› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…315316318320321…2507

Comments

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Sure. That would fit, for me.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    That would have to be a no for me.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    There are certainly valid debates to be had about recasting the MI6 team or not but surely there is one thing we can all agree on: it's time for Rory Kinnear to hit the dole queue?

    I disagree. One of the few good things about QoS.
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    Give Rory Kinnear a break, every man's got to eat, hes earning a check like the rest of us!
    bondjames wrote: »
    Much as I find him dull as a dishwasher, he's unintrusive, so I don't mind if he stays or goes.
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »

    As far as Kinnear goes, I liked him in QoS and found him rather bland in Skyfall (Mendes again?). Again, I'll have to rewatch Spectre of course, but in the hands of the right director, Rory should be a fine Tanner.

    Looks like I'm on my own on this one. Who knew there was so much Rory love out there?

    Perhaps he should be the next Bond?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @TheWizardOfIce, I think it's less like Rory love, and more like Rory indifference. For most he doesn't seem to intrude or disrupt their enjoyment of the movie or its pacing enough to cause a fuss, so he gets a pass.
  • GagReathleGagReathle France
    edited July 2016 Posts: 38
    Would like to keep the entire cast, but wouldn't it be weird if everybody returns but that there is a new Bond around? Especially if he's younger.
    But it would be a shame to get rid of Fiennes that easily.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Personally, I think it would be better if they tone down the big-name game for the home team, because neither M, nor Q, Tanner or Moneypenny for the matter should have important roles to fill in on the screen. They are nothing but deskbound people in Her Majesty's Government. So, with Fiennes being an expensive actor, I don't know if they'll keep him because they will require more screentime to show his acting talents. And M isn't for that formula. Lesser known, but people still with valuable screen presence should replace them in the up and coming films once Craig makes his exit.
  • GagReathleGagReathle France
    Posts: 38
    I think it's good to have a big-name for M, at least. M never was important in the scripts before, but Judi Dench raised the bar of the importance of this character. And I really liked it.
    I think it's good that there is a alchimy between M and Bond. M gives the orders to Bond and it's not just a funny character, it's important. Dench had more screen presence than the others M, but she didn't had too much either. It was a good balance.
    Fiennes had to much in Spectre, they have to diminish that a little. But beyond that, I don't mind.

    However, Monneypenny shouldn't have so much screen presence. For Q, I don't mind. I guess it should depend on the script for him. But I like Whishaws, he's funny and he looks smart, and I don't think he'd mind having less screen presence.
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    I don't know why barbara is making a film with jamie bell and not concentrating on the next bond film ???????

  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    If there is a new actor playing 007 I wouldn't be opposed to recasting the entire team again, and making M a Vice Admiral like the original series. I'd also like to see the surveillance screens and tracking nonessential devices jettisoned, strip it right back. Make 007 completely off-grid and impossible to track. None of the recent MI6 team is that good that we can't start over again. I'd also like to see the return of the 00 Section as a clandestine division, completely unattached and separate to MI6. I think it's about time to retire the overused Jack Bauer/Bourne/Spooks hi-tech tropes as I'm getting a sense of deja vu every time I watch a new Bond movie.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondsum wrote: »
    If there is a new actor playing 007 I wouldn't be opposed to recasting the entire team again, and making M a Vice Admiral like the original series. I'd also like to see the surveillance screens and tracking nonessential devices jettisoned, strip it right back. Make 007 completely off-grid and impossible to track. None of the recent MI6 team is that good that we can't start over again. I'd also like to see the return of the 00 Section as a clandestine division, completely unattached and separate to MI6. I think it's about time to retire the overused Jack Bauer/Bourne/Spooks hi-tech tropes as I'm getting a sense of deja vu every time I watch a new Bond movie.
    Yep!
  • TR007TR007
    Posts: 1,165
    I like the idea of retaining the MI6 team with changing 007 actors which would be keeping in most part to the simple traditions of the series.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    There's not much of the simple traditions in the revamped Bond, @TR007, Tanner only made his one and only appearance in Moore's FYEO, only to return in GE played by a completely different actor. Traditionally it was just M and Moneypenny making a small appearance, handing out the mission and then stage exit left. Now that's a tradition I'd like to see again. I think the major difference was that M and Moneypenny were well established in their roles by the time it came to Lazenby and Moore, the same can not be said of Fiennes, Whishaws or Harris. To be honest I have zero attachment or sentimentality towards these 3 new actors, so it wouldn't upset me to see a new cast alongside a new Bond.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Agreed! I admit I was excited to have Fiennes on board after he made his way into the chair of the MI-6, but in Spectre he just didn't live up to my expectations. I was expecting a Bernard Lee out of him, but he just wan't it. I didn't care about Whishaw nor Harris right from the start. They were both the most uninteresting additions to the franchise since Purvis and Wade. The primary focus of the film should be Bond's mission when making a Bond film, the villain (and his motivation) coming the second, and Bond, the third, even though he's the driving force of the bunch. Secondary characters are the Bond Girls, henchmen and a few allies. The MI-6 home team are nothing but below the secondary character seats.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I agree with you, @ClarkDevlin, especially on Fiennes not living up to my own expectations, too. Your points about MI6 home team reflect my own also. I just want to see Bond on a solo mission sans surveillance tracking and centre it on a good story that has no connection to Bond's past relationships.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondsum wrote: »
    I agree with you, @ClarkDevlin, especially on Fiennes not living up to my own expectations, too. Your points about MI6 home team reflect my own also. I just want to see Bond on a solo mission sans surveillance tracking and centre it on a good story that has no connection to Bond's past relationships.
    My sentiments exactly!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    @ClarkDevlin the M scene right after the Opening Titles in SP was one of the worst in the canon. It got better when C arrived in the room, but wow, after all the trust issues with Dench in the last 3 films, I had high hopes that this would change with Fiennes. And then, boom, first scene and M is already fuming at Bond. They could have added steam coming out of his ears, he was that angry.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I too had hopes, that with Mallory being an ex SAS officer, he might have sympathised
    and been a bit more understanding of Bond. Scenes where M would point out how the
    PM had told him not to take any action.......... But if Bond wanted to take a break to ( country
    In question) he couldn't stop him ;) like Bernard Lee in Moonraker.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited July 2016 Posts: 9,117
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce, I think it's less like Rory love, and more like Rory indifference. For most he doesn't seem to intrude or disrupt their enjoyment of the movie or its pacing enough to cause a fuss, so he gets a pass.

    What a ringing endorsement. If it's superfluous and doesn't drive the story forward you get rid of it. One of the first rules of screenwriting.

    It's cutting room floor time for Rory I'm afraid. But then who would spout all the boring exposition given P&W can't write any other way?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin the M scene right after the Opening Titles in SP was one of the worst in the canon. It got better when C arrived in the room, but wow, after all the trust issues with Dench in the last 3 films, I had high hopes that this would change with Fiennes. And then, boom, first scene and M is already fuming at Bond. They could have added steam coming out of his ears, he was that angry.
    @DaltonCraig007, believe me they tried adding steam to the scene and raging at Bond with full anger in one of the earlier drafts. And trust me, it was worse than what we've had in the final film. Bond, at the end of Skyfall, showed that he respected M with a mutual trust invisibly present between the both. But, no... Trust issues should play the part. It's the post-9/11 standards in the spy game, believing everyone is a traitor. Hah!
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,154
    I don't really mind Rory, although I do prefer Michael Kitchen's version of Tanner as he seemed to have at least something of a rapport with Pierce.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Surprised to see Emma Watson on that list ... though I suppose we are rapidly approaching the era when Harry Potters kids will start appearing in Bond films.

    Nevil Longbottom as Ian Fleming's James Bond, anyone?

    A better suggestion than Idris Elba.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Emma could do a good job with a younger Bond, actually.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    She wouldn't do it. Emma is an agenda-driven 'artist' and Bond is too 'misogynist' for her. ;)
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    She wouldn't do it. Emma is an agenda-driven 'artist' and Bond is too 'misogynist' for her. ;)
    Oh, please!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    She wouldn't do it. Emma is an agenda-driven 'artist' and Bond is too 'misogynist' for her. ;)

    What a Lesbian. ;)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    She wouldn't do it. Emma is an agenda-driven 'artist' and Bond is too 'misogynist' for her. ;)

    What a Lesbian. ;)
    I wouldn't mind her as the new Bond, then. ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    She wouldn't do it. Emma is an agenda-driven 'artist' and Bond is too 'misogynist' for her. ;)

    What a Lesbian. ;)
    I wouldn't mind her as the new Bond, then. ;)
    I'd prefer she not get anywhere near Bond. Seems more suited for the 90's agenda imho.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    She wouldn't do it. Emma is an agenda-driven 'artist' and Bond is too 'misogynist' for her. ;)

    What a Lesbian. ;)
    I wouldn't mind her as the new Bond, then. ;)
    I'd prefer she not get anywhere near Bond. Seems more suited for the 90's agenda imho.
    That's what the winks are for. ;)
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    She wouldn't do it. Emma is an agenda-driven 'artist' and Bond is too 'misogynist' for her. ;)

    What a Lesbian. ;)
    I wouldn't mind her as the new Bond, then. ;)
    I'd prefer she not get anywhere near Bond. Seems more suited for the 90's agenda imho.
    That's what the winks are for. ;)
    Was that another wink? ;)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited July 2016 Posts: 15,423
    jake24 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    She wouldn't do it. Emma is an agenda-driven 'artist' and Bond is too 'misogynist' for her. ;)

    What a Lesbian. ;)
    I wouldn't mind her as the new Bond, then. ;)
    I'd prefer she not get anywhere near Bond. Seems more suited for the 90's agenda imho.
    That's what the winks are for. ;)
    Was that another wink? ;)
    If my mathematical additions are correct, I must be blindfolded by now. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.