No Time To Die: Production Diary

116171921222507

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    To Disney’s credit, they put Kathleen Kennedy in charge of Star Wars and now they have a new Star Wars or Star Wars spinoff movie coming out every single year for the next six years or more. That woman knows how to keep a franchise moving without a single rusty cog holding up the works. Babs and MGW could take a few pointers from her.

    Totally different scenario.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    To Disney’s credit, they put Kathleen Kennedy in charge of Star Wars and now they have a new Star Wars or Star Wars spinoff movie coming out every single year for the next six years or more. That woman knows how to keep a franchise moving without a single rusty cog holding up the works. Babs and MGW could take a few pointers from her.

    Kennedy is one of the great producers of our time, if not the greatest. I have the upmost respect for her.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Had Disney made Skyfall, Bond would have turned out to be the lost prince of Glencoe. ;)

    Silva would have had a beak or snout prosthetic.
  • To Disney’s credit, they put Kathleen Kennedy in charge of Star Wars and now they have a new Star Wars or Star Wars spinoff movie coming out every single year for the next six years or more. That woman knows how to keep a franchise moving without a single rusty cog holding up the works. Babs and MGW could take a few pointers from her.

    Kennedy is one of the great producers of our time, if not the greatest. I have the upmost respect for her.

    Agreed.
  • HASEROT wrote: »
    i understand that..

    what i am trying to say though - is that if no one else wants to pony up cash to take on the distribution, and MGM decides to go back to Sony/Columbia - Sony may use that outrageous budget on SP as a means to gain further leverage on the production budget - which in terms would effect things from a creative standpoint... because right now, it had been 50/50 split on the cost of production between MGM and Sony - with Sony also handling distribution.. this is why Sony was able to come back and make their notes and demands on changing the 3rd act of the script, and scaling back some of the scenes (because of budgetary reasons)..... so... the point i am getting to, is that if MGM is left at the altar so to speak, and they have to crawl back to Sony - Sony may not want a straight up 50/50 deal... maybe they want 60/40, so they can make more money off of the film, and have just a little bit more influence creatively..

    I believe it was an MGM executive who wrote the memo about the third act and requested budget cutbacks. Amy Pascal at Sony took Barbara Broccoli's side.

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/10/technology/security/bond-movie-budget/index.html?iid=HP_LN

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Anyone but Fox.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2015 Posts: 6,382
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Honestly lets talk scripting first

    Honestly I would love Chris Mcquarrie and Drew Pearce

    But

    Who do I suspect

    Neal Purvis Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth will be writing and the announcement will be Febuary or March. (my guess)

    i wouldn't mind Purvis and Wade - as long as it came with one caveat.. and that's bringing back Paul Haggis to punch up their work.... I don't know why they didn't go back to him after the QOS (which wasn't really his doing) - he did a marvelous job with CR..... yeah, he had some really questionable ideas - but as long as the producers keep him restrained, he would be just fine..

    he's also a more than competent director as well.

    Haggis deserves a third shot. He gave us a lot of great moments in CR.

    I suspect that a lot of the good moments in QoS are Haggis' (Bond and Mathis in Italy, Bond on the plane, the last scene) because they feel tonally cohesive with CR, but I can't be sure.

    For Bond 25: Haggis, Campbell, Craig, and Wright.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    echo wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Honestly lets talk scripting first

    Honestly I would love Chris Mcquarrie and Drew Pearce

    But

    Who do I suspect

    Neal Purvis Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth will be writing and the announcement will be Febuary or March. (my guess)

    i wouldn't mind Purvis and Wade - as long as it came with one caveat.. and that's bringing back Paul Haggis to punch up their work.... I don't know why they didn't go back to him after the QOS (which wasn't really his doing) - he did a marvelous job with CR..... yeah, he had some really questionable ideas - but as long as the producers keep him restrained, he would be just fine..

    he's also a more than competent director as well.

    Haggis deserves a third shot. He gave us a lot of great moments in CR.

    I suspect that a lot of the good moments in QoS are Haggis' (Bond and Mathis in Italy, Bond on the plane, the last scene) because they feel tonally cohesive with CR, but I can't be sure.

    For Bond 25: Haggis, Campbell, Craig, and Wright.

    Would be great but I'm betting maybe just one of those.... maybe two.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    A whole new team would definitely be better.

