No Time To Die: Production Diary

11941951971992002507

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    I think Dalton wanted to push Fleming far more, but wasn't allowed. The Daltonites here would be much more able to confirm or deny this than I, though.

    I think this is self-evident. Dalton hanging out with Q in LTK is a little jarring, I highly doubt he supported the idea.
  • Posts: 9,847
    For me and just me in a perfect world (something I have said now a few times) the following films would play out like this

    The Hildebrand Rarity (bond 25) 2018: Spectre kidnap Swann and force Bond into a sucide mission break Blofeld out of prison and find the Hildebrand virus. M tells bond mi6 want the virus too and sends Gala Brand 007 (played by I don't know some really hot British girl who if she were male could be 007 like someone who has all the points sex appeal intelligence you get the idea) to assist Bond. After two hours of cool action sequences (and bond sleeping wih Gala and one of the Spectre agents that is assigned by Spectre to work with him) and pulse pounding plot (the whole film time wise covers say 72 hours) bond stops Spectre and is about to save Swann when tragedy strikes she dies...
    Directed by Pierre Morrell
    Written by Luc Besson David Koepp (with his mission impossible hat on not his kingdom of the crystal school hat on) and Jez Butterworth

    Blofeld (bond 26) 2020: the final film with Daniel Craig and boy is it a tight action packed revenge driven film basically a two hour version of the diamonds are forever pre-title sequence. Ending with the most brutual sword fight between Blofeld and Bond (taken straight from the pages of Fleming) ending with bond killing Blofeld once and for all.

    Quick side note. I know many will complain about using Blofeld as a title but honestly it's such an Iconic name that yeah I really think casual movie goers and fans will be very happy with the title. And hey I split up the titles a bit too so we have a longer title the Hildebrand rarity and then another shorter one.

    Risico (bond 27) 2022: basically the original plot of Spectre with bond going after a African war lord and killing him. This would in my opinion be either Hardy or Hiddleston or Fassbenders first film as bond sorry I can't make up my mind between the three as they all appeal to me in different ways... I might be leaning a hair more toward Hiddleston as for franchise wise I would see if this marvel/ DC extended universe is still going strong if it is then I would create/introduce a new organization to connect the Hiddleston bond universe (my opinion Smersh but Spangled Mob would be fine especially if Deniro or Pachino are still alive and acting I mean come on Al Pachino as Jack Spang and DeNiro as Steffiamo Spang seriously how could any bond can not want that!)

    And move on from there the issue of the stories being connected is well honestly eon reacting to the Nolan trilogy, Marvel Cinematic universe and now the DC cinematic universe. Once those start going away and more stand alone films win at the box office bond will adjust accordingly but for now yeah.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited May 2016 Posts: 40,976
    Spectre kidnapping Swann and forcing Bond to break Blofeld out in exchange for her is a route that I didn't think about them taking, but Bond breaking a massive, criminal mastermind out of jail for Swann? Seems too out of character for him. Then again, he did let Trevelyan and Xenia escape in exchange for saving Natalya's life in GE.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Spectre kidnapping Swann and forcing Bond to break Blofeld out in exchange for her is a route that I didn't think about them taking, but Bond breaking a massive, criminal mastermind out of jail for Swann? Seems too out of character for him.
    "Kill her. She means nothing to me"
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @bondjames, funny, as soon as I posted that comment you quoted, I edited it and brought up the GE train sequence as an example.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @bondjames, funny, as soon as I posted that comment you quoted, I edited it and brought up the GE train sequence as an example.
    Haha, I didn't see that @Creasy47. I just looked at it. Love that sequence to death. Pure Bond.

    What I love about it is he didn't act wimpy/emotional about it, but got the job done quickly and saved her. I wish Ouromov had a better sendoff though.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Then she turns it around on him a little later on during the finale and you can tell he isn't pleased or happy in the slightest about it. Great moment.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Then she turns it around on him a little later on during the finale and you can tell he isn't pleased or happy in the slightest about it. Great moment.
    Agreed. GE is full of those. Classic imho.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Excellent stuff, Brady and GL.

