SPECTRE: It grossed $880 Million Worldwide (..and 2015 was the biggest box office year so far)

19899101103104152

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Just watch the original trilogy. Considering the force awakens is like 50 years after the prequels and 30 years after Return of the Jedi that's all you need to see. :P
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • Posts: 6,601
    HASEROT wrote: »
    The production budget figures are more accurate estimates from boxoffice.com, but they do include marketing and publicity as well.

    where is the marketing and publicity $$ figured in?... SP needed to make $640mil-ish to break even..

    It does not, if you count all the money they got for advertising. Like this, the real production costs are lower, as others paid for parts of it.

  • Yep, and I saw it. Though I don't believe it. I recalculated some scenario's, and the author uses the current box office figures from the UK and USA and adds only $10 Million on top of that. That's not going to happen. Moreover, where is Japan? That will most likely add another $30 Million.

    The author needed to look at what the global box office gross would be at the end of March 2016....which he clearly didn't. All countries combined..."SPECTRE" should easily gross another $150 Million on top of the current $750 Million.
  • Posts: 342
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Tubes wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Star Wars will be big, yeah, but let's not go overboard yet. Only the first Star Wars has made it past $2 billion, and that includes multiple re-releases. Adjusted to today's money, Phantom menace made $1.3 bil. It really should be beating Jurassic world's 1.5, but Titanic (which is 2.8 bil if adjusted to 2015) is probably safe.

    I think some "estimates" for Star Wars are a bit exaggerated, but it does have the original cast and a much larger international market in it's favor. We went from having only 2 movies gross a billion internationally to two doing it in the same year.

    'Screen Daily' the UK film trade paper.................stated recently that SW7 is expected to surpass SF as the No.1 film in the UK all-time chart.

    http://www.screendaily.com/news/star-wars-the-force-awakens-tracking-to-be-biggest-film-ever-at-uk-cinemas/5097401.article

    An American film passing Bond as UK's number one grosser? What's wrong with you people?

    Star Wars was made in the UK, at Pinewood - so you could say it is as British as Bond

  • Troy wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Tubes wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Star Wars will be big, yeah, but let's not go overboard yet. Only the first Star Wars has made it past $2 billion, and that includes multiple re-releases. Adjusted to today's money, Phantom menace made $1.3 bil. It really should be beating Jurassic world's 1.5, but Titanic (which is 2.8 bil if adjusted to 2015) is probably safe.

    I think some "estimates" for Star Wars are a bit exaggerated, but it does have the original cast and a much larger international market in it's favor. We went from having only 2 movies gross a billion internationally to two doing it in the same year.

    'Screen Daily' the UK film trade paper.................stated recently that SW7 is expected to surpass SF as the No.1 film in the UK all-time chart.

    http://www.screendaily.com/news/star-wars-the-force-awakens-tracking-to-be-biggest-film-ever-at-uk-cinemas/5097401.article

    An American film passing Bond as UK's number one grosser? What's wrong with you people?

    Star Wars was made in the UK, at Pinewood - so you could say it is as British as Bond

    I think it's much fairer to say that:

    --> "Moonraker" was a French/British co-production
    --> "Casino Royale" was a Czech/British co-production
    --> "Skyfall" was a Chinese/British co-production
  • Posts: 625

    So the new goal would be now to overtake Pixar's "Inside Out", which stands at $852 million at the moment.
  • LordBrettSinclairLordBrettSinclair Greensleeves
    Posts: 167
    People should realize that Skyfall was an exception. It can't be duplicated success wise.
    750-800 million is probably the amount of money that would have been made in 2012 without the 50th Birthday of the Bond series, Olympics and lot of media coverage.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 725
    People should realize that Skyfall was an exception. It can't be duplicated success wise.
    750-800 million is probably the amount of money that would have been made in 2012 without the 50th Birthday of the Bond series, Olympics and lot of media coverage.

    All true, but the current ER factor plays a great role in the bigger SF BO. I would love to see SF's BO configured with the current ER which is costing SP many millions in profit in comparison to SF's BO.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    People should realize that Skyfall was an exception. It can't be duplicated success wise.
    750-800 million is probably the amount of money that would have been made in 2012 without the 50th Birthday of the Bond series, Olympics and lot of media coverage.

