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
That's the thing. "SPECTRE" was made both as a A) Final send off and B) as an open ended film waiting for a sequel. That's at least quite ingenious.
And let's face it, send-off or not, "SPECTRE" still has two rather open-ended storylines. There's the fate of Ernst Stavro Blofeld. How will he be brought to prison (Belmarsh?)? Will he be freed Georgi Koskov-style? Will he hide again? And what about Madeleine Swann's love relationship with Bond? Should we kill her off? Or will the writers end the relationship Tiffany Case ("From Russiw With Love" novel )/ Pussy Galore ("Trigger Mortis") style?
Let's face it, if one is creative enough, if a writer does not limit him-herself to a comic book esque or too realistic geopolitics-like storyline (and I do think that's what's limiting Purvis and Wade's creativity), then everything is possible. I'm all in for a return of Daniel Craig....
It also seems that Adele will be singing the theme song again.
I don't think the general audience is that hungry for answers to these questions. They don't go to a Bond film looking for the pay off to a previous story. The part of continuity that works in the Craig era is in having the same man grow and evolve through the films. That's the part the audience has responded to. It works, because you don't have to have seen the other films to get a quick grasp for the man at the core. It's highly likely that many who sit down to watch Bond 25 won't have seen a Bond film since SPECTRE was in cinemas. They won't remember the backstory between Bond and Blofeld, or how Maddy was the daughter of an assassin, or why Blofeld is in jail. If they wait to 2019 for a follow up to SPECTRE, which was received mediocre, then they are asking for trouble. I'd much prefer that they put the franchise prospects first, rather than tailoring everything around giving Craig a send off. This isn't the time for sentimentality.
That's a very shortsighted view of things. First off, a Bond film makes lots of money whether Craig is Bond or not. Die Another Day made lots of money, and Pierce was popular in the role, so should they just have kept churning out those films instead of reinventing Bond and putting the franchise prospects first? It about more than just making money in the short term.
Playing hardball with the producers - "I might come back, I might not, depends how I feel, I'll let you know blah blah blah" - will probably work out for him. He knows the producers want him back so if he can wait to the last moment before making a decision to return it's likely to reap him a huge fee. I'm sure that's his tactic. Personally I don't care if he doesn't come back. His "only for the money" comment did it for me. Wouldn't mind a new new bloke in the role. If the list of alternatives isn't that impressive I guess Craig will do.
As for Adele - it was reported she'd never write/sing another Bond theme. Change of mind?
But that goes for every huge blockbuster movie franchise. It goes for DC's "WonderWoman" in which the movie starts and ends with a gift from Bruce Wayne. It goes for the upcoming "SpiderMan". It goes for "Fast & Furious". The same thing with the returns of the characters Julia and Ilsa in "M:I - 6". People in general are relatively blind for such answers to open ended questions, yet they aren't bothersome either. They are also there to satisfy the nerdy fans.
So I don't see the problem in doing something with these 'loose ends' from "SPECTRE". And to be honest, a good new story doesn't necessarily exclude some open ended narratives from the previous film. It doesn't necessarily mean that screenwriters will milk out the Blofeld-narrative and Madeleine-narrative from start to end of the new film. One can also be slightly more careful with that, like I wrote in my story treatment, in which I finalized those loose ends already at the first querter of the story: https://www.docdroid.net/q503afj/story-treatment-james-bond-007-in-murder-on-wheels-final-2docx.pdf
There is absolutely NOTHING in SP that only comes in the vicinity of ingenious.
There is at least a little irony in this statement.
The scene between Bond and Lucia with the two assassins is pretty brilliant.
Can you stop making the same random posts every single time? News flash for you: Bond movies are big budget films. It doesn't matter if you are Disney, Marvel, Warner Brothers or EON, no one will ever green light a $150+ million production with the intentions of making further sequels without 100% certainty of making a huge profit. You really think that the Marvel franchise could green light a big budget blockbuster every year if they didn't have the absolute certainty of making a mega profit? And since maths isn't your forte: Bond movies do make a ton of money every time, but they also have to maintain the average B.O. numbers for the latest films. Craig's last 2 films have made 1.2 billion (even if you argue that was a one-off 50 anniversary miracle) and 880 million. Bond 25 will obviously make a shitload of money, but it has to come close to those BO numbers, and the safest choice for that to happen, given a new distributor has to be signed) is with Daniel Craig as James Bond. The choice is between the high probability of a new actor to be successful, or the certainty of a 5th major hit with Craig.
As is the train fight with Hinx to be fair.
Having said that, it's important to remember that the studio (Sony) didn't make much on either SF or SP (likely much less on this one due to its poor showing stateside). Most of the profit is retained by MGM/EON.
@bondjames just noticed you posted while I was writing this. I think you'd agree that EON always stick to their guns concerning their (current) leading star. Given Sony manage to reboot Spiderman twice in 3 films based on lackluster performance, the thoughts of them being able to order EON around is a scary thought.
