Personally Im quite partial to hollandaise especially with crab meat stuffed whiting.
There are no more accurate outlets for information regarding bond than this forum, who's members are constantly searching for concrete fact, in the absence of that anything else is supposition.
Im afraid i disagree..
.......eon is more accurate .babs will sort it .
If you disagree can you elaborate as to why you do? Allegedly there is a member here who has inside information and personal knowledge, and facts are still hard to come by.
Personally Im quite partial to hollandaise especially with crab meat stuffed whiting.
There are no more accurate outlets for information regarding bond than this forum, who's members are constantly searching for concrete fact, in the absence of that anything else is supposition.
Im afraid i disagree..
.......eon is more accurate .babs will sort it .
So is EON your source?
Why are we engaging with this guy? He has no source. Just let him babble in peace. 8-)
I was not at the DC event, but I did watch David's video. When DC talked about the best job in the world, and he would miss it. I took that to mean acting in general not specifically being Bond. Is that just me, or was he talking about being Bond?
I agree it appeared as if he was referring to acting as a whole. a lot of news articles have linked that quote to Bond in particular (Must sell more papers)
Maybe someone who was there can enlighten us to the context surrounding that particular answer.
i took this as playing Bond ..as the questions / rumors concern him not being Bond not giving up acting.
"some men are coming to kill us, we're going to kill them first"
Why are we engaging with this guy? He has no source. Just let him babble in peace. 8-)
You maybe have a valid ?:)
)
I dont have to disclose any source
Ive heard lots of rubbish on here but im not moaning about it.
Unbelievable some of the actors who have heen put forward for bond none of which will get the part as none are any good for bond .
Dan will be back all will be revealed in April.
Dont engage with me
Ive read rubbish on here from "this source and that source "
Just wait and see .
Dan is the man
I was not at the DC event, but I did watch David's video. When DC talked about the best job in the world, and he would miss it. I took that to mean acting in general not specifically being Bond. Is that just me, or was he talking about being Bond?
I agree it appeared as if he was referring to acting as a whole. a lot of news articles have linked that quote to Bond in particular (Must sell more papers)
Maybe someone who was there can enlighten us to the context surrounding that particular answer.
i took this as playing Bond ..as the questions / rumors concern him not being Bond not giving up acting.
As did I as it was in response to a specific bond question was it not?
If DC does do a DAF may I suggest Mel and Sue as the new Bambie and Thumper as now they are quitting GBB they will be available and maybe Mary Berry as the new Tiffany )
If DC does do a DAF may I suggest Mel and Sue as the new Bambie and Thumper as now they are quitting GBB they will be available and maybe Mary Berry as the new Tiffany )
Nooooooo in skimpy leotards!!!! Thanks for that mental image! I'm off to the everything eva thread to cleanse my brain
I know absolutely nothing about who the next Bond will be, but I suspect Craig is doing EON a favor by keeping everything ambiguous. If he said he absolutely isn't coming back then EON/MGM would have zero negotiating leverage with potential distributors.
I know absolutely nothing about who the next Bond will be, but I suspect Craig is doing EON a favor by keeping everything ambiguous. If he said he absolutely isn't coming back then EON/MGM would have zero negotiating leverage with potential distributors.
I'm not sure they have very much as it is.
I think saying that EON/MGM would have zero negotiating leverage is a bit of an overstatement. I think it more realistic to say that they would have less without Craig on board. Craig or no Craig, Bond is still a hot property. But Craig's return certainly does loom large in the broad scheme of things. What a potential partner has to weigh is even if Craig does not return, there is still a good possibility that the next Bond might still make a solid go of it and score big at the box office leaving that studio holding their you know whats in their hands. It's also been reported that MGM might just gamble on distributing Bond themselves once again...or they could just be putting that out there as leverage. -{
MGM doesn't have the resources to distribute its own films. It couldn't even distribute a small-indie-type movie like "Me Before You," they had to get Warner Brothers to do it. They're in even worse shape now that "Ben Hur" and "The Magnificent Seven" have flopped.
To the posters on a James Bond board, Bond looks like a sure thing, but I don't think that's the way the people in Hollywood see it. If the proposal is the same deal that Sony had with a relative unknown playing Bond and a journeyman director directing a Purvis and Wade script, with EON's inability to control costs, I'm sure any studio would run screaming from that.
