› ›

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

1…128129131133134…152

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    danielcc wrote: »
    ForYourEyesOnly wrote: »
    I'd say $880 million is huge. Skyfall's $1.1 billion gross was driven by factors like the 50th year anniversary and Bond being promoted during the Olympics as well, so without such factors, I'd wager that it wouldn't be exponentially better than Spectre, especially considering that SP faced a tougher November and December of its respective year.

    I said it before (probably 10 times) and I will say it again:
    - Outside the US Spectre made almost exactly the same money that Skyfall did! A L M O S T E X A C T L Y! It is only due to the massive increase of the Dollar value that it appears to be 120 Mio USD less when reported in USD. And this is without 50s anniversary, whithout Adele, without Olympia spot and without the general praise that SF received upfront!

    - We could even go through the list of major countries and we would see that in local currency or even based on admissions SP did indeed challenge and partly surpass SF

    - Of course the much better China numbers also helped SP internationally

    - However, in the US (and Canada), SF was a total exception. To expect the same money from SP would have been quite stupid by Sony. SP did not perform very well there, but as posted above, the actual admission number was similar to the Bond standard there

    EDIT:
    It should also be mentioned that SP underperformed in France (as a second major market next to the US) which can probably be atributed to the terrible terrorist attacks on the weekend SP was released



    I still think had reviews and word of mouth been better it would have come closer to SF.

    Deadpool for example got surprising reviews and that boosted its BO considerably more than predicted. Just my opinion but seems like a good example of the impact of positive press.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Keep in mind that a lot of spy films under performed in the US last year, not just Bond. MI-RN didn't do as well as GP, even though I think it's the superior film, and let's not start with Man From Uncle.

    The only film in that genre that really beat the odds imho was Kingsman, and that one had the advantage of a much longer theatrical run due to no competition since it was first out of the gates in the spring.

    So the spy fatigue was real stateside.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, North American settings are not a necessity at all for North American box office. They haven't had great success with films using North American settings recently anyway. DAF & AVTAK come to mind. Bond is not a cultural institution in North America. Each film has to stand on its own and wow the audience on its own merits.

    Bottom line, I realize we are the faithful here, but are we really having a go at North American audiences (hardly a homogeneous group, since they comprise immigrants from all over the world, including many newcomers, Latinos, etc. etc. as well as Canada) for not making Spectre more successful than it was? It brought in $200m at the North American box office, which in my opinion is more than enough (given the film that it was), and on par (if only slightly less) than other Bond films have done in the recent past, bar Skyfall.

    I don't think, if we're being honest, we really wanted Spectre, with its legitimately discussed issues (here and elsewhere), to be the top grossing Bond film and poster boy for Bond in North America. No, I'm quite happy that such accolade remain with Skyfall for now.

    Let EON come back with a decent story, compelling characterizations, exceptional trend setting action, and superior visuals next time, which I'm sure they will. Then we can hope for better box office.

    Spectre did just well enough. No failure, but no trendsetter either. That is like the film. That is just fine with me.

    Wow, that's really how you picture Americans? With no specific cultural identity? Not quite, my friend. The vast, vast majority of Americans have lived here all our lives. Having different culture within this country has virtually nothing to do with immigration. That's a tiny portion of the population. Most of the cultural difference stems from regions within the country. New York is different from the Midwest, which is different from California, etc. :-O
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    Keep in mind that a lot of spy films under performed in the US last year, not just Bond. MI-RN didn't do as well as GP, even though I think it's the superior film, and let's not start with Man From Uncle.

    The only film in that genre that really beat the odds imho was Kingsman, and that one had the advantage of a much longer theatrical run due to no competition since it was first out of the gates in the spring.

    So the spy fatigue was real stateside.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Keep in mind that a lot of spy films under performed in the US last year, not just Bond. MI-RN didn't do as well as GP, even though I think it's the superior film, and let's not start with Man From Uncle.

    The only film in that genre that really beat the odds imho was Kingsman, and that one had the advantage of a much longer theatrical run due to no competition since it was first out of the gates in the spring.

    So the spy fatigue was real stateside.

    Excellent point ...didn't think of that.

    And even though MI:RN didn't gross as much as SP in NA the films were too similar in plot and location with MI imo taking away part of SP's thunder. I remember watching SP especially the ending which looks almost like the same movie thinking wow I wish I hadn't seen MI first.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, North American settings are not a necessity at all for North American box office. They haven't had great success with films using North American settings recently anyway. DAF & AVTAK come to mind. Bond is not a cultural institution in North America. Each film has to stand on its own and wow the audience on its own merits.

    Bottom line, I realize we are the faithful here, but are we really having a go at North American audiences (hardly a homogeneous group, since they comprise immigrants from all over the world, including many newcomers, Latinos, etc. etc. as well as Canada) for not making Spectre more successful than it was? It brought in $200m at the North American box office, which in my opinion is more than enough (given the film that it was), and on par (if only slightly less) than other Bond films have done in the recent past, bar Skyfall.

    I don't think, if we're being honest, we really wanted Spectre, with its legitimately discussed issues (here and elsewhere), to be the top grossing Bond film and poster boy for Bond in North America. No, I'm quite happy that such accolade remain with Skyfall for now.

    Let EON come back with a decent story, compelling characterizations, exceptional trend setting action, and superior visuals next time, which I'm sure they will. Then we can hope for better box office.

    Spectre did just well enough. No failure, but no trendsetter either. That is like the film. That is just fine with me.

    Wow, that's really how you picture Americans? With no specific cultural identity? Not quite, my friend. The vast, vast majority of Americans have lived here all our lives. Having different culture within this country has virtually nothing to do with immigration. That's a tiny portion of the population. Most of the cultural difference stems from regions within the country. New York is different from the Midwest, which is different from California, etc. :-O
    The US is far less homogenous than other countries. That is the point, whether it be immigration or whether it be east vs. west, Bible belt vs. metropolitan and urban cities. Current immigration may be a small portion of the total population, but the entire US population is made up of immigrants, with vastly different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds which they are allowed and encouraged to hold on to and practice. That is part of its rich diversity of views and practices. The point being, it cannot be pigeonholed, although it seems to always be. And this is not just about the US. North American box office includes Canada.

    There is a reason why nearly every entertainer wants to make it in the US. It means something to appeal to such a culturally diverse group.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    ForYourEyesOnly wrote: »
    I'd say $880 million is huge. Skyfall's $1.1 billion gross was driven by factors like the 50th year anniversary and Bond being promoted during the Olympics as well, so without such factors, I'd wager that it wouldn't be exponentially better than Spectre, especially considering that SP faced a tougher November and December of its respective year.

    Personally, I think it's more preferrable that Bond get higher critical reception than box office reception. It's usually spectacle rather than a good film that gets major success in the box office market (the Transformer series, for instance, and at times, Bond as well). Bond flicks almost always makes it into the top 7 or 8 worldwide grossing films of their respective year - I think at that rate, critical reception is more important than huge box office numbers. The Bond franchise is doing fine financially (as of now).

    I concur wholeheartedly. I want good films; Bond almost always delivers.

    The bolded here you mention is important to keep in mind. Think about it. The last two Bond films have combined for nearly 2 BILLION DOLLARS! That's nuts. That's almost double what the two previous films grossed. What other franchise can boast that? They're out there, sure. Fast and Furious seems to only be growing, SW and Jurassic Park are blowing it up but Bond is over half a century old and just had their two biggest BO films ever in its franchise history.

    So extrapolate from this two things:

    Craig ain't going anywhere. Period.
    The franchise is kicking ass and taking names. This is the second Golden Age. Let's enjoy it!
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    bondjames wrote: »
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, North American settings are not a necessity at all for North American box office. They haven't had great success with films using North American settings recently anyway. DAF & AVTAK come to mind. Bond is not a cultural institution in North America. Each film has to stand on its own and wow the audience on its own merits.

    Bottom line, I realize we are the faithful here, but are we really having a go at North American audiences (hardly a homogeneous group, since they comprise immigrants from all over the world, including many newcomers, Latinos, etc. etc. as well as Canada) for not making Spectre more successful than it was? It brought in $200m at the North American box office, which in my opinion is more than enough (given the film that it was), and on par (if only slightly less) than other Bond films have done in the recent past, bar Skyfall.

    I don't think, if we're being honest, we really wanted Spectre, with its legitimately discussed issues (here and elsewhere), to be the top grossing Bond film and poster boy for Bond in North America. No, I'm quite happy that such accolade remain with Skyfall for now.

    Let EON come back with a decent story, compelling characterizations, exceptional trend setting action, and superior visuals next time, which I'm sure they will. Then we can hope for better box office.

    Spectre did just well enough. No failure, but no trendsetter either. That is like the film. That is just fine with me.

    Wow, that's really how you picture Americans? With no specific cultural identity? Not quite, my friend. The vast, vast majority of Americans have lived here all our lives. Having different culture within this country has virtually nothing to do with immigration. That's a tiny portion of the population. Most of the cultural difference stems from regions within the country. New York is different from the Midwest, which is different from California, etc. :-O
    The US is far less homogenous than other countries. That is the point, whether it be immigration or whether it be east vs. west, Bible belt vs. metropolitan and urban cities. Current immigration may be a small portion of the total population, but the entire US population is made up of immigrants, with vastly different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds which they are allowed and encouraged to hold on to and practice. That is part of its rich diversity of views and practices. The point being, it cannot be pigeonholed, although it seems to always be. And this is not just about the US. North American box office includes Canada.

    There is a reason why nearly every entertainer wants to make it in the US. It means something to appeal to such a culturally diverse group.

    Never fear. Europe is being rapidly "enriched" by diversity with every waking moment.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Perilagu_Khan wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, North American settings are not a necessity at all for North American box office. They haven't had great success with films using North American settings recently anyway. DAF & AVTAK come to mind. Bond is not a cultural institution in North America. Each film has to stand on its own and wow the audience on its own merits.

    Bottom line, I realize we are the faithful here, but are we really having a go at North American audiences (hardly a homogeneous group, since they comprise immigrants from all over the world, including many newcomers, Latinos, etc. etc. as well as Canada) for not making Spectre more successful than it was? It brought in $200m at the North American box office, which in my opinion is more than enough (given the film that it was), and on par (if only slightly less) than other Bond films have done in the recent past, bar Skyfall.

    I don't think, if we're being honest, we really wanted Spectre, with its legitimately discussed issues (here and elsewhere), to be the top grossing Bond film and poster boy for Bond in North America. No, I'm quite happy that such accolade remain with Skyfall for now.

    Let EON come back with a decent story, compelling characterizations, exceptional trend setting action, and superior visuals next time, which I'm sure they will. Then we can hope for better box office.

    Spectre did just well enough. No failure, but no trendsetter either. That is like the film. That is just fine with me.

    Wow, that's really how you picture Americans? With no specific cultural identity? Not quite, my friend. The vast, vast majority of Americans have lived here all our lives. Having different culture within this country has virtually nothing to do with immigration. That's a tiny portion of the population. Most of the cultural difference stems from regions within the country. New York is different from the Midwest, which is different from California, etc. :-O
    The US is far less homogenous than other countries. That is the point, whether it be immigration or whether it be east vs. west, Bible belt vs. metropolitan and urban cities. Current immigration may be a small portion of the total population, but the entire US population is made up of immigrants, with vastly different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds which they are allowed and encouraged to hold on to and practice. That is part of its rich diversity of views and practices. The point being, it cannot be pigeonholed, although it seems to always be. And this is not just about the US. North American box office includes Canada.

    There is a reason why nearly every entertainer wants to make it in the US. It means something to appeal to such a culturally diverse group.

    Never fear. Europe is being rapidly "enriched" by diversity with every waking moment.
    Ha ha. True. I should have added the big cities of Europe to that as well. London is as diverse as they come, as are Paris and other larger cities. I was mainly trying to defend any possible negativity towards the US from the Bond fan base for causing a high dollar (hence messing up SP box office on a converted basis) and for not taking SP over $300m.
  • danielccdanielcc
    Posts: 79
    Of course, better word of mouth would have helped, but my point is that even we as fans only look at (stupid) gross USD data and come to the conslusion that it didn't do as nearly as good as SF (However that is not even half the truth. It DID do as good as SF outside the US and outside France. You would expect this low level comparisson from the media but not us fans...

    Could it have done better with more positive reviews and reception? Of course! But let's not forget. The 1,1 bn of SF would have meant for SP to have probably 10% more tickets

    The strong figures for SP prove just how big the Bond Franchise is these days and also how strong an impression SF (and CR) left.

    The question now is: Can Bond 25 stay on that level or will the more mediocre reception of SP have an impact? Don't forget the situation after CR. QOS received way lower reviews than CR and still made alsmost exactly the same money. Then SF came and due to its superior reception, it even exceeded CR by far - so the relative disappointment of QOS did not hurt the sucess of SF at all.

