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
When I say it's a good title I only refer to the title in and of itself, regardless of the hypothetical movie that would be titled. In the third Dalton movie the working title was actually the only good thing about it and the only thing that could have been kept IMO. But after the events of LTK making Bond or confirming him as the property of a lady would have made perfect sense.
That's revenue. Not even close to profit.
That's not what I said. Even then at best they would have spent a minimum of $150million. You have to double the budget and then add marketing costs to break even.
From what I've read, the Bond 17 treatment (and resulting script) never had that title.
Yep. Even if marketing costs were at an unrealistic conservative $100million it would need $600million to break even.
Not just that but does the "final film" gimmick work with Bond like it does with other characters/franchises? I don't think we've seen any evidence of it, have we? I mean, everyone's expecting a new guy in the suit in a couple of years anyway, as always happens. I'm extremely apprehensive that this film will perform badly.
Correct. From what I remember the ratio of Sony's deal was beyond pathetic. Embarassing actually. They barely make any money off the Bond films. EoN will never get a distribution deal like this ever again.
Have faith in Eon and the gang,Babs,MGW and Dan this one last time ...hoorah for 007 !!!!!
I personally don't see it. Bond being referred to as that, like I said, is cringe-worthy. However, like you, I also thought Dalton's third was an absurd entry had it been done, something worse than the OTT-ness of Die Another Day, if I'm speaking for the Bond fans in general.
I don't disagree, but do we really think this is the direction they will go in with Craig? I'm not sure. He's coming back to stamp his legacy and I'm reasonably certain they will have one eye on the novels.
You have still got a fair wait yet my friend, It would be funny though if you do manage it? lol!
Surely SP was a tonally upbeat movie? By DC era standards any way?
The only was is down (tonally) from SP, IMO.
They've already hired P+W and Craig back. What part of that says "we're throwing out the rulebook and taking big risks". To me it seems the safest option they could have gone with. I can only assume they will pick the safest most predictable story also, as a natural extension in their decision making. That means bringing back Maddy and having Blofeld escape, killing Maddy off and then having Bond set out on a vendetta, ending with the epic showdown. That's probably what we'll get, even if it is cliché. It's like RC7 says, at the end of the day they can whatever they want.
They can always do whatever they want, but they won't likely repeat "the death of a loved one", broken and brooding Bond, struggling with himself and going loose cannon all over again. The audience will get tired of it and believe me, the majority of them already are. This is not Spooks. This is not Game of Thrones. This is James Bond. An escapist adventure thriller series involving a daring secret agent against a world wide evil.
The box office figure of $880 million is a very strong theatrical performance, that's all there is to it. Trying to determine where the profit line is (or was) is extremely difficult (Impossible even) unless you are right inside the machine and know exactly how the revenue is divided - it's very complex and different from film to film. One reason the studios love franchises, Bond being one of the most successful and long running, is because every film in the series has an extended or a long shelf life - and that's were further profits lie. Even the least financially successful Bond, LTK, which I worked on, made profit - and that I heard directly from one of the producers.
Totally agree,
they can't re-create the same issues used in CR again.
Craig has already had his emotionally draining experience as Bond and that was over Vesper.
If they put his Bond through it again with Madeleine then sorry,EON,Daniel et al. will deserve all the crap thrown their way.
I know that, but in the end EON will do exactly what they want to. It doesn't matter if the story is tired and already repeated to many times. If it's what EON want to do, they'll do it again.
It could be used as a derisive term by a villain (Blofeld especially but not exclusively). Yes Dalton's Bond movie that never was would have destroyed his tenure, his legacy and maybe his career. It never surprised me that Brosnan lost the role after DAD.
Agreed. Nothing is confirmed editorially, thus far, just a lot of speculation. If there's time to be even mildly optimistic it's now.
Just gonna leave this here to remind all the angst ridden millennials how bad ass Bond is and always will be...
Not to mention... The death of M. The belovveddd M.
Sounds more like what you want them to do. Not what they will do.
I'd find it cringe-worthy to be honest. But, I wouldn't put it past the Waltz Blofeld. He'd say stuff like that.
I personally find it very telling that SP was still running well into 2016 ( much, much longer than SF) in some theaters to get those box office numbers. I really can't imagine that the popular demand for it was hefty enough for such a long run.