No Time to Die production thread

18178188208228231208

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    Zekidk wrote: »
    2006: "Okay, fine - CR was a reboot, showing us how Bond became Bond. Can we have a proper Bond movie now?"

    14 years later....still waiting.

    This brother/daughter/family issues/inner demons/quiting-not-quiting/personal stuff soap-opera charade isn't really for me, but great that a new generation digs it! Luckily I can still find pure escapism in the MI franchise.
    This is what we’ll likely get in the next incarnation, an agent in his prime in a series of , mostly, unrelated adventures. I think it will be somewhat lighter in tone but will avoid the silliness that marred some of the previous entries.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited June 2020 Posts: 6,276
    talos7 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    2006: "Okay, fine - CR was a reboot, showing us how Bond became Bond. Can we have a proper Bond movie now?"

    14 years later....still waiting.

    This brother/daughter/family issues/inner demons/quiting-not-quiting/personal stuff soap-opera charade isn't really for me, but great that a new generation digs it! Luckily I can still find pure escapism in the MI franchise.
    This is what we’ll likely get in the next incarnation, an agent in his prime in a series of , mostly, unrelated adventures. I think it will be somewhat lighter in tone but will avoid the silliness that marred some of the previous entries.
    If what we're reading about Bond's child is true, I think we are set for a reboot in B26. I didn't think that would happen before, but now...

    There's no way the new Bond is going to be juggling spying and parenting. It just would feel off in the ongoing series.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    echo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    2006: "Okay, fine - CR was a reboot, showing us how Bond became Bond. Can we have a proper Bond movie now?"

    14 years later....still waiting.

    This brother/daughter/family issues/inner demons/quiting-not-quiting/personal stuff soap-opera charade isn't really for me, but great that a new generation digs it! Luckily I can still find pure escapism in the MI franchise.
    This is what we’ll likely get in the next incarnation, an agent in his prime in a series of , mostly, unrelated adventures. I think it will be somewhat lighter in tone but will avoid the silliness that marred some of the previous entries.
    If what we're reading about Bond's child is true, I think we are set for a reboot in B26. I didn't think that would happen before, but now...

    There's no way the new Bond is going to be juggling spying and parenting. It just would feel off in the ongoing series.
    I think they were always going to reboot it again. No matter what, to continue Craig’s era brings on too many issues - even with what people have referred to as a “soft reboot”.

    Firstly, his age - his continuity requires an older actor, which wouldn’t make sense in terms of longevity, and to change it to fit a younger actors age makes no sense. His story - it’s gonna end in No Time to Die, whether he dies or not, so to continue that continuity with a different actor, would negate everything the new film is going to be, and what the entire Craig era is.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    I think the next era would be mission-based, standalone adventures.....I can't see EON exploring Bond's Psyche and family roots again with Bond 7 & Bond 26.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited June 2020 Posts: 6,276
    Denbigh wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    2006: "Okay, fine - CR was a reboot, showing us how Bond became Bond. Can we have a proper Bond movie now?"

    14 years later....still waiting.

    This brother/daughter/family issues/inner demons/quiting-not-quiting/personal stuff soap-opera charade isn't really for me, but great that a new generation digs it! Luckily I can still find pure escapism in the MI franchise.
    This is what we’ll likely get in the next incarnation, an agent in his prime in a series of , mostly, unrelated adventures. I think it will be somewhat lighter in tone but will avoid the silliness that marred some of the previous entries.
    If what we're reading about Bond's child is true, I think we are set for a reboot in B26. I didn't think that would happen before, but now...

    There's no way the new Bond is going to be juggling spying and parenting. It just would feel off in the ongoing series.
    I think they were always going to reboot it again. No matter what, to continue Craig’s era brings on too many issues - even with what people have referred to as a “soft reboot”.

    Firstly, his age - his continuity requires an older actor, which wouldn’t make sense in terms of longevity, and to change it to fit a younger actors age makes no sense. His story - it’s gonna end in No Time to Die, whether he dies or not, so to continue that continuity with a different actor, would negate everything the new film is going to be, and what the entire Craig era is.

    I thought they would just carry on with the same storyline, like from older Moore to younger Dalton. But Craig's Bond from SF on has a lot of baggage which, ironically, CR tried to sweep away (#stupidmendes).

    I do wish they'd contrive a way to keep Bond away from the crutch that is now MI6. Take his phone away, put him in a remote location, make his lose his memory...anything that doesn't allow him to have Moneypenny/Q/Tanner on speed dial at any crisis point.

    My reservation about another reboot is that it might start to seem frivolous/craven, like the endless Spiderman reboots. I never need to see another Spiderman origin story.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Blimey? I wished the release date was brought forward here by 5 days!!!!!! :)) :-bd
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    echo wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    2006: "Okay, fine - CR was a reboot, showing us how Bond became Bond. Can we have a proper Bond movie now?"

    14 years later....still waiting.

    This brother/daughter/family issues/inner demons/quiting-not-quiting/personal stuff soap-opera charade isn't really for me, but great that a new generation digs it! Luckily I can still find pure escapism in the MI franchise.
    This is what we’ll likely get in the next incarnation, an agent in his prime in a series of , mostly, unrelated adventures. I think it will be somewhat lighter in tone but will avoid the silliness that marred some of the previous entries.
    If what we're reading about Bond's child is true, I think we are set for a reboot in B26. I didn't think that would happen before, but now...

    There's no way the new Bond is going to be juggling spying and parenting. It just would feel off in the ongoing series.
    I think they were always going to reboot it again. No matter what, to continue Craig’s era brings on too many issues - even with what people have referred to as a “soft reboot”.

    Firstly, his age - his continuity requires an older actor, which wouldn’t make sense in terms of longevity, and to change it to fit a younger actors age makes no sense. His story - it’s gonna end in No Time to Die, whether he dies or not, so to continue that continuity with a different actor, would negate everything the new film is going to be, and what the entire Craig era is.

    I thought they would just carry on with the same storyline, like from older Moore to younger Dalton. But Craig's Bond from SF on has a lot of baggage which, ironically, CR tried to sweep away (#stupidmendes).

    I do wish they'd contrive a way to keep Bond away from the crutch that is now MI6. Take his phone away, put him in a remote location, make his lose his memory...anything that doesn't allow him to have Moneypenny/Q/Tanner on speed dial at any crisis point.

    My reservation about another reboot is that it might start to seem frivolous/craven, like the endless Spiderman reboots. I never need to see another Spiderman origin story.
    I see what you’re saying @echo but I don’t think that can work anymore, especially as Craig-era is so self contained and so dependant on its continuity. It was ok for older actors because it was never so heavily presented as one continuous narrative as Craig’s era does - even with the little Tracy nuggets they put in.

    For example, Bond has never retired before, and his age has never really been addressed. Craig’s Bond has done both those things, so to keep that continuity with a “younger” actor next, is quite a strange jump.

    I also think it just offers more respect to Craig by not treading on his toes by trying to carry on “his thing” with someone else.

    Also I’ll again stress that a reboot doesn’t mean origin story. They are both different things, and yes they overlap sometimes but they don’t have to. I’ll again use The Batman as an example which is going to be a second year Batman played by Robert Pattinson, so it’s not an origin story but it is a reboot.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    For me, the most interesting thing about B26 is not whether it is in the same continuity (there is not way it can be) but rather if the Bond actor will be a white male.
  • Posts: 623
    Jeez, this thread's depressing. dad Bond, dead Bond, re-booted Bond, black Bond....

    It was all much simpler in the Roger years...
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Jeez, this thread's depressing. dad Bond, dead Bond, re-booted Bond, black Bond....

    It was all much simpler in the Roger years...
    Blame modern cinema and filmmaking :)
  • Posts: 623
    Yep, everyone expects a 're-boot' as a matter of course. I don't know when the re-boot craze started, but we were quite happy when Bond's age almost halved from Rog to Tim. No-one was concerned about 'same continuity'. It was just a different actor playing Bond. No problem, get on with the mission, 007.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Yep, everyone expects a 're-boot' as a matter of course. I don't know when the re-boot craze started, but we were quite happy when Bond's age almost halved from Rog to Tim. No-one was concerned about 'same continuity'. It was just a different actor playing Bond. No problem, get on with the mission, 007.
    But again... those films never really addressed his age or the continuity too much so it could make sense. Craig’s era has thoroughly explored his age, and will be exploring his retirement.

    It would also negate everything Craig’s era achieved and is, in terms of how it was shaped by Craig as an actor, not to mention the obvious reasons why doing a “soft-reboot” follow-up or even a sequel to this film with Craig (based on what we seem to know), would cause too many issues

    I’ll also say again cause I can feel it coming - reboot doesn’t mean origin story.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    echo wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    2006: "Okay, fine - CR was a reboot, showing us how Bond became Bond. Can we have a proper Bond movie now?"

    14 years later....still waiting.

    This brother/daughter/family issues/inner demons/quiting-not-quiting/personal stuff soap-opera charade isn't really for me, but great that a new generation digs it! Luckily I can still find pure escapism in the MI franchise.
    This is what we’ll likely get in the next incarnation, an agent in his prime in a series of , mostly, unrelated adventures. I think it will be somewhat lighter in tone but will avoid the silliness that marred some of the previous entries.
    If what we're reading about Bond's child is true, I think we are set for a reboot in B26. I didn't think that would happen before, but now...

    There's no way the new Bond is going to be juggling spying and parenting. It just would feel off in the ongoing series.
    I think they were always going to reboot it again. No matter what, to continue Craig’s era brings on too many issues - even with what people have referred to as a “soft reboot”.

    Firstly, his age - his continuity requires an older actor, which wouldn’t make sense in terms of longevity, and to change it to fit a younger actors age makes no sense. His story - it’s gonna end in No Time to Die, whether he dies or not, so to continue that continuity with a different actor, would negate everything the new film is going to be, and what the entire Craig era is.

    I thought they would just carry on with the same storyline, like from older Moore to younger Dalton. But Craig's Bond from SF on has a lot of baggage which, ironically, CR tried to sweep away (#stupidmendes).

    I do wish they'd contrive a way to keep Bond away from the crutch that is now MI6. Take his phone away, put him in a remote location, make his lose his memory...anything that doesn't allow him to have Moneypenny/Q/Tanner on speed dial at any crisis point.

    My reservation about another reboot is that it might start to seem frivolous/craven, like the endless Spiderman reboots. I never need to see another Spiderman origin story.

    I actually see Dalton as a different incarnation of Bond. As they did with Dench, some of the same actors are still present, but it’s a different timeline/incarnation.

    I want them to wipe the slate clean for 26 with an established Bond in his prime.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    edited June 2020 Posts: 1,030
    For B26, I actually would love if they addressed the giant missed opportunity to make straight missions post CR/QOS.... he was a fresh, brutal, scorned Bond. They did such a great job rebooting the character but never followed up.

    The next Bond could pick up where QOS left off — there is a well known theory that all Bonds take place between QOS and Skyfall. Perhaps keep a few references to Vesper, Mathis, Le Chiffre and just move forward into straight missions...
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    For B26, I actually would love if they addressed the giant missed opportunity to make straight missions post CR/QOS.... he was a fresh, brutal, scorned Bond. They did such a great job rebooting the character but never followed up.

    The next Bond could pick up where QOS left off — there is a well known theory that all Bonds take place between QOS and Skyfall. Perhaps keep a few references to Vesper, Mathis, Le Chiffre and just move forward into straight missions...
    The issue there is you run the risk of losing any original story or development for the character. So if the next Bond is to bridge that gap, we know his fate and we know where he ends up, so any interesting move or development has to in someway lend itself to where he ends up in Skyfall? It also would mean not being able to use Q, Moneypenny, or Blofeld... and not to mention the whole Judi thing. Also just personally the idea of revisiting Bond 23, which is kinda what this concept would be, just doesn’t appeal.

    To me, the Craig-era is a focus on that characters important life moments. We see him in high moments of personal crisis, not on standard missions which I assume just take place in between, and to try and mess with that with the next guy by trying to overlap the continuity in anyway, just feels unjustified, so I’d rather they just reboot it and do something original to actor they choose.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2020 Posts: 15,713
  • Posts: 727
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Yep, everyone expects a 're-boot' as a matter of course. I don't know when the re-boot craze started, but we were quite happy when Bond's age almost halved from Rog to Tim. No-one was concerned about 'same continuity'. It was just a different actor playing Bond. No problem, get on with the mission, 007.

    You can just google it. Jesus m8.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    New York's governor is threatening to reinstate closings, to avoid spikes in new Covid-19 infections.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/new-york-gov-andrew-cuomo-threatens-reinstate-closings-1298349
  • edited June 2020 Posts: 440
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Jeez, this thread's depressing. dad Bond, dead Bond, re-booted Bond, black Bond....

    It was all much simpler in the Roger years...

    I'm sorry the idea of a black Bond depresses you. lol

    :Edit: There are way too many people here taking continuity too seriously.

    Before the Daniel Craig era, the films were essentially standalone with some minor references to previous instalments. After he's gone they will likely revert back to that format.

    All the previous Bond's have had their own "thing" and Craig's is a continuous storyline.

    Connery set the template for the series with increasingly more over the top adaptations of the Fleming stories.

    Lazenby was a try at going back to Fleming's slightly more naturalistic and continuity-heavy storytelling.

    Moore's films represented an attempt to lighten up the franchise and create a humorous spectacle-driven series of films.

    Dalton was an attempt at mixing the gritty Bond of the books with the more upbeat blockbuster style of the films with the balance weighted more towards the grittiness.

    Brosnan was also an attempt at mixing the gritty Bond of the books with the more upbeat blockbuster style of the films with the balance being weighted more towards the upbeat spectacle.
  • Posts: 623
    I'm sorry the idea of a black Bond depresses you. lol

    Not wanting a black Bond is different from not wanting a black doctor or a black newscaster. Perhaps you can't see that difference, and that's okay. But this has been discussed a lot on here and I've nothing new to add, but I I will say I don't appreciate your snide finger wagging.
    Keep laughing, smiler!
  • Posts: 1,490
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I'm sorry the idea of a black Bond depresses you. lol

    Not wanting a black Bond is different from not wanting a black doctor or a black newscaster. Perhaps you can't see that difference, and that's okay. But this has been discussed a lot on here and I've nothing new to add, but I I will say I don't appreciate your snide finger wagging.
    Keep laughing, smiler!

    I don't think Bond should be played by a black actor, just like I don't think Shaft should be played by a white actor.

  • Posts: 623
    I think they should cast him as close as they can to how Fleming wrote him, as long as it says 'Ian Fleming's James Bond' at the start.
    I get pretty pissed off at being told I've somehow got dodgy views on race, because of me thinking that.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,970
    I don’t really get the comparison with Shaft if I’m being honest. I get what you’re saying, but Shaft was a character created to be a black man, and to represent black culture, something not many spy novels/films wanted to do.

    James Bond, on the other hand, was created as a white man, yes, but was created to represent British culture, not “white culture”, and to me, British culture is also represented in how multicultural we’ve become and continue to be. So to me, James Bond becoming a black man makes way more contextual sense than casting a white man as Shaft ever could.
  • Posts: 97
    The idea of a black Bond does depress me, but not because I want Bond always to be white. It depresses me because according to the 2011 UK census, the United Kingdom is 7% Asian, while only 3% Black. British Indians alone make up 2.3%.

    Why do I never see any article advocating for an Indian Bond? Or a Pakistani Bond?
  • HMBFFHMBFF Lisboa, Portugal
    Posts: 204
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don’t really get the comparison with Shaft if I’m being honest. I get what you’re saying, but Shaft was a character created to be a black man, and to represent black culture, something not many spy novels/films wanted to do.

    James Bond, on the other hand, was created as a white man, yes, but was created to represent British culture, not “white culture”, and to me, British culture is also represented in how multicultural we’ve become and continue to be. So to me, James Bond becoming a black man makes way more contextual sense than casting a white man as Shaft ever could.


    =D> =D> =D>
  • Posts: 1,970
    New York's governor is threatening to reinstate closings, to avoid spikes in new Covid-19 infections.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/new-york-gov-andrew-cuomo-threatens-reinstate-closings-1298349

    But he doesn't say a god dam word about all the mass gatherings of protests and riots going on in NYC. Cuomo is a massive hypocrite.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Denbigh wrote: »
    James Bond, on the other hand, was created as a white man, yes, but was created to represent British culture, not “white culture”, and to me, British culture is also represented in how multicultural we’ve become and continue to be.

    I don't think this is accurate at all, I'm afraid. He's an agent of the crown, and they're certainly not multi-cultural despite the appearances they put out to the contrary. Bond represents them, not British culture as a whole. There's no way of disconnecting Fleming's ideals from the character's no matter how hard you try, and the truth is that Fleming hated most people and was a top-tier snob. If the Bond of the books lived to see the day, he likely would have been pro-Brexit, too. It's simultaneously one of the things that is dislikable about the guy, but also one of the things that makes him interesting as a protagonist.

    Of course, the films have taken many liberties with the character already over the last 60 years so it's relatively moot now anyway; a Bond of a different race is inevitable and I think we will have to just accept it as we have accepted deviations from the source more times than not over 25 films in 60 years. But taken from that same source, Bond's rather snobbish, old-fashioned British superiority is a fundamental part of his character and that's what makes his whiteness as important to him as Shaft's Harlem origins and the sense of place in his stories are to that character.

    It would not be a particularly bad thing to do, of course - change is something that happens to everything at some point - but to dress it up as anything other than a massive fundamental change to the character is not really correct, imo.

  • edited June 2020 Posts: 623
    It would not be a particularly bad thing to do, of course - change is something that happens to everything at some point - but to dress it up as anything other than a massive fundamental change to the character is not really correct, imo.

    This is true. You can have a black Bond with his daughter in a papoose and say he's 'representative of British culture in 2020'. But you can't say he's also Ian Fleming's James Bond.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    @CraigMooreOHMSS i agree that may have been the case once, but it doesn’t have to be. Although I do completely disagree that Bond’s whiteness is just as important as Shaft’s, because that character was created to be black and represent that culture to the fullest, whereas Bond was just a product of time and specific attitudes...
Sign In or Register to comment.