95 replies to this topic

[spynovelfan]

There are only 3 movies in the Bourne series.

Not necessarily. They've already started a continuation series, written by Eric Van Lustbader.



Identity and Supremacy took a few elements from the books, but were basically rewrites. Ultimatum will now, by necessity, have very little to do with Ludlum's book. I suspect they will then - if there's still appetite for the series - make a film called The Bourne Legacy, and use a couple of elements/scenes/ideas from Van Lustbader's book. And so on.

Ludlum's 'high concept' was pretty simple: James Bond loses his memory. In Identity, the character even says 'My name's Bourne. Jason Bourne.' The success of these films - and the relative success of the continuation in comparison to the post-Fleming Bond novels - shows what can be done.

Identity and Supremacy are two of the best thrillers I've seen in a long while. My heart was pumping throughout Supremacy when I watched it the other day - I can't think of a Bond film in recent years that has even approached that level of suspense. Two men fighting hand-to-hand (or hand-to-magazine) is infinitely more exciting than yet another explosion.

[Skudor]

I think sidspappy summarized the comparison quite well, so I won't rehash all the arguments. I spread the numbers in the first post quickly, and frankly, if the numbers are correct, I wouldn't bee too worried if I was EON or MGM. Bond out earned Bourne by a cool $76 million, but the return on investment was worse. According to the numbers Bourne eraned back its cost 3 times over, where as Bond only 2.3 times. I would be happy if I found an investment that doubled my money in a year!

What Bond needs to achieve is better US returns, without compromising the international returns.

After 40 years and 20 films, I'd say this was pretty good going regardless.

[Get_MOOre7]

I didn't say GE, I said the last 3 Bond films.


Actually TND did make a profit, which by industry standards would be fairly decent, but if you compare it to any other Bond film it would be a big time failure.


The last two Bonds didn't do it.


In fact DAD broke even.

I'm not even getting into what you say about show me your info or whatever.


If I did post it first I would be insulted, then ridiculed, then called a liar, then banned. I'm not stupid I know exactly how people on fan forums act when they see anything that goes against what they have come to believe as fact even if it isn't.


But it isn't any big secret really. If you listen to the media hype and the EON/MGM propaganda then yes you wouyld really believe as about 90 perce3nt of Bond fans seem to that DAD for example is the most successful Bond ever and so forth but it isn't true.

MGM wasn't being kept afloat by Bond either as the press and hype kept saying. In actuality the last two Bond films helped to sink it.

If you had enough stock invested in MGM you are given all the real figures and you know what the truth is.

Let's just leave it at that ok.

This is precisely why when they talked about brining in another younger actor, and toning down the series and going back to basics and so forth, and then Sony coming in, etc., this is certainly no shock at all to anyone that knew what was really going on.


Everyone is so shocked as to why brosnan would be canned, but see they keep thinking he was "the mosst successfull Bond ever".....


well the problem is it doesn't matter how much you make, it's what you net. The films are not netting anything at all, and of course Pierce can demand tons of money so that makes it even worse.


Certainly they should have kept Brosnan even if they wanted to tone it down, but it is hard to convince someone to buy you of that when they are looking at profit margins.

Basically what happened is what Cubby warned to his kids about not mucking it up they failed on. They had Cubby's formula for GE and it worked extremely well in profit returns then they went insane and blew it, and MGM's being allowed to by the Broccoli heirs to have more and more influence just made it that much worse, as MGM could not properly handle anything lately, including how to manage the costs of Bond.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Adrian Carlisle' date='17 December 2004 - 02:31']This is my own review of Supremacy I wrote back in August:
[quote]The Bourne Supremacy ( *** )

[GreggAllinson]

So what?  Did you know Star Trek beat James Bond at the box office back in 1989?  And look where it is now

Still on TV? With another film on the way?

I admit, Trek isn't nearly the draw it was in the '80s and '90s, but it's still alive, and was an American institution even in 1989. To imply it was some kind of flash in the pan is disingenous to the extreme.

[GreggAllinson]

There are only 3 movies in the Bourne series. After Bourne Ultimatum, people will forget Bourne after the next decade, whereas we will be discussing who should be the next Bond in Bond 26....
So long a Barbara and Michael are eager to earn money with Jimbo there is no need to fear.

Yes, film series with only three installments are certainly forgettable. Only the most devoted of film fanatics remember Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, and Bilbo Baggins...

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

I'm not even getting into what you say about show me your info or whatever.

Of course you're not. You're pulling a "MooMoo"-you don't have any serious data to speak of.

If I did post it first I would be insulted, then ridiculed, then called a liar, then banned. I'm not stupid I know exactly how people on fan forums act when they see anything that goes against what they have come to believe as fact even if it isn't.

Hahah. Why would you be banned for substantiating your claims with facts? That's never happened here before and it never will.

Basically what happened is what Cubby warned to his kids about not mucking it up they failed on. They had Cubby's formula for GE and it worked extremely well in profit returns then they went insane and blew it,

Wait.
So, one faction of the fan base argues that series didn't deviate from the formula enough and you, on the other hand, argue that the series DID deviate from the set forumla, in fact, to such vast levels that the last two films failed. Personally, I think the Broccoli's have been very moderate in regards to adulterating the series. I think they've done a great job in remaing pure in tone.
Also, please define "Cubby's formula" for GE. Last I heard, Albert Broccoli was confined to his bed for most of the production and had largely a hands off producing credit. If anything it was Michael G's formula. Also, take in mind DAD & TWINE cost alot more than GE.
Hence, it is harder to recoup the profit.

Also, nobody went "insane" or "blew it".
Please.
Hyperbole much?
Michael G. Wilson has been an active participant of the extended Bond family for quite some time now. He has seen the Bond series through good times [the success of Octopussy] and bad [the underwhelming US returns of AVTAK, LTK].
I think he knows the formula pretty well.
If anyone went insane at one point, it was Cubby shameless reducing his once seminal series to that of a mere derivative copy cat with the childish, Star Wars wannabe, "Moonraker".
Of course, during the Cubby Broccoli era all the films were flawless to you, right?


In closing, Babs & Mike G. haven't "mucked it up". I think Cubby would be quite proud of where the series is today. The recent ones {DAD & TWINE) felt alot more like Bond in tone to me, more so than the bland action fests TND or GE.
As "Rolling Stone" magazine declared upon TWINE's release
"Bond finally has his mojo back!"

I agree!

[Turn]

In closing, Babs & Mike G. haven't "mucked it up". I think Cubby would be quite proud of where the series is today. The recent ones {DAD & TWINE) felt alot more like Bond in tone to me, more so than the bland action fests TND or GE.
As "Rolling Stone" magazine declared upon TWINE's release
"Bond finally has his mojo back!"

I agree!

Opinions and tastes vary, but I much prefer GE and TND; at least they were fun. If a whipped James Bond in TWINE defines mojo, I'm really glad I have DVDs to remind me of why I liked this character and series to being with.

[[dark]]

Top post, RMBF!

[Get_MOOre7]

Thank you Loomis, but you see from Roger-Moore's_bad_facelift how this goes.


I told some of my fellow Bond freinds this before and they told me to go to Hell literally. Some people just act this way if they hear something they do not want to hear.


The truth is that on my stock of MGM, what came out of Die Another Day was this:


The film had a production budget of $142 million. It had a marketing budget of $38 million spent by MGM.

Therefore it had a cost of $180 million.


The film had about $200 million in product placements. Contrary to popular belief, and this was mentioned in one of this thread's posts that it does, but the studio does NOT collect that money as income. That is simply money that is given for marketing and selling the film. You place a watch in the film and then they will give you $25 million in free marketing, to market Bond wearing their watch and so forth.

Many people seem to believe that this money just comes as a further income for the studio but it does not.

So Die Another day with that had a total of $238 million spent on it to advertise it, market it, and sell it. Of which MGM covered $38 million. The other $200 million certainly was used to sell the film and market it, but it is not a gained income.

MGM showed Die Another Day's final gross as being $435 million worldwide.

Now again popular belief seems to be that a film studio collects whatever a film grosses. But that is not true. it only collects its own share of the profits.

This varies widely from film to film and from studio to studio. The Bond films tend to net more of percentage share for the studio than other films because it such a powerful and long running franchise.

In the case of Die Another Day the studio's share was about $176 million. In other words MGM didn't earn 435 million for Die Another Day at the box office it earned $176 million from it.

So for box office margins Die Another Day was at about a -$4 million.

Now then there is all of the other incomes like TV rights, pay per views, rentals for DVD and VHS, DVD and VHS sales, merchandising, etc.


Again, popular belief seems to be that a studio gets all of this profit, but that it not true. They again in fact only get their share of these profits.

For example typically 10% or so of rentals and sales for DVD's and such. But for some big films, like Bond they get 15%. So Bond again brings in more of that than a normal film.

But MGM does not get all of that income, only about 15% of it.

This is true for these types of incomes, the profits returns are small.

MGM picked up about $25 million off Die Another Day in TV rights so far, which will continue.

Of course as Die Another Day goes on they will keep making more money of of DVD's and such.

However, this is true for all of the Bond films. The belief is that the new films make more of of DVD's and such. But in truth they make far less than the older films.

Example, the films Dr. No through Octopussy have averaged well over $300 million in net TV revenues each over the years. They have averaged well $10-$12 million per year for video incomes,for well over 20 years.

So the older films have actually made many times more than Die Another Day has in these incomes. Die Another day will keep making mone off these as well.


However, for a film's initial profit, Die Another Day did not earn one.

All of the Bond films Dr. No through Tomorrow Never Dies, including Casino Royale did. Although Tomorrow never Dies was much smaller than the others.


The last two Bond films did not. They did not earn profit off their initails runs counting ALL incomes, including everything, even merchandising and so forth. However over time they do, such as TV rights, and DVD sales. So they have made profit. But you see a studio can not wait for this.


The studio has costs to cover and bills to pay, so in that regaurd if they don't do it on an intitial release then the studio is in serious financial trouble as with MGM.


For Die Another Day as instance on its initial run and releae it made about $900 million in total income. Ouf that $900 million in total income the studio was about 20%, or about $180 million.

Die Another Day cost $180 million, so MGM broke basically even off of Die Another Day off of its original run, which of course is what helps cause to sink the studio.


Now as time goes on and as Die Another Day is sold in the box sets, and as it is bought more and more for TV, and packaged later on with things like Spike Tv's Bond marathons and such, then it of course is making pure profit from there as with merchandising and all of that. So no matter what it will make money from here on out.

But for original cost and original profit, the studio broke exactly even off Die Another Day.

The way the studio filmmaking business works no studio can keep from going bankrupt by breaking even in this way even with the film making profit down the road. It is impossible, this same things causes many studios to shut down.

Loomis, now that Sony is there I don't know if the budgets would be cut back or not. What I do know is that starting with Tomorrow Never Dies the Bond budgets became far too big versus what the films could realistically make for MGM to stay successfull. But for whatever reason both MGM and Eon ignored this and kept pushing on.


This is where I said the Broccoli heirs mucked it up as Cubby warned them not to. You see Cubby was still managing what the films could reasonably do with GoldenEye. After that his children and MGM, a studio run terribly just went totally overboard with runaway costs.

The difference with The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day was greatly increased when United Artists was cut out of the spending allocations altogether.

For stock owners like myself that had invested in Bond this was a disaster. Some people got out after The World Is Not Enough or even after Tommorrow Never Dies, but others like me stayed in. Aftare Die Another Day I and most others got out. Then amazingly sure enough MGM is bankrupt.

None of this is rocket science I assure you.

Yet the media simply says, "Die Another Day was the most successfull Bond ever" and that's it, it then becomes a fact. Sort of like when Blair and Bush said, "Iraq possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Some people just refuse to accept that sometimes the media is wrong.

Of course Eon and MGM do not want to say a Bond film wasn't really doing it. Unless they have a dispute with an actor or want to can an actor.

The last two films were spun as being "huge successes" to hide the studios troubles to keep people from selling stocks.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service was spun as a flop despite being more financially successfull than any of the Brosnan or Dalton films because the lead actor had become "difficult and negative in the press".

Licence To Kill which was more financially positive than the last three Bond films was spun as a flop because MGM wanted to can the lead actor because, "he didn't attract young American audiences".


And so forth.

[Skudor]

Sounds like you know what you're talking about, Get_MOOre7. I don't know the first thing about finance in the movie business, so I'll take your word for it.

It sounds to me that what we are really talking about here is not whether or not the recent Bond films have been successful or not - they have no doubt been successful in that they did their time at the #1 spot and raked in a fair bit of box office money. So, in terms of revenues and audience numbers the recent Bonds have done well, even more so when considering the age of the franchise.

On the other hand I think it is quite widely mentioned that big budget action movies have had difficulty in recouping their money, mainly due to the increasingly high costs of making them.

So perhaps the next Bond movie will be a Scandinavian style dogma movie (a la 'Dogville'), perhaps even directed by Lars von Trier. Only need one set, no walls, a handfull of actors will work almost for free (Babs can dig up that spag bol recipe daddy gave her to cut down on catering costs)... I'd go and see it...

I guess the one conclusion we can draw is that B21 won't be a big bang super budget movie. I reckon they will tone down a bit with a smaller budget, which will then rise again film by film and so on and on and on...

[Get_MOOre7]

Exactly. The best way to say it would be this, Die Another Day was popular, but it was not financially successfull.


The media and MGM/EON report it and hype it as the most successful ever, and so on, that is extremely misleading.


The last two films were popular, they just were not successfull because of the costs.


That's what the problem really is.


Cubby Broccoli had a much better grasp on what Bond could make and kept the costs closer to that.

If you look at the last say 3 films and what they grossed, because they grossed quite a lot they should have been very lucrative.

I guess really the best way to think of this is Die Another Day should have had a budget more like $115 million for production costs versus $142 million.

But the philosophy of MGM and especially of Michael Wilson and Babs Broccoli is that they needed to get bigger and bigger.

They believe the films only could make that much if they were that big and cost that much and such.

But obviously their father and his partner had a much different idea than that.


GoldenEye wasn't done as such a huge blockbuster like this so they should have known that those huge runaway costs and outlandishing over the top films were not needed.

Al they had to do was look at how GoldenEye had more worldiwde admissions and made more in inflated terms than any of the 3 Bonds that followed and they could have seen that this idea of these incredible huge films was not needed.

There father might have made a film like Tomorrow Never Dies, but he would have then followed it with a film like For Your Eyes Only, not The World Is Not Enough.


This is why as I said before they have muckeed it up indeed.

This is also as I said before why it was no shock that Brosnan was let go and why they talked about smaller, grittier Bonds and so forth. They learned their lesson now I believe.

But as I said now that Sony has it the budget may be over $200 million, who knows. They may try to make Bond something like the Spider Man franchise now. But this is a mistake.

You can not keep making films like Die Another Day, that is not the appeal of Bond. It was never meant to be that. So I would suspect even the high grosses will start to go down if they keep that up.

All you can say is they managed the films so poorly that even with brosnan's popularity and high grosses they managed to help bankrupt MGM. And MGM was the worst run high dollar film studio there was.

They had franchises like Bond and Rocky and had income off them and thinhs like the Pink Panther franchise and Gone With The Wind and such never ending and etc and still could not manage.


So it isn't that the Bond films have become unpopular, the last film's worldwide gross put it in the top 7 I think for its release year worldwide, but they just became non lucrative, so are not actually successful to that.


Sony can afford to take the costs and collect tv and DVD incomes.


Actually if it was not for EON who still wants to make them, a big studio like Sony could just buy it then not making any more and just collect on the tv and video incomes endlessly of the older films like the DVD box sets and such.

But Eonhas to milk their cash cow. Hopefully they learned their lesson now and get their act together. Otherwise someone will probably just buy out their share.

Edited by Get_MOOre7, 20 December 2004 - 05:39 PM.

[Loomis]

Loomis, now that Sony is there I don't know if the budgets would be cut back or not. What I do know is that starting with Tomorrow Never Dies the Bond budgets became far too big versus what the films could realistically make for MGM to stay successfull. But for whatever reason both MGM and Eon ignored this and kept pushing on.

This is where I said the Broccoli heirs mucked it up as Cubby warned them not to. You see Cubby was still managing what the films could reasonably do with GoldenEye. After that his children and MGM, a studio run terribly just went totally overboard with runaway costs.

It seems to me that, while the Bonds were never bargain basement affairs, exactly, they became "megamovies" from TOMORROW NEVER DIES onwards, enormously - insanely - expensive to make. Go back to the 1980s: I imagine that none of the Bonds released in that decade was the costliest film of its year, as I gather DIE ANOTHER DAY was.

I believe we've seen a tightening of belts before: look at LIVE AND LET DIE, which seems shockingly cheap, nay, done-on-a-shoestring compared to films like THUNDERBALL and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, which must have cost fortunes but are eye-poppingly lavish and rich in travelogue feel (their budgets are "right up there on the screen", as they say). The San Monique village where the voodoo ceremonies are conducted is just plain embarrassing - the CARRY ON films could have come up with something a lot more convincing. Neither are LALD's authentic locations anything special. Just think of how the Bond series had ravished audiences' eyes in the '60s.

[spynovelfan]

It seems to me that, while the Bonds were never bargain basement affairs, exactly, they became "megamovies" from TOMORROW NEVER DIES onwards, enormously - insanely - expensive to make. Go back to the 1980s: I imagine that none of the Bonds released in that decade was the costliest film of its year, as I gather DIE ANOTHER DAY was.

Absolutely. Time for a back-to-basics spy thriller with hand-to-hand combat and direction from someone who can innovate and excite under budget. Get in Christoper Nolan!


And Alex Haw.

[Loomis]

Absolutely. Time for a back-to-basics spy thriller with hand-to-hand combat and direction from someone who can innovate and excite under budget. Get in Christoper Nolan!


And Alex Haw.

Still not quite sold on Haw ( ), but, yes, Christopher Nolan - and Christopher Doyle as director of photography, Clive Owen as Bond, extensive location shooting.... oh shut up, Loomis, stop torturing yourself.

[sidney reilly]

Again, popular belief seems to be that a studio gets all of this profit, but that it not true. They again in fact only get their share of these profits.

For example typically 10% or so of rentals and sales for DVD's and such. But for some big films, like Bond they get 15%. So Bond again brings in more of that than a normal film.

But MGM does not get all of that income, only about 15% of it.

This is true for these types of incomes, the profits returns are small.

Pardon me for noticing, but this figure just seems fanciful to me. Based (entirely) on what I've read in the trade press, studios typically receive 80% of DVD sales and 20% of rentals. Why such a paltry return for MGM? Someone is making money on the ancillaries for the last Bond film. The cash is not going to writers or actors (A-listers with special deals excluded) with SAG and WGA threatening to walk over residuals. It's not going to retailers -- Viacom just took a 487 million dollar write-down on Blockbuster. What is Eon's take of the profits then? (I'd be interested to know.)

We all overstate the case now and again, but to imply that DAD, through some heedless orgy of mismanagement, has sunk a studio (in a decades-long decline) is, at best, misleading. Why not settle for pointing out the obvious, that the theatrical model of profit is failing as regards big budget films? All are playing to diminishing returns, and Bond is no exception. More and more these days, the theater release is merely the long playing advert for the DVD.

By the way, I generally lurk (when the fit is on me) but decided to come in from the cold. (Those Moscow winters! It's freezing out there!)

Edited by sidney reilly, 20 December 2004 - 11:19 PM.

[Get_MOOre7]

Well that's not accurate that a studio would get 80 of those profits or 20 percent.

It is about 10-15 percent only.

I don't know exactly how that breaks down because I didn't own stock on the other sides.


But from MGM's side that's how it is.


Remember all MGM did is distribute the film and tell the Broccoli kids to make it "bigger".


I think the figures you are refrring to are when you buy the videos and such directly from the film's distributor.


Say you bought the Bond DVD sets from MGM directly, they would get that, but if you went to Wal-Mart or wherever they would get at most 15%.


The vast majority of these incomes is not directly from the studio as far as purchasing.

Edited by Get_MOOre7, 20 December 2004 - 11:19 PM.

[sidney reilly]

Well that's not accurate that a studio would get 80 of those profits or 20 percent.

It is about 10-15 percent only.

I don't know exactly how that breaks down because I didn't own stock on the other sides.


But from MGM's side that's how it is.


Remember all MGM did is distribute the film and tell the Broccoli kids to make it "bigger".


I think the figures you are refrring to are when you buy the videos and such directly from the film's distributor.


Say you bought the Bond DVD sets from MGM directly, they would get that, but if you went to Wal-Mart or wherever they would get at most 15%.


The vast majority of these incomes is not directly from the studio as far as purchasing.

