No Time To Die: Production Diary

1128112821284128612872507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    these numbers are supposed to show what, lol! Bond beat MI globally...

    I was merely responding to a claim, that I believe belongs to you, that said, in essence, Bond isn't doing well in the Asian markets recently.

    These numbers show, once again, that that is, in fact, untrue. Bond continues to be healthy in all markets, lol!
    Yes, I see that you've been trying to blatantly make a point with your last few posts. I just don't understand what your point is exactly. We are all quite aware that Bond is more popular than MI globally. Nobody has disputed that, have they? @talos7 already posted the two global grosses.

    Nobody has said that Bond as a franchise is in relative decline either, have they?

    The numbers I posted above show clearly that the MI film was more popular in both China and India. My point was a relative one. I was referring to Craig's (not Bond's) relative popularity in the European and UK markets in comparison to the US and Asian markets on a relative basis to the MI films.

    I was also referring to the fact that the last two MI films held their relative gross quite well while the last Bond film declined in the US, to the extent that it became the least watched film of the last 25 years in the US.

    Don't worry, Bond will survive and thrive. Nobody is having a go at Bond. Just stating some facts that people perhaps aren't aware of. Everyone (or at least I think everyone) is aware that the last Bond film was very successful globally, as it should be. I'm bringing attention to the mix.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,250
    Blatantly trying to make a point?

    Not really.

    However, when you first mentioned Asian markets, I believe it wasn't in comparison with the M:I films at all.

    And re: the M:I films retaining its audience in the US vs SF to SP: as you stated the obvious: there was a drop-off in attendance.

    I was merely saying that what's actually interesting in this find of yours is, that even with a weaker entry, Bond STILL does healthy business and profitability. And it doesn't matter if it was the least watched Bond film in 25 years.

    You said, and here are your words: Not a good sign because the rate of decline signifies something.

    All I'm saying is: that's nonsense. That's the point behind the Forbes article: a middling entry will still find, en masse, people willing to pluck down their money on a Bond film. Your "rate of decline" comment signifies nothing other than: one film that wasn't as popular as it's predecessor, lol!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    All I'm saying is: that's nonsense. That's the point behind the Forbes article: a middling entry will still find, en masse, people willing to pluck down their money on a Bond film. Your "rate of decline" comment signifies nothing other than: one film that wasn't as popular as it's predecessor, lol!
    I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because misunderstandings can occur from time to time. So perhaps you're reading into something where there is nothing to read into. My 'rate of decline' comment only suggests that SP was a far less successful entry stateside than SF. I leave it to everyone to determine why that is the case. It could just be because it wasn't a good film. I don't recall making any comment about Bond being in decline. Why you assumed it means that I was saying Bond is declining in relative popularity in the US escapes me. SF was the most popular entry in the US in multi decades (something which I also noted in my posts which you've apparently been reading so intently, but perhaps not closely enough).

    Here's the quote about Asia, which I stand by because on a relative basis, the recent Craig films have done better in Europe and the UK in comparison to the US and Asia (in comparison to other large $1bn style franchises)
    bondjames wrote: »
    IIn addition, Craig has been a very successful Bond in the UK and in Europe. He hasn't lit the US on fire though, as evidenced by the grosses of his Bond films (SF excepted) and his somewhat tepid Hollywood career. He's not that much of a draw in Asia either.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,250
    Well, obviously SP was less successful, but your words said this "means something".

    I'm saying: no it doesn't, other than: one film hit the mark, the other didn't. That's showbiz, lol!!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    Well, obviously SP was less successful, but your words said this "means something".

    I'm saying: no it doesn't, other than: one film hit the mark, the other didn't. That's showbiz, lol!!
    Of course it means something. Loss of gross doesn't occur for no reason, especially with a franchise like Bond that has been around for 50+ years. However, it doesn't mean what you assumed it meant. As I said in another of my posts (which again you may have missed), as long as they make a good film audiences will come to see it, as SF proved.

    Glad we've sorted that out.

