No Time To Die: Production Diary

18078088108128132507

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I love Craig and would like for him to come back for another but if he doesn't I'm not going to lose sleep over it; in fact I don't see my enthusiasm taking hit if Craig walks. That being said, EoN need to wake tf up and start doing their job at least creatively. I don't know if P and W are returning but all I know is that comment they made about not knowing where to go story wise, should automatically render them ineligible to write another Bond script again. Furthermore, having to rely upon what's going on in the world to determine what stories they want to tell is incredibly short-sighted and I'm embarrassed for EoN at the fact that they opened their mothes to spout such ridiculousness. If they're incapable of using their imagination write or to get competent writers out there to write a cracking geopolitical thriller then they have no business making Bond films. Meanwhile there are 29-30 year old writers out there who have an awareness and firm grasp of the socio and geopolitical landscape and know how to tell a compelling story but based on historical fact, EoN would rather adhere to nepotism, compromising desperately needed creativity.

    Personally, I couldn't care less about which actors stay, come or go. My concern lies strictly with who's writing and directing.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 5,767
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Daniel Craig is a prisoner of Casino Royale.

    First, there was the alakine counter-punch of QoS, increasingly well received amongst hardcore fans for being the bullet to the previous film's heart.

    Since then, his arc has been comprehensively botched. The fact an arc was created at all was a surefire sign he would be painted into a corner.
    No idea what you´re talking about.
    QoS had an arthouse director, so it was obvious from the start they´re experimenting a bit. As far as story and emotional development are concerned, QoS makes a lot of sense. After that the previous development was ignored. The door was widely open to have Bond be the well-known character. Instead of telling a Bond origin story, a parallel Bond character was created.



    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm not sure who they want to go with next, but I really feel they're boxed in with Craig. They will have to contort to get out of this, and one wonders if it's worth it for one film with him (the most they'll get) or whether they should just cut the cord now and move on.

    Irrespective, I'm intrigued to see what they do. It's not an easy call.
    Considering how they several times now changed the whole tone and also ignored what came before, what would be the big deal with doing the same again?



    bondjames wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    As much as we appear to have disorder within the Bond series, both EON and the studio that releases Bond 25 will want Craig back.
    You don't risk the future of the series on a new actor, when Craig has delivered four films each making a ton of money.
    Casino Royale - $599 million
    Quantum Of Solace - $586 million
    Skyfall - $1.1 billion
    Spectre - $899 million.
    These are not average or worrying figures to any franchise. He has an audience. I'd be surprised if they don't dangle a juicy carrot in front of Mr.Craig to return.

    Also something to note is that back in 06/08 everyone was very happy with making $600m. It was only with the freakish success of SF that Bond was suddenly seen as a billion dollar per film franchise when it never had been. It seems that it was the desperation to recapture this $1b figure that was the guiding principle behind every decision made on SP from begging Mendes to return to coming up with another deeply personal angle to spunking a ridiculous $250 on the film.

    They just need to set out to make as good a film as they can which is all they did with CR the money will come. If chasing a billion per film is all they care about then we might as well be watching Transformers. Before you know it every scene is being dissected not for what it adds to the story but how it might play in the Chinese market or some other such crap.
    That is true. They should focus on making the best film they can. However, as mentioned there are business needs to be met, most notably for MGM as it looks to spin off or IPO (we've seen already that they considered a possible sale to the Chinese). Bond is the jewel in their crown. They not only want profit but also gross.

    In a way they are really boxed in at present, to some extent due to their own mistakes (brothergate) but also due to their own success. As long as Craig is in the role there will be inevitable pressure on them to deliver the next SF. The remnants of 'wrist slash' will also linger.

    Tricky situation.
    QoS shows that not only gross makes them rich, but also rate of return. Wether they are boxed in or not is entirely up to Eon themselves.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm not sure who they want to go with next, but I really feel they're boxed in with Craig. They will have to contort to get out of this, and one wonders if it's worth it for one film with him (the most they'll get) or whether they should just cut the cord now and move on.

