109 replies to this topic

[Bryce (003)]

Well that's the upside of things. To be honest this would be the best thing that happened for Bond this year!

True to a point my friend. Hell, they've got all of us going on about it.

[doubler83]

Is this supposed to be a serious article? Starts off okay enough, but then by the end it's moving into comedic territory.

[Napoleon Solo]

Is this supposed to be a serious article? Starts off okay enough, but then by the end it's moving into comedic territory.

I'm not going to defend the *actual magazine article* because I haven't had a chance to see it yet. But, for that matter, nobody else who has commented here has either. Everybody is getting worked up over a *teaser* for the article. That's like critiquing a movie on the basis of the trailer. Maybe it is awful and deserves to be condemned. But what if it actually has some details that haven't been reported previously? Right now, today, Aug. 5, nobody knows because the magazine won't be on newsstands until tomorrow.

EDIT: Let me amend one statement. You can judge a movie by a trailer ("Doesn't look like something that interests me") but you can't legimately review a movie based on the trailer only.

Edited by Napoleon Solo, 05 August 2010 - 06:29 PM.

[Bryce (003)]

I've read the article, hence my comments. It's hype and crap IMO and nothing we didn't know three weeks ago. Did they contact MGW or BB or Eon? Apparently not.

Just hype.

[elizabeth]

All I know is:

1. Daniel Craig looks HOT on that cover.
2. Abu Dhabi? Jamal Bond? W. T. F.

[killkenny kid]

Bond is going to be just fine.

But you know what IS going to die? Print magazines like Entertainment Weekly. Frankly, I'm amazed it's even still around.

Indeed, cat. But, I really can't believe this has happen twice in my lifetime.

[Bryce (003)]

To quote TND : "They'll print anything these days."

[Righty007]

2. Abu Dhabi? Jamal Bond? W. T. F.

That's a half-baked idea suggested by an anonymous "financial analyst" that knows nothing about James Bond, Eon Productions, Danjaq, or MGM/United Artists.

[Colossus]

Bond is not going to die, far too big. EON may die and whatever other company gains rights but Bond won't.

[Righty007]

Bond is not going to die, far too big. EON may die and whatever other company gains rights but Bond won't.

The only thing that is going to die is MGM. James Bond and Eon Productions/Danjaq will be around for a long, long time.

[doublenoughtspy]

I agree that EW has suffered of late, but comparing it to monthlies that have a specific film focus isn't exactly apples to oranges. EW is, as its name implies, a weekly. And it covers a lot more than just film.

Anyhoo, the issue in question was waiting for me in my mailbox when I came home. The article is 8 pages long (2 of those are a splash page image collage of all the Bond actors).

The sources quoted are all "anonymous former MGM execs."

Saltzman is conveniently not mentioned at all when discussing historical Bond.

It says that even if MGM finds a buyer tomorrow, another Bond film might be another 2-3 years away.

And it says the real danger is if MGM declares bankruptcy, Bond would be in legal limbo for years to come.

[Pierce - Daniel]

http://www.latimes.c...0,6309958.story
a new interesting article

[Quantumofsolace007]

what i find most interesting about the article is this little nugget


"Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes worked on the script last spring, the sources said, polishing the contributions of "Frost/Nixon" screenwriter Peter Morgan. Morgan, in turn, had rewritten parts of an earlier screenplay by Bond veterans Neal Purvis and Robert Wade.

EON has typically developed a script to a point of their satisfaction before sending it to the studio that will finance and distribute the given film (a pairing of MGM and Sony Pictures for the past two films). That has yet to happen with the new Bond, which is to be financed and distributed by MGM."

Again I want to see this film out of sheer curiosity what would Mendes do with Bond what has he added to the script?

I also think If this is true it would be an utter shame if Mendes wasn't allowed to direct solely because this is his bond film he has contributed to the script( if this article is true) and likewise it's only fair he directs a film he helped write right?

