Where does Bond go after Craig?

1490491493495496697

Comments

  • edited March 4 Posts: 1,448
    The trick cards is the best thing of the script. The plot is all about Solitaire's virginity. No one cares about drugs. Kananga doesn't care either.

    The whole movie was built for that scene.
  • Posts: 580
    Personally I don't think EON will make Bond 26 for less than 200 million dollars. They're whole mission statement is to make Bond feel like a huge event that only comes around once in a while, and the last time they didn't spend at least 200 million on a Bond film was Casino Royale.

    Barbie cost less than $150 million and was a waay bigger event than SP and NTTD. Same goes for Oppenheiemer and it cost even less than Barbie. My point: a Bond movie that is a smaller production still can be a huge event.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011

    Barbie cost less than $150 million and was a waay bigger event than SP and NTTD. Same goes for Oppenheiemer and it cost even less than Barbie. My point: a Bond movie that is a smaller production still can be a huge event.

    Be careful now, I've advocated for smaller budgets in the past and gotten eviscerated over it through one-sided arguments. I do agree with you though, and while your two examples aren't necessarily akin to a release like Bond, it did show that audiences are willing to show up still and you don't have to sink unfathomable amounts of money into a production to make a nice return.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    Creasy47 wrote: »

    Be careful now, I've advocated for smaller budgets in the past and gotten eviscerated over it through one-sided arguments. I do agree with you though, and while your two examples aren't necessarily akin to a release like Bond, it did show that audiences are willing to show up still and you don't have to sink unfathomable amounts of money into a production to make a nice return.

    Smaller budgets invite creativity. I am all for them. A 200 million dollars production cost is outrageous.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 4 Posts: 8,452

    Barbie cost less than $150 million and was a waay bigger event than SP and NTTD. Same goes for Oppenheiemer and it cost even less than Barbie. My point: a Bond movie that is a smaller production still can be a huge event.

    Those movies were made on less money because they weren't expecting to make a billion, or even 600 million. EON is approaching each bond film like it will be a global event.
    DarthDimi wrote: »

    Smaller budgets invite creativity. I am all for them. A 200 million dollars production cost is outrageous.

    I might be, but each of the last 4 Bond films have cost at least that much.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    DarthDimi wrote: »

    Smaller budgets invite creativity. I am all for them. A 200 million dollars production cost is outrageous.

    And that $200 million average for bigger budget flicks has slowly become $300 million. I accept that most of those were due to costlier productions thanks to the pandemic but it seems more and more commonplace of late still.
  • edited March 4 Posts: 4,300
    I like the idea of using a smaller budget to create limitations/incite some creativity. SF I think did that rather well, to the point where I presumed initially that it cost more than QOS.

    I think ultimately though it depends on the Bond adventure they want to make. I’m sure doing stuff efficiently takes priority, and you don’t want to skimp out on certain costs (stunt work being a major one). And of course another side to this is we don’t want a situation where the budgets become frozen as they did in the 80s. But EON are definitely capable of doing something great with 200 million.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 4 Posts: 16,602
    Creasy47 wrote: »

    Be careful now, I've advocated for smaller budgets in the past and gotten eviscerated over it through one-sided arguments.

    I sent you a PM to apologise for unwittingly upsetting you at the time, I don't know if you got it. I just wanted to talk about the suggestion as I thought it was an interesting subject, there was no hostility intended. I always just wanted to talk.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited March 4 Posts: 1,675
    If they want to spend 300 million on a movie, and it comes out good, then I don't care. We as fans should want the "money on the screen" and if they pull that off, good. I hold no stock in the business, except that I want it to thrive. Will it be twice as good as a $150 million Bond movie, probably not, but it might have unlocked certain actor salaries or location budgets etc. that translate to the screen in ways beyond big explosions, which will bring in specific new audiences or appeal to certain markets better. I'm sure @peter knows more, but I imagine just the Bond-style sets alone today would cost a third of the budget if not more if they're delivering on the "promise" of a big Bond film.

    But then, does every Bond film need to be big?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @LucknFate you nailed it. Just the cost of our man Bond, the actors they may be interested in, SFX, musical talent, talent behind the camera…. It’s only getting more and more expensive to put these films up on the big screen.

    Gunn’s new SM film is rumoured to be $360 million (he’s tried to deny this, but the tax credits they receive are a % of the total budget, and someone smarter than me did the math. Yes, it’s in the $360 million range).

    Saying that, the new Bond will be quite a bit cheaper in his debut film, so there are savings to be had. And there IS an idea in film that cut the budget and force the creatives to be, well, more creative in how they spend their tighter budget, is a thing that is often tried (sometimes to great outcomes. But it usually only lasts one film, before the producers want and need to outperform the last film. How’d they do that? With mega-dollars).

