If you have been reading carefully my posts you will notice that I have stated several times that I like QOS, and I have never said it's a failure, but a mild successe between the context of the EON series. I mean if I affirm that of a film that it's in the 9th spot among 22 entries, I believe is a mathematical observation, not a judgment.
QOS it's not my fauvorite Bond movie, but definitely it's not one I dislike (If you ask me the only one that I dislike is LTK, and even so I see it from time to time, 'cause it's a proper Bond flick after all. Besides that, I despise a little of the Brosnan era, but that's it. I like all the rest of the 007's films).
The things is that being a fan of something, in this case Bond movies, doesn't make me blind in front of the reality of these films. For instance, my favourite Bond movie is CR, but I don't have problems with admit that isn't flawless, and that its success was important at the BO, but not as huge as the likes of TB or GF. And all of this, doesn't prevent me to love CR.
Okay, I understand your explanation, but what's your point? You are saying that QOS is not a failure at the box office, but yet your constant posts make it come across like it should have done so much better and that this represents a disturbing trend. All I'm saying is that despite the fact that number of admissions have dropped, I don't see a slight drop in box office based on inflation is a reason for EON to change Bond back into an over-the-top superhero.
I like the gritty realism that the series has taken, and I'm not sure if you feel that because of the admissions drop that people are not buying into this type of Bond. I believe a lot of the reason for the drop was the economy, and a few flaws even though the overall template of the film was good. But I certainly don't believe EON should change the tone for the next movie just because there was a slight "drop" in admissions. I'm not sure if this is where you are going with this.
