› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…12201221122312251226…2507

Comments

  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    //Not that I'm suggesting Eon follow the Marvel blueprint, but the fact remains, it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds.//

    In a lot of ways, Marvel followed the original Bond blueprint. In both cases, they didn't hire "A-list" directors. In both cases, they didn't hire the best-known actors. Robert Downey Jr. was known but he was very much in comeback mode in 2008.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    //Marvel have done it superbly imho. Parker, Thor, Loki, Rogers et al are perfectly cast. Those actors capture the respective characters to perfection. Textbook.//

    While I agree, in the last week or so, I saw a quote from Kevin Feige. Filming on the first Avengers movie already was underway before the first Thor and Captain America movies came out in 2011. He and others at Marvel were nervous waiting to see how those castings would be received while production for The Avengers was underway.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    //Not that I'm suggesting Eon follow the Marvel blueprint, but the fact remains, it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds.//

    In a lot of ways, Marvel followed the original Bond blueprint. In both cases, they didn't hire "A-list" directors. In both cases, they didn't hire the best-known actors. Robert Downey Jr. was known but he was very much in comeback mode in 2008.

    I don't think Christian Bale was a massive star when Nolan chose him for Batman Begins either.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    //Not that I'm suggesting Eon follow the Marvel blueprint, but the fact remains, it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds.//

    In a lot of ways, Marvel followed the original Bond blueprint. In both cases, they didn't hire "A-list" directors. In both cases, they didn't hire the best-known actors. Robert Downey Jr. was known but he was very much in comeback mode in 2008.

    its all about that magic word CONTROL

    Marvel has a vision, and they hire those that can execute that vision to their specifications... they don't want people who are going to rock the boat - they want the person who is just going to say "yes, and how high." ...

    Edward Norton wanted too much say and control over his Bruce Banner / Hulk character - they kicked him to the curb and recasted him with Mark Ruffalo

    Edgar Wright wanted too much artist control over Ant-Man, they parted ways and replaced him Peyton Reed

    and in many ways the same could be said about Joss Whedon being usurped by the Russo Brothers.

    their most prominent name is a lead role they casted was Robert Downey Jr... who wasn't a huge star - but was well known (enough).. the rest have been relative unknowns or newcomers.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    //Not that I'm suggesting Eon follow the Marvel blueprint, but the fact remains, it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds.//

    In a lot of ways, Marvel followed the original Bond blueprint. In both cases, they didn't hire "A-list" directors. In both cases, they didn't hire the best-known actors. Robert Downey Jr. was known but he was very much in comeback mode in 2008.
    It's true. As I said some weeks ago, EON created the sausage factory template approach to a degree, and Disney have taken it to the next level with SW & Marvel. So much so that they even do the post credit teaser, while Bond no longer does the beloved post credit title for the next film.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    edited December 2017 Posts: 2,115
    //(Babs is 57, MGW is 77).//

    I think he's 75 (b. 1942). She was born in 1960. That's not a big difference (77 vs. 75), of course.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @haserot, regarding control - wasn't that Cubby's approach too? That's how they ran things in the past. Tight. With a vision. Less artsy fartsy and more production line. The result we got reflected that. What we're getting now is a bit different, and the approach is different too, with far more actor/director control. I preferred the old way, but I suppose we won't see that again without a shift in 'control' (pun intended).
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    @haserot it's not beyond Eon employing an older actor for Bond post Craig, it will depend on there plans moving forward.

    Brosnan was 42 in 1995
    Dalton 41 in 1987
    Moore 46 in 1973

    not in this day and age.. back then - they were pumping these films out every other year.. nowadays, we are lucky if we 2 films in 5 years.. they aren't going to cast someone anymore in their mid 40s, and only have them around for possibly 2 films before they'd have to consider going through another recasting..

    the other thing you have to remember to - they like picking outside of the box, or against popular/obvious choice - and a lot of that reasoning is due to $$$... Tom Hardy falls squarely in that "popular/obvious" choice.... they can keep a relatively fresh face in the roll of Bond for longer, for less money - than someone say like a Tom Hardy, who currently would probably want close to what DC is making per picture..

    so while you are correct... the only Bond who started in their mid 40s (which was my criteria) was Roger Moore - but those were different times.. i highly doubt they cast someone that old again.
    Another great reason why Aidan Turner is right for the part.
    Please, someone ban him.
    Heaven forbid someone supported an opinion of his own.

