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

1137138140142143153

Comments

  • Posts: 1,580
    Those families had other options in 2012 as well.
  • Jesus... again...
    I said it before and will say it again and again until some people get it:
    SP had almost exactly as many tickets sold as did SF globally!
    All this nonsense Box office Dollar comparisons really are of no help and just diluting.
    From all the major markets, only in the US (and in France) the movie did not do as well.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 1,985
    It did not do as well in South-Korea either and not as well as it "should" have done in China. Both should be major markets for Bond, but they are not, and for the latter this could have some influence in the future I'm afraid.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    dalton wrote: »
    just cause it didn't make a lot of money here doesn't mean we didn't get it.I think that is a cop out.

    Agreed. I think we "got it" over here in the States. Spectre really isn't sophisticated enough of a film for anyone to not "get it". We "got it", but what we got just wasn't very good.

    Exactly... maybe we aren't the ones that didn't get it :P
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    SP has a great many elements that are sophisticated and deep about it, but some, as they did for QoS, ignore it as they listen to the negative voices stomping it down.

    When there's this much drowning, mopey negativity around, it's very easy to have the love you hold for Bond sucked out of you, no matter how positive you are. After my first watch of the film, I didn't know fully well how I felt because I came here to moans and groans of what people saw as a dreadful Bond effort. After seeing it an additional two times, I find myself concerned about what some may be smoking.

    The way people act, it's like EON were caught dangling babies over vats of acid or stuffing kittens into blenders. SP isn't perfect-you guys know that's not possible, right-but there's so much to love about it. It's such a breath of fresh air at times, exploring quiet, human moments in favor of mindless action, the Tangier hotel scene being just one example. It's packed with little moments that make you wonder about Bond and his world.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Yes the Tangier hotel room is a very impressive scene. Mendes doing well there.

    Many other scenes I enjoyed as well. For me it's not equal to the sum of its parts.

    My opinion by the way is not influenced by negative reviews. It's simply my opinion.

  • Posts: 4,325
    SP has a great many elements that are sophisticated and deep about it, but some, as they did for QoS, ignore it as they listen to the negative voices stomping it down.

    When there's this much drowning, mopey negativity around, it's very easy to have the love you hold for Bond sucked out of you, no matter how positive you are. After my first watch of the film, I didn't know fully well how I felt because I came here to moans and groans of what people saw as a dreadful Bond effort. After seeing it an additional two times, I find myself concerned about what some may be smoking.

    The way people act, it's like EON were caught dangling babies over vats of acid or stuffing kittens into blenders. SP isn't perfect-you guys know that's not possible, right-but there's so much to love about it. It's such a breath of fresh air at times, exploring quiet, human moments in favor of mindless action, the Tangier hotel scene being just one example. It's packed with little moments that make you wonder about Bond and his world.

    Yeah I didn't really get the negativity. Not saying it's not wrong to point out the flaws in the film as there are some, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's better than a good number of other Bond films.
  • Posts: 1,580
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Yes the Tangier hotel room is a very impressive scene. Mendes doing well there.

    Many other scenes I enjoyed as well. For me it's not equal to the sum of its parts.

    My opinion by the way is not influenced by negative reviews. It's simply my opinion.

    Agreed. There are some good scenes in the film and it does have its share of positives.

    Also agreed on the negative opinions. Mine aren't informed by negative reviews either. It is possible to see something and dislike it on its own merits rather than only disliking it because you've been "told" to.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I agree @mcdonbb. It's a decent enough film but not the greatest thing since sliced bread, and flawed. The conversations on this forum discussing its negatives have not been, for the most part, hateful, but substantive imho. The same goes for the positives.

    Some films draw such criticisms and that's fine with me. Not everything is equal and not everything should be equal. To suggest that SP is the best Bond film out of 24 (as some do) seems a little unreasonable just on a probability basis. Similarly, to suggest it's the worst also seems unreasonable, again only on a probability basis. However, one is entitled to dislike it viscerally and to like it passionately.