    Irrespective, I'm intrigued to see what they do. It's not an easy call.
    Considering how they several times now changed the whole tone and also ignored what came before, what would be the big deal with doing the same again?
    Are you referring to during the Craig era? If so, then I think this time is different, because of SP connecting everything together and introducing Blofeld as foster brother. It has created an overbearing anchor weight on the entire Craig narrative arc. Ideally, they should ignore it completely going forward (for reasons mentioned before such as the lack of resonance in the US market, which they will need to conquer next time out).

    If they do ignore it, as I recommend, then where do they go? Darker, like they did with SF, or lighter (into Moore territory)? If it's the former, then the inevitable comparisons to SF will ensue. If it's the latter, then why not just recast?

    All the while, the shadow of wrist cutter, money demand stories etc, will linger.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    As much as we appear to have disorder within the Bond series, both EON and the studio that releases Bond 25 will want Craig back.
    You don't risk the future of the series on a new actor, when Craig has delivered four films each making a ton of money.
    Casino Royale - $599 million
    Quantum Of Solace - $586 million
    Skyfall - $1.1 billion
    Spectre - $899 million.
    These are not average or worrying figures to any franchise. He has an audience. I'd be surprised if they don't dangle a juicy carrot in front of Mr.Craig to return.

    Also something to note is that back in 06/08 everyone was very happy with making $600m. It was only with the freakish success of SF that Bond was suddenly seen as a billion dollar per film franchise when it never had been. It seems that it was the desperation to recapture this $1b figure that was the guiding principle behind every decision made on SP from begging Mendes to return to coming up with another deeply personal angle to spunking a ridiculous $250 on the film.

    They just need to set out to make as good a film as they can which is all they did with CR the money will come. If chasing a billion per film is all they care about then we might as well be watching Transformers. Before you know it every scene is being dissected not for what it adds to the story but how it might play in the Chinese market or some other such crap.
    That is true. They should focus on making the best film they can. However, as mentioned there are business needs to be met, most notably for MGM as it looks to spin off or IPO (we've seen already that they considered a possible sale to the Chinese). Bond is the jewel in their crown. They not only want profit but also gross.

    In a way they are really boxed in at present, to some extent due to their own mistakes (brothergate) but also due to their own success. As long as Craig is in the role there will be inevitable pressure on them to deliver the next SF. The remnants of 'wrist slash' will also linger.

    Tricky situation.
    QoS shows that not only gross makes them rich, but also rate of return. Wether they are boxed in or not is entirely up to Eon themselves.
    Yes, both items are critical. Bottom line and top line. Especially given MGM's future ambitions. QoS had a terrible rate of return. SP's was better, but still not great.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm not sure who they want to go with next, but I really feel they're boxed in with Craig. They will have to contort to get out of this, and one wonders if it's worth it for one film with him (the most they'll get) or whether they should just cut the cord now and move on.

    Irrespective, I'm intrigued to see what they do. It's not an easy call.
    Considering how they several times now changed the whole tone and also ignored what came before, what would be the big deal with doing the same again?
    Are you referring to during the Craig era? If so, then I think this time is different, because of SP connecting everything together and introducing Blofeld as foster brother. It has created an overbearing anchor weight on the entire Craig narrative arc. Ideally, they should ignore it completely going forward (for reasons mentioned before such as the lack of resonance in the US market, which they will need to conquer next time out).

    If they do ignore it, as I recommend, then where do they go? Darker, like they did with SF, or lighter (into Moore territory)? If it's the former, then the inevitable comparisons to SF will ensue. If it's the latter, then why not just recast?

    All the while, the shadow of wrist cutter, money demand stories etc, will linger.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    As much as we appear to have disorder within the Bond series, both EON and the studio that releases Bond 25 will want Craig back.
    You don't risk the future of the series on a new actor, when Craig has delivered four films each making a ton of money.
    Casino Royale - $599 million
    Quantum Of Solace - $586 million
    Skyfall - $1.1 billion
    Spectre - $899 million.
    These are not average or worrying figures to any franchise. He has an audience. I'd be surprised if they don't dangle a juicy carrot in front of Mr.Craig to return.

