Do you have any concerns or niggles about NTTD ,or are you full of confidence ?

13940414244

Comments

  • Posts: 9,846
    At this point, I don't really have any concerns or niggles about NTTD at all - I just want the film to come out. Nothing else about the film matters at this point!

    I am concerned it will never come out
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited July 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Risico007 wrote: »
    At this point, I don't really have any concerns or niggles about NTTD at all - I just want the film to come out. Nothing else about the film matters at this point!
    I am concerned it will never come out
    That's only gonna happen if no films come out ever for the rest our lives.

    And @MeetBond how do you they were winging it this time?
  • Posts: 9,846
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    At this point, I don't really have any concerns or niggles about NTTD at all - I just want the film to come out. Nothing else about the film matters at this point!
    I am concerned it will never come out
    That's only gonna happen if no films come out ever for the rest our lives.

    And @MeetBond how do you they were winging it this time?

    I just have fears with Covid
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    At this point, I don't really have any concerns or niggles about NTTD at all - I just want the film to come out. Nothing else about the film matters at this point!
    I am concerned it will never come out
    That's only gonna happen if no films come out ever for the rest our lives.

    And @MeetBond how do you they were winging it this time?

    I just have fears with Covid
    Understandable. I think we'll get it at some point next year.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    At this point, I don't really have any concerns or niggles about NTTD at all - I just want the film to come out. Nothing else about the film matters at this point!
    I am concerned it will never come out
    That's only gonna happen if no films come out ever for the rest our lives.

    And @MeetBond how do you they were winging it this time?

    I just have fears with Covid
    Understandable. I think we'll get it at some point next year.

    Covid?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    At this point, I don't really have any concerns or niggles about NTTD at all - I just want the film to come out. Nothing else about the film matters at this point!
    I am concerned it will never come out
    That's only gonna happen if no films come out ever for the rest our lives.

    And @MeetBond how do you they were winging it this time?

    I just have fears with Covid
    Understandable. I think we'll get it at some point next year.

    Covid?
    The film.
  • edited July 2020 Posts: 440
    MeetBond wrote: »
    Heck, TND started filming WITHOUT a finished script. Granted, I rank it at #23, but I know it's a big favorite among a certain generation of fans.

    The issue here is that they “winged it” on TND because they committed to two-year turnaround. And made the deadline.

    The situation we find ourselves in now is a flagging team “winging it” after a cushy four year break.

    DAD and SPECTRE both had three years gaps and both are appreciably worse than TND.

    EON's production method isn't unique by any standard, that's simply how most non-SciFi/Superhero action movies are made and this was just as true back in Cubby's day.

    In fact, EON actually does a great deal more pre-production than its contemporaries. The last two Mission Impossible films, for example, didn't even have an ending written until after they began shooting.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    The comparison to Mission: Impossible always tickles me because they come out with comparatively longer gaps between films than Bond but nobody makes a fuss over that. The shortest gap was between ROGUE NATION and FALLOUT by three years, but all the other gaps have typically been between four to six years.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited July 2020 Posts: 4,343
    MeetBond wrote: »
    It won’t be. The best Bond films aren’t cobbled together by script doctors two weeks before shooting starts.

    If anyone has any confidence in this product (I hesitate to call it a film) at this stage they’re in La La Land.

    La La Land is where people believe a director should resign for a film he finished five months ago only because the world has been suddenly hit by the single biggest crisis since WW2 and where Universal paid instead of MGM.
  • Posts: 2,436
    The comparison to Mission: Impossible always tickles me because they come out with comparatively longer gaps between films than Bond but nobody makes a fuss over that. The shortest gap was between ROGUE NATION and FALLOUT by three years, but all the other gaps have typically been between four to six years.

    Also the original intention for M:I 3 was for it to come out in 2004.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    edited July 2020 Posts: 737
    The comparison to Mission: Impossible always tickles me because they come out with comparatively longer gaps between films than Bond but nobody makes a fuss over that. The shortest gap was between ROGUE NATION and FALLOUT by three years, but all the other gaps have typically been between four to six years.

    That's true but people don't have the same affection for MI. Also, I think it has only seriously rivalled Bond since Ghost Protocol, and they have shot the next two back to back. It is likely to have the edge on Bond for the foreseeable future. This is especially so since the reception to Fallout, which is a genuinely excellent blockbuster the kind of which Bond has been struggling to achieve for a while now.

    I am always going to prefer Bond because of the character, but right now it is a little like the 80s, when the Indiana Jones films eclipsed Bond as the premier action franchise.
  • Posts: 2,436
    The comparison to Mission: Impossible always tickles me because they come out with comparatively longer gaps between films than Bond but nobody makes a fuss over that. The shortest gap was between ROGUE NATION and FALLOUT by three years, but all the other gaps have typically been between four to six years.

