Bond 24 Plot
James007Sweeney
Posts: 54MI6 Agent
So, Sam Mendes informed the world on a recent interview Bond 24 will see an older bond and cast picking up the pieces and dealing with what happened in Skyfall, Mendes also said although the story line is not a direct link it will clear up some things from Skyfall. The biggest hole in Skyfall's story was Silva knowing M being at the tribunaral, where MI6 would rellocate too in order tohave had his plans for capture and escape all worked out. My only conclusion is a mole. Can't see it being M, can't see it being Moneypenny or Q so I am thinking maybe chief of staff Bill Tanner. Silva also needed major funding to bring down MI6 the taking down of MI6 was mutual arragement with someone or an organisation to fund Silva to do so but who?. This would be a natural way for the story to flow. And the story building to Bond finding out who. Sorry Tanner!.
You only live twice: Once when you are born. And once when you look death in the face.
Comments
Or perhaps Quantum/SPECTRE were funding Silva after all.
One hopes that whatever Logan, Mendes & co opt for, they do some good writing & don't just settle for a deus ex machina.
I thought Silva knew all that from having easy peasy access to MI6 poorly secured IT System
After Skyfall (which I enjoyed) I would like to see a "brighter" film (in all aspects) if that makes sense.
Wonder what the budget will be this time, after Skyfall's success you would think it would be pretty hefty unless these pesky money grabbing...............
Norwegian leading lady ( to keep Number24 happy
Big underwater sequence. With Bond spending some time in
New York.
I like those ideas. Especially having Bond in New York again. -{
Oh more then that
I thought the hearing was public, so anybody with access to a TV or the Internet would know where M was.
Tanner a mole? Its an interesting idea, such as Tanner being in Quantum - hes doubtful of Greene being a lead, and does a poor job of pinning down the rouge 007 in QoS. Didn't ensure there was plenty orbital tracking in Istanbul and fails to protect M (past or future!) at the enquiry in SF. However I see these as simple mistakes and wonky writing. Tanner tries to persuade M-Manf to shut down the hack before Silva blows up the MI6 building, shows concern that Bond was back on duty after he failed the service tests, and was over ruled by M when he tries to get her to safety once Q warns him Silva is heading to the enquiry. Shortsighted? Definately. - A bit odd in a dept head who only answers to M. But a calculating traitor? I seriously doubt it. However it does highlight to me they need to give Rory K a seriously good scene to beef up Tanner as a character as they have done with Wishaw's Q2 and Harris's E-MP.
I doubt the next film will make direct references to Silva, and if Quantum are back, the two (hopefully) won't be connected. Quantum's actions make it clear they can bump off anyone in a second as Le Chiffre and Greene found to their cost. Silva was a loose cannon and Mitchell is proof that Quantum can get anywhere, be anyone. Joining them up is too easy and a poor fit. Silva was anything but subtle in his intentions!
Re golf courses and Jamaca, I think we need some winter action first! Esp since we had the Bahamas in CR-06. All of the Bonds have had good winter scenes except Sir Sean, I'd like to see Mr Craig's version on the snow or ice. Ditto a new sport somewhere along the line. I'd rather see a new sport, something a bit different and fresh than a new variation of the Goldfinger putting. - A classic scene that doesn't need a remake. FOARE!
Re the writing I am wary of Logan's work. To him I quote M-Mallory. - "Good luck Mr Logan. Don't c**k it up!"
"Hauled Before A Senate Subcommittee: For her part in losing the MacGuffin and other recent attacks on MI6 and their allies in NATO, M faces a public hearing
The other tip off that the hearing was public was all the members of the . . . public who were present
Finally, the whole point of the scene was that it involved the public humiliation of M.
Send him to Bora-Bora , or the Maldives (for no particular reason
Novel idea, having Bond be a Red.
Kincade is revealed as Bond's real father, it turns out Skyfall was built on an
Old Scottish battlefield and the bodies were never moved.
The ghost of M returns to tell of a treasure hidden in the nearby lake.
I do feel sorry for the poor Bloke " from Idaho, or some such place " who'd
Bought Skyfall lodge. Making plans for lovely holidays, in Sunny Scotland, and
Bond goes and blows it up
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Sony-Taps-James-Bond-Producers-Adapt-Edward-Snowden-Memoir-43028.html
absolutely! -{
We need to see Bond throwing caution to the wind and really enjoying being himself, instead of being in spite of himself...
Some ocean, some beach, and some ladies in bikinis are just the right items to accomplish it.
I don't see how you can keep beating the 'introspective' horse much longer with a James Bond film. At least with already 3 films in a row.
Making other projects ( which I'm sure they'd love to do ) although
it seems that the workload of churning out the Bonds would be
Enough for anyone.
Kind regards,
Craig
I would say it is the only way Craig will do a 5th, but this idea has been around since CR -{
I don't see how they could film two Bond movies back-to-back. We know they're going to start filming Bond 24 in October and that it will be released in October 2015. It would take at least 9-10 months to film both (it takes six months film one) and that would leave only 2-3 months for post-production, distribution, and release for Bond 24, which is no where near enough time for a 21/2 hour movie (or even a 11/2 hour movie).
Isn't the reason studios film back to back is to reduce the overall shooting and post production time? i.e. back to back would not be 6 months x 2
Yes, I agree. That's why I estimated 9-10 months to film both movies, rather than 12 months.
I presumed they film one, then post production team finish off whilst they shoot the 2nd hence complete shooting two films in a year, released over two etc
PS - I know nothing about any of this just guessing so not trying to be argumentative
So shooting two Bond films back to back is certainly possible in the time frame. Although when studios/films do this, it seems like they generally give themselves more leeway. Such as LotR, which they finished shooting all three films about a year before FotR was released.
All that being said, I thought in the Charlie Rose interview Mendes specifically mentioned that part of the reason he agreed to do more Bond was because they agreed to let him make it only one film (rather than the at the time planned two). Although, it certainly wouldn't be the first (or second) time he's changed his mind in regards to Bond.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2671471/BAZ-BAMIGBOYE-Bond-turmoil-new-script-fails-thrill.html