97 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

I suppose it really depends on who is going to direct and what sort of vision that director wants to transform into BOND 24. It could be sooner, especially if someone is fond of Logan's script and wants few things changed, it could be 2016 if a number of things run against schedule, other projects for cast and crew, rewrites, differences and so on.

[Shrublands]

I think 2016 would surprise me much more than 2014. I think October/November 2015 seems the safest bet, and what I've been expecting.

[SecretAgentFan]

Either way, BOND 24 will be extremely difficult to tackle for any director. Unless he/she can deliver even more box office the press will always refer to the film as "underperforming".

 

I could imagine EON being realistic enough to know that they cannot always go over 1 billion dollars. But can SONY/MGM? 

 

That´s the dangerous consequence of SKYFALL´s success - too high (box office) expectations can create fear and a new impasse. Maybe that´s why it seems right now BOND 24 could be pushed into 2015/16. No director wants to commit, and EON does not want to ruin its current "king of the world"-status.

[Shrublands]

Oh, I think they already have a director. With an announcement expected soon, they're just sorting out the fine details and waiting for the right moment to go public.

[Dustin]

Could be. They certainly know who they want. If it's going to be fast...no idea.

[Shrublands]

It's tantalising, isn't it?

I keep thinking that it must be someone that Craig wants. If QoS had gone to plan it would have been his friend Roger Michell.

On Skyfall, things did go to plan...

 

So, my deductive thoughts keep saying, "Someone he's worked with and likes will get the job."

[SecretAgentFan]

As long as it´s not Simon West...

 

But seriously, who qualifies? Fincher, yes, but he´s too busy. Mitchell, maybe, but he´s declined before, and Spielberg would not do it. Although that would truly be the one who would not be afraid of Mendes´ shadow.

[Shrublands]

As long as it´s not Simon West...

 

But seriously, who qualifies? Fincher, yes, but he´s too busy. Mitchell, maybe, but he´s declined before, and Spielberg would not do it. Although that would truly be the one who would not be afraid of Mendes´ shadow.

 

Yes. I've toyed with all of those names too. Fincher's working-practice is not really compatible with making a Bond film (I think). I don't see him changing or Eon changing there.

Mitchell would be out of the question. I'd say. I think they'd consider him too much of a risk after having had experience of him letting them down before.

Spielberg, well, I would have said 'impossible' - American, too big a name, too expensive etc, etc, etc... but over the last few years some very surprising things have been happening at Eon.

This needs a bit more thought...

[Simon]

Paul Greengrass.  An oft mentioned chap and perhaps an obvious choice.  But would certainly tick the British and US Success boxes.

[Shrublands]

Paul Greengrass.  An oft mentioned chap and perhaps an obvious choice.  But would certainly tick the British and US Success boxes.

 

He'd also tick the "let's carry on with the endless, tiresome comparison with Bourne" box.

They should keep well clear of him.

[Dustin]

Why exactly would Spielberg not want to do Bond? I'd have thought a guilty pleasure like 007 - and one that lead him to do one of his most successful and entertaining works with Indiana Jones - would always be a temptation for a master of his standing. And it's not as if he's got left anything to prove, apart from maybe to himself.

[Shrublands]

Why exactly would Spielberg not want to do Bond? I'd have thought a guilty pleasure like 007 - and one that lead him to do one of his most successful and entertaining works with Indiana Jones - would always be a temptation for a master of his standing. And it's not as if he's got left anything to prove, apart from maybe to himself.

 

Oh, I'm not trying to say he wouldn't - In fact, I was trying to suggest that he might... without actually saying it.

 

He ticks more boxes than most. He's friendly with Craig, he's worked a few times with him, he's a Bond fan, he's recently canceled a film he was about to make...

[Dustin]

Oh, that would be lovely...

[RMc2]

Paul Greengrass.  An oft mentioned chap and perhaps an obvious choice.  But would certainly tick the British and US Success boxes.

 

He'd also tick the "let's carry on with the endless, tiresome comparison with Bourne" box.

They should keep well clear of him.

 

I'm pretty sure Greengrass has stated he hates Bond - although that was way back when he was making Bourne, and his tune may have changed.

 

Why exactly would Spielberg not want to do Bond? I'd have thought a guilty pleasure like 007 - and one that lead him to do one of his most successful and entertaining works with Indiana Jones - would always be a temptation for a master of his standing. And it's not as if he's got left anything to prove, apart from maybe to himself.

 

Spielberg has been very candid about why he wouldn't do Bond: they couldn't afford him. Also, from interviews I get the impression that there's some mild bitterness over being turned down by Broccoli back in the late 70s. And these days, EON don't seem to be going for the Spielberg type.

[Dustin]

Why exactly would Spielberg not want to do Bond? I'd have thought a guilty pleasure like 007 - and one that lead him to do one of his most successful and entertaining works with Indiana Jones - would always be a temptation for a master of his standing. And it's not as if he's got left anything to prove, apart from maybe to himself.

 

Spielberg has been very candid about why he wouldn't do Bond: they couldn't afford him. Also, from interviews I get the impression that there's some mild bitterness over being turned down by Broccoli back in the late 70s. And these days, EON don't seem to be going for the Spielberg type.

 

 

Oh, I understand that. Only we're talking the late 1970s here (a time I actually remember quite well) and if anything Broccoli sr. did Spielberg a huge favour by not having him aboard a Bond film back then. BOND 24 is going to be almost fifty years later.

 

As regards the Spielberg type, well, he's arguably the one director who can rightfully claim to not being a single 'type', not at all. If the man who followed Kubrick isn't fit to do a Bond film - and I think he'd be one of a few directors who'd be forgiven if they went smaller instead of larger - then I don't see who is. I agree that Spielberg is an unlikely choice for Eon. But I doubt it would be entirely impossible. Eon can do pretty much as they please after SKYFALL. And Spielberg can do whatever he likes since - at least - SCHINDLER'S LIST. If Eon and Spielberg agreed on the terms they could squeeze MGM/SONY into any deal they liked. Not that I think MGM/SONY would need any squeezing at all, they'd probably drool with excitement at the prospect. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I actually love the idea of a Spielberg-Bond. And they certainly could afford him now.

 

I guess the real problem would be whether he is tied to DreamWorks and how he could be "loaned out" to another studio. It happened before - but only because Spielberg owed Universal some pictures.

[x007AceOfSpades]

3 year wait, not bad. A great film will be crafted and not rushed. In the mean time, there's 23 films to hold me over

[jaguar007]

 

 

 

 

Spielberg has been very candid about why he wouldn't do Bond: they couldn't afford him.

What was the last Spielberg movie to gross $1.1billion worldwide? The closest was Jurassic Park 20 years ago.

[S K Y F A L L]

That's one thing that has been on my mind recently, not a lot of directors have made a billion dollar grossing film before. There isn't even that many billion dollar films, its going to be a tough for EON. I wouldn't be surprised if they borrowed someone from the Harry Potter films or Pirates of The Caribbean. 

 

For whatever reason I can't seem to picture Spielberg directing a Bond film. I would think they might try someone younger as well in hopes that they may return. 

 

I imagine there must be a statistic that EON was shown that shows what is the best time to release Bond 24 to maximize profits but then again there are films like The Hobbit that are coming out every year and The Hunger Games which are coming out every 2 year, although those are based on books. 

 

I hate the idea of having to wait maybe as long as a year before knowing who will direct Bond 24 but its kind of exciting and I love the discussion that happen because of it. 

[Dustin]

I hate the idea of having to wait maybe as long as a year before knowing who will direct Bond 24 but its kind of exciting and I love the discussion that happen because of it. 

 

Oh, I really don't think it will take that long. Even if for some reason actual shooting wouldn't begin right now the director will surely be announced in the near future I suppose.

[plankattack]

A younger Spielberg would have been great for the kind of films EON were making back then.

 

And the older Spielberg would be an asset for the kind of films EON are making now.

 

He's confessed Bond-fan, and he seems to have a great relationship with DC. I'd be psyched for a Spielberg entry, and his involvement would provide a strong safety net for the film following the huge success of SF. I personally think that whoever directs Bond 24 is on a hiding-to-nothing - the critics will stick it to Bond 24 because they were all so nice to SF. No reason, other than that's what they do. They've always turned their nose up at Bond a little, not dissimilar the attitude that the Oscars have always had to the franchise.

[Professor Pi]

[S K Y F A L L]

"Shall we stop this bleeding bulleting?"

[Guy Haines]

Reminds me of the title credits of the original Leslie Nielsen TV series "Police Squad" - which featured President Lincoln firing back at John Wilkes Booth.

[Iceskater101]

The sooner the better! I need more Daniel Craig...

[S K Y F A L L]

I need more Bond too, and more Craig would be good too. He should put himself out there in more films. Mendes not returning really took the wind out of the sail after SF, didn't. It seems like even the forums have slowed down.

[Dustin]

Well, at Eon House not all hope is gone:

http://commanderbond...endes-back.html

[TheSilhouette]

It's great that they want him back and all, but I hope they're not wasting time actually waiting for him. They need to (somewhat urgently) look for a good director as there are good ones available, but they may not be for long, and then think about Mendes for Bond 25 or 26.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

I think 2016 would surprise me much more than 2014. I think October/November 2015 seems the safest bet, and what I've been expecting.

I agree. The pre-production seems to be well underway, and I'm sure we know who the director is by Christmas.

[Loomis]

For whatever reason I can't seem to picture Spielberg directing a Bond film.

Me neither. And I'm not sure that Spielberg directing a Bond film would even be all that desirable. Yes, he's a giant of cinema. Sure, he's probably made more masterpieces than any other living director. On the other hand, his track record as a director of franchise fodder and sequels isn't particularly impressive (in terms of quality, anyway) - who's to say that a Spielberg Bond wouldn't turn out like THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL or THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK?