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
Will they ever do a Bond film again?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/daniel-craig-james-bond-skyfall-390090
This also confirms the news in 2007 after Casino Royale was correct. Back then, Craig did sign on for four more.
Yet the funniest.
Money is not everything...
It's insane that Craig was paid $17 million to do a film that looks like a hell of a lot of fun to make.
It's tempting to imagnie that Skyfall is FRWL, and to think that the next will look like GF, if the Broccoli continue to use the zeitgeist (TDK meant blockbusters should be serious, so 007 was. Well, now Avengers brought back the fun...). But I don't think any comparison with the 60's is meaningless, really.
The good news is that we won't have a parodic spy movie with Craig's brother, then.
Then, consider that in 64/65, GF and TB did probably less than their final score everyone's talking about here. The final figures probably includes the re-release of the late 60's, the 70's and the 80's, and we're not talking about very little figures, I don't know for all the countries, but it may add up to 5% (which would mean TB didn't actually do 1$bn adjusted on its first release... - I write that even though putting 'adjusted' in any sentence make it almost meaningless most of the time.. in 10 years, TB will be a large adjusted billionnaire despite zero more actual $ spent in the theaters for it :) ).
I put "probably" because it's a nightmare to know the true figures with box office (even today). In some French forums, we have the luck to have contributors from within the industry who can give live figures for the country, and they tell you to forget any hope to have rigourous data for any old movie (except for rankings).
Why doesn't it make the franchise even stronger? I think the Bond franchise depends on the money it brings in.
Guess what happened shortly after 'Licence To Kill': A 6 year hiatus. Bond was in shambles after 'LTK's lacklustre performance. United Artists was going bankrupt, because they were almost solely depending on Bond. Nothing else.
The money 'Skyfall' brings in now, is nothing more than excellent news. I just can't think of any doomsday scenarios right now. I even hear that Bond 24 will be difficult to make now, because 'Skyfall' is so huge. Well, NOT! The success of 'Skyfall' now gives EON, Danjaq, MGM, Sony the best of the best formula to continue on the same excellent road.
'Skyfall' has upgraded the Bond franchise from a 'good money maker' to 'big extreme money maker, Christopher Nolan-style'. This is extremely good news, not bad news.
So yes, money IS important and also, money comes from the audiences, who flog up for this in droves and hence, enjoy it. So - IMO this is pretty much a new Bondmania.
Yup, I think Bond fans should be prepared for another dreamcast for Bond 24.
I would hope the money is spent on the development process and the production, lavish production values for 24 would be top of my list. Aside from Dan, they can incorporate one name actor, other than that I say go for brilliant actors who don't necessarily cost the earth. There are a lot out there and I think they tend to work better for Bond.
I was already an "active" fan at that time, close to the head of the French fan club, and this is a definite re-writing of the history just to make again here your point about LTK being a "flop". UA went essentially bankrupt because of Heaven's Gate a few years before, not because of a movie who ended #11 worldwide !
The fact that Albert Broccoli retired from the business amonst many other things is worth to mention, for instance. Also, the bank who helped then stopped backing the new MGM/UA's weird owner (who had already being sentenced to jail for previous business matters) - the main reason of the hiatus IMO - was a famous French bank at the heart of many scandals at that time, so we were well aware of that here. At that time, Bond was as usual considered a licence worth investing for, to say the least, but legal matters had to be clarified before because of what the owner did with MGM/UA. At that time, to many, "True Lies" was considered the "Bond" movie that could be made because a Bond movie could not be made.
Well said Monsieur.
The reason for the 6 year delay was down to a legal battle between EON and UA over Bond TV rights being flogged off on the cheap.
Get your facts straight Gustav.
LTK didn't do so well, even when you adjust for inflation. It made back its money however.
But even now, if you stuck Bond in the summer sandwiched between other major franchises it wouldn't do so well (I'M LOOOKING AT YOU AMERICA.)
TheWizardOfIce is right. I thank him, he gave the correct historical facts. But let's not discuss that narcist director Michael Cimino. I mainly tried to say why 'Licence To Kill' was a flop from Bond standards. Yes. It earned itself back. Yes. It grossed 5 times the amount of its production budget.
But in this movie business, my sole opinion is that Bond should crush all other franchises. It should be, it should always be the trendsetting standard for other action/spy franchises.
Allthough I did like 'Licence To Kill', it wasn't able to 'win' from 'Crocodile Dundee', 'Batman', 'Jack Ryan', 'Lethal Weapon', 'Indy Jones' and 'Die Hard'. Had 'Licence To Kill' grossed more than $250 million worldwide, then MGM/UA/EON would certainly have been talking a bit more swiftly to get the legal problems solved.
The competition strong? Yes. An excuse to develop a poor marketing/promotion campaign and to strip Bond's Britishness off? No.
For that reason alone, 'Skyfall' is setting a lot of groundbreaking and inspiring standards. That's what the discussion is about no? About 'Skyfall' and its success. And how 'Skyfall', in my opinion, can much easier stay in this 'pleasure wave of success' right now.
To ride the pleasure wave even more, in this article Chris Corbould blends into the discussion about Bond 24:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a440974/dark-knight-rises-christopher-nolan-would-make-a-great-bond-film.html
And BoxOfficeMojo finally started comparing 'Skyfall' with 'Inception' instead of 'Quantum Of Solace':
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=skyfallinception.htm
This is what the success of 'Skyfall' causes: If Sam Mendes can't do it, we always have Christopher Nolan. A few decades ago it was quite unthinkable to 'play' with such big names for a Bond movie. On the contrary, Bond producers were even afraid of bringin in big names as well.
Oh yes, a swindler with criminal records of dubious business do care about franchises and would never have tried to make quick and easy money from a credulous bank etc... Really, dont re-write history.
For your info, worldwide, The Living Daylights did less than the movie of about the same year from Indiana Jones franchise, Batman franchise, Back to the Future franchise (two of them), Lethal Weapon franchise, Jack Ryan franhise, Ghostbuster franchise, Die Hard franchise, Home Alone franchise, Crocodile Dundee franchise, Beverly Hill Cop franchise... Is it a "flop" for you ?
And yet they did another one 2 years after.
And A view to A kill ? It's even closer to TLK score than TLD. It did half of Rocky IV, half of Rambo, half of Indiana Jones, half of Beverly Hills Cop, half of Ghosbusters, etc, etc. And yet they did another one 2 years after too...
Putting the blame on LTK for the 6 years hiatus is overlooking it was NOT as sub-"Bond"-standard as some think. The hiatus has nothing to do with LTK.
There was no Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, Crocodile Dundee or Ghostbusters movie out in 1987. Batman, Home Alone and Die Hard hadn't even started.
This isn't a personal thing. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was actually in the top 10 movies of 1969, yet the studio labelled it a disappointment. That's what Licence to Kill was.
For the last time LTK wasn't a flop. It doesn't matter if you have some dream of Bond beating everything at the box office that it failed to live up to, it made over 5 times it's budget.
It didn't do that well in America but like I said, if SF had gone up against TDKR that wouldn't have either. LTK was also a 15 and had terrible advertising. And it STILL wasn't a flop.
The series did not go on hiatus because of LTK. It was because of a bunch of legal stuff.
Might as well just call it $800Million.
Sheeeeeeyit. When it's all said and done, SF can actually make a $billion.
And???