› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…12311232123412361237…2507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I want a Quantum of Solace-esque chase scene. I had such high expectations for the SPECTRE one and it was one of the biggest let downs of the film. The QoS chase was awesome.
    This!
    That was an excellent chase, but the choreography and style were highly imitative of the prior Bourne entries which moved the benchmark in this respect. I think we should look to contemporary films to see what they may bring us (Baby Driver perhaps).
    Baby Driver didn´t feature a lot of car action that wasn´t already in TMWTGG or OP. I wouldn´t mind half the film being such chases. I just want good stuff, I don´t care if it´s original or not.
    Half the film filled with chases! Surely a bit excessive. Yes, I didn't find Baby Driver to be all that great myself and the TMWTGG and OP chases were indeed first class. Something like that would be highly appreciated by me.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    There is a real energy to the QoS scenes, but again they were highly derivative of the Bourne films of that time. I agree @Creasy47, given that film's lukewarm reception within the fan community and the public at large I don't think we'll see that sort of quick cutting to showcase intensity for B25.

    @ClarkDevlin I think there is a trend back to more long cut action sequences in film and tv. Atomic Blonde is a perfect example as you note.
    What´s wrong with action scenes being derivative? M:I recently proves how well that can go, and I have no problems whatsoever re-watching QoS with all its derivative stuff, because it´s done well. I have problems re-watching the highly derivative of the Bourne and Batman films stuff in SF, because I think it´s done not well.
    Nothing wrong with something being derivative in theory. The issue with the QoS action sequences is that a lot of people found it overtly derivative, and rightly so imho because they were. Moreover, I believe (based on personal experience with my parents) that the action cutting didn't play too well to some of the older audiences who view Bond films (and who don't know anything about Bourne). For that reason alone I don't think we'll see that kind of action cutting in a Bond film again.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    My only complaint with QoS is the shakycam element that I hated. If the intensive scenes are akin to what Atomic Blonde accomplished (Bourne-like minus the shakycam), I'd be very happy.

    100% agree
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Welcome back, @RC7.

    Thanks. Dipping my toe. Things have been a bit odd here lately. I’ve also been busy.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    The DB5 in SF was a case in point. The overall movie took a new and fresh approach. Too far off the Bond template for some but obvioulsy it did very well. But they could not resist bringing the DB5 back. It's lazy IMHO. Thing is, on first watch, it brought a massive smile to my face. It's a cheap trick (which I fell for) but does not help the series in the long run. The only up side (I thought so at the time) was to use the blowing up of the DB5 as a message to fans -" right, thats definately it, it's over, lets move on" but they did not have the guts to do that and it comes back yet again.
    If the series is not strong enough to move forward without the DB5, then it's in trouble.

    The DB5 was both nostalgic AND symbolic in SF. When we see it get blown to bits, at the end of the film, that was a definite allusion to a destruction of "old" Bond and "old ways." It worked.

    ... but isn't the allusion lost when it simply returns in the following film, completely restored? Does that allude to the "old ways" returning or something?

    Agreed. As much as I dislike the way it’s used in SF, I can buy the symbolism of what is a quite disposable moment. The follow up removes all symbolism.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,600
    I could understand it if SP was written and directed by a different team who thought that blowing up the DB5 was a bad idea...but when you have the same team, it makes no real sense. A perfect example of the lack of a real vision in terms of how the series was developing.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,502
    @RC7 agreed; as I told @ColonelSun I was happy to see you re-appear, bringing sanity (and experience) with you!
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    edited December 2017 Posts: 2,115
    //Wasn't the message also "sometimes the old ways are best". Meaning Bond still has his place.//

    Given a variation of that line was repeated multiples times, yes, that was the main theme of Skyfall. (Despite the various rewrites between Purvis & Wade and John Logan and Jez Butterworth or whoever else had a go.)

