No Time To Die: Production Diary

1101410151017101910202507

Comments

  • Posts: 1,031
    patb wrote: »
    You make some good points but, lets be specific, the fanbase either exists or it doesn't. How can the fanbase be outnumbered if it does not exist?

    Pretty much a fact? It's either a fact or it's not. There are no "pretty much facts"

    You don't seem to understand. We are specifically talking about hardcore Bond fans. There are so few of us that we may as well not exist compared to the hardcore fans for Star Wars, Harry Potter, superheroes, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc.

    So if you want facts:
    1) There are hundreds of millions of people across the globe who appreciate Bond, might call themselves casual Bond fans, and will most certainly go watch every new Bond film that will be released.
    2) The hardcore fanbase for Bond is extremely small. Outside of forums like this one, there simply aren't any. Which is why I said 'it does not exist' as an exaggeration.

    You keep saying the same thing over and over again, maybe you should clearly define what exactly you make out to be a "hardcore fan base" and how it differs between "those who appreciate Bond" and "casual Bond fans" (especially after you say things like "the Bond franchise is one of the most popular franchises in history, which seems to run counter to your thesis) so people can more easily decide if they agree with you that there are all but zero of these people.

    It's not hard to understand. There are hundreds of millions of casual Bond fans, or even simply people who will go see the latest Bond films as a tradition. Hardcore Bond fans are infinitely smaller in numbers.

    Make them (Bond films, Bond TV series. whatever) and they will come.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    "Contemporary definitions for fan base. noun. the regular supporters and enthusiasts of a team, musician or musical group, entertainer, or other celebrity."

    It's on that basis that I struggle with the "fact" (or pretty much a fact) that there is no fanbase to exploit. It seems like a very fair defintion to me.

    You can nitpick all you want, but what he's attempting to get through to you is that the sort of fan base that SW and Marvel exploit, in terms of demographics and sheer volume, is relatively non-existent for Bond. It is comparatively niche. It can be exploited, but not on the level Amazon/Apple would require to invest.

    I've already explained to you about Bond's almost non-existent sway in geek culture. It's a heritage brand. A $3-5bn investment simply isn't going to see the necessary return, it's via EON being more savvy and less greedy with existing/new ancillary channels that the franchise can further its potential.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2017 Posts: 15,712
    Dennison wrote: »
    Make them (Bond films, Bond TV series. whatever) and they will come.

    And your point is? We're not talking Bond films but Q/MP/M/Blofeld spinoffs or whatever. Nobody outside of these forums will show up for such films.

    You make a new Bond film and hundred of millions of people will go see it on the big screen, wait for it on Blu Ray or for the television broadcast. You make a Q spinoff an nobody will care outside of the hardcore fans on forums like this one.
    Totally, but when Dalton says "Bond film are amongst the top 10 films world wide in any given year a new outing is released" but claims there is no hardcore Bond fan base, I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I just want to know how Dalton defines a hardcore fan base in his context.

    Because Bond movies a huge events. You don't need to be a hardcore fan, or even a casual fan to show up for every new Bond film. What I'm saying is the amount of people who can be classified as hardcore fans is just incredibly small compared to the millions upon millions of people who will always show up for new Bond films despite not caring about most of the stuff we argue/complain/theorize about on countless threads on this website.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 4,602
    "1) There are hundreds of millions of people across the globe who appreciate Bond, might call themselves casual Bond fans, and will most certainly go watch every new Bond film that will be released."

    And if that awarenness and appreciation of Bond can be exploited re spin offs, then the movie universe can be expanded. I would far rather sell a Bond spin off to the global market than a standalone spy movie. The awarness is already in place.

    Watercooler chat:

    Whats it about?

    It's about a double O agent who's boss is M and she worked with James Bond

    Whats it about?

    Its about a female spy

    Which one is easier to market/sell/promote? It's a no brainer IMHO

    You dont have to be a hardcore fan to pay for your ticket and enjoy a great spy movie thats also a Bond spin off. I just dont get why a spinn off has to rely on "hardcore fans" as the origal movies clearly dont.

    If anything, the flexibity/creativity offered by a spin off enables movies to target new fans who may not be that interested in the original series (female OO agent being the obvious example)

    Ironically, it could be hard core fans who reject the spinn offs whilst the mainstream public are more open minded/flexible/less dogmatic?.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Dennison wrote: »
    Make them (Bond films, Bond TV series. whatever) and they will come.

    And your point is? We're not talking Bond films but Q/MP/M/Blofeld spinoffs or whatever. Nobody outside of these forums will show up for such films.

    You make a new Bond film and hundred of millions of people will go see it on the big screen, wait for it on Blu Ray or for the television broadcast. You make a Q spinoff an nobody will care outside of the hardcore fans on forums like this one.

    Agreed. You sully the prestige and dilute the impact of the 'event' by plugging the gaps with unnecessary exploitation.

    I think it's worth noting that the biggest (by a wide margin) non-film ancillary product that made a significant cultural impact was GE64. The brand certainly gave the game traction, but the reason it became a phenomenon was because it was a genre-defining game first and a Bond game second. To assume the brand is all is foolish I'm afraid. You can't just go and make a spin-off, in any genre, and expect an audience.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,712
    That awareness and appreciation of Bond cannot be exploited. No matter how much you try to argue otherwise, it is not possible. And all you need to know is found in that 9 word sentence I bolded: Bond. Take Bond away from the equation and the awareness is not existent. Nobody, I repeat, nobody outside of these forums will care whatsoever for a Bond spinoffs that don't feature James Bond. Which defeats the purpose of your spinoffs.

    If you want a female 00 spinoff, you go ahead and make your own female spy franchise unrelated to Bond. Because Bond related films that don't feature Bond just won't work at all.

  • edited September 2017 Posts: 4,602
    Sullying the prestige is perhaps a good example of hardcore fans rejecting change. Mainstream movie fans will go and see a spin off IF its good. Thats obvioulsy the first thing.

    On that basis, is a good spy/adventure movie harder or easier to market as a standalone compared to a Bond spin off? And which one has the greater potential re merchadise/placement? If you were head of sales, which would you rather be in charge of?

    Re hardcore fans etc, does anyone seriously think that Rogue One did well exclusively due to the hardcore Star Wars fans. ?

    "That awareness and appreciation of ...insert any brand... cannot be exploited."

    Brands are all about awarness and appreciation. You have hit the nail on the head. It's so much easier to sell/promote something after they are aware of what it is.

    Would you like to buy a bottle of Coke?

    Whats Coke?

    Have you seen the new James Bond spin off movie?

    James Bond? who's he?

    Awarness is THE big challenge with anything new (because you have to waste time/resources explaining to the public what you are selling) and once you are through that, selling becomes so much easier.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Sullying the prestige is perhaps a good example of hardcore fans rejecting change. Mainstream movie fans will go and see a spin off IF its good. Thats obvioulsy the first thing.

    On that basis, is a good spy/adventure movie harder or easier to market as a standalone compared to a Bond spin off? And which one has the greater potential re merchadise/placement? If you were head of sales, which would you rather be in charge of?

    Re hardcore fans etc, does anyone seriously think that Rogue One did well exclusively due to the hardcore Star Wars fans. ?

    It's not about rejecting change it's about accepting you don't play in that sand box. There is no long term sustainable future in an expanded Bond universe. The big wigs know this. Like I said, EON could successfully exploit a few more channels, but if you think Bond is going to be on a commercial level with SW/Marvel you're on crack.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2017 Posts: 15,712
    patb wrote: »
    Sullying the prestige is perhaps a good example of hardcore fans rejecting change. Mainstream movie fans will go and see a spinn off IF its good. Thats obvioulsy the first thing. On that basis, is a good spy/adventure movie harder or easier to market than a Bond spinn off? And which one has the greater potential re merchadise/placement?

    If you want a female 00 spinoff, you go ahead and make your own female spy franchise unrelated to Bond. Because Bond related films that don't feature Bond just won't work at all.

    If you can't understand that, this discussion will only go around in circles.

