Some great posts here guys, thanks for your comments. It would seem we're as divided as ever.
Does anyone think that Brosnan got less popular as a result of the new and thoroughly modern take on Bond? That Craig's performance merely dated Brosnan overnight? And that Brosnan is being bashed with the benefit of hindsight?
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
...because QoS was one of the worst EON Bonds according to the budget-Box office ratio
But I am talking about the success of each era and Craig has not yet finished his tenure.
budget Mio$ box office Mio$ profit Mio$
TLD 40 346 306
LTK 42 278 246
TND 110 523 413
TWINE 135 504 369
DAD 142 526 384
*groan* You really don't understand what I am talking about, do you ? TLD alone made nearly 9 times what is costs. On avarage those last three Brosnan Bonds made about three times or four at most. Ergo, TLD was more successful because it had a greater profit return. Do you get it now ? The more it made over it's budget, the more successful it was, not how much you invest.
How could you say Brosnan wasnt an audience grabber? if he wasnt the franchise would most likely be dead, to quote what someone said on here awhile ago "Brosnan revived the series when it was on life support and handed it over in excellent health", yea DAD was terrible, but it still was one of the highest grossing Bond films ever, and his other 3 did almost as well, So yes, Brosnan's Bond put asses in the seats.
How could you say Brosnan wasnt an audience grabber? if he wasnt the franchise would most likely be dead, to quote what someone said on here awhile ago "Brosnan revived the series when it was on life support and handed it over in excellent health", yea DAD was terrible, but it still was one of the highest grossing Bond films ever, and his other 3 did almost as well, So yes, Brosnan's Bond put asses in the seats.
DAD wasn't even close to being the highest grossing Bond films ever and neither was TND or TWINE. And no, not GE either.
*groan* You really don't understand what I am talking about, do you ? TLD alone made nearly 9 times what is costs. On avarage those last three Brosnan Bonds made about three times or four at most. Ergo, TLD was more successful because it had a greater profit return. Do you get it now ? The more it made over it's budget, the more successful it was, not how much you invest.
I know exactly what you are talking about, but your definition of success is not the one, that I have.
If you are producing a movie for US$ 10 and have a box office of US$ 500,-- it is still a bad movie as it has no audience.
I'd prefer the 413 Mio, 369 Mio and 384 Mio profits over TLDs 306 Mio profit, but it maybe something "german"
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
How could you say Brosnan wasnt an audience grabber? if he wasnt the franchise would most likely be dead, to quote what someone said on here awhile ago "Brosnan revived the series when it was on life support and handed it over in excellent health", yea DAD was terrible, but it still was one of the highest grossing Bond films ever, and his other 3 did almost as well, So yes, Brosnan's Bond put asses in the seats.
DAD wasn't even close to being the highest grossing Bond films ever and neither was TND or TWINE.
maybe so, either way Brosnan was a success as Bond.
I know exactly what you are talking about, but your definition of success is not the one, that I have.
If you are producing a movie for US$ 10 and have a box office of US$ 500,-- it is still a bad movie as it has no audience.
I'd prefer the 413 Mio, 369 Mio and 384 Mio profits over TLDs 306 Mio profit, but it maybe something "german"
Then you are truly ignorant about how any business works. The mutiple of profit return is what is important, period. This is just common sense and it's not subjective. If I put ten million and only get twelve million back, that isn't much. However if I put in one million and make ten million, that is a huge profit margin. I made nine million as opposed to just two million.
How could you say Brosnan wasnt an audience grabber? if he wasnt the franchise would most likely be dead, to quote what someone said on here awhile ago "Brosnan revived the series when it was on life support and handed it over in excellent health", yea DAD was terrible, but it still was one of the highest grossing Bond films ever, and his other 3 did almost as well, So yes, Brosnan's Bond put asses in the seats.
DAD wasn't even close to being the highest grossing Bond films ever and neither was TND or TWINE.
maybe so, either way Brosnan was a success as Bond.
