› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…597598600602603…2507

Comments

  • GeneralGogolGeneralGogol
    Posts: 928
    I'm sure that nothing will be stated or leaked until a distribution deal gets settled. Then we'll get confirmation of Daniel returning, release date, director, etc For all we know, there may already be some version of a script being looked at by EON or even Daniel.

    The helicopter acquisition is just weird though - especially if it's not for flight. My first thought was usage for scouting trips, but I'm sure it's more convenient to lease in whatever countries they want to explore.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I would more than appreciate another Craig Bond film - but Mendes ... I am a fan of Skyfall - but Spectre left me cold for many things in it. Even with a new script by new writers ... I have the impression he was done creatively after Skyfall.

    I agree with you. I'm lukewarm now about a Craig return except none of the names mentioned as possible replacement excite too terribly much.

    I'm 88% sure now Craig is returning.

    My fear is I really do not want Mendes to return. And if the rumor that Mendes has reconsidered returning because of a story idea I am indeed concerned.

    Wasting money on an classic helicopter sounds just like the waste of money rampant in SP.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Mendes even stated that he had used up all his ideas for SF, which was apparent come SP. Having him return for a third time? Please, no. He'll be the one deciding factor that dictates pure excitement for 'Bond 25,' or a complete lack of interest if he joins the project.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,985
    What story Idea has Mendes thinking of coming back?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    What story Idea has Mendes thinking of coming back?

    I don't know ...just remember reading somewhere a rumor that Mendes had a story idea.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Mendes even stated that he had used up all his ideas for SF, which was apparent come SP. Having him return for a third time? Please, no. He'll be the one deciding factor that dictates pure excitement for 'Bond 25,' or a complete lack of interest if he joins the project.

    He also said, following Skyfall, that the thought of returning made him "physically ill." We all know how that turned out.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited February 2017 Posts: 4,116
    I know the feeling. :-&
  • patbpatb
    edited February 2017 Posts: 4,617
    "the thought of returning made him "physically ill."

    Some of us can relate to that
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    patb wrote: »
    "the thought of returning made him "physically ill."

    Some of us can relate to that

    Indeed.

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/24/why-sam-mendes-directing-bond-25-isnt-a-good-idea/
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    patb wrote: »
    "the thought of returning made him "physically ill."

    Some of us can relate to that

    I most certainly can relate to that.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Rog appeared to be enjoying himself on the set of his films. I wonder if the seriousness and gloom that seems to pervade a Craig-Mendes Bond set is part of the reasons the films are so joyless.

    May be they all need to lighten up a bit. Craig needs to let the stunt guys do the running and jumping and focus on the acting stuff. There's no need for him to be regualarly getting injured on set. It's not like the stunt work or action has been that amazing in his films any way.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,985
    Yea Craig needs to be doing less stunts now.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    Getafix wrote: »
    Rog appeared to be enjoying himself on the set of his films. I wonder if the seriousness and gloom that seems to pervade a Craig-Mendes Bond set is part of the reasons the films are so joyless.

    May be they all need to lighten up a bit. Craig needs to let the stunt guys do the running and jumping and focus on the acting stuff. There's no need for him to be regualarly getting injured on set. It's not like the stunt work or action has been that amazing in his films any way.

    In Quantum, there's a shot early in the movie where Craig jumps onto the top of a bus or other vehicle. But the way the shot was framed, you couldn't really get a good look at his face to see it was actually him.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Totally pointless
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    Spectre was Craigs least physical film. Other than the train fight & some piloting of the Aston in Rome his action mostly involved vehicles.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 2017 Posts: 8,252
    Injuries happen to actors and stunt people of any age. The thought that It's time for him to slow down is premature; he's nowhere near that point. Craig knows how get into, and stay, in shape. His knee injury was something that could have happened to anyone. I have no doubt he is still capable of doing the lion's share of his stunts, or as some call it physical acting.

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    talos7 wrote: »
    Injuries happen to actors and stunt people of any age. The thought that It's time for him to slow down is premature; he's nowhere near that point. Craig knows how get into, and stay, in shape. Hid knee injury was something that could have happened to anyone. I have no doubt he is still capable of doing the lion's share of his stunts, or as some call it physical acting.
    Fully agreed.
  • GetCarterGetCarter
    edited February 2017 Posts: 386
    no to Craig and no to Mendes.

    I think Craig has been a very good Bond and was an inspired choice. But -

    - he's earned his stripes, fallen in love, had his heart broken (CR)
    - his soul has gone to hell and back again, intact (QoS)
    - he's been washed-up and devoid of confidence (SF)
    - he's faced off with his nemesis and beaten him (SP)

    Here's the thing - Bond movies are no longer about Fleming (we know this already) or even the overall canon.

    The canon was "broken" with Casino Royale. It was the first reboot. It ignored Bond's adult history. Bond movies are now about the dramatic arc taken by whoever is acting the role.

    We had Connery tangling with SPECTRE until he was finally able to bring Blofeld down in DAF.

    We had Lazenby falling in love for the first time and giving his heart away in OHMSS.

    We had Moore going up against a gallery of one-off villains and cold war Russia in an era notable for its standalone characterization. This was the most "stable" the canon has ever been.

    We had Dalton indulge his inner rage in LTK, a compelling arc that he never got to explore further.

    Craig ushered in a daring new era - where a new actor "resets" Bond, like they do with Batman, etc. For this reason, Craig is finished. He has nothing left to say as Bond. If he returns with Mendes, BB is simply playing the numbers and ignoring the creative redundancy.

    With a new actor we get a completely new slate, with licence to reset the canon.
  • nikos78nikos78
    edited February 2017 Posts: 150
    courtesy of Empire: http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/007-news-challenges-james-bond-25/ nothing new there
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    GetCarter wrote: »
    no to Craig and no to Mendes.

    I think Craig has been a very good Bond and was an inspired choice. But -

    - he's earned his stripes, fallen in love, had his heart broken (CR)
    - his soul has gone to hell and back again, intact (QoS)
    - he's been washed-up and devoid of confidence (SF)
    - he's faced off with his nemesis and beaten him (SP)

    Here's the thing - Bond movies are no longer about Fleming (we know this already) or even the overall canon.

    The canon was "broken" with Casino Royale. It was the first reboot. It ignored Bond's adult history.

    Bond movies are now about the dramatic arc taken by whoever is acting the role. We had Connery tangling with SPECTRE until he was finally able to bring Blofeld down in DAF. We had Lazenby falling in love for the first time and giving his heart away in OHMSS. We had Moore going up against a gallery of one-off villains and cold war Russia in an era notable for its standalone characterization. We had Dalton indulge his inner rage in LTK, a compelling arc that he never got to explore further.

    Craig is finished. He has nothing left to say as Bond. If he returns with Mendes, BB is simply playing the numbers and ignoring the creative redundancy.

    With a new actor we get a completely new slate, with licence to reset the canon.

    I agree with this, good points.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Here's the thing - Bond movies are no longer about Fleming (we know this already) or even the overall canon.
    What does this even mean?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Craig is finished. He has nothing left to say as Bond. If he returns with Mendes, BB is simply playing the numbers and ignoring the creative redundancy.

    With a new actor we get a completely new slate, with licence to reset the canon.
    Arguably, the only thing he hasn't yet given us as Bond is a traditional no nonsense standalone classic Bond film without melodrama. We are still owed that by him. Some say that was SP. I disagree. Some say it was CR. Perhaps it was.

    While I agree with you, money talks. Personally, I don't know how Craig would live it down if he returns for B25 and it's mediocre. So the pressure will be quite high on him to deliver something special if he chooses to return, given his arc was essentially complete with SP. We can either look at that positively (it will be special) or negatively (chances are it will be more of the same).
  • GetCarterGetCarter
    edited February 2017 Posts: 386
    QuantumOrganization wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Here's the thing - Bond movies are no longer about Fleming (we know this already) or even the overall canon.
    What does this even mean?

    LOL, probably explained myself poorly.

    What I'm trying to say is that with Casino Royale the film makers showed a willingness to mess with Bond's back story for the first time.

    Daniel Craig got his own arc within the canon. Only Lazenby among previous Bonds really got that. And that was within one movie!

    Connery got a very loose arc to do with SPECTRE. Moore was like Groundhog Day. Same world, same problems, neatly packaged at the end of each.

    There was a scowl in TSWLM when Bach mentions his marriage, and then in FYEO when Moore visits Tracey's grave.

    Dalts had LTK, but things were halted off-screen just when he was getting stuck into some dramatic meat.

    Craig has had a fully-fledged career over four movies.

    It'll be the same with the next actor. Vesper, Quantum, the whole lot will be erased.

  • GetCarterGetCarter
    edited February 2017 Posts: 386
    bondjames wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Craig is finished. He has nothing left to say as Bond. If he returns with Mendes, BB is simply playing the numbers and ignoring the creative redundancy.

    With a new actor we get a completely new slate, with licence to reset the canon.
    Arguably, the only thing he hasn't yet given us as Bond is a traditional no nonsense standalone classic Bond film without melodrama. We are still owed that by him. Some say that was SP. I disagree. Some say it was CR. Perhaps it was.

    While I agree with you, money talks. Personally, I don't know how Craig would live it down if he returns for B25 and it's mediocre. So the pressure will be quite high on him to deliver something special if he chooses to return, given his arc was essentially complete with SP. We can either look at that positively (it will be special) or negatively (chances are it will be more of the same).

    yeah, I agree.

    the only way they can really bring Craig back, in a narrative sense, is to give him a joyous, standalone crack against a colorful megalomaniac.

    In short, give him a Roger Moore film. Hopefully more like TSWLM than MR.

    In essence, Craig needs a decent plot.

    SCRIPT has been the thing that's let him down repeatedly in his tenure.
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    Posts: 2,107
    Yes. What he needs now is a clown outfit.
  • LegionnaireLegionnaire
    Posts: 142
    The James Bond template is pretty well etched in stone. While each actor brings his own personal style to the character, Bond as the suave, debonair, larger than life MI6 agent was established by Fleming and continues, even all these years later. Craig is a dynamic Bond, so it would seem ironic for him to appear as a mediocre 007. He seems to enjoy the role, but if he chooses not to come back, his replacement would open a new “Bond” chapter, which would be exciting to see. Classic 007 movies embody great visceral live action sequences, with dreamy “take me there” locations. Even the low budget DN got to Jamaica. As an avid fan, something I’m always loathe to openly admit, there’s never been a Bond film that I didn’t like or at least come to like years later. As a kid, opening day for a 007 movie always seemed like the most important thing in the world. As an adult I was so busy I missed the first three Craig Bond films at the theater, and was then corralled by a friend’s girlfriend into doing a Craig marathon before we all went out for SP. DVD’s are a great invention.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    @GetCarter I think you hit the nail on the head. Please no more Mendes though. I really can't take much more introspection and weak melodrama.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    I don't want Mendes back either. I enjoyed his two films but two is enough. I don't want him back. And I don't want Newman back either. He's made enough bland Bond scores for my liking. I don't need more copy and pasted music.

    Bring back Campbell and Arnold please.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    I will await to see what the Omega meeting with DC throws at us in a few weeks time? :-?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Murdock wrote: »
    I don't want Mendes back either. I enjoyed his two films but two is enough. I don't want him back. And I don't want Newman back either. He's made enough bland Bond scores for my liking. I don't need more copy and pasted music.

    Bring back Campbell and Arnold please.

    The greatest chance we have of seeing a third Campbell film is with a new actor playing 007. I really want to see Campbell direct Bond again. For me he is the perfect modern Bond director like Young is for the classic period.

    If you think that Goldeneye has a little bit too much action, and Casino has a little bit too much emotion, a third one by Campbell might be the perfect Bond film. 2019 does mark the 25 anniversary of his GoldenEye press conference. Could it all come full circle?
Sign In or Register to comment.