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

19091939596152

Comments

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,341
    You should not forget that a large part of SFs success was due to Adele's title track. People loved it and associated this great artist with a film that featured her song. When word got round that it was not your typical Bond movie, but a thrilling ensemble piece, curiosity prevailed and ticket sales went over the roof.
    For SP there was close to zero airplay of its title track, on top of that the press and radio moderators gave it mixed or bad reviews.

    People who loved SF, because it was different from the usual Bond-fare (and who usually would not go and see every Bond), would be expected to be disappointed, due to its reversal to the Bond of old.

    In any case, do not underestimate the impact that a successful title song has on marketing. Adele appeals across a large age segment and to men and women, while Sam Smith is not really everybody's cup of tea.

    The Sony leaks? I think only die-hard fans were interested in that. Overall the press did not cite from them and I felt more spoilered by the SF videoblogs and trailers than I did this time around.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252

    SPECTRE (2015): 18,085,500, through Nov. 23, (8,176,900); average ticket price, $8.34

    Wow. It's about double that here. We get that price on cheap Tuesdays

  • HASEROT wrote: »

    #3 - James Bond in the US... counting inflation - only 3 films have done better than $300 million... GF, TB, and SF.... YOLT sits really close at $299mil... but then there is a steep drop down to MR at $233mil - and from there on, there are a bunch clustered between $233 - $199mil.... my point is, is that expecting a Bond film to hit the heights of $300mil is a very lofty expectation - one that probably wont be met.... right now, the average intake of Bond films is $225.6mil here in the US (meaning, on average, thats about how much they make per film).. and right now, i would say SP is on track to coming close -

    This is a good point. In terms of US grosses, with adjustments for inflation, after the top four there's a group of 9 films all very close together, including 6 of the 7 modern Brosnan/Craig Bonds (with Skyfall being up at no.3 behind TB and GF). This $195-233 range it seems is what an average modern Bond film makes. So it looks like SP is going to perform just as every other modern Bond movie has performed, with the one exception of Skyfall.

    5 Moonraker MGM $233,613,400
    6 Die Another Day MGM $230,050,800
    7 Tomorrow Never Dies MGM $224,439,200
    8 From Russia, with Love UA $222,371,000
    9 Diamonds Are Forever UA $221,487,900
    10 Casino Royale Sony $212,075,200
    11 The World Is Not Enough MGM $207,280,700
    12 GoldenEye MGM $203,528,900
    13 Quantum of Solace Sony $195,570,000
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Adele's song had a huge impact in some markets from what I have heard. It certainly had some effect stateside as well. Moreover, her song had the film 'title' in it. WOTW did not, which also reduced its marketing impact to a degree, apart from it not connecting as well in many countries. Adele certainly got oodles of airplay of a song with the film title front and centre in the lyrics.

    Regarding SP - one more thing to point out is that it opened very weak for a film following the monster that was SF. Given the theatre count and ticket prices, its opening weekend was pretty poor. I don't think Peanuts should have been that much trouble for it, given that film only opened to less than $50m.

    So it's clear that the opening weekend buzz wasn't that strong. Usually a film following a super blockbuster like SF opens stronger.

    That could be on account of 'wrist slasher' that was getting the press just prior, or the mixed reviews, or the marketing, which wasn't all that buzzworthy this year.....at least to my eyes. I didn't notice any real 'standout moment' in the trailers like the SF China fight and Patrice fall.... That may have had something to do with it too. Bottom line, the opening wasn't all that strong. Neither was MI-RN's, and these days a strong opening is important to take a film forward.

    I agree that it is going to gross on par with Bonds of old in the US (excl. SF).
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    Adele's song had a huge impact in some markets from what I have heard. It certainly had some effect stateside as well. Moreover, her song had the film 'title' in it. WOTW did not, which also reduced its marketing impact to a degree, apart from it not connecting as well in many countries. Adele certainly got oodles of airplay of a song with the film title front and centre in the lyrics.

    Regarding SP - one more thing to point out is that it opened very weak for a film following the monster that was SF. Given the theatre count and ticket prices, its opening weekend was pretty poor. I don't think Peanuts should have been that much trouble for it, given that film only opened to less than $50m.

    So it's clear that the opening weekend buzz wasn't that strong. Usually a film following a super blockbuster like SF opens stronger.

