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

1124125127129130153

Comments

  • Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    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.

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ ;-)

    24 movies now have grossed more than $1 Billion. Of which the majority of the films, 17 (!), have been produced in or after 2010. It becomes way easier to cross the $1 Billion threshold. And that's due to the inflation rise that will never stop.

    BUT, and here's my but, with inflation corrections applied to much older movies, like "Thunderball", those new $1 Billion-movies are nowhere as succesful as those older pictures. And that's due to the insidious increase of production budgets, thus a much lower ROI for movies that are much newer.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 38,268
    And due to that inflation-rise, $1 billion releases will eventually become 'common,' like in five to ten years as I noted, perhaps longer. It's becoming easier and easier as time goes on.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I wouldn't want Bond to have to become like any one of the films that grossed more than it did in worldwide box office for 2015.

    It may have to become like those films to appeal to a broader audience and make more money, and as I said earlier on this thread, even if it had grossed SF money, it wouldn't have mattered to its 2015 global box office rank. It would have stayed at 6. I wouldn't want them to make the film in 3D either.

    The only release to outgross it last year that wasn't 3D was that partial 3D release FF7, the true anomaly of 2015 imho.

    SP did fine all things considered. If they can just get the budget to more reasonable levels, $900m next time out will make it immensely profitable.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    I wouldn't want Bond to have to become like any one of the films that grossed more than it did in worldwide box office for 2015.

    It may have to become like those films to appeal to a broader audience and make more money, and as I said earlier on this thread, even if it had grossed SF money, it wouldn't have mattered to its 2015 global box office rank. It would have stayed at 6. I wouldn't want them to make the film in 3D either.

    The only release to outgross it last year that wasn't 3D was that partial 3D release FF7, the true anomaly of 2015 imho.

    SP did fine all things considered. If they can just get the budget to more reasonable levels, $900m next time out will make it immensely profitable.

    Box office success and film quality for me are two entirely separate things. So saying that you don't want a Bond film to do better than expected isn't by no means some kind of 'silent danger'.

    I think both can be achieved: A) A near perfect gem of a film, and B) A wonderful box office success. Both shouldn't be necessarily linked together.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think both can be achieved: A) A near perfect gem of a film, and B) A wonderful box office success. Both shouldn't be necessarily linked together.
    I agree they can both be achieved, but just think about how difficult that is to in fact achieve consistently, with a film and character that are bound by certain audience expectations and constraints, without totally going off the deep end.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think both can be achieved: A) A near perfect gem of a film, and B) A wonderful box office success. Both shouldn't be necessarily linked together.
    I agree they can both be achieved, but just think about how difficult that is to in fact achieve consistently, with a film and character that are bound by certain audience expectations and constraints, without totally going off the deep end.

    I think it is the task of good directors and producers to be numb for audience expectations and working with the constraints of the Bond franchise formula. Really. Being sober and cool, is all you can and should do. I'm no member of any movie crew, but I do think that a good film starts with a thrilling idea. A sense of "Ooowh Babs! Damn, I have a wonderful idea!" :-)

    Ahhh well, who am I :-P.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 38,268
    bondjames wrote: »
    I wouldn't want Bond to have to become like any one of the films that grossed more than it did in worldwide box office for 2015.

    It may have to become like those films to appeal to a broader audience and make more money, and as I said earlier on this thread, even if it had grossed SF money, it wouldn't have mattered to its 2015 global box office rank. It would have stayed at 6. I wouldn't want them to make the film in 3D either.

    The only release to outgross it last year that wasn't 3D was that partial 3D release FF7, the true anomaly of 2015 imho.

    SP did fine all things considered. If they can just get the budget to more reasonable levels, $900m next time out will make it immensely profitable.

    Box office success and film quality for me are two entirely separate things. So saying that you don't want a Bond film to do better than expected isn't by no means some kind of 'silent danger'.

    I think both can be achieved: A) A near perfect gem of a film, and B) A wonderful box office success. Both shouldn't be necessarily linked together.

    Agreed. Because as I've said before, if that was the case, 'Avatar' and 'Titanic' would be the best films of all time.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think both can be achieved: A) A near perfect gem of a film, and B) A wonderful box office success. Both shouldn't be necessarily linked together.
    I agree they can both be achieved, but just think about how difficult that is to in fact achieve consistently, with a film and character that are bound by certain audience expectations and constraints, without totally going off the deep end.

    Yes, it's the consistency that throws up the problems. They were coming off the back of an enormous hit, so I can't call them out for doing what they did with SP. It was in some ways inevitable. But I agree, the content has to be front and centre, the box office will do what it does. The film makers craft the film, the viewers deliver the Box Office. I'm almost certain there will be a Bond film in the next decade or so that is infinitely better than SF, but won't generate the equivalent BO and I'd rather that than the reverse. I don't want Bond films to be trapped in this nonsensical tussle at the top. There's not a single 'classic' in the all time top 10. That was never really the case before, but that's the industry now.
  • Posts: 1,680
    SP cost about 50 million more to make than SF. Not bad considering the amount of great locations we got to visit. I think making a film is much more costly than we realize.

    Mexico City & Austria are where the main $$$ were spent if I had to guess.

    As for the box office, I stand by the fact that US critics were too hard on the film giving it such a mixed reception which turned people off from going to see it, I know it for sure. I had talked to & asked a lot of people.



  • Posts: 1,092
    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.



    Nonsense. If the formula was easy to replicate EVERY SINGLE MOVIE made would do it. It's a business, pure and simple. And making a billion dollars is NEVER guaranteed for anything.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Gustave, I wonder about you. You were always the much needed positive sunshine around here, what not all but many appreciated until that parachute guy gave you the final slap in the face. Since your return you have mutated into one of those negative, overly critical ( just for the sake of it from many, I believe) posters, which isca far cry from your forum personality over a long time. I think, this is on purpose to jot get silly responsesvand attacks anymore. Understandable but sad. This forum needs the sunshine. Of the other it always had enough.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,135
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    SP cost about 50 million more to make than SF. Not bad considering the amount of great locations we got to visit. I think making a film is much more costly than we realize.

    Mexico City & Austria are where the main $$$ were spent if I had to guess.

    As for the box office, I stand by the fact that US critics were too hard on the film giving it such a mixed reception which turned people off from going to see it, I know it for sure. I had talked to & asked a lot of people.



    Making a film is costly that much has always been clear but the Bond movies evidently are lacking when it comes to knowing about being judicial with their spending. The cheapest Bond movie of the Craig era, CR, ironically looks like the most expensive of the 4 movies. The action set piece in Austria in SP was elaborate, costly but hollow and underwhelming. I didn't appreciate it at all. Then Morocco was completely wasted and had they opted for something different i.e. gone with the dinner scene instead of the computer room full of cyber clones and opted for a more dynamic shootout that didn't result in a ridiculously easy escape and the most expensive and wasteful explosion ever, they could have saved a few bob. Then there's Rome...the amount of wasted opportunity there is staggering. EoN need to do better. Much better and you don't need to be a movie wizard to know this.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Gustave, I wonder about you. You were always the much needed positive sunshine around here, what not all but many appreciated until that parachute guy gave you the final slap in the face. Since your return you have mutated into one of those negative, overly critical ( just for the sake of it from many, I believe) posters, which isca far cry from your forum personality over a long time. I think, this is on purpose to jot get silly responsesvand attacks anymore. Understandable but sad. This forum needs the sunshine. Of the other it always had enough.

    I try to do my best. I was just a bit annoyed yesterday, in part because of how things are moderated here. That's all :-). I hope that I am an overly critical, yet positive sounding chap though.

    Have you read my two articles from HMSSblog @Germanlady?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Gustave, I wonder about you. You were always the much needed positive sunshine around here, what not all but many appreciated until that parachute guy gave you the final slap in the face. Since your return you have mutated into one of those negative, overly critical ( just for the sake of it from many, I believe) posters, which isca far cry from your forum personality over a long time. I think, this is on purpose to jot get silly responsesvand attacks anymore. Understandable but sad. This forum needs the sunshine. Of the other it always had enough.

    I try to do my best. I was just a bit annoyed yesterday, in part because of how things are moderated here. That's all :-). I hope that I am an overly critical, yet positive sounding chap though.

    Have you read my two articles from HMSSblog @Germanlady?

    Glad you're back btw.
  • Posts: 45
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    23rd highest grossing movie of all time in the U.S.? I see nothing wrong with that statistic.

    It's FAR from 23rd highest grossing film in the U.S. I believe what the previous poster meant was when converted to US Dollars, its the 23rd highest grossing film internationally.

    In the U.S., it's currently 164th highest of all time.
  • Posts: 45
    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.

    They also destroyed 7 of those DB10's for the filming of that car chase, for a grand total of 37 million. Not sure how they managed to destroy 7 of them for the car chase that we got, but yea..

    http://fortune.com/2015/09/28/bond-aston-martin-spectre/
  • Posts: 1,627
    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.

    They also destroyed 7 of those DB10's for the filming of that car chase, for a grand total of 37 million. Not sure how they managed to destroy 7 of them for the car chase that we got, but yea..

    http://fortune.com/2015/09/28/bond-aston-martin-spectre/

    It took 7 Aston Martin's to film that chase? Wow. That money was very poorly spent.

  • edited January 2016 Posts: 45

    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.


    I agree. While I do think Skyfall did have a few things going for it, I don't believe they are as big as everyone makes them out to be.

    The 50th anniversary? Nobody cares but bond fans, and we were all going to see the movie anyways.

    The Olympics with the Queen? Sorry, but nobody outside of England really cared all that much about that.

    The perfect timing of a story about hacking? Tons of movies have perfectly timed stories.

    The high praise/reviews/RT scores? I would like to think critics wouldn't give a film high marks because of hype around it, but rather because the film itself is good. Maybe I give critics too much credit though :D

    Sure all these things may have combined to help, but them alone wouldn't make double what QoS made. The movie did so good IMO because it's a fantastic movie, with great directing, acting, screenplay, cinematography, music, and decent enough writing. The entire movie from start to the mansion is a masterpiece IMO, especially most of that 2nd act.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    The movie did so good IMO because it's a fantastic movie, with great directing, acting, screenplay, cinematography, music, and decent enough writing.
    On this I completely agree. SF certainly had its flaws, and some may not like the angst and personal angle, but overall it was an excellent, high quality product imho, and I did enjoy it very much. A different kind of Bond film, but executed very well & confidently. This is the key - the execution of the premise.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    The movie did so good IMO because it's a fantastic movie, with great directing, acting, screenplay, cinematography, music, and decent enough writing.
    On this I completely agree. SF certainly had its flaws, and some may not like the angst and personal angle, but overall it was an excellent, high quality product imho, and I did enjoy it very much. A different kind of Bond film, but executed very well & confidently. This is the key - the execution of the premise.

    Fully agree here @BondJames. This was the basic and main ingredient for this insane box office gross of $1.1 Billion.

    And to compare it with "SPECTRE", which was born under a very troublesome starry sky (SonyLeaks), it still grosses $876 Million as of now. What if the stars were slightly better, but not as good as "Skyfall"? :-)
  • Posts: 12,436
    That's still a damn fine return regardless of the budget!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 38,268
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    That's still a damn fine return regardless of the budget!

    Which is what I've been saying all along, and yet others don't seem to agree. I guess if you handed some of these people $200 million+ for free, they wouldn't be impressed by that return. Suppose it's pocket change to some!

  • Posts: 1,627
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Which is what I've been saying all along, and yet others don't seem to agree. I guess if you handed some of these people $200 million+ for free, they wouldn't be impressed by that return. Suppose it's pocket change to some!

    If you're offering, I certainly wouldn't turn down an extra $200 million. ;)

    Seriously, though, Spectre, despite all its shortcomings, has done very well at the box office. It's not a failure by any stretch of the imagination, and if EON and Sony find themselves disappointed by a box office that has come close to $900 million, then that's on them for having unrealistic expectations.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 38,268
    @dalton, I wish I had that kind of money! Someone posted a page or two ago that EON's predictions were actually much less than the $875-ish it's made now, so this should be seen as more of a success by them if they still stood by those estimates. I can't stress it enough, but when did making a $200 million + profit suddenly turn into a bad/mediocre thing? Isn't that...like....a LOT of money still? You bet it is.
  • Posts: 1,627
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @dalton, I wish I had that kind of money!

    You and me both. :)

    I must confess, though, I do hope that I someday reach a level of wealth where I can look at a $200+ million profit as a "disappointment". Must be nice.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 38,268
    dalton wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @dalton, I wish I had that kind of money!

    You and me both. :)

    I must confess, though, I do hope that I someday reach a level of wealth where I can look at a $200+ million profit as a "disappointment". Must be nice.

    A man can dream. Ask those who are disappointed in SP's B.O. return and see, they must know! I said long ago that after SF, we can't expect that to happen with each and every Bond release from here on out, or we're going to be extremely disappointed.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 46
    QOS had a 200 mil budget and had 586mil box-office! I dont think that SP with 250mil budget and 875mil box-office is a disappointment, Its the second most profitable film of the 4 of Daniel!
  • Posts: 1,098
    Do members here realize that a film company only gets back 50% approx of the total film gross?
  • Posts: 6,601
    I don't think, that is right. The question should be, how much do they get of the profits.
    You have like 200 plus profit. Who exactly participates?
  • Posts: 1,680
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    SP cost about 50 million more to make than SF. Not bad considering the amount of great locations we got to visit. I think making a film is much more costly than we realize.

    Mexico City & Austria are where the main $$$ were spent if I had to guess.

    As for the box office, I stand by the fact that US critics were too hard on the film giving it such a mixed reception which turned people off from going to see it, I know it for sure. I had talked to & asked a lot of people.



    Making a film is costly that much has always been clear but the Bond movies evidently are lacking when it comes to knowing about being judicial with their spending. The cheapest Bond movie of the Craig era, CR, ironically looks like the most expensive of the 4 movies. The action set piece in Austria in SP was elaborate, costly but hollow and underwhelming. I didn't appreciate it at all. Then Morocco was completely wasted and had they opted for something different i.e. gone with the dinner scene instead of the computer room full of cyber clones and opted for a more dynamic shootout that didn't result in a ridiculously easy escape and the most expensive and wasteful explosion ever, they could have saved a few bob. Then there's Rome...the amount of wasted opportunity there is staggering. EoN need to do better. Much better and you don't need to be a movie wizard to know this.


    CR looks much cheaper than SP. SP looks way richer in its PTS & portions of Rome than CR.

    The standouts in CR were the African chase, Miami & casino .
Sign In or Register to comment.