Bond 25 getting sent to 2020 at this point must be an increasingly likely prospect
Smells a bit like trouble, but theyâve been there before and usually returned with something pretty good.
If it means getting the best script/Director then Iâll wait for 2020.
Put it this way, would you prefer a QoS in 2019, or a SF in 2020?
I know waiting doesnât guarantee quality, but making a compromise in order to meet an arbitrary release date pretty much sets up a dip in quality.
If hodgeâs script is good, or at least better than P&Wâs (letâs face it the latter is highly likely), then imo itâs an easy choice.
People on here assume P&W are to blame for anything you donât like in Bond films in the last 20 years, but Casino Royale and Skyfall - the two scripts that had the most P&W work in the final version - are the two most highly regarded in that period.
2 Likes
Agreed, P&W get a lot of flack while we can only assume, at the most, how their work holds up against the competition. Sure, there are plenty of writers with prestige. On the other hand, thereâs a reason why Eon keep coming back to this team. And with film scripts, nearly always a team effort, itâs truly difficult to judge how âgoodâ or âbadâ a particular influence turns out. If it was easy theyâd do it all the time.
1 Like
If SPECTRE has proven anything then waiting for a director does not guarantee that he will deliver the better film, nor will it result in a better script.
In fact, the opposite is true: more time in development always means more time to meddle, more people to weigh in before.
And I´d rather have another QOS in 2019 then another SF in 2020.
Yes, I enjoyed SKYFALL a lot. But in retrospect it had so many loose ends and weaknesses that, again, the longer wait did not help at all. SKYFALL´s main saving grace was Javier Bardem and Roger Deakins´ cinematography. Take them away and you end up with a decent but haphazard film. QUANTUM OF SOLACE has the edge here for being tougher and less pretentious.
1 Like
Donât forget that when talking about waiting for the right director or script that the first 5 Bondâs came out over just 6 yearsâŚ
1 Like
I agree. For me itâs Deakins that makes all the difference - he brings a standard of visceral storytelling unknown in Bond, save for a few moments here and there. He was robbed (yet again) at the Oscars. Hopefully this year heâll get his dues for the astonishing work he did on Blade Runner.
Sure P&W get a lot of flack, but after watching their BBC baby SS-GB i feel on safe ground disputing their screenwriting chops.
In short, if Eon are indeed waiting for Boyle and Hodge i trust itâs because they had a great pitch and not just because theyâre more prestige.
1 Like
Well, who knows how good that pitch is?
EON has decided on a strategy that IMHO is a major problem: only a star director may helm a Bond film now.
Those are, however, always busy doing their own projects which limit their availability. Also, they still consider a Bond film beneath them (donât believe the PR statements for a second).
And while Bond films bring money and exposure they can also hurt your career if they are not considered a success (Marc Forster anyone?). Which adds to the hesitation.
EON should rather go with unproven up and coming talents - or do it the way Cubby did so successfully: promote from within.
It is absurd that a Bond film cannot be mounted efficiently anymore because no director can be found. There are many talented young filmmakers in GB who would dazzle with their take on Bond.
But the âwe want to associate with the important crowdâ-factor has hurt EON and the films as well.
1 Like
He only promoted from within twice, and the first time (Peter Hunt) refused to edit the film if he wasnt directing. As for âprestige directorâ Mendes and Gilbert are the only two in 50 years whose work youâd call prestige - maybe Forster at a push. We could promote a previous Bond films editor with directorial aspirations to director, but, tbh, thereâs only so many times Iâll be able to cope with âbut Star Trek Nemesis sucksâ
Edit (because that read like I want an auteur regardless) I think EON are probably looking at a range of directors, Variety just reported Boyle because heâd be considered âexcitingâ . I think a director with a lot of TV and small films is more likely, Paul McGuigan seems a likely choice given his (lauded) work on âFilm Stars donât die in Liverpoolâ
Well, Roger Spottiswoode, Michael Apted and Lee Tamahori at the time they did their Bond films were A-listers with mainly arthouse hits as well.
And the careful nurturing of talent within the Bond film family did work. Hunt, despite lobbying hard for the job, did get it and made a wonderful film. Glen also made great Bond films, arguably more than even the best Bond film director managed. Baird was not a good match for Star Trek - but he could have been pretty effective for Bond.
Of course, I donât know what exactly is going on behind the scenes, and certainly MGM also has weighed in, unfortunately. However, the whole waiting game is not necessary, IMO. And I cannot imagine MGM preferring to wait for a highly probably cash flow generated by a new Bond film.
Another reason why the two-year- cycle worked: there was no time to waste, and if a director did not want to do it or had other projects to do EON just chose another one.
I couldnât agree more.
Iâd love to see another QoS anyway, regardless of what weâre comparing it to.
1 Like
Tbh, I think EON would agree, it is the MGM issue causing the big hold ups, speaking of - do we have any more news on that?
Unfortunately and strangely, there is nothing so far - it´s all the same Groundhog Day-style âno distribution deal for Bond in placeâ. Someday, when this gets sorted out, I would love to hear the reasons for the long wait.
I seem to recall the Sony deal was ludicrously good because they had Spider-man rights to trade then, come renewal with Skyfall/SPECTRE, EON where keen to keep their relationship with Amy Pascal. Perhaps itâs now simply down to not having as strong a hand as they once did.
Having had a quick look round - MGMâs biggest properties (non-Bond) have been WB co-productions, so if Tomb Raider (their next co-production) goes well, iâd put money on WB - especially following their DCâŚumâŚstruggles.
1 Like
WB right now is in turmoil because of a possible sale: https://screenrant.com/warner-bros-dc-comics-sale-att-merger/
Apart from that: EON is coming off their hottest winning streak with Bond since the 70´s.
The wish to distribute Bond will be shared by every studio. But the price is the dealbreaker. And in an economics climate in which nothing can be predicted anymore studios will hold back. Maybe some will even hope for MGM getting really desperate.
Didnât we already say Annapurna is distributing?
I had considered Paramount- but would they want to be their own competition with MI being in the strongest position itâs possibly ever been?
I then had the terrifying thought of a shared spy universe where the DB5 Easter egg of rogue nation was WAY more prescient than intended.
They will distribute MGM exclusive productions (they have a few with WB that WB will distribute) but not Bond films.
Annapurna is distributing Bond 25 in the U.S. but not international, so they replaced Sony and weâre just waiting for someone to replace FoxâŚ
They were even mentioned in conjunction with the Danny Boyle rumorsâŚ