No Time To Die: Production Diary

13603613633653662507

Comments

  • edited September 2016 Posts: 2,483
    //I wish people would stop saying Craig wont do back to back films.//

    It's based on comments Craig himself made.

    DC's a loose cannon who seems to say whatever wacky thought appears in his head at the time of being asked a question. I don't trust a word he says, and that includes "a," "and" and "the."
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2016 Posts: 15,713
    I'll take @Birdleson as an example because I know he was born just before DN. When he was as old as I am now (25 years old), 15 Bond films had been made in his life time, with only 1 gap longer than 2 years (TMWTGG to TSWLM). All 15 films had no nonsense gunbarrels, only in 1 of these films had Bond go rogue. In comparison, only 8 films were made in my life time. I was born during the 6 years gap, 2 three-year gaps an 2 four-year gaps also happened while I was alive, with only 3 films made in the regular 1 or 2 years gaps. Only 3 normal gunbarrels took place, the 5 others having either a CGI bullet, not being at the start or having a random text message. 5 of the 8 films in my lifetime had very limited usage of the Bond theme, either with one major occurrence during the film itself, or only in the end credits. I know as a fan I have no rights to demand anything, but please, I'd like to live through a 'traditional tenure' with multiple films made with 2 years gaps, normal gunbarrels and EON not being ashamed to put the Bond theme full blast during action scenes before I get to my 40's.
  • Posts: 16,149
    bondjames wrote: »
    I miss the UA logo (including the music that accompanied it just before the gunbarrel) more than I would miss the lion, although I agree that both are great to see. I wouldn't miss the Columbia lady one bit.
    I do as well. The silent blue UA Transamerica logo was cool on the pre-OP films. Gave the gunbarrel even more of an impact. Even the 1980 turning UA logo with it's classic music was cool on those early VHS releases. Bring back United Artists!!!!
  • //I wish people would stop saying Craig wont do back to back films.//

    It's based on comments Craig himself made.

    DC's a loose cannon who seems to say whatever wacky thought appears in his head at the time of being asked a question. I don't trust a word he says, and that includes "a," "and" and "the."

    But that's part of his charm, having sly fun with the scribes and getting a rise out of them. At least that's stated on this message board from time to time.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Here's the thing. They could spend half of whatever that is and hire competent screenwriters who know how to write a story that feels satisfying within 100-120 minutes instead of having two movies to tell a story because your screenwriters don't know how to economize and pace a story within a period of time.

    200w_d.gif

    Someone who speaks my language.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I don't get the logic ..I respect Radar's history but I don't get it. Plus the distribution deal is for all MGM films not just Bond.

    And I have said it before and I'll say it again I hate MGM owning half of Bond. Such an unstable studio. What happens if they fold? Do we forever loose Bond?

    Thanks Harry :-L

    What would happen if another studio bought MGM?

    Yep! Harry's last gesture of hate.
  • Posts: 2,081
    bondjames wrote: »
    It doesn't make sense that they would make this kind of offer, let alone without having a director locked down for the film. I would think that one needs to at least know who is directing before having the confidence to make such a substantial offer.

    For comparison purposes, the reported highest paid actor in 2015 was Robert Downey JR at $80m. The reported highest paid actor thus far in 2016 is Dwayne Johnson at $64.5m. Tom Cruise is currently at around $53m.

    That's not how Forbes counts it. Those figures aren't "so far this year" they are 12 month period earnings, between June 1, 2015 and June 1, 2016, based on Forbes calculations. (I don't know how accurate they are. They say their "figures are based on data from Nielsen, Box Office Mojo, IMDB, as well as interviews with agents, managers and lawyers".)



  • Posts: 1,970
    I actually believe Sony would make Craig an offer like that.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I actually believe Sony would make Craig an offer like that.

    Looks like they're counting their spider-man Homecoming money already.
  • Posts: 1,970
    doubleoego wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I actually believe Sony would make Craig an offer like that.

    Looks like they're counting their spider-man Homecoming money already.

    Sony pictures has a net worth of 8.3 Billion. $150 mill is chunk change to them.
  • Posts: 4,622
    //I wish people would stop saying Craig wont do back to back films.//

    It's based on comments Craig himself made.

    DC's a loose cannon who seems to say whatever wacky thought appears in his head at the time of being asked a question. I don't trust a word he says, and that includes "a," "and" and "the."

    But that's part of his charm, having sly fun with the scribes and getting a rise out of them. At least that's stated on this message board from time to time.
    Yep for sure, Craig needs to be taken with big bag of salt.
    I do like the idea of a Bond vs Spectre two-parter though, especially if they can shoot back-to-back, thus cranking up the output.

    And yes by all means give the younger Bond fans a proper OO7 cinema experience!!
    Fullout on the gunbarrel opening, and full blast with the Bond theme during the film.


    I used to bounce out of my seat, when the gunbarrel opening kicked in - most exciting part of the movie really.
  • Posts: 12,526
    If DC accepted this offer if true? Then i am happy but I would assume DC would sooner film them back to back and also have his wife and family around him as much as possible? Especially because of the strain it puts on the relationship which is fully understandable.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 11,425
    Shardlake wrote: »
    If it is true and it's definitely iffy to say the least.

    I think the importance of DC returning is getting blown out of proportion if they really have this amount of money to throw about then why not invest in the future instead of giving to Craig to secure what they hope is going to be a huge return.

    If they are worried about letting a relative unknown taking the mantle give the job to someone like Fassbender, as famous as he is I'm sure they could secure him for less than $150 million and then plow it into the budget.

    As much as I like Craig and championed him if he's that unsure and his uncertainity holds things up then Bond can and will survive without him.

    He was a relative unknown when he got the gig, yes his interpretation added to the success and the change in the attitude to Bond but another actor as capable could have done this. The same way that if another unknown had been cast back 1962 with Terence Young behind them they could have attained the same success as Connery did.

    To think Connery was the only actor to be able to launch Bond and make it as success is quite ridiculous and the same goes for DC.

    No actor is bigger than Bond and this hanging onto Craig because there is an assumption by some that he's the only one who can carry things on is quite dangerous.

    I am a Bond fan first and a DC fan second.

    I actually would prefer to DC to be done with Bond and move onto more challenging work, now if he does come back well and good but if he doesn't it's not the end of the world.

    Disagree about Connery. It's very unlikely we would have had more than two or three films IMO if it wasn't for Connery's interpretation.

    //I wish people would stop saying Craig wont do back to back films.//

    It's based on comments Craig himself made.

    DC's a loose cannon who seems to say whatever wacky thought appears in his head at the time of being asked a question. I don't trust a word he says, and that includes "a," "and" and "the."

    I think it depends exactly how you define back to back.

    Also, if the story is true, we are talking absurdly large amounts of money. Craig is not that into money, but there does come a point when it's very hard to say 'no' to someone waving $150m in your face to do what is essentially something you love doing.

    I still think there is at least a 50:50 chance he will come back.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    If, as the article states, an announcement that Sony continues on as distributor of the 007 films, then this article will have far more weight. I personally hope it's true since I'd love for Dan's 007 to confront SPECTRE and destroy SPECTRE in a proper fashion. There's something rather anti-climactic to have Blofeld lying on the streets of London, hate in his eyes, watching Bond "escape" to a normal life. Something very incomplete in this.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    peter wrote: »
    If, as the article states, an announcement that Sony continues on as distributor of the 007 films, then this article will have far more weight. I personally hope it's true since I'd love for Dan's 007 to confront SPECTRE and destroy SPECTRE in a proper fashion. There's something rather anti-climactic to have Blofeld lying on the streets of London, hate in his eyes, watching Bond "escape" to a normal life. Something very incomplete in this.

    Yes, as I've always said, it's a false resolution. It confounds me than some are satisfied with the era ending like that.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's not a false resolution. It's clearly setting things up for Blofeld to escape and ruin Bond's new life. Cue revenge.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @obrady, agreed; I just can't believe Blofeld would accept this defeat. It would make sense to shoot something back to back (more gritty filmmaking; lower budget), and have these two just go at it. Have DC's Bond destroy SPECTRE once and for all in the final pic.
    I'm sure this would make the money people happy (keeping on the, arguably, best 007 since SC); if done well, it'd be a finale that thrills and entertains filmgoers and fans alike, and, sadly, as this day is soon to come, it gives EON the time and space to thoroughly search for a new 007 (while they make a killing off of Dan's final two films) (although when that re-casting day comes, I will be OTT in the sadness department since I love this man's portrayal).
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I actually believe Sony would make Craig an offer like that.

