No Time To Die: Production Diary

15815825845865872507

Comments

  • edited February 2017 Posts: 1,661
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    In an interview with Deadline the Showtime CEO said that 'Purity' "will largely be completed during the course of 2017, depending how long they’re willing to wait and shoot the next Bond. There might be some breaks somewhere, but [production] will be fairly continuous."

    In the back of my mind I'm sure I read somewhere that filming would commence in July/August of 2017. There should be more solid information about the production released during Showtime's Summer TCA Tour later this year.

    Craig could go from Purity to winter filming of Bond 25 but would he want six more months of filming on top of the five he's just done with Purity? Craig was knackered after SPECTRE so I can't imagine he'd want double the work load. Five months on Purity and six/seven months on Bond 25. That's a huge amount of filming.

    I'm thinking Craig won't be back or if B Broccoli believes he is the only man for the role they might delay until 2019. But then Craig is a year older and may feel there's little point returning. It's still 50:50 how this is all going to pan out. So basically we haven't a clue. :D
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    We don't know much Craig is going to be filming for. Nothing like a bond shoot. It's ridiculous how these things are filmed for 7 monthss.
  • re: Purity....It takes a while to shoot 20 episodes. While it's nothing like a Bond shoot (in terms of special effects), it takes a week or longer per episode.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I like SF don't get me wrong,but the 'old dog' routine did surprise me after only 3 films ...

    True. After two films of 'rookie' Bond we immediately got the 'old dog'. We never really got to see Craig's Bond at his prime as double-o.

    This.

    We never got primo Craig and now it could be too late.

    Thanks, Sam Mendes, and your obsession with "character".

    In hindsight, he halted Craig's ballistic momentum and ushered in the end of his tenure.

    I've always been annoyed with the vast gap between the super confident, clean slate bond we get at the end of QoS and the washed up Bond we get in Skyfall.

    Horrible mistake in the wider evolution of Craig's Bond.

    All for Mendes's 'edgy vision'. Gimme a break.

    Mendes isn't really to blame though. As much as I agree with you in not liking the route he took the character in straight after QoS, EoN are the one's who messed this up for allowing Mendes to go in the direction he ended up taking the movies in. I'm been saying for long enough now that EoN need to start doing a better job of their responsibilities as producers and put an end to these silly creative decisions they've been freely allowing.
  • Posts: 11,425
    doubleoego wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I like SF don't get me wrong,but the 'old dog' routine did surprise me after only 3 films ...

    True. After two films of 'rookie' Bond we immediately got the 'old dog'. We never really got to see Craig's Bond at his prime as double-o.

    This.

    We never got primo Craig and now it could be too late.

    Thanks, Sam Mendes, and your obsession with "character".

    In hindsight, he halted Craig's ballistic momentum and ushered in the end of his tenure.

    I've always been annoyed with the vast gap between the super confident, clean slate bond we get at the end of QoS and the washed up Bond we get in Skyfall.

    Horrible mistake in the wider evolution of Craig's Bond.

    All for Mendes's 'edgy vision'. Gimme a break.

    Mendes isn't really to blame though. As much as I agree with you in not liking the route he took the character in straight after QoS, EoN are the one's who messed this up for allowing Mendes to go in the direction he ended up taking the movies in. I'm been saying for long enough now that EoN need to start doing a better job of their responsibilities as producers and put an end to these silly creative decisions they've been freely allowing.

    I think Mendes deserves a lot of the blame.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    fanbond123 wrote: »

    I'm thinking Craig won't be back or if B Broccoli believes he is the only man for the role they might delay until 2019. But then Craig is a year older and may feel there's little point returning.

    You must be very young if you believe a single year means that much in terms of aging.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    You're all correct in my view.

    Mendes certainly deserves a lot of the criticism for the creative decisions he has taken. He had a great opportunity to get things on track after the initial reboot concept (CR/QoS) of the late 00's. I have not been all that happy with what he's done with it, including his choices for the Scooby crew.

    Having said that, @doubleoego is also correct that the producers need to have a more cohesive vision for the character and the arc they want to take, and that includes having some consistency with director choices & concept.
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Thanks, Sam Mendes, and your obsession with "character".

    In hindsight, he halted Craig's ballistic momentum and ushered in the end of his tenure.
    I don't really have a problem with focusing on 'character' per se. SF benefited from it and was a successful and memorable film on account of it. I just believe that some of the actor, plot and character choices have boxed EON in.

    Therefore, they are in the same position now that they were in with Brosnan after DAD. Either shift direction and dump Craig, or stick with Craig and continue on a path that is less than savoury for a great many viewers & fans (but certainly not all).
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,425
    I was a lone voice on here in 2012 arguing that Mendes had screwed up what had been achieved with CR and QOS.

    I had @germanlady practically threatening to kill me for daring to suggest SF was riddled with yawning plot holes and just wasn't as good as the hype said it was.

    Now everyone is jumping on the 'Mendes' is crap bandwagon.

    I might start defending him!

    Irony is that I preferred SP to SF. Having said that I still thing Mendes has made consistently poor decisions. He squandered what was achieved with the reboot and took us back to Austin Powers territory. It's like he didn't understand what an opportunity he had.

    And before anyone chips in, for those who hate SP (I'm not one of them) all the warning signs were there with Skyfail
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Well said, @Getafix!
  • Posts: 4,325
    Getafix wrote: »
    I was a lone voice on here in 2012 arguing that Mendes had screwed up what had been achieved with CR and QOS.

    I had @germanlady practically threatening to kill me for daring to suggest SF was riddled with yawning plot holes and just wasn't as good as the hype said it was.

    Now everyone is jumping on the 'Mendes' is crap bandwagon.

    I might start defending him!

    Irony is that I preferred SP to SF. Having said that I still thing Mendes has made consistently poor decisions. He squandered what was achieved with the reboot and took us back to Austin Powers territory. It's like he didn't understand what an opportunity he had.

    And before anyone chips in, for those who hate SP (I'm not one of them) all the warning signs were there with Skyfail

    I also thought Skyfall was overhyped and full of plot holes. However I still hold it to be a great Bond film - Goldfinger was long held up to be the 'gold standard' of the Bond films - but that has plot holes galore. In fact all 24 James Bond films have plot holes. Go watch them all again, carefully, and you'll see what I mean.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I was a lone voice on here in 2012 arguing that Mendes had screwed up what had been achieved with CR and QOS.

    I had @germanlady practically threatening to kill me for daring to suggest SF was riddled with yawning plot holes and just wasn't as good as the hype said it was.

    Now everyone is jumping on the 'Mendes' is crap bandwagon.

    I might start defending him!

    Irony is that I preferred SP to SF. Having said that I still thing Mendes has made consistently poor decisions. He squandered what was achieved with the reboot and took us back to Austin Powers territory. It's like he didn't understand what an opportunity he had.

    And before anyone chips in, for those who hate SP (I'm not one of them) all the warning signs were there with Skyfail

    I also thought Skyfall was overhyped and full of plot holes. However I still hold it to be a great Bond film - Goldfinger was long held up to be the 'gold standard' of the Bond films - but that has plot holes galore. In fact all 24 James Bond films have plot holes. Go watch them all again, carefully, and you'll see what I mean.
    This is true. Quite frankly, I don't watch Bond films to analyze the plot for cohesiveness. I watch them to be entertained. For a bit of escapism for 2+ hours. For exoticism. For intrigue. For glamour. For suspense. For interesting and memorable characters. To learn something trivial (like the correct temperature for saki) and to consider a spot for my next holiday.

    As long as it doesn't stretch the bounds of credibility (CGI surf everyone), & doesn't feature cringe worthy performances and line delivery (TWINE imho) I'm quite forgiving. Heck, I even like DAF these days.

    My criticism of the latest entry is that it's tonally unbalanced. Moreover, I just find it quite dull (not just in the colours, but also in the performances and characterizations). I hope B25 is anything but that.
  • Posts: 4,325
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I was a lone voice on here in 2012 arguing that Mendes had screwed up what had been achieved with CR and QOS.

    I had @germanlady practically threatening to kill me for daring to suggest SF was riddled with yawning plot holes and just wasn't as good as the hype said it was.

    Now everyone is jumping on the 'Mendes' is crap bandwagon.

    I might start defending him!

    Irony is that I preferred SP to SF. Having said that I still thing Mendes has made consistently poor decisions. He squandered what was achieved with the reboot and took us back to Austin Powers territory. It's like he didn't understand what an opportunity he had.

    And before anyone chips in, for those who hate SP (I'm not one of them) all the warning signs were there with Skyfail

    I also thought Skyfall was overhyped and full of plot holes. However I still hold it to be a great Bond film - Goldfinger was long held up to be the 'gold standard' of the Bond films - but that has plot holes galore. In fact all 24 James Bond films have plot holes. Go watch them all again, carefully, and you'll see what I mean.
    This is true. Quite frankly, I don't watch Bond films to analyze the plot for cohesiveness. I watch them to be entertained. For a bit of escapism for 2+ hours. For exoticism. For intrigue. For glamour. For suspense. For interesting and memorable characters. To learn something trivial (like the correct temperature for saki) and to consider a spot for my next holiday.

    As long as it doesn't stretch the bounds of credibility (CGI surf everyone), & doesn't feature cringe worthy performances and line delivery (TWINE imho) I'm quite forgiving. Heck, I even like DAF these days.

    My criticism of the latest entry is that it's tonally unbalanced. Moreover, I just find it quite dull (not just in the colours, but also in the performances and characterizations). I hope B25 is anything but that.

    Absolutely. And Goldfinger has the biggest plot hole in any film I've seen. He tells his plan to a bunch of gangsters who he then gasses. WHY?! That whole scene is purely to explain the plot to the audience - in the film's context it makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, I rank Goldfinger at somewhere like 7th or 8th out of all the Bonds.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,537
    One of the stand-ins from "Kings" posted on Instagram that the film has wrapped shooting.

    "Wrap gifts from the film, "Kings": A nice beanie from production, a bottle of Halle Berry's favorite champagne, and a bottle of Bollinger R.D. with a nice personal thank you written from Daniel Craig. #picturewrap #kings #halleberry #danielcraig #champagne"

    Indeed, it was an eight week shoot. Which either means DC's part is small as he mentioned at the New Yorker Festival, or he packed a lot of scenes into a short amount of time.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Every single movie has plot holes. A great movie SELLS a plot even when there are holes. That's why SF works but SP doesn't. That's why Home Alone is a classic, but Battlefield Earth is one of the worst movies ever made.

    When we are still engaged despite this, then that's all that matters.

    Speaking as someone who has written scripts, the more complicated the script, the more plot holes happen. You simply cannot avoid it. You can only make certain things believable to where even when you question it, you can still half-heartedly believe it because it's a movie and it doesn't take away from the experience.
  • Posts: 1,490
    tanaka123 wrote: »

    Absolutely. And Goldfinger has the biggest plot hole in any film I've seen. He tells his plan to a bunch of gangsters who he then gasses. WHY?! That whole scene is purely to explain the plot to the audience - in the film's context it makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, I rank Goldfinger at somewhere like 7th or 8th out of all the Bonds.

    The fun of that scene is that Goldfinger has such a giant ego he just loves showing off how clever he thinks he is - he loves having an audience, and when they mock him, he coolly gasses them - at least he knows the gas will work on the big job. So it's not really a plot hole, but you're right, it is ultimately there as an exposition scene, be it a well written, playfully performed and beautifully staged scene.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    @Getafix, you weren't a lone voice, as I've shared the same sentiments since 2012. That was a very, very tiny minority we found ourselves in after the film released.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    So if filming has wrapped on "Kings" what exactly is on Craig's agenda now? Purity doesn't start for a while yet right?
  • Posts: 4,325
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »

    Absolutely. And Goldfinger has the biggest plot hole in any film I've seen. He tells his plan to a bunch of gangsters who he then gasses. WHY?! That whole scene is purely to explain the plot to the audience - in the film's context it makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, I rank Goldfinger at somewhere like 7th or 8th out of all the Bonds.

    The fun of that scene is that Goldfinger has such a giant ego he just loves showing off how clever he thinks he is - he loves having an audience, and when they mock him, he coolly gasses them - at least he knows the gas will work on the big job. So it's not really a plot hole, but you're right, it is ultimately there as an exposition scene, be it a well written, playfully performed and beautifully staged scene.

    Absolutely, the scene in and of itself is brilliant and that's why it works. Fleming and Young always maintained that you move the story on so quickly that no one notices the idiosyncracies on the way. Young always said he was okay if people started pondering plot holes on the way home, but if he'd done his job right you're not doing it in the cinema - because you're so caught up in the way the story is unfolding!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    So if filming has wrapped on "Kings" what exactly is on Craig's agenda now? Purity doesn't start for a while yet right?

    All I've seen is that production will begin in 2017 and take place over the course over the year.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Craig may be headlining the project and all, but if they really do stick to the source material, he won't be in all the 20 episodes. The title is an anthology featuring various stories that merely connect with each other. Craig's character, Andreas Wolff in his adult self is not much of a central character, whereas the younger incarnation of the character, a teenager that is, leads an entire flashback of a story taking place in East Berlin. Craig is just a big name to strike popularity to the production and put it on the radar. He won't be in all 20 episodes.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    All I know is waiting for an announcement has really built my level of patience in life... I must check this forum every single day & after all this time we have literally nothing.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    All I know is waiting for an announcement has really built my level of patience in life... I must check this forum every single day & after all this time we have literally nothing.

    One way or another things are moving. Trust me on that.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    NSGW wrote: »

    Not true.
  • Craig may be headlining the project and all, but if they really do stick to the source material, he won't be in all the 20 episodes. The title is an anthology featuring various stories that merely connect with each other. Craig's character, Andreas Wolff in his adult self is not much of a central character, whereas the younger incarnation of the character, a teenager that is, leads an entire flashback of a story taking place in East Berlin. Craig is just a big name to strike popularity to the production and put it on the radar. He won't be in all 20 episodes.

    He's also an executive producer. If that's a meaningful title (as opposed to a vanity-type credit), you'd think he'd be around for most of the filming.

    That said, I don't know if it's a meaningful title or not.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Craig may be headlining the project and all, but if they really do stick to the source material, he won't be in all the 20 episodes. The title is an anthology featuring various stories that merely connect with each other. Craig's character, Andreas Wolff in his adult self is not much of a central character, whereas the younger incarnation of the character, a teenager that is, leads an entire flashback of a story taking place in East Berlin. Craig is just a big name to strike popularity to the production and put it on the radar. He won't be in all 20 episodes.

    He's also an executive producer. If that's a meaningful title (as opposed to a vanity-type credit), you'd think he'd be around for most of the filming.

    That said, I don't know if it's a meaningful title or not.
    Doesn't mean he couldn't focus on other things, though. Executive producing after all isn't as tiresome as producing. Well, at least in accordance to a friend of mine who knows a few things about film productions.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Craig may be headlining the project and all, but if they really do stick to the source material, he won't be in all the 20 episodes. The title is an anthology featuring various stories that merely connect with each other. Craig's character, Andreas Wolff in his adult self is not much of a central character, whereas the younger incarnation of the character, a teenager that is, leads an entire flashback of a story taking place in East Berlin. Craig is just a big name to strike popularity to the production and put it on the radar. He won't be in all 20 episodes.

    He's also an executive producer. If that's a meaningful title (as opposed to a vanity-type credit), you'd think he'd be around for most of the filming.

    That said, I don't know if it's a meaningful title or not.

    Executive producing in the States can be completely hands off. If you're a writer you may also get an exec credit, same goes for if you're a financier, or a department head. It's a little more involved in the UK (although sometimes not much). That's not to say Craig won't push to make executive decisions, but, as with a lot of execs, it could just be a vanity credit, bumping up the pay packet.
  • Does anyone suppose that maybe this is Craig's longer-term plan for the 'back nine' of his career? Gradually moving into production? Between SP and now Purity, he's building a bit of a resume. . .
  • RC7 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    All I know is waiting for an announcement has really built my level of patience in life... I must check this forum every single day & after all this time we have literally nothing.

    One way or another things are moving. Trust me on that.
    RC7 wrote: »
    NSGW wrote: »

    Not true.

    Can we take this to mean you've heard something recently @RC7? Or am I reading too much into it? I know you work in the industry so thought it was worth asking.
  • Posts: 11,425
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »

    Absolutely. And Goldfinger has the biggest plot hole in any film I've seen. He tells his plan to a bunch of gangsters who he then gasses. WHY?! That whole scene is purely to explain the plot to the audience - in the film's context it makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, I rank Goldfinger at somewhere like 7th or 8th out of all the Bonds.

    The fun of that scene is that Goldfinger has such a giant ego he just loves showing off how clever he thinks he is - he loves having an audience, and when they mock him, he coolly gasses them - at least he knows the gas will work on the big job. So it's not really a plot hole, but you're right, it is ultimately there as an exposition scene, be it a well written, playfully performed and beautifully staged scene.

    Absolutely, the scene in and of itself is brilliant and that's why it works. Fleming and Young always maintained that you move the story on so quickly that no one notices the idiosyncracies on the way. Young always said he was okay if people started pondering plot holes on the way home, but if he'd done his job right you're not doing it in the cinema - because you're so caught up in the way the story is unfolding!

    I totally agree with @ColonelSun about the validity of that scene. Also, all Bond villains love telling people their evil plan and then killing them. Since time immemorial.

    Good point about Young believing you need to move the plot along quickly. I personally think he failed to do this with TB, which is why it's the least successful of his three films.

    Mendes's films are yawn inducingly overlong. He does bloat better than anyone. SF is a snore fest for me. I also found SP a bit of a snore fest the first time I saw it, but it grew on me a little the second time. Overall though not a fan of the Mendes approach.

    SF is a stupid person's idea of what a clever Bond movie should be like.
Sign In or Register to comment.