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
That is what 'hit' means though: a hit song is one which goes to number one or scores high in the charts. I'm sure we all love lots of songs which weren't hits. I know what you're saying and I don't disagree, but I think it's okay that there is terminology for whether a film is a financial success or not.
I don't think so. Many fans don't like NSNA and it was a near perfect comeback. It's very difficult to please fans of old movies.
Lol, good one. Marion’s is March 23, 1909. Actually, a lot of Indy characters have set birthdays.
NSNA was pure mindless fun. Connery was in good form. Dial Of Destiny was great, and those who don't like it just wanted pure fun. They got an end to his story, just not the end THEY wanted. I mean, would it have been better to blow him up on an island somewhere while he was trying to save the world??
"A near perfect comeback"? NSNA sounds bad and looks worse. It has a cheapness to it that makes even Reb Brown's Captain America made-for-tv films look professional. The things NSNA does well--and it does some things well--are overshadowed by a painful mediocrity that doesn't celebrate Connery's return but underlines the lack of budget. From Irvin Kershner, director of arguably one of the best Star Wars movies ever, and Kevin McClory, who spent more than two decades in boiling hatred, comes a film that looks unfinished. The horse jump alone makes one wonder who considered this picture releasable in the first place. Criticising NSNA has nothing to do with people failing to show appreciation for "old movies", so please don't go there. The heart of this Bond fan bleeds every time he sees a film that could have been great, that has an interesting cast, good source material and accomplished individuals behind the camera, but somehow ended up as an exhausting string of silly moments.
That said, I fully echo @thedove's sentiments. Every new big-event film seems to be evaluated, not on how good it actually is, but on how quickly it breaks even within hours of its release. Sharp pens online yell "BOMB!!!" if an expensive movie doesn't blow up box office records in its first weekend. People fail to consider that some "classics" are born as slow-burners while treating BO performance as a measure of quality. Imagine having this conversation today:
- Blade Runner is one of the best Sci-Fi flicks ever made.
- Yeah, but it flopped so I won't see it.
Or
- These blockbuster films are struggling to pass the billion-dollar mark.
- Yeah, cinema is DEAD!
(which is a conversation I've had on this forum, sadly enough.) Hence: No Time To Die "only" made 770 million and Spectre "only" made close to 900 million. What stinkers they are! Let's not even talk about Batman Begins, a film so bad, it couldn't even haul in 400 million at the box office. I need a shower now, talking about such filth. (\sarcasm)
As a fan of Zack Snyder's DC films, I consider his superhero output, at least in part, a victim of expectations that may have been slightly unrealistic and, above all, of false criteria by which to evaluate a movie.
But, as @thedove stated better than I ever could, some of these films will be picked up in the future and reevaluated. People will stop worrying about whether or not they broke BO records, and start focusing on whether they enjoy watching them. And as for DOD, I had a good time with the film. I didn't expect it to be another Raiders, I just wanted a good swan song for old--yes old--Doctor Jones. I think the film treated both the character, the actor and the legacy with respect. No, it didn't unearth a treasure at the box office. So? Was it written in the stars that it would? I had realistic expectations, frankly. I went for the fun, and I stayed for the fun. I like what I was given. The seats next to me were all empty. So? How should that impact my feelings towards a film?
And every time a film is called "BOMB!", I'm reminded of The Thing, one of my all-time favourite movies. It "only" made 20 million and nearly destroyed Carpenter's career. But today, it's in many a horror fan's top ten of best horror films ever made. It (2017)? It rarely seems to show up in such lists.
In fact, one of the problems with the new Indiana Jones movies is that they have too much budget. They can't capture the tone of the old ones for that reason.
Covid and injury disruptions played on the budget.
You’re talking off the top of your head. Dial of Destiny wasn’t your type of Indy flick, fine. But comparing it to NSNA (a cheap knock off of TB, and extremely flat-looking on screen), and claiming some kind of NSNA superiority is stretching intelligence…
Well, It's my opinion. Sue me.
You're not serious, are you? DN didn't have even half the ambitions of NSNA. TB was far more ambitious, and it had nine times the money DN could work with. NSNA wanted to be at least another TB. Some things you want to throw up there on the screen cost money. So yes, money can be an issue. Check out a few Golan-Globus films. You'll figure it out. Frankly, if NSNA had gunned for fewer action scenes, it might have been for the better. OP had 25% less money to work with than NSNA, yet it looked and sounded a whole lot better and it put its money on the screen. But it kept its ambitions closer to what it was capable of pulling off, and it is by far the better film for it (at least in my opinion.)
Yes, DOD had a ridiculously high budget. Ridiculously high. One wonders where all that dough went. The catering on set must have been stupendous. But that unimaginably high budget shouldn't be a hindrance. Also, capturing the "tone of the old ones" is not as easily done as you make it sound. Audiences today, bar a handful of nostalgic fans, may not want that old tone. Old films also carry their charm through time, but modern films that look old don't always reach a wide audience. Betting on people's longing to relive a movie series' past is dangerous. That said, it's possible. I like to think that The Force Awakens tried to take people back to '77. But that film cost money, too. Big films cost money, no matter what their tone. I strongly disagree with you, Deke, that you cannot capture the "tone of the old ones" for financial reasons.
And maybe we need to look at Indiana Jones from a wider angle. Pretty much everyone seems to love Raiders. But the fighting starts after that. TOD (my personal favourite) has its fair share of detractors. TLC seems to be taking some beating for several of its choices. KOTKS was a very controversial film upon its release, to say the least. (I remember outbursts of anger on the old forum.) And now there's DOD. Four out of five Indy films are struggling, it seems. Perhaps this popular series narrows down to one very popular film and a few sequels that polarize fans. Perhaps it's become exceptionally difficult to make another crowd-pleasing Indy film...
Your opinion is fine.
But you speak as if your facts hold a universal truth about filmmaking in general (your budget claim), and a couple of films in particular.
I have no issues with your opinion.
But your “facts”….
Sue me!
Silly comment Deke.
Your opinion is yours and I’m not in any way being combative about that
Your facts are just wrong though…. So, I guess, sue me (?)?
Your facts are wrong too, that's life.
Okay, I'll try your childish way then, @DEKE_RIVERS.
NSNA not being Octopussy is the best thing that could have happened. NSNA had a pee joke.
Over to you.
Octopussy was a Roger Moore movie.
Do you want to see Brosnan making NTTD? Or do you want to see GE?
What are you going on about? Oh, wait. You're the guy who can't get past 4 sentences. Try harder, Deke. Try to elaborate in the same post instead of having us do all the work. You're bordering on spam, mate. If you want to have a serious conversation, put some effort into it.
I assume -- because the lack of substance in your posts leaves me with few other options -- that what you're trying to say is that OP is an inferior film because it stars Roger Moore instead of Sean Connery. And then something about Pierce Brosnan, who left the series in '02 not being in NTTD, a film that was tailor-made for Craig to end his unique tenure roughly two decades later. The logic is lost on me. And then something about GE, a film I happen to like, that was released close to 30 years ago, and clearly a good choice for the then new guy Pierce Brosnan. What else are you going throw in here? More random phrases? Hey, did you know that George Lazenby starred in a 1969 Bond film? Wanna see it? Or SF instead? And somehow that takes us back to your absolutely unnecessary comment about OP not being NSNA because it has Roger Moore in it. Wow.
Oh look, here I am typing out a lot of words again. For the last time, type some text, will you? So we can at least have a conversation with you instead of this continuous back-and-forth between our attempts at bringing actual arguments to the game, and your less-than-a-handful sentences that leave the rest of us wondering whether you're even paying attention to what we're writing.
I don't want to see Connery doing that. It's was a Roger Moore movie!
So yes, NSNA not being Octopussy is great. It's the only way to do it.
Anyway, the new Idiana Jones movies have a bugdet issue. ROTLA, You can make that movie today with much less money than they spend.
They are bloated movies.
I usually don’t try and state facts about things I know nothing about though.
Unless I’ve been told something, everything I think I’ve ever said here has been opinion, not facts. And I know they’re not universal truths.
Thats the difference between you and me. I don’t have to be right, nor do I think I am. Especially opinion based conversations.
That’s the beauty of having conversations with most on this site, so… 🤷♂️.
Oh man, you like to play the "I'm a professional" card all the time.
You don't like my opinions? Perfect.
What are you talking about?? Number one: please don’t put words in my mouth (I’ve asked you many times not to do this, @DEKE_RIVERS );
I said your opinions are fine. It’s right there in black and white. I’ve said it twice today, and now three times. Here, I’ll make it four: your opinions are fine.
Number two: I am not playing the “professional card”— whatever that means, 😂! I am playing the “adult” card (as best as I can pretend to), as in: my opinions are not facts. I get that— you don’t. Plenty on here can express they don’t like my opinion, which they’ve done. And that’s fine.
Some like my opinion, that’s fine too— but doesn’t make it fact.
So, you’re obviously frustrated and trying to slap my wrist, putting words in my mouth, accusing me of playing a card, when none of that is even remotely true.
So, let’s leave it here, as I have no desire to stoop to a level where I start making false claims about your character, but here’s a neat little tip Deke: criticize my perspective or my opinion, don’t make cheap ad hominem-type comments, okay? Argue what I say, fine. Dismissing what I actually say and going after my character is nothing but childish.
Childish is saying that I'm wrong.
Remember this.
Oh boy: your opinions are fine. You make statements as facts— and you’re wrong.
Why are you trying to insist you’re right? Why must you be right? Especially when your thoughts on budgets and filmmaking in general is incomplete. I doubt you’ve studied the ins and outs of DoD (in fact, from your earlier statements, it’s clear you haven’t!).
Your facts are wrong.
Your opinions are fine.
And why’d I have to remember a statement I made in response to your BS? I know what I said. I stand by it.
What’s your point Deke?
Before you answer, I’ll do what I did when I coached hockey: take 24 hours. Think about what you want to say. Cool your jets, and come back to me.
Okay?
Or, reach out to me via PM. We can continue this discussion. I’ve asked you to do this before, but you never took me up on the offer as I fear you always need an audience.
So, take my tips, take 24 hours, calm down, accept you don’t know things, enjoy the conversations and opinions of others, and please expand on your thoughts.
Or, stop replying to me.
You have some awfully easy choices ahead of you, and then you won’t have to hurt your back when you strain to move the goalposts….
The movies are bloated.
I can go into this with you further @DEKE_RIVERS . Please PM so we don’t bore the other members in the nitty gritty of why your general statement is flawed; if we are talking about budgets and films that succeed and don’t succeed, why did the Fall Guy flop?
Why did BB4 succeed?
Why did Furiosa flop?
Why did In and Out 2 blow up internationally?
Why did Dune 2 “only” make $750 million, or whatever, and people called that a hit (when original estimates were two hundred million dollars higher).
But, let’s take this to PMs. I don’t need an audience to get into this with you.