...[Craig] went on to say " then the Austin Powers thing happened and we have to be very careful not to draw parallels 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.
I'm definitely not forgetting that Executive Producer credit. Though I'm really not sure what an Executive Producer does except draw a second paycheck. Seems like its getting more common for stars in successful series or franchises to get that special credit. But if it really means something in terms of responsibility, that is a big problem in and of itself.
They've given him too much power when he should be an employee like Connery through Brosnan were. How can they tell him to come back to work when he's the Big Executive Producer? he'll just fire whoever is trying to actually get the film made.
And I'm sure he never watched Goldmember after talking big about avoiding Austin Powers comparisons. Nor did the Broccoli kids, nor did the writers, nor did the director. That's certainly their prerogative. But of all those thousands of lower level employees who work for them, how did not one spot the plot similarity and talk about it with their bosses? Statistically speaking, somebody must and they chose not to mention it. That suggests an unhealthy work culture, and the result is Craig Executive Produced exactly the film he claimed he was trying to avoid.
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 was plenty funny in Logan Lucky. He may not be good at raising one eyebrow and delivering the oneliner, but he has his own style of funny, which is a bit grim and intimidating. The "waste of scotch" line in the previous film is the kind of funny he's good at, or leaning in his boss's boss's face and saying "I think I'll call you "C"!". He does indeed crack me up in his own unique style. His whole impatient, undiplomatic attitude is funny.
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.
except they've fallen into the habit of making up the script as they go along once they begin filming, or so I understand. So lets at least set the arbitrary date of "pencils down" as before the filming starts.
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.
It was an attempt to deliver these things, or at least signify them, by a newer generation of filmmakers that don't seem to understand what made the classic films work. I sometimes think they just don't want to be making James Bond films at all, they'd like to be making a brand new spy franchise with a brand new attitude, but they want the marketing guarantee of releasing these films under a proven brand-name
It's quite likely that because he was executive producer why he had disagreements with Mendes the director. it's my understanding that an executive producer is more the business and financial side of things and not the artistic side.
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.
The car chase in Rome would have been much better served if Bond was driving an "everyman car" that he pinched or was a rental. Bond using his skills and guile in a Fiat or a Mini vs Hinx in a supercar would have been interesting.
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.
You're wrong. The Spectre Production Notes that were provided to attendees of the media preview screening London show he was a co-producer. There was only one executive producer on Spectre, Callum McDougall. And I'm not scapegoating anyone.
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.
You're wrong. The Spectre Production Notes that were provided to attendees of the media preview screening London show he was a co-producer. There was only one executive producer on Spectre, Callum McDougall. And I'm not scapegoating anyone.
That's even better, Co producers have very little artistic input. The co-producer tag dc has is a follow on from his forced input into qos, he adds things like the cuff straightening in the train in the sf pts, he also has a bit of input into the wardrobe ( BC morrocco outfit) and on the day changes to stunts etc, he would have little input into the script, story, cinematography, direction, editing. He was obviously unhappy with some aspects of Spectre just think how many scenes he filmed that ended up on the cutting room floor. The film he shot and the final version may well be substantially different.
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.
You're wrong. The Spectre Production Notes that were provided to attendees of the media preview screening London show he was a co-producer. There was only one executive producer on Spectre, Callum McDougall. And I'm not scapegoating anyone.
That is right, from the posters I've seen. But being credited as a "co-producer" more likely than anything is just a credit and paycheque, and more than anything a way to get him to do another Bond film.
I think the extended hiatus between Spectre and Bond 25 will benefit the latter. Not that a longer duration between films means a better film. But I hope the longer wait means they aren't rushing into production with an unfinished script or anything. They have to get it right this time since its Craig's final Bond film.
I agree. We can wail and gnash our teeth endlessly about how it shouldn’t take them four years to put together a quality film, but for whatever reason, valid or not, that appears to be the case. Whatever your own unique artistic views of CR and SF, those were huge critical and commercial successes that came after four year gaps.
I think a leaner budget would also focus creativity more sharply on script and character.
I agree. I bit of a tighter budget could spawn some originality and creativity and prevent the overindulgence that can come with a bloated budget.
