› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…17121713171517171718…2507

Comments

  • JET007JET007
    Posts: 632
    007.com is back up with nothing new...perhaps later today?
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,398
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Surprised the 007 site is still down. Perhaps an overhaul of the whole site?

    My gut tells me there is more to this website redirect..
    Or it could be I just want some news sooner than later!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    It could've been just maintenance.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    back online, nothing to declare
  • bondsumbondsum
    edited August 2018 Posts: 3,333
    TripAces wrote: »
    4. It won't hurt Bond at the box office. At least, it shouldn't. DC was smart to keep Wonder Woman set in WWI. Why update it? The story is better BECAUSE of the time period.
    Sorry @TripAces, I’m just taking your point 4 and highlighting it for obvious reasons. WWII (as in the sequel called Wonder Woman 1984) is to be set in the 1980’s, totally discarding the 1917 setting, basically only using it for one movie and NOT KEEPING it in set in WW1 as you state. Personally, I wouldn’t use WW as an example of the embodiment of perfection only one movie in. I also disagree with the Screenrant article. There’s no need to go back to the Cold War era of the 60’s, as there’s no need for Mission Impossible to also follow suit. After all, they’re both products of the same era. Regardless, there’s no way Eon or MGM are going to offend the Russian market and reignite the Cold War hostilities just became the present writers aren’t creative enough to come up with something fresh and contemporary that pleases Screenrant or a small minority of MI6 community members.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    plus, it seems the site is indeed owned by FOX as the privacy clearly states https://www.foxprivacy.com/uk/007.com/terms.html
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    bondsum wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    4. It won't hurt Bond at the box office. At least, it shouldn't. DC was smart to keep Wonder Woman set in WWI. Why update it? The story is better BECAUSE of the time period.
    Sorry @TripAces, I’m just taking your point 4 and highlighting it for obvious reasons. WWII (as in the sequel called Wonder Woman 1984) is to be set in the 1980’s, totally discarding the 1917 setting, basically only using it for one movie and NOT KEEPING it in set in WW1 as you state. Personally, I wouldn’t use WW as an example of the embodiment of perfection only one movie in. I also disagree with the Screenrant article. There’s no need to go back to the Cold War era of the 60’s, as there’s no need for Mission Impossible to also follow suit. After all, they’re both products of the same era. Regardless, there’s no way Eon or MGM are going to offend the Russian market and reignite the Cold War hostilities just became the present writers aren’t creative enough to come up with something fresh and contemporary that pleases Screenrant.

    I was only referring WW.

    Regardless, with a swicth in eras, the one thing Bond would have that MI and Bourne wouldn't is that coolness factor. In many ways, Don Draper "outcooled" James Bond.

    MadMen.jpg

  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    edited August 2018 Posts: 2,540
    A report from Polish News (23:30) on the casting rumours, with comments from film critics and 007.pl

    https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/1296557635907/polish-news-25-august
    ShakenNotStirred wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Surprised the 007 site is still down. Perhaps an overhaul of the whole site?

    My gut tells me there is more to this website redirect..
    Or it could be I just want some news sooner than later!

    It was a temporary 302 redirect. Never intended to be permanent.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Sorry @TripAces but I think it would be a gimmick that would excite only a few people and wear thin after one movie. Even Indiana Jones hasn’t stood still within its own period setting. Not that I think Indiana Jones should be used as a barometer, just as I don’t think Wonder Woman or Don Draper should either.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    @TripAces, I don't have anything conceptually against a period Bond. In fact to a degree I'd welcome the idea. As you noted, it would enable the film makers to go wild and embrace all of Bond, rather than tiptoe around the edges for fear of upsetting the PC brigade. Also, it would make the process simpler as a result.

    However, there are issues with this approach. Firstly, I think it can only work for a one-off film. Why? Well, if they decide to make series of films in this 'period', then where does one go from here? Will Bond always be stuck in the past? That's not what made the character so edgy and interesting all those years ago and since imho. Bond has always been 'cutting edge' to a degree. Daring. Forward thinking, but still entirely masculine. That's what I was hoping Boyle could recapture.

    Furthermore, as I noted in an earlier post, where do we find an actor who can embody the spirit of 60's Bond credibly and holistically? They are few and far between. Yes, Jon Hamm nailed it in Mad Men, and arguably delivered the machismo and style of early Connery, albeit with an all American flavour. However, I'd say he is an exception. Attempting this with the wrong actor could result in a catastrophe Imho.

