No Time To Die: Production Diary

1103110321034103610372585

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @noSolaceleft , I'm sorry to disappoint. Perhaps these long waits between films, interconnected storylines of brotherly hate and corporate shenanigans have brought out the 'dark' side in me.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Dennison wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.

    Unless you're Star Wars and Marvel? Not sure how you can say that when most franchises are actually releasing films on a yearly basis, if not more than that in one year! There will be 12 Marvel films between 2017 and 2019. Between Spectre and Bond 25 there will have been 6 Star Wars films. Not sure your argument stands up.

    But for the record I understand why a 3-4 year cycle may be preferable for Bond given this kind of landscape.

    The Marvel movies are not made by the same team, producers, production companies and personnel each time. Personally, I am not wholly sure if - as you suggest - Marvel's 12 films in the next two years are a good thing. Too many of those films no longer operate as films anymore, but two hour trade show ads for the times to come. And the current TV fortunes of Marvel are not looking good.

    Why are you listening to him? There aren't 12 movies from Marvel Studios coming out between now and 2019. There are 7. Also Marvel TV has nothing to do with the actual movies, they're a separate entity and as far as the films go many of the same producers work on all if not most of the projects but none if that really matters as it's Kevin Feige heading it all up and working on every single one of them which is the most critical aspect for all of Marvel Studios' continued, influential, unparalleled and growing success.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,391
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    You guys should check this out good editing its called the James bond sing off
    "I'm dyyyyyyyyying!!" =))

    That Pierce Brosnan segment... :))

    I loved the quick insert of Diana Rigg...and the cat.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 2,115
    Dennison wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.

    Unless you're Star Wars and Marvel? Not sure how you can say that when most franchises are actually releasing films on a yearly basis, if not more than that in one year! There will be 12 Marvel films between 2017 and 2019. Between Spectre and Bond 25 there will have been 6 Star Wars films. Not sure your argument stands up.

    But for the record I understand why a 3-4 year cycle may be preferable for Bond given this kind of landscape.

    The Marvel movies are not made by the same team, producers, production companies and personnel each time. Personally, I am not wholly sure if - as you suggest - Marvel's 12 films in the next two years are a good thing. Too many of those films no longer operate as films anymore, but two hour trade show ads for the times to come. And the current TV fortunes of Marvel are not looking good.

    They all say "Produced by Kevin Feige, p.g.a." Spider-Man: Homecoming also had "Produced by Amy Pascal, p.g.a." because it was joint Sony-Marvel deal. (Feige has had the p.g.a. designation on his Marvel movie credits since 2013 when the Producer's Guild reached an agreement with the studios.)
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 2,115
    // Also Marvel TV has nothing to do with the actual movies, they're a separate entity.//

    Feige went to Disney and said he didn't want to report to Marvel anymore. (There was something called the Marvel Creative Committee he had to deal with, among other things.) Disney agreed and Feige reports to Disney executives. Since then, a new "Marvel Studios" logo appears on the movies while the old "Marvel" logo appears on Marvel television productions.

    I watched The Defenders last month on Netflix and it had a Marvel logo. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and Spider-Man: Homecoming had Marvel Studios logos.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited September 2017 Posts: 3,126
    echo wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    You guys should check this out good editing its called the James bond sing off
    "I'm dyyyyyyyyying!!" =))

    That Pierce Brosnan segment... :))

    I loved the quick insert of Diana Rigg...and the cat.

    Yeah Roger moores a view to a kill deleted scene f bomb :)) =))
  • mattjoesmattjoes Eve Stavro Blofeld
    Posts: 4,314
    bondjames wrote: »
    The bottom line is a broader universe can be done. It's all a question of execution.

    The universe is not enough.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The bottom line is a broader universe can be done. It's all a question of execution.

    The universe is not enough.

    Pretty much it's not the world anymore :))
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 8,951
    mattjoes wrote: »
    The universe is not enough.
    With respect: foolish sentiment.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm in the middle of viewing the absolutely brilliant Le Carre Night Manager for the first time since its release one year ago. I'm completely engrossed and engaged with 3 episodes left to go. This show is tremendously atmospheric, gritty, boasts a superior hero, villain and female love interest, has suspense and intrigue, and has a wonderful score and locations. One actually experiences and feels the locations here, in that 'old school' Bond manner.

    I am now completely convinced that it is possible to make a compelling Bond 'universe' side series on the small screen. This show arguably inhabits the same espionage driven universe as Bond, although it focuses on a different character and more mature themes. Some of the supporting characters in this show (Olivia Colman's Angela Burr, David Harewood's CIA honcho Joel Steadman, Douglas Hodge's Rex Mayhew & Tobias Menzies' Geoffrey Dromgoole) are far more interesting than the cliched MI6 Scooby gang imho. Over the course of six episodes they are all suitably 'fleshed out' in a manner that could allow them (or folks like them) to appear sporadically in a hypothetical big screen Bond effort. While this show is perhaps not targeting entirely the same market, there is inevitable 'crossover'.

