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

1146147148149150152»

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2017 Posts: 8,073
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Given how bigger the action felt in SP, that's probably why it fared much better in China than its predecessor did - it had it's share of CGI, too, but nothing like SP (particularly the PTS and finale).

    They will rein in the budget once Craig leaves. No more 250 million for a spy thriller. Then they won't need to make 200 million in China and do just fine.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,443
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Given how bigger the action felt in SP, that's probably why it fared much better in China than its predecessor did - it had it's share of CGI, too, but nothing like SP (particularly the PTS and finale).

    They will rein in the budget once Craig leaves. No more 250 million for a spy thriller. Then they won't need to make 200 million in China and do just fine.

    That's a win/win all around: the fans get a spy action thriller that's a bit more dialed down, whereas everyone profiting off 'Bond 25' gets a much better chance at dominating with the box office returns.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Given how bigger the action felt in SP, that's probably why it fared much better in China than its predecessor did - it had it's share of CGI, too, but nothing like SP (particularly the PTS and finale).

    They will rein in the budget once Craig leaves. No more 250 million for a spy thriller. Then they won't need to make 200 million in China and do just fine.

    That's a win/win all around: the fans get a spy action thriller that's a bit more dialed down, whereas everyone profiting off 'Bond 25' gets a much better chance at dominating with the box office returns.
    This would be the ideal situation, but it all depends on the business end. If MGM wants to capitalize on its #1 franchise to boost its marketability for an eventual sale, IPO, or merger, then overall gross is as important as profit. Interesting times.

    If they can't get a multi-year distribution deal in place, I wonder if they will go back to Sony for a one picture deal. This could be why Craig is being mentioned a lot in the news again. A stop gap film.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    The power of the market can at times be worrying. Just recently we had that whole fiasco where SF had to be cut and changed for Chinese audiences so they wouldn't get all offended about being painted as the groups that tortured Silva. It's a form of censorship on storytelling I'm not a fan of, but it's to be expected in this world where nobody wants anything bad said about their people on the big screen. Bond has usually been lucky in this regard, as they smartly avoid stupid outrage by having villains as outsiders unaffiliated with governments, and when they don't, the baddie is a radical.

    Still, it's never good when a film's vision has to be altered for audiences just because the government's feelings get hurt.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2017 Posts: 8,073
    Another interesting thing to note from a box office standpoint is how moviegoers tastes have changed. Look at The Avengers, Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens and you notice that the days of desiring films to be dark and gritty are pretty much over. Or at least it's a recessive trend at this point. Big blockbusters these days are generally cheerier, more colourful affairs, and SPECTRE only partially embraced that change. It was like a film which slipped between the cracks tonally. Every so often the light atmosphere would get punctured by something gruesome or morbid. White's suicide, the torture scene, someones eyes getting gouged. Not only that, but the 2 hr 20 run time isn't really consistent with a fun romp. It was a bit of a mismatch, a muddled mess that just didn't seem to grab the audience like Skyfall did.

    I feel like SPECTRE truly exposed Craig's limitations as Bond. He's good in the role, as long as the films are specifically designed to play to his precise strengths as an actor. Consequently every story they tell with him has to include similar elements, so they can't develop out of Craig's wheelhouse. For this reason, I really feel like a fifth Craig film would experience the same kind of financial decline that SPECTRE did in relation to Skyfall. And in order to keep continuity, they would have to hire everyone back, including Craig of course. That means another 200 million budget, and IMO a film that would make around 700 - 750 million worldwide. A good return, but for a franchise that has one new entry every 3 - 4 years, not exactly competitive with the big guns.

    I personally think a smarter move would be to downside and recast, and focus on a simple premise designed to get everyone excited and re-energized about Bond. Take the leap of faith now, before you're forced to in another few years time, and build it back from the ground up.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Another interesting thing to note from a box office standpoint is how moviegoers tastes have changed. Look at The Avengers, Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens and you notice that the days of desiring films to be dark and gritty are pretty much over. Or at least it's a recessive trend at this point. Big blockbusters these days are generally cheerier, more colourful affairs, and SPECTRE only partially embraced that change. It was like a film which slipped between the cracks tonally. Every so often the light atmosphere would get punctured by something gruesome or morbid. White's suicide, the torture scene, someones eyes getting gouged. Not only that, but the 2 hr 20 run time isn't really consistent with a fun romp. It was a bit of a mismatch, a muddled mess that just didn't seem to grab the audience like Skyfall did.

    I feel like SPECTRE truly exposed Craig's limitations as Bond. He's good in the role, as long as the films are specifically designed to play to his precise strengths as an actor. Consequently every story they tell with him has to include similar elements, so they can't develop out of Craig's wheelhouse. For this reason, I really feel like a fifth Craig film would experience the same kind of financial decline that SPECTRE did in relation to Skyfall. And in order to keep continuity, they would have to hire everyone back, including Craig of course. That means another 200 million budget, and IMO a film that would make around 700 - 750 million worldwide. A good return, but for a franchise that has one new entry every 3 - 4 years, not exactly competitive with the big guns.

    I personally think a smarter move would be to downside and recast, and focus on a simple premise designed to get everyone excited and re-energized about Bond. Take the leap of faith now, before you're forced to in another few years time, and build it back from the ground up.

    In some ways lighter fare is needed, but we also still see that serious representations of fairly earnest characters are equally supported when the vision fits the character, with the most recent example being Logan. I don't really see a massive increase in fun romp films in comparison to the past, and think this perception is down to the fact that some "bigger" movies like Star Wars are gung-ho in some of that direction and people think that the entire culture is moving that way simply because that franchise is so high profile. It's just like the media making the world out to be more violent than ever, when really we've been on a steady decrease for decades. The more things are reported to be true by major outlets, the more it feels true to outsiders. In the same token, if Star Wars does something, it makes audiences think that's where the culture is at. In reality, very little has changed.

    As for SP, we reach another point where perspective creates an entirely different picture for people. On account of the financials, I don't view its box office as a dramatic decline or cause for worry that people aren't into Dan as Bond anymore. SF was a giant anomaly that came out at the perfect time, able to get that big box office with little competition in its way during the year of Bond. SP had none of that, but still made around a gob-smacking $880 million, which embarrasses the other films of recent memory outside its predecessor. It only fell short of SF's numbers by a little over $200 million, and I think it would've made up a lot of that ground with more push in the states. American perception of the film has mutated many people's impressions of the film, when in reality major areas outside the states saw a better return on ticket sales than SF by shocking degrees. America isn't the authority on what films are worthy, and I think our perception is used far more than all other major nations combined to judge films simply because we're home to stuffy Hollywood. Looking internationally, a different picture could be painted and you see a wide range of support for SP in tickets and reviews.

