No Time To Die: Production Diary

16976987007027032563

Comments

  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Murdock wrote: »
    FRWL has a sepia tone tint over the gunbarrel. DN GF and YOLT had Black and white gunbarrels. Those must not traditional then.
    I never noticed. The Piss filter is much more noticeable than whatever your trying to describe.

  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,058
    Murdock wrote: »
    FRWL has a sepia tone tint over the gunbarrel. DN GF and YOLT had Black and white gunbarrels. Those must not traditional then.
    I never noticed. The Piss filter is much more noticeable than whatever your trying to describe.

    I don't see any filter on Spectre's gunbarrel.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,725
    does anyone think that bond 25 has the potential to be better than casino royale, or will it just be another Spectre. I think the latter is more likely.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,305
    does anyone think that bond 25 has the potential to be better than casino royale, or will it just be another Spectre. I think the latter is more likely.

    I think the former. ;)
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    edited April 2017 Posts: 1,187
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    FRWL has a sepia tone tint over the gunbarrel. DN GF and YOLT had Black and white gunbarrels. Those must not traditional then.
    I never noticed. The Piss filter is much more noticeable than whatever your trying to describe.

    I don't see any filter on Spectre's gunbarrel.
    IMG_3470.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    does anyone think that bond 25 has the potential to be better than casino royale, or will it just be another Spectre. I think the latter is more likely.

    I think the former. ;)
    +1. EON will be on their game for B25.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,058
    Looks normal to me. Maybe you saw the wrong movie?
    icwKpKf.png?1
  • Posts: 2,305
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    GQ's thoughts on Craig's (possible) final installment, and how to correct the errors of SP:
    http://www.gq.com/story/fix-the-franchise-james-bond

    I liked that the author knew his Fleming, and I thought his main points were all solid:
    01. Get rid of Madeleine Swann by having her dump Bond in the first act.
    02. Redeem Spectre's mishandling of Blofeld by giving the character a good reintroduction (he must be thirsting for revenge after Bond put him in prison) that doesn't rely on that stupid backstory.
    03. Return to Fleming by making Blofeld an elusive master of disguise and evasion.
    04. End the Craig era by having Bond "die" during his final confrontation with Blofeld, just as Bond "died" in You Only Live Twice. Craig's replacement as Bond will then return from the dead as a new man, as Bond did in The Man With the Golden Gun.
    If Bond is partisan, it should at least be in ways that are true from the books. Like being a nationalist, chauvinist, etc.

    Don't forget subtly anti-American. And as Milton Krest and the Spang twins demonstrate, Fleming had an abiding hatred of vulgar American millionaires.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I honestly don't think they even need to refer to Madeline in the next one.

    They went out of their way to make the whole ending so vague that we can interpret it any number of ways. Was Bond leaving or was he just going on a holiday? Just because he doesn't kill Blofeld doesn't mean he's leaving the service. Throwing his gun in the river could be a heat of the moment decision but doesn't need to have any more significance than that. An argument can be made that Maddy's whining in London prior to the finale may suggest that Bond was leaving the service for her, but who's to say she didn't change her mind? After all, she's a woman, and it's a female prerogative. Perhaps after he saved her life she reconsidered her stupid ultimatums.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    edited April 2017 Posts: 7,305
    http://deadline.com/2017/04/wga-strike-authorization-voting-underway-1202072007/

    Could just be media spin, but it seems more and more likely that the strike will go ahead. According to the article the votes will be counted on Monday the 24th, so it won't be too long until we have something to discuss, either way.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,477
    Errors? There are no errors?

    That guy has lost me by:

    "SPECTRE was easily the worst of Craig’s four 007 movies"

    Like most of the SP dissenters, they like SF in comparison despite that film doing so many of the things they hated in the last one.
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree that cutting it after QoS would have been fantastic, especially with the four year break that ensued. Craig in SF is quite a different Bond from the CR/QoS time.

    I also agree on the retro office fit being a bit clichéd. Dench's office was far more contemporary. I never liked that sort of thing (forced retrofit), even when it was done at the end of Revenge of the Sith. I certainly disliked it immensely at the end of Rogue One.

    Totally agree on the forced retrofitting.

    At the very least it makes sense for a traditionalist like Mallory to have such an office, connecting the space to who he is as a man.

    I remember this forum's pages being packed with folks who wanted few things more than a traditional office back, way before SF was an idea in people's heads. I guess it's the same thing that happened with SP's gun barrel. They get it back at the beginning after wanting it for so long, then still don't like it anyway.

    To be fair, they botched the gunbarrel in SP.

    I liked Mallory's office at the end of SF. It made narrative sense after the bombing for MI6 to move, and it called back to the early films (although of course it is an alternate universe).
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,058
    The Gunbarrel was fine. It was at the beginning of the film. That's all that matters.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    Errors? There are no errors?

    That guy has lost me by:

    "SPECTRE was easily the worst of Craig’s four 007 movies"

    Like most of the SP dissenters, they like SF in comparison despite that film doing so many of the things they hated in the last one.
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree that cutting it after QoS would have been fantastic, especially with the four year break that ensued. Craig in SF is quite a different Bond from the CR/QoS time.

    I also agree on the retro office fit being a bit clichéd. Dench's office was far more contemporary. I never liked that sort of thing (forced retrofit), even when it was done at the end of Revenge of the Sith. I certainly disliked it immensely at the end of Rogue One.

    Totally agree on the forced retrofitting.

    At the very least it makes sense for a traditionalist like Mallory to have such an office, connecting the space to who he is as a man.

    I remember this forum's pages being packed with folks who wanted few things more than a traditional office back, way before SF was an idea in people's heads. I guess it's the same thing that happened with SP's gun barrel. They get it back at the beginning after wanting it for so long, then still don't like it anyway.
    On paper, yes. But it was how it's executed that's bad. It still wasn't a traditional gunbarrel because of the yellow tint and it not opening up to the movie.

    Every gun barrel has a different style with unique tints, shading and effects, that was SP's style.

    I just get sick of the incessant mewling that comes off as very brattish over the whole thing. People should be happy the damn thing is at the front again, and count their blessings. It's another one of those things SP just can't catch a break on with folks, despite it not even being the worst designed gun barrel, though they are all so particular from film to film it's a highly subjective practice anyway.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Spectre's gunbarrel is most definitely the best of the Craig era's. It was almost perfect.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,058
    It's what I wanted. Binder design, Bond theme blaring and a cool pose. I even liked the Dead Are Alive part.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    While I felt the Dead Are Alive title card was just another one of Mendes' "artistic" workouts, it didn't bother me as much as it does others. Craig's walk was perfect, all displayed with confidence and finesse, the Bond Theme climactically playing, and I even loved the brass blow the way it exploded before the dots appeared in its own segment, it was like screaming "Step aside. Daddy's home." And you know what that meant.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    The filter is on some folks eyes who are still blinded by The Skyfall's New Clothes and can't see straight and are burying SP under dubious criticism like the GB was not right or even more silly stuff like the chopper was brought down by a bullet etc.
    At the same time they seem to love the fact Craig was rescued by mermaids after being shot by a sniper rifle plus falling to his certain death AND drowning.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    At the same time they seem to love the fact Craig was rescued by mermaids after being shot by a sniper rifle plus falling to his certain death AND drowning.
    It's believable to say no woman of any entity (human, mermaid, demigodess, superhuman) can resist Bond's charm. ;)
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,725
    Should bond retire at the end of bond 25 then reboot with stand alone movies for the next actor?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Should bond retire at the end of bond 25 then reboot with stand alone movies for the next actor?
    Either with the next one or the one after that.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    Should bond retire at the end of bond 25 then reboot with stand alone movies for the next actor?

    I think we'll get a conclusion next time that closes the book on this Bond. I just don't see Dan's Bond being played by another actor in their era like George played Sean's, for example.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,816
    BIG NEWS regarding the distribution rights "competition" between studios.
    Sony, Universal, Annapurna, Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox are all fighting for it. Article says that Paramount Pictures and Disney are out of the competition.

    https://twitter.com/Bond25Film/status/854973660297392129
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Thanks, @BondAficionado!
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    It will stay with Sony. They won't let it go.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    That will be most unfortunate.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Yes I agree.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    edited April 2017 Posts: 28,231
    Very interesting... It seems that some predictions here, like @bondjames were correct, in that MGM and EON are shooting for just a one picture deal for this hoopla. This could mean they're closing out Craig's films with a final entry as seems sensible, after which point they'll take the time to think about their options and how they want to distribute in the future before jumpstarting another man's era. In short, post-Bond 25 will be a period of possible rebirth for the Bond team as they carry through a re-analyzation of what 007 needs to be in its next form, and how they could best realize a particular vision with new or old partners.

    "On Tuesday, for instance, leaders at Sony spent an hour making their case. Kazuo Hirai, the chief executive, helped give the pitch, which emphasized the studio’s deep knowledge of Bond and its ideas for expanding the franchise’s reach. In true Hollywood fashion, Sony gave its presentation inside a sound stage on a recreated set from “Dr. No,” which was released in the United States in 1963 by United Artists and laid the foundation for the entire series."

    Christ. I would bet good money that Sony recreated Adam's anteroom set with the giant circle in the ceiling for their presentation. Which isn't as cool as it is creepy.

    At this point I want anyone but Sony to get the deal, although no choices are great ones. Each studio aside from maybe Universal has had a high-profile history of being inept, or has at least has made gigantic bumbles in recent memory that should rule them out from consideration for one of the last franchises not to buckle to heavy studio control. Sony only care about spin-offs nobody wants to see when they aren't being hacked with ease, Fox barely ever know how to use their properties with any authority and Warner Bros. can't even make Batman and Superman work, so how would they help continue Bond's legacy (by selling toys, probably)? I have never heard of Annapurna before, so can't comment there.

    Of this bunch, I'd like to see Universal get it in a best case scenario. They have highly successful earners like Fast & the Furious, Jurassic Park/World and Despicable Me, which are all essentially money printing machines that've made them billions. They'd have the capital to risk an investment in marketing and distribution of another blockbuster franchise, and Bond is about as low risk as you can get in such an unpredictable climate as the film industry. From what I know of them they also seem to be great collaborators, they get the right people for important jobs and they let the owners of the properties do their thing without thinking they run the show, which is something Sony didn't seem to ever understand.

    I hope Sony just bugger off, but with their profitable, low risk franchises/properties on the downturn or in some cases nonexistent, maybe Bond is one of their last hopes despite the raw deal they'd get from this (unless they manage a better negotiation). Fox also has a history of distribution for Bond with home video, so they could have a leg up in that respect too simply because they've worked with the brand before and know how the whole shebang goes.

    But if I had a dream, the dream would be Universal getting it. Largely because I think they'd be the least inept, and the least dickish. Definitely the least dickish.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited April 2017 Posts: 9,021
    What about Warner Bros @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

    Personally I would like them best, they have so many great franchises in the past and in the present and what is very important:
    Warner is the best home video producer. What they create in special features for their Blu-ray releases is nothing short of fantastic.

    They were the first to properly use the medium of DVD and HDDVD and later when they jumped ship on HDDVD they started making the best Blu-rays. Also in picture quality.

    Fox on the other hand has to be the worst ever producer of Home Video items.

    Some of my most favourite TV shows ever have HORRIBLE picture quality DVD releases like my beloved Buffy/Angel-verse. Same for films.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    @BondJasonBond006, Warner just have me antsy for now, understandably. I don't trust the people in control of it at this stage, and we both know why that is quite intensely. They had great releases in the past, especially with Harry Potter that I think is their crowning achievement as a modern studio. That was also another time, though, and I don't know if they have it in them to do similar work for Bond.

    We agree on Fox, however. Lame video releases with barely a commentary, etc, which is criminal for a series like Bond that used to have some of the best making of features there was. Now all we get are three minutes videoblogs that we can see on YouTube, but they put them all on the disc anyway to make the package seem nicer than it is.

    I'm just not thrilled with any of the options, as I said. I'm not a big fan of modern filmmaking, and these kinds of studios and the brain dead or blindly greedy moves they pull are essentially why. The advancement of technology in the field has only made them more able to muck things up on various levels with more money being risked with larger productions, which they weren't as capable of doing in olden days when effects were practical and budgets couldn't sinks ships on their own.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,816
    The fact that Annapurna have recently made another deal with MGM means that they've got a decent chance. MGM might (gradually) force Eon to partner w/ Annapurna, because of their good partnership which means little to no risk for MGM and Eon would get desperate to release a Bond film so they'd need to agree.

    Universal/Warner Bros know how to handle a franchise well, but they might put Bond on hold for other projects of theirs. Would be tightly scheduled in-between other franchises and wouldn't get much attention/respect as it does with MGM.
    Fox also has a history of distribution for Bond with home video, so they could have a leg up in that respect too simply because they've worked with the brand before and know how the whole shebang goes.
    Yeah but 20th Century Fox is very busy and invested with the Alien franchise though. MGM/Eon should definitely wait a bit and see if Alien: Covenant is successful first.

    Sony is the frontrunner, naturally, but they'd also want to get a much bigger cut because of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.