I know it’s hard for some people in today’s society to understand this, but you can disagree on something yet remain in speaking terms. I hope that is the situation here, and the parties involved will be amiable to sharing what happened at the proper time.
1 Like
It’s not the disagreeing they’d have issue with, rather the public bit. It’s why those who have left Bond, or indeed any attention grabbing movies, have remained vague and emphasised it was “creative differences” so as not to create difficulties for people they could work with in the future.
We’ll never get that story. As Orion said, Boyle has burned bridges with EON every time he’s opened his mouth about the previously named Bond 25. Whenever he has spoken, he’s come off as very bitter and put the blame on EON with Craig in there somewhere too. I think he’s burned any bridge that would have allowed him to potentially film his version in the future. Personally, from what I’ve gotten, he was trying to play hard ball with toys that weren’t his own and when he refused to adapt, he quit and started whining. Just let sleeping dogs lie. Boyle should’ve done that.
1 Like
This is not so much about speaking terms as it’s about corporate profile. Jesper Christensen was very vocal about CR and QOS and few would have thought he’d ever be back - yet he was. But Boyle’s situation is significantly different since he and his writer have been creatively involved and whatever stems from this work must be protected in some way. Including the terms and conditions under which different parties contribute to the proposal. I’d be very surprised if we learned any more about Boyle’s Bond in the near future than what he’s already put out there.
1 Like
Nice idea but definitely fake.
2 Likes
Absolutely fake - I thrilled it was even considered that my dodgy photoshopping was genuine! Only meant as fun - never intended to fool anyone (I’d have put a little shade on the smaller logo 
)
2 Likes
Or straighten the logo on the right…
The perspective is right, but yeah, it still looks wrong!
It struck me how the scaffolding lines were similar to the logo font.
It’s two clicks down on the left…he says as someone who has doctored images for perspective WAY too much.
1 Like
4 years of fine art and my perspective’s still screwy 
1 Like
That in a nutshell is fine art surely
2 Likes
Annapurna moving roughly forward-ish…
2 Likes
Well that’s good news for film lovers. The depressing part of the article is…
The line of credit, set in 2017, was mostly used as a P&A fund to promote starry bombs like “Vice,” “The Sisters Brothers” and “Destroyer,” insiders noted.
Arguably 3 of the last year’s best movies. Definitely 3 movies that bring welcome relief from the dirge of multiplex cgi ‘cartoons’. The little seen Destroyer was very good indeed.
Is the inference that they’ve had to tell the bank that they’ll make fewer challenging, art house non-multiplex movies now? They must’ve conceding something to the banks, unless daddy really has got bottomless pockets.
I think Bond and Annapurna are perfect for each imo. I like the more artistically ambitious incarnation of Bond, which Annapurna won’t be naturally inclined to homogenise and Annapurna need properties that make some cash. This artistically striving Bond doesn’t seem to have damaged revenue so I t’s a good fit.
Thank goodness for the bank of daddy!
2 Likes
I believe the point of no return has already arrived. Quality adult filmmaking will be at the fringe of the cinema experience at best - most of it only has a future in streaming.
Instead cinema will focus on the big carnival attractions - like Bond. If those help finance other endeavors, great. But even those might be an endangered species since those moviegoers who grow up on the constant junk / comfort food will hardly gravitate to other stories when they grow older.
Then again, maybe in a post climate catastrophe world the future of great movies will be the least important worry.
5 Likes
By that logic we’re well past that point, given how many people making films cite Star Wars (the 77 film before it was renamed) and Richard Donner’s 1978 Superman as inspiration for getting into it. It’s like anything, you are introduced to the medium through it’s most main stream, and as you develop your preferences, you gravitate towards less well known sources of those elements you loved.
Then once you’ve moved onto entirely left field you criticise new mainstream examples of those things.
Quick personal example: I saw The Mummy in 1999. Loved Rachel Weisz’ performance so have sought out films with her in them. That led me The Brothers Bloom, which I loved. That made me watch Brick, a brilliant film, so niche it was released in 2 American cinemas.
I was not referring to filmmakers and their influences, I was thinking about mainstream audiences who are already getting used to watching only the big blockbusters on the big screen while maybe trying out “serious stuff” via streaming.
And judging from the lack of success other movie fare has on the big screen lately (original material has had a disastrous showing in US cinema so far this year) one might conclude that people just do not care anymore.
1 Like
But it has been like that for quite some time, entirely original small films have always attracted less audiences, often only becoming “cult classics” years later when the director does a blockbuster, making a slightly wider audience seek out their older work.
Or, to put it another way, how many people on here sought out CJF’s work only when he was announced as No Time To Die’s director?
Sticking with the Weisz example; Disobedience (2017 film) - Wikipedia
I in particular draw your attention to…
The film debuted in five theaters in New York City and Los Angeles and made $241,276 in its opening weekend (a per-venue average of $48k), ranking as the fourth-best opening average for the year to that point, after Isle Of Dogs ($60k), Avengers: Infinity War ($55k) and Black Panther ($50k).
Which would suggest the lack of turnout isn’t the audience at all, it’s distributors that are creating that, as the average intake per venue in 2018 has the first and fourth best earners more original works, but they weren’t put out to many cinemas.
To quote another film that opened in barely any cinemas (until getting a wider release months later)
“If you build it, they will come”
To put the blame on the distributors does not really work. They are in it for only one thing: the money. If audiences hungered for and demanded adult fare the distributors would immediately react.
People just don’t want to see anything but the spectacle on the big screen anymore.
Sure, some distributors quit trying and put their focus on the sure bets only. But the smaller distributors went down in the last years because those movies are not what a mainstream audience wants to see anymore.