The Mission: Impossible franchise made 6 films over 22 years and no one's holding them to this standard. The only reason folks are grouchy about Bond films taking a while now is because fans are selfish, and holding Eon to a production model from 50-60 years ago is a silly way of acting like the frustration is not pure selfishness. They literally don't make movies like that anymore. No one does. (They're making two Mission: Impossible movies back to back - announced in Jan 2019 for release 30 and 42 months later, respectively - and the jury is out on how that's gonna work out.)
Eon don't need to crank out product every 24 months to stay afloat, so why would they? That lack of desperation, not needing to have product on the shelf, has in fact probably saved their asses in 2020. They've inured themselves to an absolute industry-wide financial crisis and can sit on their product until they're able to make every last dollar from it. Why on earth would they do anything but that? In context, "just drop it on streaming" sounds like a five-year-old who doesn't know how the world works. The loudest complainers are day one purchases anyway, so indeed who cares what they think?
I would just prefer if fans had a bit more self-awareness about their anger and admitted it's purely selfish reasons, instead of pretending to know how film production works and insisting that Eon is doing it wrong. Just be honest and say that all you care about is getting the thing you want sooner.
Why?
Fans can wish for anything they want. If they're of the opinion Eon has done poorly in this regard, that's perfectly fine, too. No one needs permission or endorsement to offer such an opinion.
You present a false dilemma. There's no either/or here in the sense of honesty or dishonesty. Fans could have a million reasons why they think the duration of time to make a Bond movie has worked against success, just as defenders can have a million reasons why they don't think Eon has done anything wrong.
Had Eon released NTTD in late 2017 (assuming a two-year cycle after the three-year cycle for the release of Spectre), they would have been on schedule to release the next Bond in 2019, beating the pandemic that closed theaters.
Had they released Spectre in 2014, then NTTD would have been released in 2016, and they would have had a full year or more to run the movie in theaters and then could have released yet another Bond film in 2018, having an entire year for it to run in theaters before the pandemic.
In either scenario, the two-year cycle would have benefitted them greatly over the situation they are now in, which is having a film completed nearly two years ago after nearly three years hiatus still sitting on a shelf and earning exactly zero.
It's a false equivalency to compare the Bond franchise to another given both the history and longevity. There simply is no other franchise like Bond in this regard. At the same time, it's funny you pick Mission: Impossible!, which was several TV series, the original of which produced 171 episodes over seven years, or the equivalent of air time of 85 feature films.
Indeed, more than a few episodes were two-part stories that were the equivalent in story telling to a feature film. These episodes were generally written, filmed, edited, and made available for air over a period of only a week or two each. That's 171 hours of action, dialogue, acting, directing, music, and so forth.
Even if the argument is made that producing a two-hour film is a much more complex process than a one-hour TV show, the proportion is not 50 or 100 to one. TV doesn't produce episodes expeditiously because of some issue of creativity or technology. It does so because it simply does not have the luxury of time.
Lastly, if fans want more product rather than less or the same product faster, more power to them. Having customers want even more of something should be seen as a positive by a company, not a detriment. That's not entitlement. That's just normal when people crave something they enjoy but is in short supply.
Today, high def video cameras alone are by comparison small and can work in low light levels. The duration of shots is half or a quarter of what they were before, and editors slap together a series of images in an almost random way without much geography. So, even the technical hurdles of actual filming aren't nearly as complicated as the old days.
I mean, I GUESS I would be curious to see what a Bond film shot on an iPhone X might look like, but not sure it's my first choice.
Only Skyfall was shot digitally, all the other Craig films have been shot on film.
Some DP's and directors still swear by film (Roger Deakins is not one of them).
I will say, it is amazing what can be done with something like an iPhone these days.
With computers and digital I would think post production could be quicker but on the other hand, just the amount of post production effects work on a current Bond film must be staggering along with the fact that on Bond films there are still a big amount of real time, in camera effects and stunts unlike many films today which use an incredible amount of "green screen" to accomplish everything from huge set pieces and effects to even the most simple location substitutions.
The truth is, while modern Bond films are huge productions that are time consuming, it's really the time between films, not so much the time it takes to actually film that create these long delays between films.
Who's arguing they want Bond filmed digitally or on an iPhone? I'm not.
The point I was making is simply that it's far more technologically feasible to film a big budget feature quickly today than it certainly was in the 60s, when cameras were by and large still bulky and film stocks relied on heavy light saturation to produce the eye-popping color that movies like the Bond series trafficked in. Indeed, a lot of the studio filming was the result of being able to control the environment rather than an issue of budget or artistry.
In addition, the directing and editing style today doesn't rely on the tougher set ups and perfect takes in older movies, where the camera stayed comparatively more fixed and the actors had to get everything correct in front of it or start all over again. The quick editing and reliance on close ups today make it far easier to just assemble what might otherwise be disparate images into a kind of collage that makes enough sense to carry a scene.
But all that said, directors like Roger Corman produced reasonably good facsimiles of much bigger budget films, sometimes completing projects in only a few days. Many of these, like the various Vincent Price vehicles, stand as minor classics today. There is no law that says a film must take years to produce nor that ones that do are somehow inherently better or more complex than ones that don't. If anything, it appears a combination of talent and intention determines productivity.
It's a false equivalency to compare the Bond franchise to another given both the history and longevity. There simply is no other franchise like Bond in this regard. At the same time, it's funny you pick Mission: Impossible!, which was several TV series, the original of which produced 171 episodes over seven years, or the equivalent of air time of 85 feature films.
Right, but we know I'm talking about the Tom Cruise series which is comparable in terms of budget and spectacle to modern Bond films. The illustration was merely to point out that on the same timeline, in the same industry, in the same economy, no one is angry at the M:I series for not delivering more than 6 films in 25 years. M:I honestly is the only valid comparison point out there - Star Wars and Marvel are spin-off-filled universes, interconnected but not dependent on one actor showing up over and over. (Even Matt Damon took off for one Bourne film, in a franchise that delivered five movies in 20-odd years).
We do agree that if fans want to bellyache they can do it to their hearts' content; my point was that the criticisms of the business model come off as disingenuous at best (who honestly is concerned that Eon isn't making enough money off their IP?), so they can wind themselves up into ulcers but at the same time shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when they compare the business of running a 200-million-dollar-a-film franchise to films made in 1963. (imo)
It's a false equivalency to compare the Bond franchise to another given both the history and longevity. There simply is no other franchise like Bond in this regard. At the same time, it's funny you pick Mission: Impossible!, which was several TV series, the original of which produced 171 episodes over seven years, or the equivalent of air time of 85 feature films.
Right, but we know I'm talking about the Tom Cruise series which is comparable in terms of budget and spectacle to modern Bond films.
Interestingly quite a bit cheaper than the last Bond, too. Maybe we'll see Bond 26 with a bit of a tighter budget considering what the MI guys manage to produce with less money.
We do agree that if fans want to bellyache they can do it to their hearts' content; my point was that the criticisms of the business model come off as disingenuous at best (who honestly is concerned that Eon isn't making enough money off their IP?), so they can wind themselves up into ulcers but at the same time shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when they compare the business of running a 200-million-dollar-a-film franchise to films made in 1963. (imo)
Agreed; it's very easy to throw away millions of dollars of someone else's money.
I am pretty sure that if another company took the Bond franchise on, there would be a dramatic cut in waiting times (with no loss of quality).
Waiting for this that and the other is what it is. Excuses. Eon have no excuses as far as I'm concerned.
I saw someone saying recently that Eon consciously decided to take a small break after Spectre because of personal/family reasons for one or more of the key players. Whether that's true or not there's no way of knowing, but equally I think it seems perfectly reasonable and they're allowed to do whatever they think is best for them, and they don't really need to give out excuses to anyone, nor do they.
I see in the news today they are using this latest delay to reshoot some scenes...
No, not the Brofeld content, but the cel-phone content!
They are re-shooting scenes involving product placement to show off the sponsors' latest models!
Personally I think CraigBond already fiddles with his cel-phone too damn much, and should just put the infernal contraption down for a few minutes and watch where he's going. And if they're bored and looking for something to do with this extra time Covid has blessed them with, they oughta start casting the next James Bond actor and preparing the script for Bond26 so there isn't another five year break.
But maybe I'm the weirdo: does anybody refuse to watch Dr No because the products used in that film are no longer available on store shelves?
I see in the news today they are using this latest delay to reshoot some scenes...
No, not the Brofeld content, but the cel-phone content!
They are re-shooting scenes involving product placement to show off the sponsors' latest models!
Personally I think CraigBond already fiddles with his cel-phone too damn much, and should just put the infernal contraption down for a few minutes and watch where he's going. And if they're bored and looking for something to do with this extra time Covid has blessed them with, they oughta start casting the next James Bond actor and preparing the script for Bond26 so there isn't another five year break.
