77 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

There will be no press conference till January just like the times before so don't be duped.

Casino Royale had one in October.

[Shrublands]

There will be no press conference till January just like the times before so don't be duped.

Casino Royale had one in October.

That was different, that was to introduce the new James Bond.
Goldeneye did something similar.

[Shrublands]

Well, I was at Pinewood only a few days ago and Bond 23 is still in pre-production, crewing up, constructing sets and on schedule for an early November start of
principle photography at the studio.

The QOS Press Conference was in Jan because that's when the film started shooting. Bond 23 is starting earlier, hence the Nov Press Conference. The principle photography schedule
is about a month longer than the last film, and the longer schedule is also great for the post production, which won't be quite as tight as QOS. A camera-man associate of mine who has worked on the past 4 or 5 Bonds films, and hopes to be involved in this new one, says there is some pretty big stuff to do - implying bigger than CR and QOS.

As for the title SKYFALL, I guess we'll know one way or another come next months Press Conference.

Thanks for this Col. Sun.

Is there anything else you can tell us? Anything about the sets being built or if something big is being constructed on the 007 stage?

[SecretAgentFan]

Things that will happen at the press conference:

1. Some mild discontent will be expressed in regards to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, likely about its script, suggesting that SKYFALL is going to be whatever QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn't, i.e., a return to "classic Bond." But they will still talk about how this puts Bond on a journey, how it offers opportunity to explore the character, peel back the layers, etc.
2. Everybody will fawn over Sam Mendes.
3. The Bond girls will be described as Bond women, Bond's equals, particularly Moneypenny, who was always able to go toe-to-toe with Bond.


Things won't happen at the press conference:

1. SKYFALL will be described as "just another Bond film," an exercise in premium entertainment, nothing more.
2. Sam Mendes will concede that he's doing SKYFALL for the paycheck and marketability it will give him in the future, after a string of not-so-beloved follow-ups to AMERICAN BEAUTY and ROAD TO PERDITION.
3. The Bond girls will be described as eye candy.

Spot on.

[Captain Tightpants]

1. Some mild discontent will be expressed in regards to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, likely about its script, suggesting that SKYFALL is going to be whatever QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn't, i.e., a return to "classic Bond."

And you don't think they're valid concerns? QUANTUM OF SOLACE did not go over too well, and EON evidently know that because it did not do as well as CASINO ROAYLE, particularly critically. If I were EON, the first thing I'd want from BOND 23's script is to work out where QUANTUM OF SOLACE tripped up, and directly address it. Removing the overt political statements, for one. Making the alleigances of certain characters (ie Mathis) clearer for another. So how on earth is addressing the failings of the QUANTUM OF SOALCE script a bad thing? Isn't that what the fans want?

But they will still talk about how this puts Bond on a journey, how it offers opportunity to explore the character, peel back the layers, etc.

This isn't exactly a new concept. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE explored the idea of Bond falling in love. GOLDENEYE questioned the need for James Bond in a world that was no longer dictated by the Cold War. And so on and so forth.

2. Everybody will fawn over Sam Mendes.

What would you prefer? That they marginalise his involvement? Mendes has been attached to this project for three years, and Daniel Craig is clearly very enthusiastic to be working with him again. Sure, it's easy to write that off as hype or spin or whatever you want to call it, but I don't think Craig is the kind to give the empty soundbytes to talk the film up.

3. The Bond girls will be described as Bond women, Bond's equals, particularly Moneypenny, who was always able to go toe-to-toe with Bond.

So, how is it a bad thing to describe Moneypenny as "Bond's equal" considering she's been written that way for nearly fifty years?

1. SKYFALL will be described as "just another Bond film," an exercise in premium entertainment, nothing more.

Why should it be?

2. Sam Mendes will concede that he's doing SKYFALL for the paycheck and marketability it will give him in the future, after a string of not-so-beloved follow-ups to AMERICAN BEAUTY and ROAD TO PERDITION.

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD was well-received by critics and appeared in numerous top ten lists. The same, too, with AWAY WE GO. JARHEAD was not as highly-rated, but none of Mendes films have been critically panned. Even the films he has only serves as producer on - THE KITE RUNNER, STARTER FOR TEN and THINGS WE LOST IN THE IRE - have had positive reviews. Every film he has been connected to (whether as director or producer) has scored over 60% on Rotten Tomatoes.

