97 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

[quote]
I'm soooo sick of the "let's do another FRWL" talk and

[Genrewriter]

There's nothing wrong with that at all, Loomis. Truth be told, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't be able to top DAD in terms of spectacle and sheer over the top bravado. I'm also not wholly convinced that a follow-up in the vein of FYEO or FRWL would be the best route to take. I'd love to see a Bond 21 along the lines of what zencat described, but I'm not sure the producers have anything fresh at the moment. The end? Maybe and maybe not. A creative funk? Definitely.

[Tarl_Cabot]

"another GoldenEye"

I was with you until you mentioned Goldeneye...that film had tons of personal baggage....and it took itself very seriously. But I agree we need a low maintanence Bond film....A Roger Mooresque type of romp...no more manic depressive performances from Pierce. Can't he just be cool and charming like Thomas Crown, sans the inner demons crap?

[zencat]

I'll repeat myself, but I really think this is all about $$$. I think MGM has told Eon they have to make Bond 21 for under 100 mil and they are trying to figure out a way to do this and afford Pierce. 20 mil for Pierce doesn't leave much for the movie. So it's a super small film with Pierce...or bigger film with someone else? My gut tells me that's what's really going on.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I loved LTK and Dalton's approach but that doesn't mean I need to see it every 2/3 years! Brosnan has successfully elevated my opinion of Roger Moore!

He can be a good Bond. The Tailor of Panama and TCA show off his potential...he's been delt low cards during his run.

[ChandlerBing]

Bond 21: My Dinner With Andre.

[Loomis]

I think MGM has told Eon they have to make Bond 21 for under 100 mil....

Wow, would that even be possible? I mean, the second Lara Croft flick cost $90 million, according to the IMDb. I saw the film the other day and enjoyed it enormously (BOND 21 could certainly take a leaf out of its book in terms of globe-hopping energy and a refusal to take itself seriously), but most of the stunts and action scenes did look as though they'd been done on the cheap, and the climax seemed positively bargain basement. Not sure they'd even be able to recreate LICENCE TO KILL, exactly as it was, for under $100 million today.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Episode 21:attack of the cloned Gustav Graves and his sith bolts

[ChandlerBing]

Oh My Gawd!!!! Graves WAS Cloned!!!!!

[Tarl_Cabot]

[Genrewriter]

I think MGM has told Eon they have to make Bond 21 for under 100 mil....

Wow, would that even be possible? I mean, the second Lara Croft flick cost $90 million, according to the IMDb. I saw the film the other day and enjoyed it enormously (BOND 21 could certainly take a leaf out of its book in terms of globe-hopping energy and a refusal to take itself seriously), but most of the stunts and action scenes did look as though they'd been done on cheap, and the climax seemed positively bargain basement. Not sure they'd even be able to recreate LICENCE TO KILL, exactly as it was, for under $100 million today.

If MGM is looking to do it for under 100 million, they clearly lack an understanding of inflation and production costs. At this point, I honestly don't think that's possible, not even taking into account actor salaries.

[zencat]

I think MGM has told Eon they have to make Bond 21 for under 100 mil....

Wow, would that even be possible? I mean, the second Lara Croft flick cost $90 million, according to the IMDb. I saw the film the other day and enjoyed it enormously (BOND 21 could certainly take a leaf out of its book in terms of globe-hopping energy and a refusal to take itself seriously), but most of the stunts and action scenes did look as though they'd been done on cheap, and the climax seemed positively bargain basement. Not sure they'd even be able to recreate LICENCE TO KILL, exactly as it was, for under $100 million today.

If MGM is looking to do it for under 100 million, they clearly lack an understanding of inflation and production costs. At this point, I honestly don't think that's possible, not even taking into account actor salaries.

This is just speculation on my part, mind you. I don't know what number MGM has given Eon, but all I'm saying is I think it's MUCH lower than it was for DAD. Maybe it's impossible to make a Bond film for under $100 mil. But GoldenEye was made for under $100 mil. Still...

[ChandlerBing]

In order to save money on the next Bond movie, the underwater scenes will be filmed in either Michael Wilson's or Barbara Broccoli's swimming pool. There will be no actual location filming, with all outdoor shots being filmed in front of painted backdrops. In any scene where Pierce Brosnan is not moving, there will instead be a cardboard cutout in his place.

[Tarl_Cabot]

In any scene where Pierce Brosnan is not moving, there will instead be a cardboard cutout in his place."


Is that suposed to be a change?

