New Bond Film - "Spectre" - October / November 2015

  • Thread starter Furinkazen
  • 537 comments
  • 26,292 views
Furinkazen

Furinkazen

Sim Racing Organiser
Premium
44,184
United Kingdom
Blackburn
Furinkazen_54
From Facebook:

1000851_668904546457793_471563748_n.jpg


007's 24th adventure will be released in the UK on October 23, 2015 and in the US on November 6, 2015. Daniel Craig will be back as the legendary British secret agent and Sam Mendes will return as director for his second Bond outing. The screenplay will be written by John Logan. More details at www.007.com.

~~~

Producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, EON Productions; Gary Barber, Chairman & CEO, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer; Michael Lynton, CEO, Sony Entertainment, Inc, and Amy Pascal, Co-Chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment today announced that Daniel Craig will once again return as the legendary British secret agent in the 24th James Bond film and Sam Mendes will also return to direct the screenplay written by John Logan. The film is set for release in the UK on October 23, 2015 and in the US on November 6, 2015.

SKYFALL the 23rd James Bond film, took in $1.1 billion worldwide and set a new mark as the highest-grossing film of all time in the UK; it was the best-selling Bond film on DVD/Blu-ray and was the most critically acclaimed film in the history of the longest-running film franchise.

Commenting on the announcement, Wilson and Broccoli said, “Following the extraordinary success of SKYFALL, we’re really excited to be working once again with Daniel Craig, Sam Mendes and John Logan.”

“I am very pleased that by giving me the time I need to honour all my theatre commitments, the producers have made it possible for me to direct Bond 24. I very much look forward to taking up the reins again, and to working with Daniel Craig, Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli for a second time,” said Mendes.

Barber added, “We are thrilled to reunite the extraordinary talents of director Sam Mendes with our star Daniel Craig for the next great Bond adventure.” He added, “As evidenced by the phenomenal success of our last collaboration with EON Productions and Sony, the incredible legacy of this 51-year-old franchise continues to amaze.”

Pascal and Lynton said, “It’s a privilege to work on the Bond films. EON, John Logan and Sam Mendes have come up with an extraordinary follow up to SKYFALL and we, along with our partners at MGM, can’t wait to share this new chapter with audiences all over the world.”

http://www.007.com/bond-24-news-2/
 
This is exciting news. I think getting Mendes on-board was the best thing EON could have done. Unlike many directors who claim to be, Mendes is clearly invested in the films on a personal level, and I think that really translated well in Skyfall.

I'm also curious to see what John Logan to do. Although he worked on Skyfall, he's apparently going solo on Bond 24, which means it's a major shake-up in the writing line-up.
 
As soon as I heard they are bringing back the people responsible for Skyfall I hacked their website database and found poster for the next James Bond movie.

home_alone_two_ver2.jpg


I also have high hopes that Judi Dench will reprise, with help of magic of cinematography, the role of most incompetent chief of secret agency in history of mankind.
 
Very funny. :rolleyes: , don't get joke there.

And Judi's done for good, unless this doesn't follow canon.
 
For some reason I was totally surprised when I saw this blurb on major media a couple of days ago . . . I'm really happy to hear this; I grew up with Bond and hope to see many more creative variations of that 'formula'. :D

Prepare to launch the missiles.
 
I'm more worried about Jeffery Wright's Felix. He has one more film left as Felix the best that I can recall, and I enjoyed his performance as the character in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, so I hope that he gets an extension with more money attached.
 
Furinkazen
Thought it would be 👍
Click to expand...
They went to great lengths to introduce Ralph Fiennes as M as part of the narrative (from what I understand, Cubby Broccoli wanted to have Bernard Lee's departure from the role written into a film, but Lee died before it could happen, which is why M does not appear in For Your Eyes only), and Fiennes is believed to be on a multi-film deal. It makes absolutely no sense to break the canon to reintroduce Dench as M for one more film.

Although she could appear if it is intended to be part of the story. Raoul Silva described a few of the jobs he has carried out for his clients to fund his vendetta against M, namely interrupting satellite transmissions over Kabul and rigging elections in Uganda. I could see Bond 24 having Bond follow up on some of these leads, exploring Dench-M's old case files to try and better understand Silva. We could see flashbacks of Silva/Rodriguez and Dench-M in 1990s Hong Kong.

Sanji Himura
I'm more worried about Jeffery Wright's Felix. He has one more film left as Felix the best that I can recall, and I enjoyed his performance as the character in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, so I hope that he gets an extension with more money attached.
Click to expand...
The problem with bringing Wright back is that at the end of Quantum of Solace, he was appointed the CIA's Station Chief in South America. It was the natural extension of his role in the film, but it also ties him to one location. If he suddenly leaves the post, there would have to be some kind of explanation for it, or Bond would have to visit South America and have Felix join him. But the plot shouldn't be written just to get Felix into the film - it should be its own film first, and if Felix fits into it, then great. If not, they can always defer him to the next film.

