No Time To Die: Production Diary

18388398418438442507

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    what do you think about Nolan directing Bond 25?

    The only way a Christopher Nolan Bond film can truly succeed

    1. Let him write the script

    2. Let him do the second unit shooting

    3. Let him select the new Bond.

    In other words, let him direct the most director driven Bond movie ever. What I am hoping is that Skyfall was the beta test for Nolan's Bond, in terms of giving more power to the director.

    I wholeheartedly agree.

    Should Nolan also write the theme song and sing the theme song a la Dennis Waterman?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    After Mendes, I am very concerned about another micromanaging director such as Nolan. I would rather another Glen (Jaume Collet-Serra), over another director of Mendes ilk.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited July 2017 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »

    That's how you get TND, TWINE and QOS, instead of Skyall.

    Why do you want to kill the franchise?

    This is not the 20th century anymore. What will kill the franchise is stream of bland entries such as TND and TWINE directed by workman directors.
    I agree that bland entries have a better chance of killing the franchise. Arguably they were headed in that direction in the 90's (irrespective of how much money the films were making they were increasingly viewed as a joke, and Bond was fast losing cultural relevance in the marketplace and becoming another generic franchise headed for the dustbin of history).

    I don't have a problem conceptually with action driven entries that stay off the melodramatic sauce. In fact I contend that we are in need of that after the last 10 years. However, they have to be executed properly, and that's where the 90's entries fell flat. If EON want to make a Cubby style 'light' film in the future they'd better get a director who knows what he's doing. During Bab's tenure, the only man who's proven he can do it so far is Martin Campbell.

    I think at this stage I'd be equally happy with a final Campbell/Craig film (if Babs is reluctant to let him go) and then a Nolan soft reboot or Nolan taking over now with a new Bond.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Can someone please create a Christopher Nolan thread so this won't clog the thread any longer?
  • Posts: 4,619

    Of course, Nolan is fine, I was only commenting on Panchito wanting more SF.

    You misunderstood me. When I said I want more SF, I didn't mean more Bond movies with as much drama as Skyfall had, and I did not mean I want more movies where Bond and the main Bond girl fall in love, Bond quits his job and the Bond girl end ups being killed.

    I meant more Bond movies where the composer is not one selected by the producers, but one chosen by the director, where the cinematographer actually does have a style and where the director has a vision, and the producers don't interfere that much. Giving the director more power is not risky as long as you hire the right man for the job (for example: Nolan).
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Nolan's name is spreading like herpes in here. =))
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    I'm curious to see what Nolan would do with the character, but he deserves a fresh start; let Craig, Campbell and Arnold finish what they started.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    I meant more Bond movies where the composer is not one selected by the producers, but one chosen by the director, where the cinematographer actually does have a style and where the director has a vision, and the producers don't interfere that much. Giving the director more power is not risky as long as you hire the right man for the job (for example: Nolan).

    Bingo!

    Nolan even said he had spent the last 40 years dreaming about what he would do with Bond.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    bondjames wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Also, people shouldn't mention Mendes in the same breath as Nolan. They are both directors. That's about where it stops. Nolan is in a different league when it comes to crafting blockbusters. Mendes is art house. Nolan is not.

    Yeah, but they're both famous.
    Not quite. Not even close. I'm pretty sure if you asked a few people down the street who Sam Mendes is they wouldn't have a clue. Most people who like blockbuster films know who Christopher Nolan is. Mendes remains an art house guy. I've not seen any of his films outside of the two Bonds, but have seen nearly all of Nolan's.

    Well, I'm not saying their fame is comparable, I'm just saying they're both famous, which I think they most certainly are. Nolan is obviously much, much more mainstream than Mendes, but even if the average person in the street probably couldn't identify him by name, Mendes is still an Academy Award winner, who has worked with a number of distinguished actors in studio films that have been critically well received, and some of which have made good money at the box office.

    My point is that hiring either of these filmmakers, as disparate as their fame might be, requires relinquishing much more creative control to them than with less known directors, to the potential detriment of the Bond series, since it could be forced to have to sustain and accommodate unsuitable story elements or stylistic choices pushed by these filmmakers.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Not interested in Nolan's "Bond vision." It's probably just as radical and extreme as Quentin Tarantino's. PASS!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »

    That's how you get TND, TWINE and QOS, instead of Skyall.

    Why do you want to kill the franchise?

    This is not the 20th century anymore. What will kill the franchise is stream of bland entries such as TND and TWINE directed by workman directors.
    I agree that bland entries have a better chance of killing the franchise. Arguably they were headed in that direction in the 90's (irrespective of how much money the films were making they were increasingly viewed as a joke, and Bond was fast losing cultural relevance in the marketplace and becoming another generic franchise headed for the dustbin of history).

    I don't have a problem conceptually with action driven entries that stay off the melodramatic sauce. In fact I contend that we are in need of that after the last 10 years. However, they have to be executed properly, and that's where the 90's entries fell flat. If EON want to make a Cubby style 'light' film in the future they'd better get a director who knows what he's doing. During Bab's tenure, the only man who's proven he can do it so far is Martin Campbell.

    I think at this stage I'd be equally happy with a final Campbell/Craig film (if Babs is reluctant to let him go) and then a Nolan soft reboot or Nolan taking over now with a new Bond.
    Me too. As I said some pages back, Craig probably would like to get out of this gig (although the money is good as he has noted himself) but Babs seems to be dependent on him (she's certainly not as hands on as her father, based on what we can see from the Sony leaks, and has given him a lot of creative control on these films). He still has one more in him (just, because I don't think he's aging too well to be frank), but I really hope she gives the director gig to someone like Campbell - someone who knows how to keep it light, direct the action in thrilling ways, understands the character, and manage/improvise on the dialogue so it's witty rather than tiresome.

    It doesn't have to be Campbell necessarily, but it needs to be a competent action director, and not one of these fartsy art house clowns (enough with them already!) irrespective of Craig's preferences.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Also, people shouldn't mention Mendes in the same breath as Nolan. They are both directors. That's about where it stops. Nolan is in a different league when it comes to crafting blockbusters. Mendes is art house. Nolan is not.

    Yeah, but they're both famous.
    Not quite. Not even close. I'm pretty sure if you asked a few people down the street who Sam Mendes is they wouldn't have a clue. Most people who like blockbuster films know who Christopher Nolan is. Mendes remains an art house guy. I've not seen any of his films outside of the two Bonds, but have seen nearly all of Nolan's.

    Well, I'm not saying their fame is comparable, I'm just saying they're both famous, which I think they most certainly are. Nolan is obviously much, much more mainstream than Mendes, but even if the average person in the street probably couldn't identify him by name, Mendes is still an Academy Award winner, who has worked with a number of distinguished actors in studio films that have been critically well received, and some of which have made good money at the box office.

    My point is that hiring either of these filmmakers, as disparate as their fame might be, requires relinquishing much more creative control to them than with less known directors, to the potential detriment of the Bond series, since it could be forced to have to sustain and accommodate unsuitable story elements or stylistic choices pushed by these filmmakers.
    Oh, I totally agree with you on that. There is a risk with any name brand director, and I mentioned on another thread that I would actually prefer a return to a workmanlike journeyman, but for that to work the producers need to know how to manage them properly and to lead. This team prefers a more hands off strategy and lets the director/actor run with it for the most part. A completely different style to the past, which is why we're seeing far more variations in the films.
  • Posts: 386
    Soderburgh would be better than Nolan IMO.

    SS has a wonderfully stylish touch that would reinvigorate the dour DC era.

    We need more old school charm. Hiring Nolan would be doubling down on bombast.

    My only stipulation would be that SS respect the Bond tradition and not bring the auteur.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Bring back Martin Campbell!
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Murdock wrote: »
    Bring back Martin Campbell!

    This.
  • Posts: 386
    Yeah Campbell is still my first choice.

    Guys in the vein of John McTiernan and Phillip Noyce too.

    Proficient journeymen, that's the correct antidote to Mendes!
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Alexander Witt would be my second choice.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 386
    Just on Noyce, I loved the romanticism of The Saint. To me, the best Bonds have this - FRWL, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD, CR.

    Note that this element can enhance a good story and doesn't necessarily need to be dark and angst-ridden.

    In fact, if done correctly, a little romanticism can elevate a Bond film into classic status.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 12,837
    Nolan with a new Bond actor would be most exciting to me. I'd like the Craig era to be its own self contained quadrilogy and the next one can be a soft reboot, either starting a new era or a one off self contained film depending on what Nolan has in mind.

