According to BoxOfficeMojo, Casino Royale's overall gross in the UK stood at $85,161,834 US (approx £44 million) on Sunday 17th. This means that CR needs to gross approx $13 million by Sunday 31st to become the highest grossing film of the year in the UK.
Alas, Casino Royale did not become the highest grossing film of 2006 in the UK, according to BoxOfficeMojo.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
I also console myself with the notion that the 'brains' ( ) ) behind a particular website are forced to contort themselves, like circus freaks, in order to maintain the illusion that their 'boycott' was successful...they might as well have 'boycotted' DN thru DAD {[] If I were Eon, I do believe I'd send them a Thank You note :v
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
BoxOfficeMojo has been waffling a bit, placing CR's 2006 position alternately at #8 or #9. Clearly, CR finished 2006 as the ninth highest grossing film in the US. As of December 31, it had made $153,531,944 in America, and was beaten out by Over the Hedge's $155,966,834. As of January 2, however, CR has made an impressive $155,695,610 in the US (DAD can feel it breathing down its neck); worldwide it's made $492,680,477.
Excuse me for asking, but I really don't know. Are you guys sure the top moneymaker for a particular year means how much it makes during a particular year, or does it mean the top grosser for a movie released in a particular year? It seems that films released earlier in a particular year would have an unfair advantage in that type of race.
The films don't show for the whole year though do they. Infact films at the end probably have an advantage because of the Christmas Holidays more people would be going to the cinema. As would be the case, during School summer holidays, easter e.t.c.
Excuse me for asking, but I really don't know. Are you guys sure the top moneymaker for a particular year means how much it makes during a particular year, or does it mean the top grosser for a movie released in a particular year? It seems that films released earlier in a particular year would have an unfair advantage in that type of race.
I'm pretty sure that the totals are for that year. In that case, theoretically films released at the beginning of the year have a chance to make more money. The reality of the situation is that unless the film is an incredible cinematic hit that everyone in the world insists on seeing every week again and again, movies typically make there primarily haul over the first couple of months. By that time, audiences are ready for the next big thing, and the film begins dropping off of screens and then out of theaters. A studio would never pull a film out of the theaters while it was still raking in substantial money, and theater owners don't want to show a film to empty seats. It's pretty safe to say that a film released in November will still make a strong showing (if not a completely accurate one) against a film released in January, simply because the January film would be pretty much out of circulation before the summer. A fair test of this would be to see which films were released in JAn, and then check to see how prevelant it was in terms of screens a few months later.
'Yearly BO totals' are more for bragging rights than anything. A studio loves their money regardless of which month it came in.
The films don't show for the whole year though do they. Infact films at the end probably have an advantage because of the Christmas Holidays more people would be going to the cinema. As would be the case, during School summer holidays, easter e.t.c.
Which is exactly my point -- grosses do depend at least to some degree on what time of year the film is released. And some do indeed show for the whole year (i.e. Titanic was No. 1 for a year, I believe), though admittedly it's rare. It seems to me that comparing the grosses of an action film that opened in the summer with all the kids out of school for weeks on end, and one that opened on the Christmas holiday, which is considerably shorter, is not a fair comparison.
I'm pretty sure that the totals are for that year. In that case, theoretically films released at the beginning of the year have a chance to make more money. The reality of the situation is that unless the film is an incredible cinematic hit that everyone in the world insists on seeing every week again and again, movies typically make there primarily haul over the first couple of months. By that time, audiences are ready for the next big thing, and the film begins dropping off of screens and then out of theaters. A studio would never pull a film out of the theaters while it was still raking in substantial money, and theater owners don't want to show a film to empty seats. It's pretty safe to say that a film released in November will still make a strong showing (if not a completely accurate one) against a film released in January, simply because the January film would be pretty much out of circulation before the summer. A fair test of this would be to see which films were released in JAn, and then check to see how prevelant it was in terms of screens a few months later.
