No Time To Die: Production Diary

1148614871489149114922507

Comments

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Still can't get out of my head D.C. Doing 25 for the money

    Unless he's Nick Cage and blown all his cash-- I just have to disagree with this, my friend.

    To be fair, Craig confirmed that himself in an interview.

    "If I did another Bond movie, it would only be for the money."
    He's also stated the contrary on several occasions.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,615
    jake24 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Still can't get out of my head D.C. Doing 25 for the money

    Unless he's Nick Cage and blown all his cash-- I just have to disagree with this, my friend.

    To be fair, Craig confirmed that himself in an interview.

    "If I did another Bond movie, it would only be for the money."
    He's also stated the contrary on several occasions.

    I must've missed that. I've no doubt all of that was said under frustration due to being quizzed on the future after having just wrapped shooting on SP, but still, it was said.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,767
    Interesting point about getting B25 out in '17 @bondjames ... Putting on my imaginary producer's hat though, I think they had to take a step back from what happened on B24.

    Everything I have now read, via the leaks, shows that this was an obvious perfect storm-- and no one on the production side is entirely innocent; from Sony (although they did have some quite astute players who were calling out problems in early drafts-- that still exist in the finished film), to EoN allowing (as @RC7 has already said), giving carte blanche to a director (who was involved in all those early draft blunders that made it into the finished film)...

    I think they know that their $880 million was a dodged bullet.

    As a producer, to jump right back in the fray, IMHO, would have been reckless. It would have been rushed. It would not have been an organic answer to the problems of SP. It would have been a panicked reaction.

    As a producer, I would want the dust to settle and, yes, since Bond is forever, I'd give enough time for people to forget, and then climb back on the strong horse.

    And yes, perhaps this was a perfect time to re-cast-- but from what I'm hearing (and as @RC7 also said), all options were considered, but the decision was, at the time, and currently still is: Dan was the safest bet.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,767
    re: money: number one, he's richer than doG. Number two, he's a sardonic kinda guy... Admittedly, I do love the guy (behind King C), but seriously, Connery was more about the money than Craig.

    He has stated that this role has given him so much money that he can now take care of his family for quite some time. It's on google.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    They have made their bed @peter and as you said, other choices were certainly available regarding a new actor and regarding an earlier release.

    For better or worse, they will now have to sleep in it.

    Once the dust finally settles on B25 about a year after release, we will know if it was worth it or not (and it's not just about that film, but rather how it tees up the future and what comes afterwards, at least for us long term fans).
  • Posts: 1,887
    Since there really isn't any news let's say if this supposed female villain is in the film who would you like to see get cast? I have my money on kate winslet
    That would be especially interesting considering her ex is Mendes.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,767
    @bondjames it's clear to me that not only other choices were available, but were also explored. There were meetings...

    However, these choices weren't seen as viable alternatives to the incumbent.

    Perhaps this is why DC took a while to announce his return... Perhaps... and this is a little guess on my part: DC was one foot in the door and one foot out. He has a good working relationship with Babs, and she asks him to hold off on making anything official-- if she finds the next 007 he's good to go, but, if she doesn't, would he consider one more turn in the role (and changes would have to be made to also sweeten the pot (and no, it's not about $$, it's about making a better film and also, of course, a showcase for him))...

    Once again, as I've been hearing more and more, and @RC7 has already stated: Babs is an astute producer, and, although she loves DC (as she obviously loves Dalton), she would make the switch if she, and EoN, thought it was wise to do so.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    You may be right on why he delayed his announcement @peter.

    Something about this whole thing doesn't quite add up for me though. It really hasn't since August 2017. These recent changes that we've heard about (at MGM and with Boyle) are more in line with what I was expecting. I don't think we've heard the last of it either. Stay tuned for more surprises imho.
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Since there really isn't any news let's say if this supposed female villain is in the film who would you like to see get cast? I have my money on kate winslet
    That would be especially interesting considering her ex is Mendes.

    Plus craig and winslet have a bit of history they played lovers in a Disney film from 1995 called a kid in king arthur's castle they were very young and way before they became famous
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    Also kate has already worked with boyle on Steve Jobs
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,767
    All I know for sure is that the options were explored for a re-cast, as @RC7 correctly stated. But dismissed in favour of the incumbent, @bondjames.

    You may be right, and I won't dispute the idea that changes MAY be afoot, but, a re-cast, in this moment of time, is the very last thing on the agenda.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,186
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Still can't get out of my head D.C. Doing 25 for the money

    Unless he's Nick Cage and blown all his cash-- I just have to disagree with this, my friend.

    To be fair, Craig confirmed that himself in an interview.

    "If I did another Bond movie, it would only be for the money."
    For perspective: after Casino Royale Craig commented in an interview that he had stopped working out.

    Because he didn't want to become known as "The Fit Bond".
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Maybe you need to be a Brit to understand Craig’s humour. Actually, I’m beating around the bush. You do.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I never said recast @peter. I said surprises.

    There's more going on than we have been told, as we continue to learn as time progresses.

    Irrespective of what happens, let them get this film out and then we can see whether it has been worth it, after the dust settles of course (we will have the customary euphoria here at the start, as always).
  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 569
    I know it won't be appreciated on this forum but I would go for entirely made up rumours/news at this point. I like when the Bond news starts coming in fast and furious. I don't know about others but I like weeding through the various sources. It's like a kind of scavenger hunt. This no news period is less fun.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,767
    oh, I know you didn't say recast @bondjames.
  • edited May 2018 Posts: 15,882
    bondjames wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I quite like that metaphor too. And it makes sense.
    But we should ask ourselves--and I'm a Craig fan, mind: if we had gotten, say, three more Craig Bonds, for a total of 7 or 8, wouldn't many people (not me!) have lost interest in him? I could be mistaken of course.
    7 or 8 may be too much but I don't think anyone (least of all myself) would have objected to 5 or 6 in a more compressed timeline. In fact, I would have far preferred it personally.

    It's not so much how many films but how many films within a certain timeframe imho. For me at least, the issue has been the wait between the films (especially after the relatively mediocre QoS and SP), and the fact that the actor in question has aged and changed between films (they all do mind you. It's inevitable, but more rapid output would have made the changes less apparent).

    As an example, I don't think I would have been happy if Connery had done DN, FRWL, GF and DAF only. Or Moore LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, FYEO and AVTAK only. That's sort of what we have here with Craig.

    Good comparison. Considering Craig will be exceeding Roger's 12 year time frame, it's almost like if Roger had only done LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP then TLD.
  • Posts: 12,303
    I think 5 is a great amount to end on. Maybe even the ideal number. Let’s just hope the fifth movie itself is a good one. And that we can get more Bond films more frequently out of whoever is next.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited May 2018 Posts: 8,767
    RC7 wrote: »
    Maybe you need to be a Brit to understand Craig’s humour. Actually, I’m beating around the bush. You do.

    @RC7-- yes, oh goD yes-- he's sarcastic. I never, ever, ever, at any point thought that DC was ever serious during wrist-slash-gate, nor most other things he says (including that his wife has cozy thoughts for Colbert).

    Then again-- my parents were fresh off the boat Brits. I'm first generation Canadian. All my summers were spent back in Essex (with all those Essex girls-- thanks be to Essex, an easy place to lose one's virginity), so I get the humour, and never understood the seriousness of these comments.
  • Posts: 2,115
    re: continuity debate in Bond films

    I'm reading a draft for The Living Daylights. Maibaum and Wilson initially envisioned one key element directly tying into previous movies. Continuity, in other words. It didn't work out that way, but it likely had more to do with actor availability.

    To be clear, it's not Marvel-like continuity. But it's very much like continuity between, say, Dr. No and From Russia With Love.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 2018 Posts: 6,036
    boldfinger wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I quite like that metaphor too. And it makes sense.
    But we should ask ourselves--and I'm a Craig fan, mind: if we had gotten, say, three more Craig Bonds, for a total of 7 or 8, wouldn't many people (not me!) have lost interest in him? I could be mistaken of course.
    I get a strong feeling that it´s more the opposite. Many people feel that Craig is actively involved in the quality (for better and also for worse) and in the long gaps, which doesn´t make him more likeable. If he would have done Bond films on a regular basis he would be like Connery and Moore, with the difference that noone would have complained about his age, as people do now, and general audiences possibly will when Bond 25 comes out.

    A minority viewpoint. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, sometimes.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,767
    echo wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I quite like that metaphor too. And it makes sense.
    But we should ask ourselves--and I'm a Craig fan, mind: if we had gotten, say, three more Craig Bonds, for a total of 7 or 8, wouldn't many people (not me!) have lost interest in him? I could be mistaken of course.
    I get a strong feeling that it´s more the opposite. Many people feel that Craig is actively involved in the quality (for better and also for worse) and in the long gaps, which doesn´t make him more likeable. If he would have done Bond films on a regular basis he would be like Connery and Moore, with the difference that noone would have complained about his age, as people do now, and general audiences possibly will when Bond 25 comes out.

    A minority viewpoint. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, sometimes.

    Also, the average film goer has no idea of Craig's creative involvement-- outside of being 007. The average customer doesn't give a flying F. They have no idea he was a co-producer on the last film, since they're not reading the names on the credits. And even if they did know, they don't care since they don't know what that credit even means.


  • Posts: 2,115
    re: continuity debate in Bond films

    I'm reading a draft for The Living Daylights. Maibaum and Wilson initially envisioned one key element directly tying into previous movies. Continuity, in other words. It didn't work out that way, but it likely had more to do with actor availability.

    To be clear, it's not Marvel-like continuity. But it's very much like continuity between, say, Dr. No and From Russia With Love.

    Koskov originally framed Gogol in the earlier drafts of the script.

    http://bit.ly/2rjbfr3
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    echo wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I quite like that metaphor too. And it makes sense.
    But we should ask ourselves--and I'm a Craig fan, mind: if we had gotten, say, three more Craig Bonds, for a total of 7 or 8, wouldn't many people (not me!) have lost interest in him? I could be mistaken of course.
    I get a strong feeling that it´s more the opposite. Many people feel that Craig is actively involved in the quality (for better and also for worse) and in the long gaps, which doesn´t make him more likeable. If he would have done Bond films on a regular basis he would be like Connery and Moore, with the difference that noone would have complained about his age, as people do now, and general audiences possibly will when Bond 25 comes out.

    A minority viewpoint. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, sometimes.

    And sometimes, out of sight leads to out of mind and something/someone new is desired.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,191
    peter wrote: »
    re: money: number one, he's richer than doG. Number two, he's a sardonic kinda guy... Admittedly, I do love the guy (behind King C), but seriously, Connery was more about the money than Craig.

    He has stated that this role has given him so much money that he can now take care of his family for quite some time. It's on google.

    Connery was paid unfairly for most of his run, and he was around during Bond mania, where Bond was like the Beatles in popularity. Connery asked for more money to return because he felt he finally he had some power to do so. I think he gave most of his salary for DAF to charity anyway.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Connery was paid unfairly for most of his run, and he was around during Bond mania, where Bond was like the Beatles in popularity. Connery asked for more money to return because he felt he finally he had some power to do so. I think he gave most of his salary for DAF to charity anyway.
    It‘s on record that Connery wasn‘t paid bad after DN but not what he was worth to the series. I think it was unfair and especially short sighted - they never made that mistake again.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Still can't get out of my head D.C. Doing 25 for the money

    I don't think so. I suspect he already has more money than he needs. I think he is reluctant to say goodbye. he's ended up enjoying 'being Bond' despite himself
  • Posts: 11,425
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I think 5 is a great amount to end on. Maybe even the ideal number. Let’s just hope the fifth movie itself is a good one. And that we can get more Bond films more frequently out of whoever is next.

    would have been a massive shame if we'd never got OP. DAF and AVTAK I could live without but they add to the overall richness of the series
  • Posts: 12,303
    Getafix wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I think 5 is a great amount to end on. Maybe even the ideal number. Let’s just hope the fifth movie itself is a good one. And that we can get more Bond films more frequently out of whoever is next.

    would have been a massive shame if we'd never got OP. DAF and AVTAK I could live without but they add to the overall richness of the series

    Not saying there can’t be more than 5. Just saying I think generally I think it may be a good number. But perhaps that’s just too assumptive.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Some very fair points over the ;last 2 days or so.

    A question to those who are on the "dont worry, worth wating for quality etc". Is there a point when the length of delay does harm the franchise? Surely, there has to be a figure?
Sign In or Register to comment.