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

1112113115117118152

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    I believe the more America-pandering Brosnan movies performed better because they starred a Malibu residing actor who was known from an American TV series, and thus had better 'middle America' appeal than the at the time unknown Daniel Craig, and they put American Bond girls into 3 out of the 4 films.

    And similarly, you could also say the more UK-centric Craig films, with big action scenes taking place in London, have resulted in a huge boost to their popularity in Britain.
    Daniel Craig was the actor in the most popular recent Bond film stateside, namely SF. This wasn't decades ago, but the immediately preceding entry - just 3 years ago. As @mepal1 says, it sold 14m more tickets, a not inconsequential number. He is also the actor in one of the most critically acclaimed Bond films or recent times (namely CR) which has done a heck of a lot of business on blu ray and boxsets stateside. So he's hardly an unknown any more.

    The Craig films are very popular in Britain, but CR was no more UK centric than any other Bond film that I can recall. The same applied to QoS, and both were very popular in their respective year of release in the UK.

    The Craig films are more European centric (at least imho) in their plotting, casting (especially of relative unknowns stateside), somewhat toned down action (except perhaps for QoS) and most tellingly, in their more restrained humour. That may account for their increased popularity in the UK, but I'm speculating.

    The Brosnan films were relatively more popular (as a % of total box office gross) in the US, and that is an interesting fact. More so than the Moore and Dalton films, and more so than the Craig films. Only Connery surpassed his relative popularity in the US.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    I believe the more America-pandering Brosnan movies performed better because they starred a Malibu residing actor who was known from an American TV series, and thus had better 'middle America' appeal than the at the time unknown Daniel Craig, and they put American Bond girls into 3 out of the 4 films.
    Oh tosh.
    It's in the pure entertainment factor of the films.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Daniel Craig was the actor in the most popular recent Bond film stateside, namely SF. This wasn't decades ago, but the immediately preceding entry - just 3 years ago. As @mepal1 says, it sold 14m more tickets, a not inconsequential number. He is also the actor in one of the most critically acclaimed Bond films or recent times (namely CR) which has done a heck of a lot of business on blu ray and boxsets stateside. So he's hardly an unknown any more.

    Yes I do recall SF :) I think its obvious at this point that was an outlier, boosted by a combo of Olympics hype, Adele, 50th anniversary marketing etc, BUT the fact that it was genuinely well received by critics and audiences alike pushed it over the top for a huge box office result. Otherwise it would have fizzled out at say...250 million, not 300+. Compared to DAD which had a lot of 40th anniversary hype, leading to an impressive opening weekend...but over the long run it only just nudged past TND in US ticket sales. Aside from Skyfall, Broz's films do better on average than DC's in the US.
    The Craig films are very popular in Britain, but CR was no more UK centric than any other Bond film that I can recall. The same applied to QoS, and both were very popular in their respective year of release in the UK.

    It wasn't necessarily Brit-centric geographically speaking, but CR brought a British sensibility back to the series which had gone too Hollywood. Bond was no longer saying things like "station break" and "Yo, Wade", the wit became drier and subtler instead of "Read this, bitch", and there was no OTT driving invisible Aston Martins through ice castles being melted by a space laser, and they deliberately avoided big name Halle Berry style casting, hence the lower opening weekend than DAD (but word of its quality got out and it succeeded).
    The Brosnan films were relatively more popular (as a % of total box office gross) in the US, and that is an interesting fact. More so than the Moore and Dalton films, and more so than the Craig films. Only Connery surpassed his relative popularity in the US.

    Do you have an opinion on why this is?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The Craig films are very popular in Britain, but CR was no more UK centric than any other Bond film that I can recall. The same applied to QoS, and both were very popular in their respective year of release in the UK.

    It wasn't necessarily Brit-centric geographically speaking, but CR brought a British sensibility back to the series which had gone too Hollywood. Bond was no longer saying things like "station break" and "Yo, Wade", the wit became drier and subtler instead of "Read this, bitch", and there was no OTT driving invisible Aston Martins through ice castles being melted by a space laser, and they deliberately avoided big name Halle Berry style casting, hence the lower opening weekend than DAD (but word of its quality got out and it succeeded).
    Yes, I agree with you. The humour has become more restrained as I mentioned above, and they now cast more relative unknowns (at least to the majority of Americans) than they did before. Both are welcome developments to me, because I find the performances generally have more character, depth and complexity to them. Giannini, Mikkelsen, Almaric & even Bardem for instance.
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The Brosnan films were relatively more popular (as a % of total box office gross) in the US, and that is an interesting fact. More so than the Moore and Dalton films, and more so than the Craig films. Only Connery surpassed his relative popularity in the US.
    Do you have an opinion on why this is?
    It's difficult to tell. The most likely answer is that the films were more in tune with what the American public was looking for in the 90's from Bond.

