31 replies to this topic

[wonkabars]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed here on the forums at some point, but what do you all think about Sony's failure to release a Bond film this year in terms of a wonderful and free marketing ploy: "007 returns in 2007". Or something like "2007: The Year of Bond".

I mean, it would have made sense to delay Casino Royale a couple months to capitalize on this...if not a sequel. I would argue that CR would have been a better fit to relaunch the series with Daniel Craig using the year as a marketing gimmick...but that's just me.

Why would they pass this opportunity up?

[Qwerty]

Why would they pass this opportunity up?

It may not have been a deliberate attempt to do so: http://commanderbond.net/article/4062

[Judo chop]

I admit, it does still sting the fanboy in me a bit. Though I only care that it was missed for Casino Royale - don't care so much if they were to use it for Bond 22. I still get a kick from Broz's intro all the way back in '95. An intro to Craig (or at the least the new Bond he has brought to the table) with a reference to the year... such a neat opportunity missed.

<sigh>

[wonkabars]

Qwerty- thanks for pointing that article out to me. It does seem, however, that the failure to have a Bond film released in 2007 seems to have been driven by the task of finding a director, although I would still argue that delaying Casino Royale a mere two months would have done the trick.

I just don't understand it. As Judo Chop points out, it is hard to fathom why they did not do it just from a fan boy's perspective.

You have to admit, releasing two movies in the years literally preceding and following 2007 seems silly...oh well.

[TheREAL008]

I for one wouldn't mind seeing a Bond film in 2007 and then in 2009.

[David_M]

They can still save face by doing a large-scale re-release of the earlier films, now that they've been digitally restored. Just send them out to theaters that can handle digital and package them as "Bond Classics" or something. Then this could still be the year of 007.

Yeah, yeah, I know: "And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt." - Wayne Campbell

[Publius]

Between Brosnan insisting on a three-year break after TWINE and the chaos surrounding his departure and the need to cast a new Bond, the schedule seems to have just been thrown for a loop. Weren't they originally gunning for a November '05 release date? Anyway, I agree that it's a shame it didn't work out, as having Craig debut in Bond 21, a 2007 Casino Royale, would be a whole lot of awesome all at once.

Then again, Summer '07 is turning out to be crowded as hell, which means it'd probably have to be November, in which case there'd only be all of a month or so to see the film in 2-007. I just don't think the novelty would make enough of a commercial (and forget creative, as far as the actual movie goes) difference to justify the risk it'd be to release it at any other time.

Besides, I don't know about anyone else, but I got to start the year off with Casino Royale still in theaters, and the DVD just came out. By the time the year's winding down, we'll be getting those periodic leaks of info regarding Bond 22, and maybe even the centenary novel. Year of Bond indeed, if you ask me.

[freemo]

Nevermind. They'll get another chance in a thousand years.

[RazorBlade]

Nevermind. They'll get another chance in a thousand years.

And the franchise will still be ongoing I'm sure.

I suggested fans try to put something together but I don't think many people responded to that idea.

[dinovelvet]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed here on the forums at some point, but what do you all think about Sony's failure to release a Bond film this year in terms of a wonderful and free marketing ploy: "007 returns in 2007". Or something like "2007: The Year of Bond".

I mean, it would have made sense to delay Casino Royale a couple months to capitalize on this...if not a sequel. I would argue that CR would have been a better fit to relaunch the series with Daniel Craig using the year as a marketing gimmick...but that's just me.

Why would they pass this opportunity up?

Because they're getting the films done when they're good and ready rather than rushing to meet a date that's nothing more than a cutesy marketing gimmick.

[Jim]

Why would they pass this opportunity up?

Because it's very naff, and only a gimmick at the risk of not doing things properly.

I don't see it as a "failure"; more a sensible decision not to.

[Skudor]

Why would they pass this opportunity up?

Because it's very naff, and only a gimmick at the risk of not doing things properly.

I don't see it as a "failure"; more a sensible decision not to.

True enough - although it would have been nice in a way.

Also, it's a gimmick that only really works if you have something worth releaseing. Delaying CR just to fit the date would have been silly and rushing B22 would have been even sillier.

I'm sure there will be some irritating marketing gimmick from them instead. Someone mentioned that at some point last year that they had some inside knowledged what that would be...

[pieffra]

We had our Bond in 2007, in Italy.
CR was released on january 5th.

[marktmurphy]

Why would they pass this opportunity up?

Because it's very naff, and only a gimmick at the risk of not doing things properly.

I don't see it as a "failure"; more a sensible decision not to.

Indeed- do films released in the first few moths of the year do as well as ones released in November? No idea, myself.

Any chance of a bit of Just Another Kill in 2007?

[HildebrandRarity]

I mean, it would have made sense to delay Casino Royale a couple months to capitalize on this...if not a sequel. I would argue that CR would have been a better fit to relaunch the series with Daniel Craig using the year as a marketing gimmick...but that's just me.

Why would they pass this opportunity up?

No studio in their right mind would launch a mega budget film in January.

That is the dumbest thing i've ever heard in these forums.

Everyone and their grandmother knows that big budget spectacles are launched in 3 specific windows:

1) Around the Memorial day weekend; 2) Summer break from school (preferably June or July); and the US Thanksgiving-to-Christmas window.

This is done for maximum payback.

Besides, people had the opportunity to see Casino Royale in 2007. I did.

Further, the Casino Royale DVD was also released in 2007 and one can argue that DVD sales and rentals are more important to studios than a theatrical release from a money point of view.

(Interesting too that they have not even bothered with your "007 in 2007" angle for the DVD and Blu-Ray...and these are savy marketers who get paid money to market things.)

Lastly, Casino Royale was one of the biggest Bonds ever because it was done properly. To have had it rushed out for a 2005 release so we could have had a dumb "007 in 2007" marketing-angled launch of Bond 22 this year would have been plain stupid and would have robbed us of the movie we got.

Terrible idea all around. Thankfully the producers and marketers avoided it completely.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 22 March 2007 - 01:17 PM.

[sharpshooter]

Would be a dream marketing oppurtunity and gimick absolutely.

IF it could be made in the time period that is required. I would prefer a quality film of CR's standard and wait until 2008 instead of a rush to tie this in.

2008 has more meaning to the Bond universe. The centenary of Fleming's birth. With Craig being compared to that great writer's vision, what could be better?

[wonkabars]

Because they're getting the films done when they're good and ready rather than rushing to meet a date that's nothing more than a cutesy marketing gimmick.

While I agree it would be a bit "cutesy" as you put it, I completely disagree with you as to the timetables on when films in general are produced. Most studio films make their release schedules based on literal dates, seasons, etc... and opposing studio plans. Sometimes a studio will have optioned the rights to a given material that is planned to be released in a few years, but when something similar to their story is announced from a different camp, the initial studio will lens and release their film within the same timespan to capitalize on the market that the other film provides. Case in point:

The Illusionist and The Prestige
Antz and A Bug's Life
Volcano and Dante's Peak
Deep Impact and Armageddon

But anyways, I digress. Trust me, studios do not make their plans "when they are good and ready", it simply doesn't work that way.

Because it's very naff, and only a gimmick at the risk of not doing things properly.

I don't see it as a "failure"; more a sensible decision not to.

It's not a risk. It's free.

True enough - although it would have been nice in a way.

And that is ALL I am trying to say...it would have been nice, but I am thankful that CR turned out to be a great film.

[wonkabars]

No studio in their right mind would launch a mega budget film in January.

Not yet anyway. But the point is also to perhaps wait then till April...or early May.

That is the dumbest thing i've ever heard in these forums.

Right. 007 being three digits of the year we are currently in is completely unfounded for any thought or idea about anything marketing involving a legendary film saga that I personally love, is just absurd and ludicrous. Good point.

Everyone and their grandmother knows that big budget spectacles are launched in 3 specific windows:

1) Around the Memorial day weekend; 2) Summer break from school (preferably June or July); and the US Thanksgiving-to-Christmas window.

This is done for maximum payback.

Most of the time I would agree, but you might want to tell the producers of 300 that their huge receipts so far are a hoax, then.

Besides, people had the opportunity to see Casino Royale in 2007. I did.

Further, the Casino Royale DVD was also released in 2007 and one can argue that DVD sales and rentals are more important to studios than a theatrical release from a money point of view.

(Interesting too that they have not even bothered with your "007 in 2007" angle for the DVD and Blu-Ray...and these are savy marketers who get paid money to market things.)

You are missing the point, but since my idea is the "dumbest thing you have ever heard on this forum", I don't expect you to take close attention to my initial post anyway.

Lastly, Casino Royale was one of the biggest Bonds ever because it was done properly. To have had it rushed out for a 2005 release so we could have had a dumb "007 in 2007" marketing-angled launch of Bond 22 this year would have been plain stupid and would have robbed us of the movie we got.

This makes no sense on so many levels.

Terrible idea all around. Thankfully the producers and marketers avoided it completely.

Right. The Bond producers who have NEVER done stupid and cheesy marketing tag lines and ploys in either trailers, trailer voice-overs, posters, etc.
While I do not think they should have done it in a cheesy way, it could have been subtle, like "007 returns in 2007" at the bottom of the one sheet. Nothing more.

[HildebrandRarity]

No studio in their right mind would launch a mega budget film in January.

Not yet anyway. But the point is also to perhaps wait then till April...or early May.

That is the dumbest thing i've ever heard in these forums.

Right. 007 being three digits of the year we are currently in is completely unfounded for any thought or idea about anything marketing involving a legendary film saga that I personally love, is just absurd and ludicrous. Good point.

Everyone and their grandmother knows that big budget spectacles are launched in 3 specific windows:

1) Around the Memorial day weekend; 2) Summer break from school (preferably June or July); and the US Thanksgiving-to-Christmas window.

This is done for maximum payback.

