No Time To Die: Production Diary

1172317241726172817292507

Comments

  • edited August 2018 Posts: 6,709
    So I guess @ColonelSun's words (which were the best thing to happen to this thread in quite a while) didn't simmer down some troubled souls in here. Mostly thanks to the intervention of one or two member who relish burning down every leaf of hope like they were arsonists. You know, I remember a member from years ago (circa 2006?) who had some issues with Craig and claimed to be better suited himself to play Bond. He was bald, btw, and a true delusional guy, obsessive on his points, to the point of being anti-social and passive aggressive. Anyone remembers his name? I can't, thankfully. But there's always one of these. I just find them funny. Until they aren't. @ColonelSun left because his well intended comments were ill received by people like this. I left at some point for the same reasons. I do hope we can all calm down and appreciate everyone's contribution. I they ARE contributions and not just a fuel can and a match.

    BTW, would love to see Mr. Hinx back.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,399
    bondjames wrote: »
    I too had lost faith in Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson during the Brosnan era, but they proved their worth these last dozen years. Just my own view.
    I can appreciate this point of view. I personally have lost faith during both eras similarly as they have progressed. SF was a bit of an anomaly, courtesy of Mendes's vision and the always superb Roger Deakins. Generally though, I think they have to find a way to stop peaking with the first film during this leadership run. Build to something rather than blast out of the gates (on account of the freshness of a new actor) and then taper off tepidly.

    They've certainly put themselves in a position where they need to show us something rather fantastic next year. I don't think mediocrity will suffice. Expectations are high. They didn't need to put this level of pressure on themselves imho, and I can think of a number of ways in which they could have relieved the tension along the way.

    We are where we are however. Now it's time to put up. Bring on 2019.

    That's true. Mediocre will not work this time. QoS and SP came after two very successful films, and had comparatively short breaks (2 years and 3 years). They had momentum in their favour. Bond 25 will come after a largely forgotten entry, and have one of the largest gaps in the series. If this film goes ahead as planned it had better be top notch stuff. Because if it falls short it will have repurcussions on how people see the state of the franchise.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Univex wrote: »
    So I guess @ColonelSun's words (which were the best thing to happen to this thread in quite a while) didn't simmer down some troubled souls in here. Mostly thanks to the intervention of one or two member who relish burning down every leaf of hope like they were arsonists. You know, I remember a member from years ago (circa 2006?) who had some issues with Craig and claimed to be better suited himself to play Bond. He was bold, btw, and a true delusional guy, obsessive on his points, to the point of being anti-social and passive aggressive. Anyone remembers his name? I can't, thankfully. But there's always one of these. I just find them funny. Until they aren't. @ColonelSun left because his well intended comments were ill received by people like this. I left at some point for the same reasons. I do hope we can all calm down and appreciate everyone's contribution. I they ARE contributions and not just a fuel can and a match.

    BTW, would love to see Mr. Hinx back.

    Well written @Univex ... these words, as well as others who PM'd en masse today, are amazing. The Colonel saw that too.

    But, I think he's going back into hibernation, lol... The aggressiveness of a couple people can't be worth his time, nor, as he says about another one of the recent posters, drive-by passive-aggressive attackers.

    He said it's these two or three that have hijacked decorum and debate. I tend to agree and, like him, though, read a lot of amazing voices as well (we can disagree, like, for instance, Mr. @Univex, I think Hinx belongs in a Moore film. I personally don't want to see Hinx again-- but I don't have to scratch out your eyes about this... I actually love the more grounded henchmen found in the first three Bond films, that's all)...

    So, once again, insightful words from a man who experienced similar slings and arrows and understands why Colonel's made this decision (yet again!).

    P
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I too had lost faith in Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson during the Brosnan era, but they proved their worth these last dozen years. Just my own view.
    I can appreciate this point of view. I personally have lost faith during both eras similarly as they have progressed. SF was a bit of an anomaly, courtesy of Mendes's vision and the always superb Roger Deakins. Generally though, I think they have to find a way to stop peaking with the first film during this leadership run. Build to something rather than blast out of the gates (on account of the freshness of a new actor) and then taper off tepidly.

    They've certainly put themselves in a position where they need to show us something rather fantastic next year. I don't think mediocrity will suffice. Expectations are high. They didn't need to put this level of pressure on themselves imho, and I can think of a number of ways in which they could have relieved the tension along the way.

