Jump to content


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

 
Photo

May 2008 - A Good Idea?


45 replies to this topic

#1 Auric64

Auric64

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 362 posts

Posted 21 August 2006 - 12:11 PM

Hi, everyone.

Is it just me or are there others here who think it`s not a good idea to release Bond 22 in May 2008?

Bond will have to contend with the summer blockbusters and that might entail the Batman sequel and/or the Superman sequel. Also, what happens if, and it`s only an if, CR and Craig haven`t gone down well with the audience, 18 months earlier? Will we get a repeat of LTK, where Bond cannot cut it with other blockbusters that audiences are geared up to see?

Personally, I think they should have done with Craig what Cubby and Harry did with Moore. Get another Bond out the following year, and keep the publicity machine going after the previous film. The publicity could continue if Bond 22 IS a sequel of sorts to CR.

By releasing Bond 22 18 months later, the publicity stops after CR, and only starts rolling again 12 months later. Hard to keep a momentum going if you are promoting a sequel, (extension?) from one film to the next, if there is such a gap.

Plus, EON and SONY lose the gimmick of releasing Bond 22 in 2007, (especially if they DID entitle the film "007") and in the autumn/fall, when it`s hardly likely there will be another similar blockbuster there to challenge it.

Any thoughts?

Best

Andy

Edited by Auric64, 21 August 2006 - 12:17 PM.


#2 iexpectu2die

iexpectu2die

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 646 posts

Posted 21 August 2006 - 12:18 PM

It is still a very small gap compared with previous Bond film patterns, and the buzz for Bond 22 will probably begin around summer time is Casino Royale is anything to go by. This will overlap with the release of Casino Royale on DVD. All in all, the momentum hardly stops.

Edited by iexpectu2die, 21 August 2006 - 12:18 PM.


#3 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 21 August 2006 - 12:36 PM

Well, THE DARK KNIGHT won't be released until June 2008, and in any case there's no law saying that Batman will trounce Bond. Who cares if there are other sequels/blockbusters around at the same time? I went to see MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, but that doesn't mean that I won't be going to see MIAMI VICE (OTOH, I passed on SUPERMAN RETURNS and X-MEN: THE LAST STAND because I'm not interested in those films) - people will watch whatever they're inclined to watch, and the presence of Batman or whatever doesn't mean that no one's going to be drawn to Bond (as well).

I'm delighted that 007 will be summer fare again. :)

#4 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 21 August 2006 - 12:53 PM

me too but i really wanted 007 in 2007

#5 Jackanaples

Jackanaples

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Location:Hollywood, CA

Posted 21 August 2006 - 01:08 PM

me too but i really wanted 007 in 2007

Yeah, so did I, but take heart. I believe Bond 22 in 2008 is a sign of EON eschewing the obvious gimmick in favor of quality filmmaking. That can only be a good thing.

#6 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 21 August 2006 - 01:13 PM

yeah but atleast we dont get a rushed movie if the 2007 rumour was true

#7 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85605 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 21 August 2006 - 02:18 PM

I'm very happy about the May 2008 release date. Nice to see this small change compared to some recent previous James Bond films.

#8 Auric64

Auric64

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 362 posts

Posted 21 August 2006 - 02:20 PM

Well, THE DARK KNIGHT won't be released until June 2008, and in any case there's no law saying that Batman will trounce Bond. Who cares if there are other sequels/blockbusters around at the same time? I went to see MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, but that doesn't mean that I won't be going to see MIAMI VICE (OTOH, I passed on SUPERMAN RETURNS and X-MEN: THE LAST STAND because I'm not interested in those films) - people will watch whatever they're inclined to watch, and the presence of Batman or whatever doesn't mean that no one's going to be drawn to Bond (as well).

I'm delighted that 007 will be summer fare again. :)


Well, LTK was soundly trounced by Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because the audience were inclined to see them over the Dalton movie. The same COULD happen for Bond 22, especially if the audience haven`t taken to Craig and/or CR.

No one really knows if The Dark Knight will be released in June 2008, or earlier/later, so the June release is pure speculation on your part.

There are blockbusters released in May, and if they hurt Bond`s box office takings, (as happened with LTK) that cannot be good for SONY. SONY are not into making movies simply to produce art. They are in it to make money, in particular for their shareholders and investors. I`m sure if Bond 22 doesn`t make as much money as predicted come the summer of 2008, Bond 23 will revert back to a winter release.

Brosnan`s takings were excellent when his films were released in the autumn/fall. Maybe they would have taken the same had they been released in the summer months, but I still stand by my point that less blockbusters are released in the winter months, which gives Bond more chance to rake in the cash when other, lesser fare is released around it.

Best

Andy

Edited by Auric64, 21 August 2006 - 02:55 PM.


#9 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 21 August 2006 - 03:38 PM

While I too actually worry about heightened competition, I think if Bond is supported enough it can succeed in summertime nowadays. We also have to remember that while LTK was released mid-June 1989, after several other big films had already just opened, Bond 22 will be released right at the beginning of May, thereby all but claiming the summer kick-off, and forcing any competition to occur at almost exactly the same time, which not every studio might be willing to do.

In any case, if CR and Bond 22 are both respectable Bond hits that only see some drop-off from the Brosnans at worst, or hell, even do better, then I wouldn't mind seeing Bond made a summer franchise once again.

#10 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 21 August 2006 - 03:57 PM

I must admit that I am a little worried about Bond going back to a summer release. I guess the success of Bond 22 in Summertime really goes back to how well the public takes to CR.

#11 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 23 August 2006 - 02:43 AM

Depends on how Casino Royale does though to be honest, I don't really care for the summer timeslot because of the competition. This could be 1989 all over again which also had Batman and a Indiana Jones.

#12 Cody

Cody

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1393 posts

Posted 23 August 2006 - 02:51 AM

The competition around a May release date worries me, too. Of course I want to see the movie as soon as possible, but the nervous side of me wants them to stick with the safer November schedule.

#13 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 23 August 2006 - 03:00 AM

You must take note that LTK was popular everywhere except the US.

It did not suffer in the UK for example. It was a success.

And it continues to be, as people are still buying it on DVD. Can you say the same about Batman?

#14 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 23 August 2006 - 03:24 AM

Well, LTK was soundly trounced by Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because the audience were inclined to see them over the Dalton movie.

Untrue. LICENCE TO KILL didn't open in competition with either of those. They may have shared the same summer, but the fact that those films were around had nothing to do with LICENCE TO KILL's failure.

#15 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 23 August 2006 - 04:22 AM


Well, LTK was soundly trounced by Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because the audience were inclined to see them over the Dalton movie.

Untrue. LICENCE TO KILL didn't open in competition with either of those. They may have shared the same summer, but the fact that those films were around had nothing to do with LICENCE TO KILL's failure.


It was a tough summer overall though - not just those two movies. Its 'failure' though was probably the lackluster marketing as Cubby always said. Turned a profit so it's hardly a failure - shortcomings, perhaps.

#16 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 23 August 2006 - 04:30 AM



Well, LTK was soundly trounced by Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because the audience were inclined to see them over the Dalton movie.

Untrue. LICENCE TO KILL didn't open in competition with either of those. They may have shared the same summer, but the fact that those films were around had nothing to do with LICENCE TO KILL's failure.

It was a tough summer overall though - not just those two movies.

True, but it wasn't at the time of LICENCE TO KILL's release. LICENCE TO KILL failed domestically - it was beaten in its opening by WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, which was showing in an extremely small limited release, and was out of the top ten two or three weeks later.

Its 'failure' though was probably the lackluster marketing as Cubby always said. Turned a profit so it's hardly a failure - shortcomings, perhaps.

It was a failure domestically. It turned a profit internationally, but its returns in the USA were dismal.

Honestly, I don't think LICENCE TO KILL's failure was really due to poor marketing - people were just tired and bored of Bond, and they really hadn't warmed up to Dalton. Bond had featured a slow decline ever since MOONRAKER, and A VIEW TO A KILL. Bond was in a slump even before Dalton stepped into the role. Dalton then stepped in and wasn't enough to gain interest to revitalize the series (THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS did better than A VIEW TO A KILL, but only by a very small margin - in terms of the previous films it was still pulling in lackluster returns).

LICENCE TO KILL was just the low point of a long, slow decline in the Bond franchise's success.

#17 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 23 August 2006 - 04:43 AM

I don't really care if a Bond movie fails in the USA.


If, one day, the US rejected Bond completely, they would still be made in Britain I am sure.

#18 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85605 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 23 August 2006 - 04:47 AM

Can you say the same about Batman?


Does Batman not sell well on DVD?

#19 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 23 August 2006 - 04:54 AM

Does Batman not sell well on DVD?



Well, LTK is sold out in the UE version at my local DVD shop here in Sydney. They are all sold out, apart from DAF, TMWTGG and AVTAK.

Batman is possibly in a bargain bin but I haven't seen it in the shops for ages.

#20 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85605 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 23 August 2006 - 04:56 AM

Does Batman not sell well on DVD?



Well, LTK is sold out in the UE version at my local DVD shop here in Sydney. They are all sold out, apart from DAF, TMWTGG and AVTAK.


Well I think the comparison between the two movies on DVD is a bit unfair then at the moment. I'd expect the new Bond DVDs to be selling more than the Batman ones which have been out much longer.

#21 Auric64

Auric64

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 362 posts

Posted 23 August 2006 - 05:36 AM


Well, LTK was soundly trounced by Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because the audience were inclined to see them over the Dalton movie.

Untrue. LICENCE TO KILL didn't open in competition with either of those. They may have shared the same summer, but the fact that those films were around had nothing to do with LICENCE TO KILL's failure.


LTK may have opened a month after Batman, but that didn`t change the fact that, domestically, Batman and Last Crusade did trounce LTK at the box office, overall.

I`m sure if international box office figures could be found, both Batman and Last Crusdade, did better internationally than LTK also.

I do agree with you that, by the time of AVTAK/TLD the world, (America?) were tired of Bond. That obviously didn`t help Dalton, (even though his first film did better box office than AVTAK) and the marketing, (or lack of it) was also a major factor.

As good as many here feel Dalton did to revitilise the series after Moore`s departure, (myself included) his 'performance' in TLD wasn`t enough to revitilise the series for the average cinemagoer, (coupled with the fact that many didn`t take to Dalton`s 'seriousness' in the role) and LTK just compounded this fact with a film who`s plot didn`t allow for the usual 'Bond formula' to surface and give the audience what they were expecting, before entering the cinema.

This leads me to wonder if we can ever have a serious Bond film again? Every time the producers try to be more serious, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD/LTK, it seems to backfire on them. The above 4 films weren`t what the general (non Bond fan) audience wanted, and each new film after the one that 'failed' brought back the more acceptable 'Bond formula'.

Will history repeat itself with CR? Will we get an excellent film/Bond in Craig, only to see the producers/SONY panic if the film does less well than expected? Going back to another carbon copy of DAD may be the only route left open to Babs and Wilson, if the franchise is to continue.

Personally, if that happens, I think a change won`t work with Craig on board. Craig, like Dalton before him, is an actor used to starring in/being in films that are (usually) grounded in reality. Taking Bond 22 to the level of another DAD may make Craig feel uncomfortable, having to play it more for laughs, with less of the danger and story character than what, apparently, is in CR, (the script of which made Craig decide to take the role in the first place) and I would be very surprised if Craig was able to fulfil his 3 picture contract, either because he jumped ship first, (not being happy with the change of direction the series had gone in) or he was pushed because the audience/studio didn`t take to him, (in either film).

Best

Andy

Edited by Auric64, 23 August 2006 - 05:37 AM.


#22 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 23 August 2006 - 05:49 AM



Well, LTK was soundly trounced by Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because the audience were inclined to see them over the Dalton movie.

Untrue. LICENCE TO KILL didn't open in competition with either of those. They may have shared the same summer, but the fact that those films were around had nothing to do with LICENCE TO KILL's failure.

LTK may have opened a month after Batman, but that didn`t change the fact that, domestically, Batman and Last Crusade did trounce LTK at the box office, overall.

Of course. We all know that, and I wasn't disputing or commenting on that fact. I was rather commenting that LICENCE TO KILL did not fail based on competition.

This leads me to wonder if we can ever have a serious Bond film again? Every time the producers try to be more serious, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD/LTK, it seems to backfire on them. The above 4 films weren`t what the general (non Bond fan) audience wanted, and each new film after the one that 'failed' brought back the more acceptable 'Bond formula'.

Well, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY didn't backfire by any means, so I don't know where you're getting that.

I think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE primarily backfired because they replaced the man who *was* the role at that time with an unknown actor who was somewhat stiff, not because of the change in direction.

#23 Shrublands

Shrublands

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4012 posts
  • Location:Conveniently Near the NATO Base

Posted 23 August 2006 - 05:51 AM

Personally, I think they should have done with Craig what Cubby and Harry did with Moore.


Well, that

#24 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 24 August 2006 - 07:12 PM

Well, THE DARK KNIGHT won't be released until June 2008, and in any case there's no law saying that Batman will trounce Bond. Who cares if there are other sequels/blockbusters around at the same time? I went to see MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, but that doesn't mean that I won't be going to see MIAMI VICE (OTOH, I passed on SUPERMAN RETURNS and X-MEN: THE LAST STAND because I'm not interested in those films) - people will watch whatever they're inclined to watch, and the presence of Batman or whatever doesn't mean that no one's going to be drawn to Bond (as well).

I'm delighted that 007 will be summer fare again. :)


Yeah Bond 22 is going for the "first film of the summer" slot, it will have made its money and be leaving theatres by the time that Batman and Spider-man 3 and er, Transformers will be weighing in, so there won't be any LTK type scenario. I'm sure there'll be something big opening on Memorial Day, but B22 will be in its 2nd/3rd week by then so it'll have done most of its business at that point anyway. It really is a smart move by EON/Sony, I think. April will be the usual dead zone at the box office and audiences will be clamoring for a true blockbuster. And it ain't going to be Iron Man.

#25 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 24 August 2006 - 07:13 PM

agreed :)

#26 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 24 August 2006 - 07:38 PM

Yeah, I like Dino's take on it.

#27 Auric64

Auric64

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 362 posts

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:17 PM

[quote name='Harmsway' post='592523' date='23 August 2006 - 06:49']
[quote name='Auric64' post='592517' date='22 August 2006 - 23:36']
[quote name='Harmsway' post='592448' date='23 August 2006 - 04:24']
[quote name='Auric64' post='591264' date='21 August 2006 - 08:20']
Well, LTK was soundly trounced by Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because the audience were inclined to see them over the Dalton movie.[/quote]
Untrue. LICENCE TO KILL didn't open in competition with either of those. They may have shared the same summer, but the fact that those films were around had nothing to do with LICENCE TO KILL's failure.[/quote]
LTK may have opened a month after Batman, but that didn`t change the fact that, domestically, Batman and Last Crusade did trounce LTK at the box office, overall.[/quote]
Of course. We all know that, and I wasn't disputing or commenting on that fact. I was rather commenting that LICENCE TO KILL did not fail based on competition.

[quote]This leads me to wonder if we can ever have a serious Bond film again? Every time the producers try to be more serious, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD/LTK, it seems to backfire on them. The above 4 films weren`t what the general (non Bond fan) audience wanted, and each new film after the one that 'failed' brought back the more acceptable 'Bond formula'.[/quote]
Well, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY didn't backfire by any means, so I don't know where you're getting that.

I say that FYEO backfired, primarily due to its poor box office in the UK. FYEO finished 8th in the top 10 UK films for that year, way behind Superman II which finished 2nd, and Raiders of the Lost Ark, which finished top of the pile. Compare FYEO`s UK finish to the UK finish of the previous two Bond films, MR and SPY, (both finished much higher - with SPY coming out the same year as STAR WARS) and I`d say that the producers desire of going "back to basics" (and trying to emulate the style and suspense of FRWL) were not what the audience wanted after they had gotten so much out of MR and SPY.

Bearing in mind that Bond Pound for Pound/Dollar for Dollar does better in the UK domestically, than it does domestically in the US, I`d say coming 8th when the previous two films had finished much, much higher, is something that backfired. Broccoli was supposed to have come "back down to earth" (if you`ll pardon the pun) because fans were not happy with the excess of MR. So he gave them FYEO but he was clearly wrong about what he thought the public wanted, certainly in the UK, and that was borne out by FYEO`s poor finish in the race to be No. 1.


I think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE primarily backfired because they replaced the man who *was* the role at that time with an unknown actor who was somewhat stiff, not because of the change in direction.
[/quote]

Yes, of course, Lazenby was no Connery, and that was a major factor. But if you look at OHMSS and EYES, both of them followed films that had gone as far as was possible to go in the Bond world. A small mountain retreat in the alps, trying to follow the excesses of spaceships leaving hollowed out volcanoes. A small retreat in the Greek mountains trying to follow the excesses of nuclear submarines leaving hollowed out supertankers/Moon rockets flying towards a large space station. In size and scale alone, its obvious that the audience enjoyed and wanted the larger than life scenarios SPY and MR gave them, over the more serious and FRWL type story that EYES offered.

Personally, I feel Lazenby would have had a better chance of being accepted as Bond, had they filmed YOLT after OHMSS, giving Connery the chance to show off his acting chops against Diana Rigg, and giving Lazenby the chance to let Little Nellie and the other gadgets to shine over himself. But who knows? Maybe YOLT would have had a different story had Connery filmed OHMSS the way Hunt directed it. I still feel, however, the toning down of the excessess that the audience were enjoying in YOLT, didn`t help at all the serious tone that OHMSS had to offer.