Surely the Wal-Marts and the Best Buys can't be getting that much of the pie? MGM's arrangement must be atypical (and may be as regards the Bond properties, which is why I'm wondering what Eon gets). Otherwise, at a return of 15%, studios all over town would be going belly up right, front, and center while far over-inflating their reported profits. I know the companies that press and package the discs get a larger share than one would expect, (two dollars or so, I think) but, seriously, where's the money going?

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

Thank you Loomis, but you see from Roger-Moore's_bad_facelift how this goes.

Oh yes. Of course. How rude of me. God forbid someone actually doubt or question you and your alleged know-all, be-all purview on the much-guarded behind-the-scenes financial dealings of the 007 empire.
Please.
Do you know how many people come to this site claiming to be privy to top secret insider information only to have their claims proven as bogus?
If you're willing to come here and post a claim that knowingly goes against what is widely accepted to be true by most of Bond fandom, then, what's so unbelievable or offensive about a few fans actually asking you to validate or substantiate your incredulous claims with some facts?
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

For stock owners like myself that had invested in Bond this was a disaster. Some people got out after The World Is Not Enough or even after Tommorrow Never Dies, but others like me stayed in. Aftare Die Another Day I and most others got out. Then amazingly sure enough MGM is bankrupt.

None of this is rocket science I assure you.

Well, it

Edited by Roger_Moore's_Bad_Facelift, 21 December 2004 - 07:57 AM.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

We all overstate the case now and again, but to imply that DAD, through some heedless orgy of mismanagement, has sunk a studio (in a decades-long decline) is, at best, misleading. Why not settle for pointing out the obvious, that the theatrical model of profit is failing as regards big budget films? All are playing to diminishing returns, and Bond is no exception. More and more these days, the theater release is merely the long playing advert for the DVD. 

My thoughts precisely.


Oh, and welcome to CBN Sydney!

[Get_MOOre7]

First of all 15% is MORE than normal.


Second off the phrase "creative bookeeping' was created just to refer to the way studios keep their books.


Thirdly studios ARE going under all the time.


Fourth, do you really think the studio tells the media and public everything?


Fifth GoldenEye's total was cost $80 million.


I could go on an on.


The point is like I said say anything fans don't want to hear and you will be insulted.

I see this forum is no different than AJB or MI6.


The same exact immature and narrow minded people.


I wonder if any Bond forum is mature?

Edited by Get_MOOre7, 21 December 2004 - 04:23 PM.

[Seannery]

I just state simply and "maturely" that you offer zero proof other than words--no insult intended but you just don't impress.

I am almost certain that this is Moomoo playing in one of his guises again--silly boy.

[Get_MOOre7]

I never said these films were not popular.



I said despite being popular and making a lot of money they were not financially feasible because of costs.


If that is such an unforgivable statement then apparently some of you really need to take a chill pill.


I am not mooomoooo (who the hell is that)????


Yeah, this forum is a very good place to discuss anything related to Bond. (coughs)

Edited by Get_MOOre7, 21 December 2004 - 10:48 PM.

[Roebuck]

Come 24th January the wait is over for Bourne fans in the UK, when Supremacy is released on Region 2 DVD with ten minutes of deleted footage and a shed load of extras.

http://www.r2-dvd.or...&articleId=6842

[Loomis]

An interesting piece on Paul Greengrass, with some comments on Bond that I've highlighted in bold.

From http://www.timesonli...1212002,00.html:

August 12, 2004

Interview

Paul Greengrass

OF ALL the English directors who

[Tarl_Cabot]

"

[spynovelfan]

Christ, I had totally not linked Greengrass with the guy who ghosted Spycatcher. That just seems too odd for words. Apart from anything else, his stuff for World In Action, Bloody Sunday and Supremacy are all visceral, primal pieces - Spycatcher is one of the dullest books I've ever trawled through, and Peter Wright comes across as a bitter, egotistical bore. Secondly, even though the book is anti-establishment, I don't think you could get much more establishment or imperialist than Peter Wright throughout his career in British intelligence. How old is Greengrass - he must have been very young when he co-wrote Spycatcher.

I think his comments about Bond are a simplification, of course - but it amuses me that Bond fans so often want to have it both ways. When Tim Dalton, Ralph Fiennes or Pierce Brosnan talk about the character, they talk about a ruthless, remorsless killer living with his demons, a man who can't commit to relationships, a loner lost in a sea of hedonism, enjoyoing every moment because it might be his last, a man's man who doesn't have time for love, etc. And fans lap this stuff up. 'Yes! Let's get back to Fleming's original vision of the character!' But when someone like Greengrass or Christian Bale say effectively the same thing - he's a remorseless killer - everyone gets up in arms and complains that they haven''t the first idea of the character!

