SPECTRE Production Timeline

1681682684686687870

Comments

  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »

    So what does this mean? That only these portions have 6K instead of 4K?

    Could it mean certain sequences are in a Imax-esque larger ratio much like The Dark Knight & Rises?

    I think that could very much be it yes. As opposed to SF, it seems SP now really seemed to be filmed with IMAX-equipment then...

    It's not IMAX, but it is a larger frame size. IIRC 6K Arri is 65mm (IMAX is a fraction below 70mm). When all said and done it depends where you view it.

    Still, an improvement over the 'fake IMAX' of SF we've all been complaining about no?
  • Posts: 3,164
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »

    So what does this mean? That only these portions have 6K instead of 4K?

    Could it mean certain sequences are in a Imax-esque larger ratio much like The Dark Knight & Rises?

    I think that could very much be it yes. As opposed to SF, it seems SP now really seemed to be filmed with IMAX-equipment then...

    It's not IMAX, but it is a larger frame size. IIRC 6K Arri is 65mm (IMAX is a fraction below 70mm). When all said and done it depends where you view it.

    Still, an improvement over the 'fake IMAX' of SF we've all been complaining about no?

    Essentially the same thing but yes an improvement because 1. It's not the whole film only a few scenes that were intended to be filmed with proper IMAX and 2. Better quality anyway.
  • According to the leaks, filming the three scenes in actual Imax would have added $7 million to the budget, doing it the way they did it added only $100,000.
  • Posts: 5,767
    RC7 wrote: »
    I'll take a two hour film if its paced to perfection.
    I like especially the paced-to-perfection part :-). What do I care for overall length of the film.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 4,619
    antovolk wrote: »
    Basically - and I hope that's ok even tho it's from the leaks - they intended to shoot 3 of the major action set pieces with full 70mm IMAX cameras at 1.44:1, but Mendes backed out last minute - and they've decided to film those "IMAX" sequences at 1.85:1 with spherical as opposed to anamorphic lenses for the rest of the scenes - either with normal 35mm film, VistaVision, or this 6K ARRI digital camera it seems too.

    I'm really hoping they didn't use normal 35mm film for those action sequences, otherwise in non-IMAX theaters (which is the way most people will watch the film) those big action scenes would contain less image information than the other scenes, instead of more.

    Here is a little chart I just made about this issue:
    http://pasteboard.co/1NIJkyAq.png

    Annotations:
    1. This is the image they want to film.
    2. This is how the image would look on the film when shooting without an anamorpic lense. Notice the wasted space on the film (in gray).
    3. The image on the film when shooting with an anamorpic lense. The image is stretched vertically to cover the entire film frame, resulting in a higher quality but distorted image. When projecting the film, a reverse, complementary lens (of the same anamorphic power) shrinks the image vertically to the original proportions. (From Wikipedia).
    4. They shot a few big action scenes with spherical lenses and in 1.85:1 aspect ratio, which results this image. The image covers no more or less film area than Nr. 3., but because the image is not stretched, the filmed and projected image is bigger. (notice the space above and below the star).
    5. The same image projected in non IMAX-theaters (which is the way most people will watch the film). Top and bottom of the image cut, compared to Nr. 4. Now, compare this image to Nr. 3 (wich is how a non-action sequence was shot). You can clearly see that the image covers less film area, which gives you a lower image quality, while having the same aspect ratio.

    I'm not a professional, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, everything I've written above applies onky if they used 35 mm film throughout the filming. I'm really hoping they used those 6K ARRI cameras for the fake-IMAX sequences.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    What does it mean, fake-IMAX?
  • Posts: 4,619
    What does it mean, fake-IMAX?

    What I meant by fake-IMAX sequences are the sequences that were originally intended to be shot with IMAX cameras, but were shot with non-IMAX cameras, although in 1.85:1 aspect ratio at the end.
  • Posts: 2,158
    What does it mean, fake-IMAX?

    Essentially. It wasn't shot in IMAX so shouldnt really be marketed as such. However it seems (sadly) standard pracitce. 'IMAX' means so many things (different shooting standards) that it varies greatly.

    However, shooting in IMAX is a lot more challenging on the production and in post - as well as being a lot more expensive, so its not surprising.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 3,164
    Mallory wrote: »
    What does it mean, fake-IMAX?

    Essentially. It wasn't shot in IMAX so shouldnt really be marketed as such. However it seems (sadly) standard pracitce. 'IMAX' means so many things (different shooting standards) that it varies greatly.

    However, shooting in IMAX is a lot more challenging on the production and in post - as well as being a lot more expensive, so its not surprising.

    Thats why they only say "formatted for IMAX" :)
    According to the leaks, filming the three scenes in actual Imax would have added $7 million to the budget, doing it the way they did it added only $100,000.

    Nice, didn't notice that, thanks! I assume that's excluding the camera cost itself which IMAX were willing to offer to them for free...?
  • Posts: 2,158
    antovolk wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    What does it mean, fake-IMAX?

    Essentially. It wasn't shot in IMAX so shouldnt really be marketed as such. However it seems (sadly) standard pracitce. 'IMAX' means so many things (different shooting standards) that it varies greatly.

    However, shooting in IMAX is a lot more challenging on the production and in post - as well as being a lot more expensive, so its not surprising.

    Thats why they only say "formatted for IMAX" :)
    According to the leaks, filming the three scenes in actual Imax would have added $7 million to the budget, doing it the way they did it added only $100,000.

    Nice, didn't notice that, thanks! I assume that's excluding the camera cost itself which IMAX were willing to offer to them for free...?

    I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to get IMAX to stump up the $7m - and they wouldn't - hence the use of the ARRI.

    I wonder what sequences they will be... Mexico, Italy - Car Chase? and the finale?
  • Posts: 11,119
    Mallory wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    What does it mean, fake-IMAX?

    Essentially. It wasn't shot in IMAX so shouldnt really be marketed as such. However it seems (sadly) standard pracitce. 'IMAX' means so many things (different shooting standards) that it varies greatly.

    However, shooting in IMAX is a lot more challenging on the production and in post - as well as being a lot more expensive, so its not surprising.

    Thats why they only say "formatted for IMAX" :)
    According to the leaks, filming the three scenes in actual Imax would have added $7 million to the budget, doing it the way they did it added only $100,000.

    Nice, didn't notice that, thanks! I assume that's excluding the camera cost itself which IMAX were willing to offer to them for free...?

    I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to get IMAX to stump up the $7m - and they wouldn't - hence the use of the ARRI.

    I wonder what sequences they will be... Mexico, Italy - Car Chase? and the finale?

    Also, it seems the production team of "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation" also used these new revolutionary ARRI 6K camera's for a few sequences/scenes.
  • Posts: 2,158
    Mallory wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    What does it mean, fake-IMAX?

    Essentially. It wasn't shot in IMAX so shouldnt really be marketed as such. However it seems (sadly) standard pracitce. 'IMAX' means so many things (different shooting standards) that it varies greatly.

    However, shooting in IMAX is a lot more challenging on the production and in post - as well as being a lot more expensive, so its not surprising.

    Thats why they only say "formatted for IMAX" :)
    According to the leaks, filming the three scenes in actual Imax would have added $7 million to the budget, doing it the way they did it added only $100,000.

    Nice, didn't notice that, thanks! I assume that's excluding the camera cost itself which IMAX were willing to offer to them for free...?

    I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to get IMAX to stump up the $7m - and they wouldn't - hence the use of the ARRI.

    I wonder what sequences they will be... Mexico, Italy - Car Chase? and the finale?

    Also, it seems the production team of "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation" also used these new revolutionary ARRI 6K camera's for a few sequences/scenes.

    True, I think I read an interview with the makers of MI:RN who said they wanted to shoot IMAX but as their original date was Dec. all the screens would be taken up by Star Wars.

    Thats also a good point, Spectre will be a few weeks before Hunger Games and Star Wars 7, both of which will take up the limited number of IMAX screens that there are. I guess when you make the decision re. shooting in IMAX you have to look at the release schedule and see for how long you can have those screens. Long enough to make your money back?
  • Posts: 3,164
    Mallory wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    What does it mean, fake-IMAX?

    Essentially. It wasn't shot in IMAX so shouldnt really be marketed as such. However it seems (sadly) standard pracitce. 'IMAX' means so many things (different shooting standards) that it varies greatly.

    However, shooting in IMAX is a lot more challenging on the production and in post - as well as being a lot more expensive, so its not surprising.

    Thats why they only say "formatted for IMAX" :)
    According to the leaks, filming the three scenes in actual Imax would have added $7 million to the budget, doing it the way they did it added only $100,000.

    Nice, didn't notice that, thanks! I assume that's excluding the camera cost itself which IMAX were willing to offer to them for free...?

    I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to get IMAX to stump up the $7m - and they wouldn't - hence the use of the ARRI.

    I wonder what sequences they will be... Mexico, Italy - Car Chase? and the finale?

    Also, it seems the production team of "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation" also used these new revolutionary ARRI 6K camera's for a few sequences/scenes.

    True, I think I read an interview with the makers of MI:RN who said they wanted to shoot IMAX but as their original date was Dec. all the screens would be taken up by Star Wars.

    Thats also a good point, Spectre will be a few weeks before Hunger Games and Star Wars 7, both of which will take up the limited number of IMAX screens that there are. I guess when you make the decision re. shooting in IMAX you have to look at the release schedule and see for how long you can have those screens. Long enough to make your money back?

    Yeah but my understanding is that MI:RN will be presented in just the usual scope aspect ratio (2.39:1)

    And yeah - that's why the last Hunger Games was never released in IMAX - because of Interstellar which was shot with IMAX cameras.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    I have to admit this high tech talk of cameras and such goes over my head. I just hope the film won't end up looking cheap during it's action sequences like DAD.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I have to admit this high tech talk of cameras and such goes over my head. I just hope the film won't end up looking cheap during it's action sequences like DAD.

    You've no need to worry. DAD's action scenes are the result of a combination of poor art direction/prod design and cinematography/grading and Tamahori losing any eye he once had for visual consistency. That won't be happening in SP unless Van Hoytema, Gassner and Mendes revert to an amoebic state.
  • Posts: 2,158
    I have to admit this high tech talk of cameras and such goes over my head. I just hope the film won't end up looking cheap during it's action sequences like DAD.

    With Hoyte at the helm, not a chance :)

  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    I have to admit this high tech talk of cameras and such goes over my head. I just hope the film won't end up looking cheap during it's action sequences like DAD.

    You've no need to worry. DAD's action scenes are the result of a combination of poor art direction/prod design and cinematography/grading and Tamahori losing any eye he once had for visual consistency. That won't be happening in SP unless Van Hoytema, Gassner and Mendes revert to an amoebic state.

    Hail hail @RC7 ;-). Thanks for this positive, and very true, message.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 95
    antovolk wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »

    So what does this mean? That only these portions have 6K instead of 4K?

    Could it mean certain sequences are in a Imax-esque larger ratio much like The Dark Knight & Rises?

    I think that could very much be it yes. As opposed to SF, it seems SP now really seemed to be filmed with IMAX-equipment then...

    That Arri camera isn't the IMAX version that will be used on Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War btw.

    Basically - and I hope that's ok even tho it's from the leaks - they intended to shoot 3 of the major action set pieces with full 70mm IMAX cameras at 1.44:1, but Mendes backed out last minute - and they've decided to film those "IMAX" sequences at 1.85:1 with spherical as opposed to anamorphic lenses for the rest of the scenes - either with normal 35mm film, VistaVision, or this 6K ARRI digital camera it seems too.

    Those sequences will I assume be "formatted for IMAX" at the IMAX Digital aspect ratio of 1.89:1 with the Blu-ray/home media version of the film hopefully having these sequences in fullscreen 16:9.

    The final film DCP I assume will be delivered in 4K like Skyfall.

    I've been reading about the different cameras used for SP and was wondering if it's common practice to shoot a film partly in 35mm anamorphic widescreen and also 6k digital with a 1:85 aspect ratio for certain sequences?

