007: What would you have done differently?

bondjames

bondsum wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

I think SF works well thematically and theatrically. It pulls at certain audience emotional levers in a manner which resonates with the masses. The outstanding visuals and ambience facilitate this also. Like a music video or good play, it mesmerizes at a certain base level and casts a spell. Mendes doesn't achieve the same sleight of hand with SP, and therefore the story problems are more apparent. Van Hoytema's cinematography, Newman's score and the cast (all elements which helped the prior film to resonate) couldn't hold a candle to what was achieved in SF (imho). Furthermore, there is the hamfisted and overly predictable handling of basic formula, further helping to expose the plot weaknesses. So the film 'fails to please formula fans', 'annoys Fleming fans', and 'ticks off SF fans'. Way to go.

I realise that I'm never going to convince people who like SF to suddenly dislike it, that's not my intention. I'm only giving my view as to why I find SF a less than stellar experience and rank it very low amongst my own favourites. The Oberhauser (Kahn Star Trek Into Darkness reveal) aside, I still prefer SP over SF. With regard to SF resonating with the masses, I'm not sure how that can be proven either way. What do we use to measure this? Rotten Tomatoes? Yes, it has an 85% audience rating from 373,233 users, but so does Transformers (2007) but with a far bigger user input of 2,384,940 users. Again, I'm not sure what to make of these figures, other than 10x as many people felt compelled to register their approval of Transformers than SF. How many people actually saw SF worldwide and have given their vote of approval on any of these matters? Out of curiosity I've had a look at the new Suspiria numbers: a healthy 74% audience rating from 1,703 users, but the movie was an absolute flop, barely pulling in $2,483,472 at the BO from a $20 Million budget. I guess my point is, it's not as if these percentages translate to good BO as that appears not to be the case, so what purpose do they serve? I think the general consensus here at MI6 was that SF was the best Bond movie ever made and the only way was up from here on out. This is why I take no notice of the general consensus here as it changes with the seasons.

You point out Van Hoytema's cinematography and Newman's score not being up to the same high standards as SF (an often repeated grievance from MI6 members), but I really don't understand this criticism. I can't recall members here ever discussing the merits of cinematography until Roger Deakins came on board. Sure, there was some praise for OHMSS, YOLT and TSWLM but it was never used to the extent that it is now to undermine how a Bond movie should be viewed. Nobody ever mentions David Tattersall's cinematography or David Arnold's ho-hum score for DAD. Sure, SP has problems, but I think the cinematography is the least of them. I don't disagree with the "hamfisted" storytelling though.

In terms of resonating with the masses, I'm basing it on a few things. The film was far more successful than any previous Bond film in a long time, including on an inflation adjusted basis. One doesn't crack the $1bn barrier in box office without some impact on the mass viewing public (particularly with a film from the spy based genre which skews more adult demographically than DC/Marvel fare). Moreover, a lot of SF's box office reportedly came from repeat viewings and also steadily over multiple weeks (which can be observed by checking the weekly data in large markets). That's a signal of a film that's impressing many people. SP was more front loaded and tapered off very quickly. I realize this is independent of critical appeal. However, even on that level, SF seems to have lasting recognition. I continue to see many articles which reference SF as a quality film, and use it as an example to paint SP as an inferior effort. I recognize that this is just the view of critics, and at the end of the day I don't judge a film that way myself. I only look at how it impacts me personally. I'm sure you're the same.

My point is that I believe the visuals, the score, the emotional elevation and the characterizations help to mask any flaws in the basic story of the film. I'm generally an analytical person, but as I mentioned somewhere recently my analytical antennae is somewhat blocked in the case of SF, and I freely admit that. The film hits me viscerally. As in the case of a beautiful woman, I find myself able to forgive more. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not alone in this regard. That's what I mean about sleight of hand. If one isn't mesmerized by these elements as I am, then I'd imagine that one could look at things more analytically as you do. In the case of SP, I feel as though I am looking at an 'old bag', figuratively speaking. Therefore I am able to notice the flaws far more readily. Again, perhaps I'm not alone.