I notice nobody challenged me in another thread on the fans' favourite piece of blarney about Fleming's Bond, that 'in the books he's actually a cold-blooded assassin'. I wonder sometimes if anyone who says that has read the books - where does Bond assassinate anyone?

Causing mischief as usual,

Yours,

spynovelfan

[spynovelfan]

To answer my own question, Greengrass is 50 - I'd thought he was late 30s or early 40s from the interview with him on the DVD of Supremacy. And Imdb tells me that he's going to direct the big-screen version of The Watchmen. Interesting - not sure that can be filmed, and the ending's a particular problem. But would be interested to see it, of course.

[spynovelfan]

There's only one risk to the longevity of the Bourne film franchise that I can see:

Matt Damon.

Jason Bourne is Damon's "cash cow" role, as Martin Riggs was Mel Gibson's and John McClane Bruce Willis' (and, obviously, James Bond Pierce Brosnan's).

I'm sure Damon will be able to name his price for the inevitable THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, and he may well be tempted to collect, oh, I don't know, $30 million or whatever for a fourth film (THE BOURNE LEGACY? THE BOURNE REVENGE? BOURNE: INTIMIDATION? - I'm sure they'll think of a title), but I have a feeling he won't want to play Bourne in more than a couple more movies (hey, he has a career to develop, other roles to try), and it may become a sorta Bruce Willis situation (note that talk of DIE HARD 4 seems to come up only when Willis appears to be in dire need of a hit) - he'll tuck the possibility of playing Bourne again up his sleeve as an insurance policy for whenever he'll need to inject some box office success into his career (he's not even 35, and so he has another 20+ years of being able to play Bourne). Look at Schwarzenegger: was it a coincidence that he did TERMINATOR 3 at a time when his career seemed to be in the doldrums? Why does Stallone keep talking about ROCKY VI and RAMBO IV?

Or it may be the case that Damon will ask for such a staggeringly enormous fee for BOURNE 3 or BOURNE 4 that the film simply won't be financially viable. I gather that DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE very nearly didn't get made for reasons of cost, in other words Willis' fee sent the budget into the stratosphere.

Even without financial haggling, though, I don't see Damon wanting to do more than a couple more Bournes.

Could Bourne be played by someone else? Possibly - look at the Jack Ryan films, or, indeed, at Bond. Something tells me, though, that Damon "owns" the Bourne role, just as Eastwood owns Dirty Harry, Stallone Rambo, and so on.

I've been thinking about this. I think it's perfectly possible - and perhaps likely - that Damon will return for Ultimatum and then hand on to another actor. Yeah, it's a bit jarring, but they'll just do it. One franchise in particular shows it can be done, of course. As you said, they just did it with Jack Ryan - and that was with actors of radically different ages, totally screwing up any kind of idea about continuity (Affleck's film is set in the present, ostensibly). They just shrugged their shoulders, did it anyway, and made a ton of money. Damon played Tom Ripley in a massive film, only to hand over the role to John Malkovich for the sequel. The third one is currently shooting, and has another, young actor in the part. I think this is actually less of a problem for Bourne than it might be for other characters - Bourne is essentially faceless, and I think he could have been played by a lot of people. Affleck could have done it, easily. So could Cruise. I think Damon's performance is excellent, but the nature of the role is that it's fairly anonymous and reined in anyway. It's not like Bourne has a pronounced look or delivery, the way Michael Caine's Harry Palmer did. And even then, they were going to replace Caine with Nigel Davenport (Jack's dad!) for a fourth movie, and he looks nothing like Caine. Didn't happen, but only because Billion Dollar Brain flopped.

I think if they handle it intelligently - and they have done so far - the Bourne franchise could run for several more films, with or without Matt Damon. I hope it happens.

Edited by spynovelfan, 11 January 2005 - 12:25 PM.

[spynovelfan]

Just as an example, I think Paul Bettany (A Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander) could take over from Matt Damon without too much difficulty. Just give him some martial arts training - as Damon had - and you're away: