4014 replies to this topic

[S K Y F A L L]

Your probably right Dustin. They'll probably at the least do three films a decade like the last two decades. 

 

I guess I just figure Craig will return in 2019 and they'll take another four years for Bond 7's first film. Then hopefully the ball will start rolling. 

I wonder if it would be worth doing a POLL on Craig returning or not....

[Odd Jobbies]

Good idea, but the poll should distinguish between it being about whether we want him back, or think he'll come back. I'm for the former and 55/45 in favour of a return on the latter.

[Dustin]

Going to look into it tomorrow, am operating from my mobile right now. I think that should be no problem.

[Dustin]

The deed is done.

[sharpshooter]

I haven't the foggiest if Craig will come back, but I'd love him to. I'd be happy for him to do two more, but I don't think that's realistic. So I'd be grateful for just one more. If he's done, keep the family but don't mention SPECTRE.

[Odd Jobbies]

Great questions, Dustin!

 

Interesting to see, so far, that twice as many people want Craig back, though only for one more. 

 

Personally i'm happy to see Craig stay for as many as he and Eon feel is right for closure to his tenure, whether that be 1 or 2 more. But it's likely the former if at all.

 

If Craig fails to return, again twice as many are happy with the 'family', which must be a boost for Eon (if they were to notice). I think that Fiennes and Whishaw were incredibly smart castings. Bond's initial meeting with Q is one of the highlights of the Craig's tenure.

 

Whereas Fiennes and Whishaw elevate even the dullest, or cheesiest moment i'm more ambivalent about Harris. She's great in the action and when the script is edgier, but imo chews on the 'wittier' moments terribly, making them arch to the point of a Carry On movie. Just need the writer and director to help her out with them - less on the nose.

 

As for the 'Bond-begins' tapestry Eon have built over Craig's journey I'm happy to see Eon pay lip service to Vesper in future films, as well as Maddy if it's right for the story - though both should be distant memories and we suspend disbelief for the age discontinuity of Bond suddenly being a lot younger, yet still having this history. They've done a great job of rebooting/setting up and shouldn't do it again until around Bond 9 or 10.

 

But i certainly think that after such long legal wrangling they should keep SPECTRE. Re-cast Blofeld, but please don't through the baby out with the bathwater!

[SecretAgentFan]

Thanks for the poll, Dustin!

 

As for Harris, OddJobbies, I think the re-booting of Moneypenny was "two steps forward, one step back".  I liked how SKYFALL introduced her as a field agent caught between her superior´s orders and her personal assessment of the situation, resulting in a traumatic mistake.  I also liked her going out in the field again to meet Bond.  But... then she was pushed to the sidelines again, instead of dealing with her.  And in SPECTRE her character was totally underused, just a tag-along.

 

 

SKYFALL could have used her to become THE Bond girl of that story with her character arc ending with her decision to take a desk job.  And SPECTRE could have put her in the field again, against her wishes, but with Moneypenny being the only one Bond could trust she would have been much more interesting and capable than Q (whose journey to Austria, by the way, was hardly necessary anyway).

 

Of course, one could argue that Moneypenny should not be a bigger part and stick to what the character was in the first 20 films.  But for me, the Mendes films had a great idea and then took it back again.

 

It certainly is not Harris´ fault, IMO.

 

But for me, if Craig does not return, I would love and prefer a new team, this time consisting only of great unknown character actors, restricting them to expositional scenes, thereby losing the necessity to give each of them more and more scenes.

[Dustin]

You're all welcome, gentlemen.

My answers and why I gave them:

I was very happy with the way the Craig films turned out up to and including SKYFALL. Sure, each one has certain inconsistencies and problems, but as far as the main thrust of the exercise goes, to entertain, they all managed to do so fairly well in my case. With SPECTRE however I detect a certain lack of creative zest. From what we hear, both officially and backstage, it seems some players feel the same. A few months ago I would have said Craig will definitely not come back; right now it looks as if at least the search for his replacement was tuned down a notch. In other words: no idea whether he'll be back.

Would I want him back? From what I've seen in SPECTRE and from what I can guess goes on in a man roughly my age I would rather he'd move on. Experiece teaches that there is a time for everything - and once that time is over even sweet things can turn sour. Creatives come in all sizes and shapes, their common trait is an easily sparked enthusiasm for new projects. But they can get just as easily bored once a certain routine comes to the fore and the act of creating something new and exciting turns to just another job. We often forget that few actors chose their profession to just play a single role. Some can deal with it - can become even quite marvellous in their one role - others struggle and fight against it with tooth and nails. In that case it's better to do the sensible thing.

If, however, Craig will be back I'm confident it will only be for BOND 25. I think all sides are looking for a way out by now, it was already evident in SPECTRE; doing BOND 26 or further films with Craig would be asking for serious trouble. Neither do I think there are any big treasured ideas for 007 in Eon's drawer that just wait there to become smashing good Oscar-bait. If there was anything major left to tell they would be able to tie up loose ends in BOND 25 and be done with it.

I'm very much in two minds about the timeline thingy. In general I tend to be a fan of clean slate, also because I think it would be apt for Craig's tenure to be self-contained. On the other hand the home team has already earned their own fanbase, recasting them will be even more difficult since their characters now had some impact on the stories. They'd be easier to handle in their previous two-good-lines-for-each incarnations - only I don't see that happening so easily now. So I would opt to keep the team on board but leave out the references to former adventures.

With Spectre and Blofeld the problem is even more pronounced: henceforth Blofeld will always have personal ties with 007; and 007 will always have a personal angle with Spectre - regardless what happens or doesn't happen to Madeleine. How to use them with a new Bond? Even if you omit the SPECTRE storyline every new scene with Bond and Blofeld will either have to admit or deny it. Even Blofeld's very appearance would hint at that.

[SecretAgentFan]

Re: Blofeld.

 

I guess that´s why it would be essential to change the whole team with the next actor, really clean the slate and make the CraigBond a self-contained arc.

 

And then start fresh with new villains and maybe, down the line, a new Blofeld and Spectre without the personal ties.  They really complicate everything unnecessarily.

 

 

 

Re: Re-Casting

 

I wonder what the real reason behind all this is.  Was the Hiddleston/Turner/?-media attention just the typical Clive Owen-wishful thinking?  Or were things in motion and stopped for some reason again?  Did Hiddleston make it very far and sabotage everything by becoming so swifty?

 

Again and again I have to remind myself that SPECTRE has only been released less than a year ago and that it is nothing alarming at all that EON has not given any update on the next film.  If we don´t get news a year from now one might start to really wonder whether there is again the impasse that led to Brosnan´s end as Bond.

 

 

Also, might we just be too internet-spoilt and crazed to think that with SPECTRE being a subpar effort everything must be in disarray and creatively bankrupt?  Remember YOLT?  DAF?  TMWTGG?  MR?  AVTAK?  LTK?  TWINE?

 

It´s perfectly natural for a Bond film to disappoint or not reach the heights of its predecessor.  It´s also perfectly natural for the following film to remedy that.

 

I expect BOND 25 to be a return to form - with Craig or without him.

[Dustin]

It would seem the search for the next Bond is a program that's constantly running in the background, much like the time and date on a computer. For numerous reasons there has to be a tiny drawer in the entire Eon machinery that probably contains a short list of four or six names they want to keep in their sights. Not because they don't trust their product or their leading man - simply because it's professional to have an eye on options.

No matter how good a film performs - and even if SPECTRE had earned $ two billion AND four Oscars - sooner or later you have to make up your mind about the next model. Especially when you're going strong creatively and commercially.

I think once a certain vibe permeated the atmosphere on set Eon pricked its metaphorical ears and thought 'Uh-oh...' They certainly are on good enough terms with Craig to have an idea about his feelings and plans. And no matter what kind of break they agreed on after SPECTRE, you just know as a producer how chances for your next project with this actor stand when the best verbal commitment is something like 'Let's see...'

Since this kind of development isn't a secret to Eon it's probably also obvious enough to MGM and whoever they will want to trade deals with; in all likelihood three players who each will want to play their best hand in the next round of 007 Stud Poker. I think - regardless of the actual outcome and necessity - Eon simply covered their bases by reaching out and doing some orange-alert drills. It's not outrageously expensive to do so, talk to some people, hear how they think about it, test the market and see what kind of response you get. We always have to look at things from their perspective: if MGM joins forces with a proper studio and Eon has - worst case - lost their leading man without having a solid replacement handy they would be simply bulldozed into the landscape by the other side.

