8 replies to this topic

[Victor Zokas]

I'm thinking of the box office returns here, and looking at the figures inflation adjusted for 1999, OHMSS took in $292m.

That's more than NSNA, AVTAK, TLD and LTK, and not far away from a lot of other Bonds in the $300-350m range.

So why is it always talked about that OHMSS was a box office failure and the worst in the series?

[Ry]

I understand that many people are not interested in the grosses of teh Bond film especially when they are not adjusted. But if you look at the number of the film previous and following OHMSS you can see where it is a down point in the series as far as box office goes. It went dramatically up when COnnery returned.

Here are the numbers:

DN: 60 mil
FRWL: 79 mil
GF: 124 mil
TB: 141 mil
YOLT: 112 mil
OHMSS: 82 mil
DAF: 116 mil
LALD: 161 mil
TMWTGG: 98 mil
TSWLM: 185 mil
MR: 203 mil
FYEO: 195 mil
OP: 184 mil
AVTAK: 152 mil
TLD: 191 mil
LTK: 156 mil
GE: 351 mil
TND: 334 mil
TWINE: 390 mil

According to these numbers OHMSS is ranked pretty low interms of box office returns even with inflation. What can I say...great Bond film, but not great at the box-office. I am sure there are other that can argue that it was still a great success!

[Hugo Drax]

If I remember correctly it cost 10m to make and grossed 82m. Hardly a faliure.

MGM is probably making a tidy profit off it now though! In my opinion, Peter Hunt should have directed more of the films, he had the balls to stick to the Fleming book!

[Mister Asterix]

On Her Majesty

[Ry]

On Her Majesty's Secret Service cost 4.8 million dollars. Not to bad concidering it made 82 million!

[ray t]

fact:

Michael Wilson said that OHMSS took a lot longer to make money for the studio.

i think it was 2 years after its release date that OHMSS was in the black as far as the accountants were concerned.

in those days non-english speaking/ non-european territiories would get "hollywood" films months and even a year or two after the us/uk release date.

lets just say it wasnt the mega-hit that THUNDERBALL was.

[Victor Zokas]

OK it wasn't a mega hit, but on the ajusted list, there are several that have done worse. Why single it out as a failure?

[mrmoon]

ray t (18 Apr, 2002 02:18 a.m.):

in those days non-english speaking/ non-european territiories would get "hollywood" films months and even a year or two after the us/uk release date.

That's true, have u ever seen the pic of location shooting in India for Octopussy with a cinema in the background advertising Moonraker. That's 3years+

[Turn]

It's kind of hard to define "failure." If we're going by box office receipts alone, yeah, OHMSS is a failure compared to the others. But tracking box office, opening weekend grosses, etc. is such a modern thing.

My theory is that it got singled out as a failure because Lazenby left the role, couldn't find other roles, and dragged the picture down with him somewhat. It didn't help the promotion. He was also battling the ghost of Connery. A lot of people probably incorrectly thought he was fired.

The length of it also made it hard to rerelease, although I saw it on a double feature with Diamonds Are Forever in 1974. It was shown on ABC quite a bit over the years, but Lazenby wasn't Connery or Moore. Same reason ABC didn't show it on the recent Bond Picture show. It's the fickle general public that thinks OHMSS is a failure, sort of how some people think of the Dalton era.

The bottom line is the fans love OHMSS. That's the only people whose opinion you should worry about, Victor. If there had been an OHMSS video game at the time, maybe it would have been a lot more popular with general public. Know what I mean?