181 replies to this topic

[Professor Pi]

Only one of the last five came two years later.  They'd almost have to plan to produce them together to get a two year release turn around, as might have been the original intent behind Bond 24-25.  The productions are so big now that three years seem to be the new standard.

[Guy Haines]

The 25th Bond film in (probably just!) the 55th year of Bond films. That would be nice but like most of you here, I'm not holding my breath.

[DavidJones]

For me, Bond isn't a current film series any longer, it's more of a film series which adds another film once every few years. There were four years between Quantum and Skyfall, and three years between Skyfall and Spectre. When you put that against Captain America appearing in films in 2011, '12, '14, '15, '16, '18 and '19. it's kind of embarressing...

Edited by DavidJones, 27 December 2014 - 08:22 PM.

[tdalton]

Yes, but I'd say that the quality of these recent Bond films, even Skyfall which I wasn't all that fond of, is much higher than the garbage that Marvel is churning out on a yearly basis.

[DavidJones]

Yes, but I'd say that the quality of these recent Bond films, even Skyfall which I wasn't all that fond of, is much higher than the garbage that Marvel is churning out on a yearly basis.

 

I didn't like Guardians of the Galaxy, but I loved Captain America: The WInter Soldier (a pretty good spy film!), Avengers and Iron Man 3. Though I didn't care for Skyfall either.

 

Although maybe I'm being too harsh to Eon. They're not a big studio like Marvel, more of a cottage industry dedicated to one franchise/character.

 

But even so, since Casino Royale, the appetite for Bond is certaintly there but they've ballsed it up twice: 1) Quantum of Solace and 2) Delaying next film by a year.

[JCRendle]

 

Yes, but I'd say that the quality of these recent Bond films, even Skyfall which I wasn't all that fond of, is much higher than the garbage that Marvel is churning out on a yearly basis.

 

I didn't like Guardians of the Galaxy, but I loved Captain America: The WInter Soldier (a pretty good spy film!), Avengers and Iron Man 3. Though I didn't care for Skyfall either.

 

Although maybe I'm being too harsh to Eon. They're not a big studio like Marvel, more of a cottage industry dedicated to one franchise/character.

 

But even so, since Casino Royale, the appetite for Bond is certaintly there but they've ballsed it up twice: 1) Quantum of Solace and 2) Delaying next film by a year.

 

 

QoS was due to the writers strike at the time - Bond wasn't the only casualty, several films and TV shows suffered due to scripts being scraped, rushed or hastily rewritten by new and inexperienced writers - QoS was rewritten during filming, often by Craig, Forster and other members of the cast and crew.

 

The delay in Skyfall wasn't their fault either, MGM - a major partner in the Bond films - went into administration and very nearly went out of existence - It could be argued that the delay was a positive for Skyfall, as it gave the production time to put the finishing touches into the film to improve the film and make it one of the best Bond films for years.

 

But my point is, neither of these examples you've listed show that Eon "ballsed up" anything - both situations were completely out of their control. 

[graric]

 

Yes, but I'd say that the quality of these recent Bond films, even Skyfall which I wasn't all that fond of, is much higher than the garbage that Marvel is churning out on a yearly basis.

 

I didn't like Guardians of the Galaxy, but I loved Captain America: The WInter Soldier (a pretty good spy film!), Avengers and Iron Man 3. Though I didn't care for Skyfall either.

 

Although maybe I'm being too harsh to Eon. They're not a big studio like Marvel, more of a cottage industry dedicated to one franchise/character.

 

But even so, since Casino Royale, the appetite for Bond is certaintly there but they've ballsed it up twice: 1) Quantum of Solace and 2) Delaying next film by a year.

 

...Marvel isn't exactly a big Studio either (although since they were bought out by Disney they certainly have access to the resources of a much bigger studio than Eon does with Sony or MGM) their first film as a proper studio was only in 2008, and it is only through very strong marketing and successful films that they've come out looking like a much bigger studio than they really are.
Marvel's fast turn around has alot to do with a mix of having a permanent writing group coming up with long term direction of the franchise, over 50 years fo comic history to draw upon and having multiple directors/ writers working at once rather than just focussing on a single film at one time.
Going by the releases for the induvidual Captian America films (rather than the team-up ones he appears in)  Marvel still takes roughly 3 years to develop each induvidual film, so a 3 year gap between Bond films still isn't that outside the norm.
In order to push towards a faster turn around (as has already been said) Eon would really need to be bringing in writers to work on the next story now(ish), while instead they seem to prefer focussing on the film at hand now, rather than trying to work on multiple films at once.

