No Time To Die: Production Diary

1134213431345134713482507

Comments

  • Posts: 727
    Well, he directed Hemsworth who was already Thor in four prior films. Sound familiar? He was nonetheless able to pull surprising things out of Hemsworth's arse that we didn't know existed. He could do the same for Craig. He is exactly the sort of director bloke who can reenergise old Craig.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I meant unexciting from a marketing standpoint. Many aren't all that knowledgeable or familiar with him, and now that names like Villeneuve, Nolan and more recently Boyle have apparently been contemplated the stakes are quite high.
    Though how much will an average audience member care about who directs a Bond film? Of those three names Nolan is the biggest one; his participation might make a difference. The other two are famous and everything but clearly not as much. I think it boils down to the Bond brand itself, rather than the director.
    It should boil down to Bond himself, but there's really not much to write home about there next time out imho. From a marketing point of view, I think they need some firepower in the director's chair to jump start the excitement factor. I agree that Nolan is the only one who really could make a difference on his own, but Villeneuve and Boyle aren't slouches. If we consider the number of articles already written about Boyle, we can see that he could be influential. Villeneuve arguably may have lost some lustre on account of BR2049's box office failure (we wouldn't want that brought up every time B25 is mentioned, which it would be if he was the choice).
    Well, he directed Hemsworth who was already Thor in four prior films. Sound familiar? He was nonetheless able to pull surprising things out of Hemsworth's arse that we didn't know existed. He could do the same for Craig. He is exactly the sort of director bloke who can reenergise old Craig.
    Perhaps, but honestly I just would prefer someone with Waititi's capabilities and skills to use them to launch a new actor. Hemsworth is peaking. Craig is past peak.
  • Posts: 727
    The problem with Nolan is that his brand runs the risk of almost overtaking the brand of Bond. We can find ourselves in a situation where it's a Nolan movie with Bond in it than a Bond movie directed by Nolan.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The problem with Nolan is that his brand runs the risk of almost overtaking the brand of Bond. We can find ourselves in a situation where it's a Nolan movie with Bond in it than a Bond movie directed by Nolan.
    A good point. Moreover, how does one go forward after Nolan? With great difficulty no doubt. Look at the screwups over at DC with Batman for instance.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 11,425
    Why aren’t EON speaking to first choice directors years in advance? What EON does is quite different from MOST other companies. They know exactly what they’re going to be doing in 10, 20, 30 years time so there’s no excuse whatsoever for not having their ducks lined up. I’m hopeful that a new era with a new Bond and Nolan in charge for a trilogy would put things on a more even keel for a few years.

    They could be planning movies years in advance with well plotted outlines for movies all ready to go. Returning to much looser continuity would really help on that front too.

    Continuity becomes a burden and makes things stale if pushed too far. One of the great things about the old films is that sense of a fresh start with each movie - no baggage. Far enough they’ve jumped on the story arc bandwagon but I think we know now where that leads - Brofeld etc.

  • edited March 2018 Posts: 5,767
    boldfinger wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    DAD over SP I can understand a little, but DAD over SF? I just can’t follow at all.
    One of my biggest problems with SF is that after the pts the tempo goes down so much, and the storytelling meanders so broadly, I simply don´t get attracted. M writing obituary, ok. M summoned to headmaster, yeah ok, if some tension would have been built out of that. But no, the next thing is the explosion, ok, explosion is always tense and ramps things up. But then, next scene, again tempo to zero, Bond on the beach. Come on. Ok, now Bond is motivated again and goes home, promising the next gear. But no, personal evaluation, including the preposterous alleged childhood trauma, which in the further proceedings has absolutely no relevance. This is just amazingly bad storytelling, constantly trying to push me away instead of luring me in.
    DAD is dumb, but the story flows and invites me in, and as I said, DAD is a perfect persiflage of a Bond film and doesn´t pretentiously try to be anything else.

    I dunno how to break this to you, but a deliberate, measured pace isn't bad storytelling. You are too used to rapid fire Hollywood ADD pacing.
    If that´s what you want to call every Bond film from DN until LTK.

    And you didn´t get my point. I´m not critisizing Mendes´ pacing for being deliberate and measured, but for having no flow. Blade Runner for instance is a very slow-moving film, and I adore its story flow.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited March 2018 Posts: 732
    If I were Campbell, I would not come back and clean up. He made GE and CR - two very successful and beloved entries of the 007 canon. I would not do B25 - the only thing that could lure me back would be a tremendous script - but like somebody else said before me in this thread: CR had a "Fleming spine" and that one was fleshed out and modernized brilliantly by the writers without any doubt. This spine is in many ways a reduction to the literary 007 and enriched with a top notch performance by Craig - both on the acting and the physical side. That's what made CR work so well ... but the core, the spine was Fleming's (!) 007.

    I liked QoS (except the editing) because it *attempted* the same - but it missed the Fleming spine and due to all the circumstances it *had* to focus on action and relied on story elements laid out in it's previous movie. But it looked great, acting and action was great ... it may be a moderate entry for some but for me I liked the chemistry between Craig and Kurylenko plus Mathis, Felix, Fields, M ... I enjoy it and find it very rewatchable. But no doubt the movie missed something story-wise.

    SF is very different: It had enormous production value (especially Roger Deakins' cinematography) and again very good acting from Craig, Bardem, Dench and all the rest. The movie was a huge critical and finacial success for a reason - but *not* just the Olympics and the 50th anniversary. It was something new we haven't seen in the Bond history - very character driven. The Mendes core story may be his "usual shtick" but enriched with elements of the literary James Bond background and the movie's overall beauty it just ... worked. But it does not hold up to CR ... and to me that is because of the missing "Fleming spine" of the story. I love SKYFALL - I resonate to it's theme and for another 50 years it will just keep looking and feeling very classy.

    But SF's success blinded everyone in preproduction: Mendes was done after SF and he did not want to do SP ... and you feel it. He did it for the money in my opinion and that's why he *and* EoN let the script being written without much control and guidance ... until it was too late. They were lazy or burnt out or whatsoever but there lies the core mistake. I am sure everyone from Mendes to Broccoli/MGW realized they were in trouble but they had to go with it because they ran out of time ... all due to lazyness and blinded trust in the pre-production phase in people that let them down (to me: Logan). The actual execution was great as usual, sets were awesome, they had great locations and the acting was never a problem in this movie.

    But the trick Mendes did with SF did not work twice ... not by far. Instead of action (like in QoS) they filled the void with production value and money. But it did not work out - not by far as it did with SF. You can't do this trick twice. In my opinion, that's what went wrong with SP and nothing else. You can totally see what was added later to fill the gaps and funnily those are the only elements in the movie that worked. That's what makes me so angry about SP: the waste of things that *were* great. But they are washed away by the mess that was created in pre-production plus a much weaker direction of Mendes ... somebody who not really wanted to do this movie from the beginning.

    That's why I hope and think the lesson learned is: Keep PreProduction and planning of Bond 25 as tight as possible. Question the script if in doubt and then re-question it. Be more in control. I am quite sure the lack of information is (also) due to that and SP showed that this is needed. Ideally the writer(s) came up with a core story that could carry the movie alone by itself ... and that's what got Craig convinced for B25. Of course this is nothing more than hope but I guess the conclusion after SP can only be just "Be more in control - don't blindly trust". The long leash Mendes and EoN gave in preproduction or planning was what ruined SP plus a tired director who did it with half of the steam he put in with SF ... at least that's my impression from the final result. I am somewhat convinced the good story elements and scenes of SP are the ones P&W brought in to be honest. That's why I am not that much against them. I don't buy the Boyle story so far but if they just re-question a script they have in their hands and they take their time to make sure the story ist right and just keep quiet until all that is settled ... then they're just doing their job and that's good. The lack of news is often seen as lazyness - maybe it's not that but concentrated, tight work to avoid mistakes made before. B25 will tell ... even if they re-schedule and even retire Craig. They did that with Pierce - a beloved and successful James Bond back then no matter how weak DAD turned out ... as seen by critics and fans likewise in majority. I am a great fan of Craig's Bond and I want to see him back ... but in a film much less like SPECTRE turned out to be. If I would know the next Craig 007 movie would be something like it I, as a huge fan, would skip it and wait for the new actor. I just hope they reduce it back to what made Craig's version of Bond so successful. And they have all at hand that it takes.

