402 replies to this topic

[Agent 76]

Bond would gain a lot by changing to another studio. MGM is a lost cause.

[Orion]

I'm sure EON agree, probably not nice being handcuffed to a sinking ship knowing you can't do anything about it. 

[Surrie]

I'm sure EON agree, probably not nice being handcuffed to a sinking ship knowing you can't do anything about it. 

 

Something that must frustrate them daily. 

[Toxteth_OGrady]

Cyprus to feature in Bond 25?

http://in-cyprus.com...ames-bond-film/

[SecretAgentFan]

Hmm.  Now the writers are flown out to scout locations too?  Does this seem believable?  Usually, the producers and locations scouts do that - and after a decision is made the writers have to adapt the particular sequences to the location.

 

Either this part of the article is false - or the production is already preparing scenes and has sent the writers to the locations in order to be there for rewrites during production.

[univex]

One word: date.

[Toxteth_OGrady]

One word: date.

I did think that, although it's a strange thing to come up with for an April Fools.

[Dustin]

It's probably the only thing deemed safe enough for April fools in this day and age...

[univex]

Local prank. It´s in a Cyprus news vehicle - The Cyprus Weekly. 

 

Bond is dormant for now, in the most torpid state since 2003, probably. Studio shenanigans and that sort of thing. People having a break. Poor management of what could be an ongoing hype. I´ve given up on news.

[SecretAgentFan]

Fooled me again.

[univex]

We are all kites on the ground, waiting for an hurricane, my friend.

[mummyboy11]

And all this started with a helicopter...   

 

I'm happy to feel the enthusiasm coming back again!  I hope Craig can tag along one last time...cause with the exception of Hiddleston (and even I don't really SEE him as 007) all these candidates to the role are too insipid-gossip-magazine-young-actors. Except Hardy and Elba, who I think are just too brute and blunt for the part.

 

PS: agree with ditching MGM. Would miss the traditional roar in the beginning of the movies, though. 

[univex]

I'm happy to feel the enthusiasm coming back again!

Where? When? From who? What for? (I say, frenetically moving my eyes left to right and so on until I enter an auto hypnotic or cataleptic state that I hope numbs me until there´s some real news of any kind)

I hope Craig can tag along one last time...cause with the exception of Hiddleston (and even I don't really SEE him as 007) all these candidates to the role are too insipid-gossip-magazine-young-actors. Except Hardy and Elba, who I think are just too brute and blunt for the part.

I agree, wholeheartedly. After rewatching SF and SP in a row yesterday, I must say I really want Danny boy to come back for one more - at least.

[Tiin007]

To think, had they stuck to the two-year schedule of yesteryear, Craig could potentially begin filming his seventh Bond film at the end of this year. 

[SecretAgentFan]

And, to be honest, the two-year release schedule is something that is absolutely possible.  EON just doesn´t organize it that way, having a main actor who does not want it.

[MISALA1994]

I'm happy to feel the enthusiasm coming back again!

Where? When? From who? What for? (I say, frenetically moving my eyes left to right and so on until I enter an auto hypnotic or cataleptic state that I hope numbs me until there´s some real news of any kind)

I hope Craig can tag along one last time...cause with the exception of Hiddleston (and even I don't really SEE him as 007) all these candidates to the role are too insipid-gossip-magazine-young-actors. Except Hardy and Elba, who I think are just too brute and blunt for the part.

I agree, wholeheartedly. After rewatching SF and SP in a row yesterday, I must say I really want Danny boy to come back for one more - at least.

I don't, SP was perfect swan song for him.

[DavidJones]

And, to be honest, the two-year release schedule is something that is absolutely possible.  EON just doesn´t organize it that way, having a main actor who does not want it.

 

I've always thought this too. Even without the MGM problem, there are still things which need to be addressed going forward. They need to get a script finished before they begin filming and stop the incompetence that has dogged them these last few years.

Edited by DavidJones, 03 April 2017 - 02:54 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

It´s not incompetence - it is a choice made by EON to allow their main actor to determine when he wants to do another movie.

 

In the old days, EON wanted to produce a new movie regularly.  If the actor wasn´t willing he was replaced.

 

Now, EON sticks to Daniel Craig as if he was the only one who can be a successful Bond and to make him happy they wait for Sam Mendes.

 

I´m absolutely sure that MGM would move heaven and hell to secure a distribution deal for a new Bond film if EON offered to bring them one.  But MGW seems to have lost the deciding power, and BB seems to have lost the urge to do Bond after Bond.  She rather wants to branch out and make other movies in between - you know, like Daniel does.

 

And Craig rides the wave of the critical acclaim and public love, milking the status of being Bond for marketing gigs and asking power for acting fees.  If he´s no longer Bond he will not be able to get the sums he gets right now.

 

So, only if someone at EON finally sees the need to move forward this will be sorted out.  Drafting a script for BOND 25 is a first step - but far from a clear sign that this will result in a new film.  If DC says no to this script they might look for other writers, and if DC then says maybe, but only with the right director, the whole game starts anew, with the director bringing in his own writers - and when DC then says: I don´t like this director at all...  you catch my drift.

[DavidJones]

By incompetence, I was referring more to the troubled production of every Bond in the Craig era.

 

I, also, find it annoying that they think Craig is the bee's knees to such a point that they would rather not do any films without him.

 

There are so many talented actors who could play that role well and make it an enormous success.

 

This is why I continue to think of Bond as a 20th century film series, albeit one which gets revisited as one-offs occasionally. 

Edited by DavidJones, 03 April 2017 - 04:05 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Right now it surely looks like that.

[RMc2]

I, also, find it annoying that they think Craig is the bee's knees to such a point that they would rather not do any films without him.

 

I'm not sure that EONs apparent fidelity to the actor playing Bond is anything new - or unique to DC.

 

EON always used Bond actors for as long as they could, to guarantee that box office. Connery and Moore were used beyond their expiry date - if Lazenby hadn't quit, he could easily have played Bond for over a decade. Dalton was Bond until he retired from the role. The only time an actor was actually 'let go' was with Brosnan, and that was when the commercial and creative opportunities offered by CR outweighed the commercial advantages of keeping Brosnan.

 

Yes, EON (by which I mean, BB) has made a lot of allowances for DC, and indulged his creative input moreso than any of the other actors were seemingly allowed to contribute. But when it comes to the pace of his output, he's just exercising the first-refusal right that was afforded to every other Bond actor (even Brosnan after DAD, until the film rights to CR came through). I don't think it's anything new.

[DavidJones]

That's true enough - though, as you point out, it happens a bit more with DC.

 

(I don't know if Cubby would have kept Roger had Sean not done NSNA, though).

 

Maybe actors are more indulged these days, generally. Robert Downey Jr, for example, probably has a lot of say with his Marvel films.

[glidrose]

PS: agree with ditching MGM. Would miss the traditional roar in the beginning of the movies, though.

 
Traditional? Oh yes, since 1983.

 

This feels like 89-95 situation...

 
Somebody elsewhere in this thread suggested that we might be waiting 'till at least 2019. Which is exactly what I've thought since early 2016. I'd honestly be surprised if the next one is out before 2019. Oddly, I don't really care.

 

For my taste, the whole "let´s look deeper at Bond´s character" is completely played out.
 
If you look any deeper you will see there is nothing else.  Orphan, anti-social behaviour that made him perfect for the spy job, losing his first love turned him into a what the heck-womanizer, and the second love of his life was killed by his main enemy, turning him into an even more determined lone assassin.
 
What else is there?

Bingo.

One other problem. Kingsley Amis in one of his many dazzling essays complained that he got into jazz and science fiction as they were going to pot ("becoming utter tosh" for those of you who think it has something to do with drugs). Amis pointed the finger at modernism. The need to peel back the layers. To make Serious Statements ™ about The World We Live In ™. Nothing can be a skillful, intelligent entertainment. Oh no. That won't do. Amis argued that modernism was the death-knell for any creative venture and that it inevitably leads to creative paralysis.

