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

14041434546152

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited October 2015 Posts: 8,399
    bondjames wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I believe, it will have the advantage of a boost from Mexico and China. I think, it could make about 90 to 100 mill. in China. Personally I don't think, it will make the billion, but 900 mill would be good enough to make it a success.

    I agree with your points. I think it could actually hit $1bn (there are routes to get there) but everything has to fall into place nicely.

    If it becomes the 2nd biggest grossing Bond film (which it will definitely do) no one will be critical.

    SPECTRE has a few things in it's favour:

    1. The cast is very diverse. Age, race, gender. This is good because most demographics will find something to like. This doesn't happen with every Bond film.

    2. This is the first truly globetrotting Bond of the Craig era. Not only is that appealling to general audiences, but it connects with those nations in particular. e.g. Mexico, UK

    3. It is following Skyfall, so will have garnered a certain amount of goodwill from those who would not ordinarily go to see a Bond film in the cinema.

    4. Daniel Craig is immensely popular in the role and their is much speculation that this could be his final outing. It may not seem important, but those headlines will actually help SPECTRE at the boxoffice

    5. The title say it all. SPECTRE IS BACK. Many older audiences will remember the good old days, when Connery fought Blofeld and SPECTRE, so SPECTRE have a cerain pedigree in the Bond films, like the DB5.

    Please note @bondjames, that I am not saying SPECTRE will make one billion dollars easily. It will be a struggle, certainly. But with the positive (7/10) reviews, and audience buzz I think that there is a 50/50 chance SPECTRE can make a billion. I don't think it can match or beat Skyfall, but that is to be expected. :)]
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    007bondUK wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Many though are enjoying even given faults because of the fun factor.

    That's what is going to sell the film. Prediction $800m worldwide which is about 20% less than SF.

    I wonder what percentage of the SF audience discovered Craig Bond on DVD/Bluray?

    I would suspect there are a lot of new fans because of Skyfall.

    For sure one thing that really helped Skyfall in the UK was released in the same year as the London Olympics and there was a huge feel good factor about being British and that really did help. Craig meeting the Queen as part of the opening ceremony and it being the 50th all boosted its box office takings.

    There are plenty of people I know who don't really go to the cinema that often that felt compelled to see Skyfall and others were saying they liked it so much they saw it twice.

    I think SPECTRE will get the first time viewers but it is that repeat viewing where I think it will hit the 20% shortfall.

    Only time will tell. I'm seeing it twice myself but I normally see it with the family and then with friends but I want to see it again because in all honesty I thought it was going to be better. So perhaps a second viewing might help.

    And I completely agree with you. I had the thrill of being in London during that time.

    Coupled with Bond's 50th anniversary it was a perfect year to be Bond.

    SP doesn't have any of those boosts except being the follow up to SF.

  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The fundamental question to ask here is whether this film has 'touched a nerve'. Does it have what it takes to catch the imagination of the broader public in a meaningful way?
    That is what will determine if it has 'legs' and if it gets the repeat viewings from the broader public.

    We know it will succeed with us MI6er's. That was never in question.

    The reviews here seem mixed. Of course people are going to enjoy it (I'm sure I will too) but are they ecstatic about it? Does it make you passionate about it in some way? For a film to do that, it must either be very positively nostalgic (like JW) or it must emotionally resonate, or it must be controversial, in a good way imho.

    No, that's wrong. The reviews for "Quantum Of Solace" thus far have been utterly mixed. The reviews for "SPECTRE" are simply....good....sometimes much better than good. That's entirely different @BondJames. Reviews for "Furious 7" and "Jurassic World" were 'just good' as well, though never exceptional. Did it hurt those films? No.

    Yes, obviously, "SPECTRE" needs to touch a nerve. But again, you overestimate the influence of reviews a bit. And sometimes I do think that your objectivity gets slightly clouded by a bit of negativity....mostly accidentally.


    One other thing, Earlier this year reviewers were positive about Matthew Vaughn’s new comic book adaptation vs. spy spoof “Kingsman: The Secret Service”. Many critics applauded the more comedic approach of the film. It was a return to Roger Moore-esque suaveness and cheesy, though violent, comedy. It was an element that was greatly missed in the recent Bond films with Daniel Craig. Then “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” premiered and it got hailed as the best spy-action film of the year. Critics uttered sentences like “Tom Cruise remains the action star without equal”, thus no critics mentioned Cruise’s age of 53, that he was doing his 5th “M:I”-film already (he signed up for a 6th) and what will happen to the franchise when he leaves.

    With Bond it’s an entirely different thing. It’s a 53-year old franchise which formula got shaken and stirred during a whopping portfolio of 24 films, of which “SPECTRE” is the 24th entry. But like Bond’s past is haunting him more than ever in this more “Thunderball”-esque Bond film, the actual franchise is equally haunted by all its previous films. No matter how successful it is, it’s a (wonderfully and gracefully) old franchise. So it’s always prone to much more criticism. Compared to relatively new franchises like “Mission: Impossible”, “The Dark Knight” and “The Fast And The Furious”, the “James Bond”-franchise’s reference point around which the criticism –both positive and negative- is build, is its own past. It’s logical if you are 53 years old, though not entirely fair.

    Hence why no Bond film will never receive a rating as high on IMDB as the Christopher Nolan films or the new Marvel episodes. In that context you need to judge all Bond films. Sometimes you make it sound like it's entirely Bond's mistake @BondJames. It's not, it's definately not.

    @Gustav_Graves, as I've said before, I don't cheerlead.

    Nor do I. You imply some cheerleading, doesn't matter if that's aimed at me or a rather usless remark aimed and Bond fans in general. But we both are backing up our comments with arguments. If you want to stay with your remark that the reviews are "mixed", which is by the way something you can't fully say in a black-and-white manner, then be me guest. But as I see it, objectively, "SPECTRE" gets good reviews, in full majority.

    --> "CASINO ROYALE": overwhelmingly excellent reviews (both fans and critics)
    --> "SKYFALL": overwhelmingly excellent reviews (mostly critics)
    --> "SPECTRE": good to very good reviews (mostly Bond fans)
    --> "QUANTUM OF SOLACE": highly mixed reviews (both fans and critics)

    I think this is not cheerleading. It's the story right now.

    Don't take this personally.

    If you want to take pot shots at me that's fine. I'm stating my views and I stand by them. You obviously stand by yours. We don't have to agree and we don't have to make things personal.

    It's just a film for pete's sake.

    I don't buddy :-). I am discussing with you...and I actually say that this "cheerleading" is perhaps a more general remark. Nothing personal :-).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The fundamental question to ask here is whether this film has 'touched a nerve'. Does it have what it takes to catch the imagination of the broader public in a meaningful way?
    That is what will determine if it has 'legs' and if it gets the repeat viewings from the broader public.

    We know it will succeed with us MI6er's. That was never in question.

    The reviews here seem mixed. Of course people are going to enjoy it (I'm sure I will too) but are they ecstatic about it? Does it make you passionate about it in some way? For a film to do that, it must either be very positively nostalgic (like JW) or it must emotionally resonate, or it must be controversial, in a good way imho.

    No, that's wrong. The reviews for "Quantum Of Solace" thus far have been utterly mixed. The reviews for "SPECTRE" are simply....good....sometimes much better than good. That's entirely different @BondJames. Reviews for "Furious 7" and "Jurassic World" were 'just good' as well, though never exceptional. Did it hurt those films? No.

    Yes, obviously, "SPECTRE" needs to touch a nerve. But again, you overestimate the influence of reviews a bit. And sometimes I do think that your objectivity gets slightly clouded by a bit of negativity....mostly accidentally.


    One other thing, Earlier this year reviewers were positive about Matthew Vaughn’s new comic book adaptation vs. spy spoof “Kingsman: The Secret Service”. Many critics applauded the more comedic approach of the film. It was a return to Roger Moore-esque suaveness and cheesy, though violent, comedy. It was an element that was greatly missed in the recent Bond films with Daniel Craig. Then “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” premiered and it got hailed as the best spy-action film of the year. Critics uttered sentences like “Tom Cruise remains the action star without equal”, thus no critics mentioned Cruise’s age of 53, that he was doing his 5th “M:I”-film already (he signed up for a 6th) and what will happen to the franchise when he leaves.

    With Bond it’s an entirely different thing. It’s a 53-year old franchise which formula got shaken and stirred during a whopping portfolio of 24 films, of which “SPECTRE” is the 24th entry. But like Bond’s past is haunting him more than ever in this more “Thunderball”-esque Bond film, the actual franchise is equally haunted by all its previous films. No matter how successful it is, it’s a (wonderfully and gracefully) old franchise. So it’s always prone to much more criticism. Compared to relatively new franchises like “Mission: Impossible”, “The Dark Knight” and “The Fast And The Furious”, the “James Bond”-franchise’s reference point around which the criticism –both positive and negative- is build, is its own past. It’s logical if you are 53 years old, though not entirely fair.

    Hence why no Bond film will never receive a rating as high on IMDB as the Christopher Nolan films or the new Marvel episodes. In that context you need to judge all Bond films. Sometimes you make it sound like it's entirely Bond's mistake @BondJames. It's not, it's definately not.

    @Gustav_Graves, as I've said before, I don't cheerlead.

    Nor do I. You imply some cheerleading, doesn't matter if that's aimed at me or a rather usless remark aimed and Bond fans in general. But we both are backing up our comments with arguments. If you want to stay with your remark that the reviews are "mixed", which is by the way something you can't fully say in a black-and-white manner, then be me guest. But as I see it, objectively, "SPECTRE" gets good reviews, in full majority.

    --> "CASINO ROYALE": overwhelmingly excellent reviews (both fans and critics)
    --> "SKYFALL": overwhelmingly excellent reviews (mostly critics)
    --> "SPECTRE": good to very good reviews (mostly Bond fans)
    --> "QUANTUM OF SOLACE": highly mixed reviews (both fans and critics)

    I think this is not cheerleading. It's the story right now.

    Don't take this personally.

    If you want to take pot shots at me that's fine. I'm stating my views and I stand by them. You obviously stand by yours. We don't have to agree and we don't have to make things personal.

    It's just a film for pete's sake.

    I don't buddy :-). I am discussing with you...and I actually say that this "cheerleading" is perhaps a more general remark. Nothing personal :-).

    Great. No hard feelings.

    It was not directed with you as I mentioned before. More that I should not do it. I prefer your analogy from before about 'half empty - half full'. We are on opposite sides of that spectrum, but ultimately I think we are both optimists who want this film to succeed (whatever success means.......I don't see it necessarily as beating SF in box office terms....there are other ways to surpass SF).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    I think people have to remember that Thunderball was not received as well as Goldfinger, but It still made more than Goldfinger. :)
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 2,015
    bondjames wrote: »
    If you want to take pot shots at me that's fine. I'm stating my views and I stand by them. You obviously stand by yours. We don't have to agree and we don't have to make things personal.

    It's just a film for pete's sake.

    Notice how Rotten Tomatoes has disappeared from this site in the last hours :)
    Last attempt was to make a "more objective Rotten Tomatoes" to try to make SPECTRE's score higher !

    I predict we won't hear about RT here from those who wrote about it during years, until SPECTRE is back in the 90% range (if ever).

    I really wonder if box office and ratings fans really enjoy movies ? Come on, when Casino Royale was released in the US, the headlines were all about the fact it lost the #1 spot to dancing penguins ! And now, who cares ?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Ah yes the Penguins... I actually forgot that.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    If it becomes the 2nd biggest grossing Bond film (which it will definitely do) no one will be critical.

    Not entirely. Since the $1.1 Billion figure of "Skyfall", becoming the 2nd biggest Bond film is a rather fluid useless fact. Anything between $600 Million and $1.1 Billion will be "2nd biggest".

    Like with "Avengers 2: Age Of Ultron"s insane but still 'disappointing' box office gross of $1.4 Billion, "SPECTRE" really needs to do big big business to not receive a similar 'tag'.

    $1 Billion is really the benchmark for Sony. And if it's doing less, then "SPECTRE", with it's insane production budget, will be considered a 'mild failure'.

    But again, like I said numerous times. Scrutinize the domestic box office figures of China, Mexico and the States upcoming weeks. Especially in China they know a rat's ass about Bond's history and there "SPECTRE" will already double the box office of "Skyfall".

    Then, there's the theater count, which sadly no-one in here really addressed (it will be expanded hugely in the States as compared to "Skyfall" and already set a new theater count record in Netherlands and the UK).

    $1.2 Billion.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    bondjames wrote: »
    If you want to take pot shots at me that's fine. I'm stating my views and I stand by them. You obviously stand by yours. We don't have to agree and we don't have to make things personal.

    It's just a film for pete's sake.

    Notice how Rotten Tomatoes has disappeared from this site in the last hours :)
    Last attempt was to make a "more objective Rotten Tomatoes" to try to make SPECTRE's score higher !

    I predict we won't hear about RT here from those who wrote about it during years, until SPECTRE is back in the 90% range (if ever).

