Yes but DAD was only their second script. Right now, after 25 years and seven movies, would it be shocking to see them leaving ? After all, there are very talented and fresh screenwriters who love Bond and Fleming and who could bring their own mark. So why prevent them from showing their abilities ?
And don't forget they're essentially utility players, with their involvement scaling up or down as needed - they've been rewritten on some films and they've rewritten some films. I think their role with Eon isn't black and white, and the producers find them reliable touchstones when working with new talent.
A lot of people seem to have forgotten that Craigs Bond in Casino Royale was a complete reinvention, an official Reboot and worlds apart from the previous movie DAD. The fact that Bond was already a seasoned agent in only his 3rd movie skyfall really helped people forget it was a reboot tho imo.
P&W took the structure of Fleming's novel and added some set-piece action scenes (which is one thing they're very good at). The first 25% and the last 25% are P&W action scenes and the middle is Fleming's story.
I think having a Fleming novel to base it on does not guarantee a good script. Action scenes are a part of it, but sewing everything together into a good story takes skill. The idea some have that P & W are hacks who only scripted good (and great in the case of CR) on the shoulders does not hold up in my opinion.
If @Asp9mm's prediction of a 2027, presumably November 2027, release date for Bond26 is correct, when can we expect to see a director announced?
With production typically starting in the January of the release year or the preceding December, we may not know who the director is - normally announced before the actor is confirmed - until early 2026.
NTTD was originally to be released in October 2019 and Danny Boyle was announced as the director in May 2018.
Martin Campbell, as he was the last 'new actor' Bond director, was announced in January 2005, with DC confirmed in the October, and the movie out in November 2006. Slightly longer than Boyle's time between appointment and original movie release date.
Sam Mendes was named Bond23 director in January 2010 but we didn't see Skyfall until November 2012. On that basis the Bond26 director could be named January 2025. A whole year earlier.
I don't understand why so many people seem to give so much credit to the name of the director while the screenwriters' work is the whole base of all this. Generally speaking, the producers first hire specific people whose job precisely consists in creating a story (stakes, characters, lines...) and then they choose someone to convert it to screen.
It doesn't mean the director is not allowed to bring his own ideas, but he's not supposed to be the one who conceives the heart of the plot, unless he's both a writer and a director and asked to do so. But if you consider the way EON have been working since 1961, they almost always hire professional screenwriters before asking themselves who will direct the movie. What happened with Danny Boyle and John Hodge back in 2018 makes me think they will not directly ask a director to write the movie. BB said Purvis & Wade would probably be part of it, which is the main piece of information we need right now.
I feel like you answered your own question - P&W will be involved, it will be mildly interesting to see who co-writes it with them, but the variety between the films in terms of tone, aesthetics, action beats, etc. - that comes from the director. CR and QoS had the same screenwriters and are wildly different movies. Skyfall had 2/3 of the same screenwriters and feels completely separate in aesthetics and energy from the two previous. The director is the more interesting variable in the modern era.
I see what you mean but in my case, it's mainly the story, the context, the stakes, the villain's plot and everything related to what this is all about. I obviously pay attention to aesthetics, tone and action, but the first thing I use to ask myself is: "if the script was a novel, would I enjoy it ?"
That's precisely why I prefer QoS to SF. I find the first one much more satisfying plotwise (despite the various writing issues as the consequence of the 2007 strike). For SF, Mendes and Deakins did a wonderful job indeed, but considering I never succeeded to get interested in what the story deals with, I don't really care about the whole film. Do you see my point ?
As interesting as it is to consider them as novels, they’re not- films are a different experience. Although I do often think that for all of the gnashing of teeth, if something like Spectre had been written as a novel first, fans would be clamouring to have it adapted as a film, as these things are packed more full of ideas than the average continuation novel.
@emtiem and I much prefer QoS because of my own reading of the movie. Despite its various issues, I feel much more involved. The stakes with water, geopolitics (the way the CIA, Greene and Medrano are linked...), I find it much more interesting plotwise than Silva's personal motivations of revenge.
I know I belong to this rare class of fans who don't appreciate SF, but I can't help it. I desperately tried to convince myself it's highly enjoyable but I definitely failed. I watched it a dozen times to make sure I hadn't missed something. It was pointless. I don't like this film and I never get interested in its plot while I have no problem with QoS.
