No Time To Die: Production Diary

1195219531955195719582507

Comments

  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited December 2018 Posts: 4,538
    I hope the producers, writers, directer, art department and stunt people take look to World War Z.
    Two great Helicopter scenes (with a bit of Goldeneye feeling and very good ally scene (think Bond meet Mathis or Felix) with second one), Airport scene and background action in small streets ( a bit TLD and even a bit SF). Brat Pitt chacter and his girl has some very good interaction like Bondgirls (Natalya for example). He did something realy Macgyver style with her. It proofs again Olga should return.

    Movie has fast pacing (think X-men first class / The last ship season 1). Downside of it that there is not realy explanation how it started.

    Shame about un needed opening titles of the movie and the end. Whyle the movie is not standard Zombie / disaster movie. And i know offical there whant to make a sequel, stil you also accepted as it is. It is cinema version from of tv i have seen, i don't know how longer cut of movie look like.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    M_Balje wrote: »
    I hope the producers, writers, directer, art department and stunt people take look to World War Z.
    Two great Helicopter scenes (with a bit of Goldeneye feeling and very good ally scene (think Bond meet Mathis or Felix) with second one), Airport scene and background action in small streets ( a bit TLD and even a bit SF).

    Movie has fast pacing (think X-men first class / The last ship season 1). Downside of it that there is not realy explanation how it started.

    Shame about un needed opening titles of the movie and the end. Whyle the movie is not standard Zombie / disaster movie. And i know offical there whant to make a sequel, stil you also accepted as it is. It is cinema version from of tv i have seen, i don't know how longer cut of movie look like.
    It was directed by Marc Forster, so that explains the lack of exposition and fast pacing, as well as the action scenes. ;)
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited December 2018 Posts: 4,538
    I know, but Highlight the high points i think Bond should bring back because partly it lost this. I dislike the cold pacing of Skyfall. The end of spectre (at mi6) is not realy something great. The helicoper scenes in Sp i am mixed about inspecialy because of the music.

    I like to see there taking more risc in those things there be very good in the past, even if it mean more cgi or faking it (sets like lotery hotel in QOS).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    M_Balje wrote: »
    I know, but Highlight the high points i think Bond should bring back because partly it lost this. I dislike the cold pacing of Skyfall. The end of spectre (at mi6) is not realy something great. The helicoper scenes in Sp i am mixed about inspecialy because of the music.

    I like to see there taking more risc in those things there be very good in the past, even if it mean more cgi or faking it (sets like lotery hotel in QOS).
    Oh I definitely agree that they need to up the quality, intensity and inventiveness of the action sequences, which have been lacking as of late. I'd prefer that they lay off the CGI though, because it inevitably looks bad in a Bond film for some reason (it could be the short time in post-production to get it right). If it came to a choice between a larger scale choice with use of more CGI and a smaller scale one without, I'd choose the latter - but just make sure it's done in a quality manner so that it's memorable. Less is more.

    RE: WWZ, I quite liked that film too. There were some awesome scenes in it. I remember being surprised that Forster had directed it actually, because it's not something I would associate with him.
  • Posts: 12,526
    I am fully confident in DC being in fine shape and Bond ready for March 2019.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    jake24 wrote: »
    He looks good there.
    doubleoego wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I actually think he looks better in the face here than in SPECTRE.

    Same.
    There are moments in SP where, IMO, he looks more like Bond than anywhere else in his run. Craig looked great in that film.

    I'll give you that. The scene with Bond and Bellucci's character at her place comes to mind.
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 4,619
    I am now predicting that either Bond will have at least 1 child in BOND 25 or Medaleine will be pregnant at the end of the film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Someone please shoot me if that's the case. Please make it quick.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited December 2018 Posts: 8,258
    He was definitely on both ends of the spectrum in SP; which makes me think it’s more a matter of how he’s filmed rather than how he actually looks.

    Craig is not a traditionally handsome actor; care has to be taken in regard to everything from makeup, lighting to camera lenses.

    SF capitalized on his somewhat world weary appearance; for his curtain call I want him to look his best.
  • Posts: 6,710
    bondjames wrote: »
    Someone please shoot me if that's the case. Please make it quick.

    Make that an execution lineup please, and count me in.
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 6,710
    Always thought Craig looked his best from his profile angle. Stupid thing, probably, but still..
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 6,710
    talos7 wrote: »
    SF capitalized on his somewhat world weary appearance; for his curtain call I want him to look his best.

    Maybe his best is when he's weary? I don't know anymore ;) Best he's ever been as Bond, IMO, was at the Ocean Club poker game, Solange's place, and at Lucia's house in SP. Oh, and at M's house in CR.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,258

    Univex wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    SF capitalized on his somewhat world weary appearance; for his curtain call I want him to look his best.

    Maybe his best is when he's weary? I don't know anymore ;) Best he's ever been as Bond, IMO, was at the Ocean Club poker game, Solange's place, and at Lucia's house in SP. Oh, and at M's house in CR.
    .

    For me, his absolutely best look is in CR when Bond has broken into her flat and is chastised by M.

  • Posts: 4,617
    I think we can see from his demenour and quotes that DC can be a grumpy old git (can't we all) and , for me, he works best as James Bond in this role. Skyfall proved that the wider audience embrace him in this mode. He owns these great lines ("not exactly Christmas") in the same way that RM owned his own lighter moments. I would also add that I find it hard to imagine any of the other Bond actors delivering this darker, pi**ed off tone. In terms of pure acting intesity, this is DC at his finest IMHO.



    So, as a writer, if you want to exploit his strengths, then the broody Skyfall tone is the way to go (and the box office agrees). However, I know many will not agree.
  • Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    M_Balje wrote: »
    I know, but Highlight the high points i think Bond should bring back because partly it lost this. I dislike the cold pacing of Skyfall. The end of spectre (at mi6) is not realy something great. The helicoper scenes in Sp i am mixed about inspecialy because of the music.

    I like to see there taking more risc in those things there be very good in the past, even if it mean more cgi or faking it (sets like lotery hotel in QOS).
    Oh I definitely agree that they need to up the quality, intensity and inventiveness of the action sequences, which have been lacking as of late. I'd prefer that they lay off the CGI though, because it inevitably looks bad in a Bond film for some reason (it could be the short time in post-production to get it right). If it came to a choice between a larger scale choice with use of more CGI and a smaller scale one without, I'd choose the latter - but just make sure it's done in a quality manner so that it's memorable. Less is more.
    I find the visuals of the last two films in General not inviting to suspend belief. The Shanghai hotel set for instance seems to be completely real yet gives me a fake vibe. The Glen era cinematography, as pedestrian as it might seem to some, hardly ever gave me the Impression of something fake.

  • Posts: 5,767
    patb wrote: »
    I think we can see from his demenour and quotes that DC can be a grumpy old git (can't we all) and , for me, he works best as James Bond in this role. Skyfall proved that the wider audience embrace him in this mode. He owns these great lines ("not exactly Christmas") in the same way that RM owned his own lighter moments. I would also add that I find it hard to imagine any of the other Bond actors delivering this darker, pi**ed off tone. In terms of pure acting intesity, this is DC at his finest IMHO.



    So, as a writer, if you want to exploit his strengths, then the broody Skyfall tone is the way to go (and the box office agrees). However, I know many will not agree.
    I agree 100% About Craig´s strengths. What I have big Problems with is the mix of broody Bond and attempted jokes. Apparently many People didn´t get the jokes in QoS, but that was the way to go with Craig. If SF would have been sinister all throughout, IMO it would have been a much better film. And I say that as someone more prone to lighter stuff.

  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    patb wrote: »
    I think we can see from his demenour and quotes that DC can be a grumpy old git (can't we all) and , for me, he works best as James Bond in this role. Skyfall proved that the wider audience embrace him in this mode. He owns these great lines ("not exactly Christmas") in the same way that RM owned his own lighter moments. I would also add that I find it hard to imagine any of the other Bond actors delivering this darker, pi**ed off tone. In terms of pure acting intesity, this is DC at his finest IMHO.



    So, as a writer, if you want to exploit his strengths, then the broody Skyfall tone is the way to go (and the box office agrees). However, I know many will not agree.

