No Time to Die production thread

18038048068088091208

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @FatherValentine -- you said @Shardlake is the type to accept any tripe that BB and MGW sends our way.

    He said he despises SP and the Brosnan era, but, as is evident, he's still a fan of the character and the films.

    You blatantly disregarded the fact that Shardlake does not fit where you wanted to pigeon-hole him (as someone who accepts any tripe from EoN), and then dismissed him altogether.

    C'mon. Do better, mate. Honestly.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Agent_One wrote: »
    My hope is that No. 7 is a soft reboot. No origin story, but no ties to the Craig era either.
    That's what I think we're gonna get, although I'm not sure if I'd call the Moore - Brosnan timeline that, as they somewhat reference the Connery/Lazenby films as being (in some form) part of their continuity.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    My hope is that No. 7 is a soft reboot. No origin story, but no ties to the Craig era either.
    That's what I think we're gonna get, although I'm not sure if I'd call the Moore - Brosnan timeline that, as they somewhat reference the Connery/Lazenby films as being (in some form) part of their continuity.
    The thing with those eras though is that the references were spread very wide. It was nice for hardcore fans, but it didn't distract or confuse newcomers or casuals.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    peter wrote: »
    @FatherValentine -- you said @Shardlake is the type to accept any tripe that BB and MGW sends our way.

    He said he despises SP and the Brosnan era, but, as is evident, he's still a fan of the character and the films.

    You blatantly disregarded the fact that Shardlake does not fit where you wanted to pigeon-hole him (as someone who accepts any tripe from EoN), and then dismissed him altogether.

    C'mon. Do better, mate. Honestly.

    Hi. No, I was just using hyperbole to show how he had misrepresented my position. I don't think he thinks that. Hence why I said it would be unfair if I accused him of such a position.



  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    My hope is that No. 7 is a soft reboot. No origin story, but no ties to the Craig era either.
    That's what I think we're gonna get, although I'm not sure if I'd call the Moore - Brosnan timeline that, as they somewhat reference the Connery/Lazenby films as being (in some form) part of their continuity.
    The thing with those eras though is that the references were spread very wide. It was nice for hardcore fans, but it didn't distract or confuse newcomers or casuals.
    That is true, although I'm not sure if I'd be up for those little things this time round as fun as they were in the original timeline :) Just because the Craig-era was so focused on who Craig's Bond was - narratively and in terms of continuity.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    @FatherValentine -- you said @Shardlake is the type to accept any tripe that BB and MGW sends our way.

    He said he despises SP and the Brosnan era, but, as is evident, he's still a fan of the character and the films.

    You blatantly disregarded the fact that Shardlake does not fit where you wanted to pigeon-hole him (as someone who accepts any tripe from EoN), and then dismissed him altogether.

    C'mon. Do better, mate. Honestly.

    Hi. No, I was just using hyperbole to show how he had misrepresented my position. I don't think he thinks that. Hence why I said it would be unfair if I accused him of such a position.



    @FatherValentine -- you've lost me completely.

    How did @Shardlake misrepresent you?

  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Have you looked at his/her comment that I was responding to? If so, they wrote the following;

    "Once again some people just want Bond frozen in time, they want the same films as they were before the Craig era.

    Lighthearted with no real stakes, just a fluff piece to while the hours away. There are plenty of these already previously out there.

    If anyone thinks they are going back to these frivolous sticking to a formula type ways are going to be disappointed.

    I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because this isn't my James Bond, BB & MGW aren't delivering the film I have in my head, therefore they must sell up and give it to someone who will make my wildest wet dream a reality."

    That is a complete misrepresentation of the argument myself and several others have been making.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Have you looked at his/her comment that I was responding to? If so, they wrote the following;

    "Once again some people just want Bond frozen in time, they want the same films as they were before the Craig era.

    Lighthearted with no real stakes, just a fluff piece to while the hours away. There are plenty of these already previously out there.

    If anyone thinks they are going back to these frivolous sticking to a formula type ways are going to be disappointed.

    I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because this isn't my James Bond, BB & MGW aren't delivering the film I have in my head, therefore they must sell up and give it to someone who will make my wildest wet dream a reality."

    That is a complete misrepresentation of the argument myself and several others have been making.

    While I very much understood the point you were making, tone sometimes is lost amidst text. It looks like that is what has happened here.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited June 2020 Posts: 9,509
    Have you looked at his/her comment that I was responding to? If so, they wrote the following;

    "Once again some people just want Bond frozen in time, they want the same films as they were before the Craig era.

    Lighthearted with no real stakes, just a fluff piece to while the hours away. There are plenty of these already previously out there.

    If anyone thinks they are going back to these frivolous sticking to a formula type ways are going to be disappointed.

    I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because this isn't my James Bond, BB & MGW aren't delivering the film I have in my head, therefore they must sell up and give it to someone who will make my wildest wet dream a reality."

    That is a complete misrepresentation of the argument myself and several others have been making.

    @FatherValentine -- I never once read that @Shardlake referenced you specifically! So how can he "misrepresent" your argument?

    That assumption shows why assumptions in this world are deadly.

    And then @Shardlake actually responds to a question of yours (as not accepting all of EoN's tripe) and you dismiss and you insult (with your "straw man" comment, which made no sense, btw))!

    In the end, whatever you like is what you like. There will be films in this series, or changes into the modern era, that will rub you wrong way.

    I'm mid-40s, but I love the Connery Era and think it's the best. It took me years to warm up to Moore; aways loved OHMSS (much to the chagrin of my father (GL could never be SC)); welcomed Dalton with open arms; was cold to Brosnan and tried to like him as Bond (needed a hot shower after each film), and; I have a bias to Craig. I fell in love with him inside of frame one. He was my Bond-- finally I got a sense of what Dad felt when he first met Connery-Bond at that casino in DN....

    And like Connery (as my father did as an original fan and I did as his offspring), I would follow the Craig Bond through the peaks and valleys of each film (some would be better than others, but I wouldn't waver, 'cause, I love THIS Bond (thankfully I also genuinely love CR, QoS and SF).

    So, Valentine-- each to his own. And as a lover of this interpretation of Bond, I fully embrace the idea that Craig-Bond may have a child that he may not know about (it's been 5 yrs since he last saw Swann; Swann tosses in his face that she soon met a man who TRUSTED her and now they have a child together... But...

    If, at a pivotal point in the film, Bond is down and close to surrendering, Maddy tells him the truth: she was hiding something from him five years ago (not the betrayal at Vesper's grave, that he assumed, but....)..., she was pregnant. With his child).

    I think this would be a wonderful way of kicking James Bond into the Third Act Climax of NTTD. And to a beautiful end to his era.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Well, call me crazy, but I think he's a human male. And, bear with me here, he might just live in England.

    Lies!
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited June 2020 Posts: 4,604
    Agent_One wrote: »
    My hope is that No. 7 is a soft reboot. No origin story, but no ties to the Craig era either. So basically, exactly like Moore - Brosnan in terms of continuity. Maybe even let Fiennes and Wishaw continue, please?

    I agree, and start taking things from Fleming and other books that haven’t been done. Also, don’t have Purvis and Wade write anymore! Also cut back on the Arthouse directors and get some legitimate action directors!
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    Agent_One wrote: »
    My hope is that No. 7 is a soft reboot. No origin story, but no ties to the Craig era either. So basically, exactly like Moore - Brosnan in terms of continuity. Maybe even let Fiennes and Wishaw continue, please?

    This is basically exactly what I hope for / expect to happen, including Fiennes and Wishaw. I'd be happy to keep Harris as well.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    My hope is that No. 7 is a soft reboot. No origin story, but no ties to the Craig era either. So basically, exactly like Moore - Brosnan in terms of continuity. Maybe even let Fiennes and Wishaw continue, please?

    I agree, and start taking things from Fleming and other books that haven’t been done. Also, don’t have Purvis and Wade write anymore! Also cut back on the Arthouse directors and get some legitimate action directors!

    I am perfectly happy with Villeneuve or Nolan directing the next Bond.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Connery - Brosnan operated on a floating timeline. Like The Simpsons, or superhero comics. Events from DN to AVTAK still happened in some form for Dalton and Brosnan, just later on.

    That's the way I see it as well.

    TripAces wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Then again Noamie Harris did say they are really going to shock people.....I don't think you necessarily need to shock to impress. Maybe EON might be thinking the Craig Bond films with tragic endings(CR & SF) have been the critically successfully ones, and want another tragic ending....I personally don't see a genuine reason to kill Craig's Bond, other than wanting an OSCAR win to reward Craig for his stalwart performances since CR.....I think for the first time, I really want the GUNBARREL at the film's end, just to signify, even if it's the slightest, that Bond's death is a sort of Hoax.....I just can't stand the notion of James Bond dying.

    I don't either. And I can't think of a reason for them to do it. The more likely scenario is that Bond and Madeleine part ways, for her safety and for the daughter's. This is where both of their pasts lead them to a decision that is best for the child.

    I think they already part ways in Matera at the beginning, it seems unlikely they will use that twice in the film.

  • Posts: 727
    TripAces wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    My hope is that No. 7 is a soft reboot. No origin story, but no ties to the Craig era either. So basically, exactly like Moore - Brosnan in terms of continuity. Maybe even let Fiennes and Wishaw continue, please?

    I agree, and start taking things from Fleming and other books that haven’t been done. Also, don’t have Purvis and Wade write anymore! Also cut back on the Arthouse directors and get some legitimate action directors!

    I am perfectly happy with Villeneuve or Nolan directing the next Bond.

    Nolan is not art house. The guy hasn't directed a small budgeted movie since Memento.
  • phantomvicesphantomvices Mother Base
    edited June 2020 Posts: 469
    TripAces wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    My hope is that No. 7 is a soft reboot. No origin story, but no ties to the Craig era either. So basically, exactly like Moore - Brosnan in terms of continuity. Maybe even let Fiennes and Wishaw continue, please?

    I agree, and start taking things from Fleming and other books that haven’t been done. Also, don’t have Purvis and Wade write anymore! Also cut back on the Arthouse directors and get some legitimate action directors!

    I am perfectly happy with Villeneuve or Nolan directing the next Bond.

    Nolan is not art house. The guy hasn't directed a small budgeted movie since Memento.

    I get the sentiment though. I think MaxCasino is more referring to how the Bond films nowadays try too hard to be excessively deep and layered, and making Bond out to be this edgy, 'damaged goods' antihero. Personally, I also want to see a return to action and less on this trying to understand Bond's psyche trope that's been going around this Craig era.
  • 00Dalton700Dalton7 Portsmouth
    Posts: 78
    Regarding the two in the car entering a tunnel. There’s nothing to say this is the final shot? Could just be part of the epilogue.
  • duke_togoduke_togo france
    edited June 2020 Posts: 138
    Safin may have found a way to not get old or to switch his body with someone ("your skills die with your body mine will survive long after i've gone") or something like that. Bond could use the same scientific device to change his appearance, and then it will explain why Bond will be played by another actor than Craig in Bond 26.
  • Posts: 623
    We are perhaps debating fourteen years too late if a Bond reboot is a good thing or not. I'm sorry, I can't remember who said it earlier, but I liked one guy's idea that he thought all the pre-Craig Bonds had had the same adventures, but in their own timeline, (as the shoe-sniffing in DAD would have us believe). This is kind of how I saw it, each actor 'takes over the history' of the previous Bond actors.
    With this in mind, Casino Royale could still have worked, and at the end of Skyfall, as I said before, the office, M, Moneypenny, Q etc were all in place and we all got the feeling of 'back to the classic era' with the panelled office, which I don't think we;d seen for years. When was the last time? The Moore years?
    But with this rumour (and I realise it is a rumour), that they may kill Bond off, this has created a debate about if the re-boot should go as far as to stretch the re-boot concept so far as to have him die, then come back as a 're-booted' Bond.
    I've been trying to think of other long-term cinematic characters that have been played by different actors, if they were ever killed off yet the series carried on. The trouble is, a lot of the characters (Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes etc) were made by different companies, with different spins put on them. Bond has always been from the same team, so much so that even when the original actor made a perfectly legal Bond film, many don't consider it 'true Bond'.
    If I'm honest, I don't like the idea of every different actor being a 're-boot Bond', with their own separate origins and death. To me, it's a dis-service to the original book Bond, and as long as it says 'as Ian Fleming's James Bond' at the start of the films, they should try and honour that. Which they've actually done very well with the Craig era so far.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    EDIT: Actually I can’t be bothered, I repeated myself too many times yesterday to go through it again haha :)
  • Posts: 623
    I don't mind if you think I'm thick or closed-minded Denbigh. I do understand the concept of a re-boot. I just think it would be daft to kill him off, then have him return in a few years with no explanation other than "hey, it's okay, it's a re-boot, and if you don't get that, you're thick".
    For the sake of the thread I think we should stop this now. You're right, I'm wrong, I'm thick.
    You win!
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I don't mind if you think I'm thick or closed-minded Denbigh. I do understand the concept of a re-boot. I just think it would be daft to kill him off, then have him return in a few years with no explanation other than "hey, it's okay, it's a re-boot, and if you don't get that, you're thick".
    For the sake of the thread I think we should stop this now. You're right, I'm wrong, I'm thick.
    You win!
    You’re not thick @shamanimal, and I do take back what I said before to be honest as it wasn’t what I was trying to say; I understand you don’t like him dying or whatever, but that’s where the controversial-ness ends. If they rebooted, there’s no issues there or problems, there’s no reason to be annoyed, because again whether he lived or died, they’re probably gonna reboot it. It’s not the same character resurrected in a science fiction way, or anything, it’s just a reboot with a new actor playing a new version of Fleming’s creation, maybe even a version that’s even closer to Fleming’s creation. It’s really simple, and people could pick it up so easily that I don’t understand where the problem lies in that concept alone? Do you get what I’m saying?

    It would be EVEN dafter for them to try and carry on the continuity of Craig’s run with a younger guy.

    Also apologies to those who are sick of seeing my name pop up haha :)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Who knows if Bond “dies” in this Chapter of the franchise? I believe this will be an emotional send off for Craig. He will have incredible stakes to overcome in the climax. This James Bond’s hobby is resurrection, so I believe that there will be some type of figurative “death” at the end of this film, but also a re-birth.

    Bond will perhaps be a different man by the end of this film (a la YOLT), wrapping up what they started in CR (whatever the character was seeking in that film, he will finally find by the end of NTTD).

    James Bond will return in a few years time. It would be foolish to hire a younger actor as a continued Daniel Craig Bond— since all threads will have been cleaned up.

    There needs to be a reboot, but it can be done without any link to the Craig Era. And a reboot doesn’t mean Bond Begins... Again.

    After all: it’s James Bond the audience wants to see. Collectively audiences will realize this is a new depiction without having any connection to what came before— other than this is agent James Bond 007 and this is his new adventure.

    I don’t see a problem of re-booting, without explanation (even if there is some kind of figurative “death” in NTTD; the only info that audiences need moving forth is that a new James Bond film is being released and he is still working for Her Majesty’s Secret Service).
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
    Does anybody have Total film's article? I seem to remember a short description in Total mag of Bond, Felix and Ash meeting up in Jamaica at the bar?
    And since Ash is driving the defender with russian plates and coordinating the chase (from the leaked Call Sheets) after Bond later on, I'm beginning to think he's the attacker in the seaplane bombing the fishing vessel with Bond and Felix onboard in the machine room
  • Posts: 4,408
    Contraband wrote: »
    Does anybody have Total film's article? I seem to remember a short description in Total mag of Bond, Felix and Ash meeting up in Jamaica at the bar?
    And since Ash is driving the defender with russian plates and coordinating the chase (from the leaked Call Sheets) after Bond later on, I'm beginning to think he's the attacker in the seaplane bombing the fishing vessel with Bond and Felix onboard in the machine room

    I have it...Basically they describe a scene where Felix asks for Bond to extract a 'package' from Cuba as it's a place to politically sensitive for the CIA to be seen. The only reason that Bond takes the mission is when Felix mentions the 'S' word: Spectre.

    Bond decides the take the mission and when there sees that he is attending Blofeld's birthday party. Bond has no clue that at this stage the 'package' is actually a man.

    maxresdefault.jpg

    Also, I believe it is Bond and Paloma flying off in the seaplane. There was a leak that Bond and a female agent are trying to escape in a sea plane but they can't take off. Meanwhile, the police and Spectre are catching up with them. The woman is screaming "Get it up! Get it up!" and Bond is said to reply "I don't usually have this problem."

    I think the story came from the journalist who broke the news on Phobe Waller-Bridge's involvement. This joke has Waller-Bridge written all over it.

    tumblr_ou81unAbRy1r1ult6o1_400.gifv
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Didn't it say in that supposed leaked plot (whether true or not) that...
    Paloma dies at some point? Along with Felix, and at Ash's hands?
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
    Contraband wrote: »
    Does anybody have Total film's article? I seem to remember a short description in Total mag of Bond, Felix and Ash meeting up in Jamaica at the bar?
    And since Ash is driving the defender with russian plates and coordinating the chase (from the leaked Call Sheets) after Bond later on, I'm beginning to think he's the attacker in the seaplane bombing the fishing vessel with Bond and Felix onboard in the machine room

    I have it...Basically they describe a scene where Felix asks for Bond to extract a 'package' from Cuba as it's a place to politically sensitive for the CIA to be seen. The only reason that Bond takes the mission is when Felix mentions the 'S' word: Spectre.

    Bond decides the take the mission and when there sees that he is attending Blofeld's birthday party. Bond has no clue that at this stage the 'package' is actually a man.

    maxresdefault.jpg

    Also, I believe it is Bond and Paloma flying off in the seaplane. There was a leak that Bond and a female agent are trying to escape in a sea plane but they can't take off. Meanwhile, the police and Spectre are catching up with them. The woman is screaming "Get it up! Get it up!" and Bond is said to reply "I don't usually have this problem."

    I think the story came from the journalist who broke the news on Phobe Waller-Bridge's involvement. This joke has Waller-Bridge written all over it.

    tumblr_ou81unAbRy1r1ult6o1_400.gifv

    @Pierce2Daniel Thanks. I have the PDF somewhere but can't find the damn thing now.

    Re: seaplane: I have never heard of that leak, Bond and Paloma trying to flee in the seaplane. Do you have the source?
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    @Pierce2Daniel Please tell me all of that is a joke and you've made it up. Blofeld's birthday party?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    @Pierce2Daniel Please tell me all of that is a joke and you've made it up. Blofeld's birthday party?

    There's presents and candles and cake and everything.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    @Pierce2Daniel Please tell me all of that is a joke and you've made it up. Blofeld's birthday party?
    There's presents and candles and cake and everything.
    It does seem like something that could make SPECTRE look even more ridiculous in this continuity.
Sign In or Register to comment.