SPECTRE Production Timeline

1402403405407408870

Comments

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    You can tell it seems as if Naomie Harris seems upset about the fact that her role is much less prominent than in Skyfall. She doesn't seem as enthusiastic.
  • jake24 wrote: »
    You can tell it seems as if Naomie Harris seems upset about the fact that her role is much less prominent than in Skyfall. She doesn't seem as enthusiastic.

    Well, I can understand. But then she always has the advantage that she had a large screen role as a "Bond girl", who has the luxury to continue appearing in the following Bond films as Miss Moneypenny. Most likely, Lea and Monica won't appear again in Bond 25 ;-).
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    "We make love altogether" =P~

    This film is already the best Bond film ever!
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    "We make love altogether" =P~

    This film is already the best Bond film ever!

    You wanna join no? :P
  • chipstickschipsticks NOT on TheDanielCraigForum where they think know Daniel Craig personally and Léa and Monica are ugly
    Posts: 560
    doubleoego wrote: »
    "We make love altogether" =P~

    This film is already the best Bond film ever!



    that's Léa for you =))
  • Posts: 15,105
    leas_mole wrote: »
    Bond Girl special! Video - pay attention to what Léa says about 2 minutes in :)) she still in Emma mode I see ;)


    From what Naomi says, I don't think we'll see Moneypenny in the field.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote: »
    "We make love altogether" =P~

    This film is already the best Bond film ever!

    You wanna join no? :P

    Definitely; I don't even need to think about it.
    :D
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    jake24 wrote: »
    You can tell it seems as if Naomie Harris seems upset about the fact that her role is much less prominent than in Skyfall. She doesn't seem as enthusiastic.

    Well, I can understand. But then she always has the advantage that she had a large screen role as a "Bond girl", who has the luxury to continue appearing in the following Bond films as Miss Moneypenny. Most likely, Lea and Monica won't appear again in Bond 25 ;-).

    In my humble opinion, Naomi Harris should be very grateful to be associated with Bond, even if she's relegated to being behind a desk.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited December 2014 Posts: 10,591
    bondjames wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    You can tell it seems as if Naomie Harris seems upset about the fact that her role is much less prominent than in Skyfall. She doesn't seem as enthusiastic.

    Well, I can understand. But then she always has the advantage that she had a large screen role as a "Bond girl", who has the luxury to continue appearing in the following Bond films as Miss Moneypenny. Most likely, Lea and Monica won't appear again in Bond 25 ;-).

    In my humble opinion, Naomi Harris should be grateful to be associated with Bond, even if she's relegated to being behind a desk.
    I'm positive that she's very grateful to be part of Bond, but I'm sure she'd want a bigger part than the one set out for Spectre, naturally.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 2,598
    @bondjames said:

    "In my humble opinion, Naomi Harris should be grateful to be associated with Bond, even if she's relegated to being behind a desk."

    I agree, seeing she can't act very well.

    http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=11604&t=mi6&s=news

    Bond has to pass some kind of test. Now, this is pure Fleming! Like it!
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Well just like Tosca tales of espionage simply aren't for everyone. If you have to extra analyse a movie to notice these kind of things you might better stick to Transformers (just to make it easier for you - the cars are robots. Hope that helps.)

    you're crude attempt at sarcasm is rather juvenile....got nothing else, so now you resort to insulting my intelligence?

    Expressing notions like some people "must be the saddest, most anal, and most boring persons" when they notice these things, you don't need me to insult your intelligence. You are obviously capable of doing this very much on your own.

    Right. I'm done. As in done with these boards for a while. You're disgusting. I don't care who you are - or rather who you THINK you are - you do not talk to people that way.
    .

    Did you even notice the quotation marks? The insulting lines in this post weren't even mine!

    please... you've done it plenty enough to others in your time here..
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 908
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Well just like Tosca tales of espionage simply aren't for everyone. If you have to extra analyse a movie to notice these kind of things you might better stick to Transformers (just to make it easier for you - the cars are robots. Hope that helps.)

    you're crude attempt at sarcasm is rather juvenile....got nothing else, so now you resort to insulting my intelligence?

    Expressing notions like some people "must be the saddest, most anal, and most boring persons" when they notice these things, you don't need me to insult your intelligence. You are obviously capable of doing this very much on your own.

    Right. I'm done. As in done with these boards for a while. You're disgusting. I don't care who you are - or rather who you THINK you are - you do not talk to people that way.
    .

    Did you even notice the quotation marks? The insulting lines in this post weren't even mine!

    please... you've done it plenty enough to others in your time here..

    So why don't you - or anybody else for that matter - point out just once, when I used these kind of words. I have been called stupid, an idiot,imbecile and suffering from sexual hangups on this forum. Sensitive Shakennotstirred has called me a village idiot and then some. I never even felt the need to refer to these kind of words. Also how about showing just -again,only once- when my so called negativity has proven so and not just plain and and cold logic. You don't have to like my reasoning, but no one here has ever faulted my logic. If you can do so, do! But otherwise just keep your notions about me for yourself and accept them as opinions.
  • Matt_Helm wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Well just like Tosca tales of espionage simply aren't for everyone. If you have to extra analyse a movie to notice these kind of things you might better stick to Transformers (just to make it easier for you - the cars are robots. Hope that helps.)

    you're crude attempt at sarcasm is rather juvenile....got nothing else, so now you resort to insulting my intelligence?

    Expressing notions like some people "must be the saddest, most anal, and most boring persons" when they notice these things, you don't need me to insult your intelligence. You are obviously capable of doing this very much on your own.

    Right. I'm done. As in done with these boards for a while. You're disgusting. I don't care who you are - or rather who you THINK you are - you do not talk to people that way.
    .

    Did you even notice the quotation marks? The insulting lines in this post weren't even mine!

    please... you've done it plenty enough to others in your time here..

    So why don't you - or anybody else for that matter - point out just once, when I used these kind of words. I have been called stupid, an idiot,imbecile and suffering from sexual hangups on this forum. Sensitive Shakennotstirred has called me a village idiot and then some. I never even felt the need to refer to these kind of words. Also how about showing just -again,only once- when my so called negativity has proven so and not just plain and and cold logic. You don't have to like my reasoning, but no one here has ever faulted my logic. If you can do so, do! But otherwise just keep your notions about me for yourself.

    Hello @Matt_Helm. I tried to react to you. But you never respond. I think you're not a bad person. I'm actually interested in the real-life person behind your writings. Do you think I am a bad person? Please say so. If not, then let's discuss about our common passion: James Bond 007 :-).

    James Bond should unite us, not dividing us.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Agreed ...I'm guilty too of harsh remarks. And for that I'm sorry. Anyway ..not going Olof with warm hugs but umm carry on.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 2,115
    From earlier in this thread:

    "Wherever side the steering console is on is irrelevant."

    No, it's not. It's actually an important feature of any car. It's not something you just say, "I'll switch the steering wheel to the other side."

    " The PTS of QoS takes place 13 minutes after CR..."

    Where did this come from? Michael G. Wilson, at the Quantum press conference said Quantum started "literally an hour" after Casino. In other interviews, two hours got mentioned. Where did 13 minutes come up?

    "I still like to think the DB5 is the same one from CR. I like to think that within 6 years, MI-6 got tired of Bond smashing up multiple government issue DBS's so they forced him to get his DB5 modified OR, It was already armed to the teeth since Dimitros was an arms smuggler and likes to flaunt his wealth so he owns a suped up car for his own protection."

    But, of course, there's no actual evidence any of this occurred.

    "It's a fictional universe for crying out loud."

    And one where the producers said things would be more realistic going forward.

    "A universe where people can hollow out volcano's to live in them, buy underwater cities and space stations the size of Manhattan or even a seaplane with an obviously visible Gatling gun mounted to the bottom."

    All of which ended with Die Another Day. Under the idea of a reboot, everything started over with Casino Royale. None of that is supposed to matter any more.

    "if people get that bent out of shape and over analyze a rather insignificant continuity flaw in a film.... good god, they must be the saddest, most anal, and most boring person alive.."

    Again the producers said, in effect, this was a more realistic take. MGW said Quantum started "literally an hour" after Casino yet Quantum took place in 2008 while Casino took place in 2006. It's not a matter of being anal. It's a matter of noting how the films have been marketed to the public.

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    From earlier in this thread:
    And one where the producers said things would be more realistic going forward.

    Again the producers said, in effect, this was a more realistic take. MGW said Quantum started "literally an hour" after Casino yet Quantum took place in 2008 while Casino took place in 2006. It's not a matter of being anal. It's a matter of noting how the films have been marketed to the public.

    More Realistic take. Not 110% realistic. If I wanted realistic I'd watch WWII documentaries or something. Which I won't

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited December 2014 Posts: 12,480
    self edit, may repost later.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    @AlexanderWaverly, What I described is how I perceive things. To me the DB5 in CR is the same one in Skyfall. You don't think so, that's how you perceive it. We don't agree and that's fine. But nothing is going to change how I feel on the matter. To me, Diamonds are Forever is a sequel to You Only Live Twice and OHMSS follows that film. That's how "I" perceive continuity of the Bond series. Just because a minor detail such as the Steering column being on one side of the car doesn't matter to me. It's minor. You can bring real world pricing and statistics into it all you want. It's not going to change what I think. In the end it's a movie in a fantastical spy series. It's "realism" is just going with the times. None of these movies are realistic. They are escapist fantasy entertainment.

    You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's agree to disagree on this one.
  • Posts: 15,105
    jake24 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    You can tell it seems as if Naomie Harris seems upset about the fact that her role is much less prominent than in Skyfall. She doesn't seem as enthusiastic.

    Well, I can understand. But then she always has the advantage that she had a large screen role as a "Bond girl", who has the luxury to continue appearing in the following Bond films as Miss Moneypenny. Most likely, Lea and Monica won't appear again in Bond 25 ;-).

    In my humble opinion, Naomi Harris should be grateful to be associated with Bond, even if she's relegated to being behind a desk.
    I'm positive that she's very grateful to be part of Bond, but I'm sure she'd want a bigger part than the one set out for Spectre, naturally.

    From what she says, she envies the others for going to Italy while she has to remain in London. I feel her pain.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 7,507
    Who wouldn't want to travel with the Bond Production crew to Roma, Mexico and Morroco? Who possibly wouldn't? =P~
  • Posts: 130
    Well, I'm excited about:

    - Seydoux - hoot!
    - Newman - give him another chance!
    - van Hoytema - style!
    - the locations - desert, snow, Italy - couldn't be happier!
    - Spectre returning

    I'm ok with:
    - the title - a one word title is much better than something weird like TMWTGG
    - the car - not crazy about it, looks like the car somebody with a small penis would get
    - Waltz - he will be evil.
    - P & W script - Logan's SF script DID have holes (but the movie was still awesome)

    I don't like:
    - Monica Bellucci - she's not the best actress, IMO
    - the plot point about M fighting another political battle...didn't we have that in SF?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    w2bond wrote: »
    From earlier in this thread:
    And one where the producers said things would be more realistic going forward.

    Again the producers said, in effect, this was a more realistic take. MGW said Quantum started "literally an hour" after Casino yet Quantum took place in 2008 while Casino took place in 2006. It's not a matter of being anal. It's a matter of noting how the films have been marketed to the public.

    More Realistic take. Not 110% realistic. If I wanted realistic I'd watch WWII documentaries or something. Which I won't

    110 % realistic is very unrealistic imo.
  • Posts: 5,767
    That video is a reminder that Naomi Harris is way too beautiful for playing Moneypenny. :p
    For me Lois Maxwell was the hottest Bond girl, so I have no objection if MP stays hot.

  • Posts: 15,105
    boldfinger wrote: »
    That video is a reminder that Naomi Harris is way too beautiful for playing Moneypenny. :p
    For me Lois Maxwell was the hottest Bond girl, so I have no objection if MP stays hot.

    I'm with SuzanneStone on this one: Naomi Harris is a bit (a lot) too sexy IMO to be Moneypenny. Lois Maxwell was beautiful, but there was something that made her not quite Bond girl material, not so much her physique than her demeanor. The shaving scene in SF was one of my favorite scenes ever in the series, I found it very sensual and a perfect seduction scene... Almost too sexy and risqué for Moneypenny.

    Then again, Lois Maxwell said in an interview that she discussed with Sean Connery about their character's reports and they'd agreed that they had a brief affair, but that it was behind them. Maybe this was what was hinted at in SF. I think it worked fine in this context.
  • leas_mole wrote: »
    Bond Girl special! Video - pay attention to what Léa says about 2 minutes in :)) she still in Emma mode I see ;)


    When they talk about recent Bond girls they don't mention the last 3! Not even Eva Green. But they do mention Halle Berry!!! I hope they are not using her as a reference!

  • edited December 2014 Posts: 1,021
    Just wondering if during the shoot in Soelden we might catch some of the action on the live cams dotted around

    http://www.soelden.com/panorama-cams-winter
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Lea mentions Eva Green.
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    Lea mentions Eva Green.

    Ah good. I must have missed that. Will have to Watch it again and pay more attention!

  • edited December 2014 Posts: 4,622
    From earlier in this thread:

    "Wherever side the steering console is on is irrelevant."

    No, it's not. It's actually an important feature of any car. It's not something you just say, "I'll switch the steering wheel to the other side."

    " The PTS of QoS takes place 13 minutes after CR..."

    Where did this come from? Michael G. Wilson, at the Quantum press conference said Quantum started "literally an hour" after Casino. In other interviews, two hours got mentioned. Where did 13 minutes come up?

    "I still like to think the DB5 is the same one from CR. I like to think that within 6 years, MI-6 got tired of Bond smashing up multiple government issue DBS's so they forced him to get his DB5 modified OR, It was already armed to the teeth since Dimitros was an arms smuggler and likes to flaunt his wealth so he owns a suped up car for his own protection."

    But, of course, there's no actual evidence any of this occurred.

    "It's a fictional universe for crying out loud."

    And one where the producers said things would be more realistic going forward.

    "A universe where people can hollow out volcano's to live in them, buy underwater cities and space stations the size of Manhattan or even a seaplane with an obviously visible Gatling gun mounted to the bottom."

    All of which ended with Die Another Day. Under the idea of a reboot, everything started over with Casino Royale. None of that is supposed to matter any more.

    "if people get that bent out of shape and over analyze a rather insignificant continuity flaw in a film.... good god, they must be the saddest, most anal, and most boring person alive.."

    Again the producers said, in effect, this was a more realistic take. MGW said Quantum started "literally an hour" after Casino yet Quantum took place in 2008 while Casino took place in 2006. It's not a matter of being anal. It's a matter of noting how the films have been marketed to the public.
    Good post @waverly. Your post underscores what can be tedious about the Craig era.
    For a re-boot that takes itself so seriously, the continuity errors are major.
    There is no excuse for the steering wheel being on the wrong side. That makes the car a different car from the CR DB5. There is no sane reason to rebuild the core alignment of the car to that extent, if it could even be done.
    The SF DB5 is a full-blown purposeful continuity error. Purposeful, because there is no way Mendes could not have known. I think what happened is that Mendes simply didn't care.
    The whole notion that Bond would even have such a tricked- out relic is absurd anyway. But it's somewhat plausible, if the car is the CR car, but it can't be, because of the steering column. Otherwise, we could allow that Bond talked the Q people into outfitting the car the same way the 00 section did it, circa 1964, but this only works if it's the same car - but it isn't, so that's that.
    As an aside, even though this is a re-boot, there's no reason, that the car itself (tricked out 1964 DB5), couldn't also exist in the new continuity, but there can't be two cars, and that's what we got.

    What we are left with, is that the whole scenario is just a joke inserted independent of the broader film.
    If Mendes had wanted the scenario to be taken even slightly seriously he would have insisted on using the same car from CR, but he wasn't serious, so he just jammed it in anyway. We all have a good laugh, just as we pretended that the obvious signs of a 2008 setting in QoS were not as jarring.


    What I am hoping is that SP, might be a re-boot of the re-boot, in which the absurdities of the first three films (most greivous being the notion of a 38 year old guy, being passed off as a 00 rookie, and going from rook to old dog in a matter of 6 years) can be set aside, and we start fresh. What's done is done.

    The original Craig-films, the last two at least, were pre-occupied with the thematic conceits of the directors, so continuity, and make-sense filmmaking suffered. The movies were all about the character drama and broader thematic pretensions, set within the Bond adventure context.
    We will get more of the thematic stuff from Mendes in SP. That's how he rolls. But hopefully the film narrative will hang together better than it has so far in this re-boot era.
    ie the DB5 has been blown to smithereens, so thats gone, and I guess Craig-Bond is still old-dog, but rejuvenated old-dog, so that drama can be set aside too.
    And Craig did allow that the new script is better written, so maybe the whole movie will hang together, better than any of its three predecessors, and we won't get a film that is so easy to rip apart, even within the Bond fantasy context.
    As @dimi pointed out, even films of an escapist nature, still need to be aware of their own interior logic, in order to be most effective.
    Personally, I think both Forster and Mendes were hampered by Bond film convention, and struggled to make the film they wanted to make.
    Maybe this time Mendes can pull it all together.
    So far nothing to complain about. The road map as revealed thus far, not to mention casting, holds very exciting possibilities.
    Hopefully they don't "cock it up"

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited December 2014 Posts: 12,480
    Well, all I can say to the above discussion is that I politely disagree. You are certainly entitled to your opinions and how you view Bond films. But we are talking about Bond films, and thereby a Bond film will have fantastic things in it. A Bond film is not a serious drama or historical period piece. Craig's era may be a grittier, more down to earth reboot (I thoroughly enjoy his Bond films), but I do not want to look for nitpicky details and saying those "continuity errors" or things that are "not realistic" ruin the film. I do not watch a Bond film to watch a documentary about how things really are. I do not want to have mundane details to bother me (steering wheel is where?!). No thank you; that is just now how I watch a Bond film.

    I want an exciting, enjoyable film that is darker at times, more realistic at times and in overall tone, sure; but definitely a Bond film that includes things not so ordinary in this world, not exactly like our world, something that gives me more. Steering wheels, strict timelines (how soon did QOS start after CR?!!), etc. are not on my radar nor do I want them to be. I enjoy my Bond films in a different way from that. And that I think it is rather a tradition to have a new and different kind of car (or an updated model) for each Bond film.
Sign In or Register to comment.