No Time To Die: Production Diary

1131513161318132013212507

Comments

  • Posts: 15,818
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Glen was a very good Bond director. Of all the ones who did more than one, he’s my favorite after Young and Campbell. Honestly at this point I’d be open to Forster coming back, but I know it won’t happen. I’d rather see him get a second chance than Mendes getting a third.

    One thing I never understood was why, during the Pierce era, the trend was to change directors each film? I understand Campbell didn't want to do TND, but I probably wouldn't mind if Spottiswoode had done another. My main problems with TND were more with the script as opposed to direction.
    I didn't think Forster was that bad either (except for the gunbarrel, but I'm not sure that was his call).
    I'd really prefer a director who doesn't have too much control, otherwise we might get a Bond film that omits the traditional title sequence and theme song.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    TripAces wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I don't think Danny Boyle would ever do Bond.
    But would Bond ever "do" Danny Boyle? :-?
    What makes you think it's his first time? ;)

    So a few posts earlier, you bitched about the "auteur" approach and then just quoted one of those "auteur" films. Classic. The first rule about bashing SF is that you don't get to quote SF. LOL j/k
    What can I say? What happens in Skyfall, stays in Skyfall.

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  • Posts: 11,425
    Is Danny Boyle just another Sam mendes type choice

    No. I’d say he’s a more dynamic and kinetic director. Perhaps a better story teller as well. I think he’d probably do a decent job on Bond but given his previous comments I find it hard to believe he’d do it. I don’t think he has any affection or empathy for Bond. So in that sense it probably wouldn’t be a perfect fit. More like when they cast Forster. He’d approach it as a job to do.

    Like Forster though, he might bring a refreshing lack of baggage and nostalgia.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 2018 Posts: 7,981
    How can it be a brilliantly directed, if it's just another OK adaption?

    Give 5 chefs the same ingredients and you can end up with meals that range from edible to exceptional ; the cook and the director can make a world of difference.

    He may consider the source material OK but what Branagh did with it remarkable

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Glen was a very good Bond director. Of all the ones who did more than one, he’s my favorite after Young and Campbell. Honestly at this point I’d be open to Forster coming back, but I know it won’t happen. I’d rather see him get a second chance than Mendes getting a third.

    One thing I never understood was why, during the Pierce era, the trend was to change directors each film? I understand Campbell didn't want to do TND, but I probably wouldn't mind if Spottiswoode had done another. My main problems with TND were more with the script as opposed to direction.
    I didn't think Forster was that bad either (except for the gunbarrel, but I'm not sure that was his call).
    I'd really prefer a director who doesn't have too much control, otherwise we might get a Bond film that omits the traditional title sequence and theme song.
    TND was not received favourably in comparison to GE. It was considered stale and by the numbers even then. Moreover, I believe it was a troubled production, similar to SP.

    With TWINE, Broccoli started to put her stamp on the series by bringing in the infamous P&W. I can only assume that Apted was considered a better fit for this kind of emotional narrative approach.

    When that failed to resonate critically, I think they decided to go with a more full blown action parody with DAD, and that led to Tamahori (I quite enjoyed the two films he did prior to DAD, namely The Edge and Along Came A Spider).
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 11,425
    Pretty sure they asked Forster if he’d return to do another after QOS. Or am I just imagining it? I don’t think EON wanted all these chops and changes. They asked Campbell to come back several times before CR I seem to recall.

    Variety claims Boyle has always been interested in directing Bond, which is news to me.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/variety.com/2018/film/news/james-bond-25-danny-boyle-director-1202705314/amp/

    From a career perspective would probably be a good move for Boyle as he hasn’t had a hit for a while I don’t think.

