No Time To Die: Production Diary

18408418438458462507

Comments

  • edited July 2017 Posts: 386
    DC has been crucified by the arc he was given.

    CR is a towering Bond film, but the arc blew its load too early. So did the character, in terms of meeting the girl who would shape his soul.

    DC was young and reasonably fresh faced when CR rolled out. There was so much rich material too explore if they wanted to do a proper arc.

    In a way, CR was too greedy, took too much meat. And why the hell was Mendes hell-bent on a retirement film after Bond had only just conquered his youthful humanity in QoS?

    This is how it should have gone down:

    Film 1: Rising to 00 status. Comes up against a foe who "makes him earn it". An exploration of what it might have been like as a younger agent.

    Film 2: MI6 is under attack by a former agent. M is killed and Bond loses his only real friend.

    Film 3: The Casino Royale / Vesper saga. Bond questions his devotion to the cause.

    Film 4: The QoS revenge bullet. Bond in his prime but teetering between duty and oblivion.

    Film 5: An ageing Bond comes up against a seemingly unstoppable young terrorist by the name of Ernst Blofeld.

    This is easy in hindsight, but would've sorted DC out over a nice, five-film arc.

    Instead, the producers and writers are in a very tricky position for B25. A shame, because DC is an excellent Bond and this era seems like a golden opportunity wasted.



  • edited July 2017 Posts: 5,767
    Murdock wrote: »
    Nolan's name is spreading like herpes in here. =))
    And it has the same effect on my skin.


    TripAces wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Not interested in Nolan's "Bond vision." It's probably just as radical and extreme as Quentin Tarantino's. PASS!

    Watch Insomnia. It's Nolan's most underrated and underappreciated film...and it is quite conventional in its approach. You can see a lot of what Nolan might do, in terms of vision, with a Bond film.
    Insomnia wasn´t written by Nolan, so it´s rather not indicative of what Nolan might do, in terms of vision, with a Bond film. Except for the lighting.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I watched Insomnia only once, and didn't like it all that much. I can't remember why. I must check it out again.
    --

    GetCarter wrote: »
    CR is a towering Bond film, but the arc blew its load too early. So did the character, in terms of meeting the girl who would shape his soul.
    That's a good point, and I've always wondered if it might have been best for him to just have made the one 'reset' film to take EON out of the funk hole they had dug for themselves in the 90's. He would have been eulogized as the best of the best if that had happened. Like his predecessor he peaked with his first one, which is sad.
  • Posts: 4,408
    McGuigan is such a flaccid suggestion. I doubt Broccoli would want him after reaching the lofty heights of Sam Mendes. However…if it comes from @ColonelSun I believe it.

    It feels like a Pierce Brosnan-era choice. A safe journeyman director who won’t rock the applecart too much.

    I presume that McGuigan made a strong impression on Barbara and she evidently considers him to be someone she can work with. I also suspect he’s someone she will be able to manage – where Mendes was hired to bring his own independent voice.

    I actually don’t mind a journeyman finishing off Craig’s era. If a Chris-Nolan-or-Edgar-Wright-type came on, they would want to do “their” Bond film. With McGuigan what you get is a safe pair of hands who will close the Craig films off effectively. He won’t mind picking up the threads left by Mendes and seeing Craig over the finishing line.

    We might not get an overly polished and technically accomplished film (wave goodbye to the beautiful cinematography of the Mendes reign) but we’ll get an adept film that closes the Craig movies off.

    I see a lot of comparisons between McGuigan and Martin Campbell. I just hope they bring on a great writer. That is the real question here – as McGuigan will just shoot the script he’s given.

    Who can polish P&W’s draft? Some suggestions:

    • Jez Butterworth (He’s a renowned playwright who hasn’t been given a proper chance to write Bond – opposed to just polish the final drafts)
    • Paul Haggis (the writer’s strike ruined QOS but I know for a fact that he was the one who made the CR script sparkle)
    • Steven Knight
    • David Hare
    • Tom Stoppard (Apparently he was involved very early on in the QOS development before Forster came onboard)
    • John Logan (SF was brilliant but SP was a mess – is he redeemable?)
    • Alex Garland (More of a possibility as a director)
    • Jonathan Nolan
    • Chris Terrio (His literate BvS script was hated by fans – personally, I think it holds a lot of merit, albeit a little too high-brow and misguided for the material)

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    bondjames wrote: »
    I watched Insomnia only once, and didn't like it all that much. I can't remember why. I must check it out again.
    --

    GetCarter wrote: »
    CR is a towering Bond film, but the arc blew its load too early. So did the character, in terms of meeting the girl who would shape his soul.
    That's a good point, and I've always wondered if it might have been best for him to just have made the one 'reset' film to take EON out of the funk hole they had dug for themselves in the 90's. He would have been eulogized as the best of the best if that had happened. Like his predecessor he peaked with his first one, which is sad.

    The last act of CR is spiritually the first act of QoS. That's where all the confusion starts, which is carried over into the sequel. Imagine if that house sinking sequence had been the QoS PTS, a bit like the India opening of Bourne 2. Come to think of it, Supremacy and QoS kinda have the exact same ending anyway. They weren't just copying Bourne aesthetically, but also in structure.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    McGuigan is such a flaccid suggestion. I doubt Broccoli would want him after reaching the lofty heights of Sam Mendes. However…if it comes from @ColonelSun I believe it.

    It feels like a Pierce Brosnan-era choice. A safe journeyman director who won’t rock the applecart too much.

    I presume that McGuigan made a strong impression on Barbara and she evidently considers him to be someone she can work with. I also suspect he’s someone she will be able to manage – where Mendes was hired to bring his own independent voice.

    I actually don’t mind a journeyman finishing off Craig’s era. If a Chris-Nolan-or-Edgar-Wright-type came on, they would want to do “their” Bond film. With McGuigan what you get is a safe pair of hands who will close the Craig films off effectively. He won’t mind picking up the threads left by Mendes and seeing Craig over the finishing line.

    We might not get an overly polished and technically accomplished film (wave goodbye to the beautiful cinematography of the Mendes reign) but we’ll get an adept film that closes the Craig movies off.

    I see a lot of comparisons between McGuigan and Martin Campbell. I just hope they bring on a great writer. That is the real question here – as McGuigan will just shoot the script he’s given.

    Who can polish P&W’s draft? Some suggestions:

    • Jez Butterworth (He’s a renowned playwright who hasn’t been given a proper chance to write Bond – opposed to just polish the final drafts)
    • Paul Haggis (the writer’s strike ruined QOS but I know for a fact that he was the one who made the CR script sparkle)
    • Steven Knight
    • David Hare
    • Tom Stoppard (Apparently he was involved very early on in the QOS development before Forster came onboard)
    • John Logan (SF was brilliant but SP was a mess – is he redeemable?)
    • Alex Garland (More of a possibility as a director)
    • Jonathan Nolan
    • Chris Terrio (His literate BvS script was hated by fans – personally, I think it holds a lot of merit, albeit a little too high-brow and misguided for the material)
    I remain to be convinced that it's McGuigan, because from what I can tell Daniel Craig has a lot of input into who he works with.

    Babs won't have made this call without Craig's blessing (assuming he's back). Would Craig work with someone like McGuigan after Mendes? Has he worked with him before?
    bondjames wrote: »
    I watched Insomnia only once, and didn't like it all that much. I can't remember why. I must check it out again.
    --

    GetCarter wrote: »
    CR is a towering Bond film, but the arc blew its load too early. So did the character, in terms of meeting the girl who would shape his soul.
    That's a good point, and I've always wondered if it might have been best for him to just have made the one 'reset' film to take EON out of the funk hole they had dug for themselves in the 90's. He would have been eulogized as the best of the best if that had happened. Like his predecessor he peaked with his first one, which is sad.

    The last act of CR is spiritually the first act of QoS. That's where all the confusion starts, which is carried over into the sequel. Imagine if that house sinking sequence had been the QoS PTS, a bit like the India opening of Bourne 2. Come to think of it, Supremacy and QoS kinda have the exact same ending anyway. They weren't just copying Bourne aesthetically, but also in structure.
    That's probably why they didn't do it that way, because it would have sent off alarm bells re: Bourne. I certainly noticed it regardless. QoS is very similar to The Bourne Supremacy, which was a benchmark film in the genre (as much so as the first), and not only because of shaky cam but because it put the viewer in the mind of the protagonist and had limited exposition. The viewer had to figure out what Bourne was up to as the film progressed. The visceral immediacy of the whole thing was something quite new at the time.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,172
    peter wrote: »
    @Murdock, np; whether I agree or disagree with what you say, it seems your points are always coming from the heart. You are articulate, funny and you think things through; I've never seen you be ignorant, nor be the "anonymous" bully. You're a good man, Murdock, and we're lucky to have you!

    Best post of the month. Thank you for that, @peter.
  • Posts: 1,031
    bondjames wrote: »
    McGuigan is such a flaccid suggestion. I doubt Broccoli would want him after reaching the lofty heights of Sam Mendes. However…if it comes from @ColonelSun I believe it.

    It feels like a Pierce Brosnan-era choice. A safe journeyman director who won’t rock the applecart too much.

    I presume that McGuigan made a strong impression on Barbara and she evidently considers him to be someone she can work with. I also suspect he’s someone she will be able to manage – where Mendes was hired to bring his own independent voice.

    I actually don’t mind a journeyman finishing off Craig’s era. If a Chris-Nolan-or-Edgar-Wright-type came on, they would want to do “their” Bond film. With McGuigan what you get is a safe pair of hands who will close the Craig films off effectively. He won’t mind picking up the threads left by Mendes and seeing Craig over the finishing line.

    We might not get an overly polished and technically accomplished film (wave goodbye to the beautiful cinematography of the Mendes reign) but we’ll get an adept film that closes the Craig movies off.

    I see a lot of comparisons between McGuigan and Martin Campbell. I just hope they bring on a great writer. That is the real question here – as McGuigan will just shoot the script he’s given.

    Who can polish P&W’s draft? Some suggestions:

    • Jez Butterworth (He’s a renowned playwright who hasn’t been given a proper chance to write Bond – opposed to just polish the final drafts)
    • Paul Haggis (the writer’s strike ruined QOS but I know for a fact that he was the one who made the CR script sparkle)
    • Steven Knight
    • David Hare
    • Tom Stoppard (Apparently he was involved very early on in the QOS development before Forster came onboard)
    • John Logan (SF was brilliant but SP was a mess – is he redeemable?)
    • Alex Garland (More of a possibility as a director)
    • Jonathan Nolan
    • Chris Terrio (His literate BvS script was hated by fans – personally, I think it holds a lot of merit, albeit a little too high-brow and misguided for the material)
    I remain to be convinced that it's McGuigan, because from what I can tell Daniel Craig has a lot of input into who he works with.

    Babs won't have made this call without Craig's blessing (assuming he's back). Would Craig work with someone like McGuigan after Mendes? Has he worked with him before?
    bondjames wrote: »
    I watched Insomnia only once, and didn't like it all that much. I can't remember why. I must check it out again.
    --

    GetCarter wrote: »
    CR is a towering Bond film, but the arc blew its load too early. So did the character, in terms of meeting the girl who would shape his soul.
    That's a good point, and I've always wondered if it might have been best for him to just have made the one 'reset' film to take EON out of the funk hole they had dug for themselves in the 90's. He would have been eulogized as the best of the best if that had happened. Like his predecessor he peaked with his first one, which is sad.

    The last act of CR is spiritually the first act of QoS. That's where all the confusion starts, which is carried over into the sequel. Imagine if that house sinking sequence had been the QoS PTS, a bit like the India opening of Bourne 2. Come to think of it, Supremacy and QoS kinda have the exact same ending anyway. They weren't just copying Bourne aesthetically, but also in structure.
    That's probably why they didn't do it that way, because it would have sent off alarm bells re: Bourne. I certainly noticed it regardless. QoS is very similar to The Bourne Supremacy, which was a benchmark film in the genre (as much so as the first), and not only because of shaky cam but because it put the viewer in the mind of the protagonist and had limited exposition. The viewer had to figure out what Bourne was up to as the film progressed. The visceral immediacy of the whole thing was something quite new at the time.

    The sinking house was an idea of Paul Haggis because the P&W third act was seen to be too weak - it was always intended to be at the end of CR.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    McGuigan is such a flaccid suggestion. I doubt Broccoli would want him after reaching the lofty heights of Sam Mendes. However…if it comes from @ColonelSun I believe it.

    It feels like a Pierce Brosnan-era choice. A safe journeyman director who won’t rock the applecart too much.

    I presume that McGuigan made a strong impression on Barbara and she evidently considers him to be someone she can work with. I also suspect he’s someone she will be able to manage – where Mendes was hired to bring his own independent voice.

    I actually don’t mind a journeyman finishing off Craig’s era. If a Chris-Nolan-or-Edgar-Wright-type came on, they would want to do “their” Bond film. With McGuigan what you get is a safe pair of hands who will close the Craig films off effectively. He won’t mind picking up the threads left by Mendes and seeing Craig over the finishing line.

    We might not get an overly polished and technically accomplished film (wave goodbye to the beautiful cinematography of the Mendes reign) but we’ll get an adept film that closes the Craig movies off.

    I see a lot of comparisons between McGuigan and Martin Campbell. I just hope they bring on a great writer. That is the real question here – as McGuigan will just shoot the script he’s given.

    Who can polish P&W’s draft? Some suggestions:

    • Jez Butterworth (He’s a renowned playwright who hasn’t been given a proper chance to write Bond – opposed to just polish the final drafts)
    • Paul Haggis (the writer’s strike ruined QOS but I know for a fact that he was the one who made the CR script sparkle)
    • Steven Knight
    • David Hare
    • Tom Stoppard (Apparently he was involved very early on in the QOS development before Forster came onboard)
    • John Logan (SF was brilliant but SP was a mess – is he redeemable?)
    • Alex Garland (More of a possibility as a director)
    • Jonathan Nolan
    • Chris Terrio (His literate BvS script was hated by fans – personally, I think it holds a lot of merit, albeit a little too high-brow and misguided for the material)
    I remain to be convinced that it's McGuigan, because from what I can tell Daniel Craig has a lot of input into who he works with.

    Babs won't have made this call without Craig's blessing (assuming he's back). Would Craig work with someone like McGuigan after Mendes? Has he worked with him before?
    bondjames wrote: »
    I watched Insomnia only once, and didn't like it all that much. I can't remember why. I must check it out again.
    --

    GetCarter wrote: »
    CR is a towering Bond film, but the arc blew its load too early. So did the character, in terms of meeting the girl who would shape his soul.
    That's a good point, and I've always wondered if it might have been best for him to just have made the one 'reset' film to take EON out of the funk hole they had dug for themselves in the 90's. He would have been eulogized as the best of the best if that had happened. Like his predecessor he peaked with his first one, which is sad.

    The last act of CR is spiritually the first act of QoS. That's where all the confusion starts, which is carried over into the sequel. Imagine if that house sinking sequence had been the QoS PTS, a bit like the India opening of Bourne 2. Come to think of it, Supremacy and QoS kinda have the exact same ending anyway. They weren't just copying Bourne aesthetically, but also in structure.
    That's probably why they didn't do it that way, because it would have sent off alarm bells re: Bourne. I certainly noticed it regardless. QoS is very similar to The Bourne Supremacy, which was a benchmark film in the genre (as much so as the first), and not only because of shaky cam but because it put the viewer in the mind of the protagonist and had limited exposition. The viewer had to figure out what Bourne was up to as the film progressed. The visceral immediacy of the whole thing was something quite new at the time.

    The sinking house was an idea of Paul Haggis because the P&W third act was seen to be too weak - it was always intended to be at the end of CR.
    That's not what we're talking about. Rather, the point is that the dramatic drowning scene which ends CR (which is not in the book) which then leads into the quest for 'solace', answers, & an epliogue with closure in the sequel is similar to the entire structure of The Bourne Supremacy.
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    @peter, it's a bit of a club hit. There are a lot of versions and homemade videos synched to it on youtube. Pretty addictive, if a bit teeny bopper. I just couldn't resist when I read Murdock's post and the earlier back and forth. Thought it could calm it down a notch.

    Agreed it has got something to it. It's currently running quite often on our major radio stations and I also find it quite addictive.
  • Posts: 1,031
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    McGuigan is such a flaccid suggestion. I doubt Broccoli would want him after reaching the lofty heights of Sam Mendes. However…if it comes from @ColonelSun I believe it.

    It feels like a Pierce Brosnan-era choice. A safe journeyman director who won’t rock the applecart too much.

    I presume that McGuigan made a strong impression on Barbara and she evidently considers him to be someone she can work with. I also suspect he’s someone she will be able to manage – where Mendes was hired to bring his own independent voice.

    I actually don’t mind a journeyman finishing off Craig’s era. If a Chris-Nolan-or-Edgar-Wright-type came on, they would want to do “their” Bond film. With McGuigan what you get is a safe pair of hands who will close the Craig films off effectively. He won’t mind picking up the threads left by Mendes and seeing Craig over the finishing line.

    We might not get an overly polished and technically accomplished film (wave goodbye to the beautiful cinematography of the Mendes reign) but we’ll get an adept film that closes the Craig movies off.

    I see a lot of comparisons between McGuigan and Martin Campbell. I just hope they bring on a great writer. That is the real question here – as McGuigan will just shoot the script he’s given.

    Who can polish P&W’s draft? Some suggestions:

    • Jez Butterworth (He’s a renowned playwright who hasn’t been given a proper chance to write Bond – opposed to just polish the final drafts)
    • Paul Haggis (the writer’s strike ruined QOS but I know for a fact that he was the one who made the CR script sparkle)
    • Steven Knight
    • David Hare
    • Tom Stoppard (Apparently he was involved very early on in the QOS development before Forster came onboard)
    • John Logan (SF was brilliant but SP was a mess – is he redeemable?)
    • Alex Garland (More of a possibility as a director)
    • Jonathan Nolan
    • Chris Terrio (His literate BvS script was hated by fans – personally, I think it holds a lot of merit, albeit a little too high-brow and misguided for the material)
    I remain to be convinced that it's McGuigan, because from what I can tell Daniel Craig has a lot of input into who he works with.

    Babs won't have made this call without Craig's blessing (assuming he's back). Would Craig work with someone like McGuigan after Mendes? Has he worked with him before?
    bondjames wrote: »
    I watched Insomnia only once, and didn't like it all that much. I can't remember why. I must check it out again.
    --

    GetCarter wrote: »
    CR is a towering Bond film, but the arc blew its load too early. So did the character, in terms of meeting the girl who would shape his soul.
    That's a good point, and I've always wondered if it might have been best for him to just have made the one 'reset' film to take EON out of the funk hole they had dug for themselves in the 90's. He would have been eulogized as the best of the best if that had happened. Like his predecessor he peaked with his first one, which is sad.

    The last act of CR is spiritually the first act of QoS. That's where all the confusion starts, which is carried over into the sequel. Imagine if that house sinking sequence had been the QoS PTS, a bit like the India opening of Bourne 2. Come to think of it, Supremacy and QoS kinda have the exact same ending anyway. They weren't just copying Bourne aesthetically, but also in structure.
    That's probably why they didn't do it that way, because it would have sent off alarm bells re: Bourne. I certainly noticed it regardless. QoS is very similar to The Bourne Supremacy, which was a benchmark film in the genre (as much so as the first), and not only because of shaky cam but because it put the viewer in the mind of the protagonist and had limited exposition. The viewer had to figure out what Bourne was up to as the film progressed. The visceral immediacy of the whole thing was something quite new at the time.

    The sinking house was an idea of Paul Haggis because the P&W third act was seen to be too weak - it was always intended to be at the end of CR.
    That's not what we're talking about. Rather, the point is that the dramatic drowning scene which ends CR (which is not in the book) which then leads into the quest for 'solace', answers, & an epliogue with closure in the sequel is similar to the entire structure of The Bourne Supremacy.

    Not really.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 684
    If it is McGuigan, I suppose that makes Arnold's return all the more likely (with their working on Sherlock together). I wonder how likely is it that he would want to bring in Steven Moffat, who has within the last year finished up on both his major commitments?

    I'm not necessarily on board with that, but at this point I'm not sure EON should be against seeing anyone's ideas. To be honest, rather than hiring just a few guys to hammer something out, I think it'd be interesting if they went the TSWLM route and just had something like a dozen writers come in and give it their best shot.

    Had no idea Stoppard was involved with QOS early on. I'd be all for seeing what he had to contribute.

    If they really want to "get the band back together" for this last outing with Campbell and Craig, they ought to bring back Haggis as well.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    np @DarthDimi !
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    McGuigan is such a flaccid suggestion. I doubt Broccoli would want him after reaching the lofty heights of Sam Mendes. However…if it comes from @ColonelSun I believe it.

    It feels like a Pierce Brosnan-era choice. A safe journeyman director who won’t rock the applecart too much.

    I presume that McGuigan made a strong impression on Barbara and she evidently considers him to be someone she can work with. I also suspect he’s someone she will be able to manage – where Mendes was hired to bring his own independent voice.

    I actually don’t mind a journeyman finishing off Craig’s era. If a Chris-Nolan-or-Edgar-Wright-type came on, they would want to do “their” Bond film. With McGuigan what you get is a safe pair of hands who will close the Craig films off effectively. He won’t mind picking up the threads left by Mendes and seeing Craig over the finishing line.

    We might not get an overly polished and technically accomplished film (wave goodbye to the beautiful cinematography of the Mendes reign) but we’ll get an adept film that closes the Craig movies off.

    I see a lot of comparisons between McGuigan and Martin Campbell. I just hope they bring on a great writer. That is the real question here – as McGuigan will just shoot the script he’s given.

    Who can polish P&W’s draft? Some suggestions:

    • Jez Butterworth (He’s a renowned playwright who hasn’t been given a proper chance to write Bond – opposed to just polish the final drafts)
    • Paul Haggis (the writer’s strike ruined QOS but I know for a fact that he was the one who made the CR script sparkle)
    • Steven Knight
    • David Hare
    • Tom Stoppard (Apparently he was involved very early on in the QOS development before Forster came onboard)
    • John Logan (SF was brilliant but SP was a mess – is he redeemable?)
    • Alex Garland (More of a possibility as a director)
    • Jonathan Nolan
    • Chris Terrio (His literate BvS script was hated by fans – personally, I think it holds a lot of merit, albeit a little too high-brow and misguided for the material)
    I remain to be convinced that it's McGuigan, because from what I can tell Daniel Craig has a lot of input into who he works with.

    Babs won't have made this call without Craig's blessing (assuming he's back). Would Craig work with someone like McGuigan after Mendes? Has he worked with him before?
    bondjames wrote: »
    I watched Insomnia only once, and didn't like it all that much. I can't remember why. I must check it out again.
    --

    GetCarter wrote: »
    CR is a towering Bond film, but the arc blew its load too early. So did the character, in terms of meeting the girl who would shape his soul.
    That's a good point, and I've always wondered if it might have been best for him to just have made the one 'reset' film to take EON out of the funk hole they had dug for themselves in the 90's. He would have been eulogized as the best of the best if that had happened. Like his predecessor he peaked with his first one, which is sad.

    The last act of CR is spiritually the first act of QoS. That's where all the confusion starts, which is carried over into the sequel. Imagine if that house sinking sequence had been the QoS PTS, a bit like the India opening of Bourne 2. Come to think of it, Supremacy and QoS kinda have the exact same ending anyway. They weren't just copying Bourne aesthetically, but also in structure.
    That's probably why they didn't do it that way, because it would have sent off alarm bells re: Bourne. I certainly noticed it regardless. QoS is very similar to The Bourne Supremacy, which was a benchmark film in the genre (as much so as the first), and not only because of shaky cam but because it put the viewer in the mind of the protagonist and had limited exposition. The viewer had to figure out what Bourne was up to as the film progressed. The visceral immediacy of the whole thing was something quite new at the time.

    The sinking house was an idea of Paul Haggis because the P&W third act was seen to be too weak - it was always intended to be at the end of CR.
    That's not what we're talking about. Rather, the point is that the dramatic drowning scene which ends CR (which is not in the book) which then leads into the quest for 'solace', answers, & an epliogue with closure in the sequel is similar to the entire structure of The Bourne Supremacy.

    Not really.
    Of course one can find elements that are different but there is far more that is similar than the shaky cam. The source of the inspiration for the film is clear to me, right down to the 'killing everyone in sight due to rage' & the 'female superior/mentor (the only one who trusts him)' metaphor. In both cases, the protagonist has far nobler ambitions, namely a quest for answers & inner peace after sudden trauma & love lost.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited July 2017 Posts: 4,583
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Nolan's name is spreading like herpes in here. =))
    And it has the same effect on my skin.


    TripAces wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Not interested in Nolan's "Bond vision." It's probably just as radical and extreme as Quentin Tarantino's. PASS!

    Watch Insomnia. It's Nolan's most underrated and underappreciated film...and it is quite conventional in its approach. You can see a lot of what Nolan might do, in terms of vision, with a Bond film.
    Insomnia wasn´t written by Nolan, so it´s rather not indicative of what Nolan might do, in terms of vision, with a Bond film. Except for the lighting.

    Well, hell, then. That settles it. Why worry about getting the right director when it apparently doesn't matter...because all of the vision and creative work (except the lighting) comes solely from the script. Heck, any of us could direct a Bond film, since the script is all we need.

    I think you might want to reconsider that comment, @boldfinger.
  • Posts: 1,031
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    McGuigan is such a flaccid suggestion. I doubt Broccoli would want him after reaching the lofty heights of Sam Mendes. However…if it comes from @ColonelSun I believe it.

    It feels like a Pierce Brosnan-era choice. A safe journeyman director who won’t rock the applecart too much.

    I presume that McGuigan made a strong impression on Barbara and she evidently considers him to be someone she can work with. I also suspect he’s someone she will be able to manage – where Mendes was hired to bring his own independent voice.

    I actually don’t mind a journeyman finishing off Craig’s era. If a Chris-Nolan-or-Edgar-Wright-type came on, they would want to do “their” Bond film. With McGuigan what you get is a safe pair of hands who will close the Craig films off effectively. He won’t mind picking up the threads left by Mendes and seeing Craig over the finishing line.

    We might not get an overly polished and technically accomplished film (wave goodbye to the beautiful cinematography of the Mendes reign) but we’ll get an adept film that closes the Craig movies off.

    I see a lot of comparisons between McGuigan and Martin Campbell. I just hope they bring on a great writer. That is the real question here – as McGuigan will just shoot the script he’s given.

    Who can polish P&W’s draft? Some suggestions:

    • Jez Butterworth (He’s a renowned playwright who hasn’t been given a proper chance to write Bond – opposed to just polish the final drafts)
    • Paul Haggis (the writer’s strike ruined QOS but I know for a fact that he was the one who made the CR script sparkle)
    • Steven Knight
    • David Hare
    • Tom Stoppard (Apparently he was involved very early on in the QOS development before Forster came onboard)
    • John Logan (SF was brilliant but SP was a mess – is he redeemable?)
    • Alex Garland (More of a possibility as a director)
    • Jonathan Nolan
    • Chris Terrio (His literate BvS script was hated by fans – personally, I think it holds a lot of merit, albeit a little too high-brow and misguided for the material)
    I remain to be convinced that it's McGuigan, because from what I can tell Daniel Craig has a lot of input into who he works with.

    Babs won't have made this call without Craig's blessing (assuming he's back). Would Craig work with someone like McGuigan after Mendes? Has he worked with him before?
    bondjames wrote: »
    I watched Insomnia only once, and didn't like it all that much. I can't remember why. I must check it out again.
    --

    GetCarter wrote: »
    CR is a towering Bond film, but the arc blew its load too early. So did the character, in terms of meeting the girl who would shape his soul.
    That's a good point, and I've always wondered if it might have been best for him to just have made the one 'reset' film to take EON out of the funk hole they had dug for themselves in the 90's. He would have been eulogized as the best of the best if that had happened. Like his predecessor he peaked with his first one, which is sad.

    The last act of CR is spiritually the first act of QoS. That's where all the confusion starts, which is carried over into the sequel. Imagine if that house sinking sequence had been the QoS PTS, a bit like the India opening of Bourne 2. Come to think of it, Supremacy and QoS kinda have the exact same ending anyway. They weren't just copying Bourne aesthetically, but also in structure.
    That's probably why they didn't do it that way, because it would have sent off alarm bells re: Bourne. I certainly noticed it regardless. QoS is very similar to The Bourne Supremacy, which was a benchmark film in the genre (as much so as the first), and not only because of shaky cam but because it put the viewer in the mind of the protagonist and had limited exposition. The viewer had to figure out what Bourne was up to as the film progressed. The visceral immediacy of the whole thing was something quite new at the time.

    The sinking house was an idea of Paul Haggis because the P&W third act was seen to be too weak - it was always intended to be at the end of CR.
    That's not what we're talking about. Rather, the point is that the dramatic drowning scene which ends CR (which is not in the book) which then leads into the quest for 'solace', answers, & an epliogue with closure in the sequel is similar to the entire structure of The Bourne Supremacy.

    Not really.
    Of course one can find elements that are different but there is far more that is similar than the shaky cam. The source of the inspiration for the film is clear to me, right down to the 'killing everyone in sight due to rage' & the 'female superior/mentor (the only one who trusts him)' metaphor. In both cases, the protagonist has far nobler ambitions, namely a quest for answers & inner peace after sudden trauma & love lost.

    Can't see it, two quite different films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    McGuigan is such a flaccid suggestion. I doubt Broccoli would want him after reaching the lofty heights of Sam Mendes. However…if it comes from @ColonelSun I believe it.

    It feels like a Pierce Brosnan-era choice. A safe journeyman director who won’t rock the applecart too much.

    I presume that McGuigan made a strong impression on Barbara and she evidently considers him to be someone she can work with. I also suspect he’s someone she will be able to manage – where Mendes was hired to bring his own independent voice.

    I actually don’t mind a journeyman finishing off Craig’s era. If a Chris-Nolan-or-Edgar-Wright-type came on, they would want to do “their” Bond film. With McGuigan what you get is a safe pair of hands who will close the Craig films off effectively. He won’t mind picking up the threads left by Mendes and seeing Craig over the finishing line.

    We might not get an overly polished and technically accomplished film (wave goodbye to the beautiful cinematography of the Mendes reign) but we’ll get an adept film that closes the Craig movies off.

    I see a lot of comparisons between McGuigan and Martin Campbell. I just hope they bring on a great writer. That is the real question here – as McGuigan will just shoot the script he’s given.

    Who can polish P&W’s draft? Some suggestions:

    • Jez Butterworth (He’s a renowned playwright who hasn’t been given a proper chance to write Bond – opposed to just polish the final drafts)
    • Paul Haggis (the writer’s strike ruined QOS but I know for a fact that he was the one who made the CR script sparkle)
    • Steven Knight
    • David Hare
    • Tom Stoppard (Apparently he was involved very early on in the QOS development before Forster came onboard)
    • John Logan (SF was brilliant but SP was a mess – is he redeemable?)
    • Alex Garland (More of a possibility as a director)
    • Jonathan Nolan
    • Chris Terrio (His literate BvS script was hated by fans – personally, I think it holds a lot of merit, albeit a little too high-brow and misguided for the material)
    I remain to be convinced that it's McGuigan, because from what I can tell Daniel Craig has a lot of input into who he works with.

    Babs won't have made this call without Craig's blessing (assuming he's back). Would Craig work with someone like McGuigan after Mendes? Has he worked with him before?
    bondjames wrote: »
    I watched Insomnia only once, and didn't like it all that much. I can't remember why. I must check it out again.
    --

    GetCarter wrote: »
    CR is a towering Bond film, but the arc blew its load too early. So did the character, in terms of meeting the girl who would shape his soul.
    That's a good point, and I've always wondered if it might have been best for him to just have made the one 'reset' film to take EON out of the funk hole they had dug for themselves in the 90's. He would have been eulogized as the best of the best if that had happened. Like his predecessor he peaked with his first one, which is sad.

    The last act of CR is spiritually the first act of QoS. That's where all the confusion starts, which is carried over into the sequel. Imagine if that house sinking sequence had been the QoS PTS, a bit like the India opening of Bourne 2. Come to think of it, Supremacy and QoS kinda have the exact same ending anyway. They weren't just copying Bourne aesthetically, but also in structure.
    That's probably why they didn't do it that way, because it would have sent off alarm bells re: Bourne. I certainly noticed it regardless. QoS is very similar to The Bourne Supremacy, which was a benchmark film in the genre (as much so as the first), and not only because of shaky cam but because it put the viewer in the mind of the protagonist and had limited exposition. The viewer had to figure out what Bourne was up to as the film progressed. The visceral immediacy of the whole thing was something quite new at the time.

    The sinking house was an idea of Paul Haggis because the P&W third act was seen to be too weak - it was always intended to be at the end of CR.
    That's not what we're talking about. Rather, the point is that the dramatic drowning scene which ends CR (which is not in the book) which then leads into the quest for 'solace', answers, & an epliogue with closure in the sequel is similar to the entire structure of The Bourne Supremacy.

    Not really.
    Of course one can find elements that are different but there is far more that is similar than the shaky cam. The source of the inspiration for the film is clear to me, right down to the 'killing everyone in sight due to rage' & the 'female superior/mentor (the only one who trusts him)' metaphor. In both cases, the protagonist has far nobler ambitions, namely a quest for answers & inner peace after sudden trauma & love lost.

    Can't see it, two quite different films.
    You don't have to and of course they are different films. However, the character arc/theme first broached in Bourne is definitely at play during the Craig era, and there was an element of predictability to the 'you have a choice' aspect in SP as well. A bit of tiresome deja vu for me, but whatever. It will be over either with the upcoming film or the one after that thankfully, and we can get back to the business of simple action thrillers hopefully.
  • Posts: 1,031
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    McGuigan is such a flaccid suggestion. I doubt Broccoli would want him after reaching the lofty heights of Sam Mendes. However…if it comes from @ColonelSun I believe it.

    It feels like a Pierce Brosnan-era choice. A safe journeyman director who won’t rock the applecart too much.

    I presume that McGuigan made a strong impression on Barbara and she evidently considers him to be someone she can work with. I also suspect he’s someone she will be able to manage – where Mendes was hired to bring his own independent voice.

    I actually don’t mind a journeyman finishing off Craig’s era. If a Chris-Nolan-or-Edgar-Wright-type came on, they would want to do “their” Bond film. With McGuigan what you get is a safe pair of hands who will close the Craig films off effectively. He won’t mind picking up the threads left by Mendes and seeing Craig over the finishing line.

    We might not get an overly polished and technically accomplished film (wave goodbye to the beautiful cinematography of the Mendes reign) but we’ll get an adept film that closes the Craig movies off.

    I see a lot of comparisons between McGuigan and Martin Campbell. I just hope they bring on a great writer. That is the real question here – as McGuigan will just shoot the script he’s given.

    Who can polish P&W’s draft? Some suggestions:

    • Jez Butterworth (He’s a renowned playwright who hasn’t been given a proper chance to write Bond – opposed to just polish the final drafts)
    • Paul Haggis (the writer’s strike ruined QOS but I know for a fact that he was the one who made the CR script sparkle)
    • Steven Knight
    • David Hare
    • Tom Stoppard (Apparently he was involved very early on in the QOS development before Forster came onboard)
    • John Logan (SF was brilliant but SP was a mess – is he redeemable?)
    • Alex Garland (More of a possibility as a director)
    • Jonathan Nolan
    • Chris Terrio (His literate BvS script was hated by fans – personally, I think it holds a lot of merit, albeit a little too high-brow and misguided for the material)
    I remain to be convinced that it's McGuigan, because from what I can tell Daniel Craig has a lot of input into who he works with.

    Babs won't have made this call without Craig's blessing (assuming he's back). Would Craig work with someone like McGuigan after Mendes? Has he worked with him before?
    bondjames wrote: »
    I watched Insomnia only once, and didn't like it all that much. I can't remember why. I must check it out again.
    --

    GetCarter wrote: »
    CR is a towering Bond film, but the arc blew its load too early. So did the character, in terms of meeting the girl who would shape his soul.
    That's a good point, and I've always wondered if it might have been best for him to just have made the one 'reset' film to take EON out of the funk hole they had dug for themselves in the 90's. He would have been eulogized as the best of the best if that had happened. Like his predecessor he peaked with his first one, which is sad.

    The last act of CR is spiritually the first act of QoS. That's where all the confusion starts, which is carried over into the sequel. Imagine if that house sinking sequence had been the QoS PTS, a bit like the India opening of Bourne 2. Come to think of it, Supremacy and QoS kinda have the exact same ending anyway. They weren't just copying Bourne aesthetically, but also in structure.
    That's probably why they didn't do it that way, because it would have sent off alarm bells re: Bourne. I certainly noticed it regardless. QoS is very similar to The Bourne Supremacy, which was a benchmark film in the genre (as much so as the first), and not only because of shaky cam but because it put the viewer in the mind of the protagonist and had limited exposition. The viewer had to figure out what Bourne was up to as the film progressed. The visceral immediacy of the whole thing was something quite new at the time.

    The sinking house was an idea of Paul Haggis because the P&W third act was seen to be too weak - it was always intended to be at the end of CR.
    That's not what we're talking about. Rather, the point is that the dramatic drowning scene which ends CR (which is not in the book) which then leads into the quest for 'solace', answers, & an epliogue with closure in the sequel is similar to the entire structure of The Bourne Supremacy.

    Not really.
    Of course one can find elements that are different but there is far more that is similar than the shaky cam. The source of the inspiration for the film is clear to me, right down to the 'killing everyone in sight due to rage' & the 'female superior/mentor (the only one who trusts him)' metaphor. In both cases, the protagonist has far nobler ambitions, namely a quest for answers & inner peace after sudden trauma & love lost.

    Can't see it, two quite different films.
    You don't have to and of course they are different films. However, the character arc/theme first broached in Bourne is definitely at play during the Craig era, and there was an element of predictability to the 'you have a choice' aspect in SP as well. A bit of tiresome deja vu for me, but whatever. It will be over either with the upcoming film or the one after that thankfully, and we can get back to the business of simple action thrillers hopefully.

    You're so right.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Nolan with a new Bond actor would be most exciting to me. I'd like the Craig era to be its own self contained quadrilogy and the next one can be a soft reboot, either starting a new era or a one off self contained film depending on what Nolan has in mind.

    I wouldn't be opposed to another Craig film, especially with Campbell directing, but Spectre felt like a definitive ending. Bond sparing Blofeld and walking away from killing, the callbacks to all the other Craig films, the 00s being further phased out, etc. There was a real sense of this being everything the other films had been building up to. The big finale. It'd be hard to create a follow up that didn't feel tacked on imo. If they do another Craig film they better have a good story. Even the garden of death won't save "Blofeld kills Madeline, Bond wants revenge" from being a really boring played out premise for a sequel. I don't the comments saying stuff like "Craig isn't done, Blofeld is still alive", etc. Bond's whole arc in SP was remembering the man he used to be and walking away from killing. A revenge driven sequel, or Craig era sequel of any kind, would completely undermine that. Bond leaves Madeline or she leaves Bond and he goes back? That whole character arc was pointless. Madeline dies, punishing Bond for thinking he could ever escape? Boring. Maybe if they'd got it out this year I'd be on board, but we're looking at at least another year or two. I don't want to wait that long for a sequel I really don't see the point in, and then wait even longer for the next actor to come in with Bond 26. If the gaps between films are gonna be this long, I at least want something that's genuinely really exciting at the end of it.

    Plus, as good as he is, Craig has been Bond for ages. It would have been nice if we'd seen more of him (it really feels like there's a film missing between QoS and SF) but if they did another it would feel a bit stale to me. It's been over a decade since CR. For 11 years now he's been associated with the role even if they haven't produced that many films during that time. It'd be nice to have the sense of excitement and freshness that comes with a clean slate instead of trying to close an era that already feels finished imo.

    So I do have my fingers crossed for a new actor at this point. Preferrably directed by Nolan because EON really should make him an offer he can't refuse while he's still willing and in his prime.
    Murdock wrote: »
    Alexander Witt would be my second choice.

    I get why you're suggesting him (familiar with the series, potential to be another Glenn type) but do we really want to turn down the director of The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception and Dunkirk in favour of the guy behind Resident Evil Apocalypse? No thank you.

    Have to say you've convinced me there mate. I was quite happy with another Craig film but you're absolutely right they've dig themselves into such a hole with SP that there really is nowhere to go is there?

    Blofeld escapes and kills Madeline and Bond goes out for revenge? To get to the Garden of Death and a cracking Flemingian last half hour we've got to sit through 90 mins of contrived and hackneyed prison escapes and Bond girl killings. Yawn.

    Or

    We have a passing line that Bond and Madeline split up and we don't mention her or Blofeld again and have a standalone film with a classic mission to save the world. Well I'm sorry when you've made a massive character arc and interconnectivity the thing of the Craig era it's just a cop out to ditch it all because you've painted yourself into too tight a corner but still want to wring one more film out of Craig.

    Sign Nolan tomorrow for a trilogy. Soft reboot, forget the brother bullshit and let him properly build up SPECTRE and Blofeld in his own way.

    2019 - Bond Begins if you will (in the Nolan sense, obviously an origin story is a big no)
    2022 - For the 60th an absolute epic culminating in the Garden of Death and amnesiac Bond wandering off to Vladivostok.
    2025 - Bond rises. Early scenes of him being brainwashed in Vladivostok, assassination attempt on M and then a save the world mission with everything turned up to 11.

    I know this looks very much like blowing my own horn (probably because that's what it is), but I'm still convinced that this idea from my very first post on this forum still is the most sensible one to erase this eyesore from the franchises shield, so in all my vanity I'm boldly going to repost it.
    I know it hasn't set the world (i.e. this forum) on fire but you might find it's worth a second look. If you don't, excuse me for stealing your time.

    So here we go:
    I assume it is safe to say that just about everybody hates/dislikes the Oberhauser/Blofeld angle. And even those that are too young and too casual fans to recognize the rape of Flemings work consider the new Blofeld incarnation completely laughable.
    And face it - it's in the world. There's no way they just can't ignore it from now on. There always will be people making fun out of it no matter how much they try to erase the memory of this terrible, terrible mistake.
    So why not just make Oberhauser a busybody? Someone who worked rather high-level for Spectre, but just pretended to be the big boss himself.
    With a little fantasy all of this could be achieved in just a few minutes of the PTS.
    Just imagine the gunbarrel, followed by a group of people breaking in Blofeld's jail ( causing of course some bloodshed on the way), entering his cell and placing - in complete silence - a video screen in front of the very terrified looking "Blofeld" (if they wanted to save them money for Waltz they could also keep his face in the shadow and just let his body language and widened-in-terror eyes do the talking).
    Then a voice out of the screen:
    "Hello, Franz. You know, I should be grateful to you for making my name a complete joke all over the intelligence community, just because you were so keen to impress your Mr. Bond, you neurotic little frat. But actually I'm not. I'm afraid not at all. Somehow I feel really sorry. I always found your relentlessly information seeking mind of great use, but you certainly have overplayed your hand, costing Spectre in effect all the knowledge to be gained out of the nine eyes project. For that alone you deserve the utmost punishment so at least try to face your fate with some dignity, even though I doubt it."
    We now see the men in the cell doing something disgusting to Oberhauser. (I'd imagine something along the lines of an octopus pressed on his face who somehow suffocates him, but could almost live with any kind of killing.)
    Then the camera focuses on the screen and we see a man up to his throat, stroking a cat he holds in his hands.
    After he seems to have delectated him sufficiently on the site of the dying Oberhauser we hear his voice again:
    "So and now we have to teach MI6 and Mr. Bond that the name of Ernst Stavros Blofeld is to be taken seriously."
    Or alternatively, almost best of all, this also could lend to an introduction line for the new Bond. Blofeld last line could be something along the lines of "and now to this Mr. Bond. I really look forward meeting him."
    Titles, followed by whoever walking in M's office.
  • Posts: 9,846
    so is Mcguin a fact now?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    Risico007 wrote: »
    so is Mcguin a fact now?

    Fact implies that it's been confirmed, which it hasn't.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    At least it feels like things are happening now. That's something every Bond fan can rejoice in, regardless of preference.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,537
    If you can wrap your head around it, The Hollywood Reporter refer to DC as "the once-and-possibly-still-future James Bond" in their review of 'Logan Lucky'.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    If you can wrap your head around it, The Hollywood Reporter refer to DC as "the once-and-possibly-still-future James Bond" in their review of 'Logan Lucky'.

    What's wrong with that? Things are up in the air at the moment, admittedly.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,537
    Didn't say there was anything wrong with it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    While it's a bit of a convoluted description, it's probably the most accurate representation of the current state of affairs, until EON makes an announcement or Craig lets it slip during the interviews.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Guys, I think I know what Nolan is really waiting for. He isn't waiting for Craig to leave, he is waiting for the Queen's death. He wants to use the title ON HIS MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. Remember, the OHMSS is his favourite Bond film. :O
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited July 2017 Posts: 16,351
    delete.
  • Posts: 12,837
    Logan Lucky seems be getting very good reviews. How do you all think that bodes for Craig returning? If it does really well and his film career outside of Bond finally properly takes off/he chooses more good projects, do you think he's less likely to come back? Or will it not matter at all and I'm reading too much into it?
    Guys, I think I know what Nolan is really waiting for. He isn't waiting for Craig to leave, he is waiting for the Queen's death. He wants to use the title ON HIS MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. Remember, the OHMSS is his favourite Bond film. :O

    Haha imagine if this big idea he's saving was literally just that. Shot for shot remake of OHMSS with a slightly different title.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2017 Posts: 8,395
    Guys, I think I know what Nolan is really waiting for. He isn't waiting for Craig to leave, he is waiting for the Queen's death. He wants to use the title ON HIS MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. Remember, the OHMSS is his favourite Bond film. :O

    Haha imagine if this big idea he's saving was literally just that. Shot for shot remake of OHMSS with a slightly different title.
    With Vince Vaughn as Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.