No Time to Die production thread

14834844864884891208

Comments

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    This could be a long shot, and it’s VERY hard to make out, but did anyone else notice in the LR Defender promo at 0:26 seconds there appears to be a building in the background of the shot that looks just like the building they constructed where the little girl is running on the lake? I could just be associating it with that because I’m aware of it, but it looks like it would fit with the sequence.

    I saw a few buildings. Or maybe some were trailers.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    It’s interesting to me. Critics generally gave TLJ favorable reviews because they were judging it purely as a film rather than as a Star Wars film, whereas its the Star Wars nerds that were heavily divided because a very vocal half couldn’t accept aspects that the other half was willing to indulge (Skywalker being a deserter, etc).
    I'm a fan of the ST, I enjoyed TLJ very much first time I saw it, but within time I started to feel less and less appreciative of it. A lot of decisions are simply headscratching. They wanted to make a big mystery of who Rey is, then she's a nobody, now she might be back to being somebody in ROTS. Just feels evidently not mapped out. So, I get the rejection from the fanboys to a point, although I'll never agree the prequels were any good, except for Duel of the Fates, maybe.

    That said, the article seems to be alarmist about nothing at this stage. I'll give it this, though: it is true Spectre felt like a confused followup to SF, and I do agree that the progression of the Craig era is leaning far too heavily into making the stories personal. I just want NTTD to come out so I can wash away the bad taste from SP.

    What does ST stand for?
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Discipline, 007 fans. Discipline.

    Range Rover promotion.

    That's pretty good
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    mtm wrote: »
    I couldn't help but notice the almost-meaningless little paragraph of 'Critics loved The Last Jedi; Guardian reviewers praised its feminist credentials. But these are not the people the series needs to impress. They are not the fans who turn out in their droves, buy the merchandise and pass on their love of Bond to the next generation'
    Leaving aside that I have no idea how that logically joins up (feminists don't buy merchandise? Eh?), I couldn't help but check that little bit about Guardian reviewers praising the feminist credentials of The Last Jedi. Well, I found two reviews on the Guardian site of that film but blow me down if I couldn't find a single mention of feminisim in them:
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/dec/12/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review-episode-viii-rian-johnson
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/dec/17/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review-force-is-strong-with-this-one

    I have no option but to conclude that it's barely literate (why does she keep putting words in inverted commas?), ill-researched and not-at-all-thought-through bollocks.

    What is this all about?
  • 007Blofeld wrote: »
    What does ST stand for?
    Sequel Trilogy.

    Also I forgot, thank you very much @NickTwentyTwo for the article.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
  • Posts: 859
    BTW, we never see photo of remove of the balcony set at Matera, no ?
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 5,767
    .
    In many James Bond films, the pre-credits sequence has very little bearing on the rest of the plot. Take Octopussy, where Bond deploys the smallest jet plane in the world (housed in a fake horse’s nether regions) to destroy a Cuban airfield, or Moonraker’s mid-air tussle over a parachute. Yet Casino Royale’s intro depicts a truly formative moment. Shot in grainy, Hitchcockian black-and-white, Bond gains his 00 status by confronting and killing two enemies - a turncoat MI6 section chief and his contact, in particularly gruesome fashion. After Pierce Brosnan’s final outing in the CGI’d monstrosity Die Another Day, Casino Royale’s intro indicated what kind of Bond Daniel Craig might be; cold, calculating and ruthless.

    As a lifelong Bond fan, my heart sank when I heard the recent developments from the set of the 25th instalment in the series. One insider told the Daily Mail about a “popcorn-dropping” moment, when it is revealed that Bond has retired and a female MI6 colleague, played by Lashana Lynch, has inherited this all-important codename. The source gushes over “a pivotal scene at the start of the film” where M says “‘Come in 007’, and “in walks Lashana who is black, beautiful and a woman.”

    We learn that Bond must navigate “the world of #MeToo”, and the film seems to position him as a Weinstein-like figure. “Bond, of course, is sexually attracted to the new female 007 and tries his usual seduction tricks, but is baffled when they don't work on a brilliant, young black woman who basically rolls her eyes at him and has no interest in jumping into his bed.”

    (FILES) In this file photo taken on February 27, 2019 English actor Lashana Lynch poses upon arrival for the European gala premiere of the film "Captain Marvel" in London. - British actress Lashana Lynch, who recently played Maria Rambeau, Captain Marvel's best friend, has been chosen to play Her Majesty's new agent using code name 007 in the latest untitled James Bond movie franchise. (Photo by Tolga AKMEN / AFP)TOLGA AKMEN/AFP/Getty Images
    Lashana Lynch poses upon arrival for the European gala premiere of the film "Captain Marvel" in London
    The announcements suggest PR dark arts at work to rescue a production that has suffered its share of setbacks; directors and actors walking away, the producers drafting in script doctors, injuries and accidents on set and controversy over its title. With Bond having already left MI6, the assignment of 007 to a female agent will presumably mean her character is killed off at some point, enabling Bond to resume his role, or else we’ll be in reboot territory yet again. But the stamp of identity politics is unmistakable.

    Why does this matter? Audiences don’t go to Bond to be reminded of the perils of toxic masculinity - they go for escapism. Of course Bond shouldn’t remain frozen in time, but the series already shows how to update and critique his character without emasculating Bond or making him and the role obsolete. Think about when Judi Dench's M skewers Bond as a "sexist, ­misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War”, or how, long before the advent of #MeToo, Timothy Dalton’s Bond took a far more respectful approach towards his love interests.

    Yet recent versions have featured Bond’s inner torments so prominently that the writer’s hand on the scales is painfully clear - and there are consequently very few laughs. Who wants an introspective Bond? Many highlight the flaws of Roger Moore films; the gags and silliness, the feeble attempts to make us believe that a near-pensioner is executing the extraordinary stunts. But ultimately they are far more fun, and recognisably ‘Bond’ than several of his recent outings.

    Granted, some of the greatest Bonds go ‘off piste’. The woefully under-appreciated Licence to Kill follows a vigilante plot, in which Bond ditches his 00 badge and arguably the only thing that ever meant anything in his life to avenge his friend Felix Leiter. In Casino Royale, Bond similarly abandons his MI6 career to travel the world with Vesper Lynd. These were powerful, emotive moments. But the trouble is that every film since Casino Royale has scorned recognised Bond formulae, and the alleged ‘novelty’ is wearing thin.

    Pre-Craig Bond films were self-contained episodes which occasionally referenced Bond’s tragic past in subtle fashion, as in For Your Eyes Only, when Bond delivers flowers to the grave of his murdered wife. But following the rebooted Casino Royale the series has never quite returned to ‘business as usual’ - and seems overburdened with emotional baggage.

    Skyfall saw Bond blowing up his entire family home in an effort to cleanse himself of the past, but even this was not enough. Spectre, enjoyable for much of its run time, ended with a ludicrous backstory that sought to tie all the previous few films together - and the news that Christoph Waltz will reprise his role as Blofeld in Bond 25 means we can expect this tedious thread to continue. Lea Seydoux’s return as Madeleine Swann also breaks a convention observed since Goldfinger of not recalling the same love interest twice. Despite the lack of palpable chemistry between the pair in Spectre, there are even rumours of an on-screen marriage in the latest instalment - though the bride, predictably, will be keeping her own name.

    Judi Dench.jpg
    Judi Dench in her first outing as M in Goldeneye (1995)
    Recent filmmakers have tried consistently to derive deeper meaning than being “just a Bond”, in scorning traditions like one-liners and fiendish inventions dreamt up by the tekkies back at HQ. When Bond laments the absence of gadgets in Sam Mendes' Skyfall, Q replies, “What did you expect, an exploding pen?” Many loved this homage to fan-favourite Goldeneye, but I read it as a smug put-down of a far superior ancestor.

    Eon Productions should be careful to avoid torching too much of Fleming’s raw material. Recent YouGov polling found, unsurprisingly, that tinkering with the core elements of the Bond line-up, introducing a female Bond, gay Bond, non-British Bond and so on, registers much less favourably with long-term fans than occasional viewers.

    The direction of the Star Wars series under Disney, and particularly the divisive Last Jedi, which sacrificed plot consistency for 'woke' political messaging, should remind filmmakers of the risks of trying to appeal to the right-on commentariat rather than giving fans at least a little of what they want. Critics loved The Last Jedi; Guardian reviewers praised its feminist credentials. But these are not the people the series needs to impress. They are not the fans who turn out in their droves, buy the merchandise and pass on their love of Bond to the next generation.

    When it came to the next Star Wars feature, Solo, millions voted with their feet and stayed at home. I fear the same may happen to my beloved Bond if filmmakers continue to portray him as a problematic character to be pitied, not the flawed, but undeniably seductive, powerful and enviable figure he is.
    Getafix wrote: »
    There's a paywall. Would you mind copy-pasting it here? I'm intrigued that it's written by a woman.
    If the outline of that article wasn´t pure speculation I would find hardly a thought that I disagree with, except I don´t want to let go of my optimism for NTTD. My hope is that they find the right measure. If FYEO would have dwelled on Bond putting flowers on his late wife´s grave, the scene´s meaning would have drastically changed.

  • Posts: 3,164
    There's also a feature on the 007 site about the Defender - https://www.007.com/no-time-to-die-to-feature-new-defender/
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,343
    I saw one of those Defenders in person; they’re lovely.

    I like that they’re using two versions of classic Land/Range Rovers too.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    Makes sense that more and more people are trying to counter the #MeToo "threat". If EON are smart, they will follow that advice. Let's not forget that part of what made Bond "hot" in the '60s was the daring nature of the films amidst the more careful average of the mainstream films.

    Right now, a smoking protagonist, a ruthless assassin, some sex,... can get you an R. But even more than that, there are social warriors out there. We've given them a forum and they're using it. They're keeping count of things and they will build a case against you if the male-female unbalance is there. They'll overanalyse the lines, the gestures, the plot twists, ... and "deduce" that Bond is a sexist creep, a terrible role model, a bad example for future husbands, ... Why Bond? Because the bigger their target, the more attention people will pay to their nonsense.

    And that's what we need, isn't it? The Bonds are no longer the biggest action flicks. They may not even be the most glamorous spy adventures anymore. Others have surpassed the Bonds where they used to be the hottest property in filmland. But Bond has a secret weapon and journalists with an agenda have handed it to us on a plate.

    Bond still reaches a wide audience. And at the same time, Bond can strike a little controversy. Controversy sells. Nothing worse than a bland, boring, tediously PC perfect Bond. A Bond who shows some sexual prowess, who doesn't want to be a role model, who reminds people that this world is not controlled by body-positive Instagram celebs, now THAT Bond sells hard! Let the equality crusaders have it in big for Bond--the more they write about how Bond is swimming upstream in their river of perfect social conscience, the more "risqué" it feels to watch and enjoy a Bond film. Everyone likes that bit of "safe danger", of sitting comfortably in your movie theatre chair, enjoying what the holy media are saying is "wrong". Like the juries deciding on porn, or Wertham's "Seduction of Innocent"--dark forces have railed against the very thing that ended spinning totally out of their control. The more "forbidden" the fruit, the better its taste.

    I'm not saying Bond has to actively pursue controversy. But by staying true to its Flemingian nature, the film series can easily defy the voodoo curse of enforced gender equality and whatnot that has infected even the Marvel films and--some will say--even Star Wars. James Bond can become edgier again by basically not changing a bloody thing about the formula. By not giving in, by not swinging the pendulum even farther away from his legacy, Bond can gain popularity. Obviously we don't need to go back to Bond hitting women. But a little Fleming in our Bond doesn't hurt, now does it?
  • Posts: 5,767
    @DarthDimi, I couldn´t agree more that a large portion of Bond´s appeal comes from the friction between Bond not being a role model and Bond saving the planet. That doesn´t mean there shouldn´t be any heroes who are role models. There should be. But they are not James Bond. This world is big enough for both and more.

    I also heartily support your view about not giving in. It´s a lot like ACDC, everybody says they always do the same, but when they come up with new album every five years, everybody is hungry enough to want it, and justifiably so.
  • Posts: 15,106
    I felt the foster brother angle was so undercooked in SP that they could have ADR’d out the references and it would have made little difference. By NTTD they could ignore it altogether as there would be enough conflict due to the events of CR and forward. Blofeld would have beef on Bond less because if their childhood and more due to the fact Bond destabilized SPECTRE operations.
    Exactly. The events of CR alone were enough to justify their antagonism.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    They wanted to make a big mystery of who Rey is,
    They never did, it was the fans who insisted she was someone special.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    Exactly, @boldfinger.

    I know this is off-topic, but just one more thing.

    A colleague of mine told me the other day, when we were talking about NTTD and how much I am looking forward to the film, that she won't allow her 11-year old son to see the film. Because "he's too young for those films". It's true that Bond films aren't made for children, but I still don't think age has anything to do with it.

    I watched a guy's heart getting ripped out when I was 7. That moment in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom made me not want to sleep with the lights out for weeks! And you know what, I loved it! And I still do. Every time I watch that movie--and I'm in my 30s now--I fondly recall being really impressed by that scene.

    Films that were completely safe for children barely did it for me then (which is why I'm not the Disney cartoon kinda guy), let alone now. But films that made me tense up, that weren't made with a 10-year old in mind, like The Terminator, Poltergeist, Goonies, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, were the ones I actively sought out and that are still my darlings.

    Kids don't get enough credit in my opinion. They want to be spooked--and the ones that don't can still be kept safe from cinematic traumas by their parents. The Bonds aren't horror, but there's some edgy stuff in them that 7-year old or even 10-year old me didn't fully understand. Some of the fruitier jokes, for example... "Take me around the world one more time," or "Just keeping the British end up, sir," held no significance for me when I was in my single digits. But that was fine because Jaws had creeped the hell out of me, so I was still trying to keep my heartbeat under control. Perhaps that is why I still love these movies so much! And a few years later, when I obviously caught the jokes but was still just in my early teens and not supposed to catch them, I had these internal giggles.

    Most kids can handle edgier movies, even if they weren't necessarily made for them. It's okay for most kids to get the chills from watching a horror flick or to blush when watching something juicier. They brag about it at school; they learn things their parents will no longer have to explain, they'll also develop a clear fear or loathing of "bad things". And years later, they'll watch these films again thinking back on those days when they got goosebumps doing so the first time. That's the fun of it all.

    If we made our Bond films morality tales that are even safe for children, grown-ups won't like them, and the children of today won't like them ten years from now either. Part of why I love Spielberg and Lucas so much is that they used to not care about upsetting us as kids. There are moments in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws and even Star Wars that are absolutely not safe for children. Yet we, as children, devoured those films, religiously. Have we turned traumatic, maniacal, abusive, aggressive, ... because of them?

    Age has nothing to do with it; if anything, most kids, other than the extremely sheltered, crave a little tension in their films too. True, not every kid out there can handle an edgier movie with ease; neither can every adult. That doesn't mean we need to overgeneralize things and either exclude kids from our Bond audience or make our Bonds safe for them, whatever that means. I'll repeat what I said before: we aren't giving our kids enough credit these days... We were given loads of freedom to explore the world of cinema as kids, and we turned out all right, didn't we?
  • Posts: 6,709
    Can I just say, @DarthDimi, that your posts on this particular page are delightful. Very well done, old pal, very well put. Cheers
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited November 2019 Posts: 5,185
    Very well put Dimi, =D>

    Business wise, to see which option is better (being save vs. being daring) one only needs to compare how Terminator Dark Fate is doing vs. how Joker is doing.

    My cinema is still showing 5 screenings a Day of Joker vs. 2 of TDF.

    People are flogging to see Joker because the media has given them the impression that it's 'dangerous' and edgy. Oldest trick in the book really.

    That creates excitement all by itself.

    As for Bond, he is the opposite of being boring and bland. He is edgy by desing. Doing things other guys would not be able to do, or to scared of. He goes after what he wants and never apologizes if he happens to ruffle some feathers. He has questionable morals (which he questions himself in the Books all the time) he kills people that happen to be in his way, and goes after whatever girl he fancies even if she might show no interest at first.

    The media will always jump on that because it's easy. We as fans should not let that get to our head or try to water it down so it doesn get critiqued anymore. It will.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Excellent post, @DarthDimi . I couldn't agree more.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    Thank you, @Univex. I'm sure many will disagree with me. I just had to blow off some steam. ;-)
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2019 Posts: 3,497
    The addition of Phoebe made people lose their minds.

    It would be a disaster to only hand it to P&W. I have full confidence in her, and yes this purely based on what she did with Killing Eve. And it's not that she rewrote the entire script, ey.

    She brought the first "likeable" female psychopath to the screen. I bet a lot of people didn't even know that psychopathy exists in women too.
    Mind you, the series is not THAT close to the novels, but it doesn't matter for once.

    So yes, bring on April!

    And @DarthDimi, wheter one agrees with you or not, as usual that is a very eloquent post.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    The addition of Phoebe made people lose their minds.

    That's where it all started, yes. I would put it a bit differently though.
    "The tabloid media coverage of Phoebes addition was designed to make people loose their minds."

    And it worked, as it usually does.
  • Posts: 3,164
    As has been said many times before by others, the main reason why Bond has survived for as long as it has as a franchise is because of its adaptability to the times.

    Or is adapting to today's times a bridge too far for some? Anyway, as Waller-Bridge said, Bond himself doesn't need to "change", the film though and how it views him and other characters, particularly the women, does...
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited November 2019 Posts: 5,185
    antovolk wrote: »
    As has been said many times before by others, the main reason why Bond has survived for as long as it has as a franchise is because of its adaptability to the times.

    Or is adapting to today's times a bridge too far for some? Anyway, as Waller-Bridge said, Bond himself doesn't need to "change", the film though and how it views him and other characters, particularly the women, does...

    Of course it's adapting to the times, and they are free to change all the characters any way they like, black Felix, black MP, Female M etc etc etc. They can modernize the villains and give them topical schemes.
    The can make the women more independend and "strong" and keep shouting it from the roofs so that everybody finally get's it.

    BUT James Bond needs to keep certain characteristics. It's essential to the storytelling as we are seeing the world through his eyes. He needs to keep his confidence (arrogance), and his 'appetites'.

    That's just the short version as we could go on endlessly about this.
  • Posts: 6,709
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Thank you, @Univex. I'm sure many will disagree with me. I just had to blow off some steam. ;-)

    Full steam ahead, @DarthDimi. Your views mirror my own.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
    Screenshot from the Land Rover video. Look at the plate:

    OVW0RGc.jpg

  • Contraband wrote: »
    Screenshot from the Land Rover video. Look at the plate:

    OVW0RGc.jpg

    Yes, Russian, as already seen filming.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screenshot from the Land Rover video. Look at the plate:

    OVW0RGc.jpg

    Yes, Russian, as already seen filming.

    I know we've seen russian plates before on some baddies cars, but I don't remember seeing it on the Land Rover.
  • Contraband wrote: »
    Screenshot from the Land Rover video. Look at the plate:

    OVW0RGc.jpg

    Yes, Russian, as already seen filming.

    Also Safin is a Russian surname....you thinking what I'm thinking

    giphy.gif
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 2,436
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screenshot from the Land Rover video. Look at the plate:

    OVW0RGc.jpg

    Yes, Russian, as already seen filming.

    Also Safin is a Russian surname....you thinking what I'm thinking

    giphy.gif

    The original villain casting was looking for someone who could be Russian or Middle Eastern.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screenshot from the Land Rover video. Look at the plate:

    OVW0RGc.jpg

    Yes, Russian, as already seen filming.

    Also Safin is a Russian surname....you thinking what I'm thinking

    giphy.gif

    Well technically it's origin comes from Tatars, Turkic ethnic group native to the Volga-Ural region of Russia...

Sign In or Register to comment.