Craigs Bond films are definitely successful mainstream product and Bond25 will put bums in the seats even if its just two hours of Bond going to dinner parties with his wife.
but I gotta wonder about these kinds of measures for recent films, which mostly do dominate the highest-gross-ever lists.
a lot of that has to be the outrageous ticket prices, I think it's at least $13- just to get into a Cineplex in Canada, there's no matinees or cheap Tuesdays any more, and most of these films people pay extra to see them in 3d or have their seats vibrate. That high per-ticket cost must add up quickly even if the film only stays in the theatre a month.
How can all these recent films really be selling more tickets today than films in the 1970s when fans ritualistically lined up round the block for half the day and films stayed in the theatre for six months or longer?
It would take some time, but you'd have to adjust for inflation. I'd also suggest including the higher ticket price, but not what the price of the ticket is i.e basic ticket is $13, a 3-D ticket would usually cost $16, but for the sake of making the math easy calculate the ticket at $13.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Perhaps Madeline is the Scientist that's kidnapped? She is a Doctor, perhaps after leaving Bond she moved into the research side to bury herself deeper in obscurity?
I think it's Q. Why else would Bond join the mission?
I’m assuming at this point he joins because Felix asks him to, and he’s a mate. I think that’s rather good, as I don’t see Bond going back if MI6 asked him.
Plus his beachside shack has presumably blown up by then!
The synopsis says:
"Bond has left active service and is enjoying a tranquil life in Jamaica. His peace is short-lived when his old friend Felix Leiter from the CIA turns up asking for help. The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist turns out to be far more treacherous than expected, leading Bond onto the trail of a mysterious villain armed with dangerous new technology."
I am not assuming that "His peace is short-lived when his old friend Felix Leiter from the CIA turns up asking for help," is followed immediately in the actual film by, "The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist..."
Leiter's help may eventually lead to them being involved in this rescue mission, but I don't think it necessarily follows that the help is to find a scientist. Why does the CIA need a retired MI6 agent's help to find someone? I think Bond, Leiter and Madeleine are doing one thing and then cross paths with the rumoured new 007, possibly played by Lashana Lynch, who is actually on the rescue mission.
I think it's Q. Why else would Bond join the mission?
I’m assuming at this point he joins because Felix asks him to, and he’s a mate. I think that’s rather good, as I don’t see Bond going back if MI6 asked him.
Plus his beachside shack has presumably blown up by then!
The synopsis says:
"Bond has left active service and is enjoying a tranquil life in Jamaica. His peace is short-lived when his old friend Felix Leiter from the CIA turns up asking for help. The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist turns out to be far more treacherous than expected, leading Bond onto the trail of a mysterious villain armed with dangerous new technology."
I am not assuming that "His peace is short-lived when his old friend Felix Leiter from the CIA turns up asking for help," is followed immediately in the actual film by, "The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist..."
Leiter's help may eventually lead to them being involved in this rescue mission, but I don't think it necessarily follows that the help is to find a scientist.
Well, only if we ignore the sentence construction! They say the mission 'turns out' to be treacherous, not that the help requested turns into a rescue mission. It's clear from the way it's written that the rescue mission is what Felix is asking for help with; whether or not the press release turns out to be written accurately we'll have to see!
If Bond is retired at the start of the film, does that mean they aren’t going to open the film with the gun barrel sequence because it won’t be representative of the character at that point in the film? I have given up on the hope that Craig will ever start a film with a good gun barrel sequence. Spectre was close, but it felt tacked on.
If Bond is retired at the start of the film, does that mean they aren’t going to open the film with the gun barrel sequence because it won’t be representative of the character at that point in the film? I have given up on the hope that Craig will ever start a film with a good gun barrel sequence. Spectre was close, but it felt tacked on.
I'm mostly curious if we'll get a pre-title sequence without Bond in it...
If Bond is retired at the start of the film, does that mean they aren’t going to open the film with the gun barrel sequence because it won’t be representative of the character at that point in the film? I have given up on the hope that Craig will ever start a film with a good gun barrel sequence. Spectre was close, but it felt tacked on.
It's a good point, but I'm certainly hoping they will!
I'm quite curious as to how the PTS will work, to be honest. It seems tricky to kick off with an action scene when Bond is already retired: we need a bit of time to see him just kicking around in order to appreciate him being retired. Felix turning up in a helicopter and getting him to leap into action sort of chucks away a big bit of scene-setting. I'll be curious to see how they do it. Flashback? Flashforward? Bond-free PTS? Bond beating up some local kids who have ruined his lawn?
Licence To Kill is provably it’s loweest point, and we all know that was a mixture of bad timing, poor promotion and a Bond who perhaps never really connected with the audience.
Do we?
:v
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
there's been a lot of pages in these last couple days, and I had to dig way back (pg 204) to find the actual link to the Event being discussed, here it is one more time:
I think its rather clever they did this the same day Avengers Endgame came out, not a mistake.
All you hardcore fans who want spoilers are going to tune in anyway (and therefor wont be spending money on a competing franchise). Normal folks who don't know about the event or have other priorities will not have the details of the film spoiled and will all be able to let the filmmakers tell the story the day it finally comes out.
(Damn I envy those normal well adjusted folk, yet here I am anyway)
And because they didn't reveal the title, you hardcore fans are still going to be all agitated and jonesing waiting for the next Press Event, and will skip opening day of the next Marvel movie just to watch that one too.
I notice early in the montage of classic Craig moments is the evil foster brother revealing he was the author of all Bond's misfortunes. So they haven't retconned that out.
Also a quick edit of the sexy close shave sequence, another much-debated bit of CraigBond continuity.
Licence To Kill is provably it’s loweest point, and we all know that was a mixture of bad timing, poor promotion and a Bond who perhaps never really connected with the audience.
Do we?
:v
Licence to Kill is one of my favourite Bond movies. I’ve never understood why it didn’t do better at the box office. Didn’t it get an R rating which didn’t help?
way back on that page I where found the link, there was some discussion about the possible title, including an argument in favour of Never Dream of Dying, one of Benson's.
setting aside whether or not its a good title, they're never going to use one of the continuation authors' titles because they would have to pay someone else. It's never been done before, and there's been a couple dozen continuation titles since they ran out of the Fleming titles they did buy the rights to.
I would also expect if they did go to that expense they would have to use some elements from the book. They have snuck in some elements from Gardner and Amis, but very subtle and unofficial like, except for the actual dialog used in the last film, which they had to give credit for.
So do we want them to use ideas from a Benson book (I've never read them so have no opinion) when theres so many leftover Fleming concepts they could be using?
way back on that page I where found the link, there was some discussion about the possible title, including an argument in favour of Never Dream of Dying, one of Benson's.
setting aside whether or not its a good title, they're never going to use one of the continuation authors' titles because they would have to pay someone else. It's never been done before, and there's been a couple dozen continuation titles since they ran out of the Fleming titles they did buy the rights to.
I would also expect if they did go to that expense they would have to use some elements from the book. They have snuck in some elements from Gardner and Amis, but very subtle and unofficial like, except for the actual dialog used in the last film, which they had to give credit for.
So do we want them to use ideas from a Benson book (I've never read them so have no opinion) when theres so many leftover Fleming concepts they could be using?
Throws up an interesting question..
Song titles can’t be owned, for example there’s several songs called ‘independence day’ wrote one myself, there’s also a movie, or movies, is it the same with book titles? Wouldn’t surprise me if there were books called Independence Day also, claiming an English phrase as ‘your own’ might be problematic, not sure how this plays out, well for book titles anyway.
way back on that page I where found the link, there was some discussion about the possible title, including an argument in favour of Never Dream of Dying, one of Benson's.
setting aside whether or not its a good title, they're never going to use one of the continuation authors' titles because they would have to pay someone else. It's never been done before, and there's been a couple dozen continuation titles since they ran out of the Fleming titles they did buy the rights to.
I would also expect if they did go to that expense they would have to use some elements from the book. They have snuck in some elements from Gardner and Amis, but very subtle and unofficial like, except for the actual dialog used in the last film, which they had to give credit for.
So do we want them to use ideas from a Benson book (I've never read them so have no opinion) when theres so many leftover Fleming concepts they could be using?
Throws up an interesting question..
Song titles can’t be owned, for example there’s several songs called ‘independence day’ wrote one myself, there’s also a movie, or movies, is it the same with book titles? Wouldn’t surprise me if there were books called Independence Day also, claiming an English phrase as ‘your own’ might be problematic, not sure how this plays out, well for book titles anyway.
You can’t use a book title from a continuation author about Bond for a Bond film - obviously that infringes copyright...
Song titles can’t be owned, for example there’s several songs called ‘independence day’ wrote one myself, there’s also a movie, or movies, is it the same with book titles? Wouldn’t surprise me if there were books called Independence Day also, claiming an English phrase as ‘your own’ might be problematic, not sure how this plays out, well for book titles anyway.
you may be right.
there were two films named CRASH released at almost the same time, I'm sure that caused problems for normal respectable people who wanted to watch the Oscar winner but they accidentally had their minds warped by David Cronenberg instead.
but somehow Fleming sold the title The Spy Who Loved Me, with the stipulation the content of the book not be used for any film with that title. So EON paid for something.
makes me think: there was a 1958 British film called the Moonraker. I wonder if that was somehow the reason Moonraker was the last Fleming novel to get adapted?
way back on that page I where found the link, there was some discussion about the possible title, including an argument in favour of Never Dream of Dying, one of Benson's.
setting aside whether or not its a good title, they're never going to use one of the continuation authors' titles because they would have to pay someone else. It's never been done before, and there's been a couple dozen continuation titles since they ran out of the Fleming titles they did buy the rights to.
I would also expect if they did go to that expense they would have to use some elements from the book. They have snuck in some elements from Gardner and Amis, but very subtle and unofficial like, except for the actual dialog used in the last film, which they had to give credit for.
So do we want them to use ideas from a Benson book (I've never read them so have no opinion) when theres so many leftover Fleming concepts they could be using?
Throws up an interesting question..
Song titles can’t be owned, for example there’s several songs called ‘independence day’ wrote one myself, there’s also a movie, or movies, is it the same with book titles? Wouldn’t surprise me if there were books called Independence Day also, claiming an English phrase as ‘your own’ might be problematic, not sure how this plays out, well for book titles anyway.
You can’t use a book title from a continuation author about Bond for a Bond film - obviously that infringes copyright...
I've read EON boys the rights for the continuation novels as they are published. Does what you write still apply in spite of this?
I've read it here in AJB, but I don't remember who wrote it. It makes sense, I think, especially as parts of Colonei Sun was used pretty much verbatim in SPECTRE.
Just for the record, LTK was a PG-13 in the USA. The US ratings board seems to tolerate violence but gets a bit more puritanical when it comes to s-e-x......
Interview with Raymond Benson at UniversalExports.net
Q:Would you sell the rights of your Bond novels to EON productions, if they asked?
A: EON automatically has the rights, but they would have to pay a certain amount to Ian Fleming Publications if they decided to film one of my books, or John Gardner's, or the Kingsley Amis book
Interview with Raymond Benson at UniversalExports.net
Q:Would you sell the rights of your Bond novels to EON productions, if they asked?
A: EON automatically has the rights, but they would have to pay a certain amount to Ian Fleming Publications if they decided to film one of my books, or John Gardner's, or the Kingsley Amis book
Learned something new today!
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,680Chief of Staff
Song titles can’t be owned, for example there’s several songs called ‘independence day’ wrote one myself, there’s also a movie, or movies, is it the same with book titles? Wouldn’t surprise me if there were books called Independence Day also, claiming an English phrase as ‘your own’ might be problematic, not sure how this plays out, well for book titles anyway.
You can’t use a book title from a continuation author about Bond for a Bond film - obviously that infringes copyright...
I've read EON boys the rights for the continuation novels as they are published. Does what you write still apply in spite of this?
Of course it does...as stated above...payment and due credit must be given.
Licence To Kill is provably it’s loweest point, and we all know that was a mixture of bad timing, poor promotion and a Bond who perhaps never really connected with the audience.
Do we?
:v
What would you say, then? I'm happy to accept there were other factors involved; but my point was that it's pretty much the only Bond not to do huge business, and even then I don't think it was all that bad.
Why's it debated? Is this a thing only hardcore fans know about?
the debate is did Bond and Moneypenny have sex that night or not? if they did it is not shown, and the phrase "close shave" implies they could have but didn't. But we don't know. It is ambiguous, and I think deliberately so.
Thus in subsequent adventures, when CraigBond flirts with the new Moneypenny, we are always wondering if they've already been there done that or not.
Certainly not something I ever wondered about Lois Maxwell, I always assumed her character was chaste and only passively fantasised about Bond.
I remember this being debated when Skyfall came out. Maybe not muchdebated, more like we all agreed it was deliberately ambiguous, but I find it interesting it was one of the shots included in that montage, as the sexier relationship with Moneypenny is one of the things that sets the Craig series apart from the classic films.
Why's it debated? Is this a thing only hardcore fans know about?
the debate is did Bond and Moneypenny have sex that night or not? if they did it is not shown, and the phrase "close shave" implies they could have but didn't. But we don't know. It is ambiguous, and I think deliberately so.
Thus in subsequent adventures, when CraigBond flirts with the new Moneypenny, we are always wondering if they've already been there done that or not.
Certainly not something I ever wondered about Lois Maxwell, I always assumed her character was chaste and only passively fantasised about Bond.
I remember this being debated when Skyfall came out. Maybe not muchdebated, more like we all agreed it was deliberately ambiguous, but I find it interesting it was one of the shots included in that montage, as the sexier relationship with Moneypenny is one of the things that sets the Craig series apart from the classic films.
I never thought that scene was ambiguous. He lazily attempts to unbotton her blouse, and in response she playfully threatens his life. I have always assumed it ended there.
well there you go, it is debatable!
because as the film rolled, I just assumed the two character did go on to spend the night together once all stubble had been shaven, and it was only at the end when she revealed her name that I suddenly thought "...waitaminnit!! if she's Moneypenny, then they couldn't have slept together ... or could they?!!?"
Comparing bond to marvel is unfair to bond. The marvel universe is this generations star wars. It means as much to the younger audience than star wars meant to those growing up in the 70s and 80s. And I suppose bond may be the star wars of the 60s. Bond has proven to have staying power but it'll never be as big as it once was or what the Marvel films are now.
But it doesn't need to be. Bond has its fans and keeps gaining new ones. It does well enough to warrant continuing. Sometimes we get a good film, and sometimes we don't. At this stage that's as good as one can expect.
Comments
It would take some time, but you'd have to adjust for inflation. I'd also suggest including the higher ticket price, but not what the price of the ticket is i.e basic ticket is $13, a 3-D ticket would usually cost $16, but for the sake of making the math easy calculate the ticket at $13.
The synopsis says:
"Bond has left active service and is enjoying a tranquil life in Jamaica. His peace is short-lived when his old friend Felix Leiter from the CIA turns up asking for help. The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist turns out to be far more treacherous than expected, leading Bond onto the trail of a mysterious villain armed with dangerous new technology."
I am not assuming that "His peace is short-lived when his old friend Felix Leiter from the CIA turns up asking for help," is followed immediately in the actual film by, "The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist..."
Leiter's help may eventually lead to them being involved in this rescue mission, but I don't think it necessarily follows that the help is to find a scientist. Why does the CIA need a retired MI6 agent's help to find someone? I think Bond, Leiter and Madeleine are doing one thing and then cross paths with the rumoured new 007, possibly played by Lashana Lynch, who is actually on the rescue mission.
My post in the spoiler news thread, https://www.ajb007.co.uk/post/946408/#p946408, goes into more detail. SPOILER ALERT.
Well, only if we ignore the sentence construction! They say the mission 'turns out' to be treacherous, not that the help requested turns into a rescue mission. It's clear from the way it's written that the rescue mission is what Felix is asking for help with; whether or not the press release turns out to be written accurately we'll have to see!
I'm mostly curious if we'll get a pre-title sequence without Bond in it...
It's a good point, but I'm certainly hoping they will!
I'm quite curious as to how the PTS will work, to be honest. It seems tricky to kick off with an action scene when Bond is already retired: we need a bit of time to see him just kicking around in order to appreciate him being retired. Felix turning up in a helicopter and getting him to leap into action sort of chucks away a big bit of scene-setting. I'll be curious to see how they do it. Flashback? Flashforward? Bond-free PTS? Bond beating up some local kids who have ruined his lawn?
Do we?
:v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
April 25th Press Conference in Jamaica
I think its rather clever they did this the same day Avengers Endgame came out, not a mistake.
All you hardcore fans who want spoilers are going to tune in anyway (and therefor wont be spending money on a competing franchise). Normal folks who don't know about the event or have other priorities will not have the details of the film spoiled and will all be able to let the filmmakers tell the story the day it finally comes out.
(Damn I envy those normal well adjusted folk, yet here I am anyway)
And because they didn't reveal the title, you hardcore fans are still going to be all agitated and jonesing waiting for the next Press Event, and will skip opening day of the next Marvel movie just to watch that one too.
I notice early in the montage of classic Craig moments is the evil foster brother revealing he was the author of all Bond's misfortunes. So they haven't retconned that out.
Also a quick edit of the sexy close shave sequence, another much-debated bit of CraigBond continuity.
Licence to Kill is one of my favourite Bond movies. I’ve never understood why it didn’t do better at the box office. Didn’t it get an R rating which didn’t help?
setting aside whether or not its a good title, they're never going to use one of the continuation authors' titles because they would have to pay someone else. It's never been done before, and there's been a couple dozen continuation titles since they ran out of the Fleming titles they did buy the rights to.
I would also expect if they did go to that expense they would have to use some elements from the book. They have snuck in some elements from Gardner and Amis, but very subtle and unofficial like, except for the actual dialog used in the last film, which they had to give credit for.
So do we want them to use ideas from a Benson book (I've never read them so have no opinion) when theres so many leftover Fleming concepts they could be using?
Throws up an interesting question..
Song titles can’t be owned, for example there’s several songs called ‘independence day’ wrote one myself, there’s also a movie, or movies, is it the same with book titles? Wouldn’t surprise me if there were books called Independence Day also, claiming an English phrase as ‘your own’ might be problematic, not sure how this plays out, well for book titles anyway.
. Risico.
Gun In My Hand
Never Dream of Dying
You can’t use a book title from a continuation author about Bond for a Bond film - obviously that infringes copyright...
there were two films named CRASH released at almost the same time, I'm sure that caused problems for normal respectable people who wanted to watch the Oscar winner but they accidentally had their minds warped by David Cronenberg instead.
but somehow Fleming sold the title The Spy Who Loved Me, with the stipulation the content of the book not be used for any film with that title. So EON paid for something.
makes me think: there was a 1958 British film called the Moonraker. I wonder if that was somehow the reason Moonraker was the last Fleming novel to get adapted?
Yes, those tears were brutal
Well deserved 18 I say
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I've read EON boys the rights for the continuation novels as they are published. Does what you write still apply in spite of this?
Really? This is news to me.
Interview with Raymond Benson at UniversalExports.net
Q:Would you sell the rights of your Bond novels to EON productions, if they asked?
A: EON automatically has the rights, but they would have to pay a certain amount to Ian Fleming Publications if they decided to film one of my books, or John Gardner's, or the Kingsley Amis book
Learned something new today!
Of course it does...as stated above...payment and due credit must be given.
What would you say, then? I'm happy to accept there were other factors involved; but my point was that it's pretty much the only Bond not to do huge business, and even then I don't think it was all that bad.
Why's it debated? Is this a thing only hardcore fans know about?
How weird: it was only a 15 when it came out, wasn't it?
Thus in subsequent adventures, when CraigBond flirts with the new Moneypenny, we are always wondering if they've already been there done that or not.
Certainly not something I ever wondered about Lois Maxwell, I always assumed her character was chaste and only passively fantasised about Bond.
I remember this being debated when Skyfall came out. Maybe not muchdebated, more like we all agreed it was deliberately ambiguous, but I find it interesting it was one of the shots included in that montage, as the sexier relationship with Moneypenny is one of the things that sets the Craig series apart from the classic films.
I never thought that scene was ambiguous. He lazily attempts to unbotton her blouse, and in response she playfully threatens his life. I have always assumed it ended there.
because as the film rolled, I just assumed the two character did go on to spend the night together once all stubble had been shaven, and it was only at the end when she revealed her name that I suddenly thought "...waitaminnit!! if she's Moneypenny, then they couldn't have slept together ... or could they?!!?"
But it doesn't need to be. Bond has its fans and keeps gaining new ones. It does well enough to warrant continuing. Sometimes we get a good film, and sometimes we don't. At this stage that's as good as one can expect.