No Time To Die: Production Diary

1144814491451145314542507

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    Longest serving means just that. Craig wins if he does Bond# 25.

    Indeed he does,just not in my mind.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The true idiocy of the whole thing; the Bond actor with which they expect audiences to invest in and remember details and characters from movie to movie is the one with the unheard of (multiple) lengthy gaps in their tenure.
    Maybe they should begin the next film with a segment called "Previously on James Bond." Then the gunbarrel. Though if they did that, the gunbarrel wouldn't open the film. Maybe the gunbarrel first and then "Previously on James Bond"? Though then you'd have the gunbarrel opening up onto old footage.
  • Posts: 19,339
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The true idiocy of the whole thing; the Bond actor with which they expect audiences to invest in and remember details and characters from movie to movie is the one with the unheard of (multiple) lengthy gaps in their tenure.
    Maybe they should begin the next film with a segment called "Previously on James Bond." Then the gunbarrel. Though if they did that, the gunbarrel wouldn't open the film. Maybe the gunbarrel first and then "Previously on James Bond"? Though then you'd have the gunbarrel opening up onto old footage.

    By the same voice-over man who says the same thing on Hells Kitchen USA .
  • Posts: 17,753
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The true idiocy of the whole thing; the Bond actor with which they expect audiences to invest in and remember details and characters from movie to movie is the one with the unheard of (multiple) lengthy gaps in their tenure.
    Maybe they should begin the next film with a segment called "Previously on James Bond." Then the gunbarrel. Though if they did that, the gunbarrel wouldn't open the film. Maybe the gunbarrel first and then "Previously on James Bond"? Though then you'd have the gunbarrel opening up onto old footage.

    You could always start with a voiceover by Brian Blessed or something similar! :))
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The true idiocy of the whole thing; the Bond actor with which they expect audiences to invest in and remember details and characters from movie to movie is the one with the unheard of (multiple) lengthy gaps in their tenure.
    Maybe they should begin the next film with a segment called "Previously on James Bond." Then the gunbarrel. Though if they did that, the gunbarrel wouldn't open the film. Maybe the gunbarrel first and then "Previously on James Bond"? Though then you'd have the gunbarrel opening up onto old footage.

    How about, right after the gun barrel, the movie starts with Craig looking directly into the Camera and saying "you may be wondering how i ended up here..." and then they show a little flashback montage
  • Posts: 3,336
    If the movie dosen't come out in 2019, i will be pissed. So tired of all the problems and delays after Craig took over.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    If the movie dosen't come out in 2019, i will be pissed. So tired of all the problems and delays after Craig took over.

    You are suggesting there is a correlation between Craig taking over and the delays?
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    That's why Sir Roger will always be the longest serving Bond,to me at least,with his 7 films in 12 years.

    He made the most, but he won’t be the longest serving if Craig makes B25.

    Quote : "To me at least."

    Time served is a literal measure. You won’t be get any points on the pub quiz.

    I can live without pub quiz points,no probs.

    He's thrown a kettle over a pub. What have you ever done?
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 19,339
    DCisared wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    That's why Sir Roger will always be the longest serving Bond,to me at least,with his 7 films in 12 years.

    He made the most, but he won’t be the longest serving if Craig makes B25.

    Quote : "To me at least."

    Time served is a literal measure. You won’t be get any points on the pub quiz.

    I can live without pub quiz points,no probs.

    He's thrown a kettle over a pub. What have you ever done?

    Me ?
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 12,837
    I really think they've let the momentum they had after SF slip away and it's a shame. Sure they wouldn't have been able to recreate that kind of success (Olympics, 50th) but there was still so much hype around then that they could have taken advantage of.

    Instead we wait three years for the next film which, as much as I enjoyed it and as well as it did over here in the UK, I think we can now say is generally seen as a disappointment. It's regularly ripped to shreds when it's bought up online. A bunch of rumors come out about the lead actor which aren't fair at all, we all know the wrist slash thing was taken out of context, but they really don't do enough at all to calm down that bad press. They don't seem to making any headway towards the next film. There's some media attention though because of the possibility of a new actor. Finally nearly two years after the release of SP, Craig says he's back, in a film that's another two years away. Any momentum coming from how successful SF was is pretty much gone at this point.

    I don't want Bond to be Marvel. I like that it's an event. But I do think it's a shame that in 2012 they seemed to be in such a good, exciting position. And the ending of SF showed so much promise as well. All those people who saw the film and loved it walked out of the cinema knowing Bond was about to get back to work "with pleasure". It really felt like the start of a new era itself, a shot in the arm after QoS. And they've done next to nothing with it.
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    barryt007 wrote: »
    DCisared wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    That's why Sir Roger will always be the longest serving Bond,to me at least,with his 7 films in 12 years.

    He made the most, but he won’t be the longest serving if Craig makes B25.

    Quote : "To me at least."

    Time served is a literal measure. You won’t be get any points on the pub quiz.

    I can live without pub quiz points,no probs.

    He's thrown a kettle over a pub. What have you ever done?

    Me ?

    Yeah, so you choose anything. If he can throw it over, we've won the champagne. And that's it. And that's the real quiz. Choose one thing.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The true idiocy of the whole thing; the Bond actor with which they expect audiences to invest in and remember details and characters from movie to movie is the one with the unheard of (multiple) lengthy gaps in their tenure.

    Since CR in 2006, there has been 9 calendar years without a new Bond release (2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018). If we go back to 1962 and DN's release, in order to reach 9 calendar years without new Bond films: 1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1982. 5 films & 9 years off vs 12 films & 9 years off.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited April 2018 Posts: 4,583
    Some random thoughts to either stir or calm the waters, here:

    1. From what I am reading, the delay on Bond 25 would be the result of Boyle's work schedule more than the shake-up at MGM.
    2. I am having a hard time figuring out why Universal is going to wait so long to release the Boyle musical-comedy. That film will be shooting soon and likely done by July. So why the 15-month post-production? That is insane. That film should be ready for release next spring. Unless...
    3. Universal has pushed back that release date to CAPITALIZE on Bond. If so, this would suggest that the Bond 25 release date is firm. Or it could be at Boyle's request so that he is not doing the circuit while in production on Bond 25 (which makes sense).
    4. There is no way EON (and MGM) would tie itself to Boyle if his other commitments were standing in the way. MGM is hurting and desperately needs Bond. Any delay is like tossing money into the wind. The investors won't have any of it.
    5. If i am wrong, and EON is sticking with Boyle and allowing his work schedule to dictate the release of Bond 25, then this idea of his and Hodge's better be damn good.
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 12,837
    DCisared wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    DCisared wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    That's why Sir Roger will always be the longest serving Bond,to me at least,with his 7 films in 12 years.

    He made the most, but he won’t be the longest serving if Craig makes B25.

    Quote : "To me at least."

    Time served is a literal measure. You won’t be get any points on the pub quiz.

    I can live without pub quiz points,no probs.

    He's thrown a kettle over a pub. What have you ever done?

    Me ?

    Yeah, so you choose anything. If he can throw it over, we've won the champagne. And that's it. And that's the real quiz. Choose one thing.

    Choose a topic @DCisared.
  • RC7RC7
    edited April 2018 Posts: 10,512
    Longest serving means just that. Craig wins if he does Bond# 25.

    Exactly. Rog is my favourite, but I’m not going to spit my dummy out over it.
    DCisared wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    That's why Sir Roger will always be the longest serving Bond,to me at least,with his 7 films in 12 years.

    He made the most, but he won’t be the longest serving if Craig makes B25.

    Quote : "To me at least."

    Time served is a literal measure. You won’t be get any points on the pub quiz.

    I can live without pub quiz points,no probs.

    He's thrown a kettle over a pub. What have you ever done?

    Brilliant.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2018 Posts: 23,883
    TripAces wrote: »
    Some random thoughts to either stir or calm the waters, here:

    1. From what I am reading, the delay on Bond 25 would be the result of Boyle's work schedule more than the shake-up at MGM.
    2. I am having a hard time figuring out why Universal is going to wait so long to release the Boyle musical-comedy. That film will be shooting soon and likely done by July. So why the 15-month post-production? That is insane. That film should be ready for release next spring. Unless...
    3. Universal has pushed back that release date to CAPITALIZE on Bond. If so, this would suggest that the Bond 25 release date is firm.
    4. There is no way EON (and MGM) would tie itself to Boyle if his other commitments were standing in the way. MGM is hurting and desperately needs Bond. Any delay is like tossing money into the wind. The investors won't have any of it.
    5. If i am wrong, and EON is sticking with Boyle and allowing his work schedule to dictate the release of Bond 25, then this idea of his and Hodge's better be damn good.
    This is not how I see it. I realize he's just a redditer, but Cashleypersia surmised some time back that the Boyle entry could be released in 2019 even though it is going to take little time to film. Basically, according to Cashley, the arrangement with EON is that both B25 and this musical will be edited together by Boyle in 2019, after B25 is finished filming. In this manner, he can get on with making B25 sooner.

    So the speculation about a 'release date' delay is due to a lack of an international distributor and/or MGM's woes rather than Boyle imho. I have said this before and I'll repeat it again, there's only so much EON can do in this instance. The international money man is important, especially for Bond because it's a massive global release.
    I really think they've let the momentum they had after SF slip away and it's a shame. Sure they wouldn't have been able to recreate that kind of success (Olympics, 50th) but there was still so much hype around then that they could have taken advantage of.

    Instead we wait three years for the next film which, as much as I enjoyed it and as well as it did over here in the UK, I think we can now say is generally seen as a disappointment. It's regularly ripped to shreds when it's bought up online. A bunch of rumors come out about the lead actor which aren't fair at all, we all know the wrist slash thing was taken out of context, but they really don't do enough at all to calm down that bad press. They don't seem to making any headway towards the next film. There's some media attention though because of the possibility of a new actor. Finally nearly two years after the release of SP, Craig says he's back, in a film that's another two years away. Any momentum coming from how successful SF was is pretty much gone at this point.

    I don't want Bond to be Marvel. I like that it's an event. But I do think it's a shame that in 2012 they seemed to be in such a good, exciting position. And the ending of SF showed so much promise as well. All those people who saw the film and loved it walked out of the cinema knowing Bond was about to get back to work "with pleasure". It really felt like the start of a new era itself, a shot in the arm after QoS. And they've done next to nothing with it.
    Good post imho. I agree with you. They have underestimated the importance of 'time' in this equation, particularly in a world that moves this fast. Their mistake.
  • Posts: 19,339
    DCisared wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    DCisared wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    That's why Sir Roger will always be the longest serving Bond,to me at least,with his 7 films in 12 years.

    He made the most, but he won’t be the longest serving if Craig makes B25.

    Quote : "To me at least."

    Time served is a literal measure. You won’t be get any points on the pub quiz.

    I can live without pub quiz points,no probs.

    He's thrown a kettle over a pub. What have you ever done?

    Me ?

    Yeah, so you choose anything. If he can throw it over, we've won the champagne. And that's it. And that's the real quiz. Choose one thing.

    Havent a clue what you are on about,i'm afraid.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited April 2018 Posts: 15,715
    TripAces wrote: »
    2. I am having a hard time figuring out why Universal is going to wait so long to release the Boyle musical-comedy. That film will be shooting soon and likely done by July. So why the 15-month post-production? That is insane. That film should be ready for release next spring. Unless...
    3. Universal has pushed back that release date to CAPITALIZE on Bond. If so, this would suggest that the Bond 25 release date is firm. Or it could be at Boyle's request so that he is not doing the circuit while in production on Bond 25 (which makes sense).

    Or Universal are hoping for Oscar nominations/wins for Boyle's musical film, which Boyle maybe doesn't want to rush into releasing to meet the Oscar season deadline in 2018 (before going straight into Bond), so they decided to aim for the 2019 Oscar season instead. Sure he'll be done filming long before the end of the year, but he may want extra time for the post-production, which may mean releasing right after the Oscar season of this year.
  • Posts: 12,837
    barryt007 wrote: »
    DCisared wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    DCisared wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    That's why Sir Roger will always be the longest serving Bond,to me at least,with his 7 films in 12 years.

    He made the most, but he won’t be the longest serving if Craig makes B25.

    Quote : "To me at least."

    Time served is a literal measure. You won’t be get any points on the pub quiz.

    I can live without pub quiz points,no probs.

    He's thrown a kettle over a pub. What have you ever done?

    Me ?

    Yeah, so you choose anything. If he can throw it over, we've won the champagne. And that's it. And that's the real quiz. Choose one thing.

    Havent a clue what you are on about,i'm afraid.

  • Posts: 19,339
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The true idiocy of the whole thing; the Bond actor with which they expect audiences to invest in and remember details and characters from movie to movie is the one with the unheard of (multiple) lengthy gaps in their tenure.

    Since CR in 2006, there has been 9 calendar years without a new Bond release (2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018). If we go back to 1962 and DN's release, in order to reach 9 calendar years without new Bond films: 1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1982. 5 films & 9 years off vs 12 films & 9 years off.

    Wow that's a hell of a difference,no wonder what @thelivingroyale said about the SF momentum is correct.

    Very complacent from EON.
  • Posts: 19,339
    RC7 wrote: »
    Longest serving means just that. Craig wins if he does Bond# 25.

    Exactly. Rog is my favourite, but I’m not going to spit my dummy out over it.
    DCisared wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    That's why Sir Roger will always be the longest serving Bond,to me at least,with his 7 films in 12 years.

    He made the most, but he won’t be the longest serving if Craig makes B25.

    Quote : "To me at least."

    Time served is a literal measure. You won’t be get any points on the pub quiz.

    I can live without pub quiz points,no probs.

    He's thrown a kettle over a pub. What have you ever done?

    Brilliant.

    You are saying I have ? really ?

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited April 2018 Posts: 4,583
    And another thought...

    A delay on Bond 25 is mere "speculation," according to the Hollywood Reporter. In any event, neither Variety nor THR made the "delay" a headline story. Instead, in both publications, the matter of Bond 25's release was a throwaway sentence, in the middle or at the end of an article on a whole other film. Within the industry, news of a Bond 25 delay would be HUGE news, and yet it was "buried." That says something.

    I think we're overreacting a bit.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    TripAces wrote: »
    And another thought...

    A delay on Bond 25 is mere "speculation," according to the Hollywood Reporter. In any event, neither Variety nor THR made the "delay" a headline. Instead, in both publications, the matter of Bond 25's release was a throwaway sentence, in the middle or at the end of an article on a whole other film. In other words, within the industry, this would be HUGE news, and yet it was "buried." That says something.

    I think we're overreacting a bit.
    Perhaps. As far as we know, they're still on for 2019.

    However, it's telling imho that both reputable sources 'speculated' on the same day in a throwaway, and this forum's site has apparently confirmed that it has heard rumblings of a delay in the tweet from a few pages back (at least if I read that correctly).

    It wouldn't surprise me if there's a delay quite frankly. There are things up in the air as far as I can tell (just intuition).
  • Posts: 1,162
    TripAces wrote: »
    And another thought...

    A delay on Bond 25 is mere "speculation," according to the Hollywood Reporter. In any event, neither Variety nor THR made the "delay" a headline story. Instead, in both publications, the matter of Bond 25's release was a throwaway sentence, in the middle or at the end of an article on a whole other film. Within the industry, news of a Bond 25 delay would be HUGE news, and yet it was "buried." That says something.

    I think we're overreacting a bit.

    Now that you mention it, no one except the Hollywood reporter reported about the ( at least a little meaty ) details on the whole project ( meaning Boyle and such). And now they reporting on the delay of a project only they outside of EON/ MGM supposedly knew about. Kind of self-fertile news making isn’t it?
  • Posts: 5,767
    TripAces wrote: »
    Some random thoughts to either stir or calm the waters, here:

    1. From what I am reading, the delay on Bond 25 would be the result of Boyle's work schedule more than the shake-up at MGM.
    2. I am having a hard time figuring out why Universal is going to wait so long to release the Boyle musical-comedy. That film will be shooting soon and likely done by July. So why the 15-month post-production? That is insane. That film should be ready for release next spring. Unless...
    3. Universal has pushed back that release date to CAPITALIZE on Bond. If so, this would suggest that the Bond 25 release date is firm. Or it could be at Boyle's request so that he is not doing the circuit while in production on Bond 25 (which makes sense).
    4. There is no way EON (and MGM) would tie itself to Boyle if his other commitments were standing in the way. MGM is hurting and desperately needs Bond. Any delay is like tossing money into the wind. The investors won't have any of it.
    5. If i am wrong, and EON is sticking with Boyle and allowing his work schedule to dictate the release of Bond 25, then this idea of his and Hodge's better be damn good.
    I seem to remember having read recently that the release date for Boyle´s musical has to do with some awards season. But the editing point seems a good idea too.

  • // There is no way EON (and MGM) would tie itself to Boyle if his other commitments were standing in the way. MGM is hurting and desperately needs Bond. Any delay is like tossing money into the wind. The investors won't have any of it.//

    Unless the delay is related to MGM trying to sell itself and using its Bond rights as a selling point. That's what The Hollywood Reporter reported last week.

    IF the studio is trying to sell itself, it makes sense it would delay striking a distribution deal. IF the studio sells itself (presumably at a good price), investor concern goes away.
  • Posts: 684
    IF the studio is trying to sell itself, it makes sense it would delay striking a distribution deal. IF the studio sells itself (presumably at a good price), investor concern goes away.
    This is what I've been wondering about. If MGM sells (which is what this looks like), then the idea that B25 needs to be released ASAP because the studio needs a hit goes away.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited April 2018 Posts: 1,756
    Yikes, the last 10 pages here have been a **** show.

    I really hope there isn't a delay. Daniel has already overstayed his welcome and if they add another year to the production with him in it, the whole situation will be comical.

    At this pace, I'm hoping Bond gets sold off. EON & co are losing steam, Bond needs fresh breath desperately.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2018 Posts: 8,395
    If they push things back a full year Barbara will be the one getting the teary phone call from Dan that she gave to Pierce. A case of, what goes around comes around, you could say.
  • Posts: 4,619
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Longest serving means just that. Craig wins if he does Bond# 25.

    Indeed he does,just not in my mind.
    In my mind only Connery and Craig have ever played James Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.