Is Betting On Box Office Good For Films? 
Marvel Still Looking For Captain America 
'Sopranos' Creator To Film Rock Drama 
LIVE-SNARKING THE 82ND OSCARS... 
'ALICE' IS A MONSTER! $116.3M Blows Past … 
Oscar Not-So-Thriller: Diller Mogul Picnic 
'Precious' Sweeps 25th Indie Spirit Awards 
Howard Stern Won't Be Next 'Idol' Judge 
Justin Theroux Readying 'Zoolander 2' For … 
Mickey Rourke Wooed For Two Big Roles, … 
CBS Reups Les Moonves Through 2015 
EXCLUSIVE: Who Will Be Captain America? 
Matt Damon To Star In New RFK Biopic 
Claire Danes Leaves ICM For WME; Also, ICM's … 
EXCLUSIVE: Jennifer Lopez And Sony Music … 
Quantum Of Solace came online for tracking and I'm told the good news has Sony doing somersaults. Because the first choice is almost double what it was for Daniel Craig's debut as Bond in Casino Royale, That's a very solid start with 3 weeks to go before its release November 14th. Nevertheless, 007 fanatics posting online about their longing for the established Bond cliches and stereotypes. They say the 22nd Bond movie looks more like Bond-as-Bourne since it's "dropped Moneypenny, dropped Q, dropped the wit, dropped the gadgets, and dropped the line 'The name is Bond, James Bond'." That said, Sony is trying to ignore rival studio chatter that this may be the costliest film ever made minute by minute: $261 million for a 105-minute movie, which comes out to almost $2.5 million per minute. (As opposed to, say, the $300M pricetag for 165-minute-long Pirates Of The Caribbean 3.) But Sony sources say that number is "off base by more than 60. Plus we have tax credits from filming."
New Bond Wannasee 2x 'Casino Royale'; But What Did 'Quantum Of Solace' Cost?
Comments (31)
|
Post a Comment
Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, don't get your facts wrong, and don't bore me.
News/Opinion Poll
Loading ...Box Office Poll
Loading ...
This will be a huge hit, no doubt about it, but let’s be honest here people…the real Bond movies ended long ago.
Speaking as a fan of the first 20 (okay, first 18) James Bond movies, I LOVE the revitalization that the Sony-MGM partnership has wrought in James Bond. As great a Bond as Pierce Brosnan was, the last two films pretty much killed Bond: it left him a cliched one-liner machine and pretty much put Brosnan’s career on ice for a long while. The formula also got old after twenty installments: Bond sleeps with bad girl, Bond sleeps with good girl, one girl dies, evil guy activates McGuffin and destroys something, Bond saves the day by keeping McGuffin from activating again.
The Daniel Craig-Bond, on the other hand, is a spy first and foremost. He’s still super smooth and cool, but he has an edge to him that the franchise has lacked for a long time. The stories are also simpler, less science fiction-ey than the more recent installments (although many older Bond films were certainly science fiction-ey in their own right, see e.g., ‘Moonraker’ and its trip to the space station, ‘You Only Live Twice’ with its volcano base), and more realistic.
As for the price tag, well, I would think a shorter running time is a good thing, since it means that exhibitors can cram more screenings in per day, enhancing Sony’s box office take.
I hope it didn’t cost THAT much to make this movie. I mean c’mon now, 261M for a movie? No wonder our banks is on the verge of bankrupt. How much does it cost to suit up Bond?
Having said that, I think the new Bond is so much better than those foggies. I mean, a car that is both a submarine and a missile launcher? The old bond series is like one big cartoon.
The new one is more gritty and truth to be told, the less there is on the toys, the more better it is caused it is more sureal. Those who wants the old bond back, go watch Connery and the rest giving them what they want, toys to play with when their wifes is asleep
The new bond is the Best Bond
I agree. I hated the old Bonds and think Goldeneye is one of the worst movies ever made. They were all ridiculous… until Casino Royale, which kicked ass and is easily, without question, the best Bond ever made. If QoS even comes close to replicating what worked in that film, it will duplicate its success.
Armand, Armand, Armand ……
Expesive movies are not why our banks are in trouble. ……………….I really hope you don’t believe that. I don’t even know how to respond to that statement. ………….. WOW!
IMHO, Daniel Craig is by FAR the best Bond ever. Neither cliched, cheesy or unwatchable. Kind of a Bond for a more civilized culture. But Craig also mentioned in an interview that they already can’t get funding for the next Bond because of the economy. So now movies can’t get funding, and yet SAG is talking up the dreaded “S” word. And NO, I am not bad mouthing SAG or actors just because I disagree with a path they may be on (God forbid people don’t agree with SAG members, nope, they must be haters or out of the loop), I disagree with their stance because they’re trying to prove a point, that they can get better than everyone else, and they may very well be ready to cost thousands of people their jobs close to a year after the writers did the same thing. Genius.
The new Bond style is spectacular entertainment. The franchise was due for a makeover
As was the case for “The Dark Knight,” the best marketing for “Quantum of Solace” is the excellent previous film.
I will not see Quantum of Solace, this is the first time in my life that I will not see a Bond film.
Perhaps I’m from the Over-the-hill gang after all (I’m 40), but what is new this time is contrasted reactions in London and here from critics who bona fide loved Casino Royale. It’s beyond the now usual “Old school 007″ vs “James Bourne” debate.
I find it interesting that everyone who thinks Craig’s Bond is great absolutely hates what came before, whereas longtime Bond fans hate what’s being passed off for James Bond these days. No Q, no Moneypenny, no quips, no character, no opening gunbarrel, and no multiple babes to hop into bed with and they call this a Bond film? Bleh. Used to be the Bond films were the gold standard for action films. Now they’re a poor man’s imitation. Craig wouldn’t have a chance at being cast as Bond were it not for audiences embracing Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye, which revitalized the franchise for the 21st century. By contrast, the action set pieces in Casino Royale were more out of Superman than a Bond film.
Then there’s the marketing. Unless one is a serious geek, most Americans have no idea who Daniel Craig is. His name isn’t featured anywhere near as prominent as Connery’s, Moore’s or Brosnan’s name were whenever their latest Bond film was being marketed to the public. In fact, Craig has yet to prove he can open a film on his name alone. Invasion, The Golden Compass and Munich were three major releases he was a part of and barely featured in either the films or much of the marketing, with the posters of the first two films featuring him more prominently than the films themselves. The real test will be Defiance, and if that sinks like a stone despite the fact that it actually looks like a good film and the first thing that Craig actually seems well cast in, Craig better watch it when his contract is up. The Bond producers are making it clear with the marketing that James Bond – not Craig – is the real star as far as they’re concerned. If he thinks he’ll get a pay raise past a certain point, he should check with Pierce Brosnan on the likelihood of that happening.
Personally, I think the Bond producers should just rename the character as Craig’s Bond is not the Bond millions of filmgoers have enjoyed over the past four decades. It’s just as obvious the fans of Craig’s Bond wouldn’t care either, as they were never fans of the Bond films to begin with.
I dont know… but isn’t that one of the ugliest Bond ads ever? It doesn’t make me want to see the film.
The truth is, the new Bond film is plain Not Good. For several reasons.
First, Director Marc Forster clearly WANTED to do a Bourne movie – not a Bond. And so the film that’s coming out soon is more a retread of The Bourne Conspiracy than anything else. It LOOKS, SOUNDS, & FEELS like a Bourne movie. You won’t be getting Bond this time, sorry.
Want some proof? Forster brought in Editor Richard Pearson (The Bourne Supremacy) to cut it like the Bourne pictures (shots that last about 3 frames — in the trade, we call that “frame-fucking” and not without good reason). This film is not classically cut like all the other Bond films – you’ll be watching an MTV video this time.
Then Forster brought in 2nd Unit Director Dan Bradley (The Bourne Supremacy & The Bourne Ultimatum) to frame/compose his stunts like Bourne – remember that herky-jerky camera that was always too close into the actors during a fight — so you didn’t know what they hell you were looking at half the time? You don’t get a great Bond fight here – you’ll be getting “motion blurs” across the screen with grunts on the soundtrack. Yep, that’s real craftsmanship.
And finally, Forster hired Gary Powell as stunt coordinator (The Bourne Ultimatum) – so the stunts are going to have a feeling of been there/saw that.
Lastly, have you notice how short the film is? Shortest Bond ever made, I believe. And it’s all fights & stunts, with practically no dialogue. Just like the Bourne movies. I hate to say this, but I’d wager a week’s salary that head writer Paul Haggis had done some nice work on this one, and Forster decided to cut out practically all the diaglogue so his movie would more reflect the Broune pics – chases, chases, chases. I’m sure they shot it – don’t forget that Daniel Craig said he ONLY do the Bonds if he could really get some good acting scenes in them… and there’s no evidence of that here. Sure it’s all laying on the cutting room floor, care of Mr. Forster.
So, though this is called a Bond film – it ain’t. And I finally would like to lay the blame on Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli – who held every iota of control on the Bond film franchise, but evidently gave in on this one. MICHAEL AND BARBARA – DON’T LISTEN TO ANYONE ELSE!! MAKE THE BOND FILMS YOU WANT TO MAKE THEM. AND NEVER HIRE A SHIT LIKE MARC FORSTER AGAIN!!
speaking of marketing… Why is the Ruskie as big as Craig on the poster?
Just a note on the tax credit thing. If this $261m budget is correct, and just guessing that they spent half of that in the UK, then the studio would net $26 million in UK tax relief alone. If they managed to spend as much as 80% of their budget in the UK, that relief would reach about $40m.
Ahhh Sony. Spending over $200m on a film franchise that belongs to another studio. Never change.
I wonder… since Sony’s option to finance and co-distribute Bond films with MGM only covers Casino Royale and Solace. Whether Sony are spending big money on Quantum in an effort to make the dirt poor MGM re-up their co-financing deal with Sony since they can’t fully finance a $200m movie on their own?
Either way Sony are really pushing Quantum if it is to be their last Bond film. I’ve seen countless adverts for Sony products featuring Daniel Craig’s Bond.
I’m looking forward to the film…though in all honesty I don’t expect it to great.
This bond is more in line with the Ian Fleming Bond than the others. While many of the stories Fleming wrote have been made into features already, many of those films incorporate the suave jet setting part of the Bond character with the visual candy of coll gadgets. In the novel Casino Royale we have Vesper Lynde describe Bond the way that Daniel Craig portrayed him:
“Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless.”
Keep up the good work, Sony. Many of these films have been great. Please don’t mail it in like the Timothy Dalton movies and all the Pierce Brosnan movies after GoldenEye.
This movie will be huge not only because Casino Royale was a pretty damn good movie in its own right but mainly because the trailers have been really exciting. Marketing folks. Its all about marketing. Look at what Fox did with Jumper — they made it look like the event of 2008 — even though it sucked the marketing hook got butts in the seats. This will make over 200 mill. Easily being the higest grosser in the franchise.
Obviously they have also eliminated hot Bond Babes as well.
Who’s the bow-wow on the poster?
What’s interesting (to me, anyway), is to see how ‘badass’ Bond is finally succeeding.. Timothy Dalton was initially supposed to be the badass Bond, but ended up falling flat as the films were an uncomfortable mishmash of ‘traditional’ Bond (gadgets, outrageous plot, puns) and more LeCarre ‘hard’ stuff..
That said, I enjoyed the new _Casino Royale_, but I didn’t think it was really Bond, and I’m thinking this new pic is not going to be really Bond either..
Then again, you kind of have to take each Bond era on its own and enjoy them for what they are.
Or not.
I don’t get the Craig hype.
A Bond who can’t drive a real car, one with a stick shift. How pathetic!
That a stunt driver totaled one of those Aston Martins because he apparently couldn’t either was just the icing.
I’m glad they dropped the camp elements. Do people really miss, for example, that ludicrous invisilbe-car-speeding-through-a-palace-of-ice sequence in DIE ANOTHER DAY? Face it. They had to get back to basics and I’m glad. The Pierce Brosnan ones were getting just too camp and idiotic that it become impossible to give a shit about anyone or what anyone was doing. They were worse than the Austin Powers flicks.
