› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…16961697169917011702…2507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Some of the dramatic acting in TWINE was particularly cringe worthy. I'd rather not go back to that, thank you very much. Then again, I don't want to see that sort of crap in a Bond film to begin with. Let's get back to basics, rather than these nonsensical familial and other concepts designed to cheaply tug at emotions. Bond should be better than this, even if the majority of the viewing public likes this sort of thing.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    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.

    Mendes is just using this thread to take side swipes at Craig as he so wrapped up in his Turner must be Bond campaign I've never seen such an example of a broken record.

    I don't why this thread has descend into lets slag off DC but there you go that's where it's gone and @Mendes4Lyfe and @barryt007 are leading the charge.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,819
    @Shardlake I totally understood that. I just felt it was OK to drop a comment about my own opinion, as someone in the middle regarding the opinions of Craig and him as Bond.

    I do agree with @Mendes4Lyfe that the "tortured" angle is getting a bit much now, though. Do hope that Bond 25 can be a film that offers something else – if only just a little bit different.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited August 2018 Posts: 4,619
    I hope they will never go back simple mission movies. Drama is needed but it has to originate from the events on screen and not from something that happened in the past. Also, Bond himself doesn't always have to be the centre of the drama! One of the many things I really appreciated about Skyfall is that it had drama, but it was M and the main villain rather than Bond who were at the centre of it.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,231
    Craig and Brosnan are/were both great yet totally different Bonds - very well suited to the time periods that they started off in, before losing their way a bit by film four.

    Craig, unlike Brosnan, has the chance to redeem his era and go out on a high, and I think he'll do great. It's off to a shakey start, but it's not beyond course correction.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,819
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    I hope they will never go back simple mission movies. Drama is needed but it has to originate from the events on screen and not from something that happened in the past. Also, Bond himself doesn't always have to be the centre of the drama! One of the many things I really appreciated about Skyfall is that it had drama, but it was M and the main villain rather than Bond who were at the centre of it.

    I am in the other camp as far as that goes!
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    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!

    Hardly consider his relationship with blofeld in spectre emotional since he treated him like any other villain
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I don't get a one-note tortured Bond from Craig, IMHO. We have an arrogant rookie in the first film who gets dealt some useful blows and learns something about himself-- and the game he's in, which is humbling, and devastating in equal measures.

    QoS sees a man on a mission, with one scene, ONE, where he shows how f***ed-up he is.

    SF, he's betrayed by his mentor (he heard her order), and he has to overcome that to see she made the right choice...

    SP-- I don't get where, in this film, he's tortured-- other than physically (where he recovers in no-time, unfortunately). But he's a man married to his job at the beginning, who seemingly leaves it at the end...

    Craig delivered four, unique perspectives from the one man he was playing. I'd say he was quite varied.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    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!
    You know, frankly I think we'll never see this from him. That would most readily have occured in that long gap between QoS and SF, but we never got that film. So it's almost as though he is the Bond for the beginning, and now reportedly for some rumoured particularly tortured end. The rest of the Bonds were in that space 'in between' which we never got with this one.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    peter wrote: »
    I don't get a one-note tortured Bond from Craig, IMHO. We have an arrogant rookie in the first film who gets dealt some useful blows and learns something about himself-- and the game he's in, which is humbling, and devastating in equal measures.

    QoS sees a man on a mission, with one scene, ONE, where he shows how f***ed-up he is.

    SF, he's betrayed by his mentor (he heard her order), and he has to overcome that to see she made the right choice...

    SP-- I don't get where, in this film, he's tortured-- other than physically (where he recovers in no-time, unfortunately). But he's a man married to his job at the beginning, who seemingly leaves it at the end...

    Craig delivered four, unique perspectives from the one man he was playing. I'd say he was quite varied.

    I agree with this @peter

    I might not have liked all of the material he's been working with, but I never disliked any of Craig's performances.
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited August 2018 Posts: 6,710
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Here's my instant pitch:

    The film begins with Bond doing something quite anti-heroic, to our amazement (Like Bond killing M). Then we soon realize that ex-007, having quit the service in SP, is now a very expensive gun for hire in the vein of Scaramanga. He is hired by an oligarch that has some plans of his own. Bond joins the villain's ranks and seems to have the fun of his life on the dark side of things, enjoying the luxurious life in Dubrovnik and the Dalmatian coast, and then, just then, while all seems very, very surreal, Bond sabotages the whole thing. Only then it's revealed that the leaving the service thing was a mission itself, something sanctioned secretly by M himself (who is not really dead). Oh, and no henchman, Bond would be the henchman, with a quirk of his own, a signature if you'd like.

    See? Done right it could be cool. Not that it's a completely original ideia, but if the organics of the piece were done differently, juggling with the audience and our pre conceived ideia of who James Bond should be, it would be fun.

    I love that pitch. Far more interesting and unique than simply Bond dying or something. I’d love to see Craig tackle that. Excellent idea @Univex!

    Thank you, @FoxRox. It's what I do. That's why I can't make peace with the lack of imagination from the so called writers of the latest scripts. Thinking a bit more on that idea, if the oligarch were a woman, that't would make for an interesting angle. The Property of a Lady could then be used as a title. And it would only be a mission. Nothing personal. No angst. Reminded me of something Sherlock Holmes said about himself. That if we would turn into a criminal, we would be the best one. Or something along those lines. Now imagine that apparently applied to Bond. Wouldn't that be cool? But do it with panache and grandeur, as the flamboyant type he is.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,819
    I haven't read every article of the latest developments, but has the Russian character been described as an oligarch? Just curious.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,710
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    I haven't read every article of the latest developments, but has the Russian character been described as an oligarch? Just curious.
    No, I don't think so.
  • QQ7QQ7 Croatia
    Posts: 371
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    I hope they will never go back simple mission movies. Drama is needed but it has to originate from the events on screen and not from something that happened in the past. Also, Bond himself doesn't always have to be the centre of the drama! One of the many things I really appreciated about Skyfall is that it had drama, but it was M and the main villain rather than Bond who were at the centre of it.

    "Never" might be too strong but I hope that they can keep the franchise fresh, single missions are definitely opposite of that.

    Period Bond of trilogy of some kind might be a way to go.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,710
    Can anyone confirm what I just read at Comingsoon.net, about Edgar Wright having said he would love to direct a Bond film? Did he say that at some point? Anyone?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    thank you @CraigMooreOHMSS ... I didn't exactly love the last film, but, like you I've never disliked any of Craig's performances either. I think this hate has gone a little wild-fire, fuelled by tabloid gossip of Craig having temper tantrums.

    One of our members posted a long list of very renowned directors and actors Craig has worked with-- not one has a bad word to say (just the opposite, in fact). You'd think if the guy was a douche, a few of those people would have leaked something.

    I have also said that ppl in the industry love the guy. I'm presently working with a man that worked with him on multiple occasions as a second unit/stunt team, and his people love him; an industry member of this site who no longer comments here (because he was verbally kicked and called a liar) knows people who have also worked with DC and admire him as a man and as an actor.

    The only ones calling him a diva are some papers like The Sun or the Mirror-- and haters on this site gobble it up...

    Deadline, which has consistently broken news on Bond (and has been correct), has never reported this bad behaviour....

    Industry people praise him.

    And, maybe there's a reason why Babs loves him-- because, apart from his sardonic humour that's purposefully misread so there are headlines tomorrow-- he actually cares about the legacy of Bond, and his role in that legacy.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,710
    I actually love it that Craig is always being criticised only to prove everyone wrong constantly. It's his thing by now. The more you bitch about him, the greater he is. So please be free to extend him all of your hate (to the members with vitriol towards the gentleman), he'll only prove himself to be awesome. That's the Craig I know.

    And @Peter, you're right, on all accounts. Cheers mate.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,819
    Univex wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    I haven't read every article of the latest developments, but has the Russian character been described as an oligarch? Just curious.
    No, I don't think so.

    Thanks! An oligarch Russian villain would make sense. It will be interesting to see what kind of character this Russian will be.
  • RC7RC7
    edited August 2018 Posts: 10,512
    Univex wrote: »
    I actually love it that Craig is always being criticised only to prove everyone wrong constantly. It's his thing by now. The more you bitch about him, the greater he is. So please be free to extend him all of your hate (to the members with vitriol towards the gentleman), he'll only prove himself to be awesome. That's the Craig I know.

    And @Peter, you're right, on all accounts. Cheers mate.

    A fair point. The childish cries of ‘I wish he’d just be Bond!’ are amusing. He was, is and continues to be, Bond. Get over yourselves.

    EDIT: The funniest thing I’ve noticed recently are those lauding SP as the perfect swan song, having consistently ridiculed it. It really is like being in my daughter’s nursery. We can see you!
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,521
    I’ll never understand all the Craig hate. His run hasn’t been perfect, but he’s brought so much to the table as James Bond. Personally, I think his first 3 Bond films are awesome, with SP being the only real disappointment. I’m going to remain cautiously optimistic that his last one can be another great one.
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited August 2018 Posts: 6,710
    Spectre had story problems, it was badly written and poorly executed. But it will always be the Bond film that pushed my expectations to the fullest and was more fun to follow in production. Every piece of info, casting, photo, press conferences and all, it was all perfect. All except the film itself. But the production, man, it was wonderful. Monica Bellucci being in it, the cars, ... Well, everything except the music, that was awful on all accounts. Then the first trailer came along, with that ohmss theme going on. All great. The film itself was a disappointment. But mostly because of the story.

    All and all, the Craig era so far as been wonderful. I bet that if Thomas Waldek made a trailer with the four films, we would be quite aware of their greatness.
  • Escalus5Escalus5
    edited August 2018 Posts: 628
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    I might not have liked all of the material he's been working with, but I never disliked any of Craig's performances.

    He's terrific in CR and QOS, giving very energetic and nuanced performances.

    I thought he was coasting through the last two.

  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Nice to see more Craig supporters stepping up on here.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,918
    It's funny what's seized on to damn Craig.

    The slit the wrist comment is a prime example. Every time I hear that cited I'm reminded of a remark Craig made to the press after the success of Casino Royale, claiming he'd stopped working out because he "didn't want to be known as the fit Bond."

    I've never faulted him for that.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,382
    peter wrote: »
    I don't get a one-note tortured Bond from Craig, IMHO. We have an arrogant rookie in the first film who gets dealt some useful blows and learns something about himself-- and the game he's in, which is humbling, and devastating in equal measures.

    QoS sees a man on a mission, with one scene, ONE, where he shows how f***ed-up he is.

    SF, he's betrayed by his mentor (he heard her order), and he has to overcome that to see she made the right choice...

    SP-- I don't get where, in this film, he's tortured-- other than physically (where he recovers in no-time, unfortunately). But he's a man married to his job at the beginning, who seemingly leaves it at the end...

    Craig delivered four, unique perspectives from the one man he was playing. I'd say he was quite varied.

    Agreed on these points. Also, QoS is misunderstood by some as a revenge film. The key to the entire Bond character in that film is the very last line. (And it's one of the best lines in the franchise.)
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,521
    I’m with you guys. Craig’s Bond was extremely varied and we’ve gotten to see all sorts of sides to him. QOS isn’t really a revenge film - it’s just a film about Bond continuing after a very painful loss. It’s sort of connected to the plot, but not in a way that makes the film feel too distracting or personal. My only issue with Craig at all is that I think he is sometimes a bit too lighthearted in SP compared to his other films; it doesn’t quite fit in as well sometimes. That’s something of a script issue probably. But for the most part, he has been quite consistent and been an amazing James Bond - IMO, the best since Connery. I think some haters may come around about it when we get our next Bond actor...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’ll never understand all the Craig hate. His run hasn’t been perfect, but he’s brought so much to the table as James Bond. Personally, I think his first 3 Bond films are awesome, with SP being the only real disappointment. I’m going to remain cautiously optimistic that his last one can be another great one.
    That's a fair opinion, delivered maturely and without taking veiled jabs at those who may disagree with you.

    I like CR and SF. I don't mind QoS, but I don't like as much as other members here. Craig gives an excellent performance in it, which fits the tone of the film. I still think his best performance by far was in CR, which was made for him. Sadly, it was too good a film to start a tenure on and he's been chasing it ever since.

    In terms of swansongs, I've commented previously that I think SP would be a good note to go out on, despite my dislike for that film - especially given how it ties it all together. Sure, it was done hamfistedly, but I think technically it's a far better film than DAF or AVTAK. Furthermore, as I noted prior to his announcement of return, going out on a somewhat mediocre entry like that helps the new guy to establish himself quicker, and I'm all about the continued success of this franchise - more than I am about any one actor.

    I don't see his run as being special personally. I think he's been a decent Bond, but I still far prefer Sean and Rog, as well as Tim (he's moved up to my #3 spot). Craig's interpretation has never hit all the notes I would like, but I've been accepting of it. What choice do I have? Also, with a good script, he can be reasonably good.

    I don't deny that I am longing for a change however, as he's been around for what seems like an eon (forgive me..) now. Whenever I hear of things that can potentially further delay his desired 'high', I get upset because it means having to wait longer.

    I was ok with Boyle as director but not entirely enthused. Now I just want them to get on with it and give us something worth the wait. If they must get creative to allow him to exercise his acting chops and position himself for his post-Bond career, then so be it. Whatever you want Babs. I draw the line at any radical concepts that could make it more difficult for the franchise to move forward quickly (such as this idiotic rumoured death idea), or that result in further delays.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    Anyone care to guess when we’ll hear who the director will be? I think sooner than later, possibly this week.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Univex wrote: »
    I actually love it that Craig is always being criticised only to prove everyone wrong constantly. It's his thing by now. The more you bitch about him, the greater he is. So please be free to extend him all of your hate (to the members with vitriol towards the gentleman), he'll only prove himself to be awesome. That's the Craig I know.

    And @Peter, you're right, on all accounts. Cheers mate.

    I agree with your assessment, as well, @Univex ... In the end, like the film, or no, Craig delivers as 007.

    P
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    talos7 wrote: »
    Anyone care to guess when we’ll hear who the director will be? I think sooner than later, possibly this week.
    I'd be surprised if we don't here anything by early September.
Sign In or Register to comment.