No Time To Die: Production Diary

1134813491351135313542507

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Well, what do we think? Has Bond hit another bump in the road as happens every few years, or are Bond fans just not patient enough or have enough faith that EON are putting something together?

    The latter.

    Correct.

    I think we've been more than patient with their bleating that they have such a hard life they need a year off to recuperate and the tiresome distribution deal dragging on and on. But I think the general frustration is more to do with the fact that faith in EON is at an all time low. Unless I'm misreading the general mood? Certainly for myself my EON approval rating is at lows only matched by DAD.

    I’m not sure there is that much bleating, though, if any at all. A lot of fans have whipped themselves into a frenzy, but in reality it’s surely just exasperation at the lack of intel. I don’t find that surprising, really. EON have never allowed the fans to dictate - just look at this site. When it comes to Marvel or SW the hardcore are vast, acknowledged and have a certain amount of purchase.

    Case in point - The Last Jedi - articles were popping up all over the place in mainstream news channels about its divisiveness amongst fans. Compare that to SP, which to us had an incredibly divisive narrative twist and there was nada. Bond belongs to the people and the people don’t care in that way. It’s simply a one off cultural event every few years. The hardcore doesn’t drive the direction and never will.

    Whether that’s poor form on EON’s part is debatable, but they were doing it long before Barbara took the helm and they’ve always been very aware that directly appeasing the hardcore fan base is a slippery slope.

    Basically, ask your man on the street whether he’s looking forward to the next Bond. He’ll have an opinion, but it will be utterly ambiguous. He’ll probably go and see it depending on the trailer, or if he likes the theme tune

    We overthink things here.

    Welcome back @RC7. We need your calm, collected approach. Thanks for splashing the cold water of reality over us: Cubby would never let one of us steer the ship; his daughter and step-son the same. The idea is ludicrous.

    In the end, Bond will be fine. As he always has been. There have been so-called dark days before (the Box Office of OHMSS in the States and GL's near expungement from the records; a mere five years later, Saltzman's gone, TMWTGG bombs (as far as Bond goes); is Moore in or out?... and so on...)

    As I've said before, I guarantee B25 will happen. And I guarantee that some will love it, some may just like it, others will be meh about it, and lastly, but not to be forgotten, some will hate it.
  • Posts: 632
    Deakins finally got his Oscar! I’d love him back for Bond 25!
  • Posts: 632
    And Nolan didn’t win. Will he be announced now as Bond director?
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 684
    bondjames wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Let's hope that we never again have to suffer through something like QOS where they burned through locations without ever feeling like you were in any of them.
    Disgraceful, especially when one considers the budget they burned through. I'm not sure which was worse, that or the CGI enhanced rubbish they foisted upon us for most of the locations in SP. Never again indeed.
    Do others feel similarly about QOS? I've always thought it was one of the better post-MR films in terms of infusing a sense of place through the locations (despite the inordinate number of locations Bond traveled to in that one, six or however many it was).
    I felt they wasted locations by zooming through them too fast at the start. It admittedly slowed down later in Haiti & Bolivia (or shall we say Panama, which stood in for both), but that's not saying much. I would have preferred to see and experience more of Lake Garda, Siena & Talamone as an example. Still, despite the haphazard and frantic editing, it's far superior to the way the locations were portrayed and experienced in SP imho.
    So the quantity reduced the quality. I see. I'll agree with that, to an extent. Given that there were so many locations, I do think what Forster shot of them was great and did the job about as good as anything since MR. What helps it along for me is the great photography and the way Forster cuts away (lord knows he did enough of that, at least he put some of it to use) to the people and objects and activities of the people in the locales.
    It's not so much the quantity for me as it is the manner in which the locations were portrayed. I agree that there were a lot of them, but then again MR had a lot too.

    I've given some thought to it and I think a lot for me has to do with the pacing too. For example, I mentioned on another thread that I've always felt that Glen's 'relatively' quick (in comparison to say, Gilbert's, Hamilton's or Young's) pacing prevents me from experiencing the locales as well in his films. The same goes for QoS, but even more so.
    MR had the benefit of a 2 hour run time, as well. I quite like QOS and what Forster was going for but it could definitely use more time. Another 10 minutes would probably make a world of difference.

    Just to bring this back around to Bond 25: again, I like what Forster went for with QOS. Ultimately it fell short of the mark, but I sort of wish they had picked up where he left off for what became SF (although I do like SF as well). Though QOS was in parts derivative of what Bourne was doing, I think it was also in parts very classically Bond. I think there's an interesting marriage of styles there that they might have stumbled into if they had logically taken QOS to its full conclusion in the 'missing' Craig film. And I think, had they accomplished this, they might've been ahead of the curve for a first time in a long while. However much I like SF, its influences from TDK are well-observed.

    Anyway, I wouldn't mind if they got there now, with his last. And based on the rumored directors, it does indeed look like they might be attempting to evoke something of the spirit of CR and QOS. So we might get there.

    EDIT: This sounds very vague to me, reading back what I'm trying to say. I might not be doing a great job of conveying what I'm talking about.
    I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree.

    I have a feeling EON don't intend to give us anything close to QoS (which I completely agree was terribly derivative in an overt way of Bourne as I've mentioned on other threads, but also evoked classic Bond as you noted). For one thing, Craig is much older and less intense of an actor now, so I can't see anything as action packed and dialogue light.

    If anything, I have a feeling that SF is what they are going to try to emulate. When I say that I don't mean that they are going to give us TDK 2 or SF 2. What I mean is that I think they will try to recapture those aspects which worked so well in that film. SF sort of played with the audience expectations of what a Bond film could be, by jettisoning some of the traditional narrative structure while also inserting some of the tropes that had been missing. Significantly, it had an emotional hook which resonated with the audience and powerful 'one on one' character exchanges (nearly every moment is impactful). None of that existed in the disappointing and by the numbers SP. So I expect they will try to give us something different and fresh from the standard formula for B25 while also ensuring thematic heft. After all Craig is still Bond.

    Which recent films will they draw inspiration from? That I can't say. We know that Logan has been considered, but since then the globally popular films have had a much lighter tone and that's where I think they are going to have a problem, because that doesn't suit Craig imho. Perhaps that is why Hodge is reportedly in, and with any luck it means more dramatic changes are in store.
    Good points in regards to Craig's age, @bondjames, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're likely right that doing Bond 25 in the spirit of his first two is a no-go. Looking at that rumored shortlist from a few months back, it seemed like they were heading in the direction of gritty and real, which is why I was thinking CR/QOS style. But indeed with SF being the benchmark (financially and critically), it might be more obvious for them to attempt to emulate it instead.

    Of the directors on the short list, we know Villeneuve to be out at this point, and he was perhaps the one best suited to deliver on the SF thing. Mackenzie could go either way. Demange definitely seems more of a scaled-back, action-oriented sort of guy, but of course I wouldn't put it past him to deliver a more emotional, drama-driven film. And he seems to either now be or at least have been at one point the closest to getting the gig. Boyle entering the picture is interesting. Like Mackenzie I also see him capable of giving us either a CR/QOS style or SF style film, per the plans of Eon. That said, I do see him more as a Forster than a Mendes. It'll be interesting to see who they go for; and now really I'm not sure how much we'll be able to surmise from that selection alone!

    The other half of what I meant to say was that I hope they decide to go in the direction towards which QOS pointed—try to find a better balance of Fleming, the style of early cinematic Bond, and a 21st century spy flick which doesn't favor its 21st-century-ness in an all too Bourneish way.

    Even if it has to wait for Bond 26, I'd like something that looks less to the past (SF, SP) next time out, something that glances less sideways at other franchises, and something that could be perhaps used as the blueprint for a Bond film going forward. Basically that old fan jag about how Bond should be leading the charge instead of following the pack, etc. etc. I don't think we've had a blueprint of what this new rebooted series is yet. It's like how you can see DN in the DNA of every Bond film that followed. I still think there's a DN to be found in this rebooted era. A DN that's not DN itself, of course. DN will always be with each of the films, but it's been 56 years. Some questions need answered after so much time. How is the spirit of Fleming relevant anymore? What aspects of filmmaking can Bond push because of the stories it tells?

    Another one is how the franchise goes on when the Fleming material is used (or mostly used) up, to the extent that it can't sustain an entire film. Eon has been attempting to answer this question since LTK, whose answer failed commercially at least. The GE answer was successful, however—repackage the films in greatest hits form—and so this is what they went with for the entire Brosnan era (parts of TWINE excepted, one of its admirable features). CR came along at just the right time to renew the franchise, just when a dash of Fleming was needed. And Fleming it had! An entire novel. That doesn't help really answer the question. Despite the shift in tone from DAD, there's a little bit of Brosnan-era hangover in it as well. There's also the same matter of why QOS's answer failed, too: the obvious, dated influence from BATMAN BEGINS, Bourne, and the like.

    SF and SP don't offer a way forward either. SF looked to the past (as it should've on the fiftieth anniversary) in addition to looking in the mirror, at the institution of Bond itself—admittedly different but can only be done credibly once. SP also glanced backwards to detrimental effect. What it was is certainly not what should be a model.

    Finding such a blueprint might best be served at the start of a new era. I'd be fine with it coming at any time, really. The QOS-inspired route might already have passed. It's been ten years. I still find that way intriguing, though. It seems others might as well, the recent comments above re: having Marc Forster come back. I'd be on board with that.

    Whatever is the model, I do think there is one awaiting out there that hasn't been hit on yet, that does something new, something which is to the film landscape now what the original 60s films were to the movie landscape then, and that's really where I'd like one or both of these next two films to head.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2018 Posts: 8,392
    I just hope they know Nolan's phone number. He's knows how to save a franchise from the brink, and could deliver a true masterpiece like we haven't seen since the 60's run.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Recently, I'm getting this slight bit of a feeling we're underestimating Eon. Perhaps they're having the public eye played. Now, let's not get nefarious or blatantly dismiss the idea, but what if right now they're planning some outlines for Bond films ten years ahead? Let's not shoot down that idea.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Strog wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Let's hope that we never again have to suffer through something like QOS where they burned through locations without ever feeling like you were in any of them.
    Disgraceful, especially when one considers the budget they burned through. I'm not sure which was worse, that or the CGI enhanced rubbish they foisted upon us for most of the locations in SP. Never again indeed.
    Do others feel similarly about QOS? I've always thought it was one of the better post-MR films in terms of infusing a sense of place through the locations (despite the inordinate number of locations Bond traveled to in that one, six or however many it was).
    I felt they wasted locations by zooming through them too fast at the start. It admittedly slowed down later in Haiti & Bolivia (or shall we say Panama, which stood in for both), but that's not saying much. I would have preferred to see and experience more of Lake Garda, Siena & Talamone as an example. Still, despite the haphazard and frantic editing, it's far superior to the way the locations were portrayed and experienced in SP imho.
    So the quantity reduced the quality. I see. I'll agree with that, to an extent. Given that there were so many locations, I do think what Forster shot of them was great and did the job about as good as anything since MR. What helps it along for me is the great photography and the way Forster cuts away (lord knows he did enough of that, at least he put some of it to use) to the people and objects and activities of the people in the locales.
    It's not so much the quantity for me as it is the manner in which the locations were portrayed. I agree that there were a lot of them, but then again MR had a lot too.

    I've given some thought to it and I think a lot for me has to do with the pacing too. For example, I mentioned on another thread that I've always felt that Glen's 'relatively' quick (in comparison to say, Gilbert's, Hamilton's or Young's) pacing prevents me from experiencing the locales as well in his films. The same goes for QoS, but even more so.
    MR had the benefit of a 2 hour run time, as well. I quite like QOS and what Forster was going for but it could definitely use more time. Another 10 minutes would probably make a world of difference.

    Just to bring this back around to Bond 25: again, I like what Forster went for with QOS. Ultimately it fell short of the mark, but I sort of wish they had picked up where he left off for what became SF (although I do like SF as well). Though QOS was in parts derivative of what Bourne was doing, I think it was also in parts very classically Bond. I think there's an interesting marriage of styles there that they might have stumbled into if they had logically taken QOS to its full conclusion in the 'missing' Craig film. And I think, had they accomplished this, they might've been ahead of the curve for a first time in a long while. However much I like SF, its influences from TDK are well-observed.

    Anyway, I wouldn't mind if they got there now, with his last. And based on the rumored directors, it does indeed look like they might be attempting to evoke something of the spirit of CR and QOS. So we might get there.

    EDIT: This sounds very vague to me, reading back what I'm trying to say. I might not be doing a great job of conveying what I'm talking about.
    I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree.

    I have a feeling EON don't intend to give us anything close to QoS (which I completely agree was terribly derivative in an overt way of Bourne as I've mentioned on other threads, but also evoked classic Bond as you noted). For one thing, Craig is much older and less intense of an actor now, so I can't see anything as action packed and dialogue light.

    If anything, I have a feeling that SF is what they are going to try to emulate. When I say that I don't mean that they are going to give us TDK 2 or SF 2. What I mean is that I think they will try to recapture those aspects which worked so well in that film. SF sort of played with the audience expectations of what a Bond film could be, by jettisoning some of the traditional narrative structure while also inserting some of the tropes that had been missing. Significantly, it had an emotional hook which resonated with the audience and powerful 'one on one' character exchanges (nearly every moment is impactful). None of that existed in the disappointing and by the numbers SP. So I expect they will try to give us something different and fresh from the standard formula for B25 while also ensuring thematic heft. After all Craig is still Bond.

    Which recent films will they draw inspiration from? That I can't say. We know that Logan has been considered, but since then the globally popular films have had a much lighter tone and that's where I think they are going to have a problem, because that doesn't suit Craig imho. Perhaps that is why Hodge is reportedly in, and with any luck it means more dramatic changes are in store.
    Good points in regards to Craig's age, @bondjames, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're likely right that doing Bond 25 in the spirit of his first two is a no-go. Looking at that rumored shortlist from a few months back, it seemed like they were heading in the direction of gritty and real, which is why I was thinking CR/QOS style. But indeed with SF being the benchmark (financially and critically), it might be more obvious for them to attempt to emulate it instead.

    Of the directors on the short list, we know Villeneuve to be out at this point, and he was perhaps the one best suited to deliver on the SF thing. Mackenzie could go either way. Demange definitely seems more of a scaled-back, action-oriented sort of guy, but of course I wouldn't put it past him to deliver a more emotional, drama-driven film. And he seems to either now be or at least have been at one point the closest to getting the gig. Boyle entering the picture is interesting. Like Mackenzie I also see him capable of giving us either a CR/QOS style or SF style film, per the plans of Eon. That said, I do see him more as a Forster than a Mendes. It'll be interesting to see who they go for; and now really I'm not sure how much we'll be able to surmise from that selection alone!

    The other half of what I meant to say was that I hope they decide to go in the direction towards which QOS pointed—try to find a better balance of Fleming, the style of early cinematic Bond, and a 21st century spy flick which doesn't favor its 21st-century-ness in an all too Bourneish way.

    Even if it has to wait for Bond 26, I'd like something that looks less to the past (SF, SP) next time out, something that glances less sideways at other franchises, and something that could be perhaps used as the blueprint for a Bond film going forward. Basically that old fan jag about how Bond should be leading the charge instead of following the pack, etc. etc. I don't think we've had a blueprint of what this new rebooted series is yet. It's like how you can see DN in the DNA of every Bond film that followed. I still think there's a DN to be found in this rebooted era. A DN that's not DN itself, of course. DN will always be with each of the films, but it's been 56 years. Some questions need answered after so much time. How is the spirit of Fleming relevant anymore? What aspects of filmmaking can Bond push because of the stories it tells?

    Another one is how the franchise goes on when the Fleming material is used (or mostly used) up, to the extent that it can't sustain an entire film. Eon has been attempting to answer this question since LTK, whose answer failed commercially at least. The GE answer was successful, however—repackage the films in greatest hits form—and so this is what they went with for the entire Brosnan era (parts of TWINE excepted, one of its admirable features). CR came along at just the right time to renew the franchise, just when a dash of Fleming was needed. And Fleming it had! An entire novel. That doesn't help really answer the question. Despite the shift in tone from DAD, there's a little bit of Brosnan-era hangover in it as well. There's also the same matter of why QOS's answer failed, too: the obvious, dated influence from BATMAN BEGINS, Bourne, and the like.

    SF and SP don't offer a way forward either. SF looked to the past (as it should've on the fiftieth anniversary) in addition to looking in the mirror, at the institution of Bond itself—admittedly different but can only be done credibly once. SP also glanced backwards to detrimental effect. What it was is certainly not what should be a model.

    Finding such a blueprint might best be served at the start of a new era. I'd be fine with it coming at any time, really. The QOS-inspired route might already have passed. It's been ten years. I still find that way intriguing, though. It seems others might as well, the recent comments above re: having Marc Forster come back. I'd be on board with that.

    Whatever is the model, I do think there is one awaiting out there that hasn't been hit on yet, that does something new, something which is to the film landscape now what the original 60s films were to the movie landscape then, and that's really where I'd like one or both of these next two films to head.
    @Strog, I very much agree with you on the need for a new blueprint - one which can be used readily in the future. I personally feel (and I believe you agree) that they have largely wasted the promise of the reboot, no matter what their recent box office numbers might be. I think the man who could give us that new template might be Christopher Nolan, and we may indeed have to wait for B26 to get it. He definitely has the creative and visionary chops to reimagine it and devise a formula which can work for at least a decade. If he were to do two in succession (I think asking for a trilogy may be too much) that would be sufficient to redirect the franchise in a new direction - one which embraces both the novels & illustrious cinematic past while throwing down the gauntlet to rival franchises. He's not the only one however. I'm sure there are others who can do it. I'm quite shocked that after 3 years our friendly caretakers appear not to have locked down someone for this task, especially when the franchise has been calling out for it loudly since the disappointing SP.

    I also agree with you about lingering DAD hangovers in Craig's most praised entry. I believe that's on account of P&W, whose shtick has become quite tired. News of Hodge gives me confidence that we are finally going to break that cycle for good. Let's hope.

    Like you I think a gritty and fierce QoS style (without frantic Bourne style editing or obvious plot thefts) could still work today. It just needs a younger actor who can combine the edginess with a little more cinematic suave and more impressive narrative flourishes.

    I personally would prefer if they wait for the new era before driving forward with a new blueprint. No need to waste it on someone who's got a foot out the door.
    Recently, I'm getting this slight bit of a feeling we're underestimating Eon. Perhaps they're having the public eye played. Now, let's not get nefarious or blatantly dismiss the idea, but what if right now they're planning some outlines for Bond films ten years ahead? Let's not shoot down that idea.
    I won't shoot it down. In fact, I think it's highly possible, but not because they are keen on planning ahead (they've shown very little ability to do that).

    Rather, I believe it's because they have been advised to look at options for a sale (either of Bond from EON to another owner, or more likely of MGM via either a public IPO or via a direct sale). In such situations, future scripts and directions help an acquirer to assess a value for the franchise (which is a large part of the empire).
  • Posts: 11,425
    Walecs wrote: »
    I, too, would welcome Marc Forster back. He got Bond way more than Mendes did.

    Totally agree
  • Posts: 11,425
    Bourne was great but it run its course. The fourth film with Damon was running on empty.
  • Posts: 1,162
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Well, what do we think? Has Bond hit another bump in the road as happens every few years, or are Bond fans just not patient enough or have enough faith that EON are putting something together?

    The latter.

    Correct.

    I think we've been more than patient with their bleating that they have such a hard life they need a year off to recuperate and the tiresome distribution deal dragging on and on. But I think the general frustration is more to do with the fact that faith in EON is at an all time low. Unless I'm misreading the general mood? Certainly for myself my EON approval rating is at lows only matched by DAD.

    I’m not sure there is that much bleating, though, if any at all. A lot of fans have whipped themselves into a frenzy, but in reality it’s surely just exasperation at the lack of intel. I don’t find that surprising, really. EON have never allowed the fans to dictate - just look at this site. When it comes to Marvel or SW the hardcore are vast, acknowledged and have a certain amount of purchase.

    Case in point - The Last Jedi - articles were popping up all over the place in mainstream news channels about its divisiveness amongst fans. Compare that to SP, which to us had an incredibly divisive narrative twist and there was nada. Bond belongs to the people and the people don’t care in that way. It’s simply a one off cultural event every few years. The hardcore doesn’t drive the direction and never will.

    Whether that’s poor form on EON’s part is debatable, but they were doing it long before Barbara took the helm and they’ve always been very aware that directly appeasing the hardcore fan base is a slippery slope.

    Basically, ask your man on the street whether he’s looking forward to the next Bond. He’ll have an opinion, but it will be utterly ambiguous. He’ll probably go and see it depending on the trailer, or if he likes the theme tune.

    Your last line is exactly the problem. There was a time when that average guy knew he would see the next James Bond movie in any case (and he was looking forward for it!).
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    There was a time when Bond had no competition though. And the film studios weren't run by accountants.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Recently, I'm getting this slight bit of a feeling we're underestimating Eon. Perhaps they're having the public eye played. Now, let's not get nefarious or blatantly dismiss the idea, but what if right now they're planning some outlines for Bond films ten years ahead? Let's not shoot down that idea.

    Sorry, but I shoot down that idea. And when it has hit ground I will kick it some more. It's not that I wouldn't love if they were working that way, but sorry evidence and empiric simply say "NO!!!"
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Recently, I'm getting this slight bit of a feeling we're underestimating Eon. Perhaps they're having the public eye played. Now, let's not get nefarious or blatantly dismiss the idea, but what if right now they're planning some outlines for Bond films ten years ahead? Let's not shoot down that idea.

    Sorry, but I shoot down that idea. And when it has hit ground I will kick it some more. It's not that I wouldn't love if they were working that way, but sorry evidence and empiric simply say "NO!!!"
    And what if you were proven wrong? Obviously, evidence suggests they're not doing anything right now other than flailing around themselves on the surface, but what if they really are working down that angle? Think about it.
  • Posts: 1,162
    I have thought about it but I just can't believe it. That would be contrary to just about everything they (EON) have ever done. They ( EON &Hollywood ) wouldn't even know how to do it if their life depended on it. I would rather believe that Donald Trump has a long term and coherent plan (and I'm not going to do that!!)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    It very much depends on what one wants from a Bond film. If it's box office then I'm sure they'd contend that they've more than delivered recently. I certainly hope it's more than that.

    I'd like them to get back to doing the basics well. Great stunts, visual flair, coherent plots, beautiful girls, soaring melodic scores, a sense of joi de vivre, well delivered (rather than cringey) bon mots and a good time at the movies. Most importantly, they need a Bond who one can believe women would gravitate towards and men would admire/fear. Bond should be the embodiment of British style and elegance, while still being deadly.

    The competition has always been there, even during the days of Indy.
    ---
    I have thought about it but I just can't believe it. That would be contrary to just about everything they (EON) have ever done. They ( EON &Hollywood ) wouldn't even know how to do it if their life depended on it. I would rather believe that Donald Trump has a long term and coherent plan (and I'm not going to do that!!)
    It's not their modus operandi but they may be forced down that path due to a larger business arrangement. This distribution deal has taken long enough, and I'm certain there's a lot going on behind the scenes. Bond is the jewel in the crown and this has all the signs of major due diligence.
  • Posts: 1,162
    I don't think they are too happy about specters box office. After all that movie costed more than $300 million to make and had to stay for several months in some cinemas to make its money.
    I am also quite sure that just about every poll they made since then told them that people perceive it as a rather boring movie.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Well, what do we think? Has Bond hit another bump in the road as happens every few years, or are Bond fans just not patient enough or have enough faith that EON are putting something together?

    The latter.

    Correct.

    I think we've been more than patient with their bleating that they have such a hard life they need a year off to recuperate and the tiresome distribution deal dragging on and on. But I think the general frustration is more to do with the fact that faith in EON is at an all time low. Unless I'm misreading the general mood? Certainly for myself my EON approval rating is at lows only matched by DAD.

    I’m not sure there is that much bleating, though, if any at all. A lot of fans have whipped themselves into a frenzy, but in reality it’s surely just exasperation at the lack of intel. I don’t find that surprising, really. EON have never allowed the fans to dictate - just look at this site. When it comes to Marvel or SW the hardcore are vast, acknowledged and have a certain amount of purchase.

    Case in point - The Last Jedi - articles were popping up all over the place in mainstream news channels about its divisiveness amongst fans. Compare that to SP, which to us had an incredibly divisive narrative twist and there was nada. Bond belongs to the people and the people don’t care in that way. It’s simply a one off cultural event every few years. The hardcore doesn’t drive the direction and never will.

    Whether that’s poor form on EON’s part is debatable, but they were doing it long before Barbara took the helm and they’ve always been very aware that directly appeasing the hardcore fan base is a slippery slope.

    Basically, ask your man on the street whether he’s looking forward to the next Bond. He’ll have an opinion, but it will be utterly ambiguous. He’ll probably go and see it depending on the trailer, or if he likes the theme tune.

    Your last line is exactly the problem. There was a time when that average guy knew he would see the next James Bond movie in any case (and he was looking forward for it!).

    People who go and see Bond movies will always go and see Bond movies. For the vast majority who don’t have the time and money to invest in such a saturated market they’ll wait and see what the ‘craic’ is when promotion starts to gear up. There’s no constant champing at bit on the scale of a SW or Marvel release.

    If EON put the pieces of the jigsaw in place in a manner such as SF they end up with a monster critical and commercial hit on their hands.

    Like every Bond before it, B25 has every chance of success and every chance of relative failure.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    Like every Bond before it, B25 has every chance of success and every chance of relative failure.
    This is where I don't agree. I believe the market is looking for a change. It's not just a few of us on here. That's what I've gotten from reading everything over the past few years and from surveying my fair weather fans.

    The continuity aspect they gave us with SP (which, let's face it was a very successful film and was watched by many), signaled an end. Their writing team even said as much before they were rehired.

    I'm quite certain that we are about to see an FYEO vs. MR scenario (in terms of relative box office performance) for B25 if they continue with what we currently know. Perhaps they are ok with that, and actually are shooting for a scaled down effort with relatively less financial pull (why a distributor would agree to this I don't know, but anything is possible). If so, then fine. Maybe they are choosing to prioritize a critical sweep this time (like FYEO, which was more favourably received by critics in comparison to MR) in order to set up Craig's post-Bond career (Broccoli may feel she owes him at least that much, after robbing him of his prime acting years in this gig he seems to dislike).

    If however they believe they can duplicate a QoS to SF scenario at the box office I believe they are dreaming. The situation was quite different then. Their Bond was younger, 'wrist slash' hadn't even been born yet (and hadn't done significant PR damage for the actor, if not the franchise), and the drumbeat for a switch hadn't even begun. This time around they're already talking about it one+ year before the next film is out.

    Moreover, the shadow of SF is a large one. It will be difficult to top it critically or at the box office.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Like every Bond before it, B25 has every chance of success and every chance of relative failure.
    This is where I don't agree. I believe the market is looking for a change. It's not just a few of us on here. That's what I've gotten from reading everything over the past few years and from surveying my fair weather fans.

    The continuity aspect they gave us with SP (which, let's face it was a very successful film and was watched by many), signaled an end. Their writing team even said as much before they were rehired.

    I'm quite certain that we are about to see an FYEO vs. MR scenario (in terms of relative box office performance) for B25 if they continue with what we currently know. Perhaps they are ok with that, and actually are shooting for a scaled down effort with relatively less financial pull (why a distributor would agree to this I don't know, but anything is possible). If so, then fine. Maybe they are choosing to prioritize a critical sweep this time (like FYEO, which was more favourably received by critics in comparison to MR) in order to set up Craig's post-Bond career (Broccoli may feel she owes him at least that much, after robbing him of his prime acting years in this gig he seems to dislike).

    If however they believe they can duplicate a QoS to SF scenario at the box office I believe they are dreaming. The situation was quite different then. Their Bond was younger, 'wrist slash' hadn't even been born yet (and hadn't done significant PR damage for the actor, if not the franchise), and the drumbeat for a switch hadn't even begun. This time around they're already talking about it one+ year before the next film is out.

    Moreover, the shadow of SF is a large one. It will be difficult to top it critically or at the box office.

    I’m not saying that B25 will be akin to SF directly, just that the pieces of the jigsaw were worked into place very effectively for that entry. There’s every chance they can achieve that again, whether the pieces of the jigsaw are large or small.

    It’s highly unlikely, I’d say impossible, to do SF business again and they’ll know that, I’ve no doubt that isn’t the aim, but it’s completely possible to construct a film that delivers critical success and financial success (relatively speaking), if of course the budget doesn’t spiral.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Like every Bond before it, B25 has every chance of success and every chance of relative failure.
    This is where I don't agree. I believe the market is looking for a change. It's not just a few of us on here. That's what I've gotten from reading everything over the past few years and from surveying my fair weather fans.

    The continuity aspect they gave us with SP (which, let's face it was a very successful film and was watched by many), signaled an end. Their writing team even said as much before they were rehired.

    I'm quite certain that we are about to see an FYEO vs. MR scenario (in terms of relative box office performance) for B25 if they continue with what we currently know. Perhaps they are ok with that, and actually are shooting for a scaled down effort with relatively less financial pull (why a distributor would agree to this I don't know, but anything is possible). If so, then fine. Maybe they are choosing to prioritize a critical sweep this time (like FYEO, which was more favourably received by critics in comparison to MR) in order to set up Craig's post-Bond career (Broccoli may feel she owes him at least that much, after robbing him of his prime acting years in this gig he seems to dislike).

    If however they believe they can duplicate a QoS to SF scenario at the box office I believe they are dreaming. The situation was quite different then. Their Bond was younger, 'wrist slash' hadn't even been born yet (and hadn't done significant PR damage for the actor, if not the franchise), and the drumbeat for a switch hadn't even begun. This time around they're already talking about it one+ year before the next film is out.

    Moreover, the shadow of SF is a large one. It will be difficult to top it critically or at the box office.

    I’m not saying that B25 will be akin to SF directly, just that the pieces of the jigsaw were worked into place very effectively for that entry. There’s every chance they can achieve that again, whether the pieces of the jigsaw are large or small.

    It’s highly unlikely, I’d say impossible, to do SF business again and they’ll know that, I’ve no doubt that isn’t the aim, but it’s completely possible to construct a film that delivers critical success and financial success (relatively speaking), if of course the budget doesn’t spiral.
    I agree and said something similar a few pages back. I don't doubt this is what they're aiming for, and it wouldn't be a bad move.

    The only risk is that the critics still savage it (they can be very difficult with a series once something has hit the highs that SF did). It's almost like they want to be the ones to control and determine the success going forward.

    The way around that of course is to throw in some arugula vegetarian helpings to satisfy SJW. Seems to be the ticket to getting a positive critical appraisal these days. Just lay off the red meat.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Like every Bond before it, B25 has every chance of success and every chance of relative failure.
    This is where I don't agree. I believe the market is looking for a change. It's not just a few of us on here. That's what I've got from reading everything over the past few years and from surveying my fair weather fans.

    The continuity aspect they gave us with SP (which, let's face it was a very successful film and was watched by many), signaled an end. Their writing team even said as much before they were rehired.

    I'm quite certain that we are about to see an FYEO vs. MR scenario (in terms of relative box office performance) for B25 if they continue with what we currently know. Perhaps they are ok with that, and actually are shooting for a scaled down effort with relatively less pull. If so, then fine. Maybe they are prioritizing a critical sweep this time (like FYEO, which was more favourably received by critics in comparison to MR) in order to set up Craig's post-Bond career (Broccoli may feel she owes him at least that much, after robbing him of his prime acting years in this gig he seems to dislike).

    If however they believe they can duplicate a QoS to SF scenario at the box office I believe they are dreaming. The situation was quite different then. Their Bond was younger, 'wrist slash' hadn't been born yet (and hadn't done significant PR damage for the actor, if not the franchise), and the drumbeat for a switch hadn't even begun. This time around they're already talking about it one+ year before the next film is out.

    Moreover, the shadow of SF is a large one. It will be difficult to top it critically or at the box office.

    Yeah, it's important to remember how things move on. Craig's Bond is a production of the mid 2000's, and there's no escaping that. When I go back and rewatch films from that era, it's startling how quickly they have begun to age. There was an air of going to far to be taken seriously. That's were I believe all these reboots came from in the first place, the need to establish a plausible version of a classic character. It's funny to watch how thorough these films were with their character development and world building, almost going to far to establish credibility. Films are a lot less self conscious about that now, and this is down in part to the onset of Comic book movies which are will to venture into outlandish or bombastic territory. Fortune favours the bold and break out hits like Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy and Deadpool were instrumental in this cultural push. Not forgetting successful revamps of established properties like Jurassic World and Fast and Furious and Mission Impossible which purposefully pursued a lighter tone.

    At the same time, despite appearances on the surface, Bond seems to resist change. Over a decade since the first film, we are seeing the same real world plot lines, and repeated sorry beats reused over and over. There is a slight, surface level attempt to lighten things up, but even that feels half-hearted.

    Like you, I don't buy into the "the signals don't point in any direction" rhetoric we're often witness to. There is considerable evidence to suggest that EON have painted themselves into a corner with their own bad decisions. Actions have consequences, and when you make enough mistakes and allow yourself to become complacent, that has an effect on your reputation and brand. Just because it's Bond doesn't make a different. I don't buy into the narrative that Bond is immune to ever falling behind. No company is ever to big to fail and no property is ever beyond reproach. As soon as you start to think you're invincible that's when things can really run away from you. I think Cubby understood this, which is why he took such care with TSWLM and GE. He new that it's much easier to maintain credibility than it is to regain it once it's lost. Barbara has been extremely cavalier in this regard, it's as if she doesn't realise when she is sailing close to the wind, and that has truly worrying implications.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @Mendes4Lyfe, there is no doubt in my mind that in time the Craig era will be seen as 'self contained'. It will always have its share of fans, but it will be a product of its time.

    EON (or whoever gets the series after they move on) will either create a new 'contained' characterization like the Craig era for Bond #007, or they will go back to a timeless approach of the past. My preference is for the latter, but I'm not sure that will happen.

    I think many fans and the general public recognize that the Craig era is a bit of an anomaly. More people still associate Bond with the pre-boot era imho, despite this path having lasted for 10+ years.

    It's easy enough to take it back to the earlier style if they want to imho. They just need the right guy to do it with and the right director/script, that's all. They also have to want to do it wholeheartedly (and not half-assedly, as they did with the last entry).
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    JET007 wrote: »
    Deakins finally got his Oscar! I’d love him back for Bond 25!
    You and me both, and it was well deserved.
  • Posts: 16,149
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe, there is no doubt in my mind that in time the Craig era will be seen as 'self contained'. It will always have its share of fans, but it will be a product of its time.

    EON (or whoever gets the series after they move on) will either create a new 'contained' characterization like the Craig era for Bond #007, or they will go back to a timeless approach of the past. My preference is for the latter, but I'm not sure that will happen.

    I think many fans and the general public recognize that the Craig era is a bit of an anomaly. More people still associate Bond with the pre-boot era imho, despite this path having lasted for 10+ years.

    It's easy enough to take it back to the earlier style if they want to imho. They just need the right guy to do it with and the right director/script, that's all. They also have to want to do it wholeheartedly (and not half-assedly, as they did with the last entry).


    I'd like the Craig era once it's over to be left in it's own self contained universe really.

