› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…856857859861862…2507

Comments

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    If B25 is a one off and the last from EON (a big hypothetical of course, but just playing along with the current rumour mill here), then I can imagine it will be quite the film. A celebration of the best of Bond. A final stamp to send the whole thing off to the new studio with a bang. 'Show the new boys' how it's done and all that.

    So either way I'm quite optimistic, but would be ecstatic if it's a brand new cast as well. A true one off.

    My thoughts exactly. Also, if Craig does return and it's his last film, I want to see it being marketed/promoted that way. It might even make Craig go the extra mile and give us something for the ages. Especially since he'll want to use it as the springboard for the rest of his career.
    Agree 100%.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    They truly better market it that way.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm increasingly of the opinion that Craig is still not on board, irrespective of what the so-called 'newspaper of record' (a joke) says.

    I just don't understand why they wouldn't have announced him yesterday.

    He may be waiting on the director before he finalizes his choice.

    I hope you're right.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    My own "problem" with Nolan - and the films I've seen, is that they feel (and are!) very long. He takes his time with the plot, slowly building everything up to the climax. Not that they necessarily become boring, but it almost becomes a chore to complete it.

    How long any movie feels like to any viewer varies. If it feels like a chore then clearly one doesn't enjoy it - the length itself has little to do with that.

    However, most of Nolan's movies aren't actually long.
    Following 70 minutes (done on a shoestring budget and all that, so a somewhat different case, but I don't know if he'd even have wanted to make it longer),
    Dunkirk 106 minutes,
    Memento 113 minutes,
    Insomnia 118 minutes,
    The Prestige 130 minutes,
    Batman Begins 140 minutes,
    Inception 148 minutes.
    So: 4 out of 10 under 2 hours, 7 out of 10 under 2 and a half hours. None over 3 hours (the longest being Interstellar at 169 minutes).
    Personally I don't consider movies under 2 and a half hours to even be long, so I wouldn't say Nolan's movies are long in general.
    If you dislike them, though, they'll probably all feel long to you. The same would go for any other movies. A 2 hour movie will feel long if you hate it, a 2 hour 30 minute movie won't feel long if you love it.

    Well, there are plenty of films I really do like, but at the same time feel could loose some unnecessary elements, allowing a "tighter" film experience. In your list you didn't mention The Dark Knight at 152 minutes and The Dark Knight Rises at 165 minutes. Both films were part of a discussion among my friends some years ago - all of them loved both films, but felt they were too long. If I remember correctly, one of them said something like: «I'm loving this, but I really feel that ("this") and ("that") could be cut short. I don't think it would hurt the movie experience at all». A point to which I agreed. Can't remember what parts exactly, but that's not important.

    I know he has made a couple of pretty long films as well. I was just saying that most of his movies aren't actually long. The long ones are an exceptions rather than his regular MO.

    Tuulia wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Interesting. War films isn't really my thing, so I doubt I'll check it out - but what elements of Dunkirk are different from his other films?

    No slow build-up, you're dropped right into it, and then it just keeps escalating. No backstories for any characters. No actual lead(s), it's very much an ensemble piece. Very little dialogue.

    It's also not a traditional war film. There are no regular battles, nor regular victory, no portrayal of typical machismo or big heroics, no emotional manipulation of the viewer, no gore, no detailed/extended death scenes of individuals. It's not about homes or loved ones, what anyone has done in the past or what they'd like to do in the future. It's only about the now, what everyone has in common, this moment and how to survive it. It works in a different way that war films normally do. Here war is the setting, and obviously it's a story of actual history, but it's more a thriller by nature than a war movie. But in the unusual way that it is about war, I think it's very effective - more so IMO, because of not having seen this kind of approach to it before.

    Interesting. Almost all the elements you mentioned above are things that put me off war films, especially the machismo/big heroics elements, which so many war films suffer from. Might have to reconsider checking it out, eventually. :-)

    Yes, me, too. There tends to be an element of noble sacrifice and heroic deeds and therefore glorification of war and soldiers and death and killing. As if the whole business has some innate nobility and glory to it. I've seen that quite enough, and was happy not to see it in this. I think the very human desperation to just survive, and the utterly non-noble randomness of death was refreshing. Lives mattered equally since nobody was singled out with backstories to make them more special and more "relatable". Some people thought that was a negative (in other words they wanted the familiar war movie), I thought it was a positive.

    I thought it was technically beautiful as well - directing, cinematography, sound, etc. And I liked the structure, and thought it worked well to support the story and enhance the overall effect of tension.

    But, hey, you might just hate it. :) One always takes that risk with movies. Just don't watch on a mobile device or something. Big and loud would be a better idea. It's not a plot-based movie, but a feeling based movie.

    A big screen and loud volume it is, then! The images I've seen looks good, so no doubting the cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema. :-)

    Hands down, best and most impactful audio I've ever experienced. Every gunshot startled me, the airplane soaring sounded real and terrifying. Absolutely amazing.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    My own "problem" with Nolan - and the films I've seen, is that they feel (and are!) very long. He takes his time with the plot, slowly building everything up to the climax. Not that they necessarily become boring, but it almost becomes a chore to complete it.

    How long any movie feels like to any viewer varies. If it feels like a chore then clearly one doesn't enjoy it - the length itself has little to do with that.

    However, most of Nolan's movies aren't actually long.
    Following 70 minutes (done on a shoestring budget and all that, so a somewhat different case, but I don't know if he'd even have wanted to make it longer),
    Dunkirk 106 minutes,
    Memento 113 minutes,
    Insomnia 118 minutes,
    The Prestige 130 minutes,
    Batman Begins 140 minutes,
    Inception 148 minutes.
    So: 4 out of 10 under 2 hours, 7 out of 10 under 2 and a half hours. None over 3 hours (the longest being Interstellar at 169 minutes).
    Personally I don't consider movies under 2 and a half hours to even be long, so I wouldn't say Nolan's movies are long in general.
    If you dislike them, though, they'll probably all feel long to you. The same would go for any other movies. A 2 hour movie will feel long if you hate it, a 2 hour 30 minute movie won't feel long if you love it.

    Well, there are plenty of films I really do like, but at the same time feel could loose some unnecessary elements, allowing a "tighter" film experience. In your list you didn't mention The Dark Knight at 152 minutes and The Dark Knight Rises at 165 minutes. Both films were part of a discussion among my friends some years ago - all of them loved both films, but felt they were too long. If I remember correctly, one of them said something like: «I'm loving this, but I really feel that ("this") and ("that") could be cut short. I don't think it would hurt the movie experience at all». A point to which I agreed. Can't remember what parts exactly, but that's not important.

    I know he has made a couple of pretty long films as well. I was just saying that most of his movies aren't actually long. The long ones are an exceptions rather than his regular MO.

    Tuulia wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Interesting. War films isn't really my thing, so I doubt I'll check it out - but what elements of Dunkirk are different from his other films?

    No slow build-up, you're dropped right into it, and then it just keeps escalating. No backstories for any characters. No actual lead(s), it's very much an ensemble piece. Very little dialogue.

    It's also not a traditional war film. There are no regular battles, nor regular victory, no portrayal of typical machismo or big heroics, no emotional manipulation of the viewer, no gore, no detailed/extended death scenes of individuals. It's not about homes or loved ones, what anyone has done in the past or what they'd like to do in the future. It's only about the now, what everyone has in common, this moment and how to survive it. It works in a different way that war films normally do. Here war is the setting, and obviously it's a story of actual history, but it's more a thriller by nature than a war movie. But in the unusual way that it is about war, I think it's very effective - more so IMO, because of not having seen this kind of approach to it before.

    Interesting. Almost all the elements you mentioned above are things that put me off war films, especially the machismo/big heroics elements, which so many war films suffer from. Might have to reconsider checking it out, eventually. :-)

    Yes, me, too. There tends to be an element of noble sacrifice and heroic deeds and therefore glorification of war and soldiers and death and killing. As if the whole business has some innate nobility and glory to it. I've seen that quite enough, and was happy not to see it in this. I think the very human desperation to just survive, and the utterly non-noble randomness of death was refreshing. Lives mattered equally since nobody was singled out with backstories to make them more special and more "relatable". Some people thought that was a negative (in other words they wanted the familiar war movie), I thought it was a positive.

    I thought it was technically beautiful as well - directing, cinematography, sound, etc. And I liked the structure, and thought it worked well to support the story and enhance the overall effect of tension.

