SPECTRE Production Timeline

1457910871

Comments

  • Sandy wrote:
    Risico007 wrote:
    so if it is 2014 does this mean maybe Tom Hooper instead of Sam Mendes?

    Please no! Not Hooper :-L

    I agree Sandy! No Tom Hooper!
  • =bg==bg= SFO
    Posts: 1,007
    I think the mega success of SF has meant that the expectations for Bond 24 have doubled and I think a big part of the plan next time is to get Mendes back. So unless the story at the moment is so good that they can entice him to jump straight back on the Bond wagon then I can see no problem with a 2014 release.

    But as we history has taught us the team need a good year to crack the script, and often moving too quickly, while an exciting prospect (as we get another Bond film sooner than later) can lead to a rather rushed release. On the last 2 year cycle we got QOS and you just have to look on these boards to see the general distaste for that film opposed to the slower more deliberated release of something like SF which admiration is sky high for.

    The success of Sf has meant that not just any ordinary 'Bond film' will do, it has to be good. The bottom line on why Sf was such a success was that it was a good movie and people were talking about it a lot, the buzz was near deafening. The last thing the prods want is a so-so reaction after the non-precedented critical, award and financial success that was SF. I'm guessing they want that trajectory to keep going up and time is needed to get the story right without a doubt.

    Therefore, I think a 2015 date is inevitable and something that should really be embraced. The wait is a small price to pay in order to get a great film.

    I see what you're saying, but I don't see how EON can hope for a bigger movie for 24 than Skyfall- it's what, the 7th biggest boxoffice ever? Any higher and you're getting close to Titantic territory.

    November 2014. Make it so.

  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Sandy wrote:
    Risico007 wrote:
    so if it is 2014 does this mean maybe Tom Hooper instead of Sam Mendes?

    Please no! Not Hooper :-L

    I agree Sandy! No Tom Hooper!

    @TrueMiracle85 you're back >:D<
  • Posts: 5,747
    I've read that Mendes is committed to a BBC TV project in late 2013. If he does Bond24 it will not start shooting until well into 2014 making a 2015 release inevitable.

    Link to anything that will make your argument? Or did you just 'hear' it.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 623
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    I've read that Mendes is committed to a BBC TV project in late 2013. If he does Bond24 it will not start shooting until well into 2014 making a 2015 release inevitable.

    Link to anything that will make your argument? Or did you just 'hear' it.

    http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_24_report_20130215_sam_mendes_rumours.php3?t&s&id=03448

    The key paragraphs are:
    Due to his raft of commitments (helming a musical version of 'Charlie And The Chocolate Factory' for the Theatre Royal which opens on May 18th, producing a new vampire hunter television drama series with writer John Logan for a US cable network, and directing 'King Lear' at the National Theatre which opens in January 2014), it is unlikely that production on Bond 24 could start until early-2014. EON are understood to be willing to push back the start date to accomodate Mendes.

    A summer 2015 or holiday 2015 release frame for Bond 24 seems the most likely if Mendes signs to return, given the director's attention to detail in pre-production and the length of the "Skyfall" shoot.

    I'll try and find the link that mentions the BBC project.





  • I think the producers are blowing smoke and Mendes is already on the project.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 114
    It's the series Penny Dreadful (produced by Sam Mendes production company Neal Street Productions) and the latest news I've read (midth January) was that they hope to get Mendes to direct it http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/12/details-revealed-on-penny-dreadful-showtime-monster-series-from-skyfalls-creators
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 10,701
    AgentJM7 wrote:
    Gassner is back? Oh, great. I'm sorry, but I just don't get the hype. Not enough imagination and exuberance in his work.

    I also interpret Baz's article to signify a 2015 release. (Considering that PP takes place at least a year before release)

    Gassner is not great but probably better than we've had for a while. I don't think he has brought anything new to Bond and I don't feel he has much sense for the Bond heritage. He seems to like doing depressing underground spaces. Skyfall lodge was laughably bad and a real missed opportunity.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,168
    Getafix wrote:
    AgentJM7 wrote:
    Gassner is back? Oh, great. I'm sorry, but I just don't get the hype. Not enough imagination and exuberance in his work.

    I also interpret Baz's article to signify a 2015 release. (Considering that PP takes place at least a year before release)

    Gassner is not great but probably better than we've had for a while. I don't think he has brought anything new to Bond and I don't feel he has much sense for the Bond heritage. He seems to like doing depressing underground spaces. Skyfall lodge was laughably bad and a real missed opportunity.

    I loved the underground "new" Mi6 (the friend I saw it with said it was like a throwback to wartime espionage) but agree that the SF lodge itself looks a little cheap. Deakins shots leading up to it are spectacular though.
  • Posts: 10,701
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    AgentJM7 wrote:
    Gassner is back? Oh, great. I'm sorry, but I just don't get the hype. Not enough imagination and exuberance in his work.

    I also interpret Baz's article to signify a 2015 release. (Considering that PP takes place at least a year before release)

    Gassner is not great but probably better than we've had for a while. I don't think he has brought anything new to Bond and I don't feel he has much sense for the Bond heritage. He seems to like doing depressing underground spaces. Skyfall lodge was laughably bad and a real missed opportunity.

    I loved the underground "new" Mi6 (the friend I saw it with said it was like a throwback to wartime espionage) but agree that the SF lodge itself looks a little cheap. Deakins shots leading up to it are spectacular though.

    I don't get why having Bond hark back to wartime espionage is relevant or desireable. The iconic early Bonds were unashamedly modern and forward looking. They captured the style and aspirations of the early 60s. I thought CR and QoS captured some of this feel in a contemporary way, whereas the production design for SF was incoherent and directionless. The underground MI6 base looked like the kind of place Ken Adam would have used to house the KGB.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,168
    But yet you liked the "old fashioned" look of the final scenes in M's office? That was more a throwback to old Bond rather than a sign of Bond moving forward. Also, the old sets were used virtually up until 1987. They didn't really change in that time so by TLD they were starting to look a little "past it" themselves.

    Personally I think the Mi6 set works. It gives the film some flavour and character. That's one aspect of the film my mum did like (and she worked for GCHQ for several years before yours truely was born - seriously!)
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 10,701
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But yet you liked the "old fashioned" look of the final scenes in M's office? That was more a throwback to old Bond rather than a sign of Bond moving forward. Also, the old sets were used virtually up until 1987. They didn't really change in that time so by TLD they were starting to look a little "past it" themselves.

    There was always a reason in my mind why Ken Adam put M in that wood panelled office. It signified that M was old school, establishment and reliable. It rooted M in Britain's past and contrasted perfectly with the modern icon of cool that was Connery in his single breasted fitted suits. Ken Adam is a genius production designer and his sets are like characters in the films. No one else has come close to Adam and I agree that the 8Os sets had nothing really going for them at all. I just find Gassner disappointing given the quality of production design that is out there. Some of the sets on Nolan's films are stunning and obviously beautifully rendered homages to Ken Adam. I liked Morgan Freeman's lab in Batman - the big empty concrete and white glass room. It feels totally contemporary but you know that whoever designed it loves Ken Adam. Some may disagree but I'd love Q to be given something like that.

    SF took Bond back towards its more OTT heritage in terms of plot and villain but the sets felt very workaday and bland. I don't have a problem with a bit more of the fantastical in Bond but I think the production design needs to embrace that more wholeheartedly.

    Ken Adam's sets were so beautiful and perfectly conceived that they made you believe these places might exist. Hence Reagan's famous question about the Strangelove war room. This is not a criticism of SF specifically but it has been a very long time since Bond had production design that really added much to the films.

  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,168
    Personally I disagree with you about the Mi6 set feeling bland. I remember being quite impressed by it in the cinema and it still looks good on blu-ray on a 40' TV.

    I don't think security institutions thesedays are intended to be "warm and cosy" anyway. I felt that the "war-room" bunker worked well. Acknowledged the old but the addition of fancy computers made it new.

    Does it really look anymore cold than the touch-screen computer rooms used in QoS for instance?
  • Posts: 10,701
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Personally I disagree with you about the Mi6 set feeling bland. I remember being quite impressed by it in the cinema and it still looks good on blu-ray on a 40' TV.

    I don't think security institutions thesedays are intended to be "warm and cosy" anyway. I felt that the "war-room" bunker worked well. Acknowledged the old but the addition of fancy computers made it new.

    Does it really look anymore cold than the touch-screen computer rooms used in QoS for instance?

    No, I have not liked the look and feel of the MI6 sets for some time. They are increasingly sinister. Also I don't like the growing sense that Bond is just a drone - controlled and managed by nerds back in London. I would be very happy if Bond never wore another ear piece ever again.

  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,168
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Personally I disagree with you about the Mi6 set feeling bland. I remember being quite impressed by it in the cinema and it still looks good on blu-ray on a 40' TV.

    I don't think security institutions thesedays are intended to be "warm and cosy" anyway. I felt that the "war-room" bunker worked well. Acknowledged the old but the addition of fancy computers made it new.

    Does it really look anymore cold than the touch-screen computer rooms used in QoS for instance?

