4014 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

Perhaps one more thing to consider: for Craig - who technically is still the current model 007 - it's now the second time he's on board a ship that has troubles inside the engine room. While half a year ago officially people in-the-know were very optimistic about a quick solution for MGM it's quite possible that those behind the scenes already could pick up the vibes of a more shaky situation. And it doesn't need rocket science to guess what will ensue once MGM finally does come to terms: quicker - faster - hit the ground running and whatever terms else exist in the business for the turning of a quick buck. One thing seems clear, for Craig BOND 25 wouldn't be a walk in the park...

[SecretAgentFan]

True.  All the more reason for him to say: I´ve done my share.  Thanks for everything and goodbye.

 

Then again, maybe he has already said it.  But MGM and EON don´t want to disclose that now because it would impact the deal with a new distributor.

[Orion]

I think this is a key point all "journalists" and book makers are overlooking - we arn' t going anywhere until this financial issue with MGM is sorted. So whilst everyone involved might be keen to make Hiddleston (or any actor) Bond 7 if Craig is unwilling to continue, his availability and interest in the role could change if this situation isn't remedied quickly. Until it is, it's (to use Hiddleston's description) just a typical pub conversation, making any of these "scoops from insiders" best not taken too seriously.

 

Though in the vein of a pub conversation that won't go anywhere, I adore Hiddleston, Turner and Bell as actors. All three are the sort of actors who can't give a bad performance, even if what they're in is rubbish (hello Fantastic Four) so could really bring something to Bond. Hiddleston would be my preference, simply because he's more like the sort of thing I see in my head when I read read Fleming's novels.

[SecretAgentFan]

The frustrating thing - for us and I guess for every contender - is this tactical delaying of a decision concerning the distribution deal.

 

I blame MGM, of course, since they have been and continue to be pretty bad at greenlighting good and successful films.  So they cling to Bond, of course, and will ask for ridiculous sums of money which no studio in this climate will want to jump at.

 

The sensible thing would have been for MGM to start renegotiating with SONY after SKYFALL, offering them a new deal - and if they had declined MGM should have gone for another studio immediately, in order to secure distribution seamlessly.  Then they could have gotten a new Bond film much sooner - and new revenues which they desperately need.

[Dustin]

Whatever funds keep finding their way into MGM's pockets - it's all wasted and will get burned in a matter of months simply because most of the creative talent in the business gives MGM a wide berth. MGM lives off its own substance and that substance by now is only Bond. Barber may fantasise about a parallel universe where MGM actually does have a bright future by going public, it's all going to end up in penny stocks if there isn't creative potential and manpower on board for the ride. What MGM needs are simply the women and men who do the actual work, the producers, writers, editors who get productions - new, original productions! - off the ground.

[univex]

It could be the old denial-game.  Or simply his disappointment that it did not go as well or as fast as he thought it would.

 

In the end, it probably depends on the distributor-situation that has to be decided on first.  And that might take frustratingly longer than expected. Which might in turn render all these casting ideas irrelevant since actors need to book the next assignment and cannot hold off everything for so long.  Especially not guys like Hiddleston who is considered absolutely hot right now and would be wise to take on as many roles as possible.  

 

The irony here is: Hiddleston might want Bond.  But he does not need the role.  At all.   And the actor who holds on to the role does not really want it.

 

Well, the guy has a penchant for honour and it would be hard for him to outright lie and then come back and say he did. He clearly loves what he does, media relations included, and wouldn´t like to be caught as a liar. Thing is, you´re absolutely right, he´d love the part, has said so many times, and would fit the role perfectly. The guy is quintessential english, to the core as he says. And brings a legion of fans to the series. He has worked with Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg, del Toro, ... Has been the main lead in theatre plays with the weight of, say, Coriolanus (by the way, so has the current M ). Bottom line, not getting Hiddleston for the role would be a wasted opportunity for Eon and everyone involved. IMO, of course, but so many of us think so, it reminds me of Clive Owen back in the Croupier days. Although I think Hiddleston is the superior choice. 

What MGM needs are simply the women and men who do the actual work, the producers, writers, editors who get productions - new, original productions! - off the ground.

