No Time To Die: Production Diary

1107510761078108010812507

Comments

  • edited October 2017 Posts: 386
    Yes, and in order to pull it off, they need to get that dreaded third act right.

    Can't say goodbye to Craig with a floating building, a desert hotel, a gimmicky death or a collapsing MI6.

    It's as if the writers were sacked and / or walked before finishing most of Craig's shooting scripts.

    We haven't had a truly great ending since Goldeneye IMO.

    All hands on deck. The pressure is on.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Like the climaxes to all the first 3 Craig films.

    SF goes without saying but the Venice sequence was quite original and inspired, also the explosive desert climax in QOS was as tense as hell.

    Only odd one out for me and that film had not 1 but 2 climaxes and both of them were lame.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    I hope they have more ambition in the action sequence departments - this was not a strong suit of Mendes. I think the SF PTS was the only truly great action sequence he did - the Shanghai fight sequence was awesome - but from a stylistic point of view not from an action POV. The SP action sequences were solid with the PTS and train fight being highlights but nothing on the CR level of breathlessness or creativity.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Only odd one out for me and that film had not 1 but 2 climaxes and both of them were lame.
    That's the problem with Spectre's final used script. It tried to be everything and put everything in one film that didn't hold out anything. That London finale, in my opinion, should've been ditched for good, and instead the climax should've taken place at Blofeld's lair.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    That London finale, in my opinion, should've been ditched for good, and instead the climax should've taken place at Blofeld's lair.

    Agree with this. They could have done so much with the lair set up. Bond's escape could have been creatively handled and the mainstay of the third act and then a Blofeld confrontation.

    It was the need to have Bond running around with the Scooby gang at the end that forced them into that. Hence Skyfall working better because M was central to the plot and Q and Moneypenny disappeared for the third act. When they bring back all of them I hope it's more artfully, suspensefully and purposefully done in B25 rather than what felt like contractual obligation in SP.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I'm with @Shardlake-- I loved CR, QoS and SF's climaxes.... I personally HATED SP's last act, something that's reserved for TND, TWINE, DAD...; there have been some absolutely weak endings to Bond, but none as insultingly terrible as these four... EoN, as @GetCarter said: all hands on deck. Get it right!!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    That London finale, in my opinion, should've been ditched for good, and instead the climax should've taken place at Blofeld's lair.

    Agree with this. They could have done so much with the lair set up. Bond's escape could have been creatively handled and the mainstay of the third act and then a Blofeld confrontation.

    It was the need to have Bond running around with the Scooby gang at the end that forced them into that. Hence Skyfall working better because M was central to the plot and Q and Moneypenny disappeared for the third act. When they bring back all of them I hope it's more artfully, suspensefully and purposefully done in B25 rather than what felt like contractual obligation in SP.
    Precisely.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Only odd one out for me and that film had not 1 but 2 climaxes and both of them were lame.
    That's the problem with Spectre's final used script. It tried to be everything and put everything in one film that didn't hold out anything. That London finale, in my opinion, should've been ditched for good, and instead the climax should've taken place at Blofeld's lair.

    @ClarkDevlin reason that they had to put everything into one film was because they thought it was daniels last so they had to smash blofeld in there instead of cameo in spectre showdown in next film.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Only odd one out for me and that film had not 1 but 2 climaxes and both of them were lame.
    That's the problem with Spectre's final used script. It tried to be everything and put everything in one film that didn't hold out anything. That London finale, in my opinion, should've been ditched for good, and instead the climax should've taken place at Blofeld's lair.

    @ClarkDevlin reason that they had to put everything into one film was because they thought it was daniels last so they had to smash blofeld in there instead of cameo in spectre showdown in next film.
    Indeed. And I hardly doubt that rumour from five years back that indicated 24 and 25 being two-parters was false. I am sure that was the original plan, but due to Craig's veto, I'm guessing, the plan was changed and those two films were compressed to one instead.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 2,115
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Only odd one out for me and that film had not 1 but 2 climaxes and both of them were lame.
    That's the problem with Spectre's final used script. It tried to be everything and put everything in one film that didn't hold out anything. That London finale, in my opinion, should've been ditched for good, and instead the climax should've taken place at Blofeld's lair.

    @ClarkDevlin reason that they had to put everything into one film was because they thought it was daniels last so they had to smash blofeld in there instead of cameo in spectre showdown in next film.
    Indeed. And I hardly doubt that rumour from five years back that indicated 24 and 25 being two-parters was false. I am sure that was the original plan, but due to Craig's veto, I'm guessing, the plan was changed and those two films were compressed to one instead.

    Rumor? Gary Barber of MGM announced in a November 2012 investor call that Logan was going to write Bond 24 and 25 together. That's not a rumor. It also confirmed a Deadline: Hollywood story. Yes, they changed their mind. But it wasn't a rumor. It was *announced*.

    For that matter, Sam Mendes confirmed it *again* in an April 2014 U.S. television interview. He said the plan was to film 24 and 25 back and back before the idea got rolled back.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Oh so they did!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    So did they scrap this idea because of the actor or for other reasons? I certainly hope it's not the former.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'm inclined to believe it's the former.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 2,115
    Oh so they did!

    Yes. Craig even mentioned it in the same 2015 interview that generated the "slash my wrists" quote.

    https://www.timeout.com/london/film/daniel-craig-interview-my-advice-to-the-next-james-bond-dont-be-shit

    'But at the studio there was a real keenness to get it done as soon as possible. In fact, there was a conversation at one point that went: “Let’s film two movies back to back.” I just went: “You’re out of your minds.” In the nicest possible way. They’re just too big.'

    Mod edit: f-bomb removed.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm inclined to believe it's the former.
    If that is the case then I'm actually more disappointed than ever that he has chosen to return.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Just goes to say the actor shouldn't be given that much control. The actor doesn't come first. Bond comes first. I do hope the producers will remember that. It's been painful enough the films are getting delayed, setbacks shouldn't be there because the lead actor isn't interested or has no energy enough to see the bigger picture. Had Spectre been interpreted in two films, flesh out the characters and the storyline over the course of two films under well-thought orchestration, we would've had a major success in our hands by now.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited October 2017 Posts: 10,592
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm inclined to believe it's the former.
    If that is the case then I'm actually more disappointed than ever that he has chosen to return.
    Why? The man has a point.

    And what makes you think Daniel has final say on a decision such as this? I imagine the producers had a very similar stance on the subject, and surely they had more of a hand than Craig did when it came to scrapping the idea.
  • Bamigboye story from February 2013. Wooing Mendes also was part of it.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2278914/Sam-Mendes-James-Bond-sights-Skyfalls-phenomenal-box-office-success.html

    Bond has never been bigger, thanks to the phenomenal box-office success of Skyfall, directed by Oscar-winner Sam Mendes.

    And people have been asking whether he will return to direct the next one, known for now as Bond 24.

    He had initially been reluctant because screenwriter John Logan was planning to write a two-part story that would have been shot back-to-back, which would have taken four years out of the director’s life.

    It would have meant long stretches for the cast, too - led by Daniel Craig, Ralph Fiennes as the new M, Naomie Harris as Miss Moneypenny and Ben Whishaw playing Q.
    That plan has been jettisoned, and Bond 24 and 25 will be stand-alone pictures.


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2278914/Sam-Mendes-James-Bond-sights-Skyfalls-phenomenal-box-office-success.html#ixzz4v40KQ7jx
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    jake24 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm inclined to believe it's the former.
    If that is the case then I'm actually more disappointed than ever that he has chosen to return.
    Why? The man has a point.

    And what makes you think Daniel has final say on a decision such as this? I imagine the producers had a very similar stance on the subject, and surely they had more of a hand than Craig did when it came to scrapping the idea.
    Precisely why I asked the question as to who was behind it. If it was primarily him then my opinion stands and I won't change it. If it wasn't then he is not to blame in my opinion.

    The last film was a mess on account of jamming too much in which could have been handled so much better as a two parter. It's quite clear to anyone with half a brain. So whoever made that call doesn't deserve my adulation. Rather, quite the contrary.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm inclined to believe it's the former.
    If that is the case then I'm actually more disappointed than ever that he has chosen to return.
    Why? The man has a point.

    And what makes you think Daniel has final say on a decision such as this? I imagine the producers had a very similar stance on the subject, and surely they had more of a hand than Craig did when it came to scrapping the idea.
    Precisely why I asked the question as to who was behind it. If it was primarily him then my opinion stands and I won't change it. If it wasn't then he is not to blame in my opinion.

    The last film was a mess on account of jamming too much in which could have been handled so much better as a two parter. So whoever made that call doesn't deserve my adulation. Rather, quite the contrary.
    +1. Well said.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 16,226
    Had 24 and 25 been done back to back- this current discussion could have been on a film being released in less than a month from now.
    There would be dozens of topics in this folder regarding the villains, Bond girls, locations, gunbarrel, theme song, (which we would have heard by now and could be analyzing), etc etc .
    Then we could start anticipating Bond actor number 7 who's debut might have been released the date we're actually getting B25.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm inclined to believe it's the former.
    If that is the case then I'm actually more disappointed than ever that he has chosen to return.
    Why? The man has a point.

