› ›

SPECTRE Production Timeline

1…683684686688689…870

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    @RC7 Actually TND is the film responsible for DAD. Remote control cars became invisible ones, the women Bond meets also happen to be superspys and the villains try to evade suspicion by giving passionate speeches explaining their plan to an audience of the world press.

    You're just naming comparable moments. In that case, DAF is responsible with its facial reconfiguring and its satellite laser, or alternatively TWINE is responsible for SF with it's M centric plot... The point is that they tried to dip their toes in the drama pool a little more with TWINE, failed, and then switched to car chases, hammy villains and crazy lairs. The kind of things casual, fly-by-night fans want shoved in their face every couple of years.

    Perhaps if they hadn't had such a knee-jerk reaction they might have tempered the approach to DAD, but at the end of the day the B.O. suggests they were right to do it, after all it's what a lot of you want isn't it, successful box office? Thankfully, despite DAD's haul, they were well aware that the quality was sub-par.

    After SF I think they're in very different territory. No need to go 180 on the work of that film.

    You don't want successful box office then?

    Are you actually reading what he's writing? That's not what he's saying at all.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    @RC7 Actually TND is the film responsible for DAD. Remote control cars became invisible ones, the women Bond meets also happen to be superspys and the villains try to evade suspicion by giving passionate speeches explaining their plan to an audience of the world press.

    You're just naming comparable moments. In that case, DAF is responsible with its facial reconfiguring and its satellite laser, or alternatively TWINE is responsible for SF with it's M centric plot... The point is that they tried to dip their toes in the drama pool a little more with TWINE, failed, and then switched to car chases, hammy villains and crazy lairs. The kind of things casual, fly-by-night fans want shoved in their face every couple of years.

    Perhaps if they hadn't had such a knee-jerk reaction they might have tempered the approach to DAD, but at the end of the day the B.O. suggests they were right to do it, after all it's what a lot of you want isn't it, successful box office? Thankfully, despite DAD's haul, they were well aware that the quality was sub-par.

    After SF I think they're in very different territory. No need to go 180 on the work of that film.

    You don't want successful box office then?

    I want a great film. But this is Bond, Bond and Box Office are mutually inclusive. I don't know what all the stress is about. If this is a great Bond film, it will make money. How would it not? If DAD is regarded as bottom of the barrel and still made $400m+ then what the hell do you guys think is going to have to happen for SP to bomb? Why of all the moments in the last 50 years of the franchise is the follow up to the most successful film of that franchise a likely moment for the series to tank? It just seems utterly illogical to me.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    @RC7 Actually TND is the film responsible for DAD. Remote control cars became invisible ones, the women Bond meets also happen to be superspys and the villains try to evade suspicion by giving passionate speeches explaining their plan to an audience of the world press.

    You're just naming comparable moments. In that case, DAF is responsible with its facial reconfiguring and its satellite laser, or alternatively TWINE is responsible for SF with it's M centric plot... The point is that they tried to dip their toes in the drama pool a little more with TWINE, failed, and then switched to car chases, hammy villains and crazy lairs. The kind of things casual, fly-by-night fans want shoved in their face every couple of years.

    Perhaps if they hadn't had such a knee-jerk reaction they might have tempered the approach to DAD, but at the end of the day the B.O. suggests they were right to do it, after all it's what a lot of you want isn't it, successful box office? Thankfully, despite DAD's haul, they were well aware that the quality was sub-par.

    After SF I think they're in very different territory. No need to go 180 on the work of that film.

    You don't want successful box office then?

    I want a great film. But this is Bond, Bond and Box Office are mutually inclusive. I don't know what all the stress is about. If this is a great Bond film, it will make money. How would it not? If DAD is regarded as bottom of the barrel and still made $400m+ then what the hell do you guys think is going to have to happen for SP to bomb? Why of all the moments in the last 50 years of the franchise is the follow up to the most successful film of that franchise a likely moment for the series to tank? It just seems utterly illogical to me.

    300 million.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    @RC7 Actually TND is the film responsible for DAD. Remote control cars became invisible ones, the women Bond meets also happen to be superspys and the villains try to evade suspicion by giving passionate speeches explaining their plan to an audience of the world press.

