The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

Post by **FormerBondFan** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:13 am

Omega wrote:November man and John wick both cost less than the bond producers fee or one stunt sequence . Both of those movies are good action flicks and decent stories that did not break the bank to make

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only difference is that NM got bombarded with bad reviews while the John Wick is other way around.

Veronica · Post by **Veronica** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:21 am

FormerBondFan wrote:
Omega wrote:November man and John wick both cost less than the bond producers fee or one stunt sequence . Both of those movies are good action flicks and decent stories that did not break the bank to make

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The only difference is that NM got bombarded with bad reviews while the John Wick is other way around.

It wasn't really bombarded with bad reviews... anyway 46$ million for this and another movie?? ANOTHER?! SHIVERS!

Post by **Kristatos** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:49 am

FormerBondFan wrote: The only difference is that NM got bombarded with bad reviews while the John Wick is other way around.

Maybe it was a better movie? I haven't seen either, so I can't comment.

Post by **Omega** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:17 pm

Kristatos wrote:
FormerBondFan wrote: The only difference is that NM got bombarded with bad reviews while the John Wick is other way around.
Maybe it was a better movie? I haven't seen either, so I can't comment.

John wick was a late October release that never got the #1 slot. It did get more love from critics, honestly there are two scenes I didn't think reeves was capable of.

Wick topped out at $79 million world wide more than likely making money .
I'm not even sure NM had decent distribution ww. England was like 1 screen, I don't know if the Italians got it. That's the problem with independent releases. Wick at least got to a few other countries making modest amounts, the biggest was 2.7 million.

The films didn't set the world on fire but were well made action films showing old Hollywood skills in making good solid movies with great planning for a modest amount of money.

Dread 3d is in the same boat as NM although with better reviews, and higher cost because of the fx.

The new bond is going to be close to $400 million by the time it's done + advertising putting it close to $600-700, and can only make money if it breaks a billion.

My entire point is Hollywood is still capable of making Good action movies for under $100 million, kingsman is a perfect example. Bond is a bigger name generally making more but there is no good reasons why since goldeneye they cost as much as the most expensive Hollywood movie. Bond 24 cost more than a avatar, avatar sequel or hobbit movie? Why?

It can't be Craig's big fat payday

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Veronica · Post by **Veronica** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 3:12 pm

A lot of money is put on PR to make the hype so big that it gets to the "Best Bond ever" point... and that's the most ridiculous thing... since Connery none of the movies that followed were nailed "best Bond ever".. sure Moore got his highlight with "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "GoldenEye" was a big big comeback. But if I'm not mistaken critics didn't really nail them as best movies ever... and now with this John Blown 008 guy-apparently Skyfall is the best Bond ever... I still cannot believe that critics wrote that by their own will...
..

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:43 pm

They were under the Imperious curse of Broccoli Veronica.

There is no other explanation.

Post by **FormerBondFan** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:22 pm

Star Trek 3 (not III as in The Search For Spock) is now titled Star Trek Beyond.

http://trekmovie.com/2015/04/21/breakin ... ek-beyond/

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:25 pm

https://www.facebook.com/supermegafestc ... =1&theater

Post by **carl stromberg** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:32 pm

bjmdds wrote:https://www.facebook.com/supermegafestc ... =1&theater

I have just watched him with Davros on the Horror Channel.

Post by **FormerBondFan** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:24 pm

bjmdds wrote:https://www.facebook.com/supermegafestc ... =1&theater

Are we talking DW or that Star Trek 3 has an official title?

Post by **Omega** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:15 am

FormerBondFan wrote:Star Trek 3 (not III as in The Search For Spock) is now titled Star Trek Beyond.

http://trekmovie.com/2015/04/21/breakin ... ek-beyond/

Hope it s better than the wrath of Kahn reboot. I enjoyed it but it was obvious what was going to happen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post by **Omega** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:19 am

Veronica wrote:A lot of money is put on PR to make the hype so big that it gets to the "Best Bond ever" point... and that's the most ridiculous thing... since Connery none of the movies that followed were nailed "best Bond ever".. sure Moore got his highlight with "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "GoldenEye" was a big big comeback. But if I'm not mistaken critics didn't really nail them as best movies ever... and now with this John Blown 008 guy-apparently Skyfall is the best Bond ever... I still cannot believe that critics wrote that by their own will...
..

pr is true but the money being spent on the movie alone is huge. (Craig said justifying product placements for sf the movies cost as much or more to print and advertise as it cost to make the movie)
(That's why I said spectre has to make a billon to break even. Basically triple the given cost of a movie to figure out how much it has to make to break even)

If I were to ask eon they'd say we put the money on the screen . Sorry I can't recall a single bond movie of recent years (last 6 movies) that looked worth the bloated cost.
Not when a under 30 million movies can look as convincing if not better .

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Veronica · Post by **Veronica** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:14 am

Omega wrote:
Veronica wrote:A lot of money is put on PR to make the hype so big that it gets to the "Best Bond ever" point... and that's the most ridiculous thing... since Connery none of the movies that followed were nailed "best Bond ever".. sure Moore got his highlight with "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "GoldenEye" was a big big comeback. But if I'm not mistaken critics didn't really nail them as best movies ever... and now with this John Blown 008 guy-apparently Skyfall is the best Bond ever... I still cannot believe that critics wrote that by their own will...
..
pr is true but the money being spent on the movie alone is huge. (Craig said justifying product placements for sf the movies cost as much or more to print and advertise as it cost to make the movie)
(That's why I said spectre has to make a billon to break even. Basically triple the given cost of a movie to figure out how much it has to make to break even)

If I were to ask eon they'd say we put the money on the screen . Sorry I can't recall a single bond movie of recent years (last 6 movies) that looked worth the bloated cost.
Not when a under 30 million movies can look as convincing if not better .

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree... none of the last three movies are visually special... I honestly don't know what they do with the money... maybe pay millions of dollars to get "Best Bond ever" reviews...it's pretty much disgraceful that happened. When you have "From Russia with Love" and classics like that they praise Skyfall...or should I say Skyfail?

Veronica · Post by **Veronica** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:14 am

bjmdds wrote:They were under the Imperious curse of Broccoli Veronica. There is no ther explanation.

Good one!

Post by **The Saint 007** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:45 pm

An article regarding the Spectre CinemaCon footage.

Veronica · Post by **Veronica** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 4:58 pm

The Saint 007 wrote:An article regarding the Spectre CinemaCon footage.

"It's all spy glory..."

more like "it's all spy depressed..." this is hilarious

Post by **Omega** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:12 pm

The Saint 007 wrote:An article regarding the Spectre CinemaCon footage.

gives fanboys a bad name. Even trek and Star Wars fan might pick up on a change to their favourite character even while being excited for a new trailer. Bond never unpacked and lives like a squatter , correct me if I wrong I though he had s nice home complete with a maid to keep it clean .

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post by **Blowfeld** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:05 pm

FormerBondFan wrote:
bjmdds wrote:https://www.facebook.com/supermegafestc ... =1&theater
Are we talking DW or that Star Trek 3 has an official title?

You got me FBF. Briefly excited one of my favourite Doctor was getting a role in Star Drek

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:08 pm

No Escape: Release Date: September 2, 2015 FBF, Brosnan is following the exact schedule as NM by opening the Wednesday prior to Labor Day. Why? NM did terrible with that weekend .

.................thedissolve.com:Mike Snydel::::"While it does unfortunately look like Survivor might mirror most of the VOD dreck that litters the genre, there are a few flourishes here and there that may raise this slightly above bottom-of-the-barrel fare—namely the appearance of the almighty Robert Forster, and Brosnan using his lived-in élan for more nefarious means. And while the trailer promises more pretzeling twists and turns than a roller coaster, the only real mystery here is how this terrifying photoshop monstrosity was approved.".......The film will be released in the United States on May 29, 2015 in "select theaters" and "on demand".

(It is not listed on boxofficemojo to be released May 29.)............it looks like his career has hit rock bottom now, ala Steven Seagal, with such projects. It might be better to do The Topkapi Affair over such limited and minor released film projects. FBF, what say yee to these disturbing facts?

Post by **FormerBondFan** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:58 am

bjmdds wrote:It might be better to do The Topkapi Affair over such limited and minor released film projects.

Thomas Crown 2 won't help him since the general public is NOT going to be interested in seeing a sequel to a remake that is 16 years old. Try EX4 instead.

FBF, what say yee to these disturbing facts?

Tell that to Quentin Tarantino, who needs to cast Pierce in his upcoming films since he never had the chance to do CR.

Classic Bond Forum