No Time To Die: Production Diary

184858789902507

Comments

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2016 Posts: 15,722
    'Mission Impossible 6' starts filming in a little over 3 months' time.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I can appreciate that the distribution deal this time around may complicate things, just like the MGM scenario after QoS complicated things. I understand that and I can live with those issues.

    What I was not happy with was waiting a whole year for Mendes. I certainly hope that something like this never happens again. Ever.
  • edited March 2016 Posts: 1,631
    talos7 wrote: »
    I know this is apples and oranges but this is where the Mission Impossible team are ahead in the game; from almost at the time of Rogue Nation's release they were announcing the follow up and a director was named. No doubt they already have a production schedule.

    They've only managed to do that once, though, over the course of the franchise's history. In the grand scheme of things, Cruise and those running the M:I franchise are worse than Bond when it comes to getting films out on a regular basis.

    The M:I films have released with rather large gaps between them. The first film was released in 1996, with the second following four years later in 2000. Then you had a six year gap to the third film, released in 2006, followed by a five year gap for Ghost Protocol and then a four year gap to Rogue Nation. Even at their quickest, they haven't been able to match the 3 year gap that the Bond franchise seeks to achieve these days.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    'Mission Impossible 6' starts filming in a little over 3 month's time.

    Firing on all cylinders.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2016 Posts: 15,722
    dalton wrote: »
    The M:I films have released with rather large gaps between them. The first film was released in 1996, with the second following four years later in 2000. Then you had a six year gap to the third film, released in 2006, followed by a five year gap for Ghost Protocol and then a four year gap to Rogue Nation. Even at their quickest, they haven't been able to match the 3 year gap that the Bond franchise seeks to achieve these days.

    That is true, but if we look at the Bond franchise from 1962 to 1989 they only had one 3-years gap. Since TWINE in 1999 we've had only one 2-years gap.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    dalton wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I know this is apples and oranges but this is where the Mission Impossible team are ahead in the game; from almost at the time of Rogue Nation's release they were announcing the follow up and a director was named. No doubt they already have a production schedule.

    They've only managed to do that once, though, over the course of the franchise's history. In the grand scheme of things, Cruise and those running the M:I franchise are worse than Bond when it comes to getting films out on a regular basis.

    The M:I films have released with rather large gaps between them. The first film was released in 1996, with the second following four years later in 2000. Then you had a six year gap to the third film, released in 2006, followed by a five year gap for Ghost Protocol and then a four year gap to Rogue Nation. Even at their quickest, they haven't been able to match the 3 year gap that the Bond franchise seeks to achieve these days.

    Presumably they have realised that MI dies when Cruise bows out so they need to start churning them out at a faster rate.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,438
    Tom Cruise is an anomoly. He's not just a film star, he is a global phenomenum.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Presumably they have realised that MI dies when Cruise bows out so they need to start churning them out at a faster rate.
    Exactly right. I'm sure this is on Cruise's insistence. Even he knows he can't pull off those stunts credibly forever.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2016 Posts: 15,722
    Tom Cruise will be the lead in 4 (four) films in the next 16 months: 'Jack Reacher 2' this october, 'Mena' in February 2017, 'The Mummy' reboot in July 2017 and 'Mission Impossible 6' in Summer 2017. Not to mention he has plans for a 'Edge of Tomorrow 2' and a sci-fi heist film on the moon in 'Luna Park'.
  • Craig's not coming back. I have an inside source who tells me he thinks he's too old and doesn't want to get into a view to a pension situation.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited March 2016 Posts: 11,139
    dalton wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I know this is apples and oranges but this is where the Mission Impossible team are ahead in the game; from almost at the time of Rogue Nation's release they were announcing the follow up and a director was named. No doubt they already have a production schedule.

    They've only managed to do that once, though, over the course of the franchise's history. In the grand scheme of things, Cruise and those running the M:I franchise are worse than Bond when it comes to getting films out on a regular basis.

    The M:I films have released with rather large gaps between them. The first film was released in 1996, with the second following four years later in 2000. Then you had a six year gap to the third film, released in 2006, followed by a five year gap for Ghost Protocol and then a four year gap to Rogue Nation. Even at their quickest, they haven't been able to match the 3 year gap that the Bond franchise seeks to achieve these days.

    But MI is a Cruise vehicle and everyone working on those films are doing other things. EoN have only one job. One; and that's to make Bond films. If we include filming for the next MI film, that means within the last 6 years alone Cruise would have filmed 9 action movies, meanwhile Daniel Craig is harping on about slitting wrists and needing time off despite getting plenty of it since he became Bond.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    Craig's not coming back. I have an inside source who tells me he thinks he's too old and doesn't want to get into a view to a pension situation.

    Wow! It must be awesome to be so connected.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2016 Posts: 15,722
    @doubleoego Tom Cruise will have filmed and released 4 action films as the main actor ( Jack Reacher 2, Mena, M:I:6 and The Mummy) since SP's production ended and before Bond 25's filming starts.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,438
    Craig's not coming back. I have an inside source who tells me he thinks he's too old and doesn't want to get into a view to a pension situation.

    Finally some closure. Thanks for that, the hunt for the next 007 can now begin. Turner's odds have just improved dramatically.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    Craig's not coming back. I have an inside source who tells me he thinks he's too old and doesn't want to get into a view to a pension situation.
    Ok, I am now 100% sure that you are a troll.
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    Can we please move on from this a good flagging is what's needed here.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    @doubleoego Tom Cruise will have filmed and released 4 action films as the main actor ( Jack Reacher 2, Mena, M:I:6 and The Mummy) since SP's production ended and before Bond 25's filming starts.

    See, I completely forgot about the Mummy. The man has some serious stamina to be essentially filming these big productions back to back almost. People can say what they like about the man but he's definitely committed to his craft.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    doubleoego wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I know this is apples and oranges but this is where the Mission Impossible team are ahead in the game; from almost at the time of Rogue Nation's release they were announcing the follow up and a director was named. No doubt they already have a production schedule.

    They've only managed to do that once, though, over the course of the franchise's history. In the grand scheme of things, Cruise and those running the M:I franchise are worse than Bond when it comes to getting films out on a regular basis.

    The M:I films have released with rather large gaps between them. The first film was released in 1996, with the second following four years later in 2000. Then you had a six year gap to the third film, released in 2006, followed by a five year gap for Ghost Protocol and then a four year gap to Rogue Nation. Even at their quickest, they haven't been able to match the 3 year gap that the Bond franchise seeks to achieve these days.

    But MI is a Cruise vehicle and everyone working on those films are doing other things. EoN have only one job. One; and that's to make Bond films. If we include filming for the next MI film, that means within the last 6 years alone Cruise would have filmed 9 action movies, meanwhile Daniel Craig is harping on about slitting wrists and needing time off despite getting plenty of it since he became Bond.

    You know the proper context in which those comments were made, so don't act like you don't. If you were stuck in a room and had to keep answering questions from hundreds of reporters about whether or not you'd be returning for another film after you'd just finished a grueling 7 month shoot, how do you think you'd react? Oh that's right, everyone here is perfect and could totally handle the pressure. What was I thinking?

    It's hilariously pathetic how some are so quick to jump on EON and Dan here as if they are Bond villain equivalents. They're professionals for crying out loud, let them do their damn jobs. Nobody here is a fly on the wall at whatever talks they may be having right now, so the quicker some stop pretending they are an authority on how this process works and what is going on behind the scenes, the better off we'll all be. I thought this was a Bond forum, not a preschool.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Isn't this the nature of a forum though? To pontificate and postulate while we pass our day. Surely it's all harmless? None of us really have inside information. Well,....maybe a few, as noted a few posts above.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Well, thats human nature, Brady. Not gonna change.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    Isn't this the nature of a forum though? To pontificate and postulate while we pass our day. Surely it's all harmless? None of us really have inside information. Well,....maybe a few, as noted a few posts above.

    There's ways to have a healthy and level-headed discourse, yes. The only issue is that I don't think we've had that since SP came out, and maybe even a little bit before then.

    It's now become cool to run EON and SP through the mud, if for no other reason than to pass the time. I can't think of any other reason why people feel the need to keep repeating their grievances literally every day in every thread they can find. Some of these comments can be so distasteful you could forget they're supposed fans of the franchise they seem to so despise. I'm exhausted just reading some people's posts.

    Why live in negativity when you could try to be even a tiny bit optimistic? Oh, how'd I forget? Optimism isn't "in."
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,438
    If someone has some inside information, I want to hear it. Why should we wait for an official statement when the information is already known?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I know this is apples and oranges but this is where the Mission Impossible team are ahead in the game; from almost at the time of Rogue Nation's release they were announcing the follow up and a director was named. No doubt they already have a production schedule.

    They've only managed to do that once, though, over the course of the franchise's history. In the grand scheme of things, Cruise and those running the M:I franchise are worse than Bond when it comes to getting films out on a regular basis.

    The M:I films have released with rather large gaps between them. The first film was released in 1996, with the second following four years later in 2000. Then you had a six year gap to the third film, released in 2006, followed by a five year gap for Ghost Protocol and then a four year gap to Rogue Nation. Even at their quickest, they haven't been able to match the 3 year gap that the Bond franchise seeks to achieve these days.

    But MI is a Cruise vehicle and everyone working on those films are doing other things. EoN have only one job. One; and that's to make Bond films. If we include filming for the next MI film, that means within the last 6 years alone Cruise would have filmed 9 action movies, meanwhile Daniel Craig is harping on about slitting wrists and needing time off despite getting plenty of it since he became Bond.

    You know the proper context in which those comments were made, so don't act like you don't. If you were stuck in a room and had to keep answering questions from hundreds of reporters about whether or not you'd be returning for another film after you'd just finished a grueling 7 month shoot, how do you think you'd react? Oh that's right, everyone here is perfect and could totally handle the pressure. What was I thinking?

    It's hilariously pathetic how some are so quick to jump on EON and Dan here as if they are Bond villain equivalents. They're professionals for crying out loud, let them do their damn jobs. Nobody here is a fly on the wall at whatever talks they may be having right now, so the quicker some stop pretending they are an authority on how this process works and what is going on behind the scenes, the better off we'll all be. I thought this was a Bond forum, not a preschool.

    I do know the context in which it was said but if you read my whole post you'd see that my comment was in direct comparison to Craig's peer and fellow actor,Tom Cruise who I have not heard or read about making such work-related comments or complaints. The underlying point I was making is that, The producers and Craig have often expressed how exhausting the Bond movies are and needing a break and on top of that, they've had plenty of breaks, directly and indirectly since QoS. Yet, EoN's sole job and only responsibility is to produce Bond films. Cruise has been working pretty much nonstop, back to back on numerous films since 2010, making action movies and yet somehow manages to get on things without making intentional or accidental work-related PR nightmare comments; sorry I just can't feel too bad for Craig when there are other people out there working a lot harder than he is and not bemoaning the obligations that come with the job.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2016 Posts: 15,722
    @doubleoego Wow, just wow. It seems Cruise will also film the sci-fi heist film 'Luna Park' between now and the end of the summer, before doing M:I:6 soon after, and of course 'The Mummy' will fit somewhere in there as it comes out July of next year.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Isn't this the nature of a forum though? To pontificate and postulate while we pass our day. Surely it's all harmless? None of us really have inside information. Well,....maybe a few, as noted a few posts above.

    There's ways to have a healthy and level-headed discourse, yes. The only issue is that I don't think we've had that since SP came out, and maybe even a little bit before then.

    It's now become cool to run EON and SP through the mud, if for no other reason than to pass the time. I can't think of any other reason why people feel the need to keep repeating their grievances literally every day in every thread they can find. Some of these comments can be so distasteful you could forget they're supposed fans of the franchise they seem to so despise. I'm exhausted just reading some people's posts.

    Why live in negativity when you could try to be even a tiny bit optimistic? Oh, how'd I forget? Optimism isn't "in."
    I hear you and of course you have a point. I think the general negativity is just a means to 'vent' and let out frustrations about our favourite franchise, and I think that's ok. At least it's a means to be passionate about something. Without that, folks may end up taking it out at home or elsewhere. No harm really done on an anonymous forum.

    This matter of EON's direction and the Bond actor is understandably making a lot of folks anxious. I think a lot of that is due to what we've had to endure over the last 8 yrs (since QoS). 2 films in that time for a passionate fan base like ours is tough going. We would have had 4 in the old days.
    If someone has some inside information, I want to hear it. Why should we wait for an official statement when the information is already known?
    I think it was a joke. I heard Roger Moore made some statements somewhere earlier today, but can't confirm a source.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited March 2016 Posts: 10,592
    Certainly there are other professionals in the business to compare Craig to other than Lord Tom Cruise?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited March 2016 Posts: 11,139
    @DaltonCraig, There you go and I'm pretty sure he's going to be up to the gills doing press interviews for all these movies and be asked all sorts of awkward questions relating to scientology too that he'd rather avoid but will somehow manage to maintain and walk away with that trademark smile of his.
    jake24 wrote: »
    Certainly there are other professionals in the business to compare Craig to other than Lord Tom Cruise?

    The topic of Mission Impossible was brought up, which is why Tom Cruise is being mentioned.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Cruise is an animal. My hat's off to him. Relentless. Perhaps he's not who we should be comparing to because he's in a different league when it comes to output.
  • Posts: 6,601
    If someone has some inside information, I want to hear it. Why should we wait for an official statement when the information is already known?

    Here we go. Aidan Turner is the next Bond.

    How does that look, Mendes? Happy now?

    It can come every day now. I am happy to make you happy, since you believe in
    "in the know" quotes. Well, I know. Daniel told me. B-)
  • Posts: 6,601
    jake24 wrote: »
    Certainly there are other professionals in the business to compare Craig to other than Lord Tom Cruise?

    Well, TC has no life outside of filming. That's the difference. Nothing that makes him wish to be somewhere else then on a movie set. Sad really. He is a workoholic. He hasn't seen his daughter in ages. So if that is admirable, so be it.
    Why would he complain?
Sign In or Register to comment.