'Yearly BO totals' are more for bragging rights than anything. A studio loves their money regardless of which month it came in.
Everything you say is true, but it still sounds a bit skewered to me. CR (and Happy Feet for that matter) is still playing here in several theaters here, so it must still be attracting an audience. Moreover, has CR even opened everywhere it is scheduled to? China for instance? I think a far more accurate tally would be to simply look at a film a couple years after it's release and count the grosses. Granted, the studios like to claim their bragging rights ASAP, but the way the system is now, it's a pretty empty boast, IMO.
Everything you say is true, but it still sounds a bit skewered to me. CR (and Happy Feet for that matter) is still playing here in several theaters here, so it must still be attracting an audience. Moreover, has CR even opened everywhere it is scheduled to? China for instance? I think a far more accurate tally would be to simply look at a film a couple years after it's release and count the grosses. Granted, the studios like to claim their bragging rights ASAP, but the way the system is now, it's a pretty empty boast, IMO.
A studio does control when a movie is released, though. They might very well consider trying to capture 'the most money in a determined amount of time'. When a release date for a film is determined, everything gets evaluated including competition, demographics, and holidays. Would CR have made as much money if were released in the summer close to 'Pirates 2'? I dunno. It might have underperformed initially and tried to recoup money by having a longer, but there'd be a strong chance it would get squeezed out of theaters to make room for other films if something more viable came along.
Where I live, CR hasn't enjoyed too much longevity. At my nearest theater, it's relegated to one showing at ten o'clock at night, while Happy Feet still gets a full day of showings - primarily becuase the target audience is in bed at 10 PM.
EON has done pretty well with the 'Christmas season release' since GE...primarily because it appears to maximize their dollar intake...in that regard, I feel these totals are the best indicator we can get. Bear in mind that the contingencies that you speak of such as international sales also applies to the other films too, so in order not to muddy the situation, it's simpler to set parameters and say 'biggest money-earner in 2006'. I suppose a studio has the right to say 'Most popular movie in China in 2006!' but that doesn't necessarily mean anything to UK and US audiences.
I'm assuming that "year" means the calendar year. I suppose I'm basing this largely on the fact that Thunderball is usually listed as one of the highest-grossing films of 1966, although it was released at the end of 1965. Still, who knows what alchemy the studios and theaters use to calculate a movie's profits? It's been more than once that the producer of a huge hit has been sued, and the producer has managed to say that the film really didn't earn a dime!
Anyway, the new numbers are up on BOM. As of January 3 and after 48 days of release, Casino Royale has earned $156,272,280 in America. Worldwide it's ever so close to the half-billion mark at $493,257,147.
Casino Royale continues to gross at least half a million dollars on a daily basis in the US, impressive indeed after 48 days. Now it looks certain to overtake DAD's $160.9 million by this time next week.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Thursday was another solid day for Casino Royale at the US box office as it grossed $562,931 (According to BoxOfficeMojo) which brings the overall total to $156,835,211.
Thursday's gross was high enough for 12th position which is where CR has spent much of the last week. It's interesting to note that all the eleven films above CR (1543) are playing in considerably more theatre's, with the exception of Dreamgirls (852). For example, Happy Feet is playing in over 2500.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
BoxOfficeMojo estimates a Friday gross of $930,000 for Casino Royale in the US. An impressive figure considering CR's theatre count has just been reduced from 1543 to 1266. CR's overall US gross is now approx $157,765,000.
BOM now estimates that CR has made a total of $159,935,000 in America, putting it just a shade over one million away from overtaking Die Another Day as the most financially successful Bond film in the US. Interestingly, though, while other sources are reporting that worldwide CR has made over $500,000,000, BOM is showing $496,919,867. Go figure.
I suspect those other sources update Casino Royale's overseas/international gross more regularly than BOM, which appears to update only on a weekly basis.
Regardless, CR will gross more than $500 million worldwide, if it hasn't already. CR will overtake DAD's $160.9 million US gross. CR will very likely gross over $100 million in the UK making it the highest grossing film released in the UK in 2006. {[]
Thank heavens that CR is a box office smash. Not only would it have been horrible to have to hear all the Craig-haters gloat, but it would have been bad for the Bond series as well. I don't think a poor box office would have killed off the franchise, but I'm sure EON would have regretted making a harder edged film. They would have to respond by cranking out formulaic DAD style films. Because the public (and most of us JB fans) liked the new direction, EON can now bring in all of the traditional elements-Moneypenny, Q, etc.-without reverting to complete silliness (like DAD). I look forward to seeing the 007 formula get shaken up a bit in the future films.
What's weird is, I doubt anybody involved with DAD thought they were making a silly film--they thought they were making a straight up kick butt Bond film, and a lot of people agreed with them. At the time, that's what James Bond was to EON and Hollywood, exactly what they put on the screen. It may have been gassy, but it satisified (some) and sold quite well. Point is, it could easily happen again if the producers/writers/directors/actors get complacent (my thinking on those kind of Bond films). They don't have to set out to make a rubbish Bond film to end up with one, all they have to do is think Bond is the trappings and not the man himself. Hopefully, we won't see that for some time, resetting the series sans trappings (for the most part) should keep things fresh for at least a few more films IMO. CR succeeded because of what all involved were trying to do, and that they did it so very well. They could've tried to make a very different, more familiar film (like many fans wanted them to...). Sounds like it's paying off, for Bond fans and the producers. Yippee. {[]
BOM has finally updated their site, with solid numbers. CR's international take is now at a whopping $531,015,287! It seems as though BOM overestimated how CR will do in America, though: as of January 7, it's made a total of $159,837,718, still more than a million short of overtaking DAD as the #1 Bond film. Still, it hasn't done too badly of late--for most of last week CR was #12 at the box office, but dipped to #16 on Friday--and it's stayed there. Its best day was last Saturday, when it earned $1,338,718. Sunday's take was just just under $703,000. Look for CR to become the most successful Bond film in America sometime this week!
Because the public (and most of us JB fans) liked the new direction, EON can now bring in all of the traditional elements-Moneypenny, Q, etc.-without reverting to complete silliness (like DAD). I look forward to seeing the 007 formula get shaken up a bit in the future films.
I certainly like the new direction, which is why I'm leery of Eon bringing back the "traditional (formulaic?) elements." Sounds like backsliding to me. Flirting with Moneypenney and bickering with Q has already taken up more than enough screen time IMO. We all know the drill by heart --personally, it's my "Q" to visit the snack bar (yuk, yuk). I'd rather Eon expend the screen time on something new and different. I wouldn't have any objection to Eon putting a new spin on the MP and Q characters, but if it's just to give us the same old cliches, no thanks.
That's something I really liked about CR: the focus was on Bond, not the trappings, gadgets, one-liners, etc. I'd be happy to keep it that way. In my mind Maxwell and Llewelyn are MP and Q, best just to let those characters lie IMHO. Cleese as R was abyssmal and Samantha Bond as MP was alright but nothing special IMO.
Gotta have an M, sure, but supernumeries can come and go IMO. Although Leiter seems a keeper...
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Yes indeed---keep Leiter---and give May, Bond's Scottish treasure of a housekeeper, a try...how about Bond's personal secretary, Loelia Posonby? This is a rare chance to boldly step onto terra incognita... B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Because the public (and most of us JB fans) liked the new direction, EON can now bring in all of the traditional elements-Moneypenny, Q, etc.-without reverting to complete silliness (like DAD). I look forward to seeing the 007 formula get shaken up a bit in the future films.
I certainly like the new direction, which is why I'm leery of Eon bringing back the "traditional (formulaic?) elements." Sounds like backsliding to me. Flirting with Moneypenney and bickering with Q has already taken up more than enough screen time IMO. We all know the drill by heart --personally, it's my "Q" to visit the snack bar (yuk, yuk). I'd rather Eon expend the screen time on something new and different. I wouldn't have any objection to Eon putting a new spin on the MP and Q characters, but if it's just to give us the same old cliches, no thanks.
