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
One thing's for certain, EoN dint ever have to worry about marketing and promition. They're clearly getting that for free. They're also at a point where they don't need to be engaging in subterfuge that tbh no one really cares about. They don't need to waste time and resources putting on a press conference for each movie; it just makes things worse when they confirm things everyone akready knew but they insisted in denying; and when the film ends up being a disappointment. Flat out lying about things that turn out to be true just looks childish and quite frankly is a boring exercise. "No comment" will suffice.
EoN need to stop dicking around, if Craig is stalling or holding out then get rid of him. They need to get a movie out. Where audiences spend their money is becoming increasingly competitive; it's going to take a lot for Bond films to have audiences come back for second and third viewings. Either Craig wants to do it or not. EoN need to remember they have a business to run and while they're waiting for whatever reason(s)they can get on with other preliminary work; find new writers, new director, develop the story, lock in key casting talent. Honestly, it feels like EoN are lagging behind every other film studio/company and they think it's acceptable or fine because they're "Bond". That way of thinking won't last long and it's already starting to wain a bit.
So it's likely that we are back to 4 years between Bond films. It seems to be painfully slow in comparison to Star Wars where there is less time scheduled between SW movies and they can fit in various offshoot movies on top of that.
You'd think EON would want to get more product out there. On a 3 or 4 year cycle it is going to be very difficult for any actor to go beyond 4 movies as Bond.
Not only that but the pressure for every film to do well is now doubled compared to the 80's when they came out every 2 years. Some seem to think that this extra time will allow EON to insure a greater quality product. I'm of the opinion that this will actually harm the franchise, because the increased burden on each film to do well will lend to less risk taking. In my opinion the series is at its best when it is taking big gambles.
I agree as well.
It's quite likely, due to the fact that this pie has to be spread 3 ways (MGM, EON, distributor) that there's sticking points on money. Given the really bad deal Sony had, I can't understand why any studio would want a piece of Bond anyway. It's a risk for them, given the massive drop off in US box office for SP vs SF. Did Sony even make money on SP, given they only made $58M reportedly on SF (under the same deal) which was cheaper to make and far more successful? Additionally, If EON or Craig wants Mendes again I can understand why a studio may balk as well (given his recent penchant for blowing money on explosions). He didn't really light the world on fire in the action or location dept (to put it mildly) either despite the high production costs.
Moreover, there are issues regarding Craig. He is not cheap any more, and I'm sure his price is going up for B25 vs. SP. Despite the fact that he has his fans here and elsewhere, I'm sure some studios know they can get a better return from Bond with someone new in the lead role. Creatively they have more options as well, given the box Mendes put them in with SP.
Having said that I also agree that they have to stop futzing about regarding the rumour mill. What they did with Waltz (he's not Blofeld - oops, actually he is Blofeld) was just annoying. The big twist (as far as they were concerned) ended up being a damp squib and anyone with half a brain should have known that beforehand. They should just come up with scripts that won't need them to make things up. Additionally, they look stupid when they lie about things. I don't understand why Bab's denied Logan's involvement if it were true and if MGM had confirmed it. That's silly of her.
As I said in an earlier post, they have to learn from politicians. Treat the press with respect and they will give you a kinder ear. Try to obfuscate and they will butcher you.
The recent reports that MGM wants to go public and become a studio again may have something to do with it as well. They may want to make the next Bond film closer to that date, to use the resultant publicity and success as a stepping ground for the IPO.
Apples and oranges. Maibaum, Young, and for that matter Broccoli and Saltzman, all grew up in basically the studio system and had that work ethic, whereas now every role is for hire on every new film.
Well said and very much agreed.
I think going back to formula isn't necessarily a bad thing and SP trying to use it didn't hurt the film so much as how it was executed. Take a successful formula no matter how tested, tried and true it maybe, it's very possible and easily so to get two different outcomes. You can get something wonderful or something terrible. SP's problems all stemmed from execution. I'm willing to bet had Gareth Evans been given the exact same script, it would have been a different and much better film.
