Signs point to #23 in 2011
Loeffelholz
The United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well, I'd really hoped for another two-year turnaround, but---according to MI6...
http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=7516&t=mi6&s=news
---it looks like Eon will be busy with 'other things' for the next couple of years
They had such a good time working with Sony, they want to keep it going...
It'll be interesting to see how Remote Control turns out...aside from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (which is set for a remake!), wasn't Eon's last non-Bond production Call Me Bwana, with Bob Hope and Anita Ekberg?
Anyway, I guess we can relax...or at least I can ;% It's hardly surprising news, but I'm disappointed
http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=7516&t=mi6&s=news
---it looks like Eon will be busy with 'other things' for the next couple of years
They had such a good time working with Sony, they want to keep it going...It'll be interesting to see how Remote Control turns out...aside from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (which is set for a remake!), wasn't Eon's last non-Bond production Call Me Bwana, with Bob Hope and Anita Ekberg?
Anyway, I guess we can relax...or at least I can ;% It's hardly surprising news, but I'm disappointed
Check out my Amazon author page! Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Do you think there is any chance that Mark Burnell will work on the Bond script? I am unfamiliar with his novels but they sound somewhat Bond like.
Good question about Burnell---I don't know his work, either. But Eon does have a tendency to build stables of talent; I wouldn't be at all surprised.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm already used to having to wait 2-3 years for a new Bond film to come out so it doesn't bother me.
Thinking along similar lines, I wonder if this indeterminate lull suggests an unwillingness on EON's part to go back to working with MGM. By all accounts, they seemed to enjoy their collaboration with Sony and maybe they want to wait MGM out in the hopes that (A) MGM goes out of business again (their recent efforts haven't been all that profitable) or (B) EON can buy out MGM's remaining rights in Bond and produce future films with another studio of their choice.
Either way, I find it odd that EON is suddenly interested in pursuing other intellectual properties besides Bond just as the distribution rights to the series revert back to MGM.
Odd coincidence? Or a scheme worthy of a Bond supervillain? Time will tell.
I certainly hope it isn't some sort of delaying game---such things are counterproductive (and they don't put $$$ in the till)---but we'll probably never know the full story. With Craig a Billion Dollar Bond, over the course of just two films, it's hard to imagine Eon would take such passive-aggressive measures to deliberately not do a new Bond film, regardless of the controlling studio. Therefore, I won't believe that Eon are trying to screw MGM out of Bond until there's more evidence supporting such a hypothesis.
That said, if this conspiracy theory turns out to be true, there's no telling how long such a game might take to play out...and then everyone---from Eon, to Craig, down to each Bond fan---loses, big time. But again, I don't see it because Eon is partnering with MGM on the CCBB remake, so...
More likely, they probably feel they're secure enough with the New Era to go ahead and take the extra year, which allows Craig to do the sort of artsy, small pictures he enjoys doing. My biggest concern is Eon getting sidetracked with other projects, and losing focus. Late last year, hinting that he was "tired," 8-) Michael Wilson first floated the balloon about a three-year gap between Bonds. Well, he's not too tired to be doing two other films besides 007...
Oh well
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
IMHO I believe they look upon Bond as a cash cow they can milk to cover any losses they might make on their other projects.I'd much rather they'd spend their time simply making the best Bond film they can rather than taking their eye of the ball and letting the series slowly die.:#
But it sure is funny that it was last 1963 when EON made a non Bond movie, and yet here they are. Thats a pretty long time
I could be wrong, but I always thought that Mikey and Babs basically were EON productions.
That's the part that leaves me scratching my head. Other than the aborted Jinx movie, EON has historically never shown much interest in other intellectual properties. To suddenly have not one but two non-Bond films on the drawing board seems strange. Maybe they're a little burned out with Bond and want to go in another direction to get the creative juices flowing again. Or maybe they didn't take too kindly to the negative critical response (and fan response in some circles) to QoS and hope to foster more long term interest and demand by shutting down the franchise for a while in the hopes that the fanbase will miss it and not take it for granted.
Either way, it strikes me as an odd occurrence and it'll be interesting to see if they can actually get sufficient funding from a major studio for a non-Bond project since they don't have any kind of a track record outside of that franchise.
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=32982
Can someone please explain why EON cannot keep a simple two-year schedule?
As a matter of fact, is a new Bond movie EVERY year completely out of the question?
Every year, did I say? You bet...and I haven't lost my mind either.
Everybody and his brother will tell me that its impossible to accomplish now what happened in the sixties. The first four films came out in 4 years! (And still the most loved and respected in the series)
But this is 2009...things are not done that way now. Fair enough, but whats the reality? QOS cost north of 200 million(!!!) dollars and I would argue that the cost is NOT on the screen.
I would rather they made two films back-to-back for 100 million each with cracking good yarns and less spectacle.
In fact, it is time to reconsider how Bond movies are made. If I had my way, EON would never stop shooting. 365 days if necessary. Back-to-back...Lord of the Rings style.
There are other precedents: the sequels to Back to the Future and The Matrix were filmed back-to-back.
I come from the school-of-thought that thinks there should be 46 movies (thats right,46) in the series. You can lock me up in the asylum with all the other Napoleons but I truly believe that the greatest enemy Bond has EVER faced is the time between movies.
Thats when guys like Purvis and Wade have too much time to fiddle, rewrite, procrasinate, rationalize, over-analyze and, in general, THINK TOO MUCH about Bond.
Fleming wrote the novels in Jamaica in two months and, most importantly, in the heat of the moment. Terence Young, Peter Hunt, Ken Adam and John Barry were forced to come up with revolutionary work BECAUSE they had no time.
Make no mistake about it, less time and money requires people to use their imaginations. It forces them to be smarter, quicker and tougher in creative choices.
Its 2009 and movies cost what they cost (which borders on the incomprehensiblely bloated) but what does that have to do, as they say, with the price of tea in China? There are no budgetary restraints to the imagination.
I would argue that a Bond film a year is the way things out to be. Bond is a serial, folks, the greatest serial in movie history and I, for one, am getting bummed out by the erratic schedule.
Movies are tough to make, thats a fact, but so what? Guy Hamilton was still shooting Fort Knox footage three weeks before the world premiere in 1964.
The truth is...and this is going to hurt...but EON is a bit too satisfied with itself. Someone needs to light a fire under Mickey and Babs to remind them that Bond is a lean, mean and dangerous character and the movies should be made accordingly, almost as a reflection of Bond. (Cubby and Harry understood this implicitly)
Bond is not Shakespeare, folks, or even Merchant-Ivory. He is the greatest pulp character in history and, as such, should NOT be handled too preciously. Or with too much reverence. Cracking good spy yarns is the order...and hold the significance.
Which means 3 years is unacceptable. (DAD anyone?)
Everybody has been brainwashed into believing that more time and more money is needed for every new Bond. Thats right, BRAINWASHED!
The reality is Bond needs LESS time and money.
2011? Sorry, folks, thats more than unacceptable. It borders on, dare I say it.......lazy.
"When do you sleep, 007?"
"Never on the firm's time, sir."
I just read a Michael Wilson interview where he states that Bond 23 is basically nowheresville right now.
Whats going on? Is no one minding the store at Eon? He claims that shooting CR/QOS drained everybody's energies. As opposed to say,the fatigue Cubby/Harry felt after producing 7 movies in less than ten years?
And lets not forget the 4 year between DAD and CR.
Once you get to justifying three year gaps eventually the rationale will reach the point where 5 year gaps are the norm.
I can't emphasize the importance of capitalizing on the small window of opportunity that each actor brings to the role. Bond is a character between 30-45, IMO. Therefore, three year gaps puts a serious dent in an actor's tenure.
Craig is the rookie 00 and he was 37 in CR! Do Mickey and Babs comprehend the danger of letting the years slip by?
In the mid-60's, MGM was for sale and Harry Saltzman thought of buying the studio. Cubby, as his partner, refused to go along, thinking Harry was out of his mind.
Cubby's reason? He knew, obviously more than Harry, that making Bond movies was a full-time occupation.
The end result? Saltzman rolled the dice on a dozen big ideas and, in the process, lost his shirt AND his stake in Bond. Cubby became the sole owner of the series in the mid 70's and the rest is history.
Was Harry wrong? Not really. His idea was sound but, as his son put it, he was not smart with money. Cubby, in playing it safe, secured his family's place in Bond forever.
Is there anyone else who finds it astonishing that Bond is a family run business. You can scan movie history and you will be unable to find a parallel to what Cubby achieved: leaving the business to the kids is standard in every other industry but is as rare as the dodo bird in the world of movies.
Which brings me back to Michael Wilson. Cubby NEVER took time away from 007 (outside of legal difficulties). He was a showman in the grandest sense of the word. He LOVED making Bond movies.
Mickey and Babs have done a solid job, no question about it, but this attitude of having to re-charge your batteries is a direct contradiction to what Cubby represented.
Cubby was a a gambler in every sense of the word. Every two years Cubby rolled the dice. And he rolled it BIG, no matter what.
As it stands, we only have 3 movies this decade. Repeat: only 3!
Sorry, Mr.Wilson...that's not good enough.
In the world of Bond...fatigue is not an option.
"Saxby? Bert Saxby? Tell him he's fired!"
Bond 23: 2011
Bond 24: 2012
If Bond 23 opened in 2010 (two year interval from QOS in 2008) instead of 2011, then it would be natural and quite possible to release Bond 24 in 2012.
2012 would be a significant, milestone year for the Bond series, because this is the 50th anniversay year since the first film (Dr. No) was released.
Die Another Day was also a commemorate film (20th Bond and released in the 40th anniversary year, 2002) and they had a huge world premiere (probably the biggest Bond premiere) with four Bond actors attending together.
49th or 51th means regular (or even nothing) in most cultures, but 50th would be a good number to promote. No film series on earth ever celebrated 50th anniversary. This is something we can not miss.
I hope Eon and the studios would make a proper decision.
I don't know, though...maybe not having a '50th Anniversary' film isn't a bad thing, as I'm afraid the '40th' bash they threw with DAD, shoehorning in everything but the kitchen sink, did not benefit the film---quite the opposite, really
But I'm all for more Bond instead of less Bond. It would be great if, when they film #23, they do #24 concurrently, and release them in 2011 and 2012. It would be tough on Craigger, though, as these films (especially the way they're made now B-) ) take a tremendous physical toll on the lead actor.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
There have been one year incraments (1962-5 and 1973-4) and the rest have been two years (exceptions being 1974-7, 1989-95, 1999-2002 and 2002-6). I think that taking 3 years is perfectly acceptable.
Think about it.
It took them 2 years to make a half-assed followup to CR in the form of QoS. Three years is enough to make a new film that does not rely too heavily on its predecessor. They used to be able to pull it off in 2 (or even 1) years but now apparently it takes them 3-4 years to make a perfectly formed Bond film.
A good counter-argument would be that:
the first 2 year gap was between Thunderball and YOLT. Many (including myself) believe YOLT was an overcookied kids film, meaning that it spent too long in development to have the same effect as the previous, more dramatic entries in the series.
Whatever you believe, this is what I do. 2011 seems like a worthwhile wait if it means getting another CR, but if its another QoS, myself will be quite upset.
???
Tony, you seriously think EON cares what critics or even fans think of the direction they take Bond in? Like since when has that ever, ever happened? It's all about the money, they make decisions they think will create the biggest profit for them, always have, always will. Cases in point, the last 3 films:
QOS - why not take Bond into Bourne territory?
CR - why not reboot Bond ala Batman?
DAD - why not do another MR-styled kitchen-sinker with the ultimate Teflon Bond?
All three decisions/outcomes were decried by a lot of fans each step of the way, and only CR has the benefit of undeniable critical success. EON does indeed change its tune, but I've never seen anything to suggest a motivation other than profit as driving EON's choices (Wilson's "we've taken Bond as far as we can take him in that direction" comments post-DAD aside, kinda obvious that one and very MR-FYEOish). And besides, no matter what stance "fans" take, there's always other fans to take the polar opposite stance.
EON does what EON wants. Agree that it's weird taking on two non-Bond projects in lieu of #23, but maybe such outside will work create a new impulse/zeal for Bond? Just gotta wait for it I guess.
Maybe, but I thought one of the big reasons for the reboot was to free everyone up so that they could try new things, go in some different directions and take some chances. To do that, then suddenly run out of ideas after only two movies is a bit hard to swallow.
Besides, even if Babs and Mikey are creatively spent, there are plenty of hungry young writers out there who they could hire for short money to at least come up with some ideas and rough treatments; and who knows, maybe they're doing just that and not telling anyone. But to just sit around idly and tinker around with other properties while your big moneymaker languishes on the sidelines just strikes me as an odd thing for this bunch of folks to be doing. Other than that lull between LTK and GE, EON always had something on the burner when it came to Bond.
Basically, the '60s films all came out during an era of movie making (esp in the uk) of production line values. Directors & producers worked with the same photographers, set dressers, script writers etc. from project to project. They were able to discuss the next film while still working on the current one. Also it became fairly obvious after DN that the series would continue, and there were a ready selection of books to adapt stories from, so planning year after year was easy.
