4014 replies to this topic

[Yellow Pinky]

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?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but there at least appears to be some legitimate substance to the Hiddleston and Turner rumors beyond pure media invention.  There appears to be some basis in reality for some meetings between BB/EON and both actors, or at least people directly associated with them.

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.

I would also be very happy with Turner. At least on the surface, I like the idea of him more than Hiddleston, though I believe I could warm to Hiddleston.  My biggest issue with him is that skinny neck of his - makes him look scrawny to me personally.

[Orion]

 

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?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but there at least appears to be some legitimate substance to the Hiddleston and Turner rumors beyond pure media invention.  There appears to be some basis in reality for some meetings between BB/EON and both actors, or at least people directly associated with them.

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.

I would also be very happy with Turner. At least on the surface, I like the idea of him more than Hiddleston, though I believe I could warm to Hiddleston.  My biggest issue with him is that skinny neck of his - makes him look scrawny to me personally.

 

Nope. All spawned from the one (far too often used) quote then the tabloids feeding of each other in the disgusting manner they revel in. The closest thing to anything beyond speculation was the Poldark production team checking if it was true. BB apparently hadn't made any decisions.

[SecretAgentFan]

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...

 

Maybe I´m wrong but I believe EON and the Bond series would survive if the next one tanks.  Would MGM?  I´m still entertaining the thought of MGM having to sell off Bond to another (better) studio...

[sharpshooter]

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.

I'd be happy with him too, if that's who nabs the part. Tom is still my number one hope though.

[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...

Maybe I´m wrong but I believe EON and the Bond series would survive if the next one tanks. Would MGM? I´m still entertaining the thought of MGM having to sell off Bond to another (better) studio...

I doubt MGM could in the current situation take any kind of major flop in stride. This is why they look at going public, in the long run they need fresh funds. Which is not without irony considering how their last spectacle was largely about squeezing over a hundred different stakeholders into a somewhat vague but doubtlessly brilliant scheme. Remains to be seen if this could work on a larger scale...

Difficult to say how an underperforming Bond production would affect the whole tricky business of rights, copyrights and the trademark angle. I suppose there must be various terms and regulations that determine a step-by-step procedure for the production i.e. Eon hands in an offer for a new film (could be as little as 'Let's roll!'), MGM agrees to order a treatment from writer X, Eon and MGM agree to assign a writer with a first draft and once that's on the table MGM must within a certain period come up with the budget. It's possible Eon could technically try and find another source to finance their project, but it would almost certainly ensue a legal battle over a dozen rounds with all kinds of nasty side effects. There is simply no telling where all this would lead. Or who would be damaged the most by it.

Meanwhile there is the trademark side of things which calls for constant use in business operations. If sorting out matters should take too long that trademark might be challenged, once again with no sure way to forecast the outcome in case no new Bond production can take off for a prolonged period.

All in all, while MGM looks like a serious pain for all other players it's still a relatively predictable quantity. Much like some medical conditions MGM is uncomfortable but effectively only very hard to remove operationally.

[SecretAgentFan]

So, the best thing would be if MGM could be taken over by people who know how to manage a studio AND have quality in their mind.

 

Hmm.

[Guy Haines]

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 had in mind the situation the series had in the early 1980s. Rumours would abound that Roger Moore had done with Bond - right down to screen tests for a replacement for OP. And then lo and behold - he's back!

I know that the comparison isn't at all exact, given that Craig has film and TV commitments and there are now longer gaps between Bond films, but is it possible that we, and further afield the media driven wish fulfilment rumour mills, might find ourselves realising that in spite of all the comparing and canvassing of rival would be Bonds, the star of Bond 25 is none other than....... Daniel Craig?

[sharpshooter]

is it possible that we, and further afield the media driven wish fulfilment rumour mills, might find ourselves realising that in spite of all the comparing and canvassing of rival would be Bonds, the star of Bond 25 is none other than....... Daniel Craig?

It does feel different this time. I'd be surprised if Craig came back, but I'm certainly not against it. 

[Guy Haines]

One thing I am well and truly fed up with is what I choose to call the "media driven wish fulfiment" behind the "Craig has quit" reports. On social media there are links times many to websites well known and obscure stating definitively that DC has gone and pushing one replacement or another as his successor.

We have no confirmation - absolutely none - that this is the case, but I can't help feeling that this is turning into a self fulfilling prophesy - Craig has quit because it says so on such and such site and the reason it says so is because Craig has quit because it says so on such and such site. I was on Facebook recently and one poster, bold as brass declared "IT' S OFFICIAL - Craig has quit!" and when challenged how he knew referred others to one, just one website which in fairness was using the word "reportedly" in its report. And on that basis people believe he's done, when we don't know that he has.

[SecretAgentFan]

Sure, social media are a pain in the you-know-what these days, filling the net with half-truths and lies.

 

But in this case it´s different from the "Oliver Tobias is the new James Bond"-reports back then in some magazines.

 

Now, Craig´s interviews, his new roles and the lack of an official statement fuel the fire even before rumours are mixed in.

 

And when Sir Roger said he would not be back for OP and then AVTAK, it was always within more or less a year that shooting for the next film started and an official statement was given.

 

 

I think the problem with Craig is that from the beginning he was openly reluctant to be Bond.  So with every new film he started that debate, voluntarily or involuntarily.  It would be a very different situation if he had stated after SPECTRE that he definitely wanted to go on and that it all depends on when the distribution was cleared. 

[sharpshooter]

Well, I hope the rumour that an announcement will happen in about two weeks is correct. If it's to be believed, Turner and Hiddleston are the final two. I wouldn't be surprised if Barbara is still mulling over the final decision. But who knows? It's all guesswork. We need an official statement to put us all out of our misery. Fingers crossed that is soon. 

[Tiin007]

Even though I find myself frustrated by all this uncertainty, a part of me would rather EON not tell us who the next Bond is until MGM gets their distribution deal sorted out. It would be real shame if EON were to announce Hiddleston, say, this week, only for Bond 25 to be released in 2020. 

 

While the status of the current Bond is often up in the air during extended breaks due to studio problems / legal trouble (Dalton, Craig), I'd hate for a Bond actor to be kept at bay for such a long time before having filmed even a single entry. 

[Surrie]

It's pointless confirming a new actor in the role before a distribution deal is even in place. Not sure BB would work like that, I'm sure behind the scenes Eon's main priority is distribution... initially. 

[SecretAgentFan]

As Dustin already pointed out, there will be an MGM announcement before the (new) Bond actor will be officially named.

 

And even if the decision will be made before that it will be absolutely tied to a new distribution deal.  There´s no point in signing any contract if it is impossible to say when a new movie can be made.

 

Should this rumour be true it will be very likely to have it all come together very fast now.

[sharpshooter]

Should this rumour be true it will be very likely to have it all come together very fast now.

Of course. 

[Dustin]

One thing I am well and truly fed up with is what I choose to call the "media driven wish fulfiment" behind the "Craig has quit" reports. On social media there are links times many to websites well known and obscure stating definitively that DC has gone and pushing one replacement or another as his successor.

We have no confirmation - absolutely none - that this is the case, but I can't help feeling that this is turning into a self fulfilling prophesy - Craig has quit because it says so on such and such site and the reason it says so is because Craig has quit because it says so on such and such site. I was on Facebook recently and one poster, bold as brass declared "IT' S OFFICIAL - Craig has quit!" and when challenged how he knew referred others to one, just one website which in fairness was using the word "reportedly" in its report. And on that basis people believe he's done, when we don't know that he has.

I would say there is certainly nothing that would keep Craig from coming back - other than Craig himself. But that is a huge hurdle because I don't think he's given to playing games. There have been no rumours about Craig playing coy, asking for £ 69 million instead of £ 68 or any such thing. I suppose once he's made his decision he sticks to it.

Craig was a stellar success in the role, a success Broccoli can on any given day also claim for herself since it was her insistence that made Craig possible in the first place. Financially and critically Craig was the best thing to happen to the series on her watch. I'm fairly sure Eon would welcome working with Craig again.

MGM for whatever their assessment of the situation is worth will doubtlessly agree, they can hardly be against Craig's return. And MGM's partners will hardly object. Even if another studio had a favourite of their own waiting, it would be no use trying to force a new actor onto Eon. They'd be well-advised to let BB handle things her own way and try to have their say on Bond 7 two years later.

So technically nothing would prevent Craig from actually returning. If he wants to, that is.

[MajorB]

Dustin, I think you've hit it dead center. I also suspect that Craig won't decide until he's got a real situation to deal with--the studio question straightened out and at least the beginnings of a script. Then he'll see what he feels like doing. He seems like a pretty pragmatic, in-the-moment person who doesn't make decisions in the abstract. That's my sense, anyway.

[Dustin]

Well, at a time during SPECTRE's production it would seem there was, script-wise, a sense of that film being the definite end of it for Craig. The finished product still reeks strongly of it. How things came to be, how they ended up the way they did we will probably only ever find out if Charles Helfenstein hands in his The Making of SPECTRE tome. But it's possible Craig already made his decision some time ago. If you're about to broker a deal with a studio over Bond (and whatever else MGM may or may not throw at audiences) however, then it would be nonsense announcing the joker isn't in the game any more. You might say Craig theoretically announcing his farewell to 007 would constitute intently harmful comment to MGM's business needs. No such thing must happen before they have had their own deal signed and filed.

[plankattack]

Well, at a time during SPECTRE's production it would seem there was, script-wise, a sense of that film being the definite end of it for Craig. The finished product still reeks strongly of it. How things came to be, how they ended up the way they did we will probably only ever find out if Charles Helfenstein hands in his The Making of SPECTRE tome. But it's possible Craig already made his decision some time ago. If you're about to broker a deal with a studio over Bond (and whatever else MGM may or may not throw at audiences) however, then it would be nonsense announcing the joker isn't in the game any more. You might say Craig theoretically announcing his farewell to 007 would constitute intently harmful comment to MGM's business needs. No such thing must happen before they have had their own deal signed and filed.

 

I do think DC is done, but I'll speculate that they've all agreed to say nothing so as to put EON in the strongest possible position re: negotiations. Agreed with all that once the MGM business is sorted, then things will move quite quickly - DC done, announcement of successor etc. I've always had the impression that DC and Babs have had a "good" relationship, and so a behind-the-scenes agreement between the principals doesn't strike me as far-fetched. 

 

From a business standpoint, EON giving a potential partner that as much of a financially successful team is in place is preferable to announcing that they're going with someone other than an A-lister as theanchor of the franchise. I like Hiddleston but while he's hot, I still think he has to "prove" he can deliver box office (as much as anyone can, to be fair), while Turner (and this isn't to criticize his ability or potential) is a TV star. 

 

Entirely different details once you delve into them (UA wanted Brozza) but if I remember TD didn't announce he was leaving the role until after everything had been sorted post-court case. And then next thing it was Brozza and a press conference for GE.

 

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong  

[Dustin]

Well, I'm not sure Eon is indeed in much of a position to influence MGM's distributor deal in any way - if they were MGM might not be at the point they are now; again - but Eon probably learned from past experience to hedge its bets. And they are certainly more aware of actual events than any outsider - meaning us fans and most of the press.

When Michael G. Wilson said they expected the distributor deal would be through by spring he most likely wasn't just guessing without the foggiest idea of what's going on. So there must at least at that point have been a realistic chance for the dust to settle. Perhaps that was an agreement between MGM and Eon to sort matters by that time.

When spring came and went and saw only MGM's disappointing statement there were no negotiations yet and would not be for some time that sounded a bit like tit-for-that. Like they didn't appreciate Eon's public opinions by which time MGM should cut its pound of flesh...

I guess Eon has a very clear idea how and with whom they will want to work in the future, not just as their leading man but also on the studio side.

[SecretAgentFan]

Absolutely.

 

Also, we just have to concede that every statement made is just a political one.

 

The party line probably was for MGW to play down any thought that the search for a distributor might prove difficult, hence he said: January or February.  Since then, by the way, MGW has not said anything in the press anymore and wasn´t even mentioned by Mendes as part of the team making the decision.  Maybe MGW really has retired.

 

Daniel Craig probably has already said goodbye but did not make it official to help EON wait out the distribution mess.

 

And even Hiddleston´s recent remarks might have been on order from EON to create a smokescreen and put the brakes on the speculation.  BB probably did not intend to have her meeting with Hiddleston and Mendes reported in the press.

 

Or it might have been BB´s intention to stir up the debate in order to push MGM out of their comfort zone of delaying the decision, kind of telling them: we will move forward, and if you get a worse deal because Craig is out we don´t care - just make that damned decision.

 

In any event, things are in motion - and that is way better than those times in which absolutely no news and no rumours were out.

[SecretAgentFan]

By the way - I just read on Pierce Brosnan´s facebook news feed that today marks the anniversary of the day he was officially announced as James Bond in 1994.

 

Any announcement imminent today?

 

Hah, naw...

[Orion]

Interesting that Craig and Brosnan were both announced as being cast only the year before their respective first films. If that remains the case we have another year at least of this...

[Surrie]

Interesting that Craig and Brosnan were both announced as being cast only the year before their respective first films. If that remains the case we have another year at least of this...

 

Let's hope not! The waiting is torture, I just want to know if DC is in or out, and if out then who's in!? I can wait a little longer for Bond 25 if necessary.

[Shrublands]

Interesting that Craig and Brosnan were both announced as being cast only the year before their respective first films. 

 

That's the way it's always been, Lazenby was announced in 68, Moore in 72 and Dalton 86.

[SecretAgentFan]

Funny, today on Brosnan´s facebook news feed there is a picture I had not seen before.  It shows him and John Glen in Pinewood, when the role was first offered to him.  Afterwards, we all know it, he couldn´t get out of the "Remington Steele"-contract.  But on this picture you see how young Brosnan looked at that point (younger than any previous Bond, IMO) - obviously, back then EON already was ready to go with a rookie 007.

[sharpshooter]

The Connery and Moore movies have always been available on video, and they're my favourites. But for me growing up, Brosnan and Craig have been front and centre. They've been the guys keeping the franchise alive over the past 20 years. So a new Bond really is a big deal. It doesn't happen all that often. 

[Surrie]

Funny, today on Brosnan´s facebook news feed there is a picture I had not seen before.  It shows him and John Glen in Pinewood, when the role was first offered to him.  Afterwards, we all know it, he couldn´t get out of the "Remington Steele"-contract.  But on this picture you see how young Brosnan looked at that point (younger than any previous Bond, IMO) - obviously, back then EON already was ready to go with a rookie 007.

 

BB and MGW obviously had their own ideas on where to take Bond once they took the Eon reigns. 

 

The Connery and Moore movies have always been available on video, and they're my favourites. But for me growing up, Brosnan and Craig have been front and centre. They've been the guys keeping the franchise alive over the past 20 years. So a new Bond really is a big deal. It doesn't happen all that often. 

 

Couldn't agree more. 

[Tiin007]

Funny, today on Brosnan´s facebook news feed there is a picture I had not seen before.  It shows him and John Glen in Pinewood, when the role was first offered to him.  Afterwards, we all know it, he couldn´t get out of the "Remington Steele"-contract.  But on this picture you see how young Brosnan looked at that point (younger than any previous Bond, IMO) - obviously, back then EON already was ready to go with a rookie 007.

 

Could you imagine if Brosnan had been Bond from '87-'02? (And had there not been legal issues in between, we could've gotten a total of eight films out of him!)

[Walecs]

 

Funny, today on Brosnan´s facebook news feed there is a picture I had not seen before.  It shows him and John Glen in Pinewood, when the role was first offered to him.  Afterwards, we all know it, he couldn´t get out of the "Remington Steele"-contract.  But on this picture you see how young Brosnan looked at that point (younger than any previous Bond, IMO) - obviously, back then EON already was ready to go with a rookie 007.

 

Could you imagine if Brosnan had been Bond from '87-'02? (And had there not been legal issues in between, we could've gotten a total of eight films out of him!)

 

 

God, that'd be awesome!