120 replies to this topic

[x007AceOfSpades]

Mann is already slated to begin filming his next film, Don't know about Affleck, but Disney doesn't want to do 20,000 Leagues, so hopes Fincher get's the call.

[tdalton]

Cyber is set to begin filming very soon, so Mann would be available for Bond 24 should EON want to go in that direction (they won't, of course).  

[S K Y F A L L]

Maybe David FIncher could bring back Madonna for the title song from his days directing her music videos. 

 

Even 2015 now seems like wishful thinking, isn't it? They would have to start within the next 6 months wouldn't they? If they wanted to get it out by Nov 2015. UGH 2016 it is then... 

 

I totally agree about the statement; "I would rather have a Bond film every 2 years instead of waiting for these high profile directors to be free and put their spin on it." Perhaps they should turn the studio into one that is working 24/7, oh but then the producers wont have time to count their money.

 

Even though I would be fine with a Nolan film down the line I just hate these ridiculousness waits in between films. It seems totally unnecessary and too little too late IMO (see CR and SF). I guess I figure the Bond films should be like those old serial films or Star Wars. But I guess Bond does not have the advantage of having an overall story to fall a pawn. 

 

Where in the sand is the line drawn? I mean how do you make a film without acknowledging what it is a part of. They say they do not want to make sequels, I suppose after the reviews for QOS came out and that is why Craig shot down rumors that Bond 24 and 25 might be that way. I mean they don't even have the balls to use lines like they did in the Connery films like, "they got a lot closer in Jamaica." 

 

I don't know where I was going with this rant but there it is. 

[x007AceOfSpades]

No Madonna please. 2015 seems the most likely, if they go with 2016 something tells me it won't sit right with Craig. They can start by the beginning of 2014 and start shooting in the fall or winter of that year, much like Skyfall. I admire and like the fact they're trying for much bigger directors, because look what happened with QOS. Marc Forster wasn't meant for Bond, never has and never will.

 

With Fincher doing nothing now, I'd like him to come on board, but then there's The Girl Who Played With Fire, if he even want's to do it, and I know everyone wants him to.

 

If they get another lesser known director, I'm fine with that, just as long as he doesn't treat it in the vein of QOS.

 

As for Nolan. I've already given my imput on him. No. He's not right for it. Maybe it's my shear hatred for him, or the fact I don't think he'd be right, but no. His cinematographer on the hand, Wally Pfster would be great.

[seawolfnyy]

I agree Ace on both accounts. I don't like Nolan for Bond and 2015 seems the most likely. I think if Bond 24 goes beyond '15, I don't think Craig will be back. I think the reason the 4 year wait worked for Skyfall was because of what Bond had going for it in 2012 with the 50th. But as we are seeing with ST Into Darkness, the 4 year wait I think did more damage than good. A lot of the good karma from the reboot seemed to evaporate in the long wait between Star Trek and Into Darkness and it's for that reason that Into Darkness isn't performing the way that most blockbuster sequels do. I think yet another 4 year wait for Bond would be an absolute disaster. I think I'd rather have a rushed 2 year effort than another 4 year wait.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Not to mention the 4 year gap worked well enough to craft a wonderful film and not be below par like QOS. As for Star Trek Into Darkness, I enjoyed the film, and It's a shame it's not doing well, but I blame that on the producers for taking too long to get it made when it was originally to be out in June of 2012. Star Trek is big, but not as big anymore.

 

I don't mind waiting 3 years, but if it's three, It may be Craig's last due the physicality and demands the role brings.

[RMc2]

Not to mention the 4 year gap worked well enough to craft a wonderful film and not be below par like QOS. As for Star Trek Into Darkness, I enjoyed the film, and It's a shame it's not doing well, but I blame that on the producers for taking too long to get it made when it was originally to be out in June of 2012. Star Trek is big, but not as big anymore.

 

I don't mind waiting 3 years, but if it's three, It may be Craig's last due the physicality and demands the role brings.

