Casino Royale is the 6th biggest film ever in the UK.

Post by **Kristatos** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:37 am

stockslivevan wrote:Quite right. In the USA, no Bond film is past the top 100. CR is the highest to date at 119.

Funnily enough, Bond does better in the inflation-adjusted chart, with Thunderball at no. 26, Goldfinger at 39 and YOLT at 166.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:53 am

Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:Quite right. In the USA, no Bond film is past the top 100. CR is the highest to date at 119.
Funnily enough, Bond does better in the inflation-adjusted chart, with Thunderball at no. 26, Goldfinger at 39 and YOLT at 166.

I wonder what the numbers are for adjusted UK inflation. I'd imagine that they are quite higher.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:27 pm

Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:Quite right. In the USA, no Bond film is past the top 100. CR is the highest to date at 119.
Funnily enough, Bond does better in the inflation-adjusted chart, with Thunderball at no. 26, Goldfinger at 39 and YOLT at 166.

Yes, waaaay back in the 1960's......

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:15 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:Quite right. In the USA, no Bond film is past the top 100. CR is the highest to date at 119.
Funnily enough, Bond does better in the inflation-adjusted chart, with Thunderball at no. 26, Goldfinger at 39 and YOLT at 166.
Yes, waaaay back in the 1960's......

yeah, when the real James Bond, Sean Connery was in the role, not all the pretenders who have followed.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:23 pm

You've missed out on 15...no wait skip DAD, 14 Bond movies worth watching then I guess paco. Ah well. Your loss.

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:59 pm

Captain Nash wrote:You've missed out on 15...no wait skip DAD, 14 Bond movies worth watching then I guess paco. Ah well. Your loss.

oh, i've enjoyed all the films on one level or another, but too me Sean Connery is the real deal. not too say that I don't like Lazenby, Brosnan, Dalton, and Moore. they all brought something interesting to the role. besides, OHMSS is better than a couple of Connery's films, and I'll admit it. but if that film had starred Connery instead of Lazenby, it would be the greatest of all.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:57 am

I've had this discussion on another site, and I'm not so sure that OHMSS would've been the best Bond ever, had Connery played Bond.
Especially if it was after YOLT. By the time he'd finished YOLT he was bored of Bond and this shows in the film, had he gone onto make OHMSS after, would he put in another mediocre performance or a real stunner that would make OHMSS the best Bond film?
I think one of the reasons for Majestys success is Lazenby. And that it is so different from what we've grown to accept.
Of course had OHMSS been filmed as originaly intended to follow GF, then maybe Connery would've give us the best film of all time...thank the maker DC came along to...

Nah FRWL holds that prize with me.

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:38 am

Captain Nash wrote:I've had this discussion on another site, and I'm not so sure that OHMSS would've been the best Bond ever, had Connery played Bond.
Especially if it was after YOLT. By the time he'd finished YOLT he was bored of Bond and this shows in the film, had he gone onto make OHMSS after, would he put in another mediocre performance or a real stunner that would make OHMSS the best Bond film?
I think one of the reasons for Majestys success is Lazenby. And that it is so different from what we've grown to accept.
Of course had OHMSS been filmed as originaly intended to follow GF, then maybe Connery would've give us the best film of all time...thank the maker DC came along to...
Nah FRWL holds that prize with me.

I disagree with this logic. part of Connery's dissatisfaction with the role was the fact that the films kept becoming more and more OTT, and less interesting for Connery to play in. Since OHMSS was a more realistic film, with a much more interesting story than YOLT, I think Connery would have delivered the goods on this one. plus, I think the chemistry between Connery and Diana Rigg would have been great. not to mention Connery playing opposite Telly Savalas. I don't hate Lazenby, but I don't think he's the reason for this films success as an exciting film. but then again Captain, we agree to disagree.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:08 am

I used to believe that too paco chaos but then again it wasn't just that the films were slowly becoming more OTT but because Connery was starting to get typecast and when you have japanese press calling you "James Bond" instead of your real name it just gets irritating and after five films you feel you've done your part and want to just move on.

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:26 pm

stockslivevan wrote:I used to believe that too paco chaos but then again it wasn't just that the films were slowly becoming more OTT but because Connery was starting to get typecast and when you have japanese press calling you "James Bond" instead of your real name it just gets irritating and after five films you feel you've done your part and want to just move on.

true, but he did come back for Diamonds Are Forever, and regardless of that films flaws, I feel that he did a fine job with it. I still think if OHMSS had Connery it would have been the best in the bunch. as it is now, it's still my favorite non-Connery film, and I think Lazenby did his best in the role, but there are scenes where his lack of acting ability stick out like a sore thumb.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:36 pm

Connery only came back because of the money and deal he got.
He was not the same Bond that he created in Doctor No, in Diamonds Are Forever. It was an easy pay day for him, and he took it.
His boredom and hostility with the role and the producers would've been present if he had made OHMSS in 1969.
As stocks said, he was typecast, and hounded by the press wherever he went. Even with a more down to earth script and story, I don't think that would've been enough for him.
As it is, we'll never know. Although I wonder if anyone has ever asked him what he would've done? Be interesting to find out if the story, cast and script would've been enough for him to make a fantastic film.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:07 pm

Right Nash. Keep in mind too that Connery during the four years between YOLT and DAF he never got the same success and when he was offered the highest salary for an actor of the time, he couldn't refuse the offer but this would be the last time.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:57 pm

stockslivevan wrote:Right Nash. Keep in mind too that Connery during the four years between YOLT and DAF he never got the same success and when he was offered the highest salary for an actor of the time, he couldn't refuse the offer but this would be the last time.

During those 4 years he aged more than I've ever seen any other actor age in a similar period.

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:54 pm

Captain Nash wrote:Connery only came back because of the money and deal he got.
He was not the same Bond that he created in Doctor No, in Diamonds Are Forever. It was an easy pay day for him, and he took it.
His boredom and hostility with the role and the producers would've been present if he had made OHMSS in 1969.
As stocks said, he was typecast, and hounded by the press wherever he went. Even with a more down to earth script and story, I don't think that would've been enough for him.
As it is, we'll never know. Although I wonder if anyone has ever asked him what he would've done? Be interesting to find out if the story, cast and script would've been enough for him to make a fantastic film.

all good points, but I think if he's chose OHMSS as his send off it would have been a good stopping point. as it stands the film is great, and I think Lazenby might have developed into a better actor, had he not turned out to be such a total flake. talk about your own worst enemy. Connery may have had ego problems, and issues with being typecast, but at least he was a major star who wanted to develop into something more. Lazenby has to be the only unknown to quit a major role before the film was ever released.