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've said I'd like to see Craig do more movies, because I like him as an actor and would like to see him in more movies. However, I suppose him not doing more movies is more likely to have something to do with disillusionment with movie work or something rather than laziness. Also, theatre work is work, too. And it's hardly an age question.
People have already commented that Cruise is a workaholic, and there seems to be a lot of value and enjoyment for him in being a glorified stuntman. All fine if that's what he wants, but no reason others should want the same things. Isn't the guy single, and doesn't see his daughter? So he works a lot? Okay. Guess it makes him happy.
We don't need, need, NEED Craig back. Yes SF and SP were both big worldwide successes, but the way he is treating the franchise (I'd rather slash my wrists!) and given that SP concludes his arc quite well, fresh blood might be in order.
If Craig is unwilling to come back, they'd better not waste half the film's budget getting him to return. We saw that in DAF and wow what an Oscar-winning performance from Connery. Mmmmm. It's just not worth it.
IMO, I get a better kick out of Sean's DAF performance than a lot of Oscar winning performances.
Plus still reacting to trash magazine reports. It could all be true, but since thats a rather rare occasion, why get all excited?
As I see it, DC will get a lot of heat for, yes for what? Holding up shooting, delaying shooting, being a lazy jerk, who is playing games etc etc. You name it.
A decision could well be made already and things are developping behind the scenes, but who cares, if you can give a good, hearty beating.
Very well said GL.
There's nothing to say we aren't on course for a DC Bond in 2018 as this year was always going to be a desert of information.
After his 4th film Rog played this teasing game of pretending not to come back with every new film to the extent they pretty much had Brolin signed to do it.
If DC plays the same flirting game as Rog we might not get confirmation he is doing it until late 2017.
Yes it would be nice if Dan would just say he's doing it but I guess if we were in his shoes we'd all make EON sweat as long as possible to bump up the fee too.
I just can't see DC being allowed to delay his decision while that bit of negotiation is going on. The two go hand in hand when a studio is making a bid for the job (especially given how little profit there seems to be in it for any particular studio based on the Sony info that's percolating out there).
Agreed
yes and no.... you are not wrong - obviously if a studio is going to make a power play on the distribution / 50% production budget rights, knowing whether or not DC is on board makes a world of difference, and thats just in how much they are willing to pay to acquire said rights...
but.... this is James Bond... the longest running film franchise in the history of cinema - so regardless of whoever is in the tux, you are almost guaranteed to make bank (note, i said almost, nothing is ever really a sure thing ((LTK)).. but the real difference would come - when say for example WB gets the rights, and DC comes back.. they may be willing to say, "EON/MGM, you have a proven bankable asset in the lead, we'd be willing to hand over $100mil to help produce Bond 25."...... vs...... "With DC gone, and this new guy in, we aren't completely sold that he is the real deal (or perhaps no guy named yet at all), we'll only be willing to give you $75mil."
but i do agree that any new studio coming on board would like an answer on Craig... i think the only real difference it would make in the end - is how much they pay for the rights, and how much they fork over for Bond 25... i don't think DC potentially walking away would cause any studio to balk, and walk out on a deal for Bond - you'd be stupid to do so, regardless of who the lead is.
However, I think, given the low profitability that Sony has on the current deal, that any studio would want to at least know who the lead actor is at least for the next film, and probably for the next few films. That would definitely, as you note, determine how much they want to put up, and how much profit they would want (i.e. their risk participation).
Between you and I, I think Craig staying may not in fact be all that attractive to some studios, because he's probably got one in him at most. That means they'd have to take the risk of a reset only after one film. All businesses like certainty, to the extent that they can get it, and a Bond actor who wants to get on with it, make more than one film, and has the youth to be able to churn out a couple in a row may be more attractive to a studio partner.
All speculation of course.
Agreed.
Again, I'm only speculating, but I know businesses (especially studios) want certainty to the extent possible, especially when making large, multi-yr decisions that can impact their stock price. They have to front a lot of money for a Bond production, and I would think a Bond actor who may want to churn out a few more would be more attractive to them.
Look at it this way - I'm pretty certain the profitability (if not overall combined gross) of CR/QoS combined (between 2005 start of production of the former to 2008 release of the latter) exceeded that of SF only, despite its mammoth gross (which covered the same time horizon from 2011 start of production of the former to 2014 start of production of the latter). 3 yrs in both cases but one more Bond film in the former situation.
So churning out Bond films more regularly could be more attractive to a studio.
If you're the studio why pay over the odds to keep Craig given he's only likely to do one more anyway? Better to pay less to get the rights in the first place and do the recasting straight away as is a Craig Bond really going to make you that much more to cover the extra money you need to spend on wages and acquiring the rights?
A Hiddlestone Bond for example would be far cheaper and deliver a reasonable return on your investment than shelling out stupid money like they did to keep their star player in DAF which was a completely different situation.
Call it Moneybond.
http://bit.ly/1LPoFmb
Doesn't seem like news so much as a statement of the obvious.
Here's the context: Barber was asked about how MGM once said it planned to bring out Bond movies every other year. That was part of its bankruptcy reorganization plan back in 2010.
In November 2012, on a similar conference call, Barber began to retreat from that. He was asked if Bond 24 would be out in two years. “We’re always hopeful on that,” was the reply. “If not in ’14, certainly in ’15.” Of course, '15 is what happened.
Essentially, Barber is acting like the bankruptcy plan of Bond films every other year never happened. But it did. Also the "or four" part is a bit new. The four-year gap between Die Another Day and Casino Royale wasn't planned. Now they're saying four year gaps could indeed happen in the future on at least a semi-regular basis. So in that regard it's not just "a statement of the obvious."
So as expected, Craig's successor, whether Craig does Bond 25 or not, will be a currently unknown (or not on any radar) actor within the 24 to 28 age bracket in 2016.