Where does Bond go after Craig?

1612613615617618681

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 26 Posts: 8,399
    It has been becoming more apparent for a while, but with Calvin Dysons new video I think there is a general realisation and acknowledgement throughout the fandom that we might not be getting too many more bond films in the future, and we can't realistically expect the series to roll on with new entries every 3 years until the sun implodes. Barbara and Micheal are getting older, and the younger generation aren't as committed to the film series as they have been, I think it's fair to say. I'm sure Barbara and Gregg will see out another actors tenure of 5 or 6 films, but after that the picture is very fuzzy. I think similar to how it must have felt in the early 90's, things just seem very uncertain lately, dare I say a bit existential. I don't mean to be pessimisitc, but I do think more than ever it's important we celebrate the occasion of a new Bond film being released as they become more and more rarified, almost passing into filmic folk lore. The fact that we still get to participate and watch these grand events slowly gather steam, the exciting and intense anticipation as the premier approaches and the media circus begins, is something we should consider ourselves very lucky for. Who knows how long it will last, but I at least hope theres a few classic entries in the series that are still yet to be made.
  • Posts: 1,630
    It has been becoming more apparent for a while, but with Calvin Dysons new video I think there is a general realisation and acknowledgement throughout the fandom that we might not be getting too many more bond films in the future, and we can't realistically expect the series to roll on with new entries every 3 years until the sun implodes. Barbara and Micheal are getting older, and the younger generation aren't as committed to the film series as they have been, I think it's fair to say. I'm sure Barbara and Gregg will see out another actors tenure of 5 or 6 films, but after that the picture is very fuzzy. I think similar to how it must have felt in the early 90's, things just seem very uncertain lately, dare I say a bit existential. I don't mean to be pessimisitc, but I do think more than ever it's important we celebrate the occasion of a new Bond film being released as they become more and more rarified, almost passing into filmic folk lore. The fact that we still get to participate and watch these grand events slowly gather steam, the exciting and intense anticipation as the premier approaches and the media circus begins, is something we should consider ourselves very lucky for. Who knows how long it will last, but I at least hope theres a few classic entries in the series that are still yet to be made.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,630
    Also - it is becoming common and no surprise to read that a film was intended for theaters but no, it will go to streaming right off. Some of these films may be fun but they look cheap, they're kind of dumb and I think it is just as well they went right to streaming -- Argyle, for example. I'd rather watch a well-written, well-made long form streamer - such as The Old Man - than a somewhat c+appy "film" (and quotation marks definitly are appropriate), unless I just want a 90-min or so light entertainment.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Since62 wrote: »
    Also - it is becoming common and no surprise to read that a film was intended for theaters but no, it will go to streaming right off. Some of these films may be fun but they look cheap, they're kind of dumb and I think it is just as well they went right to streaming -- Argyle, for example. I'd rather watch a well-written, well-made long form streamer - such as The Old Man - than a somewhat c+appy "film" (and quotation marks definitly are appropriate), unless I just want a 90-min or so light entertainment.

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 26 Posts: 8,399
    My understanding was that EON will be looking for a younger actor next time to account for the longer gaps - someone in their early to mid 30's. This would future-proof them for at least the next 15 years, provided he is embraced by the public.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    My understanding was that EON will be looking for a younger actor next time to account for the longer gaps - someone in their early to mid 30's. This would future-proof them for at least the next 15 years, provided he is embraced by the public.

    They'll have to, unless they're wanting the next Bond to be near 40 and signing up for only three installments.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited August 26 Posts: 2,044
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Also - it is becoming common and no surprise to read that a film was intended for theaters but no, it will go to streaming right off. Some of these films may be fun but they look cheap, they're kind of dumb and I think it is just as well they went right to streaming -- Argyle, for example. I'd rather watch a well-written, well-made long form streamer - such as The Old Man - than a somewhat c+appy "film" (and quotation marks definitly are appropriate), unless I just want a 90-min or so light entertainment.

    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.

    Honestly, I still don't understand the budget. Maybe half of the budget went into Cavill's haircut, LOL.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Also - it is becoming common and no surprise to read that a film was intended for theaters but no, it will go to streaming right off. Some of these films may be fun but they look cheap, they're kind of dumb and I think it is just as well they went right to streaming -- Argyle, for example. I'd rather watch a well-written, well-made long form streamer - such as The Old Man - than a somewhat c+appy "film" (and quotation marks definitly are appropriate), unless I just want a 90-min or so light entertainment.

    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.

    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!
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited August 26 Posts: 556
    Borrowing post from redditor LemmingPractice:

    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.

    Venutius wrote: »
    Charlie Higson? Nah, not for me, tbh. OHiMSS was an enjoyable enough, quick blast read but when Higson had Bond look around the villain's lair, the thing that concerned him most was the lack of diversity among the henchmen. Mission priorities, eh?

    If Higson were writing Young Bond today, no doubt they would look a bit different. He's probably overdosed himself on The Guardian.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    edited August 26 Posts: 942
    At least Sam Rockwell is always fun, even if the film is silly crap.

    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
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 26 Posts: 16,413
    Venutius wrote: »
    Charlie Higson? Nah, not for me, tbh. OHiMSS was an enjoyable enough, quick blast read but when Higson had Bond look around the villain's lair, the thing that concerned him most was the lack of diversity among the henchmen. Mission priorities, eh?

    I think that's quite an odd way to read that scene.
  • Posts: 3,276
    These days you should be able to find a good film
    I have Movie Collector installed on my HTPC. The collection consists of so far 480 classic movies and movies I know that I want to watch again sometimes. All my Blu-Rays and UHD's put on TB harddisks.
    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.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    Zekidk wrote: »
    These days you should be able to find a good film
    I have Movie Collector installed on my HTPC. The collection consists of so far 480 classic movies and movies I know that I want to watch again sometimes. All my Blu-Rays and UHD's put on TB harddisks.
    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?
  • Posts: 3,276
    Yeah, that's not good. It might be that good films are simply passing under your radar,
    Not going to happen as a movie buff. I watch a lot of movies.
    Just out of interest: what are the three 2024 films you like, and what are the seven 2023 movies?
    '24: Saltburn, Civil War and Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
    '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 :-)
  • Posts: 564
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Also - it is becoming common and no surprise to read that a film was intended for theaters but no, it will go to streaming right off. Some of these films may be fun but they look cheap, they're kind of dumb and I think it is just as well they went right to streaming -- Argyle, for example. I'd rather watch a well-written, well-made long form streamer - such as The Old Man - than a somewhat c+appy "film" (and quotation marks definitly are appropriate), unless I just want a 90-min or so light entertainment.

    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.

    Honestly, I still don't understand the budget. Maybe half of the budget went into Cavill's haircut, LOL.

    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.
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Yeah, that's not good. It might be that good films are simply passing under your radar,
    Not going to happen as a movie buff. I watch a lot of movies.
    Just out of interest: what are the three 2024 films you like, and what are the seven 2023 movies?
    '24: Saltburn, Civil War and Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
    '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 :-)

    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.
  • I'm sure Barbara and Gregg will see out another actors tenure of 5 or 6 films,

    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.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 556
    I'm sure Barbara and Gregg will see out another actors tenure of 5 or 6 films,

    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.
  • I'm sure Barbara and Gregg will see out another actors tenure of 5 or 6 films,

    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.
    I am an optimist! I believe there is a great chance AI will be incredible but it will completely upend absolutely everything before the end of this decade.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 556
    You're the first optimist I've met who believes no new movies will be made by the end of the decade. Sounds like one of your nightmares, more like.
  • edited August 26 Posts: 380
    I’ve never understood why audiences are so concerned with film budgets. It’s not our money. That’s not to say budgets shouldn’t matter to the people spending them, but I don’t really understand the armchair punditry about how much a film should or shouldn’t cost. Costs fluctuate for a myriad of reasons.

    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.



  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited August 26 Posts: 556
    Burgess wrote: »
    I’ve never understood why audiences are so concerned with film budgets. It’s not our money. That’s not to say budgets shouldn’t matter to the people spending them, but I don’t really understand the armchair punditry about how much a film should or shouldn’t cost. Costs fluctuate for a myriad of reasons.

    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 resource 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+).
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,636
    https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2024/8/26/next-james-bond-director-search-heats-up-berger-michod-campbell-marcel-demange-in-contention

    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.
  • edited August 26 Posts: 3,276
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Also - it is becoming common and no surprise to read that a film was intended for theaters but no, it will go to streaming right off. Some of these films may be fun but they look cheap, they're kind of dumb and I think it is just as well they went right to streaming -- Argyle, for example. I'd rather watch a well-written, well-made long form streamer - such as The Old Man - than a somewhat c+appy "film" (and quotation marks definitly are appropriate), unless I just want a 90-min or so light entertainment.

    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.

    Honestly, I still don't understand the budget. Maybe half of the budget went into Cavill's haircut, LOL.

    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.
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Yeah, that's not good. It might be that good films are simply passing under your radar,
    Not going to happen as a movie buff. I watch a lot of movies.
    Just out of interest: what are the three 2024 films you like, and what are the seven 2023 movies?
    '24: Saltburn, Civil War and Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
    '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 :-)

    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.
    Huh? Where did I write that there have been only ten good movies the last two years?
    How can I be more specific than this?
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Films that I know I want to watch again sometimes.
    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. ;-)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 26 Posts: 16,413
    Burgess wrote: »
    I’ve never understood why audiences are so concerned with film budgets. It’s not our money. That’s not to say budgets shouldn’t matter to the people spending them, but I don’t really understand the armchair punditry about how much a film should or shouldn’t cost. Costs fluctuate for a myriad of reasons.


    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.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited August 26 Posts: 556
    The problem is the last couple of Bonds were apparently not supposed to cost as much as they did.

    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.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Burgess wrote: »
    I’ve never understood why audiences are so concerned with film budgets. It’s not our money. That’s not to say budgets shouldn’t matter to the people spending them, but I don’t really understand the armchair punditry about how much a film should or shouldn’t cost. Costs fluctuate for a myriad of reasons.

    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 resource 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+).

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    It's interesting how Martin Campbells name is still attached to Bond these days. I wonder if he's still interested?
  • Posts: 564
    Zekidk wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Also - it is becoming common and no surprise to read that a film was intended for theaters but no, it will go to streaming right off. Some of these films may be fun but they look cheap, they're kind of dumb and I think it is just as well they went right to streaming -- Argyle, for example. I'd rather watch a well-written, well-made long form streamer - such as The Old Man - than a somewhat c+appy "film" (and quotation marks definitly are appropriate), unless I just want a 90-min or so light entertainment.

    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.

    Honestly, I still don't understand the budget. Maybe half of the budget went into Cavill's haircut, LOL.

    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.
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Yeah, that's not good. It might be that good films are simply passing under your radar,
    Not going to happen as a movie buff. I watch a lot of movies.
    Just out of interest: what are the three 2024 films you like, and what are the seven 2023 movies?
    '24: Saltburn, Civil War and Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
    '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 :-)

    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.
    Huh? Where did I write that there have been only ten good movies the last two years?
    How can I be more specific than this?
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Films that I know I want to watch again sometimes.
    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. ;-)

    My apologies — I misread/misinterpreted your post!
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,636
    It's interesting how Martin Campbells name is still attached to Bond these days. I wonder if he's still interested?

    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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    The problem is the last couple of Bonds were apparently not supposed to cost as much as they did.

    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.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.