77 replies to this topic

[Shrublands]

Here is a small but important update.

 

Sam Mendes has got them to abandon the idea of a two film story. 

 

Apparently this was something he felt very strongly about, and together with giving him more time for his theatre commitments, seems to be one of the main reasons it took a bit of doing to get him to sign up. He got his way and they changed to making it one film.

 

Here is the interview from which i got this information. He only touches on Bond 24 very briefly. He seems to have been prepared to talk more but Charlie Rose cuts him off to re-tell an old story about Dench. 

 

http://charlierose.com/watch/60374560

[Turn]

I don't know if that's good or bad. On one hand are they condensing too much or would two films be padding and following trends like the path Harry Potter and Twilight went down?

 

My big question is it sounds as if Eon is really catering to Mendes' needs. Are they getting carried away with maintaining him and his vision? Cubby wouldn't have played around with that.

[Matt_13]

I trust his judgement. If we are getting the two film idea condensed into one, I think we can be sure we're in for a pretty epic film.

[Dustin]

Great find, Shrublands!

Personally I think the two parters are primarily a fad devised by Hollywood suits to cash in twice. It's rarely used to give story and characters more time to breath or develop. Instead it's often an excuse for epic CGI and action pieces. I never was a friend of two parters and would argue they rarely belong to the best efforts in their respective genres.

[Shrublands]

It does make me think - How big was this idea that initially made them think, this could/should be two films?

 

I keep thinking about it and going back to Blofeld and SPECTRE.

[Bourbon Woman]

This is good news. The last attempt at a two-parter was a disappointment. Bond films are episodic by nature, and each should stand on its own. 

[SAWfinger]

If you go to the James Bond International Fan Club's website (www.007info) and the JBIFC's Facebook page, you will find a report about this (and its also covered briefly in their latest Newsletter, sent earlier this week). I think Mendes has given some further very interesting context to why he changed his mind.

[Pushkin]

I don't know how well "two parters" work in movies. But I think story arcs do.

 

All of the Harry Potter movies worked because they each had a story within a broader story arc. The one exception being the last two and in some ways, I found 7 part 1 to not be as good as the other ones. I would say the same thing with Lord of the Rings (good stories within a story arc). The Hobbit on the other hand feels more like a 3 part story and is not nearly as good IMHO.

 

Personally, I really wished they had developed a story arc from the Craig era (not a specific sketch for each movie, but the points it would hit). Will see what happens. Personally, I would have liked the last films to finish the Quatumn story line even if the next one is not focussed on that, it could touch on it or have a reveal near the end that Quantum was behind whatever Bond was battling. But it sounds like they are not going in that direction. At any rate, this is a bit of quibbling on my part. What I really want is a good film with a good story. If it's anywhere close to how good Skyfall was, I will be happy.  

Edited by Pushkin, 25 April 2014 - 05:29 PM.

[S K Y F A L L]

Lots to think about. Thought this idea of a two-parter was debunked long ago. Personally I don't know what people are so scared of a underlining story arc, it is a film series is it not? I wonder if this is a power play by Mendes who doesn't want to sign on to Bond 25 until Bond 24 is in the bag which I think we can all respect. 

[plankattack]

Watching it (and I'm now too lazy to re-listen...) does he actually debunk a two-film story? Or does he just debunk the notion of filming two films back-to-back? I definitely think he says the latter, but I'm not so sure that he's so clear on the former.

 

And yes, Charlie does interrupt, but IMHO, there isn't a better long-form English-language interviewer than Rose. Great find Shrublands - I would recommend searching the Charlie Rose website for the various appearances but anyone connected with Bond. There's a great Dench interview from Oct-Nov 2012, and there's a couple of DC appearances including a Dragon Tattoo roundtable. I also think you can go back and find some Brozza stuff as well.

