96 replies to this topic

[Seannery]

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.

I respectfully say LTK is no hidden classic like Bladerunner which I loved before it was cool to. It is not as bad as some think BUT it was a lesser Bond IMO.

[sidney reilly]

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"...

Ditto.

Since discussion is pointless on profit/loss issues without knowing the source of information, I thought the following might be of some value. It's from a book that was well received and reviewed by the media, "The Big Picture: the New Logic of Money and Power in Hollywood" by Edward Jay Epstein, Random House, 2005. (Publisher's Weekly described it as "the new indispensable text for anyone interested in how Hollywood works.")

from "A NOTE ON SOURCES" p. 353

"Although there is no shortage of dazzling press releases about Hollywood's stars and performances or, for that matter, data about its products' retail popularity at movie box offices, on television channels, and at video stores, the numbers at the heart of HOllywood's moneymaking are much harder to come by. The six world studios that shape today's film business - Disney, Sony, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers, and NBC Universal-- all make it a practice to keep secret from the public the data that accurately reflect the real sources of their earnings. Each of these studios, however, furnishes precise data, including a breakdown of their worldwide revenues from movie theaters, videocassettes, DVD, network television, pay television, and pay-per-view -- to the Motion Picture Association (MPA), the international arm of its Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) trade organization, on the condition that it will not be released to any other parties. (italics mine). The MPA then consolidates these cash flows into a loose leaf document called the MPA All Media Revenue Report, which it then circulates back to the studios on a confidential basis..."

The author goes on to say that he had access to this data from the period of 1999-2004. Re: performance of individual films he writes

"In the case of the studios' earnings from individual movies, I relied on, when available, participation statements. These are the semi-annual reports of earnings that studios send to stars, directors, writers, and other participants in the movies. (The "box office gross" figures supplied to the media reveal the total take of theaters, not the portion that is actually remitted to studios.) The participation statements report the revenues, called traditionally "rentals," the studio actually received from theaters and other sources, as well as the production, advertising, and distribution expenses charged against the film. Even after these statements are subjected to independent audits by participants, which is not uncommon in Hollywood, they generally prove accurate (at least on revenue flows)..."

Edited by sidney reilly, 18 March 2005 - 05:42 PM.

[CBN_Rules]

See this is what is just sad and honestly its downright PATHETIC.

LTK made a profit of $28 million, that was mush higher than the profit of TLD, yet TLD grossed much more.

Don't people see the problem here? LTK is always referred to as "a bomb".

The problem is you can't just look at shear box office to do this.

it is quite well known the newer films have byu far the lowest profits simply because they cost the most. it is so simple to grasp yet people can't grasp it.

That's the issue, just because the press and fans keep insisting a film I ONLY USED OHMSS and LTK as EXMPLES because those are the ones everyone keeps calling flops, does NOT mean they REALLY were flops.

And the fact that we actually got official numbers on those two films and TLD and TWINE, and that they did better than the films called "hits" by the press and public proves the point.

Just because a film is called a flop by thr stupid press or by gullible people who believe anything the yeard does NOT mean it was a flop.

And it is much more complicated than box office gross, which is why the LTK example is so good. It made more than TLD simpy because the PREVIOUS film did so well that they got a better deal AHEAD of time on LTK. The foreign investors would not have been pleased but the studio made a killing.

And the OHMSS comparison to TWINe is perfect for truing to remind people that the profits are smaller now because of costs, which is a way to explain to people why the studio acts as it does.

Fans just can not seem to get why Brosna would be replaced even with salary demands or age issues, because they simply look at box office gross, they forget about inflation, and they forget about costs, which is the thing that really determines profits.

See it seems the press and fans ONLY look at box office, the studio ONLY looks at profit. For simply pointing this out is no reason to be attacked.

If people would just start looking at it from the studio point instead of theirs or the press's point maybe they would start geting all of this a little better.

[CBN_Rules]

The point about real numbers not being issues PROVES my point that is what I am saying.

The press releases and studio data was LTK bombed.

When the studio head actually talked about in 1993 he admitted they made over $28 million because they SOLD the international returns to investors.