    That's what I see for B25 starring Craig - it's his set of tools so to speak. With a different lead actor they could bring in a whole new flavour (see Moore) but with Craig they should bring it back to the core of what worked so well with him in the lead.
  • Posts: 4,617
    The thing I find interesting is, in 10 years time when new books are being written or well known ones updated, will we ever know exactly what has happend during the last 18 months or will the roumours and myths still be discussed?

    Also, as we know with QoS, IF the movie is not up to scratch, all of these delays and decisions etc are used (rightly or wrongly) as reasons and explanations.

    We all know from our own work that we produce our best work within a clearly defined environment and an established team. It makes things so much harder wehn you literally don't know what's going on. I wonder what DC is making of all this. Birthdays do tend to focus the mind and make you think about the future.
  • Posts: 4,409
    Baz Bamigboye: Danny Boyle to direct ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE this Spring; Involvement with Bond is highly unlikely
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5452613/Danny-Boyle-Richard-Curtis-making-Beatles-movie.html

    Danny Boyle will direct a 1960's set musical using the music of The Beatles. Himesh Patel of Eastenders fame, will play the lead. Filming takes place this spring in London and Norfolk.

    Boyle is then hoping to turn his attention to an adaption of Miss Saigon in 2020 (if that scriptcomes together).

    I understand that Boyle could race through this production and then move straight to Bond. But a musical using the Beatles music is kinda big deal and I doubt he'll want to rush it. Especially, if Boyle's involvement with Bond is relatively fresh as the Reddit poster suggested. I think Boyle was never really "in". He's hardly been enthusiastic about Bond in the past and personally I'd genuinely excited to see this Beatles film over a Danny Boyle/Bond movie.
  • Posts: 1,548
    I'd rather they delay the film rather than rush the script as has been the case in the past.
  • Posts: 4,044
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    I'd rather they delay the film rather than rush the script as has been the case in the past.

    They have been able to delay the film and rush the script.
  • Posts: 4,409
    According to The hollywood Reporter, the Bond director search stalled. Hence, why they went to Boyle. It was never a case of Yann Demange being "ousted".

    Eon need a director pronto. Luckily for them, I'm here:

    Steve McQueen
    f383a86829c2bcfcbede1df72ba9da32229d9924acb6641a3e39f8e37bac3505.jpg?mw=600


    Lynne Ramsay

    joaquin-phoenix-you-were-never-really-here.jpg?w=780


    Joe Wright

    screen-shot-2018-02-21-at-1-55-03-pm.png?w=780

    David Fincher
    fincherflynn.jpg

    Ang Lee
    Ang-Lee-e1424972099203.jpg

    Tom Ford
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6vGOiMXwIoSmKIWJ_XfH2L0yPha561CwY-UpaZKlAy7vFrMO1

    As for less A-list names that would be a little cooler and more under the radar:

    Alex Garland
    David Mackenzie
    Lenny Abrahamson
    Justin Kurzel
    David Slade
    John Hillcoat
    Jakob Verbruggen
    James Watkins
    Johnathan Glazer


  • Posts: 17,759
    David Fincher would make a hell of a Bond film, if you ask me. Loved Zodiac, and he has already directed Craig in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 4,617
    OK, silly question coming up: even before SP was screened, what prevented EON approaching potential script writers with three different scenarios and letting them produce treatments for one or any?:

    Direct follow up to SP
    Fresh standalone story with DC as Bond
    Fresh story with new Bond

    This process could have started three years ago.

    PS sorry to be a Star Trek bore but the Khan script was developed over a 12 month period with Meyer taking all the various drafts and producing the finished article in 12 days. You can do this if you find the right people. We are not inventing Nuclear fusion here, its just one movie.

  • edited March 2018 Posts: 4,409
    Perhaps Eon should focus on producing a really great script and just getting a workman director to come and execute it.

    Martin Campbell is a hack. But when you give him a great script (especially a great Bond script), he delivers.

    Also, Paul McGuigan would be a good fit. He's hardly dynamic but he could develop a good script and bring it to the finish line.

    I feel Eon's lofty ambitions of getting an auteur filmmaker are falling apart. You've got to engage that type of filmmaker very early in the process, as they always develop their own material.

    Maybe an old Craig era director could return? If I was Eon, I'd seriously consider going back to Martin Campbell, Marc Forster or Sam Mendes. All three are available.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited March 2018 Posts: 15,423
    Martin Campbell is a hack.
    Thanks for the laugh. I certainly needed to hear an absurd remark as such to kick my day off with.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,401
    I'm not sure if the story about Yan getting mistreated is true or not, but if so then he won't be interested. I'd suggest bringing back Mendes and finishing the story on time for 2019. Either that or just quit while you're ahead. SP is lacklustre for sure, but still a better send off than a few of the Bond got. The way they are handling Bond 25 at the moment, it seems like there's more chance of damaging the Craig era by continuing than there is of improving it.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Getafix wrote: »
    Why aren’t EON speaking to first choice directors years in advance? What EON does is quite different from MOST other companies. They know exactly what they’re going to be doing in 10, 20, 30 years time so there’s no excuse whatsoever for not having their ducks lined up. I’m hopeful that a new era with a new Bond and Nolan in charge for a trilogy would put things on a more even keel for a few years.

    They could be planning movies years in advance with well plotted outlines for movies all ready to go. Returning to much looser continuity would really help on that front too.

    Continuity becomes a burden and makes things stale if pushed too far. One of the great things about the old films is that sense of a fresh start with each movie - no baggage. Far enough they’ve jumped on the story arc bandwagon but I think we know now where that leads - Brofeld etc.

    Excellent post.

    EON remind me of TVR. Made fabulous cars on occasion that could compete with the best Ferrari or Lambo could offer. But there's only so long 2 blokes working out of a shed can keep it up.

    What set EON apart from the Hollywood machine is in danger of becoming a burden. However much we may bemoan the Marvel system at least they run it professionally.

    Where Marvel and Disney have these huge teams (I'm not convinced of this approach personally and would normally prefer the writer/director auteur approach but then I saw The Last Jedi) in place thrashing out scripts for films 5 years away from production we just have:

    MGW - An old bloke who has given his life to Bond, and for me (unless he greenlit stepbrothergate) is largely above criticism given his track record in the 80s - probably the second best era after the 60s. But now he's looking tired and burned out and is not in the best of health. He has already been involved in the series far longer than Cubby so it's understandable his enthusiasm is waning. He deserves his retirement.

    Babs - his sister who has lived under his and her father's shadow and you get the impression is desperate to be regarded as more than a Bond producer. Spreading herself rather thinly and getting her fingers involved in all sorts of pies (theatre, other movies, women's rights bullshit) when a production like Bond is a full time job. If she's tired of Bond then fine; go off and do other stuff but when Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool and The Rhythm Section have come and gone without a ripple in anyone's memory Bond will still pay the bills so neglecting it is unacceptable.

    Gregg Wilson - Groomed through the nepotism system so lacking any real hunger or drive to succeed as he's already minted and had it all handed to him. I've seen nothing to suggest he is the man to lead Bond forwards for the next 25 years and if this guy takes the reins then he kind of proves @PanchitoPistoles point that any of us could do the job if we were trained by EON in the nuts and bolts of film production.

    EON are competent producers in surrounding themselves with excellent professionals but, at the moment certainly, there is an atmosphere of them being all over the place and I think this is pretty much due to this misguided continuity path they went down. With Marvel it all holds together because they know where the story is going in 3 films time but for you to bend the narrative to fit after each fresh instalment with no notion of where you are actually headed is ludicrous. If EON wanted to do continuity then they should have sat down on day one of CR pre production and mapped it out. I'd feel much happier about B25 if I knew it was standalone rather than imagining them pulling their hair out trying to fashion a script that continues the 'story'.

    After SP they should've taken a year off (because working for 9 months a year is incredibly knackering apparently despite the millions they all take home to make it worth their while) to clear their heads. Fine. Even go off and produce your Oscar bait with Annette Bening if you want but on Jan 1st 2017 they needed to sit down and concentrate on Bond.