[quote name='Shrublands' post='592524' date='23 August 2006 - 06:51']
[quote name='Auric64' post='591214' date='21 August 2006 - 13:11']


Personally, I think they should have done with Craig what Cubby and Harry did with Moore.

[/quote]

Well, that

Edited by Auric64, 24 August 2006 - 08:21 PM.


#28 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:09 PM

I say that FYEO backfired, primarily due to its poor box office in the UK.

Ultimately, the UK is a small little island that comprises a minor amount of box office takings. Using them as basis for saying FYEO backfired is totally unfair.

Yes, of course, Lazenby was no Connery, and that was a major factor. But if you look at OHMSS and EYES, both of them followed films that had gone as far as was possible to go in the Bond world. A small mountain retreat in the alps, trying to follow the excesses of spaceships leaving hollowed out volcanoes. A small retreat in the Greek mountains trying to follow the excesses of nuclear submarines leaving hollowed out supertankers/Moon rockets flying towards a large space station.

In size and scale alone, its obvious that the audience enjoyed and wanted the larger than life scenarios SPY and MR gave them, over the more serious and FRWL type story that EYES offered.

The bigger, huger films are always going to make more money than lower-key entries. That's just how it goes. Doesn't mean that FOR YOUR EYES ONLY "backfired."

#29 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 24 August 2006 - 11:25 PM

The bigger, huger films are always going to make more money than lower-key entries. That's just how it goes. Doesn't mean that FOR YOUR EYES ONLY "backfired."


Indeed not. In fact, if a YOLT/MR/DAD every 10 years is what it takes to keep the series alive and breed more OHMSS/FYEO/CR type films, then so be it and bravo to EON for being so strategic. EON knows how the public works and they play as it's given to them. It's not the back-to-earth films that backfire; if anything it's the public.

Personally, I like the natural cycle of the series. I do not want 21 OHMSS films where the curtain closes on Bond's shattered heart in every episode. Nor do I want villains who can eat sharks and survive a 10,000 foot fall from an airplane in every episode. I like the variety. I'd prefer a 80/20 ratio of raw and serious to comical and over-the-top, but now I'm just getting picky.

#30 Auric64

Auric64

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 362 posts

Posted 25 August 2006 - 05:03 AM


I say that FYEO backfired, primarily due to its poor box office in the UK.

Ultimately, the UK is a small little island that comprises a minor amount of box office takings. Using them as basis for saying FYEO backfired is totally unfair.

Yes, Harmsway, we are "only" a small little island that comprises a minor amount of box office takings. But who`s to say that if one could check, around the world, other "small little islands" box office takings for EYES, it might also say that it`s takings were smaller than MR and/or SPY. Would that convince you then?

You`re obviously a fan of EYES, (which I`ve noted your defence of when it has been critisised before - probably by me) but no Bond film is perfect, (hell, my favourite Bond film is Goldfinger - and that`s by no means perfect) and if the facts are irrefutable, then you just have to accept it.

The bottom line is, films that year such as Superman II and Raiders, cleaned up worldwide, and films just like EYES suffered because of it. SPY and MR more than held their own with other films, (STAR WARS in 77) when they were released. EYES did not and, worldwide, didn`t take as much as the two previous films. That is fact, and no amount of defending EYES is going to change that.


Yes, of course, Lazenby was no Connery, and that was a major factor. But if you look at OHMSS and EYES, both of them followed films that had gone as far as was possible to go in the Bond world. A small mountain retreat in the alps, trying to follow the excesses of spaceships leaving hollowed out volcanoes. A small retreat in the Greek mountains trying to follow the excesses of nuclear submarines leaving hollowed out supertankers/Moon rockets flying towards a large space station.

In size and scale alone, its obvious that the audience enjoyed and wanted the larger than life scenarios SPY and MR gave them, over the more serious and FRWL type story that EYES offered.


The bigger, huger films are always going to make more money than lower-key entries. That's just how it goes. Doesn't mean that FOR YOUR EYES ONLY "backfired."


I think you have answered your own question there, Harmsway. SPY and MR DID give the audience what they were after, especially after the previous two low key efforts, LALD and GG. Is it not possible that, had EYES been in a similar vein to SPY and MR, it`s box office takings may have been better? I`m not saying that that would have made it a better film, but the general audience aren`t "Bond fans" in the way we are on this forum. They want to spend their