No Time To Die: Production Diary

1256625672569257125722575

Comments

  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,713
    Perhaps the most interesting thing about the title is that we will call it NTTD now.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ocean Club, Bahamas.
    Posts: 1,509
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?
  • barryt007barryt007 With Bond and M in Tokyo,having an interesting experience.
    edited August 22 Posts: 18,807
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ocean Club, Bahamas.
    Posts: 1,509
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    I agree with the latter.

  • Posts: 3,574
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    No Time For A Standalone Every 2-3 Years
  • barryt007barryt007 With Bond and M in Tokyo,having an interesting experience.
    Posts: 18,807
    vzok wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    No Time For A Standalone Every 2-3 Years

    :)) Oh very good !
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Station B, Belgium
    Posts: 3,558
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    It would seem there’s more to why the title was chosen. It just happens to be based off a film Cubby produced in 1958, with a ton of the same Bond filmmakers like Terence Young and Richard Maibaum.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Time_to_Die_(1958_film)

    Old news, mate. ;-)

    But yeah, I like that bit of trivia. To be honest, it helps me to appreciate the title more.

    Me too. Wasn’t crazy about the title but nods to the past are always appreciated in the land of Golden Gun.

    In any case I am going to give that film a watch in the upcoming months. If I can find it, that is.

    Funny thing, on Letterboxd it is known as Tank Force.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 631
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Could not agree more with this @barryt007 has nailed it
  • DiscoVolanteDiscoVolante Stockholm, SwedenModerator
    Posts: 1,336
    Please use this thread for production news & updates, there’s another thread for title discussion.

    (Mentioned many times before, I know, but further title chat will be removed from this thread)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,038
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Personally I don’t think continuity, especially character continuity/development, is going anywhere fast.
  • Posts: 1,013
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 1,457
    Passion Pictures, Barbara Broccoli & Richard Curtis Among Team For Ambitious Paralympics Film
    https://deadline.com/2019/08/paralympics-documentary-tatyana-mcfadden-richard-curtis-barbara-broccoli-1202701479/
  • barryt007barryt007 With Bond and M in Tokyo,having an interesting experience.
    Posts: 18,807
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!
  • edited August 23 Posts: 7,207
    So obviously Bond 26 is Call Me Bwana

    How am I the first to make this joke
  • Posts: 1,013
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

  • barryt007barryt007 With Bond and M in Tokyo,having an interesting experience.
    Posts: 18,807
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
  • barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.

    It's the same with the title - how do you come up with a Bond film title that is Bondian enough but doesn't feel like pastiche? - not surprised they've struggled with this.
  • edited August 23 Posts: 474
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.

    It's the same with the title - how do you come up with a Bond film title that is Bondian enough but doesn't feel like pastiche? - not surprised they've struggled with this.

    Precisely. It's much harder than so many seem to think it is, particularly on a global scale. And as cool as some of them are, just pulling one of the many oft-suggested Fleming chapter titles simply won't work.
  • Posts: 281
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
    I don’t buy this at all. How is it that TV shows for years have been able to come up with 22 individual stories (22 episodes per season) each and every year. Heck, back in the 50s and even 60s it used to be 39 episodes per season!!! And I’m not talking about crap shows. I’m talking about shows with good quality writing. Just think about how challenging it must have been to come up with different scenarios and stings for the team to work out on a weekly basis for a series like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE which ran for 7 years!!! That show was regularly recognized at the Emmies for its excellent writing. It was the most cerebral show on television at the time!! 24 was another show that impressed the heck out of me year after year!! The plot and how it unfolded from episode to episode was brilliant. Even if the show faltered a bit during seasons 6 and 8, it was still riveting television for most of its run. Each episode was like a mini-movie on its own and head and shoulders above what some of the stuff we’ve gotten during the Craig tenure. So don’t tell me they can’t come up with a single decent storyline when given years to come up with it. The writers on 24 were flying by the seat of their pants and coming up with stuff on the go and still managed to turn in superior stuff, so Bond has zero excuses!!!!

