No Time To Die: Production Diary

12802812832852862507

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    It honestly seems like Craig is attempting to kickstart his post-Bond career. Such a busy schedule would help to demonstrate his range and escape type-casting. His return is becoming less and less likely.

    If this is true, I think an announcement would be made. I'm running against the grain on this and think there is no announcement to be made; that BB is allowing her boy to go and play while they work a script for him.

    If it was so obvious that this is post-Bond re-building, there's no point in not to saying he's retired from the role.

    But they're ignoring the news because, to them, there is no news. They want Dan to feel fresh and happy coming back, so there's no reason at all to limit the roles he does-- so long as it doesn't interfere with their projected shooting schedule.
  • Posts: 709
    Risico007 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    The latest issue of not knowing who to copy comes with Spectre who is stealing from Marvel whole heartidlyand this is an issue because had they instead look to Taken or hell even the Bourne legacy we would of gotten a much better and more interesting situation

    Can you elaborate on that for the sake of clarity?

    Seriously your asking me??? Ok I thought someone as well verse in marvel films would of seen this a mile away but ok..

    the entire plots is stolen from Captain America The Winter soldier so much so I am surpised Disney didn't sue Sony to be bluntly honest.

    Spectre: an orgnization thought to be long dead (Quantum) has a new name and is still very much active (Spectre)

    Captain America Winter Soldier: an ornlgnization long thought to be dead (hydra) is still very much active and has a new name (shield)

    Both films have the protagonist meeting with a secondary villian from a previous film for information about the organization (mr white in Spectre and I can't remember his name the character with a giant tv in his chest in the comics)

    Both films have the protagonist abandoned by the head of the orgnization they work for and rely on friends from said orgnization to join him (black widow and Falcon in Winter soldier Moneypenny and Q in Spectre heck in both films one is black and the other is white)

    Both films have a high up mole that was part of the sinister orgnization

    Both films have a lost brother angle

    I could go on but what is the point Spectre stole from Winter Soldier hook line and sinker

    Those are a lot of generic movie tropes that existed long before either movie.

    "Both films have the protagonist meeting with a secondary villian from a previous film for information about the organization"

    You mean like...Bond meeting Valentin Zukovsky in TWINE? Bond meeting Mathis in QOS?

    "Both films have the protagonist abandoned by the head of the orgnization they work for and rely on friends from said orgnization to join him (black widow and Falcon in Winter soldier Moneypenny and Q in Spectre heck in both films one is black and the other is white)"

    Like in Quantum of Solace where Bond has to rely on Fields, Leiter etc.

    Both films have a high up mole that was part of the sinister orgnization

    Moles in organizations were hardly invented in 2014. Hell there have been moles in every Bond film since 2002 - Frost in DAD, Mathis in CR, Mitchell in QOS

    Both films have a lost brother angle

    Literal brother or brother in arms? I don't remember if metal arm guy was a literal brother. If just a buddy who is killed but then comes back as a villain, then Captain America is a total ripoff of Goldeneye. EON should sue.

    I could go on but what is the point Spectre stole from Winter Soldier hook line and sinker

    OK, go on, and I'll tell you which other Bond films they stole from :)

    I'm amused at the idea of Babs and co sitting around watching a Captain America movie and saying "Yes, this is what we need - a high up mole that was part of the sinister organization. How come nobody has ever thought of this before now?"

  • Posts: 212
    Tom Hiddleston is bulking up on a special high-protein diet to bag the role as the next James Bond also The Sun claims to have an Eon source that says it's down to Hiddleston and Hardy for 007..

