Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Roger's Movie Competition


65 replies to this topic

#31 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 29 June 2003 - 02:54 AM

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


Yes that may be true but you forget that the generation that grew up with Indiana Jones as kids are now adults and have kids of their own. That means they are likely to take their kids to see a new Indiana Jones movie partly because they like the series themselves but also because they remember having good fun going to see the earlier movies when they were their childrens age.


No, I actually did take that into account and would count myself as part of that demographic. I remember there being very little about Raiders before it was first released. I saw an article in an old magazine called Famous Monsters and knew I wanted to see it.

But back to the case, it kind of reminds me of the Bond series in the sense that some older kids and teens may consider the Indy series their dad's generation of hero and therefore it is uncool. They would likely possibly opt for whatever the latest Fast and Furious clone is out there or the like.

#32 4 Ur Eyez Only

4 Ur Eyez Only

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1554 posts

Posted 29 June 2003 - 05:59 AM

you know the more I think about it .. I think this makes Sean & Roger the only true Bonds! because they had no worries about putting them against true competition!

I personally think Roger's is harder.. because they made 007 movies in the past and with roger they had to make stuff all new and note dated.. plus going up against the true blue print of summer blockbusters! I already listed the directors & actors he was up against..

but still I think this is where they made a mistake with Timothy.. yes his first movies did great.. but they thought tim was roger and the audience felt the same.. but they were not ready for a eye opener! since then they dont even risk it with Pierce.. who knows if he is one of the heavy hitters and can draw in the summer against the major releases.. they dont give him a chance..

I think we all can see Sean was Bond! He started it all.. and made everyone a fan of the character.. because of the movies, not many read books..

& Roger brought everything to the role with from the books to his own twist.. he made a brand new character.. really the FULL character.. not just 2 emotions like sean.. Roger was so huge that Cubby had no problem listening to the audience.. and not the critics who were back & forth with him... The money going audience would look for roger's 007.. and even chose his movies in the middle of different Indy Movies, Rambo, Eddie Murphy, & Star Wars! That shows allot of respect for Roger by cubby to not hide his movies from all the major sequels and blockbusters of the 70's/80's

I think this is the key (for me :) ) why Roger & Sean are the best!! Tim they just didn't give him a chance they just froze when LTK didn't find a audience against Batman and other movies then.

#33 4 Ur Eyez Only

4 Ur Eyez Only

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1554 posts

Posted 04 July 2003 - 09:19 PM

You know what I was thinking about today..

T3

and July 4th weekend..

*IF we had a REAL James Bond actor & a group/crew behind him with scripts,ideas that are fresh,ect...

They would have the GUTS to put any new 007 Film out now.. like they did for Roger Moore!:cool:

so.. sad they have to hide Pierce's 007 Movies in the fall.. wouldn't it be nice to see if Pierece would sink or swim.. against the real Big Boys in Hollywood .. and when they put out all their Major Summer Blockbusters..

*I guess them not doing it.. tells us what the 007 crew really thinks about Pierce's drawing power.

#34 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 05 July 2003 - 03:41 AM

I think EON learned a lesson when LTK sank in the summer of '89 (its artistic merits or faults aside). And they moved the films back to a place where they have a better chance and I support their decision.

The summer movie season is a bloody battleground. It's gone from seeing who could gross $100 million for the season to who could gross $X million over the opening weekend to setting expectations on how much something is supposed to gross on its opening weekend and labeling it a hit or failure from there. Every week it's another huge production ready to take the previous one's place.

The bottom line is too much product with a more bang-for-the-buck quality means things place even more emphais on the opening weekend and to hell with it from there because it made its money.

By moving back to November, DAD was able to not only win its opening weekend, but had the "legs" to win it again two or three weeks later as more high-profile holiday movies came out. So why mess with that type of success. There are fewer movies with the action/adventure theme. I'd much rather see a Bond film get knocked off the no. 1 slot by a Lord of the Rings film than Charlie's Angels anyday.

#35 4 Ur Eyez Only

4 Ur Eyez Only

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1554 posts

Posted 05 July 2003 - 06:32 AM

Roger was a Rare Breed as Kamal Khan said :)

But they did learn from Timothy & now Pierce.. that neither one of them having the drawing power of Roger!

