178 replies to this topic

[B. Brown]

TLD is not the best Bond ever, but it is, I would say, the last 'real' Bond film. After TLD they became generic action flicks with the possible exception of GE.

Are you saying, therefore, that both of the Craig movies are "generic action flicks"? I can dig up a few pointers that prove you otherwise, including great character development (which was sorely lacking in the Brosnan, and even Dalton, eras)...

The question is whether either of the Craig films would be very different if he was not in them. I think not. Doesn't that suggest that they're generic?

Great point here.

There are plenty of aspects of Craig's films that prove that they're generic action flicks. Though the half-assed characterization helped a bit in "Casino Royale", it still had the standard, generic action flick qualities -- things that don't belong in the Bond flicks. This include falling houses, tanker-hopping at Miami International, and crane-jumping. And aside from being a generic action flick, it also mucked up Fleming's story quite a bit. That whole "Ha Ha, my balls are being mutilated." bit was pathetic and shameful.

The main problems are Purvis and Wade. After "Die Another Day", how would you expect them to write anything of extremely high quality? And it doesn't seem like Paul Haggis helped a whole lot; wasn't he the one who suggested Vesper's death in an elevator?

Then, with "Quantum of Solace" ... non-stop action, lazy plot holes, the lack of characterization. As Ambler mentioned, you could've replaced Craig with any actor, and it would've came out the same way ... Vin Diesel would've fit perfectly.

In saying TLD was the last "real" Bond film, you are also basically saying its predecessors, AVTAK for example, was more of a Bond film than Casino Royale.

No, actually, that's not what any of us are saying. TLD was the last "real" Bond film. That's that. There are plenty of films before TLD that don't really qualify as "real" Bond films, in my opinion ... "Moonraker" (aka Star Wars Bond) and "A View To a Kill" (aka Geriatrics Bond) are the two major films.

As for CR's script, if you hadn't read it ahead of time, who'd have seen the whole balls thing coming? I was shocked in a good way. That's creative screenwriting, IMO.
Many critics and fans pointed out the writing as a high point in CR along with several other elements, not just Craig.

"Creative screenwriting"? You do know that there's a "Casino Royale" novel, correct? The writers for the film simply ripped-off Fleming, inserted a few "balls" jokes, and switched a carpet-beater with a rope. Not exactly creativity at it's best.

To compare the Craig era with Vin Diesel, well, all I can say is enjoy your TLD DVDs. It's a great time to be a Bond fan for the rest of us.

All a matter of opinion.

I'm sure there are just as many Bond fans who would prefer their TLD DVD's to anything Purvis, Wade, and Haggmeister have conjured up over the past few years.

Edited by B. Brown, 20 June 2009 - 03:30 PM.

[Turn]

TLD is not the best Bond ever, but it is, I would say, the last 'real' Bond film. After TLD they became generic action flicks with the possible exception of GE.

Are you saying, therefore, that both of the Craig movies are "generic action flicks"? I can dig up a few pointers that prove you otherwise, including great character development (which was sorely lacking in the Brosnan, and even Dalton, eras)...

The question is whether either of the Craig films would be very different if he was not in them. I think not. Doesn't that suggest that they're generic?

Great point here.

There are plenty of aspects of Craig's films that prove that they're generic action flicks. Though the half-assed characterization helped a bit in "Casino Royale", it still had the standard, generic action flick qualities -- things that don't belong in the Bond flicks. This include falling houses, tanker-hopping at Miami International, and crane-jumping. And aside from being a generic action flick, it also mucked up Fleming's story quite a bit. That whole "Ha Ha, my balls are being mutilated." bit was pathetic and shameful.

The main problems are Purvis and Wade. After "Die Another Day", how would you expect them to write anything of extremely high quality? And it doesn't seem like Paul Haggis helped a whole lot; wasn't he the one who suggested Vesper's death in an elevator?

Then, with "Quantum of Solace" ... non-stop action, lazy plot holes, the lack of characterization. As Ambler mentioned, you could've replaced Craig with any actor, and it would've came out the same way ... Vin Diesel would've fit perfectly.

In saying TLD was the last "real" Bond film, you are also basically saying its predecessors, AVTAK for example, was more of a Bond film than Casino Royale.

No, actually, that's not what any of us are saying. TLD was the last "real" Bond film. That's that. There are plenty of films before TLD that don't really qualify as "real" Bond films, in my opinion ... "Moonraker" (aka Star Wars Bond) and "A View To a Kill" (aka Geriatrics Bond) are the two major films.

As for CR's script, if you hadn't read it ahead of time, who'd have seen the whole balls thing coming? I was shocked in a good way. That's creative screenwriting, IMO.
Many critics and fans pointed out the writing as a high point in CR along with several other elements, not just Craig.

"Creative screenwriting"? You do know that there's a "Casino Royale" novel, correct? The writers for the film simply ripped-off Fleming, inserted a few "balls" jokes, and switched a carpet-beater with a rope. Not exactly creativity at it's best.

To compare the Craig era with Vin Diesel, well, all I can say is enjoy your TLD DVDs. It's a great time to be a Bond fan for the rest of us.

All a matter of opinion.

I'm sure there are just as many Bond fans who would prefer their TLD DVD's to anything Purvis, Wade, and Haggmeister have conjured up over the past few years.

How many Bond films have you seen? Can you show me any that are completely faithful adaptations of the novels? Even the 1954 adaptation of CR made many substitutions including not using a carpet beater.

Please explain how it is ripping off Fleming when it's his character and his title and his estate profiting from the release? It's not as if they took the scenario and applied it to a different character. It's called updating it for the modern audience and the critical and box office success CR earned was proof it worked and renewed interest in the series.

If there is such a large group of fans who prefer TLD, where were they when the series went on a 6-year hiatus in the 1990s? Again, the numbers show the current series is in the best shape its been in years. And I am a huge supporter of Dalton and his two films.

[CJB]

TLD is up there with OHMSS as my favourite of the series. Dalton brings a much needed hard edge to the character. He's brooding, cynical, and channels Fleming's Bond. The film itself is quite a ride with the best plot in yonks, a great score, and some terrific action.

Edited by Commander James Bond, 22 June 2009 - 12:55 AM.

[Ambler]

the numbers show the current series is in the best shape its been in years.

I judge a film by its content not its financial return.

[byline]

the numbers show the current series is in the best shape its been in years.

I judge a film by its content not its financial return.

Don't we all. However, the pertinent point is that a good financial return ensures the series' viability. The point that Turn was making was to contrast the financial state of the franchise during Dalton's time to where it is now. Brosnan is not my favorite Bond, but it cannot be argued that during his time as Bond, the series experienced a huge resurgence in popularity, and Craig's two films have continued that popularity.

Sadly -- and this is coming from someone who is a huge Dalton fan, as is my husband -- the franchise's popularity had leveled off during that time. Not because of Dalton; I really believe that a combination of factors conspired against the franchise during this period. But, as Turn noted, if so many people loved "The Living Daylights," then where were they during that six-year hiatus in the '90s? Shouldn't they have been clamoring for more? I'm sure that clusters of fans were, but on a large-scale basis? I don't remember that happening.

Edited by byline, 21 June 2009 - 02:48 PM.

[B. Brown]

How many Bond films have you seen? Can you show me any that are completely faithful adaptations of the novels? Even the 1954 adaptation of CR made many substitutions including not using a carpet beater.

I'm not saying they have to be 100% faithful to the novels. But more than a shred of "faithfulness" would be great.

Please explain how it is ripping off Fleming when it's his character and his title and his estate profiting from the release? It's not as if they took the scenario and applied it to a different character. It's called updating it for the modern audience and the critical and box office success CR earned was proof it worked and renewed interest in the series.

EON is obviously ripping-off the various modern spy series to keep up with the times. Something that Bond doesn't need to do if he's written well. Take a look at the Bourne films, and then "Royale" and "Quantum". I think you'll find more than a few odd similarities. Coincidence? I don't think so...

I'm not sure how adding-in various, pointless explosions and stunts qualifies as "updating it for the modern audience". I believe that's just watering-down the story for the simple-minded audiences to understand - including cinema-going youngsters who think Bond is awesome because he blows stuff up and kills people.

A sinking house, a rope instead of carpet beater, the "ha-ha" / "balls" torture, the construction yard chase, jumping off from oil tankers at MIA (this was one of the most unrealistic parts of the film), etc. If this is "updating for the modern audience", then surely it's an insult to the modern audience. It just goes to show that the producers think that ridiculous action sequences and poorly-written one-liners are needed to engage/grasp audiences.

I don't think "From Russia With Love" relied on these aspects - the closest being the helicopter showdown. "From Russia With Love" is not only a Bond film that has stood the test of time, but also a spy film that has stood the test of time. Hell ... is James Bond even a secret agent anymore? Sure doesn't seem like it. I think he's as much of a secret agent as Vin Diesel's "xXx" was. If the producers follow a formula similar to the earlier Bond films, then they'll have themselves some quality, modern, spy thrillers. They'll also re-establish the character of James Bond -- the man who wasn't written to be some renegade, globe-trotting hitman, but instead a cold, suave, loyal, British secret agent.

I blame the bad writers, alongside the poor decision-making by Babs and Mikey.

It's obvious that their works aren't of high-quality. The lazy plot-holes, continuity errors, and lack of characterization in many parts. "Quantum" has to be the worst, as far as writing goes. The free-fall sequence... Bond meeting up with Mathis without having any credit cards or valid visas/passports (must've walked there!)... Bond blowing his cover to follow Camille at Port Au Prince... etc. What a joke.

These films are no different than Brosnan's flicks. It's all the same junk - just a new actor.
What it comes down to is preference. Do you like the Brozzer, or Danny-boy?

I think that's why I'll stick to my "The Living Daylights" DVD...

[Ambler]

I believe that's just watering-down the story for the simple-minded audiences to understand - including cinema-going youngsters who think Bond is awesome because he blows stuff up and kills people.

Very true. There have been other changes, of course.

For instance, until recently Bond was not just another killer with a personal agenda. He was government-licensed, and a patriot who loved his country and respected his leader. That is another aspect that has been fashionably jettisoned to appeal to rebellious teenagers and, more bizarrely, the instincts of an entertainment industry, who were apparently unable to tell the difference between Al-Qaeda and George W. Bush.

Hard to imagine Daniel Craig ever saying 'For England'.

[B. Brown]

I believe that's just watering-down the story for the simple-minded audiences to understand - including cinema-going youngsters who think Bond is awesome because he blows stuff up and kills people.

Very true. There have been other changes, of course.

For instance, until recently Bond was not just another killer with a personal agenda. He was government-licensed, and a patriot who loved his country and respected his leader. That is another aspect that has been fashionably jettisoned to appeal to rebellious teenagers and, more bizarrely, the instincts of an entertainment industry, who were apparently unable to tell the difference between Al-Qaeda and George W. Bush.

Hard to imagine Daniel Craig ever saying 'For England'.

Indeed.

I can't picture an operative purposely disobeying the orders of his superiors and lasting long in the service.

As far as some of the previous Bond films may have strayed from the Fleming formula, it seems as if Bond has always held respect for his superiors, and put his life on the line for his country -- no strings attached. The fact that he's now disobeying the orders of his superiors, prancing around South America and giving hitman advice to a random woman that he met (who tried killing him a few days earlier) is ridiculous. Talk about getting out of hand.

It seems like the new Bond has abandoned any thread of "secret agent" that he once carried. Therefore, it's hard to not classify these as generic action films.

Edited by B. Brown, 21 June 2009 - 03:43 PM.

[Tybre]

Many like to say that Craig's films are more realistic and "down to Earth", while Brosnan's weren't. Well, for me, I can dig up as many non-realistic features in Craig's films.

Same here, he reminds me of Sonic the Hedgehog.

Compared to Brosnan's Super Mario, then?

The problem with that is that Mario is more realistic than Sonic

Off course.

It's certainly not perfect, the villains are a bit weak

I love the villains in TLD, actually. Whitaker is colourful while avoiding drifting into parody (unlike, say, Gustav Graves or Charles Gray's Blofeld), and Koskov is just a wonderful coward, the kind of guy you love to hate (Jeroen Krabbe always makes a great bad guy no matter what film he appears in). Necros is an underrated henchman too. His physical appearance somehow makes a very nice contrast to that of Dalton Bond. Plus, anybody who can dress up as a milkman and still look scary as hell clearly has the right evildoer attitude.

Explosive milk is just a bonus

[B. Brown]

Blofeld dressed in drag ... the ultimate villain.

Edited by B. Brown, 21 June 2009 - 04:37 PM.

[jaguar007]

I don't see why you are trashing a movie like CR for being un-Bond when it is the most Bond like (and faithful to Fleming) film since OHMSS! Bond movies have, and always will, have large set action scenes. If you find having action scenes un Bond, I suggest you go rewatch the films.

I will agree that the action style of QoS was influenced by Bourne and every other action movie being made today, but I can't find any similarity between Bourne and CR.

QoS is not the first Bond film where Bond disobeyed M.

[Ambler]

QoS is not the first Bond film where Bond disobeyed M.

True. But it is the first film in which Bond had the appearance and manners of a manual labourer.

[jaguar007]

QoS is not the first Bond film where Bond disobeyed M.

True. But it is the first film in which Bond had the appearance and manners of a manual labourer.

I disagree. I don't think he ever looked that way at all. Although not in a suit in every scene, he was always stylishly dressed. Personally I am glad the days of Bond being in extreme situations and him walking out without a hair out of place and fixing his tie are gone. I never pictured Fleming's Bond acting that way. In the books you could feel the torture that Bond was feeling, most of the movies you could not.

Just to keep on track with the original thread. I still think TLD is one of the 5 best Bond movies (much better than QoS).

[B. Brown]

QoS is not the first Bond film where Bond disobeyed M.

There's a bit of a difference between betraying M for the better of the mission, and betraying M because it suits your personal agenda. In the first case, he'd probably be commended. In the second case, he'd be suspended - and this happens in "Quantum".

[Turn]

It's obvious that some people don't like the Craig era outside of craignotbonders and that's fine. I'm not sure where all this patriotism thing is coming in. Did anybody really go to one of these films with that aspect in mind? I always thought Bond was appealing because he was something of an antihero himself, but getting the job done and eventually accomplishing his mission.

But to those who don't like Craig, would you agree to an extent that the style of Craig's films and his Bond has brought more attention to Dalton and his era? Although he is still unfairly maligned in many mainstream publications and such, Dalton seems to have gained a better following since CR was released. Before he was ignored or unfairly blamed for the 6-year hiatus and now some people are starting to see what he was trying to do with the character 20 years ago.

[jaguar007]

QoS is not the first Bond film where Bond disobeyed M.

There's a bit of a difference between betraying M for the better of the mission, and betraying M because it suits your personal agenda. In the first case, he'd probably be commended. In the second case, he'd be suspended - and this happens in "Quantum".

In OHMSS and LTK he disobeyed M for personal reasons. I felt in QoS he disobeyed M more for the good of the mission.

[Ambler]

Well, patriotism is deeply unfashionable, but I don't think Bond serves Britain for the money. (Civil servant scale is pretty low, though the final salary pension scheme is generous.) What would you say is his motivation now that Queen and Country are something to despise?

As for Craig, I have great admiration for him as an actor, but that doesn't alter the fact that he is physically unsuitable for Bond. I liked him in L4yer Cake but he's become very craggy since he beefed up; that's what I meant by my manual labourer comment. I wasn't referring to his clothes.

But to get back on topic, I think TLD is a good film, perhaps the last 007 outing for which I have real affection. That doesn't alter my belief that the Terence Young films are unlikely to be bettered.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, patriotism is deeply unfashionable, but I don't think Bond serves Britain for the money. (Civil servant scale is pretty low, though the final salary pension scheme is generous.) What would you say is his motivation now that Queen and Country are something to despise?

Bond says he's motivated by his duty in QOS; it's right there in the film.

[jaguar007]

Well, patriotism is deeply unfashionable, but I don't think Bond serves Britain for the money. (Civil servant scale is pretty low, though the final salary pension scheme is generous.) What would you say is his motivation now that Queen and Country are something to despise?

As for Craig, I have great admiration for him as an actor, but that doesn't alter the fact that he is physically unsuitable for Bond. I liked him in L4yer Cake but he's become very craggy since he beefed up; that's what I meant by my manual labourer comment. I wasn't referring to his clothes.

But to get back on topic, I think TLD is a good film, perhaps the last 007 outing for which I have real affection. That doesn't alter my belief that the Terence Young films are unlikely to be bettered.

For me TLD was the last Bond movie I walked out of feeling totally satisfied, until CR. I was dissapointed with LTK, all of Brosnans as well as QoS. TLD ranks in my top 5 favorite Bond films. FRWL has always been my favorite, but seeing CR again recently on the big screen made me realize that the character development in that movie was so much better than any Bond movie that CR slightly edged out FRWL.

I don't agree with you about Craig being too bulky. He was really not THAT big. Nothing like Vin Diesel, Stallone etc. His shoulders were not any broader than Connery, he just has alot of definition, which gives him the appearance of being big. Look at him in the scenes with him fully dressed next to other characters, he does not look at all to be hulking. I find a Bond who looks to be in good shape and looks able to handle himself much more believeable than a Bond who is slight and skinny.

[Turn]

Well, patriotism is deeply unfashionable, but I don't think Bond serves Britain for the money. (Civil servant scale is pretty low, though the final salary pension scheme is generous.) What would you say is his motivation now that Queen and Country are something to despise?

Where did I say Queen and Country were something to despise? Where does Bond say that? I merely said in the previous thread that I don't know of anyone who goes into these films with patriotism in mind. They're works of fiction. Bond has no family and no real life, he's motivated by his duty, he just shows it in different ways.

A lot of these posts seem to twist things to fit some point that isn't going anywhere or is very far out there. Interesting.

[byline]

I'm not sure how adding-in various, pointless explosions and stunts qualifies as "updating it for the modern audience". I believe that's just watering-down the story for the simple-minded audiences to understand - including cinema-going youngsters who think Bond is awesome because he blows stuff up and kills people.

The big tricks have been part of the Bond formula for the better part of its run now. For better or worse, that is what people have come to expect from the franchise. So it stands to reason that the producers believe these are necessary as part of the audience-recognition factor for Bond.

The difference between Craig's Bond (and, I believe, Dalton's too) is the emotional complexity layered into their performances. IMO, Brosnan was a bit too soap-operish, Moore relied a bit too much on the comical. Connery's first three performances were outstanding, but I felt that by "Thunderball" he was starting to get bored with the role, and it really showed in his subsequent performances. And then Laz only got one shot at the role, so it's really hard for me to judge what his capabilities were in that one outing.

For me, the believability factor (I won't call it realism, because no Bond film is realistic; the fantasy is part of the attraction) with Dalton and Craig has to do more with the emotional resonance they bring to the role, not with the other Bond trappings that come with the territory.

[Colossus]

Don't we all. However, the pertinent point is that a good financial return ensures the series' viability. The point that Turn was making was to contrast the financial state of the franchise during Dalton's time to where it is now. Brosnan is not my favorite Bond, but it cannot be argued that during his time as Bond, the series experienced a huge resurgence in popularity, and Craig's two films have continued that popularity.

I agree Brosnan brought back the series with each one of his movies surprisingly having increased box office. On Craig's popularity i'm not so sure in this early stage of his tenure. Based on the box office thread in the main forum, i found it interesting that QOS had lower numbers than CR. This is not usually the way things go considering each successive movie gets bigger just like Connery's and Brosnan's. However Moore's 2nd outing as TMWTGG also performed less than LALD and he brought it back with TSWLM. So Craig's tenure might do this, provided that his 3rd is bigger but it could just be the same or less.

Sadly -- and this is coming from someone who is a huge Dalton fan, as is my husband -- the franchise's popularity had leveled off during that time. Not because of Dalton; I really believe that a combination of factors conspired against the franchise during this period. But, as Turn noted, if so many people loved "The Living Daylights," then where were they during that six-year hiatus in the '90s? Shouldn't they have been clamoring for more? I'm sure that clusters of fans were, but on a large-scale basis? I don't remember that happening.

Actually i think Dalton regretfully did have something to do with it, he was a big part of that combination of factors. Considering his movies are among the lowest box office in the series, audiences simply did not like a more dour and grim Bond, even if he were closest to Fleming. Books and cinema are simply two different mediums. The Bond phenomenon was a cinematic one not a literary one, and the strengths of what we saw in the Connery and Moore movies was why. TLD still had a good enough plot to outweigh Dalton's grimness and the 'new Bond' factor always bumps figures, but by LTK people knew if they liked him or not to return or not see the next one, and the more violent and grim plot of the movie itself as well as Dalton's grimmer characterization also contributed to alienating the rest of the audiences. Considering the OTT fourth outings of the other Bonds were the highest of their tenures goes to show which ones audiences liked most.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Don't we all. However, the pertinent point is that a good financial return ensures the series' viability. The point that Turn was making was to contrast the financial state of the franchise during Dalton's time to where it is now. Brosnan is not my favorite Bond, but it cannot be argued that during his time as Bond, the series experienced a huge resurgence in popularity, and Craig's two films have continued that popularity.

I agree Brosnan brought back the series with each one of his movies surprisingly having increased box office. On Craig's popularity i'm not so sure in this early stage of his tenure. Based on the box office thread in the main forum, i found it interesting that QOS had lower numbers than CR. This is not usually the way things go considering each successive movie gets bigger just like Connery's and Brosnan's. However Moore's 2nd outing as TMWTGG also performed less than LALD and he brought it back with TSWLM. So Craig's tenure might do this, provided that his 3rd is bigger but it could just be the same or less.

Think about it, QoS is a movie that takes place minutes after CR, it requires you to remember what happened in CR to fully know what's going on. It's nowhere near as accessible as CR, and I can't imagine how it could be expected to outgross that film because of it. Either way, its box office is a stunning achievement no matter how you look at it.
And since you mention the Brosnan movies as an example, Tomorrow Never Dies did as far as I recall gross a little less than GoldenEye...

I predict a stand-alone Bond 23 will reach the heights of CR, if it's good, off course.

[Safari Suit]

I agree Brosnan brought back the series with each one of his movies surprisingly having increased box office. On Craig's popularity i'm not so sure in this early stage of his tenure. Based on the box office thread in the main forum, i found it interesting that QOS had lower numbers than CR. This is not usually the way things go considering each successive movie gets bigger just like Connery's and Brosnan's.

Goldeneye was actually Brosnan's biggest ticket seller internationally, and it was his least expensive movie too. TND, TWINE and DAD all sold less tickets than GE, although DAD did sell more tickets than TND or TWINE.

[Royal Dalton]

Brosnan is not my favorite Bond, but it cannot be argued that during his time as Bond, the series experienced a huge resurgence in popularity, and Craig's two films have continued that popularity.

That's because, from GoldenEye onwards, the films have been mass-marketed. The Dalton and later Moore films didn't have that luxury.

The downside of that is that it actually made Brosnan's films less profitable overall than Dalton's.

It'd be interesting to see how the figures stack up for the Craig films in that regard.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Brosnan is not my favorite Bond, but it cannot be argued that during his time as Bond, the series experienced a huge resurgence in popularity, and Craig's two films have continued that popularity.

That's because, from GoldenEye onwards, the films have been mass-marketed. The Dalton and later Moore films didn't have that luxury.

The downside of that is that it actually made Brosnan's films less profitable overall than Dalton's.

Very, very interesting.

[byline]

Brosnan is not my favorite Bond, but it cannot be argued that during his time as Bond, the series experienced a huge resurgence in popularity, and Craig's two films have continued that popularity.

That's because, from GoldenEye onwards, the films have been mass-marketed. The Dalton and later Moore films didn't have that luxury.

The downside of that is that it actually made Brosnan's films less profitable overall than Dalton's.

It'd be interesting to see how the figures stack up for the Craig films in that regard.

Good point. I know we've argued box office figures to death (all in an effort to prove our own respective points), but can anyone provide that data?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Brosnan is not my favorite Bond, but it cannot be argued that during his time as Bond, the series experienced a huge resurgence in popularity, and Craig's two films have continued that popularity.

That's because, from GoldenEye onwards, the films have been mass-marketed. The Dalton and later Moore films didn't have that luxury.

The downside of that is that it actually made Brosnan's films less profitable overall than Dalton's.

It'd be interesting to see how the figures stack up for the Craig films in that regard.

Good point. I know we've argued box office figures to death (all in an effort to prove our own respective points), but can anyone provide that data?

I can't provide the data, but I agree it's a very good point. The late eighties saw a change in the way films were marketed and I think the Bond films did not catch up with this until GE. I remember the Batman logo was everywhere in '89, and I never really noticed the ad campaign of LTK the same year when I think back.
Its possible TLD was the last Bond for a while that was made safely without so much eye on the competition, and this fact makes it much more of a Bond film in my eyes.

[Ambler]

Well, we're veering off-topic again, but gross is meaningless unless one has the spend figures for comparison; profitability is what matters and QoS cost so much it is unlikely to be particularly profitable. Look at the gross of Mama Mia, its budget and marketing spend, then compare to QoS.

[jaguar007]

Well, we're veering off-topic again, but gross is meaningless unless one has the spend figures for comparison; profitability is what matters and QoS cost so much it is unlikely to be particularly profitable. Look at the gross of Mama Mia, its budget and marketing spend, then compare to QoS.

Good point and very true. QoS, while it was very successful and made buckets of money, it was not as successful as CR. It did not have as high of an international gross, it cost alot more to make and it had lower DVD sales than CR.

TLD, made much less than any of the Brosnan films, but the production cost was also much lower ($40million V/S $100million - $150million)