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
"No Time to Die" had a unique set of circumstances — lots of returning cast and aborted Boyle film — that artificially inflated it. New actor means it'll be lowered because less pay for the big guy, and presumably the rest.
But again it doesn't matter. I'm not MGM!
At the same time, the Bond films seemingly have no problem making bank and likely don't have to worry about how much they spend on production/post-production as much as other franchises or films do.
I agree and don’t want another SPECTRE where the massive budget is not on the screen.
While I have some issues with some of the choices made for NTTD, it does balance the personal with the grandiose, and the budget, for the most part is well spent; it’s a beautiful film.
Neither do I.
The Bonds always make money though as you say, so as BMB007 said, it's not our money, what does it matter? The spending doesn't mean we're in any risk of not seeing more Bond films made.
The spending also goes into the industry... I dunno, I'm not seeing the problem. They have megabucks, let them spend them for my entertainment. The ticket costs me the same amount as it does to watch a two-hander movie set in a Welsh cottage or whatever.
I feel like we're watching different films: there's a sequence with hundreds (thousands?) of extras, all in costume, dancing, big builds, a whole city block dressed, all before the opening titles... I see an expensive movie.
The Mission Impossibles have much lower budgets, and although I love them, there's visibly a much smaller scale to them. Rogue Nation came out the same time as Spectre, and I'd say they're clearly on different levels of 'big'. You may prefer one to the other, but both have climaxes set in London- one has a huge deserted building which is detonated and collapses, followed by a boat chasing a helicopter down the Thames with the helicopter crashing on Westminster Bridge. The other has a foot chase around those nice bits of Middle Temple off the Strand, which culminates in a man falling through a small hole into a box. One is noticeably bigger than the other.
And clearly not all of us feel the money is always on screen. If anybody watches that Rome car chase in SP and thinks more than $30 million is unfolding in front of them, then I envy that position.
But you did suggest it, and I'm also allowed to ask why, am I not? It is a discussion board. I'm sensing hostility here and I don't quite understand why.
I don't know the story of that and I don't know how much a car chase featuring two bespoke, non-commercially available luxury supercars going down the middle of one of the busiest cities (two cities technically!) in Europe is supposed to cost. I think it looks nice and I'm not massively worried about how much it cost; am I supposed to be? Do I feel like the film skimped on spectacle elsewhere because of that? Not really.
Do you feel like it's giving you less of an experience as a cinema goer or do you think the spending is actually offensive in some way? I'm just asking for the motivation behind the suggestion, maybe I'll agree with it.
I don't feel I'm being hostile at all, and I'm certainly not being personal. I'm sorry if I've upset you in some way by asking why you suggested something. I'll leave you to it, I'm not sure what the issue is.
All the Bond films look beautiful, but sometimes the cost isn't completely evident to all.
Precisely.
Nailed it!
What's he done as a person which made you dislike him?
Guy Ritchie can do that too.
Wright has a big ego and I think this could be a problem.
Yes, spectacle can be great, but oftentimes the franchise has used it as a crutch. The $30 million supercar chase in Spectre was good for the trailers and the PR articles before the film, but in the story I think, bearing in mind Bautista's overwhelming physicality is what makes Hinx so threatening, having Bond be chased by Hinx on foot through the city would probably have been more effective and cost a lot less.
They did I guess you're right. I did love that final action sequence, definitely a high point of NTTD for me
True. One is an evil sadistic megolomaniac. The other is Elliot Carver.
Ok gents, you’ve been asked to knock it off with the Trump stuff.
Thank you.
My apologies. Working for the news you meet A LOT of Elliot Carver type people.
What was the intention of this? Not cool.
Daniel did seem to be hands on with getting involved, but given his injuries and the difficulties around changing the filming schedule to accommodate his injuries, will the producers want the actor to be so involved in the action?
I think it'd be more the insurance companies, @Jordo007 ; I still have no idea how or why Tom Cruise gets around these guys (I'm guessing M:I films must pay a huge premium).
I believe Cruise and company fired an insurance company for their refusal to insure his side of the building stunt in Dubai
This is interesting...
https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-tom-cruise-insured-mission-impossible-movie-stunts-hefty-price-1812442