No Time To Die: Production Diary

1125412551257125912602507

Comments

  • Posts: 202
    peter wrote: »
    Outside of locking which director (safe to say not Nolan, for now), and a wobbly feeling that Denis is out... I've not heard of any real Plan B.

    But, as a secret, I can tell you this... I got a PM, by a certain someone, that Aidan Turner will probably be Bond in 25... with... Martin Campbell directing.
    This is truly rather disgusting and awful news. Paul Haggis should rightly be shunned from the film community as a result.

    However, I think the evidence that his contribution to the CR script was substantial. I think a lot of the more psychological and emotional beats in both Bond's arc came from Haggis.

    I started a thread which explored those ideas here:
    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/6397/paul-haggis-talks-casino-royale-and-quantum-of-solace#latest



    Another great interview:
    http://www.grouchoreviews.com/interviews/401


    I think Haggis did an amazing job with CR. His script was obviously bought to life by the great direction of Martin Campbell and a truly outstanding performance by Daniel Craig. Undeniably, Haggis was pivotal to getting there, but he was merely a component of a grander effort. I won't let his behaviour tarnish my enjoyment of CR.

    Haggis is at war with the crazy church of scientology (think Spectre with aliens). If you have a run-in with these nutters, they put you on a black-list and go after you and your family. I wouldn't put it past them to use any dirty trick in the book to tarnish Haggis.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,890
    //The same twitter account as above denounced those claims, however.//

    The twitter account belongs to the same website that houses this message board.

    I was well aware of the association. But why are you pointing that out? It only adds credibility to their statement, due to their alleged contact with EON. That's why they're a noteworthy source after all.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited January 2018 Posts: 15,423
    I think it's safe to say we won't be getting any news until all these award shows are done with.
    That's as "early 2018" as it gets.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Just going back to the helicopter for a moment. That talk was before P&W were even brought on board for script duties. So I think it's safe to assume that it wasn't initially purchased for B25, although given they own the asset now perhaps they will use it in some capacity anyway.
  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 579
    bondjames wrote: »
    Just going back to the helicopter for a moment. That talk was before P&W were even brought on board for script duties. So I think it's safe to assume that it wasn't initially purchased for B25, although given they own the asset now perhaps they will use it in some capacity anyway.

    I could see that occuring as that's what happened with the SPECTRE rewrites. They had committed money and time to building the Bridge set and were forced to have the climax occur there
  • Posts: 5,767
    00Agent wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    Hopefully in a smaller role the way Q was meant to be on the screen.

    Indeed

    Also for all you people wanting more Leiter, don’t get me wrong, he’s the best man to play the role and he’s great in his minimal screen time with the 2 first Craig Films, but with the way these films are going, he will have 40 min of screen time and it will be Scooby gang all over again. I would rather not see him back

    Even if, Felix is an appropriate Scooby Gang character. I rather see him in the field than Tanner/Moneypenny/Q/M.
    Exactly. Felix is a field operative like Bond, just not on the same level of skills and results as he is. M/Q/Moneypenny belong behind desks in their own posts. They are here to move the story forward, not shine out because their respective actors are big name celebrities demanding more screen time and attention.

    To be fair though, i get why people critizise the scooby gang so much, but it's not like this never happened to the other fellas.
    In the Roger Moore era M was constantly in the field, appearing in some of the Most ludicrous places, and most of the time with Moneypenny at his side (YOLT, TMWTGG, in TSWLM and MR he was basically world traveling with 007 from Brasil to Venice, Sardinia and Egypt) and don't get me started on Q, judging by OP and LTK he must have had advanced field operative training, or he had a deathwish.

    But after Spectre i wish they'd tone it down a bit for the next one at least.
    @00Agent, that´s all scenarios with M and MP staying behind their desks. Also Q served only the purpose of delivering field equipment to Bond, LTK offering the only small exception. The Scooby problem is not M, MP and Q abroad, but their roles getting all washed down and disrespected, and the group dynamic getting more and more confused instead of interesting.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Bentley007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Just going back to the helicopter for a moment. That talk was before P&W were even brought on board for script duties. So I think it's safe to assume that it wasn't initially purchased for B25, although given they own the asset now perhaps they will use it in some capacity anyway.

