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
I wish people wouldn't jump on such rumours right away. We know how these things work by now. Official statements, nothing else for me. The rest is a waste of time.
And I think Amazon will want to go all out because its the start of a new era, they NEED this movie to be a resounding success. If Bond 27 is average, at least they have their foot in the door with a new actor, but with get Bond 26 they don't have that luxury. This film HAS to knock everyone's socks off. I think Bond 26 will have a budget slightly less than bond 25, around 200 to 220 million.
Again, Amazon and Apple do not care about spend money on big movies, because they get written off as marketing expenses for their streaming platforms later on. Apple sunk 700 for Killers of the Flower Moon, Argylle and Napolean and I highly doubt they expected to turn a profit on them at the boxoffice. There's no way Amazon would hesitate to drop 220 million on a new Bond film directed by denis Villeneuve or Christopher Nolan.
I don't give a damn about the budget numbers if the person in the director's chair is Villeneuve, to be frank.
What does this mean in this context?
Overspending when you don't need to, thus needlessly increasing the risk factor.
Not to keep saying it, but Amazon don't care about dropping 220 million on Bond - it's chump change to them.
Whether it's chump change or not doesn't really matter when it's not necessary.
Fandom would be wise to not talk about film budgeting unless they know how that works.
You think 150 instead of 220 won't make a difference, especially in the hands of Villeneuve?
Fair enough, but you can't make dune part 2 for 150 million.
But he wouldn’t be making Dune Part 2– an effects laden huge universe; he’d be making a Bond film, slick and fast paced with suspense and tension. Sure you could do that for $200 plus million, or you could do it for $150 million. Depends on what they’re going for in the new actor’s first film (I would think they’ll err on the side of caution and make a more conservatively budgeted film and increase budgets based on the success of the first film).
Interesting you should say that, considering the last 2 bond films cost 250 and up.
If Bond 26 costs 220 and makes 600 million, Amazon will be fine with that as long as the movie is well recieved, and establishes the next era. No matter what they can write it off as promotion for Prime later down the road.
Some of us are still in the "MGM are one flop away from bankrupcy" mode.
No, not interesting at all, and had absolutely nothing to do with my post; I was replying to the hypothetical discussion of Villeneuve directing a first Bond picture (not the fourth or fifth in an actor’s tenure).
You made a strange statement that Villeneuve can’t make Dune 2 on a $150 million budget, which made no sense, since you and @CraigMooreOHMSS were talking about the budget of a hypothetical Villeneuve film launching the new era. @CraigMooreOHMSS made a wise statement about the use of dollars and cents, which you ignored, and made some statement about D2…
So, @Mendes4Lyfe , well, uh, yeah…keep doing you man…
Well you're correct about that, at least - he made it for $190million.
I don't know what the "difference" you're referencing here actually is. My position is simply that someone like Villeneuve could make a great Bond film, on a grand scale, for $150 million if he can make Dune Part 2 for $190 million.
My position is that amazon have 2 central concerns:
1. That bond 26 is made sooner rather than later and
2. That it's the best movie it can possibly be to get people invested in the new set of films, and hyped for what comes next.
Whether the film costs 150, 200 or 220 I honestly believe they couldn't give a hoot. Even if the movie makes 550, they can write it off as a marketing expense to promote their Prime service. The entire budget is a rounding error for them to begin with.
Absolutely agree with this. He could make 150 million bucks look like a 250 million dollar film. He’s an intelligent director and knows how to maximize every penny.
I don’t know how anyone would know what Amazon would be happy with. I mean, just because Apple may or may not have made a profit on three films, doesn’t automatically mean Amazon is following the same business model (! What a silly statement !)(and whether Apple did or did not make a profit is heavily debated with known anti studio publications claiming they didn’t (without having seen the accounting!!)).
But assuming Amazon would run things as Apple would is very misguided (and silly).
Best post of the day. These empty speculations are getting worse by the minute. What are we talking about? The Bond film that so-and-so is never going to direct on a budget we know nothing about for a release date that is suggested on the basis of anniversaries and release dates of other films.
Whether they choose to or not, that they can afford to is an undisputable fact.
Whether they can afford a loss or not, I doubt they’re thinking this way. I would assume losing money on a Bond picture never entered their collective heads…
And, @Mendes4Lyfe , they’re not creating the budgets to the films. They will be supplying the funds. So this is a moot point you’re making (although, I’m not sure what your point is).
But, I’ll assume they didn’t get into the film game to lose money, so this speculation of yours is not even a point. Bezos and pals want successes in everything they do. They come to win, not to lose (and this is from someone who is wary of studios).
But, in the end, we are wasting time on nothing; Amazon doesn’t set the budgets. That will be Eon’s line producers.
They will present this budget, based on the script, and how long it would take to shoot, to Amazon.
Amazon will have their own people go through, line by line of this budget, and they will green light it….
100%, @peter.
And to preface, I don't really care either way what the budget of the next Bond film is; once whoever is chosen to direct it is given the sufficient support to pull off whatever creative ideas they have, that is all that matters.
But, to continue with the hypothetical scenario of Villeneuve: considering his pedigree, is the notion being put forward that Amazon would potentially facilitate the hiring of someone like him (after EON do the leg work in that department, as they always do!) but then attempt to write off the underperformance (should that come about) of his franchise entry and then cynically use it to promote a streaming service simply because they can afford to? That'd be a PR nightmare, I'd imagine, as I doubt a director of that calibre would be overly happy with that.
I'd argue that it's different for your Scorcese-type originals that are made to be Oscar contenders and garner their attention through their prestige. Bond, in comparison, is an action/thriller franchise and should be treated as such. Spend your money wisely, maximise your income, and ensure longevity.
Regardless, this is a weird and muddled rabbit hole that we've ventured down.
Give the creative team the money they require (no more and no less), get the film made with the confidence that it's great, and then move on.
BOTH the last 2 bond films had budgets over 220 and made money, so no, I doubt it has entered their mind that Bond 26 will lose money. I'm just saying it wouldn't particularly worry them if it did.
What I'm saying is that budgets and money aren't their concern, quality is. They couldn't give a hoot how much the next bond film costs them, because they don't make them 3 times a year like marvel, they make them once every 4 - 6 years. It's a rounding error to them.
Bond 26 AKA 'The Rounding Error'.
We have our title! :)
Yes, yes, yes, to all of this.
And I’m with you re: the PR nightmare and BAD precedent this would set. No one would want to work with these guys knowing their 2 year plus project is ONLY there to pump up their streaming service (after all, they bought film libraries and budget Roadhouse-type films to facilitate this, and, of course, the new films they finance will continue feeding this branch AFTER what is to be, or should be, an expected successful theatrical run!).
And yup, we got trapped in a strange little rabbit hole, 😂!!
And yet it appears to be the strategy these streaming companies are taking. Their loss I guess. ^#(^
@Mendes4Lyfe you've cited one studio and three films. How would you know what the others business models are? Let me answer that: you don’t. And if you think you do:
I’d love for you to show me the accounting for these projects (instead of repeating John Nolte’s headlines from Breitbart).
No one knows how Apple worked their finances to produce these films, but as @CraigMooreOHMSS has already (wisely, again), pointed out: you’re comparing apples to oranges, prestige films (for awards season) vs an action thriller series that has a 60 year history of blockbusters!!
You assume because Apple supposedly had done three films in one fashion that the other streamers are following the same business model! I wouldn’t assume this at all. Film financing is far more complicated than: Apple did it this way, and now, so shall we!
Anyways, I don’t have a horse in the race. As others have already said: I could care less what the next budget is. Just put it all up on the screen and make a damn fine film.