Home › Bond Movies › SPECTRE
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Will Spectre end up being to SF what Thunderball was to GF..?
Apart from the fact that SP will have the same director I see a lot of similarities between this moment in Bond-film history and the 1964 to ’66 ‘era’.
Skyfall ‘(re-)awoke’ the general (mostly non-fandom) public to Bond in a way that Goldfinger did so the very first time around, and even though they are not really the best in the series they have obtained a certain status through their marketing, imagery & extremely favorable PR from the media and ‘pseudo’ Bond fans, as I like to call them.
Goldfinger’s success meant that EoN would not venture back into bare-bones, story-driven Bond realism until the very end of that decade, and even that was a one-off.
My point is that, just as EoN used the GF blueprint for their next release after realizing it’s global $$$-making appeal, I’m certain they will have done so again - the SF formula that proved so successful three years ago will have formed the basis in shaping Spectre…
*They stuck with a one-word title in ’65 for TB – even more so now, the title ‘Spectre’ almost feels like a coda to ‘Skyfall’, even having the same # of letters.
*The theme song is again, as with TB, performed by a young British artist. Tom Jones was Welsh just as his predecessor and even seemed to be trying to 'do' a Bassey. Sam Smith & Adele are pretty much the exact same kind of British pop ‘act’.
*The scale has been increased (and the PR machine is also billing it as such) in a very similar fashion to how TB did in 1965, but the essential ingredients seem to remain.
Mendes & co will no doubt have woven a great deal more of that backstory-driven angst and introspect(re)ion into SP, and I highly doubt that we will get the return to 'good-old-Bond' form that we all seem to think is on its way.
But it will make loads of cash as it appeals to the wider public without really feeling like a true James Bond adventure (because as we know the general public are beneath fun-driven fodder...) and there will be the same bland media enthousiasm that accompanied it’s predecessor.
To put it rather bluntly: EoN counted their beans after SF, and they are simply going to re-hash the concept until it stops making money, I’m afraid…
Of course - I hope I’m wrong. I really do.
Skyfall ‘(re-)awoke’ the general (mostly non-fandom) public to Bond in a way that Goldfinger did so the very first time around, and even though they are not really the best in the series they have obtained a certain status through their marketing, imagery & extremely favorable PR from the media and ‘pseudo’ Bond fans, as I like to call them.
Goldfinger’s success meant that EoN would not venture back into bare-bones, story-driven Bond realism until the very end of that decade, and even that was a one-off.
My point is that, just as EoN used the GF blueprint for their next release after realizing it’s global $$$-making appeal, I’m certain they will have done so again - the SF formula that proved so successful three years ago will have formed the basis in shaping Spectre…
*They stuck with a one-word title in ’65 for TB – even more so now, the title ‘Spectre’ almost feels like a coda to ‘Skyfall’, even having the same # of letters.
*The theme song is again, as with TB, performed by a young British artist. Tom Jones was Welsh just as his predecessor and even seemed to be trying to 'do' a Bassey. Sam Smith & Adele are pretty much the exact same kind of British pop ‘act’.
*The scale has been increased (and the PR machine is also billing it as such) in a very similar fashion to how TB did in 1965, but the essential ingredients seem to remain.
Mendes & co will no doubt have woven a great deal more of that backstory-driven angst and introspect(re)ion into SP, and I highly doubt that we will get the return to 'good-old-Bond' form that we all seem to think is on its way.
But it will make loads of cash as it appeals to the wider public without really feeling like a true James Bond adventure (because as we know the general public are beneath fun-driven fodder...) and there will be the same bland media enthousiasm that accompanied it’s predecessor.
To put it rather bluntly: EoN counted their beans after SF, and they are simply going to re-hash the concept until it stops making money, I’m afraid…
Of course - I hope I’m wrong. I really do.
^ 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 have been saying this for some time. I firmly believe that SP will be TB to SF's GF.
Bigger, badder, and with more spectacle.
I personally don't have a problem with that though, because unlike many, I far prefer TB to GF. I am in the minority (probably) in thinking TB is the far superior film. If they can even incorporate half the witty dialogue from TB in SP I'll be ecstatic.
TB in comparison to benchmark DN & FRWL (Craig's CR & QoS respectively) is a different discussion.
There are some similarities but seriously....
People are getting enthusiastic @Matt007 :-). Me too. I actually can fully relate to this topic. I do think that the last time Bond was at such an "All Time High" really were the 1960's. And by jolly, doesn't it give you a good feeling ;-)?
He makes some interesting observations. The Sam Smith thing seems like sheer coincidence to me, but as for the rest of it, there certainly could be a lot of truth in there. I do agree that they're using SF as their model. It's reminiscent of GF to TB and also TSWLM to MR.
True, and therein lies the risk imho.
MR was somewhat pastiche in comparison to TSWLM, while TB was just bigger and better in some areas, again imho.
I think, from what we've seen, that this will be more a TB/GF scenario than a MR/TSWLM one.
@bondjames - I did not mean to say that TB was a bad follow-up, I too will actually be very pleased if SP 'does' to SF what TB did to GF.
Rather than a TSWLM > MR, by all means...
Personally, I think we'll be lucky if SP is as good as TB. I have my doubts but I remain hopefully optimistic.
Yes, I think this is the case. Bond has not been 'in the public consciousness' as much as this since the mid 60's - not even as much as back in the mid 90's when everyone was falling over themselves to praise Brosnan the best Bond ever (yes, you read that correct @ the under-21’s here, there was a time...)
It's partly due to the social-media age positively affecting 007's popularity, with twitter & (two-)facebook being very favorable mediums for big-budget nostalgia movies like SkyFall & Spectre.
But it also has to do with the way EoN have quite consciously produced & marketed the series since the Bourne & Nolan films changed blockbuster dynamics - EoN now aspire to appeal to a demographic of the general movie-going public that previously shirked James Bond films for not being 'high-brow' enough, with Skyfall’s faux-introspectiveness & ‘layered narrative’ as key cases in point.
Skyfall was Craig's TWINE and Spectre is Craig's DAD
I think not. Especially not from a critical reviewer point of view.
Hmm.. I think you may have miss-interpreted my point. This is not about how the films relate tot the respective 007 actor's arc within the series.
Goldfinger and Thunderball are so different in many ways.
But Spectre will be Skyfall Part 2, that I'm sure of.
If at all, then Skyfall is Craig's Thunderball. Bigger, better and insanely successful.
I see Spectre more as Craig's YOLT.
There are some similarities.
The age factor, Connery already did look aged in YOLT to some degree, and I'm sure the same can be said of Craig for Spectre.
I'm not sure Spectre will be more successful than Skyfall, so here again, Spectre looks more like YOLT, which still was highly successful but not as much as TB.
but if we are talking about the possibility of back to back huge box office cash ins - then yes, SF=GF and SP=TB - though i personally don't believe that SP will outgross SF.. i think it has a good chance to do $1 billion, but i don't see it topping SF... but who knows..
well without revealing too much...
I'm not having a go at you, @TripAces. I'm just pointing out that too much credence is placed on critics and their reviews today, when it used to be not so much of a big deal if a movie got lukewarm or negative reviews. Word of mouth was always considered to be much more reliable back then.
Also, weren't the original novels also panned by quite a few posh people for being crude nonsense? It's more now that hardcore fans that talk about them being literary musts.
Word of mouth, whether it be in the work place, pubs, social clubs or schoolyard had much more power than a critic. Let's not forget these older movies had a much longer run than movies do today, so it was easier for movies to build-up ticket sales. Not that I include GF as a sleeper hit, the London premiere shows how crazy people were for Bond, and that was before it had even opened nationwide. All this was built-up through Dr No and FRWL.
Unfortunately, we don't have a large amount of data on what audiences in 1964 really thought of GF when it was released. My guess is that GF was merely viewed as "another Bond" film; thus, there probably wasn't a general perception that TB had to top anything. The films were only a year apart. The buildup between SF and SP is possibly greater because of the three-year delay.
the only thing we do have is box office figures.. and that should give us some clue..
GF grossed domestically in just the US, $51.1 million dollars (according to boxofficemojo.com).. adjust for inflation, that equates to $393.2 million - in just domestic totals alone... not even SF - the most successful film in franchise history did that well in the US.... but you compare that to FRWL, which opened just the year prior - and that only took in $24.8 mil domestically (which would translate to roughly $190.9 mil in today's dollars)..... so, lets look at the numbers side by side..
FRWL(1963) - $24.8 million ($190.9 million with inflation)
GF(1964) - $51.1 million ($393.2 million with inflation)
that is a near 200% increase in box office revenue in just over a year.... if Goldfinger was viewed, as you have suggested as being "just another Bond film." - which means the public would have a very blase' attitude towards it, then that doesn't seem to match the near 200% increase in box office revenue in just the US alone... that has to mean that audiences packed theaters to see this movie, which means they loved it..... Shirley Bassey's title theme was big hit as single as well... "The single release of the song gave Bassey her only Billboard Hot 100 top forty hit, peaking in the Top 10 at number eight and at number two for four weeks on the Adult Contemporary chart, and in the United Kingdom the single reached number 21."
but don't forget this as well... yes, movies had longer theater runs back then - but there were far less theaters in that time as well, and you didn't have multiplexes like you do today.. so think about that as well.... this is taken from a wikipedia article about the film - which does have a credible source cited...
"" Goldfinger 's $3 million budget was recouped in two weeks, and it broke box office records in multiple countries around the world.... The Guinness Book of World Records went on to list Goldfinger as the fastest grossing film of all time.... Demand for the film was so high that the DeMille cinema in New York City had to stay open twenty-four hours a day. ""
just another Bond film you say?