No Time To Die: Production Diary

007Blofeld

apparently Australia has a release date already for bond 25 too beside uk and us http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt

jake24

007Blofeld wrote: »

apparently Australia has a release date already for bond 25 too beside uk and us http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt

All it says is November. No specific date as of yet.

007Blofeld

looks like bond 25 will be shot in imax http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Bounine

barryt007 wrote: »

Bounine wrote: »

dominicgreene wrote: »

Don't ask me how I know, I just do. B25 and B26 will be filmed back-to-back. Trust me I just know.

I wouldn't be surprised if that happens.

If they are being filmed back to back,then I presume you are talking Craig doing 2 more films,not one ?

I'm just saying that I won't be surprised about anything. What Craig said about just making one more might very well be true but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if he makes a second. Celebrities sometimes are required to lie to the media and Craig seems to enjoy talking rubbish to the media. He may still be open about doing another...depending on how 25 goes. Who knows...

Gustav_Graves

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Been busy the last 24hrs so not had time to contribute so apologies in advance for the protracted nature of this but so many interesting points I cant resist wading in:

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

Are you off your meds? I NEVER wrote half the forum would do a better job of producing than BB. I wrote "a large percentage", and considering what we are talking about (Bond fans being better at producing a Bon film than BB+MGW or not), 30 or even just 20% can be considered large. Btw, I absolutely still maintain that a large percentage of people regularly posting here would do a better job at producing Bond 25 or any Bond film.

I'm kind of with you in principal but that's just ludicrous. I know for sure that if I was tasked with producing a Bond film I would do a better job than 90% of the comedians on here but would I do a better job than Babs? Not a chance.

That said
a) I would certainly do a better job of not signing off on some of the appalling script decisions she made on SP and also the decisions made on DAD (when we're busy castigating SP lets not also forget that she oversaw the indisputable low point of the series history a mere 3 films earlier).
b) If I had been born into the job then would I do any better or worse? Easy to say none of us would do any better but none of us have had the luxury of being groomed for the job from birth.

Thunderfinger wrote: »

"We have made a mistake!"

Shimata!!! (Is that allowed on here or is it verboten in case it is offensive to any Japanese members?)

007Blofeld wrote: »

@RichardTheBruce yeah if they can get 200 million or more from there 200 mill from uk 300 million from us and rest of the world 700-800 million bond 25 will be in good shape they may need to get as much money out of china as they can since the us market went out the window with the SW release date change and it would make sense to target china anyway since mgm tried to be bought out by china never thought bond was so relaint on china until now and now I see why.

I really am desperate for us not to court the Chinese market when you see some of the dross they have lapped up recently. Even if it restricts us to making 600-700m rather than hitting the 1b mark - just dont do it.

bondjames wrote: »

This is not my area, but just from reading these posts, I think the comments by some are focused on a desire for tighter producer control going forward in the early stages. I can't argue with that. I think it's highly desirable. Clarity of vision from the top surely can keep a writer's impulse in check and avoid tangents.

100% bang on the money.

A lot of people are smashing @PanchitoPistoles but his heart is in the right place. Yes a lot of what he says about the film making business is ridiculous and hyperbolic but when you boil it down to the bottom line what he says is true: I don't care how experienced and competent EON are at juggling all the logistics of a 250m movie - the absolute golden rule is you don't leave a bloke alone to write a script for a year and then suddenly weeks from cameras rolling notice actually it really isn't that good.

patb wrote: »

Interesting discussion re the way a script is developed and I can see all of the points above being valid. My earlier points were connected with the core concept/vision that a script revolves around. How long does it take forum members to decide if these are good ideas to base a script around?

Bond is M's cousin

Bond is Moneypenny's half brother

Bond donates kidney to Tanner

Bond is Blofeld's adopted brother (sort of)

Bond marries Swann and they live in a 3 bedroom semi in Tunbridge Wells

We have gut reactions to whether ideas work or not. I dont think its down to execution at a later stage. Good execution cant save a bad idea. Producers have a role in kicking these bad ideas into touch at the earliest possible opportunity (even better, hire writers who dont suggest them in the first place) in order to save time and money and in order not to produce movies that are poorly received..

This is basically it in a nutshell. None of us (except Panchito) are saying we could produce a Bond film better than EON. But we are saying that we could recognise a shit idea when we heard one and manage to root it out before it ended up in the final cut. And so should they.

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

I don't know about anybody else but... I would have rather had him as an African Warlord

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Yeah I love the African warlord idea for a villain

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

I think both the female Blofeld and the African warlord Blofeld could have worked, and don't believe any of these two ideas are inherently bad.

In the immortal words of Mr Noel Coward : 'No, no, no, no'

African warlords are just thugs. A Bond villain should have more class and style about him than a load of gold chains, a nicked Mercedes and an AK47. Even the most successful of them all, Idi Amin, was an absolute clown compared to a Blofeld, a Goldfinger or a Drax.

I could have lived with Meryl Streep as Blofeld though. Couldn't have been any worse than stepbrothergate.

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

What's bad is that they (producers + writers + even Mendes) had no vision. They didn't say "we have a great idea for a 21st century Blofeld, let's bring this big baddie back!", they said "et's bring Blofeld back whether we can come up with any good idea how to update him or not"

Excellent point, and one I think even your biggest detractors cannot argue with. Finally getting hold of the rights to SPECTRE they really were like a 15 year old getting their hands on their first copy of Razzle. Shot their wad everywhere without the slightest thought or planning. Its easy to slag off Marvel but I think they would have thought it through and introduced Blofeld over several films rather than have him go from Bond never having heard of him to vanquished in the space of one film.

bondjames wrote: »

Bond and skiing or aerial stunts go hand in hand. They practically wrote the book on it and it's high time they went back there and showed everyone how it's done.

I just watched Cliffhanger yesterday and for a 1993 film there are some wonderful sequences there, including what was for the time the most expensive aerial stunt (the heist in mid-air which Stallone apparently co-funded out of his own pocket due to insurance concerns). Time to step it up.

How long have we been saying this for? The last really standout action sequence in a Bond film was the CR parkour 11 long years ago. Remember the period 77 to 89 when we got stunning action sequence after stunning action sequence? As you say it really is time EON stepped up to the plate because Cruise and MI are leaving them in their wake at the moment.

If I was running the show I'd beg BJ Worth out of retirement and say 'Give me something to blow people away - money is no object.' Alas the QOS freefall sequence was a nail in the coffin that they'd rather do things with CGI these days. In the 80s BJ and Jake would've done that whole sequence for real, including pulling their chutes inside the sinkhole.

doubleoego wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

I think James Bond has a headstart over WW 2 here. Internationally Bond 25 has a better chance than WW 2. Suffice it to say, but WW actually didn't do so well as previously anticipated, whereas SP was close to gain almost $700 Million internationally excluding North America.

You don't know what you're on about, mate. WW didn't do as well as anticipated?? The film broke records and EVERY expectation. WW was in fact an unprecedented hit. There's no two ways about it. It grossed more money than the novelty of batman and superman appearing on film for the fitst time ever, was a ctitical hit, came off from a string of DCEU critical flops, was directed by a woman and the film in and of itself is a female-led film that made over $800Million. Like I said you don't know what you're on about.

Overall WW was not able to pass $900 Million, which is very much in line with other single character superhero movies these days. Same goes for the new Spiderman. Globally at least there's a slight superhero fatigue kicking in.

And now you're just making crap up. No DCEU film has made over $900Million. Outside of Marvel's Avengers films it's only Iron Man 3 and Civil War that has crossed a $Billion; and spider-man homecoming as the MCU's first solo soidey movie making over $800Million, makes it the 2nd highest grossing spider-man film made after being the 6th spidey film and the second reboot in 5 years...majes it a resounding success...and you honestly think what you said actually makes sense? Don't be silly or intellectually dishonest about this. As for Superhero fatigue, it's an unsubstantiated myth that's been touted by those who know nothing for tge better part of a decade and has never EVER been proven; and evidence only confirms the contrary. You can champion Bond 25 till the cows come home as much as you like but when you resort to spewing a load of bs it only reaffirms my first sentence of this post and that you have absolutely zero argument here.

Also, anticipation for Bond 25 will be higher than for WW 2. Simply because it'll be Craig's last. And my gut tells me that film will be marketed as such.

Anecdotal opinions don't mean much. I can easily say I know plenty of people or seen online/social media people not caring or showing an indifference to Craig and Bond in general. It doesn't mean I think Bond 25 won't do well.

I'm not worried at all for Bond 25.

That's your prerogative. Bond 25 will do well like all Bind movies ordinarilly do but you're dreaming if you think It's going to cross a $Billion/SF numbers. My only concern for Bond 25 is from a creative standpoint. It'll be 4 years since SP when it's released and it'll be overwhelmingly unacceptable if they serve us up another trash entry. They had 3 years with SP and the less said about that movie the better.

Couldn't agree more. WW smashed it out of the park considering the expectations and anyone who thinks going up against WW2 and Episode 9 is an easy ride is in for a rude awakening. Everyone knows already when Star Wars is going to be released so why do they lock a date in that means you get at best a month of IMAX screenings before you're booted off for the new Star Wars?

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

Ooowh? I was talking about the international market, not the US market. Having said so, "Wonder Woman" did good, but certainly not terrific. Especially the foreign market results from James Bond (especially "SPECTRE"), is something "Wonder Woman" could only dream of:

A film with a built in fan base over 50 years and a budget of $250m v a film that is part of a franchise that was pretty much stillborn with Batman v Superman and a budget of $150 and Bond only scraped $64m more? Think if I was an investor I'd be 'dreaming' of WW's return on my money over SP's.

peter wrote: »

was that the big news, @QuantumOrganization ? I swore you said an announcement would be made about distributor and a two pic deal... Quite adamant about that, I'm sure.