    Looks like they're counting their spider-man Homecoming money already.

    Sony pictures has a net worth of 8.3 Billion. $150 mill is chunk change to them.

    True but that means nothing if you're applying and accounting for context. Craig isn't worth 150million not even close; and which ever way you look at it; its simply not a sound business decision. Just because the money's there it doesnt mean it can afford to be wasted on one particular actor. That money covers a shit load of other costs and priorities. WB's net worth is $53 billion and Disney' is $104 billion and the latter is not paying Downey Jr, who's a more bankable actor than Craig what Sony are supposedly going to pay Craig. So Sony's comparative meagre $8.3 billion further underscores just how ridiculous this 150mill payout is.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's not a false resolution. It's clearly setting things up for Blofeld to escape and ruin Bond's new life. Cue revenge.

    @Getafix, you're not getting what I said. What you are mentioning is what I meant exactly. SP's ending is a false resolution because it's so apparent it wouldn't end there, that it wouldn't be the end of that era. It sets up another film that would later turn into a Blofeld vs. Bond revenge story where the former despises the latter's happiness and wants to crush him like an ant because of all his meddling. I don't see how you thought we differed on this point.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's not a false resolution. It's clearly setting things up for Blofeld to escape and ruin Bond's new life. Cue revenge.

    @Getafix, you're not getting what I said. What you are mentioning is what I meant exactly. SP's ending is a false resolution because it's so apparent it wouldn't end there, that it wouldn't be the end of that era. It sets up another film that would later turn into a Blofeld vs. Bond revenge story where the former despises the latter's happiness and wants to crush him like an ant because of all his meddling. I don't see how you thought we differed on this point.

    Oh okay. Fair enough. We agree then!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited September 2016 Posts: 28,694
    @Getafix, how would you like for this era to end? I know you've tossed and turned on the films before, especially with SF, though you seem to like SP a lot better. What developments in another film would really raise it in your mind?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    It'd be interesting to see what Disney would pay RDJ if he did a standalone IM film again, since it's my understanding that, in big tent pole films, they pay the (known) lead actor's salary based on what they expect the opening weekend to be (hence TC's salary of around $53 million (and why he is demanding more for his next MI film)).

    I don't think it would be extraordinary for the offer for Craig to be in the $70 million range (SP's NA opening weekend) x 2 films with added bonuses equalling out to be in and around $150 million for two films. DC's 007 films have opened higher than his competitors, and his salary is well-worth it if he continues to open strongly (his SP opened $15 million higher than ROGUE NATION at the US box office).
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I'm not sure it's we see this has a satisfying resolution, it's more like we see what happened in SPECTRE painting this era into a corner with the ESB/Bond past element.

    Rather than continue down this path and lead it gods knows where some of us like me think it might be better to call it quits and start in a new timeline with an established Bond rather than another origin situation.

    SPECTRE has made some of us think please don't pursue this any longer because we shudder to think where it's going.

    Now if they want to give us the resolution that OHMSS never got then fair enough, yes we have to go down the route of having Swann murdered by SPECTRE but what else do you do with this era?

    If they want Bond out for revenge than no better person for the job than Craig, trying to make him Roger Moore like in SP just didn't work, DC needs the tense layered portrayal to really sing in the role, making him an indestructible quip machine just doesn't work.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    This is where the story can get interesting, so stuff being painted into a corner, I say. Neither does Madeleine have to die.

    As for Craig being like Roger in SP, all I can do is giggle at that statement. If he was playing by anyone's rulebook, it was Sean's. Dan's Bond has actual menace and carries moments of weight, which Roger was never good at, the one or two times the scripts allowed him to try.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited September 2016 Posts: 11,139
    peter wrote: »
    It'd be interesting to see what Disney would pay RDJ if he did a standalone IM film again, since it's my understanding that, in big tent pole films, they pay the (known) lead actor's salary based on what they expect the opening weekend to be (hence TC's salary of around $53 million (and why he is demanding more for his next MI film)).

    I don't think it would be extraordinary for the offer for Craig to be in the $70 million range (SP's NA opening weekend) x 2 films with added bonuses equalling out to be in and around $150 million for two films. DC's 007 films have opened higher than his competitors, and his salary is well-worth it if he continues to open strongly (his SP opened $15 million higher than ROGUE NATION at the US box office).

    The very big difference between Craig and someone like Downey is, Bond made Craig, Bond will continue to make any actor who gets the role and Bond has and will always make money. Iron Man did NOT make Downey, it was the other way around. In 2008 Downey in the space of 2 hours changed the game of comic book movies and since the Avengers film, every appearance he's made as the character has grossed over a $Billion.

    Whether it's the media or the average Joe on the street, everyone has an opinion on who the next Bond could and should be. This alone makes it crystal clear that Craig isn't THAT essential; much less beholden to the role where he's being offered $75million per picture to stay. Again, I stand by vehemently that he's nowhere close to being worth that much; on average that means they're looking to pay him almost 40% of the film's budget. It's ridiculous. The studio need to focus on getting great talent in front and behind the camera and that starts with the script. This can't be stressed enough. Bond is Bond, automatic money maker. Reduce the budgets, crank out a great script and you'll get another CR calibre film. This huge payday reeks of irresponsibility and desperation.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I miss the UA logo (including the music that accompanied it just before the gunbarrel) more than I would miss the lion, although I agree that both are great to see. I wouldn't miss the Columbia lady one bit.
    I do as well. The silent blue UA Transamerica logo was cool on the pre-OP films. Gave the gunbarrel even more of an impact. Even the 1980 turning UA logo with it's classic music was cool on those early VHS releases. Bring back United Artists!!!!

    +1

    Every time I see this I'm expecting a gunbarrel to follow.
  • Posts: 16,149
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I miss the UA logo (including the music that accompanied it just before the gunbarrel) more than I would miss the lion, although I agree that both are great to see. I wouldn't miss the Columbia lady one bit.
    I do as well. The silent blue UA Transamerica logo was cool on the pre-OP films. Gave the gunbarrel even more of an impact. Even the 1980 turning UA logo with it's classic music was cool on those early VHS releases. Bring back United Artists!!!!

    +1

    Every time I see this I'm expecting a gunbarrel to follow.

    Me. too. Damn. I should track down the old VHS editions hat had that logo. It was always great that logo before the GB.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    doubleoego wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    It'd be interesting to see what Disney would pay RDJ if he did a standalone IM film again, since it's my understanding that, in big tent pole films, they pay the (known) lead actor's salary based on what they expect the opening weekend to be (hence TC's salary of around $53 million (and why he is demanding more for his next MI film)).

    I don't think it would be extraordinary for the offer for Craig to be in the $70 million range (SP's NA opening weekend) x 2 films with added bonuses equalling out to be in and around $150 million for two films. DC's 007 films have opened higher than his competitors, and his salary is well-worth it if he continues to open strongly (his SP opened $15 million higher than ROGUE NATION at the US box office).

    The very big difference between Craig and someone like Downey is, Bond made Craig, Bond will continue to make any actor who gets the role and Bond has and will always make money. Iron Man did NOT make Downey, it was the other way around. In 2008 Downey in the space of 2 hours changed the game of comic book movies and since the Avengers film, every appearance he's made as the character has grossed over a $Billion.

    Whether it's the media or the average Joe on the street, everyone has an opinion on who the next Bond could and should be. This alone makes it crystal clear that Craig isn't THAT essential; much less beholden to the role where he's being offered $75million per picture to stay. Again, I stand by vehemently that he's nowhere close to being worth that much; on average that means they're looking to pay him almost 40% of the film's budget. It's ridiculous. The studio need to focus on getting great talent in front and behind the camera and that starts with the script. This can't be stressed enough. Bond is Bond, automatic money maker. Reduce the budgets, crank out a great script and you'll get another CR calibre film. This huge payday reeks of irresponsibility and desperation.

    In a f**king nutshell.