    You're just naming comparable moments. In that case, DAF is responsible with its facial reconfiguring and its satellite laser, or alternatively TWINE is responsible for SF with it's M centric plot... The point is that they tried to dip their toes in the drama pool a little more with TWINE, failed, and then switched to car chases, hammy villains and crazy lairs. The kind of things casual, fly-by-night fans want shoved in their face every couple of years.

    Perhaps if they hadn't had such a knee-jerk reaction they might have tempered the approach to DAD, but at the end of the day the B.O. suggests they were right to do it, after all it's what a lot of you want isn't it, successful box office? Thankfully, despite DAD's haul, they were well aware that the quality was sub-par.

    After SF I think they're in very different territory. No need to go 180 on the work of that film.

    You don't want successful box office then?

    I want a great film. But this is Bond, Bond and Box Office are mutually inclusive. I don't know what all the stress is about. If this is a great Bond film, it will make money. How would it not? If DAD is regarded as bottom of the barrel and still made $400m+ then what the hell do you guys think is going to have to happen for SP to bomb? Why of all the moments in the last 50 years of the franchise is the follow up to the most successful film of that franchise a likely moment for the series to tank? It just seems utterly illogical to me.

    @RC7 and I on many MANY occassions disagree. But this time I fully agree with him. "SPECTRE" will be a success. I think we're worrying too much in here. To such an extend that it sometimes looks like a case of "we Bond fans are way too spoiled".

    If the next trailer comes only on August 14th, then so be it. There's another aspect here that could be seen as "free marketing". That's the fact that 2015 seems to be a very 'spy filled' year, with many spy films leading up to one big climax: "SPECTRE". Trust me, there isn't better free marketing for 007, if with every review of "Kingsman", "Spy", "UNCLE", "Mission: Impossible" and even "Furious 7" Mr James Bond himself is mentioned.

    On top of that, this has been an insane box office summer so far. After July it gets a bit more 'peaceful' in the cinemas. So then there's plentiful space for 007 to show off.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Yes, I think that may be a first @Gustav_Graves. I'm going to have to disagree with you just for the sake of it tomorrow!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    @RC7 Actually TND is the film responsible for DAD. Remote control cars became invisible ones, the women Bond meets also happen to be superspys and the villains try to evade suspicion by giving passionate speeches explaining their plan to an audience of the world press.

    You're just naming comparable moments. In that case, DAF is responsible with its facial reconfiguring and its satellite laser, or alternatively TWINE is responsible for SF with it's M centric plot... The point is that they tried to dip their toes in the drama pool a little more with TWINE, failed, and then switched to car chases, hammy villains and crazy lairs. The kind of things casual, fly-by-night fans want shoved in their face every couple of years.

    Perhaps if they hadn't had such a knee-jerk reaction they might have tempered the approach to DAD, but at the end of the day the B.O. suggests they were right to do it, after all it's what a lot of you want isn't it, successful box office? Thankfully, despite DAD's haul, they were well aware that the quality was sub-par.

    After SF I think they're in very different territory. No need to go 180 on the work of that film.

    You don't want successful box office then?

    I want a great film. But this is Bond, Bond and Box Office are mutually inclusive. I don't know what all the stress is about. If this is a great Bond film, it will make money. How would it not? If DAD is regarded as bottom of the barrel and still made $400m+ then what the hell do you guys think is going to have to happen for SP to bomb? Why of all the moments in the last 50 years of the franchise is the follow up to the most successful film of that franchise a likely moment for the series to tank? It just seems utterly illogical to me.

    300 million.

    What's that? The amount of times you're going to reply to me today.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Thing is just, how much BO is necessary to call it a success. Thats all and this might be difficult driven by huge expectations and a huge budget and SF, which put the bar very high. Time will tell. But yeah, a good to great film will do the magic. IF indeed people can still appreciate films with not just over the top action and dinos.
  • marketto007marketto007 Brazil
    edited July 2015 Posts: 3,277
    Creative Path just tweeted this:

    Delighted to confirm we are developing promo concepts with Sony UK & ROI for Spectre #Spectre #JamesBond

    About-Us.png

  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Are they known? I guess so.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Are they known? I guess so.

