No Time To Die: Production Diary

12022032052072082507

Comments

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    The last person I'd expect to be the next Bond is Me ! .....
    .... so that's a nice surprise, I guess I'll be getting the call
    Next week. ;)
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Cowley wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    The producers pretty much gave Mendes the world for Spectre. They did everything to get him back
    Well, lesson learned. They won't be pulling such an act for the next one.

    Given the script problems they probably should have given Mendes and Craig full rein to make the Bond film they wanted. I can't imagine Mendes being much pleased with the script he had to work from.

    I am sorry are we still blaming the scriptwriters?- Blame Mendes he had a bloody carte Blanche after SF and he and his responsibility cocked it up royally in my humble opinion.

    Agreed. Directors are leaders... yes it's a team effort but Mendes deserves blame too.
  • Posts: 1,631
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Cowley wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    The producers pretty much gave Mendes the world for Spectre. They did everything to get him back
    Well, lesson learned. They won't be pulling such an act for the next one.

    Given the script problems they probably should have given Mendes and Craig full rein to make the Bond film they wanted. I can't imagine Mendes being much pleased with the script he had to work from.

    I am sorry are we still blaming the scriptwriters?- Blame Mendes he had a bloody carte Blanche after SF and he and his responsibility cocked it up royally in my humble opinion.

    Agreed. Directors are leaders... yes it's a team effort but Mendes deserves blame too.

    Agreed. He deserves quite a bit of blame for SP, as far as I'm concerned. From what is known of Logan's version of the story, I'm not at all convinced that P&W's "rescue" of it was actually better.

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Yes, everything is Mendes vision, but it's not as if he had the best team of writers to put it on screen.
  • Posts: 5,745

    fjdinardo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    At his age, I wonder if Michael is keen on spending another 3 years of his life producing another Bond film? I know Cubby was still going strong at his age, but Wilson's condition seems to be deteriorating (he had to have a triple bypass surgery last year). Not sure if he'd want to start it all again with a new actor, either.
    He should retire then. Babe has pretty much run the entire franchise since CR. Im sure he can produce the films on her own like her dad or have Michaels son take his spot.
    I believe the son is getting more involved.

    With SP it almost seemed like Mendes was sitting in for Wilson, at least at the press conference (I realize that Wilson was ill). He had quite a bit of involvement and control on this last film it seemed....more so than other directors.

    The producers pretty much gave Mendes the world for Spectre. They did everything to get him back
    Well, lesson learned. They won't be pulling such an act for the next one.

    We all seem to continually forget the critical and financial success of SPECTRE. While what we know of the writer situation in pre-production makes it seem like there was drama backstage, everyone continues to be on good terms and I'm sure nothing is ruled out for Bond 25 given, as I remind you again, the success of SP.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    When I combine young Wilson's comments from a few months back with that of Mendes' latest words, I think we are eventually going to be in for a treat. They appear to be going for a revamp with the next one, and they normally deliver a cracker when they take that route.

    Unfortunately, it may take a while to get here.
  • Posts: 5,745
    I still want to argue that Mendes' "next one" comment is more about Broccoli's decision-making in general and not that he has some sort of insider information on the casting of a Craig replacement. Why would he know that? He's been distancing himself from the franchise since premiere night.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    He's pretty tight with Craig and Babs though, no?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    I still want to argue that Mendes' "next one" comment is more about Broccoli's decision-making in general and not that he has some sort of insider information on the casting of a Craig replacement. Why would he know that? He's been distancing himself from the franchise since premiere night.
    That was my thought as well.
  • Posts: 2,483
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    At his age, I wonder if Michael is keen on spending another 3 years of his life producing another Bond film? I know Cubby was still going strong at his age, but Wilson's condition seems to be deteriorating (he had to have a triple bypass surgery last year). Not sure if he'd want to start it all again with a new actor, either.
    He should retire then. Babe has pretty much run the entire franchise since CR. Im sure he can produce the films on her own like her dad or have Michaels son take his spot.
    I believe the son is getting more involved.

    With SP it almost seemed like Mendes was sitting in for Wilson, at least at the press conference (I realize that Wilson was ill). He had quite a bit of involvement and control on this last film it seemed....more so than other directors.

    The producers pretty much gave Mendes the world for Spectre. They did everything to get him back
    Well, lesson learned. They won't be pulling such an act for the next one.

    We all seem to continually forget the critical and financial success of SPECTRE. While what we know of the writer situation in pre-production makes it seem like there was drama backstage, everyone continues to be on good terms and I'm sure nothing is ruled out for Bond 25 given, as I remind you again, the success of SP.

    Indeed. If SP was a failure then I don't believe I've ever seen a success.

  • Posts: 2,483
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    I still want to argue that Mendes' "next one" comment is more about Broccoli's decision-making in general and not that he has some sort of insider information on the casting of a Craig replacement. Why would he know that? He's been distancing himself from the franchise since premiere night.

    He would know because Babs has been a key figure in his life for approximately the last five years. It would be barmy to think they haven't discussed who she's eyeing as DC's successor.

  • Posts: 2,115
    I agree that SPECTRE was a financial success, but there are degrees of success.

    In the U.S., SPECTRE sold the fewest number of tickets of the Craig era (23 million), one movie after Skyfall sold the most (almost 38 million). The U.S. is only one market, of course, but it is a big one.

    To use a more extreme example:

    Warner Bros. says Batman v Superman turned a profit. But it's definitely a smaller profit than the studio expected, otherwise it wouldn't be making executive and producer changes for future DC Comics-based movies. (BvS will likely finish with a global box office below SPECTRE's).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I agree that SPECTRE was a financial success, but there are degrees of success.

    In the U.S., SPECTRE sold the fewest number of tickets of the Craig era (23 million), one movie after Skyfall sold the most (almost 38 million). The U.S. is only one market, of course, but it is a big one.
    This is what I've been saying as well. For a film that followed a massive success & essentially continued the story, it was a substantial drop off stateside, and one of the first Bond films to not build on its predecessor's success in some time.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree that SPECTRE was a financial success, but there are degrees of success.

    In the U.S., SPECTRE sold the fewest number of tickets of the Craig era (23 million), one movie after Skyfall sold the most (almost 38 million). The U.S. is only one market, of course, but it is a big one.
    This is what I've been saying as well. For a film that followed a massive success & essentially continued the story, it was a substantial drop off stateside, and one of the first Bond films to not build on its predecessor's success in some time.

    I think that drop off was inevitable, though. SF made $1.2 billion, there was no way a number like that was going to continue to climb.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Don't forget the US didn't take to LTK either. There is a long history of the U.S. BO giving good Bokd films the thumbs down
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Everyone go and watch GOLDFINGER one more time; no matter what you think of the film, please watch the portrayal of 007 via Connery.

    IMHO, Connery's portrayal is quintessential and when I was a boy, nobody could beat him. Not Laz, or Moore, or Dalton (although I enjoyed aspects), and not Brozzy.

    ... then DC came to us.

    All I ask is for you all to watch GF, and ask yourself, if you enjoy the performance, who is a Connery successor....? Laz, Moore, Dalts, Brozzy or Craig?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @peter, I don't actually enjoy GF (I realize I'm in the minority). I'm not too keen on Connery's portrayal there either, although I realize how iconic the film is and respect that.

    DN, FRWL & TB - now that's a different matter entirely. That to me is Connery as Bond at his best, courtesy of Terence Young's direction. I see that same edginess with a little more intensity in Craig's CR/QoS portrayals, my favourites of his.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @bondjames I have to admit, I only used GF as an example tonight since I am watching it. But, to me, the best 007 films re: actor portrayal (yet in no specific order), would run:

    DN
    FRWL
    GF
    TH
    CR
    QOS
    SF
    SP

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @peter, coincidentally, I am watching SP as I type this. Hoping for a more positive re-evaluation, but at present my views are mixed.

