I'll believe a Kings Man sequel when I see it (and I would watch it), but regardless it is true that ATJ has a potential commitment to two other franchises which can't be an appealing prospect to MGM or Eon. Jeff Kleeman, who was a top exec MGM-UA when GoldenEye was in development recently did an interview where he talked about casting a new Bond in the 90s, and a number of names like Mel Gibson which were thrown around at the time he said they didn't even consider just because they had commitments to other film series, and they just didn't want a Bond they couldn't have access to. Maybe times have changed and that wouldn't be a hard and fast rule, but I guess they might also still remember what happened with Brosnan the first time around.
I think there are just going to be better candidates anyway: I saw The Fall Guy a few weeks back (which was terrific fun) and ATJ had a supporting role which you can imagine a really good character actor stealing the film with (and Hannah Waddingham actually comes close to that in a similar role in it) but he just makes it rather nothing-y.
While it’s incredibly frustrating as a fan, I actually appreciate the fact that EON doesn’t just churn out garbage for guaranteed profit, like so many of the big studios have taken to doing. If they want to wait and give us something worth watching that’s worthy of what has come before, then I’m fine to wait.
Right now, everything is all just guessing. The only "big" rumor was ATJ all but signed sealed and delivered as the next Bond and that gained traction mainly because the tabs ran with it and other online sources then picked up on it. The ATJ rumor has pretty much fizzled out lately but we will continue to discuss it because that's what we do....we like to dissect the suitability of future Bond actors (and do a fine job of it). Patiently waiting is not our strong suit around here (and rightly so after all the waiting we have been put through). I don't want to speak for all our "older" members here (as in those who are old enough to have seen the first four Connery Bonds upon initial release in the cinema) but I would bloody well prefer not to see the next Bond film in the "Community Room" of a bloody Nursing Home.
I 100% believe that ATJ was 'the guy' for a long stretch there, but with the volatile theatrical environment causing everyone to cringe at their profit/loss ratios on big budget tentpole releases, I really think everything is on perma-hold. I don't doubt Asp9mm for a moment when he says that there's nothing on deck until 2027. By then, EON will probably have moved on from ATJ and we'll be looking at somebody else for the gig.
But Eon never deny rumours (unless there’s a real need to)- they have a policy of that otherwise they’d spend their entire days denying stuff the press have made up. Were there any denials?
Theatrical distribution has been bitten in the ass by the post-COVID, shrunken theatrical window. Big franchises are underperforming and everyone is trying to figure out why (the new BAD BOYS opened well, so there are no absolutes). But if you're Eon, do you just forge ahead and hope that whatever factors that are hurting theatrical will magically steer clear of Bond 26, or do you wait for things to level off and let you assess? Surely they have no interest in rebooting the franchise to an audience that's been trained to wait three weeks and watch it at home. They want those ducks in a row first.
And as much as the pensioner crowd thinks the public will lose interest the longer they wait, there's an argument to be made that absence makes the heart grow fonder, and that scarcity breeds desire. No one at Eon is worried about making rent next month. They can afford to play the long game.
Churning out sequel after sequel at a rate of one every six months across Marvel, Disney platforms can't be sustainable, especially when the quality content is diluted. Audiences are bound to become somewhat apathetic.
It's just testament to how strong the Bond franchise has been, to last 60 years. Absence does indeed make the heart grow fonder but I think a (potential) seven year gap (nine if you consider Covid delay), is a bit much.
I can't help but think that Eon currently have the whole James Bond 007 world locked up and stored away somewhere out of sight and out of mind..
I don’t think it’s quality control that holds things up. It’s apathy. Barbara has been through the production cycle so many times that I think she doesn’t care anymore.
The Craig era arguably only gave us two good films, so I don’t think long gaps necessarily help.
Theatrical distribution has been bitten in the ass by the post-COVID, shrunken theatrical window. Big franchises are underperforming and everyone is trying to figure out why (the new BAD BOYS opened well, so there are no absolutes). But if you're Eon, do you just forge ahead and hope that whatever factors that are hurting theatrical will magically steer clear of Bond 26, or do you wait for things to level off and let you assess? Surely they have no interest in rebooting the franchise to an audience that's been trained to wait three weeks and watch it at home. They want those ducks in a row first.
