Where does Bond go after Craig?

1419420422424425482

Comments

  • Posts: 486
    Who cares about the budget? It's not my money.

    "No Time to Die" had a unique set of circumstances — lots of returning cast and aborted Boyle film — that artificially inflated it. New actor means it'll be lowered because less pay for the big guy, and presumably the rest.

    But again it doesn't matter. I'm not MGM!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,180
    I always come back to theatrical success. You're doing yourself plenty of favors with not only a shorter runtime but also a smaller budget. I'm not saying $50 million or anything but does anybody really feel like you're seeing $300 million-plus on screen with some of these films of late? I think that Rome car chase in SP cost $33 million alone or something? It makes zero sense.

    At the same time, the Bond films seemingly have no problem making bank and likely don't have to worry about how much they spend on production/post-production as much as other franchises or films do.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,709
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    You can meet in the middle: retain the Bond style and the big, grandiose productions without having the budget run up to $300 million-plus before the marketing even begins to amass further costs.

    I agree and don’t want another SPECTRE where the massive budget is not on the screen.

    While I have some issues with some of the choices made for NTTD, it does balance the personal with the grandiose, and the budget, for the most part is well spent; it’s a beautiful film.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,180
    talos7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    You can meet in the middle: retain the Bond style and the big, grandiose productions without having the budget run up to $300 million-plus before the marketing even begins to amass further costs.

    I agree and don’t want another SPECTRE where the massive budget is not on the screen.

    While I have some issues with some of the choices made for NTTD, it does balance the personal with the grandiose, and the budget, for the most part is well spent; it’s a beautiful film.

    Neither do I.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2023 Posts: 14,792
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I always come back to theatrical success. You're doing yourself plenty of favors with not only a shorter runtime but also a smaller budget. I'm not saying $50 million or anything but does anybody really feel like you're seeing $300 million-plus on screen with some of these films of late? I think that Rome car chase in SP cost $33 million alone or something? It makes zero sense.

    At the same time, the Bond films seemingly have no problem making bank and likely don't have to worry about how much they spend on production/post-production as much as other franchises or films do.

    The Bonds always make money though as you say, so as BMB007 said, it's not our money, what does it matter? The spending doesn't mean we're in any risk of not seeing more Bond films made.
    The spending also goes into the industry... I dunno, I'm not seeing the problem. They have megabucks, let them spend them for my entertainment. The ticket costs me the same amount as it does to watch a two-hander movie set in a Welsh cottage or whatever.
    talos7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    You can meet in the middle: retain the Bond style and the big, grandiose productions without having the budget run up to $300 million-plus before the marketing even begins to amass further costs.

    I agree and don’t want another SPECTRE where the massive budget is not on the screen.

    I feel like we're watching different films: there's a sequence with hundreds (thousands?) of extras, all in costume, dancing, big builds, a whole city block dressed, all before the opening titles... I see an expensive movie.

    The Mission Impossibles have much lower budgets, and although I love them, there's visibly a much smaller scale to them. Rogue Nation came out the same time as Spectre, and I'd say they're clearly on different levels of 'big'. You may prefer one to the other, but both have climaxes set in London- one has a huge deserted building which is detonated and collapses, followed by a boat chasing a helicopter down the Thames with the helicopter crashing on Westminster Bridge. The other has a foot chase around those nice bits of Middle Temple off the Strand, which culminates in a man falling through a small hole into a box. One is noticeably bigger than the other.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited December 2023 Posts: 40,180
    @mtm, I've already outlined that and touched on both sides of the argument and my own opinion on it. Nobody's acting like there's a problem here, I'm only sharing my thoughts and perspectives on these insanely high budgets of late and how, more often than not lately, it spells doom for bigger-budgeted films. However, like I said, Bond is typically immune to that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    And I recognised that; I just don't get why we're even talking about it. The money is on the screen, Bond is not looking in any danger of failing... I'm not sure why a smaller budget has been suggested.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,180
    I didn't bring it up, and nobody's making you talk about it.

    And clearly not all of us feel the money is always on screen. If anybody watches that Rome car chase in SP and thinks more than $30 million is unfolding in front of them, then I envy that position.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2023 Posts: 14,792
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I didn't bring it up, and nobody's making you talk about it.

    But you did suggest it, and I'm also allowed to ask why, am I not? It is a discussion board. I'm sensing hostility here and I don't quite understand why.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    And clearly not all of us feel the money is always on screen. If anybody watches that Rome car chase in SP and thinks more than $30 million is unfolding in front of them, then I envy that position.

    I don't know the story of that and I don't know how much a car chase featuring two bespoke, non-commercially available luxury supercars going down the middle of one of the busiest cities (two cities technically!) in Europe is supposed to cost. I think it looks nice and I'm not massively worried about how much it cost; am I supposed to be? Do I feel like the film skimped on spectacle elsewhere because of that? Not really.
    Do you feel like it's giving you less of an experience as a cinema goer or do you think the spending is actually offensive in some way? I'm just asking for the motivation behind the suggestion, maybe I'll agree with it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited December 2023 Posts: 40,180
    Funny, that's exactly how I feel any time I jump into a thread on here and you end up picking apart my thoughts and opinions - needless hostility - whereas I've definitely seen you in the past get rather defensive when others do the same to you. Ahh well.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2023 Posts: 14,792
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Funny, that's exactly how I feel any time I jump into a thread on here and you end up picking apart my thoughts and opinions - needless hostility - whereas I've definitely seen you in the past get rather defensive when others do the same to you. Ahh well.

    I don't feel I'm being hostile at all, and I'm certainly not being personal. I'm sorry if I've upset you in some way by asking why you suggested something. I'll leave you to it, I'm not sure what the issue is.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2023 Posts: 2,857
    mtm wrote: »
    one has a huge deserted building which is detonated and collapses, followed by a boat chasing a helicopter down the Thames with the helicopter crashing on Westminster Bridge. The other has a foot chase around those nice bits of Middle Temple off the Strand, which culminates in a man falling through a small hole into a box.
    Well, when you put it like that... :))
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,851
    Edgar Wright could write and direct a slick, witty 2 hr bond film with all the tropes for 150 million, I don't know why EON never take a chance on someone like him.
  • @Mendes4Lyfe I haven't liked Wright since Hot Fuzz. And I don't just mean I haven't liked his movies since then. I mean I haven't liked him as a person since then.
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,723
    Story over budget always wins for me. I don't really care about the budget. Cubby and Harry always said they wanted to see the production cost on screen. Make the films a real spectacle. But lately some of the films have lost that.
    All the Bond films look beautiful, but sometimes the cost isn't completely evident to all.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,162
    For some reason, Brosnan's Bond suits games more.

    He was the most machine gun heavy Bond of all of them. Makes sense he translates well to shoot em ups.

    Precisely.
  • Posts: 1,419
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Funny, that's exactly how I feel any time I jump into a thread on here and you end up picking apart my thoughts and opinions - needless hostility - whereas I've definitely seen you in the past get rather defensive when others do the same to you. Ahh well.

    Nailed it!

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited December 2023 Posts: 7,851
    @Mendes4Lyfe I haven't liked Wright since Hot Fuzz. And I don't just mean I haven't liked his movies since then. I mean I haven't liked him as a person since then.

    What's he done as a person which made you dislike him?
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 477
    Edgar Wright could write and direct a slick, witty 2 hr bond film with all the tropes for 150 million, I don't know why EON never take a chance on someone like him.

    Guy Ritchie can do that too.
    Wright has a big ego and I think this could be a problem.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 664
    Benny wrote: »
    Story over budget always wins for me. I don't really care about the budget. Cubby and Harry always said they wanted to see the production cost on screen. Make the films a real spectacle. But lately some of the films have lost that.
    All the Bond films look beautiful, but sometimes the cost isn't completely evident to all.

    Yes, spectacle can be great, but oftentimes the franchise has used it as a crutch. The $30 million supercar chase in Spectre was good for the trailers and the PR articles before the film, but in the story I think, bearing in mind Bautista's overwhelming physicality is what makes Hinx so threatening, having Bond be chased by Hinx on foot through the city would probably have been more effective and cost a lot less.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,406
    I'd love to Bond to be sneaky in the next film, there's something so cool and iconic about Bond being all in black sneaking in alone under the radar. It'd be a welcome change from the Craig era. I want a bit more suspense I suppose
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,860
    They kind of did that in NTTD.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,406
    echo wrote: »
    They kind of did that in NTTD.

    They did I guess you're right. I did love that final action sequence, definitely a high point of NTTD for me
  • MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I know TND did it, but I wouldn't mind some sort of return to the fake news idea. Maybe a more online bad actor introducing false stories to provoke uprisings etc.

    Trump is the real life Eliott Carver

    There’s a difference: I enjoy watching Elliot Carver. And Carver didn’t want to run for political office.

    True. One is an evil sadistic megolomaniac. The other is Elliot Carver.
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,723
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I know TND did it, but I wouldn't mind some sort of return to the fake news idea. Maybe a more online bad actor introducing false stories to provoke uprisings etc.

    Trump is the real life Eliott Carver

    There’s a difference: I enjoy watching Elliot Carver. And Carver didn’t want to run for political office.

    True. One is an evil sadistic megolomaniac. The other is Elliot Carver.

    Ok gents, you’ve been asked to knock it off with the Trump stuff.
    Thank you.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,959
    Benny wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I know TND did it, but I wouldn't mind some sort of return to the fake news idea. Maybe a more online bad actor introducing false stories to provoke uprisings etc.

    Trump is the real life Eliott Carver

    There’s a difference: I enjoy watching Elliot Carver. And Carver didn’t want to run for political office.

    True. One is an evil sadistic megolomaniac. The other is Elliot Carver.

    Ok gents, you’ve been asked to knock it off with the Trump stuff.
    Thank you.

    My apologies. Working for the news you meet A LOT of Elliot Carver type people.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,944
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Funny, that's exactly how I feel any time I jump into a thread on here and you end up picking apart my thoughts and opinions - needless hostility - whereas I've definitely seen you in the past get rather defensive when others do the same to you. Ahh well.

    Nailed it!

    What was the intention of this? Not cool.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,406
    I wonder if the next actor will be as full on with the stunts?
    Daniel did seem to be hands on with getting involved, but given his injuries and the difficulties around changing the filming schedule to accommodate his injuries, will the producers want the actor to be so involved in the action?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,944
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I wonder if the next actor will be as full on with the stunts?
    Daniel did seem to be hands on with getting involved, but given his injuries and the difficulties around changing the filming schedule to accommodate his injuries, will the producers want the actor to be so involved in the action?

    I think it'd be more the insurance companies, @Jordo007 ; I still have no idea how or why Tom Cruise gets around these guys (I'm guessing M:I films must pay a huge premium).
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,709
    peter wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I wonder if the next actor will be as full on with the stunts?
    Daniel did seem to be hands on with getting involved, but given his injuries and the difficulties around changing the filming schedule to accommodate his injuries, will the producers want the actor to be so involved in the action?

    I think it'd be more the insurance companies, @Jordo007 ; I still have no idea how or why Tom Cruise gets around these guys (I'm guessing M:I films must pay a huge premium).

    I believe Cruise and company fired an insurance company for their refusal to insure his side of the building stunt in Dubai

    This is interesting...

    https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-tom-cruise-insured-mission-impossible-movie-stunts-hefty-price-1812442
Sign In or Register to comment.