333 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

It was supposedly in development hell for one single reason. By stepping down Dalton cleared the way for them to move on.

[RMc2]

Ah, so Dalton was the reason?

[SecretAgentFan]

The perception of Dalton.

[Hockey Mask]

Absolutely.  I do not understand why they name a film "SPECTRE" and then desperately cling to a "secret" about Blofeld being part of that film.  
 
For me, "Star Trek Into Darkness" did not need the "Khan"-secret either - but at least it was a surprise for me because the story up to that revelation did not contain anything that related to the original "Khan"-storyline.  After the bad reception of that secret, Mendes should have come right out and said: Yes, we have Spectre and we´re happy to have Christoph Waltz as Blofeld.
 
One might, of course, ask: why do we even debate the box office results?  They are no indicator of quality or personal preference.
 
Yet, they are an indicator for the possible changes that will occur in future installments.  Right now, I would say that "SPECTRE" will be considered as a nice success, bought, however, with a ridiculously escalating budget and fueled by not enough creative ideas to sustain another installment in the same way.  In short:  EON is in a similar position as it was with "DAD".

I think this was a film for a new generation. Most young ones have no idea about Blofeld. Holding back Blofeld's identity was a just way to get more buzz by the Bond fans in the know.

[RMc2]

 

Absolutely.  I do not understand why they name a film "SPECTRE" and then desperately cling to a "secret" about Blofeld being part of that film.  
 
For me, "Star Trek Into Darkness" did not need the "Khan"-secret either - but at least it was a surprise for me because the story up to that revelation did not contain anything that related to the original "Khan"-storyline.  After the bad reception of that secret, Mendes should have come right out and said: Yes, we have Spectre and we´re happy to have Christoph Waltz as Blofeld.
 
One might, of course, ask: why do we even debate the box office results?  They are no indicator of quality or personal preference.
 
Yet, they are an indicator for the possible changes that will occur in future installments.  Right now, I would say that "SPECTRE" will be considered as a nice success, bought, however, with a ridiculously escalating budget and fueled by not enough creative ideas to sustain another installment in the same way.  In short:  EON is in a similar position as it was with "DAD".

I think this was a film for a new generation. Most young ones have no idea about Blofeld. Holding back Blofeld's identity was a just way to get more buzz by the Bond fans in the know.

 

 

Even though I agree with you, it doesn't stop the execution from being poor.

 

Star Trek Into Darkness had the decency to make its big reveal halfway through, thus allowing it to have some resonance in the second half of the film. Sure, it only amounted to "now the villain has superpowers", but the film did something with it.

 

In SP, there's little point in saving the revelation to so late in the film (110 minutes in!). Especially since it also confirms that Oberhauser is Bond's foster brother in the same scene. The significance of their fraternal connection is immediately thrown out in favour of the revelation that he is also Blofeld; but since that name means nothing to Bond in the film, it also means nothing to us as an audience. So all it amounts to is confirmation of something we, the audience, guessed when the film began. It's a lot of build-up to nothing.

 

To make it work, they should really have introduced the name Blofeld much, much earlier. Then they could have had some fun with the double-bluff of "Is he Oberhauser, Blofeld, or both?"

[rubixcub]

Dalton didn't experience the record-breaking financial success of the Craig films, though, so as long as Craig is still perceived as bankable, he can still be considered.

 

I remember being shocked that, just one month into the run, one of the smaller, newer, local theaters had already dropped Bond, though I can't remember for what instead.  Larger theaters held on for quite some time longer, but smaller ones had quick turnover.

 

Has anyone seen this?  Perhaps they are pulling out the stops to get to the magic $200M mark:

https://www.amctheat...=spectre_Promo1

 

Dave

[RMc2]

Wow, they're determined! Good luck getting SP to $200m.

[Professor Pi]

They did a similar thing with GoldenEye, re-releasing it in the spring of 1996 to hit the $100M mark.

[Hockey Mask]

$223K short of two million.

[Tiin007]

BoxOfficeMojo has it as finally having hit $880 million, with less than $115,000 shy of $200 million in North America.

