›

EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards (Heyman and Pascal confirmed as producers)

1…757677787981»

Comments

  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,682
    mtm wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007InAction wrote: »
    Money is not a problem for Amazon i would think ?

    They already spent billions for MGM and the EON bond rights, MGM $8.45 billion/EON $1 billion........

    They're not going to make films just for charity's sake, they are a business. Disney have plenty of money too, but they still make Marvel and Star Wars films in the UK to save themselves money.
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well, the only thing we've heard is that they're somehow tariffs, and US tariffs are of course paid by the American consumer, so somehow this would presumably be passed onto the moviegoers; so the studio wouldn't necessarily be spending more, but they would be getting a much lower profit because people aren't going to pay twice the price. If they moved production to the US, without any financial incentives to make it better for them they would actually be spending more, and so again: reduced profit.
    So if you wanted to kill Hollywood, this is a really good way of doing it.
    Chinese cinema still doing well though.

    Americans hardly ever watch Chinese movies. It is the British industry that loses here.

    I know that, I'm just pointing out that it's a great way to let China get even further ahead. Americans might be watching more Chinese movies soon if Hollywood gets more damaged.


    The Chinese are protectionists too. It's not going to happen.

    I don't even know what you're arguing now, but sure.
    007InAction wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007InAction wrote: »
    Money is not a problem for Amazon i would think ?

    They already spent billions for MGM and the EON bond rights, MGM $8.45 billion/EON $1 billion........

    They're not going to make films just for charity's sake, they are a business. Disney have plenty of money too, but they still make Marvel and Star Wars films in the UK to save themselves money.
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well, the only thing we've heard is that they're somehow tariffs, and US tariffs are of course paid by the American consumer, so somehow this would presumably be passed onto the moviegoers; so the studio wouldn't necessarily be spending more, but they would be getting a much lower profit because people aren't going to pay twice the price. If they moved production to the US, without any financial incentives to make it better for them they would actually be spending more, and so again: reduced profit.
    So if you wanted to kill Hollywood, this is a really good way of doing it.
    Chinese cinema still doing well though.

    Americans hardly ever watch Chinese movies. It is the British industry that loses here.

    I know that, I'm just pointing out that it's a great way to let China get even further ahead. Americans might be watching more Chinese movies soon if Hollywood gets more damaged.

    Even if the next bond film cost $600 million they would still make a profit as after a cinema release they show the film on Amazon Prime Video weeks later.

    They're not going to spend $600m on it. I'm not sure it's much of a profit strategy to put it on Prime a few weeks later either.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I mean, I could be wrong but I assume at this point we simply don't know where the next Bond movie is being made, at least in terms of its studio necessities? Pascal and Heyman were said to be working on it in London though.

    I have never made a movie myself(!) but I presume one of the earliest stages is probably to book in studio facilities..? It's possible they're playing wait-and-see (if they're fully on it yet) as Amazon do at least have some money behind them and there's possibly a way of claiming any delay against insurance, but hopefully nothing's being cancelled yet.

    Yes they won't spend $600m on the next bond film but i would say they have a nearly
    unlimited budget compared to what Harry and Cubby had for DR NO.

    The Amazon Prime Video release could come out after a 4-5 week cinema run ?

    Could Amazon release it at the cinema's and streaming at the same time ?

    A lot of people prefer streaming services, watching the film in the comfort of your home these days.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,943
    007InAction wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007InAction wrote: »
    Money is not a problem for Amazon i would think ?

    They already spent billions for MGM and the EON bond rights, MGM $8.45 billion/EON $1 billion........

    They're not going to make films just for charity's sake, they are a business. Disney have plenty of money too, but they still make Marvel and Star Wars films in the UK to save themselves money.
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well, the only thing we've heard is that they're somehow tariffs, and US tariffs are of course paid by the American consumer, so somehow this would presumably be passed onto the moviegoers; so the studio wouldn't necessarily be spending more, but they would be getting a much lower profit because people aren't going to pay twice the price. If they moved production to the US, without any financial incentives to make it better for them they would actually be spending more, and so again: reduced profit.
    So if you wanted to kill Hollywood, this is a really good way of doing it.
    Chinese cinema still doing well though.

    Americans hardly ever watch Chinese movies. It is the British industry that loses here.

    I know that, I'm just pointing out that it's a great way to let China get even further ahead. Americans might be watching more Chinese movies soon if Hollywood gets more damaged.


    The Chinese are protectionists too. It's not going to happen.

    I don't even know what you're arguing now, but sure.
    007InAction wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007InAction wrote: »
    Money is not a problem for Amazon i would think ?

    They already spent billions for MGM and the EON bond rights, MGM $8.45 billion/EON $1 billion........

    They're not going to make films just for charity's sake, they are a business. Disney have plenty of money too, but they still make Marvel and Star Wars films in the UK to save themselves money.
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well, the only thing we've heard is that they're somehow tariffs, and US tariffs are of course paid by the American consumer, so somehow this would presumably be passed onto the moviegoers; so the studio wouldn't necessarily be spending more, but they would be getting a much lower profit because people aren't going to pay twice the price. If they moved production to the US, without any financial incentives to make it better for them they would actually be spending more, and so again: reduced profit.
    So if you wanted to kill Hollywood, this is a really good way of doing it.
    Chinese cinema still doing well though.

    Americans hardly ever watch Chinese movies. It is the British industry that loses here.

    I know that, I'm just pointing out that it's a great way to let China get even further ahead. Americans might be watching more Chinese movies soon if Hollywood gets more damaged.

    Even if the next bond film cost $600 million they would still make a profit as after a cinema release they show the film on Amazon Prime Video weeks later.

    They're not going to spend $600m on it. I'm not sure it's much of a profit strategy to put it on Prime a few weeks later either.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I mean, I could be wrong but I assume at this point we simply don't know where the next Bond movie is being made, at least in terms of its studio necessities? Pascal and Heyman were said to be working on it in London though.

    I have never made a movie myself(!) but I presume one of the earliest stages is probably to book in studio facilities..? It's possible they're playing wait-and-see (if they're fully on it yet) as Amazon do at least have some money behind them and there's possibly a way of claiming any delay against insurance, but hopefully nothing's being cancelled yet.

    Yes they won't spend $600m on the next bond film but i would say they have a nearly
    unlimited budget compared to what Harry and Cubby had for DR NO.

    Yes, but that's all the more reason not to lose a big proportion of that money.
    It's true that Amazon probably aren't as vulnerable as smaller studios, but that doesn't mean they're interested in running a loss.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,583
    mtm wrote: »
    007InAction wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007InAction wrote: »
    Money is not a problem for Amazon i would think ?

    They already spent billions for MGM and the EON bond rights, MGM $8.45 billion/EON $1 billion........

    They're not going to make films just for charity's sake, they are a business. Disney have plenty of money too, but they still make Marvel and Star Wars films in the UK to save themselves money.
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well, the only thing we've heard is that they're somehow tariffs, and US tariffs are of course paid by the American consumer, so somehow this would presumably be passed onto the moviegoers; so the studio wouldn't necessarily be spending more, but they would be getting a much lower profit because people aren't going to pay twice the price. If they moved production to the US, without any financial incentives to make it better for them they would actually be spending more, and so again: reduced profit.
    So if you wanted to kill Hollywood, this is a really good way of doing it.
    Chinese cinema still doing well though.

    Americans hardly ever watch Chinese movies. It is the British industry that loses here.

    I know that, I'm just pointing out that it's a great way to let China get even further ahead. Americans might be watching more Chinese movies soon if Hollywood gets more damaged.


    The Chinese are protectionists too. It's not going to happen.