3. The Bond girls will be described as eye candy.

When was the last time a Bond Girl was only intended to be eye candy? Every Bond Girl from Honey Rider to Camille Montes has served a function of the story.

[marktmurphy]

I don't think we need to pick apart every light-hearted post as if they're some sort of manifesto, do we? Please look for arbitrary arguments elsewhere.

[Loomis]

Exactly. I think Harmsway is spot-on about how the non-event of a press conference is likely to unfold.

Although he forgot to mention that Javier Bardem and Ralph Fiennes will also be fawned over and talked up as the most realistic and memorable villains Bond has ever faced.

[marktmurphy]

Although he forgot to mention that Javier Bardem and Ralph Fiennes will also be fawned over and talked up as the most realistic and memorable villains Bond has ever faced.

Although, to be fair, they would have the potential to be so. They're pretty good when it comes to being baddies.

[Captain Tightpants]

Exactly. I think Harmsway is spot-on about how the non-event of a press conference is likely to unfold.

The conference itself is inconsequential. The content of that conference - ie a title, cast annoucement, plot details, etc. - is what's important. Likewise, it represents the start of filming, which is always nice.

[univex]

1. Some mild discontent will be expressed in regards to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, likely about its script, suggesting that SKYFALL is going to be whatever QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn't, i.e., a return to "classic Bond."

And you don't think they're valid concerns? QUANTUM OF SOLACE did not go over too well, and EON evidently know that because it did not do as well as CASINO ROAYLE, particularly critically. If I were EON, the first thing I'd want from BOND 23's script is to work out where QUANTUM OF SOLACE tripped up, and directly address it. Removing the overt political statements, for one. Making the alleigances of certain characters (ie Mathis) clearer for another. So how on earth is addressing the failings of the QUANTUM OF SOALCE script a bad thing? Isn't that what the fans want?

But they will still talk about how this puts Bond on a journey, how it offers opportunity to explore the character, peel back the layers, etc.

This isn't exactly a new concept. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE explored the idea of Bond falling in love. GOLDENEYE questioned the need for James Bond in a world that was no longer dictated by the Cold War. And so on and so forth.

2. Everybody will fawn over Sam Mendes.

What would you prefer? That they marginalise his involvement? Mendes has been attached to this project for three years, and Daniel Craig is clearly very enthusiastic to be working with him again. Sure, it's easy to write that off as hype or spin or whatever you want to call it, but I don't think Craig is the kind to give the empty soundbytes to talk the film up.

3. The Bond girls will be described as Bond women, Bond's equals, particularly Moneypenny, who was always able to go toe-to-toe with Bond.

So, how is it a bad thing to describe Moneypenny as "Bond's equal" considering she's been written that way for nearly fifty years?

1. SKYFALL will be described as "just another Bond film," an exercise in premium entertainment, nothing more.

Why should it be?

2. Sam Mendes will concede that he's doing SKYFALL for the paycheck and marketability it will give him in the future, after a string of not-so-beloved follow-ups to AMERICAN BEAUTY and ROAD TO PERDITION.

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD was well-received by critics and appeared in numerous top ten lists. The same, too, with AWAY WE GO. JARHEAD was not as highly-rated, but none of Mendes films have been critically panned. Even the films he has only serves as producer on - THE KITE RUNNER, STARTER FOR TEN and THINGS WE LOST IN THE IRE - have had positive reviews. Every film he has been connected to (whether as director or producer) has scored over 60% on Rotten Tomatoes.

3. The Bond girls will be described as eye candy.

When was the last time a Bond Girl was only intended to be eye candy? Every Bond Girl from Honey Rider to Camille Montes has served a function of the story.

I have some issues with the way the Cap here seems to be very vehement on deconstructing every single thing, being that sometimes he borderlines aggressiveness and uses pragmatic and caustic wording (which is fine by me), but I have to say, this time, I agree with everything he said. Although I still find Harms arguments pretty valid nontheless, being that we all know how these things work. What I don´t get is the negativity that seems to have entered the hearts of good old fans like Harms and Royal Dalton and some more. Cmon guys, this used to be fun and we used to have less reasons to be happy with in the past. Lets just roll with it positively. Who knows? Maybe 2012 will be reminescent of 2006. Who would have thought we would have a 2006 after 2002? Cheers.

Edited by univex, 09 October 2011 - 02:08 PM.

[Pussfeller]

This is a thread in itself, but I've always felt that Honey Rider is basically the ultimate eye candy. She is a completely ornamental character. Her presence in no way alters the trajectory of Bond's mission. All she does is make things a bit more interesting. And she's a hell of a lot better than Christmas Jones, who does a hell of a lot to "advance the plot".

[DamnCoffee]

I don't think we need to pick apart every light-hearted post as if they're some sort of manifesto, do we? Please look for arbitrary arguments elsewhere.

I completely agree. It's getting annoying, really annoying. Someone makes a bit of speculation, and someone has to pull it apart, and shoot it down.

[univex]

I don't think we need to pick apart every light-hearted post as if they're some sort of manifesto, do we? Please look for arbitrary arguments elsewhere.

I completely agree. It's getting annoying, really annoying. Someone makes a bit of speculation, and someone has to pull it apart, and shoot it down.

That is SO true. Not only that but the cinism and sarcasm of some fellows is getting tiresome isn´t it? Two things that are getting very annoying in the forums: the fast trigger fingers and the negativists without a cause. Just saying. I miss the simple fun of it all. Who cares if they´re rumours, it´s FUN to speculate in a structure that was build to that effect and purpose: the FORUMS. And why be negative about something we know virtually nothing about? Don´t we all love the universe of James Bond, aren´t we all glad they´re making another film, giving the economicall circunstances?

Edited by univex, 09 October 2011 - 02:22 PM.

[The Shark]

But they will still talk about how this puts Bond on a journey, how it offers opportunity to explore the character, peel back the layers, etc.

This isn't exactly a new concept. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE explored the idea of Bond falling in love. GOLDENEYE questioned the need for James Bond in a world that was no longer dictated by the Cold War. And so on and so forth.

Right, but whereas before those more character-driven films were one-offs, it's now the default. There's nothing special about it anymore. It's as if EON are embarrassed by Bond's history as pulpy, unpretentious, mentertainment - and are seeking prestige from the Baftas.

2. Everybody will fawn over Sam Mendes.

What would you prefer?

Something less like a luvvie love-in.

3. The Bond girls will be described as Bond women, Bond's equals, particularly Moneypenny, who was always able to go toe-to-toe with Bond.

So, how is it a bad thing to describe Moneypenny as "Bond's equal" considering she's been written that way for nearly fifty years?

I thought Moneypenny was just M's secretary, not a female equivalent of James Bond.

1. SKYFALL will be described as "just another Bond film," an exercise in premium entertainment, nothing more.

Why should it be?

'Cos until sometime after 1985, Bond films were just considered premium entertainment, nothing more.

3. The Bond girls will be described as eye candy.

When was the last time a Bond Girl was only intended to be eye candy? Every Bond Girl from Honey Rider to Camille Montes has served a function of the story.

Eye candy can still have a function.

[zencat]

I don't think we need to pick apart every light-hearted post as if they're some sort of manifesto, do we? Please look for arbitrary arguments elsewhere.

I completely agree. It's getting annoying, really annoying. Someone makes a bit of speculation, and someone has to pull it apart, and shoot it down.

That is SO true. Not only that but the cinism and sarcasm of some fellows is getting tiresome isn´t it? Two things that are getting very annoying in the forums: the fast trigger fingers and the negativists without a cause. Just saying. I miss the simple fun of it all. Who cares if they´re rumours, it´s FUN to speculate in a structure that was build to that effect and purpose: the FORUMS. And why be negative about something we know virtually nothing about? Don´t we all love the universe of James Bond, aren´t we all glad they´re making another film, giving the economicall circunstances?

Amem, univex. This is the main reason I don't participate much in these forums anymore, and I rarely read past the first few posts of any thread. It's just become WAY too negative. It's worn me down.

As to this press conference, I think this is true. When hasn't there been a press conference at the start of production? I just wish Mi6 would source things.

[The Shark]

As to this press conference, I think this is true. When hasn't there been a press conference at the start of production? I just wish Mi6 would source things.

The source is the "anonymous spokesperson for EON" who said:

"We won't confirm anything until our start of production press conference some time next month."

[Harmsway]

I don't think we need to pick apart every light-hearted post as if they're some sort of manifesto, do we? Please look for arbitrary arguments elsewhere.

Yeah, it was all just a gag. Nothing terribly sincere about that post. Lighten up, folks.

What I don´t get is the negativity that seems to have entered the hearts of good old fans like Harms and Royal Dalton and some more. Cmon guys, this used to be fun and we used to have less reasons to be happy with in the past. Lets just roll with it positively. Who knows? Maybe 2012 will be reminescent of 2006. Who would have thought we would have a 2006 after 2002? Cheers.

Actually, I'm pleased as punch there's a new Bond film, even with my considerable reservations about it. It's good to see Craig stepping back into the saddle. I was just having a bit o' lighthearted, sarcastic fun at the expense of EON's press conferences, which are generally non-events that follow formula more faithfully than the Bond franchise actually does. If you go back to the alleged "good ol' days," you'll see there were still posts of this sort floating about.

[jaguar007]

she's a hell of a lot better than Christmas Jones, who does a hell of a lot to "advance the plot".

You think Jones did much to advance the plot? I always felt you could take her character out of the film and still pretty much have the exact same film. Christmas Jones comes across like an afterthought.


I think Harmsways post is spot on. It follows the trend of almost every other recent Bond press conference.

[007jamesbond]

will this press conference confirm
1. other cast member (ex.villian, bond girl, moneypenny)
2. music
3. cars
4. location
5. anything esle?

[univex]

I was just having a bit o' lighthearted, sarcastic fun at the expense of EON's press conferences, which are generally non-events that follow formula more faithfully than the Bond franchise actually does.

That´s true my friend, they should shake up the formula, a reboot of the press conference series perhaps Maybe with a younger producer (ok, I´ll stop now, Barbara isn´t that bad ...looking)

[Matt_13]

All I care about getting is a brief synopsis, the cast, and a list of locations. How it's presented to me really doesn't matter.

[Jeao007]

All I care about getting is a brief synopsis, the cast, and a list of locations. How it's presented to me really doesn't matter.

Agreed.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

[Captain Tightpants]

will this press conference confirm
1. other cast member (ex.villian, bond girl, moneypenny)
2. music
3. cars
4. location
5. anything esle?

1) We have no idea.
2) We have no idea.
3) We have no idea.
4) We have no idea.
5) We have no idea.

[univex]

will this press conference confirm
1. other cast member (ex.villian, bond girl, moneypenny)
2. music
3. cars
4. location
5. anything esle?

1) We have no idea.
2) We have no idea.
3) We have no idea.
4) We have no idea.
5) We have no idea.

Yes, we have no idea x 5, but it can be mildly entertaining to discuss what they could do to shake up the conference "formula" of the past years. So...yes, they could adress other roles depending on the profile of the actor playing them, they can discuss music if a new composer is attached, they could mention some of the locations, and yes...they can virtually talk about many other things - and those things can be elaborated here, in the forums...yes, beforehand.

[Matt_13]

Heh.

[mattjoes]

Nicolas, I love your enthusiasm.

I can't tell you how much I've missed being able to say this: It's a new Bond film, folks, and the ball is about to start rolling!

Edited by mattjoes, 10 October 2011 - 01:15 AM.

[Captain Tightpants]

Yes, we have no idea x 5, but it can be mildly entertaining to discuss what they could do to shake up the conference "formula" of the past years. So...yes, they could adress other roles depending on the profile of the actor playing them, they can discuss music if a new composer is attached, they could mention some of the locations, and yes...they can virtually talk about many other things - and those things can be elaborated here, in the forums...yes, beforehand.

And I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that if 007jamesbond wants definitive answers from us, he's probably going to be disappointed. He did, after all, start his post with "will this press conference confirm", which is clearly asking for a definitive answer.

[DaveBond21]

Yes, we have no idea x 5, but it can be mildly entertaining to discuss what they could do to shake up the conference "formula" of the past years. So...yes, they could adress other roles depending on the profile of the actor playing them, they can discuss music if a new composer is attached, they could mention some of the locations, and yes...they can virtually talk about many other things - and those things can be elaborated here, in the forums...yes, beforehand.

And I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that if 007jamesbond wants definitive answers from us, he's probably going to be disappointed. He did, after all, start his post with "will this press conference confirm", which is clearly asking for a definitive answer.

Just because someone doesn't get the answers he wants, doesn't mean he will be "disappointed". He might just be like most people and say "Oh well".

Tightpants is either the fun police or extremely considerate but not somewhere in the middle.


-----------------

[Captain Tightpants]

The conference itself is inconsequential. The content of that conference - ie a title, cast annoucement, plot details, etc. - is what's important. Likewise, it represents the start of filming, which is always nice.

How was this a bad comment? Hello?