Mendes In Talks To Return To Bond For 2014 Production

2

Comments

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Why? I think EON need to prove a good film can be followed by another good film, in just two years.
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,055
    @Samuel001

    EoN just needs B24 to equal Skyfall, regardless of if it is released in 2014 or 2015. Its a CR to QoS situation. I'm sure they wont make the same "mistake" twice in a row.

    As for Mendes pushing the film back to 2015, if it results in another Bond film as high quality as Skyfall, then I'm all for it. As mentioned earlier, I'd rather have a fantastic Bond film in 2015 than an "just alright" one in 2014.
  • Posts: 72
    I agree with @Mallory. While I would love to see Bond 24 in 2014, if a release in 2015 means a better movie, so be it.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Pre-production will be done this year. If filming begins in January, the film will be out by November. Going by past films, or any film, this is always the case.

    The story is that filming has been 'delayed' two months. Baz is keeping up in the loop.

    Sam, where did you read, the delay indicated was 2 months. I don't see such a thing. I read, sometime in 2014. No word of January. There is no way, they can bring out the film in 2014, if they don't start shooting end of the year. NO WAY. And this would mean, end of 2015, if they don't decide to make it a summer release. I am all against it. The momentum is now and they should use it. Mendes can do 25, if he is not ready. Others are, I am sure.
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 12,837
    After the success of SF they could probably start doing summer releases again and still make plenty of money.

    If Mendes doesn't want to come back for another one that'll be released in 2014, then I say replace him, get another talented director and aim to get it out in 2014. If he wants a break but wants to return then he can wait until Bond 25.
    I woud rather watch a great Bond movie in 2015 than a mediocre one in 2014.

    Who's to say we wouldn't get a great one if it came out in 2014? It is possible to make a good film without waiting a minimum of 3 years.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    I woud rather watch a great Bond movie in 2015 than a mediocre one in 2014.[/]

    Who's to say we wouldn't get a great one if it came out in 2014? It is possible to make a good film without waiting a minimum of 3 years.

    Also very true.
  • Posts: 11,119
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Found through the International James Bond Fan Club,

    Baz Bamigboye reported on January 11th a rumor that Sam Mendes was currently in talks with Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson return to the franchise. They've apparently offered Mendes the opportunity of starting production on the 24th film sometime in 2014, to allow him to follow through with his current projects.

    This would also follow up with reports that the producers would like more time before films to perfect a final draft, and allow more opportunities to bring on major actors to the next film.

    If Mendes accepts this deal, he will direct his stage production of Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, as well as start his Penny Dreadful TV drama before returning to the next installment of the Bond franchise.

    Baz Bamigboye was extremely accurate with his reports on many details for Skyfall, and if accurate this time, may mean no Bond 24 by 2014.

    The IJBFC article:
    http://www.007.info/bond-24-start-date-set-for-2014/

    Perfect news! With Bond productions as of today, a two year gap is too much to ask. I completely agree with Michael and Barbara here, if this news is true. A four year gap did nothing but good for 'Skyfall'. That's obvious.

    Also, may I remind you that a two year gap was at one time in production history of Bond films was also quite new?

    The first four Bond films were produced within a one year gap. DN, FRWL, GF and TB had the big advantage of scripts that were almost completed during pre-production. The Bond producers choose the relatively easy-to-produce novels FRWL and DN to use for their first two films. With GF, a two year gap might have been a good thing already, as there were quite some difficulties with the script. They barely finished the script in time. And for TB.....well the script was basically there already upon pre-production.

    Then, for YOLT the breathing space of two years was a welcome change for Sean Connery and most importantly for Ken Adam who started building that massive set...and who really needed the time.

    And, most importantly, casting expensive big star Oscar actors causes one big problem: Scheduling. Actors like Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Albert Finney and Javier Barden have/had very busy, tight acting schedules. They are pulled upon by various movie companies to do a movie. For those actors, it is necessary to start planning in a very early stage.

    I bet Debbie McWilliams sees her job becoming way more challenging! Especially if EON Productions (and me :P!) want to attract actors like -let's say- Tilda Swinton, Christoph Waltz or Daniel Day Lewis.

    One last thing. Look to the Batman-The Dark Knight trilogy. Christopher Nolan really needed these three/four year gaps. James Bond is in this terrirtory now as well.

    Conclusion: From a one year gap, Bond productions started with two year gaps after four movies. And ever since TWINE the three year gap was considered very nice after the two year gap between TND and GE had become too short. Not too mention all the problems regarding the production of QOS, also in production two years after CR. It also meant: Problems. So better get used to longer three/four year gaps. Two year gaps are unrealistic nowadays for the revived, upscaled Bond franchise. Or otherwise WE GET CRAPPY BOND FILMS LADS :-p!

  • edited January 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Two year gaps mean we get crappy films? No. 3 years isn't a guarantee of quality.

    Die Another Day had a 3 year gap and look how that turned out. I don't know about you lot but I think TND and TWINE are much, much, much better films than DAD, and they only had 2 year gaps!

    Everybody is saying, "I'd rather get a great film in 2015 than a good one in 2014" when there's no guarantee it could be great. And if the film does turn out to be below par, I don't want to have waited another year for it so it's even more of a let down.

    And since 3 years is no guarantee of quality, I'd like it if they aimed for a 2014 release. If Logan had already started writing the script during SF then I think that's very possible also.

    And what about this?

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2986/new-bond-set-for-2014/p1
  • Posts: 6,601
    they started early with the script and if DC says, he thinks in terms of a end of the year start, this is what most likely is planned. If it is only Mendes, who will delay that, I don*t think, they will make it a 3 years gap just because of him. Why would they? Its loosing money, no? And they are first and foremost business people, who happen to be in show biz.

    I think, the conclusion, a 2 year release gives us naturally a bad film, its nonsense. QOS was only a lesser film because of the writers strike and Forster, who felt the need to rewrite the damn thing over and over. That won't happen again, so we have no real example, that would underline that notion.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited January 2013 Posts: 13,350
    Germanlady wrote:
    There is no way, they can bring out the film in 2014, if they don't start shooting end of the year. NO WAY.

    Casino Royale started filming in late January 2006 and was released the same year.

    Tomorrow Never Dies started filming in April 1997 and was still releasd the same year.

    Also I can't see Mendes being offered such a late start in 2014 that the film can't come out that year. Everything seems to point towards a release next year.
    Germanlady wrote:
    they started early with the script and if DC says, he thinks in terms of a end of the year start, this is what most likely is planned. If it is only Mendes, who will delay that, I don*t think, they will make it a 3 years gap just because of him. Why would they? Its loosing money, no? And they are first and foremost business people, who happen to be in show biz.

    I think, the conclusion, a 2 year release gives us naturally a bad film, its nonsense. QOS was only a lesser film because of the writers strike and Forster, who felt the need to rewrite the damn thing over and over. That won't happen again, so we have no real example, that would underline that notion.

    Quite. Nail on the head.
  • Posts: 5,745
    I hope @Samuel001 is right, but they would have to get started in January, and run into no hiccups. What they will likely do, again.. if they start in January, is push for a November 2014 release, but be comfortable with knowing they have 2015 to fall back on.

    Though, I do think releasing in 2015 is financial suicide with all the HUGE films being released that year.
  • I wouldn't say no to summer 2015, as a summer bond film would be nice, especially as we've not had one since Licence to Kill . Plus with the success Skyfall has had, the summer audience should lap it up with it doing well at the box office
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 11,119
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    There is no way, they can bring out the film in 2014, if they don't start shooting end of the year. NO WAY.

    Casino Royale started filming in late January 2006 and was released the same year.

    Tomorrow Never Dies started filming in April 1997 and was still releasd the same year.

    Skyfall started filming early November 2011 and was released end of October 2012.

    You forget one important thing: Pre-production. It's such an underestimated, but very vital, long, tiresome part of the actual outcome of the movie. It includes in chronical order:
    --> Brainstorm sessions about the plot without the yet-to-be-assigned cast.
    --> Screenplay writing. Done by John Logan for Bond 24.
    --> Extensive readings of screenplay by the producers and Daniel Craig (Interesting to see Daniel has a lot of creative influence. These three work together so nicely. Sean Connery actually wanted this).
    --> Assigning the actual director (with, if necessary, big bucks)
    --> Doing the location shouting. Usually Barbara Broccoli does that together with the director.
    --> Send in requests to city councils/state governments to get permission for filming there.
    --> Already filming certain sequences if necessary. In the case of QOS they already filmed the Palio back in August 2007.
    --> Calling in Debbie McWilliams for the casting of the actors.
    --> Doing auditions for lesser known actors/actresses. This can take some time.
    --> Extra brainstorm sessions about the story/plot, now with the newly casted actors included. Screenplay will get updated/rewritten.
    --> Simply negotiating with bigger actors/actresses to get them onboard without doing long, tiresome auditions. This process is relatively new for a Bond film, as it includes long financial negotiations with the agents from those big star actors/actresses (Agents from Oscar winners and Oscar nominated actors (Swinton, Day-Lewis, Mirren, Seymour-Hoffman, Waltz) usually have more powerful agents to back them up..)
    --> In the meanwhile crew for post-production is being contacted as well. Music composers, editors, sound mixers, they are all being contracted ASAP

    --> Finally, ever since Daniel Craig became Bond....and ever since the huge starcast and starcrew for 'Skyfall', scheduling throughout the process I have described above becomes even more vital. Hence the longer gap between Bond films.

    This pre-production process is always the period between post-production of the almost finished Bond film and the press conference/announcement of the Bond film that follows. Pre-production is already well underway, thus it could last till november 2014. So pre-production actually takes much longer than the official production and post production combined. Usually close to two years.

    I am actually hoping for this. Personally, I want Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins, Thomas Newman, Adele and the whole damn Skyfall-crew to return! I perfectly understand Daniel Craig. The vibe created with 'Skyfall' needs to continue and, again, needs to result in one hell of a Bond film that can at least match the look and feel of 'Skyfall'. But most importantly, it should be a Bond film that has the same diamond quality of 'Skyfall.

    That can only happen if we Bond fans are a bit more patient and let the Bond producers 'breathe' a bit. Hastily production periods for TND and QOS resulted in an average or even less-than-average Bond film.

    I actually think this would be a great time for a summer premiere of James Bond 24. Maybe Summer 2016? Or for the less patient ones around here......Fall 2015?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    A 2015 release is a stupid move. There's no need. A 2 year release is mire than enough time, especially if work on the script has been worked on early and is if good quality. The script is the most important thing to get right first and Logan's been working on it for months.
    Also, I hear people talking about a summer release. Really??? If that's the case say goodby to billion dollar Bond because the summer of 2015 is going to be big. You have Avengers 2, the justice league movie, star wars and that's just for starters. Bond needs to stay away from smear releases.
    On a final note, the series should utilise Craig as much as they can as he's still relatively young. That's a talent that shouldn't be wasted just because a director needs time to rest. If there's anything that SF did, it was that it proved top tier directors abd actors are not too good for Bond and that the series can attract such levels of talent. If Mendes can't do it, then bloody get another top tier director worth his salt to do it. Cot dammit!
  • Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote:
    A 2015 release is a stupid move. There's no need. A 2 year release is mire than enough time, especially if work on the script has been worked on early and is if good quality. The script is the most important thing to get right first and Logan's been working on it for months.
    Also, I hear people talking about a summer release. Really??? If that's the case say goodby to billion dollar Bond because the summer of 2015 is going to be big. You have Avengers 2, the justice league movie, star wars and that's just for starters. Bond needs to stay away from smear releases.
    On a final note, the series should utilise Craig as much as they can as he's still relatively young. That's a talent that shouldn't be wasted just because a director needs time to rest. If there's anything that SF did, it was that it proved top tier directors abd actors are not too good for Bond and that the series can attract such levels of talent. If Mendes can't do it, then bloody get another top tier director worth his salt to do it. Cot dammit!

    That's nonsense. Skyfall has upgraded the Bond franchise substantially. In such a way that many in here don't realize yet. Bond is now as big as The Dark Knight. It can easily compete with Avengers 2 now. IF Bond 24 is of diamond quality, just like Skyfall. And that takes...TIME :-).
  • Posts: 1,407
    Something like a March 2015 release is not out of the question. Although Bond has ruled November for a while now, Skyfall's success could give it more ground in other parts of the year. And March is quickly becoming a good month to release a few blockbusters (Hunger Games, Alice in Wonderland). So if EON doesn't want to wait until November 2015 or release in the summer, March is a good month
  • Posts: 5,745
    If they do go for a spring/summer release, we could get year and a half breaks instead of 2 year breaks. So B24 Summer 2015 and B25 Fall of 2016. They'll have plenty of time, and we get shorter breaks :)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited January 2013 Posts: 11,139
    @Gustav, It's not nonsense. Don't fool yourself into thinking Bond is a star franchise just because it made a billion dollars. Youre getting carried away with this box office honeymoon euphoria. Bond is a cash cow and a cash cow that holds no guarantee it'll make a billion dollars with every subsequent outing. You're ignoring contributing factors that aided in SF's billion dollar achievement. A summer release is a dumb idea for Bond and before it even thinks about moving to the summer it has to price itself with some consistency that it can rake in the mega big bucks in the autumn. You think Bond can compete with Avengers, Justice League and star wars in the summer and still reach close to a billion? If you think that, you're drunk.
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 6,601
    I think, this whole thing doesn't make sense. A January release gives them 2 more months. IF Mendes needs more time, 2 more months certainly isn't what he is talking about. So - if they don't start this year, forget a 14 release.
    I think, we have to really include Babs wish to have DC around for as long as possible and around means films - so she tries to combine that with being a business woman as well. To achieve that, she has to pull out a 14 release. Some here talk, as if that is a novelty. We know, its not and has often been done. It just doesn't give all of them a lot of breating time, but then again - remember - all of them are going to work on someting anyway, so why not Bond?
  • @doubleoego and @Germanlady Completely agree.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,962
    doubleoego wrote:
    @Gustav, It's not nonsense. Don't fool yourself into thinking Bond is a star franchise just because it made a billion dollars. Youre getting carried away with this box office honeymoon euphoria. Bond is a cash cow and a cash cow that holds no guarantee it'll make a billion dollars with every subsequent outing. You're ignoring contributing factors that aided in SF's billion dollar achievement. A summer release is a dumb idea for Bond and before it even thinks about moving to the summer it has to price itself with some consistency that it can rake in the mega big bucks in the autumn. You think Bond can compete with Avengers, Justice League and star wars in the summer and still reach close to a billion? If you think that, you're drunk.

    Drunk.. hmmm...not yet, but I will poor myself a whisky later on. Anyway, yes, I think Bond can compete with such series as the Avengers, certainly the Justce Leage and even Star Wars. These are all very American, and as you may have noted, Bond nowedays gets most of its money from 'overseas'.

    Then there's the importance of a good director, the strong understanding between director and lead actor, and how hard it is to find a director that really is that good.
    Anyone who'd seen 'Once Were Worriors' would've expected Lee Tamahori to deliver a gritty, dark Bond. What did we get?
    Mendes and Craig have shown to be very good together and to UNDERSTAND what Bond is about. Not since Terence Young and Connery have we seen such quality. Is 6-12 months worth the (extra) wait for at least an enormously increased chance of getting an excellent film again? I say YES!
  • Posts: 12,506
    Well we know it is already in pre production and that Mendes had plans and thoughts on another movie? So i will wait to see something official before offering another thought on it. But i would say that i would be more than happy to see Mendes return!
  • @doubleoego and @Germanlady Completely agree.
    Even though I would like to have Mendes back...I agree with you three.

    And sorry, Bond competing with Avengers 2, Justice League and especially Star Wars is ridiculous. I don't say he can't or won't attract people to the cinemas but it would be a bad move and he would definately lose much audience and, important for the producers - money!
    Skyfall had no strong competition! Combine that with good word of mouth and you have non-Bond fans go: "Bond? i don't know. But it's supposed to be good and there is nothing else on but Twilight. Well, alright then."

    I can tell you this, with a big... scratch that... huge release like Star Wars or Avengers 2 (was the first one the most successful movie of 2012?) than no matter how much success Skyfall had and how much better Bond's image now is to the general public... he will lose. Will it be a flop? Of course not... but don't expect your precious billion dollar Bond....


  • edited January 2013 Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote:
    @Gustav, It's not nonsense. Don't fool yourself into thinking Bond is a star franchise just because it made a billion dollars. Youre getting carried away with this box office honeymoon euphoria. Bond is a cash cow and a cash cow that holds no guarantee it'll make a billion dollars with every subsequent outing. You're ignoring contributing factors that aided in SF's billion dollar achievement. A summer release is a dumb idea for Bond and before it even thinks about moving to the summer it has to price itself with some consistency that it can rake in the mega big bucks in the autumn. You think Bond can compete with Avengers, Justice League and star wars in the summer and still reach close to a billion? If you think that, you're drunk.


    Hey, your tone is a bit out of line I think. I am not drunk and I am certainly not a fool.

    Yes, 'Skyfall' had a lot of factors that were helping Bond to those 1 Billion Dollars. Yes, Bond's visit to the Queen, its 50 year anniversary, Adele, Javier Bardem...they all indirectly helped 'Skyfall' reaching those 1 Billion Dollars. Yes, the stars were in good position for 'Skyfall'.

    But I really think we're forgetting here one important thing here. It really takes a lot of work, a lot of difficult planning and scheduling to make this happen! Director Sam Mendes, nominated actors like Javier Bardem, Ralp Fiennes, Finney and Whishaw, Grammy and Golden Globe winner Adele.....you don't get them onboard simply with a snip of your fingers! You don't get those stars onboard within one year. Simply because of the tight schedules of these actors (a Tilda Swinton, a Christoph Waltz, a Paul Giamatti, a Philip Seymour Hoffman, a Daniel Day Lewis), singers (Adele, Adele and more Adele) and crewmembers (Roger Deakins, Thomas Newman, Sam Mendes, Scott Millan, Stuart Baird, John Logan, Per Halberg, Dennis Gassner).

    Moreover, this 50th anniversary didn't happen with one snip of your fingers either. It took one hell of a promotional campaign, including designing a 50th year anniversary logo. And this 50th year campaign wasn't initiated by outside factors. No, Barbara and Michael wanted it.

    Then most importantly, I truly believe 'Skyfall' managed to achieve this 1 Billion Dollars for the most part because it was simply a delightful, multi-layered, top notch quality FILM. Yes, a good, almost perfect Bond film it most certainly was. It had more humour, more gadgets than previous Craig films. And Moneypenny and Q got back. But even more so it was a perfect film! And that perfect film was made by a bunch of top notch, high-talented, creative people. Perhaps even more so than with previous Bond films.

    Barbara Broccoli admitted it herself in an interview. She WANTED to have an Oscar cast and Oscar crew, because she was so committed of making this perfect film. And that paid off. NOT only because of outside factors and lots of promotion. But most importantly because screening audiences of journalists were giving 'Skyfall' raving reviews. When the first reviews came in, you could have anticipated that 'Skyfall' was going to cash in a lot more money then previous Bond films. And you simply won't reach a 1 Billion Dollar without that!

    A perfect Bond film, with all marketing in place would have grossed around $700 Million, like most Bond fans in here were predicting.
    But a perfect FILM, that happens to be a very good Bond film, should gross way more than $900 Million, which I predicted. And we know now were 'Skyfall' stands!

    Dear people? to achieve something like this again, we simply need to look to what Christopher Nolan did with The Dark Knight franchise. The Bond franchise used to be a certain money casher. But as I mentioned above, the Bond franchise has upgraded itself to a certain +900 Million Dollar franchise.

    'The Dark Knight' had off course a lot of extra buzz surrounding Ledger's death, but pundits agreed that it was also a marvellous film! THAT'S what made it a 1 Billion Dollar movie. Something similar has happened now with 'Skyfall'.

    But to achieve a 1 Billion Dollar AGAIN, like the top notch film 'The Dark Knight Rises' did, you HAVE to be patient and you NEED a longer pre-production period. A gap of two years is then simply too small amount of time. Not to mention all the extra scheduling you need to forecast for the new 1 Billion Dollar Bond franchise.

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,568
    The first four Bond films were produced within a one year gap. DN, FRWL, GF and TB had the big advantage of scripts that were almost completed during pre-production. The Bond producers choose the relatively easy-to-produce novels FRWL and DN to use for their first two films. With GF, a two year gap might have been a good thing already, as there were quite some difficulties with the script. They barely finished the script in time. And for TB.....well the script was basically there already upon pre-production.

    Then, for YOLT the breathing space of two years was a welcome change for Sean Connery and most importantly for Ken Adam who started building that massive set...and who really needed the time.

    In actual fact TB and YOLT both had 18 month gaps. GF came out in the Summer of '64, TB came out at the end of '65. YOLT followed 18 months later in the Summer of '67.
    The gap between YOLT and OHMSS was actually as long as the gap between TMWTGG and TSWLM - two and a half years.

    I do agree though that in this day and age it is harder to get a film out in two years, for any number of reasons.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Guastav, I believe, before you complain about other peoples tone, read yourself. You are AS committed to YOUR opinon as for example doubleoego. Your opinion is THE right one and nothing else CAN possibly be right. Now see, some of us believe, that they have set their minds in starting in 2013 and have actually thought is all out. It has been done before and with the current interest in Bond, it won't be THAT hard to find the right people.

    All of us just need to sit back and wait. Neither of us - at this point - knows anything more the the other. We are just putting together those pieces in a different way. Should be allowed, no?
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Hey, your tone is a bit out of line I think.

    I could say the same about lots of your posts.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I'm just not convinced Bond 24 can make close to SF figures in the summer, at least not for the next few years that's for sure. Bond should be prioritising the quality of the script before it's release date anyway and with that being said, it's track record has been stellar since the move to autumn releases. People and i'm talking to you directly here @Gustav, you need to pay attention to the Market and what's out there. Bond 24 could be an amazing movie but there are far too many blockbusters, franchises and new franchises that saturate the summer. There's a clearer view of finality of these movies more so than Bond and that's because as it stands and what has always been the case, James Bond will always return. Films like Avatar, Batman, Avengers etc, they make a billion dollars or thereabouts because they're tentpole movies with a finite number of movies. You can't compare Nolan's BO success to Bond and blindly accept similar figures because Nolan's batman movies and the other movies I mentioned are somewhat of a Novelty compared to Bond. Bond has always been here and looks like he's not going anywhere anytime soon. Bond has that familiarity so embedded in the fabric of popular culture, that it's not surprising that general audiences don't prioratise Bond over other film's that get released. Obviously, SF is an exception and I can guarantee you that the producers know how fortunate they are and given the cinematic climate of the next couple if summers, there's no way in Hell we'll get Bond released in the summer. I appreciate your opinion and I think you were incredibly lucky to guess that SF would bank 900million + dollars but until Bond can consistently make similar figures for tge next few releases, this argument is going nowhere.
    I'm a huge Bond fan, been so my whole life and naturally welcome good things that come it's way but I'm also a realist and am not about to allow myself to be naive that Bond is ready to make around a billion dollars in the summer. SF's success doesn't prove that it will contrary to what you believe. Finally, I have to disagree that SF was perfect. It wasn't for me anyway. It was a great film but far from perfect and I believe that CR was a superior film easily. Going by your logic, CR should have made close to a billion dollars but it didn't.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote:
    I'm just not convinced Bond 24 can make close to SF figures in the summer, at least not for the next few years that's for sure. Bond should be prioritising the quality of the script before it's release date anyway and with that being said, it's track record has been stellar since the move to autumn releases. People and i'm talking to you directly here @Gustav, you need to pay attention to the Market and what's out there. Bond 24 could be an amazing movie but there are far too many blockbusters, franchises and new franchises that saturate the summer. There's a clearer view of finality of these movies more so than Bond and that's because as it stands and what has always been the case, James Bond will always return. Films like Avatar, Batman, Avengers etc, they make a billion dollars or thereabouts because they're tentpole movies with a finite number of movies (quality of movies themselves not withstanding). You can't compare Nolan's BO success to Bond and blindly expect similar figures because Nolan's batman movies and the other movies I mentioned are somewhat of a Novelty compared to Bond. Bond has always been here and looks like he's not going anywhere anytime soon. Bond has that familiarity so embedded in the fabric of popular culture, that it's not surprising that general audiences don't prioratise Bond over other film's that get released. Obviously, SF is an exception and I can guarantee you that the producers know how fortunate they are and given the cinematic climate of the next couple if summers, there's no way in Hell we'll get Bond released in the summer. I appreciate your opinion and I think you were incredibly lucky to guess that SF would bank 900million + dollars but until Bond can consistently make similar figures for tge next few releases, this argument is going nowhere.
    I'm a huge Bond fan, been so my whole life and naturally welcome good things that come it's way but I'm also a realist and am not about to allow myself to be naive that Bond is ready to make around a billion dollars in the summer. SF's success doesn't prove that it will contrary to what you believe. Finally, I have to disagree that SF was perfect. It wasn't for me anyway. It was a great film but far from perfect and I believe that CR was a superior film easily. Going by your logic, CR should have made close to a billion dollars but it didn't.

  • @doubleoego Well said and I completely agree apart from the bit about CR, which I like, but don't love. Don't get me wrong I don't think SF was perfect and the best Bond ever either, but I think it's Craigs best film.
Sign In or Register to comment.