No Time To Die: Production Diary

15685695715735742507

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Whether Craig returns or not, they need to inject some fresh blood into the series. Get some brand new, highly-skilled (or at least relatively competent) writers, ditch Newman (I don't need someone new in this category if David Arnold returns), and get an inspired director that can make a great, fun 25th installment.

    YES!

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    talos7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Whether Craig returns or not, they need to inject some fresh blood into the series. Get some brand new, highly-skilled (or at least relatively competent) writers, ditch Newman (I don't need someone new in this category if David Arnold returns), and get an inspired director that can make a great, fun 25th installment.

    YES!
    +1
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    @mcdonbb, dear old friend... Spoilers. ;)

    *head in shame* ..sorry. See edit. I will have Brady quiet any loose ends. :D
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I know how the world works and to me this sounds like a leak.

    Well, to the rest of us that know better the reddit "leak" is bs.
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I know how the world works and to me this sounds like a leak.

    Well, to the rest of us that know better the reddit "leak" is bs.

    I don't know better? Yet you believe Naomie Harris?

    I didn't say anything about me believing Harris. I've only commented on the reddit post which I'm not naive to believe.
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I don't know better? Yet you believe Naomie Harris?

    I didn't say anything about me believing Harris. I've only commented on the reddit post which I'm not naive to believe.

    I take it you believe fluff put out by actors, then?

    You surmised this how?

    Sorry but your level of denial and inability to see that some random reddit user, delivering a Bond "scoop" only shows how desperate you are to grasp on to any bit of traction for Bond news; and/or just how gullible you are. Not to deliberately sound condescending; but you may not be new to the Internet but you've still got a lot to learn how it works and the machinations of sites like Reddit.

    It's not being gullible when it has evidence to back it up. Why don't you step back from the computer for a bit and think about life.

    Evidence? Please point out and identify this irrefutable evidence you're talking about that makes what reddit user @xyz123nobody as telling nothing but stone-cold, hard, reliable fact. Also, while you're doing that, maybe YOU should step back from whatever device you're using just a smidge, apply a modicum of thought and then really think if this "exclusive real news update" from reddit, a site notoriously known for users elaborately making stuff up to fool gullible people like you is actually serving you up a plate of bs or not.

    P.S.

    It's the former and you're lapping it up.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @doubleoego, there is no evidence in the post, you're merely engaging in a non-discussion right now. I was going to reply to him with the same question, but once I realized there is absolutely nothing that resembles evidence in the link, I realized a reply was pointless - he'll believe what he wants to believe, so no point in wasting your time.

    In other news, I just read on MySpace that Christopher Plummer has just been cast as Bond #7. I believe the late, great Abraham Lincoln said it best: "If you read it on the Internet, it must be true."
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 4,622
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Purvis and Wade? The duo that offwered us mediocre to cringeworthy and absurd storylines? Yeah, you two should, first, stay out of politics and simply focus on entertainment. We don't need a James Bond film where either the leftists or the right-wingers play a role. Secondly, if anything, both James Bond and Ian Fleming were patriotic and conservative people, so they would both be in favour of Brexit. As would their allies around them. So, Robert and Neal, do us a favour and depart from the Bond franchise for good. Since The World Is Not Enough you both have been recycling the same story and same elements all over.

    Agreed plus one times two infinity.

    Does mirror what Harris said. So sorry Reddit hack.

    However I don't like P&W so chummy with producers ...ugh

    At least I agree with them that they have no ideas.

    And "gasp" that Bond should have slid away and returned to M.

