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
Edge of Tomorrow did very well, and Oblivion received moderate reviews. Regarding films like Knight and Day, there wasn't much of a story that would capture the public interest because it wasn't anything groundbreaking. I personally love that one a lot, but there's not much in it to die for, to be honest. The M:I film franchise is Cruise's main focus and he's putting a lot of thought in them as opposed to just appearing in them, totting guns away, swing a few punches, jump from a sidewalk to another, and wait for the director to yell "Cut!" and be done with it.
M:I's competition, including EoN, should take a careful look to see what their opponents are up to; and that's not so they do a copy-cat, but rather how the producers are spending money to deliver as many fans into the seats as they can.
I usually shrug when I see another M:I film being released.
This trailer actually got me excited.
It's the job of a producer to know what works or what not. Somehow like a captain who tries to avoid any catastrophes on its way. Brothergate, Tsunami surfing Bond and a cutting that doesn't give the audience a chance to see the $200 million plus that were put into the making of the movie are ample proof that she doesn't know spit. Like it or not Barbara probably hasn't shown that there's anything that makes her more then a mediocre producer. Maybe not even that.
Oh, and of course I could have put Skyfall on my list since the way I see it it's also the job of a producer to recognize a story that is as logical as f written on a late afternoon in a kindergarten.
Bond, as a popular franchise, will endure, but only if it moves with the times and reflects society, just as you said. But who knows what future film-goers will be watching. I know certain millennials who do no like Bond, thinking he's a sexist caricature, so let's not just assume that Bond movies will always be popular. Also, the quality of Bond is variable (we hit new highs with Skyfall and new lows with Spectre). But the biggest problem with Bond and EON today is the lack of actual Bond movies. I know they are expensive to make, but Impossible Mission now shows that you can make these great action movies, and deliver all the excitement, style and intrigue in less than half the time and half the budget it takes EON to develop 1 mediocre Bond movie.
There was so much good stuff in that film. Were there things that could've been better? Of course there were. There are things in nearly every film that could be better. But somehow the idea that Spectre was a complete disaster with no redeeming features at all is a load of rubbish.
I really enjoyed the film when it came out, as I have enjoyed it the many, many times I have re-watched it since on Blu-ray. Is it perfect like Casino Royale, from Russia with Love, or Goldfinger et cetera? No, of course not. But it really, really is not as bad as some people are making it out to be here. I would put it over most of the Roger Moore entries, and pretty much all of the Brosnan entries.
The whole MI team/cast appearing on BBC chat shows 6 months before release dates is a clear indicator of this. Staying in the headlines is key.
Bond is never out of the headlines. There are very few days of the week when I've not seen something about the films, Daniel Craig, or someone being "The James Bond of X" appearing in a newspaper or website.
And I read both GQ and Esquire every month, and you can be guaranteed there will be at least one mention of Bond every single month in those magazines.
Really? I would say the other way around is more true.
For me brother gate has been blown all out of proportion. When you come down to it all it is is that the Elder Oberhauser asked his son to treat the young orphan James Bond like a brother when he was there with them. That was it. And for some reason people have been saying that they are actually brothers. They are not. It was made clear in the movie but there are only two winters he spent with them and because the young Franz was an absolute nutcase, he was so jealous of the affection that the young James got that he ended up killing his father over it.
Now would I prefer that they just made Blofeld "Blofeld"? Yes, absolutely. Does the "twist" ruin the film for me and turn it into "the biggest piece of sh*t, everyone should be shot who created this film, OMG there was never a worse film in the history of celluloid" film? No.
But that is now the hysterical reaction on this board all the time. I was prompted by @SonofSean saying we had hit "new lows" with Spectre. There are many, many worse Bond films than Spectre.
I asked them what they thought about the big Bond/Blofeld reveal. None could even recall it. It had zero impact on them as a plot twist. Bond simply doesn't mean enough to them for this to be a deal breaker.
Exactly!
I have been a member of a few fan bases in my time, and I have come to learn the things that excite, annoy and even arouse us are generally not the interest of the public at large :-)
Most cinema going people who enjoy a Bond film will go to it if the trailer excites them and maybe if the marketing makes out about it being Craig's last film.
Brothergate will not stop them.
Agreed. While there’s polarising opinion on here it’s worth remembering the scrutiny is surgical and not necessarily representative of a wider world-view. Some of it is interesting some of it is mind-numbing.
For me personally I’ve become quite bored with the endless stream of negativity (both blatant and subversive) from certain posters and their enablers, which is why I’ve taken to scanning rather than contributing over the last few months. Hopefully there will be some genuine optimism further down the line.
Note, I specified Asia. That's why no "fuzzy, heartwarming memories"!
Exactly. Much harder, I'd say. Right now I don't feel the media is exactly Bond friendly with all the articles emphasizing his need to change, etc. Just about every article on Bond seems to have some sort of negativity regarding the character as out dated.
Frankly, I'm tired of each new film having to prove Bond's relevance to suit mainstream audiences. Whether it be following the "re-boot" trend, tweaking the formula to the point it's barely recognizable, or self consciously forcing a story arc into the films, I don't find those as much fun.
Re-introducing Bond worked for GE after six years, but at least the following films came out within a reasonable time frame without the need to prove Bond each film. They carried on as normal, albeit, with varying degrees of quality.
Bond is meant to be a "classy" brand and having nothing but rumour and "false news", whilst better than nothing", can be corrosive in the long term IMHO
The most important thing with this new one is to make it feel fresh and not rehashed. I actually agree with P&W's comments indicating that SP sort of closed out a way of doing things (interestingly, those comments were made prior to them being officially rehired for the gig).
I look forward to what they come up with, but for now I have other series and franchises to keep my interest. Bond has just become one of those, until they recast and reimagine everything once more, which they inevitably will at some point.
Absolutely. The debate was unmerited until the sp/ rn cycle. Every other time bond has won by a landslide imo, sf/ gp being the next closest
DC hanging off a cliff? It's game over down that route.
I'm not sure where/how you are getting your numbers.
SP outperformed RN, in the U.S.. In 2015...
RN opened at 3, 956 screens. It grossed $55.5m in opening weekend and $195m, overall.
SP opened at 3, 929 screens, It grossed $70.4m in its opening weekend and $200m overall.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=missionimpossible.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm
Furthermore, ticket sales are estimates and not at all accurate. I wouldn't get too concerned over that: SP's sales were generally the same as CR's.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?view=main&id=jamesbond.htm&adjust_yr=1&p=.htm
This isn't about RN vs. SP in absolute terms. We all know that SP was the more successful film. That has never been disputed by me. Bond is the more popular franchise as well. I'm very familiar with the numbers you have posted.
What I'm saying is the rate of drop off in ticket sales between GP and RN vs. SF and SP signifies a drop off in enthusiasm among the viewers. It was a rather dramatic decline, particularly for a continuation story. That indicates that the film didn't resonate on a relative basis, despite the fact that in absolute terms it was more successful. Moreover, it's overall gross as a % of opening gross was less than RN's which also signifies a relative lack of 'legs'. These are measures which track enthusiasm after the initial burst of viewers. Bond films tend not to open big but rather draw in their audiences in the US over several weeks. Check CR or SF's total US gross vs. its opening in comparison to see what I mean.
Regarding ticket sales: Of course it's generally the same as CR. That's not something to be proud of however in my opinion. CR introduced a new Bond who was unknown in the US. SP followed on from the biggest Bond film in decades and yet ended up with ticket sales which were (just) below any film since LTK.
The facts are the facts. One can interpret them any way one wants to.
To be clear again, I'm referring to audience retention and used the SW8-TLJ example in one of my previous posts to indicate where there is a similar decline in relation to the prior film. In both cases, I'm assuming the production team will make some tweaks with the next film (which is why Waltz not returning doesn't surprise me). More dramatic changes than previously foreseen. Or perhaps they should.
Once more and for the record, I have never made any statement about Bond declining as a franchise and what not and it would be incorrect to draw such broad and vague inferences from my posts.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?view=main&id=jamesbond.htm&adjust_yr=1&p=.htm //
From 1995 to present, in the U.S., the box office by number of tickets sold has been 23 million to 27 million, with Skyfall as the exception (37.8 million).
But it is also true that SPECTRE is the lowest in that group, lower than Quantum of Solace, for example.