Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Bond, Spectre and "event movies"
I was recently reading Kermode's book "The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex". In one of the chapters, he talks about the rise of the hollywood "event movie". Basically, these are massive productions with massive visuals and big casts. They are hyped up massively in advance and become "must see" movies before the date of release. They aim to make their profit very quickly. Kermode's criticism of these movies is that they dont encourage quality content and great scripts as the money has been made from the first sitting and that Hollywood has become very lazy as they are making movies that are easy to market and hype up but the content in terms of characters and screenplay is weak: there is little effort in making something of lasting quality.
Without drifting into another SP bashing thread, when you review the hype of the movie (the Guiness explosion, the new Aston, cast members who were hardly in the movie, trailers that MAY have been more exciting than the movie itself), is there a danger that the Bond franchise starts to creep into this trend as it competes with more "event movies"?
Without drifting into another SP bashing thread, when you review the hype of the movie (the Guiness explosion, the new Aston, cast members who were hardly in the movie, trailers that MAY have been more exciting than the movie itself), is there a danger that the Bond franchise starts to creep into this trend as it competes with more "event movies"?
^ 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
And the script is the worst in the series so I think Kermode is right.
Spectre was the biggest event movie ever in Switzerland putting even Star Wars TFA to shame and by a large margin.
I doubt there will ever be a movie bigger than Spectre here.
We will see if the quality of the movie will stand the test of time but it will be remembered very fondly for decades by several generations.
And for the record Kermode rated Spectre very highly. He had loved Skyfall and was relieved that Spectre lived up to it. So, maybe this can't be considered a SP bashing thread when Kermode (possibly) wasn't referring to SP when he made these assessments.
I think however that it is still possible to make a plot driven James Bond film in the DN vein, and CR proves that. However, I believe such opportunities will become less likely as time progresses, and can only be 'one-off's'.
Why? Simply put, because of the need to make a profit and maintain the marketing power of the brand name. While CR & GE (probably the most 'scaled down' productions of the past 25 yrs) were incredibly well budgeted and profitable ventures, they were also introductory vehicles in both cases. An opportunity to reset and re-establish expectations. Starting blocks after long periods away.
----
In the past 20 odd years, budgets have increased, location costs have gone up, actor demands have become more irrational, public tastes and expectations have changed, and the size of the global audience has grown exponentially. That last bit in particular implies that jokes, wit, plot and dialogue must translate more readily and appeal to more cultures, and that in turn suggests potentially (but not necessarily) less quality. It also possibly means more action and larger scale stunts, but again not necessarily. The recent exception in my view was SF.
I disagree with those who suggest that SF was a large 'event' production. On the contrary actually, as the production budget was quite scaled back in comparison to QoS in constant $ terms. It was also a much less extravagant production, with less location work (most of it was in London) and less action than its immediate predecessor. It certainly benefited from the Jubilee celebrations, the 50th Anniversary and the Olympics, but that was impressive 'marketing' and not excessive 'production'.
It was also a superior (and different kind of ) Bond film which touched a nerve with many members of the public who had not considered Bond before. It was a distinct case of 'less is more' and focused on character play rather than action. It 'became' an event on account of its perceived quality with vast members of the public. Statistics show the film had incredible box office 'legs' and did not front load as much as QoS or SP did.
----
So even though the power of the Bond brand name (a 'guaranteed money maker' in a world of uncertainty) may incentivize EON/MGM to swing for the fences with their product and get more excessive, it doesn't have to, and SF proves that.
The evidence suggests that EON/MGM realize this, and the reason they have the most successful long running franchise is precisely because they reset once in a while and 'scale back'. We are at this kind of moment again now after SP, and that's why this is an especially exciting time to be a Bond fan.
@bondjames the average major movie budget is around $100 million. Skyfall's budget was between $150-200 million. In terms of Bond it was a scaled back production. In terms of movies at large it still had a sizeable budget. Bond movies are big budget event movies.
Overall it not be with much fun as with Brosnan era. It be les of event.
The four year between Qos and Skyfall i also blame to that.
This gap has been around for a while now and many people in Hollywood have been vocal about it. However, here's the issue: In many places the cinema/theatre experience can be costly so many people tend to only go for these event type vehicles abd it doesnt help matters when there are numerous event films that come out in a couple of weeks from each other. This is one of the main reasons why opening weekend is so important gor films; because it fosters the trajectory of financial performance. The marketing and promotion is aggressive to get you going in to tgat opening weekend because a week from then a new tentpole comes in the scene.
That being said, the Television landscape over the last 20 years has changed dramatically in the best way possible. The best writing in Hollywood is in Television and with so many great shows to choose from, it's harder than it was before to get people out of the house to see these event films never mind the midsized films.
Right now, there are plans to try and get cinematic released movies into the homes of people who don't want to leave their house, which is of course bad for cinema/theatre chains but these are issues Hollywood are trying to adapt to because people would rather bingewatch TV shows at home. There's so much on offer from shows on Starz, HBO, Amazon Prime, Netflix etc. They have excellent writing, great production values and just look at the amount of Hollywood Film stars gravitating towards TV.
Craig himself will be doing that TV miniseries Purity and as for Bond, I think he's already fallen into the category of those event films where so much is compromised and they need to fix that asap.
They are still event films but that's part of moving with the times and the ever growing technological advancements of today's world. People are also more busier and our personal time is more occupied by various distractions and forms of entertainment. See my last post about TV and then if course there's the internet/social media/Mobile technology.
The eighties is often slagged off by many as a vacuous era but I dont agree. For example, if you look at the original Robocop. This is a very clever film with deep and complex political and social threads aswell as a great action movie with some funny and ironic dialogue. Compare this to the recent remake where IMHO, its just treated as a cash cow with little or no geniune depth. Another example is Die Hrd which IMHO can be watched over and over again due to the fact that its not just action. There is character development and some interesting comments on 80s yuppy culture versus USA "blue collar" values. If they remade Die Hard now (surely it will happen?), it will be another event movie, we can be sure of that.
So this is another attempt at me explaining the "event movie". And my concern is that the Bond production team either knowingly or just by going along with industry trends, focus on the ability to create an "event movie" with very decent profits in the first week or two ("job done, lets move on to the next one") but something that is then discarded as it has little long term value in the eyes of jo public.
PS sorry to mention SF yet again but there is no way I see it as an event movie. It has depth and thoughtfulness. I appreciate this is a turn off for many within this community.
So at the end of the day, a film must organically resonate, whether it is designed to be an 'event' spectacle or not.
Usually, anything that is good will continue to perform well over multiple weeks and months. It's the difference between the initial 'marketing push' which all large products receive and the natural resonance with the audience being marketed to. In the music industry, albums like Jackson's Thriller (37 non-consecutive weeks at #1), Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, and Adele's 21 are examples of this.
Yes, a very exciting time! :)
Bond 25 should be a very special one if Craig leaves and EON reset the clock, scale back and just give us a plot driven adventure again.