› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…293294296298299…2507

Comments

  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Oh, and a Fleming adaptation.

    Remember those Refn rumours?

    AVANTGARDEN OF DEATH.

    =D>
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Since we're all quiet on the 'news front' I thought I'd post the latest on our man Tom down under. 0:58 to 1:10 is hilarious. I feel terribly fortunate that I've never had such a celebrity crush in my life - at least to date.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=158&v=LC4pCIbDMPQ
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,545
    Jason Bourne director Paul Greengrass would 'never direct James Bond’

    Bourne director Paul Greengrass has ruled himself out of ever making a James Bond film.

    The acclaimed British filmmaker, who has just released the latest in the Bourne franchise, admitted that he has had discussions with Bond producer Barbara Broccoli in the past.

    When asked if he would consider taking on the project during an interview on Radio 4, Greengrass said:

    “Honesty and truly no. I mean I know (Bond producer) Barbara Broccoli and we've discussed it.

    “It's a bit like your football team, you can't... I'm a Bourne man, I like Bourne. And I've said before, listen it's a great, great franchisee of course it is, it's been going for 50 years, you've got to salute its success.”

    Greengrass, who has directed three of the Bourne films, went on to say that he doesn’t share the same ‘series of values’ that are ‘encoded’ in the Bond franchise.

    “Speaking personally as a filmmaker I think encoded in Bond are a series of values about Britain, about the world, about masculinity, about power, about the empire that I don't share,” he said.

    “Quite the reverse. Whereas in Bourne I think encoded is much more scepticism. There's an us and a them and Bourne is an us, whereas Bond is working for them.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited July 2016 Posts: 4,116
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Jason Bourne director Paul Greengrass would 'never direct James Bond’

    Bourne director Paul Greengrass has ruled himself out of ever making a James Bond film.

    The acclaimed British filmmaker, who has just released the latest in the Bourne franchise, admitted that he has had discussions with Bond producer Barbara Broccoli in the past.

    When asked if he would consider taking on the project during an interview on Radio 4, Greengrass said:

    “Honesty and truly no. I mean I know (Bond producer) Barbara Broccoli and we've discussed it.

    “It's a bit like your football team, you can't... I'm a Bourne man, I like Bourne. And I've said before, listen it's a great, great franchisee of course it is, it's been going for 50 years, you've got to salute its success.”

    Greengrass, who has directed three of the Bourne films, went on to say that he doesn’t share the same ‘series of values’ that are ‘encoded’ in the Bond franchise.

    “Speaking personally as a filmmaker I think encoded in Bond are a series of values about Britain, about the world, about masculinity, about power, about the empire that I don't share,” he said.

    “Quite the reverse. Whereas in Bourne I think encoded is much more scepticism. There's an us and a them and Bourne is an us, whereas Bond is working for them.

    Good. Greengrass and Bourne are just too anti-American for me. Plus Bourne is pretty much the same film over and over and way too spastic to ever enjoy.

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I agree @mcdonbb the Bourne films are all the same. Fun to watch but
    Not memorable.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,860
    Agreed let him stay as far away from bond as possible
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Jason Bourne director Paul Greengrass would 'never direct James Bond’

    Bourne director Paul Greengrass has ruled himself out of ever making a James Bond film.

    The acclaimed British filmmaker, who has just released the latest in the Bourne franchise, admitted that he has had discussions with Bond producer Barbara Broccoli in the past.

    When asked if he would consider taking on the project during an interview on Radio 4, Greengrass said:

    “Honesty and truly no. I mean I know (Bond producer) Barbara Broccoli and we've discussed it.

    “It's a bit like your football team, you can't... I'm a Bourne man, I like Bourne. And I've said before, listen it's a great, great franchisee of course it is, it's been going for 50 years, you've got to salute its success.”

    Greengrass, who has directed three of the Bourne films, went on to say that he doesn’t share the same ‘series of values’ that are ‘encoded’ in the Bond franchise.

    “Speaking personally as a filmmaker I think encoded in Bond are a series of values about Britain, about the world, about masculinity, about power, about the empire that I don't share,” he said.

    “Quite the reverse. Whereas in Bourne I think encoded is much more scepticism. There's an us and a them and Bourne is an us, whereas Bond is working for them.

    Anyone gutted we won't get his lefty take on Bond? I enjoy the Bourne films and Captain Philips was pretty good but I don't want to see Bond in the hands of a raving socialist who despises things such as nice cars, nice watches, expensive suits, exotic travel and the concept of Queen and country.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Jason Bourne director Paul Greengrass would 'never direct James Bond’

    Bourne director Paul Greengrass has ruled himself out of ever making a James Bond film.

    The acclaimed British filmmaker, who has just released the latest in the Bourne franchise, admitted that he has had discussions with Bond producer Barbara Broccoli in the past.

    When asked if he would consider taking on the project during an interview on Radio 4, Greengrass said:

    “Honesty and truly no. I mean I know (Bond producer) Barbara Broccoli and we've discussed it.

    “It's a bit like your football team, you can't... I'm a Bourne man, I like Bourne. And I've said before, listen it's a great, great franchisee of course it is, it's been going for 50 years, you've got to salute its success.”

    Greengrass, who has directed three of the Bourne films, went on to say that he doesn’t share the same ‘series of values’ that are ‘encoded’ in the Bond franchise.

    “Speaking personally as a filmmaker I think encoded in Bond are a series of values about Britain, about the world, about masculinity, about power, about the empire that I don't share,” he said.

    “Quite the reverse. Whereas in Bourne I think encoded is much more scepticism. There's an us and a them and Bourne is an us, whereas Bond is working for them.

    Anyone gutted we won't get his lefty take on Bond? I enjoy the Bourne films and Captain Philips was pretty good but I don't want to see Bond in the hands of a raving socialist who despises things such as nice cars, nice watches, expensive suits, exotic travel and the concept of Queen and country.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Jason Bourne director Paul Greengrass would 'never direct James Bond’

    Bourne director Paul Greengrass has ruled himself out of ever making a James Bond film.

    The acclaimed British filmmaker, who has just released the latest in the Bourne franchise, admitted that he has had discussions with Bond producer Barbara Broccoli in the past.

    When asked if he would consider taking on the project during an interview on Radio 4, Greengrass said:

    “Honesty and truly no. I mean I know (Bond producer) Barbara Broccoli and we've discussed it.

    “It's a bit like your football team, you can't... I'm a Bourne man, I like Bourne. And I've said before, listen it's a great, great franchisee of course it is, it's been going for 50 years, you've got to salute its success.”

    Greengrass, who has directed three of the Bourne films, went on to say that he doesn’t share the same ‘series of values’ that are ‘encoded’ in the Bond franchise.

    “Speaking personally as a filmmaker I think encoded in Bond are a series of values about Britain, about the world, about masculinity, about power, about the empire that I don't share,” he said.

    “Quite the reverse. Whereas in Bourne I think encoded is much more scepticism. There's an us and a them and Bourne is an us, whereas Bond is working for them.

    Good. Greengrass and Bourne are just too anti-American for me. Plus Bourne is pretty much the same film over and over and way too spastic to ever enjoy.
    Agreed with both of you.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    He does bring an interesting perspective about 'us against them' and the skepticism though. I agree with his assessment of Bond vs Bourne. If it's not for him, it's not for him.

    I personally like the values espoused by 'traditional' (at least) Bond.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited July 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Greengrass should stay away from Bond. If anything, Doug Liman would do a better job.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    They say the grass is greener on the other side, but Bond's lawn will always be the best. ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Overall I would agree, but Bourne has been very impressive & trend setting as well, and quite consistent to date (ignoring Legacy). I can't wait for the new one.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    You only have to listen to his Bourne audio commentaries to know he would never do a Bond. Not in the least bit surprising.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    Not that EON needs to look to another franchise for talent, but If they were I would rather they look to the talent responsible for the recent Mission Impossible films. The look and tone of those films are far closer to what I would like to see brought to Bond than what Bourne has to offer.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I quite agree with some of Greengrass's comments, and see where he's coming from. He might actually enjoy the newer Bond films, especially SF and SP, as they openly critique and put into question everything Bond stands for, the "empire" of Britain and everything therein. While SF is without a doubt a Bond stands with Britain kind of film, SP makes him a universal hero, as he's fighting for every nation being tricked in the Nine Eyes plot, and not just the UK. So I think some of Greengrass's comments are a bit unfounded or fuzzy for my tastes, and I don't think he's given the more recent Bonds a fair shake. If he was simply looking at the past movies predating the reboot, I could see his reasoning a bit more.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Bourne films are very well made but yeah, not memorable at all. And his characters has no defining attributes at all. I know it's built into the story but he's so bland and just liek a robot. They are great films but not really fun.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,523
    I was really disappointed with the first Bourne film; I didn't even bother seeing the sequels. Thought I would like it, but I really don't.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I wonder what does John Le Carre think of Bourne.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    I don't think Bourne (the character) is that much different than (Craig's) Bond. Craig is just more upper class, more type b-ish; taking his time, usually relaxed.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Yes, the Bourne films, the MI films and countless other spy franchises do specific things extraordinarily well, but, and I say this a lot, I don't care about any of the characters even a fifth as much as I do about Bond. And that's where he'll always have the advantage, which is the biggest one of all.

    Bourne might have better chases, MI may have better stunts and gadgets, but losing Bond would cripple me and really upset me and hamper my enjoyment of entertainment. If the Bourne series ended tomorrow or MI came to a close with Tom dropping the role, I would move on and that'd be fine. But Bond has been a massive part of my life for years and years now, and I don't share that love and commitment for anything else in the genre, or most genres. He's one of the few, special things I find myself pursuing with all my spare time and energy, and I don't see that changing as long as he's around and there's so much Bondian content to absorb.

    Speaking on this, I know many are really looking forward to the next Bourne film coming up, and I fear some are setting themselves up for disappointment. What I've seen looks interesting enough I guess, but if I'm perfectly honest, it's really never on my mind, and I wouldn't call myself at all hyped for it. It's just a movie that I'll probably see sometime during theater release, depending on reactions from people I trust, but I don't spend my days dreaming of it or anything. Of course, I've been burned a lot by hyping things up in the recent past that turn out to be rubbish, so subconsciously maybe my brain is just trying to avoid that sensation repeating again. Anybody else feel this way?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited July 2016 Posts: 15,423
    I can fully relate to that, @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. I may be one of the few, as well, in here, who really hasn't been enthusiastic about a Bond film for quite a few years despite still championing the franchise on top of all the things I have on my entertainment list. To me, this Bourne film will just be another gone with the wind, in time. I mean, sure, The Bourne Ultimatum crashed the box office numbers nine years ago, but then things were different as were the standards. Nowadays, it's a whole new game that's being played. And besides, among the general audience, who really remembers a single scene from any Bourne film? Sure, they'll tell you he's a good fighter and athlete, but no one will tell you what's memorable about him other than being an amnesiac rogue agent.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @ClarkDevlin, I would be curious to hear the general public quizzed on Bourne, because I agree in that I'm sure they'd largely be clueless about it. The big draw will obviously be Damon, and that's what they've got to focus on, because as you said, it's been forever since Ultimatum and the series has faded from the public consciousness. To be truly honest, unless the story of this next film really goes into exploring Webb as a man and does some game changing stuff with that, I don't think there's any real point in it existing at all. I don't want to see another stinker after Legacy with a team we should get better from, especially with a movie that is actually continuing the story of the original trilogy and possibly jeopardizing the legacy it left behind.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    There's a whole set of books they could place the background of Webb as Ludlum outlined it and update it to set the mood for the tone. But, since Supremacy, the source material is awfully ignored and frankly, I don't even know if this new film will be any different from Ultimatum. It'll just be Bourne going after the CIA and foil some of their other plans, a few fistfights in shaky cam mode, surveillance, Bourne watching his targets from afar with a sniper scope ripped off a rifle, changing cellphones (or smartphones as of today) and ditching SIM cards, a few mentions of Operation Treadstone, energy pills, assassins trying to kill Bourne sent by the head of CIA with some "dark past" and done.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I respect Bourne for how it revolutionized the spy action genre all those years ago. It made it 'real' again, and I will always admire the franchise for that. The first film was a definite game changer. The 2nd and 3rd films built on that, but didn't really add much new to the table in my view, apart from more visceral and intense action sequences, and the now legendary & oft-imitated nauseating 'shaky cam'. I'm very excited to see the next installment because I'm a huge fan of Damon, and when he puts his mind to something, he usually delivers an excellent product. Having said that, I'm under no illusions that the upcoming film will be something revolutionary - I don't believe it will be. However I believe it will be excellent action entertainment because Bourne never fails to deliver on that score. That's just fine with me.

    Bond is of course my favourite franchise by far. However, in the last 10 yrs, the most awe inspiring franchise installments for me have been Nolan's Bat trilogy. I continue to be amazed at how he took a comic character and made him so alive and 'authentic'. Not to mention starting the reboot phase with a bang. Just brilliant work.

    The last two MI films for me occupy the space that Bond had between roughly 1965 to about 1983. They are pure gold spy action thrillers with impressive location filming, budgets, fights, awe inducing stunts and humour/pacing. Nothing deep about them at all, and that's just fine with me as well. Just damn great escapist fun entertainment.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2016 Posts: 15,723
    @bondjames, another 2000's action film that revolutionized the genre was 'Taken'. It was the film that kick-started not only Neeson's career as a lead action star, but it started the genre of older, more mature action heroes. I think a big reason why Arnie, Sly, Cruise, Denzel, Gibson are all churning up action movies in the last few years is because Taken showed there a big market for this style of action films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I completely agree @DaltonCraig007. Taken was an unexpected game changer. People talk about Death Wish - well Neeson brought back the vigilante with a vengeance. Liam has taken over the space that belonged squarely to Clint for many years, and everyone now wants a piece of it.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    @bondjames I'm almost certain that 'Liam Neeson action film' is a genre in itself. What a guy, his career was going the supporting role way (Gang of New York, Batman Begins, Kingdom of Heaven), and he basically created his own genre of films where he always gets leading roles, and increased his fan base ten-fold.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    If Bond was to copy a film or series, I think he should copy one that has beaten him
    At the box office ................ so far nothing has. SP made well over $200 million more
    Than MI5 same with the Bourne films.
    Which must mean as far as the average cinema audience, Bond must be doing something
    Right. Why change what you do, to do something inferior ? :D
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @DaltonCraig007, you're right about that. No one could have imagined that Neeson's career would have taken (pun intended) the turn it did with that first film. That's the power of a sleeper hit to redefine expectations and create bandwagons.

    I think people were secretly longing for a true successor to the legend that is Clint Eastwood, and Neeson fell into it.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    There's a whole set of books they could place the background of Webb as Ludlum outlined it and update it to set the mood for the tone. But, since Supremacy, the source material is awfully ignored and frankly, I don't even know if this new film will be any different from Ultimatum. It'll just be Bourne going after the CIA and foil some of their other plans, a few fistfights in shaky cam mode, surveillance, Bourne watching his targets from afar with a sniper scope ripped off a rifle, changing cellphones (or smartphones as of today) and ditching SIM cards, a few mentions of Operation Treadstone, energy pills, assassins trying to kill Bourne sent by the head of CIA with some "dark past" and done.

    They really missed a trick not using a Carlos the Jackal type figure in the films, a man almost gone mythic to terrorize Bourne for years and years that was his perfect match in every way. He became a really thrilling, threatening and downright ominous antagonist over time in the books, though I'm not a big fan of the novels beyond Identity, where Ludlum did things I just can't get on board with. Still, the face-offs between Webb and the Jackal remained, and they were always thrilling.
Sign In or Register to comment.