@The Midi-chlorian Count I've seen various different numbers comparing Bond films with adjusted figures. It's a difficult task for any number of reasons. I'm not questioning the data, largely because I originally introduced the 'adjusted' qualification to stave off the obvious objection that would follow: that a Dr No dollar isn't the same as a Skyfall dollar.

There are other considerations to this as well. When Thunderball , and most of the movies in the 60s and 70s, were released you'd only ever see them in a cinema for at least a few years. And in a lot of locations it would have been in humble black and white as well by the time in got to TV. And of course movie rentals didn't exist. So bums on theatre seats isn't such a good measure when today you also need to factor in that there are downloads and dvds as cash revenues. I don't think these count in box office receipts but I am open to correction.

Short version: More people went to see more movies back in the 60s.

I think the salient point is return on investment. A lot of movies lose money so investors need big paydays on the ones that are successful. I have read that a Marvel franchise movie needs to break a billion to be considered a successful entry. That might be overstating it, only insiders would really know, but when blockbusters are costing 100s of millions to make, there is a lot of skin in the game.

Thunderball had a $9 million budget. Even adjusting for inflation it is obvious that the return on investment is light years better than on Die Another Day's budget of $142 million. That's probably a better way of looking at it than just box office in isolation. One also needs to remember that a movie's producers don't take all of that revenue. There are all sorts of other fingers in the pie.

None of this alters the fact that Die Another Day is bloody awful. Apart from 'Halle Berry', there have been no real suggestions as to why I should start thinking it is a good or even passable movie. FFS, every Bond Movie has pretty women.

Just for interest I also had this from my saved data:-

Actor Total Adjusted Box Office Average
Sean Connery 1558580744
George Lazenby 1009319819
Roger Moore 931478058.9
Daniel Craig 860275662.5
Pierce Brosnan 623225916.1
Timothy Dalton 473950834.7

Obviously a skewed for Lazenby with him only being in one film but probably seems about right in terms of the actors popularity historically.

Altho I respect what Dalton tried to bring to Bond, he was an odd choice. A serious actor who was considered an attractive man for his stuff in period dramas. Not exactly the female demographic that turns out to Bond films however. A modern equivalent would be casting Benedict Cumberbatch in the role. And action films had changed a lot. This period saw the Terminator and Die Hard and Lethal Weapon franchises created, plus a host of other similar high charged movies. Not saying that Bond was up against these movies directly but they changed how audiences saw movies and changed their expectations. Bond was looking dated, particularly when there were really only three Bond stories that kept getting recycled over and over.

I'm not down on Lazenby either. Tho I thought On Her Majesties Secret Service was poorly made he was one of the best parts of it. He brought a youthful muscularity and exuberance to the role. Again, poor timing. Historically he took a lot of the heat for following Connery that might well have ended up on Moore. Bit of a sacrificial goat really. Pity, he seems like a really decent guy. He probably made things worse for himself by being too outspoken after he left.

Actually, I can't complain about any of the Bonds. They all brought something to the role, even if Moore was looking tired and out of it the last few outings.

The problem overall tended to be poor production values, amateurish direction and an almost religious refusal to develop the concept outside of the body of tropes, cliches and storylines that the producers must have thought of as the bread and butter of the whole thing. After about 20 movies it had gone beyond self parody. And that, I would argue, is why we ended up with Die Another Day, its invisible car and VR sex fantasy, and a storyline like something that two 10 year olds made up while playing in their bedroom fort.

Well the two 10 year olds is something I'd agree sounds about right - Purvis and Wade, writers of Plunkett & Macleane and erm, Johnny English somehow got lucky with Die Another Day. How that happens is a mystery, I'm guessing they just followed the formula and managed to make a half decent Bond.

Unfortunately, probably due to its successful Box Office and the $$$ dangling from bringing in a new Bond, they got kept onboard for Casino Royale and the rest, unfortunately, is the tragic death of the cinematic Bond with all its set pieces, humour and action being traded in for Daniel Craig's beefy Sid James "Bond".

Once the one trick pony of making a "grittier" hard edge Bourne-tastic passed though we were left with nothing. The dirge of QoS and it's incredible water supply plot! And then further imitation required for Spectre. That was the final straw for me.

Die Another Die represents, for me, the final real Bond film.

Having just worked my way thru all the Bond movies during the Covid19 'lockdown' I have to disagree with you on more than a few points.

Firstly, old Bond hasn't died. All 20 original movies are still there, ready to be watched whenever you want. Did the world really need any more of the same? The fact is they belong to a particular time, and the misogynist, smoking, vodka swilling dinosaur doesn't belong in the 21st Century. That isn't to say the movies were never worth watching; they gave harmless enjoyment to millions and, if you remember that they speak to another time, can still be enjoyed today.