Rambo 2 is a s big as you get.. and Roger went up against it & Sly Stallone.. Eddie Murphy..Spielberg's Peak, George Lucas's Peak..ect.

The closest thing to Rambo 2 now is.. Spiderman 2 (which is upcoming) Lets see The Next 007 Movie go up against that!!

007 Owners love throwing Public Realtions BS of "Pierce is like Sean"... blah,blah,blah..

well "They" put Sean & Roger up against whoever.. not worrying about anyone!

Lets really see what Pierce is.. (I Think we all ready know;) )

The Peak of the series is Roger because they had the balls to compete against the big boys and they still made TONS of money.. & all the movies competing with Roger's 007 are the same audience..

$$$ = Roger

If not they would have hid him in November as well..

#36 DanMan

DanMan

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2009 posts
  • Location:The City That Never Sleeps

Posted 07 July 2003 - 05:23 PM

Don't forget that AVTAK went up against Rambo 2 and it did mediocre Box Office. I'd rather see a Bond movie gross more in the fall than less in the summer. DAD went up against some really big releases. Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings, ring a bell?

#37 goldengun

goldengun

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 209 posts

Posted 07 July 2003 - 05:35 PM

Going thru the lists makes me appreciate Roger Moore's BOnd films even more. Look at the films he had to compete against, right from the big 70's films through the Blockbuster 80's. The amount of fan frenzy generated for films such as Indiana Jones and Star Wars is not seen today. And going up against Rocky, The Godfather, etc. - not easy.

For Roger, he took the franchise through the dark 70's and gave it a good jump into the blockbuster 80's.

A very healthy franchise was created and maintained from 1973 through 1985.

#38 4 Ur Eyez Only

4 Ur Eyez Only

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1554 posts

Posted 07 July 2003 - 06:22 PM

It is pretty Odd.. Cubby had didn't care about all these MAJOR 80's Blockbusters..

he just Put Roger's 007 Movies out there.. I personally wouldn't have messed with the Star Wars Series! I mean come on that is basically the same audience..

But Cubby didn't care! He went right after the Major Hitters of that Era.

Very Hardcore if you ask me :)

I respect Cubby for that! I bet HE KNEW the had the right team!

Cubby + John Glen + Roger Moore = $$$$$$$ :cool:

But still Cubby to go Cut Throat up against the Big Boys without even blinking is amazing .. time after time :)

( I do agree If Cubby released some of these Roger 007's a month before or after "The Big Boys" of the summer.. they prbably would have grossed $15-30 Million dollars more)

:):cool:

#39 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 07 July 2003 - 09:13 PM

Originally posted by goldengun
Going thru the lists makes me appreciate Roger Moore's BOnd films even more.  Look at the films he had to compete against, right from the big 70's films through the Blockbuster 80's.  The amount of fan frenzy generated for films such as Indiana Jones and Star Wars is not seen today.  And going up against Rocky, The Godfather, etc.  - not easy.


Yes, Spiderman, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings try to emulate and capture that same 1980s mega blockbuster feel but it simply isn't as frenzied. Anyone who thinks DAD went up against tough competition needs to time warp back to 1977 to see what real competition in the movie theaters is.

#40 4 Ur Eyez Only

4 Ur Eyez Only

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1554 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 06:18 AM

yes I agree.. we are talking about in the late 70's is where all the stuff we see today was basically invented!

sure a few years before Planet of the Apes might have started it.. with Merch, sequels,hype..

But george lucas & steven spielberg brought it the the next level!! That is were everything was new!

Now a days... every movie is hyped like a "blockbuster" with toys and hype.. but nothing has staying power really! a few do.. but when every movie is hyped as the next big thing & then 3 weeks later they are getting ready to be moved into the $1 Theaters..

it's not real..

* I think for me the first hyped movie that had the "summer blockbuster" tag/ push.. that the summer is the place to release movies and the whole blue print was in place.. because they notice it kept working was..

