No Time To Die: Production Diary

1199319941996199819992507

Comments

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2019 Posts: 15,718
    Assuming they get the ball rolling immediately after Bond 25 and target a 2022/60th anniversary release for Bond 26, Craig will be 54 by then, which I think is possible. However another 3 or 4 years gap and I can't see him stay for a 6th film. He'd be 55/56 years old, and would have been Bond for 17/18 years (18/19 years if we count the 1 year since he officially took the part in October 2005). He would basically be only a few years away from outlasting the combined tenures of Connery, Lazenby and Moore.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think people forget that the 'Craig's last' shtick was in full effect during SP's rollout. It was the prevailing item in many articles and reviews about the film, accelerated by his infamous remarks. That thing took 2 full years to play out in the media and even outlasted his Colbert interview. So I can't see them playing that up. They are more likely to want to not draw attention to it.

    Furthermore, from what I understand, both Lazenby and Connery said that OHMSS and YOLT were going to be their last prior to the film's respective release, and both underperformed in comparison their immediate predecessor. So that perhaps isn't always a good thing to play up, if financial success is the goal. Best to keep it vague.
  • Posts: 6,709
    vzok wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Actually, it's good publicity for the film to say it will be Craig's last appearance as Bond.

    Then, when it comes out, if its stellar, who knows? Maybe he'll do one more. But for now, it's actually good to say it'll be his last.

    The Frank Sinatra approach to retirement.

    Exactly! ;)
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 6,709
    I think he’s kinda done with the role. He’s crammed a fair bit into his tenure and when Bond 25 comes out, he’d have played the role for 14 years. I think it’s time for something new – both for the franchise and for Craig.

    Yes, I quite agree. And I'm a big Craig fan.

    But, if Bond25 is awesome - yes, I used that word -, I know I'd want him to come back for another. Up until he's 60. After all, I'd love for Dalton or Pierce to be doing Bond films as we speak.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think people forget that the 'Craig's last' shtick was in full effect during SP's rollout. It was the prevailing item in many articles and reviews about the film, accelerated by his infamous remarks. That thing took 2 full years to play out in the media and even outlasted his Colbert interview. So I can't see them playing that up. They are more likely to want to not draw attention to it.

    Furthermore, from what I understand, both Lazenby and Connery said that OHMSS and YOLT were going to be their last prior to the film's respective release, and both underperformed in comparison their immediate predecessor. So that perhaps isn't always a good thing to play up, if financial success is the goal. Best to keep it vague.

    I disagree somewhat. By the late '60s, the spy craze was dying down and the focus was on more independent, gritty films. So we're in a different time, film-wise.

    It's all about marketing. There's never been a Bond film advertised as the actor's last. Eon's never had that chance yet. They can market the film as the Craig's last, just as it is somewhat easier to sell an actor's first. I wouldn't be surprised if the title itself connoted some finality.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    edited January 2019 Posts: 2,540
    Barbara Broccoli And ‘Wonder Woman’ Casting Director Lucinda Syson To Receive CSA’s First UK Artios Awards
    https://deadline.com/2019/01/james-bond-wonder-woman-barbara-broccoli-lucinda-syson-artios-bifa-csa-1202534603

    The accolades will be handed out January 31 at The London Edition hotel during BIFA’s pre-existing Most Promising Newcomer Dinner.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    echo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think people forget that the 'Craig's last' shtick was in full effect during SP's rollout. It was the prevailing item in many articles and reviews about the film, accelerated by his infamous remarks. That thing took 2 full years to play out in the media and even outlasted his Colbert interview. So I can't see them playing that up. They are more likely to want to not draw attention to it.

    Furthermore, from what I understand, both Lazenby and Connery said that OHMSS and YOLT were going to be their last prior to the film's respective release, and both underperformed in comparison their immediate predecessor. So that perhaps isn't always a good thing to play up, if financial success is the goal. Best to keep it vague.

    I disagree somewhat. By the late '60s, the spy craze was dying down and the focus was on more independent, gritty films. So we're in a different time, film-wise.

    It's all about marketing. There's never been a Bond film advertised as the actor's last. Eon's never had that chance yet. They can market the film as the Craig's last, just as it is somewhat easier to sell an actor's first. I wouldn't be surprised if the title itself connoted some finality.
    Yes of course, they can do what they want and if the marketing is good anything can be sold. I'm just not so sure as some that it's necessarily a good idea. I think other marketing hooks can be more effective, particularly since, as mentioned, this 'last Bond film' shtick was doing the rounds in the past. We don't want that quote dredged up again, after it has only now been somewhat forgotten. I'm sure the media will remember it if the last film thing is used.
  • Posts: 833
    I have the strangest feeling - genuinely don't know why - that we're going to get more substantial news/rumours this week.