 

Don't blame the producers; blame J.J. Abrams. He's the one who kept insisting on delays so that he could make Super 8 and get the script 'right' (tbh STID really doesn't feel like they put as much work into it as they eventually did). Anywho, back to Bond...

 

I suspect EON have already decided on a rough start date and release date, but until they sign a director they're naturally keeping hush on their intentions. I think they're working hard to sort things out ASAP because of Craig. He will want to know exact dates very soon, because as the past 6 years have shown, he likes to work and make a variety of films (plus there's his other potential franchise sequel, The Girl Who Played With Fire) and sitting around waiting for Bond 24 won't please him. And like you say, he keeps pointing out how physically demanding the films are - so if they definitely want two more films with Craig (please, please make it so!) they know they need to move fast before he feels he's too old for it. 

 

I may be wrong, but Craig seems like the kind of actor who values his integrity over money - so there won't be any Moore or Connery-style past-his-prime Bond outings.

 

Not that he needs the money...

[Dustin]

Well put, RMc.

[Agent 76]

I feel Craig will do two more Bond movies. no more, no less.

[HellIsHere]

Alfonso Cuaron. Go and check the latest GRAVITY trailer.

[SecretAgentFan]

Loved that trailer!

 

And Cuaron for Bond, yes! Action in long, uninterrupted takes!

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

I agree Ace on both accounts. I don't like Nolan for Bond and 2015 seems the most likely. I think if Bond 24 goes beyond '15, I don't think Craig will be back. I think the reason the 4 year wait worked for Skyfall was because of what Bond had going for it in 2012 with the 50th. But as we are seeing with ST Into Darkness, the 4 year wait I think did more damage than good. A lot of the good karma from the reboot seemed to evaporate in the long wait between Star Trek and Into Darkness and it's for that reason that Into Darkness isn't performing the way that most blockbuster sequels do. I think yet another 4 year wait for Bond would be an absolute disaster. I think I'd rather have a rushed 2 year effort than another 4 year wait.

 

Star Trek Into Darkness is a very different situation.  It was about building momentum and trying to get people to hold onto their new found impression that Star Trek could now be hip and cool.  Bond does not have the same problem.  If anything Casino Royale and Skyfall demonstrated that with Bond being such an enduring icon, absence only makes the heart grow fonder.  Add on top of that a very generic marketing campaign and Abrams's ridiculous mystery box, the general audience just saw Star Trek Into Darkness as a film that was trying to be trendy by being dark and serious and that was rehasing the same type of villain that had been so successfully in recent memory with The Dark Knight, The Avengers, and Skyfall.  (That's why my girlfriend wouldn't go see it with me)  Bond and Star Trek should not be compared in such a way.  Their appeal is completely different.  Also, Star Trek Into Darkness is as dumb as a bag of hammers and patronizes its fans with empty fan service instead of actual substance or the spirit that made people love the franchise in the first place.

Edited by TheManwiththeWaltherPPK, 24 May 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[S K Y F A L L]

Isn't kind of strange that after Mendes turned down Bond 24 they decide to talk to someone else who also could not do it right away. Seems counter productive as if they want the break. Though it is just unconfirmed 'talks', whatever that is. 

 

EDIT; 

 

Check out my new signature:

 

 

ALBERT R. BROCCOLI'S EON PRODUCTIONS PRESENTS DANIEL CRAIG AS IAN FLEMING'S JAMES BOND 007 IN 'BOND 24'

TOM HANKS ANNE HATHAWAY OLGA KURYLENKO STANA KATIC JESPER CHRISTENSEN WITH JEFFREY WRIGHT NAOMIE HARRIS BEN WHISHAWAND RALPH FIENNES'  CO-PRODUCERS ANDREW NOAKES DAVIE POPE CHRISTOPHER NOLAN MUSIC BY DAVID ARNOLD COSTUME DESIGNER JANY TEMIME EDITIOR STUART BAIRD PRODUCTION DESIGNER DENNIS GASSNER DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY WALLY PFISTER EXECUTIVE PRODUCER CALLIUM MCDOUGALL WRITTEN BY JOHN LOGAN 

PRODUCED BY MICHAEL G. WILSON AND BARBARA BROCCOLI DIRECTED BY CHRISTOPER NOLAN

MGM / COLUMBIA PICTURES / SONY

COMING 2015

 

 

I tried to use as many people as I could from SF or who have already been confirmed for Bond 24 but ended up with some from CR and QOS.

