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

13940424445152

Comments

  • Posts: 7,653
    we will find out in the next weeks what SP will do, and frankly I could not care less. If SP is better than SF I am already more than pleased. BO says little to me except that I have to hurry sometimes to catch some movies in cinema.
  • Posts: 11,119
    SaintMark wrote: »
    we will find out in the next weeks what SP will do, and frankly I could not care less. If SP is better than SF I am already more than pleased. BO says little to me except that I have to hurry sometimes to catch some movies in cinema.

    I've arrived at that stage too...more or less :-).

    You know, people 'warned' me that I could get so disappointed with all my -hopefully realistic- positivity about the box office predictions. But even if it does gross less than I previously predicted......no man overboard really :-). WE have another Bond films. That makes me happy.

    Still, I will continuously follow the box office results for agent 007 :-).
  • Posts: 1,098
    One thing everyone seems to of overlooked..............is the rise of the Chinese film industry. Just look at the recent surge in BO takings in China, some Hollywood films make more in China than they do in the US.
    Chinese BO just about saved Terminator Genisys!
    Furious 7 and Jurassic World had huge grosses in China this year, and whereas i dont expect a Bond film to do that well in China.......i wouldnt be surprised to see the film gross close to $100 mil. Mind you Hollywood only gets back about 25% of a films revenues in China.
    Bond films of yesteryear didnt have the luxury of theatrical runs in countries like Russia and China............but todays films get a significant boost to their international grosses from these markets.
    I don't see why not Spectre could gross a $1B worldwide.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    mepal1 wrote: »
    One thing everyone seems to of overlooked..............is the rise of the Chinese film industry. Just look at the recent surge in BO takings in China, some Hollywood films make more in China than they do in the US.
    Chinese BO just about saved Terminator Genisys!
    Furious 7 and Jurassic World had huge grosses in China this year, and whereas i dont expect a Bond film to do that well in China.......i wouldnt be surprised to see the film gross close to $100 mil. Mind you Hollywood only gets back about 25% of a films revenues in China.
    Bond films of yesteryear didnt have the luxury of theatrical runs in countries like Russia and China............but todays films get a significant boost to their international grosses from these markets.
    I don't see why not Spectre could gross a $1B worldwide.

    You are right, we all forgot about...

  • Posts: 11,119
    mepal1 wrote: »
    One thing everyone seems to of overlooked..............is the rise of the Chinese film industry. Just look at the recent surge in BO takings in China, some Hollywood films make more in China than they do in the US.
    Chinese BO just about saved Terminator Genisys!
    Furious 7 and Jurassic World had huge grosses in China this year, and whereas i dont expect a Bond film to do that well in China.......i wouldnt be surprised to see the film gross close to $100 mil. Mind you Hollywood only gets back about 25% of a films revenues in China.
    Bond films of yesteryear didnt have the luxury of theatrical runs in countries like Russia and China............but todays films get a significant boost to their international grosses from these markets.
    I don't see why not Spectre could gross a $1B worldwide.

    Especially the last 5 years the growth of the Chinese box office went into lunatic-mode. "Mission"Impossible - Rogue Nation" didn't do as well in the USA as "Ghost Protocol". But then China came in, and there "Rogue Nation" did much better than "Ghost Protocol". Same with domestic 'flops' like "Interstellar", "San Andreas" and "Terminator: Genysis". They were helped tremendously by China.

    "SPECTRE" is in such a good position therefore in China. It will almost certainly top the $59 Million that "Skyfall" grossed.
  • mepal1 wrote: »
    Bond films of yesteryear didnt have the luxury of theatrical runs in countries like Russia and China............but todays films get a significant boost to their international grosses from these markets.

    And yet some think they can compare box office between TB and SF thanks to some inflation calculator :)

  • Posts: 11,119
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Bond films of yesteryear didnt have the luxury of theatrical runs in countries like Russia and China............but todays films get a significant boost to their international grosses from these markets.

    And yet some think they can compare box office between TB and SF thanks to some inflation calculator :)

    Not to mention the production budgets between SF and TB ;-).

    In any case, SF is done, over. Time for SP to perform.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 725
    To me, the biggest disconnect between the early Bond era and today is the impact of new media. Early Bond films could run in theaters for months and months, even come back for a second run, to drive up the film's theatrical BO. There was no alternative for the film audience if they wanted to see the film.

    Today millions of otherwise potential theatrical movie goers wait for the film to view with cable, DVDs, all kinds of legal and illegal downloads etc. causing the films to run only for a few weeks, or at best for only a few months in theaters. They are available on new media almost immediately. This makes a huge difference in the theatrical BO figures because when the press makes there endless comparisons of the BO figures among Bond films, they never include the huge $$ generated by new media in later decades.

    I know some will note that the older Bonds also get a lot of play in new media, but my point is that they never had to contend with it when they first opened and were able to achieve their BO numbers without the then non-existing newer media greatly diminishing their theatrical BO. The older films also get the benefit of the "adjusted for inflation" calculations which are sometimes very problematic re their accuracy.
  • Posts: 1,098
    We have been over this argument many times before.............but just to clarify.
    The adjusted for inflation calculators are based on the cost of living index rise in the USA. This is fine for use on adjusting inflation on films BO in the North American market, but totally unsatisfactory for foreign markets, as each country has had different inflation rates over the decades. To do some real more accurate worldwide BO adjusted inflation figures would require a great deal of research and time, and would still likely not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
    One other point regarding older films, the international markets in which they played in were less than those available today.
    Anyway, lets move on and hope Spectre does spectacular BO worldwide.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mepal1 wrote: »
    We have been over this argument many times before.............but just to clarify.
    The adjusted for inflation calculators are based on the cost of living index rise in the USA. This is fine for use on adjusting inflation on films BO in the North American market, but totally unsatisfactory for foreign markets, as each country has had different inflation rates over the decades. To do some real more accurate worldwide BO adjusted inflation figures would require a great deal of research and time, and would still likely not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
    One other point regarding older films, the international markets in which they played in were less than those available today.
    Anyway, lets move on and hope Spectre does spectacular BO worldwide.

    Good point, but actually the inflation adjustment is not even that relevant for US box office either.

    The inflation 'adjustment' is based on an average basket of goods, not on movie tickets, which move somewhat independently of food or gas/petrol costs for instance.

    Moreover, technological change (Which is a huge factor in determining ticket prices) is not factored into a simple inflation adjustment.

    Additionally ,the longer/farther back one goes, the more irrelevant such adjustments become. So in the case of Bond, with a 50 hr history, it's especially useless.

    It's probably more relevant to compare annual global box office ranks.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I don't know ...at least for the US market it's still the only way of comparing. Yes far from perfect ..many other variables such as population growth.

    We use the inflation index beyond just measuring goods regardless of how we calculated the index.

    Ideally if you knew the number of tickets sold per film and maybe even weigh that against the population then yeah you could better judge the success.

    But if you just wanted a rough idea then the inflation index is the way to go.

    Again when I asked a legal question and asked for any lawyers on the forums to help out. One did.. of course he billed me later but anyway.

    Any economists here?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I don't know ...at least for the US market it's still the only way of comparing. Yes far from perfect ..many other variables such as population growth.

    We use the inflation index beyond just measuring goods regardless of how we calculated the index.

    Ideally if you knew the number of tickets sold per film and maybe even weigh that against the population then yeah you could better judge the success.

    But if you just wanted a rough idea then the inflation index is the way to go.

    Again when I asked a legal question and asked for any lawyers on the forums to help out. One did.. of course he billed me later but anyway.

    Any economists here?


    I have an economics degree, but am not a practicing economist.

    It's true that people use the inflation index as a proximation for these sort of things, but it can be quite misleading when making direct comparisons, as many do with film box office grosses, because the adjusted measure you are using to make the comparison bears little relation to the thing you are comparing it to.

    It's more likely to be incorrect over time, as the inaccuracy of the multiplier impact over time can be amplified.

    Where should I send the bill? ;)
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I don't know ...at least for the US market it's still the only way of comparing. Yes far from perfect ..many other variables such as population growth.

    We use the inflation index beyond just measuring goods regardless of how we calculated the index.

    Ideally if you knew the number of tickets sold per film and maybe even weigh that against the population then yeah you could better judge the success.

    But if you just wanted a rough idea then the inflation index is the way to go.

    Again when I asked a legal question and asked for any lawyers on the forums to help out. One did.. of course he billed me later but anyway.

    Any economists here?


    I have an economics degree, but am not a practicing economist.

    It's true that people use the inflation index as a proximation for these sort of things, but it can be quite misleading when making direct comparisons, as many do with film box office grosses, because the adjusted measure you are using to make the comparison bears little relation to the thing you are comparing it to.

    It's more likely to be incorrect over time, as the inaccuracy of the multiplier impact over time can be amplified.

    Where should I send the bill? ;)

    Impressive... truly thanks. Do you take checks? ;)

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I don't know ...at least for the US market it's still the only way of comparing. Yes far from perfect ..many other variables such as population growth.

    We use the inflation index beyond just measuring goods regardless of how we calculated the index.

    Ideally if you knew the number of tickets sold per film and maybe even weigh that against the population then yeah you could better judge the success.

    But if you just wanted a rough idea then the inflation index is the way to go.

    Again when I asked a legal question and asked for any lawyers on the forums to help out. One did.. of course he billed me later but anyway.

    Any economists here?


    I have an economics degree, but am not a practicing economist.

    It's true that people use the inflation index as a proximation for these sort of things, but it can be quite misleading when making direct comparisons, as many do with film box office grosses, because the adjusted measure you are using to make the comparison bears little relation to the thing you are comparing it to.

    It's more likely to be incorrect over time, as the inaccuracy of the multiplier impact over time can be amplified.

    Where should I send the bill? ;)

    Impressive... truly thanks. Do you take checks? ;)

    I'd prefer cash.

    And I will spend the money quickly... ;)
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I don't know ...at least for the US market it's still the only way of comparing. Yes far from perfect ..many other variables such as population growth.

    We use the inflation index beyond just measuring goods regardless of how we calculated the index.

    Ideally if you knew the number of tickets sold per film and maybe even weigh that against the population then yeah you could better judge the success.

    But if you just wanted a rough idea then the inflation index is the way to go.

    Again when I asked a legal question and asked for any lawyers on the forums to help out. One did.. of course he billed me later but anyway.

    Any economists here?


    I have an economics degree, but am not a practicing economist.

    It's true that people use the inflation index as a proximation for these sort of things, but it can be quite misleading when making direct comparisons, as many do with film box office grosses, because the adjusted measure you are using to make the comparison bears little relation to the thing you are comparing it to.

    It's more likely to be incorrect over time, as the inaccuracy of the multiplier impact over time can be amplified.

    Where should I send the bill? ;)

    Impressive... truly thanks. Do you take checks? ;)

    I'd prefer cash.

    And I will spend the money quickly... ;)

    Nice ..and you even got the OP reference.
  • smitty wrote: »
    To me, the biggest disconnect between the early Bond era and today is the impact of new media.

    This is a very biased view from what you know now because you didn't know what it was like "before" IMO :) I think you cannot compare 60s box office with nowadays, even if you try hard.
    smitty wrote: »
    I know some will note that the older Bonds also get a lot of play in new media, but my point is that they never had to contend with it when they first opened and were able to achieve their BO numbers without the then non-existing newer media greatly diminishing their theatrical BO.

    Well, to make it brief the LTK - GE hiatus was because of the fight for the enormous amount of benefits that the past Bond movies still meant at that date. Put that in the equation as you ask for the recent Bonds, and then there's simply no more comparison... The paradox is that, I think, even the old Bonds did more on DVD and BR than what the last ones will do from now on.


  • EndCredit007EndCredit007 EGYPT
    Posts: 114
    i think SPECTRE will get a total of 850:900 million dollars and i this is not a failure for so many reasons
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    I will say 950M-1B, and I haven't seen it so I am unbiased. B-)
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,119

    Old news.
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Yes tracking is very much a gamble. None of the "experts" saw Jurassic World's $200+ million opening weekend coming. More relevantly to SPECTRE maybe, Mission Impossible was "tracking" at $40 million :

    http://variety.com/2015/film/news/box-office-early-tracking-soft-for-mission-impossible-1201541833/

    It eventually opened to $55 mil.

    Hence why I made this comparison a few weeks ago. Links down below are the -very early- box office tracking figures (sometimes released 6 weeks before the eventual premiere). Initially tracking was predicting a staggering $71 Million opening weekend for "Rogue Nation". Then two weeks before the premiere Variety came with the article you were linking too, and were predicting completely the opposite way: A very very soft $40 Million opening weekend. The final opening weekend figure was in between. But fact is: Both predictions were off with $20 Million:
    BoxOffice.com and TheWrap were mostly wrong with these, rather dubious, early tracking figures. I find these articles so bland really. Early tracking for "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation" was way off. The actual opening weekend was much smaller as their predicted weekend estimate:

    long range forecast prediction:
    http://pro.boxoffice.com/featured_stories/2015-06-long-range-forecast-mission-impossible-rogue-nation
    Opening weekend: $71,000,000
    Final domestic gross: $197,000,000

    Factual box office results:
    Opening weekend: $55,520,089
    Current domestic gross: $183,612,153

    Conclusion: "M:I - Rogue Nation" slightly underperformed as compared to their long range forecast. The film will not even come close to $197 Million and is, at least for now, in the USA not as succesful as "Ghost Protocol". Reason for that? The last-notice rescheduling. Which BoxOffice.com should have taken more serious.



    With "Furious 7" it was the other way around really. That movie got pushed enormously by the death of Paul Walker, but also because the film received good reviews. I said that beforehand, BoxOffice.com took that too lightly. One can predict that with some more credible social media figures. One also needs to 'feel' trends properly, and Box.Office.com wasn't doing that:

    long range forecast prediction:
    http://pro.boxoffice.com/featured_stories/2015-02-long-range-forecast-furious-7
    Opening weekend: $115,000,000
    Final domestic gross: $260,000,000

    Factual box office results:
    Opening weekend: $147,187,040
    Final domestic gross: $351,032,910

    Conclusion: Like "Skyfall" and "The Dark Knight", boxoffice.com completely underestimated other sudden news events that can really drive up a movie, like the death of a co-star or the Olympics or a 50th Anniversary.



    And one last 'long range forecast' prediction: "Kingsman: The Secret Service". Completely underestimated by the same site. Fox really attached all it's smart marketing efforts on that other competing movie "Fifty Shades Of Grey". It basically 'parasited' on that film wonderfully. BoxOffice.com entirely forgot that. Although I have to say that I'm only critical of these stupid long range forecasts. Otherwise it's a good website:

    long range forecast prediction:
    http://pro.boxoffice.com/featured_stories/2015-02-long-range-forecast-furious-7
    Opening weekend: $23,000,000
    Final domestic gross: $60,000,000

    Factual box office results:
    Opening weekend: $36,206,331
    Final domestic gross: $128,261,724

    Conclusion: Again, this shows how these 'long range forecasts' should be taken with a grain of salt. In the end "Kingsman" was a huge success in the USA and doubled its domestic take as compared to that early prediction



    So I think you're drawing big conclusions too soon. You base your entire prediction on just early tracking? On these rather....flawed attention seeking filler articles? You need to take into account more trendsetting factors. One needs to predict better, 'feel' the mood so to say.

    And now have a look at this post from our beloved @ChampionAlonso. He was linking us to the BoxOfficeMojo prediction from last week for "Bridge Of Spies" (I recall that @BondJasonBond006 was panicking about this particular spy film...and how it could have a negative influence on "SPECTRE" ;-) ):
    Bridge of Spies predictions for this weekend: (2,811 theaters)
    --> $19,677,000
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4113&p=.htm

    Another good example of a failed prediction. Particularly since this prediction was made a day before the premiere (!!). It wasn't going to do tremendously well during its opening weekend. But this is the final weekend opening:

    --> $15,371,203

    And that's almost $4 Million off compared to the prediction.

    Industry is projecting Spectre to make $75-80M on opening week. Records will be smashed.

    Yes, I saw the Deadline-article. But I think it's a way too modest, way too soft prediction. Especially since the article says:
    "Total awareness is at 74% versus Skyfall‘s 79%, definite interest is at 64% compared with Skyfall‘s 57%. Any time a film is over 55% in definite choice or total awareness tracking, that’s huge."
    So Deadline is contradicting itself a bit. And moreover, I think Sony wants to downplay the predictions a bit, and this article helps with it.

    Also, we don't know the exact theater-count for the USA yet. If Sony has managed to get "SPECTRE" into 4,100 theaters or more on opening day, then this prediction will not hold up ("SkyFall" opened with a rather 'lacklustre' 3,600 theaters).

    Down below a comparison I made with....more or less similar movies:

    "Furious 7" (2015):
    --> opening weekend: $147,187,040
    --> widest release: 4,022 theaters
    --> average gross per theater (4,004): $36,760

    "Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier" (2014):
    --> opening weekend: $095,023,721
    --> widest release: 3,938 theaters
    --> average gross per theater (3,938): $24,130

    "Iron Man 3" (2013):
    --> opening weekend: $174,144,585
    --> widest release: 4,253 theaters
    --> average gross per theater (4,253): $40,946

    "Fast & Furious 6" (2013):
    --> opening weekend: $097,375,245
    --> widest release: 3,771 theaters
    --> average gross per theater (3,658): $26,620

    "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012):
    --> opening weekend: $160,887,295
    --> widest release: 4,404 theaters
    --> average gross per theater (4,404): $36,532

    "The Dark Knight" (2008):
    --> opening weekend: $158,411,483
    --> widest release: 4,366 theaters
    --> average gross per theater (4,366): $36,283

    "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (2008):
    --> opening weekend: $100,137,835
    --> widest release: 4,264 theaters
    --> average gross per theater (4,260): $23,507



    And now the results from the 2012 James Bond film "Skyfall":
    --> opening weekend: $088,364,714
    --> widest release: 3,526 theaters
    --> average gross per theater (3,505): $25,211


    As you can see, from all of the above movies, "Skyfall" had quite a 'low' opening weekend. That doesn't mean 'low' off course, as for a Bond film it's incredible...and its holdover was particularly impressive. The same can be said from the theater count. The widest release in the USA stood at 3,526 theaters, which more or less 'pales' in comparison to the other movies from the above list.

    Now my question really is: Do you think there's a possibility "SPECTRE" could shatter "Skyfall"s opening weekend with help of a much higher theater count?

    I know from some insiders that cinema chains in the USA are way more willing now to considerably improve on the theater count for "SPECTRE", due to the success of "Skyfall". But how does that translate in a realistic opening weekend prediction? I personally think an opening weekend of between $120 Million and 140 Million (lower than "Furious 7") is very well possible. But what do you think?

    I do agree however that "Star Wars 7" ticket sales this week so far are truly impressive...obliterating every online movie ticket sales records. So that's a factor too. However, after today the first reviews of "SPECTRE" will take over the movie news I think. And $1.2 Billion dollar is not just a fanboy prediction, but a realistic prediction. Especially given the positive reviews of the film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The fundamental question to ask here is whether this film has 'touched a nerve'. Does it have what it takes to catch the imagination of the broader public in a meaningful way?
    That is what will determine if it has 'legs' and if it gets the repeat viewings from the broader public.

    We know it will succeed with us MI6er's. That was never in question.

    The reviews here seem mixed. Of course people are going to enjoy it (I'm sure I will too) but are they ecstatic about it? Does it make you passionate about it in some way? For a film to do that, it must either be very positively nostalgic (like JW) or it must emotionally resonate, or it must be controversial, in a good way imho.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    The fundamental question to ask here is whether this film has 'touched a nerve'. Does it have what it takes to catch the imagination of the broader public in a meaningful way?
    That is what will determine if it has 'legs' and if it gets the repeat viewings from the broader public.

    We know it will succeed with us MI6er's. That was never in question.

    The reviews here seem mixed. Of course people are going to enjoy it (I'm sure I will too) but are they ecstatic about it? Does it make you passionate about it in some way? For a film to do that, it must either be very positively nostalgic (like JW) or it must emotionally resonate, or it must be controversial, in a good way imho.

    No, that's wrong. The reviews for "Quantum Of Solace" thus far have been utterly mixed. The reviews for "SPECTRE" are simply....good....sometimes much better than good. That's entirely different @BondJames. Reviews for "Furious 7" and "Jurassic World" were 'just good' as well, though never exceptional. Did it hurt those films? No.

    Yes, obviously, "SPECTRE" needs to touch a nerve. But again, you overestimate the influence of reviews a bit. And sometimes I do think that your objectivity gets slightly clouded by a bit of negativity....mostly accidentally.


    One other thing, Earlier this year reviewers were positive about Matthew Vaughn’s new comic book adaptation vs. spy spoof “Kingsman: The Secret Service”. Many critics applauded the more comedic approach of the film. It was a return to Roger Moore-esque suaveness and cheesy, though violent, comedy. It was an element that was greatly missed in the recent Bond films with Daniel Craig. Then “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” premiered and it got hailed as the best spy-action film of the year. Critics uttered sentences like “Tom Cruise remains the action star without equal”, thus no critics mentioned Cruise’s age of 53, that he was doing his 5th “M:I”-film already (he signed up for a 6th) and what will happen to the franchise when he leaves.

    With Bond it’s an entirely different thing. It’s a 53-year old franchise which formula got shaken and stirred during a whopping portfolio of 24 films, of which “SPECTRE” is the 24th entry. But like Bond’s past is haunting him more than ever in this more “Thunderball”-esque Bond film, the actual franchise is equally haunted by all its previous films. No matter how successful it is, it’s a (wonderfully and gracefully) old franchise. So it’s always prone to much more criticism. Compared to relatively new franchises like “Mission: Impossible”, “The Dark Knight” and “The Fast And The Furious”, the “James Bond”-franchise’s reference point around which the criticism –both positive and negative- is build, is its own past. It’s logical if you are 53 years old, though not entirely fair.

    Hence why no Bond film will never receive a rating as high on IMDB as the Christopher Nolan films or the new Marvel episodes. In that context you need to judge all Bond films. Sometimes you make it sound like it's entirely Bond's mistake @BondJames. It's not, it's definately not.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    The fundamental question to ask here is whether this film has 'touched a nerve'. Does it have what it takes to catch the imagination of the broader public in a meaningful way?
    That is what will determine if it has 'legs' and if it gets the repeat viewings from the broader public.

    We know it will succeed with us MI6er's. That was never in question.

    The reviews here seem mixed. Of course people are going to enjoy it (I'm sure I will too) but are they ecstatic about it? Does it make you passionate about it in some way? For a film to do that, it must either be very positively nostalgic (like JW) or it must emotionally resonate, or it must be controversial, in a good way imho.

    No, that's wrong. The reviews for "Quantum Of Solace" thus far have been utterly mixed. The reviews for "SPECTRE" are simply....good....sometimes much better than good. That's entirely different @BondJames. Reviews for "Furious 7" and "Jurassic World" were 'just good' as well, though never exceptional. Did it hurt those films? No.

    Yes, obviously, "SPECTRE" needs to touch a nerve. But again, you overestimate the influence of reviews a bit. And sometimes I do think that your objectivity gets slightly clouded by a bit of negativity....mostly accidentally.


    One other thing, Earlier this year reviewers were positive about Matthew Vaughn’s new comic book adaptation vs. spy spoof “Kingsman: The Secret Service”. Many critics applauded the more comedic approach of the film. It was a return to Roger Moore-esque suaveness and cheesy, though violent, comedy. It was an element that was greatly missed in the recent Bond films with Daniel Craig. Then “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” premiered and it got hailed as the best spy-action film of the year. Critics uttered sentences like “Tom Cruise remains the action star without equal”, thus no critics mentioned Cruise’s age of 53, that he was doing his 5th “M:I”-film already (he signed up for a 6th) and what will happen to the franchise when he leaves.

    With Bond it’s an entirely different thing. It’s a 53-year old franchise which formula got shaken and stirred during a whopping portfolio of 24 films, of which “SPECTRE” is the 24th entry. But like Bond’s past is haunting him more than ever in this more “Thunderball”-esque Bond film, the actual franchise is equally haunted by all its previous films. No matter how successful it is, it’s a (wonderfully and gracefully) old franchise. So it’s always prone to much more criticism. Compared to relatively new franchises like “Mission: Impossible”, “The Dark Knight” and “The Fast And The Furious”, the “James Bond”-franchise’s reference point around which the criticism –both positive and negative- is build, is its own past. It’s logical if you are 53 years old, though not entirely fair.

    Hence why no Bond film will never receive a rating as high on IMDB as the Christopher Nolan films or the new Marvel episodes. In that context you need to judge all Bond films. Sometimes you make it sound like it's entirely Bond's mistake @BondJames. It's not, it's definately not.

    @Gustav_Graves, as I've said before, I don't cheerlead. Of course Bond has to contend with its history. That's a given. It has more history than any other franchise. That is a challenge, and an unfair one.

    I stand by my comments above. For this film to beat SF and for it to make '$1.2bn' which is the point of this thread, it has to 'emotionally resonate' with the broader audience. It has to touch a nerve. SF did that. Many of us saw its flaws, but it did not matter. It resonated.

    The key question is, will SP do the same, or will it be a run of the mill enjoyable experience? I laid out in a previous post on this thread my factors for what will drive SP to make more money than SF. It's currently playing out exactly as I expected, which means it will come in at my estimate just below $1bn imho.

    The reviews have indeed been 'mixed'. I am not looking at numerics here. I am reading the spoiler free reviews of MI6 fans and the critics and going through the details. There is a lot to like, but also some things that don't quite add up.

    In some ways, I don't think it can play out any other way. The benchmark (for the critics and broader public) was just too high post-SF.

    The next hurdle to clear will be the US critics. That could give it a serious boost....
  • 007bondUK007bondUK England
    Posts: 25
    To hit that high box office amount you need repeat viewings at the cinema but not just from fans but from the average cinema goer. That is what happened with Skyfall.

    Having seen SPECTRE I can't see that happening. Right now people are going on the back of Skyfall but they are gonna be a little disappointed. That is what happens when you set the bar so high.

    Either way, Star Wars is going to blow everything out of the water anyway.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The fundamental question to ask here is whether this film has 'touched a nerve'. Does it have what it takes to catch the imagination of the broader public in a meaningful way?
    That is what will determine if it has 'legs' and if it gets the repeat viewings from the broader public.

    We know it will succeed with us MI6er's. That was never in question.

    The reviews here seem mixed. Of course people are going to enjoy it (I'm sure I will too) but are they ecstatic about it? Does it make you passionate about it in some way? For a film to do that, it must either be very positively nostalgic (like JW) or it must emotionally resonate, or it must be controversial, in a good way imho.

    No, that's wrong. The reviews for "Quantum Of Solace" thus far have been utterly mixed. The reviews for "SPECTRE" are simply....good....sometimes much better than good. That's entirely different @BondJames. Reviews for "Furious 7" and "Jurassic World" were 'just good' as well, though never exceptional. Did it hurt those films? No.

    Yes, obviously, "SPECTRE" needs to touch a nerve. But again, you overestimate the influence of reviews a bit. And sometimes I do think that your objectivity gets slightly clouded by a bit of negativity....mostly accidentally.


    One other thing, Earlier this year reviewers were positive about Matthew Vaughn’s new comic book adaptation vs. spy spoof “Kingsman: The Secret Service”. Many critics applauded the more comedic approach of the film. It was a return to Roger Moore-esque suaveness and cheesy, though violent, comedy. It was an element that was greatly missed in the recent Bond films with Daniel Craig. Then “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” premiered and it got hailed as the best spy-action film of the year. Critics uttered sentences like “Tom Cruise remains the action star without equal”, thus no critics mentioned Cruise’s age of 53, that he was doing his 5th “M:I”-film already (he signed up for a 6th) and what will happen to the franchise when he leaves.

    With Bond it’s an entirely different thing. It’s a 53-year old franchise which formula got shaken and stirred during a whopping portfolio of 24 films, of which “SPECTRE” is the 24th entry. But like Bond’s past is haunting him more than ever in this more “Thunderball”-esque Bond film, the actual franchise is equally haunted by all its previous films. No matter how successful it is, it’s a (wonderfully and gracefully) old franchise. So it’s always prone to much more criticism. Compared to relatively new franchises like “Mission: Impossible”, “The Dark Knight” and “The Fast And The Furious”, the “James Bond”-franchise’s reference point around which the criticism –both positive and negative- is build, is its own past. It’s logical if you are 53 years old, though not entirely fair.

    Hence why no Bond film will never receive a rating as high on IMDB as the Christopher Nolan films or the new Marvel episodes. In that context you need to judge all Bond films. Sometimes you make it sound like it's entirely Bond's mistake @BondJames. It's not, it's definately not.

    @Gustav_Graves, as I've said before, I don't cheerlead.

    Nor do I. You imply some cheerleading, doesn't matter if that's aimed at me or a rather usless remark aimed and Bond fans in general. But we both are backing up our comments with arguments. If you want to stay with your remark that the reviews are "mixed", which is by the way something you can't fully say in a black-and-white manner, then be me guest. But as I see it, objectively, "SPECTRE" gets good reviews, in full majority.

    --> "CASINO ROYALE": overwhelmingly excellent reviews (both fans and critics)
    --> "SKYFALL": overwhelmingly excellent reviews (mostly critics)
    --> "SPECTRE": good to very good reviews (mostly Bond fans)
    --> "QUANTUM OF SOLACE": highly mixed reviews (both fans and critics)

    I think this is not cheerleading. It's the story right now.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The fundamental question to ask here is whether this film has 'touched a nerve'. Does it have what it takes to catch the imagination of the broader public in a meaningful way?
    That is what will determine if it has 'legs' and if it gets the repeat viewings from the broader public.

    We know it will succeed with us MI6er's. That was never in question.

    The reviews here seem mixed. Of course people are going to enjoy it (I'm sure I will too) but are they ecstatic about it? Does it make you passionate about it in some way? For a film to do that, it must either be very positively nostalgic (like JW) or it must emotionally resonate, or it must be controversial, in a good way imho.

    No, that's wrong. The reviews for "Quantum Of Solace" thus far have been utterly mixed. The reviews for "SPECTRE" are simply....good....sometimes much better than good. That's entirely different @BondJames. Reviews for "Furious 7" and "Jurassic World" were 'just good' as well, though never exceptional. Did it hurt those films? No.

    Yes, obviously, "SPECTRE" needs to touch a nerve. But again, you overestimate the influence of reviews a bit. And sometimes I do think that your objectivity gets slightly clouded by a bit of negativity....mostly accidentally.


    One other thing, Earlier this year reviewers were positive about Matthew Vaughn’s new comic book adaptation vs. spy spoof “Kingsman: The Secret Service”. Many critics applauded the more comedic approach of the film. It was a return to Roger Moore-esque suaveness and cheesy, though violent, comedy. It was an element that was greatly missed in the recent Bond films with Daniel Craig. Then “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” premiered and it got hailed as the best spy-action film of the year. Critics uttered sentences like “Tom Cruise remains the action star without equal”, thus no critics mentioned Cruise’s age of 53, that he was doing his 5th “M:I”-film already (he signed up for a 6th) and what will happen to the franchise when he leaves.

    With Bond it’s an entirely different thing. It’s a 53-year old franchise which formula got shaken and stirred during a whopping portfolio of 24 films, of which “SPECTRE” is the 24th entry. But like Bond’s past is haunting him more than ever in this more “Thunderball”-esque Bond film, the actual franchise is equally haunted by all its previous films. No matter how successful it is, it’s a (wonderfully and gracefully) old franchise. So it’s always prone to much more criticism. Compared to relatively new franchises like “Mission: Impossible”, “The Dark Knight” and “The Fast And The Furious”, the “James Bond”-franchise’s reference point around which the criticism –both positive and negative- is build, is its own past. It’s logical if you are 53 years old, though not entirely fair.

    Hence why no Bond film will never receive a rating as high on IMDB as the Christopher Nolan films or the new Marvel episodes. In that context you need to judge all Bond films. Sometimes you make it sound like it's entirely Bond's mistake @BondJames. It's not, it's definately not.

    @Gustav_Graves, as I've said before, I don't cheerlead.

    Nor do I. You imply some cheerleading, doesn't matter if that's aimed at me or a rather usless remark aimed and Bond fans in general. But we both are backing up our comments with arguments. If you want to stay with your remark that the reviews are "mixed", which is by the way something you can't fully say in a black-and-white manner, then be me guest. But as I see it, objectively, "SPECTRE" gets good reviews, in full majority.

    --> "CASINO ROYALE": overwhelmingly excellent reviews (both fans and critics)
    --> "SKYFALL": overwhelmingly excellent reviews (mostly critics)
    --> "SPECTRE": good to very good reviews (mostly Bond fans)
    --> "QUANTUM OF SOLACE": highly mixed reviews (both fans and critics)

    I think this is not cheerleading. It's the story right now.

    Don't take this personally.

    If you want to take pot shots at me that's fine. I'm stating my views and I stand by them. You obviously stand by yours. We don't have to agree and we don't have to make things personal.

    It's just a film for pete's sake.
  • Posts: 6,601
    I believe, it will have the advantage of a boost from Mexico and China. I think, it could make about 90 to 100 mill. in China. Personally I don't think, it will make the billion, but 900 mill would be good enough to make it a success.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I believe, it will have the advantage of a boost from Mexico and China. I think, it could make about 90 to 100 mill. in China. Personally I don't think, it will make the billion, but 900 mill would be good enough to make it a success.

    I agree with your points. I think it could actually hit $1bn (there are routes to get there) but everything has to fall into place nicely.

    If it becomes the 2nd biggest grossing Bond film (which it will definitely do) no one will be critical.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    007bondUK wrote: »
    To hit that high box office amount you need repeat viewings at the cinema but not just from fans but from the average cinema goer. That is what happened with Skyfall.

    Having seen SPECTRE I can't see that happening. Right now people are going on the back of Skyfall but they are gonna be a little disappointed. That is what happens when you set the bar so high.

    Either way, Star Wars is going to blow everything out of the water anyway.

    Many though are enjoying even given faults because of the fun factor.

    That's what is going to sell the film. Prediction $800m worldwide which is about 20% less than SF.

    I wonder what percentage of the SF audience discovered Craig Bond on DVD/Bluray?

  • 007bondUK007bondUK England
    Posts: 25
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Many though are enjoying even given faults because of the fun factor.

    That's what is going to sell the film. Prediction $800m worldwide which is about 20% less than SF.

    I wonder what percentage of the SF audience discovered Craig Bond on DVD/Bluray?

    I would suspect there are a lot of new fans because of Skyfall.

    For sure one thing that really helped Skyfall in the UK was released in the same year as the London Olympics and there was a huge feel good factor about being British and that really did help. Craig meeting the Queen as part of the opening ceremony and it being the 50th all boosted its box office takings.

    There are plenty of people I know who don't really go to the cinema that often that felt compelled to see Skyfall and others were saying they liked it so much they saw it twice.

    I think SPECTRE will get the first time viewers but it is that repeat viewing where I think it will hit the 20% shortfall.

    Only time will tell. I'm seeing it twice myself but I normally see it with the family and then with friends but I want to see it again because in all honesty I thought it was going to be better. So perhaps a second viewing might help.

Sign In or Register to comment.