Very convincing.
You're welcome. It really is hard to keep it all straight.
On a related note, sometimes reports get confirmed in a very backhanded way long after they were originally published.
Example: Bamigboye was the first to report Purvis and Wade had returned during the summer of 2014. It wasn't confirmed until December of that year when they had the official kickoff media event and mentioned the writers.
Example 2: The BBC reported Whishaw was playing Q, based on a comment from his agent. In the spring of 2012, Broccoli and Craig were denying it ("All agents are liars," Craig quipped.) in an interview done as Skyfall was wrapping up shooting at Pinewood (they still had location filming to do in Turkey.) It wasn't confirmed until sometime later.
Then the press will still be saying the same thing about who is replacing him anyway?
But of course, it's that constant looking to the future mentality that the press has. It's why SP wrapped up and all anyone cared to ask Craig is whether he was doing a fifth, and when they'd get started on it, even though the latest Bond movie hadn't even premiered to the masses yet.
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_23_report_jan12a_naomie_harris.php3
Excerpts:
Naomie Harris puts the Miss Moneypenny rumours to bed. Once and for all...
Speaking to Live magazine, a supplement of the Mail on Sunday tabloid that still perpetuates the groundless claim she will be playing the MI6 secretary, Harris said: "The idea of me being Moneypenny was a good, racy rumour. But Eve is not remotely office-bound. She gets to see plenty of action. That meant a lot of gun training."
Epilogue
Despite Harris categorically stating in the interview that she will not be playing Moneypenny in the film, one tuned-out sub editor at the Mail still managed to slip the falsehood into her unrelated travel report from the Maldives, printed in the same issue of the newspaper.
That's why I don't trust most of the actor/director comments that try to confirm/deny details, like how Cumberbatch toootally wasn't Khan, and Waltz definitely didn't end up playing Blofeld.
I have wondered (and this is only my speculation) if Eon and the Daily Mail cut a deal, with the Mail taking Bamigboye off the Bond beat in return for access. I remember a couple of times during SPECTRE production where the Mail appeared to have gotten a lot of access for features.
Good point, but Maibaum did never write SP and died in 1991, Young and Saltzman died in 1994, and Cubby died in 1996. So it is hypothetical, what they would have done with a movie like SP. The point, that the return to the Bond formula with SP estranged some Bond fans, is vlaid, though, after they tried to make the Craig Bonds different from the formula. That Blofeld actually is a kind of foster brother to Bond, well, yeah, did not really convince me, it was yet again the personal involvement of Bond with the villain. And Waltz was completely underused, as was Bardem in SF, but he made the most of it, taken the screentime he was given. So one would hope, that we will get more of Blofeld in future Bond movies.
Some months ago I read about a rumour about Waltz having an option in his contract to do a second Bond movie, but only under he condition, that Craig will return as Bond. I don't know, whether this is just a wildly made up story, or if there is some or at least a little truth in it.
UNDP GreenProcHealth
@GreenProcIndex
A warm conversation between Daniel Craig & @UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson # @WHSummit #ShareHumanity
It looks like he's in Istanbul for The World Hkijumanitarian Summit tomorrow and Tuesday
He is the Last person who would delay production. For fucks sake, he worked through a rather serious knee injury to NOT delay the damn thing. Still not enough...its seriously disgusting.
My thinking is, maybe he doesn't need additional surgery if he isn't going to be doing anything as physical as Bond. And he did say, I'll keep doing it till my knees go. Well this is the second knee gone.
Totally agree with this.
I agree too but I do think Craig has moved on. Craig's decision might be due more to physical demands or really just a professional decision to move on.
Then again until we get an announcement no matter what we think Craig should do we won't know.
@Germanlady I really hope we don't loose you if we loose Craig :( ...
Someone gets it. =D>