No Time To Die: Production Diary

1166516661668167016712507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    James Bond is relevant. More relevant than ever actually, in the world we live in.

    It is up to the producers to show everyone that is the case, by delivering a world beating film on time that proves it. No more navel gazing about the old ways being best. No more questioning Bond's relevance in a digital and high tech age. No more making jokes about the gadgets and martinis. Embrace it all.

    Show everyone why he's the best. Shut them all up with the product you deliver.

    The time is right for a celebration of all that's Bond. I believe it is that moment once more.
  • Posts: 613
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Craig direct? Urgh, leave me out...

    I don't think he even could without getting in trouble with the Director's Guild. Not sure if the "Eastwood Rule" applies in the UK, though.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    doubleoego wrote: »

    I rather not go back to the every other year method, not unless there's better quality control involved. The last time the series has a consistent rate of every other year was in the 90s and those were among the weakest of the series. I rather wait three to four years for a quality film than two for a less than mediocre film.

    Quality control is the main thing here. Brosnan's movies had 2 year cycles with DAD having 3 and the quality of those films were the way they were because EoN were lazy and simply coasting. It wasn't until Bourne came alongvand showed that spy films could and should be better. EoN have a proclivity of leveraging their success and superior creative craftsmanship of decades gone by when they should be ushering in and producing quality material for contemporary times. Clearly it's not impossible because other films andvfranchises are doing it.

    As for waitingv3 to 4 years, its obvious by now that that sort of time has no real bearing on better quality and a conversion for success. SP was trash and marred by production issues despite having a 3 year gap; SF for me was a bit disappointing and that was a 4 year gaps and now with another 4 year gap...possibly a 5 year gap between SP and Bond 25 we're back to a troubled preproduction 12 weeks before shooting. 2, 3, 4 or 5 years, it doesn't matter. What truly matters is having the right, competent people involved in putting these films together.

    I liked SF and SP, so sucks for you.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    I was actually impressed with how well they were able to pull together QOS considering the limited amount of time and the writer's strike. Maybe every other year is the way to go -- they seem to work better under time constraints, barring the Brosnan era.

    I agree with most of this...2 years between each is the way it should be,3 maximum.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited August 2018 Posts: 11,139
    Risico007 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Craig direct? Urgh, leave me out...

    Would you prefer Zack Snyder

    Over Craig? You know, I actually would tbh.
    doubleoego wrote: »

    I rather not go back to the every other year method, not unless there's better quality control involved. The last time the series has a consistent rate of every other year was in the 90s and those were among the weakest of the series. I rather wait three to four years for a quality film than two for a less than mediocre film.

    Quality control is the main thing here. Brosnan's movies had 2 year cycles with DAD having 3 and the quality of those films were the way they were because EoN were lazy and simply coasting. It wasn't until Bourne came alongvand showed that spy films could and should be better. EoN have a proclivity of leveraging their success and superior creative craftsmanship of decades gone by when they should be ushering in and producing quality material for contemporary times. Clearly it's not impossible because other films andvfranchises are doing it.

    As for waitingv3 to 4 years, its obvious by now that that sort of time has no real bearing on better quality and a conversion for success. SP was trash and marred by production issues despite having a 3 year gap; SF for me was a bit disappointing and that was a 4 year gaps and now with another 4 year gap...possibly a 5 year gap between SP and Bond 25 we're back to a troubled preproduction 12 weeks before shooting. 2, 3, 4 or 5 years, it doesn't matter. What truly matters is having the right, competent people involved in putting these films together.

    I liked SF and SP, so sucks for you.

    I'm glad you can be content and celebrate disappointing Bond films. Hopefully I can fully enjoy a Bond film after what's been a decade so far.
  • Bring back the fun and Tom Hiddleston...
  • Posts: 9,738
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Craig direct? Urgh, leave me out...

    Would you prefer Zack Snyder

    Over Craig? You know, I actually would tbh.

    I can see it now

    Daniel Craig is Ian Fleming’s James Bond 007 in Martha
  • Posts: 19,339
    Bring back the fun and Tom Hiddleston...

    Yep,i could go for that.
  • DikkoHendersonDikkoHenderson Daniel Craig at the plastic surgery clinic- "Gently my friend Gently... THAT'S NOT BLOODY GENTLY!!"
    edited August 2018 Posts: 50
    We've waited long enough for the new Bond- forgo the search for a big name director and get a real solidly talented workhorse in there, like Stuart Baird, who will get it done quick. Work the crew like mules.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited August 2018 Posts: 11,139
    Edit
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    While I don't despise EON or Babs, and respect what they've achieved commercially, it's hard not to feel frustrated by what appears to be a pattern of poor planning. QoS, SF, SP and now B25 all delayed or plagued by rushed or poorly written screenplays and/or a failure to have a director in place.

    I read something earlier about how after CR in 2006 EON had actually hoped to get QoS out in 2007, which led to a rushed production schedule and the inevitable push back to 2008.

    If they were looking at putting out films in consecutive years as recently as 2007, how is it a decade later we're looking at 4 to 5 year gaps as standard, and they still don't seem to be able to get their ducks lined up.

    I see a lot of people defending EON on here but frankly the excuses are beginning to wear pretty thin.

    As far as I know Bond 22 initially had a planned release date for May 2008 before being pushed back to November. A 2007 release was never in the cards as far as I can recall. That always seemed more like something fans hoped for just so the film could promote itself with its once in a thousand year chance of releasing a film in the 007 of the decade. I know after MGM had been restructured and SKYFALL was in pre-production that they were hoping to go back to the every other year method and aim for a Bond 24 in 2014, which even then Babs dismissed.

    I rather not go back to the every other year method, not unless there's better quality control involved. The last time the series has a consistent rate of every other year was in the 90s and those were among the weakest of the series. I rather wait three to four years for a quality film than two for a less than mediocre film.

    there's an interview with Roger Michell or whatever his name is saying EON wanted QOS to come out in 2007. sounds far fetched but that's what he says
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    Where does this hate for Barbara Broccoli come from? She's been producing the films for 22 years at least and with only really one exception (DAD), we've had good to great films.

    Cubby left his Bond empire to both his kids, they're both responsible for its highs and lows,.

    Barbara loves Craig and people who don't like Craig blame her for it.

    That and sexism. MGW doesn't take nearly the abuse on these boards as she does, and as far as we know, they are equal partners. Certainly he's been involved longer and has his children involved in the films as well.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Given the timeframe it would have been unlikely, as they’d have had to start shooting right when CR was out of the gate. He might have misremembered because I distinctly recall the May 2008 thing as it would have been a significant return to Summer for Bond after 18
    years.
  • Posts: 199
    Even if Hodge has left, the screenplay and any of the ideas (which would have input from Craig, Babs et al) will be property of EON. If you write a script for EON, then you get paid and then EON does what they like with it. If Hodge is gone, the story and ideas remain property of EON. I think they'll keep the script, polish with a bit of Purvis and Wade and start filming in December. Don't see them throwing out the baby with the bath water folks.
  • Posts: 3,333
    doubleoego wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Does anyone have any clue as to how Hodge’s could incorporate these #MeToo and Time's Up themes into a Bond story? I mean, did the story in someways involve Bond attending a disciplinary hearing on sexual harassment charges?

    How could anyone of us here possibly know the answer to that?
    It was a question fielded to the more creative members of this forum. I gave my slant, and @RC7 gave his own eloquent response.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    bondsum wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Does anyone have any clue as to how Hodge’s could incorporate these #MeToo and Time's Up themes into a Bond story? I mean, did the story in someways involve Bond attending a disciplinary hearing on sexual harassment charges?

    How could anyone of us here possibly know the answer to that?
    It was a question fielded to the more creative members of this forum. I gave my slant, and @RC7 gave his own eloquent response.

    Not sure about those working in or close to the industry having a better stance; anyone could have opined their abstract thoughts on numerous possibilities but what you were asking to me seemed somewhat specific.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Getafix wrote: »
    As someone else posted a while back at least 'overpaid' football stars train day in day out and have to perform on the pitch on a weekly basis. Craig takes years out between mamoth pay packets and still moans about his job.

    And his job really isn't that hard at the end of the day. You're not really even acting when you're James Bond (imo). I mean sure he does have to act, but he's largely just playing himself. The worst parts are the stunts, and with today's CGI it's not necessary to have an actor always doing stunts himself. It's not like it was back in the day when stunt doubles were obvious.

    I used to be a Craig fan but his mood and overextended hand in the franchise - often for the worse - has made me dislike him. That and the fact he really just doesn't look like Bond anymore.

    The sooner he gets the boot, the better.
  • Posts: 1,964
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I have only disagreed with Babs on 2 thing. 1. Not giving Brosnan a 5th film, and 2. QOS

    I would be the opposite. Glad Brossa was dumped and I love QOS!!

    Boo
  • Posts: 632
    I'd love to see Soderbergh take over! I think he could put out a real belter and still make the release date! If Tom Ford got the nod, would the crew get free suits from their director?

    It's fun to speculate, not so fun to read through all the rubbish and rumors of some of these ill informed "articles" that have come out, just for the clicks.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Panchitos has a legit gripe. Babs & eon have shown they still can't get their act together. I'm telling you fallout also rattled them.

    Thank you, but I'm still not sure why so many people here assume Fallout made them reconsider things. Fallout made 183 million USD in 26 days in the US. During the first 26 days of its release, Skyfall earned 248 million USD in the US, and Bond movies are way more successful outside the US, than Mission Impossible movies are.
  • Posts: 4,619
    PanchitoPistols does have some strong feelings for rather against Ms Broccoli, methinks.

