› › ›

No Time to Die production thread

1…10051006100810101011…1208

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 2021 Posts: 8,252
    And some simply would prefer a clean slate for a new incarnation.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,680
    TripAces wrote: »
    And if you want one, it's going to cost a pretty penny:
    Luckily, mine just cost me a regular penny. ;)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Visitor1982 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
    Let’s not act as if the current era worked exactly like the ones that came before it. There was no continuity between the Brosnan films other than the return of MI6 regulars (and the reappearance of Zukovsky). There is no continual arc and the films were entirely standalone. Like it or not, the Craig era is completely different in that regard. Hardly “insanity” when looking at the obvious IMO.

    The whole point is that if the Craig era is so different, then why use Dench? She was from the Brosnan era.

    Fiennes could also return from the Craig era to a new Bond era.
    This is a very valid point. I’ve always loved Dench as M (she was the first M I was exposed to) but I won’t deny that having her come back for CR doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I like Fiennes as M but just can’t see EON keeping him on for the next actor since they’ve been so heavy on continuity for the last few films. Who knows though?

    Doesn't make a lot of sense in what way? There is no continuity between any of the Bond films, until the Craig era. Dench portrayed a great M in some Bond films, why not let her continue to portray M well in some more Bond films?

    I understand that the Craig era is different in that the films are interconnected, but in the grand scheme of things these Bond films are all individual Bond stories, and I still say the same goes for Fiennes (and Harris) as it did for Dench; they portray their characters well, they're not inextricably linked to Daniel Craig in any way, why not let them continue to portray their characters?

    The same M, Moneypenny and Q will remain after Craig's tenure, I'm fairly sure. This has been a trend going right back to the very beginning, regardless of who is playing Bond.

    The same team oversaw various Bonds throughout the entire franchise. The original M, MP and Q survived Connery, Lazenby and Moore. Q went even further, and survived Dalton and Brosnan, and M would have done too, had Bernard Lee not passed away. Instead the newer M survived Moore and Dalton.

    And of course the more modern M sat through both the Brosnan and Craig eras, regardless of the reboot.

    Good point. If the same trend continues, the current whitehall brigade will be in office for a good long time.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    talos7 wrote: »
    Of course he can return; it’s a matter of preference as to if he does. Neither is “ insane”

    Perhaps both are.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2021 Posts: 16,602
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Visitor1982 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
    Let’s not act as if the current era worked exactly like the ones that came before it. There was no continuity between the Brosnan films other than the return of MI6 regulars (and the reappearance of Zukovsky). There is no continual arc and the films were entirely standalone. Like it or not, the Craig era is completely different in that regard. Hardly “insanity” when looking at the obvious IMO.

    The whole point is that if the Craig era is so different, then why use Dench? She was from the Brosnan era.

    Fiennes could also return from the Craig era to a new Bond era.
    This is a very valid point. I’ve always loved Dench as M (she was the first M I was exposed to) but I won’t deny that having her come back for CR doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I like Fiennes as M but just can’t see EON keeping him on for the next actor since they’ve been so heavy on continuity for the last few films. Who knows though?

    Doesn't make a lot of sense in what way? There is no continuity between any of the Bond films, until the Craig era. Dench portrayed a great M in some Bond films, why not let her continue to portray M well in some more Bond films?

    I understand that the Craig era is different in that the films are interconnected, but in the grand scheme of things these Bond films are all individual Bond stories, and I still say the same goes for Fiennes (and Harris) as it did for Dench; they portray their characters well, they're not inextricably linked to Daniel Craig in any way, why not let them continue to portray their characters?

    The same M, Moneypenny and Q will remain after Craig's tenure, I'm fairly sure.

    I can imagine only M remaining actually. Moneypenny I think is brilliant, but I can see them going for someone closer in age to the new Bond perhaps? Not that she looks old at all. And again I'd be more than happy to keep Whishaw, but he's a very successful actor and I could imagine him moving on, although that's not to say that he will.
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Visitor1982 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
    Let’s not act as if the current era worked exactly like the ones that came before it. There was no continuity between the Brosnan films other than the return of MI6 regulars (and the reappearance of Zukovsky). There is no continual arc and the films were entirely standalone. Like it or not, the Craig era is completely different in that regard. Hardly “insanity” when looking at the obvious IMO.

    The whole point is that if the Craig era is so different, then why use Dench? She was from the Brosnan era.

    Fiennes could also return from the Craig era to a new Bond era.
    This is a very valid point. I’ve always loved Dench as M (she was the first M I was exposed to) but I won’t deny that having her come back for CR doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I like Fiennes as M but just can’t see EON keeping him on for the next actor since they’ve been so heavy on continuity for the last few films. Who knows though?

    Doesn't make a lot of sense in what way? There is no continuity between any of the Bond films, until the Craig era. Dench portrayed a great M in some Bond films, why not let her continue to portray M well in some more Bond films?

    I understand that the Craig era is different in that the films are interconnected, but in the grand scheme of things these Bond films are all individual Bond stories, and I still say the same goes for Fiennes (and Harris) as it did for Dench; they portray their characters well, they're not inextricably linked to Daniel Craig in any way, why not let them continue to portray their characters?

    That's what many fans don't get in my opinion.

    The character of M in CR (played by Judi Dench) has not gone through any of the adventures the character M had in previous films.

    To make it even more clear: M (played by Judi Dench) in TWINE might not have experienced the GE-story.

    Yes I think it's a different character- in CR she has a different dress sense, much more vampy than the Brosnan M dressed; and she's notably not an alcoholic like the previous M either! :D She's a bit less mumsy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2021 Posts: 16,602
    Contraband wrote: »
    Another Heineken ad with Craig. Fresh upload



    These ads are really badly directed. The joke just dies.
  • RogerJonMoorePertweeRogerJonMoorePertwee UK
    Posts: 348
    The same M, Moneypenny and Q will remain after Craig's tenure, I'm fairly sure. This has been a trend going right back to the very beginning, regardless of who is playing Bond.

    The same team oversaw various Bonds throughout the entire franchise. The original M, MP and Q survived Connery, Lazenby and Moore. Q went even further, and survived Dalton and Brosnan, and M would have done too, had Bernard Lee not passed away. Instead the newer M survived Moore and Dalton.

    And of course the more modern M sat through both the Brosnan and Craig eras, regardless of the reboot.
    Awe, I was going to say the same thing (not as well though)! 😆
    I like the fact that there's never been a completely fresh slate for the MI6 team and that there's always been at least one actor carrying over to a new Bond and providing a link to the past (albeit loosely in Judi Dench's case). There probably will be a new M, Moneypenny or Q (or all three) at some point in the next Bond actor's era but I'm perfectly happy with Fiennes, Harris and Whishaw carrying over before that happens. 🙂
  • RogerJonMoorePertweeRogerJonMoorePertwee UK
    Posts: 348
    I've just realised that if Naomie Harris carried over to the next Bond actor's era, she would be the first Moneypenny to do so since Lois Maxwell!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    I think she's great. I'd happily watch her in her own film/show.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    We should keep Rory Kinnear and dump the rest. Tanner is, of course, the true hero of the Craig era!
  • SomethingThatAteHimSomethingThatAteHim
    Posts: 533
    I feel like they’ll cast an older Q if (when) they get a younger Bond, since it was done as kind of an inversion of their traditional relationship.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    We should keep Rory Kinnear and dump the rest. Tanner is, of course, the true hero of the Craig era!

    Get Tobias Menzies as M. We'll go crazy discussing whether this is a new character or Villiers got a thoroughly undeserved promotion.
  • MattiaDeVarti007MattiaDeVarti007 Italy
    Posts: 316
    Unpopular questions. Given the Super Bowl event, do you think they'll do something like for the past year or MGM has already too much money spent?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    We should keep Rory Kinnear and dump the rest. Tanner is, of course, the true hero of the Craig era!

    I hope you’re joking!
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,650
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Another Heineken ad with Craig. Fresh upload



    These ads are really badly directed. The joke just dies.

    Nay ! I think it is quite amusing. Bond/Craig getting older; needs glasses to read. Not pulling out a weapon, just reading glasses. Self-deprecating humor.
  • GeneralGogolGeneralGogol
    edited February 2021 Posts: 928
    ImpertinentGoon wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    We should keep Rory Kinnear and dump the rest. Tanner is, of course, the true hero of the Craig era!

    Get Tobias Menzies as M. We'll go crazy discussing whether this is a new character or Villiers got a thoroughly undeserved promotion.

    That's not a bad idea - Tobias Menzies has aged really well to play an M-type figure.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited February 2021 Posts: 17,819
    As far as the supporting roles goes, M shouldn't be the most difficult role to recast. There are many actors around that could be interesting to see in the role.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    Michael Fassbender was born to play Bond, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. By the time Bond 26 comes out he would be older. But I think he could play a very stern M.
  • LibrarianLibrarian
    edited February 2021 Posts: 312
    RogerJonMoorePertwee wrote: »
    I've just realised that if Naomie Harris carried over to the next Bond actor's era, she would be the first Moneypenny to do so since Lois Maxwell!

    Agree :)
    Ralph Fiennes should return as M too.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    We should keep Rory Kinnear and dump the rest. Tanner is, of course, the true hero of the Craig era!

    I hope you’re joking!

    Maybe, a little. ;)
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
    New stills from Matera. At least new to me. First still: stunt driver/Bond double Ben Higgins and Lea's stunt double Jessica Hooker.

    Gy0sMw8.jpg
    AKlg53S.jpg
    H0tlbBJ.jpg
    aaaKdIC.jpg
    7pUe1Id.jpg
    oxGr2zl.jpg
    YAyJE7p.jpg
    5Wj8aWK.jpg
    EhZ0R19.jpg
    F6qlMbe.jpg
    8RQE0ek.jpg
    eD2BLlk.jpg
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    edited February 2021 Posts: 3,022
    Apparently not new still with Lea although new to me. Second still: Daniel with Olivier Schneider, supervising stunt coordinator. Still with Babs and Matera restaurant owner/staff during wrap party.

    t72Pik2.jpg
    EZUAauT.jpg
    Gvq1mO1.jpg
    Q2MmeJj.jpg
    3BJhXFo.jpg
    4TDKjZ1.jpg
    DyLyufl.jpg
    UJiHk8H.jpg
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2021 Posts: 16,602
    Since62 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Another Heineken ad with Craig. Fresh upload



    These ads are really badly directed. The joke just dies.

    Nay ! I think it is quite amusing. Bond/Craig getting older; needs glasses to read. Not pulling out a weapon, just reading glasses. Self-deprecating humor.

    As written it's a nice joke, yes, but the ads themselves have no comic timing or moment at which you laugh. The direction kills the gag. The one with him and the pen uses awful candid shots of people on a street rather than shooting actors reacting. They're kind of anti-comedy.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,589
    mtm wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Another Heineken ad with Craig. Fresh upload



    These ads are really badly directed. The joke just dies.

    Nay ! I think it is quite amusing. Bond/Craig getting older; needs glasses to read. Not pulling out a weapon, just reading glasses. Self-deprecating humor.

    As written it's a nice joke, yes, but the ads themselves have no comic timing or moment at which you laugh. The direction kills the gag. The one with him and the pen uses awful candid shots of people on a street rather than shooting actors reacting. They're kind of anti-comedy.

    Something tells me that these are rough cuts. Have they actually aired anywhere? Nevertheless, I like the approach: they all seem to be part of a series "Behind the Scenes" in which Craig is waiting around on set. The bar scene is full of set decorators and photographers. Again: nice concept. But incomplete, maybe.
  • marketto007marketto007 Brazil
    Posts: 3,277
    Last year we've got this:

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,918
    I did a quick search for Bond-related Super Bowl ads @Maketto. Didn't find anything.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Another Heineken ad with Craig. Fresh upload



    These ads are really badly directed. The joke just dies.

    Nay ! I think it is quite amusing. Bond/Craig getting older; needs glasses to read. Not pulling out a weapon, just reading glasses. Self-deprecating humor.

    As written it's a nice joke, yes, but the ads themselves have no comic timing or moment at which you laugh. The direction kills the gag. The one with him and the pen uses awful candid shots of people on a street rather than shooting actors reacting. They're kind of anti-comedy.

    Something tells me that these are rough cuts. Have they actually aired anywhere? Nevertheless, I like the approach: they all seem to be part of a series "Behind the Scenes" in which Craig is waiting around on set. The bar scene is full of set decorators and photographers. Again: nice concept. But incomplete, maybe.

    I get the feeling they're not for broadcast, just the web. But to be honest I thought the full length Heineken ad these were from didn't really work either. Not a terrible idea on the page, but just weirdly made. I don't know who the director was but I thought they did a not-great job.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Any word on an ad during the super bowl?
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,985
    Mallory wrote: »
    Fiennes wants to continue as M.

    https://www.gamesradar.com/ralph-fiennes-on-james-bond-im-very-keen-to-continue-training-the-new-bond/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_content=total-film&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2C62KY5xHpdCS62D1OEcpiWzgHisCvG-hSqPIeaSGPfqohK_2n6PEexZU

    Thats good to hear. If he wants to keep playing the producers should keep him on.
  • marketto007marketto007 Brazil
    Posts: 3,277
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    Any word on an ad during the super bowl?

    For now only, from Universal, F9, Old and Nobody.
Sign In or Register to comment.