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
EoN just needs B24 to equal Skyfall, regardless of if it is released in 2014 or 2015. Its a CR to QoS situation. I'm sure they wont make the same "mistake" twice in a row.
As for Mendes pushing the film back to 2015, if it results in another Bond film as high quality as Skyfall, then I'm all for it. As mentioned earlier, I'd rather have a fantastic Bond film in 2015 than an "just alright" one in 2014.
Sam, where did you read, the delay indicated was 2 months. I don't see such a thing. I read, sometime in 2014. No word of January. There is no way, they can bring out the film in 2014, if they don't start shooting end of the year. NO WAY. And this would mean, end of 2015, if they don't decide to make it a summer release. I am all against it. The momentum is now and they should use it. Mendes can do 25, if he is not ready. Others are, I am sure.
If Mendes doesn't want to come back for another one that'll be released in 2014, then I say replace him, get another talented director and aim to get it out in 2014. If he wants a break but wants to return then he can wait until Bond 25.
Who's to say we wouldn't get a great one if it came out in 2014? It is possible to make a good film without waiting a minimum of 3 years.
Perfect news! With Bond productions as of today, a two year gap is too much to ask. I completely agree with Michael and Barbara here, if this news is true. A four year gap did nothing but good for 'Skyfall'. That's obvious.
Also, may I remind you that a two year gap was at one time in production history of Bond films was also quite new?
The first four Bond films were produced within a one year gap. DN, FRWL, GF and TB had the big advantage of scripts that were almost completed during pre-production. The Bond producers choose the relatively easy-to-produce novels FRWL and DN to use for their first two films. With GF, a two year gap might have been a good thing already, as there were quite some difficulties with the script. They barely finished the script in time. And for TB.....well the script was basically there already upon pre-production.
Then, for YOLT the breathing space of two years was a welcome change for Sean Connery and most importantly for Ken Adam who started building that massive set...and who really needed the time.
And, most importantly, casting expensive big star Oscar actors causes one big problem: Scheduling. Actors like Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Albert Finney and Javier Barden have/had very busy, tight acting schedules. They are pulled upon by various movie companies to do a movie. For those actors, it is necessary to start planning in a very early stage.
I bet Debbie McWilliams sees her job becoming way more challenging! Especially if EON Productions (and me :P!) want to attract actors like -let's say- Tilda Swinton, Christoph Waltz or Daniel Day Lewis.
One last thing. Look to the Batman-The Dark Knight trilogy. Christopher Nolan really needed these three/four year gaps. James Bond is in this terrirtory now as well.
Conclusion: From a one year gap, Bond productions started with two year gaps after four movies. And ever since TWINE the three year gap was considered very nice after the two year gap between TND and GE had become too short. Not too mention all the problems regarding the production of QOS, also in production two years after CR. It also meant: Problems. So better get used to longer three/four year gaps. Two year gaps are unrealistic nowadays for the revived, upscaled Bond franchise. Or otherwise WE GET CRAPPY BOND FILMS LADS :-p!
Die Another Day had a 3 year gap and look how that turned out. I don't know about you lot but I think TND and TWINE are much, much, much better films than DAD, and they only had 2 year gaps!
Everybody is saying, "I'd rather get a great film in 2015 than a good one in 2014" when there's no guarantee it could be great. And if the film does turn out to be below par, I don't want to have waited another year for it so it's even more of a let down.
And since 3 years is no guarantee of quality, I'd like it if they aimed for a 2014 release. If Logan had already started writing the script during SF then I think that's very possible also.
And what about this?
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2986/new-bond-set-for-2014/p1
I think, the conclusion, a 2 year release gives us naturally a bad film, its nonsense. QOS was only a lesser film because of the writers strike and Forster, who felt the need to rewrite the damn thing over and over. That won't happen again, so we have no real example, that would underline that notion.
Casino Royale started filming in late January 2006 and was released the same year.
Tomorrow Never Dies started filming in April 1997 and was still releasd the same year.
Also I can't see Mendes being offered such a late start in 2014 that the film can't come out that year. Everything seems to point towards a release next year.
Quite. Nail on the head.
Though, I do think releasing in 2015 is financial suicide with all the HUGE films being released that year.
Skyfall started filming early November 2011 and was released end of October 2012.
You forget one important thing: Pre-production. It's such an underestimated, but very vital, long, tiresome part of the actual outcome of the movie. It includes in chronical order:
--> Brainstorm sessions about the plot without the yet-to-be-assigned cast.
--> Screenplay writing. Done by John Logan for Bond 24.
--> Extensive readings of screenplay by the producers and Daniel Craig (Interesting to see Daniel has a lot of creative influence. These three work together so nicely. Sean Connery actually wanted this).