    I still think if SP was better movie it'd be making a lot more money and doing SF numbers. I personally know a number of people who havn't seen SP and won't see it just because they read unfavourable reviews. I think the business it's already done is fantastic and nothing to be ashamed of in the slightest but had a few key elements worked better, SP would have grosser more than 800 million by now.

  • Posts: 11,425
    The reviews are so odd. The big 'serious' UK papers gave it really good reviews but after that the media vibes seem to have been unrelentingly bad.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    People should realize that Skyfall was an exception. It can't be duplicated success wise.
    750-800 million is probably the amount of money that would have been made in 2012 without the 50th Birthday of the Bond series, Olympics and lot of media coverage.
    It appears to be true that it was an exception, but it also connected with a lot of people as a film. I think that would have happened regardless of the marketing, because it had strong legs in theatres which suggests good word of mouth and enthusiasm from the general public to return and catch it again (I know people who aren't die hard Bond fans who went back and saw it again after the first time and dragged older family members to see it). I was surprised at that actually. It became a 'water cooler' thing too. 'Have you seen that new Bond film? It's great'
  • Posts: 725
    Getafix wrote: »
    The reviews are so odd. The big 'serious' UK papers gave it really good reviews but after that the media vibes seem to have been unrelentingly bad.

    But the mixed reviews in the US were strange. Some top reviewers for major news sources like Rolling Stone, Time Magazine, the New Yorker, New York Magazine, the NY Daily News and others all gave it good, in some cases, very good reviews. It's not like SP got nothing but lousy reviews in the US. These are all big deal US news sources with big circulations.

    I still think some of the negative US reviews were in part influenced by the leaks and the negative vibes for Sony. Some were also due to the change in tone from the very serious SF. Many of those reviewers wanted SF2 and weren't happy when they didn't get it, so it was a mixture of issues, but the US review patterns were very, very strange.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 79
    Getafix wrote: »
    The reviews are so odd. The big 'serious' UK papers gave it really good reviews but after that the media vibes seem to have been unrelentingly bad.


    You've asked for it. Here you go!

    I took the FX rate as of November 2012 and compared it with the current FX rate for the 13 major currencies (EUR, GBP, CHN,...) which represent 90% of SFs non domestic box office.

    The result is quite substantial!
    ALL those currencies developed negatively against the USD.
    Between 1 and 52%!!! Most importantly, the GBO is 6% weaker while the EUR is 17% weaker.


    So, SF did 770 Mio USD in the 57 major markets except US/CAN.

    These 770 Mio USD would today equal:652 Mio USD.
    So with its 304 Mio USD domestically, and the remaining 34 Mio USD I can't specify by country, SF would have done today 990 Mio USD!

    Compare this to SP's expected ~900 Mio USD and the picture looks different.

    If you then consider, that SP lost a mininum of 100 Mio USD only domestically in the US/CAN, SP is just as big as SF

    It's the math...

    (however, we should not forget that there has also been a slight inflation in all markets which makes each SP ticket cost more than a SF ticket)


  • edited December 2015 Posts: 11,119
    People should realize that Skyfall was an exception. It can't be duplicated success wise.
    750-800 million is probably the amount of money that would have been made in 2012 without the 50th Birthday of the Bond series, Olympics and lot of media coverage.

    That's how you look at it really. Saying that the success of 'SF' is a one-off and can't be duplicated sounds a bit narrow-minded for me.

    Look to "The Dark Knight Rises" and how it basically sailed on the success of its predecessor "The Dark Knight". It can be done. Perhaps really a SF 2.0 could have resulted in a $1.2 Billion global box office result. Or what about a Bond-film that is daring enough to 'grab' and 'utilize' a matter/aspect/element that has never been done before in a Bond film. You could make a really unique and refreshing action film if you ask me, that still is 'Bond' enough.

    As a matter of fact, I am working on it now ;-).
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 725
    danielcc wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    The reviews are so odd. The big 'serious' UK papers gave it really good reviews but after that the media vibes seem to have been unrelentingly bad.


    You've asked for it. Here you go!

    I took the FX rate as of November 2012 and compared it with the current FX rate for the 13 major currencies (EUR, GBP, CHN,...) which represent 90% of SFs non domestic box office.

    The result is quite substantial!
    ALL those currencies developed negatively against the USD.
    Between 1 and 52%!!! Most importantly, the GBO is 6% weaker while the EUR is 17% weaker.


    So, SF did 770 Mio USD in the 57 major markets except US/CAN.

    These 770 Mio USD would today equal:652 Mio USD.
    So with its 304 Mio USD domestically, and the remaining 34 Mio USD I can't specify by country, SF would have done today 990 Mio USD!

    Compare this to SP's expected ~900 Mio USD and the picture looks different.

    If you then consider, that SP lost a mininum of 100 Mio USD only domestically in the US/CAN, SP is just as big as SF

    It's the math...

    (however, we should not forget that there has also been a slight inflation in all markets which makes each SP ticket cost more than a SF ticket)


    Thanks for the info. I think it is probably as accurate a reading on the ER impact that we could get. It's interesting that in a number of BO press articles about SP, they consistently fail to mention the ER factor. Of all the facts that caused SP to not match SF's BO, I think the ER was the most important.

    It's a credit to SP's earning power that the harm the ER caused, the lack of SF's Olympics PR, Adele's huge hit, and the gushing US reviews still did not keep SP from doing as as well as it did. It should hit $800m very soon. It may not make $900m, but it might get close.
  • Also, currently the global box office gross is $751 Million. You should already calculate at least $30 Million extra in it....all from Japan. Another $30 Million from the USA (timeframe now until the very end of its run). Another $15 Million from the UK (it won't pass SF's $161 Million, but $147 Million is do-able. The Nordic countries are currently a god's gift for Sony. In Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Netherlands the film is most likely going to take over SF's records and combined they could bank another $20 Million for Sony from now on.

    Add it up ($30 + $30 + $15 + $20) and you have another $95 Million. And then I still haven't counted all other nations (Russia, Australia, India, Mexico)
  • Posts: 7,653
    GG I do think that the current global BO already contains part of the numbers you want to add, The Netherlands & Scandinavia will not add a lot extra as they are on the end of their run and with SW around the corner it will dry up quickly. The same goes for quite a few other countries you mention.
    SF was a flash in the pan, SP is another 007 movie that is just another movie with a rather too large a budget.
  • SaintMark wrote: »
    GG I do think that the current global BO already contains part of the numbers you want to add, The Netherlands & Scandinavia will not add a lot extra as they are on the end of their run and with SW around the corner it will dry up quickly. The same goes for quite a few other countries you mention.
    SF was a flash in the pan, SP is another 007 movie that is just another movie with a rather too large a budget.

    I'm afraid that's not entirely true. Especially not for my country The Netherlands, as you can find here:
    http://www.boxofficenl.net/
    http://www.boxofficenl.net/listing.asp?page=total&ref=19536

    After 5 weeks it's still no# 1, even now "The Good Dinosaur" and "Hunger Games 4" have premiered there. And currently it has grossed €15 Million there. Today's figures.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I am saying that most of that 15 million in BO has already been calculated in the global box-office. And with a short time SP will not be the most seen movie in the Netherlands.
  • SaintMark wrote: »
    I am saying that most of that 15 million in BO has already been calculated in the global box-office. And with a short time SP will not be the most seen movie in the Netherlands.

    Yes, but that amount is more or less the same amount you see everywhere. Every $15 Million is in the mix now. $15 Million / €15 Million ($1 = almost €1) are the real-life figures until now.

