Spectre is massively overbudget and may be the most expensive film ever made
64 replies, posted
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/10/technology/security/bond-movie-budget/[/url]
[quote]The next James Bond movie, "Spectre," is massively over budget and on track to be one of the most expensive films ever made, costing more than $300 million.
That's according to internal memos from the president of MGM Studios. Sony Pictures is the distribution partner for the 24th Bond film. CNNMoney is reviewing thousands of documents leaked online by hackers who broke into Sony.
MGM president Jonathan Glickman sent emails in early November explaining how the studio is scrambling to cut costs.
He says the current budget "sits in the mid $300Ms," but the studio has to drastically cut back to $250 million. And the shooting period already costs $50 million more than the previous film, "Skyfall."[/quote]
But we don't even have a trailer, this will either be incredibly awesome or a horrible trainwreck.
Either way it'll be entertaining to watch.
This had better be fucking good
What the hell?! They've only been filming for like a week!
[QUOTE=NisseN;46689903]What the hell?! They've only been filming for like a week![/QUOTE]
Building sets, buying props, buying equipment, and paying actors is probably the most expensive part of a film. Paying the crews that film it is chumps change.
MGM already went bankrupt in 2010. Who the hell do they have doing their accounting? Kerry Katona?
[QUOTE=Wiggles;46690043]MGM already went bankrupt in 2010. Who the hell do they have doing their accounting? Kerry Katona?[/QUOTE]
No, Tim Schafer
So, I know people will disagre with me, but I really miss the older James Bonds
They had some epic smugness to them missing from the new ones. Even Goldeneye, which I consider to be the last good James Bond movie, had that feeling left. Some of the Roger Moore ones were really cheesy and bad, but they all fit the formula each time while adding awesome villians, gadgets, and locations.
I've tried to watch the new ones, but they seem so blackbuster-ified. Especially hearing about how ambitious this one is. I REALLY like Christoph Waltz though, so maybe I'll see it just for him.
Sorry if I don't make much sense, as a kid who really loved James Bonds the new movies just don't do it for me. They are definitely good movies but not the same James Bond I like
[QUOTE=Glitchman;46690499]So, I know people will disagre with me, but I really miss the older James Bonds
They had some epic smugness to them missing from the new ones[/QUOTE]
yeh i love a bit of smug rape. i miss the old days
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46690546]yeh i love a bit of smug rape. i miss the old days[/QUOTE]
I don't recall Bond ever actually raping anyone... Being an opportunistic bastard, sure, but it was always consensual.
[QUOTE=woolio1;46690564]I don't recall Bond ever actually raping anyone... Being an opportunistic bastard, sure, but it was always consensual.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://vimeo.com/user14892558/bond[/url]
1.32 onward
really i wish lazenby + dalton split the moore bonds between them, dalton picking up at octopussy and ending at goldeneye or somewhere around there
connery is overrated imo, still fun for a watch but overrated
[editline]11th December 2014[/editline]
if lazenby stayed on he would have become a more natural bond, and the death of tracy could have added a light of seriousness to some of the moore flicks
[editline]11th December 2014[/editline]
moral of the story lazenbys agent was a fucking moron
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46690546]yeh i love a bit of smug rape. i miss the old days[/QUOTE]
also that bit in skyfall where the lady has just finished telling him about how she was a sex slave most of her life and then he's like "let's bone"
not quite as bad as it got in goldfinger but still fairly yucky
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46690546]yeh i love a bit of smug rape. i miss the old days[/QUOTE]
I find it in bad judgement to discount a movie based on what was acceptable during that time period. Also, as a piece of fiction, many the love interests and situations were exaggerated.
The sounds horrible, but the works were actually meant to be a men's power fantasy, basically being able to get any girl you want without any repercussions. Its like male emotional ego porn. James Bond is more of an idea of ideal male traits personified rather than an actual person.
There is actually an interesting documentary about it
I honestly can't remember the last time the 'most expensive film to date' lived up to expectations.
There's a few decent ones dotted about i admit but nothing amazing.
[QUOTE=Cone;46690688]also that bit in skyfall where the lady has just finished telling him about how she was a sex slave most of her life and then he's like "let's bone"
not quite as bad as it got in goldfinger but still fairly yucky[/QUOTE]
Yeah I was very weirded out by that. "Oh you've been a sex slave since you were a little girl? Well, a good boinking will make everything better!"
[QUOTE=Glitchman;46690748]I find it in bad judgement to discount a movie based on what was acceptable during that time period. Also, as a piece of fiction, many the love interests and situations were exaggerated.
The sounds horrible, but the works were actually meant to be a men's power fantasy[/QUOTE]
yeh i totally get that and i still think you can totally appreciate the films as long as you have a "wow this is so archaic" attitude to it (personally i wouldn't though - i think most of the films are boring as shit)
but in your words you "really miss the older James Bonds" which is a bit weird cos it implies you want them to make more? and for the new ones to be more like the old ones? which is odd cos like you say they're totally old fashioned terrible male power fantasy movies where the hero literally gets away with raping people
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;46690798]I honestly can't remember the last time the 'most expensive film to date' lived up to expectations.
