›

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

1…8889909193

Comments

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 5,024
    echo wrote: »
    I think the white cat is the only element truly required for Blofeld. Ironically, DAF got that right--they jettisoned the baldness and the scar but kept the cat! And audiences understood it was Blofeld. SP did the same thing...at least for a while.

    Two things that I want to see with Blofeld as done with Fleming’s are a deformed nose and gold tooth. They are from Fleming, so it would feel right.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 21 Posts: 18,068
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    I agree @MaxCasino it would be hard to go lower with Blofeld, after SP & NTTD.

    I still don't think he was that bad. Like is he really worse than Pleasance or Gray? I don't think those were stunning villains to be honest. Pleasance is barely in it.
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    I think the white cat is the only element truly required for Blofeld. Ironically, DAF got that right--they jettisoned the baldness and the scar but kept the cat! And audiences understood it was Blofeld. SP did the same thing...at least for a while.

    Two things that I want to see with Blofeld as done with Fleming’s are a deformed nose and gold tooth. They are from Fleming, so it would feel right.

    I think it's time to ditch deformity=evil to be honest.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited May 21 Posts: 2,588
    Yeah @mtm I think at that time, Waltz was hot. So we really expected a lot from him. I also think Pleasence was just simply iconic...even with his limited screen time. I don't know...not that Pleasence did much, but he just had that iconic feel to him.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,537
    Pleasance’s screen time doesn’t really stop him from being one of the most memorable Bond villains though. We all remember the bald head, the scar, and the creepy demeanor. I don’t think Waltz in comparison put much of a stamp on the character. Waltz had the potential to be the best on-screen Blofeld - to really blow the other actors out of the water - yet somehow his performance just feels dry and rather uninteresting in my opinion. I don’t find him creepy like Pleasance, nor is he intimidating like Savalas. Even Gray had a “camp” quality to his Blofeld that made him entertaining to watch on screen.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,068
    I think Savalas is great and I'd probably pitch him above yeah, but the other two aren't massively interesting to me. They do fine jobs, but I'm not seeing how Waltz is significantly worse. I agree with SecretAgentMan that the expectations were probably higher because he'd been so impressive in other roles, but just taken on its own merits, I think he does a good job. Mikkleson and Bardem are stronger, but I reckon he's still better than anything else since Davi.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,537
    I agree that perhaps there were such expectations attached to Waltz - but I also can’t really blame some audience members for not accepting it either going off his previous roles. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think he’s the worst Bond villain and at the end of the day, it is all rather opinion based - though I’d personally put Sean Bean, Sophie Marceau, and perhaps Jonathan Pryce (for his campiness) above Waltz but that’s just my prerogative though.

    I do think Waltz is better in NTTD than he was in SP though - I liked the gimmick of Blofeld parading around his eyeball for his own birthday party attended only by SPECTRE agents. Very tongue in cheek and I liked it.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 21 Posts: 8,916
    I agree with @007HallY movies take time. I think it's worth remembering that nowhere in any press release or statement did anyone say "...and we're going to bring Bond 26 to you in a quick and timely manner." The only sign that Amazon has fast-tracked development was some tabloid gossip, who knows where that stuff starts?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,720
    Follow the money.

    Buying out Barbara and Michael *is* the fast-tracking.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 21 Posts: 8,916
    echo wrote: »
    Follow the money.

    Buying out Barbara and Michael *is* the fast-tracking.

    That's different because they were at loggerheads, literally nothing was happening. Now the process can start, but they need to find an entirely new team both in front of and behind the camera, establish a creative change of command and bring about a vision that all parties are happy with, so they move forward singing from the same hymnsheet. Basically 10 billion has already been invested in this, they have to take every step very carefully.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,985
    You're a bit pessimistic. We'll know who the new Bond is before the end of the year.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,672
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It's difficult to say whether Blofeld/SPECTRE will return immediately, and I actually don't think it's quite the given many are claiming it to be. Don't get me wrong, it could well happen. But to some extent it's easier having one off villains each time.

    Anyway, Blofeld's a tricky character to get right. Without that personal, 'our paths have crossed' element with Bond, he's just a generic villain.

    It's just my gut feeling talking, which of course is always right. No, but seriously, I do think he'll be introduced fairly early on,although not as a main villain. They can still have one off villains, like they did with Connery, even though Blofeld and SPECTRE were there early on.

    I hope they develop the personal angle instead of just throwing it in. Nemesis are like any kind of relationship: they need to develop. That's why I far prefer the Batman Joker nemesis in TDK than in the Burton movie. They made it personal, they didn't force it.

    It’s tricky to tell at this point, but it could go either way. While Blofeld’s cat, scar, and bald head are quite iconic for the films, I don’t think that character has the ‘Joker’ expectation Batman has, for example. It’d be unusual not having a Joker in a new Batman series at all, but including SPECTRE in a new Bond film would be noteworthy.

    It could work though. Or it won’t. There have plenty of ropey Moriartys in Sherlock Holmes adaptations (ie Andrew Scott) and some good ones (Jared Harris) and I’d say that’s a character more comparable to Blofeld than Joker is for Batman if that makes sense.

    Oh I agree: it could work, but it might not. That's what's scary for me. There are so many ways to get Blofeld wrong. And yes, Moriarty is probably the best comparison: he became Holmes' nemesis accidentally, for one. And I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking Andrew Scott was a terrible excuse of a Moriarty. Jared Harris is the only thing that truly worked in the Ritchie Holmes movies.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited May 21 Posts: 2,588
    Agreed @Ludovico Harris absolutely nailed Moriarty, that I envisage him when looking at literary Moriarty. Even Andrew Jack's voice acting and demeanor as Moriarty in the first film was really good as well.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,672
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    Agreed @Ludovico Harris absolutely nailed Moriarty, that I envisage him when looking at literary Moriarty. Even Andrew Jack's voice acting and demeanor as Moriarty in the first film was really good as well.

    For me, nobody will top Eric Porter as Moriarty. But Harris did very well. And that scene and the Moriarty teaser at the end made me watch the second film!
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited May 21 Posts: 2,588
    Ludovico wrote: »
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    Agreed @Ludovico Harris absolutely nailed Moriarty, that I envisage him when looking at literary Moriarty. Even Andrew Jack's voice acting and demeanor as Moriarty in the first film was really good as well.

    For me, nobody will top Eric Porter as Moriarty. But Harris did very well. And that scene and the Moriarty teaser at the end made me watch the second film!

    Lol. I get! Eric Porter did have that very villainous face, though.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,916
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    You're a bit pessimistic. We'll know who the new Bond is before the end of the year.

    Once we get a writer we'll be around 3 years from the film being released, and who knows when that will be.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited May 21 Posts: 5,264
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It's difficult to say whether Blofeld/SPECTRE will return immediately, and I actually don't think it's quite the given many are claiming it to be. Don't get me wrong, it could well happen. But to some extent it's easier having one off villains each time.

    Anyway, Blofeld's a tricky character to get right. Without that personal, 'our paths have crossed' element with Bond, he's just a generic villain.

    It's just my gut feeling talking, which of course is always right. No, but seriously, I do think he'll be introduced fairly early on,although not as a main villain. They can still have one off villains, like they did with Connery, even though Blofeld and SPECTRE were there early on.

    I hope they develop the personal angle instead of just throwing it in. Nemesis are like any kind of relationship: they need to develop. That's why I far prefer the Batman Joker nemesis in TDK than in the Burton movie. They made it personal, they didn't force it.

    It’s tricky to tell at this point, but it could go either way. While Blofeld’s cat, scar, and bald head are quite iconic for the films, I don’t think that character has the ‘Joker’ expectation Batman has, for example. It’d be unusual not having a Joker in a new Batman series at all, but including SPECTRE in a new Bond film would be noteworthy.

    It could work though. Or it won’t. There have plenty of ropey Moriartys in Sherlock Holmes adaptations (ie Andrew Scott) and some good ones (Jared Harris) and I’d say that’s a character more comparable to Blofeld than Joker is for Batman if that makes sense.

    Oh I agree: it could work, but it might not. That's what's scary for me. There are so many ways to get Blofeld wrong. And yes, Moriarty is probably the best comparison: he became Holmes' nemesis accidentally, for one. And I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking Andrew Scott was a terrible excuse of a Moriarty. Jared Harris is the only thing that truly worked in the Ritchie Holmes movies.

