› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…11341135113711391140…2507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    MGM already had an arrangement with Annapurna, which distributed Detroit if I'm not mistaken. I believe this is just an extension of that. I can't see them being entrusted with Bond although they could be co-distributor in one location.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Wait, Annapurna is distributing B25?
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,521
    I have a feeling Bond 25 will be EON’s final Bond film...
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I have a feeling Bond 25 will be EON’s final Bond film...
    If that is true, then I'll be owing @PanchitoPistoles two pints.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    25 is a nice number to go out on.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Wait, Annapurna is distributing B25?

    As the article mentions, distributor for B25 will be announced at a later date. But with them extending this, I could see it going to Annapurna.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I could be wrong but I don't think Annapurna, who is new to the game, can handle something as big as Bond. They don't have a track record. As I mentioned, MGM already have a pre-existing arrangement with Annapurna and this is just an extension of that, likely for their more Indie style films or films that are expected to do well in certain local markets.

    Bond is huge globally, and given the market conditions, I expect a bigger name to take it, although Annapurna could still be involved in a local market.

    I think one should consider that it's possible that there could even be two major names involved finally, in order to spread the risk. Something like what happened with BR2049 (Sony/Warner).
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    This is actually worth talking about people. The first true bit of news since the last film released. I guess this answer the question, "why are they taking so long to choice a distributor! WAH! WAH!". Deals take time. They've been getting their ducks in a row and are going to go it alone for the first time since Die Another Day, with Annapurna's help. The news came that they may do as much a good while ago.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Megan Ellison has the deep pockets to eat a loss (or take less profit) on a distribution arrangement and she is very aggressive.

    EDIT: The article only talks about US distribution, so even if Annapurna get it in the US (which is still a wild card, since they've never actually distributed anything of the magnitude of Bond stateside), there will most likely be a bigger global partner.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    I could be wrong but I don't think Annapurna, who is new to the game, can handle something as big as Bond. They don't have a track record. As I mentioned, MGM already have a pre-existing arrangement with Annapurna and this is just an extension of that, likely for their more Indie style films or films that are expected to do well in certain local markets.

    Bond is huge globally, and given the market conditions, I expect a bigger name to take it, although Annapurna could still be involved in a local market.

    I think one should consider that it's possible that there could even be two major names involved finally, in order to spread the risk. Something like what happened with BR2049 (Sony/Warner).

    http://deadline.com/2017/10/mgm-theatrical-distribution-annapurna-james-bond-1202197849/
    I think this indeed is wonderful news @BondJames (so far). This means that two, relatively 'minor' parties (MGM doesn't have a distribution set-up, Annapurna is very new, founded by Oracle's Megan Ellison, and only started fully distributing early 2017), are also relatively equal parties at the negotiating tables. This is probably a construction EON Productions prefers. No big Amazon or Apple 'eating out' the Bond franchise. Unless money still is the more decisive factor (do not forget the hedgefund guys that run MGM). Anyway, just MGM-Annapurna? I'd say: Bring it on.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I could be wrong but I don't think Annapurna, who is new to the game, can handle something as big as Bond. They don't have a track record. As I mentioned, MGM already have a pre-existing arrangement with Annapurna and this is just an extension of that, likely for their more Indie style films or films that are expected to do well in certain local markets.

    Bond is huge globally, and given the market conditions, I expect a bigger name to take it, although Annapurna could still be involved in a local market.

    I think one should consider that it's possible that there could even be two major names involved finally, in order to spread the risk. Something like what happened with BR2049 (Sony/Warner).

    http://deadline.com/2017/10/mgm-theatrical-distribution-annapurna-james-bond-1202197849/
    I think this indeed is wonderful news @BondJames (so far). This means that two, relatively 'minor' parties (MGM doesn't have a distribution set-up, Annapurna is very new, founded by Oracle's Megan Ellison, and only started fully distributing early 2017), are also relatively equal parties at the negotiating tables. This is probably a construction EON Productions prefers. No big Amazon or Apple 'eating out' the Bond franchise. Unless money still is the more decisive factor (do not forget the hedgefund guys that run MGM). Anyway, just MGM-Annapurna? I'd say: Bring it on.
    It's an interesting development @Gustav_Graves, but as I said, I can't see this working globally where Bond generates most of its revenue.