    The films were certainly more generic to me, but the vast majority of the American public seemed to welcome this, and associated Bond at the time with tropes (cars, watches, gadgets, sleeping about, smart alec remarks, explosions etc. etc.). Basically a magnification of cliches that began with GF (the breakout iconic Bond film in the US) and carried on during the Moore era, but this time taken to a whole new level of absurdity.

    In a way, the 90's Bond films were a personification of that somewhat uncreative decade, relatively speaking at least imho. A greatest hits era for a compilation decade. I remember even a few years ago there were complaints that there were not enough gadgets in the Craig films.

    It's interesting to note that these days most US folks also recognize GE to be Brosnan's best, even though some of the other films were very popular back then - so it likely was a phase.
  • Posts: 158
    gklein wrote: »
    Folks are saying that the next Bond movie will have a smaller budget and, thus, a smaller scale. The next movie should absolutely have a smaller budget but that doesn't mean it'll have a smaller scale. The last two Bond movies, in my opinion, have wasted their budgets. Mendez simply doesn't know what to do w/the money and he blows it.

    We need a more creative director who knows how to put the money on the screen. If we look at the budgets for the Brosnan Bonds, even after adjusting for inflation, they were very reasonable but still delivered spectacle and scale.

    I agree. Look at the Bourne Ultimatum scene at Waterloo Station is one of the most tense and exciting scenes in any action movie. It didn't need any special effects, any big explosions, any set construction. It was brilliant without spending a fortune. Then look at the scene when Bond meets Vesper on the train in Casino Royale. It was witty and really let us see Bond's personality - these are standout scenes that need good writing and direction.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,116
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Yes it is strange to see DAD and TND out-gross 3 out of 4 Craig films in the US, especially considering the reception DAD got. Just goes to show that the paying public and the internet rarely agree. If you line up the 7 Broz/DC films in US order, it goes

    1. SF Craig
    2. DAD Broz
    3. TND Broz
    4. CR Craig
    5. TWINE Broz
    6. GE Broz
    7. QOS Craig

    I wonder if its a coincidence that Brosnan's 3 highest grossing films in America all featured an American Bond girl.

    No, we don't think that way.

    The Craig films until SP have garnered greater critical and commercial success than the Brosnan films in the US.

    SW7 is pretty much a film of unknowns and we're watching that.

    The Brits here analyzing the US often have no clue and are too often blindly biased.

    If we suck so bad then for heaven's sake please don't bother seeing SW7.
  • Posts: 1,098
    I see from the latest news that the weekend estimate for SW7 has come down from around $250 mil, to around $220 mil. That will still be big enough to take the crown from Jurassic World.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 1,098
    I've read elsewhere that SP is currently on £92.5 mil in the UK, but is now rapidly fading away, and may just fail to reach Avatar's total.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Of course we have to have inflation adjusted figures to do the maths, but we also should just look at this year, which was indeed very successful and here, Sp is the ONLY one totally on 2 D to go over 800 mill. Quite a task to do and never mind what we and the audiences might think of the film, it was good enough to generate legs, that ate necessary to go this far. Going strictly by the numbers and sticking to this year, which is just fair go make a fair compaison, its nothing to be ashamed of. Its a healthy success despite all its shortcomings and Bond never needed the US to be successful.
    But all this blaming of them is ridiculous too.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 709
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Yes it is strange to see DAD and TND out-gross 3 out of 4 Craig films in the US, especially considering the reception DAD got. Just goes to show that the paying public and the internet rarely agree. If you line up the 7 Broz/DC films in US order, it goes

    1. SF Craig
    2. DAD Broz
    3. TND Broz
    4. CR Craig
    5. TWINE Broz
    6. GE Broz
    7. QOS Craig

    I wonder if its a coincidence that Brosnan's 3 highest grossing films in America all featured an American Bond girl.

    No, we don't think that way.

