No Time To Die: Production Diary

16576586606626632507

Comments

  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    While I don't think Craig is incredible in the role- I think he's fine, I'm yet to see an actor capable of taking over as bond and so that's why Craig needs to come back, because their is no real suitable replacement- or is there?
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Haven't we all forgotten this is the same guy who said Bond 25 is very far away and hasn't been close to the franchise since 2014 I'm waiting for something official not rumors by a tabloid not buying BAZ

    You mean from the same Eon that denied John Logan had been hired to write Bond 24? Just days before MGM announced it?

    The same Eon that denied that Ben Whishaw was playing Q?

    It doesn't necessarily mean he is right this time but if he is cheers to him im just saying I'd rather rely on official information then an insider
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 2,115
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Haven't we all forgotten this is the same guy who said Bond 25 is very far away and hasn't been close to the franchise since 2014 I'm waiting for something official not rumors by a tabloid not buying BAZ

    You mean from the same Eon that denied John Logan had been hired to write Bond 24? Just days before MGM announced it?

    The same Eon that denied that Ben Whishaw was playing Q?

    It doesn't necessarily mean he is right this time but if he is cheers to him im just saying I'd rather rely on official information then an insider

    True, but he has a long line of scoops proven correct over two films. Given his track record, it's pretty clear he's not just throwing crap against a wall and seeing what sticks.

    Also, given Eon's own track record (denying Whishaw was playing Q, denying John Logan had been hired, etc), it doesn't have a great record, either. At one point, Mendes denied SPECTRE would be the longest Bond film and days later the running time was released showing that it was. Mendes at the time was as insider as it got.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @007Blofeld, I was talking about Baz.
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Haven't we all forgotten this is the same guy who said Bond 25 is very far away and hasn't been close to the franchise since 2014 I'm waiting for something official not rumors by a tabloid not buying BAZ

    You mean from the same Eon that denied John Logan had been hired to write Bond 24? Just days before MGM announced it?

    The same Eon that denied that Ben Whishaw was playing Q?

    It doesn't necessarily mean he is right this time but if he is cheers to him im just saying I'd rather rely on official information then an insider

    True, but he has a long line of scoops proven correct over two films. Given his track record, it's pretty clear he's not just throwing crap against a wall and seeing what sticks.

    Also, given Eon's own track record (denying Whishaw was playing Q, denying John Logan had been hired, etc), it doesn't have a great record, either. At one point, Mendes denied SPECTRE would be the longest Bond film and days later the running time was released showing that it was. Mendes at the time was as insider as it got.

    What do you mean EON's track record? They didn't spoil who they'd casted in major roles early on and didn't spill about their behind the scenes negotiations. They're professionals.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    @007Blofeld, I was talking about Baz.
    @OBradyM0Bondfanatic7 oh ok I thought you meant me sorry if I got defensive yeah I agree Baz is

    :-?? >:D<
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @JamesBondKenya, SC was my main man while I was growing up, and I was growing up in the world of RM as 007, Christopher Reeve as Superman (the Sean Connery of ALL Supermen), Ronnie Regan and Thatcher and Pope John Paul (am I dating myself yet???), and I just kinda went with the new casting of 007 with a shrug since no one would ever be able to take the crown from Connery...

    At first, I found Dalton a breath of fresh air, and he was, when looking back at the crypt of RM. But, as I grew older, i realized I found RM far more engaging and fun to be around, and I appreciated his screen presence over Dalton.... (although I can appreciate and respect what Dalton was going for);

    I was never a fan of Brosnan and was ticked that Dalton wasn't continuing. The first time I saw GE, I hated most things about the film... But, once again, as time passed, my staunch opposition to Brosnan soften as well, and in a quick two years, by the time TND was released, I was growing more accepting of Brozzer, and actually started to enjoy the things he was trying to bring to the table.

    Besides... No one could beat King Connery, and I was resigned to this fact by now (including GL, I had seen four new 007s; in my life time I witnessed two out of the four of these changes), so I might as well reconcile myself to the change of actor and enjoy what they bring to the role...

    DC, to me, was a game changer... He killed it in CR... And immediately jumped to my number two (over time he's superseded King Connery at various points in my life, depending on mood, and so on...)