Secondly, the new Bond clearly works. It might not be your Bond but he is for millions, and in the only way that he really can exist now. We have all met that guy: the one who says there was only ever one James Bond and the thing was ruined after Connery left. It's ok to be that guy, but I would argue that one should never say never again.

Which brings me to Never Say Never Again. I posted on that board that I felt that movie was peak Bond, at least for 'old' Bond. And the reasons for that are not only that it is better made than any of the other old Bond films, but that it acknowledges the mortality of Bond, and on different levels. The producers of that film, outside the EON bubble, were able, maybe even obliged, to end the story in a mature and proper way.

The problem for old Bond was that because he had no family and never really loved anyone, because he was indestructible and was never going to be seriously injured or die, and because the writers kept giving him increasingly ridiculous life saving gadgets- there was never any drama. A car chase/ski chase/underwater battle/fight on an airplane etc just become an exercise in choreography. You actually have to put the protagonist outside of these repeated plot devices to create interest. And Eon took waaaaaay too long to do that and in the final entry of old Bond, actually doubled down, ostensibly as tribute, on everything that had made Bond such a bore. It was 180 from where they should have gone, and eventually did go, with Casino Royale.

As for the humour in old Bond, it had gotten to the stage where, in a sort of reverse irony, people weren't laughing at the things that seemed to be intentionally funny, the bad puns etc, but were laughing at the movie and story itself. I can't believe that's how anyone with an affection for the franchise would have wanted to leave, or worse, continue things.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Firstly, old Bond hasn't died. All 20 original movies are still there, ready to be watched whenever you want. Did the world really need any more of the same?

Don't disagree with that. Said it many times before. The Daniel Craig films aren't Bond to me - no soul, no humour, warmth, laugh out loud moments - simply don't care for them. However, yes I'm more than happy there are many real Bond films to enjoy Die Another Day included.

However, there's probably something in your other comment there as well "Did the world really need any more of the same?". Well, as you said, there'd already been 20. Was 20 the magic number for no more of the same? i.e. 18 films following the formula was probably about right but 20 was just too much?!!

(I mean YOLT = TSWLM = Moonraker plotwise)

The films went on the formula pretty much through all the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s. Do you really think the 00s were some special time of enlightenment for movie producers / the cinema going public?

Bond films with its formula was an arts form, an original creation in itself (distinct from the Novels) and a joyful peace of escapism to go and see; get excited about the locations, the pre-credits sequence, the ott villain, etc. It wasn't a copycat Bourne, it wasn't trying to copy Batman films, it wasn't a boring serialised soap opera about a thug with mummy / brother (!) issues... It was its own unique thing.

I don't think it was a special time. I think old Bond belonged to its own time. For me, pretty much everything past Never Say Never Again was running on borrowed time and borrowed plots. The zeitgeist isn't like a clock that ticks over and everyone suddenly thinks differently and wants different things, but over time cultural sensibilities change, and with it cultural properties. I can't imagine The Beatles breaking big had they arrived 50 years later. That doesn't mean their existing back catalogue is any less magnificent. It doesn't mean the 60s were any better than the 00s or vice versa. It just means cultural sensibilities change.

Some people hold back, which is at least one reason why we see the 'hate' directed at the new Dr Who or the new Star Wars. Again, that's not a value judgement on people with a retro viewpoint. If you enjoy something that's a great result and I for one wouldn't fault you for it.

But, and this is a big 'but', it's fair to be critical of cultural producers: musicians, film makers and so on, who want to take what they believe are safe options by trading on past glories and serving up stuff that is thoughtless, unimaginative and stale. And if they keep diluting the 'art' by constantly trying to spread it out further, this in some senses diminishes even the good stuff that went before; it tarnishes the entire brand.

To use a British expression, audience and critics alike finally arrived at breaking point with Die Another Day, and the collective response was something like: You must be taking the piss...

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

I don't think it was a special time.

It doesn't mean the 60s were any better than the 00s or vice versa. It just means cultural sensibilities change.

Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying - which wasn't 60s vs 00s. It was literally EVERY decade up to 00s. i.e. 60s vs 70s, 60s vs 80s, 60 vs 90s.

Do you people in the 80s were going "Gee, I guess they're doing the same plot / tropes but I'm still ok with. I guess in another 20 years it will be too much for my sensibilities..." 😂

Of course not, people knew exactly what a Bond film was and - like I said before - went to the cinema looking forward to the experience and how the latest film would reinterpete the template.

The proof of that really is Dalton. Despite your claim that "moving in the right direction with a grittier Bond" they absolutely were not given that whatever Box Office figures you look at LTK is always dead bottom, with TLD not far off it (despite the new Bond boost).

Then you've also got this bizarre defence of NSNA, even saying that it "fixed the worst parts of Thunderball"! You are saying pretty much the most universally derided Bond film "fixes" parts of one of the most successful!

You've even defended QoS! Don't get me wrong, you clearly enjoy Craig "Bond" films, whatever they are supposed to be (Bourne / Dark Knight / Daytime soap opera) and, I guess, the closest matches to them. But you obviously do not like the real cinematic Bond films which ran for generations.

Therefore, going back to your OP, I don't see you as being particularly qualified to discern this as being "easily" the worst Bond...

When the first Bond film arrived in 62 most people in the audience would never have travelled overseas, except perhaps WW2 vets and the 'jet set'. In the former case that's not quite the same glamorous experience, in the latter, such an elite minority is hardly worth considering. So Bond going to Monte Carlo and Tokyo and all those other places actually was special for an audience. That changes, I couldn't be bothered to speculate at what rate, but certainly by the time you get to the 21st Century it is all rather passe. Further to this, from the late 60s onwards, the idea of glamour itself becomes unfashionable. I realise that in modern Bond you still have dinner jackets being worn in a few scenes, but new Bond mostly dresses like a normal human: business suits and practical casual. The point here is that the Bond 'image' is no longer dependent on that sort of glamour because if people appreciated it they would be wearing it themselves. And they are not. Audiences want a relatable hero, and a guy on screen dressed like Roger Moore just comes over as a ponce. Now that still worked circa 1975. It can't work today. Lots of other things can't work either. The smoking. The sexual predation. The schoolboy puns. The childish gadgets.

With gadgets, most of the early Bond gadgets were practical kit. And the industrial laser used in Goldfinger had only just been invented. Audiences would have thought it amazing, and they were hardly in a position to question whether it was realistic or not. Even by 1980 the closest most people came to 'technology' was a push button phone and a remote controlled TV. These days we are surrounded by it. Technological savviness is everywhere and people aren't impressed by things like a tiny camera. What the Bond producers tried to do in the last years of old Bond was fake it by upping the ante and introducing BS gadgets of increasing absurdity. The result was exactly what any normal person would expect: absurdity. By the time we get to Die Another Day, gadgets like the invisible car and the death ray are clearly and obviously ridiculous to even the most stupid members of the audience. If you can't understand the difference then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Regarding your claim that I am unqualified: In the end I am just a normal person like everyone else. I have seen all the Bond films over the past month, having already seen most of them several times over the last more than 40 years. I have seen them in their own time and I have seen them now. In most of them I have found at least something to enjoy. Just like you there are Bond movies I think are good and others bad. That your selections are different doesn't invalidate mine.

I have patiently explained why I think Die another Day is especially awful. Not once have you countered why, for example, an invisible car makes for a good movie, nor in fact any of the other things I made specific: terrible, derivative plot, villains with no discernible motivation and so on. All I got from you was it that did well at the box office (debatable) and that you liked it. To which I say, good for you and so what.

@The Midi-chlorian Count said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Firstly, old Bond hasn't died. All 20 original movies are still there, ready to be watched whenever you want. Did the world really need any more of the same?

Don't disagree with that. Said it many times before. The Daniel Craig films aren't Bond to me - no soul, no humour, warmth, laugh out loud moments - simply don't care for them. However, yes I'm more than happy there are many real Bond films to enjoy Die Another Day included.

However, there's probably something in your other comment there as well "Did the world really need any more of the same?". Well, as you said, there'd already been 20. Was 20 the magic number for no more of the same? i.e. 18 films following the formula was probably about right but 20 was just too much?!!

(I mean YOLT = TSWLM = Moonraker plotwise)

The films went on the formula pretty much through all the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s. Do you really think the 00s were some special time of enlightenment for movie producers / the cinema going public?

Bond films with its formula was an arts form, an original creation in itself (distinct from the Novels) and a joyful peace of escapism to go and see; get excited about the locations, the pre-credits sequence, the ott villain, etc. It wasn't a copycat Bourne, it wasn't trying to copy Batman films, it wasn't a boring serialised soap opera about a thug with mummy / brother (!) issues... It was its own unique thing.

I remember watching The World is Not Enough in the cinema and thinking- This isn't bad, why am I not enjoying it? It's exactly the same as the countless other Bond films I've see and I've always enjoyed them.

And then I realised, it's me that is different. I'm finally tired of this formula. It was time for something different. Admittedly, with regards to the Craig films, everything after Casino Royale has been somewhat of a letdown (and yes, I'm including Skyfall). They are all a mixed bag of qualities and flaws and missed opportunities. But even though I'm not really excited for the next one, I'd prefer we got that rather than Brosnan going through the motions again. It's more interesting. It will probably hold my attention more.

Though I do disagree with Monsieur Cupboard's belief that the misogynist, smoking, vodka swilling "dinosaur" doesn't belong in the 21st century. That's who Bond is. That's what he's always been and that's who he should always be. They already acknowledged this aspect of his character when Judy Dench's M accused him of it in Goldeneye. And the film just shrugged it's shoulders and said 'so what?'

Maybe we will come to a time when it will feel right to bring that celebrated, breezily escapist, formula back. Maybe with a bit of a refreshed take on it. Set it in the 60s maybe? I'm sure they can come up with something.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

I have patiently explained why I think Die another Day is especially awful. Not once have you countered why, for example, an invisible car makes for a good movie, nor in fact any of the other things I made specific: terrible, derivative plot, villains with no discernible motivation and so on. **All I got from you was it that did well at the box office (debatable) and that you liked it. **To which I say, good for you and so what.

As you will see if you look back I mentioned box office as I thought it funny you used it to defend QoS whilst ignoring DAD's success. I don't particularly believe it to be an arbitrator of quality one way or the other.

As to countering re DAD I think again you miss the point, I'm not particularly defending it (as I said the CGI was too far) however I just think it's far from "Easily the worst Bond movie".

And again saying things like "derivative plot, villains with no discernible motivation and so on" really serves no purpose when discussing Bond films. Like your gadgets, NSNA and Dalton comments, it just makes me think you never liked them anyway so debating the pros and cons of one particular entry seems valueless against your viewpoint.

It would be as worthless as me discussing the qualities of soap opera serialised Daniel Craig "Bond" with you. Likewise, I can appreciate I wouldn't be qualified to pass judgement on "easily" the best Craig movie as I simply don't recognise their appeal. Yeah, sure I could say one but if I'd already repeatedly stated why I didn't like them then doing so would clearly be worthless.

@JustinJackFlash I agree with you re the Craig Bond movies. I rated each of the succeeding movies lower. I don't think that's a 'formula' issue; they are all well made movies, at least technically. I think the scripts got weaker with each effort. And that whole 'damsel in distress' stuff they kept returning to got tedious. I think I understand what they are trying to do with the character; to give him a soul, someone who actually loves and cares about women. I don't think the problem is that it isn't Bond, I think the problem is that it is replaces one sexist trope with another. In old Bond we have him making love to three different women in each movie, now new Bond falling in love in every movie, and with women he knows nothing about and has only known the proverbial 5 minutes. Better scripts would have paced that out better.

I don't think we will ever see the dinosaur Bond back. The smoking absolutely never. The excessive lovemaking, maybe. The boozing will fade away. It's enough that he's a killing machine that knows the difference between a grand cru and a premier cru.

Each Bond actor brings something new to the franchise and I think the producers need to exploit that, while keeping the essential Bond traits and keeping it fresh and resonant with audiences. I don't think the gadgets are an essential part of Bond. Certainly the first Connery movies, the most loved, were gadget light. I don't think it essential that he beds every un available woman he meets either.

As an aside, Guy Ritchie did really well with his take on The Man from U.N.C.L.E. I thought the balance of style, gritty action and humour was just right. I remember thinking at the time that the Bond producers could learn a lot from it.

I wasn't calling Moore a ponce. I was suggesting that anyone who dressed like that today would be thought a ponce. Which is a more nuanced word than simply 'effeminate'. Still, Moore as Bond was wearing flairs in the mid 80s. Possibly because he had really skinny legs. Not sure what movie his last appearance in a Safari Jacket was but even in his casual Bond look it was into Disco Stu territory. The whole thing even in its own time became self parodying, and Moore, the decent sort that he was, was self effacing enough to go along with it. So it's not like the Bond people didn't know they were debasing their own brand.

@The Midi-chlorian Count The reference to box office was a sidebar argument of some interest but incapable of settling an argument regarding worth. Fwiw, imdb rates both Never Say Never Again and Quantum of Solace higher than Die Another Day. The critical reviews, both contemporary and current, make this differential even more starkly. The point, again, is to show that I'm not the outlier: you are.

Since you keep using words directed at me like 'unqualified' 'worthless' and valueless' and refusing to address the movie itself, I have reached the conclusion that you are only motivated by being unsettled by someone having a different opinion. You might find more satisfaction in an echo chamber, such as a forum for people who like to rant about Daniel Craig.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Since you keep using words directed at me like 'unqualified' 'worthless' and valueless' and refusing to address the movie itself, I have reached the conclusion that you are only motivated by being unsettled by someone having a different opinion. You might find more satisfaction in an echo chamber, such as a forum for people who like to rant about Daniel Craig.

I have explained why your disparaging of DAD is utterly worthless in the context of you not enjoying James Bond films gadgets, recycled plot point, unrealistic villains, etc etc.

I clearly wouldn't have much interested in what you suggest as like I said in my previous post that would be an utterly worthless discussion.

What you are doing is the equivalent to going a superhero film board, saying this EASILY the worst superhero movie, I hate how he / she can fly, totally unrealistic, etc...

There's just no point. Unless you are just bored / trolling which is what I'm coming to suspect you are doing.