› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…12801281128312851286…2507

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    No doubt Bond has the greater legacy but we live in s world of ‘what have you done for me lately’; that would be SPECTRE and Rogue Nation. One shows a franchise that is, at best, stagnant, or worse, lost and in decline, while the other is ascending, thriving and has people at the helm who have vision.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    MI has certainly been more impressive of late in my view, but Bond remains my favourite franchise by far, even if I was terribly disappointed by the last entry and not too happy with QoS either.

    Bond can certainly impress again. All it takes is one film. The expectations are more set for Bond though. There is more of a straightjacket. One feels that MI has the opportunity and flexibility to be more creative and still meet or exceed fan expectations.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    Absolutely, criticism is not condemnation ; if fact it’s the opposite, he is the alpha and deserves a movie that lets him show it.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I wonder it we had heard anything by Feb 2011 about the progress on Bond 24, or they were still bankrupt at the time?

    Bond 24? You mean Bond 23? (Skyfall)

    On Jan. 11, 2011, MGM and Eon put out a short announcement that Bond 23 was back on after having been indefinitely delayed. The announcement said Sam Mendes was director and John Logan was one of the writers.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    Absolutely, criticism is not condemnation ; if fact it’s the opposite, he is the alpha and deserves a movie that lets him show it.
    Agreed. Tough love is fine, especially when constructive. I look forward to seeing what they come up with. So far there is one strike against them (no recast), but they can still impress me, and they have tended to alternate between mediocre (or downright awful) to excellent from film to film of late, so that bodes well.

    I'm sure the next MI will be impressive either way though. They have tighter control over that operation due to Cruise (and now McQuarrie) on creative. That much is quite clear.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    SonofSean wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    SonofSean wrote: »
    I think the Mission Impossible movies have evolved into THE great action / spy blockbuster that Bond used to have the monopoly on. Each instalment has got even better and the STUNTS Cruise does are incredible. The franchise is very Bond-esque (I would say Rogue Nation was far superior to Spectre in every way), so this is a movie I cannot wait for.
    Are we seeing the same films?

    After all the buzz here about the last one, I finally watched it... and was not impressed. Apart from Rebecca Ferguson and a fairly nifty motorcycle chase sequence, it's underwhelmingly "meh".

    ROGUE NATION - 5/10
    SPECTRE - 7.5/10

    To me, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE = "See it when it shows up on HBO."

    SPECTRE 3/10. Most boring car-chase in history, worst on-screen Blofeld we've seen, an Austin Powers "I'm your long lost brother / Dr Evil" reveal)...I could go on and on...

    ROGUE NATION - 8/10. Yes, Rebecca Ferguson (that dress!) was great, but from the opening on the plane (outside the plane) to the torture scene escape to the motorbike chase, the movie delivered where Spectre did not. A great action movie IMHO.
    I think spectre is a poor bond film. However, to me at least, a poor bond film is way better then any reguler film. Something like MI5 just can’t compete in my mind with the production scale that is Bond.

    That, and Ethan Hunt is no James Bond.

    But at this point, based on recent films, if there was a Bond film being released on the same day as a MI , the general public would be anticipating the return oh Hunt and company over Bond.
    EON needs to step up their game.

    But bond makes like twice the box office!!!

    Twice?

    U.S.

    SPECTRE: $200 million
    Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation $195 million.


    Global
    SPECTRE: $880.7 million
    Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation $682.7 million.


    SPECTRE made more, clearly. But not double what M:I Rogue Nation made.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    talos7 wrote: »
    No doubt Bond has the greater legacy but we live in s world of ‘what have you done for me lately’; that would be SPECTRE and Rogue Nation. One shows a franchise that is, at best, stagnant, or worse, lost and in decline, while the other is ascending, thriving and has people at the helm who have vision.
    I see what you're saying, but public interest is still marginally higher for Bond. It remains the leader of the pack.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    jake24 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    No doubt Bond has the greater legacy but we live in s world of ‘what have you done for me lately’; that would be SPECTRE and Rogue Nation. One shows a franchise that is, at best, stagnant, or worse, lost and in decline, while the other is ascending, thriving and has people at the helm who have vision.
    I see what you're saying, but public interest is still marginally higher for Bond. It remains the leader of the pack.

    Agreed

  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    So around this time in 2014, John Logan briefly discussed the script & Ralph Fiennes stated “filming was to start in Oct. (2014).” A major contrast as to where we currently stand.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    SonofSean wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    SonofSean wrote: »
    I think the Mission Impossible movies have evolved into THE great action / spy blockbuster that Bond used to have the monopoly on. Each instalment has got even better and the STUNTS Cruise does are incredible. The franchise is very Bond-esque (I would say Rogue Nation was far superior to Spectre in every way), so this is a movie I cannot wait for.
    Are we seeing the same films?

    After all the buzz here about the last one, I finally watched it... and was not impressed. Apart from Rebecca Ferguson and a fairly nifty motorcycle chase sequence, it's underwhelmingly "meh".

    ROGUE NATION - 5/10
    SPECTRE - 7.5/10

    To me, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE = "See it when it shows up on HBO."

    SPECTRE 3/10. Most boring car-chase in history, worst on-screen Blofeld we've seen, an Austin Powers "I'm your long lost brother / Dr Evil" reveal)...I could go on and on...

    ROGUE NATION - 8/10. Yes, Rebecca Ferguson (that dress!) was great, but from the opening on the plane (outside the plane) to the torture scene escape to the motorbike chase, the movie delivered where Spectre did not. A great action movie IMHO.
    I think spectre is a poor bond film. However, to me at least, a poor bond film is way better then any reguler film. Something like MI5 just can’t compete in my mind with the production scale that is Bond.

    That, and Ethan Hunt is no James Bond.

    But at this point, based on recent films, if there was a Bond film being released on the same day as a MI , the general public would be anticipating the return oh Hunt and company over Bond.
    EON needs to step up their game.

    But bond makes like twice the box office!!!

    Twice?

    U.S.

    SPECTRE: $200 million
    Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation $195 million.


    Global
    SPECTRE: $880.7 million
    Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation $682.7 million.


    SPECTRE made more, clearly. But not double what M:I Rogue Nation made.

    Wow I didnt know MI was so big these days.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    SonofSean wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    SonofSean wrote: »
    I think the Mission Impossible movies have evolved into THE great action / spy blockbuster that Bond used to have the monopoly on. Each instalment has got even better and the STUNTS Cruise does are incredible. The franchise is very Bond-esque (I would say Rogue Nation was far superior to Spectre in every way), so this is a movie I cannot wait for.
    Are we seeing the same films?

    After all the buzz here about the last one, I finally watched it... and was not impressed. Apart from Rebecca Ferguson and a fairly nifty motorcycle chase sequence, it's underwhelmingly "meh".

    ROGUE NATION - 5/10
    SPECTRE - 7.5/10

    To me, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE = "See it when it shows up on HBO."

    SPECTRE 3/10. Most boring car-chase in history, worst on-screen Blofeld we've seen, an Austin Powers "I'm your long lost brother / Dr Evil" reveal)...I could go on and on...

    ROGUE NATION - 8/10. Yes, Rebecca Ferguson (that dress!) was great, but from the opening on the plane (outside the plane) to the torture scene escape to the motorbike chase, the movie delivered where Spectre did not. A great action movie IMHO.
    I think spectre is a poor bond film. However, to me at least, a poor bond film is way better then any reguler film. Something like MI5 just can’t compete in my mind with the production scale that is Bond.

    That, and Ethan Hunt is no James Bond.

    But at this point, based on recent films, if there was a Bond film being released on the same day as a MI , the general public would be anticipating the return oh Hunt and company over Bond.
    EON needs to step up their game.

    But bond makes like twice the box office!!!

    Twice?

    U.S.

    SPECTRE: $200 million
    Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation $195 million.


    Global
    SPECTRE: $880.7 million
    Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation $682.7 million.


    SPECTRE made more, clearly. But not double what M:I Rogue Nation made.

    Wow I didnt know MI was so big these days.
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    SonofSean wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    SonofSean wrote: »
    I think the Mission Impossible movies have evolved into THE great action / spy blockbuster that Bond used to have the monopoly on. Each instalment has got even better and the STUNTS Cruise does are incredible. The franchise is very Bond-esque (I would say Rogue Nation was far superior to Spectre in every way), so this is a movie I cannot wait for.
    Are we seeing the same films?

    After all the buzz here about the last one, I finally watched it... and was not impressed. Apart from Rebecca Ferguson and a fairly nifty motorcycle chase sequence, it's underwhelmingly "meh".

    ROGUE NATION - 5/10
    SPECTRE - 7.5/10

    To me, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE = "See it when it shows up on HBO."

    SPECTRE 3/10. Most boring car-chase in history, worst on-screen Blofeld we've seen, an Austin Powers "I'm your long lost brother / Dr Evil" reveal)...I could go on and on...

    ROGUE NATION - 8/10. Yes, Rebecca Ferguson (that dress!) was great, but from the opening on the plane (outside the plane) to the torture scene escape to the motorbike chase, the movie delivered where Spectre did not. A great action movie IMHO.
    I think spectre is a poor bond film. However, to me at least, a poor bond film is way better then any reguler film. Something like MI5 just can’t compete in my mind with the production scale that is Bond.

    That, and Ethan Hunt is no James Bond.

    But at this point, based on recent films, if there was a Bond film being released on the same day as a MI , the general public would be anticipating the return oh Hunt and company over Bond.
    EON needs to step up their game.

    But bond makes like twice the box office!!!

    Twice?

    U.S.

    SPECTRE: $200 million
    Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation $195 million.


    Global
    SPECTRE: $880.7 million
    Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation $682.7 million.


    SPECTRE made more, clearly. But not double what M:I Rogue Nation made.

    Wow I didnt know MI was so big these days.

    Unfortunately.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    I think MI:6 will likely be about even with Bond 25 in terms of Box office. SP painted themselves into a corner that no one has any interest in seeing them try and wriggle out of, it's a dead end. Whereas the last 2 Impossible films have been warmly received.

    I expect both to make somewhere in the ballpark of 750m US. Not to mention Bond has a bigger budget to work with than the Impossible films.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    As long as it lights a fire under EON's rear end to get a move on and return to the standard Bond film every 2 years schedule, I'll be very happy.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    As long as it lights a fire under EON's rear end to get a move on and return to the standard Bond film every 2 years schedule, I'll be very happy.
    +1. Light the fuse. ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    As long as it lights a fire under EON's rear end to get a move on and return to the standard Bond film every 2 years schedule, I'll be very happy.
    +1. Light the fuse. ;)
    +2. Get on with it.

    RE: MI vs Bond - a key point to consider is that MI:GP regained a lot of the audience which was lost for MI:3 (which wasn't as successful at the box office). MI:RN then pretty much retained all of that audience 4 years later (the global box office was near identical).

    The same can't be said of Bond, with SP losing 34% (even before adjusting for ticket inflation) of the audience in the US (still the biggest single market) and having the distinction of having sold the least number of tickets stateside since LTK. Let that sink in for a minute. Not a good sign because the rate of decline signifies something.

    This is why B25 is critical, especially after 4 years.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/01/26/box-office-while-star-wars-broke-records-spectre-grossed-nearly-900m-worldwide/amp/
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/01/26/box-office-while-star-wars-broke-records-spectre-grossed-nearly-900m-worldwide/amp/

    The $900M gross is well known on this site. However, this is a key metric which is not mentioned when people bandy about that gross.

    "If you want to play the “adjusted for domestic inflation” game, and of course you do, then Spectre ends up at 14th out of 25 films, or just below dead center."

    Last (just) in terms of ticket sales domestic of all the Brosnan and Craig films to date.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 2018 Posts: 8,395
    The problem is also the budget. 250 million is insanity for a spy thriller. They need a proper story idea for Bond 25, just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks is too expensive. They need to make about 650 million before breaking even, crazy stuff.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The problem is also the budget. 250 million is insanity for a spy thriller. They need a proper story idea for Bond 25, just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks is too expensive. They need to make about 650 million before breaking even, crazy stuff.
    They've got some work to do to get the US audience back with the next one. Pandering may work (it certainly worked with DAF & LALD), so perhaps we'll see a North American star in it or a US location/plot. They squandered money on the last one, but I don't think the budget overall was all that bad.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    i wasn't interested in the article because of the 900 million dollars in BO, but in spite of this, and SP generally being seen as a flawed entry, the franchise isn't in decline, or isn't showing a pattern of decline; in fact, as the article is suggesting, it's in a plum position to continue being very profitable for the foreseeable future.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    i wasn't interested in the article because of the 900 million dollars in BO, but in spite of this, and SP generally being seen as a flawed entry, the franchise isn't in decline, or isn't showing a pattern of decline; in fact, as the article is suggesting, it's in a plum position to continue being very profitable for the foreseeable future.
    That's not the point we were making. Nobody has said that the Bond franchise is in decline. We are all Bond fans first and foremost and we know the franchise is alive and well.

    The point we were making specifically was in comparison to the MI series in terms of retention of US gross over the last two films as well as SP's ticket sales in the US market( the largest even if it doesn't have the pull it once had).
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,787
    I'm American and I don't want Bond films to pander to Americans. I think that would also be bad for box office, US and otherwise. There's plenty of flexibility to adjust to the times, the current producers are masters of that.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    This is why Christopher Nolan is a good choice once they reboot. His films are always massive hits in the US. Dunkirk did nearly as well as SP in the US.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    If they make a good film it will do quite well at the box office in the US. SF proved that.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I was saying that I wasn't interested in the article because of the 900 million in box office, but rather the over all business of SP is showing a very healthy return, in spite of, and despite of it being a weaker entry. It will remain very healthy, and consistent in the US market, and globally as well.

    The big number to look at in the US: opening weekend.

    SP's opening in November beat MI's summer opening by, I believe, 15 million dollars in the US.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    The big number to look at in the US: opening weekend.

    SP's opening in November beat MI's summer opening by, I believe, 15 million dollars in the US.
    What's being missed in that article is that SP's opening was that big because it followed the biggest US Bond hit in multi-decades, namely SF. Expectations and interest were supremely high as a result. It was a given that it would open large even though it still did less than SF on opening weekend (if I recall correctly). Furthermore, MI:RN opened against TMFU at the end of the summer (traditionally slow period).

    The key metric is the weekly decline after opening weekend, which was rather precipitous, as was the overall gross as a % of opening weekend (another key metric to show 'legs'). Big films are increasingly front loaded, but it's still the best ones that show weekly 'holds'. As an example, SW 8-TLJ is collapsing in comparison to TFA, The Avengers or even Jurassic World. Not a good sign and an indication that the film overall wasn't as well received.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    and, once again, even a weaker entry shows, as the article mentions: audiences are still willing to, en masse, pluck down $8-15 bucks on the latest Bond adventure-- this trend will continue-- whether the next film follows a QoS, or SF.

    As far as Bond not being popular in Asia:

    http://variety.com/2015/film/asia/china-box-office-spectre-opening-records-1201642077/

    http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/hollywood/spectre-earns-rs-31-9-crore-in-opening-weekend-in-india/

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    and, once again, even a weaker entry shows, as the article mentions: audiences are still willing to, en masse, pluck down $8-15 bucks on the latest Bond adventure-- this trend will continue-- whether the next film follows a QoS, or SF.
    That's obvious, unless one is suggesting that Bond is in terminal decline, which I don't believe anyone has done here. Not once.
    peter wrote: »
    As far as Bond not being popular in Asia:

    http://variety.com/2015/film/asia/china-box-office-spectre-opening-records-1201642077/

    http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/hollywood/spectre-earns-rs-31-9-crore-in-opening-weekend-in-india/
    Just for some perspective:

    Overall China gross:
    SP: $83m
    MI:RN: $136m

    Overall India gross:
    SP: $8.3m
    MI: RN: $11.3m
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    these numbers are supposed to show what, lol! Bond beat MI globally...

    I was merely responding to a claim, that I believe belongs to you, that said, in essence, Bond isn't doing well in the Asian markets recently.

    These numbers show, once again, that that is, in fact, untrue. Bond continues to be healthy in all markets, lol!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    and @RichardTheBruce, I agree: pandering to Americans is silly. Last time I felt they did that was in DAD, and we got Jinx and her "witty" come-backs and one-liners. It was ridiculous.

    In the end, it's all about a good story.

Sign In or Register to comment.