No Time To Die: Production Diary

1108410851087108910902507

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    We've read Bond's psychology well enough to know the kind of man he is. At least in Craig's era, as the others were purely drawn to be pulp fiction untouchable heroes (as opposed to Fleming's down-to-earth character). We certainly don't need to go deep down into that territory, again. Enough is enough.

    It all depends what you throw at a character. There's always stuff to explore if you put a character in a place/situation they've not been or dealt with before.
    Is there any more one could throw? We've explored every side of him.

    There's always something. For example, Bond has loved and lost, and Tracey in OHMSS or Vesper in CR were the big ones but before Bond entered a committed long term relationship with them, they were killed. So Bond's longest relationship with a woman was with Judi's M - and we know how that ended. So these rumours about Bond being finally settled and married and out of Mi6 - perhaps for sometime, would be a whole new experience for him - and maybe he will struggle with that. Just saying - there's always something a character hasn't faced before.
    But, would people really want that? I mean... we're talking about a film franchise built around action, adventure, heroism and chauvinism (in a tolerable way) where there's always excitement. Would the audience really be interested in a married and settled down Bond who's struggling with commitment, relationships and civilian life? We're heading towards a bigger soap opera if this really occurs.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    We've read Bond's psychology well enough to know the kind of man he is. At least in Craig's era, as the others were purely drawn to be pulp fiction untouchable heroes (as opposed to Fleming's down-to-earth character). We certainly don't need to go deep down into that territory, again. Enough is enough.

    It all depends what you throw at a character. There's always stuff to explore if you put a character in a place/situation they've not been or dealt with before.
    Is there any more one could throw? We've explored every side of him.

    There's always something. For example, Bond has loved and lost, and Tracey in OHMSS or Vesper in CR were the big ones but before Bond entered a committed long term relationship with them, they were killed. So Bond's longest relationship with a woman was with Judi's M - and we know how that ended. So these rumours about Bond being finally settled and married and out of Mi6 - perhaps for sometime, would be a whole new experience for him - and maybe he will struggle with that. Just saying - there's always something a character hasn't faced before.
    But, would people really want that? I mean... we're talking about a film franchise built around action, adventure, heroism and chauvinism (in a tolerable way) where there's always excitement. Would the audience really be interested in a married and settled down Bond who's struggling with commitment, relationships and civilian life? We're heading towards a bigger soap opera if this really occurs.

    @ClarkDevlin I tried imagining a Bond film like that. I dozed off. Got a good night's sleep.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The problem here, as I see it, is the passage of time. As I said a few pages back, we have a diverse fandom with different tastes and desires, which is quite understandable given how long this franchise has been running for. In the past, due to the versatility of the actors and the unconnected nature of the old stories, they were able to shake up the tone from time to time, going a little serious if needed, and then coming back to outlandish with the next one. Some fans liked one film, and others liked the other. I believe this is why this franchise has survived & thrived for so long.

    When Mr. Craig does his final film 13 long years will have passed since his first one. Some fans like his brooding approach. Others can live with it (I'm one of those). Some actually can't stand it. Due to his nature, acting preference and general approach, they have increasingly tried to make this character more relatable and get into his head to give him something to do. Sadly, the two best stories for that sort of thing have already been adapted (and very well I might add) with CR and OHMSS. So their approach comes across as forced and inauthentic to some (including myself). They achieved it best with the first film in his tenure and since then have been flailing about adding Dark Knight tones to his background (including burning mansions, cellars and what not). It's all becoming somewhat ridiculous.

    So ultimately, the reason for the dissent is because of time having passed without a change in tone (those who cite SP, please....). It's understandable that one segment of the fan base is yearning for a change and a new approach. I believe the general public is there too (what worked in the last decade may not work in the next one), and we will see the impact in 2019.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,505
    I'm assuming that, since SP was not the critical success of SF, Babs and Co will smartly mix great character with action (both which were lacking in the last effort, IMHO).
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    I would like to see what Duncan Jones could do with Bond. I knows he's a massive fan and wanted to do the Fleming biopic but had to pull out when Warcraft took up too much of his time.

    https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/duncan-jones-departs-ian-fleming-biopic/

    There is not a lot to his movie Moon it's clostraphobic scfi at its best it shows with very little he can hold you in the palm of his hand with suspense.

    Although Sourcecode is an odd concept, it was well made and delivered.

    He's a top top director, British, son of David Bowie I think he could deliver Bond gold with a good script.
  • Posts: 1,453
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    We've read Bond's psychology well enough to know the kind of man he is. At least in Craig's era, as the others were purely drawn to be pulp fiction untouchable heroes (as opposed to Fleming's down-to-earth character). We certainly don't need to go deep down into that territory, again. Enough is enough.

    It all depends what you throw at a character. There's always stuff to explore if you put a character in a place/situation they've not been or dealt with before.
    Is there any more one could throw? We've explored every side of him.

    There's always something. For example, Bond has loved and lost, and Tracey in OHMSS or Vesper in CR were the big ones but before Bond entered a committed long term relationship with them, they were killed. So Bond's longest relationship with a woman was with Judi's M - and we know how that ended. So these rumours about Bond being finally settled and married and out of Mi6 - perhaps for sometime, would be a whole new experience for him - and maybe he will struggle with that. Just saying - there's always something a character hasn't faced before.
    But, would people really want that? I mean... we're talking about a film franchise built around action, adventure, heroism and chauvinism (in a tolerable way) where there's always excitement. Would the audience really be interested in a married and settled down Bond who's struggling with commitment, relationships and civilian life? We're heading towards a bigger soap opera if this really occurs.

    It certainly doesn't have to be soap opera at all. If Bond is committed to a woman for a long period, longer than we have seen before, he has so much more to protect and potentially lose. He also makes himself more vulnerable to being manipulated if his new life is threatened - which it obviously would be.

    Would the audience buy into it? If this character is still very definitely Bond, but placed in world he's not really equipped for (however that is presented), then there is tons of potential for the action, suspense, thrills and drama an audience expects from a Bond film. I have no way of knowing if these "Bond will be married" rumours are true, but it makes sense to me that Eon and Craig want to push Bond into new areas we've not really seen before.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    He's already been married. The story was adapted, in an excellent way. It's easily one of the best films in the series. He's already lost his first love too. It's done. No point flogging a dead horse. If they want to do something worthwhile they will have to find another way.
  • Posts: 1,453
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's already been married. The story was adapted, in an excellent way. It's easily one of the best films in the series. He's already lost his first love too. It's done. No point flogging a dead horse. If they want to do something worthwhile they will have to find another way.

    Yes, Bond was married for about 5 minutes before she was murdered. (And I agree, I love OHMSS along with CR.) And Vesper didn't last long enough to en get up the aisle. Bond hasn't been seen in a long term established relationship before - not once. That could be their angle with the Bond is married rumour.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's already been married. The story was adapted, in an excellent way. It's easily one of the best films in the series. He's already lost his first love too. It's done. No point flogging a dead horse. If they want to do something worthwhile they will have to find another way.

    Yes, Bond was married for about 5 minutes before she was murdered. (And I agree, I love OHMSS along with CR.) And Vesper didn't last long enough to en get up the aisle. Bond hasn't been seen in a long term established relationship before - not once. That could be their angle with the Bond is married rumour.
    Yes, that would indeed be a little different. Martin Campbell agonized over the romantic element in CR, speculating that it had to be handled very deftly, lest it erode the character's masculinity and general alpha nature in the minds of the fans. I think he was right to be concerned. They just about got away with it in CR but it was borderline cheese & schmaltz (little fingers). So they have to be careful if they go here.

    I can't say I'm looking forward to that approach, if it's in fact what they plan to do.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Murdock wrote: »
    Take out the personal drama, delving into Bond's past and the dour overtones, up the tension and adventure.
    No, no, no! Personal drama is great, as long as it's not about Bond. (Vesper' past in CR, or Silva's and M's shared past in Skyfall.) I want drama in my Bond film as long as Bond is not the centre of it. (I agree about no delving into Bond's past.)
    I think I wouldn't even mind delving into Bond's past, but it would help tremendously if it had any relevance for the story.


  • Posts: 1,453
    bondjames wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's already been married. The story was adapted, in an excellent way. It's easily one of the best films in the series. He's already lost his first love too. It's done. No point flogging a dead horse. If they want to do something worthwhile they will have to find another way.

    Yes, Bond was married for about 5 minutes before she was murdered. (And I agree, I love OHMSS along with CR.) And Vesper didn't last long enough to en get up the aisle. Bond hasn't been seen in a long term established relationship before - not once. That could be their angle with the Bond is married rumour.
    Yes, that would indeed be a little different. Martin Campbell agonized over the romantic element in CR, speculating that it had to be handled very deftly, lest it erode the character's masculinity and general alpha nature in the minds of the fans. I think he was right to be concerned. They just about got away with it in CR but it was borderline cheese & schmaltz (little fingers). So they have to be careful if they go here.

    I can't say I'm looking forward to that approach, if it's in fact what they plan to do.

    I agree IF that is their angle then is has to be very smartly and imaginatively handled. Campbell was dead right, but in OHMSS and CR they found the right balance, so keep the faith.
  • Posts: 11,119
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »

    I simply can not believe that Nolan would 1. be bothered to make Craig's last when it's clear he wants to start fresh, and 2. would ever even consider remaking On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is his favorite Bond movie. He's bold, but not that bold.

