No Time To Die: Production Diary

Dennison

noSolaceleft wrote: »

ColonelSun wrote: »

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

ColonelSun wrote: »

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

I personally did miss them, and still do miss them. The original M, Q and Moneypenny.

M: invites Bond to brief him the mission, rant a little should the occasion call for it, and send him out the leather door.

Q: Just give him a few gadgets and get back to work on your tech stuff and whatnot.

Moneypenny: See Bond come in while you're on the typewriter/computer, flirt a little and send him directly to M's office. Should Bond come back, flirt a little more and ask him about your chances for a dinner date with him, then send him out.

That's all there is. That's all I want from these characters. Nothing more.

And we have that very thing from DR right up until DAD - that's 20 movies. From CR onwards they have worked to find a fresher approach which feels more fitting for the 21st century. We can argue about whether or not the new M, Q and Moneypenny are essential or not, but I think the general wider audience have affection for those characters and like to see them, but the old approach was (for many) becoming stale and out-of-date.

I don't have affection for any of them, to be honest. I don't need to see Moneypenny trying to show the world she can be tough and capable. She's a secretary and at best "the last line of defense", or as the new comic books depict it, M's personal bodyguard. That's all there is. M isn't always in danger, let alone every five minutes per film.

I don't have to know what Q is doing in his pajamas, drinking some hipster prolytic digestive enzyme shake (what's that, again?) and showing off to everybody his cyber knowledge is unbeatable (only to be made a fool of by Silva), or worry about his cats. He's a nerdy geek, we get it. Just give Bond the gadgets, demonstrate them to him, tell him to bring them in one piece and that's all. That's all there is to Q.

As for M, we don't need to see his every political encounter with other members from the Whitehall and clash with them. That's not what I want to see in a Bond film. If I want that, I'll just go and watch The Thick of It with Malcolm Tucker roasting every government official he encounters every two seconds.

Tanner? I'll be much satisfied if he only appears once every five or six films to aid M in his briefing over a very critical assignment his better knowledge in the case commands him to be there.

No more Scooby Gang.

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but Bond has survived for 55 years because the producers have strived (sometimes successfully, sometimes less so) to keep Bond moving forward - into the 21st century now, a very different place to the world of the 1960's, 70's, 80's etc. Whether you like it or not, Mi6 (M in particular) have played a more dramatic role in the Bond films since TWINE (probably GE when M became a woman) and, because that has increased the Mi6 characters' screen time and relevance to the stories, that naturally means adding more flesh on the bones and nuance to characters like M, Q, Moneypenny. Bond evolves to survive - if the films didn't, the franchise would die.

I very seriously doubt that it's the " meanwhile back at the office scenes " that make the Bond franchise survive. Make that very, very seriously!

It didn't harm CR or QoS not having Q or Moneypenny. Ben Whishaw does a good job of Q, but did we really miss either of them on CR or QoS?

DoctorNo

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

DoctorNo wrote: »

Brosnan era, coupled with Raymond Benson, is the nadir of James Bond.

That's subjective. And like I said sometime ago... DAD may be the least favourite in the general fandom, especially here in this forum, at the time it was praised even by Roger Ebert himself. Look it up.

Why would I look it up, I don't care what Roger Ebert thinks. I was there, I saw the film. I saw the backlash that I felt as well. Saying it's subjective is cover. There are fans of the prequels, so what? They're still god awful star wars films.

ClarkDevlin

I'd rather have Major Boothroyd being a middle-aged snob who's expert at firearms than a rebel-minded hipster computer geek who thinks he can take over the world. Heck, that reminds me of Samuel L. Jackson's Kingsman character who really got on my nerves at times.

DoctorNo wrote: »

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

DoctorNo wrote: »

Brosnan era, coupled with Raymond Benson, is the nadir of James Bond.

That's subjective. And like I said sometime ago... DAD may be the least favourite in the general fandom, especially here in this forum, at the time it was praised even by Roger Ebert himself. Look it up.

Why would I look it up, I don't care what Roger Ebert thinks. I was there, I saw the film. I saw the backlash that I felt as well. Saying it's subjective is cover. There are fans of the prequels, so what? They're still god awful star wars films.

That's your opinion. And I say Skyfall is a godawful film and the rest that follows is pretty much boring. How do you respond to that?

ClarkDevlin

DELETE

noSolaceleft

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

So just because the current leadership reached a dead end doesn't mean there were not other ways to handle things. We will never know what could have been, but I am of the belief that the route they chose to take was not the only possible option. Irrespective, we are where we are and we will have to accept it for at least one more film.

Thank you!

Know what guys? I like both of you, because your spare me so much writing ( and do it better than I could as well ). What's not to like?

noSolaceleft

ColonelSun wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

I agree @ClarkDevlin . The reboot was totally unecessary. Having said that, they pulled it off very well. However, as you suggested, they could have easily continued without it as they had done in the past if they wanted, rather than jumping on the bandwagon of continuity driven stories. I don't see them changing that for Craig's last.

Regarding the success of these films, it is only the last two Mendes entries which halve really shaken things up globally. CR and QOS were above average at the box office, but not earth shattering. So if one is analyzing this based on the evidence, Mendes is the most important element.

Regarding B25: I have a feeling they will move the time line forward quite a bit to accommodate Craig's advanced years. So an older Bond (possibly washed up) in a different environment, called back to face an adversary who ends up being revealed as none other than his long lost foster brother once more (perhaps pulling the strings via a surrogate). Not what I want, but I think it's what we will get. Bond as Logan.

Eon admitted they had reached a creative dead-end after DAD (and the movie and Brosnan's last 3 films are evidence of that). Eon recognised they had to change direction and be brave about it - and they were. And the result was CR. They made the right decision, otherwise I think we would have just seen the same old ideas being recycled yet again with diminishing creative and, in the end - as per Sir Roger's final films - dwindling box office returns. You can't just keep rehashing the same exact formula over and over again, you have to evolve to survive. That's what they've done - and it's worked.

To you they just can't do any wrong, can they?
I tell you what. Going mainstream doesn't make your great. It might make you commercial successful, but it doesn't make you great!

SirHilaryBray

I am starting to think there is something in this Musk spaceship story. There are numerous variations of the story. That tends to mean something credible which each news agency adds a glamorised twist on by adding made up facts.

Consistencies in the story are that Musk will assist production by building ship/rocket or that Bond will look in to a the world of someone like Musk. That does not mean Bond is going to space. I don't see a Moonraker, but I do see a YOLT type scene with a rocket on large set like the Volcano. Going back to the Moonraker novel the concept was changed entirely for the Film. In the Novel Drax is former Nazi posing as a former British Solider who suffered amnesia after being blown up in combat. He makes his money in British industry and begins the Moonraker project what he called an air defence system but really it is a cover for building a Nuclear missile.

Now there is also talk of North Korea. So it could potentially be a story around a Musk type character claiming to be building such a "Star Wars" defence system under pretence just like the Moonraker novel.

But I do not see an over elaborate camp Bond movie. If this is the route I believe it will be done with some form a of realistic approach, like this could actually happen so don't expect Raker Lasers.

PanchitoPistoles

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

And I say Skyfall is a godawful film

And I say that from this point on I can instantly dismiss all your Bond related opinions. Seriously, the Bond franchise has many truly awful films. How can anyone seriously believe Skyfall is "godawful "? Stunning cinematography, some of the very best acting of the franchise, a score that even the biggest Newman hater has to admit is at least decent, and a story that actually is about something rather than just being wall-to-wall plot.

Hating Skyfall makes as much sene as watching Batman Forever, Batman & Robin and Batman Begins in a row and then saying "Hey, you know what? This Batman Begins was truly awful."

TheWizardOfIce

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

I'd rather have Major Boothroyd being a middle-aged snob who's expert at firearms than a rebel-minded hipster computer geek who thinks he can take over the world. Heck, that reminds me of Samuel L. Jackson's Kingsman character who really got on my nerves at times.

DoctorNo wrote: »

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

DoctorNo wrote: »

Brosnan era, coupled with Raymond Benson, is the nadir of James Bond.