And as much as the pensioner crowd thinks the public will lose interest the longer they wait, there's an argument to be made that absence makes the heart grow fonder, and that scarcity breeds desire. No one at Eon is worried about making rent next month. They can afford to play the long game.
thanks Half'n'Half. I'm not sure thats what @Asp9mm meant, but its something to think about
I definitely believe noone at EON is worried about making rent, Babs n Mikey have no direct financial incentive.
as for the postCovid demand for cinema experience, I dont think thats going to get better in a couple years just because Covid is over. A night at the movies is ever more expensive and a hassle to even reach if you live in a big city, and streaming is satisfying more and more of that need. and arguably resulting in better product than the interchangeable CGI-fests that dominate the megaplexes
Frankly, movie theaters need to lower prices. When two movie tickets alone are $40, you need to assess if it's worth it not, especially when you can probably buy the same movie in 45 days for $20 on streaming. I love the theatrical experience in general but I'm at the point now where I ask myself 'is this a MUST SEE movie in a theater or can I wait for streaming?' More and more, I can wait for streaming. I'm going to see FURIOSA theatrically but I'm not going to waste time on something like ANYONE BUT YOU.
Ironically, ANYONE BUT YOU overperformed and FURIOSA flopped.
I haven’t liked the last couple of films either, but I do believe they at least try to give us something good each time out. Doesn’t always hit the mark, but that goes all the way back to Cubby and Connery. I do think there is a degree of apathy right now, but I think Barbara is just waiting for someone to catch her eye and get her excited again. My comment goes more to the fact that apathy could just as easily lead them to cash in and make the films much more frequently without regard to anything else. I’m sure the studios would prefer that approach. See: every other franchise.
I do suspect that the MGM buyout may have added to the pause; I think the deal has only just been finalised relatively and they may have found themselves caught in the middle.
They do need MGM / Amazon to write the other check. As much as we can be unhappy with some of the choices EON makes at times, I do believe that EON / Barbara / Michael are highly protective of the Bond brand. While they have yielded tremendous success and wealth from Bond they have had to deal with a ton of crap over the years (the seemingly never ending litigation with Sean McClory and of course MGM's fiscal messes immediately come to mind). They always fought and protected the family business while they could of just sold Bond off to the highest bidder and walked away with a Brink's Truck full of generational wealth without the sweat.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I couldn’t help but notice Prime have just announced a ‘Young Sherlock’ series, based on the YA book series. A book series itself inspired by the success of the Young Bond one. I couldn’t help but wonder if they tried to make Young Bond but Eon nipped them in the bud, so they went for the next best thing.
That could well have been what happened. Though Holmes itself has had several adaptions over the last few years (there’s even going to be a modern day Watson series).
Personally, despite how we may feel about it, Barbara could well sell. With the money she will get, she could make anything she likes.
At the moment, whenever she wants to make her own project, she has to take the begging bowl (as Pierce once described it with his own productions) to investors.
As nothing she’s done has actually turned a profit, that will get harder, as Hollywood is about confidence more than anything else.
A couple of billion dollars will let her bypass that process. Getting something made will be a heck of a lot quicker, and at her age (no offence) that’s a big plus.
Greg or whoever would get to make any film they want to make, not just Bond.
That possibility exists, as surely Amazon or even one of her own team has proposed it.
What we feel about that idea is irrelevant - though, in that scenario, from a fan perspective, we will get more films quicker. Which can be no bad thing.
In Hollywood, what turns a profit and if so, how much, is like a parallel universe of computations and accounting gymnastics that have on more than a few occasions ended up in law suites. So, my completely unqualified answer to that question is "who the hell knows?".😁
Obviously, I'm not referring to the Bond series. I'm talking about her own projects. There's a big difference between the two. It's a bit like Robert Downey Jr making an Iron Man movie and something like The Judge.
Comments
I'll believe a Kings Man sequel when I see it (and I would watch it), but regardless it is true that ATJ has a potential commitment to two other franchises which can't be an appealing prospect to MGM or Eon. Jeff Kleeman, who was a top exec MGM-UA when GoldenEye was in development recently did an interview where he talked about casting a new Bond in the 90s, and a number of names like Mel Gibson which were thrown around at the time he said they didn't even consider just because they had commitments to other film series, and they just didn't want a Bond they couldn't have access to. Maybe times have changed and that wouldn't be a hard and fast rule, but I guess they might also still remember what happened with Brosnan the first time around.