    Also something to note is that back in 06/08 everyone was very happy with making $600m. It was only with the freakish success of SF that Bond was suddenly seen as a billion dollar per film franchise when it never had been. It seems that it was the desperation to recapture this $1b figure that was the guiding principle behind every decision made on SP from begging Mendes to return to coming up with another deeply personal angle to spunking a ridiculous $250 on the film.

    They just need to set out to make as good a film as they can which is all they did with CR the money will come. If chasing a billion per film is all they care about then we might as well be watching Transformers. Before you know it every scene is being dissected not for what it adds to the story but how it might play in the Chinese market or some other such crap.
    That is true. They should focus on making the best film they can. However, as mentioned there are business needs to be met, most notably for MGM as it looks to spin off or IPO (we've seen already that they considered a possible sale to the Chinese). Bond is the jewel in their crown. They not only want profit but also gross.

    In a way they are really boxed in at present, to some extent due to their own mistakes (brothergate) but also due to their own success. As long as Craig is in the role there will be inevitable pressure on them to deliver the next SF. The remnants of 'wrist slash' will also linger.

    Tricky situation.
    QoS shows that not only gross makes them rich, but also rate of return. Wether they are boxed in or not is entirely up to Eon themselves.
    Yes, both items are critical. Bottom line and top line. Especially given MGM's future ambitions. QoS had a terrible rate of return. SP's was better, but still not great.

    The problem with SP wasn't the box office but the rate of return given the ludicrous budget they allowed Mendes to rack up.

    If I was a studio my biggest question wouldn't be about can they guarantee $1bil at the box office or who's going to play Bond but can they keep control of a budget?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm not sure who they want to go with next, but I really feel they're boxed in with Craig. They will have to contort to get out of this, and one wonders if it's worth it for one film with him (the most they'll get) or whether they should just cut the cord now and move on.

    Irrespective, I'm intrigued to see what they do. It's not an easy call.
    Considering how they several times now changed the whole tone and also ignored what came before, what would be the big deal with doing the same again?
    Are you referring to during the Craig era? If so, then I think this time is different, because of SP connecting everything together and introducing Blofeld as foster brother. It has created an overbearing anchor weight on the entire Craig narrative arc. Ideally, they should ignore it completely going forward (for reasons mentioned before such as the lack of resonance in the US market, which they will need to conquer next time out).

    If they do ignore it, as I recommend, then where do they go? Darker, like they did with SF, or lighter (into Moore territory)? If it's the former, then the inevitable comparisons to SF will ensue. If it's the latter, then why not just recast?

    All the while, the shadow of wrist cutter, money demand stories etc, will linger.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    As much as we appear to have disorder within the Bond series, both EON and the studio that releases Bond 25 will want Craig back.
    You don't risk the future of the series on a new actor, when Craig has delivered four films each making a ton of money.
    Casino Royale - $599 million
    Quantum Of Solace - $586 million
    Skyfall - $1.1 billion
    Spectre - $899 million.
    These are not average or worrying figures to any franchise. He has an audience. I'd be surprised if they don't dangle a juicy carrot in front of Mr.Craig to return.

    Also something to note is that back in 06/08 everyone was very happy with making $600m. It was only with the freakish success of SF that Bond was suddenly seen as a billion dollar per film franchise when it never had been. It seems that it was the desperation to recapture this $1b figure that was the guiding principle behind every decision made on SP from begging Mendes to return to coming up with another deeply personal angle to spunking a ridiculous $250 on the film.

    They just need to set out to make as good a film as they can which is all they did with CR the money will come. If chasing a billion per film is all they care about then we might as well be watching Transformers. Before you know it every scene is being dissected not for what it adds to the story but how it might play in the Chinese market or some other such crap.
    That is true. They should focus on making the best film they can. However, as mentioned there are business needs to be met, most notably for MGM as it looks to spin off or IPO (we've seen already that they considered a possible sale to the Chinese). Bond is the jewel in their crown. They not only want profit but also gross.

    In a way they are really boxed in at present, to some extent due to their own mistakes (brothergate) but also due to their own success. As long as Craig is in the role there will be inevitable pressure on them to deliver the next SF. The remnants of 'wrist slash' will also linger.

    Tricky situation.
    QoS shows that not only gross makes them rich, but also rate of return. Wether they are boxed in or not is entirely up to Eon themselves.
    Yes, both items are critical. Bottom line and top line. Especially given MGM's future ambitions. QoS had a terrible rate of return. SP's was better, but still not great.

    The problem with SP wasn't the box office but the rate of return given the ludicrous budget they allowed Mendes to rack up.

    If I was a studio my biggest question wouldn't be about can they guarantee $1bil at the box office or who's going to play Bond but can they keep control of a budget?
    I agree wth you, as long as they have a new actor in the saddle. If it's Craig again I believe everyone will be compelled to chase the SF type box office top line in addition to improving profitability. The market will expect those kind (or at least SP level) of numbers even though the exchange rates are working against it. That's one of my points about being boxed in.

    If it's a new guy, then they have more leeway, as they did with CR.
  • Posts: 386
    What we need is QoS brutality and lack of sentimentality with just a bit more time for savoir faire than that film had.

    That would be the perfect DC send-off.

    Not sure the producers can give us a tough, old school Bond in this post-SF world, though.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    GetCarter wrote: »
    What we need is QoS brutality and lack of sentimentality with just a bit more time for savoir faire than that film had.

    That would be the perfect DC send-off.

    Not sure the producers can give us a tough, old school Bond in this post-SF world, though.
    While I like the idea, I'm not sure if we will see QoS level brutality & energy again given the direction they have been heading in recently.
  • Posts: 30
    Just to throw another spanner in the works:

    "Blake Lively to Star in Spy Thriller from Bond Producers" - Production to start later this year.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/blake-lively-star-spy-thriller-bond-producers-1020546
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    From the above article:

    It is exciting for us to be working with the immensely talented team of director Reed Morano and actress Blake Lively, who have a strong vision for this very compelling story driven by a female protagonist," Wilson and Broccoli said in a statement.

    Well, Babs is doing her bit for diversity, that's for sure. Good for her.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Calliope wrote: »
    Just to throw another spanner in the works:

    "Blake Lively to Star in Spy Thriller from Bond Producers" - Production to start later this year.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/blake-lively-star-spy-thriller-bond-producers-1020546

    There you have it. I start repeating myself at times, but to this news article one of my previous posts is still fitting:
    If the rumour is true, and I wouldn't be surprised, then it shows that the owners of Bond, Broccoli and Wilson, and the writers of Bond, Purvis & Wade, lost all inspiration and creativity. I think they all got tired of the Bond franchise. And it's not just this rumour, it has been going on for a year or so now. Barbara Broccoli prefers to invest her money in Broadway productions. Michael Wilson keeps photographing for his photography collection or he indulges in his work for the Tate Modern Museum. Son Gregg Wilson prefers touring around the globe with his other hobby; electronical music. Purvis & Wade themselves take the Bond franchise way way too seriously, by saying nothing can be written anymore because the Silva's and Blofeld's from the films have become reality. And actor (and co-producer no less!) Daniel Craig doesn't even think about his fans, his Bond fans, by saying "Ooowh, I'm just too tired right now, but count on my return!!".

    Ooowh, and I haven't even mentioned the continuous drag of movie company MGM, who owns the franchise half, but can't even distribute! The Bond films are always dependent on outside film distributors who like to come onboard for a nasty little percentage of the overall margin!

    Add to that the sheer enthusiasm, from a producer's perspective and from the perspective of cast & crew, from competing action/spy franchises like Kingsman, Mission: Impossible, X-Men and even Fast & Furious, and I become highly depressed! Hugh Jackman, Tom Cruise, Colin Firth and many other big actors love to be part of longlasting franchises. Daniel Craig however puts up a middlefinger to his Bond role and Barbara Broccoli tolerates it in the meantime.

    The current state of the Bond franchise....tires me, makes me feel depressed. I really think 'Cubby's' adage "Don't let them screw it up" needs to be looked upon again. Because I think 'they' are screwing it up right now. This latest rumour in which supposedly EON Productions seems to be interested in a Bond Cinematic Universe makes me shiver. Not to mention the fact that Babs & Michael doesn't even care about the big Bond fan community and their input! So before Barbara goes battling for more diversity in British films, perhaps she should first consult with her loyal fanbase! Now that's what I call real diversity, real out-of-the-box thinking.

    I am a big Bond fan. But like I said last year.......do not expect a new Bond film as early as late 2019 or even late 2020. That in itself is bad for the market value and brand recognition of the Bond franchise as well. Slowly yet steadily other spy-/action franchises will take over the void that Bond is leaving behind.

  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,890
    Calliope wrote: »
    Just to throw another spanner in the works:

    "Blake Lively to Star in Spy Thriller from Bond Producers" - Production to start later this year.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/blake-lively-star-spy-thriller-bond-producers-1020546

    Hmm, I wonder if this is the film that'll use the Huey helicopter they bought in Feb?

    "The Rhythm Section, an adaptation of the first book in Mark Burnell’s four novel series..."
    Four!? There might be four!? Yikes. I hope this film tanks faster than you can say "I told you so." The producers will come running back to the Bond franchise and I'll be waiting for them with open arms. :)
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 4,622
    Calliope wrote: »
    Just to throw another spanner in the works:

    "Blake Lively to Star in Spy Thriller from Bond Producers" - Production to start later this year.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/blake-lively-star-spy-thriller-bond-producers-1020546

    Well at least Babs and Mike are keeping busy.
    With the this new Lively film and the new Atomic Blonde movie, at least we've got some female spy- action fare, if no Bond.

    ====as for B25, based on an article I read this week in the National Post(I'm sure it was published elsewhere, but I'm not sure if it was linked here) it seems Craig is likely back as Bond.
    Craig has been delaying, but seems now ready to do another Bond.
    Eon I think has been waiting for Craig, who I think became rather discombobulated after the ordeal of making Spectre, prompting the wrist-slash comment.
    I think Craig purposely stepped away, to get away from the toils and dramas of making Bond, but is now ready to grudgingly return, the $$ being a massive incentive.
    In fact the $$, I think has always ensured that Craig would return. He can't make this kind of cash elsewhere.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    How can you judge the film at this point?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,820
    Bond...Jane Bond.
    85px-Blake_Lively_Cannes_2016_3.jpg
  • Posts: 11,119
    Bond....... No Bond
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    'Production will begin later this year'

    So that's filming early 2018. Ok not as long or complicated as a Bond shoot but to think that they will wrap this and then go straight into B25 from there is not realistic given their recent bleating about needing a rest, especially given they'll be far too busy with this to supervise a Bond script which needs to be in decent shape 12 months from now if 2019 is viable.

    Looking like 2020 now at best so I think it's time to let Craig go.
    Calliope wrote: »
    Just to throw another spanner in the works:

    "Blake Lively to Star in Spy Thriller from Bond Producers" - Production to start later this year.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/blake-lively-star-spy-thriller-bond-producers-1020546

    There you have it. I start repeating myself at times, but to this news article one of my previous posts is still fitting:
    If the rumour is true, and I wouldn't be surprised, then it shows that the owners of Bond, Broccoli and Wilson, and the writers of Bond, Purvis & Wade, lost all inspiration and creativity. I think they all got tired of the Bond franchise. And it's not just this rumour, it has been going on for a year or so now. Barbara Broccoli prefers to invest her money in Broadway productions. Michael Wilson keeps photographing for his photography collection or he indulges in his work for the Tate Modern Museum. Son Gregg Wilson prefers touring around the globe with his other hobby; electronical music. Purvis & Wade themselves take the Bond franchise way way too seriously, by saying nothing can be written anymore because the Silva's and Blofeld's from the films have become reality. And actor (and co-producer no less!) Daniel Craig doesn't even think about his fans, his Bond fans, by saying "Ooowh, I'm just too tired right now, but count on my return!!".

    Ooowh, and I haven't even mentioned the continuous drag of movie company MGM, who owns the franchise half, but can't even distribute! The Bond films are always dependent on outside film distributors who like to come onboard for a nasty little percentage of the overall margin!

    Add to that the sheer enthusiasm, from a producer's perspective and from the perspective of cast & crew, from competing action/spy franchises like Kingsman, Mission: Impossible, X-Men and even Fast & Furious, and I become highly depressed! Hugh Jackman, Tom Cruise, Colin Firth and many other big actors love to be part of longlasting franchises. Daniel Craig however puts up a middlefinger to his Bond role and Barbara Broccoli tolerates it in the meantime.

    The current state of the Bond franchise....tires me, makes me feel depressed. I really think 'Cubby's' adage "Don't let them screw it up" needs to be looked upon again. Because I think 'they' are screwing it up right now. This latest rumour in which supposedly EON Productions seems to be interested in a Bond Cinematic Universe makes me shiver. Not to mention the fact that Babs & Michael doesn't even care about the big Bond fan community and their input! So before Barbara goes battling for more diversity in British films, perhaps she should first consult with her loyal fanbase! Now that's what I call real diversity, real out-of-the-box thinking.

    I am a big Bond fan. But like I said last year.......do not expect a new Bond film as early as late 2019 or even late 2020. That in itself is bad for the market value and brand recognition of the Bond franchise as well. Slowly yet steadily other spy-/action franchises will take over the void that Bond is leaving behind.

    I'm with you all the way.

    I can understand if you want to make a kitchen sink drama or a comedy but I really fail to see the point of starting a new spy film franchise, which must be a risk financially, when you already have the rights to the greatest (and most bankable) one of all.

    Except of course it lets them have a female lead so Babs can tick that diversity in her quest for a Damehood for services to film. And of course they're all made up because they can dust off bits of that Jinx script they were all so desperate to make a decade ago. No doubt P&W will be scripting this.

    If you have no interest in Bond EON fine but at least don't hog the rights so no one else can make one.
  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2017 Posts: 10,512
    They're co-producers. Presumably they had the clout needed to get it over the line. Doesn't really worry me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm not really surprised by this. Female protagonists are all the rage these days, as I noted elsewhere. At least they can get their fix with this film, and not dilute the Bond brand in a misguided attempt to meet a diversity quota.

    I agree, I don't know how they can handle both this film and Bond in the next year.

    Perhaps it's time to let Syncopy take over.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Producers can, and often do, several projects at once.

    If EoN are not "hands-on" and are more producers that closed financing for this project, they can certainly do Bond 25, or any other film they wished.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Exactly.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Greg Shapiro produced The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty and the upcoming Detroit. These were all directed by Bigelow. Aren't all these films also connected to Annapurna in some way?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    peter wrote: »
    Producers can, and often do, several projects at once.

    If EoN are not "hands-on" and are more producers that closed financing for this project, they can certainly do Bond 25, or any other film they wished.

    So one minute they're whining they're burnt out and need a well earned break and the next they can run two projects concurrently?

    After what we got with SP they might do better focussing on Bond and bringing their A game to the table.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Perhaps it's time to let Syncopy take over.

    Why not? At least Nolan is showing a bit of interest.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    I'm not gonna lie this film sounds intriguing, I'm always up for some International Spy Drama. Having said that, I'm disappointed at the lack of focus to their baby: Bond. As of now, 2019 sounds the most realistic bet.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 4,622
    Here's the National Post article I was referencing a few posts back.
    She cites some Mirror reporting as source, and crafts her own take from there.
    Despite the anonymous sourcing from the Mirror, the broader extrapolated analysis suggesting Craig has been delaying, does jive with the general thrust of his wrist-slash comments as told to Time Out in 2015 and quoted at length below.


    http://nationalpost.com/entertainment/movies/daniel-craig-is-reportedly-back-for-bond-and-so-is-adele/wcm/322a797d-9b82-4fce-8739-7be86042bd18

    "In a 2015 interview with Time Out, Craig notoriously said, he’d “rather break this glass and slash my wrists” than do another Bond. He added, “I’m over it at the moment. We’re done. All I want to do is move on. … For at least a year or two, I just don’t want to think about it. I don’t know what the next step is. I’ve no idea. Not because I’m trying to be cagey. Who the f–k knows? At the moment, we’ve done it. I’m not in discussion with anybody about anything. If I did another Bond movie, it would only be for the money.”

