333 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

Absolutely. I guess the studios do get such figures as sample studies for certain markets and project some kind of index from it. Not that it would mean a lot to us without having a benchmark. Various variables to consider, how many last generation multiplex screens versus how many high end home entertainment sets per capita; word of mouth vs. hard copy blueray/DVD sales; streaming services vs. the multiple viewings of the die-hard fans and so on. It's become quite a complicated market; there must be some method of showing how a film does with the audience aside from simple financials.

[SecretAgentFan]

Oh, yes.

 

But I do get the feeling that SPECTRE, while making a lot of money, will be considered as a disappointment by EON and SONY.  The love for it just isn´t there, and it certainly was too expensive (and the PR budget, too, must have been enormous) to pop the champagne corks.

 

It did manage to keep Bond in the minds of the mass audience.  But I doubt if people will fondly remember it in the years to come.  It will be a middle of the road-Bond film, one of those one with lots of potential but lots of bad decisions made, too.

 

For me, it really changed from disappointment to general excitement... and back to disappointment.  The moment the car chase in Rome begins the film unravels for me and never builds up enough tension anymore or thrills me with ingenious stunts.  The worst, for me, is the finale which looks and feels cheap.   Really, the SPOOKS movie, while clearly having a fraction of SPECTRE´s budget, was much more interesting, uncompromising and exciting.

 

In the end, I had so much more fun with MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: ROGUE NATION this year (which also had the better stunts).

[FlemingBond]

Star Wars doesn't really have anything to do with it. Spectre will have been out 6 weeks by the time The Force Awakens comes out.

i'm surprised it hasn't done better here. the reviews were mixed, but not horrible.

[Simon]

I too am surprised it is not doing better.

 

Warning: Massive sweeping generalisation ahead.

 

I am surprised by the US box office take.  The US seem to love their fantasy and sci-fi movies as evidenced by the BoxOfficeMojo tables, but then plunge $300m+ into Skyfall which by comparison is a quite dour movie.  SPECTRE is more gung-ho and up-beat but will only manage two thirds of Skyfall's take.

[Guy Haines]

A relation of mine made a perceptive comment after watching Skyfall - "It's a great film, but not a great Bond film."

I wonder if so much of Skyfall's enormous success was down to the "novelty" of seeing what Bond looked like helmed by a renowned director, the very positive reviews and so on. Skyfall was drawing in audiences who, I suspect, wouldn't normally bother with Bond but were hooked by the favourable reviews.

The novelty of Mendes at the helm isn't there this time around and even with him as director, SPECTRE hasn't been treated quite as kindly by the critics - possibly because it was Mendes doing a typical Bond film rather than a Mendes film with Bond in it, if you see what I'm getting at.

And of course, one or two issues with the script didn't help.

But a very solid second after following a film which many of us thought set the bar impossibly high - that's not at all bad!

[FredJB007]

A relation of mine made a perceptive comment after watching Skyfall - "It's a great film, but not a great Bond film."

I wonder if so much of Skyfall's enormous success was down to the "novelty" of seeing what Bond looked like helmed by a renowned director, the very positive reviews and so on. Skyfall was drawing in audiences who, I suspect, wouldn't normally bother with Bond but were hooked by the favourable reviews.

The novelty of Mendes at the helm isn't there this time around and even with him as director, SPECTRE hasn't been treated quite as kindly by the critics - possibly because it was Mendes doing a typical Bond film rather than a Mendes film with Bond in it, if you see what I'm getting at.

And of course, one or two issues with the script didn't help.

But a very solid second after following a film which many of us thought set the bar impossibly high - that's not at all bad!

For me, you have stated the best quote I've seen so far on this topic. I agree with you 100%.

[DamnCoffee]

I always find it helpful to remember that Skyfall had the entire 50th Anniversary year behind it, so It was bound to make a bit more money that it normally would, so I never really thought that Spectre would outperform Skyfall, so this really isn't much of a shock to me. It's made a nice amount so far and i'll be happy with whatever the final total turns out to be.

[tdalton]

Just goes back to what I said well before the film came out. It was going to be considered a disappointment no matter how good it was or how much money it took in.

In a strange way, its kind of funny that being the second-highest grossing film in the franchise can be called a disappointment.

[sharpshooter]

Just goes back to what I said well before the film came out. It was going to be considered a disappointment no matter how good it was or how much money it took in.
In a strange way, its kind of funny that being the second-highest grossing film in the franchise can be called a disappointment.

Exactly.

[seawolfnyy]

Spectre is closing in on $800 million worldwide, though it's rapidly losing steam. That, coupled with the release of Star Wars in one week, I don't think it will be breaking the $1 billion mark.

[FlemingBond]

it's not the second highest grossing film factoring inflation, not to mention how much more money was spent on it than earlier entries.

[tdalton]

EON, MGM, and Sony having bad business sense by spending over $300 million on the film doesn't preclude SPECTRE from being a success.  It's currently the 52nd highest grossing film of all-time, and stands a pretty good chance of moving up to #50.  The film has found and audience and has been successful, even if not to the level of its predecessor.  

 

The studios could have made it more of a success for them had they not thrown all that money at a film that had such monumental script problems.  Just looking at SPECTRE, there's nothing on screen to suggest that it cost more than $300 million, so there's no reason that they couldn't have gotten that number down, therefore making themselves more of a profit.

[Shrublands]

EON, MGM, and Sony having bad business sense by spending over $300 million on the film doesn't preclude SPECTRE from being a success.  I

 

The thing is, they didn't spend over $300m on it.

 

The $300m plus budget (mid $300m according to the leaked e-mails) was the gross budget. 

The net budget (i.e. what the studio actually spends of its own money) was around $245m. Not that much more than QoS.

 

The press has blown this whole thing out of all proportion, because they have more inside info than they ordinarily have, thanks to the leaks.

But they haven't really analysed all that info or they would have seen the above. 

Having said that, a headline reading "Bond production costs a little more than it normally costs" doesn't sound so dramatic. 

[SecretAgentFan]

Didn´t know the term "gross budget".  What exactly does it mean?

[Shrublands]

Didn´t know the term "gross budget".  What exactly does it mean?

 

What the film would cost without things like the money from Mexico to film there and other various film funds, the product placement money, tax incentives, the cost of things that they end up getting for nothing but were at one stage budgeted (cars and work done on cars, for example) lot's of other things that are removed to form the net budget as opposed to the gross budget.

 

This is all very important to a Bond film's production methodology. I found all this the most illuminating part of the leaks. 

You could see them wanting to edge production cost into the gross budget, more money from Omega, more money from Mexico etc.

They were not particularly concerned how high the gross budget ended up providing that the net budget could be pushed to under $250m.

[SecretAgentFan]

Thank you!  Illuminating indeed.

[FlemingBond]

i wonder how much they got from Heineken with Craig doing the ads for them tied into the film

[jaguar007]

Yes, SPECTRE will seem a box office disappointment coming after SF. However SP is performing slightly better than Craig's other 2 films. If SF had not so dramatically performed above expectations, SP would not be viewed at a BO disappointment. 

[Guy Haines]

EON, MGM, and Sony having bad business sense by spending over $300 million on the film doesn't preclude SPECTRE from being a success.  I

 
The thing is, they didn't spend over $300m on it.
 
The $300m plus budget (mid $300m according to the leaked e-mails) was the gross budget. 
The net budget (i.e. what the studio actually spends of its own money) was around $245m. Not that much more than QoS.
 
The press has blown this whole thing out of all proportion, because they have more inside info than they ordinarily have, thanks to the leaks.
But they haven't really analysed all that info or they would have seen the above. 
Having said that, a headline reading "Bond production costs a little more than it normally costs" doesn't sound so dramatic.

At risk of stating the blindingly obvious, the press love a story. Good news is good news but to quote Elliot Carver "there's no news like bad news." Hence the alleged box office disppointment line when in fact SPECTRE is doing very well indeed at the BO - just not quite as good as its phenomenally successful predecessor. I'm at a loss as to how a film which has only been around for over a month and is already on course to be the 50th highest grossing film of all time can be considered a failure.

[tdalton]

 

 

 

 

. I'm at a loss as to how a film which has only been around for over a month and is already on course to be the 50th highest grossing film of all time can be considered a failure.

