The affair was handled a bit less slick than could have been, with Craig scheduled for a radio interview on the very day and outright lying to his interviewer, instead of just saying something noncommittal. It put up a stink with the radio guys and it makes you wonder how long in advance CBS knew they had a scoop. This could have been arranged months ago, yet it needn’t mean Paramount is BOND 25’s distributor. After all, they could have revealed that on the same occasion.
I agree. If you’re dropping “breaking news” - is it better to do it on a national talk show that gets linked all over the globe, or with a couple of local radio dudes? I have no doubt the publicists made it clear to be evasive all day, so that a network had it first. The listeners of 109.7 in Toledo will get over it… 
Well, if you happen to work for that station you will doubtless see things from a different angle. After all Craig’s comment was their 15 seconds of fame, they were cited with the story far beyond their usual reach. If Craig had just kept mum everybody would have understood that Colbert’s team got that fish on the hook.
This way, however, they ran into a wall. That didn’t go terribly well…
There have been no doubt reasons why The Late Show was chosen for Craig’s big reveal. And they need not be related to the studio deal. In fact, it was good promotional value for both sides: Craig effectively started the BOND 25 campaign and The Late Show once more confirmed its standing as the show where the big truths are revealed and guests give a little more than in other shows.
Still…might perhaps have been better not to speak about BOND 25 before meeting Colbert.
I don’t necessarily buy the idea that Craig appearing on Colbert to make the announcement means that Paramount has the deal. Now, I wouldn’t be upset about that, as I’d much rather see Bond there than at Warner, but I’m not necessarily sure that they’re entirely related.
Colbert’s Late Show is now the place that you go for these types of things. In his short time on the air, he’s quickly overtaken The Tonight Show as the premiere late night show. He’ll be getting more of these types of scoops, the type that used to go to Johnny Carson and Jay Leno back in the day.
I’m all about the locations. I like London but we’ve had it featured heavily for the past two films. Who knows if the Dubrovnik rumours are true, but that would be a nice place to shoot. And of course Japan, which the franchise hasn’t been to since YOLT.
How about Africa?
Or Australia?
Somewhere we haven’t been to before.
Would definitely be keen to see Australia or Africa.
We’ll find out soon re: paramount/Warner - Daniel Craig confirming means the studio deal is settled as they couldn’t announce before that was done (financing etc…)
My money is on WB. Paramount is certainly a possibility and they would love Bond to go along with Trek and MI as far as their franchise portfolio goes. Disney is a long shot for a lot of reasons. EON really doesn’t want to be swallowed up and sort of lost among SW and the MCU. A lot also depends on whoever is keeping the lights on at MGM. Sony could jump back on board but has been oddly quiet. Their current management seems to be in flux IMO. I’ve mentioned before that FOX might be the dark horse in this race. Universal might be there too, but Bond is the prize with MGM.
How this plays out or who EON has be “talking with” per MGW, is anybody’s guess, but clearly something’s going to happen soon. This is also nothing new. If they’ve set a date and the writing was announced and in between that time Craig agreed to do it but keep it under wraps, there has to be some deal decided upon. Distribution is a deal that’s locked down first in most cases, but with a franchise of Bond’s scope, the details are I’m sure very unique and painstakingly planned out because this certainly is beyond “the next couple of films”.
We’ll either hear of one of the majors buying out MGM (they’re really in no position to partner anymore), or EON and whoever striking a deal.
Time will tell… and it will tell soon.
I prefer WB as well. Who knows after all this speculation it might stay at Sony. There would be a nice symmetry to that if all five of Craig’s film were distributed by Sony/Columbia Pictures.
Indeed. I’m just not sure what’s going on over there. In all of this, they’ve been strangely quiet. I’m also trying to figure out how EON locked a date so firmly as to announce it without some deal in place. Maybe there is one, but the details are being hammered out. Double time now so with Craig’s confirmation.
Hey, this time last week, we were all still wondering about Bond #7. I guess the odds makers can shut down their books on that for another few years.
I think the Paramount deal for the Blake Lively film does point to a fondness EON has for them.
Despite some here expressing their love for WB one should remember that EON will prefer someone they can easily work with, which is why Amy Pascal was so important for them at SONY.
Without her SONY quickly became unattractive for EON.
But WB is the studio which meddled and muddled up the DC films, and it is doubtful they would keep out of EON’s decisions.
Paramount will be eager to get Bond and willing to let EON do their thing…
Reading Cubby"s autobiography gives one a glimpse how much bad studio connections ruined the day. EON will rather choose the good working relationshio instead of the better money.
This. EON did seem to prefer Sony purely because they had a good working relationship with Pascal, I’d imagine studio preference for EON will be more based on who they’ll be dealing with on a daily basis rather than how much money the studio offers.
True. But then again, that fact doesn’t seem to scare away the talent. Matt Reeves, Joss Whedon, and Patty Jenkins are still happy to work for DC/WB. (For the time being, of course.)
They might have loosened their grip a bit since the previous approach to DC did not work as intended. But after Wonder Woman’s success they already demand to go that route from Whedon in JL.
Warner has made an absolute mess of their DC Universe, and the stories that were going around over the past month that they were considering booting Ben Affleck, who is the one saving grace that these films have had going for them so far, doesn’t fill me with confidence with regards to how they would handle Bond.
I’d be more than happy for Bond to end up at Paramount. It’s worked out pretty well for the M:I films and Tom Cruise seems to have a pretty good amount of creative control over that franchise, so one would assume that Bond would probably be afforded a similar degree of freedom.
I don’t think Paramount makes sense, they already have their spy thing with Mission Impossible.
And they’ve done a terrific job with it. Time to bring some of that to Bond. M:I won’t last forever, as it will lose a lot of its luster whenever Cruise departs.
MI missed out on the chance to hand over from Hunt to Brandt and morph Hunt into the M role for at least one film too long. Now it’s going to be hard keeping it alive when Cruise really has to quit the role.
But otherwise Paramount has handled that series quite well, also with regards to how they managed budgets and made their product look classy without risking to go broke on it. That’s a definite plus even when a Bond film would probably call for a bigger budget than any MI entry.
Hmm, I think they’re more likely to reboot Mission Impossible when the time comes (with Tom Cruise still producing) than have Bond supplant it. There’s still time for them to introduce characters to succeed Ethan, or do a total reboot, anything’s possible!
Oh I don’t think Paramount would let MI lay dormant for too long. If they’re after Bond then only to add him to the repertory. These days any studio would see to it their properties keep going on and on.