› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…945946948950951…2507

Comments

  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    So the back-to-back thing was likely bogus then. Interestingly this would make Craig the first Bond actor to have a total of 5.

    1 2 4 5 6 7
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'm very encouraged that he said that he wanted to go out on a high; implying (at least to me, I don't need certain people's predictable indignation) that he realizes had he ended with SPECTRE that would not have been the case. Which, I again assume, would mean that we will see something quite different and refreshing in BOND 25.

    That is great news. Cognizance is the first step toward good change.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Well, we can hopefully rest easy knowing Newman is highly unlikely to come back.

    If Craig was out that would be a guarantee. I think it's very likely Mendes won't return, but heaven forfend...
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I really, really, really hope it is a high note that he ends on. Typically a Bond actor's last is seen as his worst (or one of the worst, anyway).

    They have a rare opportunity here. I hope they bring out the big guns.
    =bg= wrote: »
    I hope Arnold returns for the music and we can get some proper brassy stuff as opposed to Newman's wimpy synths. And if 25 is the last one for DC, this will be unique in that we didn't know going into any of the Bonds (to my knowledge) that what we are seeing is that actor's last go, right?

    That will make it an exciting and unique experience for sure.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't see them going back to Campbell. Are we really sure Mendes is out?

    I've strung garlic about the Pinewood windows and crumbled holy wafers over all entrances, but you can never be sure.

    You have to consecrate to place in the name of originality. That should do the job handily. There's nothing he shuns more!
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Murdock wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    he did say he'd only return for the money

    Craig is sarcastic with a sarcastic sense of humor.

    Do you really think that has anything to do with sarcasm, let alone humor?
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited August 2017 Posts: 19,339
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    he did say he'd only return for the money

    Craig is sarcastic with a sarcastic sense of humor.

    Do you really think that has anything to do with sarcasm, let alone humor?

    It's typical,dark,British humour....only a handful of people from other countries understand it.

    They think its a serious comment.

    We call it either 'sarcastic wit' or 'sledgehammer wit'.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,079
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Some opinion and perspective on actor last films. He's right on that scene in DAD (it's one of the best):

    https://www.theringer.com/movies/2017/8/16/16156872/daniel-craig-bond-movie-curse-colbert
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,453
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Well SP was very well received in the UK and many other places, but the US was more lukewarm. However, the film still made nearly $900 million world-wide, and that's not lukewarm. SP wasn't quite SF in those terms, but it was still a box office winner. In Hollywood the bottom line is the BO result. I don't think they will skimp on Bond 25.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I certainly think they will try to improve studio profitability for the next one, especially if it's a 'one off' deal. Otherwise I don't see the real benefit for the studio (unless there is an option for them on B26 onwards depending on B25 hitting certain metrics).

    From these director choices (if true), it appears they are heading for a grittier, more scaled down and character driven production than the last one.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Spectre had a lukewarm reception in the US, in the UK it got very favourable reviews. To say it got a lukewarm reception is a bit misleading.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I think a smaller budget might actually help the film. We all hope for a second CR and definitely they have all it needs for it. It was so great to have an original Fleming novel as a foundation but what they made out of it and how they modernized it was just awesome.

    So: Pick unused Fleming material and do just that. Craig can pull it off, there can be better villains than SP's Blofeld. It can be gritty and still fun (CR was) and it can look stylish and still have substance (CR has it and to my opinion SF as well).
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Well SP was very well received in the UK and many other places, but the US was more lukewarm. However, the film still made nearly $900 million world-wide, and that's not lukewarm. SP wasn't quite SF in those terms, but it was still a box office winner. In Hollywood the bottom line is the BO result. I don't think they will skimp on Bond 25.

    £100 million is going to Craig's wallet alone.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    With those remarks, you always have to Look, where it comes from and Instantkaffee know, any answer is a warte of Time. No?
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    barryt007 wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    he did say he'd only return for the money

    Craig is sarcastic with a sarcastic sense of humor.

    Do you really think that has anything to do with sarcasm, let alone humor?

    It's typical,dark,British humour....only a handful of people from other countries understand it.