    That's true but people don't have the same affection for MI. Also, I think it has only seriously rivalled Bond since Ghost Protocol, and they have shot the next two back to back. It is likely to have the edge on Bond for the foreseeable future. This is especially so since the reception to Fallout, which is a genuinely excellent blockbuster the kind of which Bond has been struggling to achieve for a while now.

    I am always going to prefer Bond because of the character, but right now it is a little like the 80s, when the Indiana Jones films eclipsed Bond as the premier action franchise.

    Yet recent Bonds have done better at the Box Office.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    The only time the M:I films have eclipsed the Bond franchise at the box office was during the Brosnan era. That all switched in 2006 when M:I-3 took a nosedive for that franchise as Cruise's box office appeal had declined in the mid-2000s, whereas with Craig's start CR had surpassed all the M:I films at that time. Eventually GHOST PROTOCOL would help the franchise bounce back up in 2011, but then the very next year SKYFALL nearly doubled the gross of GP. Even with FALLOUT being the most successful of the franchise, it's still nearly $100m shorter than what SPECTRE did.

    Bond has a greater appeal with audiences in general, but I do think spy-action fans generally prefer the M:I films to a degree.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    The only time the M:I films have eclipsed the Bond franchise at the box office was during the Brosnan era. That all switched in 2006 when M:I-3 took a nosedive for that franchise as Cruise's box office appeal had declined in the mid-2000s, whereas with Craig's start CR had surpassed all the M:I films at that time. Eventually GHOST PROTOCOL would help the franchise bounce back up in 2011, but then the very next year SKYFALL nearly doubled the gross of GP. Even with FALLOUT being the most successful of the franchise, it's still nearly $100m shorter than what SPECTRE did.

    Bond has a greater appeal with audiences in general, but I do think spy-action fans generally prefer the M:I films to a degree.

    $ 100m? Fallout earned something 800 million and SF 1.1 billion.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Reread it, I said SPECTRE did only $100m more than FALLOUT.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Oh my bad :))
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    The only time the M:I films have eclipsed the Bond franchise at the box office was during the Brosnan era. That all switched in 2006 when M:I-3 took a nosedive for that franchise as Cruise's box office appeal had declined in the mid-2000s, whereas with Craig's start CR had surpassed all the M:I films at that time. Eventually GHOST PROTOCOL would help the franchise bounce back up in 2011, but then the very next year SKYFALL nearly doubled the gross of GP. Even with FALLOUT being the most successful of the franchise, it's still nearly $100m shorter than what SPECTRE did.

    Bond has a greater appeal with audiences in general, but I do think spy-action fans generally prefer the M:I films to a degree.

    Yes but I am talking about reputation as well. Th Bourne films for example didn't touch the Bond films in terms of box office, but which have the better reputation in recent years?

    My point moving forward is that because the films are being made regularly enough that young people are not becoming fans of Bond in anywhere near the numbers they used to. Young people are far more likely to attach themselves to MI or F&F because they are actually making films. EON have dallied far too long, regardless of cover, to the point that they have been eclipsed. They still have the name of Bond, which can get them out of this hole, but that's all right now.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    On the other hand GHOST PROTOCOL came out five years after the third movie and did very well in spite of the long gap. No reason Bond shouldn’t do the same.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited July 2020 Posts: 8,216
    We've had seven Bond films since the first Mission: Impossible, whereas there have only been five Mission: Impossible sequels.
  • edited July 2020 Posts: 2,436
    We've had seven Bond films since the first Mission: Impossible, whereas there have only been five Mission: Impossible sequels.

    Or another way of looking at is since 1996 there have been 6 M:I films and 7 Bond films. Not much in it. Also since Spectre came out there have been 5 Star Wars films, I'm not even going to bother working out how many Marvel films have come out in that time!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    It’s pretty clear that Tom Cruise needs to be fired. Paramount wants blood after such a low turnout.
  • Posts: 2,436
    It’s pretty clear that Tom Cruise needs to be fired. Paramount wants blood after such a low turnout.

    Well he is the producer ....
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    We've had seven Bond films since the first Mission: Impossible, whereas there have only been five Mission: Impossible sequels.

    Or another way of looking at is since 1996 there have been 6 M:I films and 7 Bond films.

    Or another way of looking at it is that since 1995 there have been 6 M:I films and 8 Bond films.

    You're right, there's not much in it. Yet it's always made sound like there is.

    As for Star Wars and Marvel....well, the Disney method of production is quite something alright, but I don't see them sustaining it for sixty years.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2020 Posts: 15,715
    We've had seven Bond films since the first Mission: Impossible, whereas there have only been five Mission: Impossible sequels.

    Or another way of looking at is since 1996 there have been 6 M:I films and 7 Bond films.

    Or another way of looking at it is that since 1995 there have been 6 M:I films and 8 Bond films.

    You're right, there's not much in it. Yet it's always made sound like there is.

    As for Star Wars and Marvel....well, the Disney method of production is quite something alright, but I don't see them sustaining it for sixty years.

    What?! You don't want a Young Bond film? A Q spinoff film? A TV series about M? An animation series focused on Moneypenny?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    We've had seven Bond films since the first Mission: Impossible, whereas there have only been five Mission: Impossible sequels.

    Or another way of looking at is since 1996 there have been 6 M:I films and 7 Bond films.

    Or another way of looking at it is that since 1995 there have been 6 M:I films and 8 Bond films.

    You're right, there's not much in it. Yet it's always made sound like there is.

    As for Star Wars and Marvel....well, the Disney method of production is quite something alright, but I don't see them sustaining it for sixty years.

    What?! You don't want a Young Bond film? A Q spinoff film? A TV series about M? An animation series focused on Moneypenny?

    Shocking, right?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    We've had seven Bond films since the first Mission: Impossible, whereas there have only been five Mission: Impossible sequels.

    Or another way of looking at is since 1996 there have been 6 M:I films and 7 Bond films.

    Or another way of looking at it is that since 1995 there have been 6 M:I films and 8 Bond films.

    You're right, there's not much in it. Yet it's always made sound like there is.

    As for Star Wars and Marvel....well, the Disney method of production is quite something alright, but I don't see them sustaining it for sixty years.

    What?! You don't want a Young Bond film? A Q spinoff film? A TV series about M? An animation series focused on Moneypenny?

    Shocking, right?

    Positively shocking. ;-)
  • Posts: 2,436
    We've had seven Bond films since the first Mission: Impossible, whereas there have only been five Mission: Impossible sequels.

    Or another way of looking at is since 1996 there have been 6 M:I films and 7 Bond films.

    Or another way of looking at it is that since 1995 there have been 6 M:I films and 8 Bond films.

    You're right, there's not much in it. Yet it's always made sound like there is.

    As for Star Wars and Marvel....well, the Disney method of production is quite something alright, but I don't see them sustaining it for sixty years.

    What?! You don't want a Young Bond film? A Q spinoff film? A TV series about M? An animation series focused on Moneypenny?

    Nope.
  • Posts: 3,327
    MeetBond wrote: »
    It won’t be. The best Bond films aren’t cobbled together by script doctors two weeks before shooting starts.

    If anyone has any confidence in this product (I hesitate to call it a film) at this stage they’re in La La Land.

    From Russia with Love was a mess until they got into the editing suite!

    But at least they had the basis of a decent script to work with. Hell, it doesn't get any better than following arguably Fleming's strongest novel as close as possible.

    When you have that to work from, editing shouldn't prove too much of a problem.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    MeetBond wrote: »
    It won’t be. The best Bond films aren’t cobbled together by script doctors two weeks before shooting starts.

    If anyone has any confidence in this product (I hesitate to call it a film) at this stage they’re in La La Land.

    From Russia with Love was a mess until they got into the editing suite!

    But at least they had the basis of a decent script to work with. Hell, it doesn't get any better than following arguably Fleming's strongest novel as close as possible.

    When you have that to work from, editing shouldn't prove too much of a problem.

    It wasn't that simple. Because of the unusual structure of the book, they had to do a lot of re-sequencing and make up some stuff in order to have everything fit in better for a cohesive film. For example, Red Grant stalking Bond was actually something they wrote into the movie while they were in the middle of shooting it!

    I think it would be interesting to see the original edit of the film and how that plays out. For example, there wouldn't have been a pre-title sequence, as the scene with Grant stalking Bond at SPECTRE island was supposed to happen later in the film.

    The re-editing and reshoots not only saved FRWL but further defined the formula!
  • Posts: 3,327
    MeetBond wrote: »
    It won’t be. The best Bond films aren’t cobbled together by script doctors two weeks before shooting starts.

    If anyone has any confidence in this product (I hesitate to call it a film) at this stage they’re in La La Land.

    From Russia with Love was a mess until they got into the editing suite!

    But at least they had the basis of a decent script to work with. Hell, it doesn't get any better than following arguably Fleming's strongest novel as close as possible.

    When you have that to work from, editing shouldn't prove too much of a problem.

    It wasn't that simple. Because of the unusual structure of the book, they had to do a lot of re-sequencing and make up some stuff in order to have everything fit in better for a cohesive film. For example, Red Grant stalking Bond was actually something they wrote into the movie while they were in the middle of shooting it!

    I think it would be interesting to see the original edit of the film and how that plays out. For example, there wouldn't have been a pre-title sequence, as the scene with Grant stalking Bond at SPECTRE island was supposed to happen later in the film.

    The re-editing and reshoots not only saved FRWL but further defined the formula!

    Interesting. I didn't actually know much of the background to filming FRWL. Shows what a dab hand Hunt could be in the edit room on a good day (get him on a bad day and you get badly speeded up fights, weird voice dubbing, flipped shots (TB helicopter scene), etc. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.