› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…10121013101510171018…2507

Comments

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Dennison
    People who don't like Craig are of course still welcome here. Some of them have even become mods. ;-)

    I thought my ears were burning. :D
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    This what mi6 HQ had to say about the rights news pretty good read https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond-25-apple-and-amazon-bid-for-distribution-deal?id=04307
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    This what mi6 HQ had to say about the rights news pretty good read https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond-25-apple-and-amazon-bid-for-distribution-deal?id=04307
    It really is. My favourite piece of information from the article: "Although there is a little over a year before cameras start rolling," I wonder what @QuantumOrganization is thinking...
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    This what mi6 HQ had to say about the rights news pretty good read https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond-25-apple-and-amazon-bid-for-distribution-deal?id=04307

    Basically our dear MI6-staff is writing down all my worries. Well done MI6-hq. But, it still makes me entirely unhappy about the future of our beloved secret agent :-(. Warner could eventually bow out, because of distribution pitches from tech/eshop giants Amazon and Apple. Because let's face, they bulk and swim in money. This could severely delay not only pre-production of Bond #25, it is a blasphemy for the entire future of our Bond franchise. Sentences like "Bond is considered an under-utilized property" still make me cringe.

    Albert "Cubby" Broccoli used to say on his dying bed: "Don't let them screw it up". Dear Barbara and Michael? I think you're close to doing just that :-(.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't have a problem with it. It will be what it will be.

    If it results in more frequent output of the series, I'll be quite satisfied. It's 2 for 4 for me since 2006 and 1 for 4 in the period between 1995 and 2002, so I'll take my chances.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2017 Posts: 7,551
    I imagine all these companies can afford the rights but is it still true that Apple has $100 Billion in liquid cash in the bank? I know it was something that had upset investors in the past because they weren't using the money to reinvest in the business.

    EDIT: Over $250 Billion since May
    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/05/02/apples-cash-hoard-swells-to-record-256-8-billion.html

    As I said I'm sure all these companies can afford the rights but if Apple has $250b that they're doing nothing with maybe they're in the best position to take a chance on the franchise.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    I imagine all these companies can afford the rights but is it still true that Apple has $100 Billion in liquid cash in the bank? I know it was something that had upset investors in the past because they weren't using the money to reinvest in the business.
    Yes, that's true, but I believe the majority of that is offshore for tax reasons. POTUS is trying to get the tax laws changed and give a one time relief to allow that money back into the US for investment. Tax policy could very well drive these decisions, but could also delay things until the reforms are passed.

    I'd prefer Amazon to Apple. I'm not a fan of their 'closed' model.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    I like Apple but wouldn't want them to control the franchise either. I voted for Annapurna above just because it seems like the most interesting outcome. Knowing me though I'd definitely drool over a James Bond edition iPhone :P
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    This what mi6 HQ had to say about the rights news pretty good read https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond-25-apple-and-amazon-bid-for-distribution-deal?id=04307

    Basically our dear MI6-staff is writing down all my worries. Well done MI6-hq. But, it still makes me entirely unhappy about the future of our beloved secret agent :-(. Warner could eventually bow out, because of distribution pitches from tech/eshop giants Amazon and Apple. Because let's face, they bulk and swim in money. This could severely delay not only pre-production of Bond #25, it is a blasphemy for the entire future of our Bond franchise. Sentences like "Bond is considered an under-utilized property" still make me cringe.

    Albert "Cubby" Broccoli used to say on his dying bed: "Don't let them screw it up". Dear Barbara and Michael? I think you're close to doing just that :-(.

    Well said.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    I think we all need to chill. Babs & Michael know what's best for the franchise's longevity going forward. I assure you this all big talk.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited September 2017 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with it. It will be what it will be.

    If it results in more frequent output of the series, I'll be quite satisfied. It's 2 for 4 for me since 2006 and 1 for 4 in the period between 1995 and 2002, so I'll take my chances.

    You're only talking about quantity here dear @BondJames. Nothing is far from certain with regard to quality when Amazon and/or Apple become the new distributers. It's the most risky acquisition ever in the history of the Bond franchise. I'd rather have a damn fine film every four years than going back to the more formularic approach as was the case with the Brosnan era.

    Although I do have to agree that EON Productions themselves are also guilty as charged. Already too often the Broccoli's seem to be tired of their Bond franchise.

    Also, for the short-term, for the production of Craig's final Bond outing, this could prove a problematic development (Amazon and Apple joining this bidding race).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with it. It will be what it will be.

    If it results in more frequent output of the series, I'll be quite satisfied. It's 2 for 4 for me since 2006 and 1 for 4 in the period between 1995 and 2002, so I'll take my chances.

    You're only talking about quantity here dear @BondJames. Nothing is far from certain with regard to quality when Amazon and/or Apple become the new distributers. It's the most risky acquisition ever in the history of the Bond franchise. I'd rather have a damn fine film every four years than going back to the more formularic approach as was the case with the Brosnan era.

    Although I do have to agree that EON Productions themselves are also guilty as charged. Already too often the Broccoli's seem to be tired of their Bond franchise.

    Also, for the short-term, for the production of Craig's final Bond outing, this could prove a problematic development (Amazon and Apple joining this bidding race).
    Apple and Amazon are disrupters. Innovators of the first order. They don't mess around. I don't think they'll get this franchise, but just their entry into the game will shake the whole thing up for the better. That's the one certainty here.

    This franchise needs that in my view. That doesn't mean I'm advocating for debasing it. Just a little more regularity, focus and discipline. If that means EON sells or it means MGM sells as a result, then so be it. It will happen one day after all.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2017 Posts: 7,551
    Relevant:
    latest?cb=20160505142547&path-prefix=it
    653853-b002e1417ae7934816a34e51d1fc7518.jpg
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited September 2017 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with it. It will be what it will be.

    If it results in more frequent output of the series, I'll be quite satisfied. It's 2 for 4 for me since 2006 and 1 for 4 in the period between 1995 and 2002, so I'll take my chances.

    You're only talking about quantity here dear @BondJames. Nothing is far from certain with regard to quality when Amazon and/or Apple become the new distributers. It's the most risky acquisition ever in the history of the Bond franchise. I'd rather have a damn fine film every four years than going back to the more formularic approach as was the case with the Brosnan era.

    Although I do have to agree that EON Productions themselves are also guilty as charged. Already too often the Broccoli's seem to be tired of their Bond franchise.

    Also, for the short-term, for the production of Craig's final Bond outing, this could prove a problematic development (Amazon and Apple joining this bidding race).
    Apple and Amazon are disrupters. Innovators of the first order. They don't mess around. I don't think they'll get this franchise, but just their entry into the game will shake the whole thing up for the better. That's the one certainty here.

    This franchise needs that in my view. That doesn't mean I'm advocating for debasing it. Just a little more regularity, focus and discipline. If that means EON sells or it means MGM sells as a result, then so be it. It will happen one day after all.

    There's not any certainty here at the moment. Where are you basing that on? On the sole fact that companies like Amazon and Apple are 'disruptors' and 'innovators'? I heard that before by the way, that the sole fact of 'shaking things up' is always for the better. Well, there are quite a few examples where I can loudly reply to you: "You were so Wrong".
    cr.gif

    (kinda funny these gif's :-P)

    I mean, shove the 'innovating' and all that Steve Jobs blabla. We all know it's the bigger money that is taking over big money. Frankly, there are hedge funds involved in it as well.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need to have more regularity, focus and discipline within the Bond franchise. But nothing is signed yet, and until then it's just another big risk to let others meddle with our Bond franchise. And factually we have yet to see how that turns out. It can be for the better yes, but as you say, since Apple and Amazon don't get the Bond franchise, it could very well be for the worse as well. Not only that, it has the potential to delay Bond #25.

    Both Amazon and Apple don't have any theatrical distribution branches. Just like MGM basically. So this means that they eventually have to team up as well with another major studio like Warner or Universal. And in the process, EON Productions could very well give up ownership. I hardly call that....'change for the better'.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with it. It will be what it will be.

    If it results in more frequent output of the series, I'll be quite satisfied. It's 2 for 4 for me since 2006 and 1 for 4 in the period between 1995 and 2002, so I'll take my chances.

    You're only talking about quantity here dear @BondJames. Nothing is far from certain with regard to quality when Amazon and/or Apple become the new distributers. It's the most risky acquisition ever in the history of the Bond franchise. I'd rather have a damn fine film every four years than going back to the more formularic approach as was the case with the Brosnan era.

    Although I do have to agree that EON Productions themselves are also guilty as charged. Already too often the Broccoli's seem to be tired of their Bond franchise.

    Also, for the short-term, for the production of Craig's final Bond outing, this could prove a problematic development (Amazon and Apple joining this bidding race).
    Apple and Amazon are disrupters. Innovators of the first order. They don't mess around. I don't think they'll get this franchise, but just their entry into the game will shake the whole thing up for the better. That's the one certainty here.

    This franchise needs that in my view. That doesn't mean I'm advocating for debasing it. Just a little more regularity, focus and discipline. If that means EON sells or it means MGM sells as a result, then so be it. It will happen one day after all.

    There's not any certainty here at the moment. Where are you basing that on? On the sole fact that companies like Amazon and Apple are 'disruptors' and 'innovators'? I heard that before by the way, that the sole fact of 'shaking things up' is Always for the better. Well, there are quite a few examples where I can loudly reply to you: "Wrong".

    I mean, shove the 'innovating' and all that Steve Jobs blabla. We all know it's the bigger money that is taking over big money. Frankly, there are hedge funds involved in it as well.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need to have more regularity, focus and discipline within the Bond franchise. But nothing is signed yet, and until then it's just another big risk to let others meddle with our Bond franchise. And factually we have yet to see how that turns out. It can be for the better yes, but as you say, since Apple and Amazon don't get the Bond franchise, it could very well be for the worse as well. Not only that, it has the potential to delay Bond #25.
    You and I just have a different opinion, that's all. These are both highly 'customer focused' operations. In this case, the customer is the viewer or in other words, the fan. That is what I base this on.

    Their insertion into this process (if true) will make all the other fat cats up their game and result in a better final product, even if it takes a little while longer to get here.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with it. It will be what it will be.

    If it results in more frequent output of the series, I'll be quite satisfied. It's 2 for 4 for me since 2006 and 1 for 4 in the period between 1995 and 2002, so I'll take my chances.

    You're only talking about quantity here dear @BondJames. Nothing is far from certain with regard to quality when Amazon and/or Apple become the new distributers. It's the most risky acquisition ever in the history of the Bond franchise. I'd rather have a damn fine film every four years than going back to the more formularic approach as was the case with the Brosnan era.

    Although I do have to agree that EON Productions themselves are also guilty as charged. Already too often the Broccoli's seem to be tired of their Bond franchise.

    Also, for the short-term, for the production of Craig's final Bond outing, this could prove a problematic development (Amazon and Apple joining this bidding race).
    Apple and Amazon are disrupters. Innovators of the first order. They don't mess around. I don't think they'll get this franchise, but just their entry into the game will shake the whole thing up for the better. That's the one certainty here.

    This franchise needs that in my view. That doesn't mean I'm advocating for debasing it. Just a little more regularity, focus and discipline. If that means EON sells or it means MGM sells as a result, then so be it. It will happen one day after all.

    There's not any certainty here at the moment. Where are you basing that on? On the sole fact that companies like Amazon and Apple are 'disruptors' and 'innovators'? I heard that before by the way, that the sole fact of 'shaking things up' is Always for the better. Well, there are quite a few examples where I can loudly reply to you: "Wrong".

    I mean, shove the 'innovating' and all that Steve Jobs blabla. We all know it's the bigger money that is taking over big money. Frankly, there are hedge funds involved in it as well.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need to have more regularity, focus and discipline within the Bond franchise. But nothing is signed yet, and until then it's just another big risk to let others meddle with our Bond franchise. And factually we have yet to see how that turns out. It can be for the better yes, but as you say, since Apple and Amazon don't get the Bond franchise, it could very well be for the worse as well. Not only that, it has the potential to delay Bond #25.
    You and I just have a different opinion, that's all. These are both highly 'customer focused' operations. In this case, the customer is the viewer or in other words, the fan. That is what I base this on.

    Their insertion into this process (if true) will make all the other fat cats up their game and result in a better final product, even if it takes a little while longer to get here.

    I slightly updated my previous post. I think you're the Auric Goldfinger of the forum ;-). I work for Xerox. As we speak that company has been split apart by hedge fund billionaire Carl Icahn. Now we are talking about the movie business here. But it's factually not true that stuff like that always result in a better product. Many times the actual product is nothing more than a football within a treacherous match.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with it. It will be what it will be.

    If it results in more frequent output of the series, I'll be quite satisfied. It's 2 for 4 for me since 2006 and 1 for 4 in the period between 1995 and 2002, so I'll take my chances.

    You're only talking about quantity here dear @BondJames. Nothing is far from certain with regard to quality when Amazon and/or Apple become the new distributers. It's the most risky acquisition ever in the history of the Bond franchise. I'd rather have a damn fine film every four years than going back to the more formularic approach as was the case with the Brosnan era.

    Although I do have to agree that EON Productions themselves are also guilty as charged. Already too often the Broccoli's seem to be tired of their Bond franchise.

    Also, for the short-term, for the production of Craig's final Bond outing, this could prove a problematic development (Amazon and Apple joining this bidding race).
    Apple and Amazon are disrupters. Innovators of the first order. They don't mess around. I don't think they'll get this franchise, but just their entry into the game will shake the whole thing up for the better. That's the one certainty here.

    This franchise needs that in my view. That doesn't mean I'm advocating for debasing it. Just a little more regularity, focus and discipline. If that means EON sells or it means MGM sells as a result, then so be it. It will happen one day after all.

    There's not any certainty here at the moment. Where are you basing that on? On the sole fact that companies like Amazon and Apple are 'disruptors' and 'innovators'? I heard that before by the way, that the sole fact of 'shaking things up' is Always for the better. Well, there are quite a few examples where I can loudly reply to you: "Wrong".

    I mean, shove the 'innovating' and all that Steve Jobs blabla. We all know it's the bigger money that is taking over big money. Frankly, there are hedge funds involved in it as well.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need to have more regularity, focus and discipline within the Bond franchise. But nothing is signed yet, and until then it's just another big risk to let others meddle with our Bond franchise. And factually we have yet to see how that turns out. It can be for the better yes, but as you say, since Apple and Amazon don't get the Bond franchise, it could very well be for the worse as well. Not only that, it has the potential to delay Bond #25.
    You and I just have a different opinion, that's all. These are both highly 'customer focused' operations. In this case, the customer is the viewer or in other words, the fan. That is what I base this on.

    Their insertion into this process (if true) will make all the other fat cats up their game and result in a better final product, even if it takes a little while longer to get here.

    I slightly updated my previous post. I think you're the Auric Goldfinger of the forum ;-). I work for Xerox. As we speak that company has been split apart by hedge fund billionaire Carl Icahn. Now we are talking about the movie business here. But it's factually not true that stuff like that always result in a better product. Many times the actual product is nothing more than a football within a treacherous match.
    What has Xerox and a corporate raider like Icahn got to do with Apple and Amazon? What has this got to do with Goldfinger? They are all quite different.

    Apple and Amazon are cutting edge consumer businesses. They have grown to where they are by focusing on said consumer and delivering a top notch customer experience and product. In Amazon's case, they do it at exceptional prices too. Apple has a different more closed, exclusive and pricey model, but is still highly customer focused.

    As I said, the customer in this case is us. The viewer. Something that should never be forgotten.

    This conversation is moot because I don't see them getting it, but as I said they are disrputers, and their involvement will cause everyone to take notice and up their game.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @bondjames is right-- I don't think the big studios want these guys playing on their field... as it is, Apple and Amazon can be seen as partly responsible for the decline in theater ticket sales, and now they're muscling into the world of theatrical distribution?

    This must be making all the old boys sweat... and if they don't want A&A bullying their way into this arena, as @bondjames has been saying, the old school will definitely have to up their game.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,169
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    This what mi6 HQ had to say about the rights news pretty good read https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond-25-apple-and-amazon-bid-for-distribution-deal?id=04307

    Basically our dear MI6-staff is writing down all my worries. Well done MI6-hq. But, it still makes me entirely unhappy about the future of our beloved secret agent :-(. Warner could eventually bow out, because of distribution pitches from tech/eshop giants Amazon and Apple. Because let's face, they bulk and swim in money. This could severely delay not only pre-production of Bond #25, it is a blasphemy for the entire future of our Bond franchise. Sentences like "Bond is considered an under-utilized property" still make me cringe.

