1017 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

Not exactly 'news' but perhaps interesting for some...

https://www.theguard...movie-look-like

[Orion]

There is certainly an implication in there that EON do have an idea of what they'd like to do for Bond 25, so i reckon they are going for an ending to Craig's era then taking a completly different approach to Bond 26 onward, would explain why the pitches where for one film.

[Gobi-1]

I think everyone is making good points on both side. I love the old classic Bond iconography but I also love seeing fresh ideas that could become iconic as well. It's getting the balance just right.

 

As for Nolan. If he were to direct Bond I wonder if he would do a self contain trilogy like Batman, a complete reinvention as he himself states, or one and done? I myself lean to the former. If Tom Hardy, who is now 39, was to be Nolan's Bond a trilogy could be made before he hits the big 50. If the next Bond actor is to continue indefinitely I can see them going with someone younger. I personally would love to see a Nolan Bond trilogy because it would give him a chance to nail the landing with a third film considering how shaky The Dark Knight Rises was.

[DaveBond21]

I think everyone is making good points on both side. I love the old classic Bond iconography but I also love seeing fresh ideas that could become iconic as well. It's getting the balance just right.

 

 

 

Me too.

 

I love a classic Bond but I love fresh ideas too. I think the Day of the Dead sequence in SPECTRE was excellent; it harked back to Thunderball, LALD and Moonraker but was fresh and new. Also the way Bond disposes of the clinic goons is classic yet modern and funny ( "Stay!").

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

[SecretAgentFan]

I believe the problem with the references to classic Bond in the Craig era lies in the disconnect between the way the Craig films are tonally geared and the way the Connery and Moore films were engineered.

 

If you want to go for a dark, sinister, more "realistic" Bond so many elements of classic Bond automatically feel out of place because they were not designed for a weight-of-the-world Bond.

 

The more the Craig films shifted towards the earlier narrative ways, the better it worked.  For example, I love SKYFALL because despite of the underlying melancholy Silva was a typically over the top villain, played by Bardem with the exactly right amount of silliness, which created a fitting environment for the classic Bond elements.  In contrast, SPECTRE wanted to ground the villain in a contemporary believable setting while on the other hand allowing for so many ludicrious elements that these two strategies just did not gel but stood apart and therefore did not draw me in.

 

The only solution, IMO, is to embrace the silliness of Bond or to completely strip it away.  For my taste, I would welcome the silliness.  However, after 24 films (well, count NSNA as + 1), I really do not need to see any nods to the earlier films in order to remind me: hey, it´s still a Bond film.  This, IMO, is the biggest mistake of the Craig era: eating the cake and wanting to have it.  In other words: we are not like the old Bonds films anymore, but look, we still want you to think about them.

[KHergesheimer]

Good analysis. I actually think SPECTRE started off well, the Day of th Dead opening was inspired, Monica Bellucci's assisination attempt was sublime, the SPECTRE meeting great....thereafter with a few exceptions noted in this discussion it generally went off the rails. Bottom line: smart intelligent incorporation of Bond history, particularly when we are still in prequel/reboot backstory mode is welcome. But more than ever - particularly with some outstanding TV scripts these days - we want some original thinking, fresh iconic ideas and scenes that let the film stand on its own. CR and Skyfall had that in spades. CR benefited from the master himself, Ian Fleming. And we all now there are still some Fleming novel nuggets out there, e.g. Moonraker, YOLT, heck even Colonel Sun, that could be melded into something bigger and unique and Fleming to the core. Or start from scratch. Just make us invested in the story, and come up with some of those unique situations only Fleming could conjure up, that uniquely Bondian space somewhere between the real and surreal, fact and fantasy.

[Dustin]

I doubt this constant rehashing of the obvious Nolan suggestion - that's of course old-hat to fans, but was presented by the Guardian mainly to the much less invested general audience - doesn't really lead anywhere. We can guess a lot how that would possibly look and feel. But would it lead out of the present impasse? I'm not sure about that...

 

Instead, I would champion to go into the opposite direction: don't take one of the usual suspects of action/popcorn directors. Look instead for somebody to completely embrace the fantastical side of James Bond. Certain situations can only happen in a Bond film: surviving a drop out of a plane minus parachute, hollow volcanos and diving cars, deadly Bowler hats and Bond machine gunned upside down in a wall bed. Go for a script and a director that isn't afraid to take Bond into the surreal again. Be bold and hire a fantasy director who wants to branch out into thriller territory, 

[Orion]

Im always wary of surrealism in Bond, simply because Lewis Gilbert was the only director to master it in Bond, as indeed he did in Alfie. Rachel Talalay is the only director other than Gilbert i can think of who handles that kind of durastic a shift in tone as well as a man who got away with dogs chasing down a woman in a forest in the same film that startes with a a man surviving being pushed out of an airplane without a parachute.

[SecretAgentFan]

I doubt this constant rehashing of the obvious Nolan suggestion - that's of course old-hat to fans, but was presented by the Guardian mainly to the much less invested general audience - doesn't really lead anywhere. We can guess a lot how that would possibly look and feel. But would it lead out of the present impasse? I'm not sure about that...

 

Instead, I would champion to go into the opposite direction: don't take one of the usual suspects of action/popcorn directors. Look instead for somebody to completely embrace the fantastical side of James Bond. Certain situations can only happen in a Bond film: surviving a drop out of a plane minus parachute, hollow volcanos and diving cars, deadly Bowler hats and Bond machine gunned upside down in a wall bed. Go for a script and a director that isn't afraid to take Bond into the surreal again. Be bold and hire a fantasy director who wants to branch out into thriller territory, 

 

 

Interesting idea, the fantasy director.

 

Guillermo del Toro maybe?

[Dustin]

Yes, why not? Or Cuarón maybe. Somebody who appreciates the potential for a weird dimension and doesn't get distracted by a need to explain it. Suppose that would have been the case with SPECTRE, Bond and Blofeld clearly having a backstory - but we didn't get it explained. How much more mysterious that would have been.

It might also be worth pursuing to show the insides of a villains mind, his vision of reality, his vision of his adversaries. Blofeld in Fleming's YOLT was clearly already a bit gone round the bend; I think something in that vein could be used to great effect by del Toro.

[SecretAgentFan]

Cuarón would be fantastic indeed - and he is familiar with delivering big budget British franchise productions!

[Dustin]

Just so...

[Gobi-1]

Cuarón is a superb choice.

[Twingolot]

I know this should have nothing to do there, but I find it quite interesting to see Nicolas Winding Refn's next movie is going to be a espionage film, taking place in Japan, written by Purvis and Wade...  

[Gobi-1]

EON to produce a non-Bond espionage film starring Blake Lively.

http://www.hollywood...oducers-1020546

[KHergesheimer]

AKA How to keep a restless production crew intact and working while you sort out Daniel Craig. Could be they roll from this production directly into Bond?

[RMc2]

Well that pretty much kills all my hopes for Bond 25 before 2020 - and therefore my hopes for a Craig finale are gone.

 

Continuing my pessimism, I can't help but think this means EON have switched to "tribute to former Bond" mode already, regarding Craig: http://www.royalalbe...ale-in-concert/

Edited by RMc2, 13 July 2017 - 11:41 AM.

[Gobi-1]

These non-Bond EON films, do they have a distributor already lined up or are they going to shop the film around to the major studios once it's complete? I can't but think a big part of this push to other films is because EON simply cannot make a film due to MGM's lack of a distributor. So instead of not making a movie they're keeping busy by making something else. Also could this be EON's attempt to gain their independence from MGM? If they have a portfolio of other films, series, etc., it makes them a stronger company that is more than just 007. They could produce films annually and have projects to release during Bond's off years.

 

EON has faced adversity before (McClory, Casino Royale rights, etc.) but MGM is still the albatross around the neck. Sometimes I wonder if EON could just buy MGM themselves.

[tdalton]

It's a shame that they couldn't find a better project than this to branch out and do something independent of Bond.  This will barely register when it's released and will exit theaters as quietly as it entered them.

 

With regards to Bond, though, EON is doing exactly what they should be doing.  Holding out and letting, hopefully, MGM go belly-up.  Without Bond, MGM will eventually go under.  It's pretty much the only thing that's kept them afloat for the past decade-plus.

[Dustin]

One other thing: with Eon now doing this Rhythm Section film they will likely be tied up well into 2018. So even if there was a deal struck between MGM and whoever right this minute...BOND 25 couldn't take off any sooner than Rhythm Section is wrapped and ready to hit theatres.

This suggests Eon doesn't expect MGM to come to terms anytime soon.

[Simon]

I wonder if that could ever be an Eon long term plan, to hold out on Bond and let MGM die a death...?  Is the current deal along the lines of, if Eon make a Bond film, they Have to do it with MGM's (hopeless) co-operation.  But, Eon are under no obligation to ever make a Bond film?

 

As I understand it, MGM have an enviable back catalogue, but the only way to keep reselling it, is with new stock.  i.e. Bond films.  So if MGM were to die, to whom would all that stock go if no one bought out MGM?

 

As for the Eon film, isn't that what they endeavoured to do with this branching out, to encourage new talent in smaller productions?  By their very nature, a tough sell, but with the producers' connections, who knows?

[Dustin]

I used to think there must be some kind of fail-safe insurance involved to prevent one partner from just sitting it out; maybe a given number of films in a given period or a clause obliging one partner to move when the other does.

But obviously, given the gaps and long hiatus pre-Brosnan there is no such thing.

Interesting to note, too, how Eon team up for this Rhythm thingy with Reed Morano of THE HANDMAID'S TALE, MGM-tv branch's current hit...

[Gobi-1]

I saw these recent articles about MGM's tv division and the success they're having.

 

http://variety.com/2...ett-1202492480/

 

http://variety.com/2...ion-1202493275/

[SecretAgentFan]

One other thing: with Eon now doing this Rhythm Section film they will likely be tied up well into 2018. So even if there was a deal struck between MGM and whoever right this minute...BOND 25 couldn't take off any sooner than Rhythm Section is wrapped and ready to hit theatres.

This suggests Eon doesn't expect MGM to come to terms anytime soon.

 

Would that really prevent EON from doing a Bond film?  They probably expand their team to do more than "just one Bond film every once in a while" and want to become a bigger production unity.  "Rhythm Section" will definitely be a smaller-scale film that can be shot quickly and put into theatres in 2018 while pre-production and principal shooting for BOND 25 could start this year or early 2018.

 

... I hope. 

[Dustin]

If they expand they could surely heat up engines for BOND 25 while their other project is heading for the finish line, absolutely.

Only, why should they expand without a definite need to do so? It's not, as far as we know, as if Eon has its sights on doing multiple films per year. Past experience shows they like to keep their circle small and tackle one project at a time, with only minor overlapping. If their current smaller projects are anything to go by they can probably handle them without need for expansion.

If BOND 25 then came on top...now that would be something different. But that's not the impression I get from this branching out. It feels more as if they are comfortable enough to invest themselves into something new since they don't expect to be in a hurry with Bond.

[SecretAgentFan]

I´m afraid you´re right... 

 

Which begs the familiar question: what went wrong with the distribution dating ritual?  What´s with the rumours about Craig returning?  And why this total silence?

 

I know, I know - EON does not need to update the fans or the entertainment press, they work on their own time table, they know the public´s happy whenever there actually is a new Bond film.

 

Still, a sign of life would be nice. 

[Dustin]

I think at least part of the rumours may have been simply due to Eon stretching its limbs. For most observers that means a Bond film is on the drawing board, simple. I could even understand how that in turn leads to a firm belief Craig will be back since no screen tests for 007 happened. Viewed from a certain angle that must in turn mean Craig will be back.

Of course, after learning about these side jobs things look more like the status quo will prevail for - at least - a little longer.

From Eon's perspective it's quite sensible to keep themselves busy, get to know new talent in the business, open themselves for input by way of these projects...

[Mr_Wint]

For the last two films they started working on the script around 2.5 years before the planned released date (SF was originally planned for 2011). So from what we have heard so far it looks like they are aiming for a 2019 release. I can also imagine that Craig is pushing for a 4 year gap.