No Time To Die: Production Diary

17977988008028032507

Comments

  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @RC7, theoretically speaking, how much creative say does a future distributor have in the direction of the franchise? How much does MGM have?

    I'm curious.

    Hard to say. My understanding is that Barbara has always wanted a Craig return (she said a much to an acquaintance as recent as May - my gut says this was subterfuge and he's back anyway). Likewise it's my understanding most distributors want his signature too. They can have sway depending on the deal and EON's vision, but to be fair that's just common sense and I'm sure you can and have envisaged that.

    This stuff is always up in the air and as a lot of intel is based on faith, there's always the case it's flawed. The things I do know are that Logan is certainly not back and it's more likely Craig will be back than not. I've heard conflicting reports re. other elements, which is why I've not really commented on them. It's largely speculation even for those associated, unless you're Babs.
    Thanks for clarifying. From what I have read, it definitely appears that EON wants Craig back and that he is possibly leaning in that direction. I've always felt that Babs wanted him back anyway. She has said as much on numerous occasions so that was never in any doubt really.

    What I was curious to ascertain is whether MGM and a new distributor can override or influence this wish depending on strategic direction. I was always under the impression that they could and that up until a few months back it was up in the air because the deal hadn't been done yet. Basically what I could glean was that he had decided to stay on but that someone else (not sure who) needed to approve it. Hence it was written that he was prevaricating. The Mark Strong interview was the most informed in this respect.

    Perhaps we are closer to a distribution deal, or perhaps the deal has in fact been recently done? Hence these positive reports about Craig which actually started coming out in April, either to influence a future imminent decision, or because someone knows something and has leaked it.

    EON own Bond, hence they have final say. They certainly don't dictate, but they aren't beholden to anyone. The advantage of being prod-co/rights holder is that you're in the driving seat.
    Co-owners. MGM have a stake in bond. That's the whole reason Bond is still at MGM.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I'm not sure why the article from The Mirror is obviously bogus, yet people are buying into it solely because other sites are sharing it. There's no reason that makes it credible all of a sudden.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @RC7, theoretically speaking, how much creative say does a future distributor have in the direction of the franchise? How much does MGM have?

    I'm curious.

    Hard to say. My understanding is that Barbara has always wanted a Craig return (she said a much to an acquaintance as recent as May - my gut says this was subterfuge and he's back anyway). Likewise it's my understanding most distributors want his signature too. They can have sway depending on the deal and EON's vision, but to be fair that's just common sense and I'm sure you can and have envisaged that.

    This stuff is always up in the air and as a lot of intel is based on faith, there's always the case it's flawed. The things I do know are that Logan is certainly not back and it's more likely Craig will be back than not. I've heard conflicting reports re. other elements, which is why I've not really commented on them. It's largely speculation even for those associated, unless you're Babs.
    Thanks for clarifying. From what I have read, it definitely appears that EON wants Craig back and that he is possibly leaning in that direction. I've always felt that Babs wanted him back anyway. She has said as much on numerous occasions so that was never in any doubt really.

    What I was curious to ascertain is whether MGM and a new distributor can override or influence this wish depending on strategic direction. I was always under the impression that they could and that up until a few months back it was up in the air because the deal hadn't been done yet. Basically what I could glean was that he had decided to stay on but that someone else (not sure who) needed to approve it. Hence it was written that he was prevaricating. The Mark Strong interview was the most informed in this respect.

    Perhaps we are closer to a distribution deal, or perhaps the deal has in fact been recently done? Hence these positive reports about Craig which actually started coming out in April, either to influence a future imminent decision, or because someone knows something and has leaked it.

    EON own Bond, hence they have final say. They certainly don't dictate, but they aren't beholden to anyone. The advantage of being prod-co/rights holder is that you're in the driving seat.
    Co-owners. MGM have a stake in bond. That's the whole reason Bond is still at MGM.

    Indeed. But if EON and MGM were to go to court, EON would, at a large cost, take sole ownership. MGM never would. So while legally it's a 50/50 split, creatively it's 'owned' by EON (Danjaq). MGM know this, hence Barbara's ability to operate largely unchallenged.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm not sure why the article from The Mirror is obviously bogus, yet people are buying into it solely because other sites are sharing it. There's no reason that makes it credible all of a sudden.

    Well you could say the same about the bible. If enough idiots believe in something, whether it is actually true or not becomes largely irrelevant and it takes on a life of its own.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    People need to calm down we will know eventually everything we don't need to charge with swords at each other let just see what happens next goodness gracious
    Some sage advice from Malone in THE UNTOUCHABLES.
    quote-don-t-wait-for-it-to-happen-don-t-even-want-it-to-happen-just-watch-what-does-happen-sean-connery-89-26-42.jpg

    Don't think, just let it happen.
  • Posts: 11,119
    But what if Daniel Craig really returns. We might be getting a Bond film that at least tries to dump Madeleine Swann. Certainly it won't be a reboot. We'll be continuing the Timeline as set in CR.
  • Posts: 9,847
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm not sure why the article from The Mirror is obviously bogus, yet people are buying into it solely because other sites are sharing it. There's no reason that makes it credible all of a sudden.

    Well you could say the same about the bible. If enough idiots believe in something, whether it is actually true or not becomes largely irrelevant and it takes on a life of its own.

    Let's not bring religion into this you proved your ignorance on the subject once when I beat you in debate I could beat you in a rematch but this is hardly the time or the place.

    As for Craig returning personally I say it's likely regardless of the mirrors story
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm not sure why the article from The Mirror is obviously bogus, yet people are buying into it solely because other sites are sharing it. There's no reason that makes it credible all of a sudden.

    Well you could say the same about the bible. If enough idiots believe in something, whether it is actually true or not becomes largely irrelevant and it takes on a life of its own.

    Let's not bring religion into this you proved your ignorance on the subject once when I beat you in debate I could beat you in a rematch but this is hardly the time or the place.

    As for Craig returning personally I say it's likely regardless of the mirrors story

    Translation: we all know religion is bollocks so please don't make me look stupid again.
  • I was reminded of this early April Page Six story that's very similar to the Mirror story.

    http://pagesix.com/2017/04/03/daniel-craig-ready-for-more-007-after-slash-my-wrist-diss/

    Sample:

    Multiple sources tell Page Six that Bond franchise producer Barbara Broccoli has “just about persuaded Daniel Craig to do one more Bond movie.” This comes after Broccoli produced his hit off-Broadway production of “Othello” with David Oyelowo, which won Craig the serious acting plaudits he craved.
  • Posts: 7,653
    If Craig returns he probably wants to film 007's death, I hope he does not get a fifth his power over the last two movie showed he lacked insight. Unless we get a director who tells him what to do and is allowed to do so I have little faith in a fifth Craig.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    SaintMark wrote: »
    If Craig returns he probably wants to film 007's death, I hope he does not get a fifth his power over the last two movie showed he lacked insight. Unless we get a director who tells him what to do and is allowed to do so I have little faith in a fifth Craig.

    I doubt Babs would allow anyone to kill off Bond!
  • Posts: 9,847
    RC7 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm not sure why the article from The Mirror is obviously bogus, yet people are buying into it solely because other sites are sharing it. There's no reason that makes it credible all of a sudden.

    Well you could say the same about the bible. If enough idiots believe in something, whether it is actually true or not becomes largely irrelevant and it takes on a life of its own.

    Let's not bring religion into this you proved your ignorance on the subject once when I beat you in debate I could beat you in a rematch but this is hardly the time or the place.

    As for Craig returning personally I say it's likely regardless of the mirrors story

    Translation: we all know religion is bollocks so please don't make me look stupid again.

    Shall we go again I would enjoy making you look as dumb
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited July 2017 Posts: 9,117
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm not sure why the article from The Mirror is obviously bogus, yet people are buying into it solely because other sites are sharing it. There's no reason that makes it credible all of a sudden.

    Well you could say the same about the bible. If enough idiots believe in something, whether it is actually true or not becomes largely irrelevant and it takes on a life of its own.

    Let's not bring religion into this you proved your ignorance on the subject once when I beat you in debate I could beat you in a rematch but this is hardly the time or the place.

    As for Craig returning personally I say it's likely regardless of the mirrors story

    I'd be intrigued if you could furnish me with evidence of said 'beating'.
    But what if Daniel Craig really returns. We might be getting a Bond film that at least tries to dump Madeleine Swann. Certainly it won't be a reboot. We'll be continuing the Timeline as set in CR.

    This is the dichotomy we have with Craig returning.

    I think most of us want him back as not only is he an excellent Bond but also there is a dearth of credible candidates.

    But if you bring Craig back than you simply cannot ignore the events of SP. With the Craig era they firmly nailed their colours to the continuity/it's all one overreaching story arc tree. To just have a stand alone film would be admitting they tied themselves in knots they could never hope to undo.

    Although it's not particularly creative I'd be happy enough if:
    Act 1: Blofeld escapes and kills Madeline.
    Act 2: Bond is depressed, gets sent to Sir James Maloney (the Scooby gang can all get a bit of screen time without them clogging up the story later), M sends him on one last mission.
    Act 3: Bond goes to Japan and the YOLT novel plays out. End of the Craig era with Bond off to Vladivostok (might have to substitute Pyongyang for Vladivostok I suppose).

    They should just ignore the stepbrother rubbish and above all NO mention that Kissy is pregnant - we really don't want to let P&W get tempted into any son of Bond bollocks further down the line.

    I'd be surprised though as this route would be the heaviest and darkest of the whole Craig era and people seem to be more keen for a standard Bond film with gadgets and quips.

    However if now is not the right time and actor to go for the Garden of Death finale I don't know when will be.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm not sure why the article from The Mirror is obviously bogus, yet people are buying into it solely because other sites are sharing it. There's no reason that makes it credible all of a sudden.

    Well you could say the same about the bible. If enough idiots believe in something, whether it is actually true or not becomes largely irrelevant and it takes on a life of its own.

    Let's not bring religion into this you proved your ignorance on the subject once when I beat you in debate I could beat you in a rematch but this is hardly the time or the place.

    As for Craig returning personally I say it's likely regardless of the mirrors story

    Translation: we all know religion is bollocks so please don't make me look stupid again.

    Shall we go again I would enjoy making you look as dumb

    Sounds like someone's up for a rumble? Im happy to hold your coat @RC7 as long as you let me get a couple of digs in?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    echo wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    If Craig returns he probably wants to film 007's death, I hope he does not get a fifth his power over the last two movie showed he lacked insight. Unless we get a director who tells him what to do and is allowed to do so I have little faith in a fifth Craig.

    I doubt Babs would allow anyone to kill off Bond!
    Unless it's a fake death like the end of their favourite Nolan entries allowing a rebirth for B26 (along with expanded universe). It wouldn't surprise me (I can just see M, MP & Q crying at Bond's funeral). Seems to be all the rage these days. Even BvS was in on it, and you know EON likes trends.
    But what if Daniel Craig really returns. We might be getting a Bond film that at least tries to dump Madeleine Swann. Certainly it won't be a reboot. We'll be continuing the Timeline as set in CR.

    This is the dichotomy we have with Craig returning.

    I think most of us want him back as not only is he an excellent Bond but also there is a dearth of credible candidates.

    But if you bring Craig back than you simply cannot ignore the events of SP. With the Craig era they firmly nailed their colours to the continuity/it's all one overreaching story arc tree. To just have a stand alone film would be admitting they tied themselves in knots they could never hope to undo.
    Precisely right. Which is why I'd hoped he would just go quietly with his pension and Madeleine into the good night.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited July 2017 Posts: 11,139
    Respected Movie Insider John Campea confirms Daniel Craig's return as Bond:


    You lost all credibility months ago when you cited reddit as a reliable source and now with your continuous posting of links that are pure fabrication and then punctuated it with "Respected movie insider" in reference to John Campea shows how out of touch you are. You're done, mate.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Only if Mendes returns do I forecast such a sappy ending @bondjames. However, i just don't see Sam having the stamina to do another Bond film. I also don't think he'd risk another SP. He's batting 50/50... one more turd and he can seriously hurt his legacy within the franchise.

    If Craig is back, I sincerely hope we get a director that not only understands 007 (of course), but also allows Craig's more masculine side to return (a la CR and QoS). A director that understands that men want to be like Bond, women want to be with him. Craig's a physically gifted actor, unleash that.

    I suppose, as I've said before (along with many others on this forum), this will have to start with the script. And the script has to give Craig Bond real stakes.

    My fingers are crossed that Craig Bond can be retired with one helluva classic conclusion.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    There isn't a dearth of possible candidates. There's a dearth of candidates we can all agree on. But that's the same every time, pretty much. It's also common for fans to cling to an incumbent Bond, and express skepticism at the prospect of someone "topping" said incumbent Bond. Then the new Bond arrives, and everyone says it's the best since Connery, and the cycle starts over.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Risico007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm not sure why the article from The Mirror is obviously bogus, yet people are buying into it solely because other sites are sharing it. There's no reason that makes it credible all of a sudden.

    Well you could say the same about the bible. If enough idiots believe in something, whether it is actually true or not becomes largely irrelevant and it takes on a life of its own.

    Let's not bring religion into this you proved your ignorance on the subject once when I beat you in debate I could beat you in a rematch but this is hardly the time or the place.

    As for Craig returning personally I say it's likely regardless of the mirrors story

    Translation: we all know religion is bollocks so please don't make me look stupid again.

    Shall we go again I would enjoy making you look as dumb

    Just for the sake of my curiousity, how would you do it? Unless you are the one guy on planet earth who has gotten proof of god's existence, I find your statement hard to fathom.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited July 2017 Posts: 6,304
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm not sure why the article from The Mirror is obviously bogus, yet people are buying into it solely because other sites are sharing it. There's no reason that makes it credible all of a sudden.

    Well you could say the same about the bible. If enough idiots believe in something, whether it is actually true or not becomes largely irrelevant and it takes on a life of its own.

    Let's not bring religion into this you proved your ignorance on the subject once when I beat you in debate I could beat you in a rematch but this is hardly the time or the place.

    As for Craig returning personally I say it's likely regardless of the mirrors story

    I'd be intrigued if you could furnish me with evidence of said 'beating'.
    But what if Daniel Craig really returns. We might be getting a Bond film that at least tries to dump Madeleine Swann. Certainly it won't be a reboot. We'll be continuing the Timeline as set in CR.

    This is the dichotomy we have with Craig returning.

    I think most of us want him back as not only is he an excellent Bond but also there is a dearth of credible candidates.

    But if you bring Craig back than you simply cannot ignore the events of SP. With the Craig era they firmly nailed their colours to the continuity/it's all one overreaching story arc tree. To just have a stand alone film would be admitting they tied themselves in knots they could never hope to undo.

    Although it's not particularly creative I'd be happy enough if:
    Act 1: Blofeld escapes and kills Madeline.
    Act 2: Bond is depressed, gets sent to Sir James Maloney (the Scooby gang can all get a bit of screen time without them clogging up the story later), M sends him on one last mission.
    Act 3: Bond goes to Japan and the YOLT novel plays out. End of the Craig era with Bond off to Vladivostok (might have to substitute Pyongyang for Vladivostok I suppose).

    They should just ignore the stepbrother rubbish and above all NO mention that Kissy is pregnant - we really don't want to let P&W get tempted into any son of Bond bollocks further down the line.

    I'd be surprised though as this route would be the heaviest and darkest of the whole Craig era and people seem to be more keen for a standard Bond film with gadgets and quips.

    However if now is not the right time and actor to go for the Garden of Death finale I don't know when will be.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm not sure why the article from The Mirror is obviously bogus, yet people are buying into it solely because other sites are sharing it. There's no reason that makes it credible all of a sudden.

    Well you could say the same about the bible. If enough idiots believe in something, whether it is actually true or not becomes largely irrelevant and it takes on a life of its own.

    Let's not bring religion into this you proved your ignorance on the subject once when I beat you in debate I could beat you in a rematch but this is hardly the time or the place.

    As for Craig returning personally I say it's likely regardless of the mirrors story

    Translation: we all know religion is bollocks so please don't make me look stupid again.

    Shall we go again I would enjoy making you look as dumb

    Sounds like someone's up for a rumble? Im happy to hold your coat @RC7 as long as you let me get a couple of digs in?

    By most people's measure, Craig is the best Bond since Connery so Eon is not going to jump to replace him. Finding Bond #7 will be the hardest task since 1968.

    I agree completely: this is the time, and the actor, to do YOLT justice (I'd also love if they uttered the name "Kissy Suzuki" onscreen this time). Craig does best with bleak-ish endings, and his Bond wandering off into Russia alone would be just right. I also don't know about Kissy's pregnancy: it would create such a plotline so dangling that Swann would look like child's play.

    I wonder if Fleming planned to revisit Bond's baby somewhere down the road. He certainly wasn't afraid to revisit old plotlines, and he clearly was experimenting with his creation from TSWLM onward.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited July 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Craig is the best Bond since Connery "by most people's measures" as much as Brosnan was "by most people's measures" in his tenure, and so will the next actor, whoever he may be. They'll hail him as "the best Bond since Connery by most people's measures."

    Craig isn't unexpendable. They can easily replace him if they decide to follow a different vision and his doesn't match theirs. The Bond film is the star, not the actor.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Craig is the best Bond since Connery "by most people's measures" as much as Brosnan was "by most people's measures" in his tenure, and so will the next actor, whoever he may be. They'll hail him as "the best Bond since Connery by most people's measures."

    Craig isn't unexpendable. They can easily replace him if they decide to follow a different vision and his doesn't match theirs. The Bond film is the star, not the actor.
    +1.

    The only question remains: what is the vision? If it's centred around Craig, I expect it to be a rather bleak end to his tenure. Babs will go for depth and SF2 most likely. They'll continue to be haunted by the success of that film while he's in the saddle.

    If they decide to take a clean break then they have more options with direction, which is why I still hope they do that, but recent articles and rumours suggest Craig is back to give us his Logan.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Brosnan never received the acclaim Craig has. Nor did Dalton, Moore, or Lazenby, for that matter (and I liked them all as Bond).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I seem to recall 2nd coming comments for Brozza and Dalton in particular. Moore always was seen as the anti-Connery.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    True, they didn't receive Craig's acclaim. They received their own.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    echo wrote: »
    Brosnan never received the acclaim Craig has. Nor did Dalton, Moore, or Lazenby, for that matter (and I liked them all as Bond).
    He always did. The articles are all out there. I remember a time when Die Another Day was "the best Bond movie ever" and as such was praised by Roger Ebert. It was much later when Craig arrived in the role that Brosnan started receiving hatred and was dissed to no end. Thankfully, that dreadful detriment has decreased now in comparison to what it was back in the day.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Craig is the best Bond since Connery "by most people's measures" as much as Brosnan was "by most people's measures" in his tenure, and so will the next actor, whoever he may be. They'll hail him as "the best Bond since Connery by most people's measures."

    Craig isn't unexpendable. They can easily replace him if they decide to follow a different vision and his doesn't match theirs. The Bond film is the star, not the actor.
    +1.

    The only question remains: what is the vision? If it's centred around Craig, I expect it to be a rather bleak end to his tenure. Babs will go for depth and SF2 most likely. They'll continue to be haunted by the success of that film while he's in the saddle.

    If they decide to take a clean break then they have more options with direction, which is why I still hope they do that, but recent articles and rumours suggest Craig is back to give us his Logan.
    +1. Well said, sir.

    Craig will want another Skyfall and most likely provide the character with another tragic angle involving another personal matter, trust issues, and most likely the inside man/rogue agent/mole plot element. People are already getting tired of that, and we're ascending above that "trend" that is no longer.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited July 2017 Posts: 4,043
    We need a modern SWLM for Craig's swansong unless they can pull off the YOLT storyline, either give him a proper epic blow out or something that takes away the nasty taste of SPECTRE that brings the whole Craig era to an end in a satisfying way. Meaning tying up all the Blofeld nonsense without referring back to Step brother gate.

    Trying to mix the two is a mistake, look what we got with SPECTRE, one or the other.

    Either let Craig be his Bond but with a fun adventure or really dial up the dramatic and end this timeline with something earth shaking then start again with a younger Bond and less of the introspection.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    Why doesn't SPECTRE work as Craig's swansong?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Why doesn't SPECTRE work as Craig's swansong?
    I'd be fully satisfied with that.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Because it's not a satisfying conclusion to his era. Blofeld's not dead and Spectre isn't gone. It feels like the buildup to the final conclusion.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I don't see them having Craig finish Blofeld or Spectre off once and for all in B25 irrespective of whether he comes back or not. The ending is likely to be as vague as SP's was.

    They didn't go to all that effort to secure the rights just to give it up after two films.

    Even this current crop of honchos at EON know that they should keep their options open on that one.
Sign In or Register to comment.