› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…362363365367368…2507

Comments

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    article-0-0D828F69000005DC-261_468x576.jpg

    Jesus.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    All of these actors give excellent performances in certain films and not so good performances in other films. All of them, except Laz who didn't get a chance.

    Moreover, even within some of the films, they get some scenes down perfectly and don't do so well in other scenes.

    Imho, Connery and Moore were the most consistent throughout their long tenures and especially given the material they covered (from deadly serious at the start to humorous in both cases towards the end). Craig is nearly there for me. He is superior to Moore on the serious side (although Moore gets a bum rap on that front because he did demonstrate menace very convincingly in certain pivotal scenes such as the Stromberg kill, the Locque kill, the Lazar interrogation etc.), but his attempt at the 'quip' side of things just doesn't gel as well for me as it did with the two earlier actors, who could deliver the absolute worst lines convincingly and with aplomb.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,434
    He reminds me of Jeff Bridges in the movie 'Thunderbolt and Lightfoot' when he tried to ldistract the pervy security guard! "Ooh, you sexy bitch!!"
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Some interesting points there, @peter. The only thing I disagree with is you comment that '71 was the peak of the star system, when actually movie BO was in sharp decline, losing out heavily more to TV than it did in the late 50s and 60s. When the 1970s opened, Hollywood was experiencing a financial and artistic depression. The old star system was pretty much over by then, too. I think you might be referring to the relaxing of the censors and how that spawned a Hollywood New Wave that also happened to create mega stars out of Redford, Newman, Hoffman and Pacino, but even these newly appointed star names had box office flops. And it wasn't Pacino's name on the Godfather poster that drew in audiences; it was the X certified violence that pulled in the numbers. There were only 3 really big stars in 71: Eastwood and McQueen.... and Bond, of course, played by Connery. By the mid-70s, when the renaissance was truly under way, Warren Beaty, Donald Sutherland, Burt Reynolds, Robert Redford and DeNiro, Charles Bronsan, Ryan O'Neal and Jack Nicholson can also be added to the list, though most were reviving an almost defunct career. But all these struggling names needed a breakout movie to properly launch their popularity, and normally it was a low budget offering with a cracking good script and a hot young director that did it. Soon the director would become bigger than the movie and lead us to the blockbuster age. The Eighties is where the director became totally synonymous with the movie, only Harrison Ford, Sly and Arnie were the big names that dominated that period, with young pup Cruise coming up the rear. (No pun intended)

    It's true what you say, @peter, there are no A-List names that can open a movie to big numbers anymore solely based on the star's name alone. Even Cruise (probably the only true big name now) can have the occasional flop. It's rare, I'll admit.

    As for putting DCs face on a Bond poster and saying it's guaranteed that you'll make money, well this is obviously true, but now that SPECTE showed that the BO is on a downwards trajectory, I would suggest the peak has already happened with SF under Craig's tenure, and there's little to no chance of repeating those numbers that SF enjoyed.

    Personally, I'd rather see a new Bond movie coming out next year rather than wait an additional year for an actor that's probably going to play it as an over-the-hill agent again, pretty much like a repeat of SF. Meaning, I'm not opposed to Craig being replaced with a younger actor. Whether that be Fassbender or Aiden Turner, I'm all for it. Yes, I know it'll still mean not getting Bond 25 until 2018, but if I have to wait that long, it might as well be for a newly refreshed Bond, rather than one with one last trick to pull, that will inevitably fall flat much like DAF, AVTAK and DAD did for their retrospective Bonds.

    For, @peter, one thing you forgot to mention in your excellent analysis is that James Bond IS the star attraction that just happens to be currently played by Craig. It's up to Eon to ensure the next actor is as good as, if not better than Craig, in a much better movie.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    As said before, only Fassbender wouldn t feel like a major step down, of all the names being circulated.
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Perilagu_Khan wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    //I wish people would stop saying Craig wont do back to back films.//

    It's based on comments Craig himself made.

    DC's a loose cannon who seems to say whatever wacky thought appears in his head at the time of being asked a question. I don't trust a word he says, and that includes "a," "and" and "the."

