No Time To Die: Production Diary

1100910101012101410152507

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    "Moreover, isn't Lucia under some kind of witness protection program given Spectre has her in their sights?"

    No, that was a set up. (in my story) Bond/MI6 fell for the story of Lucia being a witness/whistleblower. The plan made the info seem real to Bond but it ws a setup so Bond would attend the meeting and. ultimately, be drawn to Blofelds lair ("the author of ALL your pain" - it was a set up)
    What hard evidence did Bond get (and the audience) that she was a genuine witness?
    Well they knew she was a target (as evidenced by the two assassins who Bond killed). So I presume that MI6 would try to keep her safe. She's also someone who could testify against Spectre (and perhaps Blofeld). I'd imagine they'd try to keep her safe until the trial at least.

    MI6 cant keep THEMSELVES safe haha.

    She would be better staying with Felix and the Americans,as Bond instructed.

  • Posts: 4,603
    RC7 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    "Moreover, isn't Lucia under some kind of witness protection program given Spectre has her in their sights?"

    No, that was a set up. (in my story) Bond/MI6 fell for the story of Lucia being a witness/whistleblower. What hard evidence did Bond get (and the audience) that she was a genuine witness?

    Do you not think it would be a more prudent/positive step forward to shed as many links to SP as possible? We've all accepted it didn't resonate as favourably as it's predecessor, so I wonder if the fewer characters that carry over, the better. Feels to me like they need a feeling of freshness, not unlike the SF opener four years after QoS.

    100% agree, dont get me wrong, I would dump everything from SP ASAP if given the choice, Im just trying to salvage something IF we go down the SP timeline/route.

    I dont think there is anything wrong with Spectre as an organisation being the bad guys. It was the execution that was poor, not the concept.

    The difference is that QoS gave SF the opportunity to start afresh with little or no baggage and it reaped rewards. SP has left Bond with so much bagage, he needs a roof rack for the Aston!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't think its about "pedalling a sense of depression" so much as being honest and forthright about our thoughts. I'm not sure why only a positive appraisal is worth being voiced, or why we should have to sugarcoat everything. If EON get lazy, they get called out for it. This should be obvious, I don't know why we have to keep having this conversation. Why is it our collective enterprise to set about damage controlling when they mess up? Not everyone is here to cheerlead for EON.

    Basically, in plain English, stop being a bunch of miserable bastards.

    The reason this goes around in circles is because the same glass half empty gits keep pushing the same rhetoric of doom and gloom.

    Its not rhetoric, its an opinion. When unconfirmed reports emerge, EVERYONE has a say. Some choose to disregard it outright, others give their thoughts. Some of those thoughts will be positive, and some will be, you guessed it, negative. It's really basic stuff. This "at this juncture we know nothing" business goes out the window for you as soon as it comes to laying praise at EON's feet, at which point you're more than happy for people to draw any conclusion they wish.
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    @Dennison I think you linked to affiliate people who you think are being negative, with the CINB-folks. That's how I see it.
    Dennison wrote: »
    People on here are starting to sound like the people who run the Daniel Craig Is Not Bond website with all this negativity

    http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/index/blog/2017/08/26/fans-of-mediocrity-rejoice/
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 1,031
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    @Dennison I think you linked to affiliate people who you think are being negative, with the CINB-folks. That's how I see it.
    Dennison wrote: »
    People on here are starting to sound like the people who run the Daniel Craig Is Not Bond website with all this negativity

    http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/index/blog/2017/08/26/fans-of-mediocrity-rejoice/

    Not at all. But having said that what would be wrong with that, are we not welcoming to people who don't like Daniel Craig as Bond? There may well be people who support the views of that website who are on here - surely they are most welcome here?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Dennison wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    @Dennison I think you linked to affiliate people who you think are being negative, with the CINB-folks. That's how I see it.
    Dennison wrote: »
    People on here are starting to sound like the people who run the Daniel Craig Is Not Bond website with all this negativity

    http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/index/blog/2017/08/26/fans-of-mediocrity-rejoice/