In comparison to others, not really. He just managed to stay afloat.
Then you are truly ignorant about how any business works.
probably ignorant but richer than with your way.
And from a fan's point of view: I personally prefer to see my hard-eared $s being spent in a big budget-movie instead of a budget movie, which is only oriented on an extreme return of investment.
It's the same with cars:
do we really enjoy cheap technology with a huge pricetag over cars, which have been made with attention to detail?
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
DAD wasn't even close to being the highest grossing Bond films ever and neither was TND or TWINE.
maybe so, either way Brosnan was a success as Bond.
In comparison to others, not really. He just managed to stay afloat.
well i apologize then, i dont study all the financial details behind all the bond films, i could care less as long as they keep making them. And to me, Brosnan was a success.
And from a fan's point of view: I personally prefer to see my hard-eared $s being spent in a big budget-movie instead of a budget movie, which is only oriented on an extreme return of investment.
So now quality=budget ? Boy, your logic is flawless.
It's the same with cars:
do we really enjoy cheap technology with a huge pricetag over cars, which have been made with attention to detail?
In comparison to others, not really. He just managed to stay afloat.
with that you have finally left the track of a serious discussion.
That's exactly what I meant at the beginning with the "new" fanboys and you are obviously one of them. 8-)
Have you even read your own posts ? According to your "logic" it's not how much money a movie makes that is important, it's how much they spend. I am using the basic principle of business axiom and you are operating on god knows what.
maybe so, either way Brosnan was a success as Bond.
In comparison to others, not really. He just managed to stay afloat.
well i apologize then, i dont study all the financial details behind all the bond films, i could care less as long as they keep making them. And to me, Brosnan was a success.
Have you even read your own posts ? According to your "logic" it's not how much money a movie makes that is important, it's how much they spend. I am using the basic principle of business axiom and you are operating on god knows what.
This will be my last reply to you:
Your credo is the typical following of the pure economic principle: Produce cheap, sell expensive.
That's something, which lead us to the current dilemma: See GM see the banks, the same principle, maximum grief!
My credo is: Produce a nice product, which feels valuable, which looks valuable and you yourself feel comfortable with, even if it costs more money.
Your customer will appreciate it, you feel better and you'll even earn enough money with it.
The key is to make something better and not cheaper.
And by the way, this has always been Cubby's credo, too: Treat your people with the maximum of effort and they'll pay it back to you with their best performance possible.
If the producers are following your credo, we will soon get the cheapest actor to be 007 and not the best
And next time, you may be telling me, that 413 Mio $ are less than 306 8-)
Thank you very much for your attention, Ladies and gentlemen
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Your credo is the typical following of the pure economic principle: Produce cheap, sell expensive.
That's something, which lead us to the current dilemma: See GM see the banks, the same principle, maximum grief!
) That is hilarous because that is totally not the truth at all. GM broke up because the fuel crisis which lead to a chain reaction of rising prices, cost or labor, worker benefits, etc. They had to trim the fat to stay afloat.
My credo is: Produce a nice product, which feels valuable, which looks valuable and you yourself feel comfortable with, even if it costs more money.
Your customer will appreciate it, you feel better and you'll even earn enough money with it.
The key is to make something better and not cheaper.
That's nice vision of fantasy land. In reality, you have to produce something that costs you as little as possible and sell it at a reasonable price. It's how a business survives.
Thank you very much for your attention, Ladies and gentlemen
Thank you, now please leave. God forbid you ever run a company.
) That is hilarous because that is totally not the truth at all. GM broke up because the fuel crisis which lead to a chain reaction of rising prices, cost or labor, worker benefits, etc.
No, they broke up, because they were selling cars, that noone wanted to buy anymore.
Their strategy has been to build cars with old and cheap technology and sell them for modern prices.