    I'm not Turner's biggest fan, but I see reasons equal zero as to why should he be banned.

    My opinion is that OHMSS is the best Bond movie ever made, it doesn't mean I repeat that in every single post of mine. He's been saying that for two years already, if not more.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I don't have a problem with anyone's advocacy for any actor. The drumbeat will probably increase soon anyway, as we have had over a decade of one man in the role.

    I didn't know anything about Turner until @Mendes4Lyfe brought him up, and I see some potential. The comments I've read here from some about his look being 'un-British' are quite amusing though.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    To be fair to @Mendes, I've read more people complaining about his support of Turner or bringing it up to argue against him on something completely unrelated, than I have him actually bring it up himself lately. And I don't really see what the harm is anyway. We all repeat ourselves on here.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    They dont have the energy anymore, it was exhausting for them to make SP in three years.
    I would be exhausted too if I wanted to make a Bond film and realise that the outcome is SP. Must have been so frustrating for them.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2017 Posts: 12,837
    MGW is basically retired at this point anyway isn't he? Which is a shame because I'd love it if he was still writing the scripts, never mind producing. The impression I get is that BB and DC are the key players nowadays.

    And I don't buy the exhausting talk really. I'm sure it is tiring and stressful but at the end of the day production lasts less than a year. And they earn millions and then have as much time off as they want after. People have much tougher jobs that pay much less than playing or producing James Bond does all year round.

    If their heart isn't in it, if they think they'd get bored doing Bond after Bond and would rather make time for other projects too then fair enough but I don't buy the idea that they'd make more Bond films than one every four years if it wasn't so "exhausting".
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    bondjames wrote: »
    There is a difference between age and gravitas. One can be a younger actor and have/convey maturity. That's a skill. So I don't mind if the actor is younger, but I do mind when they get 'older'. I also mind when films are altered to accommodate age (whether it be in the stunt department, action department or 'babe' - sorry if that's sexist in this environment - department). That is one of the reasons I have concerns about B25.
    Absolutely, and whoever they cast as Bond should have both. My point is that the trend today is to cast actors in big roles that don't have enough of either.

    bondsum wrote: »
    I find it strange that people talk about past Bond castings as if they were from some bygone Golden Age of Hollywood (1920s, 30s and 40s). I mean, seriously, things haven't changed that much since 2006 when Craig first took his bow. Let's just apply the same logic to Marvel castings then, shall we. Apart from Robert Downey Jr (the comeback rehabilitation kid), all the superhero casting roles have since gone to relatively low-key actors in the lead roles. Not that I'm suggesting Eon follow the Marvel blueprint, but the fact remains, it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds. The same thing goes for Bond, too.
    I don't get it. Who said it's necessary to cast a well-known actor?

    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    MGW is basically retired at this point anyway isn't he? Which is a shame because I'd love it if he was still writing the scripts, never mind producing. The impression I get is that BB and DC are the key players nowadays.
    Do we have serious reasons to think he is retired? After all, the films are still "produced by Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson." He is not the most visible of the two, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a say on things.

    Hell, I'd create an internet petition for him to write another Bond film, if at least that resulted in someone telling him some random internet people want him back in that capacity. I like Purvis and Wade but for a change it'd be nice to get some of that G. Wilson touch again!

    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    And I don't buy the exhausting talk really. I'm sure it is tiring and stressful but at the end of the day production lasts less than a year. And they earn millions and then have as much time off as they want after. People have much tougher jobs that pay much less than playing or producing James Bond does all year round.

    If their heart isn't in it, if they think they'd get bored doing Bond after Bond and would rather make time for other projects too then fair enough but I don't buy the idea that they'd make more Bond films than one every four years if it wasn't so "exhausting".
    That's what I meant before by the films being treated as more of a hobby. I'm sure they take the job seriously when they make a film, but I get this vibe that after a film is done, it's almost as if they left time pass until someone says "hmm, we probably should make another Bond film now." "Mmkay." Metaphorically speaking, of course. Of course I'm sure the fact they don't keep going all the time like Marvel also makes the process of making the films more laborious than it would otherwise be. You lose momentum.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2017 Posts: 12,837
    Yeah don't get me wrong I do like Purvis and Wade but I think especially recently there's been a big focus on character over plot. And I do like that we have actual fleshed out characters now but at the same time, can we not have both? OP, TLD and LTK had brilliant inventive and original stories thanks to him and Maibuam, so I'd love it if MGW could either write or cowrite one last script and bring a bit of that old magic back.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    Purvis and Wade are overhated around here. They are far from perfect, but way overhated.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    I find it strange that people talk about past Bond castings as if they were from some bygone Golden Age of Hollywood (1920s, 30s and 40s). I mean, seriously, things haven't changed that much since 2006 when Craig first took his bow. Let's just apply the same logic to Marvel castings then, shall we. Apart from Robert Downey Jr (the comeback rehabilitation kid), all the superhero casting roles have since gone to relatively low-key actors in the lead roles. Not that I'm suggesting Eon follow the Marvel blueprint, but the fact remains, it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds. The same thing goes for Bond, too.
    I don't get it. Who said it's necessary to cast a well-known actor?
    I had indicated earlier that I thought Bond #007 would be a more famous actor than Craig was at the time of his casting given the current state of the franchise and the need to appeal globally. I still think that will be the case, unless a big director like Nolan gets the job. Just a gut feel. I could of course be wrong. I don't think they will reboot next time bur rather just carry on from where we are, unless again we have Nolan in which case there will likely be a reboot of sorts.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Walecs wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    @haserot it's not beyond Eon employing an older actor for Bond post Craig, it will depend on there plans moving forward.

    Brosnan was 42 in 1995
    Dalton 41 in 1987
    Moore 46 in 1973

    not in this day and age.. back then - they were pumping these films out every other year.. nowadays, we are lucky if we 2 films in 5 years.. they aren't going to cast someone anymore in their mid 40s, and only have them around for possibly 2 films before they'd have to consider going through another recasting..

    the other thing you have to remember to - they like picking outside of the box, or against popular/obvious choice - and a lot of that reasoning is due to $$$... Tom Hardy falls squarely in that "popular/obvious" choice.... they can keep a relatively fresh face in the roll of Bond for longer, for less money - than someone say like a Tom Hardy, who currently would probably want close to what DC is making per picture..

    so while you are correct... the only Bond who started in their mid 40s (which was my criteria) was Roger Moore - but those were different times.. i highly doubt they cast someone that old again.
    Another great reason why Aidan Turner is right for the part.
    Please, someone ban him.
    Heaven forbid someone supported an opinion of his own.

    I'm not Turner's biggest fan, but I see reasons equal zero as to why should he be banned.

    My opinion is that OHMSS is the best Bond movie ever made, it doesn't mean I repeat that in every single post of mine. He's been saying that for two years already, if not more.
    If his opinion doesn’t harass someone or pose as a scam or go against the rules of these forums, I don’t see the harm in his comments or advocacy for any actor. He’s passionate about it and is a Bond fan as much as you are or the next man. Wanting him banned for advocating something you’re not satisfied with is close to dictate someone, which as far as I’m concerned, doesn’t apply to the rules of this site.

    There are shed load of people here I wholeheartedly disagree with. What I do about it? Nothing. I just ignore them.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    bondjames wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    I find it strange that people talk about past Bond castings as if they were from some bygone Golden Age of Hollywood (1920s, 30s and 40s). I mean, seriously, things haven't changed that much since 2006 when Craig first took his bow. Let's just apply the same logic to Marvel castings then, shall we. Apart from Robert Downey Jr (the comeback rehabilitation kid), all the superhero casting roles have since gone to relatively low-key actors in the lead roles. Not that I'm suggesting Eon follow the Marvel blueprint, but the fact remains, it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds. The same thing goes for Bond, too.
    I don't get it. Who said it's necessary to cast a well-known actor?
    I had indicated earlier that I thought Bond #007 would be a more famous actor than Craig was at the time of his casting given the current state of the franchise and the need to appeal globally. I still think that will be the case, unless a big director like Nolan gets the job. Just a gut feel. I could of course be wrong. I don't think they will reboot next time bur rather just carry on from where we are, unless again we have Nolan in which case there will likely be a reboot of sorts.

    Thanks for clarifying. It's possible. We've had Roger Moore, after all. And Pierce Brosnan.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,441
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Purvis and Wade are overhated around here. They are far from perfect, but way overhated.

    Whoever came up with the name Mr Kil deserves a bit of criticism ;)
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Purvis and Wade are overhated around here. They are far from perfect, but way overhated.

    Whoever came up with the name Mr Kil deserves a bit of criticism ;)

    Hence "far from perfect." People mostly just seem to dwell on their faults rather than give them any credit for the stuff they do right.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,361
    Mr. Kil is still a better name than Hinx. ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm presently watching SP. I believe the criticism is warranted. The dialogue in this film is bloody awful.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,441
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm presently watching SP. I believe the criticism is warranted. The dialogue in this film is bloody awful.

    The scenes between Belluci and Craig make me cringe
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm presently watching SP. I believe the criticism is warranted. The dialogue in this film is bloody awful.

    The scenes between Belluci and Craig make me cringe

    How can you talk like this? Can't you see I'm grieving?
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited December 2017 Posts: 25,441
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm presently watching SP. I believe the criticism is warranted. The dialogue in this film is bloody awful.

    The scenes between Belluci and Craig make me cringe

    How can you talk like this? Can't you see I'm grieving?

    :)) that whole scene is off for me, Craig is way too slimey also
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    Mr. Kil is still a better name than Hinx. ;)
    Right-o! ;)
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,441
    We have had Jinx and Hinx, perhaps we will get Lynx or Minx from P&W next
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    We have had Jinx and Hinx, perhaps we will get Lynx or Minx from P&W next
    Minx sounds interesting. I can go with that. Hinx's wife out for revenge.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    MGW is basically retired at this point anyway isn't he? Which is a shame because I'd love it if he was still writing the scripts, never mind producing. The impression I get is that BB and DC are the key players nowadays.

    And I don't buy the exhausting talk really. I'm sure it is tiring and stressful but at the end of the day production lasts less than a year. And they earn millions and then have as much time off as they want after. People have much tougher jobs that pay much less than playing or producing James Bond does all year round.

    If their heart isn't in it, if they think they'd get bored doing Bond after Bond and would rather make time for other projects too then fair enough but I don't buy the idea that they'd make more Bond films than one every four years if it wasn't so "exhausting".

    to answer your first thing about MGW.... No.. I would love to say absolutely not, but I have no connection to them personally, so I don't know lol.. but no, i believe he's still actively involved in the day.. he wasn't as present during the pressers for SP during pre-production because i believe he was sick, or going through something medically at the moment... i feel like MGW will want to see this through to the 60th Anniversary in 2022, and then he may officially bow out and pass the baton off to Gregg..

    I do in fact buy the exhaustion bit - it is taxing (especially in this day and age) to make films - and especially when your dealing with the kind of crap that went on behind the scenes of SP and QOS...

    personally.. i just think they really enjoy working with Daniel - he likes working with them - the general audiences really enjoy him as Bond - his films are profitable.. so at this point, why ruin a good thing (is probably there reasoning).. if he wants to take a little time between films, then so be it...... because remember too, Brosnan requested an extra year between TWINE and DAD - originally it was slated for 2001, but Broz wanted some time off, and they pushed it back to 2002... if they like working with an actor, they seem to really "work with them" if they want a little break.. which i can't blame them for doing..
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm presently watching SP. I believe the criticism is warranted. The dialogue in this film is bloody awful.

    "Of course...Mr. White!!"

    Never gonna let that one go.
Sign In or Register to comment.