    They made the brochure of my past student fraternity :-P.
  • Seven_Point_Six_FiveSeven_Point_Six_Five Southern California
    Posts: 1,257
    Here is a link to some of their work

    http://www.creativepathmarketing.com/index.html
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Well, they can choose among the best, so I suppose they are good.
  • AgentJM7AgentJM7
    Posts: 421
    Scrolled through 78 posts and nothing? We must be bored...
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    AgentJM7 wrote: »
    Scrolled through 78 posts and nothing? We must be bored...

    We are..
    (:|
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    When I logged on tonight and saw 127 posts in this thread I had not seen yet? I thought cool but was soon disappointed! ~X(
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    I'd be happy with a 2hr 30min run time.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    When I logged on tonight and saw 127 posts in this thread I had not seen yet? I thought cool but was soon disappointed! ~X(

    Partly my fault for engaging in a relentless debate. Sorry to disappoint.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    AgentJM7 wrote: »
    Scrolled through 78 posts and nothing? We must be bored...

    We are..
    (:|

    >:D<
  • smittysmitty
    Posts: 725
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    AgentJM7 wrote: »
    Scrolled through 78 posts and nothing? We must be bored...

    We are..
    (:|

    Yes indeed. It's why we are bickering on different threads over nothin but mostly rumors. We have no news to discuss. Come on EON, give us something meaningful to fuss about. :)

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Where did I hear there would be a vlog on the 15th?
  • Matt007Matt007
    Posts: 1,314
    Regarding run time. Length Is less important than entertainment. See The hobbit v fellowship of the ring.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    smitty wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    AgentJM7 wrote: »
    Scrolled through 78 posts and nothing? We must be bored...

    We are..
    (:|

    Yes indeed. It's why we are bickering on different threads over nothin but mostly rumors. We have no news to discuss. Come on EON, give us something meaningful to fuss about. :)

    Or: Let;s be a bit more patient at times :-P. By jolly, we sound like spoiled little kids sometimes hehe.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Regarding run time. Length Is less important than entertainment. See The hobbit v fellowship of the ring.

    All the same I'm hoping for a good 150 minutes. I think they will probably release the run time in early to mid October.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    smitty wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    AgentJM7 wrote: »
    Scrolled through 78 posts and nothing? We must be bored...

    We are..
    (:|

    Yes indeed. It's why we are bickering on different threads over nothin but mostly rumors. We have no news to discuss. Come on EON, give us something meaningful to fuss about. :)

    Or: Let;s be a bit more patient at times :-P. By jolly, we sound like spoiled little kids sometimes hehe.

    Agreed. God, that's three times in one day.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    smitty wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    AgentJM7 wrote: »
    Scrolled through 78 posts and nothing? We must be bored...

    We are..
    (:|

    Yes indeed. It's why we are bickering on different threads over nothin but mostly rumors. We have no news to discuss. Come on EON, give us something meaningful to fuss about. :)

    Or: Let;s be a bit more patient at times :-P. By jolly, we sound like spoiled little kids sometimes hehe.

    Agreed. God, that's three times in one day.

    Yeah, I miss our disagreements :-( ;-).
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Get a room, you two. ;)
  • smittysmitty
    Posts: 725
    QOS was way to short. The jumpy editing didn't help either. I guess if the film is great and works, the length may not be critical. But that said, given it's Mendes, all the expensive locations and big cast, I too would be surprised if it wasn't around 150 minutes.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    smitty wrote: »
    QOS was way to short. The jumpy editing didn't help either. I guess if the film is great and works, the length may not be critical.

    QoS is five minutes shy of GF, which, for me, is paced excellently. It gets stick amongst fans but I tend to see that as a reactionary stance, based on the fact it's regarded in the mainstream as the benchmark. Bullshit aside, it's an exceptional film. I would count GF and OHMSS as high points in the franchise, yet their run times vary from high end to low end, proving that run time is essentially irrelevant. Content and context are key.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    There is certainly no way this film will be shorter than Skyfall. The producers will be a lot more hands off now Mendes has proven himself and bringing back SPECTRE means this film is gonna have a meaty story and will more than justify 150 minutes. I myself find this very agreeable. If we are going to get a Bond film every 3 years now, they might as well be a decently good size.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    There is certainly no way this film will be shorter than Skyfall.

    If it's one minute longer, but the final minute is 2000 fps slow motion, will that still make it better than Skyfall?
Sign In or Register to comment.