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

1147148149150151153»

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    ha ha @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

    Like Super Mario and Wario @Murdock (you surely can provide the necessary pic to that)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Again you are talking mainly USA.
    It had legs...Everywhere else...Very long and strong legs.
    No, it did not, in comparison to SF. It started strong and then tapered off. It received nearly 50% (!!) of its final gross in the UK during the first weekend, as opposed to SF's more expected 20%. That's not legs. On the contrary actually. I remember people here who expected it to surpass SF in the UK on account of how strongly it opened. Even adjusting for exchange rate differences at the time with the US $, the UK final gross was approximately 20% less for SP vs. SF.

    The Swiss experience may have been ecstasy, but that's hardly what others felt, and despite hopes by some that the EU will dictate world affairs, I'm sorry to say that when it comes to entertainment, Hollywood isn't going anywhere for some time. SP's gross in North America total was 35% less than SF's. Actually, it was even less than QoS on a ticket sales basis, and that's saying something when you just followed the biggest Bond film in almost 50 years. The rate of decline was precipitous.

    As I've said (but I'll repeat it because my point seems to have been missed), the US/Canadian market opened a few weeks after the initial release elsewhere, and by that time the word of mouth was trickling out on social media, and it wasn't pretty. The British critics who saw the film first tried to pepper it with gold dust like they did with SF. It didn't work this time.

    Most importantly, we are two years on from SP, and there are enough people on this board who I respect who think this film is a joke. Our perceptions mean more to me than the masses, but it's an indication of the disappointment out there.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    @bondjames, how much do you feel possible mis-marketing fed into those numbers? (This is a complaint I've heard before about the movie)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, mis-marketing cannot explain the UK, because they were the first to see the film and it was built up in a big way there. SP was indeed a big success in the UK, but it declined much faster than SF and also didn't match SF numbers overall, despite all the positive initial critic reviews.

    In North America the marketing didn't come close to matching SF levels. There was also a tonal mismatch in the trailers. The first one suggested one thing, and the second one suggested something else entirely. Moreover, they weren't as engaging (imho) in comparison to the SF trailers. Most importantly, there was no Bardem, who was a huge draw and who received all the buzz prior to SF's release (as a Joker like presence). The American reviewers weren't kind, but that doesn't stop people from going to see a Bond film (especially one that followed mega hit SF). Weak word of mouth killed it imho.

    Adele's song was an important element of SF's initial success globally (including Stateside) and it's quite true that Smith didn't cut it, but that didn't get the butts back in the seat for 2nd and 3rd go arounds. That was due to strong word of mouth and people's positive experience with the film. I know many people who saw SF as their first Bond film purely on the word of mouth and I know others (fair weather fans) who went back multiple times on account of how impressed they were with the film. Heck, I dragged my parents to the theatre because I knew they'd love it, and I wasn't wrong. SF became an 'event movie' on the strength of the emotional reaction it was having on viewers. As I've said before, it reminded me of TDK more than something like Avatar (which was more of a gimmick).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    But why always only compare it to SF????

    So Rogue One was a miserable bad failure??? For instance?

    As I posted earlier omit SF and you have a BO curve that goes upwards, sometimes slower sometimes faster from GoldenEye to Spectre.

    And also SP opened to WAY MORE cinemas everywhere than SF did in 2012.

    So faster BO is a given and cannot be compared to past years when it took a longer time naturally to generate BO.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    @bondjames, despite the film's flaws I think aspects that seemed to hit with people was how Bond was celebrated in the Tennyson scene (bogged down, but still pushing), and of course the major send-off of a tenured Dench M.

    I think people wanted-nay, expected-a similarly strong emotional moment or set of moments like that in SP, and when they didn't get it that "missing factor" of emotion the possible result was them feeling that it was a less potent experience overall. Do you feel this state of mind occurred, even in a minor way?

    I have read as much from people here, and sense it elsewhere. Some people wanted SP to be SF in the way of emotional power, and those that hated SF but loved SP felt that way because the latter didn't put Bond into another exhausting set of a turmoil-filled obstacles that I think would've been too redundant. Maybe SF felt too experimental as a different kind of Bond film (I don't think this, but some may've), and people expected a similar flip on the script in SP, and when a more traditional result was received, they pushed it away?

    Just trying to understand how the chips may've fallen, that's all.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    As for gold dust on Spectre reviews. It was not only the UK that gave it rave reviews. But what came in later was buried under a ton of the usual "know it better" US reviewers.

    I am certain that it was simply motivated by "we over-praised SF to the Heavens" now we have to make up for that sin and put Spectre to the ground.
    It was merely the pendelum that swung back. It could have been another CR and it would have happened probably. Sometimes the media and critics simply choose to hate on something without reason.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    But why always only compare it to SF????

    So Rogue One was a miserable bad failure??? For instance?

    As I posted earlier omit SF and you have a BO curve that goes upwards, sometimes slower sometimes faster from GoldenEye to Spectre.

    And also SP opened to WAY MORE cinemas everywhere than SF did in 2012.

    So faster BO is a given and cannot be compared to past years when it took a longer time naturally to generate BO.
    @BondJasonBond006, it's important to compare with SF because it was the last film released and because it had a dramatic positive impact on Bond box office and critical perception. The relevant past comparisons would be GF, TSWLM & GE (all massive box office and critical successes). In all cases, the successor film (TB, MR & TND) came close to, or exceeded its predecessor at the box office at least (even if not with the critics). Most importantly it was a direct sequel, so one would expect it to retain most of the audience.

    Rogue One is not a valid comparison because it was not a direct sequel and had to establish new characters. However, having said that, in comparison to TFA, it was indeed a relative failure (50% less box office).

    Yes, of course we expected SP to open stronger than SF due to the larger amount of theatres and the hype, but the drop off was still precipitious.
    @bondjames, despite the film's flaws I think aspects that seemed to hit with people was how Bond was celebrated in the Tennyson scene (bogged down, but still pushing), and of course the major send-off of a tenured Dench M.

    I think people wanted-nay, expected-a similarly strong emotional moment or set of moments like that in SP, and when they didn't get it that "missing factor" of emotion the possible result was them feeling that it was a less potent experience overall. Do you feel this state of mind occurred, even in a minor way?

    I have read as much from people here, and sense it elsewhere. Some people wanted SP to be SF in the way of emotional power, and those that hated SF but loved SP felt that way because the latter didn't put Bond into another exhausting set of a turmoil-filled obstacles that I think would've been too redundant. Maybe SF felt too experimental as a different kind of Bond film (I don't think this, but some may've), and people expected a similar flip on the script in SP, and when a more traditional result was received, they pushed it away?

    Just trying to understand how the chips may've fallen, that's all.
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, I agree that the missing emotional heft of SF may have negatively impacted people's perceptions of SP.

    However, I also think that the film just didn't connect with people because the characters weren't all that compelling. There are many of us here who dissect Bond films regularly, and who think the film just didn't meet the standards of a quality entry, either in story or in characterization terms.

    Just speaking from my perspective, I found SF to be somewhat creative conceptually (despite obvious elements borrowed from TWINE), but found SP to be poorly cliched pastiche, mainly due to hackneyed execution. One can tell that SF was made with love, as it were. SP seems to be just going through the motions ticking boxes. I like cooking, and I know that if one doesn't put in the effort/passion when creating it, the dish can be awful even with the right ingredients.
Sign In or Register to comment.