147 replies to this topic

[zencat]

Looks like we may have a new Star Trek film in 2008 as well. (God help us.)

http://latinoreview....news.php?id=767

So if hell freezes over and we actually do see a new Indy movie in 08, it looks like Craig #2 goes up against a new Star Trek film, a new Indiana Jones film, and IronMan.

Just as in 1989 Dalton #2 went up against Star Trek V, Indiana Jones 3, and Batman.

[Harmsway]

Looks like we may have a new Star Trek film in 2008 as well. (God help us.)

http://latinoreview....news.php?id=767

So if hell freezes over and we actually do see a new Indy movie in 08, it looks like Craig #2 goes up against a new Star Trek film, a new Indiana Jones film, and IronMan.

Just as in 1989 Dalton #2 went up against Star Trek V, Indiana Jones 3, and Batman.

Actually, Summer 2008 is the release of the BATMAN BEGINS sequel as well. So BOND 22 now has STAR TREK, IRON MAN, BATMAN BEGINS, and *maybe* INDIANA JONES. That will be an awesome summer line-up.

(STAR TREK might even be good this time out - J.J. Abrams is handling it, so I'm curious as to what he'll do!)

[Qwerty]

Was looking forward to 2007, but May 2008 isn't bad!

[Kingdom Come]

Very interesting read, Gravity's Silhouette and I agree with much of what you say. Especially in relation to LTK.

[DLibrasnow]

Looks like we may have a new Star Trek film in 2008 as well. (God help us.)

Die Another Day also competed with a Star Trek movie, a Harry Potter movie and a Lord of the Rings movie.

[JimmyBond]

Yeah but that Star Trek movie sucked.

[tonymascia1]

We can avoid what happened in '89 with a serious marketing campaign (despite the "revisionist history" of another post here)...

Edited by tonymascia1, 24 July 2006 - 09:44 PM.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Yeah but that Star Trek movie sucked.

And it perfectly highlights that Stuart Baird is a much better editor than a director. Glad he's editing Casino Royale and not directing it.

[Loomis]

From what I understand, the next STAR TREK will be an origin story based on a truly excellent script and directed by JJ Abrams (who made the best of the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films, IMO). It'll therefore be the one and only STAR TREK flick I might actually be interested in seeing.

[Publius]

First of all, no way does Casino Royale make "north of $150 million." Guaranteed. It'll be considered a successful debut if the film can hit the $100 million dollar mark.

DAD broke that four years ago, so adjusting for inflation, CR doing the same would already make it a more modest taking than any of Brosnan's efforts. Pessimism is therefore built into the oft-suggested "$150 million domestic" mark, making a $100 million prediction strangely and overly pessimistic.

After all, EON and MGM never did such a thing when Brosnan was James Bond. They never announced the next release date while one movie was still in production.

If EON has done anything since the relatively safe and simple Brosnan tenure, it's taken risks. Hell, I'd say they started doing so even with DAD. They abandoned the every odd-numbered year and every other year traditions, then they decided to go with a modern day origin story, and then they cast Daniel Craig. Sure, they've stuck with familiar writers, composer, and director, but I'd write that off to what seems to be EON's most sacred practice of keeping their "family" close together as long as possible. It's one of those things I detest about EON, but at least they've overcome their over-cautiousness with the series.

Movies get the marketing campaign they deserve, and LTK got the marketing campaign it deserved.

No advertising campaign at all will ever overcome poor word of mouth. Never, ever, ever.

...have all opened in August and all of them made at least $100 million dollars (with some films making over 200 or 300 million). So the truth is, people find a way to see the movies they want to see, no matter the time of year.

Those movies opened in several different years, so a direct dollar-to-dollar comparison can't be made. Inflation-adjusted, LTK probably made $80 million domestic and $220 million worldwide, in 2002 dollars. Compare that to $150 million domestic and $450 million worldwide for DAD. Still far less of a success, but a failure by no means, especially given the other factors discussed.

