No Time To Die: Production Diary

1237223732375237723782507

Comments

  • edited April 2019 Posts: 4,619
    Univex wrote: »
    1) "he stopped being 007 sometime after the books" - WHAT?! No, really, wait. What?
    Come on! It's a pretty easy concept to grasp. Fleming's Bond was NOT immortal. So either because of his death or final retirement the character did stop being 007 for good at a certain point within the fictional world Fleming created.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    007 is James Bond.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    giphy.gif

    Imagine what the reaction would be if they made Moneypenny a field agent or made the Quartermaster a preppy, hipster nerd.

    Oh wait.
    I remember the reactions after it was first rumoured that Eve, a field agent would turn out to be Moneypenny by the end of Skyfall. Most people here did not believe it was true and hated the idea. I on the other hand thought it made perfect sense and really liked the concept. The reveal of course received widespread praise in the end.

    Did it? The reveal was insignificant to the point she might as well have been a completely new character. It was pure gimmickry - tacked on the end.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    This plays up her being brought in to punch up the dialog as opposed to anything “ metoo”

    http://collider.com/bond-25-new-writer-phoebe-waller-bridge/
  • edited April 2019 Posts: 4,619
    This obsession with James Bond being 007 is like the obsession with the gunbarrel. These are superficial things. Things that can and should be played with. After 24 films why can't we have ONE Bond film that plays with the idea of Bond being replaced by a new 007?
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    All I can say If Fleming never created Bond this site and anything else wouldn't exist. There would be no James Bond without Fleming.

    Read this this ends the discussion fast.
  • Posts: 2,081
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Mack_Bolan wrote: »
    James Bond is the only 007 people want to see.

    Thank you. The only ones who want it otherwise are #MeToo and apparently fans on here who think it's a clever gimmick, uh idea... to create a "really well written female 007 agent." You know because that's not creating and walking into a feminist line of fire unnecessarily.

    It's not damaging to the character James Bond, but that doesn't make it a great idea either. What is so interesting about it? "Woman" is not a character. Are you so taken with it's "cleverness" or "freshness" that you think it means it's a good idea? It's a gimmick idea that baits #MeToo whether you like that fact or not.

    And another one... What do those comments mean?
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    This film is getting dumber by the day. I love bond but if any of these rumors are true, I’m sorry I’m out.

    You mean the "rumored" plots are getting dumber by the day.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    edited April 2019 Posts: 2,537
    Jack Savoretti e Dua Lipa firmeranno la colonna sonora del film James Bond 25: riprese videoclip tra i Sassi di Matera e Riva dei Ginepri
    sassilive.it/cultura-e-spettacoli/musica-cultura-e-spettacoli/jack-savoretti-e-dua-lipa-firmeranno-la-colonna-sonora-del-film-james-bond-25-riprese-videoclip-tra-i-sassi-di-matera-e-riva-dei-ginepri/

    Because today isn't done, SassiLive are back to shake things up. They're now reporting Dua Lipa will record the theme with Jack Savoretti.

    It also states that the official announcement and the complete cast will be unveiled at a press conference scheduled in Matera in the second half of July. Shooting is scheduled from 17 August to 23 September 2019.

    I was wondering how long it would be before Savoretti's name got thrown into the mix. Every time I have heard 'Candlelight' introduced on the radio it has been described as a 'Bond theme'.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    This obsession with James Bond being 007 is like the obsession with the gunbarrel. These are superficial things. Things that can and should be played with. After 24 films why can't we have ONE Bond film that plays with the idea of Bond being replaced by a new 007?

    These aren’t interesting ideas. They’re gimmicks. Simple as that.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2019 Posts: 5,970
    @Tuulia My point regarding the whole "#MeToo" thing is that the DailyMail seem to be implying that because Phoebe Waller-Bridge may be being brought on, it means that she is there to shift gears in response to MeToo, when it may just be as simple as injecting something new into the script. Bridge is great at writing women and also great writing comedy so it has nothing to do with #MeToo, and also I'm here to try and stop people from assuming that the film will have #MeToo context. For some reason people think the film will address it directly in some way and also seem to think having a female 007 is addressing that.
  • edited April 2019 Posts: 832
    This forum is a joke. Hopefully most of recent commentators are a loud minority.
    Can’t believe this needs to be said but here goes: James Bond is 007 and 007 is James Bond. Anything else is fan fiction.

    Nope. James Bond is a person, the son of Andrew and Monique Bond.
    007 is a code name, given to one of the agents in the 00-section of MI6.

    If Anthony Horowitz can start his new novel with a 007 that isn't James Bond, why would it be such a leap in logic that this is impossible for the films?

    Think of this: James Bond has quit MI6 at the end of Spectre. He goes to live with Madeleine in Italy or Norway or Jamaica.

    Meanwhile, M has one agent less. The 007 position is vacant. So what does he do? He promotes a new agent to the 00-section. Whether male or female is not important. She or he makes the two kills necessary to become a 00.

    Then, Bond is needed and comes out of retirement. He gets reinstated by M and gets his code name of 007 back. The agent goes back to normal. We end the film by James Bond still being 007. No "passing of the torch", just temporary retirement.

    Don’t see anything wrong with this. Excitement for bond 25 couldn’t be greater!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Tuulia wrote: »
    You've been discussing MeToo in some very confusing ways for a long time, and now I finally have to ask... I just picked some examples from 1 page here, but I already wondered months ago what you guys (not all of you, but many of you) even mean by MeToo, because the way it is often used here makes no sense to me. I don't understand the way "MeToo" itself is used here, nor do I understand what exactly MeToo has to do with the content of new Bond movies anyway.

    You all do know that the MeToo movement is a movement against sexual assault and sexual harassment? (Something that concerns both women and men.) Okay, then... So what on earth are you on about in examples below (and others similar)?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @PanchitoPistoles I'm all for a discussion but people seem to be getting the wrong idea from what was said in this article on multiple levels. I already tried rationalising this last night but no-one wanted to listen or even consider my argument, but I'll give it another go.

    In my opinion, the DailyMail have spun this possible news into a #MeToo situation. A female writer doesn't mean a #MeToo film or feminist film, neither does a female 007. Just because you have a female presence in either position, it doesn't mean the writer or Bond girl is going to burn their bras and throw them at the audience. It just means the character is female, and to think that that would be the case is incredibly close-minded.

    And just to make you feel a bit better, they are not, I repeat not, going to have this possible "female 007" (007 not James Bond) take up more screen time. She'll be a Bond girl in the same vein as the others and Craig's James Bond will be the main character. Do you really think they would do something like this for Craig's final film? Please start being a bit more realistic.

    Hopefully someone will actually listen this time.

    And @DoctorNo, surely they're just going to write a female character? There doesn't need to be an agenda behind it. This "new" 007 will just be characterised in the same way as if the "new" 007 was male. Just because SJW's exist and have had their say about the property, doesn't mean it's going to show up in the context of the film.

    EDIT: Also, are people just gonna give any "good idea" that shows up in Bond 25 to Boyle? Really?

    And to hammer the point home, most female writers do not and will not have an agenda when writing something, they're just doing what all writers want to do - create a good story and good characters.

    What is "a MeToo situation" with a Bond movie that people are worried about? What is "a MeToo film"?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @PanchitoPistoles I'm all for a discussion but people seem to be getting the wrong idea from what was said in this article on multiple levels. I already tried rationalising this last night but no-one wanted to listen or even consider my argument, but I'll give it another go.

    In my opinion, the DailyMail have spun this possible news into a #MeToo situation. A female writer doesn't mean a #MeToo film or feminist film, neither does a female 007. Just because you have a female presence in either position, it doesn't mean the writer or Bond girl is going to burn their bras and throw them at the audience. It just means the character is female, and to think that that would be the case is incredibly close-minded.

    And just to make you feel a bit better, they are not, I repeat not, going to have this possible "female 007" (007 not James Bond) take up more screen time. She'll be a Bond girl in the same vein as the others and Craig's James Bond will be the main character. Do you really think they would do something like this for Craig's final film? Please start being a bit more realistic.

    Hopefully someone will actually listen this time.

    And @DoctorNo, surely they're just going to write a female character? There doesn't need to be an agenda behind it. This "new" 007 will just be characterised in the same way as if the "new" 007 was male. Just because SJW's exist and have had their say about the property, doesn't mean it's going to show up in the context of the film.

    EDIT: Also, are people just gonna give any "good idea" that shows up in Bond 25 to Boyle? Really?

    And to hammer the point home, most female writers do not and will not have an agenda when writing something, they're just doing what all writers want to do - create a good story and good characters.

    I agreed with you when you posted this first a few pages back, and I'll repeat that agreement here again. Strong female characters and #MeToo are not mutually exclusive, despite what the tabloids would have people believe. It seems people are falling for sensationalist language once again, despite the fact that the idea has great potential for a number of reasons, IF (as stated multiple times) it turns out to be 100% accurate.

    Of course "strong female characters and #MeToo are not mutually exclusive" - I'm amazed that even needs saying, and now I wonder where someone said they are, I must have missed that when glancing through the comments... and if indeed some morons at some tabloids write something suggesting that those are mutually exclusive then that just further proves that reading tabloids is a complete waste of time. Strong female characters and MeToo are two completely unrelated things, so they can occur both together or separately.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    @Denbigh You have to see a female 007, even if it is not "feminist" driven is still baiting #MeToo not by trying to appease them but by incurring their wrath... they will be all over that. If female 007 doesn't get enough screen time they will be pissed. If she doesn't just take over for Bond, they will be pissed. If she's inept or gets killed or needs saving, they will be pissed.

    First of all, feminism and MeToo are very different things (though I imagine feminism was necessary to have existed first for there ever to appear any sort of wide/significant MeToo). But what even is "baiting #MeToo"? And, um, you seem to be saying that having a specific female character in a movie would be baiting the movement against sexual abuse, incurring the wrath of... of people who've been sexually abused and/or of feminists? What???
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    @Denbigh You have to see a female 007, even if it is not "feminist" driven is still baiting #MeToo not by trying to appease them but by incurring their wrath... they will be all over that. If female 007 doesn't get enough screen time they will be pissed. If she doesn't just take over for Bond, they will be pissed. If she's inept or gets killed or needs saving, they will be pissed.

    And if they don't do any of that, they'll still be pissed. There is no winning with some people, and I would be willing to bet that Eon know that at this stage. MeToo has shined a big light on the subject again, but it really is nothing new. Bond has gone through these movements before, and withstood the same repeated arguments time and time again.

    As the fella says, it'll be grand.

    "Again"? I believe it's actually the first movement that really has "shined a big light on the subject" of sexual assault and sexual harassment, and about time, too, that it has been talked about much more - perhaps things will truly improve eventually as a result of that. But it's not like the subject has been discussed all that much before, certainly not to the same extent, so it's hardly "again" - but naturally sexual abuse is "nothing new."



    Like has already been pointed out by some people here, what does MeToo have to do with modern Bond? There haven't been any actual issues on that front in any recent Bond movies, have there, so what the heck?

    It has plenty to do with ALL of Bond, not just modern Bond. But yes, there have been issues on that front in recent films. The treatment of Severine in Skyfall was a talking point for a short while after that film was released.

    Yes, we certainly do realise what the movement is about. But Bond has always been a punching bag for it due to its misogynistic creator and its tricky sexual politics, and its not so subtle sexual objectification of women. When Casino Royale was released, Craig in his Speedos was often the first image you saw on the web, usually accompanied by some tagline or phrase about how Bond was moving on and getting with the times by "finally appreciating the male form as well as the female form" or some such wording.

    So yes, while MeToo/TimesUp themselves have no direct connection to Modern Bond i.e. he hasn't sexually assaulted anyone, sexual politics is still very much intertwined with the series and likely always will be.

    But yes, @Tuulia, as I wrote above, MeToo and Strong Female Characters are totally separate things and as I also wrote above, the last few pages are not really a strong showing for some members here when it comes to digesting tabloid drivel.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2019 Posts: 5,970
    And @RC7, let's see how it's addressed in the film before calling it a gimic. I don't really understand the problem. If James Bond has retired from the service, would they just keep the spot open? No, and would the writers really be like "Well, we can't make the new 007 a woman because that would just anger people, even thought it makes the most sense in the story we want to tell?" or "Oh, let's make the new 007 a man because it'll make people feel more comfortable."

    Realistically there would be a new 007, and to make it a woman is just as simple as making it a man. If people have a problem with it, then that's your personal opinion and you're gonna have to deal with it cause in my opinion, if the film is good, the story is good and the characters are good, I couldn't give a flying f**k whether 007's replacement was a woman.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 2019 Posts: 8,205
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @Tuulia My point regarding the whole "#MeToo" thing is that the DailyMail seem to be implying that because Phoebe Waller-Bridge may be being brought on, it means that she is there to shift gears in response to MeToo, when it may just be as simple as injecting something new into the script. Bridge is great at writing women and also great writing comedy so it has nothing to do with #MeToo, and also I'm here to try and stop people from assuming that the film will have #MeToo context. For some reason people think the film will address it directly in some way and also seem to think having a female 007 is addressing that.

    Again, a fair assessment.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    if the film is good, the story is good and the characters are good, I couldn't give a flying f**k whether 007's replacement was a woman.

    +1

  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    She can sprinkle in humor I'm fine with that but don't touch Bond. But seriously do they need writers for every little detail. 3 writers 4 5 6 7 writers can't get the job done just saying.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    All I can say If Fleming never created Bond this site and anything else wouldn't exist. There would be no James Bond without Fleming.

