Ohmss: flop or not?

ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
in Bond Movies Posts: 757
Stanley Sopel says it made money. Two seconds later Michael G Wilson states it took a long time for it to make its money back. Really? Why would you say that? Curious as to your thoughts.
«1

Comments

  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited October 2015 Posts: 3,157
    According to Wikipedia, OHMSS made "$64.6 million" against a "$7 million" budget. Unless they spent $60 million by marketing the movie, I think it did make some money.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,421
    For Bond film, yes. But as a film, no. With $87 million in box office takings, Majesty's could not compete with the Connery era takings, but, as a common misnomer, it was not a flop; in any number of countries Majesty's reached number 2, for 1970, in their box office returns. (For reference, YOLT took in $111.6 million, TB $141 million, GF $124.9 and DAF $116 million.)

    Edit - done a quick google search on the box-office for 1970, but found nothing.



  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Compared to Twice and Diamonds, it's not much of a drop
  • Posts: 1,707
    Gross or no gross.......................... It's a classic.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    In those days, the US market meant a heck of a lot (much more than it does today). Acceptance in the US meant less risks for the studio, and enabled more investments for the future.

    OHMSS suffered a tremendous box office decline in the US market compared to the previous installments.

    It made $23m, vs. $44m for YOLT (nearly 50% decline which is huge), $64m for TB (nearly 64% decline which is again, huge), $51m for GF, $25m for FRWL & $16m for DN. When Connery returned for the much maligned DAF, it made $44m in the US (back to par with YOLT).

    Its budget was comparable to TB & YOLT, but was 8X that of DN & 4X that of FRWL.

  • http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php

    Here's the ranking of Bond movies at the box office, adjusted for inflation. As we can see, OHMSS sits at 14/23, in between GE and TWINE, both of which were declared "hits" at the time. But in 1969 it was perceived as a flop - it was the lowest grossing Bond movie to date (not counting Dr.No which was not fully released in a lot of places), and then the box office went up with DAF. So it was a comparative flop (though still made plenty of money for everyone involved) at the time.
  • Posts: 1,517
    This is always a bogus argument. Plenty of films make a ton of money, which doesn't make them great. It just makes them well attended. That OHMSS didn't perform well is only of interest to the producers. The unique thing about this film is that it continues to grow in appreciation. It is easily one of the best in the series. Rather than silly and cartoonish like so much of the dreck that followed, this is a literate film that appeals
    to adult sensibilities instead of adolescent boys.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    Massive flop, but one of the best anyway.
  • Mi6LisbonBranchMi6LisbonBranch Lisbon, Portugal
    Posts: 243
    Flop or not (which i dont think it was), in my humble opinion, OHMSS is the best James Bond movie ever! Also the only one filmed in Portugal so.. no point arguing! Now for real, if you are really interested in studying the OHMSS background, related events, basckstage stories,..buy "The Making Of On Her Majesty's Secret SErvice". I really recomend it. Never saw a Making Of book so detailed!
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    I read it:)
  • Mi6LisbonBranchMi6LisbonBranch Lisbon, Portugal
    Posts: 243
    I read it:)
    Hi @ThomasCrown76 I'm going to buy The Making Of The Living Daylights from the same author. Have you read it? (sorry for the off topic)
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Yes! You'll love it. A very troubled history to that movie
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    Yes! You'll love it. A very troubled history to that movie

    In what way exactly?
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    For one it had been planned to follow goldfinger and then that changed once Mcclory reared his head with Thunderball and then it was supposed to follow Thunderball, and then that didn't happen. Maibaum had worked on the script for a long time
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    It wasn't a flop. It just meant Harry and cubby could only afford to buy six islands instead of their customary 8
  • Posts: 1,631
    Definitely not a flop. I think that's something that's attributed to it by critics of the film because they either found Lazenby to be far inferior to Connery or they just don't care for the film and see an opening to make the claim since Lazenby left the role after just the one film.

    But not being a flop doesn't mean that the film isn't without its flaws. Had they managed to get Connery to return for another film, OHMSS could have been the absolute best of the films.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Without a doubt about Connery. Would've closed the 60s out on an appropriate note
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2015 Posts: 2,138
    Out of all the films, I think it stayed the truest to the novel. I think it suffers from the period in which it was made. Its a very "groovy" Bond movie and I don't think it has aged as well as the others. I think its more greatly appreciated now than it was at the time, or has ever been. My personal opinion on it was an overly ambitious film to make and it suffers from the challenges posed by the locations. Because a majority of the film like the book is fixed in one location it also lacked adventure. Not really the films fault. I have grown to appreciate it for what it is. I will never accept the breaking the 4th wall moment "This didn't happened to the other fellow" and the sound effects the used in the fight sequence just before Bond meets Draco for the first time, ridiculous someone showing off a new FX trick they learned. I can only put that down to poor judgement of editing. I would love someone to take the master reels and recut the film and added a proper sound library.

    I think Lazenby gets a hard time, I remember my parents and others of their age group refusing to accept it as a Bond film. It was referred to in my house growing up as "that awful one, with the Australian guy, you know the one he gets married". We would watch all the films every Saturday night but it was left out.

