No Time To Die: Production Diary

1135613571359136113622507

Comments

  • Posts: 832
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    You keep maligning Craig and that’s unjust. He’s simply trying to not make Brosnan level crap. EON are doing their usual fumbling about. That leaves the director to make something good. Mendes was a mistake. But once Craig is gone if you think something magical will happen and EON is going to pull it together and deliver what, another FRWL? That’s false hope. Better to hope for B25 because B26 will be the same boat but with just a different actor. Oh and possibly and likely weaker actor who they will also manage to underwhelm with.

    Almost certainly a weaker actor, craig is a once in a generation great.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited March 2018 Posts: 732
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    You keep maligning Craig and that’s unjust. He’s simply trying to not make Brosnan level crap. EON are doing their usual fumbling about. That leaves the director to make something good. Mendes was a mistake.
    I get the impression Craig cares a lot for "his" James Bond interpretation. Mendes was perfectly right for SF and it turned out as something new to the James Bond series and brought critical acclaim to James Bond - something that wasn't to be experienced for many decades. I can't see anything wrong here - the success and excellent reception of the film proofs it was the right thing to do and it's in line with Craig's James Bond 007 who gets closer to some of the drama and deepness of the literary character ... which he is aiming for right from the start with added physicality. It will never be anybody's favourite but to many he and his James Bond is the best thing since Connery.

    What went wrong in many places is SP. Where the idea was right to get less drama in (and I think that's what Craig intended) that was the only thing Mendes was actually able to achieve and "force" into the picture where it totally did not belong. Mendes did everything he could with SF and he should not have let himself lured back ... to me he kida destroyed his 007 reputation with SP. And I am sure Brothergate and many things like that were what Craig and Mendes clashed at during production plus Mendes - at least it appears this way in the final product - delivered maybe 50% of the enthusiasm during SP's production. At least that is my impression.
  • Posts: 1,031
    LFS wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the path the producers are on, it´s not the path that led to a franchise surviving for over 50 years.

    Except the last two Bond films are two of the most commercially successful (in terms of gross) ever. With Skyfall being THE most successful Bond film ever.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Dennison wrote: »
    LFS wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the path the producers are on, it´s not the path that led to a franchise surviving for over 50 years.

    Except the last two Bond films are two of the most commercially successful (in terms of gross) ever. With Skyfall being THE most successful Bond film ever.

    So a lot of people watched them. A lot of people watch the Kardashians, doesn't make them quality tv though.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Craig has shown off screen that he has a grumpy, short tempered, "speak your mind" side to his personality. No idea if it was planned or an accident but SF taps into this perfectly IMHO.

    If you look at the best/most memorable scenes, it's where he is p@ss@ed off but still trying to get things done (gallery scene, M's house, banter with new M, Q and A scene etc), he pulls these scenes of perfectly

    I think this is reflected with RM as he brought his own charm, warmth and wit to character of Bond. The writers need to learn from this and keep DC within the "comfort zone" IMHO
  • Posts: 1,031
    Dennison wrote: »
    LFS wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the path the producers are on, it´s not the path that led to a franchise surviving for over 50 years.

    Except the last two Bond films are two of the most commercially successful (in terms of gross) ever. With Skyfall being THE most successful Bond film ever.

    So a lot of people watched them. A lot of people watch the Kardashians, doesn't make them quality tv though.

    True, but the claim was about the longevity of the franchise not quality. I made no comment on their respective quality. I don't like The Eagles, doesn't mean they haven't been a successul band.
  • Posts: 4,044
    Dennison wrote: »
    LFS wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the path the producers are on, it´s not the path that led to a franchise surviving for over 50 years.

    Except the last two Bond films are two of the most commercially successful (in terms of gross) ever. With Skyfall being THE most successful Bond film ever.

    So a lot of people watched them. A lot of people watch the Kardashians, doesn't make them quality tv though.
    But maybe as long as a lot of people watch them then EON will think they are succeeding, SP included.
  • Posts: 1,031
    vzok wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    LFS wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the path the producers are on, it´s not the path that led to a franchise surviving for over 50 years.

    Except the last two Bond films are two of the most commercially successful (in terms of gross) ever. With Skyfall being THE most successful Bond film ever.

    So a lot of people watched them. A lot of people watch the Kardashians, doesn't make them quality tv though.
    But maybe as long as a lot of people watch them then EON will think they are succeeding, SP included.

    From a financial perspective then yes. They are fundamentally in business to make money.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2018 Posts: 8,401
    patb wrote: »
    Craig has shown off screen that he has a grumpy, short tempered, "speak your mind" side to his personality. No idea if it was planned or an accident but SF taps into this perfectly IMHO.

    If you look at the best/most memorable scenes, it's where he is p@ss@ed off but still trying to get things done (gallery scene, M's house, banter with new M, Q and A scene etc), he pulls these scenes of perfectly

    I think this is reflected with RM as he brought his own charm, warmth and wit to character of Bond. The writers need to learn from this and keep DC within the "comfort zone" IMHO

    This is 100% true, and I mentioned something similar in another thread not long ago. Rarely do we see Craig being himself in the role, which is why his interpretation isn't that successful IMO. You are right, those scenes truly let Daniel shine through in the character, and they made his Bond very compelling. There just wasn't enough of them. In QoS for instance, he is pretty much in mourning throughout the entire film, and Craig is forced to portray that instead of being himself and leaving his own mark (and in CR he has to play a rookie which was a bad move because Craig is at home when he is slightly bitter and jaded towards the world). There is nothing that really draws you in to his interpretation, outside of those scenes were he is allowed to show a bit of natural personality. And that resonates because it is actually genuine of the man himself.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    vzok wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    LFS wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the path the producers are on, it´s not the path that led to a franchise surviving for over 50 years.

    Except the last two Bond films are two of the most commercially successful (in terms of gross) ever. With Skyfall being THE most successful Bond film ever.

    So a lot of people watched them. A lot of people watch the Kardashians, doesn't make them quality tv though.
    But maybe as long as a lot of people watch them then EON will think they are succeeding, SP included.

    SP was a stumble in the right direction, but it wasn't enough. They came close to finally making what felt like a Bond film, only to balls it up. I'm starting to feel as if they no longer know how to make Bond films.
  • Posts: 1,031
    vzok wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    LFS wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the path the producers are on, it´s not the path that led to a franchise surviving for over 50 years.

    Except the last two Bond films are two of the most commercially successful (in terms of gross) ever. With Skyfall being THE most successful Bond film ever.

    So a lot of people watched them. A lot of people watch the Kardashians, doesn't make them quality tv though.
    But maybe as long as a lot of people watch them then EON will think they are succeeding, SP included.

    SP was a stumble in the right direction, but it wasn't enough. They came close to finally making what felt like a Bond film, only to balls it up. I'm starting to feel as if they no longer know how to make Bond films.

    You saying Craig's other Bonds don't feel like Bond films?
  • Posts: 4,617
    patb wrote: »
    Craig has shown off screen that he has a grumpy, short tempered, "speak your mind" side to his personality. No idea if it was planned or an accident but SF taps into this perfectly IMHO.

    If you look at the best/most memorable scenes, it's where he is p@ss@ed off but still trying to get things done (gallery scene, M's house, banter with new M, Q and A scene etc), he pulls these scenes of perfectly

    I think this is reflected with RM as he brought his own charm, warmth and wit to character of Bond. The writers need to learn from this and keep DC within the "comfort zone" IMHO

    This is 100% true, and I mentioned something similar in another thread not long ago. Rarely do we see Craig being himself in the role, which is why his interpretation isn't that successful IMO. You are right, those scenes truly let Daniel shine through in the character, and they made his Bond very compelling. There just wasn't enough of them. In QoS for instance, he is pretty much in mourning throughout the entire film, and Craig is forced to portray that instead of being himself and leaving his own mark (and in CR he has to play a rookie which was a bad move because Craig is at home when he is slightly bitter and jaded towards the world). There is nothing that really draws you in to his interpretation, outside of those scenes were he is allowed to show a bit of natural personality. And that resonates because it is actually genuine of the man himself.

    The fact that we have only seen this side of the character explored within one movie out of four tends to indicate that it was just pot luck and the writers haver made little or no effort at creating a character that best fits in with DCs strengths.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Dennison wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    LFS wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the path the producers are on, it´s not the path that led to a franchise surviving for over 50 years.

    Except the last two Bond films are two of the most commercially successful (in terms of gross) ever. With Skyfall being THE most successful Bond film ever.

    So a lot of people watched them. A lot of people watch the Kardashians, doesn't make them quality tv though.
    But maybe as long as a lot of people watch them then EON will think they are succeeding, SP included.

    SP was a stumble in the right direction, but it wasn't enough. They came close to finally making what felt like a Bond film, only to balls it up. I'm starting to feel as if they no longer know how to make Bond films.

    You saying Craig's other Bonds don't feel like Bond films?

    Yes, I am saying exactly that.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    You keep maligning Craig and that’s unjust. He’s simply trying to not make Brosnan level crap. EON are doing their usual fumbling about. That leaves the director to make something good. Mendes was a mistake.
    I get the impression Craig cares a lot for "his" James Bond interpretation. Mendes was perfectly right for SF and it turned out as something new to the James Bond series and brought critical acclaim to James Bond - something that wasn't to be experienced for many decades. I can't see anything wrong here - the success and excellent reception of the film proofs it was the right thing to do and it's in line with Craig's James Bond 007 who gets closer to some of the drama and deepness of the literary character ... which he is aiming for right from the start with added physicality. It will never be anybody's favourite but to many he and his James Bond is the best thing since Connery.

    What went wrong in many places is SP. Where the idea was right to get less drama in (and I think that's what Craig intended) that was the only thing Mendes was actually able to achieve and "force" into the picture where it totally did not belong. Mendes did everything he could with SF and he should not have let himself lured back ... to me he kida destroyed his 007 reputation with SP. And I am sure Brothergate and many things like that were what Craig and Mendes clashed at during production plus Mendes - at least it appears this way in the final product - delivered maybe 50% of the enthusiasm during SP's production. At least that is my impression.

    Maybe Craig does care about 'his' Bond but that doesn't necessarily make him knowledgeable about the character as a whole.

    If Fiennes had enough clout to nix M being a traitor then Craig certainly he had enough to stop brothergate in its tracks. That he didn't speaks volumes about how much EONneed to get a grip.
    vzok wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    LFS wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the path the producers are on, it´s not the path that led to a franchise surviving for over 50 years.

    Except the last two Bond films are two of the most commercially successful (in terms of gross) ever. With Skyfall being THE most successful Bond film ever.

    So a lot of people watched them. A lot of people watch the Kardashians, doesn't make them quality tv though.
    But maybe as long as a lot of people watch them then EON will think they are succeeding, SP included.

    Very true. Never forget we here are as insignificant to EON as that pigeon dropping you just walked past on the street.

    As long as the numbers add up who gives the slightest toss about brothergate or the Scooby gang taking over?
  • Posts: 11,425
    While I understand the dissatisfaction around SP, it is all a bit OTT. As others have pointed out it’s one of the most successful Bond films ever (following from the most successful one). If it hadn’t been from Craig’s stupid wrist slash comments the vibes around SP would be largely positive. I’m sure most film goers barely registered brothergate and EON have every opportunity to sweep it under the carpet.
  • Posts: 1,031
    Dennison wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    LFS wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the path the producers are on, it´s not the path that led to a franchise surviving for over 50 years.

    Except the last two Bond films are two of the most commercially successful (in terms of gross) ever. With Skyfall being THE most successful Bond film ever.

    So a lot of people watched them. A lot of people watch the Kardashians, doesn't make them quality tv though.
    But maybe as long as a lot of people watch them then EON will think they are succeeding, SP included.

    SP was a stumble in the right direction, but it wasn't enough. They came close to finally making what felt like a Bond film, only to balls it up. I'm starting to feel as if they no longer know how to make Bond films.

    You saying Craig's other Bonds don't feel like Bond films?

    Yes, I am saying exactly that.

    Feel like Bond films to me.
  • Posts: 1,031
    Getafix wrote: »
    While I understand the dissatisfaction around SP, it is all a bit OTT. As others have pointed out it’s one of the most successful Bond films ever (following from the most successful one). If it hadn’t been from Craig’s stupid wrist slash comments the vibes around SP would be largely positive. I’m sure most film goers barely registered brothergate and EON have every opportunity to sweep it under the carpet.

    The UK press were very enthusiastic about Spectre on its release.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    While I understand the dissatisfaction around SP, it is all a bit OTT. As others have pointed out it’s one of the most successful Bond films ever (following from the most successful one). If it hadn’t been from Craig’s stupid wrist slash comments the vibes around SP would be largely positive. I’m sure most film goers barely registered brothergate and EON have every opportunity to sweep it under the carpet.

    Precisely. I’m all for people venting, but it’s certainly not the ‘end of days’ scenario some people paint it as.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 5,767
    Dennison wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    LFS wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the path the producers are on, it´s not the path that led to a franchise surviving for over 50 years.

    Except the last two Bond films are two of the most commercially successful (in terms of gross) ever. With Skyfall being THE most successful Bond film ever.

    So a lot of people watched them. A lot of people watch the Kardashians, doesn't make them quality tv though.
    But maybe as long as a lot of people watch them then EON will think they are succeeding, SP included.

    SP was a stumble in the right direction, but it wasn't enough. They came close to finally making what felt like a Bond film, only to balls it up. I'm starting to feel as if they no longer know how to make Bond films.

    You saying Craig's other Bonds don't feel like Bond films?

    Yes, I am saying exactly that.

    Feel like Bond films to me.
    CR and especially QoS feel not like traditional Bond films to me, but like very strong films with a commanding lead actor.
    SF is the least traditional one, I would like it infinitely better if it would have been as consistent as its two predecessors.
    SP has a lot of traditional elements, but it´s put together really badly. I watched a bit of it the other night, and the music in the Lake Althaus scene completely destroyed the atmosphere, and I will never get over it that the mountain panorama around the clinic is left invisible by the cinematography, the scenes there could also be from an average tv film.




    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    While I understand the dissatisfaction around SP, it is all a bit OTT. As others have pointed out it’s one of the most successful Bond films ever (following from the most successful one). If it hadn’t been from Craig’s stupid wrist slash comments the vibes around SP would be largely positive. I’m sure most film goers barely registered brothergate and EON have every opportunity to sweep it under the carpet.

    Precisely. I’m all for people venting, but it’s certainly not the ‘end of days’ scenario some people paint it as.
    Not the end of days, but it certainly isn´t captivating.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    LFS wrote: »
    I am not a fan of the path the producers are on, it´s not the path that led to a franchise surviving for over 50 years.

    Except the last two Bond films are two of the most commercially successful (in terms of gross) ever. With Skyfall being THE most successful Bond film ever.

    So a lot of people watched them. A lot of people watch the Kardashians, doesn't make them quality tv though.
    But maybe as long as a lot of people watch them then EON will think they are succeeding, SP included.

    SP was a stumble in the right direction, but it wasn't enough. They came close to finally making what felt like a Bond film, only to balls it up. I'm starting to feel as if they no longer know how to make Bond films.

    You saying Craig's other Bonds don't feel like Bond films?

    Yes, I am saying exactly that.

    Feel like Bond films to me.
    CR and especially QoS feel not like traditional Bond films to me, but like very strong films with a commanding lead actor.
    SF is the least traditional one, I would like it infinitely better if it would have been as consistent as its two predecessors.
    SP has a lot of traditional elements, but it´s put together really badly. I watched a bit of it the other night, and the music in the Lake Althaus scene completely destroyed the atmosphere, and I will never get over it that the mountain panorama around the clinic is left invisible by the cinematography, the scenes there could also be from an average tv film.




    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    While I understand the dissatisfaction around SP, it is all a bit OTT. As others have pointed out it’s one of the most successful Bond films ever (following from the most successful one). If it hadn’t been from Craig’s stupid wrist slash comments the vibes around SP would be largely positive. I’m sure most film goers barely registered brothergate and EON have every opportunity to sweep it under the carpet.

    Precisely. I’m all for people venting, but it’s certainly not the ‘end of days’ scenario some people paint it as.
    Not the end of days, but it certainly isn´t captivating.

    Perhaps not for some fans, but the projection of their malaise onto the general audience is disingenuous.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    I think they are underestimating the prevailing mood for change and reinvention. It's definitely out there. This is not just about the hardcore, although there's a far number of us that aren't enamoured by the current state of affairs as well.

    Either that or they just can't deliver it right now due to business dynamics. Either way it's regrettable, because I've never felt such a clear cut need to blaze a significantly new path since DAD. This isn't about box office (neither was the last Brosnan effort, which made good money globally). It's about catching the mood.

    The one thing I can say about the Brosnan and Dalton eras is that they didn't overstay their welcome. For whatever reason, they fortuitously ended when they should have imho.
  • Posts: 4,617
    @bondjames Yes, spot on. If the next Bond when finally released, is a good fit for 2013, then it will have issues. It is all about getting the mood right and the longer the production process, the harder this will be.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    I'm quite certain that's why Hodge has been called in at this late stage @patb. Hopefully they realize that, and are now coming up with something substantially new and reinvented due to the delay. They have to cut to cord on this thing.

    From my perspective they can take another six months to a year if they want to. Just get it right. There's a lot at stake.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think they are underestimating the prevailing mood for change and reinvention. It's definitely out there.

    Amongst fans.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,401
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think they are underestimating the prevailing mood for change and reinvention. It's definitely out there. This is not just about the hardcore, although there's a far number of us that aren't enamoured by the current state of affairs as well.

    Either that or they just can't deliver it right now due to business dynamics. Either way it's regrettable, because I've never felt such a clear cut need to blaze a significantly new path since DAD. This isn't about box office (neither was the last Brosnan effort, which made good money globally). It's about catching the mood.

    The one thing I can say about the Brosnan and Dalton eras is that they didn't overstay their welcome. For whatever reason, they fortuitously ended when they should have imho
    .

    I agree completely. The mood is moving further away from where it was when Craig got the role, which is the difficulty. I don't think Craig represents the times anymore, and hasn't since SF (but I can atleast understand why they kept him for SP). I think if they continue with Craig the next film will be another decrease at the box office, as it will be incredibly hard to get people energised after another four year wait with seemingly little change.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2018 Posts: 8,401
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think they are underestimating the prevailing mood for change and reinvention. It's definitely out there.

    Amongst fans.

    No, not entirely. Remember SP was 4 years ago (by the time B25 releases), and made significantly less than SF. To say the audience doesn't care either way is disingenuous.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think they are underestimating the prevailing mood for change and reinvention. It's definitely out there.

    Amongst fans.
    No. Disagree. You will see.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Getafix wrote: »
    While I understand the dissatisfaction around SP, it is all a bit OTT. As others have pointed out it’s one of the most successful Bond films ever (following from the most successful one).

    Surely satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the final product isn't governed by box office?

    DAD outperformed LTK - what's your point? The two things are utterly separate from each other otherwise Transformers and the Fast and Furious films would be heralded as great works.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Precisely. I’m all for people venting, but it’s certainly not the ‘end of days’ scenario some people paint it as.

    Well I never thought I'd see the day we'd have producers who could think that nicking the plot of Austin Powers 3 was acceptable yet here we are.

    Who's to say black Bond/female Bond/gay Bond/Muslim Bond/wheelchair Bond isn't on the table now?
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2018 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think they are underestimating the prevailing mood for change and reinvention. It's definitely out there.

    Amongst fans.

    No, not entirely. Remember SP was 4 years ago, and made significantly less than SF. To say the audience doesn't care either way is disingenuous.

    There’s nothing to suggest there is a groundswell of support for Craig’s departure amongst the public, if there were you’d have heard about it in the press. Some people don’t like him, others do, some are ambivalent.
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think they are underestimating the prevailing mood for change and reinvention. It's definitely out there.

    Amongst fans.
    No. Disagree. You will see.

    I haven’t seen anything to suggest dissatisfaction amongst the general audience to the point they’re clamouring for change. I’m sure they’d embrace change as much as the next man, but I’ve seen no evidence to speak of that it’s foremost in their minds when they (arguably once every 6 months) think about Bond.
    Getafix wrote: »
    While I understand the dissatisfaction around SP, it is all a bit OTT. As others have pointed out it’s one of the most successful Bond films ever (following from the most successful one).

    Surely satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the final product isn't governed by box office?

    DAD outperformed LTK - what's your point? The two things are utterly separate from each other otherwise Transformers and the Fast and Furious films would be heralded as great works.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Precisely. I’m all for people venting, but it’s certainly not the ‘end of days’ scenario some people paint it as.

    Well I never thought I'd see the day we'd have producers who could think that nicking the plot of Austin Powers 3 was acceptable yet here we are.

    Who's to say black Bond/female Bond/gay Bond/Muslim Bond/wheelchair Bond isn't on the table now?

    The handling of Blofeld was dreadful, but like @Getafix said, I believe it can be swept under the carpet. I severely dislike it, but I’ve made my peace with it. I’ve no doubt EON realise they dropped a bollock with that angle. The solution - tighten the reigns on your director.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think they are underestimating the prevailing mood for change and reinvention. It's definitely out there.

    Amongst fans.

    No, not entirely. Remember SP was 4 years ago, and made significantly less than SF. To say the audience doesn't care either way is disingenuous.

    There’s nothing to suggest there is a groundswell of support for Craig’s departure amongst the public, if there were you’d have heard about it in the press. Some people don’t like him, others do, some are ambivalent.
    Nobody said there's a groundswell of support for anyone's departure.

    There is a prevailing need and mood for reinvention. He is a fundamental component of that, because more than any other Bond actor before him his entire narrative is connected.

    The two go hand in hand. Moreover, as we theorized a few pages back, old man Bond is played out.

    With respect to Craig, all his off the air shenanigans have polluted his image amongst a large component of the public. Many know of wrist slash, his negative comments about Bond, the character's misogyny and his desire for more money. Whether true or not, those articles had two years of play. People internalized it. He knows that. Which is why he's been trying to address it recently. A case of too little, too late.

    Bond films always make money so that's not the concern, but the enthusiasm is not there. A director can't change that, unless it's Nolan.
Sign In or Register to comment.