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 haven't read part two, though, so I'll read it once I'm done watching this movie. SP was definitely costly, really no excuse in needing to make $650 million simply to break even, but making a few hundred million on top of that isn't bad, either. I'm mostly looking forward to them dialing down the budget heavily because it'll give us an entirely different feel to the next movie.
As I said a while back, lock the next team (including writers) in a room, and force them to watch DN/FRWL/CR on loop for a few days. Then open the door, and let them get to work.
But, if you actually look at Spectre, one has to wonder where all of that money went. The action sequences aren't all that spectacular (the car chase is just two cars driving fast through an empty city), and virtually none of the terrorist activity that the film's plot bases itself on (the attacks used to coerce the Nine Eyes nations to join up) are not even shown in the film. It seems like they spent a lot of the budget jetting around to the various locations, the plane chase, and setting up their world record for the biggest explosion ever.
I'm sure that there are plenty of other places in the film where people will point to and say "that's where the money went", but regardless, Spectre doesn't look or play like a film that at one point was costing the studio upwards of $300 million.
I hope Bond 25 will be good :-)
Unfortunately, I may not get my wish, because Bond is one of the few truly global and bullet proof franchises, and in an uncertain world, the accountants will want to maximize $ most likely.
It looked a bigger budgeted film on screen to me for the most part. I was perhaps just relieved to see Bond in the genuine locations for once rather than backlot substitutions. SF was just like an episode of Spooks in comparison.
I personally didn't mind the Rome car chase. I accept it wasn't trying to be Ronin or even the QOS PTS. It was perhaps more about the aesthetics than a remarkable stunt sequence or tense chase but I enjoyed it for what it it is. I miss the days of Bond having a female companion with him during a car chase so his conversation with Moneypenny was the closest we got to that since...hmm...the Aston Martin chase in TLD.
If we're talking a waste of money then the Austria snow plane sequence is one the major dud for me. When something looks dull even in the trailers you know you're in trouble. Not sure what the snow parkour scene would have entailed but maybe we should have just had some fisticuffs between Bond, Hinx and his goons in the clinic - with it getting smashed up instead.
I blame Corbould as much for Mendes for the record breaking explosion as he always seems to trying to better himself and the Skyfall lodge explosion will still take some beating.
They should also get them to read the first few Fleming novels, get in the zone. The one thing I find confusing is when writers 'borrow' from novels, when for me it should be the tone that needs translating, not necessarily scenes or dialogue. There's a structure and a swagger to the novels that they'd do well to inject into the films (although I think they should do this with a new actor). They should aim for doing the unexpected with action, low key, but inventive. I did like the intro to SP and I enjoyed the finale, visually, but the plane scene (which was billed as the big set piece) doesn't cut the mustard. I prefer the car scene in Rome, which I know others hate, but it has a flow to it.
What on earth are you talking about? We've known for some time breaking even was 650. It's more than 220 million over that point, plus all the other profit potential coming from DVD and BD sales and gobs of other ancillaries. It's a massive hit!
Which is ironically how RN was part-conceived. I agree, I don't think Bond should do that, but good luck to McQuarrie as he seems to know how to pull it off.
I imagine so. They tend to build out from the set pieces and I imagine this will be pretty high on their list.
What I missed in the SP action sequences was a sense of irony - the subtle humour that was there even in 'serious' CR (when Bond blasted through the drywall, or when he smirked after Carlos blew himself up). RN had that in spades throughout its action sequences. Two adult males giving each other looks through car and plane windows and some old gadgets not working in an Aston don't cut it for me.
Even SF had some class to the semi-action sequences, like when Bond smirks after his finger print gun registers in the Mercedes in Shanghai.
Which perfectly proves that you can release quality sequels at a great return rate without having to wait a few years between each, as is the case for Bond.
EON always sadly seem to be caught up in one studio drama or another though.
Yes, exactly, that's how i would sum up the film.
My point really is, as I wrote in my two articles, is that more things need to be done to re-capture a certain fresh uniqueness, and becoming another $1 Billion Dollar Bond. Many people in here say that it was an unrealistic prospect, but it is not. Not in 2016 AD:
I wholeheartedly disagree. I think we say too soon and too easy that "Skyfall" was a 'one off' hit. And that the stars were -too- perfectly alligned for "Skyfall" in 2012. Then the same story must go for all +$1 Billion movies. So there's a recipe for this success. And if I were both the screenplay writer and the marketeer/finance manager at EON, I would first work towards an amazing story, like I described in my articles.
Moreover, people still act as if $1 Billion Dollar movies are some kind of unique feature in today's movie business. Well wake up, they aren't. Nowadays they are more of a standard rule for the biggest TOP 7 blockbuster franchises than a 'rarity'. Just look at the TOP 6 of the highest grossing films of 2015. Five of them easily soared past the $1 Billion. People would say that that was exceptional, especially given the fact that there was so much competition. No, this insane amount of competition helped the entire TOP 6 o soar to new heights.
Plus, if $1 billion is a common return for movies, why did only five films of 2015 make $1 billion+ out of hundreds of releases? I'd say it's more unique than common, or else the Top 10 would've easily made over $1 billion. SP came close, but not close enough. So again, it's going to take better marketing and a much better final film (in the critics eyes, anyway) to make $1 billion again.
You say "only" 5? I think that's quite a lot to be honest. Previous years only 1 or 2 movies crossed the $ 1 Billion mark.
And in 2015 it wasn't just crossing the $1 Billion. The entire TOP 5 soared well past the $1.2 Billion.
But we agree that it takes a perfect package to break that mark.
So far, yes
The films shouldn't exceed $210 million budgetwise, reduce the number of foreign locations down to 2, focus on telling an exciting, gripping and involving story with a paramount sense of threat, let the characters, locations and music breathe. Give us a film to be more than excited about.
That's how I feel with the locations: I don't need nineteen separate globe-trotting locales in one movie that Bond won't even get to enjoy; show us different fragments and areas of the country in question. Let us get to know it and enjoy it, take us to different places, really utilize what you're working with.