The Most successful James Bonds at the BO

[The Batman]

1. Brosnan
2. Moore
3. Connery
4. Dalton
5. Lazenby


That was without inflation.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm

 

[Furious Styles]

With inflation included,I believe Thunderball whipes its @$$ with all the other Bond movies, however I could be wrong! And I usually am, but not when it comes to Craig though, not when it comes to Craig..........................

 

[Everyman]

Thunderball was the most successful Bond movie ever.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Thunderball was the most successful Bond movie ever.

Thunderball was the Star Wars of it's day. Cinemas had to open all night to get everybody in. It was the same sort of mania as Jurassic Park or Episode I.

 

[Everyman]

Thunderball was the Star Wars of it's day. Cinemas had to open all night to get everybody in. It was the same sort of mania as Jurassic Park or Episode I.

Yes, it was huge. Some people nowadays think it's DAD, but the Bond franchise never really topped the success of Thunderball.

 

[Furious Styles]

I've seen a diagram with inflation adjusted for, and Thunderball simply destroys every other Bond movie. There will never be another Bond film like that, Bond was a cultural icon at its zenith!

 

[The Batman]

could someone put up adjusted numbers? Apparently at BO mojo, you have to pay to see stuff like that....

 

[kedrell]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Thunderball adjusted is $478,720,000. Original gross was $63,595,658 in 1965 dollars. Gives an inflation rate of $7.53(rounded to the nearest penny)2006 dollars for every 1965 dollar.

I am is curious about their figures though since inflation usually means the the further back in time you go, the more money is worth. Yet Mary Poppins which came out just 1 year before in 1964(thus there shouldn't be hardly any change in the inflation rate from the 1965 Thunderball)has an inflation rate of $4.89 (2006) dollars to every 1964 dollar.

Either they made a mistake or the value of money reversed the normal trend of inflation between 1964 and 1965 so that money was nearly twice as valuable in 1965 as it was in 1964. That's a bit hard for me to believe.

 

[Agentsands77]

Well, Connery is the clear winner in terms of the B.O. Here are the worldwide grosses adjusted for 2002 dollars, here's what it comes to:

1. THUNDERBALL: $803.7 million
2. GOLDFINGER: $722.4 million
3. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE: $599.1 million
4. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME: $548.5 million
5. MOONRAKER: $500.6 million
6. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER: $515 million
7. LIVE AND LET DIE: $510.4 million
8. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE: $456.3 million
9. DIE ANOTHER DAY: $424.7 million
10. GOLDENEYE: $412.6 million
11. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY: $384.4 million
12. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH: $378.87 million
13. TOMORROW NEVER DIES: $374.58 million
14. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN: $354.96 million
15. DR. NO: $348.6 million
16. OCTOPUSSY: $330.7 million
17. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE: $315.6 million
18. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS: $301.8 million
19. A VIEW TO A KILL: $253.95 million
20. NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN: $247.53 million
21. LICENCE TO KILL: $225.86 million

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Makes you realise, even though the 007 series is forty years old, it's heyday was at the beginning.

 

[Everyman]

Makes you realise, even though the 007 series is forty years old, it's heyday was at the beginning.

It was the same creativity and quality wise IMO. The core Bond movies are the early ones.

 

[Agentsands77]

It was the same creativity and quality wise IMO. The core Bond movies are the early ones.

Yup. The "golden years" of Bond were definitely from 1962-1969.

 

[Furious Styles]

I wouldn't say OHMSS ('69 )was a golden year for Bond. It failed rather miserably, and Craig is getting an easy ride considering how EON and the public buried Lazenby afterwards. However, that's just me being a prick. The 60's were definitely the Bond years.

What I find interesting, isn't the total gross but how many people actually went to see Thunderball compared to DAD. That number is the most staggering to me. Close to 75 million people ended up watching TB in US theatres

 

[Agentsands77]

I wouldn't say OHMSS ('69 )was a golden year for Bond. It failed rather miserably, and Craig is getting an easy ride considering how EON and the public buried Lazenby afterwards. However, that's just me being a prick. The 60's were definitely the Bond years.

I include it because it's still a film of terrific quality (it's so well made that it succeeds in spite of having a lackluster leading man) - and I categorize the 60s as the "golden era" mainly because of the quality films produced in that period, not because of box office (though box office and Bond mania was still at its height in the 60s as well).