    I don't even know what you're arguing now, but sure.
    007InAction wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007InAction wrote: »
    Money is not a problem for Amazon i would think ?

    They already spent billions for MGM and the EON bond rights, MGM $8.45 billion/EON $1 billion........

    They're not going to make films just for charity's sake, they are a business. Disney have plenty of money too, but they still make Marvel and Star Wars films in the UK to save themselves money.
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well, the only thing we've heard is that they're somehow tariffs, and US tariffs are of course paid by the American consumer, so somehow this would presumably be passed onto the moviegoers; so the studio wouldn't necessarily be spending more, but they would be getting a much lower profit because people aren't going to pay twice the price. If they moved production to the US, without any financial incentives to make it better for them they would actually be spending more, and so again: reduced profit.
    So if you wanted to kill Hollywood, this is a really good way of doing it.
    Chinese cinema still doing well though.

    Americans hardly ever watch Chinese movies. It is the British industry that loses here.

    I know that, I'm just pointing out that it's a great way to let China get even further ahead. Americans might be watching more Chinese movies soon if Hollywood gets more damaged.

    Even if the next bond film cost $600 million they would still make a profit as after a cinema release they show the film on Amazon Prime Video weeks later.

    They're not going to spend $600m on it. I'm not sure it's much of a profit strategy to put it on Prime a few weeks later either.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I mean, I could be wrong but I assume at this point we simply don't know where the next Bond movie is being made, at least in terms of its studio necessities? Pascal and Heyman were said to be working on it in London though.

    I have never made a movie myself(!) but I presume one of the earliest stages is probably to book in studio facilities..? It's possible they're playing wait-and-see (if they're fully on it yet) as Amazon do at least have some money behind them and there's possibly a way of claiming any delay against insurance, but hopefully nothing's being cancelled yet.

    Yes they won't spend $600m on the next bond film but i would say they have a nearly
    unlimited budget compared to what Harry and Cubby had for DR NO.

    Yes, but that's all the more reason not to lose a big proportion of that money.
    It's true that Amazon probably aren't as vulnerable as smaller studios, but that doesn't mean they're interested in running a loss.

    Especially not with James Bond! Disney seriously hurt many franchises under its care, I'm not sure Amazon wants to follow.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,668
    mtm wrote: »
    Thing is, if they make in America it'll be more expensive, and we won't get the budget onscreen where it should be. That's why this 'plan' is so stupid.
    And already it will have added uncertainty to the industry (an industry already going through a rough patch and which really didn't need it), so it's quite possible that we're looking at a longer delay. Anyone expecting this to go down well on a forum of Bond fans, or just fans of western movies in general, who are eager for the next film are on another planet. No derangement required, just a basic understanding of the situation.

    So there is a 'plan'?

    Perhaps they can switch the castle at the end of YOLT to Mar-A-Lago.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,872
    I think it's a good reason to believe the budget could be over 300 million.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,387
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I think it's a good reason to believe the budget could be over 300 million.

    It’s certainly possible, but why would Amazon commit to such a budget for a new actor who isn’t proven in the role?
    Conservatively they could have a budget of $100-150 million that has a great story and helps establish Bond #7.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,915
    Benny wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I think it's a good reason to believe the budget could be over 300 million.

    It’s certainly possible, but why would Amazon commit to such a budget for a new actor who isn’t proven in the role?
    Conservatively they could have a budget of $100-150 million that has a great story and helps establish Bond #7.

    It's what Casino Royale cost 20 years ago. I don't know if it's possible without it looking cheap.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,387
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I think it's a good reason to believe the budget could be over 300 million.

    It’s certainly possible, but why would Amazon commit to such a budget for a new actor who isn’t proven in the role?
    Conservatively they could have a budget of $100-150 million that has a great story and helps establish Bond #7.

    It's what Casino Royale cost 20 years ago. I don't know if it's possible without it looking cheap.