    But that's part of his charm, having sly fun with the scribes and getting a rise out of them. At least that's stated on this message board from time to time.

    I don't think it's slyness; DC doesn't have enough self-awareness to be sly. Rather, I think he's a bit unhinged.

  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    jake24 wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    article-0-0D828F69000005DC-261_468x576.jpg

    Jesus.

    You can say that again. What a creepy image. Like something out of Psycho.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I disagree that Craig is irreplaceable. He is definitely replaceable and with the right script EON will be able to deliver a superior box office net (as opposed to gross), and more importantly, a credibility boosting entry.

    They just need the right script, the right director and to keep a lid on the costs. They almost always produce an everlasting winner when they focus on these key attributes. The actor is almost secondary if these items are in sync. I think they've been around long enough to know this as well.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    bondsum wrote: »
    Some interesting points there, @peter. The only thing I disagree with is you comment that '71 was the peak of the star system, when actually movie BO was in sharp decline, losing out heavily more to TV than it did in the late 50s and 60s. When the 1970s opened, Hollywood was experiencing a financial and artistic depression. The old star system was pretty much over by then, too. I think you might be referring to the relaxing of the censors and how that spawned a Hollywood New Wave that also happened to create mega stars out of Redford, Newman, Hoffman and Pacino, but even these newly appointed star names had box office flops. And it wasn't Pacino's name on the Godfather poster that drew in audiences; it was the X certified violence that pulled in the numbers. There were only 3 really big stars in 71: Eastwood and McQueen.... and Bond, of course, played by Connery. By the mid-70s, when the renaissance was truly under way, Warren Beaty, Donald Sutherland, Burt Reynolds, Robert Redford and DeNiro, Charles Bronsan, Ryan O'Neal and Jack Nicholson can also be added to the list, though most were reviving an almost defunct career. But all these struggling names needed a breakout movie to properly launch their popularity, and normally it was a low budget offering with a cracking good script and a hot young director that did it. Soon the director would become bigger than the movie and lead us to the blockbuster age. The Eighties is where the director became totally synonymous with the movie, only Harrison Ford, Sly and Arnie were the big names that dominated that period, with young pup Cruise coming up the rear. (No pun intended)

    It's true what you say, @peter, there are no A-List names that can open a movie to big numbers anymore solely based on the star's name alone. Even Cruise (probably the only true big name now) can have the occasional flop. It's rare, I'll admit.

    As for putting DCs face on a Bond poster and saying it's guaranteed that you'll make money, well this is obviously true, but now that SPECTE showed that the BO is on a downwards trajectory, I would suggest the peak has already happened with SF under Craig's tenure, and there's little to no chance of repeating those numbers that SF enjoyed.

    Personally, I'd rather see a new Bond movie coming out next year rather than wait an additional year for an actor that's probably going to play it as an over-the-hill agent again, pretty much like a repeat of SF. Meaning, I'm not opposed to Craig being replaced with a younger actor. Whether that be Fassbender or Aiden Turner, I'm all for it. Yes, I know it'll still mean not getting Bond 25 until 2018, but if I have to wait that long, it might as well be for a newly refreshed Bond, rather than one with one last trick to pull, that will inevitably fall flat much like DAF, AVTAK and DAD did for their retrospective Bonds.

    For, @peter, one thing you forgot to mention in your excellent analysis is that James Bond IS the star attraction that just happens to be currently played by Craig. It's up to Eon to ensure the next actor is as good as, if not better than Craig, in a much better movie.


    @bondsum, thanks for the reply. Just one thing, if I wasn't clear, my apologies, the height of the star system was the 80s (Sly, Bruce, Arnold- put their face on anything and it was bank)!

    I was mentioning '71's star system being very much different than today since, of course SC's face meant success (at least for Bond, not so much for his other (interesting) endeavours in the same era), since he had little competition, especially in the spy genre, AND he was returning to the franchise that made him.

    The 80s were the height of the star system (Sly, Bruce, Arnold, Ford,, and, yes, after THE UNTOUCHABLES, our SC became bank again (very much leading into the 90s)).
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Shardlake wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    This is where the story can get interesting, so stuff being painted into a corner, I say. Neither does Madeleine have to die.

    As for Craig being like Roger in SP, all I can do is giggle at that statement. If he was playing by anyone's rulebook, it was Sean's. Dan's Bond has actual menace and carries moments of weight, which Roger was never good at, the one or two times the scripts allowed him to try.

    Craig had menace, I thought he lost it in SPECTRE, sorry I saw a film pretty much devoid of suspense, even the torture sequence I felt no danger.

    Craig did feel like Sean Bond previously but it was more like Pierce or Rog here for me.

    I just don't feel anything where SPECTRE is concerned it's just quite flat and considering it's budget its not up there on the screen.

    I'll always have my obvious low points of the series, DAF, OP, VTAK and in my opinion the Brosnan era full stop but films like YOLT or MR I'm seeing in a new light now.

    SPECTRE isn't the worst of the worst but considering what was at stake, the fact the whole DC era was building to this moment, it's all incredibly underwhelming and feels like a waste, on this alone SP will be ranking near the bottom of my list in future.

    I'm waiting to see it on Blu ray when it's cheap enough and then I'll write a review of it and try and exorcise my feelings out but as you've probably guessed I'm so deflated, frustrated and utterly disappointed by this film that a reboot seems the safest option.

    As someone who loves Craig as Bond something clearly went wrong for me to feel this way.

    I felt the same way after my first watch of SP - non plussed. I didn't actively dislike it as with SF but I didn't think it was all that great either. However on a rewatch I enjoyed it a lot more. It's far from being a classic but it's not a dud either, which some on here claim. Lots of nice scenes and some decent dialogue. Probably the best Q performance we've had since LTK.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,847
    Like i said for me it's three options i would be happy with and one i would be ok with but not super excited

    1. Craig Continues
    2. Moving forward with Fassbender (who was born in germany making him the first not british colony born 007)
    3. Moving Forward with Hardy

    and i would be ok with

    4. Moving Forward with Hiddleston

    Like I said beyond that... Hemsworth seriously?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2016 Posts: 6,304
    peter wrote: »
    It's Bond that's the bankable star here not DC.

    Are you telling me Daniel Craig's name on the poster alone would guarantee a $75m opening for any film? Tom Cruise has got decades of proving he can command such fees behind him so if Dan is on more than him he needs to have a word with his agent.

    I don't know shit about how stars fees are calculated but I very much doubt Daisy Ridley or Sam Worthington are now getting the projected opening of the next Star Wars film or Avatar 2.

    Cruise's career is on the serious downswing. His movies do much more abroad than in the US. He's basically become Schwarzenegger. You'll never see him do another Born on the Fourth of July, or even Eyes Wide Shut.

    Craig has yet to "cross over" to success in non-Bond films, and maybe he never will. Only Connery seemed to do this successfully, and I for one, look at his Oscar for The Untouchables as, really, a delayed award for how great, how decade- and genre-defining, he was as Bond.
    peter wrote: »
    In a separate universe would (runner-up), Henry Cavil's version of CR been as popular and ground-breaking? Judging by his acting ability compared to DC, I think not. He may have been serviceable in the role, I doubt very much ground-breaking.

    Much as OHMSS pivoted to DAF, and MR pivoted to FYEO, the actor playing Bond himself seems to pivot. Connery to Moore is very different, as is Moore-Dalton, Dalton-Brosnan, and Brosnan-Craig. A Moore to Brosnan move, or a Dalton to Craig move, or a Brosnan to Cavill move, would have felt too similar to what came before. Based upon that history, I expect whoever is the next Bond to be very different from Craig.
    Shardlake wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    This is where the story can get interesting, so stuff being painted into a corner, I say. Neither does Madeleine have to die.

    As for Craig being like Roger in SP, all I can do is giggle at that statement. If he was playing by anyone's rulebook, it was Sean's. Dan's Bond has actual menace and carries moments of weight, which Roger was never good at, the one or two times the scripts allowed him to try.

