No Time To Die: Production Diary

1148414851487148914902507

Comments

  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464

    Well….it is Thursday again team. That means Baz is due to release an article tonight. Whether that article contains any Bond scoops is unknown. But considering that the Beatles film is being made now (another scoop of Baz’s), I think he’s clearly in the ‘Danny Boyle business’. He’s dropped numerous other Boyle-related scoops in the past. Most are in relation to films that never came into fruition (including Boyle’s aaborted attempts at two other musicals, My Fair Lady and Miss Saigon). I think tonight is the tonight…………….however, like many, I suspect the next news story we get is of a delay to November 2020.

    I'm still believing that the film won't be delayed there are many things done behind the scenes that we aren't aware of that the media isn't reporting so let's not start jumping onto the delay bandwagon just yet
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can see a day when the theatrical release is tied to a paid streaming alternative for the couch potatoes, in 4K or upcoming 8K. It's inevitable, I think. They will need to find a way to monetize and capture the data properly, so that it can count towards 'box office' bragging rights, and so a lot of changes to process and categorizing will have to happen before then.

    This is how Logan Lucky was distributed. Soderbergh had Amazon Prime on board immediately.
  • Posts: 3,164
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can see a day when the theatrical release is tied to a paid streaming alternative for the couch potatoes, in 4K or upcoming 8K. It's inevitable, I think. They will need to find a way to monetize and capture the data properly, so that it can count towards 'box office' bragging rights, and so a lot of changes to process and categorizing will have to happen before then.

    This is how Logan Lucky was distributed. Soderbergh had Amazon Prime on board immediately.

    Not quite, Amazon basically has first run streaming rights for Soderbergh's future films, i.e. they'd be the first SVOD platform the film would hit following the DVD/Blu-ray release. I think the comparison you're looking for is Netflix which is to some extent attempting to have it both ways, in the UK in particular where they have an exclusive deal with Curzon Cinemas for the titles they finance and produce.
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    On a scale of 1 to 10 how likely are we to get bond 25 news from baz tonight?
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    ZERO
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    If we don't hear anything by the end of May, I'm inclined to believe there will be a delay.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,540
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The Bond films are available and are being promoted on Amazon Prime this month. I wonder if this is what Amazon was involved in negotiating when news broke of them having discussions with MGM in September of last year.

    Aaah now that makes a lot of sense now !

    Bond films have been streaming on Amazon Prime prior to September 2017.

    I've never seen them on there and I have had Prime for about 4 years.
    Mind you I've never actively looked for them,so fair enough.

    Various films have streamed on there during May 2018, Mar 2018, Oct 2017, Feb 2017, Nov 2016 and Oct 2016.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Part of me wants a Bond film as often as possible. The other and larger part of me wants a good Bond film and is content to wait for one. When it comes, it comes. In this age of Disney everything, we seem to expect product fast, and when it's here, we want more product even faster. We want it bigger. And we want it tentacled out into sidequels, spin-offs, cross-overs and a whole lot of stuff in different media. I for one applaud the Bond producers for not following that trend.

    Could things be organised better? Probably. But are we aware of literally all the variables that factor in? I bet B&M are as eager as we are to see a new Bond film but for whatever reason, we're not getting any this month. Bugger. Some other time then.

    In this thread, people have referred to the Marvel model of doing business, have suggested handing the rights over to someone else, and so on. I'm a little shocked by that. Have we truly become such product hungry consumers that any considerable hiatus drives us angry and worried? I'm kneedeep into the Marvel / Star Wars franchises as a fan but even I reckon there's something vulgar about rolling four films off the conveyor belt every year.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    The last thing I want is a company like Disney getting the rights. I want a tighter, consistent schedule for these movies, but countless spin-offs, prequels, sequels, and remakes, and an installment every year or so? No thanks.
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Part of me wants a Bond film as often as possible. The other and larger part of me wants a good Bond film and is content to wait for one. When it comes, it comes. In this age of Disney everything, we seem to expect product fast, and when it's here, we want more product even faster. We want it bigger. And we want it tentacled out into sidequels, spin-offs, cross-overs and a whole lot of stuff in different media. I for one applaud the Bond producers for not following that trend.

    Could things be organised better? Probably. But are we aware of literally all the variables that factor in? I bet B&M are as eager as we are to see a new Bond film but for whatever reason, we're not getting any this month. Bugger. Some other time then.

    In this thread, people have referred to the Marvel model of doing business, have suggested handing the rights over to someone else, and so on. I'm a little shocked by that. Have we truly become such product hungry consumers that any considerable hiatus drives us angry and worried? I'm kneedeep into the Marvel / Star Wars franchises as a fan but even I reckon there's something vulgar about rolling four films off the conveyor belt every year.

    Excellent point there I do think it's great that Babs and Mike are staying traditional and keeping the bond films relevant but can they stay relevant and attract the younger disney and marvel fans? They should also take note of infinity war which did a brilliant job balancing humor and serious drama which I feel spectre failed to do
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Part of me wants a Bond film as often as possible. The other and larger part of me wants a good Bond film and is content to wait for one. When it comes, it comes. In this age of Disney everything, we seem to expect product fast, and when it's here, we want more product even faster. We want it bigger. And we want it tentacled out into sidequels, spin-offs, cross-overs and a whole lot of stuff in different media. I for one applaud the Bond producers for not following that trend.

    Could things be organised better? Probably. But are we aware of literally all the variables that factor in? I bet B&M are as eager as we are to see a new Bond film but for whatever reason, we're not getting any this month. Bugger. Some other time then.

    In this thread, people have referred to the Marvel model of doing business, have suggested handing the rights over to someone else, and so on. I'm a little shocked by that. Have we truly become such product hungry consumers that any considerable hiatus drives us angry and worried? I'm kneedeep into the Marvel / Star Wars franchises as a fan but even I reckon there's something vulgar about rolling four films off the conveyor belt every year.

    This, plus EoN simply took another Route.
    While Marvel and Disney are selling toys and happy meals off of their property, Bond went the Prestige and Oscar bait Route.
    You don't have to like it, but judging by all the awards and money that Barbara and Michael are currently swimming in, and all the talent they attract now, they won't be missing any of us if we leave.
    I just want the franchise to be healthy and strong, either way is fine with me. Of course i would like more Bond films in less time, but i have my comics and continuation novels.
    Actually i would love to have another Bond game much more than another movie (that will come sooner than later).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Part of me wants a Bond film as often as possible. The other and larger part of me wants a good Bond film and is content to wait for one. When it comes, it comes. In this age of Disney everything, we seem to expect product fast, and when it's here, we want more product even faster. We want it bigger. And we want it tentacled out into sidequels, spin-offs, cross-overs and a whole lot of stuff in different media. I for one applaud the Bond producers for not following that trend.

    Could things be organised better? Probably. But are we aware of literally all the variables that factor in? I bet B&M are as eager as we are to see a new Bond film but for whatever reason, we're not getting any this month. Bugger. Some other time then.

    In this thread, people have referred to the Marvel model of doing business, have suggested handing the rights over to someone else, and so on. I'm a little shocked by that. Have we truly become such product hungry consumers that any considerable hiatus drives us angry and worried? I'm kneedeep into the Marvel / Star Wars franchises as a fan but even I reckon there's something vulgar about rolling four films off the conveyor belt every year.

    But this isn't accurate, because our expectations have remained the same. It's the rate of output that has slowed. It's not a case of us wanting a faster and faster product, with shorter patience in the modern world. The fact is they managed a film every 2 years for decades successfully, all most people ask for is a return to that.

    I'm personally not bothered if there are sometimes 3 years between Bond films, if there is a good reason like casting a new a actor, but I think the rule should be 2 or 3 years, not 3 or 4 years like it appears to be going.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Yes, it's not really about Disney or bust. Disney doesn't want Bond anyway. It's not something that fits within their product portfolio.

    I think fans are just hoping for a return to the more regular output of the admittedly distant past. After all, these are the folks who invented the 'assembly line' approach and did it with aplomb for decades. Surely it's not too much to ask for them to do that again.

    I'll be perfectly fine with a sale too (whether it be MGM to an acquirer, Bond rights to an acquirer, or just EON's share of Bond rights to an acquirer). Who makes these films doesn't bother me. Rather, it's the quality of the final product (which of course is in the eye of the beholder) that I am interested in. I have loyalty and love for the character first and foremost. Not the actor. Not the producer and not the director.

    3 years should be tolerable, even if not perfect. 4 is too long in my view. 5? I don't even want to think about it, especially given my profound disappointment with the last film (from my perspective I haven't had my fill of Bond since 2012, and I realize for others it's been as long as 2008, or even 2002 for the Brozza fans).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think the extended gaps have much to do at all with quality. These three and four (and more!) year gaps have had nothing to do with fine-tuning or polishing a gem. It's inevitably waiting for a director or an actor to be free, some studio drama, or lack of urgency on their part.

    The height of quality was during a period when these films were being released like clockwork. And I don't buy the argument that things are different now; it comes down to will.

    Neither do I, not for a second, because this only started after QoS released in 2008. Ten years and two films later, here we are. They can absolutely get back to releasing installments once every other year.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think the extended gaps have much to do at all with quality. These three and four (and more!) year gaps have had nothing to do with fine-tuning or polishing a gem. It's inevitably waiting for a director or an actor to be free, some studio drama, or lack of urgency on their part.

    The height of quality was during a period when these films were being released like clockwork. And I don't buy the argument that things are different now; it comes down to will.

    Neither do I, not for a second, because this only started after QoS released in 2008. Ten years and two films later, here we are. They can absolutely get back to releasing installments once every other year.
    Tragic almost, when you put it that way.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think the extended gaps have much to do at all with quality. These three and four (and more!) year gaps have had nothing to do with fine-tuning or polishing a gem. It's inevitably waiting for a director or an actor to be free, some studio drama, or lack of urgency on their part.

    The height of quality was during a period when these films were being released like clockwork. And I don't buy the argument that things are different now; it comes down to will.

    Sounds like very reasonable words to me. +1
  • edited May 2018 Posts: 16,169
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think the extended gaps have much to do at all with quality. These three and four (and more!) year gaps have had nothing to do with fine-tuning or polishing a gem. It's inevitably waiting for a director or an actor to be free, some studio drama, or lack of urgency on their part.

    The height of quality was during a period when these films were being released like clockwork. And I don't buy the argument that things are different now; it comes down to will.

    Neither do I, not for a second, because this only started after QoS released in 2008. Ten years and two films later, here we are. They can absolutely get back to releasing installments once every other year.

    Ten years and two films. Lots of wasted time.

    The Craig era is like a gallon of milk still sitting in the fridge just past it's expiration date, and sadly, only a few glasses have been consumed.

    Just to think GOLDFINGER was 2 years and two films after DR NO.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited May 2018 Posts: 3,157
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think the extended gaps have much to do at all with quality. These three and four (and more!) year gaps have had nothing to do with fine-tuning or polishing a gem. It's inevitably waiting for a director or an actor to be free, some studio drama, or lack of urgency on their part.

    Exactly, thank you! Just look at DAD and SP, they were released after two 3-year-gaps and are regarded by many as the worst movies of their actors' tenures.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think the extended gaps have much to do at all with quality. These three and four (and more!) year gaps have had nothing to do with fine-tuning or polishing a gem. It's inevitably waiting for a director or an actor to be free, some studio drama, or lack of urgency on their part.

    The height of quality was during a period when these films were being released like clockwork. And I don't buy the argument that things are different now; it comes down to will.

    Neither do I, not for a second, because this only started after QoS released in 2008. Ten years and two films later, here we are. They can absolutely get back to releasing installments once every other year.

    Ten years and two films. Lots of wasted time.

    The Craig era is like a gallon of milk still sitting in the fridge just past it's expiration date, and sadly, only a few glasses have been consumed.

    Just to think GOLDFINGER was 2 years and two films after DR NO.

    And you had FRWL which is arguably Sean's best (and definitely among the series' best) to pass the time between the two of them.
  • RC7RC7
    edited May 2018 Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think the extended gaps have much to do at all with quality. These three and four (and more!) year gaps have had nothing to do with fine-tuning or polishing a gem. It's inevitably waiting for a director or an actor to be free, some studio drama, or lack of urgency on their part.

    The height of quality was during a period when these films were being released like clockwork. And I don't buy the argument that things are different now; it comes down to will.

    I completely agree with the first para. Not with the second. For me, there’s no correlation between time and quality whatsoever.

    And things are different now. Bond is not one of the few, he’s one of the many.
  • Posts: 16,169
    Walecs wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think the extended gaps have much to do at all with quality. These three and four (and more!) year gaps have had nothing to do with fine-tuning or polishing a gem. It's inevitably waiting for a director or an actor to be free, some studio drama, or lack of urgency on their part.

    Exactly, thank you! Just look at DAD and SP, they were released after two 3-year-gaps and are regarded by many as the worst movies of their actors' tenures.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think the extended gaps have much to do at all with quality. These three and four (and more!) year gaps have had nothing to do with fine-tuning or polishing a gem. It's inevitably waiting for a director or an actor to be free, some studio drama, or lack of urgency on their part.

    The height of quality was during a period when these films were being released like clockwork. And I don't buy the argument that things are different now; it comes down to will.

    Neither do I, not for a second, because this only started after QoS released in 2008. Ten years and two films later, here we are. They can absolutely get back to releasing installments once every other year.

    Ten years and two films. Lots of wasted time.

    The Craig era is like a gallon of milk still sitting in the fridge just past it's expiration date, and sadly, only a few glasses have been consumed.

    Just to think GOLDFINGER was 2 years and two films after DR NO.

    And you had FRWL which is arguably Sean's best (and definitely among the series' best) to pass the time between the two of them.

    Exactly!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    The Craig era is like a gallon of milk still sitting in the fridge just past it's expiration date, and sadly, only a few glasses have been consumed.
    A well phrased metaphor.
  • RC7RC7
    edited May 2018 Posts: 10,512
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think the extended gaps have much to do at all with quality. These three and four (and more!) year gaps have had nothing to do with fine-tuning or polishing a gem. It's inevitably waiting for a director or an actor to be free, some studio drama, or lack of urgency on their part.

    Exactly, thank you! Just look at DAD and SP, they were released after two 3-year-gaps and are regarded by many as the worst movies of their actors' tenures.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think the extended gaps have much to do at all with quality. These three and four (and more!) year gaps have had nothing to do with fine-tuning or polishing a gem. It's inevitably waiting for a director or an actor to be free, some studio drama, or lack of urgency on their part.

    The height of quality was during a period when these films were being released like clockwork. And I don't buy the argument that things are different now; it comes down to will.

    Neither do I, not for a second, because this only started after QoS released in 2008. Ten years and two films later, here we are. They can absolutely get back to releasing installments once every other year.

    Ten years and two films. Lots of wasted time.

    The Craig era is like a gallon of milk still sitting in the fridge just past it's expiration date, and sadly, only a few glasses have been consumed.

    Just to think GOLDFINGER was 2 years and two films after DR NO.

    And you had FRWL which is arguably Sean's best (and definitely among the series' best) to pass the time between the two of them.

    Exactly!

    And then you have TSWLM after a (at that time unheard of) 3 year gap, GE after 6, CR after 4 and SF after 4. There is no correlation. Producing a Bond film every 2 years does not equate to quality, it equates to consistency.
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    The Craig era is like a gallon of milk still sitting in the fridge just past it's expiration date, and sadly, only a few glasses have been consumed.
    A well phrased metaphor.

    Considering a subsection of Bond fans, perhaps. I’m not convinced that’s the view of the general public.
  • Posts: 16,169
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    The Craig era is like a gallon of milk still sitting in the fridge just past it's expiration date, and sadly, only a few glasses have been consumed.
    A well phrased metaphor.

    Thanks. It's going to be sitting in the fridge for awhile longer. Hopefully by B25 it doesn't completely go sour.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    I quite like that metaphor too. And it makes sense.
    But we should ask ourselves--and I'm a Craig fan, mind: if we had gotten, say, three more Craig Bonds, for a total of 7 or 8, wouldn't many people (not me!) have lost interest in him? I could be mistaken of course.
  • Posts: 16,169
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I quite like that metaphor too. And it makes sense.
    But we should ask ourselves--and I'm a Craig fan, mind: if we had gotten, say, three more Craig Bonds, for a total of 7 or 8, wouldn't many people (not me!) have lost interest in him? I could be mistaken of course.

    Hard to say. One rarely hears of people complaining that Connery did 6 films (or 7 depending on if you count NSNA).
    We do get some who feel OP should have been Roger's last, but personally I disagree in spite of him being older.
    I'm glad we got as many Sean/Roger films as we did. More variety, and more to chose from when in the mood for one of their films. If I'm in the mood for Pierce, not much of a selection there. Same with George, Tim and Dan, so far.
    I miss the days when it was possible the current Bond might stick around for 6 outings. Cubby most certainly preferred it that way.
  • edited May 2018 Posts: 11,425
    sean did 6 in 9 years with someone else having a go in the middle
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I quite like that metaphor too. And it makes sense.
    But we should ask ourselves--and I'm a Craig fan, mind: if we had gotten, say, three more Craig Bonds, for a total of 7 or 8, wouldn't many people (not me!) have lost interest in him? I could be mistaken of course.
    7 or 8 may be too much but I don't think anyone (least of all myself) would have objected to 5 or 6 in a more compressed timeline. In fact, I would have far preferred it personally.

    It's not so much how many films but how many films within a certain timeframe imho. For me at least, the issue has been the wait between the films (especially after the relatively mediocre QoS and SP), and the fact that the actor in question has aged and changed between films (they all do mind you. It's inevitable, but more rapid output would have made the changes less apparent).

    As an example, I don't think I would have been happy if Connery had done DN, FRWL, GF and DAF only. Or Moore LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, FYEO and AVTAK only. That's sort of what we have here with Craig.
  • Posts: 11,425
    a shame Brosnan didn't have longer gaps between his films...
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    bondjames wrote: »
    As an example, I don't think I would have been happy if Connery had done DN, FRWL, GF and DAF only. Or Moore LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, FYEO and AVTAK only. That's sort of what we have here with Craig.

    Quite right.

    I think one of the problems concerns money. Many people expect a lot of eye candy from the Bonds, expensive eye candy. In other words, anything below a production budget of 400 mil USD seems out of the question these days. Sad, but true. And if the film "only" makes 800 mil, it's not good. The pressure to cross that 1 billion USD line is so ridiculously high, I, as a producer, would be rather afraid when planning a new Bond film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    As an example, I don't think I would have been happy if Connery had done DN, FRWL, GF and DAF only. Or Moore LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, FYEO and AVTAK only. That's sort of what we have here with Craig.

    Quite right.

    I think one of the problems concerns money. Many people expect a lot of eye candy from the Bonds, expensive eye candy. In other words, anything below a production budget of 400 mil USD seems out of the question these days. Sad, but true. And if the film "only" makes 800 mil, it's not good. The pressure to cross that 1 billion USD line is so ridiculously high, I, as a producer, would be rather afraid when planning a new Bond film.
    You've hit the nail on the head. It does appear that it comes down to money and it's unfortunate. It's also ironic, because the most highly rated Bond films of the past 25 years have been the ones which were made on *relatively* small budgets. I'm thinking of GE & CR in particular but also SF which was made for quite a bit less than QoS or SP.

    Sadly, this quest to generate bangs has resulted in some highly questionable CGI as well, which I'd rather not see again.

    There are a few members here (including myself) who would much prefer a scaled back & grounded spy thriller for the next one. Given Boyle's stated preference for smaller budget films, perhaps there is hope that they will go in this direction. Even the Demange rumour suggested a lower budget entry.

    If they kept them smaller and more manageable, then we could have faster output perhaps, due to less complexity.
Sign In or Register to comment.