No Time To Die: Production Diary

18558568588608612507

Comments

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Not saying it's definite but maybe Babs heart is just not in it anymore and MGW is not getting any younger.

    Possibly they don't have the energy for it anymore and want to hand the baton over and there younger family isn't up to the task.

    If this does happen I think if you want the character to be left intact and not be changed to the point of insulting the fans. Then Christopher Nolan is the best option with WB as the studio being made though CN's Syncopy imprint.

    I would have said this was BS a while ago but I think this could all possibly be true.

    Getting Craig back would be more likely, I don't imagine BB & MGW would want to produce their last Bond film without DC and they might as well close off the whole Quantum/SPECTRE Arc.

    Get the cast back from SP and end it all. I think if they are doing this they'll want to put a full stop on proceedings like we've never seen before, an end to not only their time, Craig's Bond but his Bond's timeline.

    If they are selling then Nolan & WB is the safest option, Nolan could direct the first one then others could jump on board with him and Emma producing them.

    A part of me feels sad about this it would be the end of the longest film series of all time under the umbrella of one family but a part of me is excited, those wanting more regular entries would likely be sated if a big studio like WB took over the reins.

    Guess we'll see.




  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    antovolk wrote: »
    gt007 wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    MI6-HQ admins seem to be hearing the same re: Babs/MGW selling Bond off after 25:


    Now that's frightening... Bond has always been run like a family business. I dread to imagine what a huge corporation (like, for example, Disney), with very different motivations than EON, would do with Bond...

    same could've been said for Lucasfilm, no?

    (then again, while they've been doing an incredible job with the main saga, there's the whole situation with the spinoffs...)

    Well, I never liked the Star Wars films and haven't seen the more recent ones, so I can't really say if they're doing a good job in terms of content.

    But I have to say I don't like the idea of doing as many sequels, spin-offs and origin stories as possible, milking the Star Wars cow too much until it dies... I would never want that to happen to Bond. Even Babs was tempted a couple of times by the spin-off idea, imagine what a company like Disney would do... A trilogy about M's origins, a Moneypenny spin-off, a quirky (post-)teen dramedy about Q... That would only make the original Bond film series look cheap.

    Bond is Cubby's legacy. It's Barbara's family heritage. I believe she respects that immensely and has genuine passion for Bond. I honestly doubt she'll ever sell.
    gt007 wrote: »
    I dread to imagine what a huge corporation (like, for example, Disney), with very different motivations than EON, would do with Bond...

    Who said anything about a huge corporation?
    16b085eabe11d80dffa969230ffc47dd--thomas-anderson-paul-thomas.jpg

    ;)

    Oh, don't even start me on that... I wouldn't want Nolan to direct a Bond, let alone buy the whole franchise... That would be catastrophic IMO.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    EON dropping Bond so they can produce a series of Blake Lively spy movies?
    I don't think so. Wouldn't be that disappointed to tell you the truth depending on where it landed, but it's pretty far-fetched.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,414
    jake24 wrote: »
    But it begs the question, why lock in a release date without a Bond?

