brosnan's films, where the USA accounted for close to 37%. European countries really came out for Craig, and did overwhelm the box office there. There was no huge increase for CR in the USA as was seen internationally.

[bjmdds]

2006's revenue bar for any film's success is a great deal higher than that of 2002. If any film makes a profit, it is a financial success. If people like a film, it is an artistic success. There is a difference though when 'blockbuster' status is used in financial success. In 2002, in the USA, DAD was more of a success than CR was in 2006, that is all I am saying.

More of a success? By how much more? We are talking small numbers here.

And if we were having this discussion last year, you wouldn't have agreed that DAD would be only marginally more successful in the US. You thought CR would have had no chance getting anywhere close to the DAD figures.

And regarding blockbuster status, it has been a blockbuster worldwide (which is more important) but are we not allowed to say this now. Should we say `Blockbuster everywhere in the world except for one particular country, where it was still a moderate success, just not a huge blockbuster'.....

And ticket sales (not inflation adjusted figures) between CR and DAD are not that far apart either. So again, was DAD not a blockbuster in the US either....?

In the USA when a Bond film is outgrossed by a penguin film, head to head, week to week, it is NOT blockbuster status. You are correct in your assumption that CR was an INTERNATIONAL blockbuster, for it devoured DAD's international take by 60 percent, especially fueled by your country's people, who really came out for their home grown Bond.