    Which is why this story is clearly bullshit. Unless you're a politician you surely don't get to make decisions worth hundreds of millions of dollars if you have no grasp of sound business practice. The accountants who run the studios would do these sums and conclude that this is madness.

    In 1971 Sean got $1m and the budget of DAF was $7.2m.

    That's basically a 7th of the budget, for what, at the time was the most incredible deal for an actor ever.

    For Dan to be getting $75m, and even if we assume that the budget of B25 is the same as the bloated SP budget at $250m, then Dan is worth over a third of the budget?

    Hmm Sean who was the biggest star in the world, who had posters screaming 'Sean Connery IS James Bond' is worth less than half what Daniel Craig is worth?

    Dan is a popular Bond but is he more popular than Sean at his peak? I wouldn't go 'banco' on that one.
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    It'd be interesting to see what Disney would pay RDJ if he did a standalone IM film again, since it's my understanding that, in big tent pole films, they pay the (known) lead actor's salary based on what they expect the opening weekend to be (hence TC's salary of around $53 million (and why he is demanding more for his next MI film)).

    I don't think it would be extraordinary for the offer for Craig to be in the $70 million range (SP's NA opening weekend) x 2 films with added bonuses equalling out to be in and around $150 million for two films. DC's 007 films have opened higher than his competitors, and his salary is well-worth it if he continues to open strongly (his SP opened $15 million higher than ROGUE NATION at the US box office).

    The very big difference between Craig and someone like Downey is, Bond made Craig, Bond will continue to make any actor who gets the role and Bond has and will always make money. Iron Man did NOT make Downey, it was the other way around. In 2008 Downey in the space of 2 hours changed the game of comic book movies and since the Avengers film, every appearance he's made as the character has grossed over a $Billion.

    Whether it's the media or the average Joe on the street, everyone has an opinion on who the next Bond could and should be. This alone makes it crystal clear that Craig isn't THAT essential; much less beholden to the role where he's being offered $75million per picture to stay. Again, I stand by vehemently that he's nowhere close to being worth that much; on average that means they're looking to pay him almost 40% of the film's budget. It's ridiculous. The studio need to focus on getting great talent in front and behind the camera and that starts with the script. This can't be stressed enough. Bond is Bond, automatic money maker. Reduce the budgets, crank out a great script and you'll get another CR calibre film. This huge payday reeks of irresponsibility and desperation.

    In a f**king nutshell.

    Which is why this story is clearly bullshit. Unless you're a politician you surely don't get to make decisions worth hundreds of millions of dollars if you have no grasp of sound business practice. The accountants who run the studios would do these sums and conclude that this is madness.

    In 1971 Sean got $1m and the budget of DAF was $7.2m.

    That's basically a 7th of the budget, for what, at the time was the most incredible deal for an actor ever.

    For Dan to be getting $75m, and even if we assume that the budget of B25 is the same as the bloated SP budget at $250m, then Dan is worth over a third of the budget?

    Hmm Sean who was the biggest star in the world, who had posters screaming 'Sean Connery IS James Bond' is worth less than half what Daniel Craig is worth?

    Dan is a popular Bond but is he more popular than Sean at his peak? I wouldn't go 'banco' on that one.


    I agree with pretty much all of this. However, good luck telling fans this. Last night on social media I saw comments such as "Bond is worth billions to Sony, they'd be foolish not to pay this much." I tried to explain the "billions" (it's phrased this way in the Radar Online story) was ticket sales not profits, but it didn't matter.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I miss the UA logo (including the music that accompanied it just before the gunbarrel) more than I would miss the lion, although I agree that both are great to see. I wouldn't miss the Columbia lady one bit.
    I do as well. The silent blue UA Transamerica logo was cool on the pre-OP films. Gave the gunbarrel even more of an impact. Even the 1980 turning UA logo with it's classic music was cool on those early VHS releases. Bring back United Artists!!!!

    +1

    Every time I see this I'm expecting a gunbarrel to follow.

    Me. too. Damn. I should track down the old VHS editions hat had that logo. It was always great that logo before the GB.

    I still have them, but my VCR is out of order. I need to fix it.

    http://www.obsessional.co.uk/cover warner rental video.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.