› ›

The "Problem Eliminator" Thread - Are Bond Films Getting Too Big?

12346

Comments

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited June 2015 Posts: 4,399
    Germanlady wrote: »
    BTW, we do have " last Craig era" thread and the "who could be Bond" you honestly want to tell me, that is not enough?

    All i read here us the same ole. By the time the poor man wants to return, everybody and his mouse will have their new Bond in the pocket already, because they did believe all the crap plus Bond boards, who should be smarter do it as well. Sad really.

    i dont think it's wrong to talk about what could happen down the road... where it becomes a bit ridiculous is when people claim "it's going to happen"... we all know Craig is going to bow out at some point (still adamantly maintaining that until we hear otherwise, Craig will be back for Bond 25, per his contract), there is just a difference between thinking it will happen after SP, and being certain it will happen after SP - because so and so said so.... i usually don't, and never have put much faith and stock in the rumor mill - especially in the internet age, anybody can make up anything, post it to a website - and suddenly they become "a source".... so i'll believe it when i see it, which usually means when a more credible source than the ol' "someone who refuses to share his name who worked on set." speaks about it
  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    @haserot, I'm sorry, every 2 years and every other year both sound the same to me , in other words 2 years between, so I'm confused what you meant... In any case it has been more than 2 years between movies more often than not for quite some time now, and I'm not expecting that to change. 3 years at the current rate would mean 1 movie. Not that it matters, for obvious reasons already discussed. I would also expect the new guy to be about mid thirties.

    @smitty, yes, Connery definitely looked about 10 years older than he was, both when he started and when he finished. Moore looked younger than he was at the start - but then continued too long for sure. Anyway, since those were different times, expectations physically are different, and gaps between movies longer, I don't think what age actors were in previous decades matters here. The only reasonably (IMO) comparable case would be Craig, and I would expect an actor roughly around the same age he was. I assume EON would want a new guy for well over a decade, to do 4 or 5 movies maybe. Starting at under 40 would make sense for sure. I don't think press actually cares what would be likely, it's just general blah-blah...
    smitty wrote: »
    Another interesting note about the leaks. And I'm being careful re spoilers. When I first read the press reports about the leaks and the Sony exec's script comments, I was critical about what seemed like their interference. As I've now read tons of their emails, they actually seemed to be making astute script criticisms and called out some of Logan's looney stuff early. There was one woman who seemed particularly on top of the script process, who referred to Logan at one point as "kind of a fraud". Wow. They were just doing their jobs and were probably instrumental in greatly improving SP. the leaked emails are fascinating reading. You start to appreciate what these studios go through to get a monster film like Bond made.

    Hmm. Fascinating. Really. I'm sooooo curious.

    Btw, sometimes I wonder how any movies ever actually get made at all. And some of them are actually good, too! Pretty amazing... :))

  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    BTW, we do have " last Craig era" thread and the "who could be Bond" you honestly want to tell me, that is not enough?

    All i read here us the same ole. By the time the poor man wants to return, everybody and his mouse will have their new Bond in the pocket already, because they did believe all the crap plus Bond boards, who should be smarter do it as well. Sad really.

    i dont think it's wrong to talk about what could happen down the road... where it becomes a bit ridiculous is when people claim "it's going to happen"... we all know Craig is going to bow out at some point (still adamantly maintaining that until we hear otherwise, Craig will be back for Bond 25, per his contract), there is just a difference between thinking it will happen after SP, and being certain it will happen after SP - because so and so said so.... i usually don't, and never have put much faith and stock in the rumor mill - especially in the internet age, anybody can make up anything, post it to a website - and suddenly they become "a source".... so i'll believe it when i see it, which usually means when a more credible source than the ol' "someone who refuses to share his name who worked on set." speaks about it

    What got me was @ColonelSun piping in and saying he has "close sources" and there has been discussion about it. If you don't want to believe it don't, and if you don't want to talk about it @Germanlady, don't. But please do not come in here and tell us all we are being disrespectful (to who or what exactly? Craig? One discussion on the internet and he will get hurt? Go check out CraigIsNotBond.com or whatever and see how bad it can get).

