Can't say that having Pascal and Heyman onboard generates any excitement at all. While Pascal was around for Casino Royale, she was there for some of the later, far less impressive Bond movies. But she and Heyman seem mostly associated with big budget, CGI-heavy, derivative, largely witless lowest common denominator films and franchises. They seem the types to spend a lot of money, take a lot of time, and deliver largely forgettable projects. They'd no doubt be perfect for driving the Bond brand into the ground by diluting it into various ventures of uneven quality as the franchise. Producers are mostly about making a buck, so it would be more heartening to have stronger creative people onboard instead.
Cuaron also wrote and directed Children of Men which is a great film. Picking Cuaron would suggest that the Amazon MGM Bond movies, for now, are not going to go back to the Brosnan, Moore era.
I think it's very unlikely to go back to the light tone of these eras, precisely because it wouldn't fit with the current context. Having said that, I think Cuaron is able to put fantasy into a Bond film, which has always been the main ingredient. The Craig era was gritter indeed, but one can't say there's no fantasy. It's just a different kind...
Have you seen the Paddington films at all? They're wonderful. I'd have to disagree with your assessment of being mostly associated with lowest common denomiator stuff; also there's Gravity, Wonka, Barbie.. big budget, high quality (often award-winning) movies, all associated with being at the more creative end of blockbusters. Heyman also does more serious films like Marriage Story, also very well reviewed. Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, Harry Potter... and then Pascal is behind all of the recent Spider Man movies, including the weaker entries but also the very celebrated Spiderverse films. I think if there are any folks who see all of those as lowest common denominator then they'd regard the Bond films as equally lowbrow- James Bond ain't high art.
Nah, just not feeling it with these two. I have no doubt whoever makes the next Bond movie will throw a lot of money at it. I've no doubt that whoever makes the next Bond film is absolutely going to try to broaden its appeal by making it LCD -- that's the only way to sell more tickets or the equivalent in streaming.
It's different from when Broccoli was in charge. They're already super-wealthy from the Bond franchise. They could afford to pay more attention to quality, dubious as that may sometimes have been, with both the security of being wealthy and with the knowledge their family name was so closely connected to the films. There is a level of personal pride there.
That's not necessarily the same for the garden variety producer, whose primary interest may well be to merely sell more tickets and the like to ensure profitability. Nothing in their resumes screams great moviemaking to me, even though Pascal was associated with Casino Royale. That the other films were, to me, less impressive also doesn't bode well for her contributions.
I agree with emtiem (did I just write that?), Heyman and Pascal have good track records, no film maker is going to have 100% good films, not even Spielberg (I hate 1941) and if you look at Heyman and Pascal's profiles on IMDB you can see more hits than duds. I think the massive negative backlash to Amazon buying creative control made them flinch and I think this is why Pascal is being asked to become a Producer and David Heyman has to be the most successful British producer at the moment, largely due to the success of the Harry Potter films; and they realised they needed a British person in charge. The massive negative online backlash is actually going to mean Barbara and Michael will have the last laugh as I'd imagine Pascal will have a similar POV as Barbara, as they apparently worked well together for CR, QoS and Skyfall.
What do you mean? They're brilliant films, some of the best family movies in the last few decades.
I've no doubt that whoever makes the next Bond film is absolutely going to try to broaden its appeal by making it LCD
So you would say the same thing no matter who makes it. I don't think it necessarily applies to these two though.
I don't quite follow your logic that being wealthy means they'll make better films: and I would say the guy who was smart enough to originally buy the rights to and then make the Harry Potter films has got a few pennies in the bank. Analogy-wise, right now Heyman is basically the equivalent of Cubby Broccoli in the 1980s (although it was of course Saltzman who was smart enough to get an option on the 007 rights). Broccoli even made his Paddington with Chitty Bang Bang.
Yes, Dame Barbara is said to have a couple of hundred mil more than Heyman, but he's not exactly hard-up for cash with his estimated $175m. He's doing okay.
Nothing in their resumes screams great moviemaking to me, even though Pascal was associated with Casino Royale.
Do you mean you personally don't care for the films on their resumes or that they're objectively not well-made films? Because if you have a look at the reviews, both critics and audience of their films, at the awards and nominations they've garnered (Best Director Oscar, several Best Picture/Animated Picture noms in there) or the box office success, I think it's hard to come to the conclusion that they have made no excellent big movies at all between them when looking at all of the measurable metrics. I don't love the Harry Potter films, I haven't even seen all of them, but I can hardly argue that they weren't brilliantly made and very popular films. Barbie wasn't for me either, but look at the reviews and the huge success- it clearly wasn't brainless pap. If we're comparing these to say, Octopussy, I'm not sure we can say that's an example of great moviemaking and the Barbie guys getting nominated for 8 Oscars and earning $1.4 billion BO are doing it wrong.
If something like Paddington 2 isn't an example of great mass-market moviemaking (99%/89% on RT; 6th highest earning film in the UK that year; 3 BAFTA noms etc.) then I can't imagine what is. What recent films would you say are examples of great moviemaking on the scale and appeal of the Bonds?
None of this is a guarantee B26 will be great of course, but we're not talking about the Russo Brothers here, these people have made superior, intelligent and heartfelt blockbusters.
Heyman had stewardship over one of the most successful film franchises in history. The Potter films were brilliantly cast and had an eclectic list of talented directors. Pascal, despite what one may think of the Bond films she was involved with, did work with EON and understands how they did things for better or worse. I'd be fine with Heyman and Pascal in charge. They hopefully will have the power to keep the Amazon twits from making a mess of things.
I think you're misreading the point about wealth. It's not simply that Broccoli is wealthy. It's that she (and Wilson) are tied so closely to the Bond films for it. There's an integration there that is more likely to involve personal pride in producing a high quality legacy product. That's a big part of the reason, I think, for why it took them so long to make a movie. To me, wealth alone doesn't suggest that same level of personal pride.
Of course I mean I don't personally find those films remarkable, LOL. Whose opinion would I be sharing? I'm not simply reading what others think, awards given, etc., and regurgitating their opinions. Much of that is just appeal to popularity. Are you saying, for instance, that you've felt every film/actor/writer/producer/etc. that has ever received an Oscar has deserved it for being so much better than any others in your opinion (as opposed to winning a popularity contest among Academy voters)?
I've seen, maybe, half of the Potter films. They're certainly competent filmmaking. They're certainly expensively made. Are they so good I feel the need to see them again? LOL, not at all. To be fair, I find fantasy and the whole Harry Potter milieu rather cliched and uninteresting, but if something is good enough, I still give it a try. In the case of Potter, neither the subject matter or the film craft strike me as remarkable. Just expensive and competent. They felt like Steven Spielberg lite to me, like the more recent Jurassic Park movies.
I think, too, in some ways, you're making the same argument I am. You reference "mass-market moviemaking," for example. That's what I think of when I think lowest-common-denominator. Some of that is going to sell a lot of tickets. Does that automatically translate into great filmmaking? No, I don't think so.
I'm actually looking for something more like Casino Royale. In a lot of ways, that was a daring move on the part of the Broccolis and the complete opposite of a lowest-common-denominator approach. They started by choosing an actor who controversially didn't fit the modern image of Bond (though if they'd just darkened his hair and complexion a bit, he would fit right into the 1960s). They adapted a novel without a happy ending and more or less stuck to it. They pared down the elements that we traditionally expect -- gun barrel, Bond theme, Q/Moneypenny, etc. The script -- though lacking about 10 more minutes of romance -- relied less on exposition than narrative, as we get to know Bond as though it's for the first time and through his words and actions. It doesn't even dumb down the plot. Yes, it was a franchise film that relied, in part, on our familiarity with the character, and some bits were still formulaic, but it was rather a bold move (even if it more or less followed the prequel course that Batman and Star Wars had already made popular). That it was a huge hit was because it broke the mold that the Bond films had followed for 20 years or more.
I don't feel like either Pascal or Heyman would have that level of creative courage. They feel more to me like people who treat a property as a product or vehicle. I have no doubt they'd throw a lot of money at it. I have no doubt they'd hire people and CGI companies with a lot of experience. I just don't have a strong feeling they would produce anything remarkable. It would feel more like the expensive but mostly mediocre Mission: Impossible movies or, maybe, the newer Star Trek TV shows, where they spend a lot of time in fan service. And while I'm aware Pascal was around for Casino Royale and a few other Bond movies, that Casino Royale was so many miles ahead of the rest suggests she wasn't a major reason why they succeeded.
But just because something doesn't appeal to you it doesn't mean it's not good quality. A Chanel dress doesn't appeal to me, but I can tell it's good quality. My own personal taste isn't an objective mark of quality.
I think you're misreading the point about wealth. It's not simply that Broccoli is wealthy. It's that she (and Wilson) are tied so closely to the Bond films for it. There's an integration there that is more likely to involve personal pride in producing a high quality legacy product. That's a big part of the reason, I think, for why it took them so long to make a movie. To me, wealth alone doesn't suggest that same level of personal pride.
I kind of get it, I'm as sad as anyone that they've moved on, but I don't think it means that no one else can possibly want to make a Bond film of equal quality. If that were true then no one would ever try to make good films: Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman started making the 007 films with no personal attachment to them and even more limited wealth, and yet still created something we all love.
Of course I mean I don't personally find those films remarkable, LOL. Whose opinion would I be sharing? I'm not simply reading what others think, awards given, etc., and regurgitating their opinions. Much of that is just appeal to popularity. Are you saying, for instance, that you've felt every film/actor/writer/producer/etc. that has ever received an Oscar has deserved it for being so much better than any others in your opinion (as opposed to winning a popularity contest among Academy voters)?
What I'm saying is that I don't hold my own taste in movies as being the objective truth as to what regards great moviemaking: otherwise I'd have given all of the Bond films Best Picture Oscars! 😁 LOL
But when someone sets out to make good films, gets four Best Picture noms and earns billions at the box office, I think that's a pretty good sign that they're entertaining people and getting critical success, and that's as good a measure of great moviemaking as you're likely to get. Especially when making big films which are designed to appeal to loads of people, which is what the Bond movies have always been. And, as I said, Octopussy didn't get any success on that level. Is Octopussy great moviemaking because I'd probably prefer to watch it on a Sunday afternoon over Ghandi, say? I don't think so, no.
You didn't even find Gravity remarkable? I'm not saying it's the best movie in the history of filmmaking or anything, but that's a damned good film. And it's not formulaic or rote, it's inventive and original and made by an extremely talented director. And required a lot of cutting edge shooting technology in order to accommodate the director's creative vision, something the producer gets to decide whether to make happen or not.
I think, too, in some ways, you're making the same argument I am. You reference "mass-market moviemaking," for example. That's what I think of when I think lowest-common-denominator. Some of that is going to sell a lot of tickets. Does that automatically translate into great filmmaking? No, I don't think so.
We're talking about James Bond movies here though, they are the epitome of mass-market moviemaking. LOL.
I don't feel like either Pascal or Heyman would have that level of creative courage.
I mean even Barbie shows that level of creative courage alone, not to mention having the vision to create the Harry Potter films in the first place, reinventing Paddington and turning him into a modern parable of integration and one of the most beloved children's characters around now. Check out Marriage Story too: it ain't a formulaic acton movie. Heyman hires directors like Cuaron and Gerwig to make his big movies: these are indie directors with creative vision. The Spider Verse films are celebrated for their extreme creativity in animation... I feel like you're missing what these two have done and confusing them with much more by-the-numbers producers.
It's official, Heyman and Pascal have been announced by Amazon as the producers of Bond 26:
Amazon MGM Studios have announced that Amy Pascal and David Heyman will produce the upcoming James Bond film.
“James Bond is one of the most iconic characters in the history of cinema,” said Amy Pascal and David Heyman.
“We are humbled to follow in the footsteps of Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson who made so many extraordinary films and honoured and excited to keep the spirit of Bond very much alive as he embarks on his next adventure.”
More than relieved they confirmed themselves Bond would remain...a he.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,889Chief of Staff
David Heyman is extremely busy at the moment though…so could still be awhile before we see the next Bond film…but it shouldn’t stop them from getting a script together and looking for a Bond actor…
Until proven wrong I chose to see this as good news. A British producer is a good start, and they both have experience with blockbusters and smaller dramas.
Hello everyone. Let's see if what I'm about to say can serve as an additional tool for reflection. The question is simple: what would I do (or what would you do) if I found myself becoming the new producer of James Bond?
If it were me, I would consider a few things.
First, as marketing teaches us, the positioning (keep this word in mind) that a brand like this must have.
This leads to:
Understanding the inevitable intentions of the new ownership;
Understanding what the audience wants and the interest in expanding to a larger audience.
It would be interesting if someone among us were more experienced in marketing (I have a general understanding because I work as a TV director) because another interesting element would be analyzing the positioning and marketing strategies the brand has had up to now.
If it were up to me, I might reason like this:
It's a brand with a well-established history, considering that its creator was Fleming and that it was born as a literary character, so it has very specific standards;
It's a brand that has evolved over time and has already undergone several transformations;
It's a franchise centered around theatrical releases, perhaps the only one left that still drives global cinema ticket sales;
It's a franchise that needs constant renewal while always staying true to tradition;
The great merit of Barbara and Michael is that they left behind a strong franchise because, up until No Time to Die, they consistently achieved massive box office success.
So, if I were the producer, why should I overturn everything when it already works as it is? Because we must remember that yes, you can make TV series like 007: Road to a Million or the hypothetical Moneypenny series, but they don’t hold up and don’t generate interest without the James Bond films in theaters. Without James Bond and his defining characteristics, the saga doesn't hold up.
If I think about it from a director’s perspective, I believe that the real change has not just begun or will begin now, but has already started. The so-called "Year Zero" is not the sale of Barbara and Michael's stake but actually happened with the Casino Royale reboot. Unlike the previous films, it was the most significant shift since the beginning of the saga, both in screenplay writing (more realistic, more emotional) and in directing, which alternates between frenetic action scenes and slower-paced sequences with more deliberate camera movements (remember the scene with Bond and Vesper in the shower?). The cinematography was also more refined and artistic—just think of the use of cold and warm tones in Bond’s torture scene or the warm colors in the Lake Como sequence. And, of course, the acting (Craig, Green, and Mikkelsen were outstanding).
So, what would I choose? I would prioritize theatrical releases and ensure they are of the highest quality, raising the bar while staying true to tradition. Perhaps by selecting an auteur director who can bring a unique vision but within certain parameters (this has already happened—see Skyfall). I would refine what has already been done simply because it works.
Amy Pascal even has a history working on Bond! I think we can be relieved the new producers aren't just showrunners from one of the gazillion Star Trek spin-offs or something.
One thing is for sure, Amazon are not letting the grass grow for long. I have positive vibes of what’s happening. Speculating is pointless, best to comment when details are released.
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
I think it's good news. It will be interesting see how they proceed from here. I know there are always some sexy names thrown out there for a Bond director like Cuaron (who has a track record with Hayman) which would lend instant gravitas to Bond 26. I wonder if Martin Campbell, who at 81 is still directing would be someone under consideration given his success at introducing new Bonds with GE and CR?
Perhaps Heyman and Pascal intend to hire a director whose main request will be to come with his co-writers, exactly like Danny Boyle for Bond 25 back in 2018.
Comments
Why don you think it will be until May, Red Snow?
If Hayman and Cuaron makes the next movie I would be hopeful. Sounds like a good team.
What happened to the Great Commonwealth Rule? I worry Bond will become too diluted otherwise.
@Number24 That was the timeline put forth by both parties as to when the legal processes will be completed.
Can't say that having Pascal and Heyman onboard generates any excitement at all. While Pascal was around for Casino Royale, she was there for some of the later, far less impressive Bond movies. But she and Heyman seem mostly associated with big budget, CGI-heavy, derivative, largely witless lowest common denominator films and franchises. They seem the types to spend a lot of money, take a lot of time, and deliver largely forgettable projects. They'd no doubt be perfect for driving the Bond brand into the ground by diluting it into various ventures of uneven quality as the franchise. Producers are mostly about making a buck, so it would be more heartening to have stronger creative people onboard instead.
