No Time To Die: Production Diary

17387397417437442507

Comments

  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    doubleoego wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Louise Frogley did an outstanding job on QoS.

    Lindy Hemming didn't quite get it right for all of CR, but she nailed that suit which Craig wore in the casino and the casual attire. She also was superb on the Bat trilogy. I notice she's working on Wonder Woman and what I see of that film looks good.

    Yeah, outside of the dinner suit and casual clothing, the CR suits looked a little too off the rack and had a somewhat baggy fit. Look at the scene after Bond gets scolded by Vesper over his ego and we then see Bond walking towards the Aston Martin where he retrieves his gun; the suit's cut is off...however, maybe that's intentional. Vesper on the train comments on the cut of his suit in a rather insulting way and then back at the hotel she fixes him up with a tailored dinner suit. So yeah, the ill-fitting suits could have been intentional as by the time we get to QOS his suits are immaculate.
    Bond just became a 00 so he wasn't supposed to like tailored suits yet.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »


    @Shardlake, I agree and I disagree. Yes, he has reinvented the character (I'd say not for the better in some cases) but then that was his mandate. That was the reason they went for him to begin with. That was the vision. No other actor had that opportunity so completely (with everyone being 100% on board). So in a way that was an advantage he had. Who is to say that the others wouldn't have been able to do it just as well if given the choice and opportunity? Half of this is timing.

    Moreover, it's clear that EON finally ditched their misguided American fascination with CR and decided to go back to quality European actors (who may not have been as well known). I had been hoping for that for some time, and they took the hint.

    Upon last viewing I realized just what a superior ensemble effort CR is. The whole cast elevates that film, although Craig is at its centre.

    I'd argue that QoS is the film where Craig owns and carries the entry, not CR.

    Dan has had certain advantages, yes, but I wouldn't let that take away from his contributions just because Cubby's oft-used strategy was to do very little reinvention or innovation for decades. Barbara supported her man, and I applaud her for it.
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I'd argue he's got the closest even if he hasn't got to that level.

    Craig has attained reinventing the character and making it hugely successful in a way that no one since Connery has.

    No one is going to be like Connery because he was the first and it's unlikely anyone will have the effect that he had, everyone will be compared to him who plays the role.

    Although there is a reason the likes of Tom Hardy & Michael Fassbender are saying they'd be interested and that is Daniel Craig and what he has done for the role.

    Before he played Bond you wouldn't have critically acclaimed actors being interested in the role, to think who was being touted at the time before Craig was cast, Hardy & Fassbender are literally 2 of the hottest actors on the planet and they aren't snubbing their nose at the role like successful actors have in the past thinking it would be beneath them.

    Daniel Craig has done that and that is what separates him from the others and puts him the closest to Connery in significance, he's changed the idea of who can be Bond and who wants to be and if you can't see that then you are delusional and denying it.

    Agreed again, @Shardlake. It seems a trend to bash Craig via Connery these days. I worship Sean's Bond-I wouldn't have him as my profile on accident-but many seem incapable of admitting that even the big man had his errors. One issue I never see with Dan is consistency and commitment. He always gives it his all, no matter the material, and is the first to sign up for all the stunts he's allowed to do, which is a lot. Sean in his first four was genius, but that man wasn't there in YOLT or DAF, and his mood was very detracting. Cantankerous, complacent, unwilling to perform at times or commit to at least looking the part. By DAF there was no mistaking that Bond was nothing more to him than a means to an end: a fat check. Sean's Bond in many ways died with TB, as I think that's where his willingness to play ball ended and therefore, only dollar signs remained. After 1965, the golden performances were gone and the shine had dulled.

    I still feel the same about Dan as I did at the start, and I've never seen his love of the job or his commitment wane. It's 100% or nothing at all. That quality, a love of the job for the job's sake, is something Sean never had, and while that isn't a pre-requisite, his lack of interest shows and hampers his performances. If Dan wanted to leave he'd go, and he wouldn't stand for not looking the part at any point like Sean did for the last third of his tenure. Fans can debate Dan's performances all they want, but I think it's disingenuous for some to rub him through the ground in light of what he pushes himself to do. As you say, he showed everyone he could be what they said he couldn't, pushed the boundaries between actor and stuntman, and cares as much, if not more, about the job than he did in '06 over a decade on. That's a rarity for this series and for all that and more he has my respect.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Amen to that.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Connery even when not 100% in it which probably is referring DAF was still 100% Bond. Always. NSNA is proof of this as well.

    Craig has his fans, naturally. But so does Brosnan, there is not much of a difference.

    When the new guy has arrived he will have fans as well. Even if it's freaking Jamie Bell.

    Dan's tenure was not even any special ticket sales wise until SF. That's about all that can be said of this era. SF elevated the BO to new heights which undoubtably had only so much to do with the actor himself.

    Again, Dan is great in the role as have been his five predecessors. Even if he doesn't look like Bond should look.

    But he has brought nothing new to the franchise. EON did with the scripts. It could as well have been any other of the contenders that were around in 2005 for the role.

    There is too much emphasis put on the actor. Especially in this era.

    Bond actor 007 will have easy play. He won't be compared to Dan for long, that shadow is only so big and easy to escape.
    But Connery is the ultimate Bond and always will be and there is a reason for it, it has to do with him being the first but that's not the main thing.

    Look at the Batman franchise. Michael Keaton has his die-hard fans and rightfully so. But I think it's fair to say that Christian Bale is widely regarded as the better Batman.

    To stay with the Batman/Bond comparison.

    Craig to the Batman franchise would be Clooney or maybe, maybe Kilmer at best.
    Dalton is Keaton for sure.
    Connery is Bale.
    Brosnan is Affleck.
    Lazenby is Kilmer.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    There's no questioning his commitment. The trend however was to take the Connery comparisons for granted for a number of years, which as I said before has happened with Dalton & Brosnan as well in the past.

    Those days are gone.

    He has certain advantages and disadvantages, but he is not the complete Bond Connery was in my view. Not by a long shot.

    EDIT: I pretty much agree with you @BondJasonBond006. Nice Batman comparisons as well. I'd say early Craig has a bit of Dalton/Keaton intensity in him. That's what I liked the best about his performances.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Craig, Clooney or Keaton????

    Jason you are just baiting now, that has no grounding your assessment whatsoever at all.

    Look just say it you hate Craig like the Major because he wasn't afforded what little Timmy wasn't, your contempt isn't even hidden.

    Some Dalton fans are so bitter that Craig got the keys to the castle and Dalton didn't even get the draw bridge up.

    Please don't bring up your love of SPECTRE, you are a big Brosnan film and that film is closest to his era they've got, tick the box hijinks, the only reason you love it.

    It certainly not Daniel Craig, at least I'm up front about my dislike of Brosnan, you try seem like this guy who likes everyone but really you have it in for Craig big time.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    bondjames wrote: »
    There's no questioning his commitment. The trend however was to take the Connery comparisons for granted for a number of years, which as I said before has happened with Dalton & Brosnan as well in the past.

    Those days are gone.

    He has certain advantages and disadvantages, but he is not the complete Bond Connery was in my view. Not by a long shot.

    EDIT: I pretty much agree with you @BondJasonBond006. Nice Batman comparisons as well. I'd say early Craig has a bit of Dalton/Keaton intensity in him. That's what I liked the best about his performances.

    I agree on that Craig showed great potential at the beginning. I think no other Bond actor had such a downward spiral than Craig.
    As you know I love his performance in Spectre, but it's the whole package of the film which suits Craig imitating Brosnan and Moore very well.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @BondJasonBond006, we have to understand that Craig has been Bond for 11 years. That's a pretty long time. There was an unheard of nine year time period between CR & his fourth film. So the changes in his performance are magnified like they have been with no other actor before him on account of the gaps between films.

    I think a lot of the change is just down to age. People lose their intensity as they age. That's a privilege of relative youth. Additionally, he didn't do a film between SF & SP.

    Some of it could be Mendes though, since he has done the last two and has been the only director in the past nine years.

    We will only know what Craig has to bring if he comes back with some other new director, & we will be able to see some clues in his upcoming films.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    To be Bond you have to hit a lot of notes: tough, dutiful, stylish, witty, bold, unflappable, cool, enviable, credible. Sean was able to hit them all in his best films despite missteps, and I think Dan is the only one to come even close on the scorecard in general or consistently. The others have their areas, like George's physicality, Moore's wit and charm, Dalton's intensity and Brosnan's off and on charisma, but one major element doesn't make up for the parts they each lacked in varying numbers from medium to high.

    Bond didn't look unflappable on the rack in TB, or the table in GF. Sure, in the same situation, i'd be acting in the same way, but that isn't unflappable. Like William Hartnell as The Doctor, Connery didn't do everything best, but he did provide a foundation for those that followed to build on.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 8,400
    They will bring back good tailoring with the next actor, I'm sure of it.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited May 2017 Posts: 28,694
    To be Bond you have to hit a lot of notes: tough, dutiful, stylish, witty, bold, unflappable, cool, enviable, credible. Sean was able to hit them all in his best films despite missteps, and I think Dan is the only one to come even close on the scorecard in general or consistently. The others have their areas, like George's physicality, Moore's wit and charm, Dalton's intensity and Brosnan's off and on charisma, but one major element doesn't make up for the parts they each lacked in varying numbers from medium to high.

    Bond didn't look unflappable on the rack in TB, or the table in GF. Sure, in the same situation, i'd be acting in the same way, but that isn't unflappable. Like William Hartnell as The Doctor, Connery didn't do everything best, but he did provide a foundation for those that followed to build on.

    @MajorDSmythe, I think you confuse the meaning. It's possible to show fear without letting that fear stop you from doing your job. Bond felt out of sorts being chased and shot by Fiona and her gang in TB, or in front of Grant's gun in FRWL, but he didn't allow his fear and the statistical chance of his death from making him crumble. He settled himself, focused his mind, used his adrenaline, his smarts and his brawn to get out alive. There's never an absence of fear for deep Bonds like Sean and Dan's, as they're inherently human. It's how they deal with that fear to survive another day that means the most. That's being unflappable.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I've found all of the Bonds quite unflappable except for Dalts who showed a bit too much enthusiasm (Della!!!!) and Brozza (pain face, whining about on the beach and in the hotel and at Baku). Cool under pressure is something I expect of Bond, and most have delivered.

    The trick is the ability to be subtle. As I said, Dalton didn't quite do it as well imho. Brosnan could, if he just underplayed a bit more.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    @MajorDSmythe, I think you confuse the meaning. It's possible to show fear without letting that fear stop you from doing your job. Bond felt out of sorts being chased and shot by Fiona and her gang in TB, or in front of Grant's gun in FRWL, but he didn't allow his fear and the statistical chance of his death from making him crumble. He settled himself, focused his mind, used his adrenaline, his smarts and his brawn to get out alive. There's never an absence of fear for deep Bonds like Sean and Dan's, as they're inherently human. It's how they deal with that fear to survive another day that means the most. That's being unflappable.

    But now you are moving the goal posts, so to speak. What you are saying there, doesn't fall under the definition of unflappable. I am not saying that I would have handled the TB rack situation any better, because I wouldn't, but he was (understandably) in the throes of hysterics in that scene. The only Bond who could rightfully be called unflappable, is Moore.

    Don't get me wrong, I like Connery in his first two Bonds, but I don't believe that he had all the bases covered.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @MajorDSmythe, I think you confuse the meaning. It's possible to show fear without letting that fear stop you from doing your job. Bond felt out of sorts being chased and shot by Fiona and her gang in TB, or in front of Grant's gun in FRWL, but he didn't allow his fear and the statistical chance of his death from making him crumble. He settled himself, focused his mind, used his adrenaline, his smarts and his brawn to get out alive. There's never an absence of fear for deep Bonds like Sean and Dan's, as they're inherently human. It's how they deal with that fear to survive another day that means the most. That's being unflappable.

    But now you are moving the goal posts, so to speak. What you are saying there, doesn't fall under the definition of unflappable. I am not saying that I would have handled the TB rack situation any better, because I wouldn't, but he was (understandably) in the throes of hysterics in that scene. The only Bond who could rightfully be called unflappable, is Moore.

    Don't get me wrong, I like Connery in his first two Bonds, but I don't believe that he had all the bases covered.

    I wouldn't call a man having an honest reaction someone who can't be unflappable. If Bond didn't show fear in certain moments, he wouldn't be a credible character, as his humanity is so much of him. It's the true mark of an unflappable man to make people think he's got it all under control even when facing death. Bond didn't lay down and die when he was down and out, he got through it via discipline despite his obvious biology.

    We can argue semantics all day, but it isn't the place for it, and we've all contributed in derailing this thread for over an hour anyway.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It's not like there's anything else to chat about regarding production at this point, so I'm happy to take the discussion to another thread if others are interested.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    It's a good discussion, but it really doesn't belong here.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Perhaps this week we'll learn more about that Instagram post regarding Bond 25 by ronmilione.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    Perhaps this week we'll learn more about that Instagram post regarding Bond 25 by ronmilione.
    why?

  • Posts: 11,425
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I'd argue he's got the closest even if he hasn't got to that level.

    Craig has attained reinventing the character and making it hugely successful in a way that no one since Connery has.

    No one is going to be like Connery because he was the first and it's unlikely anyone will have the effect that he had, everyone will be compared to him who plays the role.

    Although there is a reason the likes of Tom Hardy & Michael Fassbender are saying they'd be interested and that is Daniel Craig and what he has done for the role.

    Before he played Bond you wouldn't have critically acclaimed actors being interested in the role, to think who was being touted at the time before Craig was cast, Hardy & Fassbender are literally 2 of the hottest actors on the planet and they aren't snubbing their nose at the role like successful actors have in the past thinking it would be beneath them.

    Daniel Craig has done that and that is what separates him from the others and puts him the closest to Connery in significance, he's changed the idea of who can be Bond and who wants to be and if you can't see that then you are delusional and denying it.

    Moore's is still the most successful reinvention IMO. I personally also prefer Dalton - take some of the best scenes from TLD and LTK and they trump Craig in my view.

    I might even go so far as saying I prefer Laz. I much prefer watching OHMSS to any of the Craig era films
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Louise Frogley did an outstanding job on QoS.

    Lindy Hemming didn't quite get it right for all of CR, but she nailed that suit which Craig wore in the casino and the casual attire. She also was superb on the Bat trilogy. I notice she's working on Wonder Woman and what I see of that film looks good.

    Yeah, outside of the dinner suit and casual clothing, the CR suits looked a little too off the rack and had a somewhat baggy fit. Look at the scene after Bond gets scolded by Vesper over his ego and we then see Bond walking towards the Aston Martin where he retrieves his gun; the suit's cut is off...however, maybe that's intentional. Vesper on the train comments on the cut of his suit in a rather insulting way and then back at the hotel she fixes him up with a tailored dinner suit. So yeah, the ill-fitting suits could have been intentional as by the time we get to QOS his suits are immaculate.
    Bond just became a 00 so he wasn't supposed to like tailored suits yet.

    Don't see how that's relevant. Being a 00 doesn't make one suddenly into fine tailoring. You'd think there are more important things for one to concern themselves with after being given a license to kill.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Shardlake wrote: »


    Some Dalton fans are so bitter that Craig got the keys to the castle and Dalton didn't even get the draw bridge up.

    1%20so%20cool%20kid%20fan.gif

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited May 2017 Posts: 28,694
    As per @jake24 's wishes, this stuff can go elsewhere. I think we all hijacked this one enough for a day.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Controversial opinions thread?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @bondjames ,DeNiro was 52 when he did HEAT, Clint Eastwood was 62 in UNFORGIVEN, a year older in THE LINE OF FIRE, Denzel Washington was 60 when he did THE EQUALIZER.

    I would say the intensity change in Craig has more to do with the direction Mendez took his films (since the reviews he got for OTHELLO stated his masculinity and intensity).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    It's a possbility @peter, because I saw Craig in 2013 in New York doing Betrayal on Broadway, and he was plenty intense there.

    Still, it's more difficult to capture when one ages, and none of the long running actors have gotten more so with time. Rather, the opposite.

    I was not able to catch Othello, but I look forward to his new output to see what kind of Craig we will see going forward. It's amazing that there's been nothing since SP & before that, SF.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Craig to the Batman franchise would be Clooney or maybe, maybe Kilmer at best.

    Laughable. If you were a new poster I'd be torn between whether you were trolling or straight up stupid.

    Anyone who thinks Craig brought nothing to Bond is simply wrong. Pure and simple. @Shardlake already summed up the key points, so I won't bother reiterating as I'm sure it'll just be met with the usual posturing about criticising opinions.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    Brosnan = Connery + Moore

    Craig = Lazenby + Dalton
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited May 2017 Posts: 13,978
    Shardlake wrote: »
    The Major really hates Craig because he got to do what his favourite Bond didn't, if Dalton has been in the Craig era films instead he'd be ecstatic.

    I hate Craig? Yes I do. I guess that is why I have given Craig some praise in SP, saying that it is his most Bondian performance, and that when Craig walked across the rooftops in SP, I couldn't believe that I was finally seeing the Bond that I expected back in 2006. When I hate people, I tend to praise them. Obviously that makes complete sense.

    And if the Craig films were made exactly the same way, but with Dalton, I would still call them out for their lack of Bondian feeling, for the erratic editing of QOS, for the arty farty pertentions of SF and SP, the moronic "The dead are alive" at the start of SP, Bond having such in immense chip on his should RE:authority and still be inducted in the 00 section. So no, I would still have my gripes, however big or small, no matter who the Bond actor was.
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I perfectly understand being bitter about Craig but he is not a blue print of Connery one bit, Dan is a much more detailed and subtle actor than Connery.

    You know, having an opinion on another Bond, doesn't make one bitter. And how come it's Craig centric. I have said negative things about Brosnan, how come I am not bitter at Brosnan's success with the public, there? Surely by this logic, any criticism of Dalton must mean bitterness on behalf of the person.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Isn't the MGM quarterly conference call for this quarter out yet I think its like in may its supposed to come out maybe we will hear some bond 25 news then
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Shardlake wrote: »
    The Major really hates Craig because he got to do what his favourite Bond didn't, if Dalton has been in the Craig era films instead he'd be ecstatic.

    I hate Craig? Yes I do. I guess that is why I have given Craig some praise in SP, saying that it is his most Bondian performance, and that when Craig walked across the rooftops in SP, I couldn't believe that I was finally seeing the Bond that I expected back in 2006. When I hate people, I tend to praise them. Obviously that makes complete sense.

    And if the Craig films were made exactly the same way, but with Dalton, I would still call them out for their lack of Bondian feeling, for the erratic editing of QOS, for the arty farty pertentions of SF and SP, the moronic "The dead are alive" at the start of SP, Bond having such in immense chip on his should RE:authority and still be inducted in the 00 section. So no, I would still have my gripes, however big or small, no matter who the Bond actor was.
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I perfectly understand being bitter about Craig but he is not a blue print of Connery one bit, Dan is a much more detailed and subtle actor than Connery.

    You know, having an opinion on another Bond, doesn't make one bitter. And how come it's Craig centric. I have said negative things about Brosnan, how come I am not bitter at Brosnan's success with the public, there? Surely by this logic, any criticism of Dalton must mean bitterness on behalf of the person.
    Give it a rest, old chap. No need to get all sweaty.

Sign In or Register to comment.