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
It's going to be hard, but 200 million are still possible.
About Craig's tenure, some people are forgeting that QoS and SP have had a better reception by critics and audience than any Brosnan Bond film with the exception of GE.
Even so, $200 mil is still a tough target as the film will need at least another week of this theatre count to have any chance of reaching target.
This is surely the last dice throw for the film now, as it will surely be pulled from the cinema circuit very soon.
Film needs approx another $225,000 to reach target.
Its not being lame, its being factual.
btw:- i'am positive :)
No offence to North America, but I really don't care what North America thinks of Bond. They hate football, but it's still the biggest sport on the planet. Bond is absolutely capable of surviving poor box office in the nation that perpetuates such cultural demigods as the Kardashians.
$200 million (or almost $200 million) is hardly "poor box office." There were *nine* movies with $200 million in 2015 and SPECTRE came in at No. 10.
If peeps wanted another outsize hit like SF (only delivered previously during Connery's heyday) then they were expecting too much it seems.
N/A matters to a degree because production costs and box office are measured in $. The $ was high last year, so any extra N/A box office counted for a lot more in the grand scheme of things than a butt on a seat anywhere else.
I wasn't referring to SP, just Bond in general. People are putting to much weight on the NA Box Office. If they want Bond they can have it, otherwise everyone else will. No biggy.
Proportionately it's not the no.1 market.
Yeah but I think proportionately the UK is the no. 1 market for The Force Awakens so it doesn't make sense to measure it like that.
Sublime post Sir.
I have seen it but it being one movie as opposed to a 24th is irrelevant. The fact is, it's an R rated movie with Ryan Reynolds who's sort of been a BO pariah the last few years, compared to the usual suspects of Marvel characters DP is pretty obscure in the eyes of the general public and not to mention the character was horrendously realised in Wolverine Origins. A sequel is already being prepared and as a franchise it only needs 2 or 3 movies. No one is expecting 4+ movies. It's done really well and is an example of doing things properly and showing respect and appreciation to the source material without going off on stupid unecessary tangents that just end up killing the film.
RR was charming in the role, but I think the breaking of the fourth wall, the FBs will all be tropes by the time the second film is complete.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see a hard- R rated film make good (although all of its jokes were spoilt in the commercials and trailers, imho; I'm glad you enjoyed it.)
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/14582/canadian-production-of-for-your-eyes-only/p1
I think RR is more appropriate for r-rated humour rather than action-thriller hero (although, his contained thriller, BURIED, was quite good). But, as Bond... no... he hasn't got the charisma. Good guy ( I say this as a Canadian), just not 007... and not even enough to fill the excitement in 007's "little finger...
When I hear comments like that, I'm reminded of this clip from The Americanization of Emily.
I agree with you. DP as a character is an acquired taste to begin with and he isn't for everyone. His whole shtick does get old quickly particularly when presented in a movie but my main point was, if movies can adhere closely to what made the source material popular in the first place, it'll please a lot of people and the financial rewards can be reaped; even more so when there isn't a bloated budget.
It's a little above average, but it's certainly not the unmitigated disaster that some here are making this out to be. And the fact that a lot of posters have ranked this movie in their top 10 or higher (you wouldn't know it from this thread) shows that this film was still pretty successful from a critical standpoint, at least from a good portion of people who watched it.
George did.
Not really, at the time of his departure, he was basically regarded as "the guy who couldn't replace Connery". But his departure film is the strongest, obviously.
I rank SP above all of those three, however, is this really the type of impact we want Craig to leave behind when he departs from the role? Moore, Dalton and Brosnan kind of had no choice in the matter - Connery basically despised the role by the time he was shooting DAF, and Lazenby was convinced to leave Bond because in that time, perhaps it did seem like Bond would die. Craig has none of those excuses, though. He is given a choice, he doesn't despise the franchise (despite his misinterpreted recent interviews) and Bond has a much more positive outlook now than it did after OHMSS. Craig really doesn't have much of a reason to be leaving it here.
I'm hoping Craig will crank up something a bit better (and with a stronger sense of direction) for Bond 25 that will merit both commercial and critical success, and that will be a very solid platform for him to depart the franchise with.
True, and SP also grossed considerably more than GE as well. QoS was just behind GE at the box office. Craig's films have generally smashed Brosnan's at box office (his worst performing film to date is hardly behind Brosnan's best) and critically.