›

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

1…8586878890

Comments

  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,967
    The last MI movie had some of the worst exposition I've seen in a movie in a long time.

    The new one seems like it's going to be worse in that sense. X_X
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,632
    Doubling down on McQuarrie has really dampened my enthusiasm over the MI film series. I miss the rotating door of directors coming in to bring in their own take on an MI adventure/heist. Effectively, ROGUE NATION was the last entry that actually excited me. Since then it has felt like Cruise has put more emphasis on a signature stunt and letting the rest of the film wheel spin.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Dakato Johnson
    Posts: 7,136
    I felt the last two films had very convoluted plots. The first film, by contrast, had a complex plot but not convoluted.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,632
    I think that shows McQuarrie’s weaknesses as a director. Other directors would take his scripts and find a way to make expositions cinematically work. McQuarrie sort of relies on the actors to somehow make all this talk of the entity compelling but it just kind of puts me to sleep.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 16 Posts: 18,041
    echo wrote: »
    Ultimately, a series comes down to its star. Give me Craig over Cruise any day.

    I think they're both great.
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    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.

    Yeah I think that's a great ending, and shows you don't always have to crowbar in an action climax when the film doesn't want it (I'm looking at you, Casino Royale ;) )
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,272
    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.

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

    If you don't want to derail a thread then perhaps it would be best for you to actually read the comments in it. Start with the subsequent comments to this one you've just posted for a promising start on your new ethos. It would have saved you time typing this and my time having to read it.
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Doubling down on McQuarrie has really dampened my enthusiasm over the MI film series. I miss the rotating door of directors coming in to bring in their own take on an MI adventure/heist. Effectively, ROGUE NATION was the last entry that actually excited me. Since then it has felt like Cruise has put more emphasis on a signature stunt and letting the rest of the film wheel spin.

    I loved FALLOUT, but I think that was lightning in a bottle in terms of plot through action balance. I wasn't expecting them to recreate that (I think McQuarrie is aware that each film needs to at least feel different to the last) but the recent film made all the wrong choices narratively for me, and I don't think he's got the necessary panache to gloss over those choices stylistically that say....John Woo could have.
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,504
    So many of my friends and associates, many in the film business, have lost interest in the MI franchise - too much "Cruise Control" is a comment I have heard more than once.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited May 17 Posts: 2,566
    Also, one of the problems with modern filmmaking, especially movie franchises, is this never-ending obsession with continuity. Also, funny thing is, most continuities are not necessary. Now there's a constant need of wanting to end the last film of a franchise, by billing it as the one that tightens all the screws and in the process, the film becomes bloated.

    Whichever way Amazon are looking at, to go with Bond. I hope it's thought out better and early, so the latter films of Bond 7's era, doesn't come with the current 'End Of The World' feel every last film of a franchise have these days. Up the stakes, for sure. But no need for the last film to feel bloated, because it wants to forcefully link the previous films together.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited May 17 Posts: 5,233
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    So many of my friends and associates, many in the film business, have lost interest in the MI franchise - too much "Cruise Control" is a comment I have heard more than once.

    I always say MI has a remarkably 'soft' fanbase for a major franchise. Not everyone who goes to see Bond movies are major fans, but there's something about them as a cinema event that gets people going to the cinema whenever a new film is released, even just out of habit. MI doesn't quite have that every time. Very much a 'if it's the only thing on I'll see it, but I can easily catch this at home' type thing.

    But to be honest, I'm really mixed on them. I really don't like Tom Cruise as an action hero (I find he works better playing slightly creepy, off putting characters like in Magnolia or even Tropic Thunder). Fallout was pretty good. I didn't enjoy Ghost Protocol or Rogue Nation, and the first three have their highs and lows.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    edited May 17 Posts: 2,686
    Next James Bond release date decided as Amazon 'fast-tracks' movie following acquisition ?

    Amazon has allocated a substantial £250million budget for Bond 26, £30million more than the amount spent on Daniel Craig's final outing as 007 in No Time to Die. ?

    https://www.gbnews.com/celebrity/james-bond-release-date-2027-amazon-fast-track

    Next James Bond: Hollywood star becomes new frontrunner for role after latest career venture

    https://www.gbnews.com/celebrity/james-bond-theo-james-frontrunner
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,233
    The first article's basically a rumour and about two months old. We're still in the early stages regardless of what happens, and there's no official release date as of yet. The Theo James rumour has and will continue to crop up until the next actor is chosen.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited May 17 Posts: 2,566
    Yeah. I've saw that article months back.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,233
    At least GB News have moved on from James Nelson Joyce as the next Bond! I'm sure they'll all crop up again at some point though.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited May 17 Posts: 2,566
    007HallY wrote: »
    At least GB News have moved on from James Nelson Joyce as the next Bond! I'm sure they'll all crop up again at some point though.

