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
Nobody has said that Bond as a franchise is in relative decline either, have they?
The numbers I posted above show clearly that the MI film was more popular in both China and India. My point was a relative one. I was referring to Craig's (not Bond's) relative popularity in the European and UK markets in comparison to the US and Asian markets on a relative basis to the MI films.
I was also referring to the fact that the last two MI films held their relative gross quite well while the last Bond film declined in the US, to the extent that it became the least watched film of the last 25 years in the US.
Don't worry, Bond will survive and thrive. Nobody is having a go at Bond. Just stating some facts that people perhaps aren't aware of. Everyone (or at least I think everyone) is aware that the last Bond film was very successful globally, as it should be. I'm bringing attention to the mix.
Not really.
However, when you first mentioned Asian markets, I believe it wasn't in comparison with the M:I films at all.
And re: the M:I films retaining its audience in the US vs SF to SP: as you stated the obvious: there was a drop-off in attendance.
I was merely saying that what's actually interesting in this find of yours is, that even with a weaker entry, Bond STILL does healthy business and profitability. And it doesn't matter if it was the least watched Bond film in 25 years.
You said, and here are your words: Not a good sign because the rate of decline signifies something.
All I'm saying is: that's nonsense. That's the point behind the Forbes article: a middling entry will still find, en masse, people willing to pluck down their money on a Bond film. Your "rate of decline" comment signifies nothing other than: one film that wasn't as popular as it's predecessor, lol!
Here's the quote about Asia, which I stand by because on a relative basis, the recent Craig films have done better in Europe and the UK in comparison to the US and Asia (in comparison to other large $1bn style franchises)
I'm saying: no it doesn't, other than: one film hit the mark, the other didn't. That's showbiz, lol!!
Glad we've sorted that out.
Sorry to other users for this pointless exchange.
It means nothing more than that. And that was my point, lol! (as well as: on a lesser entry they can still make bucks, lol).
Thanks you for finally seeing that.
How can SF and CR be proof that the world loves the Craig style, but when the numbers don't hold up, suddenly they are irrelevant?
Let's face it, Craig's popularity as Bond peaked with SF, and it now on the downturn. Nothing to be ashamed of, so let's just say it instead of pretend like Bond 25 can recapture that success. What we are in for with Bond 25 (if Craig returns which we still can't be sure) is another AVTAK, or DAF. For anyone who looks at how these tenures progress, this will be clear. For some this will be enough, and it will garner middling to positive reviews, but ultimately the tenure will end with a slump. With all the comparisons with Connery and Moore, as another great 007, you would think we could actually be honest about when they are actually alike, such as is the case now. All the greats end with a dud, which gets the respect of a certain sliver of hardcore fans. If Craig truly is a great along with Connery and Moore, then the same will be true of him, and there is nothing wrong with that (it's not a mark against Craig). I just wish we could have avoided all this by quitting whilst we were ahead for a change, and cashing out chips before someone jams a walking stick in our back.
Ultimately we were discussing MI in relation to Bond. I started by saying that the MI films have held up their relative gross over the last two films better than the last two Bond films have (even though SF was an exception stateside). Something can be learned from that. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.
Moving on....
200 million is still good box office; if they're pulling that off of a film that, I think they probably also know was flawed, I'm sure EoN will come back with a strong effort. I've said all along: they know what they're doing. In a crowded industry, bursting with competition from every angle, they do pretty well for themselves.
And I guarantee what will happen with B25 will be this: some will LOVE it; some will like it; some will go "meh", and; others will HATE it.
It will do, as most Bond films do, consistent box office profit-- as has been the pattern of the franchise as a whole.
Indeed, moving on, lol!
(I can always be reached by PM to carry on, but there's not much more that needs to be said; I think we all get it: SF was bigger than SP. It was the better film. That's all the decline shows-- one was better than the other, and connected more with the general audience. That's what happens in this industry).
Ultimately, the point I (as opposed to others) was making is that the last two MI films have left goodwill in the majority of viewer's minds (whatever their box office gross may have been in absolute terms), and that is reflected in the relative 'hold' in box office of the last film across all markets in comparison to the prior film. That is a measure of continued enthusiasm.
The last two Bond films in contrast have seen some pretty large shifts (particularly in the largest market). That deserves some dissection to understand what must be done. Most of our comments in totality on this site since that last film's release will give some clues. Whether the producers heed it or not is their business.
Just to clarify again so there is no misunderstanding, the Bond films are in no danger. They are forever and James Bond will survive all of us. Bond as a franchise leaves MI in the dust.
I'd say that EoN showed big balls with their past two outings. They didn't deliver the expected with SKYFALL and they benefited from the risk; they didn't deliver SKYFALL: PART TWO with SPECTRE (on top of whatever else we may argue worked, or didn't work), and there was disappointment, BUT (the magical thing about Bond), they still did remarkable box office that beat M:I domestically and internationally.
I think the MI franchise has filled a void left by the Craig Bonds, which have gone in a different direction. McQuarrie has said as much himself. I think Cruise saw an opening, and he took it, and I for one am eternally grateful to him for filling that space (which would otherwise have been vacant). They are fun filled entries full of style, death defying stunts, glamour, class and irony that remind me of the old Bond films (even though they definitely are not in that league - just to avoid offending people again). Most importantly, they have been near perfect in their execution.
Conceptually, the last Bond film may have taken risks by going with 'brother' (or warlord Blofeld as was initially planned), but as I've maintained since its release, it was very poorly executed. I'm not a film writer or expert but I know something that doesn't gel when I see it. Normally it's because it's been rushed or because there was a failure at inception (meaning the writing). I sincerely hope they have taken these four years to get that critical part absolutely right, so that the actors can do their job this time.
Now this makes sense.
I'm glad you enjoy the re-invigorated M:I films. Personally, the last two blend too close together and I can't remember one from the other. Much like the Marvel/Avengers films-- to me they keep delivering the same spectacle, but I can't tell one from the other.
But, the films serve their purpose.
Re: SP: I don't think brother-gate was the risk; the risk was not delivering on SKYFALL: PART TWO (like The Avengers continue delivering the same obvious look/sound/story in their sequels).
However, there are many reasons why SP could not meet SF. Some was self-inflicted, and part of the filmmaking process; another issue was audience expectations.
I agree that there are story problems with SP, and, like most (if not all) film sets, there were some major obstacles from major injuries, to scripts being page one re-writes... An obvious statement but one that I don't think is fully appreciated: whatever one thinks of whichever film, no one sets out to make a poor film.
No matter how offended we, as fans, get.
The happy news is, professionals, like EoN, always show a pattern of bouncing back.
They have a 50 year storied legacy to draw from, so they don't really have to focus so much on emulating the last entry.
Of course it will make moola. No Bond film hasn't. That's never a good measure of the discussion with Bond, particularly with the budgets (production and marketing) and the legacy. It's the most bulletproof franchise ever imho. More so than SW and more so than Batman. As long as men have egos, want to bed women, live the high life and do dangerous things there will always be Bond. I certainly hope men are still allowed to do that (lol - given current trends) in the future.
Did Mendes say that as well?
Should have :P
Yes, very much so.
Additionally, it's one of the few that supersedes the actor playing the part. It's all about the character. He is the draw. That makes it a highly valuable franchise in Hollywood. Even SW still revolves around the actors playing the parts (recall the furor over Luke in the last one).
Having said that, it's not something that should ever be taken for granted and thankfully the producers have never fallen into that trap.
Watching SP in the cinema was a bit like watching the "best of" show at the season's end of a TV series.
Now the debate exists and that speaks volumes IMHO