No Time To Die: Production Diary

19479489509529532507

Comments

  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,382
    Or they'll just go with a completely original title such as Skyfall. Circa 2011, that title concept never even crossed our minds.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 19,339
    RC7 wrote: »
    Shatterhand puts them on a slippery slope imo, much like Spectre. To fans, it's a big statement. Expectation is tenfold when compared with a more vague moniker such as Skyfall. In that scenario there would be too many fans hyped for a specific vision and story. It's achievable to get away with it but they'd fare much better with a more obscure, but typically Flemingian title, where the hype and chit-chat in places like this is not all channelled down the same YOLT shaped hole.

    That's what I think..they are under enough pressure as it is to get this film right,without bringing 'Shatterhand' into it.

    Why not go for John Gardeners 'Scorpious' then ?
    A great title and Bond battles a cult....totally original.

    Or even better 'Icebreaker'...

    On a submarine with agents from other countries and murders start happening,one of the other agents is a killer...Bond has to turn on the proper spy mode with lots of action.

  • Posts: 11,119
    I'm gonna be the first one posting on page 1000. Let that be clear to everyone :-P!
  • Posts: 4,619
    With the ideas floating around here (Shatterhand! More Blofeld! David Arnold! Death of Madeleine Swann!) I am once again extremely happy Bond fans aren't controlling the franchise.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited August 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What's the point in calling it The Property of A Lady?

    Because Bond is the property of a lady. As long as the Queen is alive at least. So they better use that title quickly.
    Not seeing the relevance here. It sounds like a cheesy fan fiction written by a teenager.

    Sounds like a Fleming title to me.
    Just because it's a Fleming title doesn't mean it has relevance to be used anywhere or anything. Fleming baptized his short story with a relevant title that speaks to it. Bond being glorified as a belonging to Her Majesty and addressing it in wide and large words is something a cheesy fan fiction penned by a teenager out of massive love for Bond is, not only unoriginal but also cringe-worthy. Let's shoehorn any average-sounding chapter title as well just because Fleming wrote it.

    You said it sounds like teenage fanfic. It's a Fleming title whatever the context, as he came with it. And you're making assumptions about said context. I never said anything about glorifying Bond as the Queen's servant. I'm saying the title has relevance to his state as a British civil servant. Like OHMSS by the way. A movie can have a context when the title could be relevant.
    Bond being the Queen's servant and the title addressing to it as The Property of A Lady sounds like a teenage fanfic. I stand by what I said. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (MI6 being referred to in bold letters, an intelligence and espionage organization within the government of the British monarchy, not a simple servant employment) describes the story and the turnouts in it perfectly well. The Property of A Lady in the short story (and the Octopussy film) revolves around the Faberge egg. Seeing that story is already done, I don't see how else the title as a standalone, separated from the story it was written for will come in handy to refer to something else like Bond for example, which is the suggestion from most fans here and there, shoehorning a Fleming title just because it's Fleming. Not that Quantum of Solace did it any better, mind you?
    No Blofeld isn't a possibility in the Craig era. Not with the direction they're taking.
    ClarkDevlin in 2001: "No Christmas Jones isn't a possibility in the Brosnan era. Not with the direction they're taking."
    I fail to see any logic in that statement. Care to clarify furthermore? Or is it just a sign of sheer frustration when your desired world of view doesn't match the others'?
  • Posts: 19,339
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Shatterhand puts them on a slippery slope imo, much like Spectre. To fans, it's a big statement. Expectation is tenfold when compared with a more vague moniker such as Skyfall. In that scenario there would be too many fans hyped for a specific vision and story. It's achievable to get away with it but they'd fare much better with a more obscure, but typically Flemingian title, where the hype and chit-chat in places like this is not all channelled down the same YOLT shaped hole.

    That's what I think..they are under enough pressure as it is to get this film right,without bringing 'Shatterhand' into it.

    Why not go for John Gardeners 'Scorpious' then ?
    A great title and Bond battles a cult....totally original.

    Or even better 'Icebreaker'...

    Starts on a submarine with agents from other countries on training exercise or a mission, when murders start happening,one of the other agents is a killer...Bond has to turn on the proper spy mode with lots of action.

  • Posts: 11,425
    With the ideas floating around here (Shatterhand! More Blofeld! David Arnold! Death of Madeleine Swann!) I am once again extremely happy Bond fans aren't controlling the franchise.