 

I noticed the co producers have changed every film since CR, so I used the same ones as SF and added Nolan. Can you have 3 co-producers?

 

Let me know what you think. If I should make changes Do you think Thomas Newman would return or Roger Deakins? 

Edited by S K Y F A L L, 26 May 2013 - 04:45 AM.

[seawolfnyy]

Nice sig, you will have to add Jonathan Nolan to the writing credits if Chris is the director. Also, "Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in Shatterhand" has a nice ring to it. Don't you think?

 

 

Anyhoo, back to the films, I think the biggest problem that the marketing for Into Darkness had was that the producers tried to keep Cumberbatch's true identity a secret when it was so blatantly obvious that he was playing Khan. I agree that Star Trek doesn't have that mass appeal that say The Avengers or The Dark Knight have, but really until Skyfall, neither did Bond. The 007 films always had a respectable showing at the box office (LTK not withstanding), but they never really wowed anyone the way most blockbuster action films do. I think Daniel Craig and the 50th anniversary did have a lot to do with that. Star Trek Into Darkness is a great film and a great follow-up to 2009's Star Trek. It isn't as great a film, but it also isn't the swoon that Quantum of Solace or Iron Man 2 were. I truly believe that the long lull in between the two films evaporated a lot of the interest that the reboot created and Into Darkness is falling back to the Trekkies instead of the mainstream audience. Especially since I'm sure many non-Star Trek fans may not know who Khan Noonien Singh is and therefore the secrey and 'surprise' reveal is in a sense lost on them. I think that if Bond 24 were to go past 2015 it could spell doom for it at the box office. Like Into Darkness, much of Skyfall's positive response and appeal will have worn off and because of that Bond 24 could suffer in ways that Skyfall never did. Granted, The Dark Knight Rises did not suffer from that fate, but I think TDKR hit at a time when superhero movies are at an all-time high and after The Avengers, I think people just wanted more superheroes. I think if Green Lantern had launched in summer 2012 instead of summer 2011, it also would've grossed a lot of money despite being complete crap. Evidenced by TDKR being a piece of crap and grossing over $1 billion.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Except.... The Avengers was crap...

[Iceskater101]

Except.... The Avengers was crap...

 

Disagree.

 

[S K Y F A L L]

This is interesting. Ain't It Cool News reported Nolan's upcoming film INTERSTELLAR will be composed by none other then Hans Zimmer. It also posted some plot details from the first draft of the script however today that article has been " (REMOVED AT STRONG REQUEST FROM STUDIO)". 

[x007AceOfSpades]

Doesn't surprise me Zimmer will be scoring it.

[Agent 76]

Doesn't surprise me Zimmer will be scoring it.

 

this.

[quantumofsolace]

10 Reasons Why Chris Nolan Should Stay Away From James Bond

whatculture june 16 2013 http://whatculture.c...-james-bond.php

[Dustin]

For those who don't want to click through the entire 10 pages:

 

 

10. Runtime

 

9.   The World Is Not Enough For Christopher Nolan

 

8.   No Sex Please, I'm Christopher Nolan

 

7.   What's My Motivation?

 

6.   Boo-hoo Bond

 

5.   Corny Lines Included

 

4.   Enough Already With Hans Zimmer

 

3.   The Nolan Players

 

2.   A Nolan Film Can Be the Best Of Times And The Worst Of Times

 

1.   Aren't The Bond Films Nolan-ish Enough Already?

 

 

 

 

A number of good points there. I suppose quite a lot of people will agree with some of them. Unlikely it's going to be relevant soon, I think.