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    TripAces wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    The DB5 in SF was a case in point. The overall movie took a new and fresh approach. Too far off the Bond template for some but obvioulsy it did very well. But they could not resist bringing the DB5 back. It's lazy IMHO. Thing is, on first watch, it brought a massive smile to my face. It's a cheap trick (which I fell for) but does not help the series in the long run. The only up side (I thought so at the time) was to use the blowing up of the DB5 as a message to fans -" right, thats definately it, it's over, lets move on" but they did not have the guts to do that and it comes back yet again.
    If the series is not strong enough to move forward without the DB5, then it's in trouble.

    The DB5 was both nostalgic AND symbolic in SF. When we see it get blown to bits, at the end of the film, that was a definite allusion to a destruction of "old" Bond and "old ways." It worked.
    The DB5 was definitely symbolic to showcase that sometimes the old ways are better.

    However I don't believe that its destruction in the film necessarily alluded to a destruction of old Bond and old ways. It was just a 'moment' to get a rise out of the audience.That's precisely why it returned in SP.

    That car is a reflection of Bond himself, as seen by Mendes and Craig. An anachronism in a fast changing (sometimes not for the better) world.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    what did walz say?
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited December 2017 Posts: 4,554
    mattjoes wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    The DB5 in SF was a case in point. The overall movie took a new and fresh approach. Too far off the Bond template for some but obvioulsy it did very well. But they could not resist bringing the DB5 back. It's lazy IMHO. Thing is, on first watch, it brought a massive smile to my face. It's a cheap trick (which I fell for) but does not help the series in the long run. The only up side (I thought so at the time) was to use the blowing up of the DB5 as a message to fans -" right, thats definately it, it's over, lets move on" but they did not have the guts to do that and it comes back yet again.
    If the series is not strong enough to move forward without the DB5, then it's in trouble.

    The DB5 was both nostalgic AND symbolic in SF. When we see it get blown to bits, at the end of the film, that was a definite allusion to a destruction of "old" Bond and "old ways." It worked.

    @TripAces But then, at the end, they bring the old office back? :-/

    As @RC7 says, it worked great in SF.

    SP then ripped it up, as it did to a lot that happened in the previous three films.



    boldfinger wrote: »
    Oh I see, that´s why they re-introduced the old M office at the end of SF, right?
    SF is a textbook example of pretentiousness.

    The old M office demonstrated that the old ways had indeed won out. It's why Silva died with a knife in his back.

    SF was a brilliant film. You say "pretentious," I say, "By far the most Intelligent Bond film ever made." I'm sorry you didn't appreciate it.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited December 2017 Posts: 4,554
    double post
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    what did walz say?

    Nothing. He wore a Christmas sweater and told about his crush on Kristen Wiig while working on Downsizing.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    TripAces wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with something being derivative in theory. The issue with the QoS action sequences is that a lot of people found it overtly derivative, and rightly so imho because they were. Moreover, I believe (based on personal experience with my parents) that the action cutting didn't play too well to some of the older audiences who view Bond films (and who don't know anything about Bourne). For that reason alone I don't think we'll see that kind of action cutting in a Bond film again.
    To be fair, when I saw the first bits of QoS´ car chase on a late night show I was like, "wtf, they completely lost their balls and run after the Greengrass style!" Only when I watched the film several times I got the impression that, while clearly jumping on the fast-cut wagon, essentially the editing style is more like Peter Hunt than Paul Greengrass. With SF I experienced exactly the opposite, the first time I just went with it, and when I watched it for the third or fourth time (because that´s what I do with Bond films), the notion became more obvious with each viewing that I feel very much reminded of both Bourne and Nolan´s Batman, and it bothered me more and more.
    So I guess in terms of adressing people who only watch the film once or twice, QoS was a failure and SF a success.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    TripAces wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Oh I see, that´s why they re-introduced the old M office at the end of SF, right?
    SF is a textbook example of pretentiousness.

    The old M office demonstrated that the old ways had indeed won out. It's why Silva died with a knife in his back.
    That is why I believe that the DB5 being destroyed in that film is not symptomatic of the old ways being torn down to make way for the new. It was just a fan service moment (as was its earlier reveal). That's also why it was back again for SP. It is a visual metaphor for this iteration of Bond himself. Ironic, given the car was a symbol of the future when it was first revealed in GF, but now is a symbol of the past in a fast changing future.