    If Annapurna take Bond, it will most likely be stateside only.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I could be wrong but I don't think Annapurna, who is new to the game, can handle something as big as Bond. They don't have a track record. As I mentioned, MGM already have a pre-existing arrangement with Annapurna and this is just an extension of that, likely for their more Indie style films or films that are expected to do well in certain local markets.

    Bond is huge globally, and given the market conditions, I expect a bigger name to take it, although Annapurna could still be involved in a local market.

    I think one should consider that it's possible that there could even be two major names involved finally, in order to spread the risk. Something like what happened with BR2049 (Sony/Warner).

    http://deadline.com/2017/10/mgm-theatrical-distribution-annapurna-james-bond-1202197849/
    I think this indeed is wonderful news @BondJames (so far). This means that two, relatively 'minor' parties (MGM doesn't have a distribution set-up, Annapurna is very new, founded by Oracle's Megan Ellison, and only started fully distributing early 2017), are also relatively equal parties at the negotiating tables. This is probably a construction EON Productions prefers. No big Amazon or Apple 'eating out' the Bond franchise. Unless money still is the more decisive factor (do not forget the hedgefund guys that run MGM). Anyway, just MGM-Annapurna? I'd say: Bring it on.
    It's an interesting development @Gustav_Graves, but as I said, I can't see this working globally where Bond generates most of its revenue.

    If Annapurna take Bond, it will most likely be stateside only.

    Couldbe true yes. There are numerous franchises/films that are distributed differently with a domestic deal and a global deal. Who knows what's in the pipeline for us.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    edited October 2017 Posts: 7,057
    bondjames wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Or more likely a new director just doesn't want to take on any of Mendes's baggage, which is what I assumed some time ago. Where I got it wrong was whether a new director would want Craig along either (given the baggage is all his).

    This is certainly an issue.

    Any director worth his salt would say no to cleaning up the steaming turd Mendes has left. But the baggage is not solely Mendes it's also Craig and the Craig era. They put continuity and connected narrative above all else with the Craig era and to just ignore all that for one tacked on film seems a massive cop out and a pretty pointless exercise to be honest.

    By all logic and reason the obvious thing to do would be to recast and start with a clean slate but of course that's not happening as due to trying to nail a better distribution deal they have signed Craig for one more.

    Babs is not fussed and would rather do her arty farty Oscar bait projects. MGW is spent and deserves his retirement. Dan is only really in it for the money at this stage (and possibly trying to elevate his legacy to join the big 2 of Sean and Rog). P&W sound like they are out of ideas. No director of substance would want to touch it. Even amongst the fans here there doesn't seem much excitement. We're just treading water until 2022 and a new Bond.

    I can't help feeling B25 is shaping up to be a lame duck film that nobody really wants.

    And yet if they drop the Spectre story, B25 can offer a refreshing narrative near-clean slate, to be anchored by a popular and well-established Bond. It can be a project in which the key participants, freed from the straitjacket of story and tone they placed themselves in, can gradually begin to find inspiration for something different. Just like DAF anticipated the Moore era, B25 perhaps will anticipate the B#7 era. Someone said some pages back that he thought Craig wanted to switch things up with Spectre but Mendes wanted to do his dramatic thing again. I believe that's possible, if not certain. Surely someone had to be the creative influence that provided that goofier, lighter humor that Spectre had, and that already began to reflect a change.

    On the other hand, maybe they see nothing of interest in this project, and it's going to be a lame duck film. But there's a fairly reasonable chance it might not be, that's all I'm saying. Now that there's a strong chance Waltz might not return, I'm excited, because while I liked him, I want to see a shakeup.
    The potential problem, as I see it, is that for some of us Craig's standalone credibility is shot at this point. It's the same reason why some of us couldn't buy his attempted nonchalance during certain scenes in SP, most notably those which involved his 'brother' and his first love Vesper (whose loss he brooded over in QoS).

    Ultimately I think one is either invested in his long connected narrative (and all the uncomfortable pathos that this has entailed over the years), or one is not. It's difficult for some of us (myself included) to accept him goofing around and being unconcerned when we've been led to believe over the past 10+ years that his entire arc is one big coupled concoction of betrayal, jealousy and revenge. They had a perfect opportunity to walk away from that after SF's mammoth success (and even suggested it in that film's final scene), but instead chose to double down on continuity with SP (even after QoS should have taught them that such a strategy was perhaps unwise). Moreover, they went further and hinted quite strongly at a YOLT style story to follow after SP, what with White being shoehorned in after the fact as some sort of Draco figure and 'lover' Maddy being a stand in for Tracy. There's a disconnect there, and Craig is a major part of it. Even though he may not realize it, I think he's become part of the problem at this point. It stinks of a 'have my cake and eat it too' mentality.

    So yes, anything is possible and we all hope for the best, but if they really wanted to shake it up and be fully freed of the narrative straightjacket which they have put themselves in, they probably should recast, even if business pressures preclude it. Either that or just continue on and finish his story off. Let him go after Blofeld and kill him.

    I used to think it would be strange to have the last Craig film forget about the continuity established over the four preceding films, but now I realize that, frankly, I wouldn't have cared too much and now I wouldn't care at all. Think of it as a soft reboot. Also, it's easy to set the film several years after Spectre, thus more comfortably allowing for a stand-alone story with a different tone.

    What I mean is, personally, I can ponder in my mind the strangeness of them forgetting about the previous films in B25, but while sitting in the theater, if they actually discard them, will I really care or will I just accept it? I think I'll just accept it. Your mileage may vary, of course, but what I'm saying is that the difference between what one thinks analytically and what one experiences in front of the screen must be taken into account.


    Dennison wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    Another wasted opportunity is how I would classify this latest string of events. The Connery era started promising with some continuity between DN and FRWL. Then they introduced GF as a standalone. They then returned to Spectre with TB and YOLT. By then Connery was uninterested and we suddenly got a new Bond and a new Blofeld who apparently didn't recognize each other even though their characters met in the previous film. Then DAF with little continuity and then Mclory inserted himself and that ended Spectre.

    Fast forward to present day! They finally secure the rights to Spectre again. Instead of planning a story arc and using some of Fleming's work they shoe horn it into their universe. Quantum is forgotten as an organization and the whole SP becomes a story of Bond's past.

    Now what I see possibly unfolding is a GF type of movie where we have Craig riding off into the sunset in a movie that isn't tied to the others. It has a chance to be a good film as they don't have to worry about linking it up with the others. Then we get a new Bond and a new Blofeld? Will they allow that the events of SP took place? Or like Quantum will they ignore and start again?

    Should be interesting to see it all unfold.

    If they're adapting YOLT then Shatterhand needs to be different in appearance to Blofeld in Bond 25 - i.e. either they're recasting or Waltz and Eon are playing a game where he'll be revealed from the Shatterhand character who looks quite different to Blofeld in Spectre.

    So, Maddy leaves Bond at the start of the film ... he's depressed as in YOLT, he's recruited by M to do an 'impossible' mission as in YOLT, and what seems to be a standalone mission brings him back to face his nemesis Blofeld.

    I think would make more sense to keep Waltz as Shatterhand/Blofeld and put makeup on him than to recast just for the different look.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Or more likely a new director just doesn't want to take on any of Mendes's baggage, which is what I assumed some time ago. Where I got it wrong was whether a new director would want Craig along either (given the baggage is all his).

    This is certainly an issue.

    Any director worth his salt would say no to cleaning up the steaming turd Mendes has left. But the baggage is not solely Mendes it's also Craig and the Craig era. They put continuity and connected narrative above all else with the Craig era and to just ignore all that for one tacked on film seems a massive cop out and a pretty pointless exercise to be honest.

    By all logic and reason the obvious thing to do would be to recast and start with a clean slate but of course that's not happening as due to trying to nail a better distribution deal they have signed Craig for one more.

    Babs is not fussed and would rather do her arty farty Oscar bait projects. MGW is spent and deserves his retirement. Dan is only really in it for the money at this stage (and possibly trying to elevate his legacy to join the big 2 of Sean and Rog). P&W sound like they are out of ideas. No director of substance would want to touch it. Even amongst the fans here there doesn't seem much excitement. We're just treading water until 2022 and a new Bond.

