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

1119120122124125152

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    You're both correct but I do think that in today's climate, audiences can still turn up for a great, quality movie that can result to a BO figure that is close to a $billion than not. Bridge of spies is a great movie but it's not a blockbuster. Positive critical reviews and a decent BO return is acceptable and is the most it can expect and doesn't need and nor is it trying to zero in on anywhere near a $billion. Trashformers appeals to the mindless masses and is comparatively family-friendly but is not indicative of a strict rule.

    EoN at the extreme most should not go above a budget of $200 million. Anything more is just ridiculous and they have proven they don't know how to spend and manage huge sums of money. That SP explosion is just embarrassing imo and visually does nothing for me. Compare that to the other Guinness world record Bond got in CR for the multiple car flip, when avoiding driving over Vesper. Now that was visually exciting, impressive and actually contributed something to the film.

    The next Bond film does indeed need its budget scaled back and needs to focus on telling a competent and exciting action thriller with worthwhile and dynamic action, which can EASILY be achieved on a budget for under $200 million.

    My curiosity for who's writing and directing Bond 25 is extremely high just to see if EoN are going to do something dumb and stick to the mess they've repeated for the past 2 movies. People can say what they want about QoS but at least that film really tried and attempted to be bold and different and didn't rely on self referential indulgences. Bloody hell, QoS at this moment is probably the second best film of the Craig era for me, behind CR.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Spectre only cost 50-70 million more than SF. SP PTS is worth it alone IMO. Yes the film has some flaws but on a 6th & final cinema viewing its Craigs best outing IMO.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    No mess as far as EON are concerned.

    Last two films have taken nigh on 2 billion between them. As far as EON and the studio are concerned it ain't broke so why will they try to fix anything?
  • Posts: 1,098
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Bob? I don't understand.

    Bob is a slang term for what used to be a shilling in the old UK currency before decimalization came in around 1971. Today a shilling would be worth 5 pence. :)
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    mepal1 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Bob? I don't understand.

    Bob is a slang term for what used to be a shilling in the old UK currency before decimalization came in around 1971. Today a shilling would be worth 5 pence. :)

    And I think we'd all agree that's about what Logan and P&W should've been paid for SP.
  • mepal1 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Bob? I don't understand.

    Bob is a slang term for what used to be a shilling in the old UK currency before decimalization came in around 1971. Today a shilling would be worth 5 pence. :)

    And I think we'd all agree that's about what Logan and P&W should've been paid for SP.

    You think incorrectly.

  • Posts: 486
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Spectre only cost 50-70 million more than SF. SP PTS is worth it alone IMO. Yes the film has some flaws but on a 6th & final cinema viewing its Craigs best outing IMO.

    For real? Well given how studio bound and UK grounded SF was I'd have thought fans should be asking where the money went with that film instead.
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,057
    Cowley wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Spectre only cost 50-70 million more than SF. SP PTS is worth it alone IMO. Yes the film has some flaws but on a 6th & final cinema viewing its Craigs best outing IMO.

    For real? Well given how studio bound and UK grounded SF was I'd have thought fans should be asking where the money went with that film instead.

    Reportely £30m was spent on Craig's stubble maintenance...
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    BBC 1 news just did a report about how SP and Star Wars have been snubbed by the BAFTAS and unsurprisingly bridge of spies has recieved 9 nominations.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    It deserves to be snubbed.
  • Posts: 7,653
    bob is English slang for pound, in English English that is.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    SaintMark wrote: »
    bob is English slang for pound, in English English that is.

    Thanks ...you have Bob we have Bill. Cousins I presume.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Who gives a shit about BAFTAs?
  • Posts: 7,653
    RC7 wrote: »
    Who gives a shit about BAFTAs?

    When SF did well it was a great show. How times change. :D
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 1,098
    SaintMark wrote: »
    bob is English slang for pound, in English English that is.

    No its not, bob is slang for a shilling. Blinkin heck. :-O

    Remember in the old days we used to have 20 shillings to a pound, we even had a note which was half a pound, i.e known as a 10 bob note (which would be a 50p piece today).

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mepal1 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    bob is English slang for pound, in English English that is.

