10 replies to this topic

[tuttle300]

Now while they managed one a year for a time back in the Connery era as well as a briefly with Moore in the sevenites, can it be done today?

While it would seem everyone is excited about the possibility of John Logan being the lone writer of Bond 24/25...

And that there is a rumor ( or speculation) that since the storyline he pitched is a two parter....

Is it possible that MGM and the producers can handle a back to back schedule?
One film in and of itself is a mountain of a production but as we all know EON Productions is a well oiled machine and can handle it- they prove that every time

Still....If they were to actually film 24/25 back to back, if done properly, we could very well get two Bond films well before the proposed 2016 schedule

Some bullet points...

1 While MGM wants the next two films released in 2014/2016 and with the economics of movie making going up every year it makes sense to pull off a back to back schedule

2 It also makes sense since if the two part story arc retains the same bad guy it would be logical to film his scenes all togeher ( Unless they plan to have the organization Quantum return- then there COULD be two villians- both working for Quantum)

3 If they do the films back to back, and considering the average Bond film eats up a good 6 months of principle photography, this means the shooting will no doubt run- in theory- from November 2013 through to July 2015

3 With # 24 released November 2014 and since the shooting wil run to July 2014 the director might need to break off and finish the needs of #24 from August to October - maybe giving the cast and crew a break during that time

The director would also need at least a month off for a break as well.... UNLESS another director has been off on the sidelines prepping # 25- which might be a good idea

4 Then, # 25 can start shooting November or even December 2014 through to July 2015 and in theory, we could actualy get # 25 in November 2015

5 This would save MGM a ton of money since the budget could be 150 million each film AND the fans wouldn't have to wait too long before seeing the second half of this rumored two part arc

So if they really push it they COULD not only shoot the films back to back but also release them back to back

But then, would Craig WANT to film such a tough schedule?

And of course this is all wild speculation on my part since so far all we have are rumors

The only solid fact we have at the moment is that John Logan has a contract to write # 24 and # 25
There has not been a plotline released not would there be one at this time anyway
And Craig of course has a contract to do two more

I am simply speculating that whatever it was that Logan told EON as his proposed storyline....IF it involved the same villian..... whoever would play that villian would no doubt wish to do both films as quickly as possible

Plus the fact if 24 ends in a cliffhanger the fans would hate to wait too long between films

But then again- I'm just thinking out loud here
But as you can see from my example, if they were to try this, it is possible

And yet, doesn't the evry other year schedule work well for them? After all there are locations to secure as well as Plan B back up locations in case of weather plus transportation and the hotel rooms needed as well as the schedules of not only the cast but the crew

Having that buffer of a year between films seems a healthy way to give everyone a nice rest between shoots. But I am speculating off of rumor about EON filming 24/25 back to back

It is possible on paper
Could they ( or SHOULD they) attempt such a mountainous schedule
I would hope not
Time will tell

Edited by tuttle300, 29 October 2012 - 06:11 PM.

[Aisforauric]

A fascinating concept, tuttle300. I've been wondering exactly the same thing for at least a couple of decades.

It wasn't too long ago you could leave the screening of a new Bond film already knowing at least the title of the next one, so the idea of not just preplanning a movie back-to-back with another but actually shoot them both seems worth mulling-over. It might also, for once, allow Eon to shrug off the hoodoo that has beset it since the mid 1960's of 'an average' film always following 'an exceptional one' in the Bond canon. I'm sure that statement's going to court some controversy, and it's only my opinion.

Having said that, the possibility of developing an epic (sorry) plot spanning two decent length films is just so enticing.
The rise of Quantum, and maybe it morphing (read take-over) into SPECTRE?
More Double-0 agents on screen, for longer, with more of their backstory?
The merging and uneasy alliances of various secret services having to work together?
Bond getting some time out for some proper RnR (something I personally think has been lacking from all three of DC's Bond outings)?

It was commercially viable to release the Lord Of The Rings trilogy over three consecutive years (though I appreciate it was eight year's in the making, but every $ of marketing money helped the whole cause giving them great bang-for-buck, surely?).