    Consider a show like COLUMBO which had a very limited number of episodes each season. This gave the writers an opportunity to come up with some real Cracker-Jack stuff. Quality here was certainly more important than quantity. Again, probably the best written stuff on television at the time. Yet even in that case it was still at least 6 or 7 stories that they had to come up with in the span of a year. But Bond films have how many years to come up with a story???????? A SINGLE story?????? I just don’t understand how anyone can offer any legit excuses. I really don’t. Why anyone keeps bringing up Fleming or lack of any new Fleming material is beyond me! Is there no originality left in the brain cells of the writers?? Even a hack writer should be able to come up with something original and good, given that much time.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ocean Club, Bahamas.
    Posts: 1,509
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
    I don’t buy this at all. How is it that TV shows for years have been able to come up with 22 individual stories (22 episodes per season) each and every year. Heck, back in the 50s and even 60s it used to be 39 episodes per season!!! And I’m not talking about crap shows. I’m talking about shows with good quality writing. Just think about how challenging it must have been to come up with different scenarios and stings for the team to work out on a weekly basis for a series like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE which ran for 7 years!!! That show was regularly recognized at the Emmies for its excellent writing. It was the most cerebral show on television at the time!! 24 was another show that impressed the heck out of me year after year!! The plot and how it unfolded from episode to episode was brilliant. Even if the show faltered a bit during seasons 6 and 8, it was still riveting television for most of its run. Each episode was like a mini-movie on its own and head and shoulders above what some of the stuff we’ve gotten during the Craig tenure. So don’t tell me they can’t come up with a single decent storyline when given years to come up with it. The writers on 24 were flying by the seat of their pants and coming up with stuff on the go and still managed to turn in superior stuff, so Bond has zero excuses!!!!

    Consider a show like COLUMBO which had a very limited number of episodes each season. This gave the writers an opportunity to come up with some real Cracker-Jack stuff. Quality here was certainly more important than quantity. Again, probably the best written stuff on television at the time. Yet even in that case it was still at least 6 or 7 stories that they had to come up with in the span of a year. But Bond films have how many years to come up with a story???????? A SINGLE story?????? I just don’t understand how anyone can offer any legit excuses. I really don’t. Why anyone keeps bringing up Fleming or lack of any new Fleming material is beyond me! Is there no originality left in the brain cells of the writers?? Even a hack writer should be able to come up with something original and good, given that much time.

    Maybe, and that's just a kind suggestion, you might just want to wait until you've seen the movie. NTTD for me means that Bond will lose at least someone close to him, but will carry on regardless and quicker than ever before.
  • Posts: 281
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
    I don’t buy this at all. How is it that TV shows for years have been able to come up with 22 individual stories (22 episodes per season) each and every year. Heck, back in the 50s and even 60s it used to be 39 episodes per season!!! And I’m not talking about crap shows. I’m talking about shows with good quality writing. Just think about how challenging it must have been to come up with different scenarios and stings for the team to work out on a weekly basis for a series like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE which ran for 7 years!!! That show was regularly recognized at the Emmies for its excellent writing. It was the most cerebral show on television at the time!! 24 was another show that impressed the heck out of me year after year!! The plot and how it unfolded from episode to episode was brilliant. Even if the show faltered a bit during seasons 6 and 8, it was still riveting television for most of its run. Each episode was like a mini-movie on its own and head and shoulders above what some of the stuff we’ve gotten during the Craig tenure. So don’t tell me they can’t come up with a single decent storyline when given years to come up with it. The writers on 24 were flying by the seat of their pants and coming up with stuff on the go and still managed to turn in superior stuff, so Bond has zero excuses!!!!

    Consider a show like COLUMBO which had a very limited number of episodes each season. This gave the writers an opportunity to come up with some real Cracker-Jack stuff. Quality here was certainly more important than quantity. Again, probably the best written stuff on television at the time. Yet even in that case it was still at least 6 or 7 stories that they had to come up with in the span of a year. But Bond films have how many years to come up with a story???????? A SINGLE story?????? I just don’t understand how anyone can offer any legit excuses. I really don’t. Why anyone keeps bringing up Fleming or lack of any new Fleming material is beyond me! Is there no originality left in the brain cells of the writers?? Even a hack writer should be able to come up with something original and good, given that much time.

    Maybe, and that's just a kind suggestion, you might just want to wait until you've seen the movie. NTTD for me means that Bond will lose at least someone close to him, but will carry on regardless and quicker than ever before.
    I’m not referring to NTTD in particular or bashing it. I’m just talking about the state of the Bond films in general these days. The idea that we can only get 2 Bond films per decade because it’s sooooooo hard to write a good Bond story is beyond ridiculous!!!

  • Posts: 3,574
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
    I don’t buy this at all. How is it that TV shows for years have been able to come up with 22 individual stories (22 episodes per season) each and every year. Heck, back in the 50s and even 60s it used to be 39 episodes per season!!! And I’m not talking about crap shows. I’m talking about shows with good quality writing. Just think about how challenging it must have been to come up with different scenarios and stings for the team to work out on a weekly basis for a series like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE which ran for 7 years!!! That show was regularly recognized at the Emmies for its excellent writing. It was the most cerebral show on television at the time!! 24 was another show that impressed the heck out of me year after year!! The plot and how it unfolded from episode to episode was brilliant. Even if the show faltered a bit during seasons 6 and 8, it was still riveting television for most of its run. Each episode was like a mini-movie on its own and head and shoulders above what some of the stuff we’ve gotten during the Craig tenure. So don’t tell me they can’t come up with a single decent storyline when given years to come up with it. The writers on 24 were flying by the seat of their pants and coming up with stuff on the go and still managed to turn in superior stuff, so Bond has zero excuses!!!!

    Consider a show like COLUMBO which had a very limited number of episodes each season. This gave the writers an opportunity to come up with some real Cracker-Jack stuff. Quality here was certainly more important than quantity. Again, probably the best written stuff on television at the time. Yet even in that case it was still at least 6 or 7 stories that they had to come up with in the span of a year. But Bond films have how many years to come up with a story???????? A SINGLE story?????? I just don’t understand how anyone can offer any legit excuses. I really don’t. Why anyone keeps bringing up Fleming or lack of any new Fleming material is beyond me! Is there no originality left in the brain cells of the writers?? Even a hack writer should be able to come up with something original and good, given that much time.

    Maybe, and that's just a kind suggestion, you might just want to wait until you've seen the movie. NTTD for me means that Bond will lose at least someone close to him, but will carry on regardless and quicker than ever before.
    I’m not referring to NTTD in particular or bashing it. I’m just talking about the state of the Bond films in general these days. The idea that we can only get 2 Bond films per decade because it’s sooooooo hard to write a good Bond story is beyond ridiculous!!!

    Is writing the film the problem? Or is that one part of the whole production process? They probably find all of it a problem.
  • Posts: 1,013
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
    I don’t buy this at all. How is it that TV shows for years have been able to come up with 22 individual stories (22 episodes per season) each and every year. Heck, back in the 50s and even 60s it used to be 39 episodes per season!!! And I’m not talking about crap shows. I’m talking about shows with good quality writing. Just think about how challenging it must have been to come up with different scenarios and stings for the team to work out on a weekly basis for a series like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE which ran for 7 years!!! That show was regularly recognized at the Emmies for its excellent writing. It was the most cerebral show on television at the time!! 24 was another show that impressed the heck out of me year after year!! The plot and how it unfolded from episode to episode was brilliant. Even if the show faltered a bit during seasons 6 and 8, it was still riveting television for most of its run. Each episode was like a mini-movie on its own and head and shoulders above what some of the stuff we’ve gotten during the Craig tenure. So don’t tell me they can’t come up with a single decent storyline when given years to come up with it. The writers on 24 were flying by the seat of their pants and coming up with stuff on the go and still managed to turn in superior stuff, so Bond has zero excuses!!!!

    Consider a show like COLUMBO which had a very limited number of episodes each season. This gave the writers an opportunity to come up with some real Cracker-Jack stuff. Quality here was certainly more important than quantity. Again, probably the best written stuff on television at the time. Yet even in that case it was still at least 6 or 7 stories that they had to come up with in the span of a year. But Bond films have how many years to come up with a story???????? A SINGLE story?????? I just don’t understand how anyone can offer any legit excuses. I really don’t. Why anyone keeps bringing up Fleming or lack of any new Fleming material is beyond me! Is there no originality left in the brain cells of the writers?? Even a hack writer should be able to come up with something original and good, given that much time.

    Maybe, and that's just a kind suggestion, you might just want to wait until you've seen the movie. NTTD for me means that Bond will lose at least someone close to him, but will carry on regardless and quicker than ever before.
    I’m not referring to NTTD in particular or bashing it. I’m just talking about the state of the Bond films in general these days. The idea that we can only get 2 Bond films per decade because it’s sooooooo hard to write a good Bond story is beyond ridiculous!!!

    I promise you, film making, and the big budgets (which mount up faster than u might think,) mean script writing is a very, very difficult job, in these days, harder than ever. Writers can produce great material, but then that work is scrutinised and picked apart, line by line, by producers, directors, studio, executives, script development execs., financiers, distribution companies, sales companies, marketing companies, etc., and of course, if there is a leak, a million and one opinions on social media. Everyone has an opinion and their own agenda. I have worked for over 20 years as a director (and producer) and a writer, and I can tell you, directing is tough and exhausting, but writing, with all those pressures while trying to keep a clear head and a strong focus on the material, is harder. I'm going through it right now on two big projects. The same applies to Bond, even with Eon fighting hard for what they believe is the best for the script.
  • Posts: 474
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
    I don’t buy this at all. How is it that TV shows for years have been able to come up with 22 individual stories (22 episodes per season) each and every year. Heck, back in the 50s and even 60s it used to be 39 episodes per season!!! And I’m not talking about crap shows. I’m talking about shows with good quality writing. Just think about how challenging it must have been to come up with different scenarios and stings for the team to work out on a weekly basis for a series like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE which ran for 7 years!!! That show was regularly recognized at the Emmies for its excellent writing. It was the most cerebral show on television at the time!! 24 was another show that impressed the heck out of me year after year!! The plot and how it unfolded from episode to episode was brilliant. Even if the show faltered a bit during seasons 6 and 8, it was still riveting television for most of its run. Each episode was like a mini-movie on its own and head and shoulders above what some of the stuff we’ve gotten during the Craig tenure. So don’t tell me they can’t come up with a single decent storyline when given years to come up with it. The writers on 24 were flying by the seat of their pants and coming up with stuff on the go and still managed to turn in superior stuff, so Bond has zero excuses!!!!

    Consider a show like COLUMBO which had a very limited number of episodes each season. This gave the writers an opportunity to come up with some real Cracker-Jack stuff. Quality here was certainly more important than quantity. Again, probably the best written stuff on television at the time. Yet even in that case it was still at least 6 or 7 stories that they had to come up with in the span of a year. But Bond films have how many years to come up with a story???????? A SINGLE story?????? I just don’t understand how anyone can offer any legit excuses. I really don’t. Why anyone keeps bringing up Fleming or lack of any new Fleming material is beyond me! Is there no originality left in the brain cells of the writers?? Even a hack writer should be able to come up with something original and good, given that much time.

    Maybe, and that's just a kind suggestion, you might just want to wait until you've seen the movie. NTTD for me means that Bond will lose at least someone close to him, but will carry on regardless and quicker than ever before.
    I’m not referring to NTTD in particular or bashing it. I’m just talking about the state of the Bond films in general these days. The idea that we can only get 2 Bond films per decade because it’s sooooooo hard to write a good Bond story is beyond ridiculous!!!

    I promise you, film making, and the big budgets (which mount up faster than u might think,) mean script writing is a very, very difficult job, in these days, harder than ever. Writers can produce great material, but then that work is scrutinised and picked apart, line by line, by producers, directors, studio, executives, script development execs., financiers, distribution companies, sales companies, marketing companies, etc., and of course, if there is a leak, a million and one opinions on social media. Everyone has an opinion and their own agenda. I have worked for over 20 years as a director (and producer) and a writer, and I can tell you, directing is tough and exhausting, but writing, with all those pressures while trying to keep a clear head and a strong focus on the material, is harder. I'm going through it right now on two big projects. The same applies to Bond, even with Eon fighting hard for what they believe is the best for the script.

    +10000.

    Thanks for this post, @ColonelSun . I gather many of the folks online who think this is easy have never worked in the business, or as part of a creative team for any large-scale enterprise. The writing gauntlet any particular project of that type has to run would be enough to deter most of those commentators from ever even trying.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ocean Club, Bahamas.
    Posts: 1,509
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
    I don’t buy this at all. How is it that TV shows for years have been able to come up with 22 individual stories (22 episodes per season) each and every year. Heck, back in the 50s and even 60s it used to be 39 episodes per season!!! And I’m not talking about crap shows. I’m talking about shows with good quality writing. Just think about how challenging it must have been to come up with different scenarios and stings for the team to work out on a weekly basis for a series like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE which ran for 7 years!!! That show was regularly recognized at the Emmies for its excellent writing. It was the most cerebral show on television at the time!! 24 was another show that impressed the heck out of me year after year!! The plot and how it unfolded from episode to episode was brilliant. Even if the show faltered a bit during seasons 6 and 8, it was still riveting television for most of its run. Each episode was like a mini-movie on its own and head and shoulders above what some of the stuff we’ve gotten during the Craig tenure. So don’t tell me they can’t come up with a single decent storyline when given years to come up with it. The writers on 24 were flying by the seat of their pants and coming up with stuff on the go and still managed to turn in superior stuff, so Bond has zero excuses!!!!

    Consider a show like COLUMBO which had a very limited number of episodes each season. This gave the writers an opportunity to come up with some real Cracker-Jack stuff. Quality here was certainly more important than quantity. Again, probably the best written stuff on television at the time. Yet even in that case it was still at least 6 or 7 stories that they had to come up with in the span of a year. But Bond films have how many years to come up with a story???????? A SINGLE story?????? I just don’t understand how anyone can offer any legit excuses. I really don’t. Why anyone keeps bringing up Fleming or lack of any new Fleming material is beyond me! Is there no originality left in the brain cells of the writers?? Even a hack writer should be able to come up with something original and good, given that much time.

    Maybe, and that's just a kind suggestion, you might just want to wait until you've seen the movie. NTTD for me means that Bond will lose at least someone close to him, but will carry on regardless and quicker than ever before.
    I’m not referring to NTTD in particular or bashing it. I’m just talking about the state of the Bond films in general these days. The idea that we can only get 2 Bond films per decade because it’s sooooooo hard to write a good Bond story is beyond ridiculous!!!

    I meant to fully understand the meaning of the title.
  • Posts: 1,013
    AgentM72 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
    I don’t buy this at all. How is it that TV shows for years have been able to come up with 22 individual stories (22 episodes per season) each and every year. Heck, back in the 50s and even 60s it used to be 39 episodes per season!!! And I’m not talking about crap shows. I’m talking about shows with good quality writing. Just think about how challenging it must have been to come up with different scenarios and stings for the team to work out on a weekly basis for a series like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE which ran for 7 years!!! That show was regularly recognized at the Emmies for its excellent writing. It was the most cerebral show on television at the time!! 24 was another show that impressed the heck out of me year after year!! The plot and how it unfolded from episode to episode was brilliant. Even if the show faltered a bit during seasons 6 and 8, it was still riveting television for most of its run. Each episode was like a mini-movie on its own and head and shoulders above what some of the stuff we’ve gotten during the Craig tenure. So don’t tell me they can’t come up with a single decent storyline when given years to come up with it. The writers on 24 were flying by the seat of their pants and coming up with stuff on the go and still managed to turn in superior stuff, so Bond has zero excuses!!!!

    Consider a show like COLUMBO which had a very limited number of episodes each season. This gave the writers an opportunity to come up with some real Cracker-Jack stuff. Quality here was certainly more important than quantity. Again, probably the best written stuff on television at the time. Yet even in that case it was still at least 6 or 7 stories that they had to come up with in the span of a year. But Bond films have how many years to come up with a story???????? A SINGLE story?????? I just don’t understand how anyone can offer any legit excuses. I really don’t. Why anyone keeps bringing up Fleming or lack of any new Fleming material is beyond me! Is there no originality left in the brain cells of the writers?? Even a hack writer should be able to come up with something original and good, given that much time.

    Maybe, and that's just a kind suggestion, you might just want to wait until you've seen the movie. NTTD for me means that Bond will lose at least someone close to him, but will carry on regardless and quicker than ever before.
    I’m not referring to NTTD in particular or bashing it. I’m just talking about the state of the Bond films in general these days. The idea that we can only get 2 Bond films per decade because it’s sooooooo hard to write a good Bond story is beyond ridiculous!!!

    I promise you, film making, and the big budgets (which mount up faster than u might think,) mean script writing is a very, very difficult job, in these days, harder than ever. Writers can produce great material, but then that work is scrutinised and picked apart, line by line, by producers, directors, studio, executives, script development execs., financiers, distribution companies, sales companies, marketing companies, etc., and of course, if there is a leak, a million and one opinions on social media. Everyone has an opinion and their own agenda. I have worked for over 20 years as a director (and producer) and a writer, and I can tell you, directing is tough and exhausting, but writing, with all those pressures while trying to keep a clear head and a strong focus on the material, is harder. I'm going through it right now on two big projects. The same applies to Bond, even with Eon fighting hard for what they believe is the best for the script.

    +10000.

    Thanks for this post, @ColonelSun . I gather many of the folks online who think this is easy have never worked in the business, or as part of a creative team for any large-scale enterprise. The writing gauntlet any particular project of that type has to run would be enough to deter most of those commentators from ever even trying.

    They might not know what has hit them!
  • barryt007barryt007 With Bond and M in Tokyo,having an interesting experience.
    Posts: 18,807
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    AgentM72 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
    I don’t buy this at all. How is it that TV shows for years have been able to come up with 22 individual stories (22 episodes per season) each and every year. Heck, back in the 50s and even 60s it used to be 39 episodes per season!!! And I’m not talking about crap shows. I’m talking about shows with good quality writing. Just think about how challenging it must have been to come up with different scenarios and stings for the team to work out on a weekly basis for a series like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE which ran for 7 years!!! That show was regularly recognized at the Emmies for its excellent writing. It was the most cerebral show on television at the time!! 24 was another show that impressed the heck out of me year after year!! The plot and how it unfolded from episode to episode was brilliant. Even if the show faltered a bit during seasons 6 and 8, it was still riveting television for most of its run. Each episode was like a mini-movie on its own and head and shoulders above what some of the stuff we’ve gotten during the Craig tenure. So don’t tell me they can’t come up with a single decent storyline when given years to come up with it. The writers on 24 were flying by the seat of their pants and coming up with stuff on the go and still managed to turn in superior stuff, so Bond has zero excuses!!!!

    Consider a show like COLUMBO which had a very limited number of episodes each season. This gave the writers an opportunity to come up with some real Cracker-Jack stuff. Quality here was certainly more important than quantity. Again, probably the best written stuff on television at the time. Yet even in that case it was still at least 6 or 7 stories that they had to come up with in the span of a year. But Bond films have how many years to come up with a story???????? A SINGLE story?????? I just don’t understand how anyone can offer any legit excuses. I really don’t. Why anyone keeps bringing up Fleming or lack of any new Fleming material is beyond me! Is there no originality left in the brain cells of the writers?? Even a hack writer should be able to come up with something original and good, given that much time.

    Maybe, and that's just a kind suggestion, you might just want to wait until you've seen the movie. NTTD for me means that Bond will lose at least someone close to him, but will carry on regardless and quicker than ever before.
    I’m not referring to NTTD in particular or bashing it. I’m just talking about the state of the Bond films in general these days. The idea that we can only get 2 Bond films per decade because it’s sooooooo hard to write a good Bond story is beyond ridiculous!!!

    I promise you, film making, and the big budgets (which mount up faster than u might think,) mean script writing is a very, very difficult job, in these days, harder than ever. Writers can produce great material, but then that work is scrutinised and picked apart, line by line, by producers, directors, studio, executives, script development execs., financiers, distribution companies, sales companies, marketing companies, etc., and of course, if there is a leak, a million and one opinions on social media. Everyone has an opinion and their own agenda. I have worked for over 20 years as a director (and producer) and a writer, and I can tell you, directing is tough and exhausting, but writing, with all those pressures while trying to keep a clear head and a strong focus on the material, is harder. I'm going through it right now on two big projects. The same applies to Bond, even with Eon fighting hard for what they believe is the best for the script.

    +10000.

    Thanks for this post, @ColonelSun . I gather many of the folks online who think this is easy have never worked in the business, or as part of a creative team for any large-scale enterprise. The writing gauntlet any particular project of that type has to run would be enough to deter most of those commentators from ever even trying.

    They might not know what has hit them!

    That's what I meant in my post that started all this off,the difficulty of it all.

    Respect to you guys for what you do,i certainly couldn't do it.
  • Posts: 1,013
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    AgentM72 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
    I don’t buy this at all. How is it that TV shows for years have been able to come up with 22 individual stories (22 episodes per season) each and every year. Heck, back in the 50s and even 60s it used to be 39 episodes per season!!! And I’m not talking about crap shows. I’m talking about shows with good quality writing. Just think about how challenging it must have been to come up with different scenarios and stings for the team to work out on a weekly basis for a series like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE which ran for 7 years!!! That show was regularly recognized at the Emmies for its excellent writing. It was the most cerebral show on television at the time!! 24 was another show that impressed the heck out of me year after year!! The plot and how it unfolded from episode to episode was brilliant. Even if the show faltered a bit during seasons 6 and 8, it was still riveting television for most of its run. Each episode was like a mini-movie on its own and head and shoulders above what some of the stuff we’ve gotten during the Craig tenure. So don’t tell me they can’t come up with a single decent storyline when given years to come up with it. The writers on 24 were flying by the seat of their pants and coming up with stuff on the go and still managed to turn in superior stuff, so Bond has zero excuses!!!!

    Consider a show like COLUMBO which had a very limited number of episodes each season. This gave the writers an opportunity to come up with some real Cracker-Jack stuff. Quality here was certainly more important than quantity. Again, probably the best written stuff on television at the time. Yet even in that case it was still at least 6 or 7 stories that they had to come up with in the span of a year. But Bond films have how many years to come up with a story???????? A SINGLE story?????? I just don’t understand how anyone can offer any legit excuses. I really don’t. Why anyone keeps bringing up Fleming or lack of any new Fleming material is beyond me! Is there no originality left in the brain cells of the writers?? Even a hack writer should be able to come up with something original and good, given that much time.

    Maybe, and that's just a kind suggestion, you might just want to wait until you've seen the movie. NTTD for me means that Bond will lose at least someone close to him, but will carry on regardless and quicker than ever before.
    I’m not referring to NTTD in particular or bashing it. I’m just talking about the state of the Bond films in general these days. The idea that we can only get 2 Bond films per decade because it’s sooooooo hard to write a good Bond story is beyond ridiculous!!!

