Craig on Bond 23: 'We start the end of next year.'
Qwerty
New York, USAPosts: 73MI6 Agent
Daniel Craig on Bond 23: 'We start the end of next year.'
http://commanderbond.net/8082/daniel-craig-on-bond-23-we-start-the-end-of-next-year.html
...so we all have at least some idea of the planned production timeline now.
http://commanderbond.net/8082/daniel-craig-on-bond-23-we-start-the-end-of-next-year.html
...so we all have at least some idea of the planned production timeline now.
~ Nobody Knows Me Like You Know Me ~
Comments
Hopefully, at least the rumour mill should start building momentum this winter...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The only way I can see DC doing four is if they shoot 24 almost immediatley after wrapping 23. I think he will be to old to credible, particularly for his very physical interpretation. He has joked that he'll continue for as long as the knees hold up, well Bond films can be very tough on the knees. I hope that with DC we will see the end of Bonds going on past their sell by date.
lots of good footage of DC and Jackman available on youtube. One of them even looks like James Bond !:D
Hopefully the story for the new film will involve Guy Haines and his connection to Quantum, also I wonder what the British Parliament thinks about Mr. White escaping from custody in QOS.
And I much prefer a Christmas release, than summer time. It needs it's own space - not amongst the 'summer blockbuster's'
I think the problem the team have is to build an expectation around this "quantum" organisation. I expect they feel they ought to go somewhere with it. Yet they do not yet know where to go. Given they are creating an entirely new "super-criminal-organisation" it is a tricky one and I have some sympathy.
Funding could also be a problem (economic climate? get the best tax breaks / financing / cheapest labour force etc)
The 3 year gap didn't hurt TSWLM (actually only a two and a half year gap) or GE (6 and a half yrs) or CR (4YRS) IMO because these were three very well thought out projects that, while not perfect, allowed the audience to re-educate themselves in 007 folklore.
Interestingly it's generally accepted (though not by all) that the follow ups to those films were not so good. TND particularly got a rough ride from its production team, although the critics and the public were very supportive at the time.
Odds are that the follow up will not be another DAD. I think Eon has pretty much learnt the lesson there.
As regards Craig, well, 4 films is about right for a Bond these days and he's be pushing the 50 barrier then anyway.
I have a sneaky suspicion Bond 23 will be released in 2012, even if the movie is ready for 2011, because it would be a celebratory year.
Alternatively, I still have a desire for Eon to wrap up Craig/Quantum/Fleming titles by giving us RISICO and then THE HILDEBRAND RARITY in 2011 - 2012.
But then as somene else pointed out..... they never ask me!
What is going on? May I remind everyone that this series began with 4 films ...IN 4 YEARS!!!
And those films are STILL universally accepted as the cream of the series!
Everybody and his brother will give me a lecture that today's filmmaking climate cannot accomodate the kind of pace in which those films were created. Fine, thats if you accept the propaganda that movies can only be shot a certain way with a certain pace.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Bond universe, we are being treated like stupid policemen.
Am I to understand that previous gaps (TWINE-DAD-3yrs, DAD-CR-4yrs) and now this bit of news is the direct result of the film-makers needing to recharge their creative batteries? Forgive me if I laugh like Baron Samedi.
What has happened since Cubby died is a very slack and casual approach to the series. What Cubby (and Harry) understood (right down to the sub-atomic particles of their old-school showmen's hearts) was that Bond had become the absolutely undisputed heavyweight champion of movies. They had struck gold.
What that means, in essence, is that they had created a product SO popular that THEY CANNOT FULFILL THE DEMAND. Once again, for the cheap seats at the back: You CANNOT have enough Bond movies. Give the people what they want!
I'm crazy enough to question why there HASN"T been a Bond film released every year since 1962. (We should be on Bond #47 this Xmas)
Throw me in the asylum of Napoleons when I make the claim that if there is one series which has earned the right to film back-to-back-to back (a la LOTR) then it has to be BOND.
Look everyone, there is a reason why those early movies still resonate and thrill every generation that followed. Critical analysis is all well and good, but never forget those films were made fast and under pressure. In the heat of the moment with no time for second-guessing.