    To cut the crap, I'll just straight up acknowledge that a certain segment of male fans have had problems with Barbara Broccoli long before SPECTRE and it's come down to her gender. I've seen so much accusations of Broccoli apparently having a deep seated hatred for James Bond and intentionally sabotaging her father's legacy as part of some elaborate "feminazi" plot.

    I knew sooner or later someone here would argue that people criticizing Barbara Broccoli are sexist. The reason I singled her out is that she is the one running the show. Not Michael G Wilson. Not Daniel Craig. I have absolutely no problem with competent women holding power within the Bond franchise behind the scenes. For example, I am all for the great Kathryn Bigelow directing a Bond movie.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    However, the time may be right to rebrand and a younger name like Henry Cavill means a whole new generation get interested and the old fans are happy and the cycle continues.

    Cavill is Superman and Napoleon Solo and he also stars in MI FALLOUT.
    But there he was the villain and gets killed
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Panchitos has a legit gripe. Babs & eon have shown they still can't get their act together. I'm telling you fallout also rattled them.

    Thank you, but I'm still not sure why so many people here assume Fallout made them reconsider things. Fallout made 183 million USD in 26 days in the US. During the first 26 days of its release, Skyfall earned 248 million USD in the US, and Bond movies are way more successful outside the US, than Mission Impossible movies are.

    Box office isn't everything. The first three Bourne films were successful but weren't exactly financial behemoths - yet look at the legacy they left behind.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Mission: Impossible films have been making more or about the same as Bond films since 1996. Did anyone think Eon was quivering in their boots when De Palma’s film outgrossed GOLDENEYE? Was there panic when John Woo’s film broke the $200m?

    This panic over FALLOUT is nonsense.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Panchitos has a legit gripe. Babs & eon have shown they still can't get their act together. I'm telling you fallout also rattled them.

    Thank you, but I'm still not sure why so many people here assume Fallout made them reconsider things. Fallout made 183 million USD in 26 days in the US. During the first 26 days of its release, Skyfall earned 248 million USD in the US, and Bond movies are way more successful outside the US, than Mission Impossible movies are.
    That is true. Fallout is no phenom like SF. However it has almost unanimous critical acclaim (I dare say more Bond fans on this site have given it a thumbs up than they did SF). There are many here (myself included) who have seen it twice in the theatre. The MI franchise has audience retention, engagement and passion. Furthermore, many in the industry and in the press were commenting on the film in comparison to Bond, which is something they didn't really do so much in the past. The franchise has energy. It's true that Bond does better box office overseas, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, that is primarily due to the UK (and also, to a lesser extent, Aussie and Germany). In many other markets, and especially the developing and growing ones, MI does better.

    I hope none of this happened because of Fallout. There is no way they can match Cruise on the same terms. They shouldn't even try. However, they are missing something I feel. They need a dynamic energy. Boyle brought some of it with his zany brand, but not enough, I feel.
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 4,619
    She's doing her job and sometimes shit happens.
    I don't think that is a good assessment of what happened with the Bond franchise since CR. Yes, Skyfall was a huge success, but the 2 main reasons it turned out to be such a great movie have nothing to do with her:

    1. It was Craig's idea to hire Mendes, and it was Craig who convinced him to accept the job.
    2. They got one extra year to polish the script because of a delay that had nothing to do with Barbara Broccoli. I don't even want to think about how much worse Skyfall would have been without that delay.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Skyfall could have been worse?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited August 2018 Posts: 11,139
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Panchitos has a legit gripe. Babs & eon have shown they still can't get their act together. I'm telling you fallout also rattled them.

    Thank you, but I'm still not sure why so many people here assume Fallout made them reconsider things.

    Its from a creative perspective. The action, fights, the story, the intensity and tension. All things lacking and coming up short in recent Bond films.
    Fallout made 183 million USD in 26 days in the US. During the first 26 days of its release, Skyfall earned 248 million USD in the US,

    And how many Bond films prior to SF performed the same? It took SP nearly half a year to touch $200M domestic.

    All in all Fallout has proven to be a far more engaging and enjoyable experience than Bond's recent output and EoN would be remiss to ignore the bar MI has set.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,009
    She's doing her job and sometimes shit happens.
    I don't think that is a good assessment of what happened with the Bond franchise since CR. Yes, Skyfall was a huge success, but the 2 main reasons it turned out to be such a great movie have nothing to do with her:

    1. It was Craig's idea to hire Mendes, and it was Craig who convinced him to accept the job.
    2. They got one extra year to polish the script because of a delay that had nothing to do with Barbara Broccoli. I don't even want to think about how much worse Skyfall would have been without that delay.

    And it was Barbara's idea to hire Craig. Swings and roundabouts. She's made mistakes of course and there are many things that can be done better. There always are. But the suggestion that she's utterly clueless is, ironically, clueless.

    What is it that you're actually suggesting as a solution to the problem? Who, if not Barbara, should take charge?
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,532
    barryt007 wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I have only disagreed with Babs on 2 thing. 1. Not giving Brosnan a 5th film, and 2. QOS SP.

    +1
Sign In or Register to comment.