    Btw, I find the very idea of producers or marketing department coaching and training grown-up actors what to say/not say weird and distasteful. I wouldn't want actors to be some sort of trained parrots. I think normal human beings are by far preferable. So some comment can look bad when taken out of context. Happens. But middle-aged professional actors with plenty experience shouldn't, IMO, be "trained" specifically how to do interviews. It's normal human communication, they should be fine as they are, and if some mistakes occasionally happen, that's okay, really. I'm sure doing hundreds of interviews, sometimes a few minutes at a time with different interviewers, for hours is enough - without having to try and imagine what might get taken out of context or misunderstood. Okay, so he shouldn't have said a couple of things, and he could have worded things differently, I agree on that, but why are people still complaining about it all these months later? Wasn't it all discussed for weeks and weeks already last year? It wasn't that big of a deal, really - the media made it that, but do we need to keep going over it over and over again? What's the point?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Excellent stuff, Brady and GL.

    Btw, I find the very idea of producers or marketing department coaching and training grown-up actors what to say/not say weird and distasteful. I wouldn't want actors to be some sort of trained parrots. I think normal human beings are by far preferable. So some comment can look bad when taken out of context. Happens. But middle-aged professional actors with plenty experience shouldn't, IMO, be "trained" specifically how to do interviews. It's normal human communication, they should be fine as they are, and if some mistakes occasionally happen, that's okay, really. I'm sure doing hundreds of interviews, sometimes a few minutes at a time with different interviewers, for hours is enough - without having to try and imagine what might get taken out of context or misunderstood. Okay, so he shouldn't have said a couple of things, and he could have worded things differently, I agree on that, but why are people still complaining about it all these months later? Wasn't it all discussed for weeks and weeks already last year? It wasn't that big of a deal, really - the media made it that, but do we need to keep going over it over and over again? What's the point?
    @Tuulia, it tends to get discussed over and over again because it is quoted in every article on Bond and is given context within the discussion about new Bond actors. It's only natural and in my view understandable. It could have been avoided very easily, but it wasn't. Now it's out of the bag and has a life of its own, as I assumed it would. The same goes for the 'turning down lots of money' which you'll also see quoted from now on. That's how the media cycle goes.

    I would personally have a publicist who makes a statement to clarify anything quickly before it gets out of hand. Then it gets shut down and everyone moves on. EON did that with the Hiddleston rumour a few weeks back, which leads me to conclude that there is more to it than everyone is letting on. They wanted that shut down for some reason.
  • Posts: 2,081
    @bondjames, I know the media won't let stuff like that go, and so repeats it over and over any chance they get and it never gets forgotten, nor properly put into context ever again once taken out of it. A decade from now it will still get mentioned every now and then, without any context.

    What I was wondering about was not why media do it, but why people here are still discussing it so much in the way some are. We know the timing and the context and what he meant, surely, and that he shouldn't have said it in that manner, but he did and oh well... Why is it still an issue here. It's like the same discussion we had for a long time months ago. I mean, even if the media are still at it and will be forever, do we have to do that, too?

    I agree that stuff like that should be handled immediately. That may not necessarily help much, but still. Statements by a publicist or even directly by the actor (or whoever the famous person might be) don't necessarily shut anything down, but it's good to make an immediate effort in that direction. In some cases refusing to comment on something in any way - including to defend oneself or clarify anything - can work surprisingly well, too. (This wasn't one of those type of cases.) Craig did of course clarify, as did Mended on his behalf, but it made no difference. I'm not convinced a statement from a publicist would have worked, either, but it might have been worth a try.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @Tuulia, I don't think wrist slash is being focused on here, other than it was brought up earlier today in the context of whether it was a smart thing for him to have done. Some (including myself) think a highly paid movie star representing a multi-$bn franchise shouldn't have said that. We don't see that from any of the Marvel property actors, the SW actors, or others for example.

