No Time To Die: Production Diary

1121512161218122012212507

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    There’s no way Nolan would use anything vomited up by P+W
  • Posts: 12,242
    It's true. I doubt Nolan will do Bond at all unless he's writing/co-writing it.
  • Posts: 3,272
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    If they use Nolan's ideas it will be a Nolan film all the way. I'm sure he's protected his intellectual property and EON won't step on his toes by taking ideas and incorporating them without him being able to control and execute his vision. I'm pretty sure it's all or nothing with Nolan.

    Which means Bond wrestling with his conscience because he killed people and in the wake a lover died. All of that dressed in underexposed pictures. Yeah, can't wait for it.

    No, that sounds more like the past 3 Craig films.
  • Posts: 3,272
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Nolan’s Batman wasn’t in relation with the comics nor the source material. It was a whole new and different take on the franchise.

    Wrong.

    http://www.batman-online.com/features/2016/3/6/comic-influences-on-batman-begins-2005/2#sthash.aQmmh1dW.dpbs

    The third film relied heavily on the whole story arc of Bane, directly from the Knightfall series.

    I we all know how that turned out. Just goes to prove that it doesn't matter wether a director is a fan or not. He just has to make a great film.
    As if Mendes' so claimed fandom did any good for Bond.

    Batman Begins and TDK were superb films - or are you not a big fan of Nolan?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    FoxRox wrote: »
    It's true. I doubt Nolan will do Bond at all unless he's writing/co-writing it.

    Heaven forbid.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    HASEROT wrote: »
    sorry @jetsetwilly ... no matter what, nothing is worth EON giving up their control of the Bond franchise... through good and bad, Babs and MGW have been good stewards of the franchise.... i don't think they are devoid of what to do - none of us have access behind the scenes to their internal discussions.. just because there isn't any news right now, doesn't mean they haven't been been plugging away behind the scenes..... but IMO, this is the trap you fall into when you've hitched your wagon to a large overarching story continuity... their safest and best bet, once Craig bows out and they cast Bond #7, is to go back to the way they used to do the movies - and thats each one being it's own unique stand alone mission - over arching stories are nice, but they are also overrated... i think they'll be in a less restricted space creatively once they readopt that philosophy.

    I don't have any issue with over arching stories. My biggest bugbear has been the exec team ignoring huge amounts of untapped Fleming material, and instead opting for Fleming re-imagined stories - Skyfall, Blofeld being Bond's brother, etc.

    Are you telling me the stories they opted for are far better than Shatterhand, amnesia brainwashed Bond trying to kill M, Bond undercover as Mark Hazard to kill a Scaramanga-type villain, Horror and Slugsy at a motel about to rape and kill Viv Michel before Bond steps in to the rescue, Bond getting kicked and beaten by football boots, etc. etc.

    It's almost as though the producers are not aware there is still a goldmine of material still untapped. Maybe they have never even bothered to read the novels?

    what are the filming rights to that novel?.. does EON own them?.. i know they own the film rights to certain post-Fleming material (ie: Devil May Care, and Carte Blanche).. the only rights that we know they have 100% control over, is the original Fleming material -
    which is why they often times recycle and repackage that material.. pillaging certain plot elements from the post Fleming material, requires those specific filming rights to be bought.. just because it's Bond, doesn't mean EON have dibs to do whatever they want with it.. there is a lot from the Gardner novels that i think would be great to use.. and i've long maintained, that i would love to see the Gardner novels adapted into future video games - with an original James Bond story arch, not connected to the films...

    but to be honest, no disrespect - but anything with amnesia effecting how a person would normally act in a film, it screams cheesy soap opera to me.. it's such a cliche' hack bit.... i would rather go with original plan for SF/SP, and have the new M taking over for Dench, as a Spectre mole - that Bond eventually takes care of a film or two down the line (far more compelling from a narrative and drama standpoint.)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    I'd rather Bond go back to fighting new villains of the week over the melodramatic angsty villains we've had. Enough of this personal rubbish.
  • Posts: 12,242
    Murdock wrote: »
    I'd rather Bond go back to fighting new villains of the week over the melodramatic angsty villains we've had. Enough of this personal rubbish.

    I agree it’s time to return to that route. I say that as someone who really likes the Craig era. Continuity does not mesh well with Bond.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    I'd rather Bond go back to fighting new villains of the week over the melodramatic angsty villains we've had. Enough of this personal rubbish.
    +1
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 5,767
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    If they use Nolan's ideas it will be a Nolan film all the way. I'm sure he's protected his intellectual property and EON won't step on his toes by taking ideas and incorporating them without him being able to control and execute his vision. I'm pretty sure it's all or nothing with Nolan.

    Which means Bond wrestling with his conscience because he killed people and in the wake a lover died. All of that dressed in underexposed pictures. Yeah, can't wait for it.

    No, that sounds more like the past 3 Craig films.
    It does, and Nolan would change the formula if at all for the worse.




    Murdock wrote: »
    I'd rather Bond go back to fighting new villains of the week over the melodramatic angsty villains we've had. Enough of this personal rubbish.
    If they must they can do all the personal stuff in the world, but for heaven´s sake make a great film out of it. QoS I can easily forgive, not just because I really like it, but also because it made sense as a one-off experimental Bond film. But turning certain themes from QoS into a general theme for the following films (especially while at the same time ignoring the good bits built throughout CR/QoS) was just ridiculous and on top of that badly executed, mostly from the side of the director of the last two films, who has not the slightest idea of pacing.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 3,272
    HASEROT wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    sorry @jetsetwilly ... no matter what, nothing is worth EON giving up their control of the Bond franchise... through good and bad, Babs and MGW have been good stewards of the franchise.... i don't think they are devoid of what to do - none of us have access behind the scenes to their internal discussions.. just because there isn't any news right now, doesn't mean they haven't been been plugging away behind the scenes..... but IMO, this is the trap you fall into when you've hitched your wagon to a large overarching story continuity... their safest and best bet, once Craig bows out and they cast Bond #7, is to go back to the way they used to do the movies - and thats each one being it's own unique stand alone mission - over arching stories are nice, but they are also overrated... i think they'll be in a less restricted space creatively once they readopt that philosophy.

    I don't have any issue with over arching stories. My biggest bugbear has been the exec team ignoring huge amounts of untapped Fleming material, and instead opting for Fleming re-imagined stories - Skyfall, Blofeld being Bond's brother, etc.

    Are you telling me the stories they opted for are far better than Shatterhand, amnesia brainwashed Bond trying to kill M, Bond undercover as Mark Hazard to kill a Scaramanga-type villain, Horror and Slugsy at a motel about to rape and kill Viv Michel before Bond steps in to the rescue, Bond getting kicked and beaten by football boots, etc. etc.

    It's almost as though the producers are not aware there is still a goldmine of material still untapped. Maybe they have never even bothered to read the novels?

    what are the filming rights to that novel?.. does EON own them?.. i know they own the film rights to certain post-Fleming material (ie: Devil May Care, and Carte Blanche).. the only rights that we know they have 100% control over, is the original Fleming material -
    which is why they often times recycle and repackage that material.. pillaging certain plot elements from the post Fleming material, requires those specific filming rights to be bought.. just because it's Bond, doesn't mean EON have dibs to do whatever they want with it.. there is a lot from the Gardner novels that i think would be great to use.. and i've long maintained, that i would love to see the Gardner novels adapted into future video games - with an original James Bond story arch, not connected to the films...

    but to be honest, no disrespect - but anything with amnesia effecting how a person would normally act in a film, it screams cheesy soap opera to me.. it's such a cliche' hack bit.... i would rather go with original plan for SF/SP, and have the new M taking over for Dench, as a Spectre mole - that Bond eventually takes care of a film or two down the line (far more compelling from a narrative and drama standpoint.)

    Does EON have the rights to the Fleming novels? I would have thought so. They have used all titles, and taken whatever content and characters they wish since 1962. The only novel which had implicit conditions not be filmed was TSWLM, by Fleming himself - but I'm sure in this day and age EON could find a way round that now.

    BTW - have you read the story arc of YOLT and TMWTGG to know exactly what happened with the amnesia storyline?

    That is far less cheesy soap opera than Blofeld being Bond's brother. Jesus, even just writing that line shows how shockingly bad that decision was.

    As for M being a mole. That double-cross angle has been done to death in every film ever since GE. And you think adapting YOLT/TMWTGG is soap opera!!
  • Posts: 1,031
    HASEROT wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    sorry @jetsetwilly ... no matter what, nothing is worth EON giving up their control of the Bond franchise... through good and bad, Babs and MGW have been good stewards of the franchise.... i don't think they are devoid of what to do - none of us have access behind the scenes to their internal discussions.. just because there isn't any news right now, doesn't mean they haven't been been plugging away behind the scenes..... but IMO, this is the trap you fall into when you've hitched your wagon to a large overarching story continuity... their safest and best bet, once Craig bows out and they cast Bond #7, is to go back to the way they used to do the movies - and thats each one being it's own unique stand alone mission - over arching stories are nice, but they are also overrated... i think they'll be in a less restricted space creatively once they readopt that philosophy.

    I don't have any issue with over arching stories. My biggest bugbear has been the exec team ignoring huge amounts of untapped Fleming material, and instead opting for Fleming re-imagined stories - Skyfall, Blofeld being Bond's brother, etc.

    Are you telling me the stories they opted for are far better than Shatterhand, amnesia brainwashed Bond trying to kill M, Bond undercover as Mark Hazard to kill a Scaramanga-type villain, Horror and Slugsy at a motel about to rape and kill Viv Michel before Bond steps in to the rescue, Bond getting kicked and beaten by football boots, etc. etc.

    It's almost as though the producers are not aware there is still a goldmine of material still untapped. Maybe they have never even bothered to read the novels?

    what are the filming rights to that novel?.. does EON own them?.. i know they own the film rights to certain post-Fleming material (ie: Devil May Care, and Carte Blanche).. the only rights that we know they have 100% control over, is the original Fleming material -
    which is why they often times recycle and repackage that material.. pillaging certain plot elements from the post Fleming material, requires those specific filming rights to be bought.. just because it's Bond, doesn't mean EON have dibs to do whatever they want with it.. there is a lot from the Gardner novels that i think would be great to use.. and i've long maintained, that i would love to see the Gardner novels adapted into future video games - with an original James Bond story arch, not connected to the films...

    but to be honest, no disrespect - but anything with amnesia effecting how a person would normally act in a film, it screams cheesy soap opera to me.. it's such a cliche' hack bit.... i would rather go with original plan for SF/SP, and have the new M taking over for Dench, as a Spectre mole - that Bond eventually takes care of a film or two down the line (far more compelling from a narrative and drama standpoint.)

    Does EON have the rights to the Fleming novels? I would have thought so. They have used all titles, and taken whatever content and characters they wish since 1962. The only novel which had implicit conditions not be filmed was TSWLM, by Fleming himself - but I'm sure in this day and age EON could find a way round that now.

    BTW - have you read the story arc of YOLT and TMWTGG to know exactly what happened with the amnesia storyline?

    That is far less cheesy soap opera than Blofeld being Bond's brother. Jesus, even just writing that line shows how shockingly bad that decision was.

    Eon have the rights to film Fleming's Bond novels. That's why currently no one else can make Bond films!
  • Posts: 3,272
    boldfinger wrote: »
    It does, and Nolan would change the formula if at all for the worse.

    Really? What makes you say that? I rate Nolan up there with Spielberg in his prime. The Batman triology, Inception, Intersteller and Dunkirk are superb films. I rate them much higher than Mendes other films outside of Bond, or any other Bond director's films outside of the franchise.

    Martin Campbell was great for CR, but he is not in the same league as Nolan. How well have Campbell's other films done outside of the franchise compared to Nolan's?

    boldfinger wrote: »
    If they must they can do all the personal stuff in the world, but for heaven´s sake make a great film out of it. QoS I can easily forgive, not just because I really like it, but also because it made sense as a one-off experimental Bond film. But turning certain themes from QoS into a general theme for the following films (especially while at the same time ignoring the good bits built throughout CR/QoS) was just ridiculous and on top of that badly executed, mostly from the side of the director of the last two films, who has not the slightest idea of pacing.

    I agree with this 100%.
  • Posts: 19,339
    If you want continuity in films then don't make them 4 years apart.
    It stinks of arrogance.
  • Posts: 3,272
    barryt007 wrote: »
    If you want continuity in films then don't make them 4 years apart.
    It stinks of arrogance.
    Does anyone know why EON have taken so long getting Bond 25 made?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,965
    barryt007 wrote: »
    If you want continuity in films then don't make them 4 years apart.
    It stinks of arrogance.

    Yeah, true.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2017 Posts: 15,423
    barryt007 wrote: »
    If you want continuity in films then don't make them 4 years apart.
    It stinks of arrogance.
    Does anyone know why EON have taken so long getting Bond 25 made?
    They've been really tight-lipped in the past three years we don't know whatever is taking place behind the scenes. Circumstantial evidences are all colliding, the lines have become blurred, everything is a contradiction. I'm guessing this is merely their response to the Sony leaks which may have hurt Spectre's marketing and BO.
  • Posts: 3,272
    barryt007 wrote: »
    If you want continuity in films then don't make them 4 years apart.
    It stinks of arrogance.
    Does anyone know why EON have taken so long getting Bond 25 made?
    They've been really tight-lipped in the past three years we don't know whatever is taking place behind the scenes. Circumstantial evidences are all colliding, the lines have become blurred, everything is a contradiction. I'm guessing this is merely their response to the Sony leaks which may have hurt Spectre's marketing and BO.

    I'd love to know what the story is. It seems to be no matter how successful a Bond film is these days, it's a nightmare getting the next one in the can.

    The Brosnan era ran as it should - a film every 2 years during the 90's, then we had a long period between DAD and CR.

    After that we were back on track again, with QoS out 2 years later.

    Then we had to wait 4 years for SF, then 3 years for SP, and now another 4 years before the next one.

    Either films are a more complicated business to get off the ground these days, or EON don't know what they are doing anymore to get these film made quickly enough.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    MGM's financial woes don't help things either.
  • Posts: 19,339
    And also the 1 film distribution deal would need to be very attractive to a studio,they prefer longer deals obviously.
  • Posts: 1,031
    barryt007 wrote: »
    If you want continuity in films then don't make them 4 years apart.
    It stinks of arrogance.
    Does anyone know why EON have taken so long getting Bond 25 made?
    They've been really tight-lipped in the past three years we don't know whatever is taking place behind the scenes. Circumstantial evidences are all colliding, the lines have become blurred, everything is a contradiction. I'm guessing this is merely their response to the Sony leaks which may have hurt Spectre's marketing and BO.

    I'd love to know what the story is. It seems to be no matter how successful a Bond film is these days, it's a nightmare getting the next one in the can.

    The Brosnan era ran as it should - a film every 2 years during the 90's, then we had a long period between DAD and CR.

    After that we were back on track again, with QoS out 2 years later.

    Then we had to wait 4 years for SF, then 3 years for SP, and now another 4 years before the next one.

    Either films are a more complicated business to get off the ground these days, or EON don't know what they are doing anymore to get these film made quickly enough.

    So, would you say the same about the M:I series? 4 year gap, 6 year gap, 5 year gap, 4 year gap, 3 year gap.
  • The same guy who has scooped a few times on Reddit in the past is saying that Nolan is in the mix for Bond 25 or 26:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/7i6v6x/christopher_nolan_for_bond_25/

    Also it brings up the old rumour of EON selling the franchise...

    If we do get Chris Nolan, can we have Tom Hardy please?
    tomhardy-jamesbond-christophernolan-225177-1280x0.png

    Or how about a suave and handsome guy? Just asking.
  • I'm not sure Hardy will be young enough. He could have done it if Craig wasn't back for another.

    He couldn't have done a Flemingesque interpretation of Bond at any age. Come to think of it, just like Craig.
  • Aidan Turner would be a HORRIBLE Bond, and don't care (and don't know) how good his acting is, he simply doesn't have a British look. And by "British look", I don't necessarily mean a white person, as I believe Idris Elba does have a "British look".

    Give me Nicholas Hoult or DUNKIRK's Jack Lowden, and I will be happy.

    Elba featuring the British look, Hoult ...
    I can't really count how often you have already saved my day just by making me laugh.
    Thanks a lot
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The same guy who has scooped a few times on Reddit in the past is saying that Nolan is in the mix for Bond 25 or 26:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/7i6v6x/christopher_nolan_for_bond_25/

    Also it brings up the old rumour of EON selling the franchise...

    If we do get Chris Nolan, can we have Tom Hardy please?
    tomhardy-jamesbond-christophernolan-225177-1280x0.png

    Or how about a suave and handsome guy? Just asking.
    That would certainly be my preference. We're long overdue for some suave.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2017 Posts: 15,423
    CGI Roger Moore. ;)
  • Posts: 3,272
    Dennison wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    If you want continuity in films then don't make them 4 years apart.
    It stinks of arrogance.
    Does anyone know why EON have taken so long getting Bond 25 made?
    They've been really tight-lipped in the past three years we don't know whatever is taking place behind the scenes. Circumstantial evidences are all colliding, the lines have become blurred, everything is a contradiction. I'm guessing this is merely their response to the Sony leaks which may have hurt Spectre's marketing and BO.

    I'd love to know what the story is. It seems to be no matter how successful a Bond film is these days, it's a nightmare getting the next one in the can.

    The Brosnan era ran as it should - a film every 2 years during the 90's, then we had a long period between DAD and CR.

    After that we were back on track again, with QoS out 2 years later.

    Then we had to wait 4 years for SF, then 3 years for SP, and now another 4 years before the next one.

    Either films are a more complicated business to get off the ground these days, or EON don't know what they are doing anymore to get these film made quickly enough.

    So, would you say the same about the M:I series? 4 year gap, 6 year gap, 5 year gap, 4 year gap, 3 year gap.

    This is what made Bond unique as a franchise for its first 30 years, that a film would come out every one year, and then after TB every two years, when other franchise sequels had to wait 3 years (Star Wars, Superman, Indy Jones, Rocky, etc.)

    Then we had the Dalton/Brosnan blip, then normal service was resumed again, until the Brosnan/Craig blip. Now we are waiting on average 4 years between each film.

    I don't compare Bond to any other franchise, because none has gone as long as Bond. MI didn't start in 1962.

    Maybe this is just the sign of the times now, on how long each film has to take to get made. It's a shame because Bond always managed to overcome that long period somehow, but I guess that's just the way it is now.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2017 Posts: 15,423
    I think Disney has pretty much made it near impossible for other franchises to compete with its products. Bond producers want their films to surpass the $850m worldwide gross and it's not possible to always achieve that. Now that Warner Bros also joined the horse race with its own superhero universe franchise, Bond is going to have some hard time. Because... thing is... sci-fi and comics have more nerds and fans than the outcome of an elegant adventure novel series does. The game has changed.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,888
    Campbell doesn’t have to be in the same “league” as Nolan or any other director; he does Bond well and that’s all that matters.
    Nolan is a masterful director and I would like to see what he would do with Bond but it isn’t a given that he would be superior to Campbell.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I think Disney has pretty much made it near impossible for other franchises to compete with its products. Bond producers want their films to surpass the $850m worldwide gross and it's not possible to always achieve that. Now that Warner Bros also joined the horse race with its own superhero universe franchise, Bond is going to have some hard time. Because... thing is... sci-fi and comics have more nerds and fans than the outcome of an elegant adventure novel series does. The game has changed.
    Disney has definitely impacted the marketplace. That, in combination with the global nature of everything these days, rising costs of distribution/marketing/production and the need to deliver massive box office in the first few weeks constrains film maker's hands going forward. It's go big or go home, especially with brand name franchises like Bond.
    talos7 wrote: »
    Campbell doesn’t have to be in the same “league” as Nolan or any other director; he does Bond well and that’s all that matters.
    Nolan is a masterful director and I would like to see what he would do with Bond but it isn’t a given that he would be superior to Campbell.
    True. I can't see us going back to a Campbell style Bond film though, for the reasons I noted above. That would suggest a scale back FYEO Glen style journeyman entry, and I just can't see a distributor willing to back that when they can get someone like Nolan in and take it to the next level box office wise.
Sign In or Register to comment.