    I really wonder if box office and ratings fans really enjoy movies ? Come on, when Casino Royale was released in the US, the headlines were all about the fact it lost the #1 spot to dancing penguins ! And now, who cares ?

    That's right, it's not important. That why you've remembered it all these years! :P
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 2,015
    About Skyfall breaking records : notice that on IMDB for instance, the women gave it a higher note than the men.

    About Spectre ? Well, here the reviews I read were about the fact it's a Bond "for the boys". The early script was even a bit too much "for the boys, get it ?" :) And the first notes on IMDB from women are noticeably lower than the men's...

    You need to please both women and men to do so much money IMO.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,119
    About Skyfall breaking records : notice that on IMDB for instance, the women gave it a higher note than the men.

    About Spectre ? Well, here the reviews I read were about the fact it's a Bond "for the boys". The early script was even a bit too much "for the boys, get it ?" :) And the first notes on IMDB from women are noticeably lower than the men's...

    You need to please both women and men to do so much money IMO.

    You're right about that. Though, looking at the full breakdown of "SPECTRE" (I'm a member of IMDB-Pro) so far it's way way early to say that this will eventually happen. Moreover, IMDB is by far a men's only club. Secondly, a lot of those early votes are from IMDB-nerds (me included hehe :-P):

    proof_IMDB_glitch.jpg
  • WOW..

    I've looked at the female/male notes of the Bond movies on IMDB. Believe me, if you like such trivia, try to guess first before clicking on the spoilers...

    So here are the Bond movies for which the female vote on IMDB is more than 0.2 pts below the male vote.
    CR
    GE
    TSWLM
    OHMSS
    GF
    FRWL

    wow, wow, wow...

    It's almost too straightforward to be true !

    but don't expect the analysis to be easy, because here are the Bond movies for which the female vote is higher than the male vote :
    SF
    AVTAK

    Ahem.

  • The diference between male and female vote is not as big in Spectre. With 2429, males give a 8.1 and females 7.6. By the way, there are some people who haven´t got a registered gender.
  • Yes, but this is true for all movies votes then... When the list of those that "the boys prefer more than the girls" look so identical to an hypothetical list of "name a classic Bond for each period", it looks like it hits something about the Bond series. It's clearly for the boys, isn't it ?
  • Posts: 6,601
    When can we expect the first numbers for the UK screenings?
  • I know you don't like "those in the know", but on the box office theory forum, one claim it's £4 million for the evening. Spectacular then, but no record broken, because other movies have full day opening..
  • Posts: 6,601
    So, we can't tell, whether or not any records are broken.

    And I have nothing against those in the know, I only cringe at times about those, whose posts sound, like they do know everything ... and better, whilst a lot is just personal opinion. That's all.
  • A opening on Monday.. on Monday evening... Expect all comparisons to be so full of "corrections" it will be quite useless. What should we call the "first week" Monday / Monday, or Monday / Thursday ? Etc, etc
  • Posts: 6,601
    Yes, could happen.
  • Posts: 6,396
    http://deadline.com/2015/10/spectre-uk-box-office-opening-1201595185/

    Given that the first showing didn't begin until 8pm on a Monday, I'd say these are pretty impressive numbers.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 6,601
    Box Office: ‘Spectre’ Opens to Killer $6.4 Million in U.K. on Monday Night



    This says it does beat SF's whole first day.

    Deadline goes with (£4.1M for Spectre, £6.2M for SF) for the whole friday. So IMO, Spectre would have easily beat that on a day.
  • But if you count in dollars remember than SPECTRE has a 10% disadvantage compared to SF :) (this is mostly as a reminder of how "boring" comparisons are IMO).
  • Posts: 6,601
    Maybe not boring, but difficult, as so much has to be considered to make it fair. Like this.
  • Posts: 6,601
    According to U.K. distributor Vue Entertainment, ticket sales for Spectre are outstripping Skyfall, with 105,000 people watching the movie Monday night, and 9,942 showings of the film scheduled over the next two and half weeks. The film broke a company record with 81,500 tickets sold on Monday alone and a total of 310,000 tickets sold so far.

    "People are booking breakfast with Bond before the boardroom, with 6 a.m. screenings filling up," the company said.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-spectre-opens-spectacular-834831

    From Thomas in the Production Timeline.
  • Posts: 270
    SPECTRE really has a chance to some serious $. Not like that is a big surprise to anyone though!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    Just 993.6 million to go!! :) ;)
  • Posts: 11,119
    Let's see what happens the upcoming days :-).
  • Posts: 11,119
    Ratings/reviews don't tell everything. Just look back at "Jurassic World", of which box office pundits were mostly wrong with their predictions. Reviews were far from stellar (70% at RT). Though after a few months industry professionals started to say that its publicity campaign, focusing on nostalgia, was part of the reasons it did well. And there was a lot of goodwill with Chris Pratt (a hot sought name in Hollywood).

    Then there is "Furious 7". Greatly 'helped' by the death of Paul Walker. And perhaps a fact that was underestimated by box office predictors. Currently, the film has a 'Certfied Fresh' rating of 81% on RT.


    One reason "SPECTRE" still could 'stun' us at the box office, is the fact that it can still sail the waves of the phenomenon that "Skyfall" was. On top of that, an 80% RT rating isn't enough to turn people off and not showing up in the cinema.

    Then again, who am I......a ludicrous 'fanboy' :-). An asshole too.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ratings/reviews don't tell everything. Just look back at "Jurassic World", of which box office pundits were mostly wrong with their predictions. Reviews were far from stellar (70% at RT). Though after a few months industry professionals started to say that its publicity campaign, focusing on nostalgia, was part of the reasons it did well. And there was a lot of goodwill with Chris Pratt (a hot sought name in Hollywood).

    Then there is "Furious 7". Greatly 'helped' by the death of Paul Walker. And perhaps a fact that was underestimated by box office predictors. Currently, the film has a 'Certfied Fresh' rating of 81% on RT.


    One reason "SPECTRE" still could 'stun' us at the box office, is the fact that it can still sail the waves of the phenomenon that "Skyfall" was. On top of that, an 80% RT rating isn't enough to turn people off and not showing up in the cinema.

    Then again, who am I......a ludicrous 'fanboy' :-). An asshole too.

    I believe that the examples you've used actually help to make my point from earlier. In terms of films that have created a 'mania' which is necessary for the 'oversize' box office:

    1. Jurassic World - this was 100% nostalgia. Everyone in my family saw it and loved it, including myself. It was a throwback to the first one. Brought back memories and all that jazz.......irrespective of reviews. My point from my earlier post about one possible necessary element (positive nostalgia) in order to bring in repeat viewings and the big business

    2. Furious - this was 100% about emotional resonance (my other point from earlier). People connected to the Walker situation, irrespective of reviews. Otherwise there was really nothing to differentiate this installment from the previous two (which were arguably better). Walker's death created that resonance

    3. SF - this was about two things imho. Emotional resonance (themes about getting old and irrelevant, and also about M's death......continued importance & relevance of Britain in this century) and positive nostalgia (DB5, some of the older Bond tropes such as MP & Q etc., the office....elements from long ago coming back etc.). The reviews in this case were also great, and did not hurt the box office

    4. The final element I suggested earlier could create a 'mania' effect is some sort of good or bad controversy - where people just have to see the film. Perhaps 50 Shades of Grey had that and this allowed it to make more money this year than it should....I'm not sure.

    5. Oh, there appears to be 5th element as well - some Disney cartoon is almost guaranteed yearly top 5 (e.g. Minions or Inside Out)
    ----

    If a film doesn't have those above elements but is still a good film (with good reviews), then it does excellent business no doubt, but doesn't cross over into the mega $$ (which in this case we can safely say is $1bn+). A recent example is MI-RN, which was very well reviewed and did good business globally but nothing excessive.

    SP - does it have any of these elements really? I'm not sure. The reviews for the most part seem to suggest that it is a very good, entertaining Bond film but without anything to really cause that emotional connection. I'm not hearing it in any of the reviews to date (from either MI6 members or from critics). There is a 'nostalgic' aspect since some of the Bond tropes are back in even more effect this time.....but I believe for the general public, SF already brought those back 3 yrs ago.....we (the Bond fans) are just more demanding (e.g. gunbarrel at the start, Bond theme, Blofeld etc.). I don't think those things mean that much for the general public.

    I too am a ludicrous fanboy.....
  • Posts: 1,068
    Weird thing was - one smaller screen in the local Vue that had a 7:30 start (the first of all SP showings) was showing on the schedule as 80 seats free and available 5 minutes before the start!? A glitch surely as the screen is probably only that anyway?

    The 250 seater large screen 1 I watched SP in at 7:50 was completely full and in fact the ushers were particularly stressing to check the correct seats were used according to ticket no to avoid handles. There were some which distracted the start sadly.
Sign In or Register to comment.