It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
3 years would mean 2015 right ?
It depends. Like I said, it is just a time frame, and many things could change that could mean a release sooner than then. Late 2015/early 2016 seems to be the maximum time they are saying Bond 24 will release, so the more minimum and more likely choice for a release if all goes well is 2014.
@battleshipgreygt answered the question on the other thread , All my fears are put to rest now !
They are not going to give out a reliable time frame just now. So within 3 years means everything between 2014 and 15 IMO. They just play it safe and I also believe rfather 14 then later.
Hopeful also sounds the directors name SOON.
Exactly, they are saying three years just to play it safe, but I think they are planning for a release much sooner. I understand their strategy.
what we currently know is that Logan is full steam ahead on the script (which means his treatment was approved by EON).. and the hunt has commenced for a director, since Mendes has graciously bowed out..
ideally, i think MGM wants this out asap - preferably by fall 2014.. but, should EON need a little more time with either the script or director search, then they could feasibly push back to 2015 with no problem from the studio.. that is why MGM said 3 years.. but as of right now, all systems are 'go' for 2014...
the real question is.... how long until Gustav_Graves shows up to polish one off about Christopher Nolan again?? lol
i'm not sure either... i'm not sure how MGM does business between themselves and EON.. but since they are under new management, and since these 3 Craig films have grossed nearly 2.5 billion - i'm sure they'll let EON take their time - within reason that is... but i don't think there is anything legal about saying "we expect the next film in 2 years" and then in 2 years it doesn't happen... things happen in the film world all the time that create delays (look at the MGM financial crisis which delayed Bond23 from 2011 to 2012... or even EON's legal troubles in the early 90s that delayed Bond for 6 years, when they had planned on a Bond film in 1991 - and then also in 1993.) ... i just think he was being generous in a time frame, understanding that they don't want to kill the golden goose by forcing them to work under a looming deadline..
At an investor conference call that has to be legally put publicly online, when answering a stockholder question on the matter ? I don't think it's the usual PR at all, most questions about specific financial data for the near future were left unanswered. They never even said once the next two Hobbit "should" have similar success for instance (or "flop", according to some box office lunatics !). But their release date are announced now officially in their financial reports. Hence all the stories you read about so many movies put into production with a release date that cannot be movied, IMO.
Why I constantly said a November 2015 release is more realistic:
A) Today's Bond productions, especially since 'Skyfall' have become way bigger than the late Dalton, early Brosnan Bond films.
B) Two year gaps are not so favourite anymore if you ask Michael and Barbara. A stellar production like Bond 24 needs plentiful pre-production time, not to mention all the screenplay polish work. Right after production of 'TWINE' I can recall Michael and Barbara saying they want to take it a bit more easy and expand the gap to 3 years.
C) As of 'Skyfall', EON now favours bigger name actors and bigger name crew. The Oscar heavy cast/crew is in part the reason for the 1.1 Billion worldwide gross. To get those bigger names on board, one needs to take into account scheduling conflicts way sooner than in the past. A 3 year gap therefore seems more realistic.
D) 'Quantum Of Solace' and 'Tomorrow Never Dies' are IMO good examples of Bond productions that felt rushed, thus lacking quality.
E) A longer gap has never hurted a Bond film, quality-wise. Most of the time it actually helped the film from a quality point of view.
F) Now from an MGM marketeer point of view....what would you choose? A) A 2-year gap, resulting in a more or less secure worldwide gross of, let's say, $750 Million worldwide? Or B) A 3-year gap, trying to match the $1.1 Billion of 'Skyfall', thus continueing the 'Skyfall' legacy in all its facets? I'm pretty certain Gary Barber would choose option B) for a try. For MGM the Bond franchise is important, but turning it into a Nolan-like money crashing franchise is even better.
G) I want not only an OK Bond film with 'good action' (damn, this sounds cheap). No, I want to have a mindblowing stand-alone high quality film as well. 'Skyfall' gave us such an espionage thriller. But to get such a film, especially we Bond fans need to be more patient dammit.
Here you got it guys. Enough reasons to embrace a November 2015 release. Gary Barber is right. I actually advice him to greenlight a November 2015 release.
And why are you so obsessed with Nolan? Personally I don't even WANT the guy. I want a Bond film by and not Nolans Bond film.
IMO all signs direct towards a 14 release, as it should be.
"they are currently developing a screenplay.." (which basically means, writing the script) - which Logan has already confirmed.. that puts us on track for 2014... remember, preproduction on Bond 24 started during the making of and release of Skyfall.. so it's not like EON has been sitting on their hands this entire time..
but Barber also said that they (EON) plan to announce a new director soon... soon to me, means within a couple months - you don't hire on a director now, and then wait until January 2015 to start principal photography.... again, the only reason they did with Bond 23 and Mendes, was because they had no other choice thanks to MGM's troubles - nothing more nothing less - the extra year was not EON's doing, despite what some people refuse to accept.
so with that being said...
In November, MGM had an investor call (I listened to a replay), The CEO said he was "hopeful" that Bond 24 could come out in '14 but it'd be out in '15 for sure.
On March 19, the CEO made the comments quoted earlier (I listened to that replay also) about Bond 24 coming out within the next three years. He said nothing about 2014 specifically. Of course, 2014 is part of the"within three years" timeframe.
The only for sure trend: MGM has gone from being very specific (in the business plan filed in bankruptcy court) to less specific (contrasting the November and March investor calls). Obviously, MGM's finances are in much better shape and it has more flexibility concerning Bond 24's release date (also it has two more Hobbit movies in the pipeline in the interim).
If you want to listen to the call yourself, go to www.mgm.com. Look for the investors relation icon at the bottom of the screen. Gary Barber's comments about Bond 24 timing occur during the Q and A session, which starts about halfway through.
I think there's no reason to react, to comment so......violently hehe. The only thing you do...is getting irritated by me, which makes you forget writing down a good set of arguments why you are against a November 2015 release :-).
I am not 'obsessed' with Nolan. That's a misinterpretation of things. Yes, I admire him, but that's something different than being obsessed by him :-). My flat is full of Danish design, and movie posters from Nolan are nowhere to be seen. I don't even have Batman sheets @Germanlady :-).
Because foremost I am a Bond fan. Yes, a Bond fan. And everything I post in here is dedicated to that....and not to create some kind of violent takeover from Mr Nolan. Sjees :-).
Also I think Barber's comments are just being overly cautious, he's basically saying a Bond film is coming sometime in the future to appease the investors. I think its safer in these situations to be a little cautious, remember when MGM were issuing their expectations on SF's BO they said the film will likely deliver $800m worlwide even though SF was doing great guns at the time. I think the '3 years' comments are just them being equally as cautious
You do have a point ^
I myself love Nolan because he can handle action way better than Mendes can and the fights are choreographed very well.He comes up with the most unique concepts, handles the most brilliant scripts with hardly any plot holes (more than what I can say for Logan) and comes up with an all round compelling story. His team are very creative.
Now that being said you must realise Nolan has a some what set group of actors he likes to work with .It just doesen't seem likely for him to come in on Craig's tenure.He is also working on interstellar which will mostly turn out to be the same hit that inception was .There's no denying the fact that he's interested to do Bond and Babs also mentioned they would be delighted to have him. In the forseeable future for Craigs remaining 2 or 3 it just doesen't seem possible.
Now jump starting the next Bond with a fresh actor and his crew seems very much likely
Its not that he cannot work outside his collaborators , Take DiCaprio, Nolan worked with him only once and made a hit. Its just that he has a preference. Its something the industry respects.
Honestly speaking last year if someone asked me if Nolan was a good choice . I would say no , he can't handle action as good as Campbell or Forster. After Skyfall came out and I saw how weak the action was. I learnt to stop being very picky and I started thinking at least someone who can do a better job then Mendes.
Judging by how good the Bane vs Batman fights were and the sheer scale of huge mobs clashing together, its evident that Nolan has learnt a thing or two along his action movie career.
Him having a lot of control isn't an issue to be raised as long as he can do a good job but I do agree the action is. I mentioned him because in his last movie he did splendid work on action and was poles apart from Skyfall in terms of action .
Actually the best solution for us Bond fans would be to get a director who would be miles ahead of both Mendes and Nolan, Someone who can do action on the calibre of Campbell or Forster.
I've noticed this quite often, a lot of Bond fans picked Batman Begins as their favourite of the trilogy. My favourite would be TDKR. :P