    But, hey, you might just hate it. :) One always takes that risk with movies. Just don't watch on a mobile device or something. Big and loud would be a better idea. It's not a plot-based movie, but a feeling based movie.

    A big screen and loud volume it is, then! The images I've seen looks good, so no doubting the cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema. :-)

    Hands down, best and most impactful audio I've ever experienced. Every gunshot startled me, the airplane soaring sounded real and terrifying. Absolutely amazing.
    Dunkirk's sound design is quite possibly the best I've seen (or heard). What a riveting experience in IMAX.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited July 2017 Posts: 11,119
    I'm glad Daniel Craig returns. And frankly, there were times when the more frequent posters loved the idea of a 'return to continuation'. Look, I am tired of the DC Comics and Marvel universes (although I liked "Wonder Woman", but it still isn't "The Dark Knight"). "Superman" this year just got it's 3rd reboot, with another new cast. I'm done with reboots. It has become a tired uninspired vehicle for continuation, when in essence you can actually do so much more with already established cast members. One simply has to write a great story, regardless of that. But I do think that Hollywood people and their franchises should try better to actually write great stories with established actors, instead of constantly trying to re-invent the same character with new actors! It was Bond's signature trademark for God sake to keep the flow going! Let's keep the reboot a one-off with "Casino Royale". At least for this moment. And let's welcome the return of Daniel Craig with a little bit more enthusiasm (Although it's already clear from this poll that most, less verbal, fans in here loved the idea of Craig returning: https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/14655/bond-polls-2016-craig-stays-or-leaves-choose-one-of-the-four-options#latest )! So Danny? Hold up that Walter PPK with dignity coming 2019!
    LbqnIgb.jpg
  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    I'm glad Daniel Craig returns. And frankly, there were times when the more frequent posters loved the idea of a 'return to continuation'. Look, I am tired of the DC Comics and Marvel universes (although I liked "Wonder Woman", but it still isn't "The Dark Knight"). "Superman" this year just got it's 3rd reboot, with another new cast. I'm done with reboots. It has become a tired uninspired vehicle for continuation, when in essence you can actually do so much more with already established cast members. One simply has to write a great story, regardless of that. But I do think that Hollywood people should try better to actually write great stories with established characters! It was Bond's signature trademark for God sake! Let's keep the reboot a one-off with "Casino Royale" for the moment. And let's welcome the return of Daniel Craig with a little bit more enthusiasm (Although it's already clear from this poll that most, less verbal, fans in here loved the idea of Craig returning: https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/14655/bond-polls-2016-craig-stays-or-leaves-choose-one-of-the-four-options#latest )! So Danny? Hold up that Walter PPK with dignity coming 2019!
    LbqnIgb.jpg

    Well said, @Gustav_Graves.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,970
    If Bond 25 is the last EON than Craig is 100% coming back for it.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited July 2017 Posts: 11,119
    Nice article from Forbes. He kind of verbalizes what I think '
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/07/25/why-daniel-craig-was-always-going-to-return-as-james-bond/#518909b87005
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    The reason he wasn't in the press release was because they didn't want it to dominate Logan Lucky. Let Craig have his moment. Hence, the announcement coming end of August September
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    In the interest of keeping the British end up, can we remove 'fall' from the thread title please?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    QuantumOrganization wrote: »
    The reason he wasn't in the press release was because they didn't want it to dominate Logan Lucky. Let Craig have his moment. Hence, the announcement coming end of August September
    Then why announce anything at all? Why not do it all at once in Aug/Sep?

    Either way Craig's going to let it out of the bag when he's grilled. If anything this will make it more of a talking issue than them not having said anything. He could have then said he hadn't heard anything yet. Now he can't make that excuse.

    Very strange.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,110
    Shouldn't this thread be retitled "James Bond will return in autumn 2019"?
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,970
    People are looking too much into Craig not being apart of a little announcement
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,753
    jake24 wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    My own "problem" with Nolan - and the films I've seen, is that they feel (and are!) very long. He takes his time with the plot, slowly building everything up to the climax. Not that they necessarily become boring, but it almost becomes a chore to complete it.

    How long any movie feels like to any viewer varies. If it feels like a chore then clearly one doesn't enjoy it - the length itself has little to do with that.

    However, most of Nolan's movies aren't actually long.
    Following 70 minutes (done on a shoestring budget and all that, so a somewhat different case, but I don't know if he'd even have wanted to make it longer),
    Dunkirk 106 minutes,
    Memento 113 minutes,
    Insomnia 118 minutes,
    The Prestige 130 minutes,
    Batman Begins 140 minutes,
    Inception 148 minutes.
    So: 4 out of 10 under 2 hours, 7 out of 10 under 2 and a half hours. None over 3 hours (the longest being Interstellar at 169 minutes).
    Personally I don't consider movies under 2 and a half hours to even be long, so I wouldn't say Nolan's movies are long in general.
    If you dislike them, though, they'll probably all feel long to you. The same would go for any other movies. A 2 hour movie will feel long if you hate it, a 2 hour 30 minute movie won't feel long if you love it.

    Well, there are plenty of films I really do like, but at the same time feel could loose some unnecessary elements, allowing a "tighter" film experience. In your list you didn't mention The Dark Knight at 152 minutes and The Dark Knight Rises at 165 minutes. Both films were part of a discussion among my friends some years ago - all of them loved both films, but felt they were too long. If I remember correctly, one of them said something like: «I'm loving this, but I really feel that ("this") and ("that") could be cut short. I don't think it would hurt the movie experience at all». A point to which I agreed. Can't remember what parts exactly, but that's not important.

    I know he has made a couple of pretty long films as well. I was just saying that most of his movies aren't actually long. The long ones are an exceptions rather than his regular MO.

    Tuulia wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Interesting. War films isn't really my thing, so I doubt I'll check it out - but what elements of Dunkirk are different from his other films?

    No slow build-up, you're dropped right into it, and then it just keeps escalating. No backstories for any characters. No actual lead(s), it's very much an ensemble piece. Very little dialogue.

    It's also not a traditional war film. There are no regular battles, nor regular victory, no portrayal of typical machismo or big heroics, no emotional manipulation of the viewer, no gore, no detailed/extended death scenes of individuals. It's not about homes or loved ones, what anyone has done in the past or what they'd like to do in the future. It's only about the now, what everyone has in common, this moment and how to survive it. It works in a different way that war films normally do. Here war is the setting, and obviously it's a story of actual history, but it's more a thriller by nature than a war movie. But in the unusual way that it is about war, I think it's very effective - more so IMO, because of not having seen this kind of approach to it before.

    Interesting. Almost all the elements you mentioned above are things that put me off war films, especially the machismo/big heroics elements, which so many war films suffer from. Might have to reconsider checking it out, eventually. :-)

    Yes, me, too. There tends to be an element of noble sacrifice and heroic deeds and therefore glorification of war and soldiers and death and killing. As if the whole business has some innate nobility and glory to it. I've seen that quite enough, and was happy not to see it in this. I think the very human desperation to just survive, and the utterly non-noble randomness of death was refreshing. Lives mattered equally since nobody was singled out with backstories to make them more special and more "relatable". Some people thought that was a negative (in other words they wanted the familiar war movie), I thought it was a positive.

    I thought it was technically beautiful as well - directing, cinematography, sound, etc. And I liked the structure, and thought it worked well to support the story and enhance the overall effect of tension.

    But, hey, you might just hate it. :) One always takes that risk with movies. Just don't watch on a mobile device or something. Big and loud would be a better idea. It's not a plot-based movie, but a feeling based movie.

    A big screen and loud volume it is, then! The images I've seen looks good, so no doubting the cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema. :-)

    Hands down, best and most impactful audio I've ever experienced. Every gunshot startled me, the airplane soaring sounded real and terrifying. Absolutely amazing.
    Dunkirk's sound design is quite possibly the best I've seen (or heard). What a riveting experience in IMAX.

    Never heard a film get so much credit for sound design here on the forum. Must be quite the treat for the ears!
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Nice article from Forbes. He kind of verbalizes what I think '
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/07/25/why-daniel-craig-was-always-going-to-return-as-james-bond/#518909b87005

    Not too much obviously. I don't see any compelling reason mentioned in this article why he was always going to come back. If I'm wrong just cite the reason.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    Where's this sudden panic that EON is going to sell the rights coming from? They're sitting on one of the most secure franchises in the world. Why sell?
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    QuantumOrganization wrote: »
    The reason he wasn't in the press release was because they didn't want it to dominate Logan Lucky. Let Craig have his moment. Hence, the announcement coming end of August September

    Yeah, because it would have hurt LL so much if people knew that the guy who is playing Bond the last time in the next(LAST!) official EON Bond movie was starring in it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Never heard a film get so much credit for sound design here on the forum. Must be quite the treat for the ears!
    I can vouch for it being absolutely phenomenal in this respect.
  • GetCarterGetCarter
    edited July 2017 Posts: 386
    a market placeholder as well as a prod for a recalcitrant leading man.

    as far as I know, the warmest thing he's said about Bond since SP wrapped was that he'd "miss it terribly". hardly a statement of intent.

    also, I find the concept of 'waiting to see who the director is' to be a little precious, if true. for one, wouldn't you trust that the producers know what they're doing?

    a shame the Craig question is playing out in radio silence, as I love his interpretation and his brand is being damaged.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    GetCarter wrote: »
    also, I find the concept of 'waiting to see who the director is' to be a little precious, if true. for one, wouldn't you trust that the producers know what they're doing?
    He is very particular in this respect apparently, so no. I think he would definitely want to know who he would be working with before signing on. In fact, I think he would want input into that choice, as he's had for every film since CR.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2017 Posts: 8,395
    bondjames wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    also, I find the concept of 'waiting to see who the director is' to be a little precious, if true. for one, wouldn't you trust that the producers know what they're doing?
    He is very particular in this respect apparently, so no. I think he would definitely want to know who he would be working with before signing on. In fact, I think he would want input into that choice, as he's had for every film since CR.

    There is no reason a Bond actor should have this type of power. Like you say its every film since CR that the trouble started. Part of the problem, and what is leading to these sluggish schedules, is that there are simply too many people who need pleasing. I believe that EON should in the position now that they can put trust in the director for one film. Let Marvel and DC do the whole cinematic universe thing. Just focus on the script, and someone to bring it to life. They are only making it more complicated for themselves.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Sandy wrote: »
    I hope Babs and MGW don't sell the rights, but I can understand if they do. Obviously things have not been easy with the trouble at MGM, now getting a new distributor, etc. We sometimes forget Bond films are like big budget indies. Eon is a family business and like any family business it gets difficult when the time comes to prepare the next generation for taking the helm. I though MGW's two kids would somehow take over, they have been involved in last few installments after all. But what if they don't? What if MGW and BB don't feel like there's anyone who can carry out Cubby's legacy? In that case they might feel like it's better to bring someone else on board or sell. I've seen way too many good family companies down the drain because the heirs are not up to the task :(
    In any case, I hope Craig comes back for another one. I definitely think he's not done with it, and he still looks the part martinismiley.gif

    Nolan and Syncopy all day long if MGW is finished and Babs has had enough.

    Don't let the Wilson brothers anywhere near it. Need I remind anyone of the crime against humanity that was 007 Legends?
  • fanbond123fanbond123
    Posts: 1,661
    Do you have any idea what the plot of Bond 25 is going to be about?

    Nope.

    Me neither!

    JS117788610wadepurvis-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqkjTqN4q_QOMdsQB6negVQukstsLJpFSoh9T5n3r_Lqk.jpg

    Nice to know the franchise is in safe hands. :P

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    If it's Soderbergh then it would make sense to delay the announcement until after LL.

    I don't think it's him though.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    There has only been one time that P and W worked on a bond film solo without a third writer and its Die another day. They need to get a third writer in on this film fast. Hint
    Paul haggis

    Double hint
    Michael wilson?
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    Yeah
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    There has only been one time that P and W worked on a bond film solo without a third writer and its Die another day.
    Oh dear.

    Agree on Haggis. I miss his input. Just cut the love child b/s.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Allied (2016) is proof that Steven Knight could do wonders for a Bond film.
  • StrogStrog
    Posts: 684
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Haggis for sure. What is the love child reference?
    Believe that was his original pitch for QOS? Supposedly Vesper had a kid. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

    Sounds like a poor idea, would've come down to execution in the end.
Sign In or Register to comment.