1228 replies to this topic

[Sniperscope]

Maybe someone else can come up with accurate figures here but in 1964 (FRWL , GF) TheNumbers website quotes 27 movies were released in the US theatrically (but I think it may be closer to 70 looking at Wikipedia). In 2008 573 were released in the US. Now given that not all of those would have had multiplex billings etc, it's a boggling difference and gives you an idea about how diffuse and diluted the cinema-going public is. I mean TheTimesOnline is picking it's top 100 films for 2008!! When you weigh it against this, QoS has done pretty well!

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 January 2009 - 02:05 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Excuses more, excuses less...

The thing is, beyond my or your personal taste, CR is overall more popular than QOS, with critics and moviegoers, judging by rottentomatoes.com % and current worldwide box office's dollars - adjusted to inflation- . In fact, this seems to be the only site where Forster's work has its good amount of popularity, and even here is down in the poll.

That that doesn't necessarily make Craig's debut better than its sequel (that's subjective), but you seems that stubborn in deffend your favourite Bond movie until the impposible, that it seems that your missing this reality.

Or you would dare to argue that DAF is more popular than GF?

Of course, you can tell me that you never mention the word popularity, in your posts. But let's be serious, behind all this numbers the thing in discussion is popularity, not personal taste, and it seems that your love for QOS is making you to rise a little bit preposterous arguments.

The reality is Mr A-B that QoS has been a relative success. End of story. Despite all of the negative press it has done extremely well. Your obsession with finding supposed empirical evidence to to support the notion that QoS is a failure is wonky to say the least. You claim that anyone who defends Forster et al is subjective and down to personal tast yet you happily claim the validity of rottentomatoes' ratings but it is also subjective and down to personal taste.. It's a review site for heaven's sake! Now that's "preposterous." Popularity is subjective. It is completely guided by the whims of fashion, zeitgiest and any number of factors that I can't be bothered to list because you should know them. And btw Forster was not the man solely responsible for this film. Have you ever looked at the end credits? To blame Forster for ever deficiency in this film is tiresome and immature. Where's the rant against the sainted Haggis? He wrote the thing afterall.

If you take the time to read my earlier post, in this same thread, you would notice that I've already stated that I don't think that QOS is a failure. Also, you would know that I never said that popularity equals quality (that thing is really is subjective and depends of judgment from personal taste).

You said that popularity is subjective, 'cause is completely guided by the whims of fashion, zeitgiest and any number of factors... let me tell you that this is pretty obvious, and I never argued against that. Of course, that the factors that make a movie more popular than other are related with subjectivity, but affirm that a film can be more popular than other, based in numbers, isn't subjective.

Actually popularity, can't be qualified as objective or subjective, because it's pretty much just a fact that emerges from numbers.

My claim was that CR was more popular than QOS with critics and public. The opinions of the critics, obviously, depends on their personal tastes, but the sum of the positive ones, forming a percentage isn't subjective, and even more important, neither are the numbers of BO that we have until now.

And you will have to admit that is not very plausible that QOS still surpass that CR, in this regard, espeacially, if you take to account inflation. Hence, popularity isn't that subjective, as you are claiming.

And then again... would you dare to argue- if you think that popularity is so subjective- that a movie like LTK is more popular than GF??

By the way, at least in this thread, I didn't blame Forster for anything.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 10 January 2009 - 05:54 AM.

[YOLT]

There is no end in what you say. You simply say that 60s' numbers and todays numbers or affects or sucess cant be compared. I think they can. You are neglecting the affect of population growth and new markets.

Not at all. I massively acknowledge both. Indeed, they factor into the same point - that direct comparison is impossible.

So far as I can tell you assume the population and market factors allow a direct relationship to the modern numbers for one reason: because you want them to.

Thinking that one factor basically equals another is an opinion, not a fact. Show me numbers that prove one directly allows the other and I'd happy eat an Aston!

If so what happened in 1969 (OHMSS) or 1974 (TMWTGG) ? Its simple they underperformed with previous and some upcoming films. And just look at the 80s. The dark age of Bond. I liked what was produced but not too many liked it. LTK was a flop, not maybe financiallly but with LTK they came to an end of going down and down in the 80s. and we paid it with 6 years.

I'm not sure what your point is here. "What happened in 1969"? A film made less than expected, performed less well to it's immediate predecessor. I'm not disputing that anywhere am I?

'Underperform' is a reasonable term when based on expectation of the producers at the time, and when comparing a film to one released within a couple of years of the last one. Any more than five yours and you have to make some adjustments to your criteria. Ten years, and those adjustments become major. 40, and you're basically into science fiction; the models required need to be infinitely sophisticated. "I think this is probably about the same" doesn't cut it.

"Underperformed compared to the 60s" is a nonsense statement. It doesn't mean anything and is wholly unprovable when you factor in any small amount of reasonable 'real life' criteria such as listed here by myself and others.

