› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…491492494496497…2507

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited November 2016 Posts: 9,020
    For Jason's sake don't mention bloody Jamie Bell in this thread. I'm near a heart attack every time it gets mentioned out of fear it could have been cast ....
    :P
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    MrBenn wrote: »
    Just wish they would get back to the proper Bond films of the Sir Roger Moore era ...none of this dark depressing stuff. Bond to me is about watching a film that makes you want to be Bond ...jokes, gadgets, girls...
    Check out Cruise's last few MI films. They hit the spot nicely while we wait for EON to chart a new direction eventually.
  • nobodydoesitbetternobodydoesitbetter
    edited November 2016 Posts: 1,021
    r
    Calliope wrote: »
    At the risk of bringing more speculation here...

    BB and MGW will be producing another play, this time in the West End - "The Kid Stays in the Picture", based on Robert Evans' autobiography. That runs until April 2017. So that may put things off even more.

    http://www.whatsonstage.com/london-theatre/news/sam-mendes-to-direct-new-jez-butterworth-play_42131.html



    BB MGW Sam Mendes and Jez Butterworth all busy with theatre projects. Maybe BB and MGW are hanging out in theatreland to try and get Sam back on board for B25 with Jez Butterworth on sole writing duties.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I loved the movie, not sure how it can work out as a theatre play.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    That is a coincidence. Even Craig is doing theatre work. Hmm..
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2016 Posts: 16,351
    Can we be expecting James Bond the musical? :))
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Murdock wrote: »
    Can we be expecting James Bond the musical? :))

    Hasn t something similar been done already? Was it Jane Bond, prhaps? Just rings a bell.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I really really hope not. The franchise can't take another Mendes hit.

    They better enjoy because if they go that route that may be all they're producing from now on.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited November 2016 Posts: 11,425
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    MrBenn wrote: »
    Just wish they would get back to the proper Bond films of the Sir Roger Moore era ...none of this dark depressing stuff. Bond to me is about watching a film that makes you want to be Bond ...jokes, gadgets, girls...
    Only few of us think like that, here. ;)

    I like a bit of both.
    I do love a bit of darkness in Bond. But, depressing, emotional, melodramatic stuff? I'd rather jump off the bridge than watch another Skyfall. :))

    Agreed. Bond is best when it has a little bit of tension/suspense and even darkness, but I don't watch Bond for psychological insight or melodrama. There are lots of other films I can and do watch if I want intellectually stimulating cinema. It annoys me that Mendes insisted on bringing his Cambridge student theatre pretensions to Bond, but wasn't able (in my view) to deliver the fundamentals of a satisfying Bond film - danger, sex, suspense, glamour.

    The problem with Mendes and Skyfall for me is that it falls between two stools. It's neither clever arthouse drama, nor entertaining thriller. The writing is too poor and (IMO) the direction too sloppy. The end result is a rather bland, blancmange of a film.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Getafix wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    MrBenn wrote: »
    Just wish they would get back to the proper Bond films of the Sir Roger Moore era ...none of this dark depressing stuff. Bond to me is about watching a film that makes you want to be Bond ...jokes, gadgets, girls...
    Only few of us think like that, here. ;)

    I like a bit of both.
    I do love a bit of darkness in Bond. But, depressing, emotional, melodramatic stuff? I'd rather jump off the bridge than watch another Skyfall. :))

    Agreed. Bond is best when it has a little bit of tension/suspense and even darkness, but I don't watch Bond for psychological insight or melodrama.

    The problem with Mendes and Skyfall for me is that it falls between two stools. It's neither clever arthouse drama, nor entertaining thriller. The writing is too poor and (IMO) the direction too sloppy. The end result is a rather bland, blancmange of a film.

    Exactly right, but that's a criticism that could be leveled at the whole era to one degree or another.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    MrBenn wrote: »
    Just wish they would get back to the proper Bond films of the Sir Roger Moore era ...none of this dark depressing stuff. Bond to me is about watching a film that makes you want to be Bond ...jokes, gadgets, girls...
    Only few of us think like that, here. ;)

    I like a bit of both.
    I do love a bit of darkness in Bond. But, depressing, emotional, melodramatic stuff? I'd rather jump off the bridge than watch another Skyfall. :))

    Agreed. Bond is best when it has a little bit of tension/suspense and even darkness, but I don't watch Bond for psychological insight or melodrama.

