No Time To Die: Production Diary

15725735755775782507

Comments

  • Posts: 9,843
    My issue with period bond is simple Bond was never written to be a period piece. Fleming always made bond of the times (hence Ursula Andress showing up in On her majesties Secret Service) And in both novel and Film I just am more curious to see what Bond will do today rather then in the 50's (though a few 70's period novels would not be horrible only because that was extremely unexplored but beyond that...)

    Again the wrap up for the craig era is easy to write and direct and should be a walk in the park MY CONCERN is while I don't mind a revenge film with you only live twice elements strewn about others might as it is the safe and predictable path the issue is how to get those people on board (biggest bang for you buck) and again for the life of me I can't think of how to show bond's new world as a diplomat for UK's Foreign office code named 7777 without it lasting an hour (again Bond and either Tanaka or a Tanaka substitute need to bond and for bond to realize that he is like the Samurai of old a warrior destined to fight evil forever and can't just give it up because others need to live a normal life) and there would be a considerable lack of action the only solutions

    1. Stealling from Nightfire where the Tanaka substitute is nearly assanated by the Yakuza (or local mob if this isn't taking place in Japan) and Bond is forced into action
    2. Gala's first two kills making her the new 007 (though considering how many complained about Bond not being in the action piece in TLD I am unsure if I want to push Craig's bond in this same situation)

    again if this main issue is solved the rest of the film can fall in line (Swann can either show up accidentally or she as a Doctor is part of this diplomatic mission and the focus on bond as Diplomat and his push toward his old life would be enough of a difference I think)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Well, if the sixties Cold War story brings the invulnerable Connery Bond stereotype back, then I'm all for it. But, if we are to have drama and emotional circulation then no, I wouldn't want the sixties period to tear down before my eyes.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Risico007 wrote: »
    My issue with period bond is simple Bond was never written to be a period piece.

    In a nutshell. If you want period, read Fleming.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Risico007 wrote: »
    My issue with period bond is simple Bond was never written to be a period piece. Fleming always made bond of the times (hence Ursula Andress showing up in On her majesties Secret Service) And in both novel and Film I just am more curious to see what Bond will do today rather then in the 50's (though a few 70's period novels would not be horrible only because that was extremely unexplored but beyond that...)

    Again the wrap up for the craig era is easy to write and direct and should be a walk in the park MY CONCERN is while I don't mind a revenge film with you only live twice elements strewn about others might as it is the safe and predictable path the issue is how to get those people on board (biggest bang for you buck) and again for the life of me I can't think of how to show bond's new world as a diplomat for UK's Foreign office code named 7777 without it lasting an hour (again Bond and either Tanaka or a Tanaka substitute need to bond and for bond to realize that he is like the Samurai of old a warrior destined to fight evil forever and can't just give it up because others need to live a normal life) and there would be a considerable lack of action the only solutions

    1. Stealling from Nightfire where the Tanaka substitute is nearly assanated by the Yakuza (or local mob if this isn't taking place in Japan) and Bond is forced into action
    2. Gala's first two kills making her the new 007 (though considering how many complained about Bond not being in the action piece in TLD I am unsure if I want to push Craig's bond in this same situation)

    again if this main issue is solved the rest of the film can fall in line (Swann can either show up accidentally or she as a Doctor is part of this diplomatic mission and the focus on bond as Diplomat and his push toward his old life would be enough of a difference I think)

    If the makers decide to adapt a Fleming novel at the time it was written then it has no choice than to be a period piece.

    I'd like to see it done for television. Imagine faithful adaptations of Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever!
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    If Bond 25 comes out in 2019, I want Craig gone. I really like him as Bond, but I don't want to wait 4 years from SP to B25 only to have another 3/4 years hiatus because they have to recast after that. No way in hell do I want to be 31 or 32 years old by the time Bond 26 comes out. I was 17 years old when QOS came out, and you are telling me I'll be nearly twice as old when the 4th film post-QOS will be made?

    I feel that! Imagine getting into your late thirties/early forties (Bond's general age) and realizing there have only been a small handful of Bond movies released since you were 17.
    If we do get Craig in 2019 for one more than another actor for B26, at this rate there will probably be another 4 year gap. By that calculation, it will be 8 years after SP that we get the next Bond actor with only one film in between.
    Its just ridiculous we as fans should be treated better

    You mean treated as special?

    Treated 'better' means they give out more information, which means releasing information to the press and the wider world (who aren't really interested). And if there is nothing to tell what exactly do they say?

    You think as fans we should be slipped a few secret nuggets of information via a web site like this?

    The thing is, the producers have lives, they have better things to do than update a bunch of nerds on the progress of a film that the said nerds will probably hate anyway.
    ( If there is one thing you can rely on hardcore fans to do, it's pull a film apart bit by bit and roast it over a spit.)

    Sadly Eon do not make Bond films for us. They make them for everyone, with a view to a healthy profit and a worthwhile addition to the franchise.

    When there is something worth reporting they will do so. Via the usual channels.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm happy that I have 24 entries to enjoy.

    It's increasingly clear that the current team's philosophy is not to churn the entries out on a 2 year cycle like they did previously. While I don't buy any arguments that this is due to production complexity and cost (Disney does it every year with both their Marvel and SW franchises), I have to accept it. What choice do I have? However, I certainly don't have to like it, and I don't.

    If I had a choice between the previous 2 year cycle (even with the substandard, imho, films that were produced during the Brosnan run) or the 3-4 year cycle they are on now, I know which one I'd pick. Hint: It's not the more recent approach.

    I only hope that once Craig is gone, EON adjust their approach once again and perhaps take us back to a more regular cycle. I believe a studio shakeup, an EON leadership transfer to the next generation and an actor change are all prerequisites for my hope being fulfilled.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    Looking at how Disney handle and market the Star Wars franchise, I'd be quite happy for Bond to end up at Disney.
  • Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    My issue with period bond is simple Bond was never written to be a period piece.

    In a nutshell. If you want period, read Fleming.

    But film Bond can frankly be set in any era then, so why the hang up about doing a period film.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I think a period film could be done as a one off on TV but it wouldn't make money at the cinema.
    People want Bond to move with the times,and he has to appeal to young and old.
    A period film wouldn't appeal to the younger audience.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    My issue with period bond is simple Bond was never written to be a period piece.

    In a nutshell. If you want period, read Fleming.

    But film Bond can frankly be set in any era then, so why the hang up about doing a period film.

    It's a slippery slope. Why not set one in the future?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Even period films (like Indiana Jones) have to be made in a way to appeal to the masses.
    The Bond films have always been action/adventure films. That's what sells.

    We have to face it, they won't make a serious reproduction of a Fleming story and cut all of the action out. As barry says it's about box office.
  • Posts: 16,149
    Seems to me, period pieces seem most popular with current audiences when the stories are set not that far into the past. 20 years for example, gives a sense of nostalgia. It seems a lot of people aren't interested in seeing anything that takes place before they were born. So the 60's might be out of the question for a lot of people.
    Today's audience would probably prefer a Bond film set in their favorite decade: the 1990's.
    Since they would have grown up during the Craig era and flatly refused to see any of the earlier entries (assuming pre-Craig Bonds would all be cheesy like Austin Powers), they'd probably think it would be cool to see 007 pull out a giant cell phone Zach Morris Saved By The Bell Style, and expect to see Bond sport a MacGyver mullet.
    Sarcasm aside, I've always been a firm supporter of the idea of a cold war period Bond. Someone like Aidan Turner cast in the role could suit that style amazingly. I just feel the coolness of a cold war setting would go over many audience's heads.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    I now demand that the next film feature Bond sporting a sweet mullet.
  • Posts: 16,149
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I now demand that the next film feature Bond sporting a sweet mullet.

    Didn't someone awhile back post a pretty funny picture of Craig with 90's grunge band long hair?

  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Period piece won't happen, Broccoli has already ruled it out when she said Bond must always move forward with the time, constantly evolving.
  • marketto007marketto007 Brazil
    Posts: 3,277
    Benny wrote: »
    Looking at how Disney handle and market the Star Wars franchise, I'd be quite happy for Bond to end up at Disney.

    Same here @Benny.

  • Posts: 202
    Period piece won't happen, Broccoli has already ruled it out when she said Bond must always move forward with the time, constantly evolving.

    Moving forward with the time....but at a snails pace ;)



  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    A period movie is not a good idea, IMO. Once Craig is finished, I wouldn't mind a 5-8 year break from movies, for the sake of making faithful Fleming adaptations in the form of lower budget TV series or TV films. I would even encourage that. Perhaps even with different actors in the role of Bond.

    bondjames wrote: »
    If I had a choice between the previous 2 year cycle (even with the substandard, imho, films that were produced during the Brosnan run) or the 3-4 year cycle they are on now, I know which one I'd pick. Hint: It's not the more recent approach.

    Definitely. Longer gap, as we have seen, doesn't guarantee a better film.

    Benny wrote: »
    Or he could just be tired of being asked the question of whether he'll be Bond.

    I remember a video of him from about a year ago, where he did the same thing. He literally said to the journalist "You won't get any Bond talk from me". Turner is probably the only one of the rumoured actors who refuses to comment about it.

  • gt007gt007 Station G
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,182
    Bond has always been a contemporary character. Each film is a product and reflection of its time. Setting BOND 25 (or any future film) in the '60s would come off as an attempt to imitate the first few films for publicity reasons. The trick is to make a film that's contemporary, yet timeless. A film that takes place today (i.e. the year it comes out) but doesn't rely on too modern things, making it feel like it could have been any other year. That's what makes a film classic IMO (given, of course, good plot, performances, etc.).

    Now, as for TV adaptations, spin-offs etc., I wouldn't like any of those. I'd rather have all the production focus on the main film series, perhaps at a slightly faster pace. Do one thing and do it as best as one possibly can.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    Period piece won't happen, Broccoli has already ruled it out when she said Bond must always move forward with the time, constantly evolving.

    But he's not evolving. EON has stayed away from placing Bond in the realities of a post-9/11 world. Yes, CR dealt with funding terrorism, but for the most part, Bond doesn't tackle today's world at all. It's too controversial. Bond doesn't and can't operate in the world of Zero dark Thirty, even though he probably should.

    By placing Bond in the Cold War, there's no more concern about chronology, changing actors, etc. And the enemies make sense and don't offend anyone. And Spectre's dealings make more sense.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited January 2017 Posts: 4,116
    But no relevance. Bond is escapism. He doesn't have to tackle real world ...
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Might be time to hand over the reigns to Gregg Wilson.

    They should have did that after skyfall

    Nah. His part of the film sucked.
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    TripAces wrote: »
    Period piece won't happen, Broccoli has already ruled it out when she said Bond must always move forward with the time, constantly evolving.

    But he's not evolving. EON has stayed away from placing Bond in the realities of a post-9/11 world. Yes, CR dealt with funding terrorism, but for the most part, Bond doesn't tackle today's world at all. It's too controversial. Bond doesn't and can't operate in the world of Zero dark Thirty, even though he probably should.

    By placing Bond in the Cold War, there's no more concern about chronology, changing actors, etc. And the enemies make sense and don't offend anyone. And Spectre's dealings make more sense.

    It might give interesting stories, but I don't think it is commercially interesting. They'd probably have to look for other sponsors. After watching a Bond film lots of people want to be like Bond in sense of style and fashion - that is commercially interesting. I think that will append less to period films.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Benny wrote: »
    Looking at how Disney handle and market the Star Wars franchise, I'd be quite happy for Bond to end up at Disney.

    Same here @Benny.
    And here...I never thought of that !

  • CigaretteLeiterCigaretteLeiter United States
    Posts: 106

    I could deal with that, he's got that Fassbender-esque look to him

  • edited January 2017 Posts: 202

    I could deal with that, he's got that Fassbender-esque look to him

    He's Irish, moved to London to pursue acting. Another Pierce Brosnan?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'd rather they put someone who looks like an alpha male with a touch of sophistication and civilized gentleman in the role. AKA another Sean Connery.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I'd rather they put someone who looks like an alpha male with a touch of sophistication and civilized gentleman in the role. AKA another Sean Connery.
    They've been trying to find him for decades. Nowhere to be found. Same goes for another Moore (for those of us who like him too). Both irreplaceable, it seems.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Aidan Turner seems like a good mix of Connery and Dalton.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'd rather they put someone who looks like an alpha male with a touch of sophistication and civilized gentleman in the role. AKA another Sean Connery.
    They've been trying to find him for decades. Nowhere to be found. Same goes for another Moore (for those of us who like him too). Both irreplaceable, it seems.

    I agree.
Sign In or Register to comment.