    Since SF was all shot digitally using spherical lenses and the others Craig Bond's were Super 35 and spherical, SP is the first anamorphic widescreen Bond since DAD, if I have it correct. That is something I am especially really looking forward to.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    If the producers know anything they'll follow the example set by Jurassic World and Guardians of the Galaxy. These films understood what audiences wanted and gave it too them. Just like everyone wanted depressing character melodrama back in 2006, no one cares about that anymore. The pendulum has swung once again in the direction of big fun escapism and away from serious navel-gazing in big budget film making. While it's my personnel favourite film of all time, if The Dark Knight was made today it wouldn't make a billion because the market isn't interested in realistic interpretations anymore. Those Chris Pratt films understood that what audiences want in 2015 is a return of colourful popcorn flicks without the emotional baggage. That's why Jurassic World is crushing the US BO, and why GOTG performed well ahead of expectations. Casino Royale followed the Bourne example, skyfall used The Dark Knight as a template (why I enjoy It so much) but I hope EON don't continue with the dark character study approach because that time has passed. Compare the time given to develop Chris Pratt's character in JW and Christian Bale's character in BB. With SPECTRE they need to focus less on Bond as a character and more on the film outside of the character i.e. the plot. SPECTRE doesn't have to become a big dumb, soulless machine of a production but it DOES have to cater to those who aren't interested in Bond's inner emotional turmoil. I think SF and TDKR (both 2012) marked the end of that sort of thing being fashionable in blockbuster entertainment, having started with the Bourne films ten years earlier. You can see in SF there are attempts to raise the mood and provide something for audiences to cheer for. We have to hope now that this is the direction they will take from here on out if they are to match SF's huge BO numbers.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 6,601
    Truer words have never been spoken. And this is something to fear. If a silly, cliche driven film with baaad dialogue, many unintentionally funny scenes and bad acting like JW can make this amount of money, Bond doesn't stand a chance.
  • Posts: 3,164
    Brimar wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »

    So what does this mean? That only these portions have 6K instead of 4K?

    Could it mean certain sequences are in a Imax-esque larger ratio much like The Dark Knight & Rises?

    I think that could very much be it yes. As opposed to SF, it seems SP now really seemed to be filmed with IMAX-equipment then...

    That Arri camera isn't the IMAX version that will be used on Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War btw.

    Basically - and I hope that's ok even tho it's from the leaks - they intended to shoot 3 of the major action set pieces with full 70mm IMAX cameras at 1.44:1, but Mendes backed out last minute - and they've decided to film those "IMAX" sequences at 1.85:1 with spherical as opposed to anamorphic lenses for the rest of the scenes - either with normal 35mm film, VistaVision, or this 6K ARRI digital camera it seems too.

    Those sequences will I assume be "formatted for IMAX" at the IMAX Digital aspect ratio of 1.89:1 with the Blu-ray/home media version of the film hopefully having these sequences in fullscreen 16:9.

    The final film DCP I assume will be delivered in 4K like Skyfall.

    I've been reading about the different cameras used for SP and was wondering if it's common practice to shoot a film partly in 35mm anamorphic widescreen and also 6k digital with a 1:85 aspect ratio for certain sequences?

    Since SF was all shot digitally using spherical lenses and the others Craig Bond's were Super 35 and spherical, SP is the first anamorphic widescreen Bond since DAD, if I have it correct. That is something I am especially really looking forward to.

    Not common practice - the 6K at 1.85:1 is genuinely just a replacement for using the 70mm IMAX cameras for select sequences which achieving a similar effect in IMAX theatres.
  • Posts: 11,119
    antovolk wrote: »
    Brimar wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »

    So what does this mean? That only these portions have 6K instead of 4K?

    Could it mean certain sequences are in a Imax-esque larger ratio much like The Dark Knight & Rises?

    I think that could very much be it yes. As opposed to SF, it seems SP now really seemed to be filmed with IMAX-equipment then...

    That Arri camera isn't the IMAX version that will be used on Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War btw.

