Jump to content


The forums are moving

Please head over to our new forums at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/ as these forums will soon be converted to a read only archive.



Photo

MGM: 007 films to come out on a 3-4 year cycle


  • Please log in to reply
1017 replies to this topic

#61 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 04:22 AM

Maybe EON should just decide to stop making Bond films for a while.  

 

I'll still maintain my Bond fandom. I'll fill the film void by following the comic series, which is great by the way. Very recommended. A good video game would really be welcome. That aspect of the franchise is also dead in the water, and that's a real shame. 



#62 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 31 March 2016 - 06:44 AM

One should not forget, of course, that the last Bond film has premiered five months ago.  And while it was not greeted as stellarly as SKYFALL it still raked in tons of cash.  Nobody will conclude that it´s better to give the franchise a rest.

 

Also,  nothing has been said or done since then that actively prevents a new Bond film in two, three or four years.

 

In this business, everything can be postponed or cancelled - but it can also come together very fast.

 

I suspect that EON will make a statement within 2016 what the future holds: Craig or no Craig, a new film for a new distributor or not.



#63 Walecs

Walecs

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 31 March 2016 - 07:16 AM

I'm not saying that they should return to churning out one every year, or keep up the once every-other-year schedule as a rule.  But, you also can't have that much of a dramatic decrease in production, reaching a point where you're doing less than half of that kind of production over a 20 year period, and expect to cultivate a new generation of fans who will keep your business going at the same level of success some years down the line as it has become accustomed to recently.

 

And it would also be a different story if we were given any evidence that the longer wait between films would result in a better product, that might make it easier to swallow.  But, this is the creative team that took three years on Spectre, a film that felt much more rushed than Quantum of Solace, the film that everyone here likes to hold up as the bane of Bond's existence.  If they could guarantee that they get people on board to write the films that actually understand Bond and could churn out a solid product every three years, it might make this more of a reasonable idea, but if they're going to take 3-4 years for that kind of nonsense, then they're going to find themselves losing a portion of their intended audience pretty quickly.  The general public is pretty fickle when it comes to such things.

 

Exactly. In my opinion Quantum of Solace is A LOT better than SPECTRE, and if we have to wait 3-4 years for disappointing movies as the latter, than we might wait 2 years as well. What do they need 3-4 years for? Surely not to write the script.



#64 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 07:24 AM

One should not forget, of course, that the last Bond film has premiered five months ago.  And while it was not greeted as stellarly as SKYFALL it still raked in tons of cash.  Nobody will conclude that it´s better to give the franchise a rest.
 
Also,  nothing has been said or done since then that actively prevents a new Bond film in two, three or four years.
 
In this business, everything can be postponed or cancelled - but it can also come together very fast.
 
I suspect that EON will make a statement within 2016 what the future holds: Craig or no Craig, a new film for a new distributor or not.


Just so. Eon will surely make a show of confidence, probably at some occasion where they are asked 'out of the blue' about the future and they can express their readiness to get going again at any time their partners come to terms. In the end this is not about the marketability of 007 as a brand - that's not questioned - it's about industry shenanigans few fans even care about. It's just as possible everything comes to a conclusion within a few months. After all MGM themselves can not endlessly stare down their candidates, sooner or later they have to make a move in either direction.

#65 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 31 March 2016 - 07:39 AM

Interestingly, there is an article in Variety today on Paramount looking for new investors to better the cashflow.  I thought Paramount actually was pretty well off.

 

Seems like Hollywood right now is anxious not to spend too much money but to consolidate and to get partners.  Maybe that´s why nobody seemed to be overeager to get the distribution rights for Bond (which leave little profit).  Could also be nervousness in an election year, I´d say.

 

But sooner or later one studio will want Bond desperately enough.



#66 trevanian

trevanian

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 355 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 12:29 PM

Interestingly, there is an article in Variety today on Paramount looking for new investors to better the cashflow.  I thought Paramount actually was pretty well off.

 

Seems like Hollywood right now is anxious not to spend too much money but to consolidate and to get partners.  Maybe that´s why nobody seemed to be overeager to get the distribution rights for Bond (which leave little profit).  Could also be nervousness in an election year, I´d say.

 

But sooner or later one studio will want Bond desperately enough.

I only found out about Par's problems several weeks back, but apparently they are making themselves felt all over. The studio is cheaping out on the TREK 50th anniversary, only remastering ONE of the feature films (WRATH OF KHAN, which already had a 4K scan before its earlier release on blur) for ultraHD, and apparently there is even talk of Par and CBS reuniting (at least that would put all of TREK back under one roof, though personally I think CBS is better off staying away from Abrams & Cruise & co.)

 

They did allocate funds for a recent reshoot on the new movie, but that might be a desperation move OR a sign of good faith, hard to know in advance, though most folks hate the trailer. I didn't find it godawful, but for what they spend on these things, it sure does LOOK cheap, with stuff like off-the-shelf modern flashlights being used, which is right in keeping with the idiocy of contemporary bar code readers being installed all over the Enterprise as futuristic doodads in the last couple of movies, which is what I'd expect from a kid's movie with a three-figure budget, not a nine-figure on. 

 

Then again, I can't see how they spent what they did on SKYFALL, which might as well have been an episode of THE SAINT for how much of it was faked-location-done-in-UK, for what they have to show for it. Even though I like Gassner's work in SPECTRE (and QUANTUM too) when I finally forced myself to sit through the whole thing, some of it features settings that don't have to blow up, which means rather than building them they could have just used and modified an existing space. Seems profligate even for Bond.



#67 RMc2

RMc2

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 05:09 PM

 

 

 

 

Then again, I can't see how they spent what they did on SKYFALL, which might as well have been an episode of THE SAINT for how much of it was faked-location-done-in-UK, for what they have to show for it. Even though I like Gassner's work in SPECTRE (and QUANTUM too) when I finally forced myself to sit through the whole thing, some of it features settings that don't have to blow up, which means rather than building them they could have just used and modified an existing space. Seems profligate even for Bond.

 

 

I had similar thoughts - SP spent a significant sum of money on Pinewood sets that are barely used in the film (most notably Blofeld's computer room) and blew a wad on the MI6 interiors that really should never have featured. A huge waste of resources.

 

Maybe Bond 25 needs a considerably tighter purse to refocus efforts on the story, over spectacular symbolism.



#68 Napoleon Solo

Napoleon Solo

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1376 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 05:57 PM

Also, re: SPECTRE spending....

--Did they really need to spend $36 million on Aston Martins and Jaguars for the car chase? Could they have gotten by with, say, $24 million?

--Did the big explosion in Morocco have to set a world record? Could they have gotten by with a less costly explosion?



#69 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 31 March 2016 - 06:58 PM

I found that explosion strangely unimpressive, no idea what the fuss is about. As for the cars, there would surely have been a way to use less costly models and get better suspense value out of it.

#70 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 31 March 2016 - 09:59 PM

I found that explosion strangely unimpressive, no idea what the fuss is about. As for the cars, there would surely have been a way to use less costly models and get better suspense value out of it.

 

I think it was impressive because it was real and Daniel and Lea were actually standing there.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________



#71 Single-O-Seven

Single-O-Seven

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1323 posts
  • Location:Toronto, ON, Canada

Posted 31 March 2016 - 10:33 PM

Also, re: SPECTRE spending....

--Did they really need to spend $36 million on Aston Martins and Jaguars for the car chase? Could they have gotten by with, say, $24 million?

--Did the big explosion in Morocco have to set a world record? Could they have gotten by with a less costly explosion?

I would be pleased with a tighter, leaner film. Less cost, less shooting time, etc. It may make the film easier to commit to for all involved, including Craig. Instead of a lot of locations, just focus on one or two spectacular spots and utilize all they have on offer, the way Jamaica and Istanbul were explored in DN and FRWL. And instead of multiple, massive, expensive set pieces, just have a great pre-title scene with one or two major sequences over the rest of the film, and a lot of smaller set pieces and stronger character/ suspense sequences carrying the story in between. There is no reason it couldn't still look and feel like a Bond film, even if some of the excess is trimmed down.

#72 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2107 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 31 March 2016 - 11:45 PM

Wonderfully said, Single-O-Seven.  I'm with you.



#73 Gobi-1

Gobi-1

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1529 posts
  • Location:East Texas

Posted 01 April 2016 - 01:55 AM

It would be interesting to see what EON could do with ONLY 100 million dollars. Not all Bond films need to be epics.



