› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…12161217121912211222…2507

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    I think Disney has pretty much made it near impossible for other franchises to compete with its products. Bond producers want their films to surpass the $850m worldwide gross and it's not possible to always achieve that. Now that Warner Bros also joined the horse race with its own superhero universe franchise, Bond is going to have some hard time. Because... thing is... sci-fi and comics have more nerds and fans than the outcome of an elegant adventure novel series does. The game has changed.
    Disney has definitely impacted the marketplace. That, in combination with the global nature of everything these days, rising costs of distribution/marketing/production and the need to deliver massive box office in the first few weeks constrains film maker's hands going forward. It's go big or go home, especially with brand name franchises like Bond.
    That's precisely the case, nowadays.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    If you want continuity in films then don't make them 4 years apart.
    It stinks of arrogance.
    Does anyone know why EON have taken so long getting Bond 25 made?
    They've been really tight-lipped in the past three years we don't know whatever is taking place behind the scenes. Circumstantial evidences are all colliding, the lines have become blurred, everything is a contradiction. I'm guessing this is merely their response to the Sony leaks which may have hurt Spectre's marketing and BO.

    I'd love to know what the story is. It seems to be no matter how successful a Bond film is these days, it's a nightmare getting the next one in the can.

    The Brosnan era ran as it should - a film every 2 years during the 90's, then we had a long period between DAD and CR.

    After that we were back on track again, with QoS out 2 years later.

    Then we had to wait 4 years for SF, then 3 years for SP, and now another 4 years before the next one.

    Either films are a more complicated business to get off the ground these days, or EON don't know what they are doing anymore to get these film made quickly enough.

    So, would you say the same about the M:I series? 4 year gap, 6 year gap, 5 year gap, 4 year gap, 3 year gap.

    This is what made Bond unique as a franchise for its first 30 years, that a film would come out every one year, and then after TB every two years, when other franchise sequels had to wait 3 years (Star Wars, Superman, Indy Jones, Rocky, etc.)

    Then we had the Dalton/Brosnan blip, then normal service was resumed again, until the Brosnan/Craig blip. Now we are waiting on average 4 years between each film.

    I don't compare Bond to any other franchise, because none has gone as long as Bond. MI didn't start in 1962.

    Maybe this is just the sign of the times now, on how long each film has to take to get made. It's a shame because Bond always managed to overcome that long period somehow, but I guess that's just the way it is now.

    Harry Potter films came out every year, Star Wars films are currently coming out every year.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2017 Posts: 12,837
    I definitely think Nolan would want to cast Bond himself and I'd want him to. If they want Nolan they should basically give him free reign imo, even if it's just for a one off. I just think in terms of blockbusters nobody comes close these days. Definitely the Spielberg of his generation.

    Honestly I thought SP was a good ending so I'd happily sacrifice one more Craig Bond to get a Nolan one sooner, but I think we can take Craig returning as certain for Bond 25 though, right? Would they have let him announce it if it wasn't set in stone? I think Demange finishing off his era and then Nolan's idea becoming Bond 26 sounds likely. And the potential of having Tom Hardy as Bond, Micheal Caine as M and Cillian Murphy as the villain sounds great to me. Or if he did want to use actors he's worked with before, maybe one of the younger guys from Dunkirk could be getting a look in?

    I hope it happens while he's still in his prime or it would be one of the biggest missed opportunities of the series.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited December 2017 Posts: 8,399
    I think Warner need it most. They are a shadow of themselves from the start of the decade when they had TDK trilogy, Harry Potter, and the Hobbit franchise pumping out billions. A evergreen like Bond is just what they need, and I think Nolan will be a Bonus factor. A Bond film with Nolan's name on it is instant $$$.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    Surely Nolan has a story idea of his own going in. This is an opportunity he's hoped for.

    I wouldn't include out multiple possibilities for him.

    He directs Craig for BOND 25.
    He directs Craig for BOND 25 and 26.
    He comes back when a new actor takes the role.
    He executes a planned story arc (experimental Bond, unique style) across 2 or 3 films, then he exits and the Bond role is recast for a new direction. Very controlled franchise transitions.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited December 2017 Posts: 15,718
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    Surely Nolan has a story idea of his own going in. This is an opportunity he's hoped for.

    I wouldn't include out multiple possibilities for him.

    He directs Craig for BOND 25.
    He directs Craig for BOND 25 and 26.
    He comes back when a new actor takes the role.
    He executes a planned story arc (experimental Bond, unique style) across 2 or 3 films, then he exits and the Bond role is recast for a new direction. Very controlled franchise transitions.

    I am very much against option 4 (that I bolded), no matter which director is involved, because I refuse to sit through 2 recasts (meaning 3/4 years gaps) with only 2 or 3 films in between. I am all for 'experimental Bond tenures', but at least have the actor last 4 or 5 films.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    Surely Nolan has a story idea of his own going in. This is an opportunity he's hoped for.

    I wouldn't include out multiple possibilities for him.

    He directs Craig for BOND 25.
    He directs Craig for BOND 25 and 26.
    He comes back when a new actor takes the role.
    He executes a planned story arc (experimental Bond, unique style) across 2 or 3 films, then he exits and the Bond role is recast for a new direction. Very controlled franchise transitions.

    I am very much against option 4 (that I bolded), no matter which director is involved, because I refuse to sit through 2 recasts (meaning 3/4 years gaps) with only 2 or 3 films in between. I am all for 'experimental Bond tenures', but at least have the actor last 4 or 5 films.

    I couldn't disagree more on this. They shouldn't limit the casting based on how many the actor will/can do. Just pick the guy who's best for it at the time and go from there.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    I definitely think Nolan would want to cast Bond himself and I'd want him to. If they want Nolan they should basically give him free reign imo, even if it's just for a one off. I just think in terms of blockbusters nobody comes close these days. Definitely the Spielberg of his generation.

    Honestly I thought SP was a good ending so I'd happily sacrifice one more Craig Bond to get a Nolan one sooner, but I think we can take Craig returning as certain for Bond 25 though, right? Would they have let him announce it if it wasn't set in stone? I think Demange finishing off his era and then Nolan's idea becoming Bond 26 sounds likely. And the potential of having Tom Hardy as Bond, Micheal Caine as M and Cillian Murphy as the villain sounds great to me. Or if he did want to use actors he's worked with before, maybe one of the younger guys from Dunkirk could be getting a look in?

    I hope it happens while he's still in his prime or it would be one of the biggest missed opportunities of the series.

    I can't see Michael Caine as M personally.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    Surely Nolan has a story idea of his own going in. This is an opportunity he's hoped for.

    I wouldn't include out multiple possibilities for him.

    He directs Craig for BOND 25.
    He directs Craig for BOND 25 and 26.
    He comes back when a new actor takes the role.
    He executes a planned story arc (experimental Bond, unique style) across 2 or 3 films, then he exits and the Bond role is recast for a new direction. Very controlled franchise transitions.

    I am very much against option 4 (that I bolded), no matter which director is involved, because I refuse to sit through 2 recasts (meaning 3/4 years gaps) with only 2 or 3 films in between. I am all for 'experimental Bond tenures', but at least have the actor last 4 or 5 films.

    I couldn't disagree more on this. They shouldn't limit the casting based on how many the actor will/can do. Just pick the guy who's best for it at the time and go from there.

    @thelivingroyale Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that they shouldn't limit the casting based on that, but then again, we wouldn't have this discussion if EON released the films at a faster rate. 4 films every 2 years = exact same time span between CR and SF.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    It is depressing that you have to go back to the 1980s until you get to a decade that has more than 3 Bond films in it. I have never lived through a whole decade where more than 3 Bond films have been released in it.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2017 Posts: 12,837
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    Surely Nolan has a story idea of his own going in. This is an opportunity he's hoped for.

    I wouldn't include out multiple possibilities for him.

    He directs Craig for BOND 25.
    He directs Craig for BOND 25 and 26.
    He comes back when a new actor takes the role.
    He executes a planned story arc (experimental Bond, unique style) across 2 or 3 films, then he exits and the Bond role is recast for a new direction. Very controlled franchise transitions.

    I am very much against option 4 (that I bolded), no matter which director is involved, because I refuse to sit through 2 recasts (meaning 3/4 years gaps) with only 2 or 3 films in between. I am all for 'experimental Bond tenures', but at least have the actor last 4 or 5 films.

    I couldn't disagree more on this. They shouldn't limit the casting based on how many the actor will/can do. Just pick the guy who's best for it at the time and go from there.

    @thelivingroyale Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that they shouldn't limit the casting based on that, but then again, we wouldn't have this discussion if EON released the films at a faster rate. 4 films every 2 years = exact same time span between CR and SF.

    Yeah I wish they'd get them out faster. But to be honest I'd rather have an EON Bond film every three or four years than a Disney one every two.

    I really don't want EON to sell up, or at least not to a massive studio. I want Bond to keep that sense of magic it has, keep being its own weird little alternative thing instead of just being another blockbuster franchise. I'm not blindly loyal to the Broccoli's or anything, I just don't want to see Bond become just another comittee driven cash cow.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited December 2017 Posts: 5,767
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    It does, and Nolan would change the formula if at all for the worse.

    Really? What makes you say that? I rate Nolan up there with Spielberg in his prime. The Batman triology, Inception, Intersteller and Dunkirk are superb films. I rate them much higher than Mendes other films outside of Bond, or any other Bond director's films outside of the franchise.
    My viewing experience of Nolan´s films makes me say that. IMO he did a very thrilling film near the beginning of his professional career, Memento. BB is still very entertaining, and the interweaving of current story and background during the first 20mins is marvellous. The Prestige is good, but not very good. TDK is rated high by many, I find it already part bloated, part confuse. Inception is pretty good, but by then the recurring theme of a haunting death was a bit stale. TDKR is weak. Interstellar suffocates on itself, the third act is ridiculous, despite presumptuous claims to be based on real science. Dunkirk I didn´t watch, because by then I had lost interest in Nolan films completely. Don´t get me started on Nolan´s faible for Hans Zimmer soundtracks. One thing that occurs throughout each and every film of Nolan is that the lighting is very bleak, as if underexposed. That alone would already be enough for me not to want him for Bond. What attracted me to Bond films in the first place always has been a combination of holiday trip feeling and thrilling adventure. I haven´t seen one single scene from Nolan that I could associate with holiday feeling.





    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    I think Disney has pretty much made it near impossible for other franchises to compete with its products. Bond producers want their films to surpass the $850m worldwide gross and it's not possible to always achieve that. Now that Warner Bros also joined the horse race with its own superhero universe franchise, Bond is going to have some hard time. Because... thing is... sci-fi and comics have more nerds and fans than the outcome of an elegant adventure novel series does. The game has changed.
    You mean Warner Bros who just announced they´re going to re-structure their respective department?
    But you´re right in that Marvel probably shovel a lot of money, even though their product most of the time is repetitive.
    On the other hand, I firmly believe that with the right promotion, Bond films could establish their firm niche between superheros and Fast and Furious nonsense if they stuck to their strentghs. I for one long desperately for the visceral feeling I get from watching the car chases in TMWTGG or OP. It can´t be that beside George Miller noone got the point that you just can´t beat cars filmed while going violent. Even M:I with all their for-real stunts haven´t done much in that regard, Rogue Nation came a bit in the vicinity, M:I2 had the bike extravaganza, but still many Bond films in the 80s did it better.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    The Nolan issue chrystalises THE key issue with the Bond franchise IMHO. Nolan represents the darker, brooding era that Craig has becoming connected to (most so in SF). IF Nolan comes on board, then this era with continue, no doubt.

    Other Bond fans long for the lighter, escapist, fun aspect (so well represented by the RM era).

    SP perfectly proves that you cant have both and EON really do need to commit which path they want to go down before choosing the director.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I think you can have both quite easily. You can have a Bond film that's fun and thrilling while at the same time still have fleshed out characters and a real sense of violence/danger. SP struck a great balance imo. That film has its problems but I definitely don't think the tone was one of them.

    I also don't think it's fair to lump all Nolan's films together based off his Batman movies. He's shown a lot of variety, Dunkirk in particular was really different to anything else he's made, so I think it's a bit unfair to presume he'd approach Bond in exactly the same way he approached Batman or any of his other movies.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    patb wrote: »
    The Nolan issue chrystalises THE key issue with the Bond franchise IMHO. Nolan represents the darker, brooding era that Craig has becoming connected to (most so in SF). IF Nolan comes on board, then this era with continue, no doubt.

    Other Bond fans long for the lighter, escapist, fun aspect (so well represented by the RM era).

    SP perfectly proves that you cant have both and EON really do need to commit which path they want to go down before choosing the director.
    No. SP perfectly proves that you desperately need a director who knows what he´s doing and who is suited to make a Bond film. I don´t intend to copare the RM era to the Craig era, and I for sure don´t want Craig to do RM stuff, but the RM era perfectly proves how much diversity a Bond film can pack and still be good.

  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited December 2017 Posts: 3,327
    Dennison wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    If you want continuity in films then don't make them 4 years apart.
    It stinks of arrogance.
    Does anyone know why EON have taken so long getting Bond 25 made?
    They've been really tight-lipped in the past three years we don't know whatever is taking place behind the scenes. Circumstantial evidences are all colliding, the lines have become blurred, everything is a contradiction. I'm guessing this is merely their response to the Sony leaks which may have hurt Spectre's marketing and BO.

    I'd love to know what the story is. It seems to be no matter how successful a Bond film is these days, it's a nightmare getting the next one in the can.

    The Brosnan era ran as it should - a film every 2 years during the 90's, then we had a long period between DAD and CR.

    After that we were back on track again, with QoS out 2 years later.

    Then we had to wait 4 years for SF, then 3 years for SP, and now another 4 years before the next one.

    Either films are a more complicated business to get off the ground these days, or EON don't know what they are doing anymore to get these film made quickly enough.

    So, would you say the same about the M:I series? 4 year gap, 6 year gap, 5 year gap, 4 year gap, 3 year gap.

    This is what made Bond unique as a franchise for its first 30 years, that a film would come out every one year, and then after TB every two years, when other franchise sequels had to wait 3 years (Star Wars, Superman, Indy Jones, Rocky, etc.)

    Then we had the Dalton/Brosnan blip, then normal service was resumed again, until the Brosnan/Craig blip. Now we are waiting on average 4 years between each film.

    I don't compare Bond to any other franchise, because none has gone as long as Bond. MI didn't start in 1962.

    Maybe this is just the sign of the times now, on how long each film has to take to get made. It's a shame because Bond always managed to overcome that long period somehow, but I guess that's just the way it is now.

    Harry Potter films came out every year, Star Wars films are currently coming out every year.

    So what you saying? EON are shit? I'm confused now, because earlier you were trying to defend them by comparing them to the MI franchise.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    If you want continuity in films then don't make them 4 years apart.
    It stinks of arrogance.
    Does anyone know why EON have taken so long getting Bond 25 made?
    They've been really tight-lipped in the past three years we don't know whatever is taking place behind the scenes. Circumstantial evidences are all colliding, the lines have become blurred, everything is a contradiction. I'm guessing this is merely their response to the Sony leaks which may have hurt Spectre's marketing and BO.

    I'd love to know what the story is. It seems to be no matter how successful a Bond film is these days, it's a nightmare getting the next one in the can.

    The Brosnan era ran as it should - a film every 2 years during the 90's, then we had a long period between DAD and CR.

    After that we were back on track again, with QoS out 2 years later.

    Then we had to wait 4 years for SF, then 3 years for SP, and now another 4 years before the next one.

    Either films are a more complicated business to get off the ground these days, or EON don't know what they are doing anymore to get these film made quickly enough.

    So, would you say the same about the M:I series? 4 year gap, 6 year gap, 5 year gap, 4 year gap, 3 year gap.

    This is what made Bond unique as a franchise for its first 30 years, that a film would come out every one year, and then after TB every two years, when other franchise sequels had to wait 3 years (Star Wars, Superman, Indy Jones, Rocky, etc.)

    Then we had the Dalton/Brosnan blip, then normal service was resumed again, until the Brosnan/Craig blip. Now we are waiting on average 4 years between each film.

    I don't compare Bond to any other franchise, because none has gone as long as Bond. MI didn't start in 1962.

    Maybe this is just the sign of the times now, on how long each film has to take to get made. It's a shame because Bond always managed to overcome that long period somehow, but I guess that's just the way it is now.

    Harry Potter films came out every year, Star Wars films are currently coming out every year.

    So what you saying? EON are shit?

    What?!
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Aidan Turner would be a HORRIBLE Bond, and don't care (and don't know) how good his acting is, he simply doesn't have a British look. And by "British look", I don't necessarily mean a white person, as I believe Idris Elba does have a "British look".

    Give me Nicholas Hoult or DUNKIRK's Jack Lowden, and I will be happy.

    You lost me when you said Nicholas Hoult has the look for Bond. I don't see it whatsoever and would be real upset if he was cast. He's not a bad actor, just not remotely Bond material in my opinion.
    Agreed. I couldn't think of two actors less qualified for the role.

    I'm going to stick my neck out and say these Reddit rumours are total bunk. Just who is CashleyPersia? Also, looking back at some of his/her previous predictions, they've been totally way off the mark: "Craig is more out than in." ... "I've heard Sam Riley's and Jack O'Connell's names mentioned the most." Yeah, like where? On some showwbiz forum, most probably."I also hear it may not be an idea that Nolan would even direct. Just something he'd be involved in. There is some talk that the idea doesn't involve Craig." Do me a favour. This is total fan-fabricated fiction.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    bondsum wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Aidan Turner would be a HORRIBLE Bond, and don't care (and don't know) how good his acting is, he simply doesn't have a British look. And by "British look", I don't necessarily mean a white person, as I believe Idris Elba does have a "British look".

    Give me Nicholas Hoult or DUNKIRK's Jack Lowden, and I will be happy.

    You lost me when you said Nicholas Hoult has the look for Bond. I don't see it whatsoever and would be real upset if he was cast. He's not a bad actor, just not remotely Bond material in my opinion.
    Agreed. I couldn't think of two actors less qualified for the role.

    I'm going to stick my neck out and say these Reddit rumours are total bunk. Just who is CashleyPersia? Also, looking back at some of his/her previous predictions, they've been totally way off the mark: "Craig is more out than in." ... "I've heard Sam Riley's and Jack O'Connell's names mentioned the most." Yeah, like where? On some showwbiz forum, most probably."I also hear it may not be an idea that Nolan would even direct. Just something he'd be involved in. There is some talk that the idea doesn't involve Craig." Do me a favour. This is total fan-fabricated fiction.

    And it's taken you this long to realise that ...
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Aidan Turner would be a HORRIBLE Bond, and don't care (and don't know) how good his acting is, he simply doesn't have a British look. And by "British look", I don't necessarily mean a white person, as I believe Idris Elba does have a "British look".

    Give me Nicholas Hoult or DUNKIRK's Jack Lowden, and I will be happy.

    You lost me when you said Nicholas Hoult has the look for Bond. I don't see it whatsoever and would be real upset if he was cast. He's not a bad actor, just not remotely Bond material in my opinion.
    Agreed. I couldn't think of two actors less qualified for the role.

    I'm going to stick my neck out and say these Reddit rumours are total bunk. Just who is CashleyPersia? Also, looking back at some of his/her previous predictions, they've been totally way off the mark: "Craig is more out than in." ... "I've heard Sam Riley's and Jack O'Connell's names mentioned the most." Yeah, like where? On some showwbiz forum, most probably."I also hear it may not be an idea that Nolan would even direct. Just something he'd be involved in. There is some talk that the idea doesn't involve Craig." Do me a favour. This is total fan-fabricated fiction.

    And it's taken you this long to realise that ...
    I've only just seen the messages @Dennison. So, yeah, I guess it has taken me "this long to realise it". Unlike you, I have a life.
  • DennisonDennison
    edited December 2017 Posts: 1,031
    bondsum wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Aidan Turner would be a HORRIBLE Bond, and don't care (and don't know) how good his acting is, he simply doesn't have a British look. And by "British look", I don't necessarily mean a white person, as I believe Idris Elba does have a "British look".

    Give me Nicholas Hoult or DUNKIRK's Jack Lowden, and I will be happy.

    You lost me when you said Nicholas Hoult has the look for Bond. I don't see it whatsoever and would be real upset if he was cast. He's not a bad actor, just not remotely Bond material in my opinion.
    Agreed. I couldn't think of two actors less qualified for the role.

    I'm going to stick my neck out and say these Reddit rumours are total bunk. Just who is CashleyPersia? Also, looking back at some of his/her previous predictions, they've been totally way off the mark: "Craig is more out than in." ... "I've heard Sam Riley's and Jack O'Connell's names mentioned the most." Yeah, like where? On some showwbiz forum, most probably."I also hear it may not be an idea that Nolan would even direct. Just something he'd be involved in. There is some talk that the idea doesn't involve Craig." Do me a favour. This is total fan-fabricated fiction.

    And it's taken you this long to realise that ...
    I've only just seen the messages @Dennison. So, yeah, I guess it has taken me "this long to realise it". Unlike you, I have a life.

    Thanks for the insult, very clever.
  • bondsumbondsum
    edited December 2017 Posts: 3,333
    No worries @Dennison. But a word of advise when posting here: contribute something more than just a single retort or pithy response, otherwise it can be taken out of context. I mean, how am I to know whether you are, or not for that matter, just being obtuse when you quote me?
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    Dennison wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    If you want continuity in films then don't make them 4 years apart.
    It stinks of arrogance.
    Does anyone know why EON have taken so long getting Bond 25 made?
    They've been really tight-lipped in the past three years we don't know whatever is taking place behind the scenes. Circumstantial evidences are all colliding, the lines have become blurred, everything is a contradiction. I'm guessing this is merely their response to the Sony leaks which may have hurt Spectre's marketing and BO.

    I'd love to know what the story is. It seems to be no matter how successful a Bond film is these days, it's a nightmare getting the next one in the can.

    The Brosnan era ran as it should - a film every 2 years during the 90's, then we had a long period between DAD and CR.

    After that we were back on track again, with QoS out 2 years later.

    Then we had to wait 4 years for SF, then 3 years for SP, and now another 4 years before the next one.

    Either films are a more complicated business to get off the ground these days, or EON don't know what they are doing anymore to get these film made quickly enough.

    So, would you say the same about the M:I series? 4 year gap, 6 year gap, 5 year gap, 4 year gap, 3 year gap.

    This is what made Bond unique as a franchise for its first 30 years, that a film would come out every one year, and then after TB every two years, when other franchise sequels had to wait 3 years (Star Wars, Superman, Indy Jones, Rocky, etc.)

    Then we had the Dalton/Brosnan blip, then normal service was resumed again, until the Brosnan/Craig blip. Now we are waiting on average 4 years between each film.

    I don't compare Bond to any other franchise, because none has gone as long as Bond. MI didn't start in 1962.

    Maybe this is just the sign of the times now, on how long each film has to take to get made. It's a shame because Bond always managed to overcome that long period somehow, but I guess that's just the way it is now.

    Harry Potter films came out every year, Star Wars films are currently coming out every year.

    So what you saying? EON are shit?

    What?!

    Your post implies that EON need to raise their game, because other franchises have managed to come out every year....and yet earlier you were using MI as a comparison to Bond, saying they come out every 4 years, implying EON are doing a good job.

    Which is it. because I'm confused now.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    bondsum wrote: »
    No worries @Dennison. But a word of advise when posting here: contribute something more than just a single retort or pithy response, otherwise it can be taken out of context. I mean, how am I to know whether you are, or not for that matter, just being obtuse when you quote me?

    Thanks for some sanity bondsum. I thought it was just me finding Dennisons responses a little baffling.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,169
    Dennison wrote: »
    It is depressing that you have to go back to the 1980s until you get to a decade that has more than 3 Bond films in it. I have never lived through a whole decade where more than 3 Bond films have been released in it.

    I an attest it was wonderful. Kind of like Christmas, only every two years.

    The gunbarrel would mark the ceremonious lighting of the tree to commence the season. The PTS would be the ceremonious unwrapping of gifts, the titles would be the decorative wrapping and the main film would be the huge multi-course meal that followed.

    The "James Bond will return in......."would be the comforting afterglow that it was a wonderful season and another would soon be on it's way.

    Since the 80's whenever a new Bond is cast I'd feel a glimmer of hope that the series will return to the two year tradition with a new beginning. We had that for awhile with Pierce and I certainly had hopes and felt encouraged for Daniel when QOS was given a 2008 release date.

    Oh well.


  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,473
    Speculation:

    http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/james-bond-007/news/a844971/james-bond-25-title-soundtrack-paloma-faith-speculation/
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    *Sigh*

    We're not even past the distribution deal yet, and tabloids are talking about the soundtrack... The last thing that matters. Something that's only a construction in a post-production period.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    *Sigh*

    We're not even past the distribution deal yet, and tabloids are talking about the soundtrack... The last thing that matters. Something that's only a construction in a post-production period.

    I actually love when these rumors take place, because they're the easiest to call BS on. It's one of the last things they'll organize, yet seems to be one of the first rumors that circulates about a film. It needn't even be shared.

    Who or what is a Paloma Faith anyway?
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Speculation:

    http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/james-bond-007/news/a844971/james-bond-25-title-soundtrack-paloma-faith-speculation/

    Why does her name keep coming up? She will never ever ever ever ever sing a Bond film theme ever. Ever.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    *Sigh*

    We're not even past the distribution deal yet, and tabloids are talking about the soundtrack... The last thing that matters. Something that's only a construction in a post-production period.

    I actually love when these rumors take place, because they're the easiest to call BS on. It's one of the last things they'll organize, yet seems to be one of the first rumors that circulates about a film. It needn't even be shared.

    Who or what is a Paloma Faith anyway?
    Definitely. But, let's peek out of this forum and search for the average social media site user, they believe balderdash like this the moment the first word drops. That's why I find it infuriating.

    Paloma Faith... Sounds like some kind of a new brand name for a fruit juice. Lol!
Sign In or Register to comment.