› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…15001501150315051506…2507

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    She won’t be back
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    such poor casting for Bond. so many great actresses out there and they chose the one with zero chemistry with Bond
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Happened before, will happen again. In fact other than Madeleine, the DC era has been the best casting of women since the Connery years.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    I think its more because the script didnt allow them to be real lovers. Pretty much what traditional Bond asks for. Most of the time at least
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Benny wrote: »
    The MI6 traitor angle has been done too death.
    The something from Bonds past has been done to death.
    The Bond girl who is Bonds equal has been...done to death.
    I would be happy with the old formula film. I don't know if today's PC society would approve.
    Maybe a retweaked version would help. Without using any of the above elements as a story basis.
    Murdock wrote: »
    Couldn't agree more. Well said Benny. :-bd
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Seconded.
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Yes.
    You have my overwhelming support and approval for these ideas as well. One day I'm quite certain we'll get back there, once they get the right people in charge and in the roles. Moreover, it will seem fresh if done properly.

    Formula requires self belief and excellence in execution, particularly because it's been done so many times before and particularly because it can appear trite if handled by people who give it lip service. The viewer can always see through that. It's about really delivering on the basics (action, score, cinematography, women, dialogue, location & settings, tension & suspense, glamour & style, pace, atmosphere etc. etc.). It's about elevating those seemingly simple elements to another level. That takes real skill and commitment.
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Personally I'd go with robots taking on the 00s - even if it does remind people of the Terminator films. Who cares! Let's see some robots in the franchise. It's the 21st century!
    If I'm not mistaken, this was at one time the draft for Dalton's third film.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited May 2018 Posts: 24,183
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I think its more because the script didn't allow them to be real lovers. Pretty much what traditional Bond asks for. Most of the time at least

    And yet, @Germanlady, I always feel a strong connection between Bond and Madeleine. It's not at "Vesper" level, I agree, but the " 'l Américain" scene is, in my opinion, very sensual despite the fact that Bond and Madeleine don't sleep with each other. So I'm with you: not "real" lovers, but certainly one of the stronger love affairs of the past 20 years with, again, the exception of Vesper. In a personal note, I never "notice" the 16 year age gap between the actors. They feel "on the same page" in almost every single regard.

    Of course, I'm merely speaking as a fan of SP but one of the things that I like about the film is how the women are "restored" in their more or less traditional position. QOS and SF had been fairly celibatarian. SP gave Bond the throwaway date in the PTS, an intense one night stand in Rome and Madeleine as the "Melina" if you like of this film. Perhaps I'm overlooking flaws in this relationship simply because I love how Bond and Madeleine are as a couple. There's something, dare I say, Michael Mann-ish about their scenes. The sweaty, drunk, nocturnal episode in 'l Américain reminds me of the two protagonists in Black Hat. Many of the other scenes they share remind me of De Niro and Brenneman in HEAT. I also happen to like Léa Seydoux as an actress and this role.

    In my opinion, this is certainly one of the more successful Bond - Bond Girl pairings in the series. But I will stress "in my opinion". ;)
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    peter wrote: »
    Happened before, will happen again. In fact other than Madeleine, the DC era has been the best casting of women since the Connery years.

    ????
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    edited May 2018 Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @noSolaceleft
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Re all this negativity re new ideas, execution is a key ellement. If rumours had come out re the climax to SF , many of you guys would have hated the idea, been worried, depressed etc
    .

    And we would have been right! Btw, creativity and SF (just as Mendes)should never be mentioned in the same sentence.
    SF might be the single most creative Bond film of all time.

    You Can’t even imagine, how sorry I feel for you.
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    and that cuts to the core of one one of the key features of these threads "we would have been right" - therefore everyone else is wrong. SF was creative in that it did not follow the standard Bond template. That is surely fact? Whether we like the result of that is obvioulsy personal choice. But it proved that you can go outside the template and please the mainstream audience and the critics (but obviously not all fans)

    Seeking to think "outside of the box" re Bond is not a hangable offence but it is to some fans. I think the rest of the World outside of fandom is much more flexible re new ideas (up to a point)

    Out of the box or not, there is not a single thing in Skyfall that’s creative. That and the complete lack of logic are my problems with it.Just about every minute of it is (badly)stolen from other movies ( and called a hommage).

