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
It would have easily, yes easily outdone SF, if it had been a film, more liked overall.
As it is, its doing pretty good and nobody ( the prods and co) should get grey hair over the results. They make a ton of money with this one, too.
With Heineken reportedly paying 10's of millions and many other product placement sales etc surely this cannot be accurate. A high % of the budget must have been accounted for
It's a question of degrees and expectations, that's all.
Nothing in the SP results is troubling. It's par for the course. The only thing I would focus on is the 'legs' and/or overall multiplier. The most memorable and highly thought of films (after the fact) have always had great multipliers and I think that should be a goal that EON set for themselves, in addition to making a great film, in the future.
Is this mentioned elsewhere, how are the multipliers for different bond movies?
Different markets will also behave differently based on time in theatres and viewing habits. The Chinese multiplier for example is very low traditionally because I think films are frontloaded there with shorter runs.
I would expect the multipliers to go down for the newer films, because increasingly we have a front loaded release schedule, and also with larger number of higher priced theatres out there these days, like IMAX, there is more $$ gross coming in during the first couple of weeks relative to later in the run, when films tend to lose such premium theatres and associated ticket prices.
I think that the relevant comparison would be with the most recent films from the franchise (because the behaviour is likely to be more comparable if recent) and also with other similar films released within the same year or previous year........rather than with films released many years ago when behaviours might have been different.
Hoping it inches past 200m.
BO performance seems below expectations overall. Creed being the only exception.
There maybe other factors other than reception and competition at play.
Curious now to see how Star Wars does.
Star Wars will pass 500M domestic.
Probably so. Break 400m at least.
http://nos.nl/artikel/2072255-1-5-miljoen-bezoekers-voor-nieuwe-james-bond.html
At this stage "SPECTRE" will almost certainly outgross "SKYFALL". Currently the film has grossed €17 Million (which is $18 Million), after 1.5 Million Dutchies have visited the film. And that is 7.7% more visitors as compared to "SKYFALL" at the same 'in-release' timeframe. "SKYFALL" went on to gross $25.1 Million.
I find that so odd. I just assumed it was CGI. It's so hard to tell what's real and not these days.
And THAT'S how good CGI should be ;-)! It worked on you! Great special thanks to Steve Begg's team.
The other way of putting it is that they didn't actually capture the 'reality' on camera very well.
The explosion is real, the crater terrain and exterior buildings are CGI composites.
That explains why it looks fake. What is the point of a real explosions but a CGI set? Bizarre. Why not low up a scale model or something instead.
I don't think people are wowed by explosions like they used to be anymore. Apparently the explosives alone cost millions, all for something that lasted seconds on scene. This is why the movie cost so much, waste. In any of the fan critic reviews, do you hear people raving about how cool the explosion was. No. It was terribly naive of EON to expect them to be. It's 2015, people. Record breaking explosion = meh. Be smarter.
Blowing up a model as Bond flew away would have shaved millions off the budget and had exactly the same effect.
They constructed a small part of the building as a facade in the desert and extended it with CGI. The crater is also added in post. I assume they did the explosion for real as it's pretty difficult to pull off an authentic looking CGI explosion (see - MI6 in SF).
The explosion is real and record breaking as the largest explosion filmed for a movie if I'm not mistaken.
Indeed. Just realised my comment looked like I was 'assuming' it was for real, what I meant was that I 'assumed' the reason for doing it for real was that it would look pretty turd as a visual effect. Twas real and huge.
I didn't know until I saw this a few weeks back that it was indeed real, which brings about a question of great importance: why the hell did they spend so much money on it when they could have just used effects and miniatures? I get wanting to have a world record honor and everything like that, but when the budget was already soaring, was throwing more money at this sequence really a sound investment?
I think EON, Mendes and co. really expected this to blow people away in the theaters the way the DB5 reveal and the subway crash did, but I just wasn't mesmerized. Honestly, how many explosions have we seen now in this modern moviemaking period of ours with blockbusters out the wazoo? In a regular year we now see upwards of one hundred plus explosions through trailers, TV spots, behind the scenes featurettes and our own cinema-going experiences, so really, what's another explosion on the pile? I know it's Bond and it should be more special than the rest, but it just doesn't feel this way. Does anyone else reciprocate these feelings?
It was one of favourite shots in the whole movie, I love the fact it's a single shot that lingers. It wouldn't have had the same impact as CGI. Next to the DB5 and subway crash I find it aeons ahead.
That's not the problem (though it's another set of negative criticism from you). I think the action is perfectly incorporated. The point really is, that people were expecting rougher-edged action from SP. A bit more like QOS, but then better edited, with slightly more long-distance angles. A bit like...."Ronin".
That's something we didn't get. The action was way more Roger Moore-ish (think the helicopter chasing the car in TSWLM and the car chase from FYEO). And less Brückheimer-like. That doesn't mean it was bad incorporated.
Frankly, I find that argument bullocks. Like in GF, TSWLM, TLD and TND Bond again had a car with him. So in all these films Bond tried to get away with the gadget-laden car from the villain. The build-up is actually very similar to those films. So blaming Mendes for not incorporating the action in the story is bullocks.
PS: Whether you find the argument bollocks or not is not the point. It's an argument, and a view from a member that you shouldn't disrespect, as you've been doing on here of late.