No Time To Die: Production Diary

18198208228248252507

Comments

  • Posts: 1,031
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Nobody mentioned Goran Visnjic!! Wasnt he the 3rd contender up for the role?
    I know nothing about him, but he had a cameo in Ridley Scott's The Counselor which I viewed for the first time last week, and I immediately thought of Bond when I saw him in a small part. In fact, I looked him up because I thought this guy could be Bond and was surprised to learn who he was and that he had been considered previously.

    It's interesting to see Visnjic's name brought up. He is one of the very few non-Brits that I could have seen in the role. I even came up with a PTS sequence that would have had him undercover on a mission in Dubrovnik , he would have a beard, long hair and speaking his native tongue. Following an action sequence where he rescues a beautiful woman we see him emerge from from the bathroom of a luxury hotel, hair cut and clean shaven; the woman, equally spruced up is reclined on the bed. As he opens a bottle of champagne he says, " I'm sorry in all the excitement I failed to introduce myself, my name is Bond", pop of the cork, James Bond.
    I like your idea. A bit of DAD/Hong Kong mixed with OHMSS.
    I think it's cliche.
    It may be, but a member has expressed his creative thoughts and I'm willing to cut him some slack. The sort of slack I don't give professionals who are paid a lot of money to deliver a quality non-cliched product.

    Fair enough ...
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    At this point of the franchise almost anything that is classic Bond can be labeled cliche. That is an obstacle faced by the Bond team; people want fresh and new by also the elements that are classic Bond.
  • Posts: 16,149
    As cliche as classic Bond can be, I'll openly admit I watch the formulaic Bonds far more often than I do the one's that depart from tradition.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    As cliche as classic Bond can be, I'll openly admit I watch the formulaic Bonds far more often than I do the one's that depart from tradition.
    Me too. Increasingly so.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    talos7 wrote: »
    At this point of the franchise almost anything that is classic Bond can be labeled cliche. That is an obstacle faced by the Bond team; people want fresh and new by also the elements that are classic Bond.

    The thing they're getting wrong is they think tosh like the DB5, shaken not stirred etc are the character.

    They really need to look back at the Rog era where they made a conscious effort not to copy Sean.

    Have faith in the character and just put him in Bondian locations doing Bondian things and the iconic moments will follow.

    But when you keep layering on the cliches like a 50 year old whore in an Amsterdam window layers on makeup you get the same result as she does; the sense of desperation and being over the hill that the punters can see through when they look carefully no matter how superficially attractive the goods on offer are at first glance.

    Is it a coincidence that the best film of the past 30 years by some distance is the one where they cast aside the cliches and put Fleming's character front and centre?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    The key is to present the classic, cliched, elements in fresh, exciting sequences. To my knowledge, having Bond speak in Slavic tongue and looking like a drug runner for the PTS hasn't been done before. ;)
  • Posts: 16,149
    talos7 wrote: »
    The key is to present the classic, cliched, elements in fresh, exciting sequences. To my knowledge, having Bond speak in Slavic tongue and looking like a drug runner for the PTS hasn't been done before. ;)

    Exactly! I like your PTS idea, BTW. Good stuff.

    For me, I love the Aston Martin as much as the next Bond fan, but am completely sick of it being featured as the Bond car in EVERY film. I'd be more interested if,say, Gardner's Saab made an appearance instead, or far better yet, the Bentley.
    Perhaps that's why Roger's films consistently feel so fresh to me? He had his Lotus, never uttered the words "shaken not stirred", and made his readings of "Bond James Bond" reasonably fresh and natural each time.
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    To be fair to dan's bond he's only said "shaken not stirred" once in 4 films. DB5 needs retiring mind.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    With Rog, one always felt he was being himself when he delivered these lines. Not acting. That's the trick. Same goes for Sean. One has to embody it.

    Good though DC is, whenever he tries to do classic Bond it doesn't come across genuine to me. He's a cynical chap in real life, and that's how he plays Bond best. Shoehorning him into 'old school' doesn't work for me. Sorry.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    I also find that binge watching exacerbates the feeling of elements feeling like clichés. The same is true for many film series. Seen years apart the Rocky films are were exciting and in their own ways fresh; watch them all in a row and the repetition of themes and classic elements can become very obvious.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    talos7 wrote: »
    At this point of the franchise almost anything that is classic Bond can be labeled cliche. That is an obstacle faced by the Bond team; people want fresh and new by also the elements that are classic Bond.

    The thing they're getting wrong is they think tosh like the DB5, shaken not stirred etc are the character.

    They really need to look back at the Rog era where they made a conscious effort not to copy Sean.

    Have faith in the character and just put him in Bondian locations doing Bondian things and the iconic moments will follow.

    But when you keep layering on the cliches like a 50 year old whore in an Amsterdam window layers on makeup you get the same result as she does; the sense of desperation and being over the hill that the punters can see through when they look carefully no matter how superficially attractive the goods on offer are at first glance.

    Is it a coincidence that the best film of the past 30 years by some distance is the one where they cast aside the cliches and put Fleming's character front and centre?

    Pretty much sums it up. They proved it definitively with Rog.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    They didn't have many cliches in QoS & they were in genuine locations quite a bit. Did that feel Bondian enough to everyone (editing aside)?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    With Rog, one always felt he was being himself when he delivered these lines. Not acting. That's the trick. Same goes for Sean. One has to embody it.

    Good though DC is, whenever he tries to do classic Bond it doesn't come across genuine to me. He's a cynical chap in real life, and that's how he plays Bond best. Shoehorning him into 'old school' doesn't work for me. Sorry.

    Yes, I've often felt the reason they've stuck with broken Bond is partly to do with Craig's limitations. Craig is good at doing wounded, fragile, vulnerable Bond, but when it comes to having all cylinders firing, he's probably bottom of the pack. They kind of hide it well by limiting what he has to say to one line before the movie ends, and then cutting quickly. "The name's Bond, James Bond." Cut "I never left" Cut "With pleasure, sir. With pleasure" Cut. Craig does well with those lines to close out their respective films, but once he has to sustain that coolness for an entire scene, he comes off about as confident and self-assured as Bambi on the ice.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    With Rog, one always felt he was being himself when he delivered these lines. Not acting. That's the trick. Same goes for Sean. One has to embody it.

    Good though DC is, whenever he tries to do classic Bond it doesn't come across genuine to me. He's a cynical chap in real life, and that's how he plays Bond best. Shoehorning him into 'old school' doesn't work for me. Sorry.

    Yes, I've often felt the reason they've stuck with broken Bond is partly to do with Craig's limitations. Craig is good at doing wounded, fragile, vulnerable Bond, but when it comes to having all cylinders firing, he's probably bottom of the pack. They kind of hide it well by limiting what he has to say to one line before the movie ends, and then cutting quickly. "The name's Bond, James Bond." Cut "I never left" Cut "With pleasure, sir. With pleasure" Cut. Craig does well with those lines to close out their respective films, but once he has to sustain that coolness for an entire scene, he comes off about as confident and self-assured as Bambi on the ice.
    They certainly played to his strengths for the first three, and it worked. In SP they tried to meld that into traditional Bond, and he's not a good purveyor of that casual insouciance in my view. That's where things went downhill very fast for me. If he must come back, I certainly hope they don't try to do this again. I'd rather have Brozza back if that's the case.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    With Rog, one always felt he was being himself when he delivered these lines. Not acting. That's the trick. Same goes for Sean. One has to embody it.

    Good though DC is, whenever he tries to do classic Bond it doesn't come across genuine to me. He's a cynical chap in real life, and that's how he plays Bond best. Shoehorning him into 'old school' doesn't work for me. Sorry.

    Yes, I've often felt the reason they've stuck with broken Bond is partly to do with Craig's limitations. Craig is good at doing wounded, fragile, vulnerable Bond, but when it comes to having all cylinders firing, he's probably bottom of the pack. They kind of hide it well by limiting what he has to say to one line before the movie ends, and then cutting quickly. "The name's Bond, James Bond." Cut "I never left" Cut "With pleasure, sir. With pleasure" Cut. Craig does well with those lines to close out their respective films, but once he has to sustain that coolness for an entire scene, he comes off about as confident and self-assured as Bambi on the ice.
    They certainly played to his strengths for the first three, and it worked. In SP they tried to meld that into traditional Bond, and he's not a good purveyor of that casual insouciance in my view. That's where things went downhill very fast for me. If he must come back, I certainly hope they don't try to do this again. I'd rather have Brozza back if that's the case.

    Yes. Brozza and Craig are opposites, just like Moore and Connery were, and Lazenby and Dalton too. More should be written about this than is, but it's funny how they seem to look for actors that completely contrast another. Brosnan could play the coolness and swagger of Bond incredibly well, but when it came to taking on more dramatic notes, he struggled - and that's the opposite problem we're facing now.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Connery wasn't exactly an opposite of Moore's. He may have been intense but he was just as humorous.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited July 2017 Posts: 9,117
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    The key is to present the classic, cliched, elements in fresh, exciting sequences. To my knowledge, having Bond speak in Slavic tongue and looking like a drug runner for the PTS hasn't been done before. ;)

    Exactly! I like your PTS idea, BTW. Good stuff.

    For me, I love the Aston Martin as much as the next Bond fan, but am completely sick of it being featured as the Bond car in EVERY film. I'd be more interested if,say, Gardner's Saab made an appearance instead, or far better yet, the Bentley.
    Perhaps that's why Roger's films consistently feel so fresh to me? He had his Lotus, never uttered the words "shaken not stirred", and made his readings of "Bond James Bond" reasonably fresh and natural each time.

    The problem is not with Aston as the brand perfectly complements the character - classy, stylish, understated but got the grunt when it matters.

    The problem is the flogging to death of the 'Bond car'.

    Between 62 and 89 we had:

    GF - Bond car and chase with gadgets
    TB - Bond car and chase with gadgets
    OHMSS - Bond car but no chase or gadgets
    TSWLM - Bond car and chase with gadgets
    FYEO - Bond car but no chase and only gadget the car exploding
    TLD - Bond car and chase with gadgets

    Post 95:

    GE - Bond car but no chase or gadgets
    TND - Bond car and chase with gadgets and 2nd Bond car no chase or gadgets
    TWINE - Bond car and chase with gadgets and 2nd Bond car with no chase and no gadgets
    DAD - Bond car and chase with gadgets
    CR - Bond car and chase but no gadgets and 2nd Bond car no chase or gadgets
    QOS - Bond car and chase but no gadgets
    SF - Bond car with gadgets but not strictly a chase
    SP - Bond car and chase with gadgets and 2nd Bond car no chase or gadgets

    So in 27 years and 16 films we only had the trope of the 'Bond car' 6 times and a full on gadget chase 4 times.

    In the subsequent 20 years and 8 films we have had 5 gadget chases and 2 non gadget chases. Plus a 'Bond car' appearing in every single film. AND 4 films with 2 separate Bond cars FFS! This particular horse died long ago; they're flogging the f**king skeleton these days.

    Just please don't go near another gadget car for another 10 years, let's never see the goddam DB5 ever again and any car chases we have should be with randomly commandeered vehicles such as in FYEO and AVTAK.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Brosnan could play the coolness and swagger of Bond incredibly well, but when it came to taking on more dramatic notes, he struggled - and that's the opposite problem we're facing now.
    I certainly agree.
    Connery wasn't exactly an opposite of Moore's. He may have been intense but he was just as humorous.
    Agreed. They both had an ability to deliver the one liners with ease, class and style. Connery was just a little harder edged & rougher, while Moore was a little more refined, that's all. As I've said before, I think it was a generational thing. Both definitive imho. Chaps like Arnie and Bruce took their cues from these two when they broke out (ironically at a time when Dalton was struggling and appeared almost embarrassed to do the same).
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited July 2017 Posts: 8,195
    Pointing out that Rog could do this and Dan can do that reaffirms my belief that at the right time Hugh Jackman could have been a great Bond. He's one of few actors who can pull off light and charming with the same confidence as ferocious and deadly.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Jackman certainly could have been excellent, I agree.

    Too fey? Pfft. Nonsense I say.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    Connery wasn't exactly an opposite of Moore's. He may have been intense but he was just as humorous.
    Agreed. They both had an ability to deliver the one liners with ease, class and style. Connery was just a little harder edged & rougher, while Moore was a little more refined, that's all. As I've said before, I think it was a generational thing. Both definitive imho. Chaps like Arnie and Bruce took their cues from these two when they broke out (ironically at a time when Dalton was struggling and appeared almost embarrassed to do the same).
    +1. Well said, my friend.
  • Posts: 16,149
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    The key is to present the classic, cliched, elements in fresh, exciting sequences. To my knowledge, having Bond speak in Slavic tongue and looking like a drug runner for the PTS hasn't been done before. ;)

    Exactly! I like your PTS idea, BTW. Good stuff.

    For me, I love the Aston Martin as much as the next Bond fan, but am completely sick of it being featured as the Bond car in EVERY film. I'd be more interested if,say, Gardner's Saab made an appearance instead, or far better yet, the Bentley.
    Perhaps that's why Roger's films consistently feel so fresh to me? He had his Lotus, never uttered the words "shaken not stirred", and made his readings of "Bond James Bond" reasonably fresh and natural each time.

    The problem is not with Aston as the brand perfectly complements the character - classy, stylish, understated but got the grunt when it matters.

    The problem is the flogging to death of the 'Bond car'.

    Between 62 and 89 we had:

    GF - Bond car and chase with gadgets
    TB - Bond car and chase with gadgets
    OHMSS - Bond car but no chase or gadgets
    TSWLM - Bond car and chase with gadgets
    FYEO - Bond car but no chase and only gadget the car exploding
    TLD - Bond car and chase with gadgets

    Post 95:

    GE - Bond car but no chase or gadgets
    TND - Bond car and chase with gadgets and 2nd Bond car no chase or gadgets
    TWINE - Bond car and chase with gadgets and 2nd Bond car with no chase and no gadgets
    DAD - Bond car and chase with gadgets
    CR - Bond car and chase but no gadgets and 2nd Bond car no chase or gadgets
    QOS - Bond car and chase but no gadgets
    SF - Bond car with gadgets but not strictly a chase
    SP - Bond car and chase with gadgets and 2nd Bond car no chase or gadgets

    So in 27 years and 16 films we only had the trope of the 'Bond car' 6 times and a full on gadget chase 4 times.

    In the subsequent 20 years and 8 films we have had 5 gadget chases and 2 non gadget chases. Plus a 'Bond car' appearing in every single film. AND 4 films with 2 separate Bond cars FFS! This particular horse died long ago; they're flogging the f**king skeleton these days.

    Just please don't go near another gadget car for another 10 years, let's never see the goddam DB5 ever again and any car chases we have should be with randomly commandeered vehicles such as in FYEO and AVTAK.

    The Bond car routine has most certainly been done to death. If he is to have a gadget laden vehicle, I do miss the variety of Little Nellie, the Amazon boat in MR, or even the motorcycle in NSNA. Still, coming up something along those lines, I'd wait a few films.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    The front page info hasn't been updated since May?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    With Rog, one always felt he was being himself when he delivered these lines. Not acting. That's the trick. Same goes for Sean. One has to embody it.

    Good though DC is, whenever he tries to do classic Bond it doesn't come across genuine to me. He's a cynical chap in real life, and that's how he plays Bond best. Shoehorning him into 'old school' doesn't work for me. Sorry.

    Yes, I've often felt the reason they've stuck with broken Bond is partly to do with Craig's limitations. Craig is good at doing wounded, fragile, vulnerable Bond, but when it comes to having all cylinders firing, he's probably bottom of the pack. They kind of hide it well by limiting what he has to say to one line before the movie ends, and then cutting quickly. "The name's Bond, James Bond." Cut "I never left" Cut "With pleasure, sir. With pleasure" Cut. Craig does well with those lines to close out their respective films, but once he has to sustain that coolness for an entire scene, he comes off about as confident and self-assured as Bambi on the ice.