Don't youi get it?


I am NOT talking about the studio press release nunmbers. The numbers others cite are those like DAD is the biggest Bond ever.


THAT IS THE BS.

The non BS are the numbers i am quoting.

I mean really just look at costs of newer Bond films versus the older ones, anyone with a 5th grade match education should be able to see this.

So people don't get it. How many people knew MGm sold the LTK profits BEFORE it was released?

Just because you did not know that does not mean you can insult someone who then tell it to you and explains how much money they made because of that. It is way more complicated than people grasp.

The point STANDS just becaus efans or the general public or press says a film is a flop does NOT mean it really is. Just because they say one film is a hit or more succesful than another does NOT mean it REALLY is.

That is the point I am saying that KEEP IN MIND the press might do the same thing with Cr and fans will buy into it, and then the next Bond will "killed the series", etc.

That does not mean it is true on even the smallest amount.


Put it this way NSNA was Connery's highest grossing film, was it also his most successful? Why do Bond fans and the press not make that claim? You see it is all based on media bias.

So I am just saying they might try to make Cr out to be a failure following Brosnan because that is how the press operates, it IS their MO. And fans and public are so gullible they believe it. The Lazenby /OHMSS Dalton/LTk deals are perfect examples. The truth is completely different as prfoits were higher than they are on average for Brosnan's films.

I am simply trying to let others here know that even if they do start calling it a flop you should know better. And excuse me if I find it extremely disatsteful that I be told off for that.

[Seannery]

The point about real numbers not being issues PROVES my point that is what I am saying.

The press releases and studio data was LTK bombed.

When the studio head actually talked about in 1993 he admitted they made over $28 million because they SOLD the international returns to investors.

Don't youi get it?


I am NOT talking about the studio press release nunmbers. The numbers others cite are those like DAD is the biggest Bond ever.


THAT IS THE BS.

The non BS are the numbers i am quoting.

I mean really just look at costs of newer Bond films versus the older ones, anyone with a 5th grade match education should be able to see this.

So people don't get it. How many people knew MGm sold the LTK profits BEFORE it was released?

Just because you did not know that does not mean you can insult someone who then tell it to you and explains how much money they made because of that. It is way more complicated than people grasp.

The point STANDS just becaus efans or the general public or press says a film is a flop does NOT mean it really is. Just because they say one film is a hit or more succesful than another does NOT mean it REALLY is.

That is the point I am saying that KEEP IN MIND the press might do the same thing with Cr and fans will buy into it, and then the next Bond will "killed the series", etc.

That does not mean it is true on even the smallest amount.


Put it this way NSNA was Connery's highest grossing film, was it also his most successful? Why do Bond fans and the press not make that claim? You see it is all based on media bias.

So I am just saying they might try to make Cr out to be a failure following Brosnan because that is how the press operates, it IS their MO. And fans and public are so gullible they believe it. The Lazenby /OHMSS Dalton/LTk deals are perfect examples. The truth is completely different as prfoits were higher than they are on average for Brosnan's films.

I am simply trying to let others here know that even if they do start calling it a flop you should know better. And excuse me if I find it extremely disatsteful that I be told off for that.

There you go--it's a conspiracy of the press Preach brother preach! You've found the secret knowledge from the mountain top that only you have. Believe what you will--must you harangue us about it.

[sidney reilly]

See this is what is just sad and honestly its downright PATHETIC...

<unsourced nonsense snipped>

Yawn.

[Stephenson]

I think the question we have to be asking ourselves here is about perception. On the balance sheet, it is possible to show how the films you have mentioned did indeed recoup a profit for the studio. However, we can define a flop in more than just financial terms, albeit they are important. A flop can also be a film that the audience simply did not enjoy at the time. So, while in retrospect OHMSS and LTK can be deemed successes, at the time, despite the box office sales generated, they were not films the general public enjoyed. This is why you so seldom hear (except for here) of people wishing they had done more films in the OHMSS or LTK style. For the general audience, the more "typical" Bond films are the ones remembered favorably, and can therefore also be deemed greater successes. However, I do think, as I said before, that if the public is paying attention to weekend grosses, then this are important numbers, as they will help a person decide if he/she wants to see a particular film or not; in some ways they are like the mathematical equivelant of a critic's review.

Edited by canoe2, 18 March 2005 - 07:18 PM.

[CBN_Rules]

But that's just another myth. Anyoe can easily point out all the "Bigger style" Bond films that didn't do as well.

TND, TWINE, AVTAK, OP, FYEO, TMWTGG, NSNA, even DAF would be a lowly Bond on success rates if we are just using gross as a determination.

That's again the proble, how come for example several films that actually with inflation MADE LESS money and had LESS admissions than OHMSS are never referred to as flops?

it's is JUST coming from the media, and the fact that people simply take whatever the media says as fact.

In reality TMWTGG did a lot worse than OHMSS (yet it was still a big hit and made lots of money) yet it is never looked upon like OHMSS is.

You can't read a thread on a Bond board without seeing a reference to how OHMSS was the biggest Bond dud ever, yet the film just 5 years later did way worse.

Where all the threads about how that killed the series etc.

And it STILL made a BIG profit.

IT REALLY is just media nonsense that fans and public buy into period. Any analysis of even the SMALLEST most MINISCULE amount shows this.

[Stephenson]

Think you missed the point. I am trying to say that the public perception, while it may be based on incomplete or incorrect information, is NOT myth, it is valid. Why? because it is what the public believes and they are the ones that buy the tickets. Would it be better if they were educated about the reality of the film industry, the money-making potentional of the international market and publicity costs? Sure, but then I would also like them educated about renewable energy and where Nike shoes come from. It isn't the reality. So if the public of today deem LTK or OHMSS flops (or unsuccessful), then they are flops within that context, and if CR ticket sales drop 40% in its second weekend because of bad reviews or a weak openign weekend, it to will be called a flop, no matter what international ticket sales say.

[right idea, wrong pussy]

Think you missed the point. I am trying to say that the public perception, while it may be based on incomplete or incorrect information, is NOT myth, it is valid. Why? because it is what the public believes and they are the ones that buy the tickets. Would it be better if they were educated about the reality of the film industry, the money-making potentional of the international market and publicity costs? Sure, but then I would also like them educated about renewable energy and where Nike shoes come from. It isn't the reality. So if the public of today deem LTK or OHMSS flops (or unsuccessful), then they are flops within that context, and if CR ticket sales drop 40% in its second weekend because of bad reviews or a weak openign weekend, it to will be called a flop, no matter what international ticket sales say.

Your point is a good one, canoe2. In studying history, understanding what people perceived to be the truth at the time is often much more important than understanding the actual truth. To give a contemporary example, you can't understand the origins of the Iraq War two years ago unless you understand the perception of the American public at the time that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had played some part in the September 11th attacks. Whether either of those was true is highly debatable, but on a certain level, it's irrelevant. What mattered was that the American public believed these things to be true at the time.

The same thing applies here. I am well aware that no Bond film, not even CR '67, has ever been a flop. Far from it. But the fact of the matter is that certain films (CR '67, OHMSS, TMWTGG, LTK) were PERCEIVED as flops at the time (and by many people to this day), and the fact that they were not actually flops is totally irrelevant at a certain level.

Also, CBN_Rules, I understand that it's tempting to get sanctimonious on internet forums, but you're really not going to make friends arguing in the way that you do. There's nothing wrong with what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.

[luciusgore]

Well the question I posed, "How Bad will it bomb?", may have been a bit of an adversarial way of putting the question. But the bottom line to me is (and I hope someone at Eon has been reading this thread) the producers are screwing up the product. They're making bad decisions. Sure, with 40 years of brand recognition behind it, they could release a Bond movie starring McMahon and it would make a profit. McMahon's career would get a bit of a lift. But all in all, it would mark a downturn in the franchise, one that future producers would have to repair if they wanted to keep it going. Goldeneye was a crucial Bond film because, even though LTK was profitable, it marked such a downturn in the series that people began to wonder whether it could continue. MGM was unwilling to fund a Goldeneye without Brosnan in the role. They were not going to give Babs and Michael money to fund the film if Bros wasn't the actor. That's because MGM's Calley saw the light.

We're at another crossroads. If they get Casino Royale wrong and it does LTK business, they'll need to fire the actor and spend another 6 years trying to get the franchise right again. When they made LTK, they should have known: John Glenn was a hack. The writers were tired. But fans weren't interested in a Bond film that imitated other franchises. With LTK it was Rambo they were copying. With Casino Royale, it sounds like they are going to be imitating Bourne Supremacy.

It won't work. They should just make a quality Bond. They should have said yes to Tarantino and yes to Brosnan. Now at least they can shell out the bucks for a Clive Owen to make a Bond film that is release-able.

[Pussfeller]

I can understand being keen on Tarantino, but Brosnan? Come on, he's so boring. What can you even say about him? Connery was tough and commanding, Moore was dashing and witty, Dalton was gritty and intense, Brosnan was... what? I'll never understand his appeal.

[Seannery]

I can understand being keen on Tarantino, but Brosnan? Come on, he's so boring. What can you even say about him? Connery was tough and commanding, Moore was dashing and witty, Dalton was gritty and intense, Brosnan was... what? I'll never understand his appeal.

On the contrary I don't get those who think Dalton who was a decent Bond was better than Brosnan an excellent Bond.

[Stephenson]

I can understand being keen on Tarantino, but Brosnan? Come on, he's so boring. What can you even say about him? Connery was tough and commanding, Moore was dashing and witty, Dalton was gritty and intense, Brosnan was... what? I'll never understand his appeal.

I think the best thing you can say about Brosnan is that he inhabited the role completely, and was Bond in an era that had the technology and the marketing sophistication to allow his potrayal to leave the screen and invade other areas of the average movie goers life (video games, product endorsement, magazine and television promotion, etc). He was a very good Bond for the movies of our time: a solid actor, good looking, witty, physical, adaptable and eager to cross promote. Poorly served by the product? I think everyone here would agree on that. But his Bond went beyond what you saw on the screen, which is what will make him hard to replace. Those are a lot of very specific characteristics to replace, and if there is one area where Owen seriously fails to measure up, it is in his apparent unwillingness to exploit his "craft" for overtly commercial purposes. I don't think it is the role that he would be uncomfortable with, it's everything else that goes with it, where Brosnan was so successful.

[Seannery]

I can understand being keen on Tarantino, but Brosnan? Come on, he's so boring. What can you even say about him? Connery was tough and commanding, Moore was dashing and witty, Dalton was gritty and intense, Brosnan was... what? I'll never understand his appeal.

I think the best thing you can say about Brosnan is that he inhabited the role completely, and was Bond in an era that had the technology and the marketing sophistication to allow his potrayal to leave the screen and invade other areas of the average movie goers life (video games, product endorsement, magazine and television promotion, etc). He was a very good Bond for the movies of our time: a solid actor, good looking, witty, physical, adaptable and eager to cross promote. Poorly served by the product? I think everyone here would agree on that. But his Bond went beyond what you saw on the screen, which is what will make him hard to replace. Those are a lot of very specific characteristics to replace, and if there is one area where Owen seriously fails to measure up, it is in his apparent unwillingness to exploit his "craft" for overtly commercial purposes. I don't think it is the role that he would be uncomfortable with, it's everything else that goes with it, where Brosnan was so successful.

Good points. Plus Owen IMO doesn't have Bondian looks or Bondian charisma. He has both BUT not they are not specifically Bondian--Owen would be miscast.

[Stephenson]

Good points. Plus Owen IMO doesn't have Bondian looks or Bondian charisma. He has both BUT not they are not specifically Bondian--Owen would be miscast.

[/quote]

Thanks. That's why I think Eon for EON Jackmand would have been a great choice: he shares most of the qualities that Brosnan has, including that willingness to promote. But if he is out of the picture (don't know enough to say yes or no to that), then the next best bet is to go with someone like Purefoy, Butler, or McMahon, someone who is enough on the public radar not to be complete unknowns, goodlooking and charming enough to be acceptable to the public and eager to get the role so he will let the studios mold him into the publicity machine the studio wants. Trust me, by the second film Owen will be getting "difficult" as he gets bored with the role and will want to change the character so it has "greater depth".

