No Time To Die: Production Diary

13893903923943952507

Comments

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    @BondJasonBond006
    @Creasy47

    the face Silva makes after being knifed in the back by Bond - when he turns to look at him... the genius of it (yes i said "genius"), is that you are intended to laugh at it.. Look at how flamboyant and ridiculous his character is throughout the whole movie, him turning around with a "seriously?!?!?!" expression/reaction is freaking hilarious - i laugh every time i watch it, because it's intended to be funny..
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Yes that got a chuckle at the cinema. Whether or not one found it funny, that's personal taste
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited September 2016 Posts: 4,399
    i do have to agree with @TheWizardOfIce about the constant fluffing over the DB5 in the films... I love the car, it's iconic.. but now it's like we can't go a single Bond movie without it having to be in there.... i don't mind it popping up every now and again - but they really dumped this extra meaningless level of reverence and significance onto it recently - mind you it wasn't in a single Bond film after TB until it showed up for some reason in GE..
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    It's not really his Batmobile either, mostly just his personal transport
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    it was his service issued car for 1 film, then just sort of became his grocery getter after that...

    i dont mind him using new model Astons in films.. but lets give the ol' DB5 a rest for a little while..
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 5,767
    HASEROT wrote: »
    @BondJasonBond006
    @Creasy47

    the face Silva makes after being knifed in the back by Bond - when he turns to look at him... the genius of it (yes i said "genius"), is that you are intended to laugh at it.. Look at how flamboyant and ridiculous his character is throughout the whole movie, him turning around with a "seriously?!?!?!" expression/reaction is freaking hilarious - i laugh every time i watch it, because it's intended to be funny..
    I find Silva´s turning around excellent. A perfect blend of an old b/w horror monster and a spider that just got a pin through its back, spiced with a good dose of clownery.




    HASEROT wrote: »
    i do have to agree with @TheWizardOfIce about the constant fluffing over the DB5 in the films... I love the car, it's iconic.. but now it's like we can't go a single Bond movie without it having to be in there.... i don't mind it popping up every now and again - but they really dumped this extra meaningless level of reverence and significance onto it recently - mind you it wasn't in a single Bond film after TB until it showed up for some reason in GE..
    I wouldn´t even mind it to be in every single film, if it would be there kind of casually. This constant rubbing it up the audiences noses is what´s really turning me off.

  • HASEROT wrote: »
    it was his service issued car for 1 film, then just sort of became his grocery getter after that...

    i dont mind him using new model Astons in films.. but lets give the ol' DB5 a rest for a little while..

    I have no problem with the DB5 being Bond's personal, non-tricked-out car like it was in GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies (with the exception of a special compartment for chilling champagne).

    Where it got wonky was in Skyfall and Spectre with how the DB5 somehow became both Bond's personal car he had in storage and a gadget-laden vehicle under the maintenance of Q-Branch. Just one more example of throwing things in with nary a thought about logic.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 1,296
    Barry had the good graces to weave the main themes to his films all throughtout when he scored, even when it wasn't composed by him (his last 2). And he did it with power and aplomb, setting aside his ego for the sake of art. But Newman on the other hand can't even do the same, and apparently when Michael Wilson asked him to do a cue for the Macau casino with Adele's theme, he got someone else to do it. For this reason and many others I think it's time we say byeeeeee to Newman and oh hello to someone else who wants to give us a proper Bond thematic score in the fashion of old.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    HASEROT wrote: »
    @BondJasonBond006
    @Creasy47

    the face Silva makes after being knifed in the back by Bond - when he turns to look at him... the genius of it (yes i said "genius"), is that you are intended to laugh at it.. Look at how flamboyant and ridiculous his character is throughout the whole movie, him turning around with a "seriously?!?!?!" expression/reaction is freaking hilarious - i laugh every time i watch it, because it's intended to be funny..

    At last someone with a properly explained argument that I can buy.

    Flamboyant and ridiculous is spot-on for Silva and yes, it can be meant in a positive way.

    I will re-watch Skyfall, even though I just have watched it a couple of weeks ago and try to see him in a different light. Maybe it's really supposed to be comedy from Mommy...is...verybad to his last freakish expression on his face.
    Maybe I just didn't get it up to now.

    Thanks @haserot
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    Barry had the good graces to weave the main themes to his films all throughtout when he scored, even when it wasn't composed by him (his last 2). And he did it with power and aplomb, setting aside his ego for the sake of art. But Newman on the other hand can't even do the same, and apparently when Michael Wilson asked him to do a cue for the Macau casino with Adele's theme, he got someone else to do it. For this reason and many others I think it's time we say byeeeeee to Newman and oh hello to someone else who wants to give us a proper Bond thematic score in the fashion of old.

    Yes please
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    The difference is that Silva's intro will go down in Bond history as one of the most memorable moments of the series, it harks back to Goldfinger and the laser table, maybe not as iconic but it has potential to be up there.

    Silva is absurd that is the point, larger than life and Bardem never betrays the character.
    The pissed off look on his face when he realises Bond has beaten him, , he just wants to casue chaos for M and get his revenge and although he is indirectly involved in her death dies not knowing this.

    I think Bardem wanted to hark back to the Bond villains of old and Mendes coaxed a performance out of him that reflected that, he clearly gelled with him better than Waltz who has alluded to not getting the spark to go anywhere interesting with character.

    Skyfall is pretty much going to be the iconic Bond film of this era like GF is for Connery, I'm not saying best, I think the fanbase will tend to favour CR a bit like I much prefer FRWL to GF but SF did something that no other Bond has done in decades.
  • Posts: 1,092
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Well that's a bit of an over exaggeration if I've ever heard one. "One of the worst pieces of dialogue ever written"? EVER, in the history of film and television? They may make some poor decisions from time to time in the series, but for anything truly awful, I can find something comparable that is infinitely worse in another movie or show.

    Yes sure I meant the Bond franchise...should be obvious.

    Skyfall still is infinitely better than most of the crap that was released in 2012.

    I always find it funny. In tone and stile both SP and SF in essence are....typical Sam Mendes films. Slightly different, SP is slightly more humourous, SF is slightly more emotional and dramatic. Yet both films are full of intense dialogue, bizarre silent scenes, moody cinematography, multilayered themes and marvellous acting. Yet you put SP on 1st place in your ranking, and SF on 24th place. I......I am always stunned when I see your ranking :-P.

    While you are correct with the typical Mendes traits both being in SF and SP they can also be seen in his other movies.

    SP has everything I love in a Bond movie. Grand original breathtaking PTS, a beautiful Bond girl Bond wants to protect, even two if you count Bellucci as well, unbelievably moody, fascinating, creepy, beautiful sets (meteor room, L'Americaine, the conference room, Q's laboratory, the demolished MI6 building, the whole train, the abandoned train station, Blofeld's control room. A great and memorable henchman. A proper hand-to-hand fight, witty dialogue with Q who provides Bond with valuable help. The plane/car chase.
    SF has nothing of that. The PTS is pretty middle of the road, the Bond girl is Moneypenny and/or M which is a joke, the only sets noteworthy are the Macau Casino and the Skyfall mansion. Henchman? Nada. Hand-to-hand fight? That choreographed dance in the shadows... and Q? one good scene at the museum and then he acts like an imbecile who should be taken to court for helping the villain with his plot. I guess the chase in the PTS counts for something...

    It's astonishing Skyfall is even seen as a Bond movie. Without the DB5 you wouldn't even have a proper Bond car in Skyfall.

    Agree totally about SP here but I still love SF. That's what is great about this series,though, there's variety for everyone! And I think it's really cool they can crank out variety like SK vs. SP in the space of just two films. Mendes always says he doesn't want to repeat themselves and it's good they decided not to do SF Part II when they made SP.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Well that's a bit of an over exaggeration if I've ever heard one. "One of the worst pieces of dialogue ever written"? EVER, in the history of film and television? They may make some poor decisions from time to time in the series, but for anything truly awful, I can find something comparable that is infinitely worse in another movie or show.

    Yes sure I meant the Bond franchise...should be obvious.

    Skyfall still is infinitely better than most of the crap that was released in 2012.

    I always find it funny. In tone and stile both SP and SF in essence are....typical Sam Mendes films. Slightly different, SP is slightly more humourous, SF is slightly more emotional and dramatic. Yet both films are full of intense dialogue, bizarre silent scenes, moody cinematography, multilayered themes and marvellous acting. Yet you put SP on 1st place in your ranking, and SF on 24th place. I......I am always stunned when I see your ranking :-P.

    While you are correct with the typical Mendes traits both being in SF and SP they can also be seen in his other movies.

    SP has everything I love in a Bond movie. Grand original breathtaking PTS, a beautiful Bond girl Bond wants to protect, even two if you count Bellucci as well, unbelievably moody, fascinating, creepy, beautiful sets (meteor room, L'Americaine, the conference room, Q's laboratory, the demolished MI6 building, the whole train, the abandoned train station, Blofeld's control room. A great and memorable henchman. A proper hand-to-hand fight, witty dialogue with Q who provides Bond with valuable help. The plane/car chase.
    SF has nothing of that. The PTS is pretty middle of the road, the Bond girl is Moneypenny and/or M which is a joke, the only sets noteworthy are the Macau Casino and the Skyfall mansion. Henchman? Nada. Hand-to-hand fight? That choreographed dance in the shadows... and Q? one good scene at the museum and then he acts like an imbecile who should be taken to court for helping the villain with his plot. I guess the chase in the PTS counts for something...

    It's astonishing Skyfall is even seen as a Bond movie. Without the DB5 you wouldn't even have a proper Bond car in Skyfall.


    The main difference between the two films, whichever you prefer, is effort.

    Everyone in SF brought their A game to the table whereas with SP you can't say anyone did, with the possible exceptions of Whishaw and Bautista.

    If producers, writers, actors and director can't quite be arsed it comes through in the final product.

    SP is good but there's just a little spark missing, which is there in SF, that makes it gel and kicks the whole thing into life.

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    edited September 2016 Posts: 2,252
    I think it's safe to say that Cubby (and Saltzman), for better or worse, had much more control of the creative process leading to more films that felt like Bond films. Now it feels like there's too many cooks without an agreed upon vision for the film

    The talent has never been better, and for that I am grateful, but there needs to be better collaboration between all parties involved
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    w2bond wrote: »
    I think it's safe to say that Cubby (and Saltzman), for better or worse, had much more control of the creative process leading to more films that felt like Bond films. Now it feels like there's too many cooks without an agreed upon vision for the film

    The talent has never been better, and for that I am grateful, but there needs to be better collaboration between all parties involved

    On the writing front, it's hard to agree. Maibaum is king of that department; a one of a kind that we'll likely never see again in the franchise.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    w2bond wrote: »
    I think it's safe to say that Cubby (and Saltzman), for better or worse, had much more control of the creative process leading to more films that felt like Bond films. Now it feels like there's too many cooks without an agreed upon vision for the film

    The talent has never been better, and for that I am grateful, but there needs to be better collaboration between all parties involved

    On the writing front, it's hard to agree. Maibaum is king of that department; a one of a kind that we'll likely never see again in the franchise.
    But... but... Neal Purvis... Robert Wade...!
    =))
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Reading all the comments of the last 24 hours makes me wonder if I simply don't understand the character of Silva or am too prejudiced against him.
    Maybe after the impeccable acting jobs that gave us LeChiffre and Greene, Silva was too cartoonish for me which I feel doesn't fit the overall tone of SF.
  • About the writers, does anyone know why MGW stopped writing after LTK? I mean I know he's less involved now that he's older but he stopped ages ago, was there any particular reason he took a backseat on that front?
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    w2bond wrote: »
    I think it's safe to say that Cubby (and Saltzman), for better or worse, had much more control of the creative process leading to more films that felt like Bond films. Now it feels like there's too many cooks without an agreed upon vision for the film

    The talent has never been better, and for that I am grateful, but there needs to be better collaboration between all parties involved

    On the writing front, it's hard to agree. Maibaum is king of that department; a one of a kind that we'll likely never see again in the franchise.

    True, there's also Ken Adam, John Barry who brought the movies to life, not to mention the tireless efforts of those behind the screen.

    I was referring more to acting across the board and cinematography.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Well that's a bit of an over exaggeration if I've ever heard one. "One of the worst pieces of dialogue ever written"? EVER, in the history of film and television? They may make some poor decisions from time to time in the series, but for anything truly awful, I can find something comparable that is infinitely worse in another movie or show.

    Yes sure I meant the Bond franchise...should be obvious.

    Skyfall still is infinitely better than most of the crap that was released in 2012.

    I always find it funny. In tone and stile both SP and SF in essence are....typical Sam Mendes films. Slightly different, SP is slightly more humourous, SF is slightly more emotional and dramatic. Yet both films are full of intense dialogue, bizarre silent scenes, moody cinematography, multilayered themes and marvellous acting. Yet you put SP on 1st place in your ranking, and SF on 24th place. I......I am always stunned when I see your ranking :-P.

    While you are correct with the typical Mendes traits both being in SF and SP they can also be seen in his other movies.

    SP has everything I love in a Bond movie. Grand original breathtaking PTS, a beautiful Bond girl Bond wants to protect, even two if you count Bellucci as well, unbelievably moody, fascinating, creepy, beautiful sets (meteor room, L'Americaine, the conference room, Q's laboratory, the demolished MI6 building, the whole train, the abandoned train station, Blofeld's control room. A great and memorable henchman. A proper hand-to-hand fight, witty dialogue with Q who provides Bond with valuable help. The plane/car chase.
    SF has nothing of that. The PTS is pretty middle of the road, the Bond girl is Moneypenny and/or M which is a joke, the only sets noteworthy are the Macau Casino and the Skyfall mansion. Henchman? Nada. Hand-to-hand fight? That choreographed dance in the shadows... and Q? one good scene at the museum and then he acts like an imbecile who should be taken to court for helping the villain with his plot. I guess the chase in the PTS counts for something...

    It's astonishing Skyfall is even seen as a Bond movie. Without the DB5 you wouldn't even have a proper Bond car in Skyfall.


    The main difference between the two films, whichever you prefer, is effort.

    Everyone in SF brought their A game to the table whereas with SP you can't say anyone did, with the possible exceptions of Whishaw and Bautista.

    If producers, writers, actors and director can't quite be arsed it comes through in the final product.

    SP is good but there's just a little spark missing, which is there in SF, that makes it gel and kicks the whole thing into life.
    Precisely. Well put. The execution of the premise in SF was spot on. The execution in SP wasn't so well handled.

    As I've said on numerous occasions, I don't have a problem with 'formula', but if one is going to go down that path, one has to get it just right. There is far less room for error, because one is doing something that the audience has seen before in various guises, and is attuned to, so their expectations are higher. One can't fall into the trap of predictability. At least in my case.

    SF had the good sense to be a different kind of Bond film, and therefore it surprised the audience and confounded their expectations. What it did do, it did very well, as you note.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 1,970
    Hey all just a reminder. Craig will be back as Bond for Bond 25!!!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    From your mouth to Bab's ear.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Hey all just a reminder. Craig will be back as Bond for Bond 25!!!
    More and more doubtful by the day unfortunately.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    w2bond wrote: »
    I think it's safe to say that Cubby (and Saltzman), for better or worse, had much more control of the creative process leading to more films that felt like Bond films. Now it feels like there's too many cooks without an agreed upon vision for the film

    The talent has never been better, and for that I am grateful, but there needs to be better collaboration between all parties involved

    On the writing front, it's hard to agree. Maibaum is king of that department; a one of a kind that we'll likely never see again in the franchise.

    IHMO Maibaum's best movies were the ones based on Fleming's source material, with the exception of The Living Daylights, whereas his original scripts (such as DAF, OP and AVTAK) are his weakest ones. So he was good, but not exactly a king.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Walecs wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    I think it's safe to say that Cubby (and Saltzman), for better or worse, had much more control of the creative process leading to more films that felt like Bond films. Now it feels like there's too many cooks without an agreed upon vision for the film

    The talent has never been better, and for that I am grateful, but there needs to be better collaboration between all parties involved

    On the writing front, it's hard to agree. Maibaum is king of that department; a one of a kind that we'll likely never see again in the franchise.

    IHMO Maibaum's best movies were the ones based on Fleming's source material, with the exception of The Living Daylights, whereas his original scripts (such as DAF, OP and AVTAK) are his weakest ones. So he was good, but not exactly a king.

    He wrote the 60s Bond into history. As far as I'm concerned, he's king.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Is it October 7th yet?!...damn
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,537
    In an interview with The Telegraph Ralph Fiennes weighs in on Bond 25.

    He suspects the next instalment – AKA Bond 25, the title, release date and star of which remain tantalisingly unconfirmed – will take a lighter, and therefore presumably more Russian-friendly, approach.

    “Well I think if you’re the next director of Bond, you’re going to not want to go down the tone and argument of what Sam [Mendes] has put into the films,” he says, though is quick to stress he’s “heard nothing”. “Questions of British nationhood, and whether Bond is a dinosaur, all that. So I would guess if you’re coming to do the next Bond, you’d want to take it somewhere radically different, I think.”
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited September 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    In an interview with The Telegraph Ralph Fiennes weighs in on Bond 25.

    He suspects the next instalment – AKA Bond 25, the title, release date and star of which remain tantalisingly unconfirmed – will take a lighter, and therefore presumably more Russian-friendly, approach.

    “Well I think if you’re the next director of Bond, you’re going to not want to go down the tone and argument of what Sam [Mendes] has put into the films,” he says, though is quick to stress he’s “heard nothing”. “Questions of British nationhood, and whether Bond is a dinosaur, all that. So I would guess if you’re coming to do the next Bond, you’d want to take it somewhere radically different, I think.”
    I like it!
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Thanks @Red_Snow. Interesting indeed.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    He's essentially echoing what most people here have already said. That being said, a change, yes but it doesn't necessarily have to be radical.
Sign In or Register to comment.