If you look at previous posts you will see that I want the sucess of QOS not failure. I like Craig and I want the series to continue. I want sucess financially. But this doesnt change the facts. Bond was the "Star Wars", "Harry Potter", "Dark Knight", "LOTR" etc in the 60s. It still is sucessfull but not in that way. It would have been in the top 3 if we were in the 60s not just in 10.

But would it have been if the films had started in 1920 and Connery was the sixth 007?

You see my point - you're comparing the 22nd film in a series with the second Batman. (Or, okay, the 6th if we play fair, since both series include a reboot.) You're comparing two worlds that differ hugely, and saying it's okay because you think you can.

I wouldn't get away with saying "I think QoS has made 900 million" because it's provably untrue. Believing a thing isn't enough, and I see no proof that the change in available audience directly equals - one to one - a negation of both mass media alternatives AND a half-century of cultural influence.

I agree - still - with you that Potter is a good model. But it doesn't mean it all lines up exactly and we can make sweeping statements.

I am not comparing Batman with Bond. I am saying that 60s' Bond had an affect like Dark Knight: Great numbers allover the world. It reached nearly 1 billion. So you say that nothing is comparable. Ok live with it.

I think not just the numbers are talking. In 60s Bond really was something phonemonial. Even in Turkish films made during 60s or 70s you can hear the James Bond theme. We are not at that stage.

Even the producers, Craig says it. They want something in the line of 60s. They want to reach there. But did they ? As of now my answer is no. I hope they can. But now they are underperforming compared with the 60s.

[Sniperscope]

You said that popularity is subjective, 'cause is completely guided by the whims of fashion, zeitgiest and any number of factors... let me tell you that this is pretty obvious, and I never argued against that. Of course, that the factors that make a movie more popular than other are related with subjectivity, but affirm that a film can be more popular than other, based in numbers, isn't subjective.

Actually popularity, can't be qualified as objective or subjective, because it's pretty much just a fact that emerges from numbers.

My claim was that CR was more popular than QOS with critics and public. The opinions of the critics, obviously, depends on their personal tastes, but the sum of the positive ones, forming a percentage isn't subjective, and even more important, neither are the numbers of BO that we have until now.

And you will have to admit that is not very plausible that QOS still surpass that CR, in this regard, espeacially, if you take to account inflation. Hence, popularity isn't that subjective, as you are claiming.

And then again... would you dare to argue- if you think that popularity is so subjective- that a movie like LTK is more popular than GF??

By the way, at least in this thread, I didn't blame Forster for anything.

Fair point, but in the end though, QoS has exceeded the BO of CR. I don't recall anyone saying when CR was such a hit "Well, if you adjust the inflation for 1964 numbers, you will in fact realise that QoS has in fact made tuppence ha'penny, seasonally adjusted of course." and the reason for that is that Bond fans, almost universally, and rightly, claimed CR as a superb achievement. Now, QoS has divided opinion very strongly and I would hazard it just cuts some people up that a movie that they strongly dislike or at least feel less than happy with has overtaken CR despite "popularity ratings" on the august rottentomatoes or vitriolic reviews.
And please don't give me any of this inflation stuff. Do you ever hear anyone outside of these forums say things like that?? Certainly you won't hear that from EON, cinema management or the general public. In the end it the the money shelled out by Joe Public that determines any success.
Personally I disagree with your assessment of popularity emerging from an aggregate percentage of reviews for or against: a congeries of critics' opinions on a film does not make an unassailable, empirical statistic: the basis of its determination still resides in subjectivity. At best such a figure is a barometer of critical opinion but not popularity with those it most matters: the consumer. However to take popularity on statistical terms, whether we like it or not, it is the money made at the end of the day that will determine if QoS was "popular" or not. No amount of online ratings will change that.
As for comparing relative popularity, GF existed at a time when there were approximately 80% fewer movies released in the US and UK cinemas, so naturally it's proportion of the BO is going to be greater than QoS which is one of over 550 movies released this year. You should also consider the difference in the average age of cinema-goers in 2008 against 1964. I would argue that for the average movie-goer (and I am sure that the majority who went to see CR and QoS would not consider themselves to be "fans" as such) would consider both of those films better than GF and LTK if they even knew they existed. Yep really, and God help me this is true, but I talked to an educated 20 something friend of mine recently who is an avid movie-goer and she didn't even know there were Bond films before CR!!! I mean you've got to laugh really but when I told her it had been going since 62 she retorted how would she know because she "wasn't born then." I pointed out that neither was I but I had an amazing thing called a video...
Maybe this, sadly, sums up a few things, Mr A-B!

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 January 2009 - 08:42 AM.

[The ides of Mark]

Even the producers, Craig says it. They want something in the line of 60s. They want to reach there. But did they ? As of now my answer is no. I hope they can. But now they are underperforming compared with the 60s.

I think you misunderstood the producers and Craig. They wanted to incorporate influences from the 60s on an artistic level. On a commercial level Bond has been underperforming since the late 60s. Nothing new.

