No Time To Die: Production Diary

17067077097117122507

Comments

  • edited April 2017 Posts: 3,164
    bondjames wrote: »
    Anyone wanna see Annapurna get the rights?
    Yes. Definitely. It's unlikely though, but as I said a page or so back, Annapurna likely could mean a very interesting, low budget, gritty thriller which I would be very much in favour of. Ellison likely could get Kathryn Bigelow for director and is good friends with Jessica Chastain, who I've always wanted to see in a Bond film.

    Bear in mind, Annapurna, or in fact any of the other studios, wouldn't have any creative control....this deal is purely just for distributing and marketing the film. There's been nothing suggesting it's also a co-financing deal like Sony had for CR-SP. This is still fully an EON/MGM film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    antovolk wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Anyone wanna see Annapurna get the rights?
    Yes. Definitely. It's unlikely though, but as I said a page or so back, Annapurna likely could mean a very interesting, low budget, gritty thriller which I would be very much in favour of. Ellison likely could get Kathryn Bigelow for director and is good friends with Jessica Chastain, who I've always wanted to see in a Bond film.

    Bear in mind, Annapurna, or in fact any of the other studios, wouldn't have any creative control....this deal is purely just for distributing and marketing the film. There's been nothing suggesting it's also a co-financing deal like Sony had for CR-SP. This is still fully an EON/MGM film.
    That's a fair point, but we're not sure yet. It could very well be co-financing, given the cost of these films, and MGM's desire to keep it's balance sheet relatively clean & risk free for a possible IPO (keep in mind that they recently forked out a bit of coin for Epix).

    As I thought more about it, there is a possibility that it could be MGM/Annapurna + someone else also. As @M_Balje noted above, Annapurna have multi-partnered in the past because they've essentially been a production company, only recently getting into distribution (I think Detroit will be their first major effort, coincidentally with MGM). Given there's likely going to be limited profit for the distribution partner, this is mainly about bragging rights and exposure anyway, and I can see Annapurna (who has deep pockets with Ellison) possibly tying up with a larger studio for an attractive proposal. Everyones risk is minimized in this fashion and Ellison gets her big win. The hedge funds that currently own MGM may have some inclination to go in this direction.
    talos7 wrote: »
    That's one thing that I wish EON would take note of from the Marvel films. Sketch out a multi film story arc that provided a template for writers and directors. Within this template there would also be the option to throw in a stand alone adventure. Take the time and have the patience to develop the overall story and the characters.

    Imagine if they had done this starting with CR. They hint at a large crime organization but what if a line or two had been dropped in alluding to that organizations mysterious leader; then in Quantum a bit more is revealed, perhaps we hear his voice, then again In Skyfall. Or, make that film a stand alone and return to the larger story in SPECTRE and the big reveal of Blofeld.

    That wasn't done and you only get on shot at doing it. If Daniel is returning they're in a tough spot to do it in a satisfying manner.
    Agreed. One of the big disappointments of the Craig era for me has been the bungled and shoehorned attempts at continuity. It's like a bargain basement version of Nolan's Bat trilogy (which did have a holistic conceptual & aesthetic arc), and coming so soon after that landmark effort (with SF & SP), many folks (including most definitely this viewer) see it as pilfering. That's one of the reasons I want it over and done with quickly if Craig is indeed back. Put a bullet in it and let's move on.
    And that whole nonsense joining the story arc
    "I'm the father of all your pain"
    Could have just said quantum was part of SPECTRE and blofeld is a bad guy he doesn't need to have a personal tie to bond
    Agreed again. All he needed was to be the 'big bad' behind the nefarious SPECTRE, which had a division named Quantum. Brothergate was a uniquely Mendes waste of space, shockingly approved by many who will still be involved with the franchise. They could have done so many things with the White/Blofeld situation as well, including showing Blofeld personally take White out in a more dramatic fashion etc.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited April 2017 Posts: 3,126
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    When do we think they will actually announce a distribution deal done and done with bidding war end of summer maybe?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    When do we think they will actually announce a distribution deal done and done with bidding war end of summer maybe?
    I don't think it's a fast process, so yes I think end of summer at the earliest but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a bit later. Then they have to do casting etc. so lots to be done if they want to make 2018.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited April 2017 Posts: 5,988
    bondjames wrote: »
    Anyone wanna see Annapurna get the rights?
    Yes. Definitely. It's unlikely though, but as I said a page or so back, Annapurna likely could mean a very interesting, low budget, gritty thriller which I would be very much in favour of. Ellison likely could get Kathryn Bigelow for director and is good friends with Jessica Chastain, who I've always wanted to see in a Bond film.
    talos7 wrote: »
    That's one thing that I wish EON would take note of from the Marvel films. Sketch out a multi film story arc that provided a template for writers and directors. Within this template there would also be the option to throw in a stand alone adventure. Take the time and have the patience to develop the overall story and the characters.

    Imagine if they had done this starting with CR. They hint at a large crime organization but what if a line or two had been dropped in alluding to that organizations mysterious leader; then in Quantum a bit more is revealed, perhaps we hear his voice, then again In Skyfall. Or, make that film a stand alone and return to the larger story in SPECTRE and the big reveal of Blofeld.

    That wasn't done and you only get on shot at doing it. If Daniel is returning they're in a tough spot to do it in a satisfying manner.

    There was no sense in doing that when they weren't close to getting the rights of SPECTRE and Blofeld back at the time of 2006. They just had to tell the stories they could at the time without them. They went as far with Quantum as they could as a modern SPECTRE, and left it open so they could come back. It was only luck that they got the character and organization back in their toolbox after SF, where they were able to finally finish off the Quantum arc once and for all.

    They couldn't have done what you suggest without a crystal ball and immunity from litigation via McClory's camp, however.

    I'd be interested in finding out when Eon started negotiating for the rights to Spectre. Was the organization in CR intended to be a Spectre-like organization or were they introducing it slowly and mysteriously in the hopes of getting the Spectre rights?

    It is fascinating to me that despite all of his screen time, Eon has rarely, if ever, gotten Blofeld right (IMHO, the closest they came was OHMSS). While Savalas was a bit too hands-on and gangsterish for Blofeld, he did display the requisite cockiness and menace. And of course he had the ideal sidekick.

    And yet there are other villains who come across far more successfully with far less screen time (Dr. No, Vesper, and Silva all come to mind).
  • Posts: 3,164
    bondjames wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Anyone wanna see Annapurna get the rights?
    Yes. Definitely. It's unlikely though, but as I said a page or so back, Annapurna likely could mean a very interesting, low budget, gritty thriller which I would be very much in favour of. Ellison likely could get Kathryn Bigelow for director and is good friends with Jessica Chastain, who I've always wanted to see in a Bond film.

    Bear in mind, Annapurna, or in fact any of the other studios, wouldn't have any creative control....this deal is purely just for distributing and marketing the film. There's been nothing suggesting it's also a co-financing deal like Sony had for CR-SP. This is still fully an EON/MGM film.
    That's a fair point, but we're not sure yet. It could very well be co-financing, given the cost of these films, and MGM's desire to keep it's balance sheet relatively clean & risk free for a possible IPO (keep in mind that they recently forked out a bit of coin for Epix).

    As I thought more about it, there is a possibility that it could be MGM/Annapurna + someone else also. As @M_Balje noted above, Annapurna have multi-partnered in the past because they've essentially been a production company, only recently getting into distribution (I think Detroit will be their first major effort, coincidentally with MGM). Given there's likely going to be limited profit for the distribution partner, this is mainly about bragging rights and exposure anyway, and I can see Annapurna (who has deep pockets with Ellison) possibly tying up with a larger studio for an attractive proposal. Everyones risk is minimized in this fashion and Ellison gets her big win. The hedge funds that currently own MGM may have some inclination to go in this direction.
    .

