WINDFALL at the Box Office

Loomis wrote:

So here are a couple of questions for Americans here: have you noticed SKYFALL causing more excitement among your friends and acquaintances than was the case for DIE ANOTHER DAY, CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE? (I know that those films were hits in the States, but not to the same degree as SKYFALL.) In other words, is it now palpably the case to you that BOND IS (finally) BACK!!!!!!!! with U.S. cinemagoers?

Personally, I'd say word of mouth is right on pace with Casino Royale, if not a bit better, despite the fact that Skyfall's box office numbers are quite a bit healthier.

That said, I wouldn't necessarily say "BOND IS BACK!" with U.S. audiences, but then again, it depends what you consider "back." Is it comparable to what you're seeing in the U.K.? No. Is it comparable to Bondmania? Of course not. But is Bond's future secure in North America? If they keep making movies like Casino Royale and Skyfall, yeah.

Going head-to-head with Twilight and holding its ground shows Bond still has legs -- though in all fairness, Bond has gone head-to-head with big names and held its own before, too.

Quote :

The second question would be: what do you think accounts for SKYFALL's unusual level of success? I've read the theory that it's somehow caught a wave of affection for Englishness among American audiences, but even if such a wave of affection is currently making itself felt I rather doubt that SKYFALL's box office windfall can be in large part down to the DOWNTON ABBEY crowd.

I'd say it's because of word of mouth and a blitzkrieg of a marketing campaign. I'm not so sure the Englishness of it was that much of a factor.

Quote :

Question number three is: is SKYFALL's success (while hardly a game-changer for the movie biz as a whole) a game-changer for the Bond series? Is BOND 24 likely to be an attempt to replicate it in some way (just as MOONRAKER was in many ways THE SPY WHO LOVED ME 2), perhaps by being set largely within the United Kingdom and/or featuring a flamboyant, bizarre villain of the sort more commonly found these days in a Batman outing?

I think a lot of folks assumed Casino Royale's success would be a game-changer ... then Quantum of Solace came along. I think it really just depends on the individual film.

I think many North Americans still want somewhat of a dose of realism in their Bond, but not quite anything on the level of Quantum. Rather, take that little dose and mix in a flamboyant villain and the Bond staples people want to see and I think you'll have a winner. Fresh but familiar is how I'd describe it.

Skyfall in Australia has trumped QoS in 11 days.

The film in eleven days has taken $24.8m locally. It surpasses total local earnings of previous Bond film, 2008′s Quantum of Solace which grossed of $20.645m over 11 weeks, according to Box Office Mojo.

Bond hasn't really not been popular in the States anyways, at least not since LTK. Even thought SF has been on a record run, Bond has been a top Holiday franchise since GE. I think the big factors that made SF a massive hit stateside was the unique 50th anniversary, the 4 year gap building interests, Bond's Olympics cameo, and the solid reviews coming out of the rest of the world. IMAX and Adele's popularity can't be marginalized either.

Hopefully, all those casual fans that were brought in because of those factors are now Bond fans and will be back for Bond 24.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Skyfall in Australia has trumped QoS in 11 days.

No surprises there. I saw QOS on the day it opened and the theatre was practically deserted (although there was a pack of pissant little s***s who were giggling at everything).

Jack Wade wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

What on earth are you talking about? I never told anybody their predictions would be wrong.

This was your response to me on August 28th, 2012: $800 million is pretty high. I don't know that Bond has that kind of appeal anymore, though

You disagreed with me. That's saying that I'm going to be wrong. I don't have a problem with that. But it is what it is.

Not really.

Look, I don't want to argue this with you. I've accepted that I was right. Why can't you?

Loomis wrote:

The second question would be: what do you think accounts for SKYFALL's unusual level of success?

I think the main factors were/are Daniel Craig and the great reviews. There are ancillary factors such as Adele, the 50th anniversary, marketing, etc....but I think overall it's Craig and the reviews. And the reviews are a product of bringing Mendes on board, who managed to balance the movie without letting it tilt too far into MR/DAD territory, or tilting to the other extreme with lifeless, soulless films such as LTK and QOS. Having a strong, central villain has also helped (again, thanks in part to Mendes), because the past few films really lacked the type of antagonist a good Bond film needs.

None of this is to imply that the Brosnan films weren't big hits either. They were on par for the times in which they were released. It's just that, I guess, EON/SONY have found that they *CAN* raise the bar even further. I remember opening night for DAD and the theater was completely full, and there were people sitting on the floor and standing in the exit aisles (this was no run down theater either; it was a state-of-the-art megaplex), so it's not like Bond wasn't a viable prospect 10 years ago. But clearly SONY and EON have found that there is room to take the prestige and the box office higher. I expect a $110 million dollar opening weekend for BOND 24 (I just wanted to get that out there now) in the U.S., and well over $1.1 billion dollars worldwide. The next one will be the biggest of Craig's films.....and then the slight decline will start, which means he'll need to get out after #5.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Loomis wrote:

The second question would be: what do you think accounts for SKYFALL's unusual level of success?

I think the main factors were/are Daniel Craig and the great reviews. There are ancillary factors such as Adele, the 50th anniversary, marketing, etc....but I think overall it's Craig and the reviews. And the reviews are a product of bringing Mendes on board, who managed to balance the movie without letting it tilt too far into MR/DAD territory, or tilting to the other extreme with lifeless, soulless films such as LTK and QOS. Having a strong, central villain has also helped (again, thanks in part to Mendes), because the past few films really lacked the type of antagonist a good Bond film needs.

None of this is to imply that the Brosnan films weren't big hits either. They were on par for the times in which they were released. It's just that, I guess, EON/SONY have found that they *CAN* raise the bar even further. I remember opening night for DAD and the theater was completely full, and there were people sitting on the floor and standing in the exit aisles (this was no run down theater either; it was a state-of-the-art megaplex), so it's not like Bond wasn't a viable prospect 10 years ago. But clearly SONY and EON have found that there is room to take the prestige and the box office higher. I expect a $110 million dollar opening weekend for BOND 24 (I just wanted to get that out there now) in the U.S., and well over $1.1 billion dollars worldwide. The next one will be the biggest of Craig's films.....and then the slight decline will start, which means he'll need to get out after #5.

I think you were one of the few like me GS who predicted SF would be huge. My thoughts on how SF became so popular were 4 main factors -

1) Olympics
2) Bond 50 anniversary
3) Adele song
4) Positive reviews

I knew once I saw Craig appearing with the Queen at the opening ceremony, that if these 4 factors came off properly, SF had a real chance of beating TB at the BO.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

What on earth are you talking about? I never told anybody their predictions would be wrong.

This was your response to me on August 28th, 2012: $800 million is pretty high. I don't know that Bond has that kind of appeal anymore, though

You disagreed with me. That's saying that I'm going to be wrong. I don't have a problem with that. But it is what it is.

Not really.

Look, I don't want to argue this with you. I've accepted that I was right. Why can't you?

It's easy to accept when you make right predictions. What about the wrong ones? Like when you projected SKYFALL to be at $250 million by the end of the Thanksgiving break? Or when you and everyone else hit the panic button when Nikki over at Deadline Hollywood had SKYFALL dropping big for it's second weekend?

Oh, sorry. I didn't know Gravity's Silhouette was the infallible box office genie. You should become a politician with your penchant for self-promotion.

jet set willy wrote:

I think you were one of the few like me GS who predicted SF would be huge. My thoughts on how SF became so popular were 4 main factors -

1) Olympics
2) Bond 50 anniversary
3) Adele song
4) Positive reviews

I knew once I saw Craig appearing with the Queen at the opening ceremony, that if these 4 factors came off properly, SF had a real chance of beating TB at the BO.

What I want to know is why so few people, outside of you, me, and Control, did not see this coming?

And I appreciate the comparison you're trying to make with THUNDERBALLS, but I find comparisons between films today and 50, 60, 70 years ago almost pointless. A film should be considered a hit when compared to what other comparable films are making, or are capable of making, these days. Because there were no home video markets in 1939...no television....no Ipad, no Clouds, no 4G phones...no dvd...no blu ray...no vhs....fewer international markets......comparing number of admission tickets between GONE WITH THE WIND and THE DARK KNIGHT is a thankless task.

But based upon what I thought of Craig's appeal, and the trailers, I correctly estimated back in August that the film would clear $800 million easily, or else 'Barbara and Michael should sell the rights to someone else'. You see, the way I figured it about Craig, if fans were willing to sit through a s**t sandwich like QUANTURD OF SOLACE, and still make almost the exact same amount as CASINO ROYALE, then just imagine what a film with an actual script, intriguing villain, and involving plot could do?!? It was a no-brainer as far as I was concerned, and now with all this extra dirty sexy money that Babs, Michael and SONY are awash in, maybe they can up the budget a bit on the next one and really show off some untapped, lavish locations, bring Mendes back (or Christopher Nolan on), and maybe bring on a big name actress to star opposite Craig.

The sky is the limit for BOND 24.

Tubes wrote:

It's easy to accept when you make right predictions. What about the wrong ones?

I never made any wrong projections; only incomplete successes.

Quote :

Like when you projected SKYFALL to be at $250 million by the end of the Thanksgiving break?

I might have said I thought it could hit $250 million by the end of Thanksgiving, but even if I stated it as fact, we're only a few days off from that mark. Are you really going to nail my balls to the wall because I was off by about 7 days?