That's why I favor someone like a Yann Damange, David MacKenzie or Sean Ellis. They know how to do more with less. Sean Ellis shot Anthropoid in 16mm with anamorphic lenses for the 'scope aspect ratio of 2.40 to 1 and the film looked great in the theater. All three know how to do suspenceful, rivetting action sequences. Ellis is also an accomplished screen writer so he could probably really polish up whatever Purvis and Wade came up with. I would consider any of the three a fine choice. I could throw Paul McGuigan in there also mainly based upon what he did with Lucky Number Slevin which is IMO a really underated off beat crime film.
It does appear that Craig was a little unsatisfied with Spectre's critical reception. Whether or not he liked the film I don't know, but it seems he was stung by the reviews. This, plus Purvis and Wade's comments that "for sure, Spectre felt like it closed off a certain way of doing Bond. And I think whatever happens next will be quite different" indicates that the producers were not entirely happy with the end product and the film making process in general.
Maybe they're going to have less writers, less of a budget and a more streamlined story line this time. Which perhaps is why they've jettisoned Waltz and perhaps Spectre entirely for this next entry. Mind you that is obviously just speculation but Spectre without Blofeld would be unusual.
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.
You're wrong. The Spectre Production Notes that were provided to attendees of the media preview screening London show he was a co-producer. There was only one executive producer on Spectre, Callum McDougall. And I'm not scapegoating anyone.
That is right, from the posters I've seen. But being credited as a "co-producer" more likely than anything is just a credit and paycheque, and more than anything a way to get him to do another Bond film.
You need to have two producer credits to become a member of the Producer's Guild (kind of like being a Double 0). He could get his second on Purity, if that ever gets made, or Bond 25.
You're wrong. The Spectre Production Notes that were provided to attendees of the media preview screening London show he was a co-producer. There was only one executive producer on Spectre, Callum McDougall. And I'm not scapegoating anyone.
That is right, from the posters I've seen. But being credited as a "co-producer" more likely than anything is just a credit and paycheque, and more than anything a way to get him to do another Bond film.
You need to have two producer credits to become a member of the Producer's Guild (kind of like being a Double 0). He could get his second on Purity, if that ever gets made, or Bond 25.
He already has two producer credits - 'Flashbacks of a Fool' and 'SPECTRE'.
It does appear that Craig was a little unsatisfied with Spectre's critical reception. Whether or not he liked the film I don't know, but it seems he was stung by the reviews. This, plus Purvis and Wade's comments that "for sure, Spectre felt like it closed off a certain way of doing Bond. And I think whatever happens next will be quite different" indicates that the producers were not entirely happy with the end product and the film making process in general.
Maybe they're going to have less writers, less of a budget and a more streamlined story line this time. Which perhaps is why they've jettisoned Waltz and perhaps Spectre entirely for this next entry. Mind you that is obviously just speculation but Spectre without Blofeld would be unusual.
No doubt everyone involved wanted Spectre to be more successful then Skyfall, but somewhere along the line they probably realized that just wasn't going to happen. Anybody else think that there was a general sense of Bond fatigue around the production and press of Spectre? Beyond just Craig's comments that were taken out of context.
That is right, from the posters I've seen. But being credited as a "co-producer" more likely than anything is just a credit and paycheque, and more than anything a way to get him to do another Bond film.
You need to have two producer credits to become a member of the Producer's Guild (kind of like being a Double 0). He could get his second on Purity, if that ever gets made, or Bond 25.
He already has two producer credits - 'Flashbacks of a Fool' and 'SPECTRE'.
Flashbacks of a fool was too long ago (2008).
"To be eligible for membership, an applicant must have received PGA-approved credits (see the PGA Code of Credits) and/or performed the job functions under those credits, within the last 7 years for feature films, or the last 5 years for all other formats, as indicated below:"
"We worry because we care".....I recall many of us getting concerned during the shooting of Skyfall regarding what were perceived (probably correctly) as budget saving moves such as using substitute locations and faking locations which certainly went against the Bond film tradition (while we conveniently forgot the use of cheesy rear projection backgrounds in some classic Bond films). Now we want a tighter budget. Some would say we are a fickle bunch, even a bit mean spirited sometimes but I really think all we really want is the best Bond film possible or at least what personally appeal to each of us as individuals as a great Bond film which is going to vary considerably sometimes, always leaving some disappointed. Being in Bond limbo doesn't help either. For those of us who are old enough to have seen the first four Connery films upon their original release, we just want to see another great Bond film (or two) while our faculties are still relatively intact. -{
"We worry because we care".....I recall many of us getting concerned during the shooting of Skyfall regarding what were perceived (probably correctly) as budget saving moves such as using substitute locations and faking locations which certainly went against the Bond film tradition (while we conveniently forgot the use of cheesy rear projection backgrounds in some classic Bond films). Now we want a tighter budget. Some would say we are a fickle bunch, even a bit mean spirited sometimes but I really think all we really want is the best Bond film possible or at least what personally appeal to each of us as individuals as a great Bond film which is going to vary considerably sometimes, always leaving some disappointed. Being in Bond limbo doesn't help either. For those of us who are old enough to have seen the first four Connery films upon their original release, we just want to see another great Bond film (or two) while our faculties are still relatively intact. -{
After the huge success of Skyfall there was a choice to make, they either went for broke and the big bang (literally) or recognised that topping Skyfall in terms of revenue and critical reception was always going to be tough. They went big, which in retrospect did not quite work out. It was a reasonable choice, and with a better script may have paid off. I suspect that the pendulum will swing back slightly.
.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
TWO new and solid sources (from US and UK) puts Nolan on the front... We could expect something official around January or February.
Considering he said he'd only be allowed to do it if Bond needed a serious reboot and he works a lot with Warner Bros. who have clearly lost out on the international distribution because they moved Wonder Woman 2 to clash with Bond25, I find this very hard to believe.
Reliable US trade press have also cited at least three other directors other than Nolan. And the very reliable Asp9mm on this website has hinted at a Mendes return.
But, I admit it is interesting that Tom Struthers has worked with Nolan, but then so has legendary Bond SFX supervisor Chris Corbould.
I would become seriously excited for Bond 25 if Nolan took the helm. It would both free us from Mendes and guarantee a strong performance from Craig, who would surely rise to the occasion with a high end talent like Nolan calling the shots.
Would usually dismiss this rumour but after just finishing “Some Kind of Hero” and reading about all the changes / U-turns / cutting and chopping over the history of EON and the franchise I would not be surprised )
I would become seriously excited for Bond 25 if Nolan took the helm. It would both free us from Mendes and guarantee a strong performance from Craig, who would surely rise to the occasion with a high end talent like Nolan calling the shots.
Me too,although I doubt it. Worst outcome would be another Mendes installment...enough already. I can just about buy DC coming back in good faith (not just the biggest paycheck of his life) but Mendes would be a bridge too far. Hope it's not so. I think EON know that they need to do different this time.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I thought Mendes and Craig fell out during the filming of Spectre. Surely the producers would have had to give Craig certain assurances to entice him back for Bond 25, and not just financial. Maybe DC will have input into the appointment of the director for Bond 25.
We'll soon know get through Christmas and into the New Year and hopefully we'll get some news.
Mendes himself admitted he had nothing else to give after Skyfall before a U turn. Really hope he aint in the frame for DCs finale
Same, It definitely seemed like EON just threw enough money at him in hopes of trying to recapture Skyfall's massive success.
Also the same with Mendes, maybe Nolan is interested? perhaps to do a transitional trilogy, with early rumours of back to back dc films then bringing in the new Bond? Nolan said he would love to do Bond If he thought bond needed him.
Also is anyone else thinking that the big delay in starting shooting is down to eon waiting for their director to be free?
Comments
They've given him too much power when he should be an employee like Connery through Brosnan were. How can they tell him to come back to work when he's the Big Executive Producer? he'll just fire whoever is trying to actually get the film made.
And I'm sure he never watched Goldmember after talking big about avoiding Austin Powers comparisons. Nor did the Broccoli kids, nor did the writers, nor did the director. That's certainly their prerogative. But of all those thousands of lower level employees who work for them, how did not one spot the plot similarity and talk about it with their bosses? Statistically speaking, somebody must and they chose not to mention it. That suggests an unhealthy work culture, and the result is Craig Executive Produced exactly the film he claimed he was trying to avoid.
he was plenty funny in Logan Lucky. He may not be good at raising one eyebrow and delivering the oneliner, but he has his own style of funny, which is a bit grim and intimidating. The "waste of scotch" line in the previous film is the kind of funny he's good at, or leaning in his boss's boss's face and saying "I think I'll call you "C"!". He does indeed crack me up in his own unique style. His whole impatient, undiplomatic attitude is funny.
except they've fallen into the habit of making up the script as they go along once they begin filming, or so I understand. So lets at least set the arbitrary date of "pencils down" as before the filming starts.
It was an attempt to deliver these things, or at least signify them, by a newer generation of filmmakers that don't seem to understand what made the classic films work. I sometimes think they just don't want to be making James Bond films at all, they'd like to be making a brand new spy franchise with a brand new attitude, but they want the marketing guarantee of releasing these films under a proven brand-name
You're wrong. The Spectre Production Notes that were provided to attendees of the media preview screening London show he was a co-producer. There was only one executive producer on Spectre, Callum McDougall. And I'm not scapegoating anyone.
That's even better, Co producers have very little artistic input. The co-producer tag dc has is a follow on from his forced input into qos, he adds things like the cuff straightening in the train in the sf pts, he also has a bit of input into the wardrobe ( BC morrocco outfit) and on the day changes to stunts etc, he would have little input into the script, story, cinematography, direction, editing. He was obviously unhappy with some aspects of Spectre just think how many scenes he filmed that ended up on the cutting room floor. The film he shot and the final version may well be substantially different.
That is right, from the posters I've seen. But being credited as a "co-producer" more likely than anything is just a credit and paycheque, and more than anything a way to get him to do another Bond film.
I agree. I bit of a tighter budget could spawn some originality and creativity and prevent the overindulgence that can come with a bloated budget.
That's why I favor someone like a Yann Damange, David MacKenzie or Sean Ellis. They know how to do more with less. Sean Ellis shot Anthropoid in 16mm with anamorphic lenses for the 'scope aspect ratio of 2.40 to 1 and the film looked great in the theater. All three know how to do suspenceful, rivetting action sequences. Ellis is also an accomplished screen writer so he could probably really polish up whatever Purvis and Wade came up with. I would consider any of the three a fine choice. I could throw Paul McGuigan in there also mainly based upon what he did with Lucky Number Slevin which is IMO a really underated off beat crime film.
Maybe they're going to have less writers, less of a budget and a more streamlined story line this time. Which perhaps is why they've jettisoned Waltz and perhaps Spectre entirely for this next entry. Mind you that is obviously just speculation but Spectre without Blofeld would be unusual.
You need to have two producer credits to become a member of the Producer's Guild (kind of like being a Double 0). He could get his second on Purity, if that ever gets made, or Bond 25.
He already has two producer credits - 'Flashbacks of a Fool' and 'SPECTRE'.
Bond on the Box - Website | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | LetterBoxd | YouTube
Flashbacks of a fool was too long ago (2008).
"To be eligible for membership, an applicant must have received PGA-approved credits (see the PGA Code of Credits) and/or performed the job functions under those credits, within the last 7 years for feature films, or the last 5 years for all other formats, as indicated below:"
http://www.producersguild.org/?page=membership_reqs
After the huge success of Skyfall there was a choice to make, they either went for broke and the big bang (literally) or recognised that topping Skyfall in terms of revenue and critical reception was always going to be tough. They went big, which in retrospect did not quite work out. It was a reasonable choice, and with a better script may have paid off. I suspect that the pendulum will swing back slightly.
.
TWO new and solid sources (from US and UK) puts Nolan on the front... We could expect something official around January or February.
Considering he said he'd only be allowed to do it if Bond needed a serious reboot and he works a lot with Warner Bros. who have clearly lost out on the international distribution because they moved Wonder Woman 2 to clash with Bond25, I find this very hard to believe.
Reliable US trade press have also cited at least three other directors other than Nolan. And the very reliable Asp9mm on this website has hinted at a Mendes return.
But, I admit it is interesting that Tom Struthers has worked with Nolan, but then so has legendary Bond SFX supervisor Chris Corbould.
Me too,although I doubt it. Worst outcome would be another Mendes installment...enough already. I can just about buy DC coming back in good faith (not just the biggest paycheck of his life) but Mendes would be a bridge too far. Hope it's not so. I think EON know that they need to do different this time.
https://twitter.com/BazBam/status/937278073531195392
Baz has a very good track record with Bond, so I'll go with his comment.
I think Asp9mm is right, Mendes will be back.
We'll soon know get through Christmas and into the New Year and hopefully we'll get some news.
"Do you expect me to talk? "No Mister Bond I expect you to die"
Also is anyone else thinking that the big delay in starting shooting is down to eon waiting for their director to be free?