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
Although, in the Bond novels he sometimes goes against authority too - 'TLD', OHMSS, YOLT etc.
True, but if I'm not mistaken, it's usually something he grapples with, or feels guilty about after the fact. With Craig he's outright talking back to M whilst getting a scolding for "Mexico City". The Connery Bond would have lowered his head and acknowledged M's authority, even if he disagreed. Even with Dalton, you felt he was at the end of his tether when he became insubordinate. With Craig, he's so cavalier about it. He may as well work freelance, or be self-employed.
Also,respect was shown in the latter films.
So i see where you are going with this @Mendes4Lyfe and i do agree ,especially with his blatant rudeness and then sarcasm to M in SP...
Apologies. Double post.
I felt Bond being able to break into M's flat on two occasions was so alien to what Fleming created. Bond had a fear and respect for M. For M could get him killed should he choose.
I agree that qualities they give Bond now are weighing the character down.
Interestingly enough he gave most of Bond's background in the latest novels, at the end of his literary career and of course his life.
Hope nobody here is superstitious.
That doesn t matter one iota. Suppose they spend 100 dollars on the next one, and it sells fifty tickets or so, earning back ten times its budget. Does not make it an economic success.
You obviously don't understand the film business. It is very clear in my posts that I implied the franchise sticks to budgets that make it easier to recoup the costs.
Like they did in the Cubby and Harry days. That way it is ensures the continued success of the series.
The Sony hacks revealed a different figure. I think the $245 million excluded the advertising and marketing. Because they promoted the film strongly.
Cubby 's book said for a film to break even, it needs to make back 2.5 times it's budget. SP took $900 million, but, the theatres take half of that. So a profit, but not much money to finance the next film. LTK took back 5 times its budget.
I've typically accepted that doubling a budget accounts for the "true", final budget of the film.
Indeed. On a total cost budget for SP, they were hoping for 1.4 billion dollars. Because you have profit and next film budget.
Better to spend $100 million and make $500 million. Less risk and more frequent Bond. I like 2 year gaps as they managed for decades.
As for Bond being British, the Craig era was way more invested in the classic history of the franchise than Broz's era. The '90's were focused on rehashing the classic tropes and formula, but strictly with an American action movie sensibility. Don't get me wrong, I like Broz a lot and even his first three films to varying extents, but Mendes4Lyfe's complaints on the Craig era seem kind of nonsensical. Dalton and Lazenby constantly defied authority, though Craig is certainly more indignant.