I'm fairly sure Eon had to take precautions for such a scenario, even when MGM up to now seems far away from a deal. That too might have been different.

About the creative low my concern is not so much the actual case of SPECTRE. The return of the old formula has been called for again and again, and many fans loved SPECTRE for just that. What I have trouble accepting is how simple it would have been to better this effort, yet nobody seemed to care enough to push for it. Except a couple of controller suits at Sony, perhaps the ones you'd least expect to judge this right.

But of course, we've seen similar before. It happens all the time and thankfully it's usually a stimulus to do better next time.

[Odd Jobbies]

My guess has always been that BB hasn't given up on Craig. I imagine that he really does want to see a script in some form before deciding (and i don't blame him after SPECTRE's messy final act).

I think the Hiddelston stuff is Eon creating some buzz in this extended break that serves to keep the brand in the public imagination and gives Craig a little warning shot off the starboard bow, in just the same way they used Brolin in the early 80s.

[Dustin]

It's not out of the question that Craig may return, no doubt there. But with each passing year it also becomes a little less likely simply for age reasons. Much will depend where the studio stands with regard to Craig. The script is really just starting point for negotiations if there are any. I don't think it will change anything if it turns out to be either stellar or abysmal. But the Brolin parallel is certainly valid here - only with the added angle that this time it seems to have been a couple of contenders, possibly even ones we didn't hear about yet.

We shall see.

[S K Y F A L L]

Thanks Dustin, I thought this was especially funny:

I don't much care either way, I hated every Bond film since FRWL/DAF/DAD and only watch them to compose cynic comments on the Internet to infuriate the younger and less jaded. 

 

I get like that after the newest BluRay comes out and I'm on the fifth viewing in a week. Offer exposure.

 

 

MY VOTE:

 

Do you think Daniel Craig will return for BOND 25?

  Yes!

 

But has to be by 2019!

 

Now that's out of the way, do you WANT Daniel Craig to return as Bond?

  You bet I do! 

 

​But has to be by 2019!

 

Suppose Daniel Craig will be back as 007, for how many films would you wish to see him back?

 BOND 25 

 

5, 7 or 8, six ain't a good number IMO. Stupid I know. Craig would NOT do 7 or 8 though, IMO.

 

Should Daniel Craig not return as James Bond, would you want the current timeline continued?

  Keep the 'family' but don't mention the Spectre war... 

 

I think Ben will be Q for as long as they can keep him.

 

If Craig returns they could give us an ending to Blofeld and start fresh with Bond 7, like Moore.

Perhaps a few films into Bond 7 's series they could revisit it like in FYEO.

Edited by S K Y F A L L, 14 August 2016 - 11:30 PM.

[tdalton]

Regardless of what happens with Craig, I would hope that EON would be casting the net a bit wider than what the tabloids have been reporting the past couple of months.  Thankfully, the Hiddleston and Turner "rumors" were largely the product of a bookie (and one that had the foresight to have Dougray Scott and Ewan McGregor as the odds-on favorites to land the part in 2005) rather than being anything from EON's camp.  Quite honestly, both of them would have been absolutely dreadful in the role.  We can do better than Taylor Swift's boyfriend and an actor so wooden he makes Cavill appear to have significant range.

 

As for Craig, I don't much care one way or the other if he's back.  Part of me wants to see him return, as he's been too good to have the worst Bond film of the lot serve as his finale.  On the other hand, I'm ready for change.  Either way, the next film must be better written than Spectre.

[Dustin]

Well, I don't know about it all being a betting hoax, but it sure was a convenient and welcome promo campaign for the bookies. I doubt that business had reason to complain recently...

[sharpshooter]

Good to see support for Craig in the poll. A story on the results would be a nice show of support. 'Bond fans want Craig back'. 

[SecretAgentFan]

My guess has always been that BB hasn't given up on Craig. I imagine that he really does want to see a script in some form before deciding (and i don't blame him after SPECTRE's messy final act).

 

I think it is unrealistic to separate Craig from the script for SPECTRE.  (Or from all the other scripts of his era.)

 

It is obvious that he had script approval and highly likely that he pushed for many of those angles that get criticized here (the personal connection to Blofeld and the finale which allows him to choose violence or a life with Madeleine).

 

As all major actors, especially in a franchise, Craig would never have agreed to play any scene he did not want to do.  Actors just say: I won´t do it unless certain things get changed.  And then everybody scrambles hectically to fulfill those wishes. That is the reality.

 

 

Also, one should not believe that the MGM/SONY execs pointed out the weaknesses in the script and wanted a different film.  

 

I have encountered studio execs who were very intelligent and could point at weaknesses.  However, it is their job to control the budget.  So, in my experience, studio execs like to play the game of "Please change this script - but we definitely want to keep all the production value and excitement" - which becomes impossible since the money for certain sequences will just not be given out.

 

Judging from the previous drafts of the script, the last act had a very elaborate action sequence in the old Mi6 building during a heavy rainstorm, with Bond freeing Madeleine who was abducted by Blofeld and Irma Bunt (giving him a better motive to follow them to London again).  The MGM/SONY execs pointed at the money that would be needed to film that - and, of course, that sequence was toned down enormously (and weakened tragically) in the final draft.

 

So, MGM/SONY - while complaining about the script - were also responsible for its outcome.

 

I wonder why they stepped on the brakes here.  Sure, SPECTRE already was very pricey - but it was a Bond film coming off the mega-success of SKYFALL.  To allow the finale to be big they would have made the film more attractive for audiences.

 

Then again, afterwards they will probably have said: see, even with a subpar finale Bond still makes a huge profit.  So, why bother?

[Odd Jobbies]

I agree, Execs are usually more of a handicap than an asset and actors will always want more character motivation written in. But i have sympathy with even the most meddling of actors' desire to see a script before signing up.

 

Wow, that final act, though - i still can't believe they messed it up so badly - it make's SPECTRE so uneven - even for a Bond movie! Like all of Craig's Bonds there's a wonderfully melancholic, introspective quality throughout - never more so than SPECTRE's dark brooding menace of something sinister lurking on the periphery. And like CR, QoS and SF there are perkier moments, beats of wit, but those previous 3 movies begin and end on sombre, darker notes.

 

There's 'darkness' aplenty in SPECTREs final act - derelict HQ and faux freudian set design suggesting we're inside Bond's psyche with the red explosives wire veining its way through every synaptic corridor. Special 'subconscious' cells fill the basement with bad memories of Vesper and the villains (Green's absence did make me laugh - Eon don't want to remind us about that one) and stood at the root of it all a childhood trauma personified literally by Blofeld - no longer just a symbol to project all of Bond's trauma upon, but the actual physical cause.

 

It's highly ambitious stuff that can be easily botched in the telling - very easily botched, apparently.

 

It was all inexplicably half-baked - this subconscious metaphor never really addressed as metaphor, becoming merely a Batman & Robin-esque setting for the Riddler's dastardly plan. I can imagine the writers jotting it down broadly and explaining the elaborate metaphore in more detail to the producers, actors et al who loved the idea, but then failed in their attempt to inject this detail and nuance in the script itself.

 

The MI6 HQ scene culminates with Bond having frantically searched the building fo Maddy, stands atop it, beaten, sneered at by Blofeld in his chopper...only to a hear squeak from a nearby room... Oh, there she is     Feels like it was written on a napkin in a bar.

 

It was like a CBeebie (UK children's tv) attempt at darker depths - a camp version of Spooks with the script desperately reaching in order to give the 'team' something to do. This was never a concern in previous Bond movies and seems to be a Mendes thing - after his Home Alone sequence in Skyfall Manor. Although this rot did set in with TND and DAD, when they tried to make Bond a buddy-movie with Yeoh and Berry, so maybe it's not [only] Mendes, but a combination of Producers wanting a more ensemble feel to it and Mendes desire to give the luvvies something meatier to do. But i don't really blame Mendes, it's a director's prerogative to recognise the talent's of Fiennes and Whishaw and want to film that. It's down to the producers to know what works for their brand and Spooks is not their brand.

 

Your description of the events behind the butchering of this final act tallies well the final results - it seems most of the blame rests upon the shoulder-pads of anxious Execs.

