› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…100101103105106…2507

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    They should keep the whole cast, get new writers, get Martin Campbell back, get David Arnold back and finish the Spectre Arch and Craig's era with a Bang and on a High note.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Murdock wrote: »
    They should keep the whole cast, get new writers, get Martin Campbell back, get David Arnold back and finish the Spectre Arch and Craig's era with a Bang and on a High note.

    I agree with this.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited April 2016 Posts: 40,976
    Campbell coming back guarantees a win. Or, if Craig doesn't end up returning, let Campbell helm his third Bond film - and the third introduction to a new Bond in a row.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,473
    Either way, I'd like to see Campbell back more than any other director. CR and GE are both in my Top 5 Bond films. It would be especially interesting if he came back to direct Craig's last.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited April 2016 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    At times it felt like Craig impersonates Brosnan.
    I would agree with this. SP is the closest of his films to the Brosnan ouvre, in more ways than one.

    I totally get where you're coming from here. I actually felt this with SF. I always felt that with SF Mendes sort of dumped all the good work of CR and QOS and started heading back towards a greatest hits type approach. Dodgy one liners, cuff popping, MP and Q shoe-horned in and the damn DB5 back again.

    I think the thing that saves the Craig era is that even when he's not 100%, Craig is just an infinitely better Bond than Brosnan ever was. Also, there's a seriousness and quality of production on SF and SP that blows the Brosnan films out of the water.

    SP is for me also still a much more enjoyable Bond film than SF, which I thought was totally overhyped.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Well, do keep in mind when Brosnan became Bond, they were trying to figure out how to compose the outline of the series when Cold War has been left in the past. So, naturally they didn't know where to head to.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,817
    It is time for new blood in the series. We just need an overhaul. New writers, no more angst or personal issues, but going back to standalone missions. That will begin with replacing Craig. Just don't let it be Hiddleston.

    Maybe let Craig do another if people really want it. But using the power of extrapolation I assume it will be bad. The last of an era is always a bad one, that's why it's the last one. And then people will be saying that Craig was the one who did "two good films, but three bad ones".
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Now now, Let's not go making up assumptions, that never ends well.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote: »
    Now now, Let's not go making up assumptions, that never ends well.

    Are you assuming that people here are making assumptions, @Murdock? You know that never ends well. :D
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Now now, Let's not go making up assumptions, that never ends well.

    Are you assuming that people here are making assumptions, @Murdock? You know that never ends well. :D

    I'm not assuming anything, the writing is on the wall. :))
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    It is time for new blood in the series. We just need an overhaul. New writers, no more angst or personal issues, but going back to standalone missions. That will begin with replacing Craig. Just don't let it be Hiddleston.

    Maybe let Craig do another if people really want it. But using the power of extrapolation I assume it will be bad. The last of an era is always a bad one, that's why it's the last one. And then people will be saying that Craig was the one who did "two good films, but three bad ones".

    BB likes those types of Bonds ...they feel brings the audience into the film.

    They have forgotten that when they made GE they knew the audience wanted the old style Bond back. I remember reading her saying that.

    Oh snap!!! GE did have a personal angle...albeit someone we never heard of ...kinda like the doomed new member of every Star Trek away team lol.
  • A_KristatosA_Kristatos
    edited April 2016 Posts: 110
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I can't even get that excited about whoever Bond is not until I know who's directing and who's writing. Craig is a great actor and Bond but he's been wasted for the most part of his tenure due to subpar scripts and troubled productions.

    Oh stop please! Craig's tenure has not been wasted. He starred in two of the most successful by movies of all time, critically and financially, and in two other movies that had average to decent reviews. Just because you didn't like most of them doesn't mean you represent most Bond fans in regards to Craig.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Birdleson wrote: »
    He's calling it like he sees it. What the Hell dies
    Tomorrow never dies...
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No, Tomorrow never lies.

    Except when it calls itself today.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Tomorrow Never Lies would have been such a better movie title, and it would have actually made sense.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Dies works ...
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    It doesn't have to make too much sense, like the title songs. That's why both are loved on that account.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    A_Kristatos wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I can't even get that excited about whoever Bond is not until I know who's directing and who's writing. Craig is a great actor and Bond but he's been wasted for the most part of his tenure due to subpar scripts and troubled productions.

    Oh stop please! Craig's tenure has not been wasted. He starred in two of the most successful by movies of all time, critically and financially, and in two other movies that had average to decent reviews. Just because you didn't like most of them doesn't mean you represent most Bond fans in regards to Craig.

    I'm stating my opinion and I didn't ever claim to represent how most Bond fans feel. Take a chill pill and have a lie down.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Dies works ...

    ...and sounds much better anyway. Lies just sounds 'off'.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Yes advantageous typo for Bond.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Whatever happens I just hope Bond 25 really packs a punch and is at least on par with CR because I'm surprised at just how uneventful and forgettable SP is. Can't afford more missed opportunities if these films are being made every 3 to 4 years.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited April 2016 Posts: 4,325
    They should have kept Craig's Bonds in the vein of Casino Royale - stripped back, no Q, no Moneypenny, with more than a whiff of Ian Fleming. I don't understand why they feel the need to gradually bring back formulaic elements. The stripped back approach worked in CR and SF, and works perfectly for Craig's Bond - so why undermine that approach by making his Bond like all the others before him?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    They should have kept Craig's Bonds in the vein of Casino Royale - stripped back, no Q, no Moneypenny, with more than a whiff of Ian Fleming. I don't understand why they feel the need to gradually bring back formulaic elements. The stripped back approach worked in CR and SF, and works perfectly for Craig's Bond - so why undermine that approach by making his Bond like all the others before him?
    A fair point. Certainly for Craig's Bond interpretation, I agree. I did prefer just Dench and him against the world. It worked, and in retrospect, I miss the dynamic duo. The new 'gang' can't hold a candle to those two at their most intense and focused. Throw in Wright as Felix as well (QoS/CR) and you have a perfect combination imho.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    They should have kept Craig's Bonds in the vein of Casino Royale - stripped back, no Q, no Moneypenny, with more than a whiff of Ian Fleming. I don't understand why they feel the need to gradually bring back formulaic elements. The stripped back approach worked in CR and SF, and works perfectly for Craig's Bond - so why undermine that approach by making his Bond like all the others before him?
    A fair point. Certainly for Craig's Bond interpretation, I agree. I did prefer just Dench and him against the world. It worked, and in retrospect, I miss the dynamic duo. The new 'gang' can't hold a candle to those two at their most intense and focused. Throw in Wright as Felix as well (QoS/CR) and you have a perfect combination imho.

    My hope is that Bond 25 will be a good faithful adaptation of YOLT, but it would have to have some ingenious twists to it. I.e. maybe something like Madeleine getting killed but not quite, something original and not cliche. A clever adaptation of YOLT in the vein of the clever adapting of Holmes' work for the BBC's Sherlock would be great. However, this would mean Bond's stepbrotherness to Blofeld would still be in the background ...
  • stun_harvestingstun_harvesting
    Posts: 337
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »

    ...and sounds much better anyway. Lies just sounds 'off'.

    First time I've heard that one. It's almost universally agreed upon that "Lies" sounds better and is more fitting to the actual story. It's not about Carver's newspaper company being unable to be destroyed, its about the sincerity of the newspaper company.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    According to Hiddleston, none of the rumours are true and that he hadn't spoken to anyone about the Bond role:

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/tom-hiddleston-wants-james-bond-rumours-to-stop/ar-BBrqkof
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    According to Hiddleston, none of the rumours are true and that he hadn't spoken to anyone about the Bond role:

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/tom-hiddleston-wants-james-bond-rumours-to-stop/ar-BBrqkof

    Didn't we know that already?
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    According to Hiddleston, none of the rumours are true and that he hadn't spoken to anyone about the Bond role:

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/tom-hiddleston-wants-james-bond-rumours-to-stop/ar-BBrqkof

    Sam Smith also said that he hadn't made the title song for SPECTRE.

    That said, I really hope Hiddleston his saying the truth. He would be totally miscast as Bond.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Waltz said he wasn't Blofeld and Cumberbatch said he wasn't Khan, either. I don't listen to actors anymore, no matter what they throw my way.
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Waltz said he wasn't Blofeld and Cumberbatch said he wasn't Khan, either. I don't listen to actors anymore, no matter what they throw my way.

    Probably wise. No public figure feels the slightest compunction these days about lying brazenly.

Sign In or Register to comment.