No Time To Die: Production Diary

12692702722742752507

Comments

  • Posts: 12,837
    boldfinger wrote: »
    And given the history of much more entertaining Bond films with no better scripts, I find it unjustified to blame the writers more than the director and producers.

    I loved Spectre but this reminds me of something I've often thought: I don't get why BB and MGW seem to get a pass when people don't like a Bond film. Sure they get pitched these ideas by the writers and director but it's not like they have zero creative control. They're often on set, they know what's going on, and I'm sure that they have at least some amount of input in terms of the script.

    Like in the posts that have been critical of SP, it's always Mendes and Purvis and Wade (I feel especially sorry for them given that they essentially saved the film) who get shat on. Like in the post @TheWizardOfIce made a few pages back (not singling you out, it's just the most recent example I could think of), it's Purvis Wade and Mendes portrayed as the bad guys while Barbara is all skeptical.

    I think that the producers should be held more accountable. Don't get me wrong I can't think of anyone else I'd rather have in charge of the franchise but when mistakes are made it seems like they rarely get any criticism. Like we all blame Tamahori for Die Another Day and fair enough he does seem the source of the films bad ideas but could he really have added the invisible car and tsunami stunt and everything without BB and MGW signing off on it? I don't think so.

    That's why I feel sorry for Brosnan too. Yeah maybe he shouldn't have blindly gone along with it but at the end of the day he's just an actor, he shouldn't really be expected to take creative control, and yet he was used as sort of a scapegoat. They messed up badly, so they rebooted and he didn't get a good send off, which I think he deserved. If nothing else I'd argue he deserved it because of the success of his era: despite all his post GE films being seen as mediocre at best, they still continued to do big box office, and you could claim it was just due to the brand but I think that a lot of it was probably to do with Brosnan's popularity and star power. Sure he's not a big box office draw now, but as Bond people loved him. I mean yeah fair enough Bond did a lot for his own career so you could say that (along the ridiculous amount of money he earned) was more than enough of a thank you of what he did for the franchise, but I still feel sorry for him being stuck with DAD as his last performance in the role he loved so much.
  • Posts: 5,767
    @thelivingroyale, to be fair, Babs and Michael did get a lot of negative criticism in the past for a variety of things. It seems there are fashions of who to blame most.
  • Posts: 12,837
    boldfinger wrote: »
    And Bond driving off with Madeleine in the end is the standart Bond-gets-the-girl ending, flavored Craig-style and rogue-Bond style. It doesn´t indicate to me in any way that Bond won´t be back next time.

    How do people miss the blatant symbolism here. It's not just a Bond gets the girl ending. He retired. Madeline makes it clear that she won't be with Bond as long as he's a spy. At the end of the film he refuses to kill Blofeld (finally walking away from killing), throwing his gun away, and walks to Madeline, the one person who has a chance of understanding him, leaving M (and his life as a spy) on the other side of the bridge. He stops by MI6 to get his car back, reiterates that he's gone, then drives off into the sunset to live out his new life.

    There are possible story options to bring Craig back but this wasn't just a traditional Bond gets the girl ending.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited June 2016 Posts: 6,304
    Birdleson wrote: »
    There is no question that EON was trying to give us that OHMSS vibe, they even included the theme in the trailer. The several drafts of the script even ended with the line "We have all the time in the world." We are meant to accept that Madeline is, like Tracy, the one text Bond will give it all up for (and they fell far short with tis, so far as I'm concerned). Unfounded? I say very founded. Now I see that @dalton hit the same points above.

    Well, I'm just enforcing that line of thinking.

    Irma Bunt was also supposed to show up in Morocco.

    @thelivingroyale, I think there is plenty of blame to go around for the end result of SP, including the producers. I don't know how hands-on Babs and MGW are, day-to-day; I mean, they definitely didn't come down hard on Newman's pathetic rehash of a score (fear of contradicting Mendes, perhaps?). On the other hand, I seem to recall hearing that MGW was the one who made Newman add Adele's theme to the casino entrance in SF.

    I still believe that Haggis, handed the strong source material of one of the other novels, is the way to go, again. True, there was QoS but that was also a casualty of the writers' strike.
  • Posts: 1,631
    I think that the producers should be held more accountable. Don't get me wrong I can't think of anyone else I'd rather have in charge of the franchise but when mistakes are made it seems like they rarely get any criticism. Like we all blame Tamahori for Die Another Day and fair enough he does seem the source of the films bad ideas but could he really have added the invisible car and tsunami stunt and everything without BB and MGW signing off on it? I don't think so.

