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

1123124126128129152

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    @Gustav_Graves, I was one of the first to read it a while back when you linked me to it! A discussion got started up about it here, you and I even discussed it. That false Alzheimers is getting to you ;).

    I haven't read part two, though, so I'll read it once I'm done watching this movie. SP was definitely costly, really no excuse in needing to make $650 million simply to break even, but making a few hundred million on top of that isn't bad, either. I'm mostly looking forward to them dialing down the budget heavily because it'll give us an entirely different feel to the next movie.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    They've got to focus more on the thriller & atmospheric aspects rather than the action aspects in my view. This is where Bond is best, and where his competition, including Hunt, can't play as well.

    As I said a while back, lock the next team (including writers) in a room, and force them to watch DN/FRWL/CR on loop for a few days. Then open the door, and let them get to work.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    They don't need a large budget for action, even, they just need to be more inventive instead of setting action around some large, costly set piece.
  • Posts: 1,631
    I find Spectre to be a rather odd film when it comes to discussions about the budget and how to move forward with the next one. There's been a lot of talk about needing a smaller budget the next time around, a sentiment that I agree with.

    But, if you actually look at Spectre, one has to wonder where all of that money went. The action sequences aren't all that spectacular (the car chase is just two cars driving fast through an empty city), and virtually none of the terrorist activity that the film's plot bases itself on (the attacks used to coerce the Nine Eyes nations to join up) are not even shown in the film. It seems like they spent a lot of the budget jetting around to the various locations, the plane chase, and setting up their world record for the biggest explosion ever.

    I'm sure that there are plenty of other places in the film where people will point to and say "that's where the money went", but regardless, Spectre doesn't look or play like a film that at one point was costing the studio upwards of $300 million.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves, I was one of the first to read it a while back when you linked me to it! A discussion got started up about it here, you and I even discussed it. That false Alzheimers is getting to you ;).

    I haven't read part two, though, so I'll read it once I'm done watching this movie. SP was definitely costly, really no excuse in needing to make $650 million simply to break even, but making a few hundred million on top of that isn't bad, either. I'm mostly looking forward to them dialing down the budget heavily because it'll give us an entirely different feel to the next movie.

    I hope Bond 25 will be good :-)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    @Gustav_Graves, but of course! Whether it's another large budget or one that's dialed down, whether we have Craig and Waltz returning or not, I simply want another fun, entertaining entry in the series.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    As with most I want a smaller budget, and more focused production. I want that much more than I want box office. If it makes less in the States next time than its predecessor, I won't mind, as long as the film is critically well received, profitable at a much lower $ gross, and respected by viewers and everyone concerned. Like CR.

    Unfortunately, I may not get my wish, because Bond is one of the few truly global and bullet proof franchises, and in an uncertain world, the accountants will want to maximize $ most likely.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    Due to the popularity/solid box office results of blockbusters in China, I wonder if 'Bond 25' might aim to cast a Chinese actor/actress or at least try and shoot in the country again in hopes of putting more asses in seats. Sadly, it could work, but I want them to utilize certain actors or locations because they're talented or beautiful, respectively, and/or because it makes sense within the story, not because of B.O. returns.
  • Posts: 485
    dalton wrote: »
    I find Spectre to be a rather odd film when it comes to discussions about the budget and how to move forward with the next one. There's been a lot of talk about needing a smaller budget the next time around, a sentiment that I agree with.

    But, if you actually look at Spectre, one has to wonder where all of that money went. The action sequences aren't all that spectacular (the car chase is just two cars driving fast through an empty city), and virtually none of the terrorist activity that the film's plot bases itself on (the attacks used to coerce the Nine Eyes nations to join up) are not even shown in the film. It seems like they spent a lot of the budget jetting around to the various locations, the plane chase, and setting up their world record for the biggest explosion ever.

    I'm sure that there are plenty of other places in the film where people will point to and say "that's where the money went", but regardless, Spectre doesn't look or play like a film that at one point was costing the studio upwards of $300 million.

    It looked a bigger budgeted film on screen to me for the most part. I was perhaps just relieved to see Bond in the genuine locations for once rather than backlot substitutions. SF was just like an episode of Spooks in comparison.

    I personally didn't mind the Rome car chase. I accept it wasn't trying to be Ronin or even the QOS PTS. It was perhaps more about the aesthetics than a remarkable stunt sequence or tense chase but I enjoyed it for what it it is. I miss the days of Bond having a female companion with him during a car chase so his conversation with Moneypenny was the closest we got to that since...hmm...the Aston Martin chase in TLD.

    If we're talking a waste of money then the Austria snow plane sequence is one the major dud for me. When something looks dull even in the trailers you know you're in trouble. Not sure what the snow parkour scene would have entailed but maybe we should have just had some fisticuffs between Bond, Hinx and his goons in the clinic - with it getting smashed up instead.

    I blame Corbould as much for Mendes for the record breaking explosion as he always seems to trying to better himself and the Skyfall lodge explosion will still take some beating.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    They've got to focus more on the thriller & atmospheric aspects rather than the action aspects in my view. This is where Bond is best, and where his competition, including Hunt, can't play as well.

    As I said a while back, lock the next team (including writers) in a room, and force them to watch DN/FRWL/CR on loop for a few days. Then open the door, and let them get to work.

    They should also get them to read the first few Fleming novels, get in the zone. The one thing I find confusing is when writers 'borrow' from novels, when for me it should be the tone that needs translating, not necessarily scenes or dialogue. There's a structure and a swagger to the novels that they'd do well to inject into the films (although I think they should do this with a new actor). They should aim for doing the unexpected with action, low key, but inventive. I did like the intro to SP and I enjoyed the finale, visually, but the plane scene (which was billed as the big set piece) doesn't cut the mustard. I prefer the car scene in Rome, which I know others hate, but it has a flow to it.
  • Posts: 1,092

    @Creasy47 I truly appreciate it that you linked to my articles before. But....did you actually read them :-)?

    "SPECTRE" in the end was a too costly adventure, and it did nothing more than a bit more than breaking even.

    What on earth are you talking about? We've known for some time breaking even was 650. It's more than 220 million over that point, plus all the other profit potential coming from DVD and BD sales and gobs of other ancillaries. It's a massive hit!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    Right there with you in regards to those SP scenes, @RC7. Copying scenes or lines of dialogue is not the same as copying tone, feel, or the ambiance of a movie. The next one needs to be tighter, intense, focusing more on being a thrilling spy film than an all-out explosion fest with a half-assed story that required both several writers and re-writes. Dish out something classic and good in the first or second draft, finalize it, and go from there. Write a story based on a solid plot and Bond's journey, don't insert action set pieces and try and write the story around them.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Write a story based on a solid plot and Bond's journey, don't insert action set pieces and try and write the story around them.

    Which is ironically how RN was part-conceived. I agree, I don't think Bond should do that, but good luck to McQuarrie as he seems to know how to pull it off.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    Still interested in seeing if McQuarrie tries to insert the glass-bridge stunt that didn't make it into RN in the sixth M:I.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Still interested in seeing if McQuarrie tries to insert the glass-bridge stunt that didn't make it into RN in the sixth M:I.

    I imagine so. They tend to build out from the set pieces and I imagine this will be pretty high on their list.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,686
    It's weird to think that 'Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation' was released a few months before SP, and the filming of M:I:6 will start this summer, in less than 6 months, while the production of 'Bond 25' is still a good 2 years away.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Write a story based on a solid plot and Bond's journey, don't insert action set pieces and try and write the story around them.

    Which is ironically how RN was part-conceived. I agree, I don't think Bond should do that, but good luck to McQuarrie as he seems to know how to pull it off.
    In my view it's all about the execution. It shouldn't really matter how one goes about it, but the product must feel holistic and integrated. A matter of tweaking, reviewing and finessing.

    What I missed in the SP action sequences was a sense of irony - the subtle humour that was there even in 'serious' CR (when Bond blasted through the drywall, or when he smirked after Carlos blew himself up). RN had that in spades throughout its action sequences. Two adult males giving each other looks through car and plane windows and some old gadgets not working in an Aston don't cut it for me.

