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