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
I think we'll do just fine with CJF at the helm. McQuarrie is a great writer and a skilled director, but I'm actually hoping Bond 25 is somewhat smaller in scale to Fallout with a different tone and approach.
For it to work for me they just have to nail the aesthetics and score, get a good villain and Bond babe (sorry Maddy, but you don't cut it) and focus more on other characters rather than Bond.
Honestly I am a huge Craig fan but even I am fine with him moving on from the role (so long as Fassbender, Hardy or Hiddleston get the role)
A big yes to all of that, dear friend.
I do hope CJF brings his A game and gets along with the gang.
Yes, I've said as much before. I'm not asking for a Marvel-esque 'universe' that's plotted a decade into the future. But if I were in charge, I'd have taken a bit of that $2-billion haul from the last two films and commissioned a handful of treatments. not screenplays, not storyboards, just basic treatments. Then at all times I've got a warchest of diverse, viable ideas to spin into a script, and could even plan them 1 or 2 films in advance. (And avoid the situation we're in now, years after the last film and still scrambling to cobble together a plan.)
The warchest idea is a good one. But something tells me that EON might already have some of this.
I think we might be missing something with the MI announcement. Doesn't the very fact that Cruise and McQuarrie and the studio have this commitment is because of money? You simply do NOT see EON saying, "Yeah, we'll have Bond 26 in 2021 and Bond 27 in 2023..." Why? Part of the reason is that Bond isn't operating in that studio system like MI or Marvel are. They're just not. For the most part, Bond originated from a small family production co.; MI is directly coming from the studio system.
The studio already is committing money to three films, for which there is likely no script or even a treatment. That might sound great, but it can also backfire. Look what happened to Universal when they went all in with their Dark Universe series (which now will never happen.)
I'm not saying that EON/BB should be content with a Bond film every 3-5 years. But this is a small outfit. They're not operating the same way as WB or Universal. EON has to research first, get locations and ideas, and THEN commit to budget. MI is operating the other way around: a commitment no matter what: here's your money, now go do it. If Disney were to purchase the rights to Bond, then yes: we'd see a new film every two years. But I also think the quality would go down.
MI is NOT Bond for one simple reason: there is NO risk. If Cruise and McQuarrie mess up the next film and the series tanks, they'll shrug and move on to other stuff.
I am not sure ANYONE would want to be associated with the Bond film that ended the series. So I am certain there is far more consideration that goes into a Bond film. We can debate all we want that that consideration went out the window with SP and the foster brother angle, but EON was trying to be strategic. It didn't kill the series.
It didn't kill the series and at the same time earned tons of money. You don't make the 4th highest grossing out of 24 with a movie that people HATE (like a lot inhere), no matter how powerful was the SF boost.
The fact that Bond is a family business, a kind of "sartorial" franchise, is one of the main reasons why those productions feel so unique.
The series will always be fine. Even if 25 were to be a disappointment both critically and financially, we'd still be set up for a new wave of optimism as we get a new James Bond. This is a cycle that will repeat itself (until the eventual end of days) regardless of how well-received the previous era was. We will always have that.
.
Spot on and yes I am a big Craig fan but no I wouldn't want him doing it till he's not credible in the role.
It looks more than likely this will be his last, I'll be sad but if he's made that decision to move on I'll accept so not all us DC fans want him in an embarrassing the stuntmen have more screen time scenario like a certain other actor no longer with us.
Bless Rog but he went on too long and the same way that us DC fans make allowances for him some Rog fans will give him slack here. The truth is it was embarrassing watching him trying to be credible in the role.
The same way that some claim BB will have DC because she is obsessed with him in the role forever could be applied to her Father with Roger. Cubby clearly couldn't let go of him and kept in the role 2 more entries than he should.
I think we are far from that moment with DC and he'll call time before it gets to this regardless of BB wanting him to stay.
We can all agree that Roger is a salt of the earth guy and the best ambassador the series has had but I think his fans are sometimes unlikely to acknowledge that he stayed onto long and part of that was he liked the money.
Once Bond was gone he was unlikely to command a salary like that again. Once Bond was finished for him his career as an actor was pretty much done. There was no after Bond later renaissance for him unlike Connery.
We'll see if DC goes down a similar trajectory once Bond is done but he was a well sort after character actor before this and not just some TV star and I could well see him slip back into that alongside some TV work and treading the boards again.
Then again he may choose to take a back seat and enjoy the fruits of his labours and let Rachel pursue her career while he brings up their new child.
I get that but Daniel doesn't need to look like Tom cruise or perform stunts like him and he is 50 now , as much as I want to see new actor I believe he can look the part even for 2 more films if he wanted to. People shouldn't forget that his acting skills and willingness is something that kept him going not performing physical stunts like Tom cruise.
Since Boyle wanted him as the main villain of his Bond movie, now I can say that I'm glad is not goin to happen. I don't find him neither menacing, neither creepy, neither charming. He's okay but there's nothing about him that suggested me that he could work as Bond villainous counterpart. Really. We never had any strong confirmation, but I truly believe that the Hodge/Boyle script was almost completely (or even 100%) scrapped since his departure. Maybe they saved just some locations.
"Most" is not correct.
A lot of back to back production delivered not-so-good movies but there are also a lot of great examples. Like Return to the Future I & II, The Human Condition Trilogy, The Three Colors Trilogy, Kill Bill, Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima and of course the great The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I also personally like both Pirates 2 and 3 and The Hobbit Trilogy, there's a lot of good things in those movies. Marvel now is goin to win with Avengers 3 and 4 shot back to back. We'll see then what Cameron has in store with Avatar.
BTW I'm glad such a thing never happened to Bond, hoping won't occur in the future.
Obviously you don't want to do it just for the sake of it. But if their were a pair of scripts that merit it, I'm all for shooting back-to-back.
Has anyone mentioned Rocky/Creed?
Iirc Rocky Balboa was pretty well received and then was followed up with the
I think it needs to be understood that MI and Bond are comparable to some degree and as such the 2 being discussed in the same breath is a natural flow of discussion. However, people can label Cruise however they want but it can't be denied the MI film's are his vehicle which he's nurtured and cultivated for over 20 years and is seeing consistent success while delivering immensely on the entertainment. It's strange to me how some people almost begrudge Cruise and the MI film's because of this, especially when compared to Bond.
I don't presume to ever speak on behalf of others but as a huge Bond fan I think out of the 24 film's in the series , there's less than 10 actually legit good movies with the rest either being average or subpar.
MI follow a creative mandate that they deliver on. Bond on the other hand is all over the place. I personally don't care for how long Bond has been on cinema screens I care about what I'm actually paying to see. Bond wants that commercial success, leveraged with a high brow artistic pedigree resulting in for the most part a clumsy and disappointing execution. Matters are only made worse with these incredibly long gaps between releases and; what I feel to be is a whole lot of mismanagement starting with the producers.
I sincerely hope things turn out great for Bond 25 because the series needs a critical and entertaining hit and as of right now the only exciting thing about this film other than filming about to start in a few months is CJF taking the reigns as director. This to me is the most meaningful thing EoN has done in years for a Bond production.
I have to agree with everything you said, sir. M:I was born from a TV show, grew around its star and his quest for ever greater stunts, and that’s about it.
It will have to grow much more than this to ever be in the same league as James Bond (which was born through the very unique voice of an author who penned novels and short stories about his character).
James Bond doesn’t need to compete with a live action Looney Tunes adventure.
@sharkdlake, very good points.
Interesting @matt_u. To be honest that was the one thing I was enthusiastic about or at least curious that Boyle was going to bring: a relative unknown European actor as the villain. I'm not really convinced about the one being rumored.
To make a November 2022 release, Bond 26 would have the fastest production pace (after Bond 25) since Casino Royale-Quantum of Solace. We'll see.
And born from a TV show that grew out of the spy craze created by Bond at that.
And now the M:I films are manufactured around one thing: Tom Cruise. If this series was a "food" it'd be air-pie.
I agree. I’m no EON hater, but I want to see Bond experience the same kind of revitalization that Fallout has brought the MI franchise. They need to up their game.
Starting in the writing department.
I know not everyone on the forum like it in fact I'm certain but Skyfall I believe was that film.
It's just Mendes dropped the ball on the next one, MI fans are so convinced that the same couldn't happen to that, these things don't go on forever, look at Bourne.
A darling of the critics but then a spin off a return to the main event with disappointing results.
I personally don't care about MI as I can't stand it's main star but this won't last you can bet on that.
Bond will be back bigger and better whether it's next year or when but Bond will outlive MI tenfold.
Yes. SP was a mess. I enjoyed that it was a return to the more classic formula, but the plot was a slapped together mess that felt like everything was decided last minute.