    I can't help feeling B25 is shaping up to be a lame duck film that nobody really wants.

    And yet if they drop the Spectre story, B25 can offer a refreshing narrative near-clean slate, to be anchored by a popular and well-established Bond. It can be a project in which the key participants, freed from the straitjacket of story and tone they placed themselves in, can gradually begin to find inspiration for something different. Just like DAF anticipated the Moore era, B25 perhaps will anticipate the B#7 era. Someone said some pages back that he thought Craig wanted to switch things up with Spectre but Mendes wanted to do his dramatic thing again. I believe that's possible, if not certain. Surely someone had to be the creative influence that provided that goofier, lighter humor that Spectre had, and that already began to reflect a change.

    On the other hand, maybe they see nothing of interest in this project, and it's going to be a lame duck film. But there's a fairly reasonable chance it might not be, that's all I'm saying. Now that there's a strong chance Waltz might not return, I'm excited, because while I liked him, I want to see a shakeup.
    The potential problem, as I see it, is that for some of us Craig's standalone credibility is shot at this point. It's the same reason why some of us couldn't buy his attempted nonchalance during certain scenes in SP, most notably those which involved his 'brother' and his first love Vesper (whose loss he brooded over in QoS).

    Ultimately I think one is either invested in his long connected narrative (and all the uncomfortable pathos that this has entailed over the years), or one is not. It's difficult for some of us (myself included) to accept him goofing around and being unconcerned when we've been led to believe over the past 10+ years that his entire arc is one big coupled concoction of betrayal, jealousy and revenge. They had a perfect opportunity to walk away from that after SF's mammoth success (and even suggested it in that film's final scene), but instead chose to double down on continuity with SP (even after QoS should have taught them that such a strategy was perhaps unwise). Moreover, they went further and hinted quite strongly at a YOLT style story to follow after SP, what with White being shoehorned in after the fact as some sort of Draco figure and 'lover' Maddy being a stand in for Tracy. There's a disconnect there, and Craig is a major part of it. Even though he may not realize it, I think he's become part of the problem at this point. It stinks of a 'have my cake and eat it too' mentality.

    So yes, anything is possible and we all hope for the best, but if they really wanted to shake it up and be fully freed of the narrative straightjacket which they have put themselves in, they probably should recast, even if business pressures preclude it. Either that or just continue on and finish his story off. Let him go after Blofeld and kill him.

    I used to think it would be strange to have the last Craig film forget about the continuity established over the four preceding films, but now I realize that, frankly, I wouldn't have cared too much and now I wouldn't care at all. Think of it as a soft reboot. Also, it's easy to set the film several years after Spectre, thus more comfortably allowing for a stand-alone story with a different tone.

    What I mean is, personally, I can ponder in my mind the strangeness of them forgetting about the previous films in B25, but while sitting in the theater, if they actually discard them, will I really care or will I just accept it? I think I'll just accept it. Your mileage may vary, of course, but what I'm saying is that the difference between what one thinks and what one experiences in front of the screen must be taken into account.
    I quite agree and actually noted a few pages back that I believe B25 will start some time in the future, because that allows them to discard some of their own rubbish, and perhaps even members of Team Scooby (with any luck). That also allows a new director to more readily tell his story and it fits into the much ballyhooed Logan motivation for Craig's return.

    It's what they did with SF after all.

    I'm not so sure that it's going to work so well this time around, given they've now given us such an overriding character arc for Mr. Craig's run. They will also tick off purists who liked SP and were anticipating a YOLT adaptation. Moreover, if they take this path, they will necessarily have to deal with an 'older' Bond character, and this by definition means a harder reboot is in store for B26.

    Still, it's all in the execution, so they'd better get it right, whatever they end up doing. Let's hope it works out.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I have a feeling Bond 25 will be EON’s final Bond film...
    If that is true, then I'll be owing @PanchitoPistoles two pints.

    Maybe under Babs and MGW? But not forever! The 60th anniversary is also not too far away also!
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,619
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I have a feeling Bond 25 will be EON’s final Bond film...
    If that is true, then I'll be owing @PanchitoPistoles two pints.
    I think it's time to reveal the truth: I came from the future. (From 2024, to be precise.) If anyone is interested, here are some details about the medium-term future of the franchise:

    - Bond 25 will have a two word title, Denis Villeneuve will direct it, Michael Green (Logan, BR 2049) will polish P & W's script. Returning characters: Bond (duh!), Swann, Leiter, M, Moneypenny, Q.
    - the movie will be the smallest scale Bond film of the Craig era, and will be repeatedly compared to DN by critics & fans; it will be a HUGE critical success, but will arger many Bond fans, and won't perform anywhere as well as SF and SP did at the box office
    - in 2020, BB and MGW will officially announce their retirement from the franchise
    - Bond 26 will be released in 2023 (yes, they will miss the 60th anniversary) and will be witten AND directed by Sir Christopher Nolan (Nolan will receive knighthood in 2022)
    - the basis of Nolan's Bond will be a GENIUS but very simple idea that will make you think "how on Earth has nobody thought about this before??" (Nolan will later reveal in interviews that he has had this idea for a Bond film for over a decade)
    - Bond actor nr. 7 will be a lesser known actor, someone who has worked with Nolan before
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I have a feeling Bond 25 will be EON’s final Bond film...
    If that is true, then I'll be owing @PanchitoPistoles two pints.
    I think it's time to reveal the truth: I came from the future. (From 2024, to be precise.) If anyone is interested, here are some details about the medium-term future of the franchise:

    - Bond 25 will have a two word title, Denis Villeneuve will direct it, Michael Green (Logan, BR 2049) will polish P & W's script. Returning characters: Bond (duh!), Swann, Leiter, M, Moneypenny, Q.
    - the movie will be the smallest scale Bond film of the Craig era, and will be repeatedly compared to DN by critics & fans; it will be a HUGE critical success, but will arger many Bond fans, and won't perform anywhere as well as SF and SP did at the box office
    - in 2020, BB and MGW will officially announce their retirement from the franchise
    - Bond 26 will be released in 2023 (yes, they will miss the 60th anniversary) and will be witten AND directed by Sir Christopher Nolan (Nolan will receive knighthood in 2022)
    - the basis of Nolan's Bond will be a GENIUS but very simply idea that will make you think "how on Earth has nobody thought about this before??" (Nolan will later reveal in interviews that he has had this idea for a Bond film for over a decade)
    - Bond actor nr. 7 will be a lesser known actor, someone who has worked with Nolan before

    I think most of this is probably true.

    Nolan definitely has something up his sleeve. He's alluded to it wryly in interviews.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    I think it is important to note, that this new construction, MGM vs. Annapurna, shows that MGM really wants to go back to distributing films without separate deals. This could open the door to a future merger of the two companies. Also, it shows that MGM is perhaps a bit healthier now, financially, then we previously anticipated.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    I don't think it's MGM vs Annapurna. I think they're working together.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I have one small question.

    Why would Babs retire in 2020? Surely it makes more sense to retire in 2022, to coincide with both the 60th anniversary of EON's time running the franchise & the umpteenth box set release, this time in 4K (which will include both CR67 and NSNA in addition to B25 to avoid any class action lawsuits from fans who believe a full boxset should include all films). There will be a few t-shirts released too.

    That's my only bone of contention. The rest seems quite plausible.

    Oh, and where's Rory? If the rest of Scooby is back for B25 surely he deserves to have his 1 minute (hopefully that's all the screen time they all have) too.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I don't think it's MGM vs Annapurna. I think they're working together.

    Sorry, that's what I meant hehe
  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    edited October 2017 Posts: 118
    I can't get over the fact that they made bond and blofeld brothers. It really kind of ruined james bond for me. Plus daniel craig hasn't been awake since quantum of solace. Please for the love of god get rid of him
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Gumbold wrote: »
    I can't get over the fact that they made bond and blofeld brothers. It really kind of ruined james bond for me. Plus daniel craig hasn't been awaken since quantum of solace. Please for the love of god get rid of him
    Wait till they make Irma Bunt Blofeld's daughter.
  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    Posts: 118
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Gumbold wrote: »
    I can't get over the fact that they made bond and blofeld brothers. It really kind of ruined james bond for me. Plus daniel craig hasn't been awaken since quantum of solace. Please for the love of god get rid of him
    Wait till they make Irma Bunt Blofeld's daughter.

