No Time To Die: Production Diary

1212121222124212621272507

Comments

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,617
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    =bg= wrote: »
    ToTheRight 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.


    If people want to read about Boyle/Hodge's script, wait until the next Some Kind of Hero edition, or hope that it gets turned into a book.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    =bg= wrote: »
    ToTheRight 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.

    Boyle's apparent "Bond in captivity the whole film" idea does sound like the 1st twenty minutes of DAD stretched to 2 hours.
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this haha :D
  • Posts: 15,114
    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.

    It’s just not fitting Bond’s narrative. Too surreal, too elliptic, too Boyle. It’s not the action or lack of that would have been a problem, it never was. I am very glad we have a journeyman as a director. People complain about Sam Mendes’ hubris and many wanted to move away from it. Well Boyle is Mendes up to eleven.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Ludovico wrote: »
    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.
    It’s just not fitting Bond’s narrative. Too surreal, too elliptic, too Boyle. It’s not the action or lack of that would have been a problem, it never was. I am very glad we have a journeyman as a director. People complain about Sam Mendes’ hubris and many wanted to move away from it. Well Boyle is Mendes up to eleven.
    Precisely.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2019 Posts: 5,970
    Ludovico wrote: »
    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.

    It’s just not fitting Bond’s narrative. Too surreal, too elliptic, too Boyle. It’s not the action or lack of that would have been a problem, it never was. I am very glad we have a journeyman as a director. People complain about Sam Mendes’ hubris and many wanted to move away from it. Well Boyle is Mendes up to eleven.
    I couldn't agree more. This is probably the reason they wanted Boyle in the first place, without much thought given to his ideas. They wanted Mendes 2.0. I mean the guy made them a lot of money. It just didn't work out, and that was for the best :)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480

    Yes, Mark. :) I posted your article as soon as I saw it on twitter, several pages ago.
    Rather spot on.

    And why are some people suddenly clutching their pearls about Cary, saying he may leave? I see no basis for that at all. Is there anything out there to hint at that? People only afraid he'll leave because that would "inevitably" be the next negative thing to hit the production of Bond 25? Then I'll start worrying about a tsunami wiping out Pinewood Studios, too. We can stress all we want to, about anything, if we go down those holes.
  • Posts: 16,153
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    =bg= wrote: »
    ToTheRight 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.

    Boyle's apparent "Bond in captivity the whole film" idea does sound like the 1st twenty minutes of DAD stretched to 2 hours.
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this haha :D

    I personally don't mind a small amount Bond captivity. I really like the Kentucky section of GF. But if the entire film were essentially a prison picture with flashbacks, there are other movies that cater to that style. I'd rather just watch STIR CRAZY or COOL HAND LUKE.

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2019 Posts: 5,970
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    =bg= wrote: »
    ToTheRight 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.

    Boyle's apparent "Bond in captivity the whole film" idea does sound like the 1st twenty minutes of DAD stretched to 2 hours.
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this haha :D

    I personally don't mind a small amount Bond captivity. I really like the Kentucky section of GF. But if the entire film were essentially a prison picture with flashbacks, there are other movies that cater to that style. I'd rather just watch STIR CRAZY or COOL HAND LUKE.
    Too right, I'm a big fan of Bond's captivity in Dr. No, but yes, we don't need the "prison picture" as you describe.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    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”.

    I think EoN would be smart enough to not include James Bond will return to solidify the story they would have just told.
    Killing the character off would cause a lot of uncertainty over the future of the series, and I’d rather not have that.

    We've pretty much been experiencing this throughout most of the Craig era and even now, in preproduction for Bond 25 the state of affairs is far from ideal and highly questionable. This film's production is riddled with never ending problems.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Good piece, @CatchingBullets .
  • Posts: 628
    Denbigh wrote: »
    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.

    I liked OCEAN'S 12 for what it is (a two-hour shaggy dog joke), but there are a lot of people who hate that movie and consider it the least of the trilogy.