i just want to see the star trek trailer
Saw it last week in London and it’s everything I thought it’d be; just another mindless, dispiriting actioner showcasing stunt after improbable stunt. On Broccoli’s watch the franchise and its accompanying formula has been castrated. Every ingredient intrinsic to the classic Bond oeuvre – the gun barrel opening, M’s briefing, Q’s gadgets, the shaken not stirred martini – has been jettisoned in the frantic rush to mimic Bourne and appease a short-attention-span, pop culture ignorant generation weened on the 3 minute video clip. Worst of all is the music. Time was that whenever Bond was being menaced, the evocative Monty Norman theme would quietly, ominously kick in. You knew you were watching a Bond film. These days you only hear the theme in the trailer and even there Arnold can’t resist the temptation to embellish it with techno garbage. Where is John Barry when we need him. Though the name “Bond” is mentioned throughout the film, Quantum of Solace has absolutely nothing in common with a James Bond film. Sadly, it’s just another undistiguished, by-the-numbers actioner unworthy of the money spent on it. And let’s not praise Haggis too much. I doubt whether the man has even watched a real Bond film. This was a quick pay-check assignment. In Casino Royale he even had Bond betray his famous “shaken not stirred” nuance. I could go on but what’s the use. The franchise needs a real reboot with a different actor.
>In Casino Royale he even had Bond betray his famous “shaken not stirred” nuance.
Go back and watch CR again please, Rick. That was the point of the line–that Bond had not yet become the spy we know.
>Go back and watch CR again please, Rick. That was the point of the line–that Bond had not yet become the spy we know.
Go and read the original Fleming novel, which established Bond was already an agent with a great deal of experience. This rebooting crap was totally unnecessary for this franchise. If people want to watch a Bourne-like film, go watch those. I want a real Bond film, dammit.
If you want to technical about it, GOLDENEYE was a reboot of sorts and a much more successful one at that. CASINO ROYALE didn’t bear the burden that GOLDENEYE did of proving Bond was still relevant for today’s audiences. At least that one was made while Cubby Broccoli was around. Sadly, we’ll never know what would have happened had he lived a few more years, but seeing how he handled similar situations in the past, I doubt he would have dumped Pierce before his time or that he would have gone with Daniel Craig as Bond.
Most longtime Bond fans do appreciate Craig’s performance as Bond. It is the Brosnan fans who despise him. Craig is bringing an element of Fleming’s Bond that only a young Connery (in his first 2 films) and Dalton brought before him. Moore and Brosnan were nothing like Fleming’s Bond.
As far a Cubby was concerned – he wanted to stick with Dalton and not go with Brosnan, but he was sick when GE was made and all duties were turned over to Babs and Mikey.
I had lunch last year with Tom Mankewicz who knew Cubby. He told me that Cubby would have LOVED Daniel Craig because he was a tough guy (and that is what Cubby really wanted as Bond).
Comment by #44 — October 27, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
It was a joke you silly head.
Saw it last night and it is indeed “The Bond Identity”. Precious little humour but more action than Sasha Grey gets in an afternoon.
Mr. John Chambers (aka Paul Haggis lover) i wonder if you have ever read a PAUL HAGGIS script? you say you venture a guess that PH had some great dialogue in there and Forrester cut it out? hilarious! Haggis has some of the worst dialogue in the history of cinema. he was paid 4million and delivered a script that had thoughtful action sequences like: “there is a chase.” and if you get your hands on the script you will pee your pants laughing at how bad a writer haggis is. the bloom is off the rose on PH and its doubtful he will match that quote again soon as word of mouth on his QOS work is “terrible”. Daniel was unable to deliver many of his lines with a straight face — thats why there are so few in the script, and if you are in the business you know that everybody wants bourne on any action movie. so stop comparing credits on IMDB and blasting forrester for delivering what every studio wants… and try reading the script.
JOHN CHAMBERS
Forster did NOT hire Bradley he was in place from the producers. Forster did not hire the second editor either, he had his regular cutter (so that was probably the producers as well.) I interviewed both Forster and his cinematographer for the next issue of ICG, and they (especially the DP) absolutely HATE shakeycam and the Bourne look, and both told Bradley he was not hired to shoot that way. And he was fine with that, apparently.
If this second cutter blitzed this thing and turned well-shot sequences into overcut shit, I imagine that is the Broccoli clan messing w/ Forster’s cut, not the other way round.
Considering how much I despised baby-immature Bond in CR and absolutely loathe Craig in the role (he ain’t Dalton and he ain’t Connery, but he IS buttugly), I was still looking forward to this movie … but the cutting sounds … like something went horribly wrong.
The new bond film actually upset me. Im a bond fan, if i wanted perfect reality i would join the M.O.D
which i did for a bit actually (no shit)