[luciusgore]

I don't think Bros was great as Bond, but he did resurrect the franchise. A NcNahon could seriously hurt it. An Owen would be acceptable. They should have stuck with Bros because his film's are successful.

Where they make their worst mistake is with the content they give Bros to work with. Really bad stories with inflated budgets and lots of product placement.

[Seannery]

[quote name='canoe2' date='20 March 2005 - 16:37']
Good points. Plus Owen IMO doesn't have Bondian looks or Bondian charisma. He has both BUT not they are not specifically Bondian--Owen would be miscast.

[/quote]

Thanks. That's why I think Eon for EON Jackmand would have been a great choice: he shares most of the qualities that Brosnan has, including that willingness to promote. But if he is out of the picture (don't know enough to say yes or no to that), then the next best bet is to go with someone like Purefoy, Butler, or McMahon, someone who is enough on the public radar not to be complete unknowns, goodlooking and charming enough to be acceptable to the public and eager to get the role so he will let the studios mold him into the publicity machine the studio wants. Trust me, by the second film Owen will be getting "difficult" as he gets bored with the role and will want to change the character so it has "greater depth".

[/quote]



I definitely agree with Jackman and I wouldn't discount him at this point--also i'm all with you on Butler as a strong Bond BUT Purefoy and McMahon for me aren't capable of big screen star turns--I see them more as supporting characters in personality and presence when it comes to the big screen. So instead i'll add 2 youthful looking 40 somethings which enables them to easily do a bunch of Bonds that IMO have the presence and Bondian charisma to shine as a star on the big screen--Adrian Paul and Jeremy Northem. And if they go young--Ioann Gruffudd. And the 4 I named all are on record as being enthusuaistic about Bond and all it entails as opposed to the very ambivalent at best Clive Owen.

[Sam Fisher]

All the speculation and conjecture has made me slightly wary of the entire franchise. Every Bond fan from the smallest to the ultimate die hards wants a faithful rendition of the upcoming movie but evidence points otherwise.

It's my opinion that the only thing Eon cares about is money and not quality. Die Another Day was proof that they were willing to sacrifice James Bond and what he truly stands for in place of superfical pop culture status and bags of money

[Stephenson]

It's my opinion that the only thing Eon cares about is money and not quality. Die Another Day was proof that they were willing to sacrifice James Bond and what he truly stands for in place of superfical pop culture status and bags of money

It's my hope that EON realizes that the best way for them to make money is to provide something of quality, that plays to all the strengths of the franchise, and throw out the theory that the only way they are going to have a success is with a $120 million budget. Say what you will, you have to admit the Bourne series has definitely raised the bar. Frankly, I am optomistic that this is want EON wants because they are looking at character actors like Craig. Don't want him as Bond particularly, but at least they are exploring the options.

[CBN_Rules]

A lot of people have never seen any appeal in Brosnan as Bond, you are not alone. I actually thought he would be fabulous as Bond, but when i saw GE I longed for Dalton. As for CR as long as they cast Owen it will be fine.

Edited by CBN_Rules, 21 March 2005 - 04:18 AM.

[CBN_Rules]

You guys don't get it it all sorry. It's not public perception caused by media press, it's media bias, and public ignorance.

Example some Bond films that DID worse in gross with inflation, and ticket admissions worldwide than OHMSS.....

CR (doesnt really count though)
TMWTGG
OP
Avtak
NSNA
TLD
LTK

some Bond films that did WORSE than OHMSS in profits FRWL DN TND NSNA CR

some films that did worse than OHMSS in profits when factoring for inflation

DN
FRWL
CR
TMWTGG
NSNA
OP
FYEO
AVTAK
TLD
LTK
GE
TND
TWINE
DAD (the "biggest and most successful Bond ever")


It's just downright wrong other than the media has a point to make because they choose to do so. Why are films that did LESS well than OHMSS when they were released called "hits" and OHMSS a "flop"?