Wish I could remember the rest of the article, let alone had it copied when the book passed my way. The essay probably appears in his book "The Amis collection: selected non-fiction, 1954-1990". Mandatory reading. As a bonus, there are several Bond-related articles including reviews of Christopher Wood's TSWLM novelisation (grudgingly positive) and Gardner's FSS (brutally negative).
 
Ultimately, where do the Bond producers go from here? Keep pulling back the layers? What layers? I wouldn't be surprised if four year gaps become the new norm. I also wouldn't be surprised if the series loses its way in the next decade or two as it tries to figure out what it wants to be while trying to stay afloat in the now standard sea of blockbuster franchises. How often do any of us run into kids these days who are big Bond fans the way we were way back when? Or is it all about the Marvel Universe.
 
I remember thinking some time ago that perhaps the producers may decide to chuck it in and do animated versions of Charlie Higson's novels for a bit.
 
But I do not see a return to the two-year schedule. Ever. Don't think the market could sustain it.

EON always used Bond actors for as long as they could, to guarantee that box office. Connery and Moore were used beyond their expiry date - if Lazenby hadn't quit, he could easily have played Bond for over a decade. Dalton was Bond until he retired from the role. The only time an actor was actually 'let go' was with Brosnan, and that was when the commercial and creative opportunities offered by CR outweighed the commercial advantages of keeping Brosnan.

Brosnan wasn't "let go". His contract wasn't renewed. Cubby Broccoli's biography claims Roger Moore was let go. Moore apparently denied it but, I believe, now says it was a "mutual decision."

[plankattack]

I, also, find it annoying that they think Craig is the bee's knees to such a point that they would rather not do any films without him.
 
There are so many talented actors who could play that role well and make it an enormous success.

You're right. There are plenty of other actors who could, stress, could, make it an enormous success. Ask the question now and what would we get? Another 30 page thread of suggestions?

The movie business doesn't like to chuck about a $250million dollar budget on "could" - for that kind of money, they need to deal in "will" make it an enormous success. Fair or not, DC is associated with the most successful period in the franchise's history, and no movie executive worth the cushion on his chair is going to go "Forget that guy, bring me.....(insert 30 page thread here) as our new lead."

And while day-dreaming about who the next guy could be entertains us fans, EON haven't exactly had the most comfortable time of it. Laz - one and done, TD (great Bond btw) did not set the pulses racing in the most important market, the US. And let's not forget, most of the world, including a large chunk of the fanbase, were up in arms when Brozza was replaced by a blonde! With big ears! Never heard of him! etc etc

I personally think that DC is done, but if there's any chance of MGM or whoever stepping up to the plate, then there's no positive to going public with not having the star attached. Again, I'm not saying that DC is the reason the franchise has been so successful of late, but what I am saying is thatHollywood is a "star business" and it's the names above the title that keep projects on the boil.

[Dustin]

Wish I could remember the rest of the article, let alone had it copied when the book passed my way. The essay probably appears in his book "The Amis collection: selected non-fiction, 1954-1990". Mandatory reading. As a bonus, there are several Bond-related articles including reviews of Christopher Wood's TSWLM novelisation (grudgingly positive) and Gardner's FSS (brutally negative)...

On a sidenote, The Amis Collection currently sells used on Amazon for € 440.- in paperback and € 260.- in hardcover. For everybody not familiar with the Euro: that's a lot. Lucky those who have it.

[sharpshooter]

This is why I continue to think of Bond as a 20th century film series, albeit one which gets revisited as one-offs occasionally. 

 

Indeed. What's so annoying is that there is hunger for Bond movies. And for whatever reason at the time, they're not getting made often enough. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I view the Craig era as an ongoing crisis in the timespan of the movie franchise.

 

DAD got huge box office returns.  It would have been possible to go on in the previous two-year-mode with Brosnan.  (Yes, even Brosnan got a three-year gap between TWINE and DAD - but that was not due to his urge to play other roles, was it?) But EON got cold feet and, I believe, very scared by BOURNE.  So they risked everything on DC - and achieved even bigger success.  

 

However, EON also got the bug of "we need to have award winning directors now", and this is what got the next three films problems or delays or creative one-way-streets.  Yes, I love QOS and SF.  But I also see the problems they did not solve, despite the arthouse directors and Oscar winning polishing writers.  SPECTRE seems to comprise everything that is wrong with the Craig era: it inserts typical Bond elements and wants to be a serious character study - and that just does not gel, at least not the way they tried it.  

 

The fact that they find themselves at an impasse again after four films is at the same time weird and normal.  After four films in the Connery era they decided to go big and same-y (YOLT after TB) and then scaled things down to earth again with OHMSS.  After four films with Moore they scaled things down to earth again as well.  After four films with Brosnan - yep.

 

But the main problem here seems to be a lack of planning.  Why go bigger and bigger with the films so you reach the fourth film and say: gee, we went too far and have to go back again?  Why not stay on one level and instead concentrate on storytelling?  Why not make the story the attraction instead of "bigger, better, bond and beyond"?

 

That, IMO, seems to be the more productive way to move forward.  And if you look at blockbuster cinema these days the "bigger, more explosions, world ending third act" has become stale and boring to audiences.  These kinds of tentpoles might still open big - but they drop off much quicker than before.  People wait to see them on home video/streaming.

 

If EON wants to keep on making Bond films for the next 10, 20 years - and right now it appears that this is not clear at all - they have to rethink the way they plan out films.

 

The excuse "oh, these films are so big, we only think to get this one done" does not cut it and is, frankly, ludicrous.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

I, also, find it annoying that they think Craig is the bee's knees to such a point that they would rather not do any films without him.

 

I'm not sure that EONs apparent fidelity to the actor playing Bond is anything new - or unique to DC.

 

EON always used Bond actors for as long as they could, to guarantee that box office. Connery and Moore were used beyond their expiry date - if Lazenby hadn't quit, he could easily have played Bond for over a decade. Dalton was Bond until he retired from the role. The only time an actor was actually 'let go' was with Brosnan, and that was when the commercial and creative opportunities offered by CR outweighed the commercial advantages of keeping Brosnan.

 

Yes, EON (by which I mean, BB) has made a lot of allowances for DC, and indulged his creative input moreso than any of the other actors were seemingly allowed to contribute. But when it comes to the pace of his output, he's just exercising the first-refusal right that was afforded to every other Bond actor (even Brosnan after DAD, until the film rights to CR came through). I don't think it's anything new.

 

 

Yes, EON tries to stick with a successful actor.  But when Connery quit after YOLT they did not try to cater to his wishes, they recast.  They only got Connery back after OHMSS because the studio made that deal with Connery, and everybody knew it was only one film.  Sir Roger definitely wanted to go on - but Cubby knew it was time to move forward.  Dalton did not work out at the box office, so he got the boot.  Brosnan demanded too much money, so they fired him.

 

Maybe DC is only one demand away from being let go as well.  But he surely got what nobody else yet has: the director he wanted and a co-producer credit.

 

Actors want power, and everybody can understand why.  It is just not good to give them too much of it.

[Dustin]

I'm not sure about the actual "hunger", interest more like. At the moment there are literally countless competitors catering to every facet of the market. Bond's absence is felt but not currently bemoaned. It's a topic of interest for us, and of course for journalist colleagues observing the industry. But actual hunger I don't currently detect with the public. I severely hope that will have changed by 2019 or later.

[MISALA1994]

There are so many talented actors who could play that role well and make it an enormous success.

This, the role is bigger than any actor...

Edited by MISALA1994, 04 April 2017 - 06:49 AM.