If we look at casting again , we know Madeleine Swann will be in Bond25. There are also rumours of a female MI6 agent, a mystery woman and a villain who is of North African ethnicity. The MI6 agent will most likely be played by a British actress, my guess would be someone failrly unestablished, like Rosamund Pike and Gemma Arterton were at the time. It makes sense to link the mystery woman with the auditions and screentests in Finland earlier this year, but there doesn't have to be a link. The planned filming in Norway makes me hope a Norwegian actress will play a Norwegian part, but that doesn't matter a lot to an international audience. The Dutch Famke Jansen played Russian and the Ukranian Olga Kurylenko played Latin American.
The bottom line is, a mediocre Bond film that was not well reviewed still out grossed a hugely hyped and generally well reviewed MI6 film.
Which proves nothing other than Bond is a money-maker no matter what they throw up on screen. None of us here are getting rich from tickets sold. The gross should be meaningless to us fans. I’d much rather have a great Bond film that the audience at-large didn’t care for.
I saw an idea I liked in MI6Community. Madeline Swann and Bond end their relationship before or early in the Bond25. SPECTRE continues their activities, but the jailed Blofeld will only speak to Madeleine. It's not impossible given her job and their two have a personal connection. This way Bond gets to focus on thwarting the plot and bedding women out in the world and "Brothergate" can be forgotten. Lea Seydoux and Christoph Waltz get a chance to better showcase their acting talents.
Bond is a money-maker no matter what they throw up on screen.
Exactly. The Bond series has been running for decades, and has seen off competitors and parodies yet still keep going strong. I'm old enough to remember when James Bond's competition was Matt Helm (4 movies) and Harry Palmer (3 movies + 2 TV films 20 years later). He'll see off Bourne and MI as well.
As stated above, this even applies to poor movies (CR67 being the most extreme example and even that made money).
The bottom line is, a mediocre Bond film that was not well reviewed still out grossed a hugely hyped and generally well reviewed MI6 film.
Which is why the Studios, who approve the script and provide the money, will not feel the need to copy Mission Impossible. I think we have already seen peak Team Bond with DC's films. Babs and Mike know the films are all about Bond.
But, not to the Studios. Which is why the Studios, who approve the script and provide the money, will not feel the need to copy Mission Impossible. But, it's why they made Bond more like Bourne.
I’d much rather have a great Bond film that the audience at-large didn’t care for.
I don't think the plan hatched between DC, Mike and Babs once they got the rights to Blofeld is pandering to anyone. They wanted to do a Spectre/Blofeld story. John Logan had his two film plan but obviously his story was rejected and the first script underwent a lot of changes.
What interests me is, why have Blofeld captured at the end of Spectre? In one version of Spectre's script Bond kills Blofeld. Is it because they needed Bond's story to come to an end for him to leave MI6? Or was the capture delibrate because of what was planned for movie two?
The bottom line is, a mediocre Bond film that was not well reviewed still out grossed a hugely hyped and generally well reviewed MI6 film.
Which proves nothing other than Bond is a money-maker no matter what they throw up on screen. None of us here are getting rich from tickets sold. The gross should be meaningless to us fans. I’d much rather have a great Bond film that the audience at-large didn’t care for.
#metoo. However a number of us here fall back on that position whenever criticism is sensed #you know who you arw
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Just started watching Maniac on Netflix. It's truly remarkable. If he's able to bring even an element of that ingenuity and style to 25 it could be great.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Just started watching Maniac on Netflix. It's truly remarkable. If he's able to bring even an element of that ingenuity and style to 25 it could be great.
I watched it just after Fukanaga was revealed to be the director. I loved it. Found the characters entertaining and the whole thing superbly well acted and well written. If Fukanaga can bring that energy and uniqueness to the established formula, we know we are in for a winner.
I believe he's really good with the actors as well, so it will be interesting what he gets out of Daniel, Lea and the others.
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
The bottom line is, a mediocre Bond film that was not well reviewed still out grossed a hugely hyped and generally well reviewed MI6 film.
Which proves nothing other than Bond is a money-maker no matter what they throw up on screen. None of us here are getting rich from tickets sold. The gross should be meaningless to us fans. I’d much rather have a great Bond film that the audience at-large didn’t care for.
That sorta was my point. However, as a fan, while the gross certainly does not put money in your pocket, it goes a long way to ensure that Bond films will continue to be made. I also would rather have a great Bond film....but what constitutes a great Bond film is subjective. I will say, while Bond films are generally critic proof, a Bond film that is well received critically, at least these days, may draw an even larger audience ala Skyfall. Many of us had high hopes for SPECTRE, especially following the success of Skyfall. A classic Fleming evil organization along with its iconic villain, Blofeld/Number 1 was back. Based upon Waltz' performance in Inglorious Bastards, expectations were high for what he could do in another potentially great villain role. While IMO SPECTRE was not a disaster, it was a great disappointment and a squandered opportunity. Add to that an even longer wait between films (incl waiting for Craig to make up his mind, then the departure of Boyle further delaying things) it's not surprising that many hardcore fans have become frustrated and cynical with regards to Bond 25. I try to remain cautiously optimistic re Bond 25.
I would argue that Bond fans SHOULD care about box office. For example - it would be important to you if you’re sitting in 1989 thinking Timothy Dalton is the ultimate Bond and you want him to continue for years to come...
Well, we know Cubby wanted Dalton to continue for years. He offered him two more Bond movies in the early 90's.
When you look at Bond movie grosses adjusted for inflation, Dalton’s are the bottom 2. LTK did half of OHMSS, and that was considered a bomb. I think it’s absolutely fair to say that box office had some part to play in his leaving, although there was obviously a lot going on at that time on top of it...
From what I have read, Cubby wanted Dalton to come back, but Dalton decided to move on as he believed too much time had passed
since LTK had been released due to all the legal issues. Not sure, but I think Goldeneye was written with Dalton in mind as Bond....which is pretty ironic in that TLD was written for Brosnan.
I know about the movie grosses, but it doesn't change the fact that Dalton was asked back for two more film after LTK and the legal problems.
We’re getting hung up on the one example I chose to use. I’m only trying to make the point that box office should hold SOME interest to fans because it could effect the direction EON might choose to go.
I know about the movie grosses, but it doesn't change the fact that Dalton was asked back for two more film after LTK and the legal problems.
We’re getting hung up on the one example I chose to use. I’m only trying to make the point that box office should hold SOME interest to fans because it could effect the direction EON might choose to go.
Ron Milione is listed on IMDB as "special effects technician", otherwise his IMDB is pretty thin. He may have listed himsef on Bond25, we don't know. He is no doubt a fan, his Instagram account is full of Bond stuff, but there is nothing else that links him to movie work. If he's genuine, Bond is getting into some very rugged terrain.
OK, then I'm sorry for my comments above. James Bond or someone else in Bond25 will be driving in some really rough terrain, I guess. Possibly with a large cargo, since the converted version on Instagram is a pick-up.
What he calls the DEFCON version could be very different. DEFCON meaning defence condition, a war status used by the US military, if you've seen the movie War Games. Fantastic film.
I don't know much about cars, but that vehicle is not for driving around London. When we know all the locations we can probably narrow down where it will be used.
Wouldn't surprise me if its legitimate. Range/Land rovers have been a staple in most Bond and other spy films for awhile now. A defender was in Fallout if I'm not mistaken.
Comments
Which proves nothing other than Bond is a money-maker no matter what they throw up on screen. None of us here are getting rich from tickets sold. The gross should be meaningless to us fans. I’d much rather have a great Bond film that the audience at-large didn’t care for.
Exactly. The Bond series has been running for decades, and has seen off competitors and parodies yet still keep going strong. I'm old enough to remember when James Bond's competition was Matt Helm (4 movies) and Harry Palmer (3 movies + 2 TV films 20 years later). He'll see off Bourne and MI as well.
As stated above, this even applies to poor movies (CR67 being the most extreme example and even that made money).
Which is why the Studios, who approve the script and provide the money, will not feel the need to copy Mission Impossible. I think we have already seen peak Team Bond with DC's films. Babs and Mike know the films are all about Bond.
But, not to the Studios. Which is why the Studios, who approve the script and provide the money, will not feel the need to copy Mission Impossible. But, it's why they made Bond more like Bourne.
I don't think the plan hatched between DC, Mike and Babs once they got the rights to Blofeld is pandering to anyone. They wanted to do a Spectre/Blofeld story. John Logan had his two film plan but obviously his story was rejected and the first script underwent a lot of changes.
What interests me is, why have Blofeld captured at the end of Spectre? In one version of Spectre's script Bond kills Blofeld. Is it because they needed Bond's story to come to an end for him to leave MI6? Or was the capture delibrate because of what was planned for movie two?
#metoo. However a number of us here fall back on that position whenever criticism is sensed #you know who you arw
I believe he's really good with the actors as well, so it will be interesting what he gets out of Daniel, Lea and the others.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
That sorta was my point. However, as a fan, while the gross certainly does not put money in your pocket, it goes a long way to ensure that Bond films will continue to be made. I also would rather have a great Bond film....but what constitutes a great Bond film is subjective. I will say, while Bond films are generally critic proof, a Bond film that is well received critically, at least these days, may draw an even larger audience ala Skyfall. Many of us had high hopes for SPECTRE, especially following the success of Skyfall. A classic Fleming evil organization along with its iconic villain, Blofeld/Number 1 was back. Based upon Waltz' performance in Inglorious Bastards, expectations were high for what he could do in another potentially great villain role. While IMO SPECTRE was not a disaster, it was a great disappointment and a squandered opportunity. Add to that an even longer wait between films (incl waiting for Craig to make up his mind, then the departure of Boyle further delaying things) it's not surprising that many hardcore fans have become frustrated and cynical with regards to Bond 25. I try to remain cautiously optimistic re Bond 25.
When you look at Bond movie grosses adjusted for inflation, Dalton’s are the bottom 2. LTK did half of OHMSS, and that was considered a bomb. I think it’s absolutely fair to say that box office had some part to play in his leaving, although there was obviously a lot going on at that time on top of it...
since LTK had been released due to all the legal issues. Not sure, but I think Goldeneye was written with Dalton in mind as Bond....which is pretty ironic in that TLD was written for Brosnan.
We’re getting hung up on the one example I chose to use. I’m only trying to make the point that box office should hold SOME interest to fans because it could effect the direction EON might choose to go.
That's it.....thank you for clarifying that. My memory is a bit foggy these days.
That’s a fair point and I agree.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BrWIHYrAsEs/
Ron Milione is listed on IMDB as "special effects technician", otherwise his IMDB is pretty thin. He may have listed himsef on Bond25, we don't know. He is no doubt a fan, his Instagram account is full of Bond stuff, but there is nothing else that links him to movie work. If he's genuine, Bond is getting into some very rugged terrain.
(Not my page, but it's not the only one I've read in the same terms).