    Basically - and I hope that's ok even tho it's from the leaks - they intended to shoot 3 of the major action set pieces with full 70mm IMAX cameras at 1.44:1, but Mendes backed out last minute - and they've decided to film those "IMAX" sequences at 1.85:1 with spherical as opposed to anamorphic lenses for the rest of the scenes - either with normal 35mm film, VistaVision, or this 6K ARRI digital camera it seems too.

    Those sequences will I assume be "formatted for IMAX" at the IMAX Digital aspect ratio of 1.89:1 with the Blu-ray/home media version of the film hopefully having these sequences in fullscreen 16:9.

    The final film DCP I assume will be delivered in 4K like Skyfall.

    I've been reading about the different cameras used for SP and was wondering if it's common practice to shoot a film partly in 35mm anamorphic widescreen and also 6k digital with a 1:85 aspect ratio for certain sequences?

    Since SF was all shot digitally using spherical lenses and the others Craig Bond's were Super 35 and spherical, SP is the first anamorphic widescreen Bond since DAD, if I have it correct. That is something I am especially really looking forward to.

    Not common practice - the 6K at 1.85:1 is genuinely just a replacement for using the 70mm IMAX cameras for select sequences which achieving a similar effect in IMAX theatres.

    I have "The Dark Knight" Blu-Ray, and when I watch it I see that with the original IMAX sequences the actual letterboxes disappear so it fills the screen 16:9. Does this mean it will happen to "SPECTRE" too? And next year's Blu-Ray of "SPECTRE"?
  • Posts: 4,619
    . Just like everyone wanted depressing character melodrama back in 2006, no one cares about that anymore. The pendulum has swung once again in the direction of big fun escapism and away from serious navel-gazing in big budget film making. While it's my personnel favourite film of all time, if The Dark Knight was made today it wouldn't make a billion because the market isn't interested in realistic interpretations anymore.

    I couldn't disagree with you more. People want to watch good movies, period. The Dark Knight would be just as successful today as it was back in 2008. It wasn't some depressing little avant garde movie, it was an epic crowd-pleaser that happened to be significantly less dumb than your average summer blockbuster.
  • Posts: 3,164
    antovolk wrote: »
    Brimar wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »

    So what does this mean? That only these portions have 6K instead of 4K?

    Could it mean certain sequences are in a Imax-esque larger ratio much like The Dark Knight & Rises?

    I think that could very much be it yes. As opposed to SF, it seems SP now really seemed to be filmed with IMAX-equipment then...

    That Arri camera isn't the IMAX version that will be used on Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War btw.

    Basically - and I hope that's ok even tho it's from the leaks - they intended to shoot 3 of the major action set pieces with full 70mm IMAX cameras at 1.44:1, but Mendes backed out last minute - and they've decided to film those "IMAX" sequences at 1.85:1 with spherical as opposed to anamorphic lenses for the rest of the scenes - either with normal 35mm film, VistaVision, or this 6K ARRI digital camera it seems too.

    Those sequences will I assume be "formatted for IMAX" at the IMAX Digital aspect ratio of 1.89:1 with the Blu-ray/home media version of the film hopefully having these sequences in fullscreen 16:9.

    The final film DCP I assume will be delivered in 4K like Skyfall.

    I've been reading about the different cameras used for SP and was wondering if it's common practice to shoot a film partly in 35mm anamorphic widescreen and also 6k digital with a 1:85 aspect ratio for certain sequences?

    Since SF was all shot digitally using spherical lenses and the others Craig Bond's were Super 35 and spherical, SP is the first anamorphic widescreen Bond since DAD, if I have it correct. That is something I am especially really looking forward to.

    Not common practice - the 6K at 1.85:1 is genuinely just a replacement for using the 70mm IMAX cameras for select sequences which achieving a similar effect in IMAX theatres.

    I have "The Dark Knight" Blu-Ray, and when I watch it I see that with the original IMAX sequences the actual letterboxes disappear so it fills the screen 16:9. Does this mean it will happen to "SPECTRE" too? And next year's Blu-Ray of "SPECTRE"?

    Yes, in IMAX theatres. And probably on the Blu-ray too.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    antovolk wrote: »
    Brimar wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »

    So what does this mean? That only these portions have 6K instead of 4K?

