what if....
crawfordboon
Posts: 126MI6 Agent
What if CR is a big critical hit, but takes far less money than the record-breaking DAD (or should that be DUD)?
From what I've heard, Bond fans are sure to be pleased, but when you consider that a huge portion of the film market is 14-24, and that much of the ticket sales from DAD was from te '2Fast2Furious' fanbase that expects much glossy thrills and less plot development, they may find CR a letdown, thus hurting the box office.
If CR is less than a huge financial smash, there will be pressure for a return to more pyrotechnics, bigger action, simpler and more outlandish plots, and wilder humour. Do you think that EON wil lbe able to resist such pressure to persue their artistic goals, or will they prefer the 'big money route'? Or will they be pushed aside by Sony if this becomes an intractable issue for them?
From what I've heard, Bond fans are sure to be pleased, but when you consider that a huge portion of the film market is 14-24, and that much of the ticket sales from DAD was from te '2Fast2Furious' fanbase that expects much glossy thrills and less plot development, they may find CR a letdown, thus hurting the box office.
If CR is less than a huge financial smash, there will be pressure for a return to more pyrotechnics, bigger action, simpler and more outlandish plots, and wilder humour. Do you think that EON wil lbe able to resist such pressure to persue their artistic goals, or will they prefer the 'big money route'? Or will they be pushed aside by Sony if this becomes an intractable issue for them?
Comments
and EON did seem to treat OHMSS and the Dalton films as failures, even though they they performed quite respectably
so this may indeed play out as you suggest
on the plus side, for that first Friday the masses may not know this is supposed to be grim'n'gritty or a reboot or true-to-fleming, so theyll probably turn up anyway
word-of-mouth will spread quickly by Saturday morning however, what with this crazy interconnected technosavvy justintime world we live in
Bond fan or no Bond fan, if I'm a shreholder my first interest is "how much money are we making", because if DAD-style profits can be made, fro ma financial perspective there's no reason they shouldn't be made - the only arguments are artistic, and these are easier to overcome especially when there is money at stake.
So why make CR and less money when you could make more money with a DAD2? We may find out the answer if CR performs less well than DAD.
thats the sort of film I would choose to boycott
thats the sort of film I would choose to boycott"
In that case, may I respectfully submit that you avoid 95% of Hollywood movies for the rest of the century. While artistic qualities are important to a film's coherence and success, nothing gets the greenlight in the first place in TinselTown unless it they think it will make a packet that's why they call it the movie INDUSTRY or BUSINESS.
Do they though? I mean, look at something like Spider-Man 2 (it's the first thing I see on my shelf). I'm sure that did very well, and off the top of my head I think it contains something like three set piece action sequences (Bank fight, train fight, climax) with a couple of smaller, brief action scenes; plus quite a bit of character work in the whole Peter-loves-MJ and giving-up-being-Spidey stuff. That's pretty much the same as CR.
I know your point is more about how it's perceived than how the film actually is, but although this may have less action than DAD, that doesn't mean it has any less bang for your buck than other successful popcorn flicks out there.
Indeed, not Sony, not even Babs & Mickey. From the moment they decided to dispense with the services of Pierce Brosnan and then replace him with Daniel Craig, not forgetting re-booting the franchise, they knew virtually all chance of Die Another Day type box office for Casino Royale was gone. Accordingly, the budget for CR has been set considerably lower than DAD's. Therefore, should CR's box office be something of a disappointment then Sony/Eon will suffer less financial pain.
I believe that CR (while not making DAD box office) will still make enough of a profit. That should ease any pressure on Sony. Which makes it far less likely that they will exert any major pressure on Eon to make changes. I think Eon are very likely to continue making the films as they have done in the past by mixing the elements around to create the more realistic films along with the more epic/outlandish films, though they will likely be less epic/outlandish than before.
Which makes me wonder how many other people simply avoid going to the movies because so much of what is there is crap made for somebody else (who loves crap). Almost everyone I know -- which is a pretty sizable number -- is educated, well off, professional, and thoughtful, and they avoid the cineplex like the plague.
My guess is that the film will do splendid box office, in part because it will bring back to the theater so many people who have felt their tastes ignored these many years. (You know us . . . we like classic films and independent film because so much of what Hollywood produces is brainless, whitebread, formulaic garbage for snotty kids in the suburbs.) I didn't think so months ago, when I predicted the film would simply be profitable, but I suspect with all of the positive buzz now, it will actually do very respectable box office, and I'm guessing the DVD sales will be spectacular.
I doubt CR will reset records like that film did, but there's a lot of room between what DAD made and SPIDERMAN's take, and sounds as if CR has much more in common with the latter (fresh take on an old favorite).
Change doesn't always mean a step backwards, but I guess we'll see. And if audiences take to this something new like the critics so far have, then don't see why the box office couldn't be well north of DAD's. JMHO.
It's going to get the Bond fans who are going to love it because it's a great Bond movie, but it's also drawing in a lot of folks who don't normally go to see the Bond films because it looks like a flat out fantastic movie, period.
I've spoken to several women who tell me they've never seen a Bond movie and they're going to see this. One of them is going with me opening night.
This is not just a Bond movie. This is movie friends are going to enthuse about and take their friends and family to see again.
Hmm. If every Bond fan took a non-Bond fan friend, then I'm sure CR would outperform DAD at the box office.
People only see CR in trailer form, then the majority of people who aren't intent on seeing CR anyway, decide on the strength of trailers and reviews whether to go.
Whether or not CR "looks like a flat out fantastic movie" is questionable, after all, all the general public see is trailers in adverts and attatched to other films at the cinema.
LTK was a 'new Bond image', so was FYEO. Both recieved credible box offices, not amazing turnovers. I don't think just because CR is a new image from the DAD Bond that it will recieve a greater appeal to general cinema-gonig audiences. Bond fans will be thrilled no doubt (well most of them).
Not saying CR won't be a hit or a good movie. Just that you never know how a movie will perform, and assuming it will flop or make a massive gross is about 80% speculation, 20% going off previous films, previous box offices.
All fair points, blue.
Indeed, there is no rule that says Casino Royale cannot possibly make more money than Die Another Day. For myself, I just cannot see it happening. For instance, Pierce Brosnan was a very popular Bond with the general public (especially in the US) and it will be far from easy for Daniel Craig to attain that kind of popularity immediately. Especially if you consider all the furore surrounding Brosnan's exit, Craig's arrival etc. Also, historically, the more realistic films have generally made less profit at the box office than the more epic/outlandish films.
Comparing CR to FYEO and TLD in an effort at gauging audience response accordingly is faulty. CR doesn't feature an over the hill Roger Moore trying to look believable as an action man on the side of a mountain. Neither is it coming out at a time when the filmmakers have clearly run out of ideas of what to do with the series and the public is tired of it and could not care less.
The reviews so far shows that critics have overwhelmingly said Craig's the best since Connery. That CR is far and away the best since the early 1960s.
This exactly mirrors what a guy I know in the MPAA said after he watched it: "Fantastic! The best Bond movie since GOLDFINGER." Believe me, he wasn't looking forward to it prior to the screening. He has no love for the Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan eras.
While it's true that sometimes audiences will fork over money for crap, it's wrong to assume that that's because they want it. Much of the time it's merely what they're willing to settle for.
I live in Los Angeles and work at the central library downtown. My name badge has the teaser poster on one side. In my job I meet a huge cross section of the public, from low level celebrities to the homeless.
The interest in CR is extremely high. The interest from women must be through the roof. Nearly every woman I've spoken to wants to see it. One even told me flat out that she's never seen a Bond movie and can't wait to see this one. The reason: Daniel Craig.
In my experience this NEVER happens with Bond movies. Women just don't care about it (nor given the past 14 movies do I blame them). CR is markedly different (i.e. BETTER) from what we're used to. Critics have noticed it, and from my vantage point the public certainly has too.
Incidentally, I hardly expect the crucial 14-24 demographic to not like Daniel Craig. Why? Because he's more of cool badass than Brosnan? If that happens it'll be a first.
Where are the great numbers of people that thought DAD was a great movie and a great Bond movie? Do they even exist? The movie even has 0% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. That rarely if ever happens.
It's foolish to think that because Brosnan's Bond movies were successful in spite of by the numbers scripts, cringe-reflex dialogue, banal casting, and tedious action sequences that he (and the series as a whole) cannot be improved upon. Of course they can.
Are you saying that a Bond movie based on a story by Fleming, with an ace script, an inspired cast, dialogue that crackles with wit instead of thunks, action sequences that actually thrill for a change isn't going to get more people into the theater rather than less? Pull the other one why don't you?
One: It's a Bond movie, here in the Netherlands, everybody wants to see the newest Bond movies at least ones. It's always been like that, and it always will be.
Second: It involves a lot of poker. Poker is one of the most populair games to play at party's right now (at least in Europa IMO). And if you want to learn to play cards, who else to learn it from than Bond?
People are going to see this movie. A lot of people!
"Personally, if I had to chose between a box office hit and a critically acclaimed hit, I'd choose the latter.2
me too. But if I was a studio executive, where maximum profit is king, I'd have to concede that the shareholders are going to want as much as possible, and to hell with the artistic quality. That's what executives are paid to do: worry about hte bottom line and make compromises to ensure it is as big as possible.
Depends ... and let me tell you that shareholders want growth not profit, and more than that, they want the promise of growth.
In this day and age, it is not just about the immediate short term gain. Stock values revolve around providing good short, medium and long term growth. Would you risk the 1 billion tomorrow in favour of 10 billion in a week's time?
Business (and the movie business in particular) is far more complex than simply increasing the expectation of revenues on the large-grossing projects.
Marketing for CR has eclipsed that of DAD (which was - eventually - pretty good). Daniel Craig has been in everything.
I would guess that inflation adjusted grosses on CR will be short of DAD, but certainly be significant.
I'd agree there, find out soon though