No Time To Die: Production Diary

1200020012003200520062507

Comments

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I’m unsure if this is news….but I’ll go ahead and post it purely for speculation purposes.

    I’ve recently been doing do Cary Joji Fukunaga research and stumbled on this forum:
    https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/the-cary-joji-fukunaga-appreciation-thread.759191/page-84

    Essentially, it’s full of people devoted to CJF and whoever he’s currently dating. I was quite surprised to read through it and see that he’s been out with Imogen Poots, Michelle Williams, Emma Watson and a host of other beautiful women. I mean who can blame them, he’s a dreamboat…



    Anyway, currently he’s connected to Kristine Froseth who is from Norway. Which is one of the rumoured locations for Bond 25. It almost certainly means nothing, but something to mull over for the timebeing.



    What’s probably more interesting is that Froseth recently came to London and posted a photo on Instagram. This could be here joining Fukunaga as he begins production. Once again, this probably doesn’t mean she’s in the film, but could hint that she’s moved to the city to be closer to her boyfriend. Which is a sign that Bond 25 is moving forward…


    Interesting find @Pierce2Daniel, only issue is that she's 22 years old.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Thanks chaps,thats good to know.

    So I presume he is here in London with Babs and Michael ?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I think he's training and physically preparing for the role, at the moment.
  • Posts: 19,339
    That's reassuring...things are starting to move along then.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Kristine Frøseth is 22, and an American-born (of Norwegian parents) actress, who has modelled since she was about 13.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Filming will start in 45 days. Since back in 2014 Waltz was confirmed by Baz 3 weeks before filming, while Seydoux and Bautista were brought to the table more or less 7 weeks before, I don't see why we should be worried about lack of news fo 25. We already know 5 members of the main cast, plus the DoP. In the coming weeks hopefully we will get some fresh news about Bond girls, villain and locations.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Just a couple of thoughts on B25.

    Looking at Casino Royale recently, Daniel Craig delivered a towering performance in his Bond debut. It really is extraordinary. He is a prowling, seething ball of rage and deadly execution as a young(ish) agent. But what really elevates the performance are his masterful moments of vulnerability, first in the shower to console Vesper, next stripped bare as he convalesces on Lake Como, and finally on the beach when he professes his love for the girl “without a tell”.

    It is these moments that imbue Craig’s first, most memorable effort with light and shade. His other performances suffer in comparison, but only because he was not afforded the opportunity to strip his armor and thus show his full range. Quantum of Solace is a master class of smouldering rage, but he has nowhere to put it. Skyfall has Bond address his mortality only to resolve this potentially epic crisis with minimal fuss. Lastly, Spectre has Craig coasting through a clumsy narrative many of us would rather forget.

    Personally, I thought the Madeleine Swann character was just a “shag” by film’s end. The movie hadn’t done nearly enough with their relationship to deserve a triumphantly romantic denouement. One feels that Craig was happy to call it a day at the end of an apparently tense and arduous shoot.

    But he didn’t. DC made the decision to return, in my opinion to erase the bitter aftertaste Spectre gave many. A proud actor, he seems to feel the need to do everything he can to ensure a quality end product. I think we can all safely assume that the extra time afforded B25 will not have gone to waste.

    Which brings me to my theory - if one is to look back on DC’s four films thus far, Casino Royale stands head and shoulders above the others on performance alone. Craig will have recognised that he was at his searing best when he had genuine emotion to offset his brutal sneer.

    My bet is he will plumb those depths again. What better way to bow out than with a successful relationship, perhaps even marriage, with Madeleine Swann. He began by falling hopelessly for the dark charms of the compromised Vesper, and I believe the only narrative escape that carries satisfying symmetry is retirement with the daughter of a downed enemy. Looking back through Bond’s rich history, the two best and most rounded female characters, played by Diana Rigg and Eva Green, both wind up dead. Maud Adams from TMWTGG is also worth mentioning, but woefully underwritten. By having lea seydoux’s Madeleine Swan return and not only survive, but offer Bond a way out, Daniel Craig can similarly exit stage right to thunderous applause.

    Such theories lead to other questions, many relating to Boyle’s departure. Was he against the idea of Bond happily sinking into blissful domesticity? Did he want to kill Bond off? We’ll probably never know. One thing I do know is that B25 needs to save Daniel Craig’s dark, angry Bond from himself. I suspect he knows that too. With an intelligent, sexy, challenging woman to spar with, Craig is utterly electric. I predict we’ll see a welcome return to form.

    I mostly agree, but need to address two points:

    1. I didn't see Bond in CR as a "seething ball of rage." Not at all. After the staircase fight, we see a man trying hard to get a grip. As he stares in the mirror, he's not angry; he's terrified--of his own life, of what he can do to others under a license to kill, over what this profession means. Early on, Bond is arrogant; but the staircase incident changes him: he becomes vulnerable. I'd argue that it's in QoS that we see that rage.

    2. CR is not a head and shoulders performance over SF. In some ways, SF is DC's best Bond. I think he is far more confident in SF and his comic timing is better (in the art museum, on the subway train, with Kincaid).
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 1,092
    A few pages back there was the sentiment that "the series will always be okay" and sorry to say but this is nonsense. Yes, Bond has been through tough times before and bounced back but so what? Every single moment in history is completely unprecedented. We've never been here before and we shall never be here again. The first Avengers film changed everything about the film industry. MI and other series continue to push boundaries. Bond cannot afford to embrace an attitude of complacency.

    We'll be left behind in the dust if this happens and erosion will take over and that's the end of that. Bond must evolve, must change along with the times (within reason) or the series won't last. The so-called Golden Age of Bond (basically the 60s) was half a century ago. A series like MI is already 23 years old (compared to Bond's 57) and it's better than ever. Can we say the same about Bond's tenure around 1985? No, it was fading fast at that point, with the best days behind.

    1985 was 34 years ago! Since then we've had 10 films. The MCU is going on 11 years old and will have 23 films completed soon. Bond cannot rely on the past to survive in the future. It's folly to believe otherwise.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    A few pages back there was the sentiment that "the series will always be okay" and sorry to say but this is nonsense. Yes, Bond has been through tough times before and bounced back but so what? Every single moment in history is completely unprecedented. We've never been here before and we shall never be here again. The first Avengers film changed everything about the film industry. MI and other series continue to push boundaries. Bond cannot afford to embrace an attitude of complacency.

    We'll be left behind in the dust if this happens and erosion will take over and that's the end of that. Bond must evolve, must change along with the times (within reason) or the series won't last. The so-called Golden Age of Bond (basically the 60s) was half a century ago. A series like MI is already 23 years old (compared to Bond's 57) and it's better than ever. Can we say the same about Bond's tenure around 1985? No, it was fading fast at that point, with the best days behind.

    1985 was 34 years ago! Since then we've had 10 films. The MCU is going on 11 years old and will have 23 films completed soon. Bond cannot rely on the past to survive in the future. It's folly to believe otherwise.

    Just to touch on the MCU thing a bit, I think its important to highlight Kevin Feige's dexterity here and vision as a PRODUCER. He's had the unparalledlled task of crafting not only a cinematic universe but turning B,C and even Z list characters into A-list household names that are not only critically acclaimed but BO juggernauts. Here's where things get interesting, Feige also had balls to attract unconventional talent; the biggest being RDJ's casting who was still a wild card and a liability up until his casting considering his at the time recent criminal standing. Look what happened. The game forever changed. Then there's the writing and director talent...talent that were essentially known for far from special movies and in some cases flops BUT with the guiding hand of a PRODUCER who has a vision and a talent pool full of potential, the results were always going to see towards success and that's what's happened.

    Feige executed outside the box thinking and till this day hasn't gotten complacent with how influential and how dominant the Marvel Studios brand is. Juggling all these franchises is far from easy, especially when they're successful. It's easy to stick with what generated that success but at the same time for growth and freshness sometimes change in creative talent is needed and a good producer knows when. EoN have made some brave decisions but not fully committed and stepped out of their comfort zone. I'm hoping with CJF brought on as director it'll open the gates for more bold creative decisions and for EoN to take a stronger stand as the Bond gatekeepers.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    A few pages back there was the sentiment that "the series will always be okay" and sorry to say but this is nonsense. Yes, Bond has been through tough times before and bounced back but so what? Every single moment in history is completely unprecedented. We've never been here before and we shall never be here again. The first Avengers film changed everything about the film industry. MI and other series continue to push boundaries. Bond cannot afford to embrace an attitude of complacency.

    We'll be left behind in the dust if this happens and erosion will take over and that's the end of that. Bond must evolve, must change along with the times (within reason) or the series won't last. The so-called Golden Age of Bond (basically the 60s) was half a century ago. A series like MI is already 23 years old (compared to Bond's 57) and it's better than ever. Can we say the same about Bond's tenure around 1985? No, it was fading fast at that point, with the best days behind.

    1985 was 34 years ago! Since then we've had 10 films. The MCU is going on 11 years old and will have 23 films completed soon. Bond cannot rely on the past to survive in the future. It's folly to believe otherwise.

    Absolutely true. Well said.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    A few pages back there was the sentiment that "the series will always be okay" and sorry to say but this is nonsense. Yes, Bond has been through tough times before and bounced back but so what? Every single moment in history is completely unprecedented. We've never been here before and we shall never be here again. The first Avengers film changed everything about the film industry. MI and other series continue to push boundaries. Bond cannot afford to embrace an attitude of complacency.

    We'll be left behind in the dust if this happens and erosion will take over and that's the end of that. Bond must evolve, must change along with the times (within reason) or the series won't last. The so-called Golden Age of Bond (basically the 60s) was half a century ago. A series like MI is already 23 years old (compared to Bond's 57) and it's better than ever. Can we say the same about Bond's tenure around 1985? No, it was fading fast at that point, with the best days behind.

    1985 was 34 years ago! Since then we've had 10 films. The MCU is going on 11 years old and will have 23 films completed soon. Bond cannot rely on the past to survive in the future. It's folly to believe otherwise.

    Marvel didn’t change the film industry! It changed the comic book genre. Disney tried to copy this universe building and have had to admit they need to slow the hell down because they are firing duds. Universal tried to revive a monster universe. They were DOA.

    What Marvel is doing is unique, but to compare the comic book genre (with their abundance of stories), with the James Bond franchise is comparing apples to oranges!

    Bond is fine— they have a history of bouncing back and, since film is a visual medium, getting someone on board like CF is damn exciting. Where does this doom
    N gloom come from? And why does it spread so easily?

    Jeez.... I suppose the old phrase misery loves company is alive and well.

    And as I mentioned previously: you all may think EoN are a bunch of fools, but they’re over at HQ preparing the next James Bond film as I write this.

    What are you all doing today?
  • Blofeld0064Blofeld0064 Milford, Michigan
    edited January 2019 Posts: 243
    Boom spot on @peter
  • Posts: 831
    peter wrote: »

    Marvel didn’t change the film industry! It changed the comic book genre. Disney tried to copy this universe building and have had to admit they need to slow the hell down because they are firing duds. Universal tried to revive a monster universe. They were DOA.