    Conclusion:
    - Though not as good perceived as SF; SP almost had as many tickets sold internationally (except US and France). In some countries even better
    - The brand seems to be that strong these days that we constantly move on much higher box office figures compared to the Brosnan time - even in case the movie does not fulfill the high expectations

    To my mind, there is also a reason why the success of Craig movies is constantly high and even much higher than what could be expected judged on internet folks crying and nitpicking (QOS, SP). The reason for me is that Bond is nowadays - more so than ever before - very strong with untypical audiences (more adult people and especially moe women!). Those are the kind of audiences that will go and see a movie for different reasons and they will not cry and nitpick on every detail on internet boards.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Are there any Brits left in London? Just kidding but seriously.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Also, if you look at it, SP had better legs than what the critical response would have one believe. QoS is around the same RT score, 65 (QoS) to 64 (SP) respectively, yet SP had a much higher opening weekend to finishing multiplier than QoS. QoS made about 2.5 in total from opening while SP made almost 2.9. That means people went back to see it more, and its "legs" means it is a more likable film overall.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    bondjames wrote: »
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, North American settings are not a necessity at all for North American box office. They haven't had great success with films using North American settings recently anyway. DAF & AVTAK come to mind. Bond is not a cultural institution in North America. Each film has to stand on its own and wow the audience on its own merits.

    Bottom line, I realize we are the faithful here, but are we really having a go at North American audiences (hardly a homogeneous group, since they comprise immigrants from all over the world, including many newcomers, Latinos, etc. etc. as well as Canada) for not making Spectre more successful than it was? It brought in $200m at the North American box office, which in my opinion is more than enough (given the film that it was), and on par (if only slightly less) than other Bond films have done in the recent past, bar Skyfall.

    I don't think, if we're being honest, we really wanted Spectre, with its legitimately discussed issues (here and elsewhere), to be the top grossing Bond film and poster boy for Bond in North America. No, I'm quite happy that such accolade remain with Skyfall for now.

    Let EON come back with a decent story, compelling characterizations, exceptional trend setting action, and superior visuals next time, which I'm sure they will. Then we can hope for better box office.

    Spectre did just well enough. No failure, but no trendsetter either. That is like the film. That is just fine with me.

    Wow, that's really how you picture Americans? With no specific cultural identity? Not quite, my friend. The vast, vast majority of Americans have lived here all our lives. Having different culture within this country has virtually nothing to do with immigration. That's a tiny portion of the population. Most of the cultural difference stems from regions within the country. New York is different from the Midwest, which is different from California, etc. :-O
    The US is far less homogenous than other countries. That is the point, whether it be immigration or whether it be east vs. west, Bible belt vs. metropolitan and urban cities. Current immigration may be a small portion of the total population, but the entire US population is made up of immigrants, with vastly different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds which they are allowed and encouraged to hold on to and practice. That is part of its rich diversity of views and practices. The point being, it cannot be pigeonholed, although it seems to always be. And this is not just about the US. North American box office includes Canada.

    There is a reason why nearly every entertainer wants to make it in the US. It means something to appeal to such a culturally diverse group.

    What on earth are you talking about? How far back are we counting a country's population roots? ALL countries were created by some other group of people walking there and populating it. No life on Hawaii was there at first when the island was made, same with America. The Indians weren't there tens of thousands of years ago, etc. Unless you wanna go all the way back to when Homo Sapiens walked out of Central Africa about 150,000 years ago, ALL countries are made up of "immigrants." Sorry, but your assertion is just flat out asinine.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, North American settings are not a necessity at all for North American box office. They haven't had great success with films using North American settings recently anyway. DAF & AVTAK come to mind. Bond is not a cultural institution in North America. Each film has to stand on its own and wow the audience on its own merits.

    Bottom line, I realize we are the faithful here, but are we really having a go at North American audiences (hardly a homogeneous group, since they comprise immigrants from all over the world, including many newcomers, Latinos, etc. etc. as well as Canada) for not making Spectre more successful than it was? It brought in $200m at the North American box office, which in my opinion is more than enough (given the film that it was), and on par (if only slightly less) than other Bond films have done in the recent past, bar Skyfall.

    I don't think, if we're being honest, we really wanted Spectre, with its legitimately discussed issues (here and elsewhere), to be the top grossing Bond film and poster boy for Bond in North America. No, I'm quite happy that such accolade remain with Skyfall for now.

    Let EON come back with a decent story, compelling characterizations, exceptional trend setting action, and superior visuals next time, which I'm sure they will. Then we can hope for better box office.

    Spectre did just well enough. No failure, but no trendsetter either. That is like the film. That is just fine with me.