    Personally, I don't want Haggis to be around at all.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2015 Posts: 15,423
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Oh Lord, anyone, I would take literally anyone but Disney... Disney would abominate the franchise in literal and spiritual form.

    Warner Brothers on the other hand would do it justice.

    because Warner has proven what exactly?... they ruined Superman twice, Batman once - and they let Nolan zap any comic book relevance out of the character...

    on the other hand, what has Disney done?.. Yep, they bought Marvel comics - have they interfered?.. Nope... along with Marvel comics, came Marvel films - have they interfered? Nope... They purchased Star Wars... have they interfered?... Nope..... all Disney is, is a facilitator... the put up the cash, and let others do the heavy lifting... if Disney were to strike a deal with MGM and EON, it would be inspired - as Disney has seemingly unlimited resources...

    but of course, you probably view it from the prejudice of "they'll turn everything into kiddie schlock." - see above where i mention the other franchises and what they are doing with them.... if Disney had Bond - they'd still leave EON in film control of everything - because thats how they operate..
    Am I missing something? Disney interferes with every kind of an intellectual property it owns. If a project doesn't get their approval and direction (not to mention, making everything sugar-coated), they don't let it pass, amongst some other things.

    I am not happy with the superhero films either, and I've never liked anything Nolan did. But, to say Warner Brothers never accomplished anything and let a good product come out at all, is more of a personal disdain at the committee.

    All in all, as I said, and I do stand by my own statement, I would literally take anything but a Disney production. And as far as I'm concerned, Star Wars is in the hands of Disney who have a big say in it. Let Leia's slave costume incident be the starter of it all.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • Posts: 1,985
    What about 20th Century Fox?
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I don't know enough about all of the studios but I think Disney would be fine actually. I think all the studios have the utmost respect for Bond and for EON. None of them have a franchise this old that has this kind of staying power. The wouldn't really want to mess with that.

    My concern is more with EON themselves actually. After they let Mendes go beserk with Logan and the early scripts, I'm afraid they're really not on their game. Craig probably had far more influence this time in keeping things in check, and that's a good thing. I wonder how it could have turned out if Craig wasn't involved.........and apparently Sony too, who reportedly correctly thought the 3rd act was a PoS (it still was in the end product imho).

    So the risks are on the 'EON' side. Babs may have had the foresight to hire Craig, but I think it was Campbell (in particular), Craig, Purvis, Wade and Haggis that are primarily responsible for the masterpiece that is CR.......which reimagined the Bond universe for the new milennium.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    HASEROT wrote: »
    i don't doubt that the pre-production issues with the script will be another learning point for them of "what not to do" next time around... perhaps they've realized that letting the writers off with too much control isn't the way to go from now on - that they'll want to see more periodic updates on the script before deciding on the next course of action..

    i dont believe they are out of touch - i just think they got perhaps a little too wrapped up in SF and trying to duplicate it's success, that they werent diligent enough on the writing.... it's like a GM of a sports team that just won a championship - it's very easy to sit back and go "bring everyone back, we dont need to make changes." - and when they don't win it all the following season, they sit back and go "standing pat probably wasnt the best idea - should've made this move or that move to bring in fresh talent when i could."
    That's probably true. There's nothing like success to 'dull' the creative and risk taking impulses, particularly when we're talking about a production of this magnitude. They probably were just as clueless about what worked.....sometimes it's difficult to put your finger on what it was that got everybody excited.....as far as they were concerned it may have in fact been Mendes, because they brought him in and the film succeeded. That could be why they waited for him and left him to it like they did with SF (he reportedly insisted that Dench be killed for that film and wouldn't do it if that was not allowed).

    That's why, if I was EON, I'd actually be sending people in to visit forums like ours. Not that we're all that great, but if you look at the overall consensus of opinions on this site, and other dedicated Bond fan sites, I'm pretty sure one could learn a thing or two about what to do and what not to do, as well as how to do it. We are so detailed in our commentary (and criticisms) on this site that I can't imagine it can't be helpful.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    HASEROT wrote: »
    i think they heard the fans cry for a more "traditional Bond movie" this time around, and we got it - IMO, it just wasnt executed to the best of it's abilities... if they are listening for Bond 25, i would say - do everything you did on SP, just with better and tighter writing.
    I agree with that. Execution has to be better and script has to be better.

    If it's still DC, I also want something he can really sink his acting skills into.....the film has to breathe for a bit (like it did in the CR casino) to allow his formidable talents to come to the fore. Dialogue has to be much crisper too next time. I say Haggis under tight control to polish it off - as you said earlier.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2015 Posts: 15,423
    HASEROT wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Oh Lord, anyone, I would take literally anyone but Disney... Disney would abominate the franchise in literal and spiritual form.

    Warner Brothers on the other hand would do it justice.

    because Warner has proven what exactly?... they ruined Superman twice, Batman once - and they let Nolan zap any comic book relevance out of the character...

    on the other hand, what has Disney done?.. Yep, they bought Marvel comics - have they interfered?.. Nope... along with Marvel comics, came Marvel films - have they interfered? Nope... They purchased Star Wars... have they interfered?... Nope..... all Disney is, is a facilitator... the put up the cash, and let others do the heavy lifting... if Disney were to strike a deal with MGM and EON, it would be inspired - as Disney has seemingly unlimited resources...

    but of course, you probably view it from the prejudice of "they'll turn everything into kiddie schlock." - see above where i mention the other franchises and what they are doing with them.... if Disney had Bond - they'd still leave EON in film control of everything - because thats how they operate..
    Am I missing something? Disney interferes with every kind of an intellectual property it owns. If a project doesn't get their approval and direction (not to mention, making everything sugar-coated), they don't let it pass, amongst some other things.

    I am not happy with the superhero films either, and I've never liked anything Nolan did. But, to say Warner Brothers never accomplished anything and let a good product come out at all, is more of a personal disdain at the committee.

    All in all, as I said, and I do stand by my own statement, I would literally take anything but a Disney production. And as far as I'm concerned, Star Wars is in the hands of Disney who have a big say in it. Let Leia's slave costume incident be the starter of it all.

    i would hope it would be retired.. i dont need to see a 60 year old Carrie Fisher in that Slave outfit.. no one should ;)

    the Sugar coated thing makes me laugh, considering that you probably never saw Winter Soldier - it was a superhero movie, but sugar coated it was not... or have you seen the new Daredevil Netflix show??.. a man's head literally gets smashed into a pulp by a car door - doesn't sound very "Disney-like" to me - but they let it through..

    if you read up, watched interviews (in particular a weekly youtube show called Jedi Council), you'd be amazed at how hands off Disney has been during the production of the new Star Wars films - they are letting Kathleen Kennedy and company handle it.... obviously, they dont want a sh*t product - but there aren't meddling in everyday affairs...

    here's something you might not have know - maybe you do... Touchstone Pictures is a branch off of Disney - and always has been.. here are some films you may recognize, which were produced by Touchstone/Disney... Dead Poets Society, Pretty Woman, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Prestige, War Horse, Lincoln, Con Air, Enemy of the State, Gone in 60 Seconds, Pearl Harbor, King Arthur, Déjà Vu...... not all of those are "kid friendly" either..

    Most likely, if MGM did strike a deal with Disney, even it were to just distribute - it would be under their Touchstone Pictures label - which they do a lot..

    It didn't retire, it was put off the markets as well, which I am sure you are aware of it.

    Sugar-coated is actually the right term to describe the majority of Disney's materials, and it doesn't necessarily mean "kid-friendly". Yes, I've seen The Winter Soldier and I liked it, but I would say it's the only MCU film that is taken to my liking. I do watch Daredevil too, in fact I forced myself through it because I do like the old comics centered on the character, but this one forced me to go through it as I tried hard to like it. You can shoot me if you like but I liked the 2003 film a lot better than the TV series.

    If you want to know more about the control that Disney has over its intellectual properties, let's bring X-Men to the matter. Their dominion is submitted over the comic book industry as well and not only on film. Because of their greed and love of spite, and because the rights to X-Men don't belong to them, they had their comics entirely rewritten, history erased, and the "Mutants" (that are X-Men), with unaddressed names are being hunted down and killed by The Inhumans in the comic books. Inhumans weren't much of spotlight-worthy figures in the past, why now? Disney, controlling Marvel in full term, is reshaping the whole continuum in the way it likes, now the way things were made decent. Look at the character of John Garrett. The man was nothing more than a hero in the comics, yet they made him a villain on the Agents of SHIELD show. And not only Garrett is differentiated by many other characters such as Lance Hunter being completely altered to what he was. He was alone the head of an organization called STRIKE (and originally he was a super-soldier) in the past 50 years of the comics run. He was never an average field operative guy with little to do. What is he now? A hardly memorable field agent in SHIELD? Plus, he hardly had anything to do with Roberta (now Bobbi) Morse/Mockingbird, in any verse at any segment.

    It was like making Blofeld Bond's half brother. Or Jim Phelps turning out to be a villain.

    What's my point, you may ask? Just showing how much control does Disney have over its materials. They're not just Marvel's godfathers but owners.

    Warner Brothers and DC Comics, on the other hand, have always come to an agreement based on the materials they were developing. They invest more time pleasing the audience than inserting their own spins and agendas (i.e. Disney's greed and rivalry with Fox, so much to talk).
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,382
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't know enough about all of the studios but I think Disney would be fine actually. I think all the studios have the utmost respect for Bond and for EON. None of them have a franchise this old that has this kind of staying power. The wouldn't really want to mess with that.

    My concern is more with EON themselves actually. After they let Mendes go beserk with Logan and the early scripts, I'm afraid they're really not on their game. Craig probably had far more influence this time in keeping things in check, and that's a good thing. I wonder how it could have turned out if Craig wasn't involved.........and apparently Sony too, who reportedly correctly thought the 3rd act was a PoS (it still was in the end product imho).

    So the risks are on the 'EON' side. Babs may have had the foresight to hire Craig, but I think it was Campbell (in particular), Craig, Purvis, Wade and Haggis that are primarily responsible for the masterpiece that is CR.......which reimagined the Bond universe for the new milennium.

    And the casting director! CR and FRWL are probably the two best-cast Bond films.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I don't see Disney. They did so well with Lone Ranger didn't they?

    I'm betting either WB or TCF or Paramont.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • Posts: 1,985
    What about good old Michael writing the script along with anther writer like he did in the 80s?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Because we need a good strong script
  • Posts: 1,181
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    What about good old Michael writing the script along with anther writer like he did in the 80s?

    I think this would be great! The only thing is I think I read somewhere that MGW has had some health problems recently. At this point, he might feel more comfortable taking a more subtle approach of involvement.

    I always loved his enthusiasm for Bond in all of the special feature making of videos. Sure, there have been many missteps along the way, but the series has been lucky to have him.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,116
    Ed83 wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    What about good old Michael writing the script along with anther writer like he did in the 80s?

    I think this would be great! The only thing is I think I read somewhere that MGW has had some health problems recently. At this point, he might feel more comfortable taking a more subtle approach of involvement.

    I always loved his enthusiasm for Bond in all of the special feature making of videos. Sure, there have been many missteps along the way, but the series has been lucky to have him.

    As co-owner MGW has given or continues to give us a great franchise. Maibuam(sp) was more of a mentor to Wilson in terms of writing. The only time Wilson was primarily responsible for the script was with LTK. Maibuam I think just provided Wilson an outline due to the writer's strike.

    Wilson seems to be a softer spoken but respectful leader. I admire him from his interviews. I don't think though screenwriting is the best role for him.

    What we need from Wilson is to hire the right writer and to step up and keep Barbara in check.

    Just my opinion.
  • Posts: 1,181
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    As co-owner MGW has given or continues to give us a great franchise. Maibuam(sp) was more of a mentor to Wilson in terms of writing. The only time Wilson was primarily responsible for the script was with LTK. Maibuam I think just provided Wilson an outline due to the writer's strike.

    Wilson seems to be a softer spoken but respectful leader. I admire him from his interviews. I don't think though screenwriting is the best role for him.

    What we need from Wilson is to hire the right writer and to step up and keep Barbara in check.

    Just my opinion.

    Agreed. New writing team and increased contribution from MGW.

  • HASEROT wrote: »
    if Disney had Bond - they'd still leave EON in film control of everything - because thats how they operate..

    Not for the posters.
    I worked with Disney marketing on two separate occasions, and to sum it in one sentence : "simplicity is forbidden". A lone Craig in the poster, I just can't believe it. We had to put stuff "everywhere" on the page :)

    Also, about Disney not turning Marvel movies in kid movies, well : Iron Man III did more than a billion with a kid saving Stark. I think you can feel Disney here.
Sign In or Register to comment.