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/1363954/tom-hiddleston-is-bulking-up-on-a-special-high-protein-diet-to-bag-the-role-as-the-next-james-bond/
  • Posts: 832
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Actually I don't get the hate for them

    Twine was brilliant die another day was not their fault Casino Royale was good Quantum was good Skyfall was ok and they did what they could to save spectre

    They should not have hired purvis and wade after twine. Good film, really mediocre script. Then dad was shit, cr was fantastic but the script was only good because of fleming, qos was shit, sf was good however the script could have been better, sp was good but flawed only because of bad decisions that would seemingly be obvious to like anyone. Consistently p&w have demonstrated a lack of ability suitable towards bond, and everyone except barbara and michael seem to be able to see it. Add the 3-4 year gaps compared to 2 years during most of cubby's time, barbara's insistence on making every damn film involve a personal aspect, and just less of the "bond film feel" which you really got in all of cubby's films and I think you can understand the fans frustration. I have always been sceptical of barbara and michael however on this forum it has been kind of controversial to suggest that they should not be in charge of bond.
  • StrelikStrelik Spectre Island
    edited June 2016 Posts: 108
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Actually I don't get the hate for them

    Twine was brilliant die another day was not their fault
    And -- as you likely know -- TWINE had several unaccredited rewrites after P&W turned in their initial draft. The director felt (understandably) ham-stringed by P&W's original script. Dana Stevens and Bruce Feirstein labored a great deal on the final product.

    To my knowledge, the only Bond script which is pure, unadulterated P&W is Die Another Day and, sadly, it shows. The duo has since blamed the director for a "poor interpretation" (which is undeniably true), but their own dialogue was pure corn: "That's a mouthful."

  • Posts: 9,843
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Actually I don't get the hate for them

    Twine was brilliant die another day was not their fault Casino Royale was good Quantum was good Skyfall was ok and they did what they could to save spectre

    They should not have hired purvis and wade after twine. Good film, really mediocre script. Then dad was shit, cr was fantastic but the script was only good because of fleming, qos was shit, sf was good however the script could have been better, sp was good but flawed only because of bad decisions that would seemingly be obvious to like anyone. Consistently p&w have demonstrated a lack of ability suitable towards bond, and everyone except barbara and michael seem to be able to see it. Add the 3-4 year gaps compared to 2 years during most of cubby's time, barbara's insistence on making every damn film involve a personal aspect, and just less of the "bond film feel" which you really got in all of cubby's films and I think you can understand the fans frustration. I have always been sceptical of barbara and michael however on this forum it has been kind of controversial to suggest that they should not be in charge of bond.


    Fine have purvis and wade adapt you only live twice done easy
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I don't have a problem with Purvis and Wade, but new writer would be good. That is needed anyway, I think. Just keep Logan away forever more.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited June 2016 Posts: 1,130
    I think whoever the next Bond actor might he has to be more of a fan of the books or not at fan at all than being a fan of the brand or movie franchise James Bond.

    As much as i loved Pierce as Bond i see that his problem to not add anything new to the character and being a compoiste Bond was that was more of a fan of Sean Connery and Roger Moore's Bond than a fan Ian Fleming's James Bond.

    Craig loved Connery but as far as I know he wasn't very much of Bond fan so he treated Bond as another great character in his resume than treating the character as OMG i will be like my idol Sean Connery.

    So maybe the first thing the producers need to look for is an actor who is not a Bond fan at all or being a fan because of the books not the films.

    As much as i do like the composite Bond Pierce made and I personally see it as a strength having a bit of everyone. What prevented him to do something really original is that he was more of a fan of previous films from Roger Moore and Sean Connery.
  • SatoriousSatorious Brushing up on a little Danish
    Posts: 233
    Whilst I can't say for certain - I think of Purvis and Wade as great concept people. Dialogue and actual storytelling - far less so. I could be wrong, but that is my interpretation... There are so many talented writers out there. A film flies or drops by its script - if I were to invest in one single area - getting the script and scriptwriter(s) right would be key... This is relatively cost effective against the production costs. Even the best cast and crew in the world can't make a bad script into a good film - though they might try.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    People can drag P&W through the mud all they want, but they helped us dodge Haggis' QoS script with Bond and Vesper having a kid, and rescued SP after Logan did a number on it, and had the MI6 team as traitors, including Mallory. How's that for original?

    If some want to complain about SP, think about just how bad it could have been. What you all got was gold compared to what it could have been sans P&W. SP should be appreciated for what it is just as much as for what it isn't, and thankfully it isn't Logan's vision.
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 92
    I find frustratingly hard to accept how they get themselves into such a mess in regards to story/script.

    Just get a bloody good quality script will you!!!
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    People can drag P&W through the mud all they want, but they helped us dodge Haggis' QoS script with Bond and Vesper having a kid, and rescued SP after Logan did a number on it, and had the MI6 team as traitors, including Mallory. How's that for original?

    If some want to complain about SP, think about just how bad it could have been. What you all got was gold compared to what it could have been sans P&W. SP should be appreciated for what it is just as much as for what it isn't, and thankfully it isn't Logan's vision.
    Absolutely. But EON need to resort to more talented writers to ensure an all around great script.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Szonana wrote: »
    I think whoever the next Bond actor might he has to be more of a fan of the books or not at fan at all than being a fan of the brand or movie franchise James Bond.

    As much as i loved Pierce as Bond i see that his problem to not add anything new to the character and being a compoiste Bond was that was more of a fan of Sean Connery and Roger Moore's Bond than a fan Ian Fleming's James Bond.

    Craig loved Connery but as far as I know he wasn't very much of Bond fan so he treated Bond as another great character in his resume than treating the character as OMG i will be like my idol Sean Connery.

    So maybe the first thing the producers need to look for is an actor who is not a Bond fan at all or being a fan because of the books not the films.

    As much as i do like the composite Bond Pierce made and I personally see it as a strength having a bit of everyone. What prevented him to do something really original is that he was more of a fan of previous films from Roger Moore and Sean Connery.
    These are good points. I can assume that one who is not so familiar with the films likely won't as readily (even if subconsciously) imitate certain predecessor actor behavioural tics. Having said that, the audience for Bond is so large & multi-generational that some of the history is unavoidable. I'm sure nearly any potential actor would have at least seen some of Connery's or Moore's biggest Bond films, probably GE, & most likely some of Craig's latest ones.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    bondjames wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    I think whoever the next Bond actor might he has to be more of a fan of the books or not at fan at all than being a fan of the brand or movie franchise James Bond.

    As much as i loved Pierce as Bond i see that his problem to not add anything new to the character and being a compoiste Bond was that was more of a fan of Sean Connery and Roger Moore's Bond than a fan Ian Fleming's James Bond.

    Craig loved Connery but as far as I know he wasn't very much of Bond fan so he treated Bond as another great character in his resume than treating the character as OMG i will be like my idol Sean Connery.

    So maybe the first thing the producers need to look for is an actor who is not a Bond fan at all or being a fan because of the books not the films.

    As much as i do like the composite Bond Pierce made and I personally see it as a strength having a bit of everyone. What prevented him to do something really original is that he was more of a fan of previous films from Roger Moore and Sean Connery.
    These are good points. I can assume that one who is not so familiar with the films likely won't as readily (even if subconsciously) imitate certain predecessor actor behavioural tics. Having said that, the audience for Bond is so large & multi-generational that some of the history is unavoidable. I'm sure nearly any potential actor would have at least seen some of Connery's or Moore's biggest Bond films, probably GE, & most likely some of Craig's latest ones.

    Well yes ofcourse any actor will be at least a little familiarized with the franchise it would be strange if he wasn't but it would be better for their performances to create their bond from the books or script rather than the predecessors.

    Many think Pierce was imitating Sean and Roger because his main inspiration for Bond were them instead of the books.
    Brosnan had said many times that his first feature film he saw was Goldfinger and since then he loved Bond.

    Its for me a little weird writing this because im a huge Pierce defender as Bond but i just got why people think he was never original and why he didn't manage to be that way.

    I don't mind that he had a bitt of all his predecessors and actually for me it worked that made him a very well rounded character with all the traits the Bond needs but to make a new take on Bond the actor has to part from the books or scripts instead of his predecessors.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    People can drag P&W through the mud all they want, but they helped us dodge Haggis' QoS script with Bond and Vesper having a kid, and rescued SP after Logan did a number on it, and had the MI6 team as traitors, including Mallory. How's that for original?

    If some want to complain about SP, think about just how bad it could have been. What you all got was gold compared to what it could have been sans P&W. SP should be appreciated for what it is just as much as for what it isn't, and thankfully it isn't Logan's vision.

    D%^mn it!!! You made good points, but still don't like them. Lol
  • Posts: 4,325
    dandan wrote: »
    I find frustratingly hard to accept how they get themselves into such a mess in regards to story/script.

    Just get a bloody good quality script will you!!!

    Yes, they seem to have given too much free reign to writers recently - they rejected initial ideas and script ideas from Haggis (QoS), Peter Morgan (SF) and John Logan (SP). They should know what the writer's ideas are before they let them loose in writing the script. Surely they could have rejected these ideas earlier in the process, certainly Logan's which made it all the way in successive screenplay drafts?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited July 2016 Posts: 11,139
    Spectre the most complained about film in 2015, say UK censors

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/movies/spectre-the-most-complained-about-film-in-2015-say-uk-censors/ar-AAhPpKD?li=BBoPOOl

    Rubbish. Of all the things to complain about this is what people moaned about? Urgh.
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 6,601
    Ego - by the censors.
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    Spectre the most complained about film in 2015, say UK censors

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/movies/spectre-the-most-complained-about-film-in-2015-say-uk-censors/ar-AAhPpKD?li=BBoPOOl

    Rubbish. Of all the things to complain about this is what people moaned about? Urgh.

    I can't believe it either. On the grand scale of the movie those two scenes do not matter much.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    These are what people complained about? Too much PC does that to the human brain. Some people just have to sit in their bedrooms and play with their unicorns rather than watching a movie. All of those complaints from Spectre to the other ones are irrelevant.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    dandan wrote: »
    I find frustratingly hard to accept how they get themselves into such a mess in regards to story/script.

    Just get a bloody good quality script will you!!!

    Maybe there's too many other people, producers, actors, cleaning lady, all having input. Back in the day the scripts were based on the solid stories of Fleming and at least the first two had minimal input from others.
  • Posts: 154
    That's true. YOLT and TSWLM were completely true to the Fleming books -- and that's why we love them. :/ .... Wait...
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    When I was 12, I loved YOLT and TSWLM.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I do love TSWLM, but YOLT, from head to toe, is boring to say the least.
  • Posts: 154
    I don't know. When I was young, the whole volcano hideout, spaceships, ninjas, etc was kind of exciting. I prefer TSWLM which uses the same trope -- only with a tanker capturing subs intsead of a spaceship capturing space capsules -- to better effect.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Funny this thread is about Bond25 not Spectre. :O)
  • SatoriousSatorious Brushing up on a little Danish
    Posts: 233
    People can drag P&W through the mud all they want, but they helped us dodge Haggis' QoS script with Bond and Vesper having a kid

    Actually that wasn't P+W at all, it was producers BB and MGW. However, you are correct that Haggis did try to float the idea which resulted in a rather stern "no" response. This one was weeded out pretty early in the process, but the writers strike didn't help the QOS scriptwriting process. Wasn't the rumor that Craig and Forster were making stuff up whilst they were filming? If so - it's a wonder it turned out as good as it did.
  • Posts: 1,970
    Once I read the book YOLT the movie became a bad taste in my mouth. That is one of the biggest mistakes in the franchise.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Once I read the book YOLT the movie became a bad taste in my mouth. That is one of the biggest mistakes in the franchise.

    Same.
  • Posts: 16,149
    I never really minded Purvis and Wade's work, although I miss the days when 007's assignments didn't involve something personal. Unless I'm watching, OHMSS, LTK or CR, " and THAT's for 009" is about as personal as I want a James Bond movie to get. IMO there will probably never be another Richard Maibaum.
    Seems when a well respected or currently popular writer or director gets their hands on a Bond film, we get a film that either tries to force a personal twist into the mix or change the formula. I'm not sure who came up with the idea to have M turn out to be a traitor in SP, but to me, that idea is about as good as having a Marvel crossover film where it turns out 007 is actually Iron-Man. I'm glad it was vetoed.
    I just want writers and a director who will respect the formula, come up with a good caper for the villain, good characterizations, and not apologize for it being a James Bond film by trying to prove 007 is still relevant.
Sign In or Register to comment.