1017 replies to this topic

[trevanian]

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

I'd say he killed it (along with my 48yr affection for the franchise), then pumped stuff into the corpse to make it think it was another Bond movie in 2016, but at far too high a financial cost and with far too little a creative return.

[SecretAgentFan]

He did not need to resurrect it - he just gave it even more energy and life.  Twice.  And he obviously alluded to an ending for the current Bond´s tenure.  But the franchise is very much alive and well.

[trevanian]

He did not need to resurrect it - he just gave it even more energy and life.  Twice.  And he obviously alluded to an ending for the current Bond´s tenure.  But the franchise is very much alive and well.

You really believe that? MORE energy? These films have got tons of fat on them, and not even the old-school travelogue kind that you could have shaved off the first decade or two of Bond. Say what you will (and I'll probably agree with you) about the ADD cutting on QUANTUM, but there was actually a kernel of Bond in there a couple of times, for the only time since Dalton and in spite of Craig's mostly leaden presence. SKYFALL's Fleming bits seem wholly out of context and as a result, feel doubly pulled-in-from-left-field as a result. Mendes hit a triple and a homer right out of the gate with AMERICAN BEAUTY and PERDITION, but maybe he needed the late Conrad Hall in order to keep doing that.  

 

I'm amazed that the Craig era hasn't already undergone a reevaluation and devaluation; folks have got to start looking at what a smokescreen these things have been, masquerading as something serious when they are just as preposterous as the creative writeoff that was the Moore era, but mostly without the eye-candy (though Gassner to his credit keeps trying -- the only creative carried over from QUANTUM to these things is also pretty much the sole presence I find of interest, though even he wasn't enough to get me to sit through this in a cinema.)

[SecretAgentFan]

I loved QUANTUM.  I also love SKYFALL and have grown to love SPECTRE as well.  IMO, Mendes gave the Craig era an extra boost of momentum, shepherding the creation of an excellent villain (Silva) and a more relaxed and fun Bond in SPECTRE.  

 

That does not take away from the great CASINO ROYALE and the, IMO, even better QUANTUM.

 

Was all the prestige and interior suffering a smokescreen for people to think that this Bond era has turned worthy of critical adoration?

 

Of course.  Bond is pulp fiction, and there´s nothing wrong about it.

[Dustin]

I'm amazed that the Craig era hasn't already undergone a reevaluation and devaluation; folks have got to start looking at what a smokescreen these things have been, masquerading as something serious when they are just as preposterous as the creative writeoff that was the Moore era, but mostly without the eye-candy (though Gassner to his credit keeps trying -- the only creative carried over from QUANTUM to these things is also pretty much the sole presence I find of interest, though even he wasn't enough to get me to sit through this in a cinema.)

I suppose this reevaluation/devaluation didn't happen because for the most part audiences have been honestly entertained by the Craig run, even - with some licence to lack of novelty and inner logic - by SPECTRE. The discussion of one Bond film's relative merits over the others is in the end a pastime for a select few; critics, industry insiders, hardcore fans. But the proof is really in how the product manages to make people forget their dreary day-to-day lives for the two hours at the theatre. And by that benchmark they are still going strong. In an environment with constant distraction and amusement readily available in literally everybody's palm; not too bad a feat.

[Orion]

 

I'm amazed that the Craig era hasn't already undergone a reevaluation and devaluation; folks have got to start looking at what a smokescreen these things have been, masquerading as something serious when they are just as preposterous as the creative writeoff that was the Moore era, but mostly without the eye-candy (though Gassner to his credit keeps trying -- the only creative carried over from QUANTUM to these things is also pretty much the sole presence I find of interest, though even he wasn't enough to get me to sit through this in a cinema.)

I suppose this reevaluation/devaluation didn't happen because for the most part audiences have been honestly entertained by the Craig run, even - with some licence to lack of novelty and inner logic - by SPECTRE. The discussion of one Bond film's relative merits over the others is in the end a pastime for a select few; critics, industry insiders, hardcore fans. But the proof is really in how the product manages to make people forget their dreary day-to-day lives for the two hours at the theatre. And by that benchmark they are still going strong. In an environment with constant distraction and amusement readily available in literally everybody's palm; not too bad a feat.

 

Dustin I want to hug you right now.

[Dustin]

...

[Simon]

For me, Quantum comes only just behind SPECTRE in terms of balls out entertainment and excitement.  SPECTRE wins out with a marginally more amount of time given to quiet and considered moments.

 

For me;

 

SPECTRE

QOS

CR

Skyfall

 

Which is ridiculous given the same production team were involved in, again, only for me, the top and bottom of Craig's tenure.  Anyway, the series is alive and well, even IF the MGM distribution deals will once again threaten existence...  How can MGM hold on to something it has so long since ceased to deserve?

[trevanian]

 

I'm amazed that the Craig era hasn't already undergone a reevaluation and devaluation; folks have got to start looking at what a smokescreen these things have been, masquerading as something serious when they are just as preposterous as the creative writeoff that was the Moore era, but mostly without the eye-candy (though Gassner to his credit keeps trying -- the only creative carried over from QUANTUM to these things is also pretty much the sole presence I find of interest, though even he wasn't enough to get me to sit through this in a cinema.)

I suppose this reevaluation/devaluation didn't happen because for the most part audiences have been honestly entertained by the Craig run, even - with some licence to lack of novelty and inner logic - by SPECTRE. The discussion of one Bond film's relative merits over the others is in the end a pastime for a select few; critics, industry insiders, hardcore fans. But the proof is really in how the product manages to make people forget their dreary day-to-day lives for the two hours at the theatre. And by that benchmark they are still going strong. In an environment with constant distraction and amusement readily available in literally everybody's palm; not too bad a feat.

 

 

 

I'm amazed that the Craig era hasn't already undergone a reevaluation and devaluation; folks have got to start looking at what a smokescreen these things have been, masquerading as something serious when they are just as preposterous as the creative writeoff that was the Moore era, but mostly without the eye-candy (though Gassner to his credit keeps trying -- the only creative carried over from QUANTUM to these things is also pretty much the sole presence I find of interest, though even he wasn't enough to get me to sit through this in a cinema.)

I suppose this reevaluation/devaluation didn't happen because for the most part audiences have been honestly entertained by the Craig run, even - with some licence to lack of novelty and inner logic - by SPECTRE. The discussion of one Bond film's relative merits over the others is in the end a pastime for a select few; critics, industry insiders, hardcore fans. But the proof is really in how the product manages to make people forget their dreary day-to-day lives for the two hours at the theatre. And by that benchmark they are still going strong. In an environment with constant distraction and amusement readily available in literally everybody's palm; not too bad a feat.

 

I guess by these standards the Bond films would now be considered something like the TRANSFORMERS movies? I'm not trying to be smartass, just asking honestly. I've seen almost all of one TRANSFORMER movie and can't even understand how folks sit in the theater to watch them on that basis ... yet I'm not so out of tune with the times that I don't like other contemporary movies (CHILDREN OF MEN, EX MACHINA, and even -- just so there is no accusation of highbrowedness -- THE FORCE AWAKENS, for which I had zero expectations but finally saw this week after being wowed by the ROGUE ONE trailer.)

 

Bondwise I found CR to be offensive AND a grind, so it fell exactly in this big/loud/surprisingly SLOW category I put that TRANSFORMERS non-experience into (and the first BOURNE, which did not register at all with me except for the assassin with the headaches) ... and with the Mendes movies you could just put in, 'repeat&augment.' Difference I guess is that there was some kind of expectation with Bond to be better -- that's even with me not loving any of them after Dalton -- given that there are so many working/workable elements built into the thing that it should not be able to fail to entertain on some level. There's a bit in SPECTRE when they are in the lair that actually felt like a Bond movie for a few moments, and the skyscraper fight in SKYFALL felt like something very good but not necessarily Bondlike (and even the leadup to that was ruined by music when it should just have been soundeffects), but I honestly don't recall anything else in either film that worked for me.

 

I've never really expected to experience a full-on FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE perfect-movie feel from another Bond movie, but to be able to get a genuine thrill, that seems like a reasonable expectation. Yet the last time that happened was in 1989 during the escape from WAVEKREST. Hell, the Wachowskis have managed to do that for me at least once since then.

[Dustin]

I guess by these standards the Bond films would now be considered something like the TRANSFORMERS movies? I'm not trying to be smartass, just asking honestly. I've seen almost all of one TRANSFORMER movie and can't even understand how folks sit in the theater to watch them on that basis ...

Neither am I - trying to be smartass; though I probably am, sorry - I have to ask you back: what makes you think a Bond film and a Transformers 'movie' are to be judged by a different set of standards? They both cater to their respective target audiences; as long as they are happy they both fulfill their raison d'être. Mind you, there is no fault in sitting through the one or the other and seriously hating either, that's up to one's personal set of preferences. But from a certain point onwards one must consider the possibility, harsh as it may seem, that perhaps one doesn't actually belong to that target audience. I never made the assumption Transformers would be my kind of entertainment, so consequently I never wasted my time on that. It's true, that robs me of the distant possibility that I might be pleasantly surprised by the experience. But whether I would have liked or disliked the thing...what would it matter when it was made for folks with a completely different idea of entertainment than mine? People's enjoyment of the one (or the other) thankfully doesn't depend on my opinion.

Bondwise I found CR to be offensive AND a grind, so it fell exactly in this big/loud/surprisingly SLOW category I put that TRANSFORMERS non-experience into (and the first BOURNE, which did not register at all with me except for the assassin with the headaches) ... and with the Mendes movies you could just put in, 'repeat&augment.' Difference I guess is that there was some kind of expectation with Bond to be better -- that's even with me not loving any of them after Dalton -- given that there are so many working/workable elements built into the thing that it should not be able to fail to entertain on some level. There's a bit in SPECTRE when they are in the lair that actually felt like a Bond movie for a few moments, and the skyscraper fight in SKYFALL felt like something very good but not necessarily Bondlike (and even the leadup to that was ruined by music when it should just have been soundeffects), but I honestly don't recall anything else in either film that worked for me.

I get what you mean with the feeling of a Bond film, especially with regard to the post-89 chasm. But if you look at the facts as they are you will find '89 is now 27 years ago. New generations have discovered Bond in the meantime. And they in turn influenced what Bond became. This may not always be to our liking. Or then it may, depending on your personal point of view. But regardless, the fact remains we do no longer define alone what is Bondlike. Each generation of fans does that for themselves. Personally, I found the lair incredibly dull and uninvolving, I would have been much more happy with a finale in the Rome set amid the whole Spectre soiree.

I've never really expected to experience a full-on FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE perfect-movie feel from another Bond movie, but to be able to get a genuine thrill, that seems like a reasonable expectation. Yet the last time that happened was in 1989 during the escape from WAVEKREST. Hell, the Wachowskis have managed to do that for me at least once since then.

Well, you must be a much more dedicated fan than I am then, I would doubtless have given up for good on the series after a streak of eight utter disappointments over 20 years. But it seems even as a misfire the series manages to keep its fans on board...

[Harmsway]

One of the biggest problems facing the Bond franchise is that the world isn't as exotic or mysterious as it once was. Globalization and the internet have diminished the exoticism that is a key part of the Bond appeal.

It's nice that QUANTUM and SPECTRE did so much real location work in the sense that neither film seems like it was produced on a sound stage, but did it really justify the cost? Isn't it telling that done of the more exotic-feeling moments in the Craig era were largely phony, fantasyland locales (ala the China stuff in SKYFALL, or the sinister Roman estate in SPECTRE)? Even SPECTRE's Day of the Dead stuff didn't feel rooted in any kind of reality and felt as though it could have been mocked-up on the backlot.

And even when they do get ahold of great locales that do have the proper feeling for a Bond film, EON and the filmmakers they've hired don't have a clue as to how to properly use this stuff. More than any other Bond film in the past few decades, QUANTUM has numerous inspired locations (the Siena horse track, the floating Bregenz opera stage, the desert hotel), but mostly squanders them.

It's not that on-location shooting couldn't bring something to the table. Macao has some genuinely spectacular real-life casinos and hotels. But those locations are wasted if all they become are glorified establishing shots, which is what Rome was reduced to in SPECTRE.

[Mr_Wint]

One of the biggest problems facing the Bond franchise is that the world isn't as exotic or mysterious as it once was. Globalization and the internet have diminished the exoticism that is a key part of the Bond appeal.

That doesn't seem to be problem for EON. It seems like every new film has to deal with Bond's relevance these days.

[Harmsway]

One of the biggest problems facing the Bond franchise is that the world isn't as exotic or mysterious as it once was. Globalization and the internet have diminished the exoticism that is a key part of the Bond appeal.

That doesn't seem to be problem for EON. It seems like every new film has to deal with Bond's relevance these days.

A few empty speeches don't add up to much. Bond's relevance is an issue, but EON has never asked the right questions.

The Bond character is always relevant because he's a primal archetype. But the context of the character has changed a lot even in the last ten years, and I'm not really talking about politics. I'm talking about the overall Bond brand, the very nature of Bondian spectacle.

What does true Bondian spectacle look like in the age of the internet and CGI? These films cost boatloads without much to show for it, and I think it's fair to accuse EON of being fairly wasteful in their spending.

[Dustin]

What should give some food for thought is the fact that a significantly cheaper production and a direct contender, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, managed to look every bit as expensive and rich.