    They absolutely should be. In the end, it's been their decision to continue to allow the subpar writing. That doesn't, however, excuse the writers for their lack of production. They're pulling a paycheck, so they should be putting out better work as well.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    This reboot thing has run its course. That's what the last few posts indicate quite clearly to me. "We have all the time in the world" (glad they dumped that line). Irma Bunt, etc. etc. I sincerely hope we put this era behind us and move forward with a new direction with the new film.
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 5,767
    boldfinger wrote: »
    And Bond driving off with Madeleine in the end is the standart Bond-gets-the-girl ending, flavored Craig-style and rogue-Bond style. It doesn´t indicate to me in any way that Bond won´t be back next time.

    How do people miss the blatant symbolism here. It's not just a Bond gets the girl ending. He retired. Madeline makes it clear that she won't be with Bond as long as he's a spy. At the end of the film he refuses to kill Blofeld (finally walking away from killing), throwing his gun away, and walks to Madeline, the one person who has a chance of understanding him, leaving M (and his life as a spy) on the other side of the bridge. He stops by MI6 to get his car back, reiterates that he's gone, then drives off into the sunset to live out his new life.

    There are possible story options to bring Craig back but this wasn't just a traditional Bond gets the girl ending.
    True, the bridge was blatantly obvious. But Bond retiring has been a theme in every single one of Craig´s Bond films to a degree that makes it more of a running gag. Not to mention that Craig doesn´t seem tired of his job at any point throughout the film.
    To an equal degree Craig´s films so far show disregard for continuity or logic.
    All that makes it hard to believe that the ending of SP should indeed seriously mean that Bond retires. He´s taking a vacation with Madeline, nothing more.
    And Bond is not walking away from killing when he doesn´t kill Blofeld, he´s just being smart. As M pointed out, his license is also a license not to kill. Which Bond also mentioned in SF. And put to use at the end of QoS. And at the end of CR, come to think of it.
  • Posts: 2,402
    bondjames wrote: »
    @StirredNotShaken, anything that could resuscitate the ludicrous 'codename' theory wouldn't work for me. I like the 'six agents dead' idea, but a 'new man' as 007 for a portion of the film is not my cup of tea, nor is a reboot of Trevelyan as 006.

    It wouldn't be the codename theory at all though. You know how much I despise the codename theory. Essentially what happens, the six agents (maybe less than that, six was an arbitrary number) wouldn't be just fellow MI6 operatives but also agents from whichever country the PTS action takes place (I hadn't decided on it). A joint operation sort of thing that just goes awfully leaving Bond the sole survivor and framed for their deaths by the true villain.

    Trevelyan (or whomever; it really isn't important at all that he be Trevelyan; I only suggested it as it would solely be a name that resonates with the fans, but an entirely different character) isn't a 00 agent yet, he's one of MI6's promising younger agents (think Bond in the PTS of CR) who has been given 00 status in order to fill the gap missing due to Bond going on the run; it just so happens that he is assigned 007 by coincidence.

    The idea is for an ENTIRELY different Bond film. A one-off shakeup of the series' conventions. Bond is not the sole protagonist; Bond does not hold the 007 codename except for the beginning and end of the film; Bond is branded a traitor; Bond infiltrates the criminal underworld to bring the villain who framed him down, but in the process delves so deep into it that - much moreso than in Licence to Kill - he gets in over his head and needs to be pulled out.

    Regardless, this is just one of those things that came to me out of the blue. This movie would never get made and it certainly won't be the next James Bond adventure. But I really, really like the idea for some reason.

    Now, back to your usual scheduled programming.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I'll admit it's an interesting idea @StirredNotShaken, particularly Bond infiltrating the criminal underworld for an extended period. That part resonates, although it has been done in other films before, most notably in The Departed, which I rewatched recently, so it's quite fresh in my mind.
  • Posts: 2,402
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll admit it's an interesting idea @StirredNotShaken, particularly Bond infiltrating the criminal underworld for an extended period. That part resonates, although it has been done in other films before, most notably in The Departed, which I rewatched recently, so it's quite fresh in my mind.

    Yes, in other films - and the premise is right out of the first Mission:Impossible film - but never in a Bond film. The closest Bond's ever come to being set up was when MI6 were convinced he shot Haines' bodyguard in QoS, which could've been solved with a quick bit of dialogue such as "Uh I knocked him off the roof yeah but I didn't put a bullet in him".
  • Posts: 1,181
    As long as M, Moneypenny, and Q are given huge roles and can show up and bail Bond out and save his ass.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ed83 wrote: »
    As long as M, Moneypenny, and Q are given huge roles and can show up and bail Bond out and save his ass.

    Twice!
    Are you guys serious? I want to see less of the Scooby gang, not more!
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    There is no question that EON was trying to give us that OHMSS vibe, they even included the theme in the trailer. The several drafts of the script even ended with the line "We have all the time in the world." We are meant to accept that Madeline is, like Tracy, the one text Bond will give it all up for (and they fell far short with tis, so far as I'm concerned). Unfounded? I say very founded. Now I see that @dalton hit the same points above.

    Well, I'm just enforcing that line of thinking.

    re: "We have all the time in the world line," Including one draft dated Dec. 1, 2014 -- one week before filming started. It's not like this was an early idea quickly discarded. Irma Bunt was around in a draft dated October, pretty late in the game as well.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll admit it's an interesting idea @StirredNotShaken, particularly Bond infiltrating the criminal underworld for an extended period. That part resonates, although it has been done in other films before, most notably in The Departed, which I rewatched recently, so it's quite fresh in my mind.

    Yes, in other films - and the premise is right out of the first Mission:Impossible film - but never in a Bond film. The closest Bond's ever come to being set up was when MI6 were convinced he shot Haines' bodyguard in QoS, which could've been solved with a quick bit of dialogue such as "Uh I knocked him off the roof yeah but I didn't put a bullet in him".

    Actually, way back in FRWL, if Grant would have gotten away with what he intended, the scene he set with a dead Bond and Tatiana would have painted 007 as a madman double-dealing traitor to the British government and a fraud of all shades. Makes the QoS pickle look like a pillow fight in comparison.

    Still, I agree with the others, that rogue stories are way too prevalent in the series already. I don't agree about the trust issues between Bond and M, however. I think Ms of old have faster shoved Bond under the political bus or reigned him in a helluva lot faster for his actions that Judy or Ralph as M have. The Lee M, for instance, would never have stood by Bond the way they have/had when Bond did questionable things with the aim of keeping a leg up on the enemy (embassy shoot up in CR, going off the grid in QoS, the Turkey mission in SF). The previous M's are relatively short fused and more bicker and berate Bond than really honor his counsel, when you look at some of the past films. In fact, in SP (a widely criticized M performance) Mallory trusts Bond so much that he defies every plan M, Q or Tanner have (smart blood), and simply lets Bond do his thing. Now, if that isn't trust, I don't know what is.

    There's never been a moment with Judi's M where I thought she didn't trust Craig's Bond, and the moment Mallory and Bond felt each other out in SF, there wasn't a moment where I sensed a break in trust either. There were moments where they were both boggled by Bond's actions or fuming at his secrecy or response to things, but they never outright fail to trust the man, otherwise he'd never be in the employ of the government dealing with top secret dealings in the first place.

    Just had to say my piece there. :)
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Birdleson wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ed83 wrote: »
    As long as M, Moneypenny, and Q are given huge roles and can show up and bail Bond out and save his ass.

    Twice!
    Are you guys serious? I want to see less of the Scooby gang, not more!

    I assumed that @Ed83 was being sarcastic, like I was.

    We hope ..we truly hope lol.
  • Posts: 1,296
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I just had a brilliant, brilliant Bond movie come to my mind, so, as always happens with such things... I've started writing it. It'd never become Bond 25 but the idea is so goddamn genius.
    Care to share with us, old chap?

    The film itself is not necessarily groundbreaking as cinema, but in the context of Bond I would say it is. It would ideally be the first film for a new Bond. It would take someone of Craig's calibre to sell it right out of the gate.

    Actually first off here's the teaser trailer. Roughly. The impact of this trailer would be increased if we didn't know yet who our new James Bond is.

    We're in M's office. "Six agents dead," the trailer begins. Quick couple shots of this; an assignment gone wrong perhaps an agent getting shot, another's car exploding. M is addressing, presumably, Bond. "All done by a vicious traitor."

    We cut to a rather menacing villain type. Shaved head, doing violent, brutal stuff. I'm thinking we see him snap someone's neck in a bare knuckle fight or something. Just something that's really f---ed. This is only a teaser trailer but I want it to establish quickly that this is not your grandma's Bond movie. Something with an edge so hard that the Craig films might as well be made of Jell-O.

    We cut between our presumptive new James Bond and our presumptive villain, both in action, a few times, and also the gunbarrel which proceeds a bit further each time we see it. But Bond in the gunbarrel is silhouetted, we cannot see his face. The agent is addressed as "007". Our agent asks something like "What's his name?" Before we cut once more to our "villian", who states determinedly:

    "Bond. James Bond."

    BANG! The gunbarrel completes, and the silhouette clears to reveal our new James Bond... the villain, now with a full head of hair. /trailer

    Whoa whoa whoa whoa! Put the pitchforks down! James Bond is NOT actually the villain! He didn't kill those agents! He has been set up Mission:Impossible style in our pre-credits sequence.

    Now. Bond going rogue has happened before. LTK and QoS. But. Has he ever been branded, truly, a traitor? Has he ever been condemned a la Alec Trevelyan, had his codename stripped and given to another agent? No.

    Bond goes on the run, changes his appearance, and integrates himself into the criminal underworld to find the person who set him up, bring him to justice, and clear his name. He's sharing the screentime with the new 007, who is on Bond's trail but who also ultimately uncovers Bond's innocence and works alongside him to bring the REAL villain to justice. There are elements of LTK in there but not to the extent that this film pushes. The implication is that Bond has lost himself in this world for weeks, if not months.

    Now, spoiler alert, but to assuage everyone's fears: the new 007 does not remain 007. Once Bond wins, he gets his codename and licence to kill restored, and the new 007 becomes 006 or 009 or something. I like 006. I even like maybe having his name be Alec Trevelyan. Not because he's going to turn traitor in a later film; purely as a fun throwback to Bond fans. This would be a total reboot of the character, a younger agent, sort of a reflection of Bond's younger self. There's the possibility for him to appear in future films as a cameo or supporting character, but it's not necessary. He is sort of the deuteragonist with Bond in this one, as the film is as much about Bond taking down the villain as it is Trevelyan pursuing and investigating Bond.

    This is all a very rough idea still, as it all sort of came to me at once. But I actually really, really like what I've got in my head so far.
    I wanted to stop right after "six agents dead". But because you said it´s brilliant brilliant and groundbreaking in the context of Bond, I continued.
    WTF, @StirredNotShaken, are you DisneyBond whateverhisname in disguise?
    This is breathtaking, I always try to write with my teaser trailer in mind, in fact I craft videos all over the place for my written works just to push it out there and say see, thats real, that exisits, that's plausible, it's workable, don't make fun of me, I'd like to see you do better. :)
  • Posts: 4,409


    Christoph Waltz has said no one has asked him to return.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @Pierce2Daniel, he also said he wasn't playing Blofeld.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    So this is really confirmation that he is returning.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    So this is really confirmation that he is returning.
    His cat, too.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    So this is really confirmation that he is returning.

    Personally, I hope not! That's not something I ever say about Waltz, but he was quite forgettable as Blofeld in SP.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Waltz or no Blofeld, I say. I'm tired of the endless recasts.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I'm tired of needed recasts. Write it and act it right the first time.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'm tired of needed recasts. Write it and act it right the first time.
    Yep!

    However, I have to say, I don't know if Waltz's physicality is good enough for a good fistfight... But, I do still want to have him back to reprise his role as Blofeld. He's the type of actor that plays a role threatening the hell out of you... Even when he was a goodie in Django Unchained, he was threatening as hell.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'm tired of needed recasts. Write it and act it right the first time.
    Yep!

    However, I have to say, I don't know if Waltz's physicality is good enough for a good fistfight... But, I do still want to have him back to reprise his role as Blofeld. He's the type of actor that plays a role threatening the hell out of you... Even when he was a goodie in Django Unchained, he was threatening as hell.

    That was my rather unexpected issue with him as Blofeld in SP: after the likes of 'Inglourious Basterds' and 'Django Unchained,' I thought for sure that he would be just as menacing, but alas, it wasn't meant to be, and it seems he really only brings his A-game when he is working alongside Tarantino.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'm tired of needed recasts. Write it and act it right the first time.
    Yep!

    However, I have to say, I don't know if Waltz's physicality is good enough for a good fistfight... But, I do still want to have him back to reprise his role as Blofeld. He's the type of actor that plays a role threatening the hell out of you... Even when he was a goodie in Django Unchained, he was threatening as hell.

    That was my rather unexpected issue with him as Blofeld in SP: after the likes of 'Inglourious Basterds' and 'Django Unchained,' I thought for sure that he would be just as menacing, but alas, it wasn't meant to be, and it seems he really only brings his A-game when he is working alongside Tarantino.
    Too true!
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Waltz brings his A-game when given a superb script. He had lots of good material to work with in SP, but nothing ground-breaking. I want to see Blofeld as more of a loose cannon next time, should Waltz return.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It's a bit difficult for any actor to surpass what Tarantino gets out of them. EON should have understood this. That such comparisons would be inevitable, and not complimentary.
  • Posts: 1,631
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'm tired of needed recasts. Write it and act it right the first time.
    Yep!

    However, I have to say, I don't know if Waltz's physicality is good enough for a good fistfight... But, I do still want to have him back to reprise his role as Blofeld. He's the type of actor that plays a role threatening the hell out of you... Even when he was a goodie in Django Unchained, he was threatening as hell.

    That was my rather unexpected issue with him as Blofeld in SP: after the likes of 'Inglourious Basterds' and 'Django Unchained,' I thought for sure that he would be just as menacing, but alas, it wasn't meant to be, and it seems he really only brings his A-game when he is working alongside Tarantino.

    Agreed. I wasn't particularly thrilled with the casting decision back when it was announced and the performance didn't really do anything to get me to come around to it.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    @bondjames you want to rewatch a Die Hard thanks to the other thread, well this discussion makes me want to rewatch Waltz in Inglourious Basterds or Django Unchained.
Sign In or Register to comment.