James Bond 24 latest

News Simon Brew 18 Feb 2013 - 06:43

As Skyfall arrives on DVD and Blu-ray, what's the current state of James Bond's 24th big screen adventure?

Eon Productions is going to have quite a job repeating the tricky it managed with Skyfall. Released to strong reviews, the film has taken over $1bn at the worldwide box office, and has left the 007 franchise in an extremely strong position.

Towards the end of last year, it was reported that Eon was looking to build on that by getting the next two films moving, with screenwriter John Logan hired to pen both the 24th and 25th James Bond movies. The idea would be that it was a two-part story, possibly shot back to back.

It was the latter part that seemed to put director Sam Mendes off though, it's being reported, with the Skyfall director not keen to devote the next four years of his life to Bond. He still appears to be the leading candidate to direct the next James Bond movie, although he's not officially signed on to do that. And he's apparently not doing so until he has a chance to read Logan's work.

As a consequence of all of this, the two-part story idea has been put on the back burner, and instead the focus is on pressing ahead with James Bond 24. The aim will be to have the film before cameras by the start of next year at the latest, with an end of 2014 release date in mind. Mendes remains in pole position to direct.

More news on it as we have it.


Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Eon denied ever planning to do a two-part story less than a week after the story broke (more than anything the rumour began because the media assumed that because John Logan had signed on for two films, the two films must be connected)

I hope we see the Quatnum arc finished off, Bonds not one for loose ends.

I do not want a two parter. They kind of did that with Quantum of Solace building off of Casino Royale and it was terrible. All Bond movies should be individual stories, though, anyway. You should be able to pick any Bond movie, watch it, and enjoy it without having to watch a bunch of others to get the whole plot.

I finally got round to rewatching Dr No and From Russia with Love this weekend for the first time in years and was pleasantly surprised at how closely the narrative followed on.

I'm used to the movies being standalone, but obviously from the very start this was never case so I don't see why it shouldn't be considered for the new movies.

The reason Skyfall was such an enjoyment was because it was a well thought out movie, fair enough it does have some plot holes, but it was one of the most enjoyable Bond movies to date.

Because it wasn't rushed. 4 years had gone by since Solace when Skyfall came out. Now they want to film it and want it out before the end of 2014. Even with Logan on Script duties, this would be very hard to get a decent movie. Look at the last few years, when big franchises has skimped on the writing we got Transformers 2, Solace, Jack Sparrow show, and Iron man 2. These all had quick turn around sequels that skimped on the writing and even though they made tons of money, they were not any good.

Give Bond 24 another 2 years, release in 2016 and have another kick ass bond movie. 4 years went between each Batman movie and they have been the best superhero trilogy ever.

Skyfall was a truly excellent Bond movie, the best one in years. But I think that was mainly due to Mendes' direction rather than Purvis and Wade's rather weak script, which made little sense at times, had incredibly creepy undertones with Bond's treatment of Severine, and turned out to be a massive shaggy dog story. So a Mendes movie with a new writer excites me.

John Logan re-wrote most of Neal Purvis and Robert Wade's script (so not entirely a new screenwriter)

The 4 year gap had less to do with not rushing the film and more to do with MGM's bankruptcy stopping production of the film for over a year (and then the decision to release the film in 2012 for the 50th Anniversary rather than 2011.)

As for Quantum's 'rushed script' that had less to do with a rushed production and more to do with the Writer's Strike...they were working from a draft script because Paul Haggis didn't finish his final draft before the writer's strike.

The Batman films were released every 4 years because Nolan made a film between each Bat film, if he wanted to he could have made one every two years (instead he made The Prestige and Inception between Bat films) so even using Nolan as an example, he works on a 2 year per film schedule!

John Logan was officially signed on as a screen-writer in September/ October last year, presumably he had already pitched a story concept for the film (he has implied in earlier interviews he did have some he wanted to do), so by October this year he will have had over a year to work on the script (easily enough if he already has a story)

Presuming they start shooting in January 2014 (going by past patterns), that leaves them with at least 3/4 months of Location Scouting and casting (more likely 5/6 months as most Bond films start doing these before a script is finalized) easily enough time to make a quality film! (If they need to delay the film they will, but more likely it will be 3 years instead of 4...remember the longer they wait between films the older Daniel Craig gets!)

I really liked that they kind of reset Bond to the Dr. No days with the wood paneled office and male M and Moneypenny...great nostalgic feel at the end of Skyfall...I say they need to run with that

I expect Bond 24 to be a good movie. Thankfully they abandoned the CR & QoS Jason Bourne-light character and went back to early cinematic James Bond. Was good to see his wit & style back. Daniel Craig is an excellent actor. I'm glad Skyfall let him play with the character.

John Logan is all over the Skyfall DVD extras, so he's hardly just coming to the franchise.

Please can the people involved in the next Bond film make it like a Bond film, and not Spooks. Or a Tv Drama on the BBC. Can the director please leave, and can we get someone in that can give it a sense of fun, and SOME ACTION????

Can they actually spread the budget across the whole film and not the first 10 minutes before the credits???? Since Skyfall made billions, there must be some money to now put some stuff in that wont send you to sleep......

Can they put in some of the things that have made Bond great over the years, like a decent villain, like GOLDFINGER or BLOEFELD????

Can we have three or four exotic locations??? AND NOT THE LONDON TUBE???
Can we also have some sense of fun, and a bit of humour and can it be less grim and dull??

Can we have scenes that have action in, even just a few? And not boring stuff like Bond being shaved, or Bond sitting in an Art Gallery????

Can whoever does the music for it, remember that its a James Bond film and not Batman or Prometheus??? And while he is at it, can we have some more of the ACTUAL BOND THEME in there, maybe at points when there is action??? Thats if they actually decide to put some more action in the next film......

Can they please put in a new BOND car....with a decent car chase??? And not use an Aston Martin from the 60s, that just reminds us of how good it used to be, and depress us that the film we are now watching is very dull, slow, boring and tedious???

Can they use someone to sing the theme tune that can actually sing??? And not a whingy, droning depressing, harpy like Adele or Madonna???????

And can they make the ending, new, original, with lots of action, and a fight etc, and not a Home Alone rip off, or any other film rip off for that matter??? Think about it....Remember the end of Golden Eye with Sean Bean and Brosnan kicking the pants out of each other on a massive radar dish??? Thats just one example...there are lots of others...I could go on....

So please....just make a Bond film that feels like a Bond film....put some fun back into it, and some action. And some glamour...FOR GODS SAKE.

Because if they cant do any of that, they should really not bother....at all.

Fair play to both of you, I get it. But after all the time they had to make a new film, and all the problems, being bankrupt etc, and the best they could do was Skyfall, I still dont get it.
It was lots of things, but it did not feel like a Bond film to me. And the fact they had no money was obvious. The opening is great. I thought that it was going to be a really good film. And then it just stopped and got bogged down and boring after the intro.
It was obvious that the money was all spent on that section and there was very little left afterwards for the rest of it.



Wow!...Had any caffiene today? Or better, yet, a time machine? I thought the film was rather well done and done in a style that will bring new viewers into the franchise that may never have show up before. A new Bond for a new generation. Stop harping about the past. Or just stay home and watch your old DVD's.

The thing I found most revealing about this article was that Sam Mendes was "not keen to devote the next four years of his life to Bond." Not keen to devote the next four years of his life to Bond? When I was growing up Bond was the ultimate. If you're directing Bond films you've already made it! I guess that is why the franchise has been suffering prior to this film. In the old days people made a career out of it, crafting the series like a life-long love and providing a sense of continuity. Now everyone just wants to move on to the next big thing.

I can think of 1Billion re$ons that Sam Mendez will be Back.

Lol...yes I did let the film have it didnt I? i was just very bored and dissapointed by it. I still dont get what all the fuss is about. Becuase I grew up with Roger Moore and got used to the action and big set pieces, when its all taken away it feels a bit flat to me.....
I just cant get into Daniel Craig as Bond. I know some people love him, but I am not one of them. After Skyfall I am going to wait until they replace Daniel Craig to watch again. I just cant believe the hype and love this film got. I am not the only one who thought it was dull so it cant just be me. Any yes I am enjoying my Blurays no end. Because thats what Bond always was for me and not Skyfall.
Thing is, when I was a kid, I found some of my Dads old James Bond books, and started to read them, thinking they would be exciting like the films. I was gutted when I found that they were slow, boring, dry and a bit dull. The books would never have made good films, thats why they changed them so much and took ideas and the character etc, rather than just making the film of the book. Oh well...like you say its back to the Blurays for me....hope my critic amused some of you a little bit at least....

Yes..thats a very good point.

I thought i was the only one! Without getting onto the movies, craigs bond is not the best fighter, best shot, most charming, most witty, most handsome, or the smartest person in his own Films. i am pretty sure i could out smart him. my # 1 employee ( aka henchman ) is an x cage fighter and would destroy craigbond in one punch.

Moore bond would out smart us and kill us brilliantly after sleeping with our wives then say something cheesy about our deaths while sleeping with them again.

Couldn't agree more. I couldn't wipe the smile off my face during that last minute of Skyfall.

lol yep..Moore Bond would do that. Thing is, he looked good on screen. He had a charming good look, a good speaking voice and could carry the action. Craig looks like a turnip crossed with Sid James. His hair is weird, the only thing I get is the girls go mad because he has got blue eyes!!???!!
Thing is I like a lot of the other films Daniel Craig is in, but to me he is just not James Bond material. And after three films with him, its really getting worse. I am just going to wait until he is gone and they cast someone else again. I dont care if he can act, he just does not look right as a screen Bond no matter what anyone says. You need someone who can act , yes thats true, but they have to pull of the charm and smooth sophistication too. He just looks like a back street football hooligan......

Hurry up and finish off the Craig era so that Bond movies can return in style.
Moneypenny was unappealing. Q was unnecessary since there were no gadgets (duh, here's a radio).

The only good line in the movie was "Welcome to Scotland" and Bond didn't say it.
Hardly any action that wasn't as nondescript as a TV episode. No striking set-pieces. No fearsome henchmen for the villain.
One good part: Dench is gone.

no, you do a one part bond movie. and Skyfall was a start but give Daniel Craig a little more character, i really did not like what quantum of solace and casino royale did

When I got into James Bond I started with Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery and then I based a good Bond film off those those guys, I didn't really appreciate Daniel Craig because he had a lack of character, and did your know that Sam Worthington was considered for the part and he would have made a good Bond, though I thought Skyfall was an improvement. I'll watch it of course, just bring back more of the stuff from the older Bonds like a his car, and for crying out loud bring back the cool gadgets. I like the Brosnan movies the best because it was a spy movie/ action movie while the Craig films are just action and no spy.

Just get Craig over with for God's sakes.

Sponsored Links