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

1125126128130131153

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    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 .
    I wouldn't say much cheaper. I thought the interior of the train sequence in CR looked classier than the SP one (despite all the dressing up in SP). Venice and the Bahamas looked quite decent as well actually, as did the Czech Republic standing in for Montenegro. Let's not forget Lake Como either. I remember being quite impressed with the location work during my pre-SP watch of the film.

    CR certainly does not look 'cheap' imho.
  • Posts: 1,055
    The profits, what ever they are get split between Sony, MGM and EON.

    If you do an internet search you can find out how much of the profits the above listed got for SF. I seem to remember Sony only got $57 mil, the others got a better percentage of the profits.
  • Posts: 11,119
    mepal1 wrote: »
    The profits, what ever they are get split between Sony, MGM and EON.

    If you do an internet search you can find out how much of the profits the above listed got for SF. I seem to remember Sony only got $57 mil, the others got a better percentage of the profits.

    Very good point @Mepal1. That's absolutely true. The profits will be distributed to EON, MGM and Sony. Of which Sony, under this current distribution deal, is the big lower.

    Add on top of that the general rule that a movie starts to break even, only after the worldwide gross has roughlay doubled the initial production budget amount, and you then see that there's not so much to be happy about......money-wise.

    Looking at the initial investment figures, at least EON was expecting to surpass the worldwide gross of "Skyfall", whereas Sony obviously and understandably were much more critical towards EON.

    Like I previously said in my two articles, Michael and Barbara need to stop thinking that they can spend money so lushly as their father did in the 1960's and 1970's. The money has to be spend much wiser, and the "Cubby" motto "The money is on the screen" has to be shelved. Unless the story is so damn good, that huge investments have to be made.

    Look, $876 Million indeed looks wonderful, but looks can be deceitful. Bond has to fight bigger stuff (Marvel, Furious, DC, star Wars), but the first fight will be won with smart investments and a damn good story.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    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 .

    Can't agree with that. Where SF and SP may give the impression of looking more expensive rests within their respective cinematography. The overall production values in CR just looks much better and better utilised than the last 2 Bond entries. They spent their money well in Craig's first outing.
  • Posts: 1,055
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    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 .

    Can't agree with that. Where SF and SP may give the impression of looking more expensive rests within their respective cinematography. The overall production values in CR just looks much better and better utilised than the last 2 Bond entries. They spent their money well in Craig's first outing.

    I agree, for CR EON really got their act together, and apart from being a top notch film story and action wise, the film also looked very classy.
    Unfortunately the film makers lost their heads on the next film!

  • edited January 2016 Posts: 1,055
    SP is losing a further 71 theaters in N.America this coming weekend, so film will be playing at just 217 sites.

  • mepal1 wrote: »
    SP is losing a further 71 theaters in N.America this coming weekend, so film will be playing at just 217 sites.

    *insert non-EON approved gif of Orlov pulling himself along the train tracks*
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,422
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    SP is losing a further 71 theaters in N.America this coming weekend, so film will be playing at just 217 sites.

    *insert non-EON approved gif of Orlov pulling himself along the train tracks*

    Nice
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    RC7 wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    SP is losing a further 71 theaters in N.America this coming weekend, so film will be playing at just 217 sites.

    *insert non-EON approved gif of Orlov pulling himself along the train tracks*

    Nice

    I love that scene ...not SP crawling though :( would prefer cross line then collapse.

    Still good take.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 1,985
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    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.

    These estimates in the Sony leaks were made before the budget went higher than expected. And we still don't know (and probably never will) the effect of Craig's knee injury, which had an effect probably deeper than 2 weeks of "holidays". In the leaks thread, someone claimed to have been told by Mendes how it affected some things in the shooting (and it was probably true IMO).

    What we know is that they had to ask people to be on the set just in case they could shoot someting (ie : Seydoux described as "a prisoner of the Bond company" by the director of the movie she could not make the promotion of).
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    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.

    Just imagine you're the head of the studio who is dealing with EON about the future of the franchise, and compare how you can trash the value of the franchise after SF and after SP... That's their job, in brief, they take all the risks, so they need the better deal they can for them. Just being "less than SF" is already something to trash talk about !

    I'm afraid "Bond should be big in China" is what may have the more influence in the future (it did less than Kingsman, almost half of Mission:Impossible, and for the future, the China market is "the place to be" for the number guys, alas). When it's time to cast a new Bond, I really hope EON will fight, but I'm afraid their partners will ask for "star power", and no risk. I can imagine The Rock as a new henchman, for instance :( [Nothing against the guy, but it's just too "safe"]


  • edited January 2016 Posts: 1,055
    SP's estimated Worldwide gross = $877,470,327

    N.American gross this weekend = est $170,000 for a running total of $199,270,327

    Basically SP made only around $1.5 mil worldwide in the last week.

    Film is virtually at the end of its run theatrical run now. :(
  • Posts: 3,992
    As of january 21st, Spectre had sold 4 968 677 seats in France. Source :

    jpbox-office.com/fichfilm.php?id=14888
  • Posts: 45
    mepal1 wrote: »
    SP's estimated Worldwide gross = $877,470,327

    N.American gross this weekend = est $170,000 for a running total of $199,270,327

    Basically SP made only around $1.5 mil worldwide in the last week.

    Film is virtually at the end of its run theatrical run now. :(

    yea, we're going to end so stupidly close to 200m, but without crossing it.
  • Quick, Sony, do a one week re-release in 3D with deleted scenes!

    I want it to make $199,999,999.
  • Posts: 1,054
    Don't give up hope, Bond fans! Believe and we will achieve!
  • re: Skyfall profits.

    Story first reported here, based on Sony leaks: (story is behind a paywall, but you can get around it by plugging the URL into Google)

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/pursuit-of-james-bond-film-rights-kicks-into-high-gear-1446156132

    MGM profits $175 million, Eon received $109 million, Sony profits $57 million.

    If SPECTRE *matched* Skyfall's box office, Sony would have received $38 million because of the higher budget. With SPECTRE have a lower box office, Sony's profits are lower than that.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Makes you wonder wth is going to happen with this whole studio business because I find it hard to believe any other studio is going to match such a low ball percentage that Sony agreed to.
  • Posts: 6,601
    I cant see, what this whole maths comes from. Lets say SF needed 600 to get even. What happened to the other 500 ? The maths covers 341. Whats with the rest?
  • Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Makes you wonder wth is going to happen with this whole studio business because I find it hard to believe any other studio is going to match such a low ball percentage that Sony agreed to.

    Absolutely. Though I think the brand 'James Bond' also indirectly results in profits and awareness for movie companies. Especially for 2015's biggest loser: Warner Bros.
  • re: Skyfall profits.



    MGM profits $175 million, Eon received $109 million, Sony profits $57 million.

    Can anyone explain exactly how this deal works between MGM-EON-Sony (or A N Other)?

    Sony don't seem to get much out of it, financially or creatively

    One of the reasons, I think, for the continued success of the franchise is EON's guardianship of the 'brand'. What's MGM's role?
  • Posts: 6,601
    Can we explain first maybe, where those figures come from and where the rest of he money is.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 1,055

    Well its good to see 'Scott Mendelson of Forbes' giving a positive outlook on SP and the Bond franchise, as this was the man who wrote a review of the film, stating that he thought SP was the worst Bond film of the last 30 years. :-O
    Anyway, its clear he gets his BO figures from BoxOfficeMojo.

    As he has stated, it does look like SP will fall short of grossing $200 mil in N.America by about 5 cents, as the film is done now, in theaters.
    It was a shame that SP didn't perform better in N.America, but it was clear that the film didn't appeal to American audiences as it had done to Europeans, maybe a culture thing.
    Though i do agree that SP was a love it, or hate it type of film, and didn't have the fun element of an over the top type villain as SF did.

    Regarding SP's position in BO terms in relation to other Bond films in the franchise in the N.American market is not a clear and cut situation.
    Mr Mendelson mentions that SP will fall in last place, against the other Craig Bond films, but this is based on BOMojo's estimated admissions, and BO inflation chart.
    In fact when SP started its run in November, BOMojo had QOS's BO inflation adjusted figure somwhere around the $195 mil mark, then upped it to $201 mil before Xmas, and then recently upped the figure to $204 mil. Umm.......i think a $9 mil increase in just 3 months is way off. In fact BOMojo have been reducing the admission figures for SP, even though more people are still seeing the film. Anyone who uses BOMojo's adjusted ticket figures, can clearly see their system doesn't quite work correctly.

    I personally think the other big BO site 'The-Numbers' has a more representative figure for inflation, as they originally gave QOS's adjusted figure as around $197 mil, and now quote it as $198,7 mil.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger San Demonique
    Posts: 35,966
    After three months, the film is done here, too.
  • Posts: 1,055
    After three months, the film is done here, too.

    Where do you live? :)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger San Demonique
    Posts: 35,966
    Norway.
  • Posts: 1,055
    Norway.

    OK. :)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger San Demonique
    Posts: 35,966
    What, are you coming here to kill me?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    You better find some old codger to help you kill him first.
  • Posts: 1,055
    What, are you coming here to kill me?

    Haha, no, i'am a very friendly person?

    Did you think i was some sort of 'axe wielding homicidal maniac' ? :-O
Sign In or Register to comment.