› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…21202121212321252126…2507

Comments

  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Boyle would’ve given us something truly abysmal. Having read that blurb, I was correct to trust my instincts.
    Sigh... That blurb could have been the blurb of GOLDFINGER!
    Having seen most of Boyle’s films, I am very certain it couldn’t have.

    What you’re looking at with Boyle’s blurb is a two and half hour extension of the DAD main title sequence that ends with Bond facing the firing squad after getting humiliated, tortured, kicked around, berated, belittled and finally put down like a dog.
    I'm sure the producers hired him back in spring 2018 because that's exactly the Bond movie he wanted to make...
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I'm sorry but are we forgetting the codename theory? Most people are here are against that concept, yet they'd happily have Craig die, which would either mean the codename theory being used in future films or they're going to reboot the franchise again? Two concepts I've heard very passionate arguments against, and two ideas I'm against myself.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    Virtually every great, A-list Director has directed a crappy movie; to all of the Boyle supporters, consider him, and in turn yourselves lucky, a bullet was dodged, virtually every indication is that this would have been Boyle’s crappy movie.
    Whew, that was a close one.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Boyle would’ve given us something truly abysmal. Having read that blurb, I was correct to trust my instincts.
    Sigh... That blurb could have been the blurb of GOLDFINGER!
    Having seen most of Boyle’s films, I am very certain it couldn’t have.

    What you’re looking at with Boyle’s blurb is a two and half hour extension of the DAD main title sequence that ends with Bond facing the firing squad after getting humiliated, tortured, kicked around, berated, belittled and finally put down like a dog.
    I'm sure the producers hired him back in spring 2018 because that's exactly the Bond movie he wanted to make...
    They weren’t even sure why they hired him until he revealed his hand to them after he was done with his Beatles film. The ideas started to unfold then, and that led to both sides parting ways.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    The element of Bond being captured in GF is one of the ones that makes it not one of my all time favourites like it is for some.

    While I don't want formulaic Bond, I'm not sure I want something that would shake it up to the point it would lose its identity.

    I personally and not a fan of what I've heard of Boyle and Hodges version and just watching the trailer for Yesterday I'm kind of glad he's not still attached.

    It looks like a load of cheesy tosh, like most of Richard Curtis output and the fact Ed Sheeran is involved pretty much guarantees, I won't ever need to see it.

    Also, the conceit of the plot for some reason really irritates me.

    I'm a lot happier with CF attached to direct and still keep the faith this is going to be one for the ages.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Denbigh wrote: »
    or they're going to reboot the franchise again?
    It's incredibly unlikely the franchise won't be rebooted again after Craig's departure. No, that does not mean they are going to do Bond Begins again. Think TLD after AVTAK!
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    They weren’t even sure why they hired him until he revealed his hand to them after he was done with his Beatles film. The ideas started to unfold then, and that led to both sides parting ways.
    If that is what happened, does that not prove EON's incompetence?
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Hopefully Scott Z Burns writes Lea Seydoux’s character out of the film
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    They weren’t even sure why they hired him until he revealed his hand to them after he was done with his Beatles film. The ideas started to unfold then, and that led to both sides parting ways.
    If that is what happened, does that not prove EON's incompetence?
    Afraid I can’t comment on that one. That’d be like stepping into a den of wolves.
  • QQ7QQ7 Croatia
    Posts: 371
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Hopefully Scott Z Burns writes Lea Seydoux’s character out of the film

    They should pretend like SP never happened.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2019 Posts: 5,970
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    or they're going to reboot the franchise again?
    It's incredibly unlikely the franchise won't be rebooted again after Craig's departure. No, that does not mean they are going to do Bond Begins again. Think TLD after AVTAK!
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    They weren’t even sure why they hired him until he revealed his hand to them after he was done with his Beatles film. The ideas started to unfold then, and that led to both sides parting ways.
    If that is what happened, does that not prove EON's incompetence?

    1) Either way, killing Craig's Bond isn't the answer. End on a high.

    2) It proves nothing, and we don't know this. Boyle may have filled them with confidence, and it's possible the death of 007 came from his meetings with Hodge. Then when he pitched it to them, they probably tried to get him to change it but he wouldn't, leading to his firing. I'm also speculating, but we have no idea what happened, so there's point in assuming it was either/or. I also really don't think the rights are going to be sold after this, which you're pushing so hard, I think you're starting to believe it.

    Also, don't you think it says something about Boyle that he wasn't willing to compromise. Films are a collaborative process, and yes producers can be frustrating but if they think its whats best for their property then that's their call. Boyle has many properties of his own to play around with.

    Again, all opinion and speculation on both our parts.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    re: Scott Z. Burns and The Man From U.N.C.L.E. movie.

