45 replies to this topic

[licensetostudy]

I'm under the impression that THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN was the LICENCE TO KILL of its day: a Bond actor's second film performing disappointingly at the box office.

Was TMWTGG really a flop? If so, why do you think it did poorly?

Was Moore the problem? Were audiences still hankering after Connery? Were people tired of Bond at that point? Did the film come out too soon after LIVE AND LET DIE? Did it not deliver enough thrills and spills (it seems to me lighter on action than just about any other 007 flick save perhaps DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE)? Did it go up against stiff competition at cinemas? Or was TMWTGG just considered a load of rubbish?

There was a period between YOLT and TMWTGG where the series was thought to be tired and certainly the spy and Bond craze had long ended. Critics were always amazed that the film's still continued. The most popular picture around 1974 were independent movies like Martin Scorsese's Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore with social and political commentarys that spoke to Americans frustrated and tired of Vietnam, Watergate, the Nixon era, and people felt there was no hope and politicans were always going to be corrupt. TMWTGG is before the late seventies when the Blockbuster came about like Rocky and Star Wars which spoke to people's desires and need for hope, a better future, and lighter entertainment became popular again. The Man With the Golden Gun was too light and pop in a time of great political and social frustration when audiences and film makers demanded pictures they could relate to. Also, Moore wasn't very popular either according to the primary sources I looked at and he lacked Connery's coolness. LALD was viewed as racist, while critics were not happy with the mean jerk Moore played in Golden Gun who beat women and was basically cruel towards those he didn't have to be. They just didn't like Moore's meany 007.

Edited by licensetostudy, 10 February 2005 - 10:37 PM.

[Get_MOOre7]

Why do people KEEP using Klast's site for info?

There are so many errors on that site that it is literally mind boggling.


The grosses listed ther are simply wrong period.


LALD made $161.8 million, not this constantly wrongly reported $126.4 million.


So because TMWTGG made $97.6 million from that $161.8 million yes it was a disapointment.

Yet it was still a huge hit in that time.


And YES LALD grossed $161.8 million, this has been verified over and over by everyone who has checked and YET even "official" books keep saying $126.4 million.


Where does this garbage come from? And Klast's site is so full of errors it can't be used for anything.

Edited by Get_MOOre7, 15 February 2005 - 06:54 PM.

[Solex Agitator]

I know that I paid a few admissions to see it multiple times in 1974 at the ripe old age of 9! I saw it at least 5 times on its intitial release and then again a couple of years later in re-release on a worn print Bond double bill (with TSWLM if memory serves). I can proudly say that I was more than happy to contribute to its box-office take. Still am.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I have a soft spot for The Man With The Golden Gun because I have fond memories of it being my first Bond cinematic experience.

[hrabb04]

It failed enough to put the fear of God into the producers who decided to gamble it all on the next one. I have long wondered why they brought Roger back for a 3rd one, while canning Dalton for a potential third after his second picture was a disappointment. Both Dalton's and Moore's 1st Bonds did respectable business in light of their successor's movies.

[Mr. Somerset]

I don't think I'd call it a failure as such, however it didn't repeat the success the films of the 60s had: GF, TB, YOLT.

[doublenoughtspy]

Get_MOOre7, the 161 total is simply adding up the US (35) & the foreign (126) to get the 161.

If people are quoting the foreign total only then that isn't Kimberly's fault.

The thing you have to look at with MWGG is the admissions - 10 million in the US.

That is the lowest total EVER in the history of Bond films up to that point.

So considering that it was Roger's second film, thus his salary was higher, Hamilton's director salary would have been higher, writer's salary higher, I would imagine that Lee would command more than Yapphet Koto, and that Asia was more expensive to film in the US - MWGG cost more than L&LD by a far margin.

It was a big box office failure. But fans ultimately benefitted because it made them go for broke and we got TSWLM.

And that discussion of Watergate being a possible cause for the box office failure of MWGG? Please!!!

I'm sure people sat around and thought "Damn that Richard Nixon. I will punish him by not seeing the new Bond film."

But of course that reasoning still stands in Hollywood - Paramount tried to blame the total box office flop of the remake Alfie on the elections and the conservative climate. Yeah right. It had nothing to do with the film sucking or the fact that it was the 6th film in two months to star Jude Law.

MWGG fails in so many areas. Lee is an excellent actor but he isn't given much to do. A miget butler doesn't help.

Weak score & title song. Weak re-tread poster campaign. Weak leading lady.

