› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…253254256258259…2507

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Which is disappointing in the scheme of things, as I'd rather have the latter, rather than them trying to "wrap up" an actor's take on the series.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I remember saying that I though Daniel looked really relaxed and enjoying himself in
    SP. Only to be told by someone "In the know", the reason he was relaxed was because
    he knew it would be his last Bond film.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    Graham Rye May:

    K8j7jHZ.jpg

    Graham Rye June:

    PQnOviL.jpg

    I first knew about Mr. Rye on the late 80´s when I became a member of the James Bond International (British) Fan Club. He is reliable. Something important has happened to change his mind in a month...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    It's hard to take his word as fact when he says to not believe anything but an official announcement...unless it's him. Like he said: speculation.
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It's hard to take his word as fact when he says to not believe anything but an official announcement...unless it's him. Like he said: speculation.

    Agreed.

    Once you put it out there that nothing other than an official announcement from EON can be believed, it's a bit much to then put something out there and expect it to be believed.

    I still hope this is false. They need to undertake a much more thorough search than this, especially when there's not any one candidate out there that is just such an obvious choice that the trigger has to be pulled immediately. Still, like I said, Hiddleston will at least keep me around for another film. The casting of Turner would have probably marked the end of my time with the franchise, at least until Bond #8.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    While I hope it's true, I won't take it as a confirmation just yet, either.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,154
    dalton wrote: »
    I'm still skeptical on this, but this is a more solid bit of news than the other tabloid nonsense that some have been running with and accepting as truth. I do hope that it turns out to be false, though, as I think that Hiddleston isn't the guy for the part. I will, however, give him a chance if he's cast, as opposed to Turner who would have had me taking a decade-plus break from the franchise, but I still think that there are many other choices out there that would be much, much better, and a casting process that took a bit longer to sort out would have turned them up rather than immediately going to one of the more high profile names out there.

    I can see taking a decade plus break as well if 007 is miscast. If that happened I'd probably be pushing Roger's age in Moonraker before I got excited for a new Bond film again. Horrifying thought since I've been a die-hard Bond aficionado since I was 8.
    Most pics I've seen of Turner remind me too much of an Adrian Grenier from Entourage type. As far as I'm concerned that's no better than seeking out a Scott Baio type to play Bond. I'll admit some of the photos of him posted on these threads to evoke a classic Fleming period look, though. Very strange. 007 Magazine has usually been spot on in most cases-for years and years. This does look like some random Facebook post as opposed to an official announcement.
    I'm still waiting until we get a press release from Eon announcing anything related to Bond 25 before I 100% believe anything.
    At this point, if we did get some official news, I'd be pleasantly surprised and assume development on Bond 25 is further along than we think. This would be more in line with the 2 year gaps, especially if Bond number 7 gets cast say, this summer.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    Ha! this tweet from this Graham Rye chap is also very interesting:



  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    dalton wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It's hard to take his word as fact when he says to not believe anything but an official announcement...unless it's him. Like he said: speculation.

    Agreed.

    Once you put it out there that nothing other than an official announcement from EON can be believed, it's a bit much to then put something out there and expect it to be believed.

    I still hope this is false. They need to undertake a much more thorough search than this, especially when there's not any one candidate out there that is just such an obvious choice that the trigger has to be pulled immediately. Still, like I said, Hiddleston will at least keep me around for another film. The casting of Turner would have probably marked the end of my time with the franchise, at least until Bond #8.
    Exactly. EoN took part in a lengthy 150+ actor search from 2004-05'. Why would things be different now?
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @bondjames, that's exactly what I've been saying all along, that Craig has been done with the role for some time now, yet I tend to get some heavy, emotional disagreement when I make that case.

    And me. I've thought since I read the leaks that SP would be his last and honestly the arguments that his era feels unfinished confuse me. SP was clearly written as a conclusion imo. The title sequence and other callbacks, the tying up of loose ends, Bond quitting, etc. Yeah Blofeld is alive but that was symbolic, Bond was walking away from killing, completing his character arc. I'm not sure why so many didn't get that (even in the leaks thread there were people in denial about it, someone actually claimed that the ending was "Bond and Madeline went on holiday" at the end, even with the blatant symbolism of him throwing his gun away).