The oil is cheap again, are they selling more cars now? 8-)
No, they broke up, because they were selling cars, that noone wanted to buy anymore.
Their strategy has been to build cars with old and cheap technology and sell them for modern prices.
They weren't buying their cars because of majority of them weren't fuel efficient, the rise in oil prices, the lack of consumer confidence, and the rise in costs I already elaborated on. It had nothing to do with outdated technology.
well ya but like you said that all was dry adult humer, Dainel Craig never orders a drink fasonably or gets the women fasonably Dainel is just a badass where Peirce has syle and ediquette
Yeesh 00SEVEN, spell check buddy. He dosen't deliver corny ass one liners, that was the point. This isn't the Brosnan era were a few puns are spew and the woman is in bed, Craig has actual charisma. Also how should he order his drink ? That's the most obtuse complaint I have heard.
The corny ass one line liners and and spewing women into bed is james bond.
I think you can simply go round and round in circles (and it appears we have) to compare films from decades ago.
Labour, locations and transport are dearer now. Not to mention movie star's wages, dividends and profit-related percentages. Stunts, CGI and product placement is far more expensive now. Also the medium is far different now. There must be ten times the amount of films made each year than say ten years ago - so competetion is far higher (look at Harry Potter re-schedueled to stop clashing with Quantum of Solace).
The fact of the matter is Brosnan was a success in a host of other ways than merely balance on a spread sheet. He injected enthusiasm into the Bond franchise for a whole new audience in a whole new era. Omega alone saw vast increase in sales of their diving watches and BMW's Z3 outsold expectations (despite the initial 1.9 model being a dog of a car). Sony Ericson's phones leapt in sales, as did IBM laptops. These are all knock ons from Brosnan's success.
I like Craig a great deal, and Dalton. Craig rams the modern bond franchise right down your throat, and quickly dated all that had gone before, but I still can't see a reason for the hatred of Brosnan on this site.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited July 2009
I think all Bond actors (save Lazenby ) deserve credit for keeping the franchise alive and moving along, if nothing else. I found quite a bit to enjoy in Brozzer's tenure, and IMO he had some very fine---and occasionally classic---moments in the role. I'd further assert that the steps he took in humanizing the character (the vodka in the hotel room in TND, his reaction after killing Electra in TWINE, and his performance during his imprisonment in DAD) laid the foundation for what Eon and Craig have accomplished in the Current Era.
Of course, some in fandom will not be convinced, and the hyperbolic vitriol will continue. C'est la vie; c'est la guerre :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
(the vodka in the hotel room in TND, his reaction after killing Electra in TWINE, and his performance during his imprisonment in DAD) laid the foundation for what Eon and Craig have accomplished in the Current Era.
Laid the foundation ? How ? That dosen't make sense. Just because Brosnan came before Craig ? That's like saying Roger Moore pioneered for Timothy Dalton when killed Sandor in The Spy Who Loved Me or kicking that guy off the cliff in For Your Eyes Only.
I think you can simply go round and round in circles (and it appears we have) to compare films from decades ago.
Labour, locations and transport are dearer now. Not to mention movie star's wages, dividends and profit-related percentages. Stunts, CGI and product placement is far more expensive now. Also the medium is far different now. There must be ten times the amount of films made each year than say ten years ago - so competetion is far higher (look at Harry Potter re-schedueled to stop clashing with Quantum of Solace).
Just talking in general now, films are alot more exspensive then they used to be. However, Hollywood these days dose so much useless spending and the overhead becomes so high, they barely make a profit these days. You factor in the cost of inflation in any of those old Bond films' budgets, they still don't come close to what they spend now.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
(the vodka in the hotel room in TND, his reaction after killing Electra in TWINE, and his performance during his imprisonment in DAD) laid the foundation for what Eon and Craig have accomplished in the Current Era.
