The 2015 movie enemies of Bond 24

It be confirmd that we get Bond 24, Bourne 5, Mi5 and another Da Vinci Code movie in 2015.

But who are the other ones:

The Avengers 2: VS/UK 01 May 2015 NL 30 April 2015.
Pirates of the Caribbean 5:  Dutch release be confirmd for Wednesday 08 July 2015. VS/UK 9 July 2015
Bourne 5: Dutch release i expect in the second or third week of September 2015
Bond 24: November/December 2015
Mission Impossible 5: December 2015
Finding Dory aka Finding Nemo 2: VS 25 November 2015. France release date is on thid moment 02 December 2015 and that wil possible also the Dutch release date.
Alvin and the Chipmunks 4: VS/Uk 11 December 2015
Da Vinci Code ''Inferno'': VS/UK 18 December 2015 NL: Possible 17 December 2015.
Kung Fu Panda 3: VS/UK 23 December 2015. The second movie get May and June release date. Mabey in some country's like The Netherlands the movie wil be release in February 2016.

Star Wars: Episode VII
Snow White and the Huntsman 2
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2
Ant-Man
Hotel Transylvania 2

Trouble Down Under. From the directer of Ice Age. Delayd a lot and on this moment stil set for November 2014 release date, but there isn't much information yet.

Set for 2015 but possible delayd:

Avatar 2.
Jurassic Park 4
Terminator 5
Die Hardest aka Die Hard 6
ID Forever Part I
The Adventures of Tintin 2: Prisoners of the Sun

More movies with 2015 release year
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?year=2015,2015&title_type=feature&sort=moviemeter,asc

Who do you think will deliever the moost, who do you like to see the moost, biggest flop.

Facts:

The first Avengers movie whas the biggest hit of 2012 with more then 1,5 billion.
Bourne whas flop of 2012 and you can say Die Hard 5 wil possible the flop of 2013 if it not going to be Wolverine 2.
Peter Jackson be confirmd as directer of Tin Tin 2

I think Terminator's release date has already been confirmed, 26 June. I really hope it won't be a reboot as certain sites report.

On the evidence of Skyfall's success (both commercially and critically), I don't think Bond has anything to worry about from any of those films.

I don't think Bond 24 has much to fear. With the current decline in movie quality from Hollywood blockbusters and box tickers, I think Bond is safe.

Disney tell no new POTC tale yet!

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/28572/disney-delays-fifth-pirates-film

Spoiler:

That mean a year longer wait on new BD release of POTC 4, if that already going to be the case.

But there 2 other movies confirmd and one of them be Jurassic Park 4 aka Jurassic Park World is set for June 2015 release..

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/28573/-jurassic-world-set-for-june-2015

Spoiler:

Fox confirmd "Night at the Museum 3'' production wil start Febbruary 2014, i think that possible mean 2015 release.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/28576/-night-at-the-museum-3-filming-details

Spoiler:

They're making a new Night at the Museum 3 movie? I mean, I knew they had intention to, but I'm glad they're finally doing something. Thank you very much for the info!

The last time I can remember the 'competition' actually being cited as having affected Bond's box-office was what the '89 summer Batman/Last Crusade/Lethal Weapon 2 line-up apparently did to LTK's takings.

The competition doesn't matter. Skyfall has positioned Bond 24 to open with the best Box Office weekend in its history.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

The competition doesn't matter. Skyfall has positioned Bond 24 to open with the best Box Office weekend in its history.

Yup, even Marvel is aware enough that they had one of their films rescheduled not to compete with Bond 24.

MI5 is the real killer here, since they are in the most similar genre. Also, Bond 24 is kinda commiting suicide or doing a kamikaze if they chose Morocco and Austria as the main locations, since MI5 is also using them.

Bryan Tee wrote:

MI5 is the real killer here, since they are in the most similar genre. Also, Bond 24 is kinda commiting suicide or doing a kamikaze if they chose Morocco and Austria as the main locations, since MI5 is also using them.

Skyfall trumped MI4 by a very wide margin, but you're right about one thing, I don't want to see similar locales.

bitchcraft wrote:

Bryan Tee wrote:

MI5 is the real killer here, since they are in the most similar genre. Also, Bond 24 is kinda commiting suicide or doing a kamikaze if they chose Morocco and Austria as the main locations, since MI5 is also using them.

Skyfall trumped MI4 by a very wide margin, but you're right about one thing, I don't want to see similar locales.

But you have to admit, the action scenes in MI4 were much better.

Bryan Tee wrote:

bitchcraft wrote:

Bryan Tee wrote:

MI5 is the real killer here, since they are in the most similar genre. Also, Bond 24 is kinda commiting suicide or doing a kamikaze if they chose Morocco and Austria as the main locations, since MI5 is also using them.

Skyfall trumped MI4 by a very wide margin, but you're right about one thing, I don't want to see similar locales.

But you have to admit, the action scenes in MI4 were much better.

It has gotten to the point where other franchises such as Mission Impossible, Fast & Furious and even Bourne are choreographing better action scenes. This is infuriating.

Bond 24 better pick up. And without CGI.

I'd rather have a low-key action sequence that fit the tone of the film over an extravagant one that puts the brakes on the plot. I don't think that there is any pressing demand for outrageous stunts or money shots, and I think that it would be wrong to prioritise that if it meant risking the cohesion of the film. I mean, look at MI4 - as soon as the film leaves Dubai, the story is only a vague means to an end while everyone gets distracted by levitating Jeremy Renner and a car park full of BMWs.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I'd rather have a low-key action sequence that fit the tone of the film over an extravagant one that puts the brakes on the plot.

Skyfall's pre-title wasn't a low-key action sequence yet it didn't put the brakes on the plot.

A lot of the criticism levelled at Skyfall was that people started yawning after Adele's song.

It is justified in some ways because people go to a Bond film expecting some elaborate action. A good car chase with good car stunts. Of which Skyfall had nothing really to shout about. Hell, even Captain America The Winter Soldier had better car action.

I'm not saying that all action should be always be low-key. Only that the film shouldn't get carried away with big action set-pieces for the sake of having big action set-pieces. When it starts doing that, it's very easy to have Bond escape a giant space laser by driving an ice dragster over the edge of an ice shelf and then parasailing on a tidal wave to safety while Robocop makes jokes about global warming. Even without CGI, it was a ridiculous premise for a set-piece.

And that is quite literally the first time I have heard that criticism of SF. Just about everyone I have spoken to reckons it's one of the best films in the franchise, and a very effective thriller. The only real criticisms that I have heard are that the pre-titles throw us into action with no context to it, and that the film loses a little bit of steam in the third act.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I'm not saying that all action should be always be low-key. Only that the film shouldn't get carried away with big action set-pieces for the sake of having big action set-pieces. When it starts doing that, it's very easy to have Bond escape a giant space laser by driving an ice dragster over the edge of an ice shelf and then parasailing on a tidal wave to safety while Robocop makes jokes about global warming. Even without CGI, it was a ridiculous premise for a set-piece.

And that is quite literally the first time I have heard that criticism of SF. Just about everyone I have spoken to reckons it's one of the best films in the franchise, and a very effective thriller. The only real criticisms that I have heard are that the pre-titles throw us into action with no context to it, and that the film loses a little bit of steam in the third act.

Well if you look at MI4, the film IS basically about that Burj Kalifa scene, and audience seems to embrace that. Also, if people are saying that SF's pre-titles has no context, let's look at some other pre-titles shall we? The pre-titles for GF, TSWLM, OP, TLD, GE, TND didn't really have much context either, but they still continue to amaze viewers to this day, and nobody seems to complain about them. So it now comes down to, like you've said the 3rd act, where there's a galore of action too. GF, OP, TLD had special climaxes that will wake up sleeping audiences, whereas the others seems to be a little dull. The same for SF, because the climax, while intense, is nothing really special. So, that's where elaborate STUNTS come in. They need to knock the viewers in the face for the third act. Everything needs to be even more grand, spectacular and hair-raising, because that's what the viewers have been waiting for. There shouldn't be much progress in the plot anymore, and the movie should rather focus on the action, the villain and the hero(es).

I completely disagree. The story should not stop. At any point. I think you're selling audiences short by suggesting that all they want is action at the end. SF worked because it was smart enough to concentrate on the relationship between Bond and Silva, and it didn't need an elaborate set-piece to go with it.

MI4 does exactly what you say a Bond film should do, and it falls flat on its face. The prison break and Kremlin infiltration are great sequences. Likewise the bait-and-switch at the Burj Khalifa. But after that, it completely forgets about its plot - which, let's be honest, was entirely forgettable to begin with - in favour of a silly action set-piece. I came out of MI4 completely pissed off that the film-makers had wasted such a good set-up and clever sequences on such a one-dimensional villain and laughably lacklustre and lazy story. I felt like I had wasted my time and my money, even moreso than I did with MI2.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for action, and I'm all for creativity. But I think it's insulting to assume that audiences are too stupid and/or don't have the attention span to follow a two-hour plot, and it's a slap in the face to decide to give them action instead. And if your plot was wrapped up twenty minutes ago and now you're just padding it out with action, then all you have done is create a Michael Bay film.

The Bond films were never action films. They may contain action, but they're much closer to thrillers first and foremost. In fact, the three films with the heaviest focus on action - TND, DAD and QOS - are consistently ranked among the worst entries in the series.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I completely disagree. The story should not stop. At any point. I think you're selling audiences short by suggesting that all they want is action at the end. SF worked because it was smart enough to concentrate on the relationship between Bond and Silva, and it didn't need an elaborate set-piece to go with it.

I not only said it should focus on the action, but also the villain and the hero. I don't really have a problem with SF's climax, but since you said people are not satisfied, I'm just giving some suggestions.  When I mean the story shouldn't progress during the climax, I mean that it shouldn't still be about the building up of the plot and stuff, but rather diving straight into the resolution, which as usual, is about how the hero defeats the villain.

In CR, the villain is not defeated.

In QOS, the resolution is Bond finding what he needs to move on from Vesper's death; the villain's plot is really a means to an end, with the end being exploring how far Bond is willing to go to get those answers.

And in SF, the resolution is the implications for Bond given the long-term psychological effects M's particular brand of management had on Silva.

Can I say PM that I think when people ask for a breath taking stunt (or in the context of the other thread, a particular type of action sequence), they want it to happen within the context of the story, and not just mindlessly.

What am I supposed to think when they follow that up with suggesting that the plot should be wrapped up before a set-piece finale? Or when they draw comparisons to MI4 as to what Bond should be aiming for, even though MI4 was a film that treated the idea of having an actual story as a necessary evil?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

In CR, the villain is not defeated.

In QOS, the resolution is Bond finding what he needs to move on from Vesper's death; the villain's plot is really a means to an end, with the end being exploring how far Bond is willing to go to get those answers.

And in SF, the resolution is the implications for Bond given the long-term psychological effects M's particular brand of management had on Silva.

Mmhmm. What about them then, especially when you gave me an example of QOS?

The point is that the ending isn't just about Bond defeating the villain - there is often so much more that can (and needs to be) explored.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The point is that the ending isn't just about Bond defeating the villain - there is often so much more that can (and needs to be) explored.

Then I believed you gave the wrong examples. Quantum of Solace didn't even have proper and good pacing. After that scene in the hotel, I was wishing that the film would quickly end because I was going to sleep, and the that's not an honourable thing. As for SF, I don't really have problem with any of that, since it never affected the action. I'm not really against having more explored AFTER the resolution, but rather generally your mindset. I get that you want Bond films to have a proper narrative and all, but based on what you've said about MI4 and stuff, I know that you're too crazy about it though. Not every movie is perfect, and we have to embrace that. MI4 wins with it's action sequences. That's all I was saying. I never considered about whether that or this would affect the story and the emotional elements and blah blah blah. And note that after that I was just giving suggestions on you saying that other people were saying that were unsatisfied with the third act. So what are you trying to hint? Are you really extremely sensitive about spectacular and well-filmed action?