No Time To Die: Production Diary

1237123722374237623772507

Comments

  • Posts: 4,619
    Mack_Bolan wrote: »
    James Bond is the only 007 people want to see.
    No, when people go to a James Bond film, they want to see an entertaining movie featuring James Bond that is true to the character. James Bond not being 007 anymore and a female agent being the new 007 does NOT change his character.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    A female agent being given the 007 codename for a brief amount of time before a retired James Bond earns it back is in no way damaging to the character.
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    Posts: 544
    jake24 wrote: »
    A female agent being given the 007 codename for a brief amount of time before a retired James Bond earns it back is in no way damaging to the character.

    I agree, what it would be nonsense is pretending that Bond will retire and that woman would become the next 007 near the end. As for the other, I'm not bothered if for a while someone else is 007 while Bond is out at the beginning of the film. But it would only work if that other 007 is KIA and someone else is brought to replace him/her, à la Forever And A Day.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited April 2019 Posts: 3,497
    He thinks that opinions are facts. The press conference will start with "Dear Panchito, you have been cast because Rami Malek wanted Jane Bond to be the girl running away from the masked intruder."
  • Posts: 12,526
    Another week over peeps!!!! Almost there!!!! Lol!!!
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Yeah!!!
  • Posts: 4,619
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    He thinks that opinions are facts. The press conference will start with "Dear Panchito, you have been cast because Rami Malek wanted Jane Bond to be the girl running away from the masked intruder."
    You need to start cutting your pills in half, son. Nothing that you have written in the last week is even remotely coherent.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    Mack_Bolan wrote: »
    James Bond is the only 007 people want to see.

    Thank you. The only ones who want it otherwise are #MeToo and apparently fans on here who think it's a clever gimmick, uh idea... to create a "really well written female 007 agent." You know because that's not creating and walking into a feminist line of fire unnecessarily.

    It's not damaging to the character James Bond, but that doesn't make it a great idea either. What is so interesting about it? "Woman" is not a character. Are you so taken with it's "cleverness" or "freshness" that you think it means it's a good idea? It's a gimmick idea that baits #MeToo whether you like that fact or not.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    He thinks that opinions are facts. The press conference will start with "Dear Panchito, you have been cast because Rami Malek wanted Jane Bond to be the girl running away from the masked intruder."
    You need to start cutting your pills in half, son. Nothing that you have written in the last week is even remotely coherent.

    Do I look like I give a damn?
  • Posts: 377
    It’s simple. Bond comes back. He is reinstated as 007, because nobody else had the chance to take the number. I don’t want to see Bond working with another member of the 00 Section for the duration of an entire film, and certainly not one that has taken the number 007. A temporary character who is female and the new 007 is just a way to appease so many insane liberals who’ll undoubtedly get upset once Bond becomes 007 again at the end of the film.
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    Posts: 544
    Mack_Bolan wrote: »
    It’s simple. Bond comes back. He is reinstated as 007, because nobody else had the chance to take the number. I don’t want to see Bond working with another member of the 00 Section for the duration of an entire film, and certainly not one that has taken the number 007. A temporary character who is female and the new 007 is just a way to appease so many insane liberals who’ll undoubtedly get upset once Bond becomes 007 again at the end of the film.

    Exactly what I think. On the bright side, credits could be very funny :D

    "Albert R. Broccoli's EON Productions presents Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond (old 007) in _______________ . Starring ? as Young Girl (new 007), Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek with Billy Magnussen and Ralph Fiennes as M"
  • edited April 2019 Posts: 377
    James Bond.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    giphy.gif
  • Posts: 1,680
    This film is getting dumber by the day. I love bond but if any of these rumors are true, I’m sorry I’m out.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited April 2019 Posts: 556
    Apparently it’s been so long without a bond movie that “fans” will take anything from Eon even if it destroys the character James Bond 007.

    Also I don’t give a hoot if Anthony Horowitz wrote a prequel to Casino Royale and there’s another 007. That’s not what Fleming wrote.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    Denbigh wrote: »
    giphy.gif

    Imagine what the reaction would be if they made Moneypenny a field agent or made the Quartermaster a preppy, hipster nerd.

    Oh wait.
  • edited April 2019 Posts: 4,619
    Apparently it’s been so long without a bond movie that “fans” will take anything from Eon even if it destroys the character James Bond 007.

    Also I don’t give a hoot if Anthony Horowitz wrote a prequel to Casino Royale and there’s another 007. That’s not what Fleming wrote.
    Ian Fleming's James Bond was NOT immortal. In other words he stopped being 007 sometime after the books. (Not that it really matters what Fleming wrote, this is the cinematic Bond.)
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Denbigh wrote: »
    giphy.gif

    Imagine what the reaction would be if they made Moneypenny a field agent or made the Quartermaster a preppy, hipster nerd. Oh wait.
    +1
  • Posts: 6,709
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    giphy.gif

    Imagine what the reaction would be if they made Moneypenny a field agent or made the Quartermaster a preppy, hipster nerd. Oh wait.
    +1

    Didn't like those either. Or Bond being blonde. But hey, I know, I get your point.
    Well, whatever they do with the character, it's Craig's last entry as Bond, and all of his entries have been different one way or another. So it's safe to say this one will be polemical on its own merit. That being said, they can always readjust it all from Bond26 onwards. Who knows what's on their minds?
  • Posts: 4,619
    Denbigh wrote: »
    giphy.gif

    Imagine what the reaction would be if they made Moneypenny a field agent or made the Quartermaster a preppy, hipster nerd.

    Oh wait.
    I remember the reactions after it was first rumoured that Eve, a field agent would turn out to be Moneypenny by the end of Skyfall. Most people here did not believe it was true and hated the idea. I on the other hand thought it made perfect sense and really liked the concept. The reveal of course received widespread praise in the end.
  • edited April 2019 Posts: 6,709
    Denbigh wrote: »
    giphy.gif

    Imagine what the reaction would be if they made Moneypenny a field agent or made the Quartermaster a preppy, hipster nerd.

    Oh wait.
    I remember the reactions after it was first rumoured that Eve, a field agent would turn out to be Moneypenny by the end of Skyfall. Most people here did not believe it was true and hated the idea. I on the other hand thought it made perfect sense and really liked the concept. The reveal of course received widespread praise in the end.

    It felt forced, a bit like Robin in TDKR. Something cringeworthy for me. I even thought it was lazy writing, a pish posh idea that only worked because SF is otherwise brilliant, plot holes and everything.
  • Posts: 385
    Denbigh wrote: »
    giphy.gif

    Imagine what the reaction would be if they made Moneypenny a field agent or made the Quartermaster a preppy, hipster nerd.

    Oh wait.
    I remember the reactions after it was first rumoured that Eve, a field agent would turn out to be Moneypenny by the end of Skyfall. Most people here did not believe it was true and hated the idea. I on the other hand thought it made perfect sense and really liked the concept. The reveal of course received widespread praise in the end.

    You’re an excellent barometer for bad ideas. I hope Eon sees this and runs everything by you in the future.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    Ian Fleming's James Bond was NOT immortal. In other words he stopped being 007 sometime after the books. (Not that it really matters what Fleming wrote, this is the cinematic Bond.)
    It's one thing for the general public to be stupid about Bond, but for obsessed James Bond's fan to be, is something else...

  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited April 2019 Posts: 3,126
    Can’t believe this needs to be said but here goes: James Bond is 007 and 007 is James Bond. Anything else is fan fiction.

    Nope. James Bond is a person, the son of Andrew and Monique Bond.
    007 is a code name, given to one of the agents in the 00-section of MI6.

    If Anthony Horowitz can start his new novel with a 007 that isn't James Bond, why would it be such a leap in logic that this is impossible for the films?

    Think of this: James Bond has quit MI6 at the end of Spectre. He goes to live with Madeleine in Italy or Norway or Jamaica.

    Meanwhile, M has one agent less. The 007 position is vacant. So what does he do? He promotes a new agent to the 00-section. Whether male or female is not important. She or he makes the two kills necessary to become a 00.

    Then, Bond is needed and comes out of retirement. He gets reinstated by M and gets his code name of 007 back. The agent goes back to normal. We end the film by James Bond still being 007. No "passing of the torch", just temporary retirement.

    Thing is anyone can put a spin on James Bond but how much does it become what Fleming intended and his character. Then what somebody else wants the character All I ask is they stick to Fleming because he never wrote that it's not Anthony's Character it's Fleming's and it should always be that way. Just my two cents. I know Fleming isn't alive anymore but to keep his spirit going and stay true to his character. You can change the world around Bond but you can't change Bond just my opinion.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 556
    There’s something bothersome about James Bond not being 007 to me. And yes, I would feel the same way if It was a man.
  • Posts: 4,619
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Ian Fleming's James Bond was NOT immortal. In other words he stopped being 007 sometime after the books. (Not that it really matters what Fleming wrote, this is the cinematic Bond.)
    It's one thing for the general public to be stupid about Bond, but for obsessed James Bond's fan to be, is something else...
    1. Instead of being hostile, why won't you point out what I am wrong about?
    2. I don't care about Fleming's Bond. Never did. I am a cinematic Bond fan. It's time for Fleming acolytes to accept that not only does cinematic Bond now stands on it's own, it has been far bigger than Fleming's Bond for a long time.
  • Posts: 6,709
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Ian Fleming's James Bond was NOT immortal. In other words he stopped being 007 sometime after the books. (Not that it really matters what Fleming wrote, this is the cinematic Bond.)
    It's one thing for the general public to be stupid about Bond, but for obsessed James Bond's fan to be, is something else...
    I've been on a truces with PP for the past weeks, but I've got to admit that sentence wasn't his finest hour.

    1) "he stopped being 007 sometime after the books" - WHAT?! No, really, wait. What?
    2)"Not that it really matters what Fleming wrote,..." - This killed it for me. Must go away for awhile, don't want to risk the truces ;)
    3) "this is the cinematic Bond" - Doesn't he mean the Broccoli Bond show he despises so much?
    4) I'm out. Don't like the rumours, don't like the reactions. Someone today answered me that Chivalry being dead was a good thing because you shouldn't have to admit knowing how people wanted to be treated. I don't identify with the current culture anymore. This is just too sick. Univex out, before I get depressed again.
  • Posts: 2,081
    You've been discussing MeToo in some very confusing ways for a long time, and now I finally have to ask... I just picked some examples from 1 page here, but I already wondered months ago what you guys (not all of you, but many of you) even mean by MeToo, because the way it is often used here makes no sense to me. I don't understand the way "MeToo" itself is used here, nor do I understand what exactly MeToo has to do with the content of new Bond movies anyway.

    You all do know that the MeToo movement is a movement against sexual assault and sexual harassment? (Something that concerns both women and men.) Okay, then... So what on earth are you on about in examples below (and others similar)?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @PanchitoPistoles I'm all for a discussion but people seem to be getting the wrong idea from what was said in this article on multiple levels. I already tried rationalising this last night but no-one wanted to listen or even consider my argument, but I'll give it another go.

    In my opinion, the DailyMail have spun this possible news into a #MeToo situation. A female writer doesn't mean a #MeToo film or feminist film, neither does a female 007. Just because you have a female presence in either position, it doesn't mean the writer or Bond girl is going to burn their bras and throw them at the audience. It just means the character is female, and to think that that would be the case is incredibly close-minded.

    And just to make you feel a bit better, they are not, I repeat not, going to have this possible "female 007" (007 not James Bond) take up more screen time. She'll be a Bond girl in the same vein as the others and Craig's James Bond will be the main character. Do you really think they would do something like this for Craig's final film? Please start being a bit more realistic.

    Hopefully someone will actually listen this time.

    And @DoctorNo, surely they're just going to write a female character? There doesn't need to be an agenda behind it. This "new" 007 will just be characterised in the same way as if the "new" 007 was male. Just because SJW's exist and have had their say about the property, doesn't mean it's going to show up in the context of the film.

    EDIT: Also, are people just gonna give any "good idea" that shows up in Bond 25 to Boyle? Really?

    And to hammer the point home, most female writers do not and will not have an agenda when writing something, they're just doing what all writers want to do - create a good story and good characters.

    What is "a MeToo situation" with a Bond movie that people are worried about? What is "a MeToo film"?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @PanchitoPistoles I'm all for a discussion but people seem to be getting the wrong idea from what was said in this article on multiple levels. I already tried rationalising this last night but no-one wanted to listen or even consider my argument, but I'll give it another go.

    In my opinion, the DailyMail have spun this possible news into a #MeToo situation. A female writer doesn't mean a #MeToo film or feminist film, neither does a female 007. Just because you have a female presence in either position, it doesn't mean the writer or Bond girl is going to burn their bras and throw them at the audience. It just means the character is female, and to think that that would be the case is incredibly close-minded.

    And just to make you feel a bit better, they are not, I repeat not, going to have this possible "female 007" (007 not James Bond) take up more screen time. She'll be a Bond girl in the same vein as the others and Craig's James Bond will be the main character. Do you really think they would do something like this for Craig's final film? Please start being a bit more realistic.

    Hopefully someone will actually listen this time.

    And @DoctorNo, surely they're just going to write a female character? There doesn't need to be an agenda behind it. This "new" 007 will just be characterised in the same way as if the "new" 007 was male. Just because SJW's exist and have had their say about the property, doesn't mean it's going to show up in the context of the film.

    EDIT: Also, are people just gonna give any "good idea" that shows up in Bond 25 to Boyle? Really?

    And to hammer the point home, most female writers do not and will not have an agenda when writing something, they're just doing what all writers want to do - create a good story and good characters.

    I agreed with you when you posted this first a few pages back, and I'll repeat that agreement here again. Strong female characters and #MeToo are not mutually exclusive, despite what the tabloids would have people believe. It seems people are falling for sensationalist language once again, despite the fact that the idea has great potential for a number of reasons, IF (as stated multiple times) it turns out to be 100% accurate.

    Of course "strong female characters and #MeToo are not mutually exclusive" - I'm amazed that even needs saying, and now I wonder where someone said they are, I must have missed that when glancing through the comments... and if indeed some morons at some tabloids write something suggesting that those are mutually exclusive then that just further proves that reading tabloids is a complete waste of time. Strong female characters and MeToo are two completely unrelated things, so they can occur both together or separately.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    @Denbigh You have to see a female 007, even if it is not "feminist" driven is still baiting #MeToo not by trying to appease them but by incurring their wrath... they will be all over that. If female 007 doesn't get enough screen time they will be pissed. If she doesn't just take over for Bond, they will be pissed. If she's inept or gets killed or needs saving, they will be pissed.

    First of all, feminism and MeToo are very different things (though I imagine feminism was necessary to have existed first for there ever to appear any sort of wide/significant MeToo). But what even is "baiting #MeToo"? And, um, you seem to be saying that having a specific female character in a movie would be baiting the movement against sexual abuse, incurring the wrath of... of people who've been sexually abused and/or of feminists? What???
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    @Denbigh You have to see a female 007, even if it is not "feminist" driven is still baiting #MeToo not by trying to appease them but by incurring their wrath... they will be all over that. If female 007 doesn't get enough screen time they will be pissed. If she doesn't just take over for Bond, they will be pissed. If she's inept or gets killed or needs saving, they will be pissed.

    And if they don't do any of that, they'll still be pissed. There is no winning with some people, and I would be willing to bet that Eon know that at this stage. MeToo has shined a big light on the subject again, but it really is nothing new. Bond has gone through these movements before, and withstood the same repeated arguments time and time again.

    As the fella says, it'll be grand.

    "Again"? I believe it's actually the first movement that really has "shined a big light on the subject" of sexual assault and sexual harassment, and about time, too, that it has been talked about much more - perhaps things will truly improve eventually as a result of that. But it's not like the subject has been discussed all that much before, certainly not to the same extent, so it's hardly "again" - but naturally sexual abuse is "nothing new."



    Like has already been pointed out by some people here, what does MeToo have to do with modern Bond? There haven't been any actual issues on that front in any recent Bond movies, have there, so what the heck?
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    All I can say If Fleming never created Bond this site and anything else wouldn't exist. There would be no James Bond without Fleming.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    giphy.gif

    Imagine what the reaction would be if they made Moneypenny a field agent or made the Quartermaster a preppy, hipster nerd. Oh wait.
    +1

    Didn't like those either. Or Bond being blonde. But hey, I know, I get your point.
    Well, whatever they do with the character, it's Craig's last entry as Bond, and all of his entries have been different one way or another. So it's safe to say this one will be polemical on its own merit. That being said, they can always readjust it all from Bond26 onwards. Who knows what's on their minds?

    I personally am not mad on them either, but that's more down to Mendes' execution rather than concept. Neither of them, on paper, are any more drastic than what is being proposed above. And certainly, none warrant the lazy laying out of years old, half baked jibes of "this will destroy James Bond". It could be the biggest load of crap ever, and it still wouldn't destroy James Bond.

    Speaking generally, if you're expecting the Bond of old, this film is likely not going to be for you. It may or may not turn out to be an excellent action adventure. that features Daniel Craig's version of James Bond, consistent with the four films that proceeded it. I doubt it will change the minds of anyone who already has their grievances with the last 10 years.

    And as you say, @Univex, Bond 26 will probably be more to the taste of those who hate what they're hearing now.

    I really do feel that the last few pages are a rather damning indictment of some members' ability/inability to resist sensationalist headlines and newspaper rhetoric, though.
Sign In or Register to comment.