[Col. Sun]

Even the producers, Craig says it. They want something in the line of 60s. They want to reach there. But did they ? As of now my answer is no. I hope they can. But now they are underperforming compared with the 60s.

I think you misunderstood the producers and Craig. They wanted to incorporate influences from the 60s on an artistic level. On a commercial level Bond has been underperforming since the late 60s. Nothing new.

The Bond films aren't underperforming! They are making huge sums of money! There have been dips, mostly the last of Moore and Dalton films, but even LTK was a popular film and even out grossed Batman in some European territories.

Why do you think they are still making them and spending big sums in doing so; for the sheer hell of it?

Bond is a hugely successful franchise. Running for nearly 50 years and with 22 official films -- No franchise has touched that in terms of time, number of big budget films and maintaining strong box office and huge public interest, especially in the UK and Europe.

It is fair to say Bond has a lower ceiling in the States, but any film making $150 million plus at the BO is NO flop! It's a success - it found a large audience.

[sorking]

Even the producers, Craig says it. They want something in the line of 60s. They want to reach there. But did they ? As of now my answer is no. I hope they can. But now they are underperforming compared with the 60s.

I think you misunderstood the producers and Craig. They wanted to incorporate influences from the 60s on an artistic level. On a commercial level Bond has been underperforming since the late 60s. Nothing new.

The Bond films aren't underperforming! They are making huge sums of money! There have been dips, mostly the last of Moore and Dalton films, but even LTK was a popular film and even out grossed Batman in some European territories.

Why do you think they are still making them and spending big sums in doing so; for the sheer hell of it?

Bond is a hugely successful franchise. Running for nearly 50 years and with 22 official films -- No franchise has touched that in terms of time, number of big budget films and maintaining strong box office and huge public interest, especially in the UK and Europe.

It is fair to say Bond has a lower ceiling in the States, but any film making $150 million plus at the BO is NO flop! It's a success - it found a large audience.

Indeed. The phrase "underperforming since the 60s" is utterly, utterly meaningless.

[YOLT]

Even the producers, Craig says it. They want something in the line of 60s. They want to reach there. But did they ? As of now my answer is no. I hope they can. But now they are underperforming compared with the 60s.

I think you misunderstood the producers and Craig. They wanted to incorporate influences from the 60s on an artistic level. On a commercial level Bond has been underperforming since the late 60s. Nothing new.

The Bond films aren't underperforming! They are making huge sums of money! There have been dips, mostly the last of Moore and Dalton films, but even LTK was a popular film and even out grossed Batman in some European territories.

Why do you think they are still making them and spending big sums in doing so; for the sheer hell of it?

Bond is a hugely successful franchise. Running for nearly 50 years and with 22 official films -- No franchise has touched that in terms of time, number of big budget films and maintaining strong box office and huge public interest, especially in the UK and Europe.

It is fair to say Bond has a lower ceiling in the States, but any film making $150 million plus at the BO is NO flop! It's a success - it found a large audience.

Underperforming doesnt mean that a film isnt making money. It means it is doing bad compared to the other films in the franchise.

If we compare QOS with 80s we can say that it overperformed. However recent 007 films are underperforming compoared to the films of the 60s.

I never said QOS flooped or it is unsucessfull. I am just comparing the recent films with the 60s and think that they are underperforming compared with the 60s.

Nobody can dany me that Bond films are as sucessfull as the 60s 007 films. Because they arent. This isnt failure, but this is: UNDERPERFORMING.

Even the producers, Craig says it. They want something in the line of 60s. They want to reach there. But did they ? As of now my answer is no. I hope they can. But now they are underperforming compared with the 60s.

I think you misunderstood the producers and Craig. They wanted to incorporate influences from the 60s on an artistic level. On a commercial level Bond has been underperforming since the late 60s. Nothing new.

Artistic level is nothing if little money is gained. If these two are combined than it is sucess. The 60s did this. OHMSS is a good film, but because both Lazenby underperformed Connery and financially it underperformed Lazenby went away.

[Sniperscope]

Underperforming doesnt mean that a film isnt making money. It means it is doing bad compared to the other films in the franchise.

If we compare QOS with 80s we can say that it overperformed. However recent 007 films are underperforming compoared to the films of the 60s.

I never said QOS flooped or it is unsucessfull. I am just comparing the recent films with the 60s and think that they are underperforming compared with the 60s.

Nobody can dany me that Bond films are as sucessfull as the 60s 007 films. Because they arent. This isnt failure, but this is: UNDERPERFORMING.

But you're comparing oranges with pears YOLT. There are so many different factors contributing to the massive success of Bond in the 60s compared to its performance today. Partly it's got to do with the fact that the film releases are more numerous today with a wider range of films and choice for the average viewer thereby diluting its potential market share (and, by and large, are aimed at a different demographic than in the 1960s). In the 60s you'd be lucky if there were even 20% of the 570 odd that were released in 2008. Have you seen the top 10 films of all time in the US (adjusted for inflation)? The most recent one was Titanic (1997) at No. 6 and TB comes in at 27. Admittedly Star Wars prequels, TDK and Shrek, LOTR are recent films in among the top 100 of all time but those are blockbusters that span extremely diverse demographics. Within the top 10 you will not find a film made after 1997. When GF and TB hit the big time the age demographic of the average moviegoer was very different to today: then, you were looking at an average age of 30. Today, the most frequent attendees are 15-24. Therefore Bond is intrinsically less attractive as demographics evolve..

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 January 2009 - 01:26 PM.

[sorking]

Underperforming doesnt mean that a film isnt making money. It means it is doing bad compared to the other films in the franchise.

If we compare QOS with 80s we can say that it overperformed. However recent 007 films are underperforming compoared to the films of the 60s.

I never said QOS flooped or it is unsucessfull. I am just comparing the recent films with the 60s and think that they are underperforming compared with the 60s.

Nobody can dany me that Bond films are as sucessfull as the 60s 007 films. Because they arent. This isnt failure, but this is: UNDERPERFORMING.

No that isn't what it means. At all. Not by any professional industry standard.

In film terms, 'Underperforming' suggests there is a number that a film could perform to, and that people expect it to perform to. It's predicated on expectation and possible turnover.

These films are meeting expectations, so the only other important factor - the one you're basing you statement on - is the kind of money it apparently could be making and isn't.

But who says the 22nd film in a franchise could make the same money as the first few? Show me any data whatsoever that proves that's possible. To claim underperformance - as opposed to 'not making as much adjusted cash as the 60s (which nobody is refuting, by the way) - requires you to show that Dark Knight levels of turnover are possible for a Bond film. Not just 'for any film', but specifically one of this series in the modern market.

'What is possible' varies from movie to movie, and from era to era. The fact that Bond was huge in the 60s - and continues to be a cultural touchstone - is precisely the reason why such a take is nigh-on impossible.

If something is not possible, it's not underperformance. If my (hypothetical) one legged child doesn't win the hurdles on sports day, that child is not underperfoming; it was only capable of so much in the first place. And the fact that her dad won on his sports day 40 years ago doesn't make a difference.

Hmmm, where the hell did I pull that analogy from?!

[SPOTTER]

I think not just the numbers are talking. In 60s Bond really was something phonemonial. Even in Turkish films made during 60s or 70s you can hear the James Bond theme. We are not at that stage.

Even the producers, Craig says it. They want something in the line of 60s. They want to reach there. But did they ? As of now my answer is no. I hope they can. But now they are underperforming compared with the 60s.
[/quote]

Now you are talking rubbish. Bond will never ever reach the heights it reached in the 60's with Goldfinger and Thunderball. It's like with the music of the 60's. Whatever your musical taste, you will never see a band like the Beatles again but both live on forever because they started something.

CR in general is more popular than QOS but the latter is still a very successful movie. It has taken $550 million worldwide so far with a budget of $200 - 230 million. Dvd sales combined with TV deals will ensure that QOS turns over an even greater profit.

When you talk 60's Bond, the Bond phenomenon only lasted a span of two films. Goldfinger and Thunderball. That was a span of 2 years. By the time that YOLT was released the spy craze was simmering down. It was around that time that The Man From Uncle was cancelled and that was possibly the biggest TV show around the world during the spy craze. YOLT was one of the biggest grossing films of 1967 but it did not do the bussiness that GF and TB did. That does not make it a failure or an underperformer for the simple reason that hype does not last forever.

Craig and the producers did want to give a touch of retro 60's to QOS and sometimes you can see it. They didn't mean they wanted the figures that Thunderball took. They wanted the essence of the 60's Bond films captured.

[YOLT]

Underperforming doesnt mean that a film isnt making money. It means it is doing bad compared to the other films in the franchise.

If we compare QOS with 80s we can say that it overperformed. However recent 007 films are underperforming compoared to the films of the 60s.

I never said QOS flooped or it is unsucessfull. I am just comparing the recent films with the 60s and think that they are underperforming compared with the 60s.

Nobody can dany me that Bond films are as sucessfull as the 60s 007 films. Because they arent. This isnt failure, but this is: UNDERPERFORMING.

But you're comparing oranges with pears YOLT. There are so many different factors contributing to the massive success of Bond in the 60s compared to its performance today. Partly it's got to do with the fact that the film releases are more numerous today with a wider range of films and choice for the average viewer thereby diluting its potential market share (and, by and large, are aimed at a different demographic than in the 1960s). In the 60s you'd be lucky if there were even 20% of the 570 odd that were released in 2008. Have you seen the top 10 films of all time in the US (adjusted for inflation)? The most recent one was Titanic (1997) at No. 6 and TB comes in at 27. Admittedly Star Wars prequels, TDK and Shrek, LOTR are recent films in among the top 100 of all time but those are blockbusters that span extremely diverse demographics. Within the top 10 you will not find a film made after 1997. When GF and TB hit the big time the age demographic of the average moviegoer was very different to today: then, you were looking at an average age of 30. Today, the most frequent attendees are 15-24. Therefore Bond is intrinsically less attractive as demographics evolve..