#74 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 01 April 2016 - 07:03 AM

I found that explosion strangely unimpressive, no idea what the fuss is about. As for the cars, there would surely have been a way to use less costly models and get better suspense value out of it.

 

Too many films have shown huge explosions, with actors running away from flames etc. - so that cannot impress anyone anymore.  If it had not been reported that this was the biggest explosion on film one would have shrugged it off as business as usual.

 

Also, especially after 9/11 and in the ongoing age of terror, I wonder why explosions are still considered as entertainment.  I would love a Bond film with no explosion at all.



#75 graric

graric

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 172 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 07:19 AM

Maybe EON should just decide to stop making Bond films for a while.  They could, essentially, financially ruin MGM on their own by refusing to make anymore films until MGM agrees to let them go elsewhere or MGM can no longer continue to function as a studio.  

 

One extended break of about 8-10 years could be long enough to sink MGM (probably would take less) and then would do the bonus work of resetting the entire slate for the Bond franchise moving forward, allowing them to do just about anything that they want with the franchise.  It would also set up that next Bond film as the mother of all event films.

 

Not that this is the preferred scenario, but it could be a solid nuclear option for EON that could really set the franchise up for a solid foundation in the future.

I think one of the issues with this is that the Bond series is Eon (and Danjaq's) primary income as well...and going 10 years without having a film in production could have serious concequences for their company as well.



#76 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 05:19 PM


I found that explosion strangely unimpressive, no idea what the fuss is about. As for the cars, there would surely have been a way to use less costly models and get better suspense value out of it.


Too many films have shown huge explosions, with actors running away from flames etc. - so that cannot impress anyone anymore. If it had not been reported that this was the biggest explosion on film one would have shrugged it off as business as usual.

Also, especially after 9/11 and in the ongoing age of terror, I wonder why explosions are still considered as entertainment. I would love a Bond film with no explosion at all.

Indeed, I think from a purely visual point explosions have lost most of their appeal, at least for me. I've seen so many different ones, on so many different scales...I really couldn't care less any more; it's not much different from watching paint dry for me.

I do get it's a big thing to stage something like this in reality, and with the stars present at the spot, too. But we as an audience are not there and the bang is just that, like an effect bubble in a comic.

I once was present at a stunt show of 'death divers' - people who dropped from 20 metres down into what seemed like a teacup of a basin. Highlight and end of the show was a guy set on fire up on the platform, standing there for a few seconds and then taking his dive like a human fireball into the pool. I was more than 30 metres away from the basin but I felt a heat blast hitting my face like I'd get when I open my fully turned up oven. If you captured that stunt on film it would no doubt look impressive - but much less so than for the actual audience that got a little sunburned when this guy jumped.

#77 Pierceuhhh

Pierceuhhh

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 109 posts

Posted 02 April 2016 - 11:23 PM

Two years is easily do-able. SPECTRE's script wasn't finalised until literally the last minute, and the team manages to pull together what was undeniably a big, slick package. This would indicate that an epic Bond movie can be produced in a two-year gap.

If also indicates that the Broccolis have NO idea how to manage the scripting process. That the rest of the crew did what they did in 10 months, while Logan and whoever else spent 24 months in a rabbit hole producing addle-headed half-baked nonsense that doesn't contain even ONE funny line, is amazing.

Maybe it's the Broccolis who need a refresh. MGW is ancient, ad Barbara may have other priorities. Fair play to them both. While they may bring their own problems, I'm grateful for what they've managed to do in what must be a hostile Hollywood environment - any other flabby, soft, Gen X producer like Kevin Feige would have got rid of Kleinman's title sequences long ago. Most of us wouldn't want that to happen.

Basically, get talented people to write a few spec scripts, pick your favourite, and let the crew do their thing! SPECTRE's script was unacceptable.

Edited by Pierceuhhh, 02 April 2016 - 11:23 PM.


#78 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 April 2016 - 08:28 AM

Two years is easily do-able. SPECTRE's script wasn't finalised until literally the last minute, and the team manages to pull together what was undeniably a big, slick package. This would indicate that an epic Bond movie can be produced in a two-year gap.

If also indicates that the Broccolis have NO idea how to manage the scripting process. That the rest of the crew did what they did in 10 months, while Logan and whoever else spent 24 months in a rabbit hole producing addle-headed half-baked nonsense that doesn't contain even ONE funny line, is amazing.

Maybe it's the Broccolis who need a refresh. MGW is ancient, ad Barbara may have other priorities. Fair play to them both. While they may bring their own problems, I'm grateful for what they've managed to do in what must be a hostile Hollywood environment - any other flabby, soft, Gen X producer like Kevin Feige would have got rid of Kleinman's title sequences long ago. Most of us wouldn't want that to happen.

Basically, get talented people to write a few spec scripts, pick your favourite, and let the crew do their thing! SPECTRE's script was unacceptable.

 

Would that it were so simple.



#79 Hockey Mask

Hockey Mask

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 04 April 2016 - 03:03 AM


Would that it were so simple.

Would that it were so simple.

#80 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 04 April 2016 - 04:52 AM

Why do you say it like that?  Just say it like I do...



#81 Professor Pi

Professor Pi

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:46 AM

So ... it would seem as though Sam Mendes resurrected the franchise in 2012, only to euthanize it in 2015.



#82 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 04:00 AM

It would be interesting to see what EON could do with ONLY 100 million dollars. Not all Bond films need to be epics.

Agreed. Doctor No and From Russia With Love ooze the Bond feel and are low key affairs. Everything doesn't have to be big and expensive. 

 

And I'm guessing Bond actors will be doing four films, five as a maximum, these days. 



#83 BoogieBond

BoogieBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 06 April 2016 - 08:50 AM

I am not sure they would ever slim down the budget to 100 million even. But CR was about est. 150 million dollars production budget and that was one of the best Bonds to come out for some time. But I would like a FRWL type film on 100 million, that would be great.

I guess if they are going to be 3-4 years per film the next bond actor needs to be mid-thirties tops to get a "Full" era from him. An era of 4 films could last between 12-16 years. Unless they go the veteran route for the last film and have the actor at like 53 playing bond. Or they have an era of 2-3 films.



#84 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 April 2016 - 03:54 PM

Seems like Warner Bros. will not be a viable candidate for distribution for Bond anymore - after the commercial misfire of BATMAN V SUPERMAN they are planning to release fewer pictures in the future.  Which will also be a result of a string of real flops last year.



#85 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 06 April 2016 - 04:17 PM

Seems like Warner Bros. will not be a viable candidate for distribution for Bond anymore - after the commercial misfire of BATMAN V SUPERMAN they are planning to release fewer pictures in the future.  Which will also be a result of a string of real flops last year.

 

This is possible, but isn't it also possible that WB would want to get their hands on a surefire cash cow? WB saying they're only going to focus on a few franchises (DC Universe, LEGO and Harry Potter) when there's something as tantalizing as Bond up for grabs makes me think of a baseball team that says they're going to rebuild but then goes and throws a ton of money at a top class free agent.



#86 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 06 April 2016 - 04:21 PM

Yeah, just because WB is backing off new properties doesn't mean they'd pass on Bond.

#87 DisneyGets007

DisneyGets007

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 18 posts
  • Location:Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire

Posted 06 April 2016 - 06:51 PM

Seems like Warner Bros. will not be a viable candidate for distribution for Bond anymore - after the commercial misfire of BATMAN V SUPERMAN they are planning to release fewer pictures in the future. Which will also be a result of a string of real flops last year.


Thank god for that? Looks like there are four studios for the distribution rights in the list:

Disney
Paramount
Fox
Universal

BvS have been commercial misfire after all. I bet your right about it ;-)

#88 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 06 April 2016 - 07:57 PM

I don't mind when they spend huge money on Bond. But SPECTRE didn't look so "big and expensive". It is hard to believe that it is one of the most expensive movies ever made.

#89 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 06 April 2016 - 08:46 PM

I don't mind when they spend huge money on Bond. But SPECTRE didn't look so "big and expensive". It is hard to believe that it is one of the most expensive movies ever made.

Looking expensive and being expensive are often two very different things.

SPECTRE doesn't feel like it was shot on a soundstage, so that's something. Still, it make its more expensive moments count. The Rome chase, for example, never feels as gloriously grand as it is clearly meant to feel. The snow plane sequence must have been very pricey, but it's very unimpressive on film.

EON needs to rethink how they structure and budget these pictures. The world has changed.

#90 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 06 April 2016 - 09:25 PM

EON should distribute the films themselves. Start a distribution company or however that works and release the film for FREE! Got the idea from LALD. Putting all the distributers out of business. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users