Cuaron also wrote and directed Children of Men which is a great film. Picking Cuaron would suggest that the Amazon MGM Bond movies, for now, are not going to go back to the Brosnan, Moore era.
I think it's very unlikely to go back to the light tone of these eras, precisely because it wouldn't fit with the current context. Having said that, I think Cuaron is able to put fantasy into a Bond film, which has always been the main ingredient. The Craig era was gritter indeed, but one can't say there's no fantasy. It's just a different kind...
Have you seen the Paddington films at all? They're wonderful. I'd have to disagree with your assessment of being mostly associated with lowest common denomiator stuff; also there's Gravity, Wonka, Barbie.. big budget, high quality (often award-winning) movies, all associated with being at the more creative end of blockbusters. Heyman also does more serious films like Marriage Story, also very well reviewed. Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, Harry Potter... and then Pascal is behind all of the recent Spider Man movies, including the weaker entries but also the very celebrated Spiderverse films. I think if there are any folks who see all of those as lowest common denominator then they'd regard the Bond films as equally lowbrow- James Bond ain't high art.
Paddington? LOL, no.
Nah, just not feeling it with these two. I have no doubt whoever makes the next Bond movie will throw a lot of money at it. I've no doubt that whoever makes the next Bond film is absolutely going to try to broaden its appeal by making it LCD -- that's the only way to sell more tickets or the equivalent in streaming.
It's different from when Broccoli was in charge. They're already super-wealthy from the Bond franchise. They could afford to pay more attention to quality, dubious as that may sometimes have been, with both the security of being wealthy and with the knowledge their family name was so closely connected to the films. There is a level of personal pride there.
That's not necessarily the same for the garden variety producer, whose primary interest may well be to merely sell more tickets and the like to ensure profitability. Nothing in their resumes screams great moviemaking to me, even though Pascal was associated with Casino Royale. That the other films were, to me, less impressive also doesn't bode well for her contributions.
I agree with emtiem (did I just write that?), Heyman and Pascal have good track records, no film maker is going to have 100% good films, not even Spielberg (I hate 1941) and if you look at Heyman and Pascal's profiles on IMDB you can see more hits than duds. I think the massive negative backlash to Amazon buying creative control made them flinch and I think this is why Pascal is being asked to become a Producer and David Heyman has to be the most successful British producer at the moment, largely due to the success of the Harry Potter films; and they realised they needed a British person in charge. The massive negative online backlash is actually going to mean Barbara and Michael will have the last laugh as I'd imagine Pascal will have a similar POV as Barbara, as they apparently worked well together for CR, QoS and Skyfall.
Paddington? LOL, no.
What do you mean? They're brilliant films, some of the best family movies in the last few decades.
I've no doubt that whoever makes the next Bond film is absolutely going to try to broaden its appeal by making it LCD
So you would say the same thing no matter who makes it. I don't think it necessarily applies to these two though.
I don't quite follow your logic that being wealthy means they'll make better films: and I would say the guy who was smart enough to originally buy the rights to and then make the Harry Potter films has got a few pennies in the bank. Analogy-wise, right now Heyman is basically the equivalent of Cubby Broccoli in the 1980s (although it was of course Saltzman who was smart enough to get an option on the 007 rights). Broccoli even made his Paddington with Chitty Bang Bang.
Yes, Dame Barbara is said to have a couple of hundred mil more than Heyman, but he's not exactly hard-up for cash with his estimated $175m. He's doing okay.
Nothing in their resumes screams great moviemaking to me, even though Pascal was associated with Casino Royale.
