Craig denies two part Bond
Daniel Craig has come out and denied that there will be a two part Bond film to follow Skyfall despite the recent story that John Logan pitched his idea of a two part sequel to the production team and that they appear to have said yes.
Of course no one really knows what's going on in a project at any time but I would say the least likely out of the big names on a project to know who has pitched and potentially is writing scripts is the lead actor.
I'm sure that the lead actor of the Bond series is probably more involved than any other lead actor, particularly because it's a franchise that relies on him being there, well there for the next two films anyway. However the people who are the important ones are the producers and the writer who is asked to write the films.
Let's also realise what the process is. I don't turn up on a doorstep and say "Oi! I have a great idea for a story for a film, here's the pitch..." two minutes later they say yes and you're writing the films. Perhaps there are a few steps in between? Well there's a treatment to be written and we know that there are a high percentage of films that move onto a second writer, or a third, or...
"It's impossible to do a two parter, I heard that someone was talking about that we're doing a two parter, but that's the first I've heard about it. We can only do them one at a time, they take six months to shoot. You can't write one movie thinking about the next. All we're trying to do is get the next one sorted out and it'll stand on its own and if I'm able I'll do another one after that."
Someone better tell all the films that have made two part, and more, stories. Quick tell Peter Jackson his films are about to flop and Lord of the Rings were impossible. Bond isn't Tolstoy and there are plenty of films out there that have been made into two parts.
Personally I think what Craig is replying to is the question of filming them back to back, and that is a leap considering the talk is at the pre-scripting stage. Making a two part film story does not mean that they get to be made back to back, it means that a story arcs across both films although there is a natural ending to each of them.
Remember how Casino Royale (Filmstalker review) finished? That was a self contained film that hinted at a two part story line and moved onto the next film, in fact Quantum of Solace (Filmstalker review) did the same thing and while it offered a conclusion the truth to the organisation behind events and the death of Bond's lady friend was still to be revealed in a third film. Imagine that Solace didn't have a terrible bad guy and a non-existent ending then we might have been looking at a third in the proposed trilogy.
It is possible. It would even be possible back to back, but I agree with Craig here if this was what he was really saying, I don't think a back to back could be achieved with MGM the way it is and with the recent history of Bond. A two part story could work but it will have to be written beforehand, the director signed up for two, and the first one successful enough to pay for the second, Skyfall (Filmstalker review) has already shown Bond can still be successful with the right team on board.
No, not impossible at all. However the question still remains, will the producers take a chance again like they did with Royale and Solace?