› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…11651166116811701171…2507

Comments

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    talos7 wrote: »
    For me Mendes is one for two. Even though Skyfall has massive plot holes and lapses in logic it is immensely entertaining and re-watchable. On the other hand, despite some good moments, I don't think I will ever again watch SPECTRE all the way through.
    The thought of Newman returning is really depressing

    Feel almost the opposite about SF and SP. But Newman returning is the most depressing prospect.
  • NSGWNSGW London
    edited November 2017 Posts: 299
    barryt007 wrote: »
    NSGW wrote: »
    Denis Villeneuve and George Miller are the two names mentioned here that excite me the most. Mendes would keep things consistent and I'm sure he would deliver something closer to SF than SP if he returned, but with another long gap between films I would much rather have someone who hasn't done Bond before if only for the sake of variety. I would be curious to see what Mendes would do if he was only given a much smaller budget this time around though, I think it would work in his favour. Only thing that would really bother me is the prospect of another Newman score.

    That is worrying me as well....the score in SP was awful,and bloody lazy.,,,bordering on arrogance and over-confidence,which is a feeling I get about the whole SP production.

    Yeah I think the music is such a big part of the series' identity in large part to Barry's stellar work of the years, so when we get a weaker one like in SP, it stands out all the more. I don't mind Newman's scores not being like Barry's as their styles are completely different, but to me each film should have a completely different score with its own distinct themes and motifs (with the only exception being the classic Bond theme), which is how I prefer the films to be in general, more as they were in the 60s with their own distinct locations. The way SP reused so much of SF's score was very disappointing and, as you say, was lazy.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves. I'd greatly appreciate it if you would concentrate on delivering your own opinion on where you want the franchise to go rather than passing comments on other member's points of view. We are all entitled to express ourselves in the way we see fit here, as long as we are not insulting other members. You don't have the monopoly on 'tone' setting on this forum.

    You may find my approach cynical and that is your right. However, I'm not going to change the manner in which I comment in order to appease your perceptions of my perspective.

    I didn't mean to offend you @BondJames . I just want you to encourage to stay positive :-). With 'cynical' I mean that it sounds like you don't really care about Bond 25.........until Craig is gone and the production of Bond 26 kicks in. Maybe I am wrong and then I am sorry.

    I think I was also pretty clear on many occasions on how I want Bond 25 to turn out. I don't want a "Skyfall 2.0" or a blatant return of Sam Mendes. I honestly believe there is room for a Bond film that feels like a perfect closure. A film that in tone and style is a mixture of Sam Mendes' character-driven drama and Guy Hamilton's (or for that sake Steven Soderbergh's) zest for fun, humour and action. I sincerely believe that this could be the case. "SPECTRE" paved the way for that approach. So if only the story is more watertight....we're in for a good treat!

    There's no reason at this stage to believe that I could be wrong (or you could be right). Time will tell, and that's also exciting ;-).
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,846
    bondjames wrote: »
    Do people really want Demange or Mackenzie over Mendes?

    Surely Sam is the preferred choice of the three?

    No he is not.... I would take Yann over Sam

    Well if Mendes is back bond 25 is Shatterhand
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves. I'd greatly appreciate it if you would concentrate on delivering your own opinion on where you want the franchise to go rather than passing comments on other member's points of view. We are all entitled to express ourselves in the way we see fit here, as long as we are not insulting other members. You don't have the monopoly on 'tone' setting on this forum.

    You may find my approach cynical and that is your right. However, I'm not going to change the manner in which I comment in order to appease your perceptions of my perspective.

    I didn't mean to offend you @BondJames . I just want you to encourage to stay positive :-). With 'cynical' I mean that it sounds like you don't really care about Bond 25.........until Craig is gone and the production of Bond 26 kicks in. Maybe I am wrong and then I am sorry.

    I think I was also pretty clear on many occasions on how I want Bond 25 to turn out. I don't want a "Skyfall 2.0" or a blatant return of Sam Mendes. I honestly believe there is room for a Bond film that feels like a perfect closure. A film that in tone and style is a mixture of Sam Mendes' character-driven drama and Guy Hamilton's (or for that sake Steven Soderbergh's) zest for fun, humour and action. I sincerely believe that this could be the case. "SPECTRE" paved the way for that approach. So if only the story is more watertight....we're in for a good treat!

    There's no reason at this stage to believe that I could be wrong (or you could be right). Time will tell, and that's also exciting ;-).
    What you say goes without saying. As you've no doubt learned on your petition thread, nearly all of us (with a few exceptions) will accept what happens with B25, no matter how distasteful it may be to some.

    However, I again repeat that I would greatly appreciate it if you stop telling people how to comment and express themselves on this forum. We are all different and all have the right to be our individual selves. What you 'sense' in our demeanour or statements could very well be entirely incorrect, and again I think you should have learned that from your petition thread.

    We aren't as worked up about things as you think we are. Nobody has threatened to "slash their wrists" as an example. If you can forgive Craig that remark which has done quite a bit of damage to the franchise, surely you can allow us nobody plebians a few indulgences on this forum that we visit to entertain ourselves.

    We're just having fun in our own way.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Another 'one word' Bond title beginning with 'S' in a row.
    Boring boring boring.
  • NSGWNSGW London
    edited November 2017 Posts: 299
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Another 'one word' Bond title beginning with 'S' in a row.
    Boring boring boring.

    I'd forgotten that was from the YOLT novel, I just assumed it was some kind of joke between members on here when I kept seeing it at first. I don't think they'll ever use a title with the word 'shat' in it.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited November 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Good point. Shatterhand probably won't be the title but may be they will do a more faithful YOLT inspired adaptation.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Could it really be a Craig/Mendes hatrick?
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    We're just having fun in our own way.

    I'm having fun too......
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Getafix wrote: »
    Good point. Shatterhand probably won't be the title but may be they will do a more faithful YOLT inspired adaptation.

    The novel certainly would be depressing enough.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Could it really be a Craig/Mendes hatrick?
    Waltz was a big clue, in addition to the ones I mentioned a few pages back. When he said he was out a few weeks back I immediately checked Mendes' schedule. As mentioned, he has some theatre productions underway so not sure if he could do it. However, I'd like him to.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    I HATE the word "Shatterhand" with a passion. I have ready only one Bond novel in my life and it wasn't a Fleming one, so "Shatterhand" doesn't mean anything to me emotionally. At the same time, I believe it's a really bad sounding word.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    I HATE the word "Shatterhand" with a passion. I have ready only one Bond novel in my life and it wasn't a Fleming one, so "Shatterhand" doesn't mean anything to me emotionally. At the same time, I believe it's a really bad sounding word.
    I can't see it being Shatterhand either, for the reasons you and others note. That's a good thing though, because it means we can be surprised by something unexpected.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    @bondjames... I see the mandatory enthusiasm is still running a muck here lol.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    That's true and all but... Bond is not an assassin, just so to speak. He has a license to kill, sure, but he also investigates or even goes to a formality as a representative of either his government or the MI-6 (an example is in Moonraker when he meets Drax for the first time). An assassin is just a triggerman/woman.
    Fair enough and that's true. My point is more that they're attempting to ride the superhero wave by playing up his patriotism and heroic qualities, while ditching some of his less palatable and also more refined characteristics. I expect this to continue as they chase the common denominator box office. Not a fan of it personally, but it is what it is.
    I personally prefer myself a rather patriotic Bond, like how he was throughout the Roger Moore era, even though in the novels he was the exact opposite and was just in it for the thrill of the chase.

    Without question, Fleming saw moral courage as one of the ultimate necessities in a gentleman-adventurer. Because of this, Bond, as the epitome of patriotic moral courage, is consistently pitted against moral cowards – criminals, egotistical maniacs, double agents, etc.

    And although Bond is allowed to grumble every once in a while, his personal commitment to his job and to is country is rarely in jeopardy. Maybe, just maybe, this is one of the reasons why certain commentators continue to bash Bond and Fleming as sexist and nationalist throwbacks.

    Yes, Fleming wrote of the masculine virtues as being exclusively masculine, and yes the independently-minded Bond’s moral courage at times was rash and even dangerous to others, but in today’s overly codified, managerial state, the type of moral courage exemplified by Bond seems antediluvian rather than mainstream.

    I FORGOT TO ADD. I'm all for antediluvian rather than mainstream
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,846
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    I HATE the word "Shatterhand" with a passion. I have ready only one Bond novel in my life and it wasn't a Fleming one, so "Shatterhand" doesn't mean anything to me emotionally. At the same time, I believe it's a really bad sounding word.

    Well I can guarantee if Mendes comes back this will be the title and worse still Newman will be back too aaaaaaaa
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    bondjames wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    I HATE the word "Shatterhand" with a passion. I have ready only one Bond novel in my life and it wasn't a Fleming one, so "Shatterhand" doesn't mean anything to me emotionally. At the same time, I believe it's a really bad sounding word.
    I can't see it being Shatterhand either, for the reasons you and others note. That's a good thing though, because it means we can be surprised by something unexpected.
    Considering that we all know zip about Bond 25, it could be anything. We don't even know if it really is following the novels of YOLT and OHMSS. These are just tabloid rumours. I doubt that even P&W know what the title's going to be at this stage. Besides, what the hell did Skyfall mean to anyone when that particular title was first announced? Though I suspect Pistoles wasn't so vocal about that dumb title, so much. At least Shatterhand bears the hallmark of Fleming.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,469
    I really wish David Arnold returned to score the next one. I don’t hate Thomas Newman’s Bond soundtracks, but they are definitely weaker than Arnold’s. And if Arnold can’t come back, hopefully it’s someone new and up to the task. Next year should yield a lot of information about Bond 25. I just hope most of it is good.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited November 2017 Posts: 17,756
    Any likely we might get a christmas present involving some real news? Director, cast etc.?
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    @Gustav_Graves With all due respect, as good as your intentions might be, I think your efforts to make people be more positive are misguided. If negativity bothers you, you can't expect to fight it by pointing out the presumed negative tone of other people's comments; it's just not feasible. Everybody is free to choose the tone they want. The only way to promote a more positive mindset is by providing arguments that instill confidence in the producers/filmmakers, and that are based on the films themselves. Furthermore, you can't expect everyone to have a positive outlook on things. Some people will, but others won't, owing to the fact everyone's different and has a unique point of view. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for a discussion board, and things would be very dull.

    Just my two cents.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    edited November 2017 Posts: 755
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I really wish David Arnold returned to score the next one. I don’t hate Thomas Newman’s Bond soundtracks, but they are definitely weaker than Arnold’s. And if Arnold can’t come back, hopefully it’s someone new and up to the task. Next year should yield a lot of information about Bond 25. I just hope most of it is good.

    I felt the same way, but having just watched SP again, I must say the music in the London finale is mind crushingly bad. It's an unrelenting repetitive riff (not sure if it even qualifies as that). If the music had been great in the third act, it would really help elevate what's already problematic for a lot of viewers. Also he uses really dreary music as I guess romantic themes throughout which sets a depressing tone
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Yeah, it's a shame. Instead of someone strumming the same 9 note guitar riff over and over and over again, we could have had something awesome like this.

  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    bondjames wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Could it really be a Craig/Mendes hatrick?
    Waltz was a big clue, in addition to the ones I mentioned a few pages back. When he said he was out a few weeks back I immediately checked Mendes' schedule. As mentioned, he has some theatre productions underway so not sure if he could do it. However, I'd like him to.

    If it did turn out to be Mendes again? Waltz I am sure would figure again in one way or another?
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited November 2017 Posts: 19,339
    Now that's Bond...God bless John Barry and David Arnold,AVTAK & QOS...classic scores.

    We must get Arnold back for the next film...I hate SP ending,Blofeld should have got away as I keep saying in my thread that I created.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,756
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Now that's Bond...God bless John Barry and David Arnold.

    We must get Arnold back for the next film...I hate SP ending,Blofeld should have got away as I keep saying in my thread that I created.

    Best thing about that ending is Craig wearing driving gloves. With a car like that, who wouldn't? No finger marks on that car interior!
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,409
    Well....is Sam Mendes retuning for Bond 25?

    This kinda sucks. I think SF is magnificent but SP was just a little on the stale side. Mendes wore out his welcome with that film.....

    However, I'd understand if he did come back. Clearly the end of SP suggested that Mendes had some unfinished business. But he's a bit of a boring choice following suggestions like Demange....

    BUT....the bloke who broke the story, Jeff Sneider is hinting on Twitter that Mendes may be doing Bond (at least that's how I've interpreted his all-caps tweet):
    https://twitter.com/TheInSneider?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

    Meanwhile, BMD have heard from a source that Sam is back in the mix:
    http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/11/14/same-mendes-exits-pinocchio-and-hopefully-that-doesnt-mean-hes-doing-bond-2

    I bet Craig and Broccoli are desperate to have him back, despite the tabloid reports to the contrary.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Only Hamilton and Glen have done more than two in a row before.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2017 Posts: 15,423
    I'd rather have Marc Forster back than any of the rubbish that SF has to offer.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Hear hear!
Sign In or Register to comment.