No Time to Die production thread

17998008028048051208

Comments

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    So I guess this vindicates Danny Boyle, that it wasn't his idea to kill-off James Bond afterall.
    Not really - not yet anyway. His death is an assumption made people here, not by anything anyone has said.
    Well, Yeah....Maybe, Maybe not....but at the moment, Boyle's looking like an innocent man.
    Honestly it doesn't really matter. He's out. If you enjoy No Time to Die, will it really matter if Boyle was gonna kill him or not? Holding onto rumours to hold faith in a director, that may or may not have done a good job, is pointless.

    And amen to your comment @antovolk haha :D
  • edited June 2020 Posts: 623
    I remember when Leiter said the "he was married once, it was a long long time ago" line about Dalton's Bond. If you thought about it, it didn't make sense that someone in 1989 in their thirties, got married in 1969. But that was okay, because it was a little nod to the audience that Tim was the same person who visited Tracy's grave in 1981, who was touchy about her in 1977 and married her in 1969. It didn't matter that the maths didn't add up.
    But killing James Bond off, and then having the next James Bond film with him alive with no explanation, that's just daft. Surely? That's stretching it too far.
    What are they going to put after the end titles... "James Bond will return in an alternate universe"
    It's a lot dafter than thinking Craig's Bond may somewhere have sung 'Underneath The Mango Tree". I know the Bond continuity is a laugh, but that doesn't mean they have to have make Bond 26 Bond - The Resurrection!
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    Denbigh wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    So I guess this vindicates Danny Boyle, that it wasn't his idea to kill-off James Bond afterall.
    Not really - not yet anyway. His death is an assumption made people here, not by anything anyone has said.
    Well, Yeah....Maybe, Maybe not....but at the moment, Boyle's looking like an innocent man.
    Honestly it doesn't really matter. He's out. If you enjoy No Time to Die, will it really matter if Boyle was gonna kill him or not?

    Yeah, true....fair point...It's just that i don't fancy the whole thing of him dying or having a kid and all that. It doesn't look good on paper or at the moment.....am just hoping November is good to the whole concept when we get to see it, because at this point, the Bond franchise after SP needs a stellar reception, not necessarily a 1billion hit, a positive reception to give people reason to hunger for Bond 7 & Bond 26.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I remember when Leiter said the "he was married once, it was a long long time ago" line about Dalton's Bond. If you thought about it, it didn't make sense that someone in 1989 in their thirties, got married in 1969. But that was okay, because it was a little nod to the audience that Tim was the same person who visited Tracy's grave in 1981, who was touchy about her in 1977 and married her in 1969. It didn't matter that the maths didn't add up.
    But killing James Bond off, and then having the next James Bond film with him alive with no explanation, that's just daft. Surely? That's stretching it too far.
    What are they going to put after the end titles... "James Bond will return in an alternate universe"
    It's a lot dafter than thinking Craig's Bond may somewhere have sung 'Underneath The Mango Tree". I know the Bond continuity is a laugh, but that doesn't mean they have to have make Bond 26 Bond - The Resurrection!
    It really isn't dafter than that. Trying to put Craig's era into the others era has always been a silly exercise and could never work.

    And don't underestimate an audience, they're a lot smarter than you think. If Craig's James Bond dies, and then it says James Bond will return, with people already aware of it being his last film, I think people can easily put 2 and 2 together to think "oh the next era will be probably be another reboot" Done, or they can just wait and find that information out when they watch Bond 26.

    Again, The Batman with Robert Pattinson, is a complete reboot with no connection to Ben Affleck or Nolan or Snyder or whoever, and it's not an origin story. People get it, and people are on board. Simples.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    matt_u wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Honestly I don't mind the idea that
    Craig might be a father in the end. The bloke bloody deserves a decent life after everything he's gone through. To transcend his fate as a cold-blooded spy is a sweet ending in this regard. To see Bond, now 50 something, still going back to his old ways in the end just screams "MEH" to me.

    I agree. This would all mirror Danial Craig's own life trajectory, wouldn't it? Of course.

    I don't think he'll be killed off. I think it will be Madeleine who dies.

    We'll get a send-off that is a spin on the traditional ending: Bond will ride off with the girl...except that the girl is his daughter.

