No Time To Die: Production Diary

1105710581060106210632507

Comments

  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited October 2017 Posts: 1,756
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I just worry, every time in recent years EON have tried to think outside of the box for directors (Apted, Tamahori, Forster and Mendes) we have ended up with duds.

    I take your point, but SF was no dud. As we know it was massive commercial and critical success. And SP, while not getting the same critical raves, still pulled in a ton of money. I think Villeneuve is such an accomplished and inspired filmmaker, far more than the likes of Apted or Tamahori IMO, that he'll deliver the goods IF he does do Bond.

    I'd go as far as to say Villeneuve will be the "best" director Bond has ever gotten, akin to have getting Spielberg back in the 80s.
  • Posts: 1,498
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I just worry, every time in recent years EON have tried to think outside of the box for directors (Apted, Tamahori, Forster and Mendes) we have ended up with duds.

    I take your point, but SF was no dud. As we know it was massive commercial and critical success. And SP, while not getting the same critical raves, still pulled in a ton of money. I think Villeneuve is such an accomplished and inspired filmmaker, far more than the likes of Apted or Tamahori IMO, that he'll deliver the goods IF he does do Bond.

    I'd go as far as to say Villeneuve will be the "best" director Bond has ever gotten.

    He could well be. His track record is so impressive. Prisoners - stunning, intense, brilliantly directed and acted. Sicario - white knuckle suspense and brilliant staging and editing. Arrival - a beautiful, masterly structured, deeply intelligent film which, having seen it four times now, I absolutely love and think is the best sci-fi film (but it's more than that) since the original Blade Runner. And now Blade Runner 2049 is about to open this week with rave reviews and tickets sales rocketing. I think that track record speaks for itself. Bond will be very lucky to have him at the helm.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    @ColonelSun I know SF was a critical and commercial success. I just thought it was overwrought, angsty and pretentious. Each to their own, and I know far more would agree with you than me.

  • Posts: 1,498
    Roadphill wrote: »
    @ColonelSun I know SF was a critical and commercial success. I just thought it was overwrought, angsty and pretentious. Each to their own, and I know far more would agree with you than me.

    Sure, we all have our personal tastes and opinions, it's impossible for any film or book or art or music to satisfy every person's individual tastes, but the fact remains SF achieved critical and commercial success and has a huge number of fans - me included.
  • Posts: 1,162
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I think everyone who is hanging on the critical reception of Blade Runner are missing the point.

    Blade Runner(at least going on the first, which is a classic) is quite a ponderous, existential film. That's not a knock on it, as I said its a classic. And that type of material is perfect for someone like Villeneuve.

    The problem is, Bond film aren't, nor should they ever be, like that at all. They are action drama's/male fantasies.

    Sicarrio is a high octane, edge of the seat thriller. Denis Villeneuve has what it takes to do Bond, no question in my mind - and obviously Eon and Craig feel the same.

    As much as I appreciate Sicarrio, but high-octane? Actually I find it quite slow paced and lacking in the amount of thrilling scenes.
  • Posts: 1,162
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I just worry, every time in recent years EON have tried to think outside of the box for directors (Apted, Tamahori, Forster and Mendes) we have ended up with duds.

    I take your point, but SF was no dud. As we know it was massive commercial and critical success. And SP, while not getting the same critical raves, still pulled in a ton of money. I think Villeneuve is such an accomplished and inspired filmmaker, far more than the likes of Apted or Tamahori IMO, that he'll deliver the goods IF he does do Bond.
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I just worry, every time in recent years EON have tried to think outside of the box for directors (Apted, Tamahori, Forster and Mendes) we have ended up with duds.

    I take your point, but SF was no dud. As we know it was massive commercial and critical success. And SP, while not getting the same critical raves, still pulled in a ton of money. I think Villeneuve is such an accomplished and inspired filmmaker, far more than the likes of Apted or Tamahori IMO, that he'll deliver the goods IF he does do Bond.

    Still both of them are quite terrible. Especially when it comes to storytelling.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Sicario being high-octane? We must be talking about different films. It was slow-paced the hell out from the moment the first explosion occurred. It was all about hint-dropping dialogues and lines thrown everywhere you wouldn't know what the hell was going on in the film or what is it about in the first place.
  • Posts: 19,339
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I just worry, every time in recent years EON have tried to think outside of the box for directors (Apted, Tamahori, Forster and Mendes) we have ended up with duds.

    I take your point, but SF was no dud. As we know it was massive commercial and critical success. And SP, while not getting the same critical raves, still pulled in a ton of money. I think Villeneuve is such an accomplished and inspired filmmaker, far more than the likes of Apted or Tamahori IMO, that he'll deliver the goods IF he does do Bond.
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I just worry, every time in recent years EON have tried to think outside of the box for directors (Apted, Tamahori, Forster and Mendes) we have ended up with duds.

    I take your point, but SF was no dud. As we know it was massive commercial and critical success. And SP, while not getting the same critical raves, still pulled in a ton of money. I think Villeneuve is such an accomplished and inspired filmmaker, far more than the likes of Apted or Tamahori IMO, that he'll deliver the goods IF he does do Bond.

    Still both of them are quite terrible. Especially when it comes to storytelling.

    I think calling SF and to a lesser extent SP 'terrible' is a bit harsh.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    SF is terrible. ;)

    SP is better.

  • I'd go as far as to say Villeneuve will be the "best" director Bond has ever gotten, akin to have getting Spielberg back in the 80s.

    Interesting thought. One could certainly argue that Mendes came in with a fair few critical plaudits and actually had an Oscar to his name, too - I believe he's still the only one. But his actual film record up to that point against Villeneuve is a tougher call.

    I recently argued in the 'Controversial Opinions' thread that Spectre probably assembled the largest amount of talent on both sides of the camera of any Bond film, and that OHMSS is probably number 2.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited October 2017 Posts: 13,999
    bondjames wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    What are the chances of a distributor being announced on October 5th?
    Pretty slim, I'd say. It would probably leak before an announcement, don't you think? Given the Amazon/Apple discussions only broke in Sep, I think things are still ongoing. These matters take time to resolve given the number of parties and complexities involved.

    BTW, I recently came across this fascinating NYT article. It's from 2015, but it's quite revealing about Babs, Wilson and their opinions on a number of items, including Bond, Craig, Pascal and future distribution.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/business/media/a-family-team-looks-for-james-bonds-next-assignment.html

    So she didn't even defend the series history. Not even with a "each film is a product of the time it was made in". It is things such as that, which don't sit well with me.
  • Posts: 4,045
    bondjames wrote: »
    @TripAces, it's not a question of having action, but rather how that action is put to screen and handled. I think that's what we're getting at. It's not about the money on the screen, the extravagance of the sequence, or the CGI. Rather, it's about the tension, the buildup, and the non linearity/ unpredictabilty of a scene for me. That's what a director versed in action can deliver. That's what differentiates the mundane from the exceptional in this realm. Give me the toilet fight, parkour sequence, the stairwell encounter, ball whacker or even the maligned Miami airport sequence in CR any day over anything in SP. The buildup to those sequences was just as important as the expert way the actual encounter was handled visually. It's a skill.

    If you view any of the Korean film trailers which DaltonCraig007 posts in the 'Coming Soon' thread, you'll see what a real action director can deliver in terms of tension and thrills.

    The Miami airport scene works so well because of the build up. Probably the longest and best build up to an action scene in any Bond. Right from leaving the hotel room, great stuff.

    I don't know much about Villeneuve. Does he do these sort of scenes?
  • Posts: 1,498
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I think everyone who is hanging on the critical reception of Blade Runner are missing the point.

    Blade Runner(at least going on the first, which is a classic) is quite a ponderous, existential film. That's not a knock on it, as I said its a classic. And that type of material is perfect for someone like Villeneuve.

    The problem is, Bond film aren't, nor should they ever be, like that at all. They are action drama's/male fantasies.

    Sicarrio is a high octane, edge of the seat thriller. Denis Villeneuve has what it takes to do Bond, no question in my mind - and obviously Eon and Craig feel the same.

    As much as I appreciate Sicarrio, but high-octane? Actually I find it quite slow paced and lacking in the amount of thrilling scenes.

    Well, for me, Sicario has terrific pace, tons of suspense and superb editing and staging. It was a great commercial and critical success. I saw it in a packed cinema and the audience were gripped for sure. I think, whether you personally like or get Sicario or not, the film has a very strong filmmaker at the helm. That's what Bond needs.
  • Posts: 1,162
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I think everyone who is hanging on the critical reception of Blade Runner are missing the point.

    Blade Runner(at least going on the first, which is a classic) is quite a ponderous, existential film. That's not a knock on it, as I said its a classic. And that type of material is perfect for someone like Villeneuve.

    The problem is, Bond film aren't, nor should they ever be, like that at all. They are action drama's/male fantasies.

    Sicarrio is a high octane, edge of the seat thriller. Denis Villeneuve has what it takes to do Bond, no question in my mind - and obviously Eon and Craig feel the same.

    As much as I appreciate Sicarrio, but high-octane? Actually I find it quite slow paced and lacking in the amount of thrilling scenes.

    Well, for me, Sicario has terrific pace, tons of suspense and superb editing and staging. It was a great commercial and critical success. I saw it in a packed cinema and the audience were gripped for sure. I think, whether you personally like or get Sicario or not, the film has a very strong filmmaker at the helm. That's what Bond needs.

    You may love the pace, be scared shitless by its suspense and whatever else that suits your fancy , but still it's not a high octane film. It's that easy.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    vzok wrote: »
    Cleopatra has already had a major remake

    MV5BY2RkOTA0ZjUtM2M1Zi00ZGQ4LThiYzQtYjllOWQwNGRjZmQ5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTgxOTIzNzk@._V1_.jpg
    SF is terrible. ;)

    SP is better.

    Total reverse for me.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2017 Posts: 2,138
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I just worry, every time in recent years EON have tried to think outside of the box for directors (Apted, Tamahori, Forster and Mendes) we have ended up with duds.

    TBF all had come off achieving Cinema gold before Bond, and would go on to create more Cinema gold post Bond. The ideal Director is a total Felmingnite who is stickler for modernising the classic elements, rather than fan boy indulgence.
  • Posts: 1,498
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I think everyone who is hanging on the critical reception of Blade Runner are missing the point.

    Blade Runner(at least going on the first, which is a classic) is quite a ponderous, existential film. That's not a knock on it, as I said its a classic. And that type of material is perfect for someone like Villeneuve.

    The problem is, Bond film aren't, nor should they ever be, like that at all. They are action drama's/male fantasies.

    Sicarrio is a high octane, edge of the seat thriller. Denis Villeneuve has what it takes to do Bond, no question in my mind - and obviously Eon and Craig feel the same.

    As much as I appreciate Sicarrio, but high-octane? Actually I find it quite slow paced and lacking in the amount of thrilling scenes.

    Well, for me, Sicario has terrific pace, tons of suspense and superb editing and staging. It was a great commercial and critical success. I saw it in a packed cinema and the audience were gripped for sure. I think, whether you personally like or get Sicario or not, the film has a very strong filmmaker at the helm. That's what Bond needs.

    You may love the pace, be scared shitless by its suspense and whatever else that suits your fancy , but still it's not a high octane film. It's that easy.

    Ok. So what? It is very gripping. The point I'm making is that the filmmaking is top notch and the man's a very, very good director and, I think, if he does it, he'll make a cracking Bond film.
  • Posts: 9,855
    I just want official news :D
  • Posts: 16,208
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I just worry, every time in recent years EON have tried to think outside of the box for directors (Apted, Tamahori, Forster and Mendes) we have ended up with duds.

    I agree. In addition they end up feeling kind of pretentious with an overlong running time. I wish this trend of EON pursuing high end A list directors would run it's course and they' get back to hiring Bond directors.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited October 2017 Posts: 10,592
    What on earth is wrong with hiring A-list directors? Some may disagree, but Villeneuve happens to be one of the best people in the industry for the job. The fact that he's considered A-list is irrelevant other than from a financial standpoint. I don't see why some are so fixated on EON resorting to unknown B-listers when they can be getting the best of the best.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,723
    I'm thankful that EON is finally looking beyond British directors, as 2 of the main touted candidates in the past few weeks have been Canadian (Villeneuve) and French (Demange).
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Forster wasn’t British, either.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    Spotisswood was only British by nationality.
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    If villeneuve is hired which i truly believe he will be announced thursday then he will be the second directer after forster to not be from the UK.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The direction we assume Bond 25 is headed, that being gritty, violent and moody presumably, Villeneuve is the best man in the business for the task.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,588
    jake24 wrote: »
    What on earth is wrong with hiring A-list directors? Some may disagree, but Villeneuve happens to be one of the best people in the industry for the job. The fact that he's considered A-list is irrelevant other than from a financial standpoint. I don't see why some are so fixated on EON resorting to unknown B-listers when they can be getting the best of the best.

    There is nothing wrong with it. Mendes' work on SF and SP was fantastic. SP had script problems that plagued it; nevertheless, it was a top-notch production, beautifully shot, well-scored, with some brilliant moments.


    As for DV...

    Perhaps part of the "discussion" is Babs and DC helping to Exec Produce Dune. Or, at least, getting WB to back it.

    WB distributed Prisoners and BR2049. If WB has won the distribution for Bond, one has to wonder how this factors into bringing DV on board. Think about it: Bond 25 is certain to be BO Gold for DV; this would give him back-to-back hits for WB, who would then likely give him carte blanche on Dune.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Makes perfectly sense.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    There is nothing wrong with getting good directors.

    Just not ones that try to turn Bond into high art.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Roadphill wrote: »
    There is nothing wrong with getting good directors.

    Just not ones that try to turn Bond into high art.

    Exactly. Whether or not DV will do that is my concern.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,425
    octofinger wrote: »

    I'd go as far as to say Villeneuve will be the "best" director Bond has ever gotten, akin to have getting Spielberg back in the 80s.

    Interesting thought. One could certainly argue that Mendes came in with a fair few critical plaudits and actually had an Oscar to his name, too - I believe he's still the only one. But his actual film record up to that point against Villeneuve is a tougher call.

    I recently argued in the 'Controversial Opinions' thread that Spectre probably assembled the largest amount of talent on both sides of the camera of any Bond film, and that OHMSS is probably number 2.

    Someone's probably already mentioned it but Forster was fresh from the Oscar Winning Monsters Ball, multi Oscar nominated Finding Neverland and critically acclaimed The Kite Runner when we was picked for QOS. The omens were good. And for some on here QOS is a bit of an under appreciated little gem. For all its faults I personally prefer it over either of Mendes' efforts.
Sign In or Register to comment.