No Time To Die: Production Diary

1119411951197119912002507

Comments

  • Birdleson wrote: »
    I coined that one!

    It was funny when you wrote it. It isn t funny when forty others repeat it every day for two years.

    I don't think people are trying to be funny though. It's just an apt and easy way to reference the new trope of Bond, M, Moneypenny, Q, and Tanner collectively in action in the field in Skyfall and especially in Spectre. And you only have to use three words and everyone knows instantly what you're talking about.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Blame SP for utilizing the MI6 team in such a way then! No more Scooby gang waltzing around aimlessly in London for me, please.
    Good thing then that Waltz is not on board this time ;-).

    I'm not putting anything past them just yet. I wouldn't be shocked if Mendes returned.

    Of Waltz, Mendes, Newman and Sedoux who would we be most dismayed to see return?

    For me (in order of person I would least like back):

    1. Newman
    2. Mendes
    3. Seydoux
    4. Waltz

    1. WALTZ
    2. WALTZ
    3. WALTZ
    4. WALTZ
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited November 2017 Posts: 45,489
    The most welcome return would be Deakins.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    while incorrectly referring to it as the "Double-O Program".

    Actually I think I find that the most offensive of all SP's flaws brothergate included.

    It's literally as if someone like Disney had taken control and just came up with stuff they thought was about right without the slightest knowledge of Fleming or the character and its history.

    Might as well have said:

    'The names James, James Bond'
    'Certificated to kill'
    'Agitated with your hand but not stirred'

    It's like a cheap Chinese knock off - looks about right but your eye can imperceptibly detect something is a bit off.
    People, STOP using the expression "Scooby gang"! It's the single most annoying expression this forum has come up with in years. Every time I read it, it makes me want to punch a puppy! (and I don't like punching puppies)
    I associate anyone invoking that term as part of the Scooby Gang.
    Solace.

    It's the perfect term because it carries the requisite derision worthy of the bumbling clowns following Bond around in their Mystery Machine Range Rover.

    You and others can deride it but I'm afraid it's here to stay. Letters of complaint should be adressed to:

    Sam Mendes c/o
    EON Productions
    London

    Bear in mind that if the Scooby Gang didn't exist in the film the term Scooby Gang would never have been coined.
  • The most welcome return would be Deakins.

    No kidding.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited November 2017 Posts: 14,693
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'll stick to the Scooby Gang moniker. Because they're as clumsy as the Scooby Gang.
    I'll stick to the Scooby Gang moniker. Because they're as clumsy as the Scooby Gang.
    True, they let former MI6 agents post agent profiles on Youtube, and unknowingly hire SPECTRE agents that plot to merge MI6 and demolish the Double-O Section while incorrectly referring to it as the "Double-O Program".
    Bernard Lee's M would tolerate none of that.
    "Of all the fouled-up, half-witted operations!"

    ---

    Yes, that "Double-O Program" term is utterly wrong. The use of Double-Ohs isn't meant to be a temporary, transient thing. It's permanent, and it's no program.
    When I hear it referred to as such, it never sits well with me when I view SP.
    Just on the topic of the 00 program, I never saw a problem with Denbigh and Mallory referring to it as the 'program', because IMO this is the title used at a planning and management level.
    The '00 section' is the program put into effect.

    Having said that, I do share the concern, and hope they don't start calling the section that from now on - keep it as 00 'section', or even 'division' as seen on MI6/Q props from the Brosnan era.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 5,767
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Blame SP for utilizing the MI6 team in such a way then! No more Scooby gang waltzing around aimlessly in London for me, please.
    Good thing then that Waltz is not on board this time ;-).

    I'm not putting anything past them just yet. I wouldn't be shocked if Mendes returned.

    Of Waltz, Mendes, Newman and Sedoux who would we be most dismayed to see return?

    For me (in order of person I would least like back):

    1. Newman
    2. Mendes
    3. Seydoux
    4. Waltz
    As far as dismay is concerned, I guess Newman stands out. If Mendes returned, I probably would simply avoid the film, thus skipping any possible dismay.
    I like both Waltz and Seydoux, I just despise the way they were wasted in the last film.



