No Time To Die: Production Diary

18018028048068072507

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    How do I post a screen shot on here?

    You can use an image sharing site (not sure which - used to use Photobucket, until their latest debacle) or if you have a direct link, use the image attachment button within the text box in each thread.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    It'll try to post it, basically it's a picture of Craig in the water from CR & underneath he wrote in capital letters "IN FROM MY PRODUCERS" followed by a summary of the recent news reports we've read online.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited July 2017 Posts: 4,585
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    The New York Daily News is echoing the report, but also calling it "confirmation." So someone at the Daily news has spoken with the Mirror and determined that the story has enough merit to run it.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/daniel-craig-set-return-james-bond-film-article-1.3313303

    So it is sort of official

    I would say so. The Daily Beast (Newsweek) now has the news up on its site.

    Again, some major news outlets would not run the story if they did not have some confidence in the source, in this case The Mirror. This means, their editors call up The Mirror's editors, have a chat about the writers and their sources, get a sense of the degree of validity in the story.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I must admit it is looking more and more official.

    I just got a FB messenger message from @BondJasonBond006 that the Swiss press have the story running as well as the UK & USA etc.
  • Posts: 787
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there ever been a time when this many outlets picked up a story, only for it to be false? I know there are a lot of stupid stories that don't pick up traction. But I have a feeling this one COULD have merit. That, or these tabloids are basically betting their reputation on the fact that he may be back.

    I wouldn't think much of it. They're all just running with an unsubstantiated/loosely-sourced story to gin up some clicks. Very, very few people on earth care a fraction as much about Bond as the people on this forum do, so these tabloids are absolutely not 'betting their reputations' on this story.

    In other words, if, 6 months from now, EON announce that Hiddleston will start in Bond 25, who is going to call the Mirror to cancel their subscription?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    octofinger wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there ever been a time when this many outlets picked up a story, only for it to be false? I know there are a lot of stupid stories that don't pick up traction. But I have a feeling this one COULD have merit. That, or these tabloids are basically betting their reputation on the fact that he may be back.

    I wouldn't think much of it. They're all just running with an unsubstantiated/loosely-sourced story to gin up some clicks. Very, very few people on earth care a fraction as much about Bond as the people on this forum do, so these tabloids are absolutely not 'betting their reputations' on this story.

    In other words, if, 6 months from now, EON announce that Hiddleston will start in Bond 25, who is going to call the Mirror to cancel their subscription?

    Exactly.

    Tabloids have no reputation.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/revealed-daniel-craig-quitting-007-8166810

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/daniel-craig-stay-james-bond-10760121

    If he stays or goes they can say they called it either way and no one will remember the fact that one of the stories turned out to be pure bullshit.

  • Posts: 1,493
    octofinger wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there ever been a time when this many outlets picked up a story, only for it to be false? I know there are a lot of stupid stories that don't pick up traction. But I have a feeling this one COULD have merit. That, or these tabloids are basically betting their reputation on the fact that he may be back.

    I wouldn't think much of it. They're all just running with an unsubstantiated/loosely-sourced story to gin up some clicks. Very, very few people on earth care a fraction as much about Bond as the people on this forum do, so these tabloids are absolutely not 'betting their reputations' on this story.

    In other words, if, 6 months from now, EON announce that Hiddleston will start in Bond 25, who is going to call the Mirror to cancel their subscription?

    Bond has been with us for over fifty years because people, audiences, do care and pay to watch the films, hence the media are always ALL over any Bond news. I really struggle to understand why some so-called fans on this site are constantly trying (failing) to belittle the hugely successful and long standing Bond franchise.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited July 2017 Posts: 6,304
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    I've not seen anything to suggest people are particularly tired of Craig as Bond. Only fans on here. I don't think the man on the street has given it too much thought. A new Craig film with positive hype would deliver. The few people who are tired may just have to wait a little while longer.

    I agree. As far as the general audience is concerned, Craig is the present Bond, and he's a very popular Bond.

    ^This. The moviegoing public generally does not want change, which is why you see endless sequels featuring the same actors.

    Babs and MGW took a huge risk dumping Brosnan and hiring Craig. CR turned out well, of course, but Craig could have been another Lazenby or Dalton, neither of whom clicked with the public...

    For that reason, Eon is not likely to take another risk until Craig himself calls it a day.
    RC7 wrote: »

    True. Moore had been in the role for 1 year when he made TMWTGG, whereas Craig had been in the role for 9 years at the time of SP. People get tired of seeing things done the same way all the time. Craig's schtick had begun to get tired with SP, whereas Moore's schtick hadn't truly got going in TMWTGG. It doesn't really make sense to compare them.

    You are the one comparing Craig in SP and Moore in TMWTGG, so you are the one not making any sense by your own admission. I compared Moore in TMWTGG with Craig in QOS. SF and SP would not have happened in the first place because Craig would have been sacked after his 2nd outing.

    Yes, but people were still very much on board with Craig's schtick with QoS, they just didn't like the hyper-editing and muddled script. SP is the first time people have been turned off by a Craig film because they have begun to tire of things being done this way. People want something new, and not a different story, but a different type of story.

    I've not seen anything to suggest people are particularly tired of Craig as Bond. Only fans on here. I don't think the man on the street has given it too much thought. A new Craig film with positive hype would deliver. The few people who are tired may just have to wait a little while longer.

    I don't think the public ever tire of a particular Bond actor, but they do tire of their schtick, their particular bag of tricks. Sure, Craig could deliver a completely different performance with Bond 25, and the story could be a lot more stripped down and mission based etc. But I just don't see that Craig and Barbara have any interest in doing that. If they collaborate on Bond again, it'll be another lofty film with an emotional arc for Bond to come to terms with. That's exactly what people are tiring of. Even if they don't consciously register it, people crave innovation and a fresh approach.

    So you basically want the franchise to have ended about 40 years ago. Good to know. Or, in your defense, you fail to realize you want EON to operate like any other major Hollywood studio would, which still would have ruined the Bond series a long time ago.

    Do you realize how irrational your argumentation is?

    Do you realize the irrational argumentation is from @Mendes4Lyfe, as I am explaining in simple terms how the way he wishes EON to handle the franchise is borderline insane? Or is that too hard for you?

    I'll say it in simple english for you: Mendes4Lyfe wants EON to handle the franchise like a normal studio would. Any normal studio would have sacked Craig after QOS. The main reason the franchise has lasted so long is EON do not operate like the norm, and they stick to their lead star no matter what. You have to get your head out of the sand and 'realize' that if Sony had taken total control of the franchise with CR, the franchise would have been recasted & rebooted again after QOS. They pulled that shit not once, but twice with Spider-man. Which is what Mendes4Lyfe is saying EON should do. You, and everyone should pray to God that Mendes4Lyfe never gets his hands near the franchise, let alone getting listened to, as he would single-handedly kill the franchise so quickly, your head will spin.

    The other factor with Sony was the Babs/Pascal business relationship. From what I've read, Babs is quite personable and a charmer and usually gets what she wants...
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 4,409
    I think a large reason why the story is gaining traction is due to the lack of Hollywood news coming during the July 4th holiday period. It's a slight "non-story" (basically it's the same news that has been said throughout the year but repackaged). Though I wouldn't underestimate the merit of the news, often when it comes to Bond and the British film industry in general, the tabloids tend to be on the right track.

    I think it's obvious that Craig is likely to return and that Broccoli ideally wants Adele to return - aside from Beyonce, she's the biggest recording star in the world. Also, I'm certain that the response "Logan" got has convinced Craig that he isn't done yet with Bond.

    This isn't a story until we hear news of a studio deal being done. Without word of a distributor who are going to actually finance this thing, everything is speculation. It's almost been two full years....so news has to be forthcoming.....................right?

    With the news that "Dunkirk" is on the verge of flopping, perhaps the time has come for Nolan to rise?

    http://variety.com/2017/film/news/dunkirk-box-office-tracking-christopher-nolan-1202487809/
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    octofinger wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there ever been a time when this many outlets picked up a story, only for it to be false? I know there are a lot of stupid stories that don't pick up traction. But I have a feeling this one COULD have merit. That, or these tabloids are basically betting their reputation on the fact that he may be back.

    I wouldn't think much of it. They're all just running with an unsubstantiated/loosely-sourced story to gin up some clicks. Very, very few people on earth care a fraction as much about Bond as the people on this forum do, so these tabloids are absolutely not 'betting their reputations' on this story.

    In other words, if, 6 months from now, EON announce that Hiddleston will start in Bond 25, who is going to call the Mirror to cancel their subscription?

    Exactly.

    Tabloids have no reputation.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/revealed-daniel-craig-quitting-007-8166810

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/daniel-craig-stay-james-bond-10760121

    If he stays or goes they can say they called it either way and no one will remember the fact that one of the stories turned out to be pure bullshit.

