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
Exactly.
More shoddy made up journalism I'm afraid. Bond makes money no matter who is playing him. If youve already spunked $75m per film on your actor then add say another $200m for the budget per film then you'd damned well better make $1b on each film to even hope to see a tangible return.
Economically this makes no sense at all. Youre much better off paying Hiddleston say $5m and have a budget of $150m. You'll still make a decent profit ($600-700m should be the target, any more is a bonus) and you're not risking such ludicrous amounts.
If you were Sony, after SP, would you entrust EON with that much money to guarantee a $1b film?
Wasn't a rumor. It was from a memo that became public because of the Sony hacks.
//This was supposed to be a competitive distribution tender, so I assume EON wouldn't have sweetened the pot for Sony unless nobody else wanted a piece. //
It's not Eon's decision. It's MGM's. Even Michael G. Wilson has said that (late 2015 video interview that has been posted elsewhere in this thread).
The funny thing is....I wasn't sad or didn't feel gutted when Pierce Brosnan left after "Die Another Day". But IF Daniel Craig leaves after "SPECTRE" it truly will be one of the saddest days in my humble existence as a Bond fan :((.
But there you are wrong. It's a co-decision really.
EON Productions is the producing subsidiary of holding company Danjaq LLC. Danjaq LLC owns part of the copyrights of the James Bond films.
But here it gets interesting, because MGM is also owner of the copyrights of the Bond franchise. So basically Danjaq LLC (fully owned by the Broccoli's) and MGM own like 50% of the Bond franchise's rights to the character James Bond and everything else that appeared on screen (S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Blofeld).
So don't trust Michael Wilson on just this interview. Mostly both Gary Barber (MGM) and Michael G. Wilson & Barbara Broccoli (Danjaq LLC and its subsidiary EON) will stay wishy-washy about all this. Probably also for tax reasons.
Having said all this, MGM and Danjaq are like siamese twins these days. If one disagrees, then no Bond film will be produced. And from what I've read so far from Barber/Wilson/Broccoli, and especially what I've read from their behaviour, they all are desperate to get Daniel Craig back. Desperate in like 'Connery-esque-desperation'.
I think the importance of DC returning is getting blown out of proportion if they really have this amount of money to throw about then why not invest in the future instead of giving to Craig to secure what they hope is going to be a huge return.
If they are worried about letting a relative unknown taking the mantle give the job to someone like Fassbender, as famous as he is I'm sure they could secure him for less than $150 million and then plow it into the budget.
As much as I like Craig and championed him if he's that unsure and his uncertainity holds things up then Bond can and will survive without him.
He was a relative unknown when he got the gig, yes his interpretation added to the success and the change in the attitude to Bond but another actor as capable could have done this. The same way that if another unknown had been cast back 1962 with Terence Young behind them they could have attained the same success as Connery did.
To think Connery was the only actor to be able to launch Bond and make it as success is quite ridiculous and the same goes for DC.
No actor is bigger than Bond and this hanging onto Craig because there is an assumption by some that he's the only one who can carry things on is quite dangerous.
I am a Bond fan first and a DC fan second.
I actually would prefer to DC to be done with Bond and move onto more challenging work, now if he does come back well and good but if he doesn't it's not the end of the world.
I'm not wrong. MGM may consult Danjaq/Eon, but Danjaq/Eon is not a studio. MGM is and it's the one who ultimately has to decide.
"So don't trust Michael Wilson on just this interview." Actually, I don't trust him any further than I can throw him. Remember his silly comment (during Skyfall filming) about hoping Craig would do eight Bond movies and break Roger Moore's record? At the current pace of production, that'd be in the late 2020s.
I was thinking that yesterday as I watched SP, and I hope that he gets to at least equal Moore at 12 years, even it means he resigns from the role in 2018 just in time for a new actor's introduction.
It's based on comments Craig himself made.
As we know,per the books,Bond's physique is more like Brosnan/Hiddlestone than Craig...
I don't doubt their credentials. I believe the story is true (plus we'll know soon enough if news breaks that Sony have reupped on Bond).
It syncs up with everything we've heard since Jan this year.
- MGM and EON want Craig back for two films.
- They are willing to wait and pay a lot of money
- They will film back-to-back
- Waltz has been signed for two movies
It all adds up.
EON have been keen for a while to film back-to back Bonds. They wanted to do so with CR and QOS but the schedule meant they had to relent and Roger Michell ducked out. The plan initially was to make Spectre a two-film arc, however, Mendes nixed the idea.
Spectre suffered from severe bloat. It was basically two films crammed into one. It also cost as much as two big-budget films. If they did go down the back-to-back route, they could tell an inter-connected story and streamline the movies.
Make two tight 120 minute stories that aren't overstuffed with action and are more character focussed.
Take SP as an example. The first film would include the Mexico opening, the Rome meeting and a finale probably in London. In that time you could rejig the story and really build up the momentum and connection that Bond has with Blofeld. There would be considerable time to focus on the relationship between the pair.
The second film would be the Madeline love story. You'd have locations ranging from Morroco, the Sahara Austria and London. There would be plenty of time over 120minutes to let that relationship blossom, opposed to it feeling as half-baked as it does in the 40mins of screentime it gets.
That's just an example.
EON are clearly keen to follow this model and $150m isn't that much in many respects. Both film would gross in excess of $700m (if not more if the quailty is up to snuff, eg; SF). So the investment massively pays off. Why are people getting fussy about a studio paying that much for an actor? It's not your money.
I can see how the arc would work:
Film 1: A true adaptation of YOLT with a OHMSS ending where Madeline dies.
Film 2: Bond's hunt for Blofeld.
You just need to find a director with the stamina to take on two back-to-back films.
I'm thinking there's two men for the job:
Campbell directing and Haggis writing. Get the CR team back.
The actor himself has publicly denied being asked to return. I don't think that rumour has any validity:
That applies *if* he agrees to do two more and film them back to back. Hasn't happened yet. Even Radar Online describes it as an offer, and it's not saying Craig has accepted yet.
That being said, I wouldn't necessarily mind back-to-back Bond films.
That was Michael Cimino's attitude with Heaven's Gate. It wasn't his money. It was United Artists'.
Even if you believe it's a better movie than the initial reviews, it still flopped so badly (and was so expensive) it brought an end to United Artists as a separate studio. How many movies didn't get made because UA disappeared?
No way to know of course, but it's not like there wasn't an effect. There certainly was an effect on the Bond film series with MGM taking over, something that still resonates today.
If the Radar Online story is true, it's a sign that Sony really is desperate. And they have reason to be. Ghostbusters is on track to lose $70M (per The Hollywood Reporter). So, it's possible Sony is swallowing hard and throwing money at Craig.
For comparison purposes, the reported highest paid actor in 2015 was Robert Downey JR at $80m. The reported highest paid actor thus far in 2016 is Dwayne Johnson at $64.5m. Tom Cruise is currently at around $53m.
And I have said it before and I'll say it again I hate MGM owning half of Bond. Such an unstable studio. What happens if they fold? Do we forever loose Bond?
Thanks Harry :-L
What would happen if another studio bought MGM?
The idea that Dan can command 50% more than Tom Cruise per film is preposterous.
Exactly. For Sony this really would be all in and if it didn't deliver north of $1b they would be in serious trouble.
After SF this deal might have made sense but after SP it's a very big gamble.
Agreed.
Why is it so hard for them to get right?