    The thing is that with Detroit, Ellison is trying to make a name for herself as a distributor now. Feel AP partnering with a larger studio to bid for Bond would be the opposite of that. AP's current MGM deal is for distributing the films outside of North America, with the exception of the UK and a number of other European countries. So if AP does get it I'd imagine this same deal will hold - they self distribute domestically, MGM in most OS markets and some other partners for UK and so on which aren't covered by the MGM deal.

    In any case, I highly doubt Broccoli will relinquish any creative control over 25 to whoever ends up getting B25 distribution, even if it is a co-financing deal. This will be her show to run. Now, in the longer term - we're talking 26 on, I can see AP as a fascinating partner because in that case yes, they'll have a line to Bigelow and filmmakers like her, they'll reconfigure the direction of the series after Craig and that's where Broccoli is more likely to get Ellison involved creatively. In a similar way, if WB nab it, it'd get a line for Nolan.... But unless Bigelow is happy to work within the existing creative framework of the Craig era (and same goes for Nolan if WB get it), we won't see her direct B25.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    antovolk wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Anyone wanna see Annapurna get the rights?
    Yes. Definitely. It's unlikely though, but as I said a page or so back, Annapurna likely could mean a very interesting, low budget, gritty thriller which I would be very much in favour of. Ellison likely could get Kathryn Bigelow for director and is good friends with Jessica Chastain, who I've always wanted to see in a Bond film.

    Bear in mind, Annapurna, or in fact any of the other studios, wouldn't have any creative control....this deal is purely just for distributing and marketing the film. There's been nothing suggesting it's also a co-financing deal like Sony had for CR-SP. This is still fully an EON/MGM film.
    That's a fair point, but we're not sure yet. It could very well be co-financing, given the cost of these films, and MGM's desire to keep it's balance sheet relatively clean & risk free for a possible IPO (keep in mind that they recently forked out a bit of coin for Epix).

    As I thought more about it, there is a possibility that it could be MGM/Annapurna + someone else also. As @M_Balje noted above, Annapurna have multi-partnered in the past because they've essentially been a production company, only recently getting into distribution (I think Detroit will be their first major effort, coincidentally with MGM). Given there's likely going to be limited profit for the distribution partner, this is mainly about bragging rights and exposure anyway, and I can see Annapurna (who has deep pockets with Ellison) possibly tying up with a larger studio for an attractive proposal. Everyones risk is minimized in this fashion and Ellison gets her big win. The hedge funds that currently own MGM may have some inclination to go in this direction.
    .

    The thing is that with Detroit, Ellison is trying to make a name for herself as a distributor now. Feel AP partnering with a larger studio to bid for Bond would be the opposite of that. AP's current MGM deal is for distributing the films outside of North America, with the exception of the UK and a number of other European countries. So if AP does get it I'd imagine this same deal will hold - they self distribute domestically, MGM in most OS markets and some other partners for UK and so on which aren't covered by the MGM deal.

    In any case, I highly doubt Broccoli will relinquish any creative control over 25 to whoever ends up getting B25 distribution, even if it is a co-financing deal. This will be her show to run. Now, in the longer term - we're talking 26 on, I can see AP as a fascinating partner because in that case yes, they'll have a line to Bigelow and filmmakers like her, they'll reconfigure the direction of the series after Craig and that's where Broccoli is more likely to get Ellison involved creatively. In a similar way, if WB nab it, it'd get a line for Nolan.... But unless Bigelow is happy to work within the existing creative framework of the Craig era (and same goes for Nolan if WB get it), we won't see her direct B25.
    You raise an excellent question, and it's one I've posed many times on here in the past. Which A list director will want to take on the existing baggage, if it's a continuation story? I don't think there would be many. So logically I think it's either a journeyman for B25 continuing the existing premise, or it's a non-continuation story. It could even be a non-continuation story setting up the new vision, or leading into it.

    I can see Ellison and Babs getting on quite well. Girl power and all that jazz. I can also see Ellison doing whatever it takes to get in for B25 (she's got daddy's edge and business savvy), so that she can indeed help shape the strategic vision post-B25. You have to admit that they are the wildcard in the list of studios. What are they even doing at the table? That means someone thinks they have something worth looking at. Sony is the other one that has an advantage due to incumbency and familiarity, but they could be seen as yesterday's news.

    I actually thinks whoever gets the next film will move quickly to deliver on the one after that. I don't see a long break. I think everyone will use B25 as a financial stepping stone.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited April 2017 Posts: 7,983
    Blofeld aside, my point is have a (flexible) plan. When the next actor is selected craft a 4 or 5 film story arc for that actor that leaves lee way for a stand alone that does not contradict anything within the larger plan. Sign the actor to a multi-picture deal with the understanding that he may , by choice or unforeseen events, have to be replaced while retaining the story arc. EON could learn a thing from Marvel and Harry Potter, have a plan and allow for the unknown and creative flexibility.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 3,164
    Slightly unrelated yet relevant update. Fox just announced a bunch of release dates for 2018, and if they do get the distributor rights for 25 and plan to release it in 2018, don't expect it to be the usual early November window as they've got X-Men: Dark Phoenix dated for that week now.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    What if Daniel Craig was Bond and the villain in the next movie? Get Mendes on board and let's go deeper into the Bond psyche, how the real enemy is Bond himself and give little motifs throughout the film. And in the end he has to, inevitably, kill himself. Cue franchise reboot.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    No.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    MrBond wrote: »

    Interesting information and, despite popular belief, filmmaking as usual. If SF's e-mail correspondence between the studio and EON were hacked we'd find the same mad dash to sort ideas and shooting out as we did in SP, but that film got the unlucky position of being the one whose troubles were made public. It's now viewed as a messy production simply for experiencing the very natural and understandable obstacles associated with enterprises like movies where creatives use bean counters' money on a high-risk project with numerous players and logistics involved. It's never pretty, and things don't go as you expect them to at any point.
    What if Daniel Craig was Bond and the villain in the next movie? Get Mendes on board and let's go deeper into the Bond psyche, how the real enemy is Bond himself and give little motifs throughout the film. And in the end he has to, inevitably, kill himself. Cue franchise reboot.

    Another moment where I can't tell if someone is bullshitting. This may be why I'd prefer that those who had issues with SP's script refrained from posting their own ideas that actually read far worse than anything "hack" Mendes could engineer. It will stave off any shame or embarrassment that way, and halt retorts from asshats such as myself.
  • //In any case, I highly doubt Broccoli will relinquish any creative control over 25 to whoever ends up getting B25 distribution, even if it is a co-financing deal. //

    If somebody supplies half of the financing, they're going to want a voice in how it's spent. They'd be foolish if they didn't.

    Remember, United Artists was relatively hands off with Broccoli and Saltzman. But, when push came to shove, UA wanted Connery for Diamonds Are Forever and UA got Connery.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    //In any case, I highly doubt Broccoli will relinquish any creative control over 25 to whoever ends up getting B25 distribution, even if it is a co-financing deal. //

    If somebody supplies half of the financing, they're going to want a voice in how it's spent. They'd be foolish if they didn't.

    Remember, United Artists was relatively hands off with Broccoli and Saltzman. But, when push came to shove, UA wanted Connery for Diamonds Are Forever and UA got Connery.
    Very true. Recent comments from Harris and the Omega CEO suggest to me that some folks know this is being thrashed out and Craig's involvement, while more likely, is not a given yet. Either it's not entirely his decision although he may have decided to come back, or he is just waiting for a final blessing from the distributor and to see if everything looks like it will work out before confirming his involvement. There are some politics and some strategic leaks to the press as well.

    Big business at its best.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    //In any case, I highly doubt Broccoli will relinquish any creative control over 25 to whoever ends up getting B25 distribution, even if it is a co-financing deal. //

    If somebody supplies half of the financing, they're going to want a voice in how it's spent. They'd be foolish if they didn't.

    Remember, United Artists was relatively hands off with Broccoli and Saltzman. But, when push came to shove, UA wanted Connery for Diamonds Are Forever and UA got Connery.
    Very true. Recent comments from Harris and the Omega CEO suggest to me that some folks know this is being thrashed out and Craig's involvement, while more likely, is not a given yet. Either it's not entirely his decision although he may have decided to come back, or he is just waiting for a final blessing from the distributor and to see if everything looks like it will work out before confirming his involvement. There are some politics and some strategic leaks to the press as well.

    Big business at its best.

    @bondjames, yes, a lot of money is on the table and hands have to be played. I for one look forward to reading down the line some of what went on behind the scenes leading up to production, to see what decisions were made when and who knew what.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    //In any case, I highly doubt Broccoli will relinquish any creative control over 25 to whoever ends up getting B25 distribution, even if it is a co-financing deal. //

    If somebody supplies half of the financing, they're going to want a voice in how it's spent. They'd be foolish if they didn't.

    Remember, United Artists was relatively hands off with Broccoli and Saltzman. But, when push came to shove, UA wanted Connery for Diamonds Are Forever and UA got Connery.
    Very true. Recent comments from Harris and the Omega CEO suggest to me that some folks know this is being thrashed out and Craig's involvement, while more likely, is not a given yet. Either it's not entirely his decision although he may have decided to come back, or he is just waiting for a final blessing from the distributor and to see if everything looks like it will work out before confirming his involvement. There are some politics and some strategic leaks to the press as well.

    Big business at its best.

    @bondjames, yes, a lot of money is on the table and hands have to be played. I for one look forward to reading down the line some of what went on behind the scenes leading up to production, to see what decisions were made when and who knew what.

    I'm sure we'll hear about some of it in due course @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, as we normally do. It's probably a difficult decision for Craig, because he's busier now than he's been in some time, and with excellent & critically rewarding projects in the pipeline. Sometimes, one has to strike while the iron is hot, particularly as decent & lucrative options for actors dry up as they age. Bond is a huge time and physical commitment (including junkets and the like which he dislikes doing) and I can imagine it's a decision he's wrestling with.

    I don't really think he cares all that much at this point about Bond, but he'll do it if the script is reasonable and if he thinks there's a reason to come back. I think he'll make the call on 'feel' with this one.

    I have a feeling EON has a backup in case it doesn't work out.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    //In any case, I highly doubt Broccoli will relinquish any creative control over 25 to whoever ends up getting B25 distribution, even if it is a co-financing deal. //

    If somebody supplies half of the financing, they're going to want a voice in how it's spent. They'd be foolish if they didn't.

    Remember, United Artists was relatively hands off with Broccoli and Saltzman. But, when push came to shove, UA wanted Connery for Diamonds Are Forever and UA got Connery.
    Very true. Recent comments from Harris and the Omega CEO suggest to me that some folks know this is being thrashed out and Craig's involvement, while more likely, is not a given yet. Either it's not entirely his decision although he may have decided to come back, or he is just waiting for a final blessing from the distributor and to see if everything looks like it will work out before confirming his involvement. There are some politics and some strategic leaks to the press as well.

    Big business at its best.

    @bondjames, yes, a lot of money is on the table and hands have to be played. I for one look forward to reading down the line some of what went on behind the scenes leading up to production, to see what decisions were made when and who knew what.

    I'm sure we'll hear about some of it in due course @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, as we normally do. It's probably a difficult decision for Craig, because he's busier now than he's been in some time, and with excellent projects in the pipleline. Sometimes, one has to strike while the iron is hot, particularly as decent & lucrative options for actors dry up. Bond is a huge time and physical commitment (including junkets and the like which he dislikes doing) and I can imagine it's a decision he's wrestling with.

    I don't really think he cares all that much at this point about Bond, but he'll do it if the script is reasonable and if he thinks there's a reason to come back. I think he'll make the call on 'feel' with this one.

    I have a feeling EON has a backup in case it doesn't work out.