 

It's simply because the press decided that SPECTRE was going to be a failure before filming even began.  Skyfall was the Bond film that they decided to hoist up on the pedestal as the greatest Bond film ever made, and to further show how good Skyfall was, they were always going to tear down SPECTRE, regardless of how good or bad it turned out.  

 

Simply put, it's been a huge success.  As good of one as Skyfall?  No, but it's still been a massive success for the franchise.  And, if somehow EON/Sony/MGM didn't make the profit margin that they would need to consider it a "success", then that's on them for bad financial practices, since a movie shouldn't need to earn a billion dollars in order to turn a healthy profit for the studio.

[SecretAgentFan]

Nobody will cry over the grosses, I suspect. 

 

But when one film reaches the billion dollar mark and the next one does not (or: at this point does not seem to be able to), any producer will ask why.

 

SPECTRE in no way can be called as interesting as SKYFALL.  It lacks the tension created by a remarkable villain and the emotional pull of Bond´s situation.  Its story starts out strong and then degenerates into sequences that lose tension and cannot strengthen the effect of the basic plot.  Which is a shame since everybody involved has proven that they can do better.

 

In a way, SPECTRE, in my humble opinion, is a lot like THUNDERBALL or DIE ANOTHER DAY: films which have tremendous scenes and ideas yet remain a paint-by-numbers job, losing track of what they wanted to achieve.

 

And everybody involved knew it.

 

When even studio executives point out the central weaknesses (especially the last act and the villain) there is a problem.

 

I find it very illuminating that Mendes wrote back to Pascal, underlining that this was just a budget draft and that all those things she did not like would be changed.  And then... well, the changes did not really address the problem, they only polished around.

 

I guess it was too late to turn things around without losing the release date (and that was impossible since they already had waited a year for Mendes).

 

It´s interesting to speculate whether John Logan´s original idea (the rumoured two-parter) that he reportedly sold to EON soon after SKYFALL, with Blofeld being an African warlord, would have been more interesting and innovative.  Was EON so excited by this idea that they bought Logan´s treatment?  I assume that must have been the case - because if not why would they have bought it?  Just as a courtesy?  Okay, maybe.  

 

But still - I imagine that the idea for BOND 24 had been more interesting then what it turned out to be.  And when they and SONY decided that it was too far out they already had lost time.  And with too many cooks in the kitchen it became a scrambling of ideas that had to be mixed together.

 

Of course, with Bond as a brand that always brings in audiences, EON and SONY knew that SPECTRE would be a success, no matter what.  But they also know that next time they have to avoid the problems of the making of SPECTRE.  Because otherwise they are in for a continuing downturn of the grosses like they were during the 80´s.

 

Maybe it is time to not only shake things up with the story and the director - but also with the lead actor.  Despite only four films, Craig has been Bond for a decade now.  And even Connery was not able to draw as many ticketbuyers to his fifth film as to his previous one.

 

Summing up: SPECTRE is a success, financially, but it is a disappointment regarding the financial perspective of further Craig-Bond-films.  If it had grossed more than SKYFALL nobody would ask that question.

 

Then again, maybe we should be thankful for this development.

[tdalton]

I don't see how it's a "disappointment regarding the financial perspective of further Craig-Bond films". If EON can't draw in a huge audience on the back of the 50th highest grossing film of all-time, then they're incompetent.

SPECTRE was never going to gross more than Skyfall. I have no idea why anyone would have thought it would. There was no year-long promotion like there was for Skyfall, which came on the heels of both the 50th Anniversary for the franchise as well as the Olympic promotions. Skyfall enjoyed the perfect promotional storm that helped to propel itself across a billion dollars at the box office. Without all of that, I don't see it doing as well as it did. It may have still ended up as the highest grossing Bond film, since it is a very similar film to another one of the highest grossing films of all-time (The Dark Knight), but I don't think the level of hysteria that it enjoyed would have been there.

Bond 25 will be a huge success. Whether it gets labeled as one will depend on whether the media decides they want it to be one or not, but it will make a lot of people a lot of money. This idea that Craig's tenure can only see diminishing returns at this point because SPECTRE failed to make a billion dollars is just wrong.

