"Look how great Peter Jackson's team can write 3 Lord of the Ring movies and now 3 Hobbit movies and release them in the next year like Dr. No (1962), From Russia With Love (1963), Goldfinger (1964)."
Let's see, what do the the Lord of the Ring Movies, Hobbit movies and first three Bond Movies have in common? I know there's something, can't put my finger on it.
Oh, I know, they're all adapted from books. It doesn't take anywhere as long to come with a script based on another work as it does to come up with a brand new script from scratch.
I'm beginning to believe james362001 was just kidding us with his posts about how easy it is to come up with good scripts quickly. I mean, he has to be joking, right???
What about it, old man? You don't really believe that stuff you said, do you?
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
james362001Lancaster, California USAPosts: 338MI6 Agent
Okay. I apologize. I'm just upset that we most likely won't get a James Bond movie in 2014. Sorry I said "lazy". I was hoping they would keep up the momentum and get back on track to a release every 2 years.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
Okay. I apologize. I'm just upset that we most likely won't get a James Bond movie in 2014. Sorry I said "lazy". I was hoping they would keep up the momentum and get back on track to a release every 2 years.
Well, I think that all Bond fans were hoping that!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
I was hoping they would keep up the momentum and get back on track to a release every 2 years.
They really should be doing that. We've had to endure two four-year gaps between films since 2002. Another one would be inexcusable. And I don't want to hear Mickey & Babs moaning about how tired they are and how they need a break betweenf films. They've pulled that one before and the solution is quite simple - hire some help.
ey really should be doing that. We've had to endure two four-year gaps between films since 2002. Another one would be inexcusable. And I don't want to hear Mickey & Babs moaning about how tired they are and how they need a break betweenf films. They've pulled that one before and the solution is quite simple - hire some help.
Every time they've pulled that one they've produced a film that's been more successful than any in decades (GE, CR, SF)
This year Daniel Craig is 45. Bond 24 may be in 2015-DC age 48. Bond 25-2018 DC age 51,
and then his sucessor may follow.
Also who will continue producing them if Broccoli and Wilson retire?
I think Michael G. Wilson has a son who is involved with the films.
It would be good if films were 2 yearly, but there's a lot of planning involved with locations,
scripts and permissions and over 1200 people working on the films. Takes some planning.
So the next one may be November 2015.
Bleuville. Silva (throwing a grenade into Skyfall house) -"Can your friend come out and say hello?!"
This year Daniel Craig is 45. Bond 24 may be in 2015-DC age 48. Bond 25-2018 DC age 51,
and then his sucessor may follow.
Also who will continue producing them if Broccoli and Wilson retire?
I think Michael G. Wilson has a son who is involved with the films.
It would be good if films were 2 yearly, but there's a lot of planning involved with locations,
scripts and permissions and over 1200 people working on the films. Takes some planning.
So the next one may be November 2015.
Bleuville. Silva (throwing a grenade into Skyfall house) -"Can your friend come out and say hello?!"
Showing how long the Bond film gaps have been, this year Daniel Craig is 45 and Pierce Brosnan has just turned 60 years old.
Congratulations to both-but that's 15 years between one Bond actor and the next.
Showing how long the Bond film gaps have been, this year Daniel Craig is 45 and Pierce Brosnan has just turned 60 years old.
Congratulations to both-but that's 15 years between one Bond actor and the next.
Bleuville.
Perhaps more relevant to the point you are making? The first seven Bond films were released in nine years. The last seven Bond films (featuring Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig) were released in seventeen years. I suspect the next seven may well take twenty plus years to be released, and that's without any financial/legal problems delaying production.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
james362001Lancaster, California USAPosts: 338MI6 Agent
Maybe now that the Christopher Dorner manhunt and the Boston Marathon Bombers manhunt is over, do you think they have enough material for Bond 24 now?
Sometimes there are external pressures from a studio who want you to make it in a certain time frame or for their own benefit, and sometimes we’ve given into that. But following what we hope will be a tremendous success with 'Skyfall,' we have to try to keep the deadlines within our own time limits and not cave in to external pressures.
This is the closest Eon have come, to my knowledge, of pinning the rushed release schedules for TND and QoS in particular on MGM. It's interesting that Eon feel they can resist that pressure now. Probably helped by the fact - as alluded to in the article - that MGM don't actually have the infrastructure to distribute the films themselves and so rely upon a third part to be involved.
ey really should be doing that. We've had to endure two four-year gaps between films since 2002. Another one would be inexcusable. And I don't want to hear Mickey & Babs moaning about how tired they are and how they need a break betweenf films. They've pulled that one before and the solution is quite simple - hire some help.
Every time they've pulled that one they've produced a film that's been more successful than any in decades (GE, CR, SF)
Placing box-office success to one side, GoldenEye was mediocre and Skyfall has major plot issues. The fact remains that an extra year or two between productions doesn't guarantee a superior film.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
Placing box-office success to one side, GoldenEye was mediocre and Skyfall has major plot issues. The fact remains that an extra year or two between productions doesn't guarantee a superior film.
In your opinion.
Plenty would disagree.
I like Goldeneye, but I don't think it's as good as some would have you believe. I much prefer Skyfall which is a great Bond movie (in my opinion) and benefitted from a good script and a great cast -{
But each to their own - and that's where your 'fact' falls flat on its arse )
Placing box-office success to one side, GoldenEye was mediocre and Skyfall has major plot issues. The fact remains that an extra year or two between productions doesn't guarantee a superior film.
IMO Both GE and (especially) SF rule. But DAD (Which came out 3 years after TWINE) does not. And CR '06, whilst good, wasn't really my cup of tea (compared to other bond films that is). So IMO that theory varies really.
ey really should be doing that. We've had to endure two four-year gaps between films since 2002. Another one would be inexcusable. And I don't want to hear Mickey & Babs moaning about how tired they are and how they need a break betweenf films. They've pulled that one before and the solution is quite simple - hire some help.
Every time they've pulled that one they've produced a film that's been more successful than any in decades (GE, CR, SF)
Placing box-office success to one side, GoldenEye was mediocre and Skyfall has major plot issues. The fact remains that an extra year or two between productions doesn't guarantee a superior film.
Naturally, it doesn't guarantee a superior film. But whilst GE and SF may not be your cup of tea, the fact is that they were more successful, commercially and critically, than the intervening films produced on the two year cycle.
Although IMHO it's sad to think that a modern Bond actor
will only ( given a three year gap between movies ) get a
run of four movies before having to be replaced with a
younger model.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Although IMHO it's sad to think that a modern Bond actor
will only ( given a three year gap between movies ) get a
run of four movies before having to be replaced with a
younger model.
Oh good, it's not just me then.
james362001Lancaster, California USAPosts: 338MI6 Agent
John Logan seems to be the only man writing Bond 24. If he had the help of two other screenwriters, perhaps the screenwriting would be completed faster.
I am surprised they only went with John Logan after Neal Purvis and Robert Wade left the franchise.
It must be hard to come up with something fresh and 2 hours of intelligent dialogue.
But still, they have done it before and gotten on the ball and released a James Bond movie every two years.
Note: Live and Let Die had its World Premiere, July 5, 1973 and the next movie, The Man With the Golden Gun had it's World Premiere, December 19, 1974. Now that was fast work.
Agreed -{ . I do find it funny that they seem to be
taken by suprise after one Bond film that they have to
make another. ) By now you would asume some
kind of forward planning would be on the cards.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Agreed -{ . I do find it funny that they seem to be
taken by suprise after one Bond film that they have to
make another. ) By now you would asume some
kind of forward planning would be on the cards.
In reply to those concerned about Craig getting too old by the time he makes his fifth, I think when it comes time to replace Craig, they should get a guy in his early 30's. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't SC 31 when he started? And he is still the best, the standard everyone has been held to. Getting guys in their 40's started with Moore, I believe. He was looking pretty old by the time he was done, IMO. And we didn't get near enough movies from TD or PB.
In reply to those concerned about Craig getting too old by the time he makes his fifth, I think when it comes time to replace Craig, they should get a guy in his early 30's. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't SC 31 when he started? And he is still the best, the standard everyone has been held to. Getting guys in their 40's started with Moore, I believe. He was looking pretty old by the time he was done, IMO. And we didn't get near enough movies from TD or PB.
In reply to those concerned about Craig getting too old by the time he makes his fifth, I think when it comes time to replace Craig, they should get a guy in his early 30's. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't SC 31 when he started? And he is still the best, the standard everyone has been held to. Getting guys in their 40's started with Moore, I believe. He was looking pretty old by the time he was done, IMO. And we didn't get near enough movies from TD or PB.
Yes. Sean Connery was 31 at the time of filming.
Roger Moore was still James Bond to me and was a good-looking chap at 57.
Timothy Dalton only got to make two 007 movies (1987,1989) before the legal battle with Kevin McClory began. While filming the sequel to Gone With the Wind (1939), titled, Scarlett (1994), Dalton officially announced he was giving up the role of James Bond. He had waited to long. He was already 48.
Pierce Brosnan was 41 when he began filming GoldenEye (1995). By his last, Die Another Day (2002), he was already 48. It would be 4 years before we would see another James Bond movie. Negotiations did not go well so the rumors say. By February 2005, Brosnan made it clear, he was done with the 007 role.
Personally, I don't think Pierce Brosnan showed too much emotion into his role in the end. I thought Die Another Day was horrible.
Eight months later, at a press conference, the new actor to play James Bond made his first appearance on a speedboat, hair and suit getting wet. The producers introduced Daniel Craig. He was 37.
We have only gotten 3 Bond movies out of him. If they wait until 2016 for the next movie, Daniel Craig will be 47.
Eon Producer Michael G. Wilson wants Daniel Craig to be the longest serving James Bond actor ever, so if they stretch the long wait even further, we won't see Bond 25 until 2019. Then in 2018, Daniel Craig will surpass the record made by Roger Moore of 12 years continuously in the role. Roger Moore has 7 movies. Daniel Craig will only have 5.
Personally, between you and me, I would like to see a new actor in the James Bond role and I hope I live a long life to see it happen. Henry Cavill and Adam Rayner might be put on a HOT list of contenders. But they could always choose someone who is not well-known.
If they want Daniel Craig to play the role until he is 57, we are going to have to wait until 2027. Sorry to say this, but alot of original James Bond fans who enjoyed Sean Connery will be "over the rainbow" by then.
Oh how I wish the producers and screenwriters would go back to releasing a James Bond movie every 2 years.
Live and Let Die (1973) and The Man With the Golden Gun (1974) was not a long wait.
Comments
Let's see, what do the the Lord of the Ring Movies, Hobbit movies and first three Bond Movies have in common? I know there's something, can't put my finger on it.
Oh, I know, they're all adapted from books. It doesn't take anywhere as long to come with a script based on another work as it does to come up with a brand new script from scratch.
I would have thought that was bleeding obvious.
What about it, old man? You don't really believe that stuff you said, do you?
Well, I think that all Bond fans were hoping that!
Every time they've pulled that one they've produced a film that's been more successful than any in decades (GE, CR, SF)
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
This year Daniel Craig is 45. Bond 24 may be in 2015-DC age 48. Bond 25-2018 DC age 51,
and then his sucessor may follow.
Also who will continue producing them if Broccoli and Wilson retire?
I think Michael G. Wilson has a son who is involved with the films.
It would be good if films were 2 yearly, but there's a lot of planning involved with locations,
scripts and permissions and over 1200 people working on the films. Takes some planning.
So the next one may be November 2015.
Bleuville. Silva (throwing a grenade into Skyfall house) -"Can your friend come out and say hello?!"
Congratulations to both-but that's 15 years between one Bond actor and the next.
Bleuville.