So yes, I recognize that conversations about cinematography and score are more prevalent these days. Some of that is due to the 'name brands' that EON seems to be hiring, but some of that is because SF did capture a lot of people visually. To a degree, perhaps the cinematographer will become as much a part of Bond films going forward as production design (under Adam) was before? Who knows. Once it's recognized, it becomes an ongoing requirement.

Don't get me wrong though, I get where you're coming from. I was (and continue to be) blinded by the beauty of it all.

echo

M is the Bond girl in SF. It's ingenious.

SF is also the chickens coming home to roost for M. (You see it when she confesses about Silva to Bond.). Ironically, you could read SF now as a Brexit allegory, although that was hardly Mendes' intention at the time.

Getafix

echo wrote: »

M is the Bond girl in SF. It's ingenious.

SF is also the chickens coming home to roost for M. (You see it when she confesses about Silva to Bond.). Ironically, you could read SF now as a Brexit allegory, although that was hardly Mendes' intention at the time.

Very good point about Brexit. I've described SF as Brexit Bond before myself. As someone who personally hates the sight of my country being reduced to a laughing stock by a bunch of lying nitwits, this only adds to my distaste for SF.

bondsum

bondjames wrote: »

In terms of resonating with the masses, I'm basing it on a few things. The film was far more successful than any previous Bond film in a long time, including on an inflation adjusted basis. One doesn't crack the $1bn barrier in box office without some impact on the mass viewing public (particularly with a film from the spy based genre which skews more adult demographically than DC/Marvel fare). Moreover, a lot of SF's box office reportedly came from repeat viewings and also steadily over multiple weeks (which can be observed by checking the weekly data in large markets). That's a signal of a film that's impressing many people. SP was more front loaded and tapered off very quickly. I realize this is independent of critical appeal. However, even on that level, SF seems to have lasting recognition. I continue to see many articles which reference SF as a quality film, and use it as an example to paint SP as an inferior effort. I recognize that this is just the view of critics, and at the end of the day I don't judge a film that way myself. I only look at how it impacts me personally. I'm sure you're the same.

I don't necessarily equate good BO with resonating with the masses. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace reached the $1 billion mark, but there's plenty of people who saw it that disliked it immensely. Sure, the SW fanbase is far more vocal about its gripes than Bond fans are, which goes partway to endorse my own view that Bond fans are far more forgiving if the producers get it wrong than SW fans are. I know you're probably thinking fast on your feet and responding quickly to my post, but I wouldn't use "the spy based genre" as a BO abnormality. This is James Bond, one of the most successful (arguably the best) franchises in movie history. It's not as if "the spy based genre" has ever gone away or been poorly received, no more or less than SciFi has outside of Star Wars.

Though I'm sure there's a percentage of people who return for repeat viewings, I don't think this is the reason for SF's success. It was without doubt one of the first Bond movies to get huge critical praise across the board. I think this was a contributing factor for those that hadn't seen a Bond film in ages to brave the modern multiplexes and go seek it out. SF became the must-see movie alongside Alice in Wonderland that same year. Thunderball is still the undisputed champ at the BO, but would you use the same argument that TB resonated with the masses in '65, or was it simply a culmination of many other factors as to why that particular Bond movie made more money than those that followed it? I think SF was a combination of people wanting to see what all the fuss was about (same thing applies to last year's Black Panther movie) coupled with an already preexisting large fanbase, plus the lack of other decent movies available at the multiplexes. There's plenty of other factors that I don't have the time to list, but my point is: I wouldn't equate good BO with quality, universal appeal or en masse approval. Make of it what you will, but I'm now seeing a shift from movies that have recently received critical praise to these same movies performing badly at the BO. Is this because audiences can no longer trust critics anymore and see them as shills? I'm afraid I can't answer that.

bondjames wrote: »

So yes, I recognize that conversations about cinematography and score are more prevalent these days. Some of that is due to the 'name brands' that EON seems to be hiring, but some of that is because SF did capture a lot of people visually. To a degree, perhaps the cinematographer will become as much a part of Bond films going forward as production design (under Adam) was before? Who knows. Once it's recognized, it becomes an ongoing requirement.

Don't get me wrong though, I get where you're coming from. I was (and continue to be) blinded by the beauty of it all.