Indy 2 & the Temple of Doom in 1984.. sure there were sequels before, but that was still trail blazing ground..

Then I'd say Rambo 2 1985.. I think by 1984.. Hollywood knew something was woring here for sure.. and EVERYONE started to figure out the best time to release movie and it became more corp.. more business like.

#41 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 08 July 2003 - 08:02 PM

I think it's tough to compare eras. Consider in '77 that the success of Star Wars blindsided a lot of people. Nobody thought it would take off the way it did. I doubt Broccoli looked at the schedule and considered he should move Spy back because of Star Wars. I'd be curious, though, why he did schedule it there rather than the traditional Xmas slot, although TMWTGG's disappointing take there may have been a factor.

Back then, movies could stick around longer on initial releases, but there were less theaters. I remember Star Wars premiered in my area in early July and played through October at one theater. I think Spy lasted maybe a week, which was weird. It was one of the few Bonds I never saw in a theater. So there was a different spin on competition.

Some movies stuck around longer and some blockbusters were rereleased or on double features as video was in its infancy and you'd have to wait around for two or three years before it came to network television.

#42 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 08 July 2003 - 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Turn

Some movies stuck around longer and some blockbusters were rereleased or on double features as video was in its infancy and you'd have to wait around for two or three years before it came to network television.


Yes, video was not a home based medium until 1982.

#43 4 Ur Eyez Only

4 Ur Eyez Only

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1554 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 10:28 PM

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


Yes, video was not a home based medium until 1982.


Yeah I remember Octopussy was HUGE in video rental stores!! All those early movies that were new and came on video .. made soooo much money

I think a rental price was about $4.20 back then.. To buy a VHS Tape some were $65 & a blank tape cost us $15 each

Kinda has changed huh:D

#44 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 11 July 2003 - 01:08 AM

Originally posted by 4 Ur Eyez Only


Yeah I remember Octopussy was HUGE in video rental stores!! All those early movies that were new and came on video .. made soooo much money

I think a rental price was about $4.20 back then.. To buy a VHS Tape some were $65 & a blank tape cost us $15 each

Kinda has changed huh:D


Whats funny is it used to take about a year for movies to appear on VHS. Nowadays people are used to a shorter window, it makes me wonder how some of the younger generation would react if they had to deal with the way it used to be (over a year before it appears on video).

#45 BondNumber7

BondNumber7

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 245 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 11 July 2003 - 02:07 AM

I didn't get my first VCR until Christmas 1985, and throughout 1986 I rented all the Bond films and had a jolly fun time. In those days when we couldn't find video's to buy, we just taped the Bond films using two video cassette recorders after renting them.

#46 4 Ur Eyez Only

4 Ur Eyez Only

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1554 posts

Posted 11 July 2003 - 03:45 AM

We got our first VCR in 1980.. and our first rental was Goldfinger ( My dad loved that and didn't see it for years & years)

you had to wish & wait for it to be on the ABC Movie of the week :)

But it was pretty good the first time I saw it.. My first Video My Parents bought for me for christmas was Raider of the Lost Ark!! and it cost them around $55 bucks:rolleyes::):)

#47 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 11 July 2003 - 11:52 AM

Originally posted by 4 Ur Eyez Only
We got our first VCR in 1980.. and our first rental was Goldfinger ( My dad loved that and didn't see it for years & years)


Are you sure about that date 4 Ur Eyez Only? VCRs did not really come onto the market until 1982.

Originally posted by 4 Ur Eyez Only
My first Video My Parents bought for me for christmas was Raider of the Lost Ark!! and it cost them around $55 bucks:rolleyes::):)


Raiders of the Lost Ark was released in the theaters in 1981 and not on VHS for a year and a half later (in late 1982, early 1983).

#48 ray t

ray t

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1394 posts

Posted 11 July 2003 - 05:31 PM

Originally posted by 4 Ur Eyez Only
you know the more I think about it .. I think this makes Sean & Roger the only true Bonds! because they had no worries about putting them against true competition!



i think youre WAY off the mark, old boy....

TND opened on the exact same weekend as TITANIC....a mega oscar winner and arguably the most expensive and most profitabe movie of all time (even inflation adjusted)

and, oh, i guess LORT THE TWO TOWERS and Harry Potter 2 were just chopped liver that book-ended Die Another Day.

LORT2 and HP 2 were gargantuan at the box office and were expected to be so just one year after their original episodes and still EON put it on the line....so i'd rethink your comment

#49 ray t

ray t

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1394 posts

Posted 11 July 2003 - 05:38 PM

[i]
so.. sad they have to hide Pierce's 007 Movies in the fall.. wouldn't it be nice to see if Pierece would sink or swim.. against the real Big Boys in Hollywood .. and when they put out all their Major Summer Blockbusters..

*I guess them not doing it.. tells us what the 007 crew really thinks about Pierce's drawing power. [/B]



once again...this is rediculously outrageous....Titanic and LORT2 and Harry Potter2 were bigger on any adjusted level than most of rogers competing movies on an international level EXCEPT perhaps the original Star Wars. thats it.

do some homework before coming to such laughable conclusions

#50 ray t

ray t

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1394 posts

Posted 11 July 2003 - 05:54 PM

so what is true summer competition?

if DAD was released this summer it would have a 3 month window all the way from late may to late august and would be up against:

X2:cool:

Matrix Reloaded:cool:

Bruce Almighty

Finding Nemo:)

Charlies Angels:rolleyes:

T3:cool:

pirates of the carribean

the league of extraordinary gentlemen

tomb raider 2

bad boyz 2

etc

i'd wager, none of these movies will turn out to be as BIG as titanic in 1997/98 or LORT 2/HP 2 in 2002/3

none of them....guaranteed!

#51 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 11 July 2003 - 06:33 PM

Originally posted by ray t



i think youre WAY off the mark, old boy....

TND opened on the exact same weekend as TITANIC....a mega oscar winner and arguably the most expensive and most profitabe movie of all time (even inflation adjusted)

and, oh, i guess LORT THE TWO TOWERS and Harry Potter 2 were just chopped liver that book-ended Die Another Day.

LORT2 and HP 2 were gargantuan at the box office and were expected to be so just one year after their original episodes and still EON put it on the line....so i'd rethink your comment


You may be jumping a bit ahead yourself. Prior to its release, a lot of people thought Titanic could be a potential flop due to the overruns and production problems. It was originally scheduled to premier in the summer of '97 but had to be moved back to the Xmas season.

I remember Roger Ebert commenting before it was released it would be a bunch of people looking back as the boat sank and not expecting much. In retrospect, we know what a behemoth Titanic was at the box office, critically and at awards time, and it earned its place in history.

But can you honestly say at this time six years ago you would have bet your life savings on it doing what it did? Besides, the demographic was split into a good way so that both Titanic and TND could benefit. Bond for the action movie and guy crowds and Titanic appealed to several other demographics. And I'm sure a lot of others swapped one for the other if one was sold out, so it worked out for everybody.

And don't forget that TND was also pushed back a bit further to the Xmas season due to its late production start. They needed that film to be released sometime during the holiday season.

I agree with the other summer films not coming close to Potter or LOTR TTT as far as box office. But it will be interesting next summer when the next Potter film comes out.

#52 4 Ur Eyez Only

4 Ur Eyez Only

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1554 posts

Posted 12 July 2003 - 01:15 AM

Episode 3!

Lets see if Pierce and his Era has ANY balls.. to go up against George Lucas's Last Star Wars film!!

Roger did.. they didn't even blink.. Cubby & Roger went up against the last of that era's Star Wars films..

NOW lets see if Pierce & Cubby's kids will finally put Pierce in the Summer & up against Lucas's last star wars film now! Hey he has had enough time to build an audience hiding in thr fall... BUT you "hope" by Pierce's 5th & 6th Bond film.. they can finally bring the 007 Films back to the summer..:)

They won't.. I wouldn't .. because we all know it would BOMB! :) with Pierce of course.. hide him and keep shooting out that "Public Relations' about how Pierce is god..blah blah blah.. "he is Sean".. blah blah blah.. "The series is back to the past before that aweful Glen/Roger" ..blah blah blah

Yeah whatever!

ALL I know is they have to HIDE Pierce's Movies in the fall.

GO up against neck & neck with the last Star Wars!

Cubby & Roger would :cool:

#53 ray t

ray t

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1394 posts

Posted 12 July 2003 - 06:33 AM

Originally posted by 4 Ur Eyez Only
Episode 3!

Lets see if Pierce and his Era has ANY balls.. to go up against George Lucas's Last Star Wars film!!

Roger did.. they didn't even blink.. Cubby & Roger went up against the last of that era's Star Wars films..

NOW lets see if Pierce & Cubby's kids will finally put Pierce in the Summer & up against Lucas's last star wars film now! Hey he has had enough time to build an audience hiding in thr fall... BUT you "hope" by Pierce's 5th & 6th Bond film.. they can finally bring the 007 Films back to the summer..:)

They won't.. I wouldn't .. because we all know it would BOMB! :) with Pierce of course.. hide him and keep shooting out that "Public Relations' about how Pierce is god..blah blah blah.. "he is Sean".. blah blah blah.. "The series is back to the past before that aweful Glen/Roger" ..blah blah blah

Yeah whatever!

ALL I know is they have to HIDE Pierce's Movies in the fall.

GO up against neck & neck with the last Star Wars!

Cubby & Roger would :cool:


your ENTIRE post is juvenile....moronic....

idiotic

u must have smoked a big fat joint laced with something extraordinary before typing the above...and u think your so, ummm, cool......

#54 ray t

ray t

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1394 posts

Posted 12 July 2003 - 06:41 AM

appologies to the forum members.....

#55 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 12 July 2003 - 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Turn


I agree with the other summer films not coming close to Potter or LOTR TTT as far as box office. But it will be interesting next summer when the next Potter film comes out.


Are you seriously suggesting that the original "Star Wars" was not a success??!! :)

#56 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 13 July 2003 - 03:43 AM

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


Are you seriously suggesting that the original "Star Wars" was not a success??!! :)


I should probably clarify myself. I was referring more to Ray T's list of the summer films of 2003, Matrix Reloaded possibly excepted, opposed to the Potter and LOTR sequels.

Nobody could argue with the success of Star Wars.

#57 Dr.Carl Mortner

Dr.Carl Mortner

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 281 posts

Posted 13 July 2003 - 07:02 PM

1985: the beginning of Bond's slide into oblivion. Stallone's Rambo becomes the template on which action movies are made, even though the movie itself is poorly-made, poorly-acted and shows an incredible ignorance of world politics (I'm pretty sure the inspiration for the "Commie-Nazis" on The Simpsons' McBain came from Rambo: First Blood Part Two). Incidentally, I really liked the movie First Blood, but Part Two - the big one - was really stupid.

At the same time as all this sweaty testosterone stuff is going on, EON decides to go and make a movie steeped in androgyny, homosexual overtones and light '80s pastels. And, worst of all, Bond is seen in a kitchen with oven mitts making quiche. That movie was A View To A Kill and, even though I quite like it now, it was a huge misstep. I'm pretty certain that the reason Pierce Brosnan's Bond has been unrepentently spraying bullets around and racking up a Rambo-style body count is overcompensation for AVTAK;P.

#58 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 13 July 2003 - 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Dr.Carl Mortner
That movie was A View To A Kill and, even though I quite like it now, it was a huge misstep.


I loved it in 1985, that was a great year for movies. I know they didn't go head-to-head but 1985 also brought us the "Back to the Future" franchise.

#59 4 Ur Eyez Only

4 Ur Eyez Only

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1554 posts

Posted 14 July 2003 - 07:07 PM

I think by 1985.. allot of other directors had time to catch up with the "action movies" genre..

007 created it.. there were some in the 60's-70's of course.. but I think with Spielberg & allot of money going around to make action films.. other companies just got a blue print and ran with it!

007 created it..

everyone caught up..

everyone put something out..

*There was just more choses for the viewer...

#60 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 15 July 2003 - 11:10 PM

Spielberg and Lucas probably collectively drove the box office of the late 1970s/early 1980s.