MGM says the next Bond within 3 years

Risico007

I didn't hate Skyfall lets be clear I enjoyed it and the end with M was so cool

but it wasn't amazing.

It can't knock my favorite bond film off the number 1 spot and in all honesty it would be in my top 10 but toward the bottom of the list like number 8.

bondbat007

Risico007 wrote:

I didn't hate Skyfall lets be clear I enjoyed it and the end with M was so cool

but it wasn't amazing.

It can't knock my favorite bond film off the number 1 spot and in all honesty it would be in my top 10 but toward the bottom of the list like number 8.

You see, that's a respectable opinion that I don't agree with, but I understand. Unlike some of these other people who are convinced that Skyfall is the most disappointing thing in the world

Goldeneye95

I hope we don't have to wait until 2016 for Bond 24. I say late 2014 or a summer 2015 release could happen. What EON should do is give Tom Hooper a phone call & get him on board to helm Bond 24.

bondbat007

I'm betting on March or April 2015. They won't do summer but they also wont wait until November 2015 either

Risico007

bondbat007 wrote:

Risico007 wrote:

I didn't hate Skyfall lets be clear I enjoyed it and the end with M was so cool

but it wasn't amazing.

It can't knock my favorite bond film off the number 1 spot and in all honesty it would be in my top 10 but toward the bottom of the list like number 8.

You see, that's a respectable opinion that I don't agree with, but I understand. Unlike some of these other people who are convinced that Skyfall is the most disappointing thing in the world

Hence why I posted my opinion. Trust me it is miles above Tomorrow Never Dies Moonraker Octopussy A view to a kill Diamonds Are Forever The Man with the Golden Gun etc

But it felt like a film that if it came out in 2010 I would of figured ok sometimes things are rushed so it Can't always be amazing at least in 2012 when we see Bond 24 I will be happy. But is came out in 2012 4 years after the criminally underated Quantum of Solace (I do mean criminally underated I mean Skyfall has come and gone and people are still complaining about it on the internet why leave the bloody film alone...)


I just felt in 4 years we should of gotten a Casino Royale and for some people Skyfall was that. For me it felt good but not amazing... My top ten now in retrospect would be this


1. Casino Royale
2. Quantum of Solace (though If i could it would be tied with Royale)
3. The Living Daylights
4. On Her Majesties Secret Service
5. From Russia with Love
6. Licence to Kill
7. For Your Eyes Only
8. Skyfall
9. Goldeneye
10. Live and Let Die

and if you really wanna know
11. The World is not enough
12. Octopussy
13. The Spy who Loved Me
14. Tomorrow Never Dies
15. You Only Live Twice
16. The Man With the Golden Gun
17. Dr. No
18. Thunderball
19. Goldfinger
20. Moonraker
21. Die another Day (Casino Royale 54)
22. A view to a Kill (Never Say Never Again)
23. Diamonds are Forever

though if someone says lets watch Diamonds Are forever I won't be like "no I can't watch that" I'll watch and enjoy it trust me its better then "films" like Cherry Falls and Lake Placid (though I hear that was supposed to be funny I just found it annoying and not funny nor scary)

Like I said I would Welcome Mendes to come back and am fine with Logan writing Bond 24 for the next one I would like an emphasis more on Bond and action then on Politics though I am not hoping for a Tomorrow Never Dies really I want well Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace or in a lesser sence Skyfall by that I mean


Grounded Plot
Real Stunt work as opposed to CGI
Cool Locations
and preferably a Fleming Title

I get that and I am a happy camper.

Give me The Hildebrand Rarity as the title and I'm REALLY happy :D

bondbat007

The Hildebrand Rarity really? I think your user name is my preferred Fleming title :).

But yes thank you for listing your well thought out opinion instead of just bashing a film that I (and many others) love. And it's funny because I enjoy DAF more than most people but I still get why it could be your least favorite.

Risico007

bondbat007 wrote:

The Hildebrand Rarity really? I think your user name is my preferred Fleming title :).

But yes thank you for listing your well thought out opinion instead of just bashing a film that I (and many others) love. And it's funny because I enjoy DAF more than most people but I still get why it could be your least favorite.

I don't bash films Considering Ang Lee might direct Bond 24 I might be worried but I wont come on here complaining how bad The Hulk was.

Risico is good I go in phases with the 4 short story titles usually based on Fan art and rumors thuogh I will feel a slight sense of missed oppetunity if Craig doesn't get one more Fleming title.

