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
Yes, I'd rather not see the characters boring or not not die merely to move a single entry in the series alone.
So are we to assume that all that stopped this going ahead was Fiennes saying he would walk? Babs and MGW were fine with it were they?
I'll give Babs credit picking Dan out of the blue and managing to get some A list talent behind the camera but his tenure has been dragged down by abject writing. Babs blindness that P&W are competent is utterly inexplicable.
CR was thankfully based on Fleming and even they couldn't manage to botch it but ever since the writing has been a shambles. Yes you can blame the writers strike somewhat for QOS but that is still on a par with SF as the second best script of Craig's tenure which given it had an extra year to be crafted is pretty mediocre far.
P&W's obsession with everything being centred on MI6 is beyond tiresome. Here's a novel idea: how about a film that doesn't feature a traitor? This is a device Gardner employed in pretty much all of his books and it gets tired very quickly. Tellingly it's something Fleming only did rarely. Vesper is the only one that springs to mind off the top of my head. It's what a writer to does when they are out of ideas to artificially create drama between the characters.
I can understand the mitigating plea that Babs would cite; namely that Logan making a monumental cockup of SP meant they were up against it and had to get someone in to do a quick fix, so it's understandable they brought P&W back at the 11th hour. But how did it get to that stage? Logan's script should've been locked in by early 2014 giving them more than enough time to start from scratch if it was a load of bollocks (as was the case). With the extra year due to waiting for Mendes I just can't understand how they have left themselves with so little time that they couldn't start again and were just forced to keep polishing Logan's turd.
watch this film and then hire mcquarrie to write a script!
Nooo! Tanner is easily the most useless and annoying character of the Bond franchise.
Tanner should be properly used again, the way Michael Kitchen portrayed him.
Mendes' schedule gave Eon cover to do what it wanted all along -- have a three-year gap between films.
From 2012, Los Angeles Times:
Though they (Broccoli and Wilson) expressed frustration at the legal challenges that led to a four-year gap between the most recent Bond movies, they say they won’t allow themselves to be governed by the calendar, either.
"Sometimes there are external pressures from a studio who want you to make it in a certain time frame or for their own benefit, and sometimes we’ve given into that," Broccoli said. "But following what we hope will be a tremendous success with 'Skyfall,' ***we have to try to keep the deadlines within our own time limits and not cave in to external pressures."*** (emphasis added)
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/14/entertainment/la-et-mn-skyfall-next-james-bond-movie-20121113
Also in May 2012, Broccoli and Daniel Craig said a Sony executive who said the next movie would be out in 2014 was wrong.
//Last week Rory, the president of distribution of Sony, announced Bond 24 for I guess late 2014…
Broccoli: He was getting a little overexcited (laughs). We’re just actually focusing on this movie. One hopes that in the future we’ll be announcing other films, but no one’s officially announced it.
Craig: No one’s announced anything. He got a little ahead of himself (laughs). It’s very nice that he has the confidence to be able to do that, but we haven’t finished this movie yet.//
http://collider.com/daniel-craig-barbara-broccoli-skyfall-interview/#more-162975
It's all fine and good to take your own sweet time if you're going to give us a quality Bond film for the ages. If, on the other hand, the longer wait results in recycled pastiche (without a decent script), then I wonder what the whole point is.
With the low profit that the studios retain, I really wonder how many will be lining up to take Bond on with longer gaps between films.
I suspect we may end up with Sony again.
Can't support this idea at all.
The cinematic franchise should always remain in the present. That's how Bond, as a franchise, is meant to be consumed. I'm all for a period piece if it's in the form of some kind of TV project, but the cinematic franchise should always take place in the here and now.
Way too confusing. Appreciate the creativity though.
Agreed. We've seen 60s Bond, and it was great. No need to revisit the past, as Bond should always reflect the current times.