No Time To Die: Production Diary

1125512561258126012612507

Comments

  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    @ClarkDevlin I believe the "Heinrich Stockmann" name was just a placeholder for Ernst Stavro Blofeld. I don't think think they had any plans not to include Blofeld.

    More interestingly, the Blofeld character was actually an African dictator for a long part of the development process (they even toyed with the idea of making Blofeld a woman).

    But it was P&W, who only came on in July 2014 - around 18 months into the script's development who suggested including the Hannes Oberhauser backstory, as the production who going to film in Austria. It was apparently one of a number of ideas they had to better incorporate Blofeld in the script. Once Mendes heard the Oberhauser idea, he loved it. I imagine because it fit into the theme he developed in SF of exploring Bond's childhood.

    Personally, Mendes shouldn't have been allowed to use the Blofeld/Spectre mythology if he didn't have a strong enough take on it. His execution was sloppy. He was most focussed on the "Bond falls in love and leaves MI6" angle. You didn't need Blofeld to tell that story. Subsequently, we are left with a mess of a film.

    Personally, I don't think Spectre will return. Craig's next film will be a "Logan" type story set apart from his previous films. Just imagine a Denis Villenueve directed Bond film that is an elegiac and soulful farewell to Daniel Craig in the role. It would be genius.

    I can't see Dune being made after the flop of BR2049 and Cleopatra is being rewritten. Bond is the only one with a firm release date in place. Surely, if Denis makes Bond and it inevitably scores well at the box office, he gets to make Dune? I think it makes commercial and artistic sense.

    Plus he has connections with Bond regulars, Roger Deakins and Dennis Gassner. So I imagine, the current delay in announcing the director is down to Denis being courted by the producers. I anticipate they'll announce him very very soon.

    Plus, I want Deakins back.

    a0f0d85a-2297-415c-add7-1cc5432b3ec0-br-trl-042.tif?w=1200&h=630&auto=format&q=70&fit=crop&crop=faces
    blade-runner-2049-trailer-human-chambers.png

    I really hope this is the case.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    It’s sad that i wanted moneypenny and Q and all them to return back to the series after QOS, I was missing them, and then they returned and now I would rather they went away forever because CR and QOS proved that Bond is better without them, at least Craig’s Bond is.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited January 2018 Posts: 10,586
    jake24 wrote: »
    The two-parter was a godawful idea that only the studio was pushing for. Barbara & Michael never agreed to it, nor did Craig.

    That's what Logan pitched, hence why MGM announced it in November 2012.

    It later emerged (via Bamigboye) that Craig objected to the two-part idea and it was scaled back.
    It's my understanding that EON spoke out against the idea after it was dropped. It seems like something all parties were being forced into.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    It’s sad that i wanted moneypenny and Q and all them to return back to the series after QOS, I was missing them, and then they returned and now I would rather they went away forever because CR and QOS proved that Bond is better without them, at least Craig’s Bond is.
    They brought them back too soon and forced it in a bit too obviously. Bottom line is this entire reboot idea has put them in a bind because to a degree it's affected the audience's perceptions psychologically re: long held tropes. MP, Q, the office, GB, bond theme, the gadgets etc. etc. They poked fun at it and it was cute for a while. Then they brought it back and it just isn't the same anymore.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    bondjames wrote: »
    It’s sad that i wanted moneypenny and Q and all them to return back to the series after QOS, I was missing them, and then they returned and now I would rather they went away forever because CR and QOS proved that Bond is better without them, at least Craig’s Bond is.
    They brought them back too soon and forced it in a bit too obviously. Bottom line is this entire reboot idea has put them in a bind because to a degree it's affected the audience's perceptions psychologically re: long held tropes. MP, Q, the office, GB, bond theme, the gadgets etc. etc. They poked fun at it and it was cute for a while. Then they brought it back and it just isn't the same anymore.

    They were better than an exploding pen in SF, just to introduce an exploding watch in SP.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It’s sad that i wanted moneypenny and Q and all them to return back to the series after QOS, I was missing them, and then they returned and now I would rather they went away forever because CR and QOS proved that Bond is better without them, at least Craig’s Bond is.
    They brought them back too soon and forced it in a bit too obviously. Bottom line is this entire reboot idea has put them in a bind because to a degree it's affected the audience's perceptions psychologically re: long held tropes. MP, Q, the office, GB, bond theme, the gadgets etc. etc. They poked fun at it and it was cute for a while. Then they brought it back and it just isn't the same anymore.

    They were better than an exploding pen in SF, just to introduce an exploding watch in SP.
    Precisely right. That's my point. It's a fine line when you poke fun at your storied past. You never know when you have to draw on that again.
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 2,115
    jake24 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    The two-parter was a godawful idea that only the studio was pushing for. Barbara & Michael never agreed to it, nor did Craig.

    That's what Logan pitched, hence why MGM announced it in November 2012.

    It later emerged (via Bamigboye) that Craig objected to the two-part idea and it was scaled back.
    It's my understanding that EON spoke out against the idea after it was dropped. It seems like something all parties were being forced into.

    Possibility: BB maintaining solidarity with DC once he registered his objection.

    It would seem as if Eon really objected, it'd speak out while the two-part idea was under consideration. MGM can't make a movie without Eon. If Eon were dead set against the idea, it wouldn't get very far. Did Logan pitch his idea working around Eon and going straight to Gary Barber at MGM? I suppose anything is possible, but that wouldn't make Logan popular with Eon.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    jake24 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    The two-parter was a godawful idea that only the studio was pushing for. Barbara & Michael never agreed to it, nor did Craig.

    That's what Logan pitched, hence why MGM announced it in November 2012.

    It later emerged (via Bamigboye) that Craig objected to the two-part idea and it was scaled back.
    It's my understanding that EON spoke out against the idea after it was dropped. It seems like something all parties were being forced into.

    Possibility: BB maintaining solidarity with DC once he registered his objection.

    It would seem as if Eon really objected, it'd speak out while the two-part idea was under consideration. MGM can't make a movie without Eon. If Eon were dead set against the idea, it wouldn't get very far. Did Logan pitch his idea working around Eon and going straight to Gary Barber at MGM?
    I was going to say the same thing. It's quite possible that they just coalesced around their star. I believe I read an interview where he objected to it in his usual colourful language.

    They (meaning EON) tend to go out of their way to show that they have some solidarity within the ranks (at least the brother/sister do). We know that there was a kink in that solidarity and world view when it came to actually casting Craig.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited January 2018 Posts: 3,157
    The smart blood program was actually used by Blofeld to try and intimidate Bond at the presumed-climax of the film at his lair.

    There's a dinner scene afterwards where his explanation of the brothergate made better sense (if better is a word to describe the absurdity that is the brother angle).

    Bond wasn't kidnapped in a truck to be dropped off at the threshold of MI-6 HQ.

    At one point, Madeleine and Irma Bunt had an intense fistfight, and the former was more fleshed out as a character than the bland one-dimensional image she was in the final product. Her love for Bond was made believable.

    Many great lines from dialogues were cut.

    The Spectre meeting in Italy having more depth.

    Franz Oberhauser at the start wasn't even Blofeld, but a man called Heinrich Stockmann, and as such was shot dead on the bridge at the end.

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    It hurts me to think how great this movie could have been instead of being the mess it is
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    edited January 2018 Posts: 1,884
    //The same twitter account as above denounced those claims, however.//

    The twitter account belongs to the same website that houses this message board.

    I was well aware of the association. But why are you pointing that out? It only adds credibility to their statement, due to their alleged contact with EON. That's why they're a noteworthy source after all.

    Sorry, I couldn't tell whether you were aware or not. No hidden agenda on my part.

    No worries then.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited January 2018 Posts: 4,548
    jake24 wrote: »
    The two-parter was a godawful idea that only the studio was pushing for. Barbara & Michael never agreed to it, nor did Craig.
    Although, you've got to admit the film's narrative felt like a two-parter storyline compressed into one with shoehorned force.

    Yes.

    I also balk at the idea that Mendes is solely to blame for what happened with SP. None of us know what went on in the pre-production to this film. There were writers; we know that Mendes was unhappy with the draft of the script presented to him almost four years ago; we have no clue whose idea it was to make Bond and Blofeld foster bros. But this much we do know: NOTHING is allowed to be filmed without the approval of Babs and Michael. Sure, they may have given Mendes, DC, and the writing team carte blanche. But I doubt it.

    I guess what I'm saying is that the mess that was SP was a team effort. There were a whole lot of talented people in the room. Someone, somewhere should have pointed out that the storyline was too ridiculous. It is possible that that person was Mendes, and I sometimes wonder if the over-the-top allusions (the photos in the rooms; the photocopied faces in the shooting range) were his way of saying, "You want this crap? OK, here it is!"

    In fact, I also wonder if neither Mendes nor DC were completely on board with the script and the rushed shooting schedule, and that that's the real reason for their "I'm done" / "I'm out" conversations with the press when the film was done.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Walecs wrote: »
    The smart blood program was actually used by Blofeld to try and intimidate Bond at the presumed-climax of the film at his lair.

    There's a dinner scene afterwards where his explanation of the brothergate made better sense (if better is a word to describe the absurdity that is the brother angle).

    Bond wasn't kidnapped in a truck to be dropped off at the threshold of MI-6 HQ.

    At one point, Madeleine and Irma Bunt had an intense fistfight, and the former was more fleshed out as a character than the bland one-dimensional image she was in the final product. Her love for Bond was made believable.

    Many great lines from dialogues were cut.

    The Spectre meeting in Italy having more depth.

    Franz Oberhauser at the start wasn't even Blofeld, but a man called Heinrich Stockmann, and as such was shot dead on the bridge at the end.

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    It hurts me to think how great this movie could have been instead of being the mess it is

    Indeed! Where can I find in-depth descriptions of those scenes? They sound incredible.
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 2,115
    //In fact, I also wonder if neither Mendes nor DC were completely on board with the script and the rushed shooting schedule, and that that's the real reason for their "I'm done" / "I'm out" conversations with the press when the film was done. //

    1. Mendes was working with Logan up until March 2014. Logan apparently (based on the Sony hacks) had a treatment hammered out before the July 2013 announcement that Mendes was returning. This is presumably the basis for what the press released described as a worthy follow up for Skyfall.

    2. I don't think the shooting schedule was rushed. Skyfall filmed from November 2011 until mid-2012. SPECTRE began filming Dec. 8, 2014 until mid-2012.

    Logan's hiring was announced November 2012. He submitted his first draft March 2014. Yes, he was juggling other projects during that time. But it's not like he didn't have time.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    I suppose this is related if Annapurna does handle any B25 distribution:

    http://deadline.com/2018/01/annapurna-michael-pavlic-creative-advertising-president-sony-1202240047/
  • Posts: 632
    Not exactly stellar ad campaigns...
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    //In fact, I also wonder if neither Mendes nor DC were completely on board with the script and the rushed shooting schedule, and that that's the real reason for their "I'm done" / "I'm out" conversations with the press when the film was done. //

    1. Mendes was working with Logan up until March 2014. Logan apparently (based on the Sony hacks) had a treatment hammered out before the July 2013 announcement that Mendes was returning. This is presumably the basis for what the press released described as a worthy follow up for Skyfall.

    2. I don't think the shooting schedule was rushed. Skyfall filmed from November 2011 until mid-2012. SPECTRE began filming Dec. 8, 2014 until mid-2012.

    Logan's hiring was announced November 2012. He submitted his first draft March 2014. Yes, he was juggling other projects during that time. But it's not like he didn't have time.

    By rushed, I mean they hurried up on the script and rushed into shooting, instead of working on the script further and pushing back the first day of shooting.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Mendes is to blame, Broccoli is to blame, and most of all Wilson, a man who wrote some of the films, is to blame
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,532
    It’s sad that i wanted moneypenny and Q and all them to return back to the series after QOS, I was missing them, and then they returned and now I would rather they went away forever because CR and QOS proved that Bond is better without them, at least Craig’s Bond is.

    This was my opinion as well for a couple years. I enjoy SF now but I miss the more stripped back approach of CR and QOS. If we'd gotten one more film like that I'd be happy.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited January 2018 Posts: 15,423
    The only reason I want Moneypenny there is for Bond to have his light hearted humour-oriented flirtation with her before going in to see M.

    I want Q there just give him the gadgets and demonstrate how to use them. That’s it.

    I want M there to give Bond his mission and occasionally be seen how’s governing the service.

    That’s all there is to them.

    If they want to give others screen time, there are the rest of the 00-agents to use. The 00-section is criminally underused in the Craig era.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,532
    The only reason I want Moneypenny there is for Bond to have his light hearted humour-oriented flirtation with her before going in to see M.

    I want Q there just give him the gadgets and demonstrate how to use them. That’s it.

    I want M there to give Bond his mission and occasionally be seen how’s governing the service.