    And any Bond villain that acknowledges and fights evil like isis is a villain I can live with.
    Yes, good observations here @clarkdevlin & @mcdonbb.
    I think Purvis and Wade are making the case quite well themselves for their own future exclusion.
    ==== As I am predicting a 3rd and final installment of a Craig-Mendes trilogy.
    I wonder if Mendes would actually want to call the new Bond , Shatterhand?
    YOLT is one of the Flemings he has read,so he does know the connection that the name has with the source material

    Also he does seem to like one word titles. And Shatterhand does offer a cinema-Bond vibe.
    I am not a big fan of either of the two Mendes films thus far, but I am curious, now that we are this far down the rabbit hole, to see what he might do with a SP follow-up Blofled-Shatterhand film


  • Posts: 11,119
    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/purvis-wade-discuss-writing-007-films/
    These two guys, Purvis and Wade, lost every bit of inspiration. Hearing them talk like that, would make me seriously consider to fire them.

    It's almost like they....give up completely. While I seriously think that especially the world we're living in makes the world of Bond so much more interesting. The late Ian Fleming would have gotten tons of inspiration out of guys like Julian Assange, Donald Trump, Snowden and Putin. It's the very essence of kicking off a good Bond story.

    And frankly, I know myself that it's actually much easier than you think to create a fresh, new Bond story. I actually wrote one myself!
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/17687/james-bond-007-in-murder-on-wheels-a-story-treatment#latest

    No seriously, I'm done with Purvis & Wade.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 386
    I miss the old two-year production cycles. If Craig reprises his role for a 2018 release date, he would've been Bond for 12 years - the same as Roger Moore.

    We really do miss the best years of these actors' lives by allowing these gargantuan projects to take up 3-4 years of production.

    Two years. The market is demonstrably there. Follow the Disney/Star Wars model. Form another production company if necessary. Get the resources in. It's not as if the returns won't justify the outlay.
  • I think they should also consider the continuation novels. There are so many now, they can pick and choose. They opened the door with SPECTRE and the torture scene (with the vague credit in the end titles).
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 6,844
    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/purvis-wade-discuss-writing-007-films/
    These two guys, Purvis and Wade, lost every bit of inspiration. Hearing them talk like that, would make me seriously consider to fire them.

    It's almost like they....give up completely. While I seriously think that especially the world we're living in makes the world of Bond so much more interesting. The late Ian Fleming would have gotten tons of inspiration out of guys like Julian Assange, Donald Trump, Snowden and Putin. It's the very essence of kicking off a good Bond story.

    And frankly, I know myself that it's actually much easier than you think to create a fresh, new Bond story. I actually wrote one myself!
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/17687/james-bond-007-in-murder-on-wheels-a-story-treatment#latest

    No seriously, I'm done with Purvis & Wade.

    There's no firing needing to be done. Purvis and Wade openly retired from Bond after Skyfall, then were begged back for one more when the team found themselves in a mess script-wise. Their comments about SPECTRE feeling like an end to things suggests that once again, after six films, they are done with writing Bond and would prefer to move on to other things. It sounds like they have plenty of interesting projects in the works and are not for want of work. In other words, Bond probably needs them more than they need Bond. The way the films are being put together lately—post Casino Royale really—I don't blame them for wanting out.

    Also their comments on the state of things in the world at large doesn't make it sound like they are wanting for inspiration so much as they are commenting on how, sadly, the world itself is becoming more and more fantasy-like.
  • Posts: 386
    I have to say that Casino Royale stands as the only piece of inspired writing in that lot. When I think of Purvis and Wade I see a lot of botched opportunities.

    Having said that, writing to a Bond formula, with so many eyes over your shoulder, can't be easy.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Also their comments on the state of things in the world at large doesn't make it sound like they are wanting for inspiration so much as they are commenting on how, sadly, the world itself is becoming more and more fantasy-like.

    But that's why I responed. And I understand their reaction. But I see it as a good thing, from where new inspiration can come from, whereas Purvis & Wade see it as a negative thing.

    The period in which we are living now is very much becoming like Fleming's world shortly before and after the Second World War and during the Cold War. We're heading towards uncertain, ultra-nationalist, protectionist, isolationist times again. And in such an environment espionage......an with it James Bond....becomes important again! Plentiful inspiration for new Bond films if you ask me.

  • Posts: 16,169
    I think they should also consider the continuation novels. There are so many now, they can pick and choose. They opened the door with SPECTRE and the torture scene (with the vague credit in the end titles).

    I agree with this. Some cool Bond stories, Zero Minus Ten, High Time To Kill, Devil May Care,and so forth have been created long after Fleming. Could be great movies.
    Also, there were several Gardner titles I thought were very Bondian (Icebreaker, Role of Honour, Scorpius, Brokenclaw etc), and the elements that maybe wouldn't quite work in the continuation novels could always be altered. They had no problem changing Fleming's work.
    At the very least it would give Eon a guideline and map for the future rather than the attitude of "what's the current world threat?" and trying to fit Bond into current topics.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    What a massive fuck up we're in. The only thing we've heard thus far that sounds like it has a hint of truth is the obscure redditor.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 154
    Red_Snow wrote: »

    The thing is,” Neal Purvis frowns, “I’m just not sure how you would go about writing a James Bond film now.”




    This is exactly why they shouldn't be writing Bond. Given some of the current events they listed, I see a number of story possibilities. And that's just scratching the surface. Bond doesn't always have to be the mirror on what is happening at the moment either. There are big missions and smaller, more personal capers. The problem should be choosing one from among the many. Babs should immediately hire someone who desperately wants to write a Bond film … or allow a few writers -- on spec -- to take their own best shots with a treatment and see what develops.

    This kills me. Similarly, the way some filmmakers feel about other properties. (e.g., after over 50 years of Spider-Man comics -- at least one a month and for many years several a month -- they feel they've run out of ideas after two or three movies. HUH?)

    Looking forward to getting some new blood into the Bond films -- people who would be honored (honoured?) to do the series and the character justice.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    It seems just because you have the same genes, doesn't mean you're a good producer ;(
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    This is the comment in the P&W article which interested me the most:

    Spectre felt like it closed off a certain way of doing Bond,” Purvis told The Telegraph. “And I think whatever happens next will be quite different.

    Very illuminating revelation there, from someone who has no incentive at this point to play tricks with the media.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    What exactly this entails scares me. Does he mean going back to period movies?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I thought he meant that we are going to get something new.

    Either another reboot (soft?) or at least a re-imagining of sorts.

    It's interesting that you mention period movies, because after SP came out there was some talk of the producers meeting with Matthew Weiner (of noted 60's tv drama Mad Men fame), although that was debunked I think.
  • What exactly this entails scares me. Does he mean going back to period movies?

    *Back* to period movies? They've never done a period movie.

    To illustrate what I mean, look at Murder My Sweet (1942) and Farewell My Lovely (1975). They're both based on the same Raymond Chandler movie. The former was filmed three years after the novel came out. The latter decades later.

    When you do a period movie, the dynamic changes. You know how world events turn out. At the same time, you're more free to confront issues when you do a period movie. (Farewell My Lovely confronted racial issues that Murder My Sweet didn't.)

    If you did a period Bond movie, it wouldn't be a copy of the 1960s 007 movies made. Doing a movie *set in the 1960s* is different than movie *filmed during the 1960s.*

  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    I agree I misspoke.
  • I agree I misspoke.

    No worries.

    If Eon did a Bond film as a period piece it would absolutely be a major change.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    I thought he meant that we are going to get something new.

    Either another reboot (soft?) or at least a re-imagining of sorts.

    It's interesting that you mention period movies, because after SP came out there was some talk of the producers meeting with Matthew Weiner (of noted 60's tv drama Mad Men fame), although that was debunked I think.

    It was raised in this 2015 story in the Express:

    http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/611241/007-return-heyday-era-1960s

    Personally, I never saw it referred to since. If anyone has more info, that'd be great.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Making a Bond movie period piece isn't going to recapture the magic of that era.
  • Posts: 386
    I'd be disappointed if there is indeed some hand-wringing going on about how to approach the next Bond.

    There are so many avenues they could explore. Bond staying with Madeleine. Blofeld's escape and revenge. Brexit. An all-out attack on MI6.