    What Marvel is doing is unique, but to compare the comic book genre (with their abundance of stories), with the James Bond franchise is comparing apples to oranges!

    Bond is fine— they have a history of bouncing back and, since film is a visual medium, getting someone on board like CF is damn exciting. Where does this doom
    N gloom come from? And why does it spread so easily?

    Jeez.... I suppose the old phrase misery loves company is alive and well.

    And as I mentioned previously: you all may think EoN are a bunch of fools, but they’re over at HQ preparing the next James Bond film as I write this.

    What are you all doing today?

    +1
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    peter wrote: »
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    A few pages back there was the sentiment that "the series will always be okay" and sorry to say but this is nonsense. Yes, Bond has been through tough times before and bounced back but so what? Every single moment in history is completely unprecedented. We've never been here before and we shall never be here again. The first Avengers film changed everything about the film industry. MI and other series continue to push boundaries. Bond cannot afford to embrace an attitude of complacency.

    We'll be left behind in the dust if this happens and erosion will take over and that's the end of that. Bond must evolve, must change along with the times (within reason) or the series won't last. The so-called Golden Age of Bond (basically the 60s) was half a century ago. A series like MI is already 23 years old (compared to Bond's 57) and it's better than ever. Can we say the same about Bond's tenure around 1985? No, it was fading fast at that point, with the best days behind.

    1985 was 34 years ago! Since then we've had 10 films. The MCU is going on 11 years old and will have 23 films completed soon. Bond cannot rely on the past to survive in the future. It's folly to believe otherwise.

    Marvel didn’t change the film industry! It changed the comic book genre. Disney tried to copy this universe building and have had to admit they need to slow the hell down because they are firing duds. Universal tried to revive a monster universe. They were DOA.

    What Marvel is doing is unique, but to compare the comic book genre (with their abundance of stories), with the James Bond franchise is comparing apples to oranges!

    Bond is fine— they have a history of bouncing back and, since film is a visual medium, getting someone on board like CF is damn exciting. Where does this doom
    N gloom come from? And why does it spread so easily?

    Jeez.... I suppose the old phrase misery loves company is alive and well.

    And as I mentioned previously: you all may think EoN are a bunch of fools, but they’re over at HQ preparing the next James Bond film as I write this.

    What are you all doing today?

    It's much more interesting to be cynical than content. What some may see as paranoia for the sake of it, other see as interesting speculation (whether it's warranted or not).
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited January 2019 Posts: 2,541
    peter wrote: »
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    A few pages back there was the sentiment that "the series will always be okay" and sorry to say but this is nonsense. Yes, Bond has been through tough times before and bounced back but so what? Every single moment in history is completely unprecedented. We've never been here before and we shall never be here again. The first Avengers film changed everything about the film industry. MI and other series continue to push boundaries. Bond cannot afford to embrace an attitude of complacency.

    We'll be left behind in the dust if this happens and erosion will take over and that's the end of that. Bond must evolve, must change along with the times (within reason) or the series won't last. The so-called Golden Age of Bond (basically the 60s) was half a century ago. A series like MI is already 23 years old (compared to Bond's 57) and it's better than ever. Can we say the same about Bond's tenure around 1985? No, it was fading fast at that point, with the best days behind.

    1985 was 34 years ago! Since then we've had 10 films. The MCU is going on 11 years old and will have 23 films completed soon. Bond cannot rely on the past to survive in the future. It's folly to believe otherwise.

    Marvel didn’t change the film industry! It changed the comic book genre. Disney tried to copy this universe building and have had to admit they need to slow the hell down because they are firing duds. Universal tried to revive a monster universe. They were DOA.

    What Marvel is doing is unique, but to compare the comic book genre (with their abundance of stories), with the James Bond franchise is comparing apples to oranges!

    Bond is fine— they have a history of bouncing back and, since film is a visual medium, getting someone on board like CF is damn exciting. Where does this doom
    N gloom come from? And why does it spread so easily?

    Jeez.... I suppose the old phrase misery loves company is alive and well.

    And as I mentioned previously: you all may think EoN are a bunch of fools, but they’re over at HQ preparing the next James Bond film as I write this.

    What are you all doing today?

    I am enjoying your comments
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Jesus, just leave the Marvel "quantity over quality" approach far away from Bond.
  • Posts: 385
    peter wrote: »

    Bond is fine— they have a history of bouncing back and, since film is a visual medium, getting someone on board like CF is damn exciting. Where does this doom
    N gloom come from? And why does it spread so easily?

    And the sun never set on the British Empire either.

    Until it did.
  • I'm getting scolded on the MI6 forums.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    peter wrote: »
    Where does this doom
    N gloom come from? And why does it spread so easily?


    Largely because a single member will bend over, go elbow deep up his backside and extract an idea of an imaginary delay of some sort. With this baseless concern they sit at their keyboard and post either what they see as their unique insight into what they really believe or simply enjoy the disruption a totally fabricated concern will inevitably cause as some other members eat it up as koi do fish food at feeding time.


    Don't Feed the Squirrels

  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    talos7 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Where does this doom
    N gloom come from? And why does it spread so easily?


    Largely because a single member will bend over, go elbow deep up his backside and extract an idea of an imaginary delay of some sort. With this baseless concern they sit at their keyboard and post either what they see as their unique insight into what they really believe or simply enjoy the disruption a totally fabricated concern will inevitably cause as some other members eat it up as koi do fish food at feeding time.


    Don't Feed the Squirrels

    @talos7 who are the squirrels?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    People who intentionally post to be provocative and disruptive with opinions and speculation that are either unfounded or completely false.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Just a couple of thoughts on B25.

    Looking at Casino Royale recently, Daniel Craig delivered a towering performance in his Bond debut. It really is extraordinary. He is a prowling, seething ball of rage and deadly execution as a young(ish) agent. But what really elevates the performance are his masterful moments of vulnerability, first in the shower to console Vesper, next stripped bare as he convalesces on Lake Como, and finally on the beach when he professes his love for the girl “without a tell”.

    It is these moments that imbue Craig’s first, most memorable effort with light and shade. His other performances suffer in comparison, but only because he was not afforded the opportunity to strip his armor and thus show his full range. Quantum of Solace is a master class of smouldering rage, but he has nowhere to put it. Skyfall has Bond address his mortality only to resolve this potentially epic crisis with minimal fuss. Lastly, Spectre has Craig coasting through a clumsy narrative many of us would rather forget.

    Personally, I thought the Madeleine Swann character was just a “shag” by film’s end. The movie hadn’t done nearly enough with their relationship to deserve a triumphantly romantic denouement. One feels that Craig was happy to call it a day at the end of an apparently tense and arduous shoot.

    But he didn’t. DC made the decision to return, in my opinion to erase the bitter aftertaste Spectre gave many. A proud actor, he seems to feel the need to do everything he can to ensure a quality end product. I think we can all safely assume that the extra time afforded B25 will not have gone to waste.

    Which brings me to my theory - if one is to look back on DC’s four films thus far, Casino Royale stands head and shoulders above the others on performance alone. Craig will have recognised that he was at his searing best when he had genuine emotion to offset his brutal sneer.

    My bet is he will plumb those depths again. What better way to bow out than with a successful relationship, perhaps even marriage, with Madeleine Swann. He began by falling hopelessly for the dark charms of the compromised Vesper, and I believe the only narrative escape that carries satisfying symmetry is retirement with the daughter of a downed enemy. Looking back through Bond’s rich history, the two best and most rounded female characters, played by Diana Rigg and Eva Green, both wind up dead. Maud Adams from TMWTGG is also worth mentioning, but woefully underwritten. By having lea seydoux’s Madeleine Swan return and not only survive, but offer Bond a way out, Daniel Craig can similarly exit stage right to thunderous applause.

    Such theories lead to other questions, many relating to Boyle’s departure. Was he against the idea of Bond happily sinking into blissful domesticity? Did he want to kill Bond off? We’ll probably never know. One thing I do know is that B25 needs to save Daniel Craig’s dark, angry Bond from himself. I suspect he knows that too. With an intelligent, sexy, challenging woman to spar with, Craig is utterly electric. I predict we’ll see a welcome return to form.
    @GetCarter, well written post. I agree that CR was a fantastic introduction to Craig as Bond. The film was made for him and it's one where we glean the most insight into his characterization and personality. As you observe, that was permitted and facilitated in part due to a meaningful romance.

    Would you not agree however that a lot of that has to do with Eva Green as the counterweight? I personally found their scenes together on the train, in the casino and during the shower encounter to be highlights of the film. These were well written, well acted and very Bondian while still affording insights into Bond's character and his personality flaws. Her strengths as an actress were a perfect foil for him (she tends to bring out the best in most actors I've noticed). While I personally was not impressed with the writing of the romantic scenes post-Le Chiffre's death (a bit heavy handed in comparison to the manner in which the similar romantic interludes were handled in OHMSS), I can't deny that her casting, looks and performance were instrumental in selling the romance to the audience & even to me (although, ironically, far more so in the earlier scenes before they actually get to it).

    Regarding Lea Seydoux and her Madeleine Swann: you've already acknowledged that the character was poorly conceived and written in SP. I wouldn't go so far as to say she was just a 'shag' but like you I recognize that the film maker's intentions for the romance weren't properly realized in that film. We were informed by Blofeld that she's the only one who could understand him as the daughter of an assassin, Smith's song suggests more than just a fling, and members themselves have speculated that she was more than just another Bond girl. As we've recently discussed, some saw the intention at the end of SP being for the two of them to leave in the Aston and live happily ever after. So I'd say the symmetry you propose for B25 was already achieved at the end of the previous film, and that extends to Bond not assassinating his chief tormentor (which to an extent harkens back to resolution of Dench M's continuing criticism of him being trigger happy in earlier films).

    Part of the beauty of the Green/Craig dynamic was the freshness of it. We see their characters meet for the first time and enjoy the thrill of them getting to know one another. The immediate physical attraction between the characters is plainly apparent in the writing and acting, as is the mental undressing that takes place over the course of the film through sharp, almost caustic exchanges which betray their true feelings. I'd argue that this can't really be achieved in B25, because Ms. Swann and her feelings for Bond are already explicitly known to us and the audience, despite the ham-fisted handling of it.

    So while I hope the film makers can achieve their goal of continuing this 'arc', I am not enthused about Ms. Swann serving any more than a cursory element to the B25 story. What I hope for instead is a new appealing female character who Craig can spar with (perhaps not romantically) in B25, whether that be this rumoured female agent or potentially a villain. I think that would be something new and fresh for him, and yet allow for some acting range and new character insights to be displayed. Freshness is the primary promise of Mr. Fukunaga's appointment as director and that is what I personally hope to see in 2020. Surprise me.

    Fortunately, both you and I have as much chance of being surprised at this point because we really don't know much about this film at all, which is a good thing in my view.
    TripAces wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Just a couple of thoughts on B25.

    Looking at Casino Royale recently, Daniel Craig delivered a towering performance in his Bond debut. It really is extraordinary. He is a prowling, seething ball of rage and deadly execution as a young(ish) agent. But what really elevates the performance are his masterful moments of vulnerability, first in the shower to console Vesper, next stripped bare as he convalesces on Lake Como, and finally on the beach when he professes his love for the girl “without a tell”.

    It is these moments that imbue Craig’s first, most memorable effort with light and shade. His other performances suffer in comparison, but only because he was not afforded the opportunity to strip his armor and thus show his full range. Quantum of Solace is a master class of smouldering rage, but he has nowhere to put it. Skyfall has Bond address his mortality only to resolve this potentially epic crisis with minimal fuss. Lastly, Spectre has Craig coasting through a clumsy narrative many of us would rather forget.

    Personally, I thought the Madeleine Swann character was just a “shag” by film’s end. The movie hadn’t done nearly enough with their relationship to deserve a triumphantly romantic denouement. One feels that Craig was happy to call it a day at the end of an apparently tense and arduous shoot.

    But he didn’t. DC made the decision to return, in my opinion to erase the bitter aftertaste Spectre gave many. A proud actor, he seems to feel the need to do everything he can to ensure a quality end product. I think we can all safely assume that the extra time afforded B25 will not have gone to waste.

    Which brings me to my theory - if one is to look back on DC’s four films thus far, Casino Royale stands head and shoulders above the others on performance alone. Craig will have recognised that he was at his searing best when he had genuine emotion to offset his brutal sneer.

    My bet is he will plumb those depths again. What better way to bow out than with a successful relationship, perhaps even marriage, with Madeleine Swann. He began by falling hopelessly for the dark charms of the compromised Vesper, and I believe the only narrative escape that carries satisfying symmetry is retirement with the daughter of a downed enemy. Looking back through Bond’s rich history, the two best and most rounded female characters, played by Diana Rigg and Eva Green, both wind up dead. Maud Adams from TMWTGG is also worth mentioning, but woefully underwritten. By having lea seydoux’s Madeleine Swan return and not only survive, but offer Bond a way out, Daniel Craig can similarly exit stage right to thunderous applause.

    Such theories lead to other questions, many relating to Boyle’s departure. Was he against the idea of Bond happily sinking into blissful domesticity? Did he want to kill Bond off? We’ll probably never know. One thing I do know is that B25 needs to save Daniel Craig’s dark, angry Bond from himself. I suspect he knows that too. With an intelligent, sexy, challenging woman to spar with, Craig is utterly electric. I predict we’ll see a welcome return to form.

    I mostly agree, but need to address two points:

    1. I didn't see Bond in CR as a "seething ball of rage." Not at all. After the staircase fight, we see a man trying hard to get a grip. As he stares in the mirror, he's not angry; he's terrified--of his own life, of what he can do to others under a license to kill, over what this profession means. Early on, Bond is arrogant; but the staircase incident changes him: he becomes vulnerable. I'd argue that it's in QoS that we see that rage.

    2. CR is not a head and shoulders performance over SF. In some ways, SF is DC's best Bond. I think he is far more confident in SF and his comic timing is better (in the art museum, on the subway train, with Kincaid).
    I will take it one step further, perhaps controversially - I don't see a seething ball of rage in QoS either. I see a determined man looking for answers and motivated by his duty.

    SF is my favourite Craig Bond film at the moment by some measure, but I think his perfomance in CR was better.
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    A few pages back there was the sentiment that "the series will always be okay" and sorry to say but this is nonsense. Yes, Bond has been through tough times before and bounced back but so what? Every single moment in history is completely unprecedented. We've never been here before and we shall never be here again. The first Avengers film changed everything about the film industry. MI and other series continue to push boundaries. Bond cannot afford to embrace an attitude of complacency.

    We'll be left behind in the dust if this happens and erosion will take over and that's the end of that. Bond must evolve, must change along with the times (within reason) or the series won't last. The so-called Golden Age of Bond (basically the 60s) was half a century ago. A series like MI is already 23 years old (compared to Bond's 57) and it's better than ever. Can we say the same about Bond's tenure around 1985? No, it was fading fast at that point, with the best days behind.

    1985 was 34 years ago! Since then we've had 10 films. The MCU is going on 11 years old and will have 23 films completed soon. Bond cannot rely on the past to survive in the future. It's folly to believe otherwise.
    You make some good points. Andy Grove, the former CEO of Intel, famously wrote 'Only the Paranoid Survive', which was recommended reading for me during my consulting days. I don't believe the producers are complacent, but their way of doing things is different from the past. It will be different again once the leadership torch is passed on to the next generation, or once the operation is sold if there is no successor. In the end the Bond brand is bulletproof and so I think there will always be a market for it, but one can't expect it to have the cultural resonance it had in the 60's. That has come and long gone. All we can realistically expect now are a stream of continued financially successful films. Are they going to be SF level hits? Probably not, and that can't be expected, but I'm sure they'll make money. They always do.

    The Marvel comparison isn't a great one in my opinion, and not because it's comic based. Rather, because they have a series of characters with which to make films. Any one character only releases a solo film ever 2 or 3 years, which is what I would expect Bond to do going forward once the corporate shenanigans are sorted out (which I expect will happen post-B25).
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 386
    TripAces wrote: »

    I mostly agree, but need to address two points:

    1. I didn't see Bond in CR as a "seething ball of rage." Not at all. After the staircase fight, we see a man trying hard to get a grip. As he stares in the mirror, he's not angry; he's terrified--of his own life, of what he can do to others under a license to kill, over what this profession means. Early on, Bond is arrogant; but the staircase incident changes him: he becomes vulnerable. I'd argue that it's in QoS that we see that rage.

    2. CR is not a head and shoulders performance over SF. In some ways, SF is DC's best Bond. I think he is far more confident in SF and his comic timing is better (in the art museum, on the subway train, with Kincaid).

    You could be well be right on both counts, Aces. On the second point, I believe that Craig had the right intent and possibly even the right execution.

    The difference between Craig's performance in CR and the SF-SP double is affected by direction, IMO.

    Campbell facilitates Craig's firecracker energy. He combines wide, panoramic scale with an eye that tracks Bond's wrecking-ball movement. For me, Mendes stifles Craig's inner light and tends to render him nothing more than a stationary prop in his set pieces.

    I am not immune to SF's charms. I adore some sections of that film. By the time SP came around, however, Craig has all but lost his momentum. Sadly, he is inert, unrecognisable from the dynamic force of the first film.

    Craig gets a lot of flak these days, but I apportion much of the blame for his apparent 'dip' in form to Mendes.

  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    GetCarter wrote: »

    The difference between Craig's performance in CR and the SF-SP double is affected by direction, IMO.

    Campbell facilitates Craig's firecracker energy. He combines wide, panoramic scale with an eye that tracks Bond's wrecking-ball movement. For me, Mendes stifles Craig's inner light and tends to render him nothing more than a stationary prop in his set pieces.

    I am not immune to SF's charms. I adore some sections of that film. By the time SP came around, however, Craig has all but lost his momentum. Sadly, he is inert, unrecognisable from the dynamic force of the first film.

    Craig gets a lot of flak these days, but I apportion much of the blame for his apparent 'dip' in form to Mendes.

    Agreed. Well said.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 386
    bondjames wrote: »

    @GetCarter, well written post. I agree that CR was a fantastic introduction to Craig as Bond. The film was made for him and it's one where we glean the most insight into his characterization and personality. As you observe, that was permitted and facilitated in part due to a meaningful romance.

    Would you not agree however that a lot of that has to do with Eva Green as the counterweight? I personally found their scenes together on the train, in the casino and during the shower encounter to be highlights of the film. These were well written, well acted and very Bondian while still affording insights into Bond's character and his personality flaws. Her strengths as an actress were a perfect foil for him (she tends to bring out the best in most actors I've noticed). While I personally was not impressed with the writing of the romantic scenes post-Le Chiffre's death (a bit heavy handed in comparison to the manner in which the similar romantic interludes were handled in OHMSS), I can't deny that her casting, looks and performance were instrumental in selling the romance to the audience & even to me (although, ironically, far more so in the earlier scenes before they actually get to it).

    Regarding Lea Seydoux and her Madeleine Swann: you've already acknowledged that the character was poorly conceived and written in SP. I wouldn't go so far as to say she was just a 'shag' but like you I recognize that the film maker's intentions for the romance weren't properly realized in that film. We were informed by Blofeld that she's the only one who could understand him as the daughter of an assassin, Smith's song suggests more than just a fling, and members themselves have speculated that she was more than just another Bond girl. As we've recently discussed, some saw the intention at the end of SP being for the two of them to leave in the Aston and live happily ever after. So I'd say the symmetry you propose for B25 was already achieved at the end of the previous film, and that extends to Bond not assassinating his chief tormentor (which to an extent harkens back to resolution of Dench M's continuing criticism of him being trigger happy in earlier films).

    Part of the beauty of the Green/Craig dynamic was the freshness of it. We see their characters meet for the first time and enjoy the thrill of them getting to know one another. The immediate physical attraction between the characters is plainly apparent in the writing and acting, as is the mental undressing that takes place over the course of the film through sharp, almost caustic exchanges which betray their true feelings. I'd argue that this can't really be achieved in B25, because Ms. Swann and her feelings for Bond are already explicitly known to us and the audience, despite the ham-fisted handling of it.

    So while I hope the film makers can achieve their goal of continuing this 'arc', I am not enthused about Ms. Swann serving any more than a cursory element to the B25 story. What I hope for instead is a new appealing female character who Craig can spar with (perhaps not romantically) in B25, whether that be this rumoured female agent or potentially a villain. I think that would be something new and fresh for him, and yet allow for some acting range and new character insights to be displayed. Freshness is the primary promise of Mr. Fukunaga's appointment as director and that is what I personally hope to see in 2020. Surprise me.

    Fortunately, both you and I have as much chance of being surprised at this point because we really don't know much about this film at all, which is a good thing in my view.

    Indeed @bondjames , Eva Green is an asset in everything she appears in. In a Bond context, she is the perfect heroine. She combines the usual much-admired traits with piercing intelligence , vulnerability and class. Let's not forget, also, that she saves Bond thrice over the course of the film.

    Yes, we can absolutely agree that Lea Seydoux was poorly conceived in SP, but I still think she's a capable actress and the character of Swann herself is intriguing. I don't think her character is a lost cause, and her re-introduction in B25 would not only make sense to a general public who will remember her when she appears, but it would also introduce a new dynamic to a Bond film. That is, dispensing with the usual 'foreplay' and exploring themes of protection and consolidation. Though the chemistry tended to fizzle more than spark in SP, I think that was part of a wider malaise, mostly fermenting in the writing and direction departments.

    For better or worse, Craig's tenure has raised personal and professional themes that have bled from movie to movie. I'd prefer the next set to exhibit more of the self-contained adventure of the John Glen period, but until then we must conclude Craig's arc with something that doesn't jump the shark, but still gets the heart pumping.

    Craig is at his best when he's in love; that's my conclusion, anyway. Maybe the new director can make something fresh from the Madeleine Swann situation. If that doesn't happen, I won't be overly disappointed, but I will be hoping that we can all see Craig at his scintillating best.



  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    GetCarter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    @GetCarter, well written post. I agree that CR was a fantastic introduction to Craig as Bond. The film was made for him and it's one where we glean the most insight into his characterization and personality. As you observe, that was permitted and facilitated in part due to a meaningful romance.

    Would you not agree however that a lot of that has to do with Eva Green as the counterweight? I personally found their scenes together on the train, in the casino and during the shower encounter to be highlights of the film. These were well written, well acted and very Bondian while still affording insights into Bond's character and his personality flaws. Her strengths as an actress were a perfect foil for him (she tends to bring out the best in most actors I've noticed). While I personally was not impressed with the writing of the romantic scenes post-Le Chiffre's death (a bit heavy handed in comparison to the manner in which the similar romantic interludes were handled in OHMSS), I can't deny that her casting, looks and performance were instrumental in selling the romance to the audience & even to me (although, ironically, far more so in the earlier scenes before they actually get to it).

    Regarding Lea Seydoux and her Madeleine Swann: you've already acknowledged that the character was poorly conceived and written in SP. I wouldn't go so far as to say she was just a 'shag' but like you I recognize that the film maker's intentions for the romance weren't properly realized in that film. We were informed by Blofeld that she's the only one who could understand him as the daughter of an assassin, Smith's song suggests more than just a fling, and members themselves have speculated that she was more than just another Bond girl. As we've recently discussed, some saw the intention at the end of SP being for the two of them to leave in the Aston and live happily ever after. So I'd say the symmetry you propose for B25 was already achieved at the end of the previous film, and that extends to Bond not assassinating his chief tormentor (which to an extent harkens back to resolution of Dench M's continuing criticism of him being trigger happy in earlier films).

    Part of the beauty of the Green/Craig dynamic was the freshness of it. We see their characters meet for the first time and enjoy the thrill of them getting to know one another. The immediate physical attraction between the characters is plainly apparent in the writing and acting, as is the mental undressing that takes place over the course of the film through sharp, almost caustic exchanges which betray their true feelings. I'd argue that this can't really be achieved in B25, because Ms. Swann and her feelings for Bond are already explicitly known to us and the audience, despite the ham-fisted handling of it.

    So while I hope the film makers can achieve their goal of continuing this 'arc', I am not enthused about Ms. Swann serving any more than a cursory element to the B25 story. What I hope for instead is a new appealing female character who Craig can spar with (perhaps not romantically) in B25, whether that be this rumoured female agent or potentially a villain. I think that would be something new and fresh for him, and yet allow for some acting range and new character insights to be displayed. Freshness is the primary promise of Mr. Fukunaga's appointment as director and that is what I personally hope to see in 2020. Surprise me.

    Fortunately, both you and I have as much chance of being surprised at this point because we really don't know much about this film at all, which is a good thing in my view.

    Indeed @bondjames , Eva Green is an asset in everything she appears in. In a Bond context, she is the perfect heroine. She combines the usual much-admired traits with piercing intelligence , vulnerability and class. Let's not forget, also, that she saves Bond thrice over the course of the film.

    Yes, we can absolutely agree that Lea Seydoux was poorly conceived in SP, but I still think she's a capable actress and the character of Swann herself is intriguing. I don't think her character is a lost cause, and her re-introduction in B25 would not only make sense to a general public who will remember her when she appears, but it would also introduce a new dynamic to a Bond film. That is, dispensing with the usual 'foreplay' and exploring themes of protection and consolidation. Though the chemistry tended to fizzle more than spark in SP, I think that was part of a wider malaise, mostly fermenting in the writing and direction departments.

    For better or worse, Craig's tenure has raised personal and professional themes that have bled from movie to movie. I'd prefer the next set to exhibit more of the self-contained adventure of the John Glen period, but until then we must conclude Craig's arc with something that doesn't jump the shark, but still gets the heart pumping.

    Craig is at his best when he's in love; that's my conclusion, anyway. Maybe the new director can make something fresh from the Madeleine Swann situation. If that doesn't happen, I won't be overly disappointed, but I will be hoping that we can all see Craig at his scintillating best.
    Good points about Green @GetCarter, and I had indeed forgotten that Vesper saved Bond three times in CR.

    While I have more concerns about Seydoux than you do, I have read that she is a decent actress. Perhaps you're right and the lack of chemistry that some of us experienced onscreen was momentary and symptomatic of a point in time. Nearly five years will have passed by the time B25 hits the screen anyway, and actors change like the rest of us. Maybe there are more layers that they can explore in interesting ways, now that they've had time to work on this script.

    As long as the film hits other notes that are important to me (score, atmosphere, locations, action, other supporting cast, dialogue, villain etc. etc.) I suppose I can accept it. After all, I wasn't too keen on the character of Julia from the MI films, but her inclusion in the last film didn't impact my enjoyment of that film at all because the other elements I desire were there in adequate quantities.

    I guess we shall know in a month what is in store for us.
  • 077077 ny
    Posts: 12
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Just a couple of thoughts on B25.

    Looking at Casino Royale recently, Daniel Craig delivered a towering performance in his Bond debut. It really is extraordinary. He is a prowling, seething ball of rage and deadly execution as a young(ish) agent. But what really elevates the performance are his masterful moments of vulnerability, first in the shower to console Vesper, next stripped bare as he convalesces on Lake Como, and finally on the beach when he professes his love for the girl “without a tell”.

    It is these moments that imbue Craig’s first, most memorable effort with light and shade. His other performances suffer in comparison, but only because he was not afforded the opportunity to strip his armor and thus show his full range. Quantum of Solace is a master class of smouldering rage, but he has nowhere to put it. Skyfall has Bond address his mortality only to resolve this potentially epic crisis with minimal fuss. Lastly, Spectre has Craig coasting through a clumsy narrative many of us would rather forget.

    Personally, I thought the Madeleine Swann character was just a “shag” by film’s end. The movie hadn’t done nearly enough with their relationship to deserve a triumphantly romantic denouement. One feels that Craig was happy to call it a day at the end of an apparently tense and arduous shoot.

    But he didn’t. DC made the decision to return, in my opinion to erase the bitter aftertaste Spectre gave many. A proud actor, he seems to feel the need to do everything he can to ensure a quality end product. I think we can all safely assume that the extra time afforded B25 will not have gone to waste.

    Which brings me to my theory - if one is to look back on DC’s four films thus far, Casino Royale stands head and shoulders above the others on performance alone. Craig will have recognised that he was at his searing best when he had genuine emotion to offset his brutal sneer.

    My bet is he will plumb those depths again. What better way to bow out than with a successful relationship, perhaps even marriage, with Madeleine Swann. He began by falling hopelessly for the dark charms of the compromised Vesper, and I believe the only narrative escape that carries satisfying symmetry is retirement with the daughter of a downed enemy. Looking back through Bond’s rich history, the two best and most rounded female characters, played by Diana Rigg and Eva Green, both wind up dead. Maud Adams from TMWTGG is also worth mentioning, but woefully underwritten. By having lea seydoux’s Madeleine Swan return and not only survive, but offer Bond a way out, Daniel Craig can similarly exit stage right to thunderous applause.

    Such theories lead to other questions, many relating to Boyle’s departure. Was he against the idea of Bond happily sinking into blissful domesticity? Did he want to kill Bond off? We’ll probably never know. One thing I do know is that B25 needs to save Daniel Craig’s dark, angry Bond from himself. I suspect he knows that too. With an intelligent, sexy, challenging woman to spar with, Craig is utterly electric. I predict we’ll see a welcome return to form.

    Absolutely agree that DC should get his chance to show his acting chops and play a complex Bond with a wide range of emotion. CR is my favorite and the reason is, I've said it before, because his love affair with Vesper really grounds his character and allows us to connect with him, maybe even identify with this otherwise rather uberhuman. We know this feeling of being swept away, troubled by our feelings. We've been there before one way or the other.

    But I disagree that there's a chance to rectify the Swan Bond romantic relationship in B25. Besides the bad establishment of their affection in Spectre, Madeleine is way too similar to him, from her looks to her character - rather cold and distant. Bond needs a balance, a "warm", witty, intelligent, accessible woman, who can bring him out of his shell - just like Vesper. Vesper is super sharp, witty, and a hopeless romantic, who would do anything for her love, cheat, die ... The physical attraction between Bond and her can be seen without any spoken word. Madeleine is just not that character and trying to turn her into one would be just weird. I'm afraid Lea would also be miscast for such a role. She is gorgeous and a great actress but does not exuberate warmth. This has nothing to do with her acting capabilities. But there's a reason why not every actor can play every single role.

    Besides, Bond is a troubled man. Having him believably disappear into marital bliss - it would take more than one movie to have him evolve into that kind of character. It would be a cheap choice and a boring one, quite frankly. I would hate to see that happen.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 386
    077 wrote: »

    Absolutely agree that DC should get his chance to show his acting chops and play a complex Bond with a wide range of emotion. CR is my favorite and the reason is, I've said it before, because his love affair with Vesper really grounds his character and allows us to connect with him, maybe even identify with this otherwise rather uberhuman. We know this feeling of being swept away, troubled by our feelings. We've been there before one way or the other.

    But I disagree that there's a chance to rectify the Swan Bond romantic relationship in B25. Besides the bad establishment of their affection in Spectre, Madeleine is way too similar to him, from her looks to her character - rather cold and distant. Bond needs a balance, a "warm", witty, intelligent, accessible woman, who can bring him out of his shell - just like Vesper. Vesper is super sharp, witty, and a hopeless romantic, who would do anything for her love, cheat, die ... The physical attraction between Bond and her can be seen without any spoken word. Madeleine is just not that character and trying to turn her into one would be just weird. I'm afraid Lea would also be miscast for such a role. She is gorgeous and a great actress but does not exuberate warmth. This has nothing to do with her acting capabilities. But there's a reason why not every actor can play every single role.

    Besides, Bond is a troubled man. Having him believably disappear into marital bliss - it would take more than one movie to have him evolve into that kind of character. It would be a cheap choice and a boring one, quite frankly. I would hate to see that happen.

    All good points. Agree that Seydoux is somewhat chillier than Green.

    But I also feel there’s potential for smouldering emotion, as per Blue is the Warmest Colour. I think Madeleine Swan was under-written in SP and the film suffered for it.

    As for your point on marital bliss, i can assure you I’m not talking about kids and dishpan hands!

    I’m thinking more the uber-relaxed, loose Bond on the Venice-bound yacht in CR. After all the dramatics of the first three films in this new era, some good, some bad, I’d love to see Craig’s troubled Bond end this way.

  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    talos7 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Where does this doom
    N gloom come from? And why does it spread so easily?

    Don't Feed the Squirrels

    1uHu.gif
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Every element came together beautifully in Casino Royale and Skyfall. I love Skyfall, as much as when I frst saw it in the theatre. Both outstanding performances from Craig. Great supporting cast, script, everything.
Sign In or Register to comment.