No Time To Die: Production Diary

1118211831185118711882507

Comments

  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    They should've forced the ski double for SP. It's not like he flew the plane into the car himself. And what about QoS and that plane/parachute jump. With wires, they could've easily rigged some ski leaps with him in clear view.
  • Posts: 19,339
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    They should've forced the ski double for SP. It's not like he flew the plane into the car himself. And what about QoS and that plane/parachute jump. With wires, they could've easily rigged some ski leaps with him in clear view.

    He also had that bad knee injury,which put him off the ski scene as well,thats why he stalks around in the PTS rooftop scene and escaping Blofeld's crater,he couldn't run.

    He was in a lot of pain apparently,so he did well to disguise it.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2017 Posts: 9,117
    jake24 wrote: »
    This is the kind of fun action scene I would love to see in Bond 25: https://i.imgur.com/o5uXBgJ.gifv (source: reddit)
    This is pretty much what I expected for SP when Obertilliach was confirmed as a location.
    but apparently Craig can’t ski so they removed it.

    Is that an actual fact from the Sony leaks or is it just speculation on your part? Because as an argument it has less validity than creationism:

    1. Did Rog ski off the cliff? Did Broz do the bungy jump? Did Tim hang off the cargo net? No because it's too dangerous and that's what stuntmen are for.

    2. Rog could ski and so could Laz but it doesn't matter if you are Franz Klammer (or indeed Hannes Oberhauser himself) no one is going to let their lead actor do something dangerous that might jeopardise completing the film.

    3. So it's OK to CGI Dan's face onto a stuntman when Bond is riding a bike along the top of Istanbul or hanging out of a chopper over Mexico City but for a ski sequence it's imperative we see that it's him doing it all for real?

    4. Did Dan do the crane jump in CR or roll the Aston. Oh no he wasn't up to that - so why weren't those sequences axed too?

    5. So who flew the plane in the finished sequence? Dan (presume he remembered from when he learned to fly the DC10 in QOS as that must have been him otherwise the scene would have been shelved?) How is it any different cutting to close ups of him in a cockpit in front of green screen than it is on skis in front of a green screen?

    6. The OHMSS ski sequence is better than any action sequence of the Craig era despite cheesy cutaway back projection shots of Laz. Just because you can see the actors face in a sequence doesn't automatically make it a brilliant action sequence. And as noted in point 5 above, in the finished plane sequence we barely see Dan's face anyway so what was the point?

    I'm sure there more but suffice it to say that Craig not being able to ski being the reason to pull the scene is utter, utter bollocks. Presumably he doesn't kill people either but through the magic of cinema and, crucially, acting they make us believe he does.

    Don't get me wrong it's nice to have your leading man in amongst it but, if true, is this another instance of EON ceding control to Dan? Dalton was as keen as Dan to do his own stunts but was firmly told 'no' when stunts were too big for him. And consequently his films have action sequences the Craig era can only dream of. Food for thought for B25.

    PS - The TWINE ski sequence is bog average and that's on a good day. But that has nothing to do with Brozza's skiing ability or lack thereof.


  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,455
    I think DAD might be better than SP, simply because it was more creative. As crazy as Gustav's plan was, there are aspects I can believe in a OTT way. I can't connect with any part of Blofeld's plan in Blofeld. Because it was never really elucidated much for the audience. DAD gave us bare minimum, allowing us to connect the rest ourselves. How did Graves get the diamond satellite in space without anyone knowing? That much is left to the imagination. In SP, the audience isn't even given an outline of the plan. Just vague references, and abstract discussions about survelliance. They could have gone into detail about that, or they could have just given the basics like DAD. They chose neither.
  • Posts: 9,860
    I want a ski chase in Bond 25 I get that I am happy :D
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    jake24 wrote: »
    This is the kind of fun action scene I would love to see in Bond 25: https://i.imgur.com/o5uXBgJ.gifv (source: reddit)
    This is pretty much what I expected for SP when Obertilliach was confirmed as a location.
    but apparently Craig can’t ski so they removed it.