    This. I could make ten or fifteen guesses on who will be the villain in 'Bond 25,' and maybe I get lucky with one of them, but A.) it doesn't make it a scoop, and B.) it doesn't negate the fact that I was wrong about all the other guesses.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585

    octofinger wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there ever been a time when this many outlets picked up a story, only for it to be false? I know there are a lot of stupid stories that don't pick up traction. But I have a feeling this one COULD have merit. That, or these tabloids are basically betting their reputation on the fact that he may be back.

    I wouldn't think much of it. They're all just running with an unsubstantiated/loosely-sourced story to gin up some clicks. Very, very few people on earth care a fraction as much about Bond as the people on this forum do, so these tabloids are absolutely not 'betting their reputations' on this story.

    In other words, if, 6 months from now, EON announce that Hiddleston will start in Bond 25, who is going to call the Mirror to cancel their subscription?

    Exactly.

    Tabloids have no reputation.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/revealed-daniel-craig-quitting-007-8166810

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/daniel-craig-stay-james-bond-10760121

    If he stays or goes they can say they called it either way and no one will remember the fact that one of the stories turned out to be pure bullshit.

    No, they don't. This is why, in general, their reports stay out of other media outlets. But I also think The Mirror is a little better than most tabloids, especially those we have here in the U.S. It isn't complete crap. As I've noted, some outlets won't report on this if they have not contacted The Mirror first and come away feeling confident to run it.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,812
    Birdleson wrote: »
    This thread is retarded.
    The use of the word retarded is retarded.
    I believe that was the point made.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,812
    What I was saying is if Sony had the final say on the franchise over EON, Craig would have been sacked after QOS and B23 would be a 2nd reboot.
    CASINO ROYALE was very successful.

    QUANTUM OF SOLACE did about the same box office, and its reviews and ratings as on IMDb compare to other fine Bond films. There's not much reason at all to recast the Bond role and restart. For EON, Sony, or anyone involved.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    edited July 2017 Posts: 1,187
    I encourage you to no longer use the word retarded when describing something as that is offensive to disabled people like @TheWizardOfIce.

    Seriously though, I think we need to wait on official confirmation from EON before we get too excited.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I encourage you to no longer use the word retarded when describing something as that is offensive to disabled people like @TheWizardOfIce.

    He certainly hides it well. He was going great guns when we Eiffel Towered your missus last week.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    RC7 wrote: »
    I encourage you to no longer use the word retarded when describing something as that is offensive to disabled people like @TheWizardOfIce.

    He certainly hides it well. He was going great guns when we Eiffel Towered your missus last week.
    It seems your the one riding his dick, no?

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2017 Posts: 15,718
    What I was saying is if Sony had the final say on the franchise over EON, Craig would have been sacked after QOS and B23 would be a 2nd reboot.
    CASINO ROYALE was very successful.

    QUANTUM OF SOLACE did about the same box office, and its reviews and ratings as on IMDb compare to other fine Bond films. There's not much reason at all to recast the Bond role and restart. For EON, Sony, or anyone involved.

    CR: $599 million / 8.0 on imdb / 95% on RT
    QOS: $586 million / 6.6 on imdb / 62% on RT

    Spiderman 2: $783 million / 7.3 on imdb / 94% on RT
    Spiderman 3: $890 million / 6.2 on imdb / 63% on RT

    Amazing Spiderman: $757 million / 7.0 on imdb / 72% on RT
    Amazing Spiderman 2: $702 million / 6.7 on imdb / 52% on RT


    As you can see, it is obvious that if you take EON out of the equation and give total control to Sony, Craig would have gotten sacked right after QOS, and the franchise rebooted for Bond 23. Hence we should all pray the day never happens that @Mendes4Lyfe gets his hands on the franchise, or that EON listens to him, as his insane decisions taking would ruin the Bond franchise quicker than he can say 'Aidan Turner'. He just doesn't seem to grasp that EON, whether Cubby or Babs, do not throw their lead star under the bus the moment they hit a problem.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    I encourage you to no longer use the word retarded when describing something as that is offensive to disabled people like @TheWizardOfIce.

    He certainly hides it well. He was going great guns when we Eiffel Towered your missus last week.
    It seems your the one riding his dick, no?

    What's the odd reach around between friends?
  • Posts: 30
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there ever been a time when this many outlets picked up a story, only for it to be false? I know there are a lot of stupid stories that don't pick up traction. But I have a feeling this one COULD have merit. That, or these tabloids are basically betting their reputation on the fact that he may be back.

    I wouldn't outright dismiss it.

    I've seen it happen with several other "rumors" over the last two years, since SP's release. Still doesn't mean a thing that other sites are running the same, unconfirmed story. Like someone said yesterday, though, if enough of these "scoops" are dropped, someone's bound to get lucky and be correct.

    Off the top of my head - Craig getting $150 million to return as Bond last September was picked up by everyone - Telegraph, Independent, DM, Esquire. It was shot down by Craig a month later.

    I think the Nolan/Syncopy story had a lot of pickup, too.

    Realistically, we'll get a confirmation or denial or at least a comment when Craig's doing Logan Lucky promo, if not before.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited July 2017 Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »
    I encourage you to no longer use the word retarded when describing something as that is offensive to disabled people like @TheWizardOfIce.

    He certainly hides it well. He was going great guns when we Eiffel Towered your missus last week.
    It seems your the one riding his dick, no?

    The mods asked us earlier to leave it which I fully intend to do as it's not even entertaining slapping you down.

    After spamming this thread with endless links to the same non-story over the last few days now you suddenly follow up with:
    Seriously though, I think we need to wait on official confirmation from EON before we get too excited.

    You've turned yourself into a bit of a laughing stock so why don't you quit while you're behind?

  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    Please don't make fun of the disableds
    There's nothing funny about those
    Whether mental in the head or mental in the legs
    Doesn't mean their sorrow doesn't show
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I encourage you to no longer use the word retarded when describing something as that is offensive to disabled people like @TheWizardOfIce.

    He certainly hides it well. He was going great guns when we Eiffel Towered your missus last week.
    It seems your the one riding his dick, no?

    What's the odd reach around between friends?
    Can I ask you a penetrating question? This is a bond forum so if you want to continue this little talk of ours maybe you should stick your head in a toilet so I won't answer.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Let's cool it with the personal back-and-forth and get back on topic - whatever that means anymore.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    edited July 2017 Posts: 1,187
    RC7 wrote: »
    I encourage you to no longer use the word retarded when describing something as that is offensive to disabled people like @TheWizardOfIce.

    He certainly hides it well. He was going great guns when we Eiffel Towered your missus last week.
    It seems your the one riding his dick, no?

    The mods asked us earlier to leave it which I fully intend to do as it's not even entertaining slapping you down.

    After spamming this thread with endless links to the same non-story over the last few days now you suddenly follow up with:
    Seriously though, I think we need to wait on official confirmation from EON before we get too excited.

    You've turned yourself into a bit of a laughing stock so why don't you quit while you're behind?
    You don't seem to realize the name of the game I'm playing on you, lad. Back to discussion,

    Who wants Chris Nolan for Bond 25?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I encourage you to no longer use the word retarded when describing something as that is offensive to disabled people like @TheWizardOfIce.

    He certainly hides it well. He was going great guns when we Eiffel Towered your missus last week.
    It seems your the one riding his dick, no?

    What's the odd reach around between friends?
    Can I ask you a penetrating question? This is a bond forum so if you want to continue this little talk of ours maybe you should stick your head in a toilet so I won't answer.

    Chill out, love.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    What I was saying is if Sony had the final say on the franchise over EON, Craig would have been sacked after QOS and B23 would be a 2nd reboot.
    CASINO ROYALE was very successful.

    QUANTUM OF SOLACE did about the same box office, and its reviews and ratings as on IMDb compare to other fine Bond films. There's not much reason at all to recast the Bond role and restart. For EON, Sony, or anyone involved.

    CR: $599 million / 8.0 on imdb / 95% on RT
    QOS: $586 million / 6.6 on imdb / 62% on RT

    Spiderman 2: $783 million / 7.3 on imdb / 94% on RT
    Spiderman 3: $890 million / 6.2 on imdb / 63% on RT

    Amazing Spiderman: $757 million / 7.0 on imdb / 72% on RT
    Amazing Spiderman 2: $702 million / 6.7 on imdb / 52% on RT


    As you can see, it is obvious that if you take EON out of the equation and give total control to Sony, Craig would have gotten sacked right after QOS, and the franchise rebooted for Bond 23. Hence we should all pray the day never happens that @Mendes4Lyfe gets his hands on the franchise, or that EON listens to him, as his insane decisions taking would ruin the Bond franchise quicker than he can say 'Aidan Turner'. He just doesn't seem to grasp that EON, whether Cubby or Babs, do not throw their lead star under the bus the moment they hit a problem.

