1017 replies to this topic

[Thevan7F]

Well it has been 3 years instead 2 years. Since After Quantum of Solace, Skyfall released 4 years later for the 50th Anniversary then 4 years again SPECTRE. It could likely 2018 if Daniel Craig returns as I hope for 5th time as 007 or 2019 with new Bond. Like it was after Brosnan departure in 2002 4 years later came Daniel Craig as 007 with reboot episode first Bond novel Casino Royale. That Timothy Dalton era is relevant because he was to do third Bond outing but delayed it was Goldeneye it different title. Timothy Dalton got fed up moved on.

[SecretAgentFan]

Just because I have too much time on my hands currently...  

 

SPECTRE was released in 2015.  SKYFALL in 2012.  Three years apart.  And Dalton did not leave because he got fed up waiting and GOLDENEYE was not what had been planned as his third outing. 

[S K Y F A L L]

Just because I have too much time on my hands currently...  

 

......

If you still have time I'd like to read what you think about the current distribution deal an educated guess where Bond will go if you will, for the layman.

 

 

I'd love a rumor about now...

[Quantumofsolace007]

MGM have announced they are going to distrubte bond 25 by themselves.

[Tiin007]

MGM have announced they are going to distrubte bond 25 by themselves.

 

Source, please? 

[SecretAgentFan]

Yes, please - because no official announcement has been made so far.

[Quantumofsolace007]

A user on a fellow 007 site posted this link

http://www.hollywood...-thr-100-904713

However it says nothing about MGM being sole distributer so uhm I dunno never mind sorry I thought we had actual bond news for a moment I am gonna get back to real life

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, MGM is still deciding...

[Dustin]

Since their own cash flow is hardly sufficient to pull distribution even for a smaller production I doubt they can get BOND 25 distributed on their own. They would need a financier and would have to re-hire the necessary personnel for it. The 'charm' of cutting off their own distribution was in kicking their entire staff for it. So effectively they would need some bank or hedge fund to provide the necessary cash. I would like to see the contract for that stunt. But I think it's their circus - their monkeys...

[SecretAgentFan]

Exactly.  And I still hope they won´t try this again - because if distribution does not work the best film will underperform.

[S K Y F A L L]

I'm finding this whole situation frustrating, hope they can make an official statement soon!

[Dustin]

Phew - I wouldn't hold my breath; I suppose events caught most people unprepared. I don't think many big business deals will be signed this week. I don't see things moving forward with MGM as long as their main production is UK-based and nobody as yet can tell what this means in business terms. Once that is solved - at least with a kind of schedule and a possible outlook on a goal for talks - things could probably move along. But before...no, don't think so.

[RMc2]

Phew - I wouldn't hold my breath; I suppose events caught most people unprepared. I don't think many big business deals will be signed this week. I don't see things moving forward with MGM as long as their main production is UK-based and nobody as yet can tell what this means in business terms. Once that is solved - at least with a kind of schedule and a possible outlook on a goal for talks - things could probably move along. But before...no, don't think so.

 

They could always rush into production and film all London/Pinewood scenes before the end of 2018

[S K Y F A L L]

 

What is the Longest period without Bond?

 

Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnsn and Craig all seemed to be picked about a year after the previous 007 retired. 

There was the 6 year hiatus but if I believe Dalton was still Bond, untill he stood down in 94*.

Brosnan's last film was 2002 but they kept him around till 2004 for a video game I think it was.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is are we now going to be in the longest period without a clue to who is playing our beloved 007?

Will they keep Craig for two more years not to even use him? While they figure this out?

 

Would they hold out on telling us Craig is done untill they have an idea of what they are going to do?

[Dustin]

No idea whatsoever. Since nobody was in this situation before I don't see them rushing ahead. The most likely option is that they will play it by ear. They being in this case everybody. Your guess is just as good as mine.

[S K Y F A L L]

Thx for the insight again, Dustin

[sharpshooter]

I'm finding this whole situation frustrating, hope they can make an official statement soon!

I've given up on expecting an announcement in the coming days or weeks. 

[DaveBond21]

 

 

What is the Longest period without Bond?

 

Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnsn and Craig all seemed to be picked about a year after the previous 007 retired. 

There was the 6 year hiatus but if I believe Dalton was still Bond, untill he stood down in 94*.

Brosnan's last film was 2002 but they kept him around till 2004 for a video game I think it was.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is are we now going to be in the longest period without a clue to who is playing our beloved 007?

Will they keep Craig for two more years not to even use him? While they figure this out?

 

Would they hold out on telling us Craig is done untill they have an idea of what they are going to do?

 

 

They won't announce a new actor in the role until they are 100% certain what they are doing next. If things change suddenly, distribution-wise, then they can restart their interviewing process. If things drag on and on, there is always the chance that Daniel Craig will come back, so there is no point casting a new actor just yet.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

[SecretAgentFan]

I fear that the Brexit has put an announcement even further into the future since the whole financing has become a question mark.  Not whether a Bond film can be financed, of course, but when.

 

Since history is too often ignored let´s learn from it - at least if Bond film history is concerned.

 

Choosing DAF after OHMSS was also due to using better ways to finance the film in the US.  As was getting MOONRAKER to France.  Right now, it won´t make sense to base a film in GB again, unless the negotiations surrounding the Brexit will offer up rebates that keep productions there.

 

But if you look at the recent trend of big budget productions to cooperate with China I would not be surprised to see BOND 25 take place there.  Of course, let´s not kid ourselves - this would impact on the way the story is told big time.

 

As for casting, again - let´s look at Bond film history.  After YOLT tons of actors were tested.  Favourites were chosen and peddled to the press.  Then Lazenby walked in.

 

After OHMSS, it was the same situation.  And John Gavin even got a contract.  A contract!  Until the studio head prevailed and wanted Connery back.

 

After DAF, same procedure as always.  Many favourites, many with press coverage.  Roger Moore then, often considered before, entered the picture again - and UA at first hated the idea because he made money-loser "Crossplot" for them.  This time EON prevailed.

 

I could go on and on - and I´m sure nobody wants me to.  But let´s just sum it up this way: despite all the media attention around Hiddleston, the enthusiasm for him and the "confirmed" rumours (yes, I fell for all of them, shame on me) - it seems more likely that a candidate will be chosen who already was considered before or somebody else completely will be announced.

 

After all the hoopla around Hiddleston I´m pretty sure now that he was considered, made a screen test but was not chosen.  He milked it, maybe even hoping that he would be considered after all.  But now, with the timing of the whole production under a question mark, he is out again.

 

I bet that not even BB knows who will be Bond again.  And maybe Craig will return after all, like Connery did - because MGM will want to bet on the surer thing.

[Orion]

The hoopla around Hiddleston was probably encouraged by the marketing team of high rise (which he was promoting at the time) so as to bring in an audience that a dystopian, high concept, film wouldn't normally attract. I imagine he may have been contacted, but I doubt they would've gone as far as screen tests whilst their financial future is still in question.

[S K Y F A L L]

wrong thread sorry!

Edited by S K Y F A L L, 28 June 2016 - 01:17 PM.

[S K Y F A L L]

I fear that the Brexit has put an announcement even further into the future since the whole financing has become a question mark.  Not whether a Bond film can be financed, of course, but when.

 

Since history is too often ignored let´s learn from it - at least if Bond film history is concerned.

 

Choosing DAF after OHMSS was also due to using better ways to finance the film in the US.  As was getting MOONRAKER to France.  Right now, it won´t make sense to base a film in GB again, unless the negotiations surrounding the Brexit will offer up rebates that keep productions there.

 

But if you look at the recent trend of big budget productions to cooperate with China I would not be surprised to see BOND 25 take place there.  Of course, let´s not kid ourselves - this would impact on the way the story is told big time.

 

As for casting, again - let´s look at Bond film history.  After YOLT tons of actors were tested.  Favourites were chosen and peddled to the press.  Then Lazenby walked in.

 

After OHMSS, it was the same situation.  And John Gavin even got a contract.  A contract!  Until the studio head prevailed and wanted Connery back.

 

After DAF, same procedure as always.  Many favourites, many with press coverage.  Roger Moore then, often considered before, entered the picture again - and UA at first hated the idea because he made money-loser "Crossplot" for them.  This time EON prevailed.

 

I could go on and on - and I´m sure nobody wants me to.  But let´s just sum it up this way: despite all the media attention around Hiddleston, the enthusiasm for him and the "confirmed" rumours (yes, I fell for all of them, shame on me) - it seems more likely that a candidate will be chosen who already was considered before or somebody else completely will be announced.

 

After all the hoopla around Hiddleston I´m pretty sure now that he was considered, made a screen test but was not chosen.  He milked it, maybe even hoping that he would be considered after all.  But now, with the timing of the whole production under a question mark, he is out again.

 

I bet that not even BB knows who will be Bond again.  And maybe Craig will return after all, like Connery did - because MGM will want to bet on the surer thing.

I didn't even consider Brexit effecting the films, that is a scary though. 

 

I wouldn't mind one more Craig film if it does not take five years.

 

You are probably right even BB does not know what will happen just yet.

[Professor Pi]

Brexit?!  Did the people who voted for that know it might delay a Bond film?!  Vote again!! 

[Tiin007]

Am I correct that Sony's distribution deal was for four films (CR-SP)? Or was it initially for a smaller number and then got renewed?

 

I am asking because I'm curious how many films might be included under the new distribution deal (regardless of who the distributor is). The last thing I want is MGM struggling to find a distributor again in just a few years time. 

[Shrublands]

Am I correct that Sony's distribution deal was for four films (CR-SP)? Or was it initially for a smaller number and then got renewed?

 

I am asking because I'm curious how many films might be included under the new distribution deal (regardless of who the distributor is). The last thing I want is MGM struggling to find a distributor again in just a few years time. 

 

It was for 2 (CR and QoS) then was expanded to 4, once SF was already in preproduction. 

By the way, I don't believe that MGM are struggling to find a distributor. Almost every studio in Hollywood would love to be involved with Bond. 

It's a matter of getting the right deal with one of the various suitors and biding their time. There will be a distributor in place when there needs to be. 

[Tiin007]

 

Am I correct that Sony's distribution deal was for four films (CR-SP)? Or was it initially for a smaller number and then got renewed?

 

I am asking because I'm curious how many films might be included under the new distribution deal (regardless of who the distributor is). The last thing I want is MGM struggling to find a distributor again in just a few years time. 

 

It was for 2 (CR and QoS) then was expanded to 4, once SF was already in preproduction. 

By the way, I don't believe that MGM are struggling to find a distributor. Almost every studio in Hollywood would love to be involved with Bond. 

It's a matter of getting the right deal with one of the various suitors and biding their time. There will be a distributor in place when there needs to be. 

 

 

Thanks, Shrublands.

 

In that case, let me rephrase: The last thing I want is MGM "biding their time" as they negotiate a new distributor again in just a few years time. 

[Shrublands]

 

 

Am I correct that Sony's distribution deal was for four films (CR-SP)? Or was it initially for a smaller number and then got renewed?

 

I am asking because I'm curious how many films might be included under the new distribution deal (regardless of who the distributor is). The last thing I want is MGM struggling to find a distributor again in just a few years time. 

 

It was for 2 (CR and QoS) then was expanded to 4, once SF was already in preproduction. 

By the way, I don't believe that MGM are struggling to find a distributor. Almost every studio in Hollywood would love to be involved with Bond. 

It's a matter of getting the right deal with one of the various suitors and biding their time. There will be a distributor in place when there needs to be. 

 

 

Thanks, Shrublands.

 

In that case, let me rephrase: The last thing I want is MGM "biding their time" as they negotiate a new distributor again in just a few years time. 

 

 

I know what you mean, but I really don't think that's what is slowing things down. 

I think that as Bond 25 will take a bit longer, they can use the extra time to get the best deal. If there was a chance that the film could be ready for release next year, there would already be a distributor in place.

[Tiin007]

 

 

 

Am I correct that Sony's distribution deal was for four films (CR-SP)? Or was it initially for a smaller number and then got renewed?

 

I am asking because I'm curious how many films might be included under the new distribution deal (regardless of who the distributor is). The last thing I want is MGM struggling to find a distributor again in just a few years time. 

 

It was for 2 (CR and QoS) then was expanded to 4, once SF was already in preproduction. 

By the way, I don't believe that MGM are struggling to find a distributor. Almost every studio in Hollywood would love to be involved with Bond. 

It's a matter of getting the right deal with one of the various suitors and biding their time. There will be a distributor in place when there needs to be. 

 

 

Thanks, Shrublands.

 

In that case, let me rephrase: The last thing I want is MGM "biding their time" as they negotiate a new distributor again in just a few years time. 

 

 

I know what you mean, but I really don't think that's what is slowing things down. 

I think that as Bond 25 will take a bit longer, they can use the extra time to get the best deal. If there was a chance that the film could be ready for release next year, there would already be a distributor in place.

 

 

So you think the delay is more due to getting a good script in place / casting the right Bond / maybe waiting for Craig? 

[Shrublands]

So you think the delay is more due to getting a good script in place / casting the right Bond / maybe waiting for Craig?

Yes, all that and Eon wanting to do other projects.

[DavidJones]

Because of all these long gaps between films, Bond is now a 'heritage' property and no longer current. If Bond was starting out now, there is no way they would be waiting so long between films. They are relying wholly on its legend. Instead of keeping new fans with new films, they wait ages to make another and let all momentum slip away.

 

Marvel, meanwhile, has released thirteen films in the last eight years, which means they are far more embedded in the public's mind than Bond. Obviously, Marvel is a bigger outfit, but even so, Eon should be releasing a film every two years to keep the brand alive.There is no way, in my view, that Bond will continue to be a big deal if this pattern continues. At this rate, it will be over by 2035. In other words, in three films' time.