I don't expect you to share my opinion but at least do you understand it ?
I didn't say I didn't understand it: the QoS story has some very positive aspects to it- I especially like that it's about the nature of revenge and that everyone thinks that's what Bond is after, when he actually isn't at all and as his final line points out, he never was. But I think it's a message the film fumbles rather and is left unclear, and I think the direction especially is below par with lots of important moments weirdly downplayed and rendered barely noticeable. To the extent that I think a lot of people who have seen it think it's all about Bond going rogue and trying to get revenge for Vesper when that actually barely happens. He's properly 'rogue' in the film for less than a minute.
Whereas the direction in SF is so much stronger and more integrated with the story, and for me that means the story becomes much more powerful. I feel much more involved with the story SF is telling as I can feel the characters more and I have more of a connection to them. It makes me laugh more, it makes me more excited; I just feel more when watching SF.
Yes, Bond going rogue is not the main topic. If it was supposed to be, the movie doesn't deal with the concept very efficiently. And guess what, that is precisely what makes me appreciate the plot. QoS is not LTK, and I'm glad about it because LTK is unique within the franchise, like OHMSS. There are movies I don't want to see replicated. They have their own special print, and that's it.
SF is a better film than QoS (even someone who doesn't like it cannot deny it). Does it necessarily mean the plot is more interesting ? If I have to speak for myself, I clearly don't think so. I don't give a damn to Silva's revenge (it's the same for Trevelyan in GE) and I don't really care about the relationship between Bond and M here while I really enjoy it in QoS. The only character I get interested in SF is Mallory (before he becomes a rather disappointing successor to Judi Dench in Sp and NTTD).
Sort of, but I think it's just a case of fans gravitating to different elements, which is fine!
For me, the world of Bond is sensory and tactile, and you could make a case for QoS succeeding on that level, but most will disagree there - to me, what's exciting about QoS on the aesthetic front is that, at the end of the day, it doesn't feel like any other Bond movie, something that becomes more valuable the longer the series goes on.
The story in Skyfall - and more importantly, the themes and subtext, which are, frankly, nearly absent in just about every Bond film - make Skyfall a bit of a unicorn in the franchise. So even on the front of plot and story, it works better for me than a lot of other Bond films (despite having well-pointed out plot holes, which breeze past thanks to the editing of Stuart Baird, the secret weapon of this film and CR).
And as emtiem mentions, the plot and ideas in Spectre aren't lacking, but the execution is. And again, that's at least partially on the director. If they'd brought in a director who hadn't put all he had into Skyfall and wasn't out of ideas for the franchise, who didn't just recycle the previous score, who wasn't dragged back despite his protestations, that director might have netted a different result.
The script is the beginning of the endeavor, never the end.
The script is the beginning of the endeavor, never the end.
@HalfMonk HalfHitmanSpectre is a relevant example indeed. Although the gap with SF in terms of filmmaking is tremendous, I deeply think the result would have been different with another script. You can obviously claim your disappointment considering what an excellent director like Mendes is able to do, but in my case, as a person who mainly pays attention to what the film deals with plotwise, I first blame the producers and the screenwriters for such a bad climax which is the genuine failure of the movie in my opinion (I don't expect people to share it).
I may dislike SF, I have to admit its ability to take you from point A to point B without having the unpleasant feeling there's something very artificial here (despite many plot holes that you also point out), while Spectre suffers from this issue so badly that I'm still unable to watch the last 40 minutes, something that never happened with a previous Bond film (except for DAD perhaps but not to such an extent).
Once again, everything depends on your personal reading of a movie. Like I said before, I'm the kind of person who focuses on the story and who loves spending hours to analyse every single line written on a script. Of course, I appreciate when a director is able to convert such a document to screen using creativity and talent, but I always keep in mind first the stakes and the plot. For Spectre, I don't know if you've read the early drafts by John Logan. Well I did, and let me tell you I found it much more interesting than what we finally got.
There's the old adage of "you can make a bad movie from a good script but you can't make a good movie from a bad script." I never want to discount the importance of the writer's role. Just a difference of priorities and why we come to the franchise. Some are here for the product placement 😂
Villeneuve is definitely not going to be available for Bond26, Variety reports Dune Messiah is in development with Villeneuve onboard and a movie about nuclear war is also being explored by the director.
Interesting time to award it to them, 17 November. The Irving G. Thalberg award is not given every year, it is only periodic. It's given at the Governors Awards, the last of which was held in January last year and in recent years it has changed its date every time it occurs.
The top three are action movies: Avatar: weight of water, Spiderman: No way home and Top Gun: Maverick. What can we learn from this other than the importance of having colons in the title? Other big action movies are Jurassic World, Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther and NTTD on number 15. Next is The Batman, a couple of Fast & Forious and Dune. Mission Impossible is at number 27.
Other than colons I see that there are a few serious, epic style action movies such as Dune, The Batman and arguably NTTD. Is Avatar at number 1 a serious action movie? It absolutely isn't jokey. With the possible exception of Avatar the serious action movies are at number 15 and lower. Very far from failures, but there are many lighthearted action movies higher on the list. There are many punch the air, fun action movies high on the list: There's serious drama in these movies, but the main focus is fun and spectacle. Are you seeing this EON?
If I was Universal and I had a two movie deal with EON/MGM and one movie came out in October 2021, after numerous Covid related delays, and I had to wait many more years for the second movie to come out, with no pandemic to justify it, I'd be angry.
The Universal deal, with Annapurna Pictures, was announced in October 2018, when NTTD was supposed to be coming out in October 2019.
OK we saw non-Covid delays to early 2020 for NTTD, but the point is Universal saw a movie in the works with a named director and expected a return on its investment from late 2019. Five years later and still nothing for Universal for movie two.
I wonder how Warner Bros. feels about that as it has the distribution rights for Bond27?
Comments
Yes but DAD was only their second script. Right now, after 25 years and seven movies, would it be shocking to see them leaving ? After all, there are very talented and fresh screenwriters who love Bond and Fleming and who could bring their own mark. So why prevent them from showing their abilities ?
I'd say this example shows us two things:
And don't forget they're essentially utility players, with their involvement scaling up or down as needed - they've been rewritten on some films and they've rewritten some films. I think their role with Eon isn't black and white, and the producers find them reliable touchstones when working with new talent.
Reliable touchstones in the best summation I’ve heard of their contribution. Well said.
In my humble opinion, the only script they delivered that wasn't arse was CR, which was based on an existing text.
I don't agree on the other movies (well, there's DAF ...), but even then a lot from that Fleming's CR was changed or is completely new.
Not to forget the essential Paul Haggis, who arranged the script and made the plot clear, something a movie like TWINE would have deserved...
A lot of people seem to have forgotten that Craigs Bond in Casino Royale was a complete reinvention, an official Reboot and worlds apart from the previous movie DAD. The fact that Bond was already a seasoned agent in only his 3rd movie skyfall really helped people forget it was a reboot tho imo.
P&W took the structure of Fleming's novel and added some set-piece action scenes (which is one thing they're very good at). The first 25% and the last 25% are P&W action scenes and the middle is Fleming's story.
I think having a Fleming novel to base it on does not guarantee a good script. Action scenes are a part of it, but sewing everything together into a good story takes skill. The idea some have that P & W are hacks who only scripted good (and great in the case of CR) on the shoulders does not hold up in my opinion.
If @Asp9mm's prediction of a 2027, presumably November 2027, release date for Bond26 is correct, when can we expect to see a director announced?
With production typically starting in the January of the release year or the preceding December, we may not know who the director is - normally announced before the actor is confirmed - until early 2026.
NTTD was originally to be released in October 2019 and Danny Boyle was announced as the director in May 2018.
Martin Campbell, as he was the last 'new actor' Bond director, was announced in January 2005, with DC confirmed in the October, and the movie out in November 2006. Slightly longer than Boyle's time between appointment and original movie release date.
Sam Mendes was named Bond23 director in January 2010 but we didn't see Skyfall until November 2012. On that basis the Bond26 director could be named January 2025. A whole year earlier.
Patience is a virtue, according to some.
I'm not a particularly virtuos man. 😉
I don't understand why so many people seem to give so much credit to the name of the director while the screenwriters' work is the whole base of all this. Generally speaking, the producers first hire specific people whose job precisely consists in creating a story (stakes, characters, lines...) and then they choose someone to convert it to screen.
It doesn't mean the director is not allowed to bring his own ideas, but he's not supposed to be the one who conceives the heart of the plot, unless he's both a writer and a director and asked to do so. But if you consider the way EON have been working since 1961, they almost always hire professional screenwriters before asking themselves who will direct the movie. What happened with Danny Boyle and John Hodge back in 2018 makes me think they will not directly ask a director to write the movie. BB said Purvis & Wade would probably be part of it, which is the main piece of information we need right now.
I feel like you answered your own question - P&W will be involved, it will be mildly interesting to see who co-writes it with them, but the variety between the films in terms of tone, aesthetics, action beats, etc. - that comes from the director. CR and QoS had the same screenwriters and are wildly different movies. Skyfall had 2/3 of the same screenwriters and feels completely separate in aesthetics and energy from the two previous. The director is the more interesting variable in the modern era.
Fukunaga wrote the final version of the NTTD script.
I see what you mean but in my case, it's mainly the story, the context, the stakes, the villain's plot and everything related to what this is all about. I obviously pay attention to aesthetics, tone and action, but the first thing I use to ask myself is: "if the script was a novel, would I enjoy it ?"
That's precisely why I prefer QoS to SF. I find the first one much more satisfying plotwise (despite the various writing issues as the consequence of the 2007 strike). For SF, Mendes and Deakins did a wonderful job indeed, but considering I never succeeded to get interested in what the story deals with, I don't really care about the whole film. Do you see my point ?
I much prefer SF, and the story is part of that.
As interesting as it is to consider them as novels, they’re not- films are a different experience. Although I do often think that for all of the gnashing of teeth, if something like Spectre had been written as a novel first, fans would be clamouring to have it adapted as a film, as these things are packed more full of ideas than the average continuation novel.
@emtiem and I much prefer QoS because of my own reading of the movie. Despite its various issues, I feel much more involved. The stakes with water, geopolitics (the way the CIA, Greene and Medrano are linked...), I find it much more interesting plotwise than Silva's personal motivations of revenge.
I know I belong to this rare class of fans who don't appreciate SF, but I can't help it. I desperately tried to convince myself it's highly enjoyable but I definitely failed. I watched it a dozen times to make sure I hadn't missed something. It was pointless. I don't like this film and I never get interested in its plot while I have no problem with QoS.
I don't expect you to share my opinion but at least do you understand it ?
I didn't say I didn't understand it: the QoS story has some very positive aspects to it- I especially like that it's about the nature of revenge and that everyone thinks that's what Bond is after, when he actually isn't at all and as his final line points out, he never was. But I think it's a message the film fumbles rather and is left unclear, and I think the direction especially is below par with lots of important moments weirdly downplayed and rendered barely noticeable. To the extent that I think a lot of people who have seen it think it's all about Bond going rogue and trying to get revenge for Vesper when that actually barely happens. He's properly 'rogue' in the film for less than a minute.
Whereas the direction in SF is so much stronger and more integrated with the story, and for me that means the story becomes much more powerful. I feel much more involved with the story SF is telling as I can feel the characters more and I have more of a connection to them. It makes me laugh more, it makes me more excited; I just feel more when watching SF.
Yes, Bond going rogue is not the main topic. If it was supposed to be, the movie doesn't deal with the concept very efficiently. And guess what, that is precisely what makes me appreciate the plot. QoS is not LTK, and I'm glad about it because LTK is unique within the franchise, like OHMSS. There are movies I don't want to see replicated. They have their own special print, and that's it.
SF is a better film than QoS (even someone who doesn't like it cannot deny it). Does it necessarily mean the plot is more interesting ? If I have to speak for myself, I clearly don't think so. I don't give a damn to Silva's revenge (it's the same for Trevelyan in GE) and I don't really care about the relationship between Bond and M here while I really enjoy it in QoS. The only character I get interested in SF is Mallory (before he becomes a rather disappointing successor to Judi Dench in Sp and NTTD).
Sort of, but I think it's just a case of fans gravitating to different elements, which is fine!
For me, the world of Bond is sensory and tactile, and you could make a case for QoS succeeding on that level, but most will disagree there - to me, what's exciting about QoS on the aesthetic front is that, at the end of the day, it doesn't feel like any other Bond movie, something that becomes more valuable the longer the series goes on.
The story in Skyfall - and more importantly, the themes and subtext, which are, frankly, nearly absent in just about every Bond film - make Skyfall a bit of a unicorn in the franchise. So even on the front of plot and story, it works better for me than a lot of other Bond films (despite having well-pointed out plot holes, which breeze past thanks to the editing of Stuart Baird, the secret weapon of this film and CR).
And as emtiem mentions, the plot and ideas in Spectre aren't lacking, but the execution is. And again, that's at least partially on the director. If they'd brought in a director who hadn't put all he had into Skyfall and wasn't out of ideas for the franchise, who didn't just recycle the previous score, who wasn't dragged back despite his protestations, that director might have netted a different result.
The script is the beginning of the endeavor, never the end.
The script is the beginning of the endeavor, never the end.
@HalfMonk HalfHitman Spectre is a relevant example indeed. Although the gap with SF in terms of filmmaking is tremendous, I deeply think the result would have been different with another script. You can obviously claim your disappointment considering what an excellent director like Mendes is able to do, but in my case, as a person who mainly pays attention to what the film deals with plotwise, I first blame the producers and the screenwriters for such a bad climax which is the genuine failure of the movie in my opinion (I don't expect people to share it).
I may dislike SF, I have to admit its ability to take you from point A to point B without having the unpleasant feeling there's something very artificial here (despite many plot holes that you also point out), while Spectre suffers from this issue so badly that I'm still unable to watch the last 40 minutes, something that never happened with a previous Bond film (except for DAD perhaps but not to such an extent).
Once again, everything depends on your personal reading of a movie. Like I said before, I'm the kind of person who focuses on the story and who loves spending hours to analyse every single line written on a script. Of course, I appreciate when a director is able to convert such a document to screen using creativity and talent, but I always keep in mind first the stakes and the plot. For Spectre, I don't know if you've read the early drafts by John Logan. Well I did, and let me tell you I found it much more interesting than what we finally got.
There's the old adage of "you can make a bad movie from a good script but you can't make a good movie from a bad script." I never want to discount the importance of the writer's role. Just a difference of priorities and why we come to the franchise. Some are here for the product placement 😂
Looks like you were only 12 months out.
AJT to sign the contract this week. Bond26 was delayed by the strikes apparently.
Director announcement at the same time? Filming to start this December for November 2025 release maybe?
Villeneuve is definitely not going to be available for Bond26, Variety reports Dune Messiah is in development with Villeneuve onboard and a movie about nuclear war is also being explored by the director.
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/dune-3-denis-villeneuve-legendary-nuclear-war-1235960990/
Can we expect anymore officially official Bond26 news?
Interesting time to award it to them, 17 November. The Irving G. Thalberg award is not given every year, it is only periodic. It's given at the Governors Awards, the last of which was held in January last year and in recent years it has changed its date every time it occurs.
https://www.oscars.org/governors/thalberg#field-tabbed-content-tab-1
I'm looking at a list of the biggest box office hits in the 2020's: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls565349251/
The top three are action movies: Avatar: weight of water, Spiderman: No way home and Top Gun: Maverick. What can we learn from this other than the importance of having colons in the title? Other big action movies are Jurassic World, Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther and NTTD on number 15. Next is The Batman, a couple of Fast & Forious and Dune. Mission Impossible is at number 27.
Other than colons I see that there are a few serious, epic style action movies such as Dune, The Batman and arguably NTTD. Is Avatar at number 1 a serious action movie? It absolutely isn't jokey. With the possible exception of Avatar the serious action movies are at number 15 and lower. Very far from failures, but there are many lighthearted action movies higher on the list. There are many punch the air, fun action movies high on the list: There's serious drama in these movies, but the main focus is fun and spectacle. Are you seeing this EON?
Edward Berger is supposedly the leading candidate to direct
Who supposes this? Or in other words, are there any sources?
If I was Universal and I had a two movie deal with EON/MGM and one movie came out in October 2021, after numerous Covid related delays, and I had to wait many more years for the second movie to come out, with no pandemic to justify it, I'd be angry.
The Universal deal, with Annapurna Pictures, was announced in October 2018, when NTTD was supposed to be coming out in October 2019.
We later learned that it was a 2 picture deal.
https://deadline.com/2022/08/warner-bros-mgm-international-distribution-deal-james-bond-007-1235091889/
OK we saw non-Covid delays to early 2020 for NTTD, but the point is Universal saw a movie in the works with a named director and expected a return on its investment from late 2019. Five years later and still nothing for Universal for movie two.
I wonder how Warner Bros. feels about that as it has the distribution rights for Bond27?