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
I agree with this. 2015 is pushing it and rather pointless but 2016 is just an absurd joke.
Perhaps we all can agree with a November 2015 release then :-)? I mean, right after the premiere of 'Interstellar' in November 2014, Christopher Nolan can almost immediately jump on the Bond-bandwagon. Nolan could then start directing around January, whereas the 2nd unit director starts already filming in November 2014.
Moreover, I still believe Nolan could be persuaded to do the 24th Bond film, beCAUSE a Bond director works so much more formularic than when he's doing his own 'full creative control' productions that includes both writing and directing. I think like so many other big name directors, doing a Bond film is some kind of dream.....some kind of escape from your usual filmdirecting.
Also, this first director chair for Christopher Nolan on a Bond film, the 24th Bond film, COULD be a stepping stone towards a 26th Bond film, in which Nolan gets full creative control and where he gets the option to work with a new Bond actor for the first time.
Sorry but I couldn't disagree more.
Only because of legal issues. And Craig was younger then.
I am persistent, clear and straightforward....and I say it again: 'Quality first, Quantity later'.
I am convinced that a November 2015 release wouldn't be that much of an issue for Daniel Craig. I mean, come on, Craig at his age is 10 times fitter than Moore on the same age. He's not going to die within the next 10 years. Also, Craig himself prefers quality over quantity. He prefers a certain amount of creative control and the Bond producers are willing to give him that. It's really heavy for an actor to start filming only one year after the premiere of the previous Bond film. If Craig feels he's only an 'instrument' of EON that needs to do a Bond film that 'must' be in cinemas at November 2014, I think then Craig himself bows out.....
I don't get it either. Roger was just getting his start in the franchise at Dan's age. And Dan looks quite fine, I must say.
So, then we say November 2015, WITH Nolan :-).
What's your obsession with Nolan? He's not directing Bond 24. Get over it.
HE WILL NEVER DIRECT BOND
Him directing is no guarantee of the quality of the film and chances are it won't happen anyway.
Thank you.
Moore did debut in his 40s and was really getting on a bit by the end of his era but I don't think that means Craig will carry on into his 50s.
I don't think Craig is aging very well. He looks fine now but I think he's aged fairly quickly over the last few years and they should try and get a few more out of him before he gets too old.
Nolan needs far more control over a project than Sam Mendes, he's unlikely to just come as a director for hire and just shoot someone else's script and Logan is a lock for the time being providing the scripts for Bond 24 & 25.
I personally would like a Bond film in November 2014 and with Craig dropping out of Monuments Men I think this is when we'll get it, he's no doubt going to be working with Babs & Mike to secure a director so 24 can get up and running for a Nov 2014 release.
Not everybody thinks waiting an extra year or two just in case Nolan does it would mean the best Bond movie ever. Get over it.
And there's nothing to suggest 2014 would mean a lesser quality Bond film. John Logan started work on the script while SF is in production, if they can get all the actors, the director and everything else in place then why not?
Why wait another year when it's not needed, instead of using Craig while he's still young and capitalising on Skyfall's success?
Oh and a film every 2 years won't mean Craig leaves. He's signed on for two more and is enthusiastic about doing more Bond movies in interviews so why exactly would a 2 year gap make him walk? It wouldn't even necessarily limit his creative control which you seem to think he needs (even though he didn't have any on CR, as far as I know).
This. Although to your point about Casino Royale, Craig did have a decent amount of creative control, but that's beside the point. In the event that Nolan ever did do a Bond movie, he'd be best in a "Martin Campbell" type situation where he can introduce his own Bond character, write his own story, etc. Right now the franchise is in probably the best shape it could be in coming off a billion dollar film that was not only a commercial, but a critical success (which for a film of its nature is rare), with a Bond actor that is generally beloved by the masses and will likely go down as one of if not the best Bond ever. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to kill the momentum and likely shorten the tenure of the good thing we have going for the sake of a director who likely has other things he'd rather be doing at the moment. I know as fans we always want the dream situations but you've still got to be logical here.
You really think so? I am just about Craigs Age and if i woke up looking as old as him,i would Break down in tears (Sure i would cheer, if i only had his Body though)
It seems to be that the only desperate need you have is for Nolan to direct no matter what. I agree Nolan wouldnt be a bad choice but hes really not 'the greatest director who has ever lived' as you seem to be billing him. If we could get Hitchcock in his prime then I would say 'yes I dont mind waiting until 2015' but as thats not happening there are far too many other factors that make it urgent to go for a 2014 release:
1. Daniel Craigs age. The most critically and commecially successful Bond since Connery and with every chance of being ranked the best Bond ever if his second three films are as good as his first. I reckon he could do 3 more easily if we hit 2014, 2016, 2018. Even then he would only be 50 so a Rog and Sean equalling 7th is not impossible. But if you take 3 or 4 years between films then that basically means we'll only get 2 more out of him. That makes no sense commercially for EON and theres no way Nolan will put as many bums on seats as keeping hold of DC.
2. Strike while the iron is hot. SF is a mega hit and people are gagging for Bond at the moment. So dont make them wait too long or you could find them being distracted by another Jack Ryan or Jason Bourne.
3. My age. I'm buggered if I'm prepared to wait 4 years between Bond films just to have Nolan direct. The last 23 years since LTK has been hard enough as it is with the two year gap being the exception these days. TLD was the 25th and so the half way mark in terms of time but since then in the second 25 years we've only had 8 films compared to 15 in the first 25. We're currently averaging over 3 years per film and in amongst that we've had a 6 year hiatus and two 4 year gaps. When I went to see LTK I had to lie to get into the cinema as I wasnt 15. Now I'm nearly 40 and theres only been another 7 Bond films? Thats not a fast enough rate for me. Maybe if you still have your youth you think a 3 year gap for every film is fine but I'm on the downhill slope now and, like World Cups coming around, I'm worried that I dont have that many left to go.
Also why should there be a drop in quality if they go for a 2014 release? EON are unique in that they have no other projects to worry about (or, for as we all know Babs likes to dabble in theatre, they should have no other projects to worry about) so the moment SF hits cinemas they should have a few weeks holiday and then be prepping for the next one. At least it seems with Logan they have got the important part covered as getting a script in reasonable shape is vital before summer is vital.
In any event the fact Logan has been signed for the next two films means Nolan is a non starter as he would insist on writing his own script from scratch so just give it up.
The most likely chance of Nolan directing is to introduce the new Bond post DC but even then he would want to write his own script and I dont know if EON would want to give over that much control.
We are living in a golden era of Bond and we should be clamouring for more films not trying to delay them. Imagine if we hadnt had a 6 year delay in 1989 - we wouldve had at least 2 more Dalton films!
And at the end of the day TDKR was a fairly plodding and dull affair that was rather up its own arse. If thats what Nolans going to bring to Bond I'd sooner he just left it to be honest.
http://fantasticfest.com/news/entry/death_of_a_shadow
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2312702/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dood_van_een_Schaduw
Trailer, English subtiteld
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FEt1e-g1vLs
For Gustav Graves and his need for Oscars. Whas nominated for Oscar for Best Short Film, Live Action.
As said before i don't mind if we get Bond 24 in the second week of January 2015. We wait 4 year years between QOS and Skyfall, way to long and in specialy because the result of the movie feels more like it be made in 2010.
One motivation for December 2014 or January 2015 release is that if wil feel like there make 2 movies in 6 years time. There pushing things forward with Skyfall and to bring back more pleasure in to Bond movies we should not wait to long on Bond 24. It is time to bring back Camile and let rise the star.
Sam Mendes possible reasen he wil not return is because he mabey whant to wait till 2014 to start for 2016 release, means another 4 years. I don't understand why Nolan/Warner wait 4 years for TDKR who i haven't seen yet, with to much simalars.
I think the criticism of Forster is a little unfair but yes, I'd like a director who understands the history and who can also bring something fresh to the table (something that Forster actually did do IMO).
I just don't get the feeling Foster was a fan of Bond. It seemed he would consider it "beneath him"
I don't know if Forster was a fan or not but he stepped into the breach at a difficult moment and delivered IMO what is one of the better Bond films of recent years. Given the significant problems he had to address with the script I think he did a pretty decent job. I think he picked up on some genuinely Bondian motifs and also brought a fresh and forward-looking look and feel to the film. Overall I regard his entry as a qualified success.
I agree, you have to have some basic appreciation for the character and the world, I don't think all directors sought need be die-hard fans but they have possess some basic appreciation. Forster, to me, saw the project as a challenge; he had never done a big budget movie and in interviews always quoted about how Orson Welles regretted never doing one. Also he said he thought it would an experiment as he thought there would be a lot of control from the producers and studio and therefore would almost be like making a film under political censorship. Instead, as we know, the prods gave him a lot of leeway and there's no argument that QOS was a Marc Forster film, maybe more than it was a Bond film.
So...................with that in mind, I think it apt for us to reconsider Joe Wright. Look here:
http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=1259
He's a fan of the series and has a bold style. His last film was a little too experimental maybe, but he was working with a centuries old novel and adapted it in a new way, which was a very commendable feat seeming as Anna Karenia has been filmed a million times around the world.