38 replies to this topic

[dinovelvet]

Craig seems to be the one actor in the role who definitely doesn't need it for his career. The only thing one safely can say is that Craig will leave once he feels it's not fun anymore. That could take a long time. That said I doubt Craig will ever come remotely close to his sell-by date. I'm confident he won't stick a minute longer than he feels welcome and just move on, once that day has come.

How long exactly Craig will be our Bond is everybody's guess. It probably depends how fast Bond 24 can pick up momentum, but I think the plan to get it on screen two years after Bond 23 is mostly wishful thinking - or BS, depending on how one's personal view of the concerned parties happens to be - three years probably being more realistic. This is a long time, an eternity in the business, and many things can happen in between.

A Bond 25 - yet another two to three years after Bond 24 - with Craig in the part seems somewhat unlikely to me.

I have a theory that four films is EON's magic number. If you look at the box office takes for the Connery and Moore films, they both peaked with their fourth outing, and their films saw diminishing returns after that. Brosnan also had his highest earner with his fourth (and many speculated that a fifth wouldn't do as well, with Broz getting on in years and the overall negative reception of DAD), and that's when EON cut him off.

There's also an audience sell-by date. People get restless and want something new. We see the constant trend of rebooting and starting over in Hollywood (Spider-man and X-men both restarting after three films, and probably Batman too), and with four films basically spanning a decade, that's time for a whole new wave of moviegoers just turning 12 or 13 who've never seen a Bond flick before to 'start over' with a new Bond actor.

Anyway, regarding a director, wouldn't anyone like to see Mendes direct two films in a row? Assuming he puts together a fairly well crafted (and received) Bond 23, why not go completely outrageous and shocking, and hire the same guy twice?

[coco1997]

Anyway, regarding a director, wouldn't anyone like to see Mendes direct two films in a row? Assuming he puts together a fairly well crafted (and received) Bond 23, why not go completely outrageous and shocking, and hire the same guy twice?

It sounds good on paper, but who's to say Mendes would even want to direct another one?

[Dustin]

I have a theory that four films is EON's magic number. If you look at the box office takes for the Connery and Moore films, they both peaked with their fourth outing, and their films saw diminishing returns after that. Brosnan also had his highest earner with his fourth (and many speculated that a fifth wouldn't do as well, with Broz getting on in years and the overall negative reception of DAD), and that's when EON cut him off.

There's also an audience sell-by date. People get restless and want something new. We see the constant trend of rebooting and starting over in Hollywood (Spider-man and X-men both restarting after three films, and probably Batman too), and with four films basically spanning a decade, that's time for a whole new wave of moviegoers just turning 12 or 13 who've never seen a Bond flick before to 'start over' with a new Bond actor.

Very good observation, probably just the way of thinking decisions in Hollywood's executive suite are based on today. Also note how most major franchises had to elongate the production time during the 2000s to three year cycles. I really suspect this is the closest frequency these blockbuster budgets can realistically arrive at theaters these days. Three films in a decade are the norm by now, rather than four or five. We will hardly ever again get a new film after just 24 months.

Anyway, regarding a director, wouldn't anyone like to see Mendes direct two films in a row? Assuming he puts together a fairly well crafted (and received) Bond 23, why not go completely outrageous and shocking, and hire the same guy twice?

I'd be all for that, but I suspect that would have to be negotiated right from the start, or you won't get the chance to sign Mendes sooner than maybe four or five years later.

[brunoman]

Anyway, regarding a director, wouldn't anyone like to see Mendes direct two films in a row? Assuming he puts together a fairly well crafted (and received) Bond 23, why not go completely outrageous and shocking, and hire the same guy twice?

Just as long Sam Mendes doesn't turn out to be another Michael Apted who directed one of the worst Bond films in my opinion, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Edited by brunoman, 17 July 2011 - 04:06 PM.