    We are where we are however. Now it's time to put up. Bring on 2019.

    That's true. Mediocre will not work this time. QoS and SP came after two very successful films, and had comparatively short breaks (2 years and 3 years). They had momentum in their favour. Bond 25 will come after a largely forgotten entry, and have one of the largest gaps in the series. If this film goes ahead as planned it had better be top notch stuff. Because if it falls short it will have repurcussions on how people see the state of the franchise.
    I don't think it's so much about the time lag, although that has certainly played into things. I think it's more about expectations management. There would be far less rancor on this thread and elsewhere if outside expectations had been better managed. Anyway, one can't undo the past. It's only possible to look to the future, and it is what it is. Now one can only hope for the best next year. They will either get a director announced in the next couple of months & move forward, or they won't. I know which of those two scenarios I'd prefer, and I'm sure most members feel the same. Fingers crossed.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Slings and arrows aren t much of a threat to truth. Never mind them.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Slings and arrows aren t much of a threat to truth. Never mind them.

    Not according to Hamlet.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    peter wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Thanks @ColonelSun for your post and thoughts. I’m sure that I speak for the vast majority of genuine Bond fans around here and say that you’ve been solely missed on these discussion threads. Good to see you return, my friend. I just hope it’s not too brief a visit.

    Agreed, @ColonelSun -- although, I'm happy to call you a friend and chat with you frequently about Bond and Beyond-- I've told you this before: you truly are missed.

    I'll second that it's been not the same without your insight into the process. Lots of speculation from those who are fumbling in the dark and of course @peter & @RC7 offering their professional take on things which has been much needed.

    This turning on Craig had got to ridiculous levels, although in this fake news climate I'm not surprised, I'm utterly ashamed of my own countries press on this event and even now Baz is turning on DC, the press have never liked him.

    I've spoken to @peter about this but I think some forget that DC is the first bonafide internet Bond. I'd like to see how the notoriously touchy Connery and even the statesman like late great Sir Roger Moore would have reacted to this level of exposure let alone Tim or Pierce.

    Anyway seems like a lot of hyperbole and we should hear some solid news soon, once again it's great to have you back.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Shardlake wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Thanks @ColonelSun for your post and thoughts. I’m sure that I speak for the vast majority of genuine Bond fans around here and say that you’ve been solely missed on these discussion threads. Good to see you return, my friend. I just hope it’s not too brief a visit.

    Agreed, @ColonelSun -- although, I'm happy to call you a friend and chat with you frequently about Bond and Beyond-- I've told you this before: you truly are missed.

    I'll second that it's been not the same without your insight into the process. Lots of speculation from those who are fumbling in the dark and of course @peter & @RC7 offering their professional take on things which has been much needed.

    This turning on Craig had got to ridiculous levels, although in this fake news climate I'm not surprised, I'm utterly ashamed of my own countries press on this event and even now Baz is turning on DC, the press have never liked him.

    I've spoken to @peter about this but I think some forget that DC is the first bonafide internet Bond. I'd like to see how the notoriously touchy Connery and even the statesman like late great Sir Roger Moore would have reacted to this level of exposure let alone Tim or Pierce.

    Anyway seems like a lot of hyperbole and we should hear some solid news soon, once again it's great to have you back.

    I subscribe to all of this wholeheartedly! Well said.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Just re-direct him to @ColonelSun's very sober post. It's nice that it's brought momentary peace to this thread.

    A momentary lapse of reason more like.
    Great album by the way.

    Nothing new here really. It's all been discussed and will continue to be stewed over and over again in a speculative form, as has been the historic case on this thread, until we get some real official news. Hopefully that occurs in next couple of months.

    Really as Pink Floyd are my favourite band and have been for over 3 decades I'd say it's pretty much their worse album, a thinly veiled David Gilmour solo album with guest stars, Divison Bell (then that is hardly Wish, Darkside, Animals or Meddle for that matter) is much better but I digress.

    The Colonel has indeed bought some much needed levity to this thread and forum again.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Shardlake wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Thanks @ColonelSun for your post and thoughts. I’m sure that I speak for the vast majority of genuine Bond fans around here and say that you’ve been solely missed on these discussion threads. Good to see you return, my friend. I just hope it’s not too brief a visit.

    Agreed, @ColonelSun -- although, I'm happy to call you a friend and chat with you frequently about Bond and Beyond-- I've told you this before: you truly are missed.

    I'll second that it's been not the same without your insight into the process. Lots of speculation from those who are fumbling in the dark and of course @peter & @RC7 offering their professional take on things which has been much needed.

    This turning on Craig had got to ridiculous levels, although in this fake news climate I'm not surprised, I'm utterly ashamed of my own countries press on this event and even now Baz is turning on DC, the press have never liked him.

    I've spoken to @peter about this but I think some forget that DC is the first bonafide internet Bond. I'd like to see how the notoriously touchy Connery and even the statesman like late great Sir Roger Moore would have reacted to this level of exposure let alone Tim or Pierce.

    Anyway seems like a lot of hyperbole and we should hear some solid news soon, once again it's great to have you back.

    Yes @Shardlake, when you mentioned this before -- Daniel Craig being the first internet Bond-- I thought it was one of the most intelligent observations I had read in quite some time.

    Yes, Prickly Connery didn't like the press period. The attention Craig receives, would have driven Connery into retirement, immediately!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Shardlake wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Just re-direct him to @ColonelSun's very sober post. It's nice that it's brought momentary peace to this thread.

    A momentary lapse of reason more like.
    Great album by the way.

    Nothing new here really. It's all been discussed and will continue to be stewed over and over again in a speculative form, as has been the historic case on this thread, until we get some real official news. Hopefully that occurs in next couple of months.

    Really as Pink Floyd are my favourite band and have been for over 3 decades I'd say it's pretty much their worse album, a thinly veiled David Gilmour solo album with guest stars, Divison Bell (then that is hardly Wish, Darkside, Animals or Meddle for that matter) is much better but I digress.
    Oh, I don't disagree. I still prefer it to half the junk that's put out today but by their lofty standards it was subpar certainly.
    Shardlake wrote: »
    The Colonel has indeed bought some much needed levity to this thread and forum again.
    Indeed, but really nothing new. As I said, we really have discussed all of what he mentioned over and over again. It is the nature of this thread to circle back several times to old topics in the news vacuum and then burst forward in an agitated fasion whenever there is a surprising turn of events. Sadly, there appears to have been too much of both (surprises as well as news vacuums) over these past few years. I still contend that this thread is a legend and a most entertaining place to be. Just don't take anything too seriously and go with the flow.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    The Colonel has indeed bought some much needed levity to this thread and forum again.

    agreed, but gone too soon.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    I too had lost faith in Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson during the Brosnan era, but they proved their worth these last dozen years. Just my own view.

    I don't blame them too much for the Brosnan era. They were producing these films for the first time without their father. LTK under-performing put a lot of pressure on them into not only bringing back Bond but making it successful and then CONTINUE that success. Then there was MGM under a different management that didn't want the films to take risks. That's why I think the Brosnan era pulls its punches so many times throughout, especially TWINE. They really wanna push further into the kind of films that the Dalton era was striving for, but they also had to be commercial and not turn off so many audiences in the process. It was weird time. To this day they still say they approach the next Bond film as if it will be the last, I think because LTK's performance really hit EON that hard.

    It wasn't until Sony partnered up and that they had an ally in Amy Pascal that they were able to take more chances with Bond, and they did. In the 90s, a choice like Daniel Craig probably would have never happened. It's only because Pascal gave them full support for it that they were able to move forward. And it paid off, giving them leeway to take even more chances, for better or worse.

    There's a lot of Bond fans that wish we could go back to the style of films from 1962-1985 where it was more strictly formulaic, no personal stories, no experimenting with the traditions, etc. I'm really glad we got the Craig films. Whether good or bad, they took some chances and brought out some interesting discussions among fans on what Bond film can do. I don't think I'd be as engaged as a fan if all we got were movies like TOMORROW NEVER DIES.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    Man, these last few pages have been exhausting. :P
  • Shardlake wrote: »
    @Shardlake as for consistent performances in FYEO I’ll repeat again that Roger Moore runs circles around Harrison Ford (and I like Ford). But Ford lacks the charisma. Come on, it’s Sir Rog. He shines whether he plays it light or dark in FYEO. Even when his age is starting to show Rog’s charisma never wanes. Also big fan of Topol as Columbo and Carole Bouquet as Melina (love her long dark hair and those EYES - have mercy!). And yes I thought Maggie Thatcher was funny in the film but then I love Bond humor so I welcome things like this.

    Paul Freeman is an okay villain in RAIDERS but hardly something special. About on par with Julian Glover in FYEO. Ronald Lacey is more creepy and effective! John-Rhys Davies is probably my favorite supporting actor in RAIDERS. Karen Allen is just... well... Karen Allen.

    I'm going to agree to disagree on this one because we both have our opinions on this and I'll respect your opinion if you respect mine, I apologise if I have been a bit forceful with my opinion.

    I'm not going to change your opinion on this as you aren't going to shift mine on it. Raiders is one of my favourite films but I don't want to indulge in this discussion because these things can descend into other things and I don't want to fall out. So lets do what we come here to do and celebrate James Bond 007 my friend.

    All the best

    Shardlake.
    No problem at all. I respect your opinions. Cheers!

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    If Baz is to be trusted on all things Bond...

    ... why did he report today, after the birth of Craig’s daughter, that filming for 25 would start in December... with Boyle directing???
  • Posts: 12,473
    peter wrote: »
    If Baz is to be trusted on all things Bond...

    ... why did he report today, after the birth of Craig’s daughter, that filming for 25 would start in December... with Boyle directing???

    What?? Are you serious?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited September 2018 Posts: 10,591
    peter wrote: »
    If Baz is to be trusted on all things Bond...

    ... why did he report today, after the birth of Craig’s daughter, that filming for 25 would start in December... with Boyle directing???

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6120477/Rachel-Weisz-gives-birth-48-Actress-husband-Daniel-Craig-welcome-baby-girl.html

    Very lazy indeed.
  • Speculation: Story was pre-written, with a top to be filled in and somebody didn't update the lower portion. Otherwise, odd.
  • Posts: 12,473
    Speculation: Story was pre-written, with a top to be filled in and somebody didn't update the lower portion. Otherwise, odd.

    This is probably correct.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 11,425
    Murdock wrote: »
    Dread It. Run From It. Christopher Nolan's BOND 26 Still Arrives.

    Where did you buy your magic 8 ball? Jack's joke shop? If it's not funny it ain't worth jack!
    Joking aside, I'm not claiming Nolan will definitely direct Bond 26, but I am caliming that if the director of Bond 26 will be someone else, then Barbara Broccoli will be remembered as one of the biggest morons in film history.

    I think what happened with Boyle is going to make it much harder for EON to hire big name directors.

    If EON couldn't manage to do everything necessary to keep on board one of the most respected directors ever to be associated with Bond then that will surely set alarm bells going for anyone else they approach.

    I personally wouldn't mind if EON returned to the journeyman type directors of yesteryear but given that this doesnt seem to be what they want, recent events can only really be seen as very bad for EON and it's ambitions for the franchise.

    A side note but if the rumours about Boyle wanting less action and a smaller budget are true, surely this was clear to EON from the start of Boyles involvement and they should have been more willing to embrace his vision. A lot of us on here would have welcomed this approach. Sort of FYEO after MR. One of the problems with recent Bond films has been EON shoe-horning in pointless action sequences that don't connect with the plot. Boyle is 100% focused on story and plot and anything not integral to his storytelling is jettisoned.

    It's a sad situation. We've almost certainly lost a unique smaller scale and more narrative driven Bond film - something I'd been wishing for for a long time.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    That's clearly just a little bit of text at the end to fill you in, which Baz forgot to remove. Most articles on the internet have something similar. Not worth calling his reliability into question over.

    If the article had lead with that, then it would have been a bit strange. But, if Baz comes out with an article next week saying everything is on track, will he be trustworthy again?
  • Posts: 4,044
    RC7 wrote: »
    They should hand a hard copy of this thread to everyone arriving at Dignitas, just to remind them why they’re there.

    By the time they’d read through it they’d have passed away from natural causes anyway.
  • Posts: 11,425
    @RC7 that had me in stitches. very true!

  • edited September 2018 Posts: 4,619
    Univex wrote: »
    You know, I remember a member from years ago (circa 2006?) who had some issues with Craig and claimed to be better suited himself to play Bond. He was bald, btw, and a true delusional guy, obsessive on his points, to the point of being anti-social and passive aggressive.
    I do remember that moron. He wasn't passive aggressive, he was full on 100% aggressive. Passive-aggressives is characterized by an avoidance of direct confrontation, which is exactly what the Colonel has done when he called me an ignorant twit through peter, instead of messaging me directly.

    Btw, Gustav_Graves and Germanlady are members I truly miss. I do not miss the pompousness and arrogance of the Colonel at all.

    And these were my final words on the Colonel.

    Getafix wrote: »
    I think what happened with Boyle is going to make it much harder for EON to hire big name directors.
    That's a very good point, and I do agree that it's generally true for big name directors but I think Nolan is an exception. Giving Boyle a lot of creative freedom was always a risky move by EON, because he has never directed a truly big budget movie before (his biggest movie yet is The Beach), and he has never done anything like a Bond movie.

    Nolan would probably want even more creative freedom than Boyle would have gotten, but it would be far less risky to give him that freedom. He has directed several big budget spectacles that turned out to be huge crowd-pleasers. Also, it's pretty likely Nolan would deliver a script EON would completely be happy with, as he (unlike Hodge) has a lot of experience wrtining the kind of movies Bond movies are.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 11,425
    Univex wrote: »
    You know, I remember a member from years ago (circa 2006?) who had some issues with Craig and claimed to be better suited himself to play Bond. He was bald, btw, and a true delusional guy, obsessive on his points, to the point of being anti-social and passive aggressive.
    I do remember that moron. He wasn't passive aggressive, he was full on 100% aggressive. Passive-aggressives is characterized by an avoidance of direct confrontation, which is exactly what the Colonel has done when he called me an ignorant twit through peter, instead of messaging me directly.

    Btw, Gustav_Graves and Germanlady are members I truly miss. I do not miss the pompousness and arrogance of the Colonel at all.

    And these were my final words on the Colonel.

    Getafix wrote: »
    I think what happened with Boyle is going to make it much harder for EON to hire big name directors.
    That's a very good point, and I do agree that it's generally true for big name directors but I think Nolan is an exception. Giving Boyle a lot of creative freedom was always a risky move by EON, because he has never directed a truly big budget movie before (his biggest movie yet is The Beach), and he has never done anything like a Bond movie.

    Nolan would probably want even more creative freedom than Boyle would have gotten, but it would be far less risky to give him that freedom. He has directed several big budget spectacles that turned out to be huge crowd-pleasers. Also, it's pretty likely Nolan would deliver a script EON would completely be happy with, as he (unlike Hodge) has a lot of experience wrtining the kind of movies Bond movies are.

    I'm sure you're right about Nolan's experience.

    But would EON be willing to relinquish control to the extend Nolan would probably expect/require. And would they be able to come to a working agreement that avoided more 'creative differences' on B26?

    If Nolan is used to writing, producing and directing then it seems highly unlikely to me (under current arrangements) that we would be willing or able to work with EON.
  • Baz has confirmed the reference to Danny Boyle filming in December is just sloppy journalism

  • Yann Demange's White Boy Rick was shown at Telluride Film Festival last night.

    Variety said it felt like a 'glorified TV movie with a better cast'.

    Ouch.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 1,661
    "Tense situation behind the scenes, finding a director prepared to be ruled over by Mr Craig.”

    I guess the decision to make him a producer has kind of backfired. I thought he was just the hired actor but now he chooses the director and can fire the writer? Meh, whatever. Seems pretty clear Craig and Boyle didn't get on. Clash of personalties or ideas.

    Reading between the lines, Baz Bamgboye item many be suggesting any new director will have to watch their mouth and not speak out. Just follow orders. I'm wondering if this is a PR blunder for Eon and MGM? There may be many directors reluctant to direct Bond 25 for fear of Craig and Babs ordering them about! Perhaps.

    I think Craig has too much power. Fair enough, if Babs and MG give him the power he's not going to say no. Well, I suppose he could but if he's a co-producer then he's got a huge amount of power and if the power isn't directed in a productive way it can backfire - Boyle/Hodge's leaving the film.
  • This whole episode highlights the need to actually go back to stand alone films. And Craig with his thuggish Bond is an impediment to that I suspect.

    In my view the best thing they could have done is started with a fresh actor and a new lighter more fun approach. Mission Impossible films are beginning to look like masterpieces in the context of what has been happening with Bond recently.

    Maybe it really is time to close the chapter on James Bond as These latest films really don’t have a lot in common with their forebears. The problem is that if you base everything on current affairs then the story will seem quite ordinary. If you base the story on a fantasy it can become more timeless and we have lost the surprise factor in the latest films along with a lot of the style and surprise that the earlier films had.
Sign In or Register to comment.