    Is that an actual fact from the Sony leaks or is it just speculation on your part? Because as an argument it has less validity than creationism.
    Definitely not the latter since I don't resort to speculated alternative facts, but rather what I read from more resourceful members here. Yes, I read it on this very forums site that it was reported Craig couldn't ski. Can't remember if I came across it while reading the Sony leaks.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,455
    Dan really should have at least tried to ski before the idea was scrapped.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Dan really should have at least tried to ski before the idea was scrapped.

    He also had that bad knee injury,which put him off the ski scene as well,thats why he stalks around in the PTS rooftop scene and escaping Blofeld's crater,he couldn't run.

    He was in a lot of pain apparently,so he did well to disguise it.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dan really should have at least tried to ski before the idea was scrapped.

    It's a completely moot point because he wouldn't be allowed to do it for insurance reasons.

    Unless you are Steve McQueen or Tom Cruise with the clout to say 'Unless you let me do the dangerous stuff the picture doesn't get made' they don't let you do the really dangerous stuff.

  • Posts: 1,031
    jake24 wrote: »
    This is the kind of fun action scene I would love to see in Bond 25: https://i.imgur.com/o5uXBgJ.gifv (source: reddit)
    This is pretty much what I expected for SP when Obertilliach was confirmed as a location.
    but apparently Craig can’t ski so they removed it.

    Is that an actual fact from the Sony leaks or is it just speculation on your part? Because as an argument it has less validity than creationism:

    1. Did Rog ski off the cliff? Did Broz do the bungy jump? Did Tim hang off the cargo net? No because it's too dangerous and that's what stuntmen are for.

    2. Rog could ski and so could Laz but it doesn't matter if you are Franz Klammer (or indeed Hannes Oberhauser himself) no one is going to let their lead actor do something dangerous that might jeopardise completing the film.

    3. So it's OK to CGI Dan's face onto a stuntman when Bond is riding a bike along the top of Istanbul or hanging out of a chopper over Mexico City but for a ski sequence it's imperative we see that it's him doing it all for real?

    4. Did Dan do the crane jump in CR or roll the Aston. Oh no he wasn't up to that - so why weren't those sequences axed too?

    5. So who flew the plane in the finished sequence? Dan (presume he remembered from when he learned to fly the DC10 in QOS as that must have been him otherwise the scene would have been shelved?) How is it any different cutting to close ups of him in a cockpit in front of green screen than it is on skis in front of a green screen?

    6. The OHMSS ski sequence is better than any action sequence of the Craig era despite cheesy cutaway back projection shots of Laz. Just because you can see the actors face in a sequence doesn't automatically make it a brilliant action sequence. And as noted in point 5 above, in the finished plane sequence we barely see Dan's face anyway so what was the point?

    I'm sure there more but suffice it to say that Craig not being able to ski being the reason to pull the scene is utter, utter bollocks. Presumably he doesn't kill people either but through the magic of cinema and, crucially, acting they make us believe he does.

    Don't get me wrong it's nice to have your leading man in amongst it but, if true, is this another instance of EON ceding control to Dan? Dalton was as keen as Dan to do his own stunts but was firmly told 'no' when stunts were too big for him. And consequently his films have action sequences the Craig era can only dream of. Food for thought for B25.

    PS - The TWINE ski sequence is bog average and that's on a good day. But that has nothing to do with Brozza's skiing ability or lack thereof.


    It's true he can't/won't ski.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,545
    Dan really should have at least tried to ski before the idea was scrapped.

    He said in an interview that he doesn't know how to ski.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dennison wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    This is the kind of fun action scene I would love to see in Bond 25: https://i.imgur.com/o5uXBgJ.gifv (source: reddit)
    This is pretty much what I expected for SP when Obertilliach was confirmed as a location.
    but apparently Craig can’t ski so they removed it.

    Is that an actual fact from the Sony leaks or is it just speculation on your part? Because as an argument it has less validity than creationism:

    1. Did Rog ski off the cliff? Did Broz do the bungy jump? Did Tim hang off the cargo net? No because it's too dangerous and that's what stuntmen are for.

    2. Rog could ski and so could Laz but it doesn't matter if you are Franz Klammer (or indeed Hannes Oberhauser himself) no one is going to let their lead actor do something dangerous that might jeopardise completing the film.

    3. So it's OK to CGI Dan's face onto a stuntman when Bond is riding a bike along the top of Istanbul or hanging out of a chopper over Mexico City but for a ski sequence it's imperative we see that it's him doing it all for real?

    4. Did Dan do the crane jump in CR or roll the Aston. Oh no he wasn't up to that - so why weren't those sequences axed too?

    5. So who flew the plane in the finished sequence? Dan (presume he remembered from when he learned to fly the DC10 in QOS as that must have been him otherwise the scene would have been shelved?) How is it any different cutting to close ups of him in a cockpit in front of green screen than it is on skis in front of a green screen?

    6. The OHMSS ski sequence is better than any action sequence of the Craig era despite cheesy cutaway back projection shots of Laz. Just because you can see the actors face in a sequence doesn't automatically make it a brilliant action sequence. And as noted in point 5 above, in the finished plane sequence we barely see Dan's face anyway so what was the point?

    I'm sure there more but suffice it to say that Craig not being able to ski being the reason to pull the scene is utter, utter bollocks. Presumably he doesn't kill people either but through the magic of cinema and, crucially, acting they make us believe he does.

    Don't get me wrong it's nice to have your leading man in amongst it but, if true, is this another instance of EON ceding control to Dan? Dalton was as keen as Dan to do his own stunts but was firmly told 'no' when stunts were too big for him. And consequently his films have action sequences the Craig era can only dream of. Food for thought for B25.

    PS - The TWINE ski sequence is bog average and that's on a good day. But that has nothing to do with Brozza's skiing ability or lack thereof.


    It's true he can't/won't ski.

    And I don't know how many times I need to repeat it - it's utterly irrelevant as no Bond as ever skied on screen. Even Rog who loved skiing was on a sled in the scene when he skis with Bibi which looks pretty realistic.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Dan really should have at least tried to ski before the idea was scrapped.

    He said in an interview that he doesn't know how to ski.
    Was it the one with Charlie Rose, @Red_Snow?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,455
    Dan really should have at least tried to ski before the idea was scrapped.

    It's a completely moot point because he wouldn't be allowed to do it for insurance reasons.

    Unless you are Steve McQueen or Tom Cruise with the clout to say 'Unless you let me do the dangerous stuff the picture doesn't get made' they don't let you do the really dangerous stuff.

    Craig is co-producer. They would have let him, had he wanted to.
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    He could learn for bond 25 it would be awesome to have a ski chase for craig's swan song!
  • Posts: 19,339
    He could learn for bond 25 it would be awesome to have a ski chase for craig's swan song!

    I would think they are more likely to do something under water.
    That's the only thing he hasn't done yet,scuba diving.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    It's been a long time since Bond did scuba diving. I miss those extravaganzas in the Bond films.
  • Posts: 1,031
    Dennison wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    This is the kind of fun action scene I would love to see in Bond 25: https://i.imgur.com/o5uXBgJ.gifv (source: reddit)
    This is pretty much what I expected for SP when Obertilliach was confirmed as a location.
    but apparently Craig can’t ski so they removed it.

    Is that an actual fact from the Sony leaks or is it just speculation on your part? Because as an argument it has less validity than creationism:

    1. Did Rog ski off the cliff? Did Broz do the bungy jump? Did Tim hang off the cargo net? No because it's too dangerous and that's what stuntmen are for.

    2. Rog could ski and so could Laz but it doesn't matter if you are Franz Klammer (or indeed Hannes Oberhauser himself) no one is going to let their lead actor do something dangerous that might jeopardise completing the film.

    3. So it's OK to CGI Dan's face onto a stuntman when Bond is riding a bike along the top of Istanbul or hanging out of a chopper over Mexico City but for a ski sequence it's imperative we see that it's him doing it all for real?

