No Time To Die: Production Diary

1103010311033103510362507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Actually, something just came to mind. If it's Warner in the lead for distribution rights, I can't see how they would want WW2 to be in the same frame as B25. Although not servicing entirely the same audience, they would impact each other negatively. Does this mean it's not Warner I wonder?
  • doubleoego wrote: »

    I think James Bond has a headstart over WW 2 here. Internationally Bond 25 has a better chance than WW 2. Suffice it to say, but WW actually didn't do so well as previously anticipated, whereas SP was close to gain almost $700 Million internationally excluding North America.

    You don't know what you're on about, mate. WW didn't do as well as anticipated?? The film broke records and EVERY expectation. WW was in fact an unprecedented hit. There's no two ways about it. It grossed more money than the novelty of batman and superman appearing on film for the fitst time ever, was a ctitical hit, came off from a string of DCEU critical flops, was directed by a woman and the film in and of itself is a female-led film that made over $800Million. Like I said you don't know what you're on about.
    Overall WW was not able to pass $900 Million, which is very much in line with other single character superhero movies these days. Same goes for the new Spiderman. Globally at least there's a slight superhero fatigue kicking in.

    And now you're just making crap up. No DCEU film has made over $900Million. Outside of Marvel's Avengers films it's only Iron Man 3 and Civil War that has crossed a $Billion; and spider-man homecoming as the MCU's first solo soidey movie making over $800Million, makes it the 2nd highest grossing spider-man film made after being the 6th spidey film and the second reboot in 5 years...majes it a resounding success...and you honestly think what you said actually makes sense? Don't be silly or intellectually dishonest about this. As for Superhero fatigue, it's an unsubstantiated myth that's been touted by those who know nothing for tge better part of a decade and has never EVER been proven; and evidence only confirms the contrary. You can champion Bond 25 till the cows come home as much as you like but when you resort to spewing a load of bs it only reaffirms my first sentence of this post and that you have absolutely zero argument here.

    Ooowh? I was talking about the international market, not the US market. Having said so, "Wonder Woman" did good, but certainly not terrific. Especially the foreign market results from James Bond (especially "SPECTRE"), is something "Wonder Woman" could only dream of:

    idWUY7C.jpg
    8cJtruN.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Wonder Woman is at the start of its franchise launch. The film was a very successful 'origin story' debut with an attractive morally centred wholesome lead.

    The next one will be a known commodity following a very well received prior establishing entry which has only left 'goodwill' in the market.

    It will do far better globally and Warner will push it for all its worth. All they need is a good villain to draw in adults like us. They've got the young market locked until SW comes along.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    doubleoego wrote: »

    I think James Bond has a headstart over WW 2 here. Internationally Bond 25 has a better chance than WW 2. Suffice it to say, but WW actually didn't do so well as previously anticipated, whereas SP was close to gain almost $700 Million internationally excluding North America.

    You don't know what you're on about, mate. WW didn't do as well as anticipated?? The film broke records and EVERY expectation. WW was in fact an unprecedented hit. There's no two ways about it. It grossed more money than the novelty of batman and superman appearing on film for the fitst time ever, was a ctitical hit, came off from a string of DCEU critical flops, was directed by a woman and the film in and of itself is a female-led film that made over $800Million. Like I said you don't know what you're on about.
    Overall WW was not able to pass $900 Million, which is very much in line with other single character superhero movies these days. Same goes for the new Spiderman. Globally at least there's a slight superhero fatigue kicking in.

    And now you're just making crap up. No DCEU film has made over $900Million. Outside of Marvel's Avengers films it's only Iron Man 3 and Civil War that has crossed a $Billion; and spider-man homecoming as the MCU's first solo soidey movie making over $800Million, makes it the 2nd highest grossing spider-man film made after being the 6th spidey film and the second reboot in 5 years...majes it a resounding success...and you honestly think what you said actually makes sense? Don't be silly or intellectually dishonest about this. As for Superhero fatigue, it's an unsubstantiated myth that's been touted by those who know nothing for tge better part of a decade and has never EVER been proven; and evidence only confirms the contrary. You can champion Bond 25 till the cows come home as much as you like but when you resort to spewing a load of bs it only reaffirms my first sentence of this post and that you have absolutely zero argument here.

    Ooowh? I was talking about the international market, not the US market. Having said so, "Wonder Woman" did good, but certainly not terrific. Especially the foreign market results from James Bond (especially "SPECTRE"), is something "Wonder Woman" could only dream of:

    idWUY7C.jpg
    8cJtruN.jpg

    yeah just imagine if the u.s. total would get up to at least 50 percent. for spectre and really every bond movie between domestic and worldwide its so lopsided 20 percent to 77 percent I mean come on U.S. you can do better then that the U.S. percentage needs to get higher
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 19,339
    The US just did not take to SP at all.

    Anyone from the US on here know why that was ?
    Are the US getting fed up with Craig,or even Bond ?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,008
    barryt007 wrote: »
    The US just did not take to SP at all.

    Anyone from the US on here know why that was ?
    Are the US getting fed up with Craig,or even Bond ?

    Pretty much any 'general audience member' I've spoken with about SP found it pretty forgettable, so I can't blame them for not shelling out to go see it again. I went to see it with two other friends on my second viewing, and both didn't care for it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    barryt007 wrote: »
    The US just did not take to SP at all.

    Anyone from the US on here know why that was ?
    Are the US getting fed up with Craig,or even Bond ?

    I guess the surveillance angle didn t sit well with the corporate media.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 11,119
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »

    I think James Bond has a headstart over WW 2 here. Internationally Bond 25 has a better chance than WW 2. Suffice it to say, but WW actually didn't do so well as previously anticipated, whereas SP was close to gain almost $700 Million internationally excluding North America.

    You don't know what you're on about, mate. WW didn't do as well as anticipated?? The film broke records and EVERY expectation. WW was in fact an unprecedented hit. There's no two ways about it. It grossed more money than the novelty of batman and superman appearing on film for the fitst time ever, was a ctitical hit, came off from a string of DCEU critical flops, was directed by a woman and the film in and of itself is a female-led film that made over $800Million. Like I said you don't know what you're on about.
    Overall WW was not able to pass $900 Million, which is very much in line with other single character superhero movies these days. Same goes for the new Spiderman. Globally at least there's a slight superhero fatigue kicking in.

    And now you're just making crap up. No DCEU film has made over $900Million. Outside of Marvel's Avengers films it's only Iron Man 3 and Civil War that has crossed a $Billion; and spider-man homecoming as the MCU's first solo soidey movie making over $800Million, makes it the 2nd highest grossing spider-man film made after being the 6th spidey film and the second reboot in 5 years...majes it a resounding success...and you honestly think what you said actually makes sense? Don't be silly or intellectually dishonest about this. As for Superhero fatigue, it's an unsubstantiated myth that's been touted by those who know nothing for tge better part of a decade and has never EVER been proven; and evidence only confirms the contrary. You can champion Bond 25 till the cows come home as much as you like but when you resort to spewing a load of bs it only reaffirms my first sentence of this post and that you have absolutely zero argument here.

    Ooowh? I was talking about the international market, not the US market. Having said so, "Wonder Woman" did good, but certainly not terrific. Especially the foreign market results from James Bond (especially "SPECTRE"), is something "Wonder Woman" could only dream of:

    idWUY7C.jpg
    8cJtruN.jpg

    yeah just imagine if the u.s. total would get up to at least 50 percent. for spectre and really every bond movie between domestic and worldwide its so lopsided 20 percent to 77 percent I mean come on U.S. you can do better then that the U.S. percentage needs to get higher

    So that's what 'we' will do chaps! We're gonna KILL THE FEMALE NAMED WONDER WOMAN :-D! Bond #25 is gonna rock financially!
  • Posts: 4,045
    What was the US / "Foreign" (how rude) percentage split for Skyfall?
  • Posts: 19,339
    Thanks chaps.

    I presume it must have been word of mouth,also,from people who had been to see it,telling others to not bother.

    But it is a big drop off in viewing figures,i wonder if there is another reason as well.
  • Posts: 2,599
    Don't ask me how I know, I just do. B25 and B26 will be filmed back-to-back. Trust me I just know.

    I wouldn't be surprised if that happens.

  • Posts: 19,339
    Bounine wrote: »
    Don't ask me how I know, I just do. B25 and B26 will be filmed back-to-back. Trust me I just know.

    I wouldn't be surprised if that happens.

    If they are being filmed back to back,then I presume you are talking Craig doing 2 more films,not one ?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    barryt007 wrote: »
    The US just did not take to SP at all.

    Anyone from the US on here know why that was ?
    Are the US getting fed up with Craig,or even Bond ?
    I would think it's self explanatory @barryt007 , as has been debated here many times. It's not only US folks who think SP is a substandard entry, although the film has its fans.

    Apart from SF, Craig hasn't grown the viewing base in the US. It's been pretty stable. SF was the exception, but that was due to many factors. In my view, the 50th anniversary had nothing to do with it, because most folks stateside didn't even know about that. It was primarily the emotional heft/hook of the narrative, the visuals and Bardem's Silva that had people talking. It had exactly the same effect as TDK did 4 years prior, but to a lesser extent. That positive word of mouth was enough to drive the box office globally due to the marketing power of US word of mouth/media.

    SP just did what Craig's other entries did (but a little less).

    The only actor who really grew the base stateside was Brozza.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    The US just did not take to SP at all.

    Anyone from the US on here know why that was ?
    Are the US getting fed up with Craig,or even Bond ?
    I would think it's self explanatory @barryt007 , as has been debated here many times. It's not only US folks who think SP is a substandard entry, although the film has its fans.

    Apart from SF, Craig hasn't grown the viewing base in the US. It's been pretty stable. SF was the exception, but that was due to many factors. In my view, the 50th anniversary had nothing to do with it, because most folks stateside didn't even know about that. It was primarily the emotional heft/hook of the narrative, the visuals and Bardem's Silva that had people talking. It had exactly the same effect as TDK did 4 years prior, but to a lesser extent. That positive word of mouth was enough to drive the box office globally due to the marketing power of US word of mouth/media.

    SP just did what Craig's other entries did (but a little less).

    The only actor who really grew the base stateside was Brozza.

    Yes,i wondered if it was partly due to Craig.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    The US just did not take to SP at all.

    Anyone from the US on here know why that was ?
    Are the US getting fed up with Craig,or even Bond ?
    I would think it's self explanatory @barryt007 , as has been debated here many times. It's not only US folks who think SP is a substandard entry, although the film has its fans.

    Apart from SF, Craig hasn't grown the viewing base in the US. It's been pretty stable. SF was the exception, but that was due to many factors. In my view, the 50th anniversary had nothing to do with it, because most folks stateside didn't even know about that. It was primarily the emotional heft/hook of the narrative, the visuals and Bardem's Silva that had people talking. It had exactly the same effect as TDK did 4 years prior, but to a lesser extent. That positive word of mouth was enough to drive the box office globally due to the marketing power of US word of mouth/media.

    SP just did what Craig's other entries did (but a little less).

    The only actor who really grew the base stateside was Brozza.

    Yes,i wondered if it was partly due to Craig.
    They don't dislike him, but I don't think they are all that enamoured with him either, as can be seen from the box office of his other films. Indifferent is the word I would use. They go to the theatre mainly for 'Bond'.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 2,115
    vzok wrote: »
    What was the US / "Foreign" (how rude) percentage split for Skyfall?

    27.5% U.S.-Canada, 72.5% everywhere else.
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bond23.htm

    For SPECTRE, it was 22.7% U.S.-Canada, 77.3% everywhere else.

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bond24.htm

  • U.S.-Canada estimated number of tickets sold

    Brosnan era:

    GoldenEye 24.4 million
    Tomorrow Never Dies 26.9 million.
    The World Is Not Enough 24.85 million
    Die Another Day 27.6 million

    Craig era:
    Casino Royale 25.4 million
    Quantum of Solace 23.45 million
    Skyfall 37.8 million (No. 3 all time among Bond movies)
    SPECTRE 23 million

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm&adjust_yr=1&p=.htm



    FWIW, I think the 50th anniversary helped Skyfall at least somewhat. It was certainly part of the marketing. Also, the four-year absence made people miss Bond. The Olympics opening ceremonies (reinforcing the 50th anniversary theme) was another plus.

    However, I think word of mouth helped a lot. Skyfall was the top movie in the U.S. its first weekend. It opened stronger than SPECTRE and finished stronger than SPECTRE through its first give weekends.

    Skyfall

    Opening weekend: $84.4 million

    2d weekend, down 53.5% from opening weekend
    3d weekend, down 14% from previous weekend (part of Thanksgiving holiday weekend)
    4th weekend, down 53.4% from previous weekend
    5th weekend, down 35% from previous weekend -- WAS NO. 1 THIS WEEKEND at $10.78 million (Dec. 7-9, 2012)

    Here's how SPECTRE did its first five weekends.

    SPECTRE
    Opening weekend: $70.4 million
    2d weekend down 52.2% from opening weekend
    3d weekend down 55.3% from previous weekend
    4th weekend down 14% from previous weekend (part of Thanksgiving holiday weekend)
    5th weekend, down 57% from previous weekend, at $5.5 million, No. 5 for the weekend
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited September 2017 Posts: 4,534
    Nice that she also confirnd Daniel is back. Her wall also shines when she used For Queen and Country, a hint of the title ?. I think will be / hoped it wil be Property of Lady, but i see that also work as title.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @AlexanderWaverly , I'm sure there was some impact from the 50th, but I believe it was marginal, at least based on anecdotal observations. Rather, it was the excellent reviews and very strong word of mouth that drove the 'legs' on SF. Nearly everyone I knew was talking about it - it was the film to see at the time. Most of that was due to Silva and the strength of the production/visuals, at least based on how people were describing it to me at the time. It became a sort of phenomenon. 'Fresh' in the public consciousness. It transcended its brand, just like TDK transcended Batman.

    Normally I have to sell 'Bond' to my friends. What was amusing in 2012 is that they were selling Bond to me, almost as if they had forgotten I was a die hard.

    Nobody even talked about SP. I had to go on the 'promotion' run again, as per normal.
  • Posts: 4,617
    SF is the only Bond movie my inlaws have seen at the cinema. All down to word of mouth at the tennis club. That really is transcending the brand.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    In regards to Bond 25, I read someone's vision on here (I think it was @Peter) and it has stuck with me ever since.

    Something about the ending with Bond on a hilltop watching over his funeral. Just seems like it would be such a great & meaningful scene.
  • Posts: 1,407
    barryt007 wrote: »
    The US just did not take to SP at all.

    Anyone from the US on here know why that was ?
    Are the US getting fed up with Craig,or even Bond ?

    When Skyfall came out, everyone knew about it. I'm the big Bond fan of my friend group but that was the first Bond film that everyone went to see. Even before the reviews were glowing, we all knew we were going to see the film together.

    With SP, it seemed that I was the only one aware it was coming out when it was. Just seemed the marketing wasn't as intense or as focused as the previous film. It didn't help that because the films are released two weeks early in the UK, we were hearing that the film was pretty meh well before we had a chance to see it. I enjoyed it for what it was but the couple of friends I saw it with found it quite boring.
  • Posts: 4,045
    That two week delay was a bit of an odd choice
  • Posts: 1,407
    vzok wrote: »
    That two week delay was a bit of an odd choice

    I've never been a fan. I understand the reasoning but especially with the last two films, the filmmakers have been very careful not to reveal spoilers during the filmmaking process. And despite my best intentions to stay off the internet in the two weeks before it opens in the US, I found out various plot details before I saw QOS, Skyfall and Spectre. My feeling is if you are going to make these films to be big events with twists and turns in the plot, please just do a global release
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Thanks @DonnyDB5!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Been busy the last 24hrs so not had time to contribute so apologies in advance for the protracted nature of this but so many interesting points I cant resist wading in:
    Are you off your meds? I NEVER wrote half the forum would do a better job of producing than BB. I wrote "a large percentage", and considering what we are talking about (Bond fans being better at producing a Bon film than BB+MGW or not), 30 or even just 20% can be considered large. Btw, I absolutely still maintain that a large percentage of people regularly posting here would do a better job at producing Bond 25 or any Bond film.

    I'm kind of with you in principal but that's just ludicrous. I know for sure that if I was tasked with producing a Bond film I would do a better job than 90% of the comedians on here but would I do a better job than Babs? Not a chance.

    That said
    a) I would certainly do a better job of not signing off on some of the appalling script decisions she made on SP and also the decisions made on DAD (when we're busy castigating SP lets not also forget that she oversaw the indisputable low point of the series history a mere 3 films earlier).
    b) If I had been born into the job then would I do any better or worse? Easy to say none of us would do any better but none of us have had the luxury of being groomed for the job from birth.

    "We have made a mistake!"

    Shimata!!! (Is that allowed on here or is it verboten in case it is offensive to any Japanese members?)
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    @RichardTheBruce yeah if they can get 200 million or more from there 200 mill from uk 300 million from us and rest of the world 700-800 million bond 25 will be in good shape they may need to get as much money out of china as they can since the us market went out the window with the SW release date change and it would make sense to target china anyway since mgm tried to be bought out by china never thought bond was so relaint on china until now and now I see why.

    I really am desperate for us not to court the Chinese market when you see some of the dross they have lapped up recently. Even if it restricts us to making 600-700m rather than hitting the 1b mark - just dont do it.
    bondjames wrote: »
    This is not my area, but just from reading these posts, I think the comments by some are focused on a desire for tighter producer control going forward in the early stages. I can't argue with that. I think it's highly desirable. Clarity of vision from the top surely can keep a writer's impulse in check and avoid tangents.

    100% bang on the money.

    A lot of people are smashing @PanchitoPistoles but his heart is in the right place. Yes a lot of what he says about the film making business is ridiculous and hyperbolic but when you boil it down to the bottom line what he says is true: I don't care how experienced and competent EON are at juggling all the logistics of a 250m movie - the absolute golden rule is you don't leave a bloke alone to write a script for a year and then suddenly weeks from cameras rolling notice actually it really isn't that good.
    patb wrote: »
    Interesting discussion re the way a script is developed and I can see all of the points above being valid. My earlier points were connected with the core concept/vision that a script revolves around. How long does it take forum members to decide if these are good ideas to base a script around?

    Bond is M's cousin

    Bond is Moneypenny's half brother

    Bond donates kidney to Tanner

    Bond is Blofeld's adopted brother (sort of)

    Bond marries Swann and they live in a 3 bedroom semi in Tunbridge Wells

    We have gut reactions to whether ideas work or not. I dont think its down to execution at a later stage. Good execution cant save a bad idea. Producers have a role in kicking these bad ideas into touch at the earliest possible opportunity (even better, hire writers who dont suggest them in the first place) in order to save time and money and in order not to produce movies that are poorly received..

    This is basically it in a nutshell. None of us (except Panchito) are saying we could produce a Bond film better than EON. But we are saying that we could recognise a shit idea when we heard one and manage to root it out before it ended up in the final cut. And so should they.
    I don't know about anybody else but... I would have rather had him as an African Warlord
    Yeah I love the African warlord idea for a villain
    I think both the female Blofeld and the African warlord Blofeld could have worked, and don't believe any of these two ideas are inherently bad.

    In the immortal words of Mr Noel Coward : 'No, no, no, no'

    African warlords are just thugs. A Bond villain should have more class and style about him than a load of gold chains, a nicked Mercedes and an AK47. Even the most successful of them all, Idi Amin, was an absolute clown compared to a Blofeld, a Goldfinger or a Drax.

    I could have lived with Meryl Streep as Blofeld though. Couldn't have been any worse than stepbrothergate.
    What's bad is that they (producers + writers + even Mendes) had no vision. They didn't say "we have a great idea for a 21st century Blofeld, let's bring this big baddie back!", they said "et's bring Blofeld back whether we can come up with any good idea how to update him or not"

    Excellent point, and one I think even your biggest detractors cannot argue with. Finally getting hold of the rights to SPECTRE they really were like a 15 year old getting their hands on their first copy of Razzle. Shot their wad everywhere without the slightest thought or planning. Its easy to slag off Marvel but I think they would have thought it through and introduced Blofeld over several films rather than have him go from Bond never having heard of him to vanquished in the space of one film.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Bond and skiing or aerial stunts go hand in hand. They practically wrote the book on it and it's high time they went back there and showed everyone how it's done.

    I just watched Cliffhanger yesterday and for a 1993 film there are some wonderful sequences there, including what was for the time the most expensive aerial stunt (the heist in mid-air which Stallone apparently co-funded out of his own pocket due to insurance concerns). Time to step it up.

    How long have we been saying this for? The last really standout action sequence in a Bond film was the CR parkour 11 long years ago. Remember the period 77 to 89 when we got stunning action sequence after stunning action sequence? As you say it really is time EON stepped up to the plate because Cruise and MI are leaving them in their wake at the moment.

    If I was running the show I'd beg BJ Worth out of retirement and say 'Give me something to blow people away - money is no object.' Alas the QOS freefall sequence was a nail in the coffin that they'd rather do things with CGI these days. In the 80s BJ and Jake would've done that whole sequence for real, including pulling their chutes inside the sinkhole.
    doubleoego wrote: »

    I think James Bond has a headstart over WW 2 here. Internationally Bond 25 has a better chance than WW 2. Suffice it to say, but WW actually didn't do so well as previously anticipated, whereas SP was close to gain almost $700 Million internationally excluding North America.

    You don't know what you're on about, mate. WW didn't do as well as anticipated?? The film broke records and EVERY expectation. WW was in fact an unprecedented hit. There's no two ways about it. It grossed more money than the novelty of batman and superman appearing on film for the fitst time ever, was a ctitical hit, came off from a string of DCEU critical flops, was directed by a woman and the film in and of itself is a female-led film that made over $800Million. Like I said you don't know what you're on about.
    Overall WW was not able to pass $900 Million, which is very much in line with other single character superhero movies these days. Same goes for the new Spiderman. Globally at least there's a slight superhero fatigue kicking in.

    And now you're just making crap up. No DCEU film has made over $900Million. Outside of Marvel's Avengers films it's only Iron Man 3 and Civil War that has crossed a $Billion; and spider-man homecoming as the MCU's first solo soidey movie making over $800Million, makes it the 2nd highest grossing spider-man film made after being the 6th spidey film and the second reboot in 5 years...majes it a resounding success...and you honestly think what you said actually makes sense? Don't be silly or intellectually dishonest about this. As for Superhero fatigue, it's an unsubstantiated myth that's been touted by those who know nothing for tge better part of a decade and has never EVER been proven; and evidence only confirms the contrary. You can champion Bond 25 till the cows come home as much as you like but when you resort to spewing a load of bs it only reaffirms my first sentence of this post and that you have absolutely zero argument here.
    Also, anticipation for Bond 25 will be higher than for WW 2. Simply because it'll be Craig's last. And my gut tells me that film will be marketed as such.

    Anecdotal opinions don't mean much. I can easily say I know plenty of people or seen online/social media people not caring or showing an indifference to Craig and Bond in general. It doesn't mean I think Bond 25 won't do well.
    I'm not worried at all for Bond 25.

    That's your prerogative. Bond 25 will do well like all Bind movies ordinarilly do but you're dreaming if you think It's going to cross a $Billion/SF numbers. My only concern for Bond 25 is from a creative standpoint. It'll be 4 years since SP when it's released and it'll be overwhelmingly unacceptable if they serve us up another trash entry. They had 3 years with SP and the less said about that movie the better.

    Couldn't agree more. WW smashed it out of the park considering the expectations and anyone who thinks going up against WW2 and Episode 9 is an easy ride is in for a rude awakening. Everyone knows already when Star Wars is going to be released so why do they lock a date in that means you get at best a month of IMAX screenings before you're booted off for the new Star Wars?

    Ooowh? I was talking about the international market, not the US market. Having said so, "Wonder Woman" did good, but certainly not terrific. Especially the foreign market results from James Bond (especially "SPECTRE"), is something "Wonder Woman" could only dream of:

    idWUY7C.jpg
    8cJtruN.jpg

    A film with a built in fan base over 50 years and a budget of $250m v a film that is part of a franchise that was pretty much stillborn with Batman v Superman and a budget of $150 and Bond only scraped $64m more? Think if I was an investor I'd be 'dreaming' of WW's return on my money over SP's.
    peter wrote: »
    was that the big news, @QuantumOrganization ? I swore you said an announcement would be made about distributor and a two pic deal... Quite adamant about that, I'm sure.

    Pretty sure he said 'late August/early September'. Given that '30 days hath September' and today is the 14th I would say by any reasonable person's definition he has approximately 3hrs 30 GMT to deliver on this before we hit the 15th and are most definitely into mid September. Dont know about the rest of you but my unshakeable faith that he is the new Baz Bamigboye is starting to waver ever so slightly....
    bondjames wrote: »
    @AlexanderWaverly , I'm sure there was some impact from the 50th, but I believe it was marginal, at least based on anecdotal observations. Rather, it was the excellent reviews and very strong word of mouth that drove the 'legs' on SF. Nearly everyone I knew was talking about it - it was the film to see at the time. Most of that was due to Silva and the strength of the production/visuals, at least based on how people were describing it to me at the time. It became a sort of phenomenon. 'Fresh' in the public consciousness. It transcended its brand, just like TDK transcended Batman.

    Normally I have to sell 'Bond' to my friends. What was amusing in 2012 is that they were selling Bond to me, almost as if they had forgotten I was a die hard.

    Nobody even talked about SP. I had to go on the 'promotion' run again, as per normal.
    patb wrote: »
    SF is the only Bond movie my inlaws have seen at the cinema. All down to word of mouth at the tennis club. That really is transcending the brand.

    Agreed. With SF everyone at work was talking about it and I got a fair bit of kudos for having gone to the premiere. With SP it was just tumbleweed.
  • From a British persoective there definitely wasn't as much buzz as SF (I think @bondjames is on the money, it transcended Bond in the same way TDK transcended Batman) but I wouldn't say tumbleweed. You still had the usual big promo push and I still had people mention it to me or ask me about it. And I'd usually put that down to my friends and family knowing I'm a Bond fan but it did do really well over here (3rd highest grossing film of all time in the UK) and I saw acquaintances and more distant family mentioning it on social media so I think there was more hype than some are giving it credit for. A lot of that probably came off the back of SF but I think Bond in general is usually a big deal over here anyway. Not as huge an event as the last Star Wars film, but there always seems to be more buzz around Bond than stuff like Marvel and other blockbusters. I think it's a generational thing (because it still appeals to the nostalgia of older crowds who otherwise wouldn't care about blockbusters) and a cultural thing (because Bond is pretty much our biggest export).
  • //Its easy to slag off Marvel but I think they would have thought it through and introduced Blofeld over several films rather than have him go from Bond never having heard of him to vanquished in the space of one film.//

    That's what they've been doing with Thanos who been seen (but only in small bits) since 2012. He'll be the big villain next year.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    Barbara Broccoli is awesome,
    You clearly haven't read the leaked Spectre-related Sony e-mails. BB is surprisingly incompetent, it's a miracle that CR and SF are as great as they are.

    What in the leaks (which I've never read) leads you to this statement?

    12 MAY 2014: "It's a mess." - Sony Pictures EVP Elizabeth Cantillon on the script
    16 JUNE 2014: "2nd Unit – start Austria in December; Main Unit – starts in UK for 2 weeks, and then hiatus, and then Austria in January; Rough plan would have main unit going to Rome, with 2nd Unit following. Main unit back to UK for interiors; Main unit to Tangiers and other location (what WAS diamond mines – may have changed). Wrap photography end of June for a 20 week post production." - Peter Oillataguerre (Exec VP at MGM)
    04 JULY 2014: "There is something wrong with this movie. It doesn't want to come together" - Amy Pascal
    14 JULY 2014: "I'm really worried." - Sam Mendes to Amy Pascal

    These are just a few snippets. From these e-mails it's clear as day that in the summer of 2014, one and a half years after the peremiere of Skyfall they still didn't have a script that was anywhere near finished/acceptable. Not only that, but at the same time they were already making arrangements related to filming. No competent producer would have allowed this mess to happen.

    I didn't read the leaked emails, but that doesn't paint a pretty picture. It's easy to say "oh this happens to other films" but MGW and BB have been at this long enough, making Bond films should be a well oiled machine now.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    But it does happen to other films @MajorDSmythe . It happens to the most seasoned of producers and filmmakers. It happened to Hitchcock and Lynch and Scorsese and Kubrick and Welles (especially Welles?); it happened to the Weinsteins and Grazer and Bruckheimer and Rudin and Cubby and Harry.

    It's the nature of the business, and every film has negative obstacles, pretty much from the word go.

    Since Bond's been in 24 official adventures, it's pretty amazing the batting average of these films, isn't it? And since Babs and MGW have been at the helm for twenty two years, they're pretty successful producers for being such idiots, stumbling around in the dark, not knowing what they're doing, aren't they?

    Yes, yes, yes, SP wasn't the film they wanted. But SP is not showing a pattern of one weak offering after another, each new film with diminishing returns (at least to most reasonable general audiences, and Bond fans alike). Just relax, B25 will please most, and most will see it more than once. I know it's not popular to say, but I actually think that Babs and Co know what they're doing, in the big picture (pun intended).

Sign In or Register to comment.