    And what makes you think Daniel has final say on a decision such as this? I imagine the producers had a very similar stance on the subject, and surely they had more of a hand than Craig did when it came to scrapping the idea.
    Precisely why I asked the question as to who was behind it. If it was primarily him then my opinion stands and I won't change it. If it wasn't then he is not to blame in my opinion.

    The last film was a mess on account of jamming too much in which could have been handled so much better as a two parter. So whoever made that call doesn't deserve my adulation. Rather, quite the contrary.
    +1. Well said.

    All of which makes me skeptical about the notion of a Bond shared universe, at least under the current Eon leadership. The individual Bond films are a big undertaking.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Had 24 and 25 been done back to back- this current discussion could have been on a film being released in less than a month from now.
    There would be dozens of topics in this folder regarding the villains, Bond girls, locations, gunbarrel, theme song, (which we would have heard by now and could be analyzing), etc etc .
    Then we could start anticipating Bond actor number 7 who's debut might have been released the date we're actually getting B25.

    At the same time, though, we'll be discussing that stuff late 2018/early 2019, something we wouldn't be doing if B25 did drop this year.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    We have absolutely no way of knowing how it would've turned out, or whether or not it would've been superior to the film that we got. A two-parter has the potential to be good just as it does to be disastrous.

    Let's not jump to conclusions. Craig doesn't have (and never has) a final say on a decision such as this. From what I gather these conversations were purely studio-based regardless. I can't see EON being too comfortable with the idea.
  • Posts: 1,680
    I believe in order for B25 to be critically successful its going to have to give Craigs Bond a good amount of character development over the course of the film, similar to Craigs first 3. SP was lacking this IMO.

    in the Villeneuve interview we found out EON are talking to a number of different directors. I thought they had their man but maybe they dont.

    also seems back to back films starting with Spectre was considered at one point. Mendes/Craig probably rejected this.

    I saw BR2049, I cant say yes to Villenueve. The quality is there but its too much of a slog, you have to be a little more mainstream. he would be polarizing & isnt right for Craigs finale. Id rather see Mendes come back with something fresh.

    EON are picky, I think Nolan & Mendes were there first two choices.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm inclined to believe it's the former.
    If that is the case then I'm actually more disappointed than ever that he has chosen to return.
    Why? The man has a point.

    And what makes you think Daniel has final say on a decision such as this? I imagine the producers had a very similar stance on the subject, and surely they had more of a hand than Craig did when it came to scrapping the idea.
    Precisely why I asked the question as to who was behind it. If it was primarily him then my opinion stands and I won't change it. If it wasn't then he is not to blame in my opinion.

    The last film was a mess on account of jamming too much in which could have been handled so much better as a two parter. So whoever made that call doesn't deserve my adulation. Rather, quite the contrary.
    +1. Well said.

    All of which makes me skeptical about the notion of a Bond shared universe, at least under the current Eon leadership. The individual Bond films are a big undertaking.
    It's just media talks. A Bond shared universe is nonsensical to begin with. He's the lone ensemble character in his franchise, as opposed to Marvel, DC and others that play ball in the vein. So, I'm more than sure it's not happening anytime soon, if at all.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,589
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Only odd one out for me and that film had not 1 but 2 climaxes and both of them were lame.
    That's the problem with Spectre's final used script. It tried to be everything and put everything in one film that didn't hold out anything. That London finale, in my opinion, should've been ditched for good, and instead the climax should've taken place at Blofeld's lair.

    I agree. But the London finale didn't have to be the mess that it was. The problem is that capturing Blofeld was used as the climax. Instead, saving Madeleine should have been. A formula used in TSWLM was needed: face the henchman (Hinx needed to be back); face the villain; save the girl.

  • edited October 2017 Posts: 1,031
    jake24 wrote: »
    We have absolutely no way of knowing how it would've turned out, or whether or not it would've been superior to the film that we got. A two-parter has the potential to be good just as it does to be disastrous.

    Let's not jump to conclusions. Craig doesn't have (and never has) a final say on a decision such as this. From what I gather these conversations were purely studio-based regardless. I can't see EON being too comfortable with the idea.

    I believe I remember Mendes and Craig both pointing the finger at Sony (rather than Eon) here as being the ones who were very pro about Bond 24 and 25 being shot back to back as a two parter. I think they were both critical about the use of Sony product placement in previous films too. There is a LOT in CR for example.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Product placement, yes. Craig even refused to hold Sony smartphones in Spectre hence they made Naomie Harris the temporary ambassador of it. The reason Spectre failed to please everyone critically is because its storylne was initially developed as a two-parter until whoever made the decision to convert it to one film ruined the plans and John Logan got the bad rap for it when I believe a dozen more people were involved.
  • Posts: 4,619
    its storylne was initially developed as a two-parter
    Wrong. Read the Sony leaks. It's all there.
Sign In or Register to comment.