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

19394969899152

Comments

  • Posts: 1,098
    Matt007 wrote: »
    International...

    Glad to see someone can read. ;)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Are you trying to say that Americans can't read? Oh no you di'int! ;)
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    International...

    Glad to see someone can read. ;)

    Yes I caught that after the fact.

    Of course technically all the grosses are international.

    The Brits here are much too kind.
  • Posts: 1,098
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    International...

    Glad to see someone can read. ;)

    Yes I caught that after the fact.

    Of course technically all the grosses are international.

    The Brits here are much too kind.

    Just jesting with you sir.......and of course us Brits are kind (well i'am anyway). :)
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,116
    mepal1 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    International...

    Glad to see someone can read. ;)

    Yes I caught that after the fact.

    Of course technically all the grosses are international.

    The Brits here are much too kind.

    Just jesting with you sir.......and of course us Brits are kind (well i'am anyway). :)

    Ok ..I'm sorry. Yes yes you are very kind. Thanks :)
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    Update:
    Screen%20Shot%202015-11-29%20at%206.06.20%20PM.png~original

    Note: All amounts adjusted using CPI Calculator from http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. All grosses based on reported dollar amounts and don't mean to represent ticket sales. "Rentals" (the rough amount of money the studio took from the gate) are calculated with the studio's domestic (US and Canada) percentage being 51%, international percentage being 39% and China percentage at 25%. Budgets don't take into account advertising budgets and grosses don't take into account rereleases and double features from the earlier films.
  • For those curious about Russia, here are the totals for the last few Bond films:

    Spectre - $12 418 472 / 2 774 917 viewers
    Skyfall - $25 198 552 / 3 240 617 viewers
    Quantum of Solace - $18 054 093 / 2 822 206
    Casino Royale - $9 080 000

    Obviously the fall of the ruble has hurt the US$ earnings.

    Source: http://www.kinopoisk.ru/box/best_rus/view_all/1/

    Nevertheless, Spectre is poised to finish in the top 5 all-time for adjusted worldwide gross. That's nothing to scoff at. It was only a couple of years ago that it was unthinkable for a new Bond film to give Goldfinger and Thunderball a run for their money.
  • Tubes wrote: »
    Update:
    Screen%20Shot%202015-11-29%20at%206.06.20%20PM.png~original

    Note: All amounts adjusted using CPI Calculator from http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. All grosses based on reported dollar amounts and don't mean to represent ticket sales. "Rentals" (the rough amount of money the studio took from the gate) are calculated with the studio's domestic (US and Canada) percentage being 51%, international percentage being 39% and China percentage at 25%. Budgets don't take into account advertising budgets and grosses don't take into account rereleases and double features from the earlier films.

    This is wonderful work :-)! I just took a quick glance at it. And it's funny to see SP follows SF similar to how YOLT followed TB ;-).
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,098
    Tubes wrote: »
    Update:
    Screen%20Shot%202015-11-29%20at%206.06.20%20PM.png~original

    Note: All amounts adjusted using CPI Calculator from http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. All grosses based on reported dollar amounts and don't mean to represent ticket sales. "Rentals" (the rough amount of money the studio took from the gate) are calculated with the studio's domestic (US and Canada) percentage being 51%, international percentage being 39% and China percentage at 25%. Budgets don't take into account advertising budgets and grosses don't take into account rereleases and double features from the earlier films.

    Well done............good list............goes to prove the point, that even with inflation added to the budgets of the older films...........those films just were more profitable!

    Also goes to show that the BO performance of OHMSS was a lot better than many of the later Bond films.

  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Well done............good list............goes to prove the point, that even with inflation added to the budgets of the older films...........those films just were more profitable!

    One thing that's notable is the early Bond films didn't have the benefit of extensive product placement deals. It's rumored that Brosnan and Craig era films have their budgets almost entirely offset by such deals. We won't know about it, but it's something to think about when you see those 007 branded bottles of Belvedere and Heineken.

    Here's a smaller portion of the graph in chart form:

    Graph.png~original
  • Posts: 4,325
    Tubes wrote: »
    Update:
    Screen%20Shot%202015-11-29%20at%206.06.20%20PM.png~original

    Note: All amounts adjusted using CPI Calculator from http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. All grosses based on reported dollar amounts and don't mean to represent ticket sales. "Rentals" (the rough amount of money the studio took from the gate) are calculated with the studio's domestic (US and Canada) percentage being 51%, international percentage being 39% and China percentage at 25%. Budgets don't take into account advertising budgets and grosses don't take into account rereleases and double features from the earlier films.

    Thanks @Tubes, that's really cool :)
  • Posts: 2,491
    Great! 750m is really great!

    It seems like it will make more than 800m easily and if Sony doesn't think that 800m is not good enough (it needed 650m to break even) they can literally go F themselves..
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    One more note. SP and SF had very similar percentage drops on the weekend before and after Thanksgiving (SP's 3rd and 4th weekend and SF's 2nd and 3rd). SP grossed roughly a third of what SF did in that period. Extending that out for the rest of it's box office run and you have SP finishing up with $203 million domestic.

    If they give it enough theaters, SP will pass $200 million domestic and should easily pass $800 worldwide, probably even reaching $850 or $900 million depending on what the holiday weekdays do.
  • Posts: 2,491
    Tubes wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Well done............good list............goes to prove the point, that even with inflation added to the budgets of the older films...........those films just were more profitable!

    One thing that's notable is the early Bond films didn't have the benefit of extensive product placement deals. It's rumored that Brosnan and Craig era films have their budgets almost entirely offset by such deals. We won't know about it, but it's something to think about when you see those 007 branded bottles of Belvedere and Heineken.

    Here's a smaller portion of the graph in chart form:

    Graph.png~original

    Great graph!

    but...SF with bigger budget than SP..that doesn't seem right..
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The budget is the dark blue. It's smaller on the chart for SF vs. SP.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,116
    dragonsky wrote: »
    Tubes wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Well done............good list............goes to prove the point, that even with inflation added to the budgets of the older films...........those films just were more profitable!

    One thing that's notable is the early Bond films didn't have the benefit of extensive product placement deals. It's rumored that Brosnan and Craig era films have their budgets almost entirely offset by such deals. We won't know about it, but it's something to think about when you see those 007 branded bottles of Belvedere and Heineken.

    Here's a smaller portion of the graph in chart form:

    Graph.png~original

    Great graph!

    but...SF with bigger budget than SP..that doesn't seem right..

    That's funny ...all those bashers griping about America BO and American tastes. The graph indicates pretty consistently that the domestic BO performance almost mirrors the international BO.

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,399
    deleted
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    That's funny ...all those bashers griping about America BO and American tastes. The graph indicates pretty consistently that the domestic BO performance almost mirrors the international BO.
    That's true and an interesting observation. One can also see though that Brosnan narrowed the gap between US/International considerably, as did Connery in the heyday (with GF/TB being oversize international hits like SF).

    With Craig, international vs. domestic has increased again, as it did with Moore & Dalton, meaning they are relatively less popular stateside compared to internationally.

    Having said that, you're correct.....they do mirror each other relatively nicely overall on the graph.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    That's funny ...all those bashers griping about America BO and American tastes. The graph indicates pretty consistently that the domestic BO performance almost mirrors the international BO.
    That's true and an interesting observation. One can also see though that Brosnan narrowed the gap between US/International considerably, as did Connery in the heyday.

    With Craig, international vs. domestic has increased again, as it did with Moore & Dalton, meaning they are relatively less popular stateside compared to internationally.

    Having said that, you're correct.....they do mirror each other relatively nicely overall on the graph.

    Thank you and that's true as well.

    Looking at it closer you can see the greater dip with Dalton ...note also FYEO.

    The 80s saw a steady decline but Dalton's two rebounded a bit internationally.

    Of other note after GE the budgets increased greater than the domestic BO which stayed almost flat.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Of other note after GE the budgets increased greater than the domestic BO which stayed almost flat.
    Yes, input costs (budget) have gone through the roof in the recent years. Crazy.

    I still don't think this is necessary.....they can make a decent Bond film for far less than $200m if they really put their minds to it, and then they wouldn't be so dependent on crazy product placement.

    Sometimes the spectacle is not necessary....just the quality. They learnt that with CR & even GE, which really were so dialed back on the 'spectacle' compared to the later Brosnan vehicles, and yet hailed as some of the best and just as entertaining. However, it looks like we're back to the old habits again. Only a new Bond actor will refocus the minds, because the risks of failure increase and so they start working smarter.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Of other note after GE the budgets increased greater than the domestic BO which stayed almost flat.
    Yes, input costs (budget) have gone through the roof in the recent years. Crazy.

    I still don't think this is necessary.....they can make a decent Bond film for far less than $200m if they really put their minds to it, and then they wouldn't be so dependent on crazy product placement.

    Sometimes the spectacle is not necessary....just the quality. They learnt that with CR & even GE, which really were so dialed back on the 'spectacle' compared to the later Brosnan vehicles, and yet hailed as some of the best and just as entertaining. However, it looks like we're back to the old habits again. Only a new Bond actor will refocus the minds, because the risks of failure increase and so they start working smarter.

    Yes, I agree.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 725
    I found the globetrotting in Spectre to be the best of the Craig films. The bulk of Casino was filmed in the Bahamas and Czech Republic - there was little remotely resembling Montenegro or the African locales. Quantum had a lot of frenetic continent jumping, but the locations were not memorable at all except the Tosca set-piece. Much of Skyfall was of course studio-built, but with nice use of domestic locations. The globetrotting in Spectre had a more Roger Moore-ish vibe - with Craig and his suitcases casually going where the story takes them with not much urgency. I thought Mexico City, Rome, and the Alps felt genuine and atmospheric enough. The Morocco scenes lacked some local colour (and people!!), while London has been overexposed by now.

    Interesting that SP cost the same as QOS, actually probably far less, given inflation adjustments on Quantum's budget (IA works both ways) and greater product placements on Sf and SP. To me, most of the money for SP is up there on the screen. I'm stumped about why QOS cost so much, unless there was a lot of bungled costs due to the strike, because the locations and action were so-so, Craig had a low salary, and Foster wasn't getting much either. Craig and Mendes cost a ton no doubt on SP, as did the extensive location and action work.

    Granted published budget figures are total junk, as studios are never truthful about budgets. But SP's figures aren't fudged much due to the leaks. MI5 and MM are just two 2015 films with phony budget figures. MI5 shut down for 2 weeks to rewrite and reshoot the ending, which of course was never factored into its published budget. SP has already grossed more than twice what Mad Max did (MM was my favorite action film in years), will gross nearly $175/200m more than the Martian (and I'm counting China), and will ultimately gross about 150-170 more than MI5. A few posters and some press will bitch about it being a "disappointment" for whatever reasons they can gen up. I guess it depends on your "perspective" as I never thought its BO would equal SF's. Among the many advantages SF had, the ER factor alone killed a sizable % of SP's BO compared to SF's.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    You lost me at ER? What is/was ER?

    Besides emergency services of course.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    You lost me at ER? What is/was ER?

    Besides emergency services of course.
    Exchange rate. It's worked against SP this year because most currencies have fallen against the US$ (except the UK pound) since SF's release. We discussed this earlier as being a possible problem and it has had an impact.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    @bondjames ...thanks. that's right ...should have known that.

    I'm tired. Ready for the weekend lol.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 725
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    You lost me at ER? What is/was ER?

    Besides emergency services of course.
    Exchange rate. It's worked against SP this year because most currencies have fallen against the US$ (except the UK pound) since SF's release. We discussed this earlier as being a possible problem and it has had an impact.

    Yep, that's it. I bet GG at some point will do a full out evaluation of exactly how badly ER hurt SP vs SF. Obviously it hurt all films this year, but SP was constantly being compared to SF's BO, and as noted above, it was mentioned in here months ago but most of us ignored it, but I still still think the leaks which set SP up for a negative narrative in the press, the weaker title song, the lack of the Olympic promo and the 2015 spy competition all hurt. SP is still strong in Europe and GB, in fact it appears to be doing pretty well almost everywhere. I don't think it will do $900m any longer, but hopefully it will reach $850 with Japan and other markets still not yet played out. $200 US ain't bad, it just seems not so hot when constantly compared to SF. But it will still do more in both the US and OS than MI5, MM and other far better reviewed films.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    smitty wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    You lost me at ER? What is/was ER?

    Besides emergency services of course.
    Exchange rate. It's worked against SP this year because most currencies have fallen against the US$ (except the UK pound) since SF's release. We discussed this earlier as being a possible problem and it has had an impact.

    Yep, that's it. I bet GG at some point will do a full out evaluation of exactly how badly ER hurt SP vs SF. Obviously it hurt all films this year, but SP was constantly being compared to SF's BO, and as noted above, it was mentioned in here months ago but most of us ignored it, but I still still think the leaks which set SP up for a negative narrative in the press, the weaker title song, the lack of the Olympic promo and the 2015 spy competition all hurt. SP is still strong in Europe and GB, in fact it appears to be doing pretty well almost everywhere. I don't think it will do $900m any longer, but hopefully it will reach $850 with Japan and other markets still not yet played out. $200 US ain't bad, it just seems not so hot when constantly compared to SF. But it will still be more in both the US and OS than MI5, MM and other far better reviewed films.

    Yes and I forgot some mentioned that here long ago. I even remember now reading about the ER concern going into the summer movie season.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Of other note after GE the budgets increased greater than the domestic BO which stayed almost flat.
    Yes, input costs (budget) have gone through the roof in the recent years. Crazy.

    I still don't think this is necessary.....they can make a decent Bond film for far less than $200m if they really put their minds to it, and then they wouldn't be so dependent on crazy product placement.

    Sometimes the spectacle is not necessary....just the quality. They learnt that with CR & even GE, which really were so dialed back on the 'spectacle' compared to the later Brosnan vehicles, and yet hailed as some of the best and just as entertaining. However, it looks like we're back to the old habits again. Only a new Bond actor will refocus the minds, because the risks of failure increase and so they start working smarter.

    Exactly. The best Bond films are not spectacles, at least I don't see them as such. FRWL, OHMSS, CR, TLD, DN.
  • Posts: 725
    Someone posted recently the very good point that some of the best action scenes in recent Bonds were not the big, hugely expensive spectacle stuff, but the scenes that focused on Bond, like the train fight scene in SP, the Shanghai fight scene in SF, and the fight in the stairwell in CR. These scenes didn't cost a small countries GNP like some of the scenes in SP and SF. I can only imagine the cost of the Austrian plane chase in SP, building and burning down the Skyfall set, and the train going off the rails in SF. Sometimes spectacle is really worth the expense like in SP's PTS, but often not. Hopefully EON will find a director that can work smarter next time so we aren't reading about another monster budget.

Sign In or Register to comment.