    A. Who says Bond 25 will be a remake of OHMSS? It could very well be that they look a bit more to LTK. Letting Bond getting married at the very start of the film. Killing off Madeleine at the very start of the film, like they did with Della.

    B. It is kinda appealing to a director if he's given the assignment to direct a majestic and terrific send-off for a Bond actor. It has been done before only once in a rather mediocre way with NSNA. But again, like I said so many times before, no Bond actor has been sent off in an unforgettable way. So Nolan could actually be tempted into such a project.

    C. Big advantage is, that the final 3/4th of the film could actually be a great story. It could get more focus and better narrative, if we get rid of Madeleine Swann at the start of the film.

    D. Daniel Craig returns for God sake. Embrace that fact. Because we all know what that means. Try to think progressive. Try to be a bit more positive about whatever idea the producers are thinking off. It might actually work. Our desires as fans are known, but we aren't in the director's chair. And at this stage it's just unconfirmed news.

    Anyone?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    B. It is kinda appealing to a director if he's given the assignment to direct a majestic and terrific send-off for a Bond actor. It has been done before only once in a rather mediocre way with NSNA. But again, like I said so many times before, no Bond actor has been sent off in an unforgettable way. So Nolan could actually be tempted into such a project.
    Nolan will not take B25 with Craig in the acting chair. Neither will Campbell.
  • Posts: 1,453
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »

    I simply can not believe that Nolan would 1. be bothered to make Craig's last when it's clear he wants to start fresh, and 2. would ever even consider remaking On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is his favorite Bond movie. He's bold, but not that bold.

    A. Who says Bond 25 will be a remake of OHMSS? It could very well be that they look a bit more to LTK. Letting Bond getting married at the very start of the film. Killing off Madeleine at the very start of the film, like they did with Della.

    B. It is kinda appealing to a director if he's given the assignment to direct a majestic and terrific send-off for a Bond actor. It has been done before only once in a rather mediocre way with NSNA. But again, like I said so many times before, no Bond actor has been sent off in an unforgettable way. So Nolan could actually be tempted into such a project.

    C. Big advantage is, that the final 3/4th of the film could actually be a great story. It could get more focus and better narrative, if we get rid of Madeleine Swann at the start of the film.

    D. Daniel Craig returns for God sake. Embrace that fact. Because we all know what that means. Try to think progressive. Try to be a bit more positive about whatever idea the producers are thinking off. It might actually work. Our desires as fans are known, but we aren't in the director's chair. And at this stage it's just unconfirmed news.

    Anyone?

    Re: my other posts today, I suspect they won't simply kill Madeleine off early on and just send Bond off (once again) on a personal revenge mission, they're done that. I think they will explore what happens if Bond is married and committed (perhaps for 3 or 4 years since leaving the service) and that "normal" life is threatened - there seems to be more dramatic and fresher mileage with that approach. There is also potential for humour and character insight watching an alpha-male like Bond trying to bury his (killer) training and his true nature and simply cope with everyday life and more mundane issues or conflicts. They touched on that in MI:3 with Ethan Hunt settled with his wife in suburbia and trying to act normal - and failing. Bond is, at least at the start or through-out the first act, a fish out of the water for once. And we haven't seen that before.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    B. It is kinda appealing to a director if he's given the assignment to direct a majestic and terrific send-off for a Bond actor. It has been done before only once in a rather mediocre way with NSNA. But again, like I said so many times before, no Bond actor has been sent off in an unforgettable way. So Nolan could actually be tempted into such a project.
    Nolan will not take B25 with Craig in the acting chair. Neither will Campbell.

    Do you have very good factual news articles that can support your claim ;-)?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    B. It is kinda appealing to a director if he's given the assignment to direct a majestic and terrific send-off for a Bond actor. It has been done before only once in a rather mediocre way with NSNA. But again, like I said so many times before, no Bond actor has been sent off in an unforgettable way. So Nolan could actually be tempted into such a project.
    Nolan will not take B25 with Craig in the acting chair. Neither will Campbell.

    Do you have very good factual news articles that can support your claim ;-)?
    Campbell has already said as much and Nolan is smart and creative, and will want to do something transformative (he has said as much although I don't have time now to find the article). That's my basis.

    Having said that, this is a speculation thread, so speculate away, no matter how unrealistic it may be.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    B. It is kinda appealing to a director if he's given the assignment to direct a majestic and terrific send-off for a Bond actor. It has been done before only once in a rather mediocre way with NSNA. But again, like I said so many times before, no Bond actor has been sent off in an unforgettable way. So Nolan could actually be tempted into such a project.
    Nolan will not take B25 with Craig in the acting chair. Neither will Campbell.

