James Bond 23 - 'Skyfall'

1303133353648

Comments

  • lordOfTimelordOfTime Posts: 22,267
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What was wrong with Live and Let Die? :/
  • Theo_BearTheo_Bear Posts: 997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CJClarke wrote: »
    It was nothing like Die Hard :confused: I'm starting to think that you're just trolling us now...

    Considering that the three Daniel Craig films are the highest grossing Bond films ever, with each one surpassing the last in terms of box office takings, i'd say that the franchise will carry on for a long while yet, regardless of whether you think it's a "clunker":rolleyes: You want to see a real clunker, go back and watch Die Another Day...

    Hasn't that happened with every Bond film? I'd have to check, (edit: just checked, no it hasn't) although simply due to inflation, if the same number of people paid to see Skyfall as QofS, the film would take more money simply because of the increase in ticket prices. I think that would outweigh any increase in the film's budget. QofS and Skyfall both had $200m budgets.

    Despite being heavily malinged, Die Another Day is the 4th highest grossing Bond movie. Strangely there was a massive jump in its US gross from that made by TWINE, the previous film.

    And as for Moonraker, globally it took about $650m in today's money, which after accounting for inflation makes it the second highest grossing Bond film after Skyfall. Perhaps some food for thought there.

    OK, it's only been out 10 days in the US, but domesticaly, Skyfall has only taken slightly more than Die Another Day did during it's entire cinema run, and it's usually after the second week that weekly takings start to drop. Skyfall has to take another $7m in the US to equal QofS. Must be noted that Skyfall has done mega business outside the US, mainly in the UK, France and Germany.

    And as a footnote, Die Another Day was more profitable than QofS. DAD had a smaller gross, but the budget was much smaller. Casino Royale was massively profitable.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    Theo_Bear wrote: »
    Most of the non media reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are all pretty poor. When a film that has such good pre release reviews turns out, in many people's eyes, to be at best disappointing, it's not uncommon that people's opinions will slant towards exacerbating the negative. That's natural. I don't think they have or need to be egged on.

    According to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/skyfall/ 92% of critics and 89% of the public gave a positive review

    Imdb 8.1 (#228 overall)
    Metacritic 81/100 (Critics) 7.9/10 (Public)

    Clunker is perhaps an over exaggeration

    Also, MGM values the rights to the Bond franchise at $1bn, which would imply they have big plans...
  • Theo_BearTheo_Bear Posts: 997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Si_Crewe wrote: »
    Trouble is that if you remove the glitz and glamour from James Bond you're just left with a modern version of stuff like The IPCRESS file or Smileys People.
    It's kinda like re-making Star Wars but without the spaceships and aliens.

    It's all very well them going to all the effort of "rebooting" James Bond but jug-ears is already starting to look too old for the part and has admitted that he doesn't think he has many more Bond films in him so where does that leave the franchise?
    Ready for yet another bloody reboot?

    Also, while I'm at it, given that it's supposed to be a modern reboot of the franchise, why are they going to such an effort to give the whole damned thing such a 1960's feel?
    Everything from the clothes and the locations to the camera work (and the continued insistence on giving Bond a bloody PPK) seemed designed to give the movie a 1960s feel.

    Agree entirely. I've nothing against Daniel Craig as a person (I don't think he's a great actor. . the constant brooding is to Craig what eyebrows were to Moore), but to be quite honest, I'd happily see him leave the role now.

    And what was with Craig's 60's style suits? Have we gone back in a timewarp and no one told us?
  • Theo_BearTheo_Bear Posts: 997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    According to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/skyfall/ 92% of critics and 89% of the public gave a positive review

    Imdb 8.1 (#228 overall)
    Metacritic 81/100 (Critics) 7.9/10 (Public)

    Clunker is perhaps an over exaggeration

    Also, MGM values the rights to the Bond franchise at $1bn, which would imply they have big plans...

    Bond films are always going to make money. It's just the ever increasing budgets for what seems like less of a return in terms of screen content that might worry me. Also the US gross has been almost static across the last 3 films.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Theo_Bear wrote: »
    Also the US gross has been almost static across the last 3 films.

    No it hasn't. The grosses for CR and QoS may have been around the same final tally, but Skyfall will end up a hell of a lot higher than that. Box Office Mojo is predicting that it'll eventually gross $250 million at the US box office, which is $80 million higher than either of the previous two films. By Wednesday the film will have out-grossed the previous two films' final tally at the domestic box office, a feat it will have managed in just 12 days compared to the months that the other films were on release. The budget for the film was also less than that of QoS at around $150 million compared to QoS's $200 million. Whatever negative way you try to spin it, this film is a massive worldwide success, to try and state otherwise is nonsense.
  • Theo_BearTheo_Bear Posts: 997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    According to Boxofficemojo, Skyfall's budget was $200m.
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,123
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Summary: Skyfall is a good film that many people don't like.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Theo_Bear wrote: »
    According to Boxofficemojo, Skyfall's budget was $200m.

