› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…5758606263…2507

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Germanlady wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    You missed what I was saying. Bond films offer more than just stunts you know, thrilling stories, plots and character explorations can still be told. These elements haven't already culminated with the Craig era so far.

    I'm not saying Craig shouldn't be 100% devoid of stunt work but his work on CR was the least stunt work he's done out of his 4 movies. When QoS came around he was pretty vocal about how much more stunts he was doing himself. The man is pushing 50, he isn't Tom Cruise fit, he needs to go back to roughly the amount of stunt work he was doing for CR and let the professionals take the more serious stuff. If the scripts/story is great then there's no need for him to leave if he's still interested. The compromise would simply be him taking a little step back from his own thrill seeking and thus saving himself further injury.

    Could well be, that he feels this scenario is half-arsed, like it was already in a way for Spectre ater the injury. I think, people would be quite happy having less action but a real great thriller. Just doubt, they can deliver that. Sadly. For a reason, they have all the money in the world, but can't seem to get a great, logical script. Even SF was a wonderful execution of a rather plot holy script. I wonder why that is. For me, it was only DC, that saved the films from being a failure. The way he acts it out, even the dullest lines become somewhat interesting.

    I agree with that.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    You missed what I was saying. Bond films offer more than just stunts you know, thrilling stories, plots and character explorations can still be told. These elements haven't already culminated with the Craig era so far.

    I'm not saying Craig shouldn't be 100% devoid of stunt work but his work on CR was the least stunt work he's done out of his 4 movies. When QoS came around he was pretty vocal about how much more stunts he was doing himself. The man is pushing 50, he isn't Tom Cruise fit, he needs to go back to roughly the amount of stunt work he was doing for CR and let the professionals take the more serious stuff. If the scripts/story is great then there's no need for him to leave if he's still interested. The compromise would simply be him taking a little step back from his own thrill seeking and thus saving himself further injury.

    Could well be, that he feels this scenario is half-arsed, like it was already in a way for Spectre ater the injury. I think, people would be quite happy having less action but a real great thriller. Just doubt, they can deliver that. Sadly. For a reason, they have all the money in the world, but can't seem to get a great, logical script. Even SF was a wonderful execution of a rather plot holy script. I wonder why that is. For me, it was only DC, that saved the films from being a failure. The way he acts it out, even the dullest lines become somewhat interesting.
    I agree with that.
    So do I, up to SP. I did not feel DC transcended SP, like he did QoS. He just blended into it.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    edited February 2016 Posts: 6,601
    For me, he was more front and center and in command in this than in QOS ands SF. If he hadn't given this performance, the film would have died a less then 700 mill death. IMO..

    Despite it all, it was fun watching him being Bond. More Bond then before.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Germanlady wrote: »
    For me, he was more front and center and in command in this than in QOS ands SF. If he hadn't given this performance, the film would have died a less then 700 mill death. IMO..

    Despite it all, it was fun watching him being Bond. More Bond then before.

    Absolutely agree. He's got too much more to offer this character, and continues to evolve with age.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited February 2016 Posts: 2,015
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Like I said previously, if Craig stays and if injury is such a concern, he needs to keep quiet about doing his own stunts and let stuntmen and body doubles do the jobs they're paid to do. Craig isn't Tom Cruise. Craig had plenty of stunt assistance for CR and that is easily his best film. Stick to that model and problem solved.

    Just merely becoming super fit again for the movie means a lot of work off screen... No one can double him here. If your knee is a problem, then goodbye the "easy" running to loose fat, etc.

    And they've alread played the "unfit Bond" card in SF. Craig can't make his DAF Bond IMO :) He has to be super fit once again for the next one if he does one more, I think.


  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Wired tight and looking like he could actually murder you in unarmed combat.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    So are we saying we don't want him flaunting the Connery DAF/Brosnan DAD beer belly?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited February 2016 Posts: 11,139
    Suivez_ce_parachute wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Like I said previously, if Craig stays and if injury is such a concern, he needs to keep quiet about doing his own stunts and let stuntmen and body doubles do the jobs they're paid to do. Craig isn't Tom Cruise. Craig had plenty of stunt assistance for CR and that is easily his best film. Stick to that model and problem solved.

    Just merely becoming super fit again for the movie means a lot of work off screen... No one can double him here. If your knee is a problem, then goodbye the "easy" running to loose fat, etc.

    And they've alread played the "unfit Bond" card in SF. Craig can't make his DAF Bond IMO :) He has to be super fit once again for the next one if he does one more, I think.


    Craig's a naturally fit guy and to LOOK like you're in decent shape isn't that difficult if you've had a knee injury and you've got well over a year on your side to look decent. I've suffered more injuries that I care to count where I couldn't go running or jogging and been able to remain in top shape. There's a difference between looking fit and being fit and it's not like we actually NEED to see Craig doing all kinds of crazy shit, again just get the stuntman if we have to have Bond running cross country and jumping around rooftop buildings..
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Germanlady wrote: »
    For me, he was more front and center and in command in this than in QOS ands SF. If he hadn't given this performance, the film would have died a less then 700 mill death. IMO..

    Despite it all, it was fun watching him being Bond. More Bond then before.

    I agree as well. Not sure how people are saying that he seemed bored in this film. He completely owned it this time around & definitely seems to get better with age.

  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Yeah, the bored complaint is insane. He was into everything that was going on every single second of SP. Maybe people are confusing more relaxed in the role with bored?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote: »
    For me, he was more front and center and in command in this than in QOS ands SF. If he hadn't given this performance, the film would have died a less then 700 mill death. IMO..

    Despite it all, it was fun watching him being Bond. More Bond then before.

    Agreed. If I want to see his QoS performance I'll watch QoS. I thought his performance in SP perfectly complimented the story.
  • GeneralGogolGeneralGogol
    Posts: 928
    A disappointing trend in Craig's four films, as in Brosnan's four films, is that each subsequent picture tried to outdo the previous one in terms of outrageous stunts, bigger opening action sequence, deeper and more personal plot, etc. Unfortunately, trying to up the ante in all regards has proven to backfire just too many times, for whatever reasons. Bond 25 should have a solid script first foremost, and it shouldn't be a requirement at all on Craig having to outdo his previous stunts. Stick to what Bond is really all about, and don't blatantly try to compete with Bourne and Cruise. Obviously, there's got to be action sequences, just not every 20 minutes for the sake of it. There are other ways that Bond films can be thrilling and visually arresting.
  • ChampionAlonsoChampionAlonso
    Posts: 389
    I had always thought in a 2018 release. Maybe 9 th november .
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    I was expecting another 3 year gap anyway.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2016 Posts: 6,304
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Was anybody actually expecting a 2017 film?

    I did an informal Internet survey on Facebook and five fans out of 19 voted for 2017. Moreover, these are long-time fans who are familiar with series and its history. I think it's more out of hope.

    We were in a similar situation with SPECTRE. There were absolutely no signs in the first half of 2013 that it could be ready for a 2014 release. It became official in July 2013.

    As soon as Craig made the "slit his wrists" comment, it was clear we were not going to get a 2017 film. Eon either needs to let Craig have a break (the films are bloody exhausting and he seems to rely on his stunt double less than most) or cast a new Bond, and both of those will take time.

    Replacing Craig is going to be almost as difficult as replacing Connery. If he goes now, we are definitely at 2018 or 2019. Eon may think a four-year gap is too long, but then again, CR.

    Craig is in demand. We won't see another two-year gap until the new Bond actor's second film, if then.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    You missed what I was saying. Bond films offer more than just stunts you know, thrilling stories, plots and character explorations can still be told. These elements haven't already culminated with the Craig era so far.

    I'm not saying Craig shouldn't be 100% devoid of stunt work but his work on CR was the least stunt work he's done out of his 4 movies. When QoS came around he was pretty vocal about how much more stunts he was doing himself. The man is pushing 50, he isn't Tom Cruise fit, he needs to go back to roughly the amount of stunt work he was doing for CR and let the professionals take the more serious stuff. If the scripts/story is great then there's no need for him to leave if he's still interested. The compromise would simply be him taking a little step back from his own thrill seeking and thus saving himself further injury.

    Could well be, that he feels this scenario is half-arsed, like it was already in a way for Spectre ater the injury. I think, people would be quite happy having less action but a real great thriller. Just doubt, they can deliver that. Sadly. For a reason, they have all the money in the world, but can't seem to get a great, logical script. Even SF was a wonderful execution of a rather plot holy script. I wonder why that is. For me, it was only DC, that saved the films from being a failure. The way he acts it out, even the dullest lines become somewhat interesting.

    The script: P&W/Haggis was a better combination than Logan/P&W. Logan needs to go. If he hadn't botched the script, P&W wouldn't have had to come in and "rescue" it, we wouldn't have had Oberhauser, etc.

    The direction: I may be in the minority but I think Mendes is terrible at directing action. (He missed the "money shots" of people falling out of the helicopter and Bond's parachute in action in Rome--compare, if you will, the opening of the parachute in the helicopter-explosion moment in GE. It's a nice little grace note.) Give us a new director, or Campbell. If Craig stays, odds are it will be a director he has worked with before and can entice to do it.
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    edited February 2016 Posts: 1,596
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It's not "insane", it's observation. Use words and terms that can be taken seriously.

    Haha well said.

    Also Craig's turkey gobble gobble chin was noticeable in this film and when he grabbed Madelaine's hand it looked like grandpa comforting his grand child before a dentist appointment, not a romantic relationship. Overall it worked but that moment felt like Roger and Tanya roberts

    He's getting old. Moore never looked as old as he was. Craig looks 50, despite the "rock hard body" etc etc.

    I'd like him to do one more, because I like a veteran bond then be done.

  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    Even on a three year gap they still have to have the cast, crew, director, locations & script ready by April/May 2017. Thats only 12-14 months from now.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think they'll get cracking once the studio negotiations are sorted out, with or without DC. Of course, they will do their best to keep him, as they should. However, I wouldn't be surprised if preliminary discussions with other actors have taken shape already.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    ThighsOfXenia wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It's not "insane", it's observation. Use words and terms that can be taken seriously.

    Haha well said.

    Also Craig's turkey gobble gobble chin was noticeable in this film and when he grabbed Madelaine's hand it looked like grandpa comforting his grand child before a dentist appointment, not a romantic relationship. Overall it worked but that moment felt like Roger and Tanya roberts

    He's getting old. Moore never looked as old as he was. Craig looks 50, despite the "rock hard body" etc etc.

    I'd like him to do one more, because I like a veteran bond then be done.

    You bring up a good point. Moore in TSWLM is still 100 percent convincing. Craig in SPECTRE is beginning to show his age, especially given his love interest could pass for 23. If both return for B25 Seydoux will look the same whilst Craig is at that age where a few years makes a big difference. Imagine if Bibi had shown up in AVTAK!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    He seems to have had some work done around the eye area (noticed it right away in the pretitles) imho. Not that there's anything wrong with that, if it's your cup of tea.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    bondjames wrote: »
    He seems to have had some work done around the eye area (noticed it right away in the pretitles) imho. Not that there's anything wrong with that, if it's your cup of tea.

    Are you talking Moore in AVTAK?

    Because, far as I can tell, Craig's done nothing (outside of a suspected hair weave to give him slightly more dense hair coverage).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    He seems to have had some work done around the eye area (noticed it right away in the pretitles) imho. Not that there's anything wrong with that, if it's your cup of tea.

    Are you talking Moore in AVTAK?

    Because, far as I can tell, Craig's done nothing (outside of a suspected hair weave to give him slightly more dense hair coverage).
    There was something distinctly different about his eyes during the Mexico scene when he's chasing Sciarra. Either it is special effects, bad makeup, or some work. I noticed it later in another scene as well but can't recall where.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    He seems to have had some work done around the eye area (noticed it right away in the pretitles) imho. Not that there's anything wrong with that, if it's your cup of tea.

    Are you talking Moore in AVTAK?

    Because, far as I can tell, Craig's done nothing (outside of a suspected hair weave to give him slightly more dense hair coverage).
    There was something distinctly different about his eyes during the Mexico scene when he's chasing Sciarra. Either it is special effects, bad makeup, or some work. I noticed it later in another scene as well but can't recall where.

    I agree. I remember at the press conference thinking his eyes look different. Could just be age.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    I can't believe people are writing off DC.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I'm going to keep an "eye" out for this (my apologies for the bad, intended, pun). But his face, to me, looked as craggy as ever (something I love since he looks as if he's "lived in his skin".
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    I've said this before & it's just my opinion/obeservation. I thought Craig looked his oldest in Skyfall. To me, he looked very similar to how he looked in CR during SPECTRE. Especially at some of the photoshoots/premieres.
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,596
    It's been 9 years and it shows. He looks more than 10 years older than he did in CR I think, although you're right that his big jump was from 2008 to 2012. @LeChiffre I'm not writing him off. I've never minded an older Bond, I like the veteran aspect. Adds to the world weary element.

    I just think they need to get him a (slightly) more age appropriate Bond girl. Sometimes Madelaine works and looks fine, but other times she looks like she might as well be her daughter (Seydoux doesn't look as old as she is, and "old as she is" isn't very old compared to Craig to begin with).
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,596
    Birdleson wrote: »
    See. I actually had the good taste to remove the witty comment I had meant to post here.

    Was it a jab at me

  • ChampionAlonsoChampionAlonso
    Posts: 389
    In this article (Spanish) it´s said that MGM may biring the date forward to 2017
    http://www.elmulticine.com/noticias2.php?orden=470394
    IMHO, it´s pure bullshit.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Unless they already have 80% of a shooting script it's not even remotely possible to get a 2017 release date.
Sign In or Register to comment.