"Bond 23" delayed indefinitely

[diankra]

I love this idea.

Already happening on radio, btw: Toby Stephens (the villain in Die Another Day) has played Bond twice for BBC Radio Four, with David Suchet as Dr No, and Ian McKellen as Goldfinger.

Bond has been adapted for radio? I never knew that and I LOVE radio shows (got a CD collection of them almost as large as my DVD/VHS collection). Are these availale on CD, or for download somewhere?

Looking at the BBC shop, it doesn't seem as if they're avalable on CD. That might change, as while Dr No went out in 2008, Goldfinger was only run a bit over two weeks ago, on April 3rd. Goldfinger would have been on the BBC Listen Again site for a week after transmission, but is probably gone now - might be worth checking just in case?
Initially Dr No was supposed to be a one-off that Eon allowed to mark Fleming's 100th anniversary, but clearly they've relented so hopefully there'll be more to come.
So far, other cast members have included Patrick Stewart's ex, Lisa Dillon (as Honey Ryder), Rosamund Pike as Pussy Galore, plus Martin Jarvis, Peter Capaldi, Clarke Peters, Simon Williams, Lucy Fleming (Fleming's niece and literary heir) and Ian Ogilvy.
More details at http://www.radiolistings.co.uk/programmes/dr_no.html

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Couple of 007 connections there. Pike having appeared in Die Another Day, while Ian Ogilvy replaced Roger Moore as Simon Templar in Return of the Saint. As a result, he used to appear in lists of potential future 007s in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Is it a coincidence that Bond is now delayed when Kiefer Sutherland is now saying the 24 movie script has been written? I THINK NOT!

James Bond is scared of Jack Bauer.

He has more class than Bauer, and then some.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

I love this idea.

Already happening on radio, btw: Toby Stephens (the villain in Die Another Day) has played Bond twice for BBC Radio Four, with David Suchet as Dr No, and Ian McKellen as Goldfinger.

Bond has been adapted for radio? I never knew that and I LOVE radio shows (got a CD collection of them almost as large as my DVD/VHS collection). Are these available on CD, or for download somewhere?

There's another Bond radio adaptation of sorts (it's actually a seven-part podcast) called To The End. It's from a company called Pendant Productions (To The End)

 

[diankra]

Already happening on radio, btw: Toby Stephens (the villain in Die Another Day) has played Bond twice for BBC Radio Four, with David Suchet as Dr No, and Ian McKellen as Goldfinger.

Bond has been adapted for radio? I never knew that and I LOVE radio shows (got a CD collection of them almost as large as my DVD/VHS collection). Are these available on CD, or for download somewhere?

There's another Bond radio adaptation of sorts (it's actually a seven-part podcast) called To The End. It's from a company called Pendant Productions (To The End)

In addition (forgot to mention this earlier) there was another BBC adaptation in the early 1990s - a faithful version of You Only Live Twice, with another potential screen Bond, Michael Jayston, as 007. That gets repeated every now and again on BBC Radio 7.

 

[Hermiod]

Two Words: Matt Damon

Daniel Craig didn't have the name recognition of Damon prior to Bond. If he were just super spy Tim Jones his name alone wouldn't have drawn people like Damon would get 'x' butts into seats.

Didn't hurt that the Bourne movies are considerably better made films than Craig's Bond movies.

 

[Starkers]

Two Words: Matt Damon

Daniel Craig didn't have the name recognition of Damon prior to Bond. If he were just super spy Tim Jones his name alone wouldn't have drawn people like Damon would get 'x' butts into seats.

Didn't hurt that the Bourne movies are considerably better made films than Craig's Bond movies.

I really need to sit down and watch the Bourne films again because I just don't get it. I liked the first one which kind of snuck up on the world unnounced, but the second and third...well I saw both at the cinema but couldn't tell them apart to be honest, in fact the third one felt very like a remake of the second! I thought a lot of the actions scenes were too jerky as well. The car chase in 2 made me feel sick and the Tangier's rooftop chase went on way too long and was essentially pointless (and had been done before with Dalton anyway, so much for Bond ripping off Bourne!) I liked a lot of the quieter moments, but even then (the train station bit) it just felt like they'd lifted it right out of Spooks.

I think the other issue I have is not being a huge fan of Damon. He's so understated that to this day I can't decide if he's a brilliant actor, or incredibly bad. Irrespective Bourne seems to lack any real personality (except for the first film which was helped by teaming him with the German gal.) And don't get me started on the Julie Stiles, "No I was your love all along" plot point!

Not saying Craig's outings were brilliant films by any stretch, they're both flawed, but they have a charm and personlity lacking in Bourne for me.

 

[Australis]

To those who liked Roger Moore (I'm looking at you, T'Baio!): you want the breezy, humorous spy, remake Matt Helm or Flint. They were fun and reasonably well made.

Shocking that MGM can't find the money. What the hell have they been spending it on? How much did they lose in the crash? [Sardonic] Did they knock back Avatar? [/sardonic]

Out now scouting the ent for legit downloads of the Bond radio stories. McKellan as Goldfinger? That's cool!

ETA: on Damian Lewis's website is something called 'James Bond Stories'. No idea what they are yet, will listen later.

 

[MNM]

So who will be the next "Brosnan" after Craig bails because of the extended period of time that passed? Christian Bale? Clive Owen? Kevin McKidd?

Daniel Radcliffe.

"Harry Potter is all grown-up . . . with a license to kill!"

Cast the girl who plays Hermione as the Bond girl as well, and I guarantee you that movie will make more than any previous Bond ever has.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Rupert Grint as Q?

 

[MNM]

^ Rupert Grint as Q?

If I could have been bothered to edit my initial post, I would have put that in!

 

[MyCylon]

^ Even excluding the older pictures, the two most recent movies weren't especially successful. All of Brosnan's films outperformed Quantum of Solace, and Die Another Day and Tomorrow Never Dies both earned more than Casino Royale.

Only those relatively modern pictures:

1. Die Another Day - $210 million
2. Tomorrow Never Dies - $209 million
3. Casino Royale - $194 million
4. The World Is Not Enough - $191 million
5. Goldeneye - $187 million
6. Quantum of Solace - $178 million

Aren't those US figures only? From what I've seen, Bond movies make most of their money abroad (unsurprisingly). So I think it's important to work with the world-wide gross.
According to IMDB's top 100 box office list world-wide this would be the ranking (not adjusted for inflation):

Casino Royale (2006): $587,607,184
Quantum of Solace (2008): $569,968,427
Die Another Day (2002): $424,700,000
The World is Not Enough (1999): $352,000,000
Goldeneye (1995): $351,500,000
Tomorrow never dies (1997): $346,600,000


I did a search for some inflation calculators. The one I ended up using was the calculator from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I'm assuming that's fairly reliable but maybe somebody knows a better one. It does have one limitation which is that you can't use it to calculate values above 10,000,000. But that's easily fixed by knocking off some zeros and adding them in again at the end.
Based on their calculator, this is what the list looks like adjusted for inflation:

Casino Royale (2006): $634,332,830
Quantum of Solace (2008): $576,131,270
Die Another Day (2002): $513,774,000
The World is Not Enough (1999): $459,820,000
Goldeneye (1995): $501,951,000
Tomorrow never dies (1997): $469,974,000

So both CR and QoS quite clearly outperform the Brosnan Bonds (though DAD is pretty close, though why I will never know).

I honestly have no idea what the inflation-adjusted worldwide grosses for the earlier Bonds look like in comparison, to be honest. But I really don't see any reason for the studio or the producers to be unhappy with how Craig's Bonds have performed. If I were them (purely based on box office returns) I might make some minor adjustments but basically stick by what I'd established so far. I really don't see any sensible reason to do otherwise (again, based on figures rather than my own creative preferences).

 

[diankra]

If they end up 'rebooting' the franchise again they should just fuck it and go for faithful adaptations of the novels, even going so far as to make them period pieces.

I love this idea.

Already happening on radio, btw: Toby Stephens (the villain in Die Another Day) has played Bond twice for BBC Radio Four, with David Suchet as Dr No, and Ian McKellen as Goldfinger.

Sorry to bounce an old thread, but some might like to know that radio 4 is rerunning their version of Dr No next Saturday (6th August 2011).

 

[MacLeod]

^ Even excluding the older pictures, the two most recent movies weren't especially successful. All of Brosnan's films outperformed Quantum of Solace, and Die Another Day and Tomorrow Never Dies both earned more than Casino Royale.

Only those relatively modern pictures:

1. Die Another Day - $210 million
2. Tomorrow Never Dies - $209 million
3. Casino Royale - $194 million
4. The World Is Not Enough - $191 million
5. Goldeneye - $187 million
6. Quantum of Solace - $178 million

Why do some people only use US figures for films, the US market whilst very important is not the be all and end all. In the case of Casino Royale for comparrison according to box office mojo

US takings US$167.4m

Rest of world US$426.8m of which US$105.9m game from one market the UK. So the UK with a population ~20% of the US managed to take about 75% of the US takings.

Overall takings US$594.2m Budget US$150m So it made a decent profit. And I'm sure Bond 23 next year will be very succesful being as it's the 50th Anniversary of Bond films.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

^ Even excluding the older pictures, the two most recent movies weren't especially successful. All of Brosnan's films outperformed Quantum of Solace, and Die Another Day and Tomorrow Never Dies both earned more than Casino Royale.

