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
If that. It's already made more than $50 million in pre-sales, and some estimates are reaching all the way to $650 million its first weekend.
That's not how the U. S. press works at all. They're interested in what sells. The Sony Leaks story were more focused on catty emails about company executives, salaries and the excesses enjoyed by the rich and powerful. The Spectre script was hardly a paragraph in most stories. People didn't care. The U. S. press is by and large lazy and go with the same old stories. If not, why do they keep pounding away at the Princess Diana accident, Kim Kardashian's posterior, Lindsey Lohan's drug problems, etc... Possibly sighting Elvis Presley at a Kalamazoo Burger King ordering a Whopper is your idea of investigative journalism at its' best.
Bond movies today collect, on average, ~50% of their production budget from product placement -- which is about the same amount, on average, that is spent on marketing the Bond movies. Therefore, only the production cost has to be recovered before SP starts making a profit (marketing costs are basically covered by the product placement receipts).
The original production budget for SP was brought down from ~$350M to ~$300M. Monetary incentives recv'd from Mexico, etc., made the real "out-of-pocket" production cost ~$250M -- still quite a high budget and still the highest in the series, even with inflation adjustments. This means though, that SP started turning a profit at aprox the $500M revenue mark (aprox half of all ticket sale revenues go to distributors/theater chains). SP did not need to make the ~$650M others have claimed it needed to break even (these folks weren't considering Bond's huge product placement business).
SP, as of today, with its near $800M in box office revenue, is already returning an ~$150M profit (half of the $300M earned over the $500M break-even point) to its studios/producers to share.
While the expected final total of ~$850M box office revenue will ultimately place SP in the top five of all Bond movies in terms of total earnings (even after inflation adjustment for the older movies), in terms of Return-On-Investment (ROI), that is, revenue as a percentage in relation to cost, SP, because of its high budget, will end its run as an only average Bond performer (doing nothing like the ROI of the early movies or even, of course, SF). The story is similar, though not quite as bad, in terms of absolute profit dollars (with inflation adjustments to older movies) which, based upon an $850M revenue, would be "only" about $175M.
It's a shame as SP is a great Bond movie.
Regarding home VOD, advertiser-supported streaming, DVD, Blu-ray, etc...
SF took only *another* ~10% of its box office total while QofS took another ~40% of its box office in *added* "home" sales. The large difference in these figures are presumably based upon "word-of-mouth" -- more folks wanting to see SF in theaters and more folks choosing to wait to rent/stream QofS and watch it at home.
SP should do somewhere in-between SF & QofS in the home market, but closer to SF (given the large number of folks who will already have seen SP in theaters). Thus, we can expect *another* ~20% of SP's final box office, or ~$170M, to be added to SP's final tally -- pushing it just over the $1B in gross revenue mark (even though, again, it likely won't get there, as SF did, on box office receipts alone).
Thus, its final total revenue (box office plus home rental/streaming) won't be that far behind SF, but it will lag more significantly in both ROI and absolute profit due to its higher budget.
If we guesstimate that, like theater revenue, only about 50% of SP's home rental/streaming revenue, or ~$75M (to round the actual $85M number down to the nearest quarter), can be expected to find its way back to the studios/producers, this would place actual profit at ~$250M when this ~$75M home market profit is added to the expected final box office profit of ~$175M.
In the final analysis, over the long-term, SP will generate ~$250M in actual profits from its $1B+ revenue (world-wide theater plus world-wide home market) for its producers/studios to share, or a 200% ROI in terms of the studios'/producers' share of the revenue (~$500M or half of the collected ~$1B total revenue) on the ~$250M actual out-of-pocket production budget -- making SP, again, in relation to all other Bond movies, an only average/modest performer based upon ROI, a "fairly" good performer when counting all Bond movies' actual inflation-adjusted profit dollars, and yet a great performer in terms of total revenue and ticket sales (actual popularity).
SP benefited from the financial success of SF but SP was hurt by its own huge budget. Looking at the budgets and revenues of the Craig Bond movies released before SP, and looking at the budgets and revenues of the competing Mission Impossible series, we can expect the next Bond movie, if good and allowing for three years of inflation, to make ~$750M in total revenue and thus should be budgeted at ~$150M for a healthier 250% ROI (~$375M of the ~$750M in revenue going to the producers/studios) while generating about the same money as SP (~$250M) in absolute profit (half of the theater revenue collected over the next Bond movie's imagined ~$300M break-even point, or ~$225M, plus aprox half of an estimated home revenue of ~$75M, -- that is, ~$35M rounded down to the nearest quarter, $25M).
SP's budget was bloated and, while SP is a good movie, much of the money was wasted. Rogue Nation proved that, with creativity, a movie approaching the quality of SP can be made with half the budget.
SP will still be, and should be, counted as a major Bond success.
I can tell how much Bond rates his mood on a 1 to 10 scale in the clinic, can you ? :)
Sorry to be a French native speaker who can have some opinion about how the French lines in SPECTRE were written... And I did not invent that remark I heard.
If this had happen to a Roger Moore Bond in the 80s, it would have been used as a proof here by the naysayers that Moore sent Bond down to the well... I mean, they already say this even with better rankings !
Now, these numbers are estimated from Box Office Mojo so anything close is pretty negligible .
1. Thunderball - 74,800,000
2. Goldfinger - 66,300,000
3. Skyfall - 37,842,000
4. You Only Live Twice - 35,904,000
5. Moonraker - 28,011,200
6. Die Another Day - 27,584,000
7. Tomorrow Never Dies - 26,911,200
8. From Russia With Love - 26,663,200
9. Diamonds Are Forever - 26,557,300
10. Casino Royale - 25,428,700
11. The World Is Not Enough - 24,853,800
12. GoldenEye - 24,403,900
13. Quantum of Solace - 23,449,600
14. Octopussy - 21,553,500
15. Spectre [As of 12/06/2015] - 21,430,900
16. The Spy Who Loved Me - 21,003,900
18. Live and Let Die - 19,987,500
17. For Your Eyes Only - 19,716,800
19. Dr. No - 18,902,400
20. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service - 16,038,400
21. A View to a Kill - 14,176,900
22. The Living Daylights - 13,091,000
23. The Man with the Golden Gun - 11,215,000
24. Licence to Kill - 8,732,200
Other Box Office Estimations for North America (For Reference)
Star Wars (1977) - 142,734,000 (Original Release) [One of the most successful films in history]
Die Hard (1988) - 20,196,800 [Acclaimed Action Film]
Mission: Impossible 2 (2000) - 39,964,700 [Similar genre to Bond]
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) - 33,062,700 [Similar genre to Bond]
The Dark Knight (2008) - 74,269,000 [Biggest film of 2008 in North America]
Iron-Man (2008) - 44,345,800 [Second biggest film of 2008 in North America]
Taken (2009) - 20,195,100 [Half-similar genre to Bond]
John Carter (2013) - 9,199,400 [Considered a miserable flop with a budget of $250m]
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015) - 23,628,900 [Similar genre to Bond]
Bond Averages
Sean Connery Average: 41,521,150
Roger Moore Average: 19,380,685
Timothy Dalton Average: 10,911,600 (poor guy)
Pierce Brosnan Average: 25,938,225
Daniel Craig Average (CR, QOS, SF): 28,906,766
Daniel Craig Average (All films up to 12/06/2015): 27,037,800
---
I must remember to take estimated numbers with a grain of salt, but after reviewing these, Bond's success in North America has been a little higher than decent. I think from the list there are two mega-hits (GF,TB), two very big successes (SF, YOLT), a bunch of satisfying hits to varying degrees based on budget and situation (5-20), three under-performers (AVTAK, TLD, TMWTGG) and one disaster (LTK). For a 50+ year old franchise, I'm pretty content with what I see.
Let's just say this: Spectre is probably a little bit of a disappointment in North America for MGM and Sony just because it followed Skyfall. The numbers will go up, let's be certain of that, but the best case is looking like it'll hit QOS/GE numbers in terms of tickets. That's right in the middle of the pack.
Look at the drop from MR to FYEO, or the drop from TB to YOLT (!). This franchise has faced some pretty steep audience fluctuation but still managed to be successful, at least here in North America.
And hell, when you factor the stellar numbers from everywhere else you enter a whole other ballgame.
So no, even with the drop in North American sales, I'm not concerned with Spectre's numbers.
In comparison 6.6% have seen Spectre at the cinema.
Means there's
a) much wider variety of things to entertain us these days
b) some watch for the first time on home media
Ooowh yes they did expect a $1 Billion film. Just look at the production budget.
And before people start saying that's ludicrous of Sony....it is not ludicrous. It was a completely logical calculation.
Something similar happened after "Thunderball". It would help if some people in here dare to look at the insane production budget of "You Only Live Twice" back in 1966/1967. With today's standards/inflation in mid, that production budget wouldn't have been so different from "SPECTRE"s production budget.
But moreover, the SonyLeaks made us talk about this very subject. Hadn't the leaks happen, box office pundits perhaps still would have predicted a production budget that was max. $20 to $30 Million more as compared to "Skyfall"s budget.
Those leaks gave an unprecedented view into the mechanics and calculations of real production budgets. And I think it's only fair to be similarly sceptical about the current real production budgets that Disney applies to "Star Wars 7" and "Avengers 2". Sadly, no one questions those production budgets.
And people still underestimate this narrative: Because of the leaked real production budgets, expectations for the new Bond film "SPECTRE" also grew exponentially, thanks to the Leaks. Criticism started to develop, and people started to see the ridiculousness of such high production budgets. It created a newnarrative, that didn't help "SPECTRE".
In any normal circumstance, the $1 Billion was an entirely logical starting point for predictions. And I still firmly believe that hadn't the SonyLeaks happened, the $1 Billion would have been much easier to catch. Just look at "The Dark Knight Rises" that followed "The Dark Knight".
I
And not just films either. TV, youtube, cat videos and many other things to keep us occupied
AVTAK was 13th in North America and TMWTGG is along with LTK the biggest "flop" of the franchise. The only Moore movie over SP is MR. Anyway, IMHO Moore was a very succesful Bond, if he hadn´t been profitable he wouldn´t have starred 7 Bond movies.
No, adjusted is NOT the true test. Things are different now than they were 50 years ago. If someone wanted to see a movie before VCRS/DVD players they HAD to go to the theater. Plus movies were in theaters much longer. Now someone could say, "Well, I'm too busy to see SP, guess I'll wait a few months and pick it up on BD/DVD. No biggie." They couldn't do that back in the day and thus BO was literally everything for a film's money making opportunity.
The money SP will make in ancillaries is massive. TV, cable, DVD/BD sales, so many more things contribute to the overall profit it is completely unfair to judge a Bond film solely on BO these days compared to ones from the past.
anyone?
That 200m mark here is still going to be hard to hit. Race against decreasing theater count.
It will be hit. $20 Million over a course of two more months is entirely possible.
Hope so.
I think SP is going to make 195-202 million in North America.
Didn't mean to offend you, but didn't you say that you weren't going to use any money to watch it in the cinema?
I said I indeed would never spend a dollar seeing SPECTRE.
Because I live in a country where I spend Euros.
It was a reminder that all this stuff about Box Office in dollars is not so straightforward : the $ is not even the majority of the currencies spent. It's still the currency with the larger part of it, but only because UK has not the Euro.
The biggest "market" of Bond is not the US; it's Europe. Studio gets more revenue share from the US, though; that's why $800M with $200M in the US is very different from $800M with $300M from the US.
There's about as much inhabitants in the USA as in UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy put together, and that's only 5 countries. The sum of box office in these 5 countries is close to the US ones, sometimes mores, sometimes less. Then you can add all the other countries...
The average movie goer doesn't care about the internet leaks.
I still stand by my point that no matter the leaks this movie wouldn't have made 1b , and I still think that SONY should don't be disappointed with SP.
DID you actually see "SPECTRE" and did you like it? Or are you ashamed of saying what you thought about the film? Are you solely here for the existence of box office rumble? Or do you actually.....LIKE to talk about the very films?
Yes I like to talk about the Bond films, that's why I prefer not to discuss it with people who will explain with "hard facts" that Connery is for kids, Moore is for silly persons, Brosnan is for silly kids, and that only grown-ups can get Mendes' Bond.
And tell me how I can tell how much Bond rates his mood in the clinic if I didn't see the movie ?
I can list you some CG face replacement uses in the movie if you want :)
Or maybe we could discuss that finally the member here who said he got some scoops from Mendes himself seemed to be right after all ?!
Why are you here?