But maybe I'm the weirdo: does anybody refuse to watch Dr No because the products used in that film are no longer available on store shelves?
Have any reputable news sources published stories about this? I thought The Sun just made it up.
I don't know. The CBC news said they were going to be talking about this later, but I switched to the jazz station after the proper news was over. Did think it was worthy of discussion here, though, because I'd seen it mentioned elsewhere online earlier today (specifically "the other place").
It's a false equivalency to compare the Bond franchise to another given both the history and longevity. There simply is no other franchise like Bond in this regard. At the same time, it's funny you pick Mission: Impossible!, which was several TV series, the original of which produced 171 episodes over seven years, or the equivalent of air time of 85 feature films.
Right, but we know I'm talking about the Tom Cruise series which is comparable in terms of budget and spectacle to modern Bond films. The illustration was merely to point out that on the same timeline, in the same industry, in the same economy, no one is angry at the M:I series for not delivering more than 6 films in 25 years. M:I honestly is the only valid comparison point out there - Star Wars and Marvel are spin-off-filled universes, interconnected but not dependent on one actor showing up over and over. (Even Matt Damon took off for one Bourne film, in a franchise that delivered five movies in 20-odd years).
We do agree that if fans want to bellyache they can do it to their hearts' content; my point was that the criticisms of the business model come off as disingenuous at best (who honestly is concerned that Eon isn't making enough money off their IP?), so they can wind themselves up into ulcers but at the same time shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when they compare the business of running a 200-million-dollar-a-film franchise to films made in 1963. (imo)
Well, I acknowledged the Cruise MI franchise in my point that no others compare to Bond, including MI. Their entire gross in 24 years has been $3.5 billion. Craig's four Bonds in 16 years, or two thirds the time, have made nearly the same, or more than $3.2 billion. Their audience appeal and longevity are simply not the same. There's undoubtedly some crossover, but not every fan of one is a fan of the other, either. (I'd put myself in this category -- I'll watch the MI movies if nothing else is on and find them vastly inferior to the original TV series.)
On the other hand, the MI movies have capitalized on a known brand, initiated by not one but two TV series, the first highly successful. And like the first three or four Bond films, that series produced expeditiously. Keep in mind, too, the 60s was a period where TV and movie studios were cranking out hundreds and hundreds of hours of competition. Just to come up with an idea that hadn't already been done would have been challenging. The Bond films had their basis in the Fleming books, but that didn't mean someone else wasn't producing a knock off version. They still managed to maintain a high degree of originality, to the point they set the pattern other had to follow.
So, my point is there's no franchise to compare Bond to. It has nearly 60 years of product and three or four generations of fans. That some of them -- perhaps many of them -- are supremely disappointed that the latest production team is the gang that can't shoot straight or thinks that we'll get to it when we get to it is a good philosophy when compared to how the films have been produced for the first 25 years could well be unique to Bond fandom. And why shouldn't it be if the franchise is unique?
But regardless, a business model that is slow to bring product to market -- especially if the product is popular -- is not particularly efficient. It will lose money. And it will frustrate customers. We've seen that across the board in any number of industries. So, it's not a stretch for fans to comment on such, too. That they may be more personally invested in just wanting the film out sooner doesn't somehow negate the point they're making. it's just as valid if they make it as a fan as it is if they make it as someone who couldn't care less.
Well, and now there appears to be more expense involved. The way things are shaping up, NTTD may well lose a lot of money, not because it won't make a lot but because it won't make as much because of the delay:
Having reshoots of key scenes well over a year after principal photography has wrapped because by the time the movie eventually comes out all tech products from product placement deals will be out of date....
It's a false equivalency to compare the Bond franchise to another given both the history and longevity. There simply is no other franchise like Bond in this regard. At the same time, it's funny you pick Mission: Impossible!, which was several TV series, the original of which produced 171 episodes over seven years, or the equivalent of air time of 85 feature films.
Right, but we know I'm talking about the Tom Cruise series which is comparable in terms of budget and spectacle to modern Bond films. The illustration was merely to point out that on the same timeline, in the same industry, in the same economy, no one is angry at the M:I series for not delivering more than 6 films in 25 years. M:I honestly is the only valid comparison point out there - Star Wars and Marvel are spin-off-filled universes, interconnected but not dependent on one actor showing up over and over. (Even Matt Damon took off for one Bourne film, in a franchise that delivered five movies in 20-odd years).
