A little Bond 23 news

cbdouble07

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=6092

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=6093


It appears that there will be a bit of a break between Bond 22 and Bond 23. Michael G. Wilson wants a breather. Also, Marc Forster will not be back as director, having said no to doing Bond 23.

I am not too pleased about either of these developments. In the old days Cubby had the films coming out every two years, even every year at the very beginning. There's no reason they can't still do this today. Now Wilson says he's tired. Wasn't the whole reason that the producers went with the reboot idea was they were tired and the creative juices had run dry? Only two films into the reboot and they're already talking about taking a break again? I really don't see any excuses for not getting back on track and producing a Bond film every couple years. Hopefully, this little break just ends up being a few months away from things and then he's ready to get back into the films.

Forster not coming back also disappoints me. I obviously have no idea how good a job he will do but I'm more concerned with director continuity. This was a major problem during the Brosnan films IMO and I'm concerned this will start to crop up during the Craig era as well. I think it hurts the films when they start playing rotate the director. At least now they seem to be selecting good directors who are capable of making good films, it's just a shame that they can't find someone who would be willing to stay on for a few films and build up some chemistry with Craig (like Terrence Young and Sean Connery).

Loeffelholz

I'm not at all pleased by the prospect of having to wait longer than 2 years between Bond films, but the change of directors doesn't really bother me. While it would be nice to have a director stick around for a couple or three films, and really build up a sense of rapport and tonal continuity, it's also beneficial to have a different set of creative eyes on the job.

Sticking with one director for too long, we've learnt, leads to staleness...hello, John Glen... |)

Hardyboy

Neither bit of news surprises me. First, with the size and cost of film productions today, it's hard to make a movie every two years. EON managed to make three films in six years during the Brosnan era, but then they slowed to a trickle. As for the director, it's clear that gone are the days when a Guy Hamilton or a John Glen would be in for the long haul. Rather than commit themselves to a single series (unless, like Sam Raimi, it's one they developed) they'd rather work on a variety of projects. "Such," as Kerim Bey said in that famous deleted scene, "is life."

darenhat

I suspect that Wilson would have been happy to push back QoS off another year, but with CR being as successful as it was, and due to the nature of the two stories being connected, Eon needed to strike while the iron is hot.

My gut feeling is that 3 years might be the standard going forward. Additionally, if Craig is to continue as Bond, the three-year gap will make it easier for him to pursue other roles outside of Bond.

Tilly Masterson 007

There was always a near 2 year gap between the rest of the films......the longest being Die Another Day with a 4 year gap between Casino Royale.

Hardyboy

Tilly Masterson 007 wrote:

There was always a near 2 year gap between the rest of the films......the longest being Die Another Day with a 4 year gap between Casino Royale.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the rest of the films." Are you not counting the 6 1/2 years between LTK and GE?

Youknowthename

darenhat wrote:

My gut feeling is that 3 years might be the standard going forward. Additionally, if Craig is to continue as Bond, the three-year gap will make it easier for him to pursue other roles outside of Bond.

My thoughts exactly. If it takes a three year interval to keep Bond fresh and exciting, then that's the way to go.

DAWUSS

Sounds like Mickey G's getting burned out. Maybe he should let someone else take over for a while...

spectre7

Mickey & Babs had plenty of time off between Diet Another Day and Casino Royale. There's no need for a three-year break between Quantum of Solace and #23.

Higgins

I absolutely agree with youknowthename.

I'd rather wait 3-4 years for a quality movie instead of a shorter waiting time with compromises due to the short time gap.

Napoleon Plural

Yeah, because we waited three years for DAD and that was real quality wasn't it?

There's no reason for a three-year delay, esp as Craig aint getting any younger. It's not like Wilson himself is writing/directing it. But then CR wasn't really a reinvention at all, just a marketing thing imo. New-style Bond, reboot. The formula was broadly the same as before - torture, female betrayal, young, lacklustre villain - and there are tell tales signs of repetition it seems to me in QoS, Greene seems like a Graves figure to me, with some eco-hideout only in the desert, not Iceland.

Dan Same

Napoleon Plural wrote:

There's no reason for a three-year delay, esp as Craig aint getting any younger.

I could make a joke about how Craig looked as if he had been Bond for 20 years, but I'll let the opportunity pass. :v

I don't have much of a problem with waiting three years. Yes, it would be more preferable to wait two years, but it's not as if I'm starved for films. In fact, this is a year in which the new Bond film is not heading my 'must-see' list, and, in most years, there are several 'must-see' films which may not include Bond, so I can survive without a Bond film every two years. But I don't want to wait more than three years, and I don't want a three year break to become the norm.

james362001

If they believe that Daniel Craig is the hot dish for these "James Bond" movies and that Casino Royale (2006) is a success and that Quantum of Solace (2008), which is a sequel and continues the Casino Royale story, will be a huge success...why make the public wait until 2011 for the third story?
What really makes the James Bond films successful is releasing them every two years, not making the public wait...and wait...and wait another year. By then we lose interest and the momentum.
I believe their would be plenty of rest for Mr. Wilson as the script for "Bond 23" does not have to be in until late 2009 and filming could begin in early 2010.
If Mr. Wilson is too tired, then let Barbara Broccoli take over the reins.

james362001

That is why "Die Anther Day" was a flop and ended up being Pierce Brosnan's last Bond film, The public had to wait 4 years for a new "James Bond" film and by that time they didn't care anymore.
Timothy Dalton could have continued as "James Bond" too if it had not been halted by that court thing. As the years went by, Dalton decided to go ahead and play "Rhett Butler" in the Gone With the Wind sequel, "Scarlett", then he decided it was time for him to give up the Bond role. We didn't see another Bond film until 1995.
I would say let "Bond 23" be released on time in 2010. If Michael Wilson is too tired to start the wheels up again in mid-2009, then let Barbara Broccoli take over the reins.{[]{[]

SeanConnery007

Although I am completely in agreement that it would be a terrible shame to leave a long break until Bond23, I think we're jumping on Wilson's back too much here.
There's nothing that says the break is due to Wilson personally wanting a break, I imagine its more to do with crew, and remember that Bond23 goes back to MGM entirely so perhaps the break is in order to prepare MGM and crew for getting the next Bond ready without the assistance of Sony.

Higgins

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Yeah, because we waited three years for DAD and that was real quality wasn't it?

I think, you did not get my point. I did not say, that 3 years of waiting will automatically end up with a quality movie.

james362001 wrote:

That is why "Die Anther Day" was a flop and ended up being Pierce Brosnan's last Bond film, The public had to wait 4 years for a new "James Bond" film and by that time they didn't care anymore.

I think, the public has been disappointed with several contents of the movie and not so much with the long waiting time

Tilly Masterson 007

Hardyboy wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "the rest of the films." Are you not counting the 6 1/2 years between LTK and GE?

I meant that there was almost always a 2 year gap between all of the films with the excpetion of LTK to GE like you said!

Should have made myself more clear. B-)

highhopes

If Quantum of Solace is a megahit, and it potentially could be since it should get a buzz-boost from CR's success, IMike may be forced to pick up his tired old a** and make 23 sooner than he might like. I think Hollywood likes to strike while the iron is hot, and I think it would be foolish to let too much time pass between films. They've got a good thing going here, why risk it?

Hardyboy

james362001 wrote:

That is why "Die Anther Day" was a flop and ended up being Pierce Brosnan's last Bond film, The public had to wait 4 years for a new "James Bond" film and by that time they didn't care anymore.

But. . .DAD was a massive hit that made money hand over fist, and plenty of people were outraged when Brosnan was let go. The producers could have continued in the same direction and with Brosnan as Bond, but they deliberately chose to go a different way. People cared then, and they care now.

spectre7

james362001 wrote:

That is why "Die Anther Day" was a flop and ended up being Pierce Brosnan's last Bond film

None of the Bond films have flopped, which is quite staggering when you think how many there are of them. They've all made money.

Loeffelholz

Dan Same wrote:

I could make a joke about how Craig looked as if he had been Bond for 20 years, but I'll let the opportunity pass. :v

Apparently, you can't

Dan Same wrote:

...this is a year in which the new Bond film is not heading my 'must-see' list

You have my deepest sympathy...Bond is always #1 on my list---it was even when the lead actor bugged the s**t out of me...Mind you, I'm really amped for Iron Man, Indy 4, Star Trek, Half-Blood Prince, Hulk...etc...(I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple ;% ) but nothing beats a new Bond for me :007)

preshishley

I would prefer there NOT be a 2 year plus wait between Bond films,but I'll live

Besides,there's so many good non-Bond movies out there that will be worth seeing between the time QOS and Bond 23 come out.

taity

hey Ive got a question little Bondholics - who are the current lot of producer's replacements. Towards the end of Cubby's reign he clearly set Micky G up to be his successor. Same with Babs. But is there anyone who is clearly going to be getting it?

Barbel

I've noticed one David G. Wilson (Son Of Michael?) in the credits recently in a minor role- maybe he'll move up through the ranks...?

Dan Same

Loeffelholz wrote:

Dan Same wrote:

I could make a joke about how Craig looked as if he had been Bond for 20 years, but I'll let the opportunity pass. :v

Apparently, you can't

) I can't get one past you can I? :v

Loeffelholz wrote:

Dan Same wrote:

...this is a year in which the new Bond film is not heading my 'must-see' list

You have my deepest sympathy...Bond is always #1 on my list---it was even when the lead actor bugged the s**t out of me...Mind you, I'm really amped for Iron Man, Indy 4, Star Trek, Half-Blood Prince, Hulk...etc...(I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple ;% ) but nothing beats a new Bond for me :007)

Most years Bond is number 1 for me, however this year it's number 3. Part of that is that I'm simply not as exited to see this particular Bond film as I am in previous years, but also because the two films I am most looking forward to (Eastwood's next two films with the one he's acting in being number 1) are so 'unmissable' for me that it's not an insult to Bond to say that it is at number 3. It is still above Shine A Light, Iron Man, Indy 4, The Dark Knight, Hellboy 2, Hulk, Get Smart, Mamma Mia, The Wolfman, Righteous Kill, Hancock, Babylon A.D, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Australia and numerous other films.

preshishley

I believe Mikey G Wilson has a son.Don't know about Babs though.Hopefully we won't have to worry about anyone taking their place(s) for a long time though

Higgins

I know from a brother of Michael Wilson who does some financial and legal stuff. I had him once on the telephone - he sounds like Rod Steward - on a bad day )

Barbel

preshishley wrote:

I believe Mikey G Wilson has a son.

...er, check two posts above.

preshishley

I actually IMDB'd MGW-he's got two sons.Probably common knowlege,but inasmuch as I am a nerd when it comes to Bond, I'm not:p

Barbel

Ok, I checked it out- David G. Wilson has had assorted jobs on Bond films since GE, working under his father (and aunt). He's also directed a film of his own. Sounds to me as if he'll gradually be taking a more prominent position as time goes on- sound familiar? It's very similar to the Bond career path of MGW and BB.

(Not that there's anything wrong with this)

Loeffelholz

I hope he's taking the time to actually read the books