    The expectations for this film were huge in every way (box office, critical praise, action, characterizations etc. etc.) because of SF resonating with so many. That is why it is feeling the heat in some quarters. I have no problem with opinions either way.

    If it's truly a great film, then like all art, it will begun to appreciated as such with time. Even DAF is getting a bit of a renaissance here these days.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,072
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree @mcdonbb. It's a decent enough film but not the greatest thing since sliced bread, and flawed. The conversations on this forum discussing its negatives have not been, for the most part, hateful, but substantive imho. The same goes for the positives.

    Some films draw such criticisms and that's fine with me. Not everything is equal and not everything should be equal. To suggest that SP is the best Bond film out of 24 (as some do) seems a little unreasonable just on a probability basis. Similarly, to suggest it's the worst also seems unreasonable, again only on a probability basis. However, one is entitled to dislike it viscerally and to like it passionately.

    The expectations for this film were huge in every way (box office, critical praise, action, characterizations etc. etc.) because of SF resonating with so many. That is why it is feeling the heat in some quarters. I have no problem with opinions either way.

    If it's truly a great film, then like all art, it will begun to appreciated as such with time. Even DAF is getting a bit of a renaissance here these days.

    I think DAF is genuinely underrated by a lot of fans. Connery's rotund figure and lackidasical attitude fits with the story perfectly. I love how this small time crime caper opens up into a full blown world domination scheme. It's ludicrious, but this is what bond does best. Barry's score is simply stunning as the diamond satellite unfurls and reeks havok across the globe. That sequence is my favourite; the frantic communication between Whyte and his men as they piece together the puzzle, Bond stumbling across Blofeld's offshore base by chance.

    Wint and Kidd manage to be both hilarious and menacing at the same time, as they haunt the actors in this little operation. Whenever their (brilliant) theme starts, you know another victim will be taken. But no one is safe, and no one is innocent. The sheer amount of attempted doublecrosses in this picture makes your head spin! Even Dr Metz looks like he will betray ESB at the end, grab a lifejacket and take his chances. :))
  • My issue is not that people are pointing out some negative aspects of the film. My issue is that some people are calling for wholesale reboots, firings and complete changes in direction based on one subpar (in some people's opinion) film. Some have even gone as far as saying that Barbara and Michael are lost and that EON has no clue what they're doing! That's what irritates me, and the fact that we have 19 different threads basically saying the same thing. That tells me that some of the negative people here have attempted to hijack the forums with their revisionist history for whatever reasons.

    And to top things off, these are the same people who are also saying that the Craig era is now in danger of being a failure because of this one movie! I don't get the motives of these people who do that. Even if this movie was trash, which it's not, why would anyone label this era as a failure of based on one bad movie? I just don't get the thinking of some people around here.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    This isn't life or death; they're just movies. Try not to get too worked up over these things. Some people share sentiments that you agree with, others may talk a load of crap.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    My issue is not that people are pointing out some negative aspects of the film. My issue is that some people are calling for wholesale reboots, firings and complete changes in direction based on one subpar (in some people's opinion) film. Some have even gone as far as saying that Barbara and Michael are lost and that EON has no clue what they're doing! That's what irritates me, and the fact that we have 19 different threads basically saying the same thing. That tells me that some of the negative people here have attempted to hijack the forums with their revisionist history for whatever reasons.

    And to top things off, these are the same people who are also saying that the Craig era is now in danger of being a failure because of this one movie! I don't get the motives of these people who do that. Even if this movie was trash, which it's not, why would anyone label this era as a failure of based on one bad movie? I just don't get the thinking of some people around here.

    Oh it's all very simple. Those people you are describing are the SF fanatics who thought SF will be the blueprint for every new Bond movie to come in the future, because it was critically so acclaimed and successful.
    Now they have to deal with the reality, that it is possible for a more "Brosnan-Moore" style Craig movie to be nearly as successful as SF.
    I'm almost glad, SP didn't make the 1.1 billion, those people would have gone berserk.

    Luckily EON and Mendes realised, that just copying SF or make SP a SF Part II would be a huge mistake and probably then, the movie would have "bombed" to use a popular word for failure.

    To claim Craig's tenure will be hurt by SP is so ridiculous that it is almost funny.
  • Posts: 1,038
    My issue is not that people are pointing out some negative aspects of the film. My issue is that some people are calling for wholesale reboots, firings and complete changes in direction based on one subpar (in some people's opinion) film. Some have even gone as far as saying that Barbara and Michael are lost and that EON has no clue what they're doing! That's what irritates me, and the fact that we have 19 different threads basically saying the same thing. That tells me that some of the negative people here have attempted to hijack the forums with their revisionist history for whatever reasons.

    And to top things off, these are the same people who are also saying that the Craig era is now in danger of being a failure because of this one movie! I don't get the motives of these people who do that. Even if this movie was trash, which it's not, why would anyone label this era as a failure of based on one bad movie? I just don't get the thinking of some people around here.

    Oh it's all very simple. Those people you are describing are the SF fanatics who thought SF will be the blueprint for every new Bond movie to come in the future, because it was critically so acclaimed and successful.
    Now they have to deal with the reality, that it is possible for a more "Brosnan-Moore" style Craig movie to be nearly as successful as SF.
    I'm almost glad, SP didn't make the 1.1 billion, those people would have gone berserk.

    Luckily EON and Mendes realised, that just copying SF or make SP a SF Part II would be a huge mistake and probably then, the movie would have "bombed" to use a popular word for failure.

    To claim Craig's tenure will be hurt by SP is so ridiculous that it is almost funny.

    I agree with both of you. Plus, all these nonsense rumors about him leaving the role and people flip out like reactionary little ninnies. It's ridiculous. The same thing happened when the MGM financial issue was going on a few years back. "Oh, Bond is finished! They'll never make another movie, not for a decade or longer! It's over!"

    Now here we are with two more movies since then and 2 billion dollars at the box office. Go figure.
  • Posts: 11,819
    Regardless of takings? Bond will always be a B/O success!
  • edited March 2016 Posts: 388
    My issue is not that people are pointing out some negative aspects of the film. My issue is that some people are calling for wholesale reboots, firings and complete changes in direction based on one subpar (in some people's opinion) film. Some have even gone as far as saying that Barbara and Michael are lost and that EON has no clue what they're doing! That's what irritates me, and the fact that we have 19 different threads basically saying the same thing. That tells me that some of the negative people here have attempted to hijack the forums with their revisionist history for whatever reasons.

    And to top things off, these are the same people who are also saying that the Craig era is now in danger of being a failure because of this one movie! I don't get the motives of these people who do that. Even if this movie was trash, which it's not, why would anyone label this era as a failure of based on one bad movie? I just don't get the thinking of some people around here.

    Oh it's all very simple. Those people you are describing are the SF fanatics who thought SF will be the blueprint for every new Bond movie to come in the future, because it was critically so acclaimed and successful.
    Now they have to deal with the reality, that it is possible for a more "Brosnan-Moore" style Craig movie to be nearly as successful as SF.
    I'm almost glad, SP didn't make the 1.1 billion, those people would have gone berserk.

    Luckily EON and Mendes realised, that just copying SF or make SP a SF Part II would be a huge mistake and probably then, the movie would have "bombed" to use a popular word for failure.

    To claim Craig's tenure will be hurt by SP is so ridiculous that it is almost funny.
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    My issue is not that people are pointing out some negative aspects of the film. My issue is that some people are calling for wholesale reboots, firings and complete changes in direction based on one subpar (in some people's opinion) film. Some have even gone as far as saying that Barbara and Michael are lost and that EON has no clue what they're doing! That's what irritates me, and the fact that we have 19 different threads basically saying the same thing. That tells me that some of the negative people here have attempted to hijack the forums with their revisionist history for whatever reasons.