    I don't think audiences are tired of Dan, just as I don't think SP's box office, which was again incredible, shows they've staled of him. Even in the criminally hated QoS, people always said/say, "This film sucks, but Dan was great." He's always the best thing about his movies, whether the perception of them is good or bad, and people flock to these movies in massive part because of the character he's helped build for modern audiences. I know some here think it's time for a change, but the numbers and audience response don't tell us that the rest of the world is ready to say goodbye. Even from the aspect of reviewers, I lost count watching SP interviews all around the world where the men or women questioning Dan for their articles or features would spend the last minute of their time together begging him not to leave the role and do more, even if they may've had issues with parts of the film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I feel like SPECTRE truly exposed Craig's limitations as Bond. He's good in the role, as long as the films are specifically designed to play to his precise strengths as an actor. Consequently every story they tell with him has to include similar elements, so they can't develop out of Craig's wheelhouse.
    I agree with you on that.
    For this reason, I really feel like a fifth Craig film would experience the same kind of financial decline that SPECTRE did in relation to Skyfall. And in order to keep continuity, they would have to hire everyone back, including Craig of course. That means another 200 million budget, and IMO a film that would make around 700 - 750 million worldwide. A good return, but for a franchise that has one new entry every 3 - 4 years, not exactly competitive with the big guns.
    I don't know if we can translate this into future box office return expectations necessarily. SF was a box office killer after all. So while having Craig as Bond may limit the films to this continuing angst driven family story, the box office return could be substantial if they come up with a decent script this time and keep the budget down.
    I personally think a smarter move would be to downside and recast, and focus on a simple premise designed to get everyone excited and re-energized about Bond. Take the leap of faith now, before you're forced to in another few years time, and build it back from the ground up.
    I certainly agree, but I think they are stuck on account of the distributor issue. So perhaps it will turn out like this anyway, just due to the progression of time (as happened with Dalton) or perhaps they will end up doing a one picture distribution deal to wrap up the Craig era before MGM does something else (like IPO, sell or merge).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,073
    Another interesting thing to note from a box office standpoint is how moviegoers tastes have changed. Look at The Avengers, Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens and you notice that the days of desiring films to be dark and gritty are pretty much over. Or at least it's a recessive trend at this point. Big blockbusters these days are generally cheerier, more colourful affairs, and SPECTRE only partially embraced that change. It was like a film which slipped between the cracks tonally. Every so often the light atmosphere would get punctured by something gruesome or morbid. White's suicide, the torture scene, someones eyes getting gouged. Not only that, but the 2 hr 20 run time isn't really consistent with a fun romp. It was a bit of a mismatch, a muddled mess that just didn't seem to grab the audience like Skyfall did.

    I feel like SPECTRE truly exposed Craig's limitations as Bond. He's good in the role, as long as the films are specifically designed to play to his precise strengths as an actor. Consequently every story they tell with him has to include similar elements, so they can't develop out of Craig's wheelhouse. For this reason, I really feel like a fifth Craig film would experience the same kind of financial decline that SPECTRE did in relation to Skyfall. And in order to keep continuity, they would have to hire everyone back, including Craig of course. That means another 200 million budget, and IMO a film that would make around 700 - 750 million worldwide. A good return, but for a franchise that has one new entry every 3 - 4 years, not exactly competitive with the big guns.

    I personally think a smarter move would be to downside and recast, and focus on a simple premise designed to get everyone excited and re-energized about Bond. Take the leap of faith now, before you're forced to in another few years time, and build it back from the ground up.

    In some ways lighter fare is needed, but we also still see that serious representations of fairly earnest characters are equally supported when the vision fits the character, with the most recent example being Logan. I don't really see a massive increase in fun romp films in comparison to the past, and think this perception is down to the fact that some "bigger" movies like Star Wars are gung-ho in some of that direction and people think that the entire culture is moving that way simply because that franchise is so high profile. It's just like the media making the world out to be more violent than ever, when really we've been on a steady decrease for decades. The more things are reported to be true by major outlets, the more it feels true to outsiders. In the same token, if Star Wars does something, it makes audiences think that's where the culture is at. In reality, very little has changed.

    As for SP, we reach another point where perspective creates an entirely different picture for people. On account of the financials, I don't view its box office as a dramatic decline or cause for worry that people aren't into Dan as Bond anymore. SF was a giant anomaly that came out at the perfect time, able to get that big box office with little competition in its way during the year of Bond. SP had none of that, but still made around a gob-smacking $880 million, which embarrasses the other films of recent memory outside its predecessor. It only fell short of SF's numbers by a little over $200 million, and I think it would've made up a lot of that ground with more push in the states. American perception of the film has mutated many people's impressions of the film, when in reality major areas outside the states saw a better return on ticket sales than SF by shocking degrees. America isn't the authority on what films are worthy, and I think our perception is used far more than all other major nations combined to judge films simply because we're home to stuffy Hollywood. Looking internationally, a different picture could be painted and you see a wide range of support for SP in tickets and reviews.

    I don't think audiences are tired of Dan, just as I don't think SP's box office, which was again incredible, shows they've staled of him. Even in the criminally hated QoS, people always said/say, "This film sucks, but Dan was great." He's always the best thing about his movies, whether the perception of them is good or bad, and people flock to these movies in massive part because of the character he's helped build for modern audiences. I know some here think it's time for a change, but the numbers and audience response don't tell us that the rest of the world is ready to say goodbye. Even from the aspect of reviewers, I lost count watching SP interviews all around the world where the men or women questioning Dan for their articles or features would spend the last minute of their time together begging him not to leave the role and do more, even if they may've had issues with parts of the film.

    Except it isn't just Star Wars that's following this trend, it's most franchises. Avengers, Mission Impossible, Fast and Furious, Jurassic World, Fantastic Beasts etc. Heck, even DC have been accused of trying to brighten up their trailers by adding rock music. And there's nothing to say that a Star Wars film has to be bright and colourful either. Episode 3 told a pretty dark story, they could have gone in that direction again, and they probably would have if they making these new films 10 years ago. Somethings changed.

    I'm not saying SPECTRE wasn't successful, but they were clearly trying to live up to the financial success of Skyfall by bringing back SPECTRE and Blofeld and telling this sprawling story, tying the Craig era together. It's clear they were putting everything they had behind this, and trying to create something as crowd-pleasing as TSWLM and as soulful as OHMSS. I don't personally think they lived up to any of that. I think that SPECTRE made as much as it did primarily because It rode the wave of Skyfall hype just like QoS did with Casino.

    Audiences aren't tired of Dan, but they are tiring of his type of Bond film. The thing is, they don't perceive him as being responsible for the type of film he is in. That's why you get that strange criticism "well, I didn't really like the film, but I hope Dan does one more". What they fail to see is that everything is designed around the actor to begin with. If another actor were in the role, the Blofeld brother angle maybe wouldn't of happened. That was the culmination of elements that had been established by the Craig Bond.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Another interesting thing to note from a box office standpoint is how moviegoers tastes have changed. Look at The Avengers, Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens and you notice that the days of desiring films to be dark and gritty are pretty much over. Or at least it's a recessive trend at this point. Big blockbusters these days are generally cheerier, more colourful affairs, and SPECTRE only partially embraced that change. It was like a film which slipped between the cracks tonally. Every so often the light atmosphere would get punctured by something gruesome or morbid. White's suicide, the torture scene, someones eyes getting gouged. Not only that, but the 2 hr 20 run time isn't really consistent with a fun romp. It was a bit of a mismatch, a muddled mess that just didn't seem to grab the audience like Skyfall did.

    I feel like SPECTRE truly exposed Craig's limitations as Bond. He's good in the role, as long as the films are specifically designed to play to his precise strengths as an actor. Consequently every story they tell with him has to include similar elements, so they can't develop out of Craig's wheelhouse. For this reason, I really feel like a fifth Craig film would experience the same kind of financial decline that SPECTRE did in relation to Skyfall. And in order to keep continuity, they would have to hire everyone back, including Craig of course. That means another 200 million budget, and IMO a film that would make around 700 - 750 million worldwide. A good return, but for a franchise that has one new entry every 3 - 4 years, not exactly competitive with the big guns.

    I personally think a smarter move would be to downside and recast, and focus on a simple premise designed to get everyone excited and re-energized about Bond. Take the leap of faith now, before you're forced to in another few years time, and build it back from the ground up.

    In some ways lighter fare is needed, but we also still see that serious representations of fairly earnest characters are equally supported when the vision fits the character, with the most recent example being Logan. I don't really see a massive increase in fun romp films in comparison to the past, and think this perception is down to the fact that some "bigger" movies like Star Wars are gung-ho in some of that direction and people think that the entire culture is moving that way simply because that franchise is so high profile. It's just like the media making the world out to be more violent than ever, when really we've been on a steady decrease for decades. The more things are reported to be true by major outlets, the more it feels true to outsiders. In the same token, if Star Wars does something, it makes audiences think that's where the culture is at. In reality, very little has changed.

    As for SP, we reach another point where perspective creates an entirely different picture for people. On account of the financials, I don't view its box office as a dramatic decline or cause for worry that people aren't into Dan as Bond anymore. SF was a giant anomaly that came out at the perfect time, able to get that big box office with little competition in its way during the year of Bond. SP had none of that, but still made around a gob-smacking $880 million, which embarrasses the other films of recent memory outside its predecessor. It only fell short of SF's numbers by a little over $200 million, and I think it would've made up a lot of that ground with more push in the states. American perception of the film has mutated many people's impressions of the film, when in reality major areas outside the states saw a better return on ticket sales than SF by shocking degrees. America isn't the authority on what films are worthy, and I think our perception is used far more than all other major nations combined to judge films simply because we're home to stuffy Hollywood. Looking internationally, a different picture could be painted and you see a wide range of support for SP in tickets and reviews.

    I don't think audiences are tired of Dan, just as I don't think SP's box office, which was again incredible, shows they've staled of him. Even in the criminally hated QoS, people always said/say, "This film sucks, but Dan was great." He's always the best thing about his movies, whether the perception of them is good or bad, and people flock to these movies in massive part because of the character he's helped build for modern audiences. I know some here think it's time for a change, but the numbers and audience response don't tell us that the rest of the world is ready to say goodbye. Even from the aspect of reviewers, I lost count watching SP interviews all around the world where the men or women questioning Dan for their articles or features would spend the last minute of their time together begging him not to leave the role and do more, even if they may've had issues with parts of the film.

    Except it isn't just Star Wars that's following this trend, it's most franchises. Avengers, Mission Impossible, Fast and Furious, Jurassic World, Fantastic Beasts etc. Heck, even DC have been accused of trying to brighten up their trailers by adding rock music. And there's nothing to say that a Star Wars film has to be bright and colourful either. Episode 3 told a pretty dark story, they could have gone in that direction again, and they probably would have if they making these new films 10 years ago. Somethings changed.

    I'm not saying SPECTRE wasn't successful, but they were clearly trying to live up to the financial success of Skyfall by bringing back SPECTRE and Blofeld and telling this sprawling story, tying the Craig era together. It's clear they were putting everything they had behind this, and trying to create something as crowd-pleasing as TSWLM and as soulful as OHMSS. I don't personally think they lived up to any of that. I think that SPECTRE made as much as it did primarily because It rode the wave of Skyfall hype just like QoS did with Casino.

    Audiences aren't tired of Dan, but they are tiring of his type of Bond film. The thing is, they don't perceive him as being responsible for the type of film he is in. That's why you get that strange criticism "well, I didn't really like the film, but I hope Dan does one more". What they fail to see is that everything is designed around the actor to begin with. If another actor were in the role, the Blofeld brother angle maybe wouldn't of happened. That was the culmination of elements that had been established by the Craig Bond.

    It's not to say it's just Star Wars, but that the profile of the films leads to the perception that everyone does it. I wouldn't say every franchise is doing it either of course, to avoid too much of a blanket statement. I just don't look at the current slate of films and feel that there's more of the romps than there used to be, is all. Same things, just with new players now.

    As for a Bond actor not being responsible for the film he's in, that's really changed with Craig. He's not just an actor playing a part, he's a collaborator with Barbara and the rest of EON at every step of the process. It was him who got Mendes and Bardem to sign on, him that helps with the direction of the films so they go where he's interested in exploring things, etc. He even helps pick the suits and promotional materials for marketing. So when I see people say they want him back, I don't just think they like his Bond, they also like what he's brought behind the scenes too, which is more than most other eras combined. He's really changed the game for what a Bond actor can do and how they can shape their tenure, and that's big shoes to fill for the next guy. If Bond #7 doesn't end up doing at least 70-80% of their own stunts for starters, they're already not stepping up.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    People should stop seeing SPECTRE as a decline to Skyfall in BoxOffice.

    Skyfall was an exception due to the most hyped perfect storm marketing film campaign ever. That's why it did a billion. It will never happen again.

    If you look at the curve of BO from GE to SP and omit SF, it all makes perfect sense.
    Each film did a little bit better than the last (more or less, don't be nitpicking about it).

    So SPECTRE was exactly as successful as it was supposed to be. More than QOS.

    Skyfall's billion blinds people and they cannot see straight anymore.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,073
    Yes, I agree. What I am saying is that the audience is happy to accept how the story ended and leaving it there just like any other Bond film. It's journalists propagating the idea that there's another chapter left to be told. I think people enjoyed the fun escapist elements of SPECTRE and were overall entertained. However, I don't think that means they are raring to see the same characters like Swann return. After all why would they return, it's a Bond film and the story is, to all intents and purposes, over. I mean, it is unless they fashion yet another excuse for Bond to go rogue and take revenge, and so forth.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,443
    @BondJasonBond006, I get what you're saying, but I would say the quality of the film (regardless of how I feel, it's highly apparent that most feel SF is better than SP) hurt the box office returns in comparison to SF. I wouldn't stretch to say that a $1 billion + box office for a future Bond installment is an impossibility, either; never say never.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I'm also quite amused at all the suggestions that Swann may be back. That's laughable given the franchise's history.

    SPECTRE has THE perfect ending. And it's an end. How anybody can interpret is a something that screams sequel is beyond me.

    I think it's more likely they'll find a way to bring Judi Dench back once more...
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    It's not the end.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @BondJasonBond006, I get what you're saying, but I would say the quality of the film (regardless of how I feel, it's highly apparent that most feel SF is better than SP) hurt the box office returns in comparison to SF. I wouldn't stretch to say that a $1 billion + box office for a future Bond installment is an impossibility, either; never say never.

    That is true for the US market only, the rest of the world loved Spectre.

    If you would omit all US ratings on Imdb and especially Metacritic SP would have ratings as high as SF. Just saying.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think it's more likely they'll find a way to bring Judi Dench back once more...
    That's for sure. If Craig is back, Judi is back. I'm calling it now. There's more on that dvd I tell you!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,073
    I'm also quite amused at all the suggestions that Swann may be back. That's laughable given the franchise's history.

    SPECTRE has THE perfect ending. And it's an end. How anybody can interpret is a something that screams sequel is beyond me.

    I think it's more likely they'll find a way to bring Judi Dench back once more...

    There doesn't seem to be any reason for it. Should we also expect Koskov to make a appearance in a future Bond film? What about Jinx? What's she up to? It's vital that we find out, otherwise the story is left unfinished! ;)
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Or she has a long lost twin sister, it's P+W after all that are doing the script don't they? @bondjames
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,443
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @BondJasonBond006, I get what you're saying, but I would say the quality of the film (regardless of how I feel, it's highly apparent that most feel SF is better than SP) hurt the box office returns in comparison to SF. I wouldn't stretch to say that a $1 billion + box office for a future Bond installment is an impossibility, either; never say never.

    That is true for the US market only, the rest of the world loved Spectre.

    If you would omit all US ratings on Imdb and especially Metacritic SP would have ratings as high as SF. Just saying.

    That assumes that the marketing combined with the 50th Anniversary gave SF over $300 million extra, which isn't true. Did it help? Absolutely, but again, regardless of my feelings, you have to accept that most people, particularly people who weren't big on the Bond franchise in the first place, loved SF, whereas SP just wasn't as good. IMDB has nothing to do with it, those ratings are heavily skewed by biased opinions. RT may not be the best indicator, either, but the scores aren't vastly different because of one falling upon a 50th Anniversary (SF: 93% Critic's Score, 86% Audience Score vs. SP: 64% Critic's Score, 62% Audience Score). Even through MetaCritic, SF beats it by almost 20%.

    "The rest of the world loved Spectre" is a rather broad statement.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @BondJasonBond006, nothing surprises me with P&W. They're the ones who started the Dench fixation with TWINE, and now that Mendes is gone (he wanted to kill off Dench to have his little drama), they'll surely find a way for her to return somehow. Perhaps a voiceover in Bond's dreams is in order ("You have to know who to trust!!")
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2017 Posts: 8,073
    bondjames wrote: »
    @BondJasonBond006, nothing surprises me with P&W. They're the ones who started the Dench fixation with TWINE, and now that Mendes is gone (he wanted to kill off Dench to have his little drama), they'll surely find a way for her to return somehow. Perhaps a voiceover in Bond's dreams is in order ("You have to know who to trust!!")

    =) :)
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited April 2017 Posts: 9,020
    You forget the currency exchange situation @Creasy47 that alone hurt Spectre by some 150 million compared to SF in 2012 I believe.

    But anyway, sure SF was a phenomenon that will have a great lot of people have romantically glorified memories about the film forever.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,443
    You mean the rate of inflation? I don't know anything about that, but a $150 million increase in three years seems pretty extreme.

    It was a phenomenon, but again, you know you and I feel the same way regarding the film.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Not the rate of inflation but the USD/EUR exchange situation. So for every EURO Spectre made, it got converted into USD and that was much less than it would have made in 2012. That's what I meant.

    Anyway, SF happened, it can't be changed.

    I wasn't trying to oppose you @Creasy47

    I'm just generally wary of statements like "Spectre failed because it did less than SF, therefore the people must have not liked it" that can be read in a lot of posts around here, between the lines or directly.

    You don't generate nearly 900 BO if the movie isn't liked. It just won't happen.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,443
    All I was saying is that SP may not have been as successful as SF, and it is likely that it may take another anniversary and/or a truly stellar installment to reach those box office heights again, but at the same time, you're correct in that $880 million in returns isn't a failure at all, regardless of the budget. Hell, people loathed both BvS and 'Suicide Squad,' myself included, but they also weren't failures at the box office, only in reviews.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Hell, people loathed both BvS and 'Suicide Squad,' myself included, but they also weren't failures at the box office, only in reviews.
    Those, in my opinion, are good examples. SP started very strong at the box office (as expected, given it was the successor to juggernaut SF) but then dropped off quickly as well. In other words, it didn't have legs in comparison to the prior entry. Some of that is because it was highly anticipated and therefore front loaded, but some of it is also due to the film not satisfying to the same extent. We will only truly know with B25 (assuming it stars Craig) if there has been any lasting box office damage on account of SP. It doesn't make sense to compare to films like QoS or CR, because SF brought in new fans, and those should have been retained in all markets.

    We can knock the US/Canada market all we want (and yes, Canadian gross was also substantially down), but it is not just North Americans who think poorly of that film on these boards. The love and hate is spread pretty much equally across continents from what I can see here (in fact, we have a lot of Americans who think highly of SP on this board), and I think that likely mirrors the general public.

    Also, it's worth considering that the North American market got the film a few weeks later. By that time, the real feelings of viewers were starting to trickle out. The same thing happened with SF of course, but word of mouth from across the pond was universally positive for the earlier entry (fans and critics alike). Not so overwhelmingly positive for SP (except for loyal UK critics).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Again you are talking mainly USA.
    It had legs...Everywhere else...Very long and strong legs.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited April 2017 Posts: 9,020
    Do you people actually realise that the US market was the only one not giving SP much love?? It made nearly 900 million and had easily passed the billion mark with better xchange currency situation and if the US would have taken in 50 million more.
    Get a grip on reality. SP was a HUGE success by any possible way of looking at it financially.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dench has an evil twin sister, she is the next villain.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Dench has an evil twin sister, she is the next villain.

    Instead of M, her initial will be W.
Sign In or Register to comment.