Spectre - members review thread

Control wrote:

What a mess of a film. It played like a rough cut and the story flowed like a shoddy rough draft. We bounced around from location to location without even really knowing why any of this was happening. It just was. They tried covering the sloppiness with nods to past films and humor, but it didn't work. The writers also seemed to concentrate more on connecting this film with CR, QOS and SF, rather than just coming up with an original and coherent story.

I don't think they tried to cover the sloppiness with nods to the previous films as much as they were determined early on to #1 make Blofeld Bond's brother and #2 make it look as if the previous 3 films were revenge against Bond from Blofeld because of Blofeld's jealousy towards Bond. They painted themselves into a corner they could not write themselves out of by insisting that Bond and Blofeld be related. It formed the basis for all the other bad choices that followed. It's a huge, huge stretch to try and pull something like that off and it doesn't work. It's also demeaning and insulting to the audience's intelligence, not to mention the people who worked on the previous 3 films.

Furthermore, it's wholly unnecessary. Blofeld does not need to be explained. Audiences have a familiarity with the character. But even if they didn't, it seems odd to set this character up to possibly return when the ending of the film makes it seem as if Bond isn't.

This film also appears to be written by people who've never seen GOLDENEYE. In Goldeneye 006 gets his scarred face from a detonation Bond sets; in SPECTRE Blofeld's disfigurement is causes by a detonation that Bond creates. In GOLDENEYE Trevelyan fakes his own death so that he can lead the criminal organization Janus; in SPECTRE, Oberhauser fakes his death so that he can begin his life as a criminal mastermind. The one advantage that GOLDENEYE has over SPECTRE is that you at least get to see 006 and 007 in action together before Trevelyan's "death", so you can somewhat believe the competitive nature of 006 and 007's relationship to one another (although I'll admit GOLDENEYE could have done a better job of setting the two up as friends before trying to get us to mourn Alec's death). Natayla's comment "He was your friend and now he's your enemy and you will kill him" helps sell the bitterness between 006 and 007 better than anything I saw in SPECTRE. Not once did I believe for one second that Oberhauser was so emotionally wounded by his father that he had to kill him and then 11 years later start plotting to kill those around Bond. It's a very lame, light-weight plot device that does not drive the story at all. And yet SONY and EON went with it anyway....against all common sense and reason.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Control wrote:

What a mess of a film. It played like a rough cut and the story flowed like a shoddy rough draft. We bounced around from location to location without even really knowing why any of this was happening. It just was. They tried covering the sloppiness with nods to past films and humor, but it didn't work. The writers also seemed to concentrate more on connecting this film with CR, QOS and SF, rather than just coming up with an original and coherent story.

I don't think they tried to cover the sloppiness with nods to the previous films as much as they were determined early on to #1 make Blofeld Bond's brother and #2 make it look as if the previous 3 films were revenge against Bond from Blofeld because of Blofeld's jealousy towards Bond. They painted themselves into a corner they could not write themselves out of by insisting that Bond and Blofeld be related. It formed the basis for all the other bad choices that followed. It's a huge, huge stretch to try and pull something like that off and it doesn't work. It's also demeaning and insulting to the audience's intelligence, not to mention the people who worked on the previous 3 films.

Furthermore, it's wholly unnecessary. Blofeld does not need to be explained. Audiences have a familiarity with the character. But even if they didn't, it seems odd to set this character up to possibly return when the ending of the film makes it seem as if Bond isn't.

This film also appears to be written by people who've never seen GOLDENEYE. In Goldeneye 006 gets his scarred face from a detonation Bond sets; in SPECTRE Blofeld's disfigurement is causes by a detonation that Bond creates. In GOLDENEYE Trevelyan fakes his own death so that he can lead the criminal organization Janus; in SPECTRE, Oberhauser fakes his death so that he can begin his life as a criminal mastermind. The one advantage that GOLDENEYE has  over SPECTRE is that you at least get to see 006 and 007 in action together before Trevelyan's "death", so you can somewhat believe the competitive nature of 006 and 007's relationship to one another (although I'll admit  GOLDENEYE could have done a better job of setting the two up as friends before trying to get us to mourn Alec's death). Natayla's comment "He was your friend and now he's your enemy and you will kill him" helps sell the bitterness between 006 and 007 better than anything I saw in SPECTRE. Not once did I believe for one second that Oberhauser was so emotionally wounded by his father that he had to kill him and then 11 years later start plotting to kill those around Bond. It's a very lame, light-weight plot  device that does  not drive the story at all. And yet SONY and EON went with it anyway....against all common sense and reason.

Which is why I'm hoping that in Bond 25, it's revealed the Blofeld of SP is actually still Oberhauser, and the real Blofeld comes and kills him for failing.

Or some other explanation. Because, like you said, it's an insult to fans. I can't believe this is the type of Bond film Mendes wants to see - if he is still using that philosophy.

The reading I got was that Blofeld went off to form SPECTRE and do his own thing. Not to troll Bond from the beginning. It's only coincidence that Bond gets involved in their affairs after foiling the casino and Bolivian jobs. It's when they finally meet that Blofeld tries to get under Bond's skin by taunting him about what Bond lost rather than claiming he orchestrated the whole thing. Maybe that was a different case in earlier drafts (I haven't looked into them), but this is how I read this film.

Yeah but it still boils down to the fact that out of everyone in the world that fostered Bond, it had to be the guy who would become the greatest threat to the world because of brotherly jealousy.

Two of the silliest coincidences if you ask me. But will see if I interpret it differently on my next viewing. I want to like it because it's visually stunning and is kinda a return to form, but SF still feels a whole lot more authentic as a Bond entry.

I think it's just to add a personal aspect to their dynamic without repeating the "he killed my wife" trope. It's silly, but that's Bond for you.

Just saw it last night at the Gibraltar premier, and I thought it was superb. Not as good as Casino Royale (at the moment), but much better than Quantum and Skyfall.

Craig's best performance yet. He oozes cool in just about every scene, looking more McQueen than ever, and we finally have a Bond film which combines the gritty serious elements, plus the traditional gadget and humour elements successfully. This performance by Craig is on par with Connery in Thunderball.

Swann is by far the best Bond girl in a long time, and the love story is actually very convincing.

Soundtrack blew me away, the train fight has to be one of the best in the series, and loved the car chase. The torture scene was fairly horrific too, maybe worse than CR.

The only thing I'm not sure on is the ending (not the Aston bit, which was good), but the Thames helicopter chase. I need to see it again to decide on that one.

Overall, this is Craig meets Moore, and the most traditional Bond film from the Craig era.

FieldsMan wrote:

Well I'm glad Bellucci didn't get cast as Paris because her performance wasn't that great in SP - plus she had a hell of a lot more to work with than what Hatcher did, and yet I still think Hatcher added enough layers to Paris to make her believable. But that's just me I imagine.

Nope, I 100% agree with this. Bellucci's acting in SPECTRE was terrible (at least in italian, perhaps she was better in english).

FieldsMan wrote:

Yeah but it still boils down to the fact that out of everyone in the world that fostered Bond, it had to be the guy who would become the greatest threat to the world because of brotherly jealousy.

Two of the silliest coincidences if you ask me. But will see if I interpret it differently on my next viewing. I want to like it because it's visually stunning and is kinda a return to form, but SF still feels a whole lot more authentic as a Bond entry.

It's littered with idiotic coincidences and twists. They're insulting. I'd be surprised if a 13-year-old would even believe them.

I like that life-long Bond fans are supposed to sit in the theater and face the fact that EON's new Ernst Stavro Blofeld, James Bond's arch-nemesis, picked his name from his mother's side, probably because it sounded neat.

jet set willy wrote:

... much better than Quantum and Skyfall.

Being worse than Quantum would take real effort. However, I rank Skyfall as Craig's best; whatever faulks Skyfall may have had pale in comparison to SPECTRE. Maybe SKYFALL was never really all that good; maybe SPECTRE has exposed Mendes.

Jet Set Willy wrote:

Craig's best performance yet. He oozes cool in just about every scene, looking more McQueen than ever, and we finally have a Bond film which combines the gritty serious elements, plus the traditional gadget and humour elements successfully. This performance by Craig is on par with Connery in Thunderball.

I had no problem with Craig in this film. If he's lacking in anything it's due to the script. My favorite part of the film was him having the audacity to tell Monica Bellucci that, "No", she didn't look like she was in mourning. Basically just having the balls to go right up to her at her husband's funeral and set the stage for seducing her. That's very Conneryesque. Craig pulls it off in a way only he and Connery could; no one else.

Jet Set Willy wrote:

Swann is by far the best Bond girl in a long time, and the love story is actually very convincing.

I'll have to see it a few more times to come to that conclusion about their love story, but off the top of my head I remember feeling real chemistry between Bond and Kara (an old-fashioned romance) in the theaters in 1987, and seeing some chemistry between Bond and Tracy (whenever I saw OHMSS on tv or VHS); I could see why a man would perhaps leave the service to be with Tracy; Diana Rigg drags both her and Lazenby across the finish line with her performance.

But I don't get that from Swann and Bond and that may be because nothing in this film seems original. Every bit feels like something borrowed from other Bond films. I guess we're meant to feel that Bond can relate to Swann because she feels alone and isolated and damaged, but didn't we already go through all of this with Camille? Maybe this is a double-standard and I'm a sexist, but I'm not really turned on by seeing a Bond Girl drink herself into a slurring slumber. Is Mendes hinting that she has a problem with alcohol? Just like James? It's one thing for the lead role to be an "anti-hero", but quite another thing for the leading lady to be an anti-heroine as well. And we'd already seen Lucia drinking after she got back from the funeral (though in her case it's to calm her nerves because she knows she's about to be assassinated). Do we really need two drunk Bond Girls in the same movie?  

Swann feels like a supporting character who should've been dropped off at the local embassy as soon as she told Q the name of the organization. After that she has almost no reason for being in the movie. What's worse, she actually ranks lower than Stacy Sutton and Christmas Jones in terms of relevancy to the plot. She has ZERO to do with Bond other than be by his side once they head for Tangier.

The only other stand out moment for me was the panic and desperation in Bond's behavior as he realizes Blofelt is about to force Madeline to watch her father's suicide, but even at that it doesn't make me think Swann and Bond are meant to be together.

Every chance to get Swann to show some warmth and emotion seems to be ultimately derivative of other Bond films and ends in wasted opportunities. Her dialogue seems to be lifted from GOLDENEYE or CASINO ROYALE, right down to the train sequence. Even when she gets out of the Land Rover and punches Bond it reminded me of Natalya getting out of the helicopter and proceeding to knee Bond to the groin as thanks for saving her life, yet done better in GOLDENEYE than in SPECTRE.

In fact, Mendes appropriates large chunks of GOLDENEYE and OHMSS and claims them as his own for SP, but they were done better in those movies than in this one. I let him get away with it in SF because I had fun; that movie was more funner. I guess I could go on and on and make finely detailed points about what let me down about SPECTRE, but in the final analysis I guess the only thing  that really can be said about the film is that it utterly fails to deliver anything original & meaningful. Yes, I know we're going up against 23 previous Bond films, so originality is a precious and rare commodity, but I refuse to believe there are no good ideas left. We've simply just started recycling old concepts and plot points because EON has gotten lazy again. Thinking that the 1.1 billion dollar box office gave them CARTE BLANCHE to do whatever they want, they ended up doing...well, yeah, whatever they want. They gave us revisionist history with a plot no one in either hard-core of casual fandom was asking for. If the 1.1 billion box office of SF proved anything, it should've allowed them to make an even better follow-up. Too many resources at their disposal to come up with something this half-assed. Three years in the making and not much to show for it.

And it is very, very clear that the studio should've pulled the plug on this production and let Mendes walk away to do his stage productions rather than commit to a script they *hoped* would magically repair itself during production. They'll never admit it, but they truly never had a clear vision of what this movie was going to be about. How so? Well, while Blofeld seems to have been the villain all along, how he/she would be revealed changed so much that it seems to me no one truly had a handle on the story they were going to tell. And by "story" I also mean that this film looks like, to some degree, a remake of OHMSS, but without having the balls to just come right out and say so. Swann is a stand-in for Tracy; the daughter of a criminal whom Bond swears to protect in exchange for information. I mean, it's stunning just how much of OHMSS Mendes and Company take without having to accept any of the responsibility for trying to remake the film in the first place. If there's any doubt that he's remaking OHMSS, the last 2 minutes of the movie should dispel that notion.

Early suggestion(s) that Blofeld be a female are ferociously rejected by SONY in an email (score one for Amy Paschal) saying only Meryl Streep could pull such a job off, so the PC think tank at EON tries to make Blofeld a Central African warlord, before someone finally steps in and takes Blofeld back to his origins (somewhat). But that EON even stops to think about this political correctness (like having the first 50 year old Bond Girl) is distressing enough. I think, if anything, it shows that EON has now outlived its usefulness where the series is concerned. It is they who are out of step with the audience. 1.1 billion in receipts for SKYFALL should've bought enough credibility to be bolder; more politically incorrect, not less.

I'm almost tempted to rate TND higher than SPECTRE. As much as TND is a paint-by-numbers type of Bond film, the one thing it never does is commit the cardinal sin of not being fun. TND, along with TMWTGG, at least attempt to entertain; don't wallow in self-pity and don't take themselves too seriously. I'd even rank LICENSE TO KILL REVOKED as good, or better than  SPECTRE (but will have to think about that a bit more to be certain).

The Craig films need an enema. They need an Onatopp or a Fatima Blush or a Fiona Volpe or a May Day. But I think  it's too late for that. Better to end the Craig era with SPECTRE than try to make his films into something they're not.

Nice write up, Grav. I didn't buy the Madeleine Swann relationship/character either, but will see if it changes when I see it again Wednesday. Sure, she takes Bond to L'Americain, but it seems that she only existed to get Bond out of the torture situation. I liked her first scene though - shades of Christmas, Pussy and Holly Goodhead, which is fine by me.

That's why TND works for me. It's virtually the only modern Bond without getting caught up in all this 'personal' rubbish.

Walecs wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Well I'm glad Bellucci didn't get cast as Paris because her performance wasn't that great in SP - plus she had a hell of a lot more to work with than what Hatcher did, and yet I still think Hatcher added enough layers to Paris to make her believable. But that's just me I imagine.

Nope, I 100% agree with this. Bellucci's acting in SPECTRE was terrible (at least in italian, perhaps she was better in english).

It wasn't terrible, she just seemed vacant.

Glad you agree though! Io sono contento

FieldsMan wrote:

Nice write up, Grav. I didn't buy the Madeleine Swann relationship/character either, but will see if it changes when I see it again Wednesday. Sure, she takes Bond to L'Americain, but it seems that she only existed to get Bond out of the torture situation. I liked her first scene though - shades of Christmas, Pussy and Holly Goodhead, which is fine by me.

That's why TND works for me. It's virtually the only modern Bond without getting caught up in all this 'personal' rubbish.

Thanks.

I'll add this: I did like the expanded roles of Q, M and Moneypenny (and I'm not averse to Moneypenny being out from behind the desk; just never cared for Naomi Harris; isn't it ironic that many of these ideas for Moneypenny were first put out there by Lois Maxwell, yet she never got the chance to implement any of them? I remember an interview she did where she suggested she should be promoted to "M". Forward thinking for the times, but now seems quaint.).

All of the moments from the film that really stand out for me, oddly enough, were human moments and had no action sequence involved with them. You really felt the conflict in Q when  he's trying to both help Bond and avoid losing his job (something we can all relate to).

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the agent that Bond stole the Aston Martin from? Maybe it was Idris Elba

Lois Maxwell did go out on the field, most notably in DAF where she posed as customs. The horse race in AVTAK seemed more of a mix of recreation and business. I think it's too bad the filmmakers never tried doing more of that as the series went on.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Nice write up, Grav. I didn't buy the Madeleine Swann relationship/character either, but will see if it changes when I see it again Wednesday. Sure, she takes Bond to L'Americain, but it seems that she only existed to get Bond out of the torture situation. I liked her first scene though - shades of Christmas, Pussy and Holly Goodhead, which is fine by me.

That's why TND works for me. It's virtually the only modern Bond without getting caught up in all this 'personal' rubbish.

Thanks.

I'll add this: I did like the expanded roles of Q, M and Moneypenny (and I'm not averse to Moneypenny being out from behind the desk; just never cared for Naomi Harris; isn't it ironic that many of these ideas for Moneypenny were first put out there by Lois Maxwell, yet she never got the chance to implement any of them? I remember an interview she did where she suggested she should be promoted to "M". Forward thinking for the times, but now seems quaint.).

All of the moments from the film that really stand out for me, oddly enough, were human moments and had no action sequence involved with them. You really felt the conflict in Q when  he's trying to both help Bond and avoid losing his job (something we can all relate to).

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the agent that Bond stole the Aston Martin from? Maybe it was Idris Elba

I wonder if a scene where 'Q' attempts to explain the Aston's absence to an infuriated 009 was ever mooted/scripted?

Given how the series has had a history of always hiding away from the rest of the 00 Section probably not, some things are left best to the imagination. I think this is the first time in Craig's run that they ever refer to another agent in the 00 Section.

