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
Plenty of moments in both SF and SP.
Now that is debate. And written from a reasonable perspective @bondjames
CR and QOS were a new way of doing things. Yet, they had the luxury of drawing on a legacy. That is undeniable.
I agree. No idea where it came from.
Connery has more Bond in his little finger than Craig and Brosnan combined would ever have.
EoN seriously needs to do better with Bond No 007
Perhaps they can never find someone like him again, who combines the macho (almost Clark Gable/John Wayne) frontier American attributes with stuffy British elegance so completely?
He's almost like an American Brit. The closest I can think of was Cary Grant, although he leaned more towards the British side with his suaveness (despite being a naturalized American!)
I think so, too. He is just perfect...
I have to agree in the utmost sincerity, though I like Brosnan a lot in GE and he was fine in TND.
What irks me about the Craig era, is that he is the Bond that explains why the Connery Bond became who he is. It annoys me and insults my intelligence. It is like using a donkey to explain how a horse became a supreme racer.
No question that Connery still reigns supreme. And he has escalated in my appreciation after SF and SP.
Once you read Cubby's autobiography, it is made clear that Dalton did not want to emulate or imitate Connery. He wanted to be the Bond of the books. He was a huge Connery fan, who instinctively knew that copying is no point of doing the role.
So, I give kudos to Dalton, who wisely said that Connery could not be beaten. Only a fool would try. And Dalton was maligned unjustly for not copying the blueprint, but time is a great healer. Smart aficionados of Bond know this!
And in fairness to Moore, he carved out his niche. You could not accuse Moore of being a clone. He never wore a tuxedo until his third film, especially not to draw comparisons. No vodka Martini either.
A billion dollars at the box office says otherwise.
That was a one off. Of course the Craig era is super successful. No doubt about it. SF was hyped as the greatest Bond film. And before SP came out, ticket prices were increased in anticipation and to cash in on the new Star Wars film. SP took a more than $200 million dive. And had ticket prices not been increased, the dive would have been more.
As Sanchez said in LTK : "Money isn't everything!"
;)
TBH I guess we can argue black is white if we want, but overall Craig has had a successful time as Bond and Eon will see no reason to change it yet.
Believe me no conspiracy! SF was promoted the most up until that point, out of any Bond I recall. I was literally forced to go to the cinema by my brother-in-law to see it, who was no Bond fan. I remember that at my local cinema, the audience had much older people than normal. Also it being a Mendes film gave the film an audience that otherwise was not hot on Bond.
And SP in terms of takings versus budget is not spectacular. Close to $900 million, but production cost and marketing were sky high.
Industry insiders were expecting SP to out-gross SF by a lot. The marketing campaign was relentless. SF sent the message that Bond should be a $Billion plus grosser henceforth, and that spells danger for the franchise.
Sadly, the same that was said about SF cannot be said about SP. It was very front loaded and the audience drop off was much more marked in comparison to the earlier film. In fact, I think it was more marked than QoS, which also similarly dropped off in comparison to CR, which had legs. Yes, you're correct that initial expectations were for a $1bn grosser. We even had some on this forum who were calling for it, and I also thought it could be achieved (until I saw the film, that is).
Nicely written and contributed. The first time I saw SF, I loved it! But it deflated with the passage of time. The litmus test of any Bond film is rewatchability. Even TWINE took 40 viewings before it got old. And I have not achieved three viewings with SF. Strange and unsual by my standards. By the third viewing, it was like a woman you thought was beautiful, but you see the flaws. I find SF just too heavy and intellectual. And F'ing bleak.
In comparison, LTK is a black comedy. I used to think it was bleak too, but SF caused a reappraisal. And Craig's image change in parts made me think I was looking at an older Rupert Grint of Harry Potter fame, with elements of Simon Pegg. It was a bridge too far and the initiation of my hostility to the Craig era. The promise was immense.
LALD I watched 40 times before giving it a temporary rest as an example.
Having said that, the strong US $ hurt SP's foreign box office converted back to US $ (which is how the overall gross is measured). It would have fared better if the $ was at the same level in comparison to other currencies as it was in 2012.
EDIT: @acoppola, I've heard many comment on SF not being rewatchable. I've never found that myself (I really look forward to seeing it every time). I don't really find it intellectual. Perhaps patriotic and a bit pretentious (in that Mendes way) but not excessively so. I think Bardem's OTT Silva alleviates some of the bleakness and makes it more light hearted. I agree with you on LALD though. That's definitely a casual film with high rewatch value, as are all of the Hamilton entries (for me at least).
It's funny that LALD has been mentioned as I get the impression SF will be seen in much the same vein as that picture in years to come. They're both very distinctive pieces in the Bond canon and seem to have really captured the imagination of the wider audience.
And I can appreciate and respect that you enjoy SF. I will share my perceptions, but what I will not do, is try to force-persuade you to think like me, if that makes sense?
That is when a discussion becomes annoying. For example, if I told you that you have to like Dalton more than Moore, then that will make you annoyed. Or hey, let's compare LTK to LALD, despite both films having a different concept and period setting. Although they share something in common.
The point of a forum is to share and perhaps learn to look at things in a new light.
Having said that, I do enjoy a little heated back and forth and playful teasing now and then also, otherwise this place would get boring very quickly.
This silly argument gets repeated ad nauseam.
I agree. Lots of people have tried to deny SF its success to satisfy their own ends. It's not my favourite Bond, nor is it even my favourite Craig, but I hate revisionism.
Essentially you are saying publicity, and in the case of SF the free publicity with the Queen for The Olympics, which was broadcast worldwide, as the Olympics were held in the United Kingdom, had no bearing? It was obviously a phenomenal opportunity to promote Bond as a British brand.
It would be like saying that having the World Cup in the UK would not boost the country's economy.
Even the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, said at the time that "Bond is Britain!".
If that was the case, then film studios would not sometimes spend $100 million on marketing and advertising.
The Olympics short film with Bond and The Queen put the film in the public's consciousness way ahead of time. And then the added bonus of critics having an orgasm over Bond was the icing on the cake.
The SW behemoth is in full effect during the holiday season for the foreseeable future, and sucks up all the oxygen come holiday time.
Bond took a hit in 1997 on account of Titanic, did so again in 2015 due to SW7-TFA and is likely to do so in the future, particularly if up against the original continuation story rather than one of the spin offs. Disney takes all the higher priced IMAX theatres for an extended period as well.
The marketing budget is to get as many people to see it once during it's early release (as with Superman v Batman) but IMHO, after that, once the reviews and word of mouth take over, its all about the movie itself and, the figures prove that SF had great legs.
I agree about the shorter gaps, because three to four years kills the flow.
Altough SP was released in late October. Star Wars did not arrive until some point in December 2015. So SP at one point had no competition. Star Wars would be an issue if it came out the same weekend or weekend after SP debuted.
In Cubby's book, he was not pleased that the studio managed at that time by accountants, because the old guard had left or been fired, decided to throw LTK amidst Indiana Jones, Batman and Lethal Weapon. That explanation rarely is mentioned in why LTK underperformed at the US box office.
Hence why Bond was moved to autumn/winter time.