    4. Did Dan do the crane jump in CR or roll the Aston. Oh no he wasn't up to that - so why weren't those sequences axed too?

    5. So who flew the plane in the finished sequence? Dan (presume he remembered from when he learned to fly the DC10 in QOS as that must have been him otherwise the scene would have been shelved?) How is it any different cutting to close ups of him in a cockpit in front of green screen than it is on skis in front of a green screen?

    6. The OHMSS ski sequence is better than any action sequence of the Craig era despite cheesy cutaway back projection shots of Laz. Just because you can see the actors face in a sequence doesn't automatically make it a brilliant action sequence. And as noted in point 5 above, in the finished plane sequence we barely see Dan's face anyway so what was the point?

    I'm sure there more but suffice it to say that Craig not being able to ski being the reason to pull the scene is utter, utter bollocks. Presumably he doesn't kill people either but through the magic of cinema and, crucially, acting they make us believe he does.

    Don't get me wrong it's nice to have your leading man in amongst it but, if true, is this another instance of EON ceding control to Dan? Dalton was as keen as Dan to do his own stunts but was firmly told 'no' when stunts were too big for him. And consequently his films have action sequences the Craig era can only dream of. Food for thought for B25.

    PS - The TWINE ski sequence is bog average and that's on a good day. But that has nothing to do with Brozza's skiing ability or lack thereof.


    It's true he can't/won't ski.

    And I don't know how many times I need to repeat it - it's utterly irrelevant as no Bond as ever skied on screen. Even Rog who loved skiing was on a sled in the scene when he skis with Bibi which looks pretty realistic.

    I was just answering your question. I quite agree with you.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2017 Posts: 9,117
    Dan really should have at least tried to ski before the idea was scrapped.

    It's a completely moot point because he wouldn't be allowed to do it for insurance reasons.

    Unless you are Steve McQueen or Tom Cruise with the clout to say 'Unless you let me do the dangerous stuff the picture doesn't get made' they don't let you do the really dangerous stuff.

    Craig is co-producer.

    Aha! Finally some words of sense that lead us to the root cause of the problem. The Craig tail wagging the EON dog. You're a paid employee so how about just do what it says in the script instead of telling us what you do and don't fancy doing?
    They would have let him, had he wanted to.

    Where does it end?

  • I'd rather have a pretentious sounding opinion as a minority voice in here, than sounding like a follower of a majority-opinion that continues to make statements as if they are facts. The latter I'm not doing.
    Facts? Forgive me for coming off rather bland and straightforward, but you hypocritically cherry-pick the things you like and interpret it the way you want it to be. You're nowhere near stating facts but rather opinions that merely build themselves on your world of view. Some call that attribute opinionated, and vigorously at that!

    Ooowh yeah, and since when have you given any...any proper insightful response to this. Dear @ClarkDevlin.....I will stay proudly an elitist "who all knows it better" if no one is actually responding to the actual contents :-):
    Not really to be honest. Not when you ask for my personal opinion. The biggest problem for me with DAD is the icy/grey cinematography in combination with Peter Lamont's rather lacklustre production design (he did much better for "Casino Royale", but to me he never really was a good replacement of Ken Adam. Dennis Gassner however brings some Ken Adam flair to the films, in a more modernist way). This.....ice hotel did not do it for me. Cold, bloated, without function. I mean, Ken Adam's volcano lair actually had a stylish bungalow in it for Blofeld. In DAD it was nothing more than a showcase for guests. And then there's the CGI. Which already started to annoy me when I saw the fake backlit projection of Hong Kong. Such a pity the location wasn't used in a way Roger Deakins or Hoyte van Hoytema did (with aerial shots).

    SP to me has a much warmer cinematography and is a much more honest and atmospheric with regard to the production design. It's not just big for being big. I really believed that this bungalow inside the impact crater was Blofeld's bungalow. I really believed the eeriness of the SPECTRE-meeting in the Palacio Cadenza. I got truly indulged in Mr White's unclean Austrian log cabin. I loved the ultra-white torture room as opposed to hanging Jinx in a car manufacturer robot (simply put: way more stylish visually). Dennis Gassner and Hoyte van Hoytema did a great job, whereas Peter Lamont and David Tattersall to me created more of a dud. Not to mention the ghastly sped-up camerawork.