--> Assigning the actual director (with, if necessary, big bucks)
--> Doing the location shouting. Usually Barbara Broccoli does that together with the director.
--> Send in requests to city councils/state governments to get permission for filming there.
--> Already filming certain sequences if necessary. In the case of QOS they already filmed the Palio back in August 2007.
--> Calling in Debbie McWilliams for the casting of the actors.
--> Doing auditions for lesser known actors/actresses. This can take some time.
--> Extra brainstorm sessions about the story/plot, now with the newly casted actors included. Screenplay will get updated/rewritten.
--> Simply negotiating with bigger actors/actresses to get them onboard without doing long, tiresome auditions. This process is relatively new for a Bond film, as it includes long financial negotiations with the agents from those big star actors/actresses (Agents from Oscar winners and Oscar nominated actors (Swinton, Day-Lewis, Mirren, Seymour-Hoffman, Waltz) usually have more powerful agents to back them up..)
--> In the meanwhile crew for post-production is being contacted as well. Music composers, editors, sound mixers, they are all being contracted ASAP
--> Finally, ever since Daniel Craig became Bond....and ever since the huge starcast and starcrew for 'Skyfall', scheduling throughout the process I have described above becomes even more vital. Hence the longer gap between Bond films.
This pre-production process is always the period between post-production of the almost finished Bond film and the press conference/announcement of the Bond film that follows. Pre-production is already well underway, thus it could last till november 2014. So pre-production actually takes much longer than the official production and post production combined. Usually close to two years.
I am actually hoping for this. Personally, I want Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins, Thomas Newman, Adele and the whole damn Skyfall-crew to return! I perfectly understand Daniel Craig. The vibe created with 'Skyfall' needs to continue and, again, needs to result in one hell of a Bond film that can at least match the look and feel of 'Skyfall'. But most importantly, it should be a Bond film that has the same diamond quality of 'Skyfall.
That can only happen if we Bond fans are a bit more patient and let the Bond producers 'breathe' a bit. Hastily production periods for TND and QOS resulted in an average or even less-than-average Bond film.
I actually think this would be a great time for a summer premiere of James Bond 24. Maybe Summer 2016? Or for the less patient ones around here......Fall 2015?
Also, I hear people talking about a summer release. Really??? If that's the case say goodby to billion dollar Bond because the summer of 2015 is going to be big. You have Avengers 2, the justice league movie, star wars and that's just for starters. Bond needs to stay away from smear releases.
On a final note, the series should utilise Craig as much as they can as he's still relatively young. That's a talent that shouldn't be wasted just because a director needs time to rest. If there's anything that SF did, it was that it proved top tier directors abd actors are not too good for Bond and that the series can attract such levels of talent. If Mendes can't do it, then bloody get another top tier director worth his salt to do it. Cot dammit!
That's nonsense. Skyfall has upgraded the Bond franchise substantially. In such a way that many in here don't realize yet. Bond is now as big as The Dark Knight. It can easily compete with Avengers 2 now. IF Bond 24 is of diamond quality, just like Skyfall. And that takes...TIME :-).
I think, we have to really include Babs wish to have DC around for as long as possible and around means films - so she tries to combine that with being a business woman as well. To achieve that, she has to pull out a 14 release. Some here talk, as if that is a novelty. We know, its not and has often been done. It just doesn't give all of them a lot of breating time, but then again - remember - all of them are going to work on someting anyway, so why not Bond?
Drunk.. hmmm...not yet, but I will poor myself a whisky later on. Anyway, yes, I think Bond can compete with such series as the Avengers, certainly the Justce Leage and even Star Wars. These are all very American, and as you may have noted, Bond nowedays gets most of its money from 'overseas'.
Then there's the importance of a good director, the strong understanding between director and lead actor, and how hard it is to find a director that really is that good.
Anyone who'd seen 'Once Were Worriors' would've expected Lee Tamahori to deliver a gritty, dark Bond. What did we get?
Mendes and Craig have shown to be very good together and to UNDERSTAND what Bond is about. Not since Terence Young and Connery have we seen such quality. Is 6-12 months worth the (extra) wait for at least an enormously increased chance of getting an excellent film again? I say YES!
And sorry, Bond competing with Avengers 2, Justice League and especially Star Wars is ridiculous. I don't say he can't or won't attract people to the cinemas but it would be a bad move and he would definately lose much audience and, important for the producers - money!
Skyfall had no strong competition! Combine that with good word of mouth and you have non-Bond fans go: "Bond? i don't know. But it's supposed to be good and there is nothing else on but Twilight. Well, alright then."
