WINDFALL at the Box Office

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Just like Goldfinger helped redeem the series after FRWL, and TSWLM saved the series after TMWTGG, and TWINE was a reaction to TND, so to will SKFYALL be a reaction to QUANTURDS OF SOLACE.

I hope you're talking about only the box office, because I can't see how GF redeemed anything or how TWINE is an improvement over TND.

Tubes wrote:

I hope you're talking about only the box office, because I can't see how GF redeemed anything or how TWINE is an improvement over TND.

Gravy probably enjoys wanking to

Tubes wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Just like Goldfinger helped redeem the series after FRWL, and TSWLM saved the series after TMWTGG, and TWINE was a reaction to TND, so to will SKFYALL be a reaction to QUANTURDS OF SOLACE.

I hope you're talking about only the box office, because I can't see how GF redeemed anything or how TWINE is an improvement over TND.

I do question that. However, I think SF reaching the heights of Sean and Roger's third films in popularity and critical achievement would be fitting for the 50th anniversary. The worst case scenario is definitely becoming another TWINE, another forgettable inconsequential entry in the Bond series. Let's hope SF restores that "third Bonds a charm" that GF and TSWLM carried.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

. Just like Goldfinger helped redeem the series after FRWL,

What would be a good corollary to this? Just as the Korean War helped redeem America's self esteem after WWII ...

EDIT ADDON: note I didn't say Vietnam ... I actually like GOLDFINGER, but FRWL takes the cake.

I disagree with the thesis that SF NEEDS to break the $800M barrier at the world-wide box-office in order to suceed. Sure it would be nice and it is certainly possible, but I doubt that it will happen. ooking back over the Bond film franchise's 50-year history, taking inflation in to account, only TB and maybe GF and/or LALD have ever matched or exceeded this figure, and so it would be unreasonable to demand the same or more from SF. Look at DAD for instance, that was very heavily plugged for the 40th anniversary and in todays money did not even crack $600M, is that deemed as a failure?

Anyway, as long as it a good film I am not too bothered about how well it does at the box-office.

James Bond wrote:

Anyway, as long as it a good film I am not too bothered about how well it does at the box-office.

This really, with the rider 'as long as it's BO is also enough to justify the next entry.'

The evidence of DAD is clearly that the style of the next film is not soley based on the previous BO performance, regardless of my personal distaste for CR it was a necessary change in direction and tone, and Micolli's personal investment probably ensured a more thoughtful follow up to the success of DAD than a detached and multi-project oriented studio might otherwise have demanded.

Tubes wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Just like Goldfinger helped redeem the series after FRWL, and TSWLM saved the series after TMWTGG, and TWINE was a reaction to TND, so to will SKFYALL be a reaction to QUANTURDS OF SOLACE.

I hope you're talking about only the box office, because I can't see how GF redeemed anything or how TWINE is an improvement over TND.

No, I'm talking about quality, not box office. We all agree that FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was probably the most boring of the Connery films; bland locations, awful title song, bad acting....so GOLDFINGER had to be better in order to keep the series going after the failure of FRWL.

We also all agree that TMWTGG was an awful Bond film, redeemed only by the presence of Sheriff J.W. Pepper. Because the movie made so little money, and EON was concerned that the series might finally fail, they put a lot of effort into making TSWLM a bigger, better Bond film.

TND was bashed because it felt rushed, light on plot, and mostly wall-to-wall action with little story movement. TWINE was made specifically to address those charges, which is why we got M's presence expanded (including a gripping, wonderful backstory between M and Elektra) and Brosnan was given more to do (like touch a computer screen to wipe away Elektra's tears). A lot of people spit on TWINE's grave, but I think it's Brosnan's 3rd best film (after GE and DAD).

SKYFALL looks like it will correct some of the wrongs of QUANTURDS OF SOLACE, and maybe bring back some of the glamour and sophistication and wit and sense of adventure missing from the last two films. It looks like it may be a James Bond film that allows Bond to not hate being a spy and a killer of bad men. But we'll see.