Terence Young, Peter Hunt, John Barry,Maurice Binder , Ken Adam and a lean, mean Connery were forced by deadline to deliver the goods. Their imagination was under the gun...and look at the results! And lets not even talk about Fleming's annual output.
Purvis and Wade, on the other hand, are allowed the...luxury?...to sit back and contemplate the stars of the Bondian universe and the result is DAD? Give me a break.
Blofeld was never Bond's major nemesis. That honor goes to guys like Purvis and Wade who have...too...much...time.
Cubby and Harry understood that the series should be made with a Bondian type of efficiency. Keep it lean, mean and moving like a freight train. When the two year gap began with YOLT there was a Bond film every two years until 1989. Thats 12 in 22 years! At one time the series was like clockwork...now it feels like the clock is malfunctioning.
Standing on a soap-box raving about more movies is not realistic, I understand that. Of course times have changed. But should Bond?
My two cents is worth exactly that, so what am I griping about? Just this: Cubby and Harry set the two-year pattern for three decades and never failed to deliver. Babs and Michael G. claim to be exhausted after every recent movie. Well...thats not good enough.
3 movies in a decade. How tired can they be?
"Its 3 AM. When do you sleep, 007?"
"Never on the firm's time, sir."
And, as a writer who's about to put out the first of (hopefully) a series of novels, Fleming's machine-like production of a title a year is my personal goal...but I'm liable to take a bit longer, at least at first. Fleming didn't work fifty hours a week in a day job
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
bigzilcho,
great post
makes me want to edit mine into oblivion!
Fleming took 3 months to write a book EVERY year. Granted this is Fleming, but Purvis/Wade and co. must be listening to Louis Armstrong singing "We Have All The Time In The World' when they sit back and ponder a script.
A liitle urgency goes a long way in Bond's world.
And thanks for the tip of the hat to everyone else.
"Strange as it may seem, I've grown accustomed to your face."
Plus the fact that the main character has changed so many times, 2 or 3 yearly gaps do sort of make sense {:)
When a Bond movie is released now, I think the hype and anticipation probably sees MORE people go and see it, rather than a loyal fan base that would obviously go and see any Bond movie, even if released twice a year.
I know I go against the grain here - but well, I would prefer a longer wait between movies - like with anything, too much of a good thing, and you could get tired of it....
Bravo!
Casino Royale was far removed from the book in regards to dialogue and content. Sure, movies are not that easily put together, but the script is vastly easier put together when you are sticking to the original source material. That and the era in which they were made, it was much easier. There is no way they could put together a Bond film every year now, especially from scratch with no base material, things are far too complicated. They don't start working on he next film until well after the current one is screened. In the Sixties, work had already begun on the next Bond prior to the currrent film being aired, the end titles prove that. This was down to the bulk of the script etc already being out there in Flemings work. It was only after they started to deviate from the novels that the two year gap started to creep in.
Fleming might have taken three months to write the books, but they were already written and published by years before they were turned into scripts.
Not only that but Craig has other commitments and projects, Connery was not involved in a great deal between Bonds.
http://apbateman.com
glass half full then
Of course, the films in the sixties overlapped in terms of preperation. THAT's the way it should be. And when Fleming's books were already filmed did that mean that TSWLM, for instance, or OP should take longer because they were original? Well, no...because they still came out every two years.
Your focus on the fact that the first films in the series had the advantage of having blueprints is spot-on but THAT is not the reason they were more prolific then. They just WANTED to be more prolific.
And your point about Craig's other projects being a hindrance is right but then which Bond HASN't made other films during their Bond tenure?
Connery for instance made Woman of Straw(1964)/Marnie (1964)/The Hill (1965)/A Fine Madness(1966) during his tenure...a very impressive line-up.
And count how many films Roger made between 1973 and 1985.
Things today are more "complicated" as you say, but not to the degree that we HAVE to have 3/4 year gaps between films. Sorry, that's the kind of excuse that Cubby and Harry would NEVER have tolerated.
And neither should Bond-fans.
"I'm glad I killed him."
"Youre glad?"
yes, but yearly Bonds to date surely would be more tumultuous, rather like rapid fire from an Uzi.....