There's a few decent ones dotted about i admit but nothing amazing.[/QUOTE]
pirates of the caribbean at worlds end was fantastic
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46690877]yeh i totally get that and i still think you can totally appreciate the films as long as you have a "wow this is so archaic" attitude to it (personally i wouldn't though - i think most of the films are boring as shit)
but in your words you "really miss the older James Bonds" which is a bit weird cos it implies you want them to make more? and for the new ones to be more like the old ones? which is odd cos like you say they're totally old fashioned terrible male power fantasy movies where the hero literally gets away with raping people[/QUOTE]
Yes, I do, because there is much more than wanting to watch it just because of the character james bond is, it's his interactions with the environment, people, villians, gadgets, ect.
What's wrong with a male power fantasy anyways?
You could say he rapes people in the movies, but really it's an incredibility summarized version of a sexual relationship presented in a movie. Even in Goldfinger, you can probably analyse that sex scene with them fighting as much more than a physical fight, but as a breaking down of each of their walls set up by what side they are fighting for. You don't know EXACTLY the whole scope of their relationship because it's a fucking movie.
I think you're not giving the old movies as much credit as they should get
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46690877]yeh i totally get that and i still think you can totally appreciate the films as long as you have a "wow this is so archaic" attitude to it (personally i wouldn't though - i think most of the films are boring as shit)
but in your words you "really miss the older James Bonds" which is a bit weird cos it implies you want them to make more? and for the new ones to be more like the old ones? which is odd cos like you say they're totally old fashioned terrible male power fantasy movies where the hero literally gets away with raping people[/QUOTE]
Don't be so crotchety. Seriously, 'male power fantasy' as an insult, as if there's something wrong with males liking the vicarious feeling of power from watching James Bond trounce around and be smooth/deadly/etc.? It's ingrained in the male brain. Positively reinforcing 'alpha' behavior is the way natural selection weeded out the genetically inferior. And you really ought not to hold something against people when they have no control over it.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46690877]which is odd cos like you say they're totally old fashioned terrible male power fantasy movies where the hero literally gets away with raping people[/QUOTE]
That would be a very narrow view on the movie.
I liked the old ones because the villains were more interesting and ambitious. Not to mention there was cold war stuff and had a bigger espionage feel to it. For me the new Bond movies(Daniel Craig era) are plain action movies with no tick, very forgettable.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;46690499]So, I know people will disagre with me, but I really miss the older James Bonds
They had some epic smugness to them missing from the new ones. Even Goldeneye, which I consider to be the last good James Bond movie, had that feeling left. Some of the Roger Moore ones were really cheesy and bad, but they all fit the formula each time while adding awesome villians, gadgets, and locations.
I've tried to watch the new ones, but they seem so blackbuster-ified. Especially hearing about how ambitious this one is. I REALLY like Christoph Waltz though, so maybe I'll see it just for him.
Sorry if I don't make much sense, as a kid who really loved James Bonds the new movies just don't do it for me. They are definitely good movies but not the same James Bond I like[/QUOTE]
I think Daniel Craig has said that he wants to bring back some of the 'campness' of the older bonds.
[QUOTE=Marzipas;46690880]pirates of the caribbean at worlds end was fantastic[/QUOTE]
Curse of the black pearl was great, but sadly every film since that hasn't been, some good things sure but a lot of bad things that dragged them down.
I really liked Dead Mans Chest when I was younger. Davy Jones was rad as hell
Glad to see this thread derailed. Never expected a conversation about rape and pirates of the Caribbean when the OP is about movie budgets
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46690587][url]http://vimeo.com/user14892558/bond[/url]
1.32 onward[/QUOTE]
My mother liked those films.
[QUOTE=download;46689922]Building sets, buying props, buying equipment, and paying actors is probably the most expensive part of a film. Paying the crews that film it is chumps change.[/QUOTE]
If you mean the actual film equipment, it's either already owned by the studio or they rent it all out. Buying film equipment is a rental houses' job really.
But yea the crew itself probably pales in comparison.
They said back in July that filming was going to be delayed until December because of rewrites but they have been shooting shit loads of something (test shots, special effects maybe, don't know).
I get the feeling there will be loads of reshoots.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46690587][url]http://vimeo.com/user14892558/bond[/url]
1.32 onward[/QUOTE]
Even watching those films as a kid, I never saw those moments as "acceptable", I felt bad watching them. When he hit them or forced himself on them. It's even worse now watching them. I saw them as the bad or dark side of Bond. I do think some of them fit into the idea that eventually Bond would get his way, in the mission or with women.
They will shove all the budget to special effects and the movie will end up looking like bloated shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.