    That’s all there is to them.

    If they want to give others screen time, there are the rest of the 00-agents to use. The 00-section is criminally underused in the Craig era.

    Amen.
  • Posts: 1,879
    If they want to give others screen time, there are the rest of the 00-agents to use. The 00-section is criminally underused in the Craig era.

    The OOs have always been underused, not just in the Craig era. There was the big meeting in TB; for M to threaten one to replace Bond on an assignment; to turn rogue; or to be a sacrificial lamb.

    The Craig era feels like the Gardner books where the section is disbanded altogether save for Bond keeping his OO designation.
  • TripAces wrote: »
    //In fact, I also wonder if neither Mendes nor DC were completely on board with the script and the rushed shooting schedule, and that that's the real reason for their "I'm done" / "I'm out" conversations with the press when the film was done. //

    1. Mendes was working with Logan up until March 2014. Logan apparently (based on the Sony hacks) had a treatment hammered out before the July 2013 announcement that Mendes was returning. This is presumably the basis for what the press released described as a worthy follow up for Skyfall.

    2. I don't think the shooting schedule was rushed. Skyfall filmed from November 2011 until mid-2012. SPECTRE began filming Dec. 8, 2014 until mid-2012.

    Logan's hiring was announced November 2012. He submitted his first draft March 2014. Yes, he was juggling other projects during that time. But it's not like he didn't have time.

    By rushed, I mean they hurried up on the script and rushed into shooting, instead of working on the script further and pushing back the first day of shooting.

    Ah. Understood.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited January 2018 Posts: 15,423
    BT3366 wrote: »
    If they want to give others screen time, there are the rest of the 00-agents to use. The 00-section is criminally underused in the Craig era.

    The OOs have always been underused, not just in the Craig era. There was the big meeting in TB; for M to threaten one to replace Bond on an assignment; to turn rogue; or to be a sacrificial lamb.

    The Craig era feels like the Gardner books where the section is disbanded altogether save for Bond keeping his OO designation.
    True, but at least in the previous eras we had the belief and image that they have been put to effect. Ever since Goldfinger, in fact. Even in the Brosnan era, we had the 00s heavily involved even if it were off the screen (like the death of 0012 in TWINE, and 009 to go and put a bullet in Renard). In the Craig era, the only brief mention we've had of one was the unseen said person 009 about his prototype Aston and that's about it. You'd think with Spectre trying to obliterate MI-6 and other worldwide organizations, 00s would've been involved and worked on to expose the conspirators.

    Instead, we get the tech-master and some former field agent-turned-secretary get the gig of being Bond's sidekicks. The construction is definitely not handled well in the Craig era when it comes to the agency blueprint.
  • Posts: 6,682
    Instead, we get the tech-master and some former field agent-turned-secretary get the gig of being Bond's sidekicks. The construction is definitely not handled well in the Craig era when it comes to the agency blueprint.
    Yes. I enjoyed seeing Q and Moneypenny helping Bond in the field for once (even though technically we already had that with Moneypenny in Skyfall), but their role as active sidekicks should've been very well justified, and the film didn't make enough of an effort to explain it. I understand Q is the tech expert, but he is no field operative, and Moneypenny, the secretary? Why? Okay, so MI6 was compromised by Spectre, but are these really the only people M could rely on? No field operatives apart from Bond?

    Because we're talking about climactic scenes, I understand the filmmakers probably wanted familiar, established characters we could root for. But perhaps what they should've done is come up with a couple of characters in the vein of Commander Carter: quickly and efficiently established as characters one could root for. One tech expert and one field op.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    Maybe the other double oh's were on strike for C's disbanding of the 00 section. ;)
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 11,425
    TripAces wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    The two-parter was a godawful idea that only the studio was pushing for. Barbara & Michael never agreed to it, nor did Craig.
    Although, you've got to admit the film's narrative felt like a two-parter storyline compressed into one with shoehorned force.

    Yes.

    I also balk at the idea that Mendes is solely to blame for what happened with SP. None of us know what went on in the pre-production to this film. There were writers; we know that Mendes was unhappy with the draft of the script presented to him almost four years ago; we have no clue whose idea it was to make Bond and Blofeld foster bros. But this much we do know: NOTHING is allowed to be filmed without the approval of Babs and Michael. Sure, they may have given Mendes, DC, and the writing team carte blanche. But I doubt it.

