1017 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

The Smart Blood really leaves one puzzled.  Even if much of its plot importance seems to have been lost during development, it is - as stated - a rehash.  Sometimes I wonder how Mendes could do a really good job on SKYFALL and a lackluster one on SPECTRE.  

 

Charles Helfenstein definitely should write a book on the whole genesis of SPECTRE which would explain what happened and why so much of it went wrong.

[Mr. Somerset]

 

Does the fact every film will be a 3-4 year wait actually put anyone here off being a Bond fan?

 

I, for one, am certainly less energized about the whole thing since the long gaps started.

 

Same. The lack of regularity (which was such a staple of the series for decades) makes me sometimes feel like the series is losing steam. I don't want every Bond movie to be an "event" film. I found the quality of the Dalton films to be very high, and I'd welcome a return to an every-other-year schedule with that level of quality.

 

Also, the series has now been around for 54 years. Half of that is 27 years-- meaning that LTK was in the first half of Bond films when measured by time. It's astounding to me that we got 16 Bond films in the same amount of time that we have subsequently received 8 of them. In other words, 2/3 of the Bond films were released in the first half of the years. EON's output has literally been cut in half.

 

The Bond films were reliable like a favorite holiday-Halloween or Christmas. If the current film was somewhat weak, it would only be two years before the next entry would be out and most likely be better. Now they feel as regular as a Presidential election.

3-4 years is a LONG time for a continuing franchise, and when a weak film comes out after a longer wait, like say DAD, it's easier to lose the enthusiasm. Also with longer gaps, it seems EON has to prove with each new film that Bond is relevant- and it's painfully obvious in the GE script as well as SF. Casino Royale went through the trouble of completely reintroducing the character after 4 years in the form of a reboot. This shows a lack of confidence in the franchise and especially the character when SPECTRE proved Eon clearly doesn't know which direction to take. A Bond film like FRWL or later on, Octopussy exudes confidence, doesn't apologize for itself or the character of Bond, and pulls no punches.

[sharpshooter]

Does the fact every film will be a 3-4 year wait actually put anyone here off being a Bond fan?
 
I, for one, am certainly less energized about the whole thing since the long gaps started.

I admit the passion does wane more frequently these days. I used to buy all the Bond movie related books. But not anymore. It's now to the point where we've seen all this rehashed material over and over, and nothing is really new. These movies have been ingrained into my life for over 20 years now, so a break from that isn't really a bad thing. There's losing interest and burning out, and I'd rather sit in between those two extremes. The monthly Bond comics have been enough for me lately.

[Dustin]

Sidenote: the German MGM pay-tv channel MGM HD (distributed via Sky Germany) will end its service with the end of this year. Sky TV itself is putting an emphasis on their own content and will not renew the license for the MGM content. This will not make a huge difference, but it's an indication how the value of MGM's backlist archive diminishes. Creating new content will have to be a priority in the future if the company wants to remain in business.

[Napoleon Solo]

Sidenote: the German MGM pay-tv channel MGM HD (distributed via Sky Germany) will end its service with the end of this year. Sky TV itself is putting an emphasis on their own content and will not renew the license for the MGM content. This will not make a huge difference, but it's an indication how the value of MGM's backlist archive diminishes. Creating new content will have to be a priority in the future if the company wants to remain in business.

 

I remember listening to an MGM investor conference call after Skyfall came out. Gary Barber, the CEO, said the majority of money (he gave a specific percentage but I don't recall it) made from a movie takes place in the first 18 months. Having a good film library does generate revenue over time, but his remarks would seem to confirm you do need new content.

[SecretAgentFan]

Sidenote: the German MGM pay-tv channel MGM HD (distributed via Sky Germany) will end its service with the end of this year. Sky TV itself is putting an emphasis on their own content and will not renew the license for the MGM content. This will not make a huge difference, but it's an indication how the value of MGM's backlist archive diminishes. Creating new content will have to be a priority in the future if the company wants to remain in business.

