› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…938939941943944…2507

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    barryt007 wrote: »
    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).

    I tire of it, as well, but given the state of things lately, I don't think it's going anywhere (at least in Craig's last film). Hopefully it dies a quick death come the casting of a new actor.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    He's never said that SP wasn't anything other than the best film he could make in the past. Saying now that one of the reasons he's coming back is because he wants to go out 'on a high' indirectly acknowledges that it could have been better.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I still am holding out hope that Madeleine is long gone; Bond is wayward and has lost his direction, drinking and gambling the days away, opening the film with him in bed with just another married woman. But...

    Camille has hunted him down. She finds him in a casino where the two face off in a playful game of baccarat. Afterwards, over drinks, and having denied him his clumsy, drunken pass on her, Camille, for whatever reason, needs Bond's help. She is his call back to adventure, the catalyst to get the story going.

    Just my dreams. In the end, any girl that isn't name Madeleine will be my preference...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's never said that SP wasn't anything other than the best film he could make in the past. Saying now that one of the reasons he's coming back is because he wants to go out 'on a high' indirectly suggests it could have been better.

    Surely he can't assume that was the best he's offered during his tenure. He can definitely go out on a high if everything comes together and they attempt to deliver nothing but an incredible installment for both general audiences and die-hard fans alike.
  • Escalus5Escalus5
    Posts: 628
    Dennison wrote: »
    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.

    He said he wanted to go out on a "high note," implying that SPECTRE would not have been a strong finish to his tenure. We all know what he meant.

    Granted, it's not nearly as obnoxious as George Clooney apologizing for OCEAN'S TWELVE during the press junkets for THIRTEEN (and then, of course, THIRTEEN ended up being utter sh*t.)
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,985
    I think Blofeld is 100% coming back
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Tuulia wrote: »

    Thank you for posting the full interview. That was a lot of fun and finally we know which Stormtrooper he was!

    Thank you DC for proving my 5 film prediction and step down. It's been a hell of a ride and I have loved every minute of it! Roll on Bond 25!
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's never said that SP wasn't anything other than the best film he could make in the past. Saying now that one of the reasons he's coming back is because he wants to go out 'on a high' indirectly acknowledges that it could have been better.

    Don't see how that's indirectly talking about Spectre. He could be, but he could also just be saying he wants his last one to be a good one.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    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.

    He said he wanted to go out on a "high note," implying that SPECTRE would not have been a strong finish to his tenure. We all know what he meant.

    Granted, it's not nearly as obnoxious as George Clooney apologizing for OCEAN'S TWELVE during the press junkets for THIRTEEN (and then, of course, THIRTEEN ended up being utter sh*t.)
    It was a rather unusual remark from Craig. He didn't need to add that bit and I found it surprising as I said before. The 'raring to go' also seemed like a bit of fan wankery to me given the film is two years away.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,545
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    Anyone else find it strange that EON and MGM both wanted Craig to make the announcement? Would of been easier to post the news via social media or their website beforehand. Instead EON gave an exclusive to a late show. But why?

    I'm thinking that they made a deal behind the curtain. Perhaps Colbert gets JB "you heard it here first" scoops and in return he, or CBS, have to promote the film ad infinitum when it arrives? And why does Craig fancy speaking only to Colbert (he once did a Kimmel sketch though)? Craig even said that he had to tell Colbert first. I know it sounds like he's buttering him up and that stuff is omnipresent on Late Night, but Craig hates being fake. He aims to be so genuine that it is close to ironic. So there is no reason why he'd need to say it like that, unless there was some other motive...

    Craig does seem comfortable with Colbert, this is his third interview with Colbert (the first was on TCR). And Colbert is currently king of late night, so why fly all the way to LA to speak to third place Kimmel? Fallon is too childish to make a big announcement on, which only really leaves Colbert or maybe Seth Meyers.

    As for there being "some other motive". If Craig is still contracted on to do 'Purity' on Showtime, then Colbert and Corden essentially get the first round of interviews with the stars of Showtime, as it is a subsidiary of CBS.

    I would very much expect to see Craig promote both Bond 25 and 'Purity' in Colbert in 2019/2020.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,600
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    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.

    He said he wanted to go out on a "high note," implying that SPECTRE would not have been a strong finish to his tenure. We all know what he meant.

    Granted, it's not nearly as obnoxious as George Clooney apologizing for OCEAN'S TWELVE during the press junkets for THIRTEEN (and then, of course, THIRTEEN ended up being utter sh*t.)

    13 was the best IMO
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's never said that SP wasn't anything other than the best film he could make in the past. Saying now that one of the reasons he's coming back is because he wants to go out 'on a high' indirectly acknowledges that it could have been better.

    Don't see how that's indirectly talking about Spectre. He could be, but he could also just be saying he wants his last one to be a good one.
    The whole discussion over the past two years has been about whether SP was his last. By saying he's returning because he wants to go out on a high note, it can be logically inferred that he thinks his last film wasn't a high note.

    If he wants B25 to be a high note he could have just said I want to make a bloody good film for release in two years and go out on a high.

    It's subtle, but the distinction is there for me. That doesn't mean I think he was slagging off SP necessarily.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    I really, really, really hope it is a high note that he ends on. Typically a Bond actor's last is seen as his worst (or one of the worst, anyway).
  • DennisonDennison
    edited August 2017 Posts: 1,031
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's never said that SP wasn't anything other than the best film he could make in the past. Saying now that one of the reasons he's coming back is because he wants to go out 'on a high' indirectly acknowledges that it could have been better.

    Don't see how that's indirectly talking about Spectre. He could be, but he could also just be saying he wants his last one to be a good one.
    The whole discussion over the past two years has been about whether SP was his last. By saying he's returning because he wants to go out on a high note, it can be logically inferred that he thinks his last film wasn't a high note.

    If he wants B25 to be a high note he could have just said I want to make a bloody good film for release in two years and go out on a high.

    It's subtle, but the distinction is there for me. That doesn't mean I think he was slagging off SP necessarily.

    You're reading too much into it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Does anyone think that the gossip about a one off distribution deal makes Annapurna more likely? After all, if MGM's owner's are looking to do something dramatic from a financial structure perspective post-B25 (like a sale or IPO), would a big studio want to get involved just for one picture?

    Annapurna has a lot to gain so they may take it on, but would a big studio commit for just a one film deal?

    Especially if MGM wants to get back into distribution after it sells or IPOs.

    The slightly haphazard manner in which this announcement has been handled leads me to think 'Indie'.

    Well, it does make some sense. I mean, for the long term it could be a more jovial, less dominant partner than big ones like Warner Bros. and Universal. And who knows Annapurna could later on be merged with MGM and becoming big again as a movie distributor. I think it also makes EON more happy.

    On the other hand, I do predict it'll be either Warner or Universal.
    This is an interesting prediction. You may be on to something, and there may be variations in approach for B25 depending on which one.
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's never said that SP wasn't anything other than the best film he could make in the past. Saying now that one of the reasons he's coming back is because he wants to go out 'on a high' indirectly acknowledges that it could have been better.

    Don't see how that's indirectly talking about Spectre. He could be, but he could also just be saying he wants his last one to be a good one.
    The whole discussion over the past two years has been about whether SP was his last. By saying he's returning because he wants to go out on a high note, it can be logically inferred that he thinks his last film wasn't a high note.

    If he wants B25 to be a high note he could have just said I want to make a bloody good film for release in two years and go out on a high.

    It's subtle, but the distinction is there for me. That doesn't mean I think he was slagging off SP necessarily.

    You're reading too much into it.
    Am I? Well we'll know for sure in two years, won't we?
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,600
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I really, really, really hope it is a high note that he ends on. Typically a Bond actor's last is seen as his worst (or one of the worst, anyway).

    Well in that case Craig learned from the others and doesn't wanna follow that trend
  • QuarterdeckQuarterdeck
    edited August 2017 Posts: 136
    The Warners thing is interesting - Nolan is almost their 'in-house' boy so that would line up nicely with Nolan's stated interest in the franchise. Though I would guess it be for the reboot following Craig. But it may have given Warners a card to play....
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    If Craig truly is doing only one more and Warners does get it, I'd be shocked if anyone but Nolan directed B26, then.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    If nolan was doing it then woulndt he have started writing it as opposed to P and W. Also because Craig is so excited it makes me think that he feels comfortable with the directors ability to make him go out on a high. Perhaps its campbell
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    If nolan was doing it then woulndt he have started writing it as opposed to P and W. Also because Craig is so excited it makes me think that he feels comfortable with the directors ability to make him go out on a high. Perhaps its campbell

    B26 is far off from being written. If he's directing a Bond film in the future, it'll be with a new actor, not for Craig's final movie.
  • QuarterdeckQuarterdeck
    edited August 2017 Posts: 136
    I meant Warners link with Nolan may have been a card to play in the distribution deal. But I wouldn't see Nolan shooting with Craig. It would be with whoever followed, fresh start, his own take etc. BTW - to be strictly on topic, very pleased Dan is returning
  • RC7RC7
    edited August 2017 Posts: 10,512
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's never said that SP wasn't anything other than the best film he could make in the past. Saying now that one of the reasons he's coming back is because he wants to go out 'on a high' indirectly acknowledges that it could have been better.

    Don't see how that's indirectly talking about Spectre. He could be, but he could also just be saying he wants his last one to be a good one.
    The whole discussion over the past two years has been about whether SP was his last. By saying he's returning because he wants to go out on a high note, it can be logically inferred that he thinks his last film wasn't a high note.

    If he wants B25 to be a high note he could have just said I want to make a bloody good film for release in two years and go out on a high.

    It's subtle, but the distinction is there for me. That doesn't mean I think he was slagging off SP necessarily.

    You're reading too much into it.

    I'm not sure he is actually. Despite DC trying to play the game at times, he can also be inadvertantly candid. I don't believe he's stupid and I do believe he cares. Whilst I'm sure he'll defend SP for what it is, I do think it can inferred from that little slip that he feels he and team can produce a more fitting send off. It was his stream of consciousness in my eyes. This is no bad thing.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    WB are the favourites at the moment,and it wouldn't surprise me that they do bring in Nolan at some stage.

    I'm fine with WB and Nolan..safe hands for Bond imo.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I don't believe Nolan has had any conversations with EON for some time (this can be gleaned from the fact that he has been talking about Bond openly but hypothetically in interviews).

    If he was a card in the negotiations with Warner, I can assume they would have involved him.

    So I don't think he was a factor.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Perhaps for bond 26,27,28 nolan will step in
  • RC7RC7
    edited August 2017 Posts: 10,512
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Perhaps for bond 26,27,28 nolan will step in

    Again, why is it assumed he'd do a trilogy?
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't believe Nolan has had any conversations with EON for some time (this can be gleaned from the fact that he has been talking about Bond openly but hypothetically in interviews).

    If he was a card in the negotiations with Warner, I can assume they would have involved him.

    So I don't think he was a factor.

    Not for BOND 25 no...things are moving along there already re a director I think.

    That will probably be the next announcement along with the distributor.

  • QuarterdeckQuarterdeck
    Posts: 136
    Either way, I still get the impression from Nolan that a Bond is on his to-do list one day
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RC7 wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Perhaps for bond 26,27,28 nolan will step in

    Again, why is it assumed he'd do a trilogy?

    People are projecting from his Batman days.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    That's probably a 100% banker,he is a massive Bond fan.
Sign In or Register to comment.