No Time To Die: Production Diary

18068078098118122507

Comments

  • Posts: 14,839
    I think they did great with Batman, at least the first two films and to a lesser extend the third one, but this is completely off topic.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Neither would I. After he totally butchered Batman, I don't want to see him butcher Bond.
    I don't blame Bale for that. I blame Nolan for that.

    How did either of them butcher Batman?

    I don't like their takes on the character. Not sure how that makes me ungrateful. I'm not a Batman comic purist or anything. I can't say that I've read a Batman comic in my whole life. I just think the characterization and performance of Batman in the Nolan films stinks.
    I've read numerous Batman comics, and while I'm not as expert as, let's just say, good old Brady is, Nolan's Batman isn't the comic book character by a wide margin. His universe was full of manic depressive atmosphere with utmost tragic soap opera drama all over the place showcasing a world unworthy of living, they make you want to go and commit suicide. No thanks. Not my Batman.

    How am I being ungrateful when I'm merely stating an opinion? Nolan made an over-melodramatic police drama using the Batman label. And the only entry I love in the trilogy is the first one, which was perfect. And then... we have the other two. Where the films tell you how hard life is, how superheroes can't cope like superheroes in real life, etc. I got my Batman: The Animated Series to watch instead. That's my Batman.

    And even though people are hating on the Batfleck to no end, I loved it so far. Not sure if it will keep satisfying me, but at least he's veteran and experienced as opposed to the Bale/Nolan Batman who's often ending up getting his arse handed to him over wrong choices.

    Like Murdock, I am far from being a fan of the Nolan Batman trilogy. Call me ungrateful if you like. It won't change my mind. And I certainly don't want a miserable atmosphere like that in the Bond films. Skyfall was enough.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    They were far superior to both Burton films and as for Schumacher's 2 do we need to go there?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    Oh my sides.
    rh1n8.jpg
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Neither would I. After he totally butchered Batman, I don't want to see him butcher Bond.
    I don't blame Bale for that. I blame Nolan for that.

    How did either of them butcher Batman?

    I don't like their takes on the character. Not sure how that makes me ungrateful. I'm not a Batman comic purist or anything. I can't say that I've read a Batman comic in my whole life. I just think the characterization and performance of Batman in the Nolan films stinks.
    I've read numerous Batman comics, and while I'm not as expert as, let's just say, good old Brady is, Nolan's Batman isn't the comic book character by a wide margin. His universe was full of manic depressive atmosphere with utmost tragic soap opera drama all over the place showcasing a world unworthy of living, they make you want to go and commit suicide. No thanks. Not my Batman.

    How am I being ungrateful when I'm merely stating an opinion? Nolan made an over-melodramatic police drama using the Batman label. And the only entry I love in the trilogy is the first one, which was perfect. And then... we have the other two. Where the films tell you how hard life is, how superheroes can't cope like superheroes in real life, etc. I got my Batman: The Animated Series to watch instead. That's my Batman.

    And even though people are hating on the Batfleck to no end, I loved it so far. Not sure if it will keep satisfying me, but at least he's veteran and experienced as opposed to the Bale/Nolan Batman who's often ending up getting his arse handed to him over wrong choices.

    Like Murdock, I am far from being a fan of the Nolan Batman trilogy. Call me ungrateful if you like. It won't change my mind. And I certainly don't want a miserable atmosphere like that in the Bond films. Skyfall was enough.

    The various incarnations of Batman are something that I've watched from afar with a strange curiosity. I'm not a fan of anything to do with superheroes, but it's always troubled me to see how the series fell from a place a levity and fun with the Adam West TV series, to a dark, depressing place with the Nolan films. I hope this never happens to Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Shardlake wrote: »
    They were far superior to both Burton films and as for Schumacher's 2 do we need to go there?
    Fully agreed and even if one isn't a fan of the Nolan interpretations, I'm surprised that some are ragging on Bale on account of it. He's one of the best actors of his generation and can do anything they give him to do.

    Having said that, he won't be Bond because he's too old now.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,981
    This might be a personal nit-pick on my part, but while I respect and have enjoyed much of Bale's work, find his appearance odd particularly his nose and mouth, Lol. I also don't think they would go with someone as established as he is. I also think he has a reputation for being difficult that would cause EON to shy away.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    I'd rather watch the Burton and Shumacher films over Nolan's any day. ;)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,527
    Love Burton, especially RETURNS;

    I stomached Schumacher's first and thought, for what it was Carrey was quite superb as Riddler...

    I still don't think I've watched Clooney's mess from beginning to end...

    On the flip-side: I do love Nolan's work. He took imagery from a comic book and made allegory.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,110
    I've been catching up on Poldark series 3. Great seeing Turner get comfortable in a role. He'll be ready for Bond in another year or two. I think 2018 is lost now anyway, as a release date.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    edited July 2017 Posts: 1,187
    Murdock wrote: »
    I'd rather watch the Burton and Shumacher films over Nolan's any day. ;)
    ?


    I've been catching up on Poldark series 3. Great seeing Turner get comfortable in a role. He'll be ready for Bond in another year or two. I think 2018 is lost now anyway, as a release date.
    Did Aiden Turner birth you or something. I see no point in pushing this any longer.

  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Disregard that last post by me. Just realized it was published in 2012.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 386
    Daniel Craig is a prisoner of Casino Royale.

    First, there was the alakine counter-punch of QoS, increasingly well received amongst hardcore fans for being the bullet to the previous film's heart.

    Since then, his arc has been comprehensively botched. The fact an arc was created at all was a surefire sign he would be painted into a corner.

    The ravages of ageing? Tick.

    The death of a close and trusted colleague? Tick.

    A nod to the past? Tick.

    Unsanctioned work off the grid? Tick.

    Dunno where he goes next. Not sure EON can extricate him from the past.

    Not since Casino Royale has a forthcoming film been so up against it (if DC returns).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,110
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Daniel Craig is a prisoner of Casino Royale.

    First, there was the alakine counter-punch of QoS, increasingly well received amongst hardcore fans for being the bullet to the previous film's heart.

    Since then, his arc has been comprehensively botched. The fact an arc was created at all was a surefire sign he would be painted into a corner.

    The ravages of ageing? Tick.

    The death of a close and trusted colleague? Tick.

    A nod to the past? Tick.

    Unsanctioned work off the grid? Tick.

    Dunno where he goes next. Not sure EON can extricate him from the past.

    Not since Casino Royale has a forthcoming film been so up against it (if DC returns).

    One of the all time great posts on here. So true.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Maybe so,but Craig wouldn't have made the films if he didn't agree with them,he has that type of personality.

    So he,along with EON,have both pushed themselves into a corner.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2017 Posts: 8,110
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Maybe so,but Craig wouldn't have made the films if he didn't agree with them,he has that type of personality.

    So he,along with EON,have both pushed themselves into a corner.

    True Barry. Craig is a co-producer and has always been very involved. He should shoulder same of the blame too.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Has anyone heard anything from that Baz guy concerning the latest speculations?
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    As much as we appear to have disorder within the Bond series, both EON and the studio that releases Bond 25 will want Craig back.
    You don't risk the future of the series on a new actor, when Craig has delivered four films each making a ton of money.
    Casino Royale - $599 million
    Quantum Of Solace - $586 million
    Skyfall - $1.1 billion
    Spectre - $899 million.
    These are not average or worrying figures to any franchise. He has an audience. I'd be surprised if they don't dangle a juicy carrot in front of Mr.Craig to return.
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    Benny wrote: »
    As much as we appear to have disorder within the Bond series, both EON and the studio that releases Bond 25 will want Craig back.
    You don't risk the future of the series on a new actor, when Craig has delivered four films each making a ton of money.
    Casino Royale - $599 million
    Quantum Of Solace - $586 million
    Skyfall - $1.1 billion
    Spectre - $899 million.
    These are not average or worrying figures to any franchise. He has an audience. I'd be surprised if they don't dangle a juicy carrot in front of Mr.Craig to return.

    Sooner or later they are going to cast a New actor anyway.....
    DC will only return for 1 more film anyway.
  • Posts: 1,031
    001 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    As much as we appear to have disorder within the Bond series, both EON and the studio that releases Bond 25 will want Craig back.
    You don't risk the future of the series on a new actor, when Craig has delivered four films each making a ton of money.
    Casino Royale - $599 million
    Quantum Of Solace - $586 million
    Skyfall - $1.1 billion
    Spectre - $899 million.
    These are not average or worrying figures to any franchise. He has an audience. I'd be surprised if they don't dangle a juicy carrot in front of Mr.Craig to return.

    Sooner or later they are going to cast a New actor anyway.....
    DC will only return for 1 more film anyway.

    Maybe they'll call it Swann Song.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,561
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Let's not bring religion into this you proved your ignorance on the subject once when I beat you in debate I could beat you in a rematch but this is hardly the time or the place.

    @Risico007, We should probably duke this out in more appropriate threads like the Sience thread. I'd be happy to lay waste to the bible there. ;-) When you feel like it. :)

    As for Bond25, I'm glad many here are naturally cautious not to instantly believe everything they read online.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    It's true that the box office gross of the last two films has been great. However, the profitability has been quite weak (particularly for the studio) and as I mentioned in an earlier post, the US $ (in which costs, revenue and profit are measured) has appreciated against all major currencies since 2015 (and particularly since 2008-2012) but especially against the UK £, where Bond films make most of their money outside of the US. So any studio (and even MGM) will keep a close eye on managing costs for the next one, and also will most likely prioritize US gross. That means no SP continuation imho.

    Declining profitability did Brozza in as much as the need to reboot due to excesses.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Let's not bring religion into this you proved your ignorance on the subject once when I beat you in debate I could beat you in a rematch but this is hardly the time or the place.

    @Risico007, We should probably duke this out in more appropriate threads like the Sience thread. I'd be happy to lay waste to the bible there. ;-) When you feel like it. :)

    As for Bond25, I'm glad many here are naturally cautious not to instantly believe everything they read online.

    Sorry Darth - one of your fellow Mods deemed it a verboten subject for discussion and not only closed the thread I created (at Risioc007's instigation) but deleted it from existence.
    Benny wrote: »
    As much as we appear to have disorder within the Bond series, both EON and the studio that releases Bond 25 will want Craig back.
    You don't risk the future of the series on a new actor, when Craig has delivered four films each making a ton of money.
    Casino Royale - $599 million
    Quantum Of Solace - $586 million
    Skyfall - $1.1 billion
    Spectre - $899 million.
    These are not average or worrying figures to any franchise. He has an audience. I'd be surprised if they don't dangle a juicy carrot in front of Mr.Craig to return.

    Also something to note is that back in 06/08 everyone was very happy with making $600m. It was only with the freakish success of SF that Bond was suddenly seen as a billion dollar per film franchise when it never had been. It seems that it was the desperation to recapture this $1b figure that was the guiding principle behind every decision made on SP from begging Mendes to return to coming up with another deeply personal angle to spunking a ridiculous $250 on the film.

    They just need to set out to make as good a film as they can which is all they did with CR the money will come. If chasing a billion per film is all they care about then we might as well be watching Transformers. Before you know it every scene is being dissected not for what it adds to the story but how it might play in the Chinese market or some other such crap.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Benny wrote: »
    As much as we appear to have disorder within the Bond series, both EON and the studio that releases Bond 25 will want Craig back.
    You don't risk the future of the series on a new actor, when Craig has delivered four films each making a ton of money.
    Casino Royale - $599 million
    Quantum Of Solace - $586 million
    Skyfall - $1.1 billion
    Spectre - $899 million.
    These are not average or worrying figures to any franchise. He has an audience. I'd be surprised if they don't dangle a juicy carrot in front of Mr.Craig to return.

    Also something to note is that back in 06/08 everyone was very happy with making $600m. It was only with the freakish success of SF that Bond was suddenly seen as a billion dollar per film franchise when it never had been. It seems that it was the desperation to recapture this $1b figure that was the guiding principle behind every decision made on SP from begging Mendes to return to coming up with another deeply personal angle to spunking a ridiculous $250 on the film.

    They just need to set out to make as good a film as they can which is all they did with CR the money will come. If chasing a billion per film is all they care about then we might as well be watching Transformers. Before you know it every scene is being dissected not for what it adds to the story but how it might play in the Chinese market or some other such crap.
    That is true. They should focus on making the best film they can. However, as mentioned there are business needs to be met, most notably for MGM as it looks to spin off or IPO (we've seen already that they considered a possible sale to the Chinese). Bond is the jewel in their crown. They not only want profit but also gross.

    In a way they are really boxed in at present, to some extent due to their own mistakes (brothergate) but also due to their own success. As long as Craig is in the role there will be inevitable pressure on them to deliver the next SF. The remnants of 'wrist slash' will also linger.

    Tricky situation.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    As much as we appear to have disorder within the Bond series, both EON and the studio that releases Bond 25 will want Craig back.
    You don't risk the future of the series on a new actor, when Craig has delivered four films each making a ton of money.
    Casino Royale - $599 million
    Quantum Of Solace - $586 million
    Skyfall - $1.1 billion
    Spectre - $899 million.
    These are not average or worrying figures to any franchise. He has an audience. I'd be surprised if they don't dangle a juicy carrot in front of Mr.Craig to return.

    Also something to note is that back in 06/08 everyone was very happy with making $600m. It was only with the freakish success of SF that Bond was suddenly seen as a billion dollar per film franchise when it never had been. It seems that it was the desperation to recapture this $1b figure that was the guiding principle behind every decision made on SP from begging Mendes to return to coming up with another deeply personal angle to spunking a ridiculous $250 on the film.

    They just need to set out to make as good a film as they can which is all they did with CR the money will come. If chasing a billion per film is all they care about then we might as well be watching Transformers. Before you know it every scene is being dissected not for what it adds to the story but how it might play in the Chinese market or some other such crap.
    That is true. They should focus on making the best film they can. However, as mentioned there are business needs to be met, most notably for MGM as it looks to spin off or IPO (we've seen already that they considered a possible sale to the Chinese). Bond is the jewel in their crown. They not only want profit but also gross.

    In a way they are really boxed in at present, to some extent due to their own mistakes (brothergate) but also due to their own success. As long as Craig is in the role there will be inevitable pressure on them to deliver the next SF. The remnants of 'wrist slash' will also linger.

    Tricky situation.

    Maybe the best thing then is to let him go and wipe the slate clean?

    A big call though to ditch the most bankable Bond since Connery. Nor sure I'd be brave enough to turn my back on a guaranteed $700m+ from DC to gamble on a Hiddlestone or Turner.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    As much as we appear to have disorder within the Bond series, both EON and the studio that releases Bond 25 will want Craig back.
    You don't risk the future of the series on a new actor, when Craig has delivered four films each making a ton of money.
    Casino Royale - $599 million
    Quantum Of Solace - $586 million
    Skyfall - $1.1 billion
    Spectre - $899 million.
    These are not average or worrying figures to any franchise. He has an audience. I'd be surprised if they don't dangle a juicy carrot in front of Mr.Craig to return.

    Also something to note is that back in 06/08 everyone was very happy with making $600m. It was only with the freakish success of SF that Bond was suddenly seen as a billion dollar per film franchise when it never had been. It seems that it was the desperation to recapture this $1b figure that was the guiding principle behind every decision made on SP from begging Mendes to return to coming up with another deeply personal angle to spunking a ridiculous $250 on the film.

    They just need to set out to make as good a film as they can which is all they did with CR the money will come. If chasing a billion per film is all they care about then we might as well be watching Transformers. Before you know it every scene is being dissected not for what it adds to the story but how it might play in the Chinese market or some other such crap.
    That is true. They should focus on making the best film they can. However, as mentioned there are business needs to be met, most notably for MGM as it looks to spin off or IPO (we've seen already that they considered a possible sale to the Chinese). Bond is the jewel in their crown. They not only want profit but also gross.

    In a way they are really boxed in at present, to some extent due to their own mistakes (brothergate) but also due to their own success. As long as Craig is in the role there will be inevitable pressure on them to deliver the next SF. The remnants of 'wrist slash' will also linger.

    Tricky situation.

    Maybe the best thing then is to let him go and wipe the slate clean?

    A big call though to ditch the most bankable Bond since Connery. Nor sure I'd be brave enough to turn my back on a guaranteed $700m+ from DC to gamble on a Hiddlestone or Turner.
    A fair point, but let's ask ourselves how much of that box office is directly attributable to Craig. It's a difficult question to answer, because outside of the Bond series he really hasn't been bankable at this level (the Stormtrooper stint in SW TFA doesn't count). CR & QoS did decent Brosnan level numbers. SF is where the real takeoff occurred, and the decline with SP suggests it's trending back down to the normal level. The mammoth success of SF has been dismissed by many here as a fluke (not least by our vocal Swiss friend) and there could be some truth to it, even though I like the film. I think we should consider that Craig is the one long running actor to deliver less box office with his 4th (Connery, Moore & Brosnan blew the roof off with their respective fourth outings, even if those films weren't as critically acclaimed as their third).

    I'm not sure who they want to go with next, but I really feel they're boxed in with Craig. They will have to contort to get out of this, and one wonders if it's worth it for one film with him (the most they'll get) or whether they should just cut the cord now and move on.

    Irrespective, I'm intrigued to see what they do. It's not an easy call.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Neither would I. After he totally butchered Batman, I don't want to see him butcher Bond.
    I don't blame Bale for that. I blame Nolan for that.

    How did either of them butcher Batman?

    I don't like their takes on the character. Not sure how that makes me ungrateful. I'm not a Batman comic purist or anything. I can't say that I've read a Batman comic in my whole life. I just think the characterization and performance of Batman in the Nolan films stinks.
    I've read numerous Batman comics, and while I'm not as expert as, let's just say, good old Brady is, Nolan's Batman isn't the comic book character by a wide margin. His universe was full of manic depressive atmosphere with utmost tragic soap opera drama all over the place showcasing a world unworthy of living, they make you want to go and commit suicide. No thanks. Not my Batman.

    How am I being ungrateful when I'm merely stating an opinion? Nolan made an over-melodramatic police drama using the Batman label. And the only entry I love in the trilogy is the first one, which was perfect. And then... we have the other two. Where the films tell you how hard life is, how superheroes can't cope like superheroes in real life, etc. I got my Batman: The Animated Series to watch instead. That's my Batman.

    And even though people are hating on the Batfleck to no end, I loved it so far. Not sure if it will keep satisfying me, but at least he's veteran and experienced as opposed to the Bale/Nolan Batman who's often ending up getting his arse handed to him over wrong choices.

    Like Murdock, I am far from being a fan of the Nolan Batman trilogy. Call me ungrateful if you like. It won't change my mind. And I certainly don't want a miserable atmosphere like that in the Bond films. Skyfall was enough.

    The various incarnations of Batman are something that I've watched from afar with a strange curiosity. I'm not a fan of anything to do with superheroes, but it's always troubled me to see how the series fell from a place a levity and fun with the Adam West TV series, to a dark, depressing place with the Nolan films. I hope this never happens to Bond.
    Mendes two times managed to give me a feeling of vacancy lingering behind all that thought-through drama and deeply emotional acting. That´s two too many in the Bond series.

  • Posts: 1,162
    Also, I am still convinced that lots of SF financial success is owed to the 'M dies and Bond cries' aspect. Add to this the free Olympic publicity and all the critics getting orgasms because one of their favorites had made a Bond film plus the anniversary effect and you just had a perfect storm.
    And it would still have been a perfect storm if Brosnan had been sitting in the boat.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Also, I am still convinced that lots of SF financial success is owed to the 'M dies and Bond cries' aspect. Add to this the free Olympic publicity and all the critics getting orgasms because one of their favorites had made a Bond film plus the anniversary effect and you just had a perfect storm.
    And it would still have been a perfect storm if Brosnan had been sitting in the boat.
    It's very possible.

    Indeed, one could just as easily attribute the success of SF/SP (again, keep in mind the decline for the latter, which was somewhat precipitous) to Mendes rather than Craig.

    If they come back with Craig, they'll have to try something very different. A sort of MR to FYEO move.
Sign In or Register to comment.