


Thinking about it that's about right. For the crowd I saw on a Sunday in my small venue it looked right for 30-50 range for most action movies would be a bomb. For a spy movie it's d**n good. Jack Ryan reboot could no break $15. Argo. Bourne legacy did about the same but they were expecting bigger and it slowed right after.Kristatos wrote:Estimated weekend gross is $36 million. Box Office Mojo set the "bar for success" at $30 million, so unless the actuals are way below the estimates, it seems to be performing decently. Not as well as 50 Shades of Grey, of course, but it probably works well as counter-programming for (mostly) single guys.Omega wrote:
BTW first rated R Bond movie.
I don't think it will be big at the BO, not the weekend to release a spy movie even if the villains name is appropriate. Early crowd was light next crowd will probably be half full from the people standing in the hall judging from past openings and my movie theaters size a decent opening but small.
I can't believe people paying to see a S&M Twilight fanfic. Read it? Fan.Fic. Fanfic became a novel then got adapted into a movie alone is disturbing and mind-boogling, but a fanfic based on Twilight, and the B&D one? Holy sh*t. We need someone adapt My Immortal and some other horrible fanfic into a tv series if we've reached a point this low. Seriously.bjmdds wrote:When Judi Dench took over as M in 1995, Bond was being integrated into this emasculation process by Eon thinking women wanted to see more powerful roles for them in a Bond film in order to bring them into the buying audience. Lo and behold, the MOST masculine, domination role against women just took in $230 million worldwide and the majority of the audience was female for 50 Shades Of GreyEon's Bond was NOTHING compared to this B&D and S&M degradation of women role that WOMEN find so enthralling now.
The moral is, let Bond go back to being Bond and let Eon not worry about the way the character treats women
What Bond looks like or should look like is not relevant anymore as long as Babs is around. Besides, who needs James Bond when we got Kingsman?bjmdds wrote:Correct Fakhrul. It boggles the mind why women rushed out to see a fellow woman degraded and naked for most of the film, yet many of them said they actually found this trashy film boring and FELL ASLEEP in the theatreLet the 7th 007 go back to being a womanizer and let Eon not worry that it will turn off women from seeing it.
Lesley Gore was also the niece of Batman producer Howie Horwitz.bjmdds wrote:Singer-songwriter Lesley Gore, who topped the charts in 1963 at age 16 with her epic song of teenage angst, "It's My Party," and followed it up with the hits "Judy's Turn to Cry," and the feminist anthem "You Don't Own Me," died Monday. She was 68. Gore died of lung cancer at New York University Langone Medical Center in Manhattan, according to her partner of 33 years, Lois Sasson. [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... QmBXEZEYtg[/video] [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... XoNF-fzYMw[/video] [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... gP2lcXqGEc[/video]
she only owns half a business and less than half of the rightsFormerBondFan wrote:I'm willing to bet Babs will do to anything not only keep DC but also her position. After all, she owns her family business with Mikey.
Thank you so much Sweeney and happy belated birthday to your mom!! AND YES, an easy date to remember which is always goodThe Sweeney wrote:I'm still not sure why he was cast as Fleming, because he looks absolutely nothing like the man.Alessandra wrote:Twice in a day?! LOL Something is going on.The Sweeney wrote:I'm agreeing with you twice in one day BJ....![]()
![]()
![]()
I too don't think Cooper would be a good choice for Bond. His face is too small and feminine, and as Kris correctly observed `ferrety'.....
He was gravely miscast as Fleming, and would be gravely miscast as Bond.
The bold expresses my thoughts on Cooper's face perfectly. I do agree he would be gravely miscast as Bond. He has none of the characteristics Bond has. Tall, dark, handsome, blue eyes, masculine jaw, and that "I could kill you now" look. None are there. I saw the Fleming miniseries, as they broadcast it here on satellite, and I was wondering "did they do it on purpose to make Fleming unattractive? To show how Bond was the opposite of him?". I never had a chance to discuss with you guys, but I'm glad you, Sweeney, feel he was very miscast for that part. I didn't even give it much thought, I thought that for whatever reason the producers of the series didn't want the man to be attractive in order to show a "contrast" with Bond. I didn't like the choice but because I hadn't read much around about it, I didn't know others felt the same way. So I'm glad it wasn't just me.
Is it your birthday today Ale? In that case, you share your birthday with my Mother (an easy date to remember)!!![]()
![]()
Atticus wrote:Thanks for clarifying, and happy birthday, young lady.Alessandra wrote:
Thing is, marketing and advertising are not included in "film budget", not usually anyway. That's an extra and separate voice. What I mean is that those 300 mln were about mere production, which is why the MGM dude suggested to cut down the costs with sensible measures like using two train wagons instead of three and shooting a sequence in studio instead of wasting two nights around Rome since it's at night and at a villa, so the environment can be re-created. The money for advertising is ON TOP of the production costs... and your point remains absolutely valid about the unnecessary spending on it, as in it being over the top.![]()
So we're now looking at $300 million (prod. cost) + $250 million for marketing (my conservative estimate on what it takes to sell Craig as Bond). This leads us to at least $550 million total cost. But then this doesn't even take into account Craig's army of plastic surgeons, makeup artists, and skin/facial consultants to ensure he looks (what's that term I hear from young people these days?)... oh yeah, "metrosexual."
With Pascal out of the picture, there's probably all sorts of chaos behind the scenes, a lot of yelling and fuming anger between the remaining big wigs and Barbara Broccoli. Who knows, maybe that's why she wasn't even in that puff piece. She was too busy defending herself.
VERY good choices for Fleming, and I agree completely on the assessment about Cooper as well.The Sweeney wrote:Agree totally. Cooper was totally miscast as Fleming, and yes he looks like a schoolboy or pizza delivery kid. Charles Dance probably looked the closest to Fleming in the film he appeared in, and I always thought Geoffrey Rush would play a good Fleming (mainly because of the striking physical similarities.)Atticus wrote:Dominic Cooper would be a useless Bond. With his big eyes, he looks like a lemur and his small stature is too apparent, which makes him look non-threatening. This slight person as Bond would not be believable in a fight scene with the likes of Oddjob or some big henchman. The guy has zero edge. Every time I see him, I'm actually reminded of a pizza delivery kid. Why he was cast as Fleming is another idiotic mystery in this universe. He obviously looks nothing like Fleming. That biopic itself was bland and didn't do justice to the Fleming lore.
They got VERY scared with that Man from U.N.C.L.E. trailer and with how well it was received. Fun fact... when I put it up here, it literally had 330 views. AS in TOTAL.. Cause I caught it as soon as it was released. The day after it was about 400k. Do you know how many views it has now? And this is NOT EVEN the first one, that was then deleted, thus a few hundred thousand views went wasted... it's the SECOND one that was put up by another outlet, not by the official one. It's got over 962,000 views now. They'll be a million by tomorrow.bjmdds wrote:Agree 100% with you Atticus. Mendes and Cr-egg are chomping at the bit to explore Bond's bi-sexality, in their moronic eyes. Once that occurs, the franchise can rot in hell, for there is NO way I want to see Cavill romancing men if he becomes the next Bond.Atticus wrote:I've watched the Eon puff piece twice. First off, that French actress is lousy. I don't find her attractive at all, not just in terms of looks but in charisma. She makes Tanya Roberts ooze with screen presence. But this is one of the legacies of the Craig era, namely bland women, and by bland I mean they're not the exotic babes we used to have in a Bond film. But that's expected with a Bond who looks like he's 75. At least somebody in casting has enough sense to realize that an exotic Bond girl-type like a Carole Bouquet or a Claudine Auger wouldn't fall for Craig's Bond. It wouldn't have an ounce of reality, and anybody who thinks otherwise is delusional.
And, wow, don't we have a powerful box-office star in that Bautista dude or whatever his name is? A day after the UNCLE trailer draws massive attention, Eon presents this Bautista guy near the start of their promo piece. Yeah, this nobody is sure to captivate the public. But it doesn't get more ludicrous until we see images of Craig. My problem with him is that his Bond has always looked gay. He's like a gay masseuse, and that black ski outfit he's wearing looks like Pussy Galore's catsuit. It won't surprise me if he has a gay scene with Christophe Waltz or that new gay Q. It's obvious Sam Mendes is just craving to present a full out gay love scene, especially after touching upon it in that Bardem/Craig homo-erotic scene in Shitefall.
THANK YOU!!!bjmdds wrote:When Judi Dench took over as M in 1995, Bond was being integrated into this emasculation process by Eon thinking women wanted to see more powerful roles for them in a Bond film in order to bring them into the buying audience. Lo and behold, the MOST masculine, domination role against women just took in $230 million worldwide and the majority of the audience was female for 50 Shades Of GreyEon's Bond was NOTHING compared to this B&D and S&M degradation of women role that WOMEN find so enthralling now.
The moral is, let Bond go back to being Bond and let Eon not worry about the way the character treats women