Getting sick of it

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Getting sick of it

Getting sick of it [message #233395]

So, 12 März 2006 14:25

Jabei

The ridiculous views regarding Daniel Craig have gone beyond just having a
point of view and airing it. Some of the recent posts are nothing more than
pathetic...we're talking about an actor in a movie that personally I'm very
excited about. For me, this is the most exciting thing that has happened to
Bond since Connery agreed to do NSNA.

I think there are far too many people who are getting SO obsessive over Bond
and I find it a little worrying...I've enjoyed very much exchanging views on
this NG over the years but now virtually every post appears to be one-note
and exceptionally boring. To me, it's unbelievable that anyone would want
another DAD or TWINE. Everything I've seen & heard about CR is fantastically
positive. I'm a great admirer of Craig as an actor and believe he has
exactly the right look. I'm not sure about Martin Campbell but he has made
entertaining films in the past.

Does anyone out there agree that maybe we should just wait & see....at least
until the first trailer comes out ??

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233399 ]

So, 12 März 2006 16:11

akaiser77

I could not agree more, Jabei. Do we really need another TND? I, for
one, don't.

Plus, Craig is undeniably an original and surprising choice, and I
think he should at least be given a chance. I have a feeling that even
if he turns out to have done a great job, people will still put him
down. Kind of like Lazenby.

AK

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233401 ]

So, 12 März 2006 17:03

mlawrenc

>Kind of like Lazenby

IMO, Lazenby took a lot of hits initially but it seems like he got
accepted after the fact (albiet way after the fact). Would have been
great if he could have carried on the Bond mantle for a few more films.
He had several things going for him...A great Fleming story, great
supporting cast and Peter Hunt's character driven philosophy towards
the screenplay.

Pretty much everything I've seen and heard about Craig makes me think
he is the right choice. He looks lethal and the gadgetless stripped
down approach EON is taking is what Fleming's first book deserves. How
could it get any better? IMO it can't miss.

Regards,
Matt

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233403 ]

So, 12 März 2006 17:15

Will Traynor

"Matt L" <mlawrenc [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1142179412.810935.262620 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Kind of like Lazenby
>
> IMO, Lazenby took a lot of hits initially but it seems like he got
> accepted after the fact (albiet way after the fact). Would have been
> great if he could have carried on the Bond mantle for a few more films.
> He had several things going for him...A great Fleming story, great
> supporting cast and Peter Hunt's character driven philosophy towards
> the screenplay.
>
> Pretty much everything I've seen and heard about Craig makes me think
> he is the right choice. He looks lethal and the gadgetless stripped
> down approach EON is taking is what Fleming's first book deserves. How
> could it get any better? IMO it can't miss.
>
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>

It could easily miss, with a terrible script, poor acting, etc. But I think
it's easy to be optimistic, based on what we've seen thus far. Remember, we
haven't seen much.

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233409 ]

So, 12 März 2006 17:58

mlawrenc

>It could easily miss...

Easily?

> terrible script..

The source book is Fleming. Remember that the films that were the best
were the ones based on his work. If EON screwed that up and missed out
on that opportunity I'd be really suprised. Also considering the
people involved with writing the screenplay I doubt it would fail on
that point.

>poor acting...

I've seen some of each actors work. Each are first class and not a
loser in the bunch. Almost reminds me of the caliber of the FRWL
ensamble..

I'm definitely optimistic. Besides if we aren't optimistic about the
film, what the heck are we going to talk about for the next 8 months.
;-)

Regards,
Matt

"Living in the gap between past and future."

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233411 ]

So, 12 März 2006 18:09

Matt L wrote:
> >Kind of like Lazenby
>
> IMO, Lazenby took a lot of hits initially but it seems like he got
> accepted after the fact (albiet way after the fact). Would have been
> great if he could have carried on the Bond mantle for a few more films.
> He had several things going for him...A great Fleming story, great
> supporting cast and Peter Hunt's character driven philosophy towards
> the screenplay.

--- Well, unlike most people at the time, I for one did take to Lazenby
on first sight and fairly well. I also recognized what shortcomings he
had, but overall, with the strength of the story, he worked as a viable
Bond for me.

> Pretty much everything I've seen and heard about Craig makes me think
> he is the right choice. He looks lethal and the gadgetless stripped
> down approach EON is taking is what Fleming's first book deserves. How
> could it get any better? IMO it can't miss.

--- Let's not get too optimistic. After all, this is basically the
same team of people who have put out generally dud Brosnan efforts
[creatively speaking], so why would you think it's all going to
magically change for the better overnight? There are a lot of things
going against this Bond succeeding which can all be summed up into one
word: Risk. I can't think of a riskier production that EON has gotten
itself into. Not even LTK going "dark" compares to what CR is all
about. If anyone is going to pull this off, it's going to have to be
Martin Campbell. He needs to set the vision for this film, which
subsequent films might end up following. That vision in turn needs to
include and enhance Craig as a Bond figure in his own right. For
example, would Connery have been the Bond that he became had it not
been for Terence Young's vision? Young molded Connery into Bond, and
Campbell will need to do the same with Craig. But Campbell also finds
himself working against the odds because, unlike Brosnan, he now has to
work with someone who breaks the physical mold of the character, so
Campbell's job is tougher this time around. It's a tightwire act for
Campbell as he juggles between exploring the new while retaining the
familiar. The danger is that he might go overboard in one direction
[the new] or too safe in the other direction [the familiar], either
direction of which will kill Craig as Bond and CR the movie. And no
matter how right he thinks he might get it, he better have a skilled
editor who can craft the film into a consistent and seamless finished
product, and that editor had better not be the same one he used on
GoldenEye because with CR, there's no margin for foolishness.

>
>
> Regards,
> Matt

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233415 ]

So, 12 März 2006 19:14

JHause

Jabei wrote:
> The ridiculous views regarding Daniel Craig have gone beyond just having a
> point of view and airing it. Some of the recent posts are nothing more than
> pathetic...we're talking about an actor in a movie that personally I'm very
> excited about. For me, this is the most exciting thing that has happened to
> Bond since Connery agreed to do NSNA.
>
> I think there are far too many people who are getting SO obsessive over Bond
> and I find it a little worrying...I've enjoyed very much exchanging views on
> this NG over the years but now virtually every post appears to be one-note
> and exceptionally boring. To me, it's unbelievable that anyone would want
> another DAD or TWINE. Everything I've seen & heard about CR is fantastically
> positive. I'm a great admirer of Craig as an actor and believe he has
> exactly the right look. I'm not sure about Martin Campbell but he has made
> entertaining films in the past.
>
> Does anyone out there agree that maybe we should just wait & see....at least
> until the first trailer comes out ??

Exactly. Craig's a great actor. It 's going to be fun to see his take
on Bond. Ten years from now everyone will be arguing about some other
actor's new take. There have been five before, and there'll be many
after. It's all good. Can't wait until November...

