No Time To Die: Production Diary

11071081101121132507

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I'm not sure how SF is garbage and SP isn't when it comes to the script.

    Considering its the most control they've ever had with a script SP seems to have been there baby yet you think its better?.

    After 2 1/2 hours of SF I feel bored, annoyed and depressed.
    After 2 1/2 hours of SP I feel entertained, excited and good-humoured.

    But that's me of course.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    HASEROT wrote: »
    and for what it's worth - i still really enjoy SP... it's a middle of the road type of Bond film for me - it hits all the marks of what a traditional Bond film should be, but it just comes up a bit short in the script department (a lot of other Bond films suffer the same fate - doesn't make them any less fun)... in situations like this, i try not to be as critical, instead choosing to just roll with the fun of it... but if i've gone on record on these boards, and blasted TMWTGG and DAD the way I have in the past, then I gotta take the same critical approach with SP and it's mess of a script.... i like SP, it'll continue to get rotation time in my blu ray player - but i would be remiss if i didn't call out it's shortcomings and blown opportunities as well.

    Exactly this.

    Just because some of us are taking SP to task doesn't mean it's not streets ahead of many other entries.

    It's comfortably top half and there are large amounts of it that are really very good it's just that are some parts that are really bad too. It's the sense that it could have been so much more than really hurts. DAD was never going to be much more than a standard Brosnan cheese fest so it when it turned out to be utter shit you weren't that gutted but we have been led to think that we are in a new Elizabethan age packed with Oscar winning cast and crew so when we get nothing better than a standard Bond film we are left a bit flat.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited April 2016 Posts: 4,043
    HASEROT wrote: »
    and for what it's worth - i still really enjoy SP... it's a middle of the road type of Bond film for me - it hits all the marks of what a traditional Bond film should be, but it just comes up a bit short in the script department (a lot of other Bond films suffer the same fate - doesn't make them any less fun)... in situations like this, i try not to be as critical, instead choosing to just roll with the fun of it... but if i've gone on record on these boards, and blasted TMWTGG and DAD the way I have in the past, then I gotta take the same critical approach with SP and it's mess of a script.... i like SP, it'll continue to get rotation time in my blu ray player - but i would be remiss if i didn't call out it's shortcomings and blown opportunities as well.

    Exactly this.

    Just because some of us are taking SP to task doesn't mean it's not streets ahead of many other entries.

    It's comfortably top half and there are large amounts of it that are really very good it's just that are some parts that are really bad too. It's the sense that it could have been so much more than really hurts. DAD was never going to be much more than a standard Brosnan cheese fest so it when it turned out to be utter shit you weren't that gutted but we have been led to think that we are in a new Elizabethan age packed with Oscar winning cast and crew so when we get nothing better than a standard Bond film we are left a bit flat.

    With me it's because some of the other entries are so terrible that it ranks so high but I think SP biggest problem as you've said this could have been so much better.

    Sometimes when things aren't that terrible but greatness was just out of grasp it makes it that more infuriating, well for me at least.

    My anger with SP is it should have been mind blowing and the idea of having SPECTRE in a modern Bond film with twice oscar winning actor Christoph Waltz playing Bond's ultimate nemesis certainly promised allot.

    Standard Bond this should not have been and when I'm looking at a troubled film like QOS and now ranking it higher for me it's just not good enough.

    It appears you might have both made some peace with it and that is fine but I'm one of those like the SF detractors ( a film I loved) is unlikely to let this one go.

    Like you say this wasn't a Brosnan by the numbers effort so much was riding on this and it seemed we might get Craig's best ever Bond but we didn't and that makes it worse for me than some of the entries which were clearly poorer in quality, I personally couldn't give a damn about the Brosnan era but Craig's I certainly did.

  • Posts: 12,526
    Personally i have always believed that Craig will come back for a fifth movie but that it would be his last.
    As for the future custodian of the role? I like Hiddlestone and was really impressed by him in "The Night Manager", as for Turner? He certainly looks good but I have not seen him in anything at this point.
    The only thing i am sure on is at the minute all our thoughts and opinions are purely guess work for now?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    We've been really left in the dark at the moment, and I am looking forward to actual announcement put forward by EON or MGM regarding their distributing partner studios at least. Everything will be going smoothly afterwards, methinks.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    HASEROT wrote: »
    and for what it's worth - i still really enjoy SP... it's a middle of the road type of Bond film for me - it hits all the marks of what a traditional Bond film should be, but it just comes up a bit short in the script department (a lot of other Bond films suffer the same fate - doesn't make them any less fun)... in situations like this, i try not to be as critical, instead choosing to just roll with the fun of it... but if i've gone on record on these boards, and blasted TMWTGG and DAD the way I have in the past, then I gotta take the same critical approach with SP and it's mess of a script.... i like SP, it'll continue to get rotation time in my blu ray player - but i would be remiss if i didn't call out it's shortcomings and blown opportunities as well.

    Yea true for me too. I rated SP lower ...ok dead last but I did have fun with it and appreciate the attempt at an old school Bond.

  • Posts: 9,847
    In terms of bond 25 we know nothing really except for potentially certain cart are contracted to return specifically

    Fiennes, Wishaw, and Harris though there is a chance Craig Waltz and Sedoux will return. Honestly we don't even know who is writing the script I believe Logan is out as are Purvis and Wade (which on a side note I never hated the. And actually enjoyed the films they worked on even the weaker ones like Die Another Day Skyfall and Spectre had great moments) and there was that unconfirmed rumor of that writer for mad men coming in but that's it I believe Jez butterworth is going to stick around and when Greg said they were throwing ideas around I assumed Babs Michael Greg and Jez were the people on said room throwing around ideas. But we don't know...

    What even more worrisome is that unlike the last hiatus where both MGM and EON were still kind of moving forward (striking deals and bringing on crew memeber heck Mendes was attached as "consultant" on the project since 2010) this time we don't hear anything regarding well anything...


    My guess is they are talking with Daniel to see what would it take for him to do one more and while many would be upset with the idea of spectre/Blofeld being wrapped up in bond 25 honestly if we were still talking about Quantum and there was no Blofeld and bond 24 was titled Risico (as I am pretty sure Mendes can't name his bond films anything other then one word names) and the end scene still played out the same Oberhauser on the bridge not dieing etc we all would agree the Oberhauser Quantum story line should be wrapped up in Craig's tenure so why suddenly change. Personally (and again I am assuming here) if Hiddleston really is bond #7 shouldn't be have his own stories and his own cohesive narrative (which I still say the idea of a reformed Smersh battling the next 007 could be cool and heck Mendes could even come back in the middle of it and have his S word bond film with SMERSH in 2021 or whatever)

    For me the Craig era started out amazingly but got weaker as the tenure went on maybe it's a good thing Dalton only did two as had he done more he might not of had the perfect tenure he has now... Like I said to make a long story short I believe Craig will be brought back for one more I believe it will be a final show down between bond and Blofeld and as an added guess I really believe it will be titled Blofeld.
  • DisneyBond007DisneyBond007 Welwyn Garden City
    Posts: 100
    We've been really left in the dark at the moment, and I am looking forward to actual announcement put forward by EON or MGM regarding their distributing partner studios at least. Everything will be going smoothly afterwards, methinks.

    Fingers crossed buddy. Over at CBN Forum, the other user named SecretAgentFan thinks that WB will not be in the Bond bid anymore due to the commercial misfire of Batman v Superman.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    We've been really left in the dark at the moment, and I am looking forward to actual announcement put forward by EON or MGM regarding their distributing partner studios at least. Everything will be going smoothly afterwards, methinks.

    Fingers crossed buddy. Over at CBN Forum, the other user named SecretAgentFan thinks that WB will not be in the Bond bid anymore due to the commercial misfire of Batman v Superman.
    Commercial misfire? In about four weeks, the film grossed 783.5 million USD worldwide in the box office. Anyone, like we ourselves witnessed here, can come and claim anything. Like those so-called users who heard something from "insiders".

    That said, if Warners won't be the ones to pick up MGM, then it's Sony to come back. But, WB has a history with the Bond franchise. So, it's highly likely they'd be the ones to acquire MGM and its belongings.
  • Posts: 4,325
    We've been really left in the dark at the moment, and I am looking forward to actual announcement put forward by EON or MGM regarding their distributing partner studios at least. Everything will be going smoothly afterwards, methinks.

    Fingers crossed buddy. Over at CBN Forum, the other user named SecretAgentFan thinks that WB will not be in the Bond bid anymore due to the commercial misfire of Batman v Superman.

    Batman v Superman is far from a commercial misfire.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    We've been really left in the dark at the moment, and I am looking forward to actual announcement put forward by EON or MGM regarding their distributing partner studios at least. Everything will be going smoothly afterwards, methinks.

    Fingers crossed buddy. Over at CBN Forum, the other user named SecretAgentFan thinks that WB will not be in the Bond bid anymore due to the commercial misfire of Batman v Superman.

    Batman v Superman is far from a commercial misfire.
    That was a very delusional statement whoever said it. And I bet it was an anti-DC person.
  • Posts: 4,325
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    We've been really left in the dark at the moment, and I am looking forward to actual announcement put forward by EON or MGM regarding their distributing partner studios at least. Everything will be going smoothly afterwards, methinks.

    Fingers crossed buddy. Over at CBN Forum, the other user named SecretAgentFan thinks that WB will not be in the Bond bid anymore due to the commercial misfire of Batman v Superman.

    Batman v Superman is far from a commercial misfire.
    That was a very delusional statement whoever said it. And I bet it was an anti-DC person.

    Either that, or $700 million+ is small change to them :)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    We've been really left in the dark at the moment, and I am looking forward to actual announcement put forward by EON or MGM regarding their distributing partner studios at least. Everything will be going smoothly afterwards, methinks.

    Fingers crossed buddy. Over at CBN Forum, the other user named SecretAgentFan thinks that WB will not be in the Bond bid anymore due to the commercial misfire of Batman v Superman.

    Batman v Superman is far from a commercial misfire.
    That was a very delusional statement whoever said it. And I bet it was an anti-DC person.

    Either that, or $700 million+ is small change to them :)
    Haha! Point taken! :))
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 4,325
    Yes I wouldn't say no to percentage points of $700+ million, 1% alone is $7+ million! Not a commercial misfire in any shape or form.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 2,115
    re: Batman v Superman....The movie opened big but in the U.S. (second biggest opening in Warner Bros. history), dropped almost 70% its second weekend and was estimated to drop another 54% its third.

    Variety estimated it would take a worldwide $800 million box office for the movie to break even and Deadline: Hollywood had a higher estimate.

    There's also concern whether it can make $1 billion, which many took for granted before the movie was release.

    That's the context of "commercial misfire." Yes, the box office is large and most movies don't reach what Batman v Superman has done so far. But the studio and others had larger expectations.

    I'm not necessarily endorsing the "commercial misfire" label, but just trying to explain it.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited April 2016 Posts: 4,116
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    We've been really left in the dark at the moment, and I am looking forward to actual announcement put forward by EON or MGM regarding their distributing partner studios at least. Everything will be going smoothly afterwards, methinks.

    Fingers crossed buddy. Over at CBN Forum, the other user named SecretAgentFan thinks that WB will not be in the Bond bid anymore due to the commercial misfire of Batman v Superman.

    Batman v Superman is far from a commercial misfire.
    That was a very delusional statement whoever said it. And I bet it was an anti-DC person.

    Critical misfire yes ...and yes in terms of break even probably so.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    We've been really left in the dark at the moment, and I am looking forward to actual announcement put forward by EON or MGM regarding their distributing partner studios at least. Everything will be going smoothly afterwards, methinks.

    Fingers crossed buddy. Over at CBN Forum, the other user named SecretAgentFan thinks that WB will not be in the Bond bid anymore due to the commercial misfire of Batman v Superman.

    Batman v Superman is far from a commercial misfire.
    That was a very delusional statement whoever said it. And I bet it was an anti-DC person.

    Critical misfire yes ...and yes in terms of break even probably so.
    Critical misfire is something, and commercial misfire is something else, however.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    We've been really left in the dark at the moment, and I am looking forward to actual announcement put forward by EON or MGM regarding their distributing partner studios at least. Everything will be going smoothly afterwards, methinks.

    Fingers crossed buddy. Over at CBN Forum, the other user named SecretAgentFan thinks that WB will not be in the Bond bid anymore due to the commercial misfire of Batman v Superman.

    Batman v Superman is far from a commercial misfire.
    That was a very delusional statement whoever said it. And I bet it was an anti-DC person.

    Critical misfire yes ...and yes in terms of break even probably so.
    Critical misfire is something, and commercial misfire is something else, however.

    Considering all the need in the world these movie budgets are insane.

    Especially considering doesn't guarantee quality.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    It's the box office that gives the product its wealth. Many critically acclaimed films had an ill-fated aftermath when they came out, and not everyone is interested in Oscar-worthy films. At least not in this day and age.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited April 2016 Posts: 11,139
    Erm, what planet are some of you people on? If a film has made $783 million in 3 weeks it's had to itself with no competition and needs to gross at least $850 million just to break even, can someone please explain to me how this is not a misfire? Bear in mind that a crappy Melissa McCarthy movie has knocked BvS from the number one spot and with the new Jungle Book movie being released in many markets, which will be eating up screens and has excellent reviews across the board and opening in theatres from the end of this week, resulting in BvS getting buried, again how is this not a commercial misfire for BvS?

    This has nothing to do with DC-hate. This is strictly about numbers and the numbers are what they are. How long has zootopia ($787million) been out? It still pulled in more than $14million this weekend which is only $9million less than what BvS made and has grossed $231million in China, while BvS only managed to pull in $96million. Meanwhile, Zootopia is yet to open in Japan which will be later this month. One doesn't need inside knowledge or whatever, the information is available for all clear as day. Simply look at the numbers.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    My interest in Bond's box office is to be profitable enough to sustain the series and to attract quality talent.

    Not sure if EoN always recruits said talent.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited April 2016 Posts: 11,139
    re: Batman v Superman....The movie opened big but in the U.S. (second biggest opening in Warner Bros. history), dropped almost 70% its second weekend and was estimated to drop another 54% its third.

    Variety estimated it would take a worldwide $800 million box office for the movie to break even and Deadline: Hollywood had a higher estimate.

    There's also concern whether it can make $1 billion, which many took for granted before the movie was release.

    That's the context of "commercial misfire." Yes, the box office is large and most movies don't reach what Batman v Superman has done so far. But the studio and others had larger expectations.

    I'm not necessarily endorsing the "commercial misfire" label, but just trying to explain it.

    But that's precisely what it is, a commercial misfire. It opened huge, why? Presales tickets and opening simultaneously in all major markets. After that first weekend the drops were shockingly huge. Word of mouth sank this movie and again bear in mind that the film had no competition. Audiences just don't care to see it which is worse than them hating it because if they hated it at least they would have bothered to pay to see it.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    My interest in Bond's box office is to be profitable enough to sustain the series and to attract quality talent.

    Which is reasonable thinking.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    doubleoego wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    My interest in Bond's box office is to be profitable enough to sustain the series and to attract quality talent.

    Which is reasonable thinking.

    Thanks.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Well, then, just because Age of Ultron grossed below Disney's expectations even though it's beyond the one billion dollar box-office worldwide, it's a commercial misfire, isn't it?
  • Posts: 1,631
    Well, then, just because Age of Ultron grossed below Disney's expectations even though it's beyond the one billion dollar box-office worldwide, it's a commercial misfire, isn't it?

    Of course.

    It's common knowledge that in order to be considered truly successful, a film has to cross that elusive $2 billion mark. Anything short of that is financial failure in the eyes of the internet.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    doubleoego wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    My interest in Bond's box office is to be profitable enough to sustain the series and to attract quality talent.

    Which is reasonable thinking.

    Agreed.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    "Commercial misfire"? No it wasn't. It was simply a disappointment for Disney because it simply grossed less than the previous film. AoU had its budget increased slightly and ended up grossing slightly less than the first Avengers, so yeah, that is disappointing for Disney but it is in no way regarded in any circumstance as a "commercial misfire"; especially when you put into perspective the net profit AoU made from its theatrical run alone of around $700million.

  • doubleoego wrote: »
    re: Batman v Superman....The movie opened big but in the U.S. (second biggest opening in Warner Bros. history), dropped almost 70% its second weekend and was estimated to drop another 54% its third.

    Variety estimated it would take a worldwide $800 million box office for the movie to break even and Deadline: Hollywood had a higher estimate.

    There's also concern whether it can make $1 billion, which many took for granted before the movie was release.

    That's the context of "commercial misfire." Yes, the box office is large and most movies don't reach what Batman v Superman has done so far. But the studio and others had larger expectations.

    I'm not necessarily endorsing the "commercial misfire" label, but just trying to explain it.

    But that's precisely what it is, a commercial misfire. It opened huge, why? Presales tickets and opening simultaneously in all major markets. After that first weekend the drops were shockingly huge. Word of mouth sank this movie and again bear in mind that the film had no competition. Audiences just don't care to see it which is worse than them hating it because if they hated it at least they would have bothered to pay to see it.

    Understood.
  • Well, then, just because Age of Ultron grossed below Disney's expectations even though it's beyond the one billion dollar box-office worldwide, it's a commercial misfire, isn't it?

    I'd say no. Age of Ultron came in at $1.4 billion. Studio was wanting $1.5 billion or more. That's a relatively narrow miss. Also, there's no question it made its money back. With BvS, there's a question whether it'll be profitable or not.
Sign In or Register to comment.