Mission: Impossible will still be around after Cruise leaves the role, but it won’t be the tentpole that it currently is for the studio. Those films are almost entirely driven by Cruise and they’re popularity will drop considerably without him. That’s one of the disadvantages they’ve put themselves into by not cultivating any actual characters that could be compelling on their own rather than just relying on Cruise’s star power to drive everything.
Also no reason why Bond and M:I can’t coexist in the same studio. Paramount would be making money hand-over-fist putting out a Bond and an M:I film every couple of years, especially for whatever amount of time they still have Cruise on board.
Amy Pascal may have had a good relationship with EON but everything else she touches has been a disaster. Sony is still reeling from her poor leadership. Sony ruined Spider-Man so badly they had to bow to fans wishes and let Mavel take back creative control.
As for WB yes they have mucked up their DC films but they do own DC comics outright. That would not be the case with Bond.
I prefer WB for their stability compared to Sony or Paramount. Of course stability isn’t truly possible with Bond still stuck with MGM.
Good points above. Whatever studio Bond lands at has to understand that 007 is it’s own beast. Both Sony and MGM understood that. Paramount seems to respect that in terms of their franchises and they did learn a few hard lessons when it came to both Clancy/Ryan and the Saint (which they paid tons for) and are still trying to reboot/retool. WB is on equal footing, but seem to feel they own the DC universe. At least Disney understands the fan base/drive with SW and the MCU.
I guess it really comes down to “old school” values when it comes to the majors and Bond is truly that in being the only in house/family owned and operated franchise left after Lucas did his deal and even before SW came about. EON isn’t looking for a hefty paycheck because they don’t need to. They want a good working commitment.
There are a lot of similarities between Sony and Paramount - both are struggling to find hits, need franchises - so the desperation is there that they will still give EON carte blanche to do what ever they want within reason. WB do own DC and feel they can do whatever with it as a result - but they do seem to let Nolan do whatever he wants also.
I think Paramount vs WB would say two different things about the franchise and where it’s headed - Paramount would say business as usual, BB and MGW running the ship, WB would tell me that perhaps the thoughts about BB&MGW thinking about selling off Bond have some credence, and that EON do one last Bond with Craig before they let Warner reboot (no doubt with Nolan). One film deal would say they’re testing the waters before they make a move one way or another
Have to correct this: Amy Pascal was hugely successful as a SONY executive, and only the hacking scandal forced her to leave. She is one of the most respected AND liked executives around because she can be tough as nails and still does not force the creative people to do her bidding. Other executives, especially the male ones, will always exert their influence and micromanage creative people.
Sure, Nolan right now is WB´s golden boy. And DUNKIRK expanded his power position. But no one, not even Spielberg, only has hits. Nolan´s INTERSTELLAR already did not as well as expected. His projects are always risks. And at some point WB will come after Nolan and force him to do what they want. Maybe he will quit and try to get a deal at another studio. But don´t believe for a second that WB, with the current regime, is an easy place to work with. Quite the contrary. And I suspect that EON knows very well that WB has their hands full with the struggling DC universe. BOND needs a more relaxed backer, someone who will enjoy working for EON. Not force them to be underlings.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if Pascal was already looking for another executive position… maybe at Paramount.
Pascal made a lot of bad decisions in her time though - but was well liked in general. In fact, so well liked that she managed to negotiate an exit from Sony that was not really an exit from Sony - she has her own “independent” production company that is fully funded and distributed by Sony, so shes not looking for somewhere new - she is permanently attached to all future Spiderman movies and is doing fine.
But while BB and MGW probably liked her, what they (and MGM more importantly, considering they have a big say) really liked was the financing situation where Sony basically paid all the money and allowed MGM to make money and EON to make all the creative decisions. It was a sweet heart deal because their movie division struggles and they wanted a sure fire box office hit like Bond. Paramount is in a similar position where nothing is hitting and they are struggling but Viacom is apparently pouring money into franchises and crossovers with all their brands to try and save it.
Might have some truth in it. Craig admitted he had to discuss returning as Bond with his wife due to the amount of strain his body has been through due to stunt work.
There might be a kernel of truth, but not worth having a whole article about it. I am also quite annoyed by Esquire’s assertion that Roger Moore had no issues doing stunts at age 49.
Made worse by accounts, press releases and documentaries over the years have Sir Roger talking about doing none of his own stunts and how proud he was of the many stunt men who doubled for him throughout his tenure. Its not like Moore’s aversion to doing stunts was a secret - He even wrote about it in 3 books!
That’s not how I took it. I thought they were saying Roger never had aches and pains because he never did anything physical. (Which wouldn’t be true, either).
But as they illustrated the comment with a shot of him in a “fight,” maybe you guys are right.
I also liked that the casino scene was integral to the plot - with him “cashing in the chip” in order to get the identity of Silva - rather than just a chance to show Bond being the coolest guy in the room.
We may expect plenty of these articles during the next few months; more or less informed opinion pieces dressed up as news; eight parts speculation and the rest a mix of outright false claims and a few dregs of confirmed facts. Every quarterly, newspaper and weekly magazine is going to run them, the broadcasters too, of course. Keeps the interns busy and the advertisers happy…
A German tv magazine (forgot whether its TV Aktuell or TV Movie) has clobbered together internet rumours and put the headline “This is how great the new Bond will be”, claiming that Waltz will be back along with Bautista - and getting Cara Delevigne as the Bond girl, someone BB is supposed to want for some time now.