› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…298299301303304…2507

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    If Craig comes back, they have to have 009 in Bond 25! How do you not after that many jokes about him.

    You could adapt the opening of MR where Bond is doing gun training and gets beaten by 009, taking the place of an instructor type.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    60s: 6 films
    70s: 5 films
    80s: 5 films
    90s: 3 films
    00s: 3 films
    10s: 2 films (thus far)

    Looks like a steady trend of 3 films per decade is the best would could hope for these days. Kinda ridiculous, IMO. There's no reason they can't get it to 4.

    Of course, in the 60s-80s they had all the Fleming novels and short stories to instantly adapt. Naturally, the production slows down when they don't have that advantage and have to create new stories from scratch, and up the ante in action to compete with other blockbusters, whereas in the 60s Bond was the only game in town.

    Anyway, the comparisons to Star Wars and Marvel are silly - the yearly movies are about different characters. James Bond is one person, and the production schedule is on par with every other solo action character out there - Batman, Bourne, Mission Impossible etc.

    I personally wasn't making a comparison with those movies. I prefer Bonds to have larger gaps than those franchises. I was simply making the point that it is possible to make films in those time frames. I'm not sure anyone was actually making comparisons.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,860
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Anyone familiar with the Sony leaks will know that EON don't roll over for anyone. If it wasn't for the likes of Barbara, we'd have had some loony ideas to contend with

    Thank Christ Babs was there to put her foot down so we didn't get 'loony ideas' such as the invisible car, CGI parasurfing atrocity and Blofeld as stepbrother fiasco getting the green light. Phew.
    Too bad she can't be like her father who stopped such ridiculous ideas as Racist sherif' shoehorned energy crisis plots and Tanya Roberts as a geologist......oh wait
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Personally, I liked JW & the Solex subplot. Tanya was definitely more credible as a geologist than Denise as a physicist imho. We are splitting hairs now though.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited July 2016 Posts: 9,117
    Risico007 wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Anyone familiar with the Sony leaks will know that EON don't roll over for anyone. If it wasn't for the likes of Barbara, we'd have had some loony ideas to contend with

    Thank Christ Babs was there to put her foot down so we didn't get 'loony ideas' such as the invisible car, CGI parasurfing atrocity and Blofeld as stepbrother fiasco getting the green light. Phew.
    Too bad she can't be like her father who stopped such ridiculous ideas as Racist sherif' shoehorned energy crisis plots and Tanya Roberts as a geologist......oh wait

    Not sure I quite follow your logic. Are you saying that because Cubby made some stupid decisions Babs gets a free pass?

    Just as Blofeld in drag, Kung Fu schoolgirls and double take pigeon are a disgrace why shouldn't we say that the invisible car, CGI tsunami and brother Ernst are all shite as well?

    God knows EON are better than having studio execs like Disney in charge but let's not kid ourselves that they are perfect.

    Yes they deliver some excellent films but they have also made some shocking decisions over the years and we shouldn't be scared of being accused of some sort of 'EON disloyalty' not to call them out on these.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Wiz, cool the jets. 1) Risico is pointing out that everyone in the Bond family has made mistakes, not trying to excuse Babs or anything ludicrous like that. 2) We aren't saying that EON are perfect; my recent post outlined all this clearly. 3) I have never seen anyone here calling someone else out as "disloyal" to EON for commenting on their drawbacks. More often than not it's the other way around, where people who try to be positive about EON despite past mistakes on their part get called every adjective in the book to describe a blind, foolish and tasteless person. I know, because I'm one of those in EON's corner.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    Wizard is correct. Sure, I'm for EON. EON over ever changing Studio Execs making decisions, sure, yes. Their track record however, as I clearly outlined in my post, is not that stellar.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    We aren't saying that EON are perfect; my recent post outlined all this clearly.

    Are you referring to this post:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Anyone familiar with the Sony leaks will know that EON don't roll over for anyone. If it wasn't for the likes of Barbara, we'd have had some loony ideas to contend with in the form of suggestions from the Sony nuts on high (like Pascal), but because of Barbara's no-budge attitude, we got what I think is a fantastic film.

    These SP script problem complaints always perplex me. More confusing still is when those who criticize it post their own plot ideas for the movie, which give me hearty chuckles. Some seem to think filmmaking is easy as pie and they can do it all the better, what with all the plates to spin between writers, studio execs, distributors, the director, cast, crew, producers of all levels, and on and on and on, all with their own motivations, aims/agendas and ideas about payment. Totally easy, right? :-\"

    I just don't play the blame game when it comes to this stuff, and I'm always in EON's corner because they very seldom ever give me reasons not to be. They've kept this series stable and in the family after Cubby's passing, don't let anyone toy with their vision, they consistently pull strong numbers at the box office assuring Bond continues healthily (with the past two films netting 2 billion alone), and they treat their collaborators with the utmost respect and freedom. Listening to some on here, you'd think they're a draconian film company that makes everyone on set wear bolted chains and tape over their mouths while they aren't shooting a scene. Have they made mistakes? Obviously, but name me a company in the film industry that doesn't. And yet you don't see them pulling the kind of things that are in vogue today, like making films only for selling products (though they could with the massive Bond license), they don't place their Bond actors in contracts that trap them (Dan's open contract for example), their films introduce audiences to other cultures and the people of those nations without stereotyping them or degrading them, and they don't let themselves be run by bean counters or people who have no business giving them suggestions on their franchise (again, Pascal and co.). We're lucky to have Bond in such uncompromising and talented hands, hands that truly care for Bond and his legacy as they try to mold each new film from the ground up in a very rough and labyrinthine industry.

    If the Craig era marks a so-called period of decline in quality for the franchise, then I look forward to many more films of such "decline," because as far as I'm concerned we haven't had movies like this since the 60s that perfectly represent all that Bond should be.

    If that's 'outlining clearly' that EON are not perfect you really must give me the name of your oculist.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Once EON and Phony Sony have parted ways things will get much better.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'd be happier if MGM were out of the picture, but Sony getting thrown to the curb wouldn't disappoint me either. I have a feeling that they'll both still be around when B25 is announced though.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @TheWizardOfIce, I have always stated quite firmly that EON make mistakes in my posts, but I also make great efforts to show the great good they've done to the Bond name, as many here seem to get a kick out of running them through the mud for sport. No doubt their decisions have been questionable in the past, and I think the Brosnan era is marked with endless examples of this, from their approach to the character of Bond, to story, director choices, use of gadgets (way too out there) and more, but then in the Craig era it's been a great rebirth in my eyes and we've got some truly stellar movies that are as close to art as the films have come, with great depth and energy. Bond's story is being told on screen the way I would've always wanted it to be if I was a fan from the 60s, and EON is a big part of why that is, as hard as that may be for you to see.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce, I have always stated quite firmly that EON make mistakes in my posts, but I also make great efforts to show the great good they've done to the Bond name, as many here seem to get a kick out of running them through the mud for sport. No doubt their decisions have been questionable in the past, and I think the Brosnan era is marked with endless examples of this, from their approach to the character of Bond, to story, director choices, use of gadgets (way too out there) and more, but then in the Craig era it's been a great rebirth in my eyes and we've got some truly stellar movies that are as close to art as the films have come, with great depth and energy. Bond's story is being told on screen the way I would've always wanted it to be if I was a fan from the 60s, and EON is a big part of why that is, as hard as that may be for you to see.

    It's not hard for me to see in the slightest. EON is the buffer that stops the series turning into a disaster and having the studios do things like create black Bond, gay Bond etc and thank Christ we have them. The day the studios get full control (and it will happen) will be bleak indeed.

    Where I can't agree with you is where you say they made questionable decisions 'in the past'.

    Well Blofeld as stepbrother I wouldn't count as the past. It's all well and good to claim they have learned from mistakes such as DAD, and certainly since the Brosnan era the quality has risen impressively, yet they are still more than capable of making shocking errors of judgement such as the final act of SP so plus ca change.

    Compared to the Brosnan era there's not that much to complain about these days, but that only makes it all the more infuriating that we still find ourselves having to debate them committing basic schoolboy errors as they did with SP.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited July 2016 Posts: 28,694
    The "errors" you see in SP, I don't, whereas the errors of the past, including what we got in the disastrous DAD are basically agreed upon by the vast majority of the Bond community. Hence why I stress past mistakes over present/recent ones, as I don't feel they've made any of note, and certainly not with SP.

    This is just a point where we'll have to agree to disagree.
  • Ed83Ed83
    Posts: 1,181
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Anyone familiar with the Sony leaks will know that EON don't roll over for anyone. If it wasn't for the likes of Barbara, we'd have had some loony ideas to contend with

    Thank Christ Babs was there to put her foot down so we didn't get 'loony ideas' such as the invisible car, CGI parasurfing atrocity and Blofeld as stepbrother fiasco getting the green light. Phew.

    Quite a bang up job.
  • SonofSeanSonofSean
    Posts: 202
    I think EON are still at the idea stage with Bond 25. I also think they're waiting for Craig who won't be available until late next year. As for a November 2018 release date, yes, I think this is likely. Reckon we'll have something official before the end of the year.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    The "errors" you see in SP, I don't, whereas the errors of the past, including what we got in the disastrous DAD are basically agreed upon by the vast majority of the Bond community. Hence why I stress past mistakes over present/recent ones, as I don't feel they've made any of note, and certainly not with SP.

    I'd be happy to take the Pepsi challenge with you on that one over stepbrothergate. I would fancy that the vast majority of the community would not be willing to endorse it as glowingly as your good self.
  • MurphyHorseMurphyHorse
    Posts: 11
    SonofSean wrote: »
    I think EON are still at the idea stage with Bond 25. I also think they're waiting for Craig who won't be available until late next year. As for a November 2018 release date, yes, I think this is likely. Reckon we'll have something official before the end of the year.

    The November 2018 release date for Bond 25 is in the US but, for anyone living in the UK, an October 2018 release date for the 25th instalment. Okay :-)

  • SonofSeanSonofSean
    Posts: 202
    EON & Barbara Broccoli are currently well into filming on Film Stars Don't Die In Liverpool which stars Jamie Bell (which is where the Jamie Bell for Bond rumours came from). This is the project that Barbara Broccoli is focused on right now, and she has brought across a lot of Bond collaborators with her so I wouldn't expect to hear much of Bond 25 until she's done or close to finishing later this year. It also means that there is a nice break for both EON and Daniel Craig, so it's a good time to go away, do something else and then re-group next year. But that doesn't mean that script ideas, meetings haven't taken place. Also, interesting that Paul McGuigan (Sherlock, Victor Frankenstien) is the director on Film Stars Don't Die In Liverpool as I thought he might be a good choice for Bond 25!
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    The "errors" you see in SP, I don't, whereas the errors of the past, including what we got in the disastrous DAD are basically agreed upon by the vast majority of the Bond community. Hence why I stress past mistakes over present/recent ones, as I don't feel they've made any of note, and certainly not with SP.

    This is just a point where we'll have to agree to disagree.

    For what it's worth I'm with you. They have gotten much better about glaringly obvious missteps. No one is perfect, but EON has taken Bond to another level with Craig's era, critically and financially. This is the 2nd Golden Age; without question.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Personally, I've never quite felt the Craig era was a '2nd Golden Age'. The quality has been substantially better than the 90's, and they have taken some creative risks with the character (some of which I like, and some of which I don't like) but for me nothing comes even close to the straight mission focus of the early Connery years, the brilliance of OHMSS as a standalone, or the silky smooth formula of most of the Moore years.

    I realize I'm probably in the minority in that view, but that's how I feel.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    The "errors" you see in SP, I don't, whereas the errors of the past, including what we got in the disastrous DAD are basically agreed upon by the vast majority of the Bond community. Hence why I stress past mistakes over present/recent ones, as I don't feel they've made any of note, and certainly not with SP.

    This is just a point where we'll have to agree to disagree.

    For what it's worth I'm with you. They have gotten much better about glaringly obvious missteps. No one is perfect, but EON has taken Bond to another level with Craig's era, critically and financially. This is the 2nd Golden Age; without question.

    Agreed except IMO SP was a significant misstep.

    As much as I admire and appreciate Brosnan being a lifelong fan of the series it seems regrettable that his tenure didn't reach the critical heights that Craig's did.

    Seems honestly like the Brosnan's films were on a learning curve.

    But to give credit where credit is due without Brosnan making Bond cool again especially in NA we may not have gotten a Craig era or at least not like the one we got.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,860
    a few quick points...