If so the population doubled in the USA and ex-communist countries can now reach the films. While the numbers of films are increased so as the population and new markets.

Also I compared 60s Bond with todays Harry Potter series. James Bond is now not doing as much as Harry Potter. Why not ? Because its underperforming!!!

[YOLT]

Now you are talking rubbish. Bond will never ever reach the heights it reached in the 60's with Goldfinger and Thunderball. It's like with the music of the 60's. Whatever your musical taste, you will never see a band like the Beatles again but both live on forever because they started something.

CR in general is more popular than QOS but the latter is still a very successful movie. It has taken $550 million worldwide so far with a budget of $200 - 230 million. Dvd sales combined with TV deals will ensure that QOS turns over an even greater profit.

When you talk 60's Bond, the Bond phenomenon only lasted a span of two films. Goldfinger and Thunderball. That was a span of 2 years. By the time that YOLT was released the spy craze was simmering down. It was around that time that The Man From Uncle was cancelled and that was possibly the biggest TV show around the world during the spy craze. YOLT was one of the biggest grossing films of 1967 but it did not do the bussiness that GF and TB did. That does not make it a failure or an underperformer for the simple reason that hype does not last forever.

Craig and the producers did want to give a touch of retro 60's to QOS and sometimes you can see it. They didn't mean they wanted the figures that Thunderball took. They wanted the essence of the 60's Bond films captured.

Thats what am I saying and thats not rubbish: Bond will never ever reach the heights it reached in the 60's with Goldfinger and Thunderball. And thats underperforming.

I never said QOS is a flop or dissapointment etc. Its a sucess. But its really nothing when you compare it with the 60s.

[Sniperscope]

If so the population doubled in the USA and ex-communist countries can now reach the films. While the numbers of films are increased so as the population and new markets.

Also I compared 60s Bond with todays Harry Potter series. James Bond is now not doing as much as Harry Potter. Why not ? Because its underperforming!!!

Well I was only refering to the US BO, if you're going to talk about the rest of the world there were thousands of movies released globally in 2008 (The US and India alone would make nearly 1000) which only further dilutes the pool! Your assumption - which is a wrong one - is that the average cinema-goer of 2008 is the same as that of 1964! They are not and this determines the profitability of the product. It is impossible for a Bond film, no matter how good, to exceed the inflation adjusted figures of GF or TB because of issues like demographic change and the increased realease of films. QoS has exceeded CR. That's a fact. It would be underperforming if it did not achieve that.
As for Harry Potter how can you compare a series intended for all ages to Bond which is still aimed at a largely adult audience?!

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 January 2009 - 03:42 PM.

[SPOTTER]

Now you are talking rubbish. Bond will never ever reach the heights it reached in the 60's with Goldfinger and Thunderball. It's like with the music of the 60's. Whatever your musical taste, you will never see a band like the Beatles again but both live on forever because they started something.

CR in general is more popular than QOS but the latter is still a very successful movie. It has taken $550 million worldwide so far with a budget of $200 - 230 million. Dvd sales combined with TV deals will ensure that QOS turns over an even greater profit.

When you talk 60's Bond, the Bond phenomenon only lasted a span of two films. Goldfinger and Thunderball. That was a span of 2 years. By the time that YOLT was released the spy craze was simmering down. It was around that time that The Man From Uncle was cancelled and that was possibly the biggest TV show around the world during the spy craze. YOLT was one of the biggest grossing films of 1967 but it did not do the bussiness that GF and TB did. That does not make it a failure or an underperformer for the simple reason that hype does not last forever.

Craig and the producers did want to give a touch of retro 60's to QOS and sometimes you can see it. They didn't mean they wanted the figures that Thunderball took. They wanted the essence of the 60's Bond films captured.

Thats what am I saying and thats not rubbish: Bond will never ever reach the heights it reached in the 60's with Goldfinger and Thunderball. And thats underperforming.

I never said QOS is a flop or dissapointment etc. Its a sucess. But its really nothing when you compare it with the 60s.

Bond will never reach those heights again. You have got to realise why though.

Nobody in 1964 had ever seen an Aston Martin with rear machine guns, an ejector seat and a tyre shredder etc. Nobody had ever known a man like James Bond before. He was different and the way Connery played him was different to how a lot of hero's had been played before. The world has changed now and everything has all been done. The series is nearly 50 years old. It's not going to have the same impact now that it had in 1965 because it is no longer new and original.


If we are looking at figures then where Bond is not as popular as he was during Bondmania is the USA. The yanks have their own heroes and they would rather see them kicking as to some secret agent fron England. Who did the U.S. have to cheer on in 1964? There wasn't really anybody as big as Bond. Who do they have in 2009? There's friggin loads of them. Do you get my drift?

[Sniperscope]

Bond will never reach those heights again. You have got to realise why though.

Nobody in 1964 had ever seen an Aston Martin with rear machine guns, an ejector seat and a tyre shredder etc. Nobody had ever known a man like James Bond before. He was different and the way Connery played him was different to how a lot of hero's had been played before. The world has changed now and everything has all been done. The series is nearly 50 years old. It's not going to have the same impact now that it had in 1965 because it is no longer new and original.


If we are looking at figures then where Bond is not as popular as he was during Bondmania is the USA. The yanks have their own heroes and they would rather see them kicking as to some secret agent fron England. Who did the U.S. have to cheer on in 1964? There wasn't really anybody as big as Bond. Who do they have in 2009? There's friggin loads of them. Do you get my drift?

Exactly Spotter.
Look at the US top 10 in 1964 - there were only two action-adventure films: GF at No.3 and FRWL at No. 5 and that's it! The rest are musicals or comedies, two of which were Peter Sellers' Pink Panther (9) and A Shot in the Dark (6).
Compare to 2008: TDK (1); Indiana Jones (2); Hancock (4); Iron Man (5); QoS (7); Prince Caspian (10).
It ain't 1964 anymore YOLT! Mary Poppins was number 1 for cying out loud!!!

Edited by Sniperscope, 10 January 2009 - 04:07 PM.

[The ides of Mark]

Indeed. The phrase "underperforming since the 60s" is utterly, utterly meaningless.

By the standard set by GF and TB it is. Not much of a case to answer. The films nowdays are still very succesful, but nothing touches those two films by enlarge. And there's no need to either, I like 'em anyway.

[HildebrandRarity]

"Quantum" is just shy of $80m compared to "Casino Royale"s record-breaking $106m in the UK.


Some people say that QOS underperform in the US, but I think that where really underperform is in the UK

No it it didn't.

The Pound was 1.98 on Dec 1, 2006.

The Pound was 1.48 on Dec 1, 2008.

Q0S didn't underperform at all. The UK Pound did.

My point here, is ...

CR's UK numbers were INFLATED beacuse of an INFLATED Pound in late 2006.

Since then, The Pound is down 25 percent.

Accordingly, Q0S's grosses are also down 25 percent in US Dollar terms.

Excuses more, excuses less... that your love for QOS is making you to rise a little bit preposterous arguments.

LOL

The decline of the UK Pound is a fact.

How can you argue a fact?

I didn't make the exchange rates up.

Anyone with eyes can see. Would you like a multiplication or division lesson?

My 13 year old understands that UK movie-goers spent the same amount of Pounds on Q0S as CR.

My 13 year old also understands that the reporting currency for CR and Q0S is US Dollars (hence that's the number you used), not Pounds.

My 13 year old understands that CR's dollar returns was based on the Pound being at 1.98 and that Q0S's dollar returns are based on the Pound being at 1.48.

Can you not do the math too, Mr Beech, my dear friend?

Let me help:

55 mil Pounds multiplied by 1.98 = $108+ Million dollars

55 mil Pounds multiplied by 1.48 = $81 Million dollars.


Does that help? "Love" has nothing to do with plain facts and mathematics.

[sorking]

Thats what am I saying and thats not rubbish: Bond will never ever reach the heights it reached in the 60's with Goldfinger and Thunderball. And thats underperforming.

To keep using that phrase so inaccurately you actually have to ignore all the factors mentioned in this thread. I admire the tenacity, but I'm not sure it's actually useful to stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la-la-la'.

Indeed. The phrase "underperforming since the 60s" is utterly, utterly meaningless.

By the standard set by GF and TB it is. Not much of a case to answer. The films nowdays are still very succesful, but nothing touches those two films by enlarge. And there's no need to either, I like 'em anyway.

Indeed. Also, I mean quite literally - the phrase doesn't actually make literal sense. "Cavemen underperformed in their development of electronic goods compared to humans of the 20th century." It's literally incomparable.

Nobody's refuting the 60s success. Just the bizarre idea that the two markets can be directly, crassly compared. Because two films in the 60s did that kind of business doesn't mean it's possible for the same saga to grab the same BO take now. And if it ain't possible, it ain't underperformance.

Edited by sorking, 11 January 2009 - 05:02 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

By the way, of Q0S's US Domestic box office of $167 Million, Canada accounts for about 11 percent of those grosses:


http://www.tribute.c...s/boxoffice.asp


It was 14th last weekend and is holding up nicely vs it's position in the US.

No surprise because Canada is a commonwealth country which has historically been the 6th or 7th biggest market for James Bond films.

It, however, doesn't show up as an independent country in box office listings.

[HildebrandRarity]

I thought this deserves it's own thread because Canada gets lost in the box office stakes. The country's numbers get added in with the US's to get the "US Domestic" gross, i.e. the number which gets reported everywhere.

Note, Q0S finished 2008 in Canada with ~ CAD $22.5 Mil. This translated into ~ US $ 19 Mil.

http://www.tribute.c...s/boxoffice.asp

This puts Canada in about the 5 - 7 spot in the group of countries which historically had included Australia and Japan. With globalization a reality, Russia and China has, with Quantum's release, joined that group.