    I agree on DN/FRWL being top, but would put TB ahead of GF. I noticed it on my last Bondathon. The subtle glances, the way he moves, the lack of goofiness in TB (which is there in GF with the funny faces in the airplane & at Goldfinger's HQ) all make me prefer his approach there, but I really think it's down to Young.

    I'd rank early Moore ahead of Craig in SP/SF, but I can understand why you disagree.
  • Posts: 11,425
    TB is sadly a yawn fest. Terence Young admitted to struggling with how to make the underwater scenes exciting.

    GF is a work of genius - undoubtedly Hamilton's best work on Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I was referring more to Connery's performance in TB, although I personally prefer TB anyway.
  • Posts: 12,466
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Connery is about perfect in those first four films.

    Truth. I think I actually might like his TB performance most.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    “If someone had said to me then, this guy is going to be cast as James Bond I would have said a) no way, and b) you’re mad.

    “Because at that point I would have said he was totally miscast. At that point, to me, Bond was urbane, witty, eyebrow-raising. And Daniel was all about intensity and commitment and seemed wrong to me.

    Its weird Sam who is a movie director Artist/ visionary used to think of the Bond character the same way any average Bond watcher thinks of it instead of thinking since the beginning like Barbara.

    Its great he admitted he was wrong about Craig bring miscast i made that same mistake as well but its funny how an artist and movie expert can think like a regular audience.
    You think directors producers and screenwriters a,ways think ahead of us when it comes to which actors fit in each character.

    Sam before seing Casino Royale thought like ,e before i became a Bond fan, i guess its great that remind us even people in the induration are humans and have mistakes.



  • Posts: 9,846
    bondjames wrote: »
    @peter, I don't actually enjoy GF (I realize I'm in the minority). I'm not too keen on Connery's portrayal there either, although I realize how iconic the film is and respect that.

    DN, FRWL & TB - now that's a different matter entirely. That to me is Connery as Bond at his best, courtesy of Terence Young's direction. I see that same edginess with a little more intensity in Craig's CR/QoS portrayals, my favourites of his.

    Are we related ... I agree 110%

  • Posts: 5,745
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree that SPECTRE was a financial success, but there are degrees of success.

    In the U.S., SPECTRE sold the fewest number of tickets of the Craig era (23 million), one movie after Skyfall sold the most (almost 38 million). The U.S. is only one market, of course, but it is a big one.
    This is what I've been saying as well. For a film that followed a massive success & essentially continued the story, it was a substantial drop off stateside, and one of the first Bond films to not build on its predecessor's success in some time.

    Don't forget Skyfall had the 50th anniversary, a trailer with the Queen of England at the Olympics in front of billions (with a b), and the whole "Bond is actually back" narrative of surviving the MGM bankruptcy.

    Not to mention great visuals featured in a fantastic marketing campaign.

    Side by side SPECTRE is missing two big narratives of Skyfall's release (anniversary and Olympics), so less conversations and "free" publicity, and I'd argue that overall Skyfall's trailers, posters, and overall marketing campaign was more interesting. (I'd argue Skyfall is more interesting of a film, so it's fair.)
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Very true. In Britain the press have a habit of building you up, so they can knock
    You down :( in some ways this might be the start of what happened to Brosnan ?
    The turning of some from love to hate? Sad to see and not fair on any actor.

    what turned a lot of people off to Pierce after he was let go, was his constant whining to any media outlet that would listen... if he felt slighted - fine, he has a right to feel what he feels, but you have to maintain a certain level of professionalism, and at the time, Broz was acting like a child..... as time has gone on he's relaxed about the whole situation..
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Germanlady wrote: »
    People are comparing for instance to SW now, that they are at it already. But maybe consider, how LONG it took them to even make the new one. How many years. Its different for all included to do two films back to back more or less, when you haven't done any of them in many years. Plus people seem to forget, that the delays were NOT due to the prods or the actors but to other circumstances. What's so hard to understand? The films were scheduled to get into the theaters earlier. Like they planned all the writer strikes, the MGM misery etc etc. Well, they did not. They were victims of that and tried their best to deal with it, INCLUDING the actors or directors.

    it's about 50/50

    QOS - was originally planned for 2007, but the producers couldn't find a director who was willing to work against that small of a turn around - plus, they had no script ready at the time either...... also..... the writer's strike didn't delay anything - the reason they went into production with half a script is because Haggis turned in what he could before the strike happened, because EON was going into production with, or without his finished work.

    the delay between QOS and SF - originally SF was to be due out in 2011 (many figured it would be out in 2010, but the producers wanted to take an extra year, because of the nonstop work between CR and QOS - they wanted a break) - but as you said, the MGM financial crisis held up the works on that one, and it didn't hit the screens until 2012..

    but the delay between SF and SP was purely on the side of the producers... they very easily, had they chose, could've done a 2014 release - but they wanted Sam Mendes back, so they waited the extra year for his schedule to clear up.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree that SPECTRE was a financial success, but there are degrees of success.

    In the U.S., SPECTRE sold the fewest number of tickets of the Craig era (23 million), one movie after Skyfall sold the most (almost 38 million). The U.S. is only one market, of course, but it is a big one.
    This is what I've been saying as well. For a film that followed a massive success & essentially continued the story, it was a substantial drop off stateside, and one of the first Bond films to not build on its predecessor's success in some time.

    Don't forget Skyfall had the 50th anniversary, a trailer with the Queen of England at the Olympics in front of billions (with a b), and the whole "Bond is actually back" narrative of surviving the MGM bankruptcy.

    Not to mention great visuals featured in a fantastic marketing campaign.

    Side by side SPECTRE is missing two big narratives of Skyfall's release (anniversary and Olympics), so less conversations and "free" publicity, and I'd argue that overall Skyfall's trailers, posters, and overall marketing campaign was more interesting. (I'd argue Skyfall is more interesting of a film, so it's fair.)

    exactly...

    SF had the 50th anniversary thing going for it, SP did not..

    SF had a marketing blitz, SP - not so much..

    SF was coming out on the heels of an MGM financial rescue - while SP has hot in the middle of the Sony leaks scandal..

    SF had outstanding critical reviews.. SP - again, not so much..

    SF had less direct competition at the box office than SP did..

    all of that leans to SP making less at the box office than SF... but it still made over $800mil world wide, and if it wasn't for SF's record breaking performance, SP's totals might be viewed in a much better light.... SF's billion+ at the box office is the anomaly here..
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Cowley wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    The producers pretty much gave Mendes the world for Spectre. They did everything to get him back
    Well, lesson learned. They won't be pulling such an act for the next one.

    Given the script problems they probably should have given Mendes and Craig full rein to make the Bond film they wanted. I can't imagine Mendes being much pleased with the script he had to work from.

    I am sorry are we still blaming the scriptwriters?- Blame Mendes he had a bloody carte Blanche after SF and he and his responsibility cocked it up royally in my humble opinion.

    agreeing with @SaintMark on this one too..

    Mendes didn't leave Logan to himself to write whatever he could come up with on his own... Logan, Mendes, Craig, and even BB and MGW had involvement / share the resposibility for SP (good or bad).. they knew what the story was before they gave it to Logan to flesh out.....

    the sacking of Logan only came because what he turned back into Mendes and company, was utter garbage - so Mendes brought back P&W and Jez to rework / touch up what was already there..

    people need to understand - when a director signs onto a project.. he either A.) signs on because of a script that has already been written, then changes what he wants to better suit his vision.. or B.) signs on, then hires his own writing team - or - works with an existing writing team to create the new script.... a director has a HUGE impact on what comes out on screen, because that is HIS vision... once that script leaves the hands on the writers and is in the hands of the director - it's his from that point on..
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I don't want Logan anywhere near the next film. Just sayin'.
Sign In or Register to comment.