No Time To Die: Production Diary

15075085105125132507

Comments

  • What the Craig era did wrong was not returning to formula after CR. QOS, and in extension the rest of the Craig era, sort of betrays CR's epilogue, where Craig at last becomes Bond and we are promised future straightforward Bond movies.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    What the Craig era did wrong was not returning to formula after CR. QOS, and in extension the rest of the Craig era, sort of betrays CR's epilogue, where Craig at last becomes Bond and we are promised future straightforward Bond movies.

    Yes, I agree completely. QoS could have actually made a good traditional Bond film, if they took out all the connections to CR and Vesper. I like the central plot, the characters, and set up for a possible SPECTRE type organisation.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    What the Craig era did wrong was not returning to formula after CR. QOS, and in extension the rest of the Craig era, sort of betrays CR's epilogue, where Craig at last becomes Bond and we are promised future straightforward Bond movies.

    Yes, I agree completely. QoS could have actually made a good traditional Bond film, if they took out all the connections to CR and Vesper. I like the central plot, the characters, and set up for a possible SPECTRE type organisation.

    *Yawn*, there are so many people on this forum who see all the glaring mistakes, who have all the answers and that's why they are...

    ... not even in the film industry
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    peter wrote: »
    What the Craig era did wrong was not returning to formula after CR. QOS, and in extension the rest of the Craig era, sort of betrays CR's epilogue, where Craig at last becomes Bond and we are promised future straightforward Bond movies.

    Yes, I agree completely. QoS could have actually made a good traditional Bond film, if they took out all the connections to CR and Vesper. I like the central plot, the characters, and set up for a possible SPECTRE type organisation.

    *Yawn*, there are so many people on this forum who see all the glaring mistakes, who have all the answers and that's why they are...

    ... not even in the film industry

    We don't have to be. We're fans stating an opinion.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,602
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    What the Craig era did wrong was not returning to formula after CR. QOS, and in extension the rest of the Craig era, sort of betrays CR's epilogue, where Craig at last becomes Bond and we are promised future straightforward Bond movies.

    Yes, I agree completely. QoS could have actually made a good traditional Bond film, if they took out all the connections to CR and Vesper. I like the central plot, the characters, and set up for a possible SPECTRE type organisation.

    *Yawn*, there are so many people on this forum who see all the glaring mistakes, who have all the answers and that's why they are...

    ... not even in the film industry

    We don't have to be. We're fans stating an opinion.

    We are the ones that know what we want. You don't have to be in the film industry to know that. Hell I've seen better continuation plots written by fans than we'll probably get in Bond 25.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,387
    What the Craig era did wrong was not returning to formula after CR. QOS, and in extension the rest of the Craig era, sort of betrays CR's epilogue, where Craig at last becomes Bond and we are promised future straightforward Bond movies.

    Yes, I agree completely. QoS could have actually made a good traditional Bond film, if they took out all the connections to CR and Vesper. I like the central plot, the characters, and set up for a possible SPECTRE type organisation.

    Umm, those were the best parts. QoS without Mr. White, Mathis, Vesper, the plane scene with Mathis, and the epiloque would be pretty empty indeed (not to mention about 30 minutes long).
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    What the Craig era did wrong was not returning to formula after CR. QOS, and in extension the rest of the Craig era, sort of betrays CR's epilogue, where Craig at last becomes Bond and we are promised future straightforward Bond movies.

    Yes, I agree completely. QoS could have actually made a good traditional Bond film, if they took out all the connections to CR and Vesper. I like the central plot, the characters, and set up for a possible SPECTRE type organisation.

    *Yawn*, there are so many people on this forum who see all the glaring mistakes, who have all the answers and that's why they are...

    ... not even in the film industry

    We don't have to be. We're fans stating an opinion.

    We are the ones that know what we want. You don't have to be in the film industry to know that. Hell I've seen better continuation plots written by fans than we'll probably get in Bond 25.

    Lest they forget without us there would be no Bond. They are supposed to make these for the fans. We buy the tickets :)
  • peter wrote: »
    What the Craig era did wrong was not returning to formula after CR. QOS, and in extension the rest of the Craig era, sort of betrays CR's epilogue, where Craig at last becomes Bond and we are promised future straightforward Bond movies.

    Yes, I agree completely. QoS could have actually made a good traditional Bond film, if they took out all the connections to CR and Vesper. I like the central plot, the characters, and set up for a possible SPECTRE type organisation.

    *Yawn*, there are so many people on this forum who see all the glaring mistakes, who have all the answers and that's why they are...

    ... not even in the film industry

    Consumer sovereignty.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    What the Craig era did wrong was not returning to formula after CR. QOS, and in extension the rest of the Craig era, sort of betrays CR's epilogue, where Craig at last becomes Bond and we are promised future straightforward Bond movies.

    Yes, I agree completely. QoS could have actually made a good traditional Bond film, if they took out all the connections to CR and Vesper. I like the central plot, the characters, and set up for a possible SPECTRE type organisation.

    *Yawn*, there are so many people on this forum who see all the glaring mistakes, who have all the answers and that's why they are...

    ... not even in the film industry

    We don't have to be. We're fans stating an opinion.

    We are the ones that know what we want. You don't have to be in the film industry to know that. Hell I've seen better continuation plots written by fans than we'll probably get in Bond 25.

    Lest they forget without us there would be no Bond. They are supposed to make these for the fans. We buy the tickets :)
    Hear Hear!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    As Mendes says, it's not democracy in the Bond family. If it was all about the fans, they would have a vote for the next actor to play Bond. They would have fans write their scripts.

    But this doesn't happen, does it.

    And that's because the people in power actually know how to make films from beginning to end, whether you like the project or not, and they know that this is a business where they're competing in a global market and against other spy franchises.

    So it's easy to sit here, after the work is done on any given film, and pontificate all that you can right about this movie or that movie, without having the slightest idea in how that project was made.

    As a fan, of course you have your opinions, and your right to those opinions. Just understand, that's all they are.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2016 Posts: 4,116
    peter wrote: »
    As Mendes says, it's not democracy in the Bond family. If it was all about the fans, they would have a vote for the next actor to play Bond. They would have fans write their scripts.

    But this doesn't happen, does it.

    And that's because the people in power actually know how to make films from beginning to end, whether you like the project or not, and they know that this is a business where they're competing in a global market and against other spy franchises.

    So it's easy to sit here, after the work is done on any given film, and pontificate all that you can right about this movie or that movie, without having the slightest idea in how that project was made.

    As a fan, of course you have your opinions, and your right to those opinions. Just understand, that's all they are.

    :-@ ...blah blah blah.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @mcdonbb: thanks, man! Awesome and articulate! Have a good day!
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2016 Posts: 4,116
    (:| ...you too. Some things just don't warrant a response. You do know this is a discussion forum, right?

    I get your point and that seems the way EoN sees it but the way you presented your point is full of pretense. That's what I can't stand.

    We obviously know we aren't or most of us aren't in the movie business. I think we get from following these that's it's an extremely complicated process and in a studio system most times the director just can't make the film he/she wants.

    But c'mon we're vetted fans we know what we want for the most part. No we never agree totally but I resent your condescending tone telling us we don't have a clue.
  • Posts: 4,325
    Another day, and more of the same from the Bond 25 thread.
  • edited November 2016 Posts: 19,339
    I just popped my head in here to see what news there is and now im going...not wasting my time with all this irrelevant waffling...ciao ! *Leaves rapidly shaking his head*....
  • Posts: 4,325
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    (:| ...you too. Some things just don't warrant a response. You do know this is a discussion forum, right?

    I get your point and that seems the way EoN sees it but the way you presented your point is full of pretense. That's what I can't stand.

    We obviously know we aren't or most of us aren't in the movie business. I think we get from following these that's it's an extremely complicated process and in a studio system most times the director just can't make the film he/she wants.

    But c'mon we're vetted fans we know what we want for the most part. No we never agree totally but I resent your condescending tone telling us we don't have a clue.

    The quality of discussion here is astounding ...
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    sometimes, @mcdonbb, the sentiment on this thread screams of entitlement; children complaining that what came before is not good enough, and that if only the producers/filmmakers would do x,y and z, then we'd have the perfect Bond film.

    I can respect opinions, discussions and so on, however, I get tired of the tone of some; they make it sound like Babs or EoN, or DC, or P&W just absolutely screwed the Bond franchise. And that is not the case. Whether one likes SP or not, it made almost $900 million at the box office. In a world where there are more spy franchises than ever, these other films barely break the $500 million mark, if they reach it at all.

    Babs, EoN et al are doing something amazing. Do I think that SP was perfect (far from it, although I appreciate it), and do I hope there are some changes for Bond 25? Most definitely. But I refuse to write off this franchise as being in a "dark period" as some here consistently imply.

    Best,

    P
  • Posts: 4,325
    peter wrote: »
    sometimes, @mcdonbb, the sentiment on this thread screams of entitlement; children complaining that what came before is not good enough, and that if only the producers/filmmakers would do x,y and z, then we'd have the perfect Bond film.

    I can respect opinions, discussions and so on, however, I get tired of the tone of some; they make it sound like Babs or EoN, or DC, or P&W just absolutely screwed the Bond franchise. And that is not the case. Whether one likes SP or not, it made almost $900 million at the box office. In a world where there are more spy franchises than ever, these other films barely break the $500 million mark, if they reach it at all.

    Babs, EoN et al are doing something amazing. Do I think that SP was perfect (far from it, although I appreciate it), and do I hope there are some changes for Bond 25? Most definitely. But I refuse to write off this franchise as being in a "dark period" as some here consistently imply.

    Best,

    P

    Give it a rest, why are you bothering to keep coming back to him, I don't want read childish spats?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I personally don't think the franchise is in a 'dark period', but I most certainly would like a shake up (in nearly every dept including cast).

    I was a big proponent of the new direction post-CR. It was a shot in the arm. However, like all good things, I believe it has run its course.

    Life is all about changes and renewals, and the time is ripe (imho) for that with the Bond franchise. Either it will come with B25 as I hope, or shortly thereafter with B26.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @tanaka, fair enough. Just attempting to give a reasoned reply to sarcasm.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116


    (:| ...anyway. Not quite sure why I was singled out since I entered toward the end of the discussion.

    Plus both of you deflected my point ...doesn't really matter. I'm not going to argue ...not worth it.

    Both points by the way are not necessarily in opposition... I was simply offended by the way the opinion was presented as if the thread was being chided.

    Enough of this ...sorry I even responded.
  • edited November 2016 Posts: 4,325
    mcdonbb wrote: »

    (:| ...anyway. Not quite sure why I was singled out since I entered toward the end of the discussion.

    Plus both of you deflected my point ...doesn't really matter. I'm not going to argue ...not worth it.

    Both points by the way are not necessarily in opposition... I was simply offended by the way the opinion was presented as if the thread was being chided.

    Enough of this ...sorry I even responded.

    I thought your point was valid. It was the unnecessary back and forth that was tedious.

    Anyway, a lot of people seem to want a 'traditional' Bond film for Bond 25. I say we go in the opposite direction - a Bond film even closer to Fleming's vision that isn't concerned about getting a 12A rating to make more money, and is filmed in black and white in a 4:3 aspect ratio.
  • Posts: 7,616
    I like your thinking tanaka123, but i just dont think its ever going to happen! Its really all down to who they choose for scripting! A new name is needed, P&W, Haggiss, Logan, etc should be left out!" maybe Pater Morgan should be given another go?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @Tanaka, interesting but the closest we will ever get to a B&W Bond film (in the foreseeable future), was done briefly in CR.

    Unless the series takes some real risks, and, after DC's tenure, they resign Bond from the big screen and develop a dark TV series (on Netflicks or Amazon), updating all the novels.

    (about a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, but one I'd buy into)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I believe we will see more of a return to tradition. More of a GE to follow the Dalton'eque run (on steroids) that Craig has had. I realize this may upset some people.
  • Posts: 7,616
    God I hope that never happens! I dont want Bond on TV! Its the one movie series I always love the build up to and the premiere of on the big screen! I hope it continues for many years to come!
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »

    (:| ...anyway. Not quite sure why I was singled out since I entered toward the end of the discussion.

    Plus both of you deflected my point ...doesn't really matter. I'm not going to argue ...not worth it.

    Both points by the way are not necessarily in opposition... I was simply offended by the way the opinion was presented as if the thread was being chided.

    Enough of this ...sorry I even responded.

    I thought your point was valid. It was the unnecessary back and forth that was tedious.

    Anyway, a lot of people seem to want a 'traditional' Bond film for Bond 25. I say we go in the opposite direction - a Bond film even closer to Fleming's vision that isn't concerned about getting a 12A rating to make more money, and is filmed in black and white in a 4:3 aspect ratio.

    Ok I accept that. I'm sorry ..you're right let's move on.

    Sorry also @Peter..
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @mcdonbb: all good.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    peter wrote: »
    @mcdonbb: all good.

    Moving on but I respond hastily and angrily sometimes and I'm trying to temper that.

    We need news lol.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @mcdonbb: we all do react quickly sometimes; and some messages don't translate well over this format. Plus, I have a wicked cold and am feeling ornery!

    No harm done.

    Yes, news would be good.
Sign In or Register to comment.