›

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

1…8485868789

Comments

  • bondywondybondywondy Uk
    edited May 15 Posts: 509
    It's just a pity Cruise did lie about Top Gun Maverick so I no longer believe him when he's interviewed and he says he does all the stunts. This has become tiresome and narcissistic. But if he does some of it for real, that's impressive. But once you see him flat out lie in that Comicon promotion, there's no reason to think the biplane sequence (which looks great!) is all real or even most of it real. It's impossible to know for sure.

    This is why the MI franchise will never truly rival James Bond. All the amazing stunts in the 1970s/80s Bond films were real. No cgi. All modern action films fake the big scenes to some extent. The big bike leap in MI7 was full of cgi and yet Paramount marketed it as the biggest stunt ever.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 15 Posts: 18,025
    bondywondy wrote: »
    It's just a pity Cruise did lie about Top Gun Maverick so I no longer believe him when he's interviewed and he says he does all the stunts. This has become tiresome and narcissistic. But if he does some of it for real, that's impressive. But once you see him flat out lie in that Comicon promotion, there's no reason to think the biplane sequence (which looks great!) is all real or even most of it real. It's impossible to know for sure.

    I mean, gosh, you just have to use your eyes. You don't honestly think the biplane stuff is all fake do you? I'm sure there probably will be some closeups with comped backgrounds, and they may well add in some backgrounds, and maybe the plane has a big crash which is all CG, but there's obviously stuff they're really doing in there. Not to mention so much behind the scenes stuff we've seen from it.
    The train stuff in Dead Reckoning where they have comped in the backgrounds and the actors are in studio doesn't quite fit with the real stuff: you can still tell when they're not really on top of a moving train.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited May 15 Posts: 5,213
    Again, all stunts in film history have used cinematic ‘tricks’ to some degree. Even if it was back projections or some sort of in camera technique, and certainly even if stunt people/actors were actually doing some of these stunts. The nature of film isn’t that they’re doing these things ‘for real’ but how they’ve simulating these sequences. Very often it’ll come down to a mixture of practical stunts, SFX, and nowadays VFX and CGI.

    But I do agree that Cruise diminishing the efforts of the VFX team isn’t right. It also gives a misleading idea of how action films are made.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,703
    Tom Cruise lie? About what exactly? ;)
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,635
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don’t think it’ll matter as we’re a bit away from Bond 26 anyway. Bond has always financially outperformed MI too at the box office, and that was with Tom Cruise scaling large buildings and doing crazy stunts. MI also has quite a soft fanbase at the best of times compared to Bond, and it’s a major reason why the latest underperformed to the extent it did in 2023 with specific competition (there was little excitement or incentive to see it in the cinema. Very much an element of ‘I can catch this in a month or two’. Still not seen it myself!)

    I’m sure the next one will do better than the last. I’m not sure how high its ceiling goes though, even if they’re well regarded. I must admit, I have no interest in paying for a ticket to see this one (MI can be very hit or miss for me. Not a Tom Cruise fan either if I’m honest).

    Worrying about action sequences is a bit cart before horse at the moment: first they need an idea for the next movie, characters, a plot, casting...

    Well an obvious action sequence for Bond 26 is Bond fighting a villain in a London Eye pod or on the London Eye ferris wheel itself.

    960px-London-Eye-2009.JPG

    60.jpg

    The actor doesn't have to be suspended from the actual wheel (!)..... a part of the wheel can be made with precise accuracy and raised twenty/thirty feet off the ground with padding on the ground. The new Bond actor can hang off the imitation wheel and composited into wide shots of the real London Eye. A pod can be made to scale on a sound stage and the London skyline added in post production.

    The London Eye is an ideal location for an action sequence. Maybe the precredit scene. 😉
    The London Eye, originally the Millennium Wheel, is a cantilevered observation wheel on the South Bank of the River Thames in London. It is the world's tallest cantilevered observation wheel, and the most popular paid tourist attraction in the United Kingdom with over three million visitors annually.

    By the way, Cruise lied about no cgi in Top Gun Maverick plane sequences. Cgi planes were used and the vast majority of the train sequence in Dead Reckoning including the scenes inside the train carriage as it tilts were cgi. Cgi was also used in the halo jump in Fallout. The promo videos of Cruise skydiving were real. That's not what was used in the final edit.

    Cgi train in Dead Reckoning.



    Never believe everything you see in action films. A huge amount is enhanced in post production.





    I could see them channeling The Third Man. Could make for a tense sequence.
  • bondywondybondywondy Uk
    edited May 15 Posts: 509
    mtm wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »

    MI 7 used many cgi effect shots (despite the usual Cruise does it all for real shtick) so there is a very high probability MI 8 has used just as many cgi shots and that may or will include the biplane sequence which is marketed as all real. And Tom Cruise unequivocally lied when he said in promotion for Top Gun Maverick that the planes were all real. The film has thousands of cgi effect shots.

    Yes, he did; I brought that up upthread. But that doesn't mean that there aren't real stunts in the films, or 'the vast majority' of it is CG. A lot of it is enhanced with CG backgrounds etc. but that's not the same thing.
    Even in Maverick it's clear there's an awful lot of stuff being done as close to real as possible, and the actors are clearly actually in real planes in a lot of shots. It looks great.
    bondywondy wrote: »
    It's possible the opening stunt in Rogue Nation was fake.

    I mean, it's not. The slight problem with that shot is that it doesn't look massively different to a studio shot, it's true, and does look like a locked-off shot, that is until the plane banks and the sunlight hits him and then that really confirms it.


    Well you can't prove it's completely real. Lighting, colour grading, removal of objects, adding objects all possible in post production. Cruise could be strapped to a real or even fake plane side and a huge fan was blowing on him! Then composite the scene onto the footage of the real plane in the sky.

    I've no evidence to prove it's fake. I'm suggesting a way it can be faked, that's all. The fact is Cruise was found out to be lying about TG 2 because his marketing gimmick is "Cruise does it all for real." If it turns out he doesn't, that damages his reputation.

    And as mentioned by 007HallY, Cruise saying TG 2 was "all real" is disrespectful to the hundreds of cgi animators that spent months or longer working in post to make it look all real.

    Ludovico
    I could see them channeling The Third Man. Could make for a tense sequence.

    Yes, I think it's worth Amazon considering the London Eye for Bond 26 or a future Bond film. Be good publicity for the wheel too. Maybe it could be known as 'The Bond Wheel'.
    ;))
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,025
    bondywondy wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »

    MI 7 used many cgi effect shots (despite the usual Cruise does it all for real shtick) so there is a very high probability MI 8 has used just as many cgi shots and that may or will include the biplane sequence which is marketed as all real. And Tom Cruise unequivocally lied when he said in promotion for Top Gun Maverick that the planes were all real. The film has thousands of cgi effect shots.

    Yes, he did; I brought that up upthread. But that doesn't mean that there aren't real stunts in the films, or 'the vast majority' of it is CG. A lot of it is enhanced with CG backgrounds etc. but that's not the same thing.
    Even in Maverick it's clear there's an awful lot of stuff being done as close to real as possible, and the actors are clearly actually in real planes in a lot of shots. It looks great.
    bondywondy wrote: »
    It's possible the opening stunt in Rogue Nation was fake.

    I mean, it's not. The slight problem with that shot is that it doesn't look massively different to a studio shot, it's true, and does look like a locked-off shot, that is until the plane banks and the sunlight hits him and then that really confirms it.


    Well you can't prove it's completely real. Lighting, colour grading, removal of objects, adding objects all possible in post production. Cruise could be strapped to a real or even fake plane side and a huge fan was blowing on him! Then composite the scene onto the footage of the real plane in the sky.

    I’m sure they are enhancing it, for one thing we know his safety ropes have been brushed out, I don’t think anyone minds that.
    But he is doing it for real, it’s just a fact.
    bondywondy wrote: »

    And as mentioned by 007HallY, Cruise saying TG 2 was "all real" is disrespectful to the hundreds of cgi animators that spent months or longer working in post to make it look all real.

    Yep, again that’s something I said only a few posts back, I’m not disagreeing with that :)
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 5:12am Posts: 5,213
    -
  • bondywondybondywondy Uk
    edited May 15 Posts: 509
    mtm wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »

    MI 7 used many cgi effect shots (despite the usual Cruise does it all for real shtick) so there is a very high probability MI 8 has used just as many cgi shots and that may or will include the biplane sequence which is marketed as all real. And Tom Cruise unequivocally lied when he said in promotion for Top Gun Maverick that the planes were all real. The film has thousands of cgi effect shots.

    Yes, he did; I brought that up upthread. But that doesn't mean that there aren't real stunts in the films, or 'the vast majority' of it is CG. A lot of it is enhanced with CG backgrounds etc. but that's not the same thing.
    Even in Maverick it's clear there's an awful lot of stuff being done as close to real as possible, and the actors are clearly actually in real planes in a lot of shots. It looks great.
    bondywondy wrote: »
    It's possible the opening stunt in Rogue Nation was fake.

    I mean, it's not. The slight problem with that shot is that it doesn't look massively different to a studio shot, it's true, and does look like a locked-off shot, that is until the plane banks and the sunlight hits him and then that really confirms it.


    Well you can't prove it's completely real. Lighting, colour grading, removal of objects, adding objects all possible in post production. Cruise could be strapped to a real or even fake plane side and a huge fan was blowing on him! Then composite the scene onto the footage of the real plane in the sky.

    I’m sure they are enhancing it, for one thing we know his safety ropes have been brushed out, I don’t think anyone minds that.
    But he is doing it for real, it’s just a fact.
    bondywondy wrote: »

    And as mentioned by 007HallY, Cruise saying TG 2 was "all real" is disrespectful to the hundreds of cgi animators that spent months or longer working in post to make it look all real.

    Yep, again that’s something I said only a few posts back, I’m not disagreeing with that :)
    I think most or all Bond fans would like to see a big action scene with the new Bond actor clearly shown - in Bond 26. Real or cgi, it's important Bond 26 has one big stunt to compete with other action franchises. And Bond 26 is arguably Bond 1 (!) so if we look at it as the start of a new Bond franchise it makes sense to market this new era with a big action scene. Goldeneye had the bungee jump. Casino Royale had the parkour/crane chase. Amazon would be wise to copy that formula. 😉
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited May 15 Posts: 8,271
    While I'd certainly agree that it is disrespectful to say that "everything is completely real" and there was "no CGI", that quote from Cruise about the flying being real is not wrong in the slightest. Real planes were flown and real planes did almost all of the manouevres seen in Top Gun: Maverick. They just replaced those planes with their military-level counterparts. Because naturally, flying those incredibly expensive machines for the sake of a film (even if that film is Top Gun) was simply not a thing that would ever happen.

    He's neither lying nor telling the full truth, but effectively playing the marketing game. And I don't think anyone can claim that it didn't work out well for the film.

    If Bond 26 takes a similar approach, I'll be really happy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,025
    I think he said something like “everything you see is real” which was a bit disingenuous.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,271
    Sorry, I was going off the quote Bondywondy provided which talked about the flying being real. If there's more than that, then fair enough.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited 4:33am Posts: 784
    mtm wrote: »
    I think he said something like “everything you see is real” which was a bit disingenuous.

    Well, it's real in the sense that, it exists.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,897
    Has anything moved regarding the tariffs? If nothing changes could the film not happen until 2029?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,630
    You’re gonna have to wait til 2030
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 10:17am Posts: 18,025
    Here's a fun job to apply for:

    Archive Director - Bond, Amazon MGM Studios
    We're seeking an Archive Director to oversee the James Bond archive. This role is responsible for managing and preserving over 60+ years of cinematic history, including props, costumes, and vehicles. The role demands expertise in both physical and digital archive management, film industry knowledge, and the ability to support multiple stakeholders including marketing / PR teams, merchandise partners, exhibition curators, and production teams.

    As the principal authority on Bond artifacts, you’ll shape the preservation strategy for one of entertainment’s most iconic collections while supporting ongoing productions and global brand initiatives.

    Key job responsibilities

    Archive Management & Conservation

    Direct the organization and preservation of 10,000+ artifacts including props, costumes, and production materials
    Oversee storage facilities and implement best practices for artifact preservation
    Manage comprehensive digital and physical inventory systems (including online database)
    Maintain detailed records of asset loans
    Supervise the digitization of historical documents, including call sheets and production materials
    Coordinate with insurance specialists for regular valuations and risk management
    Develop and implement strategic vision for the archives
    Create and maintain metadata standards for cataloging
    Establish and maintain security protocols for sensitive materials

    Curatorial & Research

    Serve as the primary authenticator and fact-checker for Bond-related publications, social media, and exhibitions
    Maintain detailed provenance records and artifact documentation
    Provide strategic recommendations for collection management

