› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…17071708171017121713…2507

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,090
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Because of the point you just made. If Craig's entire arc lead to Waltz's Blofeld then why on earth would the character return in a stand alone played by a completely different face, in the same era?
    I
    If Blofeld does indeed return, he'll be played by Waltz in a follow-up to SP (highly unlikely IMO) or Blofeld won't make another appearance in a Bond film for quite some time.

    If Waltz isn't returning, then Bond 25 is likely a standalone story, so why is it a problem if someone else plays the character? They did this many times during the sixties and seventies.
    With different actors, mate

    Blofeld was played by many different actors during Connery's tenure. It wasn't a strick one Blofeld per Bond rule before, so why now? If Bond 25 is a standalone film, unconnected to the rest, there's no reason why we can't have a standalone Blofeld, just like they used to do in the past.
    The same reason as previously stated. Continuity. Connery's films were standalone (FRWL aside). B25 could very well be "standalone", but having another version of Blofeld would be contradictory to the first four films in Craig's tenure. Like I said, SF was meant to be standalone but could easily fit into the universe of CR and QoS. B25 would be doing the opposite of that and I really don't see that happening.

    But the benefit of a standalone film is that it doesn't need to fit with a larger continuity, a standalone by definitition cannot contradict previous installments.
    And that is exactly why a seperate incarnation of Blofeld in B25 is extremely unlikely.

    It's exactly why there is no reason Blofeld couldn't show up in a different form. There were multiple Blofelds that faced the same Bond actor in the past, so there's no reason why we couldn't see a standalone film with a different Blofeld now.
    I've already explained myself so I see no reason to keep debating this. Two different Blofelds in an era with continuity is bizarre and contradictory.

    Let's hope Bond is standalone then, so the continuity of the other films has no bearing.
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,400
    What do we think of Chan-wook Park? He has just directed John Le Carre's The Little Drummer Girl for BBC and can probably do with a big Hollywood movie. He'll also listen to Eon.

    A lot of the shots ooze classic Bond glamor.



    Little-Drummer-Girl.jpg
    Little-Drummer-Girl-Alexander-Skarsg%C3%A5rd.jpg
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited August 2018 Posts: 4,343
    FoxRox wrote: »
    SF is the most standalone for sure, and retconning Silva as a SPECTRE agent was my single least favorite part of all the retconning. Just doesn’t really line up, which is why I imagine at least there was almost no real direct connection between Blofed and Silva beyond Blofed supplying him or whatever. The different actors part for Connery’s does help a bit; I just choose to treat the retcon very loosely (which it is) and not be too bothered by it. SP itself and alone, IMO, is the only one weaker for it.

    I don't see any retcon problem, to be honest. In Spectre is established that Silva was "part" of one organization. They never said that he was an actual Spectre agent. Just like LeChiffre was no agent. In Skyfall Silva was a kind of "freelance" terrorist. Blofeld/Spectre just gave him the resources to fulfill his revenge plan against M(ommy) Dench in order to kill her. From Blofeld perspective hiring Silva was just a plan made for punish Bond (maybe also kill him) after he jeopardized Quantum organization in QoS ("You interfered in my world, I destroyed yours"). As Silva said in his first meeting with James: "All to the best bidder" (aka Blofeld).

    I really like how they smoothly connected all the 4 movies in Spectre, really. The "author of all your pain" angle is something I loved. Can't say the same about the "brother" angle... but that's another story.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Because of the point you just made. If Craig's entire arc lead to Waltz's Blofeld then why on earth would the character return in a stand alone played by a completely different face, in the same era?
    I
    If Blofeld does indeed return, he'll be played by Waltz in a follow-up to SP (highly unlikely IMO) or Blofeld won't make another appearance in a Bond film for quite some time.

    If Waltz isn't returning, then Bond 25 is likely a standalone story, so why is it a problem if someone else plays the character? They did this many times during the sixties and seventies.
    With different actors, mate

    Blofeld was played by many different actors during Connery's tenure. It wasn't a strick one Blofeld per Bond rule before, so why now? If Bond 25 is a standalone film, unconnected to the rest, there's no reason why we can't have a standalone Blofeld, just like they used to do in the past.
    The same reason as previously stated. Continuity. Connery's films were standalone (FRWL aside). B25 could very well be "standalone", but having another version of Blofeld would be contradictory to the first four films in Craig's tenure. Like I said, SF was meant to be standalone but could easily fit into the universe of CR and QoS. B25 would be doing the opposite of that and I really don't see that happening.

    But the benefit of a standalone film is that it doesn't need to fit with a larger continuity, a standalone by definitition cannot contradict previous installments.
    And that is exactly why a seperate incarnation of Blofeld in B25 is extremely unlikely.

    It's exactly why there is no reason Blofeld couldn't show up in a different form. There were multiple Blofelds that faced the same Bond actor in the past, so there's no reason why we couldn't see a standalone film with a different Blofeld now.
    I've already explained myself so I see no reason to keep debating this. Two different Blofelds in an era with continuity is bizarre and contradictory.

    Let's hope Bond is standalone then, so the continuity of the other films has no bearing.
    Don't see that type of standalone happening.
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    This isn't the Connery era anymore where you can get away with different blofelds the craig era like all other modern franchises today focus heavily on continuity and a different actor other than waltz playing blofeld will confuse audiences
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited August 2018 Posts: 11,425
    yes even the plastic surgery change of appearance thing would be a hard sell. although the facial disfigurement in SP would give it some justification.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Because of the point you just made. If Craig's entire arc lead to Waltz's Blofeld then why on earth would the character return in a stand alone played by a completely different face, in the same era?
    I
    If Blofeld does indeed return, he'll be played by Waltz in a follow-up to SP (highly unlikely IMO) or Blofeld won't make another appearance in a Bond film for quite some time.

    If Waltz isn't returning, then Bond 25 is likely a standalone story, so why is it a problem if someone else plays the character? They did this many times during the sixties and seventies.
    With different actors, mate

    Blofeld was played by many different actors during Connery's tenure. It wasn't a strick one Blofeld per Bond rule before, so why now? If Bond 25 is a standalone film, unconnected to the rest, there's no reason why we can't have a standalone Blofeld, just like they used to do in the past.
    The same reason as previously stated. Continuity. Connery's films were standalone (FRWL aside). B25 could very well be "standalone", but having another version of Blofeld would be contradictory to the first four films in Craig's tenure. Like I said, SF was meant to be standalone but could easily fit into the universe of CR and QoS. B25 would be doing the opposite of that and I really don't see that happening.

    But the benefit of a standalone film is that it doesn't need to fit with a larger continuity, a standalone by definitition cannot contradict previous installments.
    And that is exactly why a seperate incarnation of Blofeld in B25 is extremely unlikely.

    It's exactly why there is no reason Blofeld couldn't show up in a different form. There were multiple Blofelds that faced the same Bond actor in the past, so there's no reason why we couldn't see a standalone film with a different Blofeld now.
    I've already explained myself so I see no reason to keep debating this. Two different Blofelds in an era with continuity is bizarre and contradictory.

    As I said earlier, you could have the ‘same’, Blofeld with a different appearance. It’s difficult to pull off, but not impossible - and is evocative of Fleming.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,115
    Getafix wrote: »
    yes even the plastic surgery change of appearance thing would be a hard sell. although the facial disfigurement in SP would give it some justification.

    If they really wanted to homage Fleming's Blofeld, they could give him a gold tooth. An idea for the future.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    New leak!! The secret villain in Boyle's original idea for Bond25 revealed:

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    RC7 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Because of the point you just made. If Craig's entire arc lead to Waltz's Blofeld then why on earth would the character return in a stand alone played by a completely different face, in the same era?
    I
    If Blofeld does indeed return, he'll be played by Waltz in a follow-up to SP (highly unlikely IMO) or Blofeld won't make another appearance in a Bond film for quite some time.

    If Waltz isn't returning, then Bond 25 is likely a standalone story, so why is it a problem if someone else plays the character? They did this many times during the sixties and seventies.
    With different actors, mate

    Blofeld was played by many different actors during Connery's tenure. It wasn't a strick one Blofeld per Bond rule before, so why now? If Bond 25 is a standalone film, unconnected to the rest, there's no reason why we can't have a standalone Blofeld, just like they used to do in the past.
    The same reason as previously stated. Continuity. Connery's films were standalone (FRWL aside). B25 could very well be "standalone", but having another version of Blofeld would be contradictory to the first four films in Craig's tenure. Like I said, SF was meant to be standalone but could easily fit into the universe of CR and QoS. B25 would be doing the opposite of that and I really don't see that happening.

    But the benefit of a standalone film is that it doesn't need to fit with a larger continuity, a standalone by definitition cannot contradict previous installments.
    And that is exactly why a seperate incarnation of Blofeld in B25 is extremely unlikely.

    It's exactly why there is no reason Blofeld couldn't show up in a different form. There were multiple Blofelds that faced the same Bond actor in the past, so there's no reason why we couldn't see a standalone film with a different Blofeld now.
    I've already explained myself so I see no reason to keep debating this. Two different Blofelds in an era with continuity is bizarre and contradictory.

    As I said earlier, you could have the ‘same’, Blofeld with a different appearance. It’s difficult to pull off, but not impossible - and is evocative of Fleming.
    That would be even more jarring in my view. If they continue the same story then bringing back Waltz is the obvious way to go.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    edited August 2018 Posts: 3,000
    4EverBonded wrote: »
    New leak!! The secret villain in Boyle's original idea for Bond25 revealed:


    This was the lizard that crawled on the window of Blofeld’s lair in SP. The continuity is amazing!
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,965
    FoxRox wrote: »
    SF is the most standalone for sure, and retconning Silva as a SPECTRE agent was my single least favorite part of all the retconning. Just doesn’t really line up, which is why I imagine at least there was almost no real direct connection between Blofed and Silva beyond Blofed supplying him or whatever. The different actors part for Connery’s does help a bit; I just choose to treat the retcon very loosely (which it is) and not be too bothered by it. SP itself and alone, IMO, is the only one weaker for it.

    I agree. Skyfall should not have been connected at All to spectre. Bad mistake by Mendes
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    jake24 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Because of the point you just made. If Craig's entire arc lead to Waltz's Blofeld then why on earth would the character return in a stand alone played by a completely different face, in the same era?
    I
    If Blofeld does indeed return, he'll be played by Waltz in a follow-up to SP (highly unlikely IMO) or Blofeld won't make another appearance in a Bond film for quite some time.

    If Waltz isn't returning, then Bond 25 is likely a standalone story, so why is it a problem if someone else plays the character? They did this many times during the sixties and seventies.
    With different actors, mate

    Blofeld was played by many different actors during Connery's tenure. It wasn't a strick one Blofeld per Bond rule before, so why now? If Bond 25 is a standalone film, unconnected to the rest, there's no reason why we can't have a standalone Blofeld, just like they used to do in the past.
    The same reason as previously stated. Continuity. Connery's films were standalone (FRWL aside). B25 could very well be "standalone", but having another version of Blofeld would be contradictory to the first four films in Craig's tenure. Like I said, SF was meant to be standalone but could easily fit into the universe of CR and QoS. B25 would be doing the opposite of that and I really don't see that happening.

    But the benefit of a standalone film is that it doesn't need to fit with a larger continuity, a standalone by definitition cannot contradict previous installments.
    And that is exactly why a seperate incarnation of Blofeld in B25 is extremely unlikely.

    It's exactly why there is no reason Blofeld couldn't show up in a different form. There were multiple Blofelds that faced the same Bond actor in the past, so there's no reason why we couldn't see a standalone film with a different Blofeld now.
    I've already explained myself so I see no reason to keep debating this. Two different Blofelds in an era with continuity is bizarre and contradictory.

    As I said earlier, you could have the ‘same’, Blofeld with a different appearance. It’s difficult to pull off, but not impossible - and is evocative of Fleming.
    That would be even more jarring in my view. If they continue the same story then bringing back Waltz is the obvious way to go.

    Not saying it’s necessarily preferable, but it is achievable.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited August 2018 Posts: 4,619
    So I was thinking about the announcement from a week ago. Am I the only one who thinks it's strangely short? I mean compare this....
    Michael G. Wilson, Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig today announced that due to creative differences Danny Boyle has decided to no longer direct Bond 25.

    ...to this Lucasfilm announcement from June 2017:
    The untitled Han Solo film will move forward with a directorial change.

    “Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are talented filmmakers who have assembled an incredible cast and crew, but it’s become clear that we had different creative visions on this film, and we’ve decided to part ways. A new director will be announced soon,” said Kathleen Kennedy, president of Lucasfilm.

    “Unfortunately, our vision and process weren’t aligned with our partners on this project. We normally aren’t fans of the phrase ‘creative differences’ but for once this cliché is true. We are really proud of the amazing and world-class work of our cast and crew,” stated Phil Lord and Christopher Miller.

    The untitled Han Solo film remains scheduled for a May 2018 release.

    The Lucasfilm announcement sounds about 10 times more professional, is much more hopeful and far less vague. By comparison, it seems like EON is trying to hide something.
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    So I was thinking about the announcement from a week ago. Am I the only one who thinks it's strangely short? I mean compare this....
    Michael G. Wilson, Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig today announced that due to creative differences Danny Boyle has decided to no longer direct Bond 25.

    ...to this Lucasfilm announcement from June 2017:
    The untitled Han Solo film will move forward with a directorial change.

    “Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are talented filmmakers who have assembled an incredible cast and crew, but it’s become clear that we had different creative visions on this film, and we’ve decided to part ways. A new director will be announced soon,” said Kathleen Kennedy, president of Lucasfilm.

    “Unfortunately, our vision and process weren’t aligned with our partners on this project. We normally aren’t fans of the phrase ‘creative differences’ but for once this cliché is true. We are really proud of the amazing and world-class work of our cast and crew,” stated Phil Lord and Christopher Miller.

    The untitled Han Solo film remains scheduled for a May 2018 release.

    The Lucasfilm announcement sounds about 10 times more professional, is much more hopeful and far less vague. By comparison, it seems like EON is trying to hide something.

    Now that you compared those announcements I find the Lucasfilm announcement more professional and detailed I don't understand why eon had to be so vague with their announcement and let us bond fans wondering what's next it's pretty frustrating.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,115
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    So I was thinking about the announcement from a week ago. Am I the only one who thinks it's strangely short? I mean compare this....
    Michael G. Wilson, Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig today announced that due to creative differences Danny Boyle has decided to no longer direct Bond 25.

    ...to this Lucasfilm announcement from June 2017:
    The untitled Han Solo film will move forward with a directorial change.

    “Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are talented filmmakers who have assembled an incredible cast and crew, but it’s become clear that we had different creative visions on this film, and we’ve decided to part ways. A new director will be announced soon,” said Kathleen Kennedy, president of Lucasfilm.

    “Unfortunately, our vision and process weren’t aligned with our partners on this project. We normally aren’t fans of the phrase ‘creative differences’ but for once this cliché is true. We are really proud of the amazing and world-class work of our cast and crew,” stated Phil Lord and Christopher Miller.

    The untitled Han Solo film remains scheduled for a May 2018 release.

    The Lucasfilm announcement sounds about 10 times more professional, is much more hopeful and far less vague. By comparison, it seems like EON is trying to hide something.
    Goldeneye0094 wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    So I was thinking about the announcement from a week ago. Am I the only one who thinks it's strangely short? I mean compare this....
    Michael G. Wilson, Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig today announced that due to creative differences Danny Boyle has decided to no longer direct Bond 25.

    ...to this Lucasfilm announcement from June 2017:
    The untitled Han Solo film will move forward with a directorial change.

    “Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are talented filmmakers who have assembled an incredible cast and crew, but it’s become clear that we had different creative visions on this film, and we’ve decided to part ways. A new director will be announced soon,” said Kathleen Kennedy, president of Lucasfilm.

    “Unfortunately, our vision and process weren’t aligned with our partners on this project. We normally aren’t fans of the phrase ‘creative differences’ but for once this cliché is true. We are really proud of the amazing and world-class work of our cast and crew,” stated Phil Lord and Christopher Miller.

    The untitled Han Solo film remains scheduled for a May 2018 release.

    The Lucasfilm announcement sounds about 10 times more professional, is much more hopeful and far less vague. By comparison, it seems like EON is trying to hide something.

    Now that you compared those announcements I find the Lucasfilm announcement more professional and detailed I don't understand why eon had to be so vague with their announcement and let us bond fans wondering what's next it's pretty frustrating.

    It may have been personal. Not just different work styles and ideas.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,507
    ringfire211 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    ringfire211 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    This all makes sense and sounds pretty great, frankly.

    If they go with P&W's script, we get the YOLT adaptation that many of us have wanted for years. (The garden of death, the question room, Kissy Suzuki's name mentioned onscreen?, Bond and Blofeld in a final and decisive confrontation?).

    If they go with Hodge's script, we get something fresh and new.

    Or maybe they'll combine the two (YOLT *is* a bit light on story) and we'll get the best of both worlds...

    Perhaps they can get Paul Haggis back on the job. Pay him whatever he wants. The money is better spent on script than on the biggest explosion in cinema or whatever.
    Why are people still mentioning John Hodge’s script? Wasn’t it confirmed that Hodge is out along with Boyle? You can’t have a writer leave and then just go ahead and use his ideas. I’m sure that’s illegal and grounds for a lawsuit just begging to happen.
    Eon may own the script; I think I’ve read they do. I sure someone around here knows.

    EoN paid Hodge for his script, it’s forever, in perpetuity, owned by EoN.

    And they can now do anything with this script.
    It doesn’t make sense then when they say that John Hodge exited the project, along with Boyle. If he exited then to me that either means he takes his script with him or he exited before finishing the script. If it’s the latter and they decide to have P&W finish Hodge’s script then obviously they have to give Hodge credit in the finished film, otherwise it’s a case of stealing someone’s work and not acknowledging their contribution.

    Thinking of this scenario I’m reminded of the whole McClory debacle. Didn’t he and Fleming and some other writers sit down and come up with some idea (not even a finished script I’m sure) and then when they tried to use those ideas for TB without giving proper credit to McClory he made a major stink about it, even though he wasn’t even part of the film production? Eventually of course they not only had to relent and make him part of the film production but had to let him produce the film. And all he did was come up with some small idea, unlike Hodge who I’m sure came up with much more.

    Hi @ringfire211 , I’ve written about this quite often. But here it goes: a producer hires you to write a script. With the contract and payment out of the way, they now own this script forever.

    If this is a franchise, you will most likely be replaced while the producers and directors bring on other writers and even uncredited script doctors (that’s actually where the big money is— 2 weeks work and pick up a million bucks if you’re a “name”).

    So whatever Hodge wrote (and I will say it was a complete draft), or didn’t get around to writing, EoN owns the script— not the writer.

    He gave up his rights to the script as soon as he signed his name on that contract.

    P
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,507
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    ggl007 wrote: »
    This: http://www.007.info/bond-25-still-on-track/

    This may not be as eye-catching as the Mirror or Sun's reporting, but this sounds like the most likely scenario playing out at the moment: it's business as usual.
    Business as usual? Are you kidding me? Remind me, when was the last time the director of a Bond movie left the production just months before filming was supposed to begin?

    How much is EON paying you for these comments?

    A lot. Why?

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,507
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    ggl007 wrote: »
    This: http://www.007.info/bond-25-still-on-track/

    This may not be as eye-catching as the Mirror or Sun's reporting, but this sounds like the most likely scenario playing out at the moment: it's business as usual.
    Business as usual? Are you kidding me? Remind me, when was the last time the director of a Bond movie left the production just months before filming was supposed to begin?

    How much is EON paying you for these comments?

    Yeah, no need to downplay events. This was a big thing to go wrong, so much is uncertain right now, like whether we will be getting Bond 25 this decade or next. Certainly not business as usual, anyway.

    Boys, I’m not downplaying this. I know losing a director is a big deal. I’m saying production, producers, crews are carrying on, biz as usual, as the director is formally replaced.

    No one, from MGM, Universal, EoN, wants a massive delay. So as directors are reading the script (s?), they will all go about their business (scouting, building, designing).

    I’m of the mind that there is one front runner and an announcement will be made between now and around TIFF. Gut feeling.

  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Ron Howard to direct?
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,400
    007.com keeps reverting to the 20th Century fox website. What do we think this means?
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,395
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    007.com keeps reverting to the 20th Century fox website. What do we think this means?

    uh oh, Something big is happening?
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    007.com keeps reverting to the 20th Century fox website. What do we think this means?
    Very interesting, just an hour ago it wasn't reverting to it. Did Barbar Broccoli finally have enough and decide to sell the whole thing to Fox? :))
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    ShakenNotStirred wrote: »
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    007.com keeps reverting to the 20th Century fox website. What do we think this means?

    uh oh, Something big is happening?
    THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE NEW DIRECTOR MUST BE IMMINENT. THE HYPE BEGINS!
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,270
    Oooooo. Something is going on...
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    It doesn't normally do that when being updated. Might just be maintenance?
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,270
    jake24 wrote: »
    It doesn't normally do that when being updated. Might just be maintenance?

    RIP Hype.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,507
    It's obvious what's happened here; the writing's on the wall!

    Universal's dropped out of the one pic deal and 20th Century Fox has taken their place. The've asked for a re-cast immediately, and Days of Future Past star Michael Fassbender is the new 007 for a one pic standalone.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,771
    peter wrote: »
    It's obvious what's happened here; the writing's on the wall!

    Universal's dropped out of the one pic deal and 20th Century Fox has taken their place. The've asked for a re-cast immediately, and Days of Future Past star Michael Fassbender is the new 007 for a one pic standalone.

    Yes I was just going to say Eon told me that in our daily meeting when they also pay me to point out how great they are
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    edited August 2018 Posts: 12,270
    Darn it. Wish I had gotten the scoop earlier. RIP Hype AND Craig era :(
Sign In or Register to comment.