I can tell you this, with a big... scratch that... huge release like Star Wars or Avengers 2 (was the first one the most successful movie of 2012?) than no matter how much success Skyfall had and how much better Bond's image now is to the general public... he will lose. Will it be a flop? Of course not... but don't expect your precious billion dollar Bond....
Hey, your tone is a bit out of line I think. I am not drunk and I am certainly not a fool.
Yes, 'Skyfall' had a lot of factors that were helping Bond to those 1 Billion Dollars. Yes, Bond's visit to the Queen, its 50 year anniversary, Adele, Javier Bardem...they all indirectly helped 'Skyfall' reaching those 1 Billion Dollars. Yes, the stars were in good position for 'Skyfall'.
But I really think we're forgetting here one important thing here. It really takes a lot of work, a lot of difficult planning and scheduling to make this happen! Director Sam Mendes, nominated actors like Javier Bardem, Ralp Fiennes, Finney and Whishaw, Grammy and Golden Globe winner Adele.....you don't get them onboard simply with a snip of your fingers! You don't get those stars onboard within one year. Simply because of the tight schedules of these actors (a Tilda Swinton, a Christoph Waltz, a Paul Giamatti, a Philip Seymour Hoffman, a Daniel Day Lewis), singers (Adele, Adele and more Adele) and crewmembers (Roger Deakins, Thomas Newman, Sam Mendes, Scott Millan, Stuart Baird, John Logan, Per Halberg, Dennis Gassner).
Moreover, this 50th anniversary didn't happen with one snip of your fingers either. It took one hell of a promotional campaign, including designing a 50th year anniversary logo. And this 50th year campaign wasn't initiated by outside factors. No, Barbara and Michael wanted it.
Then most importantly, I truly believe 'Skyfall' managed to achieve this 1 Billion Dollars for the most part because it was simply a delightful, multi-layered, top notch quality FILM. Yes, a good, almost perfect Bond film it most certainly was. It had more humour, more gadgets than previous Craig films. And Moneypenny and Q got back. But even more so it was a perfect film! And that perfect film was made by a bunch of top notch, high-talented, creative people. Perhaps even more so than with previous Bond films.
Barbara Broccoli admitted it herself in an interview. She WANTED to have an Oscar cast and Oscar crew, because she was so committed of making this perfect film. And that paid off. NOT only because of outside factors and lots of promotion. But most importantly because screening audiences of journalists were giving 'Skyfall' raving reviews. When the first reviews came in, you could have anticipated that 'Skyfall' was going to cash in a lot more money then previous Bond films. And you simply won't reach a 1 Billion Dollar without that!
A perfect Bond film, with all marketing in place would have grossed around $700 Million, like most Bond fans in here were predicting.
But a perfect FILM, that happens to be a very good Bond film, should gross way more than $900 Million, which I predicted. And we know now were 'Skyfall' stands!
Dear people? to achieve something like this again, we simply need to look to what Christopher Nolan did with The Dark Knight franchise. The Bond franchise used to be a certain money casher. But as I mentioned above, the Bond franchise has upgraded itself to a certain +900 Million Dollar franchise.
'The Dark Knight' had off course a lot of extra buzz surrounding Ledger's death, but pundits agreed that it was also a marvellous film! THAT'S what made it a 1 Billion Dollar movie. Something similar has happened now with 'Skyfall'.
But to achieve a 1 Billion Dollar AGAIN, like the top notch film 'The Dark Knight Rises' did, you HAVE to be patient and you NEED a longer pre-production period. A gap of two years is then simply too small amount of time. Not to mention all the extra scheduling you need to forecast for the new 1 Billion Dollar Bond franchise.
In actual fact TB and YOLT both had 18 month gaps. GF came out in the Summer of '64, TB came out at the end of '65. YOLT followed 18 months later in the Summer of '67.
The gap between YOLT and OHMSS was actually as long as the gap between TMWTGG and TSWLM - two and a half years.
I do agree though that in this day and age it is harder to get a film out in two years, for any number of reasons.
All of us just need to sit back and wait. Neither of us - at this point - knows anything more the the other. We are just putting together those pieces in a different way. Should be allowed, no?
I could say the same about lots of your posts.
I'm a huge Bond fan, been so my whole life and naturally welcome good things that come it's way but I'm also a realist and am not about to allow myself to be naive that Bond is ready to make around a billion dollars in the summer. SF's success doesn't prove that it will contrary to what you believe. Finally, I have to disagree that SF was perfect. It wasn't for me anyway. It was a great film but far from perfect and I believe that CR was a superior film easily. Going by your logic, CR should have made close to a billion dollars but it didn't.