    So, to your point @JamesBondKenya, I do want DC back insofar as the other candidates have been not only below par, so far, they've been rendered impotent by not only the things DC has done, but, because he is such a wonderful actor, the things he CAN do (if presented with the appropriate material (and why he think he waits for the script before he commits to the next film))....
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    @007Blofeld, I was talking about Baz.
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Haven't we all forgotten this is the same guy who said Bond 25 is very far away and hasn't been close to the franchise since 2014 I'm waiting for something official not rumors by a tabloid not buying BAZ

    You mean from the same Eon that denied John Logan had been hired to write Bond 24? Just days before MGM announced it?

    The same Eon that denied that Ben Whishaw was playing Q?

    It doesn't necessarily mean he is right this time but if he is cheers to him im just saying I'd rather rely on official information then an insider

    True, but he has a long line of scoops proven correct over two films. Given his track record, it's pretty clear he's not just throwing crap against a wall and seeing what sticks.

    Also, given Eon's own track record (denying Whishaw was playing Q, denying John Logan had been hired, etc), it doesn't have a great record, either. At one point, Mendes denied SPECTRE would be the longest Bond film and days later the running time was released showing that it was. Mendes at the time was as insider as it got.

    What do you mean EON's track record? They didn't spoil who they'd casted in major roles early on and didn't spill about their behind the scenes negotiations. They're professionals.

    I agree things have changed after spectre like P&W said the way they do things change after spectre one of those changes is being paranoid about leaks and they sure are paranoid
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @007Blofeld, it's not just that. EON run a mega ship, and they should be able to work how they see fit. Of course the leaks would make anyone tight-lipped, but they also respect their collaborators and don't go sharing things unless they have a reason to. They're smart thinkers that way. Instead of spilling all these beans, they surprise audiences, and instead of revealing projected release dates for each new film early, they keep quiet and work until they know they have the exact date in mind so that nobody gets their hopes up if a delay happens.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    @007Blofeld, it's not just that. EON run a mega ship, and they should be able to work how they see fit. Of course the leaks would make anyone tight-lipped, but they also respect their collaborators and don't go sharing things unless they have a reason to. They're smart thinkers that way. Instead of spilling all these beans, they surprise audiences, and instead of revealing projected release dates for each new film early, they keep quiet and work until they know they have the exact date in mind so that nobody gets their hopes up if a delay happens.

    Yeah I just hope we just get some official stuff soon or things are seriously going to go haywire on the thread and through the bond fandom world every where
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think the point that was being made that has been missed is that EON denied things which ended up being a fact. In these cases, the professional thing to do is just to refuse to comment rather than to issue a denial, if that is in fact what they did (I was not following all the goings on prior to SP & SF's releases).
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited March 2017 Posts: 3,126
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think the point that was being made that has been missed is that EON denied things which ended up being a fact. In these cases, the professional thing to do is just to refuse to comment rather than to issue a denial, if that is in fact what they did (I was not following all the goings on prior to SP & SF's releases).

    We will see but they have been very quiet so it will take alot to get a peep out of them.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 2,115
    Deleted.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited March 2017 Posts: 3,126
    @007Blofeld, I was talking about Baz.
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Haven't we all forgotten this is the same guy who said Bond 25 is very far away and hasn't been close to the franchise since 2014 I'm waiting for something official not rumors by a tabloid not buying BAZ

    You mean from the same Eon that denied John Logan had been hired to write Bond 24? Just days before MGM announced it?

    The same Eon that denied that Ben Whishaw was playing Q?

    It doesn't necessarily mean he is right this time but if he is cheers to him im just saying I'd rather rely on official information then an insider

    True, but he has a long line of scoops proven correct over two films. Given his track record, it's pretty clear he's not just throwing crap against a wall and seeing what sticks.

    Also, given Eon's own track record (denying Whishaw was playing Q, denying John Logan had been hired, etc), it doesn't have a great record, either. At one point, Mendes denied SPECTRE would be the longest Bond film and days later the running time was released showing that it was. Mendes at the time was as insider as it got.

    What do you mean EON's track record? They didn't spoil who they'd casted in major roles early on and didn't spill about their behind the scenes negotiations. They're professionals.

    Eon denied Logan's hiring on a weekend and MGM announced it days later. Lying doesn't help your credibility or make you professional. Simply say, "We're not going to discuss it" instead of specifically denying it.

    Like I said P&W said things could have changed how they do bond after spectre including probably how they handle information but we will see it should be interesting to see if it does turn out right just don't be too surprised if it doesn't hopefully we get something soon because things are going haywire fast and questions need answering. Eon, MGM give us something please. :-??
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,589
    Soderbergh is a remarkable director; I am looking forward to seeing Logan Lucky.

