I get that feeling too. If they have that mindset, perhaps Craig won’t get a final send off per se. It’ll just turn out to be his last film, as SPECTRE seemed to be at the time.
My issue has always been with the long gaps. If they could get a Craig led Bond 26 out two or so years after Bond 25 I wouldn’t mind. I guess we’ll find out as things progress.
We have a brand new film to focus on right now. I’m glad we have a new director and writing team, which is bound to give us something a little different. I’m hoping Jeffrey Wright returns at the very least. I have no idea what they’ll do with Madeleine and that side of things.
What do you think this Univerisal deal means for a possible MGM sale? They were always going to partner with somebody, of course, as the film wouldn’t be made otherwise, but I wonder if it gives them another crutch to lean on for a few years.
Depends really on how the profit share breaks down with their 2 partners. I dont see it being as good as the one with Sony, simply because MGM actually had something Sony wanted when that was arranged.
The question is: what did Universal offer that other studios did not? How low were Universal willing to go?
Since MGM knows that Bond is their meal ticket they will continue to milk it in order to stay afloat in any possible way.
I only see two options:
the next Bond film tanks, confusion sets in, nobody knows how to proceed, therefore Bond films become a thing of the past, so MGM has to sell off the back catalogue to pay off debts.
Or the current regime just wants to cash in their chips because they know that the movie business now is at its worst it has ever been, relying only on mega-budget comic book adaptations, and UNIVERSAL will buy in order to set up Bond films anew.
Interesting possibilities, though I’m not sure the Bond franchise is only one flop away from being thing of the past. It would likely take two or three consecutive films to tank for that to happen, I think.
Hopefully, MGM will sell, and soon. One day, we may frown at the long gaps in the Craig era and think it weird, while enjoying a two-year cycle again from it’s new owner.
Well, if a “final” CraigBond film flops it will fray MGM´s nerves considerably - Craig was/is considered to be the biggest success guarantee for the films. Re-casting Bond for BOND 25 obviously was a risk no one was willing to take.
In other words: if Craig cannot bring in audiences for Bond, the risk of casting an unproven Bond will maybe be too much for MGM to have enough leverage for their negotiating position.
I would not like this, by the way. I want BOND 25 to succeed - and BOND 26 to introduce a new actor with just as much success or even more. But how likely is this these days?
With any luck, it will be the brand people want, not just the actor. Which is why it’s important for Eon to tailor the whole thing so people know what it is, regardless of who is wearing the tux.
I mean time has proven that 007 is bigger than any actor (though in many cases, the actor never quite manages to escape 007) - however, we are in a new generation with Marvel’s connected universe and younger fans who have only grown up with Daniel Craig (especially since they leaned into connected storytelling so hard with a direct sequel and Spectre’s whatever they poorly attempted to do there) - so its definitely a risk compared to the old days.
The same as it always has been. Bond is in the rare position (one seemingly only shared by Batman and Sherlock Holmes) where audiences have reached a point of accepting the concept of a new actor in the role, even if WHO can never be agreed. It’s why all but Disney are seemingly keen on having the series.
Marvel have said a few times that they intend Iron Man to be like that, but they are fast approaching the un-enviable moment they have to convince an audience on a Non-Downey Jr looking Tony Stark.
I think the issue will be whether they’ve locked themselves into an endless cycle of reboots like Spiderman (three reboots in 10-15 years) ie: people may accept new Bonds but they might not accept starting off with close to no continuity as pre-Craig
I guess that would only be a problem if the films followed each other quickly, on an annual or bi-annual basis.
But that seems to have been taken care of.
Apart from that, every era started its own muddled continuity, and people never stopped and said: that’s it, I’m not watching anymore if these characters are played by other others now.
For BOND 25 I would be majorly surprised if the current Mi5-crew did not come back.
But the real point of interest for me now is the story.
What is the absolutely outstanding, winning over everybody-concept that Boyle and Hodge came up with?
I would LOVE them to succeed and really sweep me off my feet with their originality, honestly!
But I already feel the usual hype coming on, for something that will actually feel not that surprising or even trite.
Hopefully, the rumor of Bond getting a young female agent assigned, a quasi-daughter, will remain just a rumor - and not turn out to be the BIG BOYLE idea.
Oh yeah Whishaw and crew will all be back for Bond 25 - This is purely Bond 26 I’m talking about. It will certainly be interesting to see what the big idea is - I somehow doubt that rehashing Logan with 007 is it so I think you are safe on that front (hopefully… Spectre does exist so who knows, but I think the fact that its a seeming one off and out of the inhouse teams hands gives me a deal of hope)
I could well be wrong, but I thought you had said previously that it was Boyle himself that Eon want - for the publicity and credibility of snagging an A-list filmmaker (my wording) - and that his and Hodges’ idea is something they have to take on with it.
That is my impression. But since the whole hiring of Boyle was publicized with his “fresh story idea” being a major factor, I believe that this originality will be looked for in the finished film. And if it isn’t there…
I do agree with you, by the way, that they want Boyle first and foremost, and his idea second.
I would imagine it happens a lot in filmmaking. A star, of some hue or another, comes in with an idea and everyone has to say nice things about it because of who he/she is. They don’t want to put a dampner on things.
In the UK it’s impossible to get a script into production unless Names are attached to star, no matter how much the commissioners etc like it. Money won’t be forthcoming without a ‘bankable star’. And we’re not talking big budget (in which case the need for a star is fair enough).
Almost everything Indy or medium budget in the uk stars a bunch of soap or pop stars who can’t act, or the usual very elite suspects, in a bid to commercialise the movie. Of course it’s a business and investors want to make a profit rather then loss. But as has been often said the uk treats it as a cottage industry - a play thing for the privaladged. In other countries there seems to be more interesting work produced by new comers, whereas in the uk it’s a rare thing. Oops, im ranting
Back on topic, or at least back to the current conversation… Not being a ‘star’ I’ve had no experience of the reverse situation, but I imagine it’s true that a Name can walk into a meeting with toilet paper hanging out of his trousers and it’ll be seized and it’s brown smudges declaired to be the greatest thing the execs have ever read and must go into production immediately
