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
No, I think this is it for Dan. I think he realises Spectre was not the ending he wanted to his tenure. Hence the "I want to go out on a high" comments. I think he would already be gone had Spectre delivered what he thought it would. I know Steve McQueen's wife has said that he is the only actor she want's to play her Husband in a biopic. I think Craig will do that after Bond 25 as McQueen is his idol, and then Dan will semi retire like Sean did.
I think Purvis and Wade would have something down in principal that Craig couldn't pass up on. Would not be surprised to see read through come next Spring.
I suppose it would depend on the relative strength/leverage of the parties involved, and a new director (ostensibly) has less control/leverage compared to those who've worked on the project before (like co-producer & star Craig).
Having said that, it does appear that Forster and Mendes had quite a bit of say in their respective projects.
I think it will depend on the director. A Villeneuve or a Nolan will demand a lot of say or won't sign up in the first place. A Spottiswoode will do as he's told and be thankful.
Bond has always been different to other film making. Why so many good directors like Foster and Tamahori struggled. The creation is Flemings, so you have little room on what your leading character is. You have to keep key elements, most of who you are working with have worked on countless Bonds before.. you kind of have to come in and fit in for it to work. It is not a flexible job.. your story is to really read someone else's concept and put on screen your interpretation of what that is. Some Directors get it, and some struggle with that element. Directors are quirky they like artistic freedom and Bond is restrictive process.
Entirely possible IMO.
Sticking with Craig makes commercial sense. Most successful Bond at the BO since Connery - why risk change?
Recasting is always a gamble. With Dalton EON got a Bond they liked but who failed to set the BO alight. With Brosnan they got a commerically successful Bond who (I think) they weren't all that impressed by when he actually went in-front of the camera. With Brosnan they took his interpretation to its logical conclusion and a creative dead end.
With Craig they are ticking all the boxes in terms of popular and critical appeal. And while SP had its faults it wasn't the car crash of a movie that DAD was. Craig has got the job as long as he wants it.
Familiarity and stability is also part of the appeal of Bond. People like to see 'their' Bond return.
Those calling for a reboot amply highlight the main obstacle. Who do they replace Craig with?
You'll note that the articles suggested Craig favoured Villeneuve. Not EON. It's a small point, but I noticed it. Having said that, he is co-producer.
I wouldn't be surprised if Babs tried to drag him back in after B25
https://www.jborbisnonsufficit.com/2017/11/02/mgm-to-partner-with-annapurna-in-us-distribution/
Did MGM object to Sony products in SP, or was it Craig? I don't think I read anything about MGM's (or the producer's) views.
They seem to be assuming that MGM will distribute B25 in the US with Annapurna if I'm not mistaken. That is not a given.
They suggest Kathryn Bigelow as a possibility, but I'm quite certain she has rejected working on Bond before (sure I read that somewhere).
With all due respect to both of you, but I see the chances for such a scenario as absolutely zero.
This is a presumptuous and very wrong assumption of my interests. For one, I don't really care about Kingsman or Fast and the Furious. I've only seen the first one in each respective franchise and neither of them made me rush to see their sequels. I'm rather passionate about Star Trek and James Bond. I love them to death but I don't have to love every single thing about them. There's only one Bond movie out of all the 24 films that I can flat out say I don't like and that's Die Another Day. I happen to enjoy most Bond films, most more than others. But that doesn't mean they are immune to criticism from me or anyone else.
It doesn't come off that way considering you jump on anyone who has an opinion you don't like. You don't seem to know how protective of Bond I am. I own all the Bond films on different formats. I have all the soundtracks. I make posters and wallpapers to them. If I didn't hold the Bond franchise dear like you think I don't then I wouldn't have or make those things. I dismiss Nolan because I don't like what he brings to his films, I've seen a handful of his movies and the outcome is always the same. How would that bolster any confidence in me? How would you feel if Lee Tamahori was announced to be directing Bond 25 and it would end up being on par or worse than DAD? That would be a letdown to you wouldn't it? I am open to many things, but I don't have to automatically like them. Welcome to the internet. Things get criticized all the time. It's a part of life and we all have to deal with it. Pierce and his films get crapped on all the time here and I think it's unfair but I don't bother commenting against those posts anymore. I ignore them and hope the fire dies out, not fan the flames in the heat of the moment. Life is too short for that.
This is all fandoms, Not just Bond. All fandoms go through a negativity phase. Yeah it's annoying but we just have to deal with it until Bond 25 finally shows up. And no we're not the directors but that doesn't mean can't speculate and talk about what we want and don't want.
You know what PeppermintPatty, I really don't care.
My recollection is that both Craig and Mendes objected, the Sony products were beneath Bond, etc.
Sampling of stories from the time:
The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/daniel-craig-and-sam-mendes-resisted-android-product-placement-in-spectre-because-james-bond-only-a6717941.html
The Verge
https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/24/8488453/james-bond-sony-product-placement-xperia-z4-spectre
Digital Trends
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/james-bond-disses-sony-xperia-z4/
Actually there is a tried and proven procedure for producers with such occurrences:
"Shut up and do as you are told! "
I really wonder what kind of contracts they are signing these days in the movie business.
Get a grip of your employees Babs it's not a hippy commune where everyone gets to chuck in their half baked ideas into a creativity pool.
Actually, that's how the Bond films have been made since the beginning with Cubby and Harry. As far as we're told in some of the making of doco's.
I recall Bill Cartlidge in TSWLM or MR saying even the tea lady could make a suggestion that would be brought on board.
While I'm not as tough on these people as you are, I have to admit it would be great fun to see you stage a coup at EON Productions. Just break into Barbara's office, machinegun in hand, and tell her to take a hike, then have Craig, Purvis and Wade fired, Mendes blacklisted in Hollywood, etc. All while wearing a Vladek Sheybal rubber mask and leather gloves.
Any chance of tracking said tea lady down and seeing if she fancies writing the script?
And for Rory's sake let's hope he's not in the office that day!
And after all that cleaning of house, Denis Villeneuve would be hailed as the new god.
After that, give Nolan total creative control, and I MYSELF will carry you to the gates of Valhalla!