    Do you have very good factual news articles that can support your claim ;-)?
    Campbell has already said as much and Nolan is smart and creative, and will want to do something transformative (he has said as much although I don't have time now to find the article). That's my basis.

    Having said that, this is a speculation thread, so speculate away, no matter how unrealistic it may be.

    I do that yes, but in such a way that I try to imagine a very good outcome IF Noland is going to direct Craig's last outing (which will most likely not happen). Sadly, many people in here can't envision how such a movie would look like. I can.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    B. It is kinda appealing to a director if he's given the assignment to direct a majestic and terrific send-off for a Bond actor. It has been done before only once in a rather mediocre way with NSNA. But again, like I said so many times before, no Bond actor has been sent off in an unforgettable way. So Nolan could actually be tempted into such a project.
    Nolan will not take B25 with Craig in the acting chair. Neither will Campbell.

    Do you have very good factual news articles that can support your claim ;-)?
    Campbell has already said as much and Nolan is smart and creative, and will want to do something transformative (he has said as much although I don't have time now to find the article). That's my basis.

    Having said that, this is a speculation thread, so speculate away, no matter how unrealistic it may be.

    I do that yes, but in such a way that I try to imagine a very good outcome IF Noland is going to direct Craig's last outing (which will most likely not happen). Sadly, many people in here can't envision how such a movie would look like. I can.
    Yes, I understand that, but it's not a realistic assumption on your part. Merely an unlikely hypothetical. If that were speculation on B26, then I can understand the chances being much higher of Nolan's involvement.

    The market wants Nolan. I'm quite certain Villeneuve's stock is going to decrease on account of the box office on BR2049 (whether we like it or not). It's all about what have you done for me lately.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »

    I simply can not believe that Nolan would 1. be bothered to make Craig's last when it's clear he wants to start fresh, and 2. would ever even consider remaking On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is his favorite Bond movie. He's bold, but not that bold.

    A. Who says Bond 25 will be a remake of OHMSS? It could very well be that they look a bit more to LTK. Letting Bond getting married at the very start of the film. Killing off Madeleine at the very start of the film, like they did with Della.

    B. It is kinda appealing to a director if he's given the assignment to direct a majestic and terrific send-off for a Bond actor. It has been done before only once in a rather mediocre way with NSNA. But again, like I said so many times before, no Bond actor has been sent off in an unforgettable way. So Nolan could actually be tempted into such a project.

    C. Big advantage is, that the final 3/4th of the film could actually be a great story. It could get more focus and better narrative, if we get rid of Madeleine Swann at the start of the film.

    D. Daniel Craig returns for God sake. Embrace that fact. Because we all know what that means. Try to think progressive. Try to be a bit more positive about whatever idea the producers are thinking off. It might actually work. Our desires as fans are known, but we aren't in the director's chair. And at this stage it's just unconfirmed news.

    Anyone?

    Re: my other posts today, I suspect they won't simply kill Madeleine off early on and just send Bond off (once again) on a personal revenge mission, they're done that. I think they will explore what happens if Bond is married and committed (perhaps for 3 or 4 years since leaving the service) and that "normal" life is threatened - there seems to be more dramatic and fresher mileage with that approach. There is also potential for humour and character insight watching an alpha-male like Bond trying to bury his (killer) training and his true nature and simply cope with everyday life and more mundane issues or conflicts. They touched on that in MI:3 with Ethan Hunt settled with his wife in suburbia and trying to act normal - and failing. Bond is, at least at the start or through-out the first act, a fish out of the water for once. And we haven't seen that before.

    Bonds married and settled like you say.

    MP's new boyfriend who is in her apartment in Spectre when shes on the phone to Bond in Rome could be a Spectre agent using her. He could steal something from her that gives Spectre access to Bonds location. Hinx is alive and takes the call and goes after Bond. He and Swann escape. Bond recovers Hinxs phone after his homes been shot up. He calls the number and MP picks it up while her man is out of the room. Bond says nothing and hangs up. He does not know what is going on or who to trust. Bond turns to Felix. A cat and mouse game begins to end Spectre once and for all, as even with Blofeld behind bars they will never stop until he and Swann are dead

    Bond can't escape his past.

  • edited October 2017 Posts: 5,767
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »

    I simply can not believe that Nolan would 1. be bothered to make Craig's last when it's clear he wants to start fresh, and 2. would ever even consider remaking On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is his favorite Bond movie. He's bold, but not that bold.

    A. Who says Bond 25 will be a remake of OHMSS? It could very well be that they look a bit more to LTK. Letting Bond getting married at the very start of the film. Killing off Madeleine at the very start of the film, like they did with Della.

    B. It is kinda appealing to a director if he's given the assignment to direct a majestic and terrific send-off for a Bond actor. It has been done before only once in a rather mediocre way with NSNA. But again, like I said so many times before, no Bond actor has been sent off in an unforgettable way. So Nolan could actually be tempted into such a project.

    C. Big advantage is, that the final 3/4th of the film could actually be a great story. It could get more focus and better narrative, if we get rid of Madeleine Swann at the start of the film.

    D. Daniel Craig returns for God sake. Embrace that fact. Because we all know what that means. Try to think progressive. Try to be a bit more positive about whatever idea the producers are thinking off. It might actually work. Our desires as fans are known, but we aren't in the director's chair. And at this stage it's just unconfirmed news.

    Anyone?

    Re: my other posts today, I suspect they won't simply kill Madeleine off early on and just send Bond off (once again) on a personal revenge mission, they're done that. I think they will explore what happens if Bond is married and committed (perhaps for 3 or 4 years since leaving the service) and that "normal" life is threatened - there seems to be more dramatic and fresher mileage with that approach. There is also potential for humour and character insight watching an alpha-male like Bond trying to bury his (killer) training and his true nature and simply cope with everyday life and more mundane issues or conflicts. They touched on that in MI:3 with Ethan Hunt settled with his wife in suburbia and trying to act normal - and failing. Bond is, at least at the start or through-out the first act, a fish out of the water for once. And we haven't seen that before.
    And what relevance would that have to the actual story? In MI3 it is very disconnected from the actual story. We don´t need to see all that frame story just in order to gain that Hunt loves his wife.




    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    B. It is kinda appealing to a director if he's given the assignment to direct a majestic and terrific send-off for a Bond actor. It has been done before only once in a rather mediocre way with NSNA. But again, like I said so many times before, no Bond actor has been sent off in an unforgettable way. So Nolan could actually be tempted into such a project.
    Nolan will not take B25 with Craig in the acting chair. Neither will Campbell.

    Do you have very good factual news articles that can support your claim ;-)?
    Campbell has already said as much and Nolan is smart and creative, and will want to do something transformative (he has said as much although I don't have time now to find the article). That's my basis.

    Having said that, this is a speculation thread, so speculate away, no matter how unrealistic it may be.

    I do that yes, but in such a way that I try to imagine a very good outcome IF Noland is going to direct Craig's last outing (which will most likely not happen). Sadly, many people in here can't envision how such a movie would look like. I can.
    You´re right, I can envision a movie done by Nolan only too good, that´s why it´s about the last thing in the world I would want.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    boldfinger wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »

    I simply can not believe that Nolan would 1. be bothered to make Craig's last when it's clear he wants to start fresh, and 2. would ever even consider remaking On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is his favorite Bond movie. He's bold, but not that bold.

    A. Who says Bond 25 will be a remake of OHMSS? It could very well be that they look a bit more to LTK. Letting Bond getting married at the very start of the film. Killing off Madeleine at the very start of the film, like they did with Della.

    B. It is kinda appealing to a director if he's given the assignment to direct a majestic and terrific send-off for a Bond actor. It has been done before only once in a rather mediocre way with NSNA. But again, like I said so many times before, no Bond actor has been sent off in an unforgettable way. So Nolan could actually be tempted into such a project.

    C. Big advantage is, that the final 3/4th of the film could actually be a great story. It could get more focus and better narrative, if we get rid of Madeleine Swann at the start of the film.

    D. Daniel Craig returns for God sake. Embrace that fact. Because we all know what that means. Try to think progressive. Try to be a bit more positive about whatever idea the producers are thinking off. It might actually work. Our desires as fans are known, but we aren't in the director's chair. And at this stage it's just unconfirmed news.

    Anyone?

    Re: my other posts today, I suspect they won't simply kill Madeleine off early on and just send Bond off (once again) on a personal revenge mission, they're done that. I think they will explore what happens if Bond is married and committed (perhaps for 3 or 4 years since leaving the service) and that "normal" life is threatened - there seems to be more dramatic and fresher mileage with that approach. There is also potential for humour and character insight watching an alpha-male like Bond trying to bury his (killer) training and his true nature and simply cope with everyday life and more mundane issues or conflicts. They touched on that in MI:3 with Ethan Hunt settled with his wife in suburbia and trying to act normal - and failing. Bond is, at least at the start or through-out the first act, a fish out of the water for once. And we haven't seen that before.
    And what relevance would that have to the actual story? In MI3 it is very disconnected from the actual story. We don´t need to see all that frame story just in order to gain that Hunt loves his wife.
    +1
  • Posts: 4,619
    I want Pancito to direct the next Bond film.
    I would personally guarantee you it would be the greatest Bond film of all time.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,477
    I want Pancito to direct the next Bond film.
    I would personally guarantee you it would be the greatest Bond film of all time.

    Would Radiohead do the theme song, though?
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,043
    .
    Shardlake wrote: »
    @BMW_with_missiles spoken like a truly loyal Pierce Brosnan fan.


    If that is what you want again from Bond then we aren't on different pages we on entirely different books indeed.

    That's it some of you just want a repeat of what went before, ticking boxes with a cardboard character that looks like Bond talks like Bond but to hell with there being any depth to it as long as it reminds you of your favourite era.

    Depth and meaning have no place in Bond says it all.

    @Shardlake There is certainly quite a schism in the Bond fandom right now, isn't there? The thinking on my side of the debate is that what you call "box ticking" worked for 40 years, so surely the classic formula could be continued. The thinking on your side seems to be a simple desire to see something new, which I understand, but I don't think that is what the Bond franchise is about. Those ideas belong in a different movie series.

    "It's sort of like a bedtime story: As long as you don't go too far away from the original, the child is happy. The audience gets what it's expecting: beautiful girls, actions, gadgets - there's a formula."-Roger Moore

    There's a coincidence I've been a Bond fan 40 years this year. So my hunch is I've been been in this world longer than you've been on this planet possibly?

    20 films with exceptions traveling down a well trodden path of familiarity and cliches to me the series needed shaking up and CR did that.

    Dalton for all his bringing Fleming back to the character didn't shake Bond up like the DC era, GE got the closest to diverting from the path. Unfortunately for me (not you) the next 3 films returned to the well trodden path.

    So when you've been with this character for most of your natural born life and for 10 years shy of it's actual time span I ( not all) have grown tired of the same old thing over and over again. So yes I think Bond needs to adapt and change and if that means bringing new things to the series not seen before, trying out other things for better or worse it needs to do this to continue to be successful and survive.

    Bond will not survive or continue reverting back to the type that you said worked for 40 years, it was clear the character has decended into parody and like it or not some of you if CR hadn't have reinvented Bond and just continued like before we'd likely not be looking at the series having ended not long after 2006.

    The Babs & MGW led EON aren't perfect and have done things I don't agree with but no one how much you don't like it can say they haven't failed in making Bond relevant and anticipated in this era.

    I'm sure you'd like the next 5 films to be just like TND in tone but me I want a little more from Bond than some cozy nostalgia fest.

    Bond 25 I hope is something we haven't see before and workman like directors with no vision who just do what EON tell them to do aren't going to achieve that.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Shardlake wrote: »
    .
    Shardlake wrote: »
    @BMW_with_missiles spoken like a truly loyal Pierce Brosnan fan.


    If that is what you want again from Bond then we aren't on different pages we on entirely different books indeed.

    That's it some of you just want a repeat of what went before, ticking boxes with a cardboard character that looks like Bond talks like Bond but to hell with there being any depth to it as long as it reminds you of your favourite era.

    Depth and meaning have no place in Bond says it all.

    @Shardlake There is certainly quite a schism in the Bond fandom right now, isn't there? The thinking on my side of the debate is that what you call "box ticking" worked for 40 years, so surely the classic formula could be continued. The thinking on your side seems to be a simple desire to see something new, which I understand, but I don't think that is what the Bond franchise is about. Those ideas belong in a different movie series.

    "It's sort of like a bedtime story: As long as you don't go too far away from the original, the child is happy. The audience gets what it's expecting: beautiful girls, actions, gadgets - there's a formula."-Roger Moore

    There's a coincidence I've been a Bond fan 40 years this year. So my hunch is I've been been in this world longer than you've been on this planet possibly?

    20 films with exceptions traveling down a well trodden path of familiarity and cliches to me the series needed shaking up and CR did that.

    Dalton for all his bringing Fleming back to the character didn't shake Bond up like the DC era, GE got the closest to diverting from the path. Unfortunately for me (not you) the next 3 films returned to the well trodden path.

    So when you've been with this character for most of your natural born life and for 10 years shy of it's actual time span I ( not all) have grown tired of the same old thing over and over again. So yes I think Bond needs to adapt and change and if that means bringing new things to the series not seen before, trying out other things for better or worse it needs to do this to continue to be successful and survive.

    Bond will not survive or continue reverting back to the type that you said worked for 40 years, it was clear the character has decended into parody and like it or not some of you if CR hadn't have reinvented Bond and just continued like before we'd likely not be looking at the series having ended not long after 2006.

    The Babs & MGW led EON aren't perfect and have done things I don't agree with but no one how much you don't like it can say they haven't failed in making Bond relevant and anticipated in this era.

    I'm sure you'd like the next 5 films to be just like TND in tone but me I want a little more from Bond than some cozy nostalgia fest.

    Bond 25 I hope is something we haven't see before and workman like directors with no vision who just do what EON tell them to do aren't going to achieve that.

    Good post. CR was definitely much needed. For me I wish they'd stayed a bit more on that fresh new trajectory rather than falling back on the old cliches which we've since Mendes took over. But you have to hand it to the Brocolli family. We carp and criticise but keeping the show on the road this long is no mean feat.

    I'm not entirely sure how 'relevant' Bond is or if this even matters, but the fact EON have been packing them in for 55 years is astounding from a movie business perspective.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,733
    bondjames wrote: »
    The problem here, as I see it, is the passage of time. As I said a few pages back, we have a diverse fandom with different tastes and desires, which is quite understandable given how long this franchise has been running for. In the past, due to the versatility of the actors and the unconnected nature of the old stories, they were able to shake up the tone from time to time, going a little serious if needed, and then coming back to outlandish with the next one. Some fans liked one film, and others liked the other. I believe this is why this franchise has survived & thrived for so long.

    When Mr. Craig does his final film 13 long years will have passed since his first one. Some fans like his brooding approach. Others can live with it (I'm one of those). Some actually can't stand it. Due to his nature, acting preference and general approach, they have increasingly tried to make this character more relatable and get into his head to give him something to do. Sadly, the two best stories for that sort of thing have already been adapted (and very well I might add) with CR and OHMSS. So their approach comes across as forced and inauthentic to some (including myself). They achieved it best with the first film in his tenure and since then have been flailing about adding Dark Knight tones to his background (including burning mansions, cellars and what not). It's all becoming somewhat ridiculous.

    So ultimately, the reason for the dissent is because of time having passed without a change in tone (those who cite SP, please....). It's understandable that one segment of the fan base is yearning for a change and a new approach. I believe the general public is there too (what worked in the last decade may not work in the next one), and we will see the impact in 2019.

    Yeah, this approach has run its course for now. Having a more artsy Bond film is fine, but three in a row is a bit much. Though I do think Spectre was a slight change of pace from the previous two films, by featuring more overt humor to counterbalance the family themes.
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    We've read Bond's psychology well enough to know the kind of man he is. At least in Craig's era, as the others were purely drawn to be pulp fiction untouchable heroes (as opposed to Fleming's down-to-earth character). We certainly don't need to go deep down into that territory, again. Enough is enough.

    It all depends what you throw at a character. There's always stuff to explore if you put a character in a place/situation they've not been or dealt with before.
    Is there any more one could throw? We've explored every side of him.

    I think the surefire way of exploring the character from new angles in the films is by showing how he reacts to the other characters he encounters in a mission. They don't have to be his loved ones or his family, foster or otherwise. In particular, Domino and Largo, Solitaire and Kananga, Anya, Melina, Octopussy, and Elektra all provided or could've provided the basis to get to see slightly different sides of Bond in their respective movies. These types of explorations don't necessarily have to be extensive and throughly in-depth, but the potential is there, should the filmmakers wish to take advantage of it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    mattjoes wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    We've read Bond's psychology well enough to know the kind of man he is. At least in Craig's era, as the others were purely drawn to be pulp fiction untouchable heroes (as opposed to Fleming's down-to-earth character). We certainly don't need to go deep down into that territory, again. Enough is enough.

    It all depends what you throw at a character. There's always stuff to explore if you put a character in a place/situation they've not been or dealt with before.
    Is there any more one could throw? We've explored every side of him.

    I think the surefire way of exploring the character from new angles in the films is by showing how he reacts to the other characters he encounters in a mission. They don't have to be his loved ones or his family, foster or otherwise. In particular, Domino and Largo, Solitaire and Kananga, Anya, Melina, Octopussy, and Elektra all provided or could've provided the basis to get to see slightly different sides of Bond in their respective movies. These types of explorations don't necessarily have to be extensive and throughly in-depth, but the potential is there, should the filmmakers wish to take advantage of it.
    Very sensible post, @mattjoes. In fact, that's precisely how they should explore the character. But, we all know that isn't the one that sells or is considered "character exploration". That criteria only works if there are family dramas, mommy/daddy/brother/sister issues, so called character "depth" and soap opera melodrama with loads of emotional acts in between. That's how character development sells, these days.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 5,767
    Getafix wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    .
    Shardlake wrote: »
    @BMW_with_missiles spoken like a truly loyal Pierce Brosnan fan.


    If that is what you want again from Bond then we aren't on different pages we on entirely different books indeed.

    That's it some of you just want a repeat of what went before, ticking boxes with a cardboard character that looks like Bond talks like Bond but to hell with there being any depth to it as long as it reminds you of your favourite era.

    Depth and meaning have no place in Bond says it all.

    @Shardlake There is certainly quite a schism in the Bond fandom right now, isn't there? The thinking on my side of the debate is that what you call "box ticking" worked for 40 years, so surely the classic formula could be continued. The thinking on your side seems to be a simple desire to see something new, which I understand, but I don't think that is what the Bond franchise is about. Those ideas belong in a different movie series.

    "It's sort of like a bedtime story: As long as you don't go too far away from the original, the child is happy. The audience gets what it's expecting: beautiful girls, actions, gadgets - there's a formula."-Roger Moore

    There's a coincidence I've been a Bond fan 40 years this year. So my hunch is I've been been in this world longer than you've been on this planet possibly?

    20 films with exceptions traveling down a well trodden path of familiarity and cliches to me the series needed shaking up and CR did that.

    Dalton for all his bringing Fleming back to the character didn't shake Bond up like the DC era, GE got the closest to diverting from the path. Unfortunately for me (not you) the next 3 films returned to the well trodden path.

    So when you've been with this character for most of your natural born life and for 10 years shy of it's actual time span I ( not all) have grown tired of the same old thing over and over again. So yes I think Bond needs to adapt and change and if that means bringing new things to the series not seen before, trying out other things for better or worse it needs to do this to continue to be successful and survive.

    Bond will not survive or continue reverting back to the type that you said worked for 40 years, it was clear the character has decended into parody and like it or not some of you if CR hadn't have reinvented Bond and just continued like before we'd likely not be looking at the series having ended not long after 2006.

    The Babs & MGW led EON aren't perfect and have done things I don't agree with but no one how much you don't like it can say they haven't failed in making Bond relevant and anticipated in this era.

    I'm sure you'd like the next 5 films to be just like TND in tone but me I want a little more from Bond than some cozy nostalgia fest.

    Bond 25 I hope is something we haven't see before and workman like directors with no vision who just do what EON tell them to do aren't going to achieve that.

    Good post. CR was definitely much needed. For me I wish they'd stayed a bit more on that fresh new trajectory rather than falling back on the old cliches which we've since Mendes took over. But you have to hand it to the Brocolli family. We carp and criticise but keeping the show on the road this long is no mean feat.

    I'm not entirely sure how 'relevant' Bond is or if this even matters, but the fact EON have been packing them in for 55 years is astounding from a movie business perspective.
    I regret very much that the character and environment established in CR and QoS was pretty much discarded, I would love to see more of that.

    To question Bond's relevance is to ignore a 40-year legacy. It's not as if Bond was ever the epitome of realism.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes Mendes ditched the trajectory established with CR and QOS. A real shame.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    We've read Bond's psychology well enough to know the kind of man he is. At least in Craig's era, as the others were purely drawn to be pulp fiction untouchable heroes (as opposed to Fleming's down-to-earth character). We certainly don't need to go deep down into that territory, again. Enough is enough.

    It all depends what you throw at a character. There's always stuff to explore if you put a character in a place/situation they've not been or dealt with before.
    Is there any more one could throw? We've explored every side of him.

    I think the surefire way of exploring the character from new angles in the films is by showing how he reacts to the other characters he encounters in a mission. They don't have to be his loved ones or his family, foster or otherwise. In particular, Domino and Largo, Solitaire and Kananga, Anya, Melina, Octopussy, and Elektra all provided or could've provided the basis to get to see slightly different sides of Bond in their respective movies. These types of explorations don't necessarily have to be extensive and throughly in-depth, but the potential is there, should the filmmakers wish to take advantage of it.
    I agree and would argue that this is precisely how they used to do it in the earlier days. As I've said in the past, I felt as though I knew Connery's, Moore's and even Dalton's interpretations (but to a lesser degree given the few films he did) through how the actors reacted to events around them over a series of films. There was a subtlety to the way they went about it then, and the regularity of the releases helped to establish a consistency. Consequently, when Connery reacted to Jill's death or Moore to Tibbet's I felt as though that's exactly how they would in the circumstances. That's really all that's needed. The character is known without overdoing it and removing all sense of mystery or intrigue. He therefore remains interesting.

    To some extent I would argue that this is what they did in SF. The drama was between M and Silva. Bond was merely a bystander and an observer.

    In SP however the childhood drama was all Bond's and his foster brother's, and when Craig tried to brush it off it rung hollow to me, given the significance of the events Blofeld was supposedly responsible for over the past 3 films according to the forced retrofit.
Sign In or Register to comment.