Agent7F

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Skyfail wrote:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Why is eve. Late 2015/early 2016 seems to be the maximum time they are saying Bond 24 will release, so the more minimum and more likely choice for a release if all goes well is 2014.

That will age Daniel Craig. Why can't they Just do 2 years. Release Bond 24 next year & the Bond 25 in 2016! We thought last year in 4 years When Quantum of Solace was made in 2008 then 4 years 50th Anniversary James Bond year 2012 last year. Why is Eon planning 3 year on? This not right. They plan within 2 years next Bond movie.

Skyfail

bondbat007 wrote:

I feel bad for you guys. I'll always respect your opinion but I thought it was absolutely worth the wait. Oh well

Haha :),
Its something we all learnt to accept by now :P

Lets Just hope the next movie is not like Quantum Of Solace or a Skyfall which caused divided opinion.

Lets hope the next movie is like Casino Royale, A movie which practically everyone loved, In that way we all can be happy :)

HASEROT

i am confused here, maybe i saw a different film than what everyone else did.. but i thought the action in Skyfall was handled with class, and for the most part was shot really really well... so it baffles me when i hear people say Mendes can't handle action - or - the action Skyfall was terrible .... are we talking about the amount of action in the film? or the quality in which it was presented on screen (ie: directed, shot, edited, etc). Because for being a 'newcomer' to action, i thought Mendes did a terrific job handling it in those specific scenes... the siege on Skyfall at the end was shot masterfully..

Skyfail

Shardlake wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

If that is right DC would be 51 years old if he were to serve out his two movie contract, If I take into account that each movie will take 3 years.

And I thought he looked old in SF.

The difference is unlike Moore he wouldn't need an army of stuntmen to complete the film.

Craig's detractors will always jump on this one, he has a weathered face granted but he should still be able to convince as Bond when it comes to physicality, something come Rog's last 2 films certainly he couldn't.

Saint Mark,
You don't have to worry about that. The only reason he looked like that in Skyfall was because the story called on him to be old. :)

let me show you.

This is how he looked in Skyfall.




This picture was taken 2013




He just needs to get rid of this God-awful haircut!




Hope I put your fears to rest ;)

Sandy

HASEROT wrote:

i am confused here, maybe i saw a different film than what everyone else did.. but i thought the action in Skyfall was handled with class, and for the most part was shot really really well... so it baffles me when i hear people say Mendes can't handle action - or - the action Skyfall was terrible .... are we talking about the amount of action in the film? or the quality in which it was presented on screen (ie: directed, shot, edited, etc). Because for being a 'newcomer' to action, i thought Mendes did a terrific job handling it in those specific scenes... the siege on Skyfall at the end was shot masterfully..

I have the same opinion as you @haserot!

QBranch

HASEROT wrote:

i am confused here, maybe i saw a different film than what everyone else did.. but i thought the action in Skyfall was handled with class, and for the most part was shot really really well... so it baffles me when i hear people say Mendes can't handle action - or - the action Skyfall was terrible .... are we talking about the amount of action in the film? or the quality in which it was presented on screen (ie: directed, shot, edited, etc). Because for being a 'newcomer' to action, i thought Mendes did a terrific job handling it in those specific scenes... the siege on Skyfall at the end was shot masterfully..

I thought the amount of action was fine. What I thought could've been a tad more dynamic were the fight scenes: 1) the style of fighting i.e. CR and QOS saw Craig getting brutal and messy with Krav Maga and improvising by using his surroundings, where SF's fight scenes were a bit more lightweight; 2) there could've been more camera angle variety during these fight scenes- the train top fight and Shanghai skyscraper scenes needed a few more close up shots. I want to feel every punch and kick (Bond vs. Slate). Mendes' fight scenes (as much as I love them) felt more like a harmonious dance between Bond and his enemy. I tend to think this is what he was going for, but ideally I would like my CraigBond fights to be grittier (Bond vs. Obanno).

Niggling aside- regarding all the action scenes, I agree- Mendes really did a superb job for his first time. Kudos to him, and I do hope he returns in future.

