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
Almost everything was shot on location with Quantum, and that's really expensive. Probably part of the reason why Skyfall featured Britain centrally. They made something that feels much bigger in scope on a comparable budget. Then ofcourse they went way overboard with SP (300 million), which is what makes me think they will scale it back with B25.
The one market where they get an outsize share (to be expected) is the UK, where Craig has been extremely popular. It would perhaps make sense to film there (as has been rumoured) since there will be more relative gross coming from that market (where Boyle is also popular), but the flipside is there could be a possible decline in the £ if Brexit occurs as anticipated.
If I was to guess, I'd say the £ may decline going into March of next year and then could increase by the time B25 is released (because uncertainty may have been lifted by then). If that happens, it will be good for profits because filming costs could be lower and relative grosses higher due to currency effects. Of course they could attempt to hedge it in advance with currency swaps or futures contracts, but that carries its own risk.
I think whilst SP and SF beat WW at the box-office, there’s a very good chance that WW84 (especially if it’s good) could get a 50% boost. I don’t think this will sink Bond domestically, but if WW84 plays as well as the first, I think Bond could struggle to hit $200m in North America.
Internationally, Bond 25 will be fine. In fact, I think it’s numbers will be stronger than WW84. However, if Bond 25 gets middling reviews and a lacklustre response than the film could underperform. They really need a strong cast (those Angelina Jolie rumours would guarantee a bigger box-office) and a good story. I think anything less than $600m worldwide would be below expectations.
I’m sure Universal think that the Craig-finale/Boyle combo will work gangbusters. But remember, Daniel Craig isn’t a star outside of Bond and Boyle has never made a box-office smash (he’s had considerable success but mostly in the UK). In fact, Boyle has had a couple of notorious bombs, one of which came from Universal’s dodgy marketing (see Steve Jobs).
I think the four-year gap will hurt them in the long run. I hope Universal spend some serious money marketing this thing. I want Bond to be omnipresent throughout 2019.
Maybe..
You could say the same about SF.
It had been four years since QOS (which wasn’t all that well-received and had mostly been forgotten). However, a great cast, an intriguing director and a great marketing campaign saw SF gross in excess of $1billion.
Bond 25 is partially there:
- It’s Daniel Craig’s finale: This is a perfect market pitch. It’s the “last” time you’ll see him in the role. If the story and marketing plays up this angle (just like how Fox sold ‘Logan’ as Hugh Jackman’s last film as Wolverine and Marvel have been selling ‘Infinity War’ as the beginning of the end) then big numbers are guaranteed.
- ‘National Treasure’ Danny Boyle is directing: This is a big sell in the UK as Boyle is probably the country’s most loved/known filmmaker (whether that accolade is actually deserved or not is another debate). However, it may be difficult to sell this aspect to foreign audiences. Nonetheless, the fact that a “name” director is attached will entice cinephiles and general audiences alike.
- They’ll need A-list talent: You can only get so far with Craig/Boyle. You’ll need some big name actors. If Bond 25 wants to look dangerous at the box-office, it’ll need to entice exciting names. People such as Angelina Jolie may be less than palatable to Bond fans, but general audiences will clamour to see such names in a Bond film. Suddenly a film they were less than interested to see is their most anticipated of the year.
- A Good Film!: As crazy as it seems, if the film is good and the buzz on Twitter and amongst fans is strong than the film is almost guaranteed to succeed financially.
- Market the ting:If all the above ingredients are in place, then the last component is a strong marketing campaign that doesn’t cut corners. There is an incentive on both Annapurna and Universal to overspend, as neither studio wants to make the first Daniel Craig-Bond film that flops. There is a lot of prestige riding on the film beyond financial remuneration.
Because if the script sucks, no matter how much money you throw to the screen and how many things you stuff in the movie.
Moreoever since when did the gadget car grant a high box office?
That's some very poor thinking on your part.
Bond movies are niche film. SW and JW all bloated movies with spaceships and dinosaurs and they appeal to everyone, especially kids.
That said, not every SW movie is successful. Solo bombed, meaning people are feeling Star Wars fatigue.
Exactly, thanks for showing some logic to @Mendes4Lyfe . But then again how can we argue with someone who supports the codename theory?
