No Time To Die: Production Diary

16646656676696702507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    octofinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's clear to me from Wilson's comments last year and P&W's in February that EON are looking more outward with the next film. I believe that it will be plot based and will be influenced more by current & possible future events and fears.

    I'm a bit uncomfortable with this, for a few reasons:

    1) It can be tough to make a 'topical' film that's also a good one. Weaving in hot topics can work to spice up a narrative, but it's not easy. And screenwriting, most of us probably agree, is one area where the franchise has struggled a bit lately (whereas talent both sides of the camera is outstanding).

    2) The topical stuff often doesn't age very well. Mujaheddin, anyone?

    3) Bond films are ultimately mass-market spy movies, not art house thinkpieces. The topical stuff usually has to get dumbed down and abstracted so that it's not too 'on the nose.' So you end up with something like SP. Ostensibly it's about surveillance, which is a major contemporary concern, but it really did nothing interesting with the topic, and Blofeld might just as well have been trying to control oil or the stock market or nukes or something - no difference to the plot.

    Godspeed to them if they can make a movie that does something interesting with contemporary concerns within the timeless Bond framework. But I won't hold my breath, and would be just as happy with a nice stand-alone mission against an old-fashioned villain.
    You've made some good points in your post above, and I wouldn't want them to 'overcomplicate the plot' either, or alternatively to come up with something that is so watered down so as to be meaningless within the context of real contemporary concerns. I too wish them luck with whatever they choose to do with B25. I think we all can agree that we need a cracker of a film next time out.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    ggl007 wrote: »

    A sequel that jumps to the fourth book, with a director that isn't Fincher, starring an all-new cast. And just like that, 100% of my interest went out the window.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Wasn't Pascal sacked? How is she co-producing this thing? Rudin has recently worked with Craig and so I'm disappointed that he didn't insist on him. This is the same knucklehead who was caught making racist comments about Mr. Obama with Pascal on the Sony leaks.
  • Posts: 6,601
    I hope it flops badly. Its a slap in the faces of both, DC and Rooney.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I hope it flops badly. Its a slap in the faces of both, DC and Rooney.

    This. I hope it makes even less money than Fincher's version. Maybe then they'll realize the best way forward was to give the original cast and crew what they wanted (more money/freedom), so they could craft the best film. I know it's a business, and this will likely be the cheaper option for them, but jumping to the fourth novel with an all new cast doesn't inspire any sort of confidence on the box office front.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I hope it flops badly. Its a slap in the faces of both, DC and Rooney.

    This. I hope it makes even less money than Fincher's version. Maybe then they'll realize the best way forward was to give the original cast and crew what they wanted (more money/freedom), so they could craft the best film. I know it's a business, and this will likely be the cheaper option for them, but jumping to the fourth novel with an all new cast doesn't inspire any sort of confidence on the box office front.
    These are the same idiots who invested in the Ghostbusters remake, and yet they won't give Mara & Craig a chance, even though they are the ones who botched the original by releasing it at Christmas. I so want these guys out of the Bond frame but fear they'll be back at the rate things are going.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Do we know if they turned it down?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Mara was on record a year or so ago saying she wanted to do it and as far as she was concerned it was still a possibility, even though there were already rumours circulating of 'it girl' Vikander having got the part (although that's never been confirmed). So it looks like Mara was out of the loop.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Wasn't Pascal sacked? How is she co-producing this thing? Rudin has recently worked with Craig and so I'm disappointed that he didn't insist on him. This is the same knucklehead who was caught making racist comments about Mr. Obama with Pascal on the Sony leaks.

    1) Pascal was sacked. The studio said she resigned, but Pascal said publicly she was fired.

    2) As part of her separation package, she got a producer deal at Sony. That's why she was producer of Ghostbusters and will get a producer credit on Spider-Man: Homecoming, where Kevin Feige & Co. are doing the heavy lifting.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    Do we know if they turned it down?

    I think it was always a mixture of Fincher wanting more freedom, Craig wanting more money, with the remake not being a tremendous success at the box office to warrant that decision for a sequel.
  • Maybe Craig turned it down and they decided to recast completely?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Wasn't Pascal sacked? How is she co-producing this thing? Rudin has recently worked with Craig and so I'm disappointed that he didn't insist on him. This is the same knucklehead who was caught making racist comments about Mr. Obama with Pascal on the Sony leaks.

    1) Pascal was sacked. The studio said she resigned, but Pascal said publicly she was fired.

    2) As part of her separation package, she got a producer deal at Sony. That's why she was producer of Ghostbusters and will get a producer credit on Spider-Man: Homecoming, where Kevin Feige & Co. are doing the heavy lifting.
    Thanks @AlexanderWaverly. Now it makes sense.
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do we know if they turned it down?

    I think it was always a mixture of Fincher wanting more freedom, Craig wanting more money, with the remake not being a tremendous success at the box office to warrant that decision for a sequel.

    ...and Sony wanting to do it cheaper.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    Maybe Craig turned it down and they decided to recast completely?

    If Mara still had interest, then there would be no sense in recasting her, too, when they could've just gone with a less expensive actor in the role - this is, of course, assuming that Mara didn't cost much, either, but who knows.

    Either way, at least it's now 1,000% confirmed that I'll never be getting the sequel I wanted, so I needn't worry about or ponder it anymore.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Wasn't Pascal sacked? How is she co-producing this thing? Rudin has recently worked with Craig and so I'm disappointed that he didn't insist on him. This is the same knucklehead who was caught making racist comments about Mr. Obama with Pascal on the Sony leaks.

    1) Pascal was sacked. The studio said she resigned, but Pascal said publicly she was fired.

    2) As part of her separation package, she got a producer deal at Sony. That's why she was producer of Ghostbusters and will get a producer credit on Spider-Man: Homecoming, where Kevin Feige & Co. are doing the heavy lifting.
    Thanks @AlexanderWaverly. Now it makes sense.

    In Hollywood, even when you fail, you often land in a soft spot. That's certainly the case with Pascal.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Sony need to get their head in the game if they want to do Bond. That, or MGM needs to go big.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I hope it flops badly. Its a slap in the faces of both, DC and Rooney.

    This. I hope it makes even less money than Fincher's version. Maybe then they'll realize the best way forward was to give the original cast and crew what they wanted (more money/freedom), so they could craft the best film. I know it's a business, and this will likely be the cheaper option for them, but jumping to the fourth novel with an all new cast doesn't inspire any sort of confidence on the box office front.

    Fincher's movie was very disappointing, as was DC's performance IMO. I'm not surprised they struggled to get a sequel off the ground. Given how huge those books were it's a fairly damning indictment of all involved that the film was such a flop - lacking in drama, tension, believability.

    It should act as a reminder to DC that after Bond his career options are likely to diminish rapidly. He should hang on in there as long as he can - 2 more films would be my advice. And he should show a little more outward commitment to the series as well. He may have done wonders for Bond, but the reverse is also true.

    I'm fairly sure he fully appreciates it, but more indication that he actually enjoys the job, rather than resenting it, would make him slightly more endearing to fans I think.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @Getafix, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy Fincher's TGWTDT. I loved it!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I'm with @bondjames, loved it too. Wonderfully shot, performed, written. It didn't "bomb", it just didn't make the money they were hoping for, but, as has already been mentioned, they took a risk in counter-programming and released an intensely dark film during Christmas season (it would have lined up better in September/October after TIFF).
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Getafix, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy Fincher's TGWTDT. I loved it!

    I had quite enjoyed the book and felt it had clear filmic potential but found the movie very BBC TV on a Sunday afternoon. Not what I had been expecting from Fincher at all. I remember going into the cinema with very high expectations.

    The mish mash of accents was very distracting. Why is everyone else speaking in their Scandinavian (or put on) accents and DC speaks clipped English? Made it feel like one of those lame euro-blamanges that only gets funding as part of some Austrian tax dodge.

    The denouement in the killer's basement is cliched even in the book, and needed imaginative handling to give it some impact, which Fincher entirely failed to do.

    Close to zero chemistry between DC and Rooney Mara didn't help either.

    Yeah. Just disappointing really. Not a disaster, just not very good and pretty forgettable.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited March 2017 Posts: 10,591
    Fincher's TGWTDT is an excellent film.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,425
    jake24 wrote: »
    Fincher's TGWTDT is an excellent film.

    I beg to differ. BO and critical response says otherwise as well. And like me, I think a lot of people expected and wanted it to be really good.

    But glad to hear some people enjoyed it. 'Okay' would be about as effusive as I could get about it.

    If I'm honest it cemented my belief that DC is not quite the charismatic, BO magician that some would like to make out. I see his post Bond future as a solid character actor in good ensemble movies, not as a leading man. Which to be fair to him is probably not far from where he sees himself either.

    It's a truism that Bond is bigger than any one actor. Even Sean found that out. It conveys a status and gravitas on the incumbent that is unlike any other role.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    The mish mash of accents was very distracting. Why is everyone else speaking in their Scandinavian (or put on) accents and DC speaks clipped English? Made it feel like one of those lame euro-blamanges that only gets funding as part of some Austrian tax dodge.
    I'll admit that he should have at least made an attempt with the accent. Even Robin Wright tried. Mara owned her role and Craig admittedly was a little overshadowed by her, which is perhaps as it should have been. The only issue I found was that he wasn't all that believable in distress in the basement finale. He's too well known as a tough guy Bond to be credible as 'regular joe' Blomkvist.

    I disagree on the production values though. I thought the film looked absolutely outstanding from start to finish. Great glossy & yet dark atmosphere.

    I'm just ticked that we aren't going to get the direct sequel. The Swedish version of The Girl Who Played With Fire is my favourite of the original 3 and I was so looking forward to seeing Mara & Craig in the English version.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Well I have to say even I now sadly am getting concerned about a late 2018 release date for Bond 25? But will hold out hope until I hear like the rest of something official from EON?
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't think I said anything about the production values. It looked fine, although again nothing really stood out. It felt like an inferior copy of a Fincher movie for me. Like this is what a fan paying homage might come up with.

    Never really achieved lift off in terms of the thriller dimension or the characterisations.

    Agree Rooney Mara probably best thing about it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't think I said anything about the production values. It looked fine, although again nothing really stood out.
    Sorry, I inferred that from your earlier "BBC tv on a Sunday afternoon" comment. My mistake.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Fair enough. I meant more the lack of drama / tension. Sort of a bit plodding and by the numbers.

    I really think it has to do with the fact that the source material is serviceable but needed a little finessing to elevate it above the pedestrian, and that is something Fincher just wasn't able to do.

    May be he overestimated the quality of the book and thought a straight, faithful adaptation was all that was required.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,537
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I hope it flops badly. Its a slap in the faces of both, DC and Rooney.

    This. I hope it makes even less money than Fincher's version. Maybe then they'll realize the best way forward was to give the original cast and crew what they wanted (more money/freedom), so they could craft the best film. I know it's a business, and this will likely be the cheaper option for them, but jumping to the fourth novel with an all new cast doesn't inspire any sort of confidence on the box office front.

    Couldn't agree more. It's one of my favourite films, and I am beyond disappointed that we'll never get to see at least the completed trilogy. In all honesty, I love DC as Bond, but I would rather see him as Blomkvist.

    I'm still baffled as to how anyone thought releasing TGWTDT in December was a good idea. Of all the films in the world, that absolutly is not a film you release at Christmas. And no doubt, that is part of the reason it didn't do as well at the box office as they had hoped.
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144

    echo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @JamesBondKenya hits nail on head: Greg Wilson..., what makes him the saviour?

    There's no evidence of that. Babs and MGW apprenticed for a while.

    And what have Barbs and Mike have been doing for the franchise in the last couple years

    Jesus Wept. MGM financial woes, Writers strikes. Yet they still managed to get films out. hardly EON or in particular Barbs and Michael's faults. Sell it to a fan. Quality response =D>

    Their family made Bond what it is today, nobody works harder or does more to protect the Bond brand. Their last 2 have been the highest grossing in the brands history and the World is on the edge of their seats because the global fan base has increased.

    An easier question, what more could Barb and Michael do?

    Very well said Sir Hilary Thankyou .
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Would love to see Rooney Mara as a Bond girl.
Sign In or Register to comment.