    I could see that occuring as that's what happened with the SPECTRE rewrites. They had committed money and time to building the Bridge set and were forced to have the climax occur there
    True. It's unfortunate that they were forced down that path for SP imho.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    Hopefully in a smaller role the way Q was meant to be on the screen.

    Indeed

    Also for all you people wanting more Leiter, don’t get me wrong, he’s the best man to play the role and he’s great in his minimal screen time with the 2 first Craig Films, but with the way these films are going, he will have 40 min of screen time and it will be Scooby gang all over again. I would rather not see him back

    Even if, Felix is an appropriate Scooby Gang character. I rather see him in the field than Tanner/Moneypenny/Q/M.
    Exactly. Felix is a field operative like Bond, just not on the same level of skills and results as he is. M/Q/Moneypenny belong behind desks in their own posts. They are here to move the story forward, not shine out because their respective actors are big name celebrities demanding more screen time and attention.

    To be fair though, i get why people critizise the scooby gang so much, but it's not like this never happened to the other fellas.
    In the Roger Moore era M was constantly in the field, appearing in some of the Most ludicrous places, and most of the time with Moneypenny at his side (YOLT, TMWTGG, in TSWLM and MR he was basically world traveling with 007 from Brasil to Venice, Sardinia and Egypt) and don't get me started on Q, judging by OP and LTK he must have had advanced field operative training, or he had a deathwish.

    But after Spectre i wish they'd tone it down a bit for the next one at least.
    @00Agent, that´s all scenarios with M and MP staying behind their desks. Also Q served only the purpose of delivering field equipment to Bond, LTK offering the only small exception. The Scooby problem is not M, MP and Q abroad, but their roles getting all washed down and disrespected, and the group dynamic getting more and more confused instead of interesting.
    Very true. From my perspective at least, it cheapens Bond. I'm now almost expecting to see his cohorts save him or inject themselves into things in some way. As I've pointed out, in the SP climax it was Q who shut down Nine Eyes with his keyboard. Bond? He saved Madeline. Oh, and shot down a helicopter carrying his brother.
    TripAces wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Any updates??

    This, today, from Ben Whishaw:

    https://www.metro.us/entertainment/movies/ben-whishaw-james-bond-25-update

    Is it news that he is confirming his return in Bond 25? I suppose so.
    His return is pretty much guaranteed at this point, but I'm most curious about his remarks on things having recently gone quiet.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    bondjames wrote: »
    Very true. From my perspective at least, it cheapens Bond. I'm now almost expecting to see his cohorts save him or inject themselves into things in some way. As I've pointed out, in the SP climax it was Q who shut down Nine Eyes with his keyboard. Bond? He saved Madeline. Oh, and shot down a helicopter carrying his brother.

    And thats personally my biggest gripe with Spectre.
    The movie had no real threat to begin with, which made Waltz a weak and non threatening villain. And the little bit of threat there was, wasn't even stopped by Bond.

    There was no urgency or tension in the finale. Bond and Brofeld were doing their thing (whatever that was) and Q and M were doing their thing, with C. No one cared about the others. The MI6 building still got blown up.

    If Bond hadn't stopped Blofeld in that Helicopter, would it have made any difference to the proceedings? not a single one. They didn't make Blofeld enough of a threat to make me care that he gets caught.
  • Posts: 19,339
    00Agent wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Very true. From my perspective at least, it cheapens Bond. I'm now almost expecting to see his cohorts save him or inject themselves into things in some way. As I've pointed out, in the SP climax it was Q who shut down Nine Eyes with his keyboard. Bond? He saved Madeline. Oh, and shot down a helicopter carrying his brother.

    And thats personally my biggest gripe with Spectre.
    The movie had no real threat to begin with, which made Waltz a weak and non threatening villain. And the little bit of threat there was, wasn't even stopped by Bond.

    There was no urgency or tension in the finale. Bond and Brofeld were doing their thing (whatever that was) and Q and M were doing their thing, with C. No one cared about the others. The MI6 building still got blown up.

    If Bond hadn't stopped Blofeld in that Helicopter, would it have made any difference to the proceedings? not a single one. They didn't make Blofeld enough of a threat to make me care that he gets caught.

    Agreed.
    That's why I created this thread ,to highlight Blofeld escaping :

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/16805/blofeld-did-you-want-him-to-escape-from-bond-in-the-helicopter-and-what-next#latest

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    00Agent wrote: »
    If Bond hadn't stopped Blofeld in that Helicopter, would it have made any difference to the proceedings? not a single one. They didn't make Blofeld enough of a threat to make me care that he gets caught.
    I think they were expecting us to all be moved by the "author of all your pain" element. So ultimately the personal conflict between Brofeld and Bond was supposed to 'up' the emotional quotient for the viewer, like the M/Silva conflict did so well in SF. The trouble is Craig acted as though he didn't give a toss about his tormentor (unlike Dench in the prior entry) and that deflated the entire premise. This plays into the entire impression at the end that he is leaving the service (along with the gun toss of course) with Swann. He was done caring. Moving on. Out of bullets as it were.

    They tried to have it both ways with that ending since he hadn't committed at that point, and ultimately the film ends up a mess on account of it.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    bondjames wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    If Bond hadn't stopped Blofeld in that Helicopter, would it have made any difference to the proceedings? not a single one. They didn't make Blofeld enough of a threat to make me care that he gets caught.
    I think they were expecting us to all be moved by the "author of all your pain" element. So ultimately the personal conflict between Brofeld and Bond was supposed to 'up' the emotional quotient for the viewer, like the M/Silva conflict did so well in SF. The trouble is Craig acted as though he didn't give a toss about his tormentor (unlike Dench in the prior entry) and that deflated the entire premise. This plays into the entire impression at the end that he is leaving the service (along with the gun toss of course) with Swann. He was done caring. Moving on. Out of bullets as it were.

    They tried to have it both ways with that ending since he hadn't committed at that point, and ultimately the film ends up a mess on account of it.

    Agreed, but it went both ways, which annoyed me even more.
    Everytime the movie had a chance to establish Blofelds hatred for Bond it was thrown away.
    Bond supposedly destroyed Oberhausers relationship with his father and forced him to kill him, but that was somehow a good thing for him, and "liberated" him or whatever.

    Then we see them meet again in the MI6 building and i thought, "ok his face is disfigured, so now he must be really pissed at Bond", and when Bond asks him "does it hurt?" his response is basically "nah, it's cool, don't worry about it bro, it's all good."

    So it's never actually clear what Brofelds problem is with Bond either. I don't even understand why he took the trouble to Kidnap Madeline.
    Hell i don't even know why he was in London at all
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    In one of the original scripts, MI-6 had dirt on Franz Oberhauser and he was sent to recover the dossier from the old building then tear it down. He was also going to be present at a meeting held by C/Denbigh as one of the Nine Eyes sponsors where M exposed C to the crowd.

    Too many things were cut in the final shooting script and the film eventually became pointless.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    Too many things were cut in the final shooting script and the film eventually became pointless.

    Thats what i always suspected. I always felt the movie was too short, meaning there was too much stuff missing to make any sense of what was going on.

    It might be that they initially had a good angle at the whole Brofeld/Bond Relationship, but unfortunately there is non of that left in the movie.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    00Agent wrote: »
    Too many things were cut in the final shooting script and the film eventually became pointless.

    Thats what i always suspected. I always felt the movie was too short, meaning there was too much stuff missing to make any sense of what was going on.

    It might be that they initially had a good angle at the whole Brofeld/Bond Relationship, but unfortunately there is non of that left in the movie.
    The film as originally conceived needed to be, and I believe was originally intended to be, a two parter. Unfortunately we know one of the reasons why that didn't happen.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    Too many things were cut in the final shooting script and the film eventually became pointless.

    Thats what i always suspected. I always felt the movie was too short, meaning there was too much stuff missing to make any sense of what was going on.

    It might be that they initially had a good angle at the whole Brofeld/Bond Relationship, but unfortunately there is non of that left in the movie.
    The film as originally conceived needed to be, and I believe was originally intended to be, a two parter. Unfortunately we know one of the reasons why that didn't happen.
    Craig didn't feel like committing. That's obvious as a clear sky.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    I would love to know if there are any cut scenes that would make the film even slightly better.
    At the Moment they might even make it slightly better if they give a couple clues in Bond25, but i would probably prefer if they stay the hell away from any of it.
    If Blofeld doesn't return what difference does it make.
    But i believe Spectre will be back. Under new Management perhaps.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The smart blood program was actually used by Blofeld to try and intimidate Bond at the presumed-climax of the film at his lair.

    There's a dinner scene afterwards where his explanation of the brothergate made better sense (if better is a word to describe the absurdity that is the brother angle).

    Bond wasn't kidnapped in a truck to be dropped off at the threshold of MI-6 HQ.

    At one point, Madeleine and Irma Bunt had an intense fistfight, and the former was more fleshed out as a character than the bland one-dimensional image she was in the final product. Her love for Bond was made believable.

    Many great lines from dialogues were cut.

    The Spectre meeting in Italy having more depth.

    Franz Oberhauser at the start wasn't even Blofeld, but a man called Heinrich Stockmann, and as such was shot dead on the bridge at the end.

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited January 2018 Posts: 10,592
    The two-parter was a godawful idea that only the studio was pushing for. Barbara & Michael never agreed to it, nor did Craig.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    jake24 wrote: »
    The two-parter was a godawful idea that only the studio was pushing for. Barbara & Michael never agreed to it, nor did Craig.
    Although, you've got to admit the film's narrative felt like a two-parter storyline compressed into one with shoehorned force.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    bondjames wrote: »
    Adele AND Sam Smith have won Oscars for their Bond theme??

    And before no Bond theme ever won an Oscar?? I must read that list wrong somehow.
    A rather sad reflection on the Oscar committee imho. To be fair, Nobody Does it Better, Live and Let Die and For Your Eyes Only were also nominated but never won.

    Barry has never been nominated for score, which is a disgrace. Hamlisch and Newman have been but didn't win.

    The fact Barry has never even been nominated, much less won, truly is a disgrace.

    All of his scores where superb, but YOLT and OHMSS are two of the all time greats, that I would put up against anything John Williams has done.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    jake24 wrote: »
    The two-parter was a godawful idea that only the studio was pushing for. Barbara & Michael never agreed to it, nor did Craig.
    Although, you've got to admit the film's narrative felt like a two-parter storyline compressed into one with shoehorned force.
    Oh, you're not wrong.
  • @ClarkDevlin I believe the "Heinrich Stockmann" name was just a placeholder for Ernst Stavro Blofeld. I don't think think they had any plans not to include Blofeld.

    More interestingly, the Blofeld character was actually an African dictator for a long part of the development process (they even toyed with the idea of making Blofeld a woman).

    But it was P&W, who only came on in July 2014 - around 18 months into the script's development who suggested including the Hannes Oberhauser backstory, as the production who going to film in Austria. It was apparently one of a number of ideas they had to better incorporate Blofeld in the script. Once Mendes heard the Oberhauser idea, he loved it. I imagine because it fit into the theme he developed in SF of exploring Bond's childhood.

    Personally, Mendes shouldn't have been allowed to use the Blofeld/Spectre mythology if he didn't have a strong enough take on it. His execution was sloppy. He was most focussed on the "Bond falls in love and leaves MI6" angle. You didn't need Blofeld to tell that story. Subsequently, we are left with a mess of a film.

    Personally, I don't think Spectre will return. Craig's next film will be a "Logan" type story set apart from his previous films. Just imagine a Denis Villenueve directed Bond film that is an elegiac and soulful farewell to Daniel Craig in the role. It would be genius.

    I can't see Dune being made after the flop of BR2049 and Cleopatra is being rewritten. Bond is the only one with a firm release date in place. Surely, if Denis makes Bond and it inevitably scores well at the box office, he gets to make Dune? I think it makes commercial and artistic sense.

    Plus he has connections with Bond regulars, Roger Deakins and Dennis Gassner. So I imagine, the current delay in announcing the director is down to Denis being courted by the producers. I anticipate they'll announce him very very soon.

    Plus, I want Deakins back.

    a0f0d85a-2297-415c-add7-1cc5432b3ec0-br-trl-042.tif?w=1200&h=630&auto=format&q=70&fit=crop&crop=faces
    blade-runner-2049-trailer-human-chambers.png
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,588
    Agree @00Agent
    Also QoS and SF without Dench having so much screen time would fall apart.
    SP without Q would be even more of a bore.
    It almost seems that Craig can't carry a Bond film on his own. Or EoN doesn't let him.

    Rubbish.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Personally, I don't think Spectre will return. Craig's next film will be a "Logan" type story set apart from his previous films.
    I agree that this is the most likely angle they will take, but it's not what I want by any stretch of the imagination.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited January 2018 Posts: 15,423
    Yes, @Pierce2Daniel, Blofeld as a character in Logan's efforts reportedly was an African Warlord. The Purvis & Wade bunch changed that on behest of the producers.
  • //The same twitter account as above denounced those claims, however.//

    The twitter account belongs to the same website that houses this message board.

    I was well aware of the association. But why are you pointing that out? It only adds credibility to their statement, due to their alleged contact with EON. That's why they're a noteworthy source after all.

    Sorry, I couldn't tell whether you were aware or not. No hidden agenda on my part.
  • jake24 wrote: »
    The two-parter was a godawful idea that only the studio was pushing for. Barbara & Michael never agreed to it, nor did Craig.

    That's what Logan pitched, hence why MGM announced it in November 2012.

    It later emerged (via Bamigboye) that Craig objected to the two-part idea and it was scaled back.
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 5,767
    Personally, Mendes shouldn't have been allowed to use the Blofeld/Spectre mythology if he didn't have a strong enough take on it. His execution was sloppy. He was most focussed on the "Bond falls in love and leaves MI6" angle. You didn't need Blofeld to tell that story. Subsequently, we are left with a mess of a film.
    I don´t see how there is any focus whatsoever on "Bond falls in love and leaves MI6", I don´t see Bond falling in love and I don´t see him develop any wish to quit.

    Personally, I don't think Spectre will return. Craig's next film will be a "Logan" type story set apart from his previous films. Just imagine a Denis Villenueve directed Bond film that is an elegiac and soulful farewell to Daniel Craig in the role. It would be genius.
    The idea of a farewell to a Bond actor sounds horrible to me. Bond should be the focus, not the actor.

    Plus he has connections with Bond regulars, Roger Deakins and Dennis Gassner.
    How does shooting one Bond film make Deakins a Bond regular?
    Personally I think Deakins is great, but by far not the only one in his league.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Personally, Mendes shouldn't have been allowed to use the Blofeld/Spectre mythology if he didn't have a strong enough take on it. His execution was sloppy. He was most focussed on the "Bond falls in love and leaves MI6" angle. You didn't need Blofeld to tell that story. Subsequently, we are left with a mess of a film.
    I don´t see how there is any focus whatsoever on "Bond falls in love and leaves MI6", I don´t see Bond falling in love and I don´t see him develop any wish to quit.
    This is part of the problem with SP imho. The confusion it brings to viewers on account of a half baked script with too many cooks. They tried to have it every which way with that finale.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Personally, I don't think Spectre will return. Craig's next film will be a "Logan" type story set apart from his previous films. Just imagine a Denis Villenueve directed Bond film that is an elegiac and soulful farewell to Daniel Craig in the role. It would be genius.
    The idea of a farewell to a Bond actor sounds horrible to me. Bond should be the focus, not the actor.
    I couldn't agree more and still hold out hope that this idiotic idea is dispensed with, if it's even under consideration.
    jake24 wrote: »
    The two-parter was a godawful idea that only the studio was pushing for. Barbara & Michael never agreed to it, nor did Craig.

    That's what Logan pitched, hence why MGM announced it in November 2012.

    It later emerged (via Bamigboye) that Craig objected to the two-part idea and it was scaled back.
    That was my understanding as well.
    //The same twitter account as above denounced those claims, however.//

    The twitter account belongs to the same website that houses this message board.

    I was well aware of the association. But why are you pointing that out? It only adds credibility to their statement, due to their alleged contact with EON. That's why they're a noteworthy source after all.

    Sorry, I couldn't tell whether you were aware or not. No hidden agenda on my part.
    So this site has pretty much denied that the copter is involved too. Still curious why they purchased it however, unless it's some kind of artifact that will appreciate in the future.
Sign In or Register to comment.