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233418 ]

So, 12 März 2006 19:20

Will Traynor

"Matt L" <mlawrenc [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1142182701.186358.150800 [at] j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> >It could easily miss...
>
> Easily?
>
>> terrible script..
>
> The source book is Fleming. Remember that the films that were the best
> were the ones based on his work. If EON screwed that up and missed out
> on that opportunity I'd be really suprised. Also considering the
> people involved with writing the screenplay I doubt it would fail on
> that point.
>

Source material means nothing if they rewrite it and it's bad. EON has
admitted to rewriting elements of Fleming's book to bring it up to the 21st
century. What that means is anyone's guess at this point. Plenty of terrible
movies had great source material. The verdict is still out on this one until
the release of the movie.

>>poor acting...
>
> I've seen some of each actors work. Each are first class and not a
> loser in the bunch. Almost reminds me of the caliber of the FRWL
> ensamble..
>

Again, great actors have made bad movies so judging them on past history
will only take you so far. A great cast bodes well, but let's see how they
are handled and cast in the context of the movie.

> I'm definitely optimistic. Besides if we aren't optimistic about the
> film, what the heck are we going to talk about for the next 8 months.
> ;-)
>

As I said before, nothing that I've seen so far leads me to believe this
will be a disaster. But we haven't seen much, either. I like what I've seen
and heard, but the finished product will be the deciding factor, obviously.

> Regards,
> Matt
>
> "Living in the gap between past and future."
>

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233422 ]

So, 12 März 2006 20:15

Will wrote:
> "Matt L" <mlawrenc [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1142182701.186358.150800 [at] j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> > >It could easily miss...
> >
> > Easily?
> >
> >> terrible script..
> >
> > The source book is Fleming. Remember that the films that were the best
> > were the ones based on his work. If EON screwed that up and missed out
> > on that opportunity I'd be really suprised. Also considering the
> > people involved with writing the screenplay I doubt it would fail on
> > that point.

--- Not all of the Fleming-based books turned out to be the best films
in the series. Those between DN and OHMSS were certainly based on the
better books and as such were excellent source material from which
plenty could be worked with. The success of the early films can also
be shared by the producers' original vision for the series, which has
since been often bastardized, the choice of Connery and director
Terence Young, and the Cold War-yet-freewheeling 60s era in which they
were produced. Those elements and more conspired to deliver the
cinematic punch that was Bond at the start. When the best material was
gone and just about all else with it, the first real retooling of the
series with Moore [Lazenby can now be viewed more as an experiment than
a retooling attempt] saw the producers, who themselves were now in a
different head space, left only with Fleming's weaker novels, including
two books of short stories, and those have produced efforts that ranged
from pathetic to lukewarm positive. Now that CR is in EON's hands, the
fact that it's a Fleming novel doesn't exactly mean that an instant
classic Bond film is in the making. There's very little in the novel
that EON intends to use and what they will use will be saved for the
final third of the film, interspersed and diluted no doubt by one chase
scene after another, while about the only thing they will be true to,
more or less, is Vesper's look, one that Eva Green may project with
relative ease.

> Source material means nothing if they rewrite it and it's bad. EON has
> admitted to rewriting elements of Fleming's book to bring it up to the 21st
> century. What that means is anyone's guess at this point. Plenty of terrible
> movies had great source material. The verdict is still out on this one until
> the release of the movie.
>
> >>poor acting...
> >
> > I've seen some of each actors work. Each are first class and not a
> > loser in the bunch. Almost reminds me of the caliber of the FRWL
> > ensamble..

--- Well, if these "first-class" actors prove themselves to be at par
with those in FRWL and not, as I dread, in DAD, then that would be a
plus. But excuse my skepticism since the actors are only as good as
the material and direction handed them.

> Again, great actors have made bad movies so judging them on past history
> will only take you so far. A great cast bodes well, but let's see how they
> are handled and cast in the context of the movie.
>
> > I'm definitely optimistic. Besides if we aren't optimistic about the
> > film, what the heck are we going to talk about for the next 8 months.
> > ;-)

--- Maybe talk about how pessimistic we can be about it all? Two sides
to every coin.

> As I said before, nothing that I've seen so far leads me to believe this
> will be a disaster. But we haven't seen much, either. I like what I've seen
> and heard, but the finished product will be the deciding factor, obviously.

--- The proof will be in the pudding.

>
> > Regards,
> > Matt
> >
> > "Living in the gap between past and future."
> >

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233435 ]

So, 12 März 2006 21:21

mlawrenc

>--- Let's not get too optimistic.

For some reason I thought you might say that. ;-)

>---After all, this is basically the same team of people who have put out generally dud Brosnan efforts [creatively speaking],

I don't agree with that. Brosnan's movies were far from duds and
clearly successful to the masses. Most people don't got to I Bond
movie for "High dramatic art and superior thespianism". The Brosnan
era movies may not have had the character driven aspects many
Fleming/Bond fans would have liked but they certainly made boats loads
of money. There's also nothing really inconsitent about them in
relation to his vision either. His stories were [creatively speaking],
frequently over the top and he put great effort into capitalising on
ways to help them make him money. EON does much the same thing don't
they?

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233439 ]

So, 12 März 2006 21:39

akaiser77

Matt,

"MR" also made boatloads of money and was wildly successful to the
masses. It was also, to put it mildly, a creative dud.

AK

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233440 ]

So, 12 März 2006 21:51

mlawrenc

Oh really. You might want to seek out what Mike Feeney has to say
about that topic in his copious and well thought out posts. BTW. Good
luck!

Or taking this down another path...How would you define "creative"?

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233441 ]

So, 12 März 2006 21:51

Matt L wrote:
> >--- Let's not get too optimistic.
>
> For some reason I thought you might say that. ;-)
>
>
> >---After all, this is basically the same team of people who have put out generally dud Brosnan efforts [creatively speaking],
>
> I don't agree with that. Brosnan's movies were far from duds and
> clearly successful to the masses. Most people don't got to I Bond
> movie for "High dramatic art and superior thespianism". The Brosnan
> era movies may not have had the character driven aspects many
> Fleming/Bond fans would have liked but they certainly made boats loads
> of money. There's also nothing really inconsitent about them in
> relation to his vision either. His stories were [creatively speaking],
> frequently over the top and he put great effort into capitalising on
> ways to help them make him money. EON does much the same thing don't
> they?

