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
Absolutely. Add "Minions" to that list as well, and you have 6 movies this year that will cross the $1.0 Billion global box office mark :-). Half of them will even cross the $1.5 Billion. 2015 is already an insane box office year.
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/452431-jurassic-world-reaches-981-3m-inside-out-sets-opening-record#/slide/1
Quite insane figures really. What is even more remarkable is the best ever Pixar opening ever after "Toy Story 3": For "Inside Out", a weekend opening of $91 Million! Now this animated film gets very good reviews as we speak. And the funny twist is, such a very good weekend opening for an animated movie can't even get to 1st place! Because "Jurassic World" scored an equally astonishing 2nd weekend with $102 Million! It simply shows how....truly insane and staggering this box office year is so far (In comparison: "Skyfall" opened with $88 Million figure back in 2012, which was hailed back then as quite astonishing).
--> It shows that "Jurassic World" and "Inside Out" opening so closely after each other doesn't even hurt both of them!
-->And it also shows that it's basically enough to have OK-reviews, instead of superduper-fantastic-critically acclaimed reviews, because while "Inside Out" receives way better reviews than "Jurassic World", both are doing staggering work at the box office.
--> And it shows that a great marketing/promotional campaign with a bit of unexplainable 'magic' and help from fellow blockbusters, can really drive up box office results.
--> And it shows that the 'weak Euro' has a near negligible negative influence on box office figures.
It also makes me way more optimistic about "SPECTRE". Combined with the social media tracking from BoxOffice.com on the upcoming "Hunger Games" movie, it basically confirms my expectations about this film. The Hunger Games-fever might have already had its peak during the first two films. Also, the newly released Hunger Games-trailer was received bit lacklustre reviews. So compared to "The Hunger Games", "SPECTRE" is actually doing astonishingly good on Twitter:
Ooowh, by the way? I have forgotten to mention that Universal Pictures International (UPI) has released "Minions" in Indonesia and Australia and early estimates show the animated film taking in $987,716 from 461 locations.
The film opened at #1 in Indonesia on Wednesday, 41% ahead of "Despicable Me 2" (!!) and scored Universal's second biggest opening day behind "Furious 7", but ahead of Jurassic World. It was also the country's biggest opening day for an animated film.
Minions bowed today in Australia and is pacing 32% ahead of "Despicable Me 2"!! The film took second place behind "Jurassic World" which has grossed $15.89 million through Wednesday.
So far I think it's safe to say that Universal is en route to belittle Disney's/Marvel's box office dominance. And quite easily so. "Minions" opens worldwide in three weeks time, on Friday July 10th.
This topic is foremost about the financial/marketing-side of movies on the whole, and James Bond in particular. I can relate to you being tired. The fact is, I make a clear distinction between the financial side of movies and the entertainment-value and/or quality-side of movies. And both sides can be interesting. If you get tired about box office figures, then why posting in here? You're welcome off course to do so ;-).
Believe me, I'm well aware. I just find it all so cold. I work primarily in TV, where 'viewing figures' replace BO as king. It's frankly depressing. Decisions are made purely on numbers and not on quality of content. I've been a Bond and film fan most of my life, but I never remember a time where even casual fans held Box Office in such high regard.
I had a meeting at a broadcaster here in the UK a few weeks back, where the commissioner asked me, 'What do you want from this show?' To which I replied, 'I want to do something memorable, something people will go back to and love as much the tenth time as they did the first'. Their reply... 'I tell you what I want, I want 12 million viewers'. Needless to say, I won't be taking a meeting with them again.
The world is full of these people, but what gets me down is that the average viewer is now overly preoccupied with box office/viewing figures, to the point where it actively informs their critical thinking. It's become a 'thing', when really it should be something one can have a passing interest in.
Money talks, but when something as bang average as Jurassic World is smashing records, perhaps we shouldn't get too carried away with it's qualitative relevance.
Bond doesn't need to make 1bn to justify it's existence. Bond will always have a market and will continue to be sustainable, even if it was pulling in half SF's take.
Do you really believe that a topic like this informs....or even adjusts my critical thinking in a negative way?
There are people who love lists, rankings and figures. Me included. But what it does not, is affecting my critical thinking about movies.
I, for instance, know perfectly well how to separate critical thinking of movies (reviews, quality of the actual movie regardless of box office figures) from the sole commercial side of movie-making.
"DAD" may have been a great box office success back in 2002. But did I, for that reason, let this affect my judgement to such an extend that I became deluded by thinking "DAD" was a wonderful critically acclaimed movie? Off course not.
Never forget what Albert "Cubby" Broccoli said: In the end, the audiences, who pay for a ticket, are the ones that decide if a movie is good or not. And most importantly, never forget films are foremost a means of entertainment, that doesn't thank its existence on critically acclaimed reviewers.
I see what you're saying and understand where you're coming from but I suppose the average movie goer now focuses on figures and stats because its made all too clear by bean counters within the movie studios that if a movie doesn't surpass a certain financial threshold real problems arise and compromise the continuation of production. Just look at the spider movies, all 5 movies are financial successes and the series will be rebooted twice within it's 13 year cinematic existence. TASM2 made around $750 million and was considered a critical and financial flop. $750 million isolated from what the other movies in the series made being considered a financial flop is troubling but movies now days are within touching distance or surpassing a $billion. It's all becoming quite tricky.
People here are already going on about Craig leaving the role if SP flops at tge BO. But then how do we measure what a flop is for SP. I'm sure some people here will say if it doesn't cross $1 billion period its a flop. These are mad times.
If the sequels are anything like the first one, then I'm sold. I will be watching the new one in the theatre this year.
Absolutely not ;-). I truly loved the first "Hunger Games". It is simply a beautiful grim dystopian bit of sci-fi. Which I love. I left the cinema rather baffled, as me and my friends kept discussing about the film. But we also concluded something else: Why....do they want to make sequels for this? It's a beautiful stand-alone sci-fi film that doesn't need sequels.
The 2nd part....I liked. But for it lacked already a bit of freshness, that the first movie had. The 3rd film, or the 1st part of Mockingjay, I haven't seen yet. Because I don't like these movies with loose endings.
I'm not surprised that the sequels are not quite up to par. I just finished part 1 and really enjoyed it. It's kind of like the Running Man.
Ever since I saw Jennifer Lawrence in American Hustle (incredible performance by her) I've wanted to see what the fuss was about but never got round to it. This girl has some spark. I'm impressed.
I noticed Mockingjay 1 did not do so well in the US. I wonder if that had something to do with it being a two parter. Global audience seems to have held up though.
Well, what I liked about the first "Hunger Games" was the dystopian sci-fi theme, which was then mixed up with a good portion of sensible drama and Indy Jones-esque adventure. Simply put: It was thrilling and exciting to see a more severe, deadly version of 'Big Brother' under that dome.
That perfect combination.....I think was slightly missed in the 2nd and 3rd film. The movies were just.....a bit too dark I think. And I thought the originality of these so called 'Hunger Games' were a bit gone.
Casino was never viewed as a disaster even though it finished behind Happy Feet. It was generally acknowledged that Casino's longer running time meant fewer showings. Also, Happy Feet and Casino had everything to themselves for three consecutive weeks.
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/452775-jurassic-world-passes-1-billion-mark-in-record-13-days#/slide/1
Well, in actuality CR made good money because its BO total was actually good and was before every other movie was clearing a billion dollars not because people these days have their eyes glued to BO stats and are computer-bound experts. SP has a production cost value of 2 CR movies and with SF clearing a billion dollars; these are contributing factors as to why BO expectations are so high for SP. We have new markets for Bond to be released in and to resonate well with. I have no doubt SP will be an amazing film and it already looks so much better than SF and as much as critical acclaim is impirtant, it can be a near-petfect film but if the BO returns come up short....failure is all what people will think.
Off course not. Again, people think one can not make a distinction between A) box office figures, and B) movie quality.
If for instance A) turns out to be a rather disappointing figure, let's say $900 Million for "SPECTRE", then I couldn't care less. Because I'm still a huge Bond fan. So then we always have option B).
