No Time To Die: Production Diary

16976987007027032507

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2017 Posts: 7,969
    http://deadline.com/2017/04/wga-strike-authorization-voting-underway-1202072007/

    Could just be media spin, but it seems more and more likely that the strike will go ahead. According to the article the votes will be counted on Monday the 24th, so it won't be too long until we have something to discuss, either way.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    Errors? There are no errors?

    That guy has lost me by:

    "SPECTRE was easily the worst of Craig’s four 007 movies"

    Like most of the SP dissenters, they like SF in comparison despite that film doing so many of the things they hated in the last one.
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree that cutting it after QoS would have been fantastic, especially with the four year break that ensued. Craig in SF is quite a different Bond from the CR/QoS time.

    I also agree on the retro office fit being a bit clichéd. Dench's office was far more contemporary. I never liked that sort of thing (forced retrofit), even when it was done at the end of Revenge of the Sith. I certainly disliked it immensely at the end of Rogue One.

    Totally agree on the forced retrofitting.

    At the very least it makes sense for a traditionalist like Mallory to have such an office, connecting the space to who he is as a man.

    I remember this forum's pages being packed with folks who wanted few things more than a traditional office back, way before SF was an idea in people's heads. I guess it's the same thing that happened with SP's gun barrel. They get it back at the beginning after wanting it for so long, then still don't like it anyway.

    To be fair, they botched the gunbarrel in SP.

    I liked Mallory's office at the end of SF. It made narrative sense after the bombing for MI6 to move, and it called back to the early films (although of course it is an alternate universe).
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    The Gunbarrel was fine. It was at the beginning of the film. That's all that matters.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Errors? There are no errors?

    That guy has lost me by:

    "SPECTRE was easily the worst of Craig’s four 007 movies"

    Like most of the SP dissenters, they like SF in comparison despite that film doing so many of the things they hated in the last one.
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree that cutting it after QoS would have been fantastic, especially with the four year break that ensued. Craig in SF is quite a different Bond from the CR/QoS time.

    I also agree on the retro office fit being a bit clichéd. Dench's office was far more contemporary. I never liked that sort of thing (forced retrofit), even when it was done at the end of Revenge of the Sith. I certainly disliked it immensely at the end of Rogue One.

    Totally agree on the forced retrofitting.

    At the very least it makes sense for a traditionalist like Mallory to have such an office, connecting the space to who he is as a man.

    I remember this forum's pages being packed with folks who wanted few things more than a traditional office back, way before SF was an idea in people's heads. I guess it's the same thing that happened with SP's gun barrel. They get it back at the beginning after wanting it for so long, then still don't like it anyway.
    On paper, yes. But it was how it's executed that's bad. It still wasn't a traditional gunbarrel because of the yellow tint and it not opening up to the movie.

    Every gun barrel has a different style with unique tints, shading and effects, that was SP's style.

    I just get sick of the incessant mewling that comes off as very brattish over the whole thing. People should be happy the damn thing is at the front again, and count their blessings. It's another one of those things SP just can't catch a break on with folks, despite it not even being the worst designed gun barrel, though they are all so particular from film to film it's a highly subjective practice anyway.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Spectre's gunbarrel is most definitely the best of the Craig era's. It was almost perfect.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    It's what I wanted. Binder design, Bond theme blaring and a cool pose. I even liked the Dead Are Alive part.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    While I felt the Dead Are Alive title card was just another one of Mendes' "artistic" workouts, it didn't bother me as much as it does others. Craig's walk was perfect, all displayed with confidence and finesse, the Bond Theme climactically playing, and I even loved the brass blow the way it exploded before the dots appeared in its own segment, it was like screaming "Step aside. Daddy's home." And you know what that meant.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    The filter is on some folks eyes who are still blinded by The Skyfall's New Clothes and can't see straight and are burying SP under dubious criticism like the GB was not right or even more silly stuff like the chopper was brought down by a bullet etc.
    At the same time they seem to love the fact Craig was rescued by mermaids after being shot by a sniper rifle plus falling to his certain death AND drowning.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    At the same time they seem to love the fact Craig was rescued by mermaids after being shot by a sniper rifle plus falling to his certain death AND drowning.
    It's believable to say no woman of any entity (human, mermaid, demigodess, superhuman) can resist Bond's charm. ;)
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Should bond retire at the end of bond 25 then reboot with stand alone movies for the next actor?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Should bond retire at the end of bond 25 then reboot with stand alone movies for the next actor?
    Either with the next one or the one after that.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Should bond retire at the end of bond 25 then reboot with stand alone movies for the next actor?

    I think we'll get a conclusion next time that closes the book on this Bond. I just don't see Dan's Bond being played by another actor in their era like George played Sean's, for example.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,884
    BIG NEWS regarding the distribution rights "competition" between studios.
    Sony, Universal, Annapurna, Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox are all fighting for it. Article says that Paramount Pictures and Disney are out of the competition.

    https://twitter.com/Bond25Film/status/854973660297392129
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Thanks, @BondAficionado!
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    It will stay with Sony. They won't let it go.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    That will be most unfortunate.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Yes I agree.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited April 2017 Posts: 28,694
    Very interesting... It seems that some predictions here, like @bondjames were correct, in that MGM and EON are shooting for just a one picture deal for this hoopla. This could mean they're closing out Craig's films with a final entry as seems sensible, after which point they'll take the time to think about their options and how they want to distribute in the future before jumpstarting another man's era. In short, post-Bond 25 will be a period of possible rebirth for the Bond team as they carry through a re-analyzation of what 007 needs to be in its next form, and how they could best realize a particular vision with new or old partners.

    "On Tuesday, for instance, leaders at Sony spent an hour making their case. Kazuo Hirai, the chief executive, helped give the pitch, which emphasized the studio’s deep knowledge of Bond and its ideas for expanding the franchise’s reach. In true Hollywood fashion, Sony gave its presentation inside a sound stage on a recreated set from “Dr. No,” which was released in the United States in 1963 by United Artists and laid the foundation for the entire series."

    Christ. I would bet good money that Sony recreated Adam's anteroom set with the giant circle in the ceiling for their presentation. Which isn't as cool as it is creepy.

    At this point I want anyone but Sony to get the deal, although no choices are great ones. Each studio aside from maybe Universal has had a high-profile history of being inept, or has at least has made gigantic bumbles in recent memory that should rule them out from consideration for one of the last franchises not to buckle to heavy studio control. Sony only care about spin-offs nobody wants to see when they aren't being hacked with ease, Fox barely ever know how to use their properties with any authority and Warner Bros. can't even make Batman and Superman work, so how would they help continue Bond's legacy (by selling toys, probably)? I have never heard of Annapurna before, so can't comment there.

    Of this bunch, I'd like to see Universal get it in a best case scenario. They have highly successful earners like Fast & the Furious, Jurassic Park/World and Despicable Me, which are all essentially money printing machines that've made them billions. They'd have the capital to risk an investment in marketing and distribution of another blockbuster franchise, and Bond is about as low risk as you can get in such an unpredictable climate as the film industry. From what I know of them they also seem to be great collaborators, they get the right people for important jobs and they let the owners of the properties do their thing without thinking they run the show, which is something Sony didn't seem to ever understand.

    I hope Sony just bugger off, but with their profitable, low risk franchises/properties on the downturn or in some cases nonexistent, maybe Bond is one of their last hopes despite the raw deal they'd get from this (unless they manage a better negotiation). Fox also has a history of distribution for Bond with home video, so they could have a leg up in that respect too simply because they've worked with the brand before and know how the whole shebang goes.

    But if I had a dream, the dream would be Universal getting it. Largely because I think they'd be the least inept, and the least dickish. Definitely the least dickish.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited April 2017 Posts: 9,020
    What about Warner Bros @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

    Personally I would like them best, they have so many great franchises in the past and in the present and what is very important:
    Warner is the best home video producer. What they create in special features for their Blu-ray releases is nothing short of fantastic.

    They were the first to properly use the medium of DVD and HDDVD and later when they jumped ship on HDDVD they started making the best Blu-rays. Also in picture quality.

    Fox on the other hand has to be the worst ever producer of Home Video items.

    Some of my most favourite TV shows ever have HORRIBLE picture quality DVD releases like my beloved Buffy/Angel-verse. Same for films.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @BondJasonBond006, Warner just have me antsy for now, understandably. I don't trust the people in control of it at this stage, and we both know why that is quite intensely. They had great releases in the past, especially with Harry Potter that I think is their crowning achievement as a modern studio. That was also another time, though, and I don't know if they have it in them to do similar work for Bond.

    We agree on Fox, however. Lame video releases with barely a commentary, etc, which is criminal for a series like Bond that used to have some of the best making of features there was. Now all we get are three minutes videoblogs that we can see on YouTube, but they put them all on the disc anyway to make the package seem nicer than it is.

    I'm just not thrilled with any of the options, as I said. I'm not a big fan of modern filmmaking, and these kinds of studios and the brain dead or blindly greedy moves they pull are essentially why. The advancement of technology in the field has only made them more able to muck things up on various levels with more money being risked with larger productions, which they weren't as capable of doing in olden days when effects were practical and budgets couldn't sinks ships on their own.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,884
    The fact that Annapurna have recently made another deal with MGM means that they've got a decent chance. MGM might (gradually) force Eon to partner w/ Annapurna, because of their good partnership which means little to no risk for MGM and Eon would get desperate to release a Bond film so they'd need to agree.

    Universal/Warner Bros know how to handle a franchise well, but they might put Bond on hold for other projects of theirs. Would be tightly scheduled in-between other franchises and wouldn't get much attention/respect as it does with MGM.
    Fox also has a history of distribution for Bond with home video, so they could have a leg up in that respect too simply because they've worked with the brand before and know how the whole shebang goes.
    Yeah but 20th Century Fox is very busy and invested with the Alien franchise though. MGM/Eon should definitely wait a bit and see if Alien: Covenant is successful first.

    Sony is the frontrunner, naturally, but they'd also want to get a much bigger cut because of it.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    The Alien franchise indeed was always treated with greatest respect by FOX for the home media market.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    The fact that Annapurna have recently made another deal with MGM means that they've got a decent chance. MGM might (gradually) force Eon to partner w/ Annapurna, because of their good partnership which means little to no risk for MGM and Eon would get desperate to release a Bond film so they'd need to agree.

    Universal/Warner Bros know how to handle a franchise well, but they might put Bond on hold for other projects of theirs. Would be tightly scheduled in-between other franchises and wouldn't get much attention/respect as it does with MGM.
    Fox also has a history of distribution for Bond with home video, so they could have a leg up in that respect too simply because they've worked with the brand before and know how the whole shebang goes.
    Yeah but 20th Century Fox is very busy and invested with the Alien franchise though. MGM/Eon should definitely wait a bit and see if Alien: Covenant is successful first.

    Sony is the frontrunner, naturally, but they'd also want to get a much bigger cut because of it.

    @BondAficionado, your more informed perspective is appreciated. I'm not at all agreeing Fox should get it (the opposite, in fact), I just wanted to make the point that their past history with the Bond brand gives them a leg up in some ways, where studios like Warner Bros. don't, for example.

    You'd just hope all this means things are finally getting close to rolling on the next film in ways beyond storyboarding and minor scripting, and that EON know where they're going to take it. With P&W apparently on board for now following a past treatment they submitted, maybe Barbara and co. feel they have enough of Bond 25 plotted to show prospective partners. If they are negotiating with a studio for a one film deal, they would (you'd think) have to have something to show for what that film would be in concept, how much funding would be needed and what they hoped to do with it to ensure the studios that their investment and interest would be wise and profitable. It would also be important for the studios to know who was the lead in it and any possible directors that could be attached, as those elements would/could effect possible box office draw on top of that and paint the picture of how the film would feel once produced.

    This is all speculation of course, but I simply feel that the pace to Bond 25 has started to quicken a little bit more with the recent developments, providing other factors work in EON's favor.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    At the same time they seem to love the fact Craig was rescued by mermaids after being shot by a sniper rifle plus falling to his certain death AND drowning.
    It's believable to say no woman of any entity (human, mermaid, demigodess, superhuman) can resist Bond's charm. ;)
    I thought it was that Greek chick who saved him.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    At the same time they seem to love the fact Craig was rescued by mermaids after being shot by a sniper rifle plus falling to his certain death AND drowning.
    It's believable to say no woman of any entity (human, mermaid, demigodess, superhuman) can resist Bond's charm. ;)
    I thought it was that Greek chick who saved him.
    Duh. A mermaid. :D
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    bondjames wrote: »
    At the same time they seem to love the fact Craig was rescued by mermaids after being shot by a sniper rifle plus falling to his certain death AND drowning.
    It's believable to say no woman of any entity (human, mermaid, demigodess, superhuman) can resist Bond's charm. ;)
    I thought it was that Greek chick who saved him.

    Source? Proof? :P
    It almost felt like a "Bobby in Pam's shower" moment seeing Bond alive and well suddenly.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,884
    The fact that Annapurna have recently made another deal with MGM means that they've got a decent chance. MGM might (gradually) force Eon to partner w/ Annapurna, because of their good partnership which means little to no risk for MGM and Eon would get desperate to release a Bond film so they'd need to agree.

    Universal/Warner Bros know how to handle a franchise well, but they might put Bond on hold for other projects of theirs. Would be tightly scheduled in-between other franchises and wouldn't get much attention/respect as it does with MGM.
    Fox also has a history of distribution for Bond with home video, so they could have a leg up in that respect too simply because they've worked with the brand before and know how the whole shebang goes.
    Yeah but 20th Century Fox is very busy and invested with the Alien franchise though. MGM/Eon should definitely wait a bit and see if Alien: Covenant is successful first.

    Sony is the frontrunner, naturally, but they'd also want to get a much bigger cut because of it.

    @BondAficionado, your more informed perspective is appreciated. I'm not at all agreeing Fox should get it (the opposite, in fact), I just wanted to make the point that their past history with the Bond brand gives them a leg up in some ways, where studios like Warner Bros. don't, for example.

    You'd just hope all this means things are finally getting close to rolling on the next film in ways beyond storyboarding and minor scripting, and that EON know where they're going to take it. With P&W apparently on board for now following a past treatment they submitted, maybe Barbara and co. feel they have enough of Bond 25 plotted to show prospective partners. If they are negotiating with a studio for a one film deal, they would (you'd think) have to have something to show for what that film would be in concept, how much funding would be needed and what they hoped to do with it to ensure the studios that their investment and interest would be wise and profitable. It would also be important for the studios to know who was the lead in it and any possible directors that could be attached, as those elements would/could effect possible box office draw on top of that and paint the picture of how the film would feel once produced.

    This is all speculation of course, but I simply feel that the pace to Bond 25 has started to quicken a little bit more with the recent developments, providing other factors work in EON's favor.

    Yes, I got your point :smile:.

    It's weird how everything Eon are doing makes it look like they could theoretically start filming B25 this year, except for that historical war drama "issue". Red herring, perhaps?
  • Posts: 5,767
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Thanks for the news, @007Blofeld.
    "MGM and Eon are only offering a one-film contract"
    That would at least mean that I don´t need to worry anymore about the Bond franchise trying to mimmick the interweaving of films as Marvel do. With years of waiting for the next distributor in between films, the Bond films will be forced to be convincing standalone films. I appreciate that.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    boldfinger wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Thanks for the news, @007Blofeld.
    "MGM and Eon are only offering a one-film contract"
    That would at least mean that I don´t need to worry anymore about the Bond franchise trying to mimmick the interweaving of films as Marvel do. With years of waiting for the next distributor in between films, the Bond films will be forced to be convincing standalone films. I appreciate that.

    That would most certainly be refreshing and welcoming.
Sign In or Register to comment.