    Not at all. But having said that what would be wrong with that, are we not welcoming to people who don't like Daniel Craig as Bond? There may well be people who support the views of that website who are on here - surely they are most welcome here?
    Your observations have been noted. That website is now in the public consciousness on this forum again thanks to your post. Since you linked to it, you've probably been reading it. What do they think about B25?
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 1,031
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    @Dennison I think you linked to affiliate people who you think are being negative, with the CINB-folks. That's how I see it.
    Dennison wrote: »
    People on here are starting to sound like the people who run the Daniel Craig Is Not Bond website with all this negativity

    http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/index/blog/2017/08/26/fans-of-mediocrity-rejoice/

    Not at all. But having said that what would be wrong with that, are we not welcoming to people who don't like Daniel Craig as Bond? There may well be people who support the views of that website who are on here - surely they are most welcome here?
    Your observations have been noted. That website is now in the public consciousness on this forum again thanks to your post. Since you linked to it, you've probably been reading it. What do they think about B25?

    I was reading it earlier, do you have a problem with that? What's the problem with me talking about that website? I'm so confused ... so much for the wonders of free speech ...
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    @Dennison I think you linked to affiliate people who you think are being negative, with the CINB-folks. That's how I see it.
    Dennison wrote: »
    People on here are starting to sound like the people who run the Daniel Craig Is Not Bond website with all this negativity

    http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/index/blog/2017/08/26/fans-of-mediocrity-rejoice/

    And he's correct.
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't think its about "pedalling a sense of depression" so much as being honest and forthright about our thoughts. I'm not sure why only a positive appraisal is worth being voiced, or why we should have to sugarcoat everything. If EON get lazy, they get called out for it. This should be obvious, I don't know why we have to keep having this conversation. Why is it our collective enterprise to set about damage controlling when they mess up? Not everyone is here to cheerlead for EON.

    Basically, in plain English, stop being a bunch of miserable bastards.

    The reason this goes around in circles is because the same glass half empty gits keep pushing the same rhetoric of doom and gloom.

    Its not rhetoric, its an opinion. When unconfirmed reports emerge, EVERYONE has a say. Some choose to disregard it outright, others give their thoughts. Some of those thoughts will be positive, and some will be, you guessed it, negative. It's really basic stuff. This "at this juncture we know nothing" business goes out the window for you as soon as it comes to laying praise at EON's feet, at which point you're more than happy for people to draw any conclusion they wish.

    Coming from the guy who spent a year forcing us to watch him perform a metaphorical reach-around on Aiden Turner at every possible and impossible opportunity. Give us a break, mate. There's opinion and there's flogging a dead horse and you're a Grand Master at the latter.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited September 2017 Posts: 9,020
    @Dennison
    Dennison wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    @Dennison I think you linked to affiliate people who you think are being negative, with the CINB-folks. That's how I see it.
    Dennison wrote: »
    People on here are starting to sound like the people who run the Daniel Craig Is Not Bond website with all this negativity

    http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/index/blog/2017/08/26/fans-of-mediocrity-rejoice/

    Not at all. But having said that what would be wrong with that, are we not welcoming to people who don't like Daniel Craig as Bond? There may well be people who support the views of that website who are on here - surely they are most welcome here?

    I can't say for people from DCINB.

    But I know for a fact that people here who are not in love with DC or even dare to criticise him have it very hard on this forum with a few very loud and sometimes aggressive regulars. Same is true for criticising Skyfall.
    To be a fan of Spectre at the same time produces even short circuits with some here.
    It's all quite deplorable but you can only accept it and try to make ends meet or go away.

    Those people are at this moment turning against you by the way, so better be careful.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    @Dennison I think you linked to affiliate people who you think are being negative, with the CINB-folks. That's how I see it.
    Dennison wrote: »
    People on here are starting to sound like the people who run the Daniel Craig Is Not Bond website with all this negativity

    http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/index/blog/2017/08/26/fans-of-mediocrity-rejoice/

    Not at all. But having said that what would be wrong with that, are we not welcoming to people who don't like Daniel Craig as Bond? There may well be people who support the views of that website who are on here - surely they are most welcome here?
    Your observations have been noted. That website is now in the public consciousness on this forum again thanks to your post. Since you linked to it, you've probably been reading it. What do they think about B25?