Mind you, it wouldn't be hard to write the character back in. I can think of half a dozen ways to do it off the top of my head.
 
Must say I'm actually looking forward to this after being pleasantly surprised by Skyfall.👍
 
@prisonermonkeys. I am a bit of a Bond noob if that Skyfall and the Craig films are the first ones I have seen. I have some catching up to do.
 
Well, if you're a newcomer, then I strongly suggest you check out From Russia With Love as soon as you can. It's one of the finest in the franchise. I also recommend For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights, as these - along with Casino Royale and Skyfall - are more thriller films than action films (a focus on action is the mistake the Brosnan films made), and are probably the strongest performances by Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. GoldenEye is probably Brosnan's strongest film, but none of his four were particularly stellar (though I have a soft spot for The World Is Not Enough).

Conversely, I'd suggest giving Die Another Day, The Man with the Golden Gun, Tomorrow Never Dies, A View to a Kill, Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me a wide berth. They're probably the weakest installments in the series - Die Another Day is widely-regarded as the worst film in the franchise - and if you watch them first, you might be left with a bitter aftertaste.
 
Since we are arguing schematics, I would also avoid most of Moore's outings, unless you are a fan of the TV show, The Saint. There are too many similarities between the two that I would rather pass on them and say I never knew ye. There are two exceptions, For Your Eyes Only and A View To A Kill.

I also agree that none of the Brosnan films appear to have any consistent basis in reality. They appear to be more action films than actually based on story. Makes me glad that they brought in Craig now that I think about it.
 
Sanji Himura
Since we are arguing schematics, I would also avoid most of Moore's outings, unless you are a fan of the TV show, The Saint. There are too many similarities between the two that I would rather pass on them and say I never knew ye. There are two exceptions, For Your Eyes Only and A View To A Kill.
Click to expand...
The Age of Moore was very much a product of its times. The producers sought to distance Moore's Bond from Connery's, and took the light-hearted route. Many of the films were plagued with production troubles; The Spy Who Loved Me went through nearly a dozen writers and scripts, while Moonraker was rushed into production to capitalise on the success of Star Wars.

Sanji Himura
I also agree that none of the Brosnan films appear to have any consistent basis in reality. They appear to be more action films than actually based on story. Makes me glad that they brought in Craig now that I think about it.
Click to expand...
GoldenEye is pretty good. It's probably the most focused film in the series, largely because it really sought to be a product of its times. Until then, James Bond had always existed in a world where the Soviet Union was a pervasive threat, but in the time since Licence to Kill, the USSR had imploded. A big part of GoldenEye looks at whether or not the world needs James Bond as much as James Bond needs the world.

Tomorrow Never Dies is a bit of a mess. It didn't help that EON started rotating directors from film to film - when Sam Mendes returns to Bond 24, he'll be the first director to shoot two consecutive films in twenty-five years. The film itself has an interesting concept, but its execution was very flawed.

I have a soft spot for The World Is Not Enough because it was the first Bond film I saw, on my thirteenth birthday. I actually think it's a pretty strong film that is let down by weak casting in Denise Richards and a script that can't decide who the villain is. I've seen the original draft, which really put an emphasis on the mystery surrounding the villain, but Michael Apted decided that the film needed more emphasis on Bond's relationship with Elektra, so his wife and Bruce Feirstein did a series of uncredited rewrites that shifted focus to the melodrama.

Die Another Day sucked. Its only redeeming value is the way it corrupted the timeline, necessitating the reboot and the casting of Daniel Craig.
 
prisonermonkeys
The Age of Moore was very much a product of its times. The producers sought to distance Moore's Bond from Connery's, and took the light-hearted route. Many of the films were plagued with production troubles; The Spy Who Loved Me went through nearly a dozen writers and scripts, while Moonraker was rushed into production to capitalise on the success of Star Wars.


GoldenEye is pretty good. It's probably the most focused film in the series, largely because it really sought to be a product of its times. Until then, James Bond had always existed in a world where the Soviet Union was a pervasive threat, but in the time since Licence to Kill, the USSR had imploded. A big part of GoldenEye looks at whether or not the world needs James Bond as much as James Bond needs the world.

Tomorrow Never Dies is a bit of a mess. It didn't help that EON started rotating directors from film to film - when Sam Mendes returns to Bond 24, he'll be the first director to shoot two consecutive films in twenty-five years. The film itself has an interesting concept, but its execution was very flawed.

I have a soft spot for The World Is Not Enough because it was the first Bond film I saw, on my thirteenth birthday. I actually think it's a pretty strong film that is let down by weak casting in Denise Richards and a script that can't decide who the villain is. I've seen the original draft, which really put an emphasis on the mystery surrounding the villain, but Michael Apted decided that the film needed more emphasis on Bond's relationship with Elektra, so his wife and Bruce Feirstein did a series of uncredited rewrites that shifted focus to the melodrama.

Die Another Day sucked. Its only redeeming value is the way it corrupted the timeline, necessitating the reboot and the casting of Daniel Craig.
Click to expand...

I'll concede that Goldeneye is pretty good, heck, that was one of the first Bond films that I remember watching when I was a kid(Goldfinger was my first), but you must admit that in one way or another either the formula was over the top during the Brosnan era, or it became so irrelevant that the film simply becomes just another action film.

It was simply perfect timing that EON got the rights to Casino Royale back to necessitate that reboot in the first place.
 
I think the Age of Brosnan was a lot like the Age of Moore: a product of its times. People wanted light-hearted Bond films when Roger Moore was cast in the role, and that's what they got. With the Age of Brosnan, audiences wanted action. Particularly as the films started trying to attract teenagers.

In the aftermath of Die Another Day, the producers admitted that they took things too far. It wan't good timing; it was necessity.
 
It was necessity in the sense that the producers had to do something, fair enough, but it was also good timing in the sense that they got back CR so they have something fresh to offer audiences.
 
Fantastic News to report. MGM and the estate of Kevin McClory have ended their lawsuits after 50+ years. No mention of the terms of the settlement as of yet, but it would mean for now that Danjaq and EON Productions can now legally use Blofield and SPECTRE for the first time since Diamonds are Forever without any kickbacks to the estate (as they obtained McClory's portion of the franchise.)

http://www.superherohype.com/news/a...ith-mcclory-estate-over-james-bond-characters

Note to @prisonermonkeys: This is from American Media, not British Media. No giving me the Ninth degree over reputation, agreed?
 
I'm not keen on the potential return of Blofeld. For one, he was wildly over-used in the original run of films. And secondly, his portrayal was very inconsistent.

He only ever appeared in three novels. He was only indirectly involved in THUNDERBALL, and Telly Savalas' performance in OHMSS was pretty accurate compared to the book. As for YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, it's practically impossible to adapt for the screen.

Most importantly, Bond has just come off the back of dealing with a shadowy organisation in QOS. And whether you feel it was good or bad, there are a lot of unresolved plot lines in the film. To introduce Blofeld - and possibly SPECTRE - would imply the existence of a second shadowy organisation that, like Quantum, somehow avoided MI6's attention, which makes the whole thing a bit of a joke. The only feasible way to reintroduce Blofeld would be to have him take control of Quantum, but I think that what the series needs right now is a few stand-alone films.

It would also be really easy to waste a character like Blofeld. I saw the new Jack Ryan film today, and literally just saw an advert for MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 4. Both films had some great ideas - like MI4's prison break and Kremlin infiltration sequence - but both films were let down by weak villains; neither had any real motivation. That said, Purvis, Wade and Logan got the character of Raul Silva just right in SKYFALL.
 
Bond 24 to start filming in October. This according to a Ralph Fiennes interview with MTV. What he actually said...

"It's meant to start shooting in October," the actor said, not able to offer much more than that. "I haven't read a script yet, so I can't tell you much. They'd probably swear me to secrecy anyway."
Click to expand...

Good call, Ralph. Good call.

Source (via Superherohype)
 
He's not kidding when he says they swear you to secrecy - each copy of the script has a unique watermark, and each page has an individual number within the watermark. If ever pages of the script are leaked, EON can figure out exactly where it came from. They needn't bother. These days, revealing details of a James Bond film pretty much gets you black-listed in the British film industry.

Also, Roger Deakins (who just missed out on another Oscar) has confirmed that he will not return for BOND 24.
 
One possible way to introduce Spectre into the next Bond film could be to have them rise from the demise of Quantum. We don't really know what happened to them after QoS, but if they introduced Blofield as a former member of Quantum and had him set up Spectre as a result of Quantum collapsing then that could work better than having two very similar shadowy organisations together.
 
I think you are right on Blofield. I personally think that they only settled the lawsuits is that they [MGM] didn't want to pay the estate anymore money.
 
MGM wasn't paying anyone money. The dispute was between Fleming and McClory over the ownership of THUNDERBALL. MGM bought the rights to Bond from Fleming, but the courts ruled that McClory was the owner of certain key elements, like Blofeld, and so MGM could not use those elements.
 

Latest Posts

Back