    At this stage three years ago "SF" scored around $13 Million (it went on to earn $25 Million). My point is: There's still another $10 Million that will be earned by "SP".
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I still think if SP was better movie it'd be making a lot more money and doing SF numbers.
    Oh tosh. Both SF & SP are, at their centers, silly movies. But SF treated its silly subject matter with a sense of urgency & angst (Americans love that right about now), and SP just had fun with the silly (refreshingly honest IMO). See, here it's not about what something IS, but what it LOOKS LIKE. Skyfall LOOKED like a big deep serious film, so that's how it was received, regardless of actual content.
    But it's all good. ;)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited December 2015 Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote: »
    The reviews are so odd. The big 'serious' UK papers gave it really good reviews but after that the media vibes seem to have been unrelentingly bad.

    Honestly, I think this is a lesser repeat of what QoS experienced. A few dolts around the world with the so-called authority of their critic status whined about the movie and blew some criticisms out of proportion, then everyone else followed suit because humans are naturally ready to follow the pack. It's all about agreement reality; when a few people share a similar view, another few adopt the idea because of its popularity, and another group does the same after that; what results is a massive pool of individuals who have toed the line and followed the pervading opinion.

    This is of course not to say that every critic who is/was lukewarm to SP is a fool or follower. I've read plenty of sharp, perceptive and well-argued criticisms since the film's release. Some of the criticism the film has gotten, however, seems to reek of more than a few people following the pack, so to speak, instead of really thinking about the film on their own terms.

    And of course, it's important to note that negativity is a cancerous thing; when we are surrounded by such dourness of thought, we become suffocated by it and adopt that gloom as our own as the negativity of others rains on our parade and almost parasitically makes us not as appreciative of the thing we are experiencing as we should or could be.

    I feel that this element or idea is what separates my feelings and reactions following my viewings of SF and SP. Because SF was so blown up and raved about both before and after the film released, I overall felt ecstatic and rather happy with what we got. With SP, I heard both great and okay things about it before its release, and not a lot of positives after, and that negativity colored my response as rather mixed as well. I think I somehow foolishly left myself open to that negativity too much and let a few select people ruin my fun. Because after SF released everyone around the world was largely riding a wave of positivity, it became easier to ride that same wavelength until the fun died down and I was then able to judge it objectively without that same period of hype affecting my thoughts. With SP the same will be true; this wave of negativity and shaming will die down, and afterwards I'll return to the film when that suffocating climate has subsided to view the film objectively without worrying about my feelings being manipulated by the sweeping opinions of the world at that time.

    I personally haven't had a great year, especially the second half of 2015, and because of that, I think it was so much easier for me to be swept up in the negativity towards SP-because I was already feeling depressed and upset-which makes me both infuriated and rather ashamed. I'm now at the point where I can't tell whether my criticisms of some parts of the film are my own or if that negativity exists only because it's suffocating all of us right now through these select reviews and taking the enjoyment of the film away.

    I'm going to see SP for a second time soon, and I hope to clear my head of some of this BS when I'm in the theater again. Bond films are a source of happy release for me, and I will not have this negativity affect my positivity any longer.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, I have to say that was a well written, insightful and courageous post!
    I saw SF during one of the worst times in my own life, and I'm SURE that coloured my reception of it.
    And I hope 2016 is better for you!
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    chrisisall wrote: »
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, I have to say that was a well written, insightful and courageous post!
    I saw SF during one of the worst times in my own life, and I'm SURE that coloured my reception of it.
    And I hope 2016 is better for you!

    I'm sorry for that for you both. SF was released during a high time of my life. Now is much harder but I'm still blessed.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    The reviews are so odd. The big 'serious' UK papers gave it really good reviews but after that the media vibes seem to have been unrelentingly bad.

    Honestly, I think this is a lesser repeat of what QoS experienced. A few dolts around the world with the so-called authority of their critic status whined about the movie and blew some criticisms out of proportion, then everyone else followed suit because humans are naturally ready to follow the pack. It's all about agreement reality; when a few people share a similar view, another few adopt the idea because of its popularity, and another group does the same after that; what results is a massive pool of individuals who have toed the line and followed the pervading opinion.

    This is of course not to say that every critic who is/was lukewarm to SP is a fool or follower. I've read plenty of sharp, perceptive and well-argued criticisms since the film's release. Some of the criticism the film has gotten, however, seems to reek of more than a few people following the pack, so to speak, instead of really thinking about the film on their own terms.

