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 hope they move on from Arnold and Newman and get somebody new next time. There are several innovative and creative composers out there who could generate a new and exciting Bond sound.
His scores. As he himself was a big J Barry fan, that's not really surprising. :)
Ageist? Hardly. Just pointing out the obvious that Craig is not getting any younger and the last Bond we had in his 50's was Roger Moore. And I'm not that far from Daniel Craig's age myself, but I still don't want to see a wrinkly Bond ever again.
Criag is not wrinkly he still has 2 more films in him before the age of Hiddleston comes about.
He was taking the piss.
Just so long as he didn't take mine. I've only got two left.
Wtf?! What about lionsgate? There is always a lion at the beginning of Bond, It makes sense.
Wtf, right?
I want Disney.
I want JJ Abrams.
I want Candy.
I need my meds....
No seriously. I hope EON will choose wisely!
I always love that Lion at the start, cheeky bugger. Lionsgate would stfu and let EON do it's thing. WB would be all interfering at s@%t, I imagine.
Abrams? I thought he did great things with Star Wars and Star Trek 1.
Fag chance though. Hope we don't go back down the shaky b list route like roger spottiswoode and tamagotchi.
Although I think those days are numbered. Franchise film making is way more surgical than it used to be.
To be fair, Sony's deal in their stake of the profits is a joke and no studio in their right mind would accept the low ball figure that Sony agreed to just to have the rights. Such as it is, unless a company like Disney that doesn't really need the Bond franchise gets it, Sony's saving grace to keep the rights squarely falls on their willingness to take crumbs as opposed to a sensibly sized piece of the pie.
Was there a particular reason why Arnold finished?
I don't think Warner Bros will have it because it has already acquire the digital company 'DramaFever' and also because of the 'Batman Vs Superman' box office conditions before it's release.
Neither Lionsgate will do it; Nor Paramount, Nor Universal, Nor Fox. It'll most likely to be Walt Disney Pictures (commonly known on screen as 'Disney'), who owned Marvel and Lucasfilm. I bet @BondJasonBond006 was right, so let Disney go beyond it's future to acquire distribution rights to the James Bond franchise. If so, MGM may get a distribution deal with The Walt Disney Studios ahead of the Dreamworks-Disney deal coming to the end.
Keep it in mind that the news of the new Bond distributor gets running late since last month. Fingers crossed guys.
It's not an Eon decision. It's an MGM decision.
Regardless, WB is still the likeliest candidate.
I can’t confess to possessing to much insider knowledge on how this process works. But I do have my own feelings:
Sony:
They have overseen the Craig era and have done a fantastic job. In particular with SF, I felt slightly let down with the marketing of SP, however, it’s undeniable that they fronted up the cash for that film. Sony notoriously got screwed over by MGM with the Bond deal, but they took a fall and stumped up the cash for what is said to be quite a minimal return. I’d imagine this was their attempt to create a show of faith that they were committed to the Bond franchise. Also Sony is known for being low on franchises and for major film studios to operate in today’s climate they need valuable intellectual property. Sony just sacrificed a large amount of their IP to Marvel with Spider-Man, I can’t imagine they would want to lose Bond.
Warner Bros:
My understanding is that the head of MGM is very close with the big honchos at WB. I think Warner would be great – they have tons of money and plenty of savvy when dealing with big Hollywood franchise properties. Especially when you consider how brilliantly the handled the Harry Potter and Dark Knight/DC series. These were clearly great filmmaker-led series that made a lot of money. I also imagine that the power stricture with EON wouldn’t be massively different to the way things have operated with Sony over the last decade.
20th Century Fox:
Personally, I hope this doesn’t happen. I find Rupert Murdoch and his empire a little despicable and their corporate brand synergy would destroy Bond – imagine 007 reading the Sun? Watching Fox News? Touting far right nonsense. It’s an ugly corporation – however, this is business…..so who knows? Plus they already release all MGM products on home entertainment, so they have a relationship already.
Disney:
They have the money and these days it looks like they have been collecting franchises – so why not take another? I understand people like the idea of Disney as they have seen the work they have done with Marvel and now Star Wars. However, I don’t think they make quite a comfortable fit with Bond. The problem is that Bond is a brand associated with class and the more refined things in life. Disney is a brand which spreads itself very thin – they would want to capitalise on the Bond image – imagine what would be on offer? – Toys, theme park rides, an abundance of computer games, oodles of merchandise, bed-sheets, etc. I can’t see it happening, it would dilute the Bond brand. Bond is associated with high-end products – Aston Martin, Belevdere, Jaguar, etc. Disney don’t seem best placed to understand this.
Paramount/Universal:
I can’t say I have any strong feelings to either of these two. Universal would probably be best placed as they have had a banner year in 2015 with all their big properties.
What about LIONSGATE?
however looking at 007 something occurred to me. the real world issue 007 should deal with is Suicide. Bond has been known for it's commentary on social changes in the past honestly a spy film dealing with this topic would be very ballsy
Also for people who don't want Swann back and Don't want a gritty revenge film (which really we only have had 2 in the franchises history Licence to Kill and Quantum of Solace and both films were AMAZING so why are we suddenly gunshy here?)
Do You Only Live Twice
Take one of the chapter titles (or phrases in the book) like The Death Collector or The Garden of Death and devlop the film like this
PTS Bond and Swann are relaxing in a private beach somewhere spectre agents come out of now where Bond kills them but sadly swann is killed in the crossfire the pts ends on bond looking utterly devastated
titles (personally a dark instrumental by Jimmy Page so we still have a name musican)
Main Plot
5 months after Swann's Death Bond is utterly devastated he is given a diplomatic mission by M go to Japan to meet the head of Japan's Secret Service to get info on recent terrorist training camps around the area in exchange for British help in dealing with Japan's growing Suicide problem.
and well you move on from there.