No Time To Die: Production Diary

1122212231225122712282507

Comments

  • edited December 2017 Posts: 3,334
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    I find it strange that people talk about past Bond castings as if they were from some bygone Golden Age of Hollywood (1920s, 30s and 40s). I mean, seriously, things haven't changed that much since 2006 when Craig first took his bow. Let's just apply the same logic to Marvel castings then, shall we. Apart from Robert Downey Jr (the comeback rehabilitation kid), all the superhero casting roles have since gone to relatively low-key actors in the lead roles. Not that I'm suggesting Eon follow the Marvel blueprint, but the fact remains, it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds. The same thing goes for Bond, too.
    I don't get it. Who said it's necessary to cast a well-known actor?
    Scroll back. Even take a look at the other threads relating to the casting of a new James Bond, and there's plenty here that continue to advocate Fassbender, Hiddleston and Hardy purely on the strength of them having already tasted BO success in other movies. Surely, you don't want me to compile a list of forum names just for you, do you?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm presently watching SP. I believe the criticism is warranted. The dialogue in this film is bloody awful.

    0RX3zXt.png
    This is the sort of look I was referring to in my quick commentary on the film in the Last Bond Movie thread. He either does this or snarls and smirks his way through. Either he's getting too old or he just can't do the requisite expressions, but he just comes across nasty more than anything else in this film. I hope he gets his act together for the next one, or else he should just exit the stage and let someone else in.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    How can you talk like this? Can't you see I'm grieving?
    bondjames wrote: »
    "So James, why did you come?" "I came here to kill you" "And I thought you came here to die"
    I honestly don´t know what´s supposed to be wrong with those lines. Especially the one with Bellucci, I found Bond´s "No" very good.
    The 'grieving' thing wasn't bad I agree. It's just that the scene doesn't gel all that well for me. It was almost like the whole thing was inserted to get the supposedly witty "No" response from Bond. Force fed.

    The 'why did you come' however was brutally bad imho. That was in the later trailers and was a tip off to me that this film was going to be less than stellar. Even a 7 year old could have written something better. In fairness the same applies to 'some men are coming to kill us. we're going to kill them first' from SF and yet I've had that one up near my avatar for many years.
  • HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @haserot, regarding control - wasn't that Cubby's approach too? That's how they ran things in the past. Tight. With a vision. Less artsy fartsy and more production line. The result we got reflected that. What we're getting now is a bit different, and the approach is different too, with far more actor/director control. I preferred the old way, but I suppose we won't see that again without a shift in 'control' (pun intended).

    i am not sure... the style in which they made the movies was keeping with the time - so it's not like they sacrificed art or anything for the sake production... i just think back then, there were far less directors who fancied themselves "auteurs" - there wasn't the independent movement like you see today.. plus, there was more of an emphasis on shooting in studios, which if you look at those early Bond movies - think about how much was filmed on a studio set vs how much was actually filmed on location... nowadays, there is a lot more location shooting - which always makes things tougher because of all the red tape you have to go through to clear shooting schedules with cities..

    If there is one impression I don't got from the early bond movies,then it's that that they filmed to much in the studio. Hell, in Doctor No alone there was more shooting on location then in all of Skyfall together.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    We have had Jinx and Hinx, perhaps we will get Lynx or Minx from P&W next

    Or mesa!
    latest?cb=20160809082506
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm presently watching SP. I believe the criticism is warranted. The dialogue in this film is bloody awful.

    0RX3zXt.png
    This is the sort of look I was referring to in my quick commentary on the film in the Last Bond Movie thread. He either does this or snarls and smirks his way through. Either he's getting too old or he just can't do the requisite expressions, but he just comes across nasty more than anything else in this film. I hope he gets his act together for the next one, or else he should just exit the stage and let someone else in.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    How can you talk like this? Can't you see I'm grieving?
    bondjames wrote: »
    "So James, why did you come?" "I came here to kill you" "And I thought you came here to die"
    I honestly don´t know what´s supposed to be wrong with those lines. Especially the one with Bellucci, I found Bond´s "No" very good.
    The 'grieving' thing wasn't bad I agree. It's just that the scene doesn't gel all that well for me. It was almost like the whole thing was inserted to get the supposedly witty "No" response from Bond. Force fed.

    The 'why did you come' however was brutally bad imho. That was in the later trailers and was a tip off to me that this film was going to be less than stellar. Even a 7 year old could have written something better. In fairness the same applies to 'some men are coming to kill us. we're going to kill them first' from SF and yet I've had that one up near my avatar for many years.
    IMO there were much worse scenes than the funeral one, and most of it more down to directing than writing (the latter goes also for Craig´s performance IMO). We´re talking about a film series that includes sevenn Roger Moore films, so there is no excuse if a bad line is not delivered in a gracious way ;-).

  • edited December 2017 Posts: 3,334
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @haserot, regarding control - wasn't that Cubby's approach too? That's how they ran things in the past. Tight. With a vision. Less artsy fartsy and more production line. The result we got reflected that. What we're getting now is a bit different, and the approach is different too, with far more actor/director control. I preferred the old way, but I suppose we won't see that again without a shift in 'control' (pun intended).

    i am not sure... the style in which they made the movies was keeping with the time - so it's not like they sacrificed art or anything for the sake production... i just think back then, there were far less directors who fancied themselves "auteurs" - there wasn't the independent movement like you see today.. plus, there was more of an emphasis on shooting in studios, which if you look at those early Bond movies - think about how much was filmed on a studio set vs how much was actually filmed on location... nowadays, there is a lot more location shooting - which always makes things tougher because of all the red tape you have to go through to clear shooting schedules with cities..

    If there is one impression I don't got from the early bond movies,then it's that that they filmed too much in the studio. Hell, in Doctor No alone there was more shooting on location then in all of Skyfall together.
    I happen to agree with @noSolaceleft on this. The early Bonds definitely used location shoots much more extensively than today. Of course, they did sometimes have to resort to studio pick-up shots later where a blue-screen backdrop was a little too obvious, but mostly the shoots were done outside of the studio on location. Even OHMSS the cast and crew spent months away at Piz Gloria shooting those scenes. On the other hand, SF was notorious for utilizing CGI for its studio sets to disguise they weren't abroad: Silva's Island, plus China and Macau (which Daniel Craig didn't even set foot in).

    Also, not so sure about your "auteurs" argument, @haserot. There's certainly less "auteurs" around today than there were in the past. Unless you're talking about indie films whereby someone with a cheap video camera has shot something entirely on a shoestring budget and calls it art. I guess there's plenty of terrible quality, homemade trash passing itself of as proper movies nowadays. One only needs to take a look at some of those Amazon download movies available for streaming today, to see how the standard has hit rock-bottom. I don't think many directors, aside from Darren Aronofsky (God only knows why he keeps getting funded?) and perhaps Tarantino, Nolan and small handful of others, can afford to be too far up their own jacksies. Can't really see much of an independent movement going on today, to be honest. It's not like we're in an age where we can compare "auteur" names such as Jean-Luc Godard, Truffaut, Altman, Michelangelo Antonioni, Kubrick, Bertolucci, Howard Hawks, Fellini, Ingmar Bergman, Roman Polanski, Rossellini, David Lean, Luis Buñuel, plus Sergio Leone and the like to the modern crop.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @haserot, regarding control - wasn't that Cubby's approach too? That's how they ran things in the past. Tight. With a vision. Less artsy fartsy and more production line. The result we got reflected that. What we're getting now is a bit different, and the approach is different too, with far more actor/director control. I preferred the old way, but I suppose we won't see that again without a shift in 'control' (pun intended).

    i am not sure... the style in which they made the movies was keeping with the time - so it's not like they sacrificed art or anything for the sake production... i just think back then, there were far less directors who fancied themselves "auteurs" - there wasn't the independent movement like you see today.. plus, there was more of an emphasis on shooting in studios, which if you look at those early Bond movies - think about how much was filmed on a studio set vs how much was actually filmed on location... nowadays, there is a lot more location shooting - which always makes things tougher because of all the red tape you have to go through to clear shooting schedules with cities..

    If there is one impression I don't got from the early bond movies,then it's that that they filmed to much in the studio. Hell, in Doctor No alone there was more shooting on location then in all of Skyfall together.

    are you sure?.. yes, they filmed a lot on location, in the same location - but the majority of that film was a sound stage.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2017 Posts: 4,399
    bondsum wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @haserot, regarding control - wasn't that Cubby's approach too? That's how they ran things in the past. Tight. With a vision. Less artsy fartsy and more production line. The result we got reflected that. What we're getting now is a bit different, and the approach is different too, with far more actor/director control. I preferred the old way, but I suppose we won't see that again without a shift in 'control' (pun intended).

    i am not sure... the style in which they made the movies was keeping with the time - so it's not like they sacrificed art or anything for the sake production... i just think back then, there were far less directors who fancied themselves "auteurs" - there wasn't the independent movement like you see today.. plus, there was more of an emphasis on shooting in studios, which if you look at those early Bond movies - think about how much was filmed on a studio set vs how much was actually filmed on location... nowadays, there is a lot more location shooting - which always makes things tougher because of all the red tape you have to go through to clear shooting schedules with cities..

    If there is one impression I don't got from the early bond movies,then it's that that they filmed too much in the studio. Hell, in Doctor No alone there was more shooting on location then in all of Skyfall together.
    I happen to agree with @noSolaceleft on this. The early Bonds definitely used location shoots much more extensively than today. Of course, they did sometimes have to resort to studio pick-up shots later where a blue-screen backdrop was a little too obvious, but mostly the shoots were done outside of the studio on location. Even OHMSS the cast and crew spent months away at Piz Gloria shooting those scenes. On the other hand, SF was notorious for utilizing CGI for its studio sets to disguise they weren't abroad: Silva's Island, plus China and Macau (which Daniel Craig didn't even set foot in).

    Also, not so sure about your "auteurs" argument, @haserot. There's certainly less "auteurs" around today than there were in the past. Unless you're talking about indie films whereby someone with a cheap video camera has shot something entirely on a shoestring budget and calls it art. I guess there's plenty of terrible quality, homemade trash passing itself of as proper movies nowadays. One only needs to take a look at some of those Amazon download movies available for streaming today, to see how the standard has hit rock-bottom. I don't think many directors, aside from Darren Aronofsky (God only knows why he keeps getting funded?) and perhaps Tarantino, Nolan and small handful of others, can afford to be too far up their own jacksies. Can't really see much of an independent movement going on today, to be honest. It's not like we're in an age where we can compare "auteur" names such as Jean-Luc Godard, Truffaut, Altman, Michelangelo Antonioni, Kubrick, Bertolucci, Howard Hawks, Fellini, Ingmar Bergman, Roman Polanski, Rossellini, David Lean, Luis Buñuel, plus Sergio Leone and the like to the modern crop.

    i didn't mean actual auteurs - i said "those that fancy themselves auteurs".. because filmmaking is a far more accessible medium than it has ever been before, so now you got a few thousand handicam heroes that believe they are the next Hitchcock - thats the point I was getting at..

    yes they shot at Piz Gloria - but you are telling me all those interiors at Piz Gloria were shot on location as well?.. you don't think the interiors were duplicated on a soundstage at Pinewood?... yes, all the exteriors, including the skiing were obviously done on location at Piz Gloria.. but mostly every interior shot, even the main room with the 360 view - that was a sound stage.
  • Posts: 5,767
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @haserot, regarding control - wasn't that Cubby's approach too? That's how they ran things in the past. Tight. With a vision. Less artsy fartsy and more production line. The result we got reflected that. What we're getting now is a bit different, and the approach is different too, with far more actor/director control. I preferred the old way, but I suppose we won't see that again without a shift in 'control' (pun intended).

    i am not sure... the style in which they made the movies was keeping with the time - so it's not like they sacrificed art or anything for the sake production... i just think back then, there were far less directors who fancied themselves "auteurs" - there wasn't the independent movement like you see today.. plus, there was more of an emphasis on shooting in studios, which if you look at those early Bond movies - think about how much was filmed on a studio set vs how much was actually filmed on location... nowadays, there is a lot more location shooting - which always makes things tougher because of all the red tape you have to go through to clear shooting schedules with cities..

    If there is one impression I don't got from the early bond movies,then it's that that they filmed too much in the studio. Hell, in Doctor No alone there was more shooting on location then in all of Skyfall together.
    I happen to agree with @noSolaceleft on this. The early Bonds definitely used location shoots much more extensively than today. Of course, they did sometimes have to resort to studio pick-up shots later where a blue-screen backdrop was a little too obvious, but mostly the shoots were done outside of the studio on location. Even OHMSS the cast and crew spent months away at Piz Gloria shooting those scenes. On the other hand, SF was notorious for utilizing CGI for its studio sets to disguise they weren't abroad: Silva's Island, plus China and Macau (which Daniel Craig didn't even set foot in).

    Also, not so sure about your "auteurs" argument, @haserot. There's certainly less "auteurs" around today than there were in the past. Unless you're talking about indie films whereby someone with a cheap video camera has shot something entirely on a shoestring budget and calls it art. I guess there's plenty of terrible quality, homemade trash passing itself of as proper movies nowadays. One only needs to take a look at some of those Amazon download movies available for streaming today, to see how the standard has hit rock-bottom. I don't think many directors, aside from Darren Aronofsky (God only knows why he keeps getting funded?) and perhaps Tarantino, Nolan and small handful of others, can afford to be too far up their own jacksies. Can't really see much of an independent movement going on today, to be honest. It's not like we're in an age where we can compare "auteur" names such as Jean-Luc Godard, Truffaut, Altman, Michelangelo Antonioni, Kubrick, Bertolucci, Howard Hawks, Fellini, Ingmar Bergman, Roman Polanski, Rossellini, David Lean, Luis Buñuel, plus Sergio Leone and the like to the modern crop.

    i didn't mean actual auteurs - i said "those that fancy themselves auteurs".. because filmmaking is a far more accessible medium than it has ever been before, so now you got a few thousand handicam heroes that believe they are the next Hitchcock - thats the point I was getting at..

    yes they shot at Piz Gloria - but you are telling me all those interiors at Piz Gloria were shot on location as well?.. you don't think the interiors were duplicated on a soundstage at Pinewood?... yes, all the exteriors, including the skiing were obviously done on location at Piz Gloria.. but mostly every interior shot, even the main room with the 360 view - that was a sound stage.
    I would have to go back to the making of in order to believe that those dinner scenes were shot with back projection. But any reason is a good one to revisit OHMSS :-).

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2017 Posts: 4,399
    boldfinger wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @haserot, regarding control - wasn't that Cubby's approach too? That's how they ran things in the past. Tight. With a vision. Less artsy fartsy and more production line. The result we got reflected that. What we're getting now is a bit different, and the approach is different too, with far more actor/director control. I preferred the old way, but I suppose we won't see that again without a shift in 'control' (pun intended).

    i am not sure... the style in which they made the movies was keeping with the time - so it's not like they sacrificed art or anything for the sake production... i just think back then, there were far less directors who fancied themselves "auteurs" - there wasn't the independent movement like you see today.. plus, there was more of an emphasis on shooting in studios, which if you look at those early Bond movies - think about how much was filmed on a studio set vs how much was actually filmed on location... nowadays, there is a lot more location shooting - which always makes things tougher because of all the red tape you have to go through to clear shooting schedules with cities..

    If there is one impression I don't got from the early bond movies,then it's that that they filmed too much in the studio. Hell, in Doctor No alone there was more shooting on location then in all of Skyfall together.
    I happen to agree with @noSolaceleft on this. The early Bonds definitely used location shoots much more extensively than today. Of course, they did sometimes have to resort to studio pick-up shots later where a blue-screen backdrop was a little too obvious, but mostly the shoots were done outside of the studio on location. Even OHMSS the cast and crew spent months away at Piz Gloria shooting those scenes. On the other hand, SF was notorious for utilizing CGI for its studio sets to disguise they weren't abroad: Silva's Island, plus China and Macau (which Daniel Craig didn't even set foot in).

    Also, not so sure about your "auteurs" argument, @haserot. There's certainly less "auteurs" around today than there were in the past. Unless you're talking about indie films whereby someone with a cheap video camera has shot something entirely on a shoestring budget and calls it art. I guess there's plenty of terrible quality, homemade trash passing itself of as proper movies nowadays. One only needs to take a look at some of those Amazon download movies available for streaming today, to see how the standard has hit rock-bottom. I don't think many directors, aside from Darren Aronofsky (God only knows why he keeps getting funded?) and perhaps Tarantino, Nolan and small handful of others, can afford to be too far up their own jacksies. Can't really see much of an independent movement going on today, to be honest. It's not like we're in an age where we can compare "auteur" names such as Jean-Luc Godard, Truffaut, Altman, Michelangelo Antonioni, Kubrick, Bertolucci, Howard Hawks, Fellini, Ingmar Bergman, Roman Polanski, Rossellini, David Lean, Luis Buñuel, plus Sergio Leone and the like to the modern crop.

    i didn't mean actual auteurs - i said "those that fancy themselves auteurs".. because filmmaking is a far more accessible medium than it has ever been before, so now you got a few thousand handicam heroes that believe they are the next Hitchcock - thats the point I was getting at..

    yes they shot at Piz Gloria - but you are telling me all those interiors at Piz Gloria were shot on location as well?.. you don't think the interiors were duplicated on a soundstage at Pinewood?... yes, all the exteriors, including the skiing were obviously done on location at Piz Gloria.. but mostly every interior shot, even the main room with the 360 view - that was a sound stage.
    I would have to go back to the making of in order to believe that those dinner scenes were shot with back projection. But any reason is a good one to revisit OHMSS :-).

    the technique is not rear projection... rear projection is what they used for the closeups during the skiing and bobsled scenes..

    the mountain scape during certain shots was an obvious matte painting
    (for those unfamiliar with what a matte painting is, or how it's utilized, here is a link... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matte_painting)



    here in this scene - the legit location being used, is when they are all sitting down, getting ready for dinner.... once it cuts to the closeups, it's a matte painting on a sound stage.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    worldofbond.com/ohmss.html

    Well.... I stand corrected - and I am willing to eat this plate of crow and humble pie in front of me - in regards to OHMSS... i was just reading this about the making of OHMSS, and Syd Cain had to practially build Piz Gloria on location... from the article...
    There was no duplication of the interior at Pinewood. "No, it was all done up there. Only the interior scenes like Blofeld's laboratory and cave and the wheelhouse we did at Pinewood."

    so... with that being said....

    tenor.gif?itemid=8270821
  • Posts: 5,745
    HASEROT wrote: »
    for anyone curious.. here is the upcoming schedule for Fall/Winter 2019

    (as of Dec. 7 2017)

    September:

    Sept. 6: IT chapter 2
    Sept. 13: (open)
    Sept. 20: Angry Birds Movie 2
    Sept. 27: Everest (animated movie) / Untitled Warner Bros. Event Movie

    October:

    Oct. 4: Gemini Man (Will Smith)
    Oct. 11: The Goldfinch (Ralph Fiennes)
    Oct. 18: (open)
    Oct. 25: (open)

    November:

    Nov. 1: Wonder Woman 2
    Nov. 8: BOND 25
    Nov. 15: Margie Claus (Melissa McCarthy)
    Nov. 22: Untitled Fox/Marvel Movie 2
    Nov. 27: Frozen 2

    December:

    Dec. 4: (open)
    Dec. 11: (open)
    Dec. 18: Masters of the Universe
    Dec. 20: Star Wars Episode IX
    Dec. 25: The Call of the Wild


    there isn't too much wiggle from for Bond - unless it wants to maybe move back a couple weeks, and try to take advantage of the end of October..

    As of right now, moving the release date to Dec. 4 would open Bond up for three weeks of no serious competition.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I assume Frozen 2 will get the IMAX theatres for a few weeks though.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm presently watching SP. I believe the criticism is warranted. The dialogue in this film is bloody awful.

    The scenes between Belluci and Craig make me cringe

    How can you talk like this? Can't you see I'm grieving?

    :)) that whole scene is off for me, Craig is way too slimey also
    I guess we just disagree, since it's perhaps my favorite moment of the film. I suppose I just love seeing Craig's Bond acting like a smartass and having fun in a mission. And that "no" Bond shoots at Lucia is so arrogant I can't help but love it. Just perfect!

    bondsum wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    I find it strange that people talk about past Bond castings as if they were from some bygone Golden Age of Hollywood (1920s, 30s and 40s). I mean, seriously, things haven't changed that much since 2006 when Craig first took his bow. Let's just apply the same logic to Marvel castings then, shall we. Apart from Robert Downey Jr (the comeback rehabilitation kid), all the superhero casting roles have since gone to relatively low-key actors in the lead roles. Not that I'm suggesting Eon follow the Marvel blueprint, but the fact remains, it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds. The same thing goes for Bond, too.
    I don't get it. Who said it's necessary to cast a well-known actor?
    Scroll back. Even take a look at the other threads relating to the casting of a new James Bond, and there's plenty here that continue to advocate Fassbender, Hiddleston and Hardy purely on the strength of them having already tasted BO success in other movies. Surely, you don't want me to compile a list of forum names just for you, do you?
    Certainly not! At any rate, I do agree famous actors are not necessary at all.
  • Posts: 3,334
    HASEROT wrote: »

    Well.... I stand corrected - and I am willing to eat this plate of crow and humble pie in front of me - in regards to OHMSS... i was just reading this about the making of OHMSS, and Syd Cain had to practially build Piz Gloria on location... from the article...
    There was no duplication of the interior at Pinewood. "No, it was all done up there. Only the interior scenes like Blofeld's laboratory and cave and the wheelhouse we did at Pinewood."
    Very magnanimous of you @haserot. You've saved me the bother of proving you wrong. It's such a shame that others here can't be equally magnanimous as your good self and admit when they are wrong also.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Certainly not! At any rate, I do agree famous actors are not necessary at all.
    Thank heavens for that!! I too, don't think the producers need to cast an already established "star" — I use the term loosely as they're clearly aren't any stars anymore — for the role of James Bond. That we both agree upon.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited December 2017 Posts: 1,756
    Do you lads think there still might be a chance Craig is done with Bond? Personally I can't see it but you never know.
  • Posts: 12,525
    Do you lads think there still might be a chance Craig is done with Bond? Personally I can't see it but you never know.

    Possible, but unlikely. It’d be quite awkward since he already formally stated he was coming back. I think they still haven’t found his replacement.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Do you lads think there still might be a chance Craig is done with Bond? Personally I can't see it but you never know.

    Possible, but unlikely. It’d be quite awkward since he already formally stated he was coming back. I think they still haven’t found his replacement.
    My thoughts regarding the matter are quite the same. He's been called back because there's no 100% eligible actor yet to succeed in his shoes.
  • NSGWNSGW London
    edited December 2017 Posts: 299
    Do you lads think there still might be a chance Craig is done with Bond? Personally I can't see it but you never know.

    I'd say he's 90% coming back, but if they haven't signed on a director yet, those odds could drop if things aren't in place within the next few months, could be another Dalton/Brosnan scenario.
  • Posts: 12,525
    I hope not. Waiting until 2019 is bad enough, and I really wanted Craig to get one more to make it the first total of 5 films for a Bond actor (and also because he should get a film stronger than SP to close out on). If we don't get more concrete news by next March, it's definitely time to worry.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    If Craig opted not to return after all this time and an appearance on Colbert's show confirming otherwise, it'll put an even larger damper on the era as a whole for me.
  • Posts: 12,525
    It would be a real bummer. Especially if it means we have to wait until 2020 or longer for the next Bond film.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    FoxRox wrote: »
    It would be a real bummer. Especially if it means we have to wait until 2020 or longer for the next Bond film.