--- Success is a relative term, of course. Compared to what most
movies made over the last decade, then yes, the Brosnan Bonds were
successful. Compared to what Dalton's Bonds earned to Brosnan's, then
Brosnan's were failures. Dalton's two Bonds averaged a box office take
of 4 1/2 times more than the movies' budgets. Brosnan's Bonds averaged
3 1/2 times. Now, compared to how Brosnan's Bonds were made to
Connery's films, then again, they were not successful, if only because
Connery's had the best source material to work from, while Brosnan was
unfortunately stuck with cut-and-paste scripts. On the other hand, one
can't argue that Brosnan did help keep the franchise alive, which
itself is a success, even though EON wasn't getting as big a return on
their investments as they used to. Also, for a film to be creatively
successful it should satisfy beyond what one merely sees on the screen.
It should also dig into the viewer and hook the viewer in varied ways
and on multiple levels. Comparing a Brosnan film to a Connery one is
like comparing cotton candy to a seasoned rib steak. Sure, the cotton
candy is sweet and wispy, but ultimately it's less satisfying, and
actually nausea-inducing at a certain point, while the seasoned steak
is heartier, more fulfilling, and seduces the palate in more express
ways that go beyond what one tastes on the tongue. One walks out
well-fed from a steak, one can only walk out feeling queasy from too
much cotton candy. Maybe we really do live in the Junk Age, as I've
claimed before, and audiences are more apt to want to gorge and binge
on cotton candy, so much so that they end up not recognizing or even
understanding why a seasoned rib steak is so much better - which really
doesn't require high dramatic art nor superior thespianism, only people
who know how to cook it right. EON, I fear, has gorged and binged on
too much cotton candy in a desperate attempt to appease an increasingly
less enlightened audience to want to suddenly switch over to a seasoned
rib steak. Unless it's under doctor's orders and CR is the beef cut
one can only hope for.

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233442 ]

So, 12 März 2006 21:56

akaiser77

Geez--a copious post about the merits of "MR." That's a path I fear to
tread.

There are a number of ways in which "MR" can be considered a creative
dud. I like the casting, for the most part, and the locales (except,
of course, space). The writing and overall concept, however, are both,
er, duddish in my estimation.

Not that these are original thoughts or anything . . .

AK

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233443 ]

So, 12 März 2006 22:10

mlawrenc

>> The source book is Fleming. Remember that the films that were the best
>> were the ones based on his work. If EON screwed that up and missed out
>>on that opportunity I'd be really suprised. Also considering the
>> people involved with writing the screenplay I doubt it would fail on
>> that point.

>Source material means nothing if they rewrite it and it's bad. EON has
>admitted to rewriting elements of Fleming's book to bring it up to the 21st
>century. What that means is anyone's guess at this point. Plenty of terrible
>movies had great source material. The verdict is still out on this one until
>the release of the movie.

I'm really suprised I didn't flogged on the forehead with "Well what
about the CR/Niven version? That was a pretty bad version based on the
source matter wasn't it?". ;-)

It's been a common practice to rewrite Fleming's stories to one degree
or another to make/keep them current during the time frame they were
made. This is absolutely a necessity with CR given the era it was
written and thin plot. However EON have said they are going to be true
to it and from what we've seen so far it looks like they will.

>>poor acting...

> I've seen some of each actors work. Each are first class and not a
> loser in the bunch. Almost reminds me of the caliber of the FRWL
> ensemble..

>>Again, great actors have made bad movies so judging them on past history
>>will only take you so far. A great cast bodes well, but let's see how they
>>are handled and cast in the context of the movie.

I'm convinced that EON knew that a great cast was a must to make this
movie succeed considering the apparent character driven approach they
are taking. I conceed that there have been many bad movies that had
great casts. I just get the feeling this won't be one of them. In
this case I think they knew that appropriate casting would help them
get away *with* and away *from* the explosions and cgi formula. I
admire their courage for that. I think they know what they are doing
but as you say ..Let's wait and see.

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233444 ]

So, 12 März 2006 22:10

Tom Zielinski

"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1142196718.883852.105270 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

> --- Success is a relative term, of course. Compared to what most
> movies made over the last decade, then yes, the Brosnan Bonds were
> successful. Compared to what Dalton's Bonds earned to Brosnan's, then
> Brosnan's were failures. Dalton's two Bonds averaged a box office take
> of 4 1/2 times more than the movies' budgets. Brosnan's Bonds averaged
> 3 1/2 times.

That is only one way to measure a film's BO success, and it's HUGELY
misleading to say the last four were failures compared to Dalton's films.
But you know that, don't you...

IMDB notes that LTK cost $40M, and grossed $156M worldwide, or a (very
rough) profit of $116M. DAD cost $140M and grossed a half a *billion*
dollars, or a (very rough) profit of $360M.

DAD returned *three* times as many dollars as LTK.

I dunno. Looks to me like a slam-dunk advantage to DAD. Further, compare
the average (very rough) profit of Brosnan's four films to Dalton's two, and
there is still a huge advantage to the last four.

Hardly a failure. And I'd have to think Michael G. Wilson would agree. If
not LOL at your assertion.

> Now, compared to how Brosnan's Bonds were made to
> Connery's films, then again, they were not successful, if only because
> Connery's had the best source material to work from, while Brosnan was
> unfortunately stuck with cut-and-paste scripts. On the other hand, one
> can't argue that Brosnan did help keep the franchise alive, which
> itself is a success, even though EON wasn't getting as big a return on
> their investments as they used to. Also, for a film to be creatively
> successful it should satisfy beyond what one merely sees on the screen.
> It should also dig into the viewer and hook the viewer in varied ways
> and on multiple levels. Comparing a Brosnan film to a Connery one is
> like comparing cotton candy to a seasoned rib steak. Sure, the cotton
> candy is sweet and wispy, but ultimately it's less satisfying, and
> actually nausea-inducing at a certain point, while the seasoned steak
> is heartier, more fulfilling, and seduces the palate in more express
> ways that go beyond what one tastes on the tongue. One walks out
> well-fed from a steak, one can only walk out feeling queasy from too
> much cotton candy.

Your metaphors *are* amusing.

Ever hear that a bolus of protein (steak) makes one lethargic and dull?

> Maybe we really do live in the Junk Age, as I've
> claimed before, and audiences are more apt to want to gorge and binge
> on cotton candy, so much so that they end up not recognizing or even
> understanding why a seasoned rib steak is so much better - which really
> doesn't require high dramatic art nor superior thespianism, only people
> who know how to cook it right. EON, I fear, has gorged and binged on
> too much cotton candy in a desperate attempt to appease an increasingly
> less enlightened audience to want to suddenly switch over to a seasoned
> rib steak. Unless it's under doctor's orders and CR is the beef cut
> one can only hope for.

I prefer a good seafood gumbo and a Snickers myself.

Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that condescension is the sincerest form of insult..."

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233445 ]

So, 12 März 2006 22:12

mlawrenc

>Also, for a film to be creatively successful it should satisfy beyond what one merely sees on the screen. It should also dig into the viewer and hook the viewer in varied ways
and on multiple levels.

Thats an interesting opinion.

>Comparing a Brosnan film to a Connery one is like comparing cotton candy to a seasoned rib steak.

Now there is an analogy we can all sink our teeth into.

>Sure, the cotton candy is sweet and wispy, but ultimately it's less satisfying, and
>actually nausea-inducing at a certain point...

>EON, I fear, has gorged and binged on too much cotton candy in a desperate attempt >to appease an increasingly less enlightened audience to want to suddenly switch over >to a seasoned rib steak. Unless it's under doctor's orders and CR is the beef cut
>one can only hope for.

I agree with your earlier statement about them taking a risk but that
doesn't seem like a "desperate attempt" to refresh and renew the series
(as they have done from time to time). One would have to admit that
they have done that successfully before.

They choose to make money by providing entertainment that we like as
evidenced by box office and cultural popularity.. What more could you
want from the next movie?

Regards,
Matt

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233448 ]

So, 12 März 2006 22:18

Tom Zielinski

"Matt L" <mlawrenc [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1142197973.362634.101240 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

> They choose to make money by providing entertainment that we like as
> evidenced by box office and cultural popularity.. What more could you
> want from the next movie?

Free cotton candy?

Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that he prefers the blue kind..."

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233449 ]

So, 12 März 2006 22:25

mlawrenc

>Free cotton candy?

Personally I prefer popcorn (and free martinis would also be nice)

Tom Zielinski

>... he reflected that he prefers the blue kind..."

Do you really think the blue tastes different from the white?

Regards,
Matt

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233450 ]

So, 12 März 2006 22:32

mlawrenc

>Not that these are original thoughts or anything . . .

or creative ones either one would guess...

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233452 ]

So, 12 März 2006 22:45

Tom Zielinski

"Matt L" <mlawrenc [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1142198752.862238.152700 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >Free cotton candy?
>
> Personally I prefer popcorn (and free martinis would also be nice)
>
> Tom Zielinski
>
>>... he reflected that he prefers the blue kind..."
>
> Do you really think the blue tastes different from the white?

Nah. It all tastes the same. Kinda like blondes and brunettes...

OMG, I did NOT just post that!

Tom

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233453 ]

So, 12 März 2006 23:19

Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1142196718.883852.105270 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > --- Success is a relative term, of course. Compared to what most
> > movies made over the last decade, then yes, the Brosnan Bonds were
> > successful. Compared to what Dalton's Bonds earned to Brosnan's, then
> > Brosnan's were failures. Dalton's two Bonds averaged a box office take
> > of 4 1/2 times more than the movies' budgets. Brosnan's Bonds averaged
> > 3 1/2 times.
>
> That is only one way to measure a film's BO success, and it's HUGELY
> misleading to say the last four were failures compared to Dalton's films.
> But you know that, don't you...
>
> IMDB notes that LTK cost $40M, and grossed $156M worldwide, or a (very
> rough) profit of $116M. DAD cost $140M and grossed a half a *billion*
> dollars, or a (very rough) profit of $360M.
>
> DAD returned *three* times as many dollars as LTK.

--- But once you factor in inflation and the cost of movie tickets [the
average ticket price being now about 50% over what it was in '89], that
3 times spread doesn't come across as impressive. According to
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm, the average admission
price in '89 was $3.97, in the U.S., and at the time of DAD it was
$5.81. That certainly cuts into the true profit picture. Those better
at math than I am when it comes to breaking it all down can figure it
out for themselves.

As for the worlwide gross, according to
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/JamesBond.php, it goes like
this:

TLD $191.2M on a budget of $40M - $151.2M diff
LTK $156.2M on a budget of $42M - $114.2M diff
GE $353.4M on a budget of $60M - $293.4M diff
TND $346.6M on a budget of $110M - $236.6M diff
TWINE $390M on a budget of $135M - $265M diff
DAD $456M on a budget of $142M - $314M diff

Sure, DAD's $314M profit looks impressive to LTK's $114.2M, but LTK
reaped nearly 4 times a return on its investment, whereas DAD only
yielded 2 1/2 times a return on its investment, while it was 2 times on
TWINE's and just over 2 1/3 times on TND's. Only GE could be viewed as
a genuine Brosnan hit with nearly 6 times a return on its investment.

> I dunno. Looks to me like a slam-dunk advantage to DAD. Further, compare
> the average (very rough) profit of Brosnan's four films to Dalton's two, and
> there is still a huge advantage to the last four.

--- I dunno, looks not. The figures are right up there, just translate
them into percentage differences. Wilson's thinking must be more like:
What do I go with now, another mere doubling of my investment or shoot
for twice that? With CR's $100M budget, it's conceivable that EON
could earn $400M. Even $300M would be an improvement over DAD. In
percentage terms, that would still be more than if he had stuck with
Brosnan for one more.

> Hardly a failure. And I'd have to think Michael G. Wilson would agree. If
> not LOL at your assertion.

--- I'm not saying he didn't make money. When you look at the
percentages, he just didn't make as much with Brosnan as Cubby made
with all the others.

> > Now, compared to how Brosnan's Bonds were made to
> > Connery's films, then again, they were not successful, if only because
> > Connery's had the best source material to work from, while Brosnan was
> > unfortunately stuck with cut-and-paste scripts. On the other hand, one
> > can't argue that Brosnan did help keep the franchise alive, which
> > itself is a success, even though EON wasn't getting as big a return on
> > their investments as they used to. Also, for a film to be creatively
> > successful it should satisfy beyond what one merely sees on the screen.
> > It should also dig into the viewer and hook the viewer in varied ways
> > and on multiple levels. Comparing a Brosnan film to a Connery one is
> > like comparing cotton candy to a seasoned rib steak. Sure, the cotton
> > candy is sweet and wispy, but ultimately it's less satisfying, and
> > actually nausea-inducing at a certain point, while the seasoned steak
> > is heartier, more fulfilling, and seduces the palate in more express
> > ways that go beyond what one tastes on the tongue. One walks out
> > well-fed from a steak, one can only walk out feeling queasy from too
> > much cotton candy.
>
> Your metaphors *are* amusing.
>
> Ever hear that a bolus of protein (steak) makes one lethargic and dull?

--- No. Then again, I have my steaks sparingly. There are other
culinary delights to engage in.

> > Maybe we really do live in the Junk Age, as I've
> > claimed before, and audiences are more apt to want to gorge and binge
> > on cotton candy, so much so that they end up not recognizing or even
> > understanding why a seasoned rib steak is so much better - which really
> > doesn't require high dramatic art nor superior thespianism, only people
> > who know how to cook it right. EON, I fear, has gorged and binged on
> > too much cotton candy in a desperate attempt to appease an increasingly
> > less enlightened audience to want to suddenly switch over to a seasoned
> > rib steak. Unless it's under doctor's orders and CR is the beef cut
> > one can only hope for.
>
> I prefer a good seafood gumbo and a Snickers myself.

