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

1141142144146147153

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,072
    Daniel Craig´s salary, according to the IMDB:
    Casino Royale (2006) $3.200.000
    Quantum of Solace (2008) $7.200.000
    Cowboys & Aliens (2011) $6.000.000
    Dream House (2011) $5.000.000
    The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo$6.000.000
    Skyfall (2012) $17.000.000 plus bonuses for certain box-office milestones
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0185819/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
    By the way, if Deadline article is right, EON and MGM had an incredibly good deal with Sony.

    Yeah, that Amy Pascal was one ditsy airhead.
  • Daniel Craig´s salary, according to the IMDB:
    Casino Royale (2006) $3.200.000
    Quantum of Solace (2008) $7.200.000
    Cowboys & Aliens (2011) $6.000.000
    Dream House (2011) $5.000.000
    The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo$6.000.000
    Skyfall (2012) $17.000.000 plus bonuses for certain box-office milestones
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0185819/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
    By the way, if Deadline article is right, EON and MGM had an incredibly good deal with Sony.

    The 75-25 split between MGM and Sony is correct. That came out during the Sony hacking.

    For Skyfall, according to a Wall Street Journal story quoting the hacked documents, for Skyfall, MGM got $175 million, Danjaq got $109 million and Sony got $57 million.

    Sony desperately wanted to keep Bond and Pascal agreed to a very disadvantageous deal. Pascal's gone and her successors presumably would want something better. It also remains to be seen whether other studios would accept a deal like the one Sony had the past two movies.
  • Posts: 721
    kultschar wrote: »
    Is that accurate?

    I mean "Craig’s deal is not very rich – $7M upfront plus about $4M on the back end"

    sounds very low to me?

    Does someone know what Craig's SP salary/bonus actually was, because this new Deadline quote looks highly suspicious. Wonder who the source was. It would be irrational to expect him to get about half the salary/bonus structure he got for the billion grossing SF. He reportedly got 17 plus bonuses for SF which should have easily taken his take over $20 million.

    If this is anywhere near accurate, Craig should fire his agent for collusion with Pascal and EON, which was sort of hinted at in the leaks. The agent and Pascal are supposed to be best friends. Who was his agent representing? I would think he made at least twice the quoted amount, so given the sources for the story, something is very fishy, or Craig is a fool to agree to such rotten terms.


  • smitty wrote: »
    kultschar wrote: »
    Is that accurate?

    I mean "Craig’s deal is not very rich – $7M upfront plus about $4M on the back end"

    sounds very low to me?

    Does someone know what Craig's SP salary/bonus actually was, because this new Deadline quote looks highly suspicious. Wonder who the source was. It would be irrational to expect him to get about half the salary/bonus structure he got for the billion grossing SF. He reportedly got 17 plus bonuses for SF which should have easily taken his take over $20 million.

    If this is anywhere near accurate, Craig should fire his agent for collusion with Pascal and EON, which was sort of hinted at in the leaks. The agent and Pascal are supposed to be best friends. Who was his agent representing? I would think he made at least twice the quoted amount, so given the sources for the story, something is very fishy, or Craig is a fool to agree to such rotten terms.


    And if the story isn't accurate and Craig really got paid more, that leads to the possibility that SPECTRE's profits are lower than estimated by Deadline.
  • edited March 2016 Posts: 721
    True. What I don't understand is how Deadline could print that salary figure. It sounds so crazy that he'd take possibly less than half his salary/bonus for SF after it grossed a billion and that he set up by offering Mendes and Bardem their jobs. The writers aren't idiots, so how could they print it without some serious source at Sony or where ever giving them the figures. Just sounds like some redirection stuff going on. It makes all the profit figures kind of suspect.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Does anyone know how reliable the imdb salary figures (for anyone) are? Some figures there have seemed pretty suspicious to me, but are they considered to be reliable in general, or just some random guesses? (The selection of movies for which salaries are given can seem pretty random, too.) What are the sources for such info?
  • Posts: 721
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Does anyone know how reliable the imdb salary figures (for anyone) are? Some figures there have seemed pretty suspicious to me, but are they considered to be reliable in general, or just some random guesses? (The selection of movies for which salaries are given can seem pretty random, too.) What are the sources for such info?

