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
The Bourne Legacy was awful.
Yes, I really do think Babs would love to have the first woman director on board. Bigelow must be the hottest property in town right now - she could probably get almost any project she wanted. But Bond is also a more enticing prospect for a successful director than it used to be.
I have to 'fess up to not having got round to seeing any of her films though...
I feel her Bond film would end up the darkest of them all. Bond would be alcoholic, disarming Bombs in a t-shirt, and water-boarding Q for taking the last doughnut.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21799563
Two-parter?
More: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/features/john-logan-weve-been-expecting-you-mr-pan-8537473.html
1 Quantum will be back in both bond 24 and 25
2 cliff hanger ending?
I would argue Skyfall was stand alone yet had a cliff hanger ending same with Royale
Why? Surely Logan wouldn't want the shackles? I don't understand why one would assume this.
How was it a cliffhanger ending?
It's great to read Logan read Fleming, by coincidence, the year before he was hired to work on Skyfall. I wonder if this helped at all?
That wasn't really a cliffhanger, though. It was just there to show us that Bond was back and would be doing missions again and we would meet him again in Bond 24 with other missions under his belt in between the time frame. I got nothing else from it, and I don't think it was meant to mean anything.
I'm sceptical they'll link the stories. There will definitely be some character continuation but after the financial success of SF will they really put all their eggs in one basket? By that I mean if 24 for some reason doesn't hit the spot, they don't want to be tied down to resolving it in 25. I imagine they'll leave it as malleable as possible.
Oh, is that so? I had no idea. I thought it was for both of the films to tie together somehow.
@Risico007, that's not really a 'cliffhanger' when you know it's just another mission. It's not like it was something set up that others know about, but we don't. At the time of filming that scene, the script wasn't even started yet for 'Bond 24,' I'm sure.
It's the same as saying 'JAMES BOND WILL RETURN' is a cliffhanger.
Well they also released their annual figures just recently, this being the first year in awhile they managed a profit with the success of Skyfall and The Hobbit. So it may just be about that. But I'm sure we'll get something about Bond 24 soon now that awards season is done.
In other news, John Logan himself has confirmed he's back for the next two Bond films:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21799563
and
Skyfall box office updates on major sites end March 10th at $1,108,348,855.
It's a nightmare to try to map such holdings reports on intuitive concepts (like, earning or loosing money :) ), in particular when you have a debt contracted not because of losses year after year, but because the buyers didn't expect the credit crunch when they bought it almost 10 years ago... Other reports (including Mgm's own available on their site - for a few hours yet ?) report positive net incomes for the previous years, for instance.
You can hear one conference call from a few months ago on mgm.com (in which we learn nothing new obviously), it's 30 minutes long, and the Q&A session are the last 10 minutes. One stockholder asked if Bond would be back to the every 2 year release format, and the answer was to care about the script before, but the goal is 2014, and surely 2015 otherwise. It was also explained the Danjaq financials results are confidential, which prevents MGM from giving their own with respect to Skyfall, as elementary mathematics would then reveal Danjaq's !
Tomorrow this conference call may be replaced by the new one.
Well if they want to make their IPO a success, they may start making promises, and that could impact Bond. Don't forget that the news John Logan was working not on the next Bond, but on the next two Bonds, came out in the same period of time when we learnt the Hobbit would be made of three films, not two. All this could be well related : promises of steady, and not "exceptional", profits for a few years.
Tell that to the theaters still selling tickets for it :) It's still playing three times a day at its "home" (Odeon Leicester Square) you know ! In France, I'd say there's a dozen theaters (of the 100/300 seats category) selling tickets for Saturday viewings. I know I'm preaching in the desert here, but IMO you should remove the 7 last digits mininum, and use the word "estimates" ( of 1,11$bn then) (CR's "final" figures were updated just recently !).
Now about Boyle, still from the last issue of Empire :
"Boyle is surprised how much he liked Skyfall. He's such a traditionalist when it comes to Bond - Sean Connery's his man. (...) "I really enjoyed it". [About the Olympics bit] : "We did them a favour, but they did us a favour as well. It was mutual. Barbara Broccoli was very good to us, because they were right in the middle of it. In fact they were behind. It looks easy now it is such a success, but they needed money". Mendes admitted to Boyle that the budget was tight. Foreign locations had to be scrapped, limitations were being enforced on 007's new director. Boyle could sympathise, but he needs restrictions. "You do better work, and he did a really good job of it. I was really proud, because Naomie Harris was in it. He rang me up about Naomie and asked about her (...) The most wonderful thing for me is that Craig is such a good actor" Boyle gives the words a trademark intensity, speaking in italic."
He then adds the Queen asked Craig to stay around so he could have his picture taken with her household staff.
Bond24 will be released within three years. Some say that the shooting will perhaps comence at the end of the year.
Bond 24 could have some big money spent on it though, if need be.
Noted and edited my original post. What I meant was there were no official numbers on the major sites past that date. You could say I meant 'box office run' as 'weekly updates' from the major sources.
In other news..
Ben Wishaw hints at possibly getting out in the field in Bond 24:
http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=10843&t=mi6&s=news
Looks to me that 2014 is the plan. I think the prods are just trying to hammer the script together and are likely talking to directors now. If 2014 is the release date I'd expect an announcement very soon revealing it. Tentpoles have to mark their territory very early on.
But I think the prods are not committing to 2014 until they have the script in good enough strength and have a director they have faith in attached, and if that means a 2015 release then I think the project will take longer coming out of the gate.
I agree. The Hobbit will keep MGM ticking over for the next two years. It's no skin off their nose if Bond doesn't hit in 14. I would say they need to avoid the big guns in 15, but given SF's performance I don't think they really need to worry. The appetite will be there, as long as they can follow up with something great, they'll be laughing.
Craig's got two left in him. I don't see them going beyond that. I reckon his tenure will be wrapped up within the next 5 years.
Agreed. I know Babs can't stop gushing about him but Craig has 2 films left in him, maybe a 3rd depending on when the films gets going. No actor is bigger than Bond not even Daniel Craig.
The highest priority for the prods is that Bond 24 is a good movie, mediocre fair won't cut it after SF, the bar was raised to high. Another QOS or Brosnan-type effort which divides opinion won't cut it otherwise the goodwill of SF would have been for nothing. If the film is second-rate then they would have essentially made a rod for their own backs and we'll have another post-QOS fallout.
All the press interviews from when SF came out said that the extra year developing script was what made SF work and I can see the prods making the decision to take the time and work on the script regardless of how much MGM want to move forward with the film. If you ask me its the main reason why EON haven't revealed a release date, if 2014 was set in stone they would know by now and would have said something, I think its likely the release will be Nov 2015.