[Guy Haines]

I don't think we need a new actor quite yet. Craig has one more film to do if he sticks to his deal, and the current film leaves the outcome open ended.

But I think a new director will helm Bond 25 - I don't think Sam Mendes will want to make it a hat trick somehow. And above all the next movie needs new writers. Purvis and Wade had supposedly done with Bond anyway after SF - brought back, in an unusual reversal of what used to happen, to polish someone else's script, namely John Logan's.

It might be best for the next film if the production team start looking now for new blood in the writing team and a successor to Mendes, start working on the next script now and allow plenty of time to polish it up ready for filming.

[SecretAgentFan]

There was no year-long promotion like there was for Skyfall, which came on the heels of both the 50th Anniversary for the franchise as well as the Olympic promotions. 

 

I don´t think that the anniversary or the Olympics actually did so much for the general audience.  (I believe - but, of course, can only speculate - that SPECTRE would not have enjoyed SKYFALL´s success if it had been released during that time.)

 

The basic rule is: When a new Bond film opens people know.  

 

SKYFALL had the advantage of the long wait since QOS, a celebrated director helming and great reviews which even reached people who usually don´t rush out to see a Bond film.

 

SPECTRE had the disadvantage to follow a much-loved and celebrated film, in a release window that squeezed in more moneymakers (PEANUTS, THE HUNGER GAMES, the upcoming monster STAR WARS).

 

Most importantly, SPECTRE´s had a hugely problematic development phase, with too many people weighing in what the film should be like.  Also, the injury of the main actor during production must have been a major headache, forcing a rethinking of the opening sequence (and the last act as well, I understand).

 

Incompetence, by the way, does not factor in here, since the producing and releasing of a major motion picture is such an incredibly complex endeavour that nobody can´t absolutely control the outcome.

[tdalton]

Incompetence absolutely does factor in. They were able to overcome it with Skyfall because of the hysteria that surrounded it before anyone even saw a frame of the film. SPECTRE has been hurt by all of the negative, self-inflicted decisions that could have easily been avoided, such as passing the script through the hands of four different individuals, including the writing team that they had decided to move on from because their work had been decidedly poor over the years.

Between that and the cloud of negativity that the film was released into due to the negativity surrounding Craig's unprofessional remarks during interviews leading up to the film's release, I'd say incompetence played a role in the film's unjustly perceived lack of "success". It wouldn't have reached the financial heights of Skyfall without that, but it may have done just enough better to keep people sounding the trumpets heralding the death of the franchise, or at least the Craig era, because the film didn't surpass the box office haul made by the 13th highest grossing film of all-time.

[Hockey Mask]

U.S. Box Office thru Sixth Weekend
01. $304,360,277 Skyfall
02. $190,767,660 SPECTRE
03. $168,368,427 Quantum of Solace
04. $167,445,960 Casino Royale
05. $160,942,139 Die Another Day
06. $126,943,684 The World is Not Enough
07. $125,304,276 Tomorrow Never Dies
08. $106,429,941 GoldenEye
09. $ 70,308,099 Moonraker
10. $ 67,893,619 Octopussy
11. $ 63,595,658 Thunderball
12. $ 55,432,841 Never Say Never Again
13. $ 54,812,802 For Your Eyes Only
14. $ 51,185,897 The Living Daylights
15. $ 51,081,062 Goldfinger
16. $ 50,327,960 A View to a Kill
17. $ 46,838,673 The Spy Who Loved Me
18. $ 43,819,547 Diamonds Are Forever
19. $ 43,084,787 You Only Live Twice
20. $ 35,377,836 Live and Let Die
21. $ 34,667,015 License to Kill
22. $ 24,796,765 From Russia, with Love
23. $ 22,774,493 On Her Majesty's Secret Service
24. $ 20,972,000 The Man with the Golden Gun
25. $ 16,067,035 Dr. No

U.S. Box Office - Adjusted Inflation thru the Sixth Weekend
01. $623,832,000 Thunderball
02. $552,942,000 Goldfinger
03. $315,602,300 Skyfall
04. $299,439,300 You Only Live Twice
05. $233,613,400 Moonraker
06. $230,050,800 Die Another Day
07. $224,439,200 Tomorrow Never Dies
08. $222,371,000 From Russia, with Love
09. $221,487,900 Diamonds Are Forever
10. $212,075,200 Casino Royale
11. $207,280,700 The World is Not Enough
12. $203,528,900 GoldenEye
13. $195,570,000 Quantum of Solace
14. $184,785,400 SPECTRE
15. $179,756,400 Octopussy
16. $175,172,400 The Spy Who Loved Me
17. $166,695,600 Live and Let Die
18. $164,438,400 For Your Eyes Only
19. $157,646,000 Dr. No
20. $146,765,000 Never Say Never Again
21. $133,760,000 On Her Majesty's Secret Service
22. $118,235,300 A View to a Kill
23. $109,179,100 The Living Daylights
24. $ 93,532,900 The Man with the Golden Gun
25. $ 72,826,900 License to Kill

[MrKidd]

I’ve yet to see the movie (some Bond fan, huh?) so cannot comment on its quality or prejudice my comments with my own opinion of the film. I speak, therefore, as a simple box office geek.

The thing is, the success/disappointment discussion is not black or white – a case for either can be made:

1.       Spectre has made boat loads of money – over $800m WW and closing in on $200M in North America. It will continue to reap boat loads from DVD sales etc and no one involved in its making need feel ashamed.

2.       That said, Spectre’s performance – and I’m really talking about North America here – is/has been/will be regarded as a disappointment

3.       Skyfall’s BO was off the charts and, yes, had things going for it eg 50^th anniversary etc, but many people in the industry regarded this to be Bond’s breakout moment.

4.       As it happened Spectre’s BO has simply reverted to the mean of most other Bond movies.

5.       While Skyfall did have promotional advantages do not underestimate Spectre’s own hand, namely being the Bond film following  Spectre and therefore expected to behave like any successful sequel to a franchise and build upon the previous numbers.

6.       Any businesses success, movie or otherwise, is predicated on momentum and trends not absolutes, so the fact that Spectre will end up so far behind Skyfall is, by definition, disappointing.

But is the disappointment misplaced or justified? Depends on the WHY’s of the relative disparity between the two films.

- If the 50^th anniversary/Olympics promotion of Skyfall really did bolster its BO to the heights it reached then it was genuinely a one-off and Spectre reverting back to average Bond should not be regarded as disappointing.

- If, however, it was the quality, rather than hype, of Skyfall that contributed to its success, and Spectre is simply not as good a film as its predecessor then absolutely Spectre can justifiably be considered a disappointment. As I haven’t seen Spectre I can’t comment.

Of course, in reality it’s probably a mixture of the two reasons stated above. But I also think there is another factor in the mix: I do believe Spectre got ‘lucky’, whatever the reason, and developed the buzz and hype that propelled it to a must see movie. I also think that Joe Movie Goer wasn’t all that hyped and buzzed once they’d actually seen it so that the excitement was short lived. Consequently, the urge to see the next one was not there and Spectre came out with the fan base still intact but no huge breakout conversions.  As such, at least in North America, I am pretty certain that Spectre’s BO is considered a disappointment – nothing to panic about, no major recriminations, more like back to business as normal with a side order of what ‘could’ have been.

 

Wow, this is a long post – nothing to do with me pretending to be working  so I don’t have to deal with the kids on a Sunday afternoon. Nothing to do with that at all.

[FlemingBond]

it's 32 million behind The Martian here in the U.S. wow. i didn't even know that film did that well. Spectre is not going to reach that. 

[blueman]

SF was an event, like few films (much less a Bond film) are. Saying one is better artistically or some such is preference. I much prefer SP over the forgettable (except for a moment or two) SF, but that's just me.

[tdalton]

SF was an event, like few films (much less a Bond film) are. Saying one is better artistically or some such is preference. I much prefer SP over the forgettable (except for a moment or two) SF, but that's just me.

 

Agreed.  Skyfall had the event factor going for it that SPECTRE doesn't, as was never going to, have going for it.  While SPECTRE is far from perfect (very far from perfect), I'll take it over Skyfall without any hesitation.