    You’re right, I don’t agree with you. Many will not because he’s not playing JB the character here. It’s just melodrama for Craig to “act” in a “meaty” scene. It’s interesting that Anthony Horowitz singled out this scene as not JB in an interview. Craig was at his best running through drywall, being poisoned and going back to the card game, being tortured naked with his junk about to be cut off and still not giving his torturer the information, resolute in what he has to do. Thats the character, the guy we want to be, Fleming’s desired alter ego. Craig nailed it with giving him rough edges and those should only have been refined, but remained the character, for the rest of his films. At no point in SF do I want to be JB and they tried to rectify that with SP but really just made a mish mash of trying to be all things to all people... classic JB, broody (Morocco), Roger Moore humor (failing). I think they should add dry humor and give him back his edge. That’s the way to go, not emo Bond.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Fair points but, to keep on point, re the next Bond movie, box office is more important than portraying a Bond that the audience want to be (they have to go for a wider audience than that) plus , with respect to Horowitz, his view is not as important as the punters. In the end, it's the audience that define what is Bond and what is not Bond and clearly the SF version of Bond was more than acceptable.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    I don’t agree... the general audience is stupid and will eat what they’re served. They weren’t relating to emo Bond as much as responding to the movie as a whole and SF’s success is many factors which has been discussed here at length. If he plays emo Bond again I think the fan base disapproval would mirror the general audience’s, realizing he’s doing this tired old thing again instead of being Bond.
  • Posts: 4,617
    "the general audience is stupid" I think we need a seperate thread re that claim
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    edited December 2018 Posts: 755
    Adding on, I think the most important thing they need to do is make a thrilling energized movie and you can’t do that with brooding, pouty Bond.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    patb wrote: »
    "the general audience is stupid" I think we need a seperate thread re that claim

    Haha probably
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,258
    But what percentage of the total Boxoffice is attributed to the general audience or casual Bond fan?
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    edited December 2018 Posts: 755
    If another SF came out next it would not make a billion dollars. It's a dead end, not a route to the future. Just ask the DCEU.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited December 2018 Posts: 8,458
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    If another SF came out next it would not make a billion dollars. It's a dead end, not a route to the future. Just ask the DCEU.

    Truer than scripture. The dark and gritty angle is played out. I fear they are headed down that road again and if so, it could get messy.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Bardem was instrumental to SF's success in my view. He received a lot of attention at the film's release, and rightly so. Silva is a tremendous villain - a bit larger than life but also down to earth. A great blend of the exaggerated ones from the past and the more real ones from the recent films. The central narrative of wanting revenge from M is what hooked many of the audience in imho. It was something that many could relate to. One could sympathize with Silva and his feelings of betrayal. The film showed that M was culpable to a degree - she didn't have clean hands. I almost feel sorry for the guy when Bond knifes him in the back. The look on his face says it all as he goes down. He's a tragic figure, and couldn't do the job when he had her in his sights - he was conflicted.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I fear they are headed down that road again and if so, it could get messy.

    I honestly don't know what gives you this impression? We know nothing of the story, so why'd you assume this?

    We may not know a lot about the film about to go into production, but what we do know is very telling:

    There are many on this project on a one pic deal. The powers that be at Universal will have, and have had, a say in all matters (from casting, to script, to giving the approval of saying good bye to Boyle, to the hiring of CF and the re-writing of the script...); MGM has had some recent success with Creed 2, and whatever their motives, they need another hit and are banking 007 has to, and will, deliver on this.

    So I'm unsure why anyone would predict that the film (which hasn't even shot a single frame), will turn out "messy". Much like the creatives needed CR to be a success, and much like they needed SF to have a serious bounce-back from the reception of QoS, the creatives at Universal, MGM and EoN all need another success, not just to bounce-back from Spectre, but because future relationships and $800 million/film+ rests on it!

    The brains behind this are veterans of making films. They are wildly successful people. I'll blindly suggest there's a better chance than not that B25 will be a box-office heavyweight that will also fair well critically.

    Will you or I like it personally? Obviously that's to be determined. But the talent and craftsmanship backing this film guarantees it will be satisfying to the international market that buy the tickets, and the majority of them will be repeat customers.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Skyfall was the first of its kind for a bond film that was deeply theme and character focused while still feeling like a bond film. It has aged better than CR and will likely go down as DCs best. CR falls short in terms of its villian and dull 3rd act
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 17,828
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Skyfall was the first of its kind for a bond film that was deeply theme and character focused while still feeling like a bond film. It has aged better than CR and will likely go down as DCs best. CR falls short in terms of its villian and dull 3rd act

    I find Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre the best main villain since Christopher Walken's Max Zorin. As a controversial opinion, I didn't care at all for Raoul Silva.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    I am now predicting that either Bond will have at least 1 child in BOND 25 or Medaleine will be pregnant at the end of the film.

    You also said this:
    This is your daily reminder that Daniel Craig is the only returning actor in Bond 25.

    B-)
Sign In or Register to comment.