    Box Office Mojo is wrong with that number (their estimated budget info generally isn't the most accurate), according to Deadline and other media sites the estimated production budget for the film was somewhere just above $150 million.
    Summary: Skyfall is a good film that many people don't like.

    More like: Skyfall is a subjectively good film that a vocal minority don't like (and they are entitled to their opinion, but they do love to shout it from the rooftops...). If the film was as disliked as some people are saying it is then it wouldn't be raking in anywhere near as much money as it currently is.
  • cobwebsoupcobwebsoup Posts: 4,852
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lordOfTime wrote: »
    What was wrong with Live and Let Die? :/

    Absolutely nothing, it was a classic Bond film and had the legend that is Baron Samedi in it :)
  • cobwebsoupcobwebsoup Posts: 4,852
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CJClarke wrote: »
    Box Office Mojo is wrong with that number (their estimated budget info generally isn't the most accurate), according to Deadline and other media sites the estimated production budget for the film was somewhere just above $150 million.



    More like: Skyfall is a subjectively good film that a vocal minority don't like (and they are entitled to their opinion, but they do love to shout it from the rooftops...). If the film was as disliked as some people are saying it is then it wouldn't be raking in anywhere near as much money as it currently is.


    This. It is an extremely well liked film, it's had fantastic reviews and feedback. I haven't seen it yet but I'm looking forward to it.
  • Theo_BearTheo_Bear Posts: 997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CJClarke wrote: »
    If the film was as disliked as some people are saying it is then it wouldn't be raking in anywhere near as much money as it currently is.

    Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen took $836m gross worldwide, but did anyone like that?

    Box office is no measure of a film being any good or being liked.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Theo_Bear wrote: »
    Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen took $836m gross worldwide, but did anyone like that?

    Box office is no measure of a film being any good or being liked.

    Not particularly a measure of something's overall quality, but it IS a measure of how much something is liked. Clearly quite a lot of people liked the film otherwise the word of mouth on the film would have been so toxic that the film would have bombed and not made anywhere near to that amount of money. Same goes for stuff like One Direction and Justin Beiber, they're both awful by most people's standards, but there's an audience out there who like them otherwise they wouldn't be so profitable. There's no accounting for taste, eh? Not that i'm comparing Skyfall to any of these examples particularly, just making a point.
  • Alvar HansoAlvar Hanso Posts: 2,542
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    it is pretty typical, for a film to need to make double it#s budget to make it's money back or used to be, given in the us production and distributers take half and exhibitors do although it goes swings and roundabouts, these days with studios taking a bulk up front of the gross in the first week I think and then it flips, to the exhibitor for abit, but they also have the sales tax on popcorn, drinks and advertising revenue

    not suprised skyfall had a lot of product placement deals to offset the cost and the obvious immense marketing budget
  • Theo_BearTheo_Bear Posts: 997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CJClarke wrote: »
    Not particularly a measure of something's overall quality, but it IS a measure of how much something is liked. Clearly quite a lot of people liked the film otherwise the word of mouth on the film would have been so toxic that the film would have bombed and not made anywhere near to that amount of money.

    So many people in the US would've seen the film on the Friday and opening weekend that word of mouth, toxic or otherwise wouldn't have had time to have that much effect on the gross. And people with nothing better to do of an evening who go to the cinema to see anything that's showing would most likely have seen Skyfall just to use up the time, not knowing or particularly caring if it was any good.

    But I know you'll disagree with me, so we'll agree to disagree. :p
  • grimtales1grimtales1 Posts: 46,685
    Forum Member
    cobwebsoup wrote: »
    Absolutely nothing, it was a classic Bond film and had the legend that is Baron Samedi in it :)

    Live and Let Die is great :D It has a cracking theme song and Jane Seymour :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Theo_Bear wrote: »
    So many people in the US would've seen the film on the Friday and opening weekend that word of mouth, toxic or otherwise wouldn't have had time to have that much effect on the gross. And people with nothing better to do of an evening who go to the cinema to see anything that's showing would most likely have seen Skyfall just to use up the time, not knowing or particularly caring if it was any good.

    But I know you'll disagree with me, so we'll agree to disagree. :p

    The people who did see it on opening weekend seemed to like it quite a lot considering that it received an 'A' cinemascore based on polling that the distributors do with customers on opening weekends in the US, plus it held strongly in its second weekend despite the competition from Twilight and Lincoln, which would indicate that the word of mouth is very positive. But yeah, let's leave it now, neither of us is going to yield, so I agree to disagree :p
  • cobwebsoupcobwebsoup Posts: 4,852
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    grimtales1 wrote: »
    Live and Let Die is great :D It has a cracking theme song and Jane Seymour :)

    Oh Jane Seymour...she was a great Bond girl.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,440
    Forum Member
    CJClarke wrote: »
    Not particularly a measure of something's overall quality, but it IS a measure of how much something is liked. Clearly quite a lot of people liked the film otherwise the word of mouth on the film would have been so toxic that the film would have bombed and not made anywhere near to that amount of money. Same goes for stuff like One Direction and Justin Beiber, they're both awful by most people's standards, but there's an audience out there who like them otherwise they wouldn't be so profitable. There's no accounting for taste, eh? Not that i'm comparing Skyfall to any of these examples particularly, just making a point.

    Sorry but I don't see how you come to the conclusion that big box office takings prove that lots of people liked something.
    As you rightly point out that there is a market for On Direction and Justin Beiber that makes them profitable, howver they actually make more money from merchandising than record sales.
    The same way Star Wars has generated more money through merchandising than all the films put together.

    Yesterday I went and saw the latest Twilight film. not only did I not like the film, I wasn't blown away by the previous films and have never read the books. The reason I went to see it was because it was the newest film that has just been released (Cineworld O2 Greenwich are showing it on about 5 screens so choice is limited too), I had seen the others and it also fitted in the times I could see a film. So I will be registered as part of the Box Office takings or bum on seat, but I didn't like the film.
  • dreadnoughtdreadnought Posts: 1,783
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cobwebsoup wrote: »
    a classic Bond film and had the legend that is Baron Samedi in it :)

    That guy was brilliant, I love this bit
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX3wGWHRlXQ
  • paul_jtpaul_jt Posts: 219
    Forum Member
    Si_Crewe wrote: »
    Trouble is that if you remove the glitz and glamour from James Bond you're just left with a modern version of stuff like The IPCRESS file or Smileys People.
    It's kinda like re-making Star Wars but without the spaceships and aliens.

    It's all very well them going to all the effort of "rebooting" James Bond but jug-ears is already starting to look too old for the part and has admitted that he doesn't think he has many more Bond films in him so where does that leave the franchise?
    Ready for yet another bloody reboot?

    Also, while I'm at it, given that it's supposed to be a modern reboot of the franchise, why are they going to such an effort to give the whole damned thing such a 1960's feel?
    Everything from the clothes and the locations to the camera work (and the continued insistence on giving Bond a bloody PPK) seemed designed to give the movie a 1960s feel.
    Theo_Bear wrote: »
    Agree entirely. I've nothing against Daniel Craig as a person (I don't think he's a great actor. . the constant brooding is to Craig what eyebrows were to Moore), but to be quite honest, I'd happily see him leave the role now.

    And what was with Craig's 60's style suits? Have we gone back in a timewarp and no one told us?

    To be clear I rather enjoyed Skyfall, it was by far the deepest Bond film ever, Craig and all the other lead characters were pretty good.

    However in agreement with Si_Crewe the problem is where next? Having reinvented; in homage or parody (the 60's feel), or ditched everything familiar, the future seems set as Craig to continue for the next two films before we start all over again.

    As a Bond fan I find that rather depressing. I don't want everything reinvented every couple of films. Nothing wrong with a bit of escapism; girls, guns and fast cars.
  • grimtales1grimtales1 Posts: 46,685
    Forum Member
    I dont see why they cant have a combination of both (Moneypenny/Q etc + tough Bond). I thought the 60's feel was more to do with the fact it was the 50th anniversary. I'm not sure future films will have this.
  • The TerminatorThe Terminator Posts: 5,312
    Forum Member
    Where is this idea that absolutely everything will be rebooted/reinvented when DC leaves coming from?
  • Dai13371Dai13371 Posts: 8,071
    Forum Member
    grimtales1 wrote: »
    I dont see why they cant have a combination of both (Moneypenny/Q etc + tough Bond). I thought the 60's feel was more to do with the fact it was the 50th anniversary. I'm not sure future films will have this.

    I think you've nailed it. Circle is now complete.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    Sorry but I don't see how you come to the conclusion that big box office takings prove that lots of people liked something.
    As you rightly point out that there is a market for On Direction and Justin Beiber that makes them profitable, howver they actually make more money from merchandising than record sales.
    The same way Star Wars has generated more money through merchandising than all the films put together.

    Yesterday I went and saw the latest Twilight film. not only did I not like the film, I wasn't blown away by the previous films and have never read the books. The reason I went to see it was because it was the newest film that has just been released (Cineworld O2 Greenwich are showing it on about 5 screens so choice is limited too), I had seen the others and it also fitted in the times I could see a film. So I will be registered as part of the Box Office takings or bum on seat, but I didn't like the film.

    I wasn't meaning that literally every person who watched Transformers 2 "liked" it, obviously that is far from the truth given the panning it received, but there was clearly an audience out there who did like it, otherwise it would have struggled to make it anywhere near the $836 million that it ended up with. Had everybody hated it, the word of mouth would have killed it in it's tracks.

    Anyway, back to Bond, we're going a bit off topic here:)
Sign In or Register to comment.