HASEROT

QBranch wrote:

the train top fight and Shanghai skyscraper scenes needed a few more close up shots.

see.. i respectfully disagree about the fight between Bond and Patrice.. i think the long shot slowly pushing in on their silhouettes - and only ever getting a brief glimpse of their faces from the muzzle flash of the rifle was absolutely fantastic.... i find it very very common and unoriginal to constantly go in on closeups during fight scenes.. to be able to pull off such a fight by doing nothing more than leaving the camera still, and letting the two men beat the hell out of each other is not only brilliant, but ballsy... i say ballsy because it's something you don't see done often anymore - as everyone wants to go in tight for the frenetic handhelds.. which does look good when done right.. but it's an overdone cliche' during fights - that and the editing is usually done to mask out the orchestration of a fight, and make it look fast and brutal...... with this particular fight with Bond and Patrice, the fisticuffs were brutal enough, and why deprive the audience of seeing it?..

i dont know... i am probably in the minority when it comes to that particular scene, but it's one of the most beautifully orchestrated shots in the entire series IMO... much like the Opera scene in QOS where Bond and Greene have their stare down with the music blaring - it made me sit back in my seat in theater and utter "wow".. i felt blown away..

QBranch

I see where you're coming from. I agree when you say a lasting long shot can be impressive, much like that of Silva's entrance. You can see everything that's happening in the scene, plus it's very satisfying knowing the actors did all that in one take. Maybe I just need to watch the film again - I've only seen it a few times, so far. I'll get on it ASAP ;)

HASEROT

QBranch wrote:

I see where you're coming from. I agree when you say a lasting long shot can be impressive, much like that of Silva's entrance. You can see everything that's happening in the scene, plus it's very satisfying knowing the actors did all that in one take. Maybe I just need to watch the film again - I've only seen it a few times, so far. I'll get on it ASAP ;)

lol.. its just my opinion... i realize that it might not be everyone's cup of tea ;;)

Skyfail

HASEROT wrote:

i am confused here, maybe i saw a different film than what everyone else did.. but i thought the action in Skyfall was handled with class, and for the most part was shot really really well... so it baffles me when i hear people say Mendes can't handle action - or - the action Skyfall was terrible .... are we talking about the amount of action in the film? or the quality in which it was presented on screen (ie: directed, shot, edited, etc). Because for being a 'newcomer' to action, i thought Mendes did a terrific job handling it in those specific scenes... the siege on Skyfall at the end was shot masterfully..

Mate even Forster was a new comer to action .
I thought we all including you had this action discussion earlier,

Let me talk a little about the action used :

Kali/Escrima is a form of martial arts which relies on the use of weapons and using your surroundings to your advantage. It was developed by the Philippines .Warring tribes used it during combat on the beach. Most of the moves are designed to kill an enemy and to move on to the next. Hence most of the moves are banned in martial art sports. This sort of martial arts is used in top tier action movies and It makes perfect sense for Assassins like James Bond, Jason Bourne or Liam Neeson's Character from Taken to use such. This sort of fighting style was heavily used in Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace.

Krav Maga is a form of CQC developed by the israeli military for their combat.

For Skyfall they said they would focus more on Krav Maga than they did so in Quantum Of Solace, I simply didn't see that. I am bit curious on how it would have worked though.
The only Krav centric moves I remembered was when Severine's body guard lifted Bond. The opening felt like a weak attempt at Kali more than Krav .

All that being said Mendes clearly mentioned how he's a fan of Greengrass's work . I bet if he would examine more closely the work of other prolific action directors , He would be able to a good job. ;)

Here's a good example of a fight scene done right which I came across.







These guys are extremely low budget, If they had a take on Bond, I'd bet they would have found a way to make the Bond-Slate even more intense. :D

doubleoego

Skyfail wrote:

HASEROT wrote:

i am confused here, maybe i saw a different film than what everyone else did.. but i thought the action in Skyfall was handled with class, and for the most part was shot really really well... so it baffles me when i hear people say Mendes can't handle action - or - the action Skyfall was terrible .... are we talking about the amount of action in the film? or the quality in which it was presented on screen (ie: directed, shot, edited, etc). Because for being a 'newcomer' to action, i thought Mendes did a terrific job handling it in those specific scenes... the siege on Skyfall at the end was shot masterfully..

Mate even Forster was a new comer to action .
I thought we all including you had this action discussion earlier,

Let me talk a little about the action used :

Kali/Escrima is a form of martial arts which relies on the use of weapons and using your surroundings to your advantage. It was developed by the Philippines .Warring tribes used it during combat on the beach. Most of the moves are designed to kill an enemy and to move on to the next. Hence most of the moves are banned in martial art sports. This sort of martial arts is used in top tier action movies and It makes perfect sense for Assassins like James Bond, Jason Bourne or Liam Neeson's Character from Taken to use such. This sort of fighting style was heavily used in Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace.

Krav Maga is a form of CQC developed by the israeli military for their combat.

