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
Unfortunately even good films can fail, and much of it is entwined with marketing in this instance. I don’t think Fall Guy’s failure is necessarily the red flag for cinema that some people see it as but it’s definitely an indication of how it’s changing. That said it’s always been the case that audiences need a reason to go and see films. Same for the latest Mission Impossible which was a more interesting underperformance (that had its own issues - the fact that it was part one and gave a similar ‘I’ll see it later’ reaction, the ‘Barbenheimer’ double bill eclipsing it, the fact that MI’s fan base/core audience is rather soft compared to other IP’s and generally skews older even compared to Bond’s nowadays to the point many of its fanbase are less likely to see it in the cinema). Bond has an advantage here as it’s an established IP, has a stable fanbase who’ll see the next film when it’s released, and each film is an ‘event’ in itself. You’re also adding to that a new Bond/era. Of course anything can go wrong, but it will have advantages.
If that is the case, Bond 26 will have to be a full-on spectacular making full use of the cinema format - no stripped-down thriller for the next one, they need the full Goldfinger.
Well, I don't think the style of the film will necessarily make or break it in that way. Like I said, Bond will have very specific advantages with its next release, and even the more stripped back instalments are cinematic and spectacular anyway. So by all means, a more low key Bond film could very much be a hit. A great film (whatever that may look like) will help them, absolutely. But ultimately in a lot of these cases of films underperforming it's not necessarily anything to do with the quality of the film itself.
Everything or Nothing. B-)
The documentary? Eh?
If even the stripped-down instalments are cinematic and spectacular, then they’re really not that stripped-down. Eon won’t go low-key, they’ll go big. Casino Royale is a small, low-key story at its heart, but they bolted big action-sequences onto its front and back-end for the film adaptation. That’s why I feel it doesn’t flow as smoothly as it might. Even if some of us would like a smaller film, I don’t think Eon can risk going for smaller and tighter.
This first film with the new Bond needs big action-sequences and big visuals that look good in the trailer to sell the public that this is film where you are missing out if you don’t see it in a cinema. It’s got to be a film that people are talking about, so it’s got to be either great (which you always hope for but can’t guarantee) or have a concept that shocks or intrigues people - a hook. And that’s largely what they’ve been doing through the Craig era anyway. So pretty much business as usual, imo. I think we’ll get a black James Bond because that will guarantee people talking about it in both press and public, people who might not normally be interested in Bond; I think we’ll get an additional hook on top of that in the plot; and I think they’ll go hard with the action sequences with their younger lead actor, much like CR’s action-sequences were some of the most physical the franchise has ever seen, before or since.
There you go. If they do have a scaled back budget (for whatever reason, and of course relative to Bond - look at SF which obviously had a lot of locations domestic to the UK which likely impacted budget, and fewer grander action scenes until act 2) it'll be for story reasons. Same for if they need bigger action sequences in a certain type of story (as you said CR fits that description, and FRWL has this too). Bond films are escapism at the end of the day and the audience need to be captivated.
What I mean is you can have a more low key story (along the lines of FRWL or SF), again relative to Bond, without it needing to be GF (which incidentally isn't quite as big scale as many people often remember it being compared to later Bond instalments), or, say, MR. Or dare I say DAD, NTTD, or any other grander Bond film.
Oh, every Bond film needs spectacle. That's the nature of it. And that's a part of selling it to audiences. But we're talking relative to Bond, and it'll have certain advantages anyway. They have a lot of creative room to do a lot with the next era and don't necessarily have to pander. They can simply make the best first new era Bond film they can.
The game I suppose.
A big opening action sequence (which is the true legacy of the Moore era) is a given, either in the PTS or shortly thereafter a la CR. They need that to sell the trailer, as you said.