› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…10611062106410661067…2507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @NoSolaceleft is entitled to voice his opinions on this board. I have not read any statement made by him over the past few pages that could suggest that he is being unreasonable in his observations and comments. One is entitled to disagree with him, but questioning his motives and intent is taking it too far in my view.

    He has not said that Craig will not be back.

    His overall point is that he doesn't believe the final paperwork has been signed because a distributor is still not in place (based on what we know). That is a perfectly reasonable assumption at this stage based on information available in the public realm.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    His original point is that he believes things are up in the air in terms of formalizing the paperwork. He could have a point. It's a question of specifics. Doesn't mean it won't pan out the way it has been publicly stated. Just that things have to be finalized. That is the nature of how complex deals are done based on my experience (I have been involved with things like this including during an acquisition, but not in the film realm). As far as we know, the final deal hasn't been inked yet although there could be memorandums of understanding in place.

    Thank you for trying to explain what should be obvious.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    iSgrdBfi1ZTI0jNGttKKsrUh9fCXPXcP_WJesk6aDX6PoOtp6P-mn_C_622V5ucqydrxY2bp4Gf3mvyQtVUTX9-QXHfdwvQMqLXy9jUw_MI8Fad-7hVedz5L5ffJnvT26RR914Dl

    Inferno got so distracted by Bond jumping onto the Rolls Royce that he didn't pay attention to the road ahead.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    At least I got something to whip with, even if it's only cool rationale.

    Did you get confirmation by the moderators last night that your membership to these forums was still valid for today before login in this morning? If not, you should be banned for deciding to use your account without the mods telling you were allowed to come back. Didn't you get the memo? All accounts here are renewed every day before being allowed to be logged in.

    ?????
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,717
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    At least I got something to whip with, even if it's only cool rationale.

    Did you get confirmation by the moderators last night that your membership to these forums was still valid for today before login in this morning? If not, you should be banned for deciding to use your account without the mods telling you were allowed to come back. Didn't you get the memo? All accounts here are renewed every day before being allowed to be logged in.

    ?????

    So you have been saying utter nonsense for the past 2 pages of this thread? Because my post re-uses word for word the argument you've been posting for the past few hours. If you can't even agree with your own opinion, then you're a lost cause (and a waste of time).
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Now, more seriously: Daniel Craig has been under contract since 2005. Why in the hell do you need confirmation from EON about the employment of an actor who already has an on-going contract with them? Unless you clearly have no idea how the real world works.
    Umm, that's just as nonsensical as the comments noSolaceleft made today. You are completely wrong in claiming that we didn't need confirmation from EON about Craig's return, and @noSolaceleft is completely and utterly wrong in claiming that Craig's return is not 100% official yet.

    Craig's return was NOT a given (the type of contract they signed years ago about future Bond films does not guarantee anything), so it's perfectly fine for @noSolaceleft to want a confirmation from EON. What's not sane is claiming EON hasn't confirmed Craig yet, when in fact they have.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,717
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Now, more seriously: Daniel Craig has been under contract since 2005. Why in the hell do you need confirmation from EON about the employment of an actor who already has an on-going contract with them? Unless you clearly have no idea how the real world works.
    Umm, that's just as nonsensical as the comments noSolaceleft made today. You are completely wrong in claiming that we didn't need confirmation from EON about Craig's return, and @noSolaceleft is completely and utterly wrong in claiming that Craig's return is not 100% official yet.

    Craig's return was NOT a given (the type of contract they signed years ago about future Bond films does not guarantee anything), so it's perfectly fine for @noSolaceleft to want a confirmation from EON. What's not sane is claiming EON hasn't confirmed Craig yet, when in fact they have.

    If you think I said Craig's return was a given, you have very bad reading & comprehension issues, as I never said that in any of my posts.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,619
    @DaltonCraig007 Ok, so you think Craig return was NOT a given, but still don't undertand why anyone would want (or would have wanted) confirmation from EON about his return? Wow.
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,491
    bondjames wrote: »
    @NoSolaceleft is entitled to voice his opinions on this board. I have not read any statement made by him over the past few pages that could suggest that he is being unreasonable in his observations and comments. One is entitled to disagree with him, but questioning his motives and intent is taking it too far in my view.

