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
Personally, I couldn't care less about which actors stay, come or go. My concern lies strictly with who's writing and directing.
QoS had an arthouse director, so it was obvious from the start they´re experimenting a bit. As far as story and emotional development are concerned, QoS makes a lot of sense. After that the previous development was ignored. The door was widely open to have Bond be the well-known character. Instead of telling a Bond origin story, a parallel Bond character was created.
Considering how they several times now changed the whole tone and also ignored what came before, what would be the big deal with doing the same again?
QoS shows that not only gross makes them rich, but also rate of return. Wether they are boxed in or not is entirely up to Eon themselves.
If they do ignore it, as I recommend, then where do they go? Darker, like they did with SF, or lighter (into Moore territory)? If it's the former, then the inevitable comparisons to SF will ensue. If it's the latter, then why not just recast?
All the while, the shadow of wrist cutter, money demand stories etc, will linger.
Yes, both items are critical. Bottom line and top line. Especially given MGM's future ambitions. QoS had a terrible rate of return. SP's was better, but still not great.
The problem with SP wasn't the box office but the rate of return given the ludicrous budget they allowed Mendes to rack up.
If I was a studio my biggest question wouldn't be about can they guarantee $1bil at the box office or who's going to play Bond but can they keep control of a budget?
If it's a new guy, then they have more leeway, as they did with CR.
That would be the perfect DC send-off.
Not sure the producers can give us a tough, old school Bond in this post-SF world, though.
"Blake Lively to Star in Spy Thriller from Bond Producers" - Production to start later this year.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/blake-lively-star-spy-thriller-bond-producers-1020546
“It is exciting for us to be working with the immensely talented team of director Reed Morano and actress Blake Lively, who have a strong vision for this very compelling story driven by a female protagonist," Wilson and Broccoli said in a statement.
Well, Babs is doing her bit for diversity, that's for sure. Good for her.
There you have it. I start repeating myself at times, but to this news article one of my previous posts is still fitting:
Hmm, I wonder if this is the film that'll use the Huey helicopter they bought in Feb?
"The Rhythm Section, an adaptation of the first book in Mark Burnell’s four novel series..."
Four!? There might be four!? Yikes. I hope this film tanks faster than you can say "I told you so." The producers will come running back to the Bond franchise and I'll be waiting for them with open arms. :)
Well at least Babs and Mike are keeping busy.
With the this new Lively film and the new Atomic Blonde movie, at least we've got some female spy- action fare, if no Bond.
====as for B25, based on an article I read this week in the National Post(I'm sure it was published elsewhere, but I'm not sure if it was linked here) it seems Craig is likely back as Bond.
Craig has been delaying, but seems now ready to do another Bond.
Eon I think has been waiting for Craig, who I think became rather discombobulated after the ordeal of making Spectre, prompting the wrist-slash comment.
I think Craig purposely stepped away, to get away from the toils and dramas of making Bond, but is now ready to grudgingly return, the $$ being a massive incentive.
In fact the $$, I think has always ensured that Craig would return. He can't make this kind of cash elsewhere.
So that's filming early 2018. Ok not as long or complicated as a Bond shoot but to think that they will wrap this and then go straight into B25 from there is not realistic given their recent bleating about needing a rest, especially given they'll be far too busy with this to supervise a Bond script which needs to be in decent shape 12 months from now if 2019 is viable.
Looking like 2020 now at best so I think it's time to let Craig go.
I'm with you all the way.
I can understand if you want to make a kitchen sink drama or a comedy but I really fail to see the point of starting a new spy film franchise, which must be a risk financially, when you already have the rights to the greatest (and most bankable) one of all.
Except of course it lets them have a female lead so Babs can tick that diversity in her quest for a Damehood for services to film. And of course they're all made up because they can dust off bits of that Jinx script they were all so desperate to make a decade ago. No doubt P&W will be scripting this.
If you have no interest in Bond EON fine but at least don't hog the rights so no one else can make one.
I agree, I don't know how they can handle both this film and Bond in the next year.
Perhaps it's time to let Syncopy take over.
If EoN are not "hands-on" and are more producers that closed financing for this project, they can certainly do Bond 25, or any other film they wished.
So one minute they're whining they're burnt out and need a well earned break and the next they can run two projects concurrently?
After what we got with SP they might do better focussing on Bond and bringing their A game to the table.
Why not? At least Nolan is showing a bit of interest.
She cites some Mirror reporting as source, and crafts her own take from there.
Despite the anonymous sourcing from the Mirror, the broader extrapolated analysis suggesting Craig has been delaying, does jive with the general thrust of his wrist-slash comments as told to Time Out in 2015 and quoted at length below.
http://nationalpost.com/entertainment/movies/daniel-craig-is-reportedly-back-for-bond-and-so-is-adele/wcm/322a797d-9b82-4fce-8739-7be86042bd18
"In a 2015 interview with Time Out, Craig notoriously said, he’d “rather break this glass and slash my wrists” than do another Bond. He added, “I’m over it at the moment. We’re done. All I want to do is move on. … For at least a year or two, I just don’t want to think about it. I don’t know what the next step is. I’ve no idea. Not because I’m trying to be cagey. Who the f–k knows? At the moment, we’ve done it. I’m not in discussion with anybody about anything. If I did another Bond movie, it would only be for the money.”
Cut to Craig having moved on for a year or two as he said he wanted to, and The Mirror and a conspicuous “source involved in the project” reported this weekend that he’s had a change of heart (which we can safely assume means his salary was upped a few figures). So, basically, the studio is putting their money where Craig’s mouth is. "
======
This article is mostly just cheeky blather from a Bond know-nothing . She is so sad that Elba will miss his chance. Groan.
But I do think that the Craig delaying narrative, fits with the lack of news we've experienced these last 20 months, including the silence from Eon.
I do think Eon has been waiting on Craig.
In the meantime they keep busy with other stuff.
The business end appears to be holding this up for some reason, and the business end will drive a lot of the future decision making.
Brilliant point. This is also why I can see Turner as Bond. He is a great bang for the buck, as they say. Not the fan favourite, but certainly a crowd pleaser. He already have a reputation as a cheeky chappy in the media. That's a significant improvement on Craig's image as being standoffish and aloof with press. Turner would embrace those aspects of playing the character, as Brosnan did, and it would be a huge boon for the producers to not have the franchise raked over the coals over some poor phrasing. If they are moving back to pure missions, Turner would be more than capable of performing the character, and taking on the responsibilities of playing one of the most iconic onscreen roles. That also means he may be way more open to advertising products, etc. Another area that Craig sometimes declined.
You are right, the business end will be handling a lot more decisions going forward, and that means saving costs where possible. I see many asking how they will replace Craig, but the anwser is they won't. They never do. Instead they redefine the role, so that the next actor fits perfectly into it.
When I mentioned the business end, I'm more referring to MGM. I think they have big plans for themselves and for Bond over the next few years. Not sure what, but I don't think things will look the same in the future.
A good long time has gone by. He's done some other stuff. I'm sure one last big fat Bond pay cheque might come in handy about now or in near future.
It may indeed be business matters that are holding things up now, but once resolved , I'm betting it's DC and B25 full-on.
And there will be Blofeld and Garden of Death.
Just my opinion, but I'm willing to go banco.
I'll wager an official 007 Heineken to all comers.
We can settle at the next Mi6 Members convention. :)