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

12324262829152

Comments

  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    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 phenomenon

    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 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.

    It's not sad. It's a reality that has been going on for decades. Hell, it was James Bond himself who gave rise to the terms "Box Office" and "Blockbuster". So I think it's quite inconsistent what you're saying here.

    Secondly, I think it's not Hollywood who created this interest and who transferred this interest to the 'normal people' and other heavy 'web surfers'. I think it's the internet and the social media who did this. Not Hollywood. Perhaps this topic facilitates these arguments against this focus on box office figures. But it didn't just happen out of the blue.

    There are people who simple 'like' movie marketing. Hence why websites like boxoffice.com and boxofficemojo.com....and this topic exist. I can understand you don't like it. But do not forget that for such websites, there are even more....way more movie critics websites. Websites that are about the personal movie tastes of people, websites that are about moviemaking in the first place, or websites that are focused on critics/reviews, from professional journalists to.....public opinion ratings. Hell, it's even one of the biggest reasons why MI6Community exists as a highly succesful forums.


    And again @RC7: You're welcome to post in here. But......if it's out of irritation or criticism towards this so called 'box office phenomenon', then why are you still posting in here? If you ignore this topic, you won't let irritation about this reality get the better of you no?
  • Posts: 4,619
    @Suivez_ce_parachute

    The average movie goer has never really cared about box office figures and never will. As for the box office "subculture", it has existed for a loong time, and it isn't significantly larger now than it was 10 years ago. I have been closely following movie industry news for about 15 years, and box office related news are not more prominent now than they were 10-15 years ago.
  • And you still believe in DVD commentaries :) ?
  • RC7RC7
    edited June 2015 Posts: 10,512
    There are people who simple 'like' movie marketing. Hence why websites like boxoffice.com and boxofficemojo.com....and this topic exist. I can understand you don't like it. But do not forget that for such websites, there are even more....way more movie critics websites. Websites that are about the personal movie tastes of people, websites that are about moviemaking in the first place, or websites that are focused on critics/reviews, from professional journalists to.....public opinion ratings. Hell, it's even one of the biggest reasons why MI6Community exists as a highly succesful forums.

    I'm not averse to Box Office, I understand its relevance and I wouldn't dismiss it completely out of hand. Up until about five to ten years ago I'd certainly have been able to reel off the top ten of all time. It was pretty much pub quiz trivia.

    Now, cinema has changed so dramatically it's no longer a case of if a film will break the top ten, but when. There's a boring inevitability to it. Add to that the fact that Frozen, Transformers and Furious 7 all reside in the upper echelons, and any sense of romance surrounding a film being a 'mega-hit' just evaporates into thin air for me. Which is ironic really, because the 'romance' of summer blockbuster cinema has evaporated for me. Now it's a case of -here comes the next behemoth for three weeks, rakes in a shit load and then we're on to the next. Job done, suits are happy, who cares if it was sub par? No chance to relish or savour it before you have to part with another £20 because this one is 3D.
    As for the box office "subculture", it has existed for a loong time, and it isn't significantly larger now than it was 10 years ago. I have been closely following movie industry news for about 15 years, and box office related news are not more prominent now than they were 10-15 years ago.

    It's much larger, especially in fan communities, and if you think otherwise you're kidding yourself. It's in part because you have about 5 movies a year that can break the top 5-10. It's basically become a dick-measuring contest for franchise fans. Re. Bond, I've been on fan forums for 15 years + and I've never seen so much discussion surrounding Box Office, to the point where fans are worrying about it being a $900m failure. Get a grip. The whole thing is cyclical.
    And again @RC7: You're welcome to post in here. But......if it's out of irritation or criticism towards this so called 'box office phenomenon', then why are you still posting in here? If you ignore this topic, you won't let irritation about this reality get the better of you no?

    Merely stating my point of view. I think you need reminding sometimes that this is a discussion forum. If people don't want to 'discuss' they can always start a blog. That way anything and everything can be written as a statement of fact and not be challenged.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I haven t seen the film, but still shocked to see Fast and Furious 7 taking the no. 3 spot of most seen films, after Avatar and Titanic, but above The Avengers.
  • Posts: 6,601
    just shows, but todays audiences are after. Mindless, but over the top action.
  • Posts: 4,619
    RC7 wrote: »
    I've been on fan forums for 15 years + and I've never seen so much discussion surrounding Box Office,

    Maybe not 15 years ago, but back in 2006, when CR came out, there was just as much discussion surrounding Box Office as there is now.
  • EndCredit007EndCredit007 EGYPT
    Posts: 114
    bondjames wrote: »

    The expectations are different with SP. It's following the biggest Bond film in decades (unadjusted for inflation)

    even with adjusting for inflation SF was bigger than the ever biggest bond success Thunderball
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »

    The expectations are different with SP. It's following the biggest Bond film in decades (unadjusted for inflation)

    even with adjusting for inflation SF was bigger than the ever biggest bond success Thunderball

    I've explained before that this may not be entirely true. We are comparing a film made and released in 1965 with one made and released in 2012.

    All we're doing to 'inflation adjust' is apply a CPI adjustment, which is just a % increase based on a broad basket of goods (including groceries and gas/petrol).

    If you consider the amount of error that is baked into that general CPI % adjustment, over 47 yrs, you can see that it's not a reliable way to compare apples with apples.

    There really is no proper way to do it, because ticket price inflation/deflation more moves with technology (dvd, vhs, 3D, Imax etc.), as well as audience viewing habits/culture rather than moving with the price of groceries or gas/petrol. Moreover, we don't have a clue how to properly measure global viewing audiences in 1965 (some of that information was not tracked around the world).

    Both were very successful films that had profound impacts on the spy genre (SF's is being felt now in the amount of spy movies being released).
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    The expectations are different with SP. It's following the biggest Bond film in decades (unadjusted for inflation)

    even with adjusting for inflation SF was bigger than the ever biggest bond success Thunderball

    I've explained before that this may not be entirely true. We are comparing a film made and released in 1965 with one made and released in 2012.

    All we're doing to 'inflation adjust' is apply a CPI adjustment, which is just a % increase based on a broad basket of goods (including groceries and gas/petrol).

    If you consider the amount of error that is baked into that general CPI % adjustment, over 47 yrs, you can see that it's not a reliable way to compare apples with apples.

    There really is no proper way to do it, because ticket price inflation/deflation more moves with technology (dvd, vhs, 3D, Imax etc.), as well as audience viewing habits/culture rather than moving with the price of groceries or gas/petrol. Moreover, we don't have a clue how to properly measure global viewing audiences in 1965 (some of that information was not tracked around the world).

    Both were very successful films that had profound impacts on the spy genre (SF's is being felt now in the amount of spy movies being released).

    But even then, from all the 22 James Bond films, "Skyfall" came closest to "Thunderball's inflation corrected box office figure.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    The expectations are different with SP. It's following the biggest Bond film in decades (unadjusted for inflation)

    even with adjusting for inflation SF was bigger than the ever biggest bond success Thunderball

    I've explained before that this may not be entirely true. We are comparing a film made and released in 1965 with one made and released in 2012.

    All we're doing to 'inflation adjust' is apply a CPI adjustment, which is just a % increase based on a broad basket of goods (including groceries and gas/petrol).

    If you consider the amount of error that is baked into that general CPI % adjustment, over 47 yrs, you can see that it's not a reliable way to compare apples with apples.

    There really is no proper way to do it, because ticket price inflation/deflation more moves with technology (dvd, vhs, 3D, Imax etc.), as well as audience viewing habits/culture rather than moving with the price of groceries or gas/petrol. Moreover, we don't have a clue how to properly measure global viewing audiences in 1965 (some of that information was not tracked around the world).

    Both were very successful films that had profound impacts on the spy genre (SF's is being felt now in the amount of spy movies being released).

    But even then, from all the 22 James Bond films, "Skyfall" came closest to "Thunderball's inflation corrected box office figure.

    That is very true @Gustav_Graves, but with the benefit/assistance of pricier IMAX theatre receipts globally (again one more thing the 'inflation adjustment' fails to account for). That benefited SF much more than QoS or CR (or any of the previous Bond films).

    Where I am for example, JW is getting its 3rd full week with a lock on 3D VIP/AVX theatres - that is really helping its gross.
  • EndCredit007EndCredit007 EGYPT
    Posts: 114
    it is the same adjustment that made "Gone with the wind" the most successful film ever though there is the enormous success of "Avatar" with 2.8 billion dollars .. so i think we can count on their calculations .. Skyfall is the biggest Bond ever , and will be IMHO ..
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    The expectations are different with SP. It's following the biggest Bond film in decades (unadjusted for inflation)

    even with adjusting for inflation SF was bigger than the ever biggest bond success Thunderball

    I've explained before that this may not be entirely true. We are comparing a film made and released in 1965 with one made and released in 2012.

    All we're doing to 'inflation adjust' is apply a CPI adjustment, which is just a % increase based on a broad basket of goods (including groceries and gas/petrol).

    If you consider the amount of error that is baked into that general CPI % adjustment, over 47 yrs, you can see that it's not a reliable way to compare apples with apples.

    There really is no proper way to do it, because ticket price inflation/deflation more moves with technology (dvd, vhs, 3D, Imax etc.), as well as audience viewing habits/culture rather than moving with the price of groceries or gas/petrol. Moreover, we don't have a clue how to properly measure global viewing audiences in 1965 (some of that information was not tracked around the world).

    Both were very successful films that had profound impacts on the spy genre (SF's is being felt now in the amount of spy movies being released).

    But even then, from all the 22 James Bond films, "Skyfall" came closest to "Thunderball's inflation corrected box office figure.

    That is very true @Gustav_Graves, but with the benefit/assistance of pricier IMAX theatre receipts globally (again one more thing the 'inflation adjustment' fails to account for). That benefited SF much more than QoS or CR (or any of the previous Bond films).

    Where I am for example, JW is getting its 3rd full week with a lock on 3D VIP/AVX theatres - that is really helping its gross.

    Ooowh, but let me be clear. James Bond, The Dark Knight, and also Furious 7, didn't have the advantages of 3D. IMAX yes, but not 3D. And that's quite unique among blockbusters that are mostly strictly 3D sci-fi/fantasy films. So if you take that into account, movies like "Skyfall", "The Dark Knight" and "Furious 7" did perhaps even better, way better.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    The expectations are different with SP. It's following the biggest Bond film in decades (unadjusted for inflation)

    even with adjusting for inflation SF was bigger than the ever biggest bond success Thunderball

    I've explained before that this may not be entirely true. We are comparing a film made and released in 1965 with one made and released in 2012.

    All we're doing to 'inflation adjust' is apply a CPI adjustment, which is just a % increase based on a broad basket of goods (including groceries and gas/petrol).

    If you consider the amount of error that is baked into that general CPI % adjustment, over 47 yrs, you can see that it's not a reliable way to compare apples with apples.

    There really is no proper way to do it, because ticket price inflation/deflation more moves with technology (dvd, vhs, 3D, Imax etc.), as well as audience viewing habits/culture rather than moving with the price of groceries or gas/petrol. Moreover, we don't have a clue how to properly measure global viewing audiences in 1965 (some of that information was not tracked around the world).

    Both were very successful films that had profound impacts on the spy genre (SF's is being felt now in the amount of spy movies being released).

    But even then, from all the 22 James Bond films, "Skyfall" came closest to "Thunderball's inflation corrected box office figure.

    That is very true @Gustav_Graves, but with the benefit/assistance of pricier IMAX theatre receipts globally (again one more thing the 'inflation adjustment' fails to account for). That benefited SF much more than QoS or CR (or any of the previous Bond films).

    Where I am for example, JW is getting its 3rd full week with a lock on 3D VIP/AVX theatres - that is really helping its gross.

    Ooowh, but let me be clear. James Bond, The Dark Knight, and also Furious 7, didn't have the advantages of 3D. IMAX yes, but not 3D. And that's quite unique among blockbusters that are mostly strictly 3D sci-fi/fantasy films. So if you take that into account, movies like "Skyfall", "The Dark Knight" and "Furious 7" did perhaps even better, way better.

    Absolutely. As I said in my post from earlier today on the previous page, I think SF may in fact have been the #1 film of 2012 (bigger than Avengers) in terms of pure ticket sales, since it did not have the benefit of 3D inflated prices.
  • edited June 2015 Posts: 11,119
    It seems that also Pixar's "Inside Out" is on its way towards the $1.0 Billion after all (Which I find rather unprecedented, as I was sure that it would only be reserved for one animated feature this year, "Minions").

    So far it's perhaps the strongest 2nd placed feature ever. Here are some showdowns:
    "Inside Out" vs. other Pixar standalone films:
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=pixog.htm
    Pixar's "Inside Out vs. non-Pixar film "Frozen":
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=frozenout.htm

    After 11 days in cinema "Frozen" stood at a good $96,437,874 in the USA, but "Inside Out" stands at a terrific $192,061,039 (!!) domestically. Only Disney's/Pixar's animated film "Toy Story 3" did better after 11 days in the US: $235,811,275.

    And these were the final global box office results for these animated films:
    --> $1,063,171,911: Pixar's "Toy Story"
    --> $1,274,219,009: Disney's "Frozen"
    Pixar's "Inside Out" currently stands globally at:
    --> $0,273,561,039: Pixar's "Inside Out"
    And it doesn't even have a perfect syndicated global release, like "Minions" will have.

    The good thing about this news is:
    A) "Inside Out" could actually be the first highly rated and critically acclaimed movie that has a chance at reaching $1.0 Billion this year. Currently, the Pete Docter (1 Oscar win) directed animated film, stands at an incredible 98% on RottenTomatoes, 8.8/10 on IMDB and 93% on Metacritic. And it is already compared with other Pixar masterpieces like "Up" and "Wall-E".
    B) It could have a very strong holdover, as it still needs to open in many other big countries across the globe, China included.





    The other big story is "Jurassic World", which already grossed $1,252,399,254 worldwide, and will post definately outgross "Avengers 2: Age Of Ultron", which now settles at:
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=usblockbuster.htm

    The movie is now compared with "Avengers 1" and "Avatar", as people think this could actually gross much more than many people, myself included had anticipated. Perhaps it even goes past the $1.75 Billion and will grab 1st place at the 2015 global box office ranking from "Furious 7".
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    JW deserves its success imho. So far, it has been the only 'blockbuster' of the year that I've found has lived up to expectations (i.e. I actually found it entertaining).

    I could care less about these Pixar/Disney animated things, although I know they always do well because the kids go for it (and the parents inevitably tag along, pushing up the grosses)...
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    JW deserves its success imho. So far, it has been the only 'blockbuster' of the year that I've found has lived up to expectations (i.e. I actually found it entertaining).

    I could care less about these Pixar/Disney animated things, although I know they always do well because the kids go for it (and the parents inevitably tag along, pushing up the grosses)...

    You're kidding no? I think "Monster's Inc.", "Wall-E" and "Up" were not just....simple animation movies ("Minions" will be like that by the way), but thematically they were very much movies for grown-ups. Just have a look at this premise:

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    No, I get it. I know they appeal to both kids and adults (I realize that the studios very carefully and painstakingly ensure that the subject matter/themes etc. can have the right effect with both constituencies, which in turn guarantees a bigger audience for their product).

    I just can't get into the animation thing myself. I'd much rather watch real actors doing their thing even if the film is mediocre, than a brilliant animated film.

    The only animation/motion capture movie that I've watched is Tintin, and that's only because I read the books when I was a kid (and so could draw on my inner kid to forgive the fact that I was not watching real actors). I enjoyed it by the way and am looking forward to the sequel.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Pixar needs to push out The Incredibles 2 already. That's the only animated movie I'm interested in right now.
  • Posts: 6,432
    Think Spectre will make $700 000 000 worldwide.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Think Spectre will make $700 000 000 worldwide.
    That will put it only slightly above 50 Shades of Grey. Don't you think that's too pessimistic? Surely Bond should be able to do better than that?

    QoS did $586m and CR did $599M. With increased ticket prices, possible blitz marketing and IMAX, as well as increased China grosses, I think they're on course for about $900m to $1bn, and possibly slightly more when it's all said and done. It will depend on spy fatigue and how long they get the run of the good theatres before HG-Mockingjay 2 comes in.

    First couple of weeks should be very strong and they may be able to get $600m - $700m globally in just the first two weeks based on the compressed release date schedule. It's after that (staying power) where the possible issue lies imho. I don't think it will have the staying power that SF had due to SF7, so it will probably have to do at least $700m in the first two wks to have a decent shot at $1bn when it's all said and done.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Murdock wrote: »
    Pixar needs to push out The Incredibles 2 already. That's the only animated movie I'm interested in right now.

    Agreed! At least Bird is working on it right now but this movies should have come out years ago.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Think Spectre will make $700 000 000 worldwide.
    That will put it only slightly above 50 Shades of Grey. Don't you think that's too pessimistic? Surely Bond should be able to do better than that?

    QoS did $586m and CR did $599M. With increased ticket prices, possible blitz marketing and IMAX, as well as increased China grosses, I think they're on course for about $900m to $1bn, and possibly slightly more when it's all said and done. It will depend on spy fatigue and how long they get the run of the good theatres before HG-Mockingjay 2 comes in.

    First couple of weeks should be very strong and they may be able to get $600m - $700m globally in just the first two weeks based on the compressed release date schedule. It's after that (staying power) where the possible issue lies imho. I don't think it will have the staying power that SF had due to SF7, so it will probably have to do at least $700m in the first two wks to have a decent shot at $1bn when it's all said and done.

    $1.2 Billion.....easily. Especially given the fact that those big ones are also slightly helping each other (Jurassic World, Furious 7, Avengers 2, Minions, Inside Out, Hunger Games 4, Star Wars 7)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Think Spectre will make $700 000 000 worldwide.

    Lol no way. SP can make that much with very little effort.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited July 2015 Posts: 1,731
    If I remember correctly 1989 was the first real year of the 'box-office showdowns', as hyped by the media back then: with Batman, Indy&the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2, Ghostbusters 2 and Little Mermaid all taking a big chunk of the box-office $$$ pie.

    Then Jurassic Park and James Cameron's boat movie set new standards altogether, and the 90's was the real birth of the box-office generation.

    Sad really - seeing what a 'movie' like "Furious 7" can generate... it doesn't bode well for the future of film making.


  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    AceHole wrote: »
    Sad really - seeing what a 'movie' like "Furious 7" can generate... it doesn't bode well for the future of film making.

    Certainly 'Hollywood' film making. It's difficult to see how a movie like Ghostbusters would get made in 2015. A completely original vehicle. A high-concept genre movie with no nostalgia to drive it and with no literary past or inbuilt audience to feed it. That's what I miss most about Hollywood these days. Even if there is a break-out, they just flog it to death.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited July 2015 Posts: 1,731
    RC7 wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Sad really - seeing what a 'movie' like "Furious 7" can generate... it doesn't bode well for the future of film making.

    Certainly 'Hollywood' film making. It's difficult to see how a movie like Ghostbusters would get made in 2015. A completely original vehicle. A high-concept genre movie with no nostalgia to drive it and with no literary past or inbuilt audience to feed it. That's what I miss most about Hollywood these days. Even if there is a break-out, they just flog it to death.

    Good analysis. Studio execs are timid being.
    Other than 'Inception' I cannot think of another modern day equivalent (with a big budget behind it) to which those criteria are applicable... and even that would never have been green-lighted without Nolan's success on the Batman franchise.
  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2015 Posts: 10,512
    AceHole wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Sad really - seeing what a 'movie' like "Furious 7" can generate... it doesn't bode well for the future of film making.

    Certainly 'Hollywood' film making. It's difficult to see how a movie like Ghostbusters would get made in 2015. A completely original vehicle. A high-concept genre movie with no nostalgia to drive it and with no literary past or inbuilt audience to feed it. That's what I miss most about Hollywood these days. Even if there is a break-out, they just flog it to death.

    Good analysis. Studio execs are timid being.
    Other than 'Inception' I cannot think of another modern day equivalent (with a big budget behind it) to which those criteria are applicable... and even that would never have been green-lighted without Nolan's success on the Batman franchise.

    Absolutely, 'Inception' is a really good example. Like you say, though, only Nolan would have the power to not only do it, but keep it a singular film. He must've earned WB around £1.5bn before they greenlit it, also knowing they had a sure-fire billion with his final DK film. I may be misremembering, but I'm sure I heard somewhere that it was effectively WB's gift to him, following his huge success with Batman.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    It costs a lot to make a film these days. Audiences demand more, and costs are increasing.

    I don't think there has been a big budget film outside of the aforementioned Inception that has been based on an original creative concept and that has cracked the top 10 in the US in the past 5 yrs.

    So in a way we can't really blame Hollywood if the public seems to want more of the same old same old. With increasing box office grosses for predictable/uncreative fare, it seems that this is what we actually want.

    FF7 is a terribly tragic example of this imho.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    It costs a lot to make a film these days. Audiences demand more, and costs are increasing.

    I don't think there has been a big budget film outside of the aforementioned Inception that has been based on an original creative concept and that has cracked the top 10 in the US in the past 5 yrs.

    So in a way we can't really blame Hollywood if the public seems to want more of the same old same old. With increasing box office grosses for predictable/uncreative fare, it seems that this is what we actually want.

    FF7 is a terribly tragic example of this imho.

    I cannot agree more. I will elaborate on this later. I'm in the train now hehe.
Sign In or Register to comment.