    I guess there was still a possibility of his return, I was starting to doubt he was gone myself at one stage, but to me it's been clear for a while that he's done. At the very least, SP was clearly written as a potential conclusion imo.

    While it's true that we shouldn't make grand predictions until anything concrete comes out, I'm not sure why some keep insisting that Craig is definitely returning. They could be setting themselves up for disappointment imo. Him being done with the role is at the very least a real possibility. And personally I think at this point it could be generous to even say there's a 50/50 chance of him coming back, but that's just me.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Here's the full text of 007 Magazine's Facebook post:

    //So, Daniel Craig has walked away from the Bond role; Tom Hiddleston shot a Bond screen-test about a month ago at Pinewood Studios; Barbara Broccoli has offered Hiddleston the role; Hiddleston is thinking about it; apparently...//

    Apparently? Sounds less than definitive.

    As phrased, 007 Magazine doesn't explicitly say (at least on Facebook) that this is information it obtained.

    After that they have posted this

    So long, Daniel Craig: What He Added To The James Bond Legacy

    http://moviepilot.com/posts/3923273

    'As it stands at present, what 007 MAGAZINE has reported is FACT!'
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    jake24 wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It's hard to take his word as fact when he says to not believe anything but an official announcement...unless it's him. Like he said: speculation.

    Agreed.

    Once you put it out there that nothing other than an official announcement from EON can be believed, it's a bit much to then put something out there and expect it to be believed.

    I still hope this is false. They need to undertake a much more thorough search than this, especially when there's not any one candidate out there that is just such an obvious choice that the trigger has to be pulled immediately. Still, like I said, Hiddleston will at least keep me around for another film. The casting of Turner would have probably marked the end of my time with the franchise, at least until Bond #8.
    Exactly. EoN took part in a lengthy 150+ actor search from 2004-05'. Why would things be different now?

    The only thing I can see being different this time is that maybe Broccoli thinks that since she knocked it out of the park the last time, even in the face of all the naysayers, that she's just going to trust her gut rather than go through that whole long process again.

    Not saying that's the case, but a possibility. Still, I'd like to think that she'd conduct a more thorough search. There are more actors out there aside from the duo of Turner and Hiddleston.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Like others have said, a casting that would truly shock me: Daniel Craig returning for a fifth.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2016 Posts: 9,117
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @bondjames, that's exactly what I've been saying all along, that Craig has been done with the role for some time now, yet I tend to get some heavy, emotional disagreement when I make that case.

    And me. I've thought since I read the leaks that SP would be his last and honestly the arguments that his era feels unfinished confuse me. SP was clearly written as a conclusion imo. The title sequence and other callbacks, the tying up of loose ends, Bond quitting, etc. Yeah Blofeld is alive but that was symbolic, Bond was walking away from killing, completing his character arc. I'm not sure why so many didn't get that (even in the leaks thread there were people in denial about it, someone actually claimed that the ending was "Bond and Madeline went on holiday" at the end, even with the blatant symbolism of him throwing his gun away).

    I guess there was still a possibility of his return, I was starting to doubt he was gone myself at one stage, but to me it's been clear for a while that he's done. At the very least, SP was clearly written as a potential conclusion imo.

    While it's true that we shouldn't make grand predictions until anything concrete comes out, I'm not sure why some keep insisting that Craig is definitely returning. They could be setting themselves up for disappointment imo. Him being done with the role is at the very least a real possibility. And personally I think at this point it could be generous to even say there's a 50/50 chance of him coming back, but that's just me.

    If SP was definitely written as a conclusion then that makes the script even worse.

    Bond driving off into the sunset is totally against the character. Bond should not have a happy ending. If they wanted to give the Craig era a proper ending then have the finale from MR the novel.

    If Craig had been dumped and walked off as 'the man who is just a silhouette' it would've been a sensational end to his tenure and might have elevated the dismal final act of SP a bit higher too.

    Frankly the end of SF works as a better conclusion to the Craig era and to introduce a new Bond. Bond has been stripped down and rebooted and then built back up and is ready for business as usual at the end of SF.

    At the end of SP everything is all over the shop.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,537
    I don't recall where I read this, it was some time ago. But one of the department heads said that, while they're filming the current film, they're already working on the next one, and thinking about the one after.

    If that is indeed the case, then they are a lot further along in this whole process than we realise.


    Personally, I hope DC does one more. I know that SP felt like a conclusion, but given the mess with the leaks and the issues with the script, and the incredibly rushed ending, I hope DC gets a proper send off with a film on par with CR. His dedication to the role and re-invigoration of the franchise deserves a better send off than SP in my opinion. And I truly hope his legacy wont be that comment about the wrists. He deserves more respect, even if his don't give a toss attitude gets him into hot water from time to time.

  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    This has the ring of truth. I'll be shocked if DC returns and surprised if the next 007 is not Hiddleston.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited June 2016 Posts: 5,767
    I don´t understand all this talk about tenure and send off. They´re supposed to make good films, not have an actor wink at the audience (metaphorically) or please fanboy dreams. If they make another film with Craig and people will like that one better than SP, it won´t change a thing that certain films won´t be rated as high as others, and it won´t make Craig´s tenure any more even.
    Some people seem to think Bond is a tele-novella.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Agreed I think Hiddleston is the Bond in waiting. ;)
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    I'm with the Living Royale. I thought Spectre was a completely obvious end to the Craig era. The 'you can always change' motif re-appearing, and his decision not to kill Blofeld and walk off with Madeleine was entirely symbolic, (even with M on the other side of the bridge!). The four Craig films now work very well as a stand alone series, in a way. Almost separate from the other Bonds. When I left the cinema, I was under the impression that was his last, and it had been designed that way.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited June 2016 Posts: 13,978
    bondjames wrote: »
    Here she is, so she can be appreciated in all her glory without sifting through the prior link. I really would like her as MP (they wasted her as Fields imho).

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/26/article-2706746-20010AAA00000578-227_634x907.jpg

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/26/article-2706746-20017A6800000578-921_306x667.jpg

    A little late to the discussion, but I think casting Gemma as Moneypenny would be a bit of a waste, I would rather see her as the main Bond girl this time. The question is, woudl she want to appear in another Bond film? It looks like she has turned her back on big Hollywood films in favour of smaller (British?) films.

    Good call on Gemma for Lara Croft @doubleoego.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2016 Posts: 9,117
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I don´t understand all this talk about tenure and send off. They´re supposed to make good films, not have an actor wink at the audience (metaphorically) or please fanboy dreams. If they make another film with Craig and people will like that one better than SP, it won´t change a thing that certain films won´t be rated as high as others, and it won´t make Craig´s tenure any more even.
    Some people seem to think Bond is a tele-novella.

    Superb point.

    Sean and Rog never had all this. Sadly this is all part of the reboot/homage era which we are currently living through.

    But Bond has always had to adapt and copy passing fads so I don't think we should be too concerned.

    The Craig era started by copying the current Bourne trend, then moved on to copy the reboot/origin story era of Nolan and then threw in a bit of the popular homage trend that the likes of Sherlock have excelled in.

    These things have come and gone and Bond is still standing so let's just look to the next film and hope it will just be a classic Bond adventure. They generally pull out all the stops when it's a new actor.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,970
    Its been said plenty of times but until Craig or Eon say it, Daniel Craig is still James Bond.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,970
    Spectre ending was written 2 ways. It gives Craig a nice send off if he doesnt come back, but it also left an opening with Blofeld being kept alive if Craig does come back
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    If you look at the comments in the post on FB 007 Magazine say they are standing by their comment and have it on good authority that this is true and wouldn't be printing it if they didn't believe it to be genuine.

    They won't reveal their source but they say they have no reason to not believe their insider.

    No, he doesn't say he has a source, at least not on the Facebook page. Has 007 Magazine posted this elsewhere? I don't see it on its website.

    Again, original post on Facebook:

    //So, Daniel Craig has walked away from the Bond role; Tom Hiddleston shot a Bond screen-test about a month ago at Pinewood Studios; Barbara Broccoli has offered Hiddleston the role; Hiddleston is thinking about it; apparently...//

    Nothing about a source, person/people familiar with the situation, etc. Nothing like that. It's written like like an established fact, As in, "The sun will rise in the east tomorrow."

    If he had written something like "007 Magazine has confirmed/obtained information that" followed by the rest of it, that would establish he has a source he can't identify.

    I'm guessing he has heard from somebody this is the case. But it should have made clear this is from some kind of source.

    If you go into the comments on the post you'll see posters saying they don't believe then someone from that page from 007 Magazine posts they are standing by their comment as they have a reliable source but you have to read the comments and the replies.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think it's a done deal folks. The most obvious pick since Pierce Brosnan or Roger Moore. Things go in cycles, and we are time for a more predictable choice and a lighter hearted one too.

    @MajorDSmythe, I'd love Arterton as a main Bond girl too. She had great chemistry with Craig and is ageing nicely, so in a few years time, with a new actor, who knows?
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    A family member involved with the film industry told me that, over dinner, he and his associates were discussing Bond - their company was involved with Hiddleston's Hank Williams film so they also know him - and said that Craig turned down $56m because he wouldn't have creative control
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    edited June 2016 Posts: 2,115
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    If you look at the comments in the post on FB 007 Magazine say they are standing by their comment and have it on good authority that this is true and wouldn't be printing it if they didn't believe it to be genuine.

    They won't reveal their source but they say they have no reason to not believe their insider.

    No, he doesn't say he has a source, at least not on the Facebook page. Has 007 Magazine posted this elsewhere? I don't see it on its website.

    Again, original post on Facebook:

    //So, Daniel Craig has walked away from the Bond role; Tom Hiddleston shot a Bond screen-test about a month ago at Pinewood Studios; Barbara Broccoli has offered Hiddleston the role; Hiddleston is thinking about it; apparently...//

    Nothing about a source, person/people familiar with the situation, etc. Nothing like that. It's written like like an established fact, As in, "The sun will rise in the east tomorrow."

    If he had written something like "007 Magazine has confirmed/obtained information that" followed by the rest of it, that would establish he has a source he can't identify.

    I'm guessing he has heard from somebody this is the case. But it should have made clear this is from some kind of source.

    If you go into the comments on the post you'll see posters saying they don't believe then someone from that page from 007 Magazine posts they are standing by their comment as they have a reliable source but you have to read the comments and the replies.

    [/quote]

    I went through all the responses. I see one response from 007 Magazine

    007 MAGAZINE Apparently...
    Like · Reply · 1 · June 17 at 5:16pm

  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited June 2016 Posts: 5,185
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    I went through all the responses. I see one response from 007 Magazine

    007 MAGAZINE Apparently...
    Like · Reply · 1 · June 17 at 5:16pm

    Yes i did the same, but he meant the Post above it, titled "So long, Daniel Craig: What He Added To The James Bond Legacy".

    there you will find the comments from 007 Magazine defending their sources
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    00Agent wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    I went through all the responses. I see one response from 007 Magazine

    007 MAGAZINE Apparently...
    Like · Reply · 1 · June 17 at 5:16pm

    Yes i did the same, but he meant the Post above it, titled "So long, Daniel Craig: What He Added To The James Bond Legacy".

    there you will find the comments from 007 Magazine defending their sources

    Thanks very much. I found it. I kept going through the original thread.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    "What we say is fact, and we won't reveal our sources, even though we stated a while back that you shouldn't believe anything outside an official announcement."

    In other words, you shouldn't believe any rumors, unless it comes from them and their "source." Pfft.
Sign In or Register to comment.