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

12526283031152

Comments

  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,119
    I just watched this trailer. And I couldn't help but thinking that this could be really funny :-P I think this could be Sony/Columbia's biggest hit until "SPECTRE" arrives:


    And a real funny videoblog:
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    How much money does a movie need to make to be profitable

    Is it better if a movie makes more of its revenue in the U.S.?

    How much money does a movie need to make to be profitable?

    The highest profile example of a film that bombed in the U.S. but made tons of money overseas was The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which made only about $100 million domestically but made about $270 million overseas. And a similar thing happened with the previous Narnia movie, Prince Caspian. Another big film that made way more money overseas than domestically was Terminator Salvation.

    So if a film does incredibly well overseas but flops in the U.S., does that make it a hit? As with everything else to do with box office, the answer is "it depends." But generally, domestic revenue seems to be be better for studios than overseas revenue, because the studios take a bigger cut of domestic revenue.

    According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number.

    Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that the studios get even less from China; 20-25%.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that the studios get even less from China; 20-25%.

    That is not a surprise. The Chinese muscle us out of everything by taking a piece of the pie (in every industry), and Western companies acquiesce, disgracefully, to increase revenue and overall profits (if not per item profit) at the expense of continuing to sell us down the river.

    That's the unfortunate power of 'large markets' and the allure it has for profit making enterprises. We saw it with Bond in the mid 80's/early 90's kissing up to the large US market too.

    Soon we may even have a permanent recurring Asian cast member inserted in just to appeal/pander to that market.

    Rant over...
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    RC7 wrote: »
    Yes, @Gustav_Graves, there are directors in Hollywood who swears by making quality films. But look at 'Girl with Dragon Tattoo' by Fincher, it's supposed to be a trilogy, but it didn't set the box office on fire, and we're now 4 years since the film, with no news whatsoever on the follow-up of a highly acclaimed film. Imagine if Godfather had been made in 2015( and I mean the exact same film) with the same success as 'Dragon Tattoo'. Would we have been graced with the exceptional 2nd part, or would it have been in limbo for years due to execs feeling the first outing didn't make enough money?

    That's an example. But why do all smaller budget movies become.....franchises?? I'm actually glad no sequels were planned for gems like "American Beauty", "Boyhood", "Eraserhead", "Boogie Nights", "Happiness", "Network", "Nashville", "Crash", "The Tree Of Life", "Melancholia", "Milk", "A Single Man" or "Her"? If you ask me, the entire construction/format of franchises and sequels is foremost a result of the blockbuster phenomenon. And if I'm not mistaken, Mr James Bond 007 in part kicked that off no??

    You totally miss the point. TGWTDT is one part of the Millenium trilogy, but the latter parts don't see the light of day because of $$$, not because of lack of quality.

    The second point is that there's room for big budget films with a brain that don't need to have sequels. They don't need to be restricted to 'art house', which is what happens when a studio doesn't throw it's weight behind the movie. If someone were to care more about finances, though, it's not an issue. The bottom line trumps all.

    I don't 'totally miss the point'. I think I'm exactly spot-on. I know the "Millennium Trilogy" very damn well. I epecially like the Swedish version. And I also know very well why no 2nd part of this trilogy wasn't produced in 'Hollywood' yet. But I don't think that's the real issue here.

    I think the real issue is the fact that I simply don't need a sequel or a remake from an original set of films that were already perfectly made/executed by Swedes (Danish director by the way). I call this a perfect example of the kind of Hollywood laziness, no offense @DaltonCraig007 ;-), that you're actually so tired off @RC7!

    What is the point you actually want to make? I mean, there's something for everyone on "Planet Movie" no? I actually mentioned those "big budget films with a brain". And what's the problem if it's not a big budget film...and stays small-budget? I also mentioned some examples of those films as well. As a matter of fact, big movie companies like 20th Century Fox have their own 'arthouse divisions', like Fox Searchlight. And Sony Pictures has Sony Classics.

    Sorry, I really don't see your problem @RC7.

    Gustav granted the Swedish version of TGWTDT was very good (personally prefer Fincher's a rarity as I usually find original language versions superior) but the sequels were in all fairness TV movies that captured none of the class of the original and were a complete missed opportunity and robbed us of a great trilogy.

    The Hollywood version was all set to change that with Fincher at the reins so some of us feel we were cheated out of some greatness and the fact that the BO factors into this when you consider the likes of Terminator Genisys which has had hugely underwhelming BO will most likely get a sequel seems very unfair.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    TGWTDT's sequels have not been made because those idiots who are running Sony do not understand how to properly capitalize on the English language versions of Larsson's brilliant trilogy. You don't release a vaunted story like this with actors who are not blockbuster draws (SF had not been made yet) with a violent rape scene and adult themes in it at Christmas time and expect it to make mega moola. Especially when most North Americans have not watched the original films. Rather, you should release it as a loss leader, to build critical good will with the audience, so you can capitalize on this with the release of the 2nd and 3rd films (like Nolan did with Batman). You need to play the long game with this thing.

    Sadly, the imbeciles over there appear not to understand this, and also seem not to realize what creative brilliance Fincher had given them. Nor do they appear to realize the gift Daniel Craig had given them by being available for 3 long years between SF and SP. Therefore, we, the audience, suffer due to the their obvious incompetence.

    Lord knows what kind of mess they would have made of James Bond if not for Babs, Michael and Craig.

    As I said elsewhere, these knuckleheads deserve to lose the James Bond franchise for the disrespect they have given the Milennium series.

    Sorry, I have no respect for them whatsoever.
  • Posts: 725
    bondjames wrote: »
    TGWTDT's sequels have not been made because those idiots who are running Sony do not understand how to properly capitalize on the English language versions of Larsson's brilliant trilogy. You don't release a vaunted story like this with actors who are not blockbuster draws (SF had not been made yet) with a violent rape scene and adult themes in it at Christmas time and expect it to make mega moola. Especially when most North Americans have not watched the original films. Rather, you should release it as a loss leader, to build critical good will with the audience, so you can capitalize on this with the release of the 2nd and 3rd films (like Nolan did with Batman). You need to play the long game with this thing.

    Sadly, the imbeciles over there appear not to understand this, and also seem not to realize what creative brilliance Fincher had given them. Nor do they appear to realize the gift Daniel Craig had given them by being available for 3 long years between SF and SP. Therefore, we, the audience, suffer due to the their obvious incompetence.

    Lord knows what kind of mess they would have made of James Bond if not for Babs, Michael and Craig.

    As I said elsewhere, these knuckleheads deserve to lose the James Bond franchise for the disrespect they have given the Milennium series.

    Sorry, I have no respect for them whatsoever.

    Agreed. And all the people who keep praising all three Swedish versions stump me. The first one was good, the 2nd and 3rd were made for TV films and hardly worthy of all the raves. There was a huge potential audience for the English language versions. Probably the biggest problem was Fincher insisting on a huge budget. Had it been more reasonable, I think we might have seen the next 2. It's also sad that now that there is a 4th book coming out, there is some major unfilmed territory to exploit. When you think of the junk that Sony produced in the last few years (Interview, the Lone Ranger etc.) while passing on this, it is a testament to what jerks Sony management has been.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,119
    I don't get this negativity about China. Sorry. Fact is, that the Chinese love 'stuff from The West". Look at cars. Chinese car dealers have difficulty selling their own native brands, like Brilliance, Qoros, Chery, Denza and BYD. Because all the people want Mercedes, Audi, Volkswagen, Buick and BMW. It's as simple as that. And what's wrong with that?

    Same goes for movies. Hollywood still is the "Mercedes" of the movie industry. And on top of that, I think every now and then an escapist blockbusters, which ALSO criticize certain geopolitical developments, comes through, is being understood by the Chinese, and is perhaps the only example where cencorship doesn't work!

    A movie like "Skyfall" is off course a Bond film. But director Sam Mendes also gave it some thematical gravita, by criticizing the very aspect of espionage. Well, that part wasn't cencored out huh! So I think it's only good that "our" blockbusters are so succesful over there.

    And also an important lesson from the entertainment industry: "Give the people what they want". And on average "we" want this. Period.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    Personally, after the record-breaking release of 'Jurassic World,' I don't see SP being 2015's highest grossing movie at all. Then again, I didn't see 'Jurassic World' breaking records, either, and that's a film I had (and still have) absolutely no interest in whatsoever.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    SP was never going to be the highest grossing movie of 2015 but it'll be among the top earning films of the year for sure.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP was never going to be the highest grossing movie of 2015 but it'll be among the top earning films of the year for sure.

    That's because I totally misread the title of the thread. Gold star for me for the day!

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I don't get this negativity about China. Sorry. Fact is, that the Chinese love 'stuff from The West". Look at cars. Chinese car dealers have difficulty selling their own native brands, like Brilliance, Qoros, Chery, Denza and BYD. Because all the people want Mercedes, Audi, Volkswagen, Buick and BMW. It's as simple as that. And what's wrong with that?

    Same goes for movies. Hollywood still is the "Mercedes" of the movie industry. And on top of that, I think every now and then an escapist blockbusters, which ALSO criticize certain geopolitical developments, comes through, is being understood by the Chinese, and is perhaps the only example where cencorship doesn't work!

    A movie like "Skyfall" is off course a Bond film. But director Sam Mendes also gave it some thematical gravita, by criticizing the very aspect of espionage. Well, that part wasn't cencored out huh! So I think it's only good that "our" blockbusters are so succesful over there.

    And also an important lesson from the entertainment industry: "Give the people what they want". And on average "we" want this. Period.

    The negativity is as follows:

    We are getting more and more dumbed down blockbusters. They don't even have to make sense any more. Just more and more explosions and the like. That's because of two things imho:

    1. a population in the west that is increasingly 'ADD' & can be appealed to with the lowest common denominator.
    2. an increasing foreign population viewing Hollywood movies that seems to prefer action oriented fare/explosions to in depth characterizations and stories.

    I admire Nolan and EON (recently) for bucking that trend. I think most other movies are playing into it (Terminator, Jurassic, Marvel for the most part etc.). That's just my opinion though.

    I don't appreciate seeing quality films like TGWTDT not getting sequels because some bean counter accountant at Sony doesn't think it will appeal to the squeemish audiences in certain countries or doesn't have the vision to craft a strategy that will make it work. That's not on for me.

    As I said, Nolan and EON are, for now at least, the exception rather than the rule.

    By the way, the lowest common denominator is happening with cars as well. Mercedes and BMW today are nothing like what they were 20 yrs ago. They are just like any other car (with more power) but with a prestige badge. Mercedes in particular was in a completely different league 20 yrs ago (built to a standard rather than a price), until Toyota Lexus came along, cleaned up the huge US market, and forced Mercedes to go down market to compete. Some Mercedes designs these days are a disgrace (CLA for instance) and nothing like the quality, timeless cars they put out in the past. However, they surely are making more money now in total (but not per unit) compared to the past. Same goes for movies. Margin compression leads to an inferior product but more revenue in total.

    As Bond said in TND: "first rule of mass media......GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT!". Indeed. It's sad.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @bondjames, spent the better half of last night and today discussing/arguing films with my friend, and something at the forefront of my mind was that money talks, in that Sony greenlit sequels to 'Grown Ups' (why?!) and 'Paul Blart' (Dear God why?!!!!?!), but because TGWTDT didn't live up to those expectations at the box office, it seems like 'The Girl Who Played With Fire' won't be receiving one. That would be a dream of mine, because Fincher's version and Craig and Mara in that film blew me away, and it appears that'll never happen now.

    Thankfully, though, the world can keep spinning because films like 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2' (4.2/10 rating on IMDB and a 6% on RT) make $103 million on a $30 million budget. People vote with their mouths too often and not their wallets.
  • Posts: 11,119
    What about independent films? They don't disappear because blockbusters are so succesful. Nonsense. Just visit some small arthouse cinemas. Look at the websites of Warner Classic, Paramount Vantage and Fox Searchlight. Those are the independent/arthouse divisions of the big movie companies. And guess what, the good thing about the success of blockbusters, is the fact that a whole new market started to develop itself. The market of arthouse movies and independent films. I call that a good development. Because I prefer to see a full arthouse cinema instead of an empty IMAX Arena.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @Gustav_Graves, as would I, but that isn't readily available to everyone like a big theater showing blockbusters is. Trust me, I'd pick an independent, arthouse cinema nine times out of ten over Regal or AMC or what have you, but nothing like that exists in my area for me. Thus, I can't support it, which also has lead to me not going to the movies that much anymore.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves, as would I, but that isn't readily available to everyone like a big theater showing blockbusters is. Trust me, I'd pick an independent, arthouse cinema nine times out of ten over Regal or AMC or what have you, but nothing like that exists in my area for me. Thus, I can't support it, which also has lead to me not going to the movies that much anymore.

    Same here. I don't have access to independent cinema so readily where I live either.

    I agree @Creasy47. Money does talk, and it's a pity because I find that movies in particular are becoming more and more slapstick and brainless.

    TV on the other hand, for the most part, is becoming more and more brilliant and fascinating with all the great shows that are out there these days. That's one area where there is hope I think.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @bondjames, as have I. Call it cynicism or just me being a pessimist - which is possible - but I find myself getting less and less excited for film as the months pass. All I see anymore are huge, explosive, CGI-ridden films, ridiculous sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, etc., and while one or two stand out and interest me on a rare occasion, it's just that: rare. I soak up the arthouse scene, television, and all of the independent films I can that interest me, but on the main Hollywood front, I'm so negative about it anymore because it all feels the same to me.

    Even last night at Comic-Con, Quentin Tarantino was saying that when he is done with film in a few years, he wants his new medium to be television, because his scripts tend to go on for hours and he could really let his work shine in a miniseries, which is absolutely true. He had a four-hour cut of 'Django Unchained' that'll never see the light of day because the general moviegoing audience doesn't want to sit through something like that, but imagine how great a four or five part miniseries would've been.

    Don't get me wrong, the film itself is outstanding and impressive, but I would've also enjoyed seeing what he could've done on, say, HBO or Cinemax. However, I won't take this off course anymore; all I hope is that SP explodes at the box office so we get more and more Bond! If that's the one shining light I get out of most movies anymore, then so be it.
  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2015 Posts: 10,512
    What about independent films? They don't disappear because blockbusters are so succesful. Nonsense. Just visit some small arthouse cinemas. Look at the websites of Warner Classic, Paramount Vantage and Fox Searchlight. Those are the independent/arthouse divisions of the big movie companies. And guess what, the good thing about the success of blockbusters, is the fact that a whole new market started to develop itself. The market of arthouse movies and independent films. I call that a good development. Because I prefer to see a full arthouse cinema instead of an empty IMAX Arena.

    The way Hollywood works now makes the likelihood of auteurs like, Wes Anderson, or genre film makers like, Guillermo Del Toro, becoming mainstream film makers, more difficult. Any director/s that shows promise is snapped up by a studio and given a choice of 'property'. Look at Josh Trank, he went into F4 and was then offered a gig on SW (which has thankfully failed to materialise), but after Chronicle I wanted to see him be given a chunk of cash to make a Josh Trank film.

    Only directors like Nolan and Cameron can court studios for sizeable investment in an 'original vision'. There are directors out there capable of making huge mainstream classics, but restricting them to either working independently, or moving from 'property' to 'property' isn't realising their potential. I get the distinct impression that film makers like John McTiernan, Richard Donner, or Robert Zemeckis wouldn't exist these days, or at least not in the way they did and they certainly wouldn't have a list of great original works to their names.

    I think of the 80s films I grew up watching as a kid like, Labyrinth, The Princess Bride, The Goonies, Ghostbusters, Karate Kid, The Dark Crystal, Romancing the Stone... these films would struggle to see the light of day in 2015 because the market is geared towards 'big budget behemoth, low budget indie or Oscar-bait'. A huge amount of those movies that used to operate in the middle-ground just don't get made anymore and that's a shame. Ghostbusters was made on a budget of $30m (the same as AVTAK) that's a hefty wedge to hand to a man with two films on his CV to make a high-concept, genre film, but it happened.

    It's not all doom and gloom. Pixar still have the ability to turn out high quality stuff with mainstream appeal and there are breakout hits popping up here or there, there are always pros and cons, as there are to every aspect of the industry, but to pretend everything is rosy is short-sighted.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Did anyone actually.....see the trailer of "Pixels"? I mean, come on, this is a fun concept no?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Did anyone actually.....see the trailer of "Pixels"? I mean, come on, this is a fun concept no?

    I saw it. In the theatre. As I said, slapstick nonsense. It will do well I'm sure, but it looked truly awful.

  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Did anyone actually.....see the trailer of "Pixels"? I mean, come on, this is a fun concept no?

    I saw it. In the theatre. As I said, slapstick nonsense. It will do well I'm sure, but it looked truly awful.

    Yeah, and for the very same reason people want to go back to the 'good old days', the nostalgic past. I think that sense of nostalgia sometimes is cluding our critics as well. Was "Ghostbusters" a marvellous gem? According to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters/?search=ghostbusters it was, but most of it is nostalgia. Because I don't see a difference in quality between "Ghostbusters" and "Pixels". I think sometimes we're ranting a bit too much.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Ghostbusters was awful.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Ghostbusters was awful.