    I promise you, film making, and the big budgets (which mount up faster than u might think,) mean script writing is a very, very difficult job, in these days, harder than ever. Writers can produce great material, but then that work is scrutinised and picked apart, line by line, by producers, directors, studio, executives, script development execs., financiers, distribution companies, sales companies, marketing companies, etc., and of course, if there is a leak, a million and one opinions on social media. Everyone has an opinion and their own agenda. I have worked for over 20 years as a director (and producer) and a writer, and I can tell you, directing is tough and exhausting, but writing, with all those pressures while trying to keep a clear head and a strong focus on the material, is harder. I'm going through it right now on two big projects. The same applies to Bond, even with Eon fighting hard for what they believe is the best for the script.

    +10000.

    Thanks for this post, @ColonelSun . I gather many of the folks online who think this is easy have never worked in the business, or as part of a creative team for any large-scale enterprise. The writing gauntlet any particular project of that type has to run would be enough to deter most of those commentators from ever even trying.

    They might not know what has hit them!

    That's what I meant in my post that started all this off,the difficulty of it all.

    Respect to you guys for what you do,i certainly couldn't do it.

    The words which make any writer shiver; "We just have a few notes to give you."

  • Posts: 474
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    AgentM72 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
    I don’t buy this at all. How is it that TV shows for years have been able to come up with 22 individual stories (22 episodes per season) each and every year. Heck, back in the 50s and even 60s it used to be 39 episodes per season!!! And I’m not talking about crap shows. I’m talking about shows with good quality writing. Just think about how challenging it must have been to come up with different scenarios and stings for the team to work out on a weekly basis for a series like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE which ran for 7 years!!! That show was regularly recognized at the Emmies for its excellent writing. It was the most cerebral show on television at the time!! 24 was another show that impressed the heck out of me year after year!! The plot and how it unfolded from episode to episode was brilliant. Even if the show faltered a bit during seasons 6 and 8, it was still riveting television for most of its run. Each episode was like a mini-movie on its own and head and shoulders above what some of the stuff we’ve gotten during the Craig tenure. So don’t tell me they can’t come up with a single decent storyline when given years to come up with it. The writers on 24 were flying by the seat of their pants and coming up with stuff on the go and still managed to turn in superior stuff, so Bond has zero excuses!!!!

    Consider a show like COLUMBO which had a very limited number of episodes each season. This gave the writers an opportunity to come up with some real Cracker-Jack stuff. Quality here was certainly more important than quantity. Again, probably the best written stuff on television at the time. Yet even in that case it was still at least 6 or 7 stories that they had to come up with in the span of a year. But Bond films have how many years to come up with a story???????? A SINGLE story?????? I just don’t understand how anyone can offer any legit excuses. I really don’t. Why anyone keeps bringing up Fleming or lack of any new Fleming material is beyond me! Is there no originality left in the brain cells of the writers?? Even a hack writer should be able to come up with something original and good, given that much time.

    Maybe, and that's just a kind suggestion, you might just want to wait until you've seen the movie. NTTD for me means that Bond will lose at least someone close to him, but will carry on regardless and quicker than ever before.
    I’m not referring to NTTD in particular or bashing it. I’m just talking about the state of the Bond films in general these days. The idea that we can only get 2 Bond films per decade because it’s sooooooo hard to write a good Bond story is beyond ridiculous!!!

    I promise you, film making, and the big budgets (which mount up faster than u might think,) mean script writing is a very, very difficult job, in these days, harder than ever. Writers can produce great material, but then that work is scrutinised and picked apart, line by line, by producers, directors, studio, executives, script development execs., financiers, distribution companies, sales companies, marketing companies, etc., and of course, if there is a leak, a million and one opinions on social media. Everyone has an opinion and their own agenda. I have worked for over 20 years as a director (and producer) and a writer, and I can tell you, directing is tough and exhausting, but writing, with all those pressures while trying to keep a clear head and a strong focus on the material, is harder. I'm going through it right now on two big projects. The same applies to Bond, even with Eon fighting hard for what they believe is the best for the script.

    +10000.

    Thanks for this post, @ColonelSun . I gather many of the folks online who think this is easy have never worked in the business, or as part of a creative team for any large-scale enterprise. The writing gauntlet any particular project of that type has to run would be enough to deter most of those commentators from ever even trying.

    They might not know what has hit them!

    That's what I meant in my post that started all this off,the difficulty of it all.

    Respect to you guys for what you do,i certainly couldn't do it.

    The words which make any writer shiver; "We just have a few notes to give you."

    Even just reading that, future me twitched slightly in his grave somewhere.
  • barryt007barryt007 With Bond and M in Tokyo,having an interesting experience.
    Posts: 18,807
    AgentM72 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    AgentM72 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    It does make me wonder though. Had the title been Shatterhand, I'm sure many on here would have been rejoicing. It feels like EON could just about throw anything out, and fans will lap it up as though its the best thing ever.
    LOL come on, you know that's ridiculous. You know very well fans don't eat up everything EON does.