    It might just be my projection of hope.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited January 2019 Posts: 4,585
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    Can people just stop saying definitively this is Craig's last Bond film? When was that ever guaranteed/stated/written/whatever? Just because his current contract has this single film on it does not mean it will be his last. Most likely it will be but can we pump the brakes on the rhetoric for just a bit and wait and see?

    The only way that happens is if CJF shoots two films' worth of material and they're released separately--highly unlikely. I actually think that this was possible with Spectre, and probably should have been.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm pretty sure I read Fukunaga state recently that he doesn't like to repeat himself (it may have been in relation to a discussion about True Detective, not sure). I don't foresee him doing another one after B25.
  • Posts: 628
    I think he’s kinda done with the role. He’s crammed a fair bit into his tenure and when Bond 25 comes out, he’d have played the role for 14 years. I think it’s time for something new – both for the franchise and for Craig.

    Definitely. I actually think that if he did return for Bond 26 (and there is that possibility, since anything Bond is a guaranteed success unlike the rest of Craig's career), he would risk driving the franchise right into the ground.

    As for his tenure, I see it less as playing the role for 14 years and more as doing 5 movies and then hanging on during long periods of inactivity.

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    I think the series needs freshening up, and a new direction now. I would have been pretty happy to have seen Craig bow out after SP to be honest.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,636
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I think the series needs freshening up, and a new direction now. I would have been pretty happy to have seen Craig bow out after SP to be honest.

    Same here. I've said it before, I'll say it again: new writers would be the best place to start.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    The first time I saw SP I left the cinema with the feeling that Bond's arc wasn't complete. I never liked the idea of Bond leaving the job for Madeleine as a satisfying end to his journey as 007. Choosing her over the MI6. So I'm extremely glad he's back.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    matt_u wrote: »
    The first time I saw SP I left the cinema with the feeling that Bond's arc wasn't complete. I never liked the idea of Bond leaving the job for Madeleine as a satisfying end to his journey as 007. Choosing her over the MI6. So I'm extremely glad he's back.
    Exactly how I feel.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    matt_u wrote: »
    The first time I saw SP I left the cinema with the feeling that Bond's arc wasn't complete. I never liked the idea of Bond leaving the job for Madeleine as a satisfying end to his journey as 007. Choosing her over the MI6. So I'm extremely glad he's back.
    I never felt it was meant to be taken literally. It was meant to be vague and open ended, so that one could interpret any way one wanted. It allowed them to segue into a new interpretation of James Bond without directly acknowledging the events of the last film, which again were kept open to interpretation. Similar to what they have done with every Bond actor in the past.

    I sincerely hope they continue with that approach at the end of B25, rather that going for definitive closure of this iteration. I have already explained my rationale previously.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure I read Fukunaga state recently that he doesn't like to repeat himself (it may have been in relation to a discussion about True Detective, not sure). I don't foresee him doing another one after B25.

    I don’t know... If B25 is a big success then I would expect EON to want him back. He would then have the incentive of being able to create a movie from the ground up. He would also get big money which for someone who’s not use to that kind of pay would be another incentive. I think it’s more about how much B25 takes out of him physically/mentally that he wouldn’t come back. This all assumes B25 is great and is a success of course.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure I read Fukunaga state recently that he doesn't like to repeat himself (it may have been in relation to a discussion about True Detective, not sure). I don't foresee him doing another one after B25.

    I don’t know... If B25 is a big success then I would expect EON to want him back. He would then have the incentive of being able to create a movie from the ground up. He would also get big money which for someone who’s not use to that kind of pay would be another incentive. I think it’s more about how much B25 takes out of him physically/mentally that he wouldn’t come back. This all assumes B25 is great and is a success of course.
    Anything is possible of course, and the opportunity to start from scratch could provide sufficient creative inducement certainly. I'd imagine Fukunaga may be even more interested in reimagining with a new Bond actor as well, if that possibility were to be offered to him for B26.

    On the flipside, there is the risk of having shot one's load the first time out of the gate, and the Mendes experience is still fresh. It's not so much about the reality, but more the critical perception. It's difficult to get two winners in a row.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited January 2019 Posts: 4,343
    bondjames wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    The first time I saw SP I left the cinema with the feeling that Bond's arc wasn't complete. I never liked the idea of Bond leaving the job for Madeleine as a satisfying end to his journey as 007. Choosing her over the MI6. So I'm extremely glad he's back.
    I never felt it was meant to be taken literally. It was meant to be vague and open ended.

    Really? Fine with the "open-ended" but it didn't felt "vague" to me. Probably because it wasn't. Madeleine's character wasn't designed to be just a random fiancé. "The daughter of an assassin, the only woman who could have understood him". The scene on the bridge right after sparing Blofeld's life is pretty emblematic. He chooses her over the MI6. Have you forgot about the train scene where Madeleine is pushing Bond to quit with his life as an assassin?

    M: Is this really what you want? Living in the shadows? Hunting, being hunted? Always looking behind you? Always alone?

    B: I'm not alone.

    M: Answer the question.

    B: I'm not sure I ever had a choice. Anyway I don't stop and think about it.

    M: What would happen if you did?

    B: I don't know.

    M: You know I think you're wrong. We always have a choice.

    B: I'll drink to that.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=VfKj8Enhilk

    The director himself said this (during the press tour): "It's about whether or not to pursue the life he's always pursued, whether he matters and is he going to continue or not," Mendes said. "And you're going to have to come to see the movie to find out whether he does." We went to see the movie and we saw his decision.

    Considering SP finale "vague" is a misinterpretation and this is very different compared to what they did with the other Bond actors. The fact that Madeleine will be the first main Bond girl to come back in the following picture is again pretty emblematic.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ok @matt_u, it was a misinterpretation. Silly me. I obviously saw it incorrectly. You're right. There's only one way for the viewer to have interpreted that ending in 2015.
  • Posts: 4,617
    They leave it open at the end IMHO:

    Q "I thought you'd gone?"

    Away for the weekend? Long sabatical? Retired?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited January 2019 Posts: 4,343
    Oh come on @bondjames . :D

    The point is the whole movie is about Bond "choosing life" over the assassin work. Everything in the movie led to this choice and I just think there's nothing open to interpretation in the finale. He quits for her. To be honest it felt a little bit like The Dark Knight Rises finale, where Bruce left with Selina. But since we're taking about 007, it doesn't mean this choice will last forever. That's why I felt there was the need for a sequel after SP, and the fact Madeleine is back is just perfect to me.
    patb wrote: »
    They leave it open at the end IMHO:

    Q "I thought you'd gone?"

    Away for the weekend? Long sabatical? Retired?

    Bond decided to "try life", as Moneypenny told him during the Rome chase. But the symbolism of the bridge scene is just too strong to assume he left for a week-end.

    Since Madeleine is back in almost 12 months we will probably have a definitive answer to that.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,636
    matt_u wrote: »
    Oh come on @bondjames . :D

    The point is the whole movie is about Bond "choosing life" over the assassin work. Everything in the movie led to this choice and I just think there's nothing open to interpretation in the finale. He quits for her. To be honest it felt a little bit like The Dark Knight Rises finale, where Bruce left with Selina. But since we're taking about 007, it doesn't mean this choice will last forever. That's why I felt there was the need for a sequel after SP, and the fact Madeleine is back is just perfect to me.

    I agree that's why Christoph Waltz needs to come back as Blofeld.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I think this would have definitely been DC's last if the film had come out this year, but I doubt they'll want to miss having a film out in 2022. (feels weird that is so close by the way) So I think if Bond 25 goes well he could be back for one final time.
    Unless they plan a very quick turn around after Bond 25 in casting a new actor, director, writers and so on.
    I'm sure Craig will be asked in the press conference for a definitive answer
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    I get your point @matt_u and hopefully you'll forgive the sarcasm. I realize all those elements are sprinkled throughout the film (not too subtly for my tastes I might add). More than anything, those points carry back to CR and Vesper, and that's why for me it all suggested a perfect bookend to the Craig era.

    However, that doesn't mean that the ending couldn't be interpreted differently. As @patb noted, it could just be a holiday (in fact, Bond alludes to the fact that he is due for one in the opening post-Titles scene in M's office).

    We had a thread (or several) here at the time of SP's release debating this very matter. Why would we do that if it was such an open and shut case?

    After the fact and with the benefit of hindsight we can now say that there is a reason for Madeleine to be back, but was anyone clamouring for that when Boyle was in charge? Not to my knowledge. Many members were saying how great it was that we were supposedly getting a fresh 'standalone' at that time. So hindsight is 20/20.

    Keep in mind also that Fukunaga has alluded to a journey from CR, and not an SP continuation. He didn't even mention SP once. So frankly we don't know how they will deal with the Madeleine matter at the moment, or the events of that prior film. It remains to be seen if Craig Bond left the force only to come back, or if all of that will even be acknowledged.

    My earlier point is that the end of SP allowed for different ways of looking at things. Some could have said holiday, others that he left for good and yet others that it was the end of this interpretation, with a new one to just follow on after years have passed (with a new man as Blofeld). Did anyone wonder where Stacey and the soap were when Tim was introduced? No. We just moved on, even with Gogol, M (played by Brown) and Q (played by Llewelyn) in tow. That's one of the reasons these films have been so successful continuously imho - because they don't directly acknowledge time and events too much - it's there but it's vague.
  • Posts: 1,092
    If this is his last it should be definitively stated; not just by the marketing but also the film's story as well. As said, this has never happened before and since this era feels special in many ways (it is a reboot after all), that would work better for it in the grand scheme of the franchise's history. Craig's era could be this separate, standalone, self-contained series of films within Bond. Then they soft reboot and go back to the formula of singular adventures.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Bond 25 HAS TO BE Craig’s final Bond film. The whole point of making one more film with Craig more than 4 years after the disappointing Spectre is to show end of Bond’s story, just like CR showed the beginning of it. They simply can’t leave the door open for a 6th Bond film with Craig.
  • MaxCasino wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Oh come on @bondjames . :D

    The point is the whole movie is about Bond "choosing life" over the assassin work. Everything in the movie led to this choice and I just think there's nothing open to interpretation in the finale. He quits for her. To be honest it felt a little bit like The Dark Knight Rises finale, where Bruce left with Selina. But since we're taking about 007, it doesn't mean this choice will last forever. That's why I felt there was the need for a sequel after SP, and the fact Madeleine is back is just perfect to me.

    I agree that's why Christoph Waltz needs to come back as Blofeld.

    Yeah - it was very much the anti-Fleming ending.

    Fleming always had Bond live in the shadows. Bond always wanted to retire and run off with the girl. But Fleming consistently denied Bond this - instead Bond accepted his role as a silhouette. The last passage of Moonraker sums it up perfectly:

    “And now what? wondered Bond. He shrugged his shoulders to shift the pain of failure – the pain of failure that is so much greater than the pleasure of success. The exit line. He must get out of these two young lives and take his cold heart elsewhere. There must be no regrets. No false sentiment. He must play the role which she expected of him. The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette.”

    Bond driving off with Madeleine was a fitting end to SP's story - but it never felt like anything more than set-up for a sequel.
  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 575
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Oh come on @bondjames . :D

    The point is the whole movie is about Bond "choosing life" over the assassin work. Everything in the movie led to this choice and I just think there's nothing open to interpretation in the finale. He quits for her. To be honest it felt a little bit like The Dark Knight Rises finale, where Bruce left with Selina. But since we're taking about 007, it doesn't mean this choice will last forever. That's why I felt there was the need for a sequel after SP, and the fact Madeleine is back is just perfect to me.

    I agree that's why Christoph Waltz needs to come back as Blofeld.

    Yeah - it was very much the anti-Fleming ending.

    Fleming always had Bond live in the shadows. Bond always wanted to retire and run off with the girl. But Fleming consistently denied Bond this - instead Bond accepted his role as a silhouette. The last passage of Moonraker sums it up perfectly:

    “And now what? wondered Bond. He shrugged his shoulders to shift the pain of failure – the pain of failure that is so much greater than the pleasure of success. The exit line. He must get out of these two young lives and take his cold heart elsewhere. There must be no regrets. No false sentiment. He must play the role which she expected of him. The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette.”

    Bond driving off with Madeleine was a fitting end to SP's story - but it never felt like anything more than set-up for a sequel.

    If there was ever a time to do a more authentic adaptation of the Moonraker novel now seems the time. Maybe that is the villian role they are casting for?
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    bondjames wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure I read Fukunaga state recently that he doesn't like to repeat himself (it may have been in relation to a discussion about True Detective, not sure). I don't foresee him doing another one after B25.

    I don’t know... If B25 is a big success then I would expect EON to want him back. He would then have the incentive of being able to create a movie from the ground up. He would also get big money which for someone who’s not use to that kind of pay would be another incentive. I think it’s more about how much B25 takes out of him physically/mentally that he wouldn’t come back. This all assumes B25 is great and is a success of course.
    Anything is possible of course, and the opportunity to start from scratch could provide sufficient creative inducement certainly. I'd imagine Fukunaga may be even more interested in reimagining with a new Bond actor as well, if that possibility were to be offered to him for B26.

    On the flipside, there is the risk of having shot one's load the first time out of the gate, and the Mendes experience is still fresh. It's not so much about the reality, but more the critical perception. It's difficult to get two winners in a row.

    Very true. I would say the only director to make two bonafide great Bond films in a row was Terence Young, and he had Fleming stuff to heavily draw on. Some may argue Gilbert had two huge box office hits one after the other with TSWLM and MR, but let's be honest, Spy was an all time classic, MR a tired re-tread.
Sign In or Register to comment.