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
.... so that's a nice surprise, I guess I'll be getting the call
Next week. ;)
Agreed. Directors are leaders... yes it's a team effort but Mendes deserves blame too.
Agreed. He deserves quite a bit of blame for SP, as far as I'm concerned. From what is known of Logan's version of the story, I'm not at all convinced that P&W's "rescue" of it was actually better.
We all seem to continually forget the critical and financial success of SPECTRE. While what we know of the writer situation in pre-production makes it seem like there was drama backstage, everyone continues to be on good terms and I'm sure nothing is ruled out for Bond 25 given, as I remind you again, the success of SP.
Unfortunately, it may take a while to get here.
Indeed. If SP was a failure then I don't believe I've ever seen a success.
He would know because Babs has been a key figure in his life for approximately the last five years. It would be barmy to think they haven't discussed who she's eyeing as DC's successor.
In the U.S., SPECTRE sold the fewest number of tickets of the Craig era (23 million), one movie after Skyfall sold the most (almost 38 million). The U.S. is only one market, of course, but it is a big one.
To use a more extreme example:
Warner Bros. says Batman v Superman turned a profit. But it's definitely a smaller profit than the studio expected, otherwise it wouldn't be making executive and producer changes for future DC Comics-based movies. (BvS will likely finish with a global box office below SPECTRE's).
I think that drop off was inevitable, though. SF made $1.2 billion, there was no way a number like that was going to continue to climb.
IMHO, Connery's portrayal is quintessential and when I was a boy, nobody could beat him. Not Laz, or Moore, or Dalton (although I enjoyed aspects), and not Brozzy.
... then DC came to us.
All I ask is for you all to watch GF, and ask yourself, if you enjoy the performance, who is a Connery successor....? Laz, Moore, Dalts, Brozzy or Craig?
DN, FRWL & TB - now that's a different matter entirely. That to me is Connery as Bond at his best, courtesy of Terence Young's direction. I see that same edginess with a little more intensity in Craig's CR/QoS portrayals, my favourites of his.
DN
FRWL
GF
TH
CR
QOS
SF
SP
I agree on DN/FRWL being top, but would put TB ahead of GF. I noticed it on my last Bondathon. The subtle glances, the way he moves, the lack of goofiness in TB (which is there in GF with the funny faces in the airplane & at Goldfinger's HQ) all make me prefer his approach there, but I really think it's down to Young.
I'd rank early Moore ahead of Craig in SP/SF, but I can understand why you disagree.
GF is a work of genius - undoubtedly Hamilton's best work on Bond.
Truth. I think I actually might like his TB performance most.
Its weird Sam who is a movie director Artist/ visionary used to think of the Bond character the same way any average Bond watcher thinks of it instead of thinking since the beginning like Barbara.
Its great he admitted he was wrong about Craig bring miscast i made that same mistake as well but its funny how an artist and movie expert can think like a regular audience.
You think directors producers and screenwriters a,ways think ahead of us when it comes to which actors fit in each character.
Sam before seing Casino Royale thought like ,e before i became a Bond fan, i guess its great that remind us even people in the induration are humans and have mistakes.
Are we related ... I agree 110%
Don't forget Skyfall had the 50th anniversary, a trailer with the Queen of England at the Olympics in front of billions (with a b), and the whole "Bond is actually back" narrative of surviving the MGM bankruptcy.
Not to mention great visuals featured in a fantastic marketing campaign.
Side by side SPECTRE is missing two big narratives of Skyfall's release (anniversary and Olympics), so less conversations and "free" publicity, and I'd argue that overall Skyfall's trailers, posters, and overall marketing campaign was more interesting. (I'd argue Skyfall is more interesting of a film, so it's fair.)
what turned a lot of people off to Pierce after he was let go, was his constant whining to any media outlet that would listen... if he felt slighted - fine, he has a right to feel what he feels, but you have to maintain a certain level of professionalism, and at the time, Broz was acting like a child..... as time has gone on he's relaxed about the whole situation..
it's about 50/50
QOS - was originally planned for 2007, but the producers couldn't find a director who was willing to work against that small of a turn around - plus, they had no script ready at the time either...... also..... the writer's strike didn't delay anything - the reason they went into production with half a script is because Haggis turned in what he could before the strike happened, because EON was going into production with, or without his finished work.
the delay between QOS and SF - originally SF was to be due out in 2011 (many figured it would be out in 2010, but the producers wanted to take an extra year, because of the nonstop work between CR and QOS - they wanted a break) - but as you said, the MGM financial crisis held up the works on that one, and it didn't hit the screens until 2012..
but the delay between SF and SP was purely on the side of the producers... they very easily, had they chose, could've done a 2014 release - but they wanted Sam Mendes back, so they waited the extra year for his schedule to clear up.
exactly...
SF had the 50th anniversary thing going for it, SP did not..
SF had a marketing blitz, SP - not so much..
SF was coming out on the heels of an MGM financial rescue - while SP has hot in the middle of the Sony leaks scandal..
SF had outstanding critical reviews.. SP - again, not so much..
SF had less direct competition at the box office than SP did..
all of that leans to SP making less at the box office than SF... but it still made over $800mil world wide, and if it wasn't for SF's record breaking performance, SP's totals might be viewed in a much better light.... SF's billion+ at the box office is the anomaly here..
agreeing with @SaintMark on this one too..
Mendes didn't leave Logan to himself to write whatever he could come up with on his own... Logan, Mendes, Craig, and even BB and MGW had involvement / share the resposibility for SP (good or bad).. they knew what the story was before they gave it to Logan to flesh out.....
the sacking of Logan only came because what he turned back into Mendes and company, was utter garbage - so Mendes brought back P&W and Jez to rework / touch up what was already there..
people need to understand - when a director signs onto a project.. he either A.) signs on because of a script that has already been written, then changes what he wants to better suit his vision.. or B.) signs on, then hires his own writing team - or - works with an existing writing team to create the new script.... a director has a HUGE impact on what comes out on screen, because that is HIS vision... once that script leaves the hands on the writers and is in the hands of the director - it's his from that point on..