News on NO TIME TO DIE (no spoilers)

I don’t have an opinion either way. I will judge the movie after I see it.

2 Likes

Overhead in EON’s office:

“Get Martin on the phone.”
–“I only direct new Bond actors.”

“Hi, Sam? It’s Barbara.”
–“Been there, done that. Plus, don’t know how I’d get out of the corner I put you in. And the stage is calling.”

“Denis?”
–“I’d rather resurrect an 80s sci fi project … again. Call me when there’s a new Bond.”

“Chris?”
–“Can I reboot it with Hardy, Caine, Cotillard and Zimmer? Uh huh, okay call me for B26.”

“Yann?”
–“Hi Barbara, can you hold? HBO is on the other line. Hey, Jordan, what’s up? Congrats on that Oscar!”

“Danny? Um okay, I guess we can do that, but we have a script already. What’s that? A musical comedy? But we have a November 2019 release date.”

“Hi Marc, it’s Barbara. We have an opportunity for you. Yes, in a year. I see, but we have a script this time. What’s that? Disney? Isn’t that Winnie the Pooh? Oh, well, okay.”

“Michael, do we still have Stuart Baird’s number? No, I didn’t see Nemesis. Tomb Raider? I thought that was … What do you mean it’s a reboot?”

2 Likes

What I don´t understand is that SPECTRE already had a much bigger budget than it would have needed if you want to do a suspenseful Bond film.

And then, to bring down the budget, they re-wrote the whole third act (with all the repercussions for the first two acts) - but they still spent lavishly on the other big action sequences which did not come off as impressive as the costs might have made one assume.

Why did they not rather cut the whole snow plane sequence or the biggest explosion ever filmed?

SPECTRE really feels like an example for a chaotic pre-production, a messy shoot and a much too short post.

I hope BOND 25 will not turn out that way, but the chaos right now seems to point that way.

P&W again getting a bad rap here. I think a little of that comes down to snobbery. They aren’t “name” writers. For this reason, I’ve always been supportive of them. Weirdly, however, nobody seems to care about the script in filmmaking, just the director.

I think it likely that Craig and Broccoli have said they are excited about Boyle and Hodges’ idea because - of course - that is what you would say if you want Boyle to direct. Eon are definitely fixed on A-list directors this decade, and I don’t see that changing even after Craig leaves. I think it’s even more likely that the 26th film will have an A-list director as they will want to make up any excitement lost in losing Craig.

It’s strange to see such a huge franchise being run so ineptly. Hopefully, maybe, Eon will announce for the 60th anniversary that they want to sell. Imagine having a Bond film helmed by people who can get films made and starring an actor who actually wants to be in it?

You mean like announcing films and release dates that are abandoned within a week of announcment, not like Star Wars and Marvel have both done that…or replaced the director most of the way through production.

ALL major franchises end up being this chaotic - and as for actor who doesnt want to be there, Robert Downey Jr and Hugh Jackman have had more “final appearances” than there have been Sherlock Holmes actors.

Um, do you mean DC (Batgirl, Gotham City Sirens, Justice League Dark) instead of Marvel?

Also, Hugh Jackman has been on the record as to how much he appreciates being Wolverine. And RDJ said he plans on riding the Marvel gravy train as long as he can. The rest are just agents negotiating higher salaries. (BTW, RDJ will be Iron Man in more movies than any actor was Bond.)

Marvel’s MCU is giving us three movies a year nowadays, and Fox’s Marvel will be doing the same come 2019 and 2020 even as they’re being bought by Disney, whose latest MCU release just passed a billion dollars.

EON, meanwhile, can’t even release one movie every three years.

1 Like

I was actually referring to the phase 3 announcement for Marvel - Inhumans being dropped after a week because Spider-man was allowed (obviously Inhumans was revived for tv with a different crew tailored more to the Marvel tv than cinematic universe). Dc has been a whole different collection of screw ups. Craig has said he’d do it until he physically can’t, so why is Craig changing his mind day to day different than Jackman and RDJ? both of whom have said “no more” in interviews before returning. More likely than three men who have each have a solid view on everything and any change from that is just pr, is that how they feel about an all encompassing role changes depending on the day, like it would for any human, just look at Brosnan’s changing views on Bond as he looks back - some days he talks on it as the gift that keeps giving, others he’s so glad that it’s all behind him.

And have three different production teams on those 3 movies. The shortest gap they’ve ever expected for one team (which EON is) was 2 years for Iron Man 1 - 2 then the same Thor to Thor 2 and Cap 2 to Cap 3

I see.

Yeah, Inhumans was awful. But that was Ike Perlmutter, not Kevin Feige. And I think Marvel regrets that all Phase 3 in one announcement in light of acquiring Spiderman from Sony and changing plans. They always have a plan A, B, and C. Look how tight lipped they are about Phase 4, even before the Disney-Fox acquisition. They won’t even tell us the Avengers 4 title.

I think DC has changed his mind on Bond after the box office failures of Logan Lucky, Girl with Dragon Tattoo, Golden Compass, etc. Bond is his meal ticket. Hugh Jackman, it appears, is the only one of the three who can open a movie with just his name (look at how leggy Greatest Showman is.) Robert Downey Jr.'s other projects have stalled. Seeing this, Hemsworth is up for more Thor though his contract is done, and Chris Evans would still like to work with Marvel, albeit more behind the scenes. Johannsen too is wisely sticking around for a Black Widow movie. If that out grosses Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, and Lucy on opening day (all quite likely), it will pay off tremendously for her.

And it would seem that Marvel has 3-4 successful production crews (Russo Bros., James Gunn’s, Ant-Man, Spidey, Dr. Strange, Black Panther all more likely than not making the three year turnaround target.) EON meanwhile can’t maintain their one.

Inhumans being swapped out for Spidey represented a success, not a failure. Marvel were considered so good at making such films that Sony decided to let them do it.

DC are motivated primarily by greed, so I’m glad they have screwed up. They were trying to emulate Marvel - specifically Avengers - without doing any of the world-building. Marvel want to make money, sure, but they clearly love what they do as well.

I think the difference with Craig is that Bond is widely considered to be the winning lottery ticket and any actor who doesn’t treat it as such is thought to be ungrateful.

The last Bond film made without any protracted difficulty was CR, I think.

But that’s not true - it’s only EON’s Bond films that have stalled, and that’s because their production partner is having money problems…again.

Film Stars don’t die in Liverpool and The Rhythm Section have been made by EON in the 3 years since Spectre, (well, the latter is delayed by the lead shattering her wrist) and this is an independent production company - not garunteed funding and distribution before they start like Marvel have had through their parent company (and paramount before that)

As for Marvel - phase 2 had hundreds of very public BTS issues. two of its films (Thor 2, Antman) lost directors and 3 of its directors (Black, Gunn, Whedon) have talked about how infuriating it was with backseat driving from Everyman and his dog at Disney/Marvel. That leaves only the Russos who didn’t have public problems in phase 2.

Now, I’m not dissing Marvel, I love the MCU both film and TV. All films have this kind of chaotic nature on some level, it’s inevitable when there’s a meeting of subjective tastes, money and a large team all on one project. We just hear about it more in the 21st century, but anyone in creative enterprises will tell you - it’s ALWAYS been like that.

Then the issue becomes: Eon aren’t capable of dealing with issues in a reasonable amount of time. I blame MGM too, of course. If it always happened, Cubby was able to keep things moving all the same.

The six years between LTK and Goldeneye was when he was hit by an MGM issue. Blind luck got them through UA to MGM problem quickly in the 80’s. It is the slowly rotting corpse of MGM that they’re handcuffed to causing these 4 year gaps.

2 Likes

It’s a great shame, yes, and all Saltzman’s fault for not selling his share to Cubby.

The five year gap between productions (89-94) made most people think Bond was dead. Now it’s considered business as usual.

I would argue the jet idea saved for the opening of Tomorrow Never Dies.

If the abandoned Purvis and Wade script is a completely different story then Boyle’s they could simply save it for Bond 26. Even with reworking it they would still be ahead of the game by having something down to build off of.

From what I’ve been told, the idea of a VTOL jet being used more like a helicopter style assault and rescuing the girl (in TL it being Harry’s daughter) was what was lifted. The jet sequence in TND’s PTS was quite different.

That sounds reasonable - but will the next director allow this?

Doubtful at best.

Under the current direction that EON is going, there’s zero chance that P&W’s potentially discarded BOND 25 script will be used for BOND 26. It may start out as the basis for the film, but it’ll be thrown out by the incoming director once he or she is hired.

I think so.

Of course, if Boyle can surprise with a stellar Bond movie the new strategy might prove promising enough to continue with it. Some A-listers will deliver disappointing films, some will inject the franchise with new life.

But my question is: couldn‘t that also be done with not so famous directors?

In my experience stardom consists only of luck and the willingness to be a star. Quality and talent will help but those without the good luck to be at the right place at the right time also very often are hugely talented and capable, often more so than the A-listers.

I’m sure non-A-list directors could be capable of doing the same thing. It’s really just about finding the right person who has the right idea.

I have no problem with EON chasing these A-list, Oscar-type directors. They’ve finally got the clout to go out and pursue these people, so why not strike while the iron’s hot. The problem is, they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too, by having these well regarded directors just make slightly smarter-looking versions of the films that preceded them in the franchise. If you’re going to hire these people and, theoretically, pursue the kind of recognition from the various awards circuits that we’ve all speculated as being at least part of EON’s current motive in terms of their hiring, then you’ve got to make films that are different from what you’ve already done. The franchise wasn’t raking in Oscars prior to Craig’s arrival, so it’s not like slapping his name on the marquee alongside that of Sam Mendes or Danny Boyle is going to bring EON the recognition that has escaped them to this point. They’ve go to do something different with the films themselves, and the best way to accomplish that is to allow these creative minds to do their thing.

Whether or not EON should pursue these directors and writers is an entirely different point and worthy of debate, but it would just seem to me, regardless of how I might feel about an individual director or writer, if you’re going to spend the money to attract that kind of marquee name, let them do their work rather than trying to shoe-horn them into a formula that might not be conducive to the kind of story they want to tell.

4 Likes