    The Craig films until SP have garnered greater critical and commercial success than the Brosnan films in the US.

    SW7 is pretty much a film of unknowns and we're watching that.

    The Brits here analyzing the US often have no clue and are too often blindly biased.

    If we suck so bad then for heaven's sake please don't bother seeing SW7.

    Er...I'm American.
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's difficult to tell. The most likely answer is that the films were more in tune with what the American public was looking for in the 90's from Bond.

    The films were certainly more generic to me, but the vast majority of the American public seemed to welcome this, and associated Bond at the time with tropes (cars, watches, gadgets, sleeping about, smart alec remarks, explosions etc. etc.). Basically a magnification of cliches that began with GF (the breakout iconic Bond film in the US) and carried on during the Moore era, but this time taken to a whole new level of absurdity.

    In a way, the 90's Bond films were a personification of that somewhat uncreative decade, relatively speaking at least imho. A greatest hits era for a compilation decade. I remember even a few years ago there were complaints that there were not enough gadgets in the Craig films.

    It's interesting to note that these days most US folks also recognize GE to be Brosnan's best, even though some of the other films were very popular back then - so it likely was a phase.

    That's as good an explanation as any other. Especially when you consider the most absurd one of all (DAD) had the highest US box office. I accept that there's a good reason for QOS' relatively low take, but still puzzled that SP and especially CR can't match TND and DAD. (And what was so different or worse about TWINE that that made $20 million less?!)
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 2,015
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    The Brits here analyzing the US often have no clue and are too often blindly biased.

    You mean one figure is a too simplistic way to judge a whole country's population ?
    But.. but.. does it mean box office "science" is only a way to put "facts" on one's prejudice ? Ouch.

    On the other hand it explains why no one manages to predict box office ! It's a science where a 50% margin error is called "good prediction" :)

    For instance, you can read that SW7 did in France about 30% less than SP. I won't correct because I've already tried twice, but you can imagine that this statistic is quite weird actually.
  • Posts: 6,601
    I think all should stop analyzing Spectres BO success taking US figures. Its a bit weird and ends up giving wrong impressions as a whole.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Sorry everyone especially my UK friends here. I just got a bit disgusted and insulted.

    I apologize.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Regarding US figures, one thing to keep in mind, which we had briefly touched on here during this year prior to its release, is the concern about spy fatigue.

    There have been several spy related films this year, including some spoofs that have been well received.

    Most spy oriented films have not lit the US box office alight this year (including the excellent MI-RN, which underperformed in non-inflation terms compared to MI-GP), with the one exception being Kingsman. This film had the benefit of being released first / early and had a very long run in North American theatres, which it benefited from ($128m US gross) at a time when there weren't too many comparable releases. So spy fatigue perhaps had an effect on SP's relative performance, and also of other 'formulaic' spy films.

    I am curious to see how London Has Fallen performs next year, since it will be coming out in the spring before a lot of other competition hits.
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's difficult to tell. The most likely answer is that the films were more in tune with what the American public was looking for in the 90's from Bond.

    The films were certainly more generic to me, but the vast majority of the American public seemed to welcome this, and associated Bond at the time with tropes (cars, watches, gadgets, sleeping about, smart alec remarks, explosions etc. etc.). Basically a magnification of cliches that began with GF (the breakout iconic Bond film in the US) and carried on during the Moore era, but this time taken to a whole new level of absurdity.

    In a way, the 90's Bond films were a personification of that somewhat uncreative decade, relatively speaking at least imho. A greatest hits era for a compilation decade. I remember even a few years ago there were complaints that there were not enough gadgets in the Craig films.

    It's interesting to note that these days most US folks also recognize GE to be Brosnan's best, even though some of the other films were very popular back then - so it likely was a phase.

    That's as good an explanation as any other. Especially when you consider the most absurd one of all (DAD) had the highest US box office. I accept that there's a good reason for QOS' relatively low take, but still puzzled that SP and especially CR can't match TND and DAD. (And what was so different or worse about TWINE that that made $20 million less?!)
    RE: TWINE - the one thing that was different compared to TND & DAD (whatever you may think of it) was that the action was terribly lacklustre, tacked on, and uninvolved. Some (including myself) have said the same of SP, except for the train fight.

    CR was a different case, because no one knew who Craig was in the US at that time. It was a film that established him. If you see how CR performed at the US box office over its run, it had absolutely incredible legs compared to its opening weekend and was doing phenomenal $1m/day business much later in its run which was very impressive, so the film was well received ultimately and established DC as Bond in the US.