Not bad, it's worldwide cume to date is about US$300m and it opens in China, one of the world's Top 3 box-office markets, later this week (Skyfall had a very late opening in China in comparison, which affected its take there).

I'm thinking China can add up to $100m making it third best slice of the pie after the US and UK.

Just got back from seeing SPECTRE. There are my initial reactions. I'll need to see it a few more times on DVD before coming to a final call. I came into the film with high expectations. I was really looking forward to it and I was thrilled at more traditional Bond with Craig. However...

I left the theater disappointed and not satisfied. I think if I was asked to rank this film right now I'd say it is a middle of the pack, run of the mill Bond film. Somewhere in the 14-18 range. It has more misses than hits.

It's definitely not comparable to CR/SF.

I like the traditional feel and the comedy injection. The first hour or so is pretty decent as well. Mr. Hinx was enjoyable.  I like M, Moneypenny and Q having expanded roles.

The Mexico sequence is probably the highlight of the film for me. But even from the get go in Mexico, something just seemed off to me. It didn't feel right, if that makes sense. It almost looked like they didn't have to time to finish it the way they wanted to. It didn't have that polish. I liked Mr. Hinx, but he is underused.

The middle of the film is a mess. You could probably cut 30-45 minutes from the film and not be lost whatsoever. The plot is paper thin. There are really no stakes for Bond until the final 20 minutes of the movie. Until then Bond is just investigating. The conclusion is pretty meh. Yeah, I know. The traditional Bond thing- invite him in, tell him your plan, etc. I'm fine with that. But Bond's escape and destruction of Blofeld's place is way to easy. Horrible pay off to a 2 and 1/2 hour film.

Didn't care much for the London finale either. The scenes with M and Bond were enjoyable. But the old MI6 building stuff was odd. They should have just had Blofeld fly away after the timer is set. The character is truly wasted in this film. All this build up and back story and there is very little payoff. Waltz is dreadfully boring. Not sure if it's his fault or the script. But he makes Charles Gray's Blofeld look riveting. Even Craig looked bored. The energy he had in the past 3 films just wasn't there. Maybe he truly does want out. Not sure if he just has the 4th Bond film blues or if it's just the script that is so lifeless at this point.

Did anyone think the Blofeld grey operational center set looked like crap? Looked like it came from the set of a 80s Doctor Who episode.

I have to say I was incredibly disappointed as I had high expectations and truly couldn't wait for this film and thought I was going to love it. Convoluted and uninspired. Hopefully my opinion changes.

bitchcraft wrote:

Not bad, it's worldwide cume to date is about US$300m and it opens in China, one of the world's Top 3 box-office markets, later this week (Skyfall had a very late opening in China in comparison, which affected its take there).

I'm thinking China can add up to $100m making it third best slice of the pie after the US and UK.

I don't think it'll cross 200 million at the American box office. It's going to go into steep decline next weekend (likely a 70% drop) and fade out by the time Thanksgiving rolls around.

Agree with most all of your points, Moore. It ranks around 18-19 for me right now as well after two viewings.

I saw it Sunday, but didn't have access to the internet until now.

It's pure Fleming. As if they had taken a 50's novel and put it on screen in 2015, just with modern technology. Everything they did wrong in films like CASINO, QUANTUM, SKYFOUL, or older ones, they did right this time. We follow Bond on an adventure full of thrill and tension. There is nothing of the comic book elements, pseudo drama and phoney hack-writing of SKYFALL. All the dialogue that sounded stupid in the trailers makes perfect sense within the context of the scenes. Characters like Moneypenny, M, and Q, who were mostly annoying and silly in SKYFALL, now have greatly developed little roles. They are all likeable, finely acted, and their actions make sense.

The humour is spot-on, no silliness in the whole movie. Even the all-embracing surveillance theme is handled with care and in a way that makes it almost credible. That includes the criticism of certain real-life governmental procedures linked with that topic. I was anxious about many things, one of them the "C" character (I've stayed mostly spoiler-free, but very few things I got to know from the internet and TV mags), but it too is a believable and well-crafted role. I was also worried about hiring that actor just because he was Moriarty in that crap BBC Holmes show, but he, like virtually all actors, acts in a subtle and fully convincing manner.

Waltz is excellent, he does not exaggerate and ham. With little effort he is both a character that feels real but is also eerily menacing. He is scary and convincing, even though Blofeld in his essence is a slightly larger-than-life character.
Surprisingly, they even did the super car and the return of the DB 5 very well, as opposed to recent entries.

The drama scenes are pure Fleming. The writing, particularly the necessarily loosely-drawn characters and dialogue, is spot-on. If we take a look at just a couple of scenes, such as the conversation with Mr. White, the first meeting with Swann - or the stay in White's former hotel room - they are all perfectly handled, as if they were from the novels, made alive on screen. Even lines from the trailer like "he is everywhere" are so well delivered, in the context of what we get to know later on so believable, they do not feel silly or cartoonish in the slightest, a failure from which SKYFALL suffered so much, because it clearly tried to be far from the Moore comedies, in the context of which such lines or similar elements did not feel out of place when delivered in the SKYFALL kind of way.

Sadism is back. The film is full of bristling suspense, tension, and thrills, elements also lacking even in some of the best written Bond films. There is even some intelligent horror.

The homages are subtle. The train fight is even better than the Campbell-directed fights, and stands on its own, apart from the RUSSIA model; the introduction and the scarred eye from TWICE, to name some more prominent ones.

Having no bullet left for Oberhauser (supposedly), was a great idea, too - and it's fantastic how subtle and to what marvelous effect they portrayed Oberhauser's grudge in the end, his jealousy when he sees Bond enjoying life with the girl he loves, whereas Oberhauser, the sadistic, megalomaniac psychopath, never really had a life. This is SO much better than the cartoonish, nonsensical, kitchen sink psychology, comic book drama
rubbish at the end of SKYFALL ("Shoot both of us, mudderrrrrr!"). And its subtlety makes it so believable and emotionally satisfying.

It's the longest running Bond film, 148 minutes, but I wasn't bored a second. It's purest Fleming. While QUANTUM and SKYFOUL left me cold, bored me or annoyed me, I can't wait to relive the SPECTRE adventure  again. I was positively surprised and still cannot believe they got it so right.

I see they let you out of the asylum for the day:

Manhunter wrote:

As if they had taken a 50's novel and put it on screen in 2015…

an adventure full of thrill and tension…

There is nothing of the comic book elements, pseudo drama and phoney hack-writing of SKYFALL…

The humour is spot-on, no silliness in the whole movie…

Waltz is excellent…

The drama scenes are pure Fleming…

The writing, particularly the necessarily loosely-drawn characters and dialogue, is spot-on…

The film is full of bristling suspense, tension, and thrills…

The homages are subtle…

SPECTRE is believable and emotionally satisfying…

I wasn't bored a second…

I can't wait to relive the SPECTRE adventure  again…

I still cannot believe they got it so right…

Wish I'd seen the film Manhunter saw. It sounds great.

Dare I say we're looking at out first 10/10 for Spectre.

Cheque's in the mail Manhunter.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

bitchcraft wrote:

Not bad, it's worldwide cume to date is about US$300m and it opens in China, one of the world's Top 3 box-office markets, later this week (Skyfall had a very late opening in China in comparison, which affected its take there).

I'm thinking China can add up to $100m making it third best slice of the pie after the US and UK.

I don't think it'll cross 200 million at the American box office. It's going to go into steep decline next weekend (likely a 70% drop) and fade out by the time Thanksgiving rolls around.

That means a quicker death than Quanturd of Solace...but I still think SPECTRE will surpass it, although not a great accomplishment if it's still $100m behind Skyfall.

bitchcraft wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

bitchcraft wrote:

Not bad, it's worldwide cume to date is about US$300m and it opens in China, one of the world's Top 3 box-office markets, later this week (Skyfall had a very late opening in China in comparison, which affected its take there).

I'm thinking China can add up to $100m making it third best slice of the pie after the US and UK.

I don't think it'll cross 200 million at the American box office. It's going to go into steep decline next weekend (likely a 70% drop) and fade out by the time Thanksgiving rolls around.

That means a quicker death than Quanturd of Solace...but I still think SPECTRE will surpass it, although not a great accomplishment if it's still $100m behind Skyfall.

Well, it's mid-week numbers have been surprisingly strong here in the U.S. It probably did great on Veterans Day. And China may end up making up for some of what was lost in the U.S. It may hit 200 million domestically. But the 4th film for each Bond that has done 4 or more has always been the biggest box office for the actor, so for SP to dip a little goes against historical trends.

I just continue to believe that SP will ultimately be seen as a lost opportunity both financially and creatively. I can't help but think the 3 year wait was not worth it.