A valid point about production design. This seems to be an area that's been totally neglected by the modern cinephile, preferring to discuss filters and colour saturation as a worthwhile topic instead.

Anyway, always good talking with you @bondjames. I'm going to be signing off for a while as I'm extremely busy right now. All the best, friend.

bondjames

echo wrote: »

M is the Bond girl in SF. It's ingenious.

SF is also the chickens coming home to roost for M. (You see it when she confesses about Silva to Bond.). Ironically, you could read SF now as a Brexit allegory, although that was hardly Mendes' intention at the time.

Yes, I suppose one could view it that way now in retrospect, but as you correctly noted, that couldn't have been the intention at the time. I think the reason such a comparison can be made is because SF, more than most Bond films, speaks to the 'old ways', recalls the time of 'the Empire' and arguably brings up a certain 'national pride' and 'sovereignty'. These are sometimes used as cudgels these days to hammer the leavers.

bondsum wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

In terms of resonating with the masses, I'm basing it on a few things. The film was far more successful than any previous Bond film in a long time, including on an inflation adjusted basis. One doesn't crack the $1bn barrier in box office without some impact on the mass viewing public (particularly with a film from the spy based genre which skews more adult demographically than DC/Marvel fare). Moreover, a lot of SF's box office reportedly came from repeat viewings and also steadily over multiple weeks (which can be observed by checking the weekly data in large markets). That's a signal of a film that's impressing many people. SP was more front loaded and tapered off very quickly. I realize this is independent of critical appeal. However, even on that level, SF seems to have lasting recognition. I continue to see many articles which reference SF as a quality film, and use it as an example to paint SP as an inferior effort. I recognize that this is just the view of critics, and at the end of the day I don't judge a film that way myself. I only look at how it impacts me personally. I'm sure you're the same.

I don't necessarily equate good BO with resonating with the masses. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace reached the $1 billion mark, but there's plenty of people who saw it that disliked it immensely. Sure, the SW fanbase is far more vocal about its gripes than Bond fans are, which goes partway to endorse my own view that Bond fans are far more forgiving if the producers get it wrong than SW fans are. I know you're probably thinking fast on your feet and responding quickly to my post, but I wouldn't use "the spy based genre" as a BO abnormality. This is James Bond, one of the most successful (arguably the best) franchises in movie history. It's not as if "the spy based genre" has ever gone away or been poorly received, no more or less than SciFi has outside of Star Wars.

Though I'm sure there's a percentage of people who return for repeat viewings, I don't think this is the reason for SF's success. It was without doubt one of the first Bond movies to get huge critical praise across the board. I think this was a contributing factor for those that hadn't seen a Bond film in ages to brave the modern multiplexes and go seek it out. SF became the must-see movie alongside Alice in Wonderland that same year. Thunderball is still the undisputed champ at the BO, but would you use the same argument that TB resonated with the masses in '65, or was it simply a culmination of many other factors as to why that particular Bond movie made more money than those that followed it? I think SF was a combination of people wanting to see what all the fuss was about (same thing applies to last year's Black Panther movie) coupled with an already preexisting large fanbase, plus the lack of other decent movies available at the multiplexes. There's plenty of other factors that I don't have the time to list, but my point is: I wouldn't equate good BO with quality, universal appeal or en masse approval. Make of it what you will, but I'm now seeing a shift from movies that have recently received critical praise to these same movies performing badly at the BO. Is this because audiences can no longer trust critics anymore and see them as shills? I'm afraid I can't answer that.

@bondsum, I guess we'll never really know whether SF resonated or not. You've provided valid counterarguments to support your perspective, and without more in depth analysis of what happened and why, it's difficult to debate this further without repetition. I'll admit that most of my opinion on this is based on my personal experience, anecdotal observations (which only reflect behaviour in my area), what I've seen of media commentary, and cursory review of stats from sites such as boxofficemojo and the like. Hardly conclusive.

As you noted, it's possible that the 'novelty factor' (after four long years), the 'hype' (as with Black Panther) and perhaps the 'bandwagon effect' contributed to its box office. It normally does with these sort of things. People don't want to be left out of the fun and would like to be 'in the know'.

