45 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

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?

No. Because I find that argument irrelevant on the whole - the idea that the film must have the exact same level of financial success as the prior to be deemed anything other than a bust.

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.

Actually, I find FOR YOUR EYES ONLY a very dull film. It's one of my least favorite entries in the series. I'm defending it only because I think your reading of the public mentality as well as your definition of success is really off.

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.

No, but FOR YOUR EYES ONLY still had more admissions than any Bond film that followed until GOLDENEYE. Hardly the mark of a blight on the series. It may not have made as much money as the the prior two uber-hits of the series, but that doesn't make it a failure, and it was certainly on the higher end of the spectrum financially as far as this franchise was concerned.

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?

Possibly, but it would only burn out the franchise. Uber-hits in the same vein of film can only go on for a limited time before the audience would tire of it. Another film like SPY or MOONRAKER would have showed a decline in box-office takings just the same, and further hindered the future of the series as well.

A series made of DIE ANOTHER DAYs and MOONRAKERs would not survive. This franchise has only survived because of the innate variety that it offers - the cycling from small to large over and over again.

So, for whatever reason you or I wish to cite, if less people, worldwide, went to see EYES than they did MR and SPY, then of course it is going to take less money at the box office.

I'd argue that it's not because people liked it less, but more because it's just not as much of an event film if it's not huge. Huge films in general aside from the Bond series always make more in the box office than smaller films - but does that mean that all movies that aren't huge didn't satisfy the audience? By no means. It just means that the "event film" nature is lessened.

EON don`t always know how the public works, because films like OHMSS, EYES, LTK didn`t fare as well at the box office, as each of the previous films in the series did. Okay, two of those films were with actors that the public didn`t really take to, but the tone of those films didn`t help Lazenby or Dalton.

An innately flawed argument, especially considering FOR YOUR EYES ONLY did better than the supposedly more audience-pleasing OCTOPUSSY or A VIEW TO A KILL.

Whether it be just one, or a number of reasons, the audience were not happy with the films mentioned above. That is fact.

There is no fact that FOR YOUR EYES ONLY failed at the box office. It was a definite financial success in the history of the franchise. *That* is a fact. You seem to go by the maxim that it was disliked because it made less money - that is not something that can be inferred from the data.

DEAD MAN'S CHEST made more money than THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL, but are we supposed to assume people liked that film more? Nah. It ain't true.

And furthermore, you neglect to mention THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (a film I despise, but shall use to illustrate a point). Big success, no? But still it was darker, full of drama, and nowhere near THE SPY WHO LOVED ME-sort of entertainment.

[Auric64]

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?

No. Because I find that argument irrelevant on the whole - the idea that the film must have the exact same level of financial success as the prior to be deemed anything other than a bust.

But the Bond producers and UA (then) have to make films that are profitable, and by that I mean make more than what they cost. Each new Bond film costs more to make, (due to usually a 2 year gap and higher inflation costs) even Campbell has mentioned that CR has to come under what they paid out to make DAD, and that`s four years ago. Costs are continually rising and if the return isn`t as good, then the producers and the studio suffer.

You cannot tell me that Wilson and Broccoli were delighted that EYES made less money than SPY and MR made, (regardless of how good/bad EYES was as a film)? Of course they would want EYES to top those films, as they would want each Bond film to do better than the previous one. No one goes into a business NOT to make money.

Do you really think SONY took over the Bond franchise because they thought it was high art? Of course not. Its a franchise and, usually, a profitable one at that. SONY want a big slice of that profit, otherwise why go with it?

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.

Actually, I find FOR YOUR EYES ONLY a very dull film. It's one of my least favorite entries in the series. I'm defending it only because I think your reading of the public mentality as well as your definition of success is really off.

Well, here we agree. I also find EYES very dull. My reading of the "public mentality" and my "definition of success" is really off, is it? Okay, YOU tell me what the definition of success is? I would really love to know. Surely, if less people go to see what should be a popular film, (i.e. the Bond films - because they should have their own inbuilt audience) then the theatres take less money and the studios make less money. I cannot understand how you cannot see that less means less and therefore is not as successful? Am I missing something here?

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.

No, but FOR YOUR EYES ONLY still had more admissions than any Bond film that followed until GOLDENEYE. Hardly the mark of a blight on the series. It may not have made as much money as the the prior two uber-hits of the series, but that doesn't make it a failure, and it was certainly on the higher end of the spectrum financially as far as this franchise was concerned.

I`m not saying EYES is a blight on the series, where did I say that? You are making accusations which cannot be held up. I merely said that EYES did not make as much money as SPY and MR. You say that EYES is not a failure. So what constitutes a failure in your eyes? Because the money men, (the studios) WOULD see it as a failure. They are not making high art here, they are making films they hope the public will see. If UA expected EYES to make x at the box office, (and forecasted a figure based on the previous two successful films) and EYES did not make that figure, then surely UA WOULD see that as a failure, regardless of whether the film ended up making a good figure world wide. If a Bond film is down from the previous one, then that makes it less successful, (fact) and in some peoples eyes, a failure, (fact).

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?

Possibly, but it would only burn out the franchise. Uber-hits in the same vein of film can only go on for a limited time before the audience would tire of it. Another film like SPY or MOONRAKER would have showed a decline in box-office takings just the same, and further hindered the future of the series as well.

Maybe, but did the producers and UA think that more of the same would burn out the franchise, after the success of SPY? Of course not. They didn`t look beyond the next film, (MR) only what the last film did. SPY was a success, so let`s give the audience more. Which they did. When the hit the fan after MR, then Broccoli took stock and decided to change tack, which he did.

A series made of DIE ANOTHER DAYs and MOONRAKERs would not survive. This franchise has only survived because of the innate variety that it offers - the cycling from small to large over and over again.

I agree, but that isn`t the point I initally made. The point I made is that changing to a different time of year could endanger the series if Bond went up against other summer blockbusters.

So, for whatever reason you or I wish to cite, if less people, worldwide, went to see EYES than they did MR and SPY, then of course it is going to take less money at the box office.

I'd argue that it's not because people liked it less, but more because it's just not as much of an event film if it's not huge. Huge films in general aside from the Bond series always make more in the box office than smaller films - but does that mean that all movies that aren't huge didn't satisfy the audience? By no means. It just means that the "event film" nature is lessened.

Sorry, I don`t buy that at all. All Bond films are "event films" because of the history and nature of what they are. The films are, (usually) every two years and because of that, the films are looked forward to by the public. One doesn`t know how good a film is, until one sees it. If you came out of a film you were hoping would be good, and it isn`t, you`re going to be disappointed. If some one asks you what you thought of the film, and you give it the thumbs down, is it not possible that your remarks could make the person you spoke to, think, "Oh, maybe I`ll give that a miss then." And please don`t say that people have their own minds to make up, because that isn`t the case. There are a lot of people who do not make their minds up, where films are concerned. Some of them read film reviews and decide to go or not to go, depending on how good/bad the review is. Yes, it`s very shallow, but some people are shallow.

EON don`t always know how the public works, because films like OHMSS, EYES, LTK didn`t fare as well at the box office, as each of the previous films in the series did. Okay, two of those films were with actors that the public didn`t really take to, but the tone of those films didn`t help Lazenby or Dalton.

An innately flawed argument, especially considering FOR YOUR EYES ONLY did better than the supposedly more audience-pleasing material such as OCTOPUSSY or A VIEW TO A KILL.

Sorry, check the book James Bond: The Legacy. In there you will find that Octopussy made more money than EYES did. Not a huge amount, but enough to keep everyone, (the producers and MGM/UA) happy. Yes, AVTAK did poorly, but by then both Broccoli and Moore knew it was the end of the road. Changes had to be made and they were, (for the better IMHO).

Whether it be just one, or a number of reasons, the audience were not happy with the films mentioned above. That is fact.

There is no fact that FOR YOUR EYES ONLY failed at the box office. It was a definite financial success in the history of the franchise. *That* is a fact. You seem to go by the maxim that it was disliked because it made less money - that is not something that can be inferred from the data.

I never said EYES failed at the box office. I said it failed to make more money than the previous two films. There is a difference.

DEAD MAN'S CHEST made more money than THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL, but are we supposed to assume people liked that film more? Nah. It ain't true.

And furthermore, you neglect to mention THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (a film I despise, but shall use to illustrate a point). Big success, no? But still it was darker, full of drama, and nowhere near THE SPY WHO LOVED ME-sort of entertainment.

You are straying from the point again. We are not taking about the success or failure of TWINE, but the box office failure of EYES against the box office success of SPY and MR. Regarding TWINE. Much has been made on this forum about whether Brosnan`s films ever made a decent amount of money, compared to the rest of the Bond series. Each of his films must have made some kind of profit, otherwise the studio, (UA) would have demanded changes, (as they have done before). Regardless of whether we as Bond fans thought his films any better/worse than the previous 16, the producers/UA threw more money at the Brosnan films because each one tended to outdo the others, (in particular with the set pieces) until we got to saturation point with DAD, and Wilson and Broccoli`s decision to change direction again. Big doesn`t always mean better, (certainly in Bond fans eyes) but do the audience really care? As I mentioned before, they just want to be entertained. Bond films offer that entertainment and that`s why people go to see them. They know what they want, and the films must have delivered, because the films didn`t end after GoldenEye, which was then, the make or break film for the series.

Best

Andy

Edited by Auric64, 25 August 2006 - 06:28 AM.

[Publius]

Auric64,

"But the Bond producers and UA (then) have to make films that are profitable, and by that I mean make more than what they cost. Each new Bond film costs more to make, (due to usually a 2 year gap and higher inflation costs) even Campbell has mentioned that CR has to come under what they paid out to make DAD, and that`s four years ago. Costs are continually rising and if the return isn`t as good, then the producers and the studio suffer."

Brosnan's films were the least profitable, inflation-adjusted. Hell, I think they were the least even unadjusted (the margins were just that slim, or negative in the case of TWINE). But that was acceptable, as the 90s saw Bond foray into video games and make more money than ever with VHS and then DVDs. Just as the focus shifted to the States (for whatever reason), the focus shifted away from the strict profitability of the movies themselves as compared to production and marketing budgets.

Also, Bond movies don't have to make as much as they did in the 90s, 70s, or even 60s to be "successful". Bond has set some considerably high benchmarks it itself has had a hard time besting. "Less successful" is one thing, "not successful" at all, also known as a "failure", is another. The movies don't have to be ever more popular or sell ever more tickets to "outpace" inflation or anything like that, either, since not just production costs but ticket prices are always rising.

And Octopussy saw admissions drop 11 million from For Your Eyes only, while AVTAK saw a loss of 16 million more from OP. You have to be fairly impressive at inflation-adjusting to turn that into any kind of "bump".

[Shadow Syndicate]

I think Eon should have kept CR completely quiet until 2007 and then BAM! Superbowl commercial with 2007 as publicity

[Auric64]

And Octopussy saw admissions drop 11 million from For Your Eyes only, while AVTAK saw a loss of 16 million more from OP. You have to be fairly impressive at inflation-adjusting to turn that into any kind of "bump".

In The Legacy book they said that EYES sold 22.4 million tickets in the US alone, which wasn`t on the scale of MR. Regarding Octopussy - that did over 20 million ticket sales in the US, so that wasn`t as much as EYES, but nowhere near the 11 million drop you have stated it did from EYES.

I have no problem believing you regarding the figures from OP to AVTAK. AVTAK sold seven million fewer tickets in the US than Octopussy and nine million fewer than MR.

Best

Andy

Edited by Auric64, 25 August 2006 - 07:24 AM.

[Harmsway]

You cannot tell me that Wilson and Broccoli were delighted that EYES made less money than SPY and MR made, (regardless of how good/bad EYES was as a film)? Of course they would want EYES to top those films, as they would want each Bond film to do better than the previous one. No one goes into a business NOT to make money.

Yeah, but FOR YOUR EYES ONLY ultimately made more profit for the studio because it cost less to make than THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and MOONRAKER. Nobody was shedding a tear that it's box-office intake was lower than the previous two installments.

If a Bond film is down from the previous one, then that makes it less successful, (fact) and in some peoples eyes, a failure, (fact).

A failure is simply not less successful (which is not the case with FYEO anyhow, because the studio had a higher profit margin anyhow). Failure means that a film has to do dramatically worse than previously.

Nobody considers YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE a failure, but it didn't do quite as well as THUNDERBALL. It was still a huge hit, though.

Maybe, but did the producers and UA think that more of the same would burn out the franchise, after the success of SPY? Of course not.

You obviously don't know your history - that's exactly the reason Cubby Broccoli said they needed to take it back down to earth.

Sorry, I don`t buy that at all. All Bond films are "event films" because of the history and nature of what they are.

True, but some are even bigger events than others, no?

Sorry, check the book James Bond: The Legacy. In there you will find that Octopussy made more money than EYES did. Not a huge amount, but enough to keep everyone, (the producers and MGM/UA) happy. Yes, AVTAK did poorly, but by then both Broccoli and Moore knew it was the end of the road. Changes had to be made and they were, (for the better IMHO).

Firstly, JAMES BOND: THE LEGACY has innacurate figures (that was recently pointed out to me.

Secondly, it's not money that matters - it's the attendance figures (money varies from year to year because of other factors, but the number of butts in the seats is always easy to compare). And FOR YOUR EYES ONLY had higher attendance figures than than any of the films that followed until GOLDENEYE.

[Robert Watts]

Any film that makes $1 more than the combined price of its production budget and advertising budget is a success.It makes a profit, therefore the studio earns money. That is their job. That is why when a film makes a profit it is a success.

It is a well known trend, and a highly expected trend for a sequel film, or a sequel to a big film to make less than its predecessor. I'd imagine studios generally accomodate for a drop in figures between two films.

Edited by Robert Watts, 25 August 2006 - 01:02 PM.

[Auric64]

You obviously don't know your history - that's exactly the reason Cubby Broccoli said they needed to take it back down to earth.

It was noted at the time that Cubby Broccoli felt stung by all the bad critisism that MR got, that was why he wanted to go back to basics and do another FRWL type story.

Sorry, I don`t buy that at all. All Bond films are "event films" because of the history and nature of what they are.

True, but some are even bigger events than others, no?

Well, you`re just splitting hairs, there.

Sorry, check the book James Bond: The Legacy. In there you will find that Octopussy made more money than EYES did. Not a huge amount, but enough to keep everyone, (the producers and MGM/UA) happy. Yes, AVTAK did poorly, but by then both Broccoli and Moore knew it was the end of the road. Changes had to be made and they were, (for the better IMHO).

Firstly, JAMES BOND: THE LEGACY has innacurate figures (that was recently pointed out to me.

Can you back that information up regarding inacurate figures? I would like to see it. Not because I think you`re a liar, but just to see for myself.

Best

Andy

[Robert Watts]

In all due respect, don't you think a member with a 5 year history on the board and over 4000 posts might *just* be beyond making up facts to support his/her arguement?

Just seems logical to me.

[Judo chop]

I would like Harmsway to provide evidence of those 4000 posts, please.

[Harmsway]

It was noted at the time that Cubby Broccoli felt stung by all the bad critisism that MR got, that was why he wanted to go back to basics and do another FRWL type story.

It was also noted that Cubby didn't feel there was any way to go bigger, so the only thing to do was bring it back down again.

Can you back that information up regarding inacurate figures? I would like to see it. Not because I think you`re a liar, but just to see for myself.

Yes. The correct figures, as officially declared by Sony/MGM, are available right here:

http://debrief.comma...mp;#entry440926

[Robert Watts]

It was noted at the time that Cubby Broccoli felt stung by all the bad critisism that MR got, that was why he wanted to go back to basics and do another FRWL type story.

It was also noted that Cubby didn't feel there was any way to go bigger, so the only thing to do was bring it back down again.

And isn't it interesting that is practically what Mickey G and Babs realised after Die Another Day. History repeats itself too often.

[Skudor]

It's long term thinking. Which is great - and the benefit of having EON and Broccolis in charge. They can think beyond the next movie or two. Something a studio would never do as successfully.

[Turn]

If I can jump back on topic, I, for one, am not real comfortable about the May 2008 date for Bond 22.

Sure I liked the Bond summer films in the '70s and '80s, but that was the trend. When GE started the trend of late fall/winter releases, I liked that too, but more. It's just a season I enjoy more and it's close enough to the holiday season that the merchandising machine has more opportunities than in the summer.

The other factors are I hate the bloody battleground the summer box office has become. It seems to be a new film almost every week and the only truly dominant film this year seems to be the Pirates movie. You know it's trouble when a huge-budget Superman film underachieves.

The fall/winter season gives Bond more of a chance to get attention as opposed to summer, which hypes one film then leaves it behind for the next big attraction. The holiday season sees many more people out doing things, celebrating the season and having time. In summer there are more events people can do -- go to beaches, on vacations, etc. After the new year, most of the holiday films stay around for another month or so and don't fade away as fast as in summer, which churns out the event movies all the way up until early August.

But I'll take a Bond movie anytime over a 4- or 6-year wait.

[Skudor]

The summer release is a sign of confidence and a very positive sign in my view. The shorter period between the movies is also a great, positive sign.

It does make me wonder whether perhaps Craig is meant to do three Bond films in five years and then move on - that it's part of the package, his antidote to the stereotyping. Get in and get out quick sort of thing.

[Double-Oh Agent]

If I can jump back on topic, I, for one, am not real comfortable about the May 2008 date for Bond 22.

Sure I liked the Bond summer films in the '70s and '80s, but that was the trend. When GE started the trend of late fall/winter releases, I liked that too, but more. It's just a season I enjoy more and it's close enough to the holiday season that the merchandising machine has more opportunities than in the summer.

The other factors are I hate the bloody battleground the summer box office has become. It seems to be a new film almost every week and the only truly dominant film this year seems to be the Pirates movie. You know it's trouble when a huge-budget Superman film underachieves.

The fall/winter season gives Bond more of a chance to get attention as opposed to summer, which hypes one film then leaves it behind for the next big attraction. The holiday season sees many more people out doing things, celebrating the season and having time. In summer there are more events people can do -- go to beaches, on vacations, etc. After the new year, most of the holiday films stay around for another month or so and don't fade away as fast as in summer, which churns out the event movies all the way up until early August.

But I'll take a Bond movie anytime over a 4- or 6-year wait.

Completely agree with you Turn. At least Bond 22 is at the very beginning of summer.