Regarding MGM finding a partner to produce Bond 23....IMO film companies will be lined up to be a partner in a Bond film; Sony would sign on in a minute so finding a production partner will not be an issue. As far as a script is concerned we really don't know what EON has or does not have. I'm guessing they have at least a concept for Bond 23 and while the public stance of EON was that production was completely halted who knows what was going on behind the scenes plus how long would it take an experienced team of writers to bang out a decent Bond script? As far as casting goes everything I have seen lately in the media is that Craig and Mendes are clear for Bond 23...supporting cast members shouldn't be a problem at all (lots of good charactor actors and beautiful female actors out there who could be villains, henchmen, Bond girls, etc). Bottom line is everything I'm seeing is pointing strongly to a mid to late November 2012 release date. The need for expediency may actually be a good thing....less time to overthink things and maybe force the production team to bring back a bit more of the traditional cinematic Bond.
Thing is, they aren't lining up to co-produce Bond, that's where the problem lies. There is little money in Hollywood lately, and people are being VERY careful with their investments. Dealing with MGM and EON when Bond is concerned isn't the easiest thing, since especially EON are famed for being very difficult. As far as the script, they have very little. They completely stopped working on it in the early summer, when MGM brought someone in who clearly didn't mingle well with the already-appointed crew (Purvis and Wade plus Peter Morgan). And the script was far from ready. There are no officially appointed writers at this point, since everyone that was involved was dropped due to the bankruptcy problem. Writers' contracts aren't like actors' contracts, so they plain stop working when this type of situation happens, and they will need to work out a new deal to get back to work.
You cannot do casting without a script. People need to audition for the part. They don't just hire Bond girls and villains based on "oh you look beautiful, come be a Bond girl, and oh you look devious, come be the villain". ) People audition for the part and that doesn't happen without a script. The process is much longer and much more complicated than you seem to think? Craig is obviously not a casting issue since he is already under contract as the lead, casting regards all the other actors in the movie, and extras. Mendes has got nothing to do with casting, he's (supposedly) the director. But a director is completely useless without a script. So we're back to square one. There's a lot to be done and very little time for it, especially considered the Bond writers say they take a freaking YEAR to pen a script (which is a ridiculously long time, but that is what they normally do).
Which, again, doesn't mean that by some miracle they can't become efficient and write the script in 6 months (which is anyway a VERY generous amount of time, given a television episode of 42 minutes takes maximum two weeks to be written). But it needs to happen really quickly, given everything that needs to be done, and so far there are no signs of it. As things stand, it will take a miracle for Bond 23 to be released in November 2012. However I hope that will be the case. So that Craig gets his last movie and then I can go on and enjoy someone else in the role, hopefully Cavill.
And once again, I really hope Craig doesn't end up like Dalton or Brosnan.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
In Hollywood "money talks and b.s. walks". Bond films are pretty much guaranteed money makers...I still see no reason why there will not be a suitor to partner up with EON and MGM. I'm not sure where this information is coming from. Again, I could be proven dead wrong but everything I'm reading is pointing to a 2012 release date for Bond 23. I hate to say it, but I think some folks here are more interested in seeing Craig gone and ignoring the reality that MGM really needs to move on their slam dunk cash cow projects....which are the "Hobbit" films and Bond 23 to regain some viability. It is comforting to know that Craig will be "allowed" to make one more Bond film so as to not hurt his feelings before being dumped for a younger and taller man (that's me just being a wiseguy no offense intended to Cavill fans....).
You cannot do casting without a script. People need to audition for the part. They don't just hire Bond girls and villains based on "oh you look beautiful, come be a Bond girl, and oh you look devious, come be the villain
Ha, most Bond girls were cast simply for their looks. The fact that so many of them couldnt act at all should be a clue.
You cannot do casting without a script. People need to audition for the part. They don't just hire Bond girls and villains based on "oh you look beautiful, come be a Bond girl, and oh you look devious, come be the villain
Ha, most Bond girls were cast simply for their looks. The fact that so many of them couldnt act at all should be a clue.
) But I never said acting well was the point of the audition. A random beautiful girl won't do for a specific character in the script. They write characters with physical attributes and a certain way of moving/looking at the very least. Whether a Bond girl is Oscar-worthy material or not has little relevance, but for sure she must look the part in a very specific way, and while maybe not being good at delivering lines, she must convey what the script wants from her. Hence why they need a script to do all the casting. That's not only for Bond, that's for any movie or TV show. Everyone, including famous actors, has to show up and audition reading "sides" (sides are portions of script used to cast guest stars for TV shows, or co-starring roles for movies). Until they have a script that at the very least has all the major character penned, they can't cast people. They don't need the final draft of the script to cast, but they sure need a very good portion of it and all the main characters written. So far, per Wilson's own words to CBn as well, nobody is working on the script, that part of the project is "halted" (Wilson's words). They flat- out stopped working on it. I know about this because of being in the environment and dealing with writers/producers in particular. And the fact Wilson even confirmed it publicly speaks volumes about it.
HowardB I, too, think Bond and The Hobbit are the only two guaranteed money makers MGM has. But that isn't sufficient nowadays for people to invest in such a risky situation. MGM is not out of bankruptcy at all, it will take several more months for that to happen. And nobody invests lightly in a project with the company being in such a situation. Add to that that EON are notorious for being really difficult to deal with, and that's why nobody has showed up yet asking to be the 50-50 partner for Bond 23. There really is very little money in Hollywood nowadays. People are being very, very careful. Also most investments are on TV rather than movies. As I said, I think that by some miracle they can STILL get going in time, but the clock is ticking. If nothing is announced by the end of January/mid-February the situation will pretty much start becoming impossible. I think they may still make it, but they need to hurry. And I am not opposed to Craig doing Bond 23 at all, if that happens in due time. I think I'm one of the few Craig non-likers who sees it like that. Which is why I am actually hoping they make it by 2012. For the franchise, and for the fact that the sooner this happens, the sooner we get to move past Craig. So no, I don't want things to stall and hold up. I want this to be done and dealt with ASAP. The situation though at the moment just isn't rosy. Which again, doesn't mean it cannot change soon
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
The odd thing is, there's all this talk about a script, but usually they go and change it big time 2 months before filming begins anyway... I mean, QoS was being rejigged up to the wire, okay, we know how that turned out but even so... CR's doctoring was written with a 28 year old in mind (that's Haggis' contribution) but what gives.
) But I never said acting well was the point of the audition. A random beautiful girl won't do for a specific character in the script. They write characters with physical attributes and a certain way of moving/looking at the very least. Whether a Bond girl is Oscar-worthy material or not has little relevance, but for sure she must look the part in a very specific way, and while maybe not being good at delivering lines, she must convey what the script wants from her.
Yeah cause when I see Denise Richards my mind automatically thinks "Nuclear Scientist" lol
) But I never said acting well was the point of the audition. A random beautiful girl won't do for a specific character in the script. They write characters with physical attributes and a certain way of moving/looking at the very least. Whether a Bond girl is Oscar-worthy material or not has little relevance, but for sure she must look the part in a very specific way, and while maybe not being good at delivering lines, she must convey what the script wants from her.
Yeah cause when I see Denise Richards my mind automatically thinks "Nuclear Scientist" lol
That was exactly my point. She isn't supposed to be believable as a Nuclear Scientist, but as a Bond girl Nuclear Scientist. The point isn't her acting, the point is that Denise Richards conveyed what the script wanted from that Bond girl. If they picked her, it's because she had the specifics they wanted and moved and talked the way they wanted the character to. Otherwise, the world is and was full of many other beautiful girls that they could have picked random. Script writers have specific characters in mind when they write, even if they may not put down all those details on paper, but they have a clear idea how a character should move and behave and talk. That's why casting exists and that's why everyone including famous actors reads sides at auditions and rehearses. If things don't work in rehearsal, they change the cast person and cast another one. Heck, they even change people after they have already filmed pilots for TV shows. Casting isn't a quick process and it is fundamental for a show and/or a movie. And that's why they can't just do it random. They need the main characters written to be able to do it accordingly, and so far they don't have them. That is not to say they cannot do it. They just need to hurry, because the clock is ticking.
