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
Why?
I’d say Heyman is a best case scenario regardless.
No. I don't think they'll let them "fix" NSNA either.
Hopefully not.
To be fair Pascal has her baggage - getting fired from Sony, very bad PR especially with the leaked emails which don’t make her out to be very savvy or indeed pleasant. And she did Ghostbusters 2016 which is an awful film.
But I suppose it’s worth saying executives aren’t automatically going to be lovely people, and we all have our sins… she has experience with Bond which is encouraging, and insofar as I feel assured these are two producers going into a job/trying to do it well, I’m satisfied with them. But we do have to wait until we see what they do ultimately. I think it'll be a hard task, and while in the short term I can see them delivering a successful film, it's also about the long term for Bond.
I hope not either.
Okay, I didn't follow the leaks very closely, I keep meaning to go back and find out what was in them.
Her track record is way more variable than his, it's true. Even with the Spider Man stuff: she did all the Tom Holland and Spiderverse stuff which is hard to knock, Venom is sort of in the middle ground, but then also Madame Web and Morbius which are derided as some of the worst superhero films made. So although she's got chops, I'm more excited for Heyman being involved than Pascal.
It's not something I've read up closely on either, but from what I have Pascal definitely doesn't come out looking good. And yes, she has a variable track record. This is something of a comeback for her in that sense.
I wouldn't say she's a step up from Barbara Broccoli for example, but Heyman is definitely very accomplished.
During SP she said Idris Elba should be Bond. She's also partially responsible of the Ghostbusters remake.
https://bleedingcool.com/movies/when-blofeld-was-a-woman-in-spectre-sony-leaks/
At least it wasn't Pascal who wrote 'Its way worse than this now that I've read it...the last draft was actually better...beside being not good its a sloppy mess'! :-O
Heyman is OK, I guess.
The good news is that they are experienced people.
I think Pascal's involvement bodes well because she was heavily involved in CR. Heyman I'm less familiar with but he does seem rather overextended with all the Harry Potter TV stuff.
Her writing in CAPS doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. I mean how old was she, 14?
That's nothing. Blofeld was a woman as far back as 1982 in John Gardner's For Special Services.
The more she had power into a production, the less interesting it was.
Same goes for whomever. Bond was a family thing, it's now gone corporate.
It's basically dead.
Even if they output 35 TV spinoff series and 25 content "films", they are cooked.
Bond will be back, once he is 100% public domain.
Someone with wit and creativity will have free reign and their series will kill all competition. But not yet. It's basically the last call.
She didn't even produce it. But Heyman did, and QT specifically asked for him, apparently because he's a 'creative collaborator who knows how to work with studios'.
Not going to happen, no.
It will always need a producer though. If you don't think the guy who made Paddington and Gravity and Harry Potter and Once Upon a Time and Marriage Story and Barbie etc. is good enough then I'm not sure who is.
I find in my experience that the higher up the organizational ladder someone is the less professional there emails are.
She comes off as a 14 yo girl tipsy on Bacardi Breezer.
I once learned about the contents of e-mails send from the top directors to the chair of parliament, and I never ever saw more childish, rude and unrespectfull texts in my life. Not that I have any respect for that director whatsoever, but it indeed seems that the higher they are, the more childish they behave.
And I suspect the many typos are not all typos.
Probably a bit off topic, but I’m noticing more and more people getting excited that the Fleming books will be in the public domain worldwide in, what, 2035? As if it’s not already the case in Canada and Japan anyway, and that it’ll have a direct impact on the films being made by the official owners of the franchise. Frankly I don’t think it’ll have an effect on the books being published by IFP.
I mean, if stuff like all female Bond musicals and ropey, self published fan fiction is exciting to some people, then fine. But that’s pretty much what we’ve got with Bond and the public domain so far. To be fair I can imagine a good West End theatre adaptation of a Fleming novel.
A stageplay, yeah, I can imagine that might not be considered to be confused with the work of Eon, that might fly.
Yes, even a significant attempt to create a rival Bond film would be tricky. I think there's this idea among some people that as soon as 2035 hits some wonderful company or filmmaker will come along, make such a film without any push back, and return Bond to its former glory by doing this. Or that the franchise will immediately become irrelevant and Amazon/EON with it. It just won't happen that way.
It would be more like Sherlock Holmes, although I imagine Amazon's lawyers are better and will make things difficult.
From what I understand it was a case where specific Holmes stories/novels slowly entered the public domain in certain territories. Obviously Holmes doesn't have a single company solely making the films like Amazon/EON, but from my understanding there are similar caveats that are there in practice if someone wants to use the character now (including what are inventions of the film versions of the character). But it's not something I'm very knowledgable about.
It's a tempting premise but sets a dangerous precedent, so hopefully not.
No way, that's too much of a slippery slope.
Agree, it's a silly idea. Like George Lucas messing with the Star Wars special editions levels of silly.
Why in the world would you CGI an actor's face from a 1985 movie to make him look slightly younger in a way which would doubtlessly look uncanny and false, for what purpose??
And it's essentially an insult to mess with a film whose directors, writers, producers are all dead or retired with no say.
Amazon would feel the ire of fans and critics for pulling this kind of thing, and in my view rightfully so.