Rogue588

You mean by having it outgrossed by an animated family film about penguins that's not part of a long-running franchise and whose tickets will have to sell close to twice as much as Royale since a child's admission is less? Yeah, you're right. It was a success..

Die-hards that weren't upset by Brosnan's dumping, those who were upset by Brosnan's dumping but not as stubborn as myself and those that were curious and bought into the hype.

I'm just amazed that Happy Feet made 40m+

Coral

I'm sure Sony is pissed since they probably didn't expect another film to cut into their boxoffice draw so much. 40m is good, but with a production budget of 150m and all the promotion they've done for the movie - they must've wanted a bigger bang out of the gate.

RichC2

Considering the range other Bond movies open in, I think they'd probably be extremely happy. Plus, they actually have a good movie this time, should get fantastic word of mouth.

I've read different budgets on the movie, most place it at about $100m, but after advertising, I'm sure its much higher.

Casino Royale has, thus far, made $82m worldwide.

B5Erik

Casino Royale will probably end up around $150 million in the U.S. and $350 million worldwide (including U.S.). It will turn a nice profit and set up the next movie as word of mouth will be very good. DVD sales should be pretty good, too, bringing in a lot more money, and padding those profits.

The Bourne Supremacy did $50 million more than The Bourne Identity did, and I would expect the next Bond to see that kind of increase.

RoboDad

Considering the fact that ticket prices go up every year, as do the number of screens on which films are released and the number of moviegoers, one would hope that the studio execs wouldn't be foolish enough to make a direct comparison of Casino Royale's opening weekend to any previous Bond film as any measure of the films success. One would hope that they would factor those things in, and realize how it actually compares.

But, even as a direct comparison, it made less than Die Another Day did in its first weekend, and will probably make less overall than that film did, both domestically and internationally, despite all of the factors noted above that should have contributed to a higher take.

Was it a box office failure? Not by any stretch. But does it offer any proof that audiences prefer the new Bond? No. I don't see how anyone could say it does.

For me, personally, it was a great generic spy movie, but as a James Bond film, not so much. It was too much in the new cookie cutter of the "tough, gritty" genre.

One of Bond's signature elements was his charm, his suave style. As the Wikipedia article on Bond put it, he had a "polished, understated machismo." That polish and understatement were almost completely absent in this film. And that, along with one too many deliberate and unnecessary tramplings of established "trademarks" (Moneypenny, Q, "shaken, not stirred", etc) left a very sour aftertaste in this old Bond fan (and yes, I'm old enough to have seen Goldfinger during its original theatrical run). Perhaps, in this case, things could have been stirred, rather than completely shaken.

Still, I haven't given up on the franchise. Heck, I still went to see Licence to Kill, even after the travesty that was The Living Daylights. I'll buy the DVD (preferrably in HD), and I'll no doubt go see the next Bond film. But, what I won't do is go see this one again in the theater, as I usually do with Bond films.

Michael Corvin

I'm not a die hard, but I was dissappointed with Brosnan's dumping. Or at least the way it was handled, the way he was dicked around week after week for a year. He's still in, he's out, might be back, nah-he's gone...etc. Couple that with taking Tarantino's advice on stirring up the franchise with the exact film he wanted to do and handing the reigns over to someone else...well, it just seemed like a clusterfuck from the get-go.

I still want to see it but to me Bond is suave with an air of arrogance without being cocky. Brosnan was excellent he was just royally fucked when it came to scripts. Craig just doesn't look like the suave agent we've come to know. I still want to see it, but I am cautious.

Historically, isn't there a drop in B.O. the first film out with a new actor portraying him?

Happy Feet was an excellent movie, BTW. I think word of mouth from parents (not the kiddos) might give this one some legs. It's not your generic by-the-numbers CG flick like Dreamworks pumps out. It is solid, and is actually up there with Pixar's work.

roger_d

Brosnan is way better that this new Horse Face Bond. Glad to see the Penguins kicked him back to the barn.

RichC2

You're right, that's what next weekend is for. It all depends on how much it dips.

Craig does look ridiculously old for a 30-something.

