No Time to Die production thread

14464474494514521208

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2019 Posts: 24,257
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I would've rather have met an older Hannes Oberhauser, or focus the storyline on him without Ernst Stavro Blofeld being connected to him by blood.

    Yes, this.

    I can't help it but I prefer Bond to be without any direct relatives or half-brothers/sisters. He is, in many ways, an isolated character: it grants him an absolute sort of freedom apart from his loyalty to Her Majesty of course. He is in many ways a social nomad; he goes where the mission takes him. We know his parents were killed in a climbing accident and an aunt raised him. That's enough. I believe he had an older brother according to some biography but he too is long gone. Bond is his own man, with obligations to no-one except in professional terms. It's always worked out just fine for him, so why the sudden fixation on his youth and family and whatnot?

    Indeed, why must his biggest foe, the Moriarty to his Holmes, the Ra's Al Ghul to his Batman, the Vader to his Lu--okay, bad example--be a relative? It would have been one thing to make the two of them metaphorical brethren, but actual half-brothers? Come on! Besides, what's the point? Blofeld's daddy issues give him a reason for wanting to destroy Bond's life. But surely better motives could have been found? Or rather, why have that obsession at all? It weakens everything, especially Silva's motives, which were already more of the same, albeit mommy issues. It gets a bit messy that way. Suddenly, we're in soap series territory, where everyone is connected to everyone else and long lost and forgotten family members show up more or less when the screenwriters have nothing else to write about anymore. I'm sure we could have done without that; Bond is Blofeld's opponent, clear and simple. Did we really need more?

    The only thing I can imagine is that they were going for a Shakespearean drama, in which case I must call them out as artistically pretentious and overconfident. It failed to leave any impact other than a really negative one. Even I, a staunch defender of SP, must concede that herein lies one of the biggest failures of the entire Bond series. Besides, it's not just Bond; it's everyone! M is quarrelling with a professional brother, Madeline has her own paternal demons to exorcise, Oberhausen is giving Bond the Freud, Lady Sciarra is facing matrimonial problems of sorts, ... Sure, GE brought up Bond's parents as well as Alec's, TWINE brought up patricide and involved Zukowsky's nephew (ugh!), DAD centred around a son wanting to impress his father and eventually killing him... (Sigmund Freud, analyse this--this--this.) In QOS, Camille mourns her parents and seeks revenge for their death, while at MI6 everyone treats M as a matriarch. What's this obsession with families?

    I think it's about time we let that go. Enough already.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Shardlake wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    People keep repeating this, but it's very likely they had no intention of using Blofeld and SPECTRE ever again after they got the rights back... until Sam Mendes had the "brilliant" idea that they should return.

    They bought the rights because Mendes and Logan really wanted to use Blofeld.

    My guess is that it was presented that way.

    EON/Danjaq may have tried a few times to buy the rights from McClory's estate. Around 2013, they see an opportunity. They must cost something in the tens of millions of pounds, dollars, euros or whatever currency the McClories want to get.

    When they're close to the deal, accountants explain that this operation will be charged on both MGM and Danjaq, but if SPECTRE and Blofeld are used in the next film, the final film in the Sony contract, Sony would foot the bill, as the acquisition costs would be assigned to development in the budget of Bond 24. Anyway, after that operation, these elements owned by the estate of Kevin McClory will be forever part of the IP already owned by Danjaq and MGM.

    That was an opportunity to good to miss, the final missing piece (after the adaptation rights to CR) they'd been trying to find for decades.

    At this point, Logan and Mendes are already in love with their idea of making the next villain Bond's adoptive brother named Oberhauser. Logan may be interested in using Spectre, but for Bond 25, as he was then developing a two-parter. Corporate pressure get the upper hand and they find some compromise. They keep the Operation Kid Step Brother plot, and they merge Oberhauser with Blofeld, with elements from the projected Bond 25 synopsis being used for the third act.

    Logan tries to find a suitable use of Blofeld and SPECTRE in his script, fails to do it, and leaves production, to be replaced by Purvis and Wade. EON may have even accepted to compromise in some way Bond 25 for the benefit of the entire franchise, they show at some point to Sony the script they have come up with, Sony green-lights the project and pays for the transaction with the estate.

    I know this may explain many things too nicely, but I really suspect that part of the creative decisions were related to taking advantage of a few financial windows of opportunity.

    Interesting thoughts; I’m trying to decide if it was just Oberhauser was Bond’s brother would I have disliked it as much? Was making him Blofeld too the bit that pushed it too far? I think so, probably yes.

    Making the villain someone from Bond's childhood or early years was bad enough and shouldn't have been touched period.
    +1
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    edited October 2019 Posts: 488
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    SF & SP gave EON 2 1 billion dollar movies while Brosnan didn't. Brosnan was also a Cubby choice not a Babs choice. If Cubby was still alive come DAD he probably insist Brosnan get a 5th. Since Craig is a Babs choice she is more willing to let Craig come back.

    Brosnan was a John Calley choice.
    Calley was briefly put in charge of United Artists around 1994-1995. He confronted EON with the lacklustre US box office of The Living Daylights and (especially) Licence to Kill, and asked for Dalton to be replaced, because they couldn't afford taking the risk of having three "flops" in a row for the franchise, especially after such a long gap in production. As a result, they had to change the lead to create even more buzz for Bond 17.
    EON tried to stick with Dalton, who had struck a friendship with Wilson and the Broccolis, but lost the fight. As a favor to Dalton, they offered him with the opportunity to announce instead he had resigned.

    When Cubby died in 1996, the family asked Dalton to be one of the pallbearers. They had a working relationship with Brosnan, but not ties as deep as with Dalton.

    Also, Martin Campbell has stated in interviews that he didn't like Dalton as Bond and wouldn't have considered directing Goldeneye with Dalton as the lead.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2019 Posts: 4,343
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I would've rather have met an older Hannes Oberhauser, or focus the storyline on him without Ernst Stavro Blofeld being connected to him by blood.

    It would have been one thing to make the two of them metaphorical brethren, but actual half-brothers? Come on! Besides, what's the point? Blofeld's daddy issues give him a reason for wanting to destroy Bond's life.

    Well Blofeld’s daddy issues were the reason why he started his criminal life, while Bond’s interfering with his business gave him a reason for wanting to destroy his world (both the MI6 for business and as a human for their past). Blofeld never became a criminal because of revenge towards Bond but since he’s a crazy psychotic kind of person he decided to toy with Bond’s emotions once the man came up, for a second time, in his life, out of envy and hate for what Bond, actually, represents. Someone who always “did it better”. Nothing that weird or blasphemous as I see things.

    Plus Bond being at Oberhauser’s home from two winters, aka 8 months, makes the two “actual half brothers”? Come on...
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2019 Posts: 5,970
    Could be nothing, but an account on Twitter that may/may not be credible posted this tweet a couple of days ago... (the Kong/Godzilla poster is fan art)


    Also found this article, don't know if it got posted: https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/1197218/James-Bond-25-No-Time-To-Die-song-Tom-Walker
  • Posts: 2,599
    Univex wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    h
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    If NTTD is great, I would advise Craig to leave on a high note, not do another DAF, AVTAK (although I quite like this, or at least bits of it) or DAD. Okay, when they did DAD, they did not know it'll be Brozzer's final.

    Brosnan did go out on top finically with DAD being the highest grossing film at the time.

    Yeah but he went on record stating that he didn't care much for the film itself.

    I don't blame him. Its probably one of the reasons why he wanted to do a 5th and end on a better note.

    In hindsight, it's interesting how Brosnan wanted to do a 5th to set the wrongs of his 4th film right and end on a high note, but was dismissed; while Craig was asked to do a 5th and only said yes because he too wanted to set the wrongs of his 4th movie right and end on a high note.

    In fairness, after SF and SP, Craig had also given EON about 2 billion reasons to say yes.

    Agreed, and while SP has certain issues, it is still, for me, a million times better than DAD - which I consider to be the worst of the entire series, although Brosnan gives a good performance and doesn't overact like he does, in a few key scenes, in TWINE,

    TWINE is the worst. DAD not far behind.

    Pierce overacted from GE onwards, but that is a conversation best suited for another thread.

    True. His performances post Goldeneye were horrible. I don’t know what happened...
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited October 2019 Posts: 1,165
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Could be nothing, but an account on Twitter that may/may not be credible posted this tweet a couple of days ago... (the Kong/Godzilla poster is fan art)


    Also found this article, don't know if it got posted: https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/1197218/James-Bond-25-No-Time-To-Die-song-Tom-Walker
    Whelp. :(
  • Is anyone else looking forward to seeing Linus Sandgren's cinematography? One of the things I'm most looking forward to!
  • Posts: 1,680
    I’m most interested in how long NTTD picks up after Spectre and where Madeline fits
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 488
    Bounine wrote: »
    True. His performances post Goldeneye were horrible. I don’t know what happened...

    Martin Campbell has a clear vision of what the character should be and what a particular actor can bring to the part. Terence Young was like that (except on Thunderball, where the balance of power had clearly shifted toward the producers). Peter Hunt was like that (except he tried too much to get Lazenby to play the character like Connery).

    Spottiswoode, Apted and Tamahori didn't have as many affinities with the character, they went on autopilot, thinking of some "greatest hits" of what Bond had done in previous films, and Brosnan's performance went on autopilot too. And the thing is that I love Brosnan in a few comedies or dramas where he often plays somebody who overestimates his skills. The guy was terrific in The Tailor of Panama or The Ghost Writer. For Bond, he never got the equivalent of a Lewis Gilbert or a Christopher Wood who could adjust the character to his strengths, with the next entries sticking to these territories.

    Craig wasn't Campbell's first choice (he championed Henry Cavill), but he was smart enough to adjust his vision and fully embrace Craig's strengths as an actor. And Craig also has a clear idea on how he should play the character. I'm not much of a fan of Quantum of Solace, but every time Craig is opposite Dench, Wright or Giannini, he has a blast with the dialog, and otherwise he still owns the part in some half-baked script. In Spectre, there are the scenes with Mr. White, and a few moments like the conversation with the rat where he still shines, but he isn't really comfortable with many elements of the script, and it shows in his performance. This is not a YOLT-level of Sean Connery disinterest, but it's almost as if you could feel him being miserable with the material he was given.

    If Craig had been asked to surf on a tsunami ice wave, you know he would have made a point about how Bond should NEVER do something that ridiculous and he would have asked the scene to be totally rewritten. He would have thrown a tantrum if he had been forced to do it. But he's also been able to explain to the directors and the screenwriters what side of the character would be interesting to explore in his performance. Except on Spectre, and he can't hide his disappointment.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,589

    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    Is anyone else looking forward to seeing Linus Sandgren's cinematography? One of the things I'm most looking forward to!

    Based on what we saw in that Jamaica wrap-up, YES.
  • Brosnan was a John Calley choice.
    Calley was briefly put in charge of United Artists around 1994-1995. He confronted EON with the lacklustre US box office of The Living Daylights and (especially) Licence to Kill, and asked for Dalton to be replaced, because they couldn't afford taking the risk of having three "flops" in a row for the franchise, especially after such a long gap in production. As a result, they had to change the lead to create even more buzz for Bond 17.
    EON tried to stick with Dalton, who had struck a friendship with Wilson and the Broccolis, but lost the fight. As a favor to Dalton, they offered him with the opportunity to announce instead he had resigned.

    When Cubby died in 1996, the family asked Dalton to be one of the pallbearers. They had a working relationship with Brosnan, but not ties as deep as with Dalton.

    Also, Martin Campbell has stated in interviews that he didn't like Dalton as Bond and wouldn't have considered directing Goldeneye with Dalton as the lead.

    Not sure how to break this to you, but Brosnan was literally Cubby's first choice to replace Moore after AVTAK. In fact, his over-enthusiasm for Brosnan was what kept Brosnan from taking the role until 1995.

    Cubby eagerly announced him to the press and had even gone so far as to shoot promotional material for TLD with him in it. But the media blitzkrieg lead to a tv show Brosnan was under contract to, getting another season, which in turn made Cubby turn to Dalton.


  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
    IMDB updated:

    Safins henchman, Russian worker, Laboratory Team member, and lot's of Spectre-guys

    Lourdes Faberes ... Spectre Agent
    Ahmed Bakare ... Spectre VIP Guest
    Rae Lim ... Spectre Agent
    Paul O'Kelly ... Safins Henchmen
    Julian Ferro ... MI6 Security Guard
    Brigitte Millar ... Vogel
    Toby Sauerback ... Guard
    Iulia Filipovscaia ... Russian Worker
    Ty Hurley ... Office Male
    Rod Hunt ... Spectre Bodyguard
    Douglas Bunn ... Spectre Member
    Adnan Rashed ... Spectre Agent
    Michael Herne ... Spectre Guest
    Lampros Kalfuntzos ... Cyclist
    Joe Grossi ... Hotel Porter
    Mariia Legun ... Laboratory Team
    Andy Cheung ... Spectre Agent
    Andrew Reed ... Motorbike Rider
    Omar Alboukharey ... Spectre Member (uncredited)
    Rodrig Andrisan ... Spectre Member (uncredited)
    Ali El Khodary ... Bodyguard (uncredited)
    Andrew G. Ogleby ... MI6 Worker (uncredited)

  • Lots of Spectre personnel here - are we expecting a big battle?
  • Brosnan was a John Calley choice.
    Calley was briefly put in charge of United Artists around 1994-1995. He confronted EON with the lacklustre US box office of The Living Daylights and (especially) Licence to Kill, and asked for Dalton to be replaced, because they couldn't afford taking the risk of having three "flops" in a row for the franchise, especially after such a long gap in production. As a result, they had to change the lead to create even more buzz for Bond 17.
    EON tried to stick with Dalton, who had struck a friendship with Wilson and the Broccolis, but lost the fight. As a favor to Dalton, they offered him with the opportunity to announce instead he had resigned.

    When Cubby died in 1996, the family asked Dalton to be one of the pallbearers. They had a working relationship with Brosnan, but not ties as deep as with Dalton.

    Also, Martin Campbell has stated in interviews that he didn't like Dalton as Bond and wouldn't have considered directing Goldeneye with Dalton as the lead.

    Not sure how to break this to you, but Brosnan was literally Cubby's first choice to replace Moore after AVTAK. In fact, his over-enthusiasm for Brosnan was what kept Brosnan from taking the role until 1995.

    Cubby eagerly announced him to the press and had even gone so far as to shoot promotional material for TLD with him in it. But the media blitzkrieg lead to a tv show Brosnan was under contract to, getting another season, which in turn made Cubby turn to Dalton.


    Not sure how to break this to you, but Dalton was actually Cubby's first choice in 1986, he was offered the role ahead of Brosnan but had to decline due to not being available.
  • Posts: 12,522
    That is a LOT of SPECTRE members.
    octofinger wrote: »
    Lots of Spectre personnel here - are we expecting a big battle?

    I kind of hope so. Would be neat to have one of these happen in the Craig era; they’re a classic Bond trope (big battles at the climax). I could also imagine another SPECTRE meeting, or maybe a scene of a bunch of members busting Blofeld out of jail.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't think a list of named Spectre agents suggests a battle - more likely a meeting.

    Glad to see there is a cyclist in there - touch of the John Glen's? Will he topple over during a chase scene?
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 2,599
    Bounine wrote: »
    True. His performances post Goldeneye were horrible. I don’t know what happened...

    Martin Campbell has a clear vision of what the character should be and what a particular actor can bring to the part. Terence Young was like that (except on Thunderball, where the balance of power had clearly shifted toward the producers). Peter Hunt was like that (except he tried too much to get Lazenby to play the character like Connery).

    Spottiswoode, Apted and Tamahori didn't have as many affinities with the character, they went on autopilot, thinking of some "greatest hits" of what Bond had done in previous films, and Brosnan's performance went on autopilot too. And the thing is that I love Brosnan in a few comedies or dramas where he often plays somebody who overestimates his skills. The guy was terrific in The Tailor of Panama or The Ghost Writer. For Bond, he never got the equivalent of a Lewis Gilbert or a Christopher Wood who could adjust the character to his strengths, with the next entries sticking to these territories.

    Craig wasn't Campbell's first choice (he championed Henry Cavill), but he was smart enough to adjust his vision and fully embrace Craig's strengths as an actor. And Craig also has a clear idea on how he should play the character. I'm not much of a fan of Quantum of Solace, but every time Craig is opposite Dench, Wright or Giannini, he has a blast with the dialog, and otherwise he still owns the part in some half-baked script. In Spectre, there are the scenes with Mr. White, and a few moments like the conversation with the rat where he still shines, but he isn't really comfortable with many elements of the script, and it shows in his performance. This is not a YOLT-level of Sean Connery disinterest, but it's almost as if you could feel him being miserable with the material he was given.

    If Craig had been asked to surf on a tsunami ice wave, you know he would have made a point about how Bond should NEVER do something that ridiculous and he would have asked the scene to be totally rewritten. He would have thrown a tantrum if he had been forced to do it. But he's also been able to explain to the directors and the screenwriters what side of the character would be interesting to explore in his performance. Except on Spectre, and he can't hide his disappointment.

    Yeah, Campbell extracted a sharp, refined performance from Brosnan. I just would have thought that Brosnan could have kept that up even if the other three directors didn't pay as much attention to him. Yeah, the "greatest hits" approach was present, not just in Brosnan's performance but in every facet of the films where every ingredient of the cinematic Bond world had to be incorporated which resulted in messy movies. They started going this way with Spectre too. Eon need to learn and hire directors and actors who have a clear consistent vision.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Mendes was an awful choice for Bond and Craig IMO. I know the films did great BO but the Bond of SF and SP is a different character from CR and QOS. Totally lacking in the vitality and energy of the first 2 films.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Shardlake wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    People keep repeating this, but it's very likely they had no intention of using Blofeld and SPECTRE ever again after they got the rights back... until Sam Mendes had the "brilliant" idea that they should return.

    They bought the rights because Mendes and Logan really wanted to use Blofeld.

    My guess is that it was presented that way.

    EON/Danjaq may have tried a few times to buy the rights from McClory's estate. Around 2013, they see an opportunity. They must cost something in the tens of millions of pounds, dollars, euros or whatever currency the McClories want to get.

    When they're close to the deal, accountants explain that this operation will be charged on both MGM and Danjaq, but if SPECTRE and Blofeld are used in the next film, the final film in the Sony contract, Sony would foot the bill, as the acquisition costs would be assigned to development in the budget of Bond 24. Anyway, after that operation, these elements owned by the estate of Kevin McClory will be forever part of the IP already owned by Danjaq and MGM.

    That was an opportunity to good to miss, the final missing piece (after the adaptation rights to CR) they'd been trying to find for decades.

    At this point, Logan and Mendes are already in love with their idea of making the next villain Bond's adoptive brother named Oberhauser. Logan may be interested in using Spectre, but for Bond 25, as he was then developing a two-parter. Corporate pressure get the upper hand and they find some compromise. They keep the Operation Kid Step Brother plot, and they merge Oberhauser with Blofeld, with elements from the projected Bond 25 synopsis being used for the third act.

    Logan tries to find a suitable use of Blofeld and SPECTRE in his script, fails to do it, and leaves production, to be replaced by Purvis and Wade. EON may have even accepted to compromise in some way Bond 25 for the benefit of the entire franchise, they show at some point to Sony the script they have come up with, Sony green-lights the project and pays for the transaction with the estate.

    I know this may explain many things too nicely, but I really suspect that part of the creative decisions were related to taking advantage of a few financial windows of opportunity.

    Interesting thoughts; I’m trying to decide if it was just Oberhauser was Bond’s brother would I have disliked it as much? Was making him Blofeld too the bit that pushed it too far? I think so, probably yes.

    Making the villain someone from Bond's childhood or early years was bad enough and shouldn't have been touched period.

    Although, making it Blofeld will always be the worst crime the series has ever committed.

    It was incredibly ill-advised.

    Which is why I hope that one of the twists in NTTD will be that Blofeld lied about it.
  • Posts: 7,616
    Brosnan was a John Calley choice.
    Calley was briefly put in charge of United Artists around 1994-1995. He confronted EON with the lacklustre US box office of The Living Daylights and (especially) Licence to Kill, and asked for Dalton to be replaced, because they couldn't afford taking the risk of having three "flops" in a row for the franchise, especially after such a long gap in production. As a result, they had to change the lead to create even more buzz for Bond 17.
    EON tried to stick with Dalton, who had struck a friendship with Wilson and the Broccolis, but lost the fight. As a favor to Dalton, they offered him with the opportunity to announce instead he had resigned.

    When Cubby died in 1996, the family asked Dalton to be one of the pallbearers. They had a working relationship with Brosnan, but not ties as deep as with Dalton.

    Also, Martin Campbell has stated in interviews that he didn't like Dalton as Bond and wouldn't have considered directing Goldeneye with Dalton as the lead.

    Not sure how to break this to you, but Brosnan was literally Cubby's first choice to replace Moore after AVTAK. In fact, his over-enthusiasm for Brosnan was what kept Brosnan from taking the role until 1995.

    Cubby eagerly announced him to the press and had even gone so far as to shoot promotional material for TLD with him in it. But the media blitzkrieg lead to a tv show Brosnan was under contract to, getting another season, which in turn made Cubby turn to Dalton.


    According to John Glen book, Cubby had to be persuaded on the "merits" of Brosnan by Michael Wilson and Glen himself.
    Cubby always wanted Dalton as far back as OHMSS!
  • Posts: 7,616
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    SF & SP gave EON 2 1 billion dollar movies while Brosnan didn't. Brosnan was also a Cubby choice not a Babs choice. If Cubby was still alive come DAD he probably insist Brosnan get a 5th. Since Craig is a Babs choice she is more willing to let Craig come back.

    Brosnan was a John Calley choice.
    Calley was briefly put in charge of United Artists around 1994-1995. He confronted EON with the lacklustre US box office of The Living Daylights and (especially) Licence to Kill, and asked for Dalton to be replaced, because they couldn't afford taking the risk of having three "flops" in a row for the franchise, especially after such a long gap in production. As a result, they had to change the lead to create even more buzz for Bond 17.
    EON tried to stick with Dalton, who had struck a friendship with Wilson and the Broccolis, but lost the fight. As a favor to Dalton, they offered him with the opportunity to announce instead he had resigned.

    When Cubby died in 1996, the family asked Dalton to be one of the pallbearers. They had a working relationship with Brosnan, but not ties as deep as with Dalton.

    Also, Martin Campbell has stated in interviews that he didn't like Dalton as Bond and wouldn't have considered directing Goldeneye with Dalton as the lead.

    Think it's recently confirmed the truth. EON were sticking with Dalton, but he only wanted to do one movie and leave. That didn't suit EON and they parted company!
  • Posts: 152
    Hopefully we have some news soon.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,606
    Shardlake wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    People keep repeating this, but it's very likely they had no intention of using Blofeld and SPECTRE ever again after they got the rights back... until Sam Mendes had the "brilliant" idea that they should return.

    They bought the rights because Mendes and Logan really wanted to use Blofeld.

    My guess is that it was presented that way.

    EON/Danjaq may have tried a few times to buy the rights from McClory's estate. Around 2013, they see an opportunity. They must cost something in the tens of millions of pounds, dollars, euros or whatever currency the McClories want to get.

    When they're close to the deal, accountants explain that this operation will be charged on both MGM and Danjaq, but if SPECTRE and Blofeld are used in the next film, the final film in the Sony contract, Sony would foot the bill, as the acquisition costs would be assigned to development in the budget of Bond 24. Anyway, after that operation, these elements owned by the estate of Kevin McClory will be forever part of the IP already owned by Danjaq and MGM.

    That was an opportunity to good to miss, the final missing piece (after the adaptation rights to CR) they'd been trying to find for decades.

    At this point, Logan and Mendes are already in love with their idea of making the next villain Bond's adoptive brother named Oberhauser. Logan may be interested in using Spectre, but for Bond 25, as he was then developing a two-parter. Corporate pressure get the upper hand and they find some compromise. They keep the Operation Kid Step Brother plot, and they merge Oberhauser with Blofeld, with elements from the projected Bond 25 synopsis being used for the third act.

    Logan tries to find a suitable use of Blofeld and SPECTRE in his script, fails to do it, and leaves production, to be replaced by Purvis and Wade. EON may have even accepted to compromise in some way Bond 25 for the benefit of the entire franchise, they show at some point to Sony the script they have come up with, Sony green-lights the project and pays for the transaction with the estate.

    I know this may explain many things too nicely, but I really suspect that part of the creative decisions were related to taking advantage of a few financial windows of opportunity.

    Interesting thoughts; I’m trying to decide if it was just Oberhauser was Bond’s brother would I have disliked it as much? Was making him Blofeld too the bit that pushed it too far? I think so, probably yes.

    Making the villain someone from Bond's childhood or early years was bad enough and shouldn't have been touched period.

    Although, making it Blofeld will always be the worst crime the series has ever committed.

    It was incredibly ill-advised.

    I kind of don’t mind the ‘cuckoo’ concept, but to make it work you’d need a character who’s from outside of Bond’s world. For him to be a super-terrorist and for it to just have happened that he’s ended up in the same line of work (more or less) as Bond is just a bit too silly.

    It all sounds incredibly contrived when you start to connect it with Bond's past. SF should have been as far as that was taken.

    When you try factor things like someone from Bond's past the author of all your pain.

    What dreadful line that was but no doubt whoever wrote thought it was inspired
    Oh I think it’s a cracking line, whether or not it should have happened! :)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,606
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    SF & SP gave EON 2 1 billion dollar movies while Brosnan didn't. Brosnan was also a Cubby choice not a Babs choice. If Cubby was still alive come DAD he probably insist Brosnan get a 5th. Since Craig is a Babs choice she is more willing to let Craig come back.

    Brosnan was a John Calley choice.
    Calley was briefly put in charge of United Artists around 1994-1995. He confronted EON with the lacklustre US box office of The Living Daylights and (especially) Licence to Kill, and asked for Dalton to be replaced, because they couldn't afford taking the risk of having three "flops" in a row for the franchise, especially after such a long gap in production. As a result, they had to change the lead to create even more buzz for Bond 17.
    EON tried to stick with Dalton, who had struck a friendship with Wilson and the Broccolis, but lost the fight. As a favor to Dalton, they offered him with the opportunity to announce instead he had resigned.

    When Cubby died in 1996, the family asked Dalton to be one of the pallbearers. They had a working relationship with Brosnan, but not ties as deep as with Dalton.

    Also, Martin Campbell has stated in interviews that he didn't like Dalton as Bond and wouldn't have considered directing Goldeneye with Dalton as the lead.

    Yeah I think the official story that it was Dalton’s decision not to do any more has always sounded a bit whiffy. If you’re relaunching your series there’s no better way to get folks interested than a new lead, and certainly sticking with the one who hadn’t been a stellar hit in the part eight years ago isn’t going to create any kind of stir.
    I liked the honesty with which we heard about Brosnan being dumped from the role. I don’t think it reflects badly on anyone.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Brosnan was a John Calley choice.
    Calley was briefly put in charge of United Artists around 1994-1995. He confronted EON with the lacklustre US box office of The Living Daylights and (especially) Licence to Kill, and asked for Dalton to be replaced, because they couldn't afford taking the risk of having three "flops" in a row for the franchise, especially after such a long gap in production. As a result, they had to change the lead to create even more buzz for Bond 17.
    EON tried to stick with Dalton, who had struck a friendship with Wilson and the Broccolis, but lost the fight. As a favor to Dalton, they offered him with the opportunity to announce instead he had resigned.

    When Cubby died in 1996, the family asked Dalton to be one of the pallbearers. They had a working relationship with Brosnan, but not ties as deep as with Dalton.

    Also, Martin Campbell has stated in interviews that he didn't like Dalton as Bond and wouldn't have considered directing Goldeneye with Dalton as the lead.

    Not sure how to break this to you, but Brosnan was literally Cubby's first choice to replace Moore after AVTAK. In fact, his over-enthusiasm for Brosnan was what kept Brosnan from taking the role until 1995.

    Cubby eagerly announced him to the press and had even gone so far as to shoot promotional material for TLD with him in it. But the media blitzkrieg lead to a tv show Brosnan was under contract to, getting another season, which in turn made Cubby turn to Dalton.


    According to John Glen book, Cubby had to be persuaded on the "merits" of Brosnan by Michael Wilson and Glen himself.
    Cubby always wanted Dalton as far back as OHMSS!

    No he didn't. Its a misconception that Dalton was considered to replace Connery when he quit in 1967/68. Dalton only had one film at that point - The Lion In Winter - which was released a few months after Lazenby was announced.

    Dalton was considered the second time Connery quit after DAF. By that time he had played Heathcliffe in Wuthering Hieghts on top of other roles. And was an emerging British star.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    In any case, Dalton was a gentleman. He waited until 1994 to officially step down.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Getafix wrote: »
    Mendes was an awful choice for Bond and Craig IMO. I know the films did great BO but the Bond of SF and SP is a different character from CR and QOS. Totally lacking in the vitality and energy of the first 2 films.
    +100
  • Posts: 1,985
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    SF & SP gave EON 2 1 billion dollar movies while Brosnan didn't. Brosnan was also a Cubby choice not a Babs choice. If Cubby was still alive come DAD he probably insist Brosnan get a 5th. Since Craig is a Babs choice she is more willing to let Craig come back.

    Brosnan was a John Calley choice.
    Calley was briefly put in charge of United Artists around 1994-1995. He confronted EON with the lacklustre US box office of The Living Daylights and (especially) Licence to Kill, and asked for Dalton to be replaced, because they couldn't afford taking the risk of having three "flops" in a row for the franchise, especially after such a long gap in production. As a result, they had to change the lead to create even more buzz for Bond 17.

    Looks like Calley was right.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Walecs wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Mendes was an awful choice for Bond and Craig IMO. I know the films did great BO but the Bond of SF and SP is a different character from CR and QOS. Totally lacking in the vitality and energy of the first 2 films.
    +100

    It's just a different filmmaker.

    Mind you I don't hate QOS as much as a lot of us seem to do, but apart from Craig's performance there's not much that I find "great".

Sign In or Register to comment.