› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…13431344134613481349…2507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The article didn't say anything about Hodge, so I'm assuming he's still on the job. After all, I've been told numerous times that The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline etc. are the sources to trust.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,540
    Given that 'Kings' is released at the end of April, and the last solid news we got was from Craig, perhaps some news will once again coincide with his press schedule.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Given that 'Kings' is released at the end of April, and the last solid news we got was from Craig, perhaps some news will once again coincide with his press schedule.
    Perhaps. There's certainly the prospect of another impromptu Colbert revelation at the very least, which might excite some (not me).
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    bondjames wrote: »
    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.
    Yeah. Assuming the whole Demange/Boyle situation actually happened, and if Boyle is now out of the picture, it'll be interesting to see how EON (and the distributor, if any) will proceed from now on. Constraints can encourage creativity, and hopefully that'll be the case, even within the general framework of the tired Craig era arc. Maybe they'll just be forced to hire people in other (lower) places. I'm not sure they can just delay the film at their whim; we are already set for a four-year wait, and extending it would be bad for the brand and probably bad in the eyes of potential distributors.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    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.
    Yeah. Assuming the whole Demange/Boyle situation actually happened, and if Boyle is now out of the picture, it'll be interesting to see how EON (and the distributor, if any) will proceed from now on. Constraints can encourage creativity, and hopefully that'll be the case, even within the general framework of the tired Craig era arc. Maybe they'll just be forced to hire people in other (lower) places. I'm not sure they can just delay the film at their whim; we are already set for a four-year wait, and extending it would be bad for the brand and probably bad in the eyes of potential distributors.
    Unless it is the distributor who is in fact causing the delay, being displeased with the original proposal. When we finally get the announcement we can probably back track and theorize on what's been happening here, but it certainly looks like a shift has taken place somewhat abruptly recently, and I'm all for that.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,401
    I just don't see the logic. Now they have a writer they've never worked with before penning a script in the hopes that any directors of note they might be able to attract will agree to it without having read it, with a release date looming. No wonder they can't find any talent who wants to helm the thing.

    When I heard that Boyle had seemingly backed out, I instantly assumed that EON must be pushing forward with the P+W script, and looking for a lower tier director. But what would be the point in showing anyone that script if it won't be the one they're actually using for the film.

    Either the P+W script is so bad that it's literally unusable, or they must be confident in this guy Hodge to write something that will conclude the era properly. I think time limitations must be playing a significant role in the decision making by this stage. I can't imagine they would want to delay things further, as that would not play well.
  • CraterGunsCraterGuns
    Posts: 618
    Hardy should be playing Napoleon (Bonaparte), not Bond.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    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.

    Excellent points, all. You are a welcome voice of reason.

    SF was successful because of Dench and her character arc. That was only possible once because of her long tenure in the role, and as SP showed, doubling down on the "personal losses" to Bond with Oberhauser and the Vesper storyline again just didn't work.

    Unfortunately, Mendes was more concerned with the filmic Bond (LALD in particular) than the literary Bond, which Craig was already playing so well.

    In retrospect, I really wish Eon had sat down after QoS and thought, "If we're doing a new film every 3 or 4 years, how many Craig films will there be?" And: "Where are we going with Quantum?"

    It would not have been that difficult for Eon to conclude that if they had Craig for three more films, they could have done films based on OHMSS/YOLT/TMWTGG, novels that are *perfect* for Craig's Bond.

    SF would then have been OHMSS-inspired, perhaps with M in place of a Tracy, because a new Tracy-like character might have been too much after Vesper.

    A stripped-down Bond based on one of Fleming's books or short stories is exactly what the franchise needs to wrap up Craig's tenure. I'm a little concerned that Boyle might be like another Mendes--"Wait! I have a great idea for Bond!"--as opposed to just going back to Fleming. Fleming spent a lot more time with the character than these prestigious directors.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Isn't Boyle a Fleming nut? I thought I read that somewhere.

    Regarding QoS: that film didn't go down too well with the public or fans (although it's had a reappraisal of late). I'm not surprised that EON decided to change course after that, and the financial results speak for themselves.

    Book Bond is quite different from cinematic Bond, and the tug of war between both elements will always exist.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    Just imagine if none of this is even remotely true.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Dennison wrote: »
    Just imagine if none of this is even remotely true.
    I've taken that into account, as well. You never know...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Aren't Deadline and Hollywood Reporter credible though? That's what I was assured of a couple of times earlier.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    bondjames wrote: »
    Aren't Deadline and Hollywood Reporter credible though? That's what I was assured of a couple of times earlier.

    They are. Isn't it still feasible that they could be opting for the Boyle/Hodge duo and will just wait until the former is done with this new musical? It did say he's shooting it in the summer, I guess it's feasible for him to wrap it up and move on to B25, if need be.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,401
    bondjames wrote: »
    Aren't Deadline and Hollywood Reporter credible though? That's what I was assured of a couple of times earlier.

    They are considered credible, yes. Everyone makes mistakes though.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Aren't Deadline and Hollywood Reporter credible though? That's what I was assured of a couple of times earlier.

