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
In this day and age if you want to produce quality movies in a franchise, you can't release them in every 2 years. That's just not enough time and the tight schedule put's a tremendous pressure on the whole production. Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson know that.
They have absolutely no reason to have the movie released at the end of 2014 instead of the end of 2015. Sure, Daniel Craig won't get any younger but does it really make a difference whether he's 46 or 47 by the time Bond 24 is realesed? No, it doesn't.
They can release the next two movies 3 years apart and Daniel could finish playing Bond at the age of 50. I think that's a perfect age to retire from the role.
Also, we have every reason to believe the report that the're going to wait for Mendes. And they can't wait for Mendes and release the movie in 2014.
Sorry, not buying any of that for a second. Sounds like you're giving excuses for those involved to not get on and do their jobs, as if engaging in hard work is some impossible task. Working hard is obvious and EoN do that, the question is, how smart are they working? One can work smart and achieve the best possible result in the shortest amount of time than one who works hard and spends more time doing it.
Logan has completed the script for Bond 24. EoN have shopped the script around to x number of directors and now Mendes is all of a sudden interested in wanting to helm Bond 24?? Sounds to me like the script is in great shape and the only hold up is finding someone to direct it. The fundamental factor of what can make or break a movie is done. Clearly, 2 years is NOT an issue and if we do get Mendes directing and get a 2015 release it'll only be because he has to finish up his other commitments which is holding up production on Bond 24; so like I said, sorry but I'm not buying your excuse.
There's nothing black-and-white about this discussion. I do think however that a premiere late 2015 will give the producers at least more 'breathing space'.
On a positive note however: The screenplay for Bond 24 will be a full-time project for just one man: John Logan. With 'Skyfall' the really good moments were added by John Logan, like the William Tell Game and the 'gay scene' between Bond and Silva.
Now John Logan can do everything by himself. That could speeden up things a bit.
When it comes down to conflicting schedules, EON still might wait until end 2015. For the very simple reason, that they most likely want to have the same stellar crew onboard (Mendes, Logan, Deakins, Newman....By the way I adore Newman's score. Way more multi-layered than Arnold's work).
But most importantly, with 'Skyfall' they were already writing around one actor....Javier Bardem. They might do that again with another stellar Oscar-actor. Penelope Cruz IMO is semi-stellar (She won an Oscar for Allen's 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona' and was wunderful in 'Volver'). But indeed it'll be about the villain. If they want an actor like Christoph Waltz he must have the time and space in his schedule. And I reckon EON are willing to wait a bit until such an actor can jump on the Bond wagon.
I don't understand this remark. If there's truly criticism about 'Skyfall', then it is about the story. You should at least blaim the screenplay writers for that. Hence the fact that perhaps for that reason John Logan is doing everything by himself now. Which makes sense.
Sam Mendes then? Gosh, bring him back man. He's a wunderful director.
@Gustav Mendes definitely did a good job on Skyfall but the issue some of us have is that we don't think his return is enough to justify a later release.
Me and lots of others would prefer a 2014 release even if it meant finding a new director.
I think if you are a true Bond aficionado, you focus on the end result and not on a stupid date. I think many Bond fans act spoiled and they lack patience. There, I said it. If another great critically acclaimed Bond entry (8 on IMDB and so on..) needs to have enough time that'll make a late 2015 release more likely, I will say "So be it!".
It's not only Mendes' schedule that stands a 2014-release in its way. For Goodness sake, 'Skyfall' must have been a tiresome process for Barbara and Michael. Give them a life too and some time to relax after this huge success.
Moreover, if a 2-year gap doesn't do any damage, the same will go for a 3-year gap and a 4-year gap. If it's not scientifically proven to say a longer gap automatically results in 'better movies', then at least you can say it'll never do the production of Bond 24 any damage.
Now about the actors. People must have a wall in front of them. Bringing an actor like Christoph Waltz onboard, means: 'scheduling conflicts'. These actors are ATM way more lucrative like a, let's say, Bruce Willis or Vin Diesel. The same goes for actors like Javier Bardem. And I prefer quality actors, A-List actors over B-actors. Period. Especially after 'Skyfall'. It's worth the wait.
PS: Are there more patient Bond fans in here :-)?
Who says? One interview indicates that Eon have a version of the script that they are offering to directors. And the idea that the script would be "completed" this far before shooting, let alone before a director is on board, is laughable.
Interesting to have your well-informed opinion. All total conjecture though, isn't it?
Sorry, but you really do spout a lot of ill-informed nonsense.
Could we just change it to "Who will direct 24?" or likewise.
By the same rationale where is the evidence that making it in two years results in an inferior film?
I prefer to be patient and think like how a producer would think, instead of a fan that only wants to fulfill his own selfish injection of 'one Bond film every two year'.
Well, I haven't studied moviemaking. You are right about that. But I do see that big budget films, like the Marvel-series, DC-Comics-series, franchises like Trek have longer gaps:
'Iron Man 2' (2010) - 'Iron Man 3' (2013) --> 3 year gap
'James Bond 20: Die Another Day' (2002) - 'James Bond 21: Casino Royale' (2006) --> 4 year gap
'Star Trek' (2009) - 'Star Trek Into Darkness' (2013) --> 4 year gap
'Batman Begins' (2004) - 'The Dark Knight' (2008) --> 4 year gap
'Avatar' (2009) - 'Avatar 2' (2015) --> 6 year gap
And:
'Fast And Furious 5' (2011) - 'Fast And Furious 6' (2013) --> 2 year gap. But, uhm, quality wise this stuff is as good as 'Die Another Day'.
2 points
1. Batman Begins came out summer 2005 so the gap was 3 years between Begins and Knight not 4
2. Your Iron Man example is null and void as we got the Avengers in 2012 which focused plenty on Iron Man (in fact more so then in Iron Man 3 but that is another discussion)
What's not to understand? I like Michael Shannon as an actor. He has worked with Mendes before and should Mendes come back, I'd like him to cast Shannon as a villain.
And of course TWINE (1999) - DAD (2002) --> 3 year gap.
Point proven I would say.
The main corroborative evidence that has led people to conclude a 2 year gap means we are going to get a substandard product is CR --> QOS.
The fact is that QOS was ruined by the writers strike. Without this it would have been a very different animal and the shit editing has absolutely nothing to do with trying to meet a specified release date.
2 years is still very much achievable if there is proper planning in place and that means the next script being started in the summer of release year when post prod is taking place.
If we take SF and B24 as an example:
Summer 2012 - SF wraps and post prod starts. Logan starts writing the script for B24
Spring 2013 - Logan has B24 script in pretty good shape and a director is assigned.
Summer 2013 - Pre prod starts.
Winter - 2014 shooting starts.
Summer 2014 - Shooting wraps post prod starts.
Winter 2014 - B24 released.
Thats how I would have done it anyway.
Gives Logan at least 6 months, nearer 9 to get the script up and running before a director comes on board and then a further 6-9 months before shooting starts to lick it into shape.
They have from summer 2013 till winter 2014 for pre prod, shooting and post thats 15 months minimum (if you say pre prod starts properly (I'm not counting all the script work already done in the preceding months) in late July/Aug for a Dec release) which if you assume 6 for shooting leaves 4.5 each for pre and post.
Its tight I grant you and it means people need to be working hard fairly constantly but its far from an impossiblity.
Strike while the iron is hot. When Dans tenure ends you can have a 4 year break to recharge batteries if you want but whilst we've got an extremely popular Bond we should be making an effort to get the ball rolling.
And just what gives you the right to tell me if I'm a true Bond aficionado or not? I've been a fan for 26 years. I've loved Bond all my life.
But no, I don't see getting Sam Mendes or Christopher Nolan as the be all and end all like you do so I'm not a proper fan. To quote Timothy Dalton, piss off.
TWINE to Die Another Day ---> 3 year gap.
Have you even seen them? Oh and since you love using the critics to back up your points all the time.
Fast Five rottentomatoes: 78%
Iron Man 3 rottentomatoes: 78%
Oh, and Iron Man 1 to Iron Man 2: Two year gap.
I also have a few points
1. Fast and Furious (4) 2009-Fast 5 2011, 2 year age gap and a massive step up.
2. Fast and Furious 6 may not have the script of previous films and any Bond film, but the direction, editing and action are all great. This film has IMO better action than SF it's not a better film but the set piece action is on a bigger scope and more impressive. This film produced on a 2 year gap couldn't be improved with the script it has (which is fairly awful).
TBH I think they should strike when the iron is hot, with or without Mendes. While a lot is done by the director it would take a fairly poor director to mess up with Craig, Bardem, Dench and Finney. Also, I think a director with more experience with action sequences would be beneficial
Don't shoot me down just my opinion.
Your patronizing attitude fits your "nickname" very well indeed.
Thank you for your praise but its a little ambiguous whether you are advocating Black or not there?
Just for the record I would like to distance myself from you if you are. I'd much sooner wait till 2016 than have a Shane Black directed B24 even if the realease date was tomorrow.
I thought that was what you meant - I just didnt want to take the slightest risk of being thought of as an advocate of Black!
Oh yeah, imagine you're a producer whose main partner, Sony (and not MGM, who had to ask money from Sony actually !), is in the middle of a stockholder war over the future of its entertainment branch. The new main stockholder thinks Sony Entertainment is not earning enough money from the success it finances (which means he thinks a producer like you earned too much).
In the mean time, everyone thinks the last movie you did with its money is great, but you can't help thinking these budgets cuts that happened during the shooting are not something you want to live through again.
The rationale is to be "patient", really ? One could on the contrary say that you should try to secure budget as fast as possible before Sony Entertainment changes into something different no one can predict :) (or before MGM goes public, for that matter !)
I'm not claiming that it means the opposite of your theory is closer to the truth than your theory, I'm just saying we're all blind to what is really happening, and that anyone can come with very "sound" prediction in one way or in another. It's already so difficult to understand the past...
Welcome to the club, me it's 28, but Gustav_Graves called me a "newcomer" any way :)
Note also he "knows" that Avatar 2 will be worth the 6 year gap :) (while HFR is far far less popular than 3D for many viewers !)
Agreed as well. I can't see why it is selfish for an original fan like myself to want a new film every 2 years when that's the way it's always been, and the 3 year argument has no legs whatsoever.
Again, here's the real reasons why we may have to wait until 2015 whether we like it or not. One, they want Mendes and are clearly willing to wait for him, I think this has been the plan all along and that the lack of other directors lining up to take the job made them even more determined to get him, if indeed he is announced officially as the director. Two, I know some disagree but I genuinely think they know they are getting older and I think they want more down time than a 2 year schedule allows. Wilson's complaint about how tired he was after CR and QOS may not apply to Barb, but I feel he was genuine when he said it. Three, I think what happened with QOS with all the turmoil both spooked and exposed them, because their decisions between trashing the original script, hiring Forster, allowing the film to resemble Bourne with the action editing, etc, etc, etc certainly cast doubts on their ability, if not in their minds then almost certainly in the minds of their audience, to land on their feet in situations like this.
Agree that 2 years is definitely achievable @Wizard. Almost every Bond film since 1995 has had an Autumn release and started shooting in Jan.
To say that a longer development period will automatically lead to a better film would be silly. But I don't think we should ignore the fact that every Bond director since 1981 who has had to work to the two-year schedule has complained that it was a rush. And Barbara Broccoli too. They can't all just be spouting nonsense - there must be something in it?
I think there's a fourth point. The films with the longer gaps seem to have been, for whatever reason, more profitable. GE, DAD, CR and SF made more money for Eon and the studios (irrespective of their box office.) There seems to be a bit of a "Bond bump" when the public have to wait a little longer. This affects the box office but has a much bigger effect on the films' profitability.
That makes sense. The hardcore fans will see the film no matter what but perhaps the general public and the more casual fans get tired of Bond every two years. When it's a three year gap or longer it feels more like a big event.
Mendes will end up in a loony asylum with visions of Daniel Craig's Bond everywhere. "Bond... all I see is James Bond. No, no more, leave me alone! I want to go back to the theatre and make plays!!!!" :D