The odd thing is, there's all this talk about a script, but usually they go and change it big time 2 months before filming begins anyway... I mean, QoS was being rejigged up to the wire, okay, we know how that turned out but even so... CR's doctoring was written with a 28 year old in mind (that's Haggis' contribution) but what gives.
They change the story, but not the characters... which in fact is the problem they had with CR. Daniel Craig clearly wasn't the right age for the part. But they kept the character the same instead of changing it. Which made little sense. With QoS, well that was just a mess ) And not for the characters (though the two girls IMO were very weakly-written) but for the story and the directing. I just hope they get their stuff together and find this production partner. I want this to be done and dealt with ASAP.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
That was exactly my point. She isn't supposed to be believable as a Nuclear Scientist, but as a Bond girl Nuclear Scientist. The point isn't her acting, the point is that Denise Richards conveyed what the script wanted from that Bond girl. If they picked her, it's because she had the specifics they wanted and moved and talked the way they wanted the character to. Otherwise, the world is and was full of many other beautiful girls that they could have picked random. Script writers have specific characters in mind when they write, even if they may not put down all those details on paper, but they have a clear idea how a character should move and behave and talk. That's why casting exists and that's why everyone including famous actors reads sides at auditions and rehearses. If things don't work in rehearsal, they change the cast person and cast another one. Heck, they even change people after they have already filmed pilots for TV shows. Casting isn't a quick process and it is fundamental for a show and/or a movie. And that's why they can't just do it random. They need the main characters written to be able to do it accordingly, and so far they don't have them. That is not to say they cannot do it. They just need to hurry, because the clock is ticking.
I'm not saying that you don't need a script to cast a movie. I was just making a joke, I didn't want a lecture about the casting process. Besides the "specifics" they wanted from Richards was that she was young, attractive and popular at the time, thats about it. Shes horrible in that movie, that was the only point.I doubt the makers of TWINE wanted her to act badly, lol.
With all this anti Daniel Craig sentiment why does'nt EON just get Clive Owen onboard to please all those James Bond purists out there,and please enough of Henry Cavill,Bond is supposed to look like a seasoned veteran not some preppy student straight outta varsity so please keep that in mind all you Cavill fans out there ...!!! Owen has all the features to appease the Bond purists and the acting ability par none.Please bear in mind all you Cavill promoters out there that Bond is now a seasoned and experienced campaigner not someone starting out from MI6 Academy with boyish looks and charm better suited to an afternoon soap drama...!
With all this anti Daniel Craig sentiment why does'nt EON just get Clive Owen onboard to please all those James Bond purists out there,and please enough of Henry Cavill,Bond is supposed to look like a seasoned veteran not some preppy student straight outta varsity so please keep that in mind all you Cavill fans out there ...!!! Owen has all the features to appease the Bond purists and the acting ability par none.Please bear in mind all you Cavill promoters out there that Bond is now a seasoned and experienced campaigner not someone starting out from MI6 Academy with boyish looks and charm better suited to an afternoon soap drama...!
Owen was never in the running for Bond it was just media speculation whereas Cavill was just beaten to the post by Craig in 2005 and the whole idea of CR was a rookie Bond in his mid to late 20s and as to Owens acting ability, have you seen King Arthur or Duplicity or perhaps Children of Men he is as bland and wooden as Craig.
All of a sudden people are championing Clive Owen for Bond? As I recall back before Craig was cast alot of folks were of the opinion that Owen was not good looking enough and too "working class" for Bond. As for Craig being "wooden" and "bland" I guess one man's wooden and bland is another's "cold, deadly, and charismatic". Oh by the way it's really too bad how MGM and EON had to scrape and beg to get a production partner....as I said, they would be lining up to get a piece of Bond 23 with Sony leading the way and that's exactly what happened. By the way, I don't believe that Henry Cavill playing Superman would automatically rule him out to be Bond someday. Maybe he does a couple Superman film's in a 6-7 year span...which would put him at around 34 and just right for trading in the tights for a tux. By 34 he will have matured just right for at least a four picture run as Bond.....and then Henry and Alessandra can live happily ever after.
All of a sudden people are championing Clive Owen for Bond? As I recall back before Craig was cast alot of folks were of the opinion that Owen was not good looking enough and too "working class" for Bond. As for Craig being "wooden" and "bland" I guess one man's wooden and bland is another's "cold, deadly, and charismatic". Oh by the way it's really too bad how MGM and EON had to scrape and beg to get a production partner....as I said, they would be lining up to get a piece of Bond 23 with Sony leading the way and that's exactly what happened. By the way, I don't believe that Henry Cavill playing Superman would automatically rule him out to be Bond someday. Maybe he does a couple Superman film's in a 6-7 year span...which would put him at around 34 and just right for trading in the tights for a tux. By 34 he will have matured just right for at least a four picture run as Bond.....and then Henry and Alessandra can live happily ever after.
It does make HC less likely in my view for Bond. However as you say by his mid thirties...he also might be less of a pretty boy by then
10years ago, clive owen would have been a good choice, but he is actually older then craig, so unless they do a roger moore type selection, owen wont be bond as we know it, would be a decent villian however
10years ago, clive owen would have been a good choice, but he is actually older then craig, so unless they do a roger moore type selection, owen wont be bond as we know it, would be a decent villian however
With all this anti Daniel Craig sentiment why does'nt EON just get Clive Owen onboard to please all those James Bond purists out there,and please enough of Henry Cavill,Bond is supposed to look like a seasoned veteran not some preppy student straight outta varsity so please keep that in mind all you Cavill fans out there ...!!! Owen has all the features to appease the Bond purists and the acting ability par none.Please bear in mind all you Cavill promoters out there that Bond is now a seasoned and experienced campaigner not someone starting out from MI6 Academy with boyish looks and charm better suited to an afternoon soap drama...!
Owen was never in the running for Bond it was just media speculation whereas Cavill was just beaten to the post by Craig in 2005 and the whole idea of CR was a rookie Bond in his mid to late 20s and as to Owens acting ability, have you seen King Arthur or Duplicity or perhaps Children of Men he is as bland and wooden as Craig.
I have seen The Inside Man and The International where I thought Clive Owen did really well as a leading actor and he wasn't bland at all in fact in The International he really shone as the lead actor with all his human frailty showing thru and as for being too working class Bond is not an aristocrat he is an orphan ...!
I have seen The Inside Man and The International where I thought Clive Owen did really well as a leading actor and he wasn't bland at all in fact in The International he really shone as the lead actor with all his human frailty showing thru and as for being too working class Bond is not an aristocrat he is an orphan ...!
Who said anything about Owen being to working class, Connery was very working class and imo Owen comes across as very middle class and aristocrats can be orphans to as to be an orphan it means both parent have died not that your Oliver Twist.
Btw Fleming wrote Bond as being rather upperclass,what.
I actually was a big supporter of Owen to follow PB as Bond from the time I saw him in "Croupier" and through the BMW ads. I have a pretty good memory (at least longterm) that after PB was sacked by EON and lots of names were being discussed on AJB to be the next Bond, some people did not care for Owen and did in fact feel he was "too working class" and not good looking enough.The only thing that could never be slagged was his stature (around 6'2").
Comments
Thing is, they aren't lining up to co-produce Bond, that's where the problem lies. There is little money in Hollywood lately, and people are being VERY careful with their investments. Dealing with MGM and EON when Bond is concerned isn't the easiest thing, since especially EON are famed for being very difficult. As far as the script, they have very little. They completely stopped working on it in the early summer, when MGM brought someone in who clearly didn't mingle well with the already-appointed crew (Purvis and Wade plus Peter Morgan). And the script was far from ready. There are no officially appointed writers at this point, since everyone that was involved was dropped due to the bankruptcy problem. Writers' contracts aren't like actors' contracts, so they plain stop working when this type of situation happens, and they will need to work out a new deal to get back to work.
You cannot do casting without a script. People need to audition for the part. They don't just hire Bond girls and villains based on "oh you look beautiful, come be a Bond girl, and oh you look devious, come be the villain".
Which, again, doesn't mean that by some miracle they can't become efficient and write the script in 6 months (which is anyway a VERY generous amount of time, given a television episode of 42 minutes takes maximum two weeks to be written). But it needs to happen really quickly, given everything that needs to be done, and so far there are no signs of it. As things stand, it will take a miracle for Bond 23 to be released in November 2012. However I hope that will be the case. So that Craig gets his last movie and then I can go on and enjoy someone else in the role, hopefully Cavill.
And once again, I really hope Craig doesn't end up like Dalton or Brosnan.
Ha, most Bond girls were cast simply for their looks. The fact that so many of them couldnt act at all should be a clue.
HowardB I, too, think Bond and The Hobbit are the only two guaranteed money makers MGM has. But that isn't sufficient nowadays for people to invest in such a risky situation. MGM is not out of bankruptcy at all, it will take several more months for that to happen. And nobody invests lightly in a project with the company being in such a situation. Add to that that EON are notorious for being really difficult to deal with, and that's why nobody has showed up yet asking to be the 50-50 partner for Bond 23. There really is very little money in Hollywood nowadays. People are being very, very careful. Also most investments are on TV rather than movies. As I said, I think that by some miracle they can STILL get going in time, but the clock is ticking. If nothing is announced by the end of January/mid-February the situation will pretty much start becoming impossible. I think they may still make it, but they need to hurry. And I am not opposed to Craig doing Bond 23 at all, if that happens in due time. I think I'm one of the few Craig non-likers who sees it like that. Which is why I am actually hoping they make it by 2012. For the franchise, and for the fact that the sooner this happens, the sooner we get to move past Craig. So no, I don't want things to stall and hold up. I want this to be done and dealt with ASAP. The situation though at the moment just isn't rosy. Which again, doesn't mean it cannot change soon
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Yeah cause when I see Denise Richards my mind automatically thinks "Nuclear Scientist" lol
That was exactly my point. She isn't supposed to be believable as a Nuclear Scientist, but as a Bond girl Nuclear Scientist. The point isn't her acting, the point is that Denise Richards conveyed what the script wanted from that Bond girl. If they picked her, it's because she had the specifics they wanted and moved and talked the way they wanted the character to. Otherwise, the world is and was full of many other beautiful girls that they could have picked random. Script writers have specific characters in mind when they write, even if they may not put down all those details on paper, but they have a clear idea how a character should move and behave and talk. That's why casting exists and that's why everyone including famous actors reads sides at auditions and rehearses. If things don't work in rehearsal, they change the cast person and cast another one. Heck, they even change people after they have already filmed pilots for TV shows. Casting isn't a quick process and it is fundamental for a show and/or a movie. And that's why they can't just do it random. They need the main characters written to be able to do it accordingly, and so far they don't have them. That is not to say they cannot do it. They just need to hurry, because the clock is ticking.
They change the story, but not the characters... which in fact is the problem they had with CR. Daniel Craig clearly wasn't the right age for the part. But they kept the character the same instead of changing it. Which made little sense. With QoS, well that was just a mess
I'm not saying that you don't need a script to cast a movie. I was just making a joke, I didn't want a lecture about the casting process. Besides the "specifics" they wanted from Richards was that she was young, attractive and popular at the time, thats about it. Shes horrible in that movie, that was the only point.I doubt the makers of TWINE wanted her to act badly, lol.
It does make HC less likely in my view for Bond. However as you say by his mid thirties...he also might be less of a pretty boy by then
Btw Fleming wrote Bond as being rather upperclass,what.