    So, given Babs new found propensity for taking chances with the canon (starting with the reboot and Craig and ending with Brofeld), perhaps it's feasible as a one off. However, I wouldn't take it beyond that.
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,398
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    23:30

    A report from Polish News on the casting rumours, with comments from film critics and 007.pl

    https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/1296557635907/polish-news-25-august
    ShakenNotStirred wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Surprised the 007 site is still down. Perhaps an overhaul of the whole site?

    My gut tells me there is more to this website redirect..
    Or it could be I just want some news sooner than later!

    It was a temporary 302 redirect. Never intended to be permanent.

    Ah well, good to know!
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,540
    Why Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and Bond 25 Are Worth Waiting For
    https://vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/08/why-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-and-bond-25-should-push-release-dates
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,847
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Why Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and Bond 25 Are Worth Waiting For
    https://vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/08/why-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-and-bond-25-should-push-release-dates

    Vanity fair is stupid
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Why Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and Bond 25 Are Worth Waiting For
    https://vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/08/why-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-and-bond-25-should-push-release-dates
    Bond 25 is worth waiting for because once it's released, you will be able to say that the next Bond movie will be directed by Christopher Nolan.
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,632
    For what it’s worth, 007.com is back online.
  • ringfire211ringfire211
    Posts: 654
    matt_u wrote: »
    Bond can't compete with M:I? Come on... The day Cruise won't be able to perform all this crazy stunts will be the death of M:I. This franchise is all about Cruise's need to push the limits of his stunt work. The main reason why the action in Fallout is so impressing and exiting is because you know Cruise does everything by himself and the resulting level of realism is astonishing. This time I have to praise also McQuarrie because the way the action smoothly flows in the narrative is top notch in Fallout. BTW speaking about film making qualities and cinematic scope Fallout is the first M:I that can compete with a Craig's 007, imo.

    Let's hope Fallout's great action achievements will push EoN to raise the bar for B25. But there's only one Tom Cruise...
    I agree that Cruise adds a lot but it’s also the execution and the crew and director who make all this possible. Over the past 3 films the action has gotten bigger, more intense, and more visceral. Meanwhile we’ve had 4 Craig films and folks still go back to the parkour scene in CR to point out “great Bond action”. Come on, I can’t believe that that scene hasn’t already been topped since. It’s ridiculous! FALLOUT has numerous scenes (in the one film alone) that top the parkour scene, not to mention the Burj Kalifa in GP or the Airbus and motorcycle chase in RN. After that crazy finale with the helicopters in FALLOUT the parkour crane jumping stuff looks tame in comparison (yeah I know that was 12 years ago but we should have had something more impressive than that since). And I hope folks still aren’t going nuts over the bathroom fight in CR because even at the time I didn’t think it was anything stupendous. First of all it’s really quick and short to make any real impact but secondly hadn’t anyone seen the bathroom fight to end all bathroom fights in TRUE LIES? That was the high standard set by James Cameron which no one was able to top until McQuarrie and his team in FALLOUT. So CR hardly offered any real competition there.

    But consider this. For SP they built a custom Aston Martin (JUST for the movie) - the expectations were super high. What did we get? A leisurely drive through Rome with an equally impressive Jag following right behind. Can you imagine what the M:I team would have done with that? In fact I’m predicting that’s what we’ll get in the next M:I movie. That’s about the only thing that can top FALLOUT. Cruise in some crazy custom built vehicle, all tricked out. We already know that Benji has a remote controlled BMW that can drive itself.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    I don't agree with this but its a perect example of how lazy media jump on the band wagon re the production issues and you do wonder how this impacts on the brand within the mainstream?

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/aug/29/jack-ryan-reboot-overused-characters-the-joker-dracula

    The next Bond film is bogged down in so many production woes that pulling the plug seems more like an act of kindness than anything else. Make it, have Bond die at the end and then leave it forever, please.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    I don't agree with this but its a perect example of how lazy media jump on the band wagon re the production issues and you do wonder how this impacts on the brand within the mainstream?

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/aug/29/jack-ryan-reboot-overused-characters-the-joker-dracula

    The next Bond film is bogged down in so many production woes that pulling the plug seems more like an act of kindness than anything else. Make it, have Bond die at the end and then leave it forever, please.

    It’s the Guardian.
  • MooreFunMooreFun
    edited August 2018 Posts: 385
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Bond 25 is worth waiting for because once it's released, you will be able to say that the next Bond movie will be directed by Christopher Nolan.

    I'm not interested in seeing Skyfall Rises.

    pCUzzx3ABU4.jpg
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RC7 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    I don't agree with this but its a perect example of how lazy media jump on the band wagon re the production issues and you do wonder how this impacts on the brand within the mainstream?

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/aug/29/jack-ryan-reboot-overused-characters-the-joker-dracula

    The next Bond film is bogged down in so many production woes that pulling the plug seems more like an act of kindness than anything else. Make it, have Bond die at the end and then leave it forever, please.

    It’s the Guardian.

    Exactly, they can stay home. No one cares what they think.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    MooreFun wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Bond 25 is worth waiting for because once it's released, you will be able to say that the next Bond movie will be directed by Christopher Nolan.

    I'm not interested in seeing Skyfall Rises.

    pCUzzx3ABU4.jpg

    I want this poster
  • TR007TR007
    Posts: 1,165
    MooreFun wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Bond 25 is worth waiting for because once it's released, you will be able to say that the next Bond movie will be directed by Christopher Nolan.

    I'm not interested in seeing Skyfall Rises.

    pCUzzx3ABU4.jpg

    I love this!
  • Benjamin_Weekly69Benjamin_Weekly69 London
    Posts: 727
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Why Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and Bond 25 Are Worth Waiting For
    https://vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/08/why-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-and-bond-25-should-push-release-dates
    Bond 25 is worth waiting for because once it's released, you will be able to say that the next Bond movie will be directed by Christopher Nolan.

    You are like a broken record mate.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited August 2018 Posts: 17,756
    I wish you could elaborate on your certainty that Nolan will direct Bond 26, @PanchitoPistoles - instead of just repeating yourself. It may very well be that Nolan gets the gig, but unless you know something that no one else her does, there is no point making these claims.

    I hope Nolan doesn't get it, but I know some may disagree with this.
    ______________
    Re. future Bond films set in the 60's/Cold War; I think it would be interesting to watch, but for how long until people demand a present day era Bond? It could work for the run of x amount of films, of course - but it would be as risky a move as rebooting the series back in 2006, without a guarantee it would interest the general audience.

    It would also require an actor who fits the 60's Bond look perfectly, not just the Bond look, IMO.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited August 2018 Posts: 3,157
    I've heard these "Bond should die and left forever because no one cares anymore" comments so many times since I became a Bond fan in 2011, yet both Skyfall and SPECTRE were highly successful and no Bond movie has ever bombed in 53 years. So how come "no one cares anymore"?
  • JET007JET007
    Posts: 632
    Walecs wrote: »
    I've heard these "Bond should die and left forever because no one cares anymore" comments so many times since I became a Bond fan in 2011, yet both Skyfall and SPECTRE were highly successful and no Bond movie has ever bombed in 53 years. So how come "no one cares anymore"?
    It’s all about the clicks.

    #KeepCalmAndBond25On
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    bondjames wrote: »
    @TripAces, I don't have anything conceptually against a period Bond. In fact to a degree I'd welcome the idea. As you noted, it would enable the film makers to go wild and embrace all of Bond, rather than tiptoe around the edges for fear of upsetting the PC brigade. Also, it would make the process simpler as a result.

    However, there are issues with this approach. Firstly, I think it can only work for a one-off film. Why? Well, if they decide to make series of films in this 'period', then where does one go from here? Will Bond always be stuck in the past? That's not what made the character so edgy and interesting all those years ago and since imho. Bond has always been 'cutting edge' to a degree. Daring. Forward thinking, but still entirely masculine. That's what I was hoping Boyle could recapture.

    Furthermore, as I noted in an earlier post, where do we find an actor who can embody the spirit of 60's Bond credibly and holistically? They are few and far between. Yes, Jon Hamm nailed it in Mad Men, and arguably delivered the machismo and style of early Connery, albeit with an all American flavour. However, I'd say he is an exception. Attempting this with the wrong actor could result in a catastrophe Imho.

    So, given Babs new found propensity for taking chances with the canon (starting with the reboot and Craig and ending with Brofeld), perhaps it's feasible as a one off. However, I wouldn't take it beyond that.

    @bondjames I get the concern, whether or not the series could survive if kept in that era. I think it can work. It'll be interesting to see just how many films WB gets out of Fantastic Beasts, set in the 1920s. I think two more are planned.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, screw period Bond. Period movies are by their very nature a romanticised vision. We already have 60s Bond films, absolutely no need to fabricate them in the 21st century. The market would be minimal at best and anyone thinking Bond would all of a sudden become an arse-slapping, wise cracking, smoker are sorely mistaken. Bond is an icon, more so than a character - so comparisons with Don Draper are wafer thin. Sean Connery is the Bond of the 60s. End of, for me. It can’t be bettered.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    You hit all the correct points @RC7
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,473
    I’d be okay with period Bond films on the condition that they were well-made, faithful adaptations of the Fleming novels.
Sign In or Register to comment.