    I wouldn't be opposed to another Craig film, especially with Campbell directing, but Spectre felt like a definitive ending. Bond sparing Blofeld and walking away from killing, the callbacks to all the other Craig films, the 00s being further phased out, etc. There was a real sense of this being everything the other films had been building up to. The big finale. It'd be hard to create a follow up that didn't feel tacked on imo. If they do another Craig film they better have a good story. Even the garden of death won't save "Blofeld kills Madeline, Bond wants revenge" from being a really boring played out premise for a sequel. I don't the comments saying stuff like "Craig isn't done, Blofeld is still alive", etc. Bond's whole arc in SP was remembering the man he used to be and walking away from killing. A revenge driven sequel, or Craig era sequel of any kind, would completely undermine that. Bond leaves Madeline or she leaves Bond and he goes back? That whole character arc was pointless. Madeline dies, punishing Bond for thinking he could ever escape? Boring. Maybe if they'd got it out this year I'd be on board, but we're looking at at least another year or two. I don't want to wait that long for a sequel I really don't see the point in, and then wait even longer for the next actor to come in with Bond 26. If the gaps between films are gonna be this long, I at least want something that's genuinely really exciting at the end of it.

    Plus, as good as he is, Craig has been Bond for ages. It would have been nice if we'd seen more of him (it really feels like there's a film missing between QoS and SF) but if they did another it would feel a bit stale to me. It's been over a decade since CR. For 11 years now he's been associated with the role even if they haven't produced that many films during that time. It'd be nice to have the sense of excitement and freshness that comes with a clean slate instead of trying to close an era that already feels finished imo.

    So I do have my fingers crossed for a new actor at this point. Preferrably directed by Nolan because EON really should make him an offer he can't refuse while he's still willing and in his prime.
    Murdock wrote: »
    Alexander Witt would be my second choice.

    I get why you're suggesting him (familiar with the series, potential to be another Glenn type) but do we really want to turn down the director of The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception and Dunkirk in favour of the guy behind Resident Evil Apocalypse? No thank you.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Just on Noyce, I loved the romanticism of The Saint. To me, the best Bonds have this - FRWL, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD, CR.

    Note that this element can enhance a good story and doesn't necessarily need to be dark and angst-ridden.

    In fact, if done correctly, a little romanticism can elevate a Bond film into classic status.
    Completely agreed. I don't remember getting that from The Saint but it's there in all of the Bond films you mentioned
    ----

    @thelivingroyale I couldn't have said it better. We're on the same page. Let's see what comes of it next month.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    Murdock wrote: »
    Bring back Martin Campbell!

    This.

    That

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited July 2017 Posts: 16,359
    I get why you're suggesting him (familiar with the series, potential to be another Glenn type) but do we really want to turn down the director of The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception and Dunkirk in favour of the guy behind Resident Evil Apocalypse? No thank you.

    Yes. You have no idea how happy I'd be if Nolan never directed a Bond film.
  • Posts: 12,837
    bondjames wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Just on Noyce, I loved the romanticism of The Saint. To me, the best Bonds have this - FRWL, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD, CR.

    Note that this element can enhance a good story and doesn't necessarily need to be dark and angst-ridden.

    In fact, if done correctly, a little romanticism can elevate a Bond film into classic status.
    Completely agreed. I don't remember getting that from The Saint but it's there in all of the Bond films you mentioned
    ----

    @thelivingroyale I couldn't have said it better. We're on the same page. Let's see what comes of it next month.

    Definitely, and is something scheduled/rumoured for next month? I'm just hoping for some sort of official announcement/statement by the end of the year to be honest, even if it's just knowing if Craig is staying or going. Straight after SF didn't they post something on twitter about Bond 24 starting production? Nearly two years since SP and we don't even have that.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Soderbergh is a good choice, but he does allow himself to get carried away somewhat. I think he might not be the right choice now, but perhaps in future. What we really need at the moment is a truly transcendent film, and in my opinion there are only two directors that can deliver that - Nolan or Campbell.

    Dunkirk is a film which has changed my mood on Nolan somewhat. I used to be of the opinion that he would deliver a Mendes Bond film but better, but when you get down to it, they are nothing alike. Mendes has Borrowed from Nolan with SF and SP, but apart from that they belong to two distinct schools of filmmaking. The mistake is thinking Nolan would approach Bond the same way he has approached Batman and other projects. Nolan clearly has a deep and thorough respect for the franchise, unlike the last few directors who picked bits out they liked. Nolan understands Bond, so we wouldn't just be getting recycled homage and hamfisted characterization from him.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Just on Noyce, I loved the romanticism of The Saint. To me, the best Bonds have this - FRWL, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD, CR.

    Note that this element can enhance a good story and doesn't necessarily need to be dark and angst-ridden.

    In fact, if done correctly, a little romanticism can elevate a Bond film into classic status.
    Completely agreed. I don't remember getting that from The Saint but it's there in all of the Bond films you mentioned
    ----

    @thelivingroyale I couldn't have said it better. We're on the same page. Let's see what comes of it next month.

    Definitely, and is something scheduled/rumoured for next month? I'm just hoping for some sort of official announcement/statement by the end of the year to be honest, even if it's just knowing if Craig is staying or going. Straight after SF didn't they post something on twitter about Bond 24 starting production? Nearly two years since SP and we don't even have that.
    Nothing official but some who have more knowledge than most have suggested that a director is already locked. Either way we will be able to get some info next month because Craig will be out promoting Logan Lucky, and I don't think he's all that good with the b/s. He will probably want EON to have some details out there to give him cover.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Nolan with a new Bond actor would be most exciting to me. I'd like the Craig era to be its own self contained quadrilogy and the next one can be a soft reboot, either starting a new era or a one off self contained film depending on what Nolan has in mind.

    I wouldn't be opposed to another Craig film, especially with Campbell directing, but Spectre felt like a definitive ending. Bond sparing Blofeld and walking away from killing, the callbacks to all the other Craig films, the 00s being further phased out, etc. There was a real sense of this being everything the other films had been building up to. The big finale. It'd be hard to create a follow up that didn't feel tacked on imo. If they do another Craig film they better have a good story. Even the garden of death won't save "Blofeld kills Madeline, Bond wants revenge" from being a really boring played out premise for a sequel. I don't the comments saying stuff like "Craig isn't done, Blofeld is still alive", etc. Bond's whole arc in SP was remembering the man he used to be and walking away from killing. A revenge driven sequel, or Craig era sequel of any kind, would completely undermine that. Bond leaves Madeline or she leaves Bond and he goes back? That whole character arc was pointless. Madeline dies, punishing Bond for thinking he could ever escape? Boring. Maybe if they'd got it out this year I'd be on board, but we're looking at at least another year or two. I don't want to wait that long for a sequel I really don't see the point in, and then wait even longer for the next actor to come in with Bond 26. If the gaps between films are gonna be this long, I at least want something that's genuinely really exciting at the end of it.

    Plus, as good as he is, Craig has been Bond for ages. It would have been nice if we'd seen more of him (it really feels like there's a film missing between QoS and SF) but if they did another it would feel a bit stale to me. It's been over a decade since CR. For 11 years now he's been associated with the role even if they haven't produced that many films during that time. It'd be nice to have the sense of excitement and freshness that comes with a clean slate instead of trying to close an era that already feels finished imo.

    So I do have my fingers crossed for a new actor at this point. Preferrably directed by Nolan because EON really should make him an offer he can't refuse while he's still willing and in his prime.
    Murdock wrote: »
    Alexander Witt would be my second choice.

    I get why you're suggesting him (familiar with the series, potential to be another Glenn type) but do we really want to turn down the director of The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception and Dunkirk in favour of the guy behind Resident Evil Apocalypse? No thank you.

    Have to say you've convinced me there mate. I was quite happy with another Craig film but you're absolutely right they've dig themselves into such a hole with SP that there really is nowhere to go is there?

    Blofeld escapes and kills Madeline and Bond goes out for revenge? To get to the Garden of Death and a cracking Flemingian last half hour we've got to sit through 90 mins of contrived and hackneyed prison escapes and Bond girl killings. Yawn.

    Or

    We have a passing line that Bond and Madeline split up and we don't mention her or Blofeld again and have a standalone film with a classic mission to save the world. Well I'm sorry when you've made a massive character arc and interconnectivity the thing of the Craig era it's just a cop out to ditch it all because you've painted yourself into too tight a corner but still want to wring one more film out of Craig.

    Sign Nolan tomorrow for a trilogy. Soft reboot, forget the brother bullshit and let him properly build up SPECTRE and Blofeld in his own way.

    2019 - Bond Begins if you will (in the Nolan sense, obviously an origin story is a big no)
    2022 - For the 60th an absolute epic culminating in the Garden of Death and amnesiac Bond wandering off to Vladivostok.
    2025 - Bond rises. Early scenes of him being brainwashed in Vladivostok, assassination attempt on M and then a save the world mission with everything turned up to 11.
    Murdock wrote: »
    Nolan's name is spreading like herpes in here. =))

    It's the only known antidote to the nasty and debilitating AiDS (Aiden Derangment Syndrome) virus which was reaching epidemic levels. If you notice Mendes' last post didn't even feature so much as an oblique reference to Turner. Nolantherapy is still in the experimental phase though and its highly likely Mendes will relapse at some point.

    Alas you poor Murdock seem to be one of the few souls who suffers violent side effects when exposed to the Nolan pathogen. I'm afraid people like you count as acceptable losses though as the government had to act to try and quell the Turner outbreak.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Alas you poor Murdock seem to be one of the few souls who suffers violent side effects when exposed to the Nolan pathogen. I'm afraid people like you count as acceptable losses though as the government had to act to try and quell the Turner outbreak.

    I'm immune to Nolan's style over substance approach. And should he ever direct a Bond film, I just hope and pray that it's good but I won't hold my breath.
  • Posts: 29
    Murdock wrote: »
    Alas you poor Murdock seem to be one of the few souls who suffers violent side effects when exposed to the Nolan pathogen. I'm afraid people like you count as acceptable losses though as the government had to act to try and quell the Turner outbreak.

    I'm immune to Nolan's style over substance approach. And should he ever direct a Bond film, I just hope and pray that it's good but I won't hold my breath.

    Murdock seems like the kind of moviegoer who watches a movie but really has no idea if he understood it or not
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    ohmss42 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Alas you poor Murdock seem to be one of the few souls who suffers violent side effects when exposed to the Nolan pathogen. I'm afraid people like you count as acceptable losses though as the government had to act to try and quell the Turner outbreak.

    I'm immune to Nolan's style over substance approach. And should he ever direct a Bond film, I just hope and pray that it's good but I won't hold my breath.

    Murdock seems like the kind of moviegoer who watches a movie but really has no idea if he understood it or not

    You don't know me. So don't act like you know what kind of moviegoer I am.
  • Posts: 12,837
    Murdock wrote: »
    Alas you poor Murdock seem to be one of the few souls who suffers violent side effects when exposed to the Nolan pathogen. I'm afraid people like you count as acceptable losses though as the government had to act to try and quell the Turner outbreak.

    I'm immune to Nolan's style over substance approach. And should he ever direct a Bond film, I just hope and pray that it's good but I won't hold my breath.

    There's plenty of substance in Nolan's films. His films usually have something to say (e.g. the terrorism stuff in The Dark Knight, Dunkirk showing what those men went through) and even his trippier, more mind bending films like Inception have interesting characters and plots. They're definitely not shallow.

    @TheWizardOfIce I think I'd like a break from Blofeld and Spectre for at least a few years. I'm glad they returned but one of the things I don't like about the Craig and even a lot of the Connery era is that it feels like the only reason Bond exists is to fight Spectre. I'd like for them to appear every few films, Blofeld returning can be a big event that happens every now and again, and they should make it clear that Bond has (keep it vague) history with Blofeld/Spectre (the trouble with the SP reveal is it was great for the fans but it meant nothing to Bond himself).

    Having said that, Nolan doing the garden of death and the brainwashing/botched M assassination seems too good an opportunity to pass up and if Spectre are a part of this idea he has I'd be all for it.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @ohmss42, seriously man, please, as a new member, come on and feel your way around CAREFULLY and RESPECTFULLY.

    @Murdock is not only a passionate Bond fan (even when he respectfully disagrees (operative word, respectfully)), but the guy is a creative wizard... our own "Q" as it were...

    So I'm not going to be a complete dick re: your uneducated assessment of our friend Murdock, I'll just be half-of-one and and say your comment was idiotic, and please, as a future friend on this forum, have a little more intelligence when judging well respected members. Yes, we can disagree, but sweeping, and, yes, idiotic statements, such as the one you made, make bad first impressions.

    Thanks,

    P
Sign In or Register to comment.