51 replies to this topic

[MrDraco]

Oh i'm sure EONs got a team of people just thinking up....LOL nah but seriously, a break is nice that way everyone doesn't get burned out and make a sloppy movie...

[Zorin Industries]

Alternatively, if you divide up the work and give everyone a part or act to work on that results in a script that is neither uniform, completed, tonally similiar or indeed any good.

Not necessarily. Many television shows will divide the writing of episodes up between multiple people and they conference regularly to discuss what they're doing to help keep things uniform. Hell, they divided up the finale of BSG and that maintained the whole way through, and, at least in my opinion, it was one of the best written things I've seen in quite some time, television or cinema.

But a Bond film is not a succession of series of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA nor indeed any other television show so that response does not seem all that relevant.

I'm not saying it is. It was just the first thing that popped into my mind where writers collaborated. I was simply pointing out is possible to divvy it up between multiple writers, act by act. Not saying I want that, just saying it's a possibility.

But the team of GALACTICA writers did not work on each and every series as a whole. They take episodes and work on them indiviudally or in smaller groups. You can't do that with a feature film. It's just not practical or at all creatively beneficial.

[Tybre]

Oh i'm sure EONs got a team of people just thinking up....LOL nah but seriously, a break is nice that way everyone doesn't get burned out and make a sloppy movie...

Indeed. But sadly, a long wait does not guarantee quality. Especially with EON's fifteen thriller/family film thing. Not saying it's a bad move at all. But it's a bit like saying "I need a break from all this paperwork, so I'm going to go to Bermuda and get started on this new bunch".

[Zorin Industries]

Oh i'm sure EONs got a team of people just thinking up....LOL nah but seriously, a break is nice that way everyone doesn't get burned out and make a sloppy movie...

Indeed. But sadly, a long wait does not guarantee quality. Especially with EON's fifteen thriller/family film thing. Not saying it's a bad move at all. But it's a bit like saying "I need a break from all this paperwork, so I'm going to go to Bermuda and get started on this new bunch".

It's not like that at all. Filmmaking and the creative impetus does not quite equate to "paperwork". I sense you have never produced a film or written a TV screenplay...?

[Tybre]

Oh i'm sure EONs got a team of people just thinking up....LOL nah but seriously, a break is nice that way everyone doesn't get burned out and make a sloppy movie...

Indeed. But sadly, a long wait does not guarantee quality. Especially with EON's fifteen thriller/family film thing. Not saying it's a bad move at all. But it's a bit like saying "I need a break from all this paperwork, so I'm going to go to Bermuda and get started on this new bunch".

It's not like that at all. Filmmaking and the creative impetus does not quite equate to "paperwork". I sense you have never produced a film or written a TV screenplay...?

It's an analogy, mate. Figure of speech. I was merely saying their deciding they need a break from Bond to "recharge" only to turn about and work on other things sort of defeats the purpose of "recharging".

And no, I haven't worked on a major film production before, but I do dabble in the independent film scene when the opportunity presents itself. Not my choice of career, though, just a hobby. Bulk of my time and energy goes into my novels.

[Mr. Somerset]

Mickey G did say in an interview prior to the release of QoS that he wanted to take a break between films. I think we are looking at a 2011 release for Bond 23

Good reminder not to worry. Perhaps B23 summer 2011, then December 2012 for B24?



Wishful thinking, but wouldn't that be sweet?.

[Sniperscope]

As eager as I am to see where they go from here, I agree that I'd rather wait longer if it'll mean a better film and (hypothetically) a longer tenure for Craig by virtue of not burning out on the part b/c/o the schedule. I'm not happy about it, but I'm sufficiently content.

Well, my gut feelings on this are as follows:

a. a longer wait is no guarantee of quality - we waited 3 years for DAD.
b. the longer the break between movies, the older and more craggy looking DC will get, so the less amount of total films he'll do. If the next Bond movie isn't out til 2011 then he'll do 2 more tops (quite possibly the next would be his last). On the other hand, if he did a movie every 2 years then we could conceivably see 3 more from him.

Personally I think the time to have a break is the period when a new Bond is cast - a four or so year break every ten years. The Craig era has just got up and running - I find it frustrating that they are already 'having a break'.

Why not see a break as a mature way for a franchise to handle its development rather than churning them out with little regard for quality... I'm happy for a break.

Perhaps what you should consider is that EON are respecting DC as a professional who would like to pursue other films rather than becoming typecast as Bond. Brosnan, Moore and even Dalton did very few other films while Bond. While you might argue that DC's other projects haven't been much chop I still think he is actively attempting to avoid the inevitable typecasting of the literal minded out there...
DC's an actor not a robot. It takes a lot of work. With a break he can enthusiastically approach Bond. Do we want the the kind of dialled-in efforts of Connery post GF to re-occur? Nope

And so what about Craig becoming "older" and "craggy looking"? That's Fleming's Bond mate - not the pretty boys that keep getting thrown up on screen these days. I'd be more than pleased to see Craig going into his late 40s which will take him pretty much to Bond's fictional age.

Edited by Sniperscope, 02 May 2009 - 01:10 AM.

[Captain Tightpants]

And I'm fairly certain that the producers won't suddenly change their minds and bump the schedule of BOND 23 just because people on the internet are impatient and whining about it. They are, after all, the producers, and have far more experience with making the films than we do. If they think a three-year wait will be better for the franchise than the usual to, so be it. We should trust to their judgement,because they actually know what they're doing.

[tdalton]

I don't see any reason why EON needs to get working on BOND 23 right now. Michael Wilson has already expressed a desire to take a break from the franchise, which I think that he's certainly earned the chance to do after being involved with it for so long. Surely everyone involved needs a chance to recharge after the last two films, and if that means that we don't see BOND 23 until 2012, I'm OK with that. I think that a break of that kind would serve the franchise well in two ways. First, it would give the producers/actors/writers and whoever else is continuously working on the films to get recharged and re-energized about the franchise, which would no doubt help them make an even better film the next time around. Secondly, a longer break would make it more of an event when Bond returns for the next film. As much as I love QUANTUM OF SOLACE, I never got the feeling that it was an event film. Leading up to the release of the film, at least for me, it just felt like the release of another action film. I want the feeling that I had when we had the leadup to CASINO ROYALE again, with the feeling of the film being a true cinematic event, and a longer wait would help to accomplish that as well.

[eddychaput]

Personally I don't care for a Bond in 2012 just because of the 50 anniversary element. Let Bond 23 come out in 2011.

[SecretAgentFan]

Although I´d love to see the next Bond as fast as possible - it´s half a year since the last one was in theaters. To complain now that there seems to be no effort to do Bond 23 is kinda silly, don´t you think?

Also, who knows what EON really is doing right now with Bond 23. Wilson stating that there is no movement does not mean that they don´t work on it. Maybe he just wanted to throw people off EON´s tracks.

In the end, I think it was wise to get QOS quickly into theaters in order to firmly establish Craig as Bond.

Now it´s probably better to let worldwide audiences hunger for a new Bond instead of supplying them with a new film every two years.

[eddychaput]

Now it´s probably better to let worldwide audiences hunger for a new Bond instead of supplying them with a new film every two years.

This makes sense. I don't know about Wilson putting people 'off their tracks', but after two Craig Bond films in rapid succession, maybe they are hoping to get fans salivating and building up a certain anticipation for the next one.

[danslittlefinger]

http://www.mirror.co...15875-21339753/

From The Sun but it states a 2011 release.

Who knows right?

[Zorin Industries]

http://www.mirror.co...15875-21339753/

From The Sun but it states a 2011 release.

Who knows right?

Neither.

[dee-bee-five]

Although I´d love to see the next Bond as fast as possible - it´s half a year since the last one was in theaters. To complain now that there seems to be no effort to do Bond 23 is kinda silly, don´t you think?

Also, who knows what EON really is doing right now with Bond 23. Wilson stating that there is no movement does not mean that they don´t work on it. Maybe he just wanted to throw people off EON´s tracks.

In the end, I think it was wise to get QOS quickly into theaters in order to firmly establish Craig as Bond.

Now it´s probably better to let worldwide audiences hunger for a new Bond instead of supplying them with a new film every two years.

It sure as hell didn't hurt TSWLM which had a longer gap after the virtual back-to-back LALD and TMWTGG. Not that I'm equating LALD and TMWTGG with CR and QoS, of course - or failing to recognise that the gap was forced on Eon because of the break up of Broccoli and Saltzman.

[Pushkin]

For what its worth, from someone not very active on here, I would prefer they wait til 2011 and take their time getting a good story in place. I would start work on that right now just to get things going and allow time to go in a new direction if need be.

One of the big problems with Bond films is the writing has sometimes been too much of a factory production. I think its a good idea to allow more time for writing and thereby, avoid that problem. To me QoS was a very good film and I like the pace - I did not see it being Bourne influenced so much as what intelligence have to do sometimes when they need to act quickly without all the information - the fog of war if you will. Having said that, I think the script needed a little more polish and if there is one thing I could change would be the hotel in the middle of the dessert at the end of the film which I found to formulaic (i.e. Bond invades the villain's fortress etc.) Perhaps it was there because the script was doubly rushed - 2 year turnaround and the writers strike.

Cheers

[Richard]

Oh i'm sure EONs got a team of people just thinking up....LOL nah but seriously, a break is nice that way everyone doesn't get burned out and make a sloppy movie...

The Eon producers are already burned out and making sloppy movies. Time for Broccoli and Wilson to stand down and withdraw. They should have withdrawn a long time ago. Let them engage the services of more sophisticated and astute film makers to create the Bond films.

Richard

[byline]

The Eon producers are already burned out and making sloppy movies.

That's definitely a matter of opinion. I believe that since the Brosnan era, the powers that be took stock of things and made a very wise decision to reboot the series, thus reinvigorating the character and sharpening the focus on elements that had fallen by the wayside in previous films. Given their most recent efforts, I'm quite happy for Michael and Barbara to stay on and keep doing what they've been doing. "If it ain't broke," and all.

[RufusCobb]

Sniperscope said ...

'I'd be more than pleased to see Craig going into his late 40s which will take him pretty much to Bond's fictional age.'


Sorry ... where does this come from? I don't remember reading any Fleming book or seeing any EON film that puts Bond in his late 40's. I always see him in his 30's but maybe that's just me, I can't provide any evidence for that.

And another thing, everyone keeps going on about waiting 3 years and 'doing it properly' but in the beginning they were churning out Bond movies every year or two and they never seemed to have any problems.

Edited by RufusCobb, 25 May 2009 - 01:13 AM.

[Tybre]

Sniperscope said ...

'I'd be more than pleased to see Craig going into his late 40s which will take him pretty much to Bond's fictional age.'


Sorry ... where does this come from? I don't remember reading any Fleming book or seeing any EON film that puts Bond in his late 40's. I always see him in his 30's but maybe that's just me, I can't provide any evidence for that.

And another thing, everyone keeps going on about waiting 3 years and 'doing it properly' but in the beginning they were churning out Bond movies every year or two and they never seemed to have any problems.

I think by MWTGG gun he was in his 40s. Hang on, simple math...

Okay, so, no definitive birth day is given, so I'll just list the lowest I find plausible and the highest I can see. 1920, 1925. Assuming Casino Royale takes place in the year it was published, 1953, Bond was somewhere between 28 and 33. Therefore, Golden Gun, which was published in 1965, he's somewhere between 40 and 45 when the book takes place. Given that Golden Gun mentions Bond believes he would die before the age of 45, it may perhaps be better to take the year written instead of published, in which case we only need to shave one year off of each age. Of course, it's possible the Bond of the books is ageless too, but again using Golden Gun, I think not. Golden Gun makes it pretty clear Bond is getting old.

[001carus]

Okay, seriously, why do some of you think that because Bond 23 isn't being rushed out, it's going to be bad? It's very, very much the opposite. The more time one takes on a film, within reach, the better the results are. That includes downtime after the predecessor.

Taking a break after QOS is the best decision they could take. Now, they're fresh and ready to throw ideas down for Bond 23. Scripting is then more clarified and complete before filming begins.

Honestly, I'd much rather have a good Bond film in 2011 than a rushed, crummy one in 2010. It's not about speed, it's not about quantity. Guys, take your time to create this movie and make it the best it can possibly be.

[Zorin Industries]

Oh i'm sure EONs got a team of people just thinking up....LOL nah but seriously, a break is nice that way everyone doesn't get burned out and make a sloppy movie...

The Eon producers are already burned out and making sloppy movies. Time for Broccoli and Wilson to stand down and withdraw. They should have withdrawn a long time ago. Let them engage the services of more sophisticated and astute film makers to create the Bond films.

Not been a Bond fan for long then...?

Your sentiments are sorely misguided.

If Craig's last two entries are classed as "sloppy" in your opinion, then these opinions deserve to see McG helm a Bond movie.

There is no-one alive more astute about James Bond 007 than Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson.