It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
No it was very bland. I’m not even joking when I say a majority of the people in my town saw it only because of Adele...
And I'm not even joking that those people didn't watch CR, didn't watch QOS and didn't watch Spectre. Skyfall was a cultural phenomenon unlike any Bond film in a very very long time.
Can't argue with that; they have indeed taken that approach post CR. Whereas CR just tells its story, and anything the viewer might take away from it is mostly up to the viewer himself, the other three films are constructed around "messages" they seek to convey, through a number of motifs --visual or otherwise-- and lines uttered by the characters. They're Bond films that come across as designed for artistic rather than entertainment purposes, and they're not the only recent commercial films made in that style. The problem in the case of Bond is that they've stuck to that style for too long, and it's grown stale. The way of keeping Bond fresh is by switching things up regularly. Unfortunately, as you say, the situation is not going to change at this stage of the Craig era.
Try getting one every time someone comments on this thread :). I have over 7000 notifications at the moment.
Read my story treatment and you know very well that there's an 'in between' as well ;-).
This.
I don't understand what you're both on about. How much do you really think the distributor has to say? They're all vying for the deal and will do whatever EON wants. They won't pick the director. They won't pick the second draft writers. They won't direct the film. They'll distribute it and pick up costs.
Which is why I think, out of all the major distributors in the running for that one picture deal, Warner Bros. is our best bet. Why? Because, using Blade Runner 2049 as an example, it doesn't seem like they did any intervening with creative decisions (at least not for the worse). The film retained its R rating (something particularly unimaginable for a sci-fi film), not to mention its near-3 hour runtime. Did it make as much money as they expected? No. However, what we got as a result of Warner giving everybody involved creative freedom was an almost unanimously praised feat of filmmaking (and for good reason, having witnessed it first hand).
--what a distributor does, not the producing company.
The last two movies the distributor kicked in *half* the production budget. Without a distributor, the movie doesn't go into theaters.
Now, if Eon self-financed its movies and paid the distributor a fee, then it wouldn't be a big deal.
But that doesn't happen. Eon spends *other people's money*. And the Bond 25 distributor likely will be kicking in a substantial amount of the budget.
Eon doesn't have a distribution operation. Eon *has never* released a James Bond movie.
With Blade Runner 2049, Warner Bros. got a distribution fee for distributing the movie in North America.
The movie was financed by Sony (which is distributing it in international markets) and a company called Alcon Entertainment.
Extreme example: In 1971, Eon was ready to go with John Gavin as James Bond.
United Artists, the distributor that was actually financing the movie, said no. That's why Sean Connery came back. That wasn't the decision of Broccoli and Saltzman. That was the decision of UA.
Another example: 1990s. Eon wanted to continue with Timothy Dalton. MGM, which was paying the bills, did not. Dalton bowed out.
Albert R. Broccoli (with Irving Allen) financed and distributed The Trials of Oscar Wilde. He never did that again.
Furthermore, I'm not sure if this is a big deal, but I would think the distributor would want certain commitments from the actors with respect to publicity/marketing and so on, given they are on the hook for that. As an example, didn't Mendes and Craig not want Bond to use a Sony phone or something along those lines for SP? I can't imagine that went down well, because it allows the distributor to benefit in indirect ways from a production where they are not getting as much benefit directly.
Finally, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a collaborative process. EON may have the final say, but they don't impose it on the distributor. They work with them to ensure that everyone is on the same page with respect to the major elements. Wilson pretty much confirmed that a few years back and Sony had quite a bit of involvement in Craig's original hiring as I recall.
@CASINOROYALE @ClarkDevlin make that three
I know.. I am saying they can film the movie easily without a distributor. They could probably get any company they wanted to release the film. I’d imagine they are just undecided on who to go with.
Its a good sign if you want a sequel to Spectre like myself. Its a bad sign if you were looking to have a stand alone story send off for Craig,
Actually, I believe that’s a bit of internet misinformation. Tim’s side of the story is that he was asked back by Cubby for Goldeneye, but turned it down because he didn’t want to sign up for multiple films.
http://variety.com/1994/film/news/dalton-bails-out-as-bond-120067/
Here is another article from 2010 which talks about the delay they had then (post-QoS). Note Babs comment on Calley. Interesting, and potentially on account of the Dalton scenario.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fate-james-bond-hangs-balance-25939