    Regarding SP vs. DAD/TND, one has to consider the crowded release schedule and the removal of premium theatres. Sure, the earlier films didn't have IMAX benefits, nor did they have such a large theatre count at the start, but they also didn't have such a crowded release schedule.

    Bottom line though is that Brosnan was well received in the US generally during his run. He established himself as a semi-A lister during that period.
  • Posts: 1,098
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Sorry everyone especially my UK friends here. I just got a bit disgusted and insulted.

    I apologize.

    No problem.

    I sometimes write things on forum posts, then think, oops, maybe i shouldn't of written that.......but that's just life on the internet.

    Anyway, wouldn't this forum be boring if we all agreed on things?
    :)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I think it's extreme that anyone is getting mad about the box office returns in general. There's no way that each subsequent Bond release will either top or exceed SF's box office, and if Bond is making over $800 million over 50 years later, I'd say that's really damn good.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Star Wars: The Force Awakens made its way across the global landscape (except for China) this weekend to post an amazing estimated $517 million global gross. This marks the second-highest reported global weekend opening of all-time, behind only Jurassic World ($525 million, including China).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Blows my mind that something as massive as this didn't beat something as lackluster as 'Jurassic World.' What a shame. Oh well, it'll still shatter more records, I'm sure. This movie is only getting started. Can't wait to see it!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm surprised that JW's record didn't fall as well - it certainly has more awareness. Christmas maybe, and other things to do like last minute shopping etc.
  • Posts: 6,601
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Star Wars: The Force Awakens made its way across the global landscape (except for China) this weekend to post an amazing estimated $517 million global gross. This marks the second-highest reported global weekend opening of all-time, behind only Jurassic World ($525 million, including China

    They surely had to screw up big time to not have this sort of success. That something ad weak as JW could beat it in some sort tells a lot. Nothing favourable though.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    I must be the only one who enjoyed 'Jurassic World', but I agree that JW is nothing compared to SW7.
  • Previous Star Wars movies didn't do well in China. That may explain it. In any case, it's a huge success.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    I must be the only one who enjoyed 'Jurassic World', but I agree that JW is nothing compared to SW7.
    I enjoyed it as well. But like you said, it's nothing compared to TFA.
  • Posts: 94
    How can anybody post figures for the opening weekend when its not over yet?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    yogi1 wrote: »
    How can anybody post figures for the opening weekend when its not over yet?

    They're usually spot on estimates that go off of tickets already sold, audience attendance throughout the weekend, etc. It's possible that it'll fluctuate by tomorrow morning once the finalized weekend B.O. is released.
  • Posts: 1,098
    Latest Update

    SP is now on an estimated $193.9 mil in North America after this weekend.

    Needless to say the film took quite a bit of a hit in face of the SW onslaught.

    Hopefully, the film can still reach the $200 mil mark, by the end of its run.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 2,115
    My understanding the figures that come out at midday Sunday consist of actual sales on Friday and Saturday, along with an estimate for Sunday. The actual, final figures come out on Monday. In the case of SPECTRE, $73 million was the estimate that came out at midday Sunday of its opening weekend in the US-Canada. It was revised to $70.4 million the next day.
  • Posts: 1,098
    My understanding the figures that come out at midday Sunday consist of actual sales on Friday and Saturday, along with an estimate for Sunday. The actual, final figures come out on Monday. In the case of SPECTRE, $73 million was the estimate that came out at midday Sunday of its opening weekend in the US-Canada. It was revised to $70.4 million the next day.

    Yes, you are correct, the figures given out now are actually estimates, i mean its still early evening in the UK here, so for North America, they are still 5 hours behind us, and that is just for the Eastern side of that continent.
    The true, actual figures for the weekends take, are announced sometime late on Monday, and they are normally a bit lower than the estimated total given by the studios.

  • 834 million Worldwide, so the movie is still making money despite the release of SW. SP may get over 850 million, it would be the 6th movie of the year.
  • Posts: 1,098
    834 million Worldwide, so the movie is still making money despite the release of SW. SP may get over 850 million, it would be the 6th movie of the year.

    Yep, that is not bad, and it does look like SP, will reach and pass $850 mil worldwide during the Xmas hols.

Sign In or Register to comment.