    I was surprised how positive the reception was when it slowly became obvious we’re getting a spectre sequel

    And the problem with that is? :-?

    Indeed,if they can correct the mistakes made in SP and therefore make SP easier to watch and logical then i'm all for it.

    But this has to be the last 'sequel' in Bond history now,enough is enough,it hasn't worked,the duration between films ( 5 years ?!) is way too long, and needs to go back to stand-alone every 2-3 years .

    Box office clearly says the Craig era has worked with the world wide audiences. And as for a 2-3 year gap between films, well, I'm sure Eon would like to achieve that, but the scale and complexities of modern big budget filmmaking do not make it very easy, that's for sure. And please don't come back quoting Marvel, that's a whole different machine than Eon.

    I can guarantee you I wont be doing that haha !!

    Ha, well done. The big problem Eon have got is they've exhausted so much from a limited series of novels and have to come up, or try to come up, with something fresh and relevant each time. Marvel has an almost limitless amount of characters and stories which also cross many genres.

    Indeed,i think sometimes people don't realise how much work goes into just getting a storyline in place for a Bond film,and keeping it fresh and non-repetitive with the other films before it.
    I don’t buy this at all. How is it that TV shows for years have been able to come up with 22 individual stories (22 episodes per season) each and every year. Heck, back in the 50s and even 60s it used to be 39 episodes per season!!! And I’m not talking about crap shows. I’m talking about shows with good quality writing. Just think about how challenging it must have been to come up with different scenarios and stings for the team to work out on a weekly basis for a series like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE which ran for 7 years!!! That show was regularly recognized at the Emmies for its excellent writing. It was the most cerebral show on television at the time!! 24 was another show that impressed the heck out of me year after year!! The plot and how it unfolded from episode to episode was brilliant. Even if the show faltered a bit during seasons 6 and 8, it was still riveting television for most of its run. Each episode was like a mini-movie on its own and head and shoulders above what some of the stuff we’ve gotten during the Craig tenure. So don’t tell me they can’t come up with a single decent storyline when given years to come up with it. The writers on 24 were flying by the seat of their pants and coming up with stuff on the go and still managed to turn in superior stuff, so Bond has zero excuses!!!!

    Consider a show like COLUMBO which had a very limited number of episodes each season. This gave the writers an opportunity to come up with some real Cracker-Jack stuff. Quality here was certainly more important than quantity. Again, probably the best written stuff on television at the time. Yet even in that case it was still at least 6 or 7 stories that they had to come up with in the span of a year. But Bond films have how many years to come up with a story???????? A SINGLE story?????? I just don’t understand how anyone can offer any legit excuses. I really don’t. Why anyone keeps bringing up Fleming or lack of any new Fleming material is beyond me! Is there no originality left in the brain cells of the writers?? Even a hack writer should be able to come up with something original and good, given that much time.

    Maybe, and that's just a kind suggestion, you might just want to wait until you've seen the movie. NTTD for me means that Bond will lose at least someone close to him, but will carry on regardless and quicker than ever before.
    I’m not referring to NTTD in particular or bashing it. I’m just talking about the state of the Bond films in general these days. The idea that we can only get 2 Bond films per decade because it’s sooooooo hard to write a good Bond story is beyond ridiculous!!!

    I promise you, film making, and the big budgets (which mount up faster than u might think,) mean script writing is a very, very difficult job, in these days, harder than ever. Writers can produce great material, but then that work is scrutinised and picked apart, line by line, by producers, directors, studio, executives, script development execs., financiers, distribution companies, sales companies, marketing companies, etc., and of course, if there is a leak, a million and one opinions on social media. Everyone has an opinion and their own agenda. I have worked for over 20 years as a director (and producer) and a writer, and I can tell you, directing is tough and exhausting, but writing, with all those pressures while trying to keep a clear head and a strong focus on the material, is harder. I'm going through it right now on two big projects. The same applies to Bond, even with Eon fighting hard for what they believe is the best for the script.

    +10000.

    Thanks for this post, @ColonelSun . I gather many of the folks online who think this is easy have never worked in the business, or as part of a creative team for any large-scale enterprise. The writing gauntlet any particular project of that type has to run would be enough to deter most of those commentators from ever even trying.

    They might not know what has hit them!

    That's what I meant in my post that started all this off,the difficulty of it all.

    Respect to you guys for what you do,i certainly couldn't do it.

    The words which make any writer shiver; "We just have a few notes to give you."

    Even just reading that, future me twitched slightly in his grave somewhere.

    So that's a polite way of saying they want a re-write ,or they have just totally changed your script.
Sign In or Register to comment.