› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…681682684686687…2507

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin, you laugh, but you clearly just lack the insider knowledge to make the genius predictions of the above. I can feel your jealousy pulsating through my computer screen.

    (ANOTHER OBVIOUS-but still necessary-SARCASM WARNING)
    Oh dearie me. O dear. O dear. O dear. :))

    Where's Jim Moriarty when we need him?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin, you laugh, but you clearly just lack the insider knowledge to make the genius predictions of the above. I can feel your jealousy pulsating through my computer screen.

    (ANOTHER OBVIOUS-but still necessary-SARCASM WARNING)
    Oh dearie me. O dear. O dear. O dear. :))

    Where's Jim Moriarty when we need him?

    He was C. And now he's dead.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dead calm C.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    He fell off the ledge of a building twice. Twice.

    You Only Fall Off A Ledge Twice.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    He fell off the ledge of a building twice. Twice.

    You Only Fall Off A Ledge Twice.

    Well, Sherlock did.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    He fell off the ledge of a building twice. Twice.

    You Only Fall Off A Ledge Twice.

    Well, Sherlock did.
    Sherlock is like Al Bundy, @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. No matter how many times he falls and hits the ground, no matter how many feet high the fall is, he'll rise up and walk away like nothing happened. :))
  • Bernie99Bernie99
    Posts: 252
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Not sure if this means anything:

    http://deadline.com/2017/04/mgm-agrees-pay-1b-epix-shares-paramount-lionsgate-1202062463/

    So they can raise a Billion dollars for this deal? But not finance a Bond film? How does that work?!!!! :-?

    That's a really good question. MGM should the focus on Bond
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Hopefully they screen more 007 films on Epix.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    MGM is home to more than just Bond. Much like EON work beyond Bond, and have other interests they like to pursue to keep funding themselves.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Yeah, everyone here, including me sometimes, speaks like they know how to run the business and MGM's administration are full of incompetent kindergarten children. I am sure they are paying attention to what needs to be put on surface very deservedly.

    My guess is: MGM's people are building the company up financially so they can return to being distributor studios themselves again, and the next installment in the Bond franchise might very well be free of Sony and whatever that kept holding Danjaq's leash.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited April 2017 Posts: 28,694
    @ClarkDevlin, I want any good franchises to move the hell away from Sony quite honestly. They have been one of the biggest shit shows in Hollywood for a consistent period, and even in a time where slimy studio deals and mindless decisions are especially rampant, they still find a way to stand out. I seriously can't remember the last time I saw a good idea attached to Sony's name.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I couldn't agree more! While at first having Sony on board had a positive effect with Casino Royale, the rest of the commercialism and decisions they forced upon the franchise really had it agitated in a wounding manner. At least, with the Royale deal, they didn't have to start a rival 007 series with Kevin McClory, the man who tried to steal what didn't belong to him, and spark a set of disasters with it.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    Why would P+W be affected by an American strike? Is it purely because of Sony and MGM?
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    PropertyOfALady wrote: »
    Why would P+W be affected by an American strike? Is it purely because of Sony and MGM?

    Unions,unfortunately,are not confined to one country.

  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    edited April 2017 Posts: 1,187
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/theringer.com/amp/p/84e85d004915

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/filmschoolrejects.com/amp/p/3d207c959302

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4381136/Daniel-Craig-poised-return-James-Bond.html
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    barryt007 wrote: »
    PropertyOfALady wrote: »
    Why would P+W be affected by an American strike? Is it purely because of Sony and MGM?

    Unions,unfortunately,are not confined to one country.

    Which are they part of?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited April 2017 Posts: 40,470
    Hopefully if Craig does return, it's not solely because of the ridiculously fat paycheck (like he's said in the past), because that'll possibly lead to some boring, phoned-in acting (Bruce Willis is an expert at this sort of sleepwalking through films these days). Just come back and give a solid performance is all I ask; if he returns for a fifth and doesn't seem bored or uninvested, then I'm good.

    Also, what's up with all the uninspired 'fan cast' lists that name Gillian Anderson these days?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    For Craig to really shine, there will have to be some depth, subtlety and nuance in the script. Some meat for him to sink his considerable acting chops into. Otherwise, I'm afraid he will not impress me, and I'd prefer if the role go to someone else.
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited April 2017 Posts: 19,339
    Personally i would rather Craig went now,and we moved on to what Bond used to be ,individual stand-alone films,with a new actor,and cut out the personal emotion..
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited April 2017 Posts: 40,470
    I, too, would prefer a new actor step in to kick off a new era, but if the intentions are pure (and Mendes doesn't come back), I won't be bothered by Craig doing a fifth. Hell, can't be any worse than SP was for me, so at least he'll end on a high(er) note.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    SP is in 12th place on my rankings,but to be honest,it will never go up,only down.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    Bernie99 wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Not sure if this means anything:

    http://deadline.com/2017/04/mgm-agrees-pay-1b-epix-shares-paramount-lionsgate-1202062463/

    So they can raise a Billion dollars for this deal? But not finance a Bond film? How does that work?!!!! :-?

    That's a really good question. MGM should the focus on Bond

    Epix, if it's done right, can provide profits year around. Bond movies come out every third or fourth year.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    If they develop premium content for it like Netflix, then they could really get on a roll. Right now I think Epix has two original shows: Graves, and Berlin Station. I haven't seen either.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    For Craig to really shine, there will have to be some depth, subtlety and nuance in the script. Some meat for him to sink his considerable acting chops into. Otherwise, I'm afraid he will not impress me, and I'd prefer if the role go to someone else.
    A good actor should be able to make the simplest material shine.
  • ChampionAlonso3ChampionAlonso3
    Posts: 19
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I, too, would prefer a new actor step in to kick off a new era, but if the intentions are pure (and Mendes doesn't come back), I won't be bothered by Craig doing a fifth. Hell, can't be any worse than SP was for me, so at least he'll end on a high(er) note.

    I feel more or less the same, but for the oposite reason. I have enjoyed DC era so much, including SP, which is my 2nd favorite of his 4, that in some way I think the next one can ruin it.
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,453
    I'm all for Craig doing one more, especially because there seems to be no one strong enough to replace him at the moment. Plus, 5 is a good number of films. Connery should have kept to 5 and Sir Rog should have bowed out with FYEO IMO.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I'm all for Craig doing one more, especially because there seems to be no one strong enough to replace him at the moment. Plus, 5 is a good number of films. Connery should have kept to 5 and Sir Rog should have bowed out with FYEO IMO.

    If he'd done one every two years from CR to 2018 he would have equalled Moore's 7.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I'm all for Craig doing one more, especially because there seems to be no one strong enough to replace him at the moment. Plus, 5 is a good number of films. Connery should have kept to 5 and Sir Rog should have bowed out with FYEO IMO.

    I like the way OP turned out so I wouldn't want that changed,but he should have bowed out before AVTAK and a new actor come in for that.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    For Craig to really shine, there will have to be some depth, subtlety and nuance in the script. Some meat for him to sink his considerable acting chops into. Otherwise, I'm afraid he will not impress me, and I'd prefer if the role go to someone else.
    A good actor should be able to make the simplest material shine.
    Agreed. Craig however hasn't impressed me with some of the material he has been given. The only two who were consistently brilliant with whatever they were given (as far as I'm concerned), no matter the tone, were Connery and Moore. With SP, Craig showed me he is best operating within certain confines. Others may disagree, but my mind is quite firmly made up on that front. His performance in certain areas in SP, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is a key element of why I dislike that film. I wouldn't want to endure that again. In fact, if I'm being honest, I've actually soured on him to an extent as a result of it.
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I'm all for Craig doing one more, especially because there seems to be no one strong enough to replace him at the moment. Plus, 5 is a good number of films. Connery should have kept to 5 and Sir Rog should have bowed out with FYEO IMO.

    I like the way OP turned out so I wouldn't want that changed,but he should have bowed out before AVTAK and a new actor come in for that.
    I agree.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I don't think Craig was terrible in SP it's just in my view he was so good in the previous 3 that his performance stood out to me in SP and not in a good way.

    I do think the material definitely had something to do with this that and getting his Bond to become overly confident and flippant.

    I think you can show him in control and confident like the 2nd half of SF but he still needs some depth and cheesy one liners and lack of threat is not somewhere his interpretation thrives.
Sign In or Register to comment.