    The problem with the sources, which in the case of the Deadline article, is likely Sony, is that the studio suits lie like crazy for all kinds of self protection agendas. Craig's salary figure in this recent article is totally suspicious as it could not possibly be the case that after a billion gross, and 3 successful films, he'd let his salary get cut in half for his final film. No one is that dumb, not even a movie star. Someone at Sony is giving phony figures to Deadline, but why aren't the Deadline writers questioning it given how illogical the figure is. Collusion between certain suits at Sony and Deadline editors maybe. They are all in bed together.

  • Posts: 2,081
    smitty wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Does anyone know how reliable the imdb salary figures (for anyone) are? Some figures there have seemed pretty suspicious to me, but are they considered to be reliable in general, or just some random guesses? (The selection of movies for which salaries are given can seem pretty random, too.) What are the sources for such info?

    The problem with the sources, which in the case of the Deadline article, is likely Sony, is that the studio suits lie like crazy for all kinds of self protection agendas. Craig's salary figure in this recent article is totally suspicious as it could not possibly be the case that after a billion gross, and 3 successful films, he'd let his salary get cut in half for his final film. No one is that dumb, not even a movie star. Someone at Sony is giving phony figures to Deadline, but why aren't the Deadline writers questioning it given how illogical the figure is. Collusion between certain suits at Sony and Deadline editors maybe. They are all in bed together.

    Yes, I get the problem with the Deadline article, and I don't trust those numbers any more than you do. I was asking about the imdb figures (they sometimes seem crazy, too), and if they can be trusted, either (not just concerning Craig and Bond, but in general), and what the sources normally are. If all salary figures come from equally unreliable sources then how can we even compare any figures? Or how do we know when a figure is actually correct? It wouldn't surprise me if, like you say, they're all in bed together, but how do we know that the previous figures are any more correct then?

  • edited March 2016 Posts: 721
    Tuulia wrote: »
    smitty wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Does anyone know how reliable the imdb salary figures (for anyone) are? Some figures there have seemed pretty suspicious to me, but are they considered to be reliable in general, or just some random guesses? (The selection of movies for which salaries are given can seem pretty random, too.) What are the sources for such info?

    The problem with the sources, which in the case of the Deadline article, is likely Sony, is that the studio suits lie like crazy for all kinds of self protection agendas. Craig's salary figure in this recent article is totally suspicious as it could not possibly be the case that after a billion gross, and 3 successful films, he'd let his salary get cut in half for his final film. No one is that dumb, not even a movie star. Someone at Sony is giving phony figures to Deadline, but why aren't the Deadline writers questioning it given how illogical the figure is. Collusion between certain suits at Sony and Deadline editors maybe. They are all in bed together.

    Yes, I get the problem with the Deadline article, and I don't trust those numbers any more than you do. I was asking about the imdb figures (they sometimes seem crazy, too), and if they can be trusted, either (not just concerning Craig and Bond, but in general), and what the sources normally are. If all salary figures come from equally unreliable sources then how can we even compare any figures? Or how do we know when a figure is actually correct? It wouldn't surprise me if, like you say, they're all in bed together, but how do we know that the previous figures are any more correct then?

    We can't. It's called Hollywood accounting. The stores about current $$ splits are all bs. It will be years before the real figures on these deals play out in the media. The studio, agents, and PR sources plant all kinds of crap in the press, and the press are on their knees, and will write what they are told, if they want to get more "exclusives" and keep access. The Craig figures were particularly laughable as he has been reported to have made as much as $60 million for SP, which is also laughable. Sony is likely the source for these figures. One thing seems clear, MGM is getting far more than they deserve. A case can be made for EON and Sony, but MGM is a shell of what they once were and simply is lucky as hell to partially own the franchise given the history of poor management at that studio.

    Just for the heck of it, if I were to guess what Craig earned on SP, it would be about $20m salary and anywhere from $5 to $10 million back end, given he was a co-producer. No doubt he made many millions from Omega and the other product placements he pushed so I'd guess he made up to $30m total. But who knows what arrangements EON made to pad his salary. I'm just guessing.

  • edited March 2016 Posts: 388
    Maybe 7 million was his salary as an actor, but he earned another 7 million as a co-producer or something like that. IMHO, Deadline article is not 100% reliable, but as estimates, that figures seem more or less right. In my view, there are two bottom lines:
    1.- SP is profitable, which means that Bond will return and explains why producers want Craig back.
    2.- MGM and EON/Danjaq grab the lion´s share of SF and SP. We do know actual SF profit shares: MGM got $175 million, EON/Danjaq got $109 million and Sony got $57 million. Now, with SP, it might be: MGM getting 75 million, EON/Danjaq getting 50 million and Sony getting just 25 million. So, in spite of SF and SP success, MGM and EON won´t get such a good deal very easily.
  • Posts: 67
    Did anyone notice that according to that article the major share of the profit comes from rental and DVD sales which are either based on preliminary figures or potential end figures. In any case that seems very rough estimate
  • edited March 2016 Posts: 388
    danielcc wrote: »
    Did anyone notice that according to that article the major share of the profit comes from rental and DVD sales which are either based on preliminary figures or potential end figures. In any case that seems very rough estimate
    I understand your view, yes, they are just estimates. However, worldwide home entertainment net income is just about 100 million (62+95 - 18-38).
    Other important factor is that some "costs" are actually money studios pay themselves for making movies, as overheads or interests. I addition, Danjaq/EON share (about 50 million) is accounted as "participation costs".
  • James Bond and the $200 million moral victory from the WSJ:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2016/03/21/james-bond-and-the-200-million-moral-victory/
  • Posts: 1,055
    Regarding the home market for Blu-Ray sales.

    North American market.

    Spectre sold 825,333 units in its first week.

    In comparison for the same time period

    Skyfall sold 1,433,229 units.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Regarding the home market for Blu-Ray sales.

    North American market.

    Spectre sold 825,333 units in its first week.

    In comparison for the same time period

    Skyfall sold 1,433,229 units.

    Bond lost a lot of his audience. Hope that sends EoN back on the ropes.

  • mcdonbb wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Regarding the home market for Blu-Ray sales.

    North American market.

    Spectre sold 825,333 units in its first week.

    In comparison for the same time period

    Skyfall sold 1,433,229 units.

    Bond lost a lot of his audience. Hope that sends EoN back on the ropes.

    In terms of theater ticket sales for North America, SPECTRE fell back to the 23 million to 27 million range that has been the case since GoldenEye in 1995. The one exception was Skyfall, which was 38 million.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Regarding the home market for Blu-Ray sales.

    North American market.

    Spectre sold 825,333 units in its first week.

    In comparison for the same time period

    Skyfall sold 1,433,229 units.

    Bond lost a lot of his audience. Hope that sends EoN back on the ropes.

    That's the US audience. The rest of the world, especially Europe thinks otherwise.
    Spectre breaks records on the home media market, which will make up easily for the US market.
  • No surprise, but with the $200M mark in hand, SPECTRE finally is out of U.S. theaters.

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/counts/chart/?yr=2016&wk=13&p=.htm
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    My understanding is that US ticket profitability is higher than in overseas, and particularly Asian markets, due to deals with theatre chains and the like. I can't recall where that was mentioned, but I think it was in fact here. That would suggest that a $ of US box office is still more attractive to the bottom line than an equivalent $ elsewhere.

    Costs are measured in US $ as well, and from a cost management perspective, it is always preferable to match the revenue stream to the cost on a currency basis, to avoid costly hedging etc. At least that is how it is in other industries.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Regarding the home market for Blu-Ray sales.

    North American market.

    Spectre sold 825,333 units in its first week.

    In comparison for the same time period

    Skyfall sold 1,433,229 units.

    Bond lost a lot of his audience. Hope that sends EoN back on the ropes.

    That's the US audience. The rest of the world, especially Europe thinks otherwise.
    Spectre breaks records on the home media market, which will make up easily for the US market.

    Financially maybe but international reviews were just as mixed. Somewhat less heavy handed but the same criticisms. In my opinion at least. I'm glad you loved SP. I'm a SF guy ...but we're both fans :)
  • Posts: 1,055
    No surprise, but with the $200M mark in hand, SPECTRE finally is out of U.S. theaters.

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/counts/chart/?yr=2016&wk=13&p=.htm

    Yes i checked that..............BUT i've noticed in the past sometimes Boxofficemojo doesn't always list all the films theatre counts, for every week.

    I will wait to see this weekends BO chart to confirm, whether SP has indeed finished its run this Thursday, or whether it will still be playing at a handful of sites for another week.

    :)
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Regarding the home market for Blu-Ray sales.

    North American market.

    Spectre sold 825,333 units in its first week.

    In comparison for the same time period

    Skyfall sold 1,433,229 units.

    Bond lost a lot of his audience. Hope that sends EoN back on the ropes.

    That's the US audience. The rest of the world, especially Europe thinks otherwise.
    Spectre breaks records on the home media market, which will make up easily for the US market.

    Financially maybe but international reviews were just as mixed. Somewhat less heavy handed but the same criticisms. In my opinion at least. I'm glad you loved SP. I'm a SF guy ...but we're both fans :)

    That's for sure :)
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2016 Posts: 10,388
    Bond is a franchise that doesn't rely on the US, cinematically or for home viewing. That's always been its advantage. When the US takes to it, it's a bonus.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    RC7 wrote: »
    Bond is a franchise that doesn't rely on the US, cinematically or for home viewing. That's always been its advantage. When the US takes to it, it's a bonus.

    And that's good. I want Bond to stay alive...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Bond has no risk of 'dying' really. It will always be around. It may go away for a while and be reimagined, but like Batman, it's a bulletproof franchise.

    Some films are just more successful (culturally, critically and box office wise) than others, as are some actor's tenures. That's to be expected.

    Like any other industry, to stay relevant in a global expanding market, it needs to change with the times. This is a money business after all, despite the Broccoli/Wilson involvement. That is where it risks alienating some of us long time fans. As long as they can retain the essential Britishness of Bond compared to other franchises while adapting, I'll be happy. We're probably unlikely however to get something as 'pure' as DN/FRWL again, which is why CR was such a revelation - something to cherish.
  • Posts: 1,055
    Well far from finishing its run, SP is now playing in a whopping 14 theatres in North America, with an estimated $10k haul on Friday.
    It looks like SP is on a Titanic type run. I wonder when the film will hit $300 mil? :D
  • Posts: 45
    Heh, SP just won't give up will it. Always makes me wonder what kind of theaters they are that play these movies so many months after release. It seems like there's always 10-30 theaters or so that will hold onto these movies forever. Not sure if they are 2nd run theaters, or just cinemas with 20+ screens that hold out a single showing for a movie forever.

    Wish there was one around me that would do that. I'd go check out SP one more time in theaters, just to get my bond theater fix in again before the long wait for bond 25.
  • Posts: 3,255
    And skyfall went from 200 theatres to 0?
  • edited March 2016 Posts: 3,255
    Delete
  • Posts: 1,055
    Heh, SP just won't give up will it. Always makes me wonder what kind of theaters they are that play these movies so many months after release. It seems like there's always 10-30 theaters or so that will hold onto these movies forever. Not sure if they are 2nd run theaters, or just cinemas with 20+ screens that hold out a single showing for a movie forever.

    Wish there was one around me that would do that. I'd go check out SP one more time in theaters, just to get my bond theater fix in again before the long wait for bond 25.

    I believe someone here mentioned recently that SP is just playing at the drive-in theatres in the USA.

Sign In or Register to comment.