Do I get excited about seeing Bond go to the pharmacy so he can puke or poop out a golden bullet? Here's a shocker. No.

[CBN_Rules]

Yes it would seem the correct gross was $35.4 million in the US, and $126.4 million overseas, for $161.8 million worldwide for Live and Let Die, and also $82 million worldwide for On Her Majesty's Secret Service according to www.the-numbers.com and www.imdb.com.


This seems in direct disagreement with klast.net, The James Bond Legacy and the Bond forums www.mi6.co.uk, the www.ajb007.co.uk's James Bond multi media site, this site's gross numbers, and The James Bond fan club's numbers. Although www.bondmovies.com has Live and Let Die at $161 million even, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service at $82 million. On IanFleming.org there is a statement of Live and Let Die grossing $161.8 million, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service grossing $82 million, but they list the $126.4 and $64.6 million figures under the grosses. The other sites all say $126.4 million for Live and Let Die and $64.6 million for On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

imdb says the $126.4 million gross for Live and Let Die was just the non-US gross. The-numbers.com said the same and that the $64.6 million gross for On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the non-United Kingdom gross only.



This Bond book, listed by Eon as an official book on the franchise,


THE ESSENTIAL BOND:

THE AUTHORIZED GUIDE TO THE WORLD OF 007

Written by Lee Preiffer & Dave Worrall

1985


"George Lazenby played 007 in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which was budgeted at $7 million and grossed well over $80 million worldwide. Sean Connery next returned to the role of James Bond in Diamonds Are Forever, in which he donated his salary to charity."

"In hopes to keep the 007 franchise going the producers injected humor and sight gags that would continue with Roger Moore. Thanks to the return of Connery, Diamond's worldwide gross was $116 million. Roger Moore made his debut in Live And Let Die, although Timothy Dalton was also considered for the role. It was budgeted at $7 million. This was the only film that Q didn't appear in. The movie's gross exceeded $161 million ensuring that Roger Moore would return as 007. Moore would then follow up with The Man With The Golden Gun, budgeted at $7 million. Roger Moore's seventh appearance as 007 was his last in A View to a Kill, which was a lackluster production. Despite that, it earned $152 million at the box office."


I did a net search looking for this text to see if any excerpts were available online and found one here

http://hometown.aol....e/issue133.html

Notice that the person that typed the text made several grammatical errors, and even quite hilariously really, called George Lazenby, George Lucas. Anyway someone at least had the text online. So it would appear on this one klast.net and most of the Bond forums are wrong.


Also according to boxofficemojo.com

The Man With The Golden Gun actually had 11.2 million US admissions.

These sites say so too,

http://www.freewebs..../admissions.htm


http://bondmovies.com/boxoffice.shtml


And imdb.com and also this site

http://www.freewebs....talsnumbers.htm

Say The man With The Golden Gun had $9.45 million in US rentals.


So all in all the film was still a huge box office hit, but just did quite poorly compared to the other Bond films, making even less than On Her Majesty's Secret Service when factoring inflation in.

Edited by CBN_Rules, 09 March 2005 - 08:41 PM.

[00Nothing]

I have to say I enjoy TMWTGG. While not the most subtle or original film of the series (it more or less was cashing in on the martial arts craze at the time), it does have some hugely enjoyable sequences, although I do get uncomfortable seeing Moore beat Maud Adams around like a rag doll. I think the problem with the movie for some people is that Moore was still developing his Bond. There were elements of Connery in the film that just didn't sit right with Moore's charm.

As for the box office, it was the lowest at the time, the reason simply being people were not interested in Bond in the early seventies. I agree that all this talk about the political climate is bull. Put simply, people were not into Bond at the time. Of course that would change in 1977.

[Qwerty]

So all in all the film was still a huge box office hit, but just did quite poorly compared to the other Bond films, making even less than On Her Majesty's Secret Service when factoring inflation in.

Baasically, yes. You can call it a failure from a Bond film standpoint, comparing it to alot of the other films. Simply looking right at it's box office, it didn't do too bad.

[David Schofield]

I think the basic problem ith Golden Gun is its overall cheapness - from trying to Conneryise Moore, from the rush after LALD to get it to the box office, to its almost identical marketing campaign, to its like of major set pieces, to having the notion of Nick Nack as "henchman", from pinching from cheap kung fu movies, from, basically, having nothing to recommend/remember it by than the waste presence of Chris Lee. Hell, it doesn't even ignite passions in Bond fans about it compared with the others - think Sean's appearance and th tone of DAF, George and OHMSS, Roger and AVTAK, Tim and LALD, Brosnan as Bond.

