It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
After 2 1/2 hours of SF I feel bored, annoyed and depressed.
After 2 1/2 hours of SP I feel entertained, excited and good-humoured.
But that's me of course.
Exactly this.
Just because some of us are taking SP to task doesn't mean it's not streets ahead of many other entries.
It's comfortably top half and there are large amounts of it that are really very good it's just that are some parts that are really bad too. It's the sense that it could have been so much more than really hurts. DAD was never going to be much more than a standard Brosnan cheese fest so it when it turned out to be utter shit you weren't that gutted but we have been led to think that we are in a new Elizabethan age packed with Oscar winning cast and crew so when we get nothing better than a standard Bond film we are left a bit flat.
With me it's because some of the other entries are so terrible that it ranks so high but I think SP biggest problem as you've said this could have been so much better.
Sometimes when things aren't that terrible but greatness was just out of grasp it makes it that more infuriating, well for me at least.
My anger with SP is it should have been mind blowing and the idea of having SPECTRE in a modern Bond film with twice oscar winning actor Christoph Waltz playing Bond's ultimate nemesis certainly promised allot.
Standard Bond this should not have been and when I'm looking at a troubled film like QOS and now ranking it higher for me it's just not good enough.
It appears you might have both made some peace with it and that is fine but I'm one of those like the SF detractors ( a film I loved) is unlikely to let this one go.
Like you say this wasn't a Brosnan by the numbers effort so much was riding on this and it seemed we might get Craig's best ever Bond but we didn't and that makes it worse for me than some of the entries which were clearly poorer in quality, I personally couldn't give a damn about the Brosnan era but Craig's I certainly did.
As for the future custodian of the role? I like Hiddlestone and was really impressed by him in "The Night Manager", as for Turner? He certainly looks good but I have not seen him in anything at this point.
The only thing i am sure on is at the minute all our thoughts and opinions are purely guess work for now?
Yea true for me too. I rated SP lower ...ok dead last but I did have fun with it and appreciate the attempt at an old school Bond.
Fiennes, Wishaw, and Harris though there is a chance Craig Waltz and Sedoux will return. Honestly we don't even know who is writing the script I believe Logan is out as are Purvis and Wade (which on a side note I never hated the. And actually enjoyed the films they worked on even the weaker ones like Die Another Day Skyfall and Spectre had great moments) and there was that unconfirmed rumor of that writer for mad men coming in but that's it I believe Jez butterworth is going to stick around and when Greg said they were throwing ideas around I assumed Babs Michael Greg and Jez were the people on said room throwing around ideas. But we don't know...
What even more worrisome is that unlike the last hiatus where both MGM and EON were still kind of moving forward (striking deals and bringing on crew memeber heck Mendes was attached as "consultant" on the project since 2010) this time we don't hear anything regarding well anything...
My guess is they are talking with Daniel to see what would it take for him to do one more and while many would be upset with the idea of spectre/Blofeld being wrapped up in bond 25 honestly if we were still talking about Quantum and there was no Blofeld and bond 24 was titled Risico (as I am pretty sure Mendes can't name his bond films anything other then one word names) and the end scene still played out the same Oberhauser on the bridge not dieing etc we all would agree the Oberhauser Quantum story line should be wrapped up in Craig's tenure so why suddenly change. Personally (and again I am assuming here) if Hiddleston really is bond #7 shouldn't be have his own stories and his own cohesive narrative (which I still say the idea of a reformed Smersh battling the next 007 could be cool and heck Mendes could even come back in the middle of it and have his S word bond film with SMERSH in 2021 or whatever)
For me the Craig era started out amazingly but got weaker as the tenure went on maybe it's a good thing Dalton only did two as had he done more he might not of had the perfect tenure he has now... Like I said to make a long story short I believe Craig will be brought back for one more I believe it will be a final show down between bond and Blofeld and as an added guess I really believe it will be titled Blofeld.
Fingers crossed buddy. Over at CBN Forum, the other user named SecretAgentFan thinks that WB will not be in the Bond bid anymore due to the commercial misfire of Batman v Superman.
That said, if Warners won't be the ones to pick up MGM, then it's Sony to come back. But, WB has a history with the Bond franchise. So, it's highly likely they'd be the ones to acquire MGM and its belongings.
Batman v Superman is far from a commercial misfire.
Either that, or $700 million+ is small change to them :)
Variety estimated it would take a worldwide $800 million box office for the movie to break even and Deadline: Hollywood had a higher estimate.
There's also concern whether it can make $1 billion, which many took for granted before the movie was release.
That's the context of "commercial misfire." Yes, the box office is large and most movies don't reach what Batman v Superman has done so far. But the studio and others had larger expectations.
I'm not necessarily endorsing the "commercial misfire" label, but just trying to explain it.
Critical misfire yes ...and yes in terms of break even probably so.
Considering all the need in the world these movie budgets are insane.
Especially considering doesn't guarantee quality.
This has nothing to do with DC-hate. This is strictly about numbers and the numbers are what they are. How long has zootopia ($787million) been out? It still pulled in more than $14million this weekend which is only $9million less than what BvS made and has grossed $231million in China, while BvS only managed to pull in $96million. Meanwhile, Zootopia is yet to open in Japan which will be later this month. One doesn't need inside knowledge or whatever, the information is available for all clear as day. Simply look at the numbers.
Not sure if EoN always recruits said talent.
But that's precisely what it is, a commercial misfire. It opened huge, why? Presales tickets and opening simultaneously in all major markets. After that first weekend the drops were shockingly huge. Word of mouth sank this movie and again bear in mind that the film had no competition. Audiences just don't care to see it which is worse than them hating it because if they hated it at least they would have bothered to pay to see it.
Which is reasonable thinking.
Thanks.
Of course.
It's common knowledge that in order to be considered truly successful, a film has to cross that elusive $2 billion mark. Anything short of that is financial failure in the eyes of the internet.
Agreed.
Understood.
I'd say no. Age of Ultron came in at $1.4 billion. Studio was wanting $1.5 billion or more. That's a relatively narrow miss. Also, there's no question it made its money back. With BvS, there's a question whether it'll be profitable or not.