› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…16951696169817001701…2507

Comments

  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves here. Let’s take this one step at a time. Let’s pray we can get our director first, then we can worry about whether or not Bond gets killed off.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited August 2018 Posts: 4,619
    It's ridiculous that some people here are against Bond dying in one movie. There are 24 official Bond movies the hero has survived, why can't he die in a single one?
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,473
    My guess is The Sun is just adding more drama to an already dramatic situation with Boyle leaving and everything.
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,044
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Just make the f***ng film.
    (Preferably without the poisoned apple that is Daniel Craig).

    Are you available to direct B25?

    That will only give @barryt007 the opportunity to reintroduce Kara!

    YES !!!! killed by a car in 5 seconds.....3 times !!

    I wonder how you're going to sell that idea to EON! :))

    Call it a dramatic Craig'ish memory.

    Hahaha!
    bondjames wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Just make the f***ng film.
    (Preferably without the poisoned apple that is Daniel Craig).

    Are you available to direct B25?

    That will only give @barryt007 the opportunity to reintroduce Kara!

    YES !!!! killed by a car in 5 seconds.....3 times !!

    I wonder how you're going to sell that idea to EON! :))
    What's the biggest film of the year? Infinity War. Nearly everyone dies in that one, so why not kill off all of these jokers in the next Bond film too? They like to follow trends, so it makes sense. Get some emotions going in the audience and all that. Not as far fetched as we may think.

    Boyle's big idea, perhaps? Just kill everyone – making the most shocking Bond film ever?

    Casino Royale 1967 beat them to it.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited August 2018 Posts: 17,756
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    It's ridiculous that some people here are against Bond dying in one movie. There are 24 official Bond movies the hero has survived, why can't he die in a single one?

    But why, WHY, should he die?
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    Bond has died before though. In YOLT his 'death' is a set-up, in CR his heart stops, and in SF it's metaphorical.
  • petergreenhill5petergreenhill5
    Posts: 824
    We all know, James Bond doesn't die. Wouldn't work in a 21st century Bond movie.....
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    Univex wrote: »
    This thread is a true yarn by now ;)

    Do you think there's someone at EON reading all of this? At this point I don't know who's making the fool out of themselves, them or us. It's all very foolish. But then again, all people are.

    I both hope so and hope not.
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    It's ridiculous that some people here are against Bond dying in one movie. There are 24 official Bond movies the hero has survived, why can't he die in a single one?

    Because having him die and then come back to life in the next film reduces the character to a gimmick. Stakes are gone, any possible tension goes. From there on out, it doesn't matter whether he lives or dies as it can just be fixed with no fuss.

    One could certainly argue that there are other things that make Bond a bit gimmicky but I don't think it's ridiculous to not want him to become a video game character.

    On the flip-side, it does definitively tie off the Craig era as its own thing. So there's that.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    So now I just come on this thread to be amused by the newest wild rumors. Do we have a rumors thread? I don't remember ... ;)
  • antovolkantovolk
    edited August 2018 Posts: 3,164
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    It's ridiculous that some people here are against Bond dying in one movie. There are 24 official Bond movies the hero has survived, why can't he die in a single one?

    But why, WHY, should he die?

    Because it'd be a fitting end to Craig's self-contained arc before casting a new Bond?

    Like, we know there'll be more Wolverine movies with a new actor under Disney/Marvel Studios and they still killed off Hugh Jackman's...
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Because having him die and then come back to life in the next film reduces the character to a gimmick. Stakes are gone, any possible tension goes.
    We already know that one way or another James Bond will always return. So the stakes were never there. Craig's Bond dying and then another interpretation of Bond appearing on the big screen years later would not reduce the character to a gimmick, because that wouldn't be Craig's Bond anymore. It would be a whole new interpretation.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    antovolk wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    It's ridiculous that some people here are against Bond dying in one movie. There are 24 official Bond movies the hero has survived, why can't he die in a single one?

    But why, WHY, should he die?

    Like, we know there'll be more Wolverine movies with a new actor under Disney/Marvel Studios and they still killed off Hugh Jackman's...

    Yeah, but in that case that's because (please correct me if I'm wrong) Logan was distributed by 21st Century Fox, not Disney.

    If EON were to sell Bond rights then they'd have a point in killing him, but that's not the case as far as we know (there have been rumors since SPECTRE's release, but nothing more).
  • KanangaKananga
    Posts: 367
    My guess is they now want to kill Bond off in the last film of the actor's career, a bit like Dr.Who.

    It's a bad idea and isn't going to work.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    It's ridiculous that some people here are against Bond dying in one movie. There are 24 official Bond movies the hero has survived, why can't he die in a single one?

    Seriously PP !!
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    All that money & red tape the to get the rights to spectre back & it seems there done with it already
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited August 2018 Posts: 19,339
    Bond dying isnt for Bond....its to inflate Craig's ego,his own personal timeline that makes him such a brillianr Bond...not..

    He wants total control of Bond....this guy has to go ,Babs wont fight him.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited August 2018 Posts: 17,756
    antovolk wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    It's ridiculous that some people here are against Bond dying in one movie. There are 24 official Bond movies the hero has survived, why can't he die in a single one?

    But why, WHY, should he die?

    Because it'd be a fitting end to Craig's self-contained arc before casting a new Bond?

    Like, we know there'll be more Wolverine movies with a new actor under Disney/Marvel Studios and they still killed off Hugh Jackman's...

    I really don't like the kill-off and reboot idea for Bond, really. the Craig films are bleak enough already, and killing the man would only be off-putting to many - myself included; won't go to the theatre to watch that. To quote @barryt007:
    barryt007 wrote: »
    If Bond dies then the series becomes a joke and joins the other series....thats me done....
  • antovolkantovolk
    edited August 2018 Posts: 3,164
    Walecs wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    It's ridiculous that some people here are against Bond dying in one movie. There are 24 official Bond movies the hero has survived, why can't he die in a single one?

