No Time To Die: Production Diary

11021031051071082507

Comments

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Is there any script for this movie yet? It must take as least one year to sort it out, if they haven't already started with it before in the planing on Spectre.

    it depends on who they have working on it, and their schedules.....

    the last i heard - EON had contacted one of the writers of the show Mad Men about penning the initial story / treatment for the next film... that was shortly after SP debuted in theaters ((not sure if this has been confirmed as official or not - but it was reported on this site))...

    whether or not that writer stays on is anyone's guess.... i can't remember the last time they would be going with a new writing team, and new director for the next film (not since GE?).. so it'll be interesting to see if EON brings on writers of their own first, or if they'll opt to go with a director first, and then let him bring in his own writers...... what they've usually done in years past, is already have the script ready - then they get the director - who then sits down and makes his changes...

    if the next film isn't due right now until 2018, i would say that EON will probably have something ready to go script wise by the end of 2016, or early 2017 - and a director probably wont be announced until spring/summer 2017.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Murdock wrote: »
    They should keep the whole cast, get new writers, get Martin Campbell back, get David Arnold back and finish the Spectre Arch and Craig's era with a Bang and on a High note.
    Bingo. It won't happen, but that would be the most appropriate.

    Spectre was really enjoyable for me. I do feel it best Craig finish with one more film, though. Definitely. And finish with that Blofeld.

    My only big concern is the script, as others have mentioned. I guess that is always my main concern anyway.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Is there any script for this movie yet? It must take as least one year to sort it out, if they haven't already started with it before in the planing on Spectre.

    I personally wouldn't count on EoN to be THAT proactive.

  • Posts: 7,430
    My thoughts on this are "Be careful what you wish for!" Daniel Craig has been (And still IS!) a fantastic Bond, and think they should hold onto him as long as they can. All this wishing for a new 007, we may get someone who is a disaster, but who is a hit with Joe Public (who knows nothing!) and we have to endure them for 3/4 films! But hey, lets wait for official word! Hiddlestons latest statement says he's getting fed up with all this hype about his casting! If he's tired of it now....!!!!
  • Posts: 4,325
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    My thoughts on this are "Be careful what you wish for!" Daniel Craig has been (And still IS!) a fantastic Bond, and think they should hold onto him as long as they can. All this wishing for a new 007, we may get someone who is a disaster, but who is a hit with Joe Public (who knows nothing!) and we have to endure them for 3/4 films! But hey, lets wait for official word! Hiddlestons latest statement says he's getting fed up with all this hype about his casting! If he's tired of it now....!!!!

    I do hope Craig returns.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »

    By the way that comment is what made me neutral on Craig. Sure he had just finished filming ...sure he had been injured but that seemed a very irresponsible comment.

    I've dealt with suicidal patients ...not funny.



    Oh please.

    I saw someone die in a car crash at work last week but I'm not going to start crying if Dan casually says 'I'd rather drive off a cliff than do another Bond film' when some twat interviewer shoves a microphone in his face after a gruelling shoot.

    Oh please yes offensive line TO ME. Lost MY respect. MY opinion.

    Lost MY unending support to stay Bond. My fandom continues after Craig. I'm a Bond fan.
  • Yeah, Craig needs more support. I'd want him to return for Bond 25 before he resigns from the role.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited April 2016 Posts: 4,116
    My big concern is not whether Craig returns or not but who writes 25 and who directs 25.

    If Craig returns I'm just afraid the producers are more likely to try and continue that SP arc. Just too boring and cliche. Revenge. Personal. Brother. Whimpy whiney Blofeld ...*yawn*
  • Posts: 202
    At last months Empire Awards, Sam Mendes said he felt like the end of Spectre (where Bond threw away his gunc) was Daniel Craig saying goodbye to the role - but that was just his feeling on the scene. I have enjoyed Craig in the role but I would be happy if Spectre is the last time we see him. It's a good ending and he leaves on a high note. It clearly comes down to money now. If studio offers Craig stupid money he'd be silly to turn it down - but then, the studio could save a fortune by opting for a new Bond. An added complicaton is any deal with the distributor. They might insist on Craig's return to guarantee box office returns. He's a bankable Bond and they might offer Craig vast sums to return. So, there's a lot of deals to be done behind the scenes, but they really can't afford to leave fans or, most importantly, shareholders in the dark too long.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    My big concern is not whether Craig returns or not but who writes 25 and who directs 25.

    If Craig returns I'm just afraid the producers are more likely to try and continue that SP arc. Just too boring and cliche. Revenge. Personal. Brother. Whimpy whiney Blofeld ...*yawn*
    I agree. Craig returning is more than likely going to result in more of the same, given how they set the story up, modified the tone, and also because they (reportedly) signed Waltz for two. Although there is of course a way to come up with something excellent continuing from and using the SP story as a base, such an approach will also be drawing attention to the previous film and all its flaws. I'm amongst the few who'd prefer if they let that sleeping dog lie, because such an approach would then mean 5 Bond films in a row that are all connected!

    The chances of a so called 'Craig standalone' sign off which some are advocating are slim to none imho.

    Those hoping for a new story, new directors, and new writers should also probably hope for a new actor, because that is the most likely way SP will well and truly be left behind, for those of us who would prefer it so.
  • Posts: 1,092
    SonofSean wrote: »
    At last months Empire Awards, Sam Mendes said he felt like the end of Spectre (where Bond threw away his gunc) was Daniel Craig saying goodbye to the role - but that was just his feeling on the scene. I have enjoyed Craig in the role but I would be happy if Spectre is the last time we see him. It's a good ending and he leaves on a high note. It clearly comes down to money now. If studio offers Craig stupid money he'd be silly to turn it down - but then, the studio could save a fortune by opting for a new Bond. An added complicaton is any deal with the distributor. They might insist on Craig's return to guarantee box office returns. He's a bankable Bond and they might offer Craig vast sums to return. So, there's a lot of deals to be done behind the scenes, but they really can't afford to leave fans or, most importantly, shareholders in the dark too long.

    Yeah, I don't see how Craig doesn't return considering the fact a new distributor is coming. No way on Earth they would want an unknown element (new Bond actor) coming into play for the next film. It's far too risky. Craig's last two have made 2 billion. BILLION. All told it's well over 3 billion for his four films combined. In this world of uncertainty and fear about sluggish BO returns, Craig has a massive hand to play in the next contract situation. Considering every single person that works with him on the films, especially Waltz, a two time Oscar winner, love working with him, I don't understand how anyone thinks this is it for him.

    Oh, cuz the end of SP kinda, sorta, maybe hinted his character was done? But kinda, sorta, maybe didn't considering Blofeld was still alive? Ambiguity means nothing in these films. Blofeld's out there, Craig is not done, and there is a hunger for the fans to see him complete his run with (at least) one more outing to finish it off.
  • Posts: 4,325
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    SonofSean wrote: »
    At last months Empire Awards, Sam Mendes said he felt like the end of Spectre (where Bond threw away his gunc) was Daniel Craig saying goodbye to the role - but that was just his feeling on the scene. I have enjoyed Craig in the role but I would be happy if Spectre is the last time we see him. It's a good ending and he leaves on a high note. It clearly comes down to money now. If studio offers Craig stupid money he'd be silly to turn it down - but then, the studio could save a fortune by opting for a new Bond. An added complicaton is any deal with the distributor. They might insist on Craig's return to guarantee box office returns. He's a bankable Bond and they might offer Craig vast sums to return. So, there's a lot of deals to be done behind the scenes, but they really can't afford to leave fans or, most importantly, shareholders in the dark too long.