In terms of competion to LTK (another myth about LTK's failure), it's worth pointing out that:

Just because its biggest competitors have been around for three or so weeks doesn't mean it isn't being hurt. People (at least casual moviegoers) might not be inclined to return to the theater to see another action movie after they've seen one or two already in the span of a few weeks. Being at the tail end of a summer blockbuster run might actually be worse than being in the middle of one, due to the "tentpole" effect some have theorized as being in play, whereby people will see theaters packed or tickets sold out for one of the big players, and move on to another as a worthwhile substitute. LTK didn't have this possible benefit.

Conversely, LTK's opening weekend haul accounted for 25% of the film's overall box office, meaning word of mouth was poor.

And it accounted for 30% in DAD's case. So "poor" word of mouth isn't enough.

There were some major, major problems with EON at the time, and Dalton's films were just one part of it.

True. But I think it has little, if anything, to do with quality. Notice the decline starting with FYEO, which slipped over 10 million in admissions from MR. Then there was a further 10 million slip to OP (NSNA did even worse), and then over 15 million to AVTAK. TLD saw a bump up of about five million, before LTK went down almost 10. Rocky times for a myriad of different movies in the same franchise during the same time period. Something bigger than any particular actor, film, or even approach was at work.

The audience spoke: They didn't like Dalton, and it's a bit demeaning and insulting to tell people that the movie failed because it wasn't "hyped" or didn't have a great marketing campaign or suffered from too much competition, because it invalidates the choices that consumers made that summer, and they CHOSE NOT TO SEE LTK.

That's a severely flawed argument. Roger Moore is typically cited as one of, if not the most, popular Bond, yet three of his seven movies did "poorly" by most Bond standards, and of his three smash hits, two were near clones of one another. One of the "duds" was his second outing and led to a nearly three-year hiatus, and after his recovery and "finding" himself, there was a considerable commercial descent anyway.

Also, Dalton came in when Bond had been tanking for some time. When not only Moore but Sean Connery himself were flopping alike, you have to wonder whether it's as easy as placing the blame on the guy who willingly picked up the mantle in 1987, six long years into an increasingly pathetic downward slide, especially when he provided the first upswing, however modest, since 1979.

What's more, if Dalton and his films were just that unpopular, you wouldn't see them doing well in video/DVD rentals. Yet, they do. LTK (and OHMSS, might I add) does respectably well in that department, often trailing only Connery's big three or four.

Whether they want Craig in CR or BOND22 remains to be seen.

Now that much I can agree on. I think they will, though.

[stamper]

Actually Gravity is right, no one liked the new Bond then, and Moore last two outings were regarded as a joke. You have to understand it's not because Dalton movies have aged very well, that they were in tune with what audiences wanted then.

Some movies are great, but not made in the right period of time where success would have been there. Half the job is make sure you make a crowd pleaser, and crowds taste evolve all the time.

To put it bluntly : if they made CR or Goldeneye as they are exactly, frame for frame, in 1986, they would have smashed all competition. But at this point in 1987-1989, the 007 series was perceived as old hat, Dalton was too much full of himself and a pretty face to convince the public (he lacked, and still lacks, a persona like Moore or Sean have, he may be a great actor, but as far as the public went, he wasn't a personality, like Brozza for example).

I myself disliked LD when it came out, action wise, how could this compete with Lethal Weapon, or Die Hard ? We expected a Bond of the eighties, mowing down people with machine guns, and we had a RPG for the opener : what was this stuff ? As Steven Desouza (Die Hard writer) said back then, the Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Rambo series had replaced 007 in the heart of the audience as they were, for their time, as ground breaking as the original Connery flicks were for theirs.

Of course, watching TLD now, 20 years later, in a different context, you can just view it as it was : a great 007 flick, just not the right one the public expected then. LTK tried, but to no avail, to duplicate Lethal Weapon formula of action success. People were flogging to Lethal Weapon 2, fun, action packed story with lots of gunfights in a John Woo / HK flick manner, and there you had gunfights filmed like it was still 1977. One have to understand the audience disappointements. And why these movies should only be rediscovered, years later, away from the world and audience demands they were made in.

[Simon]

Roger Moore is typically cited as one of, if not the most, popular Bond, yet three of his seven movies did "poorly" by most Bond standards, and of his three smash hits, two were near clones of one another. One of the "duds" was his second outing and led to a nearly three-year hiatus, and .............

The Broccoli / Saltzman partnership break up led to the three year hiatus.

[Publius]

[quote name='Simon' date='27 July 2006 - 07:46' post='578416']
[quote name='Publius' date='26 July 2006 - 18:37' post='577998']
Roger Moore is typically cited as one of, if not the most, popular Bond, yet three of his seven movies did "poorly" by most Bond standards, and of his three smash hits, two were near clones of one another. One of the "duds" was his second outing and led to a nearly three-year hiatus, and .............quote]

The Broccoli / Saltzman partnership break up led to the three year hiatus.
[/quote]
Good catch. I didn't mean to imply TMTWGG was to blame, because like LTK and DAD, it wasn't. Anyway, my point didn't really depend on drawing a link between TMWTGG and the break, just that it happened yet doesn't detract from Moore's popularity or quality of performance, or even that of the movie.

[Simon]

Cool - gotcha.

[belvedere]

I'm replying to Gravity's long post, i didn't want to waste space and requote it.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

The film was marketed terribly. TV commercials were aborted after two weeks. I may have been wrong about the release date - but mid-July is where the crappy summer movies come out after the blockbusters in May and June come out. July 4th is the last big release weekend and anyone that knows movies knows that. LTK was buried in a bad spot.

I agree that audiences were mostly against Timonthy Dalton. A shame too - he wasn't half-bad.

Interestingly, if you refer to the polls of Bond films (seen here: http://debrief.comma...showtopic=6275), LTK ranges from 1 to 20 and has the widest range of opinion. Perhaps this is why its word of mouth was poor.

Mostly, audiences were tired of the same-old, same-old Bond. I still maintain VIGOROUSLY that using the British spelling was a bad mistake in the US.

There were many reasons for the six-year layoff until GE, but let's face it - Bond needed a break to become fresh again. It worked.

[SeaNNy-T.]

I hope it's Daniel Craigs last one too.

[Athena007]

I hope it's Daniel Craigs last one too.

Now how can you say that without even seeing his first one?

[Andrew]

I hope it's Daniel Craigs last one too.

Now how can you say that without even seeing his first one?

Bcuz hes blond lolz

[DaveBond21]

Yes, November 2007 would have been good, but as some others have stated, the 18 month gap, means there is more time for quality, rather than rushing it out.

Do you think that means that Bond 23 will be in 2010???

[burnman7700]

I'm glad they're finally making a Bond movie released in the summer.

[Righty007]

I hope it's Daniel Craigs last one too.

You leave for almost a year and then return with a negative comment? How cute.

[DLibrasnow]

I hope that if we do see that, that it's not at the very end of the credits.... I hope it's right at the start

But that would break with tradition....they always came at the end of the credits.

[K1Bond007]

I hope that if we do see that, that it's not at the very end of the credits.... I hope it's right at the start

But that would break with tradition....they always came at the end of the credits.

No. Not all the time and the credits back in the 60s/70s were only a minute long, if that. It should be the first thing. I would hope.

[zencat]

I hope that if we do see that, that it's not at the very end of the credits.... I hope it's right at the start

But that would break with tradition....they always came at the end of the credits.

No. Not all the time and the credits back in the 60s/70s were only a minute long, if that. It should be the first thing. I would hope.

I kind of like having it at the very end. It's the reward for staying through the credits.

BTW, I still think the orignial Superman has the longest credits ever.

[DamnCoffee]

yeah the superman credits were pretty long

[Scottlee]

I can't believe License To Kill made less in the U.S than Fletch Lives

[K1Bond007]

I hope that if we do see that, that it's not at the very end of the credits.... I hope it's right at the start

But that would break with tradition....they always came at the end of the credits.

No. Not all the time and the credits back in the 60s/70s were only a minute long, if that. It should be the first thing. I would hope.

I kind of like having it at the very end. It's the reward for staying through the credits.

BTW, I still think the orignial Superman has the longest credits ever.

The 3 Lord of the Rings movies, especially the extended editions have the longest AFAIK. Return of the King's is 10 minutes long and there are probably over a thousand names listed.

[DLibrasnow]

I kind of like having it at the very end. It's the reward for staying through the credits.

I agree with you zencat. When it comes to Bond movies I never get up until all the credits have rolled