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
If Spectre is perceived as being very good it will make the money that is needed to regard it as a success.
If it does not as well as hoped things like "had to much competition" or "the marketing campaign wasn't good" are lame excuses.
Since Goldeneye, the movie that got the Bond franchise on a new level of success, every Bond movie that came out made at least almost as much money as the one before or even much more. Why should Spectre be any different?
HIGH RESOLUTION photos.
Videoblog is short, but sweet. Both are great actresses.
Oberhauser is not Blofeld, he just can't be, it would be the most ridiculous thing and make the movie a parody.
Oberhauser is Bond's childhood acquaintance.
Either some other actor will be revealed as Blofeld or Blofeld is not in the movie at all.
Nice Vlog. A bit too short though. Slightly disappointed they didn't include Stephanie Sigman. Still, Léa and Monica look incredible and will be awesome Bond babes.
I love this shot:
Okay @Smitty. I think most of your worries are unfounded. And in all honesty, I think they have been strengthened by all the other spy films that have premiered so far.
First of all. I agree with you that the Sony Leaks are certainly not the best promotion for Sony itself. On the contrary, we saw what happened. Amy Pascal had to leave. Attached to that where the so called "budget concerns". What budget concerns ARE we actually talking about?? James Bond is never short on budget. There was merely a different opinion in the budget size between Sony/MGM and Eon Productions. Barbara, like his dad, wanted the higher budget, Sony/MGM wanted slightly lower. But I really don't understand what the real problem about this is. It WOULD have been a problem if Sony/MGM ordered a very tight less than $100 Million budget. THAT would have been a problem IMO. But that's not the case.
We should be blessed with this insanely high production budget. And if not, then we should at least recognize that it would not influence the quality of the film in either a positive or negative way. That's what I think was the biggest 'free promotional effect' of this "budget talk". It doesn't help the film, but I firmly believe it doesn't hurt the film either.
The only thing that worries ME, is the fact that because of this China will again delay the premiere of "SPECTRE". Similar to "Skyfall" back in 2012. But even then, we could expect similar box office gains in China as compared to "Skyfall", which isn't great, but it isn't bad either.
Regarding the script issues. May I remind you that the production of "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation" was troubled too? They actually had to re-shoot and re-write the ending of the film. And on top of that, they started filming with an unfinished screenplay! Look where we are now: "Rogue Nation" is hailed, especially by me, as one of the best "M:I"-films to date. So all these problems can also result in positive corrections. These so called 'problems' can make the production team more focused and sharper, eradicating all or most of the flaws in the screenplay or in the shooting during production.
Having said that, we talk a lot about "Quantum Of Solace" being influenced by all the screenplay problems and writing strikes. In all honesty? Even THEN a director needs to make the right decisions about things like editing, cinematography, etc. IMO Marc Forster made some bad choices regarding this. Christopher McQuarrie didn't. Despite all the production problems, he still made the right directorial decisions. So why shouldn't we have some trust in Sam Mendes doing the same?? Especially after "Skyfall"
Lastly: There is no "bigger mountain to climb" for "SPECTRE". Yes, "Skyfall" raised the bar very high, quality-wise and box office-wise. But then all I want is "SPECTRE" to solidify this, NOT forcefully questioning Sam Mendes all the time when the film isn't finished yet. "SPECTRE" in my opinion can not hugely improve anymore, after two great Bond flicks, "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall". What "SPECTRE" CAN do is this: Becoming one of Craig's best three Bond films out of four. Which would be rather unique as opposed to Brosnan's four outings. And on top of that, if "SPECTRE" grosses between $950 Million and $1.3 Billion I am a very very satisfied Bond fan. And trust me, it'll gross more than $1.2 Billion.
However, something interesting to note: Within the press release for the videoblog the script is credited to four people: John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth.
We all knew that Butterworth was working in some capacity on the film, but most of us thought he was simply a ghost writer or script doctor. He worked on the SF script in a similar way. It sees Butterworth's contribution is significant enough to earn credit this time out.
Oh, and did anyone notice Lea's dress? The fabric hugs her body like a second skin. Sexy.
Rogue Nation had Christopher McQuarrie, who not only directed the movie, but also wrote the screenplay for it. Spectre has a great director and 4 not so good writers... Btw, they didn't start filming Spectre without an unfinished screenplay as far as I know. They started filming it with a finished but mediocre one.
@Gustav, I sure hope you're right about SP grossing more than $1.2 Billion.
Whatever the budget is for SP it's not much bigger than the budget for QoS and we can already see tge differences. To date, CR looks like the most expensive Bond movie in over 30 years and it has the smallest budget of the Craig era. SP already looks like they spared no expense and yiu can see the money on the screen. SP doesn't look cheap and if the movie has the same editing or better than SF, we're all going to be awestruck by this glamorous beautiful looking movie.
Furthermore, I'm confident SP is going to do much better internationally than SF did, especially in China. The thing to remember is, SP isn't SF or SF2. The cast and crew have said it and we've seen evidence to support it, that SP is a very different movie in which Mendes who dipped his toe into shallow waters with SF has now dived and doing some deep sea dwelling with SP. It's going to be a huge blockbuster.
Additionally, the responses, reviews and assessments of the spy movies that have been released so far are quite interesting and pose no real substantial threat to Bond. Someone mentioned earlier that these movies have inadvertently acted as a marketing and promotional vehicle to Bond and that is correct. Even UNCLE has the tag line on its posters, "giving Bond a run for his money"and as fun and great as these movies have been its easy to identify their lack when compared to what SP looks set to offer.
MI may have similarities to SP e.g. the locations but SP so far have clearly used the locations in a very different and what looks to be a more atmospheric way. I think people will be surprised to learn tgat MI won't even enter their minds locationwise when watching SP because tge use of locations are so different.
Some of the reviews I've read for UNCLE are pretty uneven with their assessments and one of tge main criticisms is Cavill being hollow and having no personality as Solo even though he looks the part, with some reviewers calling the performance forgettable and going as far to recast. Obviously, not every one is of that opinion but that opinion is circulating out there amongst these critics. I bring this up because it's a testament to what Craig has done, been doing and will continue to do as Bond and it should serve as a guideline to so many people here who think just because they see a guy in a nice suit he'd make a good Bond. No. It doesn't work like that. Cavill walks around cocksure in beautiful 3 piece suits and puts his good looks on display and his calling to be the next Bond increases 5 times over and yet, those who have seen the movie, some really aren't impressed. The role of Bond is a much bigger balancing act and I think Craig is going to blow many people away come October. SP is going to be a huge success.
Yup. Fully agree :-). Those damned crew members are playing with us fans. And I love it ;-).
Yup, that was me @DoubleoEgo ;-). It's the perfect free marketing for a Bond film I think. With the release of every spy-film, "Kingsman", "Taken 3", "Spy", "Rogue Nation" and "UNCLE" people are indirectly reminded about James Bond. Just look at their poster designs. And also watch the actual films :-).
Moreover, I have a feeling that the relatively low PR during this summer, 2nd trailer excluded, is quite smart. Sony/MGM/EON planned this all skillfully. Before the huge spring/summer blockbusters premiered, they gave us one hell of a teaser trailer, very early actually, and several blogs. Then all these big ones premiered, like "Furious 7", "Avengers 2", "Jurassic World" and "Minions". It's quite worthless during this period to flood us with blogs and trailers. Even Disney backed off slightly with their promo-campaign for "Star Wars" during that period, and as of this week is going full-throttle again marketing-wise.
And now, we recently had the 2nd trailer after these big blockbusters. And now the summer box office is winding down, you'll see we get flooded by vlogs, another trailer and many articles.
Smart indeed if you ask me :-).
I can't find the press release, have you got a link?
Actually, these are very very insightful remarks from Mendes. It reminds me of "OHMSS" when director Peter Hunt needed to have a strong, well-known, established actress to play the part of Tracy. Moreover, it seems now very obvious that Sam Mendes really wants A-listed actors for his Bond films. And in return, those A-listed actors really like to work with a big name like Mendes.
The Bond franchise has been truly "upped" to new levels when Martin Campbell and Sam Mendes landed their jobs as directors.
Pre-production should already begin NOW for Bond 25. But I'm afraid it won't until late 2016.
They will be chucking around ideas, unofficially.
As you think Guy Ritchie is absolutely not the right person to direct a Bond film, I want to ask this. Do you have a shortlist of favorite directors you'd like to see directing Bond 25....26?
Jonathan Nolan would be perfect but the disadvantage with him is, he would need his brother to direct the movie, at least the first one. He is not independent enough yet to be on his own.
Matthew Vaughn would be perfect for a new style of Bond that is needed desperately after Craig has gone.
Guy Ritchie, now that would be fantastic, imagine what Ritchie could do with Bond.
Luc Besson. If anyone has proven to be able to do spy/action/thrillers then it's him.
I think one of the most important things is to get someone who is not strictly a writer.
The best movies are mostly made by director/writers like the ones I mentioned above.
After all the dust settles later this year, all the other spy films have come out, the leaks issue becomes a lesser issue to the general movie going public, all the money of the budget and the quality of the cast and crew shows up on the big screen, we will see exactly why Bond is still going stronger than ever after 53 years! No other franchise can math that.
From everything I know, have seen/read/heard about SP and all the people working on it, I honestly feel it would have to be messed up big time to not at least work well at the minimum and completely great at best. I am very hopeful.
"Four not so good writers"? What are you talking about?
-P&W are staples of the Bond team since 1998. Often when a film is successful praise is never bestowed upon them but when the film doesn't work, they are left with the blame. Regardless of there quality as writers (which is certainly intermittent), they know the Bond world extremely well and have been behind the scripts for CR and SF. They also clearly have the trust of EON to have continued working with them for 17 years.
-John Logan is an Academy Award nominated writer who has worked with directors ranging from Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott and Oliver Scott. He's an A-list writing talent in Hollywood. I know he ran into issues with the SP production, but it's inevitable that on big projects like this that writers are replaced. After all, Logan was introduced to the Bond world to retool someone else's efforts.
-Jez Butterworth has only recently concentrated on moving into features having come from a background in theatre as a playwright. He's essentially from the same world as Mendes and has won considerable acclaim. Interestingly, putting his name in a Wikileaks search you can see in an email from Jonathan Glickman that Mendes wanted to do a deal with Butterworth in June. Apparently, it was very important to him to sign him up, even though Jez would not be free till the beginning of September.
That's around the same time as P&W came onboard as well. It seems Mendes wanted Butterworth on as soon as that pair finished their draft.
I understand the script had some teething issues coming together but every big blockbuster film does. Is this film going to be dreadful? Who knows? The leaked scripts are probably indicative of the quality but a lot can change in terms of story and execution. For me, Mendes is the great sell of this film and the style, look and action are things that don't come across on the page. They need to be interpreted and placed on the screen and I have faith it'll work out.
I already mentioned it somewhere. Yann Demange, doing a really stripped back film with a new Bond. I'd also be keen to see what Joe Wright would do.
I loved " '71". Great film. Have it on steelbook now. But ehm...I don't remember many films from him...
What do you mean with " stripped back"?