    After the shambles of SP you would expect them to pull out the stops to deliver but instead they seem to be content to keep meandering.
    Instead of a sense they are really concentrating on nailing B25 we get The Rhythm Section announcement that excited nobody except Babs' feminist chums.

    Sorry this is a bit of a rant. @patb sums my feelings up perfectly here:


    patb wrote: »
    OK, silly question coming up: even before SP was screened, what prevented EON approaching potential script writers with three different scenarios and letting them produce treatments for one or any?:

    Direct follow up to SP
    Fresh standalone story with DC as Bond
    Fresh story with new Bond

    This process could have started three years ago.

    PS sorry to be a Star Trek bore but the Khan script was developed over a 12 month period with Meyer taking all the various drafts and producing the finished article in 12 days. You can do this if you find the right people. We are not inventing Nuclear fusion here, its just one movie.

    Exactly. For people running a multi million dollar business why is the whole process so half arsed?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Baz Bamigboye: Danny Boyle to direct ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE this Spring; Involvement with Bond is highly unlikely
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5452613/Danny-Boyle-Richard-Curtis-making-Beatles-movie.html

    Danny Boyle will direct a 1960's set musical using the music of The Beatles. Himesh Patel of Eastenders fame, will play the lead. Filming takes place this spring in London and Norfolk.

    Boyle is then hoping to turn his attention to an adaption of Miss Saigon in 2020 (if that scriptcomes together).

    I understand that Boyle could race through this production and then move straight to Bond. But a musical using the Beatles music is kinda big deal and I doubt he'll want to rush it. Especially, if Boyle's involvement with Bond is relatively fresh as the Reddit poster suggested. I think Boyle was never really "in". He's hardly been enthusiastic about Bond in the past and personally I'd genuinely excited to see this Beatles film over a Danny Boyle/Bond movie.
    Where exactly does the article mention Bond?
  • Posts: 4,617
    I'm going to answer my own question here:

    Perhaps they did not want to upset DC by even considering the fresh Bond option before negotiating for him to come back? Perhaps "Is DC coming back" has been THE question for them rather than "where/who/how do we get a great script?"

    So we get the news that DC is coming back but, during that time, writers and directors have signed up to other projects (the good ones are obviously either in demad or can make their own demands).

    I'm sure others don't agree but IMHO a great script is more important than DC returning.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Why aren’t EON speaking to first choice directors years in advance? What EON does is quite different from MOST other companies. They know exactly what they’re going to be doing in 10, 20, 30 years time so there’s no excuse whatsoever for not having their ducks lined up. I’m hopeful that a new era with a new Bond and Nolan in charge for a trilogy would put things on a more even keel for a few years.

    They could be planning movies years in advance with well plotted outlines for movies all ready to go. Returning to much looser continuity would really help on that front too.

    Continuity becomes a burden and makes things stale if pushed too far. One of the great things about the old films is that sense of a fresh start with each movie - no baggage. Far enough they’ve jumped on the story arc bandwagon but I think we know now where that leads - Brofeld etc.

    Excellent post.

    EON remind me of TVR. Made fabulous cars on occasion that could compete with the best Ferrari or Lambo could offer. But there's only so long 2 blokes working out of a shed can keep it up.

    What set EON apart from the Hollywood machine is in danger of becoming a burden. However much we may bemoan the Marvel system at least they run it professionally.

    Where Marvel and Disney have these huge teams (I'm not convinced of this approach personally and would normally prefer the writer/director auteur approach but then I saw The Last Jedi) in place thrashing out scripts for films 5 years away from production we just have:

    MGW - An old bloke who has given his life to Bond, and for me (unless he greenlit stepbrothergate) is largely above criticism given his track record in the 80s - probably the second best era after the 60s. But now he's looking tired and burned out and is not in the best of health. He has already been involved in the series far longer than Cubby so it's understandable his enthusiasm is waning. He deserves his retirement.

    Babs - his sister who has lived under his and her father's shadow and you get the impression is desperate to be regarded as more than a Bond producer. Spreading herself rather thinly and getting her fingers involved in all sorts of pies (theatre, other movies, women's rights bullshit) when a production like Bond is a full time job. If she's tired of Bond then fine; go off and do other stuff but when Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool and The Rhythm Section have come and gone without a ripple in anyone's memory Bond will still pay the bills so neglecting it is unacceptable.

    Gregg Wilson - Groomed through the nepotism system so lacking any real hunger or drive to succeed as he's already minted and had it all handed to him. I've seen nothing to suggest he is the man to lead Bond forwards for the next 25 years and if this guy takes the reins then he kind of proves @PanchitoPistoles point that any of us could do the job if we were trained by EON in the nuts and bolts of film production.

    EON are competent producers in surrounding themselves with excellent professionals but, at the moment certainly, there is an atmosphere of them being all over the place and I think this is pretty much due to this misguided continuity path they went down. With Marvel it all holds together because they know where the story is going in 3 films time but for you to bend the narrative to fit after each fresh instalment with no notion of where you are actually headed is ludicrous. If EON wanted to do continuity then they should have sat down on day one of CR pre production and mapped it out. I'd feel much happier about B25 if I knew it was standalone rather than imagining them pulling their hair out trying to fashion a script that continues the 'story'.

    After SP they should've taken a year off (because working for 9 months a year is incredibly knackering apparently despite the millions they all take home to make it worth their while) to clear their heads. Fine. Even go off and produce your Oscar bait with Annette Bening if you want but on Jan 1st 2017 they needed to sit down and concentrate on Bond.

    After the shambles of SP you would expect them to pull out the stops to deliver but instead they seem to be content to keep meandering.
    Instead of a sense they are really concentrating on nailing B25 we get The Rhythm Section announcement that excited nobody except Babs' feminist chums.

    Sorry this is a bit of a rant. @patb sums my feelings up perfectly here:


    patb wrote: »
    OK, silly question coming up: even before SP was screened, what prevented EON approaching potential script writers with three different scenarios and letting them produce treatments for one or any?:

    Direct follow up to SP
    Fresh standalone story with DC as Bond
    Fresh story with new Bond

    This process could have started three years ago.

    PS sorry to be a Star Trek bore but the Khan script was developed over a 12 month period with Meyer taking all the various drafts and producing the finished article in 12 days. You can do this if you find the right people. We are not inventing Nuclear fusion here, its just one movie.

    Exactly. For people running a multi million dollar business why is the whole process so half arsed?
    Pretty much sums up my thoughts.
    According to The hollywood Reporter, the Bond director search stalled. Hence, why they went to Boyle.
    I thought Demange and MacKenzie have been waiting for two years to get the greenlight? Instead, EON appear to be looking for high priced talent to compensate for their mistake in not recasting, and to satisfy the lead.
    Danny Boyle will direct a 1960's set musical using the music of The Beatles. Himesh Patel of Eastenders fame, will play the lead. Filming takes place this spring in London and Norfolk.
    Which is to be distributed by Universal, so if Boyle is still in the frame, there is a distinct possibility they are the elusive and very important foreign distributor ("the money").

    There is still a chance that Boyle directs but the release date is pushed back. Or else he directs and the release is met.

