Hollywood did a new Tarzan in 2016, starring Alexander Skarsgard, Margot Robbie, Chistoph Waltz and Samuel L. Jackson. (It got a wide release but a mention on Twitter as recently at least year brought waves of responses from people who didn't know it existed.) In any event, a "reimagining of Tarzan" with modern sensibilities exists. And it was fine, if (apparently) totally forgettable.
Tarzan has been re-booted, re-imagined, re-invented many times over the years. You had the Johnny Weissmuller "Me Tarzan, you Jane" uneducated borderline savage Tarzan and the later educated, well spoken variations along with differences in the character's backstory.
There's also a Bond connection as Sean Connery played a villain in 1959's Tarzan's Greatest Adventure.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
I enjoyed it more than most, although I was disappointed in the CGI - and (lest we forget) the PC backlash was all over social media at the time. I shudder to imagine what today's thought police will say the next time...as much as I doubt the spinal fortitude of the executive decision-makers with either character.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
True. Although the objections at the time were more along the predictable racial/colonialism lines, which of course is understandable to a degree, but I imagine it will be far more pronounced next time.
I have recently acquired pretty much all of the Tarzan film catalog (on disc) from 1932 onward, and I look forward to seeing Sir Sean's turn as a villain! Apparently he took a certain acting gig with Eon shortly thereafter 😉🍸️
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think the idea a a cash-strapped 00-section and Q-branch is interesting, but I still like Bond's luxurious lifestyle and the cool gadgets. The solution could be Bond coming from money. His parents were well-off, but when they died he didn't immediately get access to the family money. James attends the best schools and universities because his parents went there and his inheritance pays for his education as stated in the will. James Bond grows up among rich people, but he isn't really one of them. But when he turns 18 (or 21) he inherits the family money and invest it well. He starts a career in the navy and becomes a commander. When he joins the MI6 the 00-section is underfunded. Sometimes the section and Q-branch can use a lot of money on an especially important mission or gadgets, but this is rare. When Bond had an Aston Martin, visits exclusive hotels etc. It's mostly Bond spending his own money. Q works on Bond's private car because he often uses it on missions. Now he experiences the opposite of what he did growing up. As a pupil he was cash-strapped among rich people. Now he is well-off, but his job and most of his co-workers isn't. What do you think?
To be honest, I guess I'm not really seeing much in the way of story potential there. He'd still be going on missions facing off against super rich people? Because that's kind of what Bond films are about- all of the opulence. If his colleagues resented him because he has a bit of cash.. well he barely spends any time in the office in these films and he tends to work alone in the field, so we wouldn't actually be seeing much in the way of ramifications- I'm not sure what it would add..?
The stories shouldn't be about this dynamic. It's more of a background flavour. It gives us a 00-section and Q-branch that has to think outside the box and has an underdog quality. Not underdog when it comes to skills and qualifications, but when it comes to financing. This could be fresh ad interesting. At the same times we get to see Bond in a tux, driving his Aston Martin visiting casinos and luxury hotels.
The overall problem with a longer range strategic reinvention of Bond and his world is that our real world keeps reinventing itself sooner - rapidly - in ever more alarming ways: filmmakers' fermenting ideas are likely to be overtaken quickly by geopolitical events.
That's always going to be a challenge. But what I think might work is if we didn't get a series of new films starring the same actor as Bond. The idea of using the same actor over and over again essentially stems from the B movie tradition: it's something that needn't be considered sacrosant anymore; therein's the reinvention.
These days, having the same actor as Bond would inevitably mean an 'arc' - with all the un-Bondian baggage that might entail (again!) The best way to avoid this and recapture the spirit of Bond in the 60s and 70s - if that was considered desirable - might be, ironically, to make a series of Bond films each starring a different big name actor for a one-off appearance in the part. If there was to be any recurring casting at all, perhaps confine it to the MI6 supporting characters or, say, to Leiter. Or even a new, recurring Blofeld. (That would be a neat switch to the default arrangement in the original cycle of Bond films: have Blofeld played by the same actor each time but aim to change up Bond.)
Having a new Bond actor in each film would be good for marketing because every film would feel like a 'first night'. It might mean that stars like Idris Elba or Tom Hardy - great actors too old to commit to a series of films in the part - could perhaps at least do one each. It'd be important that there should be no nonsense with reboots, origins stories, or in-world explanations as to Bond's changing face: each time we'd just be plunged straight into it. Origins stories have been done to death by now in other franchises and anyway Bond has also done this already.
The actors' brief would be to play 'generic Bond' but to bring to it their own individual, performative sense of style. And that would start with 'their' gunbarrel - formatted in the once customary way. Bond would have no history other than that, perhaps, he was briefly married once "but it was a long time ago". Bond gets the girl (woman) at the end of each movie - a different woman each time - and for anyone who might have a problem with the idea of Bond as a serial womaniser, breaking off relationships between movies, they could at least console themselves with the idea that any given girl was for 'that Bond' only.
The reason this might work is because the idea of Bond is still bigger than any of the big name stars that might be happy to consider a one-off appearance as OO7 - probably a wider and more diverse range of top or burgeoning talent than would be potentially available for a 10-20 year commitment. Also, there could be shorter gaps between new movies because it wouldn't be a case anymore of one lead actor needing to rest or do other projects between Bonds, or petitioning to 'develop' the franchise with a thespian's agenda; it might even be possible to have different production teams working simultaneously on multiple Bond films in different stages of production - remodelling along the lines of the old studio system.
Sorry if anyone has already suggested the same idea in an earlier post somewhere. I'd go so far as to say that this could be the only sustainable way forward, unless reinventing Bond means turning it into something basically unrecognisable.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
I'm not convinced. Actors like Idris Elba and Tom Hardy may be too famous for the role, and especially by doing just one Bond the actor won't be associated with James Bond. I think we risk people refering to Bond26 as "the new Tom Hardy movie" and Bond27 "the next Idris Elba movie".
I also wonder if EON will be tempted to experiment too much if they start hiring a new actor for every film, and for example make Bond a woman for a movie.
I see both the producers will be less likely to try to make an arc for Bond like they did with CraigBond. But at the same time the risk will most likely to see this as a confirmation of the code name theory.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
My expectations for a new Bond actor, these days, have run the gamut. I'm still convinced Tom Hiddleston could have given the role a good twist, but it seems he's every bit as much 'past it' as Cavill. Lately, I've settled on the notion that Aaron Taylor-Johnson seems ripe for the picking.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I rather like this idea of a series of one-offs. It would provide maximum flexibility, particularly since they only make a film every 5-6 years at this point. If they plan to stick to that pace, what on earth is the upside of using the same actor?
I liked Hiddleston too, especially when it was very much in doubt whether Craig was coming back for one more. I liked Hiddleston's ability to turn on a dime from cultured and charming to a ruthless killer would have been a nice fit for Bond. I like Aaron Taylor-Johnson for Bond, but is that really even "a thing" given his casting as the lead in a Marvel film.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
Well, that's a good question. I have utterly disconnected from Disney/Marvel, so I didn't know he had a Marvel gig. But given the way those are face-planting at the box office these days, he might still be available, haha.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I can see some positives and negatives to your suggestion @Shady Tree
Watching a recent interview with Idris Elba, I can't believe how slowly the guy ages! He still looks great and I think would work well for just one film. I imagine viewers and the press would rave about his one and done and as being the best since Connery.
Hiddleston still has it in him but will probably look too old in a few years for a second film. Would I rather get a single Bond film now with either of the above actors, than a three film arc with some of the other (questionable) names mentioned, then definitely!
Having a different actor every film might make it easier to produce them quicker without having to worry about the incumbent's availability for that particular year.
I agree with @Number24 that it does open it up to having less agreeable actors (IMO) such as a woman or someone not really fitting the traditional description in any way, just as an experiment and to be a bit edgy, as they only have to commit to the actor for one film.
Overall though my preference is I just want to see a Bond film with a good traditional style Bond actor over three or four stand alone films, but three or four films with a personal arc, over a fifteen year period.. No thanks.
Yes, although my preference would be for one actor in multiple movies over a shortish time period, if the producers are going to take so long over production then I think @Shady Tree has a good shout on about one film / one actor.
Might work but drawback is that each film is a standalone, with no particular need to see the next one. No way of browbeating an audience into accepting an actor, because if they don't like the look of it, or the actor, they'll say 'Well, I wait til I see who they cast next time.' No brand loyalty from it.
Perhaps the Indiana Jones template for the 1980s might be used for an actor? Just the three movies, stretching it to a fourth.... I caught Ford in the second Jack Ryan film in the early 90s I think and he looked like he could have done Indiana Jones then, instead of course we had to wait until he really was too old, and twice!
I do think the whole woke thing has to settle before the next one begins. And referring to another thread, I do feel Nolan is too heavy a director for Bond, too charmless. Impressive, but... I can't think of many laughs in his films.
Yes, a reason why they pick an actor knocking on a bit - if they are a big hit and go the distance, the studio has to pay out shedloads after the third film. But if they're approaching 50, they can be pensioned off easily enough. Craig got 5 but they really liked him.
According to DeuxMoi (the same people who revealed that Barry Keoghan was the Joker and the whole cast of White Lotus 3) it's between Jacob Elordi, Callum Turner and ATJ....I don't like Callum Turner tbh
James Bond producer Barbara Broccoli told Deadline an upsetting update about the return of the movie franchise after Daniel Craig's blasting exit in 2021’s No Time to Die.
The producer said, “There’s nothing I can tell you about the next Bond film. There’s nothing, nothing is happening yet”.
Here's the link to the former The Sun columnist Baz Bamigboye's Deadline story where the comments originated. There's some more Bond related comments. There's no mention of 2026.
The story, about a BFI bash for Christopher Nolan, saw UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak make a joke during his speech about being available for the Bond role and so BB may have felt a bit cornered. Baz Bamigboye posted this video of Sunak's joke
I agree with Gala Brand, if I was Amazon I'd be livid that after buying MGM in May 2022 for $8.5 BILLION, I'd have to wait four years, potentially, for the diamond in the MGM crown to do something.
Baz also asked BB about Denis Villeneuve for Bond26 and BB evaded the question.
Bas also spoke to Denis Villeneuve and he was very positive, but as we know, and is on the other Bond26 thread about directors, his next film is Cleopatra, then he is expected to make Rendezvous with Rama or Dune Messiah, so I can't see him making Bond26.
Filming stopped on NTTD in December 2019 and it was supposed to be released in April 2020. Job done, time for BB and MGW to put their feet up. Almost four years on we're told nothing is happening. And after you've killed off the main character.
BB's comments also fly in the face of what she said before about reinvention which led me to start this thread in June 2022, and that was another Deadline story.
The gap between Bond25 and Bond26 is getting ridiculous. After the November 2008 release of QoS, Sam Mendes was named Bond23 director in January 2010, although production didn't start until the end of 2011 but that gap was due to MGM's financial problems. The point is Bond23 had a director 14 months after QoS' release.
The gap between Skyfall and Spectre was three years, which I think is what it should be with the way Hollywood works now.
The gap between Spectre and NTTD saw 21 months after Spectre's release that DC said he would return to play Bond again (August 2017) and 9 months later in May 2018, Danny Boyle was announced as the director. So, a gap of 30 months, 2.5 years, between Spectre's release and solid news for Bond25. Actually not as bad as one might think.
The gap between DAD's release and DC being announced as the new Bond was almost 2 years 11 months. The gap between DAD's release and CR's title being revealed and Martin Campbell named as director was 26 months.
We're now 28 months after the October 2021 release of NTTD and we have nothing and we're being told nothing is happening. In just eight weeks there will have been a longer gap than the one between Spectre's release and NTTD getting its first director. If we don't get Bond26 until November 2026, the gap since NTTD will have been only 16 months shorter than the gap between June 1989's License to Kill and November 1995's Goldeneye. Madness.
Why on earth would Barbara Broccoli drop any Bond 26 info while attending an unrelated event? This non-news cycle we all gleefully take part in is kind of silly.
Both films were written by John Logan, with help from Purvis & Wade. Logan is to blame for Spectre's problems, he wanted Blofeld to be an African woman and that was rejected and in an early draft he had nonsense like Q and 007 being locked inside a hotbox in Blofeld's crater. He also had a ludicrous game of cards between Bond and Blofeld, that can be found in the Sony hack leaked scripts.
P&W and British writer Jez Butterworth had to save the script and that was the film we got.
Can I humbly recommend to you my SPECTRE Improved script. Free to view or download.
Comments
Hollywood did a new Tarzan in 2016, starring Alexander Skarsgard, Margot Robbie, Chistoph Waltz and Samuel L. Jackson. (It got a wide release but a mention on Twitter as recently at least year brought waves of responses from people who didn't know it existed.) In any event, a "reimagining of Tarzan" with modern sensibilities exists. And it was fine, if (apparently) totally forgettable.
Tarzan has been re-booted, re-imagined, re-invented many times over the years. You had the Johnny Weissmuller "Me Tarzan, you Jane" uneducated borderline savage Tarzan and the later educated, well spoken variations along with differences in the character's backstory.
There's also a Bond connection as Sean Connery played a villain in 1959's Tarzan's Greatest Adventure.
I enjoyed it more than most, although I was disappointed in the CGI - and (lest we forget) the PC backlash was all over social media at the time. I shudder to imagine what today's thought police will say the next time...as much as I doubt the spinal fortitude of the executive decision-makers with either character.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
True. Although the objections at the time were more along the predictable racial/colonialism lines, which of course is understandable to a degree, but I imagine it will be far more pronounced next time.
I have recently acquired pretty much all of the Tarzan film catalog (on disc) from 1932 onward, and I look forward to seeing Sir Sean's turn as a villain! Apparently he took a certain acting gig with Eon shortly thereafter 😉🍸️
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think the Skarsgård Tarzan movie was pretty good.
Nothing beats Sir Roger's Tarzan call and vine swing during Octopussy.
🥴 Or rather, everything beats it 🍸
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think Roger's stuntman and the stock footage of a Tarzan yell did a great job!
Yes, I'm quoting myself ....
I think the idea a a cash-strapped 00-section and Q-branch is interesting, but I still like Bond's luxurious lifestyle and the cool gadgets. The solution could be Bond coming from money. His parents were well-off, but when they died he didn't immediately get access to the family money. James attends the best schools and universities because his parents went there and his inheritance pays for his education as stated in the will. James Bond grows up among rich people, but he isn't really one of them. But when he turns 18 (or 21) he inherits the family money and invest it well. He starts a career in the navy and becomes a commander. When he joins the MI6 the 00-section is underfunded. Sometimes the section and Q-branch can use a lot of money on an especially important mission or gadgets, but this is rare. When Bond had an Aston Martin, visits exclusive hotels etc. It's mostly Bond spending his own money. Q works on Bond's private car because he often uses it on missions. Now he experiences the opposite of what he did growing up. As a pupil he was cash-strapped among rich people. Now he is well-off, but his job and most of his co-workers isn't. What do you think?
To be honest, I guess I'm not really seeing much in the way of story potential there. He'd still be going on missions facing off against super rich people? Because that's kind of what Bond films are about- all of the opulence. If his colleagues resented him because he has a bit of cash.. well he barely spends any time in the office in these films and he tends to work alone in the field, so we wouldn't actually be seeing much in the way of ramifications- I'm not sure what it would add..?
The stories shouldn't be about this dynamic. It's more of a background flavour. It gives us a 00-section and Q-branch that has to think outside the box and has an underdog quality. Not underdog when it comes to skills and qualifications, but when it comes to financing. This could be fresh ad interesting. At the same times we get to see Bond in a tux, driving his Aston Martin visiting casinos and luxury hotels.
The overall problem with a longer range strategic reinvention of Bond and his world is that our real world keeps reinventing itself sooner - rapidly - in ever more alarming ways: filmmakers' fermenting ideas are likely to be overtaken quickly by geopolitical events.
That's always going to be a challenge. But what I think might work is if we didn't get a series of new films starring the same actor as Bond. The idea of using the same actor over and over again essentially stems from the B movie tradition: it's something that needn't be considered sacrosant anymore; therein's the reinvention.
These days, having the same actor as Bond would inevitably mean an 'arc' - with all the un-Bondian baggage that might entail (again!) The best way to avoid this and recapture the spirit of Bond in the 60s and 70s - if that was considered desirable - might be, ironically, to make a series of Bond films each starring a different big name actor for a one-off appearance in the part. If there was to be any recurring casting at all, perhaps confine it to the MI6 supporting characters or, say, to Leiter. Or even a new, recurring Blofeld. (That would be a neat switch to the default arrangement in the original cycle of Bond films: have Blofeld played by the same actor each time but aim to change up Bond.)
Having a new Bond actor in each film would be good for marketing because every film would feel like a 'first night'. It might mean that stars like Idris Elba or Tom Hardy - great actors too old to commit to a series of films in the part - could perhaps at least do one each. It'd be important that there should be no nonsense with reboots, origins stories, or in-world explanations as to Bond's changing face: each time we'd just be plunged straight into it. Origins stories have been done to death by now in other franchises and anyway Bond has also done this already.
The actors' brief would be to play 'generic Bond' but to bring to it their own individual, performative sense of style. And that would start with 'their' gunbarrel - formatted in the once customary way. Bond would have no history other than that, perhaps, he was briefly married once "but it was a long time ago". Bond gets the girl (woman) at the end of each movie - a different woman each time - and for anyone who might have a problem with the idea of Bond as a serial womaniser, breaking off relationships between movies, they could at least console themselves with the idea that any given girl was for 'that Bond' only.
The reason this might work is because the idea of Bond is still bigger than any of the big name stars that might be happy to consider a one-off appearance as OO7 - probably a wider and more diverse range of top or burgeoning talent than would be potentially available for a 10-20 year commitment. Also, there could be shorter gaps between new movies because it wouldn't be a case anymore of one lead actor needing to rest or do other projects between Bonds, or petitioning to 'develop' the franchise with a thespian's agenda; it might even be possible to have different production teams working simultaneously on multiple Bond films in different stages of production - remodelling along the lines of the old studio system.
Sorry if anyone has already suggested the same idea in an earlier post somewhere. I'd go so far as to say that this could be the only sustainable way forward, unless reinventing Bond means turning it into something basically unrecognisable.
I'm not convinced. Actors like Idris Elba and Tom Hardy may be too famous for the role, and especially by doing just one Bond the actor won't be associated with James Bond. I think we risk people refering to Bond26 as "the new Tom Hardy movie" and Bond27 "the next Idris Elba movie".
I also wonder if EON will be tempted to experiment too much if they start hiring a new actor for every film, and for example make Bond a woman for a movie.
I see both the producers will be less likely to try to make an arc for Bond like they did with CraigBond. But at the same time the risk will most likely to see this as a confirmation of the code name theory.
My expectations for a new Bond actor, these days, have run the gamut. I'm still convinced Tom Hiddleston could have given the role a good twist, but it seems he's every bit as much 'past it' as Cavill. Lately, I've settled on the notion that Aaron Taylor-Johnson seems ripe for the picking.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I rather like this idea of a series of one-offs. It would provide maximum flexibility, particularly since they only make a film every 5-6 years at this point. If they plan to stick to that pace, what on earth is the upside of using the same actor?
Planning on making movies only every 5-6 years isn't sustainable in the long run. Even for James Bond that's not really a business plan in my opinion.
I liked Hiddleston too, especially when it was very much in doubt whether Craig was coming back for one more. I liked Hiddleston's ability to turn on a dime from cultured and charming to a ruthless killer would have been a nice fit for Bond. I like Aaron Taylor-Johnson for Bond, but is that really even "a thing" given his casting as the lead in a Marvel film.
Well, that's a good question. I have utterly disconnected from Disney/Marvel, so I didn't know he had a Marvel gig. But given the way those are face-planting at the box office these days, he might still be available, haha.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I can see some positives and negatives to your suggestion @Shady Tree
Watching a recent interview with Idris Elba, I can't believe how slowly the guy ages! He still looks great and I think would work well for just one film. I imagine viewers and the press would rave about his one and done and as being the best since Connery.
Hiddleston still has it in him but will probably look too old in a few years for a second film. Would I rather get a single Bond film now with either of the above actors, than a three film arc with some of the other (questionable) names mentioned, then definitely!
Having a different actor every film might make it easier to produce them quicker without having to worry about the incumbent's availability for that particular year.
I agree with @Number24 that it does open it up to having less agreeable actors (IMO) such as a woman or someone not really fitting the traditional description in any way, just as an experiment and to be a bit edgy, as they only have to commit to the actor for one film.
Overall though my preference is I just want to see a Bond film with a good traditional style Bond actor over three or four stand alone films, but three or four films with a personal arc, over a fifteen year period.. No thanks.
Yes, although my preference would be for one actor in multiple movies over a shortish time period, if the producers are going to take so long over production then I think @Shady Tree has a good shout on about one film / one actor.
Might work but drawback is that each film is a standalone, with no particular need to see the next one. No way of browbeating an audience into accepting an actor, because if they don't like the look of it, or the actor, they'll say 'Well, I wait til I see who they cast next time.' No brand loyalty from it.
Perhaps the Indiana Jones template for the 1980s might be used for an actor? Just the three movies, stretching it to a fourth.... I caught Ford in the second Jack Ryan film in the early 90s I think and he looked like he could have done Indiana Jones then, instead of course we had to wait until he really was too old, and twice!
I do think the whole woke thing has to settle before the next one begins. And referring to another thread, I do feel Nolan is too heavy a director for Bond, too charmless. Impressive, but... I can't think of many laughs in his films.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I belive the standard contract for actor playing bond is three movies with the option for number four. After that every movie is negatiated.