That's subjective. And like I said sometime ago... DAD may be the least favourite in the general fandom, especially here in this forum, at the time it was praised even by Roger Ebert himself. Look it up.

Why would I look it up, I don't care what Roger Ebert thinks. I was there, I saw the film. I saw the backlash that I felt as well. Saying it's subjective is cover. There are fans of the prequels, so what? They're still god awful star wars films.

That's your opinion. And I say Skyfall is a godawful film and the rest that follows is pretty much boring. How do you respond to that?

Quite a straightforward response really - you're just wrong plain and simple and so is Roger 'Thumbs up for The Phantom Menace' Ebert.

I'd quit while you're behind but if you really want to try and argue that DAD was not the nadir of the series I'm sure we'd all enjoy it.

Mendes4Lyfe

@Solace That's exactly why they need to scale back and remember the basics and how to make them fit the modern world. Which elements of the character Fleming established should be concentrated on in the new era? In the 80's they went dark because the era sanded that, and Dalton fit the part. In the 90's political correctness was tearing it's face, and they needed someone inoffensive and "safe" to take up the mantle. They have always casted Bond well to fit the demands of the era, that's the knack EON have always maintained, it spite of their mistakes elsewhere. What will the cultural atmosphere of the 2020's be like? That's difficult to predict, and perhaps nearer the time it will be more clear, but if I had to guess I'd say the pendulum will swing in a more flippant, irreverent direction. That does not mean we will return to the silliness of the 70's and 90's, at least not initially. You can't turn the clock back and pretend we live in a carefree world again. It's simply not feasible in an age when the darkness of the world is made ever more apparent to us in the news. They need to find a way of finding humour and escapism, without simply ignoring the real world. People like things to ring true nowadays in a way they didn't before. The character has to get his hands dirty more, not be such a fragile thing constantly getting blindsided by emotional trauma. I'd like to see a closed off Bond. I think that could work going forward. The hardest job they will have, and perhaps what is forcing them to cling to Craig until 2019, is to get the humour working without sacrifice a feeling of legitimacy. But remember the Dalton line about "must have scares the living daylights out of her"? He says those words with relish. And later the "Yes... I got the message" there's a half smile on his face. It's like he's so used to the life that he's no longer shocked or saddened by it. I think a Bond like that would certainly ring true, and the audience would be invited to join him in this amusement. It would be a way of continuing a kind of realism and true to life feeling, but adding an acerbic, rebellious element and removing the dourness the films have become know for.

ClarkDevlin

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

And I say Skyfall is a godawful film

And I say that from this point on I can instantly dismiss all your Bond related opinions. Seriously, the Bond franchise has many truly awful films. How can anyone seriously believe Skyfall is "godawful "? Stunning cinematography, some of the very best acting of the franchise, a score that even the biggest Newman hater has to admit is at least decent, and a story that actually is about something rather than just being wall-to-wall plot.

Hating Skyfall makes as much sene as watching Batman Forever, Batman & Robin and Batman Begins in a row and then saying "Hey, you know what? This Batman Begins was truly awful."

I can easily dismiss yours in return. I can and certainly have before cited everything that was wrong with the film to begin with. I don't need to repost them as they exist everywhere on this thread. Stunning cinematography? Certainly. The best even. Everything else falls flat in it. The storyline in itself is godawful and inconsistent I can't even regroup after its abysmal delivery. Everybody in it makes all the wrong moves when all the rights ones were there in the open, it's as if they were either smoking something, or deliberately wanted to lose the war against Silva's terrorism. I've yet to come across somebody, other than you of course, who actually admires Newman's effort. It was pedestrian at best.

And honestly, your comparisons with the Batman films hardly make sense. I did say before, to you even, that I actually like Batman Begins. Thing is... other than that, I haven't been a fan of any Batman film, neither before nor after it. The latter two of the trilogy are ballsed up with that "deep story with meaning" and "solving puzzles" plot. Both Knight and Rises. As for the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher films, never been a fan of either.

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

I'd rather have Major Boothroyd being a middle-aged snob who's expert at firearms than a rebel-minded hipster computer geek who thinks he can take over the world. Heck, that reminds me of Samuel L. Jackson's Kingsman character who really got on my nerves at times.

DoctorNo wrote: »

ClarkDevlin wrote: »

DoctorNo wrote: »

Brosnan era, coupled with Raymond Benson, is the nadir of James Bond.

That's subjective. And like I said sometime ago... DAD may be the least favourite in the general fandom, especially here in this forum, at the time it was praised even by Roger Ebert himself. Look it up.

Why would I look it up, I don't care what Roger Ebert thinks. I was there, I saw the film. I saw the backlash that I felt as well. Saying it's subjective is cover. There are fans of the prequels, so what? They're still god awful star wars films.

That's your opinion. And I say Skyfall is a godawful film and the rest that follows is pretty much boring. How do you respond to that?

Quite a straightforward response really - you're just wrong plain and simple and so is Roger 'Thumbs up for The Phantom Menace' Ebert.

I'd quit while you're behind but if you really want to try and argue that DAD was not the nadir of the series I'm sure we'd all enjoy it.

Except I wasn't referencing specifically DAD but the Brosnan era. DAD took things too far and the CGI used in it is awful. Lest anybody of you forget that it was a film that followed a trend just like any of its successors did. You hate the film? I don't mind it. That's your preference. What I'm arguing with is the sense of god complex I see in some of the members who speak for everybody. That nadir that you call it brought over four hundred million globally. And I am sure it didn't bring that kind of money because people didn't go to see it and hated it. The reviews and the promotion were all out there and that was what was in demand at the time. Whether you bully somebody out because they don't agree with you or not, the rest is for you to enjoy.

PanchitoPistoles

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

that DAD was not the nadir of the series

TND and TWINE are the movies that saved DAD from ending up being the nadir of the series. The main reason people hate DAD are the invisible car + the big laser weapon. With a little bit of suspension of disbelief, it's a pretty decent movie and so much more fun than the two Bond films that preceded it.

Last_Rat_Standing

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

that DAD was not the nadir of the series

TND and TWINE are the movies that saved DAD from ending up being the nadir of the series. The main reason people hate DAD are the invisible car + the big laser weapon. With a little bit of suspension of disbelief, it's a pretty decent movie and so much more fun than the two Bond films that preceded it.

DAD is a film that could have been much better with a little fat trimmed from it. Get rid of the ice dragster and re-write the finale or just keep it the way it was with the surfing-training base and it may have improved it. Oh and the Robo-cop/Iron Man suit. Seriously, who thought that belonged in a Bond film?

CASINOROYALE

Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

suavejmf

Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

that DAD was not the nadir of the series

TND and TWINE are the movies that saved DAD from ending up being the nadir of the series. The main reason people hate DAD are the invisible car + the big laser weapon. With a little bit of suspension of disbelief, it's a pretty decent movie and so much more fun than the two Bond films that preceded it.

DAD is a film that could have been much better with a little fat trimmed from it. Get rid of the ice dragster and re-write the finale or just keep it the way it was with the surfing-training base and it may have improved it. Oh and the Robo-cop/Iron Man suit. Seriously, who thought that belonged in a Bond film?

+1.

AlexanderWaverly

re: reboot

Michael G. Wilson said in 2005 he and Barbara Broccoli were burned out and wanted to create something for themselves.

"We are running out of energy, mental energy," Mr. Wilson recalled saying. "We need to generate something new, for ourselves."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/15/movies/MoviesFeatures/bond-franchise-is-shaken-and-stirred.html

TheWizardOfIce

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

that DAD was not the nadir of the series

TND and TWINE are the movies that saved DAD from ending up being the nadir of the series. The main reason people hate DAD are the invisible car + the big laser weapon. With a little bit of suspension of disbelief, it's a pretty decent movie and so much more fun than the two Bond films that preceded it.

Two words - Jinx Johnson.

'Pretty decent'?

The main reason people hate DAD are the invisible car, the shoddy CGI, the hammy acting, the awful script, woeful Carry On humour, etc etc

The space weapon comes in way down the list in fact I don't really mind it that much compared to everything else that is going on.

jake24

Get we get back to B25?

Mendes4Lyfe

CASINOROYALE wrote: »

Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

That's what I'm saying. In this day and age a return to 70's campness would not work. That has to be some aspect of realism. So treating the death and destruction that James Bond comes across as something he has grown hardened to, rather than something he becomes depressed by is really the only direction they can take if they want to move away from the dourness and bleak tone of the Craig films. Bond must have a more "seen it all before" attitude, where we instinctively feel like we're in the presence of a true professional and not someone who is constantly damaged and depressed. Bond has given up that part of his pysche long ago, and now he's only concerned by his objective and making it out alive. The current Bond is way too sympathetic and has no edge to him. Those are the too main aspects that are missing, the humour and the edge, so why not meld them together into a kind of nonchalance that masks inner intensity.

Murdock

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

And I say that from this point on I can instantly dismiss all your Bond related opinions.

Oh shut up DoritosDippingsauce, nobody cares.

PanchitoPistoles

@Murdock People certainly shouldn't care about ClarkDevlin's Bond related opinions from now on. For a Bond fan to say that Skyfall is godawful is like for an art historian to say that the Arnolfini Portrait is a bad painting.

Murdock

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

@Murdock People certainly shouldn't care about ClarkDevlin's Bond related opinions from now on. For a Bond fan to say that Skyfall is godawful is like for an art historian to say that the Arnolfini Portrait is a bad painting.

No @PanchitoPistoles nobody should care about your opinions because you try to snuff out others opinions who get your shorts in a knot. I personally don't agree with @ClarkDevlin's views on Skyfall but I sure as hell don't dismiss them. Go and take your ball and go home now because I'm not interested in your Bond related opinions. ;)

ClarkDevlin

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

@Murdock People certainly shouldn't care about ClarkDevlin's Bond related opinions from now on. For a Bond fan to say that Skyfall is godawful is like for an art historian to say that the Arnolfini Portrait is a bad painting.

You've already made a big name for yourself for quite sometime and losing credibility for a genuine template for your mind to have. From your comparisons down to your suggestions, I've been really finding your sense too baffling to begin with. DAD being better than TND? That already speaks volumes about your opinions. An admirable intellect, sir.

PanchitoPistoles

@Murdock the difference between you+ClarkDevlin and me is that I don't get offended if others dismiss my opinions. Btw, anyone should feel free to think that Skyfall is an awful film, just as anyone should feel free to believe that Vivaldi's The Four Seasons is an abysmal musical composition. That doesn't mean I won't ridicule these opinions.

Murdock

@PanchitoPistoles save it, I really don't care. If you want keep getting your nickers in a twist because someone doesn't like a film you do, then by all means call the National Enquirer. Publicly boasting that you can't take someone's opinion serious is not only petty but it's also pretentious. So go and mozy on somewhere else because I and many others don't care.

PanchitoPistoles

@Murdock Yeah, you don't really care except you are the one who brought it up again. :)) And aren't you the one who keeps getting his nickers in a twist because someone made a comment he didn't like?

ClarkDevlin

You can go ahead and list as much as classical works of art and compare it to Skyfall, and that in itself is a ridiculous opinion. I am sure with all these comparisons you're making, somewhere in their graves, the likes of Claude Monet, Amadeus Mozart, Alexandros of Antioch and many others are spinning.

What are you going to name next? The beauty of Maison Carree?

PanchitoPistoles

@ClarkDevlin Ok, let's stick to movies. Believeing that Skyfall is godawful is just as ridiculous as claiming that Plan 9 from Outer Space is a genuinely good movie.

Murdock

@PanchitoPistoles and now you're trying to spin this around on me. My nickers aren't in a twist. I just like tearing you a new one because you're a spoiled brat who can't take others opinions. Go home and take your ball with you until you've decided to grow up. Why are you even here again?

PanchitoPistoles

@Murdock I'm guessing that was you still not caring. :)) Ok, I'm finished now. I will allow you to have the last word. (and the same goes for @ClarkDevlin) Yes, I am this generous. ;)