    No its not, bob is slang for a shilling. Blinkin heck. :-O

    Remember in the old days we used to have 20 shillings to a pound, we even had a note which was half a pound, i.e known as a 10 bob note (which would be a 50p piece today).

    Oh ok ...thanks. Makes cents to me :D
  • Thank goodness we have so many armchair producers in here to give EON such insightful advice, and all for free!

    "Make the budget lower"
    "Make the script good"

    Some truly brilliant suggestions that clearly take into account all the myriad factors of making a studio produced film in the year 2016. How come nobody at EON had considered any of these ideas previously?

    I-)
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2016 Posts: 10,512
    SaintMark wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Who gives a shit about BAFTAs?

    When SF did well it was a great show. How times change. :D

    Not for me, I'm completely disinterested. It means jack.
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Thank goodness we have so many armchair producers in here to give EON such insightful advice, and all for free!

    "Make the budget lower"
    "Make the script good"

    Some truly brilliant suggestions that clearly take into account all the myriad factors of making a studio produced film in the year 2016. How come nobody at EON had considered any of these ideas previously?

    I-)

    Absolutely. The untapped talent on here is truly mind boggling...
  • RC7 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Who gives a shit about BAFTAs?

    When SF did well it was a great show. How times change. :D

    Not for me, I'm completely disinterested. It means jack.
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Thank goodness we have so many armchair producers in here to give EON such insightful advice, and all for free!

    "Make the budget lower"
    "Make the script good"

    Some truly brilliant suggestions that clearly take into account all the myriad factors of making a studio produced film in the year 2016. How come nobody at EON had considered any of these ideas previously?

    I-)

    Absolutely. The untapped talent on here is truly mind boggling...

    Thank you! I agree with you two 100%! I understand that this movie may not be the best of the bunch for some people here, but it's still a pretty darn good film. I get that a lot of people didn't think this was a great movie, but the usual vocal minority on here that continues to insist that this is the worst movie of the series I don't believe have really watched some of the worst Bond movies.

    I have been an active poster on another Bond message board. But some of the constant negativity here has prompted me to respond. I personally don't have an issue with Craig and Mendes making a throwback Bond movie that pays homage to many of the earlier movies in the series. Sure, Bond does not lose another important figure in his life in this film, he does not have a midlife crisis, and this movie is not as dark or gritty as the other ones he's made. That said, I think he was entitled to make one slightly more lighthearted film. If he comes back for the next one, I think they will go back into the same direction as his earlier ones.

    Now regarding the box office for this film, it still has a chance to make $200 million domestically. And I don't think it's that bad of a film where it wouldn't deserve that. Plus I don't appreciate people calling the movie going public "stupid and lazy" for liking films like this in transformers. People go to the movies to be entertained, not to be lectured to all the time. So I don't think everyone in the movie going public is stupid.

    Now I get it that there were script issues, and the budget was a little bloated. Fine. I think if they trim 30% off the next film's budget, they could come up with a gem if they get the writers on the same page early on. But to be calling Spectre an utmost disaster is a little bit far-fetched by some people here to say the least.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Who gives a shit about BAFTAs?

    When SF did well it was a great show. How times change. :D

    Not for me, I'm completely disinterested. It means jack.
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Thank goodness we have so many armchair producers in here to give EON such insightful advice, and all for free!

    "Make the budget lower"
    "Make the script good"

    Some truly brilliant suggestions that clearly take into account all the myriad factors of making a studio produced film in the year 2016. How come nobody at EON had considered any of these ideas previously?

    I-)

    Absolutely. The untapped talent on here is truly mind boggling...

    Thank you! I agree with you two 100%! I understand that this movie may not be the best of the bunch for some people here, but it's still a pretty darn good film. I get that a lot of people didn't think this was a great movie, but the usual vocal minority on here that continues to insist that this is the worst movie of the series I don't believe have really watched some of the worst Bond movies.

    I have been an active poster on another Bond message board. But some of the constant negativity here has prompted me to respond. I personally don't have an issue with Craig and Mendes making a throwback Bond movie that pays homage to many of the earlier movies in the series. Sure, Bond does not lose another important figure in his life in this film, he does not have a midlife crisis, and this movie is not as dark or gritty as the other ones he's made. That said, I think he was entitled to make one slightly more lighthearted film. If he comes back for the next one, I think they will go back into the same direction as his earlier ones.

    Now regarding the box office for this film, it still has a chance to make $200 million domestically. And I don't think it's that bad of a film where it wouldn't deserve that. Plus I don't appreciate people calling the movie going public "stupid and lazy" for liking films like this in transformers. People go to the movies to be entertained, not to be lectured to all the time. So I don't think everyone in the movie going public is stupid.

    Now I get it that there were script issues, and the budget was a little bloated. Fine. I think if they trim 30% off the next film's budget, they could come up with a gem if they get the writers on the same page early on. But to be calling Spectre an utmost disaster is a little bit far-fetched by some people here to say the least.

  • Bravo! I couldn't agree more. I enjoyed the film immensely and really, isn't that what matters- whether or not one likes the movie or not? I've seen it five times and liked the fact that it went back to the tone of the 60's - 70's.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 188
    RC7 wrote: »
    Who gives a shit about BAFTAs?
    I do. So do lots of British people - viewers and people involved in productions.
    To quote Martin Freeman (who is a great actor and certainly not easy to flatter, if you go by his interviews) when a talkshow host said that he didn't have all that much dialog in a thing:

    tumblr_lxeyr5321h1qja7ygo1_500.gif

    It's a huge deal in the UK, and a badge of honor that many people go by when judging the quality of a production.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    roko wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Who gives a shit about BAFTAs?
    I do. So do lots of British people - viewers and people involved in productions.
    To quote Martin Freeman (who is a great actor and certainly not easy to flatter, if you go by his interviews) when a talkshow host said that he didn't have all that much dialog in a thing:

    tumblr_lxeyr5321h1qja7ygo1_500.gif

    It's a huge deal in the UK, and a badge of honor that many people go by when judging the quality of a production.

    If I won one for a screenplay or my wife won one for a documentary it would be, personally, fantastic. I couldn't give two shits if a Bond film wins one. I'm a fan.
  • Posts: 486
    roko wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Who gives a shit about BAFTAs?
    I do. So do lots of British people - viewers and people involved in productions.
    To quote Martin Freeman (who is a great actor and certainly not easy to flatter, if you go by his interviews) when a talkshow host said that he didn't have all that much dialog in a thing:

    tumblr_lxeyr5321h1qja7ygo1_500.gif

    It's a huge deal in the UK, and a badge of honor that many people go by when judging the quality of a production.

    I enjoyed the BAFTAs more when they had the film AND tv awards on the same show/night and you saw all the American film stars politely clapping for TV people they'd never heard of.

  • dinovelvet wrote: »
    Thank goodness we have so many armchair producers in here to give EON such insightful advice, and all for free!

    "Make the budget lower"
    "Make the script good"

    Some truly brilliant suggestions that clearly take into account all the myriad factors of making a studio produced film in the year 2016.
    I-)

    Thanks to the leaks, we know the Sony heads told EON to well, make the budget lower, and make the script good.



  • Posts: 1,098
    Spectre Latest BO news

    Current estimates:-

    Domestic $198.5 mil

    International $673.6 mil

    Worldwide $872.1 mil


    Looks like SP will end up with a total gross somewhere close to $880 mil.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,473
    Pushing $900 million, very well done! It's overall take will definitely exceed $1 billion once the home video/digital release takes place.
  • Posts: 1,098
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Pushing $900 million, very well done! It's overall take will definitely exceed $1 billion once the home video/digital release takes place.

    For reference Skyfall made a fraction under £100 mil, in the North American home market alone, for DVD and Blu-Ray sales.

  • Posts: 1,092
    Should hit 200+ no doubt. If you look at The Martian, it was around 221 at 10 weeks and now has 5 million more after the last 5 weeks. Sure, different movies/totals/etc., but we can rest assured squeaking out another 1.5 should be a breeze for SP.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 1,098
    Interesting to note, that Spectre is still doing very well in Germany with a $800k weekend , and a $71.8 mil running total. I've seen 2 reports stating that SP has surpassed SF in both Germany and Japan ($22.6 mil).
    The thing is these figures in dollars are actually a lot less than what SF attained. I presume the BO sources are talking about the local currency figures.
    The exchange rates have really hammered films in the International market recently. Just ask the Star Wars fans.
Sign In or Register to comment.