    Please just stay away from this thread. You have absolutely nothing to contribute to it. The only thing you can spout is hatred for a film. Fine, so be it. But by now we ALL know where you stand and you're sounding like a broken record, you're clearly here to anger other members. Remember a few wees ago? At least @Germanlady, whom you had a fight with back then, has kept herself very far away from these heated debates. Why can't you? Because you're so full of negative feelings for this film, and because you can't give it a rest and must, in a compulsive manner, respond to posts which actually try to bring some content to this thread with empty statements, "you can't even imagine how sorry WE all feel for YOU". "There is not a single thing in your posts that's creative."

    For the last time, you have made your point. This is a highly volatile thread, so there's no need to make it a millionth time. Either contribute something new, in a respectful tone, something that feeds an interesting debate we all care about; or don't contribute here at all. If all you can do is nag and moan, you'll understand we would appreciate it if you did it only once.

    Meanwhile, I would like to thank @RC7, @Germanlady and several others who have respected our request to maintain a calm climate in this thread and who have, in fact, brought new and interesting elements to this discussion.

    So praising it is all right, but pointing out criticism one might have with the movie is hatred? Interesting. And contrary to all those that just expressing their gut feelings I am always able to prove my opinions with simple facts. You see, I am a movie lover, that’s why it’s quite hard for me to try to stand idly by when people praise movies that do nothing but exploit masterpieces of the past ( and quite mediocre to terrible to boot. )
    As an aside, I find Skyfall‘s photography quite beautiful but not any better than the one of QoS, which strikes me every time with its vivid colors and beauty of the landscape.
    You have a point on SF riffing on prior Bond films, but in my opinion that was the whole point of the exercise. Every time I see the film I notice another element which is a direct homage to an earlier film. I personally think Mendes beautifully incorporated all of these little throwbacks into a cohesive whole for the anniversary effort. Certainly far better than a few references (like Bond sniffing Klebb's shoe) in the 40th anniversary film.

    RE: the QoS vs SF cinematography: Again, I can see where you're coming from. QoS has stunning and very natural looking landscapes and colour, perhaps because a lot of it was done for real. It certainly seems more 'real' to me than the digital camera work in SF, which also has a bit of overt filter use (although nowhere near as egregious or obvious as SP). There is also a bit more obvious 'enhanced' saturated nighttime lighting in SF.

    Nevertheless, more people remember SF's cinematography positively in comparison to QoS (including myself) because the earlier film was ruined (imho) by the quick cutting, which prevented viewers (particularly older ones) from appreciating all the effort put into the locations.

    Additionally, Deakins' shot compositions were just brilliant and his nighttime work at the Skyfall ranch is really good. Everything is very vivid on account of his choice to use digital cameras.

    First of all, you won’t ever find me defending the shoe sniffing scene.
    My point is, that if they only had ripped off all the James Bond movies I still wouldn’t be impressed by it but in an anniversary movie this is quite acceptable. What irks me is the ripping off of so many other brilliant/classical movies. Just about every scene in it is imitating something far better and original. I really, really feel that the only original thing in Skyfall is the dialogue Q and bond have at the museum.
    (And Bardem making a pass on Bond of course)
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I think its more because the script didnt allow them to be real lovers. Pretty much what traditional Bond asks for. Most of the time at least

    yes the script was weak but also the chemistry was zero. she's not Craig's type - they should have cast a brunette.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Am I the only one, who thinks she is a quite terrible actress?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    edited May 2018 Posts: 7,582
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Am I the only one, who thinks she is a quite terrible actress?

    Yes, I think you are.
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    If Angelina Jolie does get cast as the villain in bond 25 what kind of character can you guys see her playing? I really wouldn't know since I'm not too familiar with her filmography
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Goldeneye0094 wrote: »
    If Angelina Jolie does get cast as the villain in bond 25 what kind of character can you guys see her playing? I really wouldn't know since I'm not too familiar with her filmography

    arrogant sophistication(??)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @noSolaceleft
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Re all this negativity re new ideas, execution is a key ellement. If rumours had come out re the climax to SF , many of you guys would have hated the idea, been worried, depressed etc
    .

    And we would have been right! Btw, creativity and SF (just as Mendes)should never be mentioned in the same sentence.
    SF might be the single most creative Bond film of all time.

    You Can’t even imagine, how sorry I feel for you.
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    and that cuts to the core of one one of the key features of these threads "we would have been right" - therefore everyone else is wrong. SF was creative in that it did not follow the standard Bond template. That is surely fact? Whether we like the result of that is obvioulsy personal choice. But it proved that you can go outside the template and please the mainstream audience and the critics (but obviously not all fans)

    Seeking to think "outside of the box" re Bond is not a hangable offence but it is to some fans. I think the rest of the World outside of fandom is much more flexible re new ideas (up to a point)

    Out of the box or not, there is not a single thing in Skyfall that’s creative. That and the complete lack of logic are my problems with it.Just about every minute of it is (badly)stolen from other movies ( and called a hommage).

    Please just stay away from this thread. You have absolutely nothing to contribute to it. The only thing you can spout is hatred for a film. Fine, so be it. But by now we ALL know where you stand and you're sounding like a broken record, you're clearly here to anger other members. Remember a few wees ago? At least @Germanlady, whom you had a fight with back then, has kept herself very far away from these heated debates. Why can't you? Because you're so full of negative feelings for this film, and because you can't give it a rest and must, in a compulsive manner, respond to posts which actually try to bring some content to this thread with empty statements, "you can't even imagine how sorry WE all feel for YOU". "There is not a single thing in your posts that's creative."

    For the last time, you have made your point. This is a highly volatile thread, so there's no need to make it a millionth time. Either contribute something new, in a respectful tone, something that feeds an interesting debate we all care about; or don't contribute here at all. If all you can do is nag and moan, you'll understand we would appreciate it if you did it only once.

    Meanwhile, I would like to thank @RC7, @Germanlady and several others who have respected our request to maintain a calm climate in this thread and who have, in fact, brought new and interesting elements to this discussion.

    So praising it is all right, but pointing out criticism one might have with the movie is hatred? Interesting. And contrary to all those that just expressing their gut feelings I am always able to prove my opinions with simple facts. You see, I am a movie lover, that’s why it’s quite hard for me to try to stand idly by when people praise movies that do nothing but exploit masterpieces of the past ( and quite mediocre to terrible to boot. )
    As an aside, I find Skyfall‘s photography quite beautiful but not any better than the one of QoS, which strikes me every time with its vivid colors and beauty of the landscape.
    You have a point on SF riffing on prior Bond films, but in my opinion that was the whole point of the exercise. Every time I see the film I notice another element which is a direct homage to an earlier film. I personally think Mendes beautifully incorporated all of these little throwbacks into a cohesive whole for the anniversary effort. Certainly far better than a few references (like Bond sniffing Klebb's shoe) in the 40th anniversary film.

    RE: the QoS vs SF cinematography: Again, I can see where you're coming from. QoS has stunning and very natural looking landscapes and colour, perhaps because a lot of it was done for real. It certainly seems more 'real' to me than the digital camera work in SF, which also has a bit of overt filter use (although nowhere near as egregious or obvious as SP). There is also a bit more obvious 'enhanced' saturated nighttime lighting in SF.

    Nevertheless, more people remember SF's cinematography positively in comparison to QoS (including myself) because the earlier film was ruined (imho) by the quick cutting, which prevented viewers (particularly older ones) from appreciating all the effort put into the locations.

    Additionally, Deakins' shot compositions were just brilliant and his nighttime work at the Skyfall ranch is really good. Everything is very vivid on account of his choice to use digital cameras.

    First of all, you won’t ever find me defending the shoe sniffing scene.
    My point is, that if they only had ripped off all the James Bond movies I still wouldn’t be impressed by it but in an anniversary movie this is quite acceptable. What irks me is the ripping off of so many other brilliant/classical movies. Just about every scene in it is imitating something far better and original. I really, really feel that the only original thing in Skyfall is the dialogue Q and bond have at the museum.
    (And Bardem making a pass on Bond of course)
    I can't disagree with your observations. Mendes certainly did that. I disagree with your conclusion about it being a worthy creative effort however. I thought it took some skill to pull it all together like that. It has a holistic feel and even has time for some interesting themes. I won't defend the plot holes though. SF is more of an aesthetic achievement imho.
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Am I the only one, who thinks she is a quite terrible actress?
    I can't comment on her acting in general, but I think she was woefully miscast and affected in SP. From the first moment she arrived on the scene the film started to tank for me. As I said on another thread, she really tries (perhaps too hard), but something just feels off to me.

    She was very good in her largely non speaking roles in Inglourious Basterds and MI:GP, and I have heard she is excellent in French films, so I can't really say otherwise.

    I thought her best scene was L'Americaine and also when she's explaining her dislike of guns in the train.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Goldeneye0094 wrote: »
    If Angelina Jolie does get cast as the villain in bond 25 what kind of character can you guys see her playing? I really wouldn't know since I'm not too familiar with her filmography

    253097ff1c16cfb551b3daf2f9281c88.jpg
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    I think there maybe something a little bonkers/out of kilter with AJ? She is a little scary. If they can bring that to the screen, I think she would make a great villian (plus 42 so room for some sexual chemistry also)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    patb wrote: »
    I think there maybe something a little bonkers/out of kilter with AJ? She is a little scary. If they can bring that to the screen, I think she would make a great villian (plus 42 so room for some sexual chemistry also)

    I agree with this. And she'll be the one who will "take" Bond

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I still don't buy this Jolie rumour, but Boyle seems to be recently resuscitating the careers of aging Hollywood actresses (witness Hilary Swank), so there could be some credence to it.

    She'll be fine if cast. She's a good actress and I expect her to step up to the plate and be memorable.
  • CatchingBulletsCatchingBullets facebook.com/catchingbullets
    Posts: 292
    I would urge a little caution at reading too much into this recent tabloid stab at clickbait.

    Also...

    Former Bond actresses tend not to return in the same role.

    Stated production schedules are rarely the working reality and timeline of a production.

    Sometimes a great "idea" for a new film is not always about its narrative.




  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    I sense an Adrian Malprave esque role for her.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,847
    Sigh if this is what we are getting I could see how it could work and even be a sequel to Spectre is it the film I want no but meh it can’t be worse then moonraker can it?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    This gave me a chuckle.

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-recasting-morena-baccarin/
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    This gave me a chuckle.

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-recasting-morena-baccarin/

    Exotic good looks? Look at those hands! The right one, anyway.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    She'd be a great choice for a Bond girl.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited May 2018 Posts: 15,423
    If they ever adapt the Bond comic book, VARGR, Morena Baccarin should be cast in the role of the femme fatale character, Dharma Reach.
  • marketto007marketto007 Brazil
    Posts: 3,277
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    This gave me a chuckle.

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-recasting-morena-baccarin/

    When asked which other franchise she would choose, she actually said she wants to BE in the James Bond franchise. Her answer was: "You know what I wanna do? A James Bond movie...in Rio"

    Here's the video: https://www.jamesbondbrasil.com/2018/05/morena-baccarin-filme-007/
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited May 2018 Posts: 16,167
    bondjames wrote: »
    I still don't buy this Jolie rumour, but Boyle seems to be recently resuscitating the careers of aging Hollywood actresses (witness Hilary Swank), so there could be some credence to it.

    She'll be fine if cast. She's a good actress and I expect her to step up to the plate and be memorable.

    Might be interesting if she were the main villain. Excuse me, main villain with a "personal" connection to Bond.
    I am glad, however she didn't end up playing Vesper in CR. I felt casting A-list leading ladies got worn out in the Brosnan era.

    So far though, none of these rumored Boyle masterpiece ideas are getting my heart started. If it did turn out that Purvis and Wade were indeed working on a 'SHATTERHAND" adaptation of YOLT, I'm feeling like we've missed an opportunity to conclude the Craig era with some great Fleming material.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    I sense an Adrian Malprave esque role for her.

    YESSSSS! My childhood.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    I sense an Adrian Malprave esque role for her.

    Elizabeth Hurley would be perfect for that kind of role since Malprave looked and sounded like her.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited May 2018 Posts: 1,756
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Am I the only one, who thinks she is a quite terrible actress?

    I can't comment on her acting in general, but I think she was woefully miscast and affected in SP. From the first moment she arrived on the scene the film started to tank for me. As I said on another thread, she really tries (perhaps too hard), but something just feels off to me.

    She was very good in her largely non speaking roles in Inglourious Basterds and MI:GP, and I have heard she is excellent in French films, so I can't really say otherwise.

    I thought her best scene was L'Americaine and also when she's explaining her dislike of guns in the train.

    Léa Seydoux is a great actress but sadly Madeleine Swann is a terrible role and character. Funny how Mendes is careful to call them Bond ladies, but the only lady in SP was Belluci. Swann is just another throwaway and that fact she fell for him so quickly and just acts like a damsel-in-distress just goes to show they haven't understood what a strong Bond girl really is. They should have learned from Vesper or Camille that you can make a Bond girl "strong" by her character traits. It's a step backwards actually.

Sign In or Register to comment.