Some different box office analysis

heartbroken_mr_drax

The Roger Moore non-fans thread got me thinking about box office results and how the Bond films performed in their years of release in the US and worldwide - also, what occurs with the US box office percentages through the years....

Using BO takings, how did the Bond films rank in the US and worldwide against others at the year of release?



Lower is better.

In total (worldwide) Bond films all fall in the top-10, the only one that doesn't is LTK.
In the US, it tends to fluctuate, showing the popularity of Craig and Connery.
The average for the world is 3.9 and US is 9.7.
GF is the only US #1 film - GF, DAF and MR all reached #1 worldwide.

What did the U.S. domestic market contribute to the overall takings for the film?



This didn't fluctuate as much as I thought, but Connery really shined in the US. This would probably be more down to entertainment growing in other markets - but overtime, the U.S. contribution dwindled. In particular with Roger's first 3 films, Dalton's, and to a lesser extent, Craig's. Brosnan performs quite well too. The average US contribution is 32% of total takings. Seems that the major blockbuster Bonds, like GF, TB, YOLT, MR, OP, TND and DAD perform the best in this market.

How did the film's box office taking compare to the #1 film at the time, as a percentage (total)?



GF, DAF, MR are blank due to being #1 - FRWL is blank as I couldn't get a worldwide gross for Cleopatra.

An interesting graph some pretty close ones here, like DN and GE. And some that are way off, like TSWLM (Star Wars) and TND (Titanic). Then some closer ones than you might think - OHMSS and TMWTGG.

The overall table



--

There may be some errors in this data as it was pulled from Box Office Mojo, IMDB and Wikipedia. It's all for fun, and not scientific

Matt S

Great work! Bond has always been extremely successful, even if Dalton couldn't draw the North American market.

Thunderpussy

I read in one inflation adjusted fact on Bond's box office success that on average
Bond films make $8.63 per second !

http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php

heartbroken_mr_drax

FYEO is interesting, there must've been quite a few new fans created after MR that flowed on to watch it. I wonder what they thought after MR? )

superado

Wow, dedication and love for Bond, so much so that you went and did what was painful for many of us in school! After tonight, I will need to come back again to redigest the graphs. Of note, not surprised about the smaller % of the Bond films going against Star Wars and Titanic, a couple of all-time box office champs that seemed to have sucked the lifeforce out of their competition. But Cleopatra? If it was the #1 BO champ for its year, I've read from a few sources that it was considered a flop, e.g., it didn't or barely broke even? ...though I don't doubt the possibility of that paradox.

heartbroken_mr_drax

superado wrote:

Wow, dedication and love for Bond, so much so that you went and did what was painful for many of us in school! After tonight, I will need to come back again to redigest the graphs. Of note, not surprised about the smaller % of the Bond films going against Star Wars and Titanic, a couple of all-time box office champs that seemed to have sucked the lifeforce out of their competition. But Cleopatra? If it was the #1 BO champ for its year, I've read from a few sources that it was considered a flop, e.g., it didn't or barely broke even? ...though I don't doubt the possibility of that paradox.

I read that Cleopatra was a flop because they spent so much on production and marketing that it didn't recoup its costs. I couldn't get total worldwide box office for Cleopatra but considering it made $58m alone in the US, I thought it would've at least made more than $79m (FRWL) in total...

Thunderpussy

Just a bit of trivia ( I'm certain many know this ) but ....

You can see both the sets and costumes from Cleopatra in another movie ..... "Carry on Cleo"
As when the Cleopatra crew moved to Italy for location work, the Carry On crew moved in )

sniperUK

Thunderpussy wrote:

Just a bit of trivia ( I'm certain many know this ) but ....

You can see both the sets and costumes from Cleopatra in another movie ..... "Carry on Cleo"
As when the Cleopatra crew moved to Italy for location work, the Carry On crew moved in )

"Infamy, infamy..........they have all got in in fer me !

caractacus potts

I'm surprised to see Octopussy as Moore's most successful film
I would've guessed Spy or Moonraker
any hypotheses why?
if anything I wouldve thunk Never Say Never and Octopussy would split the demand and each earned less than usual

also surprised Goldeneye was Brosnans least successful
it was such a triumph when it came out and people actually wanted to see, and liked it,
it seemed like normal people lost interest in the franchise as the following three films came out

actually the bar chart makes perfect sense through all the Connerys up til Octopussy, and from that film on it repeatedly defies my expectations

Matt S

caractacus potts wrote:

I'm surprised to see Octopussy as Moore's most successful film
I would've guessed Spy or Moonraker
any hypotheses why?
if anything I wouldve thunk Never Say Never and Octopussy would split the demand and each earned less than usual

also surprised Goldeneye was Brosnans least successful
it was such a triumph when it came out and people actually wanted to see, and liked it,
it seemed like normal people lost interest in the franchise as the following three films came out

actually the bar chart makes perfect sense through all the Connerys up til Octopussy, and from that film on it repeatedly defies my expectations

It all depends on how you judge success. All the charts here brilliantly show how the different Bond films have had different kinds of successes. There are other ways to judge success, such as how much profit the film made, or what percentage a film made based on its production costs. Though I was aware of the worldwide totals of all the Bond films, I'm surprised to see how the US success wasn't always the same as the world success. Americans have a considerably different take on LTK than the rest of the world, even when LTK happened to be one of the most American Bond films.

Higgins

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

FYEO is interesting, there must've been quite a few new fans created after MR that flowed on to watch it. I wonder what they thought after MR? )

I have started my "OO7 career" with TSWLM, continued with MR which I found phantastic - but FYEO made me a fan.

When I left the cinema, I knew that my life had changed {[]

welshboy78

caractacus potts wrote:

I'm surprised to see Octopussy as Moore's most successful film
I would've guessed Spy or Moonraker
any hypotheses why?

Im guessing the whole Moore Vs Connery (Octopussy Vs NSNA) generated huge media hype back in the day and free marketing (I was only a small lad so don't remember, however did see Octopussy in the cinema). I presume Bond fans would have naturally seen both films also back then.

heartbroken_mr_drax

Matt S wrote:

caractacus potts wrote:

I'm surprised to see Octopussy as Moore's most successful film
I would've guessed Spy or Moonraker
any hypotheses why?
if anything I wouldve thunk Never Say Never and Octopussy would split the demand and each earned less than usual

also surprised Goldeneye was Brosnans least successful
it was such a triumph when it came out and people actually wanted to see, and liked it,
it seemed like normal people lost interest in the franchise as the following three films came out

actually the bar chart makes perfect sense through all the Connerys up til Octopussy, and from that film on it repeatedly defies my expectations

It all depends on how you judge success. All the charts here brilliantly show how the different Bond films have had different kinds of successes. There are other ways to judge success, such as how much profit the film made, or what percentage a film made based on its production costs. Though I was aware of the worldwide totals of all the Bond films, I'm surprised to see how the US success wasn't always the same as the world success. Americans have a considerably different take on LTK than the rest of the world, even when LTK happened to be one of the most American Bond films.

Yeah it depends on what you base it on.

Moore's most successful film would have to be Moonraker. Without inflation, it was the highest grossing, plus it went #1 worldwide.
Moore's most successful in terms of ROI is LALD.

OP I suppose, could be called successful if you want to base it off how it did in the US market. I think OP probably did well because of the NSNA buzz as mentioned already - but it could've done well also because of its adventure similarities to Indiana Jones. Plus - it's very entertaining.

BondJasonBond006

The Bond films in Germany from 1967* to 2015:
*sadly, before 1966 neither ticket sales nor box office figures exist for Germany
ticket sales = number of tickets sold

tickets sold / film / rank in year
9.000.000 YOLT (most successful film of the year)
4.000.000 OHMSS (5th place)
5.500.000 DAF (3rd place)
6.000.000 LALD (4th place)
4.500.000 TMWTGG (4th place)
7.200.000 TSWLM (2nd place, lost to Disney's The Rescuers)
5.300.000 MR (3rd place)
4.820.641 FYEO (3rd place)
4.324.692 OP (3rd place)
3.583.930 NSNA (5th place)
3.373.064 AVTAK (8th place)
3.106.367 TLD (6th place)
2.472.732 LTK (10th place)
5.501.310 GE (2nd place, lost to Babe)
4.477.102 TND (4th place, suffered greatly against Titanic!)
5.072.138 TWINE (4th place)
4.940.255 DAD (7th place)**
5.461.490 CR (5th place)
4.744.130 QOS (2nd place, lost to Madagascar 2)
7.779.654 SF (2nd place, lost to Intouchables, French film)
7.089.019 SP (3rd place)

**No other Bond film ever faced this kind of competition, DAD beaten by Lord Of The Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Ice Age, Spider-Man, Men In Black

ranking of ticket sales:
1 9.000.000 YOLT
2 7.779.654 SF
3 7.200.000 TSWLM
4 7.089.019 SP
5 6.000.000 LALD
6 5.501.310 GE
7 5.500.000 DAF
8 5.461.490 CR
9 5.300.000 MR
10 5.072.138 TWINE
11 4.940.255 DAD
12 4.820.641 FYEO
13 4.744.130 QOS
14 4.500.000 TMWTGG
15 4.477.102 TND
16 4.324.692 OP
17 4.000.000 OHMSS
18 3.583.930 NSNA
19 3.373.064 AVTAK
20 3.106.367 TLD
21 2.472.732 LTK

with 9.000.000 YOLT is the most successful
therefore let's see which films sold more tickets from 1965 to 2017: it's a short list
1969 Once Upon A Time In The West 13.000.000
1972 Trinity Is Still My Name 11.300.000
1990 Pretty Woman 10.625.337
1993 Jurassic Park 9.367.216
1994 The Lion King 11.333.217
1996 Independence Day 9.258.993
1998 Titanic 18.081.331
2001 Harry Potter I, 12.565.007
2001 Lord Of The Rings I, 11.833.420
2002 Harry Potter II, 9.702.824
2002 Lord Of The Rings II, 10.692.798
2003 Lord Of The Rings III, 10.432.470
2009 Avatar 11.292.801
2012 Intouchables (French film) 9.140.334
2015 Star Wars TFA 9.018.037
Not even E.T. or any original Star Wars sold more tickets. Dirty Dancing came close with 8.700.000

Allow me to comment:
It becomes totally clear that GoldenEye saved the franchise in 1995.
Timothy Dalton's run suffered from the steady loss of interest in Bond in the 80s.

Higgins

Fixed your faulty statistics

The Bond films in Germany from 1967* to 2015:
*sadly, before 1966 neither ticket sales nor box office figures exist for Germany
ticket sales = number of tickets sold

tickets sold / film / rank in year
9.000.000 YOLT (most successful film of the year)
7.779.654 SF (2nd place, lost to Intouchables, French film)
7.200.000 TSWLM (2nd place, lost to Disney's The Rescuers)
+ 5.501.310 GE (2nd place, lost to Babe)
4.744.130 QOS (2nd place, lost to Madagascar 2)
7.089.019 SP (3rd place)
5.500.000 DAF (3rd place)
5.300.000 MR (3rd place)
4.820.641 FYEO (3rd place)
4.324.692 OP (3rd place)
+ 6.000.000 LALD (4th place)
5.072.138 TWINE (4th place)
4.500.000 TMWTGG (4th place)
4.477.102 TND (4th place, suffered greatly against Titanic!)
+ 5.461.490 CR (5th place)
4.000.000 OHMSS (5th place)
3.583.930 NSNA (5th place)
+ 3.106.367 TLD (6th place)
4.940.255 DAD (7th place)**
3.373.064 AVTAK (8th place)
2.472.732 LTK (10th place)

**No other Bond film ever faced this kind of competition, DAD beaten by Lord Of The Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Ice Age, Spider-Man, Men In Black

BondJasonBond006 wrote:

Allow me to comment:
It becomes totally clear that GoldenEye saved the franchise in 1995.
Timothy Dalton's run suffered from the steady loss of interest in Bond in the 80s.

Allow me to comment:
The Dalton movies still rank at the very bottom of that statistics
Any new Bond actor managed to inject "new blood" into the franchise with the exception of Dalton. (I've highlighted them with a +)
Dalton's poor approval with large parts of the audiences was a main reason for the lack of interest in Bond in the 80s.

BondJasonBond006

You forgot Lazenby in your logic.

Higgins

I'd say that Lazenby grossed 29% over TLD
And he was not even an actor

BondJasonBond006

) ok then...

BondJasonBond006

Jonathan Quayle Higgins III:

Craig doesn't work with your logic. He was less successful than Brosnan overall. Only SF ejected the franchise to new heights.

That means, following that path, Craig was not approved as well by a larger audience, not until SF at least.

Higgins

Yes and by the logic of the Dalton fanboys, the fact that his movies were stinkers at the box office had anything to do but not with himself. )

You forget that your "stats" are only for Germany though. You shouldn't pull the trigger faster than your brain works

BondJasonBond006 wrote:

Craig doesn't work with your logic. He was less successful than Brosnan overall. Only SF ejected the franchise to new heights.

That I fail to see in the worldwide numbers:
TLD: 381.000.000
GE: 529.550.000
DAD: 543.000.000
CR: 669.800.000

And how long was the gap between LTK and GE? :v

BondJasonBond006

That's BO and not ticket sales where Brosnan outdid Craig's first two films worldwide

Higgins

Those numbers I'd like to see from credible sources. And here is no doubt that in all fields QoS was not a great success. However, Craig was accepted by large parts and showed that already in CR

But I have to accept that you Schluchtenscheissers prefer a weak and weepy Bond interpretation

BondJasonBond006

It's the same as with Inflation adjusted. You never get totally accuarate numbers. But go to any country who has ticket number sales available and you'll see what I mean concerning Brosnan/Craig (CR-QOS).

Craig polarised the public like no other actor ever did, except Lazenby I guess. But yes, CR was a lucky strike for Craig and critics liked him very much.
Had QOS come first we had seen another Dalton scenario.

The actor is not as important than we think. The film has to be good or the best actor doesn't have a chance.

Higgins

Yes, before CR was out, Craig polarized a lot of people.

But as soon as the movie was out, most of them went silent.
Not with Dalton

MilleniumForce

It's really not surprising that LTK comes in at the bottom of basically every list involving box office of Bond films. After all, that year it went up against Indianna Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2, Star Trek V, Ghostbsuters II and the box office goliath that was Batman. In other words, combined with the fact the Bond films weren't at an all time high in terms of popularity in 1989, LTK didn't stand a chance.

No other Bond film faced as much competition as LTK did, and the only other film I could think of that went up against a film as hyped as Batman is SP, of course going up against Force Awakens.

Higgins

Yeah, the cannibalization theory has been mentioned before.

It is that - a myth!

In my opinion, the upcoming Of Leathal weapon and others would have raised interest in cinema in general to all competitors would have benefitted from a better market.
Just one example: You have a normal food market with one high end shop.
If they decide to move to a high-end market (in London that would be Borrough's Market for example) it could be good for them instead of fearing to be cannibalised by the competitors. If their product is good - they will succeed in an upscale market.
The same should have happened with a decent Bond.

Batman, Raiders, Leathal weapon and Die Hard succeeded - why not Bond as the big player in that field?

Napoleon Plural

True, but those films were more Bondian than LTK, which suffered by trying to be something different in the one year that really didn't appeal. Also, that was the year they really knocked it out the ball park re big releases and big hype and LTK was tied into early 1980s marketing when they didn't have to try too hard, being up against only the likes of E.T and Gandhi and so on. Even had LTK been a more typical Bond film, I'm not sure it could have competed. Of course, in the UK it came out later didn't it?

Higgins

If the "cannibalisation" logic was right, why on earth did for example Warner Brothers release their Batman movie at the same date like their main and well known competitors??

It seems that the only movie that suffered from the strong "competition" was LTK and it's about time to throw that excusing myth overboard and get down to the reason why the Dalton movies really flopped.

Hint: It had nothing to do with the weather, haircut or his more serious approach to Bond

BondJasonBond006

Of course it had to do with the competition, it could have made some 30 to 40 million more at the BO easily.

People who can logically interpret numbers will come to the one and only conclusion and not call it "myth".

LTK would have finished last anyway even with higher ticket sales or higher BO, but not that drastically.

As I said time and time again, the main reason for the Bond films making less and less since MR was the declining interest in Bond in the eighties. That had little to do with Dalton, no matter who would have played Bond in 1987 and 1989, the result would have been the same.

BondJasonBond006

Also I strongly oppose the term "flopped" for Bond films.

LICENCE TO KILL had more return on invest than:

Tomorrow Never Dies
Die Another Day
The World Is Not Enough
Quantum Of Solace with "only" 157% is the only film that came close to a flop.

Higgins

now we are defining ROI interpretations new ) ) ) *
You are bringing Timboys to a totally new level!!!

I've never heard the term flop in relationship to ROI )
It's all about the sales volume - baby - and then we are trying to optimize the ROI by cutting cost

*Coke manager A to Coke manager B: "You know that Cherry Coke really flopped"
Coke manager B: "Yes, it had a horrible ROI"

) ) )