Perhaps more relevant to the point you are making? The first seven Bond films were released in nine years. The last seven Bond films (featuring Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig) were released in seventeen years. I suspect the next seven may well take twenty plus years to be released, and that's without any financial/legal problems delaying production.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-skyfall-next-james-bond-movie-20121113,0,1211206.story
The most interesting quote, I think, is this one:
This is the closest Eon have come, to my knowledge, of pinning the rushed release schedules for TND and QoS in particular on MGM. It's interesting that Eon feel they can resist that pressure now. Probably helped by the fact - as alluded to in the article - that MGM don't actually have the infrastructure to distribute the films themselves and so rely upon a third part to be involved.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
In your opinion.
Plenty would disagree.
I like Goldeneye, but I don't think it's as good as some would have you believe. I much prefer Skyfall which is a great Bond movie (in my opinion) and benefitted from a good script and a great cast -{
But each to their own - and that's where your 'fact' falls flat on its arse
IMO Both GE and (especially) SF rule. But DAD (Which came out 3 years after TWINE) does not. And CR '06, whilst good, wasn't really my cup of tea (compared to other bond films that is). So IMO that theory varies really.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Naturally, it doesn't guarantee a superior film. But whilst GE and SF may not be your cup of tea, the fact is that they were more successful, commercially and critically, than the intervening films produced on the two year cycle.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
will only ( given a three year gap between movies ) get a
run of four movies before having to be replaced with a
younger model.
Oh good, it's not just me then.
I am surprised they only went with John Logan after Neal Purvis and Robert Wade left the franchise.
It must be hard to come up with something fresh and 2 hours of intelligent dialogue.
But still, they have done it before and gotten on the ball and released a James Bond movie every two years.
Note: Live and Let Die had its World Premiere, July 5, 1973 and the next movie, The Man With the Golden Gun had it's World Premiere, December 19, 1974. Now that was fast work.
Agreed -{ . I do find it funny that they seem to be
taken by suprise after one Bond film that they have to
make another.
kind of forward planning would be on the cards.
I agree they need to start a new Bond in his 30s.
Yes. Sean Connery was 31 at the time of filming.
Roger Moore was still James Bond to me and was a good-looking chap at 57.
Timothy Dalton only got to make two 007 movies (1987,1989) before the legal battle with Kevin McClory began. While filming the sequel to Gone With the Wind (1939), titled, Scarlett (1994), Dalton officially announced he was giving up the role of James Bond. He had waited to long. He was already 48.
Pierce Brosnan was 41 when he began filming GoldenEye (1995). By his last, Die Another Day (2002), he was already 48. It would be 4 years before we would see another James Bond movie. Negotiations did not go well so the rumors say. By February 2005, Brosnan made it clear, he was done with the 007 role.
Personally, I don't think Pierce Brosnan showed too much emotion into his role in the end. I thought Die Another Day was horrible.
Eight months later, at a press conference, the new actor to play James Bond made his first appearance on a speedboat, hair and suit getting wet. The producers introduced Daniel Craig. He was 37.
We have only gotten 3 Bond movies out of him. If they wait until 2016 for the next movie, Daniel Craig will be 47.
Eon Producer Michael G. Wilson wants Daniel Craig to be the longest serving James Bond actor ever, so if they stretch the long wait even further, we won't see Bond 25 until 2019. Then in 2018, Daniel Craig will surpass the record made by Roger Moore of 12 years continuously in the role. Roger Moore has 7 movies. Daniel Craig will only have 5.
Personally, between you and me, I would like to see a new actor in the James Bond role and I hope I live a long life to see it happen. Henry Cavill and Adam Rayner might be put on a HOT list of contenders. But they could always choose someone who is not well-known.
If they want Daniel Craig to play the role until he is 57, we are going to have to wait until 2027. Sorry to say this, but alot of original James Bond fans who enjoyed Sean Connery will be "over the rainbow" by then.
Oh how I wish the producers and screenwriters would go back to releasing a James Bond movie every 2 years.
Live and Let Die (1973) and The Man With the Golden Gun (1974) was not a long wait.