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
Really? I'm surprised he's got this far if that's true. Any evidence/anecdotes?
Daniel Craig was the one responsible for getting Mendes back onboard. Roger Friedman is also a very reliable source in Hollywood. I wouldn't ignore him, he's often right.
http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/05/28/daniel-craig-persuades-skyfall-director-sam-mendes-to-return-for-more-bond
Baz is back. Once again Baz's reputation has been undisputed:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2332454/Sam-Mendes-dramatically-decides-return-director-James-Bond-movie-initially-refusing-offer.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
THR (very reliable) say that Mendes is very unlikely to helm the movie
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/bond-24-a-list-directors-559508
Roger Friedman also suggests Mendes is wanted for Bond 25, something Baz said has not been talked about yet.
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/notyetamovie/news/?a=80469
Headhunters is a very, very good movie IMO, but I can't see him doing a Skyfall kind of script : it would last 10 minutes :) It's good news to me that Broccoli and Wilson allegedly told him they are fans of that movie.
I saw Headhunters at the cinema last year and it was a great little thriller, well paced and deliciously black, if he took the job on I wouldn't be disappointed, his work on Headhunters gives me enough faith to think Tyidum wouldn't be a bad thing.
Thomas Alfredsen has popped a few times but I's personally see nothing even Bond get in the way of Smiley's People and Gary Oldman returning to the role that gave him the performance of his career.
That's how I feel too, I'd rather have BOND 24 in 2014 and I don't care if it's Mendes or someone else directing. I want my new fix every 2 years, short of Bondmania of the 60's the franchise is hotter now than it's ever been and EON needs to take advantage of it.
I'd rather have him over Mendes!
I don't think anything is set in stone Mendes or other wise I do think they want to release bond 24 next year but perhaps they got caught with their pants down when mendes backed out so maybe talking to people like Nolan and Mendes is to make sure 25 comes out right after 24?
While I'm not discrediting Refn or any of the others who are rumored, Mendes delivered phenomenal work in SF, and I would much rather wait for him to return (or wait for them to get exactly what they need) and have 'Bond 24' in 2015 or 2016 than get a half-assed film next November.
They can get great directors other than Mendes (there are a few names I'd prefer, such as Boyle), and another year is no guarantee of quality (DAD anyone?).
I agree with @doubleoego and others who mentioned it. Mendes did a good job but I'd prefer Bond 24 in 2014 with or without him.
If he wants to return but not right now then he can do Bond 25. Simple. Meanwhile somebody who is up for it can do Bond 24 for release next year.
Exactly, @Germanlady. Every single Bond director in the last 30 years who has had to turn around a film on a two-year schedule has complained that the short development and prep time is too tight. John Glen was complaining about the problem during the filming of FYEO (and throughout the 80s), Roger Spottiswoode was very vocal about it, Michael Apted also complained about the same problem with TWINE and we all know about the problems Marc Forster had turning around QoS (exacerbated, in his case, by the writers' strike.)
By contrast, a longer development period led to critical and commercial success with TSWLM, GE, CR and SF.
I can understand why fans want Bond films released more regularly but it's just silly to pretend that the length of time spent in development makes no difference to the end product.
Silly is a strong word here.
We're almost all aware of the stories behind productions, and how these "long gaps" are full of time spent on solving money problems, commissionning unused scripts and scouting locations that had to be removed within months of shootings, etc...
For instance, GE's script from Michael France is from early 1994 (and we know all the differences between it and the final product, it was still done with Dalton in mind), no one considers the 6 year long gap between LTK and GE actually means a long development time (well, almost no one I guess :) ).
Even for SF, we know that the gap was caused by MGM problems, that the first screenwriter P. Morgan had to leave (only M's death remained he said), etc, etc, even after the script being delivered, we know some locations and scenes had to be cut at the last time for budget reasons (hence probably all the CG with Silva's island, the disappearance of the action scene on it, etc).
So even with long gap, the creative process ends up always in the last year or last two years, when budget is secured and deadlines are known. Being back to the wall help you move forward.
However, because of long gap, people come and go, and then there is a feeling of fresh new blood (CR and GE = "new Bonds" !, I think it's much more important than "long time since the last" :) ). But IMO, it's a cause, not a consequence, though.
Here, if Mendes, Craig and Logan returns for a movie in 2016, we'll have a lot of the same team after a long gap, and it will be so for the first time (even the TSWLM gap had Saltzmann leaving during it, a major change). If the final feeling is "more of the same after 4 years, what ?", then the gap won't be perceived as a good thing...
So this idea would be a good balance between too short and too long.
The gaps in the cases of GE and SF were caused by various legal / financial factors but the net result was still a longer development period for both films (the longer gaps for both TSWLM and CR were deliberate choices.)
In the case of GE, Broccoli began looking for writers and directors in '91 and Michael France had already begun work on the script by mid-'93. Similarly, SF was - even despite MGM's financial problems - in active development in December 2010 (and that was on the back of all the development work done before the hiatus). In both cases, the films enjoyed a long development period that would be impossible on a 2-year schedule.
But then if you want to use a "demonstration by analogy" like this to prove that waiting for 2016 is good news, use the same analogy for the rest : it then means that what we hear today about the writer, the director, the story, and even possibly the actor, will have probably no relationship with the 2016 movie !
PS : Logan is rumored to be working on Bond 24 for almost a year - the Headhunter director claimed he was offered to read the script these days -, so here if we use the GE development time schedule, we're right on track for a late 2014 release date, theoretically speaking (and without the need to search for a new actor this time) :) The "impossible" can be "possible" sometimes - and I'm not even talking about the claims work has begun already on Bond 25 :)
Sure, but it's still part of the process. i.e. film development is usually about trial and error. Throwing things (and people!) against a wall and seeing what sticks. A lot won't but some will. So you could look at the early drafts of TSWLM (of which there were many), GE and SF and see that there are a lot of changes in the final drafts / finished films. But you'll also see that some key ideas will be present (the supertanker idea in TSWLM, Trevelyan as a traitorous former MI6 agent in GE, and the pursuit and death of M in SF.) And all those steps in the process help the finished product. It's naïve to assume you can cut out all the early, faltering parts of the process and just jump straight into the middle with no ill effect.
I added a PS to my post : right now we can possibly match the GE development process to the Bond 24 one : Logan even had more time to made his script, and right now we're at the stage where the first script allegedly exist (but I don't think a director would lie about being offered to read a script). So we're in May 2013 now, like possibly GE was in Jan 1994, and without the need to search for a new actor (unless this change happens too....). So very end of 2014 doesn't become irrealistic with the same time for the creative process used for GE (theoretically speaking, I mean - personnally I think the war over Sony Entertainment is the #1 factor for the gap or not).
"Silly" and "naive" are strong words, if in the mean time you ask us to consider "two years release gap" equals "two years development time". Don't forget about claims on work already started on Bond 25 to release it sooner also !
I'd agree it's not "0" at all. All of this... looking for writers, directors, deciding on what type of film it will be etc. is part of the development process. That's part of my point - looking for the right director, for example, might take six months or might take a year but that's not wasted time. Much better to find the right director than to go for whoever's available and launch straight in because there's a two-year schedule to stick to. :-)