Laid the foundation ? How ? That dosen't make sense. Just because Brosnan came before Craig ? That's like saying Roger Moore pioneered for Timothy Dalton when killed Sandor in The Spy Who Loved Me or kicking that guy off the cliff in For Your Eyes Only.
In a way, he did!
I'm speaking specific terms of the growth and deepening of the character. Connery and Moore's Bonds never showed much in the way of self-reflection; Brosnan did, in my own humble opinion. Now, one can debate all day long about whether or not this is a good thing (I happen to think it is), but I think it's there. Similarly, Dalton's portrayal of Bond, and its pronounced variance from the overt silliness of the Moore Era, did in fact lay the groundwork for Brosnan; I'd have thought that would be rather obvious.
I believe each successive Bond actor stands on the shoulders of those who've preceded him...and Craig's Bond is the beneficiary of this. But if you see no value at all in Brosnan's tenure, then we'll just have to disagree, because I'll certainly not convince you otherwise. Cheers! {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Does anyone think that Brosnan got less popular as a result of the new and thoroughly modern take on Bond? That Craig's performance merely dated Brosnan overnight? And that Brosnan is being bashed with the benefit of hindsight?
http://apbateman.com
...because QoS was one of the worst EON Bonds according to the budget-Box office ratio
?:) budget Mio$ box office Mio$ profit Mio$
TLD 40 346 306
LTK 42 278 246
TND 110 523 413
TWINE 135 504 369
DAD 142 526 384
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
But I am talking about the success of each era and Craig has not yet finished his tenure.
*groan* You really don't understand what I am talking about, do you ? TLD alone made nearly 9 times what is costs. On avarage those last three Brosnan Bonds made about three times or four at most. Ergo, TLD was more successful because it had a greater profit return. Do you get it now ? The more it made over it's budget, the more successful it was, not how much you invest.
DAD wasn't even close to being the highest grossing Bond films ever and neither was TND or TWINE. And no, not GE either.
I know exactly what you are talking about, but your definition of success is not the one, that I have.
If you are producing a movie for US$ 10 and have a box office of US$ 500,-- it is still a bad movie as it has no audience.
I'd prefer the 413 Mio, 369 Mio and 384 Mio profits over TLDs 306 Mio profit, but it maybe something "german"
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
maybe so, either way Brosnan was a success as Bond.
QoS: budget 230 Mio $ box office 576 profit 346
but as Mr. Roberts always mentions the budget-profit-ratio, QoS really sucked here.
For more figures, check here:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/JamesBond.php
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Then you are truly ignorant about how any business works. The mutiple of profit return is what is important, period. This is just common sense and it's not subjective. If I put ten million and only get twelve million back, that isn't much. However if I put in one million and make ten million, that is a huge profit margin. I made nine million as opposed to just two million.
In comparison to others, not really. He just managed to stay afloat.
The fact of the matter is, they spending too much money on these films. That is not just EON making this mistake, it's entire film industry.
probably ignorant but richer than with your way.
And from a fan's point of view: I personally prefer to see my hard-eared $s being spent in a big budget-movie instead of a budget movie, which is only oriented on an extreme return of investment.
It's the same with cars:
do we really enjoy cheap technology with a huge pricetag over cars, which have been made with attention to detail?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
with that you have finally left the track of a serious discussion.
That's exactly what I meant at the beginning with the "new" fanboys and you are obviously one of them. 8-)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
So now quality=budget ? Boy, your logic is flawless.
What in the hell are you talking about ?
Have you even read your own posts ? According to your "logic" it's not how much money a movie makes that is important, it's how much they spend. I am using the basic principle of business axiom and you are operating on god knows what.
Fair enough.
This will be my last reply to you:
Your credo is the typical following of the pure economic principle: Produce cheap, sell expensive.
That's something, which lead us to the current dilemma: See GM see the banks, the same principle, maximum grief!
My credo is: Produce a nice product, which feels valuable, which looks valuable and you yourself feel comfortable with, even if it costs more money.
Your customer will appreciate it, you feel better and you'll even earn enough money with it.
The key is to make something better and not cheaper.
And by the way, this has always been Cubby's credo, too: Treat your people with the maximum of effort and they'll pay it back to you with their best performance possible.
If the producers are following your credo, we will soon get the cheapest actor to be 007 and not the best
And next time, you may be telling me, that 413 Mio $ are less than 306 8-)
Thank you very much for your attention, Ladies and gentlemen
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That's nice vision of fantasy land. In reality, you have to produce something that costs you as little as possible and sell it at a reasonable price. It's how a business survives.
Thank you, now please leave. God forbid you ever run a company.
I really wish you would stop adding stuff after your post, make up your mind. Anyway, I never said this. I said they need to stop excess spending.
No, they broke up, because they were selling cars, that noone wanted to buy anymore.
Their strategy has been to build cars with old and cheap technology and sell them for modern prices.
The oil is cheap again, are they selling more cars now? 8-)
Very friendly, thank you. You should work a bit on your manners, my friend.
Infact I do.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
They weren't buying their cars because of majority of them weren't fuel efficient, the rise in oil prices, the lack of consumer confidence, and the rise in costs I already elaborated on. It had nothing to do with outdated technology.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/business/02sales.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The oil isn't cheap. What the hell are you talking about ? Do you own a car ? Wait let me take that back, do you ever go outside ?
I mean an actual business with manufacturing involved. Not trading and selling toys on the internet.
The corny ass one line liners and and spewing women into bed is james bond.
Yeah, 00SEVEN. Whatever you say.
Labour, locations and transport are dearer now. Not to mention movie star's wages, dividends and profit-related percentages. Stunts, CGI and product placement is far more expensive now. Also the medium is far different now. There must be ten times the amount of films made each year than say ten years ago - so competetion is far higher (look at Harry Potter re-schedueled to stop clashing with Quantum of Solace).
The fact of the matter is Brosnan was a success in a host of other ways than merely balance on a spread sheet. He injected enthusiasm into the Bond franchise for a whole new audience in a whole new era. Omega alone saw vast increase in sales of their diving watches and BMW's Z3 outsold expectations (despite the initial 1.9 model being a dog of a car). Sony Ericson's phones leapt in sales, as did IBM laptops. These are all knock ons from Brosnan's success.
I like Craig a great deal, and Dalton. Craig rams the modern bond franchise right down your throat, and quickly dated all that had gone before, but I still can't see a reason for the hatred of Brosnan on this site.
http://apbateman.com
Of course, some in fandom will not be convinced, and the hyperbolic vitriol will continue. C'est la vie; c'est la guerre :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Laid the foundation ? How ? That dosen't make sense. Just because Brosnan came before Craig ? That's like saying Roger Moore pioneered for Timothy Dalton when killed Sandor in The Spy Who Loved Me or kicking that guy off the cliff in For Your Eyes Only.
Just talking in general now, films are alot more exspensive then they used to be. However, Hollywood these days dose so much useless spending and the overhead becomes so high, they barely make a profit these days. You factor in the cost of inflation in any of those old Bond films' budgets, they still don't come close to what they spend now.
In a way, he did!
I'm speaking specific terms of the growth and deepening of the character. Connery and Moore's Bonds never showed much in the way of self-reflection; Brosnan did, in my own humble opinion. Now, one can debate all day long about whether or not this is a good thing (I happen to think it is), but I think it's there. Similarly, Dalton's portrayal of Bond, and its pronounced variance from the overt silliness of the Moore Era, did in fact lay the groundwork for Brosnan; I'd have thought that would be rather obvious.
I believe each successive Bond actor stands on the shoulders of those who've preceded him...and Craig's Bond is the beneficiary of this. But if you see no value at all in Brosnan's tenure, then we'll just have to disagree, because I'll certainly not convince you otherwise. Cheers! {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM