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
I don't see him supporting her. She is the one with the oscar nomination. If by some grace of God, Fincher signed on to do the second film, then YES I want DC in it.
But Mara is the star of this thing, and Craig is more supporting even though he was very good in it, far better I think than the Swedish actor. I'd just like him to do some film work other than Bond or this series.
I'm sorry...I somehow misread your initial post and thought you meant Mara was needing to lean on DC.
I wouzldn't call it a flop, but it was somewhat ill advised to come out over X-mas. Opening weekend was not so good, but after X-mas it picked up. Also with a 90 mill budget due to Finchers way of eating up money, the budget was just too high.
The Exorcist opened the day after Christmas here in the states and everybody ate it up. TGWTDT had all the prefect elements and ended up being a brilliant movie, but for some reason the appeal wasn't there for moviegoers in my native land. Did it have shoddy marketing or something?
THE Exorcist? You weren't even born..
IMO for some reason, it was not the award darling, they surely meant it to be. It was no game changer this late in the year. I don't know why not, but it didn't happen. IMO with awards buzz, the film would have made 100 mill more. Personally I don't know, what to better.
Well of course I wasn't, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. I was simply pointing out that a film with adult content and similar style in direction, mood and avant-garde music was successful in theaters while releasing around the same time as TGWTDT did.
Comparing a release from 1973 and a release from nowadays ? In 1973, you would not even call that a release by today's standards... I've checked, there was only 24 engagements in this first week listed in the box office ads at that time. On its first week, it did 3 times less than Magnum Force did for instance "according to the ads". It did a bit less than Serpico did "In New York Only", etc... It did less than Woody Allen' Sleeper in its second week "according to the ads" - Xmas week was a movie where people wanted to have fun in 1973 too... ! But it's actually very difficult to compare all this, because The Exorcist's ads talks a lot about the average attendance in a selected number of theaters, not the "total". [FYI, today In France we have a newspaper that gives the box office in terms of audience / theaters, so that the successful movies without the help of the studios' marketing can appear in the rankings]
Already at that time, the box office figure was mostly some way to do some PR about the movie after it has been released.
With figures town by town, there's always a way to twist the data. If the ads claim Serpico was huge in New York, well maybe it wasn't so huge elsewhere. Every movie was breaking records somewhere. The Exorcist's ads were about house records here and there, Serpico was for New York, Magnum Force about the fact it was in 401 theaters, Sleeper about town records, Papillon about the number of house records in 2 weeks, etc, etc. That's Box Office Mojo before Excel was invented :)
Box office comparisons are already a fuzzy science ("experts" mostly agree between them first, no one wants to be the one doing the odd bet, it's a bit like stock trading). But over 40 years ? It's too weird. The Exorcist's current box office also takes into account re-releases, which meant a lot for this movie in particular.
In the 60s/70s, box office ranking in the US was done by calling a few movie theaters owners and asking them their opinion on a objective/subjective scale about the audience they had for the movies of the week ("how much more people do you have for that movie compared to usual business ?"). But people will still try to compare to now ! If I remember correctly, Goldfinger was never #1 in the weekly US box office because *one* movie theater owner thought the success of My Fair Lady was phenomenal.
The two actors met while on the set of the new James Bond movie "Spectre" and found themselves instantly likeable. Waltz said the "GQ" on his British colleague: "He is expecially humorous, charming and intelligent guy with an anatytically sharp mind I need him to apologize, because I had not judged him so.."
Christoph Waltz plays in the new Bond movie by the way the villain. "Spectre" in this country is expected on November 05 in the cinemas.
http://www.fan-lexikon.de/film-tv/news/christoph-waltz-schwaermt-von-daniel-craig.187207.html
Rather: I need to apologize to him ...
Daniel Craig and Rachel Weisz @publictheaterny #hamiltonpublic @hamiltonmusical #jamesbond JAMES. BOND.
Daniel Craig & Rachel Weisz Pose For Pic Backstage At HAMILTON
http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Daniel-Craig-Rachel-Weisz-Pose-For-Pic-Backstage-At-HAMILTON-20150412#
haha..
Yes the budget was ridiculous. Sony wanted Fincher so badly they let him have free reign on the shoot. The end result was good, but...how does a movie that's mostly about people talking indoors cost $90 million? "Immortals" that was out at the same time cost $75 million and that had massive battles and insanely elaborate sets and design.
Apart from Immortals being utter garbage, all that C.G.I nonsense isn't what makes films cost loads these days it's location work hence QOS costing so much. Some mainly C.G.I green screen dominated film is obviously not going to cost as much as the gorgeously shot TGWDDT, plus I'm a sucker for Fincher and he can do as many takes a he likes to get what he wants. I'll take that over some hack like Ratner getting his mits on the franchise.
I'd rather Tattoo be it than it continue with a significantly lower budget and some far less talented journeyman director with no vision take over, Fincher puts the money on the screen every time.
Help me out. What are the "memory lane scenes"?
Yeah, same here. I know this film well, and I'm confused about what scene GL means. Funnily enough, TGWTDT was just on FXM here in the states.
Oh, alright. Well, that kind of stuff is what makes Finchy who he is in the film biz just like Kubrick was known for his obsession with details; they've carved their own indelible trademarks into cinema and all that.
During the parade? Got it. I'll have to go back and look at it.
If memory serves, James Cameron got that ridiculously detailed with the china and silverware for Titanic. But you know, when it's your "baby," then you want things the way you want them. Though 99% of the people seeing the film won't even notice, the director, will. It's much like authors who get that way about wording.
Dare I mention the DC factor as well? He wows millions as Bond, but the box office evidence is that without the tux he doesn't have quite the appeal that some on here imagine.
I think the fact that they stuck so faithfully to the text with the depiction of Lisbeth Salander may also have been an issue. Rooney Mara is a very good looking actress, but (in-keeping with the book's description of the character) the film does not convey that. Not a criticism, but I do think it may have impacted on the film's overall success. Sometimes you do perhaps need to take a bit of artisitic licence.
Can't remember the book very well, having read it a while ago, but not sure Mara and Craig had much on-screen chemistry or connection either. Something that works on the page can seem less convincing when conveyed unaltered onto the screen. When you actually see the characters on screen you need more convincing that they'd be drawn to each other. Just a thought. May be it was the writing, the cast. Dunno. But I think the film lacked a certain spark or edge. And the final scenes with Stellan Skarsgård in his basement were just lame. It felt like Fincher didn't really know how to handle that section and just resorted to a very tired Hollywood psycho cliche. Again, that section of the book perhaps required a little artisitic licence to be applied to make it fresh.
TGWTDT was a terrific film. Fincher was the right choice to direct. And Mara didn't exactly "look good" in the film. The dyed-black hair combined with the blond eyebrows was a peculiar, off-putting look. I thought Mara was fantastic, and it was actually TGWTDT that made me look at DC differently, as being more than just Bond.