    Each to his own. I think Craig pulls off the sardonic wit better than anyone bar Connery and Moore. He brings his own, slightly aggressive humour, I love it. Also understand why others don't.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    The front page info hasn't been updated since May?
    Yes, apologies. I will try to get around to that tonight.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Bondjames , he is not a cynical chap in REAL life. Much to the opposite. Everybody and I mean everybody who knows him a bit praises his humor, Hugh Jackman even describing him as one of the funniest people on earth after working with him for many weeks on ASR. So, his broody persona is more or less reserved for the press and papz. In real life he is rather on the sunny side. I always felt that he has the best timing of the lot in some of his one liners. " Now, that you know, where I am - ALL the time - etc being one. Making gold from plastic.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Bondjames , he is not a cynical chap in REAL life. Much to the opposite. Everybody and I mean everybody who knows him a bit praises his humor, Hugh Jackman even describing him as one of the funniest people on earth after working with him for many weeks on ASR. So, his broody persona is more or less reserved for the press and papz. In real life he is rather on the sunny side. I always felt that he has the best timing of the lot in some of his one liners. " Now, that you know, where I am - ALL the time - etc being one. Making gold from plastic.
    Fair enough @Germanlady. I obviously don't know him personally, but the sardonic wit & sarcasm which he exhibited in SF suits him best imho. In SP there was certainly a lot of trying to make 'something' out of plastic, but I can't quite say it was gold. Quite the contrary actually.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    With Rog, one always felt he was being himself when he delivered these lines. Not acting. That's the trick. Same goes for Sean. One has to embody it.

    Good though DC is, whenever he tries to do classic Bond it doesn't come across genuine to me. He's a cynical chap in real life, and that's how he plays Bond best. Shoehorning him into 'old school' doesn't work for me. Sorry.

    Yes, I've often felt the reason they've stuck with broken Bond is partly to do with Craig's limitations. Craig is good at doing wounded, fragile, vulnerable Bond, but when it comes to having all cylinders firing, he's probably bottom of the pack. They kind of hide it well by limiting what he has to say to one line before the movie ends, and then cutting quickly. "The name's Bond, James Bond." Cut "I never left" Cut "With pleasure, sir. With pleasure" Cut. Craig does well with those lines to close out their respective films, but once he has to sustain that coolness for an entire scene, he comes off about as confident and self-assured as Bambi on the ice.

    Each to his own. I think Craig pulls off the sardonic wit better than anyone bar Connery and Moore. He brings his own, slightly aggressive humour, I love it. Also understand why others don't.

    I agree that Craig pulls off the wit very well, and there is indeed a touch of subtle aggressiveness in his sense of humor. Whereas someone like Connery or Moore delivered the cheeky lines in a comparatively lighthearted way, Craig delivers them with a feeling of ever-so-slight annoyance at that on which he is commenting, and a sense of subtle cynicism. That's how he makes those lines work naturally for himself, and I don't think Bond's sense of humor fails to come across as genuine because of that style. In fact, I think Craig's performance in Spectre is a natural progression for the Bond character as seen in Craig's previous films... now that he has gone through so much emotional turmoil, he can laugh a bit more at the good and bad things in his profession and his life, while still acknowledging his work and the world he inhabits are highly dangerous-- something that has been, of course, highly emphasized in Craig's era, with all the physical and emotional pain his Bond has gone through.
  • SatoriousSatorious Brushing up on a little Danish
    edited July 2017 Posts: 233
    I think a huge part of this is drive. He really had to prove himself in Casino Royale. After Quantum of Solace (which I know a lot of casual fans regard as one of the worst) - he again had something to prove. I'm hoping he isn't just turning up for the pay cheque if he does Bond 25. Also hope a new director might give him some renewed sense of vigour! It would be a nice change for a "popular" Bond actor to go out on a bang rather than a complete duffer for once (*cough* DAF/AVTAK/DAD).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    There was something a bit nasty about his Bond in SP, particularly when he was delivering the humour. Unlikable. Boorish. Some may argue that he was embodying the character, but it's a fine line. Examples include:

    "That all sounds lovely."
    "No, I think I'll call you C, C."
    "Well, then I suggest you trust me, for the sake of the cats."
    "Do me a favor, will you? Throw that down the toilet. Cut out the middleman."

    It didn't help that he appeared to be sneering in some instances. Like he needed to relieve himself. There's also this dismissive smirk that crops up from time to time that I found a bit annoying (it's there when he delivers the "came here to kill you" line).

    Let me put it this way: I have no interest in being like Craig's Bond in SP. I did see a lot I subconsciously wanted to emulate particularly in CR & QoS. Something slightly aspirational even (I realize how crazy that sounds given Bond's behaviour in general).
Sign In or Register to comment.