No Time To Die: Production Diary

15825835855875882507

Comments

  • Tbh I'm amazed they still want to go with Craig honestly. I feel like SP closed off the Craig arc. I understand that he is probably the best actor since Connery to have been cast in the part, but let's all assume that B25 will be released around 2018-2019. Craig will have been Bond for 12-13 years, and we ALL know how people reacted to Moore sticking around too long. I am on the boat that says the series should start afresh again. Make the movies like how they used to be, not too fantastical but not too serious and dour. If I was the director of Bond 25, I'd be aiming for a tone that closely resembles the early Connery era (whether or not one could re-create that tone is another question), perhaps reboot once more and continue on from there just like the original series. The Craig series should be left as its own thing imho.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I agree @007ClassicBondFan, but I don't think a hard reset is necessary. Just soft reboot it (à la TLD or GE) and move on.
  • Posts: 16,169
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree @007ClassicBondFan, but I don't think a hard reset is necessary. Just soft reboot it (à la TLD or GE) and move on.

    Pretty much how I'm feeling. The longer this drags out the more it becomes too late. As much as I love Craig, I feel with him returning in B25, they'll only try to continue down the road Mendes started.
    At this point I'm thinking it's too late to try and continue where SP left off. By 2019, or even 2018 the general public won't really care how SP ended, what happened with Madeline/Blofeld, etc. They'll remember SP was generally viewed as an inferior follow up to SF.
    A soft re-boot I feel is probably what will happen if the producers really want to continue Bond as an on-going franchise. Otherwise they're just trying to milk something that was popular in 2006 and 2012.
  • I am amazed at the amount of people who are actually dissatisfied with the direction Mendes has taken. I mean I don't consider Skyfall and SPECTRE in the top 10 ranking for me personally, but people are always Skyfall as their favorites. Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see all the praise for the Craig movies. I like them, I mean their Bond films so how couldn't you if you aren't a fan. But I never go back and revisit them. The reason I say a full on reboot is because I feel the Craig movies are all connected, and I absolutely hate the fact that Blofeld is Bond's step brother.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree @007ClassicBondFan, but I don't think a hard reset is necessary. Just soft reboot it (à la TLD or GE) and move on.

    Pretty much how I'm feeling. The longer this drags out the more it becomes too late. As much as I love Craig, I feel with him returning in B25, they'll only try to continue down the road Mendes started.
    At this point I'm thinking it's too late to try and continue where SP left off. By 2019, or even 2018 the general public won't really care how SP ended, what happened with Madeline/Blofeld, etc. They'll remember SP was generally viewed as an inferior follow up to SF.
    A soft re-boot I feel is probably what will happen if the producers really want to continue Bond as an on-going franchise. Otherwise they're just trying to milk something that was popular in 2006 and 2012.
    On a related note, one thing I'm truly tired of is the contrived approach of tying a prequel into a previous 'successor' film or series of films. I'm referring to the ending of SF, when we had the old office, MP and all. It worked in that film but something similar was done in Rogue One and I found it 'meh' (been there, done that).

    I think the Craig era will exist as an 'alternate timeline' scenario. A re-imagining of sorts. Even Blofeld has been re-imagined, and is significant in the Craig era for killing Vesper, M and others, while he is significant in the old timeline for other reasons.

    So if they want, they can just jump back to the old timeline and bring Blofeld back a few films down the road without specifically referencing why he's significant. It's a given to the audience, no matter which timeline one is familiar with.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I rewatch CR every now and then (I love it, but it's a bit akin to OHMSS in that its a longer epic that I can't as easily rewatch as, say, GE or AVTAK or whichever), I watch QoS a good bit throughout a given year, and I haven't seen SF or SP in at least six months or so. Mendes killed so much enthusiasm for me with just two films. To think that it's now been almost a decade since I left a theater genuinely impressed and happy with a Bond installment is upsetting.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 2,270
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree @007ClassicBondFan, but I don't think a hard reset is necessary. Just soft reboot it (à la TLD or GE) and move on.

    Pretty much how I'm feeling. The longer this drags out the more it becomes too late. As much as I love Craig, I feel with him returning in B25, they'll only try to continue down the road Mendes started.
    At this point I'm thinking it's too late to try and continue where SP left off. By 2019, or even 2018 the general public won't really care how SP ended, what happened with Madeline/Blofeld, etc. They'll remember SP was generally viewed as an inferior follow up to SF.
    A soft re-boot I feel is probably what will happen if the producers really want to continue Bond as an on-going franchise. Otherwise they're just trying to milk something that was popular in 2006 and 2012.
    On a related note, one thing I'm truly tired of is the contrived approach of tying a prequel into a previous 'successor' film or series of films. I'm referring to the ending of SF, when we had the old office, MP and all. It worked in that film but something similar was done in Rogue One and I found it 'meh' (been there, done that).

    I think the Craig era will exist as an 'alternate timeline' scenario. A re-imagining of sorts. Even Blofeld has been re-imagined, and is significant in the Craig era for killing Vesper, M and others, while he is significant in the old timeline for other reasons.

    So if they want, they can just jump back to the old timeline and bring Blofeld back a few films down the road without specifically referencing why he's significant. It's a given to the audience, no matter which timeline one is familiar with.

    I feel like if they were to jump back to the old timeline, they wouldn't bring Blofeld for those movies. The Blofeld of the original timeline was last seen as a pathetic bald man with a neck brace and in a wheelchair (a reference to either OHMSS or DAF) who was dropped down a chimney after messing with Bond one too many times, unless they were to retcon that pre-credits sequence somehow (or better yet just retcon DAF and give a proper sequel to OHMSS), it'd be hard to see how they would continue from that.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 2,115
    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.

    In television, being an executive producer is supposed to be the primary producer. It's also one reason they're called "show runners."

    In movies, executive producer is a secondary title. Hence, in SPECTRE, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson are the leads, Callum McDougall (as executive producer) is secondary. As noted above, in films, a star's agent, a writer, and all sorts of others can get an executive producer title on a film.

    Having said that, in television, there's "producer inflation" where a lot of people get the executive producer title even if they're not doing that much. (i.e. Stan Lee got an "executive producer" credit on the Daredevil show on Netflix and he certainly wasn't do any heavy lifting.)

    In movies, there also has been "producer inflation" with the producer title. That's why the Producers Guild fought to get the "producer's mark" ("p.g.a." for Producers Guild of America; it's in small letters with periods to avoid confusion with the Professional Golfers Association, or PGA) to indicate who the real producers are.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    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.

    I'm not wholly convinced that Bond was meant to be 'washed up' in Skyfall. He was an agent doing his job during the PTS, but when MP shot him and he was left for dead he lost some faith in his boss and career. So when he came back, unshaven, out of shape he was feeling disenchanted.
    Getafix wrote: »
    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.
    With due respect does anyone really consider any Bond films to be 'clever'?
    For you Skyfall is a snore fest, for me it's 150 minutes flying by. A terrific Bond film. Dunno about it being clever though. Just as well otherwise I'd be 'stupid yes?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Rather than go the "too old" route for Skyfall, I would have had Bond as an agent who is still in his prime but looses his faith in MI6, specifically M, when he sees how disposable he and other agents are, and how little faith she had in him to complete his mission, So rather than age I would have preferred disillusionment.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I think there wasn't anything wrong with the "too old" route...if they hadn't gone with that in only his third entry. He's a rookie agent in CR and QoS, and suddenly his age and competence is questioned in the third movie, and completely disregarded in SP.
  • Posts: 16,169
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I think there wasn't anything wrong with the "too old" route...if they hadn't gone with that in only his third entry. He's a rookie agent in CR and QoS, and suddenly his age and competence is questioned in the third movie, and completely disregarded in SP.
    The reference M makes that Bond has been playing the game long enough was indication to me that 007 is suddenly past his prime. I think had the Craig films come out regularly, and say, last year we had been treated to his 6th outing as Bond, then that would have been an appropriate film to have his Bond be past it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Agreed. Even if it was his fourth installment, and we had something in 2010, it wouldn't have been as bad. But, regardless of the time in between the films, to go from a rookie agent to being 'past his prime' in just one film was such a huge, illogical jump for me.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 9,847
    So 29 new posts and nothing about Bond 25 sadly I feel we are in the same era as we we were in 2010 but without the games to keep us a float sadly
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    Risico007 wrote: »
    So 29 new posts and nothing about Bond 25 sadly I feel we are in the same era as we we were in 2010 but without the games to keep us a float sadly

    Thats what the comics are for this time around
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @Risico007, this thread will be in the same state for at least the rest of 2017, I'm sure. Hey, I offered to shut it down several hundred pages ago and everyone disagreed!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    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.

    You're not reading too much into it.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    You're not reading too much into it.

    And you're just going to leave it at that, huh? Ok.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    If @RC7 knows something we don't, chances are the source that he heard it from would prefer that he'd respect their privacy.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Sorry old man. Section 26, paragraph 5.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    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?

    You do have a point there
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    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.

    So nothing specific on when purity starts and ends
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @007Blofeld, unless there's been a production update online that I've yet to see, it's looking like a general "2017" start and end date.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Getafix wrote: »
    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.


    Absolutely not. Mendes is one of the best. Sure he has some flaws, but who didn t ?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Mendes shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Bond ever again. I'd sooner have Lee Tamahori posting absurd and poor CGI all over a ridiculously fun Bond film than have a character development emotional dilemma with cliches that Mendes directs.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    edited February 2017 Posts: 3,000
    Mendes shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Bond ever again. I'd sooner have Lee Tamahori posting absurd and poor CGI all over a ridiculously fun Bond film than have a character development emotional dilemma with cliches that Mendes directs.

    This! These attempts to add emotion and depth to Bond are tired and clichéd. They started even before Mendes; "I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me." I have no food left in my stomach. I've thrown it up.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Mendes shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Bond ever again. I'd sooner have Lee Tamahori posting absurd and poor CGI all over a ridiculously fun Bond film than have a character development emotional dilemma with cliches that Mendes directs.

    This! These attempts to add emotion and depth to Bond are tired and clichéd. They started even before Mendes; "I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me." I have no food left in my stomach. I've thrown it up.
    Arguably these attempts at emotional layering began with Dalton. Then it carried on with Brosnan (the infamous beach scene in GE and so on and so forth) and has now reached a fever pitch. A sign of the times? Perhaps.

    Cruise has shown with MI that one can take it back to basics (after an unwelcome emotional detour in MI3) and succeed. I for one hope that EON chooses to do the same.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    edited February 2017 Posts: 3,000
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Bond ever again. I'd sooner have Lee Tamahori posting absurd and poor CGI all over a ridiculously fun Bond film than have a character development emotional dilemma with cliches that Mendes directs.

    This! These attempts to add emotion and depth to Bond are tired and clichéd. They started even before Mendes; "I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me." I have no food left in my stomach. I've thrown it up.
    Arguably these attempts at emotional layering began with Dalton. Then it carried on with Brosnan (the infamous beach scene in GE and so on and so forth) and has now reached a fever pitch. A sign of the times? Perhaps.

    Cruise has shown with MI that one can take it back to basics (after an unwelcome emotional detour in MI3) and succeed. I for one hope that EON chooses to do the same.

    True. It wouldn't be so bad if we weren't constantly beaten over the head with it. Emotion every so often is fine, and more impactful, like OHMSS. If we are fed a constant diet of it, however, it gets old and feels like they are trying too hard to make the story seem meaningful. I watch a Bond movie to be entertained, not to be left with "something to think about". I have no desire to waste my time pondering the emotions of someone fictional. Perhaps EON can get all of this emotional bull out of their system with this psychological drama and not have to use Bond as their Guinea Pig.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited February 2017 Posts: 40,976
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Bond ever again. I'd sooner have Lee Tamahori posting absurd and poor CGI all over a ridiculously fun Bond film than have a character development emotional dilemma with cliches that Mendes directs.

    This! These attempts to add emotion and depth to Bond are tired and clichéd. They started even before Mendes; "I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me." I have no food left in my stomach. I've thrown it up.
    Arguably these attempts at emotional layering began with Dalton. Then it carried on with Brosnan (the infamous beach scene in GE and so on and so forth) and has now reached a fever pitch. A sign of the times? Perhaps.

    Cruise has shown with MI that one can take it back to basics (after an unwelcome emotional detour in MI3) and succeed. I for one hope that EON chooses to do the same.

    True. It wouldn't be so bad if we weren't constantly beaten over the head with it. Emotion every so often is fine, and more impactful, like OHMSS. If we are fed a constant diet of it, however, it gets old and feels like they are trying too hard to make the story seem meaningful. I watch a Bond movie to be entertained, not to be left with something to think about. I have no desire to waste my time pondering the emotions of someone fictional. Perhaps EON can get all of this emotional bull out of their system with this psychological drama and not have to use Bond as their Guinea Pig.

    Don't get me wrong, I love a movie that makes me think or has me pondering emotions of particular characters, but that's probably one of the last reasons why I've enjoyed this series for the last two decades. As you said, bits of drama and emotion are fine, but when the entire film seems to be driven by it, it's way too much. OHMSS handled this balance perfectly.
  • Posts: 16,169
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Bond ever again. I'd sooner have Lee Tamahori posting absurd and poor CGI all over a ridiculously fun Bond film than have a character development emotional dilemma with cliches that Mendes directs.

    This! These attempts to add emotion and depth to Bond are tired and clichéd. They started even before Mendes; "I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me." I have no food left in my stomach. I've thrown it up.
    Arguably these attempts at emotional layering began with Dalton. Then it carried on with Brosnan (the infamous beach scene in GE and so on and so forth) and has now reached a fever pitch. A sign of the times? Perhaps.

    Cruise has shown with MI that one can take it back to basics (after an unwelcome emotional detour in MI3) and succeed. I for one hope that EON chooses to do the same.

    Personally I find more character depth from Roger Moore's Bond in Octopussy and AVTAK than in any of these later melodramatic attempts at character development. Subtlety is often more, IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.