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 did not know that.
I still stand by my comments though that DC's Bond era has (in totality) mirrored the Nolan Batman universe more than any other, with SP being a follow on from the first three sort of tying it all together (similar to how TDKR followed from TDK and BB). In a way, what you've just said shows further similarities (DC waited for Mendes like Bale waited for Nolan). Mendes himself has just said that he and DC found a way to sort of wrap up the story from SF/CR/QoS with SP in a recent interview....or words to that effect.
At least that's what I've read.
This could be revisionist history on his part, but DC sort of says that in an EW interview:
But when Skyfall director Sam Mendes initially declined an offer to direct the sequel, Craig faced the limits of his ambition. The performer admits he didn’t want to continue without Mendes on the project. “They were very keen, as studios would be, to ride the wave. ‘Let’s do another one. And another one! Before everybody forgets!’” Craig says. “[Mendes] had a lot of other commitments. He needed that space to go, ‘F— this! I don’t want to think about Bond!’… I just was like, ‘Ew.’ At first, it was like, ‘Oh f—.’ I thought, ‘I’m gonna do it with him. I’m not going to do it with anybody else. I want to do it with him.’"
Under a five-film contract with Eon Productions, Craig was, in all likelihood, obligated to make the sequel with whomever the producers installed as director. However, the actor never explored his opt-out clauses because Mendes was ultimately persuaded to return. His impetus: to tell the “Bond creation myth,” providing back story in Spectre about key events and people from the agent’s past who made him the “blunt instrument” for Her Majesty’s Secret Service that 007 eventually became. (For more on that, check out this week’s cover story in Entertainment Weekly.) “We’ve squared a few holes in this and made a conscious decision to wrap up some loose ends,” says Craig. “That’s not the main thrust of the film. It’s the foundation of the film. It does pay in somewhere.”
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/10/21/daniel-craig-didnt-want-portray-james-bond-again-without-sam-mendes-im-not
I think you're right. It was more a very strong preference (and DC is very influential with EON) rather than a hissy fit. However, the similarities to the Nolan/Bale/Bat scenario for TDKR are there, within reason.
Bale "refusing" was never really on the cards, was it? He was contracted for 3, he had to sign for 3 to begin with if he wanted to do any at all. I'm sure his preference was to finish it with Nolan, but it was not his decision to make, really. If he hadn't been asked to do another after the first, that would have been it, but since he was, he was doing the three, whoever the director. He did love the character, and making those movies, and it sounded like he would have been more than happy to do more as well if Nolan had, but that is another matter. He wasn't going to "refuse" to do the three he had signed on for.
:)
Bale certainly didn't "wait for Nolan", he was there when asked to be and didn't get to choose the director. Craig hardly waited for Mendes, either, but rather EON did, surely.
Yes, "a very strong preference" for both actors. I assume Craig might have been let go if he had wanted to, I assume the contract situation might be quite different.
In the case of Bond, I'm quite certain both DC & EON were very insistent on Mendes coming back (after all DC is the one who got Sam Mendes for SF from what I've read, and it ended up making everyone a boatload of money). Mendes sort of confirms it in the below article excerpt.
In both cases, I don't think we were being literal - just that there was a strong preference by the actor for the director to come back and wrap up the story. I'm sure it was influential in both cases, whatever the legal requirements might have been. Happy actor, happy production and all that stuff...
Daniel Craig told us that he was ‘begging’ you to direct another Bond movie after ‘Skyfall’. Is that true?
‘There was a small threat of physical violence and there were offers of free tickets to see Arsenal play Liverpool. [Mendes is an Arsenal fan; Craig supports Liverpool.] Seriously, it was very flattering and it made a big difference. Making “Spectre” has been more gruelling than making “Skyfall”. But it was also more enjoyable. A large part of that has to do with the fact I felt very in sync with Daniel. I had a real ally.’
Presumably there was persuasion from other quarters too…
‘Yes, there was. But in truth I wasn’t persuaded to do the movie. There were other issues. I wasn’t available to start on the movie immediately, and that’s what they wanted. There was also talk of doing two movies back to back. And I said: I literally can’t do that. Physically, I’ll die. Not to mention Daniel. So that was also in the air. I also had some very big ideas for the story that I wanted them to be behind. That’s hard to talk about until you’ve seen the movie.’
http://www.timeout.com/london/film/sam-mendes-on-daniel-craig-killing-off-m-and-returning-to-bond-for-spectre
BB stands for Big Borrow as it essentially nicks story and visuals of the 1994 Shadow movie. ( http://www.shadowsanctum.net/interactive/tidbits_archive/shadow_batman-movie_comparisons.html ) ,
A series that begins with so much unoriginal ideas never did inspire me too much.
Like you I'm absolutely sure both Craig and EON wanted Mendes back (similar case with that other franchise), that's just a very different scenario from the actor getting to make that decision somehow.
I would assume, considering TDK's huge success, WB would have wanted to make a third film with or without Nolan and the same actor would have been in the role unless they wanted to create a completely different kind of thing with it (as they are doing now). Even without TDK I suspect WB would have wanted to revive the franchise at that point, and not just drop it after one movie (unless it was a disaster and very badly received). In other words, even if Nolan had been unavailable to do a second one there most likely would have been one.
EON obviously would have made another Bond film regardless of Skyfall being as huge as it was or not, but since it was, it made sense to ask the director back and even more so considering the relationship with the actor. Again, though, if Mendes had been unavailable, there still would have been not only another Bond movie, but most likely another one with Craig. I can't really imagine he would have flat out refused to work with any other director anymore than Bale would have. Unless, Craig didn't really want to do more Bond, anyway - and if he didn't I assume there's only so much a choice of director could help. Surely the first choice has to be the character and continued interest in it, before the director issue even comes up.
A very different situation though... Nolan was given a franchise and invited new pal Bale along. Craig was given a franchise and invited old pal Mendes along a couple of movies in. Just very different dynamics.
We all know that when Craig leaves and some other guy signs up for the role the best director for the new guy´s debut is Martin Campbell. Been there, done that!
So Nolan for the Craig´s sunset ride and Campbell (again) in the line of duty to introduce new James?
Can´t see that happening but I have nothing against the idea.
Not here to convince anyone of anything... just want to spark minds, nurture debate, etc. :>
0.50 "I wanted to address the story very much in the language of suspense. That's the most visual language of film there is, and so it lends you towards an approach stripped down on dialogue."
Nolan is talking about Dunkirk of course, but does that quote not ring true of what is needed in Bond at the moment? I stripped down, cinematic approach that puts suspense ahead of dialogue?