SPECTRE | 11/6/15 | Final Trailer on Page 126! | Twitter reactions coming in, STID 2.0?

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

26 minutes ago, DAJK said:

Congrats to Sony for not having to fudge any of Spectre's numbers! Truly an achievement! Bravo to everyone involved!

Sony should just be really glad they're not in China right now... 

[fmpro]

From BOM

 

Elsewhere, The Revenant crossed $180 million domestically, London Has Fallen is now over $50 million, Daddy's Home is inching toward $150 million, The Big Short passed $70 million and Spectre finally reached $200 million as it has worked the drive-in circuit the last couple of weeks.

[DeeCee]

Weekend actuals will be $32,888.

[langer]

Spectre's first week on Blu Ray grossed 16M$ in HV sales.  This should guarantee that Spectre finishes 2016 in the top 15.  Past Bond movies ranked:

 

- Casino Royale - rank 22 in 2007

- Quantum of Solace - rank 31 in 2009

- Skyfall - rank 5 in 2013

[lilmac]

$200 million!!!

 

Spectre did it!

[TalismanRing]

Deadline doing their annual blockbuster tourney or profitability based on data and projections from trusted sources though that reported Craig salary looks unbelievably low with Sony pulling in $24.5m in profit which is about a third of what that made on ASM2 though for the movie they provided 100% of production costs.

 

http://deadline.com/2016/03/spectre-profit-box-office-2015-james-bond-1201723528/
 

Quote

Sony and MGM split the production-cost funding 50/50 and then MGM takes 75% of the profit and Sony 25%, with the latter not getting a distribution fee on top of that, which is an amazing deal for MGM. The franchise producers at Danjaq, and the estate of author Ian Fleming, each has first-dollar gross positions. Danjaq ends up making about $50M and Fleming about $10M. Craig’s deal is not very rich – $7M upfront plus about $4M on the back end. At the end of the day, the net profit for MGM and Sony is $98M, with a Cash on Cash Return of 1.17. In the re-up talks, Sony has the advantage of incumbency, but also at the helm is Tom Rothman, an exec comfortable with hardball negotiations and an eye toward profits. By these numbers, anyone taking on the 007 property will be looking at working very hard for comparably small profits, when all the splits and payouts are factored in. It’s great to be able to say you have a big global franchise, but it’s all about the bottom line.

 

 

[GiantCALBears]

Amazing Spectre's fudging even caught the attention of the WSJ guys:

 

http://on.wsj.com/1PnF4sN 

[TalismanRing]

Quote

The per-theater figure, though, bounced starting two Fridays ago. On March 11, “Spectre” was down to just 16 theaters and $93,499 short of $200 million. They were apparently the right ones as the per-theater gross spiked that day to $906. It hit $1,266 a day later.

 

[MrFanaticGuy34]

I saw Spectre yesterday on DVD.

 

And i have to say.........i really enjoyed it. Sure...it's not THE greatest Bond-film or heck....the best action-film i've ever seen.....but i really liked it for what it was.

 

Daniel Craig still delivering as James Bond. I liked the action scenes in the movie....including the car-chase with James being hunted by the henchman played by Dave Bautista. Léa Seydoux as Madeleine Swann, was pretty good as well in the movie. I think she was one of the more engaging Bond-girls in the Craig-James Bond-flicks. And yes.....let's talk about Christoph Waltz as the villain, Franz Oberhauser/Ernst Stavro Blofeld. I really dug him in this role. He still gives that good charismatic performance that he offered in Inglorious Basterds & Django Unchained.

 

Now some other people's minor problem with Blofeld, was mainly due to being underused and having less screentime in the film than expected. Well, i think his screentime was used in the movie well enough. And i sure hope he gets more screentime in the sequel. It's Christoph Waltz, his characters deserve more screentimes.

 

Another minor criticism some people had....was that the film felt too long. I don't feel that way at all....cause i don't mind longer movies than usual (Over 2 hours & 30 minutes or 3 hours) as long as the movie offered me good things that i like and keeps my interest.....and this film did offer me good things and kept my interest. I felt that this film's running time was worth the watch and that it had a good pacing.

 

So overall, i give this an A-. I liked it as much as did the other 2 action blockbuster sequels of 2015, Furious 7 & Mission Impossible 5. (Action blockbusters that aren't CGI-spectacle or superhero-related)

 

And....i'm glad it did well enough to push it to $200M DOM.

Edited March 24, 2016 by MrFanaticGuy34

[Captain Craig]

Line item budgeting for the $200m win on SPECTRE, the ole shell game got it there!! HaHa!

[antovolk]

 

[Hatebox]

Huh. Well I guess if even a film like Spectre can make almost 900m then you know the franchise is still a license to kill print money.

 

I'm guessing Craig will be back for one more.

[UNDERDOG]

6 minutes ago, antovolk said:

 

 

Hope WB gets it.

Edited April 20, 2017 by UNDERDOG

[ddddeeee]

3 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

Huh. Well I guess if even a film like Spectre can make almost 900m then you know the franchise is still a license to kill print money.

 

I'm guessing Craig will be back for one more.

I want him to leave on a high note, that means doing another. 

[CoolioD1]

i thought spectre was ok in the cinema. rewatched it on bluray and it felt like the longest film ever made.

[Hatebox]

Yup, it's way too long. For some reason when a film's production is rushed it always makes the end product feel unbearably bloated. You'd think they'd have the opposite problem.

[CoolioD1]

it's so long even Bela Tarr watched that shit and was all "hmmm, shoulda cut the Moriarty subplot"

[John Marston]

besides the unnecessary Blofeld connection, I mostly dug this movie

[elcaballero]

9 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

i thought spectre was ok in the cinema. rewatched it on bluray and it felt like the longest film ever made.

It's really long, and yet still manages to feel rushed at the end.

[Barnack]

54 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

Yup, it's way too long. For some reason when a film's production is rushed it always makes the end product feel unbearably bloated. You'd think they'd have the opposite problem.

 

'I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.'