US Opening Weekend Gross For SPECTRE

HowardB · November 2015

According to Forbes (which ironically panned the film) SPECTRE grossed 73 million this weekend in the US, second best for a Bond film behind Skyfall.

It will be interesting to see what happens from here. Pretty impressive considering the negative reviews. It will be interesting to see if positive word of mouth propels the film going forward.

Loeffelholz · November 2015

HowardB wrote:

According to Forbes (which ironically panned the film) SPECTRE grossed 73 million this weekend in the US, second best for a Bond film behind Skyfall.

It will be interesting to see what happens from here. Pretty impressive considering the negative reviews. It will be interesting to see if positive word of mouth propels the film going forward.

Forbes' initial review called it "the worst Bond film in 30 years"...but a subsequent article on the film took a less antagonistic tone, leading me to think that the editorial staff decided they didn't want the initial reviewer to be the rag's only voice on the subject.

I think it should have decent legs, but it won't be a billion-dollar Bond like SF was. It will certainly go on to be a huge hit, though. Bond fans know not to trust critics, and regular movie fans are looking for something new to see besides Peanuts, so I expect it to run the table until Mockingjay Pt 2 comes out, and it should continue to play into the holidays.

chrisisall · November 2015

HowardB wrote:

It will be interesting to see if positive word of mouth propels the film going forward.

I've been telling my co-workers how awesome it is.

Gassy Man · November 2015

I was really expecting much better U.S. box office than this, but I didn't count on the U.S. reviewers being so negative. It's interesting because my observation is that the British critics tend to be harder to impress, but this time around, quite a few American counterparts panned the film. It's odd to me because not only is it a great film, but it's not a bad modern version of the 1960s approach. It's odd to me that so many people would be upset that a Bond film actually acted like a Bond film. Expecting it to be a different type of film seems quite absurd, like being upset that Batman wears a costume or Star Wars features spaceships.

Gassy Man · November 2015

Still, the other issue is that some of the pieces were not coming together well. Quite a few people were aware of the script because of the Sony hack, Craig said he didn't want to do another one, and the Smith song hasn't wowed very many of the listeners.

Loeffelholz · November 2015

Gassy Man wrote:

I was really expecting better U.S. box office than this, but I didn't count on the U.S. reviewers being so negative. It's interesting because my observation is that the British critics tend to be harder to impress, but this time around, quite a few American counterparts panned the film. It's odd to me because not only is it a great film, but it's not a bad modern version of the 1960s approach. It's odd to me that so many people would be upset that a Bond film actually acted like a Bond film.

I'm with you there. A bit of a critical backlash against the Craig Era paying respect to tradition, which I find sad. I hope word of mouth does lift it over the eggheads' punji sticks, because Bond has always triumphed over that noise.

Gassy Man · November 2015

It's weird. You can tell that it's mostly non-fans writing the reviews -- people who only have a cursory understanding of the Bond films. They all seem to cite the same "flaws," as though the Bond formula itself is the problem. It will be interesting to see how ape the same people go for the upcoming Star Wars when it goes through the same motions as the previous films but is declared a triumph for being traditional. My guess is there will be gushing accolades for restoring the films to their rightful place.

The good news is that Spectre will likely become a fan favorite. It feels like the sort of film that will get better and better as time wears on for a lot of viewers, much like On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, and The Living Daylights, none of which wowed the critics or general public when they debuted. It's the closest to a 60s film in 40 years.

Loeffelholz · November 2015

Gassy Man wrote:

It's weird. You can tell that it's mostly non-fans writing the reviews -- people who only have a cursory understanding of the Bond films. They all seem to cite the same "flaws," as though the Bond formula itself is the problem. It will be interesting to see how ape the same people go for the upcoming Star Wars when it goes through the same motions as the previous films but is declared a triumph for being traditional. My guess is there will be gushing accolades for restoring the films to their rightful place.

The good news is that Spectre will likely become a fan favorite. It feels like the sort of film that will get better and better as time wears on for a lot of viewers, much like On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, and The Living Daylights, none of which wowed the critics or general public when they debuted. It's the closest to a 60s film in 40 years.

{[] Yes. When I finally get my SP review posted, I'm going to give special attention to the so-called 'professional' critics :v

Gassy Man · November 2015

Critics can have biases, but if they simply dislike the entire premise of a film series, then it is rather silly.

Loeffelholz · November 2015

Gassy Man wrote:

Critics can have biases, but if they simply dislike the entire premise of a film series, then it is rather silly.

Yeah, that's been my point all along. As I said somewhere else here, it's like having a food critic who hates Italian food review the newest Italian restaurant in town 8-) Some of them should just go back and rewatch Seven Samurai.

Gassy Man · November 2015

{[] Spectre is a glorious return to form -- flawed, yes, but not for being a Bond film. Critics lambasting it for being a Bond film are being unfair, as you eloquently point out. It's interesting that the criticisms are less about execution and more about form. One of my problems with Skyfall was that in many ways it was a fairly ordinary revenge film, improved upon because Bond was added to the mix, but it followed quite a few of the predictable routes of such a story. That's one of the reasons I think it resonated more with a mass audience. But Spectre is a bonafide Bond film, unlike anything else except the many, many Bond imitators.

zaphod99 · November 2015

I'm really surprised by the reaction of some US critics. Over here (UK) there seemed to be a fondness that overrode the flaws and it was well regarded despite them. I think perhaps that Daniel's 'I don't want to do another right now' has gone down as 'I don't want to do another ever' and somehow this has impacted on the views re the film we actually have and not some nebulous future project. Speaking with my chum in the states he tells me that this has played very badly, but surely not enough for the critical negativity. In many ways it is a clumsy film, but over here it is viewed as a well made an enjoyable one,

heartbroken_mr_drax · November 2015

Gassy Man wrote:

It's the closest to a 60s film in 40 years.

Agreed! {[]

I also felt some touches of OP action in there too.

HowardB · November 2015

SPECTRE is not without its flaws but its positives far outweigh the negatives. It's actually a lot of fun and certainly not a 2 1/2 hr meditation on being a paid assassin and orphan. Lots of people will most likely be happy to invest their time and a few bucks to have fun for 2 1/2 hrs.

Thunderpussy · November 2015

Agreed, most people going to see it aren't Bond fans, just people looking
to be entertained for a few hours, and spectre will most certainly do that !

broadshoulder · November 2015

HowardB wrote:

SPECTRE is not without its flaws but its positives far outweigh the negatives. Irs.

That's my take on it...

Haven't seen the Americans views but what do they have against it?

Absolutely_Cart · November 2015

HowardB wrote:

According to Forbes (which ironically panned the film) SPECTRE grossed 73 million this weekend in the US, second best for a Bond film behind Skyfall.

Like I expected. Skyfall was a historic success, the biggest since Thunderball. It's noting against Spectre - Skyfall was just a perfect storm with great advertising. And Spectre's sales are still great (and ahead of most Bond films). I could also say it's a beneficiary of (Peanuts aside) an otherwise weak launch this month so far.

Loeffelholz wrote:

Forbes' initial review called it "the worst Bond film in 30 years"

Like Die Another Day doesn't exist?

broadshoulder wrote:

Haven't seen the Americans views but what do they have against it?

I'm American. I enjoyed the movie but felt like it suffered from weak writing in some areas.

But then again, Spectre is a pretty American movie.

Thunderpussy wrote:

Agreed, most people going to see it aren't Bond fans, just people looking
to be entertained for a few hours, and spectre will most certainly do that !

Yes, it will. I still recommend people see the movie (so long as they're okay with the fact that the last 30 minutes might underwhelm them).

broadshoulder · November 2015

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I'm American. I enjoyed the movie but felt like it suffered from weak writing in some areas.

Yeah, very nice, but what did THEY have against it. A list would be nice...

Matt S · November 2015

broadshoulder wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I'm American. I enjoyed the movie but felt like it suffered from weak writing in some areas.

Yeah, very nice, but what did THEY have against it. A list would be nice...

One well-known critic said the New York City scenes looked very empty because Manhattan always has traffic and people in the streets.

Hardyboy · November 2015

I think Bond films are critic-proof--and if one thing's been established, it's that audiences will go see Daniel Craig as James Bond. And, not to nitpick, it's not that the reviews are negative--they're classically "mixed:" some very good ones, some bad ones, and the majority saying the film is made up of highs and lows. This is about par for the course with Bond films; Skyfall was the exception, with critics falling all over themselves in praise.

Harry Palmer · November 2015

Gassy Man wrote:

{[] Spectre is a glorious return to form -- flawed, yes, but not for being a Bond film. Critics lambasting it for being a Bond film are being unfair, as you eloquently point out. It's interesting that the criticisms are less about execution and more about form. One of my problems with Skyfall was that in many ways it was a fairly ordinary revenge film, improved upon because Bond was added to the mix, but it followed quite a few of the predictable routes of such a story. That's one of the reasons I think it resonated more with a mass audience. But Spectre is a bonafide Bond film, unlike anything else except the many, many Bond imitators.

I quite disagree. It's true that Spectre has a lot of Bond nostalgia--and that in itself can be a good thing. But I felt that the nostalgia here functioned less as an homage, than as an embarrassed avoidance of the responsibility of actually making a new Bond film. It's like saying something, but hiding behind air-quotes, so that people know you don't actually mean it. No director who thinks that Bond is an old outdated relic, with no currency in our time, should agree to make a Bond film, only to hide behind nostalgic set pieces.

