It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Sorry but SP is gonna be a staggering quarter of a billion dollars behind SF, by the end of its run.
The lack of a rock solid script.........which didn't help to hook audiences.
Weak exchange rates.
Poor word of mouth in non Bond friendly territories.
Weak North American performance.
Terrorist attack in Paris.
.............have all contributed to hurt SP.
True..........the film has still made a staggering amount of money.................but unfortunately, the film also cost a mind boggling amount of cash to make and promote as well.
The reality is that the return on investment for the film is going to be somewhat minimal.
There are going to be some very tough talks early next year, when the film makers discuss who is going to take on the Bond franchises future.
Shame but true............and i actually enjoyed the film.
Well, I think we really need to, to get the full story. Otherwise you might think that LTK scores tenth and looks respectable on a chart like this, but calculate inflation and it's dead last. Inflation adjustment remains "the only true test".
In the US Spectre just passed TSWLM, and is a couple of days away from nudging OP
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm&adjust_yr=2015&p=.htm
Worldwide, this chart hasn't updated yet, but the $792 total puts it past YOLT to sit at fifth highest of all time, with 29 mil to go to pass LALD.
http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php
Yes exactly.........i know its easy to critisize, but EON really need to bring in some other writers to give the franchise a boost.
The budgets are out of control, and its only because of tax breaks and product placement deals, that bring them down to anything remotely reasonable.........in giving a film a chance to make a profit.
Based on SP's BO as of now, i guess the actual money that has gone back to the studio so far would be between $300-350 mil. Now when you take the budget at $245 mil plus lets say a prints and marketing budget of around $100 mil...............then you can see, that SP is gonna make bugger all profit...........and will have to rely on the home DVD market, and TV rights for further profits.
Basically EON need to get their priorities straight e.g spending a fortune on having a huge explosion in a desert, didn't add any extra enjoyment to the film.
Spending money on the script is the most single important aspect of any film.
QOS is a great example of how not to go about making a film. i.e the most expensive film ever made, per running time..........result was a truly dire film.
And just maybe, if the SonyLeaks would not have happened, we wouldn't have been discussing the screenplay for SP to death :-)?
Ooowh absolutely....but it's more of a straight curve no? They cost more to make, but they also gross more. The real honest thing would be to also put an inflation correction on the production budgets.
They could have done a better job in controlling the budget in SP no doubt, and given us more bang for the buck. It happens from time to time, and if EON follows their normal modus operandi, the next one will be far more stripped back and much tighter script wise.......it likely also will be received much more favourably everywhere critically, and be more profitable for the studio and everyone else, even if it does not gross as much in absolute $ terms.
That is true, but budgets don't have anything to do with how many people go to see the film, and that's all we're talking about here. Yes obviously Spectre is less "profitable" than, say, LALD, when one cost 245 and the other cost 30, but much more money is coming in elsewhere through tie-ins and product placement etc, which was not as big in 1973.
Yes. that as well...................the Sony leaks gave people the chance to nit pick at the film, and so in effect give a somewhat negative opinion to the film................even while it was being made.
I think.............fate...........has played a large part in the reception to SP.........and unfortunately, some things just didn't go SP's way.
But, as they say shit happens, and some previous Bond's have had bad luck as well.
LTK being an example............poor release date, virtually no marketing effort for the film,
being given a '15' certificate in the UK.......etc.
Anyway, on a more positive note the Dutch seem to really like SP as its still No.1 film in the Netherlands even after 6 weeks.
It deserves to be on that spot after so many weeks ;-). "Hunger Games 4"? Mehhh. "Furious 7"? Dammit guys. "Jurassic World"? Educate your kids! :P
OK...........if you are just talking about BO gross then yes SP has made a lot of dosh.......and admissions wise they obviously have been on a par with SF on the International market............BUT in the North American market, the admissions for SP, are way down, in comparison to the most recent Bond films from 1995 onwards.
SP has just returned to the trendline that was there prior to SF.
But it hasn't finished it's run yet? All the Brosnan/Craig films (except SF) are closely grouped together in US admissions, with 195-230 adjusted totals. Spectre will finish somewhere in the middle of that group.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm&adjust_yr=2015&p=.htm
This is a ludicrous statement. not even backed up by some facts. It's the "Bond" tag.
How would you explain otherwise that Ethan Hunt and even that guy from the Die Hard franchise managed to do better than Brosnan at the US box office?
Still, it doesn't make any sense to solely attribute that to Brosnan's popularity. And if there's one lesson we learned, then it's: SKYFALL. Perhaps the US like the Bond movies like that. But your quote that lacks nuance.
Also, if you went back to Dalton and Moore, the US proportionate gross %'s were either on par with Brosnan or lower, so one cannot attribute his higher %'s solely to increased % gross coming from foreign markets over time, although that is certainly possible. His films and he were relatively very popular in the US.
The US may have preferred his kind of films, sure, but many say SP is a return to those kind of traditional Bond films - rather than a more angst driven vehicle. So based on that argument & logic, it should be more popular in the US.
Proportionate US % of Total Gross
GE - 30.2%
TND - 37.6%
TWINE - 35.1%
DAD - 37.3%
CR - 28%
QoS - 28.7%
SF - 27.5%
SP - 23.3% (current)
Very interesting..........and its not too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe this could happen in North America.........surveillance is a particularly sensitive issue over there.
Yes, films were cheaper to make then. But films usually remained longer in theatres. But nowadays the market has broadened. But ticket prices have gone up too. And then there's piracy. And the fact that people spend more money on entertainment today. But then there are more big blockbusters to choose from. And there's the home video market, causing some folks to stay home and watch a film when it can be found streaming online.
Taking inflation and such into account is nice but in the end you're just processing numbers following some formula, ignoring folks' cinema going habits and other important variables.
And in any case, a film's quality cannot be judged based on its BO performances alone. Some of the most beloved films hardly made money during their theatrical run. Just think about Blade Runner, The Shawshank Redemption, Citizen Kane, Fight Club, ...