I agree completely. CR is the first Bond movie in years that kept me enthralled throughout. I think the film's overwhelming success shows many folks have grown tired of the "traditional" elements.
I'd much rather EON carry on in this new direction, which is more loyal to Fleming's original creation, than backtrack down the silly path taken by Hollywood for so many years . . . but that's just my opinion!
If only Casino Royale had been released on the 9th November instead of the 16th.
Alas, Casino Royale did not become the highest grossing film of 2006 in the UK, but it has now become the highest grossing film released in the UK in 2006. According to BOM, CR has now grossed $98,864,911 US (Approx 51 million) which puts it almost $200,000 ahead of POTC: Dead Man's Chest. CR is now set to pass the magic $100 million mark some time this week.
The UK & US take combined now accounts for approx half of CR's worldwide gross of $531 million. Having said that, it should be noted that CR has been doing very good business elsewhere. It looks set to pass the $50 million mark in Germany, currently standing at $46,554,465. The $20 million mark ($20,262,971) has been passed in Australia, and let's remember that CR was released down under three weeks after the UK & US. And in Italy $4,346,846 on opening weekend.
Casino Royale grossed $210,173 at the US box office on Monday, according to BOM. The first day of fifty three on release that it failed to gross at least half a million dollars. CR's overall US gross now stands at $160,047,891.
Casino Royale grossed $238,485 at the US box office on Tuesday, according to BOM. CR's overall gross now stands at $160,286,376. It now looks set to overhaul DAD's total US gross on either Thursday or Friday.
Another $227,724 was added to Casino Royale's gross in the US on Wednesday, according to BOM. Which brings the grand total to $160,514,150.
CR is currently the most popular film at BOM, if you judge by the total of all movie pages viewed by visitors to the website. That's quite an achievement considering CR has now been on release for eight weeks.
Total movie pages viewed from Jan 4th to Jan 10th.
1. Casino Royale 5.15%
2. Rocky Balboa 4.67%
3. Night at the Museum 4.37%
Comments
We can console ourselves with the thought that POTC2 made £51 million in its entire run. CR has made £49 million and it's still on release...
@merseytart
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm pretty sure that the totals are for that year. In that case, theoretically films released at the beginning of the year have a chance to make more money. The reality of the situation is that unless the film is an incredible cinematic hit that everyone in the world insists on seeing every week again and again, movies typically make there primarily haul over the first couple of months. By that time, audiences are ready for the next big thing, and the film begins dropping off of screens and then out of theaters. A studio would never pull a film out of the theaters while it was still raking in substantial money, and theater owners don't want to show a film to empty seats. It's pretty safe to say that a film released in November will still make a strong showing (if not a completely accurate one) against a film released in January, simply because the January film would be pretty much out of circulation before the summer. A fair test of this would be to see which films were released in JAn, and then check to see how prevelant it was in terms of screens a few months later.
'Yearly BO totals' are more for bragging rights than anything. A studio loves their money regardless of which month it came in.
Which is exactly my point -- grosses do depend at least to some degree on what time of year the film is released. And some do indeed show for the whole year (i.e. Titanic was No. 1 for a year, I believe), though admittedly it's rare. It seems to me that comparing the grosses of an action film that opened in the summer with all the kids out of school for weeks on end, and one that opened on the Christmas holiday, which is considerably shorter, is not a fair comparison.
Everything you say is true, but it still sounds a bit skewered to me. CR (and Happy Feet for that matter) is still playing here in several theaters here, so it must still be attracting an audience. Moreover, has CR even opened everywhere it is scheduled to? China for instance? I think a far more accurate tally would be to simply look at a film a couple years after it's release and count the grosses. Granted, the studios like to claim their bragging rights ASAP, but the way the system is now, it's a pretty empty boast, IMO.
A studio does control when a movie is released, though. They might very well consider trying to capture 'the most money in a determined amount of time'. When a release date for a film is determined, everything gets evaluated including competition, demographics, and holidays. Would CR have made as much money if were released in the summer close to 'Pirates 2'? I dunno. It might have underperformed initially and tried to recoup money by having a longer, but there'd be a strong chance it would get squeezed out of theaters to make room for other films if something more viable came along.
Where I live, CR hasn't enjoyed too much longevity. At my nearest theater, it's relegated to one showing at ten o'clock at night, while Happy Feet still gets a full day of showings - primarily becuase the target audience is in bed at 10 PM.
EON has done pretty well with the 'Christmas season release' since GE...primarily because it appears to maximize their dollar intake...in that regard, I feel these totals are the best indicator we can get. Bear in mind that the contingencies that you speak of such as international sales also applies to the other films too, so in order not to muddy the situation, it's simpler to set parameters and say 'biggest money-earner in 2006'. I suppose a studio has the right to say 'Most popular movie in China in 2006!' but that doesn't necessarily mean anything to UK and US audiences.
Anyway, the new numbers are up on BOM. As of January 3 and after 48 days of release, Casino Royale has earned $156,272,280 in America. Worldwide it's ever so close to the half-billion mark at $493,257,147.
Thursday's gross was high enough for 12th position which is where CR has spent much of the last week. It's interesting to note that all the eleven films above CR (1543) are playing in considerably more theatre's, with the exception of Dreamgirls (852). For example, Happy Feet is playing in over 2500.
Regardless, CR will gross more than $500 million worldwide, if it hasn't already. CR will overtake DAD's $160.9 million US gross. CR will very likely gross over $100 million in the UK making it the highest grossing film released in the UK in 2006. {[]
The ticket guy said it was sold out last night also.
Wow!!
"Better make that two."
I certainly like the new direction, which is why I'm leery of Eon bringing back the "traditional (formulaic?) elements." Sounds like backsliding to me. Flirting with Moneypenney and bickering with Q has already taken up more than enough screen time IMO. We all know the drill by heart --personally, it's my "Q" to visit the snack bar (yuk, yuk). I'd rather Eon expend the screen time on something new and different. I wouldn't have any objection to Eon putting a new spin on the MP and Q characters, but if it's just to give us the same old cliches, no thanks.
Gotta have an M, sure, but supernumeries can come and go IMO. Although Leiter seems a keeper...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree completely. CR is the first Bond movie in years that kept me enthralled throughout. I think the film's overwhelming success shows many folks have grown tired of the "traditional" elements.
I'd much rather EON carry on in this new direction, which is more loyal to Fleming's original creation, than backtrack down the silly path taken by Hollywood for so many years . . . but that's just my opinion!
Alas, Casino Royale did not become the highest grossing film of 2006 in the UK, but it has now become the highest grossing film released in the UK in 2006. According to BOM, CR has now grossed $98,864,911 US (Approx 51 million) which puts it almost $200,000 ahead of POTC: Dead Man's Chest. CR is now set to pass the magic $100 million mark some time this week.
The UK & US take combined now accounts for approx half of CR's worldwide gross of $531 million. Having said that, it should be noted that CR has been doing very good business elsewhere. It looks set to pass the $50 million mark in Germany, currently standing at $46,554,465. The $20 million mark ($20,262,971) has been passed in Australia, and let's remember that CR was released down under three weeks after the UK & US. And in Italy $4,346,846 on opening weekend.
CR is currently the most popular film at BOM, if you judge by the total of all movie pages viewed by visitors to the website. That's quite an achievement considering CR has now been on release for eight weeks.
Total movie pages viewed from Jan 4th to Jan 10th.
1. Casino Royale 5.15%
2. Rocky Balboa 4.67%
3. Night at the Museum 4.37%
Judy Dench's M in CR had the best performance i've ever seen !!!! Hats off to dame judy