    Some see his out of context remarks as ok, and defend it. He's human after all, and an actor first and foremost (a bloody good one too) and not a marketer. Others don't and disagree. Either way, as you say, the comments should have been clarified quickly, and they weren't.

    The discussion over the past few weeks had moved onto the 'money' thing anyway. That's an unsubstantiated rumour, but was not properly 'shut down' by EON or Craig. So it will continue to be discussed here and elsewhere, which is how it always is when one has no clarity and the rumour mill about 'new Bond' actors continues to heat up in the vacuum.

    Some seem not to want such discussions & speculation to occur on this thread without clear facts. Others (I'm one of them) don't see the harm, until we get concrete news.

    Who the hell knows anything either way anyway. None of us here, that's for sure. We're all just discussing and passing the time away until the news comes our way.

    No harm done imho.
  • Posts: 2,081
    @bondjames - Of course it wasn't a smart thing to say - I don't think there can be any argument for it being smart. Wouldn't be smart whoever said it, and indeed actors normally don't, nor should they (and nobody should need training for that). I don't think I've ever seen that type of comment from anyone before, and I understand it's a good quote for the media and general public, and I get how it can look. It's obviously a shooting oneself in the foot type of comment - regardless of intent. Still... there can be argument for letting it go and not going over the same discussion on it again here. --- Well, I'm now discussing it too, oh crap...

    The money thing... yeah, it's somewhat connected to the other - I see that, of course - since Craig mentioned money, too. Maybe that's why the wrists get brought up here, still, as well.

    Carry on then. ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I get your point @Tuulia, and as you note, you've unwittingly got caught up in it too.

    These discussions go in ebbs and flows however. Sometimes it dies down, then there's a new piece of rumour quoting cash and wrists and so on, and the discussion flares up here again.

    This is the price we pay for no news and so much uncertainty and rumour. If we knew Craig was definitely back, who the distributor was, and when the next Bond film was coming out, all discussions would move to other things.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Well personally I think it was very Brave of Daniel to make such an
    Outstanding statement, to bring to the fore. The curse of "self harming" ;)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Good thing none of us ever say anything less than smart.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Good thing none of us ever say anything less than smart.

    Yes, isn't it.
  • DisneyBond007DisneyBond007 Welwyn Garden City
    edited May 2016 Posts: 100
    Have you heard about the Johnny Deep alcohol abuse controversy this week. Lets hope we can have a William Roache, who plays Ken Barlow in Coronation Street, had a sex abuse controversy again next year?

    Anyhow, I hope the news about Bond 25 is due course.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Good thing none of us ever say anything less than smart.
    Nobody really cares what we have to say, smart or dumb, I would imagine.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    In my experience its the ones downplaying it, or acting like its free publicity that have the agenda. Understanding what he meant isn't the media's job. Reporting what he said is.

    Understanding what he said is the responsibility of the individual, but a lot of people blindly take media drivel at face value.

    But if he had worded his answer differently, that storm in a tea cup wouldn't have been blown out of proportion. How hard would it have been for him to say something like "Right now, i'm not thinking about the next Bond film. I'm going to take some time off, then we'll see."

    That's Craig, though. That's always been Craig. I'd take that over a media trained plank any day. Funny, because there's a lot of clamour for a Bond that's un-PC and says f*** you to the system, yet when Craig doesn't play ball with the media and is flippant and abrasive it's a different story from some of those who want him gone.

    Bit of a difference though, one is a fictional character, the other isn't. And as the face of the series, the actor should conduct themselves in a certain way, no matter who the actor is (I would have though that given how much of a well oiled machine the films are, EON would coach the actor about how to handle).

    Let's agree to disagree. We live in a world where authenticity is a rarity and Craig, the man, delivers that. I couldn't give a shit about how he's 'supposed' to handle himself. He does what matters most and that's delivering the work.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    In my experience its the ones downplaying it, or acting like its free publicity that have the agenda. Understanding what he meant isn't the media's job. Reporting what he said is.

    Understanding what he said is the responsibility of the individual, but a lot of people blindly take media drivel at face value.

    But if he had worded his answer differently, that storm in a tea cup wouldn't have been blown out of proportion. How hard would it have been for him to say something like "Right now, i'm not thinking about the next Bond film. I'm going to take some time off, then we'll see."

    That's Craig, though. That's always been Craig. I'd take that over a media trained plank any day. Funny, because there's a lot of clamour for a Bond that's un-PC and says f*** you to the system, yet when Craig doesn't play ball with the media and is flippant and abrasive it's a different story from some of those who want him gone.

    Bit of a difference though, one is a fictional character, the other isn't. And as the face of the series, the actor should conduct themselves in a certain way, no matter who the actor is (I would have though that given how much of a well oiled machine the films are, EON would coach the actor about how to handle).

    Let's agree to disagree. We live in a world where authenticity is a rarity and Craig, the man, delivers that. I couldn't give a shit about how he's 'supposed' to handle himself. He does what matters most and that's delivering the work.

    The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be genuine and measured at the same time. Although I do agree that, in the absence of one, genuine is the way to go.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Daniel was born in Chester, so could it be he's a " Plain speaking Northerner" ;)
    I too don't care how Daniel handles himself, ....... I'm sure it must get lonely
    On set some nights ! :D he's only human.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    In my experience its the ones downplaying it, or acting like its free publicity that have the agenda. Understanding what he meant isn't the media's job. Reporting what he said is.

    Understanding what he said is the responsibility of the individual, but a lot of people blindly take media drivel at face value.

    But if he had worded his answer differently, that storm in a tea cup wouldn't have been blown out of proportion. How hard would it have been for him to say something like "Right now, i'm not thinking about the next Bond film. I'm going to take some time off, then we'll see."

    That's Craig, though. That's always been Craig. I'd take that over a media trained plank any day. Funny, because there's a lot of clamour for a Bond that's un-PC and says f*** you to the system, yet when Craig doesn't play ball with the media and is flippant and abrasive it's a different story from some of those who want him gone.

    Bit of a difference though, one is a fictional character, the other isn't. And as the face of the series, the actor should conduct themselves in a certain way, no matter who the actor is (I would have though that given how much of a well oiled machine the films are, EON would coach the actor about how to handle).

    Let's agree to disagree. We live in a world where authenticity is a rarity and Craig, the man, delivers that. I couldn't give a shit about how he's 'supposed' to handle himself. He does what matters most and that's delivering the work.

    The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be genuine and measured at the same time. Although I do agree that, in the absence of one, genuine is the way to go.

    I didn't say they were.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm sure he's a perfectly nice chap. Honest, sincere, and up front. His comments are refreshing, on a personal level.

    The way they have been interpreted, spun and played is not appealing though, and that is the overall impression that many who are not following his career or interested in him personally are left with.

    He doesn't care what people think about it evidently, and as @Germanlady has said, he is the one who actually has taken the brunt of the hits for it - not Bond. The franchise itself is stronger than ever. So it's all good.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I keep going back to, it was an off the cuff remark ( He probably thought
    was funny ) but doesn't have the comedic skill of Sir Roger, and I'm sure
    Immediately regretted it, as he knew it would be the one bit of the interview
    That would make the headlines.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I keep going back to, it was an off the cuff remark ( He probably thought
    was funny ) but doesn't have the comedic skill of Sir Roger, and I'm sure
    Immediately regretted it, as he knew it would be the one bit of the interview
    That would make the headlines.
    You're probably right. One of those "Oh sH!+" moments.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    "Confirmed" with a question mark-what does that mean?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    "Confirmed" with a question mark-what does that mean?

    Better?
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    "Confirmed" with a question mark-what does that mean?

    It may have been posted by The Riddler ? ;)
  • Posts: 12,526
    Always makes me laugh when people react to DC doing another project other than Bond? He is allowed too people!

    If Hiddlestone is in the running to replace DC? I am ok with that!
Sign In or Register to comment.