Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Skyfall

349 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

Links to threads on [i][url=http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?showtopic=3245]Casino Royale[/url][/i] (2006) and [i][url=http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?showtopic=15439]Quantum of Solace[/url][/i] (2008).

- - -

[b][url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3idff59d66183db868b5ff878db4003926]Three writers sign on for next Bond pic[/url][/b]
Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, who have co-written the past four James Bond features, will be joined by "Frost/Nixon" scribe Peter Morgan on the latest installment of the franchise for MGM. Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli of EON Productions Ltd. will produce.
The three writers will collaborate on the screenplay for the 23rd Bond film, which will once again star Daniel Craig as Agent 007. The triple hiring fits the pattern of the two most recent pictures, "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace," which saw Purvis and Wade drafting the initial script and Oscar-winning "Crash" writer-director Paul Haggis coming on to augment it.
[i]Hollywood Reporter[/i], June 12 Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[b][url=http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010356.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2562]Craig: Bond shoot to start next year[/url][/b]
The thesp made the disclosure Friday in New York in response to a fan's question as he exited the stage door for "A Steady Rain," a Broadway play in which he's starring with Hugh Jackman.
MGM had no comment about Craig's comment.
[i]Variety[/i], October 23

- - -

To hear Craig answer the fan's question yourself, zip ahead to the approximately 0:50 mark:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw1CCmWP7Ro[/media]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[b][url=http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_23_report_dec09.php3?t=&s=&id=02434]Bond 23 - A Shocking Story[/url][/b]
From July until October this year, Morgan was writing the first draft of Bond 23 - the third outing for Daniel Craig as 007. "It's a shocking story", he said after admitting he couldn't give anything more away. . . .
Pre-production work on Bond 23 has now been put on hold until February as the heavily in debt MGM, through which EON Productions release the 007 pictures, is up for sale. . . .
Daniel Craig has stated a number of times that principal photography is expected to start at the end of 2010, with Judi Dench also confirming her involvement is planned for early 2011.
This timetable is similar to the past few Bond movies, so fans should expect a November 2011 release date. Perhaps 11/11/11? . . .
MI6, December 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So the story is going to be "shocking"? And let me guess, the "Bond girl" is going to be a "Bond woman"? And the script will "peel back the layers of the character"?

The same kind of remarks have accompanied Bond films for the last 15 years. Only with CASINO ROYALE did it actually mean much. Let's hope it means something here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Hopefully some bullet out of the thousands upon thousands that have already missed him will make its mark, and end this stupid franchise forever.

Now [i]that[/i] would be shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well, given how [i]Quantum of Solace[/i] was the first film in the franchise's history in which the British and American governments are the bad guys -- thus requiring Bond and Leiter not merely to disobey orders a la [i]Licence to Kill[/i], but to actively OPPOSE their own bosses -- my first reaction to Morgan's comment was to wonder if M herself might become the bad guy here, kind of like what happened with the Jim Phelps character in the first [i]Mission: Impossible[/i] movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Pre-production on 'Bond 23' is [url="http://commanderbond.net/9089/bond-23-pre-production-put-on-hold.html"]put on hold.[/url]

[quote]Today, the Sunday Express reports that not only pre-production of Bond 23 has been halted, but that the “future of the Bond franchise hangs in the balance.” The paper indicates that if the MGM situation remains unclear, the film rights of the franchise could be sold off to another studio.

Producer Michael G Wilson, who produces the Bond films with Barbara Broccoli, admitted to the paper: “We just don’t know enough about the situation to comment but we know it’s uncertain.”[/quote]

I really hope that things work out. If not, will we be justified in saying that there's an even-numbered Bond curse similar to the odd-numbered "Star Trek" curse? Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Hm. Looking at Bond history, extended breaks between Bond films have generally tended to be a good thing, and so I'm not too worried. The major issues with QUANTUM OF SOLACE stemmed from its terribly rushed development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ryan H. wrote:
: Hm. Looking at Bond history, extended breaks between Bond films have generally tended to be a good thing . . .

They also tend to be accompanied by casting changes, e.g. the six-year gap between Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, followed by the four-year gap between Brosnan and Daniel Craig. It would be a shame if Craig were replaced so soon after the reboot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That's what I was getting at above. The previous two even-numbered Bonds got one and two films respectively; if Craig followed suit, it would be a trend, yes? And an unfortunate one, since Craig's "tougher, more realistic" Bond is getting a much warmer public reception than Dalton's similarly "tougher, more realistic" Bond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I see no reason to believe Craig won't be back for BOND 23, even after an extended gap. With the case of Dalton, he was hardly the favorite (and LICENCE TO KILL was the low point of the series in terms of financial success), and with Brosnan, he had already had a reasonable run and the producers were looking for a different direction. Right now, Craig's hugely popular with the public and the producers. I suppose Craig could walk, but I don't understand why he would. While he's not exactly wanting for work, he's not exactly a huge star outside of Bond. Currently, Craig's biggest source of income as well as notoriety has been the Bond films, and it's in his best interest to hold onto the role for the timebeing. Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ryan H. wrote:
: I see no reason to believe Craig won't be back for BOND 23, even after an extended gap. With the case of Dalton, he was hardly the favorite (and LICENCE TO KILL was the low point of the series in terms of financial success) . . .

Only in North America, where its $34.7 million was indeed the lowest the franchise had seen since [i]The Man with the Golden Gun[/i]'s $20.9 million in 1974. (All the films in-between had grossed between $46 million and $54 million, with the unusually popular exceptions of [i]Moonraker[/i]'s $70.3 million and [i]Octopussy[/i]'s $67.9 million.) Overseas, however, [i]License to Kill[/i] grossed a decent $121.5 million, which appears to be more-or-less in line with what the other Bond films had made (even [i]Moonraker[/i], the most financially successful of all the Bond films pre-Brosnan, made just $140 million overseas -- not quite what you'd expect if it had doubled [i]License to Kill[/i]'s earnings across the board).

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldenEye#Prelude]Wikipedia[/url] claims that the franchise was held up because of legal problems, and not because [i]Licence to Kill[/i] underperformed; and it also claims that Dalton, who had signed a three-movie deal in the mid-'80s, was still attached to the franchise until he officially resigned in 1994, at which point the producers turned to Brosnan. For whatever that's worth.

I will say this much in Craig's favour: He is the first Bond star since George Lazenby who had not been considered for the role years before he actually took it (Moore was reportedly considered before Connery got the role, Dalton was reportedly considered before Moore got the role, and Brosnan was definitely considered before Dalton got the role), and there don't appear to be any OTHER actors waiting in the wings right now. So not only is Craig really popular, there also don't appear to be any obvious successors, as there were with the previous Bonds.

So yeah, this gap between movies would have to be pretty darn long before it made sense to dump Craig for another actor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[url="http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/01/sam-mendes-to-direct-next-james-bond-007-movie.html"]Sam Mendes to direct next James Bond movie
[/url]
Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Fantastic.

My frustrations with [i]American Beauty[/i] and my mixed feelings over [i]Road to Perdition[/i] didn't make me excited about new Mendes films. Never saw [i]Jarhead[/i]. But his last two movies - [i]Revolutionary Road[/i] and [i]Away We Go[/i] - have changed my opinion. I just saw [i]Away We Go[/i] and was very moved by it. I'm wary of his upcoming adaptation of [i]Preacher[/i]. I'm now very interested in his work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Frankly, I'm just a little stunned that Mendes would do it. I've been a Bond fan for a while, and it's suddenly all very shocking to see all these high-profile, acclaimed talents attaching themselves to Bond films. Paul Haggis, Marc Forster, Peter Morgan, Sam Mendes... this truly isn't your daddy's Bond franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm hoping for David Lynch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I hear Ernst Stavro Blofeld isn't accustomed to going where he's not invited....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ryan H. wrote:
: [url="http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/01/sam-mendes-to-direct-next-james-bond-007-movie.html"]Sam Mendes to direct next James Bond movie[/url]

Oh! oh! oh! Can Kate Winslet be a Bond girl? Canshecanshecanshe pleeeeeease?

Overstreet wrote:
: I'm hoping for David Lynch.

Too American. Among other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Peter T Chattaway' date='05 January 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1262739498' post='212642']
Ryan H. wrote:
: [url="http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/01/sam-mendes-to-direct-next-james-bond-007-movie.html"]Sam Mendes to direct next James Bond movie[/url]

Oh! oh! oh! Can Kate Winslet be a Bond girl? Canshecanshecanshe pleeeeeease?[/quote]
I'm hoping for INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS' Melanie Laurent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

[quote name='Peter T Chattaway' date='05 January 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1262719188' post='212608']Only in North America, where its $34.7 million was indeed the lowest the franchise had seen since [i]The Man with the Golden Gun[/i]'s $20.9 million in 1974. (All the films in-between had grossed between $46 million and $54 million, with the unusually popular exceptions of [i]Moonraker[/i]'s $70.3 million and [i]Octopussy[/i]'s $67.9 million.) Overseas, however, [i]License to Kill[/i] grossed a decent $121.5 million, which appears to be more-or-less in line with what the other Bond films had made (even [i]Moonraker[/i], the most financially successful of all the Bond films pre-Brosnan, made just $140 million overseas -- not quite what you'd expect if it had doubled [i]License to Kill[/i]'s earnings across the board).[/quote]
You have to adjust for inflation and ticket prices when weighing these numbers. A side-by-side comparison of these numbers can be more than a little misleading. But it's true that LICENSE TO KILL was not an international flop, but it did indeed flop--and hard--in America, and failed to perform up to the promise of the Bond name.

[quote name='Peter T Chattaway' date='05 January 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1262719188' post='212608'][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldenEye#Prelude"]Wikipedia[/url] claims that the franchise was held up because of legal problems, and not because [i]Licence to Kill[/i] underperformed; and it also claims that Dalton, who had signed a three-movie deal in the mid-'80s, was still attached to the franchise until he officially resigned in 1994, at which point the producers turned to Brosnan. For whatever that's worth.[/quote]
Wikipedia's right. Until the legal problems hit, BOND 17 was full-steam ahead, and they even had a story together. I've read the story treatment; it involved microchips and was largely set in Asia. (It would also have been a big misstep if made, if you ask me, and likely would have been the nail in the Bond franchise's coffin).

But Dalton was still in mind early in GOLDENEYE's development. The earliest draft of GOLDENEYE, by Michael France, is overtly tailored to be a continuation of the Dalton era. Bond's not only written as if Dalton would be playing the role, but John Rhys-Davies' General Pushkin makes an appearance. Some accounts of the early days of GOLDENEYE's suggest that it was the MGM, not EON, who wanted Dalton removed from the franchise, and that Dalton kindly "resigned" to avoid any ugly battle.

[quote name='Peter T Chattaway' date='05 January 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1262719188' post='212608']So not only is Craig really popular, there also don't appear to be any obvious successors, as there were with the previous Bonds.[/quote]
Indeed. Though if Craig had to go, I'd love for Michael Fassbender to give Bond a shot. Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

A few minor trivia points:

Mendes was born in 1965, and Craig in 1968, so Craig would once again be working with a director who is older than him (Forster, the last film's director, was born in 1969). Mendes would also be only the second director in this franchise who was born after 1950.

Mendes was born in England, which would make him only the second British-born director in this franchise since the 1980s; with the exception of fellow Brit Michael Apted, who directed [i]The World Is Not Enough[/i], all of the other Brosnan-Craig films were directed by Kiwis, a Canadian, and a Swiss-German (the last of whom is the only director in the franchise's history who was not from the British Commonwealth -- though as Forster himself noted at the time, James Bond's MOTHER was at least part-Swiss, so it's all good).

Mendes would also be the only director in the franchise's history who has won an Academy Award. Lewis Gilbert (who directed three Bond films between 1967's [i]You Only Live Twice[/i] and 1979's [i]Moonraker[/i]) was nominated for directing 1966's [i]Alfie[/i], but he didn't actually win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote]Too American. Among other things. [/quote]

It was a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ryan H. wrote:
: You have to adjust for inflation and ticket prices when weighing these numbers. A side-by-side comparison of these numbers can be more than a little misleading.

Well, yeah, but I don't think ticket prices rose all THAT quickly in the 1980s. The Bond films of that era generally made around $50 million, except for [i]Octopussy[/i], which shot up to over $65 million, and [i]License to Kill[/i], which topped out at around $35 million. But $35 million isn't all THAT much less than $50 million, so I wouldn't be inclined to say that it "flopped hard". Underperformed, yes; flopped hard, no.

... FWIW, I just checked Box Office Mojo's "Adjusted for Inflation" page, and they say ticket prices rose from an average of $2.87 in 1981 to an average of $3.97 in 1989. So I guess they increased by about a third between [i]For Your Eyes Only[/i] and [i]License to Kill[/i].

For another gauge of box-office success, [i]For Your Eyes Only[/i] was the #9 film of 1981, [i]Octopussy[/i] was the #6 film of 1983 (and its rival [i]Never Say Never Again[/i] was #14), [i]A View to a Kill[/i] was the #13 film of 1985, [i]The Living Daylights[/i] was the #19 film of 1987, and [i]License to Kill[/i] was the #36 film of 1989. Okay, yeah, that DOES look pretty bad. But the franchise had been sliding for a few years, there.

For comparison's sake, in the Brosnan-Craig era, [i]GoldenEye[/i] was the #6 film of 1995, [i]Tomorrow Never Dies[/i] was the #10 film of 1997, [i]The World Is Not Enough[/i] was the #14 film of 1999, [i]Die Another Day[/i] was the #12 film of 2002, [i]Casino Royale[/i] was the #9 film of 2006, and [i]Quantum of Solace[/i] was the #9 film of 2008. All in domestic box-office terms, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

One must always take Nikki Finke with a huge, huge grain of salt, but at the moment, [url=http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/exclusive-sam-mendes-about-to-be-hired-as-consultant-on-bond-23/]her blog[/url] is saying this:

[indent]I've just learned that producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson are in final negotiations with CAA for director Sam Mendes to come on as a consultant to the 23rd James Bond film (as yet untitled). That's right -- not as the director, yet. This is for the film now in pre-production for release in 2011 whose story begins after Quantum Of Solace and again stars Daniel Craig. The actor has been telling folks that filming begins in late 2010. I hear Craig is "insisting" on Mendes' hiring because the actor was stung by criticism of the last Bond film. (And Sam directed Daniel in Road To Perdition.) . . . Here's what sources are telling me: once EON hires a director on their Bond films, it triggers a first payment from MGM. Well, given that MGM is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and EON may have the right to take Bond elsewhere, it stands to reason that the producers wouldn't want to do anything right away that further complicates ownership of Bond #23.[/indent]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Peter T Chattaway' date='06 January 2010 - 01:34 AM' timestamp='1262759650' post='212658']Well, yeah, but I don't think ticket prices rose all THAT quickly in the 1980s. The Bond films of that era generally made around $50 million, except for [i]Octopussy[/i], which shot up to over $65 million, and [i]License to Kill[/i], which topped out at around $35 million. But $35 million isn't all THAT much less than $50 million, so I wouldn't be inclined to say that it "flopped hard". Underperformed, yes; flopped hard, no.[/quote]
To quote domestic ticket sales:

Moonraker US Admissions: 24.9 million
FYEO US Admissions: 22.4 million
Octopussy US Admissions: 21.5 million
NSNA US Admissions: 17.5 million
AVTAK US Admissions: 14.1 million
TLD US Admissions: 13.1 million
LTK US Admissions: 8.7 million

[i]Yikes[/i]. I'd call that more than just "underperforming." It failed to meet standards in a big way. Sure, Bond had been on the decline for a while, but that's a huge drop. Nevermind that when LICENCE TO KILL made its debut, it came in 4th place!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0