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
Perhaps, but honestly I just would prefer someone with Waititi's capabilities and skills to use them to launch a new actor. Hemsworth is peaking. Craig is past peak.
They could be planning movies years in advance with well plotted outlines for movies all ready to go. Returning to much looser continuity would really help on that front too.
Continuity becomes a burden and makes things stale if pushed too far. One of the great things about the old films is that sense of a fresh start with each movie - no baggage. Far enough they’ve jumped on the story arc bandwagon but I think we know now where that leads - Brofeld etc.
And you didn´t get my point. I´m not critisizing Mendes´ pacing for being deliberate and measured, but for having no flow. Blade Runner for instance is a very slow-moving film, and I adore its story flow.
I liked QoS (except the editing) because it *attempted* the same - but it missed the Fleming spine and due to all the circumstances it *had* to focus on action and relied on story elements laid out in it's previous movie. But it looked great, acting and action was great ... it may be a moderate entry for some but for me I liked the chemistry between Craig and Kurylenko plus Mathis, Felix, Fields, M ... I enjoy it and find it very rewatchable. But no doubt the movie missed something story-wise.
SF is very different: It had enormous production value (especially Roger Deakins' cinematography) and again very good acting from Craig, Bardem, Dench and all the rest. The movie was a huge critical and finacial success for a reason - but *not* just the Olympics and the 50th anniversary. It was something new we haven't seen in the Bond history - very character driven. The Mendes core story may be his "usual shtick" but enriched with elements of the literary James Bond background and the movie's overall beauty it just ... worked. But it does not hold up to CR ... and to me that is because of the missing "Fleming spine" of the story. I love SKYFALL - I resonate to it's theme and for another 50 years it will just keep looking and feeling very classy.
But SF's success blinded everyone in preproduction: Mendes was done after SF and he did not want to do SP ... and you feel it. He did it for the money in my opinion and that's why he *and* EoN let the script being written without much control and guidance ... until it was too late. They were lazy or burnt out or whatsoever but there lies the core mistake. I am sure everyone from Mendes to Broccoli/MGW realized they were in trouble but they had to go with it because they ran out of time ... all due to lazyness and blinded trust in the pre-production phase in people that let them down (to me: Logan). The actual execution was great as usual, sets were awesome, they had great locations and the acting was never a problem in this movie.
But the trick Mendes did with SF did not work twice ... not by far. Instead of action (like in QoS) they filled the void with production value and money. But it did not work out - not by far as it did with SF. You can't do this trick twice. In my opinion, that's what went wrong with SP and nothing else. You can totally see what was added later to fill the gaps and funnily those are the only elements in the movie that worked. That's what makes me so angry about SP: the waste of things that *were* great. But they are washed away by the mess that was created in pre-production plus a much weaker direction of Mendes ... somebody who not really wanted to do this movie from the beginning.
That's why I hope and think the lesson learned is: Keep PreProduction and planning of Bond 25 as tight as possible. Question the script if in doubt and then re-question it. Be more in control. I am quite sure the lack of information is (also) due to that and SP showed that this is needed. Ideally the writer(s) came up with a core story that could carry the movie alone by itself ... and that's what got Craig convinced for B25. Of course this is nothing more than hope but I guess the conclusion after SP can only be just "Be more in control - don't blindly trust". The long leash Mendes and EoN gave in preproduction or planning was what ruined SP plus a tired director who did it with half of the steam he put in with SF ... at least that's my impression from the final result. I am somewhat convinced the good story elements and scenes of SP are the ones P&W brought in to be honest. That's why I am not that much against them. I don't buy the Boyle story so far but if they just re-question a script they have in their hands and they take their time to make sure the story ist right and just keep quiet until all that is settled ... then they're just doing their job and that's good. The lack of news is often seen as lazyness - maybe it's not that but concentrated, tight work to avoid mistakes made before. B25 will tell ... even if they re-schedule and even retire Craig. They did that with Pierce - a beloved and successful James Bond back then no matter how weak DAD turned out ... as seen by critics and fans likewise in majority. I am a great fan of Craig's Bond and I want to see him back ... but in a film much less like SPECTRE turned out to be. If I would know the next Craig 007 movie would be something like it I, as a huge fan, would skip it and wait for the new actor. I just hope they reduce it back to what made Craig's version of Bond so successful. And they have all at hand that it takes.
That's what I see for B25 starring Craig - it's his set of tools so to speak. With a different lead actor they could bring in a whole new flavour (see Moore) but with Craig they should bring it back to the core of what worked so well with him in the lead.
Also, as we know with QoS, IF the movie is not up to scratch, all of these delays and decisions etc are used (rightly or wrongly) as reasons and explanations.
We all know from our own work that we produce our best work within a clearly defined environment and an established team. It makes things so much harder wehn you literally don't know what's going on. I wonder what DC is making of all this. Birthdays do tend to focus the mind and make you think about the future.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5452613/Danny-Boyle-Richard-Curtis-making-Beatles-movie.html
Danny Boyle will direct a 1960's set musical using the music of The Beatles. Himesh Patel of Eastenders fame, will play the lead. Filming takes place this spring in London and Norfolk.
Boyle is then hoping to turn his attention to an adaption of Miss Saigon in 2020 (if that scriptcomes together).
I understand that Boyle could race through this production and then move straight to Bond. But a musical using the Beatles music is kinda big deal and I doubt he'll want to rush it. Especially, if Boyle's involvement with Bond is relatively fresh as the Reddit poster suggested. I think Boyle was never really "in". He's hardly been enthusiastic about Bond in the past and personally I'd genuinely excited to see this Beatles film over a Danny Boyle/Bond movie.
They have been able to delay the film and rush the script.
Eon need a director pronto. Luckily for them, I'm here:
Steve McQueen
Lynne Ramsay
Joe Wright
David Fincher
Ang Lee
Tom Ford
As for less A-list names that would be a little cooler and more under the radar:
Alex Garland
David Mackenzie
Lenny Abrahamson
Justin Kurzel
David Slade
John Hillcoat
Jakob Verbruggen
James Watkins
Johnathan Glazer
Direct follow up to SP
Fresh standalone story with DC as Bond
Fresh story with new Bond
This process could have started three years ago.
PS sorry to be a Star Trek bore but the Khan script was developed over a 12 month period with Meyer taking all the various drafts and producing the finished article in 12 days. You can do this if you find the right people. We are not inventing Nuclear fusion here, its just one movie.
Martin Campbell is a hack. But when you give him a great script (especially a great Bond script), he delivers.
Also, Paul McGuigan would be a good fit. He's hardly dynamic but he could develop a good script and bring it to the finish line.
I feel Eon's lofty ambitions of getting an auteur filmmaker are falling apart. You've got to engage that type of filmmaker very early in the process, as they always develop their own material.
Maybe an old Craig era director could return? If I was Eon, I'd seriously consider going back to Martin Campbell, Marc Forster or Sam Mendes. All three are available.
Excellent post.
EON remind me of TVR. Made fabulous cars on occasion that could compete with the best Ferrari or Lambo could offer. But there's only so long 2 blokes working out of a shed can keep it up.
What set EON apart from the Hollywood machine is in danger of becoming a burden. However much we may bemoan the Marvel system at least they run it professionally.
Where Marvel and Disney have these huge teams (I'm not convinced of this approach personally and would normally prefer the writer/director auteur approach but then I saw The Last Jedi) in place thrashing out scripts for films 5 years away from production we just have:
MGW - An old bloke who has given his life to Bond, and for me (unless he greenlit stepbrothergate) is largely above criticism given his track record in the 80s - probably the second best era after the 60s. But now he's looking tired and burned out and is not in the best of health. He has already been involved in the series far longer than Cubby so it's understandable his enthusiasm is waning. He deserves his retirement.
Babs - his sister who has lived under his and her father's shadow and you get the impression is desperate to be regarded as more than a Bond producer. Spreading herself rather thinly and getting her fingers involved in all sorts of pies (theatre, other movies, women's rights bullshit) when a production like Bond is a full time job. If she's tired of Bond then fine; go off and do other stuff but when Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool and The Rhythm Section have come and gone without a ripple in anyone's memory Bond will still pay the bills so neglecting it is unacceptable.
Gregg Wilson - Groomed through the nepotism system so lacking any real hunger or drive to succeed as he's already minted and had it all handed to him. I've seen nothing to suggest he is the man to lead Bond forwards for the next 25 years and if this guy takes the reins then he kind of proves @PanchitoPistoles point that any of us could do the job if we were trained by EON in the nuts and bolts of film production.
EON are competent producers in surrounding themselves with excellent professionals but, at the moment certainly, there is an atmosphere of them being all over the place and I think this is pretty much due to this misguided continuity path they went down. With Marvel it all holds together because they know where the story is going in 3 films time but for you to bend the narrative to fit after each fresh instalment with no notion of where you are actually headed is ludicrous. If EON wanted to do continuity then they should have sat down on day one of CR pre production and mapped it out. I'd feel much happier about B25 if I knew it was standalone rather than imagining them pulling their hair out trying to fashion a script that continues the 'story'.
After SP they should've taken a year off (because working for 9 months a year is incredibly knackering apparently despite the millions they all take home to make it worth their while) to clear their heads. Fine. Even go off and produce your Oscar bait with Annette Bening if you want but on Jan 1st 2017 they needed to sit down and concentrate on Bond.
After the shambles of SP you would expect them to pull out the stops to deliver but instead they seem to be content to keep meandering.
Instead of a sense they are really concentrating on nailing B25 we get The Rhythm Section announcement that excited nobody except Babs' feminist chums.
Sorry this is a bit of a rant. @patb sums my feelings up perfectly here:
Exactly. For people running a multi million dollar business why is the whole process so half arsed?
Perhaps they did not want to upset DC by even considering the fresh Bond option before negotiating for him to come back? Perhaps "Is DC coming back" has been THE question for them rather than "where/who/how do we get a great script?"
So we get the news that DC is coming back but, during that time, writers and directors have signed up to other projects (the good ones are obviously either in demad or can make their own demands).
I'm sure others don't agree but IMHO a great script is more important than DC returning.
I thought Demange and MacKenzie have been waiting for two years to get the greenlight? Instead, EON appear to be looking for high priced talent to compensate for their mistake in not recasting, and to satisfy the lead.
Which is to be distributed by Universal, so if Boyle is still in the frame, there is a distinct possibility they are the elusive and very important foreign distributor ("the money").
There is still a chance that Boyle directs but the release date is pushed back. Or else he directs and the release is met.
I think there is a surprise in store. I continue to believe May is breaking news.