    They figure that they have about a year and a half to figure that out.
  • Posts: 1,965
    Craig will be back.
  • Posts: 11,425
    But will he back as Bond...?
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited July 2017 Posts: 4,414
    I dont even think he knows. I doubt that we'll hear anything during his Logan Lucky press tour or whatever he decides to do to promote it. Even if he were to say yes in a hypothetical world, then why not push it back to 2018 now that the million dollar question was answered? And if he does, depending on the success of Logan Lucky which is getting rave reviews, I wouldn't be surprised to see him want to team up with Soderbergh for this one. Depending on how well they worked together on Logan Lucky
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Eon selling the franchise to Nolan? What drugs are being passed around here? =))
    tumblr_nnlxhaUlQF1und15po1_500.gif
  • Posts: 154
    I totally understand about selling the franchise. I sense a lack of energy and excitement that Cubby always brought to the table. My only concern would be if Babs & Co. decides to kill off Bond for lack of any other ideas, intending to let somebody else reboot the series down the road. There is no reason to do this but i could see them going for it as a "big twist" in Bond 25. (And Craig spending 10 minutes in exaggerated death throes.)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    writer5150 wrote: »
    I totally understand about selling the franchise. I sense a lack of energy and excitement that Cubby always brought to the table. My only concern would be if Babs & Co. decides to kill off Bond for lack of any other ideas, intending to let somebody else reboot the series down the road. There is no reason to do this but i could see them going for it as a "big twist" in Bond 25. (And Craig spending 10 minutes in exaggerated death throes.)
    A truly frightful thought! I doubt they'd be so extreme, but if that is really under consideration they may want to seriously consider bringing back Craig's predecessor. Nobody could do exaggerated 'pain' as well as he could. ;)
  • Posts: 12,265
    If Bond 25 is the last EON film then I definitely want Craig back one last time - and Blofeld too. Craig deserves a sendoff as epic as OHMSS - especially if it's EON's last hurrah. They had better put everything into it.
  • Posts: 1,162
    writer5150 wrote: »
    I totally understand about selling the franchise. I sense a lack of energy and excitement that Cubby always brought to the table. My only concern would be if Babs & Co. decides to kill off Bond for lack of any other ideas, intending to let somebody else reboot the series down the road. There is no reason to do this but i could see them going for it as a "big twist" in Bond 25. (And Craig spending 10 minutes in exaggerated death throes.)

    Isn't it frightening, that they have brought us to a point where we would even contemplate events like this?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Murdock wrote: »
    Eon selling the franchise to Nolan? What drugs are being passed around here? =))
    tumblr_nnlxhaUlQF1und15po1_500.gif

    In terms of their ethos and film making sensibilities The Nolan's (Syncopy) are the only working Producers I would trust with it. Nolan himself is a traditionalist, but he works at the cutting edge of cinema. It's this dichotomy which is evocative of Bond.
  • Posts: 1,680
    I have a feeling they'll go bold with the next one. Spectre was filler and leading up to a Craig finale.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I have a feeling they'll go bold with the next one. Spectre was filler and leading up to a Craig finale.
    $300M filler.
  • Posts: 12,265
    Maybe they will use some elements of the original SP script that were dropped? I think if it's Craig's and EON's last returning Spectre and Blofeld makes sense. They can make it however connected or disconnected they want from Craig's other films.
  • Posts: 4,023
    writer5150 wrote: »
    I totally understand about selling the franchise. I sense a lack of energy and excitement that Cubby always brought to the table. My only concern would be if Babs & Co. decides to kill off Bond for lack of any other ideas, intending to let somebody else reboot the series down the road. There is no reason to do this but i could see them going for it as a "big twist" in Bond 25. (And Craig spending 10 minutes in exaggerated death throes.)

    That's the PTS sorted.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    writer5150 wrote: »
    I totally understand about selling the franchise. I sense a lack of energy and excitement that Cubby always brought to the table. My only concern would be if Babs & Co. decides to kill off Bond for lack of any other ideas, intending to let somebody else reboot the series down the road. There is no reason to do this but i could see them going for it as a "big twist" in Bond 25. (And Craig spending 10 minutes in exaggerated death throes.)
    A truly frightful thought! I doubt they'd be so extreme, but if that is really under consideration they may want to seriously consider bringing back Craig's predecessor. Nobody could do exaggerated 'pain' as well as he could. ;)

    Brosnan with a 20 minutes long painface sequence in the style of the ending in 2001-A Space Odyssey.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,083
    vzok wrote: »
    writer5150 wrote: »
    I totally understand about selling the franchise. I sense a lack of energy and excitement that Cubby always brought to the table. My only concern would be if Babs & Co. decides to kill off Bond for lack of any other ideas, intending to let somebody else reboot the series down the road. There is no reason to do this but i could see them going for it as a "big twist" in Bond 25. (And Craig spending 10 minutes in exaggerated death throes.)

    That's the PTS sorted.

    Non-linear storytelling.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 17,279
    Tuulia wrote: »
    My own "problem" with Nolan - and the films I've seen, is that they feel (and are!) very long. He takes his time with the plot, slowly building everything up to the climax. Not that they necessarily become boring, but it almost becomes a chore to complete it.

    How long any movie feels like to any viewer varies. If it feels like a chore then clearly one doesn't enjoy it - the length itself has little to do with that.

    However, most of Nolan's movies aren't actually long.
    Following 70 minutes (done on a shoestring budget and all that, so a somewhat different case, but I don't know if he'd even have wanted to make it longer),
    Dunkirk 106 minutes,
    Memento 113 minutes,
    Insomnia 118 minutes,
    The Prestige 130 minutes,
    Batman Begins 140 minutes,
    Inception 148 minutes.
    So: 4 out of 10 under 2 hours, 7 out of 10 under 2 and a half hours. None over 3 hours (the longest being Interstellar at 169 minutes).
    Personally I don't consider movies under 2 and a half hours to even be long, so I wouldn't say Nolan's movies are long in general.
    If you dislike them, though, they'll probably all feel long to you. The same would go for any other movies. A 2 hour movie will feel long if you hate it, a 2 hour 30 minute movie won't feel long if you love it.

    Well, there are plenty of films I really do like, but at the same time feel could loose some unnecessary elements, allowing a "tighter" film experience. In your list you didn't mention The Dark Knight at 152 minutes and The Dark Knight Rises at 165 minutes. Both films were part of a discussion among my friends some years ago - all of them loved both films, but felt they were too long. If I remember correctly, one of them said something like: «I'm loving this, but I really feel that ("this") and ("that") could be cut short. I don't think it would hurt the movie experience at all». A point to which I agreed. Can't remember what parts exactly, but that's not important.

    Tuulia wrote: »
    Interesting. War films isn't really my thing, so I doubt I'll check it out - but what elements of Dunkirk are different from his other films?

    No slow build-up, you're dropped right into it, and then it just keeps escalating. No backstories for any characters. No actual lead(s), it's very much an ensemble piece. Very little dialogue.

    It's also not a traditional war film. There are no regular battles, nor regular victory, no portrayal of typical machismo or big heroics, no emotional manipulation of the viewer, no gore, no detailed/extended death scenes of individuals. It's not about homes or loved ones, what anyone has done in the past or what they'd like to do in the future. It's only about the now, what everyone has in common, this moment and how to survive it. It works in a different way that war films normally do. Here war is the setting, and obviously it's a story of actual history, but it's more a thriller by nature than a war movie. But in the unusual way that it is about war, I think it's very effective - more so IMO, because of not having seen this kind of approach to it before.

    Interesting. Almost all the elements you mentioned above are things that put me off war films, especially the machismo/big heroics elements, which so many war films suffer from. Might have to reconsider checking it out, eventually. :-)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2017 Posts: 8,083
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Eon selling the franchise to Nolan? What drugs are being passed around here? =))
    tumblr_nnlxhaUlQF1und15po1_500.gif

    In terms of their ethos and film making sensibilities The Nolan's (Syncopy) are the only working Producers I would trust with it. Nolan himself is a traditionalist, but he works at the cutting edge of cinema. It's this dichotomy which is evocative of Bond.

    Too right. Imagine a Non-CGI dominated, shot on film Bond in 2022.
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Not saying it's definite but maybe Babs heart is just not in it anymore and MGW is not getting any younger.

    Possibly they don't have the energy for it anymore and want to hand the baton over and there younger family isn't up to the task.

    If this does happen I think if you want the character to be left intact and not be changed to the point of insulting the fans. Then Christopher Nolan is the best option with WB as the studio being made though CN's Syncopy imprint.

    I would have said this was BS a while ago but I think this could all possibly be true.

    Getting Craig back would be more likely, I don't imagine BB & MGW would want to produce their last Bond film without DC and they might as well close off the whole Quantum/SPECTRE Arc.

    Get the cast back from SP and end it all. I think if they are doing this they'll want to put a full stop on proceedings like we've never seen before, an end to not only their time, Craig's Bond but his Bond's timeline.

    If they are selling then Nolan & WB is the safest option, Nolan could direct the first one then others could jump on board with him and Emma producing them.

    A part of me feels sad about this it would be the end of the longest film series of all time under the umbrella of one family but a part of me is excited, those wanting more regular entries would likely be sated if a big studio like WB took over the reins.

    Guess we'll see.

    Incredible post. I like how you're getting to grips with the idea of Nolan as the Bond autuer in the future.
  • Posts: 2,483
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Eon selling the franchise to Nolan? What drugs are being passed around here? =))
    tumblr_nnlxhaUlQF1und15po1_500.gif

    In terms of their ethos and film making sensibilities The Nolan's (Syncopy) are the only working Producers I would trust with it. Nolan himself is a traditionalist, but he works at the cutting edge of cinema. It's this dichotomy which is evocative of Bond.

    Agreed. As a purchaser, Nolan would be the best option. At the opposite end of the spectrum would be an Amy Pascal consortium.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Just an observation: it seems there is a lot of anxiety on these boards at the moment. LOL
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,006
    Tell me about it.
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    writer5150 wrote: »
    I totally understand about selling the franchise. I sense a lack of energy and excitement that Cubby always brought to the table. My only concern would be if Babs & Co. decides to kill off Bond for lack of any other ideas, intending to let somebody else reboot the series down the road. There is no reason to do this but i could see them going for it as a "big twist" in Bond 25. (And Craig spending 10 minutes in exaggerated death throes.)
    A truly frightful thought! I doubt they'd be so extreme, but if that is really under consideration they may want to seriously consider bringing back Craig's predecessor. Nobody could do exaggerated 'pain' as well as he could. ;)

    If they're bringing back Brosnan for pain face they should bring back Dalts for some seriously thespy or whistful staring in the distance.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 2,081
    Tuulia wrote: »
    My own "problem" with Nolan - and the films I've seen, is that they feel (and are!) very long. He takes his time with the plot, slowly building everything up to the climax. Not that they necessarily become boring, but it almost becomes a chore to complete it.

    How long any movie feels like to any viewer varies. If it feels like a chore then clearly one doesn't enjoy it - the length itself has little to do with that.

    However, most of Nolan's movies aren't actually long.
    Following 70 minutes (done on a shoestring budget and all that, so a somewhat different case, but I don't know if he'd even have wanted to make it longer),
    Dunkirk 106 minutes,
    Memento 113 minutes,
    Insomnia 118 minutes,
    The Prestige 130 minutes,
    Batman Begins 140 minutes,
    Inception 148 minutes.
    So: 4 out of 10 under 2 hours, 7 out of 10 under 2 and a half hours. None over 3 hours (the longest being Interstellar at 169 minutes).
    Personally I don't consider movies under 2 and a half hours to even be long, so I wouldn't say Nolan's movies are long in general.
    If you dislike them, though, they'll probably all feel long to you. The same would go for any other movies. A 2 hour movie will feel long if you hate it, a 2 hour 30 minute movie won't feel long if you love it.

    Well, there are plenty of films I really do like, but at the same time feel could loose some unnecessary elements, allowing a "tighter" film experience. In your list you didn't mention The Dark Knight at 152 minutes and The Dark Knight Rises at 165 minutes. Both films were part of a discussion among my friends some years ago - all of them loved both films, but felt they were too long. If I remember correctly, one of them said something like: «I'm loving this, but I really feel that ("this") and ("that") could be cut short. I don't think it would hurt the movie experience at all». A point to which I agreed. Can't remember what parts exactly, but that's not important.

    I know he has made a couple of pretty long films as well. I was just saying that most of his movies aren't actually long. The long ones are an exceptions rather than his regular MO.

    Tuulia wrote: »
    Interesting. War films isn't really my thing, so I doubt I'll check it out - but what elements of Dunkirk are different from his other films?

    No slow build-up, you're dropped right into it, and then it just keeps escalating. No backstories for any characters. No actual lead(s), it's very much an ensemble piece. Very little dialogue.

    It's also not a traditional war film. There are no regular battles, nor regular victory, no portrayal of typical machismo or big heroics, no emotional manipulation of the viewer, no gore, no detailed/extended death scenes of individuals. It's not about homes or loved ones, what anyone has done in the past or what they'd like to do in the future. It's only about the now, what everyone has in common, this moment and how to survive it. It works in a different way that war films normally do. Here war is the setting, and obviously it's a story of actual history, but it's more a thriller by nature than a war movie. But in the unusual way that it is about war, I think it's very effective - more so IMO, because of not having seen this kind of approach to it before.

    Interesting. Almost all the elements you mentioned above are things that put me off war films, especially the machismo/big heroics elements, which so many war films suffer from. Might have to reconsider checking it out, eventually. :-)

    Yes, me, too. There tends to be an element of noble sacrifice and heroic deeds and therefore glorification of war and soldiers and death and killing. As if the whole business has some innate nobility and glory to it. I've seen that quite enough, and was happy not to see it in this. I think the very human desperation to just survive, and the utterly non-noble randomness of death was refreshing. Lives mattered equally since nobody was singled out with backstories to make them more special and more "relatable". Some people thought that was a negative (in other words they wanted the familiar war movie), I thought it was a positive.

    I thought it was technically beautiful as well - directing, cinematography, sound, etc. And I liked the structure, and thought it worked well to support the story and enhance the overall effect of tension.

    But, hey, you might just hate it. :) One always takes that risk with movies. Just don't watch on a mobile device or something. Big and loud would be a better idea. It's not a plot-based movie, but a feeling based movie.
  • Posts: 17,279
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    My own "problem" with Nolan - and the films I've seen, is that they feel (and are!) very long. He takes his time with the plot, slowly building everything up to the climax. Not that they necessarily become boring, but it almost becomes a chore to complete it.

    How long any movie feels like to any viewer varies. If it feels like a chore then clearly one doesn't enjoy it - the length itself has little to do with that.

    However, most of Nolan's movies aren't actually long.
    Following 70 minutes (done on a shoestring budget and all that, so a somewhat different case, but I don't know if he'd even have wanted to make it longer),
    Dunkirk 106 minutes,
    Memento 113 minutes,
    Insomnia 118 minutes,
    The Prestige 130 minutes,
    Batman Begins 140 minutes,
    Inception 148 minutes.
    So: 4 out of 10 under 2 hours, 7 out of 10 under 2 and a half hours. None over 3 hours (the longest being Interstellar at 169 minutes).
    Personally I don't consider movies under 2 and a half hours to even be long, so I wouldn't say Nolan's movies are long in general.
    If you dislike them, though, they'll probably all feel long to you. The same would go for any other movies. A 2 hour movie will feel long if you hate it, a 2 hour 30 minute movie won't feel long if you love it.

    Well, there are plenty of films I really do like, but at the same time feel could loose some unnecessary elements, allowing a "tighter" film experience. In your list you didn't mention The Dark Knight at 152 minutes and The Dark Knight Rises at 165 minutes. Both films were part of a discussion among my friends some years ago - all of them loved both films, but felt they were too long. If I remember correctly, one of them said something like: «I'm loving this, but I really feel that ("this") and ("that") could be cut short. I don't think it would hurt the movie experience at all». A point to which I agreed. Can't remember what parts exactly, but that's not important.

    I know he has made a couple of pretty long films as well. I was just saying that most of his movies aren't actually long. The long ones are an exceptions rather than his regular MO.

    Tuulia wrote: »
    Interesting. War films isn't really my thing, so I doubt I'll check it out - but what elements of Dunkirk are different from his other films?

    No slow build-up, you're dropped right into it, and then it just keeps escalating. No backstories for any characters. No actual lead(s), it's very much an ensemble piece. Very little dialogue.

    It's also not a traditional war film. There are no regular battles, nor regular victory, no portrayal of typical machismo or big heroics, no emotional manipulation of the viewer, no gore, no detailed/extended death scenes of individuals. It's not about homes or loved ones, what anyone has done in the past or what they'd like to do in the future. It's only about the now, what everyone has in common, this moment and how to survive it. It works in a different way that war films normally do. Here war is the setting, and obviously it's a story of actual history, but it's more a thriller by nature than a war movie. But in the unusual way that it is about war, I think it's very effective - more so IMO, because of not having seen this kind of approach to it before.

    Interesting. Almost all the elements you mentioned above are things that put me off war films, especially the machismo/big heroics elements, which so many war films suffer from. Might have to reconsider checking it out, eventually. :-)

    Yes, me, too. There tends to be an element of noble sacrifice and heroic deeds and therefore glorification of war and soldiers and death and killing. As if the whole business has some innate nobility and glory to it. I've seen that quite enough, and was happy not to see it in this. I think the very human desperation to just survive, and the utterly non-noble randomness of death was refreshing. Lives mattered equally since nobody was singled out with backstories to make them more special and more "relatable". Some people thought that was a negative (in other words they wanted the familiar war movie), I thought it was a positive.

    I thought it was technically beautiful as well - directing, cinematography, sound, etc. And I liked the structure, and thought it worked well to support the story and enhance the overall effect of tension.

    But, hey, you might just hate it. :) One always takes that risk with movies. Just don't watch on a mobile device or something. Big and loud would be a better idea. It's not a plot-based movie, but a feeling based movie.

    A big screen and loud volume it is, then! The images I've seen looks good, so no doubting the cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema. :-)
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    I hope Babs and MGW don't sell the rights, but I can understand if they do. Obviously things have not been easy with the trouble at MGM, now getting a new distributor, etc. We sometimes forget Bond films are like big budget indies. Eon is a family business and like any family business it gets difficult when the time comes to prepare the next generation for taking the helm. I though MGW's two kids would somehow take over, they have been involved in last few installments after all. But what if they don't? What if MGW and BB don't feel like there's anyone who can carry out Cubby's legacy? In that case they might feel like it's better to bring someone else on board or sell. I've seen way too many good family companies down the drain because the heirs are not up to the task :(
    In any case, I hope Craig comes back for another one. I definitely think he's not done with it, and he still looks the part martinismiley.gif
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    If B25 is a one off and the last from EON (a big hypothetical of course, but just playing along with the current rumour mill here), then I can imagine it will be quite the film. A celebration of the best of Bond. A final stamp to send the whole thing off to the new studio with a bang. 'Show the new boys' how it's done and all that.

    So either way I'm quite optimistic, but would be ecstatic if it's a brand new cast as well. A true one off.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,884
    bondjames wrote: »
    If B25 is a one off and the last from EON (a big hypothetical of course, but just playing along with the current rumour mill here), then I can imagine it will be quite the film. A celebration of the best of Bond. A final stamp to send the whole thing off to the new studio with a bang. 'Show the new boys' how it's done and all that.

    So either way I'm quite optimistic, but would be ecstatic if it's a brand new cast as well. A true one off.

    My thoughts exactly. Also, if Craig does return and it's his last film, I want to see it being marketed/promoted that way. It might even make Craig go the extra mile and give us something for the ages. Especially since he'll want to use it as the springboard for the rest of his career.
Sign In or Register to comment.