1017 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

This autocorrect will bring civilisation down one day.

[MISALA1994]

This autocorrect will bring civilisation down one day.

It's already down.

[SecretAgentFan]

To bring this thread down to its title again: is it weird that there still is no announcement on the decision which studio will distribute?

 

With the writers´ strike now very, very probable it might have thrown out plans for a faster happening BOND 25 again...

[Dustin]

It is.

All I can guess is that the mysterious studio in question will probably be Sony, for any number of reasons, most of which boil down to them having a good working relationship with Eon and MGM. During their little goodwill event they most likely had a more detailed concept for BOND 25 than any contender. The contenders on the other hand may offer more in terms of budget or agree to a smaller slice of the cake. And then there's MGM who may have had the idea - in light of plans for BOND 25 becoming ever more concrete by the week - to wait a little longer to mayhap be able to eat their cake and still have it.

With the looming strike another delay is all but inevitable if the script isn't already much more developed than the public was lead to believe. That's not entirely impossible but if there doesn't come an announcement very soon...well, then it all depends how fast they can restart their efforts after the strike and how dedicated a possible director is to the cause. Always assuming they already got one on board, but since Craig surely will have a say in it I imagine his return to 007 will be on the condition of X or Y or Z directing the film.

Which brings us to the next hurdle because not everybody is wildly happy to helm a 'troubled' production. BOND 25 will almost certainly be crucial for MGM, for Craig's tenure as a whole and maybe also for Eon. This film will decide a lot of careers for better or worse, with a still very profitable predecessor largely considered a disappointment. Everybody involved will aim to top at least SPECTRE, and this in an environment that may see drastic changes in consumer habits. It could well be that the best possible outcome in terms of reception by audiences and critics may still not be enough to satisfy the financial side of affairs. I've argued previously that since it was Mendes who landed Bond in this place it should be him who leads the series out of it again. But I doubt he'd really succeed so it's probably better to look elsewhere.

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree - despite my initial excitement for Mendes after watching SKYFALL and his return before I saw SPECTRE, I get the feeling that he should have only done one film because the input he brought was mainly spent on SKYFALL, and judging from the shortcomings of SPECTRE I must even conclude that SKYFALL worked so well for me mainly due to Mendes choosing (or bringing along) the splendid Roger Deakins as director of photography.  Take that away or have it look like SPECTRE and the best thing about SKYFALL would be Bardem´s overacting for me.  Take Bardem out... and... well...  what was so great about Mendes again?

 

This is what irked me in the recent years about Craig - he seems to be one of those actors who cling to certain directors because they have drunk all the cool-aid about those and believe that only those guys will bring out the best in them.  When that is - most of the time - untrue.  And since SPECTRE was on hold because Craig expressly wanted Mendes back I shudder to think which director Craig will consider essential for his own return now.

 

As for the very probable writers´ strike: the last one lasted for about three months, right into the start of fall tv season.  If this next one will last as long BOND 25 surely will not be ready for a shooting date later this year.  Unless they already have a script draft which brought Craig and a director on board and only needs minor revisions (which could be done in a few weeks in the fall).

 

Strange, however, that no potential director´s name so far has been rumoured.  Either EON has stacked up on security measures - or nobody has bitten the bait yet.

[Tiin007]

Maybe they're waiting to announce the distributor along with Craig's return and / or the film's director. They may want to nail down other components of Bond 25 before getting audiences' hopes up, especially in light of the looming writers' strike. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I suspect audiences´ hopes are not part of the equation.

 

Right now, it is all about getting the film together at all in a reasonable time frame.

 

And if they had not had Craig on board, I believe, this whole "just BOND 25 distribution rights now, guys"-strategy would not have been used.

[Dustin]

Absolutely. Craig's one film would mirror the solitary distribution deal. After that it's everybody's guess how things will turn out for the future, largely depending on BOND 25's performance. Studios will surely want to have guaranteed input on casting, on questions like reboot or not, probably even a guaranteed number of films in a certain timeframe (something I assumed was already in place, but apparently not so.)

If production on BOND 25 by any means can get started in 2017 they would certainly push for it. But we're at May's doorstep now and before you blink the year will be over. And even if a major studio is already oiling levers behind the scenes to secure slots with soundstages and talent and any number of necessities, they cannot and will not wait for ever. If there is no substantial news until the start of the strike I won't hold my breath.

[SecretAgentFan]

I actually wonder whether it would be a preferable thing not to get another Craig-Bond as BOND 25.  Could the film be anything but a retread of everything he has done before?  (Could this question be a retread of so many questions I have asked here before?)

 

Maybe it would be all for the best to have Craig end as he wanted to end: with choosing to quit the service and drive away with Madeleine.  Let´s face it: BOND 25 would have to include so many obligatory things which would risk feeling very stale: 1) finding a reason why Bond has to go back into service (been there, done that), 2) Blofeld getting back into the game (where´s the tension in that, actually, if we also know that he will die/brought to justice at the end since this would be Craig´s last film), 3) a possible use of YOLT which in the end would be just a to do-list being ticked off.

 

Sure, there is the possibility that BOND 25 with Craig would just start with him on a mission again (just covering the time since SPECTRE with a throwaway line), with Blofeld not returning and a new villain.  That, to me, would be the best way to give CraigBond a solid farewell, the free him from all those shackles imposed on him by the ret-conning and the open end of SPECTRE.

 

But if one wants to do that - then you can just as easily start over with a new actor and no baggage at all.

 

Right now, I would prefer that.

[plankattack]

This is what irked me in the recent years about Craig - he seems to be one of those actors who cling to certain directors because they have drunk all the cool-aid about those and believe that only those guys will bring out the best in them.  When that is - most of the time - untrue.  And since SPECTRE was on hold because Craig expressly wanted Mendes back I shudder to think which director Craig will consider essential for his own return now.

I don't think it's unique (or some sort of a flaw) that DC, or any other actor prefers working with certain directors. And after the success of SF, that Craig wanted to work with the same director again doesn't make him some sort of a stereo-typical actor "luvvie" - it makes sense that EON et al wanted to repeat the formula. I give great credit to Mendes for SF (which I like an awful lot), and I stick him with a lot of the blame for SP (which I don't like). He and Craig have collaborated on 3 occasions and on each occasion the actors performance has been strong, so maybe DC does think Mendes gets the best out of him, so why shouldn't he want him back? Bale didn't want to do Batman without Nolan. Fair enough.

As someone who always wanted to see Spielberg do a Bond, I hope DC picks up the phone and gives him a call! Shuddering with excitement, I would be!

[Professor Pi]

I could see why EON would want to avoid competing with Indiana Jones (same audience) and Star Wars (all audiences).

 

Do you think X-Men would take moviegoers away from Bond? The X-Men franchise hasn't been nearly as successful as Disney's Marvel entries, and I'd assume the audiences may not overlap too much.

 

Granted, I am a fan of both X-Men and Bond, but a part of me feels like there may be less overlap among moviegoers as a whole. 

 

Sorry my post on X-Men's release date derailed this thread while I was away a few days.  To answer your question, no, it wouldn't take moviegoers away from Bond.  What it would do is compete for the all important #1 Box Office slot on opening weekend, as well as theater space, and family movie time.  That's why Titanic and Happy Feet box-office blocked Bond on opening weekend, and why EON was then fearful of Harry Potter's release date in 2008.  While X-3 was a critical disaster, it was a commercial success, I think still the highest grossing non-Deadpool movie in the X-verse.

 

Like other 4th Bonds (TB, MR, DAD), SPECTRE was a commercial success and a critical letdown.  So EON can now either double down on bigger (YOLT), smaller (FYEO), or completely reboot (CR.)  DC has to know this is the biggest paycheck he will ever get in his career, and I don't see him walking away from that.  If he were, he already would have left.  They waited to get Mendez back, they'll wait for Craig.

 

They will make one more with Craig, and then reboot for the 60th anniversary in 2022.  That would be consistent with the "3-4 year cycle" titled in this very thread.

[MISALA1994]

I could see why EON would want to avoid competing with Indiana Jones (same audience) and Star Wars (all audiences).

Do you think X-Men would take moviegoers away from Bond? The X-Men franchise hasn't been nearly as successful as Disney's Marvel entries, and I'd assume the audiences may not overlap too much.

Granted, I am a fan of both X-Men and Bond, but a part of me feels like there may be less overlap among moviegoers as a whole.

Sorry my post on X-Men's release date derailed this thread while I was away a few days. To answer your question, no, it wouldn't take moviegoers away from Bond. What it would do is compete for the all important #1 Box Office slot on opening weekend, as well as theater space, and family movie time. That's why Titanic and Happy Feet box-office blocked Bond on opening weekend, and why EON was then fearful of Harry Potter's release date in 2008. While X-3 was a critical disaster, it was a commercial success, I think still the highest grossing non-Deadpool movie in the X-verse.

Like other 4th Bonds (TB, MR, DAD), SPECTRE was a commercial success and a critical letdown. So EON can now either double down on bigger (YOLT), smaller (FYEO), or completely reboot (CR.) DC has to know this is the biggest paycheck he will ever get in his career, and I don't see him walking away from that. If he were, he already would have left. They waited to get Mendez back, they'll wait for Craig.

They will make one more with Craig, and then reboot for the 60th anniversary in 2022. That would be consistent with the "3-4 year cycle" titled in this very thread.

I prefer FYEO route (2018) ...

Edited by MISALA1994, 01 May 2017 - 09:38 AM.

[Red_Snow]

‘Bond 25’: Why The Next Director Could Be Indie
indiewire.com/2017/05/james-bond-25-directors-eon-indie-paul-mcguigan-1201810462/

Word is, the producers are so pleased with”Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool,” directed by Scotsman Paul McGuigan (“Sherlock,” “Lucky Number Slevin,” “Victor Frankenstein”), that he too is under consideration. Annette Bening stars as actress Gloria Grahame, who falls in love with a young actor (Jamie Bell).

[DaveBond21]

Yes, interesting as he is already known to Eon. It would be a change of profile, and his background is similar to the those of previous Bond directors like John Glen, Roger Spottiswoode and Michael Apted.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

[sharpshooter]

Not sure how credible this information is, but nonetheless, it's good to see continued chatter around Bond 25.

[Harmsway]

It sounds plausible. EON values established relationships.

[SecretAgentFan]

Again: the writers´ strike has been averted.  So this big hurdle for BOND 25 production beginning in this year is out of the way.  Let´s all celebrate that!

 

If McGuigan is on EON´s wish list for possible directors we might actually get more names in the next weeks - and eventually real news!

[RMc2]

That's very exciting!

[DavidJones]

If true, I'm glad they're not been pretentious again and hiring a 'name' director to get prestige.

[Harmsway]

I dunno. The Brosnan run wasn't exactly a home run.

McGuigan could be good, he could be bad. Maybe just a new John Glen. I see no reason to celebrate or panic. Just wait and see.

[MISALA1994]

I dunno. The Brosnan run wasn't exactly a home run.

McGuigan could be good, he could be bad. Maybe just a new John Glen. I see no reason to celebrate or panic. Just wait and see.

New "John Glen" is what franchise needs right now...

Edited by MISALA1994, 03 May 2017 - 07:37 AM.

[Odd Jobbies]

I dunno. The Brosnan run wasn't exactly a home run.

McGuigan could be good, he could be bad. Maybe just a new John Glen. I see no reason to celebrate or panic. Just wait and see.

Gods protect us from 'a new John Glen'!

 

McGuigan has a visual panche and visceral sensibility that Mr Glen could only dream of. But i agree that in other respects his Bond could go either way.

 

With Craig's 'one more film', the one movie studio deal and now going for McGuigan, rather than a big gun, I'm starting to think that Eon are seeing 25 as a stop gap until they recast and soft-reboot with 26.

 

I know that seems to make little sense - every Bond film is a massive investment and it's the 25th, but...

[RMc2]

 

I dunno. The Brosnan run wasn't exactly a home run.

McGuigan could be good, he could be bad. Maybe just a new John Glen. I see no reason to celebrate or panic. Just wait and see.

Gods protect us from 'a new John Glen'!

 

McGuigan has a visual panche and visceral sensibility that Mr Glen could only dream of. But i agree that in other respects his Bond could go either way.

 

With Craig's 'one more film', the one movie studio deal and now going for McGuigan, rather than a big gun, I'm starting to think that Eon are seeing 25 as a stop gap until they recast and soft-reboot with 26.

 

I know that seems to make little sense - every Bond film is a massive investment and it's the 25th, but...

 

 

You're right, the distribution deal they're offering suggests they want to get 25 over and done with, then approach Bond 7 afresh with new partners and a (presumably better) planned future.

 

But I hope they're putting a lot of effort into Bond 25. If it's Craig's finale and the 25th and a one-shot deal with a studio, I also suspect they still feel a lot of pressure to continue the Craig era's predilection for arthouse directors. (Though Brosnan's run had this too).

 

Won't they more likely want to knock it out of the park with their choice of an auteur (the first woman! the first writer-director!), rather than go for a jobsworth or a relative unknown?

[DavidJones]

A bit of snobbery going on here, isn't there, because McGuigan isn't a fancy-pants?

 

What's wrong with John Glen, anyway? He directed every Bond film of the '80s.

[SecretAgentFan]

It´s absoutely clear that EON will put just as much effort into BOND 25 as in every Bond film they did and will do.

 

If they indeed choose a lesser known director they will not do so because "oh, it´s just Danny´s last one, so we can just throw it away with anyone directing".  The rumour stated that EON is fond of McGuigan because they recently worked together so well.

 

That´s all.  

 

And there is no reason whatsoever that an "auteur" could make a better Bond film than a lesser known director with no obvous thematic obsession. 

 

And if someone wants to knock John Glen, please put any of his films against "Spectre" and reconsider.

[Tiin007]

Yeah, honestly, John Glen is my favorite Bond director. Of his five Bond films, only one is subpar (AVTAK). No other director has had such consistently good output (barring perhaps Campbell, but I have mixed feelings towards GE). 

[Odd Jobbies]

What's wrong with John Glen, anyway? He directed every Bond film of the '80s.

Exactly

[Odd Jobbies]

And if someone wants to knock John Glen, please put any of his films against "Spectre" and reconsider.

I think Spectre's not just a great Bond movie, but also a great movie... Riiiiiiiight up to the inexplicably lame final act in London.

 

But i'll take that over the artless efforts of the 80s; Carry On Octopussy; A View To Cynical Who Cares If It's Dull Lets Make Some More Cash OAP Kill; The Living In A Bond Movie With No Discernible Villains Daylights; A TV License To Kill...

 

There's a reason why the audience loved Goldeneye so - because the franchise had become so boringly stale.

 

(I'm really gonna get it the neck now   )

[Harmsway]

What's wrong with John Glen, anyway? He directed every Bond film of the '80s.

The 80s were not exactly the franchise's finest hour. Certainly not its most stylish.

And if someone wants to knock John Glen, please put any of his films against "Spectre" and reconsider.

I don't like SPECTRE at all, but I love SKYFALL, which I consider to be the best Bond since OHMSS.

Even though SPECTRE is a bad film, it's at least a conceptually interesting failure, unlike, say, a dreary nothing like TWINE. I'll take a string of high highs and low lows over a string of mediocre movies.

I don't really have anything against McGuigan (aside from LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN being one of the worst films I've ever seen). He could be perfectly fine. But I see little reason to be excited, either.

[RMc2]

 

What's wrong with John Glen, anyway? He directed every Bond film of the '80s.

The 80s were not exactly the franchise's finest hour. Certainly not its most stylish.

 

I don't really have anything against McGuigan (aside from LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN being one of the worst films I've ever seen). He could be perfectly fine. But I see little reason to be excited, either.

 

 

Seconded! His work is stylish but the final product depends massively on the script, which he seems to care little about on his feature films, and over which he has presumably zero influence on TV.

 

On a different tack: how much input did Sony have on the choice of director from CR to SP? Does the McGuigan rumour mean that the distributors really won't have much creative say on Bond 25?