No Time To Die: Production Diary

12993003023043052507

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    It's two hours of stuff just happening to him, with no strong response from his side.

    Goldfinger isn't two hours long...

    For Christ's sake. It's an hour and 52 minutes, so I rounded it up. I thank you for focusing on literally the most trivial and unimportant part of my entire post, though.
    #-o
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    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.

    Have to agree.

    While DN (in particular) and FRWL get better with age GF is getting worse.

    Yes the PTS is nigh on perfect, the scene with M is very good and the golf game is class. The Aston chase is solid (although far my favourite chase in the series) but after the laser sequence the film hits a wall and doesn't recover until the final assault on Fort Knox.

    Last time I watched it the lull in Kentucky really drags it down with Bond just sitting around and only Frobe injecting any life into proceedings.

    God knows I'm critical of Mendes but both his films seem to rattle by in less time than GF despite both clocking in at over 30 mins longer.

    Yes it has a lot of Fleming material, iconic moments in spades and set the cinematic Bond template. But beyond that lustre it really doesn't glitter that much.

    I'd still have it third best of the Connery's though because there is still plenty to love.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Yes, I'm with you @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. There's a little bit too much goofiness in the characterization as well (at the stud farm, on the plane with the shaving cream etc.) for my liking, in addition to the 'hapless victim' scenarios he's put in. Vintage Hamilton though, and probably better suited to Moore, imho.

    Still, it is a special film due to all the formula elements that it ushered in, and I can appreciate it for that.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I certainly love the film, I don't want it to seem like I don't. It just seems like its iconic appeal often makes people feel like they can't criticize it, and I am always for pushing discussions further, as I think in the case of this film it's warranted, especially for what it set up for later films template-wise, and the aforementioned social commentary it presents. No film, no matter how adored should be closed off from criticism, whether it's CR in the Bond sphere or Godfather in the medium as a whole.

    I'm glad so many are able to dissect and criticize the best of the Bond canon honestly and with good intent. At times nowadays it feels like more and more, people are scared of having opinions on anything, and that is truly worrying. It's our duty to challenge that, in any way we can, no matter how little.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    We need vote. Who by show of hands thinks that 2018 is still probable?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    With or without Turner?
  • Posts: 233
    I love GF, and it's in my top 5, but I don't think any of the action scenes are particularly well directed. Bond's fight with Oddjob and the shoot outs in Switzerland and Fort Knox are all shot in a very pedestrian and, honestly, boring manner. I think Hamilton brought an iconic level of style and humour to the franchise, but he was never able to nail the action sequences like Young or Hunt did in the 60s.

    Also, Bond's "seduction" of Pussy Galore is quite problematic from a modern perspective. Obviously I'm able to accept it as a sign of it's age, but it does make things a bit awkward when introducing people to classic Bond, particularly my feminist girlfriend.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    We need vote. Who by show of hands thinks that 2018 is still probable?
    I think 2018 is essential at the very latest, let alone probable. With or without Craig.
  • Posts: 9,859
    With tom Hardy or Daniel Craig yes 2018 is possible with Aidan Turner no I don't think so
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    I still believe that Craig is done and won't return for a fifth, but either way, 2018 is the absolute earliest we'll get this. I think 2019 may be more plausible, but we'll see.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    bondjames wrote: »
    We need vote. Who by show of hands thinks that 2018 is still probable?
    I think 2018 is essential at the very latest, let alone probable. With or without Craig.

    Yes, I did agree with you - until recently. I'm just not getting the sense that EON are in any rush anymore. I think they either are still hanging on for Craig (unlikely given that six months off has turned into nearly 8 months now, still no word) or they have just resigned themselves to a longer wait between actors. Its clear that they need a new direction, so perhaps they're taking time off to refocus and work out what James Bond would look like in this new era.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I still believe that Craig is done and won't return for a fifth, but either way, 2018 is the absolute earliest we'll get this. I think 2019 may be more plausible, but we'll see.

    Perhaps a summer 2019 release is possible. Doubt it though. It would help to avoid clashing with Star Wars episode 9 is all.
  • Posts: 2,189
    It's two hours of stuff just happening to him, with no strong response from his side.

    I can see what you're saying here, and in the rest of what you said. The movie is very different than the other Connery films, but to my eyes thats because Bond isn't the star of the film, it's Goldfinger. The whole movie is about him and his plan, and I bet he has the most screen time of any villain, and probably gets closer to accomplishing his plan than any other villain. I love the film because I love the character of Goldfinger, and I guess its the only Bond film where Bond id not the character that interests me the most.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    It's two hours of stuff just happening to him, with no strong response from his side.

    I can see what you're saying here, and in the rest of what you said. The movie is very different than the other Connery films, but to my eyes thats because Bond isn't the star of the film, it's Goldfinger. The whole movie is about him and his plan, and I bet he has the most screen time of any villain, and probably gets closer to accomplishing his plan than any other villain. I love the film because I love the character of Goldfinger, and I guess its the only Bond film where Bond id not the character that interests me the most.

    That's an interesting perspective, @sirseanisbond, and Goldfinger may in fact be way up there screen time wise for a Bond villain. I wonder if the screen time of each villain has ever been properly calculated and ranked.

    I would still argue that at least from the Connery era Red Grant has gotten the closest to a plan coming through, as in Goldfinger he had all the logistics sorted, but there was never a proper gas being sent into the air thanks to Pussy, and scientifically his radioactive plot just doesn't hold up.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    It's two hours of stuff just happening to him, with no strong response from his side.

    I can see what you're saying here, and in the rest of what you said. The movie is very different than the other Connery films, but to my eyes thats because Bond isn't the star of the film, it's Goldfinger. The whole movie is about him and his plan, and I bet he has the most screen time of any villain, and probably gets closer to accomplishing his plan than any other villain. I love the film because I love the character of Goldfinger, and I guess its the only Bond film where Bond id not the character that interests me the most.

    That's an interesting perspective, @sirseanisbond, and Goldfinger may in fact be way up there screen time wise for a Bond villain. I wonder if the screen time of each villain has ever been properly calculated and ranked.

    I would still argue that at least from the Connery era Red Grant has gotten the closest to a plan coming through, as in Goldfinger he had all the logistics sorted, but there was never a proper gas being sent into the air thanks to Pussy, and scientifically his radioactive plot just doesn't hold up.

    Overall surely Orlov comes closest? 007 seconds is miles away compared to Bond pulling the detonator out barely a second before it goes off.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    I'm sure they could always release earlier in the year, or even during the summer, but I'm so used to this release schedule that I always assume now the next installment will come in October/November for the UK and US, respectively. I'd be surprised if they had it come out during a different time.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    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.

    Only CR comes close, if not on par, with early Connery films, IMO. The more time passes, the more I realise how terrific that film is. The one minor problem I have with it is the cheesy dialogue between Bond and Vesper in the hospital recovery scene.

    QoS and SF are good and great, respectively, but SP is a letdown. Again, IMO.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm sure they could always release earlier in the year, or even during the summer, but I'm so used to this release schedule that I always assume now the next installment will come in October/November for the UK and US, respectively. I'd be surprised if they had it come out during a different time.

    It makes sense though, if we're talking about 2019. Star Wars Episode 9 is set to make over 2 billion dollars and soak up over 4 thousand screens, including 3d and IMAX. It would be madness to open against that kind of force, just ask Tarantino.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    You do have a point in that going up against a movie like that isn't the smartest idea, but Tarantino isn't really the best example to reflect that; sure, 'The Hateful Eight' didn't make as much as 'Django Unchained,' but Tarantino has never really been a huge money maker to begin with.
  • Posts: 623
    I have no agenda to see a black Bond, it just so happens that Idris is a perfect fit for the role regardless of his skin colour.

    How can he be a perfect fit, if James Bond is white?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I recall TND had some issues going up against the juggernaut that was Titanic in 1997. It's risky when there's a behemoth in town sucking up all the air, especially with Disney's recent predilection for grabbing all the IMAX screens for an extended period.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    You do have a point in that going up against a movie like that isn't the smartest idea, but Tarantino isn't really the best example to reflect that; sure, 'The Hateful Eight' didn't make as much as 'Django Unchained,' but Tarantino has never really been a huge money maker to begin with.

    Yes, you're right. Tarantino wasn't truly going for the megabucks with hateful eight, not his most commercial film. However it just goes to show how much sway Disney has that they could force theatres to fit as many showings as possible on as many screens as possible. Some of the politics behind it is very underhanded. If anything, I believe it would hurt a franchise like Bond even more than a smaller production like Hateful Eight.
  • Posts: 2,483
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I have no agenda to see a black Bond, it just so happens that Idris is a perfect fit for the role regardless of his skin colour.

    How can he be a perfect fit, if James Bond is white?

    He cannot.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Of course he can, just like we have a female Ghostbusters...

    Oh wait, that was a terrible failure. Better not ruin Bond with pointless gimmicks.
  • Posts: 4,045
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, I'm with you @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. There's a little bit too much goofiness in the characterization as well (at the stud farm, on the plane with the shaving cream etc.) for my liking, in addition to the 'hapless victim' scenarios he's put in. Vintage Hamilton though, and probably better suited to Moore, imho.

    Still, it is a special film due to all the formula elements that it ushered in, and I can appreciate it for that.

    A lot of the formula elements were started either in DN or FRWL. GF added a lot of polish to them.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    Of course he can, just like we have a female Ghostbusters...

    Oh wait, that was a terrible failure. Better not ruin Bond with pointless gimmicks.

    I agree that the character of Bond is and should remain white; as far as Ghostbusters, the accusation that there is a mass bias against this film because of the female cast is extremely exaggerated. Fans of the original are upset that it does not feature the original cast. If this re-boot had been done with an all male cast of new actors, the negative attitude towards it would have been the same. The charge of sexism, in this case, is contrived.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    talos7 wrote: »
    Of course he can, just like we have a female Ghostbusters...

    Oh wait, that was a terrible failure. Better not ruin Bond with pointless gimmicks.

    I agree that the character of Bond is and should remain white; as far as Ghostbusters, the accusation that there is a mass bias against this film because of the female cast is extremely exaggerated. Fans of the original are upset that it does not feature the original cast. If this re-boot had been done with an all male cast of new actors, the negative attitude towards it would have been the same. The charge of sexism, in this case, is contrived.

    Correct. Ever since I first heard the words 'female Ghostbusters' my immediate reaction was: 'oh, dear'. Not because I hate to see women in leading roles, but because I knew that the film would become about female empowerment and no longer about catching ghosts.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I'm sorry the step brother fiasco trumps anything in the PB era.

    The moments there were just moments that can be ignored but step brother gate changes the DC era entirely, nothing in the PB era however ridiculous changed the goal post like that.

    I'm wondering what my next viewing of SP is going to be like, I've not seen it since early November, I'm waiting for the Blu ray to drop near a fiver (I'm not joking).

    I think the film tarnished an era up to that point with some reservations about QOS was going pretty damn good, I loved SF (sue me) and CR is my favourite.

    As for GF I have to agree, the PTS is gold, the film seems fine up to the Kentucky then just loses momentum, FRWL is far superior and I prefer TB.

    GF and DN are very close, I have my issues with DN, the score is awful bar the JB theme and the songs and I find it drags at times with some great iconic moments but GF shaves it because of Barry, I really don't like Hamilton, one of the worst Bond directors in my view.

    1. FRWL
    2. TB
    3. GF
    4. DN
    5.YOLT
    6. DAF

    As for the return of Bond, 2018 at the earliest and while I'm not betting the house on it I think Craig is done but I don't want either Hiddlesstone or Turner.

    The role needs to go to someone not so in the public eye. Tom Hughes or James Norton would be fine with me but I still like the idea of Dan Stevens.

    Although despite my comment about the Bond whores above if Fassbender did sign on I'd be delighted but he's only established actor I see being able to do it, I just don't buy Hardy as good an actor as he is, Fassy just oozes Bond.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Dr No is near perfect to me. I have my gripes, but the film amazes every time.
  • Posts: 233
    Of course he can, just like we have a female Ghostbusters...

    Oh wait, that was a terrible failure. Better not ruin Bond with pointless gimmicks.

    Interesting you say that. On what grounds has it been a failure? The Ghostbusters remake has actually been pretty successful, both financially and critically, despite receiving constant derision prior to it's release. It might not be your cup of tea (it's not mine either), but calling it a "terrible failure" is a bit of a stretch.
Sign In or Register to comment.