›

The curse of the second movie?

13»

Comments

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Benny wrote:
    Licence To Kill was never a failure, be it in 1989 or now. It was a money maker for EON and MGM, yet not to the normal standard that all had become accustomed to.
    The film whilst somewhat controversial has many fans. There are many Fleming fans who enjoy the inclusion of parts of his stories, whilst others feel the film is to violent, and far removed from the James Bond of old.
    I myself have always enjoyed LTK, Dalton gives a superb performance as a vengeful Bond, and the films grittiness, and wonderful villains make it a Bond film with a difference.

    Exactly. Wasn't as big as past Bonds and it's always been controversial but it was never a failure.

    I love it, it's my favourite Bond movie. I have trouble deciding which Dalton film is better sometimes but I think LTK is better because of Sanchez.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    Benny wrote:
    Licence To Kill was never a failure, be it in 1989 or now. It was a money maker for EON and MGM, yet not to the normal standard that all had become accustomed to.
    The film whilst somewhat controversial has many fans. There are many Fleming fans who enjoy the inclusion of parts of his stories, whilst others feel the film is to violent, and far removed from the James Bond of old.
    I myself have always enjoyed LTK, Dalton gives a superb performance as a vengeful Bond, and the films grittiness, and wonderful villains make it a Bond film with a difference.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the Bond movie that made least money. In that sense it was a failure. Even Timothy Dalton thought it might be the very last Bond of the whole series. After LTK, the series was on an hiatus for six years. Regardless of its qualities as a movie (I don't like it, but not because of its violence), the movie can be seen as a failure.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,879
    do-not-feed-the-troll.jpg
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    @Benny I wouldn't worry. I think we're pretty much all ignoring him now.
    Ludovico wrote:
    Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the Bond movie that made least money. In that sense it was a failure.

    Compared to the other Bonds you could say it was a failure (money wise) but it still did reasonably well and (if I remember right) made back 5 times it's budget.

    So compared to the other Bonds it could be seen as a flop but as a movie I don't think it's fair to say it failed.
    Ludovico wrote:
    Even Timothy Dalton thought it might be the very last Bond of the whole series.

    I might be wrong but wasn't he talking about his 3rd Bond movie, the one that never happened?
    Ludovico wrote:
    After LTK, the series was on an hiatus for six years.

    That was nothing to do with LTK though. That was because of the legal issues.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    I am fairly sure Dalton said this about LTK, partially because it had been a troubled production. Of course the legal issues were the reasons for the series to go on hiatus, but they did follow a lower entry on the franchise.
  • DB5DB5
    Posts: 408
    echo wrote:
    The real question is: is the fourth movie cursed? TB, MR, DAD. All are bloated. Hmm...

    Not sure what you mean. Up until SF, TB was the biggest Bond movie in term of box office of all time (measured in constant dollars, after inflation). And there are some who consider it the apex of the Bond series. I agree the film does tend to drag quite a bit, but it is still one of the best Bond films. As far as Moonraker goes I would agree that it is an awful film. But in terms of box office I believe it made more money than any previous Bond film other than TB.

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    DB5 wrote:
    echo wrote:
    The real question is: is the fourth movie cursed? TB, MR, DAD. All are bloated. Hmm...

    Not sure what you mean. Up until SF, TB was the biggest Bond movie in term of box office of all time (measured in constant dollars, after inflation). And there are some who consider it the apex of the Bond series. I agree the film does tend to drag quite a bit, but it is still one of the best Bond films. As far as Moonraker goes I would agree that it is an awful film. But in terms of box office I believe it made more money than any previous Bond film other than TB.

    Me, for instance. The thing is, regardless of what one thinks about the fourth movie movie, only DAD could be considered ''cursed'', and even so only because it is generally loathed. I don't like Moonraker either, but I don't hate it, and at least the franchise didn't go on a four years hiatus afterwards.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Moonraker was a great success. Cost more to produce that all the Bonds that came before it, and it certainly put backsides on seats. Made a huge amount at the box office so it was hardly cursed, even though it's not a release for everyone, but didn't it do well. Thunderball also did well, easily Connery's last great Bond release, and then you have Die Another Day, which actually did well at the box office, even though many people don't like it, and (rightfully) think it's one of the very worst the series has to offer. We wait to see how Daniel Craigs fourth adventure will do, but needless to say it's going to rake it a whole load of money. Whether it's a great release by itself, remains to be seen, but the bottom line is, I can't see any fourth movie curse evident here
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    Second films have been known to surpass the originals but they are exceptions. some notable exceptions:
    FRWL trumps DN
    Bride of Frankenstein trumps Frankenstein
    Empire Strikes Back trumps Star Wars A new Hope
    Wrath of Khan trumps Star Trek TMP
    and the list goes on but these are exceptions. Usually the second film or sequel pales in comparison. Why? IMO it is because the production people get caught up in trying to re do what was iconic instead of just making the "best film at the time".
    In the above examples, the second film was not trying to emulate the first, it just took off and did it's own thing.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I can see the argument of the producers taking the actor's fourth movie "too far" but I wouldn't call it a curse. After four movies there is perhaps a desire to do something different and go in another direction altogether. Thunderball, in my opinion, seems to suffer from the need to make everything bigger and better after the success of GF. The same could be said of YOLT as well. I'm in the minority that actually likes MR for what it is (a lot of fun) but I can understand how people are turned off by the idea of Bond in space and going overboard on the campy humor. So again they spent a lot of money trying to make everything bigger and better. As far as DAD is concerned, I'm not sure what they were thinking but they definitely took it too far in every conceivable direction and the results were mostly disastrous. Except for the box office returns that is. So for Craig's fourth I'm not sure what they will do but hopefully they won't take it "too far" in an attempt to out-do the success of SF.
Sign In or Register to comment.