[JamesPup]

I would have liked a two parter. Was it suppose to be a continuation from Skyfall? That is the idea I am getting. If it was going to be a new movie and then the next one would finish it that would be okay too. I would just hate the wait to see how it ended. I don’t think a two parter is the best idea for sales but it would be fun to have a story take up two movies. I could see it work with a well developed main villain. It would have to be interesting enough though and it would be a risk if the villain wasn’t. I’m kind of hurt that the idea was turned down but maybe someday it will work out. Blofeld would be a villain it seems that everyone would like to see in a two parter. But I think they are putting that one off as long as they can.

[Tiin007]

In discussing potential future plot threads which he takes credit for, Mendes says "I cast the new Tanner." What?! Was he unaware of Kinnear's previous appearance in QoS?

[Matt_13]

He was just rattling off names. I'm just pleased to see his enthusiasm is clearly still there.

[tdalton]

I'm glad that they've abandoned this two-part film idea, and I was shocked that they were going to go ahead with it after everyone at EON has deemed their previous attempt at a sequel to be a disaster (although I don't agree that it was).  Now, hopefully they'll also abandon the idea of Blofeld as the villain.

[007jamesbond]

the JB International Fan club article mendes said there will be connection from skyfall 

[Zen Razor]

I'm sorry but I couldn't find anywhere of Sam saying he won't make it a two parter if anyone knows the part please let me know. I heard him saying it will have several connections to Skyfall.

 

At first I was bummed about not being a two-parter but now I realized there are many reasons why he would do that, Sam knows what he's doing I'm sure he will put thought into it but does that mean that the script has to be written again? I thought they were filming since last November?

[SecretAgentFan]

No, no, they are not filming since last November - they are not filming yet at all.

 

Once again, kudos to Shrublands for finding this!  And I am amazed that EON actually wanted to do the two-part-film (or to film back to back).  Then again, in the current climate where horizontal story lines are king, it would have made sense.

 

But I prefer a Bond film to have a real ending, I must admit.  Sure, they can take things to the next film.  But an open end for Bond... naw.

 

What Mendes clearly states is that BOND 24 is not a story continuing from "Skyfall" but rather uses the established characters (M, Moneypenny, Q, Tanner) who were mostly set up in "Skyfall" but needed more development.

 

Charlie Rose, unfortunately, continues to babble into Mendes´ answers - so I´m sure we would have gotten more from Mendes about BOND 24.

 

What I take away from this interview:  Mendes clearly wants to take M, Moneypenny, Q and Tanner seriously and build up a great ensemble to work with Bond.  That does not mean, I guess, that they will have expanded roles - but their scenes will be more character-driven, rather than go back to expository cameos. 

 

One nitpick: Mendes mentions that he cast a new M, Moneypenny, Q... and Tanner?  Was he really involved in that, prior to "Casino Royale"?  Don´t think so.  

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 26 April 2014 - 01:45 PM.

[JamesPup]

Yeah I liked the setting up of M, Q, and Moneypenny. I really liked Skyfall and can't wait for the next film. I hope they use the same actors for M, Q, and Moneypenny as in Skyfall. The ending of Skyfall got me going and wanting more rate away. I loved seeing a male M and the other two were well received.

[Zen Razor]

Oh I thought they were filming since last November I heard they were going to sometime this year in November then? I'm sure it will work out I just hope they put in some info to help stabilize the Bond timeline since it's so messed up right now.

[tdalton]

 

 

Once again, kudos to Shrublands for finding this!  And I am amazed that EON actually wanted to do the two-part-film (or to film back to back).  Then again, in the current climate where horizontal story lines are king, it would have made sense.

 

But I prefer a Bond film to have a real ending, I must admit.  Sure, they can take things to the next film.  But an open end for Bond... naw.

 

I was shocked that they were even considering a two part film as well.  The last time they went the sequel route, they got blasted for it, and it's clear that the party line at EON is that they're not particularly fond of QOS either.  I never really believed that they'd be willing to go back to that well so soon.

 

As for wanting a real ending to the Bond films, I'd actually like to see a two-part film, but not until EON proves that they can get a decent script put into place for a single film first.  The Skyfall script could have used another draft to clean up a lot of the issues that have already been discussed around here, and I'd like to see EON show that they can fix those issues by focusing on a single script rather than asking them to do it while crafting two films back-to-back.