[Dustin]

I wonder why they stepped on the brakes here. Sure, SPECTRE already was very pricey - but it was a Bond film coming off the mega-success of SKYFALL.

I suspect more than anything else it was an internal Sony cabal. SPECTRE and 007 were Pascal's domain; and a spectacularly successful one, too. She must have had a tough time from day one and there is a chance things didn't become any easier with each new triumph. There must have been people who didn't expect her to succeed with CASINO ROYALE and who were only waiting to see her fall. You can even catch traces of it in some of the meaner comments on the net; a relatively strange thing to comment on a character who is primarily a studio exec and whose influence most common people have only a vague idea of.

If I should guess I'd say Pascal was likely already singled out to be disposed of. On the surface the leaks are often mentioned as the reason why she had to go - but I doubt this affair was the cause of it. Also she went with next to no noise - that we are aware of - which looks in hindsight like it was already a forgone conclusion that she and Sony part.

EDIT:
However, I can't see how a BOND 25 script would really influence Craig's decision to return either way. He's done some bad scripts before and one might argue most of the time he's given it his best regardless. It's not very likely he'd return because the script was so fantastic that he simply has to do it. Unless they offer him some truly way-out project...like a remake of SPECTRE, only this time the way it should have felt the first time, explaining the previous film away as drug-induced hallucinations of Bond captured by Quantum...

[SecretAgentFan]

Definitely.  A powerful woman with success - that does not sit well with the male execs who have to answer to her.  The hack was a welcome excuse to make her the scapegoat.

 

Very unfortunate development for Bond since Pascal and Broccoli got along extremely well, and Pascal championed BB to go with Craig.

[tdalton]

Definitely.  A powerful woman with success - that does not sit well with the male execs who have to answer to her.  The hack was a welcome excuse to make her the scapegoat.

 

Very unfortunate development for Bond since Pascal and Broccoli got along extremely well, and Pascal championed BB to go with Craig.

 

While I think the Bond fan community owes her a debt of gratitude for the way she helped Broccoli seal the deal on Craig, I can't really come around to the viewpoint that she was some innocent bystander in the whole Sony meltdown who was a victim of her male contemporaries who wanted her gone.  Was that element present to a certain degree?  I'm sure it was, as it always seems to be whenever a woman rises to such a level, but Pascal's track record at Sony wasn't so untouchable that her firing should come as a surprise.

 

Her Spiderman reboot wasn't anything to write home about, and the disaster that was Ghostbusters, which she played a part in wrangling the franchise away from Ivan Reitman only to run it into the ground, has me not really feeling much sympathy, especially since I hold that franchise up about as high as Bond, perhaps even higher considering it was a large part my childhood.

 

That said, I do very much appreciate what she did for Bond, but I can't imagine that she would be unique in that regard.  Now, after Broccoli has knocked it out of the park with her first recast of Bond, I would imagine that studio executives that they work for in the future would be, at the very least, open to whatever actor she wants to bring in after Craig hangs it up.

Edited by tdalton, 15 August 2016 - 11:40 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

As far as I know Pascal was very much respected and loved by producers because she is intelligent and interested in storytelling, in contrast to so many of her colleagues who are only interested in the bottom line.

 

Of course, not every project can be successful, creatively or financially, and Pascal, too, was involved in movies which promised to connect more.

 

If you look at "Spider-Man" a reboot really was the only way to go in order to keep that franchise since Maguire became too old and Raimi was burnt out on those stories, claiming himself that he did not want to move on with the fourth film.  Garfield was a great choice for the title role.  However, telling the origin story again was a mistake and added to the fatigue audiences experienced at that time.  You also have to take into account that the Marvel movies gained steam back then and "Spider-Man" became an also-run, especially after the disappointing third film.  Who is to blame for that?  Too many factors to discern.  

 

As for "Ghostbusters" - I still believe that all the blame has to be put at Bill Murray´s doorstep.  He was the one who delayed and delayed and actually did not want to reteam with his co-stars and his former director.  Only when reality set in, Pascal tried something else.  I also believe that re-casting "Ghostbusters" with an all-male team would have ended badly.  You just can´t repeat what the first movie did.  Not even the second movie with the same cast could capture that magic.

