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

15681011152

Comments

  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Does anyone here think that Bond 24 will match the success of Skyfall, earning 1 billion plus at the box office worldwide?

    I don't know if it will match Skyfall's success, but I'm sure it'll get pretty close.
  • Posts: 2,491
    If it is good movie it will surely make billion IMHO
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Does anyone here think that Bond 24 will match the success of Skyfall, earning 1 billion plus at the box office worldwide?

    I'm certain we're in for a big treat again.......a production that is certainly in the range of "Skyfall". With crewmembers Hoyte van Hoytema, Sam Mendes, Per Hallberg and Lee Smith we can expect a Nolan-esque huge production.

    But as we only know that Dave Bautista (Marvel's "The Guardians Of The Galaxy) and Léa Seydoux ("La Vie d'Adèle", Golden Palm winner) have been cast, we can still expect more exciting casting news, like the lead villain (a 2nd leading villain) and the leading Bond girl. If thoese are big names, it'll certainly create some viral marketing stir.

    And as "Bond 24" will most likely be profitting from the success of its predecessor, I can see another + 950 Million Dollar movie. It has to be seen if it again can hit the 1 Billion.

    Personally, in ranking order, I'm looking out for:
    --> "Bond 24" (but off course :-P!!)
    --> "Mission: Impossible 5"
    --> "Inherent Vice" (the new Paul Thomas Anderson movie!)
    --> "Star Wars: Episode 7"
    --> "Fast & Furious 7"
    --> "The Man From U.N.C.L.E."
    --> "Independence Day 2"
    --> "Marvel's Ant Man"
  • Posts: 1,964
    I want to see how Mocking Jay part 1 does this year. If he does over a Billion than Part 2 will be the same if not higher
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2014 Posts: 15,680
    I think 'Pirates of the Carribean' and 'Batman' are the only 2 film franchise with atleast 2 outings hitting the 1 billion $ mark at the box office. Would be great to see Bond joining them.
  • Posts: 1,964
    Batman was moved to 2016 and Pirates was moved to 2017
  • Posts: 3,336
    @DaltonCraig007 Transformers also has 2
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,680
    @DaltonCraig007 Transformers also has 2

    You're right, and the Marvel cinematic universe has 2 aswell.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    @DaltonCraig007 Transformers also has 2

    Which tells you pretty much all you need to know about Box Office.

  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,119
    I was looking at this year's worldwide box office results. And something strikes me here. Recent superhero movies have more difficulty to reach the 1 Billion Dollar mark. And in a funny twist, they are all from the Marvel Universe or have characters that are based on the Marvel comic books. Just have a look:


    01. "Transformers: Age of Extinction" (Paramount)
    --> $1,080.9 MILLION / $1.08 BILLION
    02. "Maleficent" (Buena Vista Pictures/Disney)
    --> $0,757.2 MILLION
    03. "X-Men: Days of Future Past" (Fox Pictures, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,746.0 MILLION
    04. "Guardians of the Galaxy" (Buena Vista Pictures/Disney, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,732.6 MILLION
    05. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (Buena Vista Pictures/Disney, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,714.1 MILLION
    06. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Sony Pictures, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,709.0 MILLION

    In comparison:
    "Skyfall"
    --> $1,108,6 MILLION / $1.11 BILLION

    I'm pretty convinced that Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar" will again do 'interstellar' at the worldwide box office. I expect that highly anticipated Kubrick-esque space exploration drama to hit the 1 Billion Dollar without too much problems. And then there's "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" and "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1", which will without too much problems do better than the 2nd best movie of this year, "Maleficent".

    Still, I really think that the "super hero craze" from the past 5 to 7 years is slightly winding down. Allthough I think "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" was the most superior of the Marvel characters from this year, they just don't hit the 1 Billion Dollar mark anymore. People probably saw everything already in the succesful "Iron Man-trilogy" and "The Dark Knight-trilogy".

    And on top of that, the above figures again show what incredible stuff 'our' 007-flick "Skyfall" did back in 2012. Sometimes I'm still stunned by it. And I tend to believe that "Bond 24" will also do wonders for Sony Pictures/MGM/EON Productions.

  • Posts: 252
    01. "Transformers: Age of Extinction" (Paramount)
    --> $1,080.9 MILLION / $1.08 BILLION
    02. "Maleficent" (Buena Vista Pictures/Disney)
    --> $0,757.2 MILLION
    03. "X-Men: Days of Future Past" (Fox Pictures, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,746.0 MILLION
    04. "Guardians of the Galaxy" (Buena Vista Pictures/Disney, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,732.6 MILLION
    05. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (Buena Vista Pictures/Disney, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,714.1 MILLION
    06. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Sony Pictures, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,709.0 MILLION

    In comparison:
    "Skyfall"
    --> $1,108,6 MILLION / $1.11 BILLION


    Yes, and don't forget, Bond is the only movie without 3D
  • Posts: 11,119
    Bernie99 wrote: »
    01. "Transformers: Age of Extinction" (Paramount)
    --> $1,080.9 MILLION / $1.08 BILLION
    02. "Maleficent" (Buena Vista Pictures/Disney)
    --> $0,757.2 MILLION
    03. "X-Men: Days of Future Past" (Fox Pictures, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,746.0 MILLION
    04. "Guardians of the Galaxy" (Buena Vista Pictures/Disney, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,732.6 MILLION
    05. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (Buena Vista Pictures/Disney, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,714.1 MILLION
    06. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Sony Pictures, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,709.0 MILLION

    In comparison:
    "Skyfall"
    --> $1,108,6 MILLION / $1.11 BILLION


    Yes, and don't forget, Bond is the only movie without 3D

    Just can't WAIT to hear some more casting news. If I read names like Marion Cotillard, Keira Knightley, Christoph Waltz I'll jump the ceiling :-)
  • Posts: 4,619
    Bernie99 wrote: »
    01. "Transformers: Age of Extinction" (Paramount)
    --> $1,080.9 MILLION / $1.08 BILLION
    02. "Maleficent" (Buena Vista Pictures/Disney)
    --> $0,757.2 MILLION
    03. "X-Men: Days of Future Past" (Fox Pictures, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,746.0 MILLION
    04. "Guardians of the Galaxy" (Buena Vista Pictures/Disney, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,732.6 MILLION
    05. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (Buena Vista Pictures/Disney, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,714.1 MILLION
    06. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Sony Pictures, based on Marvel's characters)
    --> $0,709.0 MILLION

    In comparison:
    "Skyfall"
    --> $1,108,6 MILLION / $1.11 BILLION


    Yes, and don't forget, Bond is the only movie without 3D

    Just can't WAIT to hear some more casting news. If I read names like Marion Cotillard, Keira Knightley, Christoph Waltz I'll jump the ceiling :-)

    Christoph Waltz would be a terrible choice. Don't get me wrong, he is a great actor but it's so cliche to cast him as the bad guy. Although he would be great in a small role as an ally of Bond...
  • Posts: 7,653
    Christoph Waltz would be a terrible choice. Don't get me wrong, he is a great actor but it's so cliche to cast him as the bad guy. Although he would be great in a small role as an ally of Bond...

    I agree, Waltz as a baddie would be cliche.

  • Posts: 11,119
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Christoph Waltz would be a terrible choice. Don't get me wrong, he is a great actor but it's so cliche to cast him as the bad guy. Although he would be great in a small role as an ally of Bond...

    I agree, Waltz as a baddie would be cliche.

    Then Javier Bardem was a cliche choice too?
  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Christoph Waltz would be a terrible choice. Don't get me wrong, he is a great actor but it's so cliche to cast him as the bad guy. Although he would be great in a small role as an ally of Bond...

    I agree, Waltz as a baddie would be cliche.

    Then Javier Bardem was a cliche choice too?

    Yes and NO, He is less of a big name while Waltz is a bit over-QTed, and I enjoy Bardem far more as a romantic lead than a baddie.

  • Posts: 11,119
    SaintMark wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Christoph Waltz would be a terrible choice. Don't get me wrong, he is a great actor but it's so cliche to cast him as the bad guy. Although he would be great in a small role as an ally of Bond...

    I agree, Waltz as a baddie would be cliche.

    Then Javier Bardem was a cliche choice too?

    Yes and NO, He is less of a big name while Waltz is a bit over-QTed, and I enjoy Bardem far more as a romantic lead than a baddie.

    Yeah but, let us cast a actor of romantic dramas for the lead villain? That's perhaps not cheesy, that's plain risky. I don't want another Dominic Greene or Gustav Graves.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SaintMark wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Christoph Waltz would be a terrible choice. Don't get me wrong, he is a great actor but it's so cliche to cast him as the bad guy. Although he would be great in a small role as an ally of Bond...

    I agree, Waltz as a baddie would be cliche.

    Then Javier Bardem was a cliche choice too?

    Yes and NO, He is less of a big name while Waltz is a bit over-QTed, and I enjoy Bardem far more as a romantic lead than a baddie.

    Yeah but, let us cast a actor of romantic dramas for the lead villain? That's perhaps not cheesy, that's plain risky. I don't want another Dominic Greene or Gustav Graves.

    How is that risky? If you do your research and cast someone like Javier who is versatile, can play any kind of character and bring out every variation of human emotion, the only risk is in not casting him that very second!
  • Posts: 11,119
    Let me put it like this. I think Christoph Waltz would be a wunderful actor. Perhaps with the history we know behind Waltz' name, that is "cheesy". But who cares??? it's about the lead villain role in Bond 24. And if Waltz can pull of a villain, then so be it. We don't ask the actor to be mourning on a grave...like Bond once did. We don't ask the actor playing the villain to be romantically engaged in a girl. Sjee..
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Let me put it like this. I think Christoph Waltz would be a wunderful actor. Perhaps with the history we know behind Waltz' name, that is "cheesy". But who cares??? it's about the lead villain role in Bond 24. And if Waltz can pull of a villain, then so be it. We don't ask the actor to be mourning on a grave...like Bond once did. We don't ask the actor playing the villain to be romantically engaged in a girl. Sjee..

    Actually, the Bond films alone have countless main villains who are in a relationship with a woman, sometimes the Bond girl of the film herself, so I don't see your argument there.

    You're speaking as if villains shouldn't be written to show pain at the loss of someone or be romantically involved with anyone, when in actuality that makes for some of the more interesting baddies.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Let me put it like this. I think Christoph Waltz would be a wunderful actor. Perhaps with the history we know behind Waltz' name, that is "cheesy". But who cares??? it's about the lead villain role in Bond 24. And if Waltz can pull of a villain, then so be it. We don't ask the actor to be mourning on a grave...like Bond once did. We don't ask the actor playing the villain to be romantically engaged in a girl. Sjee..

    Actually, the Bond films alone have countless main villains who are in a relationship with a woman, sometimes the Bond girl of the film herself, so I don't see your argument there.

    You're speaking as if villains shouldn't be written to show pain at the loss of someone or be romantically involved with anyone, when in actuality that makes for some of the more interesting baddies.

    I agree with you that a baddie should be multilayered, should have a history, and one should feel some understanding for his actions too. Look at Silva. He showed pain, excessive pain. He felt betrayed. And it slowly turned him into the psychopath he was in SF.

    But I'm just not sure about romances. It can't be a believable romance. There has to be a nasty dominant factor about him. A side that will not make it a relationship on equal terms, but more of a father-slave-side. Just look at Largo, Scaramanga and Silva. I think they worked as a villain because of that.

    Actually, some of the best villains were never truly romantic. They were cold-hearted assholes, BUT of course with complex character traits.

    Having said that, I think, how typecast he will become, Christoph Waltz could pull that off. And in the case of a female villain, Tilda Swinton or Helen Mirren or Meryl Streep.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Max Zorin had a very hem energetic relationship with Mayday.
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2014 Posts: 10,512
    You're speaking as if villains shouldn't be written to show pain at the loss of someone or be romantically involved with anyone, when in actuality that makes for some of the more interesting baddies.

    True. In SF, Silva's relationship with Severine, while not seen, is felt and you can sense his seething anger at Bond's 'relationship' with her - leading ultimately to her death. The Renard and Elektra dynamic is also unique, while the Paris-Elliot-Bond triangle lends a great frisson to those early scenes in TND... I could go on. It's true that cold, asexual types, such as Grant, serve as brilliant villains, but as you say @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 the opposite can also be true and adding a little humanity can inject a genuine spark to the narrative.
  • philzosityphilzosity Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts: 1
    1. Bond
    2. Star Wars
    3. Superman vs Batman
    4. Avengers


    Possibly....5. Pirates? Not really sure...what the hey. That's my top 5.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Superman vs. Batman got pushed to 2016, @philzosity.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,180
    And by 'Pirates,' do you mean 'Pirates of the Caribbean'? I don't see that coming out until 2016/2017.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Well, it certainly is a big year as we're getting numerous sequels and big-name-enlisted motion pictures. And I'm particularly speaking about spy films which I am a very helpless fanatic of.

    Taken 3
    The Gunman
    (also known as The Prone Gunman)
    Kingsman: The Secret Service (I adore the comic book it's based on)
    Survivor
    Hitman: Agent 47
    The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (fan of the original series, discounting Season 3)
    Mission: Impossible V
    And the yet-unnamed-James Bond-film

    Still think Christmas comes once in a year? :D
  • Posts: 252
    Don't forget "London has fallen"
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    (deleted)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Bernie99 wrote: »
    Don't forget "London has fallen"
    That one, too. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.