--- Still superior to cotton candy.

>
>
>
>
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
> particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
> ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
> delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
> that condescension is the sincerest form of insult..."

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233454 ]

So, 12 März 2006 23:28

Matt L wrote:
> >Also, for a film to be creatively successful it should satisfy beyond what one merely sees on the screen. It should also dig into the viewer and hook the viewer in varied ways
> and on multiple levels.
>
> Thats an interesting opinion.
>
>
> >Comparing a Brosnan film to a Connery one is like comparing cotton candy to a seasoned rib steak.
>
> Now there is an analogy we can all sink our teeth into.
>
> >Sure, the cotton candy is sweet and wispy, but ultimately it's less satisfying, and
> >actually nausea-inducing at a certain point...
>
> >EON, I fear, has gorged and binged on too much cotton candy in a desperate attempt >to appease an increasingly less enlightened audience to want to suddenly switch over >to a seasoned rib steak. Unless it's under doctor's orders and CR is the beef cut
> >one can only hope for.
>
> I agree with your earlier statement about them taking a risk but that
> doesn't seem like a "desperate attempt" to refresh and renew the series
> (as they have done from time to time). One would have to admit that
> they have done that successfully before.

--- Well, they wouldn't have lasted this long if they didn't know what
they were doing in terms of financial survival. And if CR doesn't meet
the criteria of a financially successful film, then you can bet they'll
turn it all around real quick with the next one like they did with
OHMSS - which didn't lose money, but made far less than I think the
producers had hoped, but after Connery what do you expect?

> They choose to make money by providing entertainment that we like as
> evidenced by box office and cultural popularity.. What more could you
> want from the next movie?

--- Something that makes sense?

>
> Regards,
> Matt

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233455 ]

So, 12 März 2006 23:30

Will Traynor

"Matt L" <mlawrenc [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1142193421.830517.4650 [at] z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> The source book is Fleming. Remember that the films that were the best
>>> were the ones based on his work. If EON screwed that up and missed out
>>>on that opportunity I'd be really suprised. Also considering the
>>> people involved with writing the screenplay I doubt it would fail on
>>> that point.
>
>>Source material means nothing if they rewrite it and it's bad. EON has
>>admitted to rewriting elements of Fleming's book to bring it up to the
>>21st
>>century. What that means is anyone's guess at this point. Plenty of
>>terrible
>>movies had great source material. The verdict is still out on this one
>>until
>>the release of the movie.
>
> I'm really suprised I didn't flogged on the forehead with "Well what
> about the CR/Niven version? That was a pretty bad version based on the
> source matter wasn't it?". ;-)
>
>
> It's been a common practice to rewrite Fleming's stories to one degree
> or another to make/keep them current during the time frame they were
> made. This is absolutely a necessity with CR given the era it was
> written and thin plot. However EON have said they are going to be true
> to it and from what we've seen so far it looks like they will.
>
>>>poor acting...
>
>> I've seen some of each actors work. Each are first class and not a
>> loser in the bunch. Almost reminds me of the caliber of the FRWL
>> ensemble..
>
>>>Again, great actors have made bad movies so judging them on past history
>>>will only take you so far. A great cast bodes well, but let's see how
>>>they
>>>are handled and cast in the context of the movie.
>
> I'm convinced that EON knew that a great cast was a must to make this
> movie succeed considering the apparent character driven approach they
> are taking. I conceed that there have been many bad movies that had
> great casts. I just get the feeling this won't be one of them. In
> this case I think they knew that appropriate casting would help them
> get away *with* and away *from* the explosions and cgi formula. I
> admire their courage for that. I think they know what they are doing
> but as you say ..Let's wait and see.
>

I'm very optimistic at this point, despite the nattering naybobs, lol

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233457 ]

So, 12 März 2006 23:46

Carcharias

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233458 ]

So, 12 März 2006 23:56

Tom Zielinski

"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1142201944.381410.90900 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Zielinski wrote:
>> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142196718.883852.105270 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > --- Success is a relative term, of course. Compared to what most
>> > movies made over the last decade, then yes, the Brosnan Bonds were
>> > successful. Compared to what Dalton's Bonds earned to Brosnan's, then
>> > Brosnan's were failures. Dalton's two Bonds averaged a box office take
>> > of 4 1/2 times more than the movies' budgets. Brosnan's Bonds averaged
>> > 3 1/2 times.
>>
>> That is only one way to measure a film's BO success, and it's HUGELY
>> misleading to say the last four were failures compared to Dalton's films.
>> But you know that, don't you...
>>
>> IMDB notes that LTK cost $40M, and grossed $156M worldwide, or a (very
>> rough) profit of $116M. DAD cost $140M and grossed a half a *billion*
>> dollars, or a (very rough) profit of $360M.
>>
>> DAD returned *three* times as many dollars as LTK.
>
> --- But once you factor in inflation and the cost of movie tickets [the
> average ticket price being now about 50% over what it was in '89], that
> 3 times spread doesn't come across as impressive.

It doesn't have to be "impressive." It certainly was not a "failure", which
was your original (and disingenuous) assertion.

According to
> http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm, the average admission
> price in '89 was $3.97, in the U.S., and at the time of DAD it was
> $5.81. That certainly cuts into the true profit picture. Those better
> at math than I am when it comes to breaking it all down can figure it
> out for themselves.
>
> As for the worlwide gross, according to
> http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/JamesBond.php, it goes like
> this:
>
> TLD $191.2M on a budget of $40M - $151.2M diff
> LTK $156.2M on a budget of $42M - $114.2M diff
> GE $353.4M on a budget of $60M - $293.4M diff
> TND $346.6M on a budget of $110M - $236.6M diff
> TWINE $390M on a budget of $135M - $265M diff
> DAD $456M on a budget of $142M - $314M diff
>
> Sure, DAD's $314M profit looks impressive to LTK's $114.2M, but LTK
> reaped nearly 4 times a return on its investment, whereas DAD only
> yielded 2 1/2 times a return on its investment, while it was 2 times on
> TWINE's and just over 2 1/3 times on TND's. Only GE could be viewed as
> a genuine Brosnan hit with nearly 6 times a return on its investment.

Again, that is but one narrow way to measure a film's BO performance.

>> I dunno. Looks to me like a slam-dunk advantage to DAD. Further,
>> compare
>> the average (very rough) profit of Brosnan's four films to Dalton's two,
>> and
>> there is still a huge advantage to the last four.
>
> --- I dunno, looks not. The figures are right up there, just translate
> them into percentage differences.

Umm no. I'm looking at absolute dollars which is at least as valid a
measure as the one you are using.

>Wilson's thinking must be more like:
> What do I go with now, another mere doubling of my investment or shoot
> for twice that? With CR's $100M budget, it's conceivable that EON
> could earn $400M. Even $300M would be an improvement over DAD. In
> percentage terms, that would still be more than if he had stuck with
> Brosnan for one more.
>
>> Hardly a failure. And I'd have to think Michael G. Wilson would agree.
>> If
>> not LOL at your assertion.
>
> --- I'm not saying he didn't make money. When you look at the
> percentages, he just didn't make as much with Brosnan as Cubby made
> with all the others.
>
>> > Now, compared to how Brosnan's Bonds were made to
>> > Connery's films, then again, they were not successful, if only because
>> > Connery's had the best source material to work from, while Brosnan was
>> > unfortunately stuck with cut-and-paste scripts. On the other hand, one
>> > can't argue that Brosnan did help keep the franchise alive, which
>> > itself is a success, even though EON wasn't getting as big a return on
>> > their investments as they used to. Also, for a film to be creatively
>> > successful it should satisfy beyond what one merely sees on the screen.
>> > It should also dig into the viewer and hook the viewer in varied ways
>> > and on multiple levels. Comparing a Brosnan film to a Connery one is
>> > like comparing cotton candy to a seasoned rib steak. Sure, the cotton
>> > candy is sweet and wispy, but ultimately it's less satisfying, and
>> > actually nausea-inducing at a certain point, while the seasoned steak
>> > is heartier, more fulfilling, and seduces the palate in more express
>> > ways that go beyond what one tastes on the tongue. One walks out
>> > well-fed from a steak, one can only walk out feeling queasy from too
>> > much cotton candy.
>>
>> Your metaphors *are* amusing.
>>
>> Ever hear that a bolus of protein (steak) makes one lethargic and dull?
>
> --- No. Then again, I have my steaks sparingly. There are other
> culinary delights to engage in.
>
>> > Maybe we really do live in the Junk Age, as I've
>> > claimed before, and audiences are more apt to want to gorge and binge
>> > on cotton candy, so much so that they end up not recognizing or even
>> > understanding why a seasoned rib steak is so much better - which really
>> > doesn't require high dramatic art nor superior thespianism, only people
>> > who know how to cook it right. EON, I fear, has gorged and binged on
>> > too much cotton candy in a desperate attempt to appease an increasingly
>> > less enlightened audience to want to suddenly switch over to a seasoned
>> > rib steak. Unless it's under doctor's orders and CR is the beef cut
>> > one can only hope for.
>>
>> I prefer a good seafood gumbo and a Snickers myself.
>
> --- Still superior to cotton candy.

Though your argument is not.

Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that Almond Joy bars are excellent too..."

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233459 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 00:22

Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1142201944.381410.90900 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tom Zielinski wrote:
> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1142196718.883852.105270 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > --- Success is a relative term, of course. Compared to what most
> >> > movies made over the last decade, then yes, the Brosnan Bonds were
> >> > successful. Compared to what Dalton's Bonds earned to Brosnan's, then
> >> > Brosnan's were failures. Dalton's two Bonds averaged a box office take
> >> > of 4 1/2 times more than the movies' budgets. Brosnan's Bonds averaged
> >> > 3 1/2 times.
> >>
> >> That is only one way to measure a film's BO success, and it's HUGELY
> >> misleading to say the last four were failures compared to Dalton's films.
> >> But you know that, don't you...
> >>
> >> IMDB notes that LTK cost $40M, and grossed $156M worldwide, or a (very
> >> rough) profit of $116M. DAD cost $140M and grossed a half a *billion*
> >> dollars, or a (very rough) profit of $360M.
> >>
> >> DAD returned *three* times as many dollars as LTK.
> >
> > --- But once you factor in inflation and the cost of movie tickets [the
> > average ticket price being now about 50% over what it was in '89], that
> > 3 times spread doesn't come across as impressive.
>
>
> It doesn't have to be "impressive." It certainly was not a "failure", which
> was your original (and disingenuous) assertion.

--- In and of itself each Brosnan film was not a financial failure, but
in comparative terms - which is how I'm defining financial success and
failure - to other Bond pix, it could be deemed as disappointing, if
not a failure.

> According to
> > http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm, the average admission
> > price in '89 was $3.97, in the U.S., and at the time of DAD it was
> > $5.81. That certainly cuts into the true profit picture. Those better
> > at math than I am when it comes to breaking it all down can figure it
> > out for themselves.
> >
> > As for the worlwide gross, according to
> > http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/JamesBond.php, it goes like
> > this:
> >
> > TLD $191.2M on a budget of $40M - $151.2M diff
> > LTK $156.2M on a budget of $42M - $114.2M diff
> > GE $353.4M on a budget of $60M - $293.4M diff
> > TND $346.6M on a budget of $110M - $236.6M diff
> > TWINE $390M on a budget of $135M - $265M diff
> > DAD $456M on a budget of $142M - $314M diff
> >
> > Sure, DAD's $314M profit looks impressive to LTK's $114.2M, but LTK
> > reaped nearly 4 times a return on its investment, whereas DAD only
> > yielded 2 1/2 times a return on its investment, while it was 2 times on
> > TWINE's and just over 2 1/3 times on TND's. Only GE could be viewed as
> > a genuine Brosnan hit with nearly 6 times a return on its investment.
>
>
> Again, that is but one narrow way to measure a film's BO performance.
>
>
> >> I dunno. Looks to me like a slam-dunk advantage to DAD. Further,
> >> compare
> >> the average (very rough) profit of Brosnan's four films to Dalton's two,
> >> and
> >> there is still a huge advantage to the last four.
> >
> > --- I dunno, looks not. The figures are right up there, just translate
> > them into percentage differences.
>
>
> Umm no. I'm looking at absolute dollars which is at least as valid a
> measure as the one you are using.

--- You can't go by absolute dollars because that's not a valid
measuring stick of how well you're doing compared to past product. It
only works for the moment, but it doesn't reflect how well you're doing
in the big picture of things. If Bill Gates makes $3 billion today,
that sounds fantastic. But if you translate that $3 billion into it
actually being a loss compared to how much he made yesterday, $6
billion or 100% more, then that puts things into better perspective as
to how well or poorly he's really doing over the long haul and not just
for a day. Absolute dollar figures are misleading since they don't
tell the whole picture, they just look good in print, that's all.

> >Wilson's thinking must be more like:
> > What do I go with now, another mere doubling of my investment or shoot
> > for twice that? With CR's $100M budget, it's conceivable that EON
> > could earn $400M. Even $300M would be an improvement over DAD. In
> > percentage terms, that would still be more than if he had stuck with
> > Brosnan for one more.
> >
> >> Hardly a failure. And I'd have to think Michael G. Wilson would agree.
> >> If
> >> not LOL at your assertion.
> >
> > --- I'm not saying he didn't make money. When you look at the
> > percentages, he just didn't make as much with Brosnan as Cubby made
> > with all the others.
> >
> >> > Now, compared to how Brosnan's Bonds were made to
> >> > Connery's films, then again, they were not successful, if only because
> >> > Connery's had the best source material to work from, while Brosnan was
> >> > unfortunately stuck with cut-and-paste scripts. On the other hand, one
> >> > can't argue that Brosnan did help keep the franchise alive, which
> >> > itself is a success, even though EON wasn't getting as big a return on
> >> > their investments as they used to. Also, for a film to be creatively
> >> > successful it should satisfy beyond what one merely sees on the screen.
> >> > It should also dig into the viewer and hook the viewer in varied ways
> >> > and on multiple levels. Comparing a Brosnan film to a Connery one is
> >> > like comparing cotton candy to a seasoned rib steak. Sure, the cotton
> >> > candy is sweet and wispy, but ultimately it's less satisfying, and
> >> > actually nausea-inducing at a certain point, while the seasoned steak
> >> > is heartier, more fulfilling, and seduces the palate in more express
> >> > ways that go beyond what one tastes on the tongue. One walks out
> >> > well-fed from a steak, one can only walk out feeling queasy from too
> >> > much cotton candy.
> >>
> >> Your metaphors *are* amusing.
> >>
> >> Ever hear that a bolus of protein (steak) makes one lethargic and dull?
> >
> > --- No. Then again, I have my steaks sparingly. There are other
> > culinary delights to engage in.
> >
> >> > Maybe we really do live in the Junk Age, as I've
> >> > claimed before, and audiences are more apt to want to gorge and binge
> >> > on cotton candy, so much so that they end up not recognizing or even
> >> > understanding why a seasoned rib steak is so much better - which really
> >> > doesn't require high dramatic art nor superior thespianism, only people
> >> > who know how to cook it right. EON, I fear, has gorged and binged on
> >> > too much cotton candy in a desperate attempt to appease an increasingly
> >> > less enlightened audience to want to suddenly switch over to a seasoned
> >> > rib steak. Unless it's under doctor's orders and CR is the beef cut
> >> > one can only hope for.
> >>
> >> I prefer a good seafood gumbo and a Snickers myself.
> >
> > --- Still superior to cotton candy.
>
> Though your argument is not.
>

--- What we have here is a failure to communicate --- or perhaps
understand.

>
>
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
> particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
> ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
> delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
> that Almond Joy bars are excellent too..."

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233460 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 00:49

Leviathan

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:45:01 -0600, Tom Zielinski wrote:

> "Matt L" <mlawrenc [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1142198752.862238.152700 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>Free cotton candy?
>>
>> Personally I prefer popcorn (and free martinis would also be nice)
>>
>> Tom Zielinski
>>
>>>... he reflected that he prefers the blue kind..."
>>
>> Do you really think the blue tastes different from the white?
>
>
> Nah. It all tastes the same. Kinda like blondes and brunettes...

"Tell me, Mr. Bond, do you prefer the Blue, the Pink, or the White cotton
candy?"

"Well, as long as teh collars and cuffs match..."

--

Jonathan Andrew Sheen

http://www.leviathanstudios.com
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsheen [at] leviathanstudios.com

"What'dya expect? I'm a New Yorker!"
-Anonymous New York Firefighter, 9/12/01

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233462 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 00:53

Tom Zielinski

"Leviathan" <jsheen [at] leviathanstudios.com> wrote in message
news:zcdyvclv06bu$.pwpngvbkpctp.dlg [at] 40tude.net...

>> Nah. It all tastes the same. Kinda like blondes and brunettes...
>
> "Tell me, Mr. Bond, do you prefer the Blue, the Pink, or the White cotton
> candy?"
>
> "Well, as long as the collars and cuffs match..."

LOL!

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233463 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 01:03

mlawrenc

Er um...does that mean Bond prefers Brunettes, Blondes or Redheads?.

Regards,
Matt

"Who is your floor?"

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233464 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 01:08

Tom Zielinski

"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1142205732.411004.304160 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> --- What we have here is a failure to communicate --- or perhaps
> understand.

I'd think that you'd have to agree that the quantity of tickets sold is a
fair measure of the relative success/failure between films. Yes? Let's
take the inflation and ROI factors out of the equation then.

TLD and LTK sold 21.8 million tickets (admissions) combined.
GoldenEye sold more than 24.45 million *alone*. TND 26.7 million. (No
figures for TWINE or DAD.)

Do you really think EON or MGM/UA consider the Brosnan Bonds "failures" in
terms of most any significant box office measure relative to the two Dalton
film?

That's laughable.

Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that this isn't all that hard to understand..."

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233465 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 01:09

phil.gerrard1

Jay wrote:

> Admittedly, I've been trying to avoid spoilers, but if they're trying to
> hold true to Fleming's Bond I'm not sure what the heck they're doing filming
> CR in the Bahamas. Bond is a product of the European war/postwar experience
> and CR should be set solely on the European Continent if you ask me (and you
> didn't!).

Yes, but a thirty-to-forty-something-year-old Bond in 2006 and beyond
simply can't be a 'product of the European war/postwar experience', so
unless CR and all future Bond movies are to be made as period pieces,
surely some things are going to have to change.

If you're arguing that EON should not be relying on a
fifty-odd-year-old novel to provide source material for a contemporary
movie, and that CR isn't an appropriate novel to adapt for the 21st
century, that's an interesting and properly debatable point. (Since
you're a smart and knowledgeable guy, I think that's what you're
saying, but correct me if I'm wrong.)

Best

Phil

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233467 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 01:31

Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1142205732.411004.304160 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > --- What we have here is a failure to communicate --- or perhaps
> > understand.
>
> I'd think that you'd have to agree that the quantity of tickets sold is a
> fair measure of the relative success/failure between films. Yes? Let's
> take the inflation and ROI factors out of the equation then.
>
> TLD and LTK sold 21.8 million tickets (admissions) combined.
> GoldenEye sold more than 24.45 million *alone*. TND 26.7 million. (No
> figures for TWINE or DAD.)
>
> Do you really think EON or MGM/UA consider the Brosnan Bonds "failures" in
> terms of most any significant box office measure relative to the two Dalton
> film?
>
> That's laughable.

--- Well, I'm glad I'm making you laugh a lot, but I'm not sure how
24.4M tickets for GE could amass greater earnings [$353M] than TND's
26.7M tickets which earned $346M. There must've been a fire sale going
on for TND to get 2.3 million extra people to see the movie and they
still ended up $7 million short of GE. But again, you're not looking
at the figures in strictly percentage terms, you're still looking at it
in dollar terms, which is only a superficial barometer of how well or
poorly something does. You need to get beyond the face value of the
dollar to extrapolate the true success or failure of anything. As I
said earlier, in and of itself each Brosnan Bond did very well,
especially in relation to its competition between '95 and '02, but in
relation to other Bond films in percentage terms, it's a different
story.