    That's also a matter of opinion. Back in 1984 people "loved it".
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I was there, and I did not.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    Did anyone actually.....see the trailer of "Pixels"? I mean, come on, this is a fun concept no?

    I saw it. In the theatre. As I said, slapstick nonsense. It will do well I'm sure, but it looked truly awful.

    Yeah, and for the very same reason people want to go back to the 'good old days', the nostalgic past. I think that sense of nostalgia sometimes is cluding our critics as well. Was "Ghostbusters" a marvellous gem? According to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters/?search=ghostbusters it was, but most of it is nostalgia. Because I don't see a difference in quality between "Ghostbusters" and "Pixels". I think sometimes we're ranting a bit too much.

    No one is 'ranting' too much. I'm stating where I think the industry is at, while you're convinced it's in rude health because you judge most things by numbers. However, you're going to have to put up a better argument than 'Pixels looks just as good as Ghostbusters did in the 80's', because if you're seriously suggesting that then I want some of what you're smoking. Mentioning Ghostbusters has nothing to do with nostalgia, it's a stone cold classic. Anyhow, irrespective of whether you like the film or not, you yet again fail to see my point that 'Ghosbusters' is a high-concept, original idea that didn't have an inbuilt audience other than fans of the actors. Pixels is built around some of the most famous video games of all time, so while it may look interesting to you, its hardly the vanguard of genuine originality.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Pixal's looks like Adam Sandler's attempt to stay relevant in the mid 2010's.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,119
    Something else:

    I think this is wonderful funny 'free viral marketing' for "Minions" :-P. By the way, it's quite shocking to see how many Facebook profiles have been 'minionized' lately :-P. At least....in my buddy list.:

    BU9NQCRCQAATcWr.jpg
    rquHbj.jpg
    f3jKBa.jpg
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,119
    Let's have a look at the top grossing blockbusters of this year so far :-) (July 16th):

    1. --> $ 1,520,593,707: "Furious 7" (They just passed "The Avengers" in the 'All Time Global Box Office Ranking'; now 3rd!)
    $ 351,032,910: Box office USA
    $ 390,910,000: Box office China
    $ 778,650,797: Rest of the world


    2. --> $ 1,472,854,541: "Jurassic World" (Now the 2nd highest grossing film of 2015, but can you believe that this one will pass "Furious 7"??)
    $ 595,627,430: Box office USA
    $ 228,740,000: Box office China
    $ 648,487,111: Rest of the world


    3. --> $ 1,388,692,001: "Avengers 2: Age Of Ultron" (Now the 3rd highest grossing film of 2015. 3rd, but still 6th 'All Time'!)
    $ 455,392,001: Box office USA
    $ 240,110,000: Box office China
    $ 693,190,000: Rest of the world



    And let's not forget the impressive results of the two biggest animated films of 2015: Pixar's "Inside Out" (raving reviews) and Universal's "Minions". Both films will now certainly break the $800 Million global box office mark:

    7. --> $ 441,686,341: "Inside Out" (Despite "Jurassic World" opening one week before, it had an impressive opening weekend of $ 90,440,272)
    $ 145,502,830: Box office USA
    *not opened yet in China*
    $ 151,800,000: Rest of the world


    8. --> $ 433,271,467: "Minions" (Impressive opening weekend of $ 115,718,405, though "Despicable Me 2" had stronger holdover)
    $ 289,886,341: Box office USA
    *not opened yet in China*
    $ 287,768,637: Rest of the world



    I don't think "SPECTRE" will enter the TOP 3 of this year's highest grossing blockbusters. Which sounds quite.....weird, if you still think "SPECTRE" will gross more than $ 1.2 Billion worldwide. It shows what an insane box office year 2015 is. I predict "SPECTRE" will be a bigger success than "Skyfall". And there's a slightttt chance it can pass the $1.3 Billion, but I don't think so....
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    As this is a BO thread I'll say this; as long as SP surpasses 1billion I'll be happy.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote: »
    As this is a BO thread I'll say this; as long as SP surpasses 1billion I'll be happy.

    Me too ;-). But who would have guessed that we would be talking about such figures for agent 007 in 2009 or 2010??
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Times have changed and the frequency of movies with varying degrees of quality are killing it at the BO more and more often. Bond definitely deserves to be a billion dollar movie and as it appears, SP is looking to fulfil that.
Sign In or Register to comment.