 

I hope you´re right, by the way, that any other studio executive will grant BB more freedom to bring in a new Bond actor.  History tells us, however, that this will again be an utmost struggle.

[Orion]

As far as I know Pascal was very much respected and loved by producers because she is intelligent and interested in storytelling, in contrast to so many of her colleagues who are only interested in the bottom line.

 

Of course, not every project can be successful, creatively or financially, and Pascal, too, was involved in movies which promised to connect more.

 

If you look at "Spider-Man" a reboot really was the only way to go in order to keep that franchise since Maguire became too old and Raimi was burnt out on those stories, claiming himself that he did not want to move on with the fourth film.  Garfield was a great choice for the title role.  However, telling the origin story again was a mistake and added to the fatigue audiences experienced at that time.  You also have to take into account that the Marvel movies gained steam back then and "Spider-Man" became an also-run, especially after the disappointing third film.  Who is to blame for that?  Too many factors to discern.  

 

As for "Ghostbusters" - I still believe that all the blame has to be put at Bill Murray´s doorstep.  He was the one who delayed and delayed and actually did not want to reteam with his co-stars and his former director.  Only when reality set in, Pascal tried something else.  I also believe that re-casting "Ghostbusters" with an all-male team would have ended badly.  You just can´t repeat what the first movie did.  Not even the second movie with the same cast could capture that magic.

 

I hope you´re right, by the way, that any other studio executive will grant BB more freedom to bring in a new Bond actor.  History tells us, however, that this will again be an utmost struggle.

I would agree that both failures where director driven, Ghostbusters is proudly from the man who gave us Heat and Bridesmaids making it always going to be a love or hate it kind of film for a property that needed to be mass appeal if it was going to launch in the way Sony wanted, whilst Spider-man 4 died when Raimi decided he wasn't interested, especially as Maguire and Dunst had made it clear they would only return if Raimi did and as both needed new contracts, so Sony couldn't make them do it regardlesss, they were left without the director or lead cast. At that point reboot is somewhat the only option, especially when Marvel put in a clause with every ip they optioned which says they have to make a film in said number of years or the rights return to them.

 

I think it depends on how much Pascal's replacement wants to put their mark on it, BB and Pascal were very much on the same page on what they wanted Bond in the 21st century to be, and its one I've certainly been happy with, but if her replacement, whether they be at Sony or some other studio that MGM makes a deal with, wants to take a different approach we could quickly end up with Bond movies made by studio accountant.

As a side note: isn't it odd how this topic always swerves into a conversation more suited to MGM boss says Bond films to come out on 3-4 year cycle. Just goes to show how the discussion of whether it's Craig or not, and what sort of actor they're looking for if not, is very tied in to whatever MGM does to get Bond 25 moving.

[Dustin]

Yes, we tend to get a bit sidetracked on this topic. Fact is, the MGM situation is the main angle here, without movement on that front not much else is going to happen. And it stands to reason BOND 25 would already be a step or two further down the road than it is right now - if there had just been a definite step towards a deal with a studio. Nobody knows when that is going to happen now - but once it does I should expect a lot of other things happening in relatively fast succession.

I think we mustn't underestimate Pascal's merits for the series in the build-up to CASINO ROYALE. It's not just the bold decision to go with Craig - and not with a half-dozen generic other actors - it was also the decision to not go further with Brosnan, then a spectacularly successful Bond. And, on top of everything else, breaking decades of continuity by outright stating this was Bond's start as 007. Not to talk about leaving Fleming's storyline relatively intact and adding scenes nobody would seriously have expected in a Bond film up to then. No, Pascal wasn't the creative force behind all these. She was the suit who risked her job and her career to push them through. While Sony had no reason to expect anything different than DAD and doubtlessly would have swallowed that easier than what became CASINO ROYALE.

Pascal then took a risk and I would argue we'd get to see much more entertaining and diverse films at the cinema if there were more Amy Pascals in the business today.

[S K Y F A L L]

I imagine EON has like 50 lawyers working a contract the size of an encyclopedia set. 

I don't think rebooting the series was a risk, everyone was doing it. Batman anyway.

[Dustin]

Batman has always been a reboot, there are so many different versions of him that one more didn't disturb the overall picture. I doubt fans saw the Clooney version as the same guy Michael Keaton depicted - who was perhaps looking the least like Batman/Bruce Wayne and yet is my favourite version.

