SPECTRE Production Timeline

1713714716718719870

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Conceivable ...and possible. Director question may slow proceedings. Distributer auction won't I believe.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,119
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Just read about Sony not distributing Bond movies after Spectre. At this rate it looks like we're heading for another 4 year gap before Bond 25

    That's not true. There will be an auction end of this year, in which all major movie companies/distributors can participate. Obviously, Sony wants to have Bond back, but I do expect that fairly easy and relatively fast the distribution rights -and perhaps also the home entertainment rights- will go to the highly successful Universal Pictures. They are already doing the distribution for "SPECTRE" in Netherlands and Belgium.

    So what do you say the chances of Bond 25 Re coming out in 2017?

    I actually hope for 2018, with Daniel Craig. 3-year-gap works perfect for me. Productions have grown through the decades. And back in 1965 Bond fans could witness their last time a Bond film was going to be released within 1 year. Which, luckily, isn't the case anymore.

    I think we're spoiled brats at times. Really, were QOS and TND so good after their 2-year gaps? I prefer a good proper, long pre-production and if possible a 7-month principal photography instead of 6 months. The extra time could help the Bond film become better as well.

    And, let's not forget that for other big blockbusters 3-year or even 4-year gaps are by far very normal. Look at "The Dark Knight" (2008) vs. "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012). Or "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" (2011) vs. "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation". In any case, it wouldn't hurt the franchise. And it's actually much nicer for big actors like Christian Bale, Tom Cruise and Daniel Craig to have some space for other projects, so that when they return, they go back to work with a happy face....
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited August 2015 Posts: 45,489
    Still, FRWL and GF worked out fine with a year or less production. It must be the script that is the biggest hindrance these days, as they cannot just lean on Fleming the way they did.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Sorry, but are we back on the topic of Craig potentially calling it quits after SPECTRE again?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,367
    Saying Tom Cruise IS Ethan hunt is exactly what they said about Connery and Bond in the sixties.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I think we're spoiled brats at times. Really, were QOS and TND so good after their 2-year gaps? I prefer a good proper, long pre-production and if possible a 7-month principal photography instead of 6 months. The extra time could help the Bond film become better as well.

    This is a fallacy, really. Every writer and film maker will bite your hand of for more time, but it's usually the last thing they need. Deadlines are key. There is no correlation between schedule and quality. Sometimes films need a lengthy production process, at other times everybody needs a good kick up the arse. It isn't a science. It's a case of EON measuring the pulse of the production and making sure it keeps ticking as it should. Bringing back P+W at such a late juncture suggests things weren't necessarily orchestrated seamlessly with SP, but these things happen and it may turn our fantastically, as is the unpredictable nature of the business.

    Whether the next film is two or three years down the line is irrelevant, the key players will have to adjust themselves accordingly. What it really boils down to is whether they have a story they want to tell. If they do, and they have the energy, a two year window is completely practical. If they don't, they should find a writer or director who has a clear vision for where Bond should go and give them the keys to the castle. If that means a longer gestation period then fine.
  • Posts: 1,407
    It goes both ways. DAD had a 3 year cycle and look how that turned out.

    It strikes me as odd that studios want 1-2 years between films nowadays. I think 3 is perfect. Bond can do 2, but I don't mind the 3.

    A longer gap can sometimes work against the film though. The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises had 4 years. Because of that, fans got anxious. It didn't help that WB gave almost no info about the film to wet appetites. The result was a lot of people built the film up in their head and when the finished film didn't match it, some people rejected it (I personally think it's a solid film).
  • Apparently SPECTRE world premiere in London will be held again at the Royal Albert Hall and not Leicester Square

  • Posts: 4,619
    Apparently SPECTRE world premiere in London will be held again at the Royal Albert Hall and not Leicester Square


    That's a shame. The Royal Albert Hall is a beautiful building, but it's a terrible place to watch a movie.
  • Posts: 709
    RC7 wrote: »

    perhaps. but don't you think Tom Cruise should get the same questions? Regarding him still portraying Ethan Hunt after 20 years and 5 films?

    No. He's Ethan Hunt, no one else is, or will be. James Bond is an icon, embodied by a very elite club of individuals. 'Who will be the next Bond?' is one of the great hypothetical questions in pop culture. If you can't see the comparison then I don't know what to say, although I feel you're merely attempting to play M:I off against Bond, as you tend to do quite a bit.

    Actually, around the release of Ghost Protocol, there was talk of Jeremy Renner having been brought in as a potential replacement for Cruise.
  • Posts: 1,970
    I think Im just selfish. I want the 2 year gap back because I want the next movie to come Sooner. #SuperFanProblems
  • Posts: 709
    Yeah I'm kind of torn on this. I'd love a Bond movie every two years, but I don't want them rushed. Take the extra year if it means delivering a better product. I think three years is going to be the norm from now on, the Bond movies are massive productions that go all over the world, for a 2 year gap they'd pretty much have to start work the day after the premiere of the previous one.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Yeah I'm kind of torn on this. I'd love a Bond movie every two years, but I don't want them rushed. Take the extra year if it means delivering a better product. I think three years is going to be the norm from now on, the Bond movies are massive productions that go all over the world, for a 2 year gap they'd pretty much have to start work the day after the premiere of the previous one.
    I'm with you on this one.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,911
    Two years is ample enough time for a Bond release. All it takes is having everything in place and no script rewrites/location issues. Getting a Bond film every other year doesn't automatically mean the movie will turn out bad or rushed.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,367
    For years Bond films only took 2 years to make and no one said they were rushed! And back then they had to do everything practically. Nowadays with CGI filming and post productionproduction can happen at the same time, so that should make things quicker not slow them down. There is no reason why 2 years shouldn't be long enough, that's twice the time it took to make Goldfinger FFS!!
  • Posts: 725
    EON could shut down the Craig is getting replaced buzz in the press, and on this site, if they simply put out a clear statement that he is doing Bond 25. But they haven't, and it looks like they won't. That lack of clarification is encouraging this story in the press and my sense is it is destructive. The general audience should have a sense that they are seeing THE bond for this era, not an actor who may be dropped right after the film opens. The LA times had a very good story about this issue this spring.

    An even worse effect is that the press loves a void, and instead of covering the film itself in the coming months, they will dwell on who is going to be the next Bond with many actors, most prominently Elba, rushing to promote themselves aggressively as the next Bond. This is not a productive way to promote SP.

    EON's failure to clear this up must be because Craig is either not doing B25 and they don't want to announce it before SP opens, or they are both waiting to see how SP does before a decision is made. There is also the possibility that something else is going on with the next distribution studio. This replacement buzz could be killed with one emphatically clear statement from EON. Something is obviously blocking it.
  • Posts: 12,526
    If this story arcs into Bond 25? You would assume that creative script ideas are already being mapped out? Having said that Bond films recently do appear to now have a longer gap.

    Personally I think Bond will return in 2018 although ofcourse a 2 year gap would be great, but that'll only happen if as I have already said the next script is already in development?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    perhaps. but don't you think Tom Cruise should get the same questions? Regarding him still portraying Ethan Hunt after 20 years and 5 films?

    No. He's Ethan Hunt, no one else is, or will be. James Bond is an icon, embodied by a very elite club of individuals. 'Who will be the next Bond?' is one of the great hypothetical questions in pop culture. If you can't see the comparison then I don't know what to say, although I feel you're merely attempting to play M:I off against Bond, as you tend to do quite a bit.

    Actually, around the release of Ghost Protocol, there was talk of Jeremy Renner having been brought in as a potential replacement for Cruise.

    Not to play, Hunt. So a completely different scenario. Not even close to recasting Bond. Merely switching the lead in a franchise film.
  • Posts: 725
    Renner is a good actor, but he ain't leading man material and he will never take over for Cruise on MI. As with Bond, if MI continues after Cruise, and it's debatable it will, they will likely go younger. Bourne Legacy did not make a profit (studio lied about it) which is why they are paying Damon a fortune to come back and reignite the franchise. Damon needs a hit too, but he has been the lead in a ton of films. Renner has become a consistent second banana.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 625
    Apparently SPECTRE world premiere in London will be held again at the Royal Albert Hall and not Leicester Square


    That's a shame. The Royal Albert Hall is a beautiful building, but it's a terrible place to watch a movie.

    At the SKYFALL premiere I had a side view, but it still was a blast.
    The movie was great, the atmosphere was great.
    I hope that they will sell tickets to the public again.
    Would be cool to be "inside" for the second time at a Bond world premiere.

    edit: thanks for the correction, doubleoego
  • Posts: 39
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    At the SPECTRE premiere I had a side view, but it still was a blast.
    The movie was great, the atmosphere was great.
    I hope that they will sell tickets to the public again.
    Would be cool to be "inside" for the second time at a Bond world premiere.

    They sometimes sell tickets to the public?? I may have to take off from work and fly trans-Atlantic this October....

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    Apparently SPECTRE world premiere in London will be held again at the Royal Albert Hall and not Leicester Square


    That's a shame. The Royal Albert Hall is a beautiful building, but it's a terrible place to watch a movie.

    At the SPECTRE premiere I had a side view, but it still was a blast.
    The movie was great, the atmosphere was great.
    I hope that they will sell tickets to the public again.
    Would be cool to be "inside" for the second time at a Bond world premiere.

    Skyfall.

    And yes, it was an amazing event although I was pissed that they made audiences handing their cameras/phones and lo and behold I'm seeing people in the actual auditorium with their phones and cameras taking pics and recording. I won't be making that mistake again.
  • Posts: 625
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I was pissed that they made audiences handing their cameras/phones and lo and behold I'm seeing people in the actual auditorium with their phones and cameras taking pics and recording. I won't be making that mistake again.

    It was not a mistake.
    It has something to do with respect.
    I didn't even took a phone or a camera with me on the red carpet, because I thought we would have to hand them in before entering the carpet.

    But the "because he or she did it, I will do it, too"-thinking is childish.
  • Posts: 232
    RC7 wrote: »
    roko wrote: »
    How does postproduction work, exactly? I mean, where in the production process are they right now? Are they still doing pick-up shots? Is the editing done? Are they doing the special effects before or after editing? Does anyone know?

    Visual effects and editing begin much earlier in the process, it's just officially called 'post production' once they have wrapped. Lee Smith compiles the film as they shoot as an offline assembly. Sam will be in the edit, tightening it up and post shots will be in flux at various houses until they are signed off.

    Well, just to qualify that a bit, conceptual work & R&D are in the works for some VFX earlier in the process, along with previs, but the actual shots don't get worked on till there is an assembly, so getting a locked cut to work from -- so everybody knows just how many frames a shot is going to run, something you only have an approximation of till final editorial calls are made -- is the time when the post crunch comes, which is what has hurt some Bond movies in the past. On QUANTUM, the various teams and vendors working for Kevin Haug had a bit less than 90 days to do most of the post VFX after Forster's cut was locked, and that show had over 900 VFX shots in it, and I think was the first show where they had to use several effects facilities.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    trevanian wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    roko wrote: »
    How does postproduction work, exactly? I mean, where in the production process are they right now? Are they still doing pick-up shots? Is the editing done? Are they doing the special effects before or after editing? Does anyone know?

    Visual effects and editing begin much earlier in the process, it's just officially called 'post production' once they have wrapped. Lee Smith compiles the film as they shoot as an offline assembly. Sam will be in the edit, tightening it up and post shots will be in flux at various houses until they are signed off.

    Well, just to qualify that a bit, conceptual work & R&D are in the works for some VFX earlier in the process, along with previs, but the actual shots don't get worked on till there is an assembly, so getting a locked cut to work from -- so everybody knows just how many frames a shot is going to run, something you only have an approximation of till final editorial calls are made -- is the time when the post crunch comes, which is what has hurt some Bond movies in the past. On QUANTUM, the various teams and vendors working for Kevin Haug had a bit less than 90 days to do most of the post VFX after Forster's cut was locked, and that show had over 900 VFX shots in it, and I think was the first show where they had to use several effects facilities.

    Yes, I was referring to R&D etc. I think you're right on QoS, I seem to recall a friend of mine at MPC saying at the time that most of the Soho houses were doing at least some work on the film.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 2,015
    trevanian wrote: »
    but the actual shots don't get worked on till there is an assembly, so getting a locked cut to work from -- so everybody knows just how many frames a shot is going to run, something you only have an approximation of till final editorial calls are made -- is the time when the post crunch comes, which is what has hurt some Bond movies in the past.

    Some French VFX artists (who are still active but who did not work themselves on Skyfall, but as you probably know this is a world where people talk a lot amongst peers) told me that the producers decided to create a "fake IMAX" for Skyfall very late in the process, which means the CG was not done for many IMAX frames : the CG would stop at the normal frame. Which means that for the IMAX showings, they had no choice but to zoom into the frame for such scenes. Which means that for these scenes, the IMAX showings had in fact less image content than the normal showings.

    Since then, I've tried to found IMAX ratio videos or even just IMAX ratio frames of Skyfall to check if it was a true story, but it's incredibly hard to find them. Even the IMAX trailers are not in IMAX ratios :)

    Antovolk, if you have access to IMAX videos of Skyfall, try to look at Silva's CG island and CG enhanced scenes on the set of it for instance. Is there more done for IMAX, or is it just a zoom in that looses image content elsewhere ?
  • Posts: 2,153
    @Suivez_ce_parachute

    Im not sure, but I have seen the enhanced ratio version when it was broadcast on ITV and the image was not zoomed in - there was additional image at the top and bottom of the screen and this included the cgi shots. When it's next on the tv I'll take some screen grabs.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 3,164
    @Suivez_ce_parachute sure thing: here are a couple (actually quite a lot - that's why it's under the spoiler tag to save space) of promos I found recently on Vimeo using the 16:9 broadcast/IMAX ratio version:





  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    ggl007 wrote: »

    Ha ha, forgive me, I used google translate, but can anyone speaking the native tongue confirm that the word 'modest' is tongue in cheek?
Sign In or Register to comment.