    Oh Scot was awful. I'm not a fan of that show in general though. I actually quite enjoyed the Ritchie Holmes movies (I can admit they're very flawed and a bit stupid at points - very much big action spectacle films - but that's not necessarily a bad thing in itself).
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    You're a bit pessimistic. We'll know who the new Bond is before the end of the year.

    Once we get a writer we'll be around 3 years from the film being released, and who knows when that will be.

    I would say getting an actor by the end of the year is optimistic, but never say never I guess. I suspect we'll get public updates about the script/writers first though.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 21 Posts: 18,068
    I think both the versions of Sherlock at that time were excellent. The Ritchie films were a more sort of comedy action version of it, but that's a valid interpretation and they were very entertaining. Some of the best stuff he's ever done, I'd say.
    I agree that Scott wasn't great in it though: doing that 'Joker'-style baddie acting isn't as easy as it seems. I still don't really know why the Bond folk picked him for Spectre.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,264
    mtm wrote: »
    I think both the versions of Sherlock at that time were excellent. The Ritchie films were a more sort of comedy action version of it, but that's a valid interpretation and they were very entertaining. Some of the best stuff he's ever done, I'd say.
    I agree that Scott wasn't great in it though: doing that 'Joker'-style baddie acting isn't as easy as it seems. I still don't really know why the Bond folk picked him for Spectre.

    I think I mainly remember the last season of Sherlock! That finale was... very odd. But definitely, I enjoy the Ritchie movies.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,068
    Funnily enough I can't remember the final season, I think I may have only watched it once! But the earlier ones, the first episode and the Irene Adler one in the next series; just sublime telly.
  • SomethingThatAteHimSomethingThatAteHim
    edited 1:07am Posts: 543
    I just didn’t jive with how impish Waltz played Blofeld. I know that’s sort of Waltz’s schtick, but therein lies the rub. I don’t think we’ve gotten a better on-screen Blofeld than the commanding off-screen voice from the pre-YOLT films. Pleasance was too much of a limp fish, I do quite like Savalas but his Blofeld doesn’t really scream “Blofeld” to me, and Gray is too silly. I want to see that first Blofeld get to come step off the chair, face the camera, and headline a Bond film should he be reused again. He needs to be played by someone with some gravity, and maybe a bit physically imposing.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,188
    Savalas was a ridiculous choice for Blofeld who worked beautifully. Sometimes the least obvious choice can work. As conceived by Fleming, not his conception, but an entertaining ESB. As for a future Blofeld, easy to get wrong: no undercurrent of believable threat, over the top chew the scenery, or too campy. As for the cat, not necessary.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    edited 3:16am Posts: 2,688
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    You're a bit pessimistic. We'll know who the new Bond is before the end of the year.

    Once we get a writer we'll be around 3 years from the film being released, and who knows when that will be.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they have a few script writers already surely with the producers proven track record/experience/contacts etc and Amazon money ?

    I wonder if script writers are using A.I these days ?

    Pascal was making Spiderman films every 2 years.
    Heyman was making Harry potter films every year or so.

    Making Bond movies isn't rocket science...........
  • TroyTroy
    edited 7:00am Posts: 358
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm going to say something controversial here, but anyway, while I wouldn't want the MI6 staff to take center stage, I would rather have them used more than less. A Bond movie is by nature and design Bond centric. But he works for an organisation which should be featured. I think there should be more to Bond's boss than some guy giving him his mission orders and providing info dump.

    And let's not forget that the role of M being increased started with the Brosnan era, not the Craig one. Heck, even in DN, Bond is introduced fairly late in the film, and you have time to see that MI6 is a vast organisation with many players involved.

    Agreed. I’d love if they did something similar in Bond 26 where we see the inciting incident and a small lead in showing us how MI6 reacts before Bond is briefed/sent on the job.


    Bond is a field agent, the only people seen in the field should be field agents. No PAs, no Quartermasters, no technical geeks, no Chief Executives. It makes MI6 look like amateurs.

    And Bond is in the elite group of field agents, so be good to see MI6 tackling a problem, then escalating it to Bond - who would probably be off punting or skiing with a girlfriend at the time

    A nation state has enormous power - it takes your money and it kills people, and Bond is a manifestation of that lethal power. To me, that’s why Connery Bond worked so well - he was a state assassin, the darkness of which underpinned all the joking around. He shouldn’t be seen as just some adventurer with his mates.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,264
    Troy wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm going to say something controversial here, but anyway, while I wouldn't want the MI6 staff to take center stage, I would rather have them used more than less. A Bond movie is by nature and design Bond centric. But he works for an organisation which should be featured. I think there should be more to Bond's boss than some guy giving him his mission orders and providing info dump.

    And let's not forget that the role of M being increased started with the Brosnan era, not the Craig one. Heck, even in DN, Bond is introduced fairly late in the film, and you have time to see that MI6 is a vast organisation with many players involved.

    Agreed. I’d love if they did something similar in Bond 26 where we see the inciting incident and a small lead in showing us how MI6 reacts before Bond is briefed/sent on the job.


    Bond is a field agent, the only people seen in the field should be field agents. No PAs, no Quartermasters, no technical geeks, no Chief Executives. It makes MI6 look like amateurs.

    And Bond is in the elite group of field agents, so be good to see MI6 tackling a problem, then escalating it to Bond - who would probably be off punting or skiing with a girlfriend at the time

    A nation state has enormous power - it takes your money and it kills people, and Bond is a manifestation of that lethal power. To me, that’s why Connery Bond worked so well - he was a state assassin, the darkness of which underpinned all the joking around. He shouldn’t be seen as just some adventurer with his mates.

    You can still have a Bond film that uses the MI6 team more and keeps Bond as a lone agent in the field.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,916
    It's amazing how much of the character, world and dynamics they absolutely nailed in Dr No. We can only hope they can do half as good a job of establishing the Amazon era as EON did starting their premiership. But it just goes to show, even with the hundreds of million they can pour into B26 at will, it doesn't actually get you anywhere unless you have the talent and wherewithal to execute on joint vision. Think about how many million were poured into the Star Wars sequel trilogy, hiring so many talented actors Max Von Sydox, Laura Dern, Benicio Del Toro and when you look back, how much worth do those films actually hold in the pop culture now, besides seeing Han Luke and Leia again? Or take the last Snow White film just released, upwards of 300 million spent, and people have already forgotten it even happened. Unless Amazon take care and don't rush into decisions, they risk making B26 a very expensive mess that people just shrug off and move on from.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,588
    I think Amazon are very much aware that the James Bond franchise is extraordinary. It explains why they hired producers like Pascal & Heyman...and it also explains why we haven't got any Bond news yet. Because they're taking their time. Also, according to recent film history, those that people think would fail, absolutely do nail it. Think Craig as James Bond. Think Pattinson as Batman.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited 7:57am Posts: 1,985
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    I think Amazon are very much aware that the James Bond franchise is extraordinary. It explains why they hired producers like Pascal & Heyman...and it also explains why we haven't got any Bond news yet. Because they're taking their time. Also, according to recent film history, those that people think would fail, absolutely do nail it. Think Craig as James Bond. Think Pattinson as Batman.

    Rachel Zegler says hello.

    If the new MI movie flops then I'll be worried. Right now, any James Bond movie is better than none.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,916
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    I think Amazon are very much aware that the James Bond franchise is extraordinary. It explains why they hired producers like Pascal & Heyman...and it also explains why we haven't got any Bond news yet. Because they're taking their time. Also, according to recent film history, those that people think would fail, absolutely do nail it. Think Craig as James Bond. Think Pattinson as Batman.

    I agree, not only does the gap help to give them more time to work out the script, but it also builds anticipation, and nowadays people are rarely given the opportunity to actually miss anything because theres always content flying at your face.
  • MalloryMallory
    Posts: 2,255
    In any case, Pascal and Heyman have only been officially working on the project for a little over 8 weeks, alongside all the commitments and work they already had prior to taking Bond on.

    At this stage, they may have a general outline as to where they want to go with the character and the film, and are likely speaking to potential scriptwriters for their pitches/ideas, and if they can mesh well with their vision.

    These things do take time. Putting in the early prep work now will pay dividend further down the road and hopefully mean a smoother scripting process.

    We just need some patience (which is hard for film starved Bond fans :D )
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,425
    Can someone explain how scripts are chosen and by whom? Is the director hired once a script is available? And how are scripts pitched to the producers if the writers do not yet know what the general tone should be?
Sign In or Register to comment.