For Skyfall they said they would focus more on Krav Maga than they did so in Quantum Of Solace, I simply didn't see that. I am bit curious on how it would have worked though.
The only Krav centric moves I remembered was when Severine's body guard lifted Bond. The opening felt like a weak attempt at Kali more than Krav .

All that being said Mendes clearly mentioned how he's a fan of Greengrass's work . I bet if he would examine more closely the work of other prolific action directors , He would be able to a good job. ;)

Here's a good example of a fight scene done right which I came across.







These guys are extremely low budget, If they had a take on Bond, I'd bet they would have found a way to make the Bond-Slate even more intense. :D

Throw in some messy brawling and that would be perfect for Bond.

Skyfail

doubleoego wrote:

Throw in some messy brawling and that would be perfect for Bond.

Bingo!

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

HASEROT wrote:

QBranch wrote:

the train top fight and Shanghai skyscraper scenes needed a few more close up shots.

see.. i respectfully disagree about the fight between Bond and Patrice.. i think the long shot slowly pushing in on their silhouettes - and only ever getting a brief glimpse of their faces from the muzzle flash of the rifle was absolutely fantastic.... i find it very very common and unoriginal to constantly go in on closeups during fight scenes.. to be able to pull off such a fight by doing nothing more than leaving the camera still, and letting the two men beat the hell out of each other is not only brilliant, but ballsy... i say ballsy because it's something you don't see done often anymore - as everyone wants to go in tight for the frenetic handhelds.. which does look good when done right.. but it's an overdone cliche' during fights - that and the editing is usually done to mask out the orchestration of a fight, and make it look fast and brutal...... with this particular fight with Bond and Patrice, the fisticuffs were brutal enough, and why deprive the audience of seeing it?..

i dont know... i am probably in the minority when it comes to that particular scene, but it's one of the most beautifully orchestrated shots in the entire series IMO... much like the Opera scene in QOS where Bond and Greene have their stare down with the music blaring - it made me sit back in my seat in theater and utter "wow".. i felt blown away..

That's why I love that scene so much. Great post, @haserot.

Tuulia

^^ Me too. I agree with you completely @haserot.
The Shanghai fight scene is perfect for me the way it is, it is beautiful and unique. I'm all for more gritty and brutal fight scenes like we saw in CR and QOS, but that particular scene is simply a very rare oh-wow fight scene as far as I'm concerned. I love it.

Samuel001

The fights scenes in past Bond films were never as brutal as they were in Casino Royale or Quantum Of Solace, so I feel they wanted to get back to that type of fight, 'how they've always been' in a way. I expect this to continue into the future too.

Tuulia

^^ Possibly yes. Or then it could have simply been mostly Sam.

Skyfail

Samuel001 wrote:

The fights scenes in past Bond films were never as brutal as they were in Casino Royale or Quantum Of Solace, so I feel they wanted to get back to that type of fight, 'how they've always been' in a way. I expect this to continue into the future too.

Never have I been more sad :(

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Skyfail wrote:

Samuel001 wrote:

The fights scenes in past Bond films were never as brutal as they were in Casino Royale or Quantum Of Solace, so I feel they wanted to get back to that type of fight, 'how they've always been' in a way. I expect this to continue into the future too.

Never have I been more sad :(

There are children starving and dying of thirst all over the world; I think you'l get over the pain.

Sandy

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Skyfail wrote:

Samuel001 wrote:

The fights scenes in past Bond films were never as brutal as they were in Casino Royale or Quantum Of Solace, so I feel they wanted to get back to that type of fight, 'how they've always been' in a way. I expect this to continue into the future too.

Never have I been more sad :(

There are children starving and dying of thirst all over the world; I think you'l get over the pain.

I second that @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7.
Just let me get this clear @Skyfail, you never noticed the type of action in Bond films is not as brutal as in CR and QoS? I know I'll get criticized for asking this and I have an odd feeling I won't enjoy the answer but I'll ask it nonetheless: have you watched all of the Bond films?

Skyfail

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Skyfail wrote:

Samuel001 wrote:

The fights scenes in past Bond films were never as brutal as they were in Casino Royale or Quantum Of Solace, so I feel they wanted to get back to that type of fight, 'how they've always been' in a way. I expect this to continue into the future too.

Never have I been more sad :(

There are children starving and dying of thirst all over the world; I think you'l get over the pain.

