› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…13931394139613981399…2507

Comments

  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    What’s worse?
    The idea for vesper to have had a child
    Or
    The idea that Blofeld is bonds step brother
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,269
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    What’s worse?
    The idea for vesper to have had a child
    Or
    The idea that Blofeld is bonds step brother

    The first.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Both are abysmal I can't decide which one is less.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    edited March 2018 Posts: 12,269
    EDIT: Sorry I was just thinking of Blofeld being Bond's foster brother in SP instead of his step brother... that'd be worse. Still, between the two options, I dislike the first a little more.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    He pretty much played it in a manner as if he was his biological brother and held grudge of their father. ;)

    The only way to undo the inconsistency of the bundle that is Spectre is for Boyle to execute a concept he previously did in Trance.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I’ve always been keen on period Bond. Don’t think it’s going to happen tho
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,728
    FoxRox wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    What’s worse?
    The idea for vesper to have had a child
    Or
    The idea that Blofeld is bonds step brother

    The first.
    Agreed.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Why would Hollywood blacklist Arnold? Was there a scandal or something?
    No, he is just an awful composer. Hollywood loves blacklisting awful composers.

    :))
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    The ONLY way I’d be remotely happy about a period piece is if they showed us what happened directly before Skyfall... As in what led up to the list of agents stolen by Patrice. However, even this is pushing it for me...

    Bond should always be current and reflective of the present day.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,691
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Why would Hollywood blacklist Arnold? Was there a scandal or something?
    No, he is just an awful composer. Hollywood loves blacklisting awful composers.

    How come Hans Zimmer is still allowed to work?
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    edited March 2018 Posts: 754
    That would fix their narrative screw up of old man Bond after reboot, but I would skip what led to SF and just give us the missions of Bond in between QOS and SF. Preferring following Quantum thread
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    What implications could the firing of Barber potentially have on Bond 25? Could this be another setback for production to start?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The latest on Barber. This is not a #MeToo sacking. It apparently has to do with differences in strategic direction. This supposedly ran foul of the Chairman of the Board, Kevin Ulrich, who is also the CEO of Anchorage Capital Group, a hedge fund & the owner of MGM.

    My speculation is that this has something to do with the business deals that Barber has been making, which sort of create a web of interests. It is more difficult for Anchorage to exit MGM while those cross deals exist.

    We will apparently get more information on the call. Hopefully that includes details on the elusive foreign distributor and B25, but somehow I doubt it based on this recent turn of events.

    http://deadline.com/2018/03/mgm-ceo-gary-barber-exiting-company-1202346588/

    http://variety.com/2018/film/news/gary-barber-leaving-mgm-chairman-1202731059/

    Barber has been gradually rebuilding MGM so it resembles a "big boy" studio again. The deal with Annapurna to form the joint venture was a step toward getting more distribution control over its own films (rather than cut deals with other studios on a film by film basis).

    MGM is mostly owned by hedge funds. MGM has been out of bankruptcy for eight years. It may be they simply want to sell and get whatever profits they can. They got in cheap during bankruptcy.
    That's how it seems. If that's the case, then we could potentially see a delay, because no distribution deal can be struck while they look at suitors (unless one of the suitors is in fact the distributor).
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Why would Hollywood blacklist Arnold? Was there a scandal or something?
    No, he is just an awful composer. Hollywood loves blacklisting awful composers.

    How come Hans Zimmer is still allowed to work?
    He developed a way to compress the sound of his productions so much that anyone passing by a cinema hears the drone of the film music, which in turn makes more people subconsciously curious for the film ;-).

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,473
    The Deadline article regarding Barber's exit has been updated with more information:

    http://deadline.com/2018/03/mgm-ceo-gary-barber-exiting-company-1202346588/
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Bond developing a heroin addiction would be quite radical!
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    Mea culpa. Deadline, in its update, is reporting the board *didn't want to sell* while Barber did. Opposite of my speculation.

    http://deadline.com/2018/03/mgm-ceo-gary-barber-exiting-company-1202346588/
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,473
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Bond developing a heroin addiction would be quite radical!

    Bond, high on heroin, gets lost in a petting zoo for two hours. Nobody would see that one coming, that's for damn sure.
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    edited March 2018 Posts: 2,107
    Nevermind
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Mea culpa. Deadline, in its update, is reporting the board *didn't want to sell* while Barber did. Opposite of my speculation.

    http://deadline.com/2018/03/mgm-ceo-gary-barber-exiting-company-1202346588/
    Very interesting. This doesn't sound right though, because we know they did in fact try to sell to the Chinese in 2016. Surely Ulrich and Barber were both behind that decision? So there's probably more to this than meets the eye. I can't imagine that a hedge fund company wants to be involved in running a studio? Their primary interest is in maximizing the leveraged value of their asset. Period. I can only imagine that Ulrich didn't like how the unit was being organized for an eventual sale or IPO (and perhaps this is what Ulrich wants, rather than a sale).

    No matter what happens, this will have an impact going forward, and we'll probably see it play out over the next year. Barber was instrumental in driving the strategy to date.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    bondjames wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Mea culpa. Deadline, in its update, is reporting the board *didn't want to sell* while Barber did. Opposite of my speculation.

    http://deadline.com/2018/03/mgm-ceo-gary-barber-exiting-company-1202346588/
    Very interesting. This doesn't sound right though, because we know they did in fact try to sell to the Chinese in 2016. Surely Ulrich and Barber were both behind that decision? So there's probably more to this than meets the eye. I can't imagine that a hedge fund company wants to be involved in running a studio? Their primary interest is in maximizing the leveraged value of their asset. Period. I can only imagine that Ulrich didn't like how the unit was being organized for an eventual sale or IPO (and perhaps this is what Ulrich wants, rather than a sale).

    No matter what happens, this will have an impact going forward, and we'll probably see it play out over the next year. Barber was instrumental in driving the strategy to date.

    I think it will have an impact for this reason: Companies run best when there's a single, unquestioned CEO.

    MGM, for now, is to be run by an "office of CEO" consisting of multiple people reporting to the board. That has got to slow down decision making, at least somewhat.

    Also, when MGM first came out of bankruptcy, it was run by Barber and Roger Birnbaum, who had both been at Spyglass Entertainment. Birnbaum eventually bowed out, taking a producer deal at MGM. He was the producer of record on the recent Death Wish remake. That left Barber as the sole CEO.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Mea culpa. Deadline, in its update, is reporting the board *didn't want to sell* while Barber did. Opposite of my speculation.

    http://deadline.com/2018/03/mgm-ceo-gary-barber-exiting-company-1202346588/
    Very interesting. This doesn't sound right though, because we know they did in fact try to sell to the Chinese in 2016. Surely Ulrich and Barber were both behind that decision? So there's probably more to this than meets the eye. I can't imagine that a hedge fund company wants to be involved in running a studio? Their primary interest is in maximizing the leveraged value of their asset. Period. I can only imagine that Ulrich didn't like how the unit was being organized for an eventual sale or IPO (and perhaps this is what Ulrich wants, rather than a sale).

    No matter what happens, this will have an impact going forward, and we'll probably see it play out over the next year. Barber was instrumental in driving the strategy to date.

    I think it will have an impact for this reason: Companies run best when there's a single, unquestioned CEO.

    MGM, for now, is to be run by an "office of CEO" consisting of multiple people reporting to the board. That has got to slow down decision making, at least somewhat.

    Also, when MGM first came out of bankruptcy, it was run by Barber and Roger Birnbaum, who had both been at Spyglass Entertainment. Birnbaum eventually bowed out, taking a producer deal at MGM. He was the producer of record on the recent Death Wish remake. That left Barber as the sole CEO.
    I wasn't aware of that history. Thanks for sharing.

    I agree that this is likely to slow things down a little due to the added players in the mix. I used to work for a company that went through a period of setting itself up for an IPO / sale (they eventually sold) and what I'm seeing here is quite reminiscent of my experience there. The Board getting more hands on suggests they have a clear path in mind (whatever that may be).

    I suppose we will learn a lot from who they eventually select to replace Barber.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    With barber gone you can say goodbye to that 2019 release date unfortunately
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    It will be interesting to hear that mgm investor call this month
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    Posts: 2,107
    So goodbye to 2019 and fairwell to DC's Bond?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Not necessarily. Despite this shakeup, I'd imagine they want to get B25 out sooner rather than later. The updated Deadline article suggests that MGM chairman Ulrich wanted to use B25 to boost MGM's in house streaming service EPIX. If they still plan on growing that service then the sooner they can get create the premium in-house content for it, the better.

    We hopefully will know more on the March 28th call.

    From what I can tell, they still don't have that all important foreign distributor locked though.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    With barber gone you can say goodbye to that 2019 release date unfortunately
    Why would anyone come to that conclusion?
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited March 2018 Posts: 3,126
    jake24 wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    With barber gone you can say goodbye to that 2019 release date unfortunately
    Why would anyone come to that conclusion?

    @jake24 it was just a guess but what @bondjames said makes me feel better about 2019 again march 28th investor call will be interesting to listen to
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    I doubt we’ll learn anything about Bond next week honestly. I too still have my fears about the Nov. 2019 release date. This news about Barber has increased those fears.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    Some more followup stories:

    The Tracking Board
    http://www.tracking-board.com/inside-the-mgm-coup-that-led-to-gary-barbers-firing-and-a-studio-without-leadership/

    Variety
    http://variety.com/2018/biz/news/gary-barber-mgm-ceo-board-ouster-1202732030/
Sign In or Register to comment.