RoboDad

Actually, no, not all of them.

George Lazenby's one and only film experienced a significant drop from it's predecessor ($23M domestically for On Her Majesty's Secret Service, versus $43M for You Only Live Twice), although, being the first replacement Bond, it is likely that many people weren't expecting the franchise to live on without Sean Connery, or were put at least off by his absence.

Roger Moore's first outing did dip from the previous film ($35M versus the $43M that Diamonds Are Forever made), but that could be due to a number of factors other than the change in actor. At that time, the films were on an 18 month schedule, and Diamonds Are Forever was not exactly well received by many fans. It could be that people were weary of Bond at the time. It could also be that DAF had such a strong box office because of the the return of Connery, which would have made it difficult for a new Bond to compete well.

Timothy Dalton's The Living Daylights did experience a mild increase over the final Moore film ($51M vs $50M), but after factoring in inflation, it wasn't much different, really.

On the other hand, when Pierce Brosnan debuted in GoldenEye, the domestic take increased from Licence to Kill's paltry $34M to a substantial $106M. No dip there. And each subsequent Brosnan film increased its total over the previous one, unlike even the Connery films.

My thoughts exactly. As I said before, I liked this film, but just not as well as I should have, knowing it is a Bond film. I think, with a few rather minor script tweaks (such as removing the "promotion" subplot, and perhaps changing the brutal opening chase/fight scene to either a slightly shorter version, or something less over-the-top), and this could have been a perfect final Brosnan film.

rennervision

I have seen every Bond film on its opening weekend since Octopussy in 1983. However, I haven't seen Casino Royale yet, and not sure if I will because I just can't get excited about it for reasons others have mentioned. (This is the movie Brosnan wanted to do, and deserved to do after saving the franchise. He wanted to bring a new perspective to Bond, and the producers went along with this concept - only with a different actor! To add insult to injury, the film pretends like the 40 years of previous films never happened. Which I guess means we can now accept Never Say Never Again as canon, since it fits in just as well with the continuity of the series.)

Just curious, why do you consider The Living Daylights a travesty? Was it because of Dalton? I agree he lacks the charisma of Connery or Moore, but he was the first one to try and bring the original literary character to the silver screen. Thought it was kind of refreshing to see a different version of the character, and it would have been a mistake to cast someone who tried to be another Roger Moore.

RoboDad

Yes, my feelings about TLD are almost exclusively due to Dalton's stiff, uncharismatic portrayal. The script was somewhat to blame for that, by trying too hard to create a more "literarily authentic" (as Wikipedia put it) Bond, but Dalton could have balanced the two Bonds better (the book version and the established screen persona), and IMO failed miserably to do so. I also believe that is why Licence to Kill experienced such a huge drop in ticket sales.

DRG

The gap is a bit closer in the actuals...

1 N Happy Feet WB $41,533,432 - 3,804 - $10,918 $41,533,432 $100 1
2 N Casino Royale Sony $40,833,156 - 3,434 - $11,890 $40,833,156 $150 1
3 1 Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan Fox $14,602,874 -48.3% 2,611 +45 $5,592 $90,757,366 $18 3
4 2 The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause BV $8,302,661 -51.0% 3,359 -99 $2,471 $51,704,119 - 3
5 4 Stranger Than Fiction Sony $6,605,197 -50.7% 2,270 +6 $2,909 $22,905,344 $30 2
6 3 Flushed Away P/DW $6,596,962 -60.3% 3,307 -400 $1,994 $48,588,533 $149 3
7 5 Saw III LGF $2,916,062 -58.2% 1,942 -1,071 $1,501 $74,968,353 $10 4
8 6 Babel ParV $2,904,642 -47.7% 1,251 - $2,321 $12,016,104 - 4
9 7 The Departed WB $2,585,402 -49.9% 1,611 -599 $1,604 $113,841,430 $90 7
10 N After Dark's Horror Fest: 8 Films to Die For Free $2,310,680 - 488 - $4,735 $2,310,680 - 1 11 N Let's Go to Prison Uni. $2,220,050 - 1,495 - $1,484 $2,220,050 - 1