How have EON made a mistake?? Box Office of CR & QoS would strongly suggest otherwise & have brought many new fans in to the franchise.
I know of many die-hard Bond fans who have loved the reboot(s). Of course it's not everyone's cup of tea (nothing ever would be), but the whole thing would have died if it had carried along the DAD lines IMO.
How have EON made a mistake?? Box Office of CR & QoS would strongly suggest otherwise & have brought many new fans in to the franchise.
Box office should never be the ultimate measure of quality.
I know of many die-hard Bond fans who have loved the reboot(s). Of course it's not everyone's cup of tea (nothing ever would be), but the whole thing would have died if it had carried along the DAD lines IMO.
I doubt if it would have died. All the producers had to do was tone down the excesses of DAD.
How have EON made a mistake?? Box Office of CR & QoS would strongly suggest otherwise & have brought many new fans in to the franchise.
Box office should never be the ultimate measure of quality.
I know of many die-hard Bond fans who have loved the reboot(s). Of course it's not everyone's cup of tea (nothing ever would be), but the whole thing would have died if it had carried along the DAD lines IMO.
I doubt if it would have died. All the producers had to do was tone down the excesses of DAD.
Box office figures might not indicate what YOU deem 'quality' film making, but they do indicate the success and popularity of a film.
It would appear that you don't like the way the franchise has taken, which I get, you're entitled to your opinion, but why steer your threads towards this mission of yours to declare the franchise as going in the wrong direction?
Like it or loathe it, but Box Office rules in these things. Yes the films should be quality, but it's the takings that ultimately matter.
If something hadn't changed - probably to the extent it has tbh - then I do believe we'd have been lucky to see Bond on the big screen for quite some time.
If something hadn't changed - probably to the extent it has tbh - then I do believe we'd have been lucky to see Bond on the big screen for quite some time.
I honestly can’t see why you think this. All that needed to be done was to tone down the excesses of DAD.
It would appear that you don't like the way the franchise has taken, which I get, you're entitled to your opinion, but why steer your threads towards this mission of yours to declare the franchise as going in the wrong direction?
It’s not my mission. I gave up hope after Dalton left that the Bond series could be “redeemed”. The reboot is just another confirmation that my pessimism was apt.
For me, the Bond films are ultimately represented by the Connery era; with its escapism, sophistication, humour, charm, deftly staged fights, the best of John Barry’s Bond scores, the best wardrobe departments and set designs... the list could go on.
In fact I will start a new thread titled:
“What do you like about the Connery era Bond films?”
I do have some glimmer of hope left, though. I am optimistic that the reboot will be progressively “remodelled” over the next few films to take us to a place approaching the Dalton era. This will be acceptable for me.
Eon has now, I suspect, realised its mistake, and will from now on try to remodel the reboot to satisfy the core Bond fans, who are really the ones who matter, not the indifferent general cinemagoer the reboot was designed to pander to.
Mistake??? Casino Royale is prob one of the top 5 Bond films, brought life back into the Bond films and Skyfall on target to be the most successful.
I imagine EON are over the moon and don't even consider any of this a "mistake"
Baffled by this "mistake" thought lol. Have you been hitting the booze?
SF is only a success because it has traditional Bond elements in it that QOS didn’t have. Therefore the success is nothing to do with the reboot but with a revisiting of pre-reboot Bond elements. I hope this continues.
SF is only a success because it has traditional Bond elements in it that QOS didn’t have. Therefore the success is nothing to do with the reboot but with a revisiting of pre-reboot Bond elements. I hope this continues.
I don't believe that is the case at all to be honest, it's simply a good film, good performances.
I think if you took out the likes DB5 and Q etc and other Bond things it would not have made much diff to its huge success. The 50th Anniversary and huge marketing prob helped it more
I’m not solely referring to the DB5 and other Bond homage’s. I’m referring to the style, wardrobe, camerawork and the reintroduction of M’s pre-GE office at the end of the film.
The 50th Anniversary and marketing did greatly help, though.
Tbh I thought the style, wardrobe, camera work & pretty much everything else in CR was pretty epic too. Seemed to kick things off very well in the reboot & didn't rely upon too many homages to the past ... Or maybe I'm alone in that view.
I personally think the average movie goer prob would not even notice those things, just geeks like us.
Casino Royale is a better film in my view also, Skyfall I enjoyed but I don't think will endure to many repeat viewings. Too much techno babble and flaws that annoyed me personally however did have great high points - Ralph Fiennes being high on the list, Q not so much
I agree, Ens007, CR had those elements, which is why it was successful, and QOS wasn’t. It is essential that the reboot does not jettison traditional Bond elements, as QOS did. SF demonstrates that the reboot can accommodate these elements comfortably. I see the reboot continuing to incorporate other well-loved Bond elements as it develops. I am cautiously optimistic, based on SF.
It appears to me that osris has the opinion that anything past the dalton era is crap, especially the DC era.
His opinion is his to hold and I don't have a problem with that, however he seems to bend and force virtually any justification into this 'DC is crap' mentality.
If one aspect is explained, he'll introduce another, when that's been dealt with, in comes another unfounded reason for his dislike of DC, it's almost like he's got some unwritten rule that states he can't change his mind regardless of the facts people point out to him.
It's now at a stalemate, so im off back to the collecting threads where everyone talks dress up 8-)
QoS was very successful for EON, think it was on par with CR gross $ wise.
It had mixed reviews, I don't think it is because of Bond elements but more to do with a average script and **** villain. The style and wardobe for QoS was better then Skyfall and the suits he wore were DCs best yet (personal preference of course)
I personally think the average movie goer prob would not even notice those things, just geeks like us.
I agree, that’s why I think the majority of tickets sold were to people who were not Bond fans but were persuaded by the 50th anniversary marketing campaign, and also out of curiosity. Box office, by the way, only measures tickets sold, not whether people liked the film after they saw it.
... But it could be a reflection of repeat visits to see the film, which in turn may indicate a liking for what they've seen previously??!
Possibly, from Bond fans like us, but that alone would not account for the $6 million plus worldwide turnover, so non-fans must have seen it in droves. But this was, I think, due to the 50th anniversary marketing campaign and the curiosity everyone has to see a new Bond film.
Tbh I'm not convinced that the 50th anniversary bit holds any sway with the general non-fan public. Of course marketing helps, but the same can be said about that in any movie.
Surely to god people re-visit a film because its good, or it offers something that holds further interest in it. Word of mouth shouldn't be underestimated too when it comes to getting arses on seats.
Btw ... $6 million worldwide turnover?? I'm lost by this point.
Comments
I know of many die-hard Bond fans who have loved the reboot(s). Of course it's not everyone's cup of tea (nothing ever would be), but the whole thing would have died if it had carried along the DAD lines IMO.
Box office should never be the ultimate measure of quality.
I doubt if it would have died. All the producers had to do was tone down the excesses of DAD.
Box office figures might not indicate what YOU deem 'quality' film making, but they do indicate the success and popularity of a film.
It would appear that you don't like the way the franchise has taken, which I get, you're entitled to your opinion, but why steer your threads towards this mission of yours to declare the franchise as going in the wrong direction?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
If something hadn't changed - probably to the extent it has tbh - then I do believe we'd have been lucky to see Bond on the big screen for quite some time.
I honestly can’t see why you think this. All that needed to be done was to tone down the excesses of DAD.
It’s not my mission. I gave up hope after Dalton left that the Bond series could be “redeemed”. The reboot is just another confirmation that my pessimism was apt.
For me, the Bond films are ultimately represented by the Connery era; with its escapism, sophistication, humour, charm, deftly staged fights, the best of John Barry’s Bond scores, the best wardrobe departments and set designs... the list could go on.
In fact I will start a new thread titled:
“What do you like about the Connery era Bond films?”
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Why not just stick to watching the earlier films then, as it appears that nothing else will do for you??!
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Mistake??? Casino Royale is prob one of the top 5 Bond films, brought life back into the Bond films and Skyfall on target to be the most successful.
I imagine EON are over the moon and don't even consider any of this a "mistake"
Baffled by this "mistake" thought lol. Have you been hitting the booze?
I don't believe that is the case at all to be honest, it's simply a good film, good performances.
I think if you took out the likes DB5 and Q etc and other Bond things it would not have made much diff to its huge success. The 50th Anniversary and huge marketing prob helped it more
The 50th Anniversary and marketing did greatly help, though.
Casino Royale is a better film in my view also, Skyfall I enjoyed but I don't think will endure to many repeat viewings. Too much techno babble and flaws that annoyed me personally however did have great high points - Ralph Fiennes being high on the list, Q not so much
His opinion is his to hold and I don't have a problem with that, however he seems to bend and force virtually any justification into this 'DC is crap' mentality.
If one aspect is explained, he'll introduce another, when that's been dealt with, in comes another unfounded reason for his dislike of DC, it's almost like he's got some unwritten rule that states he can't change his mind regardless of the facts people point out to him.
It's now at a stalemate, so im off back to the collecting threads where everyone talks dress up 8-)
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
It had mixed reviews, I don't think it is because of Bond elements but more to do with a average script and **** villain. The style and wardobe for QoS was better then Skyfall and the suits he wore were DCs best yet (personal preference of course)
Ok it had more than its fair share of flaws, but people still flocked to see it. Must be a reason behind it ...
I agree, that’s why I think the majority of tickets sold were to people who were not Bond fans but were persuaded by the 50th anniversary marketing campaign, and also out of curiosity. Box office, by the way, only measures tickets sold, not whether people liked the film after they saw it.
Just to stress what I said in my last post, box office only measures tickets sold, not whether people liked the film after they saw it.
See my follow up post re: this.
Possibly, from Bond fans like us, but that alone would not account for the $6 million plus worldwide turnover, so non-fans must have seen it in droves. But this was, I think, due to the 50th anniversary marketing campaign and the curiosity everyone has to see a new Bond film.
That’s only because the explanations haven’t convinced me.
Surely to god people re-visit a film because its good, or it offers something that holds further interest in it. Word of mouth shouldn't be underestimated too when it comes to getting arses on seats.
Btw ... $6 million worldwide turnover?? I'm lost by this point.