› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…606607609611612…2507

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2017 Posts: 15,423
    So, next time, that'll be four to five year cycle? ;) Seeing a pattern here. :D
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    This 3-4 yr thing works if one delivers a game changing product at the end of it all. If one delivers a predictable PoS, then it's all for naught imho. This applies to other franchises as well, and not just Bond. The margin for error is smaller if one waits longer to bring out the next entry, because expectations inevitably build.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,149
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    So, next time, that'll be four to five year cycle? ;) Seeing a pattern here. :D

    At that point, Bond might as well be re-cast for each film.

  • GetCarterGetCarter
    edited February 2017 Posts: 386
    bondjames wrote: »
    This 3-4 yr thing works if one delivers a game changing product at the end of it all. If one delivers a predictable PoS, then it's all for naught imho. This applies to other franchises as well, and not just Bond. The margin for error is smaller if one waits longer to bring out the next entry, because expectations inevitably build.

    This is true. What they have with the bond franchise is a vast, ready-made audience with a strong consumer appetite.

    Every other year is not only attainable with the right business model, it is actually behind what Marvel and Disney are doing.

    Every other year is right for Bond, one feels.

    I have no doubt the producers are talented, intelligent people.

    They've lost their way, plain and simple. 3-4 years will be death for Bond. Someone else will step into the breach and and try their hand. Bourne has already succeeded. MI has resuscitated itself. Tom Cruise is actually the Cubby of that franchise.

    He'll, even XXX got greenlit for another run.

    Sooner or later, a Bond imitator with 21st century sensibilities will hit a home run. Unless Bond claims a more regular market share.

    Bond got way too big with Spectre. Worst of all, the dollars weren't really there on the screen.

    Now we are lumped with an ageing actor with four films in twelve years. If he's not sure, then he shouldn't be doing it.

    Creative personnel who dictate when they're available. Should be the other way round. Can you imagine Star Wars letting Adam Driver go do hamlet in a production year?

    The producers have dropped the ball big time. Sometime after QoS wrapped.



  • GetCarterGetCarter
    Posts: 386
    Connery - Lazenby - Connery - Moore 1967-1973

    Three changes in six years.

    I think we should be more flexible with the actors used.

    If Craig can't do Risico, get Fassbender or Hardy in for one, then bring Craig back if the others become unavailable.

    Bond needs to become a production juggernaut again.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Connery - Lazenby - Connery - Moore 1967-1973

    Three changes in six years.

    I think we should be more flexible with the actors used.

    If Craig can't do Risico, get Fassbender or Hardy in for one, then bring Craig back if the others become unavailable.

    Bond needs to become a production juggernaut again.

    You have no idea what you're talking about.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    The only one making a bit sense in this thread here is @RC7
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    I feel like I'm seeing the same sense of apocalyptic worry that I saw 100 pages ago...but aren't we still waiting for the whole distribution deal to be finalized and, thus, we obviously won't have any major developments until then?
  • GetCarterGetCarter
    Posts: 386
    RC7 wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Connery - Lazenby - Connery - Moore 1967-1973

    Three changes in six years.

    I think we should be more flexible with the actors used.

    If Craig can't do Risico, get Fassbender or Hardy in for one, then bring Craig back if the others become unavailable.

    Bond needs to become a production juggernaut again.

    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    Just a fan positing an opinion, nothing more :)
  • ehaaseehaase
    Posts: 7
    The producers are old and out of ideas. Eon never found a good replacement for Richard Maibaum who died in 1991. Purvis and Wade only wrote one great film - CR 2006 - and that was with Paul Haggis' help. ) The only great Bond movies (DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, and CR 2006) are based upon Ian Fleming novels, and he died in 1964. Hopefully Eon will make Shatterhand in 2019 with Daniel Craig, and then Eon should go out of business.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Christ. 8-|
  • moon_tanmoon_tan Lancaster, California USA
    Posts: 10
    I agree too.
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    because I think our current staff (Fiennes, Wishaw, Harris) are all fantastic. I especially hope Wishaw will remain our Q for decades to come, until the day he passes, to follow in the footsteps of Desmond Llewelyn.
    Amen! Totally agree.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    So, next time, that'll be four to five year cycle? ;) Seeing a pattern here. :D

    At that point, Bond might as well be re-cast for each film.
    Much like the novels, these days. :))
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 2017 Posts: 8,392
    ehaase wrote: »
    The producers are old and out of ideas. Eon never found a good replacement for Richard Maibaum who died in 1991. Purvis and Wade only wrote one great film - CR 2006 - and that was with Paul Haggis' help. ) The only great Bond movies (DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, and CR 2006) are based upon Ian Fleming novels, and he died in 1964. Hopefully Eon will make Shatterhand in 2019 with Daniel Craig, and then Eon should go out of business.

    I don't think we're quite there yet. They Just have to look past Craig and think about what actor could work for the next decade as Bond. EON still has a chance to save it, I think, like they have done before with TSWLM and GE and CR. They just need to do that again. But, I agree, if it doesn't work out this time the franchise is in trouble.
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    Posts: 6,844
    ehaase wrote: »
    The producers are old and out of ideas. Eon never found a good replacement for Richard Maibaum who died in 1991. Purvis and Wade only wrote one great film - CR 2006 - and that was with Paul Haggis' help. ) The only great Bond movies (DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, and CR 2006) are based upon Ian Fleming novels, and he died in 1964. Hopefully Eon will make Shatterhand in 2019 with Daniel Craig, and then Eon should go out of business.

    Anybody else read this in Rachel Dratch's voice and then picture her turning to camera with a big frown?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2017 Posts: 6,277
    ehaase wrote: »
    The producers are old and out of ideas. Eon never found a good replacement for Richard Maibaum who died in 1991. Purvis and Wade only wrote one great film - CR 2006 - and that was with Paul Haggis' help. ) The only great Bond movies (DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, and CR 2006) are based upon Ian Fleming novels, and he died in 1964. Hopefully Eon will make Shatterhand in 2019 with Daniel Craig, and then Eon should go out of business.

    Maibaum's role is underappreciated. The man knew how to structure a Bond film. After TLD, it all went downhill in the writing department.
  • JET007JET007
    Posts: 632
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    All of this is sort of confusing. If Craig is back we shouldn't be looking at a LONG wait until B25... we have this helicopter info, but then Baz says B25 is a long way off. I reckon something will happen soon but I'm not sure what.

    @JET007 I respect your opinion. But for the record, the no-date sub and explorer do not have the cyclops (magnifier) on them.

    My apologies. It seems like the majority of Rolexes I've seen in passing have them these days.
  • patbpatb
    edited February 2017 Posts: 4,603
    If you consider Bond from the "brand" perspective, its interesting to consider how long the gaps can be before it has a negative impact on the brand.
    We live in a society/culture where things move at a quicker pace than 30 years ago, people IMHO are generally less patient with a lower attention span. Plus we have other genres that seem to be able to crank out a product at a quicker pace.

    IF I was a shareholder in Bond, I would be focussing in this issue.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I honestly think one must separate the franchise (indestructible imho, unless EON give it to some studio that doesn't know what they're doing who over commercialize, over-Americanize, or over-Asian'ize' it in order to pander) from the films.

    We've certainly had some substandard films in the canon, but the franchise always bounces back, even after a protracted period of rubbish (mid 90's imho).

    It's like the Bat. Bulletproof.

    As I said a few pages back, they have a pretty good track record on the 4+ year mark, but the films delivered by the current regime after 3 and 2 year gaps have been subpar in my view.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    bondjames wrote: »
    I honestly think one must separate the franchise (indestructible imho, unless EON give it to some studio that doesn't know what they're doing who over commercialize, over-Americanize, or over-Asian'ize' it in order to pander) from the films.

    We've certainly had some substandard films in the canon, but the franchise always bounces back, even after a protracted period of rubbish (mid 90's imho).

    It's like the Bat. Bulletproof.

    As I said a few pages back, they have a pretty good track record on the 4+ year mark, but the films delivered by the current regime after 3 and 2 year gaps have been subpar in my view.

    So your saying trends are that the longer the wait on the bond film the better the quality it is
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I honestly think one must separate the franchise (indestructible imho, unless EON give it to some studio that doesn't know what they're doing who over commercialize, over-Americanize, or over-Asian'ize' it in order to pander) from the films.

    We've certainly had some substandard films in the canon, but the franchise always bounces back, even after a protracted period of rubbish (mid 90's imho).

    It's like the Bat. Bulletproof.

    As I said a few pages back, they have a pretty good track record on the 4+ year mark, but the films delivered by the current regime after 3 and 2 year gaps have been subpar in my view.

    So your saying trends are that the longer the wait on the bond film the better the quality it is
    The evidence, sadly, seems to suggest this. Especially with this post-Cubby team. In a way, I expected SF to be a killer film, because of the long wait (we already had the GE & CR evidence that they operate well on a 4+ yr gap) and it lived up to expectations.

    I also expect B25 to knock it out of the park, as long as they don't go back to the SP story well again. That would be a big mistake imho.

    GE, CR & SF worked because they were new stories.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,603
    to treat any franchise/brand etc as indistructable is a recipe for disaster IMHO,
    there is nothing to be gained from this valuation and everything to be lost.
    Plus my observation mentioned "negative impact" so Im not saying Bond can be destructed as a brand but it can be harmed.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    to treat any franchise/brand etc as indistructable is a recipe for disaster IMHO,
    there is nothing to be gained from this valuation and everything to be lost.
    Plus my observation mentioned "negative impact" so Im not saying Bond can be destructed as a brand but it can be harmed.
    Definitely. I agree on these points. Any franchise can be temporarily harmed, but I don't think it would be permanent with Bond or Bat. Any franchise that can survive Batman and Robin and DAD is pretty much indestructible imho.

    The public will forgive, because there is a history to draw from.

    Bat will bounce back after BvS, as an example. Maybe not with the next film, and maybe only after Affleck is out, but it will bounce back, reborn.

    EDIT: Prolonged periods of mediocrity can certainly harm a brand though: like what happened with Spiderman and Superman.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    bondjames wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I honestly think one must separate the franchise (indestructible imho, unless EON give it to some studio that doesn't know what they're doing who over commercialize, over-Americanize, or over-Asian'ize' it in order to pander) from the films.

    We've certainly had some substandard films in the canon, but the franchise always bounces back, even after a protracted period of rubbish (mid 90's imho).

    It's like the Bat. Bulletproof.

    As I said a few pages back, they have a pretty good track record on the 4+ year mark, but the films delivered by the current regime after 3 and 2 year gaps have been subpar in my view.

    So your saying trends are that the longer the wait on the bond film the better the quality it is
    The evidence, sadly, seems to suggest this. Especially with this post-Cubby team. In a way, I expected SF to be a killer film, because of the long wait (we already had the GE & CR evidence that they operate well on a 4+ yr gap) and it lived up to expectations.

    I also expect B25 to knock it out of the park, as long as they don't go back to the SP story well again. That would be a big mistake imho.

    GE, CR & SF worked because they were new stories.

    I think bond 25 can knock it out of the park with a new story but using the same characters as spectre like hinx and Blofeld Swann probably not but the rest of the characters spectre got us spectre now future films get to shows what they do with spectre
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I honestly think one must separate the franchise (indestructible imho, unless EON give it to some studio that doesn't know what they're doing who over commercialize, over-Americanize, or over-Asian'ize' it in order to pander) from the films.

    We've certainly had some substandard films in the canon, but the franchise always bounces back, even after a protracted period of rubbish (mid 90's imho).

    It's like the Bat. Bulletproof.

    As I said a few pages back, they have a pretty good track record on the 4+ year mark, but the films delivered by the current regime after 3 and 2 year gaps have been subpar in my view.

    So your saying trends are that the longer the wait on the bond film the better the quality it is
    The evidence, sadly, seems to suggest this. Especially with this post-Cubby team. In a way, I expected SF to be a killer film, because of the long wait (we already had the GE & CR evidence that they operate well on a 4+ yr gap) and it lived up to expectations.

    I also expect B25 to knock it out of the park, as long as they don't go back to the SP story well again. That would be a big mistake imho.

    GE, CR & SF worked because they were new stories.

    I think bond 25 can knock it out of the park with a new story but using the same characters as spectre like hinx and Blofeld Swann probably not but the rest of the characters spectre got us spectre now future films get to shows what they do with spectre
    It could theoretically, but they really would need a crack team of writers to redeem the mess they created in SP, which has left a terribly bad taste in some people's mouths (and certainly in this viewer's). I now understand why they chose to ignore QoS entirely for SF. I didn't mind the earlier film, but I know many of the general public weren't sold on it, and I think it was a smart move to 'move on'.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,970
    I only want them to continue the Blofeld storyline if Bond 25 is a true adaptation of YOLT if not I want a new story.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    Indirectly Bond 25-related. Paramount, which has been mentioned as a possible Bond 25 partner for MGM, may be losing its top executive.

    Here's one of multiple stories.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-brad-grey-paramount-exit-20170217-story.html
  • JET007JET007
    Posts: 632
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    I will await to see what the Omega meeting with DC throws at us in a few weeks time? :-?

    I see what you did there!

    ;)
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I just want them to remake the books just please they are so out of ideas so just go back to what makes the best films THE NOVELS PLEASE. In the 50's too
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Why remake the books that have been done before when there are the subsequent continuation novels waiting?
Sign In or Register to comment.