    They are. Isn't it still feasible that they could be opting for the Boyle/Hodge duo and will just wait until the former is done with this new musical? It did say he's shooting it in the summer, I guess it's feasible for him to wrap it up and move on to B25, if need be.
    That is my belief too. I am speculating that Universal could very well be our distributor as well.
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Aren't Deadline and Hollywood Reporter credible though? That's what I was assured of a couple of times earlier.

    They are considered credible, yes. Everyone makes mistakes though.
    True. There's always that possibility. If that's the case we are back to a distinct case of the 'underwhelming' though. Boyle/Hodge has been the best news in some time.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,401
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Aren't Deadline and Hollywood Reporter credible though? That's what I was assured of a couple of times earlier.

    They are. Isn't it still feasible that they could be opting for the Boyle/Hodge duo and will just wait until the former is done with this new musical? It did say he's shooting it in the summer, I guess it's feasible for him to wrap it up and move on to B25, if need be.

    It just seems awfully tight to me, timewise. I don't know how Boyle operates, it's entirely possible he doesn't need to start filming until early 2019, and still make a Oct/Nov release. His films are usually quite short, that I know.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Aren't Deadline and Hollywood Reporter credible though? That's what I was assured of a couple of times earlier.

    They are. Isn't it still feasible that they could be opting for the Boyle/Hodge duo and will just wait until the former is done with this new musical? It did say he's shooting it in the summer, I guess it's feasible for him to wrap it up and move on to B25, if need be.

    It just seems awfully tight to me, timewise. I don't know how Boyle operates, it's entirely possible he doesn't need to start filming until early 2019, and still make a Oct/Nov release. His films are usually quite short, that I know.

    Agreed. He's used to shorter shoot times and smaller budgets - another reason I'd love for him to direct this. Bring it back to a more grounded level budget wise. I'm sure he can deliver something special for half of what they've been spending lately.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,474
    I’ll say this much: If I knew for sure a Boyle-helmed Bond 25 would result in a much better product than P&W’s Bond script directed by anyone, I would be more than willing to wait a little while longer for it. I’m just really rooting for Craig to stay on.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’ll say this much: If I knew for sure a Boyle-helmed Bond 25 would result in a much better product than P&W’s Bond script directed by anyone, I would be more than willing to wait a little while longer for it. I’m just really rooting for Craig to stay on.
    I agree with everything you've said except the last part, although I'm resigned to it being reality due to the strong relationships at play.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    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.
    Right. Boyle doesn´t like huge budget films, so he consequently shoots a musical using Beatles songs. Yeah.

    All these people tell the media just what fits the day. Probably the production process is neither better nor worse than in the past, only we are dumb enough to let us be made hysteric by the internet.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    boldfinger wrote: »
    All these people tell the media just what fits the day. Probably the production process is neither better nor worse than in the past, only we are dumb enough to let us be made hysteric by the internet.

    Nail on head.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    So provided all the Boyle news is true, would you lot prefer a bit of a delay for him to direct, or stick with the current release date and go with a different director?
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,474
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    So provided all the Boyle news is true, would you lot prefer a bit of a delay for him to direct, or stick with the current release date and go with a different director?

    Probably wait, considering we’d otherwise get the P&W script. After SP, hard to have much faith in them. It’s possible they made a decent one, but I’m doubtful.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    So provided all the Boyle news is true, would you lot prefer a bit of a delay for him to direct, or stick with the current release date and go with a different director?

    Probably wait, considering we’d otherwise get the P&W script. After SP, hard to have much faith in them. It’s possible they made a decent one, but I’m doubtful.
    Me too. P&W have become overly predictable. Hodge will at least bring something new to the table. Now, if only we can have some other changes too, my enthusiasm for B25 will be elevated immeasurably.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    What a Hodge-Podge.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    My problem is that I'm tired of EON chasing these big-name artsy directors. We need a director that realizes that Bond is much bigger and more important than any individual director and whatever "vision" they have for the film, and will instead focus on honoring Bond's heritage and delivering a quality Bond film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BMW_with_missiles wrote: »
    My problem is that I'm tired of EON chasing these big-name artsy directors. We need a director that realizes that Bond is much bigger and more important than any individual director and whatever "vision" they have for the film, and will instead focus on honoring Bond's heritage and delivering a quality Bond film.
    We'll get there. Give it time. A bit of cleansing is required first.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    bondjames wrote: »
    BMW_with_missiles wrote: »
    My problem is that I'm tired of EON chasing these big-name artsy directors. We need a director that realizes that Bond is much bigger and more important than any individual director and whatever "vision" they have for the film, and will instead focus on honoring Bond's heritage and delivering a quality Bond film.
    We'll get there. Give it time. A bit of cleansing is required first.

    I certainly hope you're right.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    edited March 2018 Posts: 12,474
    I’m hopeful we’ll get a big shakeup after Bond 25. We need it. New everything pretty much I’d say.

    EDIT: Doesn’t matter if Bond 25 is good or bad. We need something new.
  • StrogStrog
    Posts: 684
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’m hopeful we’ll get a big shakeup after Bond 25. We need it. New everything pretty much I’d say.
    I agree, but they could start now. Say we get a first-time director and a new writer for Bond 25 and things turn out well. I wouldn't object to their returning, so long as we got a new Bond and a new direction tonally.
Sign In or Register to comment.