› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…11761177117911811182…2507

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited November 2017 Posts: 8,209
    Unnecessary sarcasm noted. The point being all we know concerning the script is based on a sparse amount of actual information; SPECTRE was plagued with leaks. It is not unreasonable to speculate that the script is complete, or is close, especially if they want a director signed by early 2018.
    One way or another information is going to be harder to come by on this one .
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    For all we know they have a strong script locked in and are keeping a tight lid on any leaks

    Yeah I'm sure they have an absolute OHMSS beater ready to go and are just keeping it safely under lock and key for a year until filming starts. There's literally no chance that that isn't the case. 8-|

    Get out of here, it's obvious it will suck.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    bondjames wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes was always going to be the most likely director once Craig announced his return. I have been suggesting this for some time now and am surprised that folks didn't (and still don't) recognize this.
    Not to hammer on the same point too much, but let's recall that it was said somewhere (frankly, I don't know if it was a reliable source) that Mendes and Craig had a hard time making Spectre together, creative differences and all that. If this is true, to me it makes perfect sense to think after Spectre, Craig had some sort of man-to-man talk with Barbara Broccoli regarding the problems with the film and the direction of Bond 25, and once they finally agreed on doing things in a certain way from now on, he got excited about the project. For all we know, he requested someone different from Mendes for the film. Then again, it could be that he patched things up with Mendes himself, who is in fact returning, but the point is one could go in either direction with speculation. I don't think it's certain at all that a Mendes return is the reason for Craig's return.
    Of course your speculation about man to woman talks with Babs could have happened. I don't recall any comments about creative differences during the making of the film. Just some rumours a few months back by the same rags that have been wrong numerous times before. Irrespective, they were on the circuit promoting the film after its release and Mendes seemed quite charitable in his comments towards Craig. I don't recall Craig's comments at the time, but his wrist cut statement had already stolen the air out of everything he said by that point.

    Also, just to clarify, I said most likely and not certain. I still see him as the most likely director of B25, and have done since Craig announced his return. Demange and Mackenzie aren't as likely in my view (I believe they were options when Craig was still dilly dallying). Craig is known to make calls and try to get people to come on board, and that's what he tried to do with Villeneueve, but as we know schedules will not permit it and I don't see it happening at this point. So who will a studio (and Craig) want now? Mendes, if they can get him. The ball is firmly in his court and if I was him, I'd play it all the way to the bank like his co-collaborator has done.

    Point taken about 'most likely' and 'not certain', though of course I'm arguing that it's not even the most likely scenario.

    Anyway, we'll see. We should place a bet or something. ;)
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    A tad less than two years away & the only hint we've had is it may incorporate a modern day threat.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Every Bond movie incorporates a modern day threat.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited November 2017 Posts: 5,767
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    Even with CR he had influence about how to portray Bond „his“ way“ and his influence grew from film to film. I think his input is a positive factor and I doubt the Blofeld nonsense was his idea

    But surely he has enough clout nowadays to say no if he thought brothergate was a shit idea?

    If Fiennes could kill the M as a traitor storyline then Dan could kill brothergate if he so desired which implies that even if he was not 100% behind the idea he was at least complicit in its implementation.

    I know SP has flaws, but to me it would have been 10 times more stupid if M was revealed as a traitor. That alone would have made SP become a bottom-tier Bond film for me rather than a middle-tier one.

    I presume in the original script M being the traitor merely replaces C as the traitor so we'd still get brothergate as well!?

    So if it wasn't for Fiennes putting his foot down this abortion would've actually been filmed?

    When you consider how much worse it actually could've been from the shambles we still got then none of the people involved in this script should be involved in making a Bond film ever again.
    Considering that a script is ordered and should be overseen by the producers, that would mean a totally new league of producers (I prefer this optimistic view to the other option).

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2017 Posts: 9,117
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Considering that a script is ordered and should be overseen by the producers, that would mean a totally new league of producers (I prefer this optimistic view to the other option).

    Your words not mine. But are producers who either agree with and sign off on an idea as shit as brothegate or allow their director to go rogue and come up with ideas like this unchecked fit for purpose?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @Tuck91 An experimental Bond film that outrages 99% of Bond fans is exactly the type of Bond film I would want to watch. :bz
    How are you a Bond fan, again?

    "An experimental Bond film that outrages 99% of Bond fans is exactly the type of Bond film I would want to watch."

    Only 99%? What would need to be removed to only leave 1% of the fanbase happy? Everything else has to go, the only similarity to Bond films of the past, is one exterior shot of the MI6 building.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @Tuck91 An experimental Bond film that outrages 99% of Bond fans is exactly the type of Bond film I would want to watch. :bz

    Didn't we just have that with SP?
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    @TheWizardOfIce No, SP was not experimental.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce No, SP was not experimental.

    Hence I only bolded 'that outrages 99% of Bond fans'.

    Try and keep up.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @Tuck91 An experimental Bond film that outrages 99% of Bond fans is exactly the type of Bond film I would want to watch. :bz

    Somehow I don't think this is the right franchise for you.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited November 2017 Posts: 4,619
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce No, SP was not experimental.

    Hence I only bolded 'that outrages 99% of Bond fans'.

    Try and keep up.
    It's you who needs to try and keep up, son. I didn't write "a Bond film that's EITHER experimental OR outrages 99% of Bond fans". I wrote " an experimental Bond film that outrages 99% of Bond fans".
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce No, SP was not experimental.

    Hence I only bolded 'that outrages 99% of Bond fans'.

    Try and keep up.
    It's you who needs to try and keep up, son. I didn't write "a Bond film that's EITHER experimental OR outrages 99% of Bond fans". I wrote " an experimental Bond film that outrages 99% of Bond fans".

    So he did everything right. Logic isn't a particular strong trait of yours, right?
    Actually, considering that you think that Skyfalls script is not lacking in logic department 'particular' might indeed be flattering.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited November 2017 Posts: 4,517
    How should Bond 25 start if it going to be Mgm and Universal


    Universal Globe and then MGM Lion ( and Gunbarrel)


    Mgm Lion and then the Universal Globe (and Gunbarrel)


    With Sony it be Mgm first and then Sony, but with Universal i like to see it be Universal first.

    Or mabey you whant it start first with Mgm lion so can do alternate take on Universal logo as Universal did with The Mummy 3. Of course it mean that Gunbarrel wil be at the end of the movie again.

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @Tuck91 An experimental Bond film that outrages 99% of Bond fans is exactly the type of Bond film I would want to watch. :bz
    *High Five* @PanchitoPistoles ;-)
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    M_Balje wrote: »
    How should Bond 25 start if it going to be Mgm and Universal


    Universal Globe and then MGM Lion ( and Gunbarrel)


    Mgm Lion and then the Universal Globe (and Gunbarrel)


    With Sony it be Mgm first and then Sony, but with Universal i like to see it be Universal first.

    Those poor American people though, will think that they are going to watch a found-footage or whatever arthouse film :-D. But, this could be very well the intro to Bond 25 in the USA:



    Or this 2017-version :-D:

  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,517
    Found this one with Annapurna.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce No, SP was not experimental.

    Hence I only bolded 'that outrages 99% of Bond fans'.

    Try and keep up.
    It's you who needs to try and keep up, son. I didn't write "a Bond film that's EITHER experimental OR outrages 99% of Bond fans". I wrote " an experimental Bond film that outrages 99% of Bond fans".
    In other words, you want a film exactly like Skyfall and see that it follows the timeline of that film rather than a Bond film, without giving a damn whether Bond stars in it or not. Maybe you should simply declare that you're a Skyfall fan rather than a Bond fan since you've no respect for the character, tropes, source material (there was one comment fired against Fleming and the novels) or the franchise as a whole, don't you think?
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    M_Balje wrote: »
    Found this one with Annapurna.


    Sjee, what a funky Annapurna-logo lol
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Those poor American people though, will think that they are going to watch a found-footage or whatever arthouse film :-D. But, this could be very well the intro to Bond 25 in the USA:



    Or this 2017-version :-D:
    It's my understanding that MGM will continue to release its titles under the MGM banner through the joint venture and Annapurna will do the same for its titles. So it's unlikely that we see the logo (although possible). More likely there will be a small note somewhere if they decide to name the JV (an MGM/Annapurna Joint Venture or something like that).
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Those poor American people though, will think that they are going to watch a found-footage or whatever arthouse film :-D. But, this could be very well the intro to Bond 25 in the USA:



    Or this 2017-version :-D:
    It's my understanding that MGM will continue to release its titles under the MGM banner through the joint venture and Annapurna will do the same for its titles. So it's unlikely that we see the logo (although possible). More likely there will be a small note somewhere if they decide to name the JV (an MGM/Annapurna Joint Venture or something like that).

    Or they will create an entirely new logo.....that makes it's clear it's a joint venture in the USA.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Those poor American people though, will think that they are going to watch a found-footage or whatever arthouse film :-D. But, this could be very well the intro to Bond 25 in the USA:



    Or this 2017-version :-D:
    It's my understanding that MGM will continue to release its titles under the MGM banner through the joint venture and Annapurna will do the same for its titles. So it's unlikely that we see the logo (although possible). More likely there will be a small note somewhere if they decide to name the JV (an MGM/Annapurna Joint Venture or something like that).

    Or they will create an entirely new logo.....that makes it's clear it's a joint venture in the USA.
    They may, but as mentioned, the press release said they will release with their own respective banner via the JV.

    BTW: Where's that announcement that was supposedly coming this week?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Those poor American people though, will think that they are going to watch a found-footage or whatever arthouse film :-D. But, this could be very well the intro to Bond 25 in the USA:



    Or this 2017-version :-D:
    It's my understanding that MGM will continue to release its titles under the MGM banner through the joint venture and Annapurna will do the same for its titles. So it's unlikely that we see the logo (although possible). More likely there will be a small note somewhere if they decide to name the JV (an MGM/Annapurna Joint Venture or something like that).

    Or they will create an entirely new logo.....that makes it's clear it's a joint venture in the USA.
    They may, but as mentioned, the press release said they will release with their own respective banner via the JV.

    BTW: Where's that announcement that was supposedly coming this week?
    Details were meant to be finalized this week, but that doesn't mean an announcement will take place. They could very well be waiting for international distribution to be locked in before announcing both to the public.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2017 Posts: 23,883
    jake24 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Those poor American people though, will think that they are going to watch a found-footage or whatever arthouse film :-D. But, this could be very well the intro to Bond 25 in the USA:



    Or this 2017-version :-D:
    It's my understanding that MGM will continue to release its titles under the MGM banner through the joint venture and Annapurna will do the same for its titles. So it's unlikely that we see the logo (although possible). More likely there will be a small note somewhere if they decide to name the JV (an MGM/Annapurna Joint Venture or something like that).

    Or they will create an entirely new logo.....that makes it's clear it's a joint venture in the USA.
    They may, but as mentioned, the press release said they will release with their own respective banner via the JV.

    BTW: Where's that announcement that was supposedly coming this week?
    Details were meant to be finalized this week, but that doesn't mean an announcement will take place. They could very well be waiting for international distribution to be locked in before announcing both to the public.
    Ah, I see, thanks for clarifying.

    Not being in the film industry, I'm interested to know what the implications are for the foreign distributor if they don't get domestic. My understanding is most of the profit is on the domestic side (correct me if I'm wrong) due to deals with theatre chains and what not (as well as restrictions in some markets re: splits) even though the bulk of the top line increasingly comes from overseas (not unexpected given the increase in wealth and modernization/middle class in those markets).

    Still, it's notable that apart from the SF anomaly, the US ticket sales have not increased fundamentally since the Brosnan bump that accompanied GE.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,470
    It would be a welcome surprise if we get big news in the first half of next year, like director, more cast, title, etc. Probably will remain slow going for a long time though.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I still think late spring 2018 before the next big news comes out.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,470
    If we’re lucky. I’ll probably start my backwards Bondathon in February or March. At least we have such a great selection to revisit as we wait.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    FoxRox wrote: »
    It would be a welcome surprise if we get big news in the first half of next year, like director, more cast, title, etc. Probably will remain slow going for a long time though.
    It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear something at the beginning of next year, as EON will have likely chosen a director by then.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Those poor American people though, will think that they are going to watch a found-footage or whatever arthouse film :-D. But, this could be very well the intro to Bond 25 in the USA:



    Or this 2017-version :-D:
    It's my understanding that MGM will continue to release its titles under the MGM banner through the joint venture and Annapurna will do the same for its titles. So it's unlikely that we see the logo (although possible). More likely there will be a small note somewhere if they decide to name the JV (an MGM/Annapurna Joint Venture or something like that).

    That sounds right. Language in the Oct. 31 press release:

    //While Annapurna and MGM will share funding for the joint venture’s operations, each studio will retain creative control over their individual projects. The marketing and distribution team established at Annapurna will facilitate campaigns for all MGM titles, which will be distributed under the MGM banner. Annapurna produced films will continue to be distributed under Annapurna’s already established label.//

    Meanwhile there's also this passage:

    //As part of the agreement, MGM and Annapurna have formed a releasing entity called Mirror, to pursue theatrical releasing opportunities for third party films supported by thoughtful approaches to marketing, publicity, and distribution, while allowing creators and investors to maintain individuality and their brands.//

    That sounds as if the Mirror name might come into play if MGM-Annapurna release somebody else's movie.

    Full release is here:
    http://www.mgm.com/#/news/286
Sign In or Register to comment.