What's right with CR, more right with SF, and so wrong with QOS from a marketing perspective

chrisisall

CR gave us a gritty Bond, but still fantastic in many ways, and made money. SF went to TB lengths to give us an OTT yet believable ride, and it made crazy $. QOS gave us a LTK-like story, grounded in events of the day, but made no more money than the (generally considered) superior CR.
My point?
Reality is not one of Bond's strong suits cinematically with the general movie-going public.
My projection is- the next Bond movie will be more like YOLT, and less like FRWL.

Thoughts?

(PS- mods, can you move this from News to Bond Movies as I intended?)

0013

I adore FRWL but it will be fun to watch Craig in a more YOLT type of movie. My only hope it that it doesn't be a generic action movie.
By the way, I liked the OTT elements of SF, like the casino and Komodo dragons scene, which annoyed some but sure I ain't one of them.

doubleoego

I disagree. For starters we have Mendes and Logan returning and I highly doubt they'll make Bond 24 a jarring difference from SF in the way YOLT is from FRWL. Secondly, I think the producers are much more creatively savvy in positioning their series, at least for now as something a bit more highbrow. I'm not suggesting we're going to get SF2 because that's not how Mendes works and that's something he's adamant in not wanting to do but I do think we will get a more emotionally relaxed film but the tone will will be more or less consistent with the precious 3 movies, while striving for an emphasis on the more exotic and slightly more fantastical elements but again, nothing too fantastically ridiculous.

Matt007

Both CR and SF extended their audiences via great word of mouth. A bond pic is always gonna make c$600m. Anymore is generally down to Reviews and what your mates think of it.

QOS is an incoherent, largely joyless mess. CR and SF aren't.

chrisisall

doubleoego wrote:

I do think we will get a more emotionally relaxed film but the tone will will be more or less consistent with the precious 3 movies, while striving for an emphasis on the more exotic and slightly more fantastical elements but again, nothing too fantastically ridiculous.

Hopefully. But what I was really wanting to discuss was what the general public's taste is for in Bond.
Look at the biggest money makers of the past: TB, MR, DAD... we hardcore fans might like it a little closer to Fleming, but it seems obvious the average theatre-goer wants their Bond fairly outrageous. And in thinking about it, SF had some pretty outrageous things going for it. The improbable fall, the impossible escape plan, the 'Home Alone' last stand, and the loss of a major character. There was really no way SF wasn't gonna rake in bucks.

I fear we might not ever see a 'small' (DN, FRWL, FYEO, TLD, LTK) type Bond movie again...

Walecs

chrisisall wrote:

QOS gave us a LTK-like story, grounded in events of the day, but made no more money than the (generally considered) superior CR.
My point?
Reality is not one of Bond's strong suits cinematically with the general movie-going public.
My projection is- the next Bond movie will be more like YOLT, and less like FRWL.

Yeah, because that's the reason QoS failed. No story, bad dialogue, weak villain, bad editing and horrible direction have nothing to do with that.

chrisisall

Walecs wrote:

Yeah, because that's the reason QoS failed.

QOS wasn't as profitable as CR (mostly due to its larger budget), but it FAR from failed. It took in a ton of cash. Where did you get the idea it failed?

pachazo

You can't hit a home run every time you're up to bat. There are the films that connect with the general public and then when we have the others which even hardcore fans have differing opinions about. I truly believe that they all have been a necessary part of the evolution of Bond though. No other film series has survived with as many perceived "failures" as 007.

chrisisall

Well, if you look at the poorest performing Bond film (Licence To Kill) it still took in nearly four times its production cost- not a solid hit by any means, but also not a losing proposition either.

SaintMark

CR was the return of 007 with a new actor that had gotten a shedload of attention due to the fellows of CraigisnotBond.com who raised the attentionlevel to ridiculous. EON should be gratefull to those wacky basterds.

QoS was the next movie, and while the BO was alright it did not light up the customer satisfaction of the average movieviewer.

SF had the greatest PTS ever with 007 and the Queen jumping out of a helicopter, that kind of attention is sheer brilliant and marketingwise diamondlike. The one thing that annoys me that the particular part is not on the SF dvd, it belongs there as an extra it being absent is bloody criminal.

Walecs

chrisisall wrote:

Walecs wrote:

Yeah, because that's the reason QoS failed.

QOS wasn't as profitable as CR (mostly due to its larger budget), but it FAR from failed. It took in a ton of cash. Where did you get the idea it failed?

Well, by failed I meant that it wasn't well received by Bond fans.

Still, that wasn't the point of my post.

chrisisall

Walecs wrote:

Still, that wasn't the point of my post.

I know, the point of your post was that QOS was garbage for the most part.
Have some pity for the poor fools like me that can enjoy it for what it is, I pray you...
;)

Walecs

chrisisall wrote:

Walecs wrote:

Still, that wasn't the point of my post.

I know, the point of your post was that QOS was garbage for the most part.
Have some pity for the poor fools like me that can enjoy it for what it is, I pray you...
;)

What makes me hate the movie is that it had a lot of potential. It had great plot basis, but not developed at all.
Plus, the fact that the Quantum thing was never solved leaves me with a big emptyness after watching the movie.

chrisisall

Walecs wrote:

the Quantum thing was never solved leaves me with a big emptyness after watching the movie.

But that's like real life. The shadow evil is never fully brought out into the light...
But yeah, I agree.