    Absolutely, it'd be 2020 at the earliest, I'm guessing. Probably restart from scratch, order a new script, begin the arduous search for a new actor, etc.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Unless something catastrophic happens, he's locked in for Bond 25... After that though, who knows...

    ... But the more I think about it, the 60th Anniversary is in 2022, only 3 years after B25.. Its possible that EON try and pry him back for the big anniversary.. Although I wouldn't put them past using the occasion to usher in a new 007, like they did with Dalton.
  • Posts: 12,525
    6 is pushing it too far I think - especially if Bond 25 is a good one. Why risk tarnishing leaving on a high note? Ideally, Bond 25 comes out as scheduled with Craig, and then we get Bond 26 in 2022 with a new actor who proves to be a worthy replacement. Unfortunately, it might take a year or two longer if they can't find the right man.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 5,767
    HASEROT wrote: »
    worldofbond.com/ohmss.html

    Well.... I stand corrected - and I am willing to eat this plate of crow and humble pie in front of me - in regards to OHMSS... i was just reading this about the making of OHMSS, and Syd Cain had to practially build Piz Gloria on location... from the article...
    There was no duplication of the interior at Pinewood. "No, it was all done up there. Only the interior scenes like Blofeld's laboratory and cave and the wheelhouse we did at Pinewood."

    so... with that being said....

    tenor.gif?itemid=8270821
    @haserot that you certainly are not. It´s quite holistic of you to provide a variety of options. I wasn´t sure myself and could have imagined back projection or matte painting. And I´m proud to know what matte painting is :-).

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    NSGW wrote: »
    Do you lads think there still might be a chance Craig is done with Bond? Personally I can't see it but you never know.

    I'd say he's 90% coming back, but if they haven't signed on a director yet, those odds could drop if things aren't in place within the next few months, could be another Dalton/Brosnan scenario.
    I'm not sure of the % I would assign but he's most likely back. If he's out it's because the director and distributor (with MGM signoff) prefer another option/direction. That's unlikely, but it could happen.
  • //Unless something catastrophic happens, he's locked in for Bond 25...//

    That's how I feel. Not only did Craig say it on the Colbert show, but Eon put out a press release immediately after.

    I think it would take something of a highly disruptive nature to change. It looks bad otherwise.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 11,425
    HASEROT wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @haserot, regarding control - wasn't that Cubby's approach too? That's how they ran things in the past. Tight. With a vision. Less artsy fartsy and more production line. The result we got reflected that. What we're getting now is a bit different, and the approach is different too, with far more actor/director control. I preferred the old way, but I suppose we won't see that again without a shift in 'control' (pun intended).

    i am not sure... the style in which they made the movies was keeping with the time - so it's not like they sacrificed art or anything for the sake production... i just think back then, there were far less directors who fancied themselves "auteurs" - there wasn't the independent movement like you see today.. plus, there was more of an emphasis on shooting in studios, which if you look at those early Bond movies - think about how much was filmed on a studio set vs how much was actually filmed on location... nowadays, there is a lot more location shooting - which always makes things tougher because of all the red tape you have to go through to clear shooting schedules with cities..

    If there is one impression I don't got from the early bond movies,then it's that that they filmed to much in the studio. Hell, in Doctor No alone there was more shooting on location then in all of Skyfall together.

    are you sure?.. yes, they filmed a lot on location, in the same location - but the majority of that film was a sound stage.

    I’m sure the majority of most of the films was shot at Pinewood. But Dr No certainly gives you a taste of Jamaica. Lots of great locations used. A young Chris Blackwell (of Island Records game) was the location scout. He is Jamaican so knew the island well and it really shows. His mother happened to be having an affair with Fleming at the time which no doubt contributed his getting the job!

    Would love to see Bond back in Jamaica. Hasn’t happened since LALD and there it didn’t feature as itself.

    Time for some up to date Jamaican locations.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Craig‘s return quasi-guarantees a high box office ... or at least it‘s an option that‘s more on the safe side for the (new) distributor. That‘s why I am 100% sure Craig will be back for B25.
Sign In or Register to comment.