YOLT took longer to film as Connery's contract was renegotiated and there was far more extensive planning and building work necessary.
OHMSS needed a new Bond and had to be filmed in the winter time for the snow, ensuring at least an 18 month gap from the previous film.
By the seventies both the "production line" ethos and (in the producers eyes) the value of the books were disappearing. Hence they needed two year gaps to develop a script, cast, plan, design etc.
TSWLM took longer to make becasue Brocolli first had to buy out Saltzman's share of Eon, then had to fight off Kevin McClory's aborted Warhead and the counter sue that Stromberg was Blofeld (which frankly he should have been! the only other Fleming novel SPECTRE is mentioned in is TSWLM)
By the late 70's and 80's two years was seen, I think, as an acceptable distance between films.
It was only interrupted because of issues at MGM (wasn't MGM/UA sold off in 1990?) and it became very difficult to make a new Bond for a few years, although Eon claim they always intended to bring Bond back.
The PB years generally share the 2 year gap, but the results are mixed. I don't think 3 years really helped DAD.
The problems with the films now, more than ever, is the lack of a working story and script. QOS was completely created, and it has links to CR and seems to be developing links to Bond23. If this is where Eon wants to go, fine, but it's a dangerous game to lose the interest of your audience.
I agree with the back-to-back principle, esp if cast members are retained. Harry Potter, Matrix etc did this very well (tho' the results on screen are mixed). I personally dont think we'll see Bond23 until 2012, possibly early in the year, or in the summer, basically because of the 50th Anniversary. It would be nice to think, however, that production could be underway on Bond24 b-2-b so we could have the next film by xmas 2013.
(Just for the record, I hope they use Fleming titles :Property of a Lady for no.23, they can toss a coin for the other one.)
anyway...
Well...I don't think Eon are 'out of ideas'---at least, not as long as they're dealing with the right people in the writing pool :v ...wait a second...maybe they are out of ideas
Could just be that they don't want to burn their leading man out. The great thing about being Bond, I should think, is the financial freedom---enjoyed in the form of time in-between big projects---to do whatever he wants: a stage play, a small art-house picture, whatever, without having to worry about where the next meal's coming from B-)
I can see how a 50th Anniversary Film might be a big lure (God help us all
If this '11 story turns out to be true (or #23 is delayed later than that!), only time will tell whether or not the outcome is favourable.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This may have already been posted, but CommanderBond.Net features an interview with Wilson in which he statest that ‘At the moment the third Daniel Craig movie is not even a glimmer in its mother’s eye,’ ‘Filming Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace back to back took a lot out of time and energy so at the moment we are all just recharging our batteries.’
http://commanderbond.net/article/6175
I think in terms of world-wide gross ticket sales, a 50th anniversary year film would be a huge benefit, because it would get enormous media attention from the world.
It doesn't necessarily mean it would be a great film though...
By the way, 2012 would be also a London Summer Olympic Games year. I am not sure this would work for or against Bond if released at the same time of the year. Perhaps, Bond could save Olympics from Quantum or someone.
You're most welcome!
I think you're exactly right---on both counts. The landmark nature of the anniversary might prove irresistible to Eon...if so, I hope they don't just decide to take an extra year off
...Also something to consider; it would not be (at all) out of character for Eon to take advantage of something like this...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I am glad to hear that Wilson and Broccoli doing branching out, thought I think that a remake of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is not needed as the 1968 version still holds up pretty well.
PS: The 1968 version of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was Cubby's last non Bond film he produced, Harry Saltzman was at the time doing other projects.
That sounds right. Call Me Bwana would probably have been Cubby's last non-Fleming project
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Summer release would be challenging for them, but if they would be able to set a date in advance, earlier than any others, naturally other studios will avoid the date.
I've become accustomed to the Bonds being a fall release, but I like them in the summer as well
I think Eon just got spooked by the domestic U.S. box office trouncing LTK took in the Summer of '89, at the hands of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade...and especially Tim Burton's Batman
Of course, there are plenty of LTK postmortem debates on these boards already, and arguably Eon are putting out a stronger product these days, so naturally summer wouldn't be out of the question. Time will tell, but producers operate in a very unpredictable business, and I wouldn't be surprised if Eon sticks with what's been consistently working for them for almost 20 years---November releases.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM