No Time To Die: Production Diary

16786796816836842585

Comments

  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited March 2017 Posts: 3,126
    For me, in my opinion, bond 25 happening in 2018 vs 2019 is a bigger deal than daniel Craig being in vs someone else

    I agree. I don't really care if Craig stays or goes at this point.

    It blows my [email protected]#$ing mind that people who call themselves Bond fans can just turn against a lead actor at the snap of a finger like this. 11 years ago, Daniel Craig was instrumental in stopping these films from ending. We still have a Bond franchise because of him. Just think about that for a minute.

    He eventually going to have go then what will you do not be a fan anymore and James bond wasn't ending after brosnan die another day made a good amount of money its not like they ran out of cash they just chose take a different direction not because the money was running out. It wasn't needed saving financially like you try to get at but creativity but he didn't really save the franchise from dying he just made it better in the long run
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 839
    doubleoego wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I think that with the likes of Deadpool, John Wick, Logan, the upcoming atomic blonde and others, particularly deadpool and Logan some studios are taking advantage of the knowledge that some of the films based on certain characters that need and should be portrayed in a certain way that doesn't neuter them can not only proves to be authentic but still make a great deal of money.

    I bring this up because going forward I feel like Bond maybe able to recapture elements that made him unique and were truly authentic to who the character is have been watered down. Going in a new/slightly new direction would be the perfect opportunity to see a more Fleming portrayal. Audiences have shown that heroes/antiheroes can operate in grey/dicey areas and still be a crowd pleaser where there aren't any adverse effects on the bottom line.

    I'm not advocating an R-rated Bond as such but I want a return to a less PC Bond and a character/film that is confident in the story it wants to tell while unashamedly embracing the source material upon which it is based. There's an audience out there for it and more than enough money to be made from it. Bond at the moment isn't the joke it was or at least it was becoming in the 90s, however, a lot more authenticity can be restored to the character and now's the perfect opportunity to take advantage of this recent opening. The last thing EoN should be faced with is for some other studio to make a full blown R rated spy movie that's a box office smash hit. EoN need to get in front and on top of this asap.

    Good post and I agree (except the bit about the 90s, on the whole I was very happy with Brosnan's first few with GE and TWINE being two of my all time favourites).

    I wouldn't want an R rated Bond (after all I'm sure most of us were kids when we became fans, I'd never want to rob a new generation of the same feeling I had sitting in the cinema watching my first Bond film) but it'd be nice to bring back a few of his traits from the novels that have been lost over the years even if it means making him more of an anti hero (he frequently kills people, but he can't smoke because he'd be a bad role model?) or a man out of time (Kingsman did this quite well I thought with the suits and Colin Firth's character in general). Bond should move with the times sure but I think certain elements are timeless and should carry over no matter what.

    And that's the thing, many of us were children when we saw our first Bond film and for many of us our first Bond film predates GE. Which means all the unique stuff that's been long since ditched has been somewhat unecessarilly thrown to the wayside.
    Bond isn't supposed to be a role model, he's not inspector gadget or some cartoon characters we should take advice from. He kills people, enjoys casual sex, enjoys good food and drink and is morally grey. He has his vices and these are things that shouldn't necessarily be celebrated as such but explored and shown because this is who he is.
    If the future Bond films can be treated with a bit more maturity and embrace the characterisation and the essence of the type of stories found in the source material (as long as the films are well directed and executed well overall) it's not going to be a problem.

    All they need to do is create a proper marketing campaign that genuinely communicates the next film is really going back to and embracing the stories that Fleming told. Fun yet murky adventures that conveys the essence of who the creature that is James Bond is supposed to be. Market and inform audiences as to what they're actually getting and really deliver on it. That's exactly how Deadpool went on to gross over $700 million and why Logan has grossed $524 million so far. So how much more for a Bond film? Why compromise on the story and character if the BO won't be adversely affected?

    And for clarification, for those arguing film x is better than film y, that's not really the point here. The point is, there are blockbuster films that hold true to their characters and stories they're telling that don't require being watered down or PC or whatever and can still go on to be highly profitable. If we got CR today I'm telling you it would make close to a $Billion. Now imagine if we got a slightly more Flmingesque portrayal with his vices etc; the numbers would be similarly high. Fuck all this Bond as a role model rubbish. Yes, there's a fantastical element in wanting to be Bond; cars, women, frequent travel, lovely locations, having his vehicular, fighting and weapon skills but that's about it. If the films show the consequences and fatal risks of what it's like being Bond then it's not so much a glorification of the character but more of a study and exploration that audiences and critics can at least appreciate. The world's been too soft for too long.

    Couldn't agree more.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    edited March 2017 Posts: 2,682
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I think that with the likes of Deadpool, John Wick, Logan, the upcoming atomic blonde and others, particularly deadpool and Logan some studios are taking advantage of the knowledge that some of the films based on certain characters that need and should be portrayed in a certain way that doesn't neuter them can not only proves to be authentic but still make a great deal of money.

    I bring this up because going forward I feel like Bond maybe able to recapture elements that made him unique and were truly authentic to who the character is have been watered down. Going in a new/slightly new direction would be the perfect opportunity to see a more Fleming portrayal. Audiences have shown that heroes/antiheroes can operate in grey/dicey areas and still be a crowd pleaser where there aren't any adverse effects on the bottom line.

    I'm not advocating an R-rated Bond as such but I want a return to a less PC Bond and a character/film that is confident in the story it wants to tell while unashamedly embracing the source material upon which it is based. There's an audience out there for it and more than enough money to be made from it. Bond at the moment isn't the joke it was or at least it was becoming in the 90s, however, a lot more authenticity can be restored to the character and now's the perfect opportunity to take advantage of this recent opening. The last thing EoN should be faced with is for some other studio to make a full blown R rated spy movie that's a box office smash hit. EoN need to get in front and on top of this asap.

    Good post and I agree (except the bit about the 90s, on the whole I was very happy with Brosnan's first few with GE and TWINE being two of my all time favourites).

    I wouldn't want an R rated Bond (after all I'm sure most of us were kids when we became fans, I'd never want to rob a new generation of the same feeling I had sitting in the cinema watching my first Bond film) but it'd be nice to bring back a few of his traits from the novels that have been lost over the years even if it means making him more of an anti hero (he frequently kills people, but he can't smoke because he'd be a bad role model?) or a man out of time (Kingsman did this quite well I thought with the suits and Colin Firth's character in general). Bond should move with the times sure but I think certain elements are timeless and should carry over no matter what.
    Walecs wrote: »
    the movie felt like an ending chapter for Craig's era (scenes from CR, QOS and SF were in the title sequence, the movie wrapped all three together, all loose ends were tied, the "author of all [Bond's] pain" has been arrested and Bond left MI6 to settle down with Madeleine). I'm not saying there's no way to carry his story on, but there's no reason to. The whole movie really feels like the final chapter.

    I agree. They could find a way to continue but SP definitely felt like it was written as a possible ending to the Craig era imo. And while I loved that film, love Craig as Bond and am on the whole incredibly happy for how his era turned out and thankful for what he did for the series, a fresh start seems infinitely more exciting to me at this point. The prospect of having waited four or five years just to see a film that pointlessly drags out the SP story or (even worse) casually brushes the ending of that film under the carpet completely just to get Craig back for one more doesn't sound very appealing to me. I'd be much happier if they went the soft reboot route and took the films in a fresh, new direction, with lots of new blood (new director, writers, composer, etc, and the only cast member I want to carry over is Wishaw).



    Bond shouldn't release in theatres R rated for sure, it doesn't need to be, bond is very much a 15 film, not pg 13 but not R18, so with the current mpaa ratings it's impossible, so I think they should film it as a 15 film, release it as a pg13 film and then on the blu ray make it fully uncut
  • Posts: 2,498
    doubleoego wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I think that with the likes of Deadpool, John Wick, Logan, the upcoming atomic blonde and others, particularly deadpool and Logan some studios are taking advantage of the knowledge that some of the films based on certain characters that need and should be portrayed in a certain way that doesn't neuter them can not only proves to be authentic but still make a great deal of money.

    I bring this up because going forward I feel like Bond maybe able to recapture elements that made him unique and were truly authentic to who the character is have been watered down. Going in a new/slightly new direction would be the perfect opportunity to see a more Fleming portrayal. Audiences have shown that heroes/antiheroes can operate in grey/dicey areas and still be a crowd pleaser where there aren't any adverse effects on the bottom line.

    I'm not advocating an R-rated Bond as such but I want a return to a less PC Bond and a character/film that is confident in the story it wants to tell while unashamedly embracing the source material upon which it is based. There's an audience out there for it and more than enough money to be made from it. Bond at the moment isn't the joke it was or at least it was becoming in the 90s, however, a lot more authenticity can be restored to the character and now's the perfect opportunity to take advantage of this recent opening. The last thing EoN should be faced with is for some other studio to make a full blown R rated spy movie that's a box office smash hit. EoN need to get in front and on top of this asap.

    Good post and I agree (except the bit about the 90s, on the whole I was very happy with Brosnan's first few with GE and TWINE being two of my all time favourites).

    I wouldn't want an R rated Bond (after all I'm sure most of us were kids when we became fans, I'd never want to rob a new generation of the same feeling I had sitting in the cinema watching my first Bond film) but it'd be nice to bring back a few of his traits from the novels that have been lost over the years even if it means making him more of an anti hero (he frequently kills people, but he can't smoke because he'd be a bad role model?) or a man out of time (Kingsman did this quite well I thought with the suits and Colin Firth's character in general). Bond should move with the times sure but I think certain elements are timeless and should carry over no matter what.

    And that's the thing, many of us were children when we saw our first Bond film and for many of us our first Bond film predates GE. Which means all the unique stuff that's been long since ditched has been somewhat unecessarilly thrown to the wayside.
    Bond isn't supposed to be a role model, he's not inspector gadget or some cartoon characters we should take advice from. He kills people, enjoys casual sex, enjoys good food and drink and is morally grey. He has his vices and these are things that shouldn't necessarily be celebrated as such but explored and shown because this is who he is.
    If the future Bond films can be treated with a bit more maturity and embrace the characterisation and the essence of the type of stories found in the source material (as long as the films are well directed and executed well overall) it's not going to be a problem.

    All they need to do is create a proper marketing campaign that genuinely communicates the next film is really going back to and embracing the stories that Fleming told. Fun yet murky adventures that conveys the essence of who the creature that is James Bond is supposed to be. Market and inform audiences as to what they're actually getting and really deliver on it. That's exactly how Deadpool went on to gross over $700 million and why Logan has grossed $524 million so far. So how much more for a Bond film? Why compromise on the story and character if the BO won't be adversely affected?

    And for clarification, for those arguing film x is better than film y, that's not really the point here. The point is, there are blockbuster films that hold true to their characters and stories they're telling that don't require being watered down or PC or whatever and can still go on to be highly profitable. If we got CR today I'm telling you it would make close to a $Billion. Now imagine if we got a slightly more Flmingesque portrayal with his vices etc; the numbers would be similarly high. Fuck all this Bond as a role model rubbish. Yes, there's a fantastical element in wanting to be Bond; cars, women, frequent travel, lovely locations, having his vehicular, fighting and weapon skills but that's about it. If the films show the consequences and fatal risks of what it's like being Bond then it's not so much a glorification of the character but more of a study and exploration that audiences and critics can at least appreciate. The world's been too soft for too long.

    Couldn't agree more.

    Agreed too. Excellent post. I've been saying similar things for years. One can only hope that it will one day happen.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    I'm curious what about SF and SP paints Bond as a role model? I certainly look up to aspects of his character, but they're aspects that've always been there with the character from the beginning; his determination, breadth of knowledge, openness to other cultures, loyalty, professionalism, etc. I don't think there's any Bond film period that aggressively portrays Bond as this guy you must look up to, or that slavishly spends any time trying to sell his actions to you as perfect and worth following. With these films there's always villain, always a scheme; Bond reacts to these elements, and through that face-off some things are revealed. That's it.

    If anything, the Craig era has actually scaled back any chances of people wanting to push Bond as this PC superhero. In this era we've watched Bond go from a very reckless man who did outwardly wild things (if for good reasons), only slowly becoming a much more professional man over the course of the films. And even through that, he's still been the most "flawed" Bond yet, and has his vices along with everything else. We've watched him drink himself into a bin through a depression, repress his rage while exploding inside, pop pills to dull himself and manipulate women through seducing them and dumping them once he's used them up, in between his acts of killing which have never been more visceral and raw. So where in all this has Bond been painted as this perfect role model?

    Sometimes I'm certain Bond fans watch different cuts of these films than I do.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    If we got CR today I'm telling you it would make close to a $Billion. Now imagine if we got a slightly more Flmingesque portrayal with his vices etc; the numbers would be similarly high. Fuck all this Bond as a role model rubbish. Yes, there's a fantastical element in wanting to be Bond; cars, women, frequent travel, lovely locations, having his vehicular, fighting and weapon skills but that's about it. If the films show the consequences and fatal risks of what it's like being Bond then it's not so much a glorification of the character but more of a study and exploration that audiences and critics can at least appreciate. The world's been too soft for too long.
    Good points. I very much agree. I'd be quite open to them stripping away all the tropes, including the bloody Aston Martin, Omegas, MPs, Qs etc. going forward.

    Embrace the man's vices and his quirks, but root it in a contemporary environment. Stop telling us what a dinosaur he is through third party exposition (usually from M). Rather, show us through his behaviour. I'm open to them injecting a bit of the charming rogue back as well though, as that's unique to Bond among the heroes we have out there at present who are all neutered puppies in comparison.
    I wouldn't want an R rated Bond (after all I'm sure most of us were kids when we became fans, I'd never want to rob a new generation of the same feeling I had sitting in the cinema watching my first Bond film) but it'd be nice to bring back a few of his traits from the novels that have been lost over the years even if it means making him more of an anti hero (he frequently kills people, but he can't smoke because he'd be a bad role model?) or a man out of time (Kingsman did this quite well I thought with the suits and Colin Firth's character in general). Bond should move with the times sure but I think certain elements are timeless and should carry over no matter what.
    Absolutely agree that a little more unfashionable finesse & timeless style would be welcome.
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    Posts: 1,262
    I have come around on Craig making a return for Bond 25. Originally, I was impartial on his reprisal and was leaning towards favoring a soft reboot like many members here have stated. However, reading the subtle signals from all parties over the last year has made me come to realize that Spectre took a lot of energy and enthusiasm out of the production team.

    The way I see it now: We have a very good Bond, potentially the best if you remove certain factors. There shouldn't be any kind of rush to find the next best thing. That's being prisoner of the moment. With the exception of Roger Moore, most of the community thinks about things like, "What if Connery didn't leave after YOLT?," "What if Dalton started with ATAK, got a 3rd film before 1995, or ended with GE?," and "What if Brosnan and Tarantino got to make a serious film (CR perhaps)?" There are moments to be captured with Craig, since the potential for greatness is always there if the other elements are sound.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
  • I only glanced over the content of that article, but that heading and sub-heading are seriously misinterpreting P&W's quotes for hype purposes. Is there no honor in journalism anymore? No honor at all?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    I only glanced over the content of that article, but that heading and sub-heading are seriously misinterpreting P&W's quotes for hype purposes. Is there no honor in journalism anymore? No honor at all?

    It's a smart, if unethical move from the standpoint of that publisher. What are the two biggest political shake-ups that P&W happened to mention? How can we twist Trump and Brexit into a larger conspiratorial story for extra clicks while also tying them to the biggest British character of the moment outside Sherlock Holmes?

    This whole thread is a perfect compilation of the above. It's a piss poor collection of nothing worth reading, and instead amounts to a bunch of links to bookie bets, random fake casting news and click-bait titles regarding Bond 25 that were engineered by "journalists" to really get the internet fired up to visit their site. And people fall for the traps, and even worse, take it seriously.

    It's why people think Mr. Poldark has any chance of being Bond, and why they think Dan is a greedy piece of shit who is coasting on Bond's financial profits to enter early retirement. These "journalists" are able to wrap a lie in a truth, giving it the context or appearance of fact, and readers aren't sharp enough to avoid gullibly falling into it. They believe all that hogwash just like they'll believe the above, sadly.
  • I only glanced over the content of that article, but that heading and sub-heading are seriously misinterpreting P&W's quotes for hype purposes. Is there no honor in journalism anymore? No honor at all?

    This whole thread is a perfect compilation of the above. It's a piss poor collection of nothing worth reading, and instead amounts to a bunch of links to bookie bets, random fake casting news and click-bait titles regarding Bond 25 that were engineered by "journalists" to really get the internet fired up to visit their site. And people fall for the traps, and even worse, take it seriously.

    That comment alone sums up this entire thread. My thing is, I don't really care for the progress of Bond 25. Yes I do want another Bond film, and I will be interested when an official announcement is made, but I'm not going to bother wasting my time clicking on some click bait article saying "Daniel Craig is done with Bond?" or "Is THIS person going to be the next James Bond?"
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    edited March 2017 Posts: 7,263
    huh. Those P+W comments don't inspire confidence. Seems today we're stuck in a kind of parania about Bond's standing in the world. The goal seems to be proving that Bond is still relevant, with little desire to reach for anything beyond that. It's very basic. Time was, it didn't take more than the PTS and opening song to affirm Bond's place in the minds of the viewers. Then the actual story would begin.
  • Posts: 444
    huh. Those P+W comments don't inspire confidence. Seems today we're stuck in a kind of parania about Bond's standing in the world. The goal seems to be proving that Bond is still relevant, with little desire to reach for anything beyond that. It's very basic. Time was, it didn't take more than the PTS and opening song to affirm Bond's place in the minds of the viewers. Then the actual story would begin.

    I agree that there shouldn't be any need for the franchise or any subsequent film to prove Bond is still relevant but I'm sure that a lot of the negative US press reviews of SP I read were as much about the potential redundancy of the Bond franchise than they were about the qualities of the film itself.

    If the question is repeatedly asked of EON I imagine they feel an obligation to respond to that.

    A shame as a brand new Bond film should be cause for celebration in itself and we've had this all before with GE and CR.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    I only glanced over the content of that article, but that heading and sub-heading are seriously misinterpreting P&W's quotes for hype purposes. Is there no honor in journalism anymore? No honor at all?

    This whole thread is a perfect compilation of the above. It's a piss poor collection of nothing worth reading, and instead amounts to a bunch of links to bookie bets, random fake casting news and click-bait titles regarding Bond 25 that were engineered by "journalists" to really get the internet fired up to visit their site. And people fall for the traps, and even worse, take it seriously.

    That comment alone sums up this entire thread. My thing is, I don't really care for the progress of Bond 25. Yes I do want another Bond film, and I will be interested when an official announcement is made, but I'm not going to bother wasting my time clicking on some click bait article saying "Daniel Craig is done with Bond?" or "Is THIS person going to be the next James Bond?"

    @007ClassicBondFan, that's obviously because you're the kind of person who is sensible enough to understand two major things. One, you know that we will get Bond 25 sooner rather than later, and you're willing to be patient and wait it out instead of popping in here every day to post the same statement of, "Is it here yet?" like so many do. Secondly, you're also smart enough to avoid click-bait articles that profit off all these engineered rumors, and by doing so you avoid supporting the modern day brand of faux journalism they practice and instead wait for EON to actually say something because you understand that their word is the only one that counts for anything here.

    In short, I thank you. I really shouldn't have to thank people for being logical, level-headed and aware of the truth, but in this day and age it's becoming a real rarity to find people who don't accept the first word as the truth and whose heads aren't so far up their arses they can't see or hear what's really going on. So again, thank you!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited March 2017 Posts: 15,423
    The problem with the Bond film series as a franchise overall is that before this Marvel Cinematic Universe collective, Bond didn't have to be in competition with anyone or anything, so it was easier back then to keep the series rolling without having to fear for the quality of the movie as much as we are now. When you think about it, Spectre was an experimental production trying to fit in to the modern-day aspect of the film industry. Guinness World Record explosion, bespoke sports car and whatnot.

    Of course, I don't know much about film productions and how they run. But, Bond has too many competitors nowadays and they are mostly the Marvel and DC superhero films, as well as the Star Wars entries. The film market is keeping reliance over big budget franchises that keep spawning continuous sequels one after another. And they're performing a lot better with the audience on the commercial side as well as the critical than Bond is. Their numbers are bigger. Danjaq, I gather, are worried about this. What if the public loses interest in Bond and the box office gross of their next entry experiences an implosion? It happened with Spectre, didn't it?
  • I only glanced over the content of that article, but that heading and sub-heading are seriously misinterpreting P&W's quotes for hype purposes. Is there no honor in journalism anymore? No honor at all?

    This whole thread is a perfect compilation of the above. It's a piss poor collection of nothing worth reading, and instead amounts to a bunch of links to bookie bets, random fake casting news and click-bait titles regarding Bond 25 that were engineered by "journalists" to really get the internet fired up to visit their site. And people fall for the traps, and even worse, take it seriously.

    That comment alone sums up this entire thread. My thing is, I don't really care for the progress of Bond 25. Yes I do want another Bond film, and I will be interested when an official announcement is made, but I'm not going to bother wasting my time clicking on some click bait article saying "Daniel Craig is done with Bond?" or "Is THIS person going to be the next James Bond?"

    @007ClassicBondFan, that's obviously because you're the kind of person who is sensible enough to understand two major things. One, you know that we will get Bond 25 sooner rather than later, and you're willing to be patient and wait it out instead of popping in here every day to post the same statement of, "Is it here yet?" like so many do. Secondly, you're also smart enough to avoid click-bait articles that profit off all these engineered rumors, and by doing so you avoid supporting the modern day brand of faux journalism they practice and instead wait for EON to actually say something because you understand that their word is the only one that counts for anything here.

    In short, I thank you. I really shouldn't have to thank people for being logical, level-headed and aware of the truth, but in this day and age it's becoming a real rarity to find people who don't accept the first word as the truth and whose heads aren't so far up their arses they can't see or hear what's really going on. So again, thank you!

    Thank you for the kind words. I've always tried to avoid this discussion because for one thing, it kept getting all these comments and discussions that I can't keep up with it, and like you said, people are gullible because this "news" passes so quickly into acceptance. I get a good laugh at some of the articles journalists are posting. "Is Tom Hiddleson is next Bond?" "Is Taylor Swift the next Bond girl." Like EON would ever consider her. People also forget that this is a film franchise with 24 installments and still plenty to talk about. I can't tell you how much I go and revisit the earlier films, and still always finding out new stuff about them.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    The problem with the Bond film series as a franchise overall is that before this Marvel Cinematic Universe collective, Bond didn't have to be in competition with anyone or anything, so it was easier back then to keep the series rolling without having to fear for the quality of the movie as much as we are now. When you think about it, Spectre was an experimental production trying to fit in to the modern-day aspect of the film industry. Guinness World Record explosion, bespoke sports car and whatnot.

    Of course, I don't know much about film productions and how they run. But, Bond has too many competitors nowadays and they are mostly the Marvel and DC superhero films, as well as the Star Wars entries. The film market is keeping reliance over big budget franchises that keep spawning continuous sequels one after another. And they're performing a lot better with the audience on the commercial side as well as the critical than Bond is. Their numbers are bigger. Danjaq, I gather, are worried about this. What if the public loses interest in Bond and the box office gross of their next entry experiences an implosion? It happened with Spectre, didn't it?

    If you're calling a near 900 million box office take (and for sure video and digital releases that pushed it past 1 billion profit) as Spectre imploding, you've got a serious perception problem.

    Yeah, superhero films are big, sure. Some of them make tons and tons of money, yes, and they are essentially their own genre now. But if you look at inflation adjusted totals, the films of today are not bringing in the dough when compared to earlier films, where the early 2000s Spider-Man films wipe the floor with every Marvel film of the last 10 years outside the two Avengers films. Even going with totals that don't account for ticket price change, only the two Avengers films and Iron Man 3 surpassed what SF and SP have done box office wise, with every other film earning less than $800 million and down. So what is perceived as Bond falling behind is actually Bond being pretty damn awesome, and meeting or exceeding in most cases what you would think the films could do in the face of franchises like Marvel's.

    I don't understand the need for this fear-mongering "it's the end of Bond" talk. These movies are some of the most profitable ever, period, even when adjusted for inflation, and are able to chart with the massive Bondmania-fuled hits of Thunderball and Goldfinger through their gigantic profits and ticket sales. These films only continue to assert that Bond is as viable a commodity as ever, with no slowing of interest from the public who embrace him even more as a regal knight of the modern day than they have for who knows how long. Audiences have shown support for all of the Craig era, for the two films that stripped Bond back to essentials like the early 60s films and for the two that slowly and delicately sprinkled old elements back in.

    Say Daniel Craig and everyone shouts "Bond!" Journalists are sitting back with their feet up, dropping his name in articles just to feed a firestorm of rumors for the next film, a hoopla you don't see for any other franchise outside of maybe Star Wars. Bond is still a niche market, no matter how popular he is, and it's quite frankly gobsmacking that we're having films reach such amazing financial highs as we are now for this one character, to the point that it feels like Bond is fresh as a baby boy. Bond is the only film franchise I can think of that is able to consistently make this kind of profit without resorting to pandering to audiences with big effects, hero battles, and all that visual "noise." They're always stories about one man facing a specific threat with no funny business (excluding some extreme examples), and they are always able to turn a profit from that while not going all "Marvel" on their market.

    Nothing about Bond has staled with people, and it's a cultural event to go and see any Bond movies, period, even today in a digitally run world. If anything, the past ten years have shown us that the public are willing to walk with Bond through any change, even if some don't agree with it at first (look at the Craig backlash). On the whole, audiences are willing to take that risk, and if they find they were wrong to overreact, they'll champion the change as they have Dan. The numbers show that, the acclaim shows that, and the massive attention on Bond at all times shows that. Bond is able to thrive at new peaks in an age where people don't want to exert energy going out to cinemas, and even in the over-hyped world of superhero films and other budget-blowing blockbusters reaching $400 million price tags, the franchise is able to not only survive, but profit exceedingly well, keeping its dignity and image through it all.

    I don't want to hear anyone reading Bond his last rites at bedside. He's got a whole lotta living left in him.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 733
    Tbh, I don't really see this Cinematic Universe trend going on for much longer. Marvel and DC will still do it, and I'm sure that Universal will have some success with their Monster universe, but it's becoming an old concept rather quickly for me. Marvel's movies never really hit with me, and DC's are incredibly flawed (but entertaining). I always get a good chuckle whenever somebody says that James Bond is no more. They were saying that in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and 2000s. If their is one thing this franchise has proven, is that it can always manage to entertain and thrill the audiencences. There is a reason it's the most respected film franchise in history ya know.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited March 2017 Posts: 15,423
    You chaps read me completely wrong. I never said "this is the end of James Bond". What I was going to was simply me saying that they need things to figure out and some ideas retooled after the heavy criticism that came with Spectre, which also didn't make it to its projected gross. It experienced what Batman v Superman did, and both had around the same budget and almost the same box office gross, with people deeming it as a failure. Similar comments from users alike here are present in this very forums.

    There is no such thing that "James Bond is having his last rites". It culturally has left impact on the people and will continue to do so. But, when the next one comes out is under question. It will when it's ready. But, we don't know when. People losing interest in Bond has happened before and for a long amount of time, they wouldn't want to see it because of the "repetitive cycle complex" they see in it until they start missing it. There was the six year hiatus with Eon when they were figuring out how to reintroduce Bond to the public, and after people had the starting expressiveness of earning that dreadful income of an insight from Die Another Day, Eon had to retool the series again to see what serves the audience right. The film brought almost half a billion, didn't it? But, many people considered it failure and Eon feared where the series might have been headed next, so Casino Royale happened with the trend of the reboot (like many other IPs) with completely different theme for a universe than it was in the previous installment.

    'Bond 25' is under that kind of circumstances. Being developed and figured out. It's a franchise on a higher plateau than Mission: Impossible and others who merely make it to $400 Million. Bond is way above those. That's why Eon are figuring out how to live up to the success of Skyfall (my personal opinion of the film aside) and how to win the hearts of millions of people with it. The "Bond coming to an end" comment on whoever's behalf is what I class absurd and laughable. It's part of the pop culture and has been thriving for decades whereas some other series stopped. From your perspective, Bond may not need to compete anyone, but Spectre did try to compete with other big name franchises and didn't finish first. Whatever Eon are doing, I am sure they're setting their bars straight and are willing to break in to the race with a strong strike equipped with the next entry in the series.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,263
    You chaps read me completely wrong. I never said "this is the end of James Bond". What I was going to was simply me saying that they need things to figure out and some ideas retooled after the heavy criticism that came with Spectre, which also didn't make it to its projected gross. It experienced what Batman v Superman did, and both had around the same budget and almost the same box office gross, with people deeming it as a failure. Similar comments from users alike here are present in this very forums.