    I think there is a surprise in store. I continue to believe May is breaking news.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think there is a surprise in store. I continue to believe May is breaking news.
    Craig is out. Demange is the next Bond.
  • Posts: 380
    They already wasted a year by waiting for Mendes to do Charlie and the Chocolate Factory before doing SP. Dont make the same mistake again by waiting for Boyle to do another movie first. If he's not ready to start shooting to make the release date, move on and find someone else.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think there is a surprise in store. I continue to believe May is breaking news.
    Craig is out. Demange is the next Bond.
    This could at least create more positive buzz than what we have now, if only from a novelty standpoint. Hopefully someone from the supporting cadre over there puts their foot down.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Wow this thread needs something OFFICIAL? And needs it NOOWWWW!!!!!!!!!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Wow this thread needs something OFFICIAL? And needs it NOOWWWW!!!!!!!!!
    Once Hodge gets his script approved, expect big announcements imho.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    bondjames wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I meant unexciting from a marketing standpoint. Many aren't all that knowledgeable or familiar with him, and now that names like Villeneuve, Nolan and more recently Boyle have apparently been contemplated the stakes are quite high.
    Though how much will an average audience member care about who directs a Bond film? Of those three names Nolan is the biggest one; his participation might make a difference. The other two are famous and everything but clearly not as much. I think it boils down to the Bond brand itself, rather than the director.
    It should boil down to Bond himself, but there's really not much to write home about there next time out imho. From a marketing point of view, I think they need some firepower in the director's chair to jump start the excitement factor. I agree that Nolan is the only one who really could make a difference on his own, but Villeneuve and Boyle aren't slouches. If we consider the number of articles already written about Boyle, we can see that he could be influential. Villeneuve arguably may have lost some lustre on account of BR2049's box office failure (we wouldn't want that brought up every time B25 is mentioned, which it would be if he was the choice).
    I imagine there are other ways to get the audience's attention, though. Look at Mission: Impossible. Their marketing formula is basically Tom Cruise plus memorable stunts. Bond should regain its footing in the stunt department, and come up with something truly impressive that gets everybody talking. But speaking more generally, the Bond people should come up with a fresh, imaginative film, one that just bombards the audience with distinctive images and offers a memorable story. Look at Goldfinger. Oddjob, Fort Knox, the laser beam. The product itself, and the brand, can be the draw, irrespective of who made it. People don't watch the Marvel films for their directors, they watch them because of the comic book background and because they look and feel like giant spectacles. Bond can do the same.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    bondjames wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think there is a surprise in store. I continue to believe May is breaking news.
    Craig is out. Demange is the next Bond.
    This could at least create more positive buzz than what we have now, if only from a novelty standpoint. Hopefully someone from the supporting cadre over there puts their foot down.
    Yeah. Actually, I'd be excited if that happened!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I meant unexciting from a marketing standpoint. Many aren't all that knowledgeable or familiar with him, and now that names like Villeneuve, Nolan and more recently Boyle have apparently been contemplated the stakes are quite high.
    Though how much will an average audience member care about who directs a Bond film? Of those three names Nolan is the biggest one; his participation might make a difference. The other two are famous and everything but clearly not as much. I think it boils down to the Bond brand itself, rather than the director.
    It should boil down to Bond himself, but there's really not much to write home about there next time out imho. From a marketing point of view, I think they need some firepower in the director's chair to jump start the excitement factor. I agree that Nolan is the only one who really could make a difference on his own, but Villeneuve and Boyle aren't slouches. If we consider the number of articles already written about Boyle, we can see that he could be influential. Villeneuve arguably may have lost some lustre on account of BR2049's box office failure (we wouldn't want that brought up every time B25 is mentioned, which it would be if he was the choice).
    I imagine there are other ways to get the audience's attention, though. Look at Mission: Impossible. Their marketing formula is basically Tom Cruise plus memorable stunts. Bond should regain its footing in the stunt department, and come up with something truly impressive that gets everybody talking. But speaking more generally, the Bond people should come up with a fresh, imaginative film, one that just bombards the audience with distinctive images and offers a memorable story. Look at Goldfinger. Oddjob, Fort Knox, the laser beam. The product itself, and the brand, can be the draw, irrespective of who made it. People don't watch the Marvel films for their directors, they watch them because of the comic book background and because they look and feel like giant spectacles. Bond can do the same.
    I completely agree. 100%. That's what I hoped they would do for B25, with a completely new and fresh approach. They've reportedly decided to keep some baggage on though and so no matter what else they do it won't be entirely fresh this time out. It can't be (by default), given the connected crap that came last time, even if they choose to ignore it and hope that the passage of time would make us (and the general audience) forget it.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2018 Posts: 8,401
    Wait, I thought the Hodge script was for Boyle to direct? If Boyle has a project for this summer, it's quite unlikely he would do Bond 25 without another delay, right? So how is EON attracting interest from directors to the project if the script they will be using isn't even written yet, and EON haven't read it yet themselves to know it's good enough to make a film out of? And, if they are trying to attract top tier talent, why would a top director want to direct Hodges script? If Boyle demanded his own scribe, why wouldn't another director of his ilk demand the same? I was under the impression that with Boyle doing this musical, both he and Hodge were out. I struggle to see what the point of Hodge writing a script for them is, when the only reason he's there is because Boyle wanted him, and he's no longer interested in directing so...
Sign In or Register to comment.