    +1
  • Posts: 4,619
    @Red_Snow No, I’m not accepting this. I cannot wait until the second half of July, the main press conference including the unveiling of the whole cast has to happen much sooner. Hopefully peter’s intel is correct and this article is nonsense. Also, why would they hold a press conference in the second half of July in Matera when at that time they will be very busy shooting somewhere else?
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    @Red_Snow No, I’m not accepting this. I cannot wait until the second half of July, the main press conference including the unveiling of the whole cast has to happen much sooner. Hopefully peter’s intel is correct and this article is nonsense. Also, why would they hold a press conference in the second half of July in Matera when at that time they will be very busy shooting somewhere else?

    @PanchitoPistoles it's the press conference for the singer not the movie cast.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    @Red_Snow No, I’m not accepting this. I cannot wait until the second half of July, the main press conference including the unveiling of the whole cast has to happen much sooner. Hopefully peter’s intel is correct and this article is nonsense. Also, why would they hold a press conference in the second half of July in Matera when at that time they will be very busy shooting somewhere else?

    @PanchitoPistoles it's the press conference for the singer not the movie cast.

    That sounds very unlikely as Smith only announced he would sing WotW less than 2 months before the movie's premiere.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,537
    Walecs wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    @Red_Snow No, I’m not accepting this. I cannot wait until the second half of July, the main press conference including the unveiling of the whole cast has to happen much sooner. Hopefully peter’s intel is correct and this article is nonsense. Also, why would they hold a press conference in the second half of July in Matera when at that time they will be very busy shooting somewhere else?

    @PanchitoPistoles it's the press conference for the singer not the movie cast.

    That sounds very unlikely as Smith only announced he would sing WotW less than 2 months before the movie's premiere.

    In terms of the pop culture schedule, July will be less congested than April, but more of the main players will be near Jamaica in April, so @peter intel makes the most sense in terms timing and budget.

    If the singer gets to read the script, and it's still being tweaked, it seems unlikely anyone has been approached. At very least, they have their feelers out, but not made any decisions. I can't really think of any reason why they would need to lock a singer/band in this early.
  • Posts: 678
    That Dua Lipa stuff has to be lies. A press conference? Lana del Rey or bust! Last chance EON!

    On a more serious note, yeah I really don't think a temporary female 007 is as bad as Brofeld or bringing a previous Bond girl back to explore her past (who cares??). Sometimes I'm really at odds with the consensus on this forum.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    1. Instead of being hostile, why won't you point out what I am wrong about?
    2. I don't care about Fleming's Bond. Never did. I am a cinematic Bond fan. It's time for Fleming acolytes to accept that not only does cinematic Bond now stands on it's own, it has been far bigger than Fleming's Bond for a long time.
    I'm not being hostile... it's stupid to subtract Ian Fleming from James Bond (cinematic or whatever else you're imagine it to be). He doesn't stand on his own and isn't bigger than Fleming's Bond. Fleming's Bond is Bond. The 60s adaptations were just that. Later it drifted into self parody, taking the character with it. If you like a parody of Bond, that's fine, but it isn't bigger, it's just parody. Standing on it's own, just means JB is a shallow cliche or avatar to you, a suave British secret agent with gadgets, who orders martinis shaken not stirred, who can be manipulated to anything that suits your taste. Some of us are James Bond fans and find your obsession shallow and irritating because you have no problem manipulating it into something it isn't as long as you personally like it. Plus you're often obnoxious about it, so I don't have problem when others are hostile to you. Read the books, educate yourself. As such "a fan" you might actually be in for a surprise instead of being ignorantly dismissive.
  • Posts: 68
    "When you start framing it like that... it sounds quite cool." - TALK RADIO

    CATCHING BULLETS talks to TALK RADIO's Jamie East about Daniel Craig's tenure and triumphs as 007, the already exciting names being added to the BOND 25 mix and what the brilliant potential of Phoebe Waller-Bridge's involvement could mean for EON's newest Bond bullet...

    (1300 - 1330 segment / 21 mins in)

    https://talkradio.co.uk/radio/listen-again/1555243200

    Yes. we know you like waller bridge and wanted her on Bond. :) x
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    edited April 2019 Posts: 480
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    She can sprinkle in humor I'm fine with that but don't touch Bond. But seriously do they need writers for every little detail. 3 writers 4 5 6 7 writers can't get the job done just saying.

    They've always had a bunch of writers contributing to the scripts. They've just been better documented lately.

    And it's a given that James Bond will get his old code number back at some point in the story. 007 is in the logo, it's the name of the website, etc. But it's also been five years since he left service, and they don't have a plaque at MI6 making it official that 007 shouldn't be reused in honour of James Bond. Having a character be "007" for something like four years or even more will show that time has indeed passed.
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    I can't really think of any reason why they would need to lock a singer/band in this early.

    Singers have used for ages the possibility that they're in contact with Eon for the theme tune to promote their own career. Or the tabloids will write articles on this because they don't have anything else to do. It's just like the casting of the main James Bond girl, they can write whatever they want until there's an official announcement.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Denbigh wrote: »
    And @RC7, let's see how it's addressed in the film before calling it a gimic. I don't really understand the problem. If James Bond has retired from the service, would they just keep the spot open? No, and would the writers really be like "Well, we can't make the new 007 a woman because that would just anger people, even thought it makes the most sense in the story we want to tell?" or "Oh, let's make the new 007 a man because it'll make people feel more comfortable."

    Realistically there would be a new 007, and to make it a woman is just as simple as making it a man. If people have a problem with it, then that's your personal opinion and you're gonna have to deal with it cause in my opinion, if the film is good, the story is good and the characters are good, I couldn't give a flying f**k whether 007's replacement was a woman.

    Please don’t pile me in with anti-female brigade. My point was simply that featuring another ‘007’ is a gimmick. Much like it was in Forever and a Day. All the pissing around with form is gimmicky.
  • Posts: 12,526
    This Bond 25 production is having more writers than CR67 had directors!!!!! Lol!
  • Posts: 17,744
    RC7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    And @RC7, let's see how it's addressed in the film before calling it a gimic. I don't really understand the problem. If James Bond has retired from the service, would they just keep the spot open? No, and would the writers really be like "Well, we can't make the new 007 a woman because that would just anger people, even thought it makes the most sense in the story we want to tell?" or "Oh, let's make the new 007 a man because it'll make people feel more comfortable."

    Realistically there would be a new 007, and to make it a woman is just as simple as making it a man. If people have a problem with it, then that's your personal opinion and you're gonna have to deal with it cause in my opinion, if the film is good, the story is good and the characters are good, I couldn't give a flying f**k whether 007's replacement was a woman.

    Please don’t pile me in with anti-female brigade. My point was simply that featuring another ‘007’ is a gimmick. Much like it was in Forever and a Day. All the pissing around with form is gimmicky.

    I didn't mind how it was done in Forever and a Day, actually.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 480
    The franchise has always been full of gimmicks. What's a visit to Q's labs but a gimmick? What's a flirting scene between Bond and a lovelorn Moneypenny? What is the line "shaken, not stirred"? Etc.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2019 Posts: 5,970
    RC7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    And @RC7, let's see how it's addressed in the film before calling it a gimic. I don't really understand the problem. If James Bond has retired from the service, would they just keep the spot open? No, and would the writers really be like "Well, we can't make the new 007 a woman because that would just anger people, even thought it makes the most sense in the story we want to tell?" or "Oh, let's make the new 007 a man because it'll make people feel more comfortable."

    Realistically there would be a new 007, and to make it a woman is just as simple as making it a man. If people have a problem with it, then that's your personal opinion and you're gonna have to deal with it cause in my opinion, if the film is good, the story is good and the characters are good, I couldn't give a flying f**k whether 007's replacement was a woman.
    Please don’t pile me in with anti-female brigade. My point was simply that featuring another ‘007’ is a gimmick. Much like it was in Forever and a Day. All the pissing around with form is gimmicky.
    I don't think it's gimmicky until I see how it's portrayed in the film. It just makes sense. Like I said a new 007 would be hired after James Bond, so why not introduce them? and I'm not piling you into the anti-feminist brigade, I'm just addressing all the opposing sides of this argument.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    RC7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    And @RC7, let's see how it's addressed in the film before calling it a gimic. I don't really understand the problem. If James Bond has retired from the service, would they just keep the spot open? No, and would the writers really be like "Well, we can't make the new 007 a woman because that would just anger people, even thought it makes the most sense in the story we want to tell?" or "Oh, let's make the new 007 a man because it'll make people feel more comfortable."

    Realistically there would be a new 007, and to make it a woman is just as simple as making it a man. If people have a problem with it, then that's your personal opinion and you're gonna have to deal with it cause in my opinion, if the film is good, the story is good and the characters are good, I couldn't give a flying f**k whether 007's replacement was a woman.

    Please don’t pile me in with anti-female brigade. My point was simply that featuring another ‘007’ is a gimmick. Much like it was in Forever and a Day. All the pissing around with form is gimmicky.

    I didn't mind how it was done in Forever and a Day, actually.

    Nor did I. I thought Horowitz did a bang up job overall.
Sign In or Register to comment.