    Cut to Craig having moved on for a year or two as he said he wanted to, and The Mirror and a conspicuous “source involved in the project” reported this weekend that he’s had a change of heart (which we can safely assume means his salary was upped a few figures). So, basically, the studio is putting their money where Craig’s mouth is. "
    ======
    This article is mostly just cheeky blather from a Bond know-nothing . She is so sad that Elba will miss his chance. Groan.
    But I do think that the Craig delaying narrative, fits with the lack of news we've experienced these last 20 months, including the silence from Eon.
    I do think Eon has been waiting on Craig.

    In the meantime they keep busy with other stuff.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,410
    They aren't waiting on Craig, but a distributor. Unless Craig is happy to return in 2019, that ship has sailed. No way we're lining up for B25 in 16 months.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I've never seen Craig coming back for 2019, unless it's an early or mid year release and they can wrap up filming next year. He's got better things to do.

    The business end appears to be holding this up for some reason, and the business end will drive a lot of the future decision making.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2017 Posts: 8,410
    bondjames wrote: »
    I've never seen Craig coming back for 2019, unless it's an early or mid year release and they can wrap up filming next year. He's got better things to do.

    The business end appears to be holding this up for some reason, and the business end will drive a lot of the future decision making.

    Brilliant point. This is also why I can see Turner as Bond. He is a great bang for the buck, as they say. Not the fan favourite, but certainly a crowd pleaser. He already have a reputation as a cheeky chappy in the media. That's a significant improvement on Craig's image as being standoffish and aloof with press. Turner would embrace those aspects of playing the character, as Brosnan did, and it would be a huge boon for the producers to not have the franchise raked over the coals over some poor phrasing. If they are moving back to pure missions, Turner would be more than capable of performing the character, and taking on the responsibilities of playing one of the most iconic onscreen roles. That also means he may be way more open to advertising products, etc. Another area that Craig sometimes declined.

    You are right, the business end will be handling a lot more decisions going forward, and that means saving costs where possible. I see many asking how they will replace Craig, but the anwser is they won't. They never do. Instead they redefine the role, so that the next actor fits perfectly into it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I see many asking how they will replace Craig, but the anwser is they won't. They never do. Instead they redefine the role, so that the next actor fits perfectly into it.
    I agree with you on this. They will redefine it going forward as they always do and it will be tailored to suit the actor. I am increasingly of the belief that we will get a soft reboot eventually along the lines of what they did with Brosnan. That doesn't mean directly following the Craig continuity necessarily though. I think they will just start mid-stream in a reimagined fashion without backstory. I watched the new Spidey yesterday, and that's exactly what they did there. It was surprising to see, but most welcome after a decade of painful full reboots (especially from that franchise).

    When I mentioned the business end, I'm more referring to MGM. I think they have big plans for themselves and for Bond over the next few years. Not sure what, but I don't think things will look the same in the future.
  • Posts: 4,622
    If we are making bets, I still say Craig is a lock for B25. He could very well be all but unofficially confirmed at this point. He did make clear back in 2015 that he wanted nothing to do with Bond for a good long time.
    A good long time has gone by. He's done some other stuff. I'm sure one last big fat Bond pay cheque might come in handy about now or in near future.
    It may indeed be business matters that are holding things up now, but once resolved , I'm betting it's DC and B25 full-on.
    And there will be Blofeld and Garden of Death.
    Just my opinion, but I'm willing to go banco.
    I'll wager an official 007 Heineken to all comers.
    We can settle at the next Mi6 Members convention. :)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @timmer, I'm reasonably sure Craig wants back in. He's been trying to walk back wrist cutter in recent interviews. I just don't think the decision is only his, and I believe it's dependent on when this thing finally gets off the ground. If it's delayed for a bit longer, I think everyone is going to just move on.
Sign In or Register to comment.