109 replies to this topic

[zencat]

Oh, yeah, Mr White is still out there, isn't he?

Meh, doesn't mean with have to tie that up with the next film. Mr. White doesn't even need to be in it. Blofeld and Specter were in FRWL, ignored in GF, then we went back to them in TB. I think we need a stand alone film away from the Quantum storyline. That's what my instincts say at least.

[Loomis]

I hope White continues to evade Bond's clutches. I like him (in an "almost-rooting-for" Hans Gruber/Hannibal Lecter kinda way). I think he's the coolest character of the Craig era (and perhaps the coolest villain since Scaramanga) and I don't want to see him killed. Frankly, I hope he gets away with it all.

And not that we look for realism in the Bond series, but having White disappear unpunished would also be more "realistic". Quantum is too big an organisation for one man - even 007 - to singlehandedly smash completely. I'd even be quite happy for Quantum never to appear again in the series. Maybe it carries on regardless, maybe it all crumbles after the events of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, or perhaps it transforms into something else (maybe a mid-ranking Quantum member by the name of Ernst Stavro Blofeld decides to split from the organisation and form his own outfit, SPECTRE). At any rate, all of this can take place offscreen and in the viewer's imagination. I don't think we need any "closure" regarding Quantum, and in many ways it'd be refreshing not to have any.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I hope White continues to evade Bond's clutches. I like him (in an "almost-rooting-for" Hans Gruber/Hannibal Lecter kinda way). I think he's the coolest character of the Craig era (and perhaps the coolest villain since Scaramanga) and I don't want to see him killed.

Agreed. Although I would like to see more of him, perhaps when I least expect it.

[Matt_13]

This far more interesting news than the whole "Bond is dead" nonsense we've been getting fed. However, as some have already mentioned, the script wasn't delivered because of MGM, not because it was incomplete. I think given everything we've been told we can be fairly certain that Bond 23 is ready to go creatively (minor tweaks aside). As for the continuation of the story line, I think the writers probably figure it'd be a waste not to include Quantum as an organization that still proves to be a very serious threat. Quantum did not get the great word of mouth CR did, and it was a very short film, one that doesn't really put its budget on the screen (however engrossing the film may be). I believe that Michael and Barbara are being very careful this time around, because this is very much a make or break kind of film.

I wonder what MGM is up to, and how they feel with all of these articles popping up everywhere.

[MattofSteel]

Anyone with actual power in the situation is too individually rich to give a damn. Despite the company's state of damage.

MGMs owners and operators screwed up royally. But the bitch of it all is, they have no reason to do anything but sit on their hands until the best possible solution (aka the one where they make the most $$$ out of a close up) arises. They can wait forever, as long as their friends are the ones who keep handing out debt extensions.

Ridiculous.

[zencat]

BTW, the EW article disses Moonraker.



Talk to the hand.

[jaguar007]

THE LA TIMES makes it sound as if BOND-23 could have begun production again at any moment, but won't be able to because Craig has committed to the GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO,

Exactly, Craig is supposed to be done with Tattoo early 2011, still in time to start filming Bond 23 for either a summer or fall 2012 release. The only thing that Tattoo could interfere with is a fall 2011 release like was probably planned before the whole MGM debacle happened. At best this may only delay Bond 23 for 6 mos to a year.

[Safari Suit]

BTW, the EW article disses Moonraker.



Talk to the hand.

It's Entertainment Weekly; you can't expect any opinions which go against any kind of grain.

[Mike00spy]

BTW, the EW article disses Moonraker.



Talk to the hand.

It's Entertainment Weekly; you can't expect any opinions which go against any kind of grain.

I believe they got in their typical Dalton jab, too.

[Bryce (003)]

BTW, the EW article disses Moonraker.



Talk to the hand.

Yeah, I caught that too. In my case it was "talk to the finger". Zencat and I have stood on the wall for years. You don't trash talk Moonraker.

Not on our watch dammit!

Maybe they should rename the magazine "Entertainment WEAK-ly".

[Harmsway]

The best thing for BOND 23 at this point would be a bizarre, clever story featuring some strange, fascinating characters. I hope EON has actually found one.

Oh, add my name to the list of MOONRAKER supporters. MOONRAKER rocks.

[Matt_13]

BTW, the EW article disses Moonraker.



Talk to the hand.

Maybe they should rename the magazine "Entertainment WEAK-ly".

OH SNAPS!

I'm a sucker for the Gilbert Bonds, and Rio is gorgeous.

The shot at Dalton was terrible. Shame on them.

[Guy Haines]

I hope White continues to evade Bond's clutches. I like him (in an "almost-rooting-for" Hans Gruber/Hannibal Lecter kinda way). I think he's the coolest character of the Craig era (and perhaps the coolest villain since Scaramanga) and I don't want to see him killed. Frankly, I hope he gets away with it all.

And not that we look for realism in the Bond series, but having White disappear unpunished would also be more "realistic". Quantum is too big an organisation for one man - even 007 - to singlehandedly smash completely. I'd even be quite happy for Quantum never to appear again in the series. Maybe it carries on regardless, maybe it all crumbles after the events of QUANTUM OF SOLACE, or perhaps it transforms into something else (maybe a mid-ranking Quantum member by the name of Ernst Stavro Blofeld decides to split from the organisation and form his own outfit, SPECTRE). At any rate, all of this can take place offscreen and in the viewer's imagination. I don't think we need any "closure" regarding Quantum, and in many ways it'd be refreshing not to have any.

I always thought that Quantum would become SPECTRE anyway. In Fleming's novel Thunderball, Blofeld set up one or two organisations before settling on SPECTRE. But whether it does or doesn't, it would be a waste of a good multi-national criminal/terrorist/would be world domination syndicate not to bring it back in a future film, though I'm ambivalent as to whether it should be in Bond 23. As for Mr White, he's certainly one of the most enigmatic Bond villains - we know nothing about his background, even if his very commonplace name is real or not. If he "limped off into the sunset" we'd be left wondering at least. (I assume he now has a limp, after that bullet to the leg .)

[Arbogast777]

Of course this MGM fiasco is not going to kill Bond, anybody who is reasonable will tell you that. But I think fans aren't fully prepared for the fact that it is extremely possible that it delays the heck out of it, and if it's a long enough delay, it could change the face of the franchise a bit.

Just like with "License to Kill" -----> "Goldeneye", the producers decided the wait was long enough that a reboot was necessary. A prolonged wait could kill Craig and Dench's participation. Heck, a 6 year wait would put Michael G. Wilson at age 74 and perhaps he'll be ready to turn it over to his sons.

As much as the EW article was gibberish, the point they made about MGM going into bankruptcy possibly tying the franchise up for years is absolutely possible, and while we might not want to think about that... we kind of have to.

[The Richmond Spy]

Creative differences = a bad thing? I welcome them (to the extent that the film still be made before too long). I'd much rather have a film that made it through the gauntlet of opinions than a "yes man" film. This waiting game isn't so bad...sure, I'd love to have a high quality Bond every 2 years, but if that can't happen nowadays, then I can wait.

[Righty007]

Creative differences = a bad thing? I welcome them (to the extent that the film still be made before too long). I'd much rather have a film that made it through the gauntlet of opinions than a "yes man" film. This waiting game isn't so bad...sure, I'd love to have a high quality Bond every 2 years, but if that can't happen nowadays, then I can wait.

Die Another Day, for instance, was a "yes-man" film. Not only did the producers let Purvis and Wade have a field day with the creation of unrealistic scenarios and crappy one-liners but Lee Tamahori always said "yes" when solicited on Hollywood Blvd.

[killkenny kid]

[Guy Haines]

Of course this MGM fiasco is not going to kill Bond, anybody who is reasonable will tell you that. But I think fans aren't fully prepared for the fact that it is extremely possible that it delays the heck out of it, and if it's a long enough delay, it could change the face of the franchise a bit.

Just like with "License to Kill" -----> "Goldeneye", the producers decided the wait was long enough that a reboot was necessary. A prolonged wait could kill Craig and Dench's participation. Heck, a 6 year wait would put Michael G. Wilson at age 74 and perhaps he'll be ready to turn it over to his sons.

As much as the EW article was gibberish, the point they made about MGM going into bankruptcy possibly tying the franchise up for years is absolutely possible, and while we might not want to think about that... we kind of have to.

If there is a six year hiatus similar to that between LTK and GE, then, yes, we have probably seen the last of Judi Dench as M. But if Bond 23 is set for a 2014 release, we could still see Craig as Bond. 46 is no age for a physically fit screen actor - only two years older than Roger Moore when he made his first Bond film. Whether Craig would still want to do it is open to question, but so far he's given no indication that he's had it with Bond, only an understandable desire that filming should start a.s.a.p. - something we all want.

Also, the two yearly cycle between films may seem to be the rule, but there have been exceptions other than the LTK/GE gap. Two and a half years between YOLT and OHMSS. A similar period between TMWTGG and TSWLM. Three years between TWINE and DAD, and four years between DAD and CR. Granted there were reasons for the gaps, but I suppose the point I'm making is that we seem to assume that the films should automatically appear every two years, and sometimes they don't. And that the LTK/GE is not the only time we've been forced to wait longer for another Bond film than we expect to. It's ruddy frustrating though!

(P.S. I was incorrect about Sir Roger and his first Bond film. He was, of course, 46 was LALD was released. They say if you're good enough, you're young enough - or old enough, if needs be. Roger Moore was good enough back then. Barring the unexpected, Daniel Craig still will be if we have another six year hiatus.)

Edited by Guy Haines, 07 August 2010 - 11:41 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

I just hope that some real news about BOND 23 would be released this same week...

By the way, I was in London last week and accidentally found the house in which EON Productions reside. On the same day I passed Judi Dench on St.Martin´s lane. Twice.

That must mean something, right?

[The ides of Mark]

I don't buy the 'creative differences'. Creative differences = out of the game. Babs & Mike only call the shots.

[SecretAgentFan]

I don't buy the 'creative differences'. Creative differences = out of the game. Babs & Mike only call the shots.

Creative differences are a perfectly normal element of the creative process. It´s really silly that the LA Times article actually tries to drum up some outrage at this. Pathetic, really.

[The ides of Mark]

I don't buy the 'creative differences'. Creative differences = out of the game. Babs & Mike only call the shots.

Creative differences are a perfectly normal element of the creative process. It´s really silly that the LA Times article actually tries to drum up some outrage at this. Pathetic, really.

Agreed, it's highly exaggerated.

[zencat]

And then sometimes creative differences can be serious.

[Turn]

Well, on the bright side, at least EW put something besides vampires on its cover. It builds awareness. Some casual fans probably figured they'd be seeing another Bond film like clockwork this fall. And considering the tepid response to such action/spy fare such as Knight and Day, Killers, A-Team and Salt, some people were probably looking forward to the leader in the field.

EW has been generous with its Bond coverage in recent years, and I can't recall anything overly negative or dismissive. However, they do seem to always pull out the same lame biases against Dalton and Moonraker. Those attitudes are so 1990s.

Speaking of that, after TWINE came out EW had an article on how to "fix" Bond. I'll have to see if I can find that one.

Lastly, I agree with those who champion magazines such as Empire and Total Film for film coverage as we really don't have any such equivelent in the U.S. right now and haven't since Premiere went under several years ago. Cinema Retro is the closest thing to a regular magazine I purchase these days and it only comes out quarterly.

[zencat]

And then sometimes creative differences can be serious.

Please elaborate.

Oh, I don't know anything for a fact, but I had always heard that Richards was the studio's choice and that she was foisted on the production. That creative clash did not exactly result in magic.

[Quantumofsolace007]

And then sometimes creative differences can be serious.

Please elaborate.

Oh, I don't know anything for a fact, but I had always heard that Richards was the studio's choice and that she was foisted on the production. That creative clash did not exactly result in magic.

I know I'm gonna be hated for this but I thought she was the hottest Brosnan bond girl and only surpassed by eva green in terms of modern bond girls in terms of looks.


Sorry to all Camille Jinx Wai Lin and Natalya fans out there.


Sure she was weak in acting but man I would not kick her out of bed... wait a second there is more room on the floor


ok i'll stop drooling.

[jaguar007]

I don't think many people are going to argue with you about Richards being good looking, but there are plenty of actresses out there who are just as good looking who can ACT!

[Guy Haines]

And then sometimes creative differences can be serious.

Please elaborate.

Also, the two yearly cycle between films may seem to be the rule, but there have been exceptions other than the LTK/GE gap. Two and a half years between YOLT and OHMSS. A similar period between TMWTGG and TSWLM. Three years between TWINE and DAD, and four years between DAD and CR. Granted there were reasons for the gaps, but I suppose the point I'm making is that we seem to assume that the films should automatically appear every two years, and sometimes they don't. And that the LTK/GE is not the only time we've been forced to wait longer for another Bond film than we expect to. It's ruddy frustrating though!

Well, we used to assume that, at a minimum, the films would come out every two years, but that was at a time when they were much more formulaic and inside-the-box than they are now. We assumed back in 1973 that the next Bond film would come out in the summer of 1975, but it came out 18 months later instead of, at that point in the series, the traditional 24 months, and the results were disastrous. Remember, after TB EON decided to start spacing them out 2 years apart because of the logistics involved in trying to top each preceding film entry.

But the two biggest gaps in between the films have been because of either a reboot or legal problems, and outside of those issues, I don't think that you can go more than 3-4 years between films with the same actor and expect the audience to still be around for said actor. If all involved can't get this puppy into theaters by 2012, I'd imagine we'll be getting a new 007, a new M, a new everything. Maybe even one or two new Executive Producers. In fact, I predict that Michael Wilson will stick around just long enough to settle the legal problems with MGM once and for all, find a new, permanent, stable home for EON and 007, launch one more film with Barbara to get the series rolling again (whether it's a "reboot" or not I can't predict) and then retire. Barbara will bring on fresh talent to take over the production duties so she can diversify her projects and move on to other things of interest. She'll stick around at EON as a figurehead, but there'll be a new generation of producers post-MGM bankruptcy/merger.

There will be a rainbow at the end of this rain storm.

I think you may be right - except concerning a new 007 actor, unless Daniel Craig decides to call it a day. Right now they have the best actor available for the part, and he is willing to continue. The rationale for dropping Pierce Brosnan - filming the first Bond novel, Bond at the start of his career and so on - doesn't apply here. Even if filming were to slip beyond 2012, there's no reason to look for a new Bond actor until Craig is no longer credible in the part, or decides he doesn't want to carry on. To refer to another popular film series - there was a four year gap between the first Indiana Jones film and the second, five years between film two and film three, and eighteen years between three and four. With Indiana played by the same actor. I'm not suggesting it may be credible to cast the current Bond in film 23 if we have a hiatus of more than a decade, but I maintain that Daniel Craig could still be Bond come 2014 or 2016. As I understand it, the producers still wanted Timothy Dalton for what became GoldenEye, even in 1994. It was the studio people who didn't. Craig isn't in the same position as Dalton - a first film that succeeded, a second film that wasn't quite as successful, and some film goers and critics supposedly doubtful about him.

[jaguar007]

However, the role was so thinly written and rewritten from the very beginning that I'm sure agents for more established actresses would've taken one look at the Christmas part and had their clients turn it down or refuse to send them up for the part to begin with.

Is anyone here familiar with early script drafts of TWINE? I ask because I wonder if Jones was even in them? You could take her character right out of the movie with out changing the story at all. The movie seems like they wanted to do something OHMSS style but someone (studio maybe) got in the way and wanted to add another female for Bond to end up with. Perhaps that is why EON did CR when they did (they got the rights in the late 90s I believe), maybe SONY was willing to let EON take a chance when MGM was not.

[Loomis]

I mean, there were NO OTHER big name actresses under consideration for Jinx?

Well, Whitney Houston was rumoured, although I can't see her being considered very seriously by Eon. Mind you, if Barbara Broccoli really did meet Brigitte Nielsen (who even in 1989 was long past her prime and hadn't really done anything other than the embarrassing RED SONJA and appear briefly in BEVERLY HILLS COP II and two films starring her ex-husband Sly Stallone) for the role of Pam Bouvier, then excuse me while I lift my jaw up from the floor. I can certainly see Nielsen being considered for the role of May Day in A VIEW TO A KILL, but Pam in LICENCE TO KILL? As we say in England, I'm blowed.