>
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
> particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
> ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
> delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
> that this isn't all that hard to understand..."

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233468 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 01:54

Tom Zielinski

"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1142209861.588794.205830 [at] p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Zielinski wrote:
>> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142205732.411004.304160 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > --- What we have here is a failure to communicate --- or perhaps
>> > understand.
>>
>> I'd think that you'd have to agree that the quantity of tickets sold is a
>> fair measure of the relative success/failure between films. Yes? Let's
>> take the inflation and ROI factors out of the equation then.
>>
>> TLD and LTK sold 21.8 million tickets (admissions) combined.
>> GoldenEye sold more than 24.45 million *alone*. TND 26.7 million. (No
>> figures for TWINE or DAD.)
>>
>> Do you really think EON or MGM/UA consider the Brosnan Bonds "failures"
>> in
>> terms of most any significant box office measure relative to the two
>> Dalton
>> film?
>>
>> That's laughable.
>
> --- Well, I'm glad I'm making you laugh a lot,

*I'm* not laughing, I'm saying that your assertion is laughable.

Anyway, how about answering the question?

> but I'm not sure how
> 24.4M tickets for GE could amass greater earnings [$353M] than TND's
> 26.7M tickets which earned $346M.

Where did you get your figures? Mine are from Kim Last's site. All B/O
figures are pretty much estimates, as you might know. The film business is
infamous for fudged numbers, which puts your ROI argument at risk. And most
all box office discussion, actually.

For that matter, forget it. If you want to think that the last four films
were box office failures, good 'onya.

Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that he enjoys a good debate as much as the next Etonian, but..."

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233469 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 02:01

Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1142209861.588794.205830 [at] p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tom Zielinski wrote:
> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1142205732.411004.304160 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > --- What we have here is a failure to communicate --- or perhaps
> >> > understand.
> >>
> >> I'd think that you'd have to agree that the quantity of tickets sold is a
> >> fair measure of the relative success/failure between films. Yes? Let's
> >> take the inflation and ROI factors out of the equation then.
> >>
> >> TLD and LTK sold 21.8 million tickets (admissions) combined.
> >> GoldenEye sold more than 24.45 million *alone*. TND 26.7 million. (No
> >> figures for TWINE or DAD.)
> >>
> >> Do you really think EON or MGM/UA consider the Brosnan Bonds "failures"
> >> in
> >> terms of most any significant box office measure relative to the two
> >> Dalton
> >> film?
> >>
> >> That's laughable.
> >
> > --- Well, I'm glad I'm making you laugh a lot,
>
>
> *I'm* not laughing, I'm saying that your assertion is laughable.
>
> Anyway, how about answering the question?
>
>
>
> > but I'm not sure how
> > 24.4M tickets for GE could amass greater earnings [$353M] than TND's
> > 26.7M tickets which earned $346M.
>
>
> Where did you get your figures? Mine are from Kim Last's site. All B/O
> figures are pretty much estimates, as you might know. The film business is
> infamous for fudged numbers, which puts your ROI argument at risk. And most
> all box office discussion, actually.
>
> For that matter, forget it. If you want to think that the last four films
> were box office failures, good 'onya.

--- You still don't understand the context of this discussion, do you?
And obviously you don't read all the posts, otherwise you'd know from
this thread where I got the figures from, but here it is again:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/JamesBond.php

>
>
>
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
> particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
> ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
> delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
> that he enjoys a good debate as much as the next Etonian, but..."

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233470 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 02:42

mlawrenc

>> They choose to make money by providing entertainment that we like as
>>evidenced by box office and cultural popularity.. What more could you
>> want from the next movie?

>--- Something that makes sense?

And that might be? What?

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233475 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 05:30

akaiser77

You're mean, Tom.

PLONK.

AK

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233477 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 09:14

Rhino

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:45:01 -0600, "Tom Zielinski"
<rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Matt L" <mlawrenc [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:1142198752.862238.152700 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >Free cotton candy?
>>
>> Personally I prefer popcorn (and free martinis would also be nice)
>>
>> Tom Zielinski
>>
>>>... he reflected that he prefers the blue kind..."
>>
>> Do you really think the blue tastes different from the white?
>
>
>Nah. It all tastes the same. Kinda like blondes and brunettes...
>
>OMG, I did NOT just post that!

"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to
slay this particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a
Morlands' three ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he
waited for the delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his
lungs, he reflected that, taste-wise, there was a subtle but definite
difference between Bambi and Thumper..."

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233482 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 12:43

Matt L wrote:
> >> They choose to make money by providing entertainment that we like as
> >>evidenced by box office and cultural popularity.. What more could you
> >> want from the next movie?
>
> >--- Something that makes sense?
>
> And that might be? What?

--- A comprehensible plot would be nice.

Re: Getting sick of it [message #233499 ]

Mo, 13 März 2006 18:27

ahk

At 3:10pm -0600, 03/12/06, Tom Zielinski <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>wq [at] email.com wrote:

>> --- Success is a relative term, of course. Compared to what most
>> movies made over the last decade, then yes, the Brosnan Bonds were
>> successful. Compared to what Dalton's Bonds earned to Brosnan's, then
>> Brosnan's were failures. Dalton's two Bonds averaged a box office take
>> of 4 1/2 times more than the movies' budgets. Brosnan's Bonds averaged
>> 3 1/2 times.

>That is only one way to measure a film's BO success, and it's HUGELY
>misleading to say the last four were failures compared to Dalton's films.
>But you know that, don't you...

>IMDB notes that LTK cost $40M, and grossed $156M worldwide, or a (very
>rough) profit of $116M. DAD cost $140M and grossed a half a *billion*
>dollars, or a (very rough) profit of $360M.

>DAD returned *three* times as many dollars as LTK.

>I dunno. Looks to me like a slam-dunk advantage to DAD.

His claim that Brosnan's movied failed in relative terms is absurd, but he
has a point about return on investment, at least as reported in IMDb.

But we don't actually know if, through the magic of Hollywood accounting,
DAD had 10s of millions of dollars of irrelevant expenses charged to it.

If I had the choice, I'd still rather own "My Big Fat Greek Wedding".

>Further, compare the average (very rough) profit of Brosnan's four films
>to Dalton's two, and there is still a huge advantage to the last four.

It's also possible that over the long term, a Brosnan movie could earn
more than a Dalton movie, depending on how the movies are packaged for
television. It's my theory that no movie has ever lost money as long as it
can be rented to television.

Seiten (2): [1 2 > »]

Vorheriges Thema:	Trashing John Glen
Nächstes Thema:	Mads Mikklesen looks more like Bond than Craig - new poster

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 15:45:25 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03985 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.