No Time To Die: Production Diary

19529539559579582507

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    They shouldn't come to the US to pander to US audiences. That won't work.

    US audiences didn't feel SP was mediocre due to where it was filmed. It had to do with their overall opinion on the quality of the product.

    It was somewhat soulless & clinical for general American tastes. It's been my observation that you've got to give the Americans some grit. Some passion.

    I agree with your first point, but I find the idea US audiences are any more discerning than ROW difficult to accept. They still fork out big money for stuff like Transformers and the Furious films. They'll always spend more on US films than international, which is fair enough.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    They shouldn't come to the US to pander to US audiences. That won't work.

    US audiences didn't feel SP was mediocre due to where it was filmed. It had to do with their overall opinion on the quality of the product.

    It was somewhat soulless & clinical for general American tastes. It's been my observation that you've got to give the Americans some grit. Some passion.

    I agree with your first point, but I find the idea US audiences are any more discerning than ROW difficult to accept. They still fork out big money for stuff like Transformers and the Furious films. They'll always spend more on US films than international, which is fair enough.
    I'm not suggesting they're more discerning. Just that they need some passion in their films, even if it's dumb passion. Some soul.

    I've said before that SP comes across very cold. To me it has a distinctly European aesthetic. More suppressed. It's in the characters as much as it is in the ambience.

    SF was the opposite. All heat and bombast. Bursting with charisma.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    They shouldn't come to the US to pander to US audiences. That won't work.

    US audiences didn't feel SP was mediocre due to where it was filmed. It had to do with their overall opinion on the quality of the product.

    It was somewhat soulless & clinical for general American tastes. It's been my observation that you've got to give the Americans some grit. Some passion.

    I agree with your first point, but I find the idea US audiences are any more discerning than ROW difficult to accept. They still fork out big money for stuff like Transformers and the Furious films. They'll always spend more on US films than international, which is fair enough.
    I'm not suggesting they're more discerning. Just that they need some passion in their films, even if it's dumb passion. Some soul.

    I've said before that SP comes across very cold. To me it has a distinctly European aesthetic. More suppressed. It's in the characters as much as it is in the ambience.

    SF was the opposite. All heat and bombast. Bursting with charisma.

    Yeah, I can maybe see that. Do you think the emotional thrust (for want of a better phrase) in SF played a big part?
  • Posts: 170
    What's the point of all this speculation on YOLT? The plot's probably not going to have anything to do with that.
  • Posts: 623
    I'd like a none-action last act. I know audiences like a big explosion/demolition event at the end, but I'd like them to think up something that's suspenseful without being 'big'.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    They shouldn't come to the US to pander to US audiences. That won't work.

    US audiences didn't feel SP was mediocre due to where it was filmed. It had to do with their overall opinion on the quality of the product.

    It was somewhat soulless & clinical for general American tastes. It's been my observation that you've got to give the Americans some grit. Some passion.

    I agree with your first point, but I find the idea US audiences are any more discerning than ROW difficult to accept. They still fork out big money for stuff like Transformers and the Furious films. They'll always spend more on US films than international, which is fair enough.
    I'm not suggesting they're more discerning. Just that they need some passion in their films, even if it's dumb passion. Some soul.

    I've said before that SP comes across very cold. To me it has a distinctly European aesthetic. More suppressed. It's in the characters as much as it is in the ambience.

    SF was the opposite. All heat and bombast. Bursting with charisma.

    Yeah, I can maybe see that. Do you think the emotional thrust (for want of a better phrase) in SF played a big part?
    I think so certainly, but it was more than that. I remember a lot of the attention was on Bardem's colourful Silva just prior to the film's release. He was a big part of why it took off. A return to the larger than life villains of old and all that.

    His anger and resentment towards M (and the brilliant way Bardem captured that) along with her quest for survival definitely played a huge part in why the film resonated imho. So if that's what you mean by emotional thrust, then yes.

    It didn't hurt that it looked gorgeous.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    I've merely been scanning the last 300 or so comments since Craig confirmed his return. Have I missed anything noteworthy with regards to distribution or otherwise?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    jake24 wrote: »
    I've merely been scanning the last 300 or so comments since Craig confirmed his return. Have I missed anything noteworthy with regards to distribution or otherwise?
    Nada. Zip. Zilch.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 386
    IMO B25 will be a complete breakaway from the other DC films and this is why:

    The SP experience appears to have been miserable for most of the creative principals. Mendes arrived with zero game, Craig injured himself and endured the majority of the shoot in pain, Waltz couldn't get a sighter on Blofeld, the writers conspired to throw their hands in the air and abandon all pretense of quality in the third act.

    Most importantly of all, the entire film was at great pains to connect narrative tissue between all of Craig's previous efforts. It was clearly designed to cap his tenure off with a resounding, satisfying conclusion. As we know full well, it didn't.

    Yes, it scored heavily at the worldwide box office. But you do not need to be an industry analyst to see that much of that turn-out was built on the goodwill that Skyfall generated. SF resonated with girlfriends, wives, generalist audiences who only interact with the brand in an incidental fashion. If the product appeals, it will be consumed.

    I think EON are under no illusions that SP eroded much of that goodwill. Not that it was bad - there are many individual elements to recommend it, not least is the high production sheen we have come to expect and treasure. SP was simply inert - there was nothing for generalist audiences to take away and think "Yes, I'll be on the lookout for the next one."

    The error lay in looking backwards. Trying to make sense of what had come before at the expense of telling a gripping story in an exotic world.

    Everything we have seen (or not seen) since SP was released points toward a re-evaluation. First, a long period of radio silence. Then, P&W came out and said that B25 will be a departure. Finally, Craig's apparent hesitation.

    My opinion, and I base this only on speculation, is that Daniel Craig planned for SP to be a 'get-out' if it proved to be successful. A parachute. When the box office rolled in, everything started off well. He may have known about various problems with distributors or with MGM, etc, and felt like it might be time.

    But then the ambiguous reviews began to mount. The on-set experience remained a bitter memory. He knew they'd botched the narrative in SP. The critics certainly knew it. Over time, once the cinema lights dimmed, the fans knew it too.

    So DC wondered how he could make things work again, like they did in CR and SF. He, more than most actors, seems to take great, great pride in his contribution to each and every Bond film. "Don't be shit," is his advice to any prospective Bond. It isn't arrogance, its respect and perfectionism.

    Then he begins his regular conversations with P&W.

    "We need to break away, lads. I'm thinking about another one. But I need to step away from the shit we've created. Help me do that."

    In isolation, of course it is tempting to assume that the narrative strand that everyone has been waiting for - the rise of Blofeld - was set up to continue in SP. I'm not so sure. As M intoned with suitable gravity in that film, it's about knowing when not to pull the trigger. Bond faced off against a very personal adversary and won. Yes, you could argue the spectacle was mishandled, or that Waltz wasn't given enough to do, but the fact remains that he is incarcerated and Bond has overcome the itchy trigger finger that hounded him throughout DC's other movies.

    Waltz probably deserves another go, and there may even be a contract, but I don't think it'll be triggered. I don't think Swann will be back either. Bond wasn't leaving MI6, he was simply concluding his story in a manner we have seen in almost every Bond film - with a bit of R&R.

    I think that the (admittedly scant) evidence we have points to a confident, brassy standalone for Daniel Craig's last mission. He's served his arc and done it well. It's time to sever all the links that are holding him back.

    Naturally, the Scoobs will return. They are bedrock, as evidenced by 20 other Bond films.

    But Spectre is dead.
  • Posts: 47
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    00Dalton wrote: »
    How about have the film start with 007 in New York with Madeline...dare I say it...on their honeymoon...have shit go down...then introduce Felix back into things and go from there.

    Perhaps have her kidnapped?

    Can get some of the flavour of the Felix/Bond New York chapters in Diamond are Forever?

    I would hope they can get a bit more creative than having her kidnapped yet again (which happened twice in SP).

    Yeah...I wrote that hastily and wanted to do something other than kill her. Have her kidnapped for the duration of the film?

    Still they I've a tough job with this film cleaning up the mess from SPECTRE (God I even hate the title).

    Perhaps the fact that we have a trend with Craig's films in the general concensus that CR great QOS (which I personally love) bad SF great SP bad that this one will be great too?



  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    bondjames wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    I've merely been scanning the last 300 or so comments since Craig confirmed his return. Have I missed anything noteworthy with regards to distribution or otherwise?
    Nada. Zip. Zilch.
    Cheers.
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Making a profit isn't being disputed. What I'm looking at are the actual margins to see how profitable these films are. Looking at LTK's numbers (box office, marketing and budget), before profit sharing the film would have secured about $23million on it's $36million budget. Once that 23million is divided up, what did EoN go home with? A number not worth boasting about i can tell you that. These films aren't made to lose money, nor to just break even or walk away with a barely there profit. In any case we'll see what numbers get thrown at Bond 25 together up and running and see how that turns out.
    Precisely. It's all about return on investment and risk. The higher the investment, the higher the risk. The box office is rather volatile these days too, from what I can see.

    This will probably be a lower key character based affair. Fewer locations. More immersive. Fewer action set pieces. The anti-SP. That's my guess.

    That might be a mistake in my opinion. That way SP was perceived by many they need to go all in this time. 'All in' in the inspired kind of way not the Mendes approach. They just have to make up for what was wrong with SP. The last thing they need is a word of mouth along the lines of "you know this one is a little bit slower and more low key".
    I'm not confident in Craig's ability to pull that off. I think he might be better with low key which is the only reason I'm suggesting it. Flamboyant is best left for someone more naturally inclined that way (hopefully his eventual successor).

    Neither am I, but they need to do something against the way the franchise is perceived by younger people. 00Dour is not the way to go, if they want to keep them aboard (and they jolly well should, since not only espionage is a young men's game, but going to the movie theater is as well).
  • Posts: 12,242
    Whether it's a continuation of SP or something more standalone, they definitely should market Bond 25 as Craig's grand sendoff. It has potential to become the highest-grossing Bond film of all.
  • Posts: 6,682
    I
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    They shouldn't come to the US to pander to US audiences. That won't work.

    US audiences didn't feel SP was mediocre due to where it was filmed. It had to do with their overall opinion on the quality of the product.

    It was somewhat soulless & clinical for general American tastes. It's been my observation that you've got to give the Americans some grit. Some passion.

    I agree with your first point, but I find the idea US audiences are any more discerning than ROW difficult to accept. They still fork out big money for stuff like Transformers and the Furious films. They'll always spend more on US films than international, which is fair enough.
    I'm not suggesting they're more discerning. Just that they need some passion in their films, even if it's dumb passion. Some soul.

    I've said before that SP comes across very cold. To me it has a distinctly European aesthetic. More suppressed. It's in the characters as much as it is in the ambience.

    SF was the opposite. All heat and bombast. Bursting with charisma.

    Not your average opinion, I know, but I find Craig in Skyfall to be slightly dull, stiff, disengaged, as if in every scene, his mind (Bond's mind) was somewhere else. The film reflects that. It has plenty of interesting, even fascinating scenes and moments, but it doesn't come together as a satisfying experience. It's Skyfall that feels cold to me, instead of Spectre. Obviously, audiences didn't feel that way or they just didn't evaluate the film in those terms.

    Quantum of Solace had a similar reception to Spectre. Would you say it had less passion and grit than Skyfall? I wouldn't, and I'm not particularly crazy about the movie. It's a dark, though energetic and well made film, except for the action scenes.

    While I'm cool with the idea of analyzing the reasons behind a film's success or failure, I'm not convinced by this particular line of thinking.
  • Posts: 11,119
    For me, having Craig back for a 5th time, is already like.....like truly marvellous news :-).

    Bond #25 is definately going to be the most standalone Bond film of the Craig-era. But that doesn't mean it can't have a few noteworthy references to Craig's previous four outings.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    They shouldn't come to the US to pander to US audiences. That won't work.

    US audiences didn't feel SP was mediocre due to where it was filmed. It had to do with their overall opinion on the quality of the product.

    It was somewhat soulless & clinical for general American tastes. It's been my observation that you've got to give the Americans some grit. Some passion.

    I agree with your first point, but I find the idea US audiences are any more discerning than ROW difficult to accept. They still fork out big money for stuff like Transformers and the Furious films. They'll always spend more on US films than international, which is fair enough.
    I'm not suggesting they're more discerning. Just that they need some passion in their films, even if it's dumb passion. Some soul.

    I've said before that SP comes across very cold. To me it has a distinctly European aesthetic. More suppressed. It's in the characters as much as it is in the ambience.

    SF was the opposite. All heat and bombast. Bursting with charisma.

    Not your average opinion, I know, but I find Craig in Skyfall to be slightly dull, stiff, disengaged, as if in every scene, his mind (Bond's mind) was somewhere else. The film reflects that. It has plenty of interesting, even fascinating scenes and moments, but it doesn't come together as a satisfying experience. It's Skyfall that feels cold to me, instead of Spectre. Obviously, audiences didn't feel that way or they just didn't evaluate the film in those terms.

    Quantum of Solace had a similar reception to Spectre. Would you say it had less passion and grit than Skyfall? I wouldn't, and I'm not particularly crazy about the movie. It's a dark, though energetic and well made film, except for the action scenes.

    While I'm cool with the idea of analyzing the reasons behind a film's success or failure, I'm not convinced by this particular line of thinking.
    I don't disagree with you on Craig in SF. I've always maintained that he was somewhat secondary to the success of that film. It was everything that was going on around him which resonated.

    With QoS, I just remember it suffering in comparison to CR. There were a lot of Bourne rip-off comments, especially since it followed The Bourne Ultimatum which was a massive hit in the prior year. I wouldn't say that the characters in this film would necessarily be expected to resonate with North American audiences either. Again they are more European in flavour imho, particularly Greene.

    I'm perhaps not using the right words to explain it and it's not easy to explain really. I think North American audiences need clear motivation for the antagonist's behaviour and it must be simple to understand. Revenge is passionate, and it's easy to relate to. The character must sell it though. Not necessarily flamboyantly, but convincingly. That came across in SF (Bardem nailed it), but it's not there in QoS or SP which are more subtle and opaque when it comes to rationale. Greene was just a cog in QoS and there was nothing else to hold onto (unlike Vesper/Bond in CR).

    On a related note, I personally think Craig has been a very inaccessible Bond since CR. In the first film, we really got to know him in character. He had a spark. Since then he's been somewhat closed off as a persona because the scripts haven't permitted him to reveal himself as much.
  • I'm hoping for downbeat personally. I'm all for a change in direction to something more fun and straightforward but save that for the next guy. Now Craig is back they have to go all out. Doesn't have to be a straight YOLT adaptation I suppose but keep that same grim, surreal atmosphere and all the important stuff (garden of death).

    The worst thing they could do now is have Craig back and not bother with Blofeld or any of that. If they sweep SP under the carpet and give him a straightforward Bond film then what's the point? They have the perfect opportunity to finally do YOLT right, and if they're going to insist on Craig being back instead of a fresh start (when SP worked as an ending) they'd better use it. That's been what's keeping me excited. I wanted a fresh start but I've been okay with the idea of Craig returning because one of the best Bond's ever, one of the closest to the books and the best actor to play Bond doing my favourite Bond novel justice? Can't really complain there. But if they bring him back and don't take anything from YOLT or follow up from SP at all then I really don't see the point.

    Basically, if they're not going to give us the Bond/Blofeld showdown we've been waiting for and are instead going for a change in direction with Craig then they may as well have given us a proper fresh start. I'm confident that's the direction they're going in though. Say what you will about Purvis and Wade but they seem to know Fleming, and Craig wants to go out on a high, what better way than how he started: giving a brilliant critic silencing performance in a really well done adaptation of one of the original novels (the best one imo). If they do YOLT and do it well it has a good chance of seeing my favourite Bond film. Yeah it'd be a depressing ending but it'd also be a perfect one and they can easily do something more fun for Bond 26. But for now they shouldn't worry about going too dark because it'd be a waste of a great opportunity.

    Bond 25 (please call it Shatterhand) should have the bleakest atmosphere of the series imo. If they wanted a change in direction they should have got a new actor. But for now don't blueball us. I want a Bond who's a broken alcoholic givento be a new lease of life when he has the chance to kill his arch nemesis, with a finale that has him swimming past sharks and scaling the walls of a castle built on a volcano to have one last showdown against an insane samurai Blofeld, who's holed up in his suicide garden. That's a very dark premise so it should be a dark film.

    Bang on. I want the end of the Craig era to be a broken Bond stood on the deck of a Japanese mail boat and sailing off into the fog towards Vladivostok.
    bondjames wrote: »
    They shouldn't come to the US to pander to US audiences. That won't work.

    Quite. Look at LTK - they tried to pander to America by setting half the film in Florida and it looked like a poor man's Lethal Weapon.

    I don't they were pandering to the U.S. They were trying to cut costs and the U.S. location was relatively close to the Mexico home base for the production.
  • The_Donald wrote: »
    What's the point of all this speculation on YOLT? The plot's probably not going to have anything to do with that.

    Fan desire to see "The Blofeld Trilogy" finally done.
  • Posts: 12,242
    I sort of want Blofeld to return, so long as the film is done super well. Most of the Bond films that feature Blofeld end up somewhere in the middle of my ranking, with a couple exceptions (OHMSS near the top, DAF near the bottom).
  • Posts: 1,680
    My predictions:

    The title will be a hallmark to James Bond & a statement on the character as opposed to a location or organization.

    Will most likely have a budget at around 200 million.

    the film wont revolve solely on Blofeld & Spectre.

    Theyll do something that hasnt been done before, the thought of Bond training a new 00 comes to mind.

    will be set a few years after SP & the rebuild of MI6 will be part of the plot or mentioned.

    Craig will bring his full game this time around on par to CR,

    Craigs final scene as James Bond will bring the character full circle.



  • Tuck91 wrote: »
    My predictions:

    will be set a few years after SP & the rebuild of MI6 will be part of the plot or mentioned.

    Of all your predications—not saying the others aren't good too—this I think is the likeliest. We saw them flash forward quite a ways from QOS to SF. I feel very certain we will jump forward a number of years from SP to B25.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 386
    It would be cool if Bond drowns the final villain in a grimy toilet basin after a desperate scrap.

    Nice way to bring DC full circle.
  • Posts: 12,242
    Some of my predictions for it:

    -Title will be one of the few remaining Fleming titles left.
    -Madeleine will not appear.
    -The film will be the darkest of Craig's run, and veer away from SP's lighter tone.
    -The ending will be FITTING... not happy or sad necessarily.
    -Ralph Fiennes, Naoime Harris, Ben Whishaw, and Rory Kinnear all return.
  • GetCarter wrote: »
    It would be cool if Bond drowns the final villain in a grimy toilet basin after a desperate scrap.

    Nice way to bring DC full circle.

    Would that mean closing on the gunbarrel? ;)
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,914
    Cut out the middle man?!
  • Posts: 386
    I don't think B25 will be dark.

    They'll want it to swagger.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    GetCarter wrote: »
    I don't think B25 will be dark.

    They'll want it to swagger.
    Have they got the right actor for that though? It's when Craig swaggered in SP that he lost me.
  • Posts: 386
    Yes, I agree. I would argue that DC perfected the swagger in QoS.

    He just wasn't given any help by Mendes in SP. The arty, ponderous style was anti-swagger which is why it seemed odd in context.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    GetCarter wrote: »
    It would be cool if Bond drowns the final villain in a grimy toilet basin after a desperate scrap.

    Nice way to bring DC full circle.

    Would that mean closing on the gunbarrel? ;)

    Thats actually not a bad idea. They should end it with him saying bond...James bond then shooting a guy and going into the gunbarrel.
    Ooo Im just getting so giddy and excited thinking about how good this film could be.
    They better not cock this up.
  • Posts: 386
    GetCarter wrote: »
    It would be cool if Bond drowns the final villain in a grimy toilet basin after a desperate scrap.

    Nice way to bring DC full circle.

    Would that mean closing on the gunbarrel? ;)

    I'd dig that.
Sign In or Register to comment.