    That could be on account of 'wrist slasher' that was getting the press just prior, or the mixed reviews, or the marketing, which wasn't all that buzzworthy this year.....at least to my eyes. I didn't notice any real 'standout moment' in the trailers like the SF China fight and Patrice fall.... That may have had something to do with it too. Bottom line, the opening wasn't all that strong. Neither was MI-RN's, and these days a strong opening is important to take a film forward.

    I agree that it is going to gross on par with Bonds of old in the US (excl. SF).

    Yes the buzz was horrible here in the States.

  • Posts: 11,425
    zebrafish wrote: »
    You should not forget that a large part of SFs success was due to Adele's title track. People loved it and associated this great artist with a film that featured her song. When word got round that it was not your typical Bond movie, but a thrilling ensemble piece, curiosity prevailed and ticket sales went over the roof.
    For SP there was close to zero airplay of its title track, on top of that the press and radio moderators gave it mixed or bad reviews.

    People who loved SF, because it was different from the usual Bond-fare (and who usually would not go and see every Bond), would be expected to be disappointed, due to its reversal to the Bond of old.

    In any case, do not underestimate the impact that a successful title song has on marketing. Adele appeals across a large age segment and to men and women, while Sam Smith is not really everybody's cup of tea.

    The Sony leaks? I think only die-hard fans were interested in that. Overall the press did not cite from them and I felt more spoilered by the SF videoblogs and trailers than I did this time around.

    Good point. Adele was a great commercial move and her song wasn't half bad either.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Adele's song had a huge impact in some markets from what I have heard. It certainly had some effect stateside as well. Moreover, her song had the film 'title' in it. WOTW did not, which also reduced its marketing impact to a degree, apart from it not connecting as well in many countries. Adele certainly got oodles of airplay of a song with the film title front and centre in the lyrics.

    Regarding SP - one more thing to point out is that it opened very weak for a film following the monster that was SF. Given the theatre count and ticket prices, its opening weekend was pretty poor. I don't think Peanuts should have been that much trouble for it, given that film only opened to less than $50m.

    So it's clear that the opening weekend buzz wasn't that strong. Usually a film following a super blockbuster like SF opens stronger.

    That could be on account of 'wrist slasher' that was getting the press just prior, or the mixed reviews, or the marketing, which wasn't all that buzzworthy this year.....at least to my eyes. I didn't notice any real 'standout moment' in the trailers like the SF China fight and Patrice fall.... That may have had something to do with it too. Bottom line, the opening wasn't all that strong. Neither was MI-RN's, and these days a strong opening is important to take a film forward.

    I agree that it is going to gross on par with Bonds of old in the US (excl. SF).
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Adele's song had a huge impact in some markets from what I have heard. It certainly had some effect stateside as well. Moreover, her song had the film 'title' in it. WOTW did not, which also reduced its marketing impact to a degree, apart from it not connecting as well in many countries. Adele certainly got oodles of airplay of a song with the film title front and centre in the lyrics.

    Regarding SP - one more thing to point out is that it opened very weak for a film following the monster that was SF. Given the theatre count and ticket prices, its opening weekend was pretty poor. I don't think Peanuts should have been that much trouble for it, given that film only opened to less than $50m.

    So it's clear that the opening weekend buzz wasn't that strong. Usually a film following a super blockbuster like SF opens stronger.

    That could be on account of 'wrist slasher' that was getting the press just prior, or the mixed reviews, or the marketing, which wasn't all that buzzworthy this year.....at least to my eyes. I didn't notice any real 'standout moment' in the trailers like the SF China fight and Patrice fall.... That may have had something to do with it too. Bottom line, the opening wasn't all that strong. Neither was MI-RN's, and these days a strong opening is important to take a film forward.

    I agree that it is going to gross on par with Bonds of old in the US (excl. SF).

    Yes the buzz was horrible here in the States.

    Sadly, the buzz for SP in the USA was way more horrible than in other foreign territories.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    zebrafish wrote: »
    You should not forget that a large part of SFs success was due to Adele's title track. People loved it and associated this great artist with a film that featured her song. When word got round that it was not your typical Bond movie, but a thrilling ensemble piece, curiosity prevailed and ticket sales went over the roof.
    For SP there was close to zero airplay of its title track, on top of that the press and radio moderators gave it mixed or bad reviews.

    People who loved SF, because it was different from the usual Bond-fare (and who usually would not go and see every Bond), would be expected to be disappointed, due to its reversal to the Bond of old.

    In any case, do not underestimate the impact that a successful title song has on marketing. Adele appeals across a large age segment and to men and women, while Sam Smith is not really everybody's cup of tea.

    The Sony leaks? I think only die-hard fans were interested in that. Overall the press did not cite from them and I felt more spoilered by the SF videoblogs and trailers than I did this time around.

    Good point. Adele was a great commercial move and her song wasn't half bad either.

    I remember very well how forummembers back in 2012 disliked her song and didn't see any potential in it. Just a cheap Bond-rip-off with again a Monty Norman cue in it (like "GoldenEye").

    Frankly, I disagreed. It wasn't just Adele's name. Alicia Keys back in 2008 was also very popular. "New York" was one hell of a hit, and if she did something like that for "QOS".... Had that piece of noice been a real song, it could have helped the film "QOS" as well.

    @Haserot gives us a very worthy summary though. It's not just one aspect. It's the entire set of elements that cause a certain publicity storm.

    But saying that no other Bond film can repeat the success of "Skyfall", is a bit short-sighted. Earlier this year "SPECTRE" was brandmarked a certified 1 Billion Dollar flick. And hadn't the SonyLeaks taken place, if Sam Smith composed a slightly more memorable song, if Craig didn't "slash his wrists", had Idris Elba shut his mouth, if the US reviews were actually better (and more objective), then "SPECTRE" would have been a certified 1 Billion Dollar hit. But all these, slightly negative elements from "SPECTRE" --like all the positive elements from "Skyfall"-- did create another 'storm', a more negative storm.

    Hence why it will probably gross $200-$250 Million less globally than what was previously anticipated. Everyone who is saying that they say all of this coming, is wrong.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,964
    w2bond wrote: »

    SPECTRE (2015): 18,085,500, through Nov. 23, (8,176,900); average ticket price, $8.34

    Wow. It's about double that here. We get that price on cheap Tuesdays

    I already don't go out to the movies that much because of how much it tends to cost, but you generally pay $16 for a ticket? I feel sorry for you. I typically get student tickets at $7.00, or get matinee priced tickets at $5.75.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,537
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »

    SPECTRE (2015): 18,085,500, through Nov. 23, (8,176,900); average ticket price, $8.34

    Wow. It's about double that here. We get that price on cheap Tuesdays

    I already don't go out to the movies that much because of how much it tends to cost, but you generally pay $16 for a ticket? I feel sorry for you. I typically get student tickets at $7.00, or get matinee priced tickets at $5.75.

    Wow that is so cheap! In Australia, it's $18.50 for an adult, $16.50 for a concession and $10 on cheap Tuesdays. It's even more expensive for 3D films, and Gold Class is about $40.

  • Posts: 625
    HASEROT wrote: »
    #4 - SF opened to far less competition than SP has... the only real competition SF had in it's first month was Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2... SP has had, Hunger Games: Mocking Jay 2, Peanuts, The Good Dinosaur, and Creed.... and i don't want to hear that nonsense of "it's not the same audience that goes to see Creed, or Peanuts, that goes to see SP" - regardless, it's competition.

    What about "Wreck-It-Ralph", "Lincoln", "Rise of the Guardians", "Life of Pi", "Argo", "Silver Linings Playbook"? Skyfall had lots of competition besides "Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2".

    $292 Mio - "Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2" (11.16)
    $189 Mio - "Wreck-It-Ralph" (11.02)
    $182 Mio - "Lincoln" (11.09)
    $136 Mio - "Argo" (10.12)
    $132 Mio - "Silver Linings Playbook" (11.16)
    $125 Mio - "Life of Pi" (11.21)
    $103 Mio - "Rise of the Guardians" (11.21)
    $94 Mio - "Flight" (11-02)

    So where is the difference?

    From mid-december on "Skyfall" had to face "The Hobbit", "Django Unchained" and "Les Miserables", too.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,964
    @Red_Snow, those are some insane prices! I can't imagine. What is Gold Class? I've never heard of it.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,537
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Red_Snow, those are some insane prices! I can't imagine. What is Gold Class? I've never heard of it.

    Larger movie chains such as Event, Hoyts and Reading have Gold Class or Gold Lounge, which is separate to the rest of the cinema.

    Normally there is a bar area where you can order pre-drinks and wait before entering into the theatre.

    bwinstone_090722_1135small.jpg

    The cinema itself is smaller, and has reclining lounge chairs instead of your normal cinemas seats. Waiters come around and take your order and serve you a full on meal in there.

    gv-gold-class-cinema2.jpg

    They are all slightly different, and some are much better than others.

    Personally I've been once, and hated it. I'd much rather slum it out with the masses. And besides, if they serve you a meal in there, it takes all the fun out of trying to smuggle a large pizza into the cinema.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    That is incredible @Red_Snow. What a brilliant experience that must be. I'll pay for it certainly.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    The Everyman chain in the UK has small theatres with sofa style seating. Tickets are £15-18. I ended up paying £18 first time I saw SP - the only place I could get tickets the day after it came out.
  • bondjames wrote: »

    That could be on account of 'wrist slasher' that was getting the press just prior, or the mixed reviews, or the marketing, which wasn't all that buzzworthy this year.....at least to my eyes. I didn't notice any real 'standout moment' in the trailers like the SF China fight and Patrice fall.... That may have had something to do with it too. Bottom line, the opening wasn't all that strong. Neither was MI-RN's, and these days a strong opening is important to take a film forward.

    I agree that it is going to gross on par with Bonds of old in the US (excl. SF).

    You're right about no 'standout moment' in the SP marketing. There were some nice shots like the helicopter barrel roll and Waltz's face in shadow, but it didn't have that one moment to get casual moviegoers to sit up and pay attention.

    The standout in the SF marketing was definitely Bond getting shot and falling "to his death" off the bridge. The China fight wasn't even in the trailer IIRC.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    That could be on account of 'wrist slasher' that was getting the press just prior, or the mixed reviews, or the marketing, which wasn't all that buzzworthy this year.....at least to my eyes. I didn't notice any real 'standout moment' in the trailers like the SF China fight and Patrice fall.... That may have had something to do with it too. Bottom line, the opening wasn't all that strong. Neither was MI-RN's, and these days a strong opening is important to take a film forward.

    I agree that it is going to gross on par with Bonds of old in the US (excl. SF).

    You're right about no 'standout moment' in the SP marketing. There were some nice shots like the helicopter barrel roll and Waltz's face in shadow, but it didn't have that one moment to get casual moviegoers to sit up and pay attention.

    The standout in the SF marketing was definitely Bond getting shot and falling "to his death" off the bridge. The China fight wasn't even in the trailer IIRC.
    I forgot about the bridge moment. Yes, that was appealing too, as well as Bardem in shadow with the burning mansion in the back. The China fight may not have been there (can't remember) but the Patrice fall definitely was in the teaser and really hooked me. So did the psych eval test (Skyfall? Skyfall? Done.......it really was intriguing). Exceptional trailer.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 84
    I tend not to chip in but glad to see there's some similar agreements on the final trailers.....the teaser trailer for me set a very different atmosphere to the film we actually got, and, was seeming to carry on the SF mode and was well received...the others didn't follow as well. Don't get me wrong i love SP to death, i thought it was fabulous.

    Of the 40 odd people (not as Bond fanatic as I am) that i know that have seen SP, the most interesting feedback and most common has been they did NOT agree with Lea's casting; most females found it beyond comprehension Bond would fall for a girl who they viewed as "so ordinary". And for the record, these were female opinions amongst friends in UK, US, France and Russia, and was a common denominator...... not sure myself, i thought she played the character well and her understated looks fitted the bill. Maybe SP was too thoughtful for its own good with the average film goer?
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Adele's song had a huge impact in some markets from what I have heard. It certainly had some effect stateside as well. Moreover, her song had the film 'title' in it. WOTW did not, which also reduced its marketing impact to a degree, apart from it not connecting as well in many countries. Adele certainly got oodles of airplay of a song with the film title front and centre in the lyrics.