    As for ROGUE ONE, I'm willing to bet the redeeming aspects of that production came from Tony Gilroy.


  • Yes, Mark. :) I posted your article as soon as I saw it on twitter, several pages ago.
    Rather spot on.

    And why are some people suddenly clutching their pearls about Cary, saying he may leave? I see no basis for that at all. Is there anything out there to hint at that? People only afraid he'll leave because that would "inevitably" be the next negative thing to hit the production of Bond 25? Then I'll start worrying about a tsunami wiping out Pinewood Studios, too. We can stress all we want to, about anything, if we go down those holes.

    He was the original director of IT, departed and a new director came aboard. (Fukunaga retained a screenwriting credit. I'm not saying that concern is deserved, just that the notion that he might walk off springs from that.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    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.

    I liked OCEAN'S 12 for what it is (a two-hour shaggy dog joke), but there are a lot of people who hate that movie and consider it the least of the trilogy.

    As for ROGUE ONE, I'm willing to bet the redeeming aspects of that production came from Tony Gilroy.

    I suppose we'll never know, but regardless, I trust Burns with this :)
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    A movie about Bond being imprisoned and possibly dying? No thanks.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 4,619
    TripAces wrote: »
    Two movies that were directed by world class directors who actually were in control of their own movies...
  • Posts: 628
    GANGS OF NEW YORK was a flop, didn't get great reviews, and, frankly, it sucks.
  • Posts: 15,114
    TripAces wrote: »
    Two movies that were directed by world class directors who actually were in control of their own movies...

    Appeal to authority.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Would someone be able to share that test footage of the car going through Norway? Would really like to see it again :)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Anything about Norway is welcome. Or any location. Just to give us a little breath of fresher air on this thread.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    TripAces wrote: »
    Two movies that were directed by world class directors who actually were in control of their own movies...

    They weren't in control. "Control" is a myth.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Would someone be able to share that test footage of the car going through Norway? Would really like to see it again :)
    What was that again?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,617
    TripAces wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Two movies that were directed by world class directors who actually were in control of their own movies...

    They weren't in control. "Control" is a myth.

    James Cameron is a dictator more than director. Just look at how many people have complained about working with him.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Cameron&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Reputation

    As for Gangs of New York, Harvey Weinstein. Enough said.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    jake24 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Would someone be able to share that test footage of the car going through Norway? Would really like to see it again :)
    What was that again?
    I can't remember if it was anything to do with Bond 25, but it was some aerial footage of a car driving down a Norwegian road.
  • Posts: 15,114
    Anything about Norway is welcome. Or any location. Just to give us a little breath of fresher air on this thread.

    Norway is a great idea. Any place in Scandinavia really.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Is this basically just sh*t show now then?
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,089
    This thread is always entertaining to read.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 2,115
    As an aside, the announcement about the new Bond 25 release date is known in journalism as "the Friday night news dump." You put out bad news (or not great news) late Friday afternoon or Friday afternoon.

    Whether you say "it's not that important," etc., it's a classic PR strategy to put out such news at the end of the work week.

    That's not panicking.

    Example of a planned announcement. MGM and Annapurna decide to name their joint venture that releases each other's movies in the U.S. as United Artists releasing. The announcement is made on the 100th anniversary of the original United Artists. That's planning.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited February 2019 Posts: 7,546
    At first glance of the headline of the thread I thought, this seems like a big mess, but upon reading the link provided with this news update in the first post of the thread, this actually seems like a very positive thing. It seems like Bond producers have been trying to get this guy to work on scripts for quite a while, and he's used quite extensively by very high profile filmmakers. The bit about him being one of the very first writers consulted by Ridley Scott on reviving Blade Runner sticks out for me. Seems like he's worked on some great projects otherwise as well.
    I think we're still in for something fairly unique.
Sign In or Register to comment.