› › ›

Sam Mendes to direct Bond 24?

1…3637383941

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    You mean chop things up.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    I have taken advice and altered the title to reflect where we are at the moment. We can remove the question mark as and when
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited June 2013 Posts: 5,767
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    Again, here's the real reasons why we may have to wait until 2015 whether we like it or not. One, they want Mendes and are clearly willing to wait for him, I think this has been the plan all along and that the lack of other directors lining up to take the job made them even more determined to get him, if indeed he is announced officially as the director. Two, I know some disagree but I genuinely think they know they are getting older and I think they want more down time than a 2 year schedule allows. Wilson's complaint about how tired he was after CR and QOS may not apply to Barb, but I feel he was genuine when he said it. Three, I think what happened with QOS with all the turmoil both spooked and exposed them, because their decisions between trashing the original script, hiring Forster, allowing the film to resemble Bourne with the action editing, etc, etc, etc certainly cast doubts on their ability, if not in their minds then almost certainly in the minds of their audience, to land on their feet in situations like this.
    What exactly was that turmoil? The only audience who complained more over QOS than over CR was here on the internet. At the cinemas QOS was merely a bit less of a success than CR.

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    Moreover, if a 2-year gap doesn't do any damage, the same will go for a 3-year gap and a 4-year gap. If it's not scientifically proven to say a longer gap automatically results in 'better movies', then at least you can say it'll never do the production of Bond 24 any damage.

    By the same rationale where is the evidence that making it in two years results in an inferior film?

    I prefer to be patient and think like how a producer would think, instead of a fan that only wants to fulfill his own selfish injection of 'one Bond film every two year'.

    Your patronizing attitude fits your "nickname" very well indeed.

    I am sorry if I caused some rage. Is not my intention. I just wanted to say: Let's be patient and show some empathy, respect and trust towards the Bond producers. I think it is quite isrespectful if one fan only says: "One Bond film every two years! No matter what! Get cracking EON dammit!!". I find that not nice.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited June 2013 Posts: 4,511
    Bourne 3 take 3 years ad that whas way to long for a movie who be a copy of the second one and that also be my idea of my expections of TDKR. It take 2 years to get Bourne Supramacy, so why 3 years for Bourne ultimatum. Those should have been made back to back and released in 2004 and 2005 or 2004 and 2006. Universal going to make the mistake again.

    We wait 4 years between QOS and Skyfall, if can accepted Bond 25 in 2017 so long we get Bond 24 in 2014 or January 2015. 6 Years between QOS and Bond 24 (The time between DAD and QOS is also 6 years). means it give you feeling we wait 3 years if released in 2014 and with 2015 it wil feel as 3,5 years.

    With my opnion Skyfall is a movie who easy can be released in 2010 it feel we wait 4 or 5 years til Bond 24. With Sam Mendes already confirmd at the end of 2009, Skyfall can have been released in 2011. I understand like DAD in 2002 (2003! for The Netherlands) there choose for 2012 when it look like we don't get a movie in 2010 (what i think should have done), but DC 4th should not let us wait another 4 years. It is realy time we get another Bond movie after 2 years after Skyfall, so it be DC his second Bond movie with only 2 years like GE-TMND / TMND-Twine.

    I mabey whant a 6th Bond movie with DC and whyle sometimes i stil don;t like idea Pierce Brosnan don't get so much time as Dc, with a 2015 or 2016 i think a 6th wil not happen in 2019!. Keep in mind i expect on this moment he wil make his fift in 2017 and then there 5 years to find a new Bond. Then there can let us wait.

  • hullcityfanhullcityfan Banned
    Posts: 496
    Has this thread changed it's name?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    echo wrote:
    Why not bring back Forster? He'd shake things up.

    The problem was that he also shook the camera lenses a bit too much too as much as I love QoS!
  • nobodydoesitbetternobodydoesitbetter
    Posts: 1,021

    all the talk about BOND 24 as sent the film to the top of the HITFIX movie power ranking...

    http://www.hitfix.com/news/movie-power-rankings-james-bond-returns-to-no-1
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Dragonpol wrote:
    echo wrote:
    Why not bring back Forster? He'd shake things up.

    The problem was that he also shook the camera lenses a bit too much too as much as I love QoS!

    Yes, that was a good pun on @echo's post. And true... ;)
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited June 2013 Posts: 5,767
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    echo wrote:
    Why not bring back Forster? He'd shake things up.

    The problem was that he also shook the camera lenses a bit too much too as much as I love QoS!

    Yes, that was a good pun on @echo's post. And true... ;)
    Good pun, yes. True not very much, actually. I´m surprised at how many people still claim that there´s so much shaking camera in QOS. The editing is quite qick for sure, but most of the frames are steady, and the content is sharply visible.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    echo wrote:
    Why not bring back Forster? He'd shake things up.

    The problem was that he also shook the camera lenses a bit too much too as much as I love QoS!

    Yes, that was a good pun on @echo's post. And true... ;)

    Thank you, kind sir. I simply could not resist that one, but I rate QoS in my Top 5 Bond Films!
  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    Posts: 388
    boldfinger wrote:
    What exactly was that turmoil? The only audience who complained more over QOS than over CR was here on the internet. At the cinemas QOS was merely a bit less of a success than CR.

    Yeah, but the internet is made up of real people posting their opinions.

    The biggest indication that QoS wasn't nearly as popular with viewers is the way the audience dropped off massively after the opening weekend. To take the US: CR grossed $167m and QoS grossed $168m. Almost identical. But take a look at what happened between the first two weekends on each film: CR grossed $40m on its first weekend and $30m on its second weekend - a drop in audience of only 25% (which is very good.) QoS grossed $67m on its first weekend and $26m on its second weekend - a drop in audience of 60%. That indicates that QoS had a bigger marketing campaign and people went to see it on opening weekend based on posters, trailers etc.; but it had much worse word of mouth - by the second weekend, some punters have heard it's not very good and decided to give it a miss.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    And we know for sure the people who have their investment in the films do look at the 2nd, 3rd, etc. weekend box office. Of course they do, and it does influence their decisions regarding future films.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    It doesn't disprove your point but Skyfall had a drop nearer to 60% on it's second weekend too.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    boldfinger wrote:
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    Again, here's the real reasons why we may have to wait until 2015 whether we like it or not. One, they want Mendes and are clearly willing to wait for him, I think this has been the plan all along and that the lack of other directors lining up to take the job made them even more determined to get him, if indeed he is announced officially as the director. Two, I know some disagree but I genuinely think they know they are getting older and I think they want more down time than a 2 year schedule allows. Wilson's complaint about how tired he was after CR and QOS may not apply to Barb, but I feel he was genuine when he said it. Three, I think what happened with QOS with all the turmoil both spooked and exposed them, because their decisions between trashing the original script, hiring Forster, allowing the film to resemble Bourne with the action editing, etc, etc, etc certainly cast doubts on their ability, if not in their minds then almost certainly in the minds of their audience, to land on their feet in situations like this.
    What exactly was that turmoil? The only audience who complained more over QOS than over CR was here on the internet. At the cinemas QOS was merely a bit less of a success than CR.

    Fair point regarding a similar box office, although I think a lot of that had to do with public goodwill stemming from CR. But on such sites as Rotten Tomatoes as an example of popularity, CR rates 87% to 62% for QOS. I don't think that it's just hardcore fans who feel this way, apparently the general public without our level of interest agrees.

    I shouldn't have to explain the "turmoil", the issues that caused it are well known. I don't dislike QOS personally and I'd like to think that I find more value in it than the average poster, it's my opinion that they rushed the eventual product due to time and money as well as making other poor hiring decisions, and what we got could have been a lot better.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited June 2013 Posts: 2,015
    And don't forget the "rule" that the quality of movie number N in a franchise is linked to the box office of N+1 (it's usually a "rule" to explain that movie 1 is a sleeper success, popular on DVD and TV, etc, movie 2 is a frontloaded box office hit but a rotten tomato, and movie 3 a failure on every level). Then, according to that "rule", QoS is the movie that built Skyfall success, and if Bond 24 goes back to QoS level, it will mean Skyfall was the overrated one :)

    Or, to phrase it like a "know it all", QoS didn't prevent Skyfall from being a success, to say the least, so it certainly was not judged so poorly...

    Once again, I don't mean it is closer to the truth than the opposite that is described above. I just mean you can always find what looks like "sound" explications for every direction you want to go in the movie business. Here, the fact that CR dropped "only" 40% on the second week end in the USA, is mostly linked to the fact CR wasn't even #1 on its first week end. Movies are released on a very competitive market. Both CR and QOS had to face an animated movie when it was released on the US, something Skyfall had not.

    Happy Feet beat Casino Royale for that famous first US week end, it was all over the news. Let's say it meant DAD wasn't well perceived. Hm, the "rule" works then :)

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited June 2013 Posts: 28,694
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Thank you, kind sir. I simply could not resist that one, but I rate QoS in my Top 5 Bond Films!

    Much respect, sir! =D>
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited June 2013 Posts: 5,767
    Sir_James_Moloney wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    What exactly was that turmoil? The only audience who complained more over QOS than over CR was here on the internet. At the cinemas QOS was merely a bit less of a success than CR.

    Yeah, but the internet is made up of real people posting their opinions.

    The biggest indication that QoS wasn't nearly as popular with viewers is the way the audience dropped off massively after the opening weekend. To take the US: CR grossed $167m and QoS grossed $168m. Almost identical. But take a look at what happened between the first two weekends on each film: CR grossed $40m on its first weekend and $30m on its second weekend - a drop in audience of only 25% (which is very good.) QoS grossed $67m on its first weekend and $26m on its second weekend - a drop in audience of 60%. That indicates that QoS had a bigger marketing campaign and people went to see it on opening weekend based on posters, trailers etc.; but it had much worse word of mouth - by the second weekend, some punters have heard it's not very good and decided to give it a miss.
    First, internet communities do not by any means represent the general public audience. Amongst my friends the opinions about Bond films are usually quite different from what I find here.
    Second, what you point out regarding the first and second weekends in the US is surely true, but didn´t QOS overall gross nearly as much as CR at cinemas? Correct me if I´m wrong.
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    Fair point regarding a similar box office, although I think a lot of that had to do with public goodwill stemming from CR. But on such sites as Rotten Tomatoes as an example of popularity, CR rates 87% to 62% for QOS. I don't think that it's just hardcore fans who feel this way, apparently the general public without our level of interest agrees.

    I shouldn't have to explain the "turmoil", the issues that caused it are well known. I don't dislike QOS personally and I'd like to think that I find more value in it than the average poster, it's my opinion that they rushed the eventual product due to time and money as well as making other poor hiring decisions, and what we got could have been a lot better.
    Rotten Tomatoes is a site of film critics. Film critics never have and never will represent the public audience. I for one find myself more often in disagreement with their percentages than not.

    As for QOS being rushed, I don´t see where that shows on the screen. I mean I respect it if people don´t enjoy the fast editing and other things, but I myself enjoy the film as it is very much in all kinds of regard. I think the timing of the cuts is brilliant, and I don´t think at all they look un-intended. I enjoy the villains, the girls, the fact that it´s such a weird approach to a Bond film (though not as uncommon as SF).

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Sir_James_Moloney wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    What exactly was that turmoil? The only audience who complained more over QOS than over CR was here on the internet. At the cinemas QOS was merely a bit less of a success than CR.

    Yeah, but the internet is made up of real people posting their opinions.

    The biggest indication that QoS wasn't nearly as popular with viewers is the way the audience dropped off massively after the opening weekend. To take the US: CR grossed $167m and QoS grossed $168m. Almost identical. But take a look at what happened between the first two weekends on each film: CR grossed $40m on its first weekend and $30m on its second weekend - a drop in audience of only 25% (which is very good.) QoS grossed $67m on its first weekend and $26m on its second weekend - a drop in audience of 60%. That indicates that QoS had a bigger marketing campaign and people went to see it on opening weekend based on posters, trailers etc.; but it had much worse word of mouth - by the second weekend, some punters have heard it's not very good and decided to give it a miss.

    Here's a good comparison: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?view=weekly&id=craigbonds.htm
  • Agent7FAgent7F
    Posts: 825
    Well I hope it confirmed & let hop the release between next year 2014 or 15 & full cast announce this could the first time the helm since John Glen.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    Posts: 2,015
    boldfinger wrote:
    First, internet communities do not by any means represent the general public audience.
    Seen from France, it's a bit weird to see that the IMDB audience prefer Taken to any Bond, and that Leon is a masterpiece that is out of Bond's reach (I choose the two most international French "lone hero movies" I could think of). Gee, they really should give Bond a child to care for :)

  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    edited June 2013 Posts: 388
    Samuel001 wrote:
    It doesn't disprove your point but Skyfall had a drop nearer to 60% on it's second weekend too.

    Yes, @Samuel001, you're right. I thought it was about 50%.

    Even QoS's 60% drop off isn't too bad for a mega-budget movie. It's just that CR's 25% drop off was exceptionally good for a major movie.

    boldfinger wrote:
    Second, what you point out regarding the first and second weekends in the US is surely true, but didn´t QOS overall gross nearly as much as CR at cinemas? Correct me if I´m wrong.

    Yes, you're right. In the example I gave of just the domestic US box office, QoS actually grossed slightly more than CR. But the overall box office just tells us how many people went to see a film. It doesn't indicate what they thought of it.

    The thing with the weekend grosses is that we know CR was well-received because the audience kept coming back - this indicates good word-of-mouth and people watching the film multiple times. We know that QoS wasn't as well-received because it got a lot of people watching on its opening weekend and then the audience dropped off week-by-week. This indicates that the word-of-mouth wasn't great.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Thank you, kind sir. I simply could not resist that one, but I rate QoS in my Top 5 Bond Films!

    Much respect, sir! =D>

    My pleasure. well, somebody has to rate and defend this masterpiece of a Bond film, don't they. I love the symbolism is in most. Craig gives a great performance in it too!
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited June 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Sir_James_Moloney wrote:
    Even QoS's 60% drop off isn't too bad for a mega-budget movie. It's just that CR's 25% drop off was exceptionally good for a major movie.

    Not really, because you're comparing the weekend before Thanksgiving to Thanksgiving's weekend in CR's case, which is not the case for the other ones.

    For comparison, Happy Feet lose only 10% in identical conditions. QOS lose 29% on similar conditions (Thanksgiving weekend #3 vs weekend #2 - Bolt even had more on #2 than #1 that Thanksgiving weekend), SF lose 15% (#3 vs #2 too, Lincoln did +20% in identical conditions), etc, etc.
  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    edited June 2013 Posts: 388
    Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:
    Sir_James_Moloney wrote:
    Even QoS's 60% drop off isn't too bad for a mega-budget movie. It's just that CR's 25% drop off was exceptionally good for a major movie.

    Not really, because you're comparing the weekend before Thanksgiving to Thanksgiving's weekend in CR's case, which is not the case for the other ones.

    For comparison, Happy Feet lose only 10% in identical conditions. QOS lose 29% on similar conditions (Thanksgiving weekend #3 vs weekend #2 - Bolt even had more on #2 than #1 that Thanksgiving weekend), SF lose 15% (#3 vs #2 too, Lincoln did +20% in identical conditions), etc, etc.

    Kids' films are an exception to the rule because word-of-mouth is not a significant factor for cinema-goers under the age of 15. They're usually taken by parents to see whatever the big animated film is during the holidays.

    Art house / awards movies aren't hugely relevant because they usually start on a limited release and increase their screen count over the weeks if they're a hit. I imagine part of the reason why Lincoln would have increased its box office in the second week is because it would have increased its screen count too. (Also, don't forget, Lincoln was also exceptionally well received by audiences in the US.)

    Think of The Avengers, The Dark Knight films, Iron Man films... The Hobbit, Harry Potter etc. The big franchises. These films will typically lose 50%-60% between 1st and 2nd weekend. CR's performance was very very good.

    Difference between 2nd and 3rd weekend is much less important. By this time the reviews have long been out and word-of-mouth has spread.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    First, internet communities do not by any means represent the general public audience.
    Seen from France, it's a bit weird to see that the IMDB audience prefer Taken to any Bond, and that Leon is a masterpiece that is out of Bond's reach (I choose the two most international French "lone hero movies" I could think of). Gee, they really should give Bond a child to care for :)

    I'd be seriously happy if a Bond film were ever to reach the heights of Leon.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited June 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Sir_James_Moloney wrote:
    Think of The Avengers, The Dark Knight films, Iron Man films... The Hobbit, Harry Potter etc. The big franchises. These films will typically lose 50%-60% between 1st and 2nd weekend. CR's performance was very very good.

    So, I looked at all the movies for the last 10 years, which, like CR, were released the weekend before Thanksgiving weekend, that were not "movies for kids" (no anime, no Twilight, no Harry Potter), and that made more than $50M in the end.

    Here are their drops from weekend #1 to weekend #2 :

    The Blind Side : +18%
    Walk the Line : -14%
    National Treasure : -8%
    Gothika : -33%

    So, really IMHO, the -25% drop for CR has a lot to do with the circumstances (#2nd weekend helped a lot by Thanksgiving), it's not relevant to compare it with movies that are released in another weekend. I don't think Gothika had excellent word of mouth, and yet it did not have the "usual" -60% drop...

    PS : Once again, I don't claim to prove anything, I just want to show how it's easy to reach another conclusion if you look at some figures in a different light. Personally, I find CR way above SF and QOS :)
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    I'd be seriously happy if a Bond film were ever to reach the heights of Leon.

    To my knowledge, the only common point so far between Leon and the Bond movies is Eric Serra, whose music is not well received by many here !

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited June 2013 Posts: 11,119
    Skyfall's holdover kicked in after its 2nd week guys. The drop after 2nd week was longest of the three newest Bond films.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    Posts: 2,015
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    Skyfall's holdover kicked in after its 2nd week guys. The drop after 2nd week was longest of the three newest Bond films.

    I explained just 3 posts above that for SF, the Thanksgiving bias happened on the drop after 2nd week... Ranking aficionados should really look for the bigger picture !

    If we remove the movies for kids, that week end we had :

    Skyfall -13.6%
    Lincoln +22.0%
    Flight -4.0%
    Argo -4.5%

    Quite a different picture then eh ? :)

    "CR did +40% on its 7 week, what an excellent word of mouth it had compared to SF 25% drop !" Or maybe it has more to do with the weekend itself (end of year), during which about all movies did between +10 and +50. Etc, etc....




  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    You are comparing 'Skyfall' with biopics 'Lincoln' and Argo'? The latter ones were maybe succesful, but IMO not typical blockbuster pictures. The percentage drops of 'Skyfall'....should be compared with movies like 'The Dark Knight', 'Inception'.

    Moreover, very big weekend openers, $70 million or more in one weekend ('Skyfall', 'Iron Man 3', 'The Hobbit', 'The Twilight Saga'), tend to fall down much faster in the first set of weeks after its premieres. 'Argo' and 'Lincoln' are more typical 'Oscar Movies': They tend to kick off slowly, but thanks to the Oscars and Globes they mainatin a pretty strong holdover. Which is easier considering the smaller amount of money they bring in during its premiere.
Sign In or Register to comment.