    Albert "Cubby" Broccoli used to say on his dying bed: "Don't let them screw it up". Dear Barbara and Michael? I think you're close to doing just that :-(.

    I agree completely. As happy as I would be to have a new film out every other year as in older times, I really believe a corporate money hungry owner like Apple would screw things up.
    I don't doubt for a minute Amazon or whoever would stupidly mis-cast Bond with someone like Brad Pitt ,or Vin Diesel. Probably someone younger than that now, Zac Efron or somebody. A young Bond with Tom Holland I cringe at the thought. Whoever is an A lister at the time an Amazon Bond gets made I believe will be up for the role. Also the idea of a series of films showcasing other double'O's fails to excite me in the least.
  • 007dad007dad Royersford PA
    Posts: 1
    I have wondered for a while now, who would carry on the family business once Barbara and Michael have had enough. I hope that they are quietly grooming someone to "not screw it up." I would hate to see 50 years of great films watered down to weekly episodes and spin offs. Does anyone have any insight into this? Today's Apple/Amazon news makes it seem like they do not.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited September 2017 Posts: 11,119
    007dad wrote: »
    I have wondered for a while now, who would carry on the family business once Barbara and Michael have had enough. I hope that they are quietly grooming someone to "not screw it up." I would hate to see 50 years of great films watered down to weekly episodes and spin offs. Does anyone have any insight into this? Today's Apple/Amazon news makes it seem like they do not.

    Welcome @007dad . To be honest, for me it's sad news...

    I always thought, maybe son Gregg Wilson could be the next one in line. But to be honest, he seems to be more interested in his alternative synthesizer arrangements on shady Californian dance events:
    https://soundcloud.com/gregg-wilson
    NHjM8TO.jpg
    d339884d9ec566643ce386444fcec6c3--the-lounge-lounges.jpg
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Could all this distribution business potentially delay production on the movie? I hope that's not the case.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,540
    How would the Bond casting be handled if they do go down the TV series route? Would the same actor play Bond in both film and television, or would there be a different actor for each medium as there is now with film and radio adaptation?
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    I would think they'd want to use different actors for different mediums, so that each one could stand on its own feet. Otherwise, with an ongoing series on the side, a new film starring the same actor from the show would feel like less of an event. At the same time though, with two actors, the audience would naturally feel motivated to pick a favorite actor of the two, which could prove to be counterproductive and harmful to the Bond brand, since it would end up basically competing with itself. I just can't see this idea coming to life.
  • Gobi-1Gobi-1
    edited September 2017 Posts: 144
    Apple_Spectre_Logo.jpg
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,540
    MGM Relaunches Orion Pictures Under John Hegeman
    hollywoodreporter.com/news/mgm-relaunches-orion-pictures-under-john-hegeman-1035761
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    MGM Relaunches Orion Pictures Under John Hegeman
    hollywoodreporter.com/news/mgm-relaunches-orion-pictures-under-john-hegeman-1035761
    Does this affect bond?
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited September 2017 Posts: 3,126
    Gobi-1 wrote: »
    Apple_Spectre_Logo.jpg
    lol
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    MGM Relaunches Orion Pictures Under John Hegeman
    hollywoodreporter.com/news/mgm-relaunches-orion-pictures-under-john-hegeman-1035761
    Does this affect bond?

    was going to ask same thing what does bond have to do with this?
  • ThrasosThrasos
    edited September 2017 Posts: 1,469
    I object to the idea of a Bond Universe. No to a Bond TV series, no to film spinoffs, no dilution to the power of Bond's image. A Bond film is an event, even if it comes once in four years, though yes sooner would be nice. Glad to hear "sources" say, according to the Hollywood Reporter story I read, that "Broccoli and ...Wilson remain traditional in their outlook and that theatrical movies are their main concern." The way I see it, Bond is partly about tradition, and quality, over dollars or pounds, though it's most definitely about that too. Bond is meant for the big screen and nothing smaller quite does it justice, thought he manages to fit on the TV screen. The idea of another company taking over the franchise makes me think of Disney buying Lucasfilm, the upcoming Last Jedi, and how Mark Hamill said "When I read 8, I told Rian [Johnson, the writer-director], 'I fundamentally disagree with virtually everything you've decided about my character'". I didn't like the sound of that...who knows what I'll think when I actually see it. But it makes you think about what a different company might do with Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.