Yes, a reason why they pick an actor knocking on a bit - if they are a big hit and go the distance, the studio has to pay out shedloads after the third film. But if they're approaching 50, they can be pensioned off easily enough. Craig got 5 but they really liked him.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
According to DeuxMoi (the same people who revealed that Barry Keoghan was the Joker and the whole cast of White Lotus 3) it's between Jacob Elordi, Callum Turner and ATJ....I don't like Callum Turner tbh
I find Turner to be the most interesting of the three, actually. There’s something Fleming-esque about him.
James Bond producer Barbara Broccoli told Deadline an upsetting update about the return of the movie franchise after Daniel Craig's blasting exit in 2021’s No Time to Die.
The producer said, “There’s nothing I can tell you about the next Bond film. There’s nothing, nothing is happening yet”.
No Bond until 2026 at the earliest.
I bet Amazon is really happy about buying MGM.
https://www.geo.tv/latest/531417-james-bond-producer-talks-renewal-and-modernization-of-007-series
Here's the link to the former The Sun columnist Baz Bamigboye's Deadline story where the comments originated. There's some more Bond related comments. There's no mention of 2026.
The story, about a BFI bash for Christopher Nolan, saw UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak make a joke during his speech about being available for the Bond role and so BB may have felt a bit cornered. Baz Bamigboye posted this video of Sunak's joke
https://x.com/BazBam/status/1758003435897586002?s=20
I agree with Gala Brand, if I was Amazon I'd be livid that after buying MGM in May 2022 for $8.5 BILLION, I'd have to wait four years, potentially, for the diamond in the MGM crown to do something.
Baz also asked BB about Denis Villeneuve for Bond26 and BB evaded the question.
Bas also spoke to Denis Villeneuve and he was very positive, but as we know, and is on the other Bond26 thread about directors, his next film is Cleopatra, then he is expected to make Rendezvous with Rama or Dune Messiah, so I can't see him making Bond26.
Filming stopped on NTTD in December 2019 and it was supposed to be released in April 2020. Job done, time for BB and MGW to put their feet up. Almost four years on we're told nothing is happening. And after you've killed off the main character.
BB's comments also fly in the face of what she said before about reinvention which led me to start this thread in June 2022, and that was another Deadline story.
The gap between Bond25 and Bond26 is getting ridiculous. After the November 2008 release of QoS, Sam Mendes was named Bond23 director in January 2010, although production didn't start until the end of 2011 but that gap was due to MGM's financial problems. The point is Bond23 had a director 14 months after QoS' release.
The gap between Skyfall and Spectre was three years, which I think is what it should be with the way Hollywood works now.
The gap between Spectre and NTTD saw 21 months after Spectre's release that DC said he would return to play Bond again (August 2017) and 9 months later in May 2018, Danny Boyle was announced as the director. So, a gap of 30 months, 2.5 years, between Spectre's release and solid news for Bond25. Actually not as bad as one might think.
The gap between DAD's release and DC being announced as the new Bond was almost 2 years 11 months. The gap between DAD's release and CR's title being revealed and Martin Campbell named as director was 26 months.
We're now 28 months after the October 2021 release of NTTD and we have nothing and we're being told nothing is happening. In just eight weeks there will have been a longer gap than the one between Spectre's release and NTTD getting its first director. If we don't get Bond26 until November 2026, the gap since NTTD will have been only 16 months shorter than the gap between June 1989's License to Kill and November 1995's Goldeneye. Madness.
Why on earth would Barbara Broccoli drop any Bond 26 info while attending an unrelated event? This non-news cycle we all gleefully take part in is kind of silly.
"The gap between Skyfall and Spectre was three years, which I think is what it should be with the way Hollywood works now."
Yeah, but sadly that schedule resulted in SPECTRE.
Both films were written by John Logan, with help from Purvis & Wade. Logan is to blame for Spectre's problems, he wanted Blofeld to be an African woman and that was rejected and in an early draft he had nonsense like Q and 007 being locked inside a hotbox in Blofeld's crater. He also had a ludicrous game of cards between Bond and Blofeld, that can be found in the Sony hack leaked scripts.
P&W and British writer Jez Butterworth had to save the script and that was the film we got.
Can I humbly recommend to you my SPECTRE Improved script. Free to view or download.
https://www.ajb007.co.uk/discussion/comment/1063561#Comment_1063561