    These are just statements of the most likely trajectory. Given that DC's era has become progressively more continuity obsessed, these are logical predictions as much as wish list items.
  • Posts: 1,452
    With the ideas floating around here (Shatterhand! More Blofeld! David Arnold! Death of Madeleine Swann!) I am once again extremely happy Bond fans aren't controlling the franchise.

    I'll say the chances that Bond 25 will not follow on from SP (Blofeld, Swann etc.) in some way are slim. I'm afraid you may need to be prepared for that.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 4,619
    @Getafix I disagree and strongly believe that at this point it's more likely that we won't see Blofeld in Bond 25 than that we will (and I'm not saying this just because this is what I want to happen). For the same reasons Skyfall did not continue the QUANTUM storyline.

    @ColonelSun I never said Bond 25 will not follow on from SP, in fact I think it will, and I am 100% sure it SHOULD. It should follow on by showing Bond as a retired 00 agent together with Swann. It's incredibly easy to make a direct sequel to SP that does not even mention Blofeld or his organization.
  • Posts: 1,452
    @Getafix I disagree and strongly believe that at this point it's more likely that we won't see Blofeld in Bond 25 than that we will (and I'm not saying this just because this is what I want to happen). For the same reasons Skyfall did not continue the QUANTUM storyline.

    Except this is Craig's final story - the chances they won't want to pay-off all that happened across his story arc, especially concerning Blofeld in SP, seem very unlikely.
  • Posts: 4,619
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Except this is Craig's final story - the chances they won't want to pay-off all that happened across his story arc, especially concerning Blofeld in SP, seem very unlikely.
    The Blofeld storyline is finished, what's not finished are the Bond+Swann storyline and the Bond's retirement storyline.
  • Posts: 14,800
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What's the point in calling it The Property of A Lady?

    Because Bond is the property of a lady. As long as the Queen is alive at least. So they better use that title quickly.
    Not seeing the relevance here. It sounds like a cheesy fan fiction written by a teenager.

    Sounds like a Fleming title to me.
    Just because it's a Fleming title doesn't mean it has relevance to be used anywhere or anything. Fleming baptized his short story with a relevant title that speaks to it. Bond being glorified as a belonging to Her Majesty and addressing it in wide and large words is something a cheesy fan fiction penned by a teenager out of massive love for Bond is, not only unoriginal but also cringe-worthy. Let's shoehorn any average-sounding chapter title as well just because Fleming wrote it.

    You said it sounds like teenage fanfic. It's a Fleming title whatever the context, as he came with it. And you're making assumptions about said context. I never said anything about glorifying Bond as the Queen's servant. I'm saying the title has relevance to his state as a British civil servant. Like OHMSS by the way. A movie can have a context when the title could be relevant.
    Bond being the Queen's servant and the title addressing to it as The Property of A Lady sounds like a teenage fanfic. I stand by what I said. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (MI6 being referred to in bold letters, an intelligence and espionage organization within the government of the British monarchy, not a simple servant employment) describes the story and the turnouts in it perfectly well. The Property of A Lady in the short story (and the Octopussy film) revolves around the Faberge egg. Seeing that story is already done, I don't see how else the title as a standalone, separated from the story it was written for will come in handy to refer to something else like Bond for example, which is the suggestion from most fans here and there, shoehorning a Fleming title just because it's Fleming. Not that Quantum of Solace did it any better, mind you?
    No Blofeld isn't a possibility in the Craig era. Not with the direction they're taking.
    ClarkDevlin in 2001: "No Christmas Jones isn't a possibility in the Brosnan era. Not with the direction they're taking."
    I fail to see any logic in that statement. Care to clarify furthermore?

    I know you stand by what you said but what said is unsubstantiated. It's a claim based at best at assumed intentions. The Property of a Lady was briefly mentioned in OP that's it. And it was not used as a title. TWINE was used prior to the movie (not that I like the movie much) and many Bond movies took little more of Fleming than the title of the novels or short story they are allegedly adapted from. Did YOLT was used in the same context in novel and movie? TPOAL is an evocative title and can work for a movie title. Whether or not this hypothetical movie will be good or the title fit to it is another debate entirely. I liked both QOS movie and title, although I would agree the relevance of said title was never properly established.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Can we just have a frickin' BOND FILM !!!!

    That's all I want,its not much to ask for is it ?

    Bond is not a bloody drama,sitting at home retired with bloody Madeleine etc.
    I am really getting fed up with this drama angle all the time.

  • Posts: 1,452
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Except this is Craig's final story - the chances they won't want to pay-off all that happened across his story arc, especially concerning Blofeld in SP, seem very unlikely.
    The Blofeld storyline is finished, what's not finished are the Bond+Swann storyline and the Bond's retirement storyline.

    Kind of feel this is going in circles, but the Blofeld storyline is far from finished. They kept him alive for a reason. As I say, be prepared for that.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

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

    True but the domestic market is the most important market and is where the studios get most of their profit. SP had a budget of $250million and when you factor total cost of marketing, you're looking at a total spend close to $700million with a worldwide total gross of $880million which isn't all that impressive really.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Can we just have a frickin' BOND FILM !!!!

    That's all I want,its not much to ask for is it ?

    Bond is not a bloody drama,sitting at home retired with bloody Madeleine etc.
    I am really getting fed up with this drama angle all the time.
    +1.

    What a horrendous idea.
  • Posts: 1,452
    doubleoego wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Here's the question: Given how SP was received (lukewarm), do we think they will spend another 250 million making Bond 25? And if they are going to slash the budget, how are they going to do that? All the major players will be looking for more money, not less. In order to bring everybody back and truly conclude the era, I think the bare minimum they wod have to spend is 200 million. That's a big risk coming of a cooly received film. They have to be really confident if they are willing to spend that much.

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

    True but the domestic market is the most important market and is where the studios get most of their profit. SP had a budget of $250million and when you factor total cost of marketing, you're looking at a total spend close to $700million with a worldwide total gross of $880million which isn't all that impressive really.

    $880 million theatrical box office is impressive - simple as that.

  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    You really think they spent $450m marketing SP?

    I'm prepared to be proven wrong but this seems a bit OTT surely?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2017 Posts: 7,971
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Except this is Craig's final story - the chances they won't want to pay-off all that happened across his story arc, especially concerning Blofeld in SP, seem very unlikely.
    The Blofeld storyline is finished, what's not finished are the Bond+Swann storyline and the Bond's retirement storyline.

    It doesn't matter if its finished or not, they'll bolt another chapter on the end if they want to. A major character has died in each Craig film. Vesper, Mathis, M, Mr White. Chances are one of Maddy, Brofeld or Bond don't make it out of this next film alive.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What's the point in calling it The Property of A Lady?

    Because Bond is the property of a lady. As long as the Queen is alive at least. So they better use that title quickly.
    Not seeing the relevance here. It sounds like a cheesy fan fiction written by a teenager.

    Sounds like a Fleming title to me.
    Just because it's a Fleming title doesn't mean it has relevance to be used anywhere or anything. Fleming baptized his short story with a relevant title that speaks to it. Bond being glorified as a belonging to Her Majesty and addressing it in wide and large words is something a cheesy fan fiction penned by a teenager out of massive love for Bond is, not only unoriginal but also cringe-worthy. Let's shoehorn any average-sounding chapter title as well just because Fleming wrote it.

    You said it sounds like teenage fanfic. It's a Fleming title whatever the context, as he came with it. And you're making assumptions about said context. I never said anything about glorifying Bond as the Queen's servant. I'm saying the title has relevance to his state as a British civil servant. Like OHMSS by the way. A movie can have a context when the title could be relevant.
    Bond being the Queen's servant and the title addressing to it as The Property of A Lady sounds like a teenage fanfic. I stand by what I said. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (MI6 being referred to in bold letters, an intelligence and espionage organization within the government of the British monarchy, not a simple servant employment) describes the story and the turnouts in it perfectly well. The Property of A Lady in the short story (and the Octopussy film) revolves around the Faberge egg. Seeing that story is already done, I don't see how else the title as a standalone, separated from the story it was written for will come in handy to refer to something else like Bond for example, which is the suggestion from most fans here and there, shoehorning a Fleming title just because it's Fleming. Not that Quantum of Solace did it any better, mind you?
    No Blofeld isn't a possibility in the Craig era. Not with the direction they're taking.
    ClarkDevlin in 2001: "No Christmas Jones isn't a possibility in the Brosnan era. Not with the direction they're taking."
    I fail to see any logic in that statement. Care to clarify furthermore?

    I know you stand by what you said but what said is unsubstantiated. It's a claim based at best at assumed intentions. The Property of a Lady was briefly mentioned in OP that's it. And it was not used as a title. TWINE was used prior to the movie (not that I like the movie much) and many Bond movies took little more of Fleming than the title of the novels or short story they are allegedly adapted from. Did YOLT was used in the same context in novel and movie? TPOAL is an evocative title and can work for a movie title. Whether or not this hypothetical movie will be good or the title fit to it is another debate entirely. I liked both QOS movie and title, although I would agree the relevance of said title was never properly established.
    I agree on The World Is Not Enough. It tries hard to connect with Elektra's world and her role in it, or whatever she plans to do with it, yet in a manner fails because it tries to be clever with the inclusion of the title that's supposed to be related to Bond.

    You Only Live Twice didn't go on an entirely different path in the reference to the major plot point, though. It just placed a different iteration on the same play, Bond presumed dead, but turning out alive. That plot point played at the end of the novel, and the beginning of the film (I personally prefer the novel over the film by a wide margin, but that's a different topic).

    If they are to use The Property of A Lady, I would rather they don't refer to Bond with it, but the McGuffin or the plot device that plays a major role in the storyline. And if they fit it in, then I'll easily be pleased with it. When Dalton's original Bond 17 was rumoured to have that title along, having read the synopsis of it, I saw zero relevance in the title's relationship with the said script. That's why I find it absurd when a story that bears no relation to the title is executed on paper.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    SP's box office was impressive. The decline in the US was precipitous and disconcerting however. Some have excused that by suggesting SF was an anomaly. That's true. It was, but the simple fact is the continuation narrative shouldn't have lost so much % box office stateside. It didn't connect, and I'm quite sure EON will consider that when looking at whether to continue this story so directly 4 years on.

    As I've said before, the US still controls the global media narrative. There is a reason Craig announced his return on Colbert.
  • RC7RC7
    edited August 2017 Posts: 10,512
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Except this is Craig's final story - the chances they won't want to pay-off all that happened across his story arc, especially concerning Blofeld in SP, seem very unlikely.
    The Blofeld storyline is finished, what's not finished are the Bond+Swann storyline and the Bond's retirement storyline.

    Of the two, I think it's more likely that they'll bring back Waltz than Seydoux. Despite some fans' reception to Blofeld, I don't see how a return for Swann outstrips the chance to reimagine Blofeld several years down the line. He's vastly different in each novel; which they'll hopefully take their cue from.
  • Posts: 4,619
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    the Blofeld storyline is far from finished. They kept him alive for a reason. As I say, be prepared for that.
    They kept him alive to show that Bond has changed, and that he is choosing Swann over MI6. Duh. What I say is be prepared for something very different. As Robert Wade said: “Spectre felt like it closed off a certain way of doing Bond. And I think whatever happens next will be quite different.”

    @barryt007 and @bondjames Nobody said that a retired Bond needs to be sitting at home. Use your imagination, folks!
  • Posts: 1,452
    Getafix wrote: »
    You really think they spent $450m marketing SP?

    I'm prepared to be proven wrong but this seems a bit OTT surely?

    You're right to question those figures. Broadly the studios expect/plan to spend around $200 million or so on a tentpole release. Approx equal to the production budget of a film.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @barryt007 and @bondjames Nobody said that a retired Bond needs to be sitting at home. Use your imagination, folks!
    As long as he's giving her the business I'll be fine with it. Just no sitting around being depressed and staring into mirrors contemplating one's navel please.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,971
    Getafix wrote: »
    You really think they spent $450m marketing SP?

    I'm prepared to be proven wrong but this seems a bit OTT surely?

    I think SP needed at least half a billion to break even, probably more. It was somewhat justified since they just came off SF and there was a lot of built-in hype. What built-in hype is there this time? I don't know, but are likely headed into treachourous territory with Bond 25, especially if they can't rein in the budget to at least 200 million.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Why does everyone assume YOLT will be the inspiration for Bond 25? It could well be, but there is nothing to back it up, just a lot of speculation.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Why does everyone assume YOLT will be the inspiration for Bond 25? It could well be, but there is nothing to back it up, just a lot of speculation.
    It's what they (fans) want. Not necessarily what's going to happen, mind?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Why does everyone assume YOLT will be the inspiration for Bond 25? It could well be, but there is nothing to back it up, just a lot of speculation.
    It's what they (fans) want. Not necessarily what's going to happen, mind?
    It's a logical conclusion given they've decided to bring Craig back. Otherwise, what's the point really, given his trajectory.
  • Posts: 4,619
    What built-in hype is there this time?
    Not much yet. What I'm hoping is that they will market it as Craig's final Bond film, just like how Logan was hyped as Jackman's final performance as Wolverine.

Sign In or Register to comment.