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
Agreed. As someone in the UK I say spend as much on it as possible: it's money into the economy and gives people jobs.
Someone gets it. =D>
You didn't mention (or even hint at) that once previously but if your previous comments were all about the economy and more workers getting their due, then I'm in full support of that. Can't make a film without a good crew! :)
Exactly.. Mendes tends to shift and move goalposts as he sees fit.
In the end, whatever the budget, throw it all on the screen and make the best damn movie you can— which is always the objective.
And Bond films create jobs, which is the lovely gravy of this series— but that wasn’t being discussed before and wasn’t mentioned, but that’s Mendes being Mendes.
I would love it if the next Bond film was made for 150 million and then the 70 to 100 million saved went in to financing 5 or 6 lesser budgeted films with cool concepts that showed promise, but that's not the reality we live in. In our world there's literally billions of dollars floating around in the ether, and if it doesn't go towards bond, it'll go towards the next Argylle or Napolean. Given that's the case, why would you want bond to only cost 150 million, when "saving" 70 or 100 million means it will only be spent on an even more speculative venture with even finer odds of striking gold? There is only one of these films every half decade, and it's a rare place for money to be put where it might see a return, why would you purposefully WANT less spent on it?
Specific to Villeneuve, this hyperbolic back and forth started with you describing him only being given $150 million to make a Bond film as a "big blunder", despite the fact that he managed to make an operatic space fantasy film for $190 million. He also made Blade Runner 2049 for $170 million, so it was put to you that he would be more than capable of producing a grand, epic Bond film for the suggested $150 million.
You then talked about it not really mattering to Amazon what they spend on it because they can just write it off anyway, and then wrote some bits about the streaming model. The replies then focused on the consequences of hiring a director of that calibre only to do that.
We then ended with "well they should spend more because then more people get paid" (which on its own is perfectly justifiable), and "if they don't spend it somewhere else then it'll possibly get spent on other stuff" as if the budget is the only factor in how good a film is and not the script, the cast, or the director (and the director in this case spends his money wisely; numerous examples provided).
So, the issue isn't that people don't get it. The issue is that there was absolutely no cohesion or throughline to what you were trying to talk about, @Mendes4Lyfe .
I believe Edgar Wright was with these two. I may be mistaken, but this was taken when they visited the government to give testimonies about the importance of a thriving independent UK film industry which lead to amazing tax credits worth up to 40% (?) (please correct me if I’m wrong).
Yeah, this was a while ago wasn't it? Certainly not as recent as the media are leading people to believe.
@CraigMooreOHMSS the reason our understandings originally forked away from eachother on divergent paths is down to the notion of yours that saving money and being thrifty or "overegging the pudding" as you put it, would provide some kind of benefit. My entire contribution to the discussion has been in order to make it clear that there IS no better place for amazon to put its money than bond, given they only come along every half a decade. Essentially the assumption that if less is spent on Bond it'll go to smaller films that need it is wrong, it'll go to other massive budget gambles with much higher chance of failure, leading to more industry turmoil in the long run. No one should wish it that this is the way of things, but as long as is STILL IS the way, better that the money should go to Bond, where there is actually a hope, and not just a gamblers lucky blow on the dice. And if that is not your assumption, then please, explain how wanting less money to go to Bond 26 makes for a better result, as that was your original assertion, of "overegging the pudding".
Those pics were taken about a month ago. And yes, it’s not like it was just Nolan and Broccoli hanging out. They were going to the same place/event and Edgar Wright was closely behind them. Still, maybe it reveals something that Barbara Broccoli is talking to Nolan in those pics instead of talking to Edgar Wright.
Oh boy…. Poor @CraigMooreOHMSS … I sincerely feel for you, 😂. Please don’t pull all your hair out. Seriously, I had to read this several times, and wondered each time, “but when did Craig say this???”….
My point wasn't about saving money, or being thrifty (you're putting words in my mouth there to make it sound like they should cheap out, which is a bizarre way of interpreting what I wrote, @Mendes4Lyfe). The actual point, repeated multiple times, was that you should spend what you need to in order for the creative team to make the film they want to. I even wrote "no more, no less" in relation to this point. If a great film can be made for $150 million, it doesn't mean that spending an extra $70 million on it will make it a better film. That would be "overegging the pudding". Needless. But if Amazon are happy to do that, then hey.....it's their money! They can do what they want with it. Maybe they can setup a pension for the Bond 26 catering crew with a note that says "this is to stop the next Argylle being made!"
:)
So you're essentially making a religious argument, that a budget is right because its "just so" - its ordained. You say "if a great film can be made for 150 million" but great films are on their way to becoming greater films before they run out of money. Stanley Kubrick ran out of money, George Lucas ran out of money, that's the limiting factor - they ran out of money.
@Mendes4Lyfe , @CraigMooreOHMSS is a savy screenwriter who has actually produced and directed his own projects. He's not just plucking thoughts out of thin air. He speaks from a place of experience and it isn't hyperbolic of him to say that a 150 million dollar film wouldn't necessarily be better by plunking down $70 million more in financing. If it's not needed, it becomes wasteful.
Budgets are designed to best depict the story on the page (which includes the best and available above and below line talent)....
And once again, you're comparing apples to oranges with a young George Lucas running out of cash, or Kubrick, who made films ignoring everything but his own gut.
This is a Bond picture. The budgets being made, based off of the scripts, dictate what is needed, and what isn't...
Once again, Craig Moore really knows what he's talking about, works in the industry, and isn't being contrarian for the sake of it. If you were making any bit of sense, and if what you say is true, he (and me, and others), would actually agree with you.
But you're all over the place on this, and you're not grasping anything Craig has said to you...
I had to read that a couple of times to make sure I hadn't utterly lost my mind, my goodness. No, I made the hypothetical assertion that $150 million gets you a completed, great Denis Villeneuve-helmed James Bond film. Not one that has seemingly "ran out of money" for some reason. As already said, but I will repeat it again for you, give the filmmakers what they need to make the film. No more, no less.
P.s. Thank you, @peter.
Okay then, your assertion seems to be that Denis villeneuve can make a great Bond film with 150 million, so why even contemplate giving him more, and my assertion is there is a pot of 220 million just sitting there, and it's going to go towards ridley Scott's Thelma and Louise 2 electric boogaloo, so why not give Villenueve the chance to make a worldie bond film for the ages?
But you still aren't explaining why it's not a good idea to spend more than absolutely necessary, so your essentially making a religious argument, this can only cost THIS much, therefore that's how much it SHOULD cost. In philosophy, thats what's called a deontological argument.
Oh, I'm staying out of this.
But I still have to comment on what's bold over there. And it's just this: no, that's not actually it, unless you're trying to be borderline metaphorical, and even then, it's a bit of a push.
Okay then, explain.
Thank you.
Same goes for the first Dune film (haven't yet seen the second one). They really SHOULD have spent more on it, the cheap degenerates.
If Villeneuve requires more than $150 million, give it to him! :)
Also, I've come to the realization that this thread is one of the most open threads in the forums. I mean, "where does Bond go after Craig" can refer to ethos, geography, cast, ... And we're 501 pages in. Interesting.
At page "1" @ThomasCrown76 said this: "Well we've had Brosnan, we've had Craig, I guess the next bond will have a last name starting with the letter D:)"
And that's as good as guess as any, even regarding money ;)
Thank God (my only religious argument in this thread).
Right? But let's broaden the concept to phonetics, so we can have Theo James [DJAYMZ] ;)
As a true Bond fan, Umberto Eco would be proud :)