    In 2013, he was publicizing another movie he worked on with Steven Soderbergh. The UNCLE project came up. The story sounds kind of like a warmed-over Thunderball but it was based on a real-life incident.

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/what-soderberghs-u-n-c-l-e-would-have-been-like/

    Also, at one point he and Soderbergh really wanted to do a movie about Lenienstalh, the German filmmaker who would work on some Nazi films.

    I listened to an NPR interview with Soderbergh where he discussed this in detail. Soderbergh got cold feet, deciding it'd be hard to get a studio interested. And if they got a studio interested, the movie wouldn't do good business.

    Soderbergh said he and Burns met the night before a pitch meeting with Warner Bros. "We're not going to pitch this," Soderbergh quoted himself as saying. "What other ideas do you have?"

    "Well, I have an idea about a worldwide epidemic," Soderbergh quoted Burns as saying.

    "Good. We'll pitch that." I'm guessing this was the origin of Contagion.
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,408
    Denbigh wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    or they're going to reboot the franchise again?
    It's incredibly unlikely the franchise won't be rebooted again after Craig's departure. No, that does not mean they are going to do Bond Begins again. Think TLD after AVTAK!
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    They weren’t even sure why they hired him until he revealed his hand to them after he was done with his Beatles film. The ideas started to unfold then, and that led to both sides parting ways.
    If that is what happened, does that not prove EON's incompetence?

    1) Either way, killing Craig's Bond isn't the answer. End on a high.

    I'm totally in favour of the death of Bond. In fact, I think this is the perfect way to end his tenure on a high.

    We have seen Craig's Bond go from an intrepid spy on his first mission and it makes sense that we see that character's arc through to the end by witnessing his final mission.

    You can always reboot with another actor or figure some way to bring the character back. That'll be the task of the writers of Bond 26.

    I think it would be a unique and intriguing direction to take the character after almost 60 years of storytelling. Plus it fits with Craig's story arc.

    I'm a huge proponent of this. I much prefer the Bond films that are a little more earnest and emotional. The thought of Craig and Fukunaga working from this idea intrigues me heavily.

    The only reason some fans reject it is based solely on nostalgia - Bond has always been the hero who saves the day and gets the girl. The more post-modern interpretation doesn't gel with this idea. People don't want subversion, they want the same story repackaged to look new. It's the same sentiment that led to people rejecting Luke Skywalker's exit from The Last Jedi.

    I'm all for deconstructing some myths. However, The Playlist article hints that Craig isn't a fan of dying on screen and the current script has nixed the idea:
    https://theplaylist.net/exclusive-scott-z-burns-bond-25-20190216/
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited February 2019 Posts: 4,619
    @AlexanderWaverly I LOVE Contagion and have no doubt Scott Z. Burns is an excellent writer. Had EON announced Soderberg as the director of Bond 25 and Scott Z. Burns as the writer in spring 2018, I would have been THRILLED. Alas, we are in a very different situation. Burns' hand are tied, he has to consider the locations already chosen and the sets already built (not to mention the set pieces already planned) when he is trying to salvage the script.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I too would’ve loved the Burns and Soderbergh combination immensely.
  • Escalus5Escalus5
    Posts: 628
    I've never really been sold on Burns's amazing abilities as a writer. If you've read about the making of CONTAGION, you already know that Soderbergh had to remove around 45 minutes of footage from his initial cut because the story simply wasn't working. He then went back to Burns with ideas to dramatically overhaul the film's structure, which is what we have now. That says more about Soderbergh's troubleshooting skills (and he is a great writer, as evidenced by SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE and KING OF THE HILL) than it does Burns's.

    I did enjoy THE INFORMANT and SIDE EFFECTS, but neither was particularly memorable, and I would probably list them among Soderbergh's weakest films.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2019 Posts: 5,970
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    or they're going to reboot the franchise again?
    It's incredibly unlikely the franchise won't be rebooted again after Craig's departure. No, that does not mean they are going to do Bond Begins again. Think TLD after AVTAK!
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    They weren’t even sure why they hired him until he revealed his hand to them after he was done with his Beatles film. The ideas started to unfold then, and that led to both sides parting ways.
    If that is what happened, does that not prove EON's incompetence?

    1) Either way, killing Craig's Bond isn't the answer. End on a high.

    I'm totally in favour of the death of Bond. In fact, I think this is the perfect way to end his tenure on a high.
    I think it all depends on how it's handled. Like you said, at this point, it's probably not going to happen. Although if it somehow did, the only way I can see it working, is if they go for something like
    Blade Runner 2049
    He doesn't fail his mission, he succeeds, but his injuries or whatever from that third-act finale are untreatable, and he dies after knowing that all his well. I don't want this, oh how tragic angle. It wouldn't feel like Bond, and would be completely unsatifisying especially considering how many tragic endings we've had in the Craig-era. It would just feel like the ending of Skyfall again, but just with Bond instead of M. And don't get me wrong, I loved Skyfall but to just do it again but with a different character would be lazy writing, with the Bond girl leant over him and the MI6 team standing around looking miserable.

    Also, how would you end a film like that? You couldn't just end it with him dying, but then what other character would be worthy of the final shot?
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,846
    I am still hopeful in bond 25
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Also, how would you end a film like that? You couldn't just end it with him dying, but then what other character would be worthy of the final shot?

    Rory Kinnear's Tanner, of course!
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    edited February 2019 Posts: 2,730
    They used to have ambition

    https://www.superherohype.com/features/91505-22nd-james-bond-coming-may-2-2008
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    I don't think it's a full rewrite if it was they would take more then a 2 month delay it has to be a polish
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    I think Boyles film with bond in captivity for most of the film would be an intriguing concept. The film would likely incorporate flashbacks leading up to the captivity and or the failed mission, Boyle was likely using a similar structure as slum dog millionaire. Until we hear the whole thing I'm not willing to say we dodged a bullet
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,114
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I think Boyles film with bond in captivity for most of the film would be an intriguing concept. The film would likely incorporate flashbacks leading up to the captivity and or the failed mission, Boyle was likely using a similar structure as slum dog millionaire. Until we hear the whole thing I'm not willing to say we dodged a bullet

    I like Slumdog Millionaire, but a Bond movie like it would have been terrible. So if it was Boyle’s intention we most definitely dodged a bullet. Heck we dodged a missile.
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I think Boyles film with bond in captivity for most of the film would be an intriguing concept. The film would likely incorporate flashbacks leading up to the captivity and or the failed mission, Boyle was likely using a similar structure as slum dog millionaire. Until we hear the whole thing I'm not willing to say we dodged a bullet

    I like Slumdog Millionaire, but a Bond movie like it would have been terrible. So if it was Boyle’s intention we most definitely dodged a bullet. Heck we dodged a missile.
    With a bit of action mixed in, a good story, and showing a scared more fragile bond imprisoned trying to escape, this would have been good material for craig btw, I think that has a chance to be better than what we're currently getting to be honest.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2019 Posts: 5,970
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I think Boyles film with bond in captivity for most of the film would be an intriguing concept. The film would likely incorporate flashbacks leading up to the captivity and or the failed mission, Boyle was likely using a similar structure as slum dog millionaire. Until we hear the whole thing I'm not willing to say we dodged a bullet

    I like Slumdog Millionaire, but a Bond movie like it would have been terrible. So if it was Boyle’s intention we most definitely dodged a bullet. Heck we dodged a missile.
    With a bit of action mixed in, a good story, and showing a scared more fragile bond imprisoned trying to escape, this would have been good material for craig btw, I think that has a chance to be better than what we're currently getting to be honest.
    To me, it just sounds like the opening titles of Die Another Day but as a whole film. Not something I'd like to see. It's too late for re-invention. If they want to be more creative with Bond 26 then so be it, but Bond 25 needs to be a classic 007 adventure with some creative choices thrown in, but they can't reinvent the whole formula just yet.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,846
    In a perfect world we would have a bond film every other year AND

    A Bond game every year (split between two developers under the same publishing company one based on the films and one original ideas)

    And books every year
    One based in he 60’s
    One taking place today with the films and Carte Blanche as a sort of a loose history for the modern books two authors if need be.

    I get all that I am a poor happy man lol
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,617
    Risico007 wrote: »
    In a perfect world we would have a bond film every other year AND

    A Bond game every year (split between two developers under the same publishing company one based on the films and one original ideas)

    And books every year
    One based in he 60’s
    One taking place today with the films and Carte Blanche as a sort of a loose history for the modern books two authors if need be.

    I get all that I am a poor happy man lol

    I agree! Also, I recommend Dynamite Comics, as they have both a past and present James Bond storyline.
  • brinkeguthriebrinkeguthrie Piz Gloria
    Posts: 1,400
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    AgentJamesBond007 wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Why are people so adamant that Bond being killed off wouldn't work? Sure in the way the franchise worked in the past it wouldn't but the beauty of the self contained Craig era is that it would. We're getting a new actor for Bond 26 anyway with an entirely new timeline and likely supporting cast too, if audiences are used to multiple Batmen and Spider-Men over the course of the last 10 if not 5 years they'll be fine with accepting this for Bond. We all know this film, as they're setting it up to be an actual swan song for Craig, will have some sort of definitive ending for his run of the character.

