No Time To Die: Production Diary

13593603623643652507

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Craig is great but why? The budgets should be going the other way. Too risky especially after SP. Only about 60% of the audience liked SP so if B25 does just 60% of the SP NA gross Sony will be wishing they hadn't ruined Spiderman and Ghostbusters.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    Let me get this straight. Sony is supposed to have netted about $58m on SF (if rumours are to be believed). Given that SP was made at a much higher cost and grossed far less globally, I think it is reasonable to conclude that they netted even less on the most recent film (although they could have saved some on marketing costs for SP vs SF).

    This was supposed to be a competitive distribution tender, so I assume EON wouldn't have sweetened the pot for Sony unless nobody else wanted a piece.

    Now they feel comfortable paying $150m to an actor who hasn't made a film outside of SF & SP in the last 4 years? That's roughly 33% of the production budget of the last two films combined.

    Implicit in this is an assumption that they aren't giving much credit for the success of SF & SP to Mendes, who is no longer directing.

    Fishy doesn't even begin to describe it.

    Exactly.

    More shoddy made up journalism I'm afraid. Bond makes money no matter who is playing him. If youve already spunked $75m per film on your actor then add say another $200m for the budget per film then you'd damned well better make $1b on each film to even hope to see a tangible return.

    Economically this makes no sense at all. Youre much better off paying Hiddleston say $5m and have a budget of $150m. You'll still make a decent profit ($600-700m should be the target, any more is a bonus) and you're not risking such ludicrous amounts.

    If you were Sony, after SP, would you entrust EON with that much money to guarantee a $1b film?
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 2,115
    //Sony is supposed to have netted about $58m on SF (if rumours are to be believed).//

    Wasn't a rumor. It was from a memo that became public because of the Sony hacks.

    //This was supposed to be a competitive distribution tender, so I assume EON wouldn't have sweetened the pot for Sony unless nobody else wanted a piece. //

    It's not Eon's decision. It's MGM's. Even Michael G. Wilson has said that (late 2015 video interview that has been posted elsewhere in this thread).
  • Posts: 1,970
    I wish people would stop saying Craig wont do back to back films. I actually think he would do it. If the script is to is liking, if he is paid well, and if he knows its gonna be his swan song. I see him doing it
  • Posts: 6,601
    I think, her made it VERY clear, that back to back is not an option. Why would that change, when he gets older? Rubbish, as is the money offer. Only makes him look bad in the press, because people will say, he is holding up production to milk them. Nothing could be further from the truth, but who is interested in that these days or ever?
  • Rumour: Sony secure Bond rights and have made Craig a large offer to return
    Daniel-Craig-attending-the-World-Premiere-of-Spectre-held-at-the-Royal-Albert-Hall-in-London.jpg
    http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/sony-offers-daniel-craig-millions-two-more-james-bond-films/

    Radar is not a source to be sniffed at. They're very much in the internet gossip arena (much like TMZ they specialise on Kardashian news), but they are often right.

    I think this is the best possible news. Bring back Craig! Then usher in a new younger actor.

    The truth is Craig has so firmly redefined the role and established himself in the part. I mean, he jumped out of a plane with the Queen. He just IS James Bond in the public imagination. Regardless of how good the new guy is in the part, I just can't imagine someone like Aidan Turner having that much support.

    The funny thing is....I wasn't sad or didn't feel gutted when Pierce Brosnan left after "Die Another Day". But IF Daniel Craig leaves after "SPECTRE" it truly will be one of the saddest days in my humble existence as a Bond fan :((.

    keep-calm-and-love-daniel-craig-31.png
  • It's not Eon's decision. It's MGM's. Even Michael G. Wilson has said that (late 2015 video interview that has been posted elsewhere in this thread).

    But there you are wrong. It's a co-decision really.

    EON Productions is the producing subsidiary of holding company Danjaq LLC. Danjaq LLC owns part of the copyrights of the James Bond films.

    But here it gets interesting, because MGM is also owner of the copyrights of the Bond franchise. So basically Danjaq LLC (fully owned by the Broccoli's) and MGM own like 50% of the Bond franchise's rights to the character James Bond and everything else that appeared on screen (S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Blofeld).

    So don't trust Michael Wilson on just this interview. Mostly both Gary Barber (MGM) and Michael G. Wilson & Barbara Broccoli (Danjaq LLC and its subsidiary EON) will stay wishy-washy about all this. Probably also for tax reasons.

    Having said all this, MGM and Danjaq are like siamese twins these days. If one disagrees, then no Bond film will be produced. And from what I've read so far from Barber/Wilson/Broccoli, and especially what I've read from their behaviour, they all are desperate to get Daniel Craig back. Desperate in like 'Connery-esque-desperation'.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited September 2016 Posts: 4,043
    If it is true and it's definitely iffy to say the least.

    I think the importance of DC returning is getting blown out of proportion if they really have this amount of money to throw about then why not invest in the future instead of giving to Craig to secure what they hope is going to be a huge return.

    If they are worried about letting a relative unknown taking the mantle give the job to someone like Fassbender, as famous as he is I'm sure they could secure him for less than $150 million and then plow it into the budget.

    As much as I like Craig and championed him if he's that unsure and his uncertainity holds things up then Bond can and will survive without him.

    He was a relative unknown when he got the gig, yes his interpretation added to the success and the change in the attitude to Bond but another actor as capable could have done this. The same way that if another unknown had been cast back 1962 with Terence Young behind them they could have attained the same success as Connery did.

    To think Connery was the only actor to be able to launch Bond and make it as success is quite ridiculous and the same goes for DC.

    No actor is bigger than Bond and this hanging onto Craig because there is an assumption by some that he's the only one who can carry things on is quite dangerous.

    I am a Bond fan first and a DC fan second.

    I actually would prefer to DC to be done with Bond and move onto more challenging work, now if he does come back well and good but if he doesn't it's not the end of the world.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 2,115
    It's not Eon's decision. It's MGM's. Even Michael G. Wilson has said that (late 2015 video interview that has been posted elsewhere in this thread).

    But there you are wrong. It's a co-decision really.

    EON Productions is the producing subsidiary of holding company Danjaq LLC. Danjaq LLC owns part of the copyrights of the James Bond films.

    But here it gets interesting, because MGM is also owner of the copyrights of the Bond franchise. So basically Danjaq LLC (fully owned by the Broccoli's) and MGM own like 50% of the Bond franchise's rights to the character James Bond and everything else that appeared on screen (S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Blofeld).

    So don't trust Michael Wilson on just this interview. Mostly both Gary Barber (MGM) and Michael G. Wilson & Barbara Broccoli (Danjaq LLC and its subsidiary EON) will stay wishy-washy about all this. Probably also for tax reasons.

    Having said all this, MGM and Danjaq are like siamese twins these days. If one disagrees, then no Bond film will be produced. And from what I've read so far from Barber/Wilson/Broccoli, and especially what I've read from their behaviour, they all are desperate to get Daniel Craig back. Desperate in like 'Connery-esque-desperation'.

    I'm not wrong. MGM may consult Danjaq/Eon, but Danjaq/Eon is not a studio. MGM is and it's the one who ultimately has to decide.

    "So don't trust Michael Wilson on just this interview." Actually, I don't trust him any further than I can throw him. Remember his silly comment (during Skyfall filming) about hoping Craig would do eight Bond movies and break Roger Moore's record? At the current pace of production, that'd be in the late 2020s.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Craig's only hope now is to become 2nd longest running Bond actor, or perhaps to equal Moore's length as Bond. There's no way he can match Moore's 7 films in number.

    I was thinking that yesterday as I watched SP, and I hope that he gets to at least equal Moore at 12 years, even it means he resigns from the role in 2018 just in time for a new actor's introduction.
  • //I wish people would stop saying Craig wont do back to back films.//

    It's based on comments Craig himself made.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Honestly I would be very disappointed if this is true. Not because I don't like DC, but throwing away 150 million just for an actor is ridiculous.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    It's rubbish. Sony and even MGM don't have the resources to shell at $150 million on one actor. Craig is very good but he's not great and he's most certainly not bankable enough to guarantee sizable profit margins for Sony, especially factoring in how much they're spending. It doesn't make any sense at all.

  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @timmer, I haven't seen Norton in anything. I will try to seek out some of his work on blu ray to see if he has potential. The same goes for the often mentioned Turner, who I know nothing about, although he seems to have some passionate fans here.

    I scouted out some films of Charlie Hunnam a few months back after hearing his name mentioned on here, and I'm afraid he wasn't all that impressive (again, missing that extra something in my view).

    Norton is a very promising actor; great in Happy Valley, but not Bond for me. Hunnan is a terrible idea.

    Re. Hiddleston - People talk about him being the wrong shape - not built enough - but I fail to see any real difference between him in TNM and Connery in DN. I think Craig has distorted the Fleming image in part. Bond should have the physique of a man who is fit through activities such as swimming and climbing - not the gym. I feel Hiddleston pulls that off.
    I agree with you on Hiddleston's physique. He's just right as far as I'm concerned. Craig isn't imho, but he compensates nicely with his presence and acting.


    As we know,per the books,Bond's physique is more like Brosnan/Hiddlestone than Craig...
  • Radar are an unusual source for Hollywood stories. However, they are well respected in regards to more salacious reporting. They're the guys who broke the Charlie Sheen HIV and the David Furish affair stories.

    I don't doubt their credentials. I believe the story is true (plus we'll know soon enough if news breaks that Sony have reupped on Bond).

    It syncs up with everything we've heard since Jan this year.

    - MGM and EON want Craig back for two films.
    - They are willing to wait and pay a lot of money
    - They will film back-to-back
    - Waltz has been signed for two movies

    It all adds up.

    EON have been keen for a while to film back-to back Bonds. They wanted to do so with CR and QOS but the schedule meant they had to relent and Roger Michell ducked out. The plan initially was to make Spectre a two-film arc, however, Mendes nixed the idea.

    Spectre suffered from severe bloat. It was basically two films crammed into one. It also cost as much as two big-budget films. If they did go down the back-to-back route, they could tell an inter-connected story and streamline the movies.

    Make two tight 120 minute stories that aren't overstuffed with action and are more character focussed.

    Take SP as an example. The first film would include the Mexico opening, the Rome meeting and a finale probably in London. In that time you could rejig the story and really build up the momentum and connection that Bond has with Blofeld. There would be considerable time to focus on the relationship between the pair.

    The second film would be the Madeline love story. You'd have locations ranging from Morroco, the Sahara Austria and London. There would be plenty of time over 120minutes to let that relationship blossom, opposed to it feeling as half-baked as it does in the 40mins of screentime it gets.

    That's just an example.

    EON are clearly keen to follow this model and $150m isn't that much in many respects. Both film would gross in excess of $700m (if not more if the quailty is up to snuff, eg; SF). So the investment massively pays off. Why are people getting fussy about a studio paying that much for an actor? It's not your money.

    I can see how the arc would work:

    Film 1: A true adaptation of YOLT with a OHMSS ending where Madeline dies.
    Film 2: Bond's hunt for Blofeld.

    You just need to find a director with the stamina to take on two back-to-back films.

    I'm thinking there's two men for the job:

    martincampbell-paulhaggis-umbra.jpg?w=680

    Campbell directing and Haggis writing. Get the CR team back.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Re. Waltz signing on for two films:

    The actor himself has publicly denied being asked to return. I don't think that rumour has any validity:

  • Posts: 1,970
    Regarding Craig not doing back to back films. Its called changing your mind people. Never say never
  • fjdinardo wrote: »
    Regarding Craig not doing back to back films. Its called changing your mind people. Never say never

    That applies *if* he agrees to do two more and film them back to back. Hasn't happened yet. Even Radar Online describes it as an offer, and it's not saying Craig has accepted yet.

  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited September 2016 Posts: 1,756
    Here's the thing. They could spend half of whatever that is and hire competent screenwriters who know how to write a story that feels satisfying within 100-120 minutes instead of having two movies to tell a story because your screenwriters don't know how to economize and pace a story within a period of time.

    That being said, I wouldn't necessarily mind back-to-back Bond films.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 2,115
    //Why are people getting fussy about a studio paying that much for an actor? It's not your money.//

    That was Michael Cimino's attitude with Heaven's Gate. It wasn't his money. It was United Artists'.

    Even if you believe it's a better movie than the initial reviews, it still flopped so badly (and was so expensive) it brought an end to United Artists as a separate studio. How many movies didn't get made because UA disappeared?

    No way to know of course, but it's not like there wasn't an effect. There certainly was an effect on the Bond film series with MGM taking over, something that still resonates today.

    If the Radar Online story is true, it's a sign that Sony really is desperate. And they have reason to be. Ghostbusters is on track to lose $70M (per The Hollywood Reporter). So, it's possible Sony is swallowing hard and throwing money at Craig.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    It doesn't make sense that they would make this kind of offer, let alone without having a director locked down for the film. I would think that one needs to at least know who is directing before having the confidence to make such a substantial offer.

    For comparison purposes, the reported highest paid actor in 2015 was Robert Downey JR at $80m. The reported highest paid actor thus far in 2016 is Dwayne Johnson at $64.5m. Tom Cruise is currently at around $53m.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I don't get the logic ..I respect Radar's history but I don't get it. Plus the distribution deal is for all MGM films not just Bond.

    And I have said it before and I'll say it again I hate MGM owning half of Bond. Such an unstable studio. What happens if they fold? Do we forever loose Bond?

    Thanks Harry :-L

    What would happen if another studio bought MGM?

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I don't get the logic ..I respect Radar's history but I don't get it. Plus the distribution deal is for all MGM films not just Bond.

    And I have said it before and I'll say it again I hate MGM owning half of Bond. Such an unstable studio. What happens if they fold? Do we forever loose Bond?

    Thanks Harry :-L

    What would happen if another studio bought MGM?
    All I know is that a Bond film without Leo roaring in front of it wouldn't feel like a Bond film. There's nothing like the visceral excitement of seeing the MGM logo and you know a brand new Bond film is about to start. Almost as much of a staple as the gunbarrel, IMO.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I miss the UA logo (including the music that accompanied it just before the gunbarrel) more than I would miss the lion, although I agree that both are great to see. I wouldn't miss the Columbia lady one bit.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    bondjames wrote: »
    I miss the UA logo (including the music that accompanied it just before the gunbarrel) more than I would miss the lion, although I agree that both are great to see. I wouldn't miss the Columbia lady one bit.
    Neither would I. The way I see it, she's the wall that separates the MGM logo from the gunbarrel.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2016 Posts: 15,713
    The only thing, as of September 4th 2016, that I absolutely want to see in Bond 25, is a no-nonsense gunbarrel at the start. No music that plays during the roaring lion, no fading to black with a random text message, no CGI bullet. I just want to hear a bombastic version of the Bond theme (that isn't another variation of the CR end credits) from Arnold, Giacchino or whoever (but not Newman) that segues into the film. If I must sit through Madeline getting killed and Bond going rogue for another revenge mission, so be it. I've only see the 4 Craig films on the big screen, so I have never experienced a proper gunbarrel yet.
  • Posts: 1,970
    IMO I feel like Babs and company never wanted the gunbarrel back at the beginning ever for the reboot of the series. Their hand was forced by the fans to have it back. CR was the only film for it to be fine with no gunbarrel in the beginning. QOS you could make a case for it being at the end, but Skyfall no just no. Mendes excuse for it was just stupid and I remember people on here and twitter being furious over it being at the end of Skyfall. So they had no choice to put it back for Spectre. It also didn't help when Mendes put his foot in his mouth during press for Skyfall saying he wanted it at the beginning. You could just tell he didn't want it at the beginning for Spectre.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited September 2016 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    It doesn't make sense that they would make this kind of offer, let alone without having a director locked down for the film. I would think that one needs to at least know who is directing before having the confidence to make such a substantial offer.

    For comparison purposes, the reported highest paid actor in 2015 was Robert Downey JR at $80m. The reported highest paid actor thus far in 2016 is Dwayne Johnson at $64.5m. Tom Cruise is currently at around $53m.

    The idea that Dan can command 50% more than Tom Cruise per film is preposterous.
    //Why are people getting fussy about a studio paying that much for an actor? It's not your money.//

    That was Michael Cimino's attitude with Heaven's Gate. It wasn't his money. It was United Artists'.

    Even if you believe it's a better movie than the initial reviews, it still flopped so badly (and was so expensive) it brought an end to United Artists as a separate studio. How many movies didn't get made because UA disappeared?

    No way to know of course, but it's not like there wasn't an effect. There certainly was an effect on the Bond film series with MGM taking over, something that still resonates today.

    If the Radar Online story is true, it's a sign that Sony really is desperate. And they have reason to be. Ghostbusters is on track to lose $70M (per The Hollywood Reporter). So, it's possible Sony is swallowing hard and throwing money at Craig.

    Exactly. For Sony this really would be all in and if it didn't deliver north of $1b they would be in serious trouble.

    After SF this deal might have made sense but after SP it's a very big gamble.
    The only thing, as of September 4th 2016, that I absolutely want to see in Bond 25, is a no-nonsense gunbarrel at the start. No music that plays during the roaring lion, no fading to black with a random text message, no CGI bullet. I just want to hear a bombastic version of the Bond theme (that isn't another variation of the CR end credits) from Arnold, Giacchino or whoever (but not Newman) that segues into the film. If I must sit through Madeline getting killed and Bond going rogue for another revenge mission, so be it. I've only see the 4 Craig films on the big screen, so I have never experienced a proper gunbarrel yet.

    Agreed.

    Why is it so hard for them to get right?
  • Posts: 1,970
    I can even see Sony and EON just agree for distribution rights for 2 more films and to finish the Craig Bond Era off right with a 2 part film. You also have to remember that EON is widely known for following the current hot trends in todays world. 2 part films is the current hot trend to ending a big movie franchises. Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, and soon to be the Avengers. EON would for certain IMO follow that trend to end the Craig era of the Bond franchise and I even see Craig agreeing the good business that it would bring.
  • Posts: 6,601
    I bullocks from start to finish. Why is that so hard to believe? What next? Ownership of Bond to come back?
Sign In or Register to comment.