[RMc2]

For those who don't want to click through the entire 10 pages:

 

 

10. Runtime

 

9.   The World Is Not Enough For Christopher Nolan

 

8.   No Sex Please, I'm Christopher Nolan

 

7.   What's My Motivation?

 

6.   Boo-hoo Bond

 

5.   Corny Lines Included

 

4.   Enough Already With Hans Zimmer

 

3.   The Nolan Players

 

2.   A Nolan Film Can Be the Best Of Times And The Worst Of Times

 

1.   Aren't The Bond Films Nolan-ish Enough Already?

 

 

 

 

A number of good points there. I suppose quite a lot of people will agree with some of them. Unlikely it's going to be relevant soon, I think.

 

Thanks very much for the links! I disagree with most of it, mainly because the writer's explanations don't get it, and partly because some of the reasons are just ass.

 

But they definitely hit on some things - 4 and 8 are my main concerns over a Nolan Bond film. But then again, he just needs some practice at 8 to get it right (and in his films, too) Hopefully after TDKR he'll have a better sense of how to do it.

 

Overall, I think Nolan's so much of a Bond fan that he'll try hard to get it right and be naturally better at it anyway. By that I mean, it's actually the overtly Bondian moments and flourishes to his previous films that occasionally take me out of the experience - as in, sometimes I watch a Nolan film and think, "Now this'd be great in a Bond film..."

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess that Nolan was one idea EON pursued - before Mendes got on board again. Maybe they even used Nolan to show Mendes "Hey, if you don´t want this huge paycheck, we got another really big hitter in line!"

 

Of course, one can never be sure, but for now Nolan will not direct a Bond film in the near future.

 

I think Mendes will do Bond 24 and 25. Then Craig will step down. EON will look for a new Bond - which will take some time. Also they will want to put some distance between Craig and the new guy, so that Bond 26 will be another event people will be hungry for after many years without Bond. And Nolan will probably not be a priority then or tied up with his own films.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 17 June 2013 - 09:29 AM.

[RMc2]

I guess that Nolan was one idea EON pursued - before Mendes got on board again. Maybe they even used Nolan to show Mendes "Hey, if you don´t want this huge paycheck, we got another really big hitter in line!"

 

Of course, one can never be sure, but for now Nolan will not direct a Bond film in the near future.

 

I think Mendes will do Bond 24 and 25. Then Craig will step down. EON will look for a new Bond - which will take some time. Also they will want to put some distance between Craig and the new guy, so that Bond 26 will be another event people will be hungry for after many years without Bond. And Nolan will probably not be a priority then or tied up with his own films.

 

Sadly, I think you're right. At least we'll have 5 films with Craig, which is more than we enjoyed with Dalton and Brosnan. Back in 2010 I was worried we'd not get more than 3...

[Dustin]

Bear in mind Nolan is still a young gun as directors go, he's still at the start of his career and is likely to direct and/or produce for another 20 - 25 years. Plenty of time for him to have a go, if he's still game.

 

Personally I'm not sold on Nolan being the end-all director for a Bond film. Visually he's often splendid. But while I wouldn't go as far as some with accusing him of nihilism - what? - I agree that his films tend to feel a bit hollow after the initial hype has petered out. About his Batman vision I liked the closure the most, the rest I've almost forgotten by now. INCEPTION is a cgi/sfx-fest with a nifty little open end which I like a lot. But does it really make the most of its philosophical themes of reality and what we perceive as real? I'm not sure there. Could be it's just wearing these elements to justify its visual effects and doesn't care at all about the fate of its characters.

 

The one film by Nolan I like the most is easily INSOMNIA, but that one has Pacino/Williams going for it, as well as an original idea from outside the usual Hollywood circles. Who is to say how Nolan will develop over the next decade? I'm not at all averse to him having a go at Bond, I just think it's perhaps not a bad thing he won't do so right now. 

[JohnnyWalker]

Bear in mind Nolan is still a young gun as directors go, he's still at the start of his career and is likely to direct and/or produce for another 20 - 25 years. Plenty of time for him to have a go, if he's still game.

 

Personally I'm not sold on Nolan being the end-all director for a Bond film. Visually he's often splendid. But while I wouldn't go as far as some with accusing him of nihilism - what? - I agree that his films tend to feel a bit hollow after the initial hype has petered out. About his Batman vision I liked the closure the most, the rest I've almost forgotten by now. INCEPTION is a cgi/sfx-fest with a nifty little open end which I like a lot. But does it really make the most of its philosophical themes of reality and what we perceive as real? I'm not sure there. Could be it's just wearing these elements to justify its visual effects and doesn't care at all about the fate of its characters.

 

The one film by Nolan I like the most is easily INSOMNIA, but that one has Pacino/Williams going for it, as well as an original idea from outside the usual Hollywood circles. Who is to say how Nolan will develop over the next decade? I'm not at all averse to him having a go at Bond, I just think it's perhaps not a bad thing he won't do so right now. 

He was directing Al Pacino over ten years ago, he really isn't at the start of his career any more.

[SecretAgentFan]

I absolutely agree on all points you make, Dustin. 

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 17 June 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[RMc2]

 

Bear in mind Nolan is still a young gun as directors go, he's still at the start of his career and is likely to direct and/or produce for another 20 - 25 years. Plenty of time for him to have a go, if he's still game.

 

Personally I'm not sold on Nolan being the end-all director for a Bond film. Visually he's often splendid. But while I wouldn't go as far as some with accusing him of nihilism - what? - I agree that his films tend to feel a bit hollow after the initial hype has petered out. About his Batman vision I liked the closure the most, the rest I've almost forgotten by now. INCEPTION is a cgi/sfx-fest with a nifty little open end which I like a lot. But does it really make the most of its philosophical themes of reality and what we perceive as real? I'm not sure there. Could be it's just wearing these elements to justify its visual effects and doesn't care at all about the fate of its characters.

 

The one film by Nolan I like the most is easily INSOMNIA, but that one has Pacino/Williams going for it, as well as an original idea from outside the usual Hollywood circles. Who is to say how Nolan will develop over the next decade? I'm not at all averse to him having a go at Bond, I just think it's perhaps not a bad thing he won't do so right now. 

He was directing Al Pacino over ten years ago, he really isn't at the start of his career any more.

 

Hehe, I see where you're coming from Dustin, describing Nolan as a young gun, but I wonder at what stage in his career you put Terence Malick?  Age isn't everything....

Edited by RMc, 17 June 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[Dustin]

I don't mean 'young gun' as in inexperienced. I see this more like you would wine perhaps, a definite potential for further development with time. From a 1984 point-of-view Spielberg - then 38 - had already directed Robert Shaw ten years previously. And was still at the start of his career. In a creatively characterized business such as the film industry a talent can at times achieve four or even five productive decades. I see no reason why Nolan shouldn't still do films in 2033.

[RMc2]

I don't mean 'young gun' as in inexperienced. I see this more like you would wine perhaps, a definite potential for further development with time. From a 1984 point-of-view Spielberg - then 38 - had already directed Robert Shaw ten years previously. And was still at the start of his career. In a creatively characterized business such as the film industry a talent can at times achieve four or even five productive decades. I see no reason why Nolan shouldn't still do films in 2033.

 

You are, of course, completely right. There's plenty of opportunity for Nolan to do a Bond in the years to come.

 

(although, the same pattern of maturation you describe does tend to have directors 'going off' action movies and making more personal, 'worthy' films,* so EON might feel the need to get him involved sooner rather than later, especially since he is still hot stuff and on a winning streak.)

 

*Not that that's stopped the Scotts, Lucas or Spielberg doing action in their later years