Bond 25 (2019)

To get one every year! Heaven!

I could only see EON return to doing a film every year or two if they gave in and purchased the rights to the continuation novels.

I only read a couple of them, they didn't come over too bad IMO. Not worse than EON stuff from back then. They'd have needed more beef, yep, and some working on. Nothing that they wouldn't have done with any book before. Don't think one per year was ever possibleagain, too much trouble shooting the flicks. But one every two years, that really too much to ask?

I think EON might be concerned about a drop in quality. If you're going to observe a two-year cycle, pre-production of the next film has to begin almost as soon as the previous film has been released. It might not be too difficult film-to-film, but in the long term, it must be exhausting. And we're approaching a transitional period for the franchise - there will come a time when Wilson and Broccoli will hand over the reins to the next generation. I don't think it would be a wise idea to make that switch overnight.

Is this going to be the one with the black Bond that everyone's been talking about?

It is crazy to think that 4 of the series' best films came out in 4 consecutive years. This 3 year shit is a bummer indeed.

The biggest issue with the every other year approach is that there's a chance the quality would not be up to standards. Since the 90s, EON has had a much harder time keeping the quality up when trying to deliver on an every other year basis, more so than in the past decades. Like I said in an earlier page, unless EON decides to use post-Fleming novels as a basis for future films, there's no way they can return to the kind of consistency the 60s films had.

Also, is it a coincidence that the three popular Bond films since the 90s (GOLDENEYE, CASINO ROYALE, SKYFALL) have all followed unusual gaps between films? It's probably wise they didn't try rushing SPECTRE like they did with previous films like TOMORROW NEVER DIES and QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I'm sure EON would love to churn out a Bond film every other year, but I think they've only just realized after QOS that they're not up to it.

The original series had a strong foundation of storytelling to rely on, you can almost factor the writing Fleming did to the time the scripts were developed. Once you leave behind the stories and start from scratch....factor in the ambition to not simply replicate the last story the development time has to expand. GE and SF benefit directly from longer gestations, TND and QOS suffer from the converse issue..... CR had the original story to fall back on, abeit one given an inept treatment and shackled by having a bland generic action film staked through it's heart.

I'd rather less frequent better quality films than be too regimented in meeting release windows.... I'd also rather Purvis and Wade depart forever mind.....

lachesis wrote:

I'd also rather Purvis and Wade depart forever mind.....

I'm confused. You point to the strength of SF, then call for the writers to be shown the door. I remember when CR was released and everyone credited Paul Haggis with "the good bits", and then he got the QOS gig and it sucked.

The thing that SF got spot on was Silva. Given his role as a cyberterrorist, a lot of the film hinged on getting him right. Look at DIE HARD 4, where the villain has a similar skill set. The difference between SF and DH4 was that Silva felt like he could influence the physical world (and they wisely kept him out of sight for an hour). In DH4, the villain is completely removed from the world, operating through remote keystrokes and with no grounding in reality. Given that SF was able to present a villain with a resounding physical, personal threat given that it could have easily gone horribly wrong, I don't think P&W are a liability to the franchise.

But I do like the idea of introducing script doctors to revise things. I'm interested to see what Jez Butterworth does with SP.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

lachesis wrote:

I'd also rather Purvis and Wade depart forever mind.....

I'm confused. You point to the strength of SF, then call for the writers to be shown the door. I remember when CR was released and everyone credited Paul Haggis with "the good bits", and then he got the QOS gig and it sucked.

The thing that SF got spot on was Silva. Given his role as a cyberterrorist, a lot of the film hinged on getting him right. Look at DIE HARD 4, where the villain has a similar skill set. The difference between SF and DH4 was that Silva felt like he could influence the physical world (and they wisely kept him out of sight for an hour). In DH4, the villain is completely removed from the world, operating through remote keystrokes and with no grounding in reality. Given that SF was able to present a villain with a resounding physical, personal threat given that it could have easily gone horribly wrong, I don't think P&W are a liability to the franchise.

But I do like the idea of introducing script doctors to revise things. I'm interested to see what Jez Butterworth does with SP.