    Even SF had some class to the semi-action sequences, like when Bond smirks after his finger print gun registers in the Mercedes in Shanghai.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    It's weird to think that 'Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation' was released a few months before SP, and the filming of M:I:6 will start this summer, in less than 6 months, while the production of 'Bond 25' is still a good 2 years away.

    Which perfectly proves that you can release quality sequels at a great return rate without having to wait a few years between each, as is the case for Bond.
  • Posts: 485
    It's weird to think that 'Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation' was released a few months before SP, and the filming of M:I:6 will start this summer, in less than 6 months, while the production of 'Bond 25' is still a good 2 years away.

    EON always sadly seem to be caught up in one studio drama or another though.
  • Posts: 1,098
    dalton wrote: »
    I find Spectre to be a rather odd film when it comes to discussions about the budget and how to move forward with the next one. There's been a lot of talk about needing a smaller budget the next time around, a sentiment that I agree with.

    But, if you actually look at Spectre, one has to wonder where all of that money went. The action sequences aren't all that spectacular (the car chase is just two cars driving fast through an empty city), and virtually none of the terrorist activity that the film's plot bases itself on (the attacks used to coerce the Nine Eyes nations to join up) are not even shown in the film. It seems like they spent a lot of the budget jetting around to the various locations, the plane chase, and setting up their world record for the biggest explosion ever.

    I'm sure that there are plenty of other places in the film where people will point to and say "that's where the money went", but regardless, Spectre doesn't look or play like a film that at one point was costing the studio upwards of $300 million.

    Yes, exactly, that's how i would sum up the film.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves, but of course! Whether it's another large budget or one that's dialed down, whether we have Craig and Waltz returning or not, I simply want another fun, entertaining entry in the series.

    My point really is, as I wrote in my two articles, is that more things need to be done to re-capture a certain fresh uniqueness, and becoming another $1 Billion Dollar Bond. Many people in here say that it was an unrealistic prospect, but it is not. Not in 2016 AD:
    Conclusion

    It is only logical now that the next Bond film won’t and can’t be as expensive as SPECTRE. With such high cash investments ($350 million) and in comparison low box office returns ($820 million through this weekend), the factual, real profits will be simply too low.

    Bond films are an A-brand in the movie business, so financial flops are out of the question. But they can become worrisome investments. The Bond producers know that and have downscaled the production budgets on numerous occasions. Take for instance the movies that followed You Only Live Twice and Moonraker, This will happen now with Bond 25. The rumors that director Guy Ritchie, who is now quite cheap in the market, comes onboard, should therefore be taken seriously.

    Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson need to be careful with using (older) Bond films as a template for future success. The Bond film series is 53 years old. So what may look very familiar, and fun, to Bond fans, might look bland or unimpressive to general audiences. Every new Bond adventure therefore needs to feel entirely fresh. It needs to be a good Bond film but also a good film regardless of the franchise tag.

    In an era where movies have shorter cinema runs, it should especially appeal to non-fans. Skyfall has proven that. Although it seems difficult to produce such a movie, I think it’s easier than certain filmmakers want us to think.

    Also, the Bond films don’t have the advantage of an extended cinematic universe. It needs to be an instant hit every three years. Unlike Marvel, the Bond franchise can’t get publicity assistance from, let’s say, a Felix Leiter spin-off. With a tighter focus on the above factors, –-original/fresher action, focus on hit scoring anthems and music, tighter creative control & perhaps downscaling on casting/crew budgets-– one can better fight off those unwanted external factors like these ghastly Sony leaks.

    PS: I do think it’s a very good idea to include Ian Fleming’s “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” in the negotiating process if MGM and EON Productions will sit together with Warner Bros. for a co-financing/distribution deal. There’s no harm in sharing financial risks between Napoleon Solo and James Bond. :-)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    In this day and age, I think $1 billion was plausible for a Bond movie, but to replicate and/or even exceed SF's success, absolutely not. It was never going to happen.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    In this day and age, I think $1 billion was plausible for a Bond movie, but to replicate and/or even exceed SF's success, absolutely not. It was never going to happen.

    I wholeheartedly disagree. I think we say too soon and too easy that "Skyfall" was a 'one off' hit. And that the stars were -too- perfectly alligned for "Skyfall" in 2012. Then the same story must go for all +$1 Billion movies. So there's a recipe for this success. And if I were both the screenplay writer and the marketeer/finance manager at EON, I would first work towards an amazing story, like I described in my articles.

    Moreover, people still act as if $1 Billion Dollar movies are some kind of unique feature in today's movie business. Well wake up, they aren't. Nowadays they are more of a standard rule for the biggest TOP 7 blockbuster franchises than a 'rarity'. Just look at the TOP 6 of the highest grossing films of 2015. Five of them easily soared past the $1 Billion. People would say that that was exceptional, especially given the fact that there was so much competition. No, this insane amount of competition helped the entire TOP 6 o soar to new heights.



  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited January 2016 Posts: 40,372
    I'm not acting like $1 billion is the most unique thing ever seen, but it's tough to deny that SF had much, much more going for it with its 50th Anniversary (lots and lots of coverage everywhere) on top of that Olympics opening (which was watched by millions and millions of people everywhere). SP may have even made more if it wasn't for TFA, but you simply cannot top the inevitable 'Star Wars' mania of 2015. It's 'Star Wars,' it was bound to crush records and make a stupid amount of money. A Bond movie making $1 billion again is completely plausible, it'll just take a more critically-loved movie with the right amount of coverage and marketing to do so.

    Plus, if $1 billion is a common return for movies, why did only five films of 2015 make $1 billion+ out of hundreds of releases? I'd say it's more unique than common, or else the Top 10 would've easily made over $1 billion. SP came close, but not close enough. So again, it's going to take better marketing and a much better final film (in the critics eyes, anyway) to make $1 billion again.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    SF was an anomaly.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm not acting like $1 billion is the most unique thing ever seen, but it's tough to deny that SF had much, much more going for it with its 50th Anniversary (lots and lots of coverage everywhere) on top of that Olympics opening (which was watched by millions and millions of people everywhere). SP may have even made more if it wasn't for TFA, but you simply cannot top the inevitable 'Star Wars' mania of 2015. It's 'Star Wars,' it was bound to crush records and make a stupid amount of money. A Bond movie making $1 billion again is completely plausible, it'll just take a more critically-loved movie with the right amount of coverage and marketing to do so.

    Plus, if $1 billion is a common return for movies, why did only five films of 2015 make $1 billion+ out of hundreds of releases? I'd say it's more unique than common, or else the Top 10 would've easily made over $1 billion. SP came close, but not close enough. So again, it's going to take better marketing and a much better final film (in the critics eyes, anyway) to make $1 billion again.

    You say "only" 5? I think that's quite a lot to be honest. Previous years only 1 or 2 movies crossed the $ 1 Billion mark.

    And in 2015 it wasn't just crossing the $1 Billion. The entire TOP 5 soared well past the $1.2 Billion.

    But we agree that it takes a perfect package to break that mark.
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    SF was an anomaly.

    So far, yes
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    Only four films soared past $1.2 billion in 2015, not five. 2015 was better for B.O. returns than the last few years have been, for sure, but I still don't think $1 billion is a "common" occurrence just yet. Maybe in five or ten years, sure.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think Bond scoring a BO of in between 800 and 900 million is just right for the sort of movies they are and tge goodwill the series has going for it. The risk, however, is going in making these movies trying to secure a billion dollars by which you then get bloated budgets that try to create spectacles tgat just come off as hollow and uninvolved because they threw money at it with no consciousness of ingenuity and creativity.

    The films shouldn't exceed $210 million budgetwise, reduce the number of foreign locations down to 2, focus on telling an exciting, gripping and involving story with a paramount sense of threat, let the characters, locations and music breathe. Give us a film to be more than excited about.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    What was the finalized budget of this? I read elsewhere that it was $245-250 million when it was all said and done, but I thought it'd be much more than that due to the marketing and whatnot.

    That's how I feel with the locations: I don't need nineteen separate globe-trotting locales in one movie that Bond won't even get to enjoy; show us different fragments and areas of the country in question. Let us get to know it and enjoy it, take us to different places, really utilize what you're working with.
Sign In or Register to comment.