It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
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.
Wow. It's about double that here. We get that price on cheap Tuesdays
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
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.
Good point. Adele was a great commercial move and her song wasn't half bad either.
Sadly, the buzz for SP in the USA was way more horrible than in other foreign territories.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the only thing really preventing SP from $200 million is the big winter films pushing it out despite still drawing.