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
Totally different scenario.
Kennedy is one of the great producers of our time, if not the greatest. I have the upmost respect for her.
Silva would have had a beak or snout prosthetic.
Agreed.
I believe it was an MGM executive who wrote the memo about the third act and requested budget cutbacks. Amy Pascal at Sony took Barbara Broccoli's side.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/10/technology/security/bond-movie-budget/index.html?iid=HP_LN
Haggis deserves a third shot. He gave us a lot of great moments in CR.
I suspect that a lot of the good moments in QoS are Haggis' (Bond and Mathis in Italy, Bond on the plane, the last scene) because they feel tonally cohesive with CR, but I can't be sure.
For Bond 25: Haggis, Campbell, Craig, and Wright.
Would be great but I'm betting maybe just one of those.... maybe two.
Personally, I don't want Haggis to be around at all.
I am not happy with the superhero films either, and I've never liked anything Nolan did. But, to say Warner Brothers never accomplished anything and let a good product come out at all, is more of a personal disdain at the committee.
All in all, as I said, and I do stand by my own statement, I would literally take anything but a Disney production. And as far as I'm concerned, Star Wars is in the hands of Disney who have a big say in it. Let Leia's slave costume incident be the starter of it all.
My concern is more with EON themselves actually. After they let Mendes go beserk with Logan and the early scripts, I'm afraid they're really not on their game. Craig probably had far more influence this time in keeping things in check, and that's a good thing. I wonder how it could have turned out if Craig wasn't involved.........and apparently Sony too, who reportedly correctly thought the 3rd act was a PoS (it still was in the end product imho).
So the risks are on the 'EON' side. Babs may have had the foresight to hire Craig, but I think it was Campbell (in particular), Craig, Purvis, Wade and Haggis that are primarily responsible for the masterpiece that is CR.......which reimagined the Bond universe for the new milennium.
That's why, if I was EON, I'd actually be sending people in to visit forums like ours. Not that we're all that great, but if you look at the overall consensus of opinions on this site, and other dedicated Bond fan sites, I'm pretty sure one could learn a thing or two about what to do and what not to do, as well as how to do it. We are so detailed in our commentary (and criticisms) on this site that I can't imagine it can't be helpful.
If it's still DC, I also want something he can really sink his acting skills into.....the film has to breathe for a bit (like it did in the CR casino) to allow his formidable talents to come to the fore. Dialogue has to be much crisper too next time. I say Haggis under tight control to polish it off - as you said earlier.
It didn't retire, it was put off the markets as well, which I am sure you are aware of it.
Sugar-coated is actually the right term to describe the majority of Disney's materials, and it doesn't necessarily mean "kid-friendly". Yes, I've seen The Winter Soldier and I liked it, but I would say it's the only MCU film that is taken to my liking. I do watch Daredevil too, in fact I forced myself through it because I do like the old comics centered on the character, but this one forced me to go through it as I tried hard to like it. You can shoot me if you like but I liked the 2003 film a lot better than the TV series.
If you want to know more about the control that Disney has over its intellectual properties, let's bring X-Men to the matter. Their dominion is submitted over the comic book industry as well and not only on film. Because of their greed and love of spite, and because the rights to X-Men don't belong to them, they had their comics entirely rewritten, history erased, and the "Mutants" (that are X-Men), with unaddressed names are being hunted down and killed by The Inhumans in the comic books. Inhumans weren't much of spotlight-worthy figures in the past, why now? Disney, controlling Marvel in full term, is reshaping the whole continuum in the way it likes, now the way things were made decent. Look at the character of John Garrett. The man was nothing more than a hero in the comics, yet they made him a villain on the Agents of SHIELD show. And not only Garrett is differentiated by many other characters such as Lance Hunter being completely altered to what he was. He was alone the head of an organization called STRIKE (and originally he was a super-soldier) in the past 50 years of the comics run. He was never an average field operative guy with little to do. What is he now? A hardly memorable field agent in SHIELD? Plus, he hardly had anything to do with Roberta (now Bobbi) Morse/Mockingbird, in any verse at any segment.
It was like making Blofeld Bond's half brother. Or Jim Phelps turning out to be a villain.
What's my point, you may ask? Just showing how much control does Disney have over its materials. They're not just Marvel's godfathers but owners.
Warner Brothers and DC Comics, on the other hand, have always come to an agreement based on the materials they were developing. They invest more time pleasing the audience than inserting their own spins and agendas (i.e. Disney's greed and rivalry with Fox, so much to talk).
And the casting director! CR and FRWL are probably the two best-cast Bond films.
I'm betting either WB or TCF or Paramont.
I think this would be great! The only thing is I think I read somewhere that MGW has had some health problems recently. At this point, he might feel more comfortable taking a more subtle approach of involvement.
I always loved his enthusiasm for Bond in all of the special feature making of videos. Sure, there have been many missteps along the way, but the series has been lucky to have him.
As co-owner MGW has given or continues to give us a great franchise. Maibuam(sp) was more of a mentor to Wilson in terms of writing. The only time Wilson was primarily responsible for the script was with LTK. Maibuam I think just provided Wilson an outline due to the writer's strike.
Wilson seems to be a softer spoken but respectful leader. I admire him from his interviews. I don't think though screenwriting is the best role for him.
What we need from Wilson is to hire the right writer and to step up and keep Barbara in check.
Just my opinion.
Agreed. New writing team and increased contribution from MGW.
Not for the posters.
I worked with Disney marketing on two separate occasions, and to sum it in one sentence : "simplicity is forbidden". A lone Craig in the poster, I just can't believe it. We had to put stuff "everywhere" on the page :)
Also, about Disney not turning Marvel movies in kid movies, well : Iron Man III did more than a billion with a kid saving Stark. I think you can feel Disney here.