    TripAces wrote: »
    A Mendes return would not be the worst thing. I still blame a messed up script and a stubborn shooting schedule for how SP turned out, though the shooting range pictures were ridiculous and well within Mendes’ control. I agree with @bondjames in that SM would look to rectify things a bit

    For me, though, Mendes deserves some blame for the messed up script. John Logan was Mendes' guy and he was working with Mendes while working on the first draft. I suspect Logan was channeling themes Mendes wanted.
    I put most of the blame on Mendes. We´ve had enough ridiculous scripts in the past that were made into much more entertaining films.
    Which isn´t meant to say I wouldn´t welcome or long for a great script.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    I wish we knew for certain who came up with the brother idea. At any rate, in big productions, the director is often responsible for the script in terms of asking for things to be included in it and adjustments to be made to it. Therefore, the director has a hand in shaping the script and its development process, so Mendes is responsible to a degree for Spectre's script shortcomings.

    As an aside, it seems to me film writers are often criticized for ideas they didn't even come up with, and were forced to include in their scripts because other people told them to. A good writer is certainly more likely than a bad one to manage to accomodate the director's/ producer's wishes without sacrificing the quality of the script, but there is a limit to how much crap can be transformed into gold.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    QBranch wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'll stick to the Scooby Gang moniker. Because they're as clumsy as the Scooby Gang.
    I'll stick to the Scooby Gang moniker. Because they're as clumsy as the Scooby Gang.
    True, they let former MI6 agents post agent profiles on Youtube, and unknowingly hire SPECTRE agents that plot to merge MI6 and demolish the Double-O Section while incorrectly referring to it as the "Double-O Program".
    Bernard Lee's M would tolerate none of that.
    "Of all the fouled-up, half-witted operations!"

    ---

    Yes, that "Double-O Program" term is utterly wrong. The use of Double-Ohs isn't meant to be a temporary, transient thing. It's permanent, and it's no program.
    When I hear it referred to as such, it never sits well with me when I view SP.
    Just on the topic of the 00 program, I never saw a problem with Denbigh and Mallory referring to it as the 'program', because IMO this is the title used at a planning and management level.
    The '00 section' is the program put into effect.

    Having said that, I do share the concern, and hope they don't start calling the section that from now on - keep it as 00 'section', or even 'division' as seen on MI6/Q props from the Brosnan era.

    I see where you are coming from. Is it possible the writers came up with the line "scrap the 00 section forever" but felt it sounded strange, and wound up changing the word 'section' instead of the word 'scrap'? Does that make any sense?

    At any rate, all they had to do was to have M say something like "close the 00 section forever" and they would've managed to stick to known Bond terminology.
  • TripAces wrote: »
    A Mendes return would not be the worst thing. I still blame a messed up script and a stubborn shooting schedule for how SP turned out, though the shooting range pictures were ridiculous and well within Mendes’ control. I agree with @bondjames in that SM would look to rectify things a bit

    Problem is he can't. Can't like in he is not able to. All he can is melodrama and I think it's fair to say just about everybody has enough of that.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 1,162
    mattjoes wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'll stick to the Scooby Gang moniker. Because they're as clumsy as the Scooby Gang.
    I'll stick to the Scooby Gang moniker. Because they're as clumsy as the Scooby Gang.

    True, they let former MI6 agents post agent profiles on Youtube, and unknowingly hire SPECTRE agents that plot to merge MI6 and demolish the Double-O Section while incorrectly referring to it as the "Double-O Program".
    Bernard Lee's M would tolerate none of that.

    "Of all the fouled-up, half-witted operations!"

    ---

    Yes, that "Double-O Program" term is utterly wrong. The use of Double-Ohs isn't meant to be a temporary, transient thing. It's permanent, and it's no program.

    Also the notion that every police man stands in awe, once he gets the term "00 program" thrown at him in itself it's ridiculous. Not that it matters with SP.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2017 Posts: 9,117
    It was funny when you wrote it. It isn t funny when forty others repeat it every day for two years.

    Nobody is laughing about it mate, I can assure you.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'll stick to the Scooby Gang moniker. Because they're as clumsy as the Scooby Gang.
    I'll stick to the Scooby Gang moniker. Because they're as clumsy as the Scooby Gang.

    True, they let former MI6 agents post agent profiles on Youtube, and unknowingly hire SPECTRE agents that plot to merge MI6 and demolish the Double-O Section while incorrectly referring to it as the "Double-O Program".
    Bernard Lee's M would tolerate none of that.

    "Of all the fouled-up, half-witted operations!"

    ---

    Yes, that "Double-O Program" term is utterly wrong. The use of Double-Ohs isn't meant to be a temporary, transient thing. It's permanent, and it's no program.

    Also the notion that every police man stands in awe, once he gets the term "00 program" thrown at him in itself it's ridiculous. Not that it matters with SP.

    True.

    Once the shark has already been jumped moaning that the Fonz doesn't quite nail the landing seems a little redundant.

    The whole final act just needed someone on set with an airhorn that played this:



    Then every time someone came up with a shit idea like brothergate or the 00 program you would go up and hit them in the face with 'STOP GETTING BOND WRONG!' at 200 decibels.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 154
    Of Waltz, Mendes, Newman and Sedoux who would we be most dismayed to see return?

    For my money(penny):
    1. Newman
    2. Mendes
    3. Seydoux
    4. The Spanish Inquisition

    (Bet you didn't expect to see the Spanish Inquisition...)
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    It was funny when you wrote it. It isn t funny when forty others repeat it every day for two years.

    Nobody is laughing about it mate, I can assure you.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'll stick to the Scooby Gang moniker. Because they're as clumsy as the Scooby Gang.
    I'll stick to the Scooby Gang moniker. Because they're as clumsy as the Scooby Gang.

    True, they let former MI6 agents post agent profiles on Youtube, and unknowingly hire SPECTRE agents that plot to merge MI6 and demolish the Double-O Section while incorrectly referring to it as the "Double-O Program".
    Bernard Lee's M would tolerate none of that.

    "Of all the fouled-up, half-witted operations!"

    ---

    Yes, that "Double-O Program" term is utterly wrong. The use of Double-Ohs isn't meant to be a temporary, transient thing. It's permanent, and it's no program.

    Also the notion that every police man stands in awe, once he gets the term "00 program" thrown at him in itself it's ridiculous. Not that it matters with SP.

    True.

    Once the shark has already been jumped moaning that the Fonz doesn't quite nail the landing seems a little redundant.

    The whole final act just needed someone on set with an airhorn that played this:



    Then every time someone came up with a shit idea like brothergate or the 00 program you would go up and hit them in the face with 'STOP GETTING BOND WRONG!' at 200 decibels.

    Alan Partridge for Bond 25 director!

    And when on set, he can call Craig like this:


  • edited November 2017 Posts: 154
    DELETED -- Darn thing posted a second time. "You only post twice, Mr. Bond."

  • Posts: 3,334
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I coined that one!

    It was funny when you wrote it. It isn t funny when forty others repeat it every day for two years.
    Hasn't stopped you from posting an endless succession of unfunny cartoons, and Adolf-Putin memes, now has it? People in glass houses and all that. Just a thought.

    The more we drive our disdain of the "Scooby Gang" home, the more chance it has of being being picked up by studio bosses and consigned to the dustbin. I'm all for keeping this one rolling.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255

    bondsum wrote: »

    The more we drive our disdain of the "Scooby Gang" home, the more chance it has of being being picked up by studio bosses and consigned to the dustbin. I'm all for keeping this one rolling.

    What is EON’s level of awareness of fan sites and forums?

  • bondsum wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I coined that one!

    It was funny when you wrote it. It isn t funny when forty others repeat it every day for two years.
    Hasn't stopped you from posting an endless succession of unfunny cartoons, and Adolf-Putin memes, now has it? People in glass houses and all that. Just a thought.

    The more we drive our disdain of the "Scooby Gang" home, the more chance it has of being being picked up by studio bosses and consigned to the dustbin. I'm all for keeping this one rolling.

    +1
  • Posts: 4,619
    talos7 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »

    The more we drive our disdain of the "Scooby Gang" home, the more chance it has of being being picked up by studio bosses and consigned to the dustbin. I'm all for keeping this one rolling.

    What is EON’s level of awareness of fan sites and forums?
    Extremely high. They decided against Blofeld's return after I announced that I'm out if Waltz is back.
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    I think eric braeden (victor newman from the young and the restless) would make a great bond villain.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited November 2017 Posts: 732
    EoN should not read or listen to fan forums/sites at all ... Daniel Craig would most likely not have been cast and Casino Royale a really different movie ... to out loss, as we know now.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 386
    Tensions will soon be high at EON. It's legacy time and Craig's tenure could go either way.

    What he needs to do is recapture his CR virility, which Mendes choked out of him over two films.

    First by suddenly making him an old dog in SF.

    The less said about Craig's inert performance in SP the better.

    If you look at the four films in totality, you see a graduation from potent, romantic, brutal ass-kicker to placid ornament.

    That's what Mendes has done with Bond - have him stand stock still while the cinematographer snaps off gorgeous shot after gorgeous shot.

    Dunno about others, but for me the Bond that Craig started with, the one that kicked off favourable comparisons to Connery, has been destroyed by pretentious direction.

    SF may have several excellent attributes but there is no doubt in my mind that the rot started then.

    Bringing Mendes back would be a disaster.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Craig needs to recapture his CR virility, which Mendes choked out of him over two films.

    First by suddenly making him an old dog in SF.

    The less said about Craig's inert performance in SP the better.

    If you look at the four films in totality, you see a graduation from potent, romantic, brutal ass-kicker to placid ornament.

    That's what Mendes has done with Bond - have him stand stock still while the cinematographer snaps off gorgeous shot after gorgeous shot.

    Dunno about others, but for me the Bond that Craig started with, the one that kicked off favourable comparisons to Connery, has been destroyed by pretentious direction.

    SF may have several excellent attributes but there is no doubt on my mind that the rot started then.

    Bringing Mendes back would be a disaster.
    As much as I like SF and it was something new in the movie serie I wholeheartedly agree with you.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 6,844
    Least desired to return:

    1. Mendes

    Responsible for much of the fanwankery and over-homaging, irresponsible spending, and (I’m sure, through his collaboration with Logan) absurd plot developments like retconning Skyfall and Brothergate. He needs to be banned from Bond forever.

    2. Waltz

    Couldn’t get along with Mendes, turned in a less than stellar performance by his own admission. I honestly don’t know what Waltz has done that nears a fraction of the greatness of Inglourious Basterds. I’m not sure he really does have anything to offer a future Bond film. Also, Waltz’s Blofeld and everything surrounding that character left such a sour taste I’d rather not see any more of him.

    3. Newman

    I really would rather he not return, but he probably wouldn’t be completely awful in the hands of a saner director. Newman has said that with Spectre he was instructed to repeat cues from Skyfall so a chunk of the blame for Spectre’s score can even be laid at Mendes’s door.

    4. Seydoux

    An actress with both great looks and great talent. A character with potential. She doesn’t need to return, but in the hands of a better director she would be the very least objectionable to me.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited November 2017 Posts: 4,589
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Tensions will soon be high at EON. It's legacy time and Craig's tenure could go either way.

    What he needs to do is recapture his CR virility, which Mendes choked out of him over two films.

    First by suddenly making him an old dog in SF.

    The less said about Craig's inert performance in SP the better.

    If you look at the four films in totality, you see a graduation from potent, romantic, brutal ass-kicker to placid ornament.

    That's what Mendes has done with Bond - have him stand stock still while the cinematographer snaps off gorgeous shot after gorgeous shot.

    Dunno about others, but for me the Bond that Craig started with, the one that kicked off favourable comparisons to Connery, has been destroyed by pretentious direction.

    SF may have several excellent attributes but there is no doubt in my mind that the rot started then.

    Bringing Mendes back would be a disaster.


    I credit Mendes and DC for making Bond human in SF. You say "old dog," I say relateable character. You say "placid ornament" I say there are three bad ass fight scenes in SF and a PTS in SP that suggests Bond is anything but an "ornament."

    For all its flaws, Spectre is still a better film than Brosnan's four, Dalton's two, and RM's last four.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Tensions will soon be high at EON. It's legacy time and Craig's tenure could go either way.

    What he needs to do is recapture his CR virility, which Mendes choked out of him over two films.

    First by suddenly making him an old dog in SF.

    The less said about Craig's inert performance in SP the better.

    If you look at the four films in totality, you see a graduation from potent, romantic, brutal ass-kicker to placid ornament.

    That's what Mendes has done with Bond - have him stand stock still while the cinematographer snaps off gorgeous shot after gorgeous shot.

    Dunno about others, but for me the Bond that Craig started with, the one that kicked off favourable comparisons to Connery, has been destroyed by pretentious direction.

    SF may have several excellent attributes but there is no doubt in my mind that the rot started then.

    Bringing Mendes back would be a disaster.

    Can't disagree with much of that.
    TripAces wrote: »
    I credit Mendes and DC for making Bond human in SF. You say "old dog," I say relateable character. You say "placid ornament" I say there are three bad ass fight scenes in SF and a PTS in SP that suggests Bond is anything but an "ornament."

    I think you're mistaking Mendes and DC for Campbell and DC. CR already gave us a human Bond and bad ass fight scenes in spades. Let's not pretend Mendes was some kind of revolutionary innovator. In fact give Glen Deakins and Hoyte and saddle Mendes with the TV movie cinematography of LTK and his output doesn't look half as impressive. Mutton dressed as lamb.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 832
    TripAces wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Tensions will soon be high at EON. It's legacy time and Craig's tenure could go either way.

    What he needs to do is recapture his CR virility, which Mendes choked out of him over two films.

    First by suddenly making him an old dog in SF.

    The less said about Craig's inert performance in SP the better.

    If you look at the four films in totality, you see a graduation from potent, romantic, brutal ass-kicker to placid ornament.

    That's what Mendes has done with Bond - have him stand stock still while the cinematographer snaps off gorgeous shot after gorgeous shot.

    Dunno about others, but for me the Bond that Craig started with, the one that kicked off favourable comparisons to Connery, has been destroyed by pretentious direction.

    SF may have several excellent attributes but there is no doubt in my mind that the rot started then.

    Bringing Mendes back would be a disaster.


    I credit Mendes and DC for making Bond human in SF. You say "old dog," I say relateable character. You say "placid ornament" I say there are three bad ass fight scenes in SF and a PTS in SP that suggests Bond is anything but an "ornament."

    For all its flaws, Spectre is still a better film than Brosnan's four, Dalton's two, and RM's last four.

    Ill grant you die anothee day, moonraker, and a view to a kill, marginally I would add, but thats it. Twine beats sp imo.
  • Posts: 12,525
    I like SP fine, but GE is far superior I think. I'd also put both of Dalton's and FYEO above it. OP is about a tossup with SP.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Tensions will soon be high at EON. It's legacy time and Craig's tenure could go either way.

    What he needs to do is recapture his CR virility, which Mendes choked out of him over two films.

    First by suddenly making him an old dog in SF.

    The less said about Craig's inert performance in SP the better.

    If you look at the four films in totality, you see a graduation from potent, romantic, brutal ass-kicker to placid ornament.

    That's what Mendes has done with Bond - have him stand stock still while the cinematographer snaps off gorgeous shot after gorgeous shot.

    Dunno about others, but for me the Bond that Craig started with, the one that kicked off favourable comparisons to Connery, has been destroyed by pretentious direction.

    SF may have several excellent attributes but there is no doubt in my mind that the rot started then.

    Bringing Mendes back would be a disaster.

    Agree. I also agree Mendes movies are better than a lot of the other films, but so what. He’s incapable of making a CR, so I don’t want him anywhere near the next movie.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 12,525
    Also agreed. SF is a great Bond film and SP is a decent one, but they should do everything they can to make Craig's sendoff as great as it can be. Mendes contributed some good stuff, but it was clear he was running out of gas with SP. We need a long-running Bond actor to finally get a high-quality sendoff film.
Sign In or Register to comment.