Kill Bill Vols I/ II hit us between the eyes in quick succession.....and with incredible effect.

As you say, time will tell

[Henry-Jones-Sr]

I sincerely hope they don't shoot them back to back.

The problem with back to back movies is that they look and feel like the same film and that can be quite boring. The beauty of the original Star Wars trilogy - each entry filmed three years after the last - is that each film carries a sense of progression by having their own look, feel, and atmosphere. This is rarely achieved through back to back shooting.

I love the fact that Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace each feel like their own movies, even though they are set just minutes apart. The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, which I confess I dislike, just looks like one big movie to me, each film indistinguishable from the next. Maybe that was Peter Jackson's intention, but it sure doesn't interest or excite me as a movie goer.

[marktmurphy]

I don't see how. And no; I wouldn't want them to either- as Henry says bond films should be separate.

And I want them to be events: I want each to be the culmination of years of thinking and preparation. When you make two at the same time you're kind of splitting your ideas. And they're so huge to make... sounds hard to swallow.

[Scrambled Eggs]

I don't see how. And no; I wouldn't want them to either- as Henry says bond films should be separate.

And I want them to be events: I want each to be the culmination of years of thinking and preparation. When you make two at the same time you're kind of splitting your ideas. And they're so huge to make... sounds hard to swallow.

It'd depend on how 24 ended? If it ends on a genuine, original cliffhanger, or a puzzle, then 25 becomes a real event movie. Maybe.

Either way, if EON have given Logan both films it suggests that he has a very strong idea?

[Hockey Mask]

I think this would be our best chances to have a title after 'James Bond Will Return...'.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

I don't think that Bond 24 and 25 would be filmed back-to-back, and my guess is that they will be separate stories within the same continuum, like Dr No, FRWL and Thunderball. My guess that we'll get a "Thunderball" followed by "You Only Live Twice" without Tracy - after all, if it's Quantum Bond still has a beef with them even though CR/QoS-situation is past him.

[tuttle300]

Another side of the coin is that MGM ( and now Sony, their partner) are scraping for cash still since it would seem- feel free to correct me- Bond is one of the few films in their portfolio that bring in money. So its only natural for them, knowing that it is indeed possible to produce and release a new film every other year to really heavily request that EON jump into the next one instead of taking a proper break. After all,,,, they do have their hands on the money

Which is not fair to Wilson or Broccoli- they aren't getting any younger

And since we now have a solid blockbuster foundation in place with Craig... I say give them a three year stretch which would make each of the next two films an event

I understand the success of Lord of the Rings and while that's a different genre as well as a much larger production ( which included a much larger amount of effects work then a standard Bond film) what they accomplished is monumental

Still.... despite what a few members here might be thinking of my example above- while I'd really rather not have them try it... I'm sure there were a few late night high level meetings in MGM offices thinking about the very same schedule

So while it is theoretically possible to do a back to back schedule, this was also the reason Connery quit ( well, at least one of a few reasons) There was no break in the schedule for a good long time
While he was able to do other films in the time frame ( especially in '64) it had to be rough http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000125/

Many actors who take on such roles do it for the money at first as well as the resume but they quickly tackle other roles in between the iconic stuff so they dont risk getting typed

Plus it just flat out wears a guy down

If we have any hope at all of getting Craig to MAYBE do one more in a addition to the two new ones he just signed on for they should really treat him a bit better After all, without him where would they be right now?

Its just a matter of time before Craig gets replaced and the series leans back toward a bit of humor and outlandish gimmicks and stunts-and maybe even invisible cars again

For now it would seem that we are experiencing a new golden era
Enjoy it while it lasts folks

[Shrublands]

Craig has completely dismissed the back-to-back filming idea as 'impossible'. He also seems to dismiss the two part story report too.

http://www.filmstart...r/19425704.html

[GalaBond]

If what Craig says is true then I am quite glad, I just don't think it would work because of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace being linked and then only doing one stand alone movie (Skyfall), to then do another two-parter

Edited by GalaBond, 01 November 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[Mavalant]

CRAIG has said that it was a rumor and false