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

[RichWS]

Just now, MovieMan89 said:

We'll be near License to Kill numbers shortly if they play their cards for the next one the same way they did for this one. That's the point. People don't want to consider how this THREE DECADE low affects the franchise going forward. And that's perfectly fine I guess if they just want to stick all their eggs in the OS basket now and let Bond become Terminator. I for one though think it will be kind of sad if it loses its relevance DOM. 

 

As for Craig, he's old, tired, and downright entitled when it comes to the role at this point. He's thinks he's the shit, and as such doesn't think he even has to try. And because he doesn't think he has to try, we get performances that, surprise surprise, have no effort behind them. He needs to go ASAP. A new Bond will always get people talking and re-new interest. Not only that, but because they usually have to prove themselves more when they do a re-cast that first film with a new Bond is usually the best of that actor's Bond filmography. It is definitely time. 

 

A lot of this seems to be you projecting your thoughts regarding Craig, I think I'll pass. I didn't have any problem with him in this one. Agree to disagree. 

[MovieMan89]

Just now, RichWS said:

 

A lot of this seems to be you projecting your thoughts regarding Craig, I think I'll pass. I didn't have any problem with him in this one. Agree to disagree. 

I guarantee you that the GA are bored with Craig. His "going through the motions" came across in all of the marketing, and it's a big reason for the massive drop off. And for the record, a normal drop off from Skyfall would've looked something like 230-250m.

 

And I love how everyone wants to ret-con a huge drop off from Skyfall as "only to be expected" when a month ago literally 90% of this board was saying 300+, not to mention the analysts too. This was NEVER an expected drop, and that's what is most annoying how people want to pretend now that it was. 

[Cmasterclay]

2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

We'll be near License to Kill numbers shortly if they play their cards for the next one the same way they did for this one. That's the point. People don't want to consider how this THREE DECADE low affects the franchise going forward. And that's perfectly fine I guess if they just want to stick all their eggs in the OS basket now and let Bond become Terminator. I for one though think it will be kind of sad if it loses its relevance DOM. 

 

As for Craig, he's old, tired, and downright entitled when it comes to the role at this point. He thinks he's the shit at this point, and as such doesn't think he even has to try anymore. And because he doesn't think he has to try, we get performances that, surprise surprise, have no effort behind them. He needs to go ASAP. A new Bond will always get people talking and re-new interest. Not only that, but because they  have to prove themselves more when they do a re-cast, that first film with a new Bond is usually the best of that actor's Bond filmography. It is definitely time. 

Whoa, talk about reactionary. I don't know if Daniel Craig, like,  did something to you, but it's one movie. Skyfall had Craig, and it did record numbers. Bond was bigger than ever. We were all saying how the franchise would never die. That was one movie ago. If they deliver the actual goods next time with marketing and quality, it'll jump right back up. It always does. History has shown that it always does, with Bond. 

 

Also, what three decade low? It's going to do more than Quantum, CR, or Die Another. Sure, adjusted numbers and all, but if QOS had come out in 2015, with more bootlegs, with more options on home video, with WOM spreading even faster on social media, it would have done just as low. Same with any Bond movie. That's why adjusting any of the Bond films in the past 15 years doesn't make alot of sense (or really, most movies in the past 15 years.) As much as Spectre will gain from high ticket prices, it will lose just as much from rapid rise of online streams, home video options, and thousands of alternative entertainment channels. Adjustment sorta kinda cancels out. This is doing just as well as Quantum. Hell, it's doing as well as Mission Impossible, for the most part. R-E-L-A-X.

[Ozymandias]

A 50+ year old franchise is on the ropes because of a 180-200m domestic movie!  Someone cast a new Bond!  How about the internet blogger's favorite choice, Idris Elba!

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

Considering Craig was the best part of the movie, I don't think he's the problem. The movie just isn't that good.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Jayhawk

[The Panda]

I wouldn't get doom and gloom.  Spectre is still a hit and massive overseas.  There'll be a new Bond for 25 and likely a new director and it'll pick up again.

 

I could see Nolan picking up Bond 25 which could renew interest again.  Bond is just being Bond, the franchise isn't one that's going to die.

[RichWS]

7 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

I guarantee you that the GA are bored with Craig. His "going through the motions" came across in all of the marketing, and it's a big reason for the massive drop off. And for the record, a normal drop off from Skyfall would've looked something like 230-250m.

 

And I love how everyone wants to ret-con a huge drop off from Skyfall as "only to be expected" when a month ago literally 90% of this board was saying 300+, not to mention the analysts too. This was NEVER an expected drop, and that's what is most annoying how people want to pretend now that it was. 