    I take your point and I certainly don't want EON to lose control as Bond fully owned by a studio would usher in all the crap we really dont want like Black Bond/Gay Bond/Female Bond and expanded universe.

    But from my memory of the Sony leaks (and I didnt read that much so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it was the studio pushing back to EON that the SP script was shite and without them and Fiennes saying no to M being a traitor we'd have got a much bigger shambles.

    We are certainly blessed by the unique rights situation we have with EON rather than being in the hands of a studio but lets not think they are beyond reproach in decision making.
  • Posts: 12,837
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    Spectre's critical response was interesting - the British media praised it to the high heavens, whereas the American media was less enthusiastic to outright scathing of the film.

    Yes, there was a big critical divide. The UK audiences seemed to like SP much more as well. I saw it twice at the Empire Lec Square in London (now Cineworld) and it was packed out and the audience cheered and clapped and really enjoyed it.

    Bond is a real cultural institution over here so it always seems to be a bigger deal here than in America. That's been true for as long as I remember. But this did seem more noticeable with Spectre and my theory on it is this:

    The success of Skyfall meant that a lot of people who hadn't cared about Bond for a long time were interested in the sequel. And since Spectre was a deliberately nostalgic film those old school beats (gadget filled car, etc) would have reminded those new audience members of how they felt watching Roger Moore on ITV at Christmas. Skyfall meant more bums on seats for Spectre, but the film proved popular by rekindling that sense of nostalgia for the old Bond (not that there weren't traces of that in SF).

    I think Americans don't have that same cultural attachment to Bond, the Connery/Moore esque stuff would have meant nothing to them (a lot of younger people online actually accused SPECTRE as an organisation of being a rip off of something in the Marvel films iirc). Some might even see it just as much so all the new audience members over there saw was a sequel that they found disappointing.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    423.gif
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Delayed reaction, much?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2017 Posts: 15,718
    What I was saying is if Sony had the final say on the franchise over EON, Craig would have been sacked after QOS and B23 would be a 2nd reboot.
    CASINO ROYALE was very successful.

    QUANTUM OF SOLACE did about the same box office, and its reviews and ratings as on IMDb compare to other fine Bond films. There's not much reason at all to recast the Bond role and restart. For EON, Sony, or anyone involved.

    CR: $599 million / 8.0 on imdb / 95% on RT
    QOS: $586 million / 6.6 on imdb / 62% on RT

    Spiderman 2: $783 million / 7.3 on imdb / 94% on RT
    Spiderman 3: $890 million / 6.2 on imdb / 63% on RT

    Amazing Spiderman: $757 million / 7.0 on imdb / 72% on RT
    Amazing Spiderman 2: $702 million / 6.7 on imdb / 52% on RT


    As you can see, it is obvious that if you take EON out of the equation and give total control to Sony, Craig would have gotten sacked right after QOS, and the franchise rebooted for Bond 23. Hence we should all pray the day never happens that @Mendes4Lyfe gets his hands on the franchise, or that EON listens to him, as his insane decisions taking would ruin the Bond franchise quicker than he can say 'Aidan Turner'. He just doesn't seem to grasp that EON, whether Cubby or Babs, do not throw their lead star under the bus the moment they hit a problem.

    I take your point and I certainly don't want EON to lose control as Bond fully owned by a studio would usher in all the crap we really dont want like Black Bond/Gay Bond/Female Bond and expanded universe.

    But from my memory of the Sony leaks (and I didnt read that much so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it was the studio pushing back to EON that the SP script was shite and without them and Fiennes saying no to M being a traitor we'd have got a much bigger shambles.

    We are certainly blessed by the unique rights situation we have with EON rather than being in the hands of a studio but lets not think they are beyond reproach in decision making.

    @TheWizardOfIce Don't get me wrong, EON have been known to make very bad decisions - ie: green-lighting every idea from Tamahori without asking questions. My only point is on long-term vision, whether voluntary or by chance, EON have been pitch perfect. Making TSWLM after TMWTGG without recasting, MR to FYEO, QOS to SF. Mendes4Lyfe's business vision for Bond would destroy the franchise quicker than a 2nd DAD in 2004 would have done. Bond films have been made at a relative constant rate for 55 years. Mendes4Lyfe would be lucky to have reached 17 years with his suggestions if they were put into motion.
Sign In or Register to comment.