[Captain Tightpants]

Apted's problem was that he meddled with the script. The original script for TWINE emphasised the mystery of Robert King's death a whole lot more. The idea was to keep the audience guessing as to whether Elektra or Renard was the real villain of the piece. Purvis and Wade have said they were taking inspiration from the conspiracy films of the 1970s, forcing Bond into a series of situations where he had to make a decision with only half the knowledge he would need to make an informed decision. But then Apted came in and decided to start changing things. His wife did a series of uncredited rewrites that downplayed the mystery and shifted focus to Bond's relationship with Elektra. On paper, this wasn't too bad an idea, because Elektra was the first woman Bond clearly kills on-screen, so studying that relationship had the potential to be very interesting. But the by-product of this was the scene where Bond confronts Elektra - the infamous shoulder scene - was brought forward. This had a couple of knock-on effects: for one, Christmas Jones was brought into the story again. She was originally supposed to be a one-time only character, and Bond was to enter the pipeline with Elektra (who had degrees in engineering to run her father's empire). But with the re-writes, Bond knew Elektra was guilty, so someone else had to go with him. The abduction of M was also supposed to be a sub-plot - but rather than kidnap her, Renard and Elektra planned to get revenge by tormenting her with the knowledge that her failure to kill Renard with 009 directly lead to the deaths of millions of people in Istanbul. But once again, by bringing forward the revelation that Elektra was guilty, that sub-plot had to be rewritten and given greater prominence. In the original version, Bond was not supposed to find out Elektra was guilty until halfway through the third act. But Apted and his wife kept re-writing the script and it all fell apart.

That's the problem with being a writer - you ultimately have very little creative control over your project. I think Purvis & Wade are quite capable writers, and they certainly demonstrated it both with the basic plot of TWINE (destroying Istanbul to seize control of the oil market is brilliant) and CR. I remember when CR came out and everyone credited Paul Haggis with writing "all the good bits", but given the reactions to QOS and the rushed and half-finished nature of parts of it, it's pretty obvious Haggis didn't actually do much in CR. Purvis & Wade just got shafted with TWINE and DAD. CR is much more representative of their abilities, and the early drafts of TWINE in particular prove as much.

[DR76]

Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed Daniel Craig (esp. CR), but would love a return to the more stylish (early) Connery-era Bond.

One, I don't consider the Connery era or any other era of the Bond franchise as completely "stylish". Connery had his dogs as well as good movies.

Two, the last thing I want is a new actor trying to be another Sean Connery. Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig were all smart enough to create their own style of portraying Bond. And I hope that the next actor will do the same.

[Mr. Blofeld]

That's the problem with being a writer - you ultimately have very little creative control over your project. I think Purvis & Wade are quite capable writers, and they certainly demonstrated it both with the basic plot of TWINE (destroying Istanbul to seize control of the oil market is brilliant) and CR. I remember when CR came out and everyone credited Paul Haggis with writing "all the good bits", but given the reactions to QOS and the rushed and half-finished nature of parts of it, it's pretty obvious Haggis didn't actually do much in CR.

I must disagree; I've not read the TWINE drafts you're referencing, but I have read one of the drafts of Casino Royale -- granted, it was a draft done under Haggis, but I don't think Haggis would have written such terrible dialogue for the Mollaka character that it would have to be excised before shooting, would you?

I also think the whole strange bit with Le Chiffre having "died in Iraq" was a step too far in tying him in with international intrigue; if he's supposedly "dead", why the hell is he using the same name and sticking his head out in Montenegro? The whole thing would've confused the audience too much, so it was wisely removed.

Goes to show that P&W can go a step too far, too often...

[Harmsway]

I must disagree; I've not read the TWINE drafts you're referencing, but I have read one of the drafts of Casino Royale -- granted, it was a draft done under Haggis, but I don't think Haggis would have written such terrible dialogue for the Mollaka character that it would have to be excised before shooting, would you?

I do. Haggis has had his share of lousy writing over the years.

I also think the whole strange bit with Le Chiffre having "died in Iraq" was a step too far in tying him in with international intrigue; if he's supposedly "dead", why the hell is he using the same name and sticking his head out in Montenegro? The whole thing would've confused the audience too much, so it was wisely removed.

And that very well could have been Haggis, too.

[Miles Miservy]

Anyway, regarding a director, wouldn't anyone like to see Mendes direct two films in a row? Assuming he puts together a fairly well crafted (and received) Bond 23, why not go completely outrageous and shocking, and hire the same guy twice?

Just as long Sam Mendes doesn't turn out to be another Michael Apted who directed one of the worst Bond films in my opinion, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The franchise needs at least A LITTLE contiuity. Guy Hamilton did well because he did several films (some in succession). Lewis Gilbert, the same; John Glen... well towards the end he was getting kinda stale. Roger Spottiswood & Michael Apted were both adequate.

As for Lee Tamahori... I wouldn't validate the guy's parking.

Edited by Miles Miservy, 03 August 2011 - 03:22 PM.