    Yeah, I don't see how Craig doesn't return considering the fact a new distributor is coming. No way on Earth they would want an unknown element (new Bond actor) coming into play for the next film. It's far too risky. Craig's last two have made 2 billion. BILLION. All told it's well over 3 billion for his four films combined. In this world of uncertainty and fear about sluggish BO returns, Craig has a massive hand to play in the next contract situation. Considering every single person that works with him on the films, especially Waltz, a two time Oscar winner, love working with him, I don't understand how anyone thinks this is it for him.

    Oh, cuz the end of SP kinda, sorta, maybe hinted his character was done? But kinda, sorta, maybe didn't considering Blofeld was still alive? Ambiguity means nothing in these films. Blofeld's out there, Craig is not done, and there is a hunger for the fans to see him complete his run with (at least) one more outing to finish it off.

    Yes, the end of Spectre always felt like a false sense of completion. Bond has to come back to his job, he's never going to end up married with kids. Just as in OHMSS Tracy gets shot. It's the same with Jack Bauer in 24, the whole shtick of that character after Season 1 is that he's never going to get his happy tomorrow settled down with a new wife.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Bond will come back to his job of course. It just doesn't have to be Craig. The two don't go hand in hand. Think Bale as Bat/Wayne at the end of TKDR. Now we have Affleck in the role.

    Mendes/Craig likely set it up this way so they will have options, just like Bale had options at the end of TDKR and could have come back, but only wanted to if Nolan was back (sound familiar?).

    Nothing is set and nothing is certain. It can go either way depending on Craig, the studio/MGM/EON and whatever direction they want to take. Having said that, the longer this drags, I think it's less likely Craig will return. Think Dalton during the long hiatus when things were up in the air.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I really don't want another six year hiatus. Of course that was due to bankruptcy.

    Seriously doubt we will have that long of a wait.

    I'm really not keen on a four year wait though. Three is fine.

    At least we don't wait decades like Indy.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I agree, sooner the better for me too as I'm not getting any younger. However, the MGM head's casual comments regarding distributors at the investor meeting, combined with Wilson's comments that the distribution ball is in MGM's court cause some unwelcome trepidation.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    One of the things most exciting about following a Bond production is the unpredictibility of EoN's production schedules.
  • Posts: 4,325
    jake24 wrote: »
    One of the things most exciting about following a Bond production is the unpredictibility of EoN's production schedules.

    They used to be quite predictable - every 2 years throughout the 80s and between 95-99.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree, sooner the better for me too as I'm not getting any younger. However, the MGM head's casual comments regarding distributors at the investor meeting, combined with Wilson's comments that the distribution ball is in MGM's court cause some unwelcome trepidation.

    Yes did for me too
  • Posts: 2,483
    mcdonbb wrote: »

    By the way that comment is what made me neutral on Craig. Sure he had just finished filming ...sure he had been injured but that seemed a very irresponsible comment.

    I've dealt with suicidal patients ...not funny.



    Oh please.

    I saw someone die in a car crash at work last week but I'm not going to start crying if Dan casually says 'I'd rather drive off a cliff than do another Bond film' when some twat interviewer shoves a microphone in his face after a gruelling shoot.

    Hear hear.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Its interesting to compare the way that Bond movies are produced compared to the way that Disney has grabbed Star Wars and just shaken it into what seems to be a slick and respectful production line of profitable movies. Considering the main focus should be on revenue creation, there seems to no great vision, strategy or focus behind the whole thing. Its as if each movie is regarded as a completely separate project rather than one section in a continuing series.
  • RC7RC7
    edited April 2016 Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Its interesting to compare the way that Bond movies are produced compared to the way that Disney has grabbed Star Wars and just shaken it into what seems to be a slick and respectful production line of profitable movies. Considering the main focus should be on revenue creation, there seems to no great vision, strategy or focus behind the whole thing. Its as if each movie is regarded as a completely separate project rather than one section in a continuing series.

    But I believe that is why the series is sustainable and longevity guaranteed. Bond is in the perfect position to react. If they want to continue with DC, they can. If they want to start over; new Bond, new direction, they can. SW, Marvel, DC... they're all tied into a interconnected narrative and work under a house aesthetic. Each one of them will hit a brick wall at some point. I'd personally prefer EON to continue to treat each movie as a fresh project. The key is trying to find a decent new story with each installment.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 4,617
    Yes, good to have options but I am referencing that from a commercial point rather than an artistic one. Disney set out their goals and just say, right, we are going to produce X numbers of movies within this specific time window. This is big business after all. To put it another way, in terms of hard cash, would I invest shares in the team that produce SW or invest in the team that produce Bond? The spin offs are just a perfect way of extracting more revenue and inject new energy etc. They are exploiting both audience goodwill and cultural tough stones (just the sound effects send shivers). It shows what can be done. I am sure there are threads on the forum re Bond spin offs but, when you see it done well, there could be millions to be made....makes you think.
    http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/23/james-bond-cinematic-universe-idris-elba-tom-hiddleston-tom-hardy
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »

    By the way that comment is what made me neutral on Craig. Sure he had just finished filming ...sure he had been injured but that seemed a very irresponsible comment.

    I've dealt with suicidal patients ...not funny.



    Oh please.

    I saw someone die in a car crash at work last week but I'm not going to start crying if Dan casually says 'I'd rather drive off a cliff than do another Bond film' when some twat interviewer shoves a microphone in his face after a gruelling shoot.

    Hear hear.

    You two are so kind. Don't suppose that would bother you.

    I'm ambivalent about Craig's return. More concerned about the quality and direction.

    Mute point since nothing on the horizon. Maybe that is good. A direct sequel to SP would become less relevant as time passes.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Yes, good to have options but I am referencing that from a commercial point rather than an artistic one. Disney set out their goals and just say, right, we are going to produce X numbers of movies within this specific time window. This is big business after all. To put it another way, in terms of hard cash, would I invest shares in the team that produce SW or invest in the team that produce Bond? The spin offs are just a perfect way of extracting more revenue and inject new energy etc. They are exploiting both audience goodwill and cultural tough stones (just the sound effects send shivers). It shows what can be done. I am sure there are threads on the forum re Bond spin offs but, when you see it done well, there could be millions to be made....makes you think.
    http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/23/james-bond-cinematic-universe-idris-elba-tom-hiddleston-tom-hardy

    As a fan, the commercial appeal of 007 is way down my list of priorities. Would I rather a critically successful Bond picture with a $500m gross, or one that is generic/lacking, but makes $1.5bn? They're not mutually exclusive, but I take the former every time. SW is operating in a different universe (no pun), with its cultural appeal several echelons above Bond. The appeal is not there for Bond related material every year. Bond should operate on a three year cycle with a clear focus on story. People consume Bond in the same way they always have, they're event movies not elements of a wider saga.
  • Posts: 4,325
    RC7 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Its interesting to compare the way that Bond movies are produced compared to the way that Disney has grabbed Star Wars and just shaken it into what seems to be a slick and respectful production line of profitable movies. Considering the main focus should be on revenue creation, there seems to no great vision, strategy or focus behind the whole thing. Its as if each movie is regarded as a completely separate project rather than one section in a continuing series.

    But I believe that is why the series is sustainable and longevity guaranteed. Bond is in the perfect position to react. If they want to continue with DC, they can. If they want to start over; new Bond, new direction, they can. SW, Marvel, DC... they're all tied into a interconnected narrative and work under a house aesthetic. Each one of them will hit a brick wall at some point. I'd personally prefer EON to continue to treat each movie as a fresh project. The key is trying to find a decent new story with each installment.

    I agree, but the reason why it works with those franchises is because they're based on works that are necessarily interlinked and part of a larger narrative. The DC Bonds have had a continuation thread and would have benefitted therefore from a greater sense of where they were going - which would have prevented the retconning in SP.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The works don't have to be linked. They can be standalone as they were prior to the Craig era.

    However, they should be able to have a production plan in place to move forward with decent scripts and execution every two years. The three year gap is something relatively new, and I personally don't think it has resulted in any sustainable improvement in the resulting product. The last time around it was on account of waiting for Mendes if I'm not mistaken. When they get their ducks lined up post-studio selection, I would hope that they find a director who they can get to commit to more than one film, or failing that, at least have the ability/plan to get directors on board relatively quickly to move forward with.

    I don't buy that it needs to take three years to get us a decent product. If they want to do that, it is a choice, not a necessity.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139

    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'm ambivalent about Craig's return. More concerned about the quality and direction.

    Much agreed with this.
    RC7 wrote: »

    As a fan, the commercial appeal of 007 is way down my list of priorities. Would I rather a critically successful Bond picture with a $500m gross, or one that is generic/lacking, but makes $1.5bn? They're not mutually exclusive, but I take the former every time. SW is operating in a different universe (no pun), with its cultural appeal several echelons above Bond. The appeal is not there for Bond related material every year. Bond should operate on a three year cycle with a clear focus on story. People consume Bond in the same way they always have, they're event movies not elements of a wider saga.

    Well said and again, much agreed.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    The works don't have to be linked. They can be standalone as they were prior to the Craig era.

    However, they should be able to have a production plan in place to move forward with decent scripts and execution every two years. The three year gap is something relatively new, and I personally don't think it has resulted in any sustainable improvement in the resulting product. The last time around it was on account of waiting for Mendes if I'm not mistaken. When they get their ducks lined up post-studio selection, I would hope that they find a director who they can get to commit to more than one film, or failing that, at least have the ability/plan to get directors on board relatively quickly to move forward with.

    I don't buy that it needs to take three years to get us a decent product. If they want to do that, it is a choice, not a necessity.

    They definitely don't have to be linked and shouldn't be imo. I'd like some minimal character development from film to film, but in terms of the overall narrative I'd be happy with self-contained adventures.

    Re. production cycle - It certainly doesn't need to take three years, but for me personally I can see a logic to it in the modern cinematic landscape. After three years apetite for a new Bond reaches a more defined peak, especially in a market that is literally dripping in franchise films. Bond has to find his niche somewhere within that saturated market. If they really wanted to mix things up they could roll them out on a 2.5 year cycle, Winter/Summer/Winter/Summer. Might be an interesting model to play with.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    Re. production cycle - It certainly doesn't need to take three years, but for me personally I can see a logic to it in the modern cinematic landscape. After three years apetite for a new Bond reaches a more defined peak, especially in a market that is literally dripping in franchise films. Bond has to find his niche somewhere within that saturated market. If they really wanted to mix things up they could roll them out on a 2.5 year cycle, Winter/Summer/Winter/Summer. Might be an interesting model to play with.
    Those are valid points. I can see the appeal of 3 years now, although I'd still prefer it not be. Winter seems to have worked for them for many years, due to the less saturated blockbuster market then, but with SW locking that space down these days, maybe moving the scheduling around from time to time like you suggest may work better going forward.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Re. production cycle - It certainly doesn't need to take three years, but for me personally I can see a logic to it in the modern cinematic landscape. After three years apetite for a new Bond reaches a more defined peak, especially in a market that is literally dripping in franchise films. Bond has to find his niche somewhere within that saturated market. If they really wanted to mix things up they could roll them out on a 2.5 year cycle, Winter/Summer/Winter/Summer. Might be an interesting model to play with.
    Those are valid points. I can see the appeal of 3 years now, although I'd still prefer it not be. Winter seems to have worked for them for many years, due to the less saturated blockbuster market then, but with SW locking that space down these days, maybe moving the scheduling around from time to time like you suggest may work better going forward.

    Yes ...I wasn't advocating a three year gap but preferable to four plus years.

    I would love two year. I'm not getting any younger either.
Sign In or Register to comment.