No Time To Die: Production Diary

17747757777797802507

Comments

  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,537
    jake24 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    A sick joke. Hopefully.

    Quite.

    Who is this guy?

  • Posts: 4,408
    Sorry, not true.

    It's not a bad idea - you could do a Snowden-esque film featuring Q as a central character. It also makes sense to perhaps give Moneypenny her own action starrer (after all Naomie Harris is a great actress and deserving after her work in Moonlight).

    BUT...it's not happening. Why? Jeff Snedier is a hack. He's a idiot chancer, who made his name being a nomark on Youtube talking abou other people's scoop. He's stuck his neck on the line numerous times and been wrong. he said that Marvel wanted a non-white Peter Parker and said Dev Patel was going to get the role. He was wrong. Don't trust this dude.

    EON have always said that Bond is the brand. You can't have other characters take precedence. Making one decent Bond film is difficult for them, let alone a whole stable of them. Look at Lucasfilm and DC crashing and burning for moving to fast with building a "universe".


    Don't do it EON. A new Bond film is a national event in the UK. Don't dilute it's power.

  • edited June 2017 Posts: 3,164
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    A sick joke. Hopefully.

    Quite.

    Who is this guy?

    He's got his own Hollywood trade outlet The Tracking Board, and previously worked at Variety, The Wrap and Mashable. He's def one of the legit Hollywood reporters in the game.

    Now, the question is, how good are your usual trade reporters when it comes to Bond....and again, could be just conversations.

    And @Pierce2Daniel - may be a 'national event in the UK' but what about in the U.S. and in other countries?
  • Posts: 3,336
    antovolk wrote: »
    Rumours from Hollywood (Sneider's a fairly reliable guy) - EON want a Cinematic Universe....



    hmmm....

    NO THANKS!
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,537
    In the current climate it would make sense, given the characters origins, to give Moneypenny a spin-off.

    I mean, SP did feature an entirely unnecessary scene featuring Moneypenny, the contents of her fridge, and a man in her bed. Surely, it wasn't just die hard fans who were left scratching their heads over that. Two multi-million dollar custom cars zooming around Rome in the middle of the night, and they wasted time in her flat, when she could have just been present as a voice. I hope that was not them flirting with the idea.

    As much as I want Bond 25 to come out, I can fill the void with things other than Bond spin-offs. And honestly, I've never sensed a demand or interest from fans wanting a cinematic Bond universe.

    If they couldn't handle the issues on SP, why are they looking to give themselves even more work and worry?
  • Posts: 3,164
    I honestly would be happy with the idea, although I'm the generation that grew up with the cinematic universes (Marvel, SW and the like). The only issue I see is the 'canon' - should they do it with Whishaw/Harris etc or with whoever becomes the new Q/MP once the new Bond is cast? Because if Craig is doing one more then recast/reboot, no thanks then.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,537
    Why would they be seeking a one picture distribution deal if a cinemastic universe is on the table?

    Unless, they finish the Craig era with Bond 25, and then reboot/recast/spinoff from Bond 26.

    It would be a big gamble to take, recasting Q/MP and then giving them their own films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Sadly with Scooby getting more airtime over the past few films (along with useless back stories, including details about Q's mortgage and cat, the contents of MP's fridge, her failed 'field ambitions' and love life & Mallory's war time), anything is possible I suppose.

    I still hope this Sneider is full of it.

    If I see anyone pushing for this, it could be MGM, who rely heavily on Bond for revenue and profits.

    Felix is the one who could have a legitimate spin off I suppose.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Abysmal, unsustainable and no market. Besides, it's smells of BS to me. Don't buy it. Certainly not cinematically.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    I don't necessarily buy the idea, but the waters may be being tested.

    With a mix of old and new.

    felix.jpg?resize=1375%2C683BondMoneyPenny-Cov-Lotay.jpg
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    A sick joke. Hopefully.

    Still, if you consider how willing and almost eager EON were sacrificing everything Bondian in the franchise, I wouldn't deem it beneath them.
  • Posts: 9,843
    As much as doubleego is going to rub my face in my own words I still have to say the only group to do it right was marvel now no I don't think avengers was always going to happen nor do I assume the plan they put in place in 2008 is still going to this day (no matter how many people believe the lies sorry business isn't fun that way and had iron man flopped and hulk out performed we would of had hulk show up in more films then iron man)

    The reason is Marvel started out small and are willing to take a few hits along the way a certain property doesn't do well ok then it's sequel is scrapped and we will focus on other characters one character is super popular cool let's try and get that actor to cameo in other films in this franchise the issue is other production companies believe the lies that Marvel tells and tries to plan out a whole universe instead of starting small and moving bigger

    Case in point Wonder Woman is clearly more popular then Batman or superman at this point so really the universe should be focusing in on her rather then anyone else as she is the D.C.'s Iron Man

    (Though honestly I think a scene in Matt Reeves The Batman with Diana in Bruce's bed would be extremely welcomed as I always liked Batman and Wonder Woman as couple far more then superman and Wonder Woman)

    Again adapt and change and then lie saying it was the plan all along rather then try and have a plan all along.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    But what would the hook be? That interesting aspect to drive audiences into the seats? None of these characters, outside of Bond, are particularly interesting...

    As @RC7 said: there's no market. Who wants to see a movie about M? MP? Even Leiter-- to make a movie, a character has to have a hook, and none of these characters have a particular hook.

    Ridiculous...
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    Seems to me the last four films focus on Bond and Bondian, just don't put everything on the table at once.

    To take on a universe, I'm not seeing that kind of broad activity coming from Eon. I know they do non-Bond projects at times, but still.

    On the other hand, it could serve as journeyman activity for the younger Wilsons or others in the filmmaking team, a proving ground for who succeeds Broccoli and Wilson.

    They could start small. A cooking show for Msssr. Mendel. On vacation with Tanner. Hunting game birds with Kincade and his two British labs.
  • Posts: 1,162
    peter wrote: »
    But what would the hook be? That interesting aspect to drive audiences into the seats? None of these characters, outside of Bond, are particularly interesting...

    As @RC7 said: there's no market. Who wants to see a movie about M? MP? Even Leiter-- to make a movie, a character has to have a hook, and none of these characters have a particular hook.

    Ridiculous...

    Yup, that's all that is to be said about. Still there are many crazy and downright embarrassing ideas ( look at Ben Hur. That idea alone was completely ridiculous!The guys who commissioned it should be tied in front of a cannon) floating around in Hollywood, so ...
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I agree @noSolaceleft, some ideas should remain behind closed doors in the spit-balling sessions.

    And not to forgive Ben Hur, but at least it was based on a classic property-- the characters of Bond aren't hooks, they're there to serve the narrative and to get Bond going...

    Imagine spending at least a hundred minutes with Tanner, with a cameo from Bond... now THAT's entertainment!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    Beyond Bond, there would be virtually no interest in films featuring supporting characters.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    edited June 2017 Posts: 1,187
    Says he's heard Craig is coming back potentially for two films.]IMG_7877.png
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    Code name?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Jeff Sneider is what a Brit may call a wally.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Wally?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Wally?

    An idiot.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Thanks
  • Posts: 1,162
    peter wrote: »
    I agree @noSolaceleft, some ideas should remain behind closed doors in the spit-balling sessions.

    And not to forgive Ben Hur, but at least it was based on a classic property

    You are of course absolutely right about the classic property aspect, but really can you get any larger than life than 3 1/2 hours of Charlton "Moses" Heston in what probably is the most dramatic race in the history of filmmaking (and that at a time when they had barely had heard of computers, let alone using them for filmmaking process )?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The twitter post on the last page pretty much confirms that Sneider doesn't know what he's talking about. Pure speculation I think.
  • Smells like BS. That would be an explanation for the delay—plotting out spinoffs for 4-5 different supporting characters—but as others having pointed out, lately the Bond team has been left burned out after producing each regular film. No way they'd add spinoffs to the workload.

    That said, I'd be down for a Naomie Harris-led actioner. I actually like Harris and her version of Moneypenny could lend itself to such and sustain its own film, probably.

    And that said, I never want to see Bond spinoffs.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Sadly with Scooby getting more airtime over the past few films (along with useless back stories, including details about Q's mortgage and cat, the contents of MP's fridge, her failed 'field ambitions' and love life & Mallory's war time), anything is possible I suppose.

    On the plus side, maybe spinoffs would let them "get it out of their system" so Bond can be Bond and the Scooby gang can have their own movies.
    A cooking show for Msssr. Mendel.

    I'm there. "Then we add to the soufflé any herbs or spices you nominate."

    Drying Out Paint with Tanner...not so much.
    peter wrote: »
    But what would the hook be? That interesting aspect to drive audiences into the seats? None of these characters, outside of Bond, are particularly interesting...

    Even Leiter-- to make a movie, a character has to have a hook, and none of these characters have a particular hook.

    Leiter comes with a hook.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    She's just dead...The Story of James Bond's lost lovers. :))
  • Posts: 9,843
    I can announce Wizard of Ice is directing writing and staring in the torture of Tanner
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @noSolaceleft I agree it's completely inexcusable, a CG cartoon vs Heston at his best; screen chopped liver vs screen brawn.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    As soon as Sneider mentions, matter-of-factly, that James Bond is a code name, you pretty much know that he knows nothing about Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.