No Time To Die: Production Diary

1169416951697169917002585

Comments

  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,691
    I'd prefer EON pumping out Bond films every three years - almost regardless of quality. Spectre would have been much easier to stomach if I'd been able to watch another Bond this year.
    When I think of my least favourite Bond films - I still love watching them. So I'm glad DAD exists rather than no film between 1999 and 2006.

    The 80s is a good case in point -three of those films I love - TLD, LTK and FYEO - and Glenn may not be the greatest director but he delivered at least three top half bond films (with MGW and Maibums writing plus cubby producing. Barry's scores don't hurt either! it's this team dynamic that may be missing a little - and why they've tried to keep purvis and wade on for fluency).

    Long story short - EON produced five films in the 80s - in the same length of time now - EON have produced two - and one of them was Spectre...
  • Posts: 365
    I find I go back to the 80s films the most.

    Well edited action adventures, that is all.

    Auteurs like Boyle and Mendes can go please themselves.
  • Posts: 15,554
    ToTheRight wrote: »

    @DarthDimi , I couldn't agree more. One of the qualities I loved about directors like John Glen was his previous Bond experience. The bobsled chase in OHMSS, the iconic ski jump, and his editing work more than qualified him for the job. I love the fact that Cubby promoted him and especially Peter Hunt to helm Bond. Not only did those directors know Bond inside and out, without having their own agenda, it showed Cubby's loyalty to his crew. At this point I'm really hoping Eon nails a director to clean this mess up quick, and one that doesn't have their own "vision" for the franchise. Just make a good, solid, entertaining Bond film.

    I do too. I wouldn't mind them getting a director they could trust to do well with a later film too – much like Campbell before.
  • Posts: 8,667
    I think we are all saying the same thing the issue is the world is different. I don’t mean to sound crass but every director was offered the sequel (yes even Tamahori was given Casino Royale) every director passed on it except for Mendes... I think the producers would of been fine with Campbell directing every bond film since Goldeneye or Apted directing every film since The world is not enough but it’s hard to get people to commit to one film let alone multiple it seems every agent has ADD and the ability to focus on a franchise is going the way of the dodo. Now I know my personal Moriarty Doubleoego (dc will win the day one day man one day...) will bring up Marvel and ok sure they are doing well but in all honesty even those actors are hard pressed to do more then 3 films also ignoring the fact they have had director issues of their own. Like I said everyone wants to tell their story and be “serious” artist the idea of doing something for fun let alone for popcorn munching audiences is almost laughed at. It’s so odd in the corporate world it’s all about having a “fun” atmosphere and in movies it’s all about being “dark” and “tormented” perhaps both sides of the coin should split the difference?
  • Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I wish we could go back to the days of 'Bond directors', like John Glen in the 80s. Even Hammer had their regulars, like Terence Fisher, and he consistently delivered quality. The DC animation unit has a few regulars as well, like Jay Oliva. I've grown a bit tired of these 'auteurs' barging in, dropping 'their' Bond film like it's Oscar bait and then walk away. Campbell is perhaps the exception but then I love GE and CR so I'm probably a bit biased when thinking about him.

    THIS! +2!
    I would really prefer a no-nonsense director who has a genuine interest in making a Bond film, not an Oscar-bait-y character exploration which leaves us with little more than a few good scenes, overshadowed by a two and a half hours of a mess.

    +3

    It was one of the issues I had with Boyle. I think a lesser known director might actually make the film better and more Bondian.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I'm with ya @DarthDimi. No one seems to have the passion the likes of Young, Hamilton, Gilbert, Hunt and Glen had for the character or the series. What happened?
    I know the world has changed, but the overall enjoyment and passion for the subject seems to be slowly lost. The director should want to make a 'Bond film'. Not a ______film (insert directors name)
    Just looking at your list - what happened appears to be Cubby retiring from active duty. His last film in charge was also Glen's last.

    To be fair, Glen had had his day and I don't think he helped Dalton in any way. That might be for the controversial thread but I think the 80s may have needed a bit more variety in the director's chair.

    Glen probably stepped down at the right time, but his two Dalton entries stand up pretty well IMO. He helped bridge the change in actors relatively smoothly.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    What folks seem to be advocating for here over the past few posts (perhaps without realizing it, and maybe on account of this latest shambles) is a return to the producer centric, tight control, factory approach of the Cubby era. That was essentially jettisoned by Babs when she hired Craig, gave him (and future directors) a fair amount of control and started down the personal and artistic path (I'd say that she started to put her personal stamp on things around the time of P&W's hiring with TWINE).

    These are really two different models. I can't see Daniel Craig fitting within the former model, and that's not what he signed up for. I'm not sure it's what Babs wants either.

    I share these concerns about where things are. I've said before that I believe they should at least lock the director of the first film in a new actor's tenure down for at least two (or maybe even three), so that we can have a faster turnaround and more coherent execution of films, as they did with Sean, Rog and Tim (under Young, Hamilton & Glen respectively).
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited August 2018 Posts: 2,691
    Regardless of viewpoint - That's a poorly argued article.

    Can't make a Bond film when the last two have made nearly 2 billion dollars this decade?
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 5,596
    Getafix wrote: »

    "...there’s no group that aspires to James’s dodgy values and dodgier exploding stationery"

    No? Don't we? I do.

    "He just doesn’t fit anywhere any more".

    That's been always the point. Times change, Bond doesn't. Those who don't understand that he IS a relic of old times living today, don't understand it's appeal.

    "...the era of imperial pride, owning a Jaeger-LeCoultre watch and sleeping with your secretary"

    Wow, not only is this an ignorant statement but also offensive to the reader's intelligence. This reporter does not know her History. Go back to school will you, Miss Gill? Imperialism having to do with sleeping with your secretary? Wow. They'll print anything these days.

    "it is finally time for James Bond to die".

    The "finally" word there denotes a rooted and older desire for this to happen. I guess anyone with an axe to grind will have a field day with all these shenanigans.

    This is a very, Very, poor article. As many have proven to be, lately.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 19,709
    Yes, I'm much less inclined to agree with that article too.

    They said Bond couldn't survive the 70s. He did.

    But surely he couldn't survive the 90s. But he did.

    Fair enough; however, the 21st century is coming. So? CR? SF?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    I think the issue now is milennials and their values. They are massive buying block, and very vocal. They are likely to be as (if not more) influential than any group since the baby boomers, who as we know have shaped the world for decades (for better, and many times, regrettably for worse). Combine that with the rise of non traditional (read Asian, African, South American or Latin) markets and we have changing sensibilities.

    Bond must adapt to that market. So far it really hasn't. Yes, I realize it makes a lot of money but as I mentioned on another thread, if you dig deeper it is in 'older' European based markets with declining populations.

    There's no question that it has to evolve, as it has done a little. I don't think it needs to be put to rest just yet though. At least not while I'm still around to enjoy it.

    Another one. Some good points here:
    https://www.gq.com/story/its-time-to-kill-james-bond
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 5,596
    My only wish now is that Babs and McG take all of this venom and turn it into a powerful anti serum to shut everyone up. Like they did with CR not to long ago.

    I don't agree that Bond as to change because of non traditional markets rise, or because culture changes around him. I think he must stay rotted in the 50's and have a hard time living nowadays. That's the fun of it. Make him react to the change, but don't change him. Old dog, new tricks and all of that. He likes things the old way - best simple line in quite some time, that fully describes the character of this man-relic. And believing he won't survive this ever changing world is also part of the fun of it all. It's an anti-evolution paradox. Survival of the less-adapted, barely, but in a very fashionable way. Isn't that the character we all love? Should we change Sherlock Holmes personality to adapt him to the 21 century? No. Jut give him a phone and apps. But stay true to the source. Like they did with the BBC series. And then have him struggle to survive in this (moronic) millennial world.

    About the millennials bit, bondjames, I fully agree. And it's the saddest part of the times we live in.
  • Posts: 11,425
    they should call the next one Snowflake to complete the single word titles beginning with S trilogy
  • Posts: 5,596
    Getafix wrote: »
    they should call the next one Snowflake to complete the single word titles beginning with S trilogy

    Made me laugh. Didn't want to, but I did. A very old Snowflake, wasn't that your comment the other day, Getafix? ;)
  • Posts: 4,340
    I think Eon are clearly talking to directors right now. i imagine there must be a big meeting happening this morning in Hyde Park with all senior figures making a final decision on the directors.

    Personally, i think Jean-Marc Vallee is the most qualified. He's directed a number of Oscar-nomiated movies and has just filmed two hit HBO shows. He's on a major role, plus I get the impression that he'll listen and shoot the script.

    He seems like an intellectual guy and someone interested in character. I think he feels like an upgrade from Sam Mendes and also somewhat of a natural successor.


  • I think a delay is inevitable. That's not being negative, but being realistic.
  • Posts: 1,548
    Wasn't Boyle once signed to direct alien 4 but bailed?
  • Posts: 5,596
    That alien comment reminded me that Ridley Scott would be a dream come true, but he would be another super name with its own personality quirks.
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 1,644
    Martin Campbell would be the logical choice but he's a bit old now, would he have the stamina for a seven months shoot, and word is he and Craig didn't hit it off filming Casino Royale. If Campbell is available, fit enough, and he can get on with Craig he would be a strong candidate.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    There used to be a Bond family and the director was a big part of that. Just think about the fact the Hunt and Glen had been a part of the crew in different capacities before they took to directing. And not just a part. Glen and especially Hunt had made considerable contributions. You knew you could trust these guys to do their job. "Creative differences" would have been out of the question. Cubby grandfatherly supervise the whole thing and everyone was loyal to a fault.

    Just look at the 80s. Five Bond films, some better than others but exceptionally fine pieces of work, one every two years, with the same names returning. Being a "veteran" didn't mean you had lost your edge, rather it meant you were reliable, like Peter Lamont, Maurice Binder and John Barry. You could be counted on to deliver the goods. Some of Barry's finest work was done in the 80s.

    We were blessed with 6 Bond films in the 60s, 5 in the 70s and another 5 in the 80s. We received 3 Bond films in the second half of the 90s alone (!). Then... only 3 in the 2000s and now it's not even sure we'll get more than 2 in the 2010s. Each new film production spends a lifetime cruising for the A++ team. See, I don't want the A++ team, I want an A++ film. I don't care if the people behind the screens aren't the biggest gets at the moment, people whose schedules must be cleared first before preproduction can commence; I want a reliable team, a "family", people who know how to put together a great Bond film. Bringing in classy names doesn't necessarily mean we're going to get a great Bond film; it mostly means an increased risk of silly delays, artistic pretentiousness and our beloved 'creative differences'.

    You know why audiences have loved Bond film and still love Bond films? Because they are Bond films. If audiences wanted the next Oscar winner, they'd go and watch the next Almodovar.

    Great post. You've probably summed up why Bond 25 is in the mess it's in!

    The franchise was a well-oiled machine during the Cubby era. It was amazing how quickly they could write the screenplay, determine the budget, cast, crew, locations, make the film, market it worldwide, then repeat the process for the next film. I doubt that format will ever return.

    I don't know if it got this bad during the Cubby/Harry era but the B Broccoli era has had:

    TND not having a completed screenplay when they started filming!

    QOS having Craig writing some of his dialogue because of the writer's strike! QOS director admitted the story could have been better.

    And now Bond 25 has ditched the director (and screenplay?) three months before shooting.

    Cubby did have Dalton signing on at the last moment. I think he was signed and the next week or so he was filming the pre-credit scene? That must have been a bit stressful. "Help, we need a Bond by next week or no film!"


  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    I think a delay is inevitable. That's not being negative, but being realistic.
    Realistic? based on what?
    From what we know we have 2 scripts ready or almost ready, casting partially done, money ready, and still 3 months and a half before the start of filming.
    If they move fast enough there is plenty of time
  • Posts: 19,339
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Martin Campbell would be the logical choice but he's a bit old now, would he have the stamina for a seven months shoot, and word is he and Craig didn't hit it off filming Casino Royale. If Campbell is available, fit enough, and he can get on with Craig he would be a strong candidate.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    There used to be a Bond family and the director was a big part of that. Just think about the fact the Hunt and Glen had been a part of the crew in different capacities before they took to directing. And not just a part. Glen and especially Hunt had made considerable contributions. You knew you could trust these guys to do their job. "Creative differences" would have been out of the question. Cubby grandfatherly supervise the whole thing and everyone was loyal to a fault.

    Just look at the 80s. Five Bond films, some better than others but exceptionally fine pieces of work, one every two years, with the same names returning. Being a "veteran" didn't mean you had lost your edge, rather it meant you were reliable, like Peter Lamont, Maurice Binder and John Barry. You could be counted on to deliver the goods. Some of Barry's finest work was done in the 80s.

    We were blessed with 6 Bond films in the 60s, 5 in the 70s and another 5 in the 80s. We received 3 Bond films in the second half of the 90s alone (!). Then... only 3 in the 2000s and now it's not even sure we'll get more than 2 in the 2010s. Each new film production spends a lifetime cruising for the A++ team. See, I don't want the A++ team, I want an A++ film. I don't care if the people behind the screens aren't the biggest gets at the moment, people whose schedules must be cleared first before preproduction can commence; I want a reliable team, a "family", people who know how to put together a great Bond film. Bringing in classy names doesn't necessarily mean we're going to get a great Bond film; it mostly means an increased risk of silly delays, artistic pretentiousness and our beloved 'creative differences'.

    You know why audiences have loved Bond film and still love Bond films? Because they are Bond films. If audiences wanted the next Oscar winner, they'd go and watch the next Almodovar.

    Great post. You've probably summed up why Bond 25 is in the mess it's in!

    The franchise was a well-oiled machine during the Cubby era. It was amazing how quickly they could write the screenplay, determine the budget, cast, crew, locations, make the film, market it worldwide, then repeat the process for the next film. I doubt that format will ever return.

    I don't know if it got this bad during the Cubby/Harry era but the B Broccoli era has had:

    TND not having a completed screenplay when they started filming!

    QOS having Craig writing some of his dialogue because of the writer's strike! QOS director admitted the story could have been better.

    And now Bond 25 has ditched the director (and screenplay?) three months before shooting.

    Cubby did have Dalton signing on at the last moment. I think he was signed and the next week or so he was filming the pre-credit scene? That must have been a bit stressful. "Help, we need a Bond by next week or no film!"


    I'm beginning to think that Craig doesn't get on with anyone but himself.
  • Posts: 1,548
    I do miss Cubby Broccolli. He wouldn't have allowed this farce to happen.
  • Posts: 8,667
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    I do miss Cubby Broccolli. He wouldn't have allowed this farce to happen.
    Have you seen the man with the golden gun diamonds are forever or a view to a kill recently
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 5,793
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    I do miss Cubby Broccolli. He wouldn't have allowed this farce to happen.

    Right? Coz Cubby would never hire American John Gavin to play Bond, or try to cast another American actor, James Brolin as 007! No! Everything he did was pure gold! TMWTGG didn’t almost sink the franchise, and TSWLM wasn’t a film that had to save the franchise! No way! From ‘62- ‘89 it was one massive hit after another!! In fact the 80s saw each film consistently making more money that the film previously!!! L2K destroyed Batman, Lethal Weapon 2 and Indy at the box office!!

    (I love Cubby too but honestly.....)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Risico007 wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    I do miss Cubby Broccolli. He wouldn't have allowed this farce to happen.
    Have you seen the man with the golden gun diamonds are forever or a view to a kill recently
    Better than the last three.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,664
    Risico007 wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    I do miss Cubby Broccolli. He wouldn't have allowed this farce to happen.
    Have you seen the man with the golden gun diamonds are forever or a view to a kill recently
    Better than the last three.

    I can see a case for DAF being better than QOS. Otherwise, nah.

    People are getting a bit nostalgic now for the Cubby era. That was a different time when directors were complacent enough to do three to five Bond films. Funnily, Hamilton turned down TB on the grounds that he didn't want to "repeat himself", a recurring motif with nearly every director since Campbell turned down TND. Campbell, like Hamilton, did come back for CR, but it didn't turn out to be the start of a three film run.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,034
    Maybe this guy is the solution:

    uwe-boll_1049771.jpg

    *duckandhide*

    :-):)
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,034
    I would still believe, that Philipp Noyce could be the right choice. He knows how to direct a blockbuster spy action movie, he has proved thgis several time. But don't know whether he'd be available, IF they consider him.

    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0637518/

    220px-Phillip_Noyce_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,664
    Edgar Wright is probably the name I'd find most exciting attached to a Bond film since ever. Would make it ironic too given he left ANT-MAN during pre-production.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,034
    And another names, which just sprang into my mind, is Tomas Alfredsson,. TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY was excellent. Okay, SNOWMAN was a flop, but then Alfredsson later admiited, that the shooting had to happen on very short notice, and during shooting they realized, that about 20 percent of the screenplay was not there, i.e. not finished. Taken, that this was a very high profile production with Martin Scosese being the producer, is still a mystery. Talking about troubled and hampered movies...
Sign In or Register to comment.