We do agree that if fans want to bellyache they can do it to their hearts' content; my point was that the criticisms of the business model come off as disingenuous at best (who honestly is concerned that Eon isn't making enough money off their IP?), so they can wind themselves up into ulcers but at the same time shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when they compare the business of running a 200-million-dollar-a-film franchise to films made in 1963. (imo)
Well, I acknowledged the Cruise MI franchise in my point that no others compare to Bond, including MI. Their entire gross in 24 years has been $3.5 billion. Craig's four Bonds in 16 years, or two thirds the time, have made nearly the same, or more than $3.2 billion. Their audience appeal and longevity are simply not the same. There's undoubtedly some crossover, but not every fan of one is a fan of the other, either. (I'd put myself in this category -- I'll watch the MI movies if nothing else is on and find them vastly inferior to the original TV series.)
On the other hand, the MI movies have capitalized on a known brand, initiated by not one but two TV series, the first highly successful. And like the first three or four Bond films, that series produced expeditiously. Keep in mind, too, the 60s was a period where TV and movie studios were cranking out hundreds and hundreds of hours of competition. Just to come up with an idea that hadn't already been done would have been challenging. The Bond films had their basis in the Fleming books, but that didn't mean someone else wasn't producing a knock off version. They still managed to maintain a high degree of originality, to the point they set the pattern other had to follow.
So, my point is there's no franchise to compare Bond to. It has nearly 60 years of product and three or four generations of fans. That some of them -- perhaps many of them -- are supremely disappointed that the latest production team is the gang that can't shoot straight or thinks that we'll get to it when we get to it is a good philosophy when compared to how the films have been produced for the first 25 years could well be unique to Bond fandom. And why shouldn't it be if the franchise is unique?
But regardless, a business model that is slow to bring product to market -- especially if the product is popular -- is not particularly efficient. It will lose money. And it will frustrate customers. We've seen that across the board in any number of industries. So, it's not a stretch for fans to comment on such, too. That they may be more personally invested in just wanting the film out sooner doesn't somehow negate the point they're making. it's just as valid if they make it as a fan as it is if they make it as someone who couldn't care less.
You just said it makes more money than its rivals even when it’s making fewer films, though. So it doesn’t appear to lose money. And ‘frustrating customers’? Really? Your average punter has been going to the cinema on the weekend and is tearing their hair out that there’s no Bond film to watch? Hardly.
I see in the news today they are using this latest delay to reshoot some scenes...
No, not the Brofeld content, but the cel-phone content!
They are re-shooting scenes involving product placement to show off the sponsors' latest models!
Personally I think CraigBond already fiddles with his cel-phone too damn much, and should just put the infernal contraption down for a few minutes and watch where he's going. And if they're bored and looking for something to do with this extra time Covid has blessed them with, they oughta start casting the next James Bond actor and preparing the script for Bond26 so there isn't another five year break.
But maybe I'm the weirdo: does anybody refuse to watch Dr No because the products used in that film are no longer available on store shelves?
Which scenes are you thinking of that he’s constantly looking at his phone?
This story in the Sun appears to be more of a guess than anything, and adding in a couple of close-ups of a phone is hardly going to take much effort, I can’t understand why anyone would get hysterical about this. It’s not about anyone refusing to watch Dr No (?) it’s about the phone company possibly asking to have their latest product in the movie in return for promoting the film in their own advertising. Why is that such an upsetting idea?
You seem to think they can shoot massive multi million dollar movies across continents but would be incapable of shooting some phone closeups and thinking about a script for the next film simultaneously...? Just have a think about this potential situation calmly, it’s really nothing to get excited about.
Having reshoots of key scenes well over a year after principal photography has wrapped because by the time the movie eventually comes out all tech products from product placement deals will be out of date....
You couldn’t make this stuff up ) ) )
You kind of just did though. Where did ‘key scenes’ come from? And they’re able to do this stuff digitally anyway.
All the tabloids are jumping up saying there’s going to be reshoots but that’s no more than conjecture. The original “Bond inside source” told the Sun that “It means some of the scenes are going to have to be very carefully edited and looked at to bring things up to date.”. That doesn’t necessarily mean reshoots. It could easily just mean a little CGI work to change a device, what’s on a device’s screen, colours of things etc. The tabloids putting a big RESHOOTS in the titles makes it seem like they’re going to be getting all the film crew, and possibly some of the actors, back together to actually reshoot things, ala Justice League. There’s no indication they’re doing that for NTTD.
Yep, if this is happening at all it won't require reshoots- if they could supposedly digitally replace Craig's gloves with hands in Skyfall then swapping out a phone for another phone will be no trouble at all.
I can't see this applying for another product in it as none of the other sponsored ones will be out of date. Aston Martin don't exactly make the 1980s V8 any more!
Having reshoots of key scenes well over a year after principal photography has wrapped because by the time the movie eventually comes out all tech products from product placement deals will be out of date....
You couldn’t make this stuff up ) ) )
You kind of just did though. Where did ‘key scenes’ come from? And they’re able to do this stuff digitally anyway.
It states „key scenes“ right in the headline of the posted link. I was just quoting that.
But anyway, I‘m not taking this serious. The sets probably aren’t around anymore,etc...all these logistics for just putting a new phone in XYZ‘s hand? Nah.
Having reshoots of key scenes well over a year after principal photography has wrapped because by the time the movie eventually comes out all tech products from product placement deals will be out of date....
You couldn’t make this stuff up ) ) )
You kind of just did though. Where did ‘key scenes’ come from? And they’re able to do this stuff digitally anyway.
It states „key scenes“ right in the headline of the posted link. I was just quoting that.
But anyway, I‘m not taking this serious. The sets probably aren’t around anymore,etc...all these logistics for just putting a new phone in XYZ‘s hand? Nah.
In 2012 in Skyfall they had to use CG to remove the glove from Bond's hand so he could use his gun with the palm print reader. It would be relatively easy to change a phone in post production.
You kind of just did though. Where did ‘key scenes’ come from? And they’re able to do this stuff digitally anyway.
It states „key scenes“ right in the headline of the posted link. I was just quoting that.
But anyway, I‘m not taking this serious. The sets probably aren’t around anymore,etc...all these logistics for just putting a new phone in XYZ‘s hand? Nah.
In 2012 in Skyfall they had to use CG to remove the glove from Bond's hand so he could use his gun with the palm print reader. It would be relatively easy to change a phone in post production.
I see in the news today they are using this latest delay to reshoot some scenes...
No, not the Brofeld content, but the cel-phone content!
They are re-shooting scenes involving product placement to show off the sponsors' latest models!
Personally I think CraigBond already fiddles with his cel-phone too damn much, and should just put the infernal contraption down for a few minutes and watch where he's going. And if they're bored and looking for something to do with this extra time Covid has blessed them with, they oughta start casting the next James Bond actor and preparing the script for Bond26 so there isn't another five year break.
But maybe I'm the weirdo: does anybody refuse to watch Dr No because the products used in that film are no longer available on store shelves?
Which scenes are you thinking of that he’s constantly looking at his phone?
This story in the Sun appears to be more of a guess than anything, and adding in a couple of close-ups of a phone is hardly going to take much effort, I can’t understand why anyone would get hysterical about this. It’s not about anyone refusing to watch Dr No (?) it’s about the phone company possibly asking to have their latest product in the movie in return for promoting the film in their own advertising. Why is that such an upsetting idea?
You seem to think they can shoot massive multi million dollar movies across continents but would be incapable of shooting some phone closeups and thinking about a script for the next film simultaneously...? Just have a think about this potential situation calmly, it’s really nothing to get excited about.
Sir you continue to be an oasis of logic and reason -{
Having reshoots of key scenes well over a year after principal photography has wrapped because by the time the movie eventually comes out all tech products from product placement deals will be out of date....
You couldn’t make this stuff up ) ) )
You kind of just did though. Where did ‘key scenes’ come from? And they’re able to do this stuff digitally anyway.
It states „key scenes“ right in the headline of the posted link. I was just quoting that.
Which would be made up! Sorry, I didn't click on the link as it goes to the Mail.
But anyway, I‘m not taking this serious. The sets probably aren’t around anymore,etc...all these logistics for just putting a new phone in XYZ‘s hand? Nah.
Yes, they'd just do it digitally if it's even obvious in a mid shot.
Were the rumors of the "gloves" bit from Skyfall ever confirmed, as well as the cost of nearly a million dollars to CGI Craig's hands over the gloves he reputedly wore in the Komodo Dragon scene? If such is correct, then a "simple CGI" may not be so simple after all, nor cheap.
Were the rumors of the "gloves" bit from Skyfall ever confirmed, as well as the cost of nearly a million dollars to CGI Craig's hands over the gloves he reputedly wore in the Komodo Dragon scene? If such is correct, then a "simple CGI" may not be so simple after all, nor cheap.
Replacing a device, say a phone, with CGI would be A LOT simpler than CGI’ing someone’s moving hands. Hands and faces are two of the most difficult things for animators to create due to the incredibly large number of minute movements both can do. CGI hands can be made up of hundreds of elements to portray realistic movement. CGI’ing a solid block (phone) would be a walk in the park compared to moving hands.
Were the rumors of the "gloves" bit from Skyfall ever confirmed, as well as the cost of nearly a million dollars to CGI Craig's hands over the gloves he reputedly wore in the Komodo Dragon scene? If such is correct, then a "simple CGI" may not be so simple after all, nor cheap.
The Komodo dragon scene is, I think, someone getting mixed up- the chances of them having Bond wear gloves with a dinner suit in a casino seem pretty low. The scene it makes sense for it to have happened in is the Jellyfish stalking-of-Patrice-in-the-darkened-skyscraper bit, and I expect it was only in one shot or something like that.
In fact when you watch that skyscraper fight, Bond is wearing gloves in the car, takes them off to check the gun, then goes inside and hangs onto the lift (no gloves), creeps through the darkened offices to Patrice (no gloves) and puts his gun away, and then when he's standing behind Patrice and fighting him/dangling him out of the window he has gloves on again. We don't see him put them back on. If there was going to be a gloves continuity issue it would be here.
The person who made that video of the Komodo dragon scene says Craig's hands look weird and big, but they really don't: he's seeing what he wants to see. They look like hands.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
Were the rumors of the "gloves" bit from Skyfall ever confirmed, as well as the cost of nearly a million dollars to CGI Craig's hands over the gloves he reputedly wore in the Komodo Dragon scene? If such is correct, then a "simple CGI" may not be so simple after all, nor cheap.
No. It didn’t happen. If it did they would have CGI,d them out of every scene. But you see them quite blatantly. They were certainly never used in the Komodo dragon scenes.
Were the rumors of the "gloves" bit from Skyfall ever confirmed, as well as the cost of nearly a million dollars to CGI Craig's hands over the gloves he reputedly wore in the Komodo Dragon scene? If such is correct, then a "simple CGI" may not be so simple after all, nor cheap.
No. It didn’t happen. If it did they would have CGI,d them out of every scene.
I wouldn't be so sure, it might have happened in the skyscraper scene, it's hard to be certain. That we don't see Bond putting them back on before he fights Patrice may suggest that they made an error and didn't film that happening and really did lose track of when he was wearing them and when not, equally it could mean the editor chopped that out because they felt we didn't need to see it. Either way they do suddenly appear.
This photo suggests they may have replaced his hands as he doesn't hold the gun with gloved hands in the finished movie, or it might be a posed publicity shot not actually from when they were shooting a take or an alternate take, it's hard to know.
If they did CG his hands in they did an amazing job. Just matching the constantly-changing lighting can't have been easy.
Comments
Fans can wish for anything they want. If they're of the opinion Eon has done poorly in this regard, that's perfectly fine, too. No one needs permission or endorsement to offer such an opinion.
You present a false dilemma. There's no either/or here in the sense of honesty or dishonesty. Fans could have a million reasons why they think the duration of time to make a Bond movie has worked against success, just as defenders can have a million reasons why they don't think Eon has done anything wrong.
Had Eon released NTTD in late 2017 (assuming a two-year cycle after the three-year cycle for the release of Spectre), they would have been on schedule to release the next Bond in 2019, beating the pandemic that closed theaters.
Had they released Spectre in 2014, then NTTD would have been released in 2016, and they would have had a full year or more to run the movie in theaters and then could have released yet another Bond film in 2018, having an entire year for it to run in theaters before the pandemic.
In either scenario, the two-year cycle would have benefitted them greatly over the situation they are now in, which is having a film completed nearly two years ago after nearly three years hiatus still sitting on a shelf and earning exactly zero.
It's a false equivalency to compare the Bond franchise to another given both the history and longevity. There simply is no other franchise like Bond in this regard. At the same time, it's funny you pick Mission: Impossible!, which was several TV series, the original of which produced 171 episodes over seven years, or the equivalent of air time of 85 feature films.
Indeed, more than a few episodes were two-part stories that were the equivalent in story telling to a feature film. These episodes were generally written, filmed, edited, and made available for air over a period of only a week or two each. That's 171 hours of action, dialogue, acting, directing, music, and so forth.
Even if the argument is made that producing a two-hour film is a much more complex process than a one-hour TV show, the proportion is not 50 or 100 to one. TV doesn't produce episodes expeditiously because of some issue of creativity or technology. It does so because it simply does not have the luxury of time.
Lastly, if fans want more product rather than less or the same product faster, more power to them. Having customers want even more of something should be seen as a positive by a company, not a detriment. That's not entitlement. That's just normal when people crave something they enjoy but is in short supply.
The point I was making is simply that it's far more technologically feasible to film a big budget feature quickly today than it certainly was in the 60s, when cameras were by and large still bulky and film stocks relied on heavy light saturation to produce the eye-popping color that movies like the Bond series trafficked in. Indeed, a lot of the studio filming was the result of being able to control the environment rather than an issue of budget or artistry.
In addition, the directing and editing style today doesn't rely on the tougher set ups and perfect takes in older movies, where the camera stayed comparatively more fixed and the actors had to get everything correct in front of it or start all over again. The quick editing and reliance on close ups today make it far easier to just assemble what might otherwise be disparate images into a kind of collage that makes enough sense to carry a scene.
But all that said, directors like Roger Corman produced reasonably good facsimiles of much bigger budget films, sometimes completing projects in only a few days. Many of these, like the various Vincent Price vehicles, stand as minor classics today. There is no law that says a film must take years to produce nor that ones that do are somehow inherently better or more complex than ones that don't. If anything, it appears a combination of talent and intention determines productivity.
Right, but we know I'm talking about the Tom Cruise series which is comparable in terms of budget and spectacle to modern Bond films. The illustration was merely to point out that on the same timeline, in the same industry, in the same economy, no one is angry at the M:I series for not delivering more than 6 films in 25 years. M:I honestly is the only valid comparison point out there - Star Wars and Marvel are spin-off-filled universes, interconnected but not dependent on one actor showing up over and over. (Even Matt Damon took off for one Bourne film, in a franchise that delivered five movies in 20-odd years).
We do agree that if fans want to bellyache they can do it to their hearts' content; my point was that the criticisms of the business model come off as disingenuous at best (who honestly is concerned that Eon isn't making enough money off their IP?), so they can wind themselves up into ulcers but at the same time shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when they compare the business of running a 200-million-dollar-a-film franchise to films made in 1963. (imo)
Interestingly quite a bit cheaper than the last Bond, too. Maybe we'll see Bond 26 with a bit of a tighter budget considering what the MI guys manage to produce with less money.
Agreed; it's very easy to throw away millions of dollars of someone else's money.
I saw someone saying recently that Eon consciously decided to take a small break after Spectre because of personal/family reasons for one or more of the key players. Whether that's true or not there's no way of knowing, but equally I think it seems perfectly reasonable and they're allowed to do whatever they think is best for them, and they don't really need to give out excuses to anyone, nor do they.
No, not the Brofeld content, but the cel-phone content!
They are re-shooting scenes involving product placement to show off the sponsors' latest models!
Personally I think CraigBond already fiddles with his cel-phone too damn much, and should just put the infernal contraption down for a few minutes and watch where he's going. And if they're bored and looking for something to do with this extra time Covid has blessed them with, they oughta start casting the next James Bond actor and preparing the script for Bond26 so there isn't another five year break.
But maybe I'm the weirdo: does anybody refuse to watch Dr No because the products used in that film are no longer available on store shelves?
Have any reputable news sources published stories about this? I thought The Sun just made it up.
On the other hand, the MI movies have capitalized on a known brand, initiated by not one but two TV series, the first highly successful. And like the first three or four Bond films, that series produced expeditiously. Keep in mind, too, the 60s was a period where TV and movie studios were cranking out hundreds and hundreds of hours of competition. Just to come up with an idea that hadn't already been done would have been challenging. The Bond films had their basis in the Fleming books, but that didn't mean someone else wasn't producing a knock off version. They still managed to maintain a high degree of originality, to the point they set the pattern other had to follow.
So, my point is there's no franchise to compare Bond to. It has nearly 60 years of product and three or four generations of fans. That some of them -- perhaps many of them -- are supremely disappointed that the latest production team is the gang that can't shoot straight or thinks that we'll get to it when we get to it is a good philosophy when compared to how the films have been produced for the first 25 years could well be unique to Bond fandom. And why shouldn't it be if the franchise is unique?
But regardless, a business model that is slow to bring product to market -- especially if the product is popular -- is not particularly efficient. It will lose money. And it will frustrate customers. We've seen that across the board in any number of industries. So, it's not a stretch for fans to comment on such, too. That they may be more personally invested in just wanting the film out sooner doesn't somehow negate the point they're making. it's just as valid if they make it as a fan as it is if they make it as someone who couldn't care less.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9186459/James-Bond-bosses-SHOOT-scenes-attempt-save-time-sensitive-product-placement-deals.html?ito=social-facebook&fbclid=IwAR0vPcZDYUZdXGh5P0HWQWy9L0Fz2baDogSwmacb8q4GSnhhx83Ve4zi6JM
You couldn’t make this stuff up
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
You just said it makes more money than its rivals even when it’s making fewer films, though. So it doesn’t appear to lose money. And ‘frustrating customers’? Really? Your average punter has been going to the cinema on the weekend and is tearing their hair out that there’s no Bond film to watch? Hardly.
Which scenes are you thinking of that he’s constantly looking at his phone?
This story in the Sun appears to be more of a guess than anything, and adding in a couple of close-ups of a phone is hardly going to take much effort, I can’t understand why anyone would get hysterical about this. It’s not about anyone refusing to watch Dr No (?) it’s about the phone company possibly asking to have their latest product in the movie in return for promoting the film in their own advertising. Why is that such an upsetting idea?
You seem to think they can shoot massive multi million dollar movies across continents but would be incapable of shooting some phone closeups and thinking about a script for the next film simultaneously...? Just have a think about this potential situation calmly, it’s really nothing to get excited about.
You kind of just did though. Where did ‘key scenes’ come from? And they’re able to do this stuff digitally anyway.
I can't see this applying for another product in it as none of the other sponsored ones will be out of date. Aston Martin don't exactly make the 1980s V8 any more!
Bond on the Box - Website | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | LetterBoxd | YouTube
It states „key scenes“ right in the headline of the posted link. I was just quoting that.
But anyway, I‘m not taking this serious. The sets probably aren’t around anymore,etc...all these logistics for just putting a new phone in XYZ‘s hand? Nah.
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
In 2012 in Skyfall they had to use CG to remove the glove from Bond's hand so he could use his gun with the palm print reader. It would be relatively easy to change a phone in post production.
That’s what I think they‘ll do if at all.
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
Sir you continue to be an oasis of logic and reason -{
Which would be made up!
Yes, they'd just do it digitally if it's even obvious in a mid shot.
https://screenrant.com/skyfall-daniel-craig-gloves/
Replacing a device, say a phone, with CGI would be A LOT simpler than CGI’ing someone’s moving hands. Hands and faces are two of the most difficult things for animators to create due to the incredibly large number of minute movements both can do. CGI hands can be made up of hundreds of elements to portray realistic movement. CGI’ing a solid block (phone) would be a walk in the park compared to moving hands.
The Komodo dragon scene is, I think, someone getting mixed up- the chances of them having Bond wear gloves with a dinner suit in a casino seem pretty low. The scene it makes sense for it to have happened in is the Jellyfish stalking-of-Patrice-in-the-darkened-skyscraper bit, and I expect it was only in one shot or something like that.
In fact when you watch that skyscraper fight, Bond is wearing gloves in the car, takes them off to check the gun, then goes inside and hangs onto the lift (no gloves), creeps through the darkened offices to Patrice (no gloves) and puts his gun away, and then when he's standing behind Patrice and fighting him/dangling him out of the window he has gloves on again. We don't see him put them back on. If there was going to be a gloves continuity issue it would be here.
The person who made that video of the Komodo dragon scene says Craig's hands look weird and big, but they really don't: he's seeing what he wants to see. They look like hands.
No. It didn’t happen. If it did they would have CGI,d them out of every scene. But you see them quite blatantly. They were certainly never used in the Komodo dragon scenes.
I wouldn't be so sure, it might have happened in the skyscraper scene, it's hard to be certain. That we don't see Bond putting them back on before he fights Patrice may suggest that they made an error and didn't film that happening and really did lose track of when he was wearing them and when not, equally it could mean the editor chopped that out because they felt we didn't need to see it. Either way they do suddenly appear.
This photo suggests they may have replaced his hands as he doesn't hold the gun with gloved hands in the finished movie, or it might be a posed publicity shot not actually from when they were shooting a take or an alternate take, it's hard to know.
If they did CG his hands in they did an amazing job. Just matching the constantly-changing lighting can't have been easy.