Incidentally, as I was reading the latest issue of TOTAL FILM on the toilet the other day, I came across an interview with Doug Liman in relation to the new movie THE BOURNE LEGACY. In the article he explicitly states that he made THE BOURNE IDENTITY in order to get hired by Barbara and Michael and that they (or the studio at the time, I can't remember which) did not want him because they wanted a director who would stick to the formula and not be too much of a visionary or loose cannon, and then he comes right out and states that they absolutely stole the Bourne formula from him when making CR and QOS. He wasn't bitter; he was just showing the irony of life in Hollywood. He's also absolutely right.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

We all agree that FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was probably the most boring of the Connery films; bland locations, awful title song, bad acting

What do you mean "we"? I'd say that description fits best for TWINE than FRWL.

I don't agree with that either.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE had gorgeous cinematography that highlighted the film's various locations. When I think of iconic Bond film locations, Istanbul from FRWL immediately comes to mind. Plus, it was probably Connery's best performance of his career, next to DR. NO. Shaw's work was outstanding, as well.

The title song was decent. John Barry's opening titles rendition was a lot more exciting and memorable.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

We all agree that FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was probably the most boring of the Connery films; bland locations, awful title song, bad acting

In all of the tournaments, rankings, and what-have-yous I've seen, FRWL almost always come out on top, followed by OHMSS. I think that's just your wayward opinion alone, Gravy.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

We all agree that FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was probably the most boring of the Connery films; bland locations, awful title song, bad acting

In all of the tournaments, rankings, and what-have-yous I've seen, FRWL almost always come out on top, followed by OHMSS. I think that's just your wayward opinion alone, Gravy.

People don't know what they want. They think they like FRWL because that's what they've been brainwashed into believing, but in secret, in their innermost thoughts and desires, most fans like DAD or MR or TB. Most "fans" say they love FRWL the best because it sounds like something that an intelligent, well-bred Bond fan would say, but personally I love AVTAK, TLD, LALD, GE the best. Maybe I'm just slumming it, but I have no problem saying that Roger Moore was the definitive 007 and everyone else pales in comparison.

Or people really do think it's a good Bond film. I don't see any evidence of "brainwashing" or such nonsense.

Python wrote:

Or people really do think it's a good Bond film. I don't see any evidence of "brainwashing" or such nonsense.

Yeah, it's just a good film.

And not even only within the Bond franchise. I think it's an all-around excellent Cold War espionage film.

Python wrote:

Or people really do think it's a good Bond film. I don't see any evidence of "brainwashing" or such nonsense.

I wouldn't expect you to see any evidence of brainwashing because you're one of "them". I, however, have chosen to take the red pill and see life as it really is: Roger Moore is the superior Bond and his movies were the penultimate entries in the series.

I understand that you feel the need to pretend like you don't agree that Roger Moore is the best in order to save face among the group, so you can feel free to email me or PM me with your concurring sentiments.

Sometimes it all comes down to opinion. I'd rather take the lean, mean action film in TND than go for the bloated monstrosity that is TWINE. Then again, TND was my first Bond film, so nostalgia has to be factored in.

GF and FRWL is too close to call. Both are quality and it boils down to the type of Bond film you enjoy. Those who enjoy the more grounded Bond and spy films will prefer FRWL and those who want something escapist and over the top will chose GF.

Of all the films GS mentioned, only the TMWTGG/TSWLM comparison really counts as "redemption". GF followed the continuing trend of Bond films grossing more and more and TWINE actually did worse than TND in some areas. The big recovery Bond movies are TSWLM and GE. Both took Bond back to relevance after an extended break and silenced questions that the franchise was even worth saving.

Come to think of it, SF is in a similar situation that TSWLM was in 35 years ago. Both previous films made money, but not nearly as much as before and both left a bad taste in audiences mouthes. Both times the franchise was marred with financial difficulties and both times cinema has turned from the grittier films of a few years ago into glossy special effects bonanzas that played to the new hit technology of the time.

Thus, Daniel Craig is the new Roger Moore. Repent, Followers of the Saint, and hail your new God.

Tubes wrote:

Of all the films GS mentioned, only the TMWTGG/TSWLM comparison really counts as "redemption". GF followed the continuing trend of Bond films grossing more and more and TWINE actually did worse than TND in some areas. The big recovery Bond movies are TSWLM and GE. Both took Bond back to relevance after an extended break and silenced questions that the franchise was even worth saving.

Come to think of it, SF is in a similar situation that TSWLM was in 35 years ago. Both previous films made money, but not nearly as much as before and both left a bad taste in audiences mouthes. Both times the franchise was marred with financial difficulties and both times cinema has turned from the grittier films of a few years ago into glossy special effects bonanzas that played to the new hit technology of the time.

Thus, Daniel Craig is the new Roger Moore. Repent, Followers of the Saint, and hail your new God.

There are no comparisons between Roger Moore and Daniel Craig, and how someone who has Roger Moore as their avatar could ever utter the two actors names in the same breath or sentence is baffling. How dare you, sir? You are no gentleman.

And as much as I hate QUANTURDS OF HAGGIS, it was a big box office hit and in no way was a financial disappointment for the studio other than they spent twice as much money on the budget as they did on CR and got only half the quality.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Python wrote:

Or people really do think it's a good Bond film. I don't see any evidence of "brainwashing" or such nonsense.

I wouldn't expect you to see any evidence of brainwashing because you're one of "them". I, however, have chosen to take the red pill and see life as it really is: Roger Moore is the superior Bond and his movies were the penultimate entries in the series.

I understand that you feel the need to pretend like you don't agree that Roger Moore is the best in order to save face among the group, so you can feel free to email me or PM me with your concurring sentiments.

I'm not pretending, I'm quite sincere when I say I think Connery was the best and that FRWL was the best of the series. It has been my favorite ever since I saw it for the first time on DVD rental nearly nine years ago, well before I joined any Bond fans sites.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

And as much as I hate QUANTURDS OF HAGGIS, it was a big box office hit and in no way was a financial disappointment for the studio other than they spent twice as much money on the budget as they did on CR and got only half the quality.

I was thinking along the lines that they spent twice as much money as they did in CR and got less money back. Even factoring in theoretical home video and TV/PPV revenue, QOS is more than likely still in the red.

Tubes wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

And as much as I hate QUANTURDS OF HAGGIS, it was a big box office hit and in no way was a financial disappointment for the studio other than they spent twice as much money on the budget as they did on CR and got only half the quality.

I was thinking along the lines that they spent twice as much money as they did in CR and got less money back. Even factoring in theoretical home video and TV/PPV revenue, QOS is more than likely still in the red.

They did NOT spend 280 mil on QoS.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Tubes wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Just like Goldfinger helped redeem the series after FRWL, and TSWLM saved the series after TMWTGG, and TWINE was a reaction to TND, so to will SKFYALL be a reaction to QUANTURDS OF SOLACE.

I hope you're talking about only the box office, because I can't see how GF redeemed anything or how TWINE is an improvement over TND.

No, I'm talking about quality, not box office. We all agree that FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was probably the most boring of the Connery films; bland locations, awful title song, bad acting....so GOLDFINGER had to be better in order to keep the series going after the failure of FRWL.

Hey is your name Dan DiGiovanni? Because the ONLY person I've ever met who thought FRWL was boring was a guy I knew in high school who dismissed it as 'Bond steals a typewriter.'

Then again, you've made so many posts in this thread repeating the same idea without really elaborating on it ... which I think constitutes spam in some circles. It's the old wise adage - you're not entitled to voice your opinion - you're entitled to voice your INFORMED opinion.

trevanian wrote:

Tubes wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

And as much as I hate QUANTURDS OF HAGGIS, it was a big box office hit and in no way was a financial disappointment for the studio other than they spent twice as much money on the budget as they did on CR and got only half the quality.

I was thinking along the lines that they spent twice as much money as they did in CR and got less money back. Even factoring in theoretical home video and TV/PPV revenue, QOS is more than likely still in the red.

They did NOT spend 280 mil on QoS.

$230 million is the estimated figure I've seen.

Python wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Python wrote:

Or people really do think it's a good Bond film. I don't see any evidence of "brainwashing" or such nonsense.

I wouldn't expect you to see any evidence of brainwashing because you're one of "them". I, however, have chosen to take the red pill and see life as it really is: Roger Moore is the superior Bond and his movies were the penultimate entries in the series.

I understand that you feel the need to pretend like you don't agree that Roger Moore is the best in order to save face among the group, so you can feel free to email me or PM me with your concurring sentiments.

I'm not pretending, I'm quite sincere when I say I think Connery was the best and that FRWL was the best of the series. It has been my favorite ever since I saw it for the first time on DVD rental nearly nine years ago, well before I joined any Bond fans sites.

I think a lot of people aren't pretending when they say the same thing.

Napoleon Solo wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Tubes wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

And as much as I hate QUANTURDS OF HAGGIS, it was a big box office hit and in no way was a financial disappointment for the studio other than they spent twice as much money on the budget as they did on CR and got only half the quality.

I was thinking along the lines that they spent twice as much money as they did in CR and got less money back. Even factoring in theoretical home video and TV/PPV revenue, QOS is more than likely still in the red.

They did NOT spend 280 mil on QoS.

$230 million is the estimated figure I've seen.

The stuff I've read (and this was a ways back) indicated 230 but that included marketing ... which is not figured into a movie's budget. Movie cost is for the first answer print (or whatever you call it in the digital age), prints and advertising and all figured separately. Even that sounds iffy, because I think they acknowledged the movie was going to cost nearly 200 mil, and they certainly aren't spending only 30mil on marketing (more like 60-75, I'd think.)

With CASINO at 140, about the same cost or slightly less than DAD (figure they saved a hunk on not having to pay Brosnan numbers to Craig), this is a jump up, a big jump up, but not an insane one, especially given that so much is probably insane overtime for the post schedule. 900 vfx shots in less than 3 months, even split among several vendors, can be pretty damned pricey.

trevanian wrote:

Napoleon Solo wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Tubes wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

And as much as I hate QUANTURDS OF HAGGIS, it was a big box office hit and in no way was a financial disappointment for the studio other than they spent twice as much money on the budget as they did on CR and got only half the quality.

I was thinking along the lines that they spent twice as much money as they did in CR and got less money back. Even factoring in theoretical home video and TV/PPV revenue, QOS is more than likely still in the red.

They did NOT spend 280 mil on QoS.

$230 million is the estimated figure I've seen.

The stuff I've read (and this was a ways back) indicated 230 but that included marketing ... which is not figured into a movie's budget. Movie cost is for the first answer print (or whatever you call it in the digital age), prints and advertising and all figured separately. Even that sounds iffy, because I think they acknowledged the movie was going to cost nearly 200 mil, and they certainly aren't spending only 30mil on marketing (more like 60-75, I'd think.)

With CASINO at 140, about the same cost or slightly less than DAD (figure they saved a hunk on not having to pay Brosnan numbers to Craig), this is a jump up, a big jump up, but not an insane one, especially given that so much is probably insane overtime for the post schedule. 900 vfx shots in less than 3 months, even split among several vendors, can be pretty damned pricey.

Box Office Mojo lists a production budget of $200 million: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jamesbond22.htm

The-Numbers.com lists a production budget of $230 million: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/JamesBond.php

Neither figure includes marketing.

Didn't CR & QOS respectively cost $100M and $200M to produce? That is what I always thought anyway :scratch: