96 replies to this topic

[trumanlodge89]

and i hate to say it, but i look at the series having been reboot 3 times. i mean,how many times was auric goldfinger mentioned in a moore film? how many times has brosnan said to dench in a movie, "this is just like when i fought blofeld in a hollowed out volcano"?

Did you never see the "villain's gallery" poster for TMWTGG? Or all the references to Tracy in Moore's, Dalton's and Brosnan's films? Or LazenbyBond with his desk full of ConneryBond memorabilia?

tracy has been mentioned in three or four films since OHMSS.... but really, there has been very little referance to any other movies since FYEO (and i mean plot points, like the "blofeld triology," im not talking about the lasers in DAD being like the laser in GF.) there hasnt been a scene like the one in OHMSS since then. the producers have done very little for continuity in recent years. and im talking about the actual films, not posters or teaser trailers, like the one for AVTAK.

[Atticus17F]

and i hate to say it, but i look at the series having been reboot 3 times. i mean,how many times was auric goldfinger mentioned in a moore film? how many times has brosnan said to dench in a movie, "this is just like when i fought blofeld in a hollowed out volcano"?

Did you never see the "villain's gallery" poster for TMWTGG? Or all the references to Tracy in Moore's, Dalton's and Brosnan's films? Or LazenbyBond with his desk full of ConneryBond memorabilia?

tracy has been mentioned in three or four films since OHMSS.... but really, there has been very little referance to any other movies since FYEO (and i mean plot points, like the "blofeld triology," im not talking about the lasers in DAD being like the laser in GF.) there hasnt been a scene like the one in OHMSS since then. the producers have done very little for continuity in recent years. and im talking about the actual films, not posters or teaser trailers, like the one for AVTAK.

Not sure I understand. Are you saying that because no character has ever referenced Bond's previous exploits through dialogue, his previous exploits didn't happen?

[Kingdom Come]

I don't think it will bomb like LTK - but it won't beat DAD's takings. There will be a plus in that a new actor as Bond will pull other people in that wouldn't normally have gone to the cinema. So the curiosity factor will be back.
The producers will not learn; every time they have done this 'shift', the new film looses money and audience. Though part of me is excited to see what they come up with.

The trouble is, the general audience that see Bond these days are not an age group/s that will be likely to appreciate the avenue of the new film.

There is a feeling from a couple of years ago that all this stemmed from Purvis/Wade being creatively bankrupt. There is a taste of we have to go where these two writers want us to go, whether we like it or not. I kinda resent that to an extent.

[Stephenson]

If someone can convince the studio that they don't need to throw $150 million over a half baked script built around product placements, explosions and CGI to make a "HIT", that the film will be much better if they cap the budget at $40 to $50 million so that a $120 million box office will actually generate a profit, then not only will it not bomb, but everyone will be happy.

[trumanlodge89]

and i hate to say it, but i look at the series having been reboot 3 times. i mean,how many times was auric goldfinger mentioned in a moore film? how many times has brosnan said to dench in a movie, "this is just like when i fought blofeld in a hollowed out volcano"?

Did you never see the "villain's gallery" poster for TMWTGG? Or all the references to Tracy in Moore's, Dalton's and Brosnan's films? Or LazenbyBond with his desk full of ConneryBond memorabilia?

tracy has been mentioned in three or four films since OHMSS.... but really, there has been very little referance to any other movies since FYEO (and i mean plot points, like the "blofeld triology," im not talking about the lasers in DAD being like the laser in GF.) there hasnt been a scene like the one in OHMSS since then. the producers have done very little for continuity in recent years. and im talking about the actual films, not posters or teaser trailers, like the one for AVTAK.

Not sure I understand. Are you saying that because no character has ever referenced Bond's previous exploits through dialogue, his previous exploits didn't happen?

all im saying is that each movie stands by itself. there has been little referance to his previous experiences in the movies that followed, so really, any of the movies could have been considered a reboot any time a new actor took over the role. i think the series itself has many different ways to interpret the passage of time. really, the one common thread since connery left the series is bond being widowed. perhaps if producers did a better job casting the actors to play blofeld and felix liter, it would be a bit more cut and dry, but its thrre different blofelds and 7 different liters, so really you could watch any three movies from 1962-1989 and say (for example), "ok, OHMSS happened, then FYEO then DAF." blofeld wears the neck brace from the end of OHMSS in FYEO, gets dropped in a chimney and then undergoes extensive plastic surgery, leading to DAF."


i think we're both saying the same thing differently. really, the whole series can be interpreted many ways.

[BondIsMoore]

I am very pissed about the way there going about making the new Bond. Let's see, This will be one of Bond's first missions but we still have Judi Dench playing M.Mmmmmmmmmmmm right, that makes a whack of sense.

[Marc-Ange]

Bond is a timeless and contemporary character. Just try and not pre-judge the movie. Try to enjoy it. If the story is good, the actors good, and the directing good, it will be a good movie. Honestly, people are making quantum leap assumptions without much to go on.

[luciusgore]

It's just troubling that so long after Die Another Day, the producers would still be sticking with Purvis and Wade who simply don't match ANY of the other Bond screenwriters. Even Goldeneye had a much better story. Why not bring back all the writers of Goldeneye? There are thousands of excellent writers out there. Nicholas Meyer was almost brought on board to help with Tomorrow Never Dies. Why not use him?

Finally, why not take Quentin Tarantino up on his offer? If Purvis and Wade was the best they could find, they could have given Tarantino a shot.

Now, McMahon is being considered for the role of 007. If they go that route, the Bond series could end up as a direct-to-video film franchise, or maybe become a TV series. The key to success is quality. For some reason, the Bond producers seem to be turning quality down for something else. Perhaps they personally like Purvis and Wade, they're all chummy with them or something, so they keep giving them the writing gig. Peraps Brosnan's primadonna antics ticked them off. Perhaps they thought Tarantino was a big of an egomaniac.

But in the end, it's what is on screen that matters. Quality first. They seem to be saying no to quality if the talent doesn't kiss their . They said no to Tarantino because he wouldn't kiss their . Well, they'll kill the family franchise if they have too much of that attitude. They need to hire real talent.

Apparently, some of the success of Goldeneye came about in spire of Michael and Barbara. It was the then-MGM chief Calley who pushed them to hire Brosnan over Dalton. They were on the road to making another crapfest. He refused to fund the movie if they didn't use at least some sense in making it.

Like Michael Jackson, Michael and Barbara don't seem to want to hear criticism. Their franchise is sinking. It needs a proper overhaul. Fresh blood on the writing and directing side, not the acting side. That means no Purvis and Wade. And they shoud have stuck with Brosnan.

[right idea, wrong pussy]

I am not one of those people who seem to gain a perverse sense of joy from predicting CR's downfall. That said, my worry for the next film could be summed up as follows:

new actor + last Bond actor was extremely popular + more serious, "Flemingesque" story + Bond becomes deeply romantically involved with one of his "girls" = an OHMSS sized fiasco

All the ingredients are there, there's no denying it. Now, I'll admit to you that OHMSS was not a flop. No Bond film, not even CR '67, ever was. It was merely a disappointment. But an OHMSS sized disappointment when Bond is with a new studio that wants to create as many big budget blockbusters as possible could lead to a lot of flux and uncertainty in the Bond world. Will CR be followed by 6 years of wrangling between EON and SONY, with SONY demanding a DAD film with Brosnan, and EON insisting it keep the new actor and continue in the Flemingesque vein?

I have some creative fears regarding CR, mostly that it might turn out to be another SOAF, with Judy Dench lecturing teenage Bond on his bedwetting, but I have a feeling the CR we'll eventually see will not push the "this is Bond's first mission" stuff in our faces, thank goodness. It will simply be a new actor, and there won't be lots of references to Bond's past career. TLD was written in such a way that you could see it as one of Bond's first big missions, or as the next big one after AVTAK. Neither interpretation was forced on you. I hope that's what Purvis, Wade and Campbell mean in their "his first mission" comments.

But my real worry is the box office. Of course, OHMSS' "failure" led to DAF, which I regard as the greatest Bond film ever, but those were different times. I'm afraid this time around that if a true-to-Fleming Bond film "fails" or disappoints, then we can forget seeing true-to-Fleming Bond films for a long-time. We'll instead be treated to scads of TND and DAD craptastic movies, if we get any further movies at all.

[YOLT]

I Owen will be Bond I dont think that CR will bomb. People are ready for Owen and I think he can attract women.

[spynovelfan]

BApparently, some of the success of Goldeneye came about in spire of Michael and Barbara. It was the then-MGM chief Calley who pushed them to hire Brosnan over Dalton. They were on the road to making another crapfest. He refused to fund the movie if they didn't use at least some sense in making it.

Eh? Surely Dalton was well out of the picture by the time GOLDENEYE came round. I've heard they screentested Owen, Purefoy, Northam, wise and the rest - but they considered Dalton for GOLDENEYE? First I've heard of that.

[CBN_Rules]

When Lazenby replaced Connery it was the FIRST time someone else played the role. Many fans were upset and simply refused to see the film. Not only did that hurt the box office from people not seeing it, it hurt even more because these were people that normally always saw a Bond film. Also there was tons of negtaive press and endless negative hype about the film OHMSS, and also Lazenby's statements about not making another one.

Then there was the ending which being an unhappy one made a lot of people angry because nothing like that happened with Bond before. Then Bond gets married angered people that didn't like that change, Lazenby's human and more realistic Bond, the toned down gadgets and special effects, and so forth, it was a shock or suprise to what people were used to.

All of that was a FIRST TIME happening, the FIRST time changes were made. Now changes ARE EXPected and ANTICIPATED.

Also OHMSS had a Mature rating in the US, which caused by UA's account half the US box offic efrom the previous films to be lost. This is why ever since Eon has been so paranoid about film ratings.

So you HAVE to throw the OHMSS example of a 1/4 loss in box office out the window, because it's just not valid to be compared to the situation now.

Then look at the examples AFTER that of when a new Bond came in.

Moore replaces Conndery, DAF gross of $116 million goes up to $161.8 million for LALD.
Dalton replaces Moore, AVTAK's gross of $152.4 million goes up to $191.2 million gross with TLD.
Brosnan replaces Dalton, LTK's gross of $156.2 million goes up to $353.4 million with GE.


So here we have the FACTS that EVERY time you replace Bonds the box office GOES up BIG from the previous film.

This constant insistence that because Brosnan is not in it, the box office will go down is not only lacking any solid evidence or logic, it is also absolutely wrong based on the evidence of the series past. As long as they pick a good and worthy Bond, as evidenced above, the box office GOES UP BIG TIME when they replace Bonds.

If they pick Clive Owen then you will see a huge jump in box office. And remember just with INFLATION DAD's gross would ALREADY be well in excess of $500 million.

As long as they don't do something stupid like Barbara Broccoli picking Craig, you will see a huge jump in box office. people asserting otherwise, obviously don't know as much about the series history as they think they do.

[CBN_Rules]

Also keep this in mind. it has been brough up several imes in this thread and ALWAYS is brought up (thanks to the press) that LTK and OHMSS were "bombs" or "flops". But according to David V. Picher who was the former head of UA OHMSS netted a pure profit of $22.5 million, and according to the former head of MGM I forget his name now, LTK netted a pure profit of $28 million, which was also helped because TLD did so well overseas that they were able to sell much of the film in foreign revenues to investors.


Picker also remarked that OHMSS would have made a lot more than it did, but the studio got much less of a percentage of the theatre ticket sales than they did with Connery because Lazenby was an unkown so they got less than they should of. In other words for Lazenby's second film even without a box office jump they would have gottem much more than that even.

Now TWINE made according to the head of MGM now, about $26 million in pure profits after all costs. Now that's even without inflation less than "the huge bomb that almost killed the franchise" LTK made.

And if you inflated OHMSS's profits to TWINE's 1999 dollars you would get a profit of over $100 million for OHMSS compared to TWINE's $26 million. And with TWINE they got higher percentages of profits with brosnan because he was a known actor, whereas like I said above with Lazenby they got less. So under the same circumstance, the profit would be even more than 4 times higher.

Yet OHMSS is even today you hear the press saying "it lost money" and so forth. Now TWINE was always referred to as the most successful Bond ever or the biggest Bond ever, and now is referred to as 2nd to DAD.

So we need to keep in mind that JUST BECAUSE the press says a film flopped or bombed, and JUST BECAUSE 99 percent of the public believes that then, and JUST BECAUSE it then becomes established as fact, whether it is true or not in actuality, that STILL does NOT affect the bottom line.

And the bottom line is are the studios making the money off the film? So even if the media decides to brand the film a flop and to attack whatever Bond and try to declare him a bomb compared to brosnan, remember ther is a reality of what the studio actually makes.

The mere fact that we have profit data on OHMSS and LTK and can compare that to profit data we have on TWINE, and that TWINE is regarded by fans and press and media as a "huge hit" and the other two as "huge flops", yet TWINE was less profitable than the other two, that should be a lesson to everyone to keep in mind.

Even if the press plays there little game and eclares the film a bomb, it doesn't mean it is true.

[Stephenson]

I agree with almost everything you say except:

More than any other Bond, Pierce has fought to merge his identity with the character of Bond (endorsements, etc.). Removing Lazenby from the equation, Moore's dropping box office was obviously a result of his age, so the idea of vibrant, younger Bond was an easy sell to the audience. The six year gap between Dalton and Brosnan was the perfect amount of time to whet the appetite of the general audience for a new Bond film and allowed people to forget about Dalton (who really was never really that well liked by the masses). Besides, in the eyes of the general public, mine included, Brosnan was born for the role, and so he became Bond for this generation (I still remember being excited when he said , "You were expecting someone else?"). In other words, I truly believe that the situation EON faces now is more like the Connery dilema than any of the others. The grosses for DAD you quote help prove this point: people in general were just not ready to see Brosnan go (whether they would have been disappointed by his return, as with the dramatically aged Connery, we will never know). But this affection for Pierce will have a backlash on the new film's box office unless:
1. They wait a suitable length of time to make the next film (and in this era of VHS and DVD, which really only became popular with the masses in the late eighties-early nineties, the last film lives on a lot longer than it used to: DAD is still fresh in a lot of peoples' minds)
2. Replace him with someone who is so undeniably Bond that the audience will be comfortable shifting their loyalities. Before anyone starts shouting out "Owen!", the answer is Jackman, who is good looking enough, well known enough and, most importantly, liked enough by the general audience to accepted as an immediate replacement. I don't like it, but there you go.

Edited by canoe2, 18 March 2005 - 03:26 PM.

[CBN_Rules]

But first they are already wating 4 years and have said they might wait 5 years. Secondly Clive Owen is winning by a huge landslide every poll shown anywhere, even on amazon.com he beat Brosnan on a poll of 10,000 shoppers.

So they DO have a choice that the public WANTS, and they can wait long enough.

I think Eon is well aware of that, and this is why the film keeps being "delayed".

But again you have to consider this.......

Die Another day had well over $250 million in marketing, Sony had told shareholders at MGm they would push what was then called Bond 21's marketing to over $380 million. Then you figure inflation into DAD's gross it's already over $500 million, meaning as long as the film mkakes morew than DAD did, even if it makes LESS with inflation, the press will call it a hit.

