Bond 24 officially set for 2014

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Napoleon Solo wrote:

Perhaps Michael G. Wilson will avoid the temptation to say how exhausting making a Bond movie is.

**sigh** Back to the salt mines.

LOL. That about sums it up.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Edgar Wright.

As a big Edgar Wright fan, I'd love to see what he'd come up with (he would certainly bring a lighter touch). Alas, EON would never go for him, certainly not as a follow-up to Mendes.

And I guarantee you we're not going to get a drama-light Bond film while Craig's around.

This would appear to be the case. Craig wants to do character-driven dramas. With Craig, every film, will have to have some big dramtic hook. We won't get the, "this is your mission Bond, get to it" approach again, until after Craig is gone, and he's good for at least two more films post SF, maybe 4 more. He's got no reason to leave.

I like Tux's suggestion though of a Guy Hamilton-style Bond-director. Realistically post Craig, but as there will be a post-Craig Bond era, and as Eon tends to correct direction, once it seems to lilt one way for too long, we may see a return to GF style pictures post Craig.

Napoleon Solo wrote:

We'll see. It was Sony that made the announcement. MGM previously (when it filed its reorganization plan in bankruptcy court) said it also wanted to return the series to an every-other-year schedule. We have yet to hear someone from Eon on the subject. Still, Sony and MGM signing the checks and they *want* a new movie in two years.

If they do intend to meet that kind of schedule, some work about a story (not necessarily a first draft or even a completed outline) should be underway this fall. Perhaps Michael G. Wilson will avoid the temptation to say how exhausting making a Bond movie is.

I think one of the problems here is that Sony just want a tentpole every two years, but EON have other things they have to consider. For example, will Mendes even want to come back? Do you want to commit to Mendes for another film if you haven't found out what the public and the critics think of his work yet? That seems risky. EON has always responded to public tastes and opinion (even when their films are successful; witness the changes in tone after the money-making MR and DAD).

And if Mendes doesn't want to come back, can you find a replacement who'll be ready to go in time to have the next movie ready two years after SF? The problem is further compunded whenever Craig leaves. Can they find a replacement in time for the next film to come out bang on schedule?

I wonder if the movie every two years is feasible anymore, especially since they don't have much Fleming material to mine anymore, and since the movies have, as Tiff points out, become more dramatic and less straightforward missions over the years. Plus, the movie industry might be changing so that's it's harder and harder to do big-budget films every two years. EON did movies once a year from DN-TB. When they tried that in 1974 with TMWTGG the resulting product was rushed and poorly received. Then they stuck with a film every two years, but two of the last three times they've tried that (TND and QOS) the result has been rushed (and I'm one of the few people on these boards who love TWINE, which also had a two year schedule). A lot of other franchises take three years between films anymore. Will Bond have to as well?

I hope Eon can pull off every two years.

Unless Mendes does something really politically heinous with SF or something else Bond-sacriligous, requiring me to remove his film from canon, as I needed to do with QoS, then I'm happy to have him back, if it helps get the next film out on schedule.

Yes, I would like a fresh film every two years please, although I would settle for three, if that's the way of the film world for now, but every two years would be best, thanks. :)

tiffanywint wrote:

This would appear to be the case. Craig wants to do character-driven dramas. With Craig, every film, will have to have some big dramtic hook. We won't get the, "this is your mission Bond, get to it" approach again, until after Craig is gone, and he's good for at least two more films post SF, maybe 4 more. He's got no reason to leave.

Well, let's face it, many of the other Bonds wanted the same thing, they just didn't get the clout to do it.

Connery had lost interest in Bond by GOLDFINGER. Dalton's films were the ones that pushed us into the "this time it's personal" direction, taking their cue from the star's approach to the role. Brosnan kept pushing for exactly the kind of stories Craig has gotten to do thus far, though he never got his wish.

Only Rog, really, seemed to truly love the frivolities the role offered, and didn't feel a need to construe Bond into something to feed his inner thespian.

It doesn't even need to be a GF. A FRWL would be great. Colorful, but also tense.

I'd also like something in the FYEO/OP realm. I hesitate to add AVTAK, even though I've warmed to it. Really, I like the TSWLM-TLD era where it felt like each new film was just another adventure and you had some recurring people show up.

re: Edgar Wright. I've never seen any of his films all the way through, but he sounds like a nice idea.