    Another point to consider is that they took Le Carre's novel and updated it for a more contemporary timeframe, while still doing the source material justice on the small screen.

    The bottom line is a broader universe can be done. It's all a question of execution.

    See I am not crazy! ;)
    Regrettably, I'm sure some may conclude that we both are @CASINOROYALE

    Hey @bondjames, @RC7 ? You think there's a chance that the recent news about Amazon and Apple joinging the bidding race for distribution rights, has changed some recent facts?

    I mean, could there be a chance that there actually almost was a deal with Warner Bros. Pictures, so that because of that EON Productions thought it was the OK-enough timing to release the news about Daniel Craig returning as Bond and to release Bond #25 in November 2019? And that now because of that all these certainties have now become extremely fluidic?

    I mean, this happened a few times before eh? Remember the 'fixed' release date of late 1976 for "The Spy Who Loved Me? Confirmed by EON at the time. But then the McGlory lawsuits and Saltzman lawsuits came up and TSWLM was delayed for a late 1977 release.

    Curious what you think of it, and if Bond #25 could be delayed to 2020 because of the recent news about Apple and Amazon.
  • Posts: 1,875
    I dont see EON going back on their word about a 2019 release date.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    edited September 2017 Posts: 16,036
    I'd rather see it pushed out sooner to 2018. ;)
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Murdock wrote: »
    I'd rather see it pushed out sooner to 2018. ;)

    We only could wish
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @Gustav_Graves , I don't think we can tell either way.

    Keep in mind the sequence of recent events. MGM/EON announced the 2019 date only at first, saying that additional announcements, including cast, would come later. Then Craig said he would return on Colbert (after denying it earlier in the day). 007.com confirmed what he said the next day.

    I believe that they will attempt to meet the 2019 date. The only thing that can possibly derail this would be a transformative deal with a studio or an outright sale to a third party, in which case we are due for a very interesting future.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves , I don't think we can tell either way.

    Keep in mind the sequence of recent events. MGM/EON announced the 2019 date only at first, saying that additional announcements, including cast, would come later. Then Craig said he would return on Colbert (after denying it earlier in the day). 007.com confirmed what he said the next day.

    I believe that they will attempt to meet the 2019 date. The only thing that can possibly derail this would be a transformative deal with a studio or an outright sale to a third party, in which case we are due for a very interesting future.

    Yup, I concur. We'll have to wait and see......
  • Posts: 11,425
    echo wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    You guys should check this out good editing its called the James bond sing off
    "I'm dyyyyyyyyying!!" =))

    That Pierce Brosnan segment... :))

    I loved the quick insert of Diana Rigg...and the cat.

    Awesome video. Very amusing
  • Several folks reporting leaked script details of Bond getting married in Bond 25

    https://www.gq.com/story/report-james-bond-is-getting-married
  • Posts: 11,425
    Well it's logical. Expect Bond to get married would be my advice.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,036
    Old news.
  • Posts: 5,767
    What I find strange about this report: how is Bond getting married, then his wife killed, anything like TAKEN?

    TAKEN was about Liam Neeson's daughter getting kidnapped and put into the sex trade.

    If B25 is indeed Bond getting married and his wife killed, then it's OHMSS re-dux, not TAKEN.

    What a stupid comparison, and that GQ article perpetuates the rumour. The one accurate statement in it: the lack of chemistry between Lea and DC... If they go this route, and do it with her, ouch...!

    But then again, I still think there's not a way in Hell that EoN would allow this to leak. There have to be only a few people who have seen the script at this point; and they must have signed confidentiality agreements. Tracking down the person who leaked this to the media wouldn't be difficult.

    However, maybe EoN wants this to be leaked as a red herring. That the script is the exact opposite of this; that they've planted a fake story to keep everyone away from what's really happening behind closed doors at EoN?
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's a remake of LTK.
  • Posts: 1,031
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's a remake of LTK.

    You've read the script?
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited September 2017 Posts: 4,020
    If I was EON after all the script leaking debacle of SPECTRE I'd be getting fake script ideas out there to misdirect people.

    Why not take the tactic that did the last film no favours and use it to your advantage.

    Let the press run with all kinds of BS then when they drop the first teaser in early 2019 they show a mere morsel of what the film is going to be about.

    Keep it under wraps maybe even make sure the main trailer doesn't show too much (unlikely but it would be a novelty this day and age).

    They need Nolan style secrecy on this project, as for these stories I certainly hope they aren't true and have faith EON would never let something like this get out so early in the game.
  • Posts: 1,031
    Shardlake wrote: »
    If I was EON after all the script leaking debacle of SPECTRE I'd be getting fake script ideas out there to misdirect people.

    Why not take the tactic that did the last film no favours and use it to your advantage.

    Let the press run with all kinds of BS then when they drop the first teaser in early 2019 they show a mere morsel of what the film is going to be about.

    Keep it under wraps maybe even make sure the main trailer doesn't show too much (unlikely but it would be a novelty this day and age).

    They need Nolan style secrecy on this project, as for these stories I certainly hope they aren't true and have faith EON would never let something like this get out so early in the game.

    All will be revealed come 2019.
  • CatchingBulletsCatchingBullets facebook.com/catchingbullets
    Posts: 288
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.

    Unless you're Star Wars and Marvel? Not sure how you can say that when most franchises are actually releasing films on a yearly basis, if not more than that in one year! There will be 12 Marvel films between 2017 and 2019. Between Spectre and Bond 25 there will have been 6 Star Wars films. Not sure your argument stands up.

    But for the record I understand why a 3-4 year cycle may be preferable for Bond given this kind of landscape.

    The Marvel movies are not made by the same team, producers, production companies and personnel each time. Personally, I am not wholly sure if - as you suggest - Marvel's 12 films in the next two years are a good thing. Too many of those films no longer operate as films anymore, but two hour trade show ads for the times to come. And the current TV fortunes of Marvel are not looking good.

    Why are you listening to him? There aren't 12 movies from Marvel Studios coming out between now and 2019. There are 7. Also Marvel TV has nothing to do with the actual movies, they're a separate entity and as far as the films go many of the same producers work on all if not most of the projects but none if that really matters as it's Kevin Feige heading it all up and working on every single one of them which is the most critical aspect for all of Marvel Studios' continued, influential, unparalleled and growing success.


    It's always worth noting how the use of the phrase "producer" on something like the Marvel Studio output is a hard one to pin down. 'Working on them all' is not at all the same as physically producing them all. And not everyone believes the Marvel movie machine is that "influential" or "unparalleled" right now.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 1,031
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.

    Unless you're Star Wars and Marvel? Not sure how you can say that when most franchises are actually releasing films on a yearly basis, if not more than that in one year! There will be 12 Marvel films between 2017 and 2019. Between Spectre and Bond 25 there will have been 6 Star Wars films. Not sure your argument stands up.

    But for the record I understand why a 3-4 year cycle may be preferable for Bond given this kind of landscape.

    The Marvel movies are not made by the same team, producers, production companies and personnel each time. Personally, I am not wholly sure if - as you suggest - Marvel's 12 films in the next two years are a good thing. Too many of those films no longer operate as films anymore, but two hour trade show ads for the times to come. And the current TV fortunes of Marvel are not looking good.

    Why are you listening to him? There aren't 12 movies from Marvel Studios coming out between now and 2019. There are 7. Also Marvel TV has nothing to do with the actual movies, they're a separate entity and as far as the films go many of the same producers work on all if not most of the projects but none if that really matters as it's Kevin Feige heading it all up and working on every single one of them which is the most critical aspect for all of Marvel Studios' continued, influential, unparalleled and growing success.


    It's always worth noting how the use of the phrase "producer" on something like the Marvel Studio output is a hard one to pin down. 'Working on them all' is not at all the same as physically producing them all. And not everyone believes the Marvel movie machine is that "influential" or "unparalleled" right now.

    I agree. But it is still possible to turn a Bond film around in 2 years. QoS came out 2 years after CR even with a writers' strike. Originally it was to come out in May 2008.

    They don't have to have a zillion locations neither to complicate the logictics of filming. Dr. No is largely set in Jamaica and is still one of the best Bond films to date.

    I'm not advocating necessarily 2 year gaps, but what you're saying about it not being possible isn't true. Let's assume Bond 25 is where it is now back in spring 2016 - early script development etc. You could then have had pre-production right through to November 2016. Filming from November 2016 to summer 2017. Post-production for a October/November 2017 release. That is the typical length of pre, prod, and post-prod that Eon typically have.

    Bond 25 is taking a 4 year gap from Spectre for a variety of reasons. No doubt some we are aware of (distributor, possible tension on Spectre set, fraught production, MGW's health, DC needing a breather/getting his teeth into other projects) and some we are not. But the timeline of pre, prod and post isn't what is doubling the gaps between Bonds.

    What I mean is that over the last say 20 years, the actual production timelines of the Bonds has been very similar - the Brosnan Bonds all went into production (barring TND which actually went into production in April!) in January of the year of release.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    // Also Marvel TV has nothing to do with the actual movies, they're a separate entity.//

    Feige went to Disney and said he didn't want to report to Marvel anymore. (There was something called the Marvel Creative Committee he had to deal with, among other things.) Disney agreed and Feige reports to Disney executives. Since then, a new "Marvel Studios" logo appears on the movies while the old "Marvel" logo appears on Marvel television productions.

    I watched The Defenders last month on Netflix and it had a Marvel logo. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and Spider-Man: Homecoming had Marvel Studios logos.

    Feige was and gas always been running the show. He just didn't want to work with Ike Perlmutter who was tge wirst thing about the MCU. Feige broke away and answers directly to Bob Iger. Still, irrespective of logos, like I said tge TV division is NOT the same as the film division.
  • Posts: 12,231
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    You guys should check this out good editing its called the James bond sing off

    I absolutely loved that! So funny, and the card game at the start was just brilliant!
  • CatchingBulletsCatchingBullets facebook.com/catchingbullets
    edited September 2017 Posts: 288
    Dennison wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.

    Unless you're Star Wars and Marvel? Not sure how you can say that when most franchises are actually releasing films on a yearly basis, if not more than that in one year! There will be 12 Marvel films between 2017 and 2019. Between Spectre and Bond 25 there will have been 6 Star Wars films. Not sure your argument stands up.

    But for the record I understand why a 3-4 year cycle may be preferable for Bond given this kind of landscape.

    The Marvel movies are not made by the same team, producers, production companies and personnel each time. Personally, I am not wholly sure if - as you suggest - Marvel's 12 films in the next two years are a good thing. Too many of those films no longer operate as films anymore, but two hour trade show ads for the times to come. And the current TV fortunes of Marvel are not looking good.

    Why are you listening to him? There aren't 12 movies from Marvel Studios coming out between now and 2019. There are 7. Also Marvel TV has nothing to do with the actual movies, they're a separate entity and as far as the films go many of the same producers work on all if not most of the projects but none if that really matters as it's Kevin Feige heading it all up and working on every single one of them which is the most critical aspect for all of Marvel Studios' continued, influential, unparalleled and growing success.


    It's always worth noting how the use of the phrase "producer" on something like the Marvel Studio output is a hard one to pin down. 'Working on them all' is not at all the same as physically producing them all. And not everyone believes the Marvel movie machine is that "influential" or "unparalleled" right now.

    I agree. But it is still possible to turn a Bond film around in 2 years. QoS came out 2 years after CR even with a writers' strike. Originally it was to come out in May 2008.

    They don't have to have a zillion locations neither to complicate the logictics of filming. Dr. No is largely set in Jamaica and is still one of the best Bond films to date.

    I'm not advocating necessarily 2 year gaps, but what you're saying about it not being possible isn't true. Let's assume Bond 25 is where it is now back in spring 2016 - early script development etc. You could then have had pre-production right through to November 2016. Filming from November 2016 to summer 2017. Post-production for a October/November 2017 release. That is the typical length of pre, prod, and post-prod that Eon typically have.

    Bond 25 is taking a 4 year gap from Spectre for a variety of reasons. No doubt some we are aware of (distributor, possible tension on Spectre set, fraught production, MGW's health, DC needing a breather/getting his teeth into other projects) and some we are not. But the timeline of pre, prod and post isn't what is doubling the gaps between Bonds.

    What I mean is that over the last say 20 years, the actual production timelines of the Bonds has been very similar - the Brosnan Bonds all went into production (barring TND which actually went into production in April!) in January of the year of release.

    It is always advisable to not hold too much reverence to past production timelines and project logistics. And announced production schedules rarely have any bearing on the real working timeline of a movie - that has had a lot of work and man hours put onto the clock way before a "first week of shooting" press call or press release. If those at Bond HQ could bring out a Bond film with more frequency they maybe would. The process of production is important to Bond HQ. The effort and challenge in making the film is key. But so too is quality, industry realities, production specs, finance, creative windows, box-office bench-space and just getting things as right as possible. And all of that is before one looks at how much studio space is needed compared to what is booked in to other productions (as an example, Pinewood is ensconced with multiple Star Wars movies, Disney remakes, Indiana Jones, a possible Jurassic World III etc), what is the availability of key actors (A-listers can have years locked down in the work diaries), what creatives are available at what times, who is already contracted to other projects that could just snap into being, what facilities houses are around, which key trade windows need working around, what others commitments are, what are the logistics of taking hundreds of crew and personnel to any corner of the world, what facilities have to be taken abroad and what are available and then what are the release windows left for that touted year, what are the release windows in every country and every territory of the world and how, when and where is the press tour taking shape. And all that is before a post-theatrical roll out is established and carefully worked on to ensure the home, digital, broadcast and online releases are all maximising the brand and eventual title.

    These things don't take time because time is being wasted or a previous movie's production timescale is being ignored/copied. They take time full stop.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The longer than normal delays we've experienced over the past 30 years or so (including the one we are enduring now) have normally been down to corporate issues. The corporate setup over there needs to be tidied up before we can expect more frequent turnover from these folks.
Sign In or Register to comment.