    Wow, that's really how you picture Americans? With no specific cultural identity? Not quite, my friend. The vast, vast majority of Americans have lived here all our lives. Having different culture within this country has virtually nothing to do with immigration. That's a tiny portion of the population. Most of the cultural difference stems from regions within the country. New York is different from the Midwest, which is different from California, etc. :-O
    The US is far less homogenous than other countries. That is the point, whether it be immigration or whether it be east vs. west, Bible belt vs. metropolitan and urban cities. Current immigration may be a small portion of the total population, but the entire US population is made up of immigrants, with vastly different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds which they are allowed and encouraged to hold on to and practice. That is part of its rich diversity of views and practices. The point being, it cannot be pigeonholed, although it seems to always be. And this is not just about the US. North American box office includes Canada.

    There is a reason why nearly every entertainer wants to make it in the US. It means something to appeal to such a culturally diverse group.

    What on earth are you talking about? How far back are we counting a country's population roots? ALL countries were created by some other group of people walking there and populating it. No life on Hawaii was there at first when the island was made, same with America. The Indians weren't there tens of thousands of years ago, etc. Unless you wanna go all the way back to when Homo Sapiens walked out of Central Africa about 150,000 years ago, ALL countries are made up of "immigrants." Sorry, but your assertion is just flat out asinine.
    Get over yourself why don't you. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. That is one of several points I've made above, and yet you continue to wank on that one point and obsess over it. It is a diverse population with a large turn of new immigrants into it, particularly the markets with the large theatre counts. That is a known fact to anyone who has any interest in politics, where changes in approach have to take place in messaging for similar reasons. The same thing applies to Canada which as a large influx of new immigrants yearly, especially into the large metropolitan areas with the largest theatre counts. As has been stated, Europe is feeling that too now due to the migrant crisis.

    The bottom line is, it's silly to pick on the US for SP's average box office returns there, and the country is not homogeneous.
  • ChampionAlonsoChampionAlonso
    Posts: 389
    One year ago, Sony/MGM/EÓN were expecting 200 million in North America and 700 million worldwide, as you can read in this article about Sony leaks. http://www.007magazine.co.uk/bond24/secrets_of_spectre1.htm
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited February 2016 Posts: 11,139
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, North American settings are not a necessity at all for North American box office. They haven't had great success with films using North American settings recently anyway. DAF & AVTAK come to mind. Bond is not a cultural institution in North America. Each film has to stand on its own and wow the audience on its own merits.

    Bottom line, I realize we are the faithful here, but are we really having a go at North American audiences (hardly a homogeneous group, since they comprise immigrants from all over the world, including many newcomers, Latinos, etc. etc. as well as Canada) for not making Spectre more successful than it was? It brought in $200m at the North American box office, which in my opinion is more than enough (given the film that it was), and on par (if only slightly less) than other Bond films have done in the recent past, bar Skyfall.

    I don't think, if we're being honest, we really wanted Spectre, with its legitimately discussed issues (here and elsewhere), to be the top grossing Bond film and poster boy for Bond in North America. No, I'm quite happy that such accolade remain with Skyfall for now.

    Let EON come back with a decent story, compelling characterizations, exceptional trend setting action, and superior visuals next time, which I'm sure they will. Then we can hope for better box office.

    Spectre did just well enough. No failure, but no trendsetter either. That is like the film. That is just fine with me.

    Wow, that's really how you picture Americans? With no specific cultural identity? Not quite, my friend. The vast, vast majority of Americans have lived here all our lives. Having different culture within this country has virtually nothing to do with immigration. That's a tiny portion of the population. Most of the cultural difference stems from regions within the country. New York is different from the Midwest, which is different from California, etc. :-O

    Everyone who knows whats up knows all Americans of course have a specific binding cultural identity...
    Guns_c139ba_1148280.jpg


    ;)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    God, guts & guns made this country what it is today.
    Hopefully, in time, education, logic & reason can fix all that... =))
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    ChampionAlonso wrote: »
    One year ago, Sony/MGM/EÓN were expecting 200 million in North America and 700 million worldwide, as you can read in this article about Sony leaks. http://www.007magazine.co.uk/bond24/secrets_of_spectre1.htm

    Which pretty much is what they got, taking into account France did less because of tragic happenings and the weak exchange rate.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited February 2016 Posts: 11,139
    Well, the current presidential campaign seems to allude that it's going to be a loooooooong time for that hope to see the light of day.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Well, the current presidential campaign seems to allude that it's going to be a loooooooong time for that hope to see the light of day.
    Not as long if Bernie wins.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Trump will decimate that socialist in my view.
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    bondjames wrote: »
    Trump will decimate that socialist in my view.

    From your mouth to God's ear.

  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    chrisisall wrote: »
    God, guts & guns made this country what it is today.
    Hopefully, in time, education, logic & reason can fix all that... =))

    Too bad all we have now is propaganda, hysteria, and irrationality.

  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    edited February 2016 Posts: 12,522
    Politicians from each side bug me to no end; this is why I'm independent. I think this thread is going off the rails :))
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Politicians from each side bug me to no end; this is why I'm independent. I think this thread is going off the rails :))

    In our shoddy bipartisan system you'd never have a hope of getting elected into office, but I for one appreciate your free-thinking! The most fun independents can have at this time in the political game is watching the majority of these bone-headed upper class mud slingers use up their money and energy on a futile crusade.

    Most everyone seems to treat the American election like a three-ring circus anyway. Why strive to make real change to bring everyone together in a globalized political landscape when we can simply mash together videos of Trump's funniest debate moments? What a world, what a world.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,522
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Politicians from each side bug me to no end; this is why I'm independent. I think this thread is going off the rails :))

    In our shoddy bipartisan system you'd never have a hope of getting elected into office, but I for one appreciate your free-thinking! The most fun independents can have at this time in the political game is watching the majority of these bone-headed upper class mud slingers use up their money and energy on a futile crusade.

    Most everyone seems to treat the American election like a three-ring circus anyway. Why strive to make real change to bring everyone together in a globalized political landscape when we can simply mash together videos of Trump's funniest debate moments? What a world, what a world.

    I certainly don't want to get into the political world so that's no issue. My views are all over the board, and often times I see both sides of the coin, so I can't really place myself on either side. The whole Trump thing is so ridiculous - I don't know how so many people can take him seriously.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    He's taken seriously even though he has no platform or clue because he tells it like it is. That authenticity is missing from all of the rest of them, except Sanders, who sadly is just a little too left wing to get elected. So it's down to a billionaire reality host and a socialist, until Bloomberg gets in.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @FoxRox, it's a fine skill to have to be able to see, understand and accept conflicting views on issues, something many in American politics lack, thanks again to the aforementioned political parties that offer you only two choices in the long run every four years. Elections come down to you trying to determine which of the two candidates is the least dreadful, instead of making you feel like you have any real choice.

    Hell, in American politics we have what are called "majority whips" whose sole job is to make members, by any means necessary, vote with and not against your party of choice. This leads to a chain reaction where both sides refuse to give opposite viewpoints the time of day for fear of upsetting their betters or committing political suicide, which leads us to where we are now: Do we let the Republicans into the oval office to only strengthen the already meaty control they already have, opening up opportunities for more political monopolization of their conservative views, or continue with a Democratic White House where the individual elected wastes the same time Obama has since his inauguration trying to make real change, only to be denied each time by a republican majority?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    They've got to take the money and the lobbyists out of the system. The so called 'special interests' are just too powerful. Overturn Citizen's United.

    Obama said he would deal with the lobbyists before he won his first term, and then - nothing.....

    They are just too powerful, and the fed up populace is rebelling, understandably, by going for the two fringe candidates who call it like it is. Authenticity always wins eventually in the US political system. That's why Romney had no chance in hell. Nor Kerry. Nor Gore. It's always the guy who's the most comfortable in his skin who wins.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,522
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I agree. At least Bernie Sanders has independent roots; he's by far the most tolerable candidate there for me.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's taken seriously even though he has no platform or clue because he tells it like it is. That authenticity is missing from all of the rest of them, except Sanders, who sadly is just a little too left wing to get elected. So it's down to a billionaire reality host and a socialist, until Bloomberg gets in.

    Somebody only "tells it like it is" when they make clear to others the truth of what is present and real in the world. I would be "telling it like it is" if I defended each of you being Bond fans against someone trying to dirty your names because I've known many of you for years and have seen the truth that is your passion for the character.

    Trump has never told it like it is, however, because he only brings forth the truths he has made up himself, false truths that make up his pathetic world view, where his spoiled life has made him unable to truly empathize with the struggles of anyone. He can go to as many veterans' homes, homeless shelters and war monuments he wants, but until he treats everyone in the world equal to the high opinion he holds of himself, his actions serve only to inflate his desperate PR mission to appear before the American public as a man with values and something to give. He's a cartoon character, nothing more, and I can't believe people actually support his strategic mud-slinging, bullying and fractured ideas of patriotism.
Sign In or Register to comment.