    I also thought Spottiswood did a half decent job on TND - ‘best’ of the Brosnan era for my money.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    @Getafix, I was also under the impression they've been interested in Boyle directing for a good decade now, but that he was never interested in doing so. So he either changed his mind or they desperately want him and tossed enough money his way to do so.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It doesn’t ring true to me but who knows. Sounds like when Demange is finally confirmed there will be a strong whiff of ‘sloppy seconds’ around him.
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 5,767
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    Danny Boyle has said on many occasions that he hates working with big budgets, it just does not suit him. I guess they could try a low budget Bond but its hardly likely is it. I have favoured Brannagh since his hugely entertaining Thor. He has proved in the last few years that he can handle large scale movies and he's never reluctant to go out and promote the hell out of them. He has even said in the past that Bond is something he would like to tackle, although i'm not sure he would suit Craig's era as he said Bond should be more fun. He considers Spy Who Loved Me the kind of Bond he enjoys. That makes him fine by me
    There´s been more than one instance of a filmmaker changing his opinion. Hating big budgets hasn´t stopped Boyle so far from using them here and there. And he surely is aware that he could do several smaller films with a paycheck from Eon.

    I never had and still don´t have any doubt that a TSWLM-like Bond film can work with Craig, in fact I still see that direction as a logical consequence of QoS. And I don´t consider SP to be a TSWLM-like Bond fim. CR and QoS had humor befitting Craig, SF and SP didn´t.
    So if Branagh is game, bring him in as director and villain!



    Getafix wrote: »
    Pretty sure they asked Forster if he’d return to do another after QOS. Or am I just imagining it? I don’t think EON wanted all these chops and changes. They asked Campbell to come back several times before CR I seem to recall.
    Eon is so careful not to mention QoS when they speak about recent Bond films, I find it kind of hard to imagine they asked him back. Maybe before or aroung the time of the theatrical release.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I doubt a TSWLM-Bondfilm will suit Craig ... imho the way he had his humorous lines in CR and QoS suited him best but TSWLM hat quite a different tone. Leave those kind of Bond films to someone else
  • Posts: 5,767
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I doubt a TSWLM-Bondfilm will suit Craig ... imho the way he had his humorous lines in CR and QoS suited him best but TSWLM hat quite a different tone. Leave those kind of Bond films to someone else
    Sure such a film shouldn´t have a Moore tone. What I mean is something along the lines of CR, with more bombast and less personal crisis. It wouldn´t need a massive difference from CR to go a long way IMO. Less emotion, but more facial motion. That Kings trailer once again shows easily how well it suits Craig to move his face.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    Just noticed that the new film Boyle is eyeballing would interfere with B25, so even if he is officially offered to direct, he could still opt to go with the other film and be out of the running. Time will tell.
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 1,162
    talos7 wrote: »
    How can it be a brilliantly directed, if it's just another OK adaption?

    Give 5 chefs the same ingredients and you can end up with meals that range from edible to exceptional ; the cook and the director can make a world of difference.

    He may consider the source material OK but what Branagh did with it remarkable

    Was it? That movie managed to scatter its plot from bed to breakfast, which means something with Christie, whose plots belong to the best constructed and coherent in the business. No suspense whatsoever and that melodramatic monologue of Poirot at the end was simply pathetic.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I doubt Boyle is going to do Bond although I wouldn't care either way if he did or didn't.

    We will not see a TSWLM style Bond film for Craig's last. I'm quite certain of that.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Boyle has made some truly great movies, but I've never been a big fan of his, and I don't believe his style fits Bond. I would much rather see Demange direct Bond 25.

    What's truly sad about these most recent rumours is that it seems that despite what some of us were hoping, the reason for this big silence is not that EON wanted to keep the identity of the director a secret for now, the reason is that they STILL haven't hired a director yet.

    What on Earth were BB and MGW doing in the last 27 months?!?!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    talos7 wrote: »
    How can it be a brilliantly directed, if it's just another OK adaption?

    Give 5 chefs the same ingredients and you can end up with meals that range from edible to exceptional ; the cook and the director can make a world of difference.

    He may consider the source material OK but what Branagh did with it remarkable

    Was it? That movie managed to scatter its plot from bad to breakfast, which means something with Christie, whose plots belong to the best constructed and coherent in the business. No suspense whatsoever and that melodramatic monologue of Poirot at the end was simply pathetic.
    I agree. The latest Orient Express adaptation was miserably bad and contained some altered scenes worthy of many cringed faces to make. Loads of melodrama, overdramatic characters, unnecessary additional scenes not present in the book, it was bad. Sorry to say it wasn’t Branagh at his finest, if at all.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    How can it be a brilliantly directed, if it's just another OK adaption?

    Give 5 chefs the same ingredients and you can end up with meals that range from edible to exceptional ; the cook and the director can make a world of difference.

    He may consider the source material OK but what Branagh did with it remarkable

    Was it? That movie managed to scatter its plot from bad to breakfast, which means something with Christie, whose plots belong to the best constructed and coherent in the business. No suspense whatsoever and that melodramatic monologue of Poirot at the end was simply pathetic.
    I agree. The latest Orient Express adaptation was miserably bad and contained some altered scenes worthy of many cringed faces to make. Loads of melodrama, overdramatic characters, unnecessary additional scenes not present in the book, it was bad. Sorry to say it wasn’t Branagh at his finest, if at all.
    I actually enjoyed the latest Orient film, but it isn't a patch on the legendary 1974 classic. Not even worthy of mention in the same sentence. The earlier film drips with suspense, atmosphere and intrigue, and none of that is present in the latest film.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2018 Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    How can it be a brilliantly directed, if it's just another OK adaption?

    Give 5 chefs the same ingredients and you can end up with meals that range from edible to exceptional ; the cook and the director can make a world of difference.

    He may consider the source material OK but what Branagh did with it remarkable

    Was it? That movie managed to scatter its plot from bad to breakfast, which means something with Christie, whose plots belong to the best constructed and coherent in the business. No suspense whatsoever and that melodramatic monologue of Poirot at the end was simply pathetic.
    I agree. The latest Orient Express adaptation was miserably bad and contained some altered scenes worthy of many cringed faces to make. Loads of melodrama, overdramatic characters, unnecessary additional scenes not present in the book, it was bad. Sorry to say it wasn’t Branagh at his finest, if at all.
    I actually enjoyed the latest Orient film, but it isn't a patch on the legendary 1974 classic. Not even worthy of mention in the same sentence. The earlier film drips with suspense, atmosphere and intrigue, and none of that is present in the latest film.
    The production design was great, but that’s all there is to it. It was a soap opera done with a Christie book, and not a good one at that. Even after lowering my expectations I was still left disappointed. Do we really live in the times where audiences want more drama and less authenticity in regard to something? Does everything have to be overtly emotional and overdramatic?
  • Posts: 15,818
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Glen was a very good Bond director. Of all the ones who did more than one, he’s my favorite after Young and Campbell. Honestly at this point I’d be open to Forster coming back, but I know it won’t happen. I’d rather see him get a second chance than Mendes getting a third.

    One thing I never understood was why, during the Pierce era, the trend was to change directors each film? I understand Campbell didn't want to do TND, but I probably wouldn't mind if Spottiswoode had done another. My main problems with TND were more with the script as opposed to direction.
    I didn't think Forster was that bad either (except for the gunbarrel, but I'm not sure that was his call).
    I'd really prefer a director who doesn't have too much control, otherwise we might get a Bond film that omits the traditional title sequence and theme song.
    TND was not received favourably in comparison to GE. It was considered stale and by the numbers even then. Moreover, I believe it was a troubled production, similar to SP.

    With TWINE, Broccoli started to put her stamp on the series by bringing in the infamous P&W. I can only assume that Apted was considered a better fit for this kind of emotional narrative approach.

    When that failed to resonate critically, I think they decided to go with a more full blown action parody with DAD, and that led to Tamahori (I quite enjoyed the two films he did prior to DAD, namely The Edge and Along Came A Spider).

    That's right. TND didn't start principal filming until April and was plagued with troubles. TWINE was really the turning point that evolved into the current era.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    How can it be a brilliantly directed, if it's just another OK adaption?

    Give 5 chefs the same ingredients and you can end up with meals that range from edible to exceptional ; the cook and the director can make a world of difference.

    He may consider the source material OK but what Branagh did with it remarkable

    Was it? That movie managed to scatter its plot from bad to breakfast, which means something with Christie, whose plots belong to the best constructed and coherent in the business. No suspense whatsoever and that melodramatic monologue of Poirot at the end was simply pathetic.
    I agree. The latest Orient Express adaptation was miserably bad and contained some altered scenes worthy of many cringed faces to make. Loads of melodrama, overdramatic characters, unnecessary additional scenes not present in the book, it was bad. Sorry to say it wasn’t Branagh at his finest, if at all.
    I actually enjoyed the latest Orient film, but it isn't a patch on the legendary 1974 classic. Not even worthy of mention in the same sentence. The earlier film drips with suspense, atmosphere and intrigue, and none of that is present in the latest film.
    The production design was great, but that’s all there is to it. It was a soap opera done with a Christie book, and not a good one at that. Even after lowering my expectations I was still left disappointed. Do we really live in the times where audience want more drama and less authenticity in regard to something? Does everything have to be overtly emotional and overdramatic?
    That's an excellent point and you've described the essence of the film perfectly. That's indeed all it was, whereas the earlier film in contrast was beautifully plotted, acted and delivered, with tons of palpable tension and hidden menace.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Hadn’t thought of it like that but it’s true. And they rehashed the TWINE plot for SF.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    How can it be a brilliantly directed, if it's just another OK adaption?

    Give 5 chefs the same ingredients and you can end up with meals that range from edible to exceptional ; the cook and the director can make a world of difference.

    He may consider the source material OK but what Branagh did with it remarkable

    Was it? That movie managed to scatter its plot from bad to breakfast, which means something with Christie, whose plots belong to the best constructed and coherent in the business. No suspense whatsoever and that melodramatic monologue of Poirot at the end was simply pathetic.
    I agree. The latest Orient Express adaptation was miserably bad and contained some altered scenes worthy of many cringed faces to make. Loads of melodrama, overdramatic characters, unnecessary additional scenes not present in the book, it was bad. Sorry to say it wasn’t Branagh at his finest, if at all.
    I actually enjoyed the latest Orient film, but it isn't a patch on the legendary 1974 classic. Not even worthy of mention in the same sentence. The earlier film drips with suspense, atmosphere and intrigue, and none of that is present in the latest film.
    The production design was great, but that’s all there is to it. It was a soap opera done with a Christie book, and not a good one at that. Even after lowering my expectations I was still left disappointed. Do we really live in the times where audience want more drama and less authenticity in regard to something? Does everything have to be overtly emotional and overdramatic?
    That's an excellent point and you've described the essence of the film perfectly. That's indeed all it was, whereas the earlier film in contrast was beautifully plotted, acted and delivered, with tons of palpable tension and hidden menace.
    Precisely.

    The 1974 film was my first exposure to Poirot and I got into the books because of it. It's one of my all-time favourite films and Richard Rodney-Bennett's musical score elevates the film, as well. One of the greatest detective mystery films ever made. And then, there are the David Suchet efforts that are brilliant.

    This one, on the other hand, was degraded by its own over-theatrical dramatist movement. Oh, and lest we forget the "Hercule Poirot Will Return in Death On The Nile" ending scene, it was so badly done it was laughable.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    How can it be a brilliantly directed, if it's just another OK adaption?

    Give 5 chefs the same ingredients and you can end up with meals that range from edible to exceptional ; the cook and the director can make a world of difference.

    He may consider the source material OK but what Branagh did with it remarkable

    Was it? That movie managed to scatter its plot from bad to breakfast, which means something with Christie, whose plots belong to the best constructed and coherent in the business. No suspense whatsoever and that melodramatic monologue of Poirot at the end was simply pathetic.
    I agree. The latest Orient Express adaptation was miserably bad and contained some altered scenes worthy of many cringed faces to make. Loads of melodrama, overdramatic characters, unnecessary additional scenes not present in the book, it was bad. Sorry to say it wasn’t Branagh at his finest, if at all.
    I actually enjoyed the latest Orient film, but it isn't a patch on the legendary 1974 classic. Not even worthy of mention in the same sentence. The earlier film drips with suspense, atmosphere and intrigue, and none of that is present in the latest film.
    The production design was great, but that’s all there is to it. It was a soap opera done with a Christie book, and not a good one at that. Even after lowering my expectations I was still left disappointed. Do we really live in the times where audience want more drama and less authenticity in regard to something? Does everything have to be overtly emotional and overdramatic?
    That's an excellent point and you've described the essence of the film perfectly. That's indeed all it was, whereas the earlier film in contrast was beautifully plotted, acted and delivered, with tons of palpable tension and hidden menace.
    Precisely.

    The 1974 film was my first exposure to Poirot and I got into the books because of it. It's one of my all-time favourite films and Richard Rodney-Bennett's musical score elevates the film, as well. One of the greatest detective mystery films ever made. And then, there are the David Suchet efforts that are brilliant.

    This one, on the other hand, was degraded by its own over-theatrical dramatist movement. Oh, and lest we forget the "Hercule Poirot Will Return in Death On The Nile" ending scene, it was so badly done it was laughable.
    I can relate to your first experience. Mine was with Death on The Nile as a kid on a transatlantic flight. I was riveted by the film. The setting, the style, the atmosphere, the suspense, Niven (smooth as ever), Ustinov, Lansbury, Smith, Chiles, etc. etc. I don't think I slept! I saw Murder on the Orient Express much later and loved it even more. Those three films (including Evil Under The Sun, directed by none other than Guy Hamilton) are just so good.

    Speaking of Poirot, I'd like to see David Suchet in a Bond film one day. I had the privilege of seeing him on stage a few years back in The Last Confession. What an incredible actor. I've never seen any of his Poirot episodes though and perhaps should purchase the entire set.

    I'm still open to Branagh though. I think he'd only take it on if there was a recast.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    How can it be a brilliantly directed, if it's just another OK adaption?

    Give 5 chefs the same ingredients and you can end up with meals that range from edible to exceptional ; the cook and the director can make a world of difference.

    He may consider the source material OK but what Branagh did with it remarkable

    Was it? That movie managed to scatter its plot from bad to breakfast, which means something with Christie, whose plots belong to the best constructed and coherent in the business. No suspense whatsoever and that melodramatic monologue of Poirot at the end was simply pathetic.
    I agree. The latest Orient Express adaptation was miserably bad and contained some altered scenes worthy of many cringed faces to make. Loads of melodrama, overdramatic characters, unnecessary additional scenes not present in the book, it was bad. Sorry to say it wasn’t Branagh at his finest, if at all.
    I actually enjoyed the latest Orient film, but it isn't a patch on the legendary 1974 classic. Not even worthy of mention in the same sentence. The earlier film drips with suspense, atmosphere and intrigue, and none of that is present in the latest film.

    So why bother with it at all?
  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    How can it be a brilliantly directed, if it's just another OK adaption?

    Give 5 chefs the same ingredients and you can end up with meals that range from edible to exceptional ; the cook and the director can make a world of difference.

    He may consider the source material OK but what Branagh did with it remarkable

    Was it? That movie managed to scatter its plot from bad to breakfast, which means something with Christie, whose plots belong to the best constructed and coherent in the business. No suspense whatsoever and that melodramatic monologue of Poirot at the end was simply pathetic.
    I agree. The latest Orient Express adaptation was miserably bad and contained some altered scenes worthy of many cringed faces to make. Loads of melodrama, overdramatic characters, unnecessary additional scenes not present in the book, it was bad. Sorry to say it wasn’t Branagh at his finest, if at all.
    I actually enjoyed the latest Orient film, but it isn't a patch on the legendary 1974 classic. Not even worthy of mention in the same sentence. The earlier film drips with suspense, atmosphere and intrigue, and none of that is present in the latest film.
    The production design was great, but that’s all there is to it. It was a soap opera done with a Christie book, and not a good one at that. Even after lowering my expectations I was still left disappointed. Do we really live in the times where audience want more drama and less authenticity in regard to something? Does everything have to be overtly emotional and overdramatic?
    That's an excellent point and you've described the essence of the film perfectly. That's indeed all it was, whereas the earlier film in contrast was beautifully plotted, acted and delivered, with tons of palpable tension and hidden menace.
    Precisely.

    The 1974 film was my first exposure to Poirot and I got into the books because of it. It's one of my all-time favourite films and Richard Rodney-Bennett's musical score elevates the film, as well. One of the greatest detective mystery films ever made. And then, there are the David Suchet efforts that are brilliant.

    This one, on the other hand, was degraded by its own over-theatrical dramatist movement. Oh, and lest we forget the "Hercule Poirot Will Return in Death On The Nile" ending scene, it was so badly done it was laughable.
    I can relate to your first experience. Mine was with Death on The Nile as a kid on a transatlantic flight. I was riveted by the film. The setting, the style, the atmosphere, the suspense, Niven (smooth as ever), Ustinov, Lansbury, Smith, Chiles, etc. etc. I don't think I slept! I saw Murder on the Orient Express much later and loved it even more. Those three films (including Evil Under The Sun, directed by none other than Guy Hamilton) are just so good.

    Speaking of Poirot, I'd like to see David Suchet in a Bond film one day. I had the privilege of seeing him on stage a few years back in The Last Confession. What an incredible actor. I've never seen any of his Poirot episodes though and perhaps should purchase the entire set.

    I'm still open to Branagh though. I think he'd only take it on if there was a recast.

    Mine was death on the Nile as well and it got me into serious Agatha Christie reading mode to the effect that I have probably have read every Poirot and miss Marple novel of hers.
    To this day I would maintain that she was the greatest mystery crime writer of all time,especially since she gives the reader always a fair chance to solve the problem himself. Unlike Doyle for example.
    I would qualify that statement by noting that this only is true for the books she wrote for,let's say, the end of world war two.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    How can it be a brilliantly directed, if it's just another OK adaption?

    Give 5 chefs the same ingredients and you can end up with meals that range from edible to exceptional ; the cook and the director can make a world of difference.

    He may consider the source material OK but what Branagh did with it remarkable

    Was it? That movie managed to scatter its plot from bad to breakfast, which means something with Christie, whose plots belong to the best constructed and coherent in the business. No suspense whatsoever and that melodramatic monologue of Poirot at the end was simply pathetic.
    I agree. The latest Orient Express adaptation was miserably bad and contained some altered scenes worthy of many cringed faces to make. Loads of melodrama, overdramatic characters, unnecessary additional scenes not present in the book, it was bad. Sorry to say it wasn’t Branagh at his finest, if at all.
    I actually enjoyed the latest Orient film, but it isn't a patch on the legendary 1974 classic. Not even worthy of mention in the same sentence. The earlier film drips with suspense, atmosphere and intrigue, and none of that is present in the latest film.

    So why bother with it at all?
    It's a fair question. Well, I suppose if you've got nothing else to do why not? However, if someone hasn't seen the original, I recommend that one instead.

    My review of the film is below, for anyone interested:
    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/comment/809454/#Comment_809454
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited February 2018 Posts: 4,554
    For the sake of argument, Marc Forster wasn't announced as director of Bond 22(QoS) until June of 2007, only a few months before shooting. And I think second unit filming began the following month.
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 17,295
    TripAces wrote: »
    For the sake of argument, Marc Forster wasn't announced as director of Bond 22 until June of 2007, only a few months before shooting.

    Wouldn't be surprising if that happens again, the way things are progressing now. When should we expect them to begin shooting Bond 25?
  • Posts: 12,271
    I’d actually be ok with a QOS-esque Bond film for Bond 25. It’s Craig’s least emotional installment which is nice and traditional.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited February 2018 Posts: 40,490
    Deadline weighs in:

    http://deadline.com/2018/02/james-bond-danny-boyle-john-hodge-daniel-craig-bond-25-queen-elizabeth-ii-mgm-trainspotting-1202298157/

    Says that apparently Trainspotting scribe John Hodge has been quietly writing his own Bond script, which won't be done for a few months. Broccoli/Wilson could then either decide to go with what he's done, or go with Purvis/Wade's script, and likely a different director.
Sign In or Register to comment.