    They think its a serious comment.

    We call it either 'sarcastic wit' or 'sledgehammer wit'.

    I have grown up with Monty python and the works of Roald Dahl, not to mention countless other British writers, so I feel quite qualified to identify British humor, thank you. And no, none of his remarks had anything to do with it!
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,453
    Dennison wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Well SP was very well received in the UK and many other places, but the US was more lukewarm. However, the film still made nearly $900 million world-wide, and that's not lukewarm. SP wasn't quite SF in those terms, but it was still a box office winner. In Hollywood the bottom line is the BO result. I don't think they will skimp on Bond 25.

    £100 million is going to Craig's wallet alone.

    Hmm, not sure we can trust those tabloid figures, but he'll earn a bundle for sure.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Well SP was very well received in the UK and many other places, but the US was more lukewarm. However, the film still made nearly $900 million world-wide, and that's not lukewarm. SP wasn't quite SF in those terms, but it was still a box office winner. In Hollywood the bottom line is the BO result. I don't think they will skimp on Bond 25.

    £100 million is going to Craig's wallet alone.

    Hmm, not sure we can trust those tabloid figures, but he'll earn a bundle for sure.

    Didn't read it in a tabloid.
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,453
    Dennison wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Well SP was very well received in the UK and many other places, but the US was more lukewarm. However, the film still made nearly $900 million world-wide, and that's not lukewarm. SP wasn't quite SF in those terms, but it was still a box office winner. In Hollywood the bottom line is the BO result. I don't think they will skimp on Bond 25.

    £100 million is going to Craig's wallet alone.

    Hmm, not sure we can trust those tabloid figures, but he'll earn a bundle for sure.

    Didn't read it in a tabloid.

    That's what some of the UK press are reporting today. $40 million fee and then cut of profits with the potential of 100 million in the pocket.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/movies/daniel-craig-confirms-he-will-play-james-bond-again/ar-AAqaU2D?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

    Thank God!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Well SP was very well received in the UK and many other places, but the US was more lukewarm. However, the film still made nearly $900 million world-wide, and that's not lukewarm. SP wasn't quite SF in those terms, but it was still a box office winner. In Hollywood the bottom line is the BO result. I don't think they will skimp on Bond 25.

    £100 million is going to Craig's wallet alone.

    Hmm, not sure we can trust those tabloid figures, but he'll earn a bundle for sure.

    Didn't read it in a tabloid.

    That's what some of the UK press are reporting today. $40 million fee and then cut of profits with the potential of 100 million in the pocket.
    Pretty good reason to come back if you ask me.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Well SP was very well received in the UK and many other places, but the US was more lukewarm. However, the film still made nearly $900 million world-wide, and that's not lukewarm. SP wasn't quite SF in those terms, but it was still a box office winner. In Hollywood the bottom line is the BO result. I don't think they will skimp on Bond 25.
    Dennison wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Spectre had a lukewarm reception in the US, in the UK it got very favourable reviews. To say it got a lukewarm reception is a bit misleading.

    Well said both of you!

    There's way too much parochial nonsense written on here about how SP was poorly received and supposedly crashed at the box office. The former is only true if you're in the US, and the latter is just plain nonsense.

    SP was rapturously received by critics in the UK and was by any standards a commercial success pretty much everywhere. Only by comparison with SF, the most successful British film of all time, is SP the 'failure' some on here keep on insisting it was, despite all the facts to the contrary.

    No reason to believe EON or anyone else will be skimping on the budget for B25. The rumours about Craig's pay check certainly suggest there's no shortage of cash.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,079
    Getafix wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Well SP was very well received in the UK and many other places, but the US was more lukewarm. However, the film still made nearly $900 million world-wide, and that's not lukewarm. SP wasn't quite SF in those terms, but it was still a box office winner. In Hollywood the bottom line is the BO result. I don't think they will skimp on Bond 25.
    Dennison wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Spectre had a lukewarm reception in the US, in the UK it got very favourable reviews. To say it got a lukewarm reception is a bit misleading.

    Well said both of you!

    There's way too much parochial nonsense written on here about how SP was poorly received and supposedly crashed at the box office. The former is only true if you're in the US, and the latter is just plain nonsense.

    SP was rapturously received by critics in the UK and was by any standards a commercial success pretty much everywhere. Only by comparison with SF, the most successful British film of all time, is SP the 'failure' some on here keep on insisting it was, despite all the facts to the contrary.

    No reason to believe EON or anyone else will be skimping on the budget for B25. The rumours about Craig's pay check certainly suggest there's no shortage of cash.

    If you spend 250 million on a blockbuster, you usually expect for at least 800 million back. Coming off of SF, I expect they were hoping for quite a bit more. But I agree it was certainly a big success in the grand scheme of things, where no franchise is safe anymore.

    But anyway, my point was they spent 250 coming off if Skyfall, the most successful Bond film ever. There was a lot of hype about how things would continue etc. I personally can see no such hype surrounding the current situation. Would it be wise to spend another 250, given the change in circumstances.

    My guess is Bond 25 will have a budget of 200 million.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    he did say he'd only return for the money

    Craig is sarcastic with a sarcastic sense of humor.

    Do you really think that has anything to do with sarcasm, let alone humor?

    It's typical,dark,British humour....only a handful of people from other countries understand it.

    They think its a serious comment.

    We call it either 'sarcastic wit' or 'sledgehammer wit'.

    I have grown up with Monty python and the works of Roald Dahl, not to mention countless other British writers, so I feel quite qualified to identify British humor, thank you. And no, none of his remarks had anything to do with it!

    Do you have salt and vinegar with that giant chip on your shoulder,little man ?

  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

    Well SP was very well received in the UK and many other places, but the US was more lukewarm. However, the film still made nearly $900 million world-wide, and that's not lukewarm. SP wasn't quite SF in those terms, but it was still a box office winner. In Hollywood the bottom line is the BO result. I don't think they will skimp on Bond 25.

    £100 million is going to Craig's wallet alone.

    Hmm, not sure we can trust those tabloid figures, but he'll earn a bundle for sure.

    Didn't read it in a tabloid.

    That's what some of the UK press are reporting today. $40 million fee and then cut of profits with the potential of 100 million in the pocket.

    Didn't read it in the UK press.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Add in the fact that the value of the dollar increased between 2012 and 2015 by about 15% against the £ and the Euro and SP's box office takings were even closer to SF than the headline figures suggest. The people financing SP would probably have taken out hedges against a dollar spike like this, so (and film finance is notoriously murky), the returns were doubtless perfectly agreeable for all involved.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    He's learned his lesson apparently. I thought he handled himself well on both the radio shows and on Colbert the other day. He seemed a bit 'giggly' but nothing controversial came out fortunately. Colbert tried to rope him in with the pregnancy thing but he didn't take the bait (thank goodness!).
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    bondjames wrote: »
    Some opinion and perspective on actor last films. He's right on that scene in DAD (it's one of the best):

    https://www.theringer.com/movies/2017/8/16/16156872/daniel-craig-bond-movie-curse-colbert

    Pair of pansies rolling around with big knives.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    DCisared wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Some opinion and perspective on actor last films. He's right on that scene in DAD (it's one of the best):

    https://www.theringer.com/movies/2017/8/16/16156872/daniel-craig-bond-movie-curse-colbert

    Pair of pansies rolling around with big knives.
    Haha. There is an element of that for sure. Still love it though.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,484
    There is a rag in Toronto (also called the Sun!), that is reporting the new Bond film will be titled SHATTERHAND.

    (Grain of salt time)
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    peter wrote: »
    There is a rag in Toronto (also called the Sun!), that is reporting the new Bond film will be titled SHATTERHAND.

    (Grain of salt time)

    I like that as a title,the only problem being that the last two films have been 'one-word' titles (SF & SP).

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    It's a bit 'Austin Powers' for today's audience imho.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,484
    I agree @bondjames, and I can also see them using it!
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I hope it will be "Property Of A Lady" instead of "Shatterhand".
Sign In or Register to comment.