MGM doesn't have the resources to distribute its own films. It couldn't even distribute a small-indie-type movie like "Me Before You," they had to get Warner Brothers to do it. They're in even worse shape now that "Ben Hur" and "The Magnificent Seven" have flopped.
To the posters on a James Bond board, Bond looks like a sure thing, but I don't think that's the way the people in Hollywood see it. If the proposal is the same deal that Sony had with a relative unknown playing Bond and a journeyman director directing a Purvis and Wade script, with EON's inability to control costs, I'm sure any studio would run screaming from that.
IMO, it's not as dire as you think it is. As far as MGM distributing it themselves, it probably is just posturing. In the world of negotiations, every weakness is exploited for gain and used as an excuse to lower an offer. The Sony deal was a sweetheart deal for MGM, it's unrealistic that anyone would match that under any circumstances. There will eventually be a deal, it just may not be what MGM was asking. To be honest, I wish that someone would buy MGM out of the Bond business. MGM and their financial problems have been a thorn in EON's side. However, I just can't see MGM letting Bond go; it's the only thing that keeps them going. As far as EON controlling costs, I think they are capable of tightening things up on that end as they did to an extent on Skyfall. It's possible that a bit of budget restraint might yield a better Bond film....less vacant bombast and a focus more on drama, story and suspense.
MGM doesn't have the resources to distribute its own films. It couldn't even distribute a small-indie-type movie like "Me Before You," they had to get Warner Brothers to do it. They're in even worse shape now that "Ben Hur" and "The Magnificent Seven" have flopped.
I probably wouldn't distribute small indy films either - the return is much riskier than Bond. Bond is hot property, and has a large audience, so people flock to cinemas as both hardcore fans, general public and people who treat Bond as a family event, because it's lasted generations. And considering no Bond film has flopped, there is a lessened risk of distributing a Bond film without some kind of return.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
The way Hollywood operates today with an over reliance on re-makes, re-boots, sequels, etc Bond films are even more of a comfort zone. A Bond film these days, even without Craig may not always break Box Office records but will do well enough so that investors are pretty much guaranteed a return on their investment, especially with the emergence of the Chinese market with its voracious appetite for action/adventure films, large number of screens and large number of IMAX venues.
One question that's been on my mind, as we ponder and debate whether Craig will return and if not, who the next Bond will be, is what happens if KONG: SKULL ISLAND flops? It's supposed to be Hiddleston's showcase proving he can carry an action movie as a leading man. It's hard predicting these things 6 months out. But Jackson's film didn't improve his reputation. And the director Jordan Voght-Roberts comes from a comedy background and has never directed a big budget actioner. Obviously Universal is hoping it'll be a redux of JURASSIC WORLD, but that was a very different franchise. There have been those here who imply Hiddleston is a done deal based on inside information, but I wonder if the mighty KONG will have something to say in the end.
That's an interesting point, hiddleston has never carried a film like this on his own, and if his hank film is anything to go by, people don't flock to see a film just because he's in it. But and it's a big billion pound but neither had dc and he's done pretty good business as bond. I think eon know bond pulls in audiences.
It was either that.....or the priesthood
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,485MI6 Agent
The lead actor isn't the attraction. Bond is. Whoever plays him, the audience is already there. The actor just has to be good to keep them coming back.
Still holding out for Craig. I remember Babs saying a LONG time ago that the role is HIS as long as he wants it! He hasn't said no yet, nor have they announced that TH has been cast. I think they're on hiatus for a bit until Craig agrees to return...
One question that's been on my mind, as we ponder and debate whether Craig will return and if not, who the next Bond will be, is what happens if KONG: SKULL ISLAND flops? It's supposed to be Hiddleston's showcase proving he can carry an action movie as a leading man. It's hard predicting these things 6 months out. But Jackson's film didn't improve his reputation. And the director Jordan Voght-Roberts comes from a comedy background and has never directed a big budget actioner. Obviously Universal is hoping it'll be a redux of JURASSIC WORLD, but that was a very different franchise. There have been those here who imply Hiddleston is a done deal based on inside information, but I wonder if the mighty KONG will have something to say in the end.
I don't think the Kong film will effect whether Hiddleston gets Bond or not. The film could be terrible but Hiddleston could still be good. There probably won't be any potential of conflict between Kong sequels and Bond films because the Kong film takes place during the 70's and apparently will segway into contemporary times as part of the "Godzilla" universe for a "King Kong Vs Godzilla" showdown to be released after the next Godzilla film. That sounds pretty geeky and involved but the point is, Hiddleston's character would probably not be included in a sequel that takes place 40-45 years in the future. The Hank Williams film wasn't much at the box office, but Hiddleston was excellent in it. He worked very hard to prepare for the role: lost 20 lbs; worked on his singing and guitar playing (he does all his own singing and playing in the film) and pulled off a spot-on Alabama drawl. He also did a great job capturing both Williams' darkness and his humor which would translate well to Bond. Along with his natural attributes, if Hiddleston puts that type of effort into Bond, he could be quite good.
MGM doesn't have the resources to distribute its own films. It couldn't even distribute a small-indie-type movie like "Me Before You," they had to get Warner Brothers to do it. They're in even worse shape now that "Ben Hur" and "The Magnificent Seven" have flopped.
I probably wouldn't distribute small indy films either - the return is much riskier than Bond. Bond is hot property, and has a large audience, so people flock to cinemas as both hardcore fans, general public and people who treat Bond as a family event, because it's lasted generations. And considering no Bond film has flopped, there is a lessened risk of distributing a Bond film without some kind of return.
"Me Before You" has made over $200 million on a $20 million production budget, making it a big winner.
The point isn't that MGM wasn't willing to take a risk. They took a risk by making the film. The point is that they don't have the resources to distribute even a small film that will be seen on far fewer screens than Bond 25.
MGM now has to have a distribution partner on all its films.
It also doesn't have the resources ($175-275 million production budget $80-120 million marketing and advertising budget) to make Bond 25. On the previous Bond films it got Sony to pay half the production budget and the entire M&A budget in exchange for 1/4 or MGM's 1/2. It won't find anybody to do that deal now.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'm sure they would not have known how much Me Before You made at the box office when they were making it. Especially if $20 million was the budget, considering that it's not a small budget. It falls inside that middle category that is actually riskier than very small or high budget.
But I see your point.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
MGM doesn't have the resources to distribute its own films. It couldn't even distribute a small-indie-type movie like "Me Before You," they had to get Warner Brothers to do it. They're in even worse shape now that "Ben Hur" and "The Magnificent Seven" have flopped.
I probably wouldn't distribute small indy films either - the return is much riskier than Bond. Bond is hot property, and has a large audience, so people flock to cinemas as both hardcore fans, general public and people who treat Bond as a family event, because it's lasted generations. And considering no Bond film has flopped, there is a lessened risk of distributing a Bond film without some kind of return.
"Me Before You" has made over $200 million on a $20 million production budget, making it a big winner.
The point isn't that MGM wasn't willing to take a risk. They took a risk by making the film. The point is that they don't have the resources to distribute even a small film that will be seen on far fewer screens than Bond 25.
MGM now has to have a distribution partner on all its films.
It also doesn't have the resources ($175-275 million production budget $80-120 million marketing and advertising budget) to make Bond 25. On the previous Bond films it got Sony to pay half the production budget and the entire M&A budget in exchange for 1/4 or MGM's 1/2. It won't find anybody to do that deal now.
You paint a pretty dismal picture....as if Bond films are done. I think what is more realistic if you are correct about the state of MGM is that they will just need to be willing to accept a deal with a distributor that is much more lucrative to the new partner in exchange for the needed financial support. I really wish that a studio like Warners would just buy out MGM's share of Bond. I still believe that the issue of a new third party will work itself out. Truth be told, compared to some of the legal wrangles of the past, the distributor issue and who plays Bond are not likely going to delay production on Bond 25. We're just all suffering from post SPECTRE withdrawal that is being exacerbated tenfold by the current state of no real news limbo. If there was no will Craig return mystery and it had been announced shortly after SPECTRE that he had signed for one or two more we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Comments
Why are we engaging with this guy? He has no source. Just let him babble in peace. 8-)
i took this as playing Bond ..as the questions / rumors concern him not being Bond not giving up acting.
Ive heard lots of rubbish on here but im not moaning about it.
Unbelievable some of the actors who have heen put forward for bond none of which will get the part as none are any good for bond .
Dan will be back all will be revealed in April.