    I think it helps that Bond has gone back to a more serious tone. Older I began watching the films differently because I prefer the way done in the Craig era's. OHMSS is neither silly, cliché or over top. Apart from Lazenby's final line in which he looks more happy than sad Tracey is dead he gave a very real/human performance to probably the most human/emotional Bond story. I couldn't have pictured Connery's Bond showing love or getting married. It would still make my Top 10.
  • Mi6LisbonBranchMi6LisbonBranch Lisbon, Portugal
    Posts: 243
    Yes! You'll love it. A very troubled history to that movie
    Great, thanks! Next buy then. cheers

  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    Of the novels, I always thought OHMSS and Thunderball had the strongest plot structures lending themselves to being made into films easier.

    Like most, would have loved Connery in the role. But Telly Savalas would have to go too in order for it to be true classic like the earliest films.

    The first third of the movie also needs to be edited down, it drags and I know people consider it to be build up, but editing would help.

    It would have definitely closed the era, but it would've also made everything that came after it that much paler.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    everything after is that much paler
  • Mark_HazzardMark_Hazzard Classified
    edited October 2015 Posts: 127
    Financially: it did not do as well as others, but made money anyway.

    Critically: well received, gained cult status and loads of fans over the years, many of them who can be found on this forum. Frequently listed in numerous fan top-10's.
  • Stanley Sopel says it made money. Two seconds later Michael G Wilson states it took a long time for it to make its money back. Really? Why would you say that? Curious as to your thoughts.

    Don't forget the life of movies at that time was very, very long. It would not be released in a lot of cities simultaneously. Movies'box office as we know now only started in US for Jaws I guess ? In the 60's, the box office bragging from the studios would be something like "Serpico has the best box office ever in Cleveland" !

    The box office figures you see nowadays about OHMSS are the box offices that cumulated the first release, the re-release, the double bills, etc, etc. Even when you read that OHMSS did $87M in 1969, it actually means it made $87M from 69 until now. Not that he did that in one year.

    So both statements could be true. OHMSS could have been a sleeper somehow.

    In France, the box office is not in Euros or Francs, but in number of viewers. And OHMSS is the lowest number of viewers for a Bond movie in France ever. But it still means 2 million viewers, a success for any movie here.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I certainly don't think it's a flop, it's my favourite entry and I watched it again this Monday, the thing that struck me is it feels so epic, it's easily the most lavish up to that point and it remained it in my view till the Craig era.

    It just an emotional resonance that no film film till DC's has captured, the sleazy sax bit when Hilary Bray first meets the girls is a little embarrassing but would be my only complaint. It starts with a cracking PTS and it ends with a real emotional wallop with some of the best action sequences of the series in between. Hunt and his crew for me ups the game and his artistic eye just elevates it above just being the next film in the series.

    It really brings the series to a halt because it just stands out, DAF is atrocious but the fact it follows OHMSS makes it that much worse. It's certainly aged better than many of the films that followed it. It is for me the only possible masterpiece of the series, no it's not perfect no Bond film is but it's the one that gets the closest.

    I Still don't buy Connery as Bond in it, a more competent actor yes might have raised it a little but I find Lazenby's vulnerability is a plus to the film and he certainly sells the fights the best until Craig turned up.

    I think it will remain my favourite even if SP knocks it out the park because Barry's score will always give it the edge, I don't just think it's the best Bond score I think it's easily one JB's best and probably my favourite score full stop.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I think it will remain my favourite even if SP knocks it out the park because Barry's score will always give it the edge, I don't just think it's the best Bond score I think it's easily one JB's best and probably my favourite score full stop.

    Exactly!
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Ohmss needed an actor like Connery. It didn't need the chocolate guy or the Marlboro man.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    Ohmss needed an actor like Connery. It didn't need the chocolate guy or the Marlboro man.

    There's a world of difference between the acting of Connery ('63) and Connery ('67). I fear we would have gotten Connery '67 in '69.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    echo wrote: »
    Ohmss needed an actor like Connery. It didn't need the chocolate guy or the Marlboro man.

    There's a world of difference between the acting of Connery ('63) and Connery ('67). I fear we would have gotten Connery '67 in '69.

    Exactly people need to forget the actor that played Bond in those first 4 films, Connery was bored and sick of the role. He would have just been doing OHMSS for the money and most likely they'd have tweaked it for a more seasoned 007.

    Bond needed to be more vulnerable and this isn't a quality I ever saw him display as Bond and lets face it Connery is a fine star and can carry pictures but I think we get a little bit carried away with his god like status. Other people could and did play Bond after him.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    In the book he was a seasoned 007, not some kid fresh off the modeling truck
  • Posts: 533
    Comparing the "OHMSS" box office against previous Bond films and calling it a flop doesn't make sense to me. It may have not made as much money as Connery's films, but it made a profit of $57.6 million dollars profit. That's pretty decent for 1969/70. As far as I'm concerned, it was a hit.
Sign In or Register to comment.