    And to top things off, these are the same people who are also saying that the Craig era is now in danger of being a failure because of this one movie! I don't get the motives of these people who do that. Even if this movie was trash, which it's not, why would anyone label this era as a failure of based on one bad movie? I just don't get the thinking of some people around here.

    Oh it's all very simple. Those people you are describing are the SF fanatics who thought SF will be the blueprint for every new Bond movie to come in the future, because it was critically so acclaimed and successful.
    Now they have to deal with the reality, that it is possible for a more "Brosnan-Moore" style Craig movie to be nearly as successful as SF.
    I'm almost glad, SP didn't make the 1.1 billion, those people would have gone berserk.

    Luckily EON and Mendes realised, that just copying SF or make SP a SF Part II would be a huge mistake and probably then, the movie would have "bombed" to use a popular word for failure.

    To claim Craig's tenure will be hurt by SP is so ridiculous that it is almost funny.

    I agree with both of you. Plus, all these nonsense rumors about him leaving the role and people flip out like reactionary little ninnies. It's ridiculous. The same thing happened when the MGM financial issue was going on a few years back. "Oh, Bond is finished! They'll never make another movie, not for a decade or longer! It's over!"

    Now here we are with two more movies since then and 2 billion dollars at the box office. Go figure.

    I agree 100% ^:)^ :)>- =D> =D> =D>
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    That's not necessarily true. I didn't want SF2. Just wanted better SP.
  • Posts: 3,766
    So Spectre is on the up. Last Friday in 92 screens it took $6.3k, this Friday in 63 screens it has taken an estimated $9k.

    Only $136k to go.
  • Posts: 7,277
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Sadly SPECTRE has too much succes, a little less would have convinced EON perhaps to put in a bit more effort in a good script and less soap.
    Now we get probably more of the same half-arsed script with way too expensive action-scenes that pack no excitement at all.

    There's no such thing as "too much success". Spectre did as well as it did because people like it. As others have alluded to on this thread, the ones who did not like this movie are the ones who are touting it as a "failure". It may not be a perfect film, but it's still a pretty darn good one, and the NA and worldwide box office reflect that.

    By your logic Star Wars was a bloody brilliant movie as it made twice as much and not to speak of all the other movies that did better this year.

    And yes they were all better as they did use their franchises history far better than Mendes 007 movies have. And the scripts were better but that is not such an accomplishment when compared to SF & SP.

    But you missed the point I was making. The movie with all its shortcomings made too much money to sway EON and financiers to change direction away from the bloody soap that Mendes has turned it into.

  • $30,000....$199,885,714 (US and Canada)
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    So close...
  • Posts: 3,766
    Spectre crawls on like Dalton at the end of the tanker chase.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    That's all so funny.

    But what's the obsession with that 200 million?? It's not like it will expand the overall BO dramatically.
  • Posts: 10,853
    The figures, we want them " Perfectly Rounded" :D
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    The figures, we want them " Perfectly Rounded" :D

    :)) ...you're just on a role today, aren't you?
  • Posts: 10,853
    We all love to use a Bond quote. ;)
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Precisely
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    vzok wrote: »
    Spectre crawls on like Dalton at the end of the tanker chase.

    It never performs any stupendous tricks, though. Don't you want to know why?
  • Posts: 67
    recent update as of March 06th



    Domestic: $199,885,471 22.7%
    + Foreign: $680,500,000 77.3%


    = Worldwide: $880,385,471
  • Posts: 67
    SP is no. 23 of the list of highest grossing movies of all time internationall outside the US (non adjusted for inflation) and hardly any movie that did better was 2D or non animation
Sign In or Register to comment.