    But why, WHY, should he die?

    Like, we know there'll be more Wolverine movies with a new actor under Disney/Marvel Studios and they still killed off Hugh Jackman's...

    Yeah, but in that case that's because (please correct me if I'm wrong) Logan was distributed by 21st Century Fox, not Disney.

    If EON were to sell Bond rights then they'd have a point in killing him, but that's not the case as far as we know (there have been rumors since SPECTRE's release, but nothing more).

    I think creatively the point still applies though - the Craig era is a closed off arc. We've already traced the character from the start of his 00 career in CR, why not actually show an 'end' to it? If anything, IMO it'd make the whole thing with Casino Royale 'rebooting the continuity' a lot cleaner if the Craig films are their own standalone thing. Again, just look at all the Batmen...
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    In the right film, the final scene in SF or SP would have been a fine way to end Craig's tenure.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    In the right film, the final scene in SF or SP would have been a fine way to end Craig's tenure.
    It still is. ;) There's no need to force this issue yet again. We've been teased twice and frankly it's getting old.

    I'm rather disappointed that this ridiculous death rumour is being defended here. It's really the dumbest idea I've read all year.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Am i seriously watching people considering scenarios for Bond's death.....Connery/Moore/Lazenby/Dalton/Brosnan ??????????? all for nothing....believe me ,it my be a separate timeline,until some possible new fan turns on the TV and sees James Bond DIE !!

    Whats the point then..protect up to DAD inclusive and STOP.

    Thats Bond.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Period Bond film would be the best way to go. Can't top the action of MI.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Period Bond film would be the best way to go. Can't top the action of MI.
    Definitely agree on the last part. They'd be fools to try.

    Not sure I'm up for a period Bond though. That could get old quickly, unless it's a one shot/film experimental deal.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Bond needs to go back to just being a damn good Bond film !!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,400
    The worst part is that people are always saying that Daniel Craig is the best actor for the bunch and yet his Bond has the least range of any! He is basically tortured the whole time, and rarely gets to be how you think of as James Bond. If he ends up dying in Bond 25, we would have gone through his entire career from rookie to deceased, with only a few scenes of actually the character we know. That's the sad part, and what is annoying is how they kept teasing us, like the end of CR, saying here is the Bond we all know and love. And need the next movie starts, and he is back tortured again. Thats fine for one movie, as a one off, but not a whole tenure that covers Bond's entire career! He needs to be Bond at some point, not on his way to getting there, not over the hill, not trapped in the past, or mourning... Just Bond!
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The worst part is that people are always saying that Daniel Craig is the best actor for the bunch and yet his Bond has the least range of any! He is basically tortured the whole time, and rarely gets to be how you think of as James Bond. If he ends up dying in Bond 25, we would have gone through his entire career from rookie to deceased, with only a few scenes of actually the character we know. That's the sad part, and what is annoying is how they kept teasing us, like the end of CR, saying here is the Bond we all know and love. And need the next movie starts, and he is back tortured again. Thats fine for one movie, as a one off, but not a whole tenure that covers Bond's entire career! He needs to be Bond at some point, not on his way to getting there, not over the hill, not trapped in the past, or mourning... Just Bond!

    Got a point there, hear hear.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    gideoneldude wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The worst part is that people are always saying that Daniel Craig is the best actor for the bunch and yet his Bond has the least range of any! He is basically tortured the whole time, and rarely gets to be how you think of as James Bond. If he ends up dying in Bond 25, we would have gone through his entire career from rookie to deceased, with only a few scenes of actually the character we know. That's the sad part, and what is annoying is how they kept teasing us, like the end of CR, saying here is the Bond we all know and love. And need the next movie starts, and he is back tortured again. Thats fine for one movie, as a one off, but not a whole tenure that covers Bond's entire career! He needs to be Bond at some point, not on his way to getting there, not over the hill, not trapped in the past, or mourning... Just Bond!

    Got a point there, hear hear.

    Exactly.....well said.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Because having him die and then come back to life in the next film reduces the character to a gimmick. Stakes are gone, any possible tension goes.
    We already know that one way or another James Bond will always return. So the stakes were never there. Craig's Bond dying and then another interpretation of Bond appearing on the big screen years later would not reduce the character to a gimmick, because that wouldn't be Craig's Bond anymore. It would be a whole new interpretation.

    That's kind of the point. Why bother killing him? Bond is not a comic-book character. He shouldn't just be killed and brought back to life willy-nilly to serve an interpretation. The floating continuity worked for 40 years without the thoughts of Bond being properly killed ever coming up. It's lazy and uninspired to consider it now. And yes, it would be a gimmick. Not only because it would mean exactly sh*t, but because if the series can go to such extremes as to have the character die, then what else could it fundamentally change? That's a rabbit hole I'd rather not delve down.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited August 2018 Posts: 4,043
    Craig has far more range than Brosnan, anyone trying to argue that is having a laugh.

    The Craig backlash has got ridiculous now, people are just lashing out and saying very silly things.

    Are we forgetting Brosnan 1 dimensional reading, even if you liked him you are going to try and tell me he was playing the role with depth?

    Although some of you would probably be happy with a clothes horse in the role as soon as you got a traditional entry out of it.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited August 2018 Posts: 17,756
    A discussion for a different thread, but I'm sure we are all aware of the range Craig can offer in his interpretation of the role. Brosnan might be a lesser actor in that regard, but I still enjoy his Bond more. That's not taking anything away from Craig, it's just an opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.