    In a way it is there to take the place of Bond's Bentley (although this being all about product placement, Aston wins out), but they keep incorporating Q Branch features into the car for some reason.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with something being derivative in theory. The issue with the QoS action sequences is that a lot of people found it overtly derivative, and rightly so imho because they were. Moreover, I believe (based on personal experience with my parents) that the action cutting didn't play too well to some of the older audiences who view Bond films (and who don't know anything about Bourne). For that reason alone I don't think we'll see that kind of action cutting in a Bond film again.
    To be fair, when I saw the first bits of QoS´ car chase on a late night show I was like, "wtf, they completely lost their balls and run after the Greengrass style!" Only when I watched the film several times I got the impression that, while clearly jumping on the fast-cut wagon, essentially the editing style is more like Peter Hunt than Paul Greengrass. With SF I experienced exactly the opposite, the first time I just went with it, and when I watched it for the third or fourth time (because that´s what I do with Bond films), the notion became more obvious with each viewing that I feel very much reminded of both Bourne and Nolan´s Batman, and it bothered me more and more.
    So I guess in terms of adressing people who only watch the film once or twice, QoS was a failure and SF a success.
    I still think QoS is far more Greengrass than Hunt in terms of editing (having just viewed OHMSS last night) with a dose of visual frenzy thrown in. He even brought in members of the Bourne team for this film as I recall. However, what's different is that the environments in which the action takes place is more Bondian. In OHMSS one can actually appreciate the settings and there is far more visual context.

    I agree on SF being far more successful with those who only view Bond films once. At the end of the day, much of SF was a response to QoS.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    TripAces wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    The DB5 in SF was a case in point. The overall movie took a new and fresh approach. Too far off the Bond template for some but obvioulsy it did very well. But they could not resist bringing the DB5 back. It's lazy IMHO. Thing is, on first watch, it brought a massive smile to my face. It's a cheap trick (which I fell for) but does not help the series in the long run. The only up side (I thought so at the time) was to use the blowing up of the DB5 as a message to fans -" right, thats definately it, it's over, lets move on" but they did not have the guts to do that and it comes back yet again.
    If the series is not strong enough to move forward without the DB5, then it's in trouble.

    The DB5 was both nostalgic AND symbolic in SF. When we see it get blown to bits, at the end of the film, that was a definite allusion to a destruction of "old" Bond and "old ways." It worked.

    @TripAces But then, at the end, they bring the old office back? :-/

    As @RC7 says, it worked great in SF.

    SP then ripped it up, as it did to a lot that happened in the previous three films.



    boldfinger wrote: »
    Oh I see, that´s why they re-introduced the old M office at the end of SF, right?
    SF is a textbook example of pretentiousness.

    The old M office demonstrated that the old ways had indeed won out. It's why Silva died with a knife in his back.

    SF was a brilliant film. You say "pretentious," I say, "By far the most Intelligent Bond film ever made." I'm sorry you didn't appreciate it.

    There’s intelligence and then there’s “using lots of big words”, if you know what I mean? I put SF in the big words category. Literally, with its clunking references and not so subtle thematic sign posting.

    SF is frankly a dumb person’s idea of a clever movie.
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,400
    Christoph Waltz has further confirmed, that despite rumours, he will not be in the next Bond film (or the one after that):
    4778E2B300000578-5197647-image-a-18_1513764111718.jpg
    https://www.mrporter.com/journal/the-look/a-merry-dance-with-mr-christoph-waltz/2709

    Does that mean that Waltz is entirely out? Or have EON just not told him what's happening. I think he was shooting Spectre for the grand total of a month or so. It would be entirely possible to find time in his schedule to film whatever scenes he would need.

    Alternatively, I'm not against the idea of a new villain (we do need another female villain) and Waltz was kinda shit in Spectre.....maybe recast?
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited December 2017 Posts: 11,425
    I doubt brofeld is coming back now or anytime soon. They blew it.