[ChandlerBing]

Ah ha! I laid it out, waiting for someone to pounce, and it was you! You ought to be ashamed of yourself...ok, not really, but...

Why are so many of us getting a really bad feeling about Bond 21?

[Genrewriter]

I think when the producers seem to be in a creative funk and the star of the show is voicing concern about it, there is certainly just cause for concern.

[Simon]

Well, I'm happy if they really are thinking about what to do and where to go next - this way, we really may get a piece that breaks the mould.

Thing is it's going to take an incredibly brave set of people to make it work - right down to the marketing. I'm not sure, "Bigger and better, but on a smaller budget" is going to cut it.

Someone at the top will need to say, "We're having but one explosion, the size of which doesn't attract news. We're going to visit two countries outside of the UK, and really visit them - so if that means it's Europe, then so be it. And we will make one type of film that doesn't include all the previous check marked elements that have filled up the previous few Bonds."

Sometimes, vast restrictions really does inspire creativity. I wish them luck.

[ChandlerBing]

Hmm, how many times can we rip off the earlier Connery movies before we have to come up with something original? What, you mean we gotta come up with something original? Oh, God, what are we going to do?


Example of conversation overheard at EON that started this whole mess.

[Loomis]

Why are so many of us getting a really bad feeling about Bond 21?

Because the people who are supposed to be making it seem incapable of organising a pissup in a brewery.

[Simon]

Why are so many of us getting a really bad feeling about Bond 21?

I'm not sure we are.

It's a lifetime away and the only thing on the horizon is the remote outside potential for change - which you shouldn't be wary of - it's very parochial.

[Loomis]

It's a lifetime away....

Nope, it's just over 18 months away, if the rumoured November 2005 release date is for real. It seems that, just when everyone ought to be getting their in gear, they're running around like headless chickens, screaming "We don't know what to do!" Not encouraging.

[IanFleming1953]

One attraction that I enjoy in the Bond films is their ability to vary the formula from film to film. I enjoy both the FRWL and GF style. Sometimes I want an OTT Bond and other times I want a more down to earth version. I believe that there is room for both. Brosnan's Bond films ride the fence between both forms.
I don't believe that Casino Royale can be filmed. It is very much a book of the 1950s. It does what it does extremely well but it is dated material that is not easily translateable to the big screen. To do a straight Fleming adaption would be suicide for EON. I love Fleming and his Bond but the cinematic is not Flemings Bond. The cinematic Bond is his own man. A man who is constantly evolving with the times. Fleming's Bond is a relic of the 1950s and early 60s and thats ok. I wouldn't have it any other way.
I think that we should take EON's "paralysis" as good thing. It shows that they are thinking about Bond's future and don't want to make another film just to make a film. I have always thought that the Broccoli's have more invested in Bond than just money. They have a reputation and legacy to protect. Bond is their baby and I trust in them to make the right decisions. Even when it seemed that they lost their way in the past they have always made a comeback. When Bond 21 gets released I will be first in line.

[Genrewriter]

I'm thinking at this point it might end up being a 2006 release if they plan on really putting some effort into it. I seriously doubt they'd do a rush job.

[Tim007]

Who would have ever though Licence To Kill would become the model for future Bonds? 

Oh I wish they would do another LTK...

Well, not the story But LTK in my opinion was the last quality film with good actors, great action scenes, exotic locations (maybe we got the feeling because the film was actually shot on location? ) and the one thing I am missing since GoldenEye: Flair.

LTK was the last Bond movie with flair. IMHO they tried to get back where they stopped with TWINE. But unfortunately DAD again didn't have any flair. I watched it again last weekend and seriously thought: Oh yes, another action movie. When the action came to the infamous parasurfing scene, I switched DVDs and I really loved The Bourne Identity

[Dmitri Mishkin]

Just want to note, the version of the interview on MI6 is slightly different:

Q: The stuff in the prison at the beginning was great.
Pierce: Yeah, that was like, 'Huh? This is a Bond movie??' But they broke out of it too soon into the formulaic, safe side. They're too scared.

Q: If they changed it, you'd do more than one more?
Pierce: Oh, my contract is up. They can do it or not.

Q: You say there's a paralysis - are they talking to someone else?
Pierce: They say they're not talking to someone else...

Q: But they might not tell you?
[Pierce smiles a knowing smile]

Pierce: What a game! 'I thought you were my friend! I thought we were friends...' (mimes taking a knife out of his back) This belongs to you, I think!

Strong words, Pierce ... strong words.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Bourne Supremecy...goodbye Mr. Bond.

[Simon]

Nope, it's just over 18 months away, if the rumoured November 2005 release date is for real.

I live on a perpetually floating cloud of hopeless optimism.

Actually, I also think if they're really up against it in terms of deadlines, that also encourages creativity. (A la TND - which was far more rushed than the leisurely TWINE, but still manages to entertain in ways TWINE never could)

Indeed, the more I think about it, they should reduce the terms between films and become a little more cut throat in their movie making. Chop the budget, remove "Set piece" from their dictionary and make a Ronin/Heat style caper full of truly tough people that know their job.

[Robinson]

I think MGM has told Eon they have to make Bond 21 for under 100 mil....

Wow, would that even be possible? I mean, the second Lara Croft flick cost $90 million, according to the IMDb. I saw the film the other day and enjoyed it enormously (BOND 21 could certainly take a leaf out of its book in terms of globe-hopping energy and a refusal to take itself seriously), but most of the stunts and action scenes did look as though they'd been done on cheap, and the climax seemed positively bargain basement. Not sure they'd even be able to recreate LICENCE TO KILL, exactly as it was, for under $100 million today.

If MGM is looking to do it for under 100 million, they clearly lack an understanding of inflation and production costs. At this point, I honestly don't think that's possible, not even taking into account actor salaries.

Okay, at some point one of you cats are going to teach me how to do that "multiple quotes" thing.

IMO, BOND 21 could be done for under $100mil. I believe, Pierce will have to have his salary "adjusted"(less up-font $$$ and more points on the back end- namely video sales). That being said. I feel that from a production standpoint, the film could be done for under the said ammount due to a few things...

Loomis, you quoted the $90mil that was spent on TR 2: CRADLE OF JOLIE'S BOSOM. That's a good film to reference. While I was underwhelmed by the film(though infinitely more enjoyable than the first one), their locations were interesting and added to the scope needed for a film of that nature. BOND 21 could go this route- DEPENDING on what action scenes are needed and what size. Personally, I didn't think every hovercraft in DAD that was hit needed to explode(a savings of...) but let's move on.

I think there are two other films that are worth referencing if we're going to talk about keeping costs down:

* THE BOURNE IDENTITY- Proof that you can have an espionage thriller that keeps the young'uns interested. They managed to film in Austria, Italy, Paris and I believe the Czech Republic. Folks who hated the speed-ramping and other "modern" touches Christian Wagner brought to DAD would be well served to look at Saar Klein's editing on this pic. IICR, all the locations were practical ones and there were very few sets constructed for the film. I believe the film was done for under $60 mil. While there were concerns from the suits about director Doug "GO" Liman's ability to stay within the budget and on time, nothing was wasted in the finished product. Only one explosion in this film- one less than DN and two less than GF. I'd love to see EONs producers attempt to cut the number of explosions in BOND 21 by half.

* REDLINE- While this wasn't the greatest film of Rutger Hauer's career, it certainly was amusing and spoke volumes about what could be accomplished on a low budget. This was another film that was shot in Budapest and Moscow and manages to overshadow the film's numerous shortcomings.

* One could add other films to the list but ultimately, it's up to the folks at MGM and EON to be creative and make us believe BOND 21 looks more expensive than it is. They've done it in the past and they can do it again. Hey, they could shoot it on video- ala ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO or SW:ATOC.

The question is, do we need a Bond girl with Halle Berry's stature(I'm sure we can get Monica Bellucci for well under Berry's $5mil fee- we could get Rene Russo or Angela Bassett for considerably less) or a "name" for a villain (I though Stephens and Will Yun Lee were great in their roles). You just need someone with PRESENCE(why not get Bellucci's husband Vincent Cassell or anyone from the cast of BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF).

From a story standpoint, I believe character development and plotline must be at the forefront of the next film. Honestly, it's the only reason to keep watching a series like this. If it's only about the girls and the gadgets- hell, pick up an issue of Maxim or Stuff and you've got the same effect.
I seriously doubt we'll move into a "Prince of Tides" Bond but the character must take "the hero's journey" in each and every film. He must be human or we're left with the same kind of feeling during Moore's tenure(was he ever truly in danger?) or worse, the feeling we got watching XXX.

This can be done and done at a lower cost. MGM has to think outside the box and start thinking like the independent studio that they really are.

[Loomis]

Bourne Supremecy...goodbye Mr. Bond.

Ah, yes, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY. Every cloud....

Strangely enough, I'm actually far more cheesed off by the cancellation of JINX than by the prospect of the scrapping of BOND 21.

[Tarl_Cabot]

You need help my friend.