› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…11251126112811301131…2507

Comments

  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    Agreed! I said this from the very beginning. Bond didn't even care - it was more of a 'huh, that's a weird coincidence.' reaction and it meant so much more to Blofeld than to Bond. The disparity in approaches from Craig and Waltz was a big problem. If there was just one thing I could change from SP it would be Blofeld. Because the ripple effect of fixing Blofeld would resolve most of the issues I have with the film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Craig didn't seem to give a toss about much in that film, including Madeleine. Seydoux did her best to sell what they gave her, but it didn't jive from his end. The most laughable part was the "you're leaving?" in London. Well, on your way then. He even messed up the M scenes.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,716
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    What also didn't help Blofeld's character is that Bond barely even acknowledges him. He's never like, "Oh damn you Blofeld you used to be a brother to me!" or something Dan could have done to show his personal side (of the brainless plot). Instead, he is just like "whatever this Blowjob guy is LAME-O how can we get on with this?".

    Calvin the Bond Reviewer on Youtube said it best: if you're going to commit to the whole Blofeld idea, go all the way. You don't get any sense of familiarity between them, even though they supposedly grew up together... Bond treats him like just... another villain.

    That just smacks of the screenwriters being ordered to accommodate a bunch of different ideas from the producers, directors, Craig... that's what happens when everybody wants their whims catered to at the expense of the final product.
  • GetCarterGetCarter
    edited October 2017 Posts: 386
    Didn't mind Waltz as Blofeld, particularly in the Rome scenes, but I do not care in the slightest that he is gone.

    I also think that SP was planned as Craig's last Bond. That's what he wanted back then I feel. The story, the way it tries to tie everything up, it all seems like a farewell to Craig's Bond.

    He's a proud guy, he saw how it turned out, particularly the botched third act, he wanted back in. BB wasn't going to complain with no distributor in sight and a weak list of alternatives.

    Craig himself said he was lucky and humbled to return.

    So now they want a standalone. Fine with me. Craig is a superb Bond.

    What I haven't liked in his era is Mendes and personal storylines.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,267
    It gives me a headache when I try to make sense of SP, I try to see it as mindless entertainment though the film has got worse for me over time. Bond25 should just ignore SP completely, I don't want Waltz back in the next film, makes no sense to continue a bad story.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    bondjames wrote: »
    Craig didn't seem to give a toss about much in that film, including Madeleine. Seydoux did her best to sell what they gave her, but it didn't jive from his end. The most laughable part was the "you're leaving?" in London. Well, on your way then. He even messed up the M scenes.

    Hahaha. Yes.

    They tried to sell it so hard throughout the whole movie, then they canned it, then they brought it back. It is so stupid.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    What also didn't help Blofeld's character is that Bond barely even acknowledges him. He's never like, "Oh damn you Blofeld you used to be a brother to me!" or something Dan could have done to show his personal side (of the brainless plot). Instead, he is just like "whatever this Blowjob guy is LAME-O how can we get on with this?".

    Calvin the Bond Reviewer on Youtube said it best: if you're going to commit to the whole Blofeld idea, go all the way. You don't get any sense of familiarity between them, even though they supposedly grew up together... Bond treats him like just... another villain.

    That just smacks of the screenwriters being ordered to accommodate a bunch of different ideas from the producers, directors, Craig... that's what happens when everybody wants their whims catered to at the expense of the final product.

    Agreed.

    Bond right now severely needs Villeneuve. Let us pray.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    I frankly disliked Skyfall immensely. SPECTRE, while no means perfect, was at least a fun ride.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited October 2017 Posts: 2,721
    It feeds into my theory that Craig didn't want to do an emotional ride for SP - he was done with that and wanted to channel the Connery cool. CR had a good script, with a clear emotional journey for the protagonist (and cast well with Green who he had good chemistry with), QoS worked because it had the haunting of Lynd and drive for revenge and SF had the connection with Dench's beloved M. A character and relationship the audience and Craig's Bond had long been invested in.

    But I believe Craig approached SP as if he was still in the final scene of SF - finally fully formed Bond ready for action, with pleasure. And then he got thrown foster brothers, Madeline Swann 'I love yous' and choosing love over duty. He may have been blinded by the mouth watering return of Spectre and Blofeld - and fair enough only two of the five bonds before him had the pleasure of battling that nemesis (if you don't count FYEO). People get on SF's case - which I understand - but at least what is presented on screen feels like all the actors bought into the story - i don't feel that with SP. That's why if Craig gets an even larger say in this it could be a good thing for those wanting to see a lighter, standalone mission. My read is that is where his heart lay and what he was aiming for in SP - the script and direction just didn't let him go there fully. I liked the Aston scene for the light hearted moments - or the landing on the couch or the rat scene at l'American. And I suspect Craig did too.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,554
    I know it's easy to bash SP. But earlier in the thread, there was a reveal that Bond 24 and 25 were intended to be filmed back-to-back and part of one story arc. It seemed like rumor, but it also made sense. Ever since reading that possibility, it's made even more sense to me. It certainly would explain a lot, as to why the script for Spectre was such a mess.

    But back to Waltz. I dunno. Something about his statement still seems weird to me. I'm not sold. The whole "tradition" with "changing actors" thing? He didn't seem sad to me; he seemed confused.
  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    Posts: 118
    TripAces wrote: »
    I know it's easy to bash SP. But earlier in the thread, there was a reveal that Bond 24 and 25 were intended to be filmed back-to-back and part of one story arc. It seemed like rumor, but it also made sense. Ever since reading that possibility, it's made even more sense to me. It certainly would explain a lot, as to why the script for Spectre was such a mess.

    But back to Waltz. I dunno. Something about his statement still seems weird to me. I'm not sold. The whole "tradition" with "changing actors" thing? He didn't seem sad to me; he seemed confused.

    Body language wise he got out of that conversation as fast as possible. Walking away and not looking the reporter in the eyes. Either he's lying or he doesn't want to, or can't talk about it.
  • EndCredit007EndCredit007 EGYPT
    Posts: 114
    EndCredit007 wrote: »
    IMHO there will be no Bond in 2017 .. No Waltz .. No Hinx .. No Lea .. And I don't know about Craig ...

    good news .. for me ..
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,453
    Interestingly Dark Horizons report the news but suggest Waltz is being replaced as Blofeld. Here's the link:

    http://www.darkhorizons.com/waltzs-blofeld-wont-return-for-next-bond/

    I'll present this scenario: As I mentioned before, I personally heard Waltz was difficult on SP. And we know he clashed with Mendes. Waltz also had a strange attitude when interviewed, for example he expressed bewilderment that the premiere was held at the Royal Albert Hall in London as if it was over doing it. And then there was the critical and fans reactions to his performance as Blofeld - which were very mixed.

    Plus, if Eon are using elements of YOLT/Shatterhand, casting Waltz again immediately gives away elements of the plot they might want to keep under wraps. And as it's Craig's final outing, they may also want a much more threatening nemesis /Blofeld than the slightly built Waltz - let's face it, Craig's Bond could pummel him without breaking sweat. (That was one of the reasons they re-cast Blofeld for OHMSS.) Plus, they may have been disappointed with his SP performance and his attitude afterwards. Eon don't take kindly to their actors or crews bad mouthing Bond.

    Put all that together, and it seems possible Blofeld is back but he won't be played by Waltz. Just something to chew over.
  • GetCarterGetCarter
    Posts: 386
    I don't think waltz's lack of physical threat was an issue at all.

    The filmmakers clearly saw Hinx as an adequate counterpoint and that was one of the few things they got right.
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,453
    GetCarter wrote: »
    I don't think waltz's lack of physical threat was an issue at all.

    The filmmakers clearly saw Hinx as an adequate counterpoint and that was one of the few things they got right.

    Yes, agreed, in the context of SP it wasn't an issue - but what I'm suggesting is they might need a more robust version of Blofeld for Bond 25.
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    They need to show the villain doing something shockingly bad, at the start of the film. It's not enough for the villain to say "it was all me, I'm a rotter!"
    And the villain needs a good plan for Bond to thwart. Not computer-related, or internet stuff, something physical the audience can get their teeth into. Rockets, bombs, a deadly threat to a big city with a countdown through the film that'll ramp up the excitement level.
    Bring back the bad bastards with foul plans!
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,453
    shamanimal wrote: »
    They need to show the villain doing something shockingly bad, at the start of the film. It's not enough for the villain to say "it was all me, I'm a rotter!"
    And the villain needs a good plan for Bond to thwart. Not computer-related, or internet stuff, something physical the audience can get their teeth into. Rockets, bombs, a deadly threat to a big city with a countdown through the film that'll ramp up the excitement level.
    Bring back the bad bastards with foul plans!

    They certainly need to give the villain a strong and diabolical plan. GF is so popular after all these years because Goldfinger's plan is so audacious and exciting. I think they need to bring this inventive quality back to the films again.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    shamanimal wrote: »
    They need to show the villain doing something shockingly bad, at the start of the film. It's not enough for the villain to say "it was all me, I'm a rotter!"
    And the villain needs a good plan for Bond to thwart. Not computer-related, or internet stuff, something physical the audience can get their teeth into. Rockets, bombs, a deadly threat to a big city with a countdown through the film that'll ramp up the excitement level.
    Bring back the bad bastards with foul plans!

    I agree 100%.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    BMW_with_missiles wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    They need to show the villain doing something shockingly bad, at the start of the film. It's not enough for the villain to say "it was all me, I'm a rotter!"
    And the villain needs a good plan for Bond to thwart. Not computer-related, or internet stuff, something physical the audience can get their teeth into. Rockets, bombs, a deadly threat to a big city with a countdown through the film that'll ramp up the excitement level.
    Bring back the bad bastards with foul plans!

    I agree 100%.
    Better make that two!
  • MilovyMilovy
    Posts: 676
    shamanimal wrote: »
    They need to show the villain doing something shockingly bad, at the start of the film. It's not enough for the villain to say "it was all me, I'm a rotter!"
    And the villain needs a good plan for Bond to thwart. Not computer-related, or internet stuff, something physical the audience can get their teeth into. Rockets, bombs, a deadly threat to a big city with a countdown through the film that'll ramp up the excitement level.
    Bring back the bad bastards with foul plans!
    What, you didn't like the climax of Q shutting down Nine Eyes by typing on a keyboard in Spectre? ;)
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    shamanimal wrote: »
    They need to show the villain doing something shockingly bad, at the start of the film. It's not enough for the villain to say "it was all me, I'm a rotter!"
    And the villain needs a good plan for Bond to thwart. Not computer-related, or internet stuff, something physical the audience can get their teeth into. Rockets, bombs, a deadly threat to a big city with a countdown through the film that'll ramp up the excitement level.
    Bring back the bad bastards with foul plans!