Dont engage with me
Ive read rubbish on here from "this source and that source "
Just wait and see .
Dan is the man
Lupita
And Emily
I'm not sure they have very much as it is.
I think saying that EON/MGM would have zero negotiating leverage is a bit of an overstatement. I think it more realistic to say that they would have less without Craig on board. Craig or no Craig, Bond is still a hot property. But Craig's return certainly does loom large in the broad scheme of things. What a potential partner has to weigh is even if Craig does not return, there is still a good possibility that the next Bond might still make a solid go of it and score big at the box office leaving that studio holding their you know whats in their hands. It's also been reported that MGM might just gamble on distributing Bond themselves once again...or they could just be putting that out there as leverage. -{
To the posters on a James Bond board, Bond looks like a sure thing, but I don't think that's the way the people in Hollywood see it. If the proposal is the same deal that Sony had with a relative unknown playing Bond and a journeyman director directing a Purvis and Wade script, with EON's inability to control costs, I'm sure any studio would run screaming from that.
IMO, it's not as dire as you think it is. As far as MGM distributing it themselves, it probably is just posturing. In the world of negotiations, every weakness is exploited for gain and used as an excuse to lower an offer. The Sony deal was a sweetheart deal for MGM, it's unrealistic that anyone would match that under any circumstances. There will eventually be a deal, it just may not be what MGM was asking. To be honest, I wish that someone would buy MGM out of the Bond business. MGM and their financial problems have been a thorn in EON's side. However, I just can't see MGM letting Bond go; it's the only thing that keeps them going. As far as EON controlling costs, I think they are capable of tightening things up on that end as they did to an extent on Skyfall. It's possible that a bit of budget restraint might yield a better Bond film....less vacant bombast and a focus more on drama, story and suspense.
I probably wouldn't distribute small indy films either - the return is much riskier than Bond. Bond is hot property, and has a large audience, so people flock to cinemas as both hardcore fans, general public and people who treat Bond as a family event, because it's lasted generations. And considering no Bond film has flopped, there is a lessened risk of distributing a Bond film without some kind of return.
I don't think the Kong film will effect whether Hiddleston gets Bond or not. The film could be terrible but Hiddleston could still be good. There probably won't be any potential of conflict between Kong sequels and Bond films because the Kong film takes place during the 70's and apparently will segway into contemporary times as part of the "Godzilla" universe for a "King Kong Vs Godzilla" showdown to be released after the next Godzilla film. That sounds pretty geeky and involved but the point is, Hiddleston's character would probably not be included in a sequel that takes place 40-45 years in the future. The Hank Williams film wasn't much at the box office, but Hiddleston was excellent in it. He worked very hard to prepare for the role: lost 20 lbs; worked on his singing and guitar playing (he does all his own singing and playing in the film) and pulled off a spot-on Alabama drawl. He also did a great job capturing both Williams' darkness and his humor which would translate well to Bond. Along with his natural attributes, if Hiddleston puts that type of effort into Bond, he could be quite good.
"Me Before You" has made over $200 million on a $20 million production budget, making it a big winner.
The point isn't that MGM wasn't willing to take a risk. They took a risk by making the film. The point is that they don't have the resources to distribute even a small film that will be seen on far fewer screens than Bond 25.
MGM now has to have a distribution partner on all its films.
It also doesn't have the resources ($175-275 million production budget $80-120 million marketing and advertising budget) to make Bond 25. On the previous Bond films it got Sony to pay half the production budget and the entire M&A budget in exchange for 1/4 or MGM's 1/2. It won't find anybody to do that deal now.
But I see your point.
You paint a pretty dismal picture....as if Bond films are done. I think what is more realistic if you are correct about the state of MGM is that they will just need to be willing to accept a deal with a distributor that is much more lucrative to the new partner in exchange for the needed financial support. I really wish that a studio like Warners would just buy out MGM's share of Bond. I still believe that the issue of a new third party will work itself out. Truth be told, compared to some of the legal wrangles of the past, the distributor issue and who plays Bond are not likely going to delay production on Bond 25. We're just all suffering from post SPECTRE withdrawal that is being exacerbated tenfold by the current state of no real news limbo. If there was no will Craig return mystery and it had been announced shortly after SPECTRE that he had signed for one or two more we wouldn't even be having this conversation.