'Spider-Man 3' Hauls in $29M in Opening Why Not Bond?

[Harvey Wallbanger]

Spiderman 3 is off n running -29 million already

$4.6 million in Germany, $4 million in Italy, $3.7 million in Japan, $3.4 million in South Korea, $1.1 million in the Philippines and $1 million each in Hong Kong and Thailand.

What I wonder is why JB can't do those numbers? –before it starts don't bother with wait till b22 jazz. Jb hasn't had Spider #’s since SC and the 60s.

JB is wider known than the spider and for longer. Why does he consistently fail to catch on like the spider -or similar film- which are lesser films to me.


'Spider-Man 3' Hauls in $29M in Opening

"Spider-Man 3" cast a worldwide web with a blockbuster first day, hauling in $29.15 million in 16 overseas markets and beating the debuts of the previous two "Spider-Man" flicks in each locale.
The film had the best opening day ever Tuesday in some countries, including France, Italy, South Korea and Hong Kong, distributor Sony Pictures said.
"Spider-Man 3" opens over the next couple of days in dozens of other countries, including the United States on Friday.
"'Spider-Man' is a worldwide franchise, and the thing we're most excited about is that in two pretty completely separate parts of the world we've gotten off to a great start," Jeff Blake, Sony vice chairman, said Wednesday. "We certainly hope for the same in North America."

Domestically, 2002's "Spider-Man" opened with $114.8 million in its first weekend, a record debut that stood until "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" shattered it last year with a $135.6 million weekend.
"Spider-Man 2" opened on a Wednesday before the Fourth of July weekend in 2004, pulling in a record $180.1 million in its first six days.
The two previous films combined for a total of $1.6 billion worldwide, about half of that coming in the United States.
In France, "Spider-Man 3" took in $6.8 million on opening day, more than the first-day grosses there for "Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man 2" combined.
It grossed $4.6 million in Germany, $4 million in Italy, $3.7 million in Japan, $3.4 million in South Korea, $1.1 million in the Philippines and $1 million each in Hong Kong and Thailand.
The third installment in director Sam Raimi's superhero series, "Spider-Man 3" reunites Tobey Maguire as the web-slinger, Kirsten Dunst as the love of his life and James Franco as his old pal turned enemy.
Adapted from the Marvel comic books, the film also introduces two new villains, Thomas Haden Church as the Sandman and Topher Grace as Venom.
Along with bad guys, Spidey ends up battling his own dark side as he fights the temptation to use his powers for evil after an alien entity infects his superhero outfit.

[Blowfeld]

Interesting point Harvey No idea why it is so. 007 is a highly recognized figure worldwide, more so than Spider-man I dare say.
The studios haven't been disappointed with the BO take since the late 1980's, although during its lawsuit to make their own 007 film line independent of Eon Sony argued that they could make more money with the 007 brand than Eon was. Clearly they had some expectation of 007 being close to a billion dollar BO draw each outing.

Maybe they are right and the franchise has been mismanaged.

[Kristatos]

I think Bond is seen as yesterday's franchise to a certain extent. Considering it's nearly half a century old, I'd say it's in remarkably good shape. Batman Begins and Superman Returns were seen as reviving dead franchises, and Bond has 20-30 years on those. Personally, I doubt we'll ever again see the height of 60's Bondmania, though I'd be happy to be proved wrong (unless it was a really bad Bond film that revived its fortunes - I'm talking Batman and Robin bad here, I don't think even the worst Bond films come close to that horror).

[paco chaos]

I'll tell you why Spiderman does so well. I waited all my life for a Spiderman movie to be made, and other than a lame tv show in the 70's, me and all the other fans had to wait. so we get to the new century and we finally get Spiderman movies and they are directed by a man who is one of us. He gets the material. the films are great. and I just got back from seeing part 3 and loved, absolutely loved it.

[The Sweeney]

I know the doubters won't want to hear this, but the Bond franchise really had no chance of competing with the likes of Spiderman, until CR came along to change all that.

Now before you all frenzy at the mouth, furiously jump onto your keyobards and start typing wildly with a heated response, just wait a minute - hold your horses and hear me out!

The Bond franchise only really hit it's juggernaught peak in the mid 60's, had been steady throughout the 70's, declined in the 80's, and grew moderately healthily again in the 90's.

So how can the franchise compete with the likes of Spiderman by getting back to those dizzy Connery golden days again? Simple. EON and Craig have done it. The amount of reviews I have read claiming Craig has made the franchise cool again, that people are now genuinely excited about being Bond fans again, people genuinely looking forward to Bond 22, etc.

And this only happened by pressing the reset button, throwing out of the window the past 40-odd years and starting again.

The downside? Hardcore fans (many on here) who appreciated previous Bond films (in particular the Brosnan and Moore years) don't like what EON have done, messing with the legacy, they don't like the controversial casting choice, and don't like the new approach.

The upside? A whole new set of fans have been won over, many of whom had no real interest in Bond films before, and many die-hard hardcore Fleming fans have been won over again, liking the new approach too when dismayed with recent Bond films.

Bond 22 will prove the theory if I am right or not, but I have this gut feeling Bond 22 will take us back to the 60's again.

Spiderman, Bourne and Batman - watch out........

Bond is back!!

[Kristatos]

The Bond franchise only really hit it's juggernaught peak in the mid 60's, had been steady throughout the 70's, declined in the 80's, and grew moderately healthily again in the 90's.

It was more than moderately healthy. The Brosnan films all did roughly the same amount of business as CR in adjusted dollars. However much you hate Brosnan, the success of his films at the box office is what allowed CR to be made.

The downside? Hardcore fans (many on here) who appreciated previous Bond films (in particular the Brosnan and Moore years) don't like what EON have done, messing with the legacy, they don't like the controversial casting choice, and don't like the new approach.

The upside? A whole new set of fans have been won over, many of whom had no real interest in Bond films before, and many die-hard hardcore Fleming fans have been won over again, liking the new approach too when dismayed with recent Bond films.

I can see that argument. Of course if EON were smart, they'd have figured out a way to keep both sets of fans happy.

[The Sweeney]

It was more than moderately healthy. The Brosnan films all did roughly the same amount of business as CR in adjusted dollars. However much you hate Brosnan, the success of his films at the box office is what allowed CR to be made.

No denying the Brosnan era was successful. But we are talking about beating Spiderman success here.

I can see that argument. Of course if EON were smart, they'd have figured out a way to keep both sets of fans happy.

Not if they really want to compete against films like Spiderman. Compromising would have given us more of the same as the Brosnan era - the ultimate Bond compromising films.

They needed a drastic overhaul that would not keep all resident Bond fans happy. Has the gamble paid off? So far, so good - but the real evidence will be Bond 22.

[Dr. No]

CR did 75 million more than DAD with the inflation. Nothing to sneeze at but it no where near the numbers of spider-man.
Easy to argue that Brosnan would have made more in his next outing or that another actor like Jackman or Butler, or whoever that looks the part could have brought in 100-200 million more.

I don't see the franchise doing much more than standing still, since 1995 the movies have brought in close to the same amount . (including CR)
If cr had done as GE did compared to LTK, I might be inclined to agree with the Sweeney.

Cr did not do well enough to give me the over optimistic feeling that Sweeny has. My gut reaction tells me something very different.


When you mention “ultimate Bond compromising films”, you need to remember the people who made the compromises are still in charge. And IMO have compromised the everything to be a clone of the flavor of the month.

[The Sweeney]

When you mention “ultimate Bond compromising films”, you need to remember the people who made the compromises are still in charge. And IMO have compromised the everything to be a clone of the flavor of the month.

True, but I think CR has given them the platform now to stand on, the guts to push it further still. CR was still a slight compromise, but definitely a radical departure from the safely safely formula of the Brosnan era.

Let's face it, they've had the balls to reboot, to go in the face of adversity and pick a controversial actor, turned the film away from slapstick humour, OTT gadgets and CGI stunts, turning their backs on a formula that was already an established financial success, when really they could have continued in the same vain.

I really believe they will push it further now. The last time EON gambled, it was back in 1989, and the gamble didn't pay off. This time the gamble has paid off, so EON will now capitalise on it. And on the back of a very popular `new' Bond, with a whole new audience.

Bond 22 will be the beginning of the second coming....mark my words. We've already witnessed the early signs with CR. Things will only go bigger from here. I can already see BO parallels with Bond 23 and TB.

[Kristatos]

Bond 22 will be the beginning of the second coming....mark my words. We've already witnessed the early signs with CR. Things will only go bigger from here. I can already see BO parallels with Bond 23 and TB.

You may be right, but I'd be very surprised to see a Bond film, especially a Craig Bond film, do Thunderball numbers in this day and age. DAD was closer to the midas formula than CR, and that didn't come close to Spiderman or Pirates box office.

[The Sweeney]

Bond 22 will be the beginning of the second coming....mark my words. We've already witnessed the early signs with CR. Things will only go bigger from here. I can already see BO parallels with Bond 23 and TB.

You may be right, but I'd be very surprised to see a Bond film, especially a Craig Bond film, do Thunderball numbers in this day and age. DAD was closer to the midas formula than CR, and that didn't come close to Spiderman or Pirates box office.

Perhaps the Midas Formula doesn't work as well in this day and age, or perhaps the film has to follow the midas to some degree, but also be a bloody good film too (which, most will argue DAD certainly isn't).

Like I said before, CR has brought a new dawn, won over a whole new set of fans and reviewers alike. Gone is the DAD era. Right now the comments about CR and Craig are far more OTT in their basking glory than was ever the case with Brosnan's films.

We could be on the brink of something special here with Bond 22. CR's undoubted success took most (especially the doubters) by complete suprise. With Bond 22 we could be in for an even bigger suprise......

[Skywalker]

True, but I think CR has given them the platform now to stand on, the guts to push it further still. CR was still a slight compromise, but definitely a radical departure from the safely safely formula of the Brosnan era.

Intersting perspective Sweeney. I don't think CR 'was a slight compromise', I think they threw out the rule book on what Bond should be.

Let's face it, they've had the balls to reboot, to go in the face of adversity and pick a controversial actor, turned the film away from slapstick humour, OTT gadgets and CGI stunts, turning their backs on a formula that was already an established financial success, when really they could have continued in the same vain.

Whether I like the new direction/concept, it has to be acknowledged that EON's gamble has been a financial success.

I really believe they will push it further now.

To push it further in the blunt/rookie style would be a mistake. I feel they will go back to the more refined Bond on the previous 20 films. With the refinement will come more of the humour and probably the gadgets.

Bond 22 will be the beginning of the second coming....mark my words. We've already witnessed the early signs with CR. Things will only go bigger from here. I can already see BO parallels with Bond 23 and TB.

Bold statement Sweeney. I guess we'll see.

[Harvey Wallbanger]

....mark my words.

This is a review of Die Another Day from the MI6 forum in 2002:

Die Another Day is the best James Bond film ever made. I've watched it twenty times now in the cinema and I would say without hesitation that Pierce Brosnan is the best James Bond ever. The best bit? The invisible Aston-Martin. Absolutely brilliant. 10/10 (Jet Set Willy)

Slick Willy aka The Sweeney

[Kristatos]

Perhaps the Midas Formula doesn't work as well in this day and age, or perhaps the film has to follow the midas to some degree, but also be a bloody good film too (which, most will argue DAD certainly isn't).

The Midas formula is for "this day and age". Thunderball was released in the 60's, when audience expectations were different. And as for having to be a good film to gross a billion dollars - have you seen Pirates of the Caribbean 2?

I don't want to make any firm predictions for Bond 22 and 23, because the fact that CR and DAD, which pretty much represent the two extremes of the Bond spectrum, both did similar business at the box-office once inflation is taken into account makes it hard to draw any sort of conclusion as to what audiences want from a Bond film. If CR had represented a quantum leap in box office takings over DAD, or if it had tanked, it would be much easier to say "in order to get bums on seats, this is what EON need to do".

[The Sweeney]

....mark my words.

This is a review of Die Another Day from the MI6 forum in 2002:

Die Another Day is the best James Bond film ever made. I've watched it twenty times now in the cinema and I would say without hesitation that Pierce Brosnan is the best James Bond ever. The best bit? The invisible Aston-Martin. Absolutely brilliant. 10/10 (Jet Set Willy)

Slick Willy aka The Sweeney

HH HA HA bleedin' HA! Yes, very funny!

(or did you actually believe what James quoted..... )

[The Sweeney]

Perhaps the Midas Formula doesn't work as well in this day and age, or perhaps the film has to follow the midas to some degree, but also be a bloody good film too (which, most will argue DAD certainly isn't).

The Midas formula is for "this day and age". Thunderball was released in the 60's, when audience expectations were different. And as for having to be a good film to gross a billion dollars - have you seen Pirates of the Caribbean 2?

I don't want to make any firm predictions for Bond 22 and 23, because the fact that CR and DAD, which pretty much represent the two extremes of the Bond spectrum, both did similar business at the box-office once inflation is taken into account makes it hard to draw any sort of conclusion as to what audiences want from a Bond film. If CR had represented a quantum leap in box office takings over DAD, or if it had tanked, it would be much easier to say "in order to get bums on seats, this is what EON need to do".

The doom and gloom merchants had us believe, with a controversial, unknown actor in the lead, a back-to-basics LTK-style Bond film and talk of reboots, that CR would be lucky to bring in half of what DAD earned.

But it didn't. It went on to surpass DAD...managed to win many hard-nosed critics over too in the process, and was nominated for the first time ever for the actor playing Bond, and the script itself.

You could say, for the first time ever with Bond 22, we are in total unknown territory with how it will be received.

[James]

The rumpus over the firing of Brosnan and hiring of Craig gave CR a lot of publicity. It became a story that gathered a lot of attention during the making of the film. When the finished film arrived it was something of a curiosity. It also had no competition and an expensive campaign that Timothy Dalton could only dream of. Now that everyone has had a look at a Danny Craig 'James Bond' film it will be interesting to see what happens next.

[Kristatos]

When the finished film arrived it was something of a curiosity.

I dunno about that. The fact that if you compare it's box office to DAD's on a day-by-day basis, it was slower out of the starting gate than DAD but then picked up steam later on suggests that good word-of-mouth propelled its box office. But of course this is supposition based on the evidence. If my supposition is correct, then Bond 22 (wish they'd hurry up and give it a fricking title!) will be more front-loaded than CR and go on to outgross it in adjusted dollars. But like Sweeney said, we're in uncharted waters at the moment.

[007]

I think CR did build up a bit of a curiosity factor. I remember watching sky movies when the teaser trailer was shown and the voiceover more or less said take a first look at the new blonde Bond who is provoking such a rumpus in the tabloids and on the internet. Also I think a lot of people felt sorry for Craig in the end.

[The Sweeney]

Also I think a lot of people felt sorry for Craig in the end.

I guess sites like this did Craig a big favour after all....