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
Did SP make that much of a profit in the end though considering the massive amount they spent on it? I think bigger budget doesn't necessarily mean more money. In fact they could probably turn more of a profit with smaller scale films because Bond has a built in audience anyway, and good enough word of mouth would mean audiences flock to it no matter what (didn't Deadpool do very well on a small budget? And horror films do all the time). This might be wishful thinking though because I just really hope you're wrong and we don't get endless spinoffs.
It has become fashionable to focus on a 'female Bond' and have discussions about a 'minority Bond' and so on and so forth. I have nothing against people having these conversations on a theoretical level. Bond is an icon after all and it's fine that he is an inspirational figure for all (although perhaps some should consider better role models).
What I don't want is for such theoretical conversations to bleed into aspects of Bond's behaviour and Bond's world. He is in the business of spycraft. It's not a pleasant space and people in that business aren't necessarily politically correct. Rather, he inhabits a larger than life fantasy world. That's where he used to reside for many years anyway, and it is in that space where his attributes (good and most certainly bad) can be best personified. He is not a squeaky clean superhero and should retain some of the negative elements of his character, in my view.
Yes, that is true, but that was due to a poor corporate structure and arrangement. MGM and EON made out like bandits while Sony got the shaft. A more equitable arrangement (likely happening with the new distributor) can result in large profits for all. Moreover, the costs were squandered in the last film (including a crazy expensive car chase and explosion). They could certainly have been more economical with the budget and still made bank, you're correct.
Having said that, the global market demands a certain level of innovative action and expense these days. So they will certainly have to deliver this either with real stuntwork or alternatively with CGI.
Look at how some reacted to BR2049, they seem to think that depicting something automatically implies approval.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/09/is-blade-runner-2049-a-sexist-film-or-a-fair-depiction-of-a-dystopic-future
It reminds me of the outcry from some areas re Dirty Harry. This was and is a complex political piece in addition to one hell of an action movie. Harry is a flawed character and we are not meant to approve of everything he does. Some kids may but the audience deserve the credit to be able to make their own judgements.
So, Bond as a character deserves some room to breath rather than be bound by the current straight jacket of political correctness. But, I'm not sure if EON will agree with me.
Dirty Harry is a perfect example of the kind of character that would be pounced upon today by SJW's. It's not a coincidence that he hasn't been rebooted. Yes, I read the nonsense about BR2049. Idiots. Future oriented fantasy can be whatever it wants to be. It doesn't need to conform to anything.
Some of the remarks by Broccoli and Craig over the years have been concerning to me. I am not sure if they are just saying what they say to get the interviewers off their back or if they really mean it. If it's the latter then Bond won't remain what we know him to be for much longer. As I said, recent comments about locations, cars and watches as being where the focus will be going forward were troubling to read. Moreover, Broccoli in particular has been quite vocal about discrimination etc. due to her importance within the British film industry. One can imagine that she wants her prized possession to 'set a good example'. They've been playing up the 'hero' aspect of the character in interviews, and this suggests to me that they want him to be inspirational. At his core, I don't think Bond should be seen as such. There's more to him than his heroism.
Ultimately now that MGM, EON and the distributor have tasted box office gold, I'm quite certain they will want to retain that level of 'gross' success. It's true that larger revenue doesn't mean larger profit, but revenue certainly helps in terms of bragging rights, leverage with distributors, leverage with theatre chains etc. etc. so it has importance. To achieve such success in the environment we live in likely means accommodating and pandering to the sensibilities of the times, which are increasingly sensitive (exponentially so).
Mixed feelings on this one. I always liked the Tracy references in the Moore and Dalton films. By Brosnan maybe it had been too long since OHMSS so they went vague with "Have you ever lost a loved one?"
The Craig films have gone the other direction, with Vesper being mentioned too much. Perhaps it's time for a break from the romantic angst (although the ending of SP points in that direction).
Moonlight Sonata, perhaps ;)
I do think that EoN has to answer PC, while not exactly practicing what they preach (recent examples: the seduction of Severine (that many had issues with- I did not, loved it in fact); taking Sciarra’s wife in SP, and; Bond banging Madeline could be seen as offensive to the PC Brigade (my offense was only that it didn’t jell with their relationship at that point, and the two actors weren’t bubbling with chemistry (they went through the motions))...
But Bond still feels like an outsider to our PC sensitivity ; that hasn’t changed. In fact, i feel it’s taken on more since the pandering of the Brosnan era (not a fan of Nytalia’s mothering; nor of Yeo’s equal agent; hated Jinx)...
The SF & SP instances you mentioned are a welcome return to form for me, even though I don't think Craig pulls off those scenes as well as his predecessors did (Dalton excepted). So I hope you're right that EON is merely 'answering' the brigade in interviews rather than seriously contemplating eliminating this behaviour entirely.
I look forward to seeing how they deal with this after they recast (which is when they will have to come up with the new template). Hopefully they will allow the playfulness back in. I believe doing it with a wink may make it more tolerable to today's audiences.
The Brosnan era was a strange mix of nagging & pandering while still giving us male fans some red meat. It didn't gel well for me except in DAD, where they finally dumped all the lecturing and went for broke (in a campy way). Bond was allowed to be Bond.
Knowing Eli Roth's work, this new film won't be shying away from the controversy of the original films-- in fact, I think he will embrace it (I'm not saying that that's necessarily a good thing when it comes to this fillmmaker; in fact it may actually feed right into the PC brigade's criticisms).
I've been a fan of Willis since Moonlighting (dating myself, as I write that), but I've grown wary of him in the last decade-- his VOD sleep-walking performances. It's sad to see what can be perceived as a lack of effort on his part (yawn, gimme my cheque). He used to play the classic everyman so well... Maybe he will make a return in the SPLIT/UNBREAKABLE sequel that's being made (but I'm not going to hold my breath).
I think EoN's been smart in our snow-flake world where everyone gets offended by everything. In public they dance around the less "savoury" qualities of the character (and these are the same qualities that make us fans), play nice with the media, yet, whether one likes the actor playing the role or not, Bond is still Bond (and I like Craig with the women more than the shoulder-biting-corpse-smelling Brosnan-- but that's just a personal preference).
With a re-cast, they will continue to dodge the PC Brigade, but I think everyone at EoN know their boy very well, and he will continue to do things his way (no matter how slyly they have to massage it into the script). Critics will always be critics, but, in the end, EoN has to satisfy the customers and their expectations. They've been doing that pretty well, through thick and thin, for over half a century!
As I've mentioned, these big box office grosses are a curse as much as a blessing, because in our times in order to maintain that level of 'gross' they will be increasingly pressured to pander to sensibilities. This is certainly no longer the 60s, 70s or even the early 80s for that matter. More like the late 80s (post-aids) era on steroids.
http://www.ladbible.com/community/film-and-tv-millennials-are-rewatching-james-bond-and-getting-seriously-offended-20180124
"They want me to feel bad for the guy who shot [Severine]"
Who does? Nowhere in the movie they say Silva is a good guy or that you should feel sorry for him. Infact, the movie makes the difference between Bond and Silva quite clear.
If anything Skyfall shows that not even the good guys are 100% good, as M made mistakes too. "The heroes and the villains get all mixed up." has been a recurring theme through Craig movies.
I can't believe people are this stupid.
Blurred out ones at that ...
Another point: see below some dialogue from my favourite movie: The Magnificent Seven..
Chris: So that's where they were. You hid them.
Chico: Sure, they hid them, but she won't tell where. They're afraid — she's afraid — of me, you, him... all of us. Farmers. Their families told them we'd rape them.
Chris: Well, we might. In my opinion, though, you might have given us the benefit of the doubt. Well, just as you please.
Vin: You know, as long as you were out there, why didn't you bring 'em all in?
Chico: What for? Leave them out there. Let Calvera find them. He'll take good care of them.
Chris: Bring them in. (to Petra) Show him where
We might rape them!! What a killer line. Delivered by the leading hero of the Seven (a very mainstream movie). Its brilliant writing (and easy to miss and it's deleivered with great skill) as it reminds us that these guys are no angels. They are hired killers. They are human and not perfect. They may rape the girls!!!. This makes the characters so much more interesting and real IMHO It's dialogue like this (and the related characters) that we are in danger of losing.
A very good and true point Pat.
And an excellent example to use as well.
I read this "well, we might" completely different. The way I see it he just admits the rationality of suspecting that a bunch of mercenaries is capable of raping their daughters.
IMHO there is only one way to take that line. It's brutal and stark. Reflecting the lives of the seven.
we digress
Last post before we get back on track....massive coincidence!!!!!!!!!, get into the car at 16.01 to collect the kids and hear this on the radio. Worth a listen to anyone interested in movie soundtracks
Which brings us back to, "How is EON going to take this into account for Bond 25?" Lest we forget, Fleming wasn't very PC either. We're almost veering into another topic though-can Millennials and their successors keep James Bond fandom alive-or will they be too offended?
At any rate, I agree the complain is utterly ridiculous.
Harris is a black woman and yet her Eve character was put down (albeit playfully) by Bond and shown to be an incompetent (at least in the field). His exchanges with her in that film could surely cause offense to some, and more so since she has since been relegated to glorified secretarial duties. The optics are not good and they are bold for not caring.
It's possible that this is the case, and I hope you are right. As for the customers, the box-office is the best indicator that they're satisfied.
As @bondjames said, Bond is not a "squeaky clean superhero." We have to root for the guy but understand that, even with the films being fantasies, Bond is still working in a particularly risky, nasty profession that takes its toll on people. When he beds a woman for his job, he is not being misogynistic, he is using people --men or women-- to complete his mission. If audiences don't understand that or forget about it, they must be reminded of it through the films themselves, hopefully in subtle ways.
Or when you watch a heist film do you complain that the thieves are criminals? No, you just root for them.