    Or just a stupid, nefarious villain in the grand tradition of Bond.

    What's with the angst? I can just see Cubby saying "Get the movies out there. Get the best people in and crank 'em out."
  • Posts: 1,680
    If Craig does the next one the earliest will be 2019, it will be his last unless they film two back to back which I doubt. Then expect another 4 year gap for a break & Bond #7 to emerge.

    The next era needs to resume the two year schedule with the exception of 3 years every now & then,
  • GetCarter wrote: »

    What's with the angst? I can just see Cubby saying "Get the movies out there. Get the best people in and crank 'em out."

    This.

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    What exactly this entails scares me. Does he mean going back to period movies?

    *Back* to period movies? They've never done a period movie.

    To illustrate what I mean, look at Murder My Sweet (1942) and Farewell My Lovely (1975). They're both based on the same Raymond Chandler movie. The former was filmed three years after the novel came out. The latter decades later.

    When you do a period movie, the dynamic changes. You know how world events turn out. At the same time, you're more free to confront issues when you do a period movie. (Farewell My Lovely confronted racial issues that Murder My Sweet didn't.)

    If you did a period Bond movie, it wouldn't be a copy of the 1960s 007 movies made. Doing a movie *set in the 1960s* is different than movie *filmed during the 1960s.*

    Exactly right. Bond has never been a period character. Fleming set him present day, the films likewise.
    Some continuation novelists thought that by recreating Bond in Fleming's era would make them as good as Fleming. X_X
  • I feel P&W get some seriously unfair treatment. Film is a director’s medium and even then the Bond films are heavily influenced by EON.

    The writers are essentially guns for hire. I imagine when they were parachuted in to do a rewrite on Spectre they had a myriad of ideas to rescue the script. It’s likely one of them was the Oberhauser angle – something that Mendes gravitated to. I know it’s stupid, but the whole Bond/Blofeld dynamic has Sam’s fingerprints all over it more than P&W.

    Westminster%2BBridge%2Bspectre4.jpg
    DAT ASS!

    Also, I feel the decision to make Bond walk over to Mi6 on the bridge is fantastic. I always found the ending on the bridge to be so twee and on the nose. “Which will Bond choose?” His decision to walk over to Madeleine is cringeworthy. Having him make the decision to choose his Mi6 life is pure Fleming. Just look at the ending of the Moonraker novel. It’s a shame that Sam chose the more obvious and gooey ending (having said that the final scene with Bond and Madeleine in the DB5 is fantastic).

    I always see P&W as great writers to provide the bones of the script. I feel they write decent enough first drafts for subsequent writers to punch up. When it’s the other way round it doesn’t work. Here are some observations:

    • Their script for CR allowed Paul Haggis to come in and sprinkle some magic. However, when Haggis was given free reign for QOS, we got a untidy script that was difficult to salvage.

    • Clearly P&W did a good job on SF but John Logan gave the script the literate gravitas it needed. When Logan was allowed to do his thing for Spectre it led to something pretty unusable by all accounts.

    For better or worse, P&W know the structure of these movies and understand Bond’s world. They provide the foundations of what will later become great films.


  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited January 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Sorry. But, they don't. If one understands the Bond world, one doesn't rehash the same story all over again. P&W's story structure:

    Treason
    Lack of Trust in the home team
    Mole/Double Agent
    Bond goes rogue
    MI6 is weakened
    Public outrage on the spy world
    Bond makes bad choices

    And starting with the Craig era:
    Almost every ally is killed, Bond blames himself or gets the bad rap from higher-ups.

    Since The World Is Not Enough, we have been getting nothing but these. With these writers the Bond films have been derailed narration-wise. Get someone who actually knows what they're doing. There are plenty of people out there who can deliver the goods. Hell, even some people in here among the community can pen spot on stories and screenplays that would seem original every time. Purvis and Wade have been offering only one image. The features are listed above.

    Time for a new blood.
Sign In or Register to comment.