› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…13891390139213941395…2507

Comments

  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Strog wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Hey, maybe Boyle's "great idea" is to set B25 in 1962?

    Nah, I doubt it. If it were, Craig would fit right in. I'd still take that over the stepbrother angle, killing off Bond, etc any day of the week.
    A one-off, out-of-the-blue period film before we go back to regular service in the next era? Don't think Eon would be game (though whatever Boyle is cooking up neither did he), but I am. So long as it's just a one and done. Bond really does need set in the present. It's how the franchise has survived. The possibility of a brief excursion to the past is intriguing, however. That Craig would be the lead makes it even more so. That would spit in the face of the continuity.

    Agreed. To many people Spectre feels like a closure to Craig's tenure. Having a stand-alone/one-off low budget period thriller would be great! It would not feel tackled on and they'd still be able to forget all the continuity mess from Craig's previous films.

    Then have Bond 26 set in 2022 and go back to "regular service", as @Strog said.
  • StrogStrog
    edited March 2018 Posts: 684
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I don't disagree but there is precedent.

    Farewell, My Lovely (1975). Robert Mitchum as Philip Marlowe in 1940s Los Angeles.
    The Big Sleep (1978). Robert Mitchum as Philip Marlowe in 1970s London. Plus he was 60.
    Very interesting note. I'd definitely like to watch those back to back sometime. In terms of the the Marlowe character, (help me out), hasn't he been played far more frequently in his natural 40s setting than in a modern context, unlike Bond who has always been?
    vzok wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Hey, maybe Boyle's "great idea" is to set B25 in 1962?

    Nah, I doubt it. If it were, Craig would fit right in. I'd still take that over the stepbrother angle, killing off Bond, etc any day of the week.
    A one-off, out-of-the-blue period film before we go back to regular service in the next era? Don't think Eon would be game (though whatever Boyle is cooking up neither did he), but I am. So long as it's just a one and done. Bond really does need set in the present. It's how the franchise has survived. The possibility of a brief excursion to the past is intriguing, however. That Craig would be the lead makes it even more so. That would spit in the face of the continuity.
    How far back?
    50s/60s. Or how about just 1955? Boyle could go after a proper adaptation of Moonraker, for example (even if bits of it have been incorporated across 4+ films already). I picked Moonraker, because someone posted a quote from Boyle the other day where he said all his films were about people overcoming the odds. He's a Fleming fan. And while all the Bonds could be viewed very generally as one man overcoming the odds, for me Moonraker is the novel that comes to mind first in that regard.

    But it could easily be an entirely original story set in the past.
    echo wrote: »
    Bond is and should be forward-looking. No flashbacks.
    I agree in general. Just trying to entertain some 'out there' ideas that at first glance might seem a hard sell to Eon.

    I'm quite sure this is not what Boyle is thinking. But again if they wanted to do it for one film, I'm up for it.
    Walecs wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Hey, maybe Boyle's "great idea" is to set B25 in 1962?

    Nah, I doubt it. If it were, Craig would fit right in. I'd still take that over the stepbrother angle, killing off Bond, etc any day of the week.
    A one-off, out-of-the-blue period film before we go back to regular service in the next era? Don't think Eon would be game (though whatever Boyle is cooking up neither did he), but I am. So long as it's just a one and done. Bond really does need set in the present. It's how the franchise has survived. The possibility of a brief excursion to the past is intriguing, however. That Craig would be the lead makes it even more so. That would spit in the face of the continuity.

    Agreed. To many people Spectre feels like a closure to Craig's tenure. Having a stand-alone/one-off low budget period thriller would be great! It would not feel tackled on and they'd still be able to forget all the continuity mess from Craig's previous films.

    Then have Bond 26 set in 2022 and go back to "regular service", as @Strog said.
    Yes. Craig's Bond gets to drive off with Madeline, and Craig himself gets to do another film without being bogged down by the previous four.
  • Ottofuse8Ottofuse8
    Posts: 832
    Nothing about sp felt like closure, it was far too unsatisfying to do that anyway.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,970
    Craig looks fine. Stop
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,970
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    You guys are all crazy... Moore looked old from FYEO on. He was still an attractive older dude, but he ran on charm and ultimately made the whole series feel aged and dated (at the time)

    While I never had a problem with Moores old age I can see why some did. Reason why fans don't rag on Moores look in FYEO & in OP is due to the stories. OP is a Roger Moore Bond film. No other actor in the series could pull off OP other than Roger. AVTAK seemed more like a Dalton story rather than a Roger story. FYEO is IMO an any Bond actor story.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,779
    Strog wrote: »
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I don't disagree but there is precedent.

    Farewell, My Lovely (1975). Robert Mitchum as Philip Marlowe in 1940s Los Angeles.
    The Big Sleep (1978). Robert Mitchum as Philip Marlowe in 1970s London. Plus he was 60.
    Very interesting note. I'd definitely like to watch those back to back sometime. In terms of the the Marlowe character, (help me out), hasn't he been played far more frequently in his natural 40s setting than in a modern context, unlike Bond who has always been?
    Marlowe on screen is generally set in the 40s as you said (or even the 30s with the Powers Booth HBO series Philip Marlowe, Private Eye). And played by an actor in his 40s, I think in the Raymond Chandler books and stories he's mid to late 30s.

    Another noted exception is The Long Goodbye (1973) directed by Robert Altman, starring Elliot Gould, taking place in (contemporary) 70s Los Angeles. Worth seeing.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited March 2018 Posts: 1,261
    How about HIM as composer?

    Tambourine.gif

    Guitar.gif
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,153
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I don't disagree but there is precedent.

    Farewell, My Lovely (1975). Robert Mitchum as Philip Marlowe in 1940s Los Angeles.
    The Big Sleep (1978). Robert Mitchum as Philip Marlowe in 1970s London. Plus he was 60.
    Very interesting note. I'd definitely like to watch those back to back sometime. In terms of the the Marlowe character, (help me out), hasn't he been played far more frequently in his natural 40s setting than in a modern context, unlike Bond who has always been?
    Marlowe on screen is generally set in the 40s as you said (or even the 30s with the Powers Booth HBO series Philip Marlowe, Private Eye). And played by an actor in his 40s, I think in the Raymond Chandler books and stories he's mid to late 30s.

    Another noted exception is The Long Goodbye (1973) directed by Robert Altman, starring Elliot Gould, taking place in (contemporary) 70s Los Angeles. Worth seeing.

    Another exception is Marlowe with James Garner from 1969. Seems up until Farewell My Lovely every film is set in the time it's made. I much prefer that character to remain in his 1940's era myself. I wonder when it will be set when Liam Neeson takes on the role?
    Strog wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Hey, maybe Boyle's "great idea" is to set B25 in 1962?

    Nah, I doubt it. If it were, Craig would fit right in. I'd still take that over the stepbrother angle, killing off Bond, etc any day of the week.
    A one-off, out-of-the-blue period film before we go back to regular service in the next era? Don't think Eon would be game (though whatever Boyle is cooking up neither did he), but I am. So long as it's just a one and done. Bond really does need set in the present. It's how the franchise has survived. The possibility of a brief excursion to the past is intriguing, however. That Craig would be the lead makes it even more so. That would spit in the face of the continuity.

    As much as I would love it I agree most audiences probably would only enjoy it as a one off experiment. Many people I've met flatly refuse to watch any movies or television made before they were born, so it stands to reason they might not go for a period piece cold war Bond.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,779
    Yeah, Marlowe (1969) with James Garner and Bruce Lee, good to mention that one @ToTheRight.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,111
    bondsum wrote: »
    There's no denying that Roger Moore looked great in LALD, despite himself suffering from a kidney stone and being in somewhat poor health during the early stages of production. I just feel the producers didn't want to take another gamble again on a lesser known name, same happened with Brosnan after Dalton, which was why they went for an older Bond with an already established presence, when the wise thing would've been to have gone with a much younger actor to rejuvenate the series. I honestly don't think they were really looking beyond Moore doing 3 Bond pictures for them in total, hence why TMWTGG was turned around so quickly. I believe Moore got away with it due to the landscape around him. Most of the other big BO movie stars of that period were also of a similar age; McQueen, Bronson, Eastwood, Newman, Heston, so it was fair to say that audiences didn't have a problem with an older actor in a lead role. Today's market is quite different, whereby everything is tilted more towards youth. Just think, the original producers of Logan's Run changed the age of "Lastday" from 21 to 30 because they felt the audience wouldn't identify with such a young cast. That wouldn't happen today.

    Pierce Brosnan also had the advantage of looking far younger than he was, in GE and TND especially.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    ~600 days until American release of the film. How does that make you all feel?
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    ~600 days until American release of the film. How does that make you all feel?

    Hmm could be worse.
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Pierce Brosnan also had the advantage of looking far younger than he was, in GE and TND especially.

    If I were to give the 'perfect age' for the long-term Bond actors, it'd be Connery in Dr No, Moore in Live and Let Die and Brozza in TND.

    Pierce was a little too fresh faced in Goldeneye.
  • Ottofuse8Ottofuse8
    edited March 2018 Posts: 832
    Brosnan looked older starting with tnd
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    29249919_1833307276736463_7731245066160701440_n.jpg?oh=18f455d1ca253e1754beb63f5f7faf42&oe=5B309DB3

    Daniel visited the NSA - National Cryptologic Museum this week.

    Could he be doing some research?
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    There are more shots of him at the Museum on Facebook. Here's one:

    29214877_1833307356736455_2988494259520274432_n.jpg?oh=40dfd57b6cb7a5851b66899ad944434f&oe=5B014DB4

    Man he’s looking old. They’ll definitely need some “Hollywood magic” to make him passable for B25.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,087
    GettyImages-55215826.jpg

    Pierce was 52 in the above photo, I think Brosnan could in a parallel universe played Bond into his fifties no problem.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    SharkBait wrote: »
    So, who should Ewan McGregor play in Bond 25?

    Mark Obi Wan Renton Kenobi. Who else?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    There's no denying that Roger Moore looked great in LALD, despite himself suffering from a kidney stone and being in somewhat poor health during the early stages of production. I just feel the producers didn't want to take another gamble again on a lesser known name, same happened with Brosnan after Dalton, which was why they went for an older Bond with an already established presence, when the wise thing would've been to have gone with a much younger actor to rejuvenate the series. I honestly don't think they were really looking beyond Moore doing 3 Bond pictures for them in total, hence why TMWTGG was turned around so quickly. I believe Moore got away with it due to the landscape around him. Most of the other big BO movie stars of that period were also of a similar age; McQueen, Bronson, Eastwood, Newman, Heston, so it was fair to say that audiences didn't have a problem with an older actor in a lead role. Today's market is quite different, whereby everything is tilted more towards youth. Just think, the original producers of Logan's Run changed the age of "Lastday" from 21 to 30 because they felt the audience wouldn't identify with such a young cast. That wouldn't happen today.

    Pierce Brosnan also had the advantage of looking far younger than he was, in GE and TND especially.

    Broz was at his best physically in TND. He looked damn good.
  • StrogStrog
    Posts: 684
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    29249919_1833307276736463_7731245066160701440_n.jpg?oh=18f455d1ca253e1754beb63f5f7faf42&oe=5B309DB3

    Daniel visited the NSA - National Cryptologic Museum this week.

    Could he be doing some research?
    I wonder why he was there. Would he actually visit there for research? Could just be personal interest? It doesn't appear to have been publicity. I can't find a single news item on it. Just on the museum's Facebook page.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited March 2018 Posts: 5,767
    DoctorKaufmann wrote: »
    SharkBait wrote: »
    So, who should Ewan McGregor play in Bond 25?

    Mark Obi Wan Renton Kenobi. Who else?
    The more important question is: Who should play Ewan McGregor in Bond 25?




    Strog wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    29249919_1833307276736463_7731245066160701440_n.jpg?oh=18f455d1ca253e1754beb63f5f7faf42&oe=5B309DB3

    Daniel visited the NSA - National Cryptologic Museum this week.

    Could he be doing some research?
    I wonder why he was there. Would he actually visit there for research? Could just be personal interest? It doesn't appear to have been publicity. I can't find a single news item on it. Just on the museum's Facebook page.
    Could be a leasurely sunday afternoon trip. I go to museums sometimes, it can be fun if you don´t stay too long.
  • 001001
    edited March 2018 Posts: 1,575
    I heard a rumour that B25 had already finished filming. :)
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Craig can play the part until he's 70 as far as I'm concerned. Far better actor than brianna.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Should read Brosnan!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Aren't you a little overcompensating, ol' chum?
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,753
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    GettyImages-55215826.jpg

    Pierce was 52 in the above photo, I think Brosnan could in a parallel universe played Bond into his fifties no problem.

    Brosnan still looks good for his age, if you ask me. He could easily have played Bond at least for one more film without age being an issue.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    GettyImages-55215826.jpg

    Pierce was 52 in the above photo, I think Brosnan could in a parallel universe played Bond into his fifties no problem.

    Brosnan still looks good for his age, if you ask me. He could easily have played Bond at least for one more film without age being an issue.
    I'd say two. He easily had two more in him. But... the trend of "reboots" didn't let that happen.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,111
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Pierce Brosnan also had the advantage of looking far younger than he was, in GE and TND especially.

    If I were to give the 'perfect age' for the long-term Bond actors, it'd be Connery in Dr No, Moore in Live and Let Die and Brozza in TND.

    Pierce was a little too fresh faced in Goldeneye.

    I think it served the movie in GE as Sean Bean was young himself. A more mature Bond (Dalton for instance) would have made the villain less menacing.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,753
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    GettyImages-55215826.jpg

    Pierce was 52 in the above photo, I think Brosnan could in a parallel universe played Bond into his fifties no problem.

    Brosnan still looks good for his age, if you ask me. He could easily have played Bond at least for one more film without age being an issue.
    I'd say two. He easily had two more in him. But... the trend of "reboots" didn't let that happen.

    You may be right about that. If the two films would have been made with a two-three year gap, then it would have been possible.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    My wife said Brosnan was too old in DAD already - but I never shared that opinion. To me, he could easily have done another one at least. Still today he looks fabulous and a NSNA-like Bond film starring him would work for me easily.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Brosnan's problem was never looks imho. He remains a good looking chap who appears far younger than he is.
Sign In or Register to comment.