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, I'm afraid, is a concern for the member who replies.
Please avoid double posts (and triple posts!) henceforth. Thank you.
You make it spam by replying with absolutely nothing to say but "Look! This message is spam, but I won't get warned about it." Why do that?
As a recently joined new member i was hoping for some friendly James Bond discussion......but alas this seems to be a 'Skyfall fanboys club',
When i commented that there were alternative box office lists, to the one members quoted here...............i was told to stfu and piss off.
Now come on people dont be so narrow minded....................thanks!
It was the fact that you created your account simply to tell us all that we were wrong, and to downplay the success of Skyfall as 'not as good' as Thunderball.
That's like walking into a literal party, and telling everyone they wore the wrong thing.
Well now you're making TDKR sound terrible ;)
Your third post in, you start off by stating 'Reality Check,' as if we're a bunch of clueless, idiotic sheep. Don't enter a new forum and act as if you know everyone and you're the one who reigns supreme: it's not a great way to get in with everyone.
Plus, PLEASE quote who told you to 'stfu and piss off.' I'm curious as to who did that, because I honestly do not believe anyone did so.
And again...don't speak of wanting 'friendly conversations,' only to tell newer and older veteran members alike that they are 'narrow minded.' It's an excellent way to make enemies, I'll tell you that much.
It was me, after he called me 'hard work' and that I had 'more lip than a duck billed platypus'.
Sorry, not sorry.
Don't strut in with behavior like that, whether you are right or wrong. It's a disgusting first impression.
Ive been nothing but polite, until...!........ but the hypocrisy here is staggering......and by the way i was a long time member here a few years ago, and it was a much more open forum.
OK?
ok.......i understand that the tone of that post may of been taken the wrong way by some......all i was suggesting that one source of info was not the be all and end all.
Happy New Year!
:)
From where I stand suivez_ce_parachute has been trying to make sense of a very complicated situation by attempting to evaluate which film is better; taking into account a myriad of parameters such as exchange rate differences, population variations, number of screens, increase in potential markets with China and Russia opening up etc etc
I haven't heard him advocate a preference for TB or SF just a desire to objectively try and get to the truth.
I'm minded to recall an anecdote from Richard Dawkins regarding the difference between the enquiring scientific mind and the blinkered religious one:
A professor had worked on a theorem for his whole life. One day he listened to a lecture where the speaker completely disproved his theory. At the end of the lecture the professor went and shook the mans hand saying 'Everything I ever believed is complete rubbish. Thank you.'
To an intelligent man reaching the truth was more important than his life's work being debunked.
I get a feeling here that the atmosphere seems to be turning into that of trying to tell a group of creationists about dinosaurs - just a refusal to listen regardless of any evidence.
Some people really don't want to countenance the possibility that SF might not be more successful than TB.
It seems to be getting more common that if you don't toe the party line round here you get lynched as evidenced by the rather heavy handed castigation of suivez for committing the heinous offence of double posting when the bloke is just trying to make sense of a lot of data to give us an objective answer as to which film is the most successful. Accusations of spam also seem rather harsh when, for example, Dragonpol is allowed to create seemingly infinite threads plugging his blog and discussing ever more obscure Gardner novels that about 3 people have read.
I for one don't particularly care either way if SF beats TB (although I would like it to do so as I rate TB in the bottom third of Bond films whilst SF is instant top 5) but am quite interested to see if it does but I would prefer the answer to come from rational scientific method than just going by box office mojo.
I would like to offer my thanks to suivez for his detailed statistical analysis which has attempted to come up with ways of formulating which film is the more successful even though, as I'm sure he would agree, it's virtually impossible to take all factors into account so we are unlikely to ever reach a definitive conclusion.
Dont worry about upsetting people suivez old chap. If youre not getting a bollocking it probably means you arent posting anything of interest in the first place!
When becoming embroiled in arguments such as this I'd always keep Stewart Lees 'yeah - well you can prove anything with facts' line in mind.
Seems to sum up some peoples position quite succinctly.
Yep, I think that'll die down more when SF has been out for longer.
I agree with you, I think Suivez has been really good posting info and I'm not sure why everybody is suddenly pissed off at him.
This thread has been going on a long time and there's lots of big posts and lists, so I sort of just skim it and maybe I've missed something, but what has he actually done wrong? All he's done is thought about and mentioned the fact that SF might not have beaten TB.
He did a couple of double
posts.
Shocking really.
Mod edit: double post merged...
Thanks
I don't even really know what to say about this whole TB vs. SF argument. It seems there are people on both sides who have their heels in the sand and simply will not budge. For some TB supporters, there will never be enough "evidence" to show that SF is a bigger success at the box office. It's gotten so bad, we're debating things such as population density and the like! SF supporters are now "fanboys", which is such a derisory term. For some SF supporters (regarding TB), it's become almost a single-minded Ahab-like obsession to beat TB's numbers.
For the record, I'm a SF supporter. I think, at the end of the day, the box office numbers will stand alone as the decider for neutral film goers as to which film is more successful. People who aren't diehard fans don't care about how many more tickets TB sold than SF. They don't care that SF got to be shown to more people around the world. No one but us seems to care about "adjusted inflation". (My god, if I hear or read that one more time...) SF is the first Bond movie to make a billion dollars- for what a billion dollars means to us and all moviegoers right now. Will that change in the future? Most likely, in the same way 100 million doesn't mean much to us now as it did when talking about movies in the early '70s. One day, we will very likely be talking about how quaint it was when Avatar cracked the 2 billion dollar mark. ("Can you imagine? They thought 2 billion was a lot! LOL!")
Here's the thing- I don't care. We are witnesses to the first Bond movie that has made a billion dollars in what can be construed as really a BILLION dollars. Not adjusted for inflation (oh dear, now I've said it!), not taking into account this factor or that factor, this accounting system or that accounting system. When I look at the box office, all I see is ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Here's the other thing- it doesn't at all diminish what Thunderball achieved!! It doesn't erase the impact of Bondmania. It doesn't make it any less of a success. Why is there such a resistance to let go? It was a record that stood for FIFTY YEARS and almost TWENTY movies!! Surely we all knew it would be broken one day; such is the nature of records. Considering the rocky road this franchise has gone down over the years, let's be thankful we're even having the opportunity to talk about a Bond movie making a billion dollars. We don't seem to be thankful, though, and that's what has prompted me to finally sign on and post. We seem to be the most divided at a time when we should be the most united.
As other posters have asked (and never been answered)- what difference does it really make whether or not the record has been broken? At the end of the day, aren't we all Bond fans?
One of the greatest first posts I have ever seen. I like your stuff, kid.
A hearty welcome to the forums. ;)
Afraid I can't agree with that sentiment at all Brady. The guy spouts utter drivel apart from his last paragraph.
So if America dives headlong off the fiscal cliff and by next year 1 dollar ends up being the same value as 1 cent is today we should be equally ecstatic if Bond 24 makes 3 billion should we?
By all means live in your bubble where the dollar is of equal value across all of history but I prefer an empirical analysis of all the data as suivez_ce_parchute has tried to offer. You should all make a time machine and go and live in Germany in the early 30's then you could all be billionaires despite not having enough for a loaf of bread.
And incidentally I'm not in any camp except the one that seeks the truth.
I find TB a dull plodding film and rank it somewhere near the bottom whilst I loved SF and think its already a top 5 film but that doesn't mean it is more 'successful' (feel free to quantify this how you like).
If TB is deemed the most successful Bond film ever it's something I'm not particularly happy with but I have to lump it because its a fact. I'd much rather OHMSS, FRWL, TLD and CR beat it but at the end of the day they didn't - unless I massage the figures and ignore inflation until they do but I'm not about to do that.
But at the end of the day he is right when he says that today a billion puts you in the A list and beating event pictures like TDKR is a massive achievement so if SF pulls that off it will be remarkable and cause for celebration.
PS - Thanks to the Stasi for amending my double post so promptly. Priceless and making my point better than I ever could with mere words. I guess irony is banned around here also.
Wholeheartedly agree. You are very welcome here ;-). Mr., Ms. or Mrs. Coolbyrne. It seems you like actress Tilda Swinton too ;-).
Brilliant.
Btw, there's currently one company whose sales are this time really breaking records thanks to Bond merchandising. And I'm not talking about Sony, whose stock is at an 20-year time low as a matter of fact, in case you wonder how box office is important to them wrt to their core business (an important parameter to discuss if they'll rush or not to investing fast in a new Bond movie, but that I've never seen taken into account here because it's not "positive" I guess !).
If I say who it is, we may find it on the home page because it will yet another "#1" announcement. But that ultra selective view of the world is bugging me a little actually. I re-live what made me left the fan club circles 15 years ago ! (Being called a "newcomer" was a first though, some people really love re-writing history :) )
Way to welcome the new guy, Wizard. Your level of positivity is amazing. ;-)
@coolbyrne - You are welcome, and may I say that I wish that my first post had been as well written and thoughtful as yours. I look forward to reading your contributions here. The TB/SF comparison seems to be the "heated subject" at the moment; as others have said it will surely die down in the coming months.
Again, welcome!
Wow. Utter drivel? Thanks ever so much.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to people's opinions on this TB/SF debate. Pardon my french, but to be blunt, who fucking cares? Really. Who fucking cares? A billion dollar movie and starving people in Germany. That's the road we're on right now.
Ah, I see who cares. The Truthseekers.
Again, wow. So much bitterness for something as irrelevant as a message board!
For the record, I'm female.
I've edited this to add an apology. I re-read my post and thought, "That sounds awfully hard." At the end of it all, we'll think what we want and rarely do the opinions of strangers on the internet do much to change anyone's mind. No sense in me getting all argumentative about it.
Thanks to others for their welcome!
@coolbyrne you're most welcome here. You just picked the wrong thread for a start ;-)
Some people here drink too much (or haven't drunken enough, also possible).
I will now ask both parties to take into account:
- the cultural difference of cinema's in the sixties and now
- the length films stay in cinema's all together, then and now
- the diffrence in the amount of information people have to digest (we now have far more means to promote (TV, radio, internet, internet-on-mobiles, apps, etc) and at the meantime people thus get far more information about other things/films as well, competing for interest-time. If a Bond T-shirt in the sixties ha mabe 4 other shirts to compete with (e.g. Batman) nowedays there are at least 100.
Put this all in a model, put in the different currancies, the countries where films were shown and the percentage of people from those countries whom actually saw the movie(s) and then you can tell if it's Bond-mania all over again, or not yet.
Female or not, new or not even though I welcome you as a Bond fan I'm not going to just agree with you for the sake of it because you are a delicate flower who has only just arrived and need protecting from any harsh words that might cause you offence. I assume your casual attitude to the meaningless concept of inflation also extends to when you ask for a pay rise or selling your house?
I agree entirely when you say that at the end of the day it's totally irrelevant but 'who fucking cares?' - well I assume we all do or else why are we here?
To spend your time posting on message boards about a subject you have no interest in strikes me as a rather tragic way to fill your life.
Anyway welcome coolbyrne - dont take it personally and I wish you all the best.
I called you a Truthseeker in one post, yet in two responses, you've called my post drivel, and me in particular a "delicate flower". (Then ask me to not take it personally. Okay...) I never said the subject doesn't interest me; the subject of Bond in all facets interests me greatly. That's why I'm here (as you say, that's why we're all here). But again, by allocating a sliding scale to things, I find it prevents me from getting too worked up about every subject regarding Bond. My original post was really my way of voicing a puzzlement as to why some people find the box office debate so heated. Nothing more. It matters to some, not to me. Doesn't mean I don't find other aspects of Bond interesting.
You're right, Creasy47; this was clearly the wrong thread to make my introductory post. I'll be more wary of such topics and posters in the future.