› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…12971298130013021303…2507

Comments

  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    edited February 2018 Posts: 2,730
    I think NSNA is an awful and far worse than any eon made bond film.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    I don't know if he's teasing something he knows (or doesn't know). Tweet from Jeff Sneider, editor of The Tracking Board.



    "So... when are we getting that BOND 25 director announcement? Any day now, right?"
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Or maybe he's just complaining. "Early 2018". Any day now, right?
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    edited February 2018 Posts: 2,115
    I should have noted that Sneider started the "shared Bond universe" thing in June 2017 with a tweet.

    First mention:
    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/caveat-emptor-new-rumor-eon-wants-a-007-universe/

    Followup on his internet show.
    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/30/jeff-sneider-follows-up-on-007-universe-rumor/
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Or maybe he's just complaining. "Early 2018". Any day now, right?

    You could read it that way. It's so vaguely worded, it's infuriating. I wasn't sure whether to even mention it here. But I figured with enough caveats, it's OK to mention it and let people see for themselves.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Oh, to hell with that guy. Let's not even pay attention to him.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2018 Posts: 6,289
    bondjames wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @ToTheRight, there is no indication that they are selling at this point.

    My personal view though is that one day they will, if the price is right and once they feel like they've done what they can with the character.

    There's been zero evidence that Eon is selling.
    You don't get evidence of something until it happens, so don't be so certain about the future. Like I said, there is no indication they are selling at this point.

    I don't understand your logic.

    They haven't announced that Gillian Anderson will be Bond at this point. Don't be so certain about the future.

    There is no news here.
    bondjames wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    We're in a different era, and it's harder to tie actors to an extended contract, which means a longer time between films.
    That's really not true. They tie them down to a three of four year contract as is normal practice. Some of the Marvel actors as an example are on six film contracts.

    Actors have become more powerful vs. the studios, as compared to the '60s. So if Craig wants to wait, and he's dealing with an option, he can.
    bondjames wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Moore and Brosnan were, by all accounts, model employees but were their strings of films any better?
    I'm afraid I don't understand your point. What's being a model employee got to do with the films? Connery is the best of the lot and he was hardly a model employee. So there is no correlation and I don't think anyone has made such a connection.

    Moore and Brosnan had more regular films but not everyone thinks that they are better than Craig's.
    bondjames wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Clearly Babs wants to hold onto Craig--he did after all rejuvenate the franchise with CR (one of the best reviewed Bonds ever)--so we are in for a longer wait.
    Clearly. CR was 12 years and 3 films back though. Let's see what he gives us with the next one before we render judgment on his era for posterity.

    Lazenby gets points forever for one film. So will Craig.
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @ToTheRight, there is no indication that they are selling at this point.

    My personal view though is that one day they will, if the price is right and once they feel like they've done what they can with the character.

    There's been zero evidence that Eon is selling.
    That is not entirely true. MI6 Community HAS confirmed that it's more than baseless rumor that EON might sell the franchise after Bond 25.

    Link?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    echo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @ToTheRight, there is no indication that they are selling at this point.

    My personal view though is that one day they will, if the price is right and once they feel like they've done what they can with the character.

    There's been zero evidence that Eon is selling.
    You don't get evidence of something until it happens, so don't be so certain about the future. Like I said, there is no indication they are selling at this point.

    I don't understand your logic.

    They haven't announced that Gillian Anderson will be Bond at this point. Don't be so certain about the future.

    There is no news here.
    My logic is just that there is no news until there is news. We aren't privy to what goes on behind the scenes. Nobody knew that the hedge funds who own MGM had been in extensive discussions to sell the studio to a Chinese concern in 2016 until well after the deal fell through.

    Nobody is saying that they are selling. Just that down the road they may. We are speculating on this thread as much as discussing news. That's why it's over 1300 pages.

    I can assure you I am not certain about anything, including what we know to date about B25.
    echo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    We're in a different era, and it's harder to tie actors to an extended contract, which means a longer time between films.
    That's really not true. They tie them down to a three of four year contract as is normal practice. Some of the Marvel actors as an example are on six film contracts.

    Actors have become more powerful vs. the studios, as compared to the '60s. So if Craig wants to wait, and he's dealing with an option, he can.
    Perhaps, but the bottom line is they still sign them up to 3-4 film contracts and then renew them. He's allowed to wait because they want him there. If they wanted him gone, he'd be gone, contract or no contract.
    echo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Moore and Brosnan were, by all accounts, model employees but were their strings of films any better?
    I'm afraid I don't understand your point. What's being a model employee got to do with the films? Connery is the best of the lot and he was hardly a model employee. So there is no correlation and I don't think anyone has made such a connection.

    Moore and Brosnan had more regular films but not everyone thinks that they are better than Craig's.
    Oh, I see now. Yes, of course it's all a matter of opinion at the end of the day.
    echo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Clearly Babs wants to hold onto Craig--he did after all rejuvenate the franchise with CR (one of the best reviewed Bonds ever)--so we are in for a longer wait.
    Clearly. CR was 12 years and 3 films back though. Let's see what he gives us with the next one before we render judgment on his era for posterity.

    Lazenby gets points forever for one film. So will Craig.
    No doubt he will always get credit for CR, but this is not the same scenario as Lazenby because he stopped at one. That's all we have for him. All the other actors are judged not by one film, but rather by their overall tenure, particularly the ones who've had long runs.
  • penbrunnerpenbrunner
    Posts: 26
    My guess is that, they don't have an actor abd they are still looking for one, despite al that craig news..the guy is crap anyway..Time for new blood.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    penbrunner wrote: »
    My guess is that, they don't have an actor abd they are still looking for one, despite al that craig news..the guy is crap anyway..Time for new blood.

    Lol welcome to the forums
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Not one of the Bond actors so far were „crap“ - they were all good and brought something different to the series. Craig revitalized Bond for the post 9/11 times - no matter if one likes his interpretation or not.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    penbrunner wrote: »
    My guess is that, they don't have an actor abd they are still looking for one, despite al that craig news..the guy is crap anyway..Time for new blood.

    Yeah that Daniel Craig, he's awful - a distinguished career as an actor working with some of the best directors in the business, revitalised Bond at a crucial time - yeah he's absolutely, as you say 'crap'.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,615
    In the longer term, I would be gobsmacked if the industry as a whole did not find a way of leveraging off of the brand/heritage and create an expanded universe. It's nothing to do with what us fans want. It's about return on investment and exploring new markets. Female agents, younger agents, team missions, buddy movies, etc dtc it's all out there waiting to be exploited. It's all about the market. As a fan, I think it's best to "go with the flow" as it's gonna happen anyway.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    patb wrote: »
    In the longer term, I would be gobsmacked if the industry as a whole did not find a way of leveraging off of the brand/heritage and create an expanded universe. It's nothing to do with what us fans want. It's about return on investment and exploring new markets. Female agents, younger agents, team missions, buddy movies, etc dtc it's all out there waiting to be exploited. It's all about the market. As a fan, I think it's best to "go with the flow" as it's gonna happen anyway.

    Bond won't have an 'expanded universe'.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,615
    Why not?
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Or maybe he's just complaining. "Early 2018". Any day now, right?

    That's how I would see it as well, but at the risk of looking stupid - who the hell is this guy?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    In the longer term, I would be gobsmacked if the industry as a whole did not find a way of leveraging off of the brand/heritage and create an expanded universe. It's nothing to do with what us fans want. It's about return on investment and exploring new markets. Female agents, younger agents, team missions, buddy movies, etc dtc it's all out there waiting to be exploited. It's all about the market. As a fan, I think it's best to "go with the flow" as it's gonna happen anyway.

    I don’t agree. As far as I’m concerned there is no appetite. These are event movies centred around one iconic protagonist. Drip feeding them every 3 years is the only way to preserve the integrity and heritage of the series and character. The storm will pass, that will become clear when SW inevitably trips over its own ambition.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    patb wrote: »
    Why not?

    Because Bond isn't Marvel and neither is it Star Wars - it's Bond.
  • patbpatb
    edited February 2018 Posts: 4,615
    Exactly the same arguments were made by Star Wars fans and it has not stopped Disney. I think, as fans, its very hard to seperate what we want to happen from the harsh financial realities of business. We have all seen examples of where integrity and heritage have been sacrificed at the expense of medium term profit.

    Plus, if done properly (as with Rogue One) there could be an argument that integrity and heritage can be built upon/re-enforced if the product is worthwhile (Rogue One (extending the universe) was well received 87% on RT compared to SP (mainstream Bond 61%).

    Interesting exercise: Can we, as fans, imagine a spin off movie that was actually better, more "Bondian" than a mainstream movie? (better direction, action, locations, music etc) I know just the thought will upset some fans but it's an interesting exercise IMHO. Is Bond about the person (it cant be Bond without Biond the man) or is it an atmosphere, a feeling, etc that could be recreated within the man himself. No easy answers but these are the exact thoughts that potential investors will be having. (please dont shoot the messenger)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    Exactly the same arguments were made by Star Wars fans and it has not stopped Disney. I think, as fans, its very hard to seperate what we want to happen from the harsh financial realities of business. We have all seen examples of where integrity and heritage have been sacrificed at the expense of medium term profit.

    Plus, if done properly (as with Rogue One) there could be an argument that integrity and heritage can be built upon/re-enforced if the product is worthwhile (Rogue One (extending the universe) was well received 87% on RT compared to SP (mainstream Bond 61%).

    Interesting exercise: Can we, as fans, imagine a spin off movie that was actually better, more "Bondian" than a mainstream movie? (better direction, action, locations, music etc) I know just the thought will upset some fans but it's an interesting exercise IMHO. Is Bond about the person (it cant be Bond without Biond the man) or is it an atmosphere, a feeling, etc that could be recreated within the man himself. No easy answers but these are the exact thoughts that potential investors will be having. (please dont shoot the messenger)
    In the creative field one is only limited by one's ambition and vision.

    Anything can be done, but it has to be done well. That last part, inevitably, is where the problems arise.

    So while I can see the business reasoning for such a move, I'm not as confident that the current leadership can execute it with the necessary quality. After all, they seem to be having trouble giving us a decent film every two to three years as it is.

    Ultimately without a visionary like Kevin Feige at the helm, one can run into a fiasco. Look at DC's debacle for evidence of what can happen. They've arguably ruined Batman for at least 5 years, after Nolan resuscitated it.

    So I have no problem with the idea. Just the execution.
  • DennisonDennison
    edited February 2018 Posts: 1,031
    patb wrote: »
    Exactly the same arguments were made by Star Wars fans and it has not stopped Disney. I think, as fans, its very hard to seperate what we want to happen from the harsh financial realities of business. We have all seen examples of where integrity and heritage have been sacrificed at the expense of medium term profit.

    Plus, if done properly (as with Rogue One) there could be an argument that integrity and heritage can be built upon/re-enforced if the product is worthwhile (Rogue One (extending the universe) was well received 87% on RT compared to SP (mainstream Bond 61%).

    Interesting exercise: Can we, as fans, imagine a spin off movie that was actually better, more "Bondian" than a mainstream movie? (better direction, action, locations, music etc) I know just the thought will upset some fans but it's an interesting exercise IMHO. Is Bond about the person (it cant be Bond without Biond the man) or is it an atmosphere, a feeling, etc that could be recreated within the man himself. No easy answers but these are the exact thoughts that potential investors will be having. (please dont shoot the messenger)

    It would be end up like 24: Legacy rather than Rogue One. It won't happen. Just like when 3D was all the buzz the Bonds didn't follow suit.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    edited February 2018 Posts: 2,115
    Exchange above:

    //
    That is not entirely true. MI6 Community HAS confirmed that it's more than baseless rumor that EON might sell the franchise after Bond 25.//


    //Link? //

    July 25, 2017 on Twitter:

    First this:


    Reply from the Twitter account of MI6 website:




    Haven't heard anything since.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,615
    @Dennison "It won't happen."

    I wish I could be so certain about the future.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    EON selling up really scares me because then I think it would get milked dry and lose its magic. I hope if they do sell it's to a company like themselves and not just Disney or whoever has the most money.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,615
    Selling to the highest bidder tends to be the trend. Sorry if that sounds sarcastic, selling to a lower bidder is burning money and the buyer can sell it on a profit anyway.

    It's hard to see how selling to a lower bidder would be in the shareholder's interests.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited February 2018 Posts: 1,756
    I think if Broccoli's are willing to sell, I wouldn't be opposed to it. They had their run with Bond, and if they don't feel like they can do Bond justice anymore, give it to someone who thinks they can and they will deliver.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    patb wrote: »
    Selling to the highest bidder tends to be the trend. Sorry if that sounds sarcastic, selling to a lower bidder is burning money and the buyer can sell it on a profit anyway.

    It's hard to see how selling to a lower bidder would be in the shareholder's interests.

    I was just hoping that if they sell up, she'd value the future of the series her dad made rather than how much money she could make (sure she's got more than enough for one lifetime anyway). I know really that you're right and they would just sell to the highest bidder but the thought of Disney snatching it up and churning them out like Marvel and Star Wars turns my stomach.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    patb wrote: »
    Exactly the same arguments were made by Star Wars fans and it has not stopped Disney. I think, as fans, its very hard to seperate what we want to happen from the harsh financial realities of business. We have all seen examples of where integrity and heritage have been sacrificed at the expense of medium term profit.

    Plus, if done properly (as with Rogue One) there could be an argument that integrity and heritage can be built upon/re-enforced if the product is worthwhile (Rogue One (extending the universe) was well received 87% on RT compared to SP (mainstream Bond 61%).

    Interesting exercise: Can we, as fans, imagine a spin off movie that was actually better, more "Bondian" than a mainstream movie? (better direction, action, locations, music etc) I know just the thought will upset some fans but it's an interesting exercise IMHO. Is Bond about the person (it cant be Bond without Biond the man) or is it an atmosphere, a feeling, etc that could be recreated within the man himself. No easy answers but these are the exact thoughts that potential investors will be having. (please dont shoot the messenger)

    You should really find out who invented Brothergate, because I have the distinct feeling you are destined to be his soulmat and best friend forever.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Disney doesn't want Bond. It would compete with their other offerings and is not up their alley. So I wouldn't worry about that really.

    I'm sure that if they ever decide to move on at some point they will hand it over to someone who would do it justice. It won't be all about the money and ultimately whatever offer they get would be quite substantial anyway because it's one of the most valuable (and underexploited) franchises out there.

    Keep in mind that MGM owns half, so both would have to be on side with any possible deal.

    For those who sometimes get upset and confused when we speculate, nobody is saying they are in fact going to sell. Just contemplating, that's all.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Exactly the same arguments were made by Star Wars fans and it has not stopped Disney. I think, as fans, its very hard to seperate what we want to happen from the harsh financial realities of business. We have all seen examples of where integrity and heritage have been sacrificed at the expense of medium term profit.

    Plus, if done properly (as with Rogue One) there could be an argument that integrity and heritage can be built upon/re-enforced if the product is worthwhile (Rogue One (extending the universe) was well received 87% on RT compared to SP (mainstream Bond 61%).

    Interesting exercise: Can we, as fans, imagine a spin off movie that was actually better, more "Bondian" than a mainstream movie? (better direction, action, locations, music etc) I know just the thought will upset some fans but it's an interesting exercise IMHO. Is Bond about the person (it cant be Bond without Biond the man) or is it an atmosphere, a feeling, etc that could be recreated within the man himself. No easy answers but these are the exact thoughts that potential investors will be having. (please dont shoot the messenger)

    But we aren’t SW or Marvel. They were already expansive universes before they were purchased and, more importantly, created as such. Bond’s world is exactly that, his.

    Could they expand it out. Of course they could, but it reeks of bad business and a fundamental misunderstanding of the series and what keeps it ticking nearly 60 years later. If you can show me the way to Bond-Con, with its hundreds of thousands of ravenous fans, I’ll happily rethink things.

    The same logic could be applied to an Indiana Jones universe. Could they make a successful spin-off? Possibly, based on hype and goodwill, but once that fades where do you go next? The audience isn’t there. SW and Marvel are series’ that by their very nature are built for expansion (and are by no means bullet proof) where Bond is something that risks irreversible dilution.

    Could it happen? Yes.
    Should it happen? No.
Sign In or Register to comment.