There is that anecdote about production standards and values of the Bond films, that supposedly every item of bling and article of clothing, everything that's seen on-screen (and a lot of what's not seen either) could withstand at any given time even the closest scrutiny and pass as the real thing™ - for the simple reason that these props are the real thing. I have no idea how close to the truth - or far from - it is, but to me it sheds some light on the exorbitant costs of these films in our day and age. This is of course what used to be called 'put the money on the screen' but it seems it's more important than ever to put it there in the proper manner. What good is the biggest effects explosion ever when it looks and feels down to a t like every other explosion we've seen? Not even Bond seemed impressed and he was there...

[Harmsway]

What should give some food for thought is the fact that a significantly cheaper production and a direct contender, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, managed to look every bit as expensive and rich.

I dunno about that. The M:I franchise has a bigger locations-reduced-to-establishing-shots problem than Bond does, and, aside from its first-rate opera scene (which could teach the Bond team a thing or two), ROGUE NATION might as well have set its various setpieces anywhere.

SPECTRE has richer production design and cinematography, and its action scenes (while dull) have more scope. But it still doesn't make the impact that it should.

That very expensive car chase was a whole lotta nothing, and the pretty shots of the Vatican don't really add that much.

What good is the biggest effects explosion ever when it looks and feels down to a t like every other explosion we've seen? Not even Bond seemed impressed and he was there...

Quite. It looked like a CGI composite, practical or no.

[Dustin]

That is just what I mean, does the greater scope really relate to the audience? In the end SPECTRE's locations didn't make all the difference as they should rightfully have. Yes, there is the feeling that the production is really in Mexico, Rome, Austria and so on. But the question is whether the audience cares when you're not really exploring your setting. And if not you can just as well use establishing shots. Perhaps future Bond films should cut down on the sheer number of locations and rather try to capture one or two in as many different facets as possible. Even supposedly 'ordinary' metropolises have numerous exotic sides to them - provided a script dares to switch the jet-set approach with a story mainly set in one or two locales.

[Harmsway]

That is just what I mean, does the greater scope really relate to the audience? In the end SPECTRE's locations didn't make all the difference as they should rightfully have. Yes, there is the feeling that the production is really in Mexico, Rome, Austria and so on. But the question is whether the audience cares when you're not really exploring your setting. And if not you can just as well use establishing shots. Perhaps future Bond films should cut down on the sheer number of locations and rather try to capture one or two in as many different facets as possible. Even supposedly 'ordinary' metropolises have numerous exotic sides to them - provided a script dares to switch the jet-set approach with a story mainly set in one or two locales.

The greater scope could relate to the audience if EON and its filmmakers really understood the nature of spectacle, but I don't think they do. A car chase in Rome between two honest-to-goodness supercars sounds like a can't miss idea on paper, but the end result fizzled. And it's one of many sequences like that in the Craig era.

 

Bond films have always been assembled by committee, but there has been a sense for a while in the franchise (and SPECTRE is very guilty of this) that there's a certain math to proper Bondian spectacle, involving there being an appropriately intriguing name on the subtitle legend when we switch to a new territory and that we get one or two shots of landmarks before some big-time vehicular action. The Mission: Impossible franchise has been largely guilty of falling into that exact same trap.

 

I think your suggestion--that future Bond films should cut down on the number of locations--is a good one. Less is often more, as long as you make sure that what you have is of fine quality. I also think it's important for Bond films to try to show us things we haven't seen before. We don't need the obvious landmarks, we need the stuff that's off the beaten path. And if you are going to use a famous landmark, actually use it. A passing shot of the Colosseum doesn't add up to much, but a sequence set there would.

[Matt_13]

That is just what I mean, does the greater scope really relate to the audience? In the end SPECTRE's locations didn't make all the difference as they should rightfully have. Yes, there is the feeling that the production is really in Mexico, Rome, Austria and so on. But the question is whether the audience cares when you're not really exploring your setting. And if not you can just as well use establishing shots. Perhaps future Bond films should cut down on the sheer number of locations and rather try to capture one or two in as many different facets as possible. Even supposedly 'ordinary' metropolises have numerous exotic sides to them - provided a script dares to switch the jet-set approach with a story mainly set in one or two locales.

I agree on this point. The jet setting has been fun but there simply isn't enough time in a film to settle in to this many different locations. They should also tone down the amount of time they spend in London next time out. Get Bond a mission, let him interact with Moneypenny and Q, and then get him out into the field. I've enjoyed seeing London but the time they spend there could be better utilized elsewhere.