I do hope so ,



But I just remembered something!
The opening sequences of TLD and others were done nicely,

They are not as Brutal and violent to watch as Casino or Quantum but it was still fun.
If they continue with that personally I wouldn't be too happy, but I would be just well.... ok with it

Skyfail

Sandy wrote:

I second that @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7.
Just let me get this clear @Skyfail, you never noticed the type of action in Bond films is not as brutal as in CR and QoS? I know I'll get criticized for asking this and I have an odd feeling I won't enjoy the answer but I'll ask it nonetheless: have you watched all of the Bond films?

Haha , That's a queer question to ask on a Bond fan site :P

Yes, I did watch all of them many times !
But its not what you think.

I haven't watched them because I loved them , Yes I enjoyed them but I particularly watched them just to spend time with my father who was a huge fan. When Daniel became Bond they wanted to aim for the audiences who looked at Bond as a relic ,They wanted to give Bond a youthly aura, so it will appeal more to a more modern generation. They sold me on that!

My Father gave up on the series after Daniel came, The qualities which he liked in a Bond movie were no more there, its the generational difference actually.
@Getafix did a nice post summing it up

Sandy

Skyfail wrote:

Sandy wrote:

I second that @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7.
Just let me get this clear @Skyfail, you never noticed the type of action in Bond films is not as brutal as in CR and QoS? I know I'll get criticized for asking this and I have an odd feeling I won't enjoy the answer but I'll ask it nonetheless: have you watched all of the Bond films?

Haha , That's a queer question to ask on a Bond fan site :P

Yes, I did watch all of them many times !
But its not what you think.

I haven't watched them because I loved them , Yes I enjoyed them but I particularly watched them just to spend time with my father who was a huge fan. When Daniel became Bond they wanted to aim for the audiences who looked at Bond as a relic ,They wanted to give Bond a youthly aura, so it will appeal more to a more modern generation. They sold me on that!

My Father gave up on the series after Daniel came, The qualities which he liked in a Bond movie were no more there, its the generational difference actually.
@Getafix did a nice post summing it up

You'll be surprised to know that the question has been asked many times in this forum, with strange answers.

You don't need to tell me why Craig became Bond, he's the 4th Bond in my lifetime (though I'm still young). The producers didn't want to give Bond a youthly aura, they simply messed so badly they needed to reset the entire thing and start from scratch. Of course Bond had become a relic, they were doing "Bond by numbers" for years.

From my experience the qualities the old fans enjoyed in Bond were actually lost for many years, since Dalton had left the role, and returned with Craig. That is one of the reasons why you will find a lot of love for Craig in the Originals Thread. Craig didn't just come to appeal to a new generation, it came to return the character to its rightful place, so his portrayal is actually pan-generational. I'm a 3rd generation Bond fan, and my 85 year old grandfather is as enthusiastic about Craig as he is about Connery :)

Skyfail

Sandy wrote:

Skyfail wrote:

Sandy wrote:

I second that @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7.
Just let me get this clear @Skyfail, you never noticed the type of action in Bond films is not as brutal as in CR and QoS? I know I'll get criticized for asking this and I have an odd feeling I won't enjoy the answer but I'll ask it nonetheless: have you watched all of the Bond films?

Haha , That's a queer question to ask on a Bond fan site :P

Yes, I did watch all of them many times !
But its not what you think.

I haven't watched them because I loved them , Yes I enjoyed them but I particularly watched them just to spend time with my father who was a huge fan. When Daniel became Bond they wanted to aim for the audiences who looked at Bond as a relic ,They wanted to give Bond a youthly aura, so it will appeal more to a more modern generation. They sold me on that!

My Father gave up on the series after Daniel came, The qualities which he liked in a Bond movie were no more there, its the generational difference actually.
@Getafix did a nice post summing it up

You'll be surprised to know that the question has been asked many times in this forum, with strange answers.

You don't need to tell me why Craig became Bond, he's the 4th Bond in my lifetime (though I'm still young). The producers didn't want to give Bond a youthly aura, they simply messed so badly they needed to reset the entire thing and start from scratch. Of course Bond had become a relic, they were doing "Bond by numbers" for years.

From my experience the qualities the old fans enjoyed in Bond were actually lost for many years, since Dalton had left the role, and returned with Craig. That is one of the reasons why you will find a lot of love for Craig in the Originals Thread. Craig didn't just come to appeal to a new generation, it came to return the character to its rightful place, so his portrayal is actually pan-generational. I'm a 3rd generation Bond fan, and my 85 year old grandfather is as enthusiastic about Craig as he is about Connery :)

Hey ! There's actually many ways to look at it,
and I guess everyone likes it for their own reasons! :) and I suppose everyone of them is right

But I just said what Michael.G.Wilson said when they rebooted .
I could look it up if you want ?