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
DC's a loose cannon who seems to say whatever wacky thought appears in his head at the time of being asked a question. I don't trust a word he says, and that includes "a," "and" and "the."
But that's part of his charm, having sly fun with the scribes and getting a rise out of them. At least that's stated on this message board from time to time.
Someone who speaks my language.
Yep! Harry's last gesture of hate.
That's not how Forbes counts it. Those figures aren't "so far this year" they are 12 month period earnings, between June 1, 2015 and June 1, 2016, based on Forbes calculations. (I don't know how accurate they are. They say their "figures are based on data from Nielsen, Box Office Mojo, IMDB, as well as interviews with agents, managers and lawyers".)
Looks like they're counting their spider-man Homecoming money already.
Sony pictures has a net worth of 8.3 Billion. $150 mill is chunk change to them.
I do like the idea of a Bond vs Spectre two-parter though, especially if they can shoot back-to-back, thus cranking up the output.
And yes by all means give the younger Bond fans a proper OO7 cinema experience!!
Fullout on the gunbarrel opening, and full blast with the Bond theme during the film.
I used to bounce out of my seat, when the gunbarrel opening kicked in - most exciting part of the movie really.
Disagree about Connery. It's very unlikely we would have had more than two or three films IMO if it wasn't for Connery's interpretation.
I think it depends exactly how you define back to back.
Also, if the story is true, we are talking absurdly large amounts of money. Craig is not that into money, but there does come a point when it's very hard to say 'no' to someone waving $150m in your face to do what is essentially something you love doing.
I still think there is at least a 50:50 chance he will come back.
Yes, as I've always said, it's a false resolution. It confounds me than some are satisfied with the era ending like that.
I'm sure this would make the money people happy (keeping on the, arguably, best 007 since SC); if done well, it'd be a finale that thrills and entertains filmgoers and fans alike, and, sadly, as this day is soon to come, it gives EON the time and space to thoroughly search for a new 007 (while they make a killing off of Dan's final two films) (although when that re-casting day comes, I will be OTT in the sadness department since I love this man's portrayal).
True but that means nothing if you're applying and accounting for context. Craig isn't worth 150million not even close; and which ever way you look at it; its simply not a sound business decision. Just because the money's there it doesnt mean it can afford to be wasted on one particular actor. That money covers a shit load of other costs and priorities. WB's net worth is $53 billion and Disney' is $104 billion and the latter is not paying Downey Jr, who's a more bankable actor than Craig what Sony are supposedly going to pay Craig. So Sony's comparative meagre $8.3 billion further underscores just how ridiculous this 150mill payout is.
@Getafix, you're not getting what I said. What you are mentioning is what I meant exactly. SP's ending is a false resolution because it's so apparent it wouldn't end there, that it wouldn't be the end of that era. It sets up another film that would later turn into a Blofeld vs. Bond revenge story where the former despises the latter's happiness and wants to crush him like an ant because of all his meddling. I don't see how you thought we differed on this point.
Oh okay. Fair enough. We agree then!
I don't think it would be extraordinary for the offer for Craig to be in the $70 million range (SP's NA opening weekend) x 2 films with added bonuses equalling out to be in and around $150 million for two films. DC's 007 films have opened higher than his competitors, and his salary is well-worth it if he continues to open strongly (his SP opened $15 million higher than ROGUE NATION at the US box office).
Rather than continue down this path and lead it gods knows where some of us like me think it might be better to call it quits and start in a new timeline with an established Bond rather than another origin situation.
SPECTRE has made some of us think please don't pursue this any longer because we shudder to think where it's going.
Now if they want to give us the resolution that OHMSS never got then fair enough, yes we have to go down the route of having Swann murdered by SPECTRE but what else do you do with this era?
If they want Bond out for revenge than no better person for the job than Craig, trying to make him Roger Moore like in SP just didn't work, DC needs the tense layered portrayal to really sing in the role, making him an indestructible quip machine just doesn't work.
As for Craig being like Roger in SP, all I can do is giggle at that statement. If he was playing by anyone's rulebook, it was Sean's. Dan's Bond has actual menace and carries moments of weight, which Roger was never good at, the one or two times the scripts allowed him to try.
The very big difference between Craig and someone like Downey is, Bond made Craig, Bond will continue to make any actor who gets the role and Bond has and will always make money. Iron Man did NOT make Downey, it was the other way around. In 2008 Downey in the space of 2 hours changed the game of comic book movies and since the Avengers film, every appearance he's made as the character has grossed over a $Billion.
Whether it's the media or the average Joe on the street, everyone has an opinion on who the next Bond could and should be. This alone makes it crystal clear that Craig isn't THAT essential; much less beholden to the role where he's being offered $75million per picture to stay. Again, I stand by vehemently that he's nowhere close to being worth that much; on average that means they're looking to pay him almost 40% of the film's budget. It's ridiculous. The studio need to focus on getting great talent in front and behind the camera and that starts with the script. This can't be stressed enough. Bond is Bond, automatic money maker. Reduce the budgets, crank out a great script and you'll get another CR calibre film. This huge payday reeks of irresponsibility and desperation.
+1
Every time I see this I'm expecting a gunbarrel to follow.
Me. too. Damn. I should track down the old VHS editions hat had that logo. It was always great that logo before the GB.
In a f**king nutshell.
Which is why this story is clearly bullshit. Unless you're a politician you surely don't get to make decisions worth hundreds of millions of dollars if you have no grasp of sound business practice. The accountants who run the studios would do these sums and conclude that this is madness.
In 1971 Sean got $1m and the budget of DAF was $7.2m.
That's basically a 7th of the budget, for what, at the time was the most incredible deal for an actor ever.
For Dan to be getting $75m, and even if we assume that the budget of B25 is the same as the bloated SP budget at $250m, then Dan is worth over a third of the budget?
Hmm Sean who was the biggest star in the world, who had posters screaming 'Sean Connery IS James Bond' is worth less than half what Daniel Craig is worth?
Dan is a popular Bond but is he more popular than Sean at his peak? I wouldn't go 'banco' on that one.
I agree with pretty much all of this. However, good luck telling fans this. Last night on social media I saw comments such as "Bond is worth billions to Sony, they'd be foolish not to pay this much." I tried to explain the "billions" (it's phrased this way in the Radar Online story) was ticket sales not profits, but it didn't matter.
I still have them, but my VCR is out of order. I need to fix it.
http://www.obsessional.co.uk/cover warner rental video.jpg