Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Broccoli and Wilson to produce a new non-Bond movie
http://www.screendaily.com/festivals/cannes/riseborough-lewis-in-westends-storm/5056135.article
Not the announcement we were waiting for from them but interesting non the less.
Not the announcement we were waiting for from them but interesting non the less.
^ 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 dont want to wait 3 years for the next Bond film because Babs thinks she is some sort of arty prooducer.
Just get on with your bread and butter and get the next Bond film out for 2014 while Daniel Craig doesnt need a zimmer frame.
Suggestions of some horse trading thrown into the mix. All very interesting...if true.
Yes, that all stands to reason, I must say. I hope we get the next Bond well before the latest projected date of 2016. If we wait that long it might well be his last film, or at the very least his penultimate Bond!
As for Broccoli and Wilson producing a film outside of Bond, both producers stated now and then how much energy a Bond film demands. So why shouldn´t they do some stretching exercises in between ;-)?
Absolutely. Craig is young enough to get 3 more out of him but not if we sit around making crappy melodramas instead of going full steam ahead. If the next Bond isnt 2014 then 2 more Craig films is all we are getting. He is way more physical in the role than Rog and doesnt have Rogs matinee idol good looks so the ravages of time are likely to be harder on him. I can honestly seeing him go on much past 52-53 even he wanted to.
I'm bordering on obsessive about Bond in my spare time but even I need time out every couple of years, imagine what it must be like for them to spend 24/7 working on Bond.
Personally I wish them every success with their new ventures.
I agree with all of the above. Brosnan quickly started looking his age by TWINE and in DAD he was really pushing it, people who thought then he had one more in him were at best delusional. Craig is in better shape and he started in the role earlier, but at a four years gap he'd be lucky to make five Bond movies.
Broccoli and Wilson also have two plays currently on in the UK.
I agree and it's not like Jogn Logan isn't writing as we speak. This film won't take up much of their time either I'd imagine, as they're only executive producing.
EDIT: @Sir_James_Moloney has beaten me too it with that point.
It also seems to me like Craig would NEVER stay around in his 50s. Didn't he have an interview where he said something like he would be the one that left (as opposed to the producers letting him go)? From a personal opinion, I think 50 is too old to play Bond unless the actor has aged like present day Tom Cruise or a Dick Tracy era Warren Beatty. (I suppose the same could be said for Roger Moore in the 1970s - he was close to 50 in TSWLM and looked great.) Hell, Brosnan was 45-46 in TWINE and I thought he looked good. (DAD was a different story, but I think that is primarily due to weight gain.) Daniel Craig was never young looking. These 4 year gaps between films are only going to hurt his chances of more films for him in the future. I love DC and Skyfall, but there are some scenes where Craig is starting to look quite old, I will admit.
Regarding the topic of this thread, I think Broccoli and Wilson know that James Bond is the top priority. Even if they involve themselves in other films, I don't think James Bond will be severely affected.
Well, here's a super official announcement from 2009 :
http://www.sony.com/SCA/company-news/press-releases/columbia-pictures/2009/sony-pictures-entertainment-grabs-remote-control-w.shtml
A reminder of the difference between the talks and actually finding the money to proceed ;) For the moment, "Silent Storm" exists I think only as a storyboard done by a freelancer (already a big step compared to "Remote Control" though, probably), and it's trying to find money at Cannes with foreign distributors etc...
My understanding is that Wilson and Broccoli are financing the production of Silent Storm and West End are onboard as sales agents (so, trying to sell the film to distributors as you say)... but the film will get made either way because the money is there.
Completely agree with you two.
I want as many Craig Bonds as possible, too. I have to trust (hope/trust/have faith in ...) that Bond is their #1 priority and they are seasoned professionals who will not take on more than they can handle to get Bond films made right: time-wise and quality-wise.
I do want to ask other members here, who can tell me - in a clear enough, succinct way - what is the difference between executive producing and producing a film? I can only make a very uneducated guess and assume much less time and responsibility is involved. But I am interested to learn more. I've wondered about this in the past. Could someone explain the differences and main responsibilities of these two different roles? Exec. Producing vs. Producing ... thanks!
In short, @4EverBonded, a Producer is arguably the most important and responsible role on a feature film whereas an Executive Producer is generally just a credit not necessarily related to a role.
Producing is an actual job on a film: you are responsible for employing the director, cast, crew; overseeing the script; getting legal clearance for any necessary rights; dealing with the financiers and distributor(s)... basically making the film.
Executive producer is a very broad title. It generally means that you have helped to get the film made in some critical way (often related to financing.) An exec's role in the production will generally mean that they have some rights in signing-off things but they won't really have a role on the film as such. Wilson and Broccoli are financing the new film and this is why they will have Exec Producer credits on it. Execs can also be distributors, rights holders, cast members, lawyers, sales agents, talent agents or just about anything else. The amount of work done will vary massively between none whatsoever and lots.
(It's completely different in television)
Hope that helps!
I wish I had tons of bucks and could executive produce something I was interested in.
That also explains why so many famous names crop up as executive producers.
Like for instance paying for the adaptation of a novel into a screenplay, or for the drawings of the storyboards, etc.. in order to have something to show at the Cannes Festival to obtain some money to actually make the movie. So it's often not clear at all at what stage of development hell some movies are. Silent Storm has some storyboards done that are being shown to potential buyers, Remote Control probably did not go further than the start of an adaptation, Bond 24 may be only four paragraphs on some sheet of paper given by John Logan, and in all cases the work done comes from EON's money 100% I think. But for the big money to actually do the movies, they need far more money, and they won't use theirs (they would even rather have their early money back in the process).
But in the end, exec producing can mean a lot of actual job "before" the movie, even if it means later less when the movie is being shot. And also, all this is theoretical... These titles are more and more honorary IMO. Don't forget that financing in the movie industry is so weird that no movie seems to make a profit (and we're talking about movies like Return of the Jedi here for instance :) ).