 

I'm glad you're clarifying for the record, and for all of us, what a "normal" drop WOULD have been! I don't give a shit what other people were predicting. I thought 250-260M the whole time and felt I was being generous. The public didn't care about what Craig said. AGAIN FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME: this movie didn't have a big anniversary, a massive hit song and great reviews to fall back on. I don't know what else to say here. This has happened with Bond movies for years and years.

Edited November 12, 2015 by RichWS

[Ozymandias]

3 minutes ago, The Panda said:

I wouldn't get doom and gloom.  Spectre is still a hit and massive overseas.  There'll be a new Bond for 25 and likely a new director and it'll pick up again.

 

I could see Nolan picking up Bond 25 which could renew interest again.  Bond is just being Bond, the franchise isn't one that's going to die.

 

Craig may be back for one more, the producers said "they think they got him".  If Spectre makes 900+ WW(which I think is very likely), I'd be surprised if he doesn't come back for 1 more.   Also, Craig isn't contracted anymore so he can ask for a huge ass paycheck, and 50 million check can be mighty tempting.

[MovieMan89]

1 minute ago, Cmasterclay said:

Whoa, talk about reactionary. I don't know if Daniel Craig, like,  did something to you, but it's one movie. Skyfall had Craig, and it did record numbers. Bond was bigger than ever. We were all saying how the franchise would never die. That was one movie ago. If they deliver the actual goods next time with marketing and quality, it'll jump right back up. It always does. History has shown that it always does, with Bond. 

 

Also, what three decade low? It's going to do more than Quantum, CR, or Die Another. Sure, adjusted numbers and all, but if QOS had come out in 2015, with more bootlegs, with more options on home video, with WOM spreading even faster on social media, it would have done just as low. Same with any Bond movie. That's why adjusting any of the Bond films in the past 15 years doesn't make alot of sense (or really, most movies in the past 15 years.) As much as Spectre will gain from high ticket prices, it will lose just as much from rapid rise of online streams, home video options, and thousands of alternative entertainment channels. Adjustment sorta kinda cancels out. This is doing just as well as Quantum. Hell, it's doing as well as Mission Impossible, for the most part. R-E-L-A-X.

Good lord people are desperate to defend this movie's dismal DOM performance for some bizarre reason. Since when are we using unadjusted gross to measure a movie's success comparative to the rest of its franchise? 

 

And lmfao at you trying to say there's some major disadvantage between '08 and now in how the DOM box office works. If anything it is skewed way in favor of higher grosses now with premium formats and 3D the norm. If we're getting into bootlegs, the film most affected by a bootleg leak was released in 2009. Much closer to QoS than Spectre. 

 

For the record everyone called QoS a huge disappointment in '08, I remember that very clealry. This does even worse yet for some reason people want to say it's not so bad? Unless we're talking about OS, that's not true at all. Again, I have no idea why so many want to come to this movie's defense and not call a black and white disappointment what it really is. It's almost as if no one wants to own up to being dead wrong in their predictions for this film, like almost all of us were. 

[RichWS]

As a Bond nerd, all I ask is PLEASE NO NOLAN.

[Cmasterclay]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

Good lord people are desperate to defend this movie's dismal DOM performance for some bizarre reason. Since when are we using unadjusted gross to measure a movie's success comparative to the rest of its franchise? 

 

And lmfao at you trying to say there's some major disadvantage between '08 and now in how the DOM box office works. If anything it is skewed way in favor of higher grosses now with premium formats and 3D the norm. If we're getting into bootlegs, the film most affected by a bootleg leak was released in 2009. Much closer to QoS than Spectre. 

 

For the record everyone called QoS a huge disappointment in '08, I remember that very clealry. This does even worse yet for some reason people want to say it's not so bad? Unless we're talking about OS, that's not true at all. Again, I have no idea why so many want to come to this movie's defense and not call a black and white disappointment what it really is. It's almost as if no one wants to own up to being dead wrong in their predictions for this film, like almost all of us were. 

No one is desperate to defend a "dismal" performance because it's DOING EXACTLY WHAT EVERY BOND MOVIE OF THE PAST TWENTY YEARS EXCEPT ONE DID. That's not desperately defending. That's using basic logic and fact. It opened to more than all but one Bond movie ever. It will have a higher domestic total than all but one Bond movie ever. And yes, the adjusting, it cancels out. Nowadays, if a movie has average reviews, you don't have to wait six months to go to blockbuster and rent a DVD. You can watch it on demand like three months later for free. So it does cancel out. I have never seen a mildly dissappointing result blown out of proportion to this degree. 

 

Also, QOS was called a dissapointment, and so has this. It did finish lower than expectations. But dismal? No. On the ropes? Hell no. Both did exactly what Bond movies traditionally do. 

[MovieMan89]

4 minutes ago, RichWS said:

 

 This has happened with Bond movies for years and years.

Sure has. And everytime a Bond film has fallen near or below the 20m admissions range in the past, it has just gotten worse and worse with subsequent releases until they get a reboot going. But yeah, clearly there's no cause for concern and they should just keep doing what they're doing going forward. 

[RichWS]

Just now, MovieMan89 said:

Sure has. And everytime a Bond film has fallen near or below the 20m admissions range in the past, it has just gotten worse and worse with subsequent releases until they get a reboot going. But yeah, clearly there's no cause for concern and they should just keep doing what they're doing going forward. 

 

Just hit me that you're taking this A LOT more seriously than I am. Craig for one more. Won't kill anything. Series will be fine. 

[Cmasterclay]

Hey guys, remember when SW: Attack of the Clones did 150 million less than the movie before it? That franchise never recovered! How about when Harry Potter 3 dropped about 75 million from the first one in the franchise? God, what a flop! They should have cancelled that when they had the chance! 

[MovieMan89]

2 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

No one is desperate to defend a "dismal" performance because it's DOING EXACTLY WHAT EVERY BOND MOVIE OF THE PAST TWENTY YEARS EXCEPT ONE DID. That's not desperately defending. That's using basic logic and fact. It opened to more than all but one Bond movie ever. It will have a higher domestic total than all but one Bond movie ever. And yes, the adjusting, it cancels out. Nowadays, if a movie has average reviews, you don't have to wait six months to go to blockbuster and rent a DVD. You can watch it on demand like three months later for free. So it does cancel out. I have never seen a mildly dissappointing result blown out of proportion to this degree. 

 

Also, QOS was called a dissapointment, and so has this. It did finish lower than expectations. But dismal? No. On the ropes? Hell no. Both did exactly what Bond movies traditionally do. 

Basic logic and facts tell you it's doing what no Bond film has since 1989 in terms of admissions. Hardly "EXACTLY WHAT EVERY BOND MOVIE OF THE PAST TWENTY YEARS EXCEPT ONE DID!" That's the whole damn point. It's a three decade low. Stop dressing it up and trying to act like it isn't. And your use of home media and streaming is a laughable and irrelevant point in this discussion. It has been the norm for movie to be available to watch out of the theater in 3-4 months for like a decade now. That is hardly a new thing, and it hardly stops the blockbusters from being blockbusters. 

[RichWS]

4 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Hey guys, remember when SW: Attack of the Clones did 150 million less than the movie before it? That franchise never recovered! How about when Harry Potter 3 dropped about 75 million from the first one in the franchise? God, what a flop! They should have cancelled that when they had the chance! 

 

YOU ARE IGNORING THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF CRAIG. RE-CAST!

[Claire of Themyscira]

6 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Hey guys, remember when SW: Attack of the Clones did 150 million less than the movie before it? That franchise never recovered! How about when Harry Potter 3 dropped about 75 million from the first one in the franchise? God, what a flop! They should have cancelled that when they had the chance! 

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

2 minutes ago, RichWS said:

 

YOU ARE IGNORING THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF CRAIG. RE-CAST!

I would love to see the meltdowns if Bond were re-cast as a woman

[Cmasterclay]

7 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Sure has. And everytime a Bond film has fallen near or below the 20m admissions range in the past, it has just gotten worse and worse with subsequent releases until they get a reboot going. But yeah, clearly there's no cause for concern and they should just keep doing what they're doing going forward. 

Except none of that is factually accurate. Roger Moore movies fluctuated wildly leading up to a View to Kill. A View to Kill WAS a domestic low.....but it never had another release after. So you can't say it "got worse and worse" when they never made another Moore Bond. You're extrapolating to data that does not exist. Dalton did two Bond movies. That is a tiny sample size. LTK came out in a hugely stacked 1989. If they released an awesome Dalton Bond in 1992 with great reviews, for all we know it could have been a huge hit. A sample size of two movies is not a trend. And Brosnan. DAD was the highest grossing Brosnan bond movie! And then he never did another one. So it hits a domestic high for the franchise...and then he does no more. Hardly a "downward trend." Hell, DAD did more than CR did four years later, which was one of your beloved reboots of the franchise! So there goes that argument. 

[Ozymandias]

2 minutes ago, Jayhawk said:

I would love to see the meltdowns if Bond were re-cast as a woman

 

Bond...  Jane Bond.