    I respect @Haserot 's posts because he's at least making an argument. Don't just troll our discussion with threats, slander, and label our discussions and arguments, how did you put it @Germanlady...
    Oh yea, you labeled it:
    Germanlady wrote: »
    All i read here us the same ole. By the time the poor man wants to return, everybody and his mouse will have their new Bond in the pocket already, because they did believe all the crap plus Bond boards, who should be smarter do it as well. Sad really.

    Your ill-fated attempts at shutting down this discussion simply because you don't want to talk about your Danny leaving is sad. Really.

  • smittysmitty
    Posts: 725
    @tuulia, once the film opens, you have to read the leaked emails. You're right, it's amazing these huge films get made. It's like fighting a small war. And I'm realizing I should not be posting about the leaks on the non leaks thread.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    smitty wrote: »
    @tuulia, once the film opens, you have to read the leaked emails. You're right, it's amazing these huge films get made. It's like fighting a small war. And I'm realizing I should not be posting about the leaks on the non leaks thread.

    You've tiptoed quite perfectly, I just fear where someone else might take it.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    I am not trolling your beloved thread, I am asking for some respect. Not too much to ask for really. And yeah, why not leave it to Craignotbond instead.

    We all have to just sit back and see what happens, which would be the decent tbing to do. But what means decent, when you have some juicy rumors to indulge in.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited June 2015 Posts: 4,399
    Tuulia wrote: »
    @haserot, I'm sorry, every 2 years and every other year both sound the same to me , in other words 2 years between, so I'm confused what you meant...

    a Bond every other year was the norm for a long time... from TSWLM thru LTK, there was a Bond film every other year - even during Broz's run until the 2 year gap between TWINE and DAD, meaning..

    1977 - TSWLM
    1978
    1979 - MR
    1980
    1981 - FYEO
    1982
    1983 - OP
    1984
    1985 - AVTAK
    1986
    1987 - TLD
    1988
    1989 - LTK

    thats what a Bond film every other year looks like.. that means 7 films in 14 years... every 2 years looks like

    1999 - TWINE
    2000
    2001
    2002 - DAD

    or

    2012 - SF
    2013
    2014
    2015 - SP
    2016
    2017
    2018 - (B25??)

    so for example, lets just say Bale took over as Bond in SF at the age of 44, he'd be 50 by the time Bond 25 was coming out.. and if 50 is the bow out age, then he'd most likely be done after that film, maybe coming back for B26 at the age of 53 - maybe...... whereas, if Hardy was to have to taken over as Bond in SF at the age of 42, he'd be 48 for Bond 25, making coming back for a 4th film (B26) more of a realistic opportunity at the age 50-51... thats what i mean..

    actually, now that i look at it... every 2 years is probably the wrong choice of words lol... there is a 2 year gap between films, but every 2 years is basically every other year.. you're right on that one @Tuulia lol... so, what i was meaning to say then is every 3 years - because the 3rd year would be the year the film opens.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    But dont fear, I am done with this thread and you can have your playground all to yourself. Good luck.
  • smittysmitty
    Posts: 725
    Do you think the main problem now is that the films have become so gigantic and complex to produce that they won't be able to go back to a film every other yr schedule?
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited June 2015 Posts: 4,399
    smitty wrote: »
    Do you think the main problem now is that the films have become so gigantic and complex to produce that they won't be able to go back to a film every other yr schedule?

    it's all up to the producers and what they want to do... they originally wanted CR and QOS back to back years, but lack of finding a director (also lack of a completed script) forced their hand, and had they not rushed and actually waited until after the writer's strike (which wasnt that long), QOS might have turned out much better with Haggis' full polish work being done on it... but they rushed, and they wanted to capitalize on the success of CR...