[tdalton]

The Iron Man films are the only films of any kind of admirable quality that Marvel has churned out, and even then they had a turkey in that series as well.  The rest of their films, including The Avengers and Captain America: The Winter Soldier have been pretty forgettable.

[Professor Pi]

For the record, I like Marvel and what they're doing.  Their films are always fun and entertaining.  And they've already broken casting ground with Black Panther and Captain Marvel featuring an African-American and woman in the leading title roles.  If you look at their release intervals, they benefit from a three year turn around time as well:

 

Iron Man 1-3 in 2008, '10, and '13

Cap in 2011 and Winter Soldier 2014

Thor in 2011 but Dark World in 2013

Avengers their sole focus in 2012

 

They're giving four years to develop Thor:Ragnarok, probably the weakest character in the ensemble now, to strengthen that franchise.  There don't appear to be any immediate plans to rush sequels to Ant Man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther, et al, which was their mistake in making Iron Man 2.  They've successfully made Cap America the center of their story lines in both the movies and TV series, and seem to know when they have a hit on their hands (Winter Soldier, Guardians) before the actual release.  And they're carefully developing and monitoring character development of Hulk and Black Widow in Avengers movies before jumping into solo films for those characters.  Their movies are also from different genres (action, spy, period piece, fantasy, sci fi, horror.) As evidenced by their influence on DC productions and Disney's own plans to develop a Star Wars movie-verse, Marvel has proven very influential indeed.

[Agent 76]

Well it depends on how long it takes to get a good script, 6 months, a year?! And then pre-production, filming, post-production,etç..

 

As others have said in the thread, 3 years seem to be the new standard for Bond movies.

[graric]

Well it depends on how long it takes to get a good script, 6 months, a year?! And then pre-production, filming, post-production,etç..

 

As others have said in the thread, 3 years seem to be the new standard for Bond movies.

 

It should be noted that the official reason for SPECTRE being pushed back a year was getting Sam Mendes to sign on to the project, and if Eon had actively persued another director a 2014 release could have still been possible (assuming the hypothetical director they signed with liked the script they had.)
 

But I agree, if Bond is going to fit into a two year cycle they would need to begin work on the next film in the series while the current one is being filmed (and very likely sign a different director on for each film), which doesn't seem to be the approach with the current production team.

[Harmsway]

But I agree, if Bond is going to fit into a two year cycle they would need to begin work on the next film in the series while the current one is being filmed (and very likely sign a different director on for each film), which doesn't seem to be the approach with the current production team.

Actually, they've tried this a few times. P&W were working on the script for what would become Quantum of Solace shortly after Casino Royale wrapped, and Logan was working on his two-parter Bond 24/25 shortly after Skyfall concluded production. But both of these early versions of the films were scrapped for various reasons (Forster didn't like P&W's script for Quantum, Mendes didn't want to a do two movies and there was a lot of disagreement over the story for Bond 24).

 

I've no doubt that P&W will be hammering out an outline for Bond 25 shortly after SPECTRE wraps. EON and P&W probably already have an idea as to what the story should be. The trick is whether or not that idea will be enough to entice a director, or whether whichever director they want for Bond 25 (I'm guessing it won't be Mendes, who will likely be suffering from Bond fatigue by the time SPECTRE wraps) will have other ideas about what the story should be.

[JCRendle]

 

But I agree, if Bond is going to fit into a two year cycle they would need to begin work on the next film in the series while the current one is being filmed (and very likely sign a different director on for each film), which doesn't seem to be the approach with the current production team.

Actually, they've tried this a few times. P&W were working on the script for what would become Quantum of Solace shortly after Casino Royale wrapped, and Logan was working on his two-parter Bond 24/25 shortly after Skyfall concluded production. But both of these early versions of the films were scrapped for various reasons (Forster didn't like P&W's script for Quantum, Mendes didn't want to a do two movies and there was a lot of disagreement over the story for Bond 24).

 

I've no doubt that P&W will be hammering out an outline for Bond 25 shortly after SPECTRE wraps. EON and P&W probably already have an idea as to what the story should be. The trick is whether or not that idea will be enough to entice a director, or whether whichever director they want for Bond 25 (I'm guessing it won't be Mendes, who will likely be suffering from Bond fatigue by the time SPECTRE wraps) will have other ideas about what the story should be.

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some plot details from Logan's two-part script that the production team did like, and that they've kept out of SPECTRE to use in a follow up.

 

I know everyone is saying how bad the early screenplays were, but Logan is a clever writer - I can see EON/P&W seeing some elements and thinking, let's leave that out for now, that would be perfect the next film...

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess the main reason for abandoning the 2-year cycle is the ballooning of film budgets.  

 

In order to justify the skyrocketing costs for an endeavor such as a Bond film too many people bankrolling it have to be pleased.

 

Also, the market is flooded with product.  A Bond movie can only become an event if it appears less often.  

 

Sad but true. 

[Odd Jobbies]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some plot details from Logan's two-part script that the production team did like, and that they've kept out of SPECTRE to use in a follow up.

 

I know everyone is saying how bad the early screenplays were, but Logan is a clever writer - I can see EON/P&W seeing some elements and thinking, let's leave that out for now, that would be perfect the next film...

 

I'd go along with that. With one note: I doubt P&W will be writing B25 alone.

 

If not Mendes again, Eon will go for another big name Director, probably Nolan. Such directors have their own ideas (Mendes likes Logan and Nolan likes to write along with his brother Jonathan). And i for one am grateful for that.

 

I'd be surprised if P&W turned in a finished draft that such directors were happy with, so if they're writing the first draft, then this time the tables will turn on them and theirs will be re-written.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 31 December 2014 - 09:16 AM.

[Odd Jobbies]

... the market is flooded with product.  A Bond movie can only become an event if it appears less often.  

 

Sad but true. 

Yes, true to some extent. But look at Lord of the Rings (a movie every year) and Disney plan a Star Wars movie every year - a main episode every other year and a solo character movie every year in between.

 

With SF's gross being so astronomical i don't see Sony worrying about saturation any more than Disney. They'll want as many Bond's as possible, but getting the right talent in those windows will be the problem. But as long as Craig's involved and Eon are standing up for him and their Director's wishes, then the talent will come running. It's really up to Sony to kill the golden goose by micromanaging.

[SecretAgentFan]

LOTR and SW are very different properties.  LOTR was filmed back-to-back and then it was over (same as The Hobbit).  SW is also about trilogies, and the spin-offs will not have the same main character each two years.

 

Also, they cater to the teenage focus group who flocks to fantasy and comic book films.  007, however, is not this audience´s main concern.  It´s mainly targeted at older audiences.

 

And Bond films have been around much longer.  The main problem is to keep the audience interested in a variation of the same formula.  That´s why they decided to attract A-listers.  In order to make a good Bond film you actually don´t need the award-winning director or actor.

[Harmsway]

I know everyone is saying how bad the early screenplays were, but Logan is a clever writer - I can see EON/P&W seeing some elements and thinking, let's leave that out for now, that would be perfect the next film...

EON always reuses elements from abandoned drafts in later films. Heck, the sinkhole bit from Quantum of Solace was taken from the early GoldenEye drafts.

But as far as the big story arc of Bond 25 goes? I doubt that has much of anything in common with Logan's original concept.

[Vauxhall]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some plot details from Logan's two-part script that the production team did like, and that they've kept out of SPECTRE to use in a follow up.

I know everyone is saying how bad the early screenplays were, but Logan is a clever writer - I can see EON/P&W seeing some elements and thinking, let's leave that out for now, that would be perfect the next film...

The sense I get from all I've read is that very few of Logan's initial work has actually survived to the final draft in a recognisable state, beyond the very broad concept of the film. He appears to have had some very off-the-wall ideas which ultimately failed to stick with both Sony and EON.

[Matt_13]

I'm not expecting to see another one until 2018/2019. The only exception would be if they have Nolan working on his own script for a Bond movie that he himself will direct. If that's the case then I can see 2018.

[sharpshooter]

I am half expecting Mendes to direct Bond 25, which would likely equal a three year break. Craig calling him the only man for the job is quite telling for me. I can see them throwing the money at Mendes again, and waiting for him ala after Skyfall. If that is the case, I really can see Bond 25 being Craig's last.

[tdalton]

I am half expecting Mendes to direct Bond 25, which would likely equal a three year break. Craig calling him the only man for the job is quite telling for me. I can see them throwing the money at Mendes again, and waiting for him ala after Skyfall. If that is the case, I really can see Bond 25 being Craig's last.