I think there are just going to be better candidates anyway: I saw The Fall Guy a few weeks back (which was terrific fun) and ATJ had a supporting role which you can imagine a really good character actor stealing the film with (and Hannah Waddingham actually comes close to that in a similar role in it) but he just makes it rather nothing-y.
While it’s incredibly frustrating as a fan, I actually appreciate the fact that EON doesn’t just churn out garbage for guaranteed profit, like so many of the big studios have taken to doing. If they want to wait and give us something worth watching that’s worthy of what has come before, then I’m fine to wait.
They don't churn out garbage, they make you wait 5+ years for it.
asp9mm said: they are waiting for ‘calmer waters’
_____________________________________________________
I wonder what does ‘calmer waters’ mean?
world events? something behind the scenes we don't know about?
Right now, everything is all just guessing. The only "big" rumor was ATJ all but signed sealed and delivered as the next Bond and that gained traction mainly because the tabs ran with it and other online sources then picked up on it. The ATJ rumor has pretty much fizzled out lately but we will continue to discuss it because that's what we do....we like to dissect the suitability of future Bond actors (and do a fine job of it). Patiently waiting is not our strong suit around here (and rightly so after all the waiting we have been put through). I don't want to speak for all our "older" members here (as in those who are old enough to have seen the first four Connery Bonds upon initial release in the cinema) but I would bloody well prefer not to see the next Bond film in the "Community Room" of a bloody Nursing Home.
I 100% believe that ATJ was 'the guy' for a long stretch there, but with the volatile theatrical environment causing everyone to cringe at their profit/loss ratios on big budget tentpole releases, I really think everything is on perma-hold. I don't doubt Asp9mm for a moment when he says that there's nothing on deck until 2027. By then, EON will probably have moved on from ATJ and we'll be looking at somebody else for the gig.
I 100% believe that ATJ was 'the guy' for a long stretch there
May I ask what makes you think that?
a. because he seemed the perfect choice in many ways, but primarily age and presence.
b. because there were simply too many rumors flying around out there that he had the gig. The denials felt like non-denials too.
But Eon never deny rumours (unless there’s a real need to)- they have a policy of that otherwise they’d spend their entire days denying stuff the press have made up. Were there any denials?
EON was just 'nothing is settled yet.' ATJ's denials seemed half hearted, more like contractually obligated 'no comments'.
Theatrical distribution has been bitten in the ass by the post-COVID, shrunken theatrical window. Big franchises are underperforming and everyone is trying to figure out why (the new BAD BOYS opened well, so there are no absolutes). But if you're Eon, do you just forge ahead and hope that whatever factors that are hurting theatrical will magically steer clear of Bond 26, or do you wait for things to level off and let you assess? Surely they have no interest in rebooting the franchise to an audience that's been trained to wait three weeks and watch it at home. They want those ducks in a row first.
And as much as the pensioner crowd thinks the public will lose interest the longer they wait, there's an argument to be made that absence makes the heart grow fonder, and that scarcity breeds desire. No one at Eon is worried about making rent next month. They can afford to play the long game.
Interesting points @HalfMonk HalfHitman 👍️
Churning out sequel after sequel at a rate of one every six months across Marvel, Disney platforms can't be sustainable, especially when the quality content is diluted. Audiences are bound to become somewhat apathetic.
It's just testament to how strong the Bond franchise has been, to last 60 years. Absence does indeed make the heart grow fonder but I think a (potential) seven year gap (nine if you consider Covid delay), is a bit much.
I can't help but think that Eon currently have the whole James Bond 007 world locked up and stored away somewhere out of sight and out of mind..
I don’t think it’s quality control that holds things up. It’s apathy. Barbara has been through the production cycle so many times that I think she doesn’t care anymore.
The Craig era arguably only gave us two good films, so I don’t think long gaps necessarily help.
I said: I wonder what does ‘calmer waters’ mean? world events? something behind the scenes we don't know about?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
HalfMonk HalfHitman said:
Theatrical distribution has been bitten in the ass by the post-COVID, shrunken theatrical window. Big franchises are underperforming and everyone is trying to figure out why (the new BAD BOYS opened well, so there are no absolutes). But if you're Eon, do you just forge ahead and hope that whatever factors that are hurting theatrical will magically steer clear of Bond 26, or do you wait for things to level off and let you assess? Surely they have no interest in rebooting the franchise to an audience that's been trained to wait three weeks and watch it at home. They want those ducks in a row first.
And as much as the pensioner crowd thinks the public will lose interest the longer they wait, there's an argument to be made that absence makes the heart grow fonder, and that scarcity breeds desire. No one at Eon is worried about making rent next month. They can afford to play the long game.
_____________________________________________________________________
thanks Half'n'Half. I'm not sure thats what @Asp9mm meant, but its something to think about
I definitely believe noone at EON is worried about making rent, Babs n Mikey have no direct financial incentive.
as for the postCovid demand for cinema experience, I dont think thats going to get better in a couple years just because Covid is over. A night at the movies is ever more expensive and a hassle to even reach if you live in a big city, and streaming is satisfying more and more of that need. and arguably resulting in better product than the interchangeable CGI-fests that dominate the megaplexes
Frankly, movie theaters need to lower prices. When two movie tickets alone are $40, you need to assess if it's worth it not, especially when you can probably buy the same movie in 45 days for $20 on streaming. I love the theatrical experience in general but I'm at the point now where I ask myself 'is this a MUST SEE movie in a theater or can I wait for streaming?' More and more, I can wait for streaming. I'm going to see FURIOSA theatrically but I'm not going to waste time on something like ANYONE BUT YOU.
Ironically, ANYONE BUT YOU overperformed and FURIOSA flopped.
I haven’t liked the last couple of films either, but I do believe they at least try to give us something good each time out. Doesn’t always hit the mark, but that goes all the way back to Cubby and Connery. I do think there is a degree of apathy right now, but I think Barbara is just waiting for someone to catch her eye and get her excited again. My comment goes more to the fact that apathy could just as easily lead them to cash in and make the films much more frequently without regard to anything else. I’m sure the studios would prefer that approach. See: every other franchise.
That's a good point. Not rolling over and letting Amazon have their way with the franchise is, to me, the opposite of apathy.
I do suspect that the MGM buyout may have added to the pause; I think the deal has only just been finalised relatively and they may have found themselves caught in the middle.
They do need MGM / Amazon to write the other check. As much as we can be unhappy with some of the choices EON makes at times, I do believe that EON / Barbara / Michael are highly protective of the Bond brand. While they have yielded tremendous success and wealth from Bond they have had to deal with a ton of crap over the years (the seemingly never ending litigation with Sean McClory and of course MGM's fiscal messes immediately come to mind). They always fought and protected the family business while they could of just sold Bond off to the highest bidder and walked away with a Brink's Truck full of generational wealth without the sweat.
'Calmer waters.'
What a quaint notion. Post-EMP, haha.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm still waiting for Barbara to sell her half to Amazon. We shall have to see.
No thanks!
I couldn’t help but notice Prime have just announced a ‘Young Sherlock’ series, based on the YA book series. A book series itself inspired by the success of the Young Bond one. I couldn’t help but wonder if they tried to make Young Bond but Eon nipped them in the bud, so they went for the next best thing.
That could well have been what happened. Though Holmes itself has had several adaptions over the last few years (there’s even going to be a modern day Watson series).
Personally, despite how we may feel about it, Barbara could well sell. With the money she will get, she could make anything she likes.
At the moment, whenever she wants to make her own project, she has to take the begging bowl (as Pierce once described it with his own productions) to investors.
As nothing she’s done has actually turned a profit, that will get harder, as Hollywood is about confidence more than anything else.
A couple of billion dollars will let her bypass that process. Getting something made will be a heck of a lot quicker, and at her age (no offence) that’s a big plus.
Greg or whoever would get to make any film they want to make, not just Bond.
That possibility exists, as surely Amazon or even one of her own team has proposed it.
What we feel about that idea is irrelevant - though, in that scenario, from a fan perspective, we will get more films quicker. Which can be no bad thing.
...are we quite sure nothing she's done has turned a profit?
In Hollywood, what turns a profit and if so, how much, is like a parallel universe of computations and accounting gymnastics that have on more than a few occasions ended up in law suites. So, my completely unqualified answer to that question is "who the hell knows?".😁
You would presume they wouldn't keep firing hundreds of millions of dollars her way for a quarter of a century if she weren't though!
Obviously, I'm not referring to the Bond series. I'm talking about her own projects. There's a big difference between the two. It's a bit like Robert Downey Jr making an Iron Man movie and something like The Judge.
Oh right, I must admit i didn’t get that’s what you meant.
I should have been clearer.
Vogue has found out that rodent-faced men are the hottest right now! Does this make the title of this thread more likely to be true? 🐀 😁