You see your logic of why doesn't add up. It can't because films that didn't do as well at their time of release are called "hits", it is just what the media decides on their own accord. because the public is simply stupid and trusts whatever they say.

If for whatever reason the media decides they don't like the next Bond or CR they will undoubtedly do the same thing. Again, you may THINK it doesn't matter what the truth is and you may THINK what the public perception is is what actually matters, but you are simply wrong.

It is naive. Have you never carefully read press screenings and interview sessions one after another? It is simple, whatever the studio pays for they get. The studio buys it off and the actor's agents do.

Bad press around a Bond and film will cause the studio to pay the press to say it "flopped".

This is what was done to Lazenby and dalton and OHMSS/LTK, and if you still havent figures it out you are clueless. brosnan was always paid and sold off as the biggest Bond, then they got tired of him and now they pay to put negtaive press out about him.

It's a very simple and obvious fact.

Again, what REALLY matters? Did the studio make money and how much? That is what dictates if Bond stays alive, in fact that is MUCH more important than some imaginary opening box office number for ET and fans to gossip about.

To not realize that is to simply be in total confusement as to what Bond is. A private business.

[Peter Franks Is Alive In Vegas]

CBn_rules, are you the "George Lazenby" guy that has been banned of almost all 007 forums when this same topic gets out of hand?

Just wondering...

Edited by Peter Franks Is Alive In Vegas, 21 March 2005 - 04:54 AM.

[1q2w3e4r]

Well the question I posed, "How Bad will it bomb?", may have been a bit of an adversarial way of putting the question. But the bottom line to me is (and I hope someone at Eon has been reading this thread) the producers are screwing up the product. They're making bad decisions. Sure, with 40 years of brand recognition behind it, they could release a Bond movie starring McMahon and it would make a profit. McMahon's career would get a bit of a lift. But all in all, it would mark a downturn in the franchise, one that future producers would have to repair if they wanted to keep it going. Goldeneye was a crucial Bond film because, even though LTK was profitable, it marked such a downturn in the series that people began to wonder whether it could continue. MGM was unwilling to fund a Goldeneye without Brosnan in the role. They were not going to give Babs and Michael money to fund the film if Bros wasn't the actor. That's because MGM's Calley saw the light.

We're at another crossroads. If they get Casino Royale wrong and it does LTK business, they'll need to fire the actor and spend another 6 years trying to get the franchise right again. When they made LTK, they should have known: John Glenn was a hack. The writers were tired. But fans weren't interested in a Bond film that imitated other franchises. With LTK it was Rambo they were copying. With Casino Royale, it sounds like they are going to be imitating Bourne Supremacy.

It won't work. They should just make a quality Bond. They should have said yes to Tarantino and yes to Brosnan. Now at least they can shell out the bucks for a Clive Owen to make a Bond film that is release-able.

Why should they bother? Seriously, why should EON even MAKE this movie? MGW and BB have a franchise that I can't even begin to put a $ value on. Not to mention their share and their families income from ticket sales, distribution sales, DVD- video sales, the PR associated with OO7 etc. They should just stick to taking royalities on their 20 films sold on DVD and run regularly on tv in most every western country in the world.

Hell Im sure they could support a few future generations just on the interest of what they have in the bank.

They can't win with fans. People harp (which I have) that to continue down the road of bigger bangs, less dialogue and character/story development devalues the cinematic Bond experience. Fans especially on Internet forums have been UP IN ARMS for years about them doing Casino Royale.

Well now, it looks like MGW and BB decide, "hey we own the rights, it's Fleming's origional material. Maybe we have got away from the roots of the character a little. Let's give these fans what they want". They're trying to please EVERYONE, the majority of the cinema going audience and Bond fans who join and participate in websites like this.

Now, finally they decide to do CR and what happens. About 3 days of triumph from fans and excitement, which quickly passes to dissapointment, judgement on a product they haven't seen and acqusations they are going to "stuff it."

What is a "quality Bond." I don't know many people who think Tommorrow Never Dies is the high point of the series. A travelogue of Bond shooting his way across continents. FRWL, SPY and ultimately Goldfinger are what they majority of movie goers classify as "quality Bond." (Im not talking about members of this or other forums. I am referring to most cinema goers who see Bond who don't fit the demographic of most members of this site)

Why aren't they given a chance? But shot down and torn to shreads by simple fan speculation. There is no real evidence to support any of the claims about how this film will "bomb" or the decisions MGW & BB are making are "wrong" or even proven.

Campbell has said CR is an early Bond story. Well we'll see. I can't see them doing a retro Bond in modern times. I think (which it wouldn't take much to adjust any script) they just shoot it as a TLD, FRWL style film. Realistic. No need to go into an "origion" story or subplot unless it is an avenue they wish to explore. Hell it'd probably be buried so deep people would have to grasp at subtext too see it. And the amount of people who think DAD is good says this likely won't happen j/k

There's a reason EON has made 20 films. Even though the fans don't always agree. They have the best interests of the franchise and what they think the cinematic audience wants to see at heart and my feeling is even though lately that hasn't been exactly what I have wanted, they have provided that for many. DAD is a pretty strong point for that case.

I guess having followed the production and rumors surrounding each film since TND was in production on the net and has im sure many other members. Everything has to be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes a tablespoon. Things are VERY rarely what they appear to be.

[1q2w3e4r]

Also, please explain how FRWL which cost 2 million to make and took in 78 million upon release worldwide failed to make more profit than OHMSS which cost 9 million and took in 64 million. Thanks a bunch.

Also DR No cost 1 million. Took 59 million. Adjusted inflation= 348 M
FRWL 2 million. Took in 78 million. Adjusted inflation= 456 M

OHMSS 9 million. Took 64 Million. Adjusted inflation= 315 million.

Hmm. Fail to see how DN & FRWL are or could be LESS profitable when they cost less to make and took more money.

SOURCE: James Bond Legacy.

Please also feel free to actually post a source regarding your information. Not what you think, give a book, weblist etc. Gives credibility to your case/arguement.

[luciusgore]

My only point creating this thread was that if they pick McMahon, this will be a low point of the franchise. They need either Brosnan or Owen or a Jackman. This is strictly because Purvis and Wade have written substandard scripts the last two go rounds.

[Seannery]

CBn_rules, are you the "George Lazenby" guy that has been banned of almost all 007 forums when this same topic gets out of hand?

Just wondering...

I was told he was the same person and that he never sources his information while never giving anyone else the chance to independently look at these so called numbers. Just give us the official source that we can go to instead of endless assertions and arguments and condescending putdowns. I don't think that will happen because either the source doesn't exist(the most likely scenario) or if it does it has been slanted and falsely portrayed which would be discovered if looked at independently instead of portrayed through someone with an agenda.

[Stephenson]

You guys don't get it it all sorry. It's not public perception caused by media press, it's media bias, and public ignorance.

It's just downright wrong other than the media has a point to make because they choose to do so. Why are films that did LESS well than OHMSS when they were released called "hits" and OHMSS a "flop"?

Again, what REALLY matters? Did the studio make money and how much? That is what dictates if Bond stays alive, in fact that is MUCH more important than some imaginary opening box office number for ET and fans to gossip about.

To not realize that is to simply be in total confusement as to what Bond is. A private business.

With all due respect, I believe myself (and others) have addressed your points, if you had actually read other's posts. I likewise must agree that unless you are willing to cite sources your figures must be questioned, especially since 1q2w3e4r quoted conflicting information which negates your point and cited his source material.

Also, I have not been on these forums very long so I am not completely familiar with protocols, but I for one never appreciate comments like the following:

"because the public is simply stupid and trusts whatever they say."

"Again, you may THINK it doesn't matter what the truth is and you may THINK what the public perception is is what actually matters, but you are simply wrong."

"It is naive."

"if you still havent figures it out you are clueless."

From my limited experience here I can honestly say that I have not met anyone I would describe with those terms, despite any difference of opinion I may have with them. To the contrary, I find most to be extremely thoughtful and well informed.

[luciusgore]

Well, now according to PopBitch.com, McMahon is James Bond

[Stephenson]

I'm a little skeptical of a site called "Popbitch" ....