    Craig had menace, I thought he lost it in SPECTRE, sorry I saw a film pretty much devoid of suspense, even the torture sequence I felt no danger.

    Craig did feel like Sean Bond previously but it was more like Pierce or Rog here for me.
    Shardlake wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    This is where the story can get interesting, so stuff being painted into a corner, I say. Neither does Madeleine have to die.

    As for Craig being like Roger in SP, all I can do is giggle at that statement. If he was playing by anyone's rulebook, it was Sean's. Dan's Bond has actual menace and carries moments of weight, which Roger was never good at, the one or two times the scripts allowed him to try.

    Craig had menace, I thought he lost it in SPECTRE, sorry I saw a film pretty much devoid of suspense, even the torture sequence I felt no danger.

    Craig did feel like Sean Bond previously but it was more like Pierce or Rog here for me.

    I agree with this. There were just no stakes, which made it feel more like a Moore film. I think somebody meaningful to Bond needed to die, either Lucia or Madeleine, in the film. There wasn't a meaningful sacrificial lamb like Vesper, Mathis, or M for the first time in the Craig era.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    If there was a loss of suspense, and a feeling of danger, was it Craig who was responsible Mendes or the writers. Of that group I would put the least amount of blame on Daniel. Given the right material he has the acting chops to deliver.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    echo wrote: »

    I agree with this. There were just no stakes, which made it feel more like a Moore film. I think somebody meaningful to Bond needed to die, either Lucia or Madeleine, in the film. There wasn't a meaningful sacrificial lamb like Vesper, Mathis, or M for the first time in the Craig era.

    Why this obsession with death?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    echo wrote: »

    I agree with this. There were just no stakes, which made it feel more like a Moore film. I think somebody meaningful to Bond needed to die, either Lucia or Madeleine, in the film. There wasn't a meaningful sacrificial lamb like Vesper, Mathis, or M for the first time in the Craig era.

    Why this obsession with death?
    That boggles me also. According to the majority here, life should destruct Bond to a level he eventually commits suicide.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @echo, I wouldn't say Lucia was very meaningful to Bond in SP.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Doesn t matter. We want blood.
  • timmertimmer
    edited September 2016 Posts: 4,622
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    O upnce you compare Craig's Bond in SP with that of Brosnan's later outings, one has to dig into the acting. While all the jokes and cheesiness was indeed written as such, it was mostly stuff outside the realm of Craig's acting.

    For me, Craig therefore felt much more like Connery in TB. Yes, Craig reminded people of Moore and Brosnan, but that's mainly because of the surrounding writing efforts. Craig is Craig, and his strong method acting and staunch coldness when portraying the role, was still present in SP. Just like Connery.

    On thee whole, as a person, I think Craig is more comparable to Connery as well.

    Yes, I think it was more in the situations as written. Pushing the Fiat felt like it was straight out of a Moore Bond. Falling on the couch somehow felt somehow like it was out of a Brosnan Bond.

    Incidentally I remember tabloid reports of how Bond was going to be driving a Fiat in the chase!
    Craig landing on the couch is a direct Mendes homage to YOLT.- the scene where Bond drops into Tanaka's office

    This is something Mendes does do well. He is mischievous that way. He sneaks in plenty of these little nods. You really have to know the films to spot them.
    He even has Seydoux and Waltz briefly riffing on their famous Inglorious Basterds scene together, when Bond and Swann meet Blofeld in the meteor room.
    He talks about having visited her father. The line barely works within the context of the film, but it does work as a nod to Basterds, which is what it is
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @Birdleson and I were going through mentioning all of the films that Mendes homages in SP - and there are a ton, moreso than the anniversary films like DAD and SF.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    peter wrote: »


    Just one thing, if I wasn't clear, my apologies, the height of the star system was the 80s (Sly, Bruce, Arnold- put their face on anything and it was bank)!