 

Damn right!

[Orion]

 

It could be the old denial-game.  Or simply his disappointment that it did not go as well or as fast as he thought it would.

 

In the end, it probably depends on the distributor-situation that has to be decided on first.  And that might take frustratingly longer than expected. Which might in turn render all these casting ideas irrelevant since actors need to book the next assignment and cannot hold off everything for so long.  Especially not guys like Hiddleston who is considered absolutely hot right now and would be wise to take on as many roles as possible.  

 

The irony here is: Hiddleston might want Bond.  But he does not need the role.  At all.   And the actor who holds on to the role does not really want it.

 

Well, the guy has a penchant for honour and it would be hard for him to outright lie and then come back and say he did. He clearly loves what he does, media relations included, and wouldn´t like to be caught as a liar. Thing is, you´re absolutely right, he´d love the part, has said so many times, and would fit the role perfectly. The guy is quintessential english, to the core as he says. And brings a legion of fans to the series. He has worked with Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg, del Toro, ... Has been the main lead in theatre plays with the weight of, say, Coriolanus (by the way, so has the current M ). Bottom line, not getting Hiddleston for the role would be a wasted opportunity for Eon and everyone involved. IMO, of course, but so many of us think so, it reminds me of Clive Owen back in the Croupier days. Although I think Hiddleston is the superior choice. 

What MGM needs are simply the women and men who do the actual work, the producers, writers, editors who get productions - new, original productions! - off the ground.

 

Damn right!

 

The only issue, as SAF touched in earlier, is that MGM's current woes could shunt out Hiddleston as he's currently very in demand and can't be turning down work in the event Bond 25 might happen soon. I'm sure there's been much swearing from EON about MGM  putting them into this situation. Again.

[Shrublands]

Aidan Turner is very much in the running, i'd say. Recently there was a panel meeting at the Hay Festival to talk about the on gong production of Poldark.

The really interesting thing comes out right at the end. 

 

The panel were also asked about rumours Aidan Turner could be the next James Bond, insisting filming would continue as planned.

 

Yentob added he had enjoyed a recent lunch with Barbara Broccoli, the Bond producer responsible for casting, claiming she had not yet made up her mind.

 

 

http://www.telegraph...to-a-speech-co/

 

So Barbara Broccoli had a lunch meeting with Alan Yentob and Aidan Turner's continued availability was discussed.

[Orion]

Would at least confirm Turner has been approached about it.

[SecretAgentFan]

Interesting.  He would certainly fit the traditional idea of how Bond is supposed to look.  And he definitely has the talent for humour going for him.

 

I would be fine with him or Hiddleston.

[Shrublands]

I think it's good to have some small bit of evidence that at least one of the names being disused is not just a press invention.

I'd be very happy with Aidan Turner, especially after seeing the BBC's 'And Then There Were None' at Christmas.

[thecasinoroyale]

I have to laugh at how big this snowball is going....nothing has even been CONFIRMED about Craig's involvement or his future as Bond. The media control so much more than we know subconsciously.

[Dustin]

Well, as always there are two sides to the matter. The media is under pressure to have its feelers right at the pulse of things. Regardless if there is any factual material to report. So the stories fall into two categories, the ones made up from scratch, often in the company of a list of contenders. And the ones based on informed speculation, usually derived from some angle of the MGM situation. There does not have to be a confirmation for things to move, at times actions speak louder than announcements. It's certainly not just the silly season that fans the fire of speculation during the last few weeks...

[Guy Haines]

I'm not sure whether this is about genuinely seeking a new actor for Bond or seeking an insurance policy in case DC isn't available or can't be lured back.

[SecretAgentFan]

Both, I´m sure.  

 

EON cannot sit on their hands, waiting for things to clear up.  They have to look at contenders so they can move fast when it becomes necessary.

 

Asking for schedules of certain actors is a sign, in my mind, that there are plans being made for BOND 25.  Obviously, they need to ramp up pre-production next year if they want to have BOND 25 in 2018.

[Orion]

I'm not sure whether this is about genuinely seeking a new actor for Bond or seeking an insurance policy in case DC isn't available or can't be lured back.

Both. Given the MGM situation I'm sure EON want to have some sort of back up waiting should, when the time comes as to actually have a film to offer a role in, they can get moving quickly without having to start a lengthy search should Craig not want to move forward. 

Both, I´m sure.  

 

EON cannot sit on their hands, waiting for things to clear up.  They have to look at contenders so they can move fast when it becomes necessary.

 

Asking for schedules of certain actors is a sign, in my mind, that there are plans being made for BOND 25.  Obviously, they need to ramp up pre-production next year if they want to have BOND 25 in 2018.

I think it was Poldark's crew checking scheduling, being a BBC series they film EVERYTHING long before the BBC air it so will be starting prep on s3 soon so they would need to know now if they have their lead actor or not, and if yes, for how long.

[thecasinoroyale]

And now with Hiddleston cracking on soon with 'Thor: Ragnarok', it must be obvious he's out of the running, despite being the fan fave?

 

I wonder if 'The Night Manager' hadn't come out, we'd be here now with so much media and fan speculation that started with Hiddleston's performance.

[Harmsway]

And now with Hiddleston cracking on soon with 'Thor: Ragnarok', it must be obvious he's out of the running, despite being the fan fave?

Nah. That shoot will be over before any conflicts would arise, and he's not likely to have substantial involvement in future Marvel pictures.

[SecretAgentFan]

Agreed.  But there seems at least to have been one problem with Hiddleston - otherwise EON would not have continued to look for others, right?  Or they just want to keep their options open to keep Hiddleston´s agent in check.

[Dustin]

I wonder if 'The Night Manager' hadn't come out, we'd be here now with so much media and fan speculation that started with Hiddleston's performance.

The Elba stories have been going strong and reappearing regularly for some time. Looking back I think some journos caught a whiff of 'changing the guard' in the air for some time now, even during the SPECTRE shooting. For a variety of reasons - the troubled production of SPECTRE, Craig's injury, age, comments, his insistence on a break - we could witness the media searching for alternatives since SPECTRE premiered.

Without Night Manager Hiddleston might not have been one of the top names - but the speculation mill would have started turning at least after MGM failed to find what they were looking for. And once Craig accepted various jobs and apparently is quite willing to look at further ones the hunt would have been on anyway, even if he had a contract over ten further films. Because nobody really sees him bending over backwards for a task that would certainly not be that much easier than his SPECTRE shoot. And the longer it takes for him to return the more obvious would it be that they have to recast the role anyway for BOND 26. In the end it's more likely all involved parties pull the plug sooner than later. Exactly this kind of reasoning is what keeps the press going. If it wasn't for Hiddleston it would have been Turner who made the bookies hesitate...

Agreed. But there seems at least to have been one problem with Hiddleston - otherwise EON would not have continued to look for others, right? Or they just want to keep their options open to keep Hiddleston´s agent in check.

I suppose they will want to have a set of candidates ready once they start dealing with the studio. And I'm sure there will be a favourite amongst them, there is just no telling who that will be before they present him.

[Orion]

We also have to consider the incoming studio (whoever that ends up being) I seem to recall Amy Pascal (representing Sony) being one of the people involved in casting Bond for Casino Royale. It's hard to imagine the studio not wanting at least some say in who the lead (new or not) is.

[SecretAgentFan]

BB and Amy Pascal did work very well together, I remember.  With Pascal gone (and BB´s Daniel Craig gamble succeeding), it is very likely that BB will insist on casting the deciding vote.

[Dustin]

Well, a studio would be very unprofessional if they didn't invest themselves into the matter. That said, it would seem they don't have any direct influence, they only can threaten not to finance the next production - which in turn would hurt themselves the most. A lot will depend on what kind of working climate they will be able to establish. The Pascal connection was such a success because both Broccoli and Pascal apparently agreed on many decisions.

[Surrie]

Aidan Turner is very much in the running, i'd say. Recently there was a panel meeting at the Hay Festival to talk about the on gong production of Poldark.

The really interesting thing comes out right at the end. 

 

The panel were also asked about rumours Aidan Turner could be the next James Bond, insisting filming would continue as planned.

