Skyfall Co-Writer John Logan Returning For Bond 24 and 25

Skyfall doesn’t hit theaters until Nov. 9, but so far reviews for the 23rd James Bond film have been glowing. That’s why it makes a lot of sense for the folks behind the property to stick to the same formula in the next 007 movie.

One way they’re doing that is by bringing Skyfall co-screenwriter John Logan back to write the scripts for the next two Bond films. The news originally comes from British gossip columnist Baz Bamigboye, who learned that Logan would return to the 007 franchise. The Hollywood Reporter later learned that Logan is actually penning a two-part script that will take place over the next two Bond films and won’t be based on an Ian Fleming novel.

Logan will write these movies solo. He previously had worked alongside Robert Wade and Neal Purvis, the two Bond writers who have worked on the franchise since The World Is Not Enough. Skyfall was Logan’s first 007 film.

For Skyfall, star Daniel Craig, director Sam Mendes and producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson also had a big impact on the script. Somehow we have a feeling some of them will pitch in their two cents this time around, too.

This news comes little over a month after Craig was confirmed for two more Bond movies as well. Bond 24 is expected to hit theaters in fall 2014, and this screenwriter news shows that the series is a priority. However, Mendes has said Skyfall will probably be his only venture into 007 territory.

“It’s been a fantastic experience, but it’s been completely exhausting,” Mendes told Metro UK. “Do I want to do another one? I’m a shadow of my former self. [laughs] No, I don’t know. I felt like everything I wanted to with a Bond movie, I put into this film. So I would have to be convinced that I could do something that I loved and cared about as much if I was to do it again. I think the great risk of repeating oneself is that one doesn’t have the great store of ideas that you have when you first tackle a project.”

Directed by Sam Mendes, Skyfall finds 007′s loyalty to M (Judi Dench) tested as her past comes back to haunt her. When MI6 comes under attack, Bond must track down and destroy the threat, no matter what the personal cost. The film opens in the United Kingdom Oct. 26 and in the United States Nov. 9.

News From Our Partners

Comments

  • Guest

    They should also have Sherlock Homes played by a black actor.

  • Theodore Mullings

    shut up

  • Alison B

    Oooh, topical. Because Sherlock Holmes is SO defined by his race. Funny how you can do almost anything with certain characters, but the second you a – remotely toy with the race of one, some people are up in arms, whining about political correctness rather than thinking about what someone could bring to a role.

  • Bob

    It’s simply because there would be no way to change the race of a popular, well known character without seeming like you’re trying to be “new and exciting.”  Lucy Liu as Watson in “Elementary” is a perfect example.  Why is Watson a woman now?  I mean, its a bit different than just changing skin color because you’re changing the dynamic of a relationship, but still.  They wanted it to be “different.”  Thats it.  And realistically they also wanted it to be different from BBC’s sherlock.

  • Alison B

    You just answered you own question in that it switches up the dynamic a little. It’s nothing different than how Moffat has supposedly been so innovative in bringing Sherlock Holmes to the modern day (when in reality, Sherlock is nothing special), which changes how the character will be interpreted. Making Watson a woman is no different than how, say, Robert Downey Jr has interpreted Holmes to make his interactions with Law’s Watson seem like some manner of long-suffering buddy comedy. 

    I just don’t see the need for knee-jerk reactions to something; Like all the crybabies who were complaining about Elementary, moaning about the network making their own version, when in fact, Elementary seems to have turned out fairly decent. It’s the nature of fans these days to spit at anything they see as remotely derivative. I’ve seen it with the fans of Nolan’s Batman, and god forbid we don’t all hail Moffat’s ‘brilliance’ in Doctor Who and Sherlock. That some of us can’t stand that Who in particular nearly became The River Song Happy Hour these past couple of years is apparently beyond some people.

  • Alison B

    You just answered you own question in that it switches up the dynamic a little. It’s nothing different than how Moffat has supposedly been so innovative in bringing Sherlock Holmes to the modern day (when in reality, Sherlock is nothing special), which changes how the character will be interpreted. Making Watson a woman is no different than how, say, Robert Downey Jr has interpreted Holmes to make his interactions with Law’s Watson seem like some manner of long-suffering buddy comedy. 

    I just don’t see the need for knee-jerk reactions to something; Like all the crybabies who were complaining about Elementary, moaning about the network making their own version, when in fact, Elementary seems to have turned out fairly decent. It’s the nature of fans these days to spit at anything they see as remotely derivative. I’ve seen it with the fans of Nolan’s Batman, and god forbid we don’t all hail Moffat’s ‘brilliance’ in Doctor Who and Sherlock. That some of us can’t stand that Who in particular nearly became The River Song Happy Hour these past couple of years is apparently beyond some people.