No Time to Die (2020)

Was pondering yesterday that from '62 - '89 we got 16 movies, from '95 - '18 we've had half that many.

It would seem Cubby ran a tighter ship than his daughter.

Can only imagine what he'd think of the mess the series has gotten into or what transpired after his death.

I would have no problem with the decrease in output had most of those films been good. But then most of them were middling to poor.

EON clearly hasn't got the management to handle such a franchise like Bond anymore. Cubby was an old-fashioned showman-type movie producer which is very much different from his daughter who seems to be someone who'd be a better fit for Art House films rather than big budget spy films like Bond. Cubby seemed particularly focused on making an entertaining film first while Babs is more interested in putting on some sappy, overwrought psychodrama that quite frankly is not fit for James Bond. Bond needs a showman again but quite frankly I don't know if such a thing exists as much today especially one who'd at least have some respect for the franchise and put the integrity of it above their own personal hang-ups. Disney I think would be an even bigger disaster as I doubt they'd be that far off from Babs except for finding ways to milk every last inch of marketability out of Bond to the point where you never even want to see the number seven again.

If it's true that BB indeed wants Bond to die in Bond 25, then all hope is lost for this franchise.

Maybe, we are lucky and she will have a reason to sell the rights. Maybe after Bond 25 in 2020, when it will be a BO and critical disaster.

I'm shocked at myself that I actually now hope for a BO failure. But maybe that's the only way to get rid of Craig otherwise we'll have him back in Bond 26 in 2025.

It's a sad time for fans of the Fleming Bond that was so wonderfully brought to the screen from 1962 to 2002. After CR there was still hope they'll get it right, but it went downhill in many aspects since then. And I'm afraid SP wasn't rock bottom yet. I trust in EoN to actually go even lower in quality.

The industry is totally different and if you're not the flavor of the month in some gigantic franchise with universe possibilities then no one wants you. Bond is the one exception to all of this due to the fact that Cubby carried the flag in a distinctly old fashioned way devoted to quality and refused to let the series be killed off. Michael and Barbara have done an incredible and extremely hard job at navigating the legal nightmares of being stuck partially to the practically nonexistent MGM all due back to Harry's selling of his side to UA instead of Cubby-then the sale of UA by Transamerica to MGM after Heaven's Gate and then that had Bond linked to the madness of Kerkorian and others. Then there's all the distribution hassles, the Sony dealings, the acquiring of all other rights etc.

But all that aside we're in deep trouble these days. Bond is now a product and not a regular industry game changer. It doesn't satisfy even the hardcore fans now and has practically abandoned the character but also the entire nature of the film series itself. I don't think that either producer wants to do a bad job, but it is obvious that something is not right and that not everything stems from the ongoing struggle of just trying to get the films made. The M:I series has gotten itself back on track and is now occupying the place in the public eye the way a Bond film should. Fallout acknowledges what it is and doesn't pretend to be something else-and despite my many issues with it the film remains a solid sequel that at the very least works and passes the time.

They need fresh blood, new ideas and a return the the roots of both the character and the series. They need to return to the fact that these are adventure stories and not modern soulless products here only to steal from modern trends.
And the easiest way to start is to go to the continuations-the authors still around who have done some good writing and bring them into the fold if only for ideas. Work with IFP, work with the longtime crew who know the series-and lastly get darn good professionals to then complete the work and not whomever is either recommended or hot at the second. I've always imagined having an old fashioned snakepit room with some good writers spitballing new escapades just the way both Hamilton and Mank did AND how Raiders was done by Spielberg/Lucas/Kasdan.

Why in the hell DC has so much input when no one previously ever got that type of leeway is ridiculous. He obviously doesn't want to be there and was agonizingly miscast from Day One. Why not bow out gracefully and get it over with-not to mention go do work you really want to do.

If those in control really don't want to continue then I suggest new leadership is needed....

The guy who did Big Little Liars?
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
WHAT KIND OF PRIOR EXPERIENCE IS THAT?

Ante up EON! At this point you could make a better Bond film with Lou Costello and an Air Supply title song.

Salomé wrote:

I would have no problem with the decrease in output had most of those films been good. But then most of them were middling to poor.

My thoughts exactly. If we are going to get mid level or just awful films like SPECTRE at least let's get them every other year. I can't believe we had to wait three years to get SPECTRE. if we have to wait five years now and it is the same level of quality of SPECTRE I will be upset. I've only watched SPECTRE once. Still can't bring myself to give it a second shot.

hegottheboot wrote:

But all that aside we're in deep trouble these days. Bond is now a product and not a regular industry game changer. It doesn't satisfy even the hardcore fans now and has practically abandoned the character but also the entire nature of the film series itself. I don't think that either producer wants to do a bad job, but it is obvious that something is not right and that not everything stems from the ongoing struggle of just trying to get the films made. The M:I series has gotten itself back on track and is now occupying the place in the public eye the way a Bond film should. Fallout acknowledges what it is and doesn't pretend to be something else-and despite my many issues with it the film remains a solid sequel that at the very least works and passes the time.

They need fresh blood, new ideas and a return the the roots of both the character and the series. They need to return to the fact that these are adventure stories and not modern soulless products here only to steal from modern trends.
And the easiest way to start is to go to the continuations-the authors still around who have done some good writing and bring them into the fold if only for ideas. Work with IFP, work with the longtime crew who know the series-and lastly get darn good professionals to then complete the work and not whomever is either recommended or hot at the second. I've always imagined having an old fashioned snakepit room with some good writers spitballing new escapades just the way both Hamilton and Mank did AND how Raiders was done by Spielberg/Lucas/Kasdan.

Why in the hell DC has so much input when no one previously ever got that type of leeway is ridiculous. He obviously doesn't want to be there and was agonizingly miscast from Day One. Why not bow out gracefully and get it over with-not to mention go do work you really want to do.

If those in control really don't want to continue then I suggest new leadership is needed....

The guy who did Big Little Liars?
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
WHAT KIND OF PRIOR EXPERIENCE IS THAT?

Ante up EON! At this point you could make a better Bond film with Lou Costello and an Air Supply title song.

Agree with above, particularly the bolded bits.

It's hilarious that even after the critically unsuccessful non-script that became QOS, where Daniel Craig has admitted that a "writer [he] is not", that he is sill manages to give ideas to the film's creative team.

S&Q wrote:

Disney I think would be an even bigger disaster as I doubt they'd be that far off from Babs

The fear I have with Babs selling off the rights is that it could get even worse (I know, hardly imaginable right?). Whereas if Babs keeps it, there is still the chance that the Italian in her would want to honour her family's legacy and really try to put the best foot forward with each film. Let's not forget she did give us SF only two films ago (yeah, six years ago) so there is still an ounce of sanity remaining in her somewhere. Was it John Logan who said that after SF, audiences wanted to delve deeper into Bond's psyche. The fault might lie with him for SP, though after DAD's excesses, she should have known better than to let others get too carried away.

Salomé wrote:

I would have no problem with the decrease in output had most of those films been good. But then most of them were middling to poor.

Which have been middling and poor for you? Despite my loud utterances against Eon's direction and current state of affairs, there's been more good than bad for me since '95.

Classic:
GE
TND
TWINE
SF

Average:
DAD

Poor:
CR
QOS
SP

It's just there's been a lot more bad in the last 12 years. And when it's bad, it's rock bottom.

Mr Wint wrote:

If it's true that BB indeed wants Bond to die in Bond 25, then all hope is lost for this franchise.

Maybe, we are lucky and she will have a reason to sell the rights. Maybe after Bond 25 in 2020, when it will be a BO and critical disaster.

I'm shocked at myself that I actually now hope for a BO failure. But maybe that's the only way to get rid of Craig otherwise we'll have him back in Bond 26 in 2025.

I just don't think Babs would want Bond to die in a film. I feel like maybe it would be a FRWL style ending, but what that means is that Craig might come back again for Bond 26.

Bond 25 will probably flop (or at least underperform against expectations), but that's more fuel to Craig's fire to end on a high unfortunately.

Only one man gets to kill off James Bond and he himself died over fifty years ago.

Having Bond "die" on screen and then come back will only fuel the silly "Bond = code name" meme.

I had the pleasure of going to watch MI: Fallout again and a thought occurred to me on the way home. I think that Eon and team all got around to watching it and they realised that what they had couldn't compare. The creative differences probably stemmed from Eon wanting to up the ante, which is naturally not Boyle's style (who himself proclaimed his more proficient in smaller films). I might be wrong, but the timing of it all can't be coincidental.

x

007.com now redirects to 20th Century Fox. They must be making changes to tailor toward Bond 25...

I don't think there is going to be a delay.

Probably just a run-of-the-mill Russian hacking.

Without a director I don't see any option other than to delay.

CJB wrote:

Without a director I don't see any option other than to delay.

You'd think so.

Though, if they must get a fifth Craig Bond film out of their system, do it ASAP. Otherwise, him staying on for Bond 25 in 2022 means the likes of Michael Fassbender would be out, Henry Cavill might also be out of the running and another generation of Bond fans will think the characterisation of Craig Bond is how 007 should be.

By the by, the website is back up and running as it was. [/FieldsMan panic mode]

Quietly maddening that we're waiting on Craig to get out of the way. Feels the complete opposite of Dalton's departure. The fact that as time went by, he said more or less go with someone else for sake of the franchise. As said in history, you have outlived your usefulness, for the love of God, go.

More or less.

I don't expect things to change with Baz's latest report. Supposedly Craig and Eon wanted to replace Hodge's script though still keep Boyle, hence Boyle's exit. Baz also commented that the replacement director must be "prepared to be ruled over by Mr Craig".

Baz has usually been accurate with his scoops. This doesn't sound like a healthy collaboration, so we can expect to see a lot more of QOS/SP style James Bond.

CJB wrote:

Only one man gets to kill off James Bond and he himself died over fifty years ago.

Having Bond "die" on screen and then come back will only fuel the silly "Bond = code name" meme.

This.

It's James Bond, not Doctor Who ... 007 does not 'regenerate'.

Daniel Craig just signed on to star in Knives Out, due to shoot in November.

Get the knives out for Cregg.

FieldsMan wrote:

Daniel Craig just signed on to star in Knives Out, due to shoot in November.

If the departure of Boyle is going to add a year to Bond 25's release date, Craig's still got time to make this (and maybe something else) before shooting starts on it (presuming that said shoot begins around this time next year).

I was thinking more along the lines of: the longer the delay, the less likely he'll return.

x

SJ Clarkson? I spy a flimsy alias.



Bond 25 is going to be even more 'explodey' than usual.

If they did Bond as they did their Sweeney effort on the old Top Gear, it'd be a gloriously epic Bond at least.

Two episodes of "Banshee" suggests she can at least direct action well enough. On the other hand, it does seem like a bit of a leap to go straight from TV to a big budget action movie. There is some precedent with this in recent years, Disney has given several of its behemoths to directors who only had small indies on their resumés prior to getting a big gig.

But it would seem like a choice born out of a lack of real alternatives, considering that (whatever else you might think of them) they are coming from proper cinema directors like Boyle and Mendes (and yes I know Mendes' origins are on the stage).