    When it comes to the Bond franchise these are Words of eternal wisdom. They should tattoo it on the foreheads of their script writers as a matter of routine.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Milovy wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    They need to show the villain doing something shockingly bad, at the start of the film. It's not enough for the villain to say "it was all me, I'm a rotter!"
    And the villain needs a good plan for Bond to thwart. Not computer-related, or internet stuff, something physical the audience can get their teeth into. Rockets, bombs, a deadly threat to a big city with a countdown through the film that'll ramp up the excitement level.
    Bring back the bad bastards with foul plans!
    What, you didn't like the climax of Q shutting down Nine Eyes by typing on a keyboard in Spectre? ;)
    Haha. That about says it all right there. If Q is the one who saves the world in a Bond film then someone somewhere has seriously lost the plot.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    Milovy wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    They need to show the villain doing something shockingly bad, at the start of the film. It's not enough for the villain to say "it was all me, I'm a rotter!"
    And the villain needs a good plan for Bond to thwart. Not computer-related, or internet stuff, something physical the audience can get their teeth into. Rockets, bombs, a deadly threat to a big city with a countdown through the film that'll ramp up the excitement level.
    Bring back the bad bastards with foul plans!
    What, you didn't like the climax of Q shutting down Nine Eyes by typing on a keyboard in Spectre? ;)
    Haha. That about says it all right there. If Q is the one who saves the world in a Bond film then someone somewhere has seriously lost the plot.
    Exactly. :))
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,023
    They could do YOLT with a new actor as Blofeld would have transformed himself.
  • KuzcoKuzco france
    Posts: 26
    I think the departure of Waltz is a good thing, he was not good enough in bad guy for me.
    I have a question about Craig and I would like to have an opinion, in August; He says on the radio that he has not signed for any James Bond and that nothing is done and a few hours later on the plateau of Colbert he says he will be back. What does it mean? Was Craig really signed for Bond 25 or did he just confirm that he wanted to come back but no contract was done?
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    I don’t like the idea of another actor taking on the roll of Blofeld in one era.
    Yes they did it before, but that was a different time and Blofeld wasn’t always as prominent in the films.
    But my opinion is not completely objective since I’m really rooting for a stand alone with as little reference to SP as possible.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    With this much of a mystery play with utmost ambiguity, I do hope they don't disappoint us and deliver something absurdly obvious like they did with Spectre.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,484
    I just think it would be a very hard sale to convince audiences that actor X is still the Blofeld character from the previous film, but he's gone through extensive surgeries to change his appearance.

    Plus, when did he get these operations done? In jail?...

    Leave Blofeld alone-- in all his forms.
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,453
    peter wrote: »
    I just think it would be a very hard sale to convince audiences that actor X is still the Blofeld character from the previous film, but he's gone through extensive surgeries to change his appearance.

    Plus, when did he get these operations done? In jail?...

    Leave Blofeld alone-- in all his forms.

    Yes, I do agree, it could be a hard sell, but we don't know what they're up to yet and audiences adjust pretty quickly. If Blofeld is out for Craig's last film it means the character can re-surface, with a new face in the role, once Bond is majorly or semi-rebooted again with Bond 26. But I think it's worth considering Eon may simply have been unhappy with Waltz for the reasons I mention earlier and, taking other plot/story factors (which we don't know about) into consideration, they have decided to recast.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Kuzco wrote: »
    I think the departure of Waltz is a good thing, he was not good enough in bad guy for me.
    I have a question about Craig and I would like to have an opinion, in August; He says on the radio that he has not signed for any James Bond and that nothing is done and a few hours later on the plateau of Colbert he says he will be back. What does it mean? Was Craig really signed for Bond 25 or did he just confirm that he wanted to come back but no contract was done?
    There are a few theories on this one but nobody really knows for sure. I think it's best to just take him at his word for now (i.e. that he was saving the truth for Colbert and lied to the radio hosts).
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    With this much of a mystery play with utmost ambiguity, I do hope they don't disappoint us and deliver something absurdly obvious like they did with Spectre.
    Very true. We can only hope that they've learned their lesson and don't take their audience for idiots again. I'm looking forward to a few more major surprises and yesterday was the first bit of excellent news in some time as far as I'm concerned.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I am not a big fan of Waltz and I would not mind at all if he‘s not coming back - even the partially bad script was not his fault by any means.

    None of the actors were a problem in Spectre - the script was and maybe left them unmotivated and confused.

    I hope the script is so good Craig really puts his energy into his last outing as imho we saw in CR, QoS and SF from him.
Sign In or Register to comment.