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

1101102104106107152

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    So SP won't do SF numbers? I'm somewhat baffled. It's a mere personal thing of course but I certainly hold SP in a higher esteem than SF. Again, personal opinion.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 1,098
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    So SP won't do SF numbers? I'm somewhat baffled. It's a mere personal thing of course but I certainly hold SP in a higher esteem than SF. Again, personal opinion.

    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.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited December 2015 Posts: 11,139
    Tough talks indeed. The focus should be on budget and hiring new writers who know wtf they're doing.
  • The_Reaper wrote: »

    Excuse me stewardess but I speak jive. :))

    Anyway. Everyone should look at this and understand the scope of SP's success:

    Worldwide (Unadjusted)
    Rank Title (click to view) Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year
    1 Skyfall Sony $1,108.6 $304.4 27.5% $804.2 72.5% 2012
    2 Spectre Sony $754.2 $180.7 24% $573.5 76% 2015

    I don't care about inflation or whatever...

    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
  • Posts: 12,526
    Maybe they should have had Queen Elizabeth II co-ordinate the PR campaign? ;)
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 1,098
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Tough talks indeed. The focus should be on budget and hiring new writers who know wtf they're doing.

    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.

  • RogueAgent wrote: »
    Maybe they should have had Queen Elizabeth II co-ordinate the PR campaign? ;)

    And just maybe, if the SonyLeaks would not have happened, we wouldn't have been discussing the screenplay for SP to death :-)?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Again, Live and Let Die grossed $126,4 million dollars WW and that means $677,275 millions according to 2015 values. That ranking is obsolete because is referred to 2011 values. SPECTRE now is fifth, but behind YOLT.
  • Posts: 1,098
    I notice some members here......only look at the BO gross..........but fail to take into account the budgets for making these films. If you add inflation to the budgets of the older films, you will see that they were still far cheaper to make than the more recent films.

  • mepal1 wrote: »
    I notice some members here......only look at the BO gross..........but fail to take into account the budgets for making these films. If you add inflation to the budgets of the older films, you will see that they were still far cheaper to make than the more recent films.

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mepal1 wrote: »
    I notice some members here......only look at the BO gross..........but fail to take into account the budgets for making these films. If you add inflation to the budgets of the older films, you will see that they were still far cheaper to make than the more recent films.
    That's true. The earlier films were far more profitable ventures. TB was a massive profit maker. It's a different world these days so difficult to compare though..

    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.
  • Posts: 12,526
    The leaks from the Sony hack were always going to have some sort of impact on the films performance.
  • mepal1 wrote: »
    I notice some members here......only look at the BO gross..........but fail to take into account the budgets for making these films. If you add inflation to the budgets of the older films, you will see that they were still far cheaper to make than the more recent films.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,098
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Maybe they should have had Queen Elizabeth II co-ordinate the PR campaign? ;)

    And just maybe, if the SonyLeaks would not have happened, we wouldn't have been discussing the screenplay for SP to death :-)?

    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.

  • edited December 2015 Posts: 11,119
    mepal1 wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Maybe they should have had Queen Elizabeth II co-ordinate the PR campaign? ;)

    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
  • Posts: 1,098
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    I notice some members here......only look at the BO gross..........but fail to take into account the budgets for making these films. If you add inflation to the budgets of the older films, you will see that they were still far cheaper to make than the more recent films.

    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.

    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.

  • I am surprised at the boxoffice for SP in the USA. After SF i certainly thought it would have opened higher (even with less glowing reviews). And if we look at it based on adjusted for inflation its sitting behind DAD!!!..Ok. So it hasn't finished its US run yet but I don't see it making $230m before the end of its run. Surely SP hasn't sold less tickets than the train wreck that is DAD???...I find his hard to believe. At least now the US market is less important to the studios than it was say 20 years ago.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think on the whole Brosnan was much more popular in the US than Craig has been, with SF being the obvious exception. Someone posted estimated US admissions data on here a couple of weeks back, and it pretty much showed that.

    SP has just returned to the trendline that was there prior to SF.
  • mepal1 wrote: »
    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.

    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



  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Here is the post that I was referring to in my previous post. Based on the $8.34 estimated ticket price, the admissions are around 21,442,926 at the present time. CR did rather well on an admission basis (missed that when I saw this post previously), but Brosnan certainly had a good run in the US:
    This post lists # of tickets sold in US-Canada for last 8 007 films (SPECTRE through Nov. 23):

    GoldenEye (1995): 24,403,900 (6,024,100); average ticket price, $4.35

    Tomorrow Never Dies (1997): 26,911,200 (5,477,800); average ticket price, $4.59

    The World Is Not Enough (1999): 24,853,800 (6,991,900); average ticket price, $5.08

    Die Another Day (2002): 27,584,000 (8,101,900); average ticket price, $5.81

    Casino Royale (2006): 25,428,700 (6,234,100); average ticket price, $6.55

    Quantum of Solace (2008): 23,449,600 (9,405,100); average ticket price, $7.18

    Skyfall (2012): 37,842,000 (10,977,000); average ticket price, $7.96

    SPECTRE (2015): 18,085,500, through Nov. 23, (8,176,900); average ticket price, $8.34

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/007-movies-listed-by-number-of-tickets-sold-1995-present/
  • bondjames wrote: »
    I think on the whole Brosnan was much more popular in the US than Craig has been, with SF being the obvious exception. Someone posted estimated US admissions data on here a couple of weeks back, and it pretty much showed that.

    SP has just returned to the trendline that was there prior to SF.

    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?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think on the whole Brosnan was much more popular in the US than Craig has been, with SF being the obvious exception. Someone posted estimated US admissions data on here a couple of weeks back, and it pretty much showed that.

    SP has just returned to the trendline that was there prior to SF.

    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?
    Read my previous post. For Bond, he had very good grosses in the US. Only SF pushed ahead of the pack. He is on par with Craig and actually a little stronger in some cases. That's not a ludicrous statement at all. Just the facts - it's not much more (which was my recollection), but I pulled the post from before to double check and included before your post.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Here is the post that I was referring to in my previous post. Based on the $8.34 estimated ticket price, the admissions are around 21,442,926 at the present time. CR did rather well on an admission basis (missed that when I saw this post previously), but Brosnan certainly had a good run in the US:
    This post lists # of tickets sold in US-Canada for last 8 007 films (SPECTRE through Nov. 23):

    GoldenEye (1995): 24,403,900 (6,024,100); average ticket price, $4.35

    Tomorrow Never Dies (1997): 26,911,200 (5,477,800); average ticket price, $4.59

    The World Is Not Enough (1999): 24,853,800 (6,991,900); average ticket price, $5.08

    Die Another Day (2002): 27,584,000 (8,101,900); average ticket price, $5.81

    Casino Royale (2006): 25,428,700 (6,234,100); average ticket price, $6.55

    Quantum of Solace (2008): 23,449,600 (9,405,100); average ticket price, $7.18

    Skyfall (2012): 37,842,000 (10,977,000); average ticket price, $7.96

    SPECTRE (2015): 18,085,500, through Nov. 23, (8,176,900); average ticket price, $8.34

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/007-movies-listed-by-number-of-tickets-sold-1995-present/

    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
    on the whole Brosnan was much more popular in the US than Craig has been
    lacks nuance.
  • Posts: 154
    As best I can tell, SP's only "weak" performance has been in the U.S. I'm convinced that this is due to the U.S. corporate media critics dissing the movie, under orders, because of SP's anti-surveillance, anti-NWO stance and its story's calling attention to false-flag terror operations. To "fix" this situation (that doesn't need fixing), expect the producers to fall back on Bond's standard, subtle promotion of the NWO in the next movie -- which will probably also include at least one U.S.-based location and perhaps a return of CIA operative Leiter -- all to "win back" U.S. critics and, thus, the American audience.
  • Posts: 1,548
    I love Spectre personally. Just hope the blu ray package does the film justice.
  • Posts: 3,336
    The world is more reliant on social media, hence the bad reviews for SPECTRE, being more destructive then the reviews for DAD in 2002. Also look at Victor Frankenstein oppening to a 2,4m in 2,8k theathers, cause of bad reviews
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    But your quote that
    on the whole Brosnan was much more popular in the US than Craig has been
    lacks nuance.
    [/quote]Here's the nuance. He was very popular in the US (more so on a proportionate basis than in other territories relative to Craig). His films made more money proportionately in the US than elsewhere. Consistently. That has nothing to do with whether I prefer him as Bond or not.

    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)
  • Posts: 1,098
    gklein wrote: »
    As best I can tell, SP's only "weak" performance has been in the U.S. I'm convinced that this is due to the U.S. corporate media critics dissing the movie, under orders, because of SP's anti-surveillance, anti-NWO stance and its story's calling attention to false-flag terror operations. To "fix" this situation (that doesn't need fixing), expect the producers to fall back on Bond's standard, subtle promotion of the NWO in the next movie -- which will probably also include at least one U.S.-based location and perhaps a return of CIA operative Leiter -- all to "win back" U.S. critics and, thus, the American audience.

    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.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    It's impossible to compare BO results over the last 50+ years.

    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, ...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    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, ...
    Absolutely, I agree, and no one should be under any illusion that the two are comparable. Some of my favourite Bond films have not been all time top grossers (LTK & CR for instance). They are completely different discussions....I agree.
Sign In or Register to comment.