No Time To Die: Production Diary

1196319641966196819692507

Comments

  • Posts: 1,680
    it seems obvious at this point there going for an actual plot akin to CR. It's probably going to be similar to CR where we saw bonds first mission now we get to see his last one.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 628
    Tomorrow Never Dies (Feirstein and various others including Petrie though only Feirstein got a credit)

    Oddly enough, the Raymond Benson novelization credits Feirstein, Petrie, Nicholas Meyer and David Campbell Wilson for the screenplay. Some of the early promotional materials may have those credits as well.
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,632
    Revelator wrote: »
    Haggis the writer is almost as bad as Haggis the dish. An hamhanded middlebrow screenwriter whose contributions to CR consisted of shoving in on-the-nose dialogue and the silly sinking-house climax. He was also the genius who wanted QoS to be about Bond finding the son he had with Vesper. I sincerely hope the rumor of his return is not true.

    I don't believe the plan was for Vesper's child to be his. It was apparently Bond finding out that Vesper had a child prior to meeting Bond.
    "Haggis had an idea they weren't fond of, and I didn't know if it would work or not," says Forster. "The idea was that Vesper in the last movie, maybe she had a kid, and there would be an orphan out there. It wasn't anything to insult the franchise. But they felt it wasn't particularly Bond — him looking for the kid. I think Paul thought he just leaves the kid, he doesn't deal with it. But [the producers] thought that would be really nasty, too, because Bond was an orphan himself. If he would find a kid, would he just leave it? They were so vehemently against it. That was the only time I saw, really, 'No, we can't do that.' They said, 'Once he finds the kid, Bond can't just leave the kid. It's not right.'"
  • Escalus5 wrote: »
    Tomorrow Never Dies (Feirstein and various others including Petrie though only Feirstein got a credit)

    Oddly enough, the Raymond Benson novelization credits Feirstein, Petrie, Nicholas Meyer and David Campbell Wilson for the screenplay. Some of the early promotional materials may have those credits as well.

    My copy of the novelization only lists Feirstein. But there may be different editions out there. I knew Petrie was one of the screenwriters. He's with Spottiswoode on the latter's commentary track. But they don't mention he was one of the scribes.
  • Posts: 2,918
    Still a bad idea, and the producers rightly nixed it. Contrast with YOLT, where Bond didn't know about the child and thus couldn't find it.
  • Posts: 6,709
    It's decisions like that that make me like and trust our producers.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,305
    Ok, this isn’t necessarybad news (in fact this could be quite good news) but it does make me worried. Aparrently this draft by Haggis was turned in at the end of November, and it seems Fukunaga did NOT significantly contribute to this draft. (Otherwise his name would have been on it just like Haggis’ name was on it, right?)

    The question is: why did Fukunaga not significantly contribute to the draft that was turned in 2 months after he was hired to direct? I thought one of the reasons he was hired was that he was a WRITER-director...

    What color is the sky in your world?
  • StrelikStrelik Spectre Island
    edited January 2019 Posts: 108
    Revelator wrote: »
    Haggis the writer is almost as bad as Haggis the dish. An hamhanded middlebrow screenwriter whose contributions to CR consisted of shoving in on-the-nose dialogue [...]
    You are criticizing Haggis' dialogue for being "on-the-nose" in a script co-written by P&W? That makes no sense. The latter duo are infamous for their terrible dialogue, and there is a reason why they had limited success outside of the Bond franchise where their relationship with Babs keeps them gainfully employed. If bad dialogue is your pet peeve, then it should be P&W who should warrant your rancor. It's their trademark.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    edited January 2019 Posts: 2,730
    @strelik absolutely, spectre and the Brosnan films are evidence enough of them and their crimes
  • In one respect I'd be happy for Haggis to be on board - I think he does good work and has done right by the franchise in the past.

    On the other hand, two main concerns:
    -First, adding more and more credits to a script that's already been touched by many hands is usually not a good thing.
    -Second, if I could be so bold as to agree with Panchito - bear with me - I find the timelines here troubling. As many have already said, yes: we simply need to bear with EON and let them produce films on their own time. But it seems like bad management to me, having long waits and a delayed, disorderly process. I'd have thought a keen manager would want to have fresh treatments in hand the day SP closed.

    Alas, we wait.
  • JWPepperJWPepper You sit on it, but you can't take it with you.
    Posts: 512
    LFS wrote: »
    Has anybody heard what John Glen said about the appointment of Cary Fukunaga?


    This is coming from the man who made AVTAK and LTK? Both set heavily in the USA with predominantly staring American casts? Please.

    Dick Maibaum and the producers are also American? It's nonsense that a 007-director needs to be British.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    jake24 wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Paul Haggis has reportedly contributed to the B25 script:

    https://thegww.com/exclusive-paul-haggis-has-contributed-to-the-bond-25-script/

    @jake24 Wasn't this the same writer from Casino Royale I'm excited about this
    He wrote drafts for both Casino and Quantum.

    That is Craig's two best movies, in my opinion.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Walecs wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Paul Haggis has reportedly contributed to the B25 script:

    https://thegww.com/exclusive-paul-haggis-has-contributed-to-the-bond-25-script/

    @jake24 Wasn't this the same writer from Casino Royale I'm excited about this
    He wrote drafts for both Casino and Quantum.

    That is Craig's two best movies, in my opinion.

    +1
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Paul Haggis has reportedly contributed to the B25 script:

    https://thegww.com/exclusive-paul-haggis-has-contributed-to-the-bond-25-script/

    @jake24 Wasn't this the same writer from Casino Royale I'm excited about this
    He wrote drafts for both Casino and Quantum.

    That is Craig's two best movies, in my opinion.
    +1
    +2
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Yes, you look at all four films the first two seem to be in an entirely different worlds than the second two. Following QoS they came to a fork in the road; in one direction they could have gone off to show Bond as an agent in his prime, enjoying all the world has to offer, while living life on the edge. The other direction offered an old burned out agent , disillusioned, sullen with “family” issues, an agent operating in a grey, gloomy world. Well, we know what direction was chosen.
    Someone once wrote that we should have gotten Skyfall now , with two other movies QoS. I tend to agree.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I personally love Skyfall, yes it did come a little too soon and probably why Spectre felt so out of place to me. But as much as it has great moments, I don't think I could have taken another Quantum, with it's shaky cam, amateur editing and sketchy story.

    Wish the Mendes films, had more dynamic and kinetic action admittedly
  • Posts: 1,661
    Univex wrote: »
    Wasn't he the one who had Bond with a baby for QOS? Seriously, anyone remember that?
    Remember when a couple of pages ago I predicted that in Bond 25 either Bond will have a child or Medaleine will be pregnant at the end of the film? Maybe it really is time to prepare for Bond becoming a father folks! :))

    Yep, Paul Haggis initially wrote a draft of QOS that had Bond discover that Vesper had a child that was kidnapped by the organisation:

    https://gawker.com/5075358/how-007-barely-avoided-a-paul-haggis-sired-bond-baby

    Of course, Bond isn't the father of the kid - but Eon were against the idea of Bond trying to find the child only to abandon it. However, those who know their Fleming novels, will remember that in YOLT Bond fathers a child before leaving Japan. The mother doesn't get enough time to tell him.

    The idea of Bond having a child isn't too scandalous. I agree that Madeline may have had a child by the time Bond 25 starts.

    Introducing Bond's son will give Eon an excuse for a spin-off franchise!

    Paul Haggis told Variety:
    "Back in 2005 I was hired to rewrite Casino Royale. Bond was meant to be 28. Well, we've going one better. We're introducing Bryan Bond, James' son. He is 18 in his first adventure. I'm very excited by the project. We get to see Bryan on his first date, entering 00 agent school, passing his exams, even staying up late on the weekends."

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Why Bryan, though? ;)

    Just go with Andrew Bond, Jr. :))
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Are we sure that wasn’t tongue-in-Cheek ?
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 4,617
    IF you are going to have a central character that has depth, emotion and a conventional character arc, then it also makes sense to have an over reaching arc that covers the era. (Logan was a good example of how that arc can reap benefits both at the box office and creatively). DC's character arc has been all over the place and makes little sense. One of the themes within these forums is "missed opportunities" and I really think that, once the DC era is over, fans will look back and wish that there had been a proper, thought out evolution of the DC Bond.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Craigs tenure :

    CR : total rookie
    QOS : still total rookie
    SF : old dog new tricks/played out/its a young mans game
    SP : No mention of age or what stage his carrier is at.

    So inconsistent,almost embarrassing.
  • Posts: 4,617
    @barryt007 It's not only that but Bond's character within the movies also changes and these don't reflect any long term trend. It's interesting that, for the DC era, they chose to show the beginning of his career. (therefore, a timeline begins). Once you have done this, it's perfectly understandable for fans/punters, to have an expectation that the timeline will continue (especially when you have characters/references across the movies) and, included with this, the timeline comes to a conclusion.

    Having started the era with CR, it was a great opportunity to have some form of timeline across the era but it's a shambles IMHO.
  • Posts: 19,339
    patb wrote: »
    @barryt007 It's not only that but Bond's character within the movies also changes and these don't reflect any long term trend. It's interesting that, for the DC era, they chose to show the beginning of his career. (therefore, a timeline begins). Once you have done this, it's perfectly understandable for fans/punters, to have an expectation that the timeline will continue (especially when you have characters/references across the movies) and, included with this, the timeline comes to a conclusion.

    Having started the era with CR, it was a great opportunity to have some form of timeline across the era but it's a shambles IMHO.

    It certainly is...the Craig era is definitely losing its popularity with me by the day tbh.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    It's a bit risky for EON to have him on with his allegations I wonder if they are hiding his name
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited January 2019 Posts: 6,305
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    It's a bit risky for EON to have him on with his allegations I wonder if they are hiding his name

    Scientology smear.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-scientology-behind-the-paul-haggis-rape-allegations
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    echo wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    It's a bit risky for EON to have him on with his allegations I wonder if they are hiding his name

    Scientology smear.

    @echo how we know that for sure though?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    octofinger wrote: »
    On the other hand, two main concerns:
    -First, adding more and more credits to a script that's already been touched by many hands is usually not a good thing.
    It's true. Too many cooks and all that. However, if he's doing touch up to dialogue then it could be a good thing. I was under the impression that's what he did on CR during a few pivotal scenes. He can't be any worse than the two they have now.
    octofinger wrote: »
    -Second, if I could be so bold as to agree with Panchito - bear with me - I find the timelines here troubling. As many have already said, yes: we simply need to bear with EON and let them produce films on their own time. But it seems like bad management to me, having long waits and a delayed, disorderly process. I'd have thought a keen manager would want to have fresh treatments in hand the day SP closed.

    Alas, we wait.
    Is that allowed here? I thought only picking on the guy was permitted. ;)

    I agree with your point though, but this leadership doesn't seem to have that approach. They may have other qualities, but the evidence suggests to me that they aren't the strategic process type. They seem to work best with a gun to their head - witness how quickly they pulled in a new director at short notice when they had no choice. Contrast that with how long it took them to get the first one lined up.
    patb wrote: »
    IF you are going to have a central character that has depth, emotion and a conventional character arc, then it also makes sense to have an over reaching arc that covers the era. (Logan was a good example of how that arc can reap benefits both at the box office and creatively). DC's character arc has been all over the place and makes little sense. One of the themes within these forums is "missed opportunities" and I really think that, once the DC era is over, fans will look back and wish that there had been a proper, thought out evolution of the DC Bond.
    I agree and that's why I'm personally done with it. He should have left after SF and it would have been near perfect as an 'arc', even if compressed on account of going from rookie to 'old dog' over 3 films - at least we could imagine that the 'Bond we all know' was in the middle & played by all the other fellas. Instead they royally cocked it up with their attempt at connecting everything and wrapping it up with a bow. Sometimes things are better left 'unsaid' and to the imagination. As I've mentioned previously, the last film has negatively impacted my experience of the first two due to the Quantum/White connection. Only SF stands alone for me (I find it easy to ignore the hamfisted after the fact connection), and that's why it's the Craig Bond film I enjoy the most these days.
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Craigs tenure :

    CR : total rookie
    QOS : still total rookie
    SF : old dog new tricks/played out/its a young mans game
    SP : No mention of age or what stage his carrier is at.

    So inconsistent,almost embarrassing.
    It is.
    Ok, this isn’t necessarybad news (in fact this could be quite good news) but it does make me worried. Aparrently this draft by Haggis was turned in at the end of November, and it seems Fukunaga did NOT significantly contribute to this draft. (Otherwise his name would have been on it just like Haggis’ name was on it, right?)

    The question is: why did Fukunaga not significantly contribute to the draft that was turned in 2 months after he was hired to direct? I thought one of the reasons he was hired was that he was a WRITER-director...
    One thing I find curious is when Fukunaga was interviewed about a month ago he seemed to have no idea whether Waltz, Seydoux or Scooby were in the film. All he seemed to know about was that there was to be a continuing arc started in CR. Then a few weeks later Baz drops the scoop that Fukunaga told him personally that Scooby and Seydoux were back, the latter at Craig's request. So I wouldn't be surprised if he had not had much involvement with the script up to that point. I suppose he will be more involved now, working with Craig since he's done with his Knives Out gig.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    As far as having no idea, he knows exactly where the story is going and who is involved, he’s just choosing not to reveal it.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 4,617
    @bondjames How many Bond movies are discussed in terms of "it was good/great but it should have been made/released later" ? If the next Bond does not end and improve on the rooftop scene from SF ("hate to waste a view"), then (for me) , that is how the DC Bond era should have finished. Thoughtful, powerful, peaceful and iconic.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    @bondjames How many Bond movies are discussed in terms of "it was good/great but it should have been made/released later" ? If the next Bond does not end and improve on the rooftop scene from SF ("hate to waste a view"), then (for me) , that is how the DC Bond era should have finished. Thoughtful, powerful, peaceful and iconic.
    It's a good scene @patb, no doubt - even if a bit 'Bat' (as was the ranch). I actually think the ending to SF in M's office was the perfect closure to the DC era. It was a great setup for a new man. I wonder if he ever regrets signing that two picture extension contract, because it pretty much tied him down and as he's said himself, he's pretty much done what he can with the character.
    talos7 wrote: »
    As far as having no idea, he knows exactly where the story is going and who is involved, he’s just choosing not to reveal it.
    I'm not so sure he knew at the time of that first interview. If he did, he could have easily confirmed Scooby and Seydoux at that time. If I'm not mistaken he said the screenplay or script was still being worked on at that time.
Sign In or Register to comment.