No Time To Die: Production Diary

1237323742376237823792507

Comments

  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    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.

    +1
  • Posts: 4,619
    @DoctorNo You haven’t addressed why Bond being retired and a female agent becoming 007 would contradict anything Fleming wrote.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited April 2019 Posts: 3,126
    Thought I said this a long time ago but without Fleming there is no James Bond and No MI6 HQ no fans nothing without Fleming Bond is a avatar customized and toyed Bond is Fleming's Legacy and Spirit plain and simple.
  • Posts: 68
    horowitz is a wellcrafted, gentlemanly, loving writer. i like him / trigger mortis. but forever and a day is fanfic. i appreciate, objectively that waller bridge is popular! I get it. I have an irrational dislike of killing eve / fleabag; fueled by the double standard of a media climate in which 'posh' = bad yet a double barreled type gets never veneration; where a MAN is no longer allowed to write sex / fantasy / flawed hero yet an entire empire now resides on her musings on sex / drifting / provocation..hence I;m a bit dismayed by why the Bond people would jump that bandwagon when even a more reformed, refined Bond would surely constitute a natural antidote to her brand? Also: LOTS of untapped FLEMING material that DOES capture a sensitive, female centric sensibility, untouched, unmined and could /should have been tailored by now..via ANY writer, be they a script doctor or full writer on the project? Too many cooks and all that? ;) THAT. But I have NO OBJECTION to Bond saving a female operative or mentoring; it's just an already overdone trope, both in this series and hero franchise media du jour; usually as gigantic FILLER which slows the actual PLOT! ;) x
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited April 2019 Posts: 3,126
    Why don't they use Fleming material?
  • Posts: 68
    complex, beautiful lady characters inc: tracey, rhoda, pussy, solitaire, if they just RE READ the BOOKS they would find the material, inc entire dialogue chunks. I thought babs always went 'back to fleming'? if so..NO NEED to waller-bridge it, surely? ;) #confused..
  • Posts: 4,408
    Have people read the article?

    There is a very clear distinction between a female James Bond and a female 007.

    James Bond was assigned the '007' number when he joined MI6. He later retired. Therefore, the number '007' can be reassigned.

    Why are people getting territorial about the number? Bond, as a character, lost the right to it when he quit MI6. It makes zero sense why MI6 would be respectful to Bond and retire the number with him.

    For people who are finding it hard to grapple with the idea, think of the iconic No.7 shirt at Manchester United....Case over.

    CLzgSsmWUAA-akC.png

    The bigger question is who could be the female 007.....is it too late to get Rachel Weisz?

    thr-rachel_weisz-photographed_by_miller_mobley-sh07_002-p_2019.jpg

    If they go for a young actress, it'll just look like they're ripping off the Rey/Luke dynamic from Star Wars. Which reminds me of those Daisy Ridley rumours...

    ridley-640x360.jpg

    I imagine the tabloids will loose their shit over this story tomorrow.
  • edited April 2019 Posts: 6,709
    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.

    Ohhhhhhhhhh, I see. I can see for miles now. Now I understand you, @PanchitoPistoles. I really, really do. You were confusing for me, I admit. But not anymore. Now, I truly understand your take on James Bond 007. Hell, fair enough. This is why we didn't see eye to eye for months. You should have said it long time ago, for I am a Fleming acolyte, as you put it. And as much as I adore cinema, I am a reader and writer foremost. I do like the first 4 Bond films very, very much. But truth be told, none of the others filled my enthusiasm as much as the novels did. So, ok my friend, your taste is your prerogative.

    But just to be clear, you don't like Fleming acolytes and EON acolytes, but you do have your very own notion of what James Bond 007 should be, in other hands besides his literary creator and cinema producers. I'm right? Right? Oh, and no harm in that. Just fact checking. This is not an aggressive message to you in any way. I actually get where you're coming from now. And that shall bring me peace ;)

    But when EON announces someone in some film as Ian Fleming's James Bond, I won't take that as a blatant lie. I'll take it with some hope, every single time. It's the positivist in me, trying to win, and oftentimes failing miserably.
  • 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.

    Nor did I. I thought Horowitz did a bang up job overall.

    I did too. Planning on rereading FAAD this Easter if I find the time to do so.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited April 2019 Posts: 3,126
    @HildebrandRarity Not going to lie not thrilled about it at all still it's just my opinion like you have yours.
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    edited April 2019 Posts: 544
    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.

    Just like the 007 gun logo, the main titles, the tuxedo...
    Hope Casino Royale '67 and NSNA come in 4K UHD BluRay soon so those Bond "fans" who want the most possible unbondian Bond film can rewatch it all night long and stop praying for a film in which James Bond will no longer be James Bond.

