SPECTRE: Another victim of the "Fourth Film Curse"??

Mach_eyy

Seeing as SPECTRE will be Daniel Craig's 4th outing as Bond, I'm interested in seeing whether the film will fall victim to the so-called "Fourth Film Curse"

For those of you unfamiliar with what I am referring to, apparently there is a "curse" that every Bond actor's 4th film is poorly-recieved/bad/what have you.

Connery had Thunderball
Moore had Moonraker
Brosnan had Die Another Day
Will Craig have SPECTRE?

I know that this is silly speculation...and I only have the highest of hopes that this film will be as good or even better than Skyfall. We shall see in less than a year's time.

DEFIANT 74205

Thunderball wasn't poorly received. So there goes your theory.

Moore Than

No curse at the box office. If I am not mistaken, the fourth film was the most successful for Connery/Moore/Brosnan. It will be some achievement if Craig can match his predecessors given Skyfall's box office.

screename

Woah woah woah! Thunderball is Connery's best! :007)

Mach_eyy

It's not my theory, I'm simply repeating what I've read/heard in other places. I personally think that it's silly, but I figured I would bring it up to start a dialogue about it. )

If I'm not mistaken, aren't Thunderball's box office numbers second to Skyfall's when inflation is taken into account?

raptors_887

Thunderball did good at the box office because of the Goldfinger hype. It's the worst Bond movie out of the 23 IMO.

Barbel

Mach_eyy wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, aren't Thunderball's box office numbers second to Skyfall's when inflation is taken into account?

I believe so, but TB was a huge financial success and was fairly well received at the time. Granted that was in part due to being released hot on the heels of GF, it still does not make TB a failure.

Thunderbird 2

While everyone else is pointing out Thunderball I want to speak up for Moonraker too. Although it has its problems its still a very popular Bond film. DAD counts as it led to a format rethink, and change of cast and direction. The others didn't.

As Barbel has noted, SP has a bigger problem. Like QoS it is the first film immediately after an incredibly popular Bond film. There lies the real curse and pressure. - High expectations.

As for Mr Craig himself, as far as I am concerned he has already proved he is an exceptiinal Bond. The ussue here is script, script script!

welshboy78

Err..... No! )

BIG TAM

Thunderbird 2 wrote:

As Barbel has noted, SP has a bigger problem. Like QoS it is the first film immediately after an incredibly popular Bond film. There lies the real curse and pressure. - High expectations.

As for Mr Craig himself, as far as I am concerned he has already proved he is an exceptiinal Bond. The ussue here is script, script script!

I agree. It's high expectations that'll prove the biggest hurdle. But I have faith in the Bond team to deliver something terrific.

welshboy78

i dont think it will be too hard to top Skyfall to be honest! I enjoyed it immensely but I think it is def overrated

Hardyboy

Actually, it isn't that fourth films tend to be bad--fourth films have been EPICS, with bigger budgets, more special effects, bigger sets, expanded storylines, and so on. How critics and audiences respond to them has been dictated by how they feel about their Bond movies: usually if they like smaller, more believable films they find these epics to be bloated disasters; but if they like their Bond movies HUGE they're happy.

broadshoulder

Thunderball turns this on its head.

I do agree with MR and DAD - so perhaps they do get bloated, sometimes

Blackleiter

raptors_887 wrote:

It's the worst Bond movie out of the 23 IMO.

Nowhere near the worst IMO. :007)

Dutchfinger

Thunderball was a great Bond movie! Defenitely a top 10 worthy one in my opinion. Moonraker went overboard, but it had great cinematography, special effects and humor. It's guilty pleasure for me! Die Another Day was admittedly pretty bad, but that's mainly after the first hour...

I have a feeling that SPECTRE is going to be a huge succes (Not just at the box-office, but it's going to please Diehard Bond fans like ourselves as well! (just a feeling)) I have faith in Mendes!

Mach_eyy

Hardyboy wrote:

Actually, it isn't that fourth films tend to be bad--fourth films have been EPICS, with bigger budgets, more special effects, bigger sets, expanded storylines, and so on. How critics and audiences respond to them has been dictated by how they feel about their Bond movies: usually if they like smaller, more believable films they find these epics to be bloated disasters; but if they like their Bond movies HUGE they're happy.

I agree, but then again I hold all 23 films to date on an equal level. I don't have a favorite or least favorite, I like them all for different reasons. I'm strange like that.

Absolutely_Cart

Thunderball, so I heard, was polarizing, but overall praised. Skyfall, adjusted for inflation, is going to be really hard to top and I don't expect Spectre to.

broadshoulder

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Thunderball, so I heard, was polarizing, but overall praised. Skyfall, adjusted for inflation, is going to be really hard to top and I don't expect Spectre to.

Polarising? I'd like someone who say it in the sixties to confirm that?

Higgins

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Thunderball, so I heard, was polarizing, but overall praised. Skyfall, adjusted for inflation, is going to be really hard to top and I don't expect Spectre to.

I have no idea where you've gotten this from.

Thunderball was THE hot thing back then and made loads of cash!

chrisisall

Higgins wrote:

Thunderball was THE hot thing back then

When I was 6 I asked my Mommy who the guy in the wetsuit was on the LIFE cover, and she said some very popular actor in the movies... I thought he might be the guy from Sea Hunt!
http://i.imgur.com/kUyDjfn.jpg

Absolutely_Cart

Higgins wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Thunderball, so I heard, was polarizing, but overall praised. Skyfall, adjusted for inflation, is going to be really hard to top and I don't expect Spectre to.

I have no idea where you've gotten this from.

Thunderball was THE hot thing back then and made loads of cash!

It's the 2nd best selling Bond film in history, in real terms.

What I meant to say was that modern day viewers are polarized by it, now that it's technology looks obsolete among other things.

Thunderpussy

Thunderball was the #3 film of 1965, so yes it was polarizing, between
People who like it and people who loved it. )

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

Thunderball was the #3 film of 1965, so yes it was polarizing, between
People who like it and people who loved it. )

My parents sadly elected not to take me to it. X-(

Bleuville

Higgins wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Thunderball, so I heard, was polarizing, but overall praised. Skyfall, adjusted for inflation, is going to be really hard to top and I don't expect Spectre to.

I have no idea where you've gotten this from.

Thunderball was THE hot thing back then and made loads of cash!

Yes you haven't lived until (back in 1968) you've watched Thunderball and Goldfinger double-bill and see a bit of TB again. About 5 hours I think, when they didn't chuck you out of cinemas !
In both Thunderball and Moonraker there are long Junkanoo/carnival scenes and the underwater fight goes on a bit long, but this was the 1966 high point of Bond.

Bond: I think he got the point! (spear gunning Vargas.)

HowardB

It helps to have actually been around in '65 when TB was released to appreciate what a monster hit it was. "Bondmania" was in full force (think "Harry Potter" in its scope and populairity with the public). In '65 you couldn't sit back and wait for the DVD or Blu Ray or wait for it to hit TV (most households still had black and white sets)....if you wanted to see a film you had to go to the cinema and people showed up in droves to see TB. For TB's initial run and premier in NYC EON actually leased the huge almost 4,000 seat Paramount theater and sold out round the clock showings. Apparently 58 million tickets were sold in the US for TB. -{

Dutchfinger

HowardB wrote:

It helps to have actually been around in '65 when TB was released to appreciate what a monster hit it was. "Bondmania" was in full force (think "Harry Potter" in its scope and populairity with the public). In '65 you couldn't sit back and wait for the DVD or Blu Ray or wait for it to hit TV (most households still had black and white sets)....if you wanted to see a film you had to go to the cinema and people showed up in droves to see TB. For TB's initial run and premier in NYC EON actually leased the huge almost 4,000 seat Paramount theater and sold out round the clock showings. Apparently 58 million tickets were sold in the US for TB. -{

How great those times must have been, the sixties what a magical decade!

fire and ice

TB my joint top Bond film, so don't believe in any curse )

chrisisall

Dutchfinger wrote:

How great those times must have been, the sixties what a magical decade!

For movies, crazy TV shows and free love, yes. Not so much for war protesters or soldiers. Hard times produce the most creative & interesting art IMO. There is great art just ahead of us.
Silver linings and all that... 8-)

jasper_lamar_crabb

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

Thunderball wasn't poorly received. So there goes your theory.

Thunderball is considered the first duff film of the series. Lots of people enjoy it, but objectively it has a lot of problems.

chrisisall

jasper_lamar_crabb wrote:

Thunderball is considered the first duff film of the series. Lots of people enjoy it, but objectively it has a lot of problems.

In my 'objective opinion' only the first two don't have a lot of problems. )

Barbel

There are duff Bond films???

Seriously, to someone who saw it in the 60s on the big screen at the height of Bondmania TB rocks, though in cold hindsight flaws are easily identified (as with any film). Doesn't stop me loving it, though.