No Time To Die: Production Diary

18548558578598602507

Comments

  • Posts: 4,619
    If Nolan got Bond 26, do you think he'd still get Hardy at 45?
    No, I don't think so. Even though he recently said Hardy would be a fantastic Bond, I think he already knows Hardy won't be his pick. I wouldn't rule out Harry Styles on the other hand, and I am not joking.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    im-gonna-say-it-alright-im-just-going-to-say-it-edgar-wright-should-direct-a-bond-film.jpg

    And Edgar Wallace should have written one! ;)
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited July 2017 Posts: 10,591
    If Nolan got Bond 26, do you think he'd still get Hardy at 45?
    No, I don't think so. Even though he recently said Hardy would be a fantastic Bond, I think he already knows Hardy won't be his pick. I wouldn't rule out Harry Styles on the other hand, and I am not joking.
    Is this gonna be the whole Radiohead fiasco all over again?
  • Posts: 4,619
    jake24 wrote: »
    Is this gonna the whole Radiohead fiasco all over again?
    Can't a man speculate for fun?

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    jake24 wrote: »
    Is this gonna the whole Radiohead fiasco all over again?
    Can't a man speculate for fun?
    Joking, mate. Of course, that's part of the nature of this thread.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 2,081
    An actual release date. Feels a bit surreal all of a sudden. More news to come, surely, as has already been mentioned here multiple times.

    Since there was actually some news, I came back to this thread to read the comments,
    but since I hadn't been here in 2 and a half weeks, I read through tens of pages of discussion about Craig coming back or not, Christopher Nolan, Sam Mendes, other directors, previous Bond movies and hopes and speculation for future Bond movies, time between movies, previous Bond actors, possible future Bond actors, and Tom Cruise (go figure). And plenty other stuff. Phew. A few comments on some of that below.

    bondjames wrote: »
    I say get Nolan and Bale back together again but let them tackle Bond this time.

    Not happeni... oh wait, Bale as villain might be fun. With Hardy, cool. Villains. :)

    talos7 wrote: »
    I also don't think they would go with someone as established as he is. I also think he has a reputation for being difficult that would cause EON to shy away.

    Probably true about being too established for them, but I really don't believe he would want the job, either. As for "difficult", that's tabloids and internet for you; just because the guy had one minor issue with one person nine years ago, and which was blown out of all proportion as well as taken out of context. I have never seen any indication of "difficult" being the industry view, quite the opposite in fact. By all accounts he seems to be well liked and respected. After a career of over 30 years one would imagine that by now a few people would have already said how "difficult" he was to work with, instead of what they actually say.

    ***

    The Tom Cruise discussion came up again. I don't know why that keeps happening, considering Cruise hasn't been, isn't, and never will be Bond, and Craig and Cruise are completely different actors and people, with vastly different types of careers, and interests. So Cruise has done plenty of action films, and Craig does action in Bond films, but... a lot of actors do action stuff. I don't get the Bond connection to Cruise, specifically, or the need to compare Craig to Cruise.

    ***
    DCisared wrote: »
    DB5 needs retiring mind.

    It really does.

    ***
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Bondjames , he is not a cynical chap in REAL life. Much to the opposite. Everybody and I mean everybody who knows him a bit praises his humor, Hugh Jackman even describing him as one of the funniest people on earth after working with him for many weeks on ASR. So, his broody persona is more or less reserved for the press and papz. In real life he is rather on the sunny side. I always felt that he has the best timing of the lot in some of his one liners. " Now, that you know, where I am - ALL the time - etc being one. Making gold from plastic.

    That's my understanding as well, seems like a fun and fun-loving, generally easy-going and relaxed guy. He doesn't often seem all that broody with media, either, from what I've seen.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Bondjames , he is not a cynical chap in REAL life. Much to the opposite. Everybody and I mean everybody who knows him a bit praises his humor, Hugh Jackman even describing him as one of the funniest people on earth after working with him for many weeks on ASR. So, his broody persona is more or less reserved for the press and papz. In real life he is rather on the sunny side. I always felt that he has the best timing of the lot in some of his one liners. " Now, that you know, where I am - ALL the time - etc being one. Making gold from plastic.
    Fair enough @Germanlady. I obviously don't know him personally, but the sardonic wit & sarcasm which he exhibited in SF suits him best imho. In SP there was certainly a lot of trying to make 'something' out of plastic, but I can't quite say it was gold. Quite the contrary actually.

