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
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ ;-)
24 movies now have grossed more than $1 Billion. Of which the majority of the films, 17 (!), have been produced in or after 2010. It becomes way easier to cross the $1 Billion threshold. And that's due to the inflation rise that will never stop.
BUT, and here's my but, with inflation corrections applied to much older movies, like "Thunderball", those new $1 Billion-movies are nowhere as succesful as those older pictures. And that's due to the insidious increase of production budgets, thus a much lower ROI for movies that are much newer.
It may have to become like those films to appeal to a broader audience and make more money, and as I said earlier on this thread, even if it had grossed SF money, it wouldn't have mattered to its 2015 global box office rank. It would have stayed at 6. I wouldn't want them to make the film in 3D either.
The only release to outgross it last year that wasn't 3D was that partial 3D release FF7, the true anomaly of 2015 imho.
SP did fine all things considered. If they can just get the budget to more reasonable levels, $900m next time out will make it immensely profitable.
Box office success and film quality for me are two entirely separate things. So saying that you don't want a Bond film to do better than expected isn't by no means some kind of 'silent danger'.
I think both can be achieved: A) A near perfect gem of a film, and B) A wonderful box office success. Both shouldn't be necessarily linked together.
I think it is the task of good directors and producers to be numb for audience expectations and working with the constraints of the Bond franchise formula. Really. Being sober and cool, is all you can and should do. I'm no member of any movie crew, but I do think that a good film starts with a thrilling idea. A sense of "Ooowh Babs! Damn, I have a wonderful idea!" :-)
Ahhh well, who am I :-P.
Agreed. Because as I've said before, if that was the case, 'Avatar' and 'Titanic' would be the best films of all time.
Yes, it's the consistency that throws up the problems. They were coming off the back of an enormous hit, so I can't call them out for doing what they did with SP. It was in some ways inevitable. But I agree, the content has to be front and centre, the box office will do what it does. The film makers craft the film, the viewers deliver the Box Office. I'm almost certain there will be a Bond film in the next decade or so that is infinitely better than SF, but won't generate the equivalent BO and I'd rather that than the reverse. I don't want Bond films to be trapped in this nonsensical tussle at the top. There's not a single 'classic' in the all time top 10. That was never really the case before, but that's the industry now.
Mexico City & Austria are where the main $$$ were spent if I had to guess.
As for the box office, I stand by the fact that US critics were too hard on the film giving it such a mixed reception which turned people off from going to see it, I know it for sure. I had talked to & asked a lot of people.
Nonsense. If the formula was easy to replicate EVERY SINGLE MOVIE made would do it. It's a business, pure and simple. And making a billion dollars is NEVER guaranteed for anything.
Making a film is costly that much has always been clear but the Bond movies evidently are lacking when it comes to knowing about being judicial with their spending. The cheapest Bond movie of the Craig era, CR, ironically looks like the most expensive of the 4 movies. The action set piece in Austria in SP was elaborate, costly but hollow and underwhelming. I didn't appreciate it at all. Then Morocco was completely wasted and had they opted for something different i.e. gone with the dinner scene instead of the computer room full of cyber clones and opted for a more dynamic shootout that didn't result in a ridiculously easy escape and the most expensive and wasteful explosion ever, they could have saved a few bob. Then there's Rome...the amount of wasted opportunity there is staggering. EoN need to do better. Much better and you don't need to be a movie wizard to know this.
I try to do my best. I was just a bit annoyed yesterday, in part because of how things are moderated here. That's all :-). I hope that I am an overly critical, yet positive sounding chap though.
Have you read my two articles from HMSSblog @Germanlady?
Glad you're back btw.
It's FAR from 23rd highest grossing film in the U.S. I believe what the previous poster meant was when converted to US Dollars, its the 23rd highest grossing film internationally.
In the U.S., it's currently 164th highest of all time.
They also destroyed 7 of those DB10's for the filming of that car chase, for a grand total of 37 million. Not sure how they managed to destroy 7 of them for the car chase that we got, but yea..
http://fortune.com/2015/09/28/bond-aston-martin-spectre/
It took 7 Aston Martin's to film that chase? Wow. That money was very poorly spent.
I agree. While I do think Skyfall did have a few things going for it, I don't believe they are as big as everyone makes them out to be.
The 50th anniversary? Nobody cares but bond fans, and we were all going to see the movie anyways.
The Olympics with the Queen? Sorry, but nobody outside of England really cared all that much about that.
The perfect timing of a story about hacking? Tons of movies have perfectly timed stories.
The high praise/reviews/RT scores? I would like to think critics wouldn't give a film high marks because of hype around it, but rather because the film itself is good. Maybe I give critics too much credit though :D
Sure all these things may have combined to help, but them alone wouldn't make double what QoS made. The movie did so good IMO because it's a fantastic movie, with great directing, acting, screenplay, cinematography, music, and decent enough writing. The entire movie from start to the mansion is a masterpiece IMO, especially most of that 2nd act.
Fully agree here @BondJames. This was the basic and main ingredient for this insane box office gross of $1.1 Billion.
And to compare it with "SPECTRE", which was born under a very troublesome starry sky (SonyLeaks), it still grosses $876 Million as of now. What if the stars were slightly better, but not as good as "Skyfall"? :-)
Which is what I've been saying all along, and yet others don't seem to agree. I guess if you handed some of these people $200 million+ for free, they wouldn't be impressed by that return. Suppose it's pocket change to some!
If you're offering, I certainly wouldn't turn down an extra $200 million. ;)
Seriously, though, Spectre, despite all its shortcomings, has done very well at the box office. It's not a failure by any stretch of the imagination, and if EON and Sony find themselves disappointed by a box office that has come close to $900 million, then that's on them for having unrealistic expectations.
You and me both. :)
I must confess, though, I do hope that I someday reach a level of wealth where I can look at a $200+ million profit as a "disappointment". Must be nice.
A man can dream. Ask those who are disappointed in SP's B.O. return and see, they must know! I said long ago that after SF, we can't expect that to happen with each and every Bond release from here on out, or we're going to be extremely disappointed.
You have like 200 plus profit. Who exactly participates?
CR looks much cheaper than SP. SP looks way richer in its PTS & portions of Rome than CR.
The standouts in CR were the African chase, Miami & casino .