It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yeah the fights in SF made my heart sink. I was gutted at how rubbish they were. Thank God they brought in Olivier Schneider for SP to choreograph the fights.
You must be joking. Bond's fight with that axe-wielding screaming girl, Dominic Greene was better than any fight in SF.
There's popular and then there's popular. Brosnan's highest grossing film was $431 million; Craig's three to date made 599 mil, 586 mil, and 1.1 billion.
OK :
http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php
You have to go down to 12th to find Broz's most popular
I don't really care that much about box office as long as the films make money, which I think they all have.
Who cares?
They're never going to 'flop' at the Box Office so it's largely irrelevant.
That list is very telling in two ways, which I believe it's important to point out:
1. all the films from the mid to late 80's sit at the bottom on an inflation adjusted basis (including 81's FYEO, which is closer to the bottom of the pack). So perhaps the long break was warranted, because Bond was definitely losing its mojo and relevance culturally.
2. Brosnan's so called relative box office success as Bond is overrated, both on these forums and generally. That was always clear to some of us who keep tabs on the box office receipts and inflation adjusted activity, as well as yearly rank. No doubt his films were more successful relatively speaking compared to the mid-late 80's, but they were nowhere as successful as Moore's earlier work, nor Connery's. Moreover, from my perspective at least, they came at great creative cost to the franchise.
Box office is relevant, because it influences the direction that EON takes.
What is also surprising on that list is
1. how successful OHMSS was in relative overall terms (although up to that point it was clearly the least successful, DN notwithstanding),
2. what a kick 'a' debut Moore had with LALD,
3. that TMWTGG was not a total flop as some suggest,
4. that TSWLM outgrossed MR in inflation adjusted terms.
The last two points clearly illustrate how inflation can screw profits (two massive inflation causing oils shocks occured in late 1973 and 1979 due to OPEC and the Iranian Revolution)
As I've said elsewhere, inflation adjusted data like this over a 50 year period has to be taken with a grain of salt, as there are other factors (technology, lifestyle, theatre size, relative ticket prices, culture, competition from other sources, relative price changes among countries, accuracy of global data) that cannot be properly captured in a simple CPI adjustment, especially for the 60' s and 70's films. Moreover, ticket prices do not follow the CPI in general, but rather, increase by more than the CPI (IMAX for instance), which could suggest that some of the more recent movies have numbers that are being inflated. Still, it gives some indication of trends, and they are very interesting to see.
Not always true, fortunately. DAD made stacks of cash for EON but was followed by a radical change in direction.
I'm not sure history always proves that theory right, although I have nothing against a full on 'big' Bond film at all.
It is a shame though when a lot of money is spent but you can't really tell. Forster squandered his budget on QoS, delivering a film that felt a lot smaller and low budget than it actually was.
Exactly. The point I was going to make about Box Office and why I don't personally take it too seriously as a 'fan', (I understand for the studio et al it's all about the $$$) is that when I look back over the last five decades of Bond I would pinpoint two films as being seminal, following the Connery era. OHMSS and CR. The execution and legacy of these two films means they are undeniably top tier, but the circumstances surrounding both are built primarily on 'creative' and not 'business' decisions. This is why I don't attribute too much relevance to Box Office as a fan. EON will always keep the franchise chugging along, but they do their best work in unexpected and usually risky circumstances.
Financial success doesn't mean the movie will be among the favourites decades later.
I'd say except for Goldfinger none of the above are considered Top 5 material in general consensus. Skyfall is too new to judge.
So having box office numbers as an argument whether the movie is good or bad just doesn't work!
The billion dollar argument that always comes up with Skyfall is tiresome and says nothing at all about the quality of the movie. Quantity is not Quality.
Or does anybody here actually think Avatar is the greatest and best movie of all time???
How Daniel Craig will be looked at in 10 years is highly depending on Spectre and Bond 25 (if that gets made, I don't believe it's a given).
As for now everything will be pure speculation.
The only thing that probably can be said with a bit of certainty is that:
Casino Royale is regarded as one of the best Bond movies.
QOS is regarded as one of the worst Bond movies.
In general consensus.
Skyfall is just too new as I said.
If Daniel Craig's run will be regarded as generally mediocre, good or even very good depends also highly on his successor!
It is absolutely possible that when a new actor has done two Bond movies, Craig will be viewed as not so great anymore or maybe he'll be missed greatly.
I think the Connery era will always be recognized for the brilliant way Young managed to call down the thunder AND capture the accompanying lightning in a bottle. As much as I'd also like to think folks would retroactively see the greatness embedded in Dalton's outings, I'm pretty much resigned to the idea that he is always going to be considered an eccentricity in the series (DEEP SPACE NINE is the bastard child of the STAR TREK universe, but it is the only one I think worthy of being adopted as true TREK, so Dalton is in good company in my opinion.)
As for the Craig pics being ripe for parody, I'd say overripe. Mine's been percolating since I tried to watch CR for the first time, on homevid in 07, and it has actually gotten rather sizable by now. If I were to actually prune it down to comic essentials and shoot it, SPHINCTER (have only gotten half of the acronym worked out thus far) would probably run a half-hour (double that if I include a card game), which is a long while to sustain a decent parody.
EDIT ADDON: the whole notion of these films being about Bond (or rather this rethink of Bond) instead of about Bond on a mission is probably going to be the thing that sticks out the most to future audiences, much like anybody looking at the films of the early 21st century seeing the odd color choices brought on by the use of digital intermediates.
That said, CR and SF alone are sufficient to make the Craig era fondly remembered for years to come. Unless we're all about to be duped in November (which isn't impossible, mind you), I'm guessing SP will be added lumped into that category as well, making Craig one of the more positively judged Bonds.