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
Didn't Deakins say he wouldn't want to return to Bond because he achieved what he wanted to with SF? Might be making that up to be honest. I'd be up for him returning.
And yeah, it's true that SF was a tad cheaper than the majority of Craig's films. But if I'm honest there's a case to be made that NTTD and SP's budgets were slightly too high (I understand that they were intended to be bigger films though so required a bit extra). I think EON will strip things back for the next one. I'd certainly like to see what they could do if their budget was in the $200 million or under range rather than the $250-300 million plus that the previous two films eventually looked in at.
Then the teaser trailer came out.
My favourite was that Fukunaga was absconding from set to play Red Dead Redemption 2.
As for budgets, as with Bond, who truly knows, given product placement, tax rebates and incentives, so can only go by what wikipedia says:
CR: $150m / $225m
QoS: $215m / $302m
SF: $175m / $231m
SP: $270m / $345m
NTTD: $275m / $326m
Above are USD and the figures are the production year, and today, inflation adjusted.
QoS, SP and NTTD have a reported budget range so I went down the middle.
So under that, yes, SF was a cheaper production following QoS.
Interesting that the films which had significant production issues, QoS, SP and NTTD, were the most expensive.
It’s almost as if having your script finished and locked in before starting filming was not only cheaper, but resulted in a better product… :))
And yes, Deakins did say that:
https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=11331
It's always a bit shocking how much less the MI films cost to make, considering they're not dissimilar, but I guess even the Craig films have more impressive grand sets etc. And Bond does make more money too.
Speaking of George Lucas, and relating the newspaper tabloids and rumors on this thread, GL said it best. “You can’t sell newspapers by saying nice things.” Honestly, after his Star Wars Prequels and Indiana Jones 4 backlash, he knows what he’s talking about. EON can arguably say the same, in more ways than one.
Maybe they can find a way to sex up AI.
Which is why it should probably be avoided.
Same could be said about news magnates. It's not the software itself, it's what the software "lives" in.
Not really: newspapers, printing presses, TV studios etc. - they’re all quite visual.
I reckon it could be a similar thing with AI. It's an enticing idea but just including it won't necessarily make a gripping story. The scriptwriters need to channel something broader - what concerns people have about this technology - and perhaps use that to come up with an alternative plot.
The BBC's The Capture (especially Series 2) made a really excellent job of making deepfakes etc. a proper threat and is well worth a watch, but it's more of a conspiracy thriller, and I'm not sure Bond quite works for that.
That is quite a big and unresolved problem with Spectre. Just what do they want to do with it. Giving Bond an obvious ADR line about them “being in control of everything” doesnt really cut it.
Say if Spectre were going to, the minute they had control of it, lock all members out of it, so they had no intelligence gathering capability, then extorted them over it, or used it to launch an attack, or… something.
Yes, something more tangible than just SPECTRE gaining 'intelligence' was required. To be completely honest, probably the scariest part of SP's premise for me isn't the Nine Eyes system, but the idea of an organisation like SPECTRE being able to plant people like C who can fundamentally change the nature of British Intelligence (for their own benefit) all while claiming it's 'progress'. I mean, the premise of that film is that MI5 and MI6 are merging and the 00 section about to be scrapped, which is a pretty big deal. And yet it never feels like it is for whatever reason.
I suspect they could have done more with that premise, even getting rid of the Nine Eyes system altogether. It's more in-keeping with this version of SPECTRE to be an 'invisible presence' rather than an organisation that steals bombs or holds countries to ransom. The idea of this sort of pseudo-Illuminati slowly taking control of governments was a thread we saw anyway in QOS, so it could have been expanded here. Maybe have the climax be that SPECTRE are going to stage a terrorist attack for whatever reason just to give the third act a bit of a kick, but ultimately just run with that premise.
That really is the part about SP that I get kind of angry about. C's plan would constitute a major change in British foreign policy and intelligence posture. This isn't just a bit of a re-shuffle. And it appears seemingly out of nowhere and then disappears just as easily because the main proponent died. It's the least important aspect of all of this, but the building alone will have cost billions of pounds and it's all treated as some minor bureaucratic shuffling due to one of the PMs mates having an idea.
I don't know if it could sustain an entire film and it's a bit too much Skyfall, but there is a nice sequence in one of the comics where Bond's car starts to fight against him, because the villain gains control of it.
I won't go into the comic too much, but it borrows heavily from Moonraker and while the problem of actually depicting AI persists, and "guy built some kind super weapon for good, turns out he's bad" is maybe a bit too overused by now, you could take that as some kind of starting point for an AI-based film. Computer wiz from some former colony becomes uber-succesful and publicly loved in the UK. Builds an AI weapons system to protect Britain. Turns out he hates the colonizers and wants to use the system to destroy England. Bond formula ensues.
The building is an issue because it's presented to us as if Bond hasn't seen it before- so he went on his holiday to Mexico after Skyfall (a short enough time for his personal affects from the house not to have been returned to him yet) and they managed to put this building up whilst he was away, effectively: even though something like that would take the best part of a decade to erect in central London!
A rocket looks cooler though :D
I'm being silly, but in a way serious too - a threat where devices turn against you is a bit intangible, although it can be effective. Whereas a big rocket or sun-reflecting satellite is more cinematic and memorable because it's a thing you can see, I'd say. I dunno; it's not like Bond films haven't done that sort of thing before: drugs, microchips etc. but I do struggle with this one a bit.
It's annoying because it's an idea that had a lot of potential. We've already seen SPECTRE's ability to infiltrate/control governments from QOS, and we know that there's a certain amount of hostility towards MI6 and the 00 section from M's hearings during SF. We never really get a sense of why this merge has been implemented (apart from as you said one of the PM's mates having the idea - which in itself brings up connotations of cronyism and the bad decisions which follow, which could have been relevant and interesting if handled better). We only get a brief look into other Government officials supporting this idea under a vague explanation of 'modernisation', but even that feels a bit lacking and doesn't quite give us a sense of why such a major decision would be supported.
It doesn't help that C isn't the most nuanced of characters either. Not to say that him being an antagonist should have been a surprise, but I'm sure even a change in actor could better have sold the idea of a slick young fraudster coming in and shaking up a system/exploiting people's fears for the benefit of power (which again is quite relevant but still ambiguous enough not to fall onto any particular political 'side' if that makes sense).
Yeah, it's a very on the nose casting choice. But quite frankly I've never been a fan of his in general.
I do wonder if any of these ideas will be adapted or make their way into Bond 26. It might be interesting, for example, seeing a version of the 00 section that's been more recently formed/is less established and is at odds with other people within MI6 for various reasons. Heck, even the 'fraudster coming in and shaking up the MI6 system for their own benefit' could be redone in that sort of scenario.
If not a massive fan of Scott, are you a moderate fan? A casual fan? A non-fan? ;)