    Frankly, anything is possible now. The producers are liable to do anything. It's like they don't give a shit
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Gumbold wrote: »
    I can't get over the fact that they made bond and blofeld brothers. It really kind of ruined james bond for me. Plus daniel craig hasn't been awake since quantum of solace. Please for the love of god get rid of him

    It still baffles me everytime I watch spectre. HOW WAS THIS APPROVED????? HOW DID THIS IDEA PASS THROUGH SO MANY PEOPLE AND STILL END UP IN THE FILM. For gods sake it’s even worse than the vesper child idea, but at least that stayed as an idea.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Gumbold wrote: »
    Plus daniel craig hasn't been awake since quantum of solace. Please for the love of god get rid of him

    Couldn't agree more. They're just treading water at the moment.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,521
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I have a feeling Bond 25 will be EON’s final Bond film...
    If that is true, then I'll be owing @PanchitoPistoles two pints.
    I think it's time to reveal the truth: I came from the future. (From 2024, to be precise.) If anyone is interested, here are some details about the medium-term future of the franchise:

    - Bond 25 will have a two word title, Denis Villeneuve will direct it, Michael Green (Logan, BR 2049) will polish P & W's script. Returning characters: Bond (duh!), Swann, Leiter, M, Moneypenny, Q.
    - the movie will be the smallest scale Bond film of the Craig era, and will be repeatedly compared to DN by critics & fans; it will be a HUGE critical success, but will arger many Bond fans, and won't perform anywhere as well as SF and SP did at the box office
    - in 2020, BB and MGW will officially announce their retirement from the franchise
    - Bond 26 will be released in 2023 (yes, they will miss the 60th anniversary) and will be witten AND directed by Sir Christopher Nolan (Nolan will receive knighthood in 2022)
    - the basis of Nolan's Bond will be a GENIUS but very simple idea that will make you think "how on Earth has nobody thought about this before??" (Nolan will later reveal in interviews that he has had this idea for a Bond film for over a decade)
    - Bond actor nr. 7 will be a lesser known actor, someone who has worked with Nolan before

    Legitimatey some good predictions here.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited October 2017 Posts: 18,343
    Maybe @PanchitoPistoles should be renamed @TheOracle? Only time will tell...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Maybe @PanchitoPistoles should be renamed @TheOracle? Only time will tell...

    Not yet. I'm still giving him a hard time for no Radiohead in SP.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited October 2017 Posts: 10,592
    Here is the news rundown for this month:

    October 2017
    ->Martin Campbell states that he'd only be interested in directing another Bond film if he were introducing a new actor into the role, as he did with both Brosnan and Craig for their debuts as the character
    ->Location scouting has taken place in western Norway according to local reports, although, as with the 24th Bond film, it is unlikely that production will actually film there (with an incentive application deadline cited as one of the reasons)
    ->Villeneuve once again expresses his temptation to direct a Bond film and mentions that, in addition to himself, EON are meeting with 'a lot' of directors
    ->Attending the European premiere Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool, Paul McGuigan rules himself out of B25 directing duties while Broccoli comments that they have yet to select anyone to helm the forthcoming film
    ->Production designer Dennis Gassner is confirmed to return for B25
    ->Rory Kinnear tells the press that he is unsure if he'll reprise his role as Bill Tanner for a fourth time
    ->Archivo007 reports that Gary Powell, who served as stunt coordinator since Casino Royale, will not return for B25 and will instead be replaced by Craig's stunt double Ben Cooke
    ->Christoph Waltz confirms he will not return as Blofeld in B25, meaning the film will most likely not follow on from the events of SPECTRE. Speculation points to Blofeld being recast or the character being absent altogether (page 1135)
    ->MGM strikes a joint venture with Annapurna for theatrical distribution in the US, a distribution announcement for B25 may be a waiting game
Sign In or Register to comment.