 

Yentob added he had enjoyed a recent lunch with Barbara Broccoli, the Bond producer responsible for casting, claiming she had not yet made up her mind.

 

 

http://www.telegraph...to-a-speech-co/

 

So Barbara Broccoli had a lunch meeting with Alan Yentob and Aidan Turner's continued availability was discussed.

 

I would prefer Turner to Hiddleston if it's between the two. 

 

Well, a studio would be very unprofessional if they didn't invest themselves into the matter. That said, it would seem they don't have any direct influence, they only can threaten not to finance the next production - which in turn would hurt themselves the most. A lot will depend on what kind of working climate they will be able to establish. The Pascal connection was such a success because both Broccoli and Pascal apparently agreed on many decisions.

 

BB might not be so lucky with a new distributor. If that's the case, it will probably be a long while before we hear of BOND 7 - if they can't agree.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, a studio would be very unprofessional if they didn't invest themselves into the matter. That said, it would seem they don't have any direct influence, they only can threaten not to finance the next production - which in turn would hurt themselves the most. A lot will depend on what kind of working climate they will be able to establish. The Pascal connection was such a success because both Broccoli and Pascal apparently agreed on many decisions.

 

I remember the infamous BB quote towards MGM´s John Calley - I guess she can be very vocal if she dislikes someone.  And she will just demand to choose the next one, I believe.

 

Luckily, she is in a position to do that.  Until her next choice bombs, of course.

[Surrie]

 

Well, a studio would be very unprofessional if they didn't invest themselves into the matter. That said, it would seem they don't have any direct influence, they only can threaten not to finance the next production - which in turn would hurt themselves the most. A lot will depend on what kind of working climate they will be able to establish. The Pascal connection was such a success because both Broccoli and Pascal apparently agreed on many decisions.

 

I remember the infamous BB quote towards MGM´s John Calley - I guess she can be very vocal if she dislikes someone.  And she will just demand to choose the next one, I believe.

 

Luckily, she is in a position to do that.  Until her next choice bombs, of course.

 

 

This is true. However, if the next actor doesn't have the 'love' Craig has experienced I don't know whether that could be attributed to BB. She lucked out with Craig and people loved him. The next guy may be an excellent choice, but if the critics don't think so unfortunately the majority can't make up their own minds. 

[Dustin]

In the end it's the box office that will decide the fate of the next actor. The tabloid part of the media was pretty much set on mincing Craig from day one; if it had been their choice - and that of some fans - Craig would have been flayed on CR's premiere evening. They only changed their tune once the audience loved CR and the tabloids would have looked not just nasty - as they do each day - but also stupid on top of it. For Craig's successor it will be much the same, he will have to win over the audience.

[SecretAgentFan]

Consulting my own crystal ball I predict that the next Bond actor will at first be hit with statements like "he sure ain´t Craig", "doesn´t have Craig´s brute force" and "Showing off an impressive six-pack does not make him Daniel Craig".

 

But Craig´s different looks and CraigBond turning the franchise into a much more serious, somber kind of entertainment already have turned off a large part of the press.

 

So, a lighter tone, and a more conventionally good looking actor will get praise, I guarantee that.  

 

Of course, it will help if the film actually is good...

[MajorB]

I haven't been able to keep track of every twist and turn in this snowball (yes, that's a mixed, not stirred, metaphor), but my impression is that all this is based around Craig's "slit my wrist" type comments at the time SPECTRE wrapped, and that everything else is rumor, speculation, and third-hand "facts." Is that right? Or is there more substance than I'm aware of?

[Dustin]

It sure made many writing colleagues give the whole affair a very close look, that much is obvious. Factual substance would be the suspension of bets on Hiddleston; this did happen. As to why actually is anybody's guess, there are a number of possibilities for it. Also MGM's situation and their own admission a solution wasn't close is anything but a rumour. Since they are the weakest link in the whole chain everybody with a passing interest in the matter can guess that their next Bond venture will be crucial for MGM either way - whenever it may happen to take off. And the longer it takes the more pressure on the leading man. Make of this what you will though...