    And, @Creasy47 , I can vouch for @mtm as not wanting to insult you on this topic. He and I have had a back n forth on this before , and it’s a subject he’s curious and interested about. Just passively poking my nose into this, as sometimes I think messaging gets lost in text form (he’s a smart person and we’ve had a few private discussions… I have to credit him for giving me a new perspective on Roger Moore (who I’ve always enjoyed, but without respecting that Moore did bring some nuance to his performances as 007. Mtm really convinced me that I was short sighted (the bias of having a massive Connery fan in my father, 😂)…

    Anyways, back on topic!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited March 4 Posts: 41,011
    LucknFate wrote: »
    If they want to spend 300 million on a movie, and it comes out good, then I don't care. We as fans should want the "money on the screen" and if they pull that off, good. I hold no stock in the business, except that I want it to thrive. Will it be twice as good as a $150 million Bond movie, probably not, but it might have unlocked certain actor salaries or location budgets etc. that translate to the screen in ways beyond big explosions, which will bring in specific new audiences or appeal to certain markets better. I'm sure @peter knows more, but I imagine just the Bond-style sets alone today would cost a third of the budget if not more if they're delivering on the "promise" of a big Bond film.

    But then, does every Bond film need to be big?

    See, I do feel this exact same way. They could spend $1 billion on the next one if they want, I couldn't care less.

    Purely from the perspective of a lifelong fan who wants to keep receiving these installments, then do I wish they'd strip it back. Of course there are other reasons why it might pan out well, for my own selfish desires - we get something tighter, something single locale focused, more of a spy thriller than a big budget action fest, etc. - but I know these films, all films, are a business at the end of the day, and you're likely going to find way more success by cutting your budget 20-50%.

    It's another reason I've advocated for shorter runtimes. The last few have had some bloat, no question about it, but I know smaller runtimes = more showtimes per day, which = higher box office results if the audience is there.

    Much like the budget perspective though, they can make the next installment four and a half hours long for all I care; if it's good and nearly every minute is worthy of inclusion, then as a fan of 007, I'm more than happy.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited March 4 Posts: 1,675
    Thinking more on this, however.... I would prefer two shorter $150 million movies in quick succession versus one four hour $300 million movie every 5 years....
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Thinking more on this, however.... I would prefer two shorter $150 million movies in quick succession versus one four hour $300 million movie every 5 years....

    Yeah that would be my choice too every time. That's not to say every longer and pricier installment is somehow worse, but I think there's a lot of positivity that can come out of spending less and having a shorter runtime too.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,186
    Thanks @MaxCasino & @LucknFate It's nice to know that. I'm not surprised Villeneuve's favourite Bond is Craig....and that he loves CR & SF.
  • Posts: 4,300
    Creasy47 wrote: »

    Yeah that would be my choice too every time. That's not to say every longer and pricier installment is somehow worse, but I think there's a lot of positivity that can come out of spending less and having a shorter runtime too.

    I think it really depends on the film at the end of the day. Budget's one of those things that depends on what they're trying to do (unless something goes wrong that is).
  • Posts: 744
    Casino Royale "0nly cost" about 80million dollars didn't it? That worked out rather well.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Casino Royale "0nly cost" about 80million dollars didn't it? That worked out rather well.

    Wiki seems unsure with a $102-150 million, but regardless, that's still very impressive.
  • Posts: 4,300
    Creasy47 wrote: »

    Wiki seems unsure with a $102-150 million, but regardless, that's still very impressive.

    And presumably that's in 2005 numbers, so adjusted for inflation it'll be more today. I don't exactly know what the number is though.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    I've always thought CR was made for 150 million.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I've always thought CR was made for 150 million.

    Yes, I thought it was 150 million.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    edited March 4 Posts: 1,036
    Yes, $150 million.

    The breadcrumbs really do point to DV directing Bond 26 at the moment. We should be lucky to get such a visionary director - and I think concerns about his slow-burn sci-fi epics are misplaced - he can pick up the pace when needed! He has long been my second choice to Campbell.

    That being said, DV's repeating DoP partner is Roger Deakins, who has admitted that Bond isn't his cup of tea. But I do wonder if he'd come back for a DV Bond film?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited March 4 Posts: 5,970
    If Denis can't get Deakins, he should reunite with Greig Fraser, the cinematographer of both Dune films, The Batman and Rogue One.
  • Posts: 352
    Do people actually want a Bond film with most of the dialogue cut out? Aren't witty conversations vital to a Bond film?
  • Posts: 2,026

    LALD script is a weak one too.

    Omitting inflatable Kananga would have improved the script 100%.
  • Posts: 2,026
    All this talk of huge budgets and A list directors is beginning to feel as if expectation for Bond 26 is being blown out of proportion.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,675
    CrabKey wrote: »
    All this talk of huge budgets and A list directors is beginning to feel as if expectation for Bond 26 is being blown out of proportion.

    Let's say I'd be happily disappointed by just about anything.
  • Posts: 1,448
    A smaller budget is very possible. They don't have to pay Craig and a new Bond is always a risk.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    CrabKey wrote: »
    All this talk of huge budgets and A list directors is beginning to feel as if expectation for Bond 26 is being blown out of proportion.

    At least it’s speculation based on the topic of the thread, 😂!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    My only hope is that after spending 6 years tackling the dense worlds of dune Villeneuve would want to let his hair down with a bond film, and go a bit more playful with it.
  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 581
    If it is Villeneuve I am confident we will have another film with really amazing set and production design, something I think NTTD excelled at. That is very a very exciting proposition.
Sign In or Register to comment.