    He has not said that Craig will not be back.

    His overall point is that he doesn't believe the final paperwork has been signed because a distributor is still not in place (based on what we know). That is a perfectly reasonable assumption at this stage based on information available in the public realm.

    Check back on my earlier post about distributors - they will be on their knees with delight that Craig is back. And Eon has every right to sign their lead actor with or without a distributor's approval - even a low budget film has that power, although a lower budget independent film might jeopardise the distribution deal if the distribution company doesn't like their choice of lead actor/actress - but Bond is in the top league - everyone wants a piece of the pie. Craig is a lock. The wagon is already, very publicly, rolling -- with him onboard.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,717
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »

    If you think I said Craig's return was a given, you have very bad reading & comprehension issues, as I never said that in any of my posts.

    I think you said Craig's return was NOT a given.

    Don't think, just read my posts again. I never said that, so stop with that nonsense. I never claimed Craig's return was given or not given.

    EDIT: Oh, I see, I forgot the 'not' in my last post. Don't lose your shit over a missing word.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    @DaltonCraig007 next time please wait just 10 seconds after I post my comment before commenting on it. See my edited comment above.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @NoSolaceleft is entitled to voice his opinions on this board. I have not read any statement made by him over the past few pages that could suggest that he is being unreasonable in his observations and comments. One is entitled to disagree with him, but questioning his motives and intent is taking it too far in my view.

    He has not said that Craig will not be back.

    His overall point is that he doesn't believe the final paperwork has been signed because a distributor is still not in place (based on what we know). That is a perfectly reasonable assumption at this stage based on information available in the public realm.

    Check back on my earlier post about distributors - they will be on their knees with delight that Craig is back. And Eon has every right to sign their lead actor with or without a distributor's approval - even a low budget film has that power, although a lower budget independent film might jeopardise the distribution deal if the distribution company doesn't like their choice of lead actor/actress - but Bond is in the top league - everyone wants a piece of the pie. Craig is a lock. The wagon is already, very publicly, rolling -- with him onboard.
    You may very well be correct, but at this point some of your earlier points are assumptions (even if they may be valid). He may certainly have signed with EON, but there is likely a provision for distributor approval (even if it's a formality) as well as certain commitments they will want from him regarding marketing and behaviour.

    His point about the paperwork possibly not being finalized is valid. He could be wrong, but I don't think it was necessary to have everyone jump on him for two plus pages attributing remarks to him which he did not in fairness make.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,717
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @DaltonCraig007 Ok, so you think Craig return was NOT a given, but still don't undertand why anyone would want (or would have wanted) confirmation from EON about his return? Wow.

    Daniel Craig is a criminal and should be put to jail for life, glad to know.

    The whole god damn point I am making is Daniel Craig's statement on TV when he said he was doing Bond 25 makes his involvement official. Whether EON confirms or not, it's official. Craig cannot lie about doing Bond 25 if he wasn't under contract, that's call fraud. Either EON had said it before Craig, at the same time as Craig, after Craig or if they hadn't make any announcements at all is redundant the moment Craig openly gave his decision on TV.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,619
    bondjames wrote: »
    His point about the paperwork possibly not being finalized is valid.
    What? No, it's absolutely not. What @noSolaceleft believes is not that they simply haven't figured out some details about Craig's contract yet, he believesthe following: "I don't think they have gotten anything together right now, including signing Craig." He believes Craig is not officially on board yet, which is the biggest nonsense I have EVER read in this forum.
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @DaltonCraig007 Ok, so you think Craig return was NOT a given, but still don't undertand why anyone would want (or would have wanted) confirmation from EON about his return? Wow.

    Daniel Craig is a criminal and should be put to jail for life, glad to know.
    What. On. Earth. Are. You. Talking. About? Seriously, has everyone gone completely mad today?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    His point about the paperwork possibly not being finalized is valid.
    What? No, it's absolutely not. What @noSolaceleft believes is not that they simply haven't figured out some details about Craig's contract yet, he believesthe following: "I don't think they have gotten anything together right now, including signing Craig." He believes Craig is not officially on board yet, which is the biggest nonsense I have EVER read in this forum.
    @PancitoPistoles, I think it's a matter of semantics. That's how I read it anyway. He clarified his remarks later, but by that time we'd already had two pages of back and forth. Craig publicly stated he's back. As far as I'm concerned he's back as long as nothing changes with the distributor or the go forward plan for B25 in the next six months to a year.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,717
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    His point about the paperwork possibly not being finalized is valid.
    What? No, it's absolutely not. What @noSolaceleft believes is not that they simply haven't figured out some details about Craig's contract yet, he believesthe following: "I don't think they have gotten anything together right now, including signing Craig." He believes Craig is not officially on board yet, which is the biggest nonsense I have EVER read in this forum.

    Yes, now we agree. @noSolaceleft is acting like Craig is a random actor going on TV and openly announcing he will be Bond in the next film. He is the current Bond actor, so unless EON confirm his contract/ties to the franchise is/are terminated, Craig's word are a factual confirmation.
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    What. On. Earth. Are. You. Talking. About? Seriously, have everyone gone completely mad today?

    Do you have any grasp in irony, or are you too simple-minded for you to process humour? I was over-exaggerating @noSolaceleft's claims, and you fell right in the trap in thinking I was serious. How many kids like you and noSolaceleft are there on MI6?
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,491
    bondjames wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @NoSolaceleft is entitled to voice his opinions on this board. I have not read any statement made by him over the past few pages that could suggest that he is being unreasonable in his observations and comments. One is entitled to disagree with him, but questioning his motives and intent is taking it too far in my view.

    He has not said that Craig will not be back.

    His overall point is that he doesn't believe the final paperwork has been signed because a distributor is still not in place (based on what we know). That is a perfectly reasonable assumption at this stage based on information available in the public realm.

    Check back on my earlier post about distributors - they will be on their knees with delight that Craig is back. And Eon has every right to sign their lead actor with or without a distributor's approval - even a low budget film has that power, although a lower budget independent film might jeopardise the distribution deal if the distribution company doesn't like their choice of lead actor/actress - but Bond is in the top league - everyone wants a piece of the pie. Craig is a lock. The wagon is already, very publicly, rolling -- with him onboard.
    You may very well be correct, but at this point some of your earlier points are assumptions (even if they may be valid). He may certainly have signed with EON, but there is likely a provision for distributor approval (even if it's a formality) and well as certain commitments they will want from him regarding marketing and behaviour.

    His point about the paperwork possibly not being finalized is valid. He could be wrong, but I don't think it was necessary to have everyone jump on him for two plus pages attributing remarks to him which he did not in fairness make.

    No distributor (unless insane) is going to turn down Craig as Bond - for what? It's a done deal unless Craig suddenly has second thoughts, but after such a public announcement, that seems highly unlikely. The t's in his contract may not yet be crossed and the i's not yet dotted, but it's happening, and both Craig and Eon have said so. Please, with due respect, can we end this waste of space discussion.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    barryt007 wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Why would EON need to announce Craig is 'hired' for a 5th film after Craig himself said he'd be in Bond 25? The guy has been under contract with EON since 2005, you can't hire someone that is already hired.
    So why was there any question if he would come back?

    Because the 5th film is only an option,which means that Daniel or EON could terminate the contract after the 4th film (SP).

    So he is still officially hired,he has decided to use the option,EON agree their end,so that's that.

    Can i requote myself from earlier ?
    Just to clarify in this pointless and needless arguement.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @NoSolaceleft is entitled to voice his opinions on this board. I have not read any statement made by him over the past few pages that could suggest that he is being unreasonable in his observations and comments. One is entitled to disagree with him, but questioning his motives and intent is taking it too far in my view.

    He has not said that Craig will not be back.

    His overall point is that he doesn't believe the final paperwork has been signed because a distributor is still not in place (based on what we know). That is a perfectly reasonable assumption at this stage based on information available in the public realm.

    Check back on my earlier post about distributors - they will be on their knees with delight that Craig is back. And Eon has every right to sign their lead actor with or without a distributor's approval - even a low budget film has that power, although a lower budget independent film might jeopardise the distribution deal if the distribution company doesn't like their choice of lead actor/actress - but Bond is in the top league - everyone wants a piece of the pie. Craig is a lock. The wagon is already, very publicly, rolling -- with him onboard.
    You may very well be correct, but at this point some of your earlier points are assumptions (even if they may be valid). He may certainly have signed with EON, but there is likely a provision for distributor approval (even if it's a formality) and well as certain commitments they will want from him regarding marketing and behaviour.

    His point about the paperwork possibly not being finalized is valid. He could be wrong, but I don't think it was necessary to have everyone jump on him for two plus pages attributing remarks to him which he did not in fairness make.

    No distributor (unless insane) is going to turn down Craig as Bond - for what? It's a done deal unless Craig suddenly has second thoughts, but after such a public announcement, that seems highly unlikely. The t's in his contract may not yet be crossed and the i's not yet dotted, but it's happening, and both Craig and Eon have said so. Please, with due respect, can we end this waste of space discussion.
    The first part of your statement above is a matter of opinion.

    We agree on the last part.

    This debate shouldn't have even started in the first place. A complete waste of space.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Do you have any grasp in irony, or are you too simple-minded for you to process humour?
    I knew you didn't mean that literally, genius. Still, I have no idea what you were trying to insinuate.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,717
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Do you have any grasp in irony, or are you too simple-minded for you to process humour?
    I knew you didn't mean that literally, genius. Still, I have no idea what you were trying to insinuate.

    If you still have no idea what I was trying to insinuate, shut up and move on. I explained my entire point in the very first reply I posted to @noSolaceleft on page 1074. We are now on page 1076, can you shut the hell up about this now? I made 1 reply to him saying he was talking nonsense, I didn't want waste 2 pages of discussion on his insanity only to have you still not understand a single shit I explained 2 pages ago.

    No friggin wonder this thread has 1000+ posts when most members lose their shit over a single post, which I am guilty of concerning @noSolaceleft, so don't you go apeshit on what I'm saying on top of it. I tried to end his insane argumentation and not create god knows how many pages of random crap.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    bondjames wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @NoSolaceleft is entitled to voice his opinions on this board. I have not read any statement made by him over the past few pages that could suggest that he is being unreasonable in his observations and comments. One is entitled to disagree with him, but questioning his motives and intent is taking it too far in my view.

    He has not said that Craig will not be back.

    His overall point is that he doesn't believe the final paperwork has been signed because a distributor is still not in place (based on what we know). That is a perfectly reasonable assumption at this stage based on information available in the public realm.

    Check back on my earlier post about distributors - they will be on their knees with delight that Craig is back. And Eon has every right to sign their lead actor with or without a distributor's approval - even a low budget film has that power, although a lower budget independent film might jeopardise the distribution deal if the distribution company doesn't like their choice of lead actor/actress - but Bond is in the top league - everyone wants a piece of the pie. Craig is a lock. The wagon is already, very publicly, rolling -- with him onboard.
    You may very well be correct, but at this point some of your earlier points are assumptions (even if they may be valid). He may certainly have signed with EON, but there is likely a provision for distributor approval (even if it's a formality) and well as certain commitments they will want from him regarding marketing and behaviour.

    His point about the paperwork possibly not being finalized is valid. He could be wrong, but I don't think it was necessary to have everyone jump on him for two plus pages attributing remarks to him which he did not in fairness make.