    1. Sorry but I don't count the Connery era as the Golden age of Bond as I find Goldfinger extremly boring and You Only Live twice ... Well Connery just doesn't care and it shows (I find it telling that most fans would prefer two more from Lazenby rather then the last two from Connery)

    2. Every one is human. Has Babs made mistakes? Yes abosultly. Has her father? Yes

    3. Spectre wasn't really that bad. Is the step brother angle stupid yes but again it's EON reacting to the marvel movies (specifically winter soldier) and as I have stressed before Silva and Trevellyan played up the brothers in arms angle way higher then the few comments Blofeld made in Spectre (come on Trevellyan saying he was always better and the whole James and I shared everything absolutely everything is well creepy to say the least)

    4. The Brosnan era wasn't as bad as people claim. Sure they were more popcorn driven then the Craig era but honestly couldn't the same be claimed about a lot of the Moore era I count on one hand the amount of serious espionage films Moore did as 007 (live and let die for your eyes only and Octopussy even though I still feel Dalton could of made A View to a kill work it is a very strange and out there film) and does that make those films bad no not really.



    Over all I am willing to give EON the benefit of the doubt I don't think the next film will make the same mistakes as Spectre and who knows it might beat casino Royale in terms of my favorite bond films.
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    bondjames wrote: »
    Personally, I liked JW & the Solex subplot. Tanya was definitely more credible as a geologist than Denise as a physicist imho. We are splitting hairs now though.

    Agreed, completely.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @Risico007, I would have to contest point #1. While YOLT does have massive issues (as does DAF) and I think GF is the weakest of Connery's films outside of those, the massive amount of talent, cleverness, fun, escapism, sophistication and power that his first four films display is second to none in my eyes. To this day I don't think we've ever experienced such a high level of consistency in Bond, quality wise, as DN to FRWL to GF and TB, the closest in my mind being Craig's films. Each film is special and does different things in different ways, taking us to vastly different locations while still hitting it out of the park each time. The Connery era is just so special, and while later on things teetered out, I don't think we'll ever see the brilliance of his early films ever replicated again. It's just cinematic magic, and the blueprint from which the franchise still looks fondly upon today. For my money, no other period in the franchise could be considered The Golden Age beyond that.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    GF is pure class.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    RC7 wrote: »
    GF is pure class.

    It's the most iconic, classic Bond film in my eyes. Used to find it slow and dull in parts, but I've truly appreciated and loved it over the last year.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I've got to watch it again soon. I appreciate its iconic status, but just can't get into the entire stud farm Kentucky section of the film. It only wakes up for me again at the finale at Fort Knox.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited July 2016 Posts: 28,694
    GF feels quite lifeless, "iconic" status be damned. I prefer watching Bond in the drivers seat, and not as a backseat passenger in the action. It's two hours of stuff just happening to him, with no strong response from his side.

    You could make a drinking game out of how much he gets knocked out in the film and put in a compromising position with the villains over and over again. Oh look, Oddjob knocked Bond out and now Jill is dead. Oh look, they've got Bond in a corner, Tilly is dead and, oh, now he's hit a wall. Oh look, Bond's actually escaped his jail-oh no, he's caught again.

    Of course every Bond film has moments of him being besieged by enemies, but in those moments he's actively doing something to warrant being pursued, becoming a kinetic, dynamic figure that keeps moving and reacting. In GF Bond feels like a brick wall that stands still while people through rocks at him, he seems out of his depth, and for his pains he spends most of the film a glorified prisoner of Goldfinger's and fails every attempt at sabotage beyond his performance in the barn scene that is just cringeworthy on all levels. Pussy is the real hero, while Bond time and time again fails every opportunity to be the savior, and only succeeds because his magical little soldier has superpowers that makes hardcore lesbians turn into the socially accepted heterosexual, baby birthing people all women were expected to be, and blah, blah, blah.

    When I watch a Bond film, Bond is my hero, and I want to support what he's doing. I adore Connery's Bond passionately, but how he is portrayed in GF makes me think, "wait, why am I looking up to this guy?" He's written horribly, just horribly there and the social commentary stuffed in there in regards to Pussy and how she is developed is just offensive and disgusting looking back now, but undeniably a very 50s/60s way of dealing with things of that nature, ie. very poorly.

    I'll have to give GF a rewatch again sometime soon, but I think it's forever going to be stuck third from the bottom for me way behind FRWL, DN and TB. Better performances, more intriguing stories, and a Bond I can get behind. The Aston's debut, Bond's amazing Prince of Wales three-piece suit and the traditions that excuse it from serious critical analysis can't save it for me.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    It's two hours of stuff just happening to him, with no strong response from his side.

    Goldfinger isn't two hours long...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Exactly how I feel with SF: Bond is so out of character and detached from what I love about the series that it makes it impossible to invoke any eagerness or excitement on my part. Toughest one to re-watch.
Sign In or Register to comment.