EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards

007HallY

delfloria wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

I mean, I don't disagree Bond should be British (at least in the way he's played) but it's worth saying Brosnan's from the Republic of Ireland, Lazenby was Australian, and Bond has generally had a precedent of going with some out of the box actors with many of them either using their natural regional accents or letting it slip overtly on occasion. It's still very much a wide range of possibilities (including non-white actors).

Stop with the non-white actor stuff. It just sounds like you are being PC. If that is what floats your boat go watch another character. Granted, the days of slapping a woman on the bottom and telling her "Man talk" and "fetch my shoes" are over but Fleming's character at his core is white.

Ok? Well, I'm sorry if I offended you I guess...

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

I think there's a whole backstory with MGM giving Bond less budgets in the 80s which likely contributed to using 'in house' directors. I recall reading at one point they couldn't even afford Peter Hunt, and certainly not Lewis Gilbert. It also contributed to the 80s Bond films having lower budgets (MGM issues really have been a major issue with the Bond franchise, hasn't it?)

I remember reading somewhere that following the disastrous “Heaven’s Gate”, MGM/UA ended up cutting back on the budget for FYEO to help save money. I’m not sure how true that is but it makes sense when you consider how much of a disaster “Heaven’s Gate” was.

That's it! I think it was the case for the subsequent years as well. I guess Moore's (much deserved) pay check and film by film contract deals also had an impact. Not easy to deal with (as I always say I don't think there are any villains or heroes in this sort of situation).

Oh yeah; to be fair, I’ve always felt that the reason some of those John Glen Bond films work so well for me is because of how constrained they were by budget; allowing more time to be put on story and character rather than just having a film feel like a series of set pieces edited together, which was perhaps my biggest problem with most of the 70’s era (LALD and TSWLM excluded.)

I get what you mean. I do think FYEO fumbles the character stuff somewhat, but the Dalton films have that feel to them.

Mendes4Lyfe

Revelator wrote: »

DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »

LALD was quite cheap, by the way. Moonraker and TSPWLM were the ones with a big budget. GoldenEye was also cheap, it's not like it was the TSWLM 2.0.

LALD also looked cheap, especially in the low-scale climax, where Kananga operated out of the K-Mart version of a Bond villain's lair. Similarly, the non-Connery budget of DAF was reflected in its disappointing climax. GoldenEye had a lower budget than any of the later Brosnans, but it still cost $28 million more than LTK. Even adjusted for inflation, GE's budget is larger than TSWLM's, but this is probably because of the inflation in the costs of filmmaking, rather than just the dollar/pound.

Yes, but films had just become much more elaborate between 1977 to 1995. Remember that this was the era of the True Lies and Die Hard 3.

007HallY

Films like Bond have become more expensive to make over time just naturally. Even things like use of VFX/CGI means more money goes towards that (which is a factor as to why GE cost more even adjusted for inflation compared to TSWLM).

007ClassicBondFan

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

I think there's a whole backstory with MGM giving Bond less budgets in the 80s which likely contributed to using 'in house' directors. I recall reading at one point they couldn't even afford Peter Hunt, and certainly not Lewis Gilbert. It also contributed to the 80s Bond films having lower budgets (MGM issues really have been a major issue with the Bond franchise, hasn't it?)

I remember reading somewhere that following the disastrous “Heaven’s Gate”, MGM/UA ended up cutting back on the budget for FYEO to help save money. I’m not sure how true that is but it makes sense when you consider how much of a disaster “Heaven’s Gate” was.

Here’s the timeline of it all:

December 1980: HEAVEN’S GATE has a disastrous premiere in New York, forcing UA to postpone its wide release so that the film could be recut.

February 1981: FYEO concludes production.

April 1981: HEAVEN’S GATE gets its wide release. Only grosses $3.5m against a production budget of $44m, making it one of the biggest box office bombs in film history.

May 1981: Transamerica puts UA on sale and MGM purchased it.

June 1981: FYEO is released by UA’s still active distribution arm, grossing $195m worldwide.

The very last UA release was THE BEAST WITHIN in February 1982. The first MGM/UA release would be PENITENTIARY II in April 1982.

So OP was really the first time Cubby had to deal with the big regime change, as FYEO was practically already in the can by the time MGM purchased UA. Similar parallel to NTTD already being in the can when Amazon made their purchase of MGM.

Thanks for the timeline! I always forget that the MGM purchase of UA didn’t happen until post FYEO.

Benny wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

Daltonforyou wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

Daltonforyou wrote: »

The scripts started getting a little shabby, especially Licence to Kill and A view to a kill , which both have a tv movie quality, but the other three films of the decade are some of my favorites so...

I’ve always thought that LTK had one of the strongest scripts in the entire series. Certainly holds up better as opposed to some of the preceding and following films.

The Bond community would be boring if we shared the same point of view, so agree to disagree.

I hear that; in any case I respect your views!

Murdock wrote: »

chrisisall wrote: »

Murdock wrote: »

The 80's Bond movies also missed that lavish otherworldly quality of Ken Adam's production design.

I thought LTK had some unexpectedly impressive set design....

LTK and OP come pretty close. I do also really enjoy the Main Strike Mine sets from AVTAK as well.

Filmed in the same mine that Peter Hunt and Roger Moore shot “Gold” if I’m not mistaken.

Gold was filmed on location in South Africa, with studio work taking place at Pinewood.
AVTAK’s mine was shot in Sussex, with interiors shot at Pinewood, on a Peter Lamont designed set.
Don’t think they’re the same

Oh gotcha! I don’t remember where I saw that info but nonetheless happy to be corrected!

DEKE_RIVERS

007HallY wrote: »

Films like Bond have become more expensive to make over time just naturally. Even things like use of VFX/CGI means more money goes towards that (which is a factor as to why GE cost more even adjusted for inflation compared to TSWLM).

Yes but TND was more expensive and it shows.

This is why I think TND is really Dalton's ideal third film and not GoldenEye.

Mendes4Lyfe

Would never have worked, the handover wasn't until the late nineties.

DEKE_RIVERS

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

Would never have worked, the handover wasn't until the late nineties.

Yeah, I Know but it is the third film that one could expect if you see the actor's previous ones.

007HallY

DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

Films like Bond have become more expensive to make over time just naturally. Even things like use of VFX/CGI means more money goes towards that (which is a factor as to why GE cost more even adjusted for inflation compared to TSWLM).

Yes but TND was more expensive and it shows.

This is why I think TND is really Dalton's ideal third film and not GoldenEye.

Going from the Bond 17 script from 1990 that's the sort of direction they likely would have gone in. In fact I think the villain in that one is pretty much an early version of Elliot Carver, and much of its story went into TND eventually.

mtm

007HallY wrote: »

I get what you mean. I do think FYEO fumbles the character stuff somewhat, but the Dalton films have that feel to them.

It's interesting to see the Bond films slowly edging towards that, from Roger being a bit serious in FYEO, to Dalton's Bond making a fairly serious mistake in LTK by jeopardising Pam's Heller deal, to Brosnan's Bond having a few moments of drama, right up to Bond becoming more of a human character by CR.
I was watching DAD last night (don't ask!) and thinking, the first half or so with the torture, and Bond going after Zao with the help of the Chinese is all quite a good spy plot which is given quite a light treatment in the film- I was actually imagining Craig in that portion of the film and I thought it would work pretty well with a more dramatic, serious touch.

Mallory

mtm wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

I get what you mean. I do think FYEO fumbles the character stuff somewhat, but the Dalton films have that feel to them.

It's interesting to see the Bond films slowly edging towards that, from Roger being a bit serious in FYEO, to Dalton's Bond making a fairly serious mistake in LTK by jeopardising Pam's Heller deal, to Brosnan's Bond having a few moments of drama, right up to Bond becoming more of a human character by CR.
I was watching DAD last night (don't ask!) and thinking, the first half or so with the torture, and Bond going after Zao with the help of the Chinese is all quite a good spy plot which is given quite a light treatment in the film- I was actually imagining Craig in that portion of the film and I thought it would work pretty well with a more dramatic, serious touch.

Die Another Day has so much promise. I wish they had explored the relationship between General Moon and Bond, but alas they never went anywhere near it.