The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1184186188189190

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    F&F 7, Jurassic World, Avengers, ... all making loads of money in barely a few weeks time. JW in particular went from zero to six zeros in the blink of an eye. Several critics have stated that people these days prefer franchise movies because, as is the case with television series, they know the set-up, the characters, the conflicts, ... and thus it's easy to get into the next adventure and rewarding that we got into the previous ones. I tend to agree with them - it is one of the more appealing aspects of Marvel's cinematic universe for example.

    Of course Bond has constantly been more or less on our radar since '62. So why would things be different now than say in the late 90s when Bond was also going strong yet DC and Marvel were still struggling to get anything cinematic done? I honestly think that these Craig films hit the right notes and this time at the right moment (versus the unfortunate cases of e.g. TLD and LTK). SF must have already capitalised on the current franchises-are-hot movement because it made almost twice what CR had made yet it's certainly not twice as good a film. ;-) But everything fit. Adele fit, Craig fit, the 4 year gap fit... And so I think that SP will already be able to coast on a lot of SF goodwill. If indeed it can top our expectations by being somewhat bigger, possibly more action-driven and less "you're too old for this, James", who knows, it could bring 007 back into the top 10. That is until the next Cap America, Avatar, Avengers, Star Wars, ... comes out. ;-)
  • Posts: 15,124
    That is true of every franchise. I guess I have to agree.

    For the record, I find TB superior to GF.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    I think Skyfall was helped greatly by the 2012 celebrations. I don't think SP will match those numbers. But then, I haven't been following the reactions surrounding the trailers. :-??
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Money making never had much to do with quality. Being part of a popular franchise always helped, so agree.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 4,617
    SF had a tremendous appeal regarding word of mouth and repeat business. It had great longevity that obviously added to the income. We can (and have) debated why that was (genuine engagement in character/drama would be my nomination). I am as excited about Spectre as anyone and will be in the queue at midnight. But, my only apprehension is that it wont be able to match Skyfall at the emotional level (Bond can't cry again surely?) and that, IMHO , is what sets these moves apart from the run of the mill action pulp. M's death was a massive pay off and the whole film built up to that crucial and I think, iconic scene. How can Spectre match that?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    You can tell a compelling and engaging story without the protagonist succumbing to tears and emotional anihalation.
  • Posts: 4,617
    no doubt and hoping for that, but don't under estimate the power that comes with seeing a central character die in the arms of the central hero. Wrath of Khan was made for 1/3 of the budget of the first movie. But did very well at box office precisely because it engaged the audience in character and the connected emotion. I am a traditionalist in that I believe that classic movies rely more on character than action and special effects. We shall see
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited July 2015 Posts: 24,183
    I agree with @doubleoego. I don't think the tears of 007 are needed in a powerful story that gets us all emotionally involved, though it probably was the cherry on the cake.
  • Posts: 4,617
    and its the cherry (or the lack of it) that could make the difference re budget projections. I have a feeling that Spectre, though loved and appreciated by us lot, will not be embraced by jo public in the same way that Skyfall was. I hope I'm wrong
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    You might be right, @patb. The SP trailer might be hitting some soft spots of us, Bond fans, what with all the Spectre / OHMSS hints and all, but I bet many casual film fans will watch the film because it has Drax from Guardians Of The Galaxy in it. ;-)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    And that guy from that Tarantino movie.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 553
    Yeah, 2012 was the anniversary year, Bond featured in the opening ceremony for the Olympics and, despite it being only a year more than the gap we've just had, it felt like we'd had a long break. At the time Skyfall was the 7th highest grossing film of all time, unadjusted. To reach that peak again, Spectre would have to top $1.34 billion. I can't see that happening. I think it will do excellent box office, and may well top a billion again.

    I don't expect the producers require it to top Skyfall to see it as successful. Let's remember the last highest grossing Bond film in adjusted terms (Thunderball) wasn't topped in terms of Box Office until Live and Let Die, and not beaten in undajusted terms for 47 years.

    To answer the question, there are many factors behind a franchise film's success: capturing public mood (like Bond in the mid-60s, or Moonraker catching the space craze, post-Star Wars), a reaction to the quality and popularity of the previous entry (Thunderball, arguably), events outside of the film (the deaths of Heath Ledger and Paul Walker), casting (arguably Halle Berry - awful, but considered a big get at the time). So, I agree - Die another Day isn't the best Brosnan, Moonraker is certainly not the best Moore, Skyfall isn't the best Craig, and it is debatable whether Thunderball is the best Connery.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Something else rarely discussed here, perhaps as it is overtly sexist, is appealing to woman. On the rare occasions I have discussed Bond in mixed company, pre Skyfall, OHMSS consistently came up as a favourite. It is a more sensitive movie obvioulsy is romantic,( the montage and the wedding being highlights of this). Skyfall also had emotional scenes that men may not appreciate as much., Having a Bond movie that can be appreciated from from all directions is a big advantage. (this was also an element in CR). I think it could be a factor within Spectre in terms of the relationships that Bond enters into. Its all interesting stuff.
  • Posts: 15,124
    And that guy from that Tarantino movie.

    That is no small asset though. How many Oscars did Christoph Waltz win? His fame may be even superior to his predecessor.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    If he brings his Bastards charisma to SPECTRE, I'm game.
  • Posts: 553
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And that guy from that Tarantino movie.

    That is no small asset though. How many Oscars did Christoph Waltz win? His fame may be even superior to his predecessor.

    Two Oscars within 3 years.

  • Posts: 12,526
    I think it will hinge on story but DC is really a massive draw and success as Bond now so I think their is a very good chance that SP will take more money at the B/O than SF.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And that guy from that Tarantino movie.

    That is no small asset though. How many Oscars did Christoph Waltz win? His fame may be even superior to his predecessor.

    Two Oscars within 3 years.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And that guy from that Tarantino movie.

    That is no small asset though. How many Oscars did Christoph Waltz win? His fame may be even superior to his predecessor.

    Two Oscars within 3 years.

    No small feat. Not a guarantee for success but certainly an asset.
  • Posts: 553
    Of course...great actors still choose poor scripts, but he is always excellent
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    They got two amazing stars as the lead villains in a row now. I think only Lee and Walken had that kind of star power before.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    How about Christopher Lee?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Lee as in Christopher. ;)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Julian Glover was "that guy from The Empire Strikes Back" and Robert Davi was "that guy from Die Hard". I think that counts for something too. ;-)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Strange how Penelope Cruz awarded Waltz his Oscar for a character (Hans Landa)who's opening monologue is about rats and her husband as Silva's opening monologue is also about rats.
  • Posts: 15,124
    They got two amazing stars as the lead villains in a row now. I think only Lee and Walken had that kind of star power before.

    I don't think either of them had then the respect Waltz has now. Lee was a B movie horror actor, as for Walken someone corrects me if I am wrong but his big roles were considered behind him when he did AVTAK.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Still, I remember journalists raving about Walken appearing in the film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Bond is a franchise series, no doubt, but the films have been and are somewhat independent films, despite the recent continuity in the DC era (with Quantum etc.). This is unlike SW, LOTR, Potter etc. which always have direct continuity. I'm not sure if SP is a direct follow on from SF, but even if there are elements of continuity, the story is likely to be somewhat independent.

    In that context, it's more necessary for the film to be able to stand on its own, quality-wise to make more money than its predecessor. It cannot necessarily just ride SF's coattails as a franchise entry, because there is a new story to be told with new characters/cast etc... In the 53 years of Bond films, we've had ups and downs precisely because of that.....some films sit better with the public and others do not, despite the fact that they are all entries in the longest running movie franchise. I prefer the following films to their predecessors quality wise, and they each made more money than the immediately preceding film: FRWL, TB, LALD, TSWLM TLD, SF.
    I did not like the following films quality-wise as much as their predecessor & they made less money: YOLT, MR (made less than TSWLM on an inflation adjusted basis which is relevant since the oil shock sent inflation spiking), & TND.

    Better quality does not necessarily mean more box office in other franchises either (witness Empire Strikes Back vs. Star Wars, or Godfather 2 vs. 1 or even the superior Spider Man 2 vs. 1). Most of the time, it actually results in less box office (which is in line with the thesis). Worse quality does not necessarily mean better box office either (Ultron vs. Avengers, Lost World vs. Jurassic Park etc. etc.).

    So I don't think there's really a pattern to it. SP could be a better film and still make less money. However, it could be a worse film, and could make more money, or vice-versa..

    The more important factors to determine what happens box office-wise, as has been noted, will be competition in the theatres, ticket prices, availability in the best/priciest theatres, exchange rates in major markets, and marketing (including title song and word of mouth). Depending on how these last factors play out, the film could either be more successful than SF (unlikely due to that film's momentous status as the 50th anniversary film and the lack of serious franchise competition during its release), or less so (but only slightly, since China and the US are likely to have higher grosses for SP compared to SF), irrespective of its quality.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 333</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>By the end of this year, we will have 26 Bond films.</b></font>
  • bond_azoozbondbond_azoozbond Portland,OR
    Posts: 97
    Mmm ... 24 films + NSNA + what ?!!!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    That's the idea. Do people accept NSNA and or CR67 too? :-)

    (The 50s CR television episode doesn't fully qualify as a Bond film IMO but who knows, some might argue we have 27 Bond films altogether.)
Sign In or Register to comment.