Pretty sure he said 'late August/early September'. Given that '30 days hath September' and today is the 14th I would say by any reasonable person's definition he has approximately 3hrs 30 GMT to deliver on this before we hit the 15th and are most definitely into mid September. Dont know about the rest of you but my unshakeable faith that he is the new Baz Bamigboye is starting to waver ever so slightly....

bondjames wrote: »

@AlexanderWaverly , I'm sure there was some impact from the 50th, but I believe it was marginal, at least based on anecdotal observations. Rather, it was the excellent reviews and very strong word of mouth that drove the 'legs' on SF. Nearly everyone I knew was talking about it - it was the film to see at the time. Most of that was due to Silva and the strength of the production/visuals, at least based on how people were describing it to me at the time. It became a sort of phenomenon. 'Fresh' in the public consciousness. It transcended its brand, just like TDK transcended Batman.

Normally I have to sell 'Bond' to my friends. What was amusing in 2012 is that they were selling Bond to me, almost as if they had forgotten I was a die hard.

Nobody even talked about SP. I had to go on the 'promotion' run again, as per normal.

patb wrote: »

SF is the only Bond movie my inlaws have seen at the cinema. All down to word of mouth at the tennis club. That really is transcending the brand.

Agreed. With SF everyone at work was talking about it and I got a fair bit of kudos for having gone to the premiere. With SP it was just tumbleweed.

Dear @TheWizardOfIce . Could you please lower the amount of embedded quotes and responses to that? It's quite annoying. And frankly, it makes it hard to answer or to have a proper discussion. Would it be an idea to focus on one item at a time?

TheWizardOfIce

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Been busy the last 24hrs so not had time to contribute so apologies in advance for the protracted nature of this but so many interesting points I cant resist wading in:

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

Are you off your meds? I NEVER wrote half the forum would do a better job of producing than BB. I wrote "a large percentage", and considering what we are talking about (Bond fans being better at producing a Bon film than BB+MGW or not), 30 or even just 20% can be considered large. Btw, I absolutely still maintain that a large percentage of people regularly posting here would do a better job at producing Bond 25 or any Bond film.

I'm kind of with you in principal but that's just ludicrous. I know for sure that if I was tasked with producing a Bond film I would do a better job than 90% of the comedians on here but would I do a better job than Babs? Not a chance.

That said
a) I would certainly do a better job of not signing off on some of the appalling script decisions she made on SP and also the decisions made on DAD (when we're busy castigating SP lets not also forget that she oversaw the indisputable low point of the series history a mere 3 films earlier).
b) If I had been born into the job then would I do any better or worse? Easy to say none of us would do any better but none of us have had the luxury of being groomed for the job from birth.

Thunderfinger wrote: »

"We have made a mistake!"

Shimata!!! (Is that allowed on here or is it verboten in case it is offensive to any Japanese members?)

007Blofeld wrote: »

@RichardTheBruce yeah if they can get 200 million or more from there 200 mill from uk 300 million from us and rest of the world 700-800 million bond 25 will be in good shape they may need to get as much money out of china as they can since the us market went out the window with the SW release date change and it would make sense to target china anyway since mgm tried to be bought out by china never thought bond was so relaint on china until now and now I see why.

I really am desperate for us not to court the Chinese market when you see some of the dross they have lapped up recently. Even if it restricts us to making 600-700m rather than hitting the 1b mark - just dont do it.

bondjames wrote: »

This is not my area, but just from reading these posts, I think the comments by some are focused on a desire for tighter producer control going forward in the early stages. I can't argue with that. I think it's highly desirable. Clarity of vision from the top surely can keep a writer's impulse in check and avoid tangents.

100% bang on the money.

A lot of people are smashing @PanchitoPistoles but his heart is in the right place. Yes a lot of what he says about the film making business is ridiculous and hyperbolic but when you boil it down to the bottom line what he says is true: I don't care how experienced and competent EON are at juggling all the logistics of a 250m movie - the absolute golden rule is you don't leave a bloke alone to write a script for a year and then suddenly weeks from cameras rolling notice actually it really isn't that good.

patb wrote: »

Interesting discussion re the way a script is developed and I can see all of the points above being valid. My earlier points were connected with the core concept/vision that a script revolves around. How long does it take forum members to decide if these are good ideas to base a script around?

Bond is M's cousin

Bond is Moneypenny's half brother

Bond donates kidney to Tanner

Bond is Blofeld's adopted brother (sort of)

Bond marries Swann and they live in a 3 bedroom semi in Tunbridge Wells

We have gut reactions to whether ideas work or not. I dont think its down to execution at a later stage. Good execution cant save a bad idea. Producers have a role in kicking these bad ideas into touch at the earliest possible opportunity (even better, hire writers who dont suggest them in the first place) in order to save time and money and in order not to produce movies that are poorly received..

This is basically it in a nutshell. None of us (except Panchito) are saying we could produce a Bond film better than EON. But we are saying that we could recognise a shit idea when we heard one and manage to root it out before it ended up in the final cut. And so should they.

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

I don't know about anybody else but... I would have rather had him as an African Warlord

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Yeah I love the African warlord idea for a villain

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

I think both the female Blofeld and the African warlord Blofeld could have worked, and don't believe any of these two ideas are inherently bad.

In the immortal words of Mr Noel Coward : 'No, no, no, no'

African warlords are just thugs. A Bond villain should have more class and style about him than a load of gold chains, a nicked Mercedes and an AK47. Even the most successful of them all, Idi Amin, was an absolute clown compared to a Blofeld, a Goldfinger or a Drax.

I could have lived with Meryl Streep as Blofeld though. Couldn't have been any worse than stepbrothergate.

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

What's bad is that they (producers + writers + even Mendes) had no vision. They didn't say "we have a great idea for a 21st century Blofeld, let's bring this big baddie back!", they said "et's bring Blofeld back whether we can come up with any good idea how to update him or not"

Excellent point, and one I think even your biggest detractors cannot argue with. Finally getting hold of the rights to SPECTRE they really were like a 15 year old getting their hands on their first copy of Razzle. Shot their wad everywhere without the slightest thought or planning. Its easy to slag off Marvel but I think they would have thought it through and introduced Blofeld over several films rather than have him go from Bond never having heard of him to vanquished in the space of one film.

bondjames wrote: »

Bond and skiing or aerial stunts go hand in hand. They practically wrote the book on it and it's high time they went back there and showed everyone how it's done.

I just watched Cliffhanger yesterday and for a 1993 film there are some wonderful sequences there, including what was for the time the most expensive aerial stunt (the heist in mid-air which Stallone apparently co-funded out of his own pocket due to insurance concerns). Time to step it up.

How long have we been saying this for? The last really standout action sequence in a Bond film was the CR parkour 11 long years ago. Remember the period 77 to 89 when we got stunning action sequence after stunning action sequence? As you say it really is time EON stepped up to the plate because Cruise and MI are leaving them in their wake at the moment.

If I was running the show I'd beg BJ Worth out of retirement and say 'Give me something to blow people away - money is no object.' Alas the QOS freefall sequence was a nail in the coffin that they'd rather do things with CGI these days. In the 80s BJ and Jake would've done that whole sequence for real, including pulling their chutes inside the sinkhole.

doubleoego wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

I think James Bond has a headstart over WW 2 here. Internationally Bond 25 has a better chance than WW 2. Suffice it to say, but WW actually didn't do so well as previously anticipated, whereas SP was close to gain almost $700 Million internationally excluding North America.

You don't know what you're on about, mate. WW didn't do as well as anticipated?? The film broke records and EVERY expectation. WW was in fact an unprecedented hit. There's no two ways about it. It grossed more money than the novelty of batman and superman appearing on film for the fitst time ever, was a ctitical hit, came off from a string of DCEU critical flops, was directed by a woman and the film in and of itself is a female-led film that made over $800Million. Like I said you don't know what you're on about.

Overall WW was not able to pass $900 Million, which is very much in line with other single character superhero movies these days. Same goes for the new Spiderman. Globally at least there's a slight superhero fatigue kicking in.

And now you're just making crap up. No DCEU film has made over $900Million. Outside of Marvel's Avengers films it's only Iron Man 3 and Civil War that has crossed a $Billion; and spider-man homecoming as the MCU's first solo soidey movie making over $800Million, makes it the 2nd highest grossing spider-man film made after being the 6th spidey film and the second reboot in 5 years...majes it a resounding success...and you honestly think what you said actually makes sense? Don't be silly or intellectually dishonest about this. As for Superhero fatigue, it's an unsubstantiated myth that's been touted by those who know nothing for tge better part of a decade and has never EVER been proven; and evidence only confirms the contrary. You can champion Bond 25 till the cows come home as much as you like but when you resort to spewing a load of bs it only reaffirms my first sentence of this post and that you have absolutely zero argument here.

Also, anticipation for Bond 25 will be higher than for WW 2. Simply because it'll be Craig's last. And my gut tells me that film will be marketed as such.

Anecdotal opinions don't mean much. I can easily say I know plenty of people or seen online/social media people not caring or showing an indifference to Craig and Bond in general. It doesn't mean I think Bond 25 won't do well.

I'm not worried at all for Bond 25.

That's your prerogative. Bond 25 will do well like all Bind movies ordinarilly do but you're dreaming if you think It's going to cross a $Billion/SF numbers. My only concern for Bond 25 is from a creative standpoint. It'll be 4 years since SP when it's released and it'll be overwhelmingly unacceptable if they serve us up another trash entry. They had 3 years with SP and the less said about that movie the better.

Couldn't agree more. WW smashed it out of the park considering the expectations and anyone who thinks going up against WW2 and Episode 9 is an easy ride is in for a rude awakening. Everyone knows already when Star Wars is going to be released so why do they lock a date in that means you get at best a month of IMAX screenings before you're booted off for the new Star Wars?

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

Ooowh? I was talking about the international market, not the US market. Having said so, "Wonder Woman" did good, but certainly not terrific. Especially the foreign market results from James Bond (especially "SPECTRE"), is something "Wonder Woman" could only dream of:

A film with a built in fan base over 50 years and a budget of $250m v a film that is part of a franchise that was pretty much stillborn with Batman v Superman and a budget of $150 and Bond only scraped $64m more? Think if I was an investor I'd be 'dreaming' of WW's return on my money over SP's.

peter wrote: »

was that the big news, @QuantumOrganization ? I swore you said an announcement would be made about distributor and a two pic deal... Quite adamant about that, I'm sure.

Pretty sure he said 'late August/early September'. Given that '30 days hath September' and today is the 14th I would say by any reasonable person's definition he has approximately 3hrs 30 GMT to deliver on this before we hit the 15th and are most definitely into mid September. Dont know about the rest of you but my unshakeable faith that he is the new Baz Bamigboye is starting to waver ever so slightly....

bondjames wrote: »

@AlexanderWaverly , I'm sure there was some impact from the 50th, but I believe it was marginal, at least based on anecdotal observations. Rather, it was the excellent reviews and very strong word of mouth that drove the 'legs' on SF. Nearly everyone I knew was talking about it - it was the film to see at the time. Most of that was due to Silva and the strength of the production/visuals, at least based on how people were describing it to me at the time. It became a sort of phenomenon. 'Fresh' in the public consciousness. It transcended its brand, just like TDK transcended Batman.

Normally I have to sell 'Bond' to my friends. What was amusing in 2012 is that they were selling Bond to me, almost as if they had forgotten I was a die hard.

Nobody even talked about SP. I had to go on the 'promotion' run again, as per normal.

patb wrote: »

SF is the only Bond movie my inlaws have seen at the cinema. All down to word of mouth at the tennis club. That really is transcending the brand.

Agreed. With SF everyone at work was talking about it and I got a fair bit of kudos for having gone to the premiere. With SP it was just tumbleweed.

Dear @TheWizardOfIce . Could you please lower the amount of embedded quotes and responses to that? It's quite annoying. And frankly, it

Dear @Gustav_Graves being annoying is a two way street and I don't have a monopoly on it but I chose to hold my tongue in the interests of social cohesion.

If what I write annoys you don't read it.

Dennison

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Been busy the last 24hrs so not had time to contribute so apologies in advance for the protracted nature of this but so many interesting points I cant resist wading in:

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

Are you off your meds? I NEVER wrote half the forum would do a better job of producing than BB. I wrote "a large percentage", and considering what we are talking about (Bond fans being better at producing a Bon film than BB+MGW or not), 30 or even just 20% can be considered large. Btw, I absolutely still maintain that a large percentage of people regularly posting here would do a better job at producing Bond 25 or any Bond film.

I'm kind of with you in principal but that's just ludicrous. I know for sure that if I was tasked with producing a Bond film I would do a better job than 90% of the comedians on here but would I do a better job than Babs? Not a chance.

That said
a) I would certainly do a better job of not signing off on some of the appalling script decisions she made on SP and also the decisions made on DAD (when we're busy castigating SP lets not also forget that she oversaw the indisputable low point of the series history a mere 3 films earlier).
b) If I had been born into the job then would I do any better or worse? Easy to say none of us would do any better but none of us have had the luxury of being groomed for the job from birth.

Thunderfinger wrote: »

"We have made a mistake!"

Shimata!!! (Is that allowed on here or is it verboten in case it is offensive to any Japanese members?)

007Blofeld wrote: »

@RichardTheBruce yeah if they can get 200 million or more from there 200 mill from uk 300 million from us and rest of the world 700-800 million bond 25 will be in good shape they may need to get as much money out of china as they can since the us market went out the window with the SW release date change and it would make sense to target china anyway since mgm tried to be bought out by china never thought bond was so relaint on china until now and now I see why.

I really am desperate for us not to court the Chinese market when you see some of the dross they have lapped up recently. Even if it restricts us to making 600-700m rather than hitting the 1b mark - just dont do it.

bondjames wrote: »

This is not my area, but just from reading these posts, I think the comments by some are focused on a desire for tighter producer control going forward in the early stages. I can't argue with that. I think it's highly desirable. Clarity of vision from the top surely can keep a writer's impulse in check and avoid tangents.

100% bang on the money.

A lot of people are smashing @PanchitoPistoles but his heart is in the right place. Yes a lot of what he says about the film making business is ridiculous and hyperbolic but when you boil it down to the bottom line what he says is true: I don't care how experienced and competent EON are at juggling all the logistics of a 250m movie - the absolute golden rule is you don't leave a bloke alone to write a script for a year and then suddenly weeks from cameras rolling notice actually it really isn't that good.

patb wrote: »

Interesting discussion re the way a script is developed and I can see all of the points above being valid. My earlier points were connected with the core concept/vision that a script revolves around. How long does it take forum members to decide if these are good ideas to base a script around?

Bond is M's cousin

Bond is Moneypenny's half brother

Bond donates kidney to Tanner

Bond is Blofeld's adopted brother (sort of)

Bond marries Swann and they live in a 3 bedroom semi in Tunbridge Wells

We have gut reactions to whether ideas work or not. I dont think its down to execution at a later stage. Good execution cant save a bad idea. Producers have a role in kicking these bad ideas into touch at the earliest possible opportunity (even better, hire writers who dont suggest them in the first place) in order to save time and money and in order not to produce movies that are poorly received..

This is basically it in a nutshell. None of us (except Panchito) are saying we could produce a Bond film better than EON. But we are saying that we could recognise a shit idea when we heard one and manage to root it out before it ended up in the final cut. And so should they.

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

I don't know about anybody else but... I would have rather had him as an African Warlord

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Yeah I love the African warlord idea for a villain

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

I think both the female Blofeld and the African warlord Blofeld could have worked, and don't believe any of these two ideas are inherently bad.

In the immortal words of Mr Noel Coward : 'No, no, no, no'

African warlords are just thugs. A Bond villain should have more class and style about him than a load of gold chains, a nicked Mercedes and an AK47. Even the most successful of them all, Idi Amin, was an absolute clown compared to a Blofeld, a Goldfinger or a Drax.

I could have lived with Meryl Streep as Blofeld though. Couldn't have been any worse than stepbrothergate.

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

What's bad is that they (producers + writers + even Mendes) had no vision. They didn't say "we have a great idea for a 21st century Blofeld, let's bring this big baddie back!", they said "et's bring Blofeld back whether we can come up with any good idea how to update him or not"

Excellent point, and one I think even your biggest detractors cannot argue with. Finally getting hold of the rights to SPECTRE they really were like a 15 year old getting their hands on their first copy of Razzle. Shot their wad everywhere without the slightest thought or planning. Its easy to slag off Marvel but I think they would have thought it through and introduced Blofeld over several films rather than have him go from Bond never having heard of him to vanquished in the space of one film.

bondjames wrote: »

Bond and skiing or aerial stunts go hand in hand. They practically wrote the book on it and it's high time they went back there and showed everyone how it's done.

I just watched Cliffhanger yesterday and for a 1993 film there are some wonderful sequences there, including what was for the time the most expensive aerial stunt (the heist in mid-air which Stallone apparently co-funded out of his own pocket due to insurance concerns). Time to step it up.

How long have we been saying this for? The last really standout action sequence in a Bond film was the CR parkour 11 long years ago. Remember the period 77 to 89 when we got stunning action sequence after stunning action sequence? As you say it really is time EON stepped up to the plate because Cruise and MI are leaving them in their wake at the moment.

If I was running the show I'd beg BJ Worth out of retirement and say 'Give me something to blow people away - money is no object.' Alas the QOS freefall sequence was a nail in the coffin that they'd rather do things with CGI these days. In the 80s BJ and Jake would've done that whole sequence for real, including pulling their chutes inside the sinkhole.

doubleoego wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

I think James Bond has a headstart over WW 2 here. Internationally Bond 25 has a better chance than WW 2. Suffice it to say, but WW actually didn't do so well as previously anticipated, whereas SP was close to gain almost $700 Million internationally excluding North America.

You don't know what you're on about, mate. WW didn't do as well as anticipated?? The film broke records and EVERY expectation. WW was in fact an unprecedented hit. There's no two ways about it. It grossed more money than the novelty of batman and superman appearing on film for the fitst time ever, was a ctitical hit, came off from a string of DCEU critical flops, was directed by a woman and the film in and of itself is a female-led film that made over $800Million. Like I said you don't know what you're on about.

Overall WW was not able to pass $900 Million, which is very much in line with other single character superhero movies these days. Same goes for the new Spiderman. Globally at least there's a slight superhero fatigue kicking in.

And now you're just making crap up. No DCEU film has made over $900Million. Outside of Marvel's Avengers films it's only Iron Man 3 and Civil War that has crossed a $Billion; and spider-man homecoming as the MCU's first solo soidey movie making over $800Million, makes it the 2nd highest grossing spider-man film made after being the 6th spidey film and the second reboot in 5 years...majes it a resounding success...and you honestly think what you said actually makes sense? Don't be silly or intellectually dishonest about this. As for Superhero fatigue, it's an unsubstantiated myth that's been touted by those who know nothing for tge better part of a decade and has never EVER been proven; and evidence only confirms the contrary. You can champion Bond 25 till the cows come home as much as you like but when you resort to spewing a load of bs it only reaffirms my first sentence of this post and that you have absolutely zero argument here.

Also, anticipation for Bond 25 will be higher than for WW 2. Simply because it'll be Craig's last. And my gut tells me that film will be marketed as such.

Anecdotal opinions don't mean much. I can easily say I know plenty of people or seen online/social media people not caring or showing an indifference to Craig and Bond in general. It doesn't mean I think Bond 25 won't do well.

I'm not worried at all for Bond 25.

That's your prerogative. Bond 25 will do well like all Bind movies ordinarilly do but you're dreaming if you think It's going to cross a $Billion/SF numbers. My only concern for Bond 25 is from a creative standpoint. It'll be 4 years since SP when it's released and it'll be overwhelmingly unacceptable if they serve us up another trash entry. They had 3 years with SP and the less said about that movie the better.

Couldn't agree more. WW smashed it out of the park considering the expectations and anyone who thinks going up against WW2 and Episode 9 is an easy ride is in for a rude awakening. Everyone knows already when Star Wars is going to be released so why do they lock a date in that means you get at best a month of IMAX screenings before you're booted off for the new Star Wars?

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

Ooowh? I was talking about the international market, not the US market. Having said so, "Wonder Woman" did good, but certainly not terrific. Especially the foreign market results from James Bond (especially "SPECTRE"), is something "Wonder Woman" could only dream of:

A film with a built in fan base over 50 years and a budget of $250m v a film that is part of a franchise that was pretty much stillborn with Batman v Superman and a budget of $150 and Bond only scraped $64m more? Think if I was an investor I'd be 'dreaming' of WW's return on my money over SP's.

peter wrote: »

was that the big news, @QuantumOrganization ? I swore you said an announcement would be made about distributor and a two pic deal... Quite adamant about that, I'm sure.

Pretty sure he said 'late August/early September'. Given that '30 days hath September' and today is the 14th I would say by any reasonable person's definition he has approximately 3hrs 30 GMT to deliver on this before we hit the 15th and are most definitely into mid September. Dont know about the rest of you but my unshakeable faith that he is the new Baz Bamigboye is starting to waver ever so slightly....

bondjames wrote: »

@AlexanderWaverly , I'm sure there was some impact from the 50th, but I believe it was marginal, at least based on anecdotal observations. Rather, it was the excellent reviews and very strong word of mouth that drove the 'legs' on SF. Nearly everyone I knew was talking about it - it was the film to see at the time. Most of that was due to Silva and the strength of the production/visuals, at least based on how people were describing it to me at the time. It became a sort of phenomenon. 'Fresh' in the public consciousness. It transcended its brand, just like TDK transcended Batman.

Normally I have to sell 'Bond' to my friends. What was amusing in 2012 is that they were selling Bond to me, almost as if they had forgotten I was a die hard.

Nobody even talked about SP. I had to go on the 'promotion' run again, as per normal.

patb wrote: »

SF is the only Bond movie my inlaws have seen at the cinema. All down to word of mouth at the tennis club. That really is transcending the brand.

Agreed. With SF everyone at work was talking about it and I got a fair bit of kudos for having gone to the premiere. With SP it was just tumbleweed.

Dear @TheWizardOfIce . Could you please lower the amount of embedded quotes and responses to that? It's quite annoying. And frankly, it

Dear @Gustav_Graves being annoying is a two way street and I don't have a monopoly on it but I chose to hold my tongue in the interests of social cohesion.

If what I write annoys you don't read it.

I might use that first sentence in the script I'm writing! Hilarious!

TheWizardOfIce

Dennison wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Been busy the last 24hrs so not had time to contribute so apologies in advance for the protracted nature of this but so many interesting points I cant resist wading in:

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

Are you off your meds? I NEVER wrote half the forum would do a better job of producing than BB. I wrote "a large percentage", and considering what we are talking about (Bond fans being better at producing a Bon film than BB+MGW or not), 30 or even just 20% can be considered large. Btw, I absolutely still maintain that a large percentage of people regularly posting here would do a better job at producing Bond 25 or any Bond film.

I'm kind of with you in principal but that's just ludicrous. I know for sure that if I was tasked with producing a Bond film I would do a better job than 90% of the comedians on here but would I do a better job than Babs? Not a chance.

That said
a) I would certainly do a better job of not signing off on some of the appalling script decisions she made on SP and also the decisions made on DAD (when we're busy castigating SP lets not also forget that she oversaw the indisputable low point of the series history a mere 3 films earlier).
b) If I had been born into the job then would I do any better or worse? Easy to say none of us would do any better but none of us have had the luxury of being groomed for the job from birth.

Thunderfinger wrote: »

"We have made a mistake!"

Shimata!!! (Is that allowed on here or is it verboten in case it is offensive to any Japanese members?)

007Blofeld wrote: »

@RichardTheBruce yeah if they can get 200 million or more from there 200 mill from uk 300 million from us and rest of the world 700-800 million bond 25 will be in good shape they may need to get as much money out of china as they can since the us market went out the window with the SW release date change and it would make sense to target china anyway since mgm tried to be bought out by china never thought bond was so relaint on china until now and now I see why.

I really am desperate for us not to court the Chinese market when you see some of the dross they have lapped up recently. Even if it restricts us to making 600-700m rather than hitting the 1b mark - just dont do it.

bondjames wrote: »

This is not my area, but just from reading these posts, I think the comments by some are focused on a desire for tighter producer control going forward in the early stages. I can't argue with that. I think it's highly desirable. Clarity of vision from the top surely can keep a writer's impulse in check and avoid tangents.

100% bang on the money.

A lot of people are smashing @PanchitoPistoles but his heart is in the right place. Yes a lot of what he says about the film making business is ridiculous and hyperbolic but when you boil it down to the bottom line what he says is true: I don't care how experienced and competent EON are at juggling all the logistics of a 250m movie - the absolute golden rule is you don't leave a bloke alone to write a script for a year and then suddenly weeks from cameras rolling notice actually it really isn't that good.

patb wrote: »

Interesting discussion re the way a script is developed and I can see all of the points above being valid. My earlier points were connected with the core concept/vision that a script revolves around. How long does it take forum members to decide if these are good ideas to base a script around?

Bond is M's cousin

Bond is Moneypenny's half brother

Bond donates kidney to Tanner

Bond is Blofeld's adopted brother (sort of)

Bond marries Swann and they live in a 3 bedroom semi in Tunbridge Wells

We have gut reactions to whether ideas work or not. I dont think its down to execution at a later stage. Good execution cant save a bad idea. Producers have a role in kicking these bad ideas into touch at the earliest possible opportunity (even better, hire writers who dont suggest them in the first place) in order to save time and money and in order not to produce movies that are poorly received..

This is basically it in a nutshell. None of us (except Panchito) are saying we could produce a Bond film better than EON. But we are saying that we could recognise a shit idea when we heard one and manage to root it out before it ended up in the final cut. And so should they.

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

I don't know about anybody else but... I would have rather had him as an African Warlord

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Yeah I love the African warlord idea for a villain

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

I think both the female Blofeld and the African warlord Blofeld could have worked, and don't believe any of these two ideas are inherently bad.

In the immortal words of Mr Noel Coward : 'No, no, no, no'

African warlords are just thugs. A Bond villain should have more class and style about him than a load of gold chains, a nicked Mercedes and an AK47. Even the most successful of them all, Idi Amin, was an absolute clown compared to a Blofeld, a Goldfinger or a Drax.

I could have lived with Meryl Streep as Blofeld though. Couldn't have been any worse than stepbrothergate.

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

What's bad is that they (producers + writers + even Mendes) had no vision. They didn't say "we have a great idea for a 21st century Blofeld, let's bring this big baddie back!", they said "et's bring Blofeld back whether we can come up with any good idea how to update him or not"

Excellent point, and one I think even your biggest detractors cannot argue with. Finally getting hold of the rights to SPECTRE they really were like a 15 year old getting their hands on their first copy of Razzle. Shot their wad everywhere without the slightest thought or planning. Its easy to slag off Marvel but I think they would have thought it through and introduced Blofeld over several films rather than have him go from Bond never having heard of him to vanquished in the space of one film.

bondjames wrote: »

Bond and skiing or aerial stunts go hand in hand. They practically wrote the book on it and it's high time they went back there and showed everyone how it's done.

I just watched Cliffhanger yesterday and for a 1993 film there are some wonderful sequences there, including what was for the time the most expensive aerial stunt (the heist in mid-air which Stallone apparently co-funded out of his own pocket due to insurance concerns). Time to step it up.

How long have we been saying this for? The last really standout action sequence in a Bond film was the CR parkour 11 long years ago. Remember the period 77 to 89 when we got stunning action sequence after stunning action sequence? As you say it really is time EON stepped up to the plate because Cruise and MI are leaving them in their wake at the moment.

If I was running the show I'd beg BJ Worth out of retirement and say 'Give me something to blow people away - money is no object.' Alas the QOS freefall sequence was a nail in the coffin that they'd rather do things with CGI these days. In the 80s BJ and Jake would've done that whole sequence for real, including pulling their chutes inside the sinkhole.

doubleoego wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

I think James Bond has a headstart over WW 2 here. Internationally Bond 25 has a better chance than WW 2. Suffice it to say, but WW actually didn't do so well as previously anticipated, whereas SP was close to gain almost $700 Million internationally excluding North America.

You don't know what you're on about, mate. WW didn't do as well as anticipated?? The film broke records and EVERY expectation. WW was in fact an unprecedented hit. There's no two ways about it. It grossed more money than the novelty of batman and superman appearing on film for the fitst time ever, was a ctitical hit, came off from a string of DCEU critical flops, was directed by a woman and the film in and of itself is a female-led film that made over $800Million. Like I said you don't know what you're on about.

Overall WW was not able to pass $900 Million, which is very much in line with other single character superhero movies these days. Same goes for the new Spiderman. Globally at least there's a slight superhero fatigue kicking in.

And now you're just making crap up. No DCEU film has made over $900Million. Outside of Marvel's Avengers films it's only Iron Man 3 and Civil War that has crossed a $Billion; and spider-man homecoming as the MCU's first solo soidey movie making over $800Million, makes it the 2nd highest grossing spider-man film made after being the 6th spidey film and the second reboot in 5 years...majes it a resounding success...and you honestly think what you said actually makes sense? Don't be silly or intellectually dishonest about this. As for Superhero fatigue, it's an unsubstantiated myth that's been touted by those who know nothing for tge better part of a decade and has never EVER been proven; and evidence only confirms the contrary. You can champion Bond 25 till the cows come home as much as you like but when you resort to spewing a load of bs it only reaffirms my first sentence of this post and that you have absolutely zero argument here.

Also, anticipation for Bond 25 will be higher than for WW 2. Simply because it'll be Craig's last. And my gut tells me that film will be marketed as such.

Anecdotal opinions don't mean much. I can easily say I know plenty of people or seen online/social media people not caring or showing an indifference to Craig and Bond in general. It doesn't mean I think Bond 25 won't do well.

I'm not worried at all for Bond 25.

That's your prerogative. Bond 25 will do well like all Bind movies ordinarilly do but you're dreaming if you think It's going to cross a $Billion/SF numbers. My only concern for Bond 25 is from a creative standpoint. It'll be 4 years since SP when it's released and it'll be overwhelmingly unacceptable if they serve us up another trash entry. They had 3 years with SP and the less said about that movie the better.

Couldn't agree more. WW smashed it out of the park considering the expectations and anyone who thinks going up against WW2 and Episode 9 is an easy ride is in for a rude awakening. Everyone knows already when Star Wars is going to be released so why do they lock a date in that means you get at best a month of IMAX screenings before you're booted off for the new Star Wars?

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

Ooowh? I was talking about the international market, not the US market. Having said so, "Wonder Woman" did good, but certainly not terrific. Especially the foreign market results from James Bond (especially "SPECTRE"), is something "Wonder Woman" could only dream of:

A film with a built in fan base over 50 years and a budget of $250m v a film that is part of a franchise that was pretty much stillborn with Batman v Superman and a budget of $150 and Bond only scraped $64m more? Think if I was an investor I'd be 'dreaming' of WW's return on my money over SP's.

peter wrote: »

was that the big news, @QuantumOrganization ? I swore you said an announcement would be made about distributor and a two pic deal... Quite adamant about that, I'm sure.

Pretty sure he said 'late August/early September'. Given that '30 days hath September' and today is the 14th I would say by any reasonable person's definition he has approximately 3hrs 30 GMT to deliver on this before we hit the 15th and are most definitely into mid September. Dont know about the rest of you but my unshakeable faith that he is the new Baz Bamigboye is starting to waver ever so slightly....

bondjames wrote: »

@AlexanderWaverly , I'm sure there was some impact from the 50th, but I believe it was marginal, at least based on anecdotal observations. Rather, it was the excellent reviews and very strong word of mouth that drove the 'legs' on SF. Nearly everyone I knew was talking about it - it was the film to see at the time. Most of that was due to Silva and the strength of the production/visuals, at least based on how people were describing it to me at the time. It became a sort of phenomenon. 'Fresh' in the public consciousness. It transcended its brand, just like TDK transcended Batman.

Normally I have to sell 'Bond' to my friends. What was amusing in 2012 is that they were selling Bond to me, almost as if they had forgotten I was a die hard.

Nobody even talked about SP. I had to go on the 'promotion' run again, as per normal.

patb wrote: »

SF is the only Bond movie my inlaws have seen at the cinema. All down to word of mouth at the tennis club. That really is transcending the brand.

Agreed. With SF everyone at work was talking about it and I got a fair bit of kudos for having gone to the premiere. With SP it was just tumbleweed.

Dear @TheWizardOfIce . Could you please lower the amount of embedded quotes and responses to that? It's quite annoying. And frankly, it

Dear @Gustav_Graves being annoying is a two way street and I don't have a monopoly on it but I chose to hold my tongue in the interests of social cohesion.

If what I write annoys you don't read it.

I might use that first sentence in the script I'm writing! Hilarious!

By all means Sir as long as I get a credit.

barryt007

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Dennison wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Been busy the last 24hrs so not had time to contribute so apologies in advance for the protracted nature of this but so many interesting points I cant resist wading in:

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

Are you off your meds? I NEVER wrote half the forum would do a better job of producing than BB. I wrote "a large percentage", and considering what we are talking about (Bond fans being better at producing a Bon film than BB+MGW or not), 30 or even just 20% can be considered large. Btw, I absolutely still maintain that a large percentage of people regularly posting here would do a better job at producing Bond 25 or any Bond film.

I'm kind of with you in principal but that's just ludicrous. I know for sure that if I was tasked with producing a Bond film I would do a better job than 90% of the comedians on here but would I do a better job than Babs? Not a chance.

That said
a) I would certainly do a better job of not signing off on some of the appalling script decisions she made on SP and also the decisions made on DAD (when we're busy castigating SP lets not also forget that she oversaw the indisputable low point of the series history a mere 3 films earlier).
b) If I had been born into the job then would I do any better or worse? Easy to say none of us would do any better but none of us have had the luxury of being groomed for the job from birth.

Thunderfinger wrote: »

"We have made a mistake!"

Shimata!!! (Is that allowed on here or is it verboten in case it is offensive to any Japanese members?)

007Blofeld wrote: »

@RichardTheBruce yeah if they can get 200 million or more from there 200 mill from uk 300 million from us and rest of the world 700-800 million bond 25 will be in good shape they may need to get as much money out of china as they can since the us market went out the window with the SW release date change and it would make sense to target china anyway since mgm tried to be bought out by china never thought bond was so relaint on china until now and now I see why.

I really am desperate for us not to court the Chinese market when you see some of the dross they have lapped up recently. Even if it restricts us to making 600-700m rather than hitting the 1b mark - just dont do it.

bondjames wrote: »

This is not my area, but just from reading these posts, I think the comments by some are focused on a desire for tighter producer control going forward in the early stages. I can't argue with that. I think it's highly desirable. Clarity of vision from the top surely can keep a writer's impulse in check and avoid tangents.

100% bang on the money.

A lot of people are smashing @PanchitoPistoles but his heart is in the right place. Yes a lot of what he says about the film making business is ridiculous and hyperbolic but when you boil it down to the bottom line what he says is true: I don't care how experienced and competent EON are at juggling all the logistics of a 250m movie - the absolute golden rule is you don't leave a bloke alone to write a script for a year and then suddenly weeks from cameras rolling notice actually it really isn't that good.

patb wrote: »

Interesting discussion re the way a script is developed and I can see all of the points above being valid. My earlier points were connected with the core concept/vision that a script revolves around. How long does it take forum members to decide if these are good ideas to base a script around?

Bond is M's cousin

Bond is Moneypenny's half brother

Bond donates kidney to Tanner

Bond is Blofeld's adopted brother (sort of)

Bond marries Swann and they live in a 3 bedroom semi in Tunbridge Wells

We have gut reactions to whether ideas work or not. I dont think its down to execution at a later stage. Good execution cant save a bad idea. Producers have a role in kicking these bad ideas into touch at the earliest possible opportunity (even better, hire writers who dont suggest them in the first place) in order to save time and money and in order not to produce movies that are poorly received..

This is basically it in a nutshell. None of us (except Panchito) are saying we could produce a Bond film better than EON. But we are saying that we could recognise a shit idea when we heard one and manage to root it out before it ended up in the final cut. And so should they.

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

I don't know about anybody else but... I would have rather had him as an African Warlord

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Yeah I love the African warlord idea for a villain

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

I think both the female Blofeld and the African warlord Blofeld could have worked, and don't believe any of these two ideas are inherently bad.

In the immortal words of Mr Noel Coward : 'No, no, no, no'

African warlords are just thugs. A Bond villain should have more class and style about him than a load of gold chains, a nicked Mercedes and an AK47. Even the most successful of them all, Idi Amin, was an absolute clown compared to a Blofeld, a Goldfinger or a Drax.

I could have lived with Meryl Streep as Blofeld though. Couldn't have been any worse than stepbrothergate.

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

What's bad is that they (producers + writers + even Mendes) had no vision. They didn't say "we have a great idea for a 21st century Blofeld, let's bring this big baddie back!", they said "et's bring Blofeld back whether we can come up with any good idea how to update him or not"

Excellent point, and one I think even your biggest detractors cannot argue with. Finally getting hold of the rights to SPECTRE they really were like a 15 year old getting their hands on their first copy of Razzle. Shot their wad everywhere without the slightest thought or planning. Its easy to slag off Marvel but I think they would have thought it through and introduced Blofeld over several films rather than have him go from Bond never having heard of him to vanquished in the space of one film.

bondjames wrote: »

Bond and skiing or aerial stunts go hand in hand. They practically wrote the book on it and it's high time they went back there and showed everyone how it's done.

I just watched Cliffhanger yesterday and for a 1993 film there are some wonderful sequences there, including what was for the time the most expensive aerial stunt (the heist in mid-air which Stallone apparently co-funded out of his own pocket due to insurance concerns). Time to step it up.

How long have we been saying this for? The last really standout action sequence in a Bond film was the CR parkour 11 long years ago. Remember the period 77 to 89 when we got stunning action sequence after stunning action sequence? As you say it really is time EON stepped up to the plate because Cruise and MI are leaving them in their wake at the moment.

If I was running the show I'd beg BJ Worth out of retirement and say 'Give me something to blow people away - money is no object.' Alas the QOS freefall sequence was a nail in the coffin that they'd rather do things with CGI these days. In the 80s BJ and Jake would've done that whole sequence for real, including pulling their chutes inside the sinkhole.

doubleoego wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

I think James Bond has a headstart over WW 2 here. Internationally Bond 25 has a better chance than WW 2. Suffice it to say, but WW actually didn't do so well as previously anticipated, whereas SP was close to gain almost $700 Million internationally excluding North America.

You don't know what you're on about, mate. WW didn't do as well as anticipated?? The film broke records and EVERY expectation. WW was in fact an unprecedented hit. There's no two ways about it. It grossed more money than the novelty of batman and superman appearing on film for the fitst time ever, was a ctitical hit, came off from a string of DCEU critical flops, was directed by a woman and the film in and of itself is a female-led film that made over $800Million. Like I said you don't know what you're on about.

Overall WW was not able to pass $900 Million, which is very much in line with other single character superhero movies these days. Same goes for the new Spiderman. Globally at least there's a slight superhero fatigue kicking in.

And now you're just making crap up. No DCEU film has made over $900Million. Outside of Marvel's Avengers films it's only Iron Man 3 and Civil War that has crossed a $Billion; and spider-man homecoming as the MCU's first solo soidey movie making over $800Million, makes it the 2nd highest grossing spider-man film made after being the 6th spidey film and the second reboot in 5 years...majes it a resounding success...and you honestly think what you said actually makes sense? Don't be silly or intellectually dishonest about this. As for Superhero fatigue, it's an unsubstantiated myth that's been touted by those who know nothing for tge better part of a decade and has never EVER been proven; and evidence only confirms the contrary. You can champion Bond 25 till the cows come home as much as you like but when you resort to spewing a load of bs it only reaffirms my first sentence of this post and that you have absolutely zero argument here.

Also, anticipation for Bond 25 will be higher than for WW 2. Simply because it'll be Craig's last. And my gut tells me that film will be marketed as such.

Anecdotal opinions don't mean much. I can easily say I know plenty of people or seen online/social media people not caring or showing an indifference to Craig and Bond in general. It doesn't mean I think Bond 25 won't do well.

I'm not worried at all for Bond 25.

That's your prerogative. Bond 25 will do well like all Bind movies ordinarilly do but you're dreaming if you think It's going to cross a $Billion/SF numbers. My only concern for Bond 25 is from a creative standpoint. It'll be 4 years since SP when it's released and it'll be overwhelmingly unacceptable if they serve us up another trash entry. They had 3 years with SP and the less said about that movie the better.

Couldn't agree more. WW smashed it out of the park considering the expectations and anyone who thinks going up against WW2 and Episode 9 is an easy ride is in for a rude awakening. Everyone knows already when Star Wars is going to be released so why do they lock a date in that means you get at best a month of IMAX screenings before you're booted off for the new Star Wars?

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

Ooowh? I was talking about the international market, not the US market. Having said so, "Wonder Woman" did good, but certainly not terrific. Especially the foreign market results from James Bond (especially "SPECTRE"), is something "Wonder Woman" could only dream of:

A film with a built in fan base over 50 years and a budget of $250m v a film that is part of a franchise that was pretty much stillborn with Batman v Superman and a budget of $150 and Bond only scraped $64m more? Think if I was an investor I'd be 'dreaming' of WW's return on my money over SP's.

peter wrote: »

was that the big news, @QuantumOrganization ? I swore you said an announcement would be made about distributor and a two pic deal... Quite adamant about that, I'm sure.

Pretty sure he said 'late August/early September'. Given that '30 days hath September' and today is the 14th I would say by any reasonable person's definition he has approximately 3hrs 30 GMT to deliver on this before we hit the 15th and are most definitely into mid September. Dont know about the rest of you but my unshakeable faith that he is the new Baz Bamigboye is starting to waver ever so slightly....

bondjames wrote: »

@AlexanderWaverly , I'm sure there was some impact from the 50th, but I believe it was marginal, at least based on anecdotal observations. Rather, it was the excellent reviews and very strong word of mouth that drove the 'legs' on SF. Nearly everyone I knew was talking about it - it was the film to see at the time. Most of that was due to Silva and the strength of the production/visuals, at least based on how people were describing it to me at the time. It became a sort of phenomenon. 'Fresh' in the public consciousness. It transcended its brand, just like TDK transcended Batman.

Normally I have to sell 'Bond' to my friends. What was amusing in 2012 is that they were selling Bond to me, almost as if they had forgotten I was a die hard.

Nobody even talked about SP. I had to go on the 'promotion' run again, as per normal.

patb wrote: »

SF is the only Bond movie my inlaws have seen at the cinema. All down to word of mouth at the tennis club. That really is transcending the brand.

Agreed. With SF everyone at work was talking about it and I got a fair bit of kudos for having gone to the premiere. With SP it was just tumbleweed.

Dear @TheWizardOfIce . Could you please lower the amount of embedded quotes and responses to that? It's quite annoying. And frankly, it

Dear @Gustav_Graves being annoying is a two way street and I don't have a monopoly on it but I chose to hold my tongue in the interests of social cohesion.

If what I write annoys you don't read it.

I might use that first sentence in the script I'm writing! Hilarious!

By all means Sir as long as I get a credit.

And a fee eh Wiz ? ;)

TheWizardOfIce

barryt007 wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Dennison wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Been busy the last 24hrs so not had time to contribute so apologies in advance for the protracted nature of this but so many interesting points I cant resist wading in:

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

Are you off your meds? I NEVER wrote half the forum would do a better job of producing than BB. I wrote "a large percentage", and considering what we are talking about (Bond fans being better at producing a Bon film than BB+MGW or not), 30 or even just 20% can be considered large. Btw, I absolutely still maintain that a large percentage of people regularly posting here would do a better job at producing Bond 25 or any Bond film.

I'm kind of with you in principal but that's just ludicrous. I know for sure that if I was tasked with producing a Bond film I would do a better job than 90% of the comedians on here but would I do a better job than Babs? Not a chance.

That said
a) I would certainly do a better job of not signing off on some of the appalling script decisions she made on SP and also the decisions made on DAD (when we're busy castigating SP lets not also forget that she oversaw the indisputable low point of the series history a mere 3 films earlier).
b) If I had been born into the job then would I do any better or worse? Easy to say none of us would do any better but none of us have had the luxury of being groomed for the job from birth.

Thunderfinger wrote: »

"We have made a mistake!"

Shimata!!! (Is that allowed on here or is it verboten in case it is offensive to any Japanese members?)

007Blofeld wrote: »

@RichardTheBruce yeah if they can get 200 million or more from there 200 mill from uk 300 million from us and rest of the world 700-800 million bond 25 will be in good shape they may need to get as much money out of china as they can since the us market went out the window with the SW release date change and it would make sense to target china anyway since mgm tried to be bought out by china never thought bond was so relaint on china until now and now I see why.

I really am desperate for us not to court the Chinese market when you see some of the dross they have lapped up recently. Even if it restricts us to making 600-700m rather than hitting the 1b mark - just dont do it.

bondjames wrote: »

This is not my area, but just from reading these posts, I think the comments by some are focused on a desire for tighter producer control going forward in the early stages. I can't argue with that. I think it's highly desirable. Clarity of vision from the top surely can keep a writer's impulse in check and avoid tangents.

100% bang on the money.

A lot of people are smashing @PanchitoPistoles but his heart is in the right place. Yes a lot of what he says about the film making business is ridiculous and hyperbolic but when you boil it down to the bottom line what he says is true: I don't care how experienced and competent EON are at juggling all the logistics of a 250m movie - the absolute golden rule is you don't leave a bloke alone to write a script for a year and then suddenly weeks from cameras rolling notice actually it really isn't that good.

patb wrote: »

Interesting discussion re the way a script is developed and I can see all of the points above being valid. My earlier points were connected with the core concept/vision that a script revolves around. How long does it take forum members to decide if these are good ideas to base a script around?

Bond is M's cousin

Bond is Moneypenny's half brother

Bond donates kidney to Tanner

Bond is Blofeld's adopted brother (sort of)

Bond marries Swann and they live in a 3 bedroom semi in Tunbridge Wells

We have gut reactions to whether ideas work or not. I dont think its down to execution at a later stage. Good execution cant save a bad idea. Producers have a role in kicking these bad ideas into touch at the earliest possible opportunity (even better, hire writers who dont suggest them in the first place) in order to save time and money and in order not to produce movies that are poorly received..

This is basically it in a nutshell. None of us (except Panchito) are saying we could produce a Bond film better than EON. But we are saying that we could recognise a shit idea when we heard one and manage to root it out before it ended up in the final cut. And so should they.

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

I don't know about anybody else but... I would have rather had him as an African Warlord

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Yeah I love the African warlord idea for a villain

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

I think both the female Blofeld and the African warlord Blofeld could have worked, and don't believe any of these two ideas are inherently bad.

In the immortal words of Mr Noel Coward : 'No, no, no, no'

African warlords are just thugs. A Bond villain should have more class and style about him than a load of gold chains, a nicked Mercedes and an AK47. Even the most successful of them all, Idi Amin, was an absolute clown compared to a Blofeld, a Goldfinger or a Drax.

I could have lived with Meryl Streep as Blofeld though. Couldn't have been any worse than stepbrothergate.

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

What's bad is that they (producers + writers + even Mendes) had no vision. They didn't say "we have a great idea for a 21st century Blofeld, let's bring this big baddie back!", they said "et's bring Blofeld back whether we can come up with any good idea how to update him or not"

Excellent point, and one I think even your biggest detractors cannot argue with. Finally getting hold of the rights to SPECTRE they really were like a 15 year old getting their hands on their first copy of Razzle. Shot their wad everywhere without the slightest thought or planning. Its easy to slag off Marvel but I think they would have thought it through and introduced Blofeld over several films rather than have him go from Bond never having heard of him to vanquished in the space of one film.

bondjames wrote: »

Bond and skiing or aerial stunts go hand in hand. They practically wrote the book on it and it's high time they went back there and showed everyone how it's done.

I just watched Cliffhanger yesterday and for a 1993 film there are some wonderful sequences there, including what was for the time the most expensive aerial stunt (the heist in mid-air which Stallone apparently co-funded out of his own pocket due to insurance concerns). Time to step it up.

How long have we been saying this for? The last really standout action sequence in a Bond film was the CR parkour 11 long years ago. Remember the period 77 to 89 when we got stunning action sequence after stunning action sequence? As you say it really is time EON stepped up to the plate because Cruise and MI are leaving them in their wake at the moment.

If I was running the show I'd beg BJ Worth out of retirement and say 'Give me something to blow people away - money is no object.' Alas the QOS freefall sequence was a nail in the coffin that they'd rather do things with CGI these days. In the 80s BJ and Jake would've done that whole sequence for real, including pulling their chutes inside the sinkhole.

doubleoego wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

I think James Bond has a headstart over WW 2 here. Internationally Bond 25 has a better chance than WW 2. Suffice it to say, but WW actually didn't do so well as previously anticipated, whereas SP was close to gain almost $700 Million internationally excluding North America.

You don't know what you're on about, mate. WW didn't do as well as anticipated?? The film broke records and EVERY expectation. WW was in fact an unprecedented hit. There's no two ways about it. It grossed more money than the novelty of batman and superman appearing on film for the fitst time ever, was a ctitical hit, came off from a string of DCEU critical flops, was directed by a woman and the film in and of itself is a female-led film that made over $800Million. Like I said you don't know what you're on about.

Overall WW was not able to pass $900 Million, which is very much in line with other single character superhero movies these days. Same goes for the new Spiderman. Globally at least there's a slight superhero fatigue kicking in.

And now you're just making crap up. No DCEU film has made over $900Million. Outside of Marvel's Avengers films it's only Iron Man 3 and Civil War that has crossed a $Billion; and spider-man homecoming as the MCU's first solo soidey movie making over $800Million, makes it the 2nd highest grossing spider-man film made after being the 6th spidey film and the second reboot in 5 years...majes it a resounding success...and you honestly think what you said actually makes sense? Don't be silly or intellectually dishonest about this. As for Superhero fatigue, it's an unsubstantiated myth that's been touted by those who know nothing for tge better part of a decade and has never EVER been proven; and evidence only confirms the contrary. You can champion Bond 25 till the cows come home as much as you like but when you resort to spewing a load of bs it only reaffirms my first sentence of this post and that you have absolutely zero argument here.

Also, anticipation for Bond 25 will be higher than for WW 2. Simply because it'll be Craig's last. And my gut tells me that film will be marketed as such.

Anecdotal opinions don't mean much. I can easily say I know plenty of people or seen online/social media people not caring or showing an indifference to Craig and Bond in general. It doesn't mean I think Bond 25 won't do well.

I'm not worried at all for Bond 25.

That's your prerogative. Bond 25 will do well like all Bind movies ordinarilly do but you're dreaming if you think It's going to cross a $Billion/SF numbers. My only concern for Bond 25 is from a creative standpoint. It'll be 4 years since SP when it's released and it'll be overwhelmingly unacceptable if they serve us up another trash entry. They had 3 years with SP and the less said about that movie the better.

Couldn't agree more. WW smashed it out of the park considering the expectations and anyone who thinks going up against WW2 and Episode 9 is an easy ride is in for a rude awakening. Everyone knows already when Star Wars is going to be released so why do they lock a date in that means you get at best a month of IMAX screenings before you're booted off for the new Star Wars?

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

Ooowh? I was talking about the international market, not the US market. Having said so, "Wonder Woman" did good, but certainly not terrific. Especially the foreign market results from James Bond (especially "SPECTRE"), is something "Wonder Woman" could only dream of:

A film with a built in fan base over 50 years and a budget of $250m v a film that is part of a franchise that was pretty much stillborn with Batman v Superman and a budget of $150 and Bond only scraped $64m more? Think if I was an investor I'd be 'dreaming' of WW's return on my money over SP's.

peter wrote: »

was that the big news, @QuantumOrganization ? I swore you said an announcement would be made about distributor and a two pic deal... Quite adamant about that, I'm sure.

Pretty sure he said 'late August/early September'. Given that '30 days hath September' and today is the 14th I would say by any reasonable person's definition he has approximately 3hrs 30 GMT to deliver on this before we hit the 15th and are most definitely into mid September. Dont know about the rest of you but my unshakeable faith that he is the new Baz Bamigboye is starting to waver ever so slightly....

bondjames wrote: »

@AlexanderWaverly , I'm sure there was some impact from the 50th, but I believe it was marginal, at least based on anecdotal observations. Rather, it was the excellent reviews and very strong word of mouth that drove the 'legs' on SF. Nearly everyone I knew was talking about it - it was the film to see at the time. Most of that was due to Silva and the strength of the production/visuals, at least based on how people were describing it to me at the time. It became a sort of phenomenon. 'Fresh' in the public consciousness. It transcended its brand, just like TDK transcended Batman.

Normally I have to sell 'Bond' to my friends. What was amusing in 2012 is that they were selling Bond to me, almost as if they had forgotten I was a die hard.

Nobody even talked about SP. I had to go on the 'promotion' run again, as per normal.

patb wrote: »

SF is the only Bond movie my inlaws have seen at the cinema. All down to word of mouth at the tennis club. That really is transcending the brand.

Agreed. With SF everyone at work was talking about it and I got a fair bit of kudos for having gone to the premiere. With SP it was just tumbleweed.

Dear @TheWizardOfIce . Could you please lower the amount of embedded quotes and responses to that? It's quite annoying. And frankly, it

Dear @Gustav_Graves being annoying is a two way street and I don't have a monopoly on it but I chose to hold my tongue in the interests of social cohesion.

If what I write annoys you don't read it.

I might use that first sentence in the script I'm writing! Hilarious!

By all means Sir as long as I get a credit.

And a fee eh Wiz ? ;)

Well I let my agent handle that side of things.

Gustav_Graves

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Been busy the last 24hrs so not had time to contribute so apologies in advance for the protracted nature of this but so many interesting points I cant resist wading in:

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

Are you off your meds? I NEVER wrote half the forum would do a better job of producing than BB. I wrote "a large percentage", and considering what we are talking about (Bond fans being better at producing a Bon film than BB+MGW or not), 30 or even just 20% can be considered large. Btw, I absolutely still maintain that a large percentage of people regularly posting here would do a better job at producing Bond 25 or any Bond film.

I'm kind of with you in principal but that's just ludicrous. I know for sure that if I was tasked with producing a Bond film I would do a better job than 90% of the comedians on here but would I do a better job than Babs? Not a chance.

That said
a) I would certainly do a better job of not signing off on some of the appalling script decisions she made on SP and also the decisions made on DAD (when we're busy castigating SP lets not also forget that she oversaw the indisputable low point of the series history a mere 3 films earlier).
b) If I had been born into the job then would I do any better or worse? Easy to say none of us would do any better but none of us have had the luxury of being groomed for the job from birth.

Thunderfinger wrote: »

"We have made a mistake!"

Shimata!!! (Is that allowed on here or is it verboten in case it is offensive to any Japanese members?)

007Blofeld wrote: »

@RichardTheBruce yeah if they can get 200 million or more from there 200 mill from uk 300 million from us and rest of the world 700-800 million bond 25 will be in good shape they may need to get as much money out of china as they can since the us market went out the window with the SW release date change and it would make sense to target china anyway since mgm tried to be bought out by china never thought bond was so relaint on china until now and now I see why.

I really am desperate for us not to court the Chinese market when you see some of the dross they have lapped up recently. Even if it restricts us to making 600-700m rather than hitting the 1b mark - just dont do it.

bondjames wrote: »

This is not my area, but just from reading these posts, I think the comments by some are focused on a desire for tighter producer control going forward in the early stages. I can't argue with that. I think it's highly desirable. Clarity of vision from the top surely can keep a writer's impulse in check and avoid tangents.

100% bang on the money.

A lot of people are smashing @PanchitoPistoles but his heart is in the right place. Yes a lot of what he says about the film making business is ridiculous and hyperbolic but when you boil it down to the bottom line what he says is true: I don't care how experienced and competent EON are at juggling all the logistics of a 250m movie - the absolute golden rule is you don't leave a bloke alone to write a script for a year and then suddenly weeks from cameras rolling notice actually it really isn't that good.

patb wrote: »

Interesting discussion re the way a script is developed and I can see all of the points above being valid. My earlier points were connected with the core concept/vision that a script revolves around. How long does it take forum members to decide if these are good ideas to base a script around?

Bond is M's cousin

Bond is Moneypenny's half brother

Bond donates kidney to Tanner

Bond is Blofeld's adopted brother (sort of)

Bond marries Swann and they live in a 3 bedroom semi in Tunbridge Wells

We have gut reactions to whether ideas work or not. I dont think its down to execution at a later stage. Good execution cant save a bad idea. Producers have a role in kicking these bad ideas into touch at the earliest possible opportunity (even better, hire writers who dont suggest them in the first place) in order to save time and money and in order not to produce movies that are poorly received..

This is basically it in a nutshell. None of us (except Panchito) are saying we could produce a Bond film better than EON. But we are saying that we could recognise a shit idea when we heard one and manage to root it out before it ended up in the final cut. And so should they.

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

I don't know about anybody else but... I would have rather had him as an African Warlord

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Yeah I love the African warlord idea for a villain

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

I think both the female Blofeld and the African warlord Blofeld could have worked, and don't believe any of these two ideas are inherently bad.

In the immortal words of Mr Noel Coward : 'No, no, no, no'

African warlords are just thugs. A Bond villain should have more class and style about him than a load of gold chains, a nicked Mercedes and an AK47. Even the most successful of them all, Idi Amin, was an absolute clown compared to a Blofeld, a Goldfinger or a Drax.

I could have lived with Meryl Streep as Blofeld though. Couldn't have been any worse than stepbrothergate.

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

What's bad is that they (producers + writers + even Mendes) had no vision. They didn't say "we have a great idea for a 21st century Blofeld, let's bring this big baddie back!", they said "et's bring Blofeld back whether we can come up with any good idea how to update him or not"

Excellent point, and one I think even your biggest detractors cannot argue with. Finally getting hold of the rights to SPECTRE they really were like a 15 year old getting their hands on their first copy of Razzle. Shot their wad everywhere without the slightest thought or planning. Its easy to slag off Marvel but I think they would have thought it through and introduced Blofeld over several films rather than have him go from Bond never having heard of him to vanquished in the space of one film.

bondjames wrote: »

Bond and skiing or aerial stunts go hand in hand. They practically wrote the book on it and it's high time they went back there and showed everyone how it's done.

I just watched Cliffhanger yesterday and for a 1993 film there are some wonderful sequences there, including what was for the time the most expensive aerial stunt (the heist in mid-air which Stallone apparently co-funded out of his own pocket due to insurance concerns). Time to step it up.

How long have we been saying this for? The last really standout action sequence in a Bond film was the CR parkour 11 long years ago. Remember the period 77 to 89 when we got stunning action sequence after stunning action sequence? As you say it really is time EON stepped up to the plate because Cruise and MI are leaving them in their wake at the moment.

If I was running the show I'd beg BJ Worth out of retirement and say 'Give me something to blow people away - money is no object.' Alas the QOS freefall sequence was a nail in the coffin that they'd rather do things with CGI these days. In the 80s BJ and Jake would've done that whole sequence for real, including pulling their chutes inside the sinkhole.

doubleoego wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

I think James Bond has a headstart over WW 2 here. Internationally Bond 25 has a better chance than WW 2. Suffice it to say, but WW actually didn't do so well as previously anticipated, whereas SP was close to gain almost $700 Million internationally excluding North America.

You don't know what you're on about, mate. WW didn't do as well as anticipated?? The film broke records and EVERY expectation. WW was in fact an unprecedented hit. There's no two ways about it. It grossed more money than the novelty of batman and superman appearing on film for the fitst time ever, was a ctitical hit, came off from a string of DCEU critical flops, was directed by a woman and the film in and of itself is a female-led film that made over $800Million. Like I said you don't know what you're on about.

Overall WW was not able to pass $900 Million, which is very much in line with other single character superhero movies these days. Same goes for the new Spiderman. Globally at least there's a slight superhero fatigue kicking in.

And now you're just making crap up. No DCEU film has made over $900Million. Outside of Marvel's Avengers films it's only Iron Man 3 and Civil War that has crossed a $Billion; and spider-man homecoming as the MCU's first solo soidey movie making over $800Million, makes it the 2nd highest grossing spider-man film made after being the 6th spidey film and the second reboot in 5 years...majes it a resounding success...and you honestly think what you said actually makes sense? Don't be silly or intellectually dishonest about this. As for Superhero fatigue, it's an unsubstantiated myth that's been touted by those who know nothing for tge better part of a decade and has never EVER been proven; and evidence only confirms the contrary. You can champion Bond 25 till the cows come home as much as you like but when you resort to spewing a load of bs it only reaffirms my first sentence of this post and that you have absolutely zero argument here.

Also, anticipation for Bond 25 will be higher than for WW 2. Simply because it'll be Craig's last. And my gut tells me that film will be marketed as such.

Anecdotal opinions don't mean much. I can easily say I know plenty of people or seen online/social media people not caring or showing an indifference to Craig and Bond in general. It doesn't mean I think Bond 25 won't do well.

I'm not worried at all for Bond 25.

That's your prerogative. Bond 25 will do well like all Bind movies ordinarilly do but you're dreaming if you think It's going to cross a $Billion/SF numbers. My only concern for Bond 25 is from a creative standpoint. It'll be 4 years since SP when it's released and it'll be overwhelmingly unacceptable if they serve us up another trash entry. They had 3 years with SP and the less said about that movie the better.

Couldn't agree more. WW smashed it out of the park considering the expectations and anyone who thinks going up against WW2 and Episode 9 is an easy ride is in for a rude awakening. Everyone knows already when Star Wars is going to be released so why do they lock a date in that means you get at best a month of IMAX screenings before you're booted off for the new Star Wars?

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

Ooowh? I was talking about the international market, not the US market. Having said so, "Wonder Woman" did good, but certainly not terrific. Especially the foreign market results from James Bond (especially "SPECTRE"), is something "Wonder Woman" could only dream of:

A film with a built in fan base over 50 years and a budget of $250m v a film that is part of a franchise that was pretty much stillborn with Batman v Superman and a budget of $150 and Bond only scraped $64m more? Think if I was an investor I'd be 'dreaming' of WW's return on my money over SP's.

peter wrote: »

was that the big news, @QuantumOrganization ? I swore you said an announcement would be made about distributor and a two pic deal... Quite adamant about that, I'm sure.

Pretty sure he said 'late August/early September'. Given that '30 days hath September' and today is the 14th I would say by any reasonable person's definition he has approximately 3hrs 30 GMT to deliver on this before we hit the 15th and are most definitely into mid September. Dont know about the rest of you but my unshakeable faith that he is the new Baz Bamigboye is starting to waver ever so slightly....

bondjames wrote: »

@AlexanderWaverly , I'm sure there was some impact from the 50th, but I believe it was marginal, at least based on anecdotal observations. Rather, it was the excellent reviews and very strong word of mouth that drove the 'legs' on SF. Nearly everyone I knew was talking about it - it was the film to see at the time. Most of that was due to Silva and the strength of the production/visuals, at least based on how people were describing it to me at the time. It became a sort of phenomenon. 'Fresh' in the public consciousness. It transcended its brand, just like TDK transcended Batman.

Normally I have to sell 'Bond' to my friends. What was amusing in 2012 is that they were selling Bond to me, almost as if they had forgotten I was a die hard.

Nobody even talked about SP. I had to go on the 'promotion' run again, as per normal.

patb wrote: »

SF is the only Bond movie my inlaws have seen at the cinema. All down to word of mouth at the tennis club. That really is transcending the brand.

Agreed. With SF everyone at work was talking about it and I got a fair bit of kudos for having gone to the premiere. With SP it was just tumbleweed.

Dear @TheWizardOfIce . Could you please lower the amount of embedded quotes and responses to that? It's quite annoying. And frankly, it

Dear @Gustav_Graves being annoying is a two way street and I don't have a monopoly on it but I chose to hold my tongue in the interests of social cohesion.

If what I write annoys you don't read it.

This is not about the contents of your piece. As a matter of fact I couldn't bother to read it when I saw the quote-button being used full-force. But I also know you have a very strong opinion, which I appreciate. So my post was only for practical reasons; just a gentle eyewwink so to say....it's just a bit difficult to comments in each and every embedded comment from you. That's all.

AlexanderWaverly

//It's the nature of the business, and every film has negative obstacles, pretty much from the word go.//

Certainly true of the first two Bond films. The Inside From Russia With Love documentary on the home video releases goes into a lot of detail about that movie's problems.

Dr. No has similar problems, but they haven't been written about as much. Film Finances, the company that provided the completion bond (contingency money to ensure the movie gets finished) took control during post-production. A big chunk of Terence Young's salary was impounded until Film Finances got its money, back, the movie fell behind schedule on the first day, etc., etc. A lot of that didn't come to light until Film Finances self-published a limited edition book.

dominicgreene

007Blofeld wrote: »

looks like bond 25 will be shot in imax http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

That's the sound mix and every major blockbuster is mastered in digital IMAX these days.

Creasy47

dominicgreene wrote: »

007Blofeld wrote: »

looks like bond 25 will be shot in imax http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

That's the sound mix and every major blockbuster is mastered in digital IMAX these days.

Even if it wasn't, the last place you want to go for film updates is IMDB. Anyone can edit those pages.

007Blofeld

Creasy47 wrote: »

dominicgreene wrote: »

007Blofeld wrote: »

looks like bond 25 will be shot in imax http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

That's the sound mix and every major blockbuster is mastered in digital IMAX these days.

Even if it wasn't, the last place you want to go for film updates is IMDB. Anyone can edit those pages.

I don't get why people go or rely on there site for movie stuff if it's like inaccurate Wikipedia like site

Creasy47

007Blofeld wrote: »

Creasy47 wrote: »

dominicgreene wrote: »

007Blofeld wrote: »

looks like bond 25 will be shot in imax http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

That's the sound mix and every major blockbuster is mastered in digital IMAX these days.

Even if it wasn't, the last place you want to go for film updates is IMDB. Anyone can edit those pages.

I don't get why people go or rely on there site for movie stuff if it's like inaccurate Wikipedia like site

Exactly. Maybe I'll have to edit the page one day with a random tidbit of information, see how long it takes to get passed along the Internet/on these forums.

NickTwentyTwo

007Blofeld wrote: »

Creasy47 wrote: »

dominicgreene wrote: »

007Blofeld wrote: »

looks like bond 25 will be shot in imax http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

That's the sound mix and every major blockbuster is mastered in digital IMAX these days.

Even if it wasn't, the last place you want to go for film updates is IMDB. Anyone can edit those pages.

I don't get why people go or rely on there site for movie stuff if it's like inaccurate Wikipedia like site

Wikipedia's got to be more accurate than IMDb even because at least sources are cited.

peter

it's difficult to edit a page on IMDb-- you have to have a Pro account, and everyone signs in under their own name and password (so fraudulent pages can be traced back to a source); each change does go through a process before being official. There are hundreds of thousands of titles on the data base, so I'm sure a small % slips through the cracks.

Pro is an amazing resource-- the free site is the free site...

NickTwentyTwo

Fair enough!

Bentley007

I don't know if this has been mentioned but I believe Lea Seydoux is pregnant. Does anyone think that the large gap between announcement and release date could be to accommodate her return? Just a thought.

jake24

Bentley007 wrote: »

I don't know if this has been mentioned but I believe Lea Seydoux is pregnant. Does anyone think that the large gap between announcement and release date could be to accommodate her return? Just a thought.

Is she pregnant again? Her child was born in January.

Thunderpussy

Maybe it's twins, ............ only the other one is really, really late ? ;-)

bondjames

I can't imagine they'd wait for her, unless they've truly lost it.

leas_mole

jake24 wrote: »

Bentley007 wrote: »

I don't know if this has been mentioned but I believe Lea Seydoux is pregnant. Does anyone think that the large gap between announcement and release date could be to accommodate her return? Just a thought.

Is she pregnant again? Her child was born in January.

She delivered baby George then had a few months off. She has already filmed two films with Colin Firth and Ewan McGregor. This is how long it's been since Spectre!!

I doubt they are delaying filming for her. but if she's pregnant again that would be news to me.

boldfinger

Bentley007 wrote: »

I don't know if this has been mentioned but I believe Lea Seydoux is pregnant. Does anyone think that the large gap between announcement and release date could be to accommodate her return? Just a thought.

Why wait for her to give birth? Build her pregnancy into the script, then her being killed will be all the more impacting emotionally.

bondjames

Oh dear, this is going from bad to worse imho.

RichardTheBruce

I suggest at least twins, delivered after her death. Ideally one good, one evil.
And there can be the symbolism of septuplets to consider.

ClarkDevlin

bondjames wrote: »

Oh dear, this is going from bad to worse imho.

Seconded.

JamesBondKenya

And then they can kill craigs bond and then continue with his good sone the next actor will be Bond...James Bond...Jr.

RichardTheBruce

With the floating timeline I expect offspring can grow to adulthood across several films (or just disappear and reappear fully formed) while the Bond character stays about the same age.
So I'm against the idea of killing Bond. That would be confusing.