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
"So... when are we getting that BOND 25 director announcement? Any day now, right?"
First mention:
https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/caveat-emptor-new-rumor-eon-wants-a-007-universe/
Followup on his internet show.
https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/30/jeff-sneider-follows-up-on-007-universe-rumor/
You could read it that way. It's so vaguely worded, it's infuriating. I wasn't sure whether to even mention it here. But I figured with enough caveats, it's OK to mention it and let people see for themselves.
I don't understand your logic.
They haven't announced that Gillian Anderson will be Bond at this point. Don't be so certain about the future.
There is no news here.
Actors have become more powerful vs. the studios, as compared to the '60s. So if Craig wants to wait, and he's dealing with an option, he can.
Moore and Brosnan had more regular films but not everyone thinks that they are better than Craig's.
Lazenby gets points forever for one film. So will Craig.
Link?
Nobody is saying that they are selling. Just that down the road they may. We are speculating on this thread as much as discussing news. That's why it's over 1300 pages.
I can assure you I am not certain about anything, including what we know to date about B25.
Perhaps, but the bottom line is they still sign them up to 3-4 film contracts and then renew them. He's allowed to wait because they want him there. If they wanted him gone, he'd be gone, contract or no contract.
Oh, I see now. Yes, of course it's all a matter of opinion at the end of the day.
No doubt he will always get credit for CR, but this is not the same scenario as Lazenby because he stopped at one. That's all we have for him. All the other actors are judged not by one film, but rather by their overall tenure, particularly the ones who've had long runs.
Lol welcome to the forums
Yeah that Daniel Craig, he's awful - a distinguished career as an actor working with some of the best directors in the business, revitalised Bond at a crucial time - yeah he's absolutely, as you say 'crap'.
Bond won't have an 'expanded universe'.
That's how I would see it as well, but at the risk of looking stupid - who the hell is this guy?
I don’t agree. As far as I’m concerned there is no appetite. These are event movies centred around one iconic protagonist. Drip feeding them every 3 years is the only way to preserve the integrity and heritage of the series and character. The storm will pass, that will become clear when SW inevitably trips over its own ambition.
Because Bond isn't Marvel and neither is it Star Wars - it's Bond.
Plus, if done properly (as with Rogue One) there could be an argument that integrity and heritage can be built upon/re-enforced if the product is worthwhile (Rogue One (extending the universe) was well received 87% on RT compared to SP (mainstream Bond 61%).
Interesting exercise: Can we, as fans, imagine a spin off movie that was actually better, more "Bondian" than a mainstream movie? (better direction, action, locations, music etc) I know just the thought will upset some fans but it's an interesting exercise IMHO. Is Bond about the person (it cant be Bond without Biond the man) or is it an atmosphere, a feeling, etc that could be recreated within the man himself. No easy answers but these are the exact thoughts that potential investors will be having. (please dont shoot the messenger)
Anything can be done, but it has to be done well. That last part, inevitably, is where the problems arise.
So while I can see the business reasoning for such a move, I'm not as confident that the current leadership can execute it with the necessary quality. After all, they seem to be having trouble giving us a decent film every two to three years as it is.
Ultimately without a visionary like Kevin Feige at the helm, one can run into a fiasco. Look at DC's debacle for evidence of what can happen. They've arguably ruined Batman for at least 5 years, after Nolan resuscitated it.
So I have no problem with the idea. Just the execution.
It would be end up like 24: Legacy rather than Rogue One. It won't happen. Just like when 3D was all the buzz the Bonds didn't follow suit.
//
That is not entirely true. MI6 Community HAS confirmed that it's more than baseless rumor that EON might sell the franchise after Bond 25.//
//Link? //
July 25, 2017 on Twitter:
First this:
Reply from the Twitter account of MI6 website:
Haven't heard anything since.
I wish I could be so certain about the future.
It's hard to see how selling to a lower bidder would be in the shareholder's interests.
I was just hoping that if they sell up, she'd value the future of the series her dad made rather than how much money she could make (sure she's got more than enough for one lifetime anyway). I know really that you're right and they would just sell to the highest bidder but the thought of Disney snatching it up and churning them out like Marvel and Star Wars turns my stomach.
You should really find out who invented Brothergate, because I have the distinct feeling you are destined to be his soulmat and best friend forever.
I'm sure that if they ever decide to move on at some point they will hand it over to someone who would do it justice. It won't be all about the money and ultimately whatever offer they get would be quite substantial anyway because it's one of the most valuable (and underexploited) franchises out there.
Keep in mind that MGM owns half, so both would have to be on side with any possible deal.
For those who sometimes get upset and confused when we speculate, nobody is saying they are in fact going to sell. Just contemplating, that's all.
But we aren’t SW or Marvel. They were already expansive universes before they were purchased and, more importantly, created as such. Bond’s world is exactly that, his.
Could they expand it out. Of course they could, but it reeks of bad business and a fundamental misunderstanding of the series and what keeps it ticking nearly 60 years later. If you can show me the way to Bond-Con, with its hundreds of thousands of ravenous fans, I’ll happily rethink things.
The same logic could be applied to an Indiana Jones universe. Could they make a successful spin-off? Possibly, based on hype and goodwill, but once that fades where do you go next? The audience isn’t there. SW and Marvel are series’ that by their very nature are built for expansion (and are by no means bullet proof) where Bond is something that risks irreversible dilution.
Could it happen? Yes.
Should it happen? No.