    True.
    But I think it’s possible to make a decent thriller for under $200 million.
    Bond doesn’t have to copy MI or other films on the action front. A few decent set pieces with a great story are quite acceptable.
    It really depends. In which direction Heyman & Pascal want to go.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,583
    That might be for the controversial thread, but I prefer low(er) key action scenes to big ones. Give me hand to hand combat and good old shootouts over overcomplicated car chases with heavy gadgetry.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,860
    We just got an excellent car chase, let's give that a break after SP and NTTD. As much as I love a car chase.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited 12:44pm Posts: 1,915
    Ludovico wrote: »
    That might be for the controversial thread, but I prefer low(er) key action scenes to big ones. Give me hand to hand combat and good old shootouts over overcomplicated car chases with heavy gadgetry.


    Like The Bourne Identity? Anything less seems unlikely to me.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,583
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    That might be for the controversial thread, but I prefer low(er) key action scenes to big ones. Give me hand to hand combat and good old shootouts over overcomplicated car chases with heavy gadgetry.


    Like The Bourne Identity? Anything less seems unlikely to me.

    Yes, that's the kind of action I enjoy. CR had the perfect level and quality to it too.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited 1:45pm Posts: 2,533
    I think James Bond's main action is always going to be large scale. A few fisticuffs here and there, but the tradition started by Cubby & Saltzman, is that there needs to be OMG moments in the series. I'm not sure the series, would have survived today without those moments.
    Even the fisticuffs are inventive. Something like the elevator fight between Bond & Franks. Why would people want to fight in an elevator? Bond...only Bond :) Now elevator fights are in a lot of action films, but still not as inventive as that DAF sequence. I think Bond's fisticuffs even influenced the Bourne series.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,470
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    I think James Bond's main action is always going to be large scale. A few fisticuffs here and there, but the tradition started by Cubby & Saltzman, is that there needs to be OMG moments in the series. I'm not sure the series, would have survived today without those moments.
    Even the fisticuffs are inventive. Something like the elevator fight between Bond & Franks. Why would people want to fight in an elevator? Bond...only Bond :) Now elevator fights are in a lot of action films, but still not as inventive as that DAF sequence. I think Bond's fisticuffs even influenced the Bourne series.

    I agree. General audiences were going on about how QOS's action was edited like the Bourne films while it was Peter Hunt who pioneered that style of action editing as far back as OHMSS.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited 3:03pm Posts: 2,533
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    I think James Bond's main action is always going to be large scale. A few fisticuffs here and there, but the tradition started by Cubby & Saltzman, is that there needs to be OMG moments in the series. I'm not sure the series, would have survived today without those moments.
    Even the fisticuffs are inventive. Something like the elevator fight between Bond & Franks. Why would people want to fight in an elevator? Bond...only Bond :) Now elevator fights are in a lot of action films, but still not as inventive as that DAF sequence. I think Bond's fisticuffs even influenced the Bourne series.

    I agree. General audiences were going on about how QOS's action was edited like the Bourne films while it was Peter Hunt who pioneered that style of action editing as far back as OHMSS.

    Yes. Exactly. Hunt's frenetic style of editing. I can't remember the interview, but there was one where someone said modern action filmmakers would be lying, if they said they weren't influenced by James Bond. I also look at something like Connery's Bond shooting the fuel drums in FRWL, for it to explode on Spectre's boatmen. That is something that has been done today in a lot of modern action films. Only Nolan openly admits that he uses lots of Bond action style, because he sort of did it too in Dunkirk...in the oil in the sea sequence.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,583
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    I think James Bond's main action is always going to be large scale. A few fisticuffs here and there, but the tradition started by Cubby & Saltzman, is that there needs to be OMG moments in the series. I'm not sure the series, would have survived today without those moments.
    Even the fisticuffs are inventive. Something like the elevator fight between Bond & Franks. Why would people want to fight in an elevator? Bond...only Bond :) Now elevator fights are in a lot of action films, but still not as inventive as that DAF sequence. I think Bond's fisticuffs even influenced the Bourne series.