 

I could see that happening as well.  I could also see Craig declaring the next guy as "the only man for the job" as well, much in the same way that the standard operating procedure for selling the current Bond film during the Brosnan era was to trash the one that came before it.

[S K Y F A L L]

Off topic here but is Logan presumably done his part and out of the game?...

[Vauxhall]

Off topic here but is Logan presumably done his part and out of the game?...

 

I'd imagine so. Reading between the lines, a lot of the concerns about the script seem to be levelled at him. If that's the case, and Purvis and Wade "saved" the movie, then I think Logan will be out.

 

I'm not expecting Mendes to direct BOND 25 either. It sounds like it's already been a draining experience for many of those involved. Having said that, a series of major awards could certainly change things.

[JCRendle]

 

Off topic here but is Logan presumably done his part and out of the game?...

 

I'd imagine so. Reading between the lines, a lot of the concerns about the script seem to be levelled at him. If that's the case, and Purvis and Wade "saved" the movie, then I think Logan will be out.

 

I'm not expecting Mendes to direct BOND 25 either. It sounds like it's already been a draining experience for many of those involved. Having said that, a series of major awards could certainly change things.

 

 

I don't know, a lot of what I've heard about the leaks - the execs were very happy with the first two thirds of the screenplay - it was only the last act that wasn't up to scratch - it looks like he produced worthy Bond film, that just lacked the "wow factor" at the end.

[Harmsway]

I'd imagine so. Reading between the lines, a lot of the concerns about the script seem to be levelled at him. If that's the case, and Purvis and Wade "saved" the movie, then I think Logan will be out.

Yeah, I'd say there's very little chance of Logan returning.
 

I'm not expecting Mendes to direct BOND 25 either. It sounds like it's already been a draining experience for many of those involved.

Yeah, he already found Skyfall exhausting, and it sounds like SPECTRE has been even more taxing. As much as it would be nice to see Mendes do three Bond films, I suspect two will be enough for him, despite EON's best efforts to coax him back.

 

We'll see someone else do Bond 25.

I don't know, a lot of what I've heard about the leaks - the execs were very happy with the first two thirds of the screenplay - it was only the last act that wasn't up to scratch - it looks like he produced worthy Bond film, that just lacked the "wow factor" at the end.

 

The SPECTRE screenplay that the Sony execs liked the first two-thirds of was one of P&W's early rewrites, not a John Logan script.

[JCRendle]

and it sounds like SPECTRE has been even more taxing.

For all we know, it could be as taxing as any pre-production on a movie, but we've just been shown an inside that we wouldn't, previously, had been privy to.
 

[Harmsway]

 

and it sounds like SPECTRE has been even more taxing.

For all we know, it could be as taxing as any pre-production on a movie, but we've just been shown an inside that we wouldn't, previously, had been privy to.

There's good reason to believe that there was pressure on SPECTRE that wasn't part of the production on Skyfall due to numerous significant last-minute changes. Which isn't to say that this is something new for EON (I imagine the pre-production on Tomorrow Never Dies and Quantum of Solace were much crazier than anything to do with SPECTRE), but I wouldn't be surprised if Mendes found this all taxing enough that he'll be done with Bond after he completes Skyfall.

Of course, there's the possibility that Mendes will find whatever story hook they're throwing around for Bond 25 tantalizing, and, given that it's likely to be Craig's last Bond adventure, he may want to be the guy that brings the Craig era to a close.

[sharpshooter]

I think the movie will end in a way which has closure, but also leaves an open, exciting entry point for whoever takes over the director's chair. I think Mendes would be up for returning providing he had a good break, mentally and physically. Recharge himself and then get underway again one last time. He won't be thinking about starting Bond 25 straight away after finishing SPECTRE, of course. But given time I think he would come around to it. We'll just have to see.

[Mr_Wint]

Off topic here but is Logan presumably done his part and out of the game?...

 
I'd imagine so. Reading between the lines, a lot of the concerns about the script seem to be levelled at him. If that's the case, and Purvis and Wade "saved" the movie, then I think Logan will be out.
 
I'm not expecting Mendes to direct BOND 25 either. It sounds like it's already been a draining experience for many of those involved. Having said that, a series of major awards could certainly change things.

 
I don't know, a lot of what I've heard about the leaks - the execs were very happy with the first two thirds of the screenplay - it was only the last act that wasn't up to scratch - it looks like he produced worthy Bond film, that just lacked the "wow factor" at the end.

 
Nothing new under the sun then. Most Bond movies have a weak third act, and it makes sense for this type of movie.