113 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

This man is nuts. Seriously why cant we have a bond film every 2 years?

They don't have the source material to work off of anymore and it takes time to come up with a good plot. They are putting a little more effort it seems into things than previous years, which is fantastic and can be held accountable for keeping this series afloat. We're 22 films in for God's sake, that is incredible in and of itself. 22 separate movies with the same character, eventually more time would need to be spent to come up with new adventures for this man. Now is that time.

Agreed. There's really no reason why EON can't take an extra year to come up with a decent story for the next film. As you said, they've made 22 Bond films, and at this point, with the source material all but dried up, it takes more effort to come up with something original for Bond to do. I think that we're only seeing the beginning of the longer breaks in between, and that this three year break may become the norm by the time we make it to BOND 24, 25 and so on.

[MattofSteel]

Not that they'll ever pay the royalties to adapt one of the continuation novels, my vote would have to be for High Time to Kill (although the working title, "A Better Way to Die," was far superior) if they did. It's arguably Benson's finest, and adapted for the cinematic Bond with a dialogue polish from Haggis, it could be gold. The scope of Benson's stories tends to work within the Craig era's sensibilities.

[Tybre]

Not that they'll ever pay the royalties to adapt one of the continuation novels, my vote would have to be for High Time to Kill (although the working title, "A Better Way to Die," was far superior) if they did. It's arguably Benson's finest, and adapted for the cinematic Bond with a dialogue polish from Haggis, it could be gold. The scope of Benson's stories tends to work within the Craig era's sensibilities.

Well, they might some day, and even if they don't, they can always do a more serious adaptation of aspects. North Korea is a bit of a hotbed again. Maybe some bat[censored] insane North Korean villain kidnaps M? Voila. Colonel Sun minus the actual Colonel Sun.

[Fan]

For me, a long break between Bonds has always resulted in a very good film (TSWLM, GOLDENEYE, DAD, CR).

Why is everyone saying "the source material is dried up"? It definitely isn't.

Has no one read YOLT?

[Tybre]

For me, a long break between Bonds has always resulted in a very good film (TSWLM, GOLDENEYE, DAD, CR).

Why is everyone saying "the source material is dried up"? It definitely isn't.

Has no one read YOLT?

I think at this point they just sort of go "All the titles used? Check." (minus a few short stories) "Rough synopsis of book?" (using YOLT as example) "Bond travels to Japan, fights Blofeld. Done it" Plus, YOLT was a sort-of finale. I mean yeah, he comes back in Golden Gun, but YOLT very well could be, by context, and could have been, given Fleming's health, the end of James Bond. Probably want to save something like that for later.

[Quantumofsolace007]

For me, a long break between Bonds has always resulted in a very good film (TSWLM, GOLDENEYE, DAD, CR).

Why is everyone saying "the source material is dried up"? It definitely isn't.

Has no one read YOLT?

Agruably there are 2 -4 novels untapped (it depends on who you ask I believe Diamnonds Are forever You Only Live twice and The Man with the golden gun all are relativly unused but some people insist on throwing moonraker in there I feel Moonraker is compelty used up)
Then you have the short stories arguably most of them have something they can contribute to the films. (I still say M asking bond to investigate a personal matter would be a great opener for a film and a nice twist on bond coming into his office and getting his assignment)


Now that said YOLT and TMWGG wouldn't realy fit this early in bond's carier and they can't exactly announce they are going to do it Like DAD if they plan to use The man with the golden gun for example they will lie and say it's orignal just to avoide that nasty word 'remake' as for short stories we'll see.


As long as the story is as good and strong as Casino Royale and Quantum of solace I'm fine and don't care where it comes from title though should be a fleming.

[Bucky]

For me, a long break between Bonds has always resulted in a very good film (TSWLM, GOLDENEYE, DAD, CR).

Why is everyone saying "the source material is dried up"? It definitely isn't.

Has no one read YOLT?

I think at this point they just sort of go "All the titles used? Check." (minus a few short stories) "Rough synopsis of book?" (using YOLT as example) "Bond travels to Japan, fights Blofeld. Done it" Plus, YOLT was a sort-of finale. I mean yeah, he comes back in Golden Gun, but YOLT very well could be, by context, and could have been, given Fleming's health, the end of James Bond. Probably want to save something like that for later.

That is what I was thinking. If they do a fairly faithful adaptation of You Only Live Twice I would like that to be Craig's final film.

[tdalton]

That is what I was thinking. If they do a fairly faithful adaptation of You Only Live Twice I would like that to be Craig's final film.

I'd like an adaptation of YOLT to be Craig's final film as well. If they ever got around to doing that, I'd even like the film to be titled YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

[Paul Scrabo]

I don't think sticking to Fleming or cinematizing every bit of Fleming material is that important,
I just like a nice "James Bond Film"
I really don't feel that Barbara has any "fire in her belly" for james Bond.
and,,,
They'll make the CCBB remake next anyway.

Edited by Paul Scrabo, 04 June 2009 - 04:03 AM.

[Blofeld's Cat]

This man is nuts. Seriously why cant we have a bond film every 2 years?

Well, they don't have to make any at all.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Well this sucks! Craig is supposed to be off to the races as the 007 young and in his prime, ready to roll...they're blowing this thing.

No 50th anniversary tie in 2012 either. And the world ends december 21st, 2012 too.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

No 50th anniversary tie in 2012 either.

I don't get why this is so important for so many here. Isn't it better to get a new movie in 2011 than 2012, just because 2012 is an anniversary? How would that possibly improve the quality of the film?

[jaguar007]

I'd like an adaptation of YOLT to be Craig's final film as well. If they ever got around to doing that, I'd even like the film to be titled YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

I think they should call it Shatterhand. If they called it YOLT, it would get too much bad press as "a remake of a Connery classic", not that I think YOLT is a great movie, the average public would see that as a negative.

[Fox Allan]

2011?

More time for them to make it really good or more time to us to expect more.

[tdalton]

I'd like an adaptation of YOLT to be Craig's final film as well. If they ever got around to doing that, I'd even like the film to be titled YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

I think they should call it Shatterhand. If they called it YOLT, it would get too much bad press as "a remake of a Connery classic", not that I think YOLT is a great movie, the average public would see that as a negative.

Perhaps, but it would be a great challenge for the marketing department. I think that if there was a radically different look to the title's logo (something very ominous, perhaps incorporating vines or some type of eerie floral theme to it in reference to the Garden of Death) and a radically different approach to the film's marketing, then it could work. If it was just billed as the next Bond movie, then it wouldn't work, but if they approached it as a truly momentous occasion in the Bond franchise, then I think that they could work around the remake talk that would be going on.

SHATTERHAND would be my choice as an alternate title, however.

[Zorin Industries]

Not that they'll ever pay the royalties to adapt one of the continuation novels, my vote would have to be for High Time to Kill (although the working title, "A Better Way to Die," was far superior) if they did. It's arguably Benson's finest, and adapted for the cinematic Bond with a dialogue polish from Haggis, it could be gold. The scope of Benson's stories tends to work within the Craig era's sensibilities.

The spin-off er "novels" will never become Bond films.

That is what I was thinking. If they do a fairly faithful adaptation of You Only Live Twice I would like that to be Craig's final film.

I'd like an adaptation of YOLT to be Craig's final film as well. If they ever got around to doing that, I'd even like the film to be titled YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

But I think we had a film called YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE that was released in cinemas in 1967 and starred an actor called Sean Connery in the main role...? So - unless we want to sound the death bells for the series, we do not start remaking old films. And Eon are not in the business of that anyway.

I don't think sticking to Fleming or cinematizing every bit of Fleming material is that important,
I just like a nice "James Bond Film"
I really don't feel that Barbara has any "fire in her belly" for james Bond.
and,,,
They'll make the CCBB remake next anyway.

When you have attended every day of the shooting of a new Bond film and learnt and witnessed what goes into it, you can then make silly claims like the producers don't have any fire left.

And the CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG remake is a completely different project that can be reworked (and with a very good director possibly behind it as I suspect then the film will soar in a way some haven't even envisaged yet).

[Automan]

QOS was a brand new story based on a Fleming title.
They could use any of the Raymond Benson story.
There is loads of material to go at yet.

[Zorin Industries]

Eon Productions will never use any Benson or Gardener material....

[DamnCoffee]

Why are you so certain?

For all we know, they could turn to Benson and Gardener at some point. If not, I think they'll use the titles at least.

[Zorin Industries]

Why are you so certain?

For all we know, they could turn to Benson and Gardener at some point. If not, I think they'll use the titles at least.

The Gardner and Benson spin offs are just that - spin-offs. And I imagine there is a wealth of legalities as well as different creative visions between the two entities. I believe Eon have nothing to do with the continuation novels. That is a concern of the Ian Fleming estate (who Eon have a relationship with - as a shared history if nothing else - but the Fleming estate know not to make commercial cinema blockbusters and Eon / Danjaq do not write cash-in, sorry continuation books. Besides, the Eon / Danjaq / United Artists option was for the superior Fleming titles not what came after. And The Broccoli family's respect, debt and creative loyalty is to Ian Fleming (hence his continued screen credits nearly fifty years later). That does not extend to "Daniel Craig Is Raymond Benson's James Bond 007 in John Gardners NEVER DREAM OF BEING RENEWED" or whatever 1980's TV movie the titles usually sound like. Most of the Benson / Gardner titles are - to be honest - weak and are often derivative of the films and not the original books - which speaks volumes about the real intent of their publications.

Furthermore, my take on it is that the Gardner / Benson books made money from Eon's efforts. The wider sections of the public market bought the spin-off stories because of the profile of the films not Fleming.

[Zorin Industries]

EDIT

[Safari Suit]

True, to be fair some of the films have actually been a little bit guilty of being derivative of Gardner too.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I'm personnaly fuine with a few "conicendalt" plunderings of the bensons and gardner books

[Zorin Industries]

I'm personnaly fuine with a few "conicendalt" plunderings of the bensons and gardner books

Why not - they both "borrowed" from the films....(!)...allegedly....

[Publius]

Hopefully Bond 24 would be released in 2013, then. I don't see Craig sticking around for too many years, so going to a three year spacing means he might not make as many Bond movies as I had hoped.

[jaguar007]

Why are you so certain?

For all we know, they could turn to Benson and Gardener at some point. If not, I think they'll use the titles at least.

The Gardner and Benson spin offs are just that - spin-offs. And I imagine there is a wealth of legalities as well as different creative visions between the two entities. I believe Eon have nothing to do with the continuation novels. That is a concern of the Ian Fleming estate (who Eon have a relationship with - as a shared history if nothing else - but the Fleming estate know not to make commercial cinema blockbusters and Eon / Danjaq do not write cash-in, sorry continuation books. Besides, the Eon / Danjaq / United Artists option was for the superior Fleming titles not what came after. And The Broccoli family's respect, debt and creative loyalty is to Ian Fleming (hence his continued screen credits nearly fifty years later). That does not extend to "Daniel Craig Is Raymond Benson's James Bond 007 in John Gardners NEVER DREAM OF BEING RENEWED" or whatever 1980's TV movie the titles usually sound like. Most of the Benson / Gardner titles are - to be honest - weak and are often derivative of the films and not the original books - which speaks volumes about the real intent of their publications.

Furthermore, my take on it is that the Gardner / Benson books made money from Eon's efforts. The wider sections of the public market bought the spin-off stories because of the profile of the films not Fleming.

Besides, IFP nor Gardner's estate (same with Benson/Foulks) can sell the film rights to anyone other than EON. If EON were to use a Gardner book for a film, they would have to pay royalties to Gardner's Estate. Why would EON pay extra $$ to use one of Gardner's stories when is it less expensive for them to create new storylines that are more current?

[singleentendre]

No more Fleming material?

There's this clever little novel called Moonraker that, with a little bit of tweaking for modern day audiences, would make a tight, exciting thriller.

[Mr. Somerset]

I wouldn't really be against the idea of EON adapting a Gardner or Benson novel, providing it was a good film.
I read some of the Gardner's and none of the Benson's. I'd almost prefer a good adaptation of, say, For Special Services to another DAD.


With the Craigster, I doubt we'll get another DAD anyway

[blueman]

If EON were smart...

Take this longer break to plot out the next two films: an against-the-clock thriller ala TB/OHMSS with Bond thwarting QUANTUM's big baddie from getting his/her big payday ("Risico"); then a hunt-the-dragon follow-up with the big QUANTUM villain festering in a Castle of Death ala Blofeld/YOLT ("Shatterhand"). Actually as long as they take QUANTUM to whatever edge they come up with in 23, doing a YOLT for 24 should fit pretty well. Craig should really get his chance to slay the squid (I keep seeing the DN killing ground tacked on to YOLT's Castle of Death, just fits)... DAF was a terrible end to SPECTRE, EON needs to do it right this time.

[Tybre]

No more Fleming material?

There's this clever little novel called Moonraker that, with a little bit of tweaking for modern day audiences, would make a tight, exciting thriller.

Biochemical warfare instead of nukes? Britain builds the SDI maybe? Yeah, Moonraker could be great with some tweaking. Obviously they wouldn't call the villain Hugo Drax or name the system Moonraker, but it could still be adapted a little more readily than YOLT. Soldier, severely injured, recovered by enemy, integrates self into enemy society, DOOM!, ???, Profit. Sorry, couldn't resist that last part. Anyway, where was I? Oh right, really the biggest issue with Moonraker is what sort of thing would Drax be designing, if assuming still military. Nukes are old hat and seems these days militaries are trying to develop things like death rays (seriously, look up some of the more recent US military innovations). Not really a national defense system in death-ray tanks.