    And then I haven't even talked about the CGI, the ridiculous gene-engineering plot. If THIS is what we want to see in Bond 25.....then by all means I'm gonna be kneeling down for Ethan Hunt. DAD is certainly entertaining. But to me it needs to be mixed by a good amount of credibility, whether its created by plot/story or cinematography/production design. And I think that still is possible, to create a film that's both entertaining and rooted in some realism.

    "SPECTRE" to that extend is, at least for me, as my personal opinion, better than "Die Another Day" (see how I add the line "at least for me, as my personal opinion"? I hope I don't make my opinion look like it's a given fact).

    Story-wise, both "SPECTRE" and "Die Another Day" are pretty outlandish. But in different ways. Blofeld's plot to become the sole supplier of intelligence data to MI6 and the larger Nine Eyes program is rooted in more realism to me than........a space laser weapon to destroy North-Korea. Not even Trump wouldn't go that far.

    The foster-brother links between Bond and Blofeld? They just annoy a large portion of fans because it was done before in films like "The Dark Knight Rises" and "Star Trek Into Darkness". Sam Mendes tried a bit too hard to give background information about certain characters. It made the film look silly. But at least a foster-brother arrangement is -again- rooted in more realism than simply using gene therapy to make an Asian look like a perfect caucasian: Gustav Graves.

    But this is the prime reason I haven't fully watched DAD since 2008 probably. I just....can't....finish it. It's too silly, and especially made for an audience that was having less worries about geopolitical stuff and maintaining prosperity. DAD was the product of its time, of a decade where there were no worries. Hence it has lost to me a lot of.....impact. With "SPECTRE" at times it was like I was watching a Sean Connery flick with its dreamy cinematography and production design.

    I hope I make some sense here :-). What do you think @Getafix? If I want a grey overblown action porno-vaganza, I ought to buy stuff from "The Fast And The Furious" franchise. Not Bond :-).

    The only thing that gets evident from your - as usual - much too lengthy post is that you didn't even comprehend the plot of DAD.
    "a space laser weapon to destroy North-Korea"

    Not really !
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited November 2017 Posts: 1,756
    SP, as general cinema, is not a failure, but in context of a Bond film, it is a complete failure.

    Good Bond? Debatable.
    Good Bond girl? No.
    Good Villain? No.
    Good Soundtrack? No.
    Good Plot? No.
    Good Script? No.
    Good dialogue? No.
    Good action? No.

    At least DAD was so bad, it is actually good. In the kind of way a Saturday morning Superhero cartoon is. Yes, it's an awful film, but it's entertaining.

    SP fails on so many levels because everything it set out to achieve fell flat on it's face. DAD never tries to be intelligent, ambitious, sombre (except the torture scenes, but even then there was humour), or blow millions of dollars on a single shot of explosion "just because". DAD is quite unpretentious in that way.
  • I'd rather have a pretentious sounding opinion as a minority voice in here, than sounding like a follower of a majority-opinion that continues to make statements as if they are facts. The latter I'm not doing.
    Facts? Forgive me for coming off rather bland and straightforward, but you hypocritically cherry-pick the things you like and interpret it the way you want it to be. You're nowhere near stating facts but rather opinions that merely build themselves on your world of view. Some call that attribute opinionated, and vigorously at that!

    Ooowh yeah, and since when have you given any...any proper insightful response to this. Dear @ClarkDevlin.....I will stay proudly an elitist "who all knows it better" if no one is actually responding to the actual contents :-):
    Not really to be honest. Not when you ask for my personal opinion. The biggest problem for me with DAD is the icy/grey cinematography in combination with Peter Lamont's rather lacklustre production design (he did much better for "Casino Royale", but to me he never really was a good replacement of Ken Adam. Dennis Gassner however brings some Ken Adam flair to the films, in a more modernist way). This.....ice hotel did not do it for me. Cold, bloated, without function. I mean, Ken Adam's volcano lair actually had a stylish bungalow in it for Blofeld. In DAD it was nothing more than a showcase for guests. And then there's the CGI. Which already started to annoy me when I saw the fake backlit projection of Hong Kong. Such a pity the location wasn't used in a way Roger Deakins or Hoyte van Hoytema did (with aerial shots).

    SP to me has a much warmer cinematography and is a much more honest and atmospheric with regard to the production design. It's not just big for being big. I really believed that this bungalow inside the impact crater was Blofeld's bungalow. I really believed the eeriness of the SPECTRE-meeting in the Palacio Cadenza. I got truly indulged in Mr White's unclean Austrian log cabin. I loved the ultra-white torture room as opposed to hanging Jinx in a car manufacturer robot (simply put: way more stylish visually). Dennis Gassner and Hoyte van Hoytema did a great job, whereas Peter Lamont and David Tattersall to me created more of a dud. Not to mention the ghastly sped-up camerawork.

    And then I haven't even talked about the CGI, the ridiculous gene-engineering plot. If THIS is what we want to see in Bond 25.....then by all means I'm gonna be kneeling down for Ethan Hunt. DAD is certainly entertaining. But to me it needs to be mixed by a good amount of credibility, whether its created by plot/story or cinematography/production design. And I think that still is possible, to create a film that's both entertaining and rooted in some realism.

    "SPECTRE" to that extend is, at least for me, as my personal opinion, better than "Die Another Day" (see how I add the line "at least for me, as my personal opinion"? I hope I don't make my opinion look like it's a given fact).

    Story-wise, both "SPECTRE" and "Die Another Day" are pretty outlandish. But in different ways. Blofeld's plot to become the sole supplier of intelligence data to MI6 and the larger Nine Eyes program is rooted in more realism to me than........a space laser weapon to destroy North-Korea. Not even Trump wouldn't go that far.

    The foster-brother links between Bond and Blofeld? They just annoy a large portion of fans because it was done before in films like "The Dark Knight Rises" and "Star Trek Into Darkness". Sam Mendes tried a bit too hard to give background information about certain characters. It made the film look silly. But at least a foster-brother arrangement is -again- rooted in more realism than simply using gene therapy to make an Asian look like a perfect caucasian: Gustav Graves.

    But this is the prime reason I haven't fully watched DAD since 2008 probably. I just....can't....finish it. It's too silly, and especially made for an audience that was having less worries about geopolitical stuff and maintaining prosperity. DAD was the product of its time, of a decade where there were no worries. Hence it has lost to me a lot of.....impact. With "SPECTRE" at times it was like I was watching a Sean Connery flick with its dreamy cinematography and production design.

    I hope I make some sense here :-). What do you think @Getafix? If I want a grey overblown action porno-vaganza, I ought to buy stuff from "The Fast And The Furious" franchise. Not Bond :-).

    The only thing that gets evident from your - as usual - much too lengthy post is that you didn't even comprehend the plot of DAD.
    "a space laser weapon to destroy North-Korea"

    Not really !

    Ooowh really greenie ;-). Be my guest and explain it to me. I think you can use another sentence, one or two, for that.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    Alright gents. Back on topic, please.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 12,837
    The knee injury didn't have anything to do with it, that came during filming, the plane chase was already planned by then. It went from "parkour on skis", to something involving a snow mobile and finally the plane chase when the scripts were still being written. I'm not sure why. I've read on here that Craig nixed the idea but I don't know if that's true or if it's just speculation based off that interview.
  • Gustav Graves, I too find DAD entertaining, though far from perfect and a bit out there. But remember, in most of DC's tenure, the villain's lair serves no purpose other than to blow up moments after Bond appears (Hotel Perla De Las Dunas in QOS, Blofeld's HQ in SP, etc.) I agree with you and think it would be great to get back to location having some purpose to the storyline. Even Bond's trip back to Skyfall felt hollow; we were promised a movie where Bond would go back to face his past and instead were immediately treated to a watered-down version of Straw Dogs or a less amusing Home alone sequence. There is no gravitas to watching Bond's childhood home being attacked. On the credibility front, yes, DAD stretches things quite far... but the car that everyone seems to hate so much is based on current technology being perfected. Remember, it was ridiculous to even THINK about a volcano lair or a spaceship that would take off and land and take off again back in the '60s. Complete science fiction. The space shuttle did that for the first time some 15, 20 years later. DAD is the new YOLT in that respect. But I love them both for what they are (minus that horrible parasailing incident on the ice in DAD where the CG just was abysmal).
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    It’s somewhat a paradox, if I were to compare the two, element by element, SP would probably come out ahead; but in the end I find DaD much more entertaining while Sp boring. If I had to watch either it would be DaD.
  • Interesting, that. And I agree talos7
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I predict the next actor does 2.

    Agreed. Craig and CR will be a tough act to follow.
    Earlier: where @TripAces says the buck stops with the producers (as responsible for the creative decisions that make it on screen): I believe it means the buck stops with the producers (they're responsible).
    And I totally agree.

    Ah right having read it again I think you're correct. It was just with the general anti negativity theme of his post I got it into my head he was trying to defend them. But absolutely - I agree too. The shoddily written buck does indeed stop with them.

    It's really unclear to me why Babs and MGW (1) didn't nix Stepbrothergate (2) didn't see the lack of chemistry between Craig and Seydoux in the casting process and (3) didn't complain about the reused score in the pretitles, for God's sake! Even on the rare occasion when Barry would reuse a track it was around 2/3 of the way through the film.

    My guess? They ceded too much creative control to Craig and Mendes, which is why I'd prefer that that duo be split up for Bond 25.

    If any one from EON does ever check out these pages they will no doubt be having a good chuckle.

    They've just had two of the most commercially successful entries in the series and every other post on here is saying how wrong they got it.

    DAD was commercially successful and look what happened - Devoid of any creative competence, the removal of their very popular leading man and a 4 year hiatus.

    EoN aren't going to hear anything negative about SF. It was s huge critical and commercial success. SP OTOH was a messy joke. They F'd up in a very colossal and pronounced way. For all the goodwill and hard work CR re-established SO what all over it in the most careless and worse way possible. Urgh.
    Have to agree. Sorry but I do consider SP a complete failure, one of 4 actually bad bond films. Sure there is a good film somewhere within it, some great scenes (pts, train fight, etc) but the film as a whole doesnt work. Its let down by bad pacing, unjustified drama, bad plot developments such as brothergate (notice that this isbt listed first), campiness, bad villain, and even disappointing action with a few exceptions. So yes I do consider SP to be a failure, contrary to some claims that one can't do so. I like sf by the way. Yes sp was commercially successful, relatively, but I don't care about commercial sucess except insofar as it influences the next film. Spectre did not deserve either its commercial or critical reception, and I hope bond 25 is more in the vein of cr and sf.

    "Complete failure"? This is just hyperbole that undercuts any valid points you are making.

    Also regarding the previous comment the idea SP is comparable to DAD is laughable.

    It just underlines what I said previously which is that valid criticism of SP has turned into an echo chamber of alternative facts where SP is amongst the worst in the series and a total failure.

    "Also regarding the previous comment the idea SP is comparable to DAD is laughable."

    It certainly is. Simply because DAD is so much better to watch. Say what you want about it( and you're probably true with much of it )but one thing it is not guilty off. It is not boring. It takes you on a ride from the first minute to the last without anyone ever getting dour in it. It also never pretends to be more than a Bond movie. Oh God, I miss these days!
    Let me also add that back in 2002 I met many that made jokes about that tsunami scene, but no one said it was a bad - let alone boring - movie. Just the opposite in fact. Everybody felt greatly entertained.

    I personally think DAD is a Bond film for dumb-asses :-).

    So
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I predict the next actor does 2.

    Agreed. Craig and CR will be a tough act to follow.
    Earlier: where @TripAces says the buck stops with the producers (as responsible for the creative decisions that make it on screen): I believe it means the buck stops with the producers (they're responsible).
    And I totally agree.

    Ah right having read it again I think you're correct. It was just with the general anti negativity theme of his post I got it into my head he was trying to defend them. But absolutely - I agree too. The shoddily written buck does indeed stop with them.

    It's really unclear to me why Babs and MGW (1) didn't nix Stepbrothergate (2) didn't see the lack of chemistry between Craig and Seydoux in the casting process and (3) didn't complain about the reused score in the pretitles, for God's sake! Even on the rare occasion when Barry would reuse a track it was around 2/3 of the way through the film.

    My guess? They ceded too much creative control to Craig and Mendes, which is why I'd prefer that that duo be split up for Bond 25.

    If any one from EON does ever check out these pages they will no doubt be having a good chuckle.

    They've just had two of the most commercially successful entries in the series and every other post on here is saying how wrong they got it.

    DAD was commercially successful and look what happened - Devoid of any creative competence, the removal of their very popular leading man and a 4 year hiatus.

    EoN aren't going to hear anything negative about SF. It was s huge critical and commercial success. SP OTOH was a messy joke. They F'd up in a very colossal and pronounced way. For all the goodwill and hard work CR re-established SO what all over it in the most careless and worse way possible. Urgh.
    Have to agree. Sorry but I do consider SP a complete failure, one of 4 actually bad bond films. Sure there is a good film somewhere within it, some great scenes (pts, train fight, etc) but the film as a whole doesnt work. Its let down by bad pacing, unjustified drama, bad plot developments such as brothergate (notice that this isbt listed first), campiness, bad villain, and even disappointing action with a few exceptions. So yes I do consider SP to be a failure, contrary to some claims that one can't do so. I like sf by the way. Yes sp was commercially successful, relatively, but I don't care about commercial sucess except insofar as it influences the next film. Spectre did not deserve either its commercial or critical reception, and I hope bond 25 is more in the vein of cr and sf.

    "Complete failure"? This is just hyperbole that undercuts any valid points you are making.

    Also regarding the previous comment the idea SP is comparable to DAD is laughable.

    It just underlines what I said previously which is that valid criticism of SP has turned into an echo chamber of alternative facts where SP is amongst the worst in the series and a total failure.

    "Also regarding the previous comment the idea SP is comparable to DAD is laughable."

    It certainly is. Simply because DAD is so much better to watch. Say what you want about it( and you're probably true with much of it )but one thing it is not guilty off. It is not boring. It takes you on a ride from the first minute to the last without anyone ever getting dour in it. It also never pretends to be more than a Bond movie. Oh God, I miss these days!
    Let me also add that back in 2002 I met many that made jokes about that tsunami scene, but no one said it was a bad - let alone boring - movie. Just the opposite in fact. Everybody felt greatly entertained.

    I personally think DAD is a Bond film for dumb-asses :-).

    Maybe you shouldn't think in the first place.

    Maybe you should read my more...nuanced follow-up. But to summarize it? Yeah, DAD could pretty much be stuff for the more simple-minded people around here. Let's face it, DAD is also a very simple-minded Bond film with no clear ideas, regardless if the ideas are good or badly executed.

    Pretty cold and rather surprising post from you, given you preach positivity only regarding SP. I loathe the film but I've never tried to knock those who enjoy it down a peg with a personal dig.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 154
    I personally like DAD, along with many other Bond films. But contrary to your evaluation, I'm a smart-ass.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2017 Posts: 9,117
    But to summarize it? Yeah, DAD could pretty much be stuff for the more simple-minded people around here. Let's face it, DAD is also a very simple-minded Bond film with no clear ideas, regardless if the ideas are good or badly executed.

    So by inference are you saying that SP is therefore for the intelligentsia? Because there's nothing more simple minded than SPs mish-mash of ideas, confused plot and flailing attempts at character depth along with Mendes' themes of 'The Dead Are Alive' hammered home with all the subtlety of a Lee Cattermole tackle from behind.
Sign In or Register to comment.