The US, UK, Germany and France remain James Bond's four largest market. This was the case with Quantum and has been the case since the Connery days.

There are a number of Canadians around here on CBn, so, congratulations to you in the North.

[Jim]

I thought this deserves it's own thread because Canada gets lost in the box office stakes.

I disagree. It's a box office detail, so it goes in the box office details saddo bin. There's comment about other countries outside the USA already in here.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

You said that popularity is subjective, 'cause is completely guided by the whims of fashion, zeitgiest and any number of factors... let me tell you that this is pretty obvious, and I never argued against that. Of course, that the factors that make a movie more popular than other are related with subjectivity, but affirm that a film can be more popular than other, based in numbers, isn't subjective.

Actually popularity, can't be qualified as objective or subjective, because it's pretty much just a fact that emerges from numbers.

My claim was that CR was more popular than QOS with critics and public. The opinions of the critics, obviously, depends on their personal tastes, but the sum of the positive ones, forming a percentage isn't subjective, and even more important, neither are the numbers of BO that we have until now.

And you will have to admit that is not very plausible that QOS still surpass that CR, in this regard, espeacially, if you take to account inflation. Hence, popularity isn't that subjective, as you are claiming.

And then again... would you dare to argue- if you think that popularity is so subjective- that a movie like LTK is more popular than GF??

By the way, at least in this thread, I didn't blame Forster for anything.

Fair point, but in the end though, QoS has exceeded the BO of CR. I don't recall anyone saying when CR was such a hit "Well, if you adjust the inflation for 1964 numbers, you will in fact realise that QoS has in fact made tuppence ha'penny, seasonally adjusted of course." and the reason for that is that Bond fans, almost universally, and rightly, claimed CR as a superb achievement. Now, QoS has divided opinion very strongly and I would hazard it just cuts some people up that a movie that they strongly dislike or at least feel less than happy with has overtaken CR despite "popularity ratings" on the august rottentomatoes or vitriolic reviews.
And please don't give me any of this inflation stuff. Do you ever hear anyone outside of these forums say things like that?? Certainly you won't hear that from EON, cinema management or the general public. In the end it the the money shelled out by Joe Public that determines any success.
Personally I disagree with your assessment of popularity emerging from an aggregate percentage of reviews for or against: a congeries of critics' opinions on a film does not make an unassailable, empirical statistic: the basis of its determination still resides in subjectivity. At best such a figure is a barometer of critical opinion but not popularity with those it most matters: the consumer. However to take popularity on statistical terms, whether we like it or not, it is the money made at the end of the day that will determine if QoS was "popular" or not. No amount of online ratings will change that.
As for comparing relative popularity, GF existed at a time when there were approximately 80% fewer movies released in the US and UK cinemas, so naturally it's proportion of the BO is going to be greater than QoS which is one of over 550 movies released this year. You should also consider the difference in the average age of cinema-goers in 2008 against 1964. I would argue that for the average movie-goer (and I am sure that the majority who went to see CR and QoS would not consider themselves to be "fans" as such) would consider both of those films better than GF and LTK if they even knew they existed. Yep really, and God help me this is true, but I talked to an educated 20 something friend of mine recently who is an avid movie-goer and she didn't even know there were Bond films before CR!!! I mean you've got to laugh really but when I told her it had been going since 62 she retorted how would she know because she "wasn't born then." I pointed out that neither was I but I had an amazing thing called a video...
Maybe this, sadly, sums up a few things, Mr A-B!

You pointed out that QoS has exceeded the BO of CR, but that's ONLY in the US. What I stated is that it's very difficult to repeat in the rest of the world. Hence,the most plausible scenario is that at the end of the run in cinemas, CR will be worldwide more popular (at least in the BO) than QOS.

And you have take to account inflation for all of that (even if you want to see solely US BO numbers), because certainly, I have heard in many other parts- and I think you too- the weighting of that factor.

For instance, wikipedia (definitely not a Bond site): http://en.wikipedia....es_Bond_(films)

It's fine with me if you don't want to compare 60's Bond popularity with the one from the current decade (personally, I don't have problems with admit that my favorite, CR, is in the sixth place of the series, surpassed for the likes of TB and even MR). However, if we're going to measure films with just two years of difference, is pretty pertinent take to account inflation, don't you think? I mean, there aren't that many differences with other elements, from 2006 to 2008 (unlike, between sixties and present, as you accurate remarked in another posts).

By the way, about the 20 something friend... are you sure that she was really educated (no offense intended)?? But C'mon!! James Bond is part of everyone's pop culture, I knew the character, before the first EON movie that I saw, and I'm still under the thirties- well, not much, but anyway-. It's like she would have told you, that never knew about the original Star Wars trilogy's existance.

[blueman]

It's not uncommon these days for Bond to fly completely under young peoples' radars IMO. Bond doesn't command the collective imagination anymore, not like Star Wars or Indy does or even Bruce Willis in those Die Hard films. Too much competition, and a lot of it much more kid-friendly. Times change.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

CR in general is more popular than QOS but the latter is still a very successful movie.

I appreciate your sincerity to declare this, something that some QOS fans seem to lack in their almost blind defence of their favourite Bond movie.

And HildebrandRarity, you're again a little bit hotheaded to not only see what you want to see in the BO numbers (particularly, in the worldwide ones), so I prefer not argue with you this time.

[blueman]

CR in general is more popular than QOS but the latter is still a very successful movie.

I appreciate your sincerity to declare this, something that some QOS fans seem to lack in their almost blind defence of their favourite Bond movie.

Even weirder is the lengths some anti-fans go to in explaining the rather marginal difference between the two, almost as if they have it in for QOS and need to find some "objective" reason to buttress their dislike of it. Weird.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

CR in general is more popular than QOS but the latter is still a very successful movie.

I appreciate your sincerity to declare this, something that some QOS fans seem to lack in their almost blind defence of their favourite Bond movie.

Even weirder is the lengths some anti-fans go to in explaining the rather marginal difference between the two, almost as if they have it in for QOS and need to find some "objective" reason to buttress their dislike of it. Weird.

I have stated many times in these forum that I like QOS and I think it's a good film. Hence, I' m not an 'anti-fan' as you're indirectly calling me.

If you aren't willing to face a reality, marked by BO numbers (that aren't that marginal as you said, taking to account inflation), which tell that CR is worldwide more popular than QOS, well, that's your thing.

[HildebrandRarity]

And HildebrandRarity, you're again a little bit hotheaded to not only see what you want to see in the BO numbers (particularly, in the worldwide ones), so I prefer not argue with you this time.

But i'm not being "hot-headed" in pointing out the huge impact of the exchange rate.

Both movies grossed about 55 Million Pounds in the UK. Ask any of the CBners from England. They'll tell you.


The UK is by far the 2nd largest market for James Bond, sometimes even rivally the US...and so the Pound/US Dollar exchange rate has a big impact when the grosses are calculated in US Dollars.

So if you subtract the difference (about $26 million US dollars) from the exchange rate movement from CR, you end up with Q0S's number.

Inversely, if you add back the differece to Q0S, you end up with CR's numbers.

They're virtually neck and neck.

Do you not see that , Mr. A.B.?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And HildebrandRarity, you're again a little bit hotheaded to not only see what you want to see in the BO numbers (particularly, in the worldwide ones), so I prefer not argue with you this time.

But i'm not being "hot-headed" in pointing out the huge impact of the exchange rate.

The UK is by far the 2nd largest market for James Bond, sometimes even rivally the US...and both CR and Q0S grossed around 55 Million Pounds Stirling.

So if you subtract the difference (about $26 million US dollars) from the exchange rate movement from CR, you end up with Q0S's number.

Inversely, if you add back the differece to Q0S, you end up with CR's numbers.

They're virtually neck and neck. Both movies grossed about 55 Million Pounds in the UK. Ask any of the CBners from England. They'll tell you

Do you not see that , Mr. A.B.?

What about worldwide numbers, adjusted to inflation ("the big picture", to paraphrase Craig's Bond movies)??

Right now (and it's not very possible that Japan will make a huge difference on this), we got CR with US$632.5M and QOS with US$547.2M

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 10 January 2009 - 09:34 PM.

[SPOTTER]

And HildebrandRarity, you're again a little bit hotheaded to not only see what you want to see in the BO numbers (particularly, in the worldwide ones), so I prefer not argue with you this time.

But i'm not being "hot-headed" in pointing out the huge impact of the exchange rate.

The UK is by far the 2nd largest market for James Bond, sometimes even rivally the US...and both CR and Q0S grossed around 55 Million Pounds Stirling.

So if you subtract the difference (about $26 million US dollars) from the exchange rate movement from CR, you end up with Q0S's number.

Inversely, if you add back the differece to Q0S, you end up with CR's numbers.

They're virtually neck and neck. Both movies grossed about 55 Million Pounds in the UK. Ask any of the CBners from England. They'll tell you

Do you not see that , Mr. A.B.?

What about worldwide numbers, adjusted to inflation ("the big picture", to paraphrase Craig's Bond movies)??

Right now (and it's not very possible that Japan will make a huge difference on this), we got CR with US$632.5M and QOS with US$547.2M

You are simply going on inflation adjusted figures by what the 2008/9 average price ticket is. That is not going to give you a very accurate worldwide figure because the euro has taken a big dip due to the recession.

You have to look at the exchange rate at the time they set it for the film. You will notice that the rest of the world figures are currently at $382 million but look at what the euro is worth. You have to take this into account. CR took in a final of $426 million in 2006 but the euro was worth a lot more than it is at the moment. (exchange rate)

Edited by SPOTTER, 10 January 2009 - 10:08 PM.