Do you mean you personally don't care for the films on their resumes or that they're objectively not well-made films? Because if you have a look at the reviews, both critics and audience of their films, at the awards and nominations they've garnered (Best Director Oscar, several Best Picture/Animated Picture noms in there) or the box office success, I think it's hard to come to the conclusion that they have made no excellent big movies at all between them when looking at all of the measurable metrics. I don't love the Harry Potter films, I haven't even seen all of them, but I can hardly argue that they weren't brilliantly made and very popular films. Barbie wasn't for me either, but look at the reviews and the huge success- it clearly wasn't brainless pap. If we're comparing these to say, Octopussy, I'm not sure we can say that's an example of great moviemaking and the Barbie guys getting nominated for 8 Oscars and earning $1.4 billion BO are doing it wrong.
If something like Paddington 2 isn't an example of great mass-market moviemaking (99%/89% on RT; 6th highest earning film in the UK that year; 3 BAFTA noms etc.) then I can't imagine what is. What recent films would you say are examples of great moviemaking on the scale and appeal of the Bonds?
None of this is a guarantee B26 will be great of course, but we're not talking about the Russo Brothers here, these people have made superior, intelligent and heartfelt blockbusters.
Heyman had stewardship over one of the most successful film franchises in history. The Potter films were brilliantly cast and had an eclectic list of talented directors. Pascal, despite what one may think of the Bond films she was involved with, did work with EON and understands how they did things for better or worse. I'd be fine with Heyman and Pascal in charge. They hopefully will have the power to keep the Amazon twits from making a mess of things.
No, Paddington doesn't appeal to me, LOL.
I think you're misreading the point about wealth. It's not simply that Broccoli is wealthy. It's that she (and Wilson) are tied so closely to the Bond films for it. There's an integration there that is more likely to involve personal pride in producing a high quality legacy product. That's a big part of the reason, I think, for why it took them so long to make a movie. To me, wealth alone doesn't suggest that same level of personal pride.
Of course I mean I don't personally find those films remarkable, LOL. Whose opinion would I be sharing? I'm not simply reading what others think, awards given, etc., and regurgitating their opinions. Much of that is just appeal to popularity. Are you saying, for instance, that you've felt every film/actor/writer/producer/etc. that has ever received an Oscar has deserved it for being so much better than any others in your opinion (as opposed to winning a popularity contest among Academy voters)?
I've seen, maybe, half of the Potter films. They're certainly competent filmmaking. They're certainly expensively made. Are they so good I feel the need to see them again? LOL, not at all. To be fair, I find fantasy and the whole Harry Potter milieu rather cliched and uninteresting, but if something is good enough, I still give it a try. In the case of Potter, neither the subject matter or the film craft strike me as remarkable. Just expensive and competent. They felt like Steven Spielberg lite to me, like the more recent Jurassic Park movies.
I think, too, in some ways, you're making the same argument I am. You reference "mass-market moviemaking," for example. That's what I think of when I think lowest-common-denominator. Some of that is going to sell a lot of tickets. Does that automatically translate into great filmmaking? No, I don't think so.
I'm actually looking for something more like Casino Royale. In a lot of ways, that was a daring move on the part of the Broccolis and the complete opposite of a lowest-common-denominator approach. They started by choosing an actor who controversially didn't fit the modern image of Bond (though if they'd just darkened his hair and complexion a bit, he would fit right into the 1960s). They adapted a novel without a happy ending and more or less stuck to it. They pared down the elements that we traditionally expect -- gun barrel, Bond theme, Q/Moneypenny, etc. The script -- though lacking about 10 more minutes of romance -- relied less on exposition than narrative, as we get to know Bond as though it's for the first time and through his words and actions. It doesn't even dumb down the plot. Yes, it was a franchise film that relied, in part, on our familiarity with the character, and some bits were still formulaic, but it was rather a bold move (even if it more or less followed the prequel course that Batman and Star Wars had already made popular). That it was a huge hit was because it broke the mold that the Bond films had followed for 20 years or more.
I don't feel like either Pascal or Heyman would have that level of creative courage. They feel more to me like people who treat a property as a product or vehicle. I have no doubt they'd throw a lot of money at it. I have no doubt they'd hire people and CGI companies with a lot of experience. I just don't have a strong feeling they would produce anything remarkable. It would feel more like the expensive but mostly mediocre Mission: Impossible movies or, maybe, the newer Star Trek TV shows, where they spend a lot of time in fan service. And while I'm aware Pascal was around for Casino Royale and a few other Bond movies, that Casino Royale was so many miles ahead of the rest suggests she wasn't a major reason why they succeeded.