Think about it does the press or fans seem to care that GE made more with inflation than DAD did? No. Do they even seem to grasp that? No. Do they even seem to grasp how much more DAD cost than GE? No. Do they grasp that GE had more worldwide admissions thah DAD? No.

So CR could because of inaltion MAKES LESS money and have LESS admisionss, and STILL outrgross DAD BIG simply because of inflation. But the press and most people either don't understand that or even know of it, so as long as it makes more than DAD did it will be "the biggest Bond ever".

And if take DAD's ridiculous marketing campain, it was the biggest in movie history to its time, then nearly DOUBLE that? And you have a very well known actor like Owen playing Bond? You have an enormous budget and to shoot the film and so forth?

It would be a huge shock if CR did not make well over $500 million worldwide.

Edited by CBN_Rules, 18 March 2005 - 03:37 PM.

[spynovelfan]

But canoe, Jackman is clearly no longer in the running, because he has signed a massive multi-picture deal with Disney to produce and star in musicals. I'm mystified why anyone still thinks it will be him.

I think you're right about Brosnan's early films. But I think DAD was more like LTK. Lots of people went to see TLD because it was a new Bond. So it did well. But it wasn't to most people's liking, so when LTK came around, lots of people didn't go to see it. I think the same will happen with DAD. I think a lot of people still have affection for Brosnan, and think he was born for the part - but that a lot of the same people thought the last film was the last Bond film they'll watch. Just a couple of days ago I was having lunch with some colleagues and this very topic came up. The effects were crap. He had an invisible car! Where was the suspense? All were comments that came up, none from me (though I nodded vigorously). Everyone I've ever spoken to about DAD thought it had a great opening and was then a really badly written, embarrassing mess. I think if they had decided to keep Brosnan on and do another DAD, it might have killed or at least endangered the series. CASINO ROYALE with a new Bond is necessary.

Edited by spynovelfan, 18 March 2005 - 03:40 PM.

[CBN_Rules]

Iv'e talked to about 30 people or so about DAD of them my mom is the only one that likes it. Curiously I asked her about something in it, and interestingly enough she said "I fell asleep after he got to the hotel in Hong Kong."

I think that about says it all about DAD right there. I agree with the argument totally that if they made another "Brosnan type film" as they are now being called, the series would die. Regardless of who played Bond, but probably worse if it was Pierce because of the here we go again thinking.

[Bon-san]

Now TWINE made according to the head of MGM now, about $26 million in pure profits after all costs. Now that's even without inflation less than "the huge bomb that almost killed the franchise" LTK made.

And if you inflated OHMSS's profits to TWINE's 1999 dollars you would get a profit of over $100 million for OHMSS compared to TWINE's $26 million. And with TWINE they got higher percentages of profits with brosnan because he was a known actor, whereas like I said above with Lazenby they got less. So under the same circumstance, the profit would be even more than 4 times higher.

Yet OHMSS is even today you hear the press saying "it lost money" and so forth. Now TWINE was always referred to as the most successful Bond ever or the biggest Bond ever, and now is referred to as 2nd to DAD.

So we need to keep in mind that JUST BECAUSE the press says a film flopped or bombed, and JUST BECAUSE 99 percent of the public believes that then, and JUST BECAUSE it then becomes established as fact, whether it is true or not in actuality, that STILL does NOT affect the bottom line.

Even if the press plays there little game and eclares the film a bomb, it doesn't mean it is true.

And JUST BECAUSE it's quite simple to throw around lots of figures to support an argument of which I'm still not clear,

And JUST BECAUSE much of the data cited above is unsupported by any reference,

And JUST BECAUSE getting into a discussion of Hollywood accounting practices and Hollywood marketing budgets without reams of official and "correct" financial data (i.e, not the stuff they feed the press, or even in certain cases the SEC) is a highly questionable enterprise,

And JUST BECAUSE the press aren't the only ones who play games,

it doesn't mean anything you've said is true, either.

[Kingdom Come]

Or maybe it just says that your mother was tired. I have slept through films in the cinema only to adore them on dvd. DAD was a huge success because it was wonderful. I know of no one who dislikes DAD - I only have found critics of this film on this site. I don't do any other Bond related sites.

[CBN_Rules]

Again because 99 percent of fans or the public believes BS and crap does not mean the bottom line was affected.

When the heads of the STUDIOS that made the movies explain what the profits were that IS ALL that matters.

Whethere anyone believes it or anyone ever shuts up or acts mature or is not an ahole about it does not and will not ever matter.

The press and fans might pull the same crap they did with OHMSS and LTK, but just like with those films all that mattered to the studio was what they made.

The opinions of fans and the press and people that post on message boards arguing about it not being all that matters is totally moot. The studio does not give a DAMN about that.

PERFECT EXAMPLE the former head of MGm actually said LTK made MORE than TLD in profits, simply because they were able to seel foreing profits for the film to investors, because TLD did so well overseas.

The press and fans look at the box office gross, which would say TLD did better, but in terms of what actually went on, LTK did according to MGM MUCH better.

But because the press said so, LTK flopped, then EVERY fans it seems has simply accepted that as fact. But only people with low IQ's believe anything reported in the press, so again you can't ever explain this too the average person. they simply are too stupid to grasp it.

But the my point was and is, before you jumped all over me in an out of line and immature way is that DESPITE that, DESPITE that the press and fans and public will never change that incorrect info it does NOT matter.

Why? because the studio got the money, that is why. it is just that simple. In the end they could care less what the fans, the public, or the press say as long as they made theirs.

Edited by CBN_Rules, 18 March 2005 - 04:14 PM.

[CBN_Rules]

Kingdom Im only telling you from people I've talked to about it. of course there are people that like DAD, but if you asked 30 people about Gf it would NOT matter who they were. the point I am making is that with a film like DAD the response you get of asking say 50 people can depend on who you ask. If you ask 50 people about Ge generally any demographich will like that film.

Anmd I did not mean she said she fell aslppe because she was bored. She meant she didn't see the part of the film I was referring to. In other words she liekd it, but the part she saw was much better than the pasrt she didn't see.

Edited by CBN_Rules, 18 March 2005 - 04:17 PM.

[Bon-san]

Again because 99 percent of fans or the public believes BS and crap does not mean the bottom line was affected.

When the heads of the STUDIOS that made the movies explain what the profits were that IS ALL that matters.

Whethere anyone believes it or anyone ever shuts up or acts mature or is not an ahole about it does not and will not ever matter.

The press and fans might pull the same crap they did with OHMSS and LTK, but just like with those films all that mattered to the studio was what they made.

The opinions of fans and the press and people that post on message boards arguing about it not being all that matters is totally moot. The studio does not give a DAMN about that.

For the sake of avoiding further nastiness, I'll go ahead and assume the ahole comment wasn't directed at anyone here.

But really (and although I'm speaking for myself here, I think that a consensus would agree):

When someone comes onto a message board loudly laying down strong statements, and including lots of statistics that are impossible for anyone to really and truly verify--in essence saying, "trust me this is true"--it tends to ruffle some feathers. And just reasserting that, "this is true!" isn't really ever going to win one over.

I have no issue with someone posting opinion here. That's what makes this place fun. But the scholar in me (yes, it was a long time ago! )instinctively bristles at unverifiable assertions of "fact".

OK, I'm done.

[CBN_Rules]

I was already told off on the other thread for "making things up". I then posted more facts and sources than anyone ever saw here and 2 weeks went by before another post was even made to the thread.

I will now ignore you and NEVER again respond to you or anything you say again.

I NEVER talk to rude, arrogant, immature, small minded people, and to people who try and start flame wars and get people banned on message boards, GET A LIFE.

[spynovelfan]

Oh dear. It's all got a bit silly.

