It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
it depends on who they have working on it, and their schedules.....
the last i heard - EON had contacted one of the writers of the show Mad Men about penning the initial story / treatment for the next film... that was shortly after SP debuted in theaters ((not sure if this has been confirmed as official or not - but it was reported on this site))...
whether or not that writer stays on is anyone's guess.... i can't remember the last time they would be going with a new writing team, and new director for the next film (not since GE?).. so it'll be interesting to see if EON brings on writers of their own first, or if they'll opt to go with a director first, and then let him bring in his own writers...... what they've usually done in years past, is already have the script ready - then they get the director - who then sits down and makes his changes...
if the next film isn't due right now until 2018, i would say that EON will probably have something ready to go script wise by the end of 2016, or early 2017 - and a director probably wont be announced until spring/summer 2017.
Spectre was really enjoyable for me. I do feel it best Craig finish with one more film, though. Definitely. And finish with that Blofeld.
My only big concern is the script, as others have mentioned. I guess that is always my main concern anyway.
I personally wouldn't count on EoN to be THAT proactive.
I do hope Craig returns.
Oh please yes offensive line TO ME. Lost MY respect. MY opinion.
Lost MY unending support to stay Bond. My fandom continues after Craig. I'm a Bond fan.
If Craig returns I'm just afraid the producers are more likely to try and continue that SP arc. Just too boring and cliche. Revenge. Personal. Brother. Whimpy whiney Blofeld ...*yawn*
The chances of a so called 'Craig standalone' sign off which some are advocating are slim to none imho.
Those hoping for a new story, new directors, and new writers should also probably hope for a new actor, because that is the most likely way SP will well and truly be left behind, for those of us who would prefer it so.
Yeah, I don't see how Craig doesn't return considering the fact a new distributor is coming. No way on Earth they would want an unknown element (new Bond actor) coming into play for the next film. It's far too risky. Craig's last two have made 2 billion. BILLION. All told it's well over 3 billion for his four films combined. In this world of uncertainty and fear about sluggish BO returns, Craig has a massive hand to play in the next contract situation. Considering every single person that works with him on the films, especially Waltz, a two time Oscar winner, love working with him, I don't understand how anyone thinks this is it for him.
Oh, cuz the end of SP kinda, sorta, maybe hinted his character was done? But kinda, sorta, maybe didn't considering Blofeld was still alive? Ambiguity means nothing in these films. Blofeld's out there, Craig is not done, and there is a hunger for the fans to see him complete his run with (at least) one more outing to finish it off.
Yes, the end of Spectre always felt like a false sense of completion. Bond has to come back to his job, he's never going to end up married with kids. Just as in OHMSS Tracy gets shot. It's the same with Jack Bauer in 24, the whole shtick of that character after Season 1 is that he's never going to get his happy tomorrow settled down with a new wife.
Mendes/Craig likely set it up this way so they will have options, just like Bale had options at the end of TDKR and could have come back, but only wanted to if Nolan was back (sound familiar?).
Nothing is set and nothing is certain. It can go either way depending on Craig, the studio/MGM/EON and whatever direction they want to take. Having said that, the longer this drags, I think it's less likely Craig will return. Think Dalton during the long hiatus when things were up in the air.
Seriously doubt we will have that long of a wait.
I'm really not keen on a four year wait though. Three is fine.
At least we don't wait decades like Indy.
They used to be quite predictable - every 2 years throughout the 80s and between 95-99.
Yes did for me too
Hear hear.
But I believe that is why the series is sustainable and longevity guaranteed. Bond is in the perfect position to react. If they want to continue with DC, they can. If they want to start over; new Bond, new direction, they can. SW, Marvel, DC... they're all tied into a interconnected narrative and work under a house aesthetic. Each one of them will hit a brick wall at some point. I'd personally prefer EON to continue to treat each movie as a fresh project. The key is trying to find a decent new story with each installment.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/23/james-bond-cinematic-universe-idris-elba-tom-hiddleston-tom-hardy
You two are so kind. Don't suppose that would bother you.
I'm ambivalent about Craig's return. More concerned about the quality and direction.
Mute point since nothing on the horizon. Maybe that is good. A direct sequel to SP would become less relevant as time passes.
As a fan, the commercial appeal of 007 is way down my list of priorities. Would I rather a critically successful Bond picture with a $500m gross, or one that is generic/lacking, but makes $1.5bn? They're not mutually exclusive, but I take the former every time. SW is operating in a different universe (no pun), with its cultural appeal several echelons above Bond. The appeal is not there for Bond related material every year. Bond should operate on a three year cycle with a clear focus on story. People consume Bond in the same way they always have, they're event movies not elements of a wider saga.
I agree, but the reason why it works with those franchises is because they're based on works that are necessarily interlinked and part of a larger narrative. The DC Bonds have had a continuation thread and would have benefitted therefore from a greater sense of where they were going - which would have prevented the retconning in SP.
However, they should be able to have a production plan in place to move forward with decent scripts and execution every two years. The three year gap is something relatively new, and I personally don't think it has resulted in any sustainable improvement in the resulting product. The last time around it was on account of waiting for Mendes if I'm not mistaken. When they get their ducks lined up post-studio selection, I would hope that they find a director who they can get to commit to more than one film, or failing that, at least have the ability/plan to get directors on board relatively quickly to move forward with.
I don't buy that it needs to take three years to get us a decent product. If they want to do that, it is a choice, not a necessity.
Much agreed with this.
Well said and again, much agreed.
They definitely don't have to be linked and shouldn't be imo. I'd like some minimal character development from film to film, but in terms of the overall narrative I'd be happy with self-contained adventures.
Re. production cycle - It certainly doesn't need to take three years, but for me personally I can see a logic to it in the modern cinematic landscape. After three years apetite for a new Bond reaches a more defined peak, especially in a market that is literally dripping in franchise films. Bond has to find his niche somewhere within that saturated market. If they really wanted to mix things up they could roll them out on a 2.5 year cycle, Winter/Summer/Winter/Summer. Might be an interesting model to play with.
Yes ...I wasn't advocating a three year gap but preferable to four plus years.
I would love two year. I'm not getting any younger either.