Well, after seeing the news, I have a lot of mixed emotions. On one hand, it's nice that they got Mendez again. On the other - a release date three years from the last film? Now, as others have stated, there
are modern problems involving the schedules of getting the principal actors and the director, etc. in sync within a certain time frame. However, when I look back at when they began filming the series, I ask, what's changed? Granted, when Connery did the first two, he worked on nothing else and they had the same director and low budgets. The quality didn't suffer because they were using Fleming's work and didn't change it very much. They also had restricted locations - Jamaica/Pinewood, then Turkey/Pinewood/Scotland. So, Dr. No took only about ten weeks to do early in '62 and was released in October. FRWL took longer - almost four months (Apr-Aug) in '63 - the following year, and was released less than two months later.
Now, after the release of FRWL Connery made Woman of Straw, Marnie, then GF. They brought on another director for GF. It was the biggest grossing film and grabbed the pop culture by storm.
I realized the complexities of film making today, and am not an innnocent in this. I've been involved in it hands on, and it's a complex, difficult process. However, I am in agreement with many today who believe that spending the equivalent of the budgets of some small countries on a film does not guarantee quality (The Lone Ranger for example). The Bond films have the right principal actors and their own bloody studio to do most of the scenes in. Fixating and waiting on Mendez just because they liked how SF turned out and they enjoyed the collaboration is no excuse in my mind for putting off a Bond for that long. I would have no problem with a late 2014 release. 2015 is just ridiculous. If they are going to go three or four years between Bonds, they could almost reboot the whole bloody thing each time. Also, if Craig want's to do other projects in between, that's fine. However, if he's under contract to do so many films, he should try to fit his other projects around the Bond series - not vice versa, especially when he's playing the same character - his age is a factor in this to me. He may physically hold up well during the next film, but I'm not sure how his face will by then. This is a man who enjoys being outdoors a lot, and it's easy to see that his skin has aged because of sun damage. Unless they can do a miracle make up job, I don't see how he's going too look that great by the next film.
This is another reason I wish they would go with an unknown actor after Craig and also cut back on the production size so they can get back to a shorter shooting schedule. You don't need huge budgets and 2nd units hopping all over creation to get a good Bond film. You just need good actors, a good director, photographer, editor and especially - a good writer or writers. As much as I enjoy being an enthusiast of the series, my interest is certainly going to drop considerably over the coming years till the next film's release. Well, there's my farthing thrown in.
Not massively interested so will probably lie low and check in here very occasionally as I don't anticipate that this view will be shared or welcomed by many as any 'dissent' from the majority view gets pretty short shrift around here.
I'm sorry and a bit surprised you feel that way, Zap. I never got the impression that if one dissents from the majority view that you are somehow ostracized. Perhaps it depends on how you express that view, e.g. if you indicate that you believe anyone who doesn't feel the way you do is an idiot. I don't recall you ever coming across that way. I have stated many times that I think Roger Moore is an awful James Bond, and I think that opinion goes against the majority view. But I've never been made to feel unwelcomed because of my views. I hope you will reconsider.
yup i 2nd the opinion on Moore ... he played Bond as a clown instead of a hard faced killer.
"some men are coming to kill us, we're going to kill them first"
Not massively interested so will probably lie low and check in here very occasionally as I don't anticipate that this view will be shared or welcomed by many as any 'dissent' from the majority view gets pretty short shrift around here.
I'm sorry and a bit surprised you feel that way, Zap. I never got the impression that if one dissents from the majority view that you are somehow ostracized. Perhaps it depends on how you express that view, e.g. if you indicate that you believe anyone who doesn't feel the way you do is an idiot. I don't recall you ever coming across that way. I have stated many times that I think Roger Moore is an awful James Bond, and I think that opinion goes against the majority view. But I've never been made to feel unwelcomed because of my views. I hope you will reconsider.
yup i 2nd the opinion on Moore ... he played Bond as a clown instead of a hard faced killer.
Comments
"Daniel my car "
are modern problems involving the schedules of getting the principal actors and the director, etc. in sync within a certain time frame. However, when I look back at when they began filming the series, I ask, what's changed? Granted, when Connery did the first two, he worked on nothing else and they had the same director and low budgets. The quality didn't suffer because they were using Fleming's work and didn't change it very much. They also had restricted locations - Jamaica/Pinewood, then Turkey/Pinewood/Scotland. So, Dr. No took only about ten weeks to do early in '62 and was released in October. FRWL took longer - almost four months (Apr-Aug) in '63 - the following year, and was released less than two months later.
Now, after the release of FRWL Connery made Woman of Straw, Marnie, then GF. They brought on another director for GF. It was the biggest grossing film and grabbed the pop culture by storm.
I realized the complexities of film making today, and am not an innnocent in this. I've been involved in it hands on, and it's a complex, difficult process. However, I am in agreement with many today who believe that spending the equivalent of the budgets of some small countries on a film does not guarantee quality (The Lone Ranger for example). The Bond films have the right principal actors and their own bloody studio to do most of the scenes in. Fixating and waiting on Mendez just because they liked how SF turned out and they enjoyed the collaboration is no excuse in my mind for putting off a Bond for that long. I would have no problem with a late 2014 release. 2015 is just ridiculous. If they are going to go three or four years between Bonds, they could almost reboot the whole bloody thing each time. Also, if Craig want's to do other projects in between, that's fine. However, if he's under contract to do so many films, he should try to fit his other projects around the Bond series - not vice versa, especially when he's playing the same character - his age is a factor in this to me. He may physically hold up well during the next film, but I'm not sure how his face will by then. This is a man who enjoys being outdoors a lot, and it's easy to see that his skin has aged because of sun damage. Unless they can do a miracle make up job, I don't see how he's going too look that great by the next film.
This is another reason I wish they would go with an unknown actor after Craig and also cut back on the production size so they can get back to a shorter shooting schedule. You don't need huge budgets and 2nd units hopping all over creation to get a good Bond film. You just need good actors, a good director, photographer, editor and especially - a good writer or writers. As much as I enjoy being an enthusiast of the series, my interest is certainly going to drop considerably over the coming years till the next film's release. Well, there's my farthing thrown in.
yup i 2nd the opinion on Moore ... he played Bond as a clown instead of a hard faced killer.
Ahhh....another discerning viewer! -{
somehow, for some reason , (if this were true), i'd want the movie renamed -
MonkeyPaw