333 replies to this topic

[Revelator]

Given how stunningly successful Star Wars has been, perhaps now would be a good time for a remake of Moonraker. Instead of Drax, Blofeld would return, this time revealing that his father was a space alien (and instead of a pigeon, his cat does the double-take). Bond is forced to choose between Holly Goodhead (a Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist with a black belt in over two hundred martial arts) and Madeline Swann, who is kidnapped by Blofeld and taken to his home planet of Alpha Centauri, which Bond eventually blows up, resulting in a Guinness Interplanetary Record. Bond's guilt over killing his alien stepbrother and several billion Alpha Centaurians is assuaged by a zero-gravity threesome with Doctors Goodhead and Swann ("Wait till you see my PhD!" he smirks). Oh, and Daniel Kleinman's innovative title sequence features Bond being anally probed by a buxom alien with tentacles.

[Dustin]

This sounds...stellar...

[seawolfnyy]

I'd see it....

[thecasinoroyale]

Well, for UK openings, it seems we Brits still favour Bond over Star Wars. Taken from the Mail...

 

However, The Force Awakens was unable to set a similar benchmark here at home, failing to knock James Bond’s Spectre off its perch as the most successful ever opener. Its £34million box office at UK and Irish cinemas fell £20million ($30million) short of Spectre’s figure. However, as Spectre was released on Monday and Star Wars not until Thursday, it had longer to accrue the total.

 

http://www.dailymail...ld-weekend.html

[Guy Haines]

Well, for UK openings, it seems we Brits still favour Bond over Star Wars. Taken from the Mail...
 
However, The Force Awakens was unable to set a similar benchmark here at home, failing to knock James Bond’s Spectre off its perch as the most successful ever opener. Its £34million box office at UK and Irish cinemas fell £20million ($30million) short of Spectre’s figure. However, as Spectre was released on Monday and Star Wars not until Thursday, it had longer to accrue the total.
 
http://www.dailymail...ld-weekend.html

As I said at the time a smart move on the part of the studio,releasing SPECTRE at the start of what is half-term week in most parts of the UK - kids, parents and grandparents at a possible loose end, so some of them at least will have gone to the flicks.

By contrast - and whilst I've no doubt that Star Wars will clean up at the box office - I wonder at the wisdom of releasing just as we get into that mad rush otherwise known as "last minute Christmas shopping verging on the start of the January sales" ;-)

But then, what do I know? :-)

[Toxteth_OGrady]

2nd biggest film of 2015 in the UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-35216873

[glidrose]

According to boxofficemojo.com:

Nov 6–12 1 $95,300,181 - 3,929 - $24,256 $95,300,181 1
Nov 13–19 1 $43,802,698 -54.0% 3,929 - $11,149 $139,102,879 2
Nov 20–26 2 $24,134,528 -44.9% 3,659 -270 $6,596 $163,237,407 3
Nov 27–Dec 3 4 $15,857,936 -34.3% 2,940 -719 $5,394 $179,095,343 4
Dec 4–10 5 $7,672,317 -51.6% 2,840 -100 $2,702 $186,767,660 5
Dec 11–17 7 $5,708,472 -25.6% 2,640 -200 $2,162 $192,476,132 6
Dec 18–24 12 $2,905,413 -49.1% 1,065 -1,575 $2,728 $195,381,545 7
Dec 25–31 20 $1,721,040 -40.8% 372 -693 $4,626 $197,102,585 8
Jan 1–7 18 $993,944 -42.2% 331 -41 $3,003 $198,096,529 9

Which puts it just behind the 2008 QOS which when adjusted for ticket price inflation currently sits at $201,901,400.

Non-US foreign is at $667,000,000 as of 3 January 2016.

Prediction: it will probably fall just short of pulling in 900 million dollars worldwide. Still too close to call if it will beat QOS's adjusted for ticket price inflation earnings in the US.

UPDATED: Week 9 earnings in. Probably unlikely to beat QOS's adjusted figures thereby making it the least successful Craig Bond film at the US box office.

Edited by glidrose, 09 January 2016 - 09:43 PM.

[Hockey Mask]

Don't know where Hockey Mask got his figures from, but according to boxofficemojo.com:Nov 6–12 1 $95,300,181 - 3,929 - $24,256 $95,300,181 1Nov 13–19 1 $43,802,698 -54.0% 3,929 - $11,149 $139,102,879 2Nov 20–26 2 $24,134,528 -44.9% 3,659 -270 $6,596 $163,237,407 3Nov 27–Dec 3 4 $15,857,936 -34.3% 2,940 -719 $5,394 $179,095,343 4Dec 4–10 5 $7,672,317 -51.6% 2,840 -100 $2,702 $186,767,660 5Dec 11–17 7 $5,708,472 -25.6% 2,640 -200 $2,162 $192,476,132 6Dec 18–24 12 $2,905,413 -49.1% 1,065 -1,575 $2,728 $195,381,545 7Dec 25–31 20 $1,721,040 -40.8% 372 -693 $4,626 $197,102,585 8Which puts it just behind QOS which when adjusted for ticket price inflation is $201,901,400.Non-US foreign is at $667,000,000 as of 3 January 2016.Prediction: it will probably fall just short of pulling in 900 million dollars worldwide. Still too close to call if it will beat QOS's adjusted for ticket price inflation earnings in the US.

I got my numbers from boxofficemojo but since my last update the website has been updated to reflect new 2016 inflation numbers at the start of the new year.

[glidrose]

Don't know where Hockey Mask got his figures from, but according to boxofficemojo.com:

I got my numbers from boxofficemojo but since my last update the website has been updated to reflect new 2016 inflation numbers at the start of the new year.

Ah, I suspected as much. Thanks for clearing it up. I've edited my post accordingly.

Updated my previous post with week 9 earnings. Sorry if I've stolen your thunder.

[Hockey Mask]

No worries.

[glidrose]

According to boxofficemojo.com and QOS's comparable numbers heading into week 10, Spectre will *not* beat QOS's adjusted numbers in the domestic US market. Therefore Spectre is the least successful of Craig's films at the US box office when adjusted for inflation.

As of January 10 2016, Spectre has made $673,729,656 dollars in the foreign market for a current worldwide total of $872,229,704 - still comfortably making it Craig's second most successful Bond film when adjusted for inflation.

FWIW, the other three Craig Bond films have had a domestic vs foreign box office share of around 28%-72%. With Spectre, it's down to 23%-77%.

[Dustin]

Not that it has any particular significance since they are not directly comparable, but Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation has a domestic to foreign box office percentage of 28.6 to 71.4. Coming from 30.1 to 69.9 for Phantom Protocol. So that may in fact be a trend not connected to Bond or Craig specifically.

[DaveBond21]

Why was SPECTRE not so popular in the United States compared to Skyfall? Are there theories?

[Revelator]

Why was SPECTRE not so popular in the United States compared to Skyfall? Are there theories?

 

A tricky question, especially when one considers that the British gave it a much better reception. My theory--and it's no more than that--is that a combination of factors helped sour the public's mood. Individually, they might have been harmless, but together they killed some of the buzz for the film. First, you had the script leaks, which sent the message that the movie was a troubled production and perhaps even a badly written one. Second, the Idris Elba as Bond campaign. Usually "who'll play Bond next?" stories raise publicity for the oncoming Bond film, but in this case--or in America at least--it raised some discontent (Bond is old hat! Bond is racist! Time for a change!). Third, Craig's publicly voiced discontent about reprising the role didn't help. Combined together, these factors helped dent the buzz and public goodwill that met Skyfall. I know some folks have dismissed these factors as being small-time, but each of them was practically smeared all over the internet when they first arose.  I don't think they can be dismissed, especially when taken together. 

Another possible cause for Spectre's less glowing American reception might be the reviews. Usually Bond films don't really need critical approval, but the almost unanimously good reviews of Casino Royale and Skyfall do seem to have helped--to the point of making Spectre's mixed critical reception more evident--and with the internet word-of-mouth is far more easily spread. 

Lastly, Bond's popularity has always been cyclical--rising in the mid 60s and dipping afterward, rising in the late 70s and dipping afterward, rising in the late 90s and...possibly dipping now. If memory serves, after you adjust for inflation, the Brosnan films actually outgrossed Craig's. And while Craig has been very good for the franchise, perhaps the American public is tiring of him and of Bond. Perhaps we're entering another period of Bond being widely seen as a misogynistic, imperialist dinosaur. Or perhaps not--after all, Spectre was hardly a box office disappointment in the way the Dalton films regrettably were.

Edited by Revelator, 13 January 2016 - 06:42 AM.

[Dustin]

About sums it up. Possibly with an emphasis on the cyclical nature of film-Bond's fortunes.

[RMc2]

 

Why was SPECTRE not so popular in the United States compared to Skyfall? Are there theories?

 

Lastly, Bond's popularity has always been cyclical--rising in the mid 60s and dipping afterward, rising in the late 70s and dipping afterward, rising in the late 90s and...possibly dipping now. If memory serves, after you adjust for inflation, the Brosnan films actually outgrossed Craig's. And while Craig has been very good for the franchise, perhaps the American public is tiring of him and of Bond. Perhaps we're entering another period of Bond being widely seen as a misogynistic, imperialist dinosaur. Or perhaps not--after all, Spectre was hardly a box office disappointment in the way the Dalton films regrettably were.

 

 

True - in adjusted US gross, the Brosnan Bonds are all in the top 12; QoS and SP are currently 13 and 14, respectively.

 

http://www.boxoffice...d=jamesbond.htm

 

Then again, I don't think it's as clear-cut as 'Bond is on a cyclical downswing'. If Sony keeps SP in cinemas long enough, it will cross $200m domestically - meaning all the Craig and all the Brosnan Bonds will have grossed over $200m in the US. That's the best run in the series since the 60s, and more sustained.

 

If you look at the way the Brosnan-Craig films group together on the chart, I wouldn't say there's that much difference between them:

14. SP, 13. QoS, 12. GE, 11. TWINE, 10. CR, 7. TND, 6. DAD, 3. SF

 

With that in mind, I think the best explanation for SP's relatively lacklustre performance is down to these three factors:

 

i) Star Wars.

It completely sapped the life out of SP's box office "tail". Before that, The Hunger Games also stole some of SP's long-term audience. SF was comparatively free of competition - it's biggest challenger was the first Hobbit film, which came out 5 weeks after SF, and was nowhere near as popular as Star Wars. The Hobbit also played to a slightly different audience to Bond, whereas the 'male action movie crowd' were served by Hunger Games and Star Wars and Spectre - lots of competition.

There's also the very physical effect of Disney buying up a lot of the screens that SP was playing on. Fewer cinemas were playing SP by December, and if people can't physically find a local screening, they won't see it.

 

ii) The Reviews

The Stateside lukewarm reception of Bond definitely didn't help. Moreover, it suffered comparisons to M:I-5, which had a similar plot and was much better received, and played to great success earlier in the year. Interestingly, both films grossed about the same; SP's total will be slightly higher than M:I-5's. Considering the popularity of M:I-5, and the supposed pulling power of Cruise over Craig, SP's performance is actually very good.

 

iii) The Sequel Effect & The 50th Anniversary

Considering the above two factors, it's worth noting how SP's box office performance is pretty much identical to QoS's. Both films opened around $70m (unadjusted) and declined at similar rates - the difference is, that when you adjust for inflation, QoS opened much higher and ended on pretty much the same gross as SP will ($200-201m).

So that implies SP had much better 'legs' than QoS. And that's not surprising, given how hated QoS is; but it is also impressive, given the tougher competition SP faced.

Both films were highly-anticipated sequels to exceptionally popular Bond films, but disappointed critically. Consequently they opened big but didn't hold as well, resulting in a standard Stateside gross of c.$200m for all of Craig's films, proving the level of his popularity as Bond is very consistent and very solid by modern blockbuster standards.

SF is a glorious exception to this rule. And as we all know, it's because it had the benefit of a four-year hiatus ramping up anticipation for it, the absolutely brilliant year-long celebrations of the 50th anniversary, and the best piece of marketing money can't buy: an appearance with the Queen at the Olympics. The fact that SF is good allowed it to romp home with an exceptional $304m in the US, buoyed by the lack of stiff competition.

 

So yeah, those are my thoughts as to why SP's US box office seems disappointing

Edited by RMc2, 13 January 2016 - 10:59 AM.

