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
Actually, because of RDJ's drug history, he was a huuuuge gamble for the role. IM re-made RDJ's film career.
In a nutshell??? Please take a look at film financing and get back to me. What happened in '71 is not the same as today.
Trust me: a bankable star's salary, in a TENTPOLE pic is based on projections of OPENING US BOX OFFICE.
BTW, meant that for @wizard.
Understood, but let's look at SPECTRE's U.S. opening weekend (the most recent 007 opening weekend). It was $70 million. The star is paid more than the opening weekend?
No. Not paid more. The estimate salary is based on opening weekend box office projections, hence TC making about $53 million for being EH (MI films open at about $55 million); and if rumours are to be believed, DC being offered "about" $70 million/pic (the opening weekend of SP) is not out of the realm of possibility.
I know in the real world this accounting is kinda screwed, but film financing is a different beast. And to compare what Connery got paid in '71 to what TC makes for the MI films (that open less than Bond films), or what DC makes on his films, is nuts.
Look at what they are paying lead actors (in non ensemble pics) for tent pole pics. It will be similar to the opening US Box Office receipts. May not make sense to you, but film financing often doesn't make sense to the best of the economists.
It is its own beast and, therefore, as nuts as the Radar article may sound, it's pretty close to what to what the film work would offer a DC (a popular actor, making bank in a franchise series).
Of course, Robert Downey Jr. also did two Sherlock Holmes movies that had worldwide box office of $524 million and $545 million. Not as big as Iron Man, but bigger than The Judge, the aforementioned courtroom drama of his ($84 million).
Daniel Craig has The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo ($232 million worldwide, although MGM said it lost money), The Adventures of Tintin (voice) ($374 million), Cowboys and Aliens, $175 million, and Dream House ($38.5 million)
I just want to enjoy the film with not too many gripes. That's not setting the bar very high I know, but there have been some tough times for Bond fans and just getting a film that is not totally awful from start to finish is a relief.
I'd like a total ban on lame nods to the past - anything that references GF should be banned.
I want an end to the Scooby Doo antics of the MI6 team. Focus on Bond.
I want a strong, slightly weird story with good dialogue and great supporting characters.
Wonderful use of locations that really put Bond in a truly evocative time and place.
All the stuff other people have mentioned really.
Yes for some reason I find SP a much easier watch than SF, although I can totally see all the problems with it that people have highlighted. I don't think Mendes has been brilliant for the Craig era but I guess it could have been a lot worse. And obviously financially it's been pretty successful.
I'm aware of this but you're missing the point I'm making. Downey had already been clean and sobre for a few years before he landed Iron Man. He would have been a gamble for any film where he was the lead actor given his past history and I know Favreau and Terrace Howard batted and championed hard for him. The point I'm making is, Iron Man was a c-list character at worst and a b-list character at best. The role of Iron Man isn't like that of Bond. Bond catapaults one into superstardom but with Iron Man, Downey essentially recreated the character and instantly turned him into a pop culture icon in the space of 2 hours; and it's only because of Downey's charm and charisma that' Iron Man is now A-list (at least with Downey in the role). Downey's performance has also heavily influenced his cartoon shows/comic book counterpart and basically saved the character in the advent of the first civil war comic which had turned Stark into the most hated and despised character in Marvel comics. It's going to be infinitely harder to recast Iron Man than recasting Bond. Remember, where Iron Man is now a huge pop culture icon because of Downey, Bond is much MUCH bigger than that; he's a global institution in spite of Craig or any other actor that gets the role.
For anyone who hasn't seen, I highly recommend Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
The title seems to reference Bond but not sure how deliberate that is.
Good point
It's Bond that's the bankable star here not DC.
Are you telling me Daniel Craig's name on the poster alone would guarantee a $75m opening for any film? Tom Cruise has got decades of proving he can command such fees behind him so if Dan is on more than him he needs to have a word with his agent.
I don't know shit about how stars fees are calculated but I very much doubt Daisy Ridley or Sam Worthington are now getting the projected opening of the next Star Wars film or Avatar 2.
Whereas in 71 you could have put Sean's name on a tube of piles cream and it would have sold by the million.
You may well be correct that in Hollywood they have a rule that a star gets the opening weekend projection. But that doesn't mean you should necessarily pay it.
You will still make a profit with Bond Dan or no Dan. Ok if you keep him you might get a bigger gross. But your profit margin may well be less and you won't have had to risk as much money in the first place.
What if a lot of people came out of SP going 'meh' and don't turn up to B25? You're going to look awfully silly if you've signed off on a $250m budget plus $75m for Dan if the film only takes around $600m which since 95, until the anomaly of SF, was about the benchmark for Bond films.
Establishing that they're going in a fresh new direction with a new star, rather than more of the same, could result in more people going to see it imo. I think that Spectre (which I loved before anyone claims I'm being biased and projecting my own views) might have soured the Craig era in the eyes of many.
I think the key though is making a film that's well recieved. SP managed to make a lot of money despite the reviews because the Bond brand was in a great place after SF. Not sure that the next film will have that luxury. If they want to keep things in the 800 million to over a billion range then they need to get people back on side I think, they need another film that critics and audiences love if they want another hit. Because lets face it Bond isn't the draw it used to be outside of the UK. Batman for example probably guarantees at least 800 million based off the brand alone regardless of the quality of the film. I'd say that the Bond brand guarantees roughly half of that.
Agreed. The story if pursued just leads to more revenge and heartbreak ...boring we've seen that. Don't y'all want something new and fresh? EoN can always try Blofeld again later down the line ...he's not dead.
Absolutely.
What has this Blofeld actually done to put him in the super villain league?
We only think he's Bond's nemesis because we are told he's called Blofeld.
If he'd stayed as plain Franny Oberhauser we'd be saying what a lame villain he is.
@wizard, I agree Bond made Craig, but, I think Craig also made Bond. After DAD, Bond was at an all time low critically. Craig re-invented Bond to almost universal praise (against a spiteful, online backlash that predicted he'd be fired after one film; a challenge RDJ did not have to face in light of IM).
In a separate universe would (runner-up), Henry Cavil's version of CR been as popular and ground-breaking? Judging by his acting ability compared to DC, I think not. He may have been serviceable in the role, I doubt very much ground-breaking.
So as much as DC was made by Bond, he also re-created and put Bond back on the map in a big way. In one film, he changed the game. That's impressive.
Re: Worthington and his ilk, he has never been able to open a picture, and he is now part of ensemble casts, so, no he wouldn't be looking at huge pay-days (comparatively speaking).
I am talking of known LEADING ACTORS in TENTPOLE FILMS. You may not agree with the accounting (most outside of the film industry don't), but these pay days do exist.
As far as TC, outside of MI films, his openings have taken a hit recently (hence why I believe there is now a snaggle with his salary on the new MI pic-- he wants more, the studio is digging their heels in).
So yes, when DC's face is on a BOND poster, it's likely to bring in audiences.
Remember, it's not '71, or, the peak of the star system, the 80s, where the Arnolds and Slys, and Bruces were slugging it out at the box office and their faces on posters would immediately open movies.
Nowadays, very few outside of Denzel Washington and TC (who is more hit or miss outside of MI) can open films. It's a far different star system.
DC's very much imbedded in this role; his face on a 007 poster means bank, and the producers are willing to pay him a star-like salary to get him back into the tux (however, if he were the star of another film outside of 007, I can assure you his salary would take a huge hit and be more grounded in the reality and expectation of that film).
In the U.S. market, Bond films sell between 23 million and 27 million *tickets* with one exception.
The exception is Skyfall at 37 million. (That was about the same number as You Only Live Twice.)
Other than that, SPECTRE is on the low end at 23 million, Die Another Day was at 27 million.
Skyfall gross: roughly $2.8 million a day ($304.4 million divided by 109 days of release).
SPECTRE gross: roughly $1.3 million a day ($200 million divided by 154 days of release).
Craig had menace, I thought he lost it in SPECTRE, sorry I saw a film pretty much devoid of suspense, even the torture sequence I felt no danger.
Craig did feel like Sean Bond previously but it was more like Pierce or Rog here for me.
I just don't feel anything where SPECTRE is concerned it's just quite flat and considering it's budget its not up there on the screen.
I'll always have my obvious low points of the series, DAF, OP, VTAK and in my opinion the Brosnan era full stop but films like YOLT or MR I'm seeing in a new light now.
SPECTRE isn't the worst of the worst but considering what was at stake, the fact the whole DC era was building to this moment, it's all incredibly underwhelming and feels like a waste, on this alone SP will be ranking near the bottom of my list in future.
I'm waiting to see it on Blu ray when it's cheap enough and then I'll write a review of it and try and exorcise my feelings out but as you've probably guessed I'm so deflated, frustrated and utterly disappointed by this film that a reboot seems the safest option.
As someone who loves Craig as Bond something clearly went wrong for me to feel this way.
I didn't know that Daniel Craig is also a co-producer for SPECTRE (2015) as well?
I agree again. He certainly had a commendable early Connery intensity in CR & QoS. I haven't felt that in the last two Mendes entries & I miss it. I wonder if it is by design though (to show maturity).
I thought he had more early Moore in him in SF, but in SP he definitely reminded me more of later Moore and Brosnan. It's in the smirks, expressions and quips, which just give me a cheesy feeling.
For me, Craig therefore felt much more like Connery in TB. Yes, Craig reminded people of Moore and Brosnan, but that's mainly because of the surrounding writing efforts. Craig is Craig, and his strong method acting and staunch coldness when portraying the role, was still present in SP. Just like Connery.
On thee whole, as a person, I think Craig is more comparable to Connery as well.
Yes, I think it was more in the situations as written. Pushing the Fiat felt like it was straight out of a Moore Bond. Falling on the couch somehow felt somehow like it was out of a Brosnan Bond.
Incidentally I remember tabloid reports of how Bond was going to be driving a Fiat in the chase!