    "There are some very strong images associated with Bond. There is the James Bond silhouette, there is the gunbarrel image, there is the 007 logo - and all three immediately say James Bond."
    -Keith Snelgrove, VP of Global Business Strategy, EON.

    Quoted on The Art of Bond by Laurent Bouzereau (Abrams, 2006)
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Have people read the article?

    There is a very clear distinction between a female James Bond and a female 007.

    James Bond was assigned the '007' number when he joined MI6. He later retired. Therefore, the number '007' can be reassigned.

    Why are people getting territorial about the number? Bond, as a character, lost the right to it when he quit MI6. It makes zero sense why MI6 would be respectful to Bond and retire the number with him.

    For people who are finding it hard to grapple with the idea, think of the iconic No.7 shirt at Manchester United....Case over.

    CLzgSsmWUAA-akC.png

    The bigger question is who could be the female 007.....is it too late to get Rachel Weisz?

    thr-rachel_weisz-photographed_by_miller_mobley-sh07_002-p_2019.jpg

    If they go for a young actress, it'll just look like they're ripping off the Rey/Luke dynamic from Star Wars. Which reminds me of those Daisy Ridley rumours...

    ridley-640x360.jpg

    I imagine the tabloids will loose their shit over this story tomorrow.

    @Pierce2Daniel you can take use the character how ever you want but Fleming did make 007 only Bond of course Anthony put his spin on it but it's Fleming's Character.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    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.

    I didn’t mind it either. That wasn’t really my point. It was a gimmick, ‘007 is dead’ was the in. It’s not vital to the story.
  • Posts: 68
    I LOVE DAISY!! But she's a protege already in star wars..
  • Posts: 6,709
    This obsession with James Bond being 007

    Stupid, stupid obsession!

    Here, from a director and writer you do like ;)

    giphy.gif

    Just messing with ya, of course. I say this before the police comes knocking. All good fun.
  • Posts: 4,619
    @Univex This is were I’m coming from: 1. I wish Dr No and not Goldfinger were the template of cinematic Bond. 2. There have been 24 Bond movies already, playing with the formula after this many movies is a good, not a bad thing in my opinion.
  • edited April 2019 Posts: 377
    007.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 556
    So you wish Dr.No was the film template but never liked Fleming’s bond? Makes sense.
  • Posts: 4,408
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Have people read the article?

    There is a very clear distinction between a female James Bond and a female 007.

    James Bond was assigned the '007' number when he joined MI6. He later retired. Therefore, the number '007' can be reassigned.

    Why are people getting territorial about the number? Bond, as a character, lost the right to it when he quit MI6. It makes zero sense why MI6 would be respectful to Bond and retire the number with him.

    For people who are finding it hard to grapple with the idea, think of the iconic No.7 shirt at Manchester United....Case over.

    CLzgSsmWUAA-akC.png

    The bigger question is who could be the female 007.....is it too late to get Rachel Weisz?

    thr-rachel_weisz-photographed_by_miller_mobley-sh07_002-p_2019.jpg

    If they go for a young actress, it'll just look like they're ripping off the Rey/Luke dynamic from Star Wars. Which reminds me of those Daisy Ridley rumours...

    ridley-640x360.jpg

    I imagine the tabloids will loose their shit over this story tomorrow.

    @Pierce2Daniel you can take use the character how ever you want but Fleming did make 007 only Bond of course Anthony put his spin on it but it's Fleming's Character.

    I understand the reverence and respect we have for Bond being 007.

    But the Bond films' exist in there own universe. In that universe, Bond is a spy assigned a code-number. Within that universe, no one knows that Bond is a cultural icon created by Ian Fleming who has endured in cinema for decades as Agent 007.

    Therefore, from a story perspective it is feasible and understandable that the code-number would be given to someone else. I understand the upset people have. But fundamentally, in the context of the story the number means little. On an iconography level, that is a different story.

    In the world of football - the iconography is intimately melded to the number and Alex Ferguson didn't have any problem passing it on......

    beckham.jpg
  • edited April 2019 Posts: 6,709
    @Univex This is were I’m coming from: 1. I wish Dr No and not Goldfinger were the template of cinematic Bond. 2. There have been 24 Bond movies already, playing with the formula after this many movies is a good, not a bad thing in my opinion.

    I know, I know, I just got that now. I finally get where you're coming from. Just not from the same place I'm coming from ;) But fine. BTW, have you read Fleming's books? Which ones? And what did you think of them. A quick answer will suffice to ease my curiosity.

    From my experience, people who don't like Fleming's novels, haven't read Fleming's novels. Or they don't read at all. Not being pejorative here. Really. Promise. Just curious.
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    I didn’t mind it either. That wasn’t really my point. It was a gimmick, ‘007 is dead’ was the in. It’s not vital to the story.

    Exactly. It was a gimmick. That's also my point. Do we really need gimmicks and formula tempering? Isn't there anyone out there with a sexy idea for a Bond script? Really? How disappointing. Right? I know you feel the same, @RC7. It's as though they've run out of good ideias or are ashamed of the womaniser suave stylish troubled character they have to work with. They don't need to stick to a formula per se, but even Fleming had some ideas they haven't used yet. We've been discussing them for years. Gimmicks just won't do. No more brothergates, I say. Give us some quality writing, for pete sake. But hey, maybe they'll will. Maybe this time they'll positively surprise us.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    007 is James Bond. Toying with that is a gimmick. It is not the catalyst for a great story. It’s fine as a throwaway bit of BS.
  • Posts: 6,709
    RC7 wrote: »
    007 is James Bond. Toying with that is a gimmick. It is not the catalyst for a great story. It’s fine as a throwaway bit of BS.

    NegativeSparklingAidi-size_restricted.gif
  • Posts: 377
    But what about FOOTBALL PLAYERS?!

  • J_Bryce777J_Bryce777 San Francisco
    Posts: 78
    If they want a female with the class, sophistication, style, and presence of a female Bond, look no further than Gemma Chan.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Mack_Bolan wrote: »
    But what about FOOTBALL PLAYERS?!
    lol
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited April 2019 Posts: 3,126
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Have people read the article?

    There is a very clear distinction between a female James Bond and a female 007.

    James Bond was assigned the '007' number when he joined MI6. He later retired. Therefore, the number '007' can be reassigned.

    Why are people getting territorial about the number? Bond, as a character, lost the right to it when he quit MI6. It makes zero sense why MI6 would be respectful to Bond and retire the number with him.

    For people who are finding it hard to grapple with the idea, think of the iconic No.7 shirt at Manchester United....Case over.

    CLzgSsmWUAA-akC.png

    The bigger question is who could be the female 007.....is it too late to get Rachel Weisz?

    thr-rachel_weisz-photographed_by_miller_mobley-sh07_002-p_2019.jpg

    If they go for a young actress, it'll just look like they're ripping off the Rey/Luke dynamic from Star Wars. Which reminds me of those Daisy Ridley rumours...

    ridley-640x360.jpg

    I imagine the tabloids will loose their shit over this story tomorrow.

    @Pierce2Daniel you can take use the character how ever you want but Fleming did make 007 only Bond of course Anthony put his spin on it but it's Fleming's Character.

    I understand the reverence and respect we have for Bond being 007.

    But the Bond films' exist in there own universe. In that universe, Bond is a spy assigned a code-number. Within that universe, no one knows that Bond is a cultural icon created by Ian Fleming who has endured in cinema for decades as Agent 007.

    Therefore, from a story perspective it is feasible and understandable that the code-number would be given to someone else. I understand the upset people have. But fundamentally, in the context of the story the number means little. On an iconography level, that is a different story.

    In the world of football - the iconography is intimately melded to the number and Alex Ferguson didn't have any problem passing it on......

    beckham.jpg

    @Pierce2Daniel like I said you can spin it however you want it's your opinion I have my opinion all I will say is 007 was still 007 or James Bond or I guess whatever you want to call it now. When his license was revoked in License to Kill he was still 007 or was he just James Bond and someone took over and got it back unofficially I don't know spin it how you want I guess all I want is to stay true to Fleming and that's all that matters. Just my opinion.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 556
    It’s not like 007 is some required position to fill. This female agent should just be a 005, for instance. Eon just think they’ll please the “Mainstream” crowd by having a woman play 007.
  • Posts: 17,744
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    I didn’t mind it either. That wasn’t really my point. It was a gimmick, ‘007 is dead’ was the in. It’s not vital to the story.

    That's true of course. I like the "007 is dead" line they used in the marketing.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    Here's the problem with the 007 female agent storyline, in the context of a modern world:

    Female 007 takes over, gets in some trouble, Bond has to come back and save her and MI6.

    There's no way that will fly. It suggests women are incompetent and always need a man to come along and save them and the job. I'd be shocked if this plot is followed.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Ah yes, we're at the "without Fleming there is no James Bond" level of stating the obvious. Very good. Fleming would hate a large chunk of the films, especially after the first five entries, but he would have loved the money they made. I love the books as much as anyone. My handed down copies of LALD, OHMSS, and FRWL are prized possessions of mine. But Fleming potentially not approving of something doesn't really matter anymore.

    However, that doesn't mean Bond is going to be changed into something unrecognisable in comparison to what has come before. Taking away the 007 moniker is a gimmick for sure, seeing as WE ALL KNOW he's going to get it back by the film's end. And then we'll have Bond 26, 27, 28 etc.

    It's just a minor story detail that may or may not add something to the bigger picture. It doesn't shit on Fleming or "destroy Bond" at all.

    It would be nice if a piece of news came in that didn't result in people spewing absolute lunacy.
Sign In or Register to comment.