    It is not possible to market a Bond spinoff if Bond isn't featured in the film. Nobody cares about a Bond universe film if Bond himself isn't in it. Which defeats everything you've been arguing about for the last few pages. Such female spy flick, if you never market it as a Bond spinoff, can be very successful (see: Atomic Blonde). The moment you say it's Bond related, if James Bond himself doesn't show up in the film, it's dead in the water.
  • Posts: 1,031
    Dennison wrote: »
    Make them (Bond films, Bond TV series. whatever) and they will come.

    And your point is? We're not talking Bond films but Q/MP/M/Blofeld spinoffs or whatever. Nobody outside of these forums will show up for such films.

    You make a new Bond film and hundred of millions of people will go see it on the big screen, wait for it on Blu Ray or for the television broadcast. You make a Q spinoff an nobody will care outside of the hardcore fans on forums like this one.
    Totally, but when Dalton says "Bond film are amongst the top 10 films world wide in any given year a new outing is released" but claims there is no hardcore Bond fan base, I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I just want to know how Dalton defines a hardcore fan base in his context.

    Because Bond movies a huge events. You don't need to be a hardcore fan, or even a casual fan to show up for every new Bond film. What I'm saying is the amount of people who can be classified as hardcore fans is just incredibly small compared to the millions upon millions of people who will always show up for new Bond films despite not caring about most of the stuff we argue/complain/theorize about on countless threads on this website.

    It was just an attempt at humour using a famous line from a famous film. I actually agree with you, sorry I was just been frivolous.
  • CatchingBulletsCatchingBullets facebook.com/catchingbullets
    edited September 2017 Posts: 292
    DELETED
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 4,602
    I dont think anyone (including myself and Amazon/Apple) thinks that a Bond universe will be as big as Star Wars/Avengers etc,

    thats not the question. The question is, can more revenue be made from the brand than at present? and is there potential for spin offs? (movie or TV). To flatly reject the option of spin offs so quickly (with no independent evidence) could be hasty.

    Its a very fair point that obvioulsy the franchise is built around one character. But the process could be managed (we are talking about a long term corporate strategy). So, for example, a new character could be introduced within a conventional movie with the knowledge that they will be the central character in a spin off so the audiance becomes aware of the character. Plus Bond can make an appearance in the spin off (Iron man in Spiderman type concept)

    And we have a supporting team that are recognisable within the mainstream and a style/iconography/set of cultural references that go beyond one man.

    Plus you change focus of the branding for the spin off - double O agents - for example. People recognise the double 0 reference/concept but it can be appplied to other agents.

    Im not saying it will happen but these are exactly the processes going on in Apple/Amazon (in much more detail) as there could...just could be money to be made.

    I would also say that, even at a sublimial level, hard core fans would automatically hate the idea of spin offs as they would perceive it as watering down the character that they have loved so dearly over the decades. Thats a perfectly understandble reaction but it wont stop investors.

    And dont forget Steve Jobs quote:

    “A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them."

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2017 Posts: 15,712
    patb wrote: »
    IPlus you change focus of the branding for the spin off - double O agents - for example. People recognise the double 0 reference/concept but it can be appplied to other agents.

    For the last time: Nobody cares about a male or female 00 agent spin off film if James Bond isn't the 00 agent in question.

    There is no point arguing about anything until you can understand that simple truth. You can make all the British male or female spy flicks you want, but the moment you market them as Bond related films, you've lost the plot. Even if such a film ended up being successful, nobody would consider it as Bond spinoff, which defeats your very argumentation that spinoffs are a good idea. Nobody would consider a spy flick without James Bond in it as part of the Bond world. So, to put it simply, Bond spinoffs are a waste of time and money as they wouldn't even be acknowledged as Bond universe films. Just start your own specific British spy flick and never market it as Bond related.

    A period piece Bond film is a more sound idea than these spinoffs, because such a 1960's or 1950's set film would still have James Bond as the central character, so you can still pull in a sizeable audience that always check out the new Bond adventure.
  • Yeah I can't say I understand peoples fascination with other 00s at all. It's like when people say "I don't want a black Bond but I'd love to see a spin off of Idris Elba as 00whatever". Why? That's just a Bond film without James Bond in it. Who cares.

    I wouldn't mind more Bond related media but I can't see spinoffs working very well. He's the centre of his universe. A period piece TV show could work if they're dead set on expanding it but film wise, just do a new Bond every couple of years.

    Having said that I do think a villain spinoff might have potential. I'm thinking a film showing Blofeld's rise to power or something. The next M Night Shamalayn film is really exciting because he did a film developing the hero, a film developing the villain, and now he's having them face off. I wouldn't mind something like that. Set up a villain really well in his own crime epic and then have Bond sent to stop him in the next Bond film. It could be a nice twist at the end if they managed to keep it secret. Advertise it as a film about this villain, keep the Bond link secret, then at the very end have a scene in M's office with M handing Bond a file on the bad guy? Although you are just sort of ripping off Split at that point.

    What I don't want is spy/action movies that don't have Bond in. No point. So no spinoffs for Felix, MI6, 00s, anything like that.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 4,602
    OK, I can see clearly you dont like the idea and I am not pushing it , Im trying to have a nuetral discussion about what is going through the minds of potential investors (perhaps they dont have your insight or perhaps they understand the market better - who knows)..

    but look at Bourne Legacy. I'm not saying it was a good movie and Im not saying the spin off was handled well. But, the bottom line is, it made money. The public accepted the concept and went to see it. They even put Bourne in the title, knowing he was not in the movie!! and it still make money.

    So imagine trying to value the Bourne movie rights before they made Legacy. A key question re the value of the rights would be whether a spin off would make or lose money.

    Considering how central Bourne/Damen had been to the trilogy, the easy answer would be no, we cant do it. Without Damen, without Bourne, it cant be done. Its all about the central character. But that conclusion was wrong. The public were willing to go and see a Bourne movie without Bourne it it!!


  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Guys we're going in circles.

    All I will say is that even though the James Bond fanbase isn't like some of the other notable $1bn franchises, there is certainly more money to be made and more products to be sold. We're thinking about this in a linear fashion. That's not what companies like Amazon and Apple do, and that's why they are where they are today. They are very creative with the business end and are now getting into the content game. They will bring their mindset to this sector too.

    As I said many pages ago, one can build an expanded universe that doesn't depend on Bond but which is consistent with it and references it. The fanbase could be totally different (older or younger) and it doesn't have to dilute the brand at all. It can exist almost independently of it but build on it, thereby lending credibility to several narratives.

    Think of Homeland. Assume that Homeland referenced MI6 and Bond but only very rarely. He doesn't even have to make an appearance. Homeland would exist on its own terms and succeed and fail on those terms as well. One could have (theoretically) Carrie Matheson or Saul Berenson make an appearance in a Bond film and it only needs to be five minutes or so. Something that viewers of the tv show would understand but it's not essential for viewers of the film. Etc. etc. However, the tv show is built up due to the connection. From a marketing standpoint, there is a benefit and in a crowded marketplace, that's something.

    Content and content distribution is where it's at these days. Across multiple platforms. The industries are consolidating due to excessive costs, and the next big item on the list is the 'internet of things' where everything is interconnected. Subscription based networks are the future. The business models are driving this conversation, which is as I expected. I'm glad for it
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,712
    'Bourne Legacy' was handled so well that its sequel was canned and they brought back Matt Damon as Jason Bourne for a sequel to Identity/Supremacy/Ultimatum without ever acknowledging the existence of Legacy.

    And about the spinoffs: I'll explain it once and for all (and it's not a question that I am for or against spinoffs, but simply that the idea will never work):

    If you make a Bond spinoff, whether a 00 agent spinoff, a Q spinoff, a Blofeld spinoff, a MP spinoff. Either James Bond is not featured in the film, thus no one will ever consider it as a a Bond spinoff, so you're argumentation is totally wrong, and the only way these films work is if you remove all ties to James Bond and make a regular spy flick that may very well be successful to start a franchise. Or, you do put James Bond in the film, and you might just as well make it Bond 25/26/27/whatever, meaning your spinoff never happened and just became the new official Bond movie.
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2017 Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    OK, I can see clearly you dont like the idea and I am not pushing it , Im trying to have a nuetral discussion about what is going through the minds of potential investors (perhaps they dont have your insight or perhaps they understand the market better - who knows)..

    but look at Bourne Legacy. I'm not saying it was a good movie and Im not saying the spin off was handled well. But, the bottom line is, it made money. The public accepted the concept and went to see it. They even put Bourne in the title, knowing he was not in the movie!! and it still make money.


    There's no doubt they'll be thinking that way and no doubt some would go all out to make it happen, but it would be a completely different model to anything out there. I think if we can avoid the multiverse, SW/Marvel comparisons there's a discussion to be had, but using that as a yardstick/benchmark doesn't help I don't think.

    My issue is that, while I can see how certain things could be done, they don't strike me as being brand extensions that deliver the sort of bank an investor spending billions of dollars is looking for. Star Wars made around $3bn for Disney on merchandise alone in 2015 and $5bn in the following 12 months. It makes box office look like peanuts. That's the sort of $$$ Amazon/Apple are looking for and there is absolutely no way on earth Bond is banking even a fraction of that through merchandising. This is fact.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Guys we're going in circles.

    All I will say is that even though the James Bond fanbase isn't like some of the other notable $1bn franchises, there is certainly more money to be made and more products to be sold. We're thinking about this in a linear fashion. That's not what companies like Amazon and Apple do, and that's why they are where they are today. They are very creative with the business end and are now getting into the content game. They will bring their mindset to this sector too.

    As I said many pages ago, one can build an expanded universe that doesn't depend on Bond but which is consistent with it and references it. The fanbase could be totally different (older or younger) and it doesn't have to dilute the brand at all. It can exist almost independently of it but build on it, thereby lending credibility to several narratives.

    Think of Homeland. Assume that Homeland referenced MI6 and Bond but only very rarely. He doesn't even have to make an appearance. Homeland would exist on its own terms and succeed and fail on those terms as well. One could have (theoretically) Carrie Matheson or Saul Berenson make an appearance in a Bond film and it only needs to be five minutes or so. Something that viewers of the tv show would understand but it's not essential for viewers of the film. Etc. etc. However, the tv show is built up due to the connection. From a marketing standpoint, there is a benefit and in a crowded marketplace, that's something.

    Content and content distribution is where it's at these days. Across multiple platforms. The industries are consolidating due to excessive costs, and the next big item on the list is the 'internet of things' where everything is interconnected. Subscription based networks are the future. The business models are driving this conversation, which is as I expected. I'm glad for it

    I understand this aspect more than I do the multiverse examples of SW/Marvel. However on a personal level it makes me want to be sick in my mouth.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 4,602
    @bondjames agree entirely

    @RC7 My issue is that, while I can see how certain things could be done, they don't strike me as being brand extensions that deliver the sort of bank an investor spending billions of dollars is looking for. Star Wars made around $3bn for Disney on merchandise alone in 2015 and $5bn in the following 12 months. It makes box office look like peanuts. That's the sort of $$$ Amazon/Apple are looking for and there is absolutely no way on earth Bond is banking even a fraction of that through merchandising. This is fact.

    Also agree, Amazon/Apple surely know this, they are realists. It will all about about the ROI ratio. And being creative in other areas.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    @bondjames agree entirely

    @RC7 My issue is that, while I can see how certain things could be done, they don't strike me as being brand extensions that deliver the sort of bank an investor spending billions of dollars is looking for. Star Wars made around $3bn for Disney on merchandise alone in 2015 and $5bn in the following 12 months. It makes box office look like peanuts. That's the sort of $$$ Amazon/Apple are looking for and there is absolutely no way on earth Bond is banking even a fraction of that through merchandising. This is fact.

    Also agree, Amazon/Apple surely know this, they are realists. It will all about about the ROI ratio. And being creative in other areas.

    On that I agree.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I also don't see Bond in the same range of fandom like Star Wars, Indiana Jones or Marvel.

    For me the reason is: It's too hard to feel "part of it".

    Unless you buy an Anthony Sinclair Three-Piece Suit and an Aston Martin DB5 you cannot as easily "participate" as with (for example) Star Wars: Buy yourself a Darth Vader costume or Jedi Robe and you feel "part of it". I don't see that happening with Q's wardrobe or the Breathing devices from TB.

    YES, there are people out there collecting these things, buying replicas or wardrobe etc. - but it's - as somebody or many before me already said - a fraction of what these "franchises" make. And reason for me is the above mentioned.

    Yes, there could be a TV series - but in regards to spinoff movies and all the related things that additionally heat the demand (all the playsets, costumes, posters and such) I also don't see for Bond.
  • Posts: 3,164
    All this discussion is intriguing because that's the odd thing about Bond - there is no huge hardcore engaged fan base.

    The key is really to try and develop it within the marketing for the theatrical releases. I'm still surprised they did zero viral marketing for SP - with the only thing being the Heineken thing. The dream for B25 would be for the powers that be to create an engaging experience that'd be able to tap the 'geek' audiences and get them to include Bond in their geekdom - if that makes sense. Pushing the film in a Logan esque fashion as Craig's swan song would add to that element.

    How would people respond to a B25 presentation/panel at the 2019 SDCC?
  • Posts: 4,602
    Thats an interesting final question. One of the factors that potential investors will be looking at is how quiet the franchise goes during the down time and this is never good for revenue.

    A Bond team attending SDCC would be interesting but I can also imagine some fans would hate the idea. Perhaps perceived as a little childish/imature?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,712
    As noted in previous posts above, Bond can certainly branch out in other media platforms (video games, novels, comics, TV series).

    But branching out from within the movie platform might be almost impossible. Say you greenlight a Jaws, Natalya or Silva spinoffs. All 3 characters are very fondly appreciated by members on these forums and in the general audience. But would solo films about them actually work? I would love to see more from these 3 specific characters I listed (assuming Silva had survived SF and EON were panning to bringing him back in B24), but I doubt I would care at all about their new adventures if Moore Bond, Brosnan Bond or Craig Bond weren't involved. Meaning you might as well have added Jaws in FYEO, Natalya in TND and Silva in SP.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 9,842
    if we are talking about universe building and creating the James Bond universe again there are ways to do other films and television series without giving Wizard of Ice 5 million for his Bill Tanner Snuff Film .. Though I am sure the horror community would love it so much and call Wizard the new Wes Craven..

    Again you do 3 series of bond films

    Young Bond (based on the young bond books so starting with Silverfin and moving forward)

    Bond During war time (really taking the biography on the Casino Royale Website and running with that)

    Bond as 007

    and for Telivision Felix Leighter the Tv Series (the only character cool enough to warrent his own show) through that on Fox or NBC or CBS and there you go

    if they want 2 tv shows M the early years with pick a random actor from Game of thrones who just got killed off (sorry it seems a lot of future this or that in fan casting seems to be people from that show) I just could maybe get behind a show with Mallory taking on the IRA (think Patriot Games meets Missing)
    you get your Bond Cinematic Universe without the focus taken away from well Bond. it works it's a compromise between what MGM want and what the Fans/Eon want (no not everything needs to be a cinematic universe and not every character deserves his or her own film WB TAKE NOTE NO ONE WANTS A JOKER SOLO FILM!!!!)

    but enough of that wasn't the director supposed to be announce End of August/early September?

    I am 95% Yann will direct but still confirmation would be nice.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    So you guys dont want a Madeline spin off?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,712
    So you guys dont want a Madeline spin off?

    What would it be about? Assuming we take the ending of SP seriously, Madeline and Bond are in love with each other. Why would I want to see a spinoff of her then?
  • Posts: 1,031
    So you guys dont want a Madeline spin off?

    Who's Madeline?
  • Posts: 19,339
    Madeleine has probably 'swanned' off somewhere...boom boom..!!

    Get it ???!!!!
    I am suuuuch a comedian.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,956
    The only spin-offs/prequels I would want from a universe are the most obscure ones that hardly anyone would want to see, like a Green Four spin-off. I couldn't possibly care less about what MP or Tanner or even Madeleine does in their free time.
Sign In or Register to comment.