    Nope, Madeleine won’t die. Scene 235 is “Nomi pilots Madeleine and Mathilde to safety with island in the background” (clearly after the final showdown) and scene 252 is “Madeleine is goin to tell Mathilde a story, they drive into a tunnel” shot in Italy.

    Anyway I don’t see Bond dying in a film titled No Time to Die with the JB will return card right after the last scene. A fake death like TDKR or a conclusion like YOLT with Bond presumed dead perhaps without remembering his own identity seems far more likely to me.

    Yes, good catch, thanks for the reminder @matt_u . I had forgotten that there was indeed a 253 on that second page.

    As for Ash...
    The "revelation" of him coordinating the pursuit of Bond isn't all that revelatory, is it? I know I'm not the only one who saw that coming, especially since he hasn't figured into any of the trailers.
  • Posts: 623
    antovolk wrote: »
    Casino Royale and the whole Craig era is already an alternate universe though.
    Are people still genuinely believing that it's some sort of prequel to all the other films or...?

    I can suspend disbelief long enough to think that the Bond at the end of Skyfall, in M's panelled office, with Moneypenny outside, is the same Bond as in Dr No. But my disbelief wouldn't be able to ignore a Bond actually dies, then returns plot.
    And it's not something that doesn't matter, like he doesn't smoke the right cigarettes as the previous Bond, or his hair's the wrong colour... He'S DIED!!!!
    You can't just go "ah, good another Bond film, so I'll ignore the last one".
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    shamanimal wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Casino Royale and the whole Craig era is already an alternate universe though.
    Are people still genuinely believing that it's some sort of prequel to all the other films or...?

    I can suspend disbelief long enough to think that the Bond at the end of Skyfall, in M's panelled office, with Moneypenny outside, is the same Bond as in Dr No. But my disbelief wouldn't be able to ignore a Bond actually dies, then returns plot.
    And it's not something that doesn't matter, like he doesn't smoke the right cigarettes as the previous Bond, or his hair's the wrong colour... He'S DIED!!!!
    You can't just go "ah, good another Bond film, so I'll ignore the last one".
    But he's not returning! Craig's Bond is dead (if it does indeed happen) A different person. Different timeline.

    If Brosnan's Bond had died in Die Another Day, it would have made no difference to Casino Royale. If people can't comprehend it, that's on them, not the producers and writers - or the actor.
  • Posts: 623
    Different person. Okay.
    So was Roger Moore's Bond the same person as Sean Connery's Bond, in your mind, when you watch them.
  • Posts: 623
    Not the same actor, but were they portraying the same character?
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    shamanimal wrote: »
    The focus on 'family' seems to be a very American influence that I am not taken with at all...Fast and Furious, Mission Impossible, Marvel, Lethal Weapon, The Walking Dead etc, they all emphasise the surrogate family. I get people seem to like it, but I find it incredibly boring, cosy, and lacking in any sense of danger. The attraction of Bond is that, until now, he's independent.

    Exactly this. I am sick of this forced family dynamic. When executed well, it is a really interesting dynamic but it does NOT need to e in everything, especially since family dynamic done bad is just annoying and detracts from the story.

    Does anyone get the feeling that an independent spy, living a hedonistic lifestyle, is somehow unpalatable for modern audiences? And they've tailored the Craig era to cater for current values.
    I know I've thought the Vesper story was their way of explaining his coldness. Giving him a reason to be 'broken', and touched on the orphan element in at least two of the films. It's a far cry from the more one-dimensional playboy Bond of the Moore era. Was the word 'orphan' ever uttered in the previous 20 Bond movies?

    True.

    There have been a lot of action heroes. In recent decades, Bourne and Ethan Hunt have entered this arena.

    I think EON has attempted to create a Bond that straddles that world and the one that has made the MCU so successful: characters with whom audiences have an emotional attachment.

    Bond has always had a back story. I think it was worth exploring.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Not the same actor, but were they portraying the same character?
    They all were (from Connery to Brosnan), but Craig isn't. Craig's Bond has a realistic and palatable timeline that makes sense to him, they don't. The next Bond will also have that if Craig's Bond dies. It would confuse it even more to have someone else whose probably younger continue Craig's timeline if he lives.

    They got away with it originally because no-one cared enough and it was easy to just gloss over, it isn't that easy anymore, with the way people interact with films and cinema now.
  • Posts: 623
    Denbigh wrote: »
    It would confuse it even more to have someone else whose probably younger continue Craig's timeline if he lives.

    Which is what Dalton did, and it wasn't a problem.

    I'll tell you what I think. I think people who watch super-hero movies and sci-fi (perhaps younger people), would be much more open to Bond dying and coming back, than older, seasoned Bond fans who have lived through the actor changes, and aren't used to the idea of a 're-boot'. Till Casino Royale I thought a re-boot was just changing your shoes.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    It would confuse it even more to have someone else whose probably younger continue Craig's timeline if he lives.
    Which is what Dalton did, and it wasn't a problem.
    Yes, because the franchise never addressed his age in the way they did in the Craig-era. To have a younger guy continue Craig's character arc makes no sense. Also, even if they cast a guy who was old enough, why would they want to continue it without Craig and what more could you possibly do?

    Also it's easier for superhero movies because their success was fully reinvigorated in the modern-era where more people are inclined to accept rebooted timelines, whether you're young or not.
  • Posts: 623
    And super-hero movies don't have to adhere to basic scientific facts like dramas do - so people in Marvel movies can fly, become invisible, and return from the dead. It's allowed, because it's fantasy.
    Yea, I know, different person, different timeline, all that. I'll shut up now.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    shamanimal wrote: »
    And super-hero movies don't have to adhere to basic scientific facts like dramas do - so people in Marvel movies can fly, become invisible, and return from the dead. It's allowed, because it's fantasy.
    I see what you saying, but when superhero movies reboot their timeline, they're not bringing someone back from the dead... it's a rebooted timeline in the way Bond would be. Andrew Garfield's Spider Man wasn't a resurrected Toby MacQuire, just as Tom Holland isn't a resurrected Andrew Garfield. Also, you don't have to shut up, I was just explaining why I thought it would be simple to deal with Bond dying if they wanted to do it.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    Count me as another against Bond dying. It's an awful idea IMO.
  • edited June 2020 Posts: 623
    I watched the recent Star Trek films, and the Leonard Nimoy Spock is in one. I said to my friend, "I don't get it, is that young Spock as an old man, come back in time to talk to himself?" And my friend said, "no it's a Spock from the alternate timeline".
    And I said "well how does that work? It's a different Spock?"
    Anyway, after ages he just said "look, it's sci-fi, it doesn't have to make sense". And I kind of envied him that he was able to just enjoy it on that level. I was taking it far too serious.
    When it came to the 2006 Bond 're-boot', the one thing that saved it for me, was actually the thing that screwed up the re-boot the most. Judi Dench as M. That made no sense at all, because she was the new M in Goldeneye. But at least I was able to think 'yes, he's playing the same character Pierce Brosnan played'.
    But he wasn't. It was a different character in a different timeline.
    No, hang on, if Judi Dench was the same M as in the Brosnan films, then that makes him a different character in the same time-line!
    Bond was re-booted, M wasn't.
    I think I'm getting it now!
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    edited June 2020 Posts: 737

    "If Brosnan's Bond had died in Die Another Day, it would have made no difference to Casino Royale. If people can't comprehend it, that's on them, not the producers and writers - or the actor."

    We can comprehend it. We just don't like it.

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    But I don’t think she is meant to be the same M @shamanimal, just the same actress. If you’ve got Judi, you don’t get rid of Judi. Rebooted timeline or not haha, but I do think her M could be seen as characterised differently to the one before; having a more maternal relationship with 007.

    And fair play if you don’t like it @FatherValentine, of course, I do think it depends on how’s it’s done, but there does seem to be people who seem to think it’s not even possible in the context of the Bond series a whole, which I don’t think is true, whether it’s an idea people get behind or not.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    According the GE script, Brosnan!Dench is named Barbara Mawdsley. Props in SF have Craig!Dench called Olivia Mansfield. So they're definitely supposed to be playing separate characters. Although, back before SP I did quite like the theory (supported by 007 Legends, not that it means much) that the first 20 films happened in between QOS and SF. Something about it still being the same character after 50 years was...comforting, I guess?
  • Posts: 623
    Well, they sent Bond into space with lazer guns, so in the realm of films, anything's possible, I agree.
    But Bond is a cultural hero, in films for nearly fifty years and longer than that in literature, killing him off this far down the pike is going to piss off a lot of fans. Alternative time-line or not.
  • Posts: 623
    Nearly sixty years in films! Sorry.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited June 2020 Posts: 280
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Well, they sent Bond into space with lazer guns, so in the realm of films, anything's possible, I agree.
    But Bond is a cultural hero, in films for nearly fifty years and longer than that in literature, killing him off this far down the pike is going to piss off a lot of fans. Alternative time-line or not.
    I agree. There's a reason Bond didn't die in FRWL (the book).
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    @Denbigh Yeah, I have said repeatedly on these boards that I don't like it and stated reasons, but also that if that's the way the series is going, then I want no part of it. I haven't at any point said it shouldn't happen - it is none of my business if it does - but if they do decide to go down this route, then I surely have every right to comment on it and discuss what it is that I think is dreadful about it.

    I understand completely that super hero fans are used to this sort of thing. Again, that's their business. I hate it.

    A definite end to Craig's timeline, that sees him either dead, or domesticated, is a poor end imo. And I would rather he be dead than married with a kid.

    I might be an extremist on this matter, I didn't want him crying over M either.

  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited June 2020 Posts: 4,247
    Then again Noamie Harris did say they are really going to shock people.....I don't think you necessarily need to shock to impress. Maybe EON might be thinking the Craig Bond films with tragic endings(CR & SF) have been the critically successfully ones, and want another tragic ending....I personally don't see a genuine reason to kill Craig's Bond, other than wanting an OSCAR win to reward Craig for his stalwart performances since CR.....I think for the first time, I really want the GUNBARREL at the film's end, just to signify, even if it's the slightest, that Bond's death is a sort of Hoax.....I just can't stand the notion of James Bond dying.
  • Posts: 623
    antovolk wrote: »
    fans of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man etc have become used to that very principle, in comics and in films. Different interpretations of the same iconic character. Why couldn't this same principle apply to Bond?

    Because they're sci-fi and Bond isn't. The rules are different. Or, perhaps they're not, and they're only different in my head!
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Agent_One wrote: »
    According the GE script, Brosnan!Dench is named Barbara Mawdsley. Props in SF have Craig!Dench called Olivia Mansfield. So they're definitely supposed to be playing separate characters. Although, back before SP I did quite like the theory (supported by 007 Legends, not that it means much) that the first 20 films happened in between QOS and SF. Something about it still being the same character after 50 years was...comforting, I guess?
    Oh yes exactly, thank you @Agent_One. I feel like Blofeld saying that haha :D
    It is a fun theory but one that definitely doesn't work when you get in there. You guys should check out Calvin Dyson's video reacting to someone who tried to combine the whole series.
    shamanimal wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    fans of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man etc have become used to that very principle, in comics and in films. Different interpretations of the same iconic character. Why couldn't this same principle apply to Bond?
    Because they're sci-fi and Bond isn't. The rules are different. Or, perhaps they're not, and they're only different in my head!
    But the recasting isn't a product of science fiction so that argument doesn't make any sense. Again, Spider Man, and Batman aren't resurrected, they're rebooted with different actors just as Bond did with Craig - so they work the same way. It's just a difference of genre.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited June 2020 Posts: 280
    I've watched the video @Denbigh (both the original and Calvin's response) and it's certainly nonsensical. The fact the narrator seems unaware of the many, many holes makes it all the more laughable!
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Agent_One wrote: »
    I've watched the video @Denbigh (both the original and Calvin's response) and it's certainly nonsensical. The fact the narrator seems unaware of the many, many holes makes it all the more laughable!
    I was laughing all the way through haha :D
    And again fair play to you @FatherValentine, but I do believe that whether Craig's Bond lives or dies, Bond 26 would be the same regardless so it wouldn't really change anything about the series. Just that this version of Bond didn't make it in the end, but that as a concept on its own, I can understand the antagonism towards
Sign In or Register to comment.