› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…130131133135136…2507

Comments

  • CatchingBulletsCatchingBullets facebook.com/catchingbullets
    Posts: 292
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    re: The Silent Storm and Radiator

    In movies, those credited as "executive producers" are not the primary producers. With SPECTRE, Broccoli and Wilson were producers, and Callum McDougall was executive producer (he also doubled as unit production manager). Going further back into Bond history, Michael G. Wilson was executive producer of Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy but he was not the primary producer (Albert R. Broccoli was) of the three.

    On The Silent Storm, Broccoli and Wilson were among 12 executive producers. On Radiator, they were among eight executive producers.

    Put another way, Broccoli and Wilson were involved with both movies. But they were not the primary producers of either.

    Full cast and crew of Radiator:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4028876/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

    Full cast and crew of The Silent Storm:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2923780/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

    The differences between "producer", "co-producer", " and "executive producer" are manifold and differ from project to project. An exec doesn't always take a backseat role nor is a "co-producer" working any less on a project.

    I do know that, in the example of THE SILENT STORM, Barbara Broccoli was on set and on location for the entire Scottish shoot - offering morale support, practical solutions, her experience (which is creatively redundant if one cannot use it to help others) and another hand to carry those kit boxes up a mountain. Likewise, there are more producers on a Bond film that get any main credit - people behind the scenes who equally produce any given 007 entry. Michael Deeley (BLADE RUNNER, THE DEER HUNTER) was asked at an event last year "what does a producer do?". His correct answer was "they allow a movie to happen". The credit and how it is labelled is often nothing to do with the effort that goes into it. Getting a movie to happen - way before a single frame is shot - is a lengthy, very laborious process.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    CatchingBullets wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    re: The Silent Storm and Radiator

    In movies, those credited as "executive producers" are not the primary producers. With SPECTRE, Broccoli and Wilson were producers, and Callum McDougall was executive producer (he also doubled as unit production manager). Going further back into Bond history, Michael G. Wilson was executive producer of Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy but he was not the primary producer (Albert R. Broccoli was) of the three.

    On The Silent Storm, Broccoli and Wilson were among 12 executive producers. On Radiator, they were among eight executive producers.

    Put another way, Broccoli and Wilson were involved with both movies. But they were not the primary producers of either.

    Full cast and crew of Radiator:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4028876/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

    Full cast and crew of The Silent Storm:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2923780/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

    The differences between "producer", "co-producer", " and "executive producer" are manifold and differ from project to project. An exec doesn't always take a backseat role nor is a "co-producer" working any less on a project.

    I do know that, in the example of THE SILENT STORM, Barbara Broccoli was on set and on location for the entire Scottish shoot - offering morale support, practical solutions, her experience (which is creatively redundant if one cannot use it to help others) and another hand to carry those kit boxes up a mountain. Likewise, there are more producers on a Bond film that get any main credit - people behind the scenes who equally produce any given 007 entry. Michael Deeley (BLADE RUNNER, THE DEER HUNTER) was asked at an event last year "what does a producer do?". His correct answer was "they allow a movie to happen". The credit and how it is labelled is often nothing to do with the effort that goes into it. Getting a movie to happen - way before a single frame is shot - is a lengthy, very laborious process.

    True. The business side of show business is a fascinating enterprise to say the least.
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    The 60th anniversary is 6 years away.

    The next one would have to be out by 2018 to make a film for the 60th. Lets face it the new actor hangeover will be a 4yr gap.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    There is no way EON is planning for or wishing for a film to come out in 2022 just because it is the 60th anniversary.
  • DisneyBond007DisneyBond007 Welwyn Garden City
    Posts: 100
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    There is no way EON is planning for or wishing for a film to come out in 2022 just because it is the 60th anniversary.

    Precisely, Bond 25 would come out whenever next year or 2018?
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,965
    There was no Bond film out for the 10th anniversary or the 20th, or the 30th. Im pretty sure they don't care if the miss the 60th anniversary.

    25th & 50th anniversaries are 2 special ones that are celebrated in any kind of anniversary. So it makes sense to have a films for them
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    They capitalized on the 40th Anniversary, too.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    They capitalized on the 40th Anniversary, too.

    With unfortunate results.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    They capitalized on the 40th Anniversary, too.

    With unfortunate results.
    Critically? Yes.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    They capitalized on the 40th Anniversary, too.

    With unfortunate results.
    Critically? Yes.

    Some enjoyed DAD ...I was disappointed but I enjoyed it. Was way more disappointed with SP but by this time in the series the standard had been considerably.

    ....yes, considerably :P
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I did enjoy DAD. Sometime later I started to hate it until a couple of years ago I watched it again... That's when I started changing my opinion towards it. It's one of the Bond films I do highly enjoy.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    I did enjoy DAD. Sometime later I started to hate it until a couple of years ago I watched it again... That's when I started changing my opinion towards it. It's one of the Bond films I do highly enjoy.

    It is what it is.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    I did enjoy DAD. Sometime later I started to hate it until a couple of years ago I watched it again... That's when I started changing my opinion towards it. It's one of the Bond films I do highly enjoy.

    It is what it is.
    That, it is.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    They capitalized on the 40th Anniversary, too.

    With unfortunate results.
    Critically? Yes.

    Yes but also from an anniversary point of view all the homages were pointless really.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    They capitalized on the 40th Anniversary, too.

    With unfortunate results.
    Critically? Yes.

    Yes but also from an anniversary point of view all the homages were pointless really.
    It didn't seem so, at the time. Mind you, the standards were different back then than what they are, now.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I'm quite done with homages, and I hope EON is too. It's all too familiar these days and somewhat offensive, because one feels the producers think they're being 'cute' by referencing the past, when they're only looking idiotic. Like the chap at the party who laughs at his own jokes, when nobody else does.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm quite done with homages, and I hope EON is too. It's all too familiar these days and somewhat offensive, because one feels the producers think they're being 'cute' by referencing the past, when they're only looking idiotic. Like the chap at the party who laughs at his own jokes, when nobody else does.
    Exactly. It's like they are lifting all the great things from the first 20 films and putting them in the rebooted universe to decorate them like an expensive Christmas tree bearing all the riches you have. It's no longer 'cute', but awfully annoying. I get the impression they are like "We'll get the great things from the old ones and put them here, so you wouldn't have to watch them (the old films) necessarily."
  • DisneyBond007DisneyBond007 Welwyn Garden City
    Posts: 100
    It's getting closer to my 18th birthday next week on May 5th and I'm going to talk about, this Thursday, hopefuls on the news of Bond 25 to arrive.
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    It seems to me that they stuff all of those homages into the new films because they're not creative enough to come up with something that could potentially become just as iconic on their own, so they rely on what Cubby, Maibaum, and the rest of the pre-GE crew did back in the day.

    Eventually, they're going to have to become confident in their own abilities as filmmakers to create moments and films that will stand the test of time and be seen as worthy of being homaged by future filmmakers in the Bond franchise.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    dalton wrote: »
    It seems to me that they stuff all of those homages into the new films because they're not creative enough to come up with something that could potentially become just as iconic on their own, so they rely on what Cubby, Maibaum, and the rest of the pre-GE crew did back in the day.

    Eventually, they're going to have to become confident in their own abilities as filmmakers to create moments and films that will stand the test of time and be seen as worthy of being homaged by future filmmakers in the Bond franchise.

    This. In spades.

    When the series was dying it on its arse in 1974 did Cubby come back with a lazy load of homages and wheel the DB5 out every 5 mins?

    No he had a think and came back with Bond skiing off a cliff and pulling a Union Jack parachute to create a new iconic moment.

    There's not much further you can continue down the Mendes homage route before people get bored of the series and start turning off.

    Why do they seemingly have no confidence in the character any more without propping him up with all these crutches? It makes you weep when they got it so right with CR to find ourselves just 3 films further on and already back to the Bond tropes box ticking excercise of the Brozza years.
  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    I'm sick of the homages and references as well. Those might work only if used in small doses and very rarely. I was happy to see the DB5 blown up in Skyfall - good riddance! But, of course, the very next film we got it back again... 8-| Why? Were we supposed to feel warm and fuzzy and happy to see the damned car saved when we thought it was finally history? Maybe some people were, then, but I was disappointed myself.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,535
    The less homages, the better. It gets to a point where a few nods or homages are nice and okay, but when they're littering the film, it turns into a lack of creation. They need to start concocting new, iconic moments all on their own.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Not saying it's ok for them to do it but it is not just Bond. Look at the recent Star Wars and Star Trek films. Nothing but creating cardboard character cliches and homages to the past. Of course, that could just be J. J. ABrams' fault. :P
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Bring back Dalton!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Getafix wrote: »
    Bring back Dalton!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,009
    I'd go see it :D
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,400
    This isn't news. However, these are pretty desperate days and even the tabloids are having to scrap the bottom of the barrel.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3569373/Idris-Elba-Tom-Hiddleston-enjoy-boys-night-George-Lazenby-backs-Luther-actor-James-Bond.html

    In other news, how great does Elba look. This guy has got style in abundance.

    33BCF52E00000578-0-image-a-34_1462191154847.jpg
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    We have the next Wint and Kidd right there.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,158
    I didn't know 00's were allowed to know each other socially.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    We have the next Wint and Kidd right there.
    Picture+18.png
Sign In or Register to comment.