    I was reading it earlier, do you have a problem with that? What's the problem with me talking about that website? I'm so confused ... so much for the wonders of free speech ...
    Did I say I had a problem with it? Sorry to add to your confusion. It seems to be going around these days.

    Still waiting for your specific views on what you want to see in B25. I personally would much rather read that than your opinions about what other members are thinking here.
  • Posts: 1,031
    @Denniso
    Dennison wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    @Dennison I think you linked to affiliate people who you think are being negative, with the CINB-folks. That's how I see it.
    Dennison wrote: »
    People on here are starting to sound like the people who run the Daniel Craig Is Not Bond website with all this negativity

    http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/index/blog/2017/08/26/fans-of-mediocrity-rejoice/

    Not at all. But having said that what would be wrong with that, are we not welcoming to people who don't like Daniel Craig as Bond? There may well be people who support the views of that website who are on here - surely they are most welcome here?

    I can't say for people from DCINB.

    But I know for a fact that people here who are not in love with DC or even dare to criticise him have it very hard on this forum with a few very loud and sometimes aggressive regulars. Same is true for criticising Skyfall.
    To be a fan of Spectre at the same time produces even short circuits with some here.
    It's all quite deplorable but you can only accept it and try to make ends meet or go away.

    I'm a massive Daniel Craig fan - for me he's the best Bond. I quite enjoyed Spectre, yes it has it's flaws. But people should be allowed to have their opinion. Surely people who don't like DC and his films are still welcome here?
  • Posts: 1,031
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    @Dennison I think you linked to affiliate people who you think are being negative, with the CINB-folks. That's how I see it.
    Dennison wrote: »
    People on here are starting to sound like the people who run the Daniel Craig Is Not Bond website with all this negativity

    http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/index/blog/2017/08/26/fans-of-mediocrity-rejoice/

    Not at all. But having said that what would be wrong with that, are we not welcoming to people who don't like Daniel Craig as Bond? There may well be people who support the views of that website who are on here - surely they are most welcome here?
    Your observations have been noted. That website is now in the public consciousness on this forum again thanks to your post. Since you linked to it, you've probably been reading it. What do they think about B25?

    I was reading it earlier, do you have a problem with that? What's the problem with me talking about that website? I'm so confused ... so much for the wonders of free speech ...
    Did I say I had a problem with it? Sorry to add to your confusion. It seems to be going around these days.

    Still waiting for your specific views on what you want to see in B25. I personally would much rather read that than your opinions about what other members are thinking here.

    I would like the aforementioned cross between OHMSS and YOLT novels.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Shall we all calm down and take a deep breath ?

    We are all supposed to be on the same side here,and any other website member popping in here and seeing this will be loving it,watching members squabbling .
  • Posts: 1,031
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Shall we all calm down and take a deep breath ?

    We are all supposed to be on the same side here,and any other website member popping in here and seeing this will be loving it,watching members squabbling .

    Quite.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Dennison wrote: »
    @Denniso
    Dennison wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    @Dennison I think you linked to affiliate people who you think are being negative, with the CINB-folks. That's how I see it.
    Dennison wrote: »
    People on here are starting to sound like the people who run the Daniel Craig Is Not Bond website with all this negativity

    http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/index/blog/2017/08/26/fans-of-mediocrity-rejoice/

    Not at all. But having said that what would be wrong with that, are we not welcoming to people who don't like Daniel Craig as Bond? There may well be people who support the views of that website who are on here - surely they are most welcome here?

    I can't say for people from DCINB.

    But I know for a fact that people here who are not in love with DC or even dare to criticise him have it very hard on this forum with a few very loud and sometimes aggressive regulars. Same is true for criticising Skyfall.
    To be a fan of Spectre at the same time produces even short circuits with some here.
    It's all quite deplorable but you can only accept it and try to make ends meet or go away.

    I'm a massive Daniel Craig fan - for me he's the best Bond. I quite enjoyed Spectre, yes it has it's flaws. But people should be allowed to have their opinion. Surely people who don't like DC and his films are still welcome here?

    By the vast silent majority they are. By the others they are at best tolerated if barely so.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,161
    @Dennison
    People who don't like Craig are of course still welcome here. Some of them have even become mods. ;-) There are a couple of obsessive DC fans here, and when they can't take any criticism of Craig, that's their problem.

    Normal DC fans, like myself, will of course defend Craig and others will then criticise him again. That's the type of debate one has in a forum like this.

    What stops making sense to me is when people get extremely worked up over it, as if their lives depended on it. It's never about Craig, it's about being told by someone else that they disagree, sometimes using fairly harsh phrasings. That's the thing a lot of the fuss is about, not the actual issue about Craig.

    This is how it typically goes:

    - Statement 1 about Craig.
    - Statement 2 about Craig, to the contrary of statement 1.

    - Statement about IQ of other member.
    - Statement about IQ of first member.

    - I'm entitled to my opinion. Oh, and yours is wrong.
    - By the way, I'm entitled to my opinion too and mine is correct.

    - You [censored] ! And why don't you go [censored] !
    - Is that all you got? Huh? See if I care.

    - Flag 1, 2, 3.
    - Flag 4, 5, 6.

    - I'm leaving! This place is sooooo pro-Craig.
    - No, I'm leaving! I can't handle any negative criticism about Craig any more!

    And the other members shrug and think to themselves: maybe an internet forum is not for you guys and good luck in real life participating in a debate...
  • Posts: 19,339
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Dennison
    People who don't like Craig are of course still welcome here. Some of them have even become mods. ;-) There are a couple of obsessive DC fans here, and when they can't take any criticism of Craig, that's their problem.

    Normal DC fans, like myself, will of course defend Craig and others will then criticise him again. That's the type of debate one has in a forum like this.

    What stops making sense to me is when people get extremely worked up over it, as if their lives depended on it. It's never about Craig, it's about being told by someone else that they disagree, sometimes using fairly harsh phrasings. That's the thing a lot of the fuss is about, not the actual issue about Craig.

    This is how it typically goes:

    - Statement 1 about Craig.
    - Statement 2 about Craig, to the contrary of statement 1.

    - Statement about IQ of other member.
    - Statement about IQ of first member.

    - I'm entitled to my opinion. Oh, and yours is wrong.
    - By the way, I'm entitled to my opinion too and mine is correct.

    - You [censored] ! And why don't you go [censored] !
    - Is that all you got? Huh? See if I care.

    - Flag 1, 2, 3.
    - Flag 4, 5, 6.

    - I'm leaving! This place is sooooo pro-Craig.
    - No, I'm leaving! I can't handle any negative criticism about Craig any more!

    And the other members shrug and think to themselves: maybe an internet forum is not for you guys and good luck in real life participating in a debate...

    That about sums it up,DD.

    Well said,Sir .

  • Posts: 6,601
    Speaking for myself, I am not going against criticism of DC, but clearly against those, who literally ask for his head in an aggressive and inappropriate manner.
  • I signed on this morning to read about any (potential) developments on Bond 25. Instead, I'm served a smorgasbord of comments from people either suffering from some advanced form of PMS or at the very least, they're off their meds. Let's keep this dialogue civilized ... or should I say "civilised". :)
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,537
    NSGW wrote: »

    Great find @NSGW! This could definitely explain why we are still waiting on a distribution deal. Seems like a lot more could potentially be at stake than first thought.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    NSGW wrote: »

    Great find @NSGW! This could definitely explain why we are still waiting on a distribution deal. Seems like a lot more could potentially be at stake than first thought.

    With the amount of 'players' vying for Bond,all chasing WB tail,its going to be very interesting,as long as it doesn't slow down production.

    And yes,well done in finding that info @NSGW .

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    NSGW wrote: »

    Great find @NSGW! This could definitely explain why we are still waiting on a distribution deal. Seems like a lot more could potentially be at stake than first thought.

    Question for people regard this - where do you stand? With EON's more traditional stance, or a more exploitative business model? On the one hand - a film released every few years, on the other - the potential for ancillary channels to deliver more Bond related media.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    NSGW wrote: »

    Great find @NSGW! This could definitely explain why we are still waiting on a distribution deal. Seems like a lot more could potentially be at stake than first thought.

    Question for people regard this - where do you stand? With EON's more traditional stance, or a more exploitative business model? On the one hand - a film released every few years, on the other - the potential for ancillary channels to deliver more Bond related media.
    If it was the 'traditional' stance of a film every two years as in the past, then I stand with EON.

    With the current model of every 3 or 4 years, I stand with the more exploitative business model.

    As far as I'm concerned, the way they approach it now is quite different from the more mechanized approach they followed under the Cubby regime (with a more predictable outcome), which is what I preferred.
  • Dennison wrote: »
    People on here are starting to sound like the people who run the Daniel Craig Is Not Bond website with all this negativity

    http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/index/blog/2017/08/26/fans-of-mediocrity-rejoice/

    I completely agree. Man, the current internet era has turned most Bond fans on here into hurricane Irma. The movie hasn't even premiered yet, is not even in pre-production, and these so called 'story leaks' already seem to destroy any objective and more positive-spirited debate and discussion. Sad really.
  • Posts: 4,603
    No idea of the article is accurate but you cant fault the logic. The Bond universe is under exploited. Even on this forum, we have discussed many ways to expand the Bond universe. As with Star Wars etc, once you create not only a character but a fictional World, there is money to be made when fans want to immerse themselves in that World plus there is potential to make the World more relevant to new markets (we have discussed a female double 0 agent for example).
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2017 Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    NSGW wrote: »

    Great find @NSGW! This could definitely explain why we are still waiting on a distribution deal. Seems like a lot more could potentially be at stake than first thought.

    Question for people regard this - where do you stand? With EON's more traditional stance, or a more exploitative business model? On the one hand - a film released every few years, on the other - the potential for ancillary channels to deliver more Bond related media.
    If it was the 'traditional' stance of a film every two years as in the past, then I stand with EON.

    With the current model of every 3 or 4 years, I stand with the more exploitative business model.

    As far as I'm concerned, the way they approach it now is quite different from the more mechanized approach they followed under the Cubby regime (with a more predictable outcome), which is what I preferred.

    I'm not sure if it'll ever return to two, but I agree that four is a stretch. I'm certainly not averse to more consistency - if that guarantees a three yearly cycle max.

    Bond is a strange one because in terms of brand it is on a par with Marvel and SW as outlined in the article, but a lot of that is down to heritage and to some extent reliability. I don't think the world is crying out for any more Bond than we currently get and in terms of a young fan base, which is what you need to facilitate a constant flow of product, it doesn't exist on the same level.
    patb wrote: »
    No idea of the article is accurate but you cant fault the logic. The Bond universe is under exploited. Even on this forum, we have discussed many ways to expand the Bond universe. As with Star Wars etc, once you create not only a character but a fictional World, there is money to be made when fans want to immerse themselves in that World plus there is potential to make the World more relevant to new markets (we have discussed a female double 0 agent for example).

    But therein lies the problem. Is the appetite there for a Bond universe? Personally, I don't think so. I'm of the opinion that people see these movies as landmarks, rather than windows on a larger world. They're still those flicks people go to with their parents every few years, films that for the wider populace are a couple of hours of a British bloke being a bad ass. We're in an echo chamber here - we all have ideas and thoughts that go way beyond the films themselves but making them commercially viable is a whole different ball game.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 19,339
    RC7 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    NSGW wrote: »

    Great find @NSGW! This could definitely explain why we are still waiting on a distribution deal. Seems like a lot more could potentially be at stake than first thought.

    Question for people regard this - where do you stand? With EON's more traditional stance, or a more exploitative business model? On the one hand - a film released every few years, on the other - the potential for ancillary channels to deliver more Bond related media.

    Traditional,2 year gap will suit me.

    The only worry I have with Apple and Amazon ,is the mentions of Bond being on TV in some shape or form.

    I don't like the sound of that.

  • edited September 2017 Posts: 1,162
    patb wrote: »
    No idea of the article is accurate but you cant fault the logic. The Bond universe is under exploited. Even on this forum, we have discussed many ways to expand the Bond universe. As with Star Wars etc, once you create not only a character but a fictional World, there is money to be made when fans want to immerse themselves in that World plus there is potential to make the World more relevant to new markets (we have discussed a female double 0 agent for example).

    I just can't imagine there's any way to expand the Bond universe. People just don't care enough about Felix Leiter, MP and such. I mean they can certainly try but they will just as certainly fail. Big time!
Sign In or Register to comment.