    The problem with Mendes and Skyfall for me is that it falls between two stools. It's neither clever arthouse drama, nor entertaining thriller. The writing is too poor and (IMO) the direction too sloppy. The end result is a rather bland, blancmange of a film.

    Exactly right, but that's a criticism that could be leveled at the whole era to one degree or another.

    True, but for me SF is the low point. The other three I all enjoy to some extent, even SP.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Getafix wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    MrBenn wrote: »
    Just wish they would get back to the proper Bond films of the Sir Roger Moore era ...none of this dark depressing stuff. Bond to me is about watching a film that makes you want to be Bond ...jokes, gadgets, girls...
    Only few of us think like that, here. ;)

    I like a bit of both.
    I do love a bit of darkness in Bond. But, depressing, emotional, melodramatic stuff? I'd rather jump off the bridge than watch another Skyfall. :))

    Agreed. Bond is best when it has a little bit of tension/suspense and even darkness, but I don't watch Bond for psychological insight or melodrama. There are lots of other films I can and do watch if I want intellectually stimulating cinema. It annoys me that Mendes insisted on bringing his Cambridge student theatre pretensions to Bond, but wasn't able (in my view) to deliver the fundamentals of a satisfying Bond film - danger, sex, suspense, glamour.

    The problem with Mendes and Skyfall for me is that it falls between two stools. It's neither clever arthouse drama, nor entertaining thriller. The writing is too poor and (IMO) the direction too sloppy. The end result is a rather bland, blancmange of a film.

    I liked SF ...balanced enough for me until the ending which was a bit too sentimental.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2016 Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    MrBenn wrote: »
    Just wish they would get back to the proper Bond films of the Sir Roger Moore era ...none of this dark depressing stuff. Bond to me is about watching a film that makes you want to be Bond ...jokes, gadgets, girls...
    Only few of us think like that, here. ;)

    I like a bit of both.
    I do love a bit of darkness in Bond. But, depressing, emotional, melodramatic stuff? I'd rather jump off the bridge than watch another Skyfall. :))

    Agreed. Bond is best when it has a little bit of tension/suspense and even darkness, but I don't watch Bond for psychological insight or melodrama. There are lots of other films I can and do watch if I want intellectually stimulating cinema. It annoys me that Mendes insisted on bringing his Cambridge student theatre pretensions to Bond, but wasn't able (in my view) to deliver the fundamentals of a satisfying Bond film - danger, sex, suspense, glamour.

    The problem with Mendes and Skyfall for me is that it falls between two stools. It's neither clever arthouse drama, nor entertaining thriller. The writing is too poor and (IMO) the direction too sloppy. The end result is a rather bland, blancmange of a film.

    I liked SF ...balanced enough for me until the ending which was a bit too sentimental.
    I didn't care much for Dench's M at the time, so I confess to feeling a bit of joy at her demise. Now I regret that, because I sorely missed her in SP. Silva's near comical death also diffused some of the tension in that church.

    I found CR's ending far more sentimental, and perhaps that's why I don't watch the film all that often even though I rate it very highly. Not sure.

    EDIT: Darn: I just realized I'm going off topic on this thread. Sorry.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Getafix wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    MrBenn wrote: »
    Just wish they would get back to the proper Bond films of the Sir Roger Moore era ...none of this dark depressing stuff. Bond to me is about watching a film that makes you want to be Bond ...jokes, gadgets, girls...
    Only few of us think like that, here. ;)

    I like a bit of both.
    I do love a bit of darkness in Bond. But, depressing, emotional, melodramatic stuff? I'd rather jump off the bridge than watch another Skyfall. :))

    Agreed. Bond is best when it has a little bit of tension/suspense and even darkness, but I don't watch Bond for psychological insight or melodrama. There are lots of other films I can and do watch if I want intellectually stimulating cinema. It annoys me that Mendes insisted on bringing his Cambridge student theatre pretensions to Bond, but wasn't able (in my view) to deliver the fundamentals of a satisfying Bond film - danger, sex, suspense, glamour.

    The problem with Mendes and Skyfall for me is that it falls between two stools. It's neither clever arthouse drama, nor entertaining thriller. The writing is too poor and (IMO) the direction too sloppy. The end result is a rather bland, blancmange of a film.
    Couldn't agree more. Had they really followed the tone of Peter Morgan's film that incorporated the theme and darkness seen in both Royale and Solace, the twenty-third film would've been one of the best, especially judging by the premise we were given titled Once Upon A Spy. And it would have been great if an action thriller director and a veteran of the genre had taken up on the helm instead of an "arthouse" director like Mendes. The latter's direction was nothing short of sloppy, as you said, and uninspired. He kept doing homages to the past era pop culture and recycled cliches from films that don't even suit the Bond saga. I remember how disappointed I was walking out of the cinema...

    Bond is all about danger, sex and glamour... And violence. If dark, I don't want the character to go through emotional breakdowns and dilemmas, doubting everything he believes in or why did he join the service, etc. I want him to be challenged, like in From Russia With Love, fighting shadows trying to outsmart the opposition, which he should do in the end and come out as triumphant. I want a villain that gives 007 a run for his money, and someone who's menacing. Not Alex DeLarge in a clown suit. The first two Connery films depict these elements beautifully. And Goldfinger to an extent. They should follow the path of those in terms of character development, filmmaking, atmosphere and narrative rather than following the cliches of the modern era, capitalize on the success of the past and immerse a pastiche story that wouldn't make sense built on those "homages".
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    @ClarkDevlin, I understand what you're saying, but the '60s were a very different time and the West/Russia were clearly delineated as adversaries, which allowed the lines to be drawn clearly. Now we are in an era "where the heroes and the villains get all mixed up." So, unless you are advocating for a period piece...
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    echo wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin, I understand what you're saying, but the '60s were a very different time and the West/Russia were clearly delineated as adversaries, which allowed the lines to be drawn clearly. Now we are in an era "where the heroes and the villains get all mixed up." So, unless you are advocating for a period piece...
    I wasn't talking about an ethnic antagonist. I was referring to a villain whose persona is as twisted as Red Grant or Dr. No, and will stop at nothing until his schemes are fulfilled. Someone who's frightening, menacing and powerful. Like Jared Harris' portrayal of Moriarty. That's the kind of villain Bond should be facing. Someone who will make him put his entire energy to prevent the chaos. That's the kind of villain I'd like to see in Bond films.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    That's basically Silva, isn't it?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Silva wasn't menacing nor frightening. Just a cyber terrorist with flamboyant attitude.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited November 2016 Posts: 11,425
    echo wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin, I understand what you're saying, but the '60s were a very different time and the West/Russia were clearly delineated as adversaries, which allowed the lines to be drawn clearly. Now we are in an era "where the heroes and the villains get all mixed up." So, unless you are advocating for a period piece...

    I actually felt the Cold War was full of ambiguities. Capitalism and Communism are flip sides of the same secular materialistic coin. This is very much reflected in the Bond films, where the Russians are actually very rarely out and out villains.

    I actually think the adversaries we face today in the form of extremist Islam are much more black and white in terms of who is right and wrong.

    It's like the Mitchell and Webb sketch with the SS officers twigging that they're actually the bad guys. Do the black masked nutters slitting throats on video and raping Yazidi girls actually think they're the good guys?
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Great sketch if anyone has never seen it.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I don't think the Islamist extremists would make passable Bond villains. Well, unless we're talking about a sophisticated rich muslim mogul running an organization with ISIS being a subsidiary of it, that might work. Otherwise, it just wouldn't.

    I think the Bond villains should always be upper class.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I agree. But we did see them as allies in TLD!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Getafix wrote: »
    I agree. But we did see them as allies in TLD!
    We did, yes. Although, Kamran Shah sort of did have some class act about himself, unlike the Islamist extremists that live in caves and behead their targets. The thing about TLD's Al Mujahidin is that they weren't the main focus of the climax but rather mere muscles tackling a corrupt Soviet army with Bond among them. I can live with that.

    But, for Bond to travel in the middle of Afghan deserts or whatsoever just to stop a brutal caveman would just be boring. That should be left to the likes of Strike Back or Black Hawk Down, if you catch my drift. It's more of a Chris Ryan thing.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Getafix wrote: »
    I agree. But we did see them as allies in TLD!

    No we didn't.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I agree. But we did see them as allies in TLD!
    We did, yes. Although, Kamran Shah sort of did have some class act about himself, unlike the Islamist extremists that live in caves and behead their targets. The thing about TLD's Al Mujahidin is that they weren't the main focus of the climax but rather mere muscles tackling a corrupt Soviet army with Bond among them. I can live with that.

