No Time To Die: Production Diary

1175517561758176017612507

Comments

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    By the sounds of things, Craig has way too much influence over the product behind the scenes. The star should have input, but not to the level he has been getting. Connery, Moore or Broz didn't have that, never mind Dalton or Lazenby.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Roadphill wrote: »
    By the sounds of things, Craig has way too much influence over the product behind the scenes. The star should have input, but not to the level he has been getting. Connery, Moore or Broz didn't have that, never mind Dalton or Lazenby.

    Hmm, that sounds like criticism. Are you sure an intern isn't responsible?
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Roadphill wrote: »
    By the sounds of things, Craig has way too much influence over the product behind the scenes. The star should have input, but not to the level he has been getting. Connery, Moore or Broz didn't have that, never mind Dalton or Lazenby.

    Hmm, that sounds like criticism. Are you sure an intern isn't responsible?

    Ha. It's true though. I know Connery battled the producers, but that was more about money than the direction of the films. Only other instances was Sir Rog supposedly protesting a scripted sex scene between himself and the obviously teenage Bibi in FYEO. Also if I remember rightly he wanted the Locque death scene to be a bit less brutal.
    Brosnan supposedly wanted to smoke in the hotel scenes of TND too. Certainly none of them ever tried to muscle in on who was directing or the tone of the films, though.
  • Posts: 5,767
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I see. I thought they had a lot more involvement.
    If I´m not mistaken it is quite common that writers are present while shooting in order to write someting into or out of the script on short notice.
    Also, there are all kinds of proceedings regarding movie scipts. It can be that a writer has an idea and formulates a complete script out of it, and perhaps even has some kind of oversight during the shooting. Or it can also be that a producer goes to a writer and says, "hey, we have this and this concept, write us a script", in which case the writer will have to put into words what his employer wants to have.
    Correct me if I´m wrong.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    By the sounds of things, Craig has way too much influence over the product behind the scenes. The star should have input, but not to the level he has been getting. Connery, Moore or Broz didn't have that, never mind Dalton or Lazenby.

    Hmm, that sounds like criticism. Are you sure an intern isn't responsible?

    Ha. It's true though. I know Connery battled the producers, but that was more about money than the direction of the films. Only other instances was Sir Rog supposedly protesting a scripted sex scene between himself and the obviously teenage Bibi in FYEO. Also if I remember rightly he wanted the Locque death scene to be a bit less brutal.
    Brosnan supposedly wanted to smoke in the hotel scenes of TND too. Certainly none of them ever tried to muscle in on who was directing or the tone of the films, though.

    Ofcourse it is true, my friend. Too true for the "rational" and "informed" intelligentsia of this board, I'm afraid.
  • That's spot-on, @boldfinger, and I think P&W have served in both capacities throughout their tenure on Bond: both creating original stories and ideas, and serving as guns for hire to translate the producers' or directors' ideas into shooting script form.
  • Posts: 5,767
    echo wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    YES! Hodge's story (somewhat) remains. So apparently though... Hodge did indeed work on a draft by Purvis and Wade? I thought it was an original... huh.

    So did I... I wonder if this means Blofeld is back! :D

    This doesn't totally track. We know P&W would put a lot of action in their script, so even if Hodge stripped it out, couldn't Eon (relatively) easily put the action back in?
    Perhaps that´s exactly what they did? Would make sense with the supposedly not very much shifted schedule.





    peter wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I don’t think we’re going to be seeing Blofeld or Hinx again.

    yes
    There was a time when some people here attacked me after I dared to say Blofeld likely won't be back in BOND 25...
    The benefits of using a sensible tone....

  • edited September 2018 Posts: 5,767
    Such a waste of Christoph waltz blofeld and all 4 films together if blofeld doesn't come back.The least they could do is tie all the loosends.
    Loose ends are a subjective definition. They should ignore the bad elements (also a subjective definition, haha) and make something out of the character Blofeld. Fleming even provided the treasure of three completely different Blofeld depictions (thanks to cosmetic surgery). Cast Liam Neeson with long hair as Blofeld, or Jude Law with a baldhead and a hideous facial scar, and just make something so good it makes everyone forget there ever was a brothergate.
    The character of Blofeld as described by Fleming is just too rich to be dropped merely because one attempt failed.



    Isn't is funny how all these catastrophees are constantly happening around EON and Craig and yet non of it is ever their fault?

    With SP it was Logan and Mendes who were culprits, with Bond 25 it was Boyle who couldn't handle such a big franchise that caused this delay. With that wrist slash comment it was the journalist who was at fault for putting it in his headline. It doesn't matter what seems to happen, EON, Babs and Craig are always just victims of circumstance. Strange.
    I don´t recall anyone calling them victims of circumstance. Filmmaking is a group effort. That means all parties are involved more or less. It also can mean that the group chemistry is more efficient with certain members present or not present.




    Roadphill wrote: »
    By the sounds of things, Craig has way too much influence over the product behind the scenes. The star should have input, but not to the level he has been getting. Connery, Moore or Broz didn't have that, never mind Dalton or Lazenby.
    Perhaps. Then again, an associate producer credit can mean all kinds of things. Thunderball credits McClory as producer, right? That the recent official statement about Boyle leaving was made by the producers and Craig could mean he´s got some kind of producer status, but it could also merely be a direct statement that Craig is still on board and with the producers, especially after years of speculation wether Craig is tired of the job or not.



    Roadphill wrote: »
    Certainly none of them ever tried to muscle in on who was directing or the tone of the films, though.
    Yeah, but the producers badly wanted Craig for CR, while he was initially very reluctant. They lured him in with the prospect of getting beefy stuff to act. So Craig´s situation was different from any previous Bond actor since before his first contract.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited September 2018 Posts: 2,541
    I agree even Mark strong as bald blofeld, even Christoph waltz said last year that he won't be back because it always been a tradition to cast someone new as blofeld. Thanks for the information completely forget about long hair blofeld. Just like they make lex luthor bald in BWS they could try something like that or just get on with the story .
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    My choice is still Vincent Cassel. He should play the OHMSS variant of Blofeld, which is, as many literary fans will agree, the best rendition of the character.

    aa9dbc048423ad4632b599ee3fe84841.jpg
  • Posts: 4,619
    Isn't is funny how all these catastrophees are constantly happening around EON and Craig and yet non of it is ever their fault?

    With SP it was Logan and Mendes who were culprits, with Bond 25 it was Boyle who couldn't handle such a big franchise that caused this delay. With that wrist slash comment it was the journalist who was at fault for putting it in his headline. It doesn't matter what seems to happen, EON, Babs and Craig are always just victims of circumstance. Strange.
    Very well stated. Bravo!
  • Posts: 5,767
    I agree even Mark strong as bald blofeld, even Christoph waltz said last year that he won't be back because it always been a tradition to cast someone new as blofeld. Thanks for the information completely forget about long hair blofeld. Just like they make lex luthor bald in BWS they could try something like that or just get on with the story .
    I love what the early films did with Blofeld, but there is still a wholly untouched treasure trove provided by Fleming. It would be such a waste if that wasn´t used one way or another.





    @ClarkDevlin, hell yeah to Cassel :-)!
  • Posts: 12,466
    I think Blofeld/SPECTRE can be used brilliantly again (love how they did it for the most part from DN through OHMSS), but it’s probably best to wait until Craig is out. After SP, I think it would be jarring to try a vastly different direction with Blofed and SPECTRE. I’d like to just see Craig get his standalone-type film then perhaps bring a new Blofeld and SPECTRE in with the next actor - so long as they are used well.
  • Posts: 11,425
    My choice is still Vincent Cassel. He should play the OHMSS variant of Blofeld, which is, as many literary fans will agree, the best rendition of the character.

    aa9dbc048423ad4632b599ee3fe84841.jpg

    he's an obvious choice for a villain
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Getafix wrote: »
    My choice is still Vincent Cassel. He should play the OHMSS variant of Blofeld, which is, as many literary fans will agree, the best rendition of the character.

    aa9dbc048423ad4632b599ee3fe84841.jpg
    he's an obvious choice for a villain
    ...which isn't always a bad thing.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    RC7 wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    @peter & @ColonelSun pretty much on the nose I'd say but hey don't take any notice of that just invest in wild silly conspiracy theories from MI6's resident nut job.
    Excuse me, but as far as I know, nobody here has ever disputed the cold hard facts that were provided by @peter and the colonel. What I attacked was their knowledge of the inner workings of the film industry. It has literally never happened that they wrote something specific about Bond 25, and I (or anyone else here) disputed it. So please stop spreading false information.

    Love the fact you assumed you were the ‘resident nut job’.

    @RC7 I thought exactly the same but you know what they say, acceptance is the first step to recovery.
  • Posts: 11,425
    it feels like Boyle was perhaps always the wrong fit for what EON and Craig want to be a 'big' movie. a shame they didn't approach him way back during the Brosnan era when the films were smaller. Boyle might have been able to get a more interesting performance out of Brozza as well - a mix of light and dark that he had the potential to deliver but never quite got right.

    I'm happy to hear that Hodge was working on the P+W draft. I'm actually reassured by this. it suggests things aren't quite as out of control at EON HQ as I feared. And doesn't this strongly indicate that they're still working on a YOLT adaptation, with some twists?
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Birdleson wrote: »
    There was a time when I was the only one (maybe two of us) who thought SP was a huge disappointment.

    I'll admit considering I'm one of those that hates it the most now, when I originally saw it I did seem quite happy with it, I didn't think it was as good as CR or SF but I think it was only when I got my 2nd viewing that the rot set in, by 3rd and 4th I despisied the thing and it languishes at 24 for me.

    So I can't confess to be one of those that noticed it from the start.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Spectre is 16th or 17th for me. Other bond girls didn't say I love you and so much emotional attachment or indirectly connected to him . Bond doesn't always quit the service like that casually Everytime.

    I thought Lupe loved James "so much"?
  • Posts: 17,756
    Birdleson wrote: »
    There was a time when I was the only one (maybe two of us) who thought SP was a huge disappointment.
    I guess I would have been the other one.

    But you're right, I do remember the mind-boggling threads of everyone and their mother ranking Spectre in their Top 5s.

    Didn't post my opinions of SP back then, because of whatever comments I'd might get in return. Thought it was - well…terrible then, and I still think so today.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Spectre's problem was that the entire script along with the dialogues was mucked up. It didn't have a clear vision of where it wanted to go, despite the many great traditional Bond homages and references it tried to give. The scenes don't fit well together and are definitely not tailored well together. They should've stuck with the earlier scripts, as in my opinion they had far more potential. Instead, they went on constant rewrites even during principal photography, which resulted in a major balls-up operation.
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2018 Posts: 10,512
    Roadphill wrote: »
    By the sounds of things, Craig has way too much influence over the product behind the scenes. The star should have input, but not to the level he has been getting. Connery, Moore or Broz didn't have that, never mind Dalton or Lazenby.

    That’s life. The guy obviously cares, otherwise he’d rock up every few years, take the money and keep his mouth shut. I’m convinced he’s back for B25 because he was dissatisfied with SP. You can knock the finished product all day, but I find it a little disingenuous when people dig out his intentions. Like everyone around him, he’s obviously not setting out to make a shit film. Perhaps he cares too much and should be reigned in, either way, he cares.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Birdleson wrote: »
    There was a time when I was the only one (maybe two of us) who thought SP was a huge disappointment.
    My own two cents, I still prefer SP over SF. Sure, I wasn’t too happy about the brothergate angle, nor was I particularly thrilled by the anticlimactic third act, the inclusion of the Scooby Gang or choice of lead actress to play Madeleine Swann, but I still feel it’s a more enjoyable romp than the downer that was SF. Where SF truly trumps SP is in the title song sung by Adele and the cinematography by Deakins.
  • Posts: 11,425
    They're 2 mediocre entries in my opinion. Both overlong, poorly written and with a sense of being cobbled together on the hoof. That's all wrapped up of course in high production values, great cinematography and some nicely staged scenes, which gives them a slick veneer. And that veneer goes quite a long way on a first watch. But personally I don't have any great desire to return to these films. Ultimately they leave me bored and disinterested. Like @Birdleson I rank SP a little higher than SF, but given the comments on here I'd say SF is one of the most overrated and SP perhaps one of the most harshly rated. But there's not much in it between them really.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Getafix wrote: »
    They're 2 mediocre entries in my opinion. Both overlong, poorly written and with a sense of being cobbled together on the hoof. That's all wrapped up of course in high production values, great cinematography and some nicely staged scenes, which gives them a slick veneer. And that veneer goes quite a long way on a first watch. But personally I don't have any great desire to return to these films. Ultimately they leave me bored and disinterested. Like @Birdleson I rank SP a little higher than SF, but given the comments on here I'd say SF is one of the most overrated and SP perhaps one of the most harshly rated. But there's not much in it between them really.

    There's a surprise!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    bondsum wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    There was a time when I was the only one (maybe two of us) who thought SP was a huge disappointment.
    My own two cents, I still prefer SP over SF. Sure, I wasn’t too happy about the brothergate angle, nor was I particularly thrilled by the anticlimactic third act, the inclusion of the Scooby Gang or choice of lead actress to play Madeleine Swann, but I still feel it’s a more enjoyable romp than the downer that was SF. Where SF truly trumps SP is in the title song sung by Adele and the cinematography by Deakins.

    +1.

    Now that we know that Hodge re-worked P&W's first draft (which was titled Shatterhand) can we still expect a potential Blofeld return? That "Shatterhand" placeholder was given by the production and even if P&W's draft wasn't a YOLT adaptation it's pretty certain that in their script there was Blofeld in some capacity. There's no way they're worked on a Bond movie temporary called Shatterhand without Blofeld.

    Probably Hodge didn't just re-worked the previous draft. He and Boyle completely changed it, given the fact that their version probably didn't include any connection with SP, while P&W did.
  • ThunderballsThunderballs Brighton, UK
    Posts: 35
    matt_u wrote: »
    There's no way they're worked on a Bond movie temporary called Shatterhand without Blofeld.

    I'm not sure that really follows. Certainly, Shatterhand turned out to be Blofeld in the books, but it doesn't need to be so in a film. Christ, he could be M's step-brother for all we know.

    Personally, I hope there's no Blofeld in Bond 25 - I'd much rather SPECTRE/Blofeld cause havoc in a few more films (raising his villainous profile after what was a pretty weak turn in SP) before a final confrontation with Blofeld.

  • Posts: 4,044

    matt_u wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    There was a time when I was the only one (maybe two of us) who thought SP was a huge disappointment.
    My own two cents, I still prefer SP over SF. Sure, I wasn’t too happy about the brothergate angle, nor was I particularly thrilled by the anticlimactic third act, the inclusion of the Scooby Gang or choice of lead actress to play Madeleine Swann, but I still feel it’s a more enjoyable romp than the downer that was SF. Where SF truly trumps SP is in the title song sung by Adele and the cinematography by Deakins.

    +1.

    +2

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    By the sounds of things, Craig has way too much influence over the product behind the scenes. The star should have input, but not to the level he has been getting. Connery, Moore or Broz didn't have that, never mind Dalton or Lazenby.
    Perhaps. Then again, an associate producer credit can mean all kinds of things. Thunderball credits McClory as producer, right? That the recent official statement about Boyle leaving was made by the producers and Craig could mean he´s got some kind of producer status, but it could also merely be a direct statement that Craig is still on board and with the producers, especially after years of speculation wether Craig is tired of the job or not.
    He has reasonable involvement in substantial portions of film making for the Bond films including script development, and he has said so himself.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Certainly none of them ever tried to muscle in on who was directing or the tone of the films, though.
    Yeah, but the producers badly wanted Craig for CR, while he was initially very reluctant. They lured him in with the prospect of getting beefy stuff to act. So Craig´s situation was different from any previous Bond actor since before his first contract.
    Actually they lured him in with more than just beefy stuff to act, but also with the prospect of having larger involvement in conceptualization and implementation. That is on the record and he has confirmed it in interviews. It was a prerequisite for him doing the Bond thing.
  • Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    Actually they lured him in with more than just beefy stuff to act, but also with the prospect of having larger involvement in conceptualization and implementation. That is on the record and he has confirmed it in interviews. It was a prerequisite for him doing the Bond thing.
    That is what I meant. They wanted Craig and did all kinds of stuff to lure him in. I don´t think the did something similar to any other Bond actor.

Sign In or Register to comment.