    Sorry to other users for this pointless exchange.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,250
    yes, @bondjames-- your find, and your statement, as you're now seeing, means nothing more than: they connected with SF; not so much with SP. That's show biz.

    It means nothing more than that. And that was my point, lol! (as well as: on a lesser entry they can still make bucks, lol).

    Thanks you for finally seeing that.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 2018 Posts: 7,969
    It does mean something. It means people are ready to move on from Craig style Bond films.
    How can SF and CR be proof that the world loves the Craig style, but when the numbers don't hold up, suddenly they are irrelevant?

    Let's face it, Craig's popularity as Bond peaked with SF, and it now on the downturn. Nothing to be ashamed of, so let's just say it instead of pretend like Bond 25 can recapture that success. What we are in for with Bond 25 (if Craig returns which we still can't be sure) is another AVTAK, or DAF. For anyone who looks at how these tenures progress, this will be clear. For some this will be enough, and it will garner middling to positive reviews, but ultimately the tenure will end with a slump. With all the comparisons with Connery and Moore, as another great 007, you would think we could actually be honest about when they are actually alike, such as is the case now. All the greats end with a dud, which gets the respect of a certain sliver of hardcore fans. If Craig truly is a great along with Connery and Moore, then the same will be true of him, and there is nothing wrong with that (it's not a mark against Craig). I just wish we could have avoided all this by quitting whilst we were ahead for a change, and cashing out chips before someone jams a walking stick in our back.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I always did see that. This is why I'm still confused by the point you've been trying to make. I stand by all the facts that I have stated and I stand by my comment. I think you read something into it which wasn't there.

    Ultimately we were discussing MI in relation to Bond. I started by saying that the MI films have held up their relative gross over the last two films better than the last two Bond films have (even though SF was an exception stateside). Something can be learned from that. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Moving on....
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,250
    You shouldn't be confused, you made it clear you understood, and I appreciate your admission.

    200 million is still good box office; if they're pulling that off of a film that, I think they probably also know was flawed, I'm sure EoN will come back with a strong effort. I've said all along: they know what they're doing. In a crowded industry, bursting with competition from every angle, they do pretty well for themselves.

    And I guarantee what will happen with B25 will be this: some will LOVE it; some will like it; some will go "meh", and; others will HATE it.

    It will do, as most Bond films do, consistent box office profit-- as has been the pattern of the franchise as a whole.

    Indeed, moving on, lol!

    (I can always be reached by PM to carry on, but there's not much more that needs to be said; I think we all get it: SF was bigger than SP. It was the better film. That's all the decline shows-- one was better than the other, and connected more with the general audience. That's what happens in this industry).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Just to clarify (and not to prolong this nothingness), the whole point revolved around MI and Bond. A poster indicated that EON needed to step up their game. Another took issue with that comment. I happen to agree with the original poster (and I think that's obvious after the last effort).

    Ultimately, the point I (as opposed to others) was making is that the last two MI films have left goodwill in the majority of viewer's minds (whatever their box office gross may have been in absolute terms), and that is reflected in the relative 'hold' in box office of the last film across all markets in comparison to the prior film. That is a measure of continued enthusiasm.

    The last two Bond films in contrast have seen some pretty large shifts (particularly in the largest market). That deserves some dissection to understand what must be done. Most of our comments in totality on this site since that last film's release will give some clues. Whether the producers heed it or not is their business.

    Just to clarify again so there is no misunderstanding, the Bond films are in no danger. They are forever and James Bond will survive all of us. Bond as a franchise leaves MI in the dust.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,250
    it's not nothingness, @bondjames-- as the rest of your post implies. I'll agree that M:I is a good franchise. The last couple have looked and felt the same and delivered on expectations of the "safe" franchise (and films that I tend to forget five minutes after seeing them!)

    I'd say that EoN showed big balls with their past two outings. They didn't deliver the expected with SKYFALL and they benefited from the risk; they didn't deliver SKYFALL: PART TWO with SPECTRE (on top of whatever else we may argue worked, or didn't work), and there was disappointment, BUT (the magical thing about Bond), they still did remarkable box office that beat M:I domestically and internationally.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Of course Bond would beat MI globally @peter. That's to be expected. This was never a discussion about absolute box office. My point is about the relative 'hold' in box office over the last two efforts.

    I think the MI franchise has filled a void left by the Craig Bonds, which have gone in a different direction. McQuarrie has said as much himself. I think Cruise saw an opening, and he took it, and I for one am eternally grateful to him for filling that space (which would otherwise have been vacant). They are fun filled entries full of style, death defying stunts, glamour, class and irony that remind me of the old Bond films (even though they definitely are not in that league - just to avoid offending people again). Most importantly, they have been near perfect in their execution.

    Conceptually, the last Bond film may have taken risks by going with 'brother' (or warlord Blofeld as was initially planned), but as I've maintained since its release, it was very poorly executed. I'm not a film writer or expert but I know something that doesn't gel when I see it. Normally it's because it's been rushed or because there was a failure at inception (meaning the writing). I sincerely hope they have taken these four years to get that critical part absolutely right, so that the actors can do their job this time.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    Just to clarify (and not to prolong this nothingness), the whole point revolved around MI and Bond, lol. A poster indicated that EON needed to step up their game. Another took issue with that comment, lol. I happen to agree with the original poster (and I think that's obvious after the last effort). (Lol)

    Ultimately, the point I (as opposed to others) was making is that the last two MI films have left goodwill in the majority of viewer's minds (whatever their box office gross may have been in absolute terms), and that is reflected in the relative 'hold' in box office of the last film across all markets in comparison to the prior film. That is a measure of continued enthusiasm,lol.

    The last two Bond films in contrast have seen some pretty large shifts (particularly in the largest market). That deserves some dissection to understand what must be done,lol. Most of our comments in totality on this site since that last film's release will give some clues.lol. Whether the producers heed it or not is their business,lol.

    Just to clarify again so there is no misunderstanding, the Bond films are in no dangerlol. They are forever and James Bond will survive all of us,lol. Bond as a franchise leaves MI in the dust,lol.

    Now this makes sense.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    That's a load of lol @TF.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,250
    abso-lol-utely!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,250
    That's not my point either @bondjames ; just merely stating (lol) that, even with a lesser entry, Bond just has that magic.

    I'm glad you enjoy the re-invigorated M:I films. Personally, the last two blend too close together and I can't remember one from the other. Much like the Marvel/Avengers films-- to me they keep delivering the same spectacle, but I can't tell one from the other.

    But, the films serve their purpose.

    Re: SP: I don't think brother-gate was the risk; the risk was not delivering on SKYFALL: PART TWO (like The Avengers continue delivering the same obvious look/sound/story in their sequels).

    However, there are many reasons why SP could not meet SF. Some was self-inflicted, and part of the filmmaking process; another issue was audience expectations.

    I agree that there are story problems with SP, and, like most (if not all) film sets, there were some major obstacles from major injuries, to scripts being page one re-writes... An obvious statement but one that I don't think is fully appreciated: whatever one thinks of whichever film, no one sets out to make a poor film.

    No matter how offended we, as fans, get.

    The happy news is, professionals, like EoN, always show a pattern of bouncing back.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    That's not my point either @bondjames ; just merely stating (lol) that, even with a lesser entry, Bond just has that magic.
    Perhaps we have finally found a point of disagreement @peter. I saw nothing magical about SP at all. I think it rode the SF wave and the Bond brand name rather than being a memorable entry in itself. It will always be remembered for 'brother'. In fact, if you google Bond 24, one of the drop down popular questions from the public is asking whether Bond and Blofeld were actually brothers. That's a real lol there.

    They have a 50 year storied legacy to draw from, so they don't really have to focus so much on emulating the last entry.

    Of course it will make moola. No Bond film hasn't. That's never a good measure of the discussion with Bond, particularly with the budgets (production and marketing) and the legacy. It's the most bulletproof franchise ever imho. More so than SW and more so than Batman. As long as men have egos, want to bed women, live the high life and do dangerous things there will always be Bond. I certainly hope men are still allowed to do that (lol - given current trends) in the future.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,250
    I'm not saying SP was magical @bondjames-- I'm saying Bond still has that magic, even with a lesser film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Oh then I most certainly agree @peter. Always. The character is indeed magical (and inspirational as well as aspirational) for us warped men.
  • Posts: 12,242
    Mendes himself said he felt he had done everything he could with Bond with SF. It shows in the tired, uninspired SP.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited February 2018 Posts: 45,489
    FoxRox wrote: »
    It shows in the tired, uninspired SP.

    Did Mendes say that as well?
  • Posts: 12,242
    FoxRox wrote: »
    It shows in the tired, uninspired SP.

    Did Mendes say that as well?

    Should have :P
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 1,215
    My issue (and most of the casual non-Bond fans I've spoken to about it) is that Spectre really played like a ho-hum, run of the mill Bond film with a hint of Daniel Craig flair. I think Mendes and the producers overplayed the importance of "Bondness" and all the typical tropes. The thing about Skyfall and Casino Royale is that whether or not you're into Bond, they hold up as their own movies. I can't say the same for Spectre.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 2018 Posts: 7,969
    Except the other entries like that are usually around 125 minutes. SPECTRE's biggest sin is that it is flabby, ponderous and unfocused. If it was, at most, 130 minutes I could accept it as a "nothing between the ears" Bond film in the vein of Tomorrow Never Dies. But the problem is that Mendes obviously thinks he is making a lot smarter film than he actually is.
  • Posts: 12,242
    CR and SF are known as Craig’s best for a reason. They stand on their own well. QoS, while decent, still needs CR in context to work. SP needs all 3 and it’s blah.
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 6,682
    Except the other entries like that are usually around 125 minutes. SPECTRE's biggest sin is that it is flabby, ponderous and unfocused. If it was, at most, 130 minutes I could accept it as a "nothing between the ears" Bond film in the vein of Tomorrow Never Dies. But the problem is that Mendes obviously thinks he is making a lot smarter film than he actually is.
    You know, talking about films that aren't as "smart" as they aspire to be, I must say the presence of the Quantum of Solace logo at the end of that film gives me a similar vibe of unjustified self-satisfaction from the filmmakers.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,969
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Except the other entries like that are usually around 125 minutes. SPECTRE's biggest sin is that it is flabby, ponderous and unfocused. If it was, at most, 130 minutes I could accept it as a "nothing between the ears" Bond film in the vein of Tomorrow Never Dies. But the problem is that Mendes obviously thinks he is making a lot smarter film than he actually is.
    You know, talking about films that aren't as "smart" as they aspire to be, I must say the presence of the Quantum of Solace logo at the end of that film gives me a similar vibe of unjustified self-satisfaction from the filmmakers.

    Yes, very much so.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Regarding our earlier discussion about Bond vs. MI, there's no doubt that the Bond series has a far larger 'moat'. In the sense that there is a massive amount of justifiable goodwill which surrounds the character and the series due to its continued excellence over the years. Therefore, they can more readily afford a hiccup or two compared to other franchise offerings from time to time.

    Additionally, it's one of the few that supersedes the actor playing the part. It's all about the character. He is the draw. That makes it a highly valuable franchise in Hollywood. Even SW still revolves around the actors playing the parts (recall the furor over Luke in the last one).

    Having said that, it's not something that should ever be taken for granted and thankfully the producers have never fallen into that trap.
  • TuxedoTuxedo Europe
    Posts: 251
    FoxRox wrote: »
    CR and SF are known as Craig’s best for a reason. They stand on their own well. QoS, while decent, still needs CR in context to work. SP needs all 3 and it’s blah.

    Watching SP in the cinema was a bit like watching the "best of" show at the season's end of a TV series.

  • Posts: 4,599
    The very fact that the thread has gone in this direction is evidence in itself. If you go back 18 years to the release of MI2, there would be no significant debate re Bond v MI.

    Now the debate exists and that speaks volumes IMHO
Sign In or Register to comment.