SPECTRE Production Timeline

12122242627870

Comments

  • edited May 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Well I edit a lot my posts while you answer them (I'm not a native English speaker so I need some drafts before my final script :) ), but you get the feeling.

    I don't think the "two year crowd" is a bunch of "naive" people who think you can get movies likes this in two year's time from scratch (the rumor about work already started on Bond 25 is then quite some big hope to them !).

    And in the meantime, I see some "I'll wait for 2016 for a good product" who claims to be less naive, but are actually even more irrealistic when it seems they think we can already know the team behind a movie that will be done in 3 years - aka "the whole SF team return" (you're not part of that crowd because you acknowledge we can expect quite some changes, but I don't think at all they think like you do !). Heck, even Sony Entertainment may be totally different at that time !
  • Well I edit a lot my posts while you answer them (I'm not a native English speaker so I need some drafts before my final script :) ), but you get the feeling.

    You phrased it very well @Suivez. :-)
    Hooper's pretty good but actors apparently hate him.

    Really? I'm surprised he's got this far if that's true. Any evidence/anecdotes?

    Sorry @Quarterdeck, I missed this. It's just gossip from people who were involved in the production of The King's Speech so feel free to take it with a pinch of salt - I probably shouldn't have posted it. Apparently, Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush didn't get on with him at all because he's not a great people person and is more interested in technicalities than performances but, that said, so was Hitchcock!
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Apparently, Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush didn't get on with [Hooper] at all because he's not a great people person and is more interested in technicalities than performances but, that said, so was Hitchcock!

    A rumor I heard (not on the Internet - but don't think I'm an insider!) about Deakins' bad reputation is strengthened by the fact that voters from the Academy won't vote for him (but peers or fellow countrymen will) :)

    But in such jobs, "being cool" is often a problem actually ! In France's biggest newspaper, a paper about the director of the last Palme d'Or in Cannes describes him as a kind of cult leader, no less...
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 136
    Hooper's pretty good but actors apparently hate him.

    Really? I'm surprised he's got this far if that's true. Any evidence/anecdotes?

    "Sorry @Quarterdeck, I missed this. It's just gossip from people who were involved in the production of The King's Speech so feel free to take it with a pinch of salt - I probably shouldn't have posted it. Apparently, Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush didn't get on with him at all because he's not a great people person and is more interested in technicalities than performances but, that said, so was Hitchcock![/quote]"

    Thanks for the reply. There may be something in it (a la Hitchcock) - I did see an interview with him round the time of the Oscars where he did come over a bit technically obsessesed/perfectionist (maybe that's what annoys the actors!)

    Still, as I type, the pendulum seems to have swung back towards Mendes (B24 AND B25 if you believe some gossip...)
  • Posts: 9,847
    Sadly it seems Mendes is confirmed mind you I didn't hate Skyfall just wasn't impressed by it either so having him back is still kind of sad..
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    That's a day old, nothing new since the Showbiz411 latest.

    Let's see what Deadline says.
  • Posts: 562
    Samuel001 wrote:
    That's a day old, nothing new since the Showbiz411 latest.

    Let's see what Deadline says.

    Deadline's latest is older than the Daliy Mail's.

  • Posts: 5,745
    Agent005 wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    That's a day old, nothing new since the Showbiz411 latest.

    Let's see what Deadline says.

    Deadline's latest is older than the Daliy Mail's.

    Maybe he said "let's see" because of the impending updated article from them.
  • Posts: 562
    Ah, I see.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 1,021
    Great news about the possible return of Mendes to the directors chair for Bond 24. BB and MGW probably realised that even if they hired another director they probably were not ready to shoot until at least at the beginning of next year - therefore why not just try and get Mendes back when he becomes available. I still believe that a late 2014 release is possible - probably not the release date of late October and November like for SF but maybe a late December release date (Just like TND which opened in the US against TITANIC). Remember great films can be turned around quite quickly. Even though they are not on the same scale Spielberg started filming MUNICH in late July of 2005 and the film was released in late December of 2005! Less than 6 months! If the producers wait to release Bond 24 at the end of December 2014 (during the lucrative Christmas season) and not at the end of October they have already gained themselves 2 months even if they start 2 months later than filming began on SF. Also the 2nd Unit could start shooting way before the main unit commences. Mendes did spectacular work on SF and I am thrilled that he might be returning for Bond 24. If the production team can get Bond 24 out by late 2014 then that would be great. But I can happily wait for a 2015 release if we get a film as good as or better than SF!...and don't forget you can release a film anytime of the year and it could still make a billion dollars! (example Alice In Wonderland opened in March!)
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Agent005 wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    That's a day old, nothing new since the Showbiz411 latest.

    Let's see what Deadline says.

    Deadline's latest is older than the Daliy Mail's.

    Maybe he said "let's see" because of the impending updated article from them.

    That's right. This is the most recent update we have:

    http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/05/29/confirmed-skyfall-director-sam-mendes-in-for-bond-24-and-likely-25
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I'm very curious to see what comes of this. Seems almost confirmed at this point.
  • Posts: 9,847
    Sigh was hoping for a new director but hopefully at the very least it can film more on location.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited May 2013 Posts: 13,355
    With the money Skyfall took I think we can look forward to a more location-based film.
  • Posts: 9,847
    my only 2 complaints with Skyfall are simple,

    1. It's essentially M's film M's Story and Bond is just really a guest star in his own movie but unless the new M's daughter is kidnapped or some such plot is established I hope Bond 24 will be exclusively about Bond's story.

    2. the locations felt very fake and except for the Asian stuff it felt very dark and drabby.

    I liked Skyfall I need to point this out is it as good as Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace no but its better then most of the Moore entries the Brosnan era and even the later Connery entries (Specifically better then Diamonds are forever and Goldfinger)

    Like I said I enjoyed it but I am just a little concerned for all I know Mendes can give me a bond film I want A high octain thriller adventure which has 007 searching the world to solve some great mystery/conspiracy Location in New York and Seychelles Islands The Hildebrand Rarity as the title even Yes doing the theme all of that could very well happen (and Emma Stone as a bond girl) Mendes coming back doesn't mean we will get Skyfall 2.0 but since I am just ok with Skyfall I am just ok with this news.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited May 2013 Posts: 40,976
    How did the locations feel fake? And perhaps Mendes will give us something totally different (to a certain degree), as he said everything he wanted to do, he did in SF. Thus, he'll have to create a whole new platter of material to work with.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Right. It makes sense we're going to go in the opposite direction, if only to keep Mendes interested.
  • Posts: 9,847
    Creasy47 wrote:
    How did the locations feel fake? And perhaps Mendes will give us something totally different (to a certain degree), as he said everything he wanted to do, he did in SF. Thus, he'll have to create a whole new platter of material to work with.

    Fake is perhaps the wrong word and as soon as I posted it I realized someone was going to ask about it... I will take back that comment and say they spent way to much time in London in both filming and well being there in the film.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @Risico007, I think for the 50th Anniversary, it was incredibly suiting for British agent James Bond to spend a good bit of time in London. Very fitting, indeed.
  • Posts: 136
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Right. It makes sense we're going to go in the opposite direction, if only to keep Mendes interested.

    True. Given Mendes apparently had a hand in coming up with the idea for B24 along with Logan - maybe now he's seen what Logan has done with it, it's perked him up a bit!

    Wild Card Theory: MGW/Babs said they could work with Mendes in the future, if not B24...a later one. Perhaps they're lining up 24 & 25 in one schedule (which would take advatange of Craig's diminishing time to keep at the role) with Mendes pegged in for 25 and a new director for 24.

    Or not...!

    Mind you that kind of thinking would give credence to 24-25 one-plot rumours.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Why would we get a half arsed film in November though? There's no reason to think that.
    Germanlady wrote:
    I remember Forster saying the 4 months he has had was not enough.

    Exactly, @Germanlady. Every single Bond director in the last 30 years who has had to turn around a film on a two-year schedule has complained that the short development and prep time is too tight. John Glen was complaining about the problem during the filming of FYEO (and throughout the 80s), Roger Spottiswoode was very vocal about it, Michael Apted also complained about the same problem with TWINE and we all know about the problems Marc Forster had turning around QoS (exacerbated, in his case, by the writers' strike.)

    By contrast, a longer development period led to critical and commercial success with TSWLM, GE, CR and SF.

    I can understand why fans want Bond films released more regularly but it's just silly to pretend that the length of time spent in development makes no difference to the end product.

    Except the elephant in the room that no one is mentioning is the increased development time between B19 and B20. Remind me how that turned out again?

    It all depends when Logan started the script. If the script is finished now and they get a director locked in by the start of June then late 2014 is achievable.
  • Posts: 1,817
    Risico007 wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    How did the locations feel fake? And perhaps Mendes will give us something totally different (to a certain degree), as he said everything he wanted to do, he did in SF. Thus, he'll have to create a whole new platter of material to work with.

    Fake is perhaps the wrong word and as soon as I posted it I realized someone was going to ask about it... I will take back that comment and say they spent way to much time in London in both filming and well being there in the film.

    What you call fake I think was awesome. Many of us who have read Fleming's Moonraker were eager to see a movie that spends more time in London.
    I mean, I love those previous moments like the shot of the Big Ben in GF, the Thames in TWINE, the hidden MI6 in DAD, so SF was even greater.
  • Posts: 9,847
    I just felt London was so dreary and gray. Again Skyfall is just ok. Man if I told people what I really thought I would be in trouble lol...

    Honestly I liked Skyfall and yes I read All of Flemings bond novels (when I suggest Vermont or Upstate New York both were used a few times by Fleming I am laughed at) but I feel London was very dreary and gray and while it usually is bond goes off to some glamorous location after seeing gray. In Skyfall the gray dreariness overshadowed Bond in Shang hai or Macau. There are beautiful parts of both London and Scotland I just feel in skyfall they were dreary and gray.. And now for the thought that is going to upset people I am sorry but The Bourne Legacy was a prettier film the shots in Alaska and Malta were amazing.

    Let me make it clear here I am not saying The Bourne Legacy is better then Skyfall I am just saying the locations looked nicer.

    But we all yearn for different things from Fleming I yearn use of a rural USA that Fleming did and Seychelles islands to be used (along with the Hildebrand rarity and maybe plot elements of the short story to be used)

    They are all just opinions I feel a certain way about skyfall you feel a different way it's all good :)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @Risico007, I think a good bit of the 'gray' and 'dreariness' you speak of in the London scenes really fits with what is going down: Bond returning after M believes he's dead, the PTS scene with M handling Bond being shot, the attack on MI-6, the attack on M and the train, Bond overlooking the city after M's death, etc. A good portion of the filming in London involves pretty depressing/emotional scenes.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 2,599
    I'm not sure how much of a good thing it is that Mendes is supposedly coming back. Didn't really like Bond's humour in SF. I liked what they did with it in CR. Mendes gave us an actual Bond film though that isn't just filled with action which was great. Every three years is a long time. It would be great to see Craig do atleast two more Bond films but 6 years is a long time and he's not getting any younger. Would Craig stay on for this long? If the Bond films were to come out every two years, then I'd be more confident that we'd get atleast two more Bond films from Craig - Bond 24 and 25.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Germanlady wrote:
    I still say, they should go for a summer shoot for a mid 15 release. If it was so terrible to release films in summer, nobody would. Its crowded yes, but I doubt a good film will make considerably less because of that. Then they can start again in Nov 16 for a Nov 17 release of 25 and still have a good break in between.

    I also really miss the films being released in the summer. I have such great memories of it and would love to see a Bond movie in the summertime again someday.

    However, I think that the chances of this are quite slim. I'm sure they'll go with the "if it aint broke don't fix it" logic on this. Especially after all the money that Skyfall made last November.

    Le sigh...
  • Posts: 4,409
    I think Summer 2015 is highly unlikely.

    Firstly, Summer that year is pretty much booked-up with tentpole studio pictures. 3 huge movies are coming out that summer, Star Wars, The Avengers 2 and Pirates 5. Each will be huge, and in the case of Star Wars and Avengers we're talking about potential films that could crack the top 3 box-office earners of all time. All 3 films will play all summer long and there will be the additional crop of counter-programming adult comedies etc. Bond 24 would fare well, it's likely that the film would have the strongest legs internationally over the other films, but domestically it could take a hit. Not a big enough hit to sink the entire ship but the sheer crowded nature of the marketplace will make things difficult for Bond to really stand out.

    Secondly, Bond and SF in particular have done wonders in their November slot for over 17 years. Why change? There is a lot of precedent that the films work in that release window. Creative risks should be encouraged but in terms of business it would be foolhardy to ignore such clear evidence, Bond is a proven hit during these months.

    I would put money for November 2015. I'm with you guys though, I'd love to see Bond 24 sooner rather than later. But you only need to look at this board to see the admiration for CR compared to the general disdain of QOS. Imagine if QOS had a year to work through it's script issues; the likelihood is that people would have different opinions. I think we'd all rather wait and get a better film (like SF) than have EON rush something out and have it be sub-par (QOS).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @Pierce2Daniel, I couldn't possibly agree more with you. With a summer like that - and most summers end up being that filled with huge blockbusters that are likely to break lots of records - and a greater possibility for a better film if they're given more time, I would much rather wait. But, there are some on here who seem to not care who the director is, they just want Bond ASAP. If that's the case, and we get Bond next year with little-to-no time put into it, that's when we get a sub-par movie that lots of people seem to loathe and find themselves saying "Well, maybe next time." or "Why didn't they take more time?"

    I would always rather wait longer for something than get it when I want it and risk having a mediocre product. Just look at video games: when some get big six-nine month delays, I'm happy, because that's so much more time they get to put into it.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think Summer 2015 is highly unlikely.

    Firstly, Summer that year is pretty much booked-up with tentpole studio pictures. 3 huge movies are coming out that summer, Star Wars, The Avengers 2 and Pirates 5. Each will be huge, and in the case of Star Wars and Avengers we're talking about potential films that could crack the top 3 box-office earners of all time. All 3 films will play all summer long and there will be the additional crop of counter-programming adult comedies etc. Bond 24 would fare well, it's likely that the film would have the strongest legs internationally over the other films, but domestically it could take a hit. Not a big enough hit to sink the entire ship but the sheer crowded nature of the marketplace will make things difficult for Bond to really stand out.

    Secondly, Bond and SF in particular have done wonders in their November slot for over 17 years. Why change? There is a lot of precedent that the films work in that release window. Creative risks should be encouraged but in terms of business it would be foolhardy to ignore such clear evidence, Bond is a proven hit during these months.

    I would put money for November 2015. I'm with you guys though, I'd love to see Bond 24 sooner rather than later. But you only need to look at this board to see the admiration for CR compared to the general disdain of QOS. Imagine if QOS had a year to work through it's script issues; the likelihood is that people would have different opinions. I think we'd all rather wait and get a better film (like SF) than have EON rush something out and have it be sub-par (QOS).

    The difference is, Bond 24's script got a massive head start. Work began on it about a year ago, that's already given it a significant advantage over the script for QoS. I think the script for Bond 24 is in pretty good shape already and if the cameras were to start rolling in the first quarter of next year, that's still another 6 to 7 months at least to still work on the script and enough time to get the film out at the back end of 2014 without the film suffering the handicaps of QoS.
Sign In or Register to comment.