Why does that chart say Ford is getting 12 mil for Indy 5? That’s his signature role, and he’s one of the biggest stars ever. The studio should be paying him so much they have to take out a loan!
Harrison Ford will almost certainly be pocketing 25 million or more for Indy 5.
Spot on Simon. Having worked in entertainment law, nothing is done until the check gets cashed or the wire transfer made. Also, all of it is under an NDA between the studio and the talent no matter what.
IMO, I’d offer a number, but why bother. Craig’s gotten a nice piece of the pie with EP credit on top of his pay. Roger’s reported pay for OP would be about 10 Mil. today adjusted. Figure for yourself.
Just give me a damn good Bond film.
3 Likes
Me too. Though casting a new Bond will always make me nervous. Just because past Bonds have been great doesn’t mean the future will follow suit. Bond #7 and whoever follows will have a huge standard to continue - they’re preceded by established icons.
1 Like
Well, I would count Lazenby as not great, and back then I would have been very nervous about the future of Bond films with him or at all. And I would have embraced DAF simply because of Connery´s return - and then I would have gotten very nervous again about recasting.
These days, no. The films will continue, and even a not so good actor will not hurt it.
I’m much more worried about the direction of the stories and the treatment of the main character.
After Spectre, yes…
‘Yes I believe I’m contracted to be in it… but I think it’s not happening until the end of the year. I know as much as you do.’
1 Like
Just me who finds it funny that only Q can remember that Whishaw, Fiennes and Harris were announced to be signed for 3 Bond films 6 years ago? If Boyle (or whoever) wants them in the film, they have to to turn up.
Maybe Danny Boyle wants to replace Q with a rebooted R, reboot Penelope Smallbone, and have M on leave so that recast Robinson can give Bond his orders.
On Mar 16, I teasingly speculated…
Then, on May 8 comes this…
The Express reads quarterdeckCBn. 
The comparison, if there is to be one, is likely the last stand tone of Logan; old, haggard, cynical - one last mission.
There’s no way on earth they’ll kill Bond.
Bring back Charles Robinson!
Perhaps for his death scene in the pre-tits…
What was great about LOGAN?
IMO, the tough approach to the character, showing him vulnerable for the first time, having him to cope with everyday problems as well as the obligatory plot-driven ones.
But didn’t we already get all that in the previous Bond films with Craig?
I would really dislike the usual blockbuster idea of pairing an older hero with a younger version of himself, and quite frankly, I could have done without that in LOGAN, too. It actually takes away from the main character and inescapably softens him.
With Craig becoming a father again, I hope he will not become sentimental and force that kind of feelings on Bond.
Kinky… 
I kind of wish Skyfall’s aging Bond story had been saved for Craig’s last. CR and QOS took place at the same time, and he was a new agent. The very next movie he was old and they were trying to put him out to pasture. 30 years from now, when we are drinking from our sippy cups of scotch at the CBn old folks home, that will be seen as an oddity in the Craig era.
1 Like
Haha I caught that too. 
Definitely. It’s like we’re missing two films.
1 Like
I’d guess the original concept was borrowed from Flemings TMWTGG and just intended as recuperation from injury and disillusionment (hence that cringeworthy ‘resurrection’ line when Bond meets Silva). Layering on top of all that an ‘ageing-Bond’ theme isn’t a necessary function of this concept.
Disillusionment is the scripts major theme; it drives ex-MI6 agent Silva’s revenge and is resolved with bond’s epilogue moment on the Whitehall rooftop and end line to his new M. The film’s really about the difference between Bond’s and Silva’s way of dealing with M’s perceived betrayal of them both; prodigal son, or black sheep.
However, when writing the script it was decided to address Craig’s age. It may have been an executive decision to avoid comparison’s to Moore’s latter Bond films. Or it may simply have begun with a line or moment which the writer couldn’t bare to lose, such as Feinne’s line that there’s no shame in saying enough is enough (I paraphrase) that it’s a young man’s game. Then once age is acknowledged it needs to be reflected throughout the script.
If either, or both of these reasons are true they are good on Eon for trying to keep Craig’s films real. But it has created a glitch in continuity. With hindsight they probably should’ve let his age ride (he’s still in buff shape after all) and instead addressed the film’s far bigger plot holes.
1 Like
Vic Armstrong returning as stunt coordinator for Bond 25.
Hopefully, this is true - but does anybody know this site “Omega Underground”? I never heard about it and doubt its reliability.