Most of the time I would agree, but you might want to tell the producers of 300 that their huge receipts so far are a hoax, then.

So, we ought to have waited another 6 or 7 months, then? After having waited 4 years? So that we could have a "007 in 2007" campaign?

Tell me, if it was such a great idea, why did they not use it?

[Qwerty]

They obviously aren't putting too much into the fact that this year represents a tie-in to 007 (and to their credit, the general and DVD releases of Casino Royale have been pretty magnificent so far, so they must be doing something right).

I remember posting several months back that I'd thought they would tie in the year 2007 to the DVD release of Casino Royale, but they didn't.

[wonkabars]

So, we ought to have waited another 6 or 7 months, then? After having waited 4 years? So that we could have a "007 in 2007" campaign?

Tell me, if it was such a great idea, why did they not use it?

I have never claimed for this idea to be "great"...merely sensible. Several people agree...moreover, its not a big deal. You act like I am wanting Bond to be played by a midget or something ridiculous. It's merely a conversational observation.

[HildebrandRarity]

So, we ought to have waited another 6 or 7 months, then? After having waited 4 years? So that we could have a "007 in 2007" campaign?

Tell me, if it was such a great idea, why did they not use it?

I have never claimed for this idea to be "great"...merely sensible. Several people agree...moreover, its not a big deal. You act like I am wanting Bond to be played by a midget or something ridiculous. It's merely a conversational observation.

Let's just put it to rest, then, by saying that CR was a (deliberate) strategic move by the producers to off-set the type of 'cheese' that would have been perpetuated by precisely the type of campaign you suggest.

Or do you not see that?

[marktmurphy]

Because it's very naff, and only a gimmick at the risk of not doing things properly.

I don't see it as a "failure"; more a sensible decision not to.

It's not a risk. It's free.

It's a risk in that releasing it at a less lucrative time of year (for films released in some months will make less than ones released in others for just that reason), and that having a load of money tied up in a film sitting on the shelf when it could be earning it all back can't be a good idea.

[wonkabars]

They obviously aren't putting too much into the fact that this year represents a tie-in to 007 (and to their credit, the general and DVD releases of Casino Royale have been pretty magnificent so far, so they must be doing something right).

Well, I guarantee you, if CR was terrible or didn't make such a splash at the box office, they would have looked at it like a missed opportunity or one of the reasons it wouldn't have done so well...people came to CR, and the producers are lucky because they didn't really have to bring CR to the people. So, yes, it did work out, I am just thinking aloud...

I will say though, that while I am basically pleased with the CR DVD (Menu screens are simplistic and phenomenal), I think they kind of dropped the ball there a bit. A refurbished Bond Girls documentary minus any commentary doesn't help the other stuff that is on the disc...those one-and-done segments. Martin Campbell even pointed out the next Special, Special Edition, which is commonplace with movies being released on DVD lately...but I digress since this is another topic for a different thread.

[wonkabars]

Let's just put it to rest, then, by saying that CR was a (deliberate) strategic move by the producers to off-set the type of 'cheese' that would have been perpetuated by precisely the type of campaign you suggest.

Or do you not see that?

I don't see how you can argue this outside of your opinion and into the realm of production fact since you are not privy to their meetings and decision making.

Besides, even if it was intentional to not release in 2007, I would still argue that it is a semi-lost opportunity, but as I have said all along--it is more important to have a good movie, which CR basically is.

It's a risk in that releasing it at a less lucrative time of year (for films released in some months will make less than ones released in others for just that reason), and that having a load of money tied up in a film sitting on the shelf when it could be earning it all back can't be a good idea.

Generally you are right, but there is a surging movement to release such franchises/blockbusters earlier and earlier in the season. In the 80's, the 'bigger' films were released in late May through August (This 'blockbuster' placement started with Jaws in 1976). When The Matrix came out in April of 1999 to dodge Star Wars Episode 1 being released in May, it was a surprise hit in terms of profit, thus setting the tone for such event movies to be released earlier and earlier. 300 being released and making tons of money in March is proof of that.

The point being is that since Bond films have a guaranteed audience, a good Bond movie would have made a ton of money regardless when it was released, albeit maybe not as much as it did, but we will never know.

[JimmyBond]

This kind of gimmick marketing sure didnt help the remake of The Omen.

[wonkabars]

This kind of gimmick marketing sure didnt help the remake of The Omen.

You're not reading my concept of the idea at all.

At any rate, the Bond franchise has had several similar marketing ploys, big and small, that are admittedly bad.

[JimmyBond]

At any rate, the Bond franchise has had several similar marketing ploys, big and small, that are admittedly bad.

This doesnt help your case at all.

[Blofeld's Cat]

We had our Bond in 2007, in Italy.
CR was released on january 5th.

Was there any local advertising alluding to 007 in 2007 in Italy, pieffra?

[wonkabars]

At any rate, the Bond franchise has had several similar marketing ploys, big and small, that are admittedly bad.

This doesnt help your case at all.

That is why they would have to make it worthwhile, and not cheesy.