No Time to Die production thread

11131141161181191208

Comments

  • PavloPavlo Ukraine
    Posts: 323
    antovolk wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I don't understand this idea of Killing Bond, then doing what, re-booting? I think I'd just lose interest. I mean, wouldn't it make a mockery of any narrative the series has?
    It's not like Star Trek where people say 'it's an alternative re-imagining' and all that bollox. It's not sci-fi, (despite the best efforts of MR and DAD).

    Bond dying is a daft idea, unless they want to make the last Bond film.

    They are gonna reboot it anyway after this one as it is Craig's last. The new actor's run of films won't be at all narratively connected to the events of the Craig films. Therefore opening the door to something like Bond getting killed off. It wouldn't at all make a mockery of the narrative, because from the start, and with the events of Spectre especially, the Craig films have been their own self contained (and more serialised than the rest of the series combined) story.

    I do want Craig's films to have a definitive end. However, does this mean we loose Whishaw, Fiennes and Harris?

    Fiennes_Whishaw_Harris.jpg

    The next actor's films should still use them. Even if Bond does 'die' in the Craig films.

    I reckon Bond's death should be ambiguous - much like how Fleming killed the character in FRWL or like Daniel Craig's death scene in Layer Cake.

    This way the reboot will be be more of a tonal exercise. I think the next iteration of Bond will be more 'fun' and someone like Edgar Wright or Paul King will take over.

    Paul King is an A-list director in waiting.

    My thought - if you are making reboot than not only Bond must be played by another actor but all other cast must be changed too. It is the case if we speak about true reboot with new writer or writers, new director. And I do not want Bond more about fun as we have some successful films nowadays with such concept for spy film ("Kingsman", "UNCLE" etc). Bond film must be serious but with light notes in it (as for me). As a variant - I'm more and more thinking about Bond films as films less about physical part of his job and more about intellectual. Yes, franchise needs some action, fights, gunfire and presenting Bond as hero but it will be cool to see Bond as invisible spy with intellectual tricks, mental master. I want more dialogue-heavy Bond film.

    About possible directors - Yann Demange really excited me how he dealt with action, constructing atmoshere of danger, suspense in "71" and I think he can be great choice for franchise. But he is director who needs great screenplay as "71" is masterfully directed but have problems with screenplay. Ben Wheatley, K. Branagh can be variants (if we speak about British directors). And one of my all-time favourite directors Joe Wright can create visually tremendeous movie (and he really great in dealing with complex, multi-layered characters).
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited July 2019 Posts: 3,157
    The next actor's films should still use them. Even if Bond does 'die' in the Craig films.

    Definitely. Just like Dench was in CR even though the movie was a reboot. There's no reason they should not return in next Bond movie. It's meant to keep the series thematically tight, even though storywise they're starting over. In my opinion it's even more important than the story continuity that we saw in SPECTRE.
  • Posts: 3,333
    If it's a reboot, then an entire new cast is needed for B26. The only reason Judi Dench was carried over into Craig's tenure was that her presence offered the movie marketability and a certain prestige. Personally, I think it was the movie's biggest misstep and still rankles with me to this day. The same cannot be said of either Whishaw or Harris. Whilst Fiennes is a familiar face to audiences, no one goes specifically to see a movie because he's in it. That aside, a reboot should mean exactly what it implies - to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters.

    As for Paul King as a future Bond director, I'm not convinced based on what I've seen of his work. He seems most comfortable dealing in comedy and children's light entertainment. It's a bit like suggesting Robert Stevenson to direct Goldfinger in 1964. That's not meant as a dig at Robert Stevenson, who as at least directed King Solomon's Mines in 1937, aside from all those popular Disney movies.
  • Posts: 618
    bondsum wrote: »
    If it's a reboot, then an entire new cast is needed for B26.
    I agree 100%.

    Besides, there's likely to be a 5+ year delay after Craig is through.

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    I hope for the end of Bond 25, Bond saves the world and ends with a Bond...lady or should I say companion in his arms. As per the first 20 films.
  • Posts: 4,409
    bondsum wrote: »
    If it's a reboot, then an entire new cast is needed for B26. The only reason Judi Dench was carried over into Craig's tenure was that her presence offered the movie marketability and a certain prestige. Personally, I think it was the movie's biggest misstep and still rankles with me to this day. The same cannot be said of either Whishaw or Harris. Whilst Fiennes is a familiar face to audiences, no one goes specifically to see a movie because he's in it. That aside, a reboot should mean exactly what it implies - to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters.

    As for Paul King as a future Bond director, I'm not convinced based on what I've seen of his work. He seems most comfortable dealing in comedy and children's light entertainment. It's a bit like suggesting Robert Stevenson to direct Goldfinger in 1964. That's not meant as a dig at Robert Stevenson, who as at least directed King Solomon's Mines in 1937, aside from all those popular Disney movies.

    I suppose we could loose Fiennes and Harris....Naomie is more agreeable, especially if the new Bond is in his 20s/30s. It be a shame to loose Ralph as he hasn't really got a chance to shine in the role yet. He's always been in Judi's shadow as her M has defined the Craig era. Fiennes will only really get to 'own' the part once he's bossing around a new younger 007. but if they replaced Ralph with Olivia Colman, I wouldn't be mad..........................
    10180321-high--600x337.jpg

    However, they cannot get rid of Whishaw. He is the MVP of these films nowadays.

    GW517H629
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    I think this is a discussion for Bond 26 and beyond @Pierce2Daniel
    Let's get the yet to be released film, come out first. Before we start recasting M,Q and Moneypenny.
    I hope for Bond 25, the stock office crew of M,Q and MP are more reduced than they have been since SF. The role of M has been over used since Judi Dench assumed the role. Time for less screen time for these roles.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216

    bondsum wrote: »
    If it's a reboot, then an entire new cast is needed for B26. The only reason Judi Dench was carried over into Craig's tenure was that her presence offered the movie marketability and a certain prestige. Personally, I think it was the movie's biggest misstep and still rankles with me to this day. The same cannot be said of either Whishaw or Harris. Whilst Fiennes is a familiar face to audiences, no one goes specifically to see a movie because he's in it. That aside, a reboot should mean exactly what it implies - to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters.

    .

    A BIG +1
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    Judi Dench's M being in the Craig films ruin all of the continuity for me. Don't get me wrong, she's my second favorite only to Bernard Lee, but with her being in it, it draws some questions about the continuity and reboot factors. It made sense with the Brosnan era and explained by Zukovsky.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 4,409
    Judi Dench's M being in the Craig films ruin all of the continuity for me. Don't get me wrong, she's my second favorite only to Bernard Lee, but with her being in it, it draws some questions about the continuity and reboot factors. It made sense with the Brosnan era and explained by Zukovsky.

    The Bond films have zero continuity. You can't enjoy these films unless you get over this fact.

    Otherwise, surely the thing that should 'ruin' it is how Bond is 41 in 1995 despite being 32 in 1962.......

    giphy.gif

    The reappearance of Judi in the Craig films is far from the most egregious continuity error. Also it is easily defendable from a character point of view (she's a new rebooted of the character played by the same actress) and from the director's perspective (she's Judi bloody Dench!)

    Dench is the ultimate M

    giphy.gif
  • Posts: 2,436
    Judi Dench's M being in the Craig films ruin all of the continuity for me. Don't get me wrong, she's my second favorite only to Bernard Lee, but with her being in it, it draws some questions about the continuity and reboot factors. It made sense with the Brosnan era and explained by Zukovsky.

    The Bond films have zero continuity. You can't enjoy these films unless you get over this fact.

    Otherwise, surely the thing that should 'ruin' it is how is how Bond looked like Pierce Brosnan in 1995 despite having been in his early 30's in 1962.

    The reappearance of Judi in the Craig films is far from the most egregious continuity error. Also it is easily defendable from a character point of view (she's a new rebooted of the character played by the same actress) and from the director's perspective (she's Judi bloody Dench!)

    Dench is the ultimate M

    giphy.gif

    Each Bond is a reimagining of the character for the era they are in. Not that complicated.
  • Posts: 1,092
    I like the carry-over between films with regards to secondary Bond characters. It gives them time to grow in their roles and builds some semblance of cast continuity. I want to keep M, Q, and MP as is for the next Bond actor.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    I understand that it's all a reimagining and I do enjoy them immensely. I don't overcomplicate it that much and it's a completely different timeline than the first 20 films. I guess you just have to throw everything out the window
  • Posts: 6,709
    Are we still discussing timelines and continuities in 2019?!? And in Bond25's filming thread, no less.

    Cmon, let's not soil a perfectly clean and decent thread ;)
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Univex wrote: »
    Are we still discussing timelines and continuities in 2019?!? And in Bond25's filming thread, no less.

    Cmon, let's not soil a perfectly clean and decent thread ;)

    +1
  • Posts: 623
    antovolk wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Bond dying is a daft idea, unless they want to make the last Bond film.

    It wouldn't at all make a mockery of the narrative, because from the start, and with the events of Spectre especially, the Craig films have been their own self contained (and more serialised than the rest of the series combined) story.

    If the character dies in one movie, then is back in the next movie, I feel it's disrespectful to the viewer who is asked to care about that character when they enter the cinema. It's all very well to talk about 're-imagining' something when it's sci-fi, but the Bond films are dramas based on a literary character. Killing him in one movie then bringing him back is just silly. What is the viewer to think then? That he's a different character, or the same character before the events of the previous film, what?
    And yes, I know the same could be said of the re-boot thing, with CR, but that didn't stretch the imagination nearly as much as it would if they killed him off.
    Perhaps re-boots are a thing now, and I'm behind the times, (I've never seen a Marvel film). Perhaps most movie-goers would accept someone dying then another movie where they're alive. I dunno.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 984
    tqb wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    If Bond dies, then so does the franchise. I think that's all BS imo.

    Ehhh they'd just go into the "code name theory" territory

    Didn't realise the "code name" theory still exists seeing as we saw the tombstone of Bond's parents in Skyfall - Andrew Bond & Monique Delacroix Bond.

    I would think that would scrap the whole James Bond code name theory......
  • Posts: 3,333
    The Bond films have zero continuity. You can't enjoy these films unless you get over this fact.

    Otherwise, surely the thing that should 'ruin' it is how Bond is 41 in 1995 despite being 32 in 1962.......
    I think the movies follow the books in the same way as Fleming's stories, James Bond is in his mid-to-late thirties, but does not age. Clearly, audiences are intelligent enough to understand that if a new actor is cast as James Bond, he's being cast because he's younger than his predecessor, the same way as Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale, Affleck and now Robert Pattinson have all been cast as Bruce Wayne. I agree about the continuity not being a real issue in Bond's world, but at least Alfred was completely recast when they decided to reboot Batman after Clooney, just as you should with a reboot.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 12,837
    If Bond dies or the Craig era has any sort of closed off ending then I think they should lose Fiennes and Harris. I think they're fine but replaceable, and it'd help differentiate the next era from Craig's if that's what they're going to do.

    But because of the precedent Dench set they can probably get away with one cast member carrying over, and that should be Wishaw. He's the real standout imo and it'd be a real shame to lose him.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    bondsum wrote: »
    If it's a reboot, then an entire new cast is needed for B26. The only reason Judi Dench was carried over into Craig's tenure was that her presence offered the movie marketability and a certain prestige. Personally, I think it was the movie's biggest misstep and still rankles with me to this day. The same cannot be said of either Whishaw or Harris. Whilst Fiennes is a familiar face to audiences, no one goes specifically to see a movie because he's in it. That aside, a reboot should mean exactly what it implies - to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters.

    As for Paul King as a future Bond director, I'm not convinced based on what I've seen of his work. He seems most comfortable dealing in comedy and children's light entertainment. It's a bit like suggesting Robert Stevenson to direct Goldfinger in 1964. That's not meant as a dig at Robert Stevenson, who as at least directed King Solomon's Mines in 1937, aside from all those popular Disney movies.

    Yeah, because everyone went and watched Casino Royale only because Dench was in it. Else it would have been a massive flop.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 2,107
    Craig's Bond should definitely have a definite end.

    Then they can go back to the established timeline and bring back Brosnan's Bond out from retirement for one last film and then sell to Disney...



    I kiiid, I kiid!
  • Posts: 6,709
    Code name theories, reboots, timelines, continuities,... Who cares? This is the Bond25 FILMING thread. Every time I see 10 new posts and come here thinking we got new production pics or news I get a stale discussion everyone's sick and tired of.

    Are we seriously talking about possible directos, cast and even producers for Bond 26th and beyond here? There are threads for this. Now all of ya still discussing those things, bugger off, unless you want to talk about the filming process of Bond25 (2020), produced by EON, with Daniel Craig as James Bond. Savvy?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Univex wrote: »
    Code name theories, reboots, timelines, continuities,... Who cares? This is the Bond25 FILMING thread. Every time I see 10 new posts and come here thinking we got new production pics or news I get a stale discussion everyone's sick and tired of.

    Are we seriously talking about possible directos, cast and even producers for Bond 26th and beyond here? There are threads for this. Now all of ya still discussing those things, bugger off, unless you want to talk about the filming process of Bond25 (2020), produced by EON, with Daniel Craig as James Bond. Savvy?

    Thanks for trying to stop this nonsense.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Walecs wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    If it's a reboot, then an entire new cast is needed for B26. The only reason Judi Dench was carried over into Craig's tenure was that her presence offered the movie marketability and a certain prestige. Personally, I think it was the movie's biggest misstep and still rankles with me to this day. The same cannot be said of either Whishaw or Harris. Whilst Fiennes is a familiar face to audiences, no one goes specifically to see a movie because he's in it. That aside, a reboot should mean exactly what it implies - to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters.

    As for Paul King as a future Bond director, I'm not convinced based on what I've seen of his work. He seems most comfortable dealing in comedy and children's light entertainment. It's a bit like suggesting Robert Stevenson to direct Goldfinger in 1964. That's not meant as a dig at Robert Stevenson, who as at least directed King Solomon's Mines in 1937, aside from all those popular Disney movies.

    Yeah, because everyone went and watched Casino Royale only because Dench was in it. Else it would have been a massive flop.
    Well, I went because I had an advance screening ticket. Though I think you know what I meant by "marketability" and "a certain prestige" but decided to respond with a comment that could be read as either salty or impertinent. Clearly you're unaware of the excellent reviews and awards Dench received prior to her reprising her role as M in CR, or maybe you're just ignorant of such matters?
  • tqbtqb
    Posts: 1,022
    imranbecks wrote: »
    tqb wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    If Bond dies, then so does the franchise. I think that's all BS imo.

    Ehhh they'd just go into the "code name theory" territory

    Didn't realise the "code name" theory still exists seeing as we saw the tombstone of Bond's parents in Skyfall - Andrew Bond & Monique Delacroix Bond.

    I would think that would scrap the whole James Bond code name theory......

    You're right i forgot about that. There goes that idea lol
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 4,409
    Lashana posted from the set on Instagram today. It looks like this is a very Pinewood-heavy film............hopefully they will be filming around London again this weekend.


    D-uLA40WkAAClGj.jpg
  • PavloPavlo Ukraine
    Posts: 323
    Lashana posted from the set on Instagram today. It looks like this is a very Pinewood-heavy film............hopefully they will be filming around London again this weekend.


    D-uLA40WkAAClGj.jpg

    When did they start shooting in Pinewood?
  • Posts: 15,124
    Lashana posted from the set on Instagram today. It looks like this is a very Pinewood-heavy film............hopefully they will be filming around London again this weekend.


    D-uLA40WkAAClGj.jpg

    I'm really starting to warm up to her.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    bondsum wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    If it's a reboot, then an entire new cast is needed for B26. The only reason Judi Dench was carried over into Craig's tenure was that her presence offered the movie marketability and a certain prestige. Personally, I think it was the movie's biggest misstep and still rankles with me to this day. The same cannot be said of either Whishaw or Harris. Whilst Fiennes is a familiar face to audiences, no one goes specifically to see a movie because he's in it. That aside, a reboot should mean exactly what it implies - to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters.

    As for Paul King as a future Bond director, I'm not convinced based on what I've seen of his work. He seems most comfortable dealing in comedy and children's light entertainment. It's a bit like suggesting Robert Stevenson to direct Goldfinger in 1964. That's not meant as a dig at Robert Stevenson, who as at least directed King Solomon's Mines in 1937, aside from all those popular Disney movies.

    Yeah, because everyone went and watched Casino Royale only because Dench was in it. Else it would have been a massive flop.
    Well, I went because I had an advance screening ticket. Though I think you know what I meant by "marketability" and "a certain prestige" but decided to respond with a comment that could be read as either salty or impertinent. Clearly you're unaware of the excellent reviews and awards Dench received prior to her reprising her role as M in CR, or maybe you're just ignorant of such matters?

    Cool how you start changing argument in order to avoid admitting you were wrong :))
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited July 2019 Posts: 4,343
    Some pictures of Gravina di Puglia, the newest addition to the filming location. As u can see the look and feel of the architecture and the landscape is clearly in line with Matera, but more luxuriant perhaps. The latest reports mention that they will spend 2 months shooting in Southern Italy.

    gravina-in-puglia-2.jpg

    424010707170102_Gravina_583854160.jpg?quality=80&w=710&h=510&mode=crop

    a-gravina-di-puglia-lungo-il-sentiero-dellacqua-e-della-pietra.jpg

    0001961_alla-scoperta-di-gravina-in-puglia.jpeg

Sign In or Register to comment.