Casino Royale not a blockbuster in the United States

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:07 am

The Sweeney wrote:Great post! Well said, and welcome to the forums.....

Thank you, The Sweeney.

ID · Post by ID » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:52 am

US poulation 300 million

UK population 60 million

Casino Royale made over $100 million in the UK and $167 million in the US. Those figures are suprisingly similar when you consider the US has five times the population of the UK. Therefore the US did not go as mad for CR as the UK and other parts of the world. That was the point not Pierce Brosnan or questioning whether or not it did well. Simply an observation that the US gross for CR (the first Bond since 2002 and hyped accordingly), for 2006, for a film with positive word of mouth, for a film with little competition, could have been better.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:59 am

ID wrote:US poulation 300 million

UK population 60 million

Casino Royale made over $100 million in the UK and $167 million in the US. Those figures are suprisingly similar when you consider the US has five times the population of the UK. Therefore the US did not go as mad for CR as the UK and other parts of the world. That was the point not Pierce Brosnan or questioning whether or not it did well. Simply an observation that the US gross for CR (the first Bond since 2002 and hyped accordingly), for 2006, for a film with positive word of mouth, for a film with little competition, could have been better.

True. Could have been better. But it was hardly small bucks it made in the US, so it almost seems irrelevant bringing it up. CR has been a huge hit, and the fact that it could have made more in the US sounds like you are desperately looking for some angle to suggest it has been a failure at the BO. It hasn't - not even in the US. Maybe this is hard for you to accept, I don't know.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:07 pm

ID wrote:US poulation 300 million

UK population 60 million

Casino Royale made over $100 million in the UK and $167 million in the US. Those figures are suprisingly similar when you consider the US has five times the population of the UK. Therefore the US did not go as mad for CR as the UK and other parts of the world. That was the point not Pierce Brosnan or questioning whether or not it did well. Simply an observation that the US gross for CR (the first Bond since 2002 and hyped accordingly), for 2006, for a film with positive word of mouth, for a film with little competition, could have been better.

Well any film could do better.
Let's take GoldenEye. Had a massive amount of advertising and publicity spent on it, the first Bond film after a six year hiatus, but it only brought in $106 million USD.
It really should've done better under the circumstances.

ID · Post by ID » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:12 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
ID wrote:US poulation 300 million

UK population 60 million

Casino Royale made over $100 million in the UK and $167 million in the US. Those figures are suprisingly similar when you consider the US has five times the population of the UK. Therefore the US did not go as mad for CR as the UK and other parts of the world. That was the point not Pierce Brosnan or questioning whether or not it did well. Simply an observation that the US gross for CR (the first Bond since 2002 and hyped accordingly), for 2006, for a film with positive word of mouth, for a film with little competition, could have been better.
True. Could have been better.

Yep. That's all I was saying. The US tends to do its own thing and be slightly unpredictable when it comes to films (I doubt if even people behind A Night At The Museum expected $250 million +). If CR had followed the trend (elsewhere) in the US it would have made $300 million + in the North American BO alone. And congratulations for getting through an entire post without mentioning your favourite actor Sir Pierce of Brosnan.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:18 pm

ID wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
ID wrote:US poulation 300 million

UK population 60 million

Casino Royale made over $100 million in the UK and $167 million in the US. Those figures are suprisingly similar when you consider the US has five times the population of the UK. Therefore the US did not go as mad for CR as the UK and other parts of the world. That was the point not Pierce Brosnan or questioning whether or not it did well. Simply an observation that the US gross for CR (the first Bond since 2002 and hyped accordingly), for 2006, for a film with positive word of mouth, for a film with little competition, could have been better.
True. Could have been better.

Yep. That's all I was saying. The US tends to do its own thing and be slightly unpredictable when it comes to films (I doubt if even people behind A Night At The Museum expected $250 million +). If CR had followed the trend (elsewhere) in the US it would have made $300 million + in the North American BO alone. And congratulations for getting through an entire post without mentioning your favourite actor Sir Pierce of Brosnan.

You're welcome.
And congratulations to you for getting through an entire post without mentioning your favourite actor Sir Daniel of Craig....

It'll be interesting to see how well Bond 22 does in the States, when most people will have finally seen CR on DVD if they missed it at the cinema.

