Where does Bond go after Craig?

1265266268270271697

Comments

  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2023 Posts: 3,800
    Casino Royale - £21,441
    Skyfall - £20,361
    No Time to Die - £17,780
    GoldenEye - £16,800
    Goldfinger- £13,960
    The Spy Who Loved Me - £12,844
    On Her Majesty’s Secret Service - £11,114
    Live and Let Die - £10,767
    The Living Daylights - £10,707
    Licence to Kill - £9,667
    Quantum of Solace - £9,404
    Spectre - £8,992
    From Russia with Love - £8,806
    Moonraker- £8,494
    Dr. No - £8,349
    A View to a Kill - £8,065
    You Only Live Twice - £8,030
    The Man with the Golden Gun - £8,001
    Thunderball - £7,907
    Tomorrow Never Dies - £7,825
    For Your Eyes Only - £7,631
    The World is Not Enough - £6,933
    Diamonds Are Forever - £6,638
    Octopussy - £6,449
    Die Another Day - £6,225



    I expect Dr. No to be a bit higher because I think NTTD also made a heavy callbacks in that film and it's also significantly displayed in the 60th Anniversary (the design), it's also a bit iconic too for it being the first Bond film, OHMSS also benefitted from the NTTD callbacks, I think if not for the NTTD callbacks, OHMSS would not likely to rank up that high, maybe would end up on the middle, NTTD carried OHMSS back to popularity and made people discover the film.

    Living Daylights and Licence To Kill being that high was more of Dalton surgence these days, his rise to popularity.

    The Bond films in the bottom weren't suprising considering that some of them aren't that popular or either earned a bad reputation from the fandom.

    And of course those Bond films at the top were the most iconic ones and those that earned the most praises from the fandom, also some of them are marked by nostalgia and generation gaps (hence why Casino Royale and Goldeneye being that high).
    A fascinating ranking that is full of surprises. Only 1 Connery in the top 10? Do my eyes deceive me? I guess we chalk that up to what is acceptable for Bond these days. Still though, 10 years ago (5 even), the Connery era was god-like, with criticisms few and far between.

    Both Dalton films just scraping through into the top 10, i'll take that as a win.

    I'd argue, the Connery Era Bond films weren't that much popular these days, with the exception of Goldfinger, I think it's Goldfinger that carried the Connery Era Bond films, not the rest of his Bond films could do it.

    Quality wise, they may be good, but in terms of popularity, they're not that much catchy as the other Bond films, particularly towards the new generation of Bond fans.
  • edited April 2023 Posts: 3,327
    CrabKey wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    OK, but Mendes is not the only one. I just think that they need an experienced director at this time so they do not fall into something akin to the universe they created for Daniel
    Craig which included, Bond stabbing one of the main villains in the BACK, Making Bond and Blofeld foster brothers, giving the world's greatest villain the worst reintroduction and motivation of all time, killing off Mathis, creating Quantum and then folding it into Spectre in a weak recon, killing off Felix, killing off Blofeld and destroying Spectre. Killing off Bond was OK just to erase the awful universe that EON created. Craig was great as Bond but the world he inhabited was a misfire {Except for most of CR} for the last fifteen year. I just don't want to see that repeated.

    @delfloria … those are choices that were developed during the writing process.

    I personally loved this era, but the above is more about scriptwriting than it was directing.

    True.............much more about writing than directing. Everyone has their personal favorite era and there is nothing wrong with that. I grew up during the Dr No through OHMSS film era so I'm predisposed to a Bond without personal baggage.

    That’s fair @delfloria … although I grew up in the Moore Era, it was also the home video generation and my father was a Connery-first-and-only-Bond fan, so I became a James Bond fan by gobbling up the Connery films over and over and over (and then the Fleming books).

    Connery, and the era, was my favourite… But now Craig’s era is side by side with it… And, after watching Craig come full circle, he is clearly my number one James Bond (something I never thought I’d say… Even as I went into NTTD, I still viewed Connery as the best… After that viewing, I walked out with a new favourite actor in the role)…

    IMO Craig was a great Bond, but not the best. Nor do I believe his films sit side by side Connery's. No question the new films are technically superior, but they simply are not as entertaining as the early Bond films, which doesn't mean they aren't enjoyable. There's something about those early films the successors have not been able to recreate. Was it Connery alone? Hard to say.




    The early Connery films are definitive, IMO. After that you have the likes of OHMSS, then the Dalton era. After that it's only CR which can rub shoulders with the best.

    The rest of the films range from very good & entertaining (ala LALD, TMWTGG, OP, SF), to silly and daft (MR, DAD), to downright insulting (NTTD).
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I suppose these re-releases is a small sample of people voting with their wallets.

    I do think Octopussy and Thunderball and YOLT were better films than where they ended up, but c’est la vie.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2023 Posts: 3,800
    peter wrote: »
    I suppose these re-releases is a small sample of people voting with their wallets.

    I do think Octopussy and Thunderball and YOLT were better films than where they ended up, but c’est la vie.

    Popularity and the general reputation of the film are the main things considered.

    While some like you liked them, you maybe in the minority.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    That's kinda my point @SIS_HQ , hence the "c'est la vie"...
  • Posts: 2,027
    @MakeshiftPython, what exactly do those numbers represent?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2023 Posts: 16,617
    I think they're from the cinema rereleases last year in the UK.

    I know they were only screened for a day each, but quite staggeringly low amounts of money. You'd get that just having one decently-sized shop open for a day. I would almost expect the later films to make more just for the reason that people might only have discovered they were getting rereleases later into the run, so that would factor into it somewhat, but GF does do pretty well there. I think it generally shows what Makeshift says, which is the top films are the most popular at the moment. I do think it's especially interesting to see the Daltons so high.

    A friend of mine is in his early 30s and was saying to me how he rates Craig as easily the best Bond, and I think that's not an unusual view. His portrayal just connects more with audiences now than the slightly cartoonish Connery and Moore do.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 14,001
    They're the Vue Cinema screenings in the UK. 1 showing a week, on a Saturday night.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited April 2023 Posts: 8,226
    To clarify, they’re only the weekend numbers. The full week numbers weren’t released, at least around that time. So who knows how they actually performed in the total of each week they were out. Some even had extended weeks or were brought back, such as DR. NO for Oct 5th.


    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/events-uk-cinemas-all-james-bond-films-2022-box-office-success
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 951
    I’m really surprised that Moonraker did better than Dr. No.
  • Posts: 2,027
    I used to teach a Film as Lit class. I was always amused how often students would say their favorite film was currently showing at the local movie theater.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited April 2023 Posts: 4,696
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I used to teach a Film as Lit class. I was always amused how often students would say their favorite film was currently showing at the local movie theater.

    Yes that has always bothered me. People should think a bit deeper about their favorites of everything.

    As for the future of James Bond: I say kick Purvis and Wade off, same with the art house directors. Start as fresh as possible!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,226
    Art house directors? Are you using that as a derogatory term or do you not understand what actual art house directors are? Mendes may have been an Oscar winning director, but he’s not “art house”. That term falls more onto filmmakers like David Lynch and Robert Eggers who specialize in surrealism and abstract storytelling. None of which applies to any of Craig’s films. Maybe QOS comes closest with Forster intercutting between a foot chase and a horse race, but that’s not very deep stuff.

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,696
    Art house directors? Are you using that as a derogatory term or do you not understand what actual art house directors are? Mendes may have been an Oscar winning director, but he’s not “art house”. That term falls more onto filmmakers like David Lynch and Robert Eggers who specialize in surrealism and abstract storytelling. None of which applies to any of Craig’s films. Maybe QOS comes closest with Forster intercutting between a foot chase and a horse race, but that’s not very deep stuff.

    Mostly derogatory term, sorry. I just feel like a full on action director would be best for a while.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,226
    That’s what second unit is for. They’ve always been the guys that handled action while the main director mostly handled dialogue scenes.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    mtm wrote: »
    But Carte Blanche was written by a different author.

    Makes no difference: it's an official Bond novel. And, as Makeshift points out: On His Maj is written by the same novelist who had Bond in the 1930s and yet is set 90 years later.
    Yet in movies, it seems the audience is expected to accept these different universes.

    And time and again, audiences have shown they have no problem understanding it.
    Batman, incidentally, has been made and remade by the same studio, with many of the same producers on each version. Are you going to reject Batman too now? Maybe there's some other arbitrary condition you can think of which makes it okay.

    That's just the word, arbitrary. "Reboots are sci-fi, except when done by different authors or film companies." Everything about this sentence seems completely arbitrary to me, not to mention completely nonsensical.

    Also, Adamski, can you live with the fact that in the Bond films, Blofeld met Bond in YOLT, yet they didn't know each other in OHMSS? Can you live with the fact Bond became a 00 in 2006 after having been a 00 for twenty films, something I don't see you bringing up much, if at all? Then why can't you assume the Craig films span the whole career of Bond, with Casino Royale '06 set before Dr. No and No Time to Die set after every other Bond film that has been made and will ever be made? Or did EON Productions need to save the last Bond story for last? Then I guess Arthur Conan Doyle also screwed up by writing The Hound of the Baskervilles after The Final Problem?

    I don't even make the aforementioned assumption myself, but if you can live with a number of narrative inconsistencies that have accumulated in the Bond films over the years, surely you can assume No Time to Die comes last? Then your supposed sci-fi vanishes.

    Oh, there's that still that pesky message at the end of No Time to Die bothering you? "James Bond will return"? That's EON telling the audience they're going to make more Bond films, so that they don't go home thinking the film series is over, or that Nomi is going to become the new protagonist, or some such other thing. It's not about story, it's not about sci-fi, it's about commerce.

    I read all sorts of opinions in this forum. I agree with some and disagree with others. This one gets me more emotionally invested because I find it so patently absurd and arbitrary. In all sincerity, this also speaks poorly of me as I shouldn't even waste time reading opinions or replying to them.

    I guess this is it. I've become a grouch. It's alright, @TheWizardOfIce, we don't need you back, I'll take it from here.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited April 2023 Posts: 24,257
    But Carte Blanche was written by a different author. My point was, a novelist wouldn't kill off a character just for dramatic effect, and expect the reader to accept a continuation of the series where the same character is suddenly alive again with no explanation.
    Even Conan Doyle felt the need to give some kind of explanation to the re-emergence of Holmes. Yet in movies, it seems the audience is expected to accept these different universes.
    And don't forget, this isn't like Tarzan, Batman, Godzilla or whatever, where the films are made by different production companies sometimes in different countries. It's an on-going series made by the same people. And it isn't supposed to be sci-fi.

    You are insistent that we have to take these different eras as a narrative aspect of one big film series, when they are something that exists outside the stories. EON are not plot-engineering a weird multiverse, nor some sci-fi construct you are so hang up on that has a dead James Bond brought back to life. You seem unable to understand how a company can close the books on a sequence of films and plan another one.

    Let's try this. Are we talking about "James Bond 1", "James Bond 2", ..., "James Bond 25"? No, not as soon as these films are given a title. So the 15th film, TLD, can succeed the 14th film, AVTAK, and not be a sequel. This film can retain M and Q, but show a younger MP, a younger James Bond, a different dynamic between Bond and M, a more cynical Bond too, who nevertheless knows general Gogol. How is that possible?

    Because that's how these Bond films work. They move from adventure to adventure with a very selective continuity at best. In fact, the series has always suffered from some dementia. It keeps things from previous films but also includes new things that couldn't logically or logistically or plausibly have been in previous films. Astrobond and Piz Gloria Bond are the same guy? Come on now.

    The Bond films seem to start from scratch with every next entry, except when it's convenient to bring in characters from previous films and then that's that. Audiences have never cared, not even when Dench's M was also in CR. Different M played by the same actress, or same M in a parallel universe? Uh, not the sort of questions the Bonds encourage us to ask.

    Until the Craig era happens. Tight continuity; it all comes back. Interesting experiment; a definitive first. And NTTD brings it all to a conclusion. And then the era ends, with a moment during which the anti-hero becomes the hero. Five films that tell one version of Bond's career as 007, from his beginning all the way into retirement and then one last mission to finish off the personal arc. It's the closest we have ever come to a 'journey' for Bond and I, as a Bond fan, appreciate the effort more than ever. But that journey is over now.

    There will be a next time. New era, new actor. The film will not be called "James Bond 26", the sequel to "James Bond 25." That would make no sense. Instead, it'll simply be a new James Bond film, ready to excite us independent of what came before.

    Apart from the Craigs, most Bond films have no order to them. You can watch TB today, TND tomorrow, and LTK the next day. And they would make sense, despite young, blonde Felix in the first, no Felix in the second, and a different, older, married Felix in the third. Well, you can watch the Craig era today, with Bond dying at the end, and enjoy TSWLM tomorrow, that Bond film in which we refer to Bond's dead wife Tracy. And if these little signs of deliberate dementia in the series bother you, well then perhaps these films are not for you.
  • edited April 2023 Posts: 4,306
    Casino Royale - £21,441
    Skyfall - £20,361
    No Time to Die - £17,780
    GoldenEye - £16,800
    Goldfinger- £13,960
    The Spy Who Loved Me - £12,844
    On Her Majesty’s Secret Service - £11,114
    Live and Let Die - £10,767
    The Living Daylights - £10,707
    Licence to Kill - £9,667
    Quantum of Solace - £9,404
    Spectre - £8,992
    From Russia with Love - £8,806
    Moonraker- £8,494
    Dr. No - £8,349
    A View to a Kill - £8,065
    You Only Live Twice - £8,030
    The Man with the Golden Gun - £8,001
    Thunderball - £7,907
    Tomorrow Never Dies - £7,825
    For Your Eyes Only - £7,631
    The World is Not Enough - £6,933
    Diamonds Are Forever - £6,638
    Octopussy - £6,449
    Die Another Day - £6,225

    A fascinating ranking that is full of surprises. Only 1 Connery in the top 10? Do my eyes deceive me? I guess we chalk that up to what is acceptable for Bond these days. Still though, 10 years ago (5 even), the Connery era was god-like, with criticisms few and far between.

    Both Dalton films just scraping through into the top 10, i'll take that as a win.

    I do think fans sometimes overestimate just how much love there is for Connery's Bond films amongst the general population, especially when younger viewers are accounted for. For many people they simply weren't introduced to Bond through these films. I've had the situation of getting friends to watch DN, TB, or YOLT and them simply not thinking much of them. Must admit I personally don't think much of TB and YOLT either and never have done, as much as I love Connery's first three films. I can understand when they're not viewed through the prerequisite lens of these being from 'the best era of Bond' with the best actor, they might simply not gel with a lot of people for various reasons.

    For a lot of people, the nostalgic memories of Bond comes from watching CR in 2006, or SF in 2012. Or GE back in the 90s. So it's understandable that these films would rank higher on their re-release weekend. I've noticed during the Craig era quite a few people went back and watched the Dalton films and he's something of a cult favourite, so I can also understand why his two films performed well. The likes of TSWLM, GF, OHMSS and LALD are generally considered classics of the series anyway.
  • I’d be curious to see how well the films would do if they were re-released in the US. I have a feeling the post GE Brosnan films would’ve fared a bit better here than in the UK. Also surprised at Goldfinger being the only Connery Bond film to crack the top 10. I personally would’ve thought that FRWL would’ve at least made the cut as well.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    edited April 2023 Posts: 69
    007HallY wrote: »
    Casino Royale - £21,441
    Skyfall - £20,361
    No Time to Die - £17,780
    GoldenEye - £16,800
    Goldfinger- £13,960
    The Spy Who Loved Me - £12,844
    On Her Majesty’s Secret Service - £11,114
    Live and Let Die - £10,767
    The Living Daylights - £10,707
    Licence to Kill - £9,667
    Quantum of Solace - £9,404
    Spectre - £8,992
    From Russia with Love - £8,806
    Moonraker- £8,494
    Dr. No - £8,349
    A View to a Kill - £8,065
    You Only Live Twice - £8,030
    The Man with the Golden Gun - £8,001
    Thunderball - £7,907
    Tomorrow Never Dies - £7,825
    For Your Eyes Only - £7,631
    The World is Not Enough - £6,933
    Diamonds Are Forever - £6,638
    Octopussy - £6,449
    Die Another Day - £6,225

    A fascinating ranking that is full of surprises. Only 1 Connery in the top 10? Do my eyes deceive me? I guess we chalk that up to what is acceptable for Bond these days. Still though, 10 years ago (5 even), the Connery era was god-like, with criticisms few and far between.

    Both Dalton films just scraping through into the top 10, i'll take that as a win.

    I do think fans sometimes overestimate just how much love there is for Connery's Bond films amongst the general population, especially when younger viewers are accounted for. For many people they simply weren't introduced to Bond through these films. I've had the situation of getting friends to watch DN, TB, or YOLT and them simply not thinking much of them. Must admit I personally don't think much of TB and YOLT either and never have done, as much as I love Connery's first three films. I can understand when they're not viewed through the prerequisite lens of these being from 'the best era of Bond' with the best actor, they might simply not gel with a lot of people for various reasons.

    For a lot of people, the nostalgic memories of Bond comes from watching CR in 2006, or SF in 2012. Or GE back in the 90s. So it's understandable that these films would rank higher on their re-release weekend. I've noticed during the Craig era quite a few people went back and watched the Dalton films and he's something of a cult favourite, so I can also understand why his two films performed well. The likes of TSWLM, GF, OHMSS and LALD are generally considered classics of the series anyway.
    Go to any poll voting best Bond ever and Connery garners near 90 percent of the votes.
    I would not give too much look into re-release earnings because near everyone owns the Bond films at home.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,617
    007HallY wrote: »
    Casino Royale - £21,441
    Skyfall - £20,361
    No Time to Die - £17,780
    GoldenEye - £16,800
    Goldfinger- £13,960
    The Spy Who Loved Me - £12,844
    On Her Majesty’s Secret Service - £11,114
    Live and Let Die - £10,767
    The Living Daylights - £10,707
    Licence to Kill - £9,667
    Quantum of Solace - £9,404
    Spectre - £8,992
    From Russia with Love - £8,806
    Moonraker- £8,494
    Dr. No - £8,349
    A View to a Kill - £8,065
    You Only Live Twice - £8,030
    The Man with the Golden Gun - £8,001
    Thunderball - £7,907
    Tomorrow Never Dies - £7,825
    For Your Eyes Only - £7,631
    The World is Not Enough - £6,933
    Diamonds Are Forever - £6,638
    Octopussy - £6,449
    Die Another Day - £6,225

    A fascinating ranking that is full of surprises. Only 1 Connery in the top 10? Do my eyes deceive me? I guess we chalk that up to what is acceptable for Bond these days. Still though, 10 years ago (5 even), the Connery era was god-like, with criticisms few and far between.

    Both Dalton films just scraping through into the top 10, i'll take that as a win.

    I do think fans sometimes overestimate just how much love there is for Connery's Bond films amongst the general population, especially when younger viewers are accounted for. For many people they simply weren't introduced to Bond through these films. I've had the situation of getting friends to watch DN, TB, or YOLT and them simply not thinking much of them. Must admit I personally don't think much of TB and YOLT either and never have done, as much as I love Connery's first three films. I can understand when they're not viewed through the prerequisite lens of these being from 'the best era of Bond' with the best actor, they might simply not gel with a lot of people for various reasons.

    For a lot of people, the nostalgic memories of Bond comes from watching CR in 2006, or SF in 2012. Or GE back in the 90s. So it's understandable that these films would rank higher on their re-release weekend. I've noticed during the Craig era quite a few people went back and watched the Dalton films and he's something of a cult favourite, so I can also understand why his two films performed well. The likes of TSWLM, GF, OHMSS and LALD are generally considered classics of the series anyway.

    I think that’s very true. Older folks and fans love Connery, but I think he’s slipping a bit in popularity for general audience members.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited April 2023 Posts: 699
    I was never bothered by the loose continuity of "Bond Prime" (DN-DAD) because those were self-contained adventures that ran on a basic set of rules. Bond and Blofeld meeting twice in YOLT and OHMSS didn't bother me for the same reason that Connery going on the same mission twice (TB and NSNA) didn't bother me: temporal continuity wasn't really a thing either way.

    Killing off CraigBond and sealing off his tenure as its own mini-universe basically means that Craig's character was not so much James Bond as it was an alternative take on the character. At least, that's how it feels.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Until the Craig era happens. Tight continuity; it all comes back. Interesting experiment; a definitive first.

    This was the problem, though. There was too much experimentation and not enough commitment to the overall narrative. Bond is young in CR and QOS, then suddenly a dinosaur in SF. Bond is described as a blue collar guy in CR, but in SF we find out that he was raised in a mansion. Then SP retcons all the previous movies so that they were all a part of Blofeld's scheme. Messing with backstories and motivations at this level makes no sense when they're trying to maintain a strict continuity from movie to movie.

    @peter
    I've seen the Matera chase plus a few other sequences from NTTD.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @slide_99 … always better see a piece of art or story as a whole, not a YouTube clip.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited April 2023 Posts: 25,416
    James Bond casting director says new 007 needs gravitas.

    Some fact checking clearly needs doing.
  • Posts: 2,027
    The great thing about being an original Bond fan is we were there for the beginning of it all. As has been often repeated here it was new, exciting, and hasn't been recaptured. It was a moment like The Beatles. It burned brightly for a while and the moment passed to be replaced by something else that has never felt quite as original or exciting since. Bond in its various iterations is always entertaining even when it disappoints, which is why I have seen every Bond film at a cinema when it came out. I have every expectation the next Bond film will be entertaining. I am sure the producers will do their best to meet fan expectations post Craig. For many the new Bond will be the best Bond. It will feature new faces, state of the art technology, and all the whistles and bells contemporary movie making offers. But it will be film twenty-six in a sixty-five year history. Even for us original fans, the thrill, like that first kiss, wore off before the Connery era expired. It would be fun to feel that way about a Bond film again.

  • I remember a few years ago when Millennials were taking to Twitter to express how they didn’t like Sean Connery’s Bond for how abusive he was towards some women. I think most people of that age group prefer either Brosnan, or Craig as Bond than the older actors.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,226
    Connery is no longer just “Your Father’s James Bond” but now “Your Grandfather’s James Bond”
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I think what’s most important about these latest interviews with Debbie McWilliams is that she’s probably the third most important person at EoN during this time… and there’s no way that her comments are off the cuff in the least… she likely has a script she follows (as do BB and MGW when they deal with the press), that was vetted by her bosses.

    Some interesting take aways…
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,158
    Sean Connery IS James Bond. As someone once said...
  • Posts: 4,306
    WhyBond wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Casino Royale - £21,441
    Skyfall - £20,361
    No Time to Die - £17,780
    GoldenEye - £16,800
    Goldfinger- £13,960
    The Spy Who Loved Me - £12,844
    On Her Majesty’s Secret Service - £11,114
    Live and Let Die - £10,767
    The Living Daylights - £10,707
    Licence to Kill - £9,667
    Quantum of Solace - £9,404
    Spectre - £8,992
    From Russia with Love - £8,806
    Moonraker- £8,494
    Dr. No - £8,349
    A View to a Kill - £8,065
    You Only Live Twice - £8,030
    The Man with the Golden Gun - £8,001
    Thunderball - £7,907
    Tomorrow Never Dies - £7,825
    For Your Eyes Only - £7,631
    The World is Not Enough - £6,933
    Diamonds Are Forever - £6,638
    Octopussy - £6,449
    Die Another Day - £6,225

    A fascinating ranking that is full of surprises. Only 1 Connery in the top 10? Do my eyes deceive me? I guess we chalk that up to what is acceptable for Bond these days. Still though, 10 years ago (5 even), the Connery era was god-like, with criticisms few and far between.

    Both Dalton films just scraping through into the top 10, i'll take that as a win.

    I do think fans sometimes overestimate just how much love there is for Connery's Bond films amongst the general population, especially when younger viewers are accounted for. For many people they simply weren't introduced to Bond through these films. I've had the situation of getting friends to watch DN, TB, or YOLT and them simply not thinking much of them. Must admit I personally don't think much of TB and YOLT either and never have done, as much as I love Connery's first three films. I can understand when they're not viewed through the prerequisite lens of these being from 'the best era of Bond' with the best actor, they might simply not gel with a lot of people for various reasons.

    For a lot of people, the nostalgic memories of Bond comes from watching CR in 2006, or SF in 2012. Or GE back in the 90s. So it's understandable that these films would rank higher on their re-release weekend. I've noticed during the Craig era quite a few people went back and watched the Dalton films and he's something of a cult favourite, so I can also understand why his two films performed well. The likes of TSWLM, GF, OHMSS and LALD are generally considered classics of the series anyway.
    Go to any poll voting best Bond ever and Connery garners near 90 percent of the votes.
    I would not give too much look into re-release earnings because near everyone owns the Bond films at home.

    Not necessarily. From the ones I did just with a basic Google search Connery generally edges out as best (dependent on the poll) but it's often very close with Craig, so it's rarely a 90% situation. But it really depends on who's voting in these polls. Also naming the best Bond doesn't necessarily mean they had the best (or in this case most popular) Bond films.

    I'd argue that while these results are not definitive, they're not surprising, and it's telling that many people flocked to see SF and CR over many of the earlier Connery Bond films.
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Casino Royale - £21,441
    Skyfall - £20,361
    No Time to Die - £17,780
    GoldenEye - £16,800
    Goldfinger- £13,960
    The Spy Who Loved Me - £12,844
    On Her Majesty’s Secret Service - £11,114
    Live and Let Die - £10,767
    The Living Daylights - £10,707
    Licence to Kill - £9,667
    Quantum of Solace - £9,404
    Spectre - £8,992
    From Russia with Love - £8,806
    Moonraker- £8,494
    Dr. No - £8,349
    A View to a Kill - £8,065
    You Only Live Twice - £8,030
    The Man with the Golden Gun - £8,001
    Thunderball - £7,907
    Tomorrow Never Dies - £7,825
    For Your Eyes Only - £7,631
    The World is Not Enough - £6,933
    Diamonds Are Forever - £6,638
    Octopussy - £6,449
    Die Another Day - £6,225

    A fascinating ranking that is full of surprises. Only 1 Connery in the top 10? Do my eyes deceive me? I guess we chalk that up to what is acceptable for Bond these days. Still though, 10 years ago (5 even), the Connery era was god-like, with criticisms few and far between.

    Both Dalton films just scraping through into the top 10, i'll take that as a win.

    I do think fans sometimes overestimate just how much love there is for Connery's Bond films amongst the general population, especially when younger viewers are accounted for. For many people they simply weren't introduced to Bond through these films. I've had the situation of getting friends to watch DN, TB, or YOLT and them simply not thinking much of them. Must admit I personally don't think much of TB and YOLT either and never have done, as much as I love Connery's first three films. I can understand when they're not viewed through the prerequisite lens of these being from 'the best era of Bond' with the best actor, they might simply not gel with a lot of people for various reasons.

    For a lot of people, the nostalgic memories of Bond comes from watching CR in 2006, or SF in 2012. Or GE back in the 90s. So it's understandable that these films would rank higher on their re-release weekend. I've noticed during the Craig era quite a few people went back and watched the Dalton films and he's something of a cult favourite, so I can also understand why his two films performed well. The likes of TSWLM, GF, OHMSS and LALD are generally considered classics of the series anyway.

    I think that’s very true. Older folks and fans love Connery, but I think he’s slipping a bit in popularity for general audience members.

    I think Connery's Bond is still quite popular in the sense that it's a very quintessential portrayal of the character (and he's a marvellous actor). But again, from personal experience I don't find that all of his films necessarily connect with many viewers, especially given that for a majority of people going to see these films he probably wasn't their first Bond.

    I mean, just from personal anecdote, I've sat with people who found DN 'dated' (one had even read the book beforehand and was disappointed with the film), TB and YOLT 'boring' (I actually agree) and DAF a sort of bizarre 'so bad it's good' experience. These are the same friends I went to see SF with multiple times when it came out, and who happen to like many of the other Bond films. Again, very subjective, but I don't think these views are as uncommon as Bond fans might think.
Sign In or Register to comment.