People will see Bond 25 no doubt about that but will it be good enough for audiences to come back and see the film multiple times? What is it offering that other films and programming aren't? What's the unique appeal that will have Joe Bloggs returning again and again.
We live in a climate where Star Wars is becoming a toxic cinematic brand, where Hollywood blockbusters wish they had the hype and audience investment for their films the way programs like Game of Thrones are afforded. Films like Mission Impossible are delivering on the fun and stunt factor that Bond's been missing for years and then not only is the superhero movie genre dominating with unprecedented ferocity but there's a growing movement successfully in the genre pushing to the forefront those that have been marginalised for the longest time. DC with wonder woman and a lead character of colour in aquaman later this year. We've had the insane success of black panther which till date is the highest grossing film domesticly this year (there's only 5 months left of this year remaining) at just a hairs away from $700million, Ant-Man and the Wasp is out, doing very well so far and ironically for a "flavour of the week" character according to Zack Snyder, it's tracking to definitely outgross Justice League and this is a film where Wasp, the female co-lead is getting a lot of praise and attention. Then DC's birds of prey starts filming in January featuring Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn, who was arguably the best thing about suicide squad and then Captain Marvel comes out next year as well as Wonder Woman 2 later the same year, round about the time Bond 25 is released.
All that is just a fraction of what's recently happened and what's to come in the next 12 to 18 months. Bond has never really had a marketing problem, in fact, that's probably where he excels the most but if we're talking about Bond 25 making north of $850Million then it doesn't matter who's been cast or who's directing. The film has to DELIVER and blow audiences away. It NEEDS to stand out and this is why it's important for EoN not to be complacent like they were with SP. They need to make sure this film is levelled up in a major way. That being said I'm convinced Bond 25 isn't touching $900Million and to be honest it doesn't need to. Still, if it can work with a reasonable budget and make SP numbers or thereabouts at least that's a good thing bit if we're looking at aiming for a target north of whatever SP made then EoN et al are going to have to do something remarkable.
I'm like the karma chameleon.. I come and go. Lol.
The Star Wars franchise has taken a hit with extremely negative reaction to The Last Jedi, and Solo was a flop by Star Wars box office standards. I think ep 9 may struggle to hit the big 1 billion. You can never take your fanbase for granted!
Could Craig's final Bond be another Skyfall big hitter? Could it make more money than Star Wars episode 9? I'm sure Craig will market Bond 25 as "wanting to leave on a high note, we want this to be my best Bond film" and that will help the hype marketing train steam ahead! I'm assuming people will remember who Daniel Craig is. He's not made many films since SPECTRE. Perhaps they've forgotten Daniel! :P
I think Bond 25 will be a big success and most likely break records for biggest UK opening, biggest overall UK box office (or close to it!). James Bond will return.
On a totally unrelated point - Gal Gadot looks lovely in that photo. The sun is shining when Gal smiles! :)
I believe so too. I'm already hyped. All the enthusiasm i heard so far, from Boyle and Vic, and Craig ("high-note") has won me over. If they can translate that into the Marketing, then we'll have a winner.
Bond will do well enough but (a) it won't do SF numbers and (b) it will never EVER make more money than Episode IX.
Daniel getting more creative control, and being involved in getting Boyle on board should tell us one thing, and that is that he wants to push further in an arty emotional direction for his final film, and hope it resonates with the public similar to how Logan did. I predict we will see less grand action sequence, and a more personal story. There will obviously be enough stunts and action to put in the trailers, but they won't go for the "everything and the kitchen sink" approach that they did with SP. B25 will be a calculated risk, reducing the budget and hoping that positive word of mouth will bring success.
I agree. MI is now what the Bourne films were in the 2000's.
And we know what happened there.
Yes, Damon stopped Greengrass stopped making them. And I'm sure Tom Cruise will stop making MI one day, but that's not the point. The point is that everyone accepts that addressing Bourne in the early 2000's was something Bond simply had to do, like there was no way around it. Clearly action films were headed in a certain direction, and the responsibility fell at the Bond producers feet to demonstrate that it could fit in with this new reality. So why is there no need for Bond to address things nowadays, when the main spy franchise competition is of another nature, gets rave reviews, and each film is as/more successful than the last? there is no sense that Bond should take notes, and instead the prevailing attitude seems to be that they should bury their heads in the sand and hope for the best. We say that Bond is part of culture, and has always survived through multiple decades of cinematic change, but it has do so by keeping a keen eye on new trends, and there is no better demonstration than this than the 2006 reboot itself, which everyone seems to herald as a correct and savvy move from EON.
As far as the suggestion Bond films more take on the style of M:I, I don't think that's required at all. And I gotta say I'm surprised the proposal is to follow a franchise with a true Scooby gang, established rogue activity, and its own element of this-time-it's-personal-again as the way to go.
What I want to see is a large-scale mission for OO7 and a true Bond film. That's what the filmmakers should be building toward since the 2006 reboot. There's no train off the tracks situation for Bond right now. The box office for BOND 23 and BOND 24 was great. BOND 25 will follow that fine.
Yes, because Babs and Craig aren't concerned with getting the basics right of a good story, as long as they have their artistic flourishes and emotional moments.
I'm not sure I can agree with you.
Audience appetites are constantly changing. The trick is either desperately cater to what you think they want, or to anticipate something new that they weren't expecting.
The Craig era was really built on a number of thing:
1. Origin Stories were big in the early 00's.
I know we're in the age of the 'reboot' but this wasn't a common term in 2005. At the time people liked seeing origin stories. CR was built around this principle. In fact, on the DVDs, Barbara explicitly mentions that the first Spider-Man film was a big influence on their decision to explore Bond's early days and his formation into 007.
2. 'Dark and Gritty' became the norm after the success of Nolan's Batman films.
Eon jumped on this bandwagon as it fit with the tone they were already chasing and it suited the direction they were already moving in with Daniel Craig. However, it shouldn't be forgotten that the Bourne films really dictated the mood and tone of Craig's early movies.
3. Pleasing Daniel Craig.
I think this has become the main motive of Eon since CR. They hired Roger Michell, Marc Forster, Sam Mendes and Danny Boyle as they were directors approved by Craig. It's Craig who has wanted to add more of an artistic flourish to the series and make the Bond character more introspective.
Regardless of what you think of Craig's films. They have all been successful and guaranteed the success of the franchise moving forward. Personally, I feel it is necessary for the health of the Bond series for the films to change with the next actor.
I think if the big influences on the Craig era were Spider-Man, The Dark Knight and Bourne; then the likelihood is that Marvel and Mission Impossible will be big influences on the next actor.
For those wanting a more 'fun' film, then I think you just need to get past Craig's finale to get that film (however, I can't see Boyle making something overly naval-gazing).
I agree with everything you just said. Good job.
Critically I would agree. MI has critical momentum and hardcore audience 'passion' behind it these days, which is similar to Bourne in the early 00's, irrespective of overall box office numbers.
What's interesting about these two franchises is that despite their similarities, they have very different geographical fanbases. If one studies the details, apart from the US where they are pretty much on par (SF excepted), MI (sometimes significantly) outgrosses Bond in the 'newer' expanding markets like South Korea, Japan, India, Brazil, Mexico and China. Bond conversely outgrosses MI in what Donald Rumsfeld famously termed 'old Europe', most notably UK, Germany, the Nordic countries and Italy as well as in Australia. France is closer, with Bond still ahead. I'd imagine that both franchises would like to expand their viewer base in the others territory, but it will be difficult. James Bond (particularly with Daniel Craig as lead) doesn't seem to me like something that would appeal to Asian markets. Their heroes, at least in my observation, tend to be more younger looking, cleaner cut and almost 'asexual' in appearance. Cruise-like in fact. Narratively, Bond also doesn't seem like something that would be as appealing there in comparison to the more 'action heavy' and easily translatable MI.
In terms of B25, I suppose it will all depend on what direction Boyle takes. From what I can see so far, I'd imagine a very powerful UK/Europe gross again, but can't see it doing too well stateside where enthusiasm appears tepid at best (the articles about a new Bond actor continue to percolate despite Craig's return, suggesting that is the narrative that has a hold). It will be interesting to see how it plays given the long time away and all the press about replacements, cut wrists, money demands and so on over the past few years.