No Time To Die: Production Diary

11411421441461472507

Comments

  • Posts: 4,325
    Hmm, but surely it woild only be ironic if it's clear that Bond smokes - apart from the cigar in DAD, Brosnan's Bond doesn't.
  • Posts: 4,325
    Brosnan: "I don't give a damn about everyone's perception of the character: I think smoking causes cancer therefore he doesn't smoke",

    That's what Brozza thinks about our perception of the character, James Bond, nice guy.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Brosnan: "I don't give a damn about everyone's perception of the character: I think smoking causes cancer therefore he doesn't smoke",

    That's what Brozza thinks about our perception of the character, James Bond, nice guy.
    Ironically, and if I'm not mistaken, Brosnan was a smoker at that time. There are many photos of him taking a puff.
  • Posts: 4,325
    The more I read that quote the more nonsensical it reads coming from an actor, it's like saying

    'I think murder is a horrible thing and is a bad thing for society, so when i play Macbeth he doesn't kill the king.'
  • Posts: 6,432
    As long as James Bond never Vapes, heaven forbid. I quit smoking two years ago, Bond can quit smoking and even restart that's feasible.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    I would love to see Bond smoking again.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    I understand Brosnan lost family members to cancer, so I understand why he would be touchy on the subject. You can't hold that against him.
  • Posts: 4,325
    I understand Brosnan lost family members to cancer, so I understand why he would be touchy on the subject. You can't hold that against him.

    True.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited May 2016 Posts: 15,423
    I want Bond to smoke, again, too.

    And to this day, Brosnan still smokes cigars.
  • Posts: 233
    I love the James Bond novels, but i can accept them for what they are; products of their time. I'm happy that Bond has been able to survive and adapt to the changing world around him while maintaining the core of the character, and I think it's a good thing that as a society we've become less accepting of prejudice and we afford more opportunities for marginalised groups.

    You lot might want Bond to stay in some sort of 1950s stasis, irrespective of the world around him, but i really hope that audiences at large has reached a point where they don't care if the actor playing James Bond happens to be black, or Asian, or ginger.

    If you make this sort of thing a sticking point then you risk becoming consigned to the dustbin of history, like all those morons who kicked up a fuss about a Scottish milkman playing James Bond.

    But explain to me why wanting the character of Bond to remain white is the equvilant of wanting 'some sort of 1950s stasis'? How is the character being white somehow an old fashioned, antiquated idea?

    You keep bringing up the Scottish thing, but like I keep telling you, no one was pushing for that. What you are saying is that we should change something just to appease a certain demographic. That's different from hiring Dalton who happened to be Welsh, or Brosnan who happened to be Irish. There is nothing out of touch about a white guy playing Bond. Stop pretending like its some sort of issue that needs to be addressed.

    This is my point exactly! I'm not saying we should change Bond's ethnicity to appease anyone, but how is casting an actor who happens to be black any different from casting an actor who happens to have green eyes? As long as they can act the part, why is skin colour a deal breaker?

    Because it's an on/off visual transformation. The closest we have come to something similar is in the eyes, hair and height of the actors, but that's only because NO MATTER who they picked, they would always look slightly different than the last guy, have a different place of birth for instance. Those are things that EON couldn't control no matter who they pick. Race is an different matter.

    When they cast Daniel Craig, they could have picked a whole range of other actors who looked more like the previous Bonds. But they obviously thought that Dan could do a better job in the role than say, Clive Owen, so they cast an average height blonde man in spite of his appearance, because he was the best actor for the part. I don't see how someone having a darker skin tone is any different when they've already taken so many liberties with the character's appearance in the past, the last time they actively tried to cast someone who resembled the previous Bond was George Lazenby, and look how that turned out.
  • Posts: 6,432
    I miss my Cigars, and then I don't.
  • Posts: 233
    On the subject of smoking, I wouldn't mind seeing Bond smoke again, although I can't really see it happening. It's just not socially acceptable anymore, are they really going to have a scene of Bond popping to the designated smoking area in MI6 HQ? In the past few films they seem to have focused attention on Bond's alcoholism, which might be a way of making up for the lack of smoking.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I think Brosnan's comments may have been on account of a directive from Babs more than his own view. I have even seen recent photos of him smoking so he still takes the occasional drag now and then, which is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5e/56/2d/5e562dbfa3002c411b392806be5a7573.jpg
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think Brosnan's comments may have on account of a directive from Babs more than his own view. I have even seen recent photos of him smoking so he still takes the occasional drag now and then, which is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5e/56/2d/5e562dbfa3002c411b392806be5a7573.jpg

    Yeah, smoking isn't that dangerous, just make having a coffee in the morning isn't that dangerous. If you drink 12 cups a day, it's probably a health hazard. Then again, I once heard that eating more than seven bananas a day is lethal, or if you eat nothing but rabbit for a month you die of malnourishment.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited May 2016 Posts: 11,139
    One of the biggest problems for Bond and in society at large is, men can't be men. Being a "man" causes all sorts of ancillary offences and now more than ever branding is everything. How does Bond get to be Bond as the world knew and loved him in the first place without pissing off certain groups or to not be seen as gauche? With the proliferating culture of social media and its do or die cult-like users it's now possible to have brands, institutions and legacies come under nuclear levels of fire, reputations ruined and sales brutally compromised.

    You have all manner of morons and creeps instigating trouble, turning minor and even normal/typical things into an international moral panic and don't get me started on those so called "shippers" who are so far removed from reality that's it's beyond terrifying to the point where actually considering mind control may actually be tge best thing for the human race.

    Bond as he is is so watered down now. Criticisms of his character at his expense within the novies themselves (looking at you especially GE) is embarrassing and a huge slap to the face of Fleming and the hardwork the movie makers put in in the first place to get these movies up and running in the early days. Now, we have Craig appeasing certain groups by outright adversely calling Bond a misogynist and dressing up as a woman to promote women's rights, which in principle isn't a bad thing but it's not something James bloody Bond should be going anywhere near. Stripping down the character and peeling back the layers is one thing but all this dismantling of the man is shameful and ridiculous.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    On the subject of smoking, I wouldn't mind seeing Bond smoke again, although I can't really see it happening. It's just not socially acceptable anymore, are they really going to have a scene of Bond popping to the designated smoking area in MI6 HQ? In the past few films they seem to have focused attention on Bond's alcoholism, which might be a way of making up for the lack of smoking.

    Designated smoking area? Bond breaks all the rules. B-)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    doubleoego wrote: »
    One of the biggest problems for Bond and in society at large is, men can't be men. Being a "man" causes all sorts of ancillary offences and now more than ever branding is everything. How does Bond get to be Bond as the world knew and loved him in the first place without pissing off certain groups or to not be seen as gauche? With the proliferating culture of social media and its do or die cult-like users it's now possible to have brands, institutions and legacies come under nuclear levels of fire, reputations ruined and sales brutally compromised.

    You have all manner of morons and creeps instigating trouble, turning minor and even normal/typical things into an international moral panic and don't get me started on those so called "shippers" who are so far removed from reality that's it's beyond terrifying to the point where actually considering mind control may actually be tge best thing for the human race.

    Bond as he is is so watered down now. Criticisms of his character at his expense within the novies themselves (looking at you especially GE) is embarrassing and a huge slap to the face of Fleming and the hardwork the movie makers put in in the first place to get these movies up and running in the early days. Now, we have Craig appeasing certain groups by outright adversely calling Bond a misogynist and dressing up as a woman to promote women's rights, which in principle isn't a bad thing but it's not something James bloody Bond should be going anywhere near. Stripping down the character and peeling back the layers is one thing but all this dismantling of the man is shameful and ridiculous.

    +1
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    doubleoego wrote: »
    One of the biggest problems for Bond and in society at large is, men can't be men. Being a "man" causes all sorts of ancillary offences and now more than ever branding is everything. How does Bond get to be Bond as the world knew and loved him in the first place without pissing off certain groups or to not be seen as gauche? With the proliferating culture of social media and its do or die cult-like users it's now possible to have brands, institutions and legacies come under nuclear levels of fire, reputations ruined and sales brutally compromised.

    You have all manner of morons and creeps instigating trouble, turning minor and even normal/typical things into an international moral panic and don't get me started on those so called "shippers" who are so far removed from reality that's it's beyond terrifying to the point where actually considering mind control may actually be tge best thing for the human race.

    Bond as he is is so watered down now. Criticisms of his character at his expense within the novies themselves (looking at you especially GE) is embarrassing and a huge slap to the face of Fleming and the hardwork the movie makers put in in the first place to get these movies up and running in the early days. Now, we have Craig appeasing certain groups by outright adversely calling Bond a misogynist and dressing up as a woman to promote women's rights, which in principle isn't a bad thing but it's not something James bloody Bond should be going anywhere near. Stripping down the character and peeling back the layers is one thing but all this dismantling of the man is shameful and ridiculous.

    Someone finally said it! =D>
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    doubleoego wrote: »
    One of the biggest problems for Bond and in society at large is, men can't be men. Being a "man" causes all sorts of ancillary offences and now more than ever branding is everything. How does Bond get to be Bond as the world knew and loved him in the first place without pissing off certain groups or to not be seen as gauche? With the proliferating culture of social media and its do or die cult-like users it's now possible to have brands, institutions and legacies come under nuclear levels of fire, reputations ruined and sales brutally compromised.

    You have all manner of morons and creeps instigating trouble, turning minor and even normal/typical things into an international moral panic and don't get me started on those so called "shippers" who are so far removed from reality that's it's beyond terrifying to the point where actually considering mind control may actually be tge best thing for the human race.

    Bond as he is is so watered down now. Criticisms of his character at his expense within the novies themselves (looking at you especially GE) is embarrassing and a huge slap to the face of Fleming and the hardwork the movie makers put in in the first place to get these movies up and running in the early days. Now, we have Craig appeasing certain groups by outright adversely calling Bond a misogynist and dressing up as a woman to promote women's rights, which in principle isn't a bad thing but it's not something James bloody Bond should be going anywhere near. Stripping down the character and peeling back the layers is one thing but all this dismantling of the man is shameful and ridiculous.

    Someone finally said it! =D>

    +1

    (Oddly now I have the "Now that we're men song" from the first Spongue Bob movie in my head BUT ignoring that I agree.)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Well all of this will be moot if Trump gets in. Then alpha male will be back in full effect. Bit like the Reagan era (Sly, Arnie, Bruce, Chuck, Dolph, Mel etc. all came of age during this time).

    No more 'girlie' men as Arnie says.
  • Posts: 233
    Meh, I quite enjoy the fact that I don't have to conform to some ridiculous arbitrary standard of what a "man" is. And I think M's dressing down of Bond is one of the best scenes of the Brosnan era, an excellent way to address Bond's character in the modern world. But different strokes I guess.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited May 2016 Posts: 4,116
    No I agree M's dressing down of Bond was perfect.

    The way I took the poster is let Bond be Bond ... don't try to appease everyone.

    No where in that comment to I take to define what a man is. Just let Bond be Bond.

    You can be bi and be all man. I didn't get the same jest that you did @jaws
  • Posts: 2,483
    On the subject of smoking, I wouldn't mind seeing Bond smoke again, although I can't really see it happening. It's just not socially acceptable anymore, are they really going to have a scene of Bond popping to the designated smoking area in MI6 HQ? In the past few films they seem to have focused attention on Bond's alcoholism, which might be a way of making up for the lack of smoking.

    And who, exactly, gets to determine what's "socially acceptable"? You?

  • Posts: 2,483
    doubleoego wrote: »
    One of the biggest problems for Bond and in society at large is, men can't be men. Being a "man" causes all sorts of ancillary offences and now more than ever branding is everything. How does Bond get to be Bond as the world knew and loved him in the first place without pissing off certain groups or to not be seen as gauche? With the proliferating culture of social media and its do or die cult-like users it's now possible to have brands, institutions and legacies come under nuclear levels of fire, reputations ruined and sales brutally compromised.

    You have all manner of morons and creeps instigating trouble, turning minor and even normal/typical things into an international moral panic and don't get me started on those so called "shippers" who are so far removed from reality that's it's beyond terrifying to the point where actually considering mind control may actually be tge best thing for the human race.

    Bond as he is is so watered down now. Criticisms of his character at his expense within the novies themselves (looking at you especially GE) is embarrassing and a huge slap to the face of Fleming and the hardwork the movie makers put in in the first place to get these movies up and running in the early days. Now, we have Craig appeasing certain groups by outright adversely calling Bond a misogynist and dressing up as a woman to promote women's rights, which in principle isn't a bad thing but it's not something James bloody Bond should be going anywhere near. Stripping down the character and peeling back the layers is one thing but all this dismantling of the man is shameful and ridiculous.

    Post of the Thread. You remove everything that makes Bond Bond, and what do you get? A typical, cardboard and banal Hollywood action hero.

  • Posts: 233
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    No I agree M's dressing down of Bond was perfect.

    The way I took the poster is let Bond be Bond ... don't try to appease everyone.

    No where in that comment to I take to define what a man is. Just let Bond be Bond.

    You can be bi and be all man. I didn't get the same jest that you did @jaws

    That's why I like that scene so much. It's basically saying that Bond is still a sexist, womanising tosspot, but he has to exist in a world where women are in positions of authority and sometimes they won't tolerates his shit. Just because Bond is a politically incorrect character that doesn't mean it has to be celebrated.
  • Posts: 2,483
    Meh, I quite enjoy the fact that I don't have to conform to some ridiculous arbitrary standard of what a "man" is. And I think M's dressing down of Bond is one of the best scenes of the Brosnan era, an excellent way to address Bond's character in the modern world. But different strokes I guess.

    Masculinity and femininity are anything BUT arbitrary. The coercive neutered "masculinity" of our age is a deranged aberration.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Meh, I quite enjoy the fact that I don't have to conform to some ridiculous arbitrary standard of what a "man" is. And I think M's dressing down of Bond is one of the best scenes of the Brosnan era, an excellent way to address Bond's character in the modern world. But different strokes I guess.

    Masculinity and femininity are anything BUT arbitrary. The coercive neutered "masculinity" of our age is a deranged aberration.

    Yeah, sexual dimorphism, and all that. That's tends to "trigger" a lot of people nowadays. =))
  • Posts: 233
    Meh, I quite enjoy the fact that I don't have to conform to some ridiculous arbitrary standard of what a "man" is. And I think M's dressing down of Bond is one of the best scenes of the Brosnan era, an excellent way to address Bond's character in the modern world. But different strokes I guess.

    Masculinity and femininity are anything BUT arbitrary. The coercive neutered "masculinity" of our age is a deranged aberration.

    I'm generally of the school of thought that people be should be able to be or do whatever they want with their life, regardless of your archaic perception of what men and women should be. I've always found masculinity to be quite a poisonous concept, but I fear that we're drifting off topic here.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Meh, I quite enjoy the fact that I don't have to conform to some ridiculous arbitrary standard of what a "man" is. And I think M's dressing down of Bond is one of the best scenes of the Brosnan era, an excellent way to address Bond's character in the modern world. But different strokes I guess.

    Masculinity and femininity are anything BUT arbitrary. The coercive neutered "masculinity" of our age is a deranged aberration.

    I'm generally of the school of thought that people be should be able to be or do whatever they want with their life, regardless of your archaic perception of what men and women should be. I've always found masculinity to be quite a poisonous concept, but I fear that we're drifting off topic here.

    Contradictions, contradictions everywhere.
Sign In or Register to comment.