The Domino Effect · November 2015

Loeffelholz wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Critics can have biases, but if they simply dislike the entire premise of a film series, then it is rather silly.

Yeah, that's been my point all along. As I said somewhere else here, it's like having a food critic who hates Italian food review the newest Italian restaurant in town 8-) Some of them should just go back and rewatch Seven Samurai.

I've been saying that sort of thing for years, too. If you hated The Hangover, why would you even bother going to watch 2 or 3? And yet critics who hated "Bridget Jones' Diary" (for example!) are frequently subjected to reviewing the follow-up. I'm not saying that you only send a diehard fan of the first one to review a sequel, but equally it makes no sense at all to send someone who hated the first one to review the second one. There are lots of genres that I dislike and therefore don't bother to watch. If I was a film reviewer I would obviously try to view a film as dispassionately and professionally as possible, but the bottom line is if I didn't like "Avatar" (for example) and couldn't even be fussed to finish watching it, why on earth would someone pay for my opinion of a sequel?

broadshoulder · November 2015

Matt S wrote:

broadshoulder wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I'm American. I enjoyed the movie but felt like it suffered from weak writing in some areas.

Yeah, very nice, but what did THEY have against it. A list would be nice...

One well-known critic said the New York City scenes looked very empty because Manhattan always has traffic and people in the streets.

Did they see the film??

Matt S · November 2015

Here's the review so you can read all the nonsense for yourself: http://observer.com/2015/11/james-bond-turns-bland/

His facts are wrong. Another line that shows he didn't watch the film: "Miss Moneypenny is now a pretty office worker (Naomie Harris) who resists the 007 charm without leaving her desk."

And did I miss this, or is this line false too? "a satellite in the middle of a meteorite crater in the Sahara called “Spectre""

I waited at a bus stop just outside this reviewer's apartment building after I saw the film. I wish I knew which window was his so I could teach him something about the film

Thunderpussy · November 2015

Just mentioned on bbc news that spectre is the #1 film in all 71
countries it has been released in and has taken well over
$200 million so far -{

heartbroken_mr_drax · November 2015

Thunderpussy wrote:

Just mentioned on bbc news that spectre is the #1 film in all 71
countries it has been released in and has taken well over
$200 million so far -{

{[]

According to Box Office Mojo it has done $293m so far. So the production budget is done, now just the marking budget -{

Loeffelholz · November 2015

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

Just mentioned on bbc news that spectre is the #1 film in all 71
countries it has been released in and has taken well over
$200 million so far -{

{[]

According to Box Office Mojo it has done $293m so far. So the production budget is done, now just the marking budget -{

It's going to be fine---a huge hit. And the critics, as always, can go pound sand.

perdogg · November 2015

HowardB wrote:

According to Forbes (which ironically panned the film) SPECTRE grossed 73 million this weekend in the US, second best for a Bond film behind Skyfall.

It will be interesting to see what happens from here. Pretty impressive considering the negative reviews. It will be interesting to see if positive word of mouth propels the film going forward.

Actually it came in at $70.3 Million which is about $20.4 Million less than SkygeFallen .

Loeffelholz · November 2015

Yep. A huge hit. They're not all going to be the Biggest Hit In British Film History -{

heartbroken_mr_drax · November 2015

Critics have always had a hard time with Bond.

The formula is the success of the franchise. Young and old people continually go to the Bond films at the movies because they know what they're in for and they adore the experience. I've only got a few friends who are regular movie-goers, but they all make the effort to see Bond.

Critics are always looking for something original - I guess that's why they loved CR (reboot of formula, with a new Bond) and loved SF because it wasn't really a Bond film.

I seriously don't think people who read the critic's concensus on Rotten Tomatoes which says...

Spectre nudges Daniel Craig's rebooted Bond closer to the glorious, action-driven spectacle of earlier entries, although it's admittedly reliant on established 007 formula.

...would avoid the film because of that. It's actually a further reason to go.

Loeffelholz · November 2015

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Critics have always had a hard time with Bond.

The formula is the success of the franchise. Young and old people continually go to the Bond films at the movies because they know what they're in for and they adore the experience. I've only got a few friends who are regular movie-goers, but they all make the effort to see Bond.

Critics are always looking for something original - I guess that's why they loved CR (reboot of formula, with a new Bond) and loved SF because it wasn't really a Bond film.

I seriously don't think people who read the critic's concensus on Rotten Tomatoes which says...

Spectre nudges Daniel Craig's rebooted Bond closer to the glorious, action-driven spectacle of earlier entries, although it's admittedly reliant on established 007 formula.

...would avoid the film because of that. It's actually a further reason to go.

Correct -{

US Opening Weekend Gross For SPECTRE

Comments