No Time To Die: Production Diary

1129812991301130313042507

Comments

  • Posts: 4,615
    By defintion, family owned/run companies need future generations within the family to run them. That's why so many family run firms eventually sell out because either there is no next generation to take over or the next generation have no interest in the product.

    I'm not an expert re EON. Who is the next generation?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    patb wrote: »
    Selling to the highest bidder tends to be the trend. Sorry if that sounds sarcastic, selling to a lower bidder is burning money and the buyer can sell it on a profit anyway.

    It's hard to see how selling to a lower bidder would be in the shareholder's interests.

    I was just hoping that if they sell up, she'd value the future of the series her dad made rather than how much money she could make (sure she's got more than enough for one lifetime anyway). I know really that you're right and they would just sell to the highest bidder but the thought of Disney snatching it up and churning them out like Marvel and Star Wars turns my stomach.

    It'll be quite an upsetting day for me if that happens: I can see it now - three separate new eras filming simultaneously with new actors as Bond, Q spinoffs, M spinoffs, MI6 employee spinoffs, a Blofeld prequel, DN prequel, TV shows, Bond-related films and shows on their streaming service, and more.

    I don't want them taking three or four years to release a new movie every single time, but I definitely don't want an oversaturation of it all, either.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I can see an avenue where an expanded universe works. It just requires a little creativity and non linear thinking. Nobody is really calling for an SW type scenario and I absolutely agree that the future of Q and MP is rather limited.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2018 Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    Disney doesn't want Bond. It would compete with their other offerings and is not up their alley. So I wouldn't worry about that really.

    I'm sure that if they ever decide to move on at some point they will hand it over to someone who would do it justice. It won't be all about the money and ultimately whatever offer they get would be quite substantial anyway because it's one of the most valuable (and underexploited) franchises out there.

    Keep in mind that MGM owns half, so both would have to be on side with any possible deal.

    For those who sometimes get upset and confused when we speculate, nobody is saying they are in fact going to sell. Just contemplating, that's all.

    This. The idea of them selling is always a possibility, but I agree it won’t be all about money. There will be some caveats. A sale doesn’t = expanded universe in my opinion. It would be nowhere near as route one as some people are suggesting.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can see an avenue where an expanded universe works. It just requires a little creativity and non linear thinking. Nobody is really calling for an SW type scenario and I absolutely agree that the future of Q and MP is rather limited.

    The problem with this is that an expanded Bond universe won’t be driven by creativity, it will inevitably be driven by money. Nobody is looking at the series thinking, ‘Guys, if only we could get our hands on Bond just think of all the great stories we could tell’.
  • Posts: 4,615
    It's a tough one. IF the bottom line is cash, then you look to SF and say, "we want that again" (we all know it made a ton of cash), it's the public that creates the demand and define what does well (and therefore, what makes money)

    Is SF such a dreadful defintion of success? I have no problem with that. So we have to trust the public to stear the producers into the right direction.

    To me, SF is a good story (I know not all agree) but it ain't no stinker. Good stories make money. Disney know that (from their classics) more than anyone else.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    It's a tough one. IF the bottom line is cash, then you look to SF and say, "we want that again" (we all know it made a ton of cash), it's the public that creates the demand and define what does well (and therefore, what makes money)

    Is SF such a dreadful defintion of success? I have no problem with that. So we have to trust the public to stear the producers into the right direction.

    To me, SF is a good story (I know not all agree) but it ain't no stinker. Good stories make money. Disney know that (from their classics) more than anyone else.

    But this is exactly what happens already, so the sale/expanded universe chat is moot.
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 4,615
    They will want to have more good stories and a wider universe creates the opportunity for more good stories. And that means more bums on seats.

    A true Bond every 4 years with a spin off every 4 years? It's a business model that some could see as tempting. Could that make more cash gross than the present default situation?
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,538
    If Monica Bellucci makes a Bond film again, she’d like a lot of fight scenes with Daniel Craig
    entertainment.inquirer.net/261992/monica-bellucci-makes-bond-film-shed-like-lot-fight-scenes-daniel-craig

    “I would come back if Lucia Sciarra, my character, would be a very powerful Mafia boss and fight with Bond all along. So it would be great,” Monica Bellucci revealed her wish in case she makes another 007 film.

    “I have to say that I really loved working with Daniel Craig. He’s a generous man, a great actor,” the stunning Italian actress said. “He’s in James Bond movies, but he also did amazing intimate films. He’s very polite. He has this masculinity and, at the same time, he’s very shy. I like that very much.”
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can see an avenue where an expanded universe works. It just requires a little creativity and non linear thinking. Nobody is really calling for an SW type scenario and I absolutely agree that the future of Q and MP is rather limited.

    The problem with this is that an expanded Bond universe won’t be driven by creativity, it will inevitably be driven by money. Nobody is looking at the series thinking, ‘Guys, if only we could get our hands on Bond just think of all the great stories we could tell’.
    It doesn't have to be incompatible. I can see a situation where they make more money without sacrificing creativity and innovation. As I said earlier though, such an approach really would require a steady hand on the tiller from up on high, and such individuals are very rare. So the chances of failure and brand dilution are very high.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    They will want to have more good stories and a wider universe creates the opportunity for more good stories. And that means more bums on seats.

    A true Bond every 4 years with a spin off every 4 years? It's a business model that some could see as tempting. Could that make more cash gross than the present default situation?

    Sorry, I just don’t see the model. In this hypothetical scenario what would you personally launch as that first Bond spin off - something that you’d be looking to bring in $400-500m?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    If Monica Bellucci makes a Bond film again, she’d like a lot of fight scenes with Daniel Craig
    entertainment.inquirer.net/261992/monica-bellucci-makes-bond-film-shed-like-lot-fight-scenes-daniel-craig

    “I would come back if Lucia Sciarra, my character, would be a very powerful Mafia boss and fight with Bond all along. So it would be great,” Monica Bellucci revealed her wish in case she makes another 007 film.

    “I have to say that I really loved working with Daniel Craig. He’s a generous man, a great actor,” the stunning Italian actress said. “He’s in James Bond movies, but he also did amazing intimate films. He’s very polite. He has this masculinity and, at the same time, he’s very shy. I like that very much.”
    I'd like this very much, actually.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    A theorethical example of something that could be done with an expanded universe is to introduce a charismatic character in a Bond film (either another British spy or even a section chief at a foreign location - perhaps CIA - and it doesn't need to be Felix) and then expand that universe in a cable tv series. The Bond linkage will be there by 'brand' but we don't have Bond appear and the character or entity never appears in a Bond film again, except perhaps very sparingly (so as not to dilute or cheapen the main brand).

    If the character in question is played by a top name actor looking to get into a regular tv series, there is an added marketing benefit and credibility.

    So it's possible to branch out into other mediums using Bond film global audiences to introduce characters.

    Marvel did that with Agent Phil Coulson.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2018 Posts: 15,423
    True, it did, @bondjames. But, as much as I like Agents of SHIELD, I don't like where it went after Season 3, completely being estranged from the main center of the MCU it no longer feels like they're in the same universe. So, when it comes to the films, the aforementioned TV show doesn't exist in that chronology, according to Kevin Feige, which is a shame.
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 4,615
    RC7 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    They will want to have more good stories and a wider universe creates the opportunity for more good stories. And that means more bums on seats.

    A true Bond every 4 years with a spin off every 4 years? It's a business model that some could see as tempting. Could that make more cash gross than the present default situation?

    Sorry, I just don’t see the model. In this hypothetical scenario what would you personally launch as that first Bond spin off - something that you’d be looking to bring in $400-500m?

    I said some may see it as tempting, I did not say I personally thought it was a good idea but, for the sake of doing any real work, a decent female double 0 agent that we are introduced to via a mainstream Bond gets a spin off. If they knw in advance she was going to spin off, they would give a decent character/back story that could be explored later. The full support of the usual suspects with Bond assisting in the PTS to get things going. Again, I'm not saying it's going to happen but if there is money to be made, it will be considered.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I've actually never watched the show @ClarkDevlin and so can't comment. I was more just pointing out that the power of the Bond global audience can be used to launch an interesting character. Then the character and the show would have to exist and thrive (or fail) on their own but at least they have been introduced. The farther away he/she is from the Bond universe the better, so as not to dilute the main brand. That's why I suggested some kind of foreign section chief. Given Bond's global reach, I could see a Euro-centric tv series, or even an Asian spin off for example. Again, no more connectivity to the films, but rather just used as a launching pad.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    They could. But, I'd rather they didn't approach the "Bondverse" with its spin-offs.
  • Posts: 4,615
    @bondjames yes, decent enough concepts. All of these ideas and more will be explored I am sure. Spin offs, upselling, brand diversity etc etc: its part of modern day commerce, it's everywhere.

    Tapping into new markets (gender, age, geographical) is also part of it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Or maybe he's just complaining. "Early 2018". Any day now, right?
    That's how I would see it as well, but at the risk of looking stupid - who the hell is this guy?
    Some reporter, most likely. I don't know him, either.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2018 Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    They will want to have more good stories and a wider universe creates the opportunity for more good stories. And that means more bums on seats.

    A true Bond every 4 years with a spin off every 4 years? It's a business model that some could see as tempting. Could that make more cash gross than the present default situation?

    Sorry, I just don’t see the model. In this hypothetical scenario what would you personally launch as that first Bond spin off - something that you’d be looking to bring in $400-500m?

    I said some may see it as tempting, I did not say I personally thought it was a good idea but, for the sake of doing any real work, a decent female double 0 agent that we are introduced to via a mainstream Bond gets a spin off. If they knw in advance she was going to spin off, they would give a decent character/back story that could be explored later. The full support of the usual suspects with Bond assisting in the PTS to get things going. Again, I'm not saying it's going to happen but if there is money to be made, it will be considered.

    Or just make ‘The Rhythm Section’ and avoid the hassle of having to tie anything to Bond to give the perception of a ‘universe’.

    As side note, this idea of just ‘giving someone a great back story’ - you make it sound like it’s just something you do. Simple. Nailing down characters and stories that are special enough to make some sort of cultural impact is especially difficult in this age of over-saturation.

    If the character doesn’t catch that’s it. Look at DC, they can’t even produce or market characters with huge cultural currency to decent effect.
  • Posts: 4,615
    @RC7

    "The Rythm Section" or "Double O Nine - First Kill"

    Which one will most easily gain the public's and media attention? Most cinema punters are a little lazy. If there is a familier World that they can slip into (like a cozy pair of slippers) they will do so. Familier supporting cast, tone, style , plot etc. I know which movie I would rather market. Plus you have all of the production expertise/expereince to make these type of movies.

    Im not defending this from an artistic perspective but, financially, it makes sense.
  • Posts: 4,619
    I don't know if he's teasing something he knows (or doesn't know). Tweet from Jeff Sneider, editor of The Tracking Board.



    "So... when are we getting that BOND 25 director announcement? Any day now, right?"

    Jeff Sneider. Great guy, very thrustworthy, always in the know (unlike Scott Feinberg aka "the poor man's Jeff Sneider"). I think he knows something.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2018 Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    @RC7

    "The Rythm Section" or "Double O Nine - First Kill"

    Which one will most easily gain the public's and media attention? Most cinema punters are a little lazy. If there is a familier World that they can slip into (like a cozy pair of slippers) they will do so. Familier supporting cast, tone, style , plot etc. I know which movie I would rather market. Plus you have all of the production expertise/expereince to make these type of movies.

    Im not defending this from an artistic perspective but, financially, it makes sense.

    Only in the short term. You inevitably dilute your IP in this scenario. While the money men are vicious, they aren’t stupid.

    EDIT: It’s also worth noting that in a hypothetical ‘we’re buying Bond and expanding the canvas’ scenario, you need a show runner on the level of Kevin Feige and that man is a rarity.

    Many people look at the franchise landscape and think it’s DC that are terrible. They aren’t actually. They’re actually doing what most producers would do, it’s just that Marvel are so uniquely brilliant at this game, it makes it look easy. It’s the exact opposite.

    SW is evidence of that imo. Completely unable to turn out a film that isn’t divisive in some way. A scattergun approach, with tonal inconsistencies. That series is covered by almost infinite loyalty amongst its hardcore.

    If it was to be done in some way, as Bondjames suggested, something smaller in scale (TV Show) would seem logical, but a cinematic universe? I just don’t see the numbers stacking up.
  • Interesting....

    I suspect that Jeff Sneider is merely paying reference to the fact that we are around 9 months away from the film entering production and we don't know who the director or studio is for Bond 25. It's probably the only big studio tentpole film of 2019 that has had such a shockingly small amount of news reported.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Maybe we're only a couple of weeks away from an actual announcement.

    They've been quiet for far too long.
  • I still suspect it's because they don't have anything to say yet.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    I still suspect it's because they don't have anything to say yet.

    There’s no way! I thought that too, but there must be in more in place than we think, otherwise Craig wouldn’t have come back.
  • Posts: 1,680
    I would start getting concerned if a director hasnt been named by April/May,
  • DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I still suspect it's because they don't have anything to say yet.

    There’s no way! I thought that too, but there must be in more in place than we think, otherwise Craig wouldn’t have come back.

    I still have problems to believe that the man who starred in the two most logic defying bond movies of all time and a movie titled cowboys and aliens cares for anything but a healthy paycheck.
  • Posts: 727
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I still suspect it's because they don't have anything to say yet.

    There’s no way! I thought that too, but there must be in more in place than we think, otherwise Craig wouldn’t have come back.

    I still have problems to believe that the man who starred in the two most logic defying bond movies of all time and a movie titled cowboys and aliens cares for anything but a healthy paycheck.

    Are you inquiring about his integrity?
  • DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I still suspect it's because they don't have anything to say yet.

    There’s no way! I thought that too, but there must be in more in place than we think, otherwise Craig wouldn’t have come back.

    I still have problems to believe that the man who starred in the two most logic defying bond movies of all time and a movie titled cowboys and aliens cares for anything but a healthy paycheck.

    Are you inquiring about his integrity?

    ???
Sign In or Register to comment.