    Could it mean certain sequences are in a Imax-esque larger ratio much like The Dark Knight & Rises?

    I think that could very much be it yes. As opposed to SF, it seems SP now really seemed to be filmed with IMAX-equipment then...

    That Arri camera isn't the IMAX version that will be used on Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War btw.

    Basically - and I hope that's ok even tho it's from the leaks - they intended to shoot 3 of the major action set pieces with full 70mm IMAX cameras at 1.44:1, but Mendes backed out last minute - and they've decided to film those "IMAX" sequences at 1.85:1 with spherical as opposed to anamorphic lenses for the rest of the scenes - either with normal 35mm film, VistaVision, or this 6K ARRI digital camera it seems too.

    Those sequences will I assume be "formatted for IMAX" at the IMAX Digital aspect ratio of 1.89:1 with the Blu-ray/home media version of the film hopefully having these sequences in fullscreen 16:9.

    The final film DCP I assume will be delivered in 4K like Skyfall.

    I've been reading about the different cameras used for SP and was wondering if it's common practice to shoot a film partly in 35mm anamorphic widescreen and also 6k digital with a 1:85 aspect ratio for certain sequences?

    Since SF was all shot digitally using spherical lenses and the others Craig Bond's were Super 35 and spherical, SP is the first anamorphic widescreen Bond since DAD, if I have it correct. That is something I am especially really looking forward to.

    Not common practice - the 6K at 1.85:1 is genuinely just a replacement for using the 70mm IMAX cameras for select sequences which achieving a similar effect in IMAX theatres.

    I have "The Dark Knight" Blu-Ray, and when I watch it I see that with the original IMAX sequences the actual letterboxes disappear so it fills the screen 16:9. Does this mean it will happen to "SPECTRE" too? And next year's Blu-Ray of "SPECTRE"?

    Yes.
    . Just like everyone wanted depressing character melodrama back in 2006, no one cares about that anymore. The pendulum has swung once again in the direction of big fun escapism and away from serious navel-gazing in big budget film making. While it's my personnel favourite film of all time, if The Dark Knight was made today it wouldn't make a billion because the market isn't interested in realistic interpretations anymore.

    I couldn't disagree with you more. People want to watch good movies, period. The Dark Knight would be just as successful today as it was back in 2008. It wasn't some depressing little avant garde movie, it was an epic crowd-pleaser that happened to be significantly less dumb than your average summer blockbuster.

    Agreed. If SP is a great movie people will go and see it.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Truer words have never been spoken. And this is something to fear. If a silly, cliche driven film with baaad dialogue, many unintentionally funny scenes and bad acting like JW can make this amount of money, Bond doesn't stand a chance.

    No need to panic. Yes, Spectre probably won't make nearly as much as Jurassic World did. Guess what? It doesn't need to.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Why would you think, it doesn't need to? I believe, it never needed to break the line more. Maybe not EXACTLY JW territory, but close enough.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Truer words have never been spoken. And this is something to fear. If a silly, cliche driven film with baaad dialogue, many unintentionally funny scenes and bad acting like JW can make this amount of money, Bond doesn't stand a chance.

    Lol ...yea the dinosaurs were the only believable actors in that flick.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Yes if you show a film at 3000 screens people will go and see it. But that is not what big budget filmmaking is about. Its about being on the pulse of audience tastes and cultural trends. In order to stay relevant Bond has had to reinvent itself every few years to remain appealing to mass audiences. Like with anything there is a way to do something well and there is a lazy way. Films like transformers are bad examples of blockbuster cinema. The Dark Knight is a brilliant example because it captured what audiences wanted at that moment in time. If you released the film now, while it would certainly fill seats, it would not do the same explosive numbers that it did back in 2008 for the same reason that if you released jaws in cinema now it wouldn't find the same success that it did. Its all about timing. Again I'm not saying they would be considered worse films, but they wouldn't penetrate the market in the same way. So no, it is not enough to simply be a good film. Not at this level.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Let's not forget that yes even with the drama Spectre also appears to be going after the old time fun of Bond too. Remember Mendes saying Bond would be a bit more mischievous?
Sign In or Register to comment.