    There is no such thing that "James Bond is having his last rites". It culturally has left impact on the people and will continue to do so. But, when the next one comes out is under question. It will when it's ready. But, we don't know when. People losing interest in Bond has happened before and for a long amount of time, they wouldn't want to see it because of the "repetitive cycle complex" they see in it until they start missing it. There was the six year hiatus with Eon when they were figuring out how to reintroduce Bond to the public, and after people had the starting expressiveness of earning that dreadful income of an insight from Die Another Day, Eon had to retool the series again to see what serves the audience right. The film brought almost half a billion, didn't it? But, many people considered it failure and Eon feared where the series might have been headed next, so Casino Royale happened with the trend of the reboot (like many other IPs) with completely different theme for a universe than it was in the previous installment.

    'Bond 25' is under that kind of circumstances. Being developed and figured out. It's a franchise on a higher plateau than Mission: Impossible and others who merely make it to $400 Million. Bond is way above those. That's why Eon are figuring out how to live up to the success of Skyfall (my personal opinion of the film aside) and how to win the hearts of millions of people with it. The "Bond coming to an end" comment on whoever's behalf is what I class absurd and laughable. It's part of the pop culture and has been thriving for decades whereas some other series stopped. From your perspective, Bond may not need to compete anyone, but Spectre did try to compete with other big name franchises and didn't finish first. Whatever Eon are doing, I am sure they're setting their bars straight and are willing to break in to the race with a strong strike equipped with the next entry in the series.

    I agree - At it's best, Bond has always taken risks before guaranteed "safe" profits. This should be the model they use with this next film, if they want to avoid withering on the vine.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,682
    Another thing to note, when skyfall came out, I saw trailers and posters everywhere here in America, everyone was talking about it and everyone was excited to see it, most of which wernt bond fans, however when SPECTRE came out, I saw maybe 1 trailer , 0 posters, no one even knew it was coming out and hardly anyone I know saw it, just some perespcetive from real life perhps they didn't market it well enough.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    edited March 2017 Posts: 2,682
    Delete
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I believe the word that people are looking for is cultural relevancy. Bond has always been successful, but only culturally relevant at certain points, most notably in the early 60's, again in the mid to late 70's, in 1995 and in 2012.

    In all cases, we had films that raised the bar with the audience, substantially outdid their immediate predecessors at the box office and got tongues wagging outside of the obsessives that hang around sites like this (myself included).

    That's what needs to happen from time to time in order for the series to continue as the longest running continuous film franchise. A comprehensive shakeup is required at certain points in order to give the audience something new and fresh.

    While I've enjoyed the Craig run, I think it's been as uneven as the other long running actors (but in a different way as is always the case) and it is long in the tooth (from a time and story standpoint at least, if not from a film output one).

    I contend that the time is right for another shaking of the tree. Either it will happen with B25, or we will endure one final Craig outing (hopefully a better one than SP) before that inevitable injection of freshness.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,263
    bondjames wrote: »
    I believe the word that people are looking for is cultural relevancy. Bond has always been successful, but only culturally relevant at certain points, most notably in the early 60's, again in the mid to late 70's, in 1995 and in 2012.

    In all cases, we had films that raised the bar with the audience, substantially outdid their immediate predecessors at the box office and got tongues wagging outside of the obsessives that hang around sites like this (myself included).

    That's what needs to happen from time to time in order for the series to continue as the longest running continuous film franchise. A comprehensive shakeup is required at certain points in order to give the audience something new and fresh.

    While I've enjoyed the Craig run, I think it's been as uneven as the other long running actors (but in a different way as is always the case) and it is long in the tooth (from a time and story standpoint at least, if not from a film output one).

    I contend that the time is right for another shaking of the tree. Either it will happen with B25, or we will endure one final Craig outing (hopefully a better one than SP) before that inevitable injection of freshness.

    Right, and I think the first step is taking it for granted that Bond is a viable commodity. That's been well and truly established now. It's important that they avoid any more distortionary tricks to make it appear like Bond is on the back foot again. They need to actually begin to think about how to take things forward, and not just going round in the same cycle.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I believe the word that people are looking for is cultural relevancy. Bond has always been successful, but only culturally relevant at certain points, most notably in the early 60's, again in the mid to late 70's, in 1995 and in 2012.

    In all cases, we had films that raised the bar with the audience, substantially outdid their immediate predecessors at the box office and got tongues wagging outside of the obsessives that hang around sites like this (myself included).