    But I don't know if he is a good fit for Bond. He's done some good, Bond-like work, with the three Ocean's films and The Good German. So who knows. But those who want Thomas Newman out better had be careful what you wish for, here. Newman is in Soderbergh's stable of composers.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    @007Blofeld, it's not just that. EON run a mega ship, and they should be able to work how they see fit. Of course the leaks would make anyone tight-lipped, but they also respect their collaborators and don't go sharing things unless they have a reason to. They're smart thinkers that way. Instead of spilling all these beans, they surprise audiences, and instead of revealing projected release dates for each new film early, they keep quiet and work until they know they have the exact date in mind so that nobody gets their hopes up if a delay happens.

    Yeah I just hope we just get some official stuff soon or things are seriously going to go haywire on the thread and through the bond fandom world every where

    Forget them. They're all spoiled babies.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think the point that was being made that has been missed is that EON denied things which ended up being a fact. In these cases, the professional thing to do is just to refuse to comment rather than to issue a denial, if that is in fact what they did (I was not following all the goings on prior to SP & SF's releases).

    That works two or three ways. They say nothing, and the fans whine about how they never communicate anything to them (like they are doing now). They refuse to comment, and that basically just means a "Yes," to the question asked, which would equate to them spoiling a later reveal. If they answer "No," they are defusing what could've been a spoiler reveal, and by not answering yes, they don't make it look like any veil has been pulled away. "No" answers also trigger more discussion, as we debate if it was a truth or a lie. You can't do that with a yes response.

    Answering no is the best choice here, as it leads to the least amount of fan whining, which is a measurement I like to see on the low end at all times.
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    @007Blofeld, I was talking about Baz.
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Haven't we all forgotten this is the same guy who said Bond 25 is very far away and hasn't been close to the franchise since 2014 I'm waiting for something official not rumors by a tabloid not buying BAZ

    You mean from the same Eon that denied John Logan had been hired to write Bond 24? Just days before MGM announced it?

    The same Eon that denied that Ben Whishaw was playing Q?

    It doesn't necessarily mean he is right this time but if he is cheers to him im just saying I'd rather rely on official information then an insider

    True, but he has a long line of scoops proven correct over two films. Given his track record, it's pretty clear he's not just throwing crap against a wall and seeing what sticks.

    Also, given Eon's own track record (denying Whishaw was playing Q, denying John Logan had been hired, etc), it doesn't have a great record, either. At one point, Mendes denied SPECTRE would be the longest Bond film and days later the running time was released showing that it was. Mendes at the time was as insider as it got.

    What do you mean EON's track record? They didn't spoil who they'd casted in major roles early on and didn't spill about their behind the scenes negotiations. They're professionals.

    Eon denied Logan's hiring on a weekend and MGM announced it days later. Lying doesn't help your credibility or make you professional. Simply say, "We're not going to discuss it" instead of specifically denying it.

    Like I said P&W said things could have changed how they do bond after spectre including probably how they handle information but we will see it should be interesting to see if it does turn out right just don't be too surprised if it doesn't hopefully we get something soon because things are going haywire fast and questions need answering. Eon, MGM give us something please. :-??

    Mate, calm yourself. It's moviemaking, not marching into the bowels of hell. Things aren't going haywire in any way, shape or form. It's this kind of illogical faux-anxiety that I was getting pissed about fans pulling yesterday.

    This place can be so dramatic sometimes I think I'm logging on to the West End and not a bloody Bond forum.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think the point that was being made that has been missed is that EON denied things which ended up being a fact. In these cases, the professional thing to do is just to refuse to comment rather than to issue a denial, if that is in fact what they did (I was not following all the goings on prior to SP & SF's releases).

    That works two or three ways. They say nothing, and the fans whine about how they never communicate anything to them (like they are doing now). They refuse to comment, and that basically just means a "Yes," to the question asked, which would equate to them spoiling a later reveal. If they answer "No," they are defusing what could've been a spoiler reveal, and by not answering yes, they don't make it look like any veil has been pulled away. "No" answers also trigger more discussion, as we debate if it was a truth or a lie. You can't do that with a yes response.

    Answering no is the best choice here, as it leads to the least amount of fan whining, which is a measurement I like to see on the low end at all times.
    On this point I disagree. It's never a good idea to lie to the press and one's fans, no matter what one's intentions are. Credibility is difficult to regain once it's lost, in any business. The correct response here is 'no comment' and that is what I hope they do going forward. It's quite simple and it's not like they were fooling anyone so their denials were pointless.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited March 2017 Posts: 3,126
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    @007Blofeld, it's not just that. EON run a mega ship, and they should be able to work how they see fit. Of course the leaks would make anyone tight-lipped, but they also respect their collaborators and don't go sharing things unless they have a reason to. They're smart thinkers that way. Instead of spilling all these beans, they surprise audiences, and instead of revealing projected release dates for each new film early, they keep quiet and work until they know they have the exact date in mind so that nobody gets their hopes up if a delay happens.

    Yeah I just hope we just get some official stuff soon or things are seriously going to go haywire on the thread and through the bond fandom world every where

    Forget them. They're all spoiled babies.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think the point that was being made that has been missed is that EON denied things which ended up being a fact. In these cases, the professional thing to do is just to refuse to comment rather than to issue a denial, if that is in fact what they did (I was not following all the goings on prior to SP & SF's releases).

    That works two or three ways. They say nothing, and the fans whine about how they never communicate anything to them (like they are doing now). They refuse to comment, and that basically just means a "Yes," to the question asked, which would equate to them spoiling a later reveal. If they answer "No," they are defusing what could've been a spoiler reveal, and by not answering yes, they don't make it look like any veil has been pulled away. "No" answers also trigger more discussion, as we debate if it was a truth or a lie. You can't do that with a yes response.

    Answering no is the best choice here, as it leads to the least amount of fan whining, which is a measurement I like to see on the low end at all times.
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    @007Blofeld, I was talking about Baz.
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Haven't we all forgotten this is the same guy who said Bond 25 is very far away and hasn't been close to the franchise since 2014 I'm waiting for something official not rumors by a tabloid not buying BAZ

    You mean from the same Eon that denied John Logan had been hired to write Bond 24? Just days before MGM announced it?

    The same Eon that denied that Ben Whishaw was playing Q?

    It doesn't necessarily mean he is right this time but if he is cheers to him im just saying I'd rather rely on official information then an insider

    True, but he has a long line of scoops proven correct over two films. Given his track record, it's pretty clear he's not just throwing crap against a wall and seeing what sticks.

    Also, given Eon's own track record (denying Whishaw was playing Q, denying John Logan had been hired, etc), it doesn't have a great record, either. At one point, Mendes denied SPECTRE would be the longest Bond film and days later the running time was released showing that it was. Mendes at the time was as insider as it got.

    What do you mean EON's track record? They didn't spoil who they'd casted in major roles early on and didn't spill about their behind the scenes negotiations. They're professionals.

    Eon denied Logan's hiring on a weekend and MGM announced it days later. Lying doesn't help your credibility or make you professional. Simply say, "We're not going to discuss it" instead of specifically denying it.

    Like I said P&W said things could have changed how they do bond after spectre including probably how they handle information but we will see it should be interesting to see if it does turn out right just don't be too surprised if it doesn't hopefully we get something soon because things are going haywire fast and questions need answering. Eon, MGM give us something please. :-??

    Mate, calm yourself. It's moviemaking, not marching into the bowels of hell. Things aren't going haywire in any way, shape or form. It's this kind of illogical faux-anxiety that I was getting pissed about fans pulling yesterday.

    This place can be so dramatic sometimes I think I'm logging on to the West End and not a bloody Bond forum.

    I'm just as tired of people doing the same I just want it to end and have real talk on bond 25 that's all mate :-?? :-bd @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,169
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think the point that was being made that has been missed is that EON denied things which ended up being a fact. In these cases, the professional thing to do is just to refuse to comment rather than to issue a denial, if that is in fact what they did (I was not following all the goings on prior to SP & SF's releases).

    That works two or three ways. They say nothing, and the fans whine about how they never communicate anything to them (like they are doing now). They refuse to comment, and that basically just means a "Yes," to the question asked, which would equate to them spoiling a later reveal. If they answer "No," they are defusing what could've been a spoiler reveal, and by not answering yes, they don't make it look like any veil has been pulled away. "No" answers also trigger more discussion, as we debate if it was a truth or a lie. You can't do that with a yes response.

    Answering no is the best choice here, as it leads to the least amount of fan whining, which is a measurement I like to see on the low end at all times.
    On this point I disagree. It's never a good idea to lie to the press and one's fans, no matter what one's intentions are. Credibility is difficult to regain once it's lost, in any business. The correct response here is 'no comment' and that is what I hope they do going forward. It's quite simple and it's not like they were fooling anyone so their denials were pointless.

    Totally agree @bondjames . To lie to ones fan base and even the press is poor judgement. Nobody likes being lied too, and most would find it hard to trust someone who lies to them on multiple occasions.
    A simple 'no comment' sufficiently covers any questions, whilst providing fans and the press with an answer.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Craig looks way better in the Omaze video from last week with the puppies. He looks mid 50s in the Omega photocall.

    Weird, I thought the opposite. The angles of the camera in the Omaze video weren't befitting.

    Agreed. I don't know what some people are seeing. I thought he also looked a bit pasty in the omaze video but in that Omega pic he looks great. Decent enough hair style, suit not tooooooo tight and he doesn't look nowhere as old as some are making out.
  • Posts: 1,499
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    So if the film isn't filming until "next autumn" then why have they acquired a helicopter for filming and why are they in "advanced negotiations" with Dubrovnik? Doesn't all seem a bit too early, or is this typical?

    Like I said, I think he means this autumn

    To be in production by this autumn they would need to be much further down the line than they are at present. But as for early location scouting and negotiations, that can often happen early because, if a particular location is becoming popular, the producers need to secure a deal as soon as possible.
    we don't know how far along they are.

    I can say this much; I have several friends and associates who have worked on every Bond since TND/TWINE, and by now, as we approach April, they would normally be hearing rumblings about the next Bond if pre-production was set for late summer/early autumn - but they are not hearing anything.

  • Posts: 6,601
    I trust you, but in a way, surprisingly, also RC7. You both seem to have your sources, which Tell different ongoings. What to maleof it?
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    At the end of the day, until distribution is confirmed, there isnt a whole lot EON can do, as presumably the deal would be a factor in the films budget.

    On the subject of Purvis and Wade, I am slightly concerned. Their attempts at humour often fall flat, and I just don't think they getBond anywhere near as well as Dick Maibum, or even Michael France. Still time will tell. Supposedly the first draft of scribes such as John Logan and Paul Haggis where disappointments on previous movies, so I understand EON going with scribblers they are comfortable with.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Michael France didn't do much regarding Bond other than writing the first draft. And while it was fun to read his rendition of GoldenEye, humour was nowhere to be found in the script. Feirstein does the humour thing better if you ask me. But, then again, people here have a strong despise for poor old Feirstein.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Michael France didn't do much regarding Bond other than writing the first draft. And while it was fun to read his rendition of GoldenEye, humour was nowhere to be found in the script. Feirstein does the humour thing better if you ask me. But, then again, people here have a strong despise for poor old Feirstein.

    Yeah, Purvis and Wade are much more inventive than France, who, despite coming up with the great premise for GE, everything else in his draft was repetitive and Bond-lite.

    And agreed about Feirstein - a hugely underrated writer in the Bond series.
    +1. Well said.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Omega Bond
    IMG_2536.jpg

    Nothing is certain yet. We don't know if Craig returns. But he certainly 'lives like James Bond' ;-)
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    I would certainly take Ferstein over Purvis and Wade.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    On P&W I think: They gave us CR and it was just excellent. But they get blamed for SP ... where we don't kow how much they could really do about it, do we?

    I am all for fresh blood: Director and Writers though - I would very much appreciate a final chapter for DC tenure that is as good as CR was.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    My hope is they just go balls to the wall on this one, especially, and hopefully, if Craig returns.

    LOGAN is connecting with audiences and critics alike because it's a character piece disguised as a comic-book action film.

    I hope the powers that be at EoN take a good look at this picture (not that they have to re-hash the old and broken hero-- although I am a big fan of starting like this, putting our hero in a position of great discomfort where the odds are stacked against him, and somehow, through his courage and wits he will have to overcome the antagonists and win the day (great archetypal hero films always follow a similar journey, from ROCKY to DIE HARD, from STAR WARS to UNFORGIVEN)).

    The filmmakers and the lead actors in LOGAN worked their project giving it GENUINE emotional depth, and Hugh Jackman (as well as his supporting cast and director), just simply crushed it. He's leaving on a high note, putting his final stamp on the character.

    I think the only way of enticing DC to come back, will be the writers and producers giving him something similar to sink his teeth into. He's a talented actor, and wants to be challenged, or else what's the point?

    I'm assuming it will be, unfortunately to some, the continuing arc of what they've established thus far...

    And EoN must see as producers, that, although SP made truck-loads of cash, there were very loud grumblings of dissatisfaction. I hope they listen; see how Hugh Jackman and LOGAN are going out on a high note, and set out with a similar objective: to supersede their most recent, true, global success, CR, and wrap up this era with a huge, red, silk ribbon. Just giving the audience a SP-lite with the Scooby gang, and following lazy tropes they've been establishing, will turn droves away. If this ever happened, the series will truly be out-dated in an era that started with such promise.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Michael France didn't do much regarding Bond other than writing the first draft. And while it was fun to read his rendition of GoldenEye, humour was nowhere to be found in the script. Feirstein does the humour thing better if you ask me. But, then again, people here have a strong despise for poor old Feirstein.

    I think just after a while all of Feirstein's plots run together, with the same notes to them. His story for Blood Stone was even a lot of what we'd seen elsewhere.
    peter wrote: »
    My hope is they just go balls to the wall on this one, especially, and hopefully, if Craig returns.

    LOGAN is connecting with audiences and critics alike because it's a character piece disguised as a comic-book action film.

    I hope the powers that be at EoN take a good look at this picture (not that they have to re-hash the old and broken hero-- although I am a big fan of starting like this, putting our hero in a position of great discomfort where the odds are stacked against him, and somehow, through his courage and wits he will have to overcome the antagonists and win the day (great archetypal hero films always follow a similar journey, from ROCKY to DIE HARD, from STAR WARS to UNFORGIVEN)).

    The filmmakers and the lead actors in LOGAN worked their project giving it GENUINE emotional depth, and Hugh Jackman (as well as his supporting cast and director), just simply crushed it. He's leaving on a high note, putting his final stamp on the character.

    I think the only way of enticing DC to come back, will be the writers and producers giving him something similar to sink his teeth into. He's a talented actor, and wants to be challenged, or else what's the point?

    I'm assuming it will be, unfortunately to some, the continuing arc of what they've established thus far...

    And EoN must see as producers, that, although SP made truck-loads of cash, there were very loud grumblings of dissatisfaction. I hope they listen; see how Hugh Jackman and LOGAN are going out on a high note, and set out with a similar objective: to supersede their most recent, true, global success, CR, and wrap up this era with a huge, red, silk ribbon. Just giving the audience a SP-lite with the Scooby gang, and following lazy tropes they've been establishing, will turn droves away. If this ever happened, the series will truly be out-dated in an era that started with such promise.

    EON are damned if they do, damned if they don't in this area. The movies started as films removed from the Bond "tropes" as you call it, and many hated it; many here in fact, have all the Craig films directly at the bottom for that reason. When elements of a "Bondian" nature were put back in, then people started complaining and the so-called "anti-Bond" approach was lamented. I just don't know what some actually want anymore.

    I agree though, @peter. The script is going to be heavy stuff and meat for Dan to work with if he goes on to be in Bond 25. Which shouldn't be hard; he'd be the first Bond we'd see trying to live a life after MI6, and a lot of interesting character work could be done with that in the first little section of the movie to see up the bigger story where we see how bored and anxious Bond is out of the field, unable to settle into civilian life with Madeleine. A statement can be made about Bond and how, no matter how far he gets from it, MI6 is his home and what he's meant to do. A patriotic shot as seen in SF could be used, like him walking away respectfully from Madeleine across the bridge to Vauxhall cross (or wherever the new MI6 building will be).
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Michael France didn't do much regarding Bond other than writing the first draft. And while it was fun to read his rendition of GoldenEye, humour was nowhere to be found in the script. Feirstein does the humour thing better if you ask me. But, then again, people here have a strong despise for poor old Feirstein.

    I think just after a while all of Feirstein's plots run together, with the same notes to them. His story for Blood Stone was even a lot of what we'd seen elsewhere.
    Well, to be honest, he was looking forward to continue the story and I heard a lot of what he wrote for what became the story arc of Blood Stone and the canned Raven Software-developed sequel was primarily the fault of none other than Activision. Had they invested more time and promoted Blood Stone in better condition, his story would've been hailed as one of the greatest ones out there. Even though the action setpieces were things we've seen before, mostly derived from Die Another Day (the ice river car chase), it's done in a manner that does not try to make homage to the ones that came before. Feirstein was the least of the problems with the titles he was involved in.
Sign In or Register to comment.