Golden Gun is just a nothing, insignificant Bond film.

Now think, had it been really done as a mano-a-mano struggle like Fleming's novel (in which I always picture Lee up against early Sean/Tim/Horak's drawing)Golden Gun would have got fans attention.

As it was, The Man with the Golden Gun - so what?

[SecretAgentFan]

I do enjoy some sequences of TMWTGG, especialla Lee as the villain, and I also think that Moore was good as Bond. But the story is just not that excitingly laid out - and NickNack was just not menacing, Sheriff Pepper shouldn

[Loomis]

I think the basic problem ith Golden Gun is its overall cheapness - from trying to Conneryise Moore, from the rush after LALD to get it to the box office, to its almost identical marketing campaign, to its like of major set pieces, to having the notion of Nick Nack as "henchman", from pinching from cheap kung fu movies, from, basically, having nothing to recommend/remember it by than the waste presence of Chris Lee. Hell, it doesn't even ignite passions in Bond fans about it compared with the others - think Sean's appearance and th tone of DAF, George and OHMSS, Roger and AVTAK, Tim and LALD, Brosnan as Bond.

Golden Gun is just a nothing, insignificant Bond film.

Now think, had it been really done as a mano-a-mano struggle like Fleming's novel (in which I always picture Lee up against early Sean/Tim/Horak's drawing)Golden Gun would have got fans attention.

As it was, The Man with the Golden Gun - so what?

I probably disagree with this post more strongly than I've ever disagreed with any post on CBn, but, hey, to each his own.

[David Schofield]

I think the basic problem ith Golden Gun is its overall cheapness - from trying to Conneryise Moore, from the rush after LALD to get it to the box office, to its almost identical marketing campaign, to its like of major set pieces, to having the notion of Nick Nack as "henchman", from pinching from cheap kung fu movies, from, basically, having nothing to recommend/remember it by than the waste presence of Chris Lee. Hell, it doesn't even ignite passions in Bond fans about it compared with the others - think Sean's appearance and th tone of DAF, George and OHMSS, Roger and AVTAK, Tim and LALD, Brosnan as Bond.

Golden Gun is just a nothing, insignificant Bond film.

Now think, had it been really done as a mano-a-mano struggle like Fleming's novel (in which I always picture Lee up against early Sean/Tim/Horak's drawing)Golden Gun would have got fans attention.

As it was, The Man with the Golden Gun - so what?

I probably disagree with this post more strongly than I've ever disagreed with any post on CBn, but, hey, to each his own.

Loomis, EXCELLENT - some passion about Golden Gun. As you say, each to their own: you obviously like the film very much and I had really to summon the energy to write the critique above.

[CBN_Rules]

Personally I think it is one of the MOST memorable of all the Bond films, but to each his own.

Isn't it odd how the majority of "Bond fans" say that Lazenby and Dalton should not have gotten further films based on box office, yet look at the Moore example.

TMwtgg had a big drop in box office, then Cubby changed some things and boom huge hit in TSWLM.

The people that constantly keep nagging on this Lazenby/Dalton box office, just can't get that it's the films and how they are made, and the climate at the time/timing of the release that REALLy dictates the gross, not who played Bond so much.

To argue this point it to very much ignore the gross patterns of Moore's first 3 films. If you believe in the Dalton'Lazenby killed box office then how would you explain Moore and TMWTGG/TSWLM?

Edited by CBN_Rules, 16 March 2005 - 05:01 PM.

[Loomis]

Loomis, EXCELLENT - some passion about Golden Gun. As you say, each to their own: you obviously like the film very much and I had really to summon the energy to write the critique above.

Well, someone's got to be passionate about THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, I suppose.

As CBN_Rules so rightly states:

Isn't it odd how the majority of "Bond fans" say that Lazenby and Dalton should not have gotten further films based on box office, yet look at the Moore example.

TMwtgg had a big drop in box office, then Cubby changed some things and boom huge hit in TSWLM.

The people that constantly keep nagging on this Lazenby/Dalton box office, just can't get that it's the films and how they are made, and the climate at the time/timing of the release that REALLy dictates the gross, not who played Bond so much.

To argue this point it to very much ignore the gross patterns of Moore's first 3 films. If you believe in the Dalton'Lazenby killed box office then how would you explain Moore and TMWTGG/TSWLM?