It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
That's a fantasy. The studios are already there, the business moved out because it was too expensive. Making everything more expensive solves nothing. Again, look how the other countries made it work.
Fantasy? Hardly. Difficult? Yes. In the U.S. Unions, among other things, have driven cost upward; dealing with them will be a challenge
One element that has not been touched upon here that has the potential of reducing cost is technology.
Exactly; the problem is Stateside, there aren't any deals or negotiations with other countries to be made, unless it's just by strong-arming them to remove their incentives, in which case Hollywood suffers. It's bad business. More than likely it will all go away as that is pointed out to those in charge.
As I said before, you win business by being competitive, not by destroying your competitors by driving up prices- because if you do that it's the consumer who suffers.
I get it's broader than Bond, I was asking why Trump is soloing out Bond. It's clear its big international projects like Bond that Trump and Hollywood are jealous of. This is protectionism. I found Eon and Bond interesting because they operate outside of the traditional system. Why threaten that? I have no interest, as a Bond fan, in changing that arrangement. I don't see how more American involvement could possibly improve James Bond. I don't care where my movies are made as long as there is a GROWING industry and its producing good content. I think the issue is streaming has killed classic Hollywood demand and I'm not really sure there is a forceful solution to reversing that.
Yes, and there is no intent to be "hostile" toward other countries; much of this is meant to coax (force) U.S. entities to become more competitive.
Arresting David Zazlov would go a long way.
There's a reason it's called a 'trade war'. But the genius move here is that it affects US businesses adversely as well as attempting to destroy other countries' industries.
Sorry mate, but when you're claiming that your closest allies are 'ripping you off', you're not exactly in compromise territory...
Absolutely you are; like making sausage, this will not be pretty but in the end, as was the recent trade agreement with the UK , it will be sorted out.
In your opinion.
Whatever the intention, this has been the completely wrong way, wrong policy, wrong man to do it.
Has Trump ever inspired a Bond villain? No, but definitely yes on other villains since the 80s. Lex Luthor being rebooted by John Byrne as a real estate mogul is the biggest example. Daniel Clamp in GREMLINS 2 was a combo of Trump and Ted Turner, but when casting John Glover he played him as such a likable guy that they rewrote the part to have him stay alive to the end with a change of heart. Which is great because I loved him in that film.
Slightly off-topic, by John Glover is generally known to be a nice man. It's a shame that he was never part of a Bond villain cast.
As for Bond's movie development, don't worry, I'm sure that ideas from all production viewpoints are being tossed around.
Dealing with unions a challenge? The Bond films have always been union productions. They are essential in the film business because of rapacious producers. The crews are protected by the unions from people who make half baked decisions without regard to the bigger picture. I wish we could say the same about this administration.
Unions don't drive up the cost of goods and services. Businesses that aren't satisfied with their margins after fairly compensating their union workers drives up the cost of goods and services. Union protections are why manufacturing jobs were coveted as stable avenues for upward mobility, and a steady paycheck for blue collar workers.
The irony in Trump's terrible tariff scheme is that a great many components needed to onshore manufacturing are made internationally. Building a factory in the U.S. got a whole lot more expensive.
But if there's just going to be a 10% tariff across the board for any country, then why would businesses on shore their manufacturing when they can just pass that cost onto the consumer? To put it another way, less people buying a particular product at a higher price point may be just as profitable as selling a cheaper item to more customers.
Even if this all works, it'll be years before we see the tree bear fruit, and there's no guarantee that most Americans will be able to afford the cost increase on everything from undergarments to cars.
Like a snake eating its tail, this line of reasoning leads us back to the big-brain question: how effective can tariffs be in on shoring manufacturing that no one wants to build or can afford to build or takes years to build with no way to know whether or not consumers will be able to afford American made products at a significantly higher price point? In about a month, when goods are missing from store shelves because the Chinese aren’t shipping to the U.S., we’ll probably be in a full blown recession, if not a complete financial meltdown.
Counter:
His HP film was 21 years ago.
In that span, Cuaron has only directed three other films. Roma (his last feature), was a lovely looking, boring mess (if one wants to see how proper character studies work, I suggest watching WHITE LOTUS-- not really a story, more of character study/commentary, beautifully handled).
Last year he directed the series DISCLAIMER, another lovely looking messy narrative, saved mainly by Blanchett's performance (the ever-changing tones gave me whiplash).
He may be best for Bond, or maybe not so much, but--
If people thought CR was a hard reboot, I'd wager this is the genuine deal: for the first time since its inception, the James Bond films of canon won't be produced by a Saltzman, a Broccoli, or a Wilson.
This is as close to unchartered waters as one can get.
Why would the producers put their faith in one director, without exploring all possible avenues of talent? I just don't believe they have done this (or, if the rumours were true, I think Cuaron would have been officially signed by now. He isn't. That is telling).
Cuaron may end up getting the gig, but I hope/think, it'll be after a very intense search.
There's absolutely no rush to get a Bond film in cinemas tomorrow. Whenever it does get released, it'll be a huge announcement, whether it be a year from now, or three years from now, or five years from now.
I'm sure he would do a good job if what they want is to do more of the same.
Whose to say they didn't look at others?
Gotta push back on this take - especially on Roma. Calling it a "boring mess" and comparing it to White Lotus feels way off base. Roma isn’t trying to be a soap-operatic character collage like White Lotus. It’s a memory piece - deeply personal, quiet, and observational. It's more Jeanne Dielman than anything else, focusing on the texture of everyday life and the invisible emotional labor of a domestic worker holding an entire family together. It's not a traditional narrative; it's a slow-burn meditation. It won Best Director for a reason - Cuaron brought intimacy and scale to something that could’ve been a drag in lesser hands.
As for Disclaimer, totally agree with you there - Cuaron felt misplaced. It was a misfire, sure. Eight episodes of what felt like a stretched-out thriller with nowhere near enough juice in the story. It looked great (of course), but yeah, it had that overcooked streaming bloat that even a director like him couldn’t save. Like giving Lewis Hamilton a Micra and telling him to break records. He was the wrong fit for the material.
But jumping from that to “Cuaron might not be the right guy for Bond” or worse, that he’s somehow past his prime? Nah, I’m not buying it. This guy did Children of Men and Gravity, both technical and narrative masterclasses.
And about him not being announced yet - well, that’s just how these things go. No trades have confirmed anything, but that doesn’t mean the talks aren’t real or serious. If the rumours weren’t solid, we wouldn’t still be hearing them this consistently.
P2D with the truth bombs as usual. B-)
Nobody, really. But let's hope they're doing that. Even if it ends up being Cuaron.