    That's what needs to happen from time to time in order for the series to continue as the longest running continuous film franchise. A comprehensive shakeup is required at certain points in order to give the audience something new and fresh.

    While I've enjoyed the Craig run, I think it's been as uneven as the other long running actors (but in a different way as is always the case) and it is long in the tooth (from a time and story standpoint at least, if not from a film output one).

    I contend that the time is right for another shaking of the tree. Either it will happen with B25, or we will endure one final Craig outing (hopefully a better one than SP) before that inevitable injection of freshness.

    Right, and I think the first step is taking it for granted that Bond is a viable commodity. That's been well and truly established now. It's important that they avoid any more distortionary tricks to make it appear like Bond is on the back foot again. They need to actually begin to think about how to take things forward, and not just going round in the same cycle.
    I agree with you. Indeed they sometimes appear almost embarrassed by their product. They should embrace it. They've got nothing to prove and nothing to apologize for.

    Just be proud of the character (warts and all) and give us the most compelling story they can, showing why he's the best. Anyone with half a brain knows that real life intelligence operatives are more important than ever today. Even the creators of Homeland know that. There's no need to continue to question how important a 00 can be in today's world.

    Additionally, to hell with the PC idiots. They can champ at the teenage Marvel bit with their holier than thou squeeky clean characters. Bond is Bond.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,263
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I believe the word that people are looking for is cultural relevancy. Bond has always been successful, but only culturally relevant at certain points, most notably in the early 60's, again in the mid to late 70's, in 1995 and in 2012.

    In all cases, we had films that raised the bar with the audience, substantially outdid their immediate predecessors at the box office and got tongues wagging outside of the obsessives that hang around sites like this (myself included).

    That's what needs to happen from time to time in order for the series to continue as the longest running continuous film franchise. A comprehensive shakeup is required at certain points in order to give the audience something new and fresh.

    While I've enjoyed the Craig run, I think it's been as uneven as the other long running actors (but in a different way as is always the case) and it is long in the tooth (from a time and story standpoint at least, if not from a film output one).

    I contend that the time is right for another shaking of the tree. Either it will happen with B25, or we will endure one final Craig outing (hopefully a better one than SP) before that inevitable injection of freshness.

    Right, and I think the first step is taking it for granted that Bond is a viable commodity. That's been well and truly established now. It's important that they avoid any more distortionary tricks to make it appear like Bond is on the back foot again. They need to actually begin to think about how to take things forward, and not just going round in the same cycle.
    I agree with you. Indeed they sometimes appear almost embarrassed by their product. They should embrace it. They've got nothing to prove and nothing to apologize for.

    Just be proud of the character (warts and all) and give us the most compelling story they can, showing why he's the best. Anyone with half a brain knows that real life intelligence operatives are more important than ever today. Even the creators of Homeland know that. There's no need to continue to question how important a 00 can be in today's world.

    Additionally, to hell with the PC idiots. They can champ at the teenage Marvel bit with their holier than thou squeeky clean characters. Bond is Bond.

    Good, good. >:)
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,682
    yeah the absolute worst thing in the last two bond films is the question, how relevant is bond? He is relevant because we have come to see his film so get on with it and shut up is what I say. It sort of is fine in skyfall but its absolutily terrible in spectre
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    yeah the absolute worst thing in the last two bond films is the question, how relevant is bond? He is relevant because we have come to see his film so get on with it and shut up is what I say. It sort of is fine in skyfall but its absolutily terrible in spectre
    Agreed. That question whether Bond is relevant or spies are relevant in any how is a cretinous claim at best. Field operatives have always been needed and will always be as long as powers exist (any power, any influential figure, gang, enterprise, country, government, whatever) and spies will do their jobs in weakening the rivals in and out. This "drones taking over" metaphor applies only to a post-dystopian period of time where humans are no more and machines occupy the planet instead of us. That's as much as it makes sense. Spies, assassins, operatives, police officers, federal agents, investigators will all be existing.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    yeah the absolute worst thing in the last two bond films is the question, how relevant is bond? He is relevant because we have come to see his film so get on with it and shut up is what I say. It sort of is fine in skyfall but its absolutily terrible in spectre
    Agreed. That question whether Bond is relevant or spies are relevant in any how is a cretinous claim at best. Field operatives have always been needed and will always be as long as powers exist (any power, any influential figure, gang, enterprise, country, government, whatever) and spies will do their jobs in weakening the rivals in and out. This "drones taking over" metaphor applies only to a post-dystopian period of time where humans are no more and machines occupy the planet instead of us. That's as much as it makes sense. Spies, assassins, operatives, police officers, federal agents, investigators will all be existing.

    It's not really as simple as that; I wish it was. SF and SP to a lesser extent addressed that Bond is fighting what will someday be a losing game. The tech takeover is real. If it's already rooted itself into the brains of humanity through the many cancerous systems of technology and application that we have now, who knows what awaits us. It's a timely question well addressed.
Sign In or Register to comment.