    Woah!
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 4,622
    The way to get Craig back for two more films I think is to pitch him on both now, as a package deal. I think he is in for 25, with Mendes probably not far behind, but lay out the broad strokes and timetable for 26 now. That way he can both plan and focus. No uncertainty.
    I'd like to keep him around. Mind you, go real young after he is done, but for now I think he has really found his stride as Bond.
    He had some great moments in both SF and SP
    One of my favourites in SP, is when he first sees Blofeld's fresh new scar.
    The moment comes at a very tense time in the film, but our Bond does take time to have a little smirk at Ernst's expense.
    Much like vintage Connery. "Are you having lunch at the White House too, Goldfinger?" before they get down to the business of trying to kill each other.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @timmer, he apparently didn't want to commit to a two parter for B24/25 so I don't think he'll be more inclined to do that now, given that he's older and is doing some good challenging work in other areas.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 4,622
    He might if he knows its the end though.
    The capper to his Bondage!
    All tied off with a bow.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    What if Daniel Craig was Bond and the villain in the next movie? Get Mendes on board and let's go deeper into the Bond psyche, how the real enemy is Bond himself and give little motifs throughout the film. And in the end he has to, inevitably, kill himself. Cue franchise reboot.

    That's the best idea I've heard omg. They can have Bond go rogue and join SPECTRE. I am bang on board to see that film.



    And that whole nonsense joining the story arc
    "I'm the father of all your pain"
    Could have just said quantum was part of SPECTRE and blofeld is a bad guy he doesn't need to have a personal tie to bond
    Agreed again. All he needed was to be the 'big bad' behind the nefarious SPECTRE, which had a division named Quantum. Brothergate was a uniquely Mendes waste of space, shockingly approved by many who will still be involved with the franchise. They could have done so many things with the White/Blofeld situation as well, including showing Blofeld personally take White out in a more dramatic fashion etc.[/quote]

    Hahahahah-" brothergate"
    That's hilarious
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    //In any case, I highly doubt Broccoli will relinquish any creative control over 25 to whoever ends up getting B25 distribution, even if it is a co-financing deal. //

    If somebody supplies half of the financing, they're going to want a voice in how it's spent. They'd be foolish if they didn't.

    Remember, United Artists was relatively hands off with Broccoli and Saltzman. But, when push came to shove, UA wanted Connery for Diamonds Are Forever and UA got Connery.
    Very true. Recent comments from Harris and the Omega CEO suggest to me that some folks know this is being thrashed out and Craig's involvement, while more likely, is not a given yet. Either it's not entirely his decision although he may have decided to come back, or he is just waiting for a final blessing from the distributor and to see if everything looks like it will work out before confirming his involvement. There are some politics and some strategic leaks to the press as well.

    Big business at its best.

    @bondjames, yes, a lot of money is on the table and hands have to be played. I for one look forward to reading down the line some of what went on behind the scenes leading up to production, to see what decisions were made when and who knew what.

    I'm sure we'll hear about some of it in due course @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, as we normally do. It's probably a difficult decision for Craig, because he's busier now than he's been in some time, and with excellent & critically rewarding projects in the pipeline. Sometimes, one has to strike while the iron is hot, particularly as decent & lucrative options for actors dry up as they age. Bond is a huge time and physical commitment (including junkets and the like which he dislikes doing) and I can imagine it's a decision he's wrestling with.

    I don't really think he cares all that much at this point about Bond, but he'll do it if the script is reasonable and if he thinks there's a reason to come back. I think he'll make the call on 'feel' with this one.

    I have a feeling EON has a backup in case it doesn't work out.

    @bondjames, I think Dan really loves the job, but he's also very mindful of what his limitations are, and when the right time to leave is. He won't pull a Roger, basically. He's always gone into the process looking for something interesting to say with the character, and if he finds that this time with the team they have-who he may've already collaborated on ideas with alongside Barbara-I think it's surefire he's return.

    It's clear that he loves the work and the people who make the Bond films, and he always wants to give it his all for them, or it's nothing. He has said the same thing in the past few months, confirming that he'd do it as long as he gets a kick out of it, is able to physically do it and it's enjoyable for him. If Bond 25 is indeed his last, he's jumped on the chance because he's proud of the past work he's done and wants to conclude it on a high that sees him going out at the right time, where the character he made this Bond to be has been comprehensively examined and tested. He can then put it to rest knowing he put all of himself into it at every moment, wearing every hat on the productions like no other Bond before, and can say goodbye without regret and with pride in what he helped to create for over a decade.

    It has the chance to be the most triumphant end to a Bond era we've seen. I don't think he'll see the drawn out trial of Moore's era, the missed potential of Dalton, or the sudden exit of Brosnan. Dan's ending will be conclusive and on his terms, as it has always been with his Bond.
  • Posts: 4,026
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    //In any case, I highly doubt Broccoli will relinquish any creative control over 25 to whoever ends up getting B25 distribution, even if it is a co-financing deal. //

    If somebody supplies half of the financing, they're going to want a voice in how it's spent. They'd be foolish if they didn't.

    Remember, United Artists was relatively hands off with Broccoli and Saltzman. But, when push came to shove, UA wanted Connery for Diamonds Are Forever and UA got Connery.
    Very true. Recent comments from Harris and the Omega CEO suggest to me that some folks know this is being thrashed out and Craig's involvement, while more likely, is not a given yet. Either it's not entirely his decision although he may have decided to come back, or he is just waiting for a final blessing from the distributor and to see if everything looks like it will work out before confirming his involvement. There are some politics and some strategic leaks to the press as well.

    Big business at its best.

    @bondjames, yes, a lot of money is on the table and hands have to be played. I for one look forward to reading down the line some of what went on behind the scenes leading up to production, to see what decisions were made when and who knew what.

    I'm sure we'll hear about some of it in due course @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, as we normally do. It's probably a difficult decision for Craig, because he's busier now than he's been in some time, and with excellent & critically rewarding projects in the pipeline. Sometimes, one has to strike while the iron is hot, particularly as decent & lucrative options for actors dry up as they age. Bond is a huge time and physical commitment (including junkets and the like which he dislikes doing) and I can imagine it's a decision he's wrestling with.

    I don't really think he cares all that much at this point about Bond, but he'll do it if the script is reasonable and if he thinks there's a reason to come back. I think he'll make the call on 'feel' with this one.

    I have a feeling EON has a backup in case it doesn't work out.

    @bondjames, I think Dan really loves the job, but he's also very mindful of what his limitations are, and when the right time to leave is. He won't pull a Roger, basically. He's always gone into the process looking for something interesting to say with the character, and if he finds that this time with the team they have-who he may've already collaborated on ideas with alongside Barbara-I think it's surefire he's return.

    It's clear that he loves the work and the people who make the Bond films, and he always wants to give it his all for them, or it's nothing. He has said the same thing in the past few months, confirming that he'd do it as long as he gets a kick out of it, is able to physically do it and it's enjoyable for him. If Bond 25 is indeed his last, he's jumped on the chance because he's proud of the past work he's done and wants to conclude it on a high that sees him going out at the right time, where the character he made this Bond to be has been comprehensively examined and tested. He can then put it to rest knowing he put all of himself into it at every moment, wearing every hat on the productions like no other Bond before, and can say goodbye without regret and with pride in what he helped to create for over a decade.

    It has the chance to be the most triumphant end to a Bond era we've seen. I don't think he'll see the drawn out trial of Moore's era, the missed potential of Dalton, or the sudden exit of Brosnan. Dan's ending will be conclusive and on his terms, as it has always been with his Bond.

    ...and we've already seen it?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    Not yet. ;)
    QiHe7Rkl.jpg
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 4,619
    M's loyalty to Bond is tested when his past (Vesper) comes back to haunt him. Whilst Bond comes under attack, MI6 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost.
    Sorry, I couldn't resist.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Property of a Lady might have made a good sequel to CR, based around the Algerian Love Knot necklace
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    vzok wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    //In any case, I highly doubt Broccoli will relinquish any creative control over 25 to whoever ends up getting B25 distribution, even if it is a co-financing deal. //

    If somebody supplies half of the financing, they're going to want a voice in how it's spent. They'd be foolish if they didn't.

    Remember, United Artists was relatively hands off with Broccoli and Saltzman. But, when push came to shove, UA wanted Connery for Diamonds Are Forever and UA got Connery.
    Very true. Recent comments from Harris and the Omega CEO suggest to me that some folks know this is being thrashed out and Craig's involvement, while more likely, is not a given yet. Either it's not entirely his decision although he may have decided to come back, or he is just waiting for a final blessing from the distributor and to see if everything looks like it will work out before confirming his involvement. There are some politics and some strategic leaks to the press as well.

    Big business at its best.

    @bondjames, yes, a lot of money is on the table and hands have to be played. I for one look forward to reading down the line some of what went on behind the scenes leading up to production, to see what decisions were made when and who knew what.

    I'm sure we'll hear about some of it in due course @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, as we normally do. It's probably a difficult decision for Craig, because he's busier now than he's been in some time, and with excellent & critically rewarding projects in the pipeline. Sometimes, one has to strike while the iron is hot, particularly as decent & lucrative options for actors dry up as they age. Bond is a huge time and physical commitment (including junkets and the like which he dislikes doing) and I can imagine it's a decision he's wrestling with.

    I don't really think he cares all that much at this point about Bond, but he'll do it if the script is reasonable and if he thinks there's a reason to come back. I think he'll make the call on 'feel' with this one.

    I have a feeling EON has a backup in case it doesn't work out.

    @bondjames, I think Dan really loves the job, but he's also very mindful of what his limitations are, and when the right time to leave is. He won't pull a Roger, basically. He's always gone into the process looking for something interesting to say with the character, and if he finds that this time with the team they have-who he may've already collaborated on ideas with alongside Barbara-I think it's surefire he's return.

    It's clear that he loves the work and the people who make the Bond films, and he always wants to give it his all for them, or it's nothing. He has said the same thing in the past few months, confirming that he'd do it as long as he gets a kick out of it, is able to physically do it and it's enjoyable for him. If Bond 25 is indeed his last, he's jumped on the chance because he's proud of the past work he's done and wants to conclude it on a high that sees him going out at the right time, where the character he made this Bond to be has been comprehensively examined and tested. He can then put it to rest knowing he put all of himself into it at every moment, wearing every hat on the productions like no other Bond before, and can say goodbye without regret and with pride in what he helped to create for over a decade.

    It has the chance to be the most triumphant end to a Bond era we've seen. I don't think he'll see the drawn out trial of Moore's era, the missed potential of Dalton, or the sudden exit of Brosnan. Dan's ending will be conclusive and on his terms, as it has always been with his Bond.

    ...and we've already seen it?

    Not sure what you're trying to argue...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    What if Daniel Craig was Bond and the villain in the next movie? Get Mendes on board and let's go deeper into the Bond psyche, how the real enemy is Bond himself and give little motifs throughout the film. And in the end he has to, inevitably, kill himself. Cue franchise reboot.

    Haha, how artistic.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2017 Posts: 8,119
    I agree, there seems to be some disharmony behind the scenes. This could be another fraught episode in the Bond saga, the kind that will be written about in detail, perhaps in the next volume of Some Kind of Hero in future. We were told to expect an announcement regard a distributor in February 2016. Given that it's just a one picture deal, what could have possibly taken this long if there wasn't some kind of backstage drama? I wouldn't be surprised if we hadn't seen the last of it either. These Bond tenures rarely end cordially between all parties.

    Back last Autumn Craig said that there were no plans for another Bond film, and that all concerned were "focusing on other projects". Doesn't really fit with the visual of EON as a tightly coiled spring ready to burst forth from the starting gates on Craig's final film.
Sign In or Register to comment.