› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…13221323132513271328…2507

Comments

  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Anyone but Guy Ritchie. He's not made a decent film since Snatch. Danny Boyle would be great. Cillian Murphy to take over from Craig seems to be the rumour de jour. Things finally seem to be hotting up..
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Anyone but Guy Ritchie. He's not made a decent film since Snatch. Danny Boyle would be great. Cillian Murphy to take over from Craig seems to be the rumour de jour. Things finally seem to be hotting up..
    Or just distractions to take the media in another direction for the time being as @patb suggested.

    Does Cillian Murphy even seem plausible? Daniel Kaluuya? I think not.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Anyone but Guy Ritchie. He's not made a decent film since Snatch. ..

    Bang on the money! But at least Snatch was brilliant
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    And did this actually come from MGM? or is it one of these 'an insider says' load of BS?!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Lancaster007 wrote: »
    And did this actually come from MGM? or is it one of these 'an insider says' load of BS?!
    Definitely not from MGM.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Anyone but Guy Ritchie. He's not made a decent film since Snatch. Danny Boyle would be great. Cillian Murphy to take over from Craig seems to be the rumour de jour. Things finally seem to be hotting up..

    The Sherlock Holmes films were alright.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    The whole thing could be a set up just to keep Bond in the news pending any genuine progress.
    It does smell uncomfortably like the Nolan parallel script rumour of a few months back. Coincidentally, it sort of takes the media discussion off Craig's face for the time being too, which is probably not a bad thing.
    I never heard that preposterous rumour about Nolan producing a parallel script before, @bondjames. Where did it appear... The Beano?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    The whole thing could be a set up just to keep Bond in the news pending any genuine progress.
    It does smell uncomfortably like the Nolan parallel script rumour of a few months back. Coincidentally, it sort of takes the media discussion off Craig's face for the time being too, which is probably not a bad thing.
    I never heard that preposterous rumour about Nolan producing a parallel script before, @bondjames. Where did it appear... The Beano?
    Actually @bondsum if I'm not mistaken you commented on it yourself a few months back (although you may not have realized the full story behind it). It originated from a few sources including a forum member and a reddit user known as cashleypersia. It was the basis for the 'Nolan as director' rumour.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    Lancaster007 wrote: »
    And did this actually come from MGM? or is it one of these 'an insider says' load of BS?!

    sources not identified. However, Variety (which first identified Boyle as in the running) and Deadline (which reported the dueling story lines) are among the more accurate with this sort of thing.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    The whole thing could be a set up just to keep Bond in the news pending any genuine progress.
    It does smell uncomfortably like the Nolan parallel script rumour of a few months back. Coincidentally, it sort of takes the media discussion off Craig's face for the time being too, which is probably not a bad thing.
    I never heard that preposterous rumour about Nolan producing a parallel script before, @bondjames. Where did it appear... The Beano?

    Reddit.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    It wouldn't surprise me if this Danny Boyle story turns out to be false, as well.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    The whole thing could be a set up just to keep Bond in the news pending any genuine progress.
    It does smell uncomfortably like the Nolan parallel script rumour of a few months back. Coincidentally, it sort of takes the media discussion off Craig's face for the time being too, which is probably not a bad thing.
    I never heard that preposterous rumour about Nolan producing a parallel script before, @bondjames. Where did it appear... The Beano?
    Actually @bondsum if I'm not mistaken you commented on it yourself a few months back (although you may not have realized the full story behind it). It originated from a few sources including a forum member and a reddit user known as cashleypersia. It was the basis for the 'Nolan as director' rumour.
    Ha ha. Did I? Oh, you mean that fake news charlatan on Reddit? So I was close when I mentioned The Beano source then?
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Danny Boyle Bond film = Underworld theme
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    Danny Boyle Bond film = Underworld theme

    Spang brothers .......

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Poor old Guy Ritchie. In many ways he’s an obvious choice. I don’t actually think he’d make a bad fist of it either.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    Getafix wrote: »
    Poor old Guy Ritchie. In many ways he’s an obvious choice. I don’t actually think he’d make a bad fist of it either.

    I'd totally line up for a Bond movie directed by the Guy Ritchie who did the Sherlock Holmes movies, but King Arthur Guy Ritchie? No thank you.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Poor old Guy Ritchie. In many ways he’s an obvious choice. I don’t actually think he’d make a bad fist of it either.

    I'd totally line up for a Bond movie directed by the Guy Ritchie who did the Sherlock Holmes movies, but King Arthur Guy Ritchie? No thank you.

    That's the problem,it could go either way.
    Sherlock Holmes films were very good,but King Arthur was terrible,right down from a total miscast (and not only the main character) to the shit-loads of money it lost.

    Too dangerous for Bond,too risky.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    I couldn't even finish King Arthur, it was terrible. Rightfully assumed it wasn't going to pick it up, CGI overload and devoid of any tension or fun.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I couldn't even finish King Arthur, it was terrible. Rightfully assumed it wasn't going to pick it up, CGI overload and devoid of any tension or fun.

    I watched it all but considered turning it off several times.

  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited February 2018 Posts: 5,767
    I don´t know why so many people seem to dislike Ritchie´s King Arthur. I thought it was great fun. Watched it two times and had a blast each time.
    No basis for Bond though, that film.

    Thinking about Ritchie gives me fantasies I´m not sure are relevant to Ritchie, but nonetheless, this PC-infested world urgently needs a drinking, smoking, benzedrine-popping, mysoginist bastard of a Bond.
    But not Tarantino, that´s not what I mean.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited February 2018 Posts: 40,967
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I don´t know why so many people seem to dislike Ritchie´s King Arthur. I thought it was great fun. Watched it two times and had a blast each time.
    No basis for Bond though, that film.

    For me, the more CGI that's dominating action sequences, the less detached I am from pretty much the entirety of what's unfolding. I do have some exceptions here and there, but it's mostly what keeps me away from these fantasy action/superhero movies anymore. It's just so blindingly apparent what's unfolding was computer generated, doesn't excite or thrill or interest me at all I'm afraid.

    Plus, I honestly thought this was going to be a medieval Sherlock Holmes type film, at least in the cinematography and action sequences and whatnot; had no clue for the longest time it'd be more akin to those horrid Titans movies they did a few years back.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Haha, @Creasy47, I feel sorry for you. I accidentally watched one of those horrid Titans movies a few years back, and I don´t see or feel the slightest resemblance with Ritchie´s King Arthur.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I couldn't get past the first 20 minutes of Ritchie's King Arfur. Admittedly, I was watching it on a plane to Dubai, but honestly, you don't think I'd pay good money to see another Richie movie in the cinema after UNCLE, do you? There were times when I wanted to punch the screen it was so bad. My digs even had the movie on its cable channel so I managed to catch the last 20 minutes. Hasten to add, it doesn't improve in the third act either. I thought it was total dreck.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Haha, @Creasy47, I feel sorry for you. I accidentally watched one of those horrid Titans movies a few years back, and I don´t see or feel the slightest resemblance with Ritchie´s King Arthur.

    Magic, big old CGI monsters and structures getting ravaged in typically mediocre CGI fashion? That's about all the comparison I need to know it's not going to be for me. Shame, too, I had anticipated it for so long genuinely assuming it was going to be a quite grounded, semi-dark take on the King Arthur tale, but alas it wasn't meant to be.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Poor old Guy Ritchie. In many ways he’s an obvious choice. I don’t actually think he’d make a bad fist of it either.

    I'd totally line up for a Bond movie directed by the Guy Ritchie who did the Sherlock Holmes movies, but King Arthur Guy Ritchie? No thank you.

    That's the problem,it could go either way.
    Sherlock Holmes films were very good,but King Arthur was terrible,right down from a total miscast (and not only the main character) to the shit-loads of money it lost.

    Too dangerous for Bond,too risky.

    Yes King Arthur did seem to be a real car crash of a movie. But I think Ritchie would approach Bond with a bit more seriousness. I think he’s made a number of excellent mainstream movies. Lock Stock and the 2 Sherlock Holmes movies were highly entertaining. I personally actually quite enjoyed UNCLE as well - it had elements, such as the amphibious commando assault that I’d have loved to see in a Bond film.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I hated the man from uncle in restrospect. Totally shite film with 0 entertainment and story.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Trouble with Richie is is that he reuses that same "toing and froing" technique as his protagonist tries to explain some event that's gone on before and thinks it's clever. It normally involves slight of hand or something that the narrator is withholding from the person he's talking with but the audience gets to see something different. He uses it in every bloody movie he's made as if to say: "Look at me. Aren't I bloody clever?" Alas, King Arfur is no exception. He regurgitates it here as he does in every movie he's made.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    What really interests me is how Danny Boyle and John Hodge got involved at all. Did they they get in touch with BB & MGW and tell them they have an idea for Bond 25? Did EON call up Boyle and ask him if he would be interested and then Boyle and Hodge came up with an idea?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited February 2018 Posts: 45,489
    Isn t Trainspotting the only semi decent film he has done?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Isn t Trainspotting the only semi decent film he has done?

    I loved 28 Days Later, and as little as I remember from it, I recall Trance being fairly solid and highly unique.

    Ashamed to say I've never seen Trainspotting.
Sign In or Register to comment.