    No distributor (unless insane) is going to turn down Craig as Bond - for what? It's a done deal unless Craig suddenly has second thoughts, but after such a public announcement, that seems highly unlikely. The t's in his contract may not yet be crossed and the i's not yet dotted, but it's happening, and both Craig and Eon have said so. Please, with due respect, can we end this waste of space discussion.
    The first part of your statement above is a matter of opinion.

    We agree on the last part.

    This debate shouldn't have even started in the first place. A complete waste of space.

    ..and WHO started it? Maybe adress this to the right person.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited October 2017 Posts: 2,722
    Reading through this latest topic is a timely reminder that I need to remain off this thread.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Germanlady wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @NoSolaceleft is entitled to voice his opinions on this board. I have not read any statement made by him over the past few pages that could suggest that he is being unreasonable in his observations and comments. One is entitled to disagree with him, but questioning his motives and intent is taking it too far in my view.

    He has not said that Craig will not be back.

    His overall point is that he doesn't believe the final paperwork has been signed because a distributor is still not in place (based on what we know). That is a perfectly reasonable assumption at this stage based on information available in the public realm.

    Check back on my earlier post about distributors - they will be on their knees with delight that Craig is back. And Eon has every right to sign their lead actor with or without a distributor's approval - even a low budget film has that power, although a lower budget independent film might jeopardise the distribution deal if the distribution company doesn't like their choice of lead actor/actress - but Bond is in the top league - everyone wants a piece of the pie. Craig is a lock. The wagon is already, very publicly, rolling -- with him onboard.
    You may very well be correct, but at this point some of your earlier points are assumptions (even if they may be valid). He may certainly have signed with EON, but there is likely a provision for distributor approval (even if it's a formality) and well as certain commitments they will want from him regarding marketing and behaviour.

    His point about the paperwork possibly not being finalized is valid. He could be wrong, but I don't think it was necessary to have everyone jump on him for two plus pages attributing remarks to him which he did not in fairness make.

    No distributor (unless insane) is going to turn down Craig as Bond - for what? It's a done deal unless Craig suddenly has second thoughts, but after such a public announcement, that seems highly unlikely. The t's in his contract may not yet be crossed and the i's not yet dotted, but it's happening, and both Craig and Eon have said so. Please, with due respect, can we end this waste of space discussion.
    The first part of your statement above is a matter of opinion.

    We agree on the last part.

    This debate shouldn't have even started in the first place. A complete waste of space.

    ..and WHO started it? Maybe adress this to the right person.
    He made an observation and stated his point. It didn't take 5 or however many members to keep it going (and in the process mistate what he said), including hinting at a possible 'gang' ban (which was entirely unconscionable in my view). I've seen that happen too many times around here over the years purely due to a difference of opinion, and it's not right.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Back on topic.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    I think its time you all calmed down now ...we are all supposed to be on the same side re BOND25 eh ?
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    It will be interesting to find out who the composer will be. I assuming (and hoping) it won't be Newman now Mendes is out of the picture. I would happily have David Arnold back. If they go for someone new I would happily have George S Clinton. He did the soundtracks for Austin Powers. There is one called 'Evil Island' on youtube that is pure John Barry. Of course its a parody, but he clearly gets what a classic Bond sound is.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Roadphill wrote: »
    It will be interesting to find out who the composer will be. I assuming (and hoping) it won't be Newman now Mendes is out of the picture. I would happily have David Arnold back. If they go for someone new I would happily have George S Clinton. He did the soundtracks for Austin Powers. There is one called 'Evil Island' on youtube that is pure John Barry. Of course its a parody, but he clearly gets what a classic Bond sound is.

    Yes yes and yes !!

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    @barryt007 I think I would have enjoyed SF and SP a whole more had they actually sounded like Bond films.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Roadphill wrote: »
    @barryt007 I think I would have enjoyed SF and SP a whole more had they actually sounded like Bond films.

    That is the main weakness for both films,but i still love SF.

Sign In or Register to comment.