but that article doesn't even mention James Bond. Its talking about James and the Giant Peach! Two completely different Jameses, despite the Roald Dahl connection.
However... wasn't there something about Craig only announcing his return because MENDES wasn't returning? Or was that just guess work/hearsay? I'm confused
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
“Distribution plans for Bond 25 still have not been announced and we are continuing discussions with a variety of potential partners,” Barber said on the call. “We look forward to sharing more details on Bond 25 on future calls.”
“Distribution plans for Bond 25 still have not been announced and we are continuing discussions with a variety of potential partners,” Barber said on the call. “We look forward to sharing more details on Bond 25 on future calls.”
I'm sure MGM is just trying to cut the best deal. Not sure if the deal would just be for Bond 25 or multiple films.
From the sounds of that article, you're going to hear about a distributor this week. With the film two years away, I bet you don't hear about a director for another several months.
Mendes was confirmed as Spectre/Bond24 director in July 2013 and Mendes was reported as being the Skyfall/Bond23 director as early as January 2010, so I think an imminent director announcement is possible. With Mendes.
From the sounds of that article, you're going to hear about a distributor this week. With the film two years away, I bet you don't hear about a director for another several months.
Mendes was confirmed as Spectre/Bond24 director in July 2013 and Mendes was reported as being the Skyfall/Bond23 director as early as January 2010, so I think an imminent director announcement is possible. With Mendes.
Is there any validity to the claim that there was some bad blood between them on Spectre? I think I remember reading they butted heads on Skyfall but it was in a constructive manner that benefitted the film.
From the sounds of that article, you're going to hear about a distributor this week. With the film two years away, I bet you don't hear about a director for another several months.
Mendes was confirmed as Spectre/Bond24 director in July 2013 and Mendes was reported as being the Skyfall/Bond23 director as early as January 2010, so I think an imminent director announcement is possible. With Mendes.
Is there any validity to the claim that there was some bad blood between them on Spectre? I think I remember reading they butted heads on Skyfall but it was in a constructive manner that benefitted the film.
I think it was quite obvious that they did, I also think it was obvious that DC wasn't entirely happy with the final product of Spectre.
I'm thinking that Mendes will not be back. It appears that EON's prime goal was to get Craig back for one more; they were not ready to move on to another Bond actor both financially and artistically. It would be much easier to find a good director for Bond 25 than a replacement for Craig at this time, at least from EON's perspective (it's a given that there are those who frequent the AJB who believe it is time for Craig to move on but I'm talking about how EON sees things).
The script is everything. I agree that Craig’s surly attitude during promotion of Spectre can probably be attributed to his dissatisfaction with the film, which as we know, had serious script problems before the cameras ever started shooting.
Mendes was confirmed as Spectre/Bond24 director in July 2013 and Mendes was reported as being the Skyfall/Bond23 director as early as January 2010, so I think an imminent director announcement is possible. With Mendes.
Is there any validity to the claim that there was some bad blood between them on Spectre? I think I remember reading they butted heads on Skyfall but it was in a constructive manner that benefitted the film.
I think it was quite obvious that they did, I also think it was obvious that DC wasn't entirely happy with the final product of Spectre.
Judging by his "slash my wrists" comment and such?
No that was just his response to a stupid question from a daft journo, and we know how he just loves daft journos! It was more his general demeanour and the fact that the story of Spectre flew in the face of comments he made prior to shooting, I don't think Spectre was a bond film dc wanted to make, it also explains his reticence in confirming 25.
No that was just his response to a stupid question from a daft journo, and we know how he just loves daft journos! It was more his general demeanour and the fact that the story of Spectre flew in the face of comments he made prior to shooting, I don't think Spectre was a bond film dc wanted to make, it also explains his reticence in confirming 25.
What comments did he make prior to shooting? Only comment I remember him saying prior to filming was that Spectre was going to be "Skyfall x10".
He gave an interview where he was asked about the route bond had taken since the reboot, I can't remember exactly word for word but he said that his portrayal of Bond had to be different, " I can't do shtick" "Roger Moore did what he did very well, and that was his Bond, I can't do that, we are trying to introduce more lightness in this next one but in a different way" he went on to say " then the Austin powers thing happened and we have to be very careful not to draw parralels to those films and risk being a parody of a parody"
And then we get Spectre, a good film with so many plus points but the parallels were there for sure and dc did attempt ( or was asked to) attempt some mooreesque Bondisms.
...he went on to say " then the Austin powers thing happened and we have to be very careful not to draw parralels to those films and risk being a parody of a parody" ...
oh the irony
if they wanted to avoid parallels they should have made sure they actually watched the films they didn't want to draw parallels to, because they obviously missed something
...he went on to say " then the Austin powers thing happened and we have to be very careful not to draw parralels to those films and risk being a parody of a parody" ...
oh the irony
if they wanted to avoid parallels they should have made sure they actually watched the films they didn't want to draw parallels to, because they obviously missed something
They certainly did, but then bringing back Spectre and Blofeld was always going to draw parallels back to Austin powers, in my mind they may as well have put waltz in a bald cap and gone the whole hog. What they really should have done is leave Spectre with Sean Connery or written it much better, like they did with Quantum.
They certainly did, but then bringing back Spectre and Blofeld was always going to draw parallels back to Austin powers, in my mind they may as well have put waltz in a bald cap and gone the whole hog. What they really should have done is leave Spectre with Sean Connery or written it much better, like they did with Quantum.
IMO, they pushed the whole SPECTRE angle too hard in SP. If they would have kept it simple: this guy named Blofeld basically takes over Quantum, changes the name to SPECTRE and is such an evil, psychotic, no good murdering, women and children killing SOB that even Mr. White can't stomach what they have become, that would have been more than fine. Adding the whole step/foster brother, murdering Bond's parents angle was just way too much and not needed.
What they really should have done is leave Spectre with Sean Connery or written it much better, like they did with Quantum.
Completely agree -{ there are points in QoS “We have people everywhere... am I right?” Which really make Quantum seem threatening. The scene around the table in Spectre (Blofeld and Hinx introductions) has that edge, but from the scene where Bond and Swann are collected in a Rolls Royce onward, it seems too genteel to be dangerous.
...he went on to say " then the Austin powers thing happened and we have to be very careful not to draw parralels to those films and risk being a parody of a parody" ...
oh the irony
if they wanted to avoid parallels they should have made sure they actually watched the films they didn't want to draw parallels to, because they obviously missed something
It's funny because you're totally right. Spectre steered Craig's Bond more into the direction that they were originally trying to get away from.
What they really should have done is leave Spectre with Sean Connery or written it much better, like they did with Quantum.
Completely agree -{ there are points in QoS “We have people everywhere... am I right?” Which really make Quantum seem threatening. The scene around the table in Spectre (Blofeld and Hinx introductions) has that edge, but from the scene where Bond and Swann are collected in a Rolls Royce onward, it seems too genteel to be dangerous.
Agreed, it was not really necessary to use Spectre when Quantum was already established as a new-age Spectre-like organization. It made it too convoluted just shoehorning in another super secret organization that's exactly the same as Quantum especially this late in Craig's tenure.
Quantum was more business like, you kind of feel that human trafficking was not their sort of thing, but manipulating corrupt politicians was more their sort of thing, and having prominent members from the cia, UK government etc just seemed far more relevant than how Spectre was delivered.
I agree up to a point. Quantum worked well for Craig's Bond, so they'll could have kept that organisation and let him take it down in his last movie. Then the next Bond could start fresh battling SPECTRE.
...he went on to say " then the Austin powers thing happened and we have to be very careful not to draw parralels to those films and risk being a parody of a parody" ...
oh the irony
if they wanted to avoid parallels they should have made sure they actually watched the films they didn't want to draw parallels to, because they obviously missed something
It's funny because you're totally right. Spectre steered Craig's Bond more into the direction that they were originally trying to get away from.
Craig was also right: he can’t do schtick. At least not as Bond. It was painful to watch him try to introduce the humor. But I don’t blame him for trying. I just hope the lesson was learned and we get his patented harder edge, like in his first two Bond films.
...he went on to say " then the Austin powers thing happened and we have to be very careful not to draw parralels to those films and risk being a parody of a parody" ...
oh the irony
if they wanted to avoid parallels they should have made sure they actually watched the films they didn't want to draw parallels to, because they obviously missed something
Eh, aren't you forgetting that Craig was a CO-PRODUCER on Spectre. He can't blame that film on others, Mendes or Logan or P&W. He must have OK'd everything from start to finish.
The script is everything. I agree that Craig’s surly attitude during promotion of Spectre can probably be attributed to his dissatisfaction with the film, which as we know, had serious script problems before the cameras ever started shooting.
Totally agree. The most sensible option for another (last?) Craig outing seems to me to go with the last hurrah Swansong (weak pun intended) route. It's a shame that to some degree we have already walked that path with Skyfall. However I think Daniel could do a terrific job of that and it might lessen the amount of running, jumping and fisticuffs that he has to do. Bond films take their toll, and Daniel has already 'given at the office'. No Bond actor has literally thrown themselves into the role more than he has. It could make for a superb Bond film and he could really stretch in the part to show us something we have not quite seen before. The decks could then be cleared for a new younger actor. Craig deserves a better send off and I'm sure that disappointment with Spectre plays a big part in his decision to return.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
And as for how far along they should be on the script - why wouldn't they use the delay to their advantage and work on it until they can't work on it? "Working on it since March" shouldn't mean some arbitrary date of "pencils down" so the thing can just sit in a drawer for a year.
Eh, aren't you forgetting that Craig was a CO-PRODUCER on Spectre. He can't blame that film on others, Mendes or Logan or P&W. He must have OK'd everything from start to finish.
Craig had an "Executive Producer" credit. You can't just scapegoat Craig for SPECTRE. I think you are significantly overstating Craig's control over the film. Some things look much better on paper and suffer in the execution plus we really don't know to what extent Craig may or may have not had issues with SPECTRE. The film was far from a disaster. In many ways, SPECTRE was what some who post on this site were pining away for...a more traditional Bond film with a bit of humor, gags, villains lair or whatever. I think what we (and hopefully EON) have realized is Craig's Bond does much better in a heavier, harder world.
oh the irony
if they wanted to avoid parallels they should have made sure they actually watched the films they didn't want to draw parallels to, because they obviously missed something
It's funny because you're totally right. Spectre steered Craig's Bond more into the direction that they were originally trying to get away from.
Craig was also right: he can’t do schtick. At least not as Bond. It was painful to watch him try to introduce the humor. But I don’t blame him for trying. I just hope the lesson was learned and we get his patented harder edge, like in his first two Bond films.
Craig's Bond was never completely humorless but the borderline slapstick humor in Spectre felt pretty out of character to me. Like it was Craig Bond-lite.
It's funny because you're totally right. Spectre steered Craig's Bond more into the direction that they were originally trying to get away from.
Craig was also right: he can’t do schtick. At least not as Bond. It was painful to watch him try to introduce the humor. But I don’t blame him for trying. I just hope the lesson was learned and we get his patented harder edge, like in his first two Bond films.
Craig's Bond was never completely humorless but the borderline slapstick humor in Spectre felt pretty out of character to me. Like it was Craig Bond-lite.
Skyfall struck the perfect balance on the humor. And Casino Royale also had a light touch, reminiscent of The Living Daylights in overall tone. They need to dial it back to something like that.
It's funny because you're totally right. Spectre steered Craig's Bond more into the direction that they were originally trying to get away from.
Craig was also right: he can’t do schtick. At least not as Bond. It was painful to watch him try to introduce the humor. But I don’t blame him for trying. I just hope the lesson was learned and we get his patented harder edge, like in his first two Bond films.
Craig's Bond was never completely humorless but the borderline slapstick humor in Spectre felt pretty out of character to me. Like it was Craig Bond-lite.