Quote :

Or when you and everyone else hit the panic button when Nikki over at Deadline Hollywood had SKYFALL dropping big for it's second weekend?

I never hit any panic button. Don't know what you're talking about. Must have me confused with somebody else.

Quote :

Oh, sorry. I didn't know Gravity's Silhouette was the infallible box office genie. You should become a politician with your penchant for self-promotion.

How dare you, sir? HOW DARE YOU! I am a war veteran!

I have no problem admitting my initial Skyfall figures were cautiously optimistic, and will graciously accept my most generous serving of CROW.

I did expect it to do better than Quanturd....but in the back of my mind, there were some underperformers this year....particularly Prometheus, Bourne and The Amazing Spider-Man. Yes, the latter did $262m in the USA which by most measures would be a raging success...but it fell short by a HUGE margin compared to its 3 predecessors.

I was wondering if this BO backlash would nibble away at Bond too.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

How dare you, sir? HOW DARE YOU! I am a war veteran!

Your qualifications are piling up as we speak. Would you happen to be a community organizer/mediocre businessman/attractive son in a dynastic family as well?

It seems that the big succes of SF has its roots outside of the US.

saint mark wrote:

It seems that the big succes of SF has its roots outside of the US.

It's about to overtake Avatar as the #1 movie of all time at the British Box Office....expected to happen around the same time I type this.

SKYFALL IS THE HIGHEST GROSSING MOVIE OF ALL TIME in the UK

I am taking advantage of this all the time.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Loomis wrote:

The second question would be: what do you think accounts for SKYFALL's unusual level of success?

I think the main factors were/are Daniel Craig and the great reviews. There are ancillary factors such as Adele, the 50th anniversary, marketing, etc....but I think overall it's Craig and the reviews.

Given that you cite Craig as one of the two main factors, how come he suddenly seems a much hotter commodity among Americans than in 2006 or 2008? Is it because he's now a bigger name in the States thanks to his post-QUANTUM OF SOLACE non-Bond work (COWBOYS AND ALIENS, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, etc.)?

Is Craig now a household name in the States? A genuine star?

It's not just Craig. Bardem's drawing a lot of attention too.

Largo's Shark wrote:

It's not just Craig. Bardem's drawing a lot of attention too.

A la Heath Jedger's Joker, you mean? Yeah, I can see that.

I wonder whether an Oscar nomination for Bardem is a possibility. I hope so. It'd be nice for a Bond film to be nominated for an acting Oscar (shame it was for Craig's performance in CASINO ROYALE). Trouble is, I think there's only one scene for which Bardem would deserve an Oscar nomination (his initial encounter with Bond). Outside of that wonderful scene, his performance is nothing extraordinary, and he's almost entirely wasted in the Scotland finale.

It's curious how the most colourful, bizarre, charismatic and memorable Bond villain in decades (and indeed perhaps of all time) is actually underused in the extreme.

Loomis wrote:

t'd be nice for a Bond film to be nominated for an acting Oscar (shame it was for Craig's performance in CASINO ROYALE).

I know you'll probably disagree, but I think Craig gives a much more nuanced performance in SKYFALL. In fact, everyone is more nuanced here than in any Bond film of the last 20 years, reacting to the other characters and surrounding environment in a naturalistic way, as if in real time. I think a lot of that is due to Sam Mendes's stage background. He's an actor's director in the truest sense, compared to Martin Campbell or Marc Forster, who seemed to be more interested in things and ideas than people. Whether that's action, locations, or geopolitics.

Thanks to the downtime, Mendes got to do two full cast read-throughs. It shows. I'd say the only the weak link is Helen McCrory.

Loomis wrote:

Trouble is, I think there's only one scene for which Bardem would deserve an Oscar nomination (his initial encounter with Bond).

Obviously that's the highpoint, though I think his handling of the courtyard and isolation chamber scenes deserve acclaim, too.

Loomis wrote:

Outside of that wonderful scene, his performance is nothing extraordinary, and he's almost entirely wasted in the Scotland finale.

He's terrific in the chapel denouement.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I think a lot of that is due to Sam Mendes's stage background.

Interesting point.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Obviously that's the highpoint, though I think his handling of the courtyard and isolation chamber scenes deserve acclaim, too.

Oh, he's good in those moments, and, yes, also the chapel scene, but I'd say that it's only in his initial encounter with Bond that Bardem verges on Oscar-worthiness.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Thanks to the downtime, Mendes got to do two full cast read-throughs. It shows. I'd say the only the weak link is Helen McCrory.

I don't see anything wrong with McCrory. Not that she's in it for more than a few seconds, anyway. If there's a weak link, it's Naomie Harris. I find her rather wooden and one-dimensional in SKYFALL, although she doesn't exactly have the best-written or most interesting character in the film to work with.

Loomis wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with McCrory. Not that she's in it for more than a few seconds, anyway. If there's a weak link, it's Naomie Harris. I find her rather wooden and one-dimensional in SKYFALL, although she doesn't exactly have the best-written or most interesting character in the film to work with.

I thought McCrory was very wooden and her one (?) line lacked any conviction. Naomie Harris was sexy, warm, funny, looked like she could handle herself with a weapon (the only convincing gun-wielding Bond girl since Wai-Lin) and had great chemistry with Craig. The only flat thing about her delivery is her North East London accent. That said, it's nice to have someone from my neck of the woods starring in a Bond film (until Idris Elba)

She first caught my eye as Denise Roudette in SEX & DRUGS & ROCK & ROLL and later in THE FIRST GRADER. I'm glad as anyone that she's here to stay as Eve Moneypenny.

Same here. Oddly enough, I find her disappointing as Eve yet a very promising Moneypenny. I mean, I know they're the same person but they almost seem like two different characters in different parts of SKYFALL (I guess Harris has the most extreme character arc of just about anyone in any Bond film ever).

Of course, the gun-wielding Bond girl has been done to death (Wai Lin, Jinx), while Harris' Moneypenny is a refreshing change from the Moneypenny norm.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

saint mark wrote:

It seems that the big succes of SF has its roots outside of the US.

It's about to overtake Avatar as the #1 movie of all time at the British Box Office....expected to happen around the same time I type this.

Yep, heard this morning that at £92 million after 40 days Skyfall is indeed the biggest ever hit at the UK box office 8) .

Loomis wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Loomis wrote:

The second question would be: what do you think accounts for SKYFALL's unusual level of success?

I think the main factors were/are Daniel Craig and the great reviews. There are ancillary factors such as Adele, the 50th anniversary, marketing, etc....but I think overall it's Craig and the reviews.

Given that you cite Craig as one of the two main factors, how come he suddenly seems a much hotter commodity among Americans than in 2006 or 2008? Is it because he's now a bigger name in the States thanks to his post-QUANTUM OF SOLACE non-Bond work (COWBOYS AND ALIENS, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, etc.)?

Is Craig now a household name in the States? A genuine star?

You consider it "unusual" the level of success SKYFALL is achieving, but I just look at it as fulfilling its potential. The potential has always been there. I think the coupling with SONY has helped make a huge difference as well. I don't think the connection with SONY gets as much discussion as it should, because by having SONY as a partner, EON has access to creative talent and financing that they didn't always have being saddled down with MGM (thank you very much, Harry Saltzman).

Craig *IS* Bond. I think he is definitively Bond in every way that an actor can be Bond. There is no question of whether the audience has accepted him as Bond. In fact, after SKYFALL it will probably be harder than ever for him to find non-Bond box office success because he has become James Bond. He'll be looked at as James Bond starring in THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE or COWBOYS AND ALIENS 2....and not as Daniel Craig the actor. That's great for the 007 series, but maybe not so great for Craig's short term career (but seeing as how he got $17 million for SKYFALL, I'm sure he'll be able to deal with the disappointment).

Also, look for Daniel Craig to become the "highest paid actor" currently working in Hollywood with BOND 24. He'll probably ask for, and get, $25 million for the next movie.

In the 4th Week (Week 5 numbers are not known yet.) in The Netherlands the movie made a hugh step back in delievering and from 209 to 207 theater counts, but this almoost 2 million be where Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace start with in week 1. Skyfall already delieverd a litle 16 million at The Dutch Boxoffice and possible at the end it wil be 19 million. 8 million more then i expect the movie wil deliever and double QOS and if it going to be 21 million or more it double Casino Royale and if over 22,5 million three double Die Another Day. But keep in mind ticket prices of Skyfall be between € 9,00/€ 11,50 -€ 15,00 whyle Die Another Day be € 7,70-€ 8,25. Also it not happend much releases from after 22.00 be so populair because after 3 weeks tickets for 20.30, 20.45 or 21.30viewings in some cinema be stil sold out. With Die Another Day this mabey happend in the first and second week.

Next Wednesday The Hobbit (Who is partly produced by MGM so MGM doing goodbisness. ) wil be released and Sony delayd Premium Rush form 22 November to unknown release date, offical because there is no room for the movie but mabey there whant milk Skyfall a bit longer. So i wil change my prediction for The Hobbit in The Netherlands to 27 Million and worldwide 1,4 billion to 1,6 billion.

Also after 6 weeks Adele with Skyfall dropt from the first place to the third place in Dutch Top 40 Charts, she start at 19 in week 1 before she movied to the first place in the next week. 6 (from the 8 weeks she be in the list) on number 1 at this moment i think it is great.