No Time To Die: Production Diary

1108310841086108810892507

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,362
    What's next the hero is James Fong? =))
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    What's next the hero is James Fong? =))
    I'd say James Wang. ;)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    Murdock wrote: »
    What's next the hero is James Fong? =))
    I'd say James Wang. ;)

    James Wu?!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    James Bong
    20-18-02-_03_.jpg
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    What's next the hero is James Fong? =))
    I'd say James Wang. ;)

    James Wu?!
    James Wushu! ;)
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,060
    Murdock wrote: »
    What's next the hero is James Fong? =))
    I'd say James Wang. ;)

    James Wu?!
    James Wushu! ;)

    Gareth MAOLLORY
    Ernst Stavro BLOFENG
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,423
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    What's next the hero is James Fong? =))
    I'd say James Wang. ;)

    James Wu?!
    James Wushu! ;)

    Gareth MAOLLORY
    Ernst Stavro BLOFENG
    BLOFANG! :))

    Now we know the different direction they're taking. The next Bond movie is a Japanese anime-inspired experience. ;)

    James+Bond+007+Hong+Kong+comic+pages.jpg
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    edited October 2017 Posts: 1,003
    Not sure I like Denis. Films are too serious. Like that video says he has the same style with every film and I just can’t picture that style working in a Bond film. Maybe I am wrong. I hope we get someone who can bring back that classic Moore/Connery vibe. Spectre was borderline close but not good enough. Matthew Vaughn would be perfect if I had my way. He’s already worked with Craig and Whishaw before..

    Here’s a few of my picks for director.
    No particular order. Kinda different and unique.

    1) Vaughn

    2) Wes Anderson

    3) Pierre Morel

    4) Martin Scorsese

    5) Tom hooper

    Feel like any of these guys could bring back the vintage classic bond style.

  • Agreed, it's time to move it forward.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    hope we get someone who can bring back that classic Moore/Connery vibe.
    I'm all for this and for the "vintage classic Bond style", but only once the role has been recast.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    I want Pancito to direct the next Bond film.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,060
    I'm all for Michael Bay.

    With Bond 25 to be titled Transformers: Dark of the Moonraker
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 5,745

    I simply can not believe that Nolan would 1. be bothered to make Craig's last when it's clear he wants to start fresh, and 2. would ever even consider remaking On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is his favorite Bond movie. He's bold, but not that bold.
  • Posts: 6,601
    This whole article is just a repeat of stuff floating around. Not to be taken serious at all.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Interesting insights on Villeneuve. Though may cause distress for some Bond fans...


    I don't see anything about this guy that says "Bond". His resume applies as much to Bond as a mathematician applying for a job as a surgeon. He may be good at what he does, but what he does isn't applicable. What he does also looks very pretentious and excessively artsy at times.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Same could have been said of Mendes in 2011 but big box office says who cares?
  • Posts: 1,499
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Interesting insights on Villeneuve. Though may cause distress for some Bond fans...


    I don't see anything about this guy that says "Bond". His resume applies as much to Bond as a mathematician applying for a job as a surgeon. He may be good at what he does, but what he does isn't applicable. What he does also looks very pretentious and excessively artsy at times.

    What Villeneuve does is make outstanding films with depth and meaning - which is so sadly missing in so many of today's films. In fact TV shows are now digging far deeper into characters and themes and also daring to challenge the audience and make people think. Film Studios are frequently scared of this - I was recently told after presenting a pitch to a studio that they liked it but feared it was too intelligent for today's cinema audience. That's scary. I applaud Villeneuve for being able to make intelligent and thoughtful films in this climate. Whether Villeneuve is a fit for Bond is hard to say because we don't yet know the direction they want to take the next film. He might be a perfect fit for the way they are going. I do suspect that the Bond of old is not what we are going to see again. That may upset and lose some fans here - we'll have to wait and see.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,425
    I'm happy if we get some genuine intelligence but not pseudo thematic wallpaper over a wafer thin, poorly thought out plot.

    From what I've seen of Villeneuve I'm hopeful he'd insist on doing everything to the highest standard and wouldn't be satisfied with Mendes' am-dram approach to script and plot.

    The Craig era deserves a proper, well written and hard hitting final chapter. They probably also want great action. I'm sure that's what Babs and Dan want to do. They are not going to give us TSWLM for Dan's final entry - SP was as close as we're going to get. They've been reaching around for depth and meaning during the Craig era and achieving it only intermittently.

    As so often over recent decades the writing has too often been second rate at best.

