› ›

SPECTRE: It grossed $880 Million Worldwide (..and 2015 was the biggest box office year so far)

1…8586889091…152

Comments

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I agree. I loved the Glen era, but that was largely due to one man - John Glen. He brought a real consistency. Unless you can magically summon up a director who does action, thriller, editing, humour etc as well as Glen, updated for 2015, then it's a lot easier said than done.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Getafix wrote: »
    I agree. I loved the Glen era, but that was largely due to one man - John Glen. He brought a real consistency. Unless you can magically summon up a director who does action, thriller, editing, humour etc as well as Glen, updated for 2015, then it's a lot easier said than done.

    Are there actually people around here who..........dare to mention Daniel Craig? I think he's co-producer too no? And IMO he co-introduced us to a tightset of consistent four films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    I agree. I loved the Glen era, but that was largely due to one man - John Glen. He brought a real consistency. Unless you can magically summon up a director who does action, thriller, editing, humour etc as well as Glen, updated for 2015, then it's a lot easier said than done.
    I didn't like Glen's take so much when I was younger, but have really grown to appreciate what he did with Bond over the years (particularly after seeing more recent fare). You're right that there definitely is a consistency to his product, and he directed the action (an important part of the Bond scenario) very well and very tensely.

    There were a few mess ups early on (particularly in FYEO during the Neptune sub showdown with the geek in a rival contraption, and the underwater diver fight, as well as the hockey fight) but in general his action work was absolutely first class. I also felt that he could have brought more out of the actors in FYEO, but that was his first try. I can never argue with the pace in his films. Everything was normally paced very well imho.

    I think his most under appreciated quality is his ability to make a tense, exciting Bond film with a relatively meagre budget (there was significant cost pressure during the 80's).
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Especially after SP I have grown to appreciate Sam Mendes. I think he's unfairly judged. Especially on this forum. What he did to the Bond franchise is rather unique if you ask me.
  • Comte_de_BleuvilleComte_de_Bleuville
    Posts: 108
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    For me the John Glen era is what it should return to. He produced films of varying quality; some good, some bad, but overall the franchise felt steady back then.

    Yes, a steady decline in popularity. Culminating in the least attended Bond film of all time - LTK.

    Here are the inflation adjuster figures at the bottom of the chart.
    17. For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $486,468,881
    18. Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $478,946,402
    19. The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $448,249,281
    20. Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery $440,759,072
    21. Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $426,244,352
    22. The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $381,088,866
    23. A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore $321,172,633
    24. Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton $285,157,191
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    Comte_de_Bleuville wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    For me the John Glen era is what it should return to. He produced films of varying quality; some good, some bad, but overall the franchise felt steady back then.

    Yes, a steady decline in popularity. Culminating in the least attended Bond film of all time - LTK.

    Here are the inflation adjuster figures at the bottom of the chart.
    17. For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $486,468,881
    18. Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $478,946,402
    19. The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $448,249,281
    20. Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery $440,759,072
    21. Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $426,244,352
    22. The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $381,088,866
    23. A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore $321,172,633
    24. Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton $285,157,191

    LTK deserved better. It suffered summer blockbuster competition. I was 2 and a half when it was released, I hear it had a really bad marketing campaign, why was that? What was bad about it?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    tigers99 wrote: »
    Comte_de_Bleuville wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    For me the John Glen era is what it should return to. He produced films of varying quality; some good, some bad, but overall the franchise felt steady back then.

    Yes, a steady decline in popularity. Culminating in the least attended Bond film of all time - LTK.

    Here are the inflation adjuster figures at the bottom of the chart.
    17. For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $486,468,881
    18. Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $478,946,402
    19. The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $448,249,281
    20. Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery $440,759,072
    21. Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $426,244,352
    22. The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $381,088,866
    23. A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore $321,172,633
    24. Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton $285,157,191

    LTK deserved better. It suffered summer blockbuster competition. I was 2 and a half when it was released, I hear it had a really bad marketing campaign, why was that? What was bad about it?

    Poor production values ...bored plot. Bad acting.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,404
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    Comte_de_Bleuville wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    For me the John Glen era is what it should return to. He produced films of varying quality; some good, some bad, but overall the franchise felt steady back then.

    Yes, a steady decline in popularity. Culminating in the least attended Bond film of all time - LTK.

    Here are the inflation adjuster figures at the bottom of the chart.
    17. For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $486,468,881
    18. Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $478,946,402
    19. The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $448,249,281
    20. Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery $440,759,072
    21. Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $426,244,352
    22. The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $381,088,866
    23. A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore $321,172,633
    24. Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton $285,157,191

    LTK deserved better. It suffered summer blockbuster competition. I was 2 and a half when it was released, I hear it had a really bad marketing campaign, why was that? What was bad about it?

    Poor production values ...bored plot. Bad acting.

    you must love this one.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    tigers99 wrote: »
    Comte_de_Bleuville wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    For me the John Glen era is what it should return to. He produced films of varying quality; some good, some bad, but overall the franchise felt steady back then.

    Yes, a steady decline in popularity. Culminating in the least attended Bond film of all time - LTK.

    Here are the inflation adjuster figures at the bottom of the chart.
    17. For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $486,468,881
    18. Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $478,946,402
    19. The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $448,249,281
    20. Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery $440,759,072
    21. Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $426,244,352
    22. The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $381,088,866
    23. A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore $321,172,633
    24. Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton $285,157,191

    LTK deserved better. It suffered summer blockbuster competition. I was 2 and a half when it was released, I hear it had a really bad marketing campaign, why was that? What was bad about it?
    There are rumours that MGM couldn't stand Dalton (even then) and wanted him out. I'm sure that played into the marketing campaign (or relative lack thereof). They didn't seem him as a good investment based on his lack of pull in the US market.

    As for the box office decline during the 80's, there were significant budget constraints during that time from what I read, and also lots of changes in the action market. Arnie, Bruce, Mel and Sly were bringing a more gritty dynamic while borrowing much of Bond's casual (Moore) style and quips. Tough market for EON as they were transitioning with budget pressure. Looking back on it, those Glen films do hold their own imho.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    Comte_de_Bleuville wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    For me the John Glen era is what it should return to. He produced films of varying quality; some good, some bad, but overall the franchise felt steady back then.

    Yes, a steady decline in popularity. Culminating in the least attended Bond film of all time - LTK.

    Here are the inflation adjuster figures at the bottom of the chart.
    17. For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $486,468,881
    18. Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $478,946,402
    19. The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $448,249,281
    20. Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery $440,759,072
    21. Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $426,244,352
    22. The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $381,088,866
    23. A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore $321,172,633
    24. Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton $285,157,191

    LTK deserved better. It suffered summer blockbuster competition. I was 2 and a half when it was released, I hear it had a really bad marketing campaign, why was that? What was bad about it?

    Poor production values ...bored plot. Bad acting.

    you must love this one.

    Lol ...I do like it despite.
  • Comte_de_BleuvilleComte_de_Bleuville
    Posts: 108
    But it wasn't just LTK, it was the result of the direction the series had taken in the 8os.
    With the popularity of TSWLM and MR, the Bond series was on a new high in the late 70s.

    Just look at the constant, downward trajectory with the Glen films in the above chart.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Comte_de_Bleuville wrote: »
    But it wasn't just LTK, it was the result of the direction the series had taken in the 8os.
    With the popularity of TSWLM and MR, the Bond series was on a new high in the late 70s.

    Just look at the constant, downward trajectory with the Glen films in the above chart.
    They made a conscious decision to change direction because they couldn't go on with the TSWLM/MR approach. Going back just one film gives TMWTGG, which was even more poorly received than most of Glen's, so it's not all his fault.

    I think they were transitioning in the 80's and trying to find their way in a changing action market dominated by the more aggressive and gritty US fare. I agree that it didn't help that Dalton did not have the charisma of Arnie, Mel or Bruce, and that Moore by the mid-80's was too old to be all that credible. That was a serious problem imho, and also a cause for the declining box office, as much as Glen.
  • Comte_de_BleuvilleComte_de_Bleuville
    Posts: 108
    Yes, all of that it true and played a part.

  • Comte_de_BleuvilleComte_de_Bleuville
    Posts: 108
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    Comte_de_Bleuville wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    For me the John Glen era is what it should return to. He produced films of varying quality; some good, some bad, but overall the franchise felt steady back then.


    Yes, a steady decline in popularity. Culminating in the least attended Bond film of all time - LTK.

    Here are the inflation adjuster figures at the bottom of the chart.
    17. For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $486,468,881
    18. Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $478,946,402
    19. The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $448,249,281
    20. Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery $440,759,072
    21. Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $426,244,352
    22. The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $381,088,866
    23. A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore $321,172,633
    24. Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton $285,157,191

    LTK deserved better. It suffered summer blockbuster competition. I was 2 and a half when it was released, I hear it had a really bad marketing campaign, why was that? What was bad about it?

    Poor production values ...bored plot. Bad acting.

    Also, very true. Plus a television movie of the week directorial style that it truly embarrassing.
  • Comte_de_BleuvilleComte_de_Bleuville
    Posts: 108
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    Comte_de_Bleuville wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    For me the John Glen era is what it should return to. He produced films of varying quality; some good, some bad, but overall the franchise felt steady back then.


    Yes, a steady decline in popularity. Culminating in the least attended Bond film of all time - LTK.

    Here are the inflation adjuster figures at the bottom of the chart.
    17. For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $486,468,881
    18. Tomorrow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $478,946,402
    19. The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $448,249,281
    20. Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery $440,759,072
    21. Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $426,244,352
    22. The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $381,088,866
    23. A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore $321,172,633
    24. Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton $285,157,191

    LTK deserved better. It suffered summer blockbuster competition. I was 2 and a half when it was released, I hear it had a really bad marketing campaign, why was that? What was bad about it?

    Poor production values ...bored plot. Bad acting.

    Also, very true. Plus a television movie of the week directorial style that it truly embarrassing.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2015 Posts: 8,404
    None the less, there is something 'consistent' about his films. They all feel like they exist in the same world, LTK excluded. Non of the Craig films feel connected to me, despite how they continue the story. Even QoS, a direct sequel, feels like part of a different series than Casino. I think part of it has to do with each new director's desire to make the film 'theirs', and leave their stamp on the franchise, thus an effort to distinguish from the last one is made.

    All Glen wanted was his jump scare. He focused on the story at hand.
  • mnhettiamnhettia
    edited November 2015 Posts: 203
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    None the less, there is something 'consistent' about his films. They all feel like they exist in the same world, LTK excluded. Non of the Craig films feel connected to me, despite how they continue the story. Even QoS, a direct sequel, feels like part of a different series than Casino. I think part of it has to do with each new director's desire to make the film 'theirs', and leave their stamp on the franchise, thus an effort to distinguish from the last one is made.

    All Glen wanted was his jump scare. He focused on the story at hand.

    LOL! I guess that is why we got the 'crows' in SP! A good ol' nod to Glen! Nice!

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mnhettia wrote: »
    LOL! I guess that is why we got the 'crows' in SP! A good ol' nod to Glen! Nice!
    Definitely a Glen homage as you note. Unfortunately, Craig played it too cool so it may have been missed. He didn't even blink. No one did a Glen jump scare better than Dalton imho.
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    Glen's films weren't terribly cinematic and they got more and more TV like as time went on. The production cuts in Licence to Kill made it more obvious. Even with just a modest budget increase, GoldenEye is a much bigger and slicker looking film overall.

    I say this as someone who really likes the Glen films, AVTAK notwithstanding.
  • dinovelvetdinovelvet
    Posts: 709
    tigers99 wrote: »

    LTK deserved better. It suffered summer blockbuster competition. I was 2 and a half when it was released, I hear it had a really bad marketing campaign, why was that? What was bad about it?

    I was there, 14 at the time, and Bond somehow just wasn't "cool" anymore. That summer it was all about Batman and Indiana Jones.

    And yeah, the rise of the R-rated 80s action hero in movies like Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Rambo etc all made Bond look a bit old hat and out of touch, so we see LTK trying to keep up by upping the violence and giving Bond a 'rogue cop' storyline, which didn't really fit.
  • mepal1mepal1
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,098
    SP.....UK BO after 4 weekends. (as reported by the Hollywood Reporter)

    SF ............. $130.4 mil

    SP ............. $128.3 mil
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mepal1 wrote: »
    SP.....UK BO after 4 weekends. (as reported by the Hollywood Reporter)

    SF ............. $130.4 mil

    SP ............. $128.3 mil

    Thanks UK...
  • Crazysoul95Crazysoul95
    Posts: 3,336
    @mepal1, do you have the monday numbers from china?

  • ChampionAlonsoChampionAlonso
    Posts: 389
    Do you have UK Box Office in pounds?
    China Monday BO: 1.25 million, for a 78.7 million total.
  • mepal1mepal1
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,098
    Crazysoul95 wrote: »
    @mepal1, do you have the monday numbers from china?

    This is the link for Chinese BO

    http://www.boxofficechina.com/beta/index.html

    and

    As end of Sunday UK box office for SP in local currency was £84.6 mil :)
  • ChampionAlonsoChampionAlonso
    Posts: 389
    I believe SP may catch Avatar in UK, what do you think?
  • Crazysoul95Crazysoul95
    Posts: 3,336
    ChampionAlonso wrote: »
    Do you have UK Box Office in pounds?
    China Monday BO: 1.25 million, for a 78.7 million total.

    Only 150 thousands behind hunger games, nice!
  • mepal1mepal1
    Posts: 1,098
    Crazysoul95 wrote: »
    ChampionAlonso wrote: »
    Do you have UK Box Office in pounds?
    China Monday BO: 1.25 million, for a 78.7 million total.

    Only 150 thousands behind hunger games, nice!

    Hunger Games film has had a disastrous Chinese opening!
  • mepal1mepal1
    Posts: 1,098
    ChampionAlonso wrote: »
    I believe SP may catch Avatar in UK, what do you think?

    Yes.....i think SP has a good chance of reaching, or surpassing the £94 mil made by Avatar in the UK............but...........it will take quite a while to get there, if its possible, maybe around xmas time.

  • dinovelvetdinovelvet
    Posts: 709
    ChampionAlonso wrote: »
    I believe SP may catch Avatar in UK, what do you think?

    Yes it should nudge past it by Xmas-New Year
Sign In or Register to comment.