[SecretAgentFan]

The pacing of action films has become too hectic, I believe.  While Bond could enjoy travelling in previous eras, arriving, settling in, doing extensive spying in those locations, today it´s just about rushing to the next setpiece.

 

SPECTRE does allow the middle stretch to slow down - but it closes itself in, staying in a hotel room or on a train.  

 

Maybe the time for the Bond travelogue is over for good.  But would it really turn off audiences if a Bond film concentrated on one location, exploring it fully?  It would keep costs down for sure, not having to move crews around the world.

[sharpshooter]

I'd like the Bond films to utilise their environments better, no doubt. Compare the Austrian clinic in SPECTRE to Piz Gloria in OHMSS. Switzerland is basically a character itself, whereas we're in and out of Austria quick smart. We get an establishing shot, Bond entering the building, leaving the building, and then the chase happens. That's why OHMSS is one of the better entries in the series, in my opinion. It slows down enough for the location to exude its personality, and it's used to its full potential. The same could be said of Thunderball and the Bahamas. I think a slower pace actually comes across as more luxurious as well.

[Harmsway]

With MAN FROM UNCLE budgeted at $75 million and ROGUE NATION budgeted at $150, I think it's fair to say that EON could easily scale things back.

[SecretAgentFan]

Question is: which elements are so expensive that they bloated SPECTRE ´s budget so much whereas ROGUE NATION looked at least as classy, if not more so? 

[Mr_Wint]

Question is: which elements are so expensive that they bloated SPECTRE ´s budget so much whereas ROGUE NATION looked at least as classy, if not more so?

I am guessing the paycheck for Craig and Waltz is around 15-20% of the budget.

All the struggle they had with the script until the very end probably cost them a lot as well.

[Harmsway]

ROGUE NATION probably gave Cruise a hefty payday, so I'm not sure that its budgeting was any less disadvantaged on the salary front than SPECTRE was.

ROGUE NATION didn't have as many outdoor set-pieces with as many moving pieces, and when they did, they weren't set in what we might describe as prime real estate (for example, the big vehicular chase occurs in some back alleys and then transitions to open road). The required sets were less enormous or intricate than those in SPECTRE (the SPECTRE meeting room, the Vauxhall Cross ruins, etc.). In short, it was a more economical production.

Sony asked EON to cut down on location shooting to spare the budget. For example, they wanted EON to fake the cemetery scene in the UK (EON planned to use one location and ended up having to fake it in Rome, and they also ended up having to fake the big edifice where SPECTRE has its meeting).

I think there were very good intentions on EON's part (on paper, all these locations and set-pieces must have looked great and have seemed worth the hefty price tag), but these various pieces didn't bring as much local color as EON probably imagined they would.

Even Mexico City, thanks to the color grading, looked like backlot fakery rather than on-location shooting.

[Napoleon Solo]

re: causes for SPECTRE's increased budget.

Don't forget Sam Mendes' likely big raise. When negotiations consist of, "Sam, we just can't make this movie without you!" (yes, that's an exaggeration), that's going to raise the labor cost.

Perhaps, for Bond 25, Eon should identify and up-and-coming director.

[RMc2]

Yeah, I'd guess the location shooting and talent is what really gobbled up the budget.

 

Apparently the shoot in Tirol cost $10.1 million. Can't imagine how much the Rome chase cost.

 

Then there's the stunts. We can extrapolate their costliness from the $37 million blown on destroying cars.

 

Salary-wise, I'd guess Craig, Mendes, Waltz, Fiennes and the four writers ate up at least $50 million. Depends on back-end deals. Then there's the returning MI6 crew, Seydoux and Bellucci (and Christensen & Dench). Another handful of millions between them, I'd guess.

 

So there's nearly $100 million right there, before we estimate the other locations. Then it's the heads of departments, the thousands of crew members, the extensive high-end CGI, and the Pinewood sets. It racks up pretty quickly.

[Harmsway]

Yeah, when you start analyzing the budget, you can get a sense for where all that money went.

It's just a shame that the film doesn't really feel as lavish or spectacular as its budget would suggest.

[Napoleon Solo]

///Can't imagine how much the Rome chase cost.///        I read during the time of filming the Rome sequence (not just the chase) cost $60 million. 

 

[Gobi-1]

It's nice we finally saw Rome but I think EON should stay away from Italy for the next 20 years or so. We've seen it way too much lately. There are other countries out there.

[SecretAgentFan]

One thing´s for sure: the writers´ salaries were definitely the smallest portion of the budget.  That´s how the business has always been run in the industry.