With Bond there has really been only one - flexible - official version. And that was good for four decades. Fans were running amok - metaphorically - when they heard Brosnan was out. Seeing Craig then, in several ways the antithesis of the official Eon Bond, didn't calm a considerable number of fans. And to wrap their heads around the concept of this being an 'origin' tale after a fashion...no, I don't think it was a sure bet this would convince audiences of the idea. But it did.

Which brings us full circle to the question how they would best tackle the problem if they had to recast Bond. Reboots are old hat by now, I think that's why not many fans are eager to see a completely clean slate.

[tdalton]

As far as I know Pascal was very much respected and loved by producers because she is intelligent and interested in storytelling, in contrast to so many of her colleagues who are only interested in the bottom line.

 

Of course, not every project can be successful, creatively or financially, and Pascal, too, was involved in movies which promised to connect more.

 

If you look at "Spider-Man" a reboot really was the only way to go in order to keep that franchise since Maguire became too old and Raimi was burnt out on those stories, claiming himself that he did not want to move on with the fourth film.  Garfield was a great choice for the title role.  However, telling the origin story again was a mistake and added to the fatigue audiences experienced at that time.  You also have to take into account that the Marvel movies gained steam back then and "Spider-Man" became an also-run, especially after the disappointing third film.  Who is to blame for that?  Too many factors to discern.  

 

As for "Ghostbusters" - I still believe that all the blame has to be put at Bill Murray´s doorstep.  He was the one who delayed and delayed and actually did not want to reteam with his co-stars and his former director.  Only when reality set in, Pascal tried something else.  I also believe that re-casting "Ghostbusters" with an all-male team would have ended badly.  You just can´t repeat what the first movie did.  Not even the second movie with the same cast could capture that magic.

 

I hope you´re right, by the way, that any other studio executive will grant BB more freedom to bring in a new Bond actor.  History tells us, however, that this will again be an utmost struggle.

 

The initial blame for what ultimately became Paul Feig's Ghostbusters does rest with Bill Murray, as you said.  Had he just gotten on board with what Aykroyd, Ramis, and Reitman were trying to do in the early planning stages for Ghostbusters III, then all of this could be avoided.  Pascal, however, does deserve a good deal of blame, perhaps even most of it, for what came after that.  

 

There was an article out there that did a pretty good job of stitching together a timeline of events based on the Sony emails with regards to how everything went down.  There seemed to be a very conscious effort to freeze Reitman out of the process, an effort which ultimately succeeded.  In my view, Reitman was not treated the way he should have been, especially given that he has (or had) a good deal of control over the rights of the franchise.  

 

While there are obviously some sexist trolls out there who were always going to hate an all-female GB film, I do not in any way believe that the majority of the fans who have since turned on the film fit that description.  I can assure you that I certainly don't.  I would have welcomed an all-female cast.  I even like half of the team they put together for Feig's film.  The gender issue was never a real issue for me (although, truth be told, I think a mixed team would have been better), but rather everything else that they were doing with it.  

[Dustin]

I think the gender issue goes only so far with Ghostbusters. The film's problem was the s***storm - but only up until people actually got to watch it. From what I hear it's just not funny and/or engaging enough - the death of any film.

[Odd Jobbies]

'Busters was a cynical branding exercise, plain and simple. Expecting success by virtue of sticking things together because they are deemed 'popular'. Tbh it's a joy to see such lazy, desperately greedy 'movie-event' fabrication come so unstuck.

 

And just 'cos Murray wasn't interested doesn't make it his fault. Whoever hired Feig to 'sassy it up' with the latest brand of patronising 'girl power' to dominate the snake oil market for the hard of thinking needs to take full responsibility.

[SecretAgentFan]

Without Murray there could not be another "Ghostbusters"-movie, he was the center of that trio.  Taking him out of that equasion would have been a disaster.

 

And instead of saying it clearly: NO WAY, he led his former co-stars and writer and director wait and wait, even making fun of the situation on the Letterman show, saying that he had not read the script yet although it was lying on his desk.

 

Bad form, Mr. Murray.  

 

And I sincerely hope that this kind of situation is not what is delaying BOND 25 right now, to get back to this thread´s title...