› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…11151116111811201121…2507

Comments

  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited October 2017 Posts: 732
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Actually I was referring to @SirHilaryBray comment.
    Oh - sorry then, I misread.
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    But on an aside, I would be interested about how how old in the average is your circle of acquaintances.

    About the age group: I am 43 years old and most of my fellows are around the same age but I do have people around me at work who are in their late 20s and I have a 10-year old son (plus a 6-year old). I watched DN, GF, TB, YOLT and DAF with them (they liked GF best actually - but that may be because I do so, too :-D)

    In general I can say: For most, King Sean remains the ultimate James Bond incarnation - same with me. The close second for them is either Pierce Brosnan (my wife and some friends) or Daniel Craig (my personal #2 right after Sean plus some other friends). Roger Moore himself is widely loved - even his movies are not referred to as being the best ones often. My wife hates Craig, most of my friends appreciated CR quite much while many disliked SF and did not even mention SP. In average I guess if I'd make a poll Connery would be first, followed by Brosnan and then Craig.

    One thing I can confirm, too: The younger they are, the more they see Brosnan as "their" Bond and interestingly also see Moore as their #2 whereas friends more my age have Connery, Brosnan and Craig on their TOP list. For me, I liked all the Bond films without Connery (had to grow to OHMSS to be honest) - but I never "connected" to 007 again that much since CR and Craig took over ... yet nothing will kick Sean's first 4 movies off my list, ever.

    I don't think the fun is missing from Craigs films (except SF where it fits the mood quite well) - but I definitely prefer the way he delivers it like he did in CR and QoS over SP.

  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    They could have given him 10 more tries and he wouldn't have resonated with the crowds. He just hasn't got the certain something. It's that easy. Just look at him as Rhett Butler in the sequel of gone with the wind. It almost hurt watching him when you still had Clark Gable in the back of your mind. He just doesn't own a scenery, has no body tension and is lacking charisma big way.
    I was (and I am) not happy with that state of affairs either, since I see him from an visual Point of view as a a perfect incarnation of Flemings Bond. But that's how things are and no arguing against will change anything.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    There's really REALLY no news these days
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2017 Posts: 2,138
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    As much as numbers mean to you I hope you work in a bank . I was, of course, referring to quality. And no, just looking good doesn't make the cut. This is still the privilege of models.
    Please see my previous comment, too: I do NOT think, the Dalton movies belong at the bottom of that list - not at all (because especially TLD I like quite much).

    I pulled those numbers because it is referred to that Dalton was not that accepted in the US, only - and I was curious myself how his movies performed over here. I am not at all saying $ = quality. And I also see Bond became as relevant since Craig started his tenure since the Sean Connery days.

    Actually I was referring to @SirHilaryBray comment. But on an aside, I would be interested about how how old in the average is your circle of acquaintances. Because I happen to know quite a few youngsters and to the majority of them (for whatever reasons) Brosnan is still their idea of how James Bond should be. Many of them grew up watching the older movies together with their fathers on DVD or even TV and their fond memories of it just don't square with Craig's approach. The missing fun factor is very often mentioned. Also, among my friends, who sadly - just like me - don't qualify as youngsters anymore, Brosnan is still very much liked I have to say.

    Since Dalton Brosnan's last two are the only films I haven't bothered going to the cinema to see. His type of Bond with quirks and over the top cartoon villains, Kite boarding Tsunami's and invisible cars wouldn't have lasted beyond 2001. Bond was parodying itself whilst other franchises like Bourne and MI came along and showed it up. Bond tenures always start the same way. Dalton nails in the Everything of Nothing documentary, you lose depth, it becomes pastiche. I always found Brosnan rather cheesy and corny. Dalton was a step back to reality after Moore, beyond Goldeneye was stepping back in the wrong direction. In fact Sean Bean overshadowed Brosnan’s performance. Brosnan appears to be a nice guy but he is a rather weak actor.

    Fleming would have hated anything beyond Goldeneye. To be quite honest he would have probably have hated the whole Moore era, after all his reaction to Dr No was "just awful". But then again he was internally melancholy and little pleased him.

    You don't consider bums on seats as major. It's the absolute only thing that matters in film making. If your movie doesn't deliver the profit you don't get making more.

    I can assure you there are 100,000 fans to 1 who would take Craig over Brosnan and many who never even gave Bond a watch until Craig convinced them they could be good stand alone serious spy thrillers rather than Mysoginst, dated and camp.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    There's really REALLY no news these days
    Nope, just pulling each other's hair. :))
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Please take those global inflation adjusted numbers with a huuuuuuge grain of salt. It is nearly impossible to apply an appropriate inflator to global numbers, given ticket prices vary considerably from region to region and data is hard to come by (more diffcult the farther back one goes). US inflation adjusted is quite accurate because data exists.

    RE: Dalton: globally his films underperformed all of Moore's except AVTAK. He just wasn't accepted for reasons noted above. Moore was a hard act to follow.

    Kenneth Maidment, the former vice-president of Columbia Pictures, who was the Fleming Estate's consultant, expressed reservations about Dalton specifically:
    ---
    "In a series of letters to the estate's solicitors, Mr Maidment said that the way Dalton was portraying Bond was alienating fans....

    In 1992, three years before Pierce Brosnan replaced Dalton as 007, Mr Maidment wrote: "Despite the exercise of a further option before April 2, 1992, the prospect of a further Bond film seems highly uncertain. I pointed out in my 1984 valuation that there was a big question mark over the future of James Bond films. The last two pictures have starred Timothy Dalton but sadly the results have, unfortunately, not had the same box-office success.....

    Three years earlier, Mr Maidment had specifically highlighted Dalton's characterisation as a factor for the declining appeal of the films. He wrote: "My confidential advice is that Licence to Kill has not performed as well 'relatively speaking' as the previous Bond pictures but this has been attributed to the characterisation of Timothy Dalton more than anything else.    "....

    In an undated letter that appears to have been written in 1989, he wrote: "While Connery and Moore were playing the leading role, the successes were unique, but relative incomes have fallen when Timothy Dalton took over and the producers have indicated that they do not expect profits from the last three pictures.....

    In 1989, in a reply to a letter from the estate's lawyer asking what he thought of casting a "Mr Pierce Brosnan", Mr Maidment prophetically said that he thought the move would enhance the value of the franchise. Although Brosnan would not make his debut as Bond for another six years, he did manage to reverse the years of decline....
    ---
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1518941/The-007-flops-who-nearly-killed-Bond.html
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    That list just shows how Dalton was never accepted by the film-going public.

    Ahead of his time.

    Could not agree more!
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    There's really REALLY no news these days

    Yep! It really is that depressing on this thread for news.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5011123/Daniel-Craig-poses-La-La-Anthony-cancer-fundraiser.html
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    What's with the marine haircut? Is he preparing for a role or something?
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5011123/Daniel-Craig-poses-La-La-Anthony-cancer-fundraiser.html

    Nice article but Daniel needs to crack a smile in those photos,he looks like he is about to murder the photographer in one of them !

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The "Skyfall" actor? This from a British newspaper. That says it all, I think. There was a Bond film released after that one.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    However, Mr Maidment's papers reveal that 1985's A View To A Kill, which was Roger Moore's last outing as Bond, took 12 years to recoup its production costs.
    WTF? Really ? It took until 1997 (into the Brosnan era) until AVTAK broke even ?!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    However, Mr Maidment's papers reveal that 1985's A View To A Kill, which was Roger Moore's last outing as Bond, took 12 years to recoup its production costs.
    WTF? Really ? It took until 1997 (into the Brosnan era) until AVTAK broke even ?!
    Yes, I noticed that. He may be referring to the point at which Fleming's Estate started getting some money, given he advised them. It does seem surprising. A mistatement perhaps (I'm sure it recouped pure production costs well in advance).
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited October 2017 Posts: 732
    bondjames wrote: »
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    However, Mr Maidment's papers reveal that 1985's A View To A Kill, which was Roger Moore's last outing as Bond, took 12 years to recoup its production costs.
    WTF? Really ? It took until 1997 (into the Brosnan era) until AVTAK broke even ?!
    Yes, I noticed that. He may be referring to the point at which Fleming's Estate started getting some money, given he advised them. It does seem surprising. A mistatement perhaps (I'm sure it recouped pure production costs well in advance).

    I don't believe it either. Even it did not make as much money I doubt the production costs plus marketing where THAT high so it did not make any money besides Home Video Sales and additional showings in selected cinemas during12 (or 7 in case of LTK) years past it's premiere. This would basically mean they made no money from AVTAK and LTK well into the 90s and TLD is not even mentioned. Strange.

    Considering SP's production costs plus estimated marketing costs they better bring down the budget for B25 - because I don't think it will surpass SP in ticket sales 2019, or?

    As far as I knew so far, *every* Bond movie made money during it's theatrical run plus loads of additional sales through Home Video / TV and so on.

    (Apologies for the OT - back to B25)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    However, Mr Maidment's papers reveal that 1985's A View To A Kill, which was Roger Moore's last outing as Bond, took 12 years to recoup its production costs.
    WTF? Really ? It took until 1997 (into the Brosnan era) until AVTAK broke even ?!
    Yes, I noticed that. He may be referring to the point at which Fleming's Estate started getting some money, given he advised them. It does seem surprising. A mistatement perhaps (I'm sure it recouped pure production costs well in advance).

    I don't believe it either. Even it did not make as much money I doubt the production costs plus marketing where THAT high so it did not make any money besides Home Video Sales and additional showings in selected cinemas during12 (or 7 in case of LTK) years past it's premiere. This would basically mean they made no money from AVTAK and LTK well into the 90s and TLD is not even mentioned. Strange.
    It really could have something to do with the arrangement with the Estate. Perhaps certain metrics had to be achieved prior to them getting more money on a sliding scale. I audited a small entertainment venue many years back and there are quite complex arrangements in place for various parties (and they are distinct depending on the purpose for the same project).
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    DC better start hittin the HGH now and get back in the gym.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    peter wrote: »
    DC better start hittin the HGH now and get back in the gym.

    I heard for Logan Lucky he had to eat more protein and change his work out to fill out on neck and shoulders. I suspect by the time production of Bond 25 his frames smaller, the hairs longer and he will be tanned up.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Damn, that haircut does not do him any justice. He looks so much better with Casino Royale/SPECTRE hair length.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,756
    For some reason, Craig reminded me of this guy in those photos:
    hqdefault.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The photos don't do him any favours, but he was never a beauty queen to begin with imho. As long as he is able to get himself in shape for the film, he should be fine.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited October 2017 Posts: 1,756
    Craig looks awful. Really awful.

    Leather-Blouson.jpg

    Let's hope the makeup artists can do a cracking job.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Who the hell is Mr Maidment?

    TLD made almost $200m at the BO back in 1987 and yet it failed to make a profit?

    I call BS.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Craig looked best in QoS imho. He was less bulky than CR and the hair looked good plus he was tanned. He would look younger in B25 than SP if he‘d go into this direction but it may be harder to achieve it considering 10 years have passed since he filmed QoS.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited October 2017 Posts: 9,509
    @SeanCraig : diet, no drinking, some HGH, and full body metabolic training
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    He's a great actor but if I'm honest, it stretches believability for me that he's supposed to be the same character as the previous Bonds, because he looks so different.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    peter wrote: »
    @SeanCraig : diet, no drinking, some HGH, and full body metabolic training
    HGH?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2017 Posts: 7,547
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @SeanCraig : diet, no drinking, some HGH, and full body metabolic training
    HGH?

    Googling it comes up with human growth hormone, not sure if that's what they're talking about here but it probably is.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2017 Posts: 7,547
    Deleted
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Thanks! Makes sense in this context indeed.

    I hope we‘ll get some B25 news, soon - sorry again for the OT :-D
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    shamanimal wrote: »
    He's a great actor but if I'm honest, it stretches believability for me that he's supposed to be the same character as the previous Bonds, because he looks so different.
    He really isn't, and strains credibility when he tries to be (in my view). It's best to look at him as a new interpretation/take on the book character for the new millennium.
Sign In or Register to comment.