    Cross-Functional Collaboration

    Partner with production teams during filming to ensure proper artifact collection and documentation
    Provide historical information for publicity and social media initiatives (e.g., anniversary celebrations)
    Support product development for licensing and merchandising partners (e.g., film books, new product lines)
    Support curation of assets for museum and exhibition partners
    Regular reporting to senior management on archive activities and initiatives

    Basic Qualifications

    Experience in asset management and systems, preferably in film or entertainment
    Proven expertise in collection management and preservation
    Strong project management skills
    Knowledge of film history and production processes
    Excellent communication and stakeholder management abilities
  • MalloryMallory
    edited 11:58am Posts: 2,251
    What a fun job that would be. Maybe Meg Simmonds is retiring?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,703
    The topic of this thread always throws me a bit.

    Is it very British to say "Eon sells up"?

    In the US we would say "Eon sells out."
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,025
    I'd say they're different things: selling out has a bit of a value judgement attached to it, the person has given up their pride or honour in return for cash; whereas selling up just means they've sold a property (usually a house or something big and expensive) and gone.
  • MalloryMallory
    Posts: 2,251
    echo wrote: »
    The topic of this thread always throws me a bit.

    Is it very British to say "Eon sells up"?

    In the US we would say "Eon sells out."

    I *think* when I started the thread it was 'out', but as @mtm says, they mean different things, so it was changed.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,703
    It's interesting because I still see it as Eon selling out, essentially, giving up. But I guess time will tell.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 2:32pm Posts: 5,213
    It'll be interesting in the coming years learning more about this. I suspect to some extent this was probably the best outcome in an admittedly not so ideal situation. EON didn't seem to have any successors to the franchise (obviously we still don't quite know what happened with Gregg Wilson in all this and none of the other children working in the film industry seemed to want to take over). Of course we also know Wilson was planning on retiring and Broccoli didn't want to continue alone. There's likely even more to it than that though, but I can imagine them selling the creative rights over wasn't fully a 'selling out' option, neither was it necessarily a loss for them (time will tell, but I can imagine it being necessary to keep the franchise going).
  • bondywondybondywondy Uk
    edited 3:36pm Posts: 509
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    While I'd certainly agree that it is disrespectful to say that "everything is completely real" and there was "no CGI", that quote from Cruise about the flying being real is not wrong in the slightest. Real planes were flown and real planes did almost all of the manouevres seen in Top Gun: Maverick. They just replaced those planes with their military-level counterparts. Because naturally, flying those incredibly expensive machines for the sake of a film (even if that film is Top Gun) was simply not a thing that would ever happen.

    He's neither lying nor telling the full truth, but effectively playing the marketing game. And I don't think anyone can claim that it didn't work out well for the film.

    If Bond 26 takes a similar approach, I'll be really happy.

    He said the promo clip at Comicon 19 was all real. All done for real. It wasn't. He lied. Period.

    If you bother to watch this you'll see how just how fake/cgi'ed TG 2 was...



    At 1:20 into that video you see only one jet was real! Rest on screen are cgi. Hardly "everything is real."

    2,400 cgi digital effects. That's hardly
    "Everything you see is for real so the flying, all the flying you see in this picture, everything is real."

    That's Tom Cruise's quote word for word. I'm not going to mention this anymore because

    1)I don't want to waste anymore time debating the fact he told a whopper of a lie and if people don't want to accept that, go ahead, don't accept it, believe he didn't lie. Fall for it. And if you believe Tom Cruise doesn't lie about Mission Impossible films so called 'real stunts' too, go ahead. Fall for that lie too.

    2) I don't want to derail this thread's topic which is about Amazon and Bond 26.

  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited 3:43pm Posts: 1,872
    The real question is why you are so upset about it when the final product is phenomenal regardless. It's like getting mad at a magician for doing a trick on you... what did you expect.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 3:57pm Posts: 18,025
    bondywondy wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    While I'd certainly agree that it is disrespectful to say that "everything is completely real" and there was "no CGI", that quote from Cruise about the flying being real is not wrong in the slightest. Real planes were flown and real planes did almost all of the manouevres seen in Top Gun: Maverick. They just replaced those planes with their military-level counterparts. Because naturally, flying those incredibly expensive machines for the sake of a film (even if that film is Top Gun) was simply not a thing that would ever happen.

    He's neither lying nor telling the full truth, but effectively playing the marketing game. And I don't think anyone can claim that it didn't work out well for the film.

    If Bond 26 takes a similar approach, I'll be really happy.

    He said the promo clip at Comicon 19 was all real. All done for real. It wasn't. He lied. Period.

    If you bother to watch this you'll see how just how fake/cgi'ed TG 2 was...


    At 1:20 into that video you see only one jet was real! Rest on screen are cgi. Hardly "everything is real."

    2,400 cgi digital effects. That's hardly
    "Everything you see is for real so the flying, all the flying you see in this picture, everything is real."

    That's Tom Cruise's quote word for word. I'm not going to mention this anymore because

    1)I don't want to waste anymore time debating the fact he told a whopper of a lie and if people don't want to accept that, go ahead, don't accept it, believe he didn't lie. Fall for it. And if you believe Tom Cruise doesn't lie about Mission Impossible films so called 'real stunts' too, go ahead. Fall for that lie too.

    Not really sure who you're arguing with, no one has claimed that he was telling the truth. Did you not see CraigMooreOHMSS's following post?
    We know there's CG in these, the only matter we're debating is that you're basically suggesting that because there's CG in there that means it's all fake, when it really clearly isn't.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,752
    All this argument about how much of Cruise and, in particular, MI films is done by practical effects or CGI, how much real or not, is lame considering where these arguments are being exchanged. The simple fact is that the MI fims left Bond films behind a long time ago. There is NOTHING in any MI film like the parasail surfing in DAD. There is NOTHING in any MI film like the awful scenes with the young skater in FYEO <-- which was supposed to be a "return to serious Bond." I could go on and on. There have been some Bond highlights, especially during Craig's era - such as the Opera House scenes in QOS, the flipping and rolling Aston in CR, the PTS in SP (although the yellow was SO overdone) and more. However, MI films left Bond in the dust - Mexican and otherwise - long ago. It would be nice were the Bond film-makers to concern themselves with a strong, tight script and with including some terrific action sequences. Fine. Go ahead. Defend, argue, criticize, but I expect most or each of you know MI left Bond behind long ago and the comparisons generally have not favored the Bond films for years. Not picking on Bond and the persons involved. Just recognizing the obvious. Looking forward with hope...
  • M_BlaiseM_Blaise
    Posts: 389
    Some people just object to public figures lying repeatedly. But yeah that's not a problem in the real world.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited 5:50pm Posts: 6,703
    Ultimately, a series comes down to its star. Give me Craig over Cruise any day.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,956
    Since62 wrote: »
    All this argument about how much of Cruise and, in particular, MI films is done by practical effects or CGI, how much real or not, is lame considering where these arguments are being exchanged. The simple fact is that the MI fims left Bond films behind a long time ago. There is NOTHING in any MI film like the parasail surfing in DAD. There is NOTHING in any MI film like the awful scenes with the young skater in FYEO <-- which was supposed to be a "return to serious Bond." I could go on and on. There have been some Bond highlights, especially during Craig's era - such as the Opera House scenes in QOS, the flipping and rolling Aston in CR, the PTS in SP (although the yellow was SO overdone) and more. However, MI films left Bond in the dust - Mexican and otherwise - long ago. It would be nice were the Bond film-makers to concern themselves with a strong, tight script and with including some terrific action sequences. Fine. Go ahead. Defend, argue, criticize, but I expect most or each of you know MI left Bond behind long ago and the comparisons generally have not favored the Bond films for years. Not picking on Bond and the persons involved. Just recognizing the obvious. Looking forward with hope...

    To be fair, the last good script was Rogue Nation.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited 6:20pm Posts: 2,557
    While action is good, I discovered films with moderate action scenes, do have the better scripts. The finale of Rogue Nation is surprisingly low-key for a Cruise MI film. It was low-key, but very inventive and satisfying.
    It even appears the rumours of Mendes cutting away action, in favor of dramatic moments in SF, were true...and it helped SF. I also think GoldenEye also doesn't have much action...but like SF, when it comes, it's impactful. Same can be said about FRWL & CR.
    But I still want lots of action in films and Bond films. Just don't forget the script. There are Bond films with lots of action and good scripts too. So I want more of that style. But if the action is minimal, but impactful like the Bond films I mentioned, then that's also good.
Sign In or Register to comment.