I know, they should hire me.

tiffanywint wrote:

This would appear to be the case. Craig wants to do character-driven dramas. With Craig, every film, will have to have some big dramtic hook. We won't get the, "this is your mission Bond, get to it" approach again, until after Craig is gone, and he's good for at least two more films post SF, maybe 4 more. He's got no reason to leave.

God, I hope you are wrong. 4 more films? I can't fathom that. I don't think he'll look good enough to hold up for 8 more years, and I assume by that time Barbara will have moved on to a younger actor (professionally speaking of course).

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

This would appear to be the case. Craig wants to do character-driven dramas. With Craig, every film, will have to have some big dramtic hook. We won't get the, "this is your mission Bond, get to it" approach again, until after Craig is gone, and he's good for at least two more films post SF, maybe 4 more. He's got no reason to leave.

God, I hope you are wrong. 4 more films? I can't fathom that. I don't think he'll look good enough to hold up for 8 more years, and I assume by that time Barbara will have moved on to a younger actor (professionally speaking of course).

Well, I think there was a point around the time when DAD was released where Brosnan openly talked about how he wanted to equal or beat Sean and Roger's records of seven Bond films. We all know how long that sense of triumphalism lasted . . .

So I really don't pay much attention to what the EON spin machine (of which Craig is currently part) is saying. Craig is currently playing the same, "the last Bond film was sh**e, but this one is the best ever" schitck that Brosnan did during the production of every new movie back when he (Brosnan) was part of the EON spin machine.

Harmsway wrote:

Only Rog, really, seemed to truly love the frivolities the role offered, and didn't feel a need to construe Bond into something to feed his inner thespian.

Probably though because he thought/knew he didn't have the ability to do so.

Nah, he had the ability. FYEO to AVTAK showed bits of him playing it seriously and he came off quite convincingly, but he was never going take it any further than that otherwise it would be too far for how he established his Bond. Tom Mankiewicz said that it's best to have the actors play to their strengths and humor/self-deprecation was a real natural for Moore.

FieldsMan wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Only Rog, really, seemed to truly love the frivolities the role offered, and didn't feel a need to construe Bond into something to feed his inner thespian.

Probably though because he thought/knew he didn't have the ability to do so.

Or because he recognised that James Bond was a hedonistic pulp hero and not a Linkin Park album.

In Sir Rog's words: "To me, the Bond situations are so ridiculous, so outrageous. I mean, this man is supposed to be a spy and yet, everybody knows he's a spy. Every bartender in the world offers him martinis that are shaken, not stirred. What kind of serious spy is recognized everywhere he goes? It's outrageous. So you have to treat the humor outrageously as well. My personality is entirely different than previous Bonds. I'm not that cold-blooded killer type. Which is why I play it mostly for laughs."

If SKYFALL hits well at the box office, I could see Mendes being hired again. I'm sure Babs just loves tying an Oscar-lover to Bond and her PC campaign.

Mr. Brown wrote:

If SKYFALL hits well at the box office, I could see Mendes being hired again. I'm sure Babs just loves tying an Oscar-lover to Bond and her PC campaign.

Oh, well that's an original thought for a change. ;)

CJB wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Only Rog, really, seemed to truly love the frivolities the role offered, and didn't feel a need to construe Bond into something to feed his inner thespian.

Probably though because he thought/knew he didn't have the ability to do so.

Or because he recognised that James Bond was a hedonistic pulp hero and not a Linkin Park album.

In Sir Rog's words: "To me, the Bond situations are so ridiculous, so outrageous. I mean, this man is supposed to be a spy and yet, everybody knows he's a spy. Every bartender in the world offers him martinis that are shaken, not stirred. What kind of serious spy is recognized everywhere he goes? It's outrageous. So you have to treat the humor outrageously as well. My personality is entirely different than previous Bonds. I'm not that cold-blooded killer type. Which is why I play it mostly for laughs."

Rog got it. There is a sense of the outrageous in cinematic Bond. Along with the Benign Bizarre, it goes without saying. I hope the outrageousness returns in SF.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

This would appear to be the case. Craig wants to do character-driven dramas. With Craig, every film, will have to have some big dramtic hook. We won't get the, "this is your mission Bond, get to it" approach again, until after Craig is gone, and he's good for at least two more films post SF, maybe 4 more. He's got no reason to leave.

God, I hope you are wrong. 4 more films? I can't fathom that. I don't think he'll look good enough to hold up for 8 more years, and I assume by that time Barbara will have moved on to a younger actor (professionally speaking of course).

Micolli's modus operandi seems to be cranking out the films while expending the least amount of energy possible. For this reason and this reason alone, they'll milk DC for all he's worth and then some. I can see Craig in five more Bond films.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Micolli's modus operandi seems to be cranking out the films while expending the least amount of energy possible.

I generally tend to ignore most the EON-bashing 'round these parts, but this strikes me as particularly unfair.

Harmsway wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Micolli's modus operandi seems to be cranking out the films while expending the least amount of energy possible.

I generally tend to ignore most the EON-bashing 'round these parts, but this strikes me as particularly unfair.

How else to explain Micolli's desperate attempts to lock up every single director--no matter how horrid--long-term? And then we've got Wilson's plaints about how "exhausting" it is to make Bond films.

Well, Buddy, you're earning mega-millions to engage in this onerous labor and your lifestyle is filled with more glamour than the rest of us can possibly imagine. If it ever gets too much for you, give my agent a jingle, alright? We'll do lunch. Ciao!

I doubt EON's opinions about how successful or not-successful the directors of the more recent Bond films have been match neatly with the opinions of the fanbase.

True, I do suspect that EON longs for a director because they want to ease the process of making a Bond film. They want to give the next up-and-coming Bond film as much--ahem--direction as possible early in the process. Under Cubby (especially during Glen's tenure), the Bond team tended to function as a very neat production unit. The Bond franchise has never been anywhere near as consistent since Cubby died, in part because no director has been willing to come aboard as a staple of the Bond production team. So I hardly think it's actually lazy of EON to want a more solid, consistent Bond production team. It's really just good business sense. Their constant rehiring of directors has often gotten them in a bit of a jam.

And Wilson might be checking out--the man is seventy, after all--but if you think Babs doesn't have a lot invested in the franchise at this point, you're nuts.

Harmsway wrote:

I doubt EON's opinions about how successful or not-successful the directors of the more recent Bond films have been match neatly with the opinions of the fanbase.

Well, it's rather difficult to say, isn't it?

At one point DC is praising Forster to the heavens and practically offering sexual favors if he'll return. Next he's talking about what a bollixed up film QOS was and how SF must depart from it dramatically and improve into the bargain.

As for the consistency of returning directors, you may have a point. But does anybody really think the series would have benefitted from four straight Tamawhoreys?

Perilagu Khan wrote:

At one point DC is praising Forster to the heavens and practically offering sexual favors if he'll return. Next he's talking about what a bollixed up film QOS was and how SF must depart from it dramatically and improve into the bargain.

He doesn't really bash Forster, though. He blames the circumstances under which the film was made. And, to be fair, was a pretty messed-up, rushed production.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

re: Edgar Wright. I've never seen any of his films all the way through, but he sounds like a nice idea.

My concern about Wright is that he would be a bit too much of a director for the ADHD generation.

I'd much rather they got Danny Boyle, Matthew Vaughn or Joe Carnahan to direct.

I think Shane Black could do it. But he's too low-brow for EON.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

I think Shane Black could do it. But he's too low-brow for EON.

And no Oscar recognition either.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

I think Shane Black could do it.

Possibly. But he's probably going to be tied up in post-production of IRON MAN 3 by the time EON are ready to go with BOND 24. And he's attached to the DEATH NOTE remake and an adaptation of DOC SAVAGE.

If he was available for BOND 24, I think a lot of it would come down to how he handles IRON MAN 3. The first IRON MAN was good, but the second was deeply flawed; it just looked back at the first film, picked out the parts that worked best, re-did them and assembled them into a film. So there's a lot riding on IRON MAN 3 - especially since it's the flagship of "Phase 2" of the Marvel cinematic universe.

Tomas Alfredson should be given a chance, after what he did with TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY.

There's Bab's Oscars connection, too.