› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…10881089109110931094…2507

Comments

  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    @jake24 Forgot to take your pills?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @jake24 Forgot to take your pills?
    Nope, got 'em.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,619
    @DaltonCraig007
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=pJOm2mRHDE0
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2017 Posts: 2,138
    peter wrote: »
    I’ll take that bet @DaltonCraig007 — the man is smart enough to know he doesn’t have another Craig Bond film in him.

    Who the director will be? I honestly don’t have a thought on it any more. I just have a feeling it won’t be SM.

    Surely not!

    All I will say is he has kept his late 2018 and 2019 schedule clear.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited October 2017 Posts: 3,157
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Ok, they 100% have their director now. There is NO way BB and MGW would hire the production designer before hiring the director. (They may have done it in the past, I'm not sure, but there is no way something like this would happen in the Craig era.)

    I'm unclear how Gassner was hired for Quantum (was he Forster's guy or not?). Mendes specified Gassner (at least that's what Mendes said in interviews), but Gassner was already in the fold so that wasn't such a big deal.

    Mendes even claimed he cast Kinnear as Tanner.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Walecs wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Ok, they 100% have their director now. There is NO way BB and MGW would hire the production designer before hiring the director. (They may have done it in the past, I'm not sure, but there is no way something like this would happen in the Craig era.)

    I'm unclear how Gassner was hired for Quantum (was he Forster's guy or not?). Mendes specified Gassner (at least that's what Mendes said in interviews), but Gassner was already in the fold so that wasn't such a big deal.

    Mendes even claimed he cast Kinnear as Tanner.

    He also seems to be convinced, that it was him who brought back the DB5. To me this man is completely full of himself and not much else.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited October 2017 Posts: 11,119
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Ok, they 100% have their director now. There is NO way BB and MGW would hire the production designer before hiring the director. (They may have done it in the past, I'm not sure, but there is no way something like this would happen in the Craig era.)

    I'm unclear how Gassner was hired for Quantum (was he Forster's guy or not?). Mendes specified Gassner (at least that's what Mendes said in interviews), but Gassner was already in the fold so that wasn't such a big deal.

    Mendes even claimed he cast Kinnear as Tanner.

    He also seems to be convinced, that it was him who brought back the DB5. To me this man is completely full of himself and not much else.

    Sjee man, have some respect for....a Bond director no less. Or does it become common ground that we piss on each and every Bond director that gave us a wonderful Bond film? Ooowh, no, wait...it's only Sam Mendes that needs to endure all that pissing. Pfff, sad really. Ar we Bond fans? Or are we "Bond-fans-but-not-Sam-Mendes"-fans?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Nobody's immune from criticism.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Come on, guys! Of course Mendes never seriously believed he cast Kinnear as Tanner. He probably just misspoke.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited October 2017 Posts: 10,591
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Come on, guys! Of course Mendes never seriously believed he cast Kinnear as Tanner. He probably just misspoke.
    This is true. One of the silliest Mendes criticisms was that he supposedly claimed the responsibility of casting Tanner, when it was clear (if you've watched the interview) that it was an obvious mistake.
  • timmertimmer
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,622
    jake24 wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Come on, guys! Of course Mendes never seriously believed he cast Kinnear as Tanner. He probably just misspoke.
    This is true. One of the silliest Mendes criticisms was that he supposedly claimed the responsibility of casting Tanner, when it was clear (if you've watched the interview) that it was an obvious mistake.

    I've seen the interview. Yes, he was musing about putting the new Mi6 team together, but still it does show he's not fussed about accidentally-on-purpose, misleading or misinforming...
    but innocently, ahem of course.
    I winced when I heard him say that. He clearly knows he didn't cast Kinnear, but I also think he doesn't mind if people might think he did.
    I think he's a bit of a bs artist. A tad disengenous at times.
    He's sure talked a lot of stupid, when it comes to explaining his two Bond films. eg, he so earnestly explains that the brother angle was a must for him, if he were to grace (disgrace?) us with a second Bond effort.
    We're still waiting for the Spectre commentary.
    Somehow I don't think he really wants to do it. Could get a little sketchy, not to mention not real well received, much like the film.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    I'm still waiting for the Tanner standalone film.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for the Tanner standalone film.

    It's coming. =))
    WQhKaSBl.jpg
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Anybody got a link to that Mendes interview?
  • SatoriousSatorious Brushing up on a little Danish
    Posts: 233
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    I'm unclear how Gassner was hired for Quantum (was he Forster's guy or not?)
    Yes he was (in part at least). I spoke with Peter Lamont at a Bond event in Pinewood during 2007 and he told me that he was no longer working on Bond 22 (as it was known then) because the director wanted a different style and had picked a new production designer (who turned out to be Gassner). I remember being somewhat surprised by the news at the time.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Satorious wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    I'm unclear how Gassner was hired for Quantum (was he Forster's guy or not?)
    Yes he was (in part at least). I spoke with Peter Lamont at a Bond event in Pinewood during 2007 and he told me that he was no longer working on Bond 22 (as it was known then) because the director wanted a different style and had picked a new production designer (who turned out to be Gassner). I remember being somewhat surprised by the news at the time.
    There you go! Even Forster was allowed to pick a new production designer! It is extremely unlikely that now, in 2017, EON would hire the production designer before they have a director. I would bet 1000 US dollars with anyone that they've already hired a director.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I've always said I woudn't be surprised if Mendes returns for the hat trick, and quite frankly I wouldn't mind if he did.

    Most of these characters are his creation (although certainly not Kinnear's Tanner) and so it seems like a reasonable fit.

    SP was his creation after all (& Craig's). Let's see how this plays. Nothing will surprise me at this stage.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Meaning yet another mediocre Bond film. Let the sky fall... again!
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    @ClarkDevlin If only every Bond film were as mediocre as Skyfall was!
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Meaning yet another mediocre Bond film. Let the sky fall... again!

    Voted in here, on the giant big MI6community-forum. 120 people:
    TzcRFqz.jpg
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    Cheer up chap.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2017 Posts: 2,138
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Satorious wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    I'm unclear how Gassner was hired for Quantum (was he Forster's guy or not?)
    Yes he was (in part at least). I spoke with Peter Lamont at a Bond event in Pinewood during 2007 and he told me that he was no longer working on Bond 22 (as it was known then) because the director wanted a different style and had picked a new production designer (who turned out to be Gassner). I remember being somewhat surprised by the news at the time.
    There you go! Even Forster was allowed to pick a new production designer! It is extremely unlikely that now, in 2017, EON would hire the production designer before they have a director. I would bet 1000 US dollars with anyone that they've already hired a director.

    But Gassner has worked on QOS, Skyfall and Spectre so he's hardly a sign of a new Director making a choice. You would have an argument if Gassner was a new recruit.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin If only every Bond film were as mediocre as Skyfall was!
    That's where I stop being a Bond fan.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,619
    @SirHilaryBray Gassner worked on QOS because Forster chose him, and worked on SF and SP because Mendes wanted him (they did Road to Perdition and Jarhead together before Skyfall). The fact that EON was willing to replace Peter Lamont who did every Bond film from FYEO to CR (except TND, because he was busy working on Titanic) because Forster wanted a new direction pretty much proves they would not be against replacing Gassner now if the director wished to do so. And if EON doesn't insist on Gassner, why on Earth would they hire him before hiring the director?
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2017 Posts: 2,138
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @SirHilaryBray Gassner worked on QOS because Forster chose him, and worked on SF and SP because Mendes wanted him (they did Road to Perdition and Jarhead together before Skyfall). The fact that EON was willing to replace Peter Lamont who did every Bond film from FYEO to CR (except TND, because he was busy working on Titanic) because Forster wanted a new direction pretty much proves they would not be against replacing Gassner now if the director wished to do so. And if EON doesn't insist on Gassner, why on Earth would they hire him before hiring the director?

    Possibly because he is the best going and if they don't make a decision they risk him taking another project and then settling for the unknown qauntity?
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    @ClarkDevlin There are fewer than 5 Bond films that are not just great Bond films, but great movies, period. Skyfall is one of them.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    That's subjective, @PanchitoPistoles.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin There are fewer than 5 Bond films that are not just great Bond films, but great movies, period. Skyfall is one of them.

    So many of my friends are not Bond fans but raved about Skyfall.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,423
    The only reason Skyfall felt good to some (or many) is because of its deep portrait of emotions, melodrama and vulnerability. Too much of the trio, in fact. Sam Mendes is damn good at it. But, these don't make a Bond film good... Far from it. I'd rather not start on the coherence of every character, scene, and planned turnouts that, at times (most of the times), made little to no sense.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @SirHilaryBray Gassner worked on QOS because Forster chose him, and worked on SF and SP because Mendes wanted him (they did Road to Perdition and Jarhead together before Skyfall). The fact that EON was willing to replace Peter Lamont who did every Bond film from FYEO to CR (except TND, because he was busy working on Titanic) because Forster wanted a new direction pretty much proves they would not be against replacing Gassner now if the director wished to do so. And if EON doesn't insist on Gassner, why on Earth would they hire him before hiring the director?

    Peter Lamont was, on CR, already pretty old (born in 1929). The man wanted to retire as well if I'm not mistaken.
Sign In or Register to comment.