With Bond 21, Craig was a complete unknown in the US, and with a face that wasn't traditional Bond-looking either. Now with his exposure increase in the States, most people will know who he is by Bond 22's release.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:11 pm

The Sweeney wrote:With Bond 21, Craig was a complete unknown in the US, and with a face that wasn't traditional Bond-looking either. Now with his exposure increase in the States, most people will know who he is by Bond 22's release.

I suspect with CR, it will have more to gain than to lose now that it is on DVD. Generally, well regarded films that didn't do exactly big business at the US box office make it up for the video releases. I'm not talking about grosses, I'm talking about the awareness and these days in the US people tend to stay home rather than go to the movies. Since CR is on DVD, it will get more exposure by those who don't go to the movies. And if the box-office has taught us something, a majority of those who saw the film liked it. So the same could be said for the DVD release. The awareness will keep growing between the two years and then Bond 22 will gain legs.

Look at Batman Begins. Successful at the box-office but compared to other comic book films like Spider-Man, it seemed to have underperformed, yet was successful enough financially and critically to have a green light on the sequel. Since the DVD release, more people have been aware of how great the film is and now the sequel is already building legs to become successful. I feel the same will be with CR. Those who never watch Bond films post-Connery because they think they were over the top cheesy in the Moore and Brosnan years, will take a look at this and see the improvement and will most likely have more people liking the film, than disliking. That will help interests. After the success of CR, esspecially worldwide, Craig has been shown on the record to be more confident and enthusiastic about the next film and it will probably show a lot in his performance. Connery seemed jazzed up after Dr. No while filming From Russia with Love. That's something to look forward to.

However, we will never really know until Nov 2008.

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:56 pm

hi, i'm new here, but i wanted to throw my 2 cents in on this argument.
i believe that a great deal of the success of bond 22 will be dependent on whether the female audience will return to the theatre for daniel craig. i've heard nothing but praise when it comes to male fans of the bond franchise, where casino royale is concerned. but most women i know,dismiss craig as too ugly to be bond, and the ones who did see it, said they hated the film because they prefer pierce brosnan, or sean connery in the role.
casino royale did great box office, but did not have any real competition during the time it was out, as far as any type of action blockbusters were concerned. if they were to put bond 22 out against a film like pirates of the carribean, or spiderman, it would more than likely tank. at least in the usa.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:49 am

Which girls dismissed Craig's looks?

From what I have seen it was mostly men who dismissed Craig because of his rugged looks. I don't know how many idiotic egomaniacs I met who claimed to be better looking than Craig yet acted like snobs.

I remember my friend thought Craig was ugly and didn't think "this blond Bond would match". After seeing the movie she couldn't stop oogling over Daniel Craig and she isn't the only one for sure, even the media started hyping about him having sex appeal. So how does Daniel do it? It's not just the girls in theaters but the women he has been with over the years. Perhaps it is something called "screen presence". Craig displayed that for sure and I think that is why girls can find him attractive. This isn't the first time either, if anyone can remember men like Humphrey Bogart who had a lot of appeal.

Not that I am saying all women find Craig appealing. There are those who aren't into the ruggedly handsome guys who have charisma. Best example is Orlando Bloom. Nothing but a pretty boy who is only complimented by his looks and can't deliver a hit movie unless he takes a sidestep and lets real stars like Johnny Depp take over. Remember movies that had Bloom as the main star? Despite his fanbase, they didn't perform well and no one thought of him as a good lead actor.

Screen presence is everything, and thanks to Craig's own presence his film managed to be right up there with the Brosnan films ticketsales wise. If we had a Bond actor who lacked that, I don't think CR would have gone over $100 million in the US.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:03 am

stockslivevan wrote:Which girls dismissed Craig's looks? From what I have seen it was mostly men who dismissed Craig because of his rugged looks. I don't know how many idiotic egomaniacs I met who claimed to be better looking than Craig yet acted like snobs.

I remember my friend thought Craig was ugly and didn't think "this blond Bond would match". After seeing the movie she couldn't stop oogling over Daniel Craig and she isn't the only one for sure, even the media started hyping about him having sex appeal. So how does Daniel do it? It's not just the girls in theaters but the women he has been with over the years. Perhaps it is something called "screen presence". Craig displayed that for sure and I think that is why girls can find him attractive. This isn't the first time either, if anyone can remember men like Humphrey Bogart who had a lot of appeal.

Not that I am saying all women find Craig appealing. There are those who aren't into the ruggedly handsome guys who have charisma. Best example is Orlando Bloom. Nothing but a pretty boy who is only complimented by his looks and can't deliver a hit movie unless he takes a sidestep and lets real stars like Johnny Depp take over. Remember movies that had Bloom as the main star? Despite his fanbase, they didn't perform well and no one thought of him as a good lead actor.

Screen presence is everything, and thanks to Craig's own presence his film managed to be right up there with the Brosnan films ticketsales wise. If we had a Bond actor who lacked that, I don't think CR would have gone over $100 million in the US.

I agree. It appears as though Craig has actually won over the female audience more than the male audience with CR - not the other way round. My wife cannot stopn drooling at him after seeing CR, and every other woman I've spoke to has said similar things too. I never heard this reaction regarding Brosnan.

Post by **Dr. No** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:11 am

The Sweeney wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:Which girls dismissed Craig's looks? From what I have seen it was mostly men who dismissed Craig because of his rugged looks. I don't know how many idiotic egomaniacs I met who claimed to be better looking than Craig yet acted like snobs.

I remember my friend thought Craig was ugly and didn't think "this blond Bond would match". After seeing the movie she couldn't stop oogling over Daniel Craig and she isn't the only one for sure, even the media started hyping about him having sex appeal. So how does Daniel do it? It's not just the girls in theaters but the women he has been with over the years. Perhaps it is something called "screen presence". Craig displayed that for sure and I think that is why girls can find him attractive. This isn't the first time either, if anyone can remember men like Humphrey Bogart who had a lot of appeal.

Not that I am saying all women find Craig appealing. There are those who aren't into the ruggedly handsome guys who have charisma. Best example is Orlando Bloom. Nothing but a pretty boy who is only complimented by his looks and can't deliver a hit movie unless he takes a sidestep and lets real stars like Johnny Depp take over. Remember movies that had Bloom as the main star? Despite his fanbase, they didn't perform well and no one thought of him as a good lead actor.

Screen presence is everything, and thanks to Craig's own presence his film managed to be right up there with the Brosnan films ticketsales wise. If we had a Bond actor who lacked that, I don't think CR would have gone over $100 million in the US.
I agree. It appears as though Craig has actually won over the female audience more than the male audience with CR - not the other way round. My wife cannot stopn drooling at him after seeing CR, and every other woman I've spoke to has said similar things too. I never heard this reaction regarding Brosnan.

Nice spin but the opposite has been my experience. The reactions to Craig (Ive seen) have been strongly negative.
Now if Jackman had been in Cr, I know women who would have been camping at the theater to be the first in line.
And for women not fancying Pierce dear god where have you been.

Maybe the women you're around know to avoid talking about Pierce, every other sentence out of your mouth must be pierce is/was rubbish

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:37 am

Whoever said Brosnan NEVER got a positive reaction from females? He was just saying Craig had more of an impact. Brosnan clearly had fangirls, esspecially those from this Remmington Steele days but he never had that same appeal that made Connery a legend. As for Craig, only time will tell.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:38 am

Dr. No wrote: Nice spin but the opposite has been my experience. The reactions to Craig (Ive seen) have been strongly negative.
Now if Jackman had been in Cr, I know women who would have been camping at the theater to be the first in line.
And for women not fancying Pierce dear god where have you been.

Maybe the women you're around know to avoid talking about Pierce, every other sentence out of your mouth must be pierce is/was rubbish

I can only speak for women around me. I remember a few years ago, watching Brozza being interviewed by Jonathan Ross, and my wife commented on how good looking he was - and (believe it or not) I agreed with her. In fact, I even said `Yes, he does look like Bond, doesn't he.' If Brosnan's films had been different, and his portrayal had been different, he could have been my favourite Bond.

But after watching a Brosnan film, my wife never came out afterwards drooling like she did after CR. I don't actually inforce my opinions of Brosnan or Craig onto her as she can't be bothered with things like that (she thinks I'm sad enough as it is for spending so much time on Bond forums).

Post by **Blowfeld** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:03 pm

paco chaos wrote:hi, i'm new here, but i wanted to throw my 2 cents in on this argument.
i believe that a great deal of the success of bond 22 will be dependent on whether the female audience will return to the theatre for daniel craig. i've heard nothing but praise when it comes to male fans of the bond franchise, where casino royale is concerned. but most women i know,dismiss craig as too ugly to be bond, and the ones who did see it, said they hated the film because they prefer pierce brosnan, or sean connery in the role.
casino royale did great box office, but did not have any real competition during the time it was out, as far as any type of action blockbusters were concerned. if they were to put bond 22 out against a film like pirates of the carribean, or spiderman, it would more than likely tank. at least in the usa.

Welcome to the forum paco chaos

Daniel's friends here will continue to disbelieve and dismiss the possibility of Bond 22 being a true test of the new Bond.

But there actually is doubt about Daniel and Bond 22.
After his first movie he has not been completely accepted as James Bond.
As demonstrated by the survey conducted by VIPLoungeCasino.com.

And if we want to turn to history Timothy Dalton had a decent first outing Box Office wise and a disastrous second.

As I said before some attended Royale to test it out, like Daniel said "see the movie". Well they saw it, whether they liked it or not will be proven in Bond 22.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:17 pm

Blowfeld wrote:
paco chaos wrote:hi, i'm new here, but i wanted to throw my 2 cents in on this argument.
i believe that a great deal of the success of bond 22 will be dependent on whether the female audience will return to the theatre for daniel craig. i've heard nothing but praise when it comes to male fans of the bond franchise, where casino royale is concerned. but most women i know,dismiss craig as too ugly to be bond, and the ones who did see it, said they hated the film because they prefer pierce brosnan, or sean connery in the role.
casino royale did great box office, but did not have any real competition during the time it was out, as far as any type of action blockbusters were concerned. if they were to put bond 22 out against a film like pirates of the carribean, or spiderman, it would more than likely tank. at least in the usa.
Welcome to the forum paco chaos

Daniel's friends here will continue to disbelieve and dismiss the possibility of Bond 22 being a true test of the new Bond.

But there actually is doubt about Daniel and Bond 22.
After his first movie he has not been completely accepted as James Bond.
As demonstrated by the survey conducted by VIPLoungeCasino.com.

And if we want to turn to history Timothy Dalton had a decent first outing Box Office wise and a disastrous second.

As I said before some attended Royale to test it out, like Daniel said "see the movie". Well they saw it, whether they liked it or not will be proven in Bond 22.

I know which side I'm backing to win.....the same one I backed last time, when the odds were much less in Craig's favour than they are now.

Post by **Skywalker** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:33 pm

stockslivevan wrote:Whoever said Brosnan NEVER got a positive reaction from females? He was just saying Craig had more of an impact. Brosnan clearly had fangirls, esspecially those from this Remmington Steele days but he never had that same appeal that made Connery a legend. As for Craig, only time will tell.

I prefer the term 'Female fans' not Fangirls. Mrs Skywalker is not too impressed.

Post by **Skywalker** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:38 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
Blowfeld wrote:
paco chaos wrote:hi, i'm new here, but i wanted to throw my 2 cents in on this argument.
i believe that a great deal of the success of bond 22 will be dependent on whether the female audience will return to the theatre for daniel craig. i've heard nothing but praise when it comes to male fans of the bond franchise, where casino royale is concerned. but most women i know,dismiss craig as too ugly to be bond, and the ones who did see it, said they hated the film because they prefer pierce brosnan, or sean connery in the role.
casino royale did great box office, but did not have any real competition during the time it was out, as far as any type of action blockbusters were concerned. if they were to put bond 22 out against a film like pirates of the carribean, or spiderman, it would more than likely tank. at least in the usa.
Welcome to the forum paco chaos

Daniel's friends here will continue to disbelieve and dismiss the possibility of Bond 22 being a true test of the new Bond.

But there actually is doubt about Daniel and Bond 22.
After his first movie he has not been completely accepted as James Bond.
As demonstrated by the survey conducted by VIPLoungeCasino.com.

And if we want to turn to history Timothy Dalton had a decent first outing Box Office wise and a disastrous second.

As I said before some attended Royale to test it out, like Daniel said "see the movie". Well they saw it, whether they liked it or not will be proven in Bond 22.
I know which side I'm backing to win.....the same one I backed last time, when the odds were much less in Craig's favour than they are now.

The Underdog prevailed last time Sweeney. I feel it will again.

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:42 am

stockslivevan wrote:Which girls dismissed Craig's looks? From what I have seen it was mostly men who dismissed Craig because of his rugged looks. I don't know how many idiotic egomaniacs I met who claimed to be better looking than Craig yet acted like snobs.

I remember my friend thought Craig was ugly and didn't think "this blond Bond would match". After seeing the movie she couldn't stop oogling over Daniel Craig and she isn't the only one for sure, even the media started hyping about him having sex appeal. So how does Daniel do it? It's not just the girls in theaters but the women he has been with over the years. Perhaps it is something called "screen presence". Craig displayed that for sure and I think that is why girls can find him attractive. This isn't the first time either, if anyone can remember men like Humphrey Bogart who had a lot of appeal.

Not that I am saying all women find Craig appealing. There are those who aren't into the ruggedly handsome guys who have charisma. Best example is Orlando Bloom. Nothing but a pretty boy who is only complimented by his looks and can't deliver a hit movie unless he takes a sidestep and lets real stars like Johnny Depp take over. Remember movies that had Bloom as the main star? Despite his fanbase, they didn't perform well and no one thought of him as a good lead actor.

Screen presence is everything, and thanks to Craig's own presence his film managed to be right up there with the Brosnan films ticketsales wise. If we had a Bond actor who lacked that, I don't think CR would have gone over $100 million in the US.

well, i can quote my wife, who walked in as I was watching Layer Cake on cable tv the other night. "That guy is ugly, how can he be Bond?" was her exact quote.
and a friend of mine from work said that Craig has a hot body, but she'd have to throw a bag over his face to be able to give the time of day.
plus my mom, who absolutely loves Sean Connery, saw a preview on a tv screen outside our local F.Y.E. store for "Casino Royale", and just shook her head and said, "no, that's not right".

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:53 am

paco chaos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:Which girls dismissed Craig's looks? From what I have seen it was mostly men who dismissed Craig because of his rugged looks. I don't know how many idiotic egomaniacs I met who claimed to be better looking than Craig yet acted like snobs.

I remember my friend thought Craig was ugly and didn't think "this blond Bond would match". After seeing the movie she couldn't stop oogling over Daniel Craig and she isn't the only one for sure, even the media started hyping about him having sex appeal. So how does Daniel do it? It's not just the girls in theaters but the women he has been with over the years. Perhaps it is something called "screen presence". Craig displayed that for sure and I think that is why girls can find him attractive. This isn't the first time either, if anyone can remember men like Humphrey Bogart who had a lot of appeal.

Not that I am saying all women find Craig appealing. There are those who aren't into the ruggedly handsome guys who have charisma. Best example is Orlando Bloom. Nothing but a pretty boy who is only complimented by his looks and can't deliver a hit movie unless he takes a sidestep and lets real stars like Johnny Depp take over. Remember movies that had Bloom as the main star? Despite his fanbase, they didn't perform well and no one thought of him as a good lead actor.

Screen presence is everything, and thanks to Craig's own presence his film managed to be right up there with the Brosnan films ticketsales wise. If we had a Bond actor who lacked that, I don't think CR would have gone over $100 million in the US.
well, i can quote my wife, who walked in as I was watching Layer Cake on cable tv the other night. "That guy is ugly, how can he be Bond?" was her exact quote.
and a friend of mine from work said that Craig has a hot body, but she'd have to throw a bag over his face to be able to give the time of day.
plus my mom, who absolutely loves Sean Connery, saw a preview on a tv screen outside our local F.Y.E. store for "Casino Royale", and just shook her head and said, "no, that's not right".

I suppose we all have different experiences afterall.

Post by **Dr. No** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:28 pm

Skywalker wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:Whoever said Brosnan NEVER got a positive reaction from females? He was just saying Craig had more of an impact. Brosnan clearly had fangirls, esspecially those from this Remmington Steele days but he never had that same appeal that made Connery a legend. As for Craig, only time will tell.
I prefer the term 'Female fans' not Fangirls. Mrs Skywalker is not too impressed.

Mrs Skywalker?
Padme or Mara Jade

Mrs. Dr. No (a doctor in her own right) or any of the other females of the No household would never let it end if I called her a fangirl