    No, I have not liked the look and feel of the MI6 sets for some time. They are increasingly sinister. Also I don't like the growing sense that Bond is just a drone - controlled and managed by nerds back in London. I would be very happy if Bond never wore another ear piece ever again.

    But Bond has always been a "drone" to a certain degree. He was described as a "blunt instrument" by Fleming and instruments tend to be operated by other people. He is just a "tool" who is told what to do and where to go by his superiors. That's what gives him purpose.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 10,701
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Personally I disagree with you about the Mi6 set feeling bland. I remember being quite impressed by it in the cinema and it still looks good on blu-ray on a 40' TV.

    I don't think security institutions thesedays are intended to be "warm and cosy" anyway. I felt that the "war-room" bunker worked well. Acknowledged the old but the addition of fancy computers made it new.

    Does it really look anymore cold than the touch-screen computer rooms used in QoS for instance?

    No, I have not liked the look and feel of the MI6 sets for some time. They are increasingly sinister. Also I don't like the growing sense that Bond is just a drone - controlled and managed by nerds back in London. I would be very happy if Bond never wore another ear piece ever again.

    But Bond has always been a "drone" to a certain degree. He was described as a "blunt instrument" by Fleming and instruments tend to be operated by other people. He is just a "tool" who is told what to do and where to go by his superiors. That's what gives him purpose.

    Yeah, I've heard this line before and don't really buy it. If Bond had been portrayed on screen for 50 years as the 'blunt instrument' then he would not have survived. Neither do I think Connery, Moore or Dalts portrayed him as a drone. Yes he took his assignments from M but that was often pretty much the end of it and Bond used his cunning, charm and luck to complete his job. But the thing with the earpiece and constant cutting back to London or M turning up Willy Nilly just makes him look like such a sad sack.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 12,000
    Getafix wrote:
    Neither do I think Connery, Moore or Dalts portrayed him as a drone. Yes he took his assignments from M but that was often pretty much the end of it and Bond used his cunning, charm and luck to complete his job.

    I don't see how Brosnan is any different, they modernised MI6 during his era but I don't remember him ever using an earpiece and relying on MI6 all the time either.

    I don't like the constant quick cuts to MI6, I agree with you there. I loved the underground chase, it was funny and exciting. But I could've done without all the cuts back to HQ with the new Q "hacking"
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 10,701
    Getafix wrote:
    Neither do I think Connery, Moore or Dalts portrayed him as a drone. Yes he took his assignments from M but that was often pretty much the end of it and Bond used his cunning, charm and luck to complete his job.

    I don't see how Brosnan is any different, they modernised MI6 during his era but I don't remember him ever using an earpiece and relying on MI6 all the time either.

    I don't like the constant quick cuts to MI6, I agree with you there. I loved the underground chase, it was funny and exciting. But I could've done without all the cuts back to HQ with the new Q "hacking"

    It's just my deeply-engrained Brosnan bashing instinct that prevented me adding him to the list, but you're right, even Brozza felt like more of a 'free' agent than poor old mummy's boy DC.
  • Now Dench is gone and they've introduced Q and Moneypenny, I hope we get a film that's MI6 lite. Have them for the bit after the PTS then leave them out of the rest of the movie.

    However, Ralph Fiennes is a talented and fairly big actor who probably costs quite a bit of money, and I doubt they'd pay him and just use his talents for a short 5 minute or so office scene, so we might be stuck with M being used more for the time being.
  • Posts: 10,701
    Now Dench is gone and they've introduced Q and Moneypenny, I hope we get a film that's MI6 lite. Have them for the bit after the PTS then leave them out of the rest of the movie.

    However, Ralph Fiennes is a talented and fairly big actor who probably costs quite a bit of money, and I doubt they'd pay him and just use his talents for a short 5 minute or so office scene, so we might be stuck with M being used more for the time being.

    My fear exactly. And with M and Q back in the mix it almost guarantees some patience-sapping scenes back at MI6. May be they'll handle it well and lightly though, like they used to. May be.
  • http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=36586

    Naomie Harris has confirmed filming starts next year. Not really much.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 6,601
    http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=36586

    Naomie Harris has confirmed filming starts next year. Not really much.

    Could you please lead me to where you read this here?
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2013 Posts: 9,902
    Getafix wrote:
    Now Dench is gone and they've introduced Q and Moneypenny, I hope we get a film that's MI6 lite. Have them for the bit after the PTS then leave them out of the rest of the movie.

    However, Ralph Fiennes is a talented and fairly big actor who probably costs quite a bit of money, and I doubt they'd pay him and just use his talents for a short 5 minute or so office scene, so we might be stuck with M being used more for the time being.

    My fear exactly. And with M and Q back in the mix it almost guarantees some patience-sapping scenes back at MI6. May be they'll handle it well and lightly though, like they used to. May be.

    It is a worry. I've made no secret of my disappointment in Harris. I thought she was incredibly wooden, and the less we see of her in 24 the better. Also, I always felt the Maxwell Moneypenny was a match for her Bond's, with Harris, not only do I think she's miscast, I don't get the impression she'll have the balls to challenge Bond, having failed at his expense in the field.

    M - looking forward to Fiennes, but I don't want him in the field. I want him to be a match for, if not beat Bond on occasion. The latter years of Dench I just felt she was past it, as a character. I want Fiennes to be an omnipresent but silent badass.

    Q - Will surely have a reasonable role. The problem with casting hot shot actors is, you have to give them screentime. Personally I think they should make him head into the field. Purely because of they way they set up the character in SF, the best option narratively is to take him out of his comfort zone.

    Tanner - On the SF commentary, Mendes suggests there's room for 'more' Tanner in subsequent films. If Mendes gets the gig, will it happen? I agree with Mendes that he's a great talent, not necessarily used effectively in any of his films so far. My favourite description thus far comes from @TheWizardOfIce who suggests (this is from memory) he looks like the manager of a Travelodge. Ironically of all the characters, he's probably the most likely 'type' to exist within SIS.

    [Edit] Come to think of it, what about a scene with Bond and Tanner in a Gentleman's club after hours, a little worse for wear. I'd like more stuff like this.
  • Posts: 1,020
    RC7 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Now Dench is gone and they've introduced Q and Moneypenny, I hope we get a film that's


    Tanner - On the SF commentary, Mendes suggests there's room for 'more' Tanner in subsequent films. If Mendes gets the gig, will it happen? I agree with Mendes that he's a great talent, not necessarily used effectively in any of his films so far. My favourite description thus far comes from @TheWizardOfIce who suggests (this is from memory) he looks like the manager of a Travelodge. Ironically of all the characters, he's probably the most likely 'type' to exist within SIS.

    [Edit] Come to think of it, what about a scene with Bond and Tanner in a Gentleman's club after hours, a little worse for wear. I'd like more stuff like this.


    I would like a scene like this as well. Maybe have them reminisce about Judi's M, something small but impactful.
  • Germanlady wrote:
    http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=36586

    Naomie Harris has confirmed filming starts next year. Not really much.

    Could you please lead me to where you read this here?

    30 minutes (exactly !) into the podcast.
  • Posts: 5,747
    Germanlady wrote:
    http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=36586

    Naomie Harris has confirmed filming starts next year. Not really much.

    Could you please lead me to where you read this here?

    30 minutes (exactly !) into the podcast.

    To quote, "I think it's going to be next year, now."

    Very interesting. *strokes beard that isn't there*
  • Posts: 6,601
    I think, its pretty vague. Lets remember, Ben Wishaw JUST said 10 month and I expect them both to be at the same level of inofrmation. Good thing is, the film is still in some theaters and the guessing game can start again.
  • Posts: 5,747
    Just noticing, we've had more news/rumor in February than all the other months since September combined.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Personally I disagree with you about the Mi6 set feeling bland. I remember being quite impressed by it in the cinema and it still looks good on blu-ray on a 40' TV.

    I don't think security institutions thesedays are intended to be "warm and cosy" anyway. I felt that the "war-room" bunker worked well. Acknowledged the old but the addition of fancy computers made it new.

    Does it really look anymore cold than the touch-screen computer rooms used in QoS for instance?

    No, I have not liked the look and feel of the MI6 sets for some time. They are increasingly sinister. Also I don't like the growing sense that Bond is just a drone - controlled and managed by nerds back in London. I would be very happy if Bond never wore another ear piece ever again.

    Well, as the world becomes more technologically advanced and more ways crop up for countries to be attacked or breached, team work is essential to survival. Espionage isn't a one-man sport, and a large team is crucial for setting up effective operations and maintaining hold of national security against enemies whichever way they may come. Times have changed since the 60s, or even the 80s. With the advent of even greater technology in this present day, it is like M said in Skyfall: Our enemies are not nations that can be pointed to on a map. Instead, they can be anyone, anywhere who will do whatever is necessary to cause chaos or get a leg up, no matter the cost. With this increased risk there must also come a greater defense that is strengthened by strong teamwork and tight communication.
  • Yes but it's only a film and the series is hardly realistic.

    I would like it if Bond 24 contained no earpieces and no MI6 other than the post PTS scene (unless the Bond girl is an MI6 agent).
Sign In or Register to comment.