No Time To Die: Production Diary

1134413451347134913502507

Comments

  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with most of you. Although I agree about new blood helming the movies, I’m not ready for Craig to be replaced. I’ll be immensely disappointed if Craig backs out of Bond 25.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Craig won't back out of Bond 25.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,983
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with most of you. Although I agree about new blood helming the movies, I’m not ready for Craig to be replaced. I’ll be immensely disappointed if Craig backs out of Bond 25.

    I'm leaning one way or the other right now, I'm just ready for some more Bond. I'll mainly be disappointed that it's taken this long, just for him to back out now.
  • Posts: 12,478
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with most of you. Although I agree about new blood helming the movies, I’m not ready for Craig to be replaced. I’ll be immensely disappointed if Craig backs out of Bond 25.

    I still feel that way about 25. I want Craig to finish with 5, and get a chance for something better than SP. I’m just saying after 25. One last EON/Craig outing, hopefully a good one, would be enough for me before big changes.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    FoxRox wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with most of you. Although I agree about new blood helming the movies, I’m not ready for Craig to be replaced. I’ll be immensely disappointed if Craig backs out of Bond 25.

    I still feel that way about 25. I want Craig to finish with 5, and get a chance for something better than SP. I’m just saying after 25. One last EON/Craig outing, hopefully a good one, would be enough for me before big changes.

    Agreed. Spot on!
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    Ok I just tweeted to baz to ask if he knows anything about the current situation with the director hopefully he replies back this time
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    If we have a new distributor finally (e.g not Sony, but rather Universal) then that could possibly be a reason for these last minute shifts, as they provide input & suggestions.

    If it is Sony again however then I expect more of the status quo.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'd largely be surprised if it turns out to be Universal since they already handle a rival spy franchise with the Bourne films.
  • Posts: 11,425
    boldfinger wrote: »
    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.

    @boldfinger totally agree about SF. Clumsy, directionless story telling.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,410
    It depends how long the delay is. If it's only until Dec/Jan 18/19, then fine, no problem. If it's a full 6 months, then I have a problem, because it means Bond 26 will miss the 60th anniversary spot in 2022. How special would it be to have a new Bond to mark such an occasion?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    It depends how long the delay is. If it's only until Dec/Jan 18/19, then fine, no problem. If it's a full 6 months, then I have a problem, because it means Bond 26 will miss the 60th anniversary spot in 2022. How special would it be to have a new Bond to mark such an occasion?

    I really don’t see that as an issue right now. The anniversary stuff brings its own problems. I want the next iteration to be another distinctive turn of the wheel, but not one that is aping or subverting tropes (as is the norm with the recent anniversaries). The ‘new guy’ should be launched without distraction Imo.
  • Posts: 12,526
    bondjames wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Wow this thread needs something OFFICIAL? And needs it NOOWWWW!!!!!!!!!
    Once Hodge gets his script approved, expect big announcements imho.

    The problem with that is how long will the wait be?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,983
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Wow this thread needs something OFFICIAL? And needs it NOOWWWW!!!!!!!!!
    Once Hodge gets his script approved, expect big announcements imho.

    The problem with that is how long will the wait be?

    If he's truly been writing for only two or three weeks now, then I'd assume it'll still be a good while. Thankfully, though, there won't be a ton of outside input if he's the sole writer, unless the higher-ups really disagree with the direction he takes.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    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.

    EON are always taking meetings with directors, likewise with writers. Believe it or not a lot of them don’t want the gig. Particularly the writers. They know the process and either refuse point blank, or consider it but fear being the ‘guy that made that shit one’. I know of one writer in particular who turned down B25 almost two years ago.

    One thing I’m curious about is why people keep on insisting on this idea of EON knocking out scripts for future instalments? To a certain degree they do that - there are plenty of treatments, outlines and drafts sitting in EON house, I’m sure ColonelSun would back me up on that if he hadn’t been hounded off the board. Ideas that are updated over time. But I don’t see the logic in the process being suggested when there’s no appetite for continuity (which I agree on).

    Why develop a script for a film that might be six years down the line? Culture moves fast and tastes change. The lustre of ideas fade over time. The only reason Marvel can muster such constitent output is because they have a wealth of narrative work to call upon. They get a pass if it’s ‘close to source’ and they know that. It’s a streamlined, controlled product. Bond isn’t that. Bond has been around the block too many times and is now many things to many people. Marvel is one thing to everyone.

    Cubby had the advantage of the novels as source, but even he, once the films began to swell, chose to make his films current. B&M are doing the same, but in a completely different marketplace. One that is oversaturated with tent poles. It’s a hard course to navigate. I’m telling you now, there’s no way the Bond every two years model will survive, Barbara knows it. For these films to survive they have to be ‘events’, not just a passsble biennial release.

    SW are currently experiencing the teething problems Bond went through decades ago.

    My reading of the current situation is that SP really dampened certain people’s spirits and the prolonged wait for a follow up has exacerbated that. I get it. I absolutely get it. But this need for more rigidity and consistency and the endless droning about EON being useless is just a bi-product of this malaise. They are not going to be a Marvel or a Lucasfilm and they don’t need to be.

    Could they tighten things, yeah sure. Their ceding of control to directors is the first port of call, but let’s look at the facts. CR - classic. QoS - underwhelming, but by no means maligned. SF - acclaimed. SP - divisive. The pattern is really no different to Cubby post-60s. The only issue here, for me, is the timeframe and that the bad taste of SP (for some) has been allowed to linger. I still think EON are by far the best custodians for this series. By no means perfect and work needs to be done, but this is a clear cut case of people thinking the grass is greener. I really don’t think it is.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Still I felt the Bond films were more of an event every two years back then, than what they usually are now, with twice the gap.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Still I felt the Bond films were more of an event every two years back then, than what they usually are now, with twice the gap.

    I agree, but like I say the market is so oversaturated now. Huge films come and go and you can pick them up on Blu-Ray in no time. Bond was one of several, rather than one of a bucketload.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RC7 wrote: »
    Still I felt the Bond films were more of an event every two years back then, than what they usually are now, with twice the gap.

    I agree, but like I say the market is so oversaturated now. Huge films come and go and you can pick them up on Blu-Ray in no time. Bond was one of several, rather than one of a bucketload.

    Very true words, of course.
  • //One thing I’m curious about is why people keep on insisting on this idea of EON knocking out scripts for future instalments? //

    Eon itself considered something like that in the early 1990s. There was talking about getting back *to a film every year* and they'd need to have a pipeline of scripts. That didn't happen (though some writers were interviewed) and soon after Eon had its legal fight with MGM-Pathe (or whatever it was called at that point).
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    //One thing I’m curious about is why people keep on insisting on this idea of EON knocking out scripts for future instalments? //

    Eon itself considered something like that in the early 1990s. There was talking about getting back *to a film every year* and they'd need to have a pipeline of scripts. That didn't happen (though some writers were interviewed) and soon after Eon had its legal fight with MGM-Pathe (or whatever it was called at that point).

    I remember this. They still have in house writers too.
  • Posts: 684
    Thanks, @RC7. That was enlightening. Especially this:
    RC7 wrote: »
    Bond isn’t that. Bond has been around the block too many times and is now many things to many people. Marvel is one thing to everyone.
    That's a good point.

    I also agree re: Cubby having the advantage of adapting the novels.

    But regarding the release pattern and gap years, since the market is over-saturated (SW films coming out once per year, Marvel releasing films multiple times), wouldn't a consistent two-year pattern allow for an 'event' nonetheless? Comparatively, I mean. The film landscape has accelerated over the last decade. Would a two year gap now equate to a three year gap from years back. Wasn't every two years the initial release plan post-CR? (That was my impression, but I'm genuinely unsure.) I was under the impression the gaps since were more by happenstance than design.

    I'm not necessarily advising biennial release. Every three years would be good. (Perhaps even better, as you allude to.) But I think anything lengthier than that places a larger burden on the film; there's more pressure to get it right each time out. And I think the odds of getting it right each time out, even with more time, are slim.

    I think part of the tightening up you mention is their getting into some kind of rhythm, however long the releases are.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Strog wrote: »
    Thanks, @RC7. That was enlightening. Especially this:
    RC7 wrote: »
    Bond isn’t that. Bond has been around the block too many times and is now many things to many people. Marvel is one thing to everyone.
    That's a good point.

    I also agree re: Cubby having the advantage of adapting the novels.

    But regarding the release pattern and gap years, since the market is over-saturated (SW films coming out once per year, Marvel releasing films multiple times), wouldn't a consistent two-year pattern allow for an 'event' nonetheless? Comparatively, I mean. The film landscape has accelerated over the last decade. Would a two year gap now equate to a three year gap from years back. Wasn't every two years the initial release plan post-CR? (That was my impression, but I'm genuinely unsure.) I was under the impression the gaps since were more by happenstance than design.

    I'm not necessarily advising biennial release. Every three years would be good. (Perhaps even better, as you allude to.) But I think anything lengthier than that places a larger burden on the film; there's more pressure to get it right each time out. And I think the odds of getting it right each time out, even with more time, are slim.

    I think part of the tightening up you mention is their getting into some kind of rhythm, however long the releases are.

    I agree with you, it’s not particularly by design although waiting for Mendes certainly was - but as I outlined earlier in the thread I get the logic of the decision. I do think 3 years is about right in this day and age if they can steady things post-Craig.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »
    One thing I’m curious about is why people keep on insisting on this idea of EON knocking out scripts for future instalments? To a certain degree they do that - there are plenty of treatments, outlines and drafts sitting in EON house, I’m sure ColonelSun would back me up on that if he hadn’t been hounded off the board. Ideas that are updated over time. But I don’t see the logic in the process being suggested when there’s no appetite for continuity (which I agree on).

    Why develop a script for a film that might be six years down the line?

    I agree entirely. There is no need for any of it. Unless of course you are developing, say, a four film narrative arc over the space of nine years.

    In that case I'd have thought you might want to have things nailed down a bit more firmly rather than starting from scratch after every film and trying to cackhandely link them all together retrospectively.

    None of us came up with 'continuity' as a buzz word, EON did. We were quite happy with standalones but they put it on the map so hence the criticism when they make an utter pig's ear out of it is entirely justified.
    RC7 wrote: »
    My reading of the current situation is that SP really dampened certain people’s spirits and the prolonged wait for a follow up has exacerbated that. I get it. I absolutely get it. But this need for more rigidity and consistency and the endless droning about EON being useless is just a bi-product of this malaise. They are not going to be a Marvel or a Lucasfilm and they don’t need to be.

    Could they tighten things, yeah sure. Their ceding of control to directors is the first port of call, but let’s look at the facts. CR - classic. QoS - underwhelming, but by no means maligned. SF - acclaimed. SP - divisive. The pattern is really no different to Cubby post-60s. The only issue here, for me, is the timeframe and that the bad taste of SP (for some) has been allowed to linger. I still think EON are by far the best custodians for this series. By no means perfect and work needs to be done, but this is a clear cut case of people thinking the grass is greener. I really don’t think it is.

    I'm sorry but this is the mentality of the pro Wenger Arsenal fans for the past 10 years.

    Yes at the moment EON are still delivering reasonable results, Champions League qualification if you will, but who's to say that it's not possible to do better and actually win the title?

    If it there is room for improvement (which I think we all agree there is) then by definition the grass can be greener if the right person is in charge.

    Naturally the trick is to find the right person and therein lies the risk. Obviously a Disney represents Allardyce but who's to say a Nolan (for example - I'm not saying I want EON to sell up and him to take over, just throwing the idea out there) wouldn't turn out to be a Pep?

    At present I am still onboard with EON but after SP they are under scrutiny like never before for me. Criticism of EON isn't heresy and we need to speak out if they are serving up a substandard product. Once you start accepting mediocrity you're on a slippery slope - as the Arsenal example shows.

    Nothing ever improved by staying the same and EON just seemed out of ideas with SP which, lest we forget, a mere 3 films after the gritty reboot of CR served us up gadget cars and Blofeld again.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2018 Posts: 8,410

    RC7 wrote: »

    My reading of the current situation is that SP really dampened certain people’s spirits and the prolonged wait for a follow up has exacerbated that. I get it. I absolutely get it. But this need for more rigidity and consistency and the endless droning about EON being useless is just a bi-product of this malaise. They are not going to be a Marvel or a Lucasfilm and they don’t need to be.

    Could they tighten things, yeah sure. Their ceding of control to directors is the first port of call, but let’s look at the facts. CR - classic. QoS - underwhelming, but by no means maligned. SF - acclaimed. SP - divisive. The pattern is really no different to Cubby post-60s. The only issue here, for me, is the timeframe and that the bad taste of SP (for some) has been allowed to linger. I still think EON are by far the best custodians for this series. By no means perfect and work needs to be done, but this is a clear cut case of people thinking the grass is greener. I really don’t think it is.

    At present I am still onboard with EON but after SP they are under scrutiny like never before for me. Criticism of EON isn't heresy and we need to speak out if they are serving up a substandard product. Once you start accepting mediocrity you're on a slippery slope - as the Arsenal example shows.

    Nothing ever improved by staying the same and EON just seemed out of ideas with SP which, lest we forget, a mere 3 films after the gritty reboot of CR served us up gadget cars and Blofeld again.

    Spot on.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I have a question in all seriousness: Why do P&W get dissed so much? As far as I know (but I am happy if someone corrects me) they wrote the wonderful CR script plus elements (but not all) of QoS and SF ... and basically had to rescue the SP script. Is their reputation based merely on their PB era scripts or really their more recent work in the Craig era?

    Again, afaik the garbage script that was written but trashed for QoS was also not their work, right?

    I am, based on my above assumptions/understandings way more against Mendes than P&W
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2018 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    One thing I’m curious about is why people keep on insisting on this idea of EON knocking out scripts for future instalments? To a certain degree they do that - there are plenty of treatments, outlines and drafts sitting in EON house, I’m sure ColonelSun would back me up on that if he hadn’t been hounded off the board. Ideas that are updated over time. But I don’t see the logic in the process being suggested when there’s no appetite for continuity (which I agree on).

    Why develop a script for a film that might be six years down the line?

    I agree entirely. There is no need for any of it. Unless of course you are developing, say, a four film narrative arc over the space of nine years.

    In that case I'd have thought you might want to have things nailed down a bit more firmly rather than starting from scratch after every film and trying to cackhandely link them all together retrospectively.

    None of us came up with 'continuity' as a buzz word, EON did. We were quite happy with standalones but they put it on the map so hence the criticism when they make an utter pig's ear out of it is entirely justified.
    RC7 wrote: »
    My reading of the current situation is that SP really dampened certain people’s spirits and the prolonged wait for a follow up has exacerbated that. I get it. I absolutely get it. But this need for more rigidity and consistency and the endless droning about EON being useless is just a bi-product of this malaise. They are not going to be a Marvel or a Lucasfilm and they don’t need to be.

    Could they tighten things, yeah sure. Their ceding of control to directors is the first port of call, but let’s look at the facts. CR - classic. QoS - underwhelming, but by no means maligned. SF - acclaimed. SP - divisive. The pattern is really no different to Cubby post-60s. The only issue here, for me, is the timeframe and that the bad taste of SP (for some) has been allowed to linger. I still think EON are by far the best custodians for this series. By no means perfect and work needs to be done, but this is a clear cut case of people thinking the grass is greener. I really don’t think it is.

    I'm sorry but this is the mentality of the pro Wenger Arsenal fans for the past 10 years.

    Yes at the moment EON are still delivering reasonable results, Champions League qualification if you will, but who's to say that it's not possible to do better and actually win the title?

    If it there is room for improvement (which I think we all agree there is) then by definition the grass can be greener if the right person is in charge.

    Naturally the trick is to find the right person and therein lies the risk. Obviously a Disney represents Allardyce but who's to say a Nolan (for example - I'm not saying I want EON to sell up and him to take over, just throwing the idea out there) wouldn't turn out to be a Pep?

    At present I am still onboard with EON but after SP they are under scrutiny like never before for me. Criticism of EON isn't heresy and we need to speak out if they are serving up a substandard product. Once you start accepting mediocrity you're on a slippery slope - as the Arsenal example shows.

    Nothing ever improved by staying the same and EON just seemed out of ideas with SP which, lest we forget, a mere 3 films after the gritty reboot of CR served us up gadget cars and Blofeld again.

    I certainly wouldn’t go as far as pro-Wenger. Only two films ago they delivered a movie that completely captured the zeitgeist. SP is an attempt to recreate that success, but mistakenly tried to infuse tradition.

    I’m not saying others couldn’t do a better job, I’m sure they could on a two/three film basis, but in the long term I’m not entirely convinced. I’m open to anything, but I’m not buying the idea we’ve somehow reached make or break.

    For the record I’ve never said EON can’t be criticised and I never will. They’ve never been perfect, but neither will anyone else.

    RE: the cackhanded linking - it was exactly that. They were never developing a 4 film arc. It was a poor decision, but it wasn’t 9 years of stumbling through. The plan came into effect with SP. We can call them out on that film, but it’s disingenuous to say the decision making pre-SP in anyway contributed to that. SP and its handling created the current issue.
  • Posts: 684
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I have a question in all seriousness: Why do P&W get dissed so much? As far as I know (but I am happy if someone corrects me) they wrote the wonderful CR script plus elements (but not all) of QoS and SF ... and basically had to rescue the SP script. Is their reputation based merely on their PB era scripts or really their more recent work in the Craig era?

    Again, afaik the garbage script that was written but trashed for QoS was also not their work, right?

    I am, based on my above assumptions/understandings way more against Mendes than P&W
    I think partly it has to do with DAD being the only script for which they received sole writing credit. It's never been quite clear what material they've been responsible for elsewhere.
  • Posts: 1,407
    DAD's biggest flaws were not from P&W. If only they would have had a competent director handling their script.

    And yes, we need to remember that SP was SAVED by them. They made it the very watchable film it is. Not perfect by any means but reading some previous scripts, they saved that film. So cut them some slack
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883

    RC7 wrote: »

    My reading of the current situation is that SP really dampened certain people’s spirits and the prolonged wait for a follow up has exacerbated that. I get it. I absolutely get it. But this need for more rigidity and consistency and the endless droning about EON being useless is just a bi-product of this malaise. They are not going to be a Marvel or a Lucasfilm and they don’t need to be.

    Could they tighten things, yeah sure. Their ceding of control to directors is the first port of call, but let’s look at the facts. CR - classic. QoS - underwhelming, but by no means maligned. SF - acclaimed. SP - divisive. The pattern is really no different to Cubby post-60s. The only issue here, for me, is the timeframe and that the bad taste of SP (for some) has been allowed to linger. I still think EON are by far the best custodians for this series. By no means perfect and work needs to be done, but this is a clear cut case of people thinking the grass is greener. I really don’t think it is.

    At present I am still onboard with EON but after SP they are under scrutiny like never before for me. Criticism of EON isn't heresy and we need to speak out if they are serving up a substandard product. Once you start accepting mediocrity you're on a slippery slope - as the Arsenal example shows.

    Nothing ever improved by staying the same and EON just seemed out of ideas with SP which, lest we forget, a mere 3 films after the gritty reboot of CR served us up gadget cars and Blofeld again.

    Spot on.
    Agreed. Well said and pretty much echoes my sentiments again. I have faith but the most important element of this hasn't been addressed, and therefore no matter how decent B25 is, my enthusiasm will be contained. I just hope they get B26 out quickly after that so some of us can get excited about this series (our favourite) again.
  • Posts: 1,680
    The downward spiral of delay started after QOS, it was that point they started going on a film by film basis. QOS was concieved before & during the making of CR.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Looking forward to B52. Here is the title song.
Sign In or Register to comment.