Unsure why it should be in any way confusing at best it boils down to a hit rate of one in 5 for me and while I do find the script for SF better than the 4 that preceded it imo there are still lingering issues. I believe they initially brought some interesting ideas to the franchise but their ability to present, develop or structure those ideas has floundered despite dogmatic repetition and the dialogue of their tenure has frequently bordered on the inept (notably so for DAD and CR). Is it them or someone else.... dunno but for me the consistent issues arrive with them and remain throughout to some degree or another and at any time from DAD onwards the franchise would benefit from someone else in their role.

As to a comparison with that 'gold standard' DH4 recent cyber terrorism has shown itself to be very much an all but anonymous set of remote keystrokes - much like espionage as a whole a grounding in reality here is a both debatable and in any event of very questionable value. I'm also not sure I buy the sense that Silva is any more able to influence anything than the DH4 bozo, atop the usual requirement for suspension of disbelief in cinema there is an conceit of omniscience in scripting that many modern actioners indulge (and this harkens to the strongest similarity with Joker and TDK imo). The threat of Silva is far less about the man and far more about the way the story is happy to take a dump on pretty much everyone else to sell him.

It's hard for me to condemn P&W, since a lot of their work ended up getting rewritten by other writers. The only purpose they've served since they first got the gig was to lay the foundation for a script and then hand it off to other writers and directors to alter it in whatever ways they liked. Heck, they even admitted in an interview that despite being credited for QOS, none of their writing made it into the film.

I think the best way for scripts to be produced is to have Purvis and Wade do up the early drafts, then pass them off to a third writer. And that third writer should change every other film. I think it really worked with Haggis in CR (even if QOS was rubbish) and Logan in SF, and I have high hopes for Butterworth in SP. It would be a good mix of a solid foundation with some fresh blood brought in to avoid the films falling into a rut and hopefully avoid clunky dialogue.

I think TWINE showed a lot of that - with Bruce Feirstein doing the polish, but having Dana throw in her two cents is what divides fans...

Indeed. They should have stuck to the original plan of building up the mystery of who the real villain was, instead of playing up the melodrama.

MI6 wrote:

'Skyfall' and 'SPECTRE' director Sam Mendes, who is an avid cricket fan, stopped by the commentary booth for BBC Radio's 'Test Match Special' program to talk about England's chances against Australia in the Ashes series, and of course conversation eventually shifted to his work on the latest James Bond film.

"[SPECTRE] is a bigger movie than 'Skyfall'. When we were up for a BAFTA last time I counted the cast and crew as I wanted to accept it on behalf of everybody. I counted them up myself and there was over a thousand and you really do feel it. [SPECTRE] is shot in more places. We were in Mexico City, Tangiers, the Northern Sahara, Rome, The Alps, and London. We shut down great sections of London. Anyone whose evening was ruined because of the traffic around Westminster Bridge over the last few weeks, I apologise to them. But it's been an enormous undertaking. One of the most rewarding moments for a film director is when you finally finish shooting."


"It kind of starts all over again when you're editing. You really direct the movie four times: when it's being written, when it's being cast and prepped, when it's being shot and then when it's being edited and music is being added. That fourth stage is just beginning. If you're any good as a director you want to be all over every department and you want to be influencing everything. It's your film and your vision. Unlike the theatre, where I learnt a lot of my craft, I don't think theatre is a director's medium, whereas film is. You can pretty much blame the director if you're having a bad evening at the cinema because it does fall on his shoulders."

"I made the movie I wanted to see [for Skyfall] and I think I've done the same thing this time [for SPECTRE]. I hope I've done the same thing this time, although it really is just emerging out of the mists - the way that it does in the editing period. In terms of the story, it's pretty much set out. But as any director will tell you, how you tell the story is everything and the story by itself is not enough. I spend a long, long period with the music for the movie and there will be over 100 minutes of music for this movie. That's a lot of music. There is a lot of visual effects and a lot of sound work. There are any number of ways to mess your film up, even at this late stage, however good the story is. You have to stay completely focused and it is somewhat like rebooting and starting again at this stage. For me, editing is the most pleasurable piece as you've done all the hard work and it's down to the story-telling."


"For me, the Bond franchise as a whole has been a wonderful unexpected gift at this point in my life. it's not just the making of the film, it's the relationship you have with an audience and the dialog you have with the process from the beginning to the end. You have to embrace the fact that everything you do is going to be reviewed and debated from the title to the music to the casting to the trailer... "

"I'm happiest rehearsing a play or editing a movie, and I think that when I've finished a movie I generally want to be back in a theatre environment again. It feels like home, it feels controllable after the chaos of a movie set. But it won't be long before I want to do another film, and I'm very, very fortunate to be able to go back and forth between the two."

"I said 'No' to the last one and then ended up doing it and was pilloried by all my friends, including [former England cricket captain] Michael Atherton who took great pleasure in reminding me that I said no to the last one and ended up doing it. But I do think this is probably it. I think five years for the two movies... It feels now almost, even though we've only just finished shooting it, like one big experience. It was a fantastic life-changing thing, but I don't think I could go down that road again. It's more a lifestyle choice than a job. You do have to put everything else on hold."

He did say that during the editing process of SF, and came back when MGM waited for him.

If Mendes goes, Craig could follow suit if the new director/script combo can't match SF and potentially SPECTRE.

I was reading a few months ago that English betting agencies were making Aidan Turner one of the odds-on favorite to succeed Daniel Craig. Is that because he's any good? We've just started getting POLDARK over in the States on PBS and haven't really had the chance to see if he's Bond material. Why the sudden surge in bets on Turner? Is he a big star in the UK?

Don't know who Turner is, but a quick google search shows that he doesn't look like James Bond…

I'm 100% Michael Fassbender as Bond. Best chance of him getting it is if Craig finishes up after SP - which I doubt because he is allegedly contracted until 2020, but I don't want that because Craig is really pushing on and it shows.

But back to Mendes, I reckon he'll be back. He might do a Terrence Young or Guy Hamilton. Have a break and come back to it. Or kick start the new Bond actor in their debut.

I think Fassbender would work better as a villain. I could see him as Hugo Drax in an adaptation of Moonraker.

I agree with Prisoner Monkeys. I just can't see him as Bond.

There's this small, obscure film called Inglourious Basterds directed by a guy called Quentin Tarantino… Michael Fassbender has a small role in it, and I believe what he does there is something akin to what his Bond would be like…

I'm familiar with it. But I'd rather see an original interpretation of the character rather than an actor simply replicating a previous performance.

I doubt an actor of Fassbender's quality will 'simply' replicating a previous performance. One reason being they take place in completely different times.

Rather Der Fassbender than Damien Lewis. Good actor yes but can't see him as Bond. And no, it's on account of hair colour.

I've been thinking about how to reintroduce characters from the franchise and adapt some unused Fleming material. Here's what I have so far:

Bond is approached by CIA agent Damien Falco for an assignment in Africa. Felix Leiter has gone missing and is presumed to have been captured. The CIA have authorised a rescue mission, but their instructions are to secure whatever information he has. Falco wants Bond to go in because he thinks Leiter is a good agent, and doubts that whatever he has is worth sacrificing his life for.

Bond arrives in central Africa, in a fictional nation that has been created by an explosion at the far end of a valley that has cut it off from the rest of the world. Because of the relative stability of this new nation and the troubles in its immediate neighbours, the UN has decided to temporarily recognise it as an independent country. It is run by Chibweza (Chewitiel Ejiofor), who was once seen as the future of Africa, but struggled with leadership and has become a crazy dictator. He is supported by Hugo Vanderdaatje (Michael Fassbender), a South African mercenary.

Bond is captured himself during his assignment, with his captor being Felix Leiter. Leiter staged his own disappearance and has joined forces with Anatol Gogol (Jeremy Irons), an exiled Soviet spymaster. Leiter and Gogol have discovered that the country has vast reserves of colombite, a rare mineral that has shown promise as a near-room temperature superconductor. The Chinese have the only known reserves of colombite, but mining it is an expensive and time-consuming process. The reserves in Africa would radically change the market for colombite, leading Leiter to believe that Vanderdaatje is in league with SPECTRE.

Email it to babsybigtits@eon.com.