No Time To Die: Production Diary

13433443463483492507

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Getafix wrote: »
    Quality writing should be the starting point

    It's amazing how such a concept is alien to so many people, especially those running the show.
  • Posts: 11,119
    NicNac wrote: »
    In some scenes he was crying out for a director to reign him in a little. In the TND Q scene Brosnan/Bond catches sight of Q's colourful overcoat, and Bond amusingly looks him up and down..3 TIMES. We got it the first time, so maybe the director should have told Brosnan to stop at one.

    In DAD when he and Berry spout the godawful dialogue on first meeting and they both adopt the exact same mannerism of pushing their tongue out slightly to emphasise certain words. Irritating. A good director would've sorted that out (Even Rosmaund Pike does it at one point).

    I don't mind his Bond at all, but he was having too much fun at times to concentrate on the character.

    You think Sam Mendes and Martin Campbell are better directors when it comes to make certain dialogue more convincing, emotional and dramatic?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    NicNac wrote: »
    In some scenes he was crying out for a director to reign him in a little. In the TND Q scene Brosnan/Bond catches sight of Q's colourful overcoat, and Bond amusingly looks him up and down..3 TIMES. We got it the first time, so maybe the director should have told Brosnan to stop at one.

    In DAD when he and Berry spout the godawful dialogue on first meeting and they both adopt the exact same mannerism of pushing their tongue out slightly to emphasise certain words. Irritating. A good director would've sorted that out (Even Rosmaund Pike does it at one point).

    I don't mind his Bond at all, but he was having too much fun at times to concentrate on the character.

    You think Sam Mendes and Martin Campbell are better directors when it comes to make certain dialogue more convincing, emotional and dramatic?

    Big question.
    Fundementally I would say yes.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2016 Posts: 23,883
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    In some scenes he was crying out for a director to reign him in a little. In the TND Q scene Brosnan/Bond catches sight of Q's colourful overcoat, and Bond amusingly looks him up and down..3 TIMES. We got it the first time, so maybe the director should have told Brosnan to stop at one.

    In DAD when he and Berry spout the godawful dialogue on first meeting and they both adopt the exact same mannerism of pushing their tongue out slightly to emphasise certain words. Irritating. A good director would've sorted that out (Even Rosmaund Pike does it at one point).

    I don't mind his Bond at all, but he was having too much fun at times to concentrate on the character.

    You think Sam Mendes and Martin Campbell are better directors when it comes to make certain dialogue more convincing, emotional and dramatic?

    Big question.
    Fundementally I would say yes.
    I agree. Definitely for Campbell and certainly for Mendes in SF.

    Not so much in SP, but I'm not sure if that was on account of Mendes or the less than impressive script that he had to work with, with few memorable lines. The more I think about it, I think I may have preferred the film with a different actress playing Swann and a different actor playing Blofeld, even with the same script, dialogue & dull action sequencing. There is something about Seydoux's delivery which is off to me in many places, and Waltz is just too familiar to me and synonymous with Landa to really be credible in the less 'dramatic' role of Blofeld as written for SP.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    In some scenes he was crying out for a director to reign him in a little. In the TND Q scene Brosnan/Bond catches sight of Q's colourful overcoat, and Bond amusingly looks him up and down..3 TIMES. We got it the first time, so maybe the director should have told Brosnan to stop at one.

    In DAD when he and Berry spout the godawful dialogue on first meeting and they both adopt the exact same mannerism of pushing their tongue out slightly to emphasise certain words. Irritating. A good director would've sorted that out (Even Rosmaund Pike does it at one point).

    I don't mind his Bond at all, but he was having too much fun at times to concentrate on the character.

    You think Sam Mendes and Martin Campbell are better directors when it comes to make certain dialogue more convincing, emotional and dramatic?

    Big question.
    Fundementally I would say yes.
    I agree. Definitely for Campbell and certainly for Mendes in SF.

    Not so much in SP, but I'm not sure if that was on account of Mendes or the less than impressive script that he had to work with, with few memorable lines. The more I think about it, I think I may have preferred the film with a different actress playing Swann and a different actor playing Blofeld, even with the same script, dialogue & dull action sequencing. There is something about Seydoux's delivery which is off to me in many places, and Waltz is just too familiar to me and synonymous with Landa to really be credible in the less 'dramatic' role of Blofeld as written for SP.

    I can see that. To me it just seems like Mendes lost heart making SP.

    I find it odd no commentary on DVD/blu-ray releases.
  • mcdonbb wrote: »
    Moore's era probably still stands as the most consistent.

    Consistently shit, maybe.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    You are confusing him with Brosnan.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2016 Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Moore's era probably still stands as the most consistent. They pretty much achieve what they wanted which was to entertain. Connery's era generally accepted as the golden age was incredible but as it hit it's pinnacle it began to falter. Dalton's barely got out of the starting gate and even then it had the wrong jockey with Glen. Brosnan's era saved and reintroduced Bond but critically never quite achieved what it could have. Craig's era was a total surprise but if Dalton's never got out of the gate then Craig's never knew which way to run. In my opinion the last three eras taken as a whole ended up being disappointments.
    I agree for the most part, but I think you are being a bit kind on the Brosnan era personally. It was a critical fiasco towards the end imho.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    True. But I think Craig is a better actor by far and thus suited the more complex take on the character.
    Craig is certainly a far more credible Bond in nearly every way in comparison to Brosnan, I agree. Outside of Bond, I do very much like Brosnan's work in general though.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Moore's era probably still stands as the most consistent.

    Consistently shit, maybe.

    Without Moore the franchise would have died long ago.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited August 2016 Posts: 1,130
    bondjames wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    I do firmly believe the franchise needs another Brosnan Looks and performance wise. bond needs the women audience: the girlfriends and wives of all the Bond fans hehe.
    I certainly agree that Bond & EON should do their best to attract the female audience, however, I'm not so sure about another Brosnan necessarily. In fact, I'd strongly prefer that we not get another Brosnan.

    The franchise is doing quite well globally from a box office perspective, so I'm reasonably sure it's appealing to both sexes.

    Imho, the next actor must have a few qualities: He must be self assured. He must be masculine enough without necessarily being a beefcake or gym rat. He must imbue his Bond characterization with a natural confidence. He must have a strong voice with an appealing English accent. He must be a decent (but not necessarily a phenomenal) actor. He must be naturally convincing when seducing the ladies on film. Finally (my personal strong preference), he must be at least 6ft 1 or thereabouts.

    I agree on the qualities the next Bond needs and its great we agree Bond does need the female audience.

    And even though the global reception has been great I don't think Bond is right now so popular with the ladies. The success is mostly because of boys and action fans, many women do like them but not all.

    With Pierce most women loved Bond or at least loved to watch Pierce as Bond. So a looker Bond would be fantastic.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Szonana wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    I do firmly believe the franchise needs another Brosnan Looks and performance wise. bond needs the women audience: the girlfriends and wives of all the Bond fans hehe.
    I certainly agree that Bond & EON should do their best to attract the female audience, however, I'm not so sure about another Brosnan necessarily. In fact, I'd strongly prefer that we not get another Brosnan.

    The franchise is doing quite well globally from a box office perspective, so I'm reasonably sure it's appealing to both sexes.

    Imho, the next actor must have a few qualities: He must be self assured. He must be masculine enough without necessarily being a beefcake or gym rat. He must imbue his Bond characterization with a natural confidence. He must have a strong voice with an appealing English accent. He must be a decent (but not necessarily a phenomenal) actor. He must be naturally convincing when seducing the ladies on film. Finally (my personal strong preference), he must be at least 6ft 1 or thereabouts.

    I agree on the qualities the next Bond needs and its great we agree Bond does need the female audience.

    And even though the global reception has been great I don't think Bond is right now so popular with the ladies. The success is mostly because of boys and action fans, many women do like them but not all.

    With Pierce most women loved Bond or at least loved to watch Pierce as Bond. So a looker Bond would be fantastic.
    Fair enough. I realize above that I didn't even mention looks. Rather, I mentioned height. So, for me the looks aren't all that important, but I can appreciate that the opposite sex could look at it differently. I insist that the Bond girl on the other hand meet my criteria for looks.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Moore's era probably still stands as the most consistent. They pretty much achieve what they wanted which was to entertain. Connery's era generally accepted as the golden age was incredible but as it hit it's pinnacle it began to falter. Dalton's barely got out of the starting gate and even then it had the wrong jockey with Glen. Brosnan's era saved and reintroduced Bond but critically never quite achieved what it could have. Craig's era was a total surprise but if Dalton's never got out of the gate then Craig's never knew which way to run. In my opinion the last three eras taken as a whole ended up being disappointments.
    I agree for the most part, but I think you are being a bit kind on the Brosnan era personally. It was a critical fiasco towards the end imho.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    True. But I think Craig is a better actor by far and thus suited the more complex take on the character.
    Craig is certainly a far more credible Bond in nearly every way in comparison to Brosnan, I agree. Outside of Bond, I do very much like Brosnan's work in general though.

    I agree Brosnan films were critically wanting but as far as financially they did perform well enough to keep Bond alive. In fact I think in NA at least each film earned slightly more than its immediate predecessor except for maybe TWINE.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @mcdonbb, you'll get no arguments from me there. He was a very successful Bond actor financially and I agree that he rescued the franchise from a box office standpoint, and at a critical time when the current producers were getting their feet wet (post-Cubby) and trying to formulate a direction for the 90's and onwards.

    Most of all though, I agree with you that the last three eras haven't quite lived up to their initial promise.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    GoldenEye did bring in a lot of new fans. Similar to how Goldfinger did I think.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Szonana wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    I do firmly believe the franchise needs another Brosnan Looks and performance wise. bond needs the women audience: the girlfriends and wives of all the Bond fans hehe.
    I certainly agree that Bond & EON should do their best to attract the female audience, however, I'm not so sure about another Brosnan necessarily. In fact, I'd strongly prefer that we not get another Brosnan.

    The franchise is doing quite well globally from a box office perspective, so I'm reasonably sure it's appealing to both sexes.

    Imho, the next actor must have a few qualities: He must be self assured. He must be masculine enough without necessarily being a beefcake or gym rat. He must imbue his Bond characterization with a natural confidence. He must have a strong voice with an appealing English accent. He must be a decent (but not necessarily a phenomenal) actor. He must be naturally convincing when seducing the ladies on film. Finally (my personal strong preference), he must be at least 6ft 1 or thereabouts.

    I agree on the qualities the next Bond needs and its great we agree Bond does need the female audience.

    And even though the global reception has been great I don't think Bond is right now so popular with the ladies. The success is mostly because of boys and action fans, many women do like them but not all.

    With Pierce most women loved Bond or at least loved to watch Pierce as Bond. So a looker Bond would be fantastic.

    The furore made over Dan coming out of the water in his blue swimming trunks seemed to suggest the female population in general were more than happy with the change from Broz. I don't remember any similar articles in the press gushing over Brozza in his trunks in the GE sauna scene.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 11,425
    Brozza in DAD looked totally out of shape - worse than Conners in DAF.

    He should have been emaciated after all that time in a North Korean prison but looked like he'd been on a diet of ale and pies.

    One thing Brozza can't be accused of is taking characterisation too seriously.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Getafix wrote: »
    Brozza in DAD looked totally out of shape - worse than Conners in DAF.

    He should have been emaciated after all that time in a North Korean prison but looked like he'd been on a diet of ale and pies.

    One thing Brozza can't be accused of is taking characterisation too seriously.

    Quite. How many women and, indeed, gay and bi men (for we are an all inclusive forum here - well unless you like Jinx, Another Way to Die or Rory Kinnear's Tanner) were aroused by Pierce's gelatinous gut wobbling through the Hong Kong hotel lobby?

    Brozza is Kays Catalogue modelling a jumper whilst posing next to a Black & Decker Workmate good looking whereas Dan strikes me as a proper man.

    Dan strikes you as being as much at home drinking in the dirtiest dive bar in the back streets of Caracas as he is in a gentleman's club in Pall Mall. Whereas Brozza seems like he only belongs in the bar at the Zurich airport Radisson.

    (Although just for the record I hasten to add that I am not in the least bit qualified to judge the attractiveness of blokes. If we are talking about Eva or Lea's puppies though I am definitely your man.)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2016 Posts: 15,723
    Craig is more manly than Brosnan? Sure. Will Craig look like this at 62 years old, however?

    1909316-pierce-brosnan-lors-de-la-premiere-de-950x0-2.jpg
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Craig looks more like a hobbit every passing year, so probably not.
    Yeah? I think he's aging fairly well. In fact, I'd argue that Craig aged better in 10 years than Brosnan did in 7. Pierce does look great though.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Brozza has improved with age
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Getafix wrote: »
    Brozza in DAD looked totally out of shape - worse than Conners in DAF.

    He should have been emaciated after all that time in a North Korean prison but looked like he'd been on a diet of ale and pies.

    One thing Brozza can't be accused of is taking characterisation too seriously.


    That's going a little too far, Pierce has never been a six pack abs kind of guy but you can't deny he has the face with great proportions and very nice to look at and i think still he looked very good in Die Another Day.

    He was extremely good looking, definitely the most handosme in the traditional way. Craig sure had the better body but you show any woman both of them in their prime and all will tell you Pierce is the better looking guy.

    So if we got another greatest hits Bond would look like if we got the best trait of each. Pierce's face, Daniel Craig's Body, Sean Connery's attitude, Roger Moore's sense of humor, Lazenby's fighting skills and Dalton's intensity.






  • edited August 2016 Posts: 1,985
    Brosnan is very underrated as Bond. Some don't give him enough credit. The man resurrected the franchise from is 6 year grave. IMO without Brosnan the franchise would of been dead a long time ago
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 1,296
    Actually lots of people could have played Bond in Goldeneye it would have been a success, yes even Dalton, for Dalton it could have been his comeback Spy Who Loved Me, so let's not talking like Brosnan was the onyl one who could have resurrected the series... It was the hard work of everyone around him, and often in my opiniion the movie works in spite of him and not because of him. I'm sorry.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    Szonana wrote: »
    He was extremely good looking, definitely the most handosme in the traditional way. Craig sure had the better body but you show any woman both of them in their prime and all will tell you Pierce is the better looking guy.

    So, basically it's because Pierce has a more attractive face?

    Could you explain what 'traditionally handsome' exactly means, because I'm not sure I understand that term entirely. The way I see it, to be qualified as classically handsome you absolutely need to have a pretty face. That's the most important feature. Height and a good shaped body are also important, but pronounced or huge muscles are not necessary. Did I miss something, or is that it?

    If only Pierce falls into that category, what do others lack?

    Also, I think Fleming described Bond as cruelly or ruggedly handsome, so while I wouldn't mind a classically handsome actor, I don't think it's necessary, even for attracting female audience.

    That said, Pierce was a fine Bond, even though I'm not a huge fan of his Bond films. He is pure Bond here: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ElDhB_0IQas/V7Qy5gwaEYI/AAAAAAAAXt4/vGK3qcopB4YSipuFQHvP1wtVr4qJXcLVwCJoC/w960-h1442/IMG0011.png
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    Actually lots of people could have played Bond in Goldeneye it would have been a success, yes even Dalton, for Dalton it could have been his comeback Spy Who Loved Me, so let's not talking like Brosnan was the onyl one who could have resurrected the series... It was the hard work of everyone around him, and often in my opiniion the movie works in spite of him and not because of him. I'm sorry.

    Yea, except in TSWLM Moore had a larger audience that wanted to see him again. Dalton was both too theatrical and too much of an acquired taste to keep an audience.

    Don't attack me I liked Dalton ...just not a fan of Glen.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Szonana wrote: »
    He was extremely good looking, definitely the most handosme in the traditional way. Craig sure had the better body but you show any woman both of them in their prime and all will tell you Pierce is the better looking guy.

    So, basically it's because Pierce has a more attractive face?

    Could you explain what 'traditionally handsome' exactly means, because I'm not sure I understand that term entirely. The way I see it, to be qualified as classically handsome you absolutely need to have a pretty face. That's the most important feature. Height and a good shaped body are also important, but pronounced or huge muscles are not necessary. Did I miss something, or is that it?

    If only Pierce falls into that category, what do others lack?

    Also, I think Fleming described Bond as cruelly or ruggedly handsome, so while I wouldn't mind a classically handsome actor, I don't think it's necessary, even for attracting female audience.

    That said, Pierce was a fine Bond, even though I'm not a huge fan of his Bond films. He is pure Bond here: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ElDhB_0IQas/V7Qy5gwaEYI/AAAAAAAAXt4/vGK3qcopB4YSipuFQHvP1wtVr4qJXcLVwCJoC/w960-h1442/IMG0011.png


    Well its the whole thing together, while Daniel has clearly the better body Pierce in good shape too. Just not as ripped as Daniel.
    all the Bond were handsome its just that Pierce had the best looking facial features of them.


    But i agree with you he was a great Bond.

  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited August 2016 Posts: 2,722
    Birdleson wrote: »
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    Actually lots of people could have played Bond in Goldeneye it would have been a success, yes even Dalton, for Dalton it could have been his comeback Spy Who Loved Me, so let's not talking like Brosnan was the onyl one who could have resurrected the series... It was the hard work of everyone around him, and often in my opiniion the movie works in spite of him and not because of him. I'm sorry.

    "Comeback" is not an apt word. Though TLD did fair box office, Timothy never had that near universal acceptance that Roger received right out of the gate, both critically and financially.

    Roger was critically and financially accepted right out of the gate? LALD did ok financially - probably similar to TLD. But TMWTGG certainly wasn't accepted on either count. LALD does better if you're adjusting for inflation - but also on those terms - Moonraker is the only Moore film that makes the top half of all Bond films financially.
    Basically - Roger's and Tim's sophomoric outings were met with lukewarm responses and the future was questioned - even loudly in TMWTGG's case within contemporary reviews. Roger bounced back with bigger, better TSWLM after a long three year gap. But I agree with your assertion that Tim never really won over the public the way Roger eventually did. And I'm not sure if Dalton (as much as I love him) ever would have.

  • edited August 2016 Posts: 11,425
    Fassbender for Bond. Steve McQueen to direct. David Kajganich screenplay. Zimmer for the score. Dream team.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    LALD did similar business to TLD? Adjusted for inflation LALD is in the top 5 with about $860m. I think TLD is lucky to be making half that, I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure it's in the bottom 5, probably bottom 3. Sorry, but LALD was enormously successful next to TLD.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited August 2016 Posts: 2,722
    Oh yes - I stated that LALD did much better if adjusted for inflation. Also to clarify I was referring to US box office where Moonraker was the only one in the top half of Bond films for Moore. But TLD still did better than TMWTGG in the US and significantly better reviews. Ill defer to Birdleson's memory of this though as I wasn't around for Moore's debut, It maybe revisionist but I just don't think Moore was universally embraced until TSWLM hit. That's a revisionist impression though I'm sensing.
Sign In or Register to comment.