    They also wanted SF to be out in 2011, but the MGM financial fiasco handcuffed them..

    And i believe there was talk about wanting SP out for 2014, but they really wanted Mendes back, so they had to wait which meant pushing it to 2015..

    but MGW has expressed numerous times of how gargantuan these movies are, and how much it takes to make them, and make them good (or good as they can), and how it takes more time than it used to... i think ideally EON (and even MGM) would love to go back to a every other year schedule, but it seems now that EON are willing to wait if it means getting the right people they want, and getting the story they want.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I am not trolling your beloved thread, I am asking for some respect. Not too much to ask for really. And yeah, why not leave it to Craignotbond instead.

    We all have to just sit back and see what happens, which would be the decent tbing to do. But what means decent, when you have some juicy rumors to indulge in.

    I still do not know what we are disrespecting in discussing a rumor from two sources, one very credible on the site. It you can not argue objectively, don't. Unfortunately this thread is not for you, and I'm glad you can understand that Germanlady. (I won't directly @ mention you so you don't have to return).

    Moving on.. perhaps we can change the discussion to how the Bond films have ballooned too big and now seem out of control? Seems controversial enough.. thoughts @smitty @haserot ?
  • smittysmitty
    Posts: 725
    Good topic @jwestbrook. Does someone have stats on the costs of the last 6 or 7 films? Bet the risiing budgets are scary. I also wonder what kind of bucks the product placements run so maybe it's impossible to have reliable figures for the recent Bonds. I thought there was an interesting comment in the leaks about them getting the budget down to $250m and I think noting that SF was $211m, but I wonder if that is after product placement has been deducted. I'd guess that SP's financial and critical outcome will influence any decision to try to scale back or not. If it's another huge hit, they are probably locked into more huge films.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    CR (2006) - $150 million production budget
    QOS (2008) - $200 million production budget
    SF (2012) - $200 million production budget
    SP (2015) - $300+ million production budget

    just posted those numbers in case anyone was curious...

    I don't know where to start... i mean, we can look at actors' salaries, and what it costs to keep names like Fiennes and Waltz around and happy - not to mention 007 himself, which i am sure he sees a healthy cut of that budgetary pie.. at the end of the day, you are probably looking at close to $75-$90 million spent just on the cast alone..

    i've read a couple articles which stated that Sony's issues with the budget were over things they felt could be cut back on or removed - ie: reducing the number of train cars in an action sequence - a request vetoed by EON.. another was removing rain from the film's climax - which we've seen they are doing, by opting to go with CGI rain instead of using practical rain towers for shots...

    I just think the scale of this film + the locations planned (not to mention one of them meant circumventing a new gun law - which probably cost a cool amount of money on that alone) + set pieces probably pushed the limit more than what Sony was anticipating, and probably more than even EON had anticipated... i would love to know the financial specifics of this film, and what exactly was spent on what - because without that, i can't rightly accuse EON of overspending or Sony of being cheap, know what i mean... i think the expected price tag for SP was in the neighborhood of $250 million (which is about standard these days for your big budget hollywood action films) - would like to know where the $50+ million is going to... the money will be on the screen for sure, EON always sees to it that it is.....

    but between that, script issues, and back and forth bickering between the production team and the studio, a documentary about the production of this film would be fascinating.
  • smittysmitty
    Posts: 725
    Bet there will be a book or 2. The leaks alone are a gold mine of stuff. Probably even more books if the film fails, G-d forbid.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    smitty wrote: »
    Bet there will be a book or 2. The leaks alone are a gold mine of stuff. Probably even more books if the film fails, G-d forbid.

    that would certainly be a game changer for sure...

    but i anticipate it being able to make back the $600 million or so for it to be deemed a financial success... i think it has a chance to eclipse the billion mark, but i will play it safe and say $900 million... i will actually be shocked if it makes less than that.
  • smittysmitty
    Posts: 725
    My guess would be about the same. If QOS could make about $600, then SP even without great reviews should do better. After the new Mad Max, I kinda have a nightmare scenario, that it will be my favorite Bond film, but there will be Spy film fatigue by the time it opens and it will do about $750/800 and the press will attack it for not doing another 1b.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited June 2015 Posts: 4,399
    smitty wrote: »
    My guess would be about the same. If QOS could make about $600, then SP even without great reviews should do better. After the new Mad Max, I kinda have a nightmare scenario, that it will be my favorite Bond film, but there will be Spy film fatigue by the time it opens and it will do about $750/800 and the press will attack it for not doing another 1b.

    there always seems to be periods of spy films that come and go... but Bond is truly an icon that'll last a long time, i have no fear that he'll suddenly go away..

    in terms of the press... they'll write what they write, doesn't mean half of it is true.. if it makes less than SF, then so what.. SF also didn't have a Star Wars movie locked and loaded for December.... it'll do fine... the only thing that could hurt it out of the gate is some bad reviews... but if QOS was able to get 65% fresh rating on RottenTomatoes, and SF got 92% fresh rating, (after reading the script) i have to believe that SP will be at least somewhere in the 80% ratings.. it was a great script in which the third act just needed a little touch up work... it very much felt like a classic Bond film when reading it, all the pieces were there.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited June 2015 Posts: 2,015
    Germanlady wrote: »
    But dont fear, I am done with this thread and you can have your playground all to yourself. Good luck.

    If you want something positive from the leaks about DC, I can tell you some Sony producers consider him Leonardo Di Caprio's best replacement ! ;)
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    You've tiptoed quite perfectly, I just fear where someone else might take it.

    You should re-read your posts, you've let out more than it should be on a non-leaks thread, I really don't understand why you created this thread that is being read by people wishing to stay away from the spoilers : the major info that put some credence to this 'Craig's last ?' rumours is from the leaks.


  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Not to mention that neither of them look like 007 at all.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,848
    I heard from Rachel's friends former room mate Craig will be bond in bond 25

    ;)

    I love how people keep saying he is in his 50's soon

    So Liam Neeson started his action move career in his 50's
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,125
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I heard from Rachel's friends former room mate Craig will be bond in bond 25

    ;)

    I love how people keep saying he is in his 50's soon

    So Liam Neeson started his action move career in his 50's

    different character though. I'm all for Craig to do Bond 25 but beyond 50 I think it's time to stop.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    edited June 2015 Posts: 5,745
    Suivez_ce_parachute wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    But dont fear, I am done with this thread and you can have your playground all to yourself. Good luck.

    If you want something positive from the leaks about DC, I can tell you some Sony producers consider him Leonardo Di Caprio's best replacement ! ;)
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    You've tiptoed quite perfectly, I just fear where someone else might take it.

    You should re-read your posts, you've let out more than it should be on a non-leaks thread, I really don't understand why you created this thread that is being read by people wishing to stay away from the spoilers : the major info that put some credence to this 'Craig's last ?' rumours is from the leaks.

    @Suivez_ce_parachute

    Amended. I had skimmed through my copy and thought I had neutered it of any leaked information, I just simply missed the one you messaged me about.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Craig could do another after SP, there are plot threads left dangling, but then SP also wraps up his era quite nicely and sort of feels like a finale. So we'll see I guess. Personally I think this will be Craig's last but if they come up with a good script and Mendes returns again I think he might be tempted for a 5th.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    In a simple answer the new question posed by the revised title thread, I would say 'yes', they are getting too big, and from my perspective, it's not necessary. When I say big, I mean budget.

    As an example, CR & GE were made on much smaller budgets than many Bond films including their predecessors, and both are widely believed to be the best by the respective actors who played Bond. They were both directed by Martin Campbell as well, but let's ignore that inconvenient fact for now....

    QoS had a massive budget and was a hit and miss to many (although I liked it). SF had a smaller budget and is widely believed to be the better film (although I realize many disagree).

    I'll take more of Craig sitting in Dryden's office and ironically blowing him away any day over Brosnan running around, riding hovercrafts and blowing up stuff in Korea. One had a lot more money involved, and the other is, imho, much more memorable.

    Personally, I think EON is at its best when they have a smaller budget. I think they really get their act in gear and deliver a better product. I think they then focus more on characterizations rather than spectacle, and we get a better film as a result.

    Bond's differentiating factors compared to other spy films are for me more to do with dialogue, plot, characterizations and acting, as well as atmosphere and music. I agree that great sets are also important, but if it means an astronomical budget, then I'd rather take the other attributes instead.

    Just my view. Oh, and I want us to go back to a film every two years schedule, so if that means less budget so we can get the job done faster, then so be it from my perspective...
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    I don't know whether they can become too big? But sometimes if it is in terms of CGI usage? Then I would have to say yes in some circumstances.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited June 2015 Posts: 11,139
    For the next Bond movie, I'd like to see production make use of just 2 overseas countries. The mission briefing in London and then Bond visiting 2 countries for the remainder if the film. It will keep costs down and allow for better immersion of atmosphere. The film can still feel big and epic but without touching the borders of creative and financial bloating.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,125
    I do tend to agree. With a more modest budget, they make time for building character and atmosphere.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    re: memo about the budget referenced in this thread. I think that was from an MGM executive. It came out in the Sony hacks because the Sony people received copies of it.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    In a simple answer the new question posed by the revised title thread, I would say 'yes', they are getting too big, and from my perspective, it's not necessary. When I say big, I mean budget.

    As an example, CR & GE were made on much smaller budgets than many Bond films including their predecessors, and both are widely believed to be the best by the respective actors who played Bond. They were both directed by Martin Campbell as well, but let's ignore that inconvenient fact for now....

    QoS had a massive budget and was a hit and miss to many (although I liked it). SF had a smaller budget and is widely believed to be the better film (although I realize many disagree).

    I'll take more of Craig sitting in Dryden's office and ironically blowing him away any day over Brosnan running around, riding hovercrafts and blowing up stuff in Korea. One had a lot more money involved, and the other is, imho, much more memorable.

    Personally, I think EON is at its best when they have a smaller budget. I think they really get their act in gear and deliver a better product. I think they then focus more on characterizations rather than spectacle, and we get a better film as a result.

    Bond's differentiating factors compared to other spy films are for me more to do with dialogue, plot, characterizations and acting, as well as atmosphere and music. I agree that great sets are also important, but if it means an astronomical budget, then I'd rather take the other attributes instead.

    Just my view. Oh, and I want us to go back to a film every two years schedule, so if that means less budget so we can get the job done faster, then so be it from my perspective...

    I totally agree. They also work best when they are the underdog.

    Besides just in terms of longevity of the series I feel safer with Bond as a guaranteed moderate but profitable hit with a reasonable budget than ever increasing budgets that have to surpassed in revenues.


  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited June 2015 Posts: 4,521
    It be nice if Eon/Warner atleast try to release Bond 25 in November/December 2017 or on 4 May 2018. If no 6th movie for Daniel Craig in December 2020, then we can wait 4,5 years till November/December 2022 for new Bond.

    Possible there going to be another Batman movie in November 2018 and if there making another sequel it be in November 2021 or May/July 2022.

    March 2016: Batman vs Superman
    November 2017 or May 2018: Bond 25
    November 2018: The Batman
    November 2020: Bond 26/Daniel Craig 6th Bond movie or no Bond movie
    November 2021: The Batman Returns
    November 2022: New Bond actor.

    Mabey it is possible the budget of possible 6th Daniel Craig or for a new Bond can be set on 70 million.
Sign In or Register to comment.