I think it's clear that MGM (currently owned by hedge fund financiers) has big future plans (either an IPO or a sale) and their decision on B25 will be driven by what maximizes that. I believe this is one time when the creative process will be held hostage by the business end.
No one has 100% certainty of anything in this business. Those studios you mention have delivered loss making films in the past and will again in future.
If the films have to maintain the box office numbers, then surely SPECTRE making 300 million less than Skyfall, while costing more to make, is actually an argument against Craig doing the next film, not for it. Kinda indicates that he has peaked in the role, and that diminishing returns has begun to take effect.
Lastly, you mention that Craig is still the safest choice for Bond 25, and you're absolutely right. He is the safest choice, just like Brosnan would have been the safest choice in 2004 and Dalton would have been the safest choice in 1991 and Moore would have been the safest choice in 1987. Sooner or later, EON looks for something more than a safe pair of hands. That's how they've managed to keep going for half a century. I never thought I'd witness dedicated Bond fans arguing for placing short term profit over creative innovation.
Craig should, factually, have been sacked after QOS and Moore after TMWTGG. Every major studio in Hollywood would agree with that and you can bet your house that the decision of sacking Craig after QOS would have been taken. And you have fairy tales notion about all ot this, so please try to get more knowledge into this instead of once again trying to push your Turner agenda. Bond films are $150+ mill projects and they are made with the intentions of making enough profit to green light further sequels down the line.
I think we're at a different time in the cycle this time around though. I seem to recall that Craig was universally praised after QoS even though the film didn't really catch fire with many folks. I'm not so sure the same is the case after SP though, and he is of course older now. Still, if they decide to keep him at this stage it will be because he brings in the bucks, and he knows it and will negotiate hard for his piece of the pie.
I presume you mean Moore would have been sacked after TMWTGG,as TSWLM was a success in every form.
@bondjames Agreed about that, but don't forget that in the same time-span from CR to 2017, Sony sacked their Spiderman actor twice while rebooting twice in the span of 3 films. Bond would have been a total mess if Sony had the final say over the franchise.
No probs..I knew it was a typo.
True. Moore had been in the role for 1 year when he made TMWTGG, whereas Craig had been in the role for 9 years at the time of SP. People get tired of seeing things done the same way all the time. Craig's schtick had begun to get tired with SP, whereas Moore's schtick hadn't truly got going in TMWTGG. It doesn't really make sense to compare them.
You are the one comparing Craig in SP and Moore in TMWTGG, so you are the one not making any sense by your own admission. I compared Moore in TMWTGG with Craig in QOS. SF and SP would not have happened in the first place because Craig would have been sacked after his 2nd outing.
Yes, but people were still very much on board with Craig's schtick with QoS, they just didn't like the hyper-editing and muddled script. SP is the first time people have been turned off by a Craig film because they have begun to tire of things being done this way. People want something new, and not a different story, but a different type of story.
Whether they were on board with Craig in QOS or not means nothing. If EON didn't have the final say, a studio like Sony would have sacked Craig shortly after that film. Such a lackluster performance after CR would have prompted an immediate recast and a 2nd reboot (as 2008-2009 was still in the peak of the reboot era). We can complain about stuff like the invisible car, the foster brother thing or whatever all we want, but the franchise would have been driven in the ground long ago if EON wasn't in charge.
I've not seen anything to suggest people are particularly tired of Craig as Bond. Only fans on here. I don't think the man on the street has given it too much thought. A new Craig film with positive hype would deliver. The few people who are tired may just have to wait a little while longer.
The Craig films were successful because the formula EON found with Casino appealed to moviegoers on mass. That same formula, the personal angles, the traitor in our midst, the going rogue element, has begun to wear on the public. Simply put, cinema has moved on, and people aren't as excited by that stuff as they were in 2006. This is what makes we doubt whether they can stop the diminishing returns experienced with SP, should they make a fifth Craig film.
Of course he can return, but they can just as easily make a splash with a revamp. It depends on what they want to do in terms of direction.
You seem unable to commentate on the point that Craig would have been sacked and the franchise rebooted again after QOS if any major studio had control over the franchise instead of EON. The very notion that Babs stuck to her guns about Craig post QOS is high evidence that she'll stick with him for Bond 25 if that is her decision. There is a thread from last year about every 2nd outing (apart from FRWL) being seen as a disappointment compared to the debut of each new Bond actor. Now try to understand that any major studio controlling the franchise would recast the Bond role every 2 films on average. The series would have been driven deep into the ground long before it reached the 1980's. So the fact that EON had managed to recast only 3 times in the last 16 films is proof that EON do not operate in the way you suggest. Which is bloody good news as your line of thinking would have caused the franchise to end a long, long time ago.