No Time To Die: Production Diary

1143514361438144014412507

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    Germanlady wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not even going to bother with that article.

    A character, written 50 years ago, is not sllowed OR supposed to change along the line ???

    Not to the point of where the character, eventually, no longer resembles what their creator , in this case Fleming, intended.

    So you thnk, thats the most important part of him, shagging women? I dont think so. There us a bit more too him - fortunately.

    You’re misstating my point That is a single element; look at the broader picture.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Am I the only one who thinks that beard is weird?

    What's wrong with the beard?

    If you have one exactly like it, sorry. But seriously, shave if you do.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    @bondjames I'm not saying that Yann should get the job because he looks good. However, the Bond role is all about class and sophistication and this guy embodies those elements. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I'd very excited by the stylistic choices Yann would have made.

    Also, I feel you are overvaluing the role of the distributor. It's their role to sell the film and put it in theatres. They are not the creative lead on the film. That responsibility falls down to the production company.

    That isn't to say that distribution studios don't give their opinions. The Sony leaks show how vocal they were throughout Spectre. However, film studios often don't cross the line too much, especially when they have a proven brand that's easy to sell.

    I imagine what Eon are trying to do is put together a pretty tasty deal for a distributor so they can be trusted to be left alone. If I was someone at Sony, Warner, etc, I'd happily buy Daniel Craig's final James Bond film directed by Danny Boyle from the same producers whose last two Bond film made over $800+.

    It's an easy sell and Eon can get whoever onboard and call the shots.

    I agree with this as far as the distributor goes. The delays are MGM usual nonsense and trying to get the best distributor deal... I don't think they're having problems finding takers which means they wouldn't pick someone whose going to call any shots. It's a honeymoon deal for EON and they'll get what they want. Unless MGM screws things up which is possible.

    I like '71 a lot and would be cool with Demange getting the gig, but P&W involved leaves me cold. They're good for a set piece idea or two and that's about it. Not to say Demange and team wouldn't totally re-work it. Still, it's a massive production for someone with limited experience, certainly at that level which means he might not get his way on a lot of things.

    Boyle on the other hand, is a great choice. But both directors would shake it up a bit, certainly from the last two, so no complaints there. With Boyle's musical thing filming I could see delays with coy statements for months until they're all ready to announce something officially and in grander fashion than just a press release.

    Also, I always have to watch that Boyle video. His laugh kills me everytime.

  • Posts: 6,601
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not even going to bother with that article.

    A character, written 50 years ago, is not sllowed OR supposed to change along the line ???

    Not to the point of where the character, eventually, no longer resembles what their creator , in this case Fleming, intended.

    So you thnk, thats the most important part of him, shagging women? I dont think so. There us a bit more too him - fortunately.

    You’re misstating my point That is a single element; look at the broader picture.

    But that is what I did and said - there is still a lot of Flemings Bond left, id he diesnt just use women

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    Germanlady wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not even going to bother with that article.

    A character, written 50 years ago, is not sllowed OR supposed to change along the line ???

    Not to the point of where the character, eventually, no longer resembles what their creator , in this case Fleming, intended.

    So you thnk, thats the most important part of him, shagging women? I dont think so. There us a bit more too him - fortunately.

    You’re misstating my point That is a single element; look at the broader picture.

    But that is what I did and said - there is still a lot of Flemings Bond left, id he diesnt just use women

    My post addressed the single statement made by Daniel Craig, but it clearly is commenting on the broader picture of incrementally chipping away at multiple elements that combined make up a character.
    So now Bond no longer smokes, he’s becoming more monogamous ; it’s been implied that he’s an alcoholic and possibly a drug addict who has deep psychological issues.

  • mybudgetbondmybudgetbond The World
    Posts: 189


    it’s been implied that he’s an alcoholic and possibly a drug addict who has deep psychological issues.

    Literally Fleming's Bond.

  • Posts: 1,162
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not even going to bother with that article.

    A character, written 50 years ago, is not sllowed OR supposed to change along the line ???

    Not to the point of where the character, eventually, no longer resembles what their creator , in this case Fleming, intended.

    So you thnk, thats the most important part of him, shagging women? I dont think so. There us a bit more too him - fortunately.

    You’re misstating my point That is a single element; look at the broader picture.

    But that is what I did and said - there is still a lot of Flemings Bond left, id he diesnt just use women

    So now Bond no longer smokes, he’s becoming more monogamous ; it’s been implied that he’s an alcoholic and possibly a drug addict who has deep psychological issues.

    To be fair, judging from the amount of alcohol and other things he consumes in the novels he probably was just that (apart from the psychological issues). At least it is much much closer to Fleming than anything Craig has brought to the table.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204

    it’s been implied that he’s an alcoholic and possibly a drug addict who has deep psychological issues.

    Literally Fleming's Bond.

    Possibly, but not the Bond of the cinema. Some of those elements are their but not in the forefront.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not even going to bother with that article.

    A character, written 50 years ago, is not sllowed OR supposed to change along the line ???

    Not to the point of where the character, eventually, no longer resembles what their creator , in this case Fleming, intended.

    So you thnk, thats the most important part of him, shagging women? I dont think so. There us a bit more too him - fortunately.

    You’re misstating my point That is a single element; look at the broader picture.

    But that is what I did and said - there is still a lot of Flemings Bond left, id he diesnt just use women

    So now Bond no longer smokes, he’s becoming more monogamous ; it’s been implied that he’s an alcoholic and possibly a drug addict who has deep psychological issues.

    To be fair, judging from the amount of alcohol and other things he consumes in the novels he probably was just that (apart from the psychological issues). At least it is much much closer to Fleming than anything Craig has brought to the table.
    I think it's a fine line when it comes to the 'realism' aspect. Bring on too much and you remove some of the fantasy which defines the cinematic character. I think he's survived for so long onscreen precisely because he represents a larger than life fantasy for many of us. To me at least, a large component of that element has dissipated under Craig's tenure. The last thing I wanted to be was like him in SP. Having said that, he did motivate me to get fitter after I first saw him in CR.

    I'm glad that the film makers have chosen to experiment with a more 'real' portrayal with this reboot iteration. My only hope is they close it out soon and move back to the larger than life version with the next chap. This has been good while it's lasted, but boy am I longing for it to be over and done with.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not even going to bother with that article.

    A character, written 50 years ago, is not sllowed OR supposed to change along the line ???

    Not to the point of where the character, eventually, no longer resembles what their creator , in this case Fleming, intended.

    So you thnk, thats the most important part of him, shagging women? I dont think so. There us a bit more too him - fortunately.

    You’re misstating my point That is a single element; look at the broader picture.

    But that is what I did and said - there is still a lot of Flemings Bond left, id he diesnt just use women

    So now Bond no longer smokes, he’s becoming more monogamous ; it’s been implied that he’s an alcoholic and possibly a drug addict who has deep psychological issues.

    To be fair, judging from the amount of alcohol and other things he consumes in the novels he probably was just that (apart from the psychological issues). At least it is much much closer to Fleming than anything Craig has brought to the table.
    I think it's a fine line when it comes to the 'realism' aspect. Bring on too much and you remove some of the fantasy which defines the cinematic character. I think he's survived for so long onscreen precisely because he represents a larger than life fantasy for many of us. To me at least, a large component of that element has dissipated under Craig's tenure. The last thing I wanted to be was like him in SP. Having said that, he did motivate me to get fitter after I first saw him in CR.

    I'm glad that the film makers have chosen to experiment with a more 'real' portrayal with this reboot iteration. My only hope is they close it out soon and move back to the larger than life version with the next chap. This has been good while it's lasted, but boy am I longing for it to be over and done with.

    A big +1 to this!

  • Posts: 6,601
    But these days all heroes have their demons. It would be ridiculous for Bond to remain the unbeatable playboy throughout, without do much asca doubt or sn own life apart from a superhero without emotions
  • edited April 2018 Posts: 6,601
    I am pretty sure, if your next Bond would be back to the 50 s Bond, people would rofl.

    Its not Bond who has changed, but the times and expectations. If you guys font see that, your are sad dinosaurs
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    talos7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'm not even going to bother with that article.

    A character, written 50 years ago, is not sllowed OR supposed to change along the line ???

    Not to the point of where the character, eventually, no longer resembles what their creator , in this case Fleming, intended.

    So you thnk, thats the most important part of him, shagging women? I dont think so. There us a bit more too him - fortunately.

    You’re misstating my point That is a single element; look at the broader picture.

    But that is what I did and said - there is still a lot of Flemings Bond left, id he diesnt just use women

    So now Bond no longer smokes, he’s becoming more monogamous ; it’s been implied that he’s an alcoholic and possibly a drug addict who has deep psychological issues.

    To be fair, judging from the amount of alcohol and other things he consumes in the novels he probably was just that (apart from the psychological issues). At least it is much much closer to Fleming than anything Craig has brought to the table.
    I think it's a fine line when it comes to the 'realism' aspect. Bring on too much and you remove some of the fantasy which defines the cinematic character. I think he's survived for so long onscreen precisely because he represents a larger than life fantasy for many of us. To me at least, a large component of that element has dissipated under Craig's tenure. The last thing I wanted to be was like him in SP. Having said that, he did motivate me to get fitter after I first saw him in CR.

    I'm glad that the film makers have chosen to experiment with a more 'real' portrayal with this reboot iteration. My only hope is they close it out soon and move back to the larger than life version with the next chap. This has been good while it's lasted, but boy am I longing for it to be over and done with.

    A big +1 to this!

    +2
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    Germanlady wrote: »
    But these days all heroes have their demons. It would be ridiculous for Bond to remain the unbeatable playboy throughout, without do much asca doubt or sn own life apart from a superhero without emotions

    The point is to find a balance and not to continue deconstructing the character.

  • Posts: 6,601
    I think the balance is or was there. They tried to bring back Bond of old and it didnt work with Sp.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I liked that they did bring back the old Bond in SP. That wasn't one of the problems for me. Not in the slightest.
  • Posts: 1,162
    In my opinion they tried and failed miserably.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I think the balance is or was there. They tried to bring back Bond of old and it didnt work with Sp.

    ...with this actor.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    You can't look like you're acting it. You have to 'be it'. That was my problem with SP. The performance was affected to me - an act. Not authentic to my eyes. Certainly not stylish either. I'm not going to go into specific scenes because I'm sure it's been discussed before.

    Bottom line is they tried it, but for me it was amateur hour all round, and this is not a script issue.

    Furthermore, you can't bring back the Bond of old and intersperse him with family issues. It doesn't work. The old screen Bond is a cipher of sorts. We know a little but not enough. That's what made him interesting. Once you delve into his personal life and his past, that mystique is lost. That's why OHMSS works - because it's a one off with a one off actor. I've always maintained that the actors who do these sort of 'lover' films need to be one offs.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I think the balance is or was there. They tried to bring back Bond of old and it didnt work with Sp.

    ...with this actor.

    ...and director, and writers

  • Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    True, the womanizing was downplayed in Dalton’s two films but somewhat returned to form with Brosnan; perhaps it’s a cyclical trend and following Craig, we will see the return of a more amorous 007.
    I'm not sure about that. It's more likely to continue. In my personal opinion, as I've mentioned previously, all they require in this instance is an actor who can give off that insouciant, nonchalant vibe with style. If they get him then they can dial down the direct womanizing and still give the impression. Reinjecting the playfullness vibe and casual flirting (in a natural manner) is all that is required. That can't be acted. It must come from within the actor and be inherent to his natural style imho.
    Oh yes! That would be the best way to do it. Like in the days of Connery or Moore, you never saw them at it, but you knew they were doing it. Funny, again something where less can be so much more, much like M and MP.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    But these days all heroes have their demons. It would be ridiculous for Bond to remain the unbeatable playboy throughout, without do much asca doubt or sn own life apart from a superhero without emotions

    The point is to find a balance and not to continue deconstructing the character.

    To be fair, Fleming deconstructed him too, especially in the later novels (and also via the shifting perspectives in FRWL and TSWLM).

    SF was much stronger in this regard. Compare "You know the whole story" to Bond's nonplussed reaction to Blofeld in SP.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I think the balance is or was there. They tried to bring back Bond of old and it didnt work with Sp.

    ...with this actor.

    ...and director, and writers

    and audience
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    barryt007 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    They were a lot more entertaining and more re-watchable,i must admit tbh.

    They felt like Bond films, and if i'm honest, had their share of moments that make me smile and think "Yes, this is Bond".

    Exactly..you could leave your brain at the door and watch Bond on his latest mission (yes MISSION Craig era EON !!).

    I'd love another straight forward mission plot. Don't think we'll get it before the next actor comes around, though.
    Maybe not even then! Though I do hope so.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I think the balance is or was there. They tried to bring back Bond of old and it didnt work with Sp.
    I think it did, but even if it didn't, that doesn't mean it can't work, only that it didn't work this time, under these circumstances.

    ---

    Bond being a womanizer is an essential part of the Bond films. He is character in a high-risk profession in which he may not live to see the next day, so it makes perfect sense that he takes every opportunity he can get to indulge in life's pleasures: hotels, good food, alcohol and relationships with the opposite sex. But more importantly, the womanizing is part of the Bondian fantasy that makes these films appealing. And there's nothing wrong with having plenty of relationships, as long as the other person is treated with respect and fairly, so it's a legitimate fantasy. Bond may have plenty of fleeting relationships, but in the films he generally doesn't treat his female companions in any degrading way. And he is not misogynistic, as Craig has claimed. In a few of occasions, he has behaved rudely toward women, but that's part of his profession, and not directly related to the fact they're women. Or is he a misandrist because he beats up the those men in the DAF PTS?
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    talos7 wrote: »

    it’s been implied that he’s an alcoholic and possibly a drug addict who has deep psychological issues.

    Literally Fleming's Bond.

    Possibly, but not the Bond of the cinema. Some of those elements are their but not in the forefront.

    I'll tell you a secret: Bond was created by Fleming.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    If we're talking about going back to the days of double-taking pigeons, theme music taken from other films, Tarzan yells, Beach Boys songs, invisible cars, x-ray glasses, and slide whistles during stunts...no thank you. The air bag in SP was bad enough.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Birdleson wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I think the balance is or was there. They tried to bring back Bond of old and it didnt work with Sp.

    ...with this actor.

    ...and director, and writers

    and audience

    I disagree with that. If those elements are handled deftly (as I say they were in SF) the audience will respond. To go for a lighter, more flip Bond, and then create a movie that is bland in every way, from the script to filters, is a recipe for audience apathy.

    Precisely! The issues with SP stem not from its return to formula, but rather the lousy plot, weak love story, the anti-climax, step-brother fiasco, and the overall lackluster end product that EON vomited onto the screen.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    Walecs wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »

    it’s been implied that he’s an alcoholic and possibly a drug addict who has deep psychological issues.

    Literally Fleming's Bond.

    Possibly, but not the Bond of the cinema. Some of those elements are their but not in the forefront.

    I'll tell you a secret: Bond was created by Fleming.

    I appreciate that snarky enlightenment, but to the general public, who make up the vast majority of people who go see the films, Bond is a amalgamation of many influences, not the least of which are the actors, screenwriters and directors who have contributed over the past fifty plus years.


  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    mattjoes wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    They were a lot more entertaining and more re-watchable,i must admit tbh.

    They felt like Bond films, and if i'm honest, had their share of moments that make me smile and think "Yes, this is Bond".

    Exactly..you could leave your brain at the door and watch Bond on his latest mission (yes MISSION Craig era EON !!).

    I'd love another straight forward mission plot. Don't think we'll get it before the next actor comes around, though.
    Maybe not even then! Though I do hope so.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I think the balance is or was there. They tried to bring back Bond of old and it didnt work with Sp.
    I think it did, but even if it didn't, that doesn't mean it can't work, only that it didn't work this time, under these circumstances.

    ---

    Bond being a womanizer is an essential part of the Bond films.
    He is character in a high-risk profession in which he may not live to see the next day, so it makes perfect sense that he takes every opportunity he can get to indulge in life's pleasures: hotels, good food, alcohol and relationships with the opposite sex. But more importantly, the womanizing is part of the Bondian fantasy that makes these films appealing. And there's nothing wrong with having plenty of relationships, as long as the other person is treated with respect and fairly, so it's a legitimate fantasy. Bond may have plenty of fleeting relationships, but in the films he generally doesn't treat his female companions in any degrading way. And he is not misogynistic, as Craig has claimed. In a few of occasions, he has behaved rudely toward women, but that's part of his profession, and not directly related to the fact they're women. Or is he a misandrist because he beats up the those men in the DAF PTS?

    But is Bond really a womanizer? I actually think that his behavior has always been a bit overblown, a sort of myth. There are only a few instances in which Bond attempts to seduce a female just for the hell of it. Most of his sexual conquests are job-related. And in many of those instances, it is the female who is the aggressor. In many others, such as the PTS in TLD and with Plenty O'Toole in DAF, Bond is the one preyed upon, not the other way around. In fact, it is this fantasy that is being played out: a man so attractive and charming that in many respects, he doesn't have to do much to have a woman falling all over him.

    Let's not forget, Bond is an agent and tasked to use whatever is necessary to get the job done. If this means using sex, then so be it -- Xena Onatopp and Fiona Volpe are perfect examples, from the other side of the equation.

  • Posts: 17,753
    Am I the only one who thinks that beard is weird?

    What's wrong with the beard?

    If you have one exactly like it, sorry. But seriously, shave if you do.

    Stil don't see what's wrong with it haha! Just a beard, no?
Sign In or Register to comment.