No Time To Die: Production Diary

11031041061081092507

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    My thoughts on this are "Be careful what you wish for!" !

    Yes, we could get "Young Bond" next. (Vomit!)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    My thoughts on this are "Be careful what you wish for!" !

    Yes, we could get "Young Bond" next. (Vomit!)
    with Daniel Radcliffe playing Young Bond no less? (Vomit #2!)
  • Posts: 2,081
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    My big concern is not whether Craig returns or not but who writes 25 and who directs 25.

    If Craig returns I'm just afraid the producers are more likely to try and continue that SP arc. Just too boring and cliche. Revenge. Personal. Brother. Whimpy whiney Blofeld ...*yawn*
    I agree. Craig returning is more than likely going to result in more of the same, given how they set the story up, modified the tone, and also because they (reportedly) signed Waltz for two. Although there is of course a way to come up with something excellent continuing from and using the SP story as a base, such an approach will also be drawing attention to the previous film and all its flaws. I'm amongst the few who'd prefer if they let that sleeping dog lie, because such an approach would then mean 5 Bond films in a row that are all connected!

    The chances of a so called 'Craig standalone' sign off which some are advocating are slim to none imho.

    Those hoping for a new story, new directors, and new writers should also probably hope for a new actor, because that is the most likely way SP will well and truly be left behind, for those of us who would prefer it so.

    I agree with you both. They really painted themselves into a corner with that story line and clumsily connecting all the previous Craig 007 movies. He's my fave Bond, but I'd really not want that story continued, and really didn't care for Waltz or Seydoux and wouldn't want them back.

    Of course, it'll be what it'll be. We'll see...

    bondjames wrote: »
    Bond will come back to his job of course. It just doesn't have to be Craig. The two don't go hand in hand. Think Bale as Bat/Wayne at the end of TKDR. Now we have Affleck in the role.

    Mendes/Craig likely set it up this way so they will have options, just like Bale had options at the end of TDKR and could have come back, but only wanted to if Nolan was back (sound familiar?).

    Nothing is set and nothing is certain. It can go either way depending on Craig, the studio/MGM/EON and whatever direction they want to take. Having said that, the longer this drags, I think it's less likely Craig will return. Think Dalton during the long hiatus when things were up in the air.

    I agree that the Spectre ending gave options to either leave or continue. And that the longer things drag, etc.

    You're actually wrong about Bale, btw; he did not have options to come back after TDKR, and I think he was fine with that, despite also being sad to let the character go. (Though if Nolan had wanted to make another one then yes, I'm pretty sure he could have talked Bale into doing it, but that never seemed to be a realistic option, since as far as I know Nolan never had any plans of doing 4th.)

  • Posts: 2,081
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    My thoughts on this are "Be careful what you wish for!" !

    Yes, we could get "Young Bond" next. (Vomit!)
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    My thoughts on this are "Be careful what you wish for!" !

    Yes, we could get "Young Bond" next. (Vomit!)
    with Daniel Radcliffe playing Young Bond no less? (Vomit #2!)

    Guys, please! Don't give them any ideas...

    X_X
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »

    By the way that comment is what made me neutral on Craig. Sure he had just finished filming ...sure he had been injured but that seemed a very irresponsible comment.

    I've dealt with suicidal patients ...not funny.



    Oh please.

    I saw someone die in a car crash at work last week but I'm not going to start crying if Dan casually says 'I'd rather drive off a cliff than do another Bond film' when some twat interviewer shoves a microphone in his face after a gruelling shoot.

    Hear hear.

    You two are so kind. Don't suppose that would bother you.

    It's a rather childish reaction to a flippant off the cuff comment to subsequently take a dislike to Craig and hope his tenure ends. I don't think he was making fun of suicide victims but I guess that's the world we live in these days where everyone's most fundamental and inviolable human right is to take offence.

    Personally I like nothing more than a nice bit of foie gras but that doesn't mean I don't still love Rog as Bond.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Tuulia wrote: »
    You're actually wrong about Bale, btw; he did not have options to come back after TDKR, and I think he was fine with that, despite also being sad to let the character go. (Though if Nolan had wanted to make another one then yes, I'm pretty sure he could have talked Bale into doing it, but that never seemed to be a realistic option, since as far as I know Nolan never had any plans of doing 4th.)
    Sorry @Tuulia, I had always thought that Bale had the option. I suppose once Snyder decided to take it in another direction with Bat vs Supes, then Bale was out.

    Interestingly, that could foretell the Craig saga as well, because as we've discussed here, a new studio and new director may want to go in new directions with their own characterizations. If that's the case, hopefully it works out better than BvS.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »

    By the way that comment is what made me neutral on Craig. Sure he had just finished filming ...sure he had been injured but that seemed a very irresponsible comment.

    I've dealt with suicidal patients ...not funny.



    Oh please.

    I saw someone die in a car crash at work last week but I'm not going to start crying if Dan casually says 'I'd rather drive off a cliff than do another Bond film' when some twat interviewer shoves a microphone in his face after a gruelling shoot.

    Hear hear.

    You two are so kind. Don't suppose that would bother you.

    It's a rather childish reaction to a flippant off the cuff comment to subsequently take a dislike to Craig and hope his tenure ends. I don't think he was making fun of suicide victims but I guess that's the world we live in these days where everyone's most fundamental and inviolable human right is to take offence.

    Personally I like nothing more than a nice bit of foie gras but that doesn't mean I don't still love Rog as Bond.

    Childish? You go out of your way to insult me at every turn.

    I clearly said my opinion. Craig's comment to me seemed a bit too flippant and insensitive.

    No worries ..you're truly not worth my time or concern.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The works don't have to be linked. They can be standalone as they were prior to the Craig era.

    However, they should be able to have a production plan in place to move forward with decent scripts and execution every two years. The three year gap is something relatively new, and I personally don't think it has resulted in any sustainable improvement in the resulting product. The last time around it was on account of waiting for Mendes if I'm not mistaken. When they get their ducks lined up post-studio selection, I would hope that they find a director who they can get to commit to more than one film, or failing that, at least have the ability/plan to get directors on board relatively quickly to move forward with.

    I don't buy that it needs to take three years to get us a decent product. If they want to do that, it is a choice, not a necessity.

    They definitely don't have to be linked and shouldn't be imo. I'd like some minimal character development from film to film, but in terms of the overall narrative I'd be happy with self-contained adventures.

    Re. production cycle - It certainly doesn't need to take three years, but for me personally I can see a logic to it in the modern cinematic landscape. After three years apetite for a new Bond reaches a more defined peak, especially in a market that is literally dripping in franchise films. Bond has to find his niche somewhere within that saturated market. If they really wanted to mix things up they could roll them out on a 2.5 year cycle, Winter/Summer/Winter/Summer. Might be an interesting model to play with.

    Completely agree with all of this.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »

    By the way that comment is what made me neutral on Craig. Sure he had just finished filming ...sure he had been injured but that seemed a very irresponsible comment.

    I've dealt with suicidal patients ...not funny.



    Oh please.

    I saw someone die in a car crash at work last week but I'm not going to start crying if Dan casually says 'I'd rather drive off a cliff than do another Bond film' when some twat interviewer shoves a microphone in his face after a gruelling shoot.

    Hear hear.

    You two are so kind. Don't suppose that would bother you.

    I'm ambivalent about Craig's return. More concerned about the quality and direction.

    Mute point since nothing on the horizon. Maybe that is good. A direct sequel to SP would become less relevant as time passes.

    They are both so kind and so always have the exact same opinion and exactly the same style in writing. Suspicious :))
  • Posts: 9,847
    We are on 109 with no news or info hmm perhaps close this thread till we get something more concrete I fear we may be in a bit of a hiatus
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »

    By the way that comment is what made me neutral on Craig. Sure he had just finished filming ...sure he had been injured but that seemed a very irresponsible comment.

    I've dealt with suicidal patients ...not funny.



    Oh please.

    I saw someone die in a car crash at work last week but I'm not going to start crying if Dan casually says 'I'd rather drive off a cliff than do another Bond film' when some twat interviewer shoves a microphone in his face after a gruelling shoot.

    Hear hear.

    You two are so kind. Don't suppose that would bother you.

    I'm ambivalent about Craig's return. More concerned about the quality and direction.

    Mute point since nothing on the horizon. Maybe that is good. A direct sequel to SP would become less relevant as time passes.

    They are both so kind and so always have the exact same opinion and exactly the same style in writing. Suspicious :))

    Lol funny.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Risico007 wrote: »
    We are on 109 with no news or info hmm perhaps close this thread till we get something more concrete I fear we may be in a bit of a hiatus

    Again, what does closing the thread do? It looks like we won't have anything concrete for quite some time, I still can't wrap my head around why people are so allergic to discussing thoughts or possible outcomes or theories or rumors when we have nothing solid to talk about. Might as well shut down the Actor, Director, Title Song, etc. wishlist threads while we're at it.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    We are on 109 with no news or info hmm perhaps close this thread till we get something more concrete I fear we may be in a bit of a hiatus

    Again, what does closing the thread do? It looks like we won't have anything concrete for quite some time, I still can't wrap my head around why people are so allergic to discussing thoughts or possible outcomes or theories or rumors when we have nothing solid to talk about. Might as well shut down the Actor, Director, Title Song, etc. wishlist threads while we're at it.

    Something will happen. This is probably the most active thread right now...
  • Posts: 2,081
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    You're actually wrong about Bale, btw; he did not have options to come back after TDKR, and I think he was fine with that, despite also being sad to let the character go. (Though if Nolan had wanted to make another one then yes, I'm pretty sure he could have talked Bale into doing it, but that never seemed to be a realistic option, since as far as I know Nolan never had any plans of doing 4th.)
    Sorry @Tuulia, I had always thought that Bale had the option. I suppose once Snyder decided to take it in another direction with Bat vs Supes, then Bale was out.

    Interestingly, that could foretell the Craig saga as well, because as we've discussed here, a new studio and new director may want to go in new directions with their own characterizations. If that's the case, hopefully it works out better than BvS.

    Bale was basically out after his 3-movie contract was done. His Batman was specific to the Nolanverse, and wouldn't have worked with chaps from other planets or other folks with actual superpowers. ;) And the character's arc was completed, anyway.

    With Bond now the studio part of the equation is an interesting unknown in addition to the other obvious factors (actor? director? etc.) There could be so many options in theory also with the same actor, but the possible future options with Craig got limited a lot by the story in Spectre, so... yeah...
    Maybe Bond needs a new start (new actor) and maybe Craig himself needs something new as well and would be better off without Bond. Doing only Bond films (or any other franchise) is not ideal for an actor, I'm sure.
  • What I would love for Bond 25 is this. Craig as Bond. Waltz back as Blofeld. Mendes back in the directors chair.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    What I would love for Bond 25 is this. Craig as Bond. Waltz back as Blofeld. Mendes back in the directors chair.
    I would too except for Mendes. I want Martin Campbell to come back and close off Craig's run on a massive high note. :)
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I wish Campbell would return in the future too. Doubt that will happen.

    There are other well qualified directors though that could do just as good as Campbell if not better.

    Bond really isn't Mendes type of movie. I like Mendes ..just don't want anymore Mendes's Bonds.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited April 2016 Posts: 28,694
    People say Dan has nothing more to do with the character of Bond, but that's not how I feel. SP's ending sets up a whole new road for Bond to explore.

    We've never seen this Bond retired and away from MI6. He hasn't even technically gone rogue, because in QoS he was still very much acting on behalf of MI6 and doing the right thing to get at Greene.

    Post-SP, he could be on his own, doing things his way 100% of the time, with nobody to answer to. If he and his new life is threatened, think how unhinged he'll be, and how much he'll give his all to decimate any enemies coming his way?

    If Blofeld gets away from imprisonment by escape or some other avenue, does something to shake Bond's foundations and he survives it, you can be assured that Bond will go after him with all he has left. He could even rely a little on Q or MP off the books to help him get what he needs for one last mission. Not a mission for MI6, but one for himself, finally. No ties to a higher power or anything; just him and Blofeld.

    I love the idea of one of the first scenes in Bond 25 being Bond and Madeleine's wedding, where we get to see the calm before the storm. Madeleine doesn't have to die, we just need to see signs that Blofeld is actively trying to threaten his future life. A shootout could erupt at the wedding, forcing Bond and some of the agents at the event to engage them, and they leave one alive to get information out of him about Blofeld, after which Madeleine has to be kept hidden away while Bond takes care of things once and for all.

    Team that with Blofeld escaping but finding his own organization taken over by new faces that stepped in when he fell, and you'd have a great parallel between him and Bond: two men who see their worlds changing for the negative. And, as I've said before, because Blofeld always harps on about how the things Bond stands for are in ruin (literally and figuratively now), what if SPECTRE itself was also crumbling before his eyes, a shadow of what it once was? Both men would essentially be living lives that threaten to collapse on them eventually.

    There's so much to play with in Bond 25 to really finish off the Craig era with true emotion, depth and consequence. I'd love to see an ending where, after all is said and done and Blofeld is wiped out, Bond is recovering and has a choice to make: stay with Madeleine and keep his ring, or head back into active service and live his life for the job, doing the only thing he's ever known. We see him pondering his future and the separate roads he could take, but we never actually get to see what he chooses in the end. Some may like this, some may not, but I think it'd certainly be interesting. After all we've seen this Bond go through, however, maybe we deserve a more concrete ending.
  • Maybe I am in the minority here but I think Mendes is a perfect fit for Bond. Personally I think his 2 films are up there with the greats. He is (in my opinion) are far better director than Campbell. I prefer both Mendes Bond films over the 2 that Campbell directed. As I have said before Campbell got handed a great story and a fantastic new Bond with CR. Outside of Bond, Campbell has a pretty dire record.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Couldn't have said it better myself @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, well said. :-bd
  • Posts: 4,325
    People say Dan has nothing more to do with the character of Bond, but that's not how I feel. SP's ending sets up a whole new road for Bond to explore.

    We've never seen this Bond retired and away from MI6. He hasn't even technically gone rogue, because in QoS he was still very much acting on behalf of MI6 and doing the right thing to get at Greene.

    Post-SP, he could be on his own, doing things his way 100% of the time, with nobody to answer to. If he and his new life is threatened, think how unhinged he'll be, and how much he'll give his all to decimate any enemies coming his way?

    If Blofeld gets away from imprisonment by escape or some other avenue, does something to shake Bond's foundations and he survives it, you can be assured that Bond will go after him with all he has left. He could even rely a little on Q or MP off the books to help him get what he needs for one last mission. Not a mission for MI6, but one for himself, finally. No ties to a higher power or anything; just him and Blofeld.

    I love the idea of one of the first scenes in Bond 25 being Bond and Madeleine's wedding, where we get to see the calm before the storm. Madeleine doesn't have to die, we just need to see signs that Blofeld is actively trying to threaten his future life. A shootout could erupt at the wedding, forcing Bond and some of the agents at the event to engage them, and they leave one alive to get information out of him about Blofeld, after which Madeleine has to be kept hidden away while Bond takes care of things once and for all.

    Team that with Blofeld escaping but finding his own organization taken over by new faces that stepped in when he fell, and you'd have a great parallel between him and Bond: two men who see their worlds changing for the negative. And, as I've said before, because Blofeld always harps on about how the things Bond stands for are in ruin (literally and figuratively now), what if SPECTRE itself was also crumbling before his eyes, a shadow of what it once was? Both men would essentially be living lives that threaten to collapse on them eventually.

    There's so much to play with in Bond 25 to really finish off the Craig era with true emotion, depth and consequence. I'd love to see an ending where, after all is said and done and Blofeld is wiped out, Bond is recovering and has a choice to make: stay with Madeleine and keep his ring, or head back into active service and live his life for the job, doing the only thing he's ever known. We see him pondering his future and the separate roads he could take, but we never actually get to see what he chooses in the end. Some may like this, some may not, but I think it'd certainly be interesting. After all we've seen this Bond go through, however, maybe we deserve a more concrete ending.

    I agree with this, we need to have a proper filmic showdown between Bond and Blofeld - I think Blofeld has been poorly used in the film series never reaching the potential he should have - hopefully they can redeem that in Bond 25 - although Waltz himself was pretty underwhelming in this regard.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    My big concern is not whether Craig returns or not but who writes 25 and who directs 25.

    If Craig returns I'm just afraid the producers are more likely to try and continue that SP arc. Just too boring and cliche. Revenge. Personal. Brother. Whimpy whiney Blofeld ...*yawn*
    I agree. Craig returning is more than likely going to result in more of the same, given how they set the story up, modified the tone, and also because they (reportedly) signed Waltz for two. Although there is of course a way to come up with something excellent continuing from and using the SP story as a base, such an approach will also be drawing attention to the previous film and all its flaws. I'm amongst the few who'd prefer if they let that sleeping dog lie, because such an approach would then mean 5 Bond films in a row that are all connected!

    The chances of a so called 'Craig standalone' sign off which some are advocating are slim to none imho.

    Those hoping for a new story, new directors, and new writers should also probably hope for a new actor, because that is the most likely way SP will well and truly be left behind, for those of us who would prefer it so.

    it also really depends on Craig's personal feelings in regards to the role...... we all know he loves being James Bond - or at least enjoys it, or else he would've pulled a Lazenby long ago.... but what i am getting at, is does Craig himself feel there are more areas to explore within the character? (i am alluding to the interview with Mark Strong) - because in regards to his portrayal as Bond, I don't see him simply showing up to go through the motions in order to collect a check....

    There are always ways to progress the story forward - nothing is ever wrapped up in nice red bow for long, there are always more stories to tell.... but it just seems like for Craig, it was more about exploring Bond as a person more than anything else... and if he feels like there is nowhere else for him to go, he may step aside..... it just depends on what these new writers can come up with.
  • Posts: 2,081
    @haserot, I agree with that assessment.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Maybe I am in the minority here but I think Mendes is a perfect fit for Bond. Personally I think his 2 films are up there with the greats. He is (in my opinion) are far better director than Campbell. I prefer both Mendes Bond films over the 2 that Campbell directed. As I have said before Campbell got handed a great story and a fantastic new Bond with CR. Outside of Bond, Campbell has a pretty dire record.

    i've gone back and forth with Mendes - from really liking him after SF, to just being "meh" about him after SP..... personally, i think SP problems lie more in the writing than in the director's vision.

    Better than Campbell though??.. Eh, I don't know about that... IMO, they are pretty similar with really only two differences... Mendes can block together very beautiful shots - and is very much an auteur director - but - he isn't that proficient when it comes to action sequences... Campbell is good when it comes to blocking normal shots - nothing too artistic or fancy... but he is excellent when it comes to shooting action.

    IMO, what a director does outside of Bond films shouldn't be held up in terms of his ability when shooting a Bond film... Lee Tamahori did some pretty good films before he was handed DAD - and look how that turned out.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    My big concern is not whether Craig returns or not but who writes 25 and who directs 25.

    If Craig returns I'm just afraid the producers are more likely to try and continue that SP arc. Just too boring and cliche. Revenge. Personal. Brother. Whimpy whiney Blofeld ...*yawn*
    I agree. Craig returning is more than likely going to result in more of the same, given how they set the story up, modified the tone, and also because they (reportedly) signed Waltz for two. Although there is of course a way to come up with something excellent continuing from and using the SP story as a base, such an approach will also be drawing attention to the previous film and all its flaws. I'm amongst the few who'd prefer if they let that sleeping dog lie, because such an approach would then mean 5 Bond films in a row that are all connected!

    The chances of a so called 'Craig standalone' sign off which some are advocating are slim to none imho.

    Those hoping for a new story, new directors, and new writers should also probably hope for a new actor, because that is the most likely way SP will well and truly be left behind, for those of us who would prefer it so.

    it also really depends on Craig's personal feelings in regards to the role...... we all know he loves being James Bond - or at least enjoys it, or else he would've pulled a Lazenby long ago.... but what i am getting at, is does Craig himself feel there are more areas to explore within the character? (i am alluding to the interview with Mark Strong) - because in regards to his portrayal as Bond, I don't see him simply showing up to go through the motions in order to collect a check....

    There are always ways to progress the story forward - nothing is ever wrapped up in nice red bow for long, there are always more stories to tell.... but it just seems like for Craig, it was more about exploring Bond as a person more than anything else... and if he feels like there is nowhere else for him to go, he may step aside..... it just depends on what these new writers can come up with.
    That's very true, regarding Craig on a personal level. He will likely only come back if there is more to be done with the character.

    I still believe that from a macro film making perspective, more Craig means one more linked story. Not a standalone. It also, more likely than not, means one more Mendes (although I'm less certain about this) because as I said earlier, all the characters now except for Tanner are his creation.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    except they don't need Mendes involved to finish up what he started with SF and SP.... get a director who knows what he is doing, and a writer(s) who can work with what they are given.... whoever comes in though - if they are set on continuing the events of SP into this next film, then it's obvious EON needs to have their ducks in a row when it comes to the story - and they need to have writers and a director willing to play ball with what they give them, instead of trying to do his own story..

    long story short... if Craig returns, it is to continue / finish where SP left off - i do not see him going out on a stand alone film, considering that we JUST got reintroduced to Spectre and Blofeld.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Here's an idea. Hire a new director to finish telling the story of Craig's arc, and have Mendes on board as a consultant?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    HASEROT wrote: »
    and they need to have writers and a director willing to play ball with what they give them, instead of trying to do his own story
    Their record of late is not good with this, at least imho. This EON team seems more willing to let the director hold sway over things (Forster/Mendes). Certainly not like how Cubby ran things.
    HASEROT wrote: »
    long story short... if Craig returns, it is to continue / finish where SP left off - i do not see him going out on a stand alone film, considering that we JUST got reintroduced to Spectre and Blofeld.
    Yes, as I said earlier, this is my view as well.
  • Posts: 1,092
    Well said, @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7! There's lots of story to be told. I still don't get how people are so sure Craig is leaving when EON only just got the rights back to Spectre and Blofeld. They ain't gonna let their 3 Billion Dollar Boy go when they have only one Blofeld/Spectre film under their belts, no way! I really think he'll do two more after this. You know they want a Spectre trilogy.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I wouldn't say acquiring the rights to Spectre/Blofeld is a massive box office deal alongside Craig, when SP made much, much less than the standalone SF.

    "You know they want a Spectre trilogy." Who does and why?
Sign In or Register to comment.