The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[bjmdds]

The box office descent of TBM continues, with only $3 million day 7 in the USA, down 4 straight days, vs. $7.5 million day 7 for CR in the USA, which increased all 4 days after the weekend debut. CR took in $22.5 million days 4-7, vs. ONLY $14 million for TBM. Facts, just facts. Front loaded TBM now has competition and might start to struggle at the box office, especially if it does not take in over $30 million for the weekend in the USA. Wait....have patience....watch the results.....it is being shown a ridiculous 27 times per day in one Manhattan theatre. Plenty of empty seats will be present. Eon is trying their best to flood the theatre markets with a monopoly of Bourne-like screenings....I don't think this strategy will work and they will have to contract this number of screenings weekend 3.

[The Sweeney]

To be honest, right now disappointment has kicked in for me with QoS, so I couldn't really care less what it takes at the BO. I'm more concerned about the film itself, and what the critics thought of it.

Why hadn't they stuck to the winning formula created with CR? Action and Fleming? They could have used the unused novel YOLT for Bond 22, and TMWTGG for Bond 23, to complete a Fleming trilogy, while chucking parts from DAF and TSWLM too into the mix.

But instead, they give us a rushed, unfinished film, with an `original' storyline that has no resemblence to the novels. The writers have shown now they are incapable of writing anything decent which has nothing to do with Fleming. CR only worked because of its heavy reliance on the novel.

And while we are at it - that awful, crappy, pathetic excuse for a song. David Arnold would have come up with something much better than that garbage. Can't EON do something masterful and magical, like bring John Barry back for Bond 23. Ok, he's getting on a bit, but how about a collaboration with Arnold and Barry, and Barry can write the next song.

There you go. The winning recipe for Bond 23. Barry, Arnold, YOLT/TMWTGG storyline - ditch Forster and bring back Campbell, someone who understands Fleming.

[katied]

BTW Twilight did $7 million, just in midnight showings alone. But I've read reviews that said it wasn't that great.When I saw QOS(3rd time!)today I was tempted to tell people to see QOS instead of seeing Twilight. QOS might not be *that* great, but it's gotta be a sight better than Twifreakinglight

[Mazer Rackham]

Code: Select all

The Top Ten Advance Ticket-Sellers on Fandango.com (as of 11/19/08 3 p.m. EST):

1. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)

2. The Dark Knight (2008)

3. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

4. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

5. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End (2007)

6. Hannah Montana 3D (2008)

7. Twilight (2008)

8. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)

9. Spider-Man 3 (2007)

10. Sex and the City (2008)

9 AM today Fandango.com was rating Twilight as a “Must Go”, and the film had collected a whopping 92% of the movie site’s ticket sales
Bolt and Quark were rated as only “Go”, accounting for just 5% of ticket sales combined

Fandango.com, the movie ticket Web site is selling five "Twilight" tickets per second as of noon EST Nov. 21.

while it was #7 earlier this week, "Twilight" ended up taking the #3 spot on Fandango’s list of Top Advance Ticket-Sellers. It beat all of the “Harry Potter”, “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Lord of the Rings” movies and the only two movies that it didn't beat are “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” and “The Dark Knight.”

[Mazer Rackham]

Twilight 6,000 screens at 3,419 theaters
Grosses tripled Quark's at the same point
Production cost $37m
Keep in mind that these are different audiences.

Audience polling shows Quark didn't build up on the CR audience or bring in a younger audience.
A few polls have 18% of movie goers with no interested in Quark and 56% only interested in seeing it once.

[bjmdds]

To be honest, right now disappointment has kicked in for me with QoS, so I couldn't really care less what it takes at the BO. I'm more concerned about the film itself, and what the critics thought of it.

Why hadn't they stuck to the winning formula created with CR? Action and Fleming? They could have used the unused novel YOLT for Bond 22, and TMWTGG for Bond 23, to complete a Fleming trilogy, while chucking parts from DAF and TSWLM too into the mix.

But instead, they give us a rushed, unfinished film, with an `original' storyline that has no resemblence to the novels. The writers have shown now they are incapable of writing anything decent which has nothing to do with Fleming. CR only worked because of its heavy reliance on the novel.

And while we are at it - that awful, crappy, pathetic excuse for a song. David Arnold would have come up with something much better than that garbage. Can't EON do something masterful and magical, like bring John Barry back for Bond 23. Ok, he's getting on a bit, but how about a collaboration with Arnold and Barry, and Barry can write the next song.

There you go. The winning recipe for Bond 23. Barry, Arnold, YOLT/TMWTGG storyline - ditch Forster and bring back Campbell, someone who understands Fleming.

Sweeney, are you feeling OK? I cannot believe your change of review. If you feel this way, no wonder the box office is heading south after it's impressive opening. The song was an abomination, we all knew that from day one, but to read your current thoughts???? I emailed you that you would NOT like it, correct? You emailed me back the opposite. Who was right?:shock:

[katied]

Watching it today there were some things I definitely would have changed..got rid of Fields *completely*.


I would have explained Mr. White's escaping a bit better


Shortened the dogfight and made Bond and Camille's landing after it a little less "WTF?!?"

[bjmdds]

Three times so far for you MP?

[katied]

Yup and a possible fourth on Thanksgiving.

[English Agent]

To be honest, right now disappointment has kicked in for me with QoS, so I couldn't really care less what it takes at the BO. I'm more concerned about the film itself, and what the critics thought of it.

Why hadn't they stuck to the winning formula created with CR? Action and Fleming? They could have used the unused novel YOLT for Bond 22, and TMWTGG for Bond 23, to complete a Fleming trilogy, while chucking parts from DAF and TSWLM too into the mix.

But instead, they give us a rushed, unfinished film, with an `original' storyline that has no resemblence to the novels. The writers have shown now they are incapable of writing anything decent which has nothing to do with Fleming. CR only worked because of its heavy reliance on the novel.

And while we are at it - that awful, crappy, pathetic excuse for a song. David Arnold would have come up with something much better than that garbage. Can't EON do something masterful and magical, like bring John Barry back for Bond 23. Ok, he's getting on a bit, but how about a collaboration with Arnold and Barry, and Barry can write the next song.

There you go. The winning recipe for Bond 23. Barry, Arnold, YOLT/TMWTGG storyline - ditch Forster and bring back Campbell, someone who understands Fleming.

Oh dear..............i know how u feel............QOS being a dissapointment!

The film as you've said had a feeling of a project being rushed, scenes seemed incomplete, storyline was vague at best.
Rather than being made short, the film would of been better if it had been longer, but it appears the writers hadn't come up with enough of a story to fill the film out.
What i don't understand is the producers were working on this film at the end of production for CR!.........and were talking about a May 2008 release date, so what were they working on?
For Bond 23, the producers need to get some new writers..........badly
Get a director who has experience of action/drama films, and uses conventional filming techniques (i.e. u can c wots going on!)
Bring back the second-unit action teams from previous Bonds.
Forget trying to make Bond films as per other franchises.
When scheduling the films production, add some more time to the post-production (though it wasn't a problem on previous Bonds)
and as you have said let Arnold be involved with the main title song.

I mean can you imagine buying a Bond CD in the future with all those classic Barry scores, and then suddenley listening to
the White/Keys song?

Whats annoying is that people have spoken to me at work how glad they were that CR was such an improvement in the Bond franchise only for the next film QOS to of brought the franchise down again.

I really hope the producers take on board the comments by the reviews and the feedback from the public on the film.

QOS was an OK film...........but OK is not good enough, for the millions of moviegoers who look forward to seeing these films.

The BO of QOS is very important!..........otherwise we may never see a Bond film again for a while........fortuantely
the loyal going public, based on the excellent CR went to see QOS intially in droves..............but i hope the producers realise that, and not that the film was a success on its own merit..............otherwise Bond 23 could be made the same.

To sum up.....i think QOS was a project too big for Forster and his team of editors etc who hadn't worked on this type of film before, but were persuaded by the producers to make this film. Unfortunately, the producers didn't understand that Forsters experience on films, was to spend months on editing his films.........and he was just not given this opportunity.
As Forster has gone on record as saying, he had to make comprimises to the film during editing (no, this should not happen ).
The script was poor, the story and characters needed better clarification and depth.

AB

ps: Martin Campbell.........please come back!!!

[katied]

Definitely ditch Bradley(unless they want the Bourne comparisons to continue).Bring back Campbell(if he wants the job and is available).

[Mazer Rackham]

Just got off the phone. Illuminating conversation.
A chum is predicting a sharper decline in Quarks BO this weekend. Going as high as 60% and above, while 50% and above is strongly expected.
Comes down to the cin score card.

[katied]

Ooh..reading some of the reviews of Twilight makes me wonder if QOS is as screwed as some think...of course for every "OMG I *loved* it !" review of Twilight,there are a zilllion "That was *terrible* " reviews.

[Mazer Rackham]

Definitely ditch Bradley(unless they want the Bourne comparisons to continue).Bring back Campbell(if he wants the job and is available).

Very hard to get these guys to come back. Eon wanted Forster (Gump) for the next one and he emphatically refused. Campbell likewise refused the sequel offer flat out.
Gone are the days of Young, Hamilton, Glen and Gilbert

[Mazer Rackham]

Ooh..reading some of the reviews of Twilight makes me wonder if QOS is as screwed as some think...of course for every "OMG I *loved* it !" review of Twilight,there are a zilllion "That was *terrible* " reviews.

Summit pulling it off will be more surprising. They've never handled anything this big.

It's one of the cult things that are hard to judge before hand. The young female draw is, from early signs, extraordinary. Where the young females go the young males are to follow (along with friends, mothers, and aunts). Similar to Titanic (particularly) and Sex and the Citys draw.

Quark did not expand the demographic like they wanted. Also there is suspected alienation because of the Bourne abandonment.

[katied]

Yeah..I rather doubt Campbell will come back. Still, I thought I'd throw his name out there. He's more likely than some of the suggestions *cough* Christopher Nolan *cough*

[Mazer Rackham]

otherwise we may never see a Bond film again for a while........fortuantely
Whoa, EA!
I've never given you s**t because of your views/reviews. A friendly piece of advice, intended in good will. Take a few days away from Bond. All Bond. Some of us, well, we eat sleep and breath it. Take a step back and when you come back it will look better.

One bad film or one bad Bond is not going to kill the franchise. There are billions to be made from it still, nobody is going to hang that up. Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten what Cubby did that made Bond such a success. A Bad BO for QOS could be the best thing to happen to the franchise and a few years on break might get things together for a much longer term.

I think you are right on with your observations (Possibly, I need to see it myself to contrast and compare) but don't let that bring you down.

[katied]

Some movies (rhymes with "Pie another Tray") came close to wrecking the Bond franchise,but I think whenever a movie like that comes along that causes Mike n Babs to take a step back somewhat and regroup.At least that's what I think.I could be off base.

[Mazer Rackham]

Yeah..I rather doubt Campbell will come back. Still, I thought I'd throw his name out there. He's more likely than some of the suggestions *cough* Christopher Nolan *cough*

Nolan comes on boards, it's reboot the reboot and there will be a decent story arc and a plan for close to 3 movies.
Not gonna happen. Sadly.

Louis Leterrier (yes, I know Transporter 2/Unleashed)
Jon Favreau
Antoine Fuqua (hit and miss)
Sam Raimi (uh, spider-man/Darkman)
Brett Ratner
Mel Gibson (a nut but he knows his stuff)

Avoiding the Michael Bays as much as possible. Look at a list of action movies, each year only a handful are halfway decent. Most are potboilers.

[katied]

No, Nolan is wishful thinking.The chance of his actually directing a Bond film is so remote it's not even funny.