Classic Bond Forum

After seeing it again, no, not the worst Bond ever. That's hyperbolic nonsense. You should only have a grudge on the direction and the actor to hate it that much, oh wait. :wink: But honestly, I don't get the hate. I don't think it's perfect and it could have improved on certain aspects but I don't ...

Overall to Katied's point though, what I draw from Flemming is how he wrote the Bond character and some more of the serious points of the novels, other than that I think Fleming was a fairly poor writer, in comparison to say, Tom Clancey. Bond will always be known for the movies rather than the ...

You would help your case somewhat if you could spell 'Fleming' correctly. Let's be honest, if it wasn't for Cubby and Harry and the film series, how famous would the books be today? They were entertaining but not much more than potboilers with eight page descriptions of an omlette Bond is eating to ...

Worse than geriatric Roger Moore?

Worse than invisible cars and yet another Satellite based plot?

Worse than Jaws turning good in space?

Worse than Connery turning "asian"?

No, no, no, no. It's not as good as CR, but it's not "the worst". As for apeing action sequences, yeah, that's what Bond ...

[Last year three films released at the Holiday season were over the 200 million mark. I Am Legend, National Treasure: Book of Secrets, and Alvin and the Chipmunks. This year there has not been one film this Holiday season to break 200 million.

It could just be that there's nothing out there to ...

It's a matter of historical fact, that Hollywood was practically created off the back of the great depression,
people went to the cinema in their millions, to get away from their troubles, and there's nothing to suggest that they wouldn't today?.

General Box Office takings don't appear to be down ...

Scissorhands: "The public is stupid. Take a look at who we put into office or on our music charts". I agree 100%. That is why I cannot believe Daniel Craig was chosen for the role or why people rush to see him as Bond. This new, original,and fresh direction you see Craig taking Bond in is anything ...

Sony spent the money, and they knew about how much it was going to draw based on the previous films. That's the part you don't seem to get.

You don't seem to get that Sony threw as much as $350m (including advertising) at this film, TO TURN A PROFIT - they're not doing this for their health ...

I can show you a ton of articles showing studio execs were unhapy with film performances. Superman Returns is probably the most notable example.

I agree the budget got out of hand for this film. I don't know why or how, but Sony shelled out the money and the response to the film has been mostly ...

There were no expectations it would make 200 million domestically. Only 4 movies this year broke the 200 million mark and none so far this holiday season, and most likely no others will. The next closest to 200 is Madagascar at 165, by the end of it's BO run QOS will end up at least that much if not ...

Sony spent the money, and they knew about how much it was going to draw based on the previous films. That's the part you don't seem to get.

It's not underpeforming. It's getting about the same take as Twighlight and Four Christmases. I understand the anti-Craigites love to rag on this movie, but it's not underperforming.

How do you figure?
A $200 million budget, according to Box Office Mojo. The general rule of thumb in Hollywood is that a film has to make back 3 times its budget at the box office in order to be considered profitable. That's why Superman Returns was considered a flop, despite a fairly respectable ...

QOS isn't a big offender,CGI wise,But it *is* pretty obvious where it was used :down:

The only time I noticed it was durring the riverbed scene and the freefall from the airplane. I agree though the CGI wasn't of great quality. From what I understand the biggest production costs were in the ...

Please post the links. While I agree the production costs seem to have gotten out of hand for a film that has little if any CGI, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest a 3rd film won't be greenlit.

Look, Die Another Day didn't tank, and neither did Casino Royale or QOS. I don't think the differences between them are stark enough to call any a financial failure. They are all successes.

But they're not. QOS needs to make $600 million in order to show a profit, due to its outsize budget. It ...

Look, Die Another Day didn't tank, and neither did Casino Royale or QOS. I don't think the differences between them are stark enough to call any a financial failure. They are all successes.

The fact is, we've never had linking bond films like CR/QOS. We've never seen such a dark/serious Bond ...

Apparently to your mind just because someone is cast in role that makes automatically makes them Bond. I'm sure Hulk Hogan would have been grateful for your support had he got the role.

I reall don't have anything to say for the rest of your comment, because it's your opinion, and you're ...

And QOS is making more money than DAD, and it isn't even a month old.
Not according to the figures Sweeney posted. Die Another Day made $546.5 million in 2008 dollars, while QOS's current worldwide total on Box Office Mojo is $492,071,523 (and losing steam fast). Actually DAD did better than that ...

I just watched Die Another Day for the first time.

All you Craig haters need to just take that in before you hate on QOS.
DAD is a movie that Cubby would have been proud of. There area parts of it I'd change but the main one is not Brozza.
That is tired overplayed company talking point. It came ...