    Cornell's YKMN didn't have CR at all in the song - didn't chart well - but the movie did remarkably well (all things considered)... i understand the amount of good advertising a well done Bond song can have - but i think it's hard to equate how much $$ it brings into the film on it's own... IMO, it's not enough to make a dent.. i could be completely wrong, but i find it hard to believe that a lot of people went "i really like this song, i may have to check out the film now." .... again, i use FYEO and AVTAK as examples - both songs charted great - the films however, not so much.... i would like to know the impact that the Bond songs had monetarily on their respected Bond films - it would be an interesting read... but they've had some many clunkers through the Broz years, but his films still performed really well.
    You're right on all points. This is difficult to quantify. I have a belief though that Adele's SF did have a trickle 'awareness' effect. On its own, that is not enough surely, but if the film is also half decent, then in combination with a popular song, the awareness is solidified. Eventually that could result in a bum on a seat somewhere, or be more likely to. I hear so much these days about Adele's new Hello song.....I'm not a fan of hers but I surely know of that song and that it's sung by her. So if there was a hypothetical film called Hello and a friend told me it was good, I'd possibly be more likely to remember it and possibly see it at some point......since the name is in my memory bank. However, as you said it's difficult to quantify.

    It doesn't work the other way though. So a bad song or a relatively unpopular song isn't going to detract from people seeing the film. If they want to see it, they'll go anyway I think.
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Regarding SP - one more thing to point out is that it opened very weak for a film following the monster that was SF. Given the theatre count and ticket prices, its opening weekend was pretty poor. I don't think Peanuts should have been that much trouble for it, given that film only opened to less than $50m.

    but... let's say SP opened the week before Peanuts.. that $70 mil opening might very well have been closer to $80-$90mil.... again, its the Happy Feet effect - chances are, those adults who took their kids to see Peanuts, waited until the next week to go see SP - lets not also forget, that Peanuts had the added benefit of being released in 3D as well as standard 2D.. so for every $10 someone spent on SP, someone spent between $20-$30 for Peanuts.. that does eventually add up...
    That's true, but SF was a relatively huge opening (Bond wise). Given the legs that film had, and the goodwill it established as a huge commercial and critical hit, I would have expected a sizeable uptick in audiences this time on opening weekend ($100m or so if there was no competition). It tends to work like that with other blockbuster events as well. It's true that a previous hit film certainly won't help 'legs' if the new film doesn't hit the mark quality wise, but at least the opening weekend benefit should be there.

    Even with Peanuts releasing concurrently, I was just surprised, although I get your point about losing about $10m to $20m on opening weekend due to it.

    You are right also about the 2nd week. If they missed it on week 1, they had ample opportunity to see it on weekend 2 since the theatre count and actual quality of the theatres stayed the same. Moreover, Bond viewers tend not to rush out all in weekend 1 (unlike Marvel). They trickle in over time.
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    I initially thought that SP should have been released the week after Peanuts, so to get Thanksgiving on the second week and the extra cash therein. Subsequent looks revealed that SP's date took advantage of Veterans Day (more weekday admissions) and gained an extra week in IMAX and PLF before Mockingjay took them.

    Sony was smart to release SP in the US when they did. The mystery box marketing and the middling word of mouth stateside affected grosses more.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @haserot, I have to say, I don't really think the competition was that important up until the Hunger Games last weekend. SP had the best theatres and so had the opportunity to turn in the highest $ grosses (i.e. it had an advantage over Peanuts).

    Hunger Games I understand, but Peanuts really isn't in SP's league and shouldn't have caused significant damage to the gross over the first two weeks (although perhaps some). I think the Peanuts impact may in fact be bigger this weekend since kids are out and may see that or Dinosaur. I noticed it had overtaken SP on Tuesday.

    In retrospect, as was mentioned earlier, they should have probably ideally released this film a few weeks earlier to take advantage of the slow Oct. The Martian cleaned up due to that lull.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    So hopefully we get some good Thanksgiving numbers. Some of the folks who've been taking in additional showings this week have noted that the theatres were busy where they've been at.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    Depending on who you ask, SP did between $2.67-$2.69 million on Thursday. It's notable that it didn't improve as much on Thanksgiving as SF or QOS did, but SP lost almost 700 theaters while the other two didn't.

    I think the only thing really preventing SP from $200 million is the big winter films pushing it out despite still drawing.
Sign In or Register to comment.