[Matt_13]

Agreed, I'm happy we will be getting a script from Logan and Logan alone this time out. We should have a much cleaner film as a result.

[Orion]

When was it ever confirmed as a two parter? I remember the rumour coming up, but the only times I've heard the people involved mention it was Daniel Craig  being asked about it, and him saying it takes too much out of him doing one let alone two. The closest thing to a confirmation was Logan saying certain thematic elements carry through from Skyfall.

[DavidJones]

Mendes might have said  'no' to the two-parter idea because he foresaw people coming out of the cinema after the first one and saying, "That was nowhere near as good as Skyfall - it wasn't even finished!" Or, perhaps he simply didn't feel comfortable with making Part 1 of a two-part film and insisted they drop the idea. I'm surprised they're so beholden to Mendes as EON - until now - seemed to be pretty self-reliant. Now they seem desperate to have Mendes, despite it being they who have cultivated the Bond films for fifty years.

[SecretAgentFan]

But Mendes has a perfect reputation as an A-list art house favorite.  And "Skyfall"´s success is mostly credited to him (by the critics).  So to keep him on board is a great PR move.  

 

Also, he attracts A-list talent, keeps Daniel Craig happy and seems to have had a good enough relationship with EON.  So, win-win all around.

[tdalton]

Well, I think we all knew that they were going to be desperate for Mendes to return after Skyfall.  First, they generally do invite the current director back for the next one, so it was probable that Mendes was going to be invited back unless Skyfall completely tanked.  Add on top of that the fact that Skyfall made over a billion dollars, was nominated for Academy Awards, and is viewed in some circles as the best Bond film since the early Connery days, I'm not the least bit surprised that they went above and beyond to make sure that they could retain him for Bond 24. 

[Odd Jobbies]

It does make me think - How big was this idea that initially made them think, this could/should be two films?

 

I keep thinking about it and going back to Blofeld and SPECTRE.

Good find, Shrublands!

 

As soon as Eon won the rights to Blofeld/SPECTRE it stood to reason that they'd want them on screen asap.

 

So i'd bet that they had Logan come up with a great reintroduction of SPECTRE over a 2-film arc, the pace of which would be far more akin to the way Fleming told the Blofeld/Bond story.

 

But thanks to Mendes not wanting to go too long between theatre jobs he's scuppered whatever Logan came up with and instead we'll get this big story squashed down into one, with all the botched plot lines and curtailed character development that comes with such a truly major rewrite. My sympathies to Logan.

 

Just an educated guess, but it's the most obvious way to interpret this depressing titbit.

[DavidJones]

I never understand why directors are so venerated, anyway. The writer is the most important member of the team, surely.

[Odd Jobbies]

I never understand why directors are so venerated, anyway. The writer is the most important member of the team, surely.

'Team' is the important word there. As someone who did some directing years ago there's nothing more important than the team. A good director listens and utilises every member the best they can. A poor director just tells them what to do.

 

Hence there is indeed a unique skill to directing that requires leadership, visualisation and a gift for improvising when things don't work out, or a potential better idea makes it's self known. The flip-side is that it also takes a lot of nerve, a bloody trailer full of energy and the stubborn single mindedness to see the task through.

 

Listening to the team and single mindedness wouldn't seem to make good bed fellows, which is why good directors, who can juggle these opposing traits are thin on the ground.

 

Indeed the writers are the most important people, but only until the script is finished, because after that it's still all too easy to make a bad film from a good script, which is why you need a good director who can do all the above. After the script is finished the Director is the most important person - writer's know that better than anyone and they prey for a good director.

 

 

ETA: apologies for the appalling grammar, it was late and it's now corrected 

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 29 April 2014 - 10:00 AM.

[Vauxhall]

Interesting and important insight. Would be interesting to know Logan's reaction to being told to re-adapt or condense his original plot, but then again, I suppose Mendes has fair greater sway.

[S K Y F A L L]

I would have figured they would have had this type of thing already straightened out, I assumed the script would have been completed already to.