 

Oh, yes, MGM is bleeding money again and will need the next Bond sooner rather than later.

[Dustin]

No idea how big the hole is actually going to be. Far as I see the channel was a mixed bag and ran for several years. It will not have been the most expensive deal for Sky Germany, that's more the top range blockbuster stuff they rotate. For MGM it will have been a nice steady stream of money though...

[SecretAgentFan]

I read that MGM had closed up their tv-shop in other countries before and Germany was one of those few which had remained open.  If they give up on those countries now it definitely is not a sign of confidence or a long-term winning strategy.

 

But what will happen to MGM if there is no new content that keeps them afloat?  Especially no new content that can be used to sell their not so successful content along with?

 

Thinking about MGM´s big sellers... um... there really only is one: Bond.  

 

Anything else?  The Rocky series?  Gone.  And the spin-off "Creed", despite being well received, does not seem to generate sequels like it was supposed to.  No news on "Creed 2".  And maybe that´s a good thing creatively.  But not financially for MGM.  The re-makes ("Poltergeist") tanked as well.

 

MGM basically depends on Bond.  Which might be the only good news for us fans since there will have to another Bond.  Soon.

[Dustin]

Primarily, MGM failed to get new stand alone films off the ground, everything is either franchise-based or a remake. Or remake of a franchise. And all of it co-productions where you really wonder what MGM's actual contribution is. The thing is, if you're a writer or director with a pitch for a solid project MGM is now practically the last address you think of. Of course, many of the interesting scripts are by now bought in bulk by the various actors and their own production companies, often for horrendous sums. But MGM doesn't seem to be able to even monitor the market. When exactly that should be one of their main qualities.

Their TV branch - at the time of the last big MGM-quake promised to become a major player - likewise doesn't look all that much better. Since their main hit Stargate and its spinoffs ended they produced mainly so-so stuff. And Stargate is over for ten years now. Vikings seems to have gathered a fanbase, a bit Sons-of-Anarchy in medieval times. But in this day and age of blooming TV shows there is nowhere a series like Sopranos or Mad Men. No Breaking Bad and no American Horror Show, let alone a Stranger Things. Not even a Monk to be had from MGM.

I mention these because they are not necessarily expensive to produce, the main effort goes into developing a solid story and hire quality cast and crew. This ought to be something still within reach of MGM. But apparently that is not the case.

[Simon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-37517067

 

Couldn't be bothered to put this in a new thread, but it does rather keep the ball rolling if nothing else.

 

This chap wouldn't have any interest in nonsense,

 

Irrelevantly, I met this chap in '87 when I wanted to get into the industry, and he allowed me to visit the set of A Hazard of Hearts.  That said, I can't find his name on IMDB for this production...

[Dustin]

Perhaps he dropped out too soon or came aboard too late, needn't mean a lot if IMDB doesn't list him for that particular job.

[SecretAgentFan]

Rothman (Sony) recently said it was "premature" to talk about the bidding war over the distribution of future Bonds.

 

Premature...  Does not sound as if any sort of decision will be reached in the near future.

 

"Beyond Bond" tomorrow will be another Craig-evading-questions-fest.

[Orion]

I think, at best, it will be Craig confirming what his current contract for it is (if he's totally free, first refusal, or comitted) as there are reports of all three; tabloids say free, more reputable journalists (oxymoron if ever there was one) say first refusal, around Skyfall's release reports were he was committed to both 24 and 25.

​Personally think first refusal is the most likly given Eon gave that clause to Moore, Dalton and Brosnan in their contracts.

[SecretAgentFan]

I don´t think there is something as "first refusal" in such a contract.  

 

Actors are contracted for a series of films, and will agree to an option for a certain number of additional films.

 

But every contract can be torn apart if any side wants to renegotiate or opt out of it.

 

It was stated many times that Craig had a contract for three films with an option of two more.  The leaves BOND 25.

[Dustin]

This thing of 'first refusal' is probably blown a bit out of proportion. What does it mean in real life? That they knock on his door with anything from a warm handshake to a three-sentence-pitch to a full script. And whatever it is, his decision will likely be the same, whether he gets just the handshake or the script. He either wants to do one more or he's fed up with it. Money will not likely be the dealbreaker, I could imagine if either the studio or Eon co-finance him another project that might be a more rewarding reason to ponder a comeback.

As far as I know he hasn't yet his own production company buying up stuff for him, that could be another interesting option that might tempt a creative mind. But he will not turn down just because the script is bad; you could always fix that and whatever they will show him will in any case have little resemblance to the thing they later shoot as BOND 25 - with or without him.

[Tiin007]

I think there are two reasonable possibilities which could emerge from tomorrow's interview: either Craig is definitely out, or Craig simply doesn't know yet. 

 

If he were sure that he is returning for Bond 25, then EON would've revealed that development on Global James Bond Day (given that it preceded tomorrow's interview by only two days). 

 

If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time since Global James Bond Day was instituted (2012) that EON have not released or revealed anything to the public. If Craig were definitely returning, we'd have been told yesterday.

 

(And yes, I'm aware that IFP revealed Horowitz's upcoming novel yesterday, but I'm referring to EON.) 

[SecretAgentFan]

This thing of 'first refusal' is probably blown a bit out of proportion. What does it mean in real life? That they knock on his door with anything from a warm handshake to a three-sentence-pitch to a full script. And whatever it is, his decision will likely be the same, whether he gets just the handshake or the script. He either wants to do one more or he's fed up with it. Money will not likely be the dealbreaker, I could imagine if either the studio or Eon co-finance him another project that might be a more rewarding reason to ponder a comeback.

As far as I know he hasn't yet his own production company buying up stuff for him, that could be another interesting option that might tempt a creative mind. But he will not turn down just because the script is bad; you could always fix that and whatever they will show him will in any case have little resemblance to the thing they later shoot as BOND 25 - with or without him.

 

You bring up a very interesting point: why did Craig not start his own production company yet?  If he is interested in telling stories himself he could easily do it - he has the money and the clout to establish it.  So many actors with lesser drawing power nurture their own production entity linked with a studio.

 

As for the "Beyond Bond"-panel today, I´m also wondering: why did Craig agree to that?  He does not seem to like to talk about Bond - but his other film projects were mostly flops, financially and creatively.  So what´s there to talk about really?  Okay, one must never underestimate the ego of actors - and when they are asked for a "career retrospective" or a discussion at a festival they mostly jump to that occasion.  But Craig?  Someone as shy and weary of these things?

[Dustin]

Indeed, that's a curious event for Craig to turn up - except if he's got some major project to announce for the future, that would merit his personal effort. We'll see, I guess...

[Orion]

I was thinking that, Craig blatantly hates the promotion part of the job, I don't see him doing something like this unless he had to do it as part of something he's working on. There is a chance it's not Bond related though, he has worked as a producer on things before (Flashback's of a fool comes to mind) and he was asked to do that (producer by proxy for want of a better phrase) on Bond films when EON seemed to think a cast or crew member they really wanted would be more likely to say yes to Craig (Marc Forster, for example, mentioned in an interview that BB had asked him and he said no so she asked DC to meet with him to persuade him to join) - point is, he could be aiming to get attention for something more low key he is producing that people making it think will get a larger audience with Craig's name backing it and selling it.

[sharpshooter]

It's best to have no expectations with this event. I'm hoping the question gets asked at least.

[SecretAgentFan]

The only current project that comes to mind would be this tv series based on Jonathan Frantzen´s "Purity" - but that´s no real news and not in need for publicity right now.

 

My most unrealistic hope would be that Craig wants to steer the ship around and present himself as "still happy to be Bond in the future".

 

And quite frankly, even if he does not need any more money, stepping down as Bond will put a dent into his career definitely.  So why not stay on, milking it the way Connery did ("hey, I´ll do another one if you finance two other films and I can defer my salary to my favourite charity")?

[Orion]

The only current project that comes to mind would be this tv series based on Jonathan Frantzen´s "Purity" - but that´s no real news and not in need for publicity right now.

 

My most unrealistic hope would be that Craig wants to steer the ship around and present himself as "still happy to be Bond in the future".

 

And quite frankly, even if he does not need any more money, stepping down as Bond will put a dent into his career definitely.  So why not stay on, milking it the way Connery did ("hey, I´ll do another one if you finance two other films and I can defer my salary to my favourite charity")?

There is something to this, remaining as Bond does bring attention to his lesser known works and acts as a draw that he will lose when the day comes that he steps down - I don't see something like his production of A Steady Rain being the success it was without the draw of Bond (in marketing or financially, BB and MGW were the producers on it)

[Dustin]

From this perspective, quitting Bond would only make sense if he either hates the job so much he can't stomach the mere thought of one more go - or if it would prevent him from doing something else he's been lusting after for some time. As of now it looks as if he may be fed up, but not yet so much he'd never consider it again. I think if it was that bad he wouldn't hold back for long, he'd just say goodbye and thanks for the money.

Since there also doesn't seem to be any other project imminent - as of now - he might just go one more time with the dinner jacket, why not.

[trevanian]

 Marc Forster, for example, mentioned in an interview that BB had asked him and he said no so she asked DC to meet with him to persuade him to join

Was this when he turned down coming back after QUANTUM? Because when i talked to Forster before QUANTUM came out, he said he turned down Eon, but was then convinced by his usual collaborators, editor Matt Chesse and superb director of photography Roberto Schaefer. Craig wasn't mentioned at all at that point in his narrative.

[Orion]

I'll try and the interview for you. Think it was an empire interview he did at the time, but don't quote me on that.

[Red_Snow]

 

This thing of 'first refusal' is probably blown a bit out of proportion. What does it mean in real life? That they knock on his door with anything from a warm handshake to a three-sentence-pitch to a full script. And whatever it is, his decision will likely be the same, whether he gets just the handshake or the script. He either wants to do one more or he's fed up with it. Money will not likely be the dealbreaker, I could imagine if either the studio or Eon co-finance him another project that might be a more rewarding reason to ponder a comeback.

As far as I know he hasn't yet his own production company buying up stuff for him, that could be another interesting option that might tempt a creative mind. But he will not turn down just because the script is bad; you could always fix that and whatever they will show him will in any case have little resemblance to the thing they later shoot as BOND 25 - with or without him.

 

You bring up a very interesting point: why did Craig not start his own production company yet?  If he is interested in telling stories himself he could easily do it - he has the money and the clout to establish it.  So many actors with lesser drawing power nurture their own production entity linked with a studio.

 

As for the "Beyond Bond"-panel today, I´m also wondering: why did Craig agree to that?  He does not seem to like to talk about Bond - but his other film projects were mostly flops, financially and creatively.  So what´s there to talk about really?  Okay, one must never underestimate the ego of actors - and when they are asked for a "career retrospective" or a discussion at a festival they mostly jump to that occasion.  But Craig?  Someone as shy and weary of these things?

 

 

Daniel did have his own production company Ella Productions, from 2005, but it seems to have been dissolved in 2012.

[Dustin]

Thanks for correcting this; so Craig did give it a try. Could be he's still got some rights or options from that venture. Many actors buy them in bulk, at times apparently just so they don't float out there on the market and a rival might pick them up.

[Jake24]

Live updates from the interview:
https://twitter.com/newyorkerlive

[Dustin]

Well, no decision has been made, everybody wrapped up in other things...could have guessed that before. Also that he debunks the $ 150 million story and Greengrass (though Greengrass in all fairness could have been approached before Craig was even part of the show.)

So all in all nothing new on the Bond front. Only detail of interest, if you want to call it that, is that he seems to answer as if he's still close enough to the role to know about events.

[SecretAgentFan]

Sigh...  Well, that was to be expected.  

 

The new hair colour for the tv show makes him look like Red Grant ;-)