    Lol. Yeah. That was the last James Bond candidate rumour. I also noticed that ever since Amazon took over, those candidates frequently mentioned in articles, when EON were in-charge have cooled down. It seems they kept quiet, because they were also shell-shocked like us, when Amazon took over :D
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,900
    2029 looking more likely as we head towards the back half of 2025. The longer we don't hear anything, the more likely it is that they are taking their time, and the rumours of "fast tracking Bond 26" was just another "so and so shot their gunbarrel and is being announced in the coming days" type story.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited May 17 Posts: 2,566
    Bond 26 news is bound to hit us, sooner than later...since Amazon have already announced Pascal & Heyman. I think Amazon are aware that Bond fans are afraid. That's why they quickly announced the new producers, to ease our fears and doubts. Amazon could have easily kept the news under wraps, if fans trusted them, like they (fans) trusted EON.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,233
    Just chill guys :)) It's not even Summer yet, and it's been less than two months since Pascal and Heyman were announced. Even if it's a 2029 release let's just wait until there's actual announcements ;)
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,566
    007HallY wrote: »
    Just chill guys :)) It's not even Summer yet, and it's been less than two months since Pascal and Heyman were announced. Even if it's a 2029 release let's just wait until there's actual announcements ;)

    Yeah. That's right. It's funny, because once Amazon took over, the general thinking around the world was, Amazon might even release Bond 26 next year, Lol. I think we're just beginning to find out that Amazon aren't as stupid as a lot of us think :D
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,233
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Just chill guys :)) It's not even Summer yet, and it's been less than two months since Pascal and Heyman were announced. Even if it's a 2029 release let's just wait until there's actual announcements ;)

    Yeah. That's right. It's funny, because once Amazon took over, the general thinking around the world was, Amazon might even release Bond 26 next year, Lol. I think we're just beginning to find out that Amazon aren't as stupid as a lot of us think :D

    Maybe we’re just impatient, haha. But these films take time anyway. We’ll get something when we get something.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,566
    007HallY wrote: »
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Just chill guys :)) It's not even Summer yet, and it's been less than two months since Pascal and Heyman were announced. Even if it's a 2029 release let's just wait until there's actual announcements ;)

    Yeah. That's right. It's funny, because once Amazon took over, the general thinking around the world was, Amazon might even release Bond 26 next year, Lol. I think we're just beginning to find out that Amazon aren't as stupid as a lot of us think :D

    Maybe we’re just impatient, haha. But these films take time anyway. We’ll get something when we get something.

    Yeah. Sure.
  • BurgessBurgess
    Posts: 433
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    2029 looking more likely as we head towards the back half of 2025. The longer we don't hear anything, the more likely it is that they are taking their time, and the rumours of "fast tracking Bond 26" was just another "so and so shot their gunbarrel and is being announced in the coming days" type story.

    I’m not sure that we can assess anything, except to take them at their word. We’ll see, of course, but no news doesn’t necessarily translate to no progress.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,646
    007HallY wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    So many of my friends and associates, many in the film business, have lost interest in the MI franchise - too much "Cruise Control" is a comment I have heard more than once.

    I always say MI has a remarkably 'soft' fanbase for a major franchise. Not everyone who goes to see Bond movies are major fans, but there's something about them as a cinema event that gets people going to the cinema whenever a new film is released, even just out of habit. MI doesn't quite have that every time. Very much a 'if it's the only thing on I'll see it, but I can easily catch this at home' type thing.

    But to be honest, I'm really mixed on them. I really don't like Tom Cruise as an action hero (I find he works better playing slightly creepy, off putting characters like in Magnolia or even Tropic Thunder). Fallout was pretty good. I didn't enjoy Ghost Protocol or Rogue Nation, and the first three have their highs and lows.

    Of the MI franchise, I only ever watched the tv series, the first movie (which I enjoyed quite a lot) and some of the third one.

    I'm going to go on a controversial theory:

    as a brand, MI is rather "weak", its success due to large and daring action sequences and to Tom Cruise, maybe the very last true Hollywood star. Without him, MI would have turned out like a more serious Wild Wild West.

    It's the other way around for Bond: it's a very strong brand.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 8,167
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    So many of my friends and associates, many in the film business, have lost interest in the MI franchise - too much "Cruise Control" is a comment I have heard more than once.

    I always say MI has a remarkably 'soft' fanbase for a major franchise. Not everyone who goes to see Bond movies are major fans, but there's something about them as a cinema event that gets people going to the cinema whenever a new film is released, even just out of habit. MI doesn't quite have that every time. Very much a 'if it's the only thing on I'll see it, but I can easily catch this at home' type thing.

    But to be honest, I'm really mixed on them. I really don't like Tom Cruise as an action hero (I find he works better playing slightly creepy, off putting characters like in Magnolia or even Tropic Thunder). Fallout was pretty good. I didn't enjoy Ghost Protocol or Rogue Nation, and the first three have their highs and lows.

    Of the MI franchise, I only ever watched the tv series, the first movie (which I enjoyed quite a lot) and some of the third one.

    I'm going to go on a controversial theory:

    as a brand, MI is rather "weak", its success due to large and daring action sequences and to Tom Cruise, maybe the very last true Hollywood star. Without him, MI would have turned out like a more serious Wild Wild West.

    It's the other way around for Bond: it's a very strong brand.

    +1
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,233
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    So many of my friends and associates, many in the film business, have lost interest in the MI franchise - too much "Cruise Control" is a comment I have heard more than once.

    I always say MI has a remarkably 'soft' fanbase for a major franchise. Not everyone who goes to see Bond movies are major fans, but there's something about them as a cinema event that gets people going to the cinema whenever a new film is released, even just out of habit. MI doesn't quite have that every time. Very much a 'if it's the only thing on I'll see it, but I can easily catch this at home' type thing.

    But to be honest, I'm really mixed on them. I really don't like Tom Cruise as an action hero (I find he works better playing slightly creepy, off putting characters like in Magnolia or even Tropic Thunder). Fallout was pretty good. I didn't enjoy Ghost Protocol or Rogue Nation, and the first three have their highs and lows.

    Of the MI franchise, I only ever watched the tv series, the first movie (which I enjoyed quite a lot) and some of the third one.

    I'm going to go on a controversial theory:

    as a brand, MI is rather "weak", its success due to large and daring action sequences and to Tom Cruise, maybe the very last true Hollywood star. Without him, MI would have turned out like a more serious Wild Wild West.

    It's the other way around for Bond: it's a very strong brand.

    I think there’s definitely something to that. Must say, I’ve not seen a lot of buzz or general excitement for this latest one in its run up, but we’ll see.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,041
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    So many of my friends and associates, many in the film business, have lost interest in the MI franchise - too much "Cruise Control" is a comment I have heard more than once.

    I always say MI has a remarkably 'soft' fanbase for a major franchise. Not everyone who goes to see Bond movies are major fans, but there's something about them as a cinema event that gets people going to the cinema whenever a new film is released, even just out of habit. MI doesn't quite have that every time. Very much a 'if it's the only thing on I'll see it, but I can easily catch this at home' type thing.

    But to be honest, I'm really mixed on them. I really don't like Tom Cruise as an action hero (I find he works better playing slightly creepy, off putting characters like in Magnolia or even Tropic Thunder). Fallout was pretty good. I didn't enjoy Ghost Protocol or Rogue Nation, and the first three have their highs and lows.

    Of the MI franchise, I only ever watched the tv series, the first movie (which I enjoyed quite a lot) and some of the third one.

    You're missing out on some great stuff: it went from strength to strength from no.4.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,877
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    So many of my friends and associates, many in the film business, have lost interest in the MI franchise - too much "Cruise Control" is a comment I have heard more than once.

    I always say MI has a remarkably 'soft' fanbase for a major franchise. Not everyone who goes to see Bond movies are major fans, but there's something about them as a cinema event that gets people going to the cinema whenever a new film is released, even just out of habit. MI doesn't quite have that every time. Very much a 'if it's the only thing on I'll see it, but I can easily catch this at home' type thing.

    But to be honest, I'm really mixed on them. I really don't like Tom Cruise as an action hero (I find he works better playing slightly creepy, off putting characters like in Magnolia or even Tropic Thunder). Fallout was pretty good. I didn't enjoy Ghost Protocol or Rogue Nation, and the first three have their highs and lows.

    Of the MI franchise, I only ever watched the tv series, the first movie (which I enjoyed quite a lot) and some of the third one.

    You're missing out on some great stuff: it went from strength to strength from no.4.

    Agreed. Starting with 3, with each release the new one became my favorite (until 7, 6 still my fav).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,041
    Yeah I can never quite decide on whether it's 5 or 6, I think it might be 6 for me too.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited May 19 Posts: 1,877
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I can never quite decide on whether it's 5 or 6, I think it might be 6 for me too.

    I'm marathoning them this week with my partner, who loved 6 and 4 the most so far, did not enjoy 5 as much ("felt like a TV movie") and they caught on very quickly at how many tropes the series has created and repeated in each movie, like the "we just have to hope the bad guys haven't met each other before" showing up in 4 and 6. Overall they are loving them.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 19 Posts: 18,041
    Glad to hear that, is it a first time watching for them?
    In terms of repeated tropes, the funny thing I find is that in pretty much every single one, Ethan finds that he has to allow something very dangerous out into the wild, usually by breaking it out, in order to smoke out the bad guy and end their plan. They try to shake it up a bit in Fallout by making it a person rather than a macguffin, but much the same effect! I think 7 might even be the very first one not to use that as a main plot point, and even then there's a little moment where he allows the courier to have the key so he can follow it from Abu Dhabi.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,877
    mtm wrote: »
    Glad to hear that, is it a first time watching for them?
    In terms of repeated tropes, the funny thing I find is that in pretty much every single one, Ethan finds that he has to allow something very dangerous out into the wild, usually by breaking it out, in order to smoke out the bad guy and end their plan. They try to shake it up a bit in Fallout by making it a person rather than a macguffin, but much the same effect! I think 7 might even be the very first one not to use that as a main plot point, and even then there's a little moment where he allows the courier to have the key so he can follow it from Abu Dhabi.

    Yep, a first for them. We were going to go to the Museum of the Moving Image which has a Tom Cruise stunt exhibition and is screening the MI movies, but you have to pay $145 to be a member to go to the screenings apparently.

    Skyfall is my partner's favorite Bond, but they haven't seen many. I have work to do.
Sign In or Register to comment.