 

Also noteworthy is that, if SPECTRE was indeed still playing in theaters yesterday (daily stats are not available as the film is so close to the end of its run), then it has officially beaten both Casino Royale and Skyfall as Craig's longest run in the cinema. Those two had lasted 17 weeks each (122 days), and yesterday was day 123 for SPECTRE.

 

http://www.boxoffice.../?id=bond24.htm

[SecretAgentFan]

True - but Sony made an effort to keep the film in theatres.  Not because there was still demand.

[RMc2]

Yeah, kudos to Sony for trying. But in general, having the longest run and the lowest adjusted gross isn't very impressive.

[Tiin007]

True - but Sony made an effort to keep the film in theatres.  Not because there was still demand.

 

Yeah, I know. I was saying that I think it's ironic.

[tdalton]

less than $115,000 shy of $200 million in North America.

 

So I guess we've got about $115,000 left to go until Sony/MGM/EON can finally be allowed to consider Spectre "successful".  

[RMc2]

 

less than $115,000 shy of $200 million in North America.

 

So I guess we've got about $115,000 left to go until Sony/MGM/EON can finally be allowed to consider Spectre "successful".  

 

 

My bet? Not gonna make it.

[tdalton]

 

 

less than $115,000 shy of $200 million in North America.

 

So I guess we've got about $115,000 left to go until Sony/MGM/EON can finally be allowed to consider Spectre "successful".  

 

 

My bet? Not gonna make it.

 

 

I doubt it will either, but then again I didn't expect them to put it back into theaters after the Blu-ray release and leave it there for a few weeks either.  

 

I'm really surprised that it's making any money at all, considering you can buy it for cheaper than it would cost two people to go to the theater to see it.

[DaveBond21]

 

 

 

less than $115,000 shy of $200 million in North America.

 

So I guess we've got about $115,000 left to go until Sony/MGM/EON can finally be allowed to consider Spectre "successful".  

 

 

My bet? Not gonna make it.

 

 

I doubt it will either, but then again I didn't expect them to put it back into theaters after the Blu-ray release and leave it there for a few weeks either.  

 

I'm really surprised that it's making any money at all, considering you can buy it for cheaper than it would cost two people to go to the theater to see it.

 

 

Can't beat the cinematic experience of SPECTRE on the big screen my friend!

 

Unless there are some noisy kids there....

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

[tdalton]

 

 

 

 

less than $115,000 shy of $200 million in North America.

 

So I guess we've got about $115,000 left to go until Sony/MGM/EON can finally be allowed to consider Spectre "successful".  

 

 

My bet? Not gonna make it.

 

 

I doubt it will either, but then again I didn't expect them to put it back into theaters after the Blu-ray release and leave it there for a few weeks either.  

 

I'm really surprised that it's making any money at all, considering you can buy it for cheaper than it would cost two people to go to the theater to see it.

 

 

Can't beat the cinematic experience of SPECTRE on the big screen my friend!

 

Unless there are some noisy kids there....

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Can't imagine that there's anyone there at this point.  

[DaveBond21]

 

 

 

 

 

less than $115,000 shy of $200 million in North America.

 

So I guess we've got about $115,000 left to go until Sony/MGM/EON can finally be allowed to consider Spectre "successful".  

 

 

My bet? Not gonna make it.

 

 

I doubt it will either, but then again I didn't expect them to put it back into theaters after the Blu-ray release and leave it there for a few weeks either.  

 

I'm really surprised that it's making any money at all, considering you can buy it for cheaper than it would cost two people to go to the theater to see it.

 

 

Can't beat the cinematic experience of SPECTRE on the big screen my friend!

 

Unless there are some noisy kids there....

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Can't imagine that there's anyone there at this point.  

 

 

 

Just Jeffrey Wright and his mates.

 

Mates: "But Jeffrey - you're not in this one!"

 

Jeffrey: "I get mentioned! Hush or you'll miss it!"

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

[rubixcub]

Dang, they're trying.  Going into extra innings at this point: 130 days in U.S. theaters as of Monday, down to 16 screens as of Friday 3/11, and as of 3/14, $199,953.  Only $46,723 to go; it would take 11 days at an average of $4K per day to hit the magic number (but I suspect it'll be gone this Friday).

 

I wonder if the remaining screens are all IMAX or some such; that would make sense as to why people are still seeing it, for that particular experience.

 

Dave

Edited by rubixcub, 16 March 2016 - 03:21 PM.

[Gobi-1]

At this point some Sony executives should just start renting out theaters for the next week.

[Tiin007]

"You've had a great run. You should leave with dignity."

 

"To hell with dignity. I'll leave when the job's done."

 

Well, according to Box Office Mojo, the "job" seems to now be done, as SPECTRE has finally passed $200 million domestically. 

 

http://www.boxoffice.../?id=bond24.htm

[rubixcub]

"You've had a great run. You should leave with dignity."

 

"To hell with dignity. I'll leave when the job's done."

 

Well, according to Box Office Mojo, the "job" seems to now be done, as SPECTRE has finally passed $200 million domestically. 

 

http://www.boxoffice.../?id=bond24.htm

 

Beat me to it!  Unless they're already committed to pull it as of tomorrow, I'm guessing they'll probably leave it in theaters through Thursday, and officially end the run as of Easter weekend.

 

According to the weekend wrap-up articles at www.boxofficemojo.com, it's been playing drive-in theaters for the last few weeks, where it's been showing good returns.  Hey, it still counts!

 

Dave

Edited by rubixcub, 20 March 2016 - 06:08 PM.

[Gobi-1]

It would be fun to see Bond at a drive in.

[tdalton]

Congratulations to all those executives at Sony and MGM.  It only took Spectre almost 5 months to do what Star Wars: The Force Awakens managed to do three days.  

[glidrose]

But is the job really done? Spectre has to get to $204,011,900 to beat QOS's adjusted box office take.

[Yellow Pinky]

Very interesting, especially the inset worksheet showing the full profit breakdown.  Pretty paltry final return, all things considered.

http://deadline.com/...ond-1201723528/

Edited by Yellow Pinky, 21 March 2016 - 07:51 PM.

[Simon]

Well, I have to say, I am amazed it got past the $200m mark.  Honestly thought the week-on-week returns would never have dragged it over the line.

 

A nice milestone to have crossed.

 

As to the Deadline write-up, while I don't have any sources, facts or figures to demonstrate otherwise, I am not sure I can believe all of their suggestions.  Where, for example, do all the sponsorship deals sit?  Who profits from these investments?  How are they split, even if indeed, they are split?

 

Not sure how the $245m production cost was derived, or from whom it reliably came.  This is a figure long bandied about but was the basis for this nothing more than a Chinese whisper?  And as for Craig's deal, I am sure this is completely private so someone has just taken a punt at this.

[RMc2]

Well, I have to say, I am amazed it got past the $200m mark.  Honestly thought the week-on-week returns would never have dragged it over the line.

 

A nice milestone to have crossed.

 

As to the Deadline write-up, while I don't have any sources, facts or figures to demonstrate otherwise, I am not sure I can believe all of their suggestions.  Where, for example, do all the sponsorship deals sit?  Who profits from these investments?  How are they split, even if indeed, they are split?

 

Not sure how the $245m production cost was derived, or from whom it reliably came.  This is a figure long bandied about but was the basis for this nothing more than a Chinese whisper?  And as for Craig's deal, I am sure this is completely private so someone has just taken a punt at this.

 

Yes, congratulations Sony and SP! Genuinely surprised they made it.

 

As for the budget quote, all I know is BoxOfficeMojo quote that figure, and they're very, very reliable. It also chimes with pre-tax rebates rumours of a $300m budget. But like you say, that's hearsay.

 

As for the profit, I don't quite understand that breakdown. It seems to look only at the non-theatrical revenue and weigh it against the costs. That's $880m unaccounted for. (Although, cinemas will keep about 50% of that, and EON, MGM and the talent will siphon off most of it before Sony gets a peep). 

 

We know that Sony made $57m from SF. I'd expect a similar figure for SP.

 

I'm surprised Craig's deal is $7m upfront and $4m backend. That seems way too low. Especially given rumours of a $37m deal after SF. (Even if that covers Bonds 24 & 25)

 

Then again, the Deadline article also says CR made $416m in the U.S. & Canada...

[DaveBond21]

The figure I heard was that Daniel's salary for SPECTRE was 15 million pounds sterling.