› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…14801481148314851486…2507

Comments

  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,154
    peter wrote: »
    Spectre is in the rear view mirror.

    True. Most audiences now probably don't even remember SP.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Spectre is in the rear view mirror.

    True. Most audiences now probably don't even remember SP.

    General audiences may look at SP as “that one that came after SF...” or something along the idea of it being a more forgettable Bond film. General audiences mostly just remember CR and SF from the Craig era; I hardly ever hear QOS or SP mentioned outside of sites like this.
  • RC7RC7
    edited May 2018 Posts: 10,512
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Spectre is in the rear view mirror.

    True. Most audiences now probably don't even remember SP.

    General audiences may look at SP as “that one that came after SF...” or something along the idea of it being a more forgettable Bond film. General audiences mostly just remember CR and SF from the Craig era; I hardly ever hear QOS or SP mentioned outside of sites like this.

    I tend to find most people have at least one they have a certain affection for and knowledge of, while the rest, by and large, are a collection of moments that they may or may not be able to pin to a specific film. I’m sure SP is a favourite for some people, while for others it will simply have its moments. No different to the rest, in the grand scheme of things. (Likewise QoS).
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    patb wrote: »
    People saying they dont want Bond to be owned by Marvel and Bond is not a super hero have perhaps missed the point. Its nothing to do with the that. It's the way the content is managed and presented to the public.

    Consumers today have a short attention span and we live in a culture that moves fast with the online media having an appetite for constant titbits to keep the momentum going. This applies not only to movies but other products and brands.

    I think any brand is making things really hard for themselves: to effective drop off of the radar and then have to rebuild the interest every 4 or 5 years. Compared to an alternative business model where you never actual leave the media arena.

    When you consider that Iron Man came out in 2008 and, in ten years, they have done a superb job of building the brand to the point where it now outguns Star Wars in terms of opening weekend.

    Put it another way: If you had a brand new movie series to launch and manage, which team would you rather handle your product? The team at Marvel or EON?
    That last question is irrelevant, because Eon are not in situation where a brand new movie series is about to be launched. And Marvel in their beginning was far from what it is now.

    Marvel managed to build a huge franchise in a comparatively short time, and they manged to be financially successful. Let's see where they are ten years from now.

  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    If only EON would improve their game with the next 007 actor, with Craig they dropped the ball in a major way.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    RC7 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Spectre is in the rear view mirror.

    True. Most audiences now probably don't even remember SP.

    General audiences may look at SP as “that one that came after SF...” or something along the idea of it being a more forgettable Bond film. General audiences mostly just remember CR and SF from the Craig era; I hardly ever hear QOS or SP mentioned outside of sites like this.

    I tend to find most people have at least one they have a certain affection for and knowledge of, while the rest, by and large, are a collection of moments that they may or may not be able to pin to a specific film. I’m sure SP is a favourite for some people, while for others it will simply have its moments. No different to the rest, in the grand scheme of things. (Likewise QoS).

    The “casual” Bond fans that I know actually loved SP.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Spectre is in the rear view mirror.

    True. Most audiences now probably don't even remember SP.

    General audiences may look at SP as “that one that came after SF...” or something along the idea of it being a more forgettable Bond film. General audiences mostly just remember CR and SF from the Craig era; I hardly ever hear QOS or SP mentioned outside of sites like this.

    I tend to find most people have at least one they have a certain affection for and knowledge of, while the rest, by and large, are a collection of moments that they may or may not be able to pin to a specific film. I’m sure SP is a favourite for some people, while for others it will simply have its moments. No different to the rest, in the grand scheme of things. (Likewise QoS).

    The “casual” Bond fans that I know actually loved SP.

    Then we have had opposing experiences.
    Pretty much the same here. Indifference mostly, with some criticism of Blofeld (retreading old ground or thought he was dead is what I heard from a few). Some skipped it based on the trailers.

    The most enthusiasm (and believe me, it was quite tepid) I heard from anyone for it was from my dad, and even he asked me why they were doing this continuity thing (I'm pretty sure he had completely forgotten the older films when he saw SP on blu, and I should have realized that when I lent it to him, and given him the earlier three Craig entries at the same time so he could refresh himself. My mistake).
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    While I would miss Fiennes as M (seriously, am I the only one here that likes him as M?), the films shouldn't be put on hold for anyone, even including the Bond actor. The films should come first. HMS Bond needs a firm hand at the wheel.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    They went in the wrong direction with SP story-wise. The end of SF felt like the promise of traditional Bond again, and SP failed to deliver that in the story department. Too many callbacks and such. I think there’s a chance we might get what most of us wanted though for Bond 24 (SP) with Bond 25 - something new but classic and its own thing entirely.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    While I would miss Fiennes as M (seriously, am I the only one here that likes him as M?), the films shouldn't be put on hold for anyone, even including the Bond actor. The films should come first. HMS Bond needs a firm hand at the wheel.

    I was excited about him at the conclusion of SF, but they turned him into such a whiny putz in SP that I really lost interest in seeing him continue. However, if the filmmakers decided to portray him as a conventional M (wisdom, confidence, staying out of the action), I think that he could still fill the role nicely.
    I agree. He could still work, if the writing is up to snuff. He was overly disagreeable in SP imho and seemed like he was constipated for most of it.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    I definitely would like to see him have another chance. I think all the current MI6 members were well-cast in SF, but just not always used the best in SP. Bring them all back with more traditional roles in Bond 25 and I’ll be happy. Tanner though I wouldn’t mind being gone...
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Of the current M, Q, Moneypenny & Tanner, the latter is the one we have seen in the most films, yet has no discernible personality. Tanner is the only member of the MI6 staff that I would be fine with if he were given a break. Maybe it is down to the actor, or maybe the writers just don't know what to do with Tanner, but I don't see why Moneypenny can't take up his duties (role the Moneypenny scene and Tanner scene into one).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    What bugs me about Tanner is how utterly useless he is, but they keep writing him in - but then Felix Leiter returns in CR and QoS, and they did away with him real quick. Tanner is there to brief the audience on stuff we already knew if we were paying attention.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Tanner was most useless in SP. But, I admit, in QoS and SF, he did live up to his roles.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    My "favorite" interaction with Bond and Tanner:

    "So that's C's new digs?"
    "You've met him, have you?"

    "...well yeah Tanner, I came up with that nickname."
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Actually, 'C' is Denbigh's MI6 title.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    jake24 wrote: »
    Actually, 'C' is Denbigh's MI6 title.

    Always assumed it was just some nickname he came up with. Makes sense. Even still, such an oddball, unnecessary interaction.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    I thought it was a nickname/veiled insult as well. Doesn't Bond say something like: "I think i'll call you C"?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited May 2018 Posts: 10,591
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    I thought it was a nickname/veiled insult as well. Doesn't Bond say something like: "I think i'll call you C"?
    Nope. Denbigh is given the title 'C' once he's promoted. Bond says "I think I'll call you C" because he doesn't want to be friendly (by calling him by his actual name) with the man who is causing MI6 a huge amount of distress.

    It's essentially a different take on:

    "My friends call me Dominic."

    "I'm sure they do."
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    It was always implied that Bond meant that one as an insult in the vein of a double entendre. But, it's more evident in the earlier drafts than the final outcome we've seen in the film. Even though M referred to C as "Careless", it was obviously meant to be the other thing...
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Watching scenes of Sp, I think DC makes a sympathetic and empathetic Bond when, after his growl at Mr. White (not my favourite), he then starts to negotiate with a dead man. He hasta convince this dying man to trust in his word... That's f*****g gold.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,288
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I definitely would like to see him have another chance. I think all the current MI6 members were well-cast in SF, but just not always used the best in SP. Bring them all back with more traditional roles in Bond 25 and I’ll be happy. Tanner though I wouldn’t mind being gone...

    I think this M's past bears a bit of exploring (if only to send Bond to Ireland), else why bring it up in SF?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    peter wrote: »
    Watching scenes of Sp, I think DC makes a sympathetic and empathetic Bond when, after his growl at Mr. White (not my favourite), he then starts to negotiate with a dead man. He hasta convince this dying man to trust in his word... That's f*****g gold.

    Not that difficult to do when you hand over a loaded gun to said dying man. If that's not a convincing statement of trust I don't know what is.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    It was always implied that Bond meant that one as an insult in the vein of a double entendre. But, it's more evident in the earlier drafts than the final outcome we've seen in the film. Even though M referred to C as "Careless", it was obviously meant to be the other thing...
    Ironically the real life head of MI6 is nicknamed and signs as "C" in green ink. Apparently the next one in line for the job is "a lady" (to quote Zukovsky), as is the current Q.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited May 2018 Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    It was always implied that Bond meant that one as an insult in the vein of a double entendre. But, it's more evident in the earlier drafts than the final outcome we've seen in the film. Even though M referred to C as "Careless", it was obviously meant to be the other thing...
    Ironically the real life head of MI6 is nicknamed and signs as "C" in green ink. Apparently the next one in line for the job is "a lady" (to quote Zukovsky), as is the current Q.
    Indeed. And I wonder by giving Denbigh the C title was a deliberate play on the real life head of MI-6's code letter. I always assumed it was. I believe it came from the original head of the Secret Intelligence Service, Sir Mansfield Smith-Cumming.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    It was always implied that Bond meant that one as an insult in the vein of a double entendre. But, it's more evident in the earlier drafts than the final outcome we've seen in the film. Even though M referred to C as "Careless", it was obviously meant to be the other thing...
    Ironically the real life head of MI6 is nicknamed and signs as "C" in green ink. Apparently the next one in line for the job is "a lady" (to quote Zukovsky), as is the current Q.
    Indeed. And I wonder by giving Denbigh the C title was a deliberate play on the real life head of MI-6's code letter. I always assumed it was. I believe it came from the original head of the Secret Intelligence Service, Sir Mansfield Smith-Cumming.
    Yes, that's what I thought too.

    It will be interesting to see what EON do if the next head is in fact a woman (and rumours are it will be). I'm sure they regret discarding Dench to a degree (although she was getting on).
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,779
    As far a women at the top, it's not so novel with Eliza Manningham-Buller and Dame Stella Rimington heading MI5 in the past.

    Better EON do something "different" with a male M. Dench had a great run, 20 years if you count her cameo in Spectre.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    As far a women at the top, it's not so novel with Eliza Manningham-Buller and Dame Stella Rimington heading MI5 in the past.

    Better EON do something "different" with a male M. Dench had a great run, 20 years if you count her cameo in Spectre.
    I've no problems personally with a male lead continuing for MI6 in the Bond universe. As you say it would make for a change after 20 odd years.

    I just realized that if MI6 is in fact led by a woman next go around (as is rumoured) and if Gina Haspel gets confirmed as CIA director that would certainly make a first.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    As an aside, we're on page 1500. Still no distributor, despite the release date being announced on July 24, 2017. Carry on.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited May 2018 Posts: 9,509
    doubleoego wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Watching scenes of Sp, I think DC makes a sympathetic and empathetic Bond when, after his growl at Mr. White (not my favourite), he then starts to negotiate with a dead man. He hasta convince this dying man to trust in his word... That's f*****g gold.

    Not that difficult to do when you hand over a loaded gun to said dying man. If that's not a convincing statement of trust I don't know what is.

    I’m not understanding your point? I think we're saying the same thing? But, I'm not sure. No disrespect on my part. I am genuinely unclear.

Sign In or Register to comment.