I also don't get the irritations by some about box office figures. Why posting in here in the first place if you don't care about it or if you see it as a 'potential danger for the future of cinema'? I'm for instance not looking in topics about the SonyLeaks, or topics that are about who will take on the mantle from Daniel Craig once he leaves. Because....they. don't. interest. me. :-).
Off course we're free to be in every topic we want to be. And I don't want people to take a hike. I welcome good discussions. But then in this topic the discussion IS about box office figures.
1 --> $1,511,517,668: "Furious 7"
2 --> $1,368,562,782: "Avengers 2: Age Of Ultron"
3 --> $1,050,474,875: "Jurassic World"
Actually, Casino had no competition except for Happy Feet for three consecutive weeks. That won't be the case in 2015.
Meanwhile, $1 billion is almost a necessity for SPECTRE because of its budget. With Skyfall, $1 billion was the cherry on top of the sundae.
Back in 2011 I predicted a +$900 Million global box office result for "Skyfall", which was received with much scepticism in here :-).
In all honesty, I think the road towards another huge global box office result for "SPECTRE" looks very similar to "Skyfall"s reign back in 2012.
Let's have a look at 2012:
09.11.2012: Premiere "Bond 23: Skyfall"
$1,108,561,013: Final Global Box Office Result
$088,364,714: Opening weekend USA
$304,360,277: Box office USA
$059,234,352: Box office China
$744,966,384: Box office rest of the world
Only one week later "Skyfall" faced 'stiff competition' from this one. "Skyfall" then slipped to 2nd spot:
17.11.2012: Premiere "Twilight 5: Breaking Dawn Part 2"
$0,829,685,377: Final Global Box Office Result
$141,067,634: Opening weekend USA
$292,324,737: Box office USA
*No release in China*
$537,360,640: Box office rest of the world
And 5 weeks after "Skyfall", this big one premiered. But until December 14th, "Skyfall retained 1st spot in the USA:
14.12.2012: Premiere "The Hobbit 1: An Unexpected Journey"
$1,017,003,568: Final Global Box Office Result
$084,617,303: Opening weekend USA
$303,003,568: Box office USA
$049,730,000: Box office China
$664,270,000: Box office rest of the world
And let's now have a look at the last two months of 2015:
06.11.2015: Premiere "Bond 24: SPECTRE"
Two weeks later it's time for 'stiff competition' from this final installment:
20.11.2015: Premiere "The Hunger Games 4: Mockingjay - Part 2"
And 6 weeks after "SPECTRE", this big one will premiere:
18.12.2015: Premiere "Star Wars 7: The Force Awakens"
Now I don't think "Star Wars" will 'only' do a Hobbit-esque box office result of a meager $1.0 Billion. On the contrary, I think "Star Wars" is a movie that can equally topple "Titanic"s box office result of $2.2 Billion.
And I also think "Hunger Games 4" will do at least $100 Million better than "Twilight 5"s global box office result of $829 Million. But compared to "Skyfall", "SPECTRE" has one week extra of no competition as compared to "Skyfall"s first opening week. Also, after "Skyfall" premiered in the US, it took 5 more weeks until "The Hobbit" premiered. After "SPECTRE" premieres, it'll take one week longer (6 weeks) until "Star Wars 7" premieres.
And even after December 18th, "SPECTRE" still has plentiful chance to maintain inside the TOP 3.
The only real danger I see for "SPECTRE", could be the 2nd Pixar movie of this year: "The Good Dinosaur", which premieres November 25th. That movie can capitalize on the popularity of "Jurassic World" and the fact that it's another Pixar film.
But even then, the road towards a very very good $1.0 Billion global box office take seems comparable to the road "Skyfall" had to take towards its final $1.1 Billion global box office result. Have a look at this site: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=bond23.htm
Having said all this, and looking at the marketing/promo for "SPECTRE", I think a $1.2 Billion box office take globally is near-certified. Even if the critics are less favourable as opposed to "Skyfall", I don't think it'll harm this prediction. Just look at reviews for "Jurassic World" and "Furious 7".
And lastly, if "SPECTRE" can manage to open earlier in China as compared to "Skyfall", then a $1.2 Billion is even more certified. And I could......couldddd see "SPECTRE" even overtake "Avengers 2: Age Of Ultron" ($1.37 Billion so far).
Box Office Mojo has existed since 1999, and it had a forum from 2002 to 2011.
There is a world outside Box Office Mojo (which has never been really accurate for foreign box office, and now seems to care less and less). For instance, here in France for quite some time we know at 2pm how many people were in Paris' theaters for such and such movie when the movie is released at 9 am... That's the "benefit" of counting box offices with viewer numbers, not with money.
But I stand by my words : the reign of box office afficionados is quite recent. 2006 is nothing compared to today as far as box office news are concerned. IMO, the box office news as part of the mainstream info is a phenomenom that became noticeable with John Carter. Until then, you'd hear about the figures only when a record was set, and it means the figures were PR from the studios, mostly.
Hence, the fact that CR was not #1 at the US box office because of dancing penguins is long forgotten IMO. The box office "subculture" is a very short attention span subculture. Because, well, when your 20th prediction is wrong by a 30% margin, it's hard to keep on claiming you are an expert in box office ! So you keep on forgetting :)
I agree. Any random media site I visit and I'm talking mainstream all now feature comments re. Box Office, 'I hope 'x' makes over a billion', as if that is at the forefront of one's mind when watching a movie. I find it a weird modern phenomenon.
Basically Hollywood has consciously and cleverly tricked the masses into giving a shit to a point where fans of rival franchises now use Box Office as an acute barometer. The bickering starts from day one. Go to any mainstream media site and you'll see people arguing over figures in a way that used to be reserved for the suits at studios. Reams of tit for tat about, 'It'll make this much', 'no it won't' and no genuine, level-headed discussion about the actual merits of films as 'films'. Films are now as much 'product' to fans as they are 'entertainment. Sad really.
Only a few pages back on this topic, you were openly participating in that so called 'sub culture' yourself, by giving plentiful arguments why "SPECTRE" will not be so succesful at the box office. I gave plenty of counter-arguments against that. You talked about the weak Euro for instance. And how it could endanger many good results at the box office. Not to mention the slimmer chance it would have to cross the $1 Billion.
So who's calling the cettle black :-)? And if I'm wrong by a 30% margin (which is slightly exaggerated), who's wrong by even bigger margins then? My attention span is certainly not very short. I have a good memory what you've been writing here :-).
Now I do respect you posting in here. But I for instance is a bit bullocks to say that "John Carter" was the "big turning point" in box office reviewing. It always has become more popular. Ever since "Titanic" grossed $2.2 Billion in 1997/1998.
CR came after a long 4 yr gap, and cast the new Bond. Everyone gives the new Bond a break on his first outing. Also the film was quite different from what had come before (far more of a classical Bond adventure, with long casino scenes, less action etc. etc.). EON had already telegraphed that they were 'going serious' with this new Bond, so the expectations were that the film would be 'critically' good, rather than a box office smash (unlike the Brosnan reign, where we knew the films were getting worse each time, so we and the press only had the box office to go on in terms of measuring its success).
The expectations are different with SP. It's following the biggest Bond film in decades (unadjusted for inflation) and the #2 film of 2012 (a film that almost impossibly beat out TDKR globally). Perhaps in fact the #1 film of 2012 (if one adjusts for ticket inflation due to 3D, which Marvel benefited from and SF did not).
Additionally, they are definitely upping the ante with action etc. in SP. So that translates into higher box office expectations this time around.
I believe $900m will be considered a failure for SP (given budget). It has to crack $1bn. I think it's possible that it just might, but I also think the Euro will impact it (more than with other films since Bond gets a disproportionate gross from the Euro area). Having said that, there is talk of the Euro going up before yr end and the $ weakening (if the bloody Greeks and their neverending problems can be sorted out) and that may help SP after all....
PS: I think people followed box office in 2006 as well (I certainly did, and followed boxofficemojo very closely). However, I think everyone is talking about it more these days since 3D pushed the grosses up and since movies started to crack $1bn (the magic #). Even more so in 2015 since there are more movies cracking $1bn.
The biggest problem for SP imho is the ghost of SF's success, just like the ghost of Ledger/TDK haunted TDKR.