    I think they will go with loose continuity but a new plot line that leaves SP and the retcon behind. My hope any way. Would be very advisable.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2017 Posts: 15,423
    If they want Blofeld and SPECTRE back, they should carefully plan it and not go through countless rewrites and dramatic changes while on the set. They blew it in the Craig era with Spectre. So, hopefully with the next era, they plan their timeline quite well.
  • TuxedoTuxedo Europe
    Posts: 252
    Waltz is for sure a great actor. But they gave him nothing to prove it in SP. The script was weak and so was Mendes, too. My 25 Cent on that.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    Alternatively, I'm not against the idea of a new villain (we do need another female villain) and Waltz was kinda shit in Spectre.....
    He indeed was.
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    .....maybe recast?

    I don't see that happening. He's out. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see brother for the next one. A female villain as you note is possible. It's been a while and P&W are known for recycling. If this is their last effort (one hopes) I can see them going back to their debut film for inspiration.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    Getafix wrote: »
    I doubt brofeld is coming back now or anytime soon. They blew it.

    I think they will go with loose continuity but a new plot line that leaves SP and the retcon behind. My hope any way. Would be very advisable.

    In other words the Quantum treatment.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Tuxedo wrote: »
    Waltz is for sure a great actor. But they gave him nothing to prove it in SP. The script was weak and so was Mendes, too. My 25 Cent on that.

    I agree.
    An actor,no matter how good he is (and Waltz is a proven excellent actor) can only work with the material he is given.

    Such a waste of an actor of his talents,a character like Blofeld (once again) and a film that could have been brilliant.


  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,770
    I will be slightly annoyed if they ignore the threads of spectre but oh well
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I will be slightly annoyed if they ignore the threads of spectre but oh well
    I'm sure it will be mentioned in the film but hopefully that's it.

    Who knows with EON lately.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I will be slightly annoyed if they ignore the threads of spectre but oh well
    I'm sure it will be mentioned in the film but hopefully that's it.
    I can see that happening too. Just a casual mention before we move on just to wrap up the past. As you said, hopefully that's it.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,539
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    Christoph Waltz has further confirmed, that despite rumours, he will not be in the next Bond film (or the one after that):

    https://www.mrporter.com/journal/the-look/a-merry-dance-with-mr-christoph-waltz/2709

    Does that mean that Waltz is entirely out? Or have EON just not told him what's happening. I think he was shooting Spectre for the grand total of a month or so. It would be entirely possible to find time in his schedule to film whatever scenes he would need.

    Alternatively, I'm not against the idea of a new villain (we do need another female villain) and Waltz was kinda shit in Spectre.....maybe recast?

    Why " denies involvment in the next two installments"?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    ggl007 wrote: »
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    Christoph Waltz has further confirmed, that despite rumours, he will not be in the next Bond film (or the one after that):

    https://www.mrporter.com/journal/the-look/a-merry-dance-with-mr-christoph-waltz/2709

    Does that mean that Waltz is entirely out? Or have EON just not told him what's happening. I think he was shooting Spectre for the grand total of a month or so. It would be entirely possible to find time in his schedule to film whatever scenes he would need.

    Alternatively, I'm not against the idea of a new villain (we do need another female villain) and Waltz was kinda shit in Spectre.....maybe recast?

    Why " denies involvment in the next two installments"?
    Good catch. Waltz is a decent actor. I'm sure he will redeem himself in Downsizing and the upcoming Alita (which looks quite impressive from the trailers).
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Previously, it was reported that Waltz signed on for two more films in condition that Craig returns as Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Previously, it was reported that Waltz signed on for two more films in condition that Craig returns as Bond.
    I didn't know that. This explains it then.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,980
    Both of Mendes’ villains had a quirky side that diminished their effectiveness; Blofeld was hurt more by this than Silva. Given the right script and director, Waltz could have been a remarkable foe.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    Both of Mendes’ villains had a quirky side that diminished their effectiveness; Blofeld was hurt more by this than Silva. Given the right script and director, Waltz could have been a remarkable foe.
    Bardem has tremendous screen presence. It's in his physique and visage as much as in his acting. I find with Waltz he has to do more to resonate, which he was able to in the Tarrantino efforts.
Sign In or Register to comment.