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 actually hope for 2018, with Daniel Craig. 3-year-gap works perfect for me. Productions have grown through the decades. And back in 1965 Bond fans could witness their last time a Bond film was going to be released within 1 year. Which, luckily, isn't the case anymore.
I think we're spoiled brats at times. Really, were QOS and TND so good after their 2-year gaps? I prefer a good proper, long pre-production and if possible a 7-month principal photography instead of 6 months. The extra time could help the Bond film become better as well.
And, let's not forget that for other big blockbusters 3-year or even 4-year gaps are by far very normal. Look at "The Dark Knight" (2008) vs. "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012). Or "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" (2011) vs. "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation". In any case, it wouldn't hurt the franchise. And it's actually much nicer for big actors like Christian Bale, Tom Cruise and Daniel Craig to have some space for other projects, so that when they return, they go back to work with a happy face....
This is a fallacy, really. Every writer and film maker will bite your hand of for more time, but it's usually the last thing they need. Deadlines are key. There is no correlation between schedule and quality. Sometimes films need a lengthy production process, at other times everybody needs a good kick up the arse. It isn't a science. It's a case of EON measuring the pulse of the production and making sure it keeps ticking as it should. Bringing back P+W at such a late juncture suggests things weren't necessarily orchestrated seamlessly with SP, but these things happen and it may turn our fantastically, as is the unpredictable nature of the business.
Whether the next film is two or three years down the line is irrelevant, the key players will have to adjust themselves accordingly. What it really boils down to is whether they have a story they want to tell. If they do, and they have the energy, a two year window is completely practical. If they don't, they should find a writer or director who has a clear vision for where Bond should go and give them the keys to the castle. If that means a longer gestation period then fine.
It strikes me as odd that studios want 1-2 years between films nowadays. I think 3 is perfect. Bond can do 2, but I don't mind the 3.
A longer gap can sometimes work against the film though. The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises had 4 years. Because of that, fans got anxious. It didn't help that WB gave almost no info about the film to wet appetites. The result was a lot of people built the film up in their head and when the finished film didn't match it, some people rejected it (I personally think it's a solid film).
That's a shame. The Royal Albert Hall is a beautiful building, but it's a terrible place to watch a movie.
Actually, around the release of Ghost Protocol, there was talk of Jeremy Renner having been brought in as a potential replacement for Cruise.
An even worse effect is that the press loves a void, and instead of covering the film itself in the coming months, they will dwell on who is going to be the next Bond with many actors, most prominently Elba, rushing to promote themselves aggressively as the next Bond. This is not a productive way to promote SP.
EON's failure to clear this up must be because Craig is either not doing B25 and they don't want to announce it before SP opens, or they are both waiting to see how SP does before a decision is made. There is also the possibility that something else is going on with the next distribution studio. This replacement buzz could be killed with one emphatically clear statement from EON. Something is obviously blocking it.
Personally I think Bond will return in 2018 although ofcourse a 2 year gap would be great, but that'll only happen if as I have already said the next script is already in development?
Not to play, Hunt. So a completely different scenario. Not even close to recasting Bond. Merely switching the lead in a franchise film.
At the SKYFALL premiere I had a side view, but it still was a blast.
The movie was great, the atmosphere was great.
I hope that they will sell tickets to the public again.
Would be cool to be "inside" for the second time at a Bond world premiere.
edit: thanks for the correction, doubleoego
They sometimes sell tickets to the public?? I may have to take off from work and fly trans-Atlantic this October....
Skyfall.
And yes, it was an amazing event although I was pissed that they made audiences handing their cameras/phones and lo and behold I'm seeing people in the actual auditorium with their phones and cameras taking pics and recording. I won't be making that mistake again.
It was not a mistake.
It has something to do with respect.
I didn't even took a phone or a camera with me on the red carpet, because I thought we would have to hand them in before entering the carpet.
But the "because he or she did it, I will do it, too"-thinking is childish.
Well, just to qualify that a bit, conceptual work & R&D are in the works for some VFX earlier in the process, along with previs, but the actual shots don't get worked on till there is an assembly, so getting a locked cut to work from -- so everybody knows just how many frames a shot is going to run, something you only have an approximation of till final editorial calls are made -- is the time when the post crunch comes, which is what has hurt some Bond movies in the past. On QUANTUM, the various teams and vendors working for Kevin Haug had a bit less than 90 days to do most of the post VFX after Forster's cut was locked, and that show had over 900 VFX shots in it, and I think was the first show where they had to use several effects facilities.
Yes, I was referring to R&D etc. I think you're right on QoS, I seem to recall a friend of mine at MPC saying at the time that most of the Soho houses were doing at least some work on the film.
Some French VFX artists (who are still active but who did not work themselves on Skyfall, but as you probably know this is a world where people talk a lot amongst peers) told me that the producers decided to create a "fake IMAX" for Skyfall very late in the process, which means the CG was not done for many IMAX frames : the CG would stop at the normal frame. Which means that for the IMAX showings, they had no choice but to zoom into the frame for such scenes. Which means that for these scenes, the IMAX showings had in fact less image content than the normal showings.
Since then, I've tried to found IMAX ratio videos or even just IMAX ratio frames of Skyfall to check if it was a true story, but it's incredibly hard to find them. Even the IMAX trailers are not in IMAX ratios :)
Antovolk, if you have access to IMAX videos of Skyfall, try to look at Silva's CG island and CG enhanced scenes on the set of it for instance. Is there more done for IMAX, or is it just a zoom in that looses image content elsewhere ?
Im not sure, but I have seen the enhanced ratio version when it was broadcast on ITV and the image was not zoomed in - there was additional image at the top and bottom of the screen and this included the cgi shots. When it's next on the tv I'll take some screen grabs.
We all can go to the red carpet... for a price...
Ha ha, forgive me, I used google translate, but can anyone speaking the native tongue confirm that the word 'modest' is tongue in cheek?