No Time To Die: Production Diary

19379389409429432507

Comments

  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Delayed Purity, I suspect he will do his usual, go off to somewhere like New Zealand, hit the gym, climb mountains and be ready for rehearsals and filming. Now Craig has spoken, I think EON may give us something more official in the next few months.
    Yes. Eon have been rather quiet except for announcing a release dates 2+ years away (which is their standard modus operandi anyway). I look forward to some concrete data on this film from them once everything is finalized (at least I want to know who the distributor and director are, as presumably the former is 'locked').

    I think everything points to EON/MGM/Sony coming to a 1 movie contract, look at a more permanent home post Craig Era. This was rumoured but seems only logical rumour.
    That makes sense actually.

    I just don't understand why MGM hasn't made the announcement yet. After all, the distributor is for MGM films, and not just Bond (according to Michael Wilson). It's their announcement to make and they didn't do it on the conference call.

    I tried to wrap my mind around, what he said in the show and what he said could also be seen as an offer from his side to EON.
  • Posts: 623
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I still think it's not a total requirement for Madeleine to come back though; they could briefly explain it didn't work out between them.

    Or not bother explaining at all. That's the Bond way of old!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    shamanimal wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I still think it's not a total requirement for Madeleine to come back though; they could briefly explain it didn't work out between them.

    Or not bother explaining at all. That's the Bond way of old!

    "Briefly explain" is also unnecessary. Come 2019, the general audiences will have mostly forgotten who Madeleine Swann was. Drop her and pick up a new actress and begin anew like they do for every single installment.
  • Posts: 19,339
    shamanimal wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I still think it's not a total requirement for Madeleine to come back though; they could briefly explain it didn't work out between them.

    Or not bother explaining at all. That's the Bond way of old!

    Spot on...totally agree.
    It's the way it used to be indeed.

    Well said,Sir !

  • Posts: 1,493
    barryt007 wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I still think it's not a total requirement for Madeleine to come back though; they could briefly explain it didn't work out between them.

    Or not bother explaining at all. That's the Bond way of old!

    Spot on...totally agree.
    It's the way it used to be indeed.

    Well said,Sir !

    Except Craig's Bonds are not the Bonds of old.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Bond 25
    Black screen, white dot traverses,music swells. Last dot fills screen, image and sound of a shower, steam and running water down a glass shower screen. Out of focus a man's head and torso can be seen.
    A woman's voice off screen: 'Hurry up James, you'll be late for M's funeral.'
    Extreme close up: Bond. 'Is that you MonneyPenny?'
    Penny: 'Yes, James now hurry up'
    Bond: 'What happened to Blofeld?'
    Penny: 'Who?' Quickly James we don't have much time.'
    Bond to camera; 'Just a dream…SPECTRE was just a dream' Noise of shower segues into title music…
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Delayed Purity, I suspect he will do his usual, go off to somewhere like New Zealand, hit the gym, climb mountains and be ready for rehearsals and filming. Now Craig has spoken, I think EON may give us something more official in the next few months.
    Yes. Eon have been rather quiet except for announcing a release dates 2+ years away (which is their standard modus operandi anyway). I look forward to some concrete data on this film from them once everything is finalized (at least I want to know who the distributor and director are, as presumably the former is 'locked').

    I think everything points to EON/MGM/Sony coming to a 1 movie contract, look at a more permanent home post Craig Era. This was rumoured but seems only logical rumour.
    That makes sense actually.

    I just don't understand why MGM hasn't made the announcement yet. After all, the distributor is for MGM films, and not just Bond (according to Michael Wilson). It's their announcement to make and they didn't do it on the conference call.

    I tried to wrap my mind around, what he said in the show and what he said could also be seen as an offer from his side to EON.
    It was an unusual announcement but also definitive. Closes off speculation (and focuses attention on his new film) but also leaves unanswered questions. Colbert didn't press either.

    As I said earlier, his contradictory morning comments yesterday were very plausible too and he went out of his way to explain himself consistently on not one, but two radio shows.

    What surprised me is his comment about being raring to go. The film release is two full years away!

    Also his statement about going out 'on a high'. I wonder if he's been reading these boards?
  • Posts: 1,162
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I still think it's not a total requirement for Madeleine to come back though; they could briefly explain it didn't work out between them.

    Or not bother explaining at all. That's the Bond way of old!

    Spot on...totally agree.
    It's the way it used to be indeed.

    Well said,Sir !

    Except Craig's Bonds are not the Bonds of old.

    Truer words have rarely been spoken!
  • Posts: 1,031
    Thing is if Bond 25 is totally stand alone it will feel a bit odd that his era has 4 connected films and then a random unconnected one to finish off with - can't see it not relating to Blofeld and Spectre.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 19,339
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I still think it's not a total requirement for Madeleine to come back though; they could briefly explain it didn't work out between them.

    Or not bother explaining at all. That's the Bond way of old!

    Spot on...totally agree.
    It's the way it used to be indeed.

    Well said,Sir !

    Except Craig's Bonds are not the Bonds of old.

    If you take that to the letter then that means that Moore,Dalton and Brosnan are not the Bonds of old either.

    Only Connery would the EON Bond of old ,n'est pas ?

  • Posts: 1,493
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I still think it's not a total requirement for Madeleine to come back though; they could briefly explain it didn't work out between them.

    Or not bother explaining at all. That's the Bond way of old!

    Spot on...totally agree.
    It's the way it used to be indeed.

    Well said,Sir !

    Except Craig's Bonds are not the Bonds of old.

    If you take that to the letter then that means that Moore,Dalton and Brosnan are not the Bonds of old either.

    Only Connery would the EON Bond of old ,n'est pas ?

    Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, they all followed the same broad template - standalone adventures with the odd supporting characters popping up here and there. Craig's films have taken a different approach.
  • Posts: 19,339
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I still think it's not a total requirement for Madeleine to come back though; they could briefly explain it didn't work out between them.

    Or not bother explaining at all. That's the Bond way of old!

    Spot on...totally agree.
    It's the way it used to be indeed.

    Well said,Sir !

    Except Craig's Bonds are not the Bonds of old.

    If you take that to the letter then that means that Moore,Dalton and Brosnan are not the Bonds of old either.

    Only Connery would the EON Bond of old ,n'est pas ?

    Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, they all followed the same broad template - standalone adventures with the odd supporting characters popping up here and there. Craig's films have taken a different approach.

    Still doesn't mean she has to be mentioned or seen.
    Although I'm sure she will be..just mentioned hopefully.

  • Posts: 623
    I wonder how they'll handle the 'Bond leaving the service' angle, more than whether they'll bring Swan back.
    Will they jump straight into another Bond adventure and assume he never left the service, or will we get something villainous happening, and M saying "we need Bond, get him back".
    Which sounds cool to me.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I still think it's not a total requirement for Madeleine to come back though; they could briefly explain it didn't work out between them.

    Or not bother explaining at all. That's the Bond way of old!

    Spot on...totally agree.
    It's the way it used to be indeed.

    Well said,Sir !

    Except Craig's Bonds are not the Bonds of old.

    If you take that to the letter then that means that Moore,Dalton and Brosnan are not the Bonds of old either.

    Only Connery would the EON Bond of old ,n'est pas ?

    Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, they all followed the same broad template - standalone adventures with the odd supporting characters popping up here and there. Craig's films have taken a different approach.

    It's also worth noting that those films make an effort to reinforce a through line in Tracy. TSWLM, FYEO and LTK reference her and, while it's more subtle, the moment in TWINE where Elektra asks Brosnan if he's lost someone he loved, his reaction speaks volumes.

    DC is Bond but viewed through a different prism. His lost love is Vesper, not Tracy and his timeline is self contained, inter-connected and specific to him (Mendes fanwankery not withstanding).
  • Posts: 1,493
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I still think it's not a total requirement for Madeleine to come back though; they could briefly explain it didn't work out between them.

    Or not bother explaining at all. That's the Bond way of old!

    Spot on...totally agree.
    It's the way it used to be indeed.

    Well said,Sir !

    Except Craig's Bonds are not the Bonds of old.

    If you take that to the letter then that means that Moore,Dalton and Brosnan are not the Bonds of old either.

    Only Connery would the EON Bond of old ,n'est pas ?

    Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, they all followed the same broad template - standalone adventures with the odd supporting characters popping up here and there. Craig's films have taken a different approach.

    Still doesn't mean she has to be mentioned or seen.
    Although I'm sure she will be..just mentioned hopefully.

    No, but I can't see Eon changing their approach to the Craig films for his final one, so I bet the writers include her in some way, whether she appears or is just mentioned. Of course, after a few drafts, she might well disappear completely. But if Blofeld is back, and I think he will be, then the odds seem higher she will have some kind of role in the story.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I wonder how they'll handle the 'Bond leaving the service' angle, more than whether they'll bring Swan back.
    Will they jump straight into another Bond adventure and assume he never left the service, or will we get something villainous happening, and M saying "we need Bond, get him back".
    Which sounds cool to me.

    Would be great to have a non-Bond PTS that showcases a villain enacting an early part of his plan, causing some level of deaths/destruction, which causes M to require Bond and have him return post-PTS.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    DC is Bond but viewed through a different prism. His lost love is Vesper, not Tracy and his timeline is self contained, inter-connected and specific to him (Mendes fanwankery not withstanding).
    Indeed, Blofeld's claim to fame in the DC universe is killing both his surrogate mother (M) and his lover (Vesper) in lieu of Tracy.

    Strangely though, we have White as a Draco like crime figure with his daughter being a pseudo stand-in for Tracy. I wish they hadn't added that bit but it is what it is.
  • Posts: 1,917
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I wonder how they'll handle the 'Bond leaving the service' angle, more than whether they'll bring Swan back.
    Will they jump straight into another Bond adventure and assume he never left the service, or will we get something villainous happening, and M saying "we need Bond, get him back".
    Which sounds cool to me.

    Would be great to have a non-Bond PTS that showcases a villain enacting an early part of his plan, causing some level of deaths/destruction, which causes M to require Bond and have him return post-PTS.

    I wouldn't be opposed, but the PTS have become monsters of their own and to have one without Bond and a huge stunt isn't likely. CR's was the closest we'll likely to ever have one like LALD or TMWTGG again.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I wonder how they'll handle the 'Bond leaving the service' angle, more than whether they'll bring Swan back.
    Will they jump straight into another Bond adventure and assume he never left the service, or will we get something villainous happening, and M saying "we need Bond, get him back".
    Which sounds cool to me.

    Would be great to have a non-Bond PTS that showcases a villain enacting an early part of his plan, causing some level of deaths/destruction, which causes M to require Bond and have him return post-PTS.

    If it's Daniel's last Bond film then he has to be in the PTS.
    If he is doing Bond26 as part of a 2 film deal then i'm all for it !!
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 19,339
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I wonder how they'll handle the 'Bond leaving the service' angle, more than whether they'll bring Swan back.
    Will they jump straight into another Bond adventure and assume he never left the service, or will we get something villainous happening, and M saying "we need Bond, get him back".
    Which sounds cool to me.

    Would be great to have a non-Bond PTS that showcases a villain enacting an early part of his plan, causing some level of deaths/destruction, which causes M to require Bond and have him return post-PTS.

    If it's Daniel's last Bond film then he has to be in the PTS,for me.
    If he is doing Bond26 as part of a 2 film deal then i'm all for a non-Bond PTS !!

  • Posts: 628
    bondjames wrote: »
    Also his statement about going out 'on a high'. I wonder if he's been reading these boards?

    I find it tactless and offensive when actors slag off the previous film, even in a subtle way. There were many people who enjoyed SPECTRE, and Craig should recognize that.

  • Posts: 1,917
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Also his statement about going out 'on a high'. I wonder if he's been reading these boards?

    I find it tactless and offensive when actors slag off the previous film, even in a subtle way. There were many people who enjoyed SPECTRE, and Craig should recognize that.

    But didn't a previous Bond actor who shall remain nameless do just that during his tenure?
  • Posts: 15,124
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Money down Blofeld will be back. I cannot see them leaving that character hanging and without a payoff after SP - and also because this is Craig's final Bond to complete his arc.
    Since Blofeld was defeated and captured at the end of SP, they could very easily ignore his character completely. On the other hand, it would be much more difficult to ignore Madeleine. Blofeld in Spectre was an awful character, his return (and the return of Waltz) would only drag Bond 26 down and I think (or at least I hope) both Craig and the producers know it.

    As I say, my money is on Blofeld being in the mix, perhaps not up front, but he won't be ignored.

    I'd put my money on that as well.

    A guess: Blofeld cameo and main adversary a field commander a la Largo or Dr No. Blofeld escapes midway like Hannibal Lekter (spelling?) only to show up as a foreboding presence near the end. I think they'll want the character to survive for the next Bond actor(s).

    I think we might also see Irma Bunt this time. A very dangerous lady along the lines of Rosa Klebb would be fun for Craig's Bond to deal with.

    Given their way of trying to (re)introduce Fleming's elements in the latest movies I wouldn't be surprised.
  • Posts: 623
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Would be great to have a non-Bond PTS that showcases a villain enacting an early part of his plan, causing some level of deaths/destruction, which causes M to require Bond and have him return post-PTS.

    One of the problems with Spectre was the villain wasn't established - we simply didn't see any villainy! So yes, a none Bond pre-credit, showing us a horrible bad-bastard, and the PM saying to M "there's no other way... get Bond back, we need him".

    Too corny?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Also his statement about going out 'on a high'. I wonder if he's been reading these boards?

    I find it tactless and offensive when actors slag off the previous film, even in a subtle way. There were many people who enjoyed SPECTRE, and Craig should recognize that.

    That is all in your mind.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Would be great to have a non-Bond PTS that showcases a villain enacting an early part of his plan, causing some level of deaths/destruction, which causes M to require Bond and have him return post-PTS.

    One of the problems with Spectre was the villain wasn't established - we simply didn't see any villainy! So yes, a none Bond pre-credit, showing us a horrible bad-bastard, and the PM saying to M "there's no other way... get Bond back, we need him".

    Too corny?

    Better than an underdeveloped villain. I'll take a non-Bond PTS that sheds a little backstory on it all.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Delayed Purity, I suspect he will do his usual, go off to somewhere like New Zealand, hit the gym, climb mountains and be ready for rehearsals and filming. Now Craig has spoken, I think EON may give us something more official in the next few months.
    Yes. Eon have been rather quiet except for announcing a release dates 2+ years away (which is their standard modus operandi anyway). I look forward to some concrete data on this film from them once everything is finalized (at least I want to know who the distributor and director are, as presumably the former is 'locked').

    I think everything points to EON/MGM/Sony coming to a 1 movie contract, look at a more permanent home post Craig Era. This was rumoured but seems only logical rumour.
    That makes sense actually.

    I just don't understand why MGM hasn't made the announcement yet. After all, the distributor is for MGM films, and not just Bond (according to Michael Wilson). It's their announcement to make and they didn't do it on the conference call.

    That is what Michael Wilson said, but I think he was mistaken. They still have different distributors for different films. BTW, MGM's partner for its Death Wish remake is Annapurna. (Referenced on yesterday's investor call.) I wouldn't read more into it, given that Warner Bros. has also distributed some MGM films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Delayed Purity, I suspect he will do his usual, go off to somewhere like New Zealand, hit the gym, climb mountains and be ready for rehearsals and filming. Now Craig has spoken, I think EON may give us something more official in the next few months.
    Yes. Eon have been rather quiet except for announcing a release dates 2+ years away (which is their standard modus operandi anyway). I look forward to some concrete data on this film from them once everything is finalized (at least I want to know who the distributor and director are, as presumably the former is 'locked').

    I think everything points to EON/MGM/Sony coming to a 1 movie contract, look at a more permanent home post Craig Era. This was rumoured but seems only logical rumour.
    That makes sense actually.

    I just don't understand why MGM hasn't made the announcement yet. After all, the distributor is for MGM films, and not just Bond (according to Michael Wilson). It's their announcement to make and they didn't do it on the conference call.

    That is what Michael Wilson said, but I think he was mistaken. They still have different distributors for different films. BTW, MGM's partner for its Death Wish remake is Annapurna. (Referenced on yesterday's investor call.) I wouldn't read more into it, given that Warner Bros. has also distributed some MGM films.
    Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense, because I definitely remember Wilson saying what he said. He was probably incorrect, as you note.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 19,339
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Would be great to have a non-Bond PTS that showcases a villain enacting an early part of his plan, causing some level of deaths/destruction, which causes M to require Bond and have him return post-PTS.

    One of the problems with Spectre was the villain wasn't established - we simply didn't see any villainy! So yes, a none Bond pre-credit, showing us a horrible bad-bastard, and the PM saying to M "there's no other way... get Bond back, we need him".

    Too corny?

    I don't like this constant 'we need Bond back' comments in the films.

    Is the rest of the '00' section shit then ?
    Whats the point if none of them are good enough for anything ?

    (Apart from Trevelyn,006, back in 1995 ,who WAS Bond's equal).

  • Posts: 1,031
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Also his statement about going out 'on a high'. I wonder if he's been reading these boards?

    I find it tactless and offensive when actors slag off the previous film, even in a subtle way. There were many people who enjoyed SPECTRE, and Craig should recognize that.

    Don't see how he was slagging off the previous film - he merely said he wants his last Bond film to be a good one.
Sign In or Register to comment.