    I guess what I'm saying is that the mess that was SP was a team effort. There were a whole lot of talented people in the room. Someone, somewhere should have pointed out that the storyline was too ridiculous. It is possible that that person was Mendes, and I sometimes wonder if the over-the-top allusions (the photos in the rooms; the photocopied faces in the shooting range) were his way of saying, "You want this crap? OK, here it is!"

    In fact, I also wonder if neither Mendes nor DC were completely on board with the script and the rushed shooting schedule, and that that's the real reason for their "I'm done" / "I'm out" conversations with the press when the film was done.

    Ridiculous plot lines are not necessarily the problem. It’s the writing and how these plots are handled that is at fault.

    Many films have ridiculous premises but then wrap them in delicious dialogue and ensure that the audience never loses its ability to suspend its disbelief.

    When audiences are left scratching their heads and blinking at the screen with incredulity that’s when the filmmakers should know they’ve got it wrong.

    Experienced filmmakers should arguably instinctively know when the script is going wrong in this regard.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    Getafix wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    The two-parter was a godawful idea that only the studio was pushing for. Barbara & Michael never agreed to it, nor did Craig.
    Although, you've got to admit the film's narrative felt like a two-parter storyline compressed into one with shoehorned force.

    Yes.

    I also balk at the idea that Mendes is solely to blame for what happened with SP. None of us know what went on in the pre-production to this film. There were writers; we know that Mendes was unhappy with the draft of the script presented to him almost four years ago; we have no clue whose idea it was to make Bond and Blofeld foster bros. But this much we do know: NOTHING is allowed to be filmed without the approval of Babs and Michael. Sure, they may have given Mendes, DC, and the writing team carte blanche. But I doubt it.

    I guess what I'm saying is that the mess that was SP was a team effort. There were a whole lot of talented people in the room. Someone, somewhere should have pointed out that the storyline was too ridiculous. It is possible that that person was Mendes, and I sometimes wonder if the over-the-top allusions (the photos in the rooms; the photocopied faces in the shooting range) were his way of saying, "You want this crap? OK, here it is!"

    In fact, I also wonder if neither Mendes nor DC were completely on board with the script and the rushed shooting schedule, and that that's the real reason for their "I'm done" / "I'm out" conversations with the press when the film was done.

    Ridiculous plot lines are not necessarily the problem. It’s the writing and how these plots are handled that is at fault.

    Many films have ridiculous premises but then wrap them in delicious dialogue and ensure that the audience never loses its ability to suspend its disbelief.

    When audiences are left scratching their heads and blinking at the screen with incredulity that’s when the filmmakers should know they’ve got it wrong.

    Experienced filmmakers should arguably instinctively know when the script is going wrong in this regard.

    And based on reports, Mendes seemed to know this.

    Bottom line is, there was dysfunction all the way around with SP. The hacked emails seem to point to this. And as many have said, it's a shame, because there really are some wonderful moments in that film. Most of it, for me, leading up to the torture scene, is superb.
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 5,767
    The only reason I want Moneypenny there is for Bond to have his light hearted humour-oriented flirtation with her before going in to see M.

    I want Q there just give him the gadgets and demonstrate how to use them. That’s it.

    I want M there to give Bond his mission and occasionally be seen how’s governing the service.

    That’s all there is to them.

    If they want to give others screen time, there are the rest of the 00-agents to use. The 00-section is criminally underused in the Craig era.
    Well they´re probably all moles. The Gang whose name shan´t be said are the only ones left holding up the flag. Until they realise that M is incompetent, Q has delusions of grandeur, and MP is hysteric because her bf left her and caused her endocrine system to go out of balance. Bond then psychoanalyses them one by one and all together as a group, and on the way finds also out which traitorous 00 agent reports to which evil organisation. I am so longing for a new Bond film that will make me less sarcastic.

  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,813
    From 1977 - 1995 Bond set the benchmark for done for real stunt work. Today I have to rely on Tom Cruise and Mission Impossible for jaw dropping action set pieces. If Bond 25 delivers on one front for me, please let's have OO7 be back as the man who delivers the most eye popping stunts.
    I decent story, good characters and an actual score would also be high on that list too.
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 5,767
    All very good points @Benny. I would even settle for a tight film that grips me in any conceivable way, be it by the stunts, or the tension, or the dialogue, I´m open for all that, as long as it rocks the f****ng house.
Sign In or Register to comment.