    I do think Villeneuve is the right choice if they want a film that is both thrilling and thought provoking.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Getafix wrote: »
    Same could have been said of Mendes in 2011 but big box office says who cares?

    Considering both of his films were "meh," I care.
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm happy if we get some genuine intelligence but not pseudo thematic wallpaper over a wafer thin, poorly thought out plot.

    From what I've seen of Villeneuve I'm hopeful he'd insist on doing everything to the highest standard and wouldn't be satisfied with Mendes' am-dram approach to script and plot.

    I agree that there are better ways to execute an intelligent film than Mendes Melodrama. However, even a well executed "deep, intelligent, meaningful" film isn't necessarily right for the Bond franchise, which has historically been about escapist fun. My only solace was hearing Villeneuve talk about a Bond film being like a "big toy-box". Perhaps he'll lighten up a bit if given the job?
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Interesting insights on Villeneuve. Though may cause distress for some Bond fans...


    I don't see anything about this guy that says "Bond". His resume applies as much to Bond as a mathematician applying for a job as a surgeon. He may be good at what he does, but what he does isn't applicable. What he does also looks very pretentious and excessively artsy at times.

    What Villeneuve does is make outstanding films with depth and meaning - which is so sadly missing in so many of today's films. In fact TV shows are now digging far deeper into characters and themes and also daring to challenge the audience and make people think. Film Studios are frequently scared of this - I was recently told after presenting a pitch to a studio that they liked it but feared it was too intelligent for today's cinema audience. That's scary. I applaud Villeneuve for being able to make intelligent and thoughtful films in this climate. Whether Villeneuve is a fit for Bond is hard to say because we don't yet know the direction they want to take the next film. He might be a perfect fit for the way they are going. I do suspect that the Bond of old is not what we are going to see again. That may upset and lose some fans here - we'll have to wait and see.

    Again, depth and meaning are great in their place, but their place is not with Bond; at least not to the extent that Mendes has taken them and not to the further extent I fear Villeneuve would take.
  • TuxedoTuxedo Europe
    Posts: 262
    Honestly I don't want to "understand" Bond any further. I just want to watch him on a mission doing what he does. Hard to see that with DC.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,119
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »

    I simply can not believe that Nolan would 1. be bothered to make Craig's last when it's clear he wants to start fresh, and 2. would ever even consider remaking On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is his favorite Bond movie. He's bold, but not that bold.

    A. Who says Bond 25 will be a remake of OHMSS? It could very well be that they look a bit more to LTK. Letting Bond getting married at the very start of the film. Killing off Madeleine at the very start of the film, like they did with Della.

    B. It is kinda appealing to a director if he's given the assignment to direct a majestic and terrific send-off for a Bond actor. It has been done before only once in a rather mediocre way with NSNA. But again, like I said so many times before, no Bond actor has been sent off in an unforgettable way. So Nolan could actually be tempted into such a project.

    C. Big advantage is, that the final 3/4th of the film could actually be a great story. It could get more focus and better narrative, if we get rid of Madeleine Swann at the start of the film.

    D. Daniel Craig returns for God sake. Embrace that fact. Because we all know what that means. Try to think progressive. Try to be a bit more positive about whatever idea the producers are thinking off. It might actually work. Our desires as fans are known, but we aren't in the director's chair. And at this stage it's just unconfirmed news.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    @BMW_with_missiles spoken like a truly loyal Pierce Brosnan fan.


    If that is what you want again from Bond then we aren't on different pages we on entirely different books indeed.

    That's it some of you just want a repeat of what went before, ticking boxes with a cardboard character that looks like Bond talks like Bond but to hell with there being any depth to it as long as it reminds you of your favourite era.

    Depth and meaning have no place in Bond says it all.
  • Posts: 1,499
    Getafix wrote: »
    Same could have been said of Mendes in 2011 but big box office says who cares?

    Considering both of his films were "meh," I care.
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm happy if we get some genuine intelligence but not pseudo thematic wallpaper over a wafer thin, poorly thought out plot.

    From what I've seen of Villeneuve I'm hopeful he'd insist on doing everything to the highest standard and wouldn't be satisfied with Mendes' am-dram approach to script and plot.

    I agree that there are better ways to execute an intelligent film than Mendes Melodrama. However, even a well executed "deep, intelligent, meaningful" film isn't necessarily right for the Bond franchise, which has historically been about escapist fun. My only solace was hearing Villeneuve talk about a Bond film being like a "big toy-box". Perhaps he'll lighten up a bit if given the job?
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Interesting insights on Villeneuve. Though may cause distress for some Bond fans...


    I don't see anything about this guy that says "Bond". His resume applies as much to Bond as a mathematician applying for a job as a surgeon. He may be good at what he does, but what he does isn't applicable. What he does also looks very pretentious and excessively artsy at times.

    What Villeneuve does is make outstanding films with depth and meaning - which is so sadly missing in so many of today's films. In fact TV shows are now digging far deeper into characters and themes and also daring to challenge the audience and make people think. Film Studios are frequently scared of this - I was recently told after presenting a pitch to a studio that they liked it but feared it was too intelligent for today's cinema audience. That's scary. I applaud Villeneuve for being able to make intelligent and thoughtful films in this climate. Whether Villeneuve is a fit for Bond is hard to say because we don't yet know the direction they want to take the next film. He might be a perfect fit for the way they are going. I do suspect that the Bond of old is not what we are going to see again. That may upset and lose some fans here - we'll have to wait and see.

    Again, depth and meaning are great in their place, but their place is not with Bond; at least not to the extent that Mendes has taken them and not to the further extent I fear Villeneuve would take.

    Of course I see your point, but we don't know the direction Eon are heading in with Bond 25, and they may indeed be pushing to delve deeper into Bond's character. Interestingly MI:6 apparently goes deeper into Ethan Hunt's character than the previous films, upping the drama instead of the action - although there's sure to be some stand out set-pieces.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,423
    We've read Bond's psychology well enough to know the kind of man he is. At least in Craig's era, as the others were purely drawn to be pulp fiction untouchable heroes (as opposed to Fleming's down-to-earth character). We certainly don't need to go deep down into that territory, again. Enough is enough. We don't need to watch Bond tell us how hard it is to be a triggerman for the government and be a spy in the field where you can trust no one, show remorse in killing, etc etc, just put 007 on a mission against a formidable villain.
  • Posts: 1,499
    We've read Bond's psychology well enough to know the kind of man he is. At least in Craig's era, as the others were purely drawn to be pulp fiction untouchable heroes (as opposed to Fleming's down-to-earth character). We certainly don't need to go deep down into that territory, again. Enough is enough.

    It all depends what you throw at a character. There's always stuff to explore if you put a character in a place/situation they've not been or dealt with before.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    We've read Bond's psychology well enough to know the kind of man he is. At least in Craig's era, as the others were purely drawn to be pulp fiction untouchable heroes (as opposed to Fleming's down-to-earth character). We certainly don't need to go deep down into that territory, again. Enough is enough.

    It all depends what you throw at a character. There's always stuff to explore if you put a character in a place/situation they've not been or dealt with before.
    Is there any more one could throw? We've explored every side of him.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Shardlake wrote: »
    @BMW_with_missiles spoken like a truly loyal Pierce Brosnan fan.


    If that is what you want again from Bond then we aren't on different pages we on entirely different books indeed.

    That's it some of you just want a repeat of what went before, ticking boxes with a cardboard character that looks like Bond talks like Bond but to hell with there being any depth to it as long as it reminds you of your favourite era.

    Depth and meaning have no place in Bond says it all.

    @Shardlake There is certainly quite a schism in the Bond fandom right now, isn't there? The thinking on my side of the debate is that what you call "box ticking" worked for 40 years, so surely the classic formula could be continued. The thinking on your side seems to be a simple desire to see something new, which I understand, but I don't think that is what the Bond franchise is about. Those ideas belong in a different movie series.

    "It's sort of like a bedtime story: As long as you don't go too far away from the original, the child is happy. The audience gets what it's expecting: beautiful girls, actions, gadgets - there's a formula."-Roger Moore
  • Posts: 1,499
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    We've read Bond's psychology well enough to know the kind of man he is. At least in Craig's era, as the others were purely drawn to be pulp fiction untouchable heroes (as opposed to Fleming's down-to-earth character). We certainly don't need to go deep down into that territory, again. Enough is enough.

    It all depends what you throw at a character. There's always stuff to explore if you put a character in a place/situation they've not been or dealt with before.
    Is there any more one could throw? We've explored every side of him.

    There's always something. For example, Bond has loved and lost, and Tracey in OHMSS or Vesper in CR were the big ones but before Bond entered a committed long term relationship with them, they were killed. So Bond's longest relationship with a woman was with Judi's M - and we know how that ended. So these rumours about Bond being finally settled and married and out of Mi6 - perhaps for sometime, would be a whole new experience for him - and maybe he will struggle with that. Just saying - there's always something a character hasn't faced before.
Sign In or Register to comment.