22: The Living Daylights 1987 TIMOTHY DALTON
24: License to Kill 1989 TIMOTHY DALTON
wooops.
And see what I have done. Just when it's getting slow and boring here over New Year - one truthful post and all the Timboys are back on the table ) ) )
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,693MI6 Agent
22: The Living Daylights 1987 TIMOTHY DALTON
24: License to Kill 1989 TIMOTHY DALTON
wooops.
And see what I have done. Just when it's getting slow and boring here over New Year - one truthful post and all the Timboys are back on the table ) ) )
I think you must have got that chart from Kellogg's, Higgins! )
LALD grossing more than MR?! How can that be?!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
And see what I have done. Just when it's getting slow and boring here over New Year - one truthful post and all the Timboys are back on the table ) ) )
Yes, thanks.
But your chart only shows box office, not "profitability" which is a different thing.
I'd say rank 14 and 18 hardly qualify the "highest profitable" movies
And Goldfinger, one of the most highly regarded Bonds ever is #17.
I never said Tim's Bonds were among the highest in profitability, just that they performed well, as most Bonds do. :007)
Somewhat off topic, but I think everyone seems to forget just how much of a hit Live and Let Die was when it came out. Funny to think that it's in the top 5 (inflation adjusted)
Somewhat off topic, but I think everyone seems to forget just how much of a hit Live and Let Die was when it came out. Funny to think that it's in the top 5 (inflation adjusted)
I remember! The song was ALL OVER the radio, all the talk shows were featuring it... a new Bond is an EVENT!
Now that was just uncalled for. In Jungian Psychology we often struggle with our 'other self' in Freud we tend to project and criticise those qualities in the self that trouble us. Just sayin...happy new year BTW
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
TLD small/medium budget
LTK small/medium budget
TND big budget
QOS Big budget
DN small/medium budget
GF small/medium budget
GE small/medium budget
SP Big budget
FRWL small/medium budget
TB big budget
That's 6 small-to medium & 4 big....
Okay, I just proved myself wrong here. I thought smaller was better by far. In terms of objective quality there's a case to be made possibly, but from an entertainment POV not so much. 8-)
TLD small/medium budget
LTK small/medium budget
TND big budget
QOS Big budget
DN small/medium budget
GF small/medium budget
GE small/medium budget
SP Big budget
FRWL small/medium budget
TB big budget
That's 6 small-to medium & 4 big....
Okay, I just proved myself wrong here. I thought smaller was better by far. In terms of objective quality there's a case to be made possibly, but from an entertainment POV not so much. 8-)
I agree. There's no hard and fast rule or pattern in regard to budget and its correlation with the quality of the end product. I'm currently reading the new Peter Lamont book, The Man with the Golden Eye that like many other books on the series goes into the budget, which occasionally was constrained by whichever studio that was lording over the budget and with those parameters, the production decided what they wanted to do with what they'd been given and pulled off great movies.
It seems like the John Glenn movies suffered the brunt of the budget cuts and they still managed to do things economically; Lamont specifically lauded Glenn, whose 2nd unit and editing experience figured significantly in the intentionality of production to ultimately set up shots and the construction of sets that followed as he envisioned them to look like with a minimal amount of takes.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
"Highest grossing Bond Films" (adjusted)
22: The Living Daylights 1987 TIMOTHY DALTON
24: License to Kill 1989 TIMOTHY DALTON
wooops.
And see what I have done. Just when it's getting slow and boring here over New Year - one truthful post
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think you must have got that chart from Kellogg's, Higgins!
LALD grossing more than MR?! How can that be?!
But your chart only shows box office, not "profitability" which is a different thing.
Here's a bunch of charts, among them is ROI (return on investment)
https://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/james-bond-films/box-office-figures-for-the-james-bond-series.htm
and it indicates both TLD & LTK as better earners than TND, TWINE, DAD, QOS AND SP!
So there.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Ok, profitable Bond movies (box office minus budget) unadjusted
1. Skyfall: profit = 908.000.000
2. CR : = 492.000.000
3. SPECTRE: = 579.000.000
4. QoS: = 361.000.000
5. GE: = 296.000.000
6.DAD: = 289.000.000
7. TND: = 229.000.000
8. TWINE: = 226.000.000
9. MR: = 179.000.000
10. TSWLM : = 171.000.000
11. FYEO: = 167.000.000
12. OP: = 159.000.000
13. LALD: = 154.000.000
14. TLD: 151.000.000
15. Thunderball: = 132.000.000
16. AVTAK: 122.000.000
17. Goldfinger: = 121.000.000
18. LTK: 114.000.000
19. DAF: = 109.000.000
20. YOLT: = 102.000.000
21. TMWTGG: = 90.000.000
22. FRWL: = 76.000.000
23. OHMSS: = 74.000.000
24. Dr. No: 58.000.000
I'd say rank 14 and 18 hardly qualify the "highest profitable" movies
Hand-calculated by Higgins from here:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/James-Bond#tab=summary
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I never said Tim's Bonds were among the highest in profitability, just that they performed well, as most Bonds do. :007)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
http://007.lucklaboratories.com/
DN is like 5000%!!!
Ok, let me rephrase...my favourite Bonds tend towards middling profitability... 8-)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Timothy Dalton RULES!!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton does indeed Rule !
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Now that was just uncalled for. In Jungian Psychology we often struggle with our 'other self' in Freud we tend to project and criticise those qualities in the self that trouble us. Just sayin...happy new year BTW
TLD small/medium budget
LTK small/medium budget
TND big budget
QOS Big budget
DN small/medium budget
GF small/medium budget
GE small/medium budget
SP Big budget
FRWL small/medium budget
TB big budget
That's 6 small-to medium & 4 big....
Okay, I just proved myself wrong here. I thought smaller was better by far. In terms of objective quality there's a case to be made possibly, but from an entertainment POV not so much. 8-)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I agree. There's no hard and fast rule or pattern in regard to budget and its correlation with the quality of the end product. I'm currently reading the new Peter Lamont book, The Man with the Golden Eye that like many other books on the series goes into the budget, which occasionally was constrained by whichever studio that was lording over the budget and with those parameters, the production decided what they wanted to do with what they'd been given and pulled off great movies.
It seems like the John Glenn movies suffered the brunt of the budget cuts and they still managed to do things economically; Lamont specifically lauded Glenn, whose 2nd unit and editing experience figured significantly in the intentionality of production to ultimately set up shots and the construction of sets that followed as he envisioned them to look like with a minimal amount of takes.