    But, for Bond to travel in the middle of Afghan deserts or whatsoever just to stop a brutal caveman would just be boring. That should be left to the likes of Strike Back or Black Hawk Down, if you catch my drift. It's more of a Chris Ryan thing.

    I agree. I wasn't advocating that Bond take on the Islamists. I was just saying that morality and good and bad in the Cold War era were notoriously nebulous - many shades of grey etc. Contrary to the post above which said that in the Cold War it was always clear who was good and bad.

    Tbh, it is rarely entirely clear who is entirely on the side of good or bad.

    I actually prefer it when Bond steers well clear of contemporary politics.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2016 Posts: 6,277
    It's pretty clear in the Connery films who is good and bad (even though SPECTRE is the main villain, the Russians are hardly painted in a positive light). It's during the Moore era where British-Russian cooperation started to appear--one of the striking instances in that era (1977!) where the films were actually ahead of the curve (as opposed to Jaws, Moonraker, etc.).

    I don't think bad and good are at all clear these days. Occupying other countries, executing infidels--while there are vast degrees of difference in those two actions, everything is pretty messed/mixed up. YMMV.

    Bond does steer clear of contemporary politics for the most part (as someone pointed out above, TLD is troubling in that regard). But the Cold War overtones in the novels or classic '70s and '80s Bonds are unmistakable. Bond is unimaginable without that, which is why many advocate for period pieces.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Getafix wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I agree. But we did see them as allies in TLD!
    We did, yes. Although, Kamran Shah sort of did have some class act about himself, unlike the Islamist extremists that live in caves and behead their targets. The thing about TLD's Al Mujahidin is that they weren't the main focus of the climax but rather mere muscles tackling a corrupt Soviet army with Bond among them. I can live with that.

    But, for Bond to travel in the middle of Afghan deserts or whatsoever just to stop a brutal caveman would just be boring. That should be left to the likes of Strike Back or Black Hawk Down, if you catch my drift. It's more of a Chris Ryan thing.

    I agree. I wasn't advocating that Bond take on the Islamists. I was just saying that morality and good and bad in the Cold War era were notoriously nebulous - many shades of grey etc. Contrary to the post above which said that in the Cold War it was always clear who was good and bad.

    Tbh, it is rarely entirely clear who is entirely on the side of good or bad.

    I actually prefer it when Bond steers well clear of contemporary politics.
    Definitely agreed.

    What made the Bond films better was that it didn't weigh on contemporary politics of the world and used third party adversaries as their antagonists. Despite the Fleming novels always putting the Soviets in the role of the villains, From Russia With Love's film adaptation did the right thing by bringing SPECTRE in to play the two world powers.

    Nothing is black and white, just fantasies some want to believe. For the Russians, we were the bad guys, and for us, they were. There always have been complications in every era because let's face it, nothing is pure. Leaders aren't always matching their patriotic images, either.
    echo wrote: »
    It's pretty clear in the Connery films who is good and bad (even though SPECTRE is the main villain, the Russians are hardly painted in a positive light). It's during the Moore era where glasnost started to appear--one of the few instances in that era where the films were actually ahead of the curve.

    I don't think bad and good are clear these days. Occupying other countries, executing infidels--while there are vast degrees of difference in those two actions, everything is pretty messed/mixed up. YMMV.
    Maybe so. But, they weren't depicted as villains, either. Just enemies of the western world. And some tainted beliefs.

    And yes, the good and the bad are definitely mixed up now that there are no "empires" to demonize one another. Just corporations and organizations, arms dealers amongst. But, Bond should always steer clear of these guys. A Spectre type organization would always do nice and let us believe they are behind every chaos. Because... That's what makes Bond films entertaining. It's always about good vs evil, yet they are so fantastic they could just be true.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Russia might not be portrayed in a positive light, but it's rarely (if ever?) the actual villain or enemy in a Bond film.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Getafix wrote: »
    Russia might not be portrayed in a positive light, but it's rarely (if ever?) the actual villain or enemy in a Bond film.
    Yep! Russia wasn't demonized completely in the film series.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    A nice little article that lays out the direction the next Bond film should take:

    http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/james-bond/257462/james-bond-its-time-to-return-to-absurdity-with-love
Sign In or Register to comment.