› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…12041205120712091210…2507

Comments

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    @bondjames Nicely put :P
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    I agree they seem to have been throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. QoS definitely makes the least sense; Skyfall's being at the end could be justified as Bond starting anew and beginning a new mission with Fiennes' M in charge as others have said.
    You could easily say that the ending of QoS gives us a Bond being through with his personal cleansing, ready for duty, and SF redundantly repeats that theme.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    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.

    This.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    Good point. Personally I hope they stick with what they did for Spectre (and I strictly mean the gunbarrel, not the words), partly because I don't feel like we're going to get anything more traditional than that going forward. Be very happy to have the side-to-side movement and the dot opening on the scene, but I don't think it's in the cards.
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    edited December 2017 Posts: 4,412
    It appears that someone at this forum either works for the Express or their journalists stalk these pages...

    The Nolan rumour makes zero sense to me. He has basically inferred that he'd only be interested in the franchise if he was allowed the opportunity to "reboot" it once again. That likely means that Nolan only becomes a viable option once Craig has left. Even then, he likely wouldn't do it as he's one of the few folks in the business that writes whatever he wants and gets large Hollywood budgets nonetheless.

    Nolan, is a talented filmmaker, but he's a self-serving man and likely doesn't want to inherit over a decade's worth of narrative carved by other directors. However, the thought of Nolan doing a one-off finale for Craig is a fantastic proposition. Something like "Inception" meets "Logan". but Nolan is such a cold filmmaker, I doubt he's the man to do an emotional finale for Craig.

    Plus Nolan's politics are a little troublesome for me. "Dunkirk" was embraced too readily by the leave mob and Nolan only exacerbated the matter after writing an article for The Telegraph, etc. If he got his hands on an actual British icon, I shudder to think of the right-wing nonsense we'd be forced to swallow.

    In many respects, Mendes is the right guy to see off Craig's era. I was totally bored of his directorial choices by the end of Spectre. But he is ideally placed to finish this off. Plus Sam is riding a huge wave of success recently, he just won the Evening Standard Best Director award for Jez Butterworth's "The Ferryman". Is a Mendes return on the cards?

    http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/jez-butterworth-and-sam-mendes-attend-a-drinks-reception-news-photo/885129874?esource=SEO_GIS_CDN_Redirect#jez-butterworth-and-sam-mendes-attend-a-drinks-reception-ahead-of-the-picture-id885129874

    (these two brothers??!? Uncanny)

    Personally, I'm hoping more than anything that Yann Demange is announced soon. He's cool, young and edgy. Exactly what I need after the boring and stagnant Spectre. If you've not seen the brutal chase scenes in '"71" then do yourself a favour.



    Also listen to Yann comment on a scene here:



  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    edited December 2017 Posts: 2,115
    For what it's worth.



    "Talked to someone today who works in the film industry and has offices at Pinewood. Says #Bond25 team starting work there in March 2018. Production delayed a little by ‘Han Solo’ Movie reshoots.
    #Bond #007"

  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    For what it's worth.


    This timing would make sense. Broccoli wants the director announced early 2018; I could see us getting a few new details in February or March and then production begins.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Would that just be for constructing sets and whatnot, or would actual production begin then? Seems a bit early with an October/November 2019 release date.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Would that just be for constructing sets and whatnot, or would actual production begin then? Seems a bit early with an October/November 2019 release date.
    True. They may still move that date. I think it's going to be too busy around that time with WW-2 and SW-9 in the frame. The latter in particular is going to be huge.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited December 2017 Posts: 4,619
    FoxRox wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    For what it's worth.


    This timing would make sense.
    Would it? Do they usually start working at Pinewood more than 6 months before the start of filming? And it would be pretty surprising if they ended up starting production (aka filming) significantly sooner than late 2018. Maybe Quantumwhatshisname was right after all, and they WILL start filming in spring 2018?
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    There for sure location scouting now or have already , by next spring or summer we will know locations & action sequences
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited December 2017 Posts: 6,393
    boldfinger wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    I agree they seem to have been throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. QoS definitely makes the least sense; Skyfall's being at the end could be justified as Bond starting anew and beginning a new mission with Fiennes' M in charge as others have said.
    You could easily say that the ending of QoS gives us a Bond being through with his personal cleansing, ready for duty, and SF redundantly repeats that theme.

    I like QoS but the film itself is redundant in terms of Bond's journey. He became Bond at the end of CR, then he became Bond again at the end of QoS (and frankly, became Bond again at the end of SF).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    echo wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    I agree they seem to have been throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. QoS definitely makes the least sense; Skyfall's being at the end could be justified as Bond starting anew and beginning a new mission with Fiennes' M in charge as others have said.
    You could easily say that the ending of QoS gives us a Bond being through with his personal cleansing, ready for duty, and SF redundantly repeats that theme.

    I like QoS but the film itself is redundant in terms of Bond's journey. He became Bond at the end of CR, then he became Bond again at the end of QoS (and frankly, became Bond again at the end of SF).
    So true.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    I respectfully disagree. I prefer to think of it as each ending him becoming more and more Bond. At the end of CR he has learned trust no one and gets his famous line. At the end of QoS he has conquered personal demons that hadn’t been addressed in the end of CR. At the end of SF he has a new M, Moneypenny, and Q for the first time, and seems to have become traditional Bond. SP throughout pretty much was traditional Bond. I’d even argue SF is a pretty traditional Bond film; Moneypenny and Q get their first appearances, but they are still there.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I respectfully disagree. I prefer to think of it as each ending him becoming more and more Bond. At the end of CR he has learned trust no one and gets his famous line. At the end of QoS he has conquered personal demons that hadn’t been addressed in the end of CR. At the end of SF he has a new M, Moneypenny, and Q for the first time, and seems to have become traditional Bond. SP throughout pretty much was traditional Bond. I’d even argue SF is a pretty traditional Bond film; Moneypenny and Q get their first appearances, but they are still there.

    I'd love to think all this symbolism was carefully thought out from start to finish but you'll never be able to convince me the whole era hasn't been cobbled together with about as much foresight and planning as a teenager banging out their homework on the bus to school.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I respectfully disagree. I prefer to think of it as each ending him becoming more and more Bond. At the end of CR he has learned trust no one and gets his famous line. At the end of QoS he has conquered personal demons that hadn’t been addressed in the end of CR. At the end of SF he has a new M, Moneypenny, and Q for the first time, and seems to have become traditional Bond. SP throughout pretty much was traditional Bond. I’d even argue SF is a pretty traditional Bond film; Moneypenny and Q get their first appearances, but they are still there.

    I'd love to think all this symbolism was carefully thought out from start to finish but you'll never be able to convince me the whole era hasn't been cobbled together with about as much foresight and planning as a teenager banging out their homework on the bus to school.

    I’m not even saying it was all planned out. I’m just arguing against the idea it was repetitive with each film. They still tried something different with all of Craig’s Bond films. Some of it is messy even, but I just take it for what it is and appreciate that they tried new things every time to add to Bond’s character.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    bondjames wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    I agree they seem to have been throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. QoS definitely makes the least sense; Skyfall's being at the end could be justified as Bond starting anew and beginning a new mission with Fiennes' M in charge as others have said.
    You could easily say that the ending of QoS gives us a Bond being through with his personal cleansing, ready for duty, and SF redundantly repeats that theme.

    I like QoS but the film itself is redundant in terms of Bond's journey. He became Bond at the end of CR, then he became Bond again at the end of QoS (and frankly, became Bond again at the end of SF).
    So true.

    I've always found that annoying as well. CR, QoS and SF basically all have the same ending (complete with the same tired 2006 arrangement of the Bond theme).

    That's part of the reason I thought SP was so good. It was basically the film I'd been waiting for since CR.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    Despite some recent backlash, I like the whole Craig era. Best era since Connery/Lazenby for me.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    echo wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    I agree they seem to have been throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. QoS definitely makes the least sense; Skyfall's being at the end could be justified as Bond starting anew and beginning a new mission with Fiennes' M in charge as others have said.
    You could easily say that the ending of QoS gives us a Bond being through with his personal cleansing, ready for duty, and SF redundantly repeats that theme.

    I like QoS but the film itself is redundant in terms of Bond's journey. He became Bond at the end of CR, then he became Bond again at the end of QoS (and frankly, became Bond again at the end of SF).
    Fair point.


    FoxRox wrote: »
    I respectfully disagree. I prefer to think of it as each ending him becoming more and more Bond. At the end of CR he has learned trust no one and gets his famous line. At the end of QoS he has conquered personal demons that hadn’t been addressed in the end of CR. At the end of SF he has a new M, Moneypenny, and Q for the first time, and seems to have become traditional Bond. SP throughout pretty much was traditional Bond. I’d even argue SF is a pretty traditional Bond film; Moneypenny and Q get their first appearances, but they are still there.
    I have trouble imagining it like that.

    Re: SF being a pretty traditional Bond film. I cannot disagree more. In no way is SF traditional. It´s by a margin the least traditional of all.


    FoxRox wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I respectfully disagree. I prefer to think of it as each ending him becoming more and more Bond. At the end of CR he has learned trust no one and gets his famous line. At the end of QoS he has conquered personal demons that hadn’t been addressed in the end of CR. At the end of SF he has a new M, Moneypenny, and Q for the first time, and seems to have become traditional Bond. SP throughout pretty much was traditional Bond. I’d even argue SF is a pretty traditional Bond film; Moneypenny and Q get their first appearances, but they are still there.

    I'd love to think all this symbolism was carefully thought out from start to finish but you'll never be able to convince me the whole era hasn't been cobbled together with about as much foresight and planning as a teenager banging out their homework on the bus to school.

    I’m not even saying it was all planned out. I’m just arguing against the idea it was repetitive with each film. They still tried something different with all of Craig’s Bond films. Some of it is messy even, but I just take it for what it is and appreciate that they tried new things every time to add to Bond’s character.
    I don´t appreciate adding the attribute of a miserable sod to Bond´s character in SF.

  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    it says, Starts THERE. If they Start the whole Production only in March, Film Will Never be ready end of the year. They are in Trouble if they start any later then January.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Bond should have finished his “rookie” journey by the end of CR, and the rest should’ve had a professional MI-6 operative on the job, taking on some real villains without any personal vendetta.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2017 Posts: 12,837
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Bond should have finished his “rookie” journey by the end of CR, and the rest should’ve had a professional MI-6 operative on the job, taking on some real villains without any personal vendetta.

    Yep. With "the bitch is dead" and then "Bond, James Bond", that character arc was pretty much done. Not sure why they dragged it out for even longer in QoS and broke him down at the start of SF so they could do it again.

    Say what you will about SP but they kept the fleshed out human seeming Bond and did something different with him. They finally understood that keeping the approach CR had didn't mean they had to repeat it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Germanlady wrote: »
    it says, Starts THERE. If they Start the whole Production only in March, Film Will Never be ready end of the year. They are in Trouble if they start any later then January.

    That's a difference of 19 or 21 months before release, which is obviously way more time than they would need. Starting in March 2019, however, would be a different story entirely.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    I've heard the name Ringo Mountbatten before. Hasn't he had a scoop a while back? Anyone remember?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2017 Posts: 15,423
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Bond should have finished his “rookie” journey by the end of CR, and the rest should’ve had a professional MI-6 operative on the job, taking on some real villains without any personal vendetta.

    Yep. With "the bitch is dead" and then "Bond, James Bond", that character arc was pretty much done. Not sure why they dragged it out for even longer in QoS and broke him down at the start of SF so they could do it again.

    Say what you will about SP but they kept the fleshed out human seeming Bond and did something different with him. They finally understood that keeping the approach CR had didn't mean they had to repeat it.
    Exactly, hence my gripe with the Craig era and particularly SF (oh that one has a lot to answer for). I like QoS, but the film was handled wrongfully. SP has loads of flaws and one of them is having an inconsistent and insensible plot, but one of the things they got right about it is Bond’s characterization which is why I forgive it more than some others.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    Well at least most of us can agree CR is good anyway.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    I hate Casino Royale. Blegh! </joke>
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    A few do. But it is easily the most beloved Craig Bond film.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    It’s still my favorite, with Skyfall coming in second.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    edited December 2017 Posts: 12,525
    SF definitely has its detractors around here, but I have loved it ever since I first saw it, and it is easily my second favorite still. I consider CR and SF to be top-tier Bond, and QoS and SP to be middle ground (which is still good).
Sign In or Register to comment.