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
Your points are well-taken, but for an internal inconsistency. Given what you observe about the anticipat-able frequency of Bond films, then expecting 5 or 6 films from a Bond actor does not fit. 5 or 6 -- that came from the days of Connery and Moore and took a loooong time to get from Craig.
I still can't believe something like Argylle received an over $200 million budget. Truly insane to me, and it's arguably the worst film I've seen in the last five years.
They'll have to, unless they're wanting the next Bond to be near 40 and signing up for only three installments.
Honestly, I still don't understand the budget. Maybe half of the budget went into Cavill's haircut, LOL.
Haha, that's the only legal explanation that I'd believe!
Be careful with the apples and oranges here.
Argylle didn't cost $200M to produce. The cost to Apple, who acquired the film, was $200M. The production budget was much lower.
The film was cast and announced in June 2021, and preproduction occurred mostly before the acquisition. Principal photography began in August 2021, and that same month Apple TV+ bought the rights to the film for $200M.
This is more like the Glass Onion acquisition by Netflix. Netflix acquired the rights to Glass Onion and one more Knives Out sequel prior to filming for $469M, but the production budget was only $40M.
The budget for Argylle is probably more in the $70-80M range, but the director already confirmed that the actual cost to produce the film was nowhere near $200M. The original production company, Marv Studios, and the principal people involved (like Matthew Vaughn who wrote and directed) just sold the film for a big profit before finishing it.
If Higson were writing Young Bond today, no doubt they would look a bit different. He's probably overdosed himself on The Guardian.
I considered watching the Wahlberg/Berry actioner The Union last night. Then I read the reviews and took out a 7 day free trial of MUBI instead. These days you should be able to find a good film if you you really want one, there is so much choice and so many streamers available. It's a long way from when I was a kid, when your only option if you couldn't find anything on the three channels was to go down to the video store and rent a film you'd never heard of with no way to check reviews at all. My family watched some crap back then that makes Argyle look like Seven Samurai. :P
I think that's quite an odd way to read that scene.
For 2024 there are so far only three movies, 2023 seven movies, 2018 ten movies, 2009 fourteen movies, 1995 twentytwo movies. See the pattern?
So much content, very few keepers. At least for me.
Yeah, that's not good. It might be that good films are simply passing under your radar, though. Also you might be like me and come to appreciate some films only after more than one viewing.
Just out of interest: what are the three 2024 films you like, and what are the seven 2023 movies?
'23: Leave the World Behind, No Hard Feelings, Napoleon, MI:7, Indiana Jones DOD, Guy Richie's The Covenant and Extraction II.
Please don't ask me about 1995 :-)
Streaming films don't have any backend pay (portions of BO gross) so they have to pay that all up front. You may recall Scarlett Johansson suing Disney after they unilaterally moved "Black Widow" to Disney+, this is because of backend pay.
If you seriously think there have only been ten good movies in the last two years, you either have very limited taste (which is fine!) or don't watch enough movies to give this kind of statement.
Won't happen. They will at most produce 2 more Bond films. After that, not only the Bond franchise as we know it will be over but also the entire movie industry. Because of AI.
I'm glad to know you're an optimist.
It’s ironic that audiences, or more specifically cinephiles, want real locations, real sets, practical effects and less CGI with significantly lower budgets. I don’t think most people have an accurate idea of the resources and coordination it takes to make a film within five to eight months.
The film industry is big but there are a finite amount of actors and technicians and craftsmen and artists that can operate at a studio-scale. Not to mention the limited space and time to mount productions that would take local governments years to complete if they were civil projects.
For one, If you're a Bond fan, it dictates the type of film you're going to get. It might be more of a down to earth, low-key thriller, or a big, action extravaganza. It can even force film-makers to be more prudent on substance rather than spend like a drunken sailor on gimmicks. Something I noticed between both Skyfall ($150m) and Spectre ($300m+).
It seems @Colonel_Venus that Christopher Nolan is unlikely to direct Bond 26. Not trying to start a war, it just seems that way. I wouldn't be opposed to him actually directing one.
How can I be more specific than this? There have been plenty of great movies. But all a one-watch for me. 'Oppenheimer' for example. So why have them in a collection? No replay value doesn't equal a movie that's not great. And that is why it's good to be a Bond-fan. Lots of replay value with movies that are not necessarily great. ;-)
Yes I always feel this too: for some reason it's a sore point for some folks though, I don't get it.
I always think the more money these cost the better: it's US megacorp money flowing into British industry and boosting the economy, I can't see the downside, especially if we're getting the spectacle and scale a Bond epic should provide. If there were some hard and fast rule that the more money a film costs the worse it will be I might change my mind, but I don't believe that's true.
I rather see Industry and frugality being practiced for a change.
One of my problems with the last couple of films is they were jumping around to locations so fast, we couldn't feel like we've been there. Instead of 5 different locations around the world, set the whole film in one or two countries that way we have time to soak it all up.
Or..
Instead of having some huge setpiece every 5 minutes, set a smaller fight, or chase through the streets.
I think a Bond at $150m would be just fine. That was Skyfall's budget and was also the last all-around, good film they've done.
This, plus if it's a brand new feature that could kick off another series or franchise, of course I'll be hoping it makes all the money it can.
My apologies — I misread/misinterpreted your post!
Maybe, as long as it’s a brand new Bond actor. He’s been saying that since CR. Honestly, I think he’s happy having a hit, and then having an arguably bigger hit. That’s rare in Bond, particularly with directors.
I think that's just the nature of the film being made though rather than the budget which is at fault. GF cost 30% more than FRWL, and... it was brilliant.