Only those relatively modern pictures:

1. Die Another Day - $210 million
2. Tomorrow Never Dies - $209 million
3. Casino Royale - $194 million
4. The World Is Not Enough - $191 million
5. Goldeneye - $187 million
6. Quantum of Solace - $178 million

Why do some people only use US figures for films, the US market whilst very important is not the be all and end all. In the case of Casino Royale for comparrison according to box office mojo

US takings US$167.4m

Rest of world US$426.8m of which US$105.9m game from one market the UK. So the UK with a population ~20% of the US managed to take about 75% of the US takings.

Overall takings US$594.2m Budget US$150m So it made a decent profit. And I'm sure Bond 23 next year will be very succesful being as it's the 50th Anniversary of Bond films.

US box office makes or breaks virtually all movies made by US studios. Studios get a smaller cut of international proceeds. So even if a movie makes a lot of money overseas, if it bombs in the US it may well not get a sequel as the US is the primary film market.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes but by only using US figures you can make it look like the film was a flop. After all a taking of US$167m on a budget of US$150m would be considered a flop. However using the Worldwide takings of US$593m all of a sudden it's no longer a flop but a success.

The original point is the Craig films weren't succesful as the Brosnan films, when in fact they were. They might not have been as succesful in the US but that distinction wasn't made.

 

[Captain Craig]

Why do some people only use US figures for films, the US market whilst very important is not the be all and end all.

Probably because that's how most of the markets that report entertainment box office report it? Don't take it personal. Besides, I wouldn't even know how to make the Pounds mark or what a good take in each individual country was. Probably true for many, at least the last part.

 

[23skidoo]

Yes but by only using US figures you can make it look like the film was a flop.

Unfortunately that's the way it is. It's silly, I know, but just like a movie making "only" $100 million is considered a flop by many these days (even on low-budget films), a movie could make a billion overseas, but if it doesn't do well in the US, that's the end of the story.

It's one reason why certain films never even get released in America. There was a huge, all-star film based on Asterix (actually maybe more than one) that as I understood it was a megahit in Europe, which not only never got released in North America, they didn't even bother with a DVD release here. Luc Besson made two sequels to Arthur and the Invisibles which apparently did quite well in Europe, but most North Americans never even knew they existed (even with Selena Gomez, Lou Reed and Iggy Pop doing the voices) until they suddenly appeared on DVD a couple weeks ago. And that was because the first Arthur film, which featured the voice of Madonna as an elf with the hots for a 10 year old (not kidding) was a big hit in Europe but bombed in North America.

It's sort of the same problem TV faces. Networks are still joined at the hip to "live day of broadcast" ratings, and cancel and renew shows based on that data alone, despite the fact that live broadcast these days is only a fraction of the real viewership of a series thanks to DVR, downloads, and network rebroadcasts. Take a look at the "real viewership" bumps Doctor Who and Torchwood gets after these alternate viewing figures are tallied in.

Alex

 

[MacLeod]

With TV shows, networks earn money by selling advertising time. So if you watch it on a DVR or similar device you can fast forward through the ads. So the more people watch on DVR the less the network can charge for an ad. After all fewer people will see it so why would you pay more for it?

Though in the case of DW and Torchwood, both are BBC shows as the BBC doesn't have ad slots those final ratings are more imporatnat than live ratings for networks which have ads.

Two examples to consider, in the case of Star Trek: Enterprise, the US network that showed it was owned by the compant that owned the rights to ST. Yet they cancelled it because they only looked at revenues earned from that network. I suspect after international sales, DVD sales etc.. had been factored in it would have been more profitable to the parent company to keep it going.

In the case of SG:U and the Sci-Fi Channel they didn't own the rights to it, so earned only what they could sell those ad slots for. Now MGM could have lowered the price per episode it sold it at but they were in dire finacial straights at the time so it wasn't practical.

From what I can gather in terms of takings the studios earn around 50% of the US takings and about 40% from the rest of the world. Naturally they'll be some fluctuation in those figures. Exhcange rates/ deals etc..

 

[Harvey]

Yes but by only using US figures you can make it look like the film was a flop.

Unfortunately that's the way it is. It's silly, I know, but just like a movie making "only" $100 million is considered a flop by many these days (even on low-budget films), a movie could make a billion overseas, but if it doesn't do well in the US, that's the end of the story.

Well, not quite that extreme. Studios tend to earn 50-60% of what movies make domestically, and on average 40% of what they earn overseas. This means domestic grosses are usually more important than overseas grosses, but it doesn't mean that the overseas figures don't matter.