In my opinion, LOL.
No, Paddington doesn't appeal to me, LOL.
But just because something doesn't appeal to you it doesn't mean it's not good quality. A Chanel dress doesn't appeal to me, but I can tell it's good quality. My own personal taste isn't an objective mark of quality.
I think you're misreading the point about wealth. It's not simply that Broccoli is wealthy. It's that she (and Wilson) are tied so closely to the Bond films for it. There's an integration there that is more likely to involve personal pride in producing a high quality legacy product. That's a big part of the reason, I think, for why it took them so long to make a movie. To me, wealth alone doesn't suggest that same level of personal pride.
I kind of get it, I'm as sad as anyone that they've moved on, but I don't think it means that no one else can possibly want to make a Bond film of equal quality. If that were true then no one would ever try to make good films: Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman started making the 007 films with no personal attachment to them and even more limited wealth, and yet still created something we all love.
Of course I mean I don't personally find those films remarkable, LOL. Whose opinion would I be sharing? I'm not simply reading what others think, awards given, etc., and regurgitating their opinions. Much of that is just appeal to popularity. Are you saying, for instance, that you've felt every film/actor/writer/producer/etc. that has ever received an Oscar has deserved it for being so much better than any others in your opinion (as opposed to winning a popularity contest among Academy voters)?
What I'm saying is that I don't hold my own taste in movies as being the objective truth as to what regards great moviemaking: otherwise I'd have given all of the Bond films Best Picture Oscars! 😁 LOL
But when someone sets out to make good films, gets four Best Picture noms and earns billions at the box office, I think that's a pretty good sign that they're entertaining people and getting critical success, and that's as good a measure of great moviemaking as you're likely to get. Especially when making big films which are designed to appeal to loads of people, which is what the Bond movies have always been. And, as I said, Octopussy didn't get any success on that level. Is Octopussy great moviemaking because I'd probably prefer to watch it on a Sunday afternoon over Ghandi, say? I don't think so, no.
You didn't even find Gravity remarkable? I'm not saying it's the best movie in the history of filmmaking or anything, but that's a damned good film. And it's not formulaic or rote, it's inventive and original and made by an extremely talented director. And required a lot of cutting edge shooting technology in order to accommodate the director's creative vision, something the producer gets to decide whether to make happen or not.
I think, too, in some ways, you're making the same argument I am. You reference "mass-market moviemaking," for example. That's what I think of when I think lowest-common-denominator. Some of that is going to sell a lot of tickets. Does that automatically translate into great filmmaking? No, I don't think so.
We're talking about James Bond movies here though, they are the epitome of mass-market moviemaking. LOL.
I don't feel like either Pascal or Heyman would have that level of creative courage.
I mean even Barbie shows that level of creative courage alone, not to mention having the vision to create the Harry Potter films in the first place, reinventing Paddington and turning him into a modern parable of integration and one of the most beloved children's characters around now. Check out Marriage Story too: it ain't a formulaic acton movie. Heyman hires directors like Cuaron and Gerwig to make his big movies: these are indie directors with creative vision. The Spider Verse films are celebrated for their extreme creativity in animation... I feel like you're missing what these two have done and confusing them with much more by-the-numbers producers.
It's official, Heyman and Pascal have been announced by Amazon as the producers of Bond 26:
Amazon MGM Studios have announced that Amy Pascal and David Heyman will produce the upcoming James Bond film.
“James Bond is one of the most iconic characters in the history of cinema,” said Amy Pascal and David Heyman.
“We are humbled to follow in the footsteps of Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson who made so many extraordinary films and honoured and excited to keep the spirit of Bond very much alive as he embarks on his next adventure.”
Wow. Godspeed. Hope they honour the character. Let's hope they're up to making a good Bond adventure.
This is probably the best case scenario that we could hope for, and Cuaron would be an excellent choice if he's indeed the front runner.
More than relieved they confirmed themselves Bond would remain...a he.
David Heyman is extremely busy at the moment though…so could still be awhile before we see the next Bond film…but it shouldn’t stop them from getting a script together and looking for a Bond actor…
Until proven wrong I chose to see this as good news. A British producer is a good start, and they both have experience with blockbusters and smaller dramas.
Hello everyone. Let's see if what I'm about to say can serve as an additional tool for reflection. The question is simple: what would I do (or what would you do) if I found myself becoming the new producer of James Bond?
If it were me, I would consider a few things.
First, as marketing teaches us, the positioning (keep this word in mind) that a brand like this must have.
This leads to:
Understanding the inevitable intentions of the new ownership;
Understanding what the audience wants and the interest in expanding to a larger audience.
It would be interesting if someone among us were more experienced in marketing (I have a general understanding because I work as a TV director) because another interesting element would be analyzing the positioning and marketing strategies the brand has had up to now.
If it were up to me, I might reason like this:
It's a brand with a well-established history, considering that its creator was Fleming and that it was born as a literary character, so it has very specific standards;
It's a brand that has evolved over time and has already undergone several transformations;
It's a franchise centered around theatrical releases, perhaps the only one left that still drives global cinema ticket sales;
It's a franchise that needs constant renewal while always staying true to tradition;
The great merit of Barbara and Michael is that they left behind a strong franchise because, up until No Time to Die, they consistently achieved massive box office success.
So, if I were the producer, why should I overturn everything when it already works as it is? Because we must remember that yes, you can make TV series like 007: Road to a Million or the hypothetical Moneypenny series, but they don’t hold up and don’t generate interest without the James Bond films in theaters. Without James Bond and his defining characteristics, the saga doesn't hold up.
If I think about it from a director’s perspective, I believe that the real change has not just begun or will begin now, but has already started. The so-called "Year Zero" is not the sale of Barbara and Michael's stake but actually happened with the Casino Royale reboot. Unlike the previous films, it was the most significant shift since the beginning of the saga, both in screenplay writing (more realistic, more emotional) and in directing, which alternates between frenetic action scenes and slower-paced sequences with more deliberate camera movements (remember the scene with Bond and Vesper in the shower?). The cinematography was also more refined and artistic—just think of the use of cold and warm tones in Bond’s torture scene or the warm colors in the Lake Como sequence. And, of course, the acting (Craig, Green, and Mikkelsen were outstanding).
So, what would I choose? I would prioritize theatrical releases and ensure they are of the highest quality, raising the bar while staying true to tradition. Perhaps by selecting an auteur director who can bring a unique vision but within certain parameters (this has already happened—see Skyfall). I would refine what has already been done simply because it works.
Amy Pascal even has a history working on Bond! I think we can be relieved the new producers aren't just showrunners from one of the gazillion Star Trek spin-offs or something.
It’s quite funny in a way he’s the first British-born Bond producer.
One thing is for sure, Amazon are not letting the grass grow for long. I have positive vibes of what’s happening. Speculating is pointless, best to comment when details are released.
Well, some news I guess. Good reputations in the industry, so hope is raised.
It's good news, the best we could have hoped for considering the state of Hollywood right now.
I'm guessing 5 November 2027 for Bond26, so 6 years and 29 days after NTTD was released on 8 October.
Almost six months less than the gap between LTK and GE.
Alfonso Cuaron only has a TV series in development at the moment so he is free.
Aren't Andrew Noakes and David Pope British?
Now this is official, do you guys think we'll get some fresh news during Cinemacon, next week?
They were co-producers, not 'produced by'.
I think it's good news. It will be interesting see how they proceed from here. I know there are always some sexy names thrown out there for a Bond director like Cuaron (who has a track record with Hayman) which would lend instant gravitas to Bond 26. I wonder if Martin Campbell, who at 81 is still directing would be someone under consideration given his success at introducing new Bonds with GE and CR?
I would think the next news will be the names of the screenwriters.
Perhaps Heyman and Pascal intend to hire a director whose main request will be to come with his co-writers, exactly like Danny Boyle for Bond 25 back in 2018.