    Yeah, I understand there must be large scale action pieces and I love them when done well, but I think the early ones often had simplicity and atmosphere, something lacking in many action movies. And I think Bond movies distinguish themselves in quiet times too: poker games, casinos, a game of golf, etc.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,533
    Ludovico wrote: »
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    I think James Bond's main action is always going to be large scale. A few fisticuffs here and there, but the tradition started by Cubby & Saltzman, is that there needs to be OMG moments in the series. I'm not sure the series, would have survived today without those moments.
    Even the fisticuffs are inventive. Something like the elevator fight between Bond & Franks. Why would people want to fight in an elevator? Bond...only Bond :) Now elevator fights are in a lot of action films, but still not as inventive as that DAF sequence. I think Bond's fisticuffs even influenced the Bourne series.

    Yeah, I understand there must be large scale action pieces and I love them when done well, but I think the early ones often had simplicity and atmosphere, something lacking in many action movies. And I think Bond movies distinguish themselves in quiet times too: poker games, casinos, a game of golf, etc.

    True, true. Very true.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,682
    Eon only took 1-2 years and started from scratch to make DR NO.
    I wonder if Heyman and Pascal can repeat this feat ?
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,860
    IF you believe 2027 is possible, our first potential competition has been announced with Gollum coming out Dec 2027. Other major movies are Batman Part II (we'll see about that one though), and A new SW in Dec as well. Right now, Bond could pluck an October release date and have about a month to itself (unless Batman gets made, which I doubt).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,943
    007InAction wrote: »
    Eon only took 1-2 years and started from scratch to make DR NO.
    I wonder if Heyman and Pascal can repeat this feat ?

    I'm sure they could adapt a already-written book into a modestly sized film like Dr No easily yeah, but that's not what they'll be doing.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited 3:53pm Posts: 1,860
    Here's your movie:Jamaica PTS, London post-PTS establishing the team and assignment, exotic locale (China? if they'll run the movie in theaters), meet main Bond girl (could be the villain in a twist) and a poker scene, establish threat, exotic locale #2 (somewhere in SE Asia?), main stunt of movie, finale in third setting, cliffhanger ending. I would love them to pay for the CGI to do the Bond vs. Squid fight from Dr. No since it's mentioned tbh.

    Third setting could be back in London after a false finale, where we see the true villain organize or something. That's the cliffhanger, Bond isn't done. etc.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,533
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Here's your movie:Jamaica PTS, London post-PTS establishing the team and assignment, exotic locale (China? if they'll run the movie in theaters), meet main Bond girl (could be the villain in a twist) and a poker scene, establish threat, exotic locale #2 (somewhere in SE Asia?), main stunt of movie, finale in third setting, cliffhanger ending. I would love them to pay for the CGI to do the Bond vs. Squid fight from Dr. No since it's mentioned tbh.

    Third setting could be back in London after a false finale, where we see the true villain organize or something. That's the cliffhanger, Bond isn't done. etc.

    Ok. I take it, you want Amazon to serialize Bond 7's era too, yeah?
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited 4:39pm Posts: 1,860
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Here's your movie:Jamaica PTS, London post-PTS establishing the team and assignment, exotic locale (China? if they'll run the movie in theaters), meet main Bond girl (could be the villain in a twist) and a poker scene, establish threat, exotic locale #2 (somewhere in SE Asia?), main stunt of movie, finale in third setting, cliffhanger ending. I would love them to pay for the CGI to do the Bond vs. Squid fight from Dr. No since it's mentioned tbh.

    Third setting could be back in London after a false finale, where we see the true villain organize or something. That's the cliffhanger, Bond isn't done. etc.

    Ok. I take it, you want Amazon to serialize Bond 7's era too, yeah?

    Just thinking as they would, I personally want Casino Royale 3 still.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited 4:49pm Posts: 2,533
    LucknFate wrote: »
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Here's your movie:Jamaica PTS, London post-PTS establishing the team and assignment, exotic locale (China? if they'll run the movie in theaters), meet main Bond girl (could be the villain in a twist) and a poker scene, establish threat, exotic locale #2 (somewhere in SE Asia?), main stunt of movie, finale in third setting, cliffhanger ending. I would love them to pay for the CGI to do the Bond vs. Squid fight from Dr. No since it's mentioned tbh.

    Third setting could be back in London after a false finale, where we see the true villain organize or something. That's the cliffhanger, Bond isn't done. etc.

    Ok. I take it, you want Amazon to serialize Bond 7's era too, yeah?

    Just thinking as they would, I personally want Casino Royale 3 still.

    Haha! I see your point. Yeah, we're hoping Pascal & Heyman give us something really good. They should. I think their involvement made us worry less.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,860
    Potential Bond 26 competition, surveying the field as it stands today with projected movie releases...

    Fall 2027:
    Batman Part II (Oct)
    Marvel Movie (Nov, rumored)
    Star Wars (Dec)
    Gollum (Dec)

    2028 (my personal guesses as to the release order):
    Dirty Dozen
    I Am Pilgrim (spy movie)
    War Party (with Tom Hardy)
    Narnia
    Red Platoon (Afghan war movie)
    No Better Place To Die (WWII war movie)
    Metal Gear Solid (with Oscar Isaac, could be summer release)

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,872
    If they are going to make 2027, we're going to have to see major strides very quickly.
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 124
    I'm calling them out! Teasing a release date - then nothing. Come on haha
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 6:39pm Posts: 5,150
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Potential Bond 26 competition, surveying the field as it stands today with projected movie releases...

    Fall 2027:
    Batman Part II (Oct)
    Marvel Movie (Nov, rumored)
    Star Wars (Dec)
    Gollum (Dec)

    2028 (my personal guesses as to the release order):
    Dirty Dozen
    I Am Pilgrim (spy movie)
    War Party (with Tom Hardy)
    Narnia
    Red Platoon (Afghan war movie)
    No Better Place To Die (WWII war movie)
    Metal Gear Solid (with Oscar Isaac, could be summer release)

    Not sure if it's a case of choosing the date at the current time (still early days) but I'd probably be more inclined to go for 2028 based on that competition. But honestly, it's not necessarily a reason at this point to plan a release date.
    dewiparry wrote: »
    I'm calling them out! Teasing a release date - then nothing. Come on haha

    Don't think anyone teased a release date. We just got excited that they were speaking at Cinemacon and speculated a release date. It wasn't the case.
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    edited 7:12pm Posts: 124
    007HallY wrote: »

    Don't think anyone teased a release date. We just got excited that they were speaking at Cinemacon and speculated a release date. It wasn't the case.
    I could've sworn it was reported as being their aim for a release. They must be butting heads over something!

    Also Jeff 's wedding... Venice, July.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 8:24pm Posts: 17,943
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Potential Bond 26 competition, surveying the field as it stands today with projected movie releases...

    Fall 2027:
    Batman Part II (Oct)
    Marvel Movie (Nov, rumored)
    Star Wars (Dec)
    Gollum (Dec)

    2028 (my personal guesses as to the release order):
    Dirty Dozen
    I Am Pilgrim (spy movie)
    War Party (with Tom Hardy)
    Narnia
    Red Platoon (Afghan war movie)
    No Better Place To Die (WWII war movie)
    Metal Gear Solid (with Oscar Isaac, could be summer release)

    Not sure if it's a case of choosing the date at the current time (still early days) but I'd probably be more inclined to go for 2028 based on that competition. But honestly, it's not necessarily a reason at this point to plan a release date.

    Plus several of those have titles and stars lined up, which this movie isn't even as far along as yet. We probably can't get too ambitious.
Sign In or Register to comment.