    This may sound odd, but I kind of want the old regulars back post Craig.
    M being Admiral Miles Messervy, and Q - Major Boothroyd. Also a Moneypenny who's first name is not revealed to be Eve.
    In B26 I want to see Turner, Hiddleston or whoever it may be walk into the padded door office greeted by Moneypenny , flirt with her then meet with an old school M. I'd love the next 007's actor's world to be Fleming's only set in the present.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe, there is no doubt in my mind that in time the Craig era will be seen as 'self contained'. It will always have its share of fans, but it will be a product of its time.

    EON (or whoever gets the series after they move on) will either create a new 'contained' characterization like the Craig era for Bond #007, or they will go back to a timeless approach of the past. My preference is for the latter, but I'm not sure that will happen.

    I think many fans and the general public recognize that the Craig era is a bit of an anomaly. More people still associate Bond with the pre-boot era imho, despite this path having lasted for 10+ years.

    It's easy enough to take it back to the earlier style if they want to imho. They just need the right guy to do it with and the right director/script, that's all. They also have to want to do it wholeheartedly (and not half-assedly, as they did with the last entry).


    I'd like the Craig era once it's over to be left in it's own self contained universe really.

    This may sound odd, but I kind of want the old regulars back post Craig.
    M being Admiral Miles Messervy, and Q - Major Boothroyd. Also a Moneypenny who's first name is not revealed to be Eve.
    In B26 I want to see Turner, Hiddleston or whoever it may be walk into the padded door office greeted by Moneypenny , flirt with her then meet with an old school M. I'd love the next 007's actor's world to be Fleming's only set in the present.
    +1. 100% Agreed.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Sounds good. In a very deep and satisfying way!
  • Posts: 12,837
    Q being Major Boothroyd means no Wishaw though doesn't it and I think he's brilliant, he's done his own thing with it but is still in the spirit of the original, and I'd much rather he carried on (reboot or not) than replace him with a Desmond knock off.

    Same applies to M really. I'm not really attached to Fiennes, in fact I think they should swap out him and Harris for 26 if it's a reboot just to make that clear, but Lee was Fleming's M bought perfectly to life. Can't be topped. May as well go a different route like Dench did (I'm talking Brosnan era Dench, I think surrogate helicopter mum Craig era Dench was too drastic a change).
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 4,408
    [/quote]
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe, there is no doubt in my mind that in time the Craig era will be seen as 'self contained'. It will always have its share of fans, but it will be a product of its time.

    EON (or whoever gets the series after they move on) will either create a new 'contained' characterization like the Craig era for Bond #007, or they will go back to a timeless approach of the past. My preference is for the latter, but I'm not sure that will happen.

    I think many fans and the general public recognize that the Craig era is a bit of an anomaly. More people still associate Bond with the pre-boot era imho, despite this path having lasted for 10+ years.

    It's easy enough to take it back to the earlier style if they want to imho. They just need the right guy to do it with and the right director/script, that's all. They also have to want to do it wholeheartedly (and not half-assedly, as they did with the last entry).


    I'd like the Craig era once it's over to be left in it's own self contained universe really.

    This may sound odd, but I kind of want the old regulars back post Craig.
    M being Admiral Miles Messervy, and Q - Major Boothroyd. Also a Moneypenny who's first name is not revealed to be Eve.
    In B26 I want to see Turner, Hiddleston or whoever it may be walk into the padded door office greeted by Moneypenny , flirt with her then meet with an old school M. I'd love the next 007's actor's world to be Fleming's only set in the present.
    +1. 100% Agreed.

    Are you not just describing Spectre?!?

    It was the most cliched, formulaic Bond film we’ve had in a very long while.
    The story recycles a lot the classic elements. Beyond the superficial elements (the padded door, the Moneypenny flirting, gadgets from Q, cars with weapons, silent henchman etc), the plot and villains were literally taken from another Bond film (YOLT).
    I really hope we get something more original.

    ______________________________________________________________________________________


    The Boyle for Bond 25 idea never seemed right to me…

    Danny is a filmmaker with such a hyper-kinetic and individualistic style, which doesn’t seem to fit Craig’s era. Both Martin Campbell and Sam Mendes (the latter in particular) have established a more stately and sombre tone, not exactly one devoid of humour or invention, but decidedly more “serious”.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Boyle made his musical and his standalone idea with John Hodge became Bond 26. Danny Boyle would be a perfect fit to introduce a new Bond. I think Boyle is the perfect filmmaker to made a snappy, vibrant and fun Bond film. I think either him or Edgar Wright are the perfect choices for a more “fun” reinvention of the franchise.

    I think the producers should steer clear of the auteur path for Bond 25. They need a filmmaker who can finish Craig’s era within the same register his previous films were set within.

    Personally, if Villenueve, Demange and Mackenzie are out. They should turn back to either Campbell or Mendes. The film is supposed to shoot before the end of the year and they need a competent director to come in. I think if they went with an indie filmmaker, they would just be overwhelmed at this late a stage. I wouldn't even be adverse to Marc Forster coming back (though I've heard woeful things about his post-Bond work)
  • Posts: 1,162
    To me just about nothing in SP was classic James Bond.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2018 Posts: 8,392
    @Pierce2Daniel

    Agree 100%

    Mendes or even Campbell are preferable to Boyle, Villainuere, or Yan Demange. 3:-O
Sign In or Register to comment.