No Time To Die: Production Diary

tanaka123

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

Sorry. But, they don't. If one understands the Bond world, one doesn't rehash the same story all over again. P&W's story structure:

Treason
Lack of Trust in the home team
Mole/Double Agent
Bond goes rogue
MI6 is weakened
Public outrage on the spy world
Bond makes bad choices

And starting with the Craig era:
Almost every ally is killed, Bond blames himself or gets the bad rap from higher-ups.

Since The World Is Not Enough, we have been getting nothing but these. With these writers the Bond films have been derailed narration-wise. Get someone who actually knows what they're doing. There are plenty of people out there who can deliver the goods. Hell, even some people in here among the community can pen spot on stories and screenplays that would seem original every time. Purvis and Wade have been offering only one image. The features are listed above.

Time for a new blood.

Skyfall is basically a remake/mash-up of TWINE and GE.

ClarkDevlin

tanaka123 wrote: »

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

Sorry. But, they don't. If one understands the Bond world, one doesn't rehash the same story all over again. P&W's story structure:

Treason
Lack of Trust in the home team
Mole/Double Agent
Bond goes rogue
MI6 is weakened
Public outrage on the spy world
Bond makes bad choices

And starting with the Craig era:
Almost every ally is killed, Bond blames himself or gets the bad rap from higher-ups.

Since The World Is Not Enough, we have been getting nothing but these. With these writers the Bond films have been derailed narration-wise. Get someone who actually knows what they're doing. There are plenty of people out there who can deliver the goods. Hell, even some people in here among the community can pen spot on stories and screenplays that would seem original every time. Purvis and Wade have been offering only one image. The features are listed above.

Time for a new blood.

Skyfall is basically a remake/mash-up of TWINE and GE.

Yep!

doubleoego

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

Sorry. But, they don't. If one understands the Bond world, one doesn't rehash the same story all over again. P&W's story structure:

Treason
Lack of Trust in the home team
Mole/Double Agent
Bond goes rogue
MI6 is weakened
Public outrage on the spy world
Bond makes bad choices

And starting with the Craig era:
Almost every ally is killed, Bond blames himself or gets the bad rap from higher-ups.

Since The World Is Not Enough, we have been getting nothing but these. With these writers the Bond films have been derailed narration-wise. Get someone who actually knows what they're doing. There are plenty of people out there who can deliver the goods. Hell, even some people in here among the community can pen spot on stories and screenplays that would seem original every time. Purvis and Wade have been offering only one image. The features are listed above.

Time for a new blood.

Bingo!

Walecs

MrBond wrote: »

Walecs wrote: »

Red_Snow wrote: »

the original script ended with a helicopter crash on Westminster Bridge in London – and before Purvis and Wade started work, construction had already begun at Pinewood Studios on a demolishable full-scale replica of the landmark. So whatever they came up with had to entail crashing a helicopter into the damn thing somehow.

Are they serious? The movie had to end with the helicopter crash because they had built the replica? Oh right, all the money had been spent on the world record explosion. Why should you film a movie with a good script if it's going to cost you more?

No wonder SPECTRE turned out a shitty movie.

Clearly you don't know how a large scale production works. Since the beginning of time with these blockbusters, set-pieces are written first and then the storyline around them, despite what the director or scriptwriter says. That is because from a financial standpoint, the set pieces are what's marketable (unfortunately). The sets also costs a lot of money, and need to be built before the production commences. There is no time for wiggle room on these behemoths.

Purvis&Wade came on in a late stage and had to find solutions on the obvious problems, so they had to write around the problems. They had to compromise to make the director, producers and the money-men happy.

Keep in mind also that Purvis&Wade was/is EONs in in-house writers. They pitch the story that makes EON get the necessary funding(often derived from ideas that the producers has brought forward)
Later when a director comes aboard, he/she can choose to disregard the script and start with something else (Forster) or build upon what is already there (Apted). What is important is that there HAS to be a script before anyone can sign on. That is/was Purvis&Wades work. Thus they can be "blamed" for some story choices and dialogue, but absolutely not everything. There are too many cooks to pinpoint how did what. But most often it comes down to the director and the producers choices.

There is most likely a couple of writers employed at EON house as we speak, scribbling down ideas and if the ideas make it to the screen they will be credited as the writers. If not, well then we will never know who they are or when they worked on it.

Obviously I was not blaming P&W, but EON. I can't believe the producers forced the writers to write the elicopter crash not because plot demanded it but because of money reason - something which I could forgive if we were talking about a low budget movie, but SPECTRE had a $200 million budget and followed a $1.2 billion box office movie.

AlexanderWaverly

$245 million ended up the reported figure after all the tax breaks and product placement were factored in. They were on track for well over $300 million (per email by MGM executive that became public because of the Sony hacks).

doubleoego

AlexanderWaverly wrote: »

$245 million ended up the reported figure after all the tax breaks and product placement were factored in. They were on track for well over $300 million (per email by MGM executive that became public because of the Sony hacks).

Crikey...how did SP cost so damn much? 245million budget?? And I bet that's before M&A costs which would have cost another $150 to 250 million. They need to get the costs waaaaaaaay down. It's ridiculous.

Creasy47

@doubleoego, you're right, marketing isn't even accounted for in that estimate, so we're looking at $300 million plus. There's just no excuse for that, could've been dialed way back. When you're shelling out $30 million plus for one car chase (that doesn't look like it costs anywhere NEAR that price tag), I think it's time to reevaluate your priorities.

QuantumOrganization

$100 million should be the max for a bond film. not including marketing.

ClarkDevlin

A bit lacking, if you ask me. $150 Million would be the perfect amount.

Creasy47

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

A bit lacking, if you ask me. $150 Million would be the perfect amount.

$100 million isn't lacking if you know how to allocate it properly. Mel Gibson just made a truly epic and, at times, grand-scale war film with 'Hacksaw Ridge,' with less than two months and $40 million to work with.

I'd say $150 million is the max they should be needing to spend. How they're putting out over $300 million for something like SP is beyond my grasp.

ClarkDevlin

Big explosion and car specially made for the film. ;)

Creasy47

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

Big explosion and car specially made for the film. ;)

And this is where we fall back on them allocating the funds properly. The problem I have with the car chase is that they shelled out so much to have two one-of-a-kind supercars in a chase that it opened up no room for any sort of significant damage dealt; thus, we're given a slightly fast tour of Rome, and nothing more.

I'd be interested to see how much money they essentially burned away with that explosion. It's like Mendes was given an empty check for this movie and he wanted to see just how much cash could be pissed away.

QuantumOrganization

Well, we know have an internal documents that prove that Barbara and Micheal are as much incompetent managers as I thought.

MrBond

QuantumOrganization wrote: »

Well, we know have an internal documents that prove that Barbara and Micheal are as much incompetent managers as I thought.

No, just. No.

Mrcoggins

QuantumOrganization wrote: »

Well, we know have an internal documents that prove that Barbara and Micheal are as much incompetent managers as I thought.

You really are quite unpleasant at times .

QuantumOrganization

It's not really up for debate. The sony emails proved they had let john logan on too long a leash, and had to rush in P&W.

AlexanderWaverly

doubleoego wrote: »

AlexanderWaverly wrote: »

$245 million ended up the reported figure after all the tax breaks and product placement were factored in. They were on track for well over $300 million (per email by MGM executive that became public because of the Sony hacks).

Crikey...how did SP cost so damn much? 245million budget?? And I bet that's before M&A costs which would have cost another $150 to 250 million. They need to get the costs waaaaaaaay down. It's ridiculous.

The Rome shoot, primarily the car chase, was something like $60 million by itself. (It was 24 million British pounds just for the cars and the pound was worth more to the dollar at the time). They gave the Daily Mail a lot of access while filming and were practically bragging about the money they were spending.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3250449/Really-Bond-burned-24million-new-film-Spectre-just-blowing-cars.html

talos7

....and was one of the most boring car chases I've seen in years. Yes I know that some have described the film as "dream like"; and I guess I can agree with that because it nearly put me to sleep :)

ToTheRight

I sort of think of the Rome car chase as being along the lines of, say the ski sequence in TWINE. Solid, but not exactly memorable or iconic in the series.

Some_Kind_Of_Hero

AlexanderWaverly wrote: »

doubleoego wrote: »

AlexanderWaverly wrote: »

$245 million ended up the reported figure after all the tax breaks and product placement were factored in. They were on track for well over $300 million (per email by MGM executive that became public because of the Sony hacks).

Crikey...how did SP cost so damn much? 245million budget?? And I bet that's before M&A costs which would have cost another $150 to 250 million. They need to get the costs waaaaaaaay down. It's ridiculous.

The Rome shoot, primarily the car chase, was something like $60 million by itself. (It was 24 million British pounds just for the cars and the pound was worth more to the dollar at the time). They gave the Daily Mail a lot of access while filming and were practically bragging about the money they were spending.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3250449/Really-Bond-burned-24million-new-film-Spectre-just-blowing-cars.html

Evidently after the success of Skyfall there was a big "nobody does it better" mentality going on. Perhaps HUBRIS would have been a better title for the follow-up. No other Bond film has such an astounding ratio of money spent to results seen on screen. Really boggles the mind how so much money could be spent so carelessly.

bondjames

Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »

AlexanderWaverly wrote: »

doubleoego wrote: »

AlexanderWaverly wrote: »

$245 million ended up the reported figure after all the tax breaks and product placement were factored in. They were on track for well over $300 million (per email by MGM executive that became public because of the Sony hacks).

Crikey...how did SP cost so damn much? 245million budget?? And I bet that's before M&A costs which would have cost another $150 to 250 million. They need to get the costs waaaaaaaay down. It's ridiculous.

The Rome shoot, primarily the car chase, was something like $60 million by itself. (It was 24 million British pounds just for the cars and the pound was worth more to the dollar at the time). They gave the Daily Mail a lot of access while filming and were practically bragging about the money they were spending.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3250449/Really-Bond-burned-24million-new-film-Spectre-just-blowing-cars.html

Evidently after the success of Skyfall there was a big "nobody does it better" mentality going on. Perhaps HUBRIS would have been a better title for the follow-up. No other Bond film has such an astounding ratio of money spent to results seen on screen. Really boggles the mind how so much money could be spent so carelessly.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

doubleoego

Creasy47 wrote: »

@doubleoego, you're right, marketing isn't even accounted for in that estimate, so we're looking at $300 million plus. There's just no excuse for that, could've been dialed way back. When you're shelling out $30 million plus for one car chase (that doesn't look like it costs anywhere NEAR that price tag), I think it's time to reevaluate your priorities.

AlexanderWaverly wrote: »

doubleoego wrote: »

AlexanderWaverly wrote: »

$245 million ended up the reported figure after all the tax breaks and product placement were factored in. They were on track for well over $300 million (per email by MGM executive that became public because of the Sony hacks).

Crikey...how did SP cost so damn much? 245million budget?? And I bet that's before M&A costs which would have cost another $150 to 250 million. They need to get the costs waaaaaaaay down. It's ridiculous.

The Rome shoot, primarily the car chase, was something like $60 million by itself. (It was 24 million British pounds just for the cars and the pound was worth more to the dollar at the time). They gave the Daily Mail a lot of access while filming and were practically bragging about the money they were spending.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3250449/Really-Bond-burned-24million-new-film-Spectre-just-blowing-cars.html

No amount of head shaking would ever be apt to describe how epically remiss and mismanaged SP was. Damn.

talos7

ToTheRight wrote: »

I sort of think of the Rome car chase as being along the lines of, say the ski sequence in TWINE. Solid, but not exactly memorable or iconic in the series.

The virtually empty streets didn't help.

ToTheRight

talos7 wrote: »

ToTheRight wrote: »

I sort of think of the Rome car chase as being along the lines of, say the ski sequence in TWINE. Solid, but not exactly memorable or iconic in the series.

The virtually empty streets didn't help.

Gives me the impression Rome is a ghost town at night and all businesses probably close before sunset.

Bounine

writer5150 wrote: »

Red_Snow wrote: »

The thing is,” Neal Purvis frowns, “I’m just not sure how you would go about writing a James Bond film now.”

This is exactly why they shouldn't be writing Bond. Given some of the current events they listed, I see a number of story possibilities. And that's just scratching the surface. Bond doesn't always have to be the mirror on what is happening at the moment either. There are big missions and smaller, more personal capers. The problem should be choosing one from among the many. Babs should immediately hire someone who desperately wants to write a Bond film … or allow a few writers -- on spec -- to take their own best shots with a treatment and see what develops.

This kills me. Similarly, the way some filmmakers feel about other properties. (e.g., after over 50 years of Spider-Man comics -- at least one a month and for many years several a month -- they feel they've run out of ideas after two or three movies. HUH?)

Looking forward to getting some new blood into the Bond films -- people who would be honored (honoured?) to do the series and the character justice.

Agreed. Well said.

Risico007

for me the issue is not the plot of bond 25 (as literally because of the corner they back themselves into the next film really writes itself) but how to make the Revenge/death of Swann seem interesting emotionally vesting and not just a poor retread of the excellent Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace

Personally I think going back to Fleming is the way to go and Have bond be sent on a diplomatic mission now that he is a former 00 (using now the code name in You only live twice 7777) and let the film revolve around that. With Swann being brought in the beginning but killed half way through the diplomatic mission.. the only issue with this idea is the lack of an action sequence for a full hour ( again setting up the new diplomatic world and Swann and Bond's relationship so her death means something to the audience rather then oh well Bond had to become 007 again so of course they had to take this route as well as introducing a new female 007 with the name of Gala Brand and how she fits into this film plus her views of Idealism versus Bond's stoic view of the world she of course leaves the 00 service after one mission at the end of the film realizing she can't be normal and a 00 where as Bond realizes he can't live a normal life and it's too late)


Again the themes and script write itself but the issues are 3 fold

1. How do you build the new world with out the film slowing down to a crawl for an hour
2. how does Swann relate to the diplomatic mission and how does she die (accidental or at the hands of spectre)
3. How do you make to so the film DOESNT seem tired and bland retread of the much underated Licence to Kill and Quantum of Solace?

once you solve these three issues the film takes shape. Plus it gives Craig a lot to sink his acting chops into. The themes of Getting out before its too late and Bond realizing it's far too late for him are the stuff any actor would die to be able to portray (it's Shakespearian pretentiousness without people realizing it) Plus both Swann and Brand will be enough for the bond girl status and what would be even more interesting (though this retconn's spectre slightly) is if Spectre kills Swann but Blofeld doesn't want Swann killed (viewing her like a niece) and actually kills one of his own men who killed her (which would make Waltz happy as an actor)

Again Bond 25 writes itself but the issue is the 3 above I assume someone like Chris Mcquarrie David Goyer or Jonthan Nolan could solve all 3 to be perfectly honest.

Pierce2Daniel

I’m interested how they’ll deal with the Madeleine issue.

I don’t think her return is guaranteed. Even if Craig does comes back, and even if Waltz also agrees to return, I don’t think it necessarily means Seydoux will.

They could easily write her out. Alternatively, she could come back in either a smaller role (killed off early on) or a big role (the secondary or primary female role). Personally, I’d love it if Seydoux comes back – she brought a lot of pathos with her vulnerable performance as Swann. Maybe we could see that harder edge hinted at in the sequel? She could strip that gun rather quickly…..

Lea is pregnant at the moment. Maybe she could come back?

In other Bond news……Things have been slow.

Jamie Dornan is ‘desperate’ for to be Bond
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/2685070/jamie-dornan-hints-he-is-desperate-to-be-the-next-james-bond-after-wowing-in-fifty-shades-of-grey/


This is casting I could get behind.

Naomie Harris is an Oscar Nominee.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4152234/Dev-Patel-Naomie-Harris-lead-British-nominations.html

Tom Holland is also after the Bond job
http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/757624/James-Bond-007-Tom-Holland-Spider-Man-Homecoming-Daniel-Craig-Tom-Hardy


This is casting I really can’t get behind.

Sam Mendes got married (Will Bond 25 pay for the wedding?)
http://people.com/movies/james-bond-director-sam-mendes-marries-classical-musician/

AlexanderWaverly

If Naomie Harris wins the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, her part in Bond 25 likely would expand.

bondjames

No to Dornan for me (50 Shades of whatever killed it). I can go with Holland, once he completes puberty.

Creasy47

I'll take a big pass on Dornan and Holland.