    Lock Up?
    timmer wrote: »
    This is something Mendes does do well. He is mischievous that way. He sneaks in plenty of these little nods. You really have to know the films to spot them.
    He even has Seydoux and Waltz briefly riffing on their famous Inglorious Basterds scene together, when Bond and Swann meet Blofeld in the meteor room.
    He talks about having visited her father. The line barely works within the context of the film, but it does work as a nod to Basterds, which is what it is

    You're right. I never realised until recently that the DB5 is in SF or SP so subtly does 'mischievous' old Sam sneak it in. The little rascal.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited September 2016 Posts: 4,116
    timmer wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    O upnce you compare Craig's Bond in SP with that of Brosnan's later outings, one has to dig into the acting. While all the jokes and cheesiness was indeed written as such, it was mostly stuff outside the realm of Craig's acting.

    For me, Craig therefore felt much more like Connery in TB. Yes, Craig reminded people of Moore and Brosnan, but that's mainly because of the surrounding writing efforts. Craig is Craig, and his strong method acting and staunch coldness when portraying the role, was still present in SP. Just like Connery.

    On thee whole, as a person, I think Craig is more comparable to Connery as well.

    Yes, I think it was more in the situations as written. Pushing the Fiat felt like it was straight out of a Moore Bond. Falling on the couch somehow felt somehow like it was out of a Brosnan Bond.

    Incidentally I remember tabloid reports of how Bond was going to be driving a Fiat in the chase!
    Craig landing on the couch is a direct Mendes homage to YOLT.- the scene where Bond drops into Tanaka's office

    This is something Mendes does do well. He is mischievous that way. He sneaks in plenty of these little nods. You really have to know the films to spot them.
    He even has Seydoux and Waltz briefly riffing on their famous Inglorious Basterds scene together, when Bond and Swann meet Blofeld in the meteor room.
    He talks about having visited her father. The line barely works within the context of the film, but it does work as a nod to Basterds, which is what it is

    Mendes I'm sorry nods too much. With the possible exception of Ingenious if it was one ...Swann's father plays pretty heavy in the plot most of everything Mendes played homage was blatantly obviously and tiring IMO.

    I want fresh. See Dynamite for freshness or at least fresher content.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Birdleson and I were going through mentioning all of the films that Mendes homages in SP - and there are a ton, moreso than the anniversary films like DAD and SF.
    The difference is, the majority of the DAD homages were stuffed in one room.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    @shardlake makes numerous great points in which I am in full agreement.

    SP is just a frustrating film to watch. Things felt rushed and underdeveloped and to be honest, it just wasnt interesting. It was a classic case of, mostly scenes cobbled together to get from a to be with none of the Bond magic and none of the intensity as conveyed in CR and QoS. Everything rang hollow. No danger, no suspense...I can't even.

    I am simply unsatisfied. Unsatisfied with the "transition" and "evolution" of Bond as a character that took us from CR to SP; and the horrible story SP presented us with. We deserved better. Craig deserved better.

    What's infuriating is SP had talent in front and behind the camera, it had a huge enough budget and it had the time to get things right in preproduction but they squandered the time they had and failed to come up with a worthy script. Honestly, SP didn't do anyone any favours. It was an excersie in how to half arse a project. The film's a waste. It's not the worst in the series but it's definitely the most disappointing and throwing $150 million at Craig to return only highlights how risible the folks in charge are and does nothing to encourage quality course correction which the series is in desperate need of.

    Seriously, watching SP, if you can get through it only begs the question, wtf were they thinking?



  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited September 2016 Posts: 4,116
    Yea, even SF played "homage" to DAD by having Bond missing.

    Again I love SF but why the #$%@ go off the radar when the mission wasn't done??? Weird.

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Obviously, all the "SPECTRE"-frustration will give the film a firm and clear punishment in the Big Bond Contest, perhaps even Bottom 3.
  • timmertimmer
    edited September 2016 Posts: 4,622
    timmer wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    O upnce you compare Craig's Bond in SP with that of Brosnan's later outings, one has to dig into the acting. While all the jokes and cheesiness was indeed written as such, it was mostly stuff outside the realm of Craig's acting.

    For me, Craig therefore felt much more like Connery in TB. Yes, Craig reminded people of Moore and Brosnan, but that's mainly because of the surrounding writing efforts. Craig is Craig, and his strong method acting and staunch coldness when portraying the role, was still present in SP. Just like Connery.

    On thee whole, as a person, I think Craig is more comparable to Connery as well.

    Yes, I think it was more in the situations as written. Pushing the Fiat felt like it was straight out of a Moore Bond. Falling on the couch somehow felt somehow like it was out of a Brosnan Bond.

    Incidentally I remember tabloid reports of how Bond was going to be driving a Fiat in the chase!
    Craig landing is a direct Mendes homage to YOLT.- the scene where Bond drops into Tanaka's office

    This is something Mendes does do well. He is mischievous that way. He sneaks in plenty of these little nods. You really have to know the films to spot them.
    He even has Seydoux and Waltz briefly riffing on their famous Inglorious Basterds scene together, when Bond and Swann meet Blofeld in the meteor room.
    He talks about having visited her father. The line barely works within the context of the films, but it does work as a nod to Basterds, which is what it is

    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    peter wrote: »


    Just one thing, if I wasn't clear, my apologies, the height of the star system was the 80s (Sly, Bruce, Arnold- put their face on anything and it was bank)!

    Lock Up?
    timmer wrote: »
    This is something Mendes does do well. He is mischievous that way. He sneaks in plenty of these little nods. You really have to know the films to spot them.
    He even has Seydoux and Waltz briefly riffing on their famous Inglorious Basterds scene together, when Bond and Swann meet Blofeld in the meteor room.
    He talks about having visited her father. The line barely works within the context of the film, but it does work as a nod to Basterds, which is what it is

    You're right. I never realised until recently that the DB5 is in SF or SP so subtly does 'mischievous' old Sam sneak it in. The little rascal.
    Sarcasm is the lowest from of.....
    Obviously the DB5 and even the crater base weren't subtle, but he sure sneaks in a lot of others that require knowledge of the films.
    I like the little nods, probably because I can spot most of them, as any seasoned Bond film fan can

    Mendes nods have degrees of "obviousness"depending on one's familiarity with the films
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    bondjames wrote: »
    I disagree that Craig is irreplaceable. He is definitely replaceable and with the right script EON will be able to deliver a superior box office net (as opposed to gross), and more importantly, a credibility boosting entry.

    I agree with this completely, but, with SF grossing more than $1 billion, I think they will continue to pursue big box office numbers. Unfortunately.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    timmer wrote: »
    Mendes nods have degrees of "obviousness"depending on one's familiarity with the films
    I do get the impression that Mendes is operating at another level sometimes which I miss.

    I preferred the nods in SF though, because I found them more integrated and subtle. In SP, the obvious ones just sort of stood out. It didn't help that I had just done a Bondathon before the film's release and so most of the obvious nods were quite apparent and clear as day, which made the film seem derivative even on first watch.

    An example of SF's subtle nods is when Bond is running through the tunnel just as Skyfall Manor explodes and nearly kills him. I recently realized that this scene is quite similar to Bond and Holly crawling quickly through the ventilation tunnel in MR just as Moonraker 5 takes off and the fireball threatens to catch up with them.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Birdleson wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Yea, even SF played "homage" to DAD by having Bond missing.

    Again I love SF but why the #$%@ go off the radar when the mission wasn't done??? Weird.

    I think that the homage to DAD was the parachute landing in Rome. Just as bad as the one in DAD following the CGI tsunami chase.

    Oh and the Aston Martin v Jag chase...

    I'm sorry I didn't mind the parachute in SP just would've preferred Bond to quip "Good morning" instead of "good evening" ...the former just sounds funnier and easier to say to me. One of the drafts Bond did say "good morning" and I laughed out loud with that one.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Craig's delivery of the 'good evening' is an example of what I don't think he does well. The same goes for 'Circle of Life'. I can see Rog or Sean nailing that, but I'd prefer that Craig (if he returns) be kept away from these sort of gags.

    Give him more jaded sarcasm, which he excels with (like the interrogation sequence or the museum sequence in SF).
Sign In or Register to comment.