    And of course, it's important to note that negativity is a cancerous thing; when we are surrounded by such dourness of thought, we become suffocated by it and adopt that gloom as our own as the negativity of others rains on our parade and almost parasitically makes us not as appreciative of the thing we are experiencing as we should or could be.

    I feel that this element or idea is what separates my feelings and reactions following my viewings of SF and SP. Because SF was so blown up and raved about both before and after the film released, I overall felt ecstatic and rather happy with what we got. With SP, I heard both great and okay things about it before its release, and not a lot of positives after, and that negativity colored my response as rather mixed as well. I think I somehow foolishly left myself open to that negativity too much and let a few select people ruin my fun. Because after SF released everyone around the world was largely riding a wave of positivity, it became easier to ride that same wavelength until the fun died down and I was then able to judge it objectively without that same period of hype affecting my thoughts. With SP the same will be true; this wave of negativity and shaming will die down, and afterwards I'll return to the film when that suffocating climate has subsided to view the film objectively without worrying about my feelings being manipulated by the sweeping opinions of the world at that time.

    I personally haven't had a great year, especially the second half of 2015, and because of that, I think it was so much easier for me to be swept up in the negativity towards SP-because I was already feeling depressed and upset-which makes me both infuriated and rather ashamed. I'm now at the point where I can't tell whether my criticisms of some parts of the film are my own or if that negativity exists only because it's suffocating all of us right now through these select reviews and taking the enjoyment of the film away.

    I'm going to see SP for a second time soon, and I hope to clear my head of some of this BS when I'm in the theater again. Bond films are a source of happy release for me, and I will not have this negativity affect my positivity any longer.

    PM me.


    Really. I also had a very difficult first half of the year. Like so many times in my life, I had to go on sickness leave again. And now my situation has slightly improved again -like so many times as well...even those improvements come a bit tiresome- I'm longing for a good movie experience. Which I had with SP. But....well...you know what happened then with certain reviews.

    If your hobby because a welcome enjoyous lifeline in your life, then you don't want to have further 'negativity' arround you.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • HASEROT wrote: »
    i am curious
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I am saying that most of that 15 million in BO has already been calculated in the global box-office. And with a short time SP will not be the most seen movie in the Netherlands.

    Yes, but that amount is more or less the same amount you see everywhere. Every $15 Million is in the mix now. $15 Million / €15 Million ($1 = almost €1) are the real-life figures until now.

    At this stage three years ago "SF" scored around $13 Million (it went on to earn $25 Million). My point is: There's still another $10 Million that will be earned by "SP".

    i am curious @Gustav_Graves... it seems you have this unwavering support for SF, and SP - which is to be commended (and we all love Bond, myself and a lot of others want each film to out do the last one)... but in the face of overwhelming odds, you still, with 100% conviction believe that SP will earn $950mil and be in theaters world wide well into March... based on what exactly? numbers? or your opinion?..

    what is your overall prediction for SW??... i think it's odd that you keep shrugging of Star Wars as if one of the most successful film franchises in history will just be a front loaded, 1 or 2 week #1 spot holder, and then fade away... it seems to me like either you A.) Don't fully understand the wide ranging impact that Star Wars has on a global scale.. or B.) You are just simply underestimating the impact that this film will have.... only someone who isn't a fan of the subject matter, and/or is completely oblivious to the series cultural status would simply brush it off, like it's no big deal.... the film isn't even out yet and has already grossed $50mil - and it destroyed the previous IMAX presale record 8x over.

    If you read my posts carefully, then you would have found out that I think "Star Wars 7" will overtake "Titanic"s all time box office total..which is $2.1 Billion.

    What makes you say that I 'shrug off' "Star Wars 7"? I may not talk that much about the film. But then again this is mostly a Bond forum no :-)?
  • One thing that still strikes me from this list:
    http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php

    ....is how much easier Daniel Craig's films compete with those of Sean Connery...financially and with inflation correction.
Sign In or Register to comment.