[Stephenson]

[quote name='CBN_Rules' date='18 March 2005 - 09:35']
But first they are already wating 4 years and have said they might wait 5 years. Secondly Clive Owen is winning by a huge landslide every poll shown anywhere, even on amazon.com he beat Brosnan on a poll of 10,000 shoppers.

Yes, but this entirely misses my point that Brosnan, as a result of extensive marketing, is still identified as Bond in the eyes of the general public, and, as I said, neither Moore or Dalton had to contend with the extended life a movie receives today as a result of the home video market. Even Brosnan himself is not a fair comparison since the general public felt he was meant to be Bond, and Dalton was largely forgotten by the time Goldeneye was made. Not the case today. As for the polls, whether they are on Amazon, IMBd, whereever, they have to be treated with suspicion. Anyone who is going to go out of their way to take a poll is already a Bond fan and therefore biased. I still contend that the general public really have no idea who Owen is ("Closer" did not break any box office records, and his Oscar moment was short, not to mention the music they played for Pierce). Is his star rising: yes! Will the poll give him more publicity: absolutely (It is even being reported here in Guatemala!). Is he as well known as we think or as well known as Jackman? No, and we need to assume that that is the way the studio sees it as well. Don't count on "Owen's Popularity" to pull that many people in to the theatre.

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='18 March 2005 - 09:38']
But canoe, Jackman is clearly no longer in the running, because he has signed a massive multi-picture deal with Disney to produce and star in musicals. I'm mystified why anyone still thinks it will be him.

I wasn't saying that it will be Jackman, or even that I think he would be the best for the role (I don't, although my wife loves him ... bastard!). Only that within the context of this discussion, "Will it Bomb", the most obvious way to avoid that is to go with Jackman as opposed to Owen. He would present a stronger opening than any other actor. Since he is fairly obviously out, then I think we can expect a lower opening than we saw with DAD, which is what the public understands: Movie X made this much this weekend and movie Y made this much, and therefore is not as popular. Whether this is true or not fiscally, or how much the studio takes this into consideration (and I think they think it is pretty important) I leave to the expertise of CBN_Rules, whose knowledge in the area is obviously impressive (although I think you reversed the Lazenby-Brosnan comparison and profits).

Edited by canoe2, 18 March 2005 - 04:37 PM.

[Bon-san]

Yes, making rather heavy weather over naught.

I'll just take leave of this thread and go get ready for the NCAA tourney.

[SeanValen00V]

NO BOND FILM HAS BOMBED

THEY'VE ALL BEEN PROFITABLE, SOME MORE THEN OTHERS.

Licence to kill had the most competition out of any Bond film since, the last Bond film to be released in the US summer, it was strong overseas, it was not a bomb.


LTK has become a blade runner of the fanchise, Bond films success is measured not just at release time, but after, years after as well, the film was ahead of its time.

Have some respect for one of the best Bond films, true to flemming's spirit.

Edited by SeanValen00V, 18 March 2005 - 04:50 PM.

[Stephenson]

I don't think anyone is trying to disrespect LTK, simply saying that in today's system a studio seldom looks at film and says, "We will determine its success years down the road." As result we get films that are designed more for instant gratifiction rather than long-term savoring.

[Mister Asterix]

...but I have a feeling the CR we'll eventually see will not push the "this is Bond's first mission" stuff in our faces, thank goodness. It will simply be a new actor, and there won't be lots of references to Bond's past career...

[mra]I suspect you are right on that. I

[Seannery]

I was already told off on the other thread for "making things up". I then posted more facts and sources than anyone ever saw here and 2 weeks went by before another post was even made to the thread.

I will now ignore you and NEVER again respond to you or anything you say again.

I NEVER talk to rude, arrogant, immature, small minded people, and to people who try and start flame wars and get people banned on message boards, GET A LIFE.

Oh boy it's you again What was your name before?--was it GetmOOre7 or something like that. With your unsourced data I'm fine if you want to state your views just don't try to ram in down people's throats and start name calling.