The car chase in Rome had a very "Gondola chase" feel to it, which is not good for any Bond but especially Craig's.
Comments
Digital spy have made a similar connection.
However... wasn't there something about Craig only announcing his return because MENDES wasn't returning? Or was that just guess work/hearsay? I'm confused
https://www.thewrap.com/epix-acquisition-lifts-mgm-to-strong-q3-james-bond/
“Distribution plans for Bond 25 still have not been announced and we are continuing discussions with a variety of potential partners,” Barber said on the call. “We look forward to sharing more details on Bond 25 on future calls.”
Bond on the Box - Website | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | LetterBoxd | YouTube
I'm sure MGM is just trying to cut the best deal. Not sure if the deal would just be for Bond 25 or multiple films.
Mendes was confirmed as Spectre/Bond24 director in July 2013 and Mendes was reported as being the Skyfall/Bond23 director as early as January 2010, so I think an imminent director announcement is possible. With Mendes.
I don't believe the story in The Sun that claimed Craig would not work with Mendes again.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/4179212/james-bond-daniel-craig-sam-mendes-role-change/
I think it was quite obvious that they did, I also think it was obvious that DC wasn't entirely happy with the final product of Spectre.
And then we get Spectre, a good film with so many plus points but the parallels were there for sure and dc did attempt ( or was asked to) attempt some mooreesque Bondisms.
if they wanted to avoid parallels they should have made sure they actually watched the films they didn't want to draw parallels to, because they obviously missed something
IMO, they pushed the whole SPECTRE angle too hard in SP. If they would have kept it simple: this guy named Blofeld basically takes over Quantum, changes the name to SPECTRE and is such an evil, psychotic, no good murdering, women and children killing SOB that even Mr. White can't stomach what they have become, that would have been more than fine. Adding the whole step/foster brother, murdering Bond's parents angle was just way too much and not needed.
Completely agree -{ there are points in QoS “We have people everywhere... am I right?” Which really make Quantum seem threatening. The scene around the table in Spectre (Blofeld and Hinx introductions) has that edge, but from the scene where Bond and Swann are collected in a Rolls Royce onward, it seems too genteel to be dangerous.
Craig was also right: he can’t do schtick. At least not as Bond. It was painful to watch him try to introduce the humor. But I don’t blame him for trying. I just hope the lesson was learned and we get his patented harder edge, like in his first two Bond films.
Eh, aren't you forgetting that Craig was a CO-PRODUCER on Spectre. He can't blame that film on others, Mendes or Logan or P&W. He must have OK'd everything from start to finish.
https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2017/1116/920708-barbara-broccoli-james-bond-film-stars-dont-die-in-liverpool/
Denis only doing Dune then? Mendes circling Bond25? I think Asp9mm knows more.
How far along should writers be with a script as we know Purvis and Wade have been working on it since at least March?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4299532/BAZ-BAMIGBOYE-ponders-play-007.html
Totally agree. The most sensible option for another (last?) Craig outing seems to me to go with the last hurrah Swansong (weak pun intended) route. It's a shame that to some degree we have already walked that path with Skyfall. However I think Daniel could do a terrific job of that and it might lessen the amount of running, jumping and fisticuffs that he has to do. Bond films take their toll, and Daniel has already 'given at the office'. No Bond actor has literally thrown themselves into the role more than he has. It could make for a superb Bond film and he could really stretch in the part to show us something we have not quite seen before. The decks could then be cleared for a new younger actor. Craig deserves a better send off and I'm sure that disappointment with Spectre plays a big part in his decision to return.
And as for how far along they should be on the script - why wouldn't they use the delay to their advantage and work on it until they can't work on it? "Working on it since March" shouldn't mean some arbitrary date of "pencils down" so the thing can just sit in a drawer for a year.
Skyfall struck the perfect balance on the humor. And Casino Royale also had a light touch, reminiscent of The Living Daylights in overall tone. They need to dial it back to something like that.
The car chase in Rome had a very "Gondola chase" feel to it, which is not good for any Bond but especially Craig's.
All it needed was a double taking pigeon.