No Time To Die: Production Diary

1198119821984198619872507

Comments

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I did like Hinx. But, I thought he had far more potential than just to portray a generic giant muscleman overpowering Bond. He had a great investigative and intellectual side to him, too, which made him more of an operative and less of a henchman. Such a waste of great concept and talent.

    Look at Blade Runner. They used Bautista perfectly.

    How true. If Denis was directing this movie, Hinx may have truly come back.

    Sigh. Denis Villeneve...what could have been.

    That said, I am getting keyed up about CJF.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    Benny wrote: »
    Would it be corny to throw in a line from GF.
    I’m thinking of the conversation Bond and Goldfinger have at Auric Stud regarding how long the gold at Fort Knox would be radioactive.
    “57years.”
    “58 to be exact.”

    Obviously not referring directly to radioactivity or GF. But something relevant to the film or easily included.

    As the Bond series will be 58 years old in 2020.
    Would it be a nice little nod missed by all but Bond fans.
    Or cheesy and lame.
    Just a thought.

    I wouldn't be against it.
  • Posts: 5,767
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Waltz is certainly capable of an oscar worthy performance as blofeld, but that’s not what we got.
    He wouldn´t be the only Actor in a Bond film being directed poorly by Mendes.
    It’s not that he was poorly directed. The script was awful.
    A lot of Bond scripts had similarly silly parts in it, and they still worked, so I reckon dircetion has got something to do with it. But as I stated numerous times, Mendes anyhow is the only Bond director who completely Fails to click with me. He´s a total exception for me.

  • Posts: 5,767
    Getafix wrote: »
    A longer movie run-time will help make up for the fact that we've had to wait a few more years in between and it will help with the quality of the film for character development, in this generation of binge-watching tv viewers.

    I disagree. I don't think longer means deeper and more character development. SPECTRE was 2 and a half hours, and there was little to no character development to speak of. If you ask me Bond 25 needs to be a tighter package which cuts out some of the bloat. Hopefully the movie won't be any longer than 130 minutes.

    Amen to that. One of the biggest flaws with SF and SP (and dare I say it CR) is their bloated length.

    I've been going through a period of finding films underwhelming and unsatisfying. I had connected it to the fact that the quality of long form TV drama is now so good that many films (no matter how long) seem rushed in terms of dramatic development and storytelling.

    Then I watched Creed for the first time and was reminded that actually film is not about long drawn out character arcs (although that's an important part of the movie's appeal) and bloated thematic singposting, but the deft handling of the narrative within what is really a highly compressed timeframe. Creed crams in a lot in a short space of time (not always successfully) but the romance element for example, although not dwelled on excessively convinces because it's sparsely but well scripted and excellently acted and directed.

    The best Bond films have always been pacy and largely devoid of padding and bloated or unnecessary dialogue and drama. I guess a bit like Fleming's books. Time to get back to this. Focus on a gripping and tightly told story, ideally with Bond at its centre. Cut anything that is not essential to telling that story. Sparse but well crafted dialogue. Use action to propel the narrative rather than to pad out the screen time.
    I couldn´t agree more on the pacing part, but that hasn´t necessarily got to do with the running length. A film can be 90 min Long and still be bloated. And then there are a number of old Bond films which are quite Long, yet still after 15 min there´s been already more Story than in most other films after 2 h, and each 15 min of those films delivers in the same amount. So while they are crammed, they still don´t feel bloated, because they know how to flow.


  • Posts: 11,425
    Good point. I think the length of the Craig era films has been an issue though, not least because the writing and direction largely hasn't sustained them. IMO of course.

    I'd still say that EON should be asking very hard questions of Cary if he's coming back with a 2 and a half hour film next year. Just over 2 hrs is probably as long as any Bond film should be. Preferably just under I think. Make the director work harder to tell the story efficiently (assuming there's a story worth telling - big if) and perhaps save some cash in the process. The productions have become too bloated all round - stodgy dialogue, overlong, too expensive.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    matt_u wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    It would be a miracle if Waltz was invited back.

    Well, Waltz after the release of SP said that he would like to come back only in a Craig Bond scenario. Then, in October 2017 said that he won't be back even if he would like to: "No, I'm sorry. I'm really sad, but that's the tradition, that there is a new… name,” he told the publication while attending a red carpet event. “Sorry. I would've liked to.”

    Also, Fukunaga in a recent interview didn't rule I'm out. If EoN wants him back, he will definitely return. His last four movies after SP were all box-office and critical failures, so he would certainly like the idea to star in a movie like "Craig's last Bond". We'll see.
    I feel that Waltz had issues with Mendes during the production of SP, and so did Craig based on some rumours. I also don't see any problems having both a "Rami Malek" villain and Blofeld. In SP there where three...

    ToTheRight wrote: »
    How disappointed would we be if the film turned out to be titled SHATTERHAND, yet the story had nothing whatsoever to do with Fleming's YOLT?

    I would be disappointed. I don't pretend a proper adaptation, but at least bringing some elements into the film.

    BTW if i recall correctly the first rumor about the title being Shatterhand came from the Mirror in July 2017, even before Craig was confirmed in the role.

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-25-title-villain-blind/

    In the article they mentioned that the movie would take inspiration from both OHMSS (Madeleine's death?), YOLT and Never Dream of Dying. They also reported that Waltz and Batista could be back, plus Croatia, French Riviera and Egypt (Malek's parents are egyptian, just saying) as filming locations. Then, Production Weekly reported Bond 25 placeholder being Shatterhand, so it's being confirmed official.

    Perhaps the Mirror scoop had some truth in it?

    Given all the iterations and people who worked on the script - P&W, Hodge, Boyle, Haggis, Fukunaga - I don't think the title is going to be Shatterhand, but IF it actually happens I'd be fine with it. Sounds bondian, is Fleming material, and would be the first title to use the name of a villain since 55 years (since Octopussy is not a villain).

    To be fair, people on these boards were saying Shatterhand could be the title of Bond 25 even before SPECTRE was released.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Lovely page count, btw. Wouldn't you say?
  • Posts: 9,847
    Univex wrote: »
    Lovely page count, btw. Wouldn't you say?

    Quite by the way I never introduced myself My Name is Bond, James Bond
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    A longer movie run-time will help make up for the fact that we've had to wait a few more years in between and it will help with the quality of the film for character development, in this generation of binge-watching tv viewers.

    I disagree. I don't think longer means deeper and more character development. SPECTRE was 2 and a half hours, and there was little to no character development to speak of. If you ask me Bond 25 needs to be a tighter package which cuts out some of the bloat. Hopefully the movie won't be any longer than 130 minutes.

    Amen to that. One of the biggest flaws with SF and SP (and dare I say it CR) is their bloated length.

    I've been going through a period of finding films underwhelming and unsatisfying. I had connected it to the fact that the quality of long form TV drama is now so good that many films (no matter how long) seem rushed in terms of dramatic development and storytelling.

    Then I watched Creed for the first time and was reminded that actually film is not about long drawn out character arcs (although that's an important part of the movie's appeal) and bloated thematic singposting, but the deft handling of the narrative within what is really a highly compressed timeframe. Creed crams in a lot in a short space of time (not always successfully) but the romance element for example, although not dwelled on excessively convinces because it's sparsely but well scripted and excellently acted and directed.

    The best Bond films have always been pacy and largely devoid of padding and bloated or unnecessary dialogue and drama. I guess a bit like Fleming's books. Time to get back to this. Focus on a gripping and tightly told story, ideally with Bond at its centre. Cut anything that is not essential to telling that story. Sparse but well crafted dialogue. Use action to propel the narrative rather than to pad out the screen time.
    I agree with you. I watched FRWL and TSWLM as a double bill on New Year's Day with some friends, and the thing which struck me was their respective lengths (1hr 58 and 2hr 6 respectively) which we made note of in order to determine if we could do it.

    These are two of the most memorable entries, and yet they clock in just around the two hour mark. I was surprised actually, because I thought they were longer, given how good they are.

    It's all a question of removing the padding and keeping it tight without losing the essence . Perhaps that's what keeps these films so rewatchable for me, I'm not sure. They are very well paced for their time.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,540


    Jimmy Kimmel asked Rami Malek about Bond 25.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It's rather obvious that he's been approached based on that clip. I think he should have been better prepared for that one, if the idea is to still keep it under wraps.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's all a question of removing the padding and keeping it tight without losing the essence . Perhaps that's what keeps these films so rewatchable for me, I'm not sure. They are very well paced for their time.

    In my opinion, that has more or less always been one of the key elements of the Bonds: they move. Even the majority of Fleming's books reads like a speeding bullet.

    I always present the likes of OHMSS and CR as clear examples myself. They run a bit longer than the average Bond film, but my goodness do they take us places! By the time Craig speaks the familiar line and Arnold drops the familiar notes, it feels like I've travelled half the world, actually spent enough time everywhere to taste the local flavours and yet I was never bored. In fact, my only regret is that it’s all over. Despite the running length, the film feels both epic and concise at the same time. I’m feeling neither dissatisfied nor exhausted.

    While many a Bond film loses its vigour right before the third act, the pacing remains strong. It’s perhaps the single most constant quality of all the films.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    That's the second time he's been asked in an interview about Bond and he's expressed the same reactions/body language each time. He's definitely been approached, if not already cast.
  • Posts: 9,847
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    That's the second time he's been asked in an interview about Bond and he's expressed the same reactions/body language each time. He's definitely been approached, if not already cast.

    That is my guess too one wonders if they are going to use Blofield alias as its own character I wouldn’t mind Rami Malik as Dr Gutham Von Shatterhand
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's all a question of removing the padding and keeping it tight without losing the essence . Perhaps that's what keeps these films so rewatchable for me, I'm not sure. They are very well paced for their time.

    In my opinion, that has more or less always been one of the key elements of the Bonds: they move. Even the majority of Fleming's books reads like a speeding bullet.

    I always present the likes of OHMSS and CR as clear examples myself. They run a bit longer than the average Bond film, but my goodness do they take us places! By the time Craig speaks the familiar line and Arnold drops the familiar notes, it feels like I've travelled half the world, actually spent enough time everywhere to taste the local flavours and yet I was never bored. In fact, my only regret is that it’s all over. Despite the running length, the film feels both epic and concise at the same time. I’m feeling neither dissatisfied nor exhausted.

    While many a Bond film loses its vigour right before the third act, the pacing remains strong. It’s perhaps the single most constant quality of all the films.
    I agree. Even the longer films have a decent pace to them as you note.

    SP is often brought up as an example of a film that's too long, but I personally don't feel that way. I don't like the film, but I think the length is suitable for what they have to convey (it arguably should have been two films). It doesn't feel like 2 hrs and 40 minutes to me.

    The only one that I find lags a bit is CR. Right after Le Chiffre is killed I lose interest on rewatches (first time around it was ok because I didn't know how it would play out).
  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 575
    Red_Snow wrote: »


    Jimmy Kimmel asked Rami Malek about Bond 25.

    Certainly seems he has been in talks. Also does anyone else think that, when Jimmy asks Rami if he can share what he had told him, it's about Bond 25?
  • Posts: 17,757
    Bentley007 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »


    Jimmy Kimmel asked Rami Malek about Bond 25.

    Certainly seems he has been in talks. Also does anyone else think that, when Jimmy asks Rami if he can share what he had told him, it's about Bond 25?

    That was my first thought.
    Maybe I'm wrong about this, but doesn't the talkshow host usually discuss with the guest(s) what they can and can't talk about beforehand? If Rami Malek wanted to avoid talking Bond, couldn't he just say that to Kimmel before the show? Him being coy about his involvement when asked about it – and at the same time being rather obvious in that he's been approached, seems to me a way of confirming his involvement without really saying so.

    Will be very surprised to see someone else than Malek presented as the villain at the press conference.
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    edited January 2019 Posts: 2,632
    Risico007 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    That's the second time he's been asked in an interview about Bond and he's expressed the same reactions/body language each time. He's definitely been approached, if not already cast.

    That is my guess too one wonders if they are going to use Blofield alias as its own character I wouldn’t mind Rami Malik as Dr Gutham Von Shatterhand

    That would be sort of interesting. I'm already imagining the possibilities. "THE DEATH COLLECTOR: James Bond investigates Japanese-based tech mogul Dr. Guntram Shatterhand, who had gained power through blackmail and deceit. There are murmurs that Dr. Shatterhand owns an island close to Japan that helps suicidal people die."
  • Posts: 833
    The combined recent responses from Malek on the B25 villain issue definitely suggest he's been in some form of discussions.

    I'm just not logistically sure how it could work. It would take one of two extreme solutions. They'd either have to weight all Malek's work toward the back end of the B25 schedule (potentially reasonable, if his villain doesn't have an absolute ton of screentime) or the Mr. Robot shoot would need to be delayed entirely, which seems less likely.

    Without knowing the role, it's hard to say exactly how appropriate he'd be -- but just off type, talent and timing, I personally think he's a perfect choice for a Bond villain.
  • Posts: 385
    Could be more of a Gupta role, or some other henchman - he doesn't have to be the main villain.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,540
    Bentley007 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »


    Jimmy Kimmel asked Rami Malek about Bond 25.

    Certainly seems he has been in talks. Also does anyone else think that, when Jimmy asks Rami if he can share what he had told him, it's about Bond 25?

    That was my first thought.
    Maybe I'm wrong about this, but doesn't the talkshow host usually discuss with the guest(s) what they can and can't talk about beforehand? If Rami Malek wanted to avoid talking Bond, couldn't he just say that to Kimmel before the show? Him being coy about his involvement when asked about it – and at the same time being rather obvious in that he's been approached, seems to me a way of confirming his involvement without really saying so.

    Will be very surprised to see someone else than Malek presented as the villain at the press conference.

    Yes, they generally do a pre-interview going over what can/can't be discussed, and work out which stories/anecdotes the guest(s) will tell.

    But obviously, the host can have an agenda, or get carried away in the moment if they're majorly fanning over a guest.

    Norton, Kimmel and Colbert generally bring up Bond with their guests, so there may be some sort of agreement in place.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    I think he’s been casted. If he hadn’t, he’d negate the rumor. Working out schedules wouldn’t take this long. He’s just under gag orders until official release info comes.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Why do people keep thinking Malek is going to be Shatterhand? The change of Blofeld actors only works if they're around the same age. I doubt Waltz would be able to get surgery to turn into Rami Malek.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    MooreFun wrote: »
    Could be more of a Gupta role, or some other henchman - he doesn't have to be the main villain.
    This is my view too. He's a bit slight for a main villain imho. Perhaps the film will have a combo of villains and he's one of them (the brains perhaps?).
  • It’s odd that Kimmel put him so abruptly on the spot like that. No wonder Malek floundered in response.

    Interestingly, Kimmel seems to think that Malek’s casting is a done deal by his response. I’m unsure if that is entirely the case yet. Though I suspect he can do it. The ‘Bond
    villain’ role is a supporting part and could film around his Mr. Robot schedule.

    Plus, anyone who watches the show will know that while his character is the ‘lead’ of the show, the series has become more ensemble in nature with all the characters getting significant airtime (in fact, his character is often not the focal point of an episode – the recent ten episode third season had two full episodes with either no Malek or barely any).
  • Posts: 833
    Does anyone have a reference for how long production on a Mr. Robot season typically lasts?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2019 Posts: 5,970
    I hate when interviewers get involved in possible casting. I feel like it can almost ruin someones chances? Just look at Idris Elba.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    @Denbigh Why have you bolded your recent posts?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    jake24 wrote: »
    @Denbigh Why have you bolded your recent posts?

    Only cause I find a lot of my posts get ignored so I'm trying a new thing haha :D
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,540
    According to Vogue, Daniel wore a Tom Ford tux to the Golden Globes.

    Does DC normally wear TF outside of Bond?
Sign In or Register to comment.