    It's somewhat weird to mention that you don't know him personally, as if anyone here did or suggested that they did. GL is surely better informed than you or I would be, but that's a different matter. It is indeed obvious we don't, any of us, personally know him. - I'm sure you didn't mean it in a negative way, I know you're not the type, but just saying that to me that seemed like a weird comment to make. I agree the sardonic and the sarcastic suiting him very well when it comes to humour. Other types might as well, but SP didn't work for me, either - in general, though, so I can't really single out delivery of humour from the overall clunkiness of writing.

    Risico007 wrote: »
    http://www.menshealth.com/guy-wisdom/chris-hemsworth-wants-charlize-theron-play-james-bond

    I have now decided every time there is a stupid bond rumor I am doing 10 pushups

    figured I would be jacked by bond 25 comes up

    Oh, you will be. :)
    How's it going so far?

    jake24 wrote: »
    I would personally be very excited at the prospect of a Nolan Bond film, whether it be Craig's last or the introduction of Bond #7.

    Me too. For the many reasons mentioned by @thelivingroyale, @bondjames, @Shardlake, and others.

    barryt007 wrote: »
    I think if Hardy does do Bond,i think the time between films might go back to 2-3 years .

    He seems more approachable than Craig,and is always very enthusiastic about his work.

    I don't think the long gaps have been down to the actor, and I haven't gotten the impression that one is more approachable than the other or more enthusiastic about the work. - Anyway, I like both actors a lot, though.
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Why not, right? He's demonstrating he still has the action chops with that trailer for 'The Foreigner.' Just for consistency's sake, get a new actor in for B25 and let Campbell shoot his third new era-introduction in a row.

    94 tickets, please.

    The only difference is I want him to close of Daniel's run. We've seen him start off 2 Bond. I'd like to see Campbell close off one he started.

    That would be so intriguing.

    A standalone adventure?

    Perhaps. But imagine if Campbell does a Bond vs Blofeld final round film. We could have a GoldenEye 2.0 on our hands. :D

    How about we deal on a Campbell and Arnold return to finish off the Craig era and then Nolan to introduce the new Bond?

    Think the majority of us would be happy enough with that.

    I don't think that's a deal I could take. :))

    I was kind enough not to mention Zimmer wasn't I? That's as good a deal as you can hope for I reckon.

    If Zimmer's not involved and the dialogue isn't exposition overload then we have a deal.

    I think Zimmer would do a brilliant Bond score. I asked him about it when I met him and he said 'it wouldn't sound like me'. (I've mentioned this before). I do think it depends on the director. His relationship with Nolan is a once in a generation partnership.

    The Guardian gave zimmer's Dunkirk score rave reviews. Said it was one of his best.

    It's bizarre to me that anyone couldn't be intrigued by the prospect of a Nolan-Zimmer Bond film. It seems like such an obvious fit. Have to say I'd be deeply disappointed if it never happened.

    Agree though that it would make a lot more sense for nolan to start a new era.

    Yes, it does seem like an obvious fit and an opportunity that shouldn't be missed. I like their work together a lot.

    Germanlady wrote: »
    We have seen over and over that it's rarely the actors fault (a good actors fault, that is) when a film isn't doing great business. Otherwise every film of a good and famous actor would be a success.

    True. Both how the eventual movie turns out and it's commercial success are mostly out of actors' hands, there's only so much they can do about the general quality of the movie, and only so much they are responsible for when it comes to marketing. They're only parts in a big machine.

    peter wrote: »
    I read the original script to DREAM HOUSE and quite liked it; much was changed from the sold draft to the shooting draft (a major physical transformation in the protagonist), and so it's no wonder Jim Sheridan wanted his name off of the film.

    It sounds like the lead actors and director signed for one film, but when they got on set, another film was waiting for them to shoot. Producer interference, and all of that.

    It's hard to blame Craig, or any actor for that matter, when they are in shit films. The script they read, might be vastly different than the final shooting draft.

    I remember reading an amazing spec script called THE LAST FIRST KISS and loving it. That script was made into the film HITCH, which was a generic rom-com (and one I despised).

    Much can happen between when an actor signs onto a project and first day of principal.

    So true. And not just that, but during as well. And after, of course - editing, which takes are chosen, what scenes get left out entirely, etc.

    peter wrote: »
    I agree, but if I'm not mistaken, I think the romance started on set (they filmed a lot of it in a small town outside the GTA during winter; with a terrible production @bondjames , and nothing to do... I guess things happened)...

    I also seem to remember Rachel was still with Arononsky (sp?), and Daniel was with a producer gf...

    You remember correctly. (and Aronofsky :) )

    Craig has proven that he's a brilliant actor (there's Our Friends In The North as well as Bond). True he's been in a lot of crap since he took the role but poor choice in projects doesn't mean he isn't an amazing actor. He may not be the best Bond but he's by far the most talented actor to play the role imo. I think maybe his leading man days might end with Bond though. He's a brilliant actor but he isn't really an old school Hollywood star like Connery, Moore and Brosnan. Not a bad thing at all, just means that he isn't really leading man material unless he has a good script or character that suits him. I think we'll see more stuff like Logan Lucky, supporting character actor kind of roles, as well as being the lead in smaller films and plays. But I can't see him ever fronting another blockbuster when Bond is done with.

    Very few people front blockbusters on a regular basis. So yeah, he probably won't. Likely isn't what he wants to do, either.

    Germanlady wrote: »
    No, it's not, because even I don't rate his films post Bond that high. C and A being really bad. But in my opinion it's not his fault. He was good to great in all of them and nobody knows, how much of their BO was due to him. Had Tom Hardy, who is rated highly here, would have had more success with them ? I highly doubt it. He was unlucky with some choices, that's all.

    Yeah, happens to everyone. I bet those movies wouldn't have been better with other actors.

    peter wrote: »
    DC's an incredible talent, reflected in his body of work pre and during Bond. Highlights for me pre: MOTHER, ENDURING LOVE, LAYER CAKE, MUNICH;

    Highlights for me during his Bond years: CR, QOS, DEFIANCE, TINTIN, TGWTDT, SF (yes, I include his 007 films, since it's a part of his body of work).

    With LL, as shown in the trailers, and the one clip that's been released, DC's going to steal the show on this one. And is it coincidence, that the one clip that they've decided to show, stars DC, with AD and CT being the co-stars (even though the Logan brothers are the leads in this ensemble; I think the producers know that they've got something special in DC's performance)?

    Once DC became Bond, he himself has stated, that he felt pressure to do certain films; and with this new found fame, you have to understand, he was probably thrown every script under the sun.

    He's been in clunkers, as every actor has-- that's not a measure of his success.

    Tom Hardy, who I also like, has been in terrible films as well. For every MAD MAX, he has LEGEND (he was great, the story-telling and final execution was horrible), and CHILD 44 (just all round terrible, including Hardy's performance).

    Measure the man by his body of work. DC is a great talent in film, TV and stage.

    I agree. He's a wonderful actor, and having been in bad movies as well doesn't make him a bad actor. Every actor is in bad movies, too. It's sort of inevitable, considering what movie-making processes are like.

    My own "problem" with Nolan - and the films I've seen, is that they feel (and are!) very long. He takes his time with the plot, slowly building everything up to the climax. Not that they necessarily become boring, but it almost becomes a chore to complete it.

    How long any movie feels like to any viewer varies. If it feels like a chore then clearly one doesn't enjoy it - the length itself has little to do with that.

    However, most of Nolan's movies aren't actually long.
    Following 70 minutes (done on a shoestring budget and all that, so a somewhat different case, but I don't know if he'd even have wanted to make it longer),
    Dunkirk 106 minutes,
    Memento 113 minutes,
    Insomnia 118 minutes,
    The Prestige 130 minutes,
    Batman Begins 140 minutes,
    Inception 148 minutes.
    So: 4 out of 10 under 2 hours, 7 out of 10 under 2 and a half hours. None over 3 hours (the longest being Interstellar at 169 minutes).
    Personally I don't consider movies under 2 and a half hours to even be long, so I wouldn't say Nolan's movies are long in general.
    If you dislike them, though, they'll probably all feel long to you. The same would go for any other movies. A 2 hour movie will feel long if you hate it, a 2 hour 30 minute movie won't feel long if you love it.

    see it in IMAX at all costs.

    I see that a lot. Well, I wish I was rich enough to travel abroad to go to the movies... If I was I would have.

    Interesting. War films isn't really my thing, so I doubt I'll check it out - but what elements of Dunkirk are different from his other films?

    No slow build-up, you're dropped right into it, and then it just keeps escalating. No backstories for any characters. No actual lead(s), it's very much an ensemble piece. Very little dialogue.

    It's also not a traditional war film. There are no regular battles, nor regular victory, no portrayal of typical machismo or big heroics, no emotional manipulation of the viewer, no gore, no detailed/extended death scenes of individuals. It's not about homes or loved ones, what anyone has done in the past or what they'd like to do in the future. It's only about the now, what everyone has in common, this moment and how to survive it. It works in a different way that war films normally do. Here war is the setting, and obviously it's a story of actual history, but it's more a thriller by nature than a war movie. But in the unusual way that it is about war, I think it's very effective - more so IMO, because of not having seen this kind of approach to it before.

    Germanlady wrote: »
    BTW, what every happened to Chr Bale? In General and in Relation to Nolan? Has he fallen out of grace?

    In general... he seems to be loving his main job as dad. Also works as an actor occasionally. In relation to Nolan... they always seemed to get on very well, and to have lots of mutual respect, I don't think anything has "happened" there. They did 4 movies together, with Bale as lead or co-lead in all of them, and Nolan has done only 2 movies after TDKR. I wouldn't expect Bale to be in all Nolan films anyway, and Bale was working on other movies when Nolan was doing those two. Since last working with Nolan, Bale has worked with 7 other directors on 8 movies (2 not yet released ). Plus one other movie collapsed 13 days before they were due to start because, well, dad stuff - playing with kids can seriously harm your health. There have been 2 further Oscar nominations to add to the win before TDKR. Most importantly the 2nd child arrived. He's been busy enough I suppose. The most recent official sighting (apart from pics with fans) was at Chris Cornell's memorial service in May. Generally regular, quiet life. Apparently starts shooting his 9th post-TDKR movie in September.

    bondjames wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    The last I heard from him was Moses and that was apparently awful. Which role?
    Bale was incredible in The Big Short and is apparently working on a biopic from the same director (Adam McKay) on one of the great villains of all time, namely Dick Cheney.

    He was also in Terry George's last film alongside Oscar Isaac entitled The Promise, set during the Armenian genocide.

    And there's the Scott Cooper film Hostiles with Rosamund Pike, Wes Studi, Adam Beach, Q'orianka Kilcher, Jesse Plemons, Ben Foster, Paul Anderson, Stephen Lang etc., and (old pal) Andy Serkis' Rudyard Kipling adaptation (Bale as Bagheera) is in post-production.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Oh ok, thanks. He seems to go into artsy films more . He sure has the talent.

    Adam McKay is hardly "artsy" but it's hilarious seeing that description anywhere near his name. :P I suppose Terrence Malick would be considered "artsy", though, so there's that.

    I'd love Craig and Bale to work together on something, btw. I also suspect they'd have fun together... (I think they both generally have fun with people they work with anyway, but they also share some stuff, so might be interesting.)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Finally, we have some hard fact news, 868 pages later!
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    00Agent wrote: »
    Barbara didn't go through all the trouble to acquire the rights to Blofeld and SPECTRE just to put the James Bond film franchise on sale, just now. Think logical. Bond is their livelihood, how on Earth would they even sell that?

    MI6-HQ.com reported the Bond #7 rumour of last year very thoroughly, even repeating the claims of Tom Hiddleston being very close to closing negotiations for the role of Bond. We know how that turned out.

    Agreed. Most ridiculous rumor of the day.
    But you know... they'll print anything these days
    It's not only the printing, mate. It's "they'll believe anything these days" that's the major issue, knowing how ridiculously idiotic the media has gotten nowadays. They'll believe that.

    Remember how 2012 was going to be end of the world? Yeeeaaah.

    You pretty much summed it up. I think I will ignore all the Media again until Eon makes their next OFFICIAL announcement, or Craig has his presstour for LL, and even then i want him on Video. Judging by what we got so far from the various Internet outlets, everything else will be rubbish
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    @00Agent - the very words I live by.

    On the radio today, when I first heard about this, I swear the news chap said 2018. I thought "Ah! So they have been working quietly in the background for some time, if they are planning to release B25 fall next year.." Imagine my shock when I logged on here.
  • Posts: 684
    antovolk wrote: »
    MI6-HQ admins seem to be hearing the same re: Babs/MGW selling Bond off after 25:


    Regardless of the truth of this, still makes you think what if.

    NSNA is looking more and more "legitimate" all the time, eh?
  • Posts: 12,473
    Bond 25 is the last official Bond film?!?
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 1,314
    My prediction :
    Craig as bond
    Nolan to direct and tie up the mess of Spectre
    Swann and blowers back
    Adele

    I think eon realise that Spectre massively underwhelmed not only a large proportion of the fan base but also the general public (please don't quote box office to disprove this)

    They also know that the production was so trying they'll want a smoother ride - an approved script and plan pre lensing would be a start

    They have two years to sort it out. They usually thrive under pressure
  • Posts: 684
    @FoxRox No more than a rumor that we're miles from at the moment.

  • Posts: 1,314
    Bond 25 won't be the last film no more than I will be the next bond. Who would kill the goose that can lay the 600-700 million dollar golden egg without trying
  • Posts: 684
    The rumor was not one of killing the goose, merely sending it to another farmer.

    The idea of "official" film also amuses me. In the context of a sell, what does "official" become? Synonymous with EON, as we've always been sold the idea? Then sure it'd be the last.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I have no problem whatsoever with EON selling if that's what they want to do. It's just a question of who they sell to and what the buyer's vision of the franchise is.

    Ultimately the James Bond film character is tremendous IP. The surest thing in the industry. Any of the major studios is aware of that. They would treat it with kid gloves.
    ---
    Matt007 wrote: »
    My prediction :
    Craig as bond
    Nolan to direct and tie up the mess of Spectre
    Swann and blowers back
    Adele
    I don't normally comment on other's speculation but I have to chime in here. This isn't going to happen (at least not all of the elements that you suggest). Nolan won't touch Swann and Brother with a barge pole. He's not stupid & he doesn't clean up other's rubbish.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 684
    bondjames wrote: »
    I have no problem whatsoever with EON selling if that's what they want to do. It's just a question of who they sell to and what the buyer's vision of the franchise is.

    Ultimately the James Bond film character is tremendous IP. The surest thing in the industry. Any of the major studios is aware of that. They would treat it with kid gloves.
    Agreed. Of course it's a real luxury to have been able to live under the same family's rooftop for almost six decades. But I'd look forward to a day where Bond became like Holmes and the property was opened up for filmmakers to adapt at will. We'd get a bunch of clunkers, surely, ones which unlike EON had no respect for Fleming, but we'd also get brilliant films too -- probably at least one every four or five years which is nearly matched to the rate we get any film now. ;)
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217

    If Nolan got Bond 26, do you think he'd still get Hardy at 45?
    No, I don't think so. Even though he recently said Hardy would be a fantastic Bond, I think he already knows Hardy won't be his pick. I wouldn't rule out Harry Styles on the other hand, and I am not joking.
    We're few in number but With a bit more aging, I can see it. His pop history should not be held against him.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm increasingly of the opinion that Craig is still not on board, irrespective of what the so-called 'newspaper of record' (a joke) says.

    I just don't understand why they wouldn't have announced him yesterday.

    He may be waiting on the director before he finalizes his choice.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes odd not to have been able to announce Craig. Adds to the mystery and attention. So plays into EON's hands whatever the outcome.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Finally, we have some hard fact news, 868 pages later!

    Amazingly, we made it before page 1000. Imagine how many pages long this thread will be by the time the film actually releases.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    But it begs the question, why lock in a release date without a Bond?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    jake24 wrote: »
    But it begs the question, why lock in a release date without a Bond?
    An excellent question. Perhaps there are options available to them, with Craig having the right of first refusal. It's no secret that they've been trying to get him on board for 2 years now. They've probably tested others.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 11,425
    That's what I thought. @ColonelSun assures us that if EON announced the date then they must have their lead agreed already. I think everything still points to Craig personally but you can't help but wonder.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    jake24 wrote: »
    But it begs the question, why lock in a release date without a Bond?
    Because Craig or not they have their Bond,

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The big question is, was he even aware that this announcement was going to be made yesterday? I am so looking forward to his answers in a couple of weeks. Keep all sharp objects out of reach.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's all very odd. If he comes out with anything other than an unequivocal 'yes' in those interviews then you seriously would have to doubt that he's returning.

    I'd just expect EON to want to have more control over the publicity.

  • Posts: 12,473
    I still find it to be a really big deal if this is in fact the final EON film. Might not be the end of the world, but it still will be kind of sad IMO.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'd just expect EON to want to have more control over the publicity.
    Two years out I don't think they mind. There's more than enough time to correct any mishaps if there's going to be a changing of the guard because the eventual announcement from EON will have a major 'splash effect'.

    If we're in for a change, we likely won't get the announcement until next year, based on prior modus operandi.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes would be sad. I think we're jumping the gun a bit though on that rumour
Sign In or Register to comment.