    BvS/Justice League and something like Avengers Infinity War are completely different cases to what a Bond death would be in this particular film.

    It would be pretty weird to see James Bond die and then at the end credits there’s a big “James Bond Will Return”. Killing the character off would cause a lot of uncertainty over the future of the series, and I’d rather not have that.

    I suppose it could say :

    JAMES BOND WILL NOT RETURN

    if they killed him off.


    Personally I'm against the idea. For one it seems a current trend these days that 007 doesn't need to follow. LOGAN and so forth.

    Also Fleming never killed Bond off and said if he did Bond would go out with a bang, or something to that effect. I believe that was after the FRWL novel.

    Bond isn't Christopher Lee's Dracula who can be killed at the end of every entry then brought back for the next. If I want to see that I'll just watch TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA.

    Done right, though I could see Craig in a cliffhanger ending that implies Bond was killed.
    However I think it's too late for Craig , and the films aren't out frequently enough to pull it off.


    No. No. No. And I don't mean Dr. No. Bond does NOT get killed off. How hard is this, as someone said? Car? check. Girls? check. Exotic locales? check. Maniacal bad guy? Check. Office scene with M? check. Moneypenny flirting? check. Q gets pissy when Bond blows off reading the tech manual? check. Gunbarrel? check. Huge Barry style theme? check.
    Maybe I'll just write the thing myself.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2019 Posts: 5,970
    As a fellow training scriptwriter, I'm more than excited to see what Scott Z. Burns brings to the script. The eventual film we got in Rogue One was full of heart and great character moments. Just go watch the introduction of Diego Luna's character, and while I know we don't know what parts he was responsible for, his name being a part of my favourite Star Wars film speaks volume. He also did uncredited rewrites for Ocean’s 12, The Bourne Supremacy and Widows.

    An inspired choice, and if anyones worried about rewrites effecting the film, many successful Bond films were being rewritten as they were filming. Just go watch the 'Inside From Russia with Love' documentary, and you'll see for yourself how much things change over time.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Since he's no longer the director, I just don't care about what Danny Boyle would've done with Bond. Move on.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited February 2019 Posts: 16,153
    =bg= wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    AgentJamesBond007 wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Why are people so adamant that Bond being killed off wouldn't work? Sure in the way the franchise worked in the past it wouldn't but the beauty of the self contained Craig era is that it would. We're getting a new actor for Bond 26 anyway with an entirely new timeline and likely supporting cast too, if audiences are used to multiple Batmen and Spider-Men over the course of the last 10 if not 5 years they'll be fine with accepting this for Bond. We all know this film, as they're setting it up to be an actual swan song for Craig, will have some sort of definitive ending for his run of the character.

    BvS/Justice League and something like Avengers Infinity War are completely different cases to what a Bond death would be in this particular film.

    It would be pretty weird to see James Bond die and then at the end credits there’s a big “James Bond Will Return”. Killing the character off would cause a lot of uncertainty over the future of the series, and I’d rather not have that.

    I suppose it could say :

    JAMES BOND WILL NOT RETURN

    if they killed him off.


    Personally I'm against the idea. For one it seems a current trend these days that 007 doesn't need to follow. LOGAN and so forth.

    Also Fleming never killed Bond off and said if he did Bond would go out with a bang, or something to that effect. I believe that was after the FRWL novel.

    Bond isn't Christopher Lee's Dracula who can be killed at the end of every entry then brought back for the next. If I want to see that I'll just watch TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA.

    Done right, though I could see Craig in a cliffhanger ending that implies Bond was killed.
    However I think it's too late for Craig , and the films aren't out frequently enough to pull it off.


    No. No. No. And I don't mean Dr. No. Bond does NOT get killed off. How hard is this, as someone said? Car? check. Girls? check. Exotic locales? check. Maniacal bad guy? Check. Office scene with M? check. Moneypenny flirting? check. Q gets pissy when Bond blows off reading the tech manual? check. Gunbarrel? check. Huge Barry style theme? check.
    Maybe I'll just write the thing myself.

    Exactly!

    All this talk of doing something completely different from Bond can be easily solved by watching a movie that isn't Bond.

    If one is so against the idea of the opening gunbarrel for instance, then go watch a Nolan Batman film, or an '80's John Hughes teen comedy. I guarantee those movies don't open with the gunbarrel sequence. Problem solved.

    If you like the idea of the main protagonist being killed off in the end, there are many film noirs that have that type of ending. OUT OF THE PAST for instance. Mitchum gets shot in the groin. Problem solved.

    Boyle's apparent "Bond in captivity the whole film" idea does sound like the 1st twenty minutes of DAD stretched to 2 hours.

    I'd rather just pop in THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION if I want a prison film.


Sign In or Register to comment.