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'm aware of why it doesn't happen. Just coming at it from the point of the fan/creative, because I lament the continual bottlenecking that is squeezing new ideas down across film and (sometimes) TV. It's difficult for me to pitch an original high-concept script because the next man has a spin-off of project 'X' which costs more money, but is bankable, despite the fact it may be fundamentally terrible.
As for blaming Hollywood, I do blame them to an extent. They are the same as the UK film and TV industry, run by suits who follow trends and react accordingly. That's business, I get it, but please, as fans, can we act a little less like philistines. The fact we have fans on here who think it's fine for the industry to be run like this simply validates it further. There was a time when people would put their balls on the line for the sake of creativity. People like Alan Ladd Jnr don't exist anymore, unfortunately.
If people are cool with watching sequels left, right and centre, fine. But don't then lament the lack of genuine classics, because the current model squeezes potential classics back to the bottom of the pile.
I really think a lot of it has to do with the public though.....our society as a whole. A few fans on a Bond fan site can't change things.....it has to do with general John Doe etc. That average person is less discerning when it comes to quality these days, because society as a whole has become less demanding of quality output. Many want the cheap thrill (e.g infamous DB5 insertion in SF) and actually get off on it..
Additionally, a lot of these films have to be easily translated to other languages (since the global market is a larger %) and fit in with other culture's acceptable ideas/concepts.
Inevitably that will lead to less creativity and risk taking I think.
So I agree with you but I don't have a solution for it.
In the meanwhile, I'm quite happy with some of the output coming out of the tv market. I watch more tv than I do movies these days. House of Cards, Dexter, Homeland, Breaking Bad, Ray Donovan, Boardwalk Empire, Masters of Sex etc. etc. Love them all and find them quite creative.
You're right, there is no immediate solution. TV is becoming a new medium entirely, people are actually engaging in dense narrative. It's really interesting to see. I almost feel like it's had a knock on effect with cinema, whereby viewers watch TV on a cerebral level, and now see cinema as pure eye candy. Bloody expensive eye candy, but eye candy rarely achieved on a TV budget.
Very good point. That may very well be true. It certainly applies to me, for whom cinema has almost become like an amusement park ride. I have to leave my brain at home for the most part & come for the noisy thrills. Occasionally something like Inception comes along (I remember being blown away by it because it was so unexpected) but that is a rare.
But on the other hand, look at all the major stars that get casted in Superhero films. Who would have thought 20 years ago that actors like Ben Kingsley, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins would play big roles in big budgeted superhero films?
Or what about Javier Bardem or Christoph Waltz in that other 'superhero' franchise ;-)?
Anyway, I don't get the criticism. As you already pointed out, Hollywood is not just the land of unoriginal blockbusters. The Hollywood film circle, and also the New York film circle, also creates wonderful, small, low budget, independent arthouse pictures. Terrence Malick, Todd Solondz, David Lynch, Lars Von Trier, Paul Thomas Andersson, Gus Van Sant, Todd Field, Spike Jonze, David Fincher, Robert Altman, Richard Linklater.......all wonderful directors. And they directed quite a few masterpieces on a low budget. I actually once made a topic about this subject: Smaller independent films.
But guess what, MOST of the people in here more or less ignored it. Apparently there wasn't a 'market' on this forum for such critically acclaimed films.
I also think that sometimes people are hard to please. Especially in here there are some Bond fans who dislike the success of blockbusters like "Jurassic World", "Avengers 2" or "Furious 7". They perhaps aren't masterpieces, but fact is: People liked them. And in all honesty? I also quite liked "Furious 7"!
And if you don't like these films, then don't forget that there are also big blockbusters who were regarded by critics as near-masterpieces. "The Dark Knight"? "Up"? "Inception"? "Wall-E"? "The Dark Knight Rises"? "Captain America: The Winter Soldier"? And hell, even "Skyfall"? All movies that were not just made by brainless clones of Michael Bay, who literally work as marketeers to satisfy the needs of the viewers. No, they were very good movies, that ALSO did very good at the box office.
And then there are these countless small-budget films that sadly go unnoticed here. I think it's time I need to dedicate an entirely new topic to exactly such movies and directors. Because I love them too. I we need to shed light on those films as well. They won't dissappear. Don't worry about that.
But in the meanwhile, this topic is about something else I guess. Another love of mine....and many other film fans.
The first one was a work of art, and it will be a tragedy if they don't make the sequels. Craig could have easily done it while waiting around 3 yrs for SP and Mara has been clamoring for it..
That's an example. But why do all smaller budget movies become.....franchises?? I'm actually glad no sequels were planned for gems like "American Beauty", "Boyhood", "Eraserhead", "Boogie Nights", "Happiness", "Network", "Nashville", "Crash", "The Tree Of Life", "Melancholia", "Milk", "A Single Man" or "Her"? If you ask me, the entire construction/format of franchises and sequels is foremost a result of the blockbuster phenomenon. And if I'm not mistaken, Mr James Bond 007 in part kicked that off no??
Anyway, do I therefore become angry? Off course not. But I do think "we" sometimes need to have way more clear how beautiful and big the world of movies is. I simply don't see a haunted ghost destroying the very aspect of good movies. Just, widen your horizon, and pick a small-budget arthouse movie every now and then, instead of posting grumpy messages in here :-).
I'm not angry :P. Not at all hehe. I just....wanted to say this :-). My answer should also be read in a broader perspective I think...
I don't have any preference between the past era or current era in Hollywood, I enjoy all movies, from any decades. I agree there are still many great directors showing true visions in Hollywood today, it just feels that there are more and more blockbusters and sequels in recent years.
You totally miss the point. TGWTDT is one part of the Millenium trilogy, but the latter parts don't see the light of day because of $$$, not because of lack of quality.
The second point is that there's room for big budget films with a brain that don't need to have sequels. They don't need to be restricted to 'art house', which is what happens when a studio doesn't throw it's weight behind the movie. If someone were to care more about finances, though, it's not an issue. The bottom line trumps all.
I don't 'totally miss the point'. I think I'm exactly spot-on. I know the "Millennium Trilogy" very damn well. I epecially like the Swedish version. And I also know very well why no 2nd part of this trilogy wasn't produced in 'Hollywood' yet. But I don't think that's the real issue here.
I think the real issue is the fact that I simply don't need a sequel or a remake from an original set of films that were already perfectly made/executed by Swedes (Danish director by the way). I call this a perfect example of the kind of Hollywood laziness, no offense @DaltonCraig007 ;-), that you're actually so tired off @RC7!
What is the point you actually want to make? I mean, there's something for everyone on "Planet Movie" no? I actually mentioned those "big budget films with a brain". And what's the problem if it's not a big budget film...and stays small-budget? I also mentioned some examples of those films as well. As a matter of fact, big movie companies like 20th Century Fox have their own 'arthouse divisions', like Fox Searchlight. And Sony Pictures has Sony Classics.
Sorry, I really don't see your problem @RC7.
Well, I don't know what to say to that. Perhaps I can say that I don't work in that industry? I'm a person who is on extended sickness leave.
It does look truly awful. I have to wonder how many mid range films could have been made for the budget they've waxed on it.
The only 'blockbuster' that lived up to expectations is "Mad Max: Fury Road".
It's the best movie of the year to date.
JW was just average imho.
Mad Max is a good film, but it currently has about $357m in total worldwide gross. Hardly a blockbuster based on the +$1bn club, which is what I was referring to. In that club for 2015, I am more impressed with JW than any other film. It met my requirements in a summer popcorn flick, which is to say, I was suitably entertained.
Just have a look at these movies. It's partially my taste, but I do think these are not just the average cheap popcorn flicks. In all honesty, I find these films better than good....sometimes near=perfect:
--> worldwide gross $0,363,460,932: "Inside Out" (will easily move past the $750 Million)
--> worldwide gross $0,358,360,000: "Mad Max: Fury Road" (still needs to open in China)
--> worldwide gross $0,585,174,222: "Iron Man" (the first and best 'Bond-esque' Marvel-film featuring Iron Man)
--> worldwide gross $0,586,090,727: "Quantum Of Solace" (not the best, but certainly gripping)
--> worldwide gross $0,609,016,565: "Life Of Pi" (and how 3D is used in the best possible way)
--> worldwide gross $0,672,720,017: "Interstellar" (sci-fi, did massive stuff in China)
--> worldwide gross $0,691,247,768: "The Hunger Games" (first dystopian sci-fi was the best)
--> worldwide gross $0,708,835,589: "Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes" (gritty sci-fi)
--> worldwide gross $0,714,766,572: "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (Marvel's own 'gritty Bond')
--> worldwide gross $0,716,392,705: "Gravity" (wonderful inventive film, 3D ads something)
--> worldwide gross $0,731,342,744: "Up" (another Pixar jewel)
--> worldwide gross $0,774,176,600: "Guardians Of The Galaxy" (Marvel's own Star Trek)
--> worldwide gross $0,825,532,764: "Inception" (another great sci-fi flick)
--> worldwide gross $1,004,558,444: "The Dark Knight" (instant classic, thematically perfect)
--> worldwide gross $1,063,171,911: "Toy Story 3" (guys, this is honest emotion vs. adventure!)
--> worldwide gross $1,084,439,099: "The Dark Knight Rises" (perfect conclusion of a trilogy)
--> worldwide gross $1,108,561,013: "Skyfall" (a worthy espionage thriller/drama.. And guys, it's a...Bond film)
--> worldwide gross $2,787,965,087: "Avatar" (imo imaginative, absorbing filmmaking)
So my message would be: Good films or other great moviemaking achievements can equally be box office successes. I never say that a box office result should be the key-factor in judging the film's quality. That's stupid IMO. But I do think one can do both at the same time: Making a great film, thus resulting in a critically acclaimed box office hit. It's what the Bond producers motto is no? So it's not just a matter of blaiming marketeers and box-office scrutinizers. No, it's even more so about making an inventive and good film.
Back then there genuinely was a high demand for original, well written blockbusters. It was what SOLD. And execs followed suit (...pun intended).
FIVE of the ten highest grossing films of the 1980's had NO previous franchise/fan-base and were original screenplays:
E.T
Raiders'
Back to the future
Ghostbusters
Beverly Hills Cop (ok prob the weakest of the list...)
And the other 5? Batman (which was actually high-risk back then, had never been put on the big screen before), Star Wars EP V and VI and more Indy.
That will just never happen in the current climate of movie-making economics.
Same excercise for this decade so far? Top ten since 2010:
Marvel's The Avengers (2012)
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
Toy Story 3 (2010)
Jurassic World (2015)
Iron Man 3 (2013)
The Hunger Games (2012)
Frozen (2013)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 (2011)
I rest my case, your honor.
Very true. The Hollywood system is far more risk averse now, and the public is far less demanding (with their wallets) of new, exciting concepts. Hollywood is just giving the people what they want.
We have an increasingly 'ADD' dumbed down Western audience, combined with a global audience that has to be satisfied (with films that must easily translate across continents.....and action does that) combined with increased costs.
That's a recipe for FF7 and the like.
SF/TDK/TDKR are more of an exception than the rule because they're somewhat intelligent/mature and still made money.