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

194959799100152

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SP threw a lot of money at imploding Blofeld's crater HQ as well, let's not forget. That sequence used enough explosives and gasoline to grab a Guinness World Record.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Considering the drop due to exchange rates, the loss of some of France, which I think will be in the 20`s, some Belgium, too, a film with such low ratings doing this kind of business still shows, how strong the Bond brand is right now.
    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.
  • How accurate is that "makes a profit after 650 million USD"

    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
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Considering the drop due to exchange rates, the loss of some of France, which I think will be in the 20`s, some Belgium, too, a film with such low ratings doing this kind of business still shows, how strong the Bond brand is right now.
    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.
    I agree @Germanlady and that was never in doubt. The James Bond brand is never in question......ever. EON themselves have gone through periods when they have had less faith in their product, but they have been misguided every time. James Bond is forever and Bond films are always profitable.

    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.
  • Posts: 92
    This may be a silly question, but what are 'great multipliers'?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    dandan wrote: »
    This may be a silly question, but what are 'great multipliers'?
    Oh, sorry I should have clarified. Final gross to initial weekend gross ratio. Shows the 'leg's of the film after the initial marketing hype for week 1 is over. It should be studied in each market and adjusted for anomalies (e.g. TND had a low opening weekend in the US in 97 due to opening against Titanic for example so that should be considered as we would expect its multiplier eventually to be higher, which it was).
  • Posts: 92
    Thanks, interesting.
    Is this mentioned elsewhere, how are the multipliers for different bond movies?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    dandan wrote: »
    Thanks, interesting.
    Is this mentioned elsewhere, how are the multipliers for different bond movies?
    The data to do the calculation is available out there, but it has to be calculated each time. CR had the best multiplier of the DC films to date in the US. QoS had the worst. SF was in the middle but trending more towards CR than QoS.

    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.
  • kultschar wrote: »
    How accurate is that "makes a profit after 650 million USD"

    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
    Also, of course, there is much more revenue to be received in the form of worldwide DVDs/Bluray sales, download sales, cable tv rights, free tv rights, etc etc.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    SP held steady domestically this weekend.

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2015 Posts: 8,400
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    SP held steady domestically this weekend.

    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.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    SP held steady domestically this weekend.

    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.
  • Box office news from that tiny speck on the map of planet Earth: Netherlands :-P! It's even on the frontpage of the biggest public news broadcaster, NOS (Dutch BBC):
    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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    SP threw a lot of money at imploding Blofeld's crater HQ as well, let's not forget. That sequence used enough explosives and gasoline to grab a Guinness World Record.

    I find that so odd. I just assumed it was CGI. It's so hard to tell what's real and not these days.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    SP threw a lot of money at imploding Blofeld's crater HQ as well, let's not forget. That sequence used enough explosives and gasoline to grab a Guinness World Record.

    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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    SP threw a lot of money at imploding Blofeld's crater HQ as well, let's not forget. That sequence used enough explosives and gasoline to grab a Guinness World Record.

    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.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    SP threw a lot of money at imploding Blofeld's crater HQ as well, let's not forget. That sequence used enough explosives and gasoline to grab a Guinness World Record.

    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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    SP threw a lot of money at imploding Blofeld's crater HQ as well, let's not forget. That sequence used enough explosives and gasoline to grab a Guinness World Record.

    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.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    So, they blew up a CGI set for real? Impressive!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    SP threw a lot of money at imploding Blofeld's crater HQ as well, let's not forget. That sequence used enough explosives and gasoline to grab a Guinness World Record.

    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.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    SP threw a lot of money at imploding Blofeld's crater HQ as well, let's not forget. That sequence used enough explosives and gasoline to grab a Guinness World Record.

    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.

    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).
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    SP threw a lot of money at imploding Blofeld's crater HQ as well, let's not forget. That sequence used enough explosives and gasoline to grab a Guinness World Record.

    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.

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The explosion looked good. I wish they had filmed it from farther back and from different angles to give more perspective.....and that more happened outside to make it more enticing. It definitely looked real to me though, and massive. One of the video blogs showed it in better fashion that the final film I recall.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,512
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    SP threw a lot of money at imploding Blofeld's crater HQ as well, let's not forget. That sequence used enough explosives and gasoline to grab a Guinness World Record.

    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.

    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.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Here's the video giving a run through of the whole sequence for those that haven't seen it:



    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?
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,512
    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.

    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.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I don't think Mendes has a great sense of what works in terms of action. None of the action in either SF or SP is top notch, apart from perhaps the train fight.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't think Mendes has a great sense of what works in terms of action. None of the action in either SF or SP is top notch, apart from perhaps the train fight.
    There does appear to be a tendency by Mendes to give action 'lip service' in both SP & SF. It's not as well integrated as I would like. As if it's a bother to him and not his main focus. It worked better in SF because it was a psychological thriller. SP is more action oriented (traditional Bond, if you will) and so the action had to be exceptional....at least in my view. That is where a film like TND shines, because Spottiswoode focused on it.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't think Mendes has a great sense of what works in terms of action. None of the action in either SF or SP is top notch, apart from perhaps the train fight.
    There does appear to be a tendency by Mendes to give action 'lip service' in both SP & SF. It's not as well integrated as I would like. As if it's a bother to him and not his main focus. It worked better in SF because it was a psychological thriller. SP is more action oriented (traditional Bond, if you will) and so the action had to be exceptional....at least in my view. That is where a film like TND shines, because Spottiswoode focused on it.

    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.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't think Mendes has a great sense of what works in terms of action. None of the action in either SF or SP is top notch, apart from perhaps the train fight.
    There does appear to be a tendency by Mendes to give action 'lip service' in both SP & SF. It's not as well integrated as I would like. As if it's a bother to him and not his main focus. It worked better in SF because it was a psychological thriller. SP is more action oriented (traditional Bond, if you will) and so the action had to be exceptional....at least in my view. That is where a film like TND shines, because Spottiswoode focused on it.

    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.
    I disagree. The action, apart from the visceral train fight, didn't connect with me. Sorry. I can accept it and watch it in the context of the film (understanding that this might have been the creative vision), but like the action in TWINE, it seemed tacked on and frankly wasn't all that thrilling for me.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.