Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies

Netflix's Most Expensive Movie Ever Will Be a $200M James Bond-Level Thriller From the Russo Bros. (syfy.com) 44

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
The directing duo behind the highest-grossing film of all time are set to break another movie record for Netflix. From a report: This time, brothers and Avengers: Endgame filmmakers Joe and Anthony Russo (who also helmed Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Captain America: Civil War, and Avengers: Infinity War for Marvel) are headed to Netflix for the streaming service's biggest-budgeted movie yet -- and it looks to be a spy film that would have 007 raising his stirred-not-shaken glass. According to Deadline, Netflix is putting a massive, $200M+ budget behind an adaptation of The Gray Man starring Ryan Gosling and Captain America himself, Chris Evans. The plan is to make a new franchise out of the spycraft source material from author Mark Greaney -- something that would take Netflix's big-budget investments in a different direction from the prestige-oriented Martin Scorsese film The Irishman. Greaney is also known for taking over Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series after the author's death. With a pair of movie stars going full Spy vs. Spy in a film co-written by Joe alongside his frequent MCU collaborators Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, the film looks to capitalize on a similar vibe as the Mission: Impossible movies or underappreciated The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Spy/assassin Court Gentry (Ryan Gosling) is being hunted by his old CIA co-worker Lloyd Hansen (Chris Evans). Expect plenty of gadgets, double-crosses, and action setpieces.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix's Most Expensive Movie Ever Will Be a $200M James Bond-Level Thriller From the Russo Bros. More

Netflix's Most Expensive Movie Ever Will Be a $200M James Bond-Level Thriller From the Russo Bros.

Comments Filter:

  • eh.... it's true that this could be good and really Netflix does have a better track record in my book in regards to movie making relative to the major studios in recent years but honestly, get back to me when you have an original idea. Hollywood has already given up on quality original movie concepts, I hope Netflix hasn't.

    • get back to me when you have an original idea

      Netflix has got money and spends it. Quantity over quality. A $200M movie? Better do a cheaper movie, but a good one, based on an original and well written script. For a change.

      • If anything isn't it the blockbusters that subsidize the movies for grown-ups?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        The Irishmen was a fantastic movie and did cost a good bit to make. Meanwhile, it was widely accepted that it would never have been made by traditional movie studios.

    • They aren't allowed to. The propaganda machine must be kept running.

      If they follow the Nazi Germany model, you will see movie production and video streaming be kept running even in the midst of the equivalent to bombardements, just to keep the minds thinking in the "right" way. (That spies and offensive warriors are "heroes" "defending" good against evil, not manipulators and murderers by order of evil.)

      • Pretty sure the moral ambiguity of the spying for nation states has been covered in ... pretty much ever spy movie ever?

    • get back to me when you have an original idea

      Seriously?

      Netflix has been the butt of jokes for years for throwing production money at ANY idea. They have produced thousands of original movies and series. If the ideas aren't "original" enough for you, submit a proposal -odds are they will produce it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        "Seriously"?

        I'll take a content creator with the balls to risk money on original content over the endless crap sequels and adaptations Hollywood regularly churns out nowadays. Would a Ghostbusters, Matrix, or Die Hard ever get made by Hollywood in this day and age? I highly doubt it. Would Netflix make one? It's quite possible.

        Far too many Hollywood "blockbusters" just wreak of "written by committee" for maximum appeal to me. In other words, they're bland as fuck.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cederic ( 9623 )

          Would a Ghostbusters, Matrix, or Die Hard ever get made by Hollywood in this day and age?

          You mean new comedy horrors like The Dead Don't Die, new Sci-Fi action films like Alita: Battle Angel and new action films like The Nice Guys?

          Far too many Hollywood "blockbusters" just wreak of "written by committee" for maximum appeal to me. In other words, they're bland as fuck.

          So fucking what. There are too many films released to watch them all, so just be selective. There are generic blockbusters, good films, bad films, films in genres you love and films in genres you hate.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            Hahaha, 2 of those movies don't compare at all to what I listed and Alita was based off a terrible anime. Hollywood hasn't had a year like 1999 https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com] in over 20 years despite ever increasing movie budgets. The sheer number of original, quality flicks in that one year outpaces any recent multi year period you can name.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            Also, please note, none of of you suggestions were ever, nor will they ever, spawn sequels. I don't mind sequels as long as they aren't beaten to death and we have plenty of original content along with them. In other words, Hollywood has been coasting on 20+ year old intellectual properties for quite some time now while rarely creating anything of proper value.

  • when you cut through the crap, what this amounts to is that Netflix are going to make an expensive film based on The Gray Man [markgreaneybooks.com]

    It might be like a 007 film, or it might be a turkey. They are hoping for the former.

    • Black Panther was a James Bond film, complete with lots of car chases, gadgets, and "Q".

      And you're right. Either it will be exciting or it will bomb. Do they care, or are they just picking up a bunch of money heaved at them?

  • Oh my fucking God who fucking cares about a James Bond-level movie?

    • This is just a hunch, but I believe fans of James Bond-level movies care about this.

      • Um, this is not not tech or science. My local TV station uses more tech than Netflix and we are not seeing stories about it, are we?

    • People who like James Bond movies. Maybe Tellytubbies is more your thing, and hey that's okay. Unlike you, I won't criticise you for it.

    • who fucking cares about a James Bond-level movie?

      The sad part is that even the JB movies were better than most of what Netflix produces.

  • Avengers: Endgame [...] Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Captain America: Civil War, and Avengers: Infinity War

    Those are all overrated movies, so it's understandable why they would try to have some of the James Bond franchise fame rub off on them. Fucking posers. Also, content production and delivery to consumers need to be strictly separated and exclusivity deals need to be strictly prohibited because they're anti-competitive. I'm looking at you too, Disney!

    • Creation and mass production and distribution are all protected by the First Amendment.

    • Well, "intellectual property" is anti-competitive by definition.
      Erecting an (actually imaginary) monopoly for the purpose of artificial scarcity and hence usury is its whole and entire point. (Since it is a distributors' privilege. Not a creators', but quite the opposite. Which is intentionally confused.)
      With a nice "protection" scheme usually on top.
      All obviously crimes without laws saying it ain't so, and enforced in any other (legitimate) industry

      But I'm just jealous because I don't lack the conscience t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      That list of films does put me off seeing something new from the same directors.

      I know people that think Infinity War was excellent and felt Endgame was an important film in their favourite canon but I found both to be fucking dire.

  • Meh... (Score:4, Informative)

    by john.r.strohm ( 586791 ) on Saturday July 18, 2020 @04:15AM (#60303295)

    If they're using Greaney's work as baseline, prepare for it to be terrible.

    I've read a few of Mr. Greaney's "Tom Clancy" follow-ons. AT BEST, they were so-so, NOT deserving of Clancy's name.

    At worst, well, I found two actual ERRORS and one place where Greaney had OBVIOUSLY not done his homework, HAD NOT EVEN TRIED.

    One of the errors COULD have POSSIBLY been carelessness on Greaney's part. He had a character on a COD airplane being thrown into the harness on landing. He'd previously mentioned that the seats faced aft, meaning that, when the bird hooks the wire and traps aboard, the passengers are thrown into the cushions, not the harness. (They are thrown into the harness on the catapult shot.)

    The other was a factual error about real-world history, the kind of thing that Clancy NEVER made. If your history book disagreed with Tom Clancy, on a matter of actual real-world historical fact, your history book was WRONG. Period. To make it worse, this one was EASY to check. Greaney mis-identified the key person at a key event in relatively recent US history. He blew it badly enough that I knew it was wrong without even looking it up; I did the fact-check so I would know the truth of the matter for the necessary Amazon review.

    I have not spent a nickel on Greaney's stuff since that book, and I never will.

    • So that's a pre-thumb's down then?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If realism and fact checking were what mattered then many books and movies would never have become popular. Most of James Bond is nonsense, for example.

      • Clancy more or less invented (or at least hugely influenced) the modern military "techno thriller". He was well known for meticulously researching historical and technical facts to a high degree. Fans obviously expected the same from any supposed "successor" to his works. As an early Clancy fan myself, I can understand the disappointment in an author who makes such casual or trivial mistakes like that.

        I expect very different things from a Clancy novel than I do a James Bond film. That doesn't mean I don

  • Nazu Übersoldst propaganda and NSA/CIA and whitewashing. And the livestock eats it up as if it was the most normal thing. Leni Riefenstahl would be proud.

  • This reads like an advertisement (Score:3)

    by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Saturday July 18, 2020 @07:43AM (#60303553) Homepage
    Yes, it is relevant to Slashdot in general that Netflix is succeeding with its business model. That's clearly in the tech end of news on Slashdot. But this looks more like puffery about a movie than anything. For example the part about how "it looks to be a spy film that would have 007 raising his stirred-not-shaken glass"- how would anyone know that the film hasn't even started filming yet. Having a budget and named director doesn't make a film. Similarly, "starring Ryan Gosling and Captain America himself, Chris Evans" - or you could just say "starring Ryan Gosling and Chris Evans." This is complete puffery. Slashdot should have better things to do than become just one more amplifier for the PR teams of movie studios.
  • I was a really bad..girl. Punish me with your dick in my mouth!! >> gg.gg/kl2h6
  • Not all fanbois are nerds and not all nerds are fanbois.
  • Avenger's Endgame was utter trash, marvel is like the fast food of entertainment: it's not good, it's sort of filling in a killing-time sense, but overall it is completely devoid of substance and probably has some Human meat mixed in. Spy movies and such are similarly shit, can't imagine the combination being not shit, maybe they'll surprise us all, but with a track record of shit and diarrhea you'd expect the experiment to combine the two to cost less than 200m.
  • Russo brothers are crap filmmakers, all their marvel movies are full of plotholes the size of dumptrucks, but they are nice action movies if you only look to it from that persepective. But for $100+ million I expect a movie without big plotholes. A real filmmaker can do a Bond-like movie for less than $100 million, even the actual Bond movies are not done effectively. But knowing the Russo brothers it will be a crap Bond-like movie..

  • Is this new woke broke back mountain remake with Gosling and Evans, but with a spy/action twist?

  • I'm pretty much all "Marvelled out" after the steady stream of the same movie made over & over again with only superficial changes to make them look new & slightly different but the same. With all that spandex, muscle, & predictably choreographed fight routines, they're starting to remind me of World Wrestling Entertainment. Nowadays, I'm looking for anyone doing smart, unexpected scifi, e.g. Christopher Nolan has managed to make some truly intriguing & surprising scifi that pleases blockbus

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close