[Hockey Mask]

Skyfall had Olympics, positive US reviews, and Adele.

[Tiin007]

To further the "cyclical nature" discussion: I think sometimes entries in a series are judged primarily against their immediate predecessors. QoS had the sad task of following CR, and SF had the benefit of opening after expectations were significantly lowered by QoS. And most recently, SP suffered from the "overhype machine" inasmuch as it had an almost impossible task of following SF.  

 

When The Dark Knight Rises was released, almost everyone I know was whining about how it "wasn't as good as The Dark Knight." But honestly, I think Rises was an excellent movie, and suffered primarily due to being contrasted so strongly with its immensely successful predecessor. What would have happened if Rises was released after Batman Begins?

 

Similarly, I will posit the following hypothesis (which I don't think can either be proven or disproven, but I'd certainly welcome any thoughts other members may have on this): Had Skyfall followed CR, it would have been very popular, but nowhere near the box office and critical behemoth it was coming after QoS. And had SPECTRE appeared after QoS, it would have fared much better among both critics and the general public. 

 

That being said, I do think CR and Skyfall were still the better of the four films, but I think the extreme reactions elicited towards Craig's most recent three entries would have been somewhat tamed had they been released in a different order. It's often about hype and expectations.

 

My two cents.

[Dustin]

I'm starting to wonder there, is that slight downward trend perhaps going on for longer than we realised? Maybe since after CASINO ROYALE really and we just didn't notice it because of SKYFALL's exceptional performance? After CASINO ROYALE many fans hoped for something in the same vein, a CASINO ROYALE II. And were then mostly disappointed by QUANTUM OF SOLACE. SKYFALL seemed to mend most broken hearts and sailed on a huge wave of goodwill towards the series in general. But with each viewing I get the feeling SKYFALL wasn't really a Bond film so much as a film where Bond just happens to be in. The two main characters are M and Silva and Bond is clearly the weakest point in the triangle. During the whole film he makes exactly one conscious decision that goes above and beyond, namely to trust M and defend her regardless of what she has done with Silva. But apart from that Bond is almost reduced to the status of a McGuffin and the drama could just easily play without him.

Contrast to this the constant comparisons Bond has to suffer in the recent past - with Bourne, with Nolan's Batman, with Cruise's MI, so on. Some of these comparisons Eon invited themselves, some are due to general trends that just happen to be in the air and are picked up by genre cinema the way it always was. But it is telling that the Bond films in the last twelve months made probably the most headlines with the Sony affair and the Elba story. Both of which were not really events the series kicked off itself. It's as if the hype starts to overshadow its own product; also not a first for the series.

[FredJB007]

I'm an American and have seen SPECTRE five times, each time with a different group of people. Each time, my friends loved the film with the exception of my wife(who doesn't usually like Bond films, but did like Skyfall). To me, people that aren't regular 007 fans liked Skyfall and didn't like SPECTRE. I feel that Skyfall is a very good movie that happens to have James Bond in it. SPECTRE is a very good classic James Bond movie. I happen to love SPECTRE. Hope this makes some sense from a "Yanks" point of view.

Edited by FredJB007, 13 January 2016 - 10:24 PM.

[Simon]

Interesting reading all these theories and, push to shove, I really don't know what to believe.  Not that I have any theories of my own, I hasten to add.

 

However, a question about the competition angle.  Are people really rationing themselves to one visit to the cinema per month?  ....Which is the only way I can see competition being a factor.  I don't see that a couple of tickets to a film in any way equates to a meal out, or a night of drinks.

 

If three fantastic and eagerly anticipated films open in weeks one, two and three, then I would submit people will go in three successive weeks.  The takings for which not being as explosive in the first month but that which would lead to a longer tail?  No?

 

I am also amazed that the more classic and fantastical nature of SPECTRE did not attract the Star Wars-loving type American audiences by comparison to Skyfall which, by comparison, was a low key affair.

[tdalton]

 

However, a question about the competition angle.  Are people really rationing themselves to one visit to the cinema per month?  ....Which is the only way I can see competition being a factor.  I don't see that a couple of tickets to a film in any way equates to a meal out, or a night of drinks.

 

 

I could easily see that being the case.  Even the matinee showings these days are outrageously priced.  I took my dad to see Terminator Genisys over the summer and ended up spending $21 or $22 on tickets before even setting foot into the cinema.  From there, add in concessions and the costs really start piling up.  I can get by without popcorn, but I can't sit through a 2.5 hour film without something to drink.  Factor that in and you're looking at anywhere between $30 and $50 for a night at the movies, with it being roughly $30 for two people to just get a drink and significantly north of that if you want anything else.  

 

Just taking the low end of that estimate, for two people to go to the movies, if there were three films out in a month that you wanted to see, that's at least $90 spent just on three trips to the cinema.  That's a lot of money to throw down on entertainment when there are many other infinitely more important bills to be paid over the course of a month.  

[glidrose]

1. "Disney buying up a lot of the screens that SP was playing on."

I never bothered to see how many theatres SP was playing in until your post.

Dec 11-17 2,640 week 6
Dec 18–24 1,065 week 7
Dec 25–31 372 week 8
Jan 1–7 331 week 9
Jan 8-14 379 week 10

Spectre was playing in more theatres than QOS until week 8. However, unlike QOS, the number of theatres showing Spectre *increased* in week 10.

2. Dustin's comment re: Skyfall not really a Bond film so much as a film where Bond just happens to be in.

I agree entirely, which is perhaps why it did so well. It wasn't the same old, same old. Whereas Spectre was intended to be a loving tribute to traditional Bond elements, i.e. same old, same old but with a twist or two - and a truly stupid villain's backstory that got lots of negative buzz.

3. TDalton said that he "can't sit through a 2.5 hour film without something to drink."

Oh my bloody gawd. I avoid liquids - even water - on any day that I go to the movies so that I don't spend the entire running time making trips to the loo. Yes, the entire day. You'll know what I mean when you get to be my age. Thank heaven for tv commercial breaks.

4. "If Sony keeps SP in cinemas long enough, it will cross $200m domestically."

I don't think so, but it will be a close run thing.

[Orion]

Interesting that people are so fixated on the US box-office, I guarantee you EON and Sony will be more interested in the full profit which makes it the second biggest intake in Craig's run - they'll feel that money from the UK and China works just as well as money from the US (not my words, a producer said it recently in response as to why the increase in interest in the UK and Chinese markets in the last decade)

[stromberg]

Interesting that people are so fixated on the US box-office, I guarantee you EON and Sony will be more interested in the full profit which makes it the second biggest intake in Craig's run - they'll feel that money from the UK and China works just as well as money from the US (not my words, a producer said it recently in response as to why the increase in interest in the UK and Chinese markets in the last decade)

People are because the business is. It's not the money itself but the fact that TV and home enteratainment rights are usually negotiated on the basis of the US box-office results.

[FlemingBond]

well it's made about 125 million less outside of the U.S. and a 103 million less in the U.S. than Skyfall.

[Gobi-1]

Although there are probably a number of factors for why Spectre did less business then Skyfall I can't help but wonder if "Writing on the Wall" was a bit of a bucket of ice water dumped on the film's anticipation. I remember Adele's "Skyfall" being a hit right out of the gate and was constantly being played on the radio and shared online. A lot of my friends and associate who are not Bond aficinados were really enthusiastic about the song and the upcoming film. 

 

With "Writing on the Wall" is was the opposite with most people I know reaction's being along the lines of "That's it? Well I hope the film is better." Adele's song created a positive buzz for Skyfall on top of all the 50th Anniversary goodwill while "Writing on the Wall" created a negative association for "Spectre" before the film even open. A negative association that might have kept some people away. 

 

I don't know if Spectre would have been as big of a hit as Skyfall had the song been better, but I do think it would have at least gotten over the 200 million mark here in the US

[SecretAgentFan]

If people decide to not watch a Bond film because they don´t like the song... well... who does that really?

[Hockey Mask]

Agreed. But I could see the popularity of Adele bringing in those that normally wouldn't go.

[tdalton]

It's not that the song itself brought people to see Skyfall, but it provided a lot of free advertising on the radio for Skyfall.  The song was wildly popular (somehow) and was played frequently on the radio, giving the film more exposure.  It helped drum up a lot of talk about Skyfall from those that otherwise might not have been aware or had much interest in the Bond franchise.