No Time To Die: Production Diary

19549559579599602507

Comments

  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Still think they should nag Martin Campbell to come back for one more. He and Craig should finish what they started. He captured action and Drama perfectly in Casino.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mrcoggins wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05cjksg
    This was on my twitter feed this morning thought I would share.

    She's spot on. This is why a period film is off the cards.
    Agreed, and this is why I much prefer the films. They evolve and change to reflect the times that we live in.

    I am just confused as to why they decided against reimagining once more, given the amount of time that will have elapsed since the last film firstly, and given the dramatic changes in the world around us secondly. It seems they have missed an opportunity.
  • Posts: 1,985
    I wish some would let the Campbell directing Bond 25 pipe dream go. It's not happening
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I wish some would let the Campbell directing Bond 25 pipe dream go. It's not happening
    There are valid reasons why folks hold onto this dream, and I can understand and relate. However I agree. It's not happening. Mendes is far more likely.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I wish some would let the Campbell directing Bond 25 pipe dream go. It's not happening
    There are valid reasons why folks hold onto this dream, and I can understand and relate. However I agree. It's not happening. Mendes is far more likely.

    I don't know how I'd feel about Mendes returning. On the one hand, I liked Skyfall and really liked Spectre so I'm confident he'd do a good job. On the other hand, he isn't John Glen. What I mean by that is he has a very distinctive style and approach. Glen was able to do so many films in a row because he was more of a journeyman and focused on making solid action films, the scripts were the main focus. But with Mendes you can tell that SF and SP are Sam Mendes Bond movies rather than just Bond movies. So it might feel a bit stale if he did another. Plus if Mendes returns he'll bring Newman along too and I'd like the music for Craig's last film to actually be memorable.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I wish some would let the Campbell directing Bond 25 pipe dream go. It's not happening
    There are valid reasons why folks hold onto this dream, and I can understand and relate. However I agree. It's not happening. Mendes is far more likely.

    I don't know how I'd feel about Mendes returning. On the one hand, I liked Skyfall and really liked Spectre so I'm confident he'd do a good job. On the other hand, he isn't John Glen. What I mean by that is he has a very distinctive style and approach. Glen was able to do so many films in a row because he was more of a journeyman and focused on making solid action films, the scripts were the main focus. But with Mendes you can tell that SF and SP are Sam Mendes Bond movies rather than just Bond movies. So it might feel a bit stale if he did another. Plus if Mendes returns he'll bring Newman along too and I'd like the music for Craig's last film to actually be memorable.
    I don't disagree. Craig's enthusiasm and confidence in predicting a 'high' on Colbert leaves me suspicious though. They aren't anywhere near filming. Why is he confident at this stage given all the baggage his interpretation carries? He doesn't strike me as a risk taker. Mendes is a person who can give him that confidence. It's his mess, and he can extricate them from it.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I wish some would let the Campbell directing Bond 25 pipe dream go. It's not happening
    There are valid reasons why folks hold onto this dream, and I can understand and relate. However I agree. It's not happening. Mendes is far more likely.

    I don't know how I'd feel about Mendes returning. On the one hand, I liked Skyfall and really liked Spectre so I'm confident he'd do a good job. On the other hand, he isn't John Glen. What I mean by that is he has a very distinctive style and approach. Glen was able to do so many films in a row because he was more of a journeyman and focused on making solid action films, the scripts were the main focus. But with Mendes you can tell that SF and SP are Sam Mendes Bond movies rather than just Bond movies. So it might feel a bit stale if he did another. Plus if Mendes returns he'll bring Newman along too and I'd like the music for Craig's last film to actually be memorable.
    I don't disagree. Craig's enthusiasm and confidence in predicting a 'high' on Colbert leaves me suspicious though. They aren't anywhere near filming. Why is he confident at this stage given all the baggage his interpretation carries? He doesn't strike me as a risk taker. Mendes is a person who can give him that confidence. It's his mess, and he can extricate them from it.

    I think they are further along in the basics of the production and personel than they are letting on ,hence Dan's comment.

    He wouldn't come out and say he has signed if he didn't know that things were moving well in all these areas,its not his style.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Really hoping we don't get Mendes again. That would be lame.
  • Posts: 19,339
    That would be a bloody nightmare.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Getafix wrote: »
    Really hoping we don't get Mendes again. That would be lame.
    barryt007 wrote: »
    That would be a bloody nightmare.

    It would break my enthusiasm for bond 25
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I wish some would let the Campbell directing Bond 25 pipe dream go. It's not happening
    There are valid reasons why folks hold onto this dream, and I can understand and relate. However I agree. It's not happening. Mendes is far more likely.

    I don't know how I'd feel about Mendes returning. On the one hand, I liked Skyfall and really liked Spectre so I'm confident he'd do a good job. On the other hand, he isn't John Glen. What I mean by that is he has a very distinctive style and approach. Glen was able to do so many films in a row because he was more of a journeyman and focused on making solid action films, the scripts were the main focus. But with Mendes you can tell that SF and SP are Sam Mendes Bond movies rather than just Bond movies. So it might feel a bit stale if he did another. Plus if Mendes returns he'll bring Newman along too and I'd like the music for Craig's last film to actually be memorable.
    I don't disagree. Craig's enthusiasm and confidence in predicting a 'high' on Colbert leaves me suspicious though. They aren't anywhere near filming. Why is he confident at this stage given all the baggage his interpretation carries? He doesn't strike me as a risk taker. Mendes is a person who can give him that confidence. It's his mess, and he can extricate them from it.

    I think they are further along in the basics of the production and personel than they are letting on ,hence Dan's comment.

    He wouldn't come out and say he has signed if he didn't know that things were moving well in all these areas,its not his style.
    That's a logical conclusion. I hope you're right. If not, his demeanour during that interview doesn't make sense. I can't imagine someone could be confident without knowing who the director is. Overall direction and script is not enough.

    I personally wouldn't be averse to Mendes, as I liked one of his outings and disliked the other one. Third time could be the charm.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,600
    Mendes won't be back. He left his mark and with all of the issues surrounding his Bond films, I highly doubt that he'd put himself back in there. Not to mention, Craig wouldn't wanna work with him again.
  • walter1985walter1985 Rotterdam
    Posts: 91
    It would break my enthusiasm for bond 25

    that. and Craig won't go out on a high note. (Skyfall is about James' mother and his jealous brother, Spectre is about James' father and another jealous brother... if Mendes will direct Bond 25, I guess it should be about James' son and his jealous wife?)

  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,600
    Didn't Mendes not wanted to come back for SP?
  • Posts: 19,339
    Didn't Mendes not wanted to come back for SP?

    He has already said no,and also Dan and him did not get on too well during SP,so the chances of him coming back are nearly zero.

  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,600
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Didn't Mendes not wanted to come back for SP?

    He has already said no,and also Dan and him did not get on too well during SP,so the chances of him coming back are nearly zero.

    See that's what i thought. Listen everyone, Mendes will not be back. It shouldn't even be crossing your minds.
  • Posts: 1,031
    Mendes isn't coming back.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I just mentioned that Mendes is more likely than Campbell, which I stand by.

    It doesn't mean I think he will be back necessarily, although Craig's confidence this far in advance is a bit out of character. From what I can see, he is generally a cautious person.
  • Posts: 1,031
    Was there any truth to their falling out on Spectre or was that just tabloid nonsense?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Dennison wrote: »
    Was there any truth to their falling out on Spectre or was that just tabloid nonsense?
    It's unconfirmed and unsubstantiated.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited August 2017 Posts: 1,165
    As a side note, here's an amusing quote from an interview with Martin Campbell circa Casino Royale.

    "Could this be a buildup to the S.P.E.C.T.R.E. plot and the revelation of Blofeld?"

    Martin Campbell: I don't think they'll go as fantastical in that direction. You won't get the huge room with twenty-seven people sitting at the table and the man stroking a cat, and then #27 disappears into the shark tank. (laughs) Or gets electrocuted. Which is all wonderful stuff, actually, but I don't think you'll see that. You may see a more realistic interpretation of that.

    http://movieweb.com/director-martin-campbell-talks-casino-royale/
  • Posts: 12,526
    Do we think we will get the press conference before or after Christmas?
  • Posts: 1,031
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Do we think we will get the press conference before or after Christmas?

    They usually do it just before filming begins.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,511
    Mendes knows he's got nothing more to give. His interviews post SP shoot have been emphatic.

    It may have been in the leaks, but it does seem common knowledge that he almost backed out of SP.

    I suspect he's a very intelligent man, but also quite "soft" and precious. Another long shoot on a subject he may no longer be interested in spells disaster.

    By not coming back, his legacy is still intact, although slightly dented with SP. If he comes back for a third and makes a dud?... not good for his legacy within the franchise, nor for business outside. As of now, he's still a highly sought out director. He doesn't need Bond.

    A new director with a fresh vision to give DC a box office and critical hit-- this would be a lot harder to accomplish with Mendes.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited August 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Minion wrote: »
    As a side note, here's an amusing quote from an interview with Martin Campbell circa Casino Royale.

    "Could this be a buildup to the S.P.E.C.T.R.E. plot and the revelation of Blofeld?"

    Martin Campbell: I don't think they'll go as fantastical in that direction. You won't get the huge room with twenty-seven people sitting at the table and the man stroking a cat, and then #27 disappears into the shark tank. (laughs) Or gets electrocuted. Which is all wonderful stuff, actually, but I don't think you'll see that. You may see a more realistic interpretation of that.

    http://movieweb.com/director-martin-campbell-talks-casino-royale/
    There also was a rumour that the SPECTRE organization was to be returning in the Craig era back when Casino Royale was spreading hype all over the world, and the even more interesting fact is that its succeeding film, Quantum of Solace in Bulgaria was translated to "Spectre of Solace" in their language (Спектър на утехата). Eventually, after seeing the 22nd, I was sort of expecting SPECTRE to show up in the Bond films sooner or later, and by the time we made it to Nov. 2013, the situation was very likely to happen despite many people denying it (like the "No Blofeld appearing, again!" group here who deny things with no fact to back it up). It eventually happened and we've seen things. Mark my words. SPECTRE (or Spectre) will play a very prominent role in the future Bond films from now on. They waited over 50 years for this.
  • RC7RC7
    edited August 2017 Posts: 10,512
    Barbara had always intended for the organisation behind CR to be Spectre, the prolonged rights issue is the reason for the appearance of Quantum. It's a shame really.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    RC7 wrote: »
    Barbara had always intended for the organisation behind CR to be Spectre, the prolonged rights issue is the reason for the appearance of Quantum. It's a shame really.
    Just like I expected.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    Barbara had always intended for the organisation behind CR to be Spectre, the prolonged rights issue is the reason for the appearance of Quantum. It's a shame really.
    Just like I expected.
    All they had to do then was not mention the organization by name in the last scene with Greene. A little forethought would have been nice. A pity they did.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    All sinister,secret, conspiring organizations go by various names. I don t see the problem. It isn t exactly a name registered at the stock exchange or business registries.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    All sinister,secret, conspiring organizations go by various names. I don t see the problem. It isn t exactly a name registered at the stock exchange or business registries.

    They need a little consistency when it comes time to do business cards and annual Christmas cards, though.
Sign In or Register to comment.