[sharpshooter]

The only thing half decent here is the cover.

[Germanlady]

The LA article has its faults also, like this:

The exact script issues on the new Bond remain shrouded in mystery, but the difficulties aren't entirely surprising given the abundance of top creators and a franchise with ever-more complex mythology. Moreover, the new Bond film has always been framed as the third in the trilogy that began with "Casino Royale." And with the need to wrap up many dangling plot lines — in this case, Bond's quest for resolution after the death of romantic interest Vesper Lynd, among others — the third movie in a trilogy is typically hardest to lock down


We all know, its not gonna be a trilogy - so, what else is wrong here?

..and this is not logic either, because they make it sound, they didn't send it, because the script is not ready. But the reason is, of course, that there is not studio, they could send it to.

EON has typically developed a script to a point of their satisfaction before sending it to the studio that will finance and distribute the given film (a pairing of MGM and Sony Pictures for the past two films). That has yet to happen with the new Bond, which is to be financed and distributed by MGM.

So - all in all - assumptions, that don't seem ALL that grounded with their unnamed sources etc. I say, once theyx are greenlit, they will be ready to go.

[MajorB]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-james-bond-20100806,0,6309958.story
a new interesting article

[EDIT: Looks like I took so long writing this that Germanlady beat me to the punch with some of the same points...!]

The part that caught my eye was this:

"Moreover, the new Bond film has always been framed as the third in the trilogy that began with "Casino Royale." And with the need to wrap up many dangling plot lines — in this case, Bond's quest for resolution after the death of romantic interest Vesper Lynd, among others — the third movie in a trilogy is typically hardest to lock down."

This is news to me. The only comments I recall from the Eon team seemed to indicate that they felt the CR storyline was fully resolved in QOS, and that the team wasn't even necessarily committed to bringing Quantum back as the villains in B23. Of course, that could've changed during story development. But even so, this makes me question how solid any of the reporting in this article is. I'm also wary because of this:

"...Craig wouldn't be free until later in 2011 at the earliest. Even then, he'd need to navigate around promoting Jon Favreau's "Cowboys & Aliens," which he's currently shooting (and which could also spawn a sequel, on which the actor has an option."

The promotion of one film would keep an actor from doing another film? This sounds like the writer is trying to come up with every possible obstacle to Craig's being in B23 in order to hype the drama of the story.

It's certainlhy feasible is that there has, in fact, been some creative back-and-forth among the various writers and the producers. And given the lack of a start date, the team may not be rushing to finish the script. But the idea that story issues would drag out even longer than the MGM crisis and therefore imperil the film seems a bit of a reach.

Edited by MajorB, 06 August 2010 - 04:48 AM.

[Guy Haines]

It's suddenly occured to me - it's August, which in journalism is known, over here at least, as the "silly season". Journals will publish any old stuff just to keep the attention of their readers in what is, usually, a slow news month. Might this be an example of such journalism? The only bit that caught my eye and caused my eyebrow to raise was the reference to 23 being the third part of a trilogy, with Bond seeking resolution after Vesper's death. That part of the re-booted Bond's development has been resolved, surely? And Marc Forster left it to the producers as to whether to make 23 the last part of three, or a standalone story.

Didn't the writer watch QoS? Probably not.

Edited by Guy Haines, 06 August 2010 - 07:29 AM.

[David Schofield]

Don't worry, Bond fans, James Bond will return.

But it won't be for a little while. And it sure as eggs is eggs won't be with Craig, who's nicely buidling his alternative franchise career. Anyone notice that???

The Bond producers have been astute at adapting the character to what the public want for many years.

So, the next James Bond, in probably 3-4 four years time, will be Ashton Kutcher in Jeffrey Deaver's international best seller "Project X".

Mark my words.

That'll please everyone here, right?

[captnash2]

m.g.m may bite the dust but eon goes on.
james bond will return.....

[[dark]]

Report: Bond 23 development also hampered by creative differences

LA Times claims script has been the subject of “creative issues” between writers and producers

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Report: Bond 23 development also hampered by creative differences

LA Times claims script has been the subject of “creative issues” between writers and producers

My soul is slowly dying...

[DamnCoffee]

I don't believe this for a second. If Purvis and Wade are polishing it, then there won't be any creative differences. Purvis and Wade are so far up their producers' it's unreal. They have no imagination anyway, it's not like they're bristling with ideas. Broccoli and Wilson probably tell them what to do, and they do it. No questions asked. If they were more forceful and had imagination then the Brosnan era would've been golden. Nuff said.

Even if this was true, then at least we know that Bond is still being worked on.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

The LA TiMES: "......there's this niggling fact: The script isn't ready." No . Who said it was anyway? I'd be surprised if the script was "ready" when the film is not yet officially financed and with no director officially signed.

[Single-O-Seven]

The LA TiMES: "......there's this niggling fact: The script isn't ready." No . Who said it was anyway? I'd be surprised if the script was "ready" when the film is not yet officially financed and with no director officially signed.

A lot of the scripts aren't entirely ready even when they begin filming, with TND being a notorious example. Didn't we already hear that there was at least a draft completed?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

The LA TiMES: "......there's this niggling fact: The script isn't ready." No . Who said it was anyway? I'd be surprised if the script was "ready" when the film is not yet officially financed and with no director officially signed.

A lot of the scripts aren't entirely ready even when they begin filming, with TND being a notorious example. Didn't we already hear that there was at least a draft completed?

Yeah there is a draft by P&W and Morgan. However, further script revisions and rewrites of some extent are surely inevitable when Bond 23 is (eventually) greenlit, so I don't see how the script was ever "ready" in the sense purported by the LA times.

[Aris007]

Report: Bond 23 development also hampered by creative differences

LA Times claims script has been the subject of “creative issues” between writers and producers

My soul is slowly dying...

Hang on mate! Don't believe these! Bond will NEVER die!

[zencat]

I'm not going to let this LA Times article worry me too much. It seems to barely know what it's talking about. For starters, I don't think Bond 23 is the third part of a trilogy. Wasn't that idea jettisoned when the new ending to QOS was shot to tie up the Vesper story? There are no more loose ends as far as I see. And of course Danjaq hasn't sent the script to MGM. They don't know yet if MGM is going to be their studio. That script is going nowhere. As to creative differences between the producers and writers...who are they talking about exactly? I don't see the producers and P&W ever at lagerheads -- certainly nothing that would ever be serious. P&W strike me as...highly agreeable.

One area of concern is the news that Mendes took a pass on the script. I just don't see how this guy fits into the world of Bond. But maybe I'l be surprised.

BTW, I picked up the EW issue yesterday. About to read the article.

[volante]

Don't worry, Bond fans, James Bond will return.


The Bond producers have been astute at adapting the character to what the public want for many years.

So, the next James Bond, in probably 3-4 four years time, will be Ashton Kutcher in Jeffrey Deaver's international best seller "Project X".

Mark my words.

That'll please everyone here, right?

Interesting, very interesting

[Harmsway]

For starters, I don't think Bond 23 is the third part of a trilogy. Wasn't that idea jettisoned when the new ending to QOS was shot to tie up the Vesper story?

No. The ending they jettisoned wasn't replaced. It was just an extra tag on the film as it currently exists. After Bond's meeting with M (which was one of the very first scenes they shot), we then had an extra teaser that recalled the end of CASINO ROYALE with Bond finally killing Mr. White, who was sent to kill Guy Haines. But Forster did cut that scene that scene so that BOND 23 wouldn't be locked-in with the Quantum storyline, so your main point stands.

There are no more loose ends as far as I see.

Well, Mr. White is still running around, and there are still plenty of government officials with Quantum connections...

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Continuing from the above posts, if anyone is interested, Forster talks about that jettisoned scene from QoS and why he removed it here.