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
Good god... GE is the only film in the franchise to have grossed twice as more at the box office than it's immediate predecessor !!
Rightly so ;)
I agree. But still, poor Dalton.
Yeah I know :(
Actually, even more strange is that YOLT grossed only half of its immediate predecessor Thunderball.
Strange in the fact that the Connery period is always taken as the most solid and this would have been a drastic concern in 1967.
I just noticed it too ! Strange that it isn't talked more often... I mean, it's pretty alarming that a film would gross not even half what its immediate predecessor did.
Ticket sales and attendance might have improved with Brosnan, but that's all.
They didn't just improved... they doubled !! :-?
Yeah, just don't show his face! :-))
lol don't be harsh on poor Tim :)>-
Actually makes you think that all those years back, the decision to quit by Connery may not have been as one way as we always thought. That is a massive drop.
That's an interesting point. Although it's been reported that Connery was already sick of the role while on set of YOLT.
Another interesting trend I noticed: all Bond actors's second film didn't do as well at the box office as their first (excluding Connery and Lazenby). Roger Moore, like Dalton, has a considerable drop from his first to his second. Also like Dalton, his third film was delayed. It's interesting the producers didn't try to switch things up actor-wiseafter Golden Gun, which makes me think they always have considerable faith in their leads. Perhaps they still felt strongly about Dalton for those hiatus years 89-94.
Well, considering TB is a Bondtastic romping masterpiece, and YOLT is a despicable, trashy, and forgettable(thank god!!!) Bond adventure, it isn't hard to imagine at all. And TB was when Bondmania really hit it big. Double bills at cinemas, merchandise out the boot, and fans of all ages watching the films.
EON wouldn't have dropped Moore just because his 2nd film underperformed. EON can do stupid things, but that would've been unbelievably imbecilic. I'm not a fan of his Bond, but Moore's "fun" touch to Bond let the door in for fans in the 70s and 80s and appeared to make the rough times in the span much lighter with the uppity nature of his portrayal. I even have to give Rog credit for that, and he's a nice chap to boot.
Love the way you start by getting things back on message and then go back to talking about how great Dalts was. Totally agree with you though. Brozza era seems like a gradually fading nightmare.
The problem is Bond's success led to many other spy films which cannibalized YOLT.
These are comparable figures. CR made the most dollars, but you cannot compare the value of the dollar nowadays with the value 50 years ago.
That is one thing Iike here in Germany, the success of movies is measured in the number of ticket sales. These numbers are comparable over decades.
Dalton's interpretation of Bond is my favourite. Although it wasn't the time for a more serious approach just 2 years after Moore. PB and DC got much longer time for the normal audiences to forget the previous actor and tone.
I wouldn't be surprised, every time I watch CR67 it makes me confused
:))
After the - lets be frank - dismal box office of LTK and general lack of enthusiasm for Dalton (particularly stateside) I cant see how another film in 91, probably directed by John Glen would have arrested the downward trend.
A worse return than LTK would have seen Dalts unceremoniously fired and Brozza brought in in 93 but with an atomsphere of public apathy behind him and a general attitude that Bond had had his day. Unless Bond 93 had been spectacular and word of mouth had got people into the cinema would it have done enough business to save the series? And lets not forget after LTK and another dud in 91, the studio would have given Bond 93 a miniscule budget.
As it is the 6 year hiatus gave Dalton the chance to go (or be pushed) with his head held high and more importantly made the public realise that John Mcclane and Martin Riggs whilst fun, really didnt deliver the same experience so consqeuently people were very hungry for the new Bond in 95. The gap also pruned out a lot of the old guard who had been working on the series since the 60s and I'm sure to an extent were coasting and thought Bond was a job for life. Dont get me wrong I'm grateful to people like John Glen for all theyve done for the series but we needed a shot in the arm of fresh blood and whatever you think of them the likes of Broz, Babs, Martin Campbell, Daniel Kleinmann, David Arnold, Simon Crane and Gary Powell delivered what was needed in the 90s to get the series back on its feet and ensure that it would continue. Lets not forget that none of Glen, Maibaum, Barry, Adam, Binder or Simmons has worked on a Bond film for over 23 years now. Thats almost half of the series in time even if not in number of releases. And even Cubby has been absent for the last 16 years so the new blood at least needs credit for taking us to the 50 year mark.
I think history could well look back on MGW as possibly the most important contributor to the series (after Cubby) as in addition to all his good work producing and writing in the 70s and 80s he has also overseen the transition into the new era reasonably successfully and ensured the series will continue, at least for the present. Its a shame he now seems to take a back seat to Babs and doesnt write anymore as god knows hes infinitely more talented than P&W.
The world population has nearly doubled since the mid-60's, so it's even more impressive to see the number of ticket sales Thunberball raked in.
If I'm doing the math right, 5% of the world saw Thunderball in 1965, while 1% of the world saw CR in 2006