James Bond franchise--the return of SPECTRE and Blofeld?

[Karzak]

How Sony Could Lose James Bond After Bloated 'Spectre' (Analysis)

The film, with a $250 million-plus budget, marks the last in a deal with MGM, which is expected to court many distributors as a major franchise could change hands.

James Bond is about to become a free agent, setting off a scramble among studios eager to win distribution rights to one of Hollywood's few seemingly gold-plated franchise.

Sony Pictures opens Spectre, the 24th official Bond movie, on Nov. 6 in North America (the Brits get an early look Oct. 26), as the 007 adventure chases box-office records established by 2012's Skyfall, which grossed $1.1 billion worldwide to become the biggest film in the series' 53-year history. With early tracking pointing toward an $80 million-plus domestic bow, the movie has Skyfall's $88 million debut in its sights.

But even if the film proves a big success, as most believe it will, it could mark the end of the Sony/MGM collaboration. Spectre is the last in a two-picture deal that Sony struck in 2011 with MGM, which controls rights to Bond along with Eon producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson. Sources say MGM expects to pursue an especially tough bargain once other studios come calling.

When it came to agreeing on Spectre's budget, though, Barber effectively called the studio's bluff in June 2013 as a press release announcing the 2015 release date was about to be issued. Although a firm budget was not in place, Barber told Sony brass that if they wanted their studio mentioned in the release, they had to opt in immediately. As the movie's start date approached a year later, one Sony exec advised his colleagues that it was looking as if the budget — thanks to exotic locations and raises for Craig and returning director Sam Mendes — would climb into the $260 million range.

At MGM, alarm bells had begun to sound: In November, Jonathan Glickman, president of the MGM motion picture group, sent an email to Broccoli and Wilson, among others, arguing for cuts in stunts and location work since the budget had grown $50 million beyond the $210 million for Skyfall. "The current gross budget sits in the mid $300Ms, making this one of the most expensive films ever made," wrote Glickman in the email, which was revealed in the Sony hack.

"As far as MGM is concerned, Bond is the lifeblood of the company right now," notes analyst Hal Vogel. "It's of lesser importance, but it's still important for Sony because it gives them distribution fees they might not otherwise have had, and they're obviously in need of cash flow as they try to execute a turnaround at the box office."

Of course, Spectre's ultimate performance will impact any new deal, with Sony or another studio, so negotiations are not expected to begin until 2016. If Bond does go on the open market — some rival execs suspect MGM might just be floating that idea to strengthen its bargaining position with Sony — there still are big questions about the franchise.

Even as the latest Bond was getting underway, Broccoli, in an email to then-Sony co-chair Amy Pascal, seemed to acknowledge that the franchise's days at the studio could be numbered. "Amy, I can't bear the idea of this being our last Bond together. I don't know why Gary [Barber] should want to make a change after all the success we have had together," she wrote. Responded Pascal, "This doesn't really have to be our last Bond movie. If we do a really good job for you guys why wouldn't MGM want to stuck [sic] with us and by the way who else is gonna make such a one sided deal with MGM."

Pascal was forced out of her job in February. Now, the question is whether Bond will follow.

 

[Karzak]

Another neat (if tangential) write-up on 007:

Why We Never Saw Alfred Hitchcock’s Bond, and Three More Lost 007 Movies

Alfred Hitchcock’s “Thunderball”

While A-list directors like Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino have flirted with the idea of helming a James Bond film, perhaps none was better suited to the material than Alfred Hitchcock, who was approached in 1959 to direct the very first entry in the series.

“It was Ian Fleming’s idea to contact Hitchcock,” said Chris Wright, co-host of the popular James Bond Radio podcast. “He sent a telegram to Hitchcock through a mutual friend, asking if he’d be interested in directing Bond’s movie debut.”

That project was an early version of “Thunderball.”

Fleming’s telegram described the script’s basic plot, which centered on the Mafia stealing an atomic bomb to blackmail England. Sadly, the two men never met in person to discuss it.

“It’s unclear whether Hitchcock read the ‘Thunderball’ script that Fleming was touting,” said Tom Sears, co-host of the James Bond Radio podcast. “Though he may have considered the offer, he didn’t want to make another spy thriller so soon after ‘North by Northwest.’”

But who would have played Bond if Hitchcock’s “Thunderball” had moved forward?

“Richard Burton was mentioned as a possible 007 at the time,” Sears said. “But Fleming would’ve been happy with Jimmy Stewart if it meant that Hitchcock was behind the camera.”

Instead, the director began work on “Psycho,” while Fleming retooled the screenplay into his eighth full-length Bond novel.

“Had Hitchcock directed, we would’ve seen a very different Bond than the one we first met in ‘Dr. No,’” Wright said. “The character would have been a lot closer to Fleming’s literary version and the one-liners would probably have been absent as well.”

The whole thing is worth a read.

 

[Karzak]

Watch the 'Spectre' Royal World Premiere Red Carpet Live

Daniel Craig, Monica Bellucci and Christoph Waltz, plus Prince William and Kate Middleton, will be in attendance at London's Royal Albert Hall.

When it comes to James Bond, especially the follow-up to the most successful James Bond film of all time, clearly the average world premiere just isn't enough.

Monday sees Spectre land in the U.K., 11 days before it bows in the U.S., with a "royal world premiere" at London's famed Royal Albert Hall and simultaneous wide release across the country.

The premiere, which will be attended by Prince William and Kate Middleton (presumably without their two distinctly underage children), is being arranged by the U.K.'s Cinema and Television Benevolent Fund, whose annual Royal Film Performances date back to 1946 (and have featured two 007 entries previously).

Director Sam Mendes, plus Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, David Bautista, Monica Bellucci and Ralph Fiennes, are also expected to attend, alongside producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, who are vice patrons of the charity.

Watch the red-carpet live stream, starting at 10 a.m. PT, below.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqcFvR0Rvw[/yt]

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Another neat (if tangential) write-up on 007:

Why We Never Saw Alfred Hitchcock’s Bond, and Three More Lost 007 Movies

Alfred Hitchcock’s “Thunderball”

While A-list directors like Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino have flirted with the idea of helming a James Bond film, perhaps none was better suited to the material than Alfred Hitchcock, who was approached in 1959 to direct the very first entry in the series.

“It was Ian Fleming’s idea to contact Hitchcock,” said Chris Wright, co-host of the popular James Bond Radio podcast. “He sent a telegram to Hitchcock through a mutual friend, asking if he’d be interested in directing Bond’s movie debut.”

That project was an early version of “Thunderball.”

Fleming’s telegram described the script’s basic plot, which centered on the Mafia stealing an atomic bomb to blackmail England. Sadly, the two men never met in person to discuss it.

“It’s unclear whether Hitchcock read the ‘Thunderball’ script that Fleming was touting,” said Tom Sears, co-host of the James Bond Radio podcast. “Though he may have considered the offer, he didn’t want to make another spy thriller so soon after ‘North by Northwest.’”

But who would have played Bond if Hitchcock’s “Thunderball” had moved forward?

“Richard Burton was mentioned as a possible 007 at the time,” Sears said. “But Fleming would’ve been happy with Jimmy Stewart if it meant that Hitchcock was behind the camera.”

Instead, the director began work on “Psycho,” while Fleming retooled the screenplay into his eighth full-length Bond novel.

“Had Hitchcock directed, we would’ve seen a very different Bond than the one we first met in ‘Dr. No,’” Wright said. “The character would have been a lot closer to Fleming’s literary version and the one-liners would probably have been absent as well.”

The whole thing is worth a read.

Damn, I never knew about that.

Imagine a Jimmy Stewart Bond directed by Hitchcock. The mind boggles.

 

[Trekkin]

I wonder if they would have got a bigger budget with Hitch attached? Part of what makes Dr No stand out is that it's quiet 'small' compared to the later ones.

I'd pay to see Hitch do his own advertising for a Bond film, a la 'The Birds' and 'Psycho.'

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjaVdJt59U[/yt]

 

[trekkiebaggio]

Saw it last night. It was pretty crazy, one showing was sold out and three more only hand a handful of seats left, so they cancelled a showing of The Last Witch Hunter and put another Spectre on. As for the film, I'm just about to write a full review on my blog. I liked it but I didn't love it. It was just lacking that extra spark. There were a lot of references to other Bond films though, which I think a lot of fans will enjoy.

 

[Aldo]

Saw it last night. It was pretty crazy, one showing was sold out and three more only hand a handful of seats left, so they cancelled a showing of The Last Witch Hunter and put another Spectre on. As for the film, I'm just about to write a full review on my blog. I liked it but I didn't love it. It was just lacking that extra spark. There were a lot of references to other Bond films though, which I think a lot of fans will enjoy.

I've heard a lot of word that the film (the first for a Craig Bond) actually opens with the class gunbarrel opener. Is that true? It's funny, but I'm not interested in spoilers or knowing how the film is, I just want to know if it opens with that shot

 

[trekkiebaggio]

Saw it last night. It was pretty crazy, one showing was sold out and three more only hand a handful of seats left, so they cancelled a showing of The Last Witch Hunter and put another Spectre on. As for the film, I'm just about to write a full review on my blog. I liked it but I didn't love it. It was just lacking that extra spark. There were a lot of references to other Bond films though, which I think a lot of fans will enjoy.

I've heard a lot of word that the film (the first for a Craig Bond) actually opens with the class gunbarrel opener. Is that true? It's funny, but I'm not interested in spoilers or knowing how the film is, I just want to know if it opens with that shot

Spoiler: Just in case other people don't want to know

Yep

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Another neat (if tangential) write-up on 007:

Why We Never Saw Alfred Hitchcock’s Bond, and Three More Lost 007 Movies

The description of the possible Lazenby Diamonds Are Forever is exactly what I wish Diamonds Are Forever was -- a proper follow-up to OHMSS, with Bond and Draco taking down Blofeld and SPECTRE for personal and professional reasons.

 

[Karzak]

I like a lot of what Diamonds Are Forever is, but yeah... it's hard not to want that same unproduced version discussed here. "It might have been..." sigh.

 

[Admiral Bear]

I saw SPECTRE today. Quite disappointed, although not surprised that I was given how poor Quantum and Skyfall were.

I won't give anything away for our US friends who don't get it for another week and a bit, but UK reviews from the public who've seen it since last night's release are pretty poor to say the least.

It's been cut in the UK to get a 12A (PG13), but the US may or may not get the uncut version. Personally, there's not much in terms of violence aside from one really decent fight scene, so I was left wondering what the UK censors objected to.

Some really quite ropey CGI, surprising for a film with a reputed budget of over $250m, and a very poor ending which stinks of a hurridly done rewrite and reshoot.

And the less said about camp, pussy loving Christophe Waltz, the better. Just think Dr Evil.

I've given it 6.5 out of 10 elsewhere after a longer review.

I went to a 12pm showing. Theatre was less than half full, and the schools are on half term break this week.

 

[sttngfan1701d]

I saw SPECTRE today. Quite disappointed, although not surprised that I was given how poor Quantum and Skyfall were.

If you thought Skyfall was poor, your opinion on this film is suspect. I'll have to see it myself, but I think we have very different definitions of what constitutes "good."

 

[Aldo]

I saw SPECTRE today. Quite disappointed, although not surprised that I was given how poor Quantum and Skyfall were.

If you thought Skyfall was poor, your opinion on this film is suspect. I'll have to see it myself, but I think we have very different definitions of what constitutes "good."

And I loved Quantum of Solace as well as Skyfall. So I'll probably enjoy SPECTRE just the same.

 

[Trekkin]

Don't take this as me being sarcastic - if Spectre is 'bad' like Skyfall, then that sort of comes across as a recommendation for me.

Mind you, I didn't even think QoS was terrible. Near-completely forgettable, but not face-palmingly horrendous. Which is more than most of Craig's predecessors can claim for their 'worst' Bond film's.

 

[Karzak]

I saw SPECTRE today. Quite disappointed, although not surprised that I was given how poor Quantum and Skyfall were.

If you thought Skyfall was poor, your opinion on this film is suspect. I'll have to see it myself, but I think we have very different definitions of what constitutes "good."

And I loved Quantum of Solace as well as Skyfall. So I'll probably enjoy SPECTRE just the same.

I love a lot of Skyfall but also have a lot of issues with it and various elements of it.

Quantum of Solace is perhaps one of the worst Bond films ever produced. Its only purpose now is as a decorative coaster.

Casino Royale is solid gold.

 

[Starkers]

It's been cut in the UK to get a 12A (PG13), but the US may or may not get the uncut version. Personally, there's not much in terms of violence aside from one really decent fight scene, so I was left wondering what the UK censors objected to.

I imagine it's the bit where

Spoiler: gory spoiler?

Hinx gouges a man's eyes out then breaks his neck!

So are we putting our reviews in this thread or the review thread? I'm confused!

 

[Captaindemotion]

I viewed Skyfall as good but not quite up to the hype. As far as I'm concerned, though, Spectre is the best Bond movie ever.

 

[CorporalClegg]

^
That's a big claim for what's a pretty tall order/achievement.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ I know. And others may well disagree with me. And maybe I'm still in that buzz from seeing a brand-new movie. But I don't think I've ever said it before about a Craig movie, despite enjoying CR and Skyfall very much. Both lacked a certain something for me. This one didn't. It just ticked every box and hit every spot for me.

I sneaked off to watch it alone and will go and re-see it this weekend with my wife. That ought to tell if I was just giddy today or it really did do the trick.

FWIW, my favourite 5 Bond films before this are probably Goldfinger, OHMSS, Skyfall, Casino Royale and Goldeneye.

 

[Starkers]

Interesting, we share(d) three of the top five at least in OHMSS, GoldenEye and Skyfall. I'd add in The Living Daylights and The Spy Who Loved Me.

I did enjoy Spectre, but found it lacking, it'll probably go up in my estimation when I see it again (which I will do fairly soon) but I thought you could tell there'd been major rewrites (I wonder if we'll ever know what Logan's original screenplay was like?)