Like you, I have also noticed a bit more of a disconnect recently between critical appraisal and box office success. The first time I really noticed that recently was BR2049 a couple of years ago (in that case I believe the audience was correct), and it's become more prevalent since. I'll admit that I sometimes wonder if it's because I'm getting older and am no longer attuned to contemporary sensibilities. I hope not!

So we'll never really know. I respect your opinion on SF, and can understand it.

I hope you are able to successfully conclude all your work and come back to chat with us soon. I enjoy our detailed discussions and it's always a pleasure having a debate with you.

NicNac

Thunderball arrived at the peak of BondMania. After Goldfinger everyone wanted a piece of Bond, so maybe the success of Thunderball was down to the quality of what went before?

And therefore it could be argued that the dwindling box office appeal of Bond in YOLT could be down to the quality of Thunderball?

So TB soaked up the mass appeal of Bond, but ultimately was a major cause for its drop in popularity.

As for Skyfall, the film was hugely popular with the casual viewers who didn't give two hoots about the plot holes, the Olympic appeal, the gingo-istic aspects of the film. People genuinely enjoyed it. And it still ranks highly among Bond fans on these boards.

There are so many reasons written on here explaining why it succeeded at the BO, but maybe we should just accept that the most controversial reason of them all may be the real reason. People simply liked the film.

BT3366

echo wrote: »

M is the Bond girl in SF. It's ingenious.

Depends on your tolerance of the characterization of M. I've disliked the Dench portrayal of M putting Bond down early on and always seeming like she has to try much harder to make an impact. But it just seems like this is an overcompensation that she's just rather unqualified for her position with Bond constantly having to clean up the mess. The one time she seems to be on top of her game is in TND in supporting him.

Yeah, I know it was a fresh thing in '95 what with Stella Rimington being the real-life counterpart, but they should've started anew when Craig took over the role.

And I wouldn't say the concept of a heroine who doesn't fall into bed automatically with Bond is that fresh. In QoS, Camilla was a partner, not so much a plaything and a help to Bond, not a hindrance. Same with Melina in FYEO.

RichardTheBruce

Thunderball is still the undisputed champ at the BO,

That actually IS disputed. Specifically by Skyfall's box office and adjustments for inflation.

peter

Birdleson wrote: »

peter wrote: »

MaxCasino wrote: »

bondsum wrote: »

Thank you @peter for your complimentary comments. Plus a big thank you to both @bondjames and @Major_Boothroyd for taking the time to formulate a response.

@Major_Boothroyd's "SF isn't really about Bond, it's about M" comment is one of the issues that I personally have with the movie and it's another reason why I'm not at all enamoured by this entry as much as others seem to be. It's not the only issue that I have with SF, as I'm not particularly enthused about Bond's orphan backstory being salvaged from a fictional obituary taken from YOLT, purportedly from The Times newspaper, and used as some personal cross to bear. It's not as if they include the whole backstory about Bond being adopted by his aunt and living in the village of Pett Bottom, where he completes his early education, because if they did then there'd have been no place for Skyfall lodge in this timeframe. Also, I feel if Fleming had felt this Little Orphan Jimmy an important issue, he would have made more out of it in his YOLT novel, but as it probably wasn't even meant to be taken as sacrosanct, no doubt a work of fiction by the Ministry, it should have been left that way. But no, Mendes obviously saw clear parallels between Nolan's Bruce Wayne and Fleming's own fictional obituary, and therefore decided to make his own version of that same movie with its similar subtext and beats. The only reason I call it "heavy-handed" @bondjames, is because these themes are given the same rank or importance in Nolan's movie that are also prominent in SF. Whilst not an exact carbon copy of DK, it's clearly evident that it aspires to be a wannabe rendition of it. As a homage to Nolan's Dark Knight, I think it compares favourably. As a Bond movie, I think it fails. That's not to say I can't appreciate Bérénice Marlohe in the movie. I just wished I'd seen more of her and Patrice, and much less of Judi Dench.

I agree, I didn't pity her when she died. I probably would have been sadder if Kincade would have died. Thankfully, he didn't.

Bring back Kincade as Bond’s sidekick.

I'd boycott! Hate the concept of the character (though he was portrayed nicely).

C'mon, it'd be awesome! Kincade could show up in the third act, just as Bond's in a real bind. He brings Andrew Bond's sawed-off from SF. Cocks it, and says to James-- "For old times sake, ya hopped up little shit"

Bond smirks.

(the audience laughs)

Then--

Kincade swivels around and blasts the s*** out of some baddies we didn't even see coming!

Oh man, awesome I tell ya... Just. Awesome.

Later on, Bond and he could sit around a fire and we learn that Kincade has real heart: slightly drunk, and a tear in his eye, he admits he fell for "Emma" on that fateful night that Bond returned to Skyfall.

Bond listens, and also a little drunk, cries along with the old man.

He could crawl over to him. Wrap an arm around the burly shoulders. Brings him in for a man-hug.

We pull away, slowly.... ever... so.... sloooooooooowly... and FADE INTO the next scene.

Christ, this is bullet-proof....

RichardTheBruce

Is he still carrying the flashlight.

peter

RichardTheBruce wrote: »

Is he still carrying the flashlight.

Duh...

Revelator

My crazy idea of the week: instead of Kincade they should have had May, Bond's housekeeper from the novels (I always imagined her as a tough and gruff Scotswoman). After Skyfall was destroyed, May would then follow Bond to London and become his housekeeper, as in the books. Voila! Now I wish I had a time machine and the undivided attention of Purvis and Wade.

MaxCasino

Revelator wrote: »

My crazy idea of the week: instead of Kincade they should have had May, Bond's housekeeper from the novels (I always imagined her as a tough and gruff Scotswoman). After Skyfall was destroyed, May would then follow Bond to London and become his housekeeper, as in the books. Voila! Now I wish I had a time machine and the undivided attention of Purvis and Wade.

We do need May in the movies, soon. That's a fact.

octofinger

My feeling about cinematography is that, although it shouldn't be used to hide bad writing or acting, it's welcome if all else is equal. One big factor in this, for me, is that it really helps the films to age well.

One thing I've started to notice in reviewing the old films is how many of us comment on the general 'look' of them - the colour, the lighting, the use of location, etc. So I think that with both SF and SP, regardless of how they're critically appraised in 20 years' time, they'll still look damned good - and that's something!

jobo

octofinger wrote: »

My feeling about cinematography is that, although it shouldn't be used to hide bad writing or acting, it's welcome if all else is equal. One big factor in this, for me, is that it really helps the films to age well.

One thing I've started to notice in reviewing the old films is how many of us comment on the general 'look' of them - the colour, the lighting, the use of location, etc. So I think that with both SF and SP, regardless of how they're critically appraised in 20 years' time, they'll still look damned good - and that's something!

All of Craig´s films score high in that regard I think.

octofinger

jobo wrote: »

octofinger wrote: »

My feeling about cinematography is that, although it shouldn't be used to hide bad writing or acting, it's welcome if all else is equal. One big factor in this, for me, is that it really helps the films to age well.

One thing I've started to notice in reviewing the old films is how many of us comment on the general 'look' of them - the colour, the lighting, the use of location, etc. So I think that with both SF and SP, regardless of how they're critically appraised in 20 years' time, they'll still look damned good - and that's something!

All of Craig´s films score high in that regard I think.

Quite. However well the plots or the outfits or the language ages, many years from now the films are sure to at least look good.

Risico007

Continuing on but skipping a bunch

Casino Royale

Honestly I wish they named the organization before hand because how cool would it of been if they named dropped Quantum through out the film the whole my organization thing is awkward and clunky

Also while I know they like to keep the titles quiet honestly they should of announced Quantum of Solace at the end of Casino Royale.

Having just watched the film those are the two changes I would make

Getafix

BT3366 wrote: »

echo wrote: »

M is the Bond girl in SF. It's ingenious.

Depends on your tolerance of the characterization of M. I've disliked the Dench portrayal of M putting Bond down early on and always seeming like she has to try much harder to make an impact. But it just seems like this is an overcompensation that she's just rather unqualified for her position with Bond constantly having to clean up the mess. The one time she seems to be on top of her game is in TND in supporting him.

Yeah, I know it was a fresh thing in '95 what with Stella Rimington being the real-life counterpart, but they should've started anew when Craig took over the role.

And I wouldn't say the concept of a heroine who doesn't fall into bed automatically with Bond is that fresh. In QoS, Camilla was a partner, not so much a plaything and a help to Bond, not a hindrance. Same with Melina in FYEO.

Totally agree. Dench's Bond never clicked for me which probably contributes to my so so views of SF. That and the fact it's a remake of TWINE, which I regard as the definitively worst Bond film ever (step aside DAD).

BT3366

Getafix wrote: »

BT3366 wrote: »

echo wrote: »

M is the Bond girl in SF. It's ingenious.

Depends on your tolerance of the characterization of M. I've disliked the Dench portrayal of M putting Bond down early on and always seeming like she has to try much harder to make an impact. But it just seems like this is an overcompensation that she's just rather unqualified for her position with Bond constantly having to clean up the mess. The one time she seems to be on top of her game is in TND in supporting him.

Yeah, I know it was a fresh thing in '95 what with Stella Rimington being the real-life counterpart, but they should've started anew when Craig took over the role.

And I wouldn't say the concept of a heroine who doesn't fall into bed automatically with Bond is that fresh. In QoS, Camilla was a partner, not so much a plaything and a help to Bond, not a hindrance. Same with Melina in FYEO.

Totally agree. Dench's Bond never clicked for me which probably contributes to my so so views of SF. That and the fact it's a remake of TWINE, which I regard as the definitively worst Bond film ever (step aside DAD).

I also consider TWINE my least favorite Bond film. I at least had fun with DAD, but TWINE was just a challenge in finding much to like at all and I've felt that way since my first viewing in '99.

bondsum

RichardTheBruce wrote: »

Thunderball is still the undisputed champ at the BO,

That actually IS disputed. Specifically by Skyfall's box office and adjustments for inflation.

Not factoring in TB’s overall production costs versus SF it doesn’t, plus the actor’s salary. Also, fact is more people went to see TB in 65 than went to see SF in 2012. One thing inflation adjustments doesn’t take into consideration is the price of a cinema ticket back in 65 compared to the absurd prices today. There’s so much disparity in these adjusted figures that vary from site to site, I wouldn’t take them as gospel. Also, I know a lot of people bang on about repeat viewings, but in the 60s and 70s the majority of cinemas allowed you to remain seated to watch the next performance, especially if you’d come in late and missed the start. I can remember watching a Bond movie twice for the same price as one ticket. In 2012, you’d have to have paid again if you wanted to watch the movie again. Not that I would’ve sat through that turgid movie a second time. I couldn’t wait to get out and see daylight.

Getafix

Turgid.

That's a word we don't see enough off.

And perhaps the most elegant summing up of SF we've had on here.

RichardTheBruce

So it's not disputed?

bondsum

Getafix wrote: »

Turgid.

That's a word we don't see enough off.

And perhaps the most elegant summing up of SF we've had on here.

Thanks @Getafix. I promise to use turgid more often when describing SF.

RichardTheBruce wrote: »

So it's not disputed?

The TB (adjusted for inflation) figures are disputable because the method in which the annual CPI is measured is up for much discourse amongst present-day economists. It all depends on what was included in the basket and what we’re measuring it against and how. Since 1980, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the CPI in order to account for the substitution of products, improvements in quality (i.e. iPad 2 costing the same as original iPad) and other things. Also, I don’t believe the worldwide BO is calculated individually country by country using their own CPI throughout the years. My betting is these figures are calculated just using the United States CPI of that year and transposing them onto say France’s or Japan’s Box Office results, which would prove totally inaccurate.

One thing I won’t dispute is SF’s 1.109 billion USD box office in 2012. But considering the $1 Billion mark is now the new figure that a big budget movie is measured by on how successful it performed, a drop below this figure is considered a failure, I expect this to be the new norm. Of course, the figure doesn’t take into consideration the profit the studio and the producers made, certainly not compared to TB in ‘65. A lot of economists believe the current U.S. CPI is running much higher (maybe 10% higher) than its made to look, which would mean that these figures are not trustworthy.

bondsum

NicNac wrote: »

Thunderball arrived at the peak of BondMania. After Goldfinger everyone wanted a piece of Bond, so maybe the success of Thunderball was down to the quality of what went before?

And therefore it could be argued that the dwindling box office appeal of Bond in YOLT could be down to the quality of Thunderball?

So TB soaked up the mass appeal of Bond, but ultimately was a major cause for its drop in popularity.

As for Skyfall, the film was hugely popular with the casual viewers who didn't give two hoots about the plot holes, the Olympic appeal, the gingo-istic aspects of the film. People genuinely enjoyed it. And it still ranks highly among Bond fans on these boards.

There are so many reasons written on here explaining why it succeeded at the BO, but maybe we should just accept that the most controversial reason of them all may be the real reason. People simply liked the film.

YOLT’s underperformance at the box-office can easily be attributed to ‘67 Casino Royale beating it to the cinemas that same year. While obviously not an Eon production, what goodwill the series had built up till that point was damaged by this spoof version being released two months prior to the official YOLT. Say what you want about the CR spoof movie, but it was the 13th highest-grossing film in North America in 1967, plus it had its world premiere in London's Odeon Leicester Square, breaking many opening records in the theatre's history, so clearly not a flop but a damaging film that took the gloss of Connery’s movie nevertheless.

It’s true that GF was really the reason behind the inspiration for Bond Mania. Modern Bond fans simply don’t understand just what a hallmark movie this was in ‘64. TB definitely benefited from the GF effect, no question. But where’s the collation between Craig’s two prior movies to SF if we’re going to apply the same logic? If anything it shows SF was an anomaly that benefited from media hype, not a superior predecessor.

Sorry, but there’s no proof to back-up your claim that SF was popular with the casual viewer. Just reading laymen reviews over on IMDB, one can see it’s not universally loved, and that’s from those that can be bothered to write a review or score a movie. I haven’t and I’m sure million of others haven’t as well. There’s plenty of people who feel that they were hoodwinked by the hype and went to see the movie out of curiosity, only to discover that it didn’t live up to the hype. I still think Adele had a lot to do with this movie being a must-see movie, especially as it reached out to her huge global fan-base. SF is an example of exemplary marketing. As I’ve pointed out in other posts, there’s been a disconnect from critically appraised movies and how audiences rate a movie, to the point that the critics can no longer be trusted or used as a yardstick anymore. SF was an early example of this that has continued to this day.

bondsum

Trouble is @Birdleson, I can accuse you of the very same thing that some might accuse me of: that your own hatred or dislike of SP has clouded your own judgement and made you deaf to those that say SP is a good movie, or not as bad as SF. Siding with a fellow administrator doesn’t make it “absolute” nor “absolutely right”. The only measure or gauge is the BO takings, but that doesn’t prove one’s overall enjoyment, only that you went to see it along with everyone else. Otherwise we might as well claim The Last Jedi a huge success story, despite SW fans being more vocal than Bond fans and half of them feeling it was a terrible movie. If these forums had 1 million members and the majority of them said SF was a great movie, your assumption might hold some water. Alas, it does not and the measurements are rather minuscule by comparison.

talos7

Birdleson wrote: »

You can, but I have no reason to. I tried to like SP, I really did. I have no agenda. You’re pretty hung up on being “proven”, etc. I’m just adding my piece and perspective. What you do with it is up to you. Convincing you of anything certainly isn’t my objective.

+1 Particularly , Convincing you of anything certainly isn’t my objective

NicNac

bondsum wrote: »

NicNac wrote: »

Thunderball arrived at the peak of BondMania. After Goldfinger everyone wanted a piece of Bond, so maybe the success of Thunderball was down to the quality of what went before?

And therefore it could be argued that the dwindling box office appeal of Bond in YOLT could be down to the quality of Thunderball?

So TB soaked up the mass appeal of Bond, but ultimately was a major cause for its drop in popularity.

As for Skyfall, the film was hugely popular with the casual viewers who didn't give two hoots about the plot holes, the Olympic appeal, the gingo-istic aspects of the film. People genuinely enjoyed it. And it still ranks highly among Bond fans on these boards.

There are so many reasons written on here explaining why it succeeded at the BO, but maybe we should just accept that the most controversial reason of them all may be the real reason. People simply liked the film.

YOLT’s underperformance at the box-office can easily be attributed to ‘67 Casino Royale beating it to the cinemas that same year. While obviously not an Eon production, what goodwill the series had built up till that point was damaged by this spoof version being released two months prior to the official YOLT. Say what you want about the CR spoof movie, but it was the 13th highest-grossing film in North America in 1967, plus it had its world premiere in London's Odeon Leicester Square, breaking many opening records in the theatre's history, so clearly not a flop but a damaging film that took the gloss of Connery’s movie nevertheless.

It’s true that GF was really the reason behind the inspiration for Bond Mania. Modern Bond fans simply don’t understand just what a hallmark movie this was in ‘64. TB definitely benefited from the GF effect, no question. But where’s the collation between Craig’s two prior movies to SF if we’re going to apply the same logic? If anything it shows SF was an anomaly that benefited from media hype, not a superior predecessor.

Sorry, but there’s no proof to back-up your claim that SF was popular with the casual viewer. Just reading laymen reviews over on IMDB, one can see it’s not universally loved, and that’s from those that can be bothered to write a review or score a movie. I haven’t and I’m sure million of others haven’t as well. There’s plenty of people who feel that they were hoodwinked by the hype and went to see the movie out of curiosity, only to discover that it didn’t live up to the hype. I still think Adele had a lot to do with this movie being a must-see movie, especially as it reached out to her huge global fan-base. SF is an example of exemplary marketing. As I’ve pointed out in other posts, there’s been a disconnect from critically appraised movies and how audiences rate a movie, to the point that the critics can no longer be trusted or used as a yardstick anymore. SF was an early example of this that has continued to this day.

And there is no real proof that it wasn't popular with the casual viewer. Neither is there any proof for your suggestion that 'plenty of people who feel that they were hoodwinked by the hype and went to see the movie out of curiosity' . Who are these hoodwinked people?

Thing is everyone I know (a drop in the ocean of course) who went to see the film liked it (bar one), and none of them post reviews on IMDB. So, my reasoning is, if we asked 100 people whether they liked it, and 99 said yes, we can assume there is a trend emerging there.

However, the truth is, those who like it desperately want to defend it, and those who don't desperately want to prove that odd factors were at work and it couldn't possibly have been popular because people actually enjoyed it, God forbid.

We have the same thing with LTK. It didn't do well (for a Bond film) and those who like it will tell us it was the promotion that was wrong, and it was the competition that was too intense, and it was the 15 certificate that took its audience away. Meanwhile the ones who don't like it will suggest maybe the film didn't resonate, and maybe Timothy Dalton didn't cut it.

Horses for courses.

Remington

In SF, I would have cut all the dialogue about Bond aging. Instead, Bond has just become disheartened with M and MI6.

Denbigh

Haven't visited this one in a while. I don't know if @MadeleineSwann is still around, but I've been interested to explore an idea I had from the other thread, and that's how people would do Die Another Day differently?

BeatlesSansEarmuffs

Denbigh wrote: »

Haven't visited this one in a while. I don't know if @MadeleineSwann is still around, but I've been interested to explore an idea I had from the other thread, and that's how people would do Die Another Day differently?

Answering this question re: Spectre rather than DAD: I'd have left out the whole "Bond & Blofeld are step-brothers" angle, just to start. And I wouldn't have allowed Bond to shoot his way out of Spectre HQ just a minute or so after having a drill in his head. And for that matter, at SOME point I'd have had SOMEONE tell the audience what Mr. Hinx's name is. You know his name, I know his name, every Bond fan in the world knows his name -- but at no point in the actual film is he identified by name. He's just "that big scary guy that Bond keeps fighting with in this particular movie." Am I really the only person in all of Bond fandom that finds this point annoying? And as far as changing DAD... well, I'd probably start with a different director. Then I'd go to work on the script...