No Time To Die: Production Diary

1155715581560156215632507

Comments

  • edited June 2018 Posts: 3,333
    Also Ed Sheeran is part of the new Boyle film so maybe this is an opportunity for Boyle to get Sheeran on board during production and start writing a song.
    According to Sheeran himself on Ireland's The Late Late Show, he's already written a James Bond theme song three years ago. As he put it, “just in case." Therefore, I think it's highly likely that Sheeran's song will be the next Bond song.
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondsum wrote: »
    Also Ed Sheeran is part of the new Boyle film so maybe this is an opportunity for Boyle to get Sheeran on board during production and start writing a song.
    According to Sheeran himself on Ireland's The Late Late Show, he's already written a James Bond theme song three years ago. As he put it, “just in case." Therefore, I think it's highly likely that Sheeran's song will be the next Bond song.

    will it be one of his rap numbers?
  • Posts: 95
    What do people think of the possibility of the "mental illness" aspect being some form of Brainwashing?

    Not saying it is or isn't a good idea, but it kinda/sorta fits the "mental illness". But then again, brainwashing or programming would probably not be considered a mental illness exactly.

    But it could leave an agent depressed or anxious without knowing why. Also brings part of TMWTGG to the screen.

    Maybe he's programmed to kill M or destroy MI6?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    Benny wrote: »
    Watching OP the other day it dawned on me how much simpler it was to write villains during the Cold War.
    From FYEO till TLD the Russians could and would be used as a potential rogue villain or similar.
    Nowadays the villains aren't quite on the same scale. Though it is hard I imagine to create threat for a believable villain. Slightly different times of course, but it must of been nice to have a story concept, and be able to throw a dastardly Ruskie renegade general in for good measure.
    I'd hate to come up with a Bondian scale threat for a villain now.

    It's the snowflake generation, so only a villain from outer space is guaranteed to be completely inoffensive.

    Having said that, even in the 70s when we could all take a bit of a verbal bruising and come out none the worse for the experience there was a bit of a rumble about all of LALD's villains being black.

  • edited June 2018 Posts: 5,767
    Benny wrote: »
    Watching OP the other day it dawned on me how much simpler it was to write villains during the Cold War.
    From FYEO till TLD the Russians could and would be used as a potential rogue villain or similar.
    Nowadays the villains aren't quite on the same scale. Though it is hard I imagine to create threat for a believable villain. Slightly different times of course, but it must of been nice to have a story concept, and be able to throw a dastardly Ruskie renegade general in for good measure.
    I'd hate to come up with a Bondian scale threat for a villain now.
    Yet Red Sparrow, albeit set in current times, oozes the coldest cold war ambience.

    Also, let´s not forget how guys like Saddam Hussein overtook any Bond villain in terms of incredulity. He is not among us anymore, but a lot of people like him still are.

    And how was Quantum not like the Spectre of the 60s?

    The potential for great Bond villains is out there in spades.

  • Posts: 6,601
    Germanlady wrote: »
    BTW - make Bond cool again? I think, we had sn uber cool Bond in Sp, and thats why it lacked drama snd suspense. It was a total going back to the old days thing. Didnt work. How about. „Cool“ mix of both? And yes, best done in CR.

    The script was the reason SP lacked drama and suspense.

    The main readon to me is, that they betrayed their own marketing concept of the Craig era, where Bond actually bleeds and feels pain. The super Bond, who gets out if a fight immaculate belongs to the past. Some fans call ot traditional. They shouldnt have tried going back to that. No script can make up for the nonsense of not bleeding etc.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    BTW - make Bond cool again? I think, we had sn uber cool Bond in Sp, and thats why it lacked drama snd suspense. It was a total going back to the old days thing. Didnt work. How about. „Cool“ mix of both? And yes, best done in CR.

    The script was the reason SP lacked drama and suspense.

    The main readon to me is, that they betrayed their own marketing concept of the Craig era, where Bond actually bleeds and feels pain. The super Bond, who gets out if a fight immaculate belongs to the past. Some fans call ot traditional. They shouldnt have tried going back to that. No script can make up for the nonsense of not bleeding etc.
    If you are referring to the torture scene, I´m all with you. But I don´t agree that such things belong to the past, it´s just that SP ticked a lot of boxes without ever getting the essence.

  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,422
    At some point I really need to give up coming here, just for my own sanity.

    How long before someone suggests the villain should be played by a monkey and then we really have come full circle from DN?

    That's why I rarely venture into this thread, with nutty ideas like that one. Maybe we should be less harsh on old P+W, judging by the dross some fans come up with.

    Actually, here's a thought. Vesper's long lost evil sister and Silva's even more dastardly long lost brother team up to fight Bond, with the whole shebang being orchestrated by Brofeld's monkey? That could work.

  • Posts: 6,601
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    BTW - make Bond cool again? I think, we had sn uber cool Bond in Sp, and thats why it lacked drama snd suspense. It was a total going back to the old days thing. Didnt work. How about. „Cool“ mix of both? And yes, best done in CR.

    The script was the reason SP lacked drama and suspense.

    The main readon to me is, that they betrayed their own marketing concept of the Craig era, where Bond actually bleeds and feels pain. The super Bond, who gets out if a fight immaculate belongs to the past. Some fans call ot traditional. They shouldnt have tried going back to that. No script can make up for the nonsense of not bleeding etc.
    If you are referring to the torture scene, I´m all with you. But I don´t agree that such things belong to the past, it´s just that SP ticked a lot of boxes without ever getting the essence.

    He didnt bleed after the train figjt either and that certainly was how the old films were done. It was the big „new“ in CR that he looked acvording to the events. They should stick to that. Evetything else is laughable now.
  • Posts: 6,601
    They obviously listened to the fanbase, who were suddenly desperate for more traditional elements. That eas a fault.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Germanlady wrote: »
    He didn't bleed after the train fight either and that certainly was how the old films were done. It was the big "new" in CR that he looked according to the events. They should stick to that. Everything else is laughable now.
    You seem to be forgetting that Dalton bled a lot in LTK. I wouldn't call "Everything else is laughable now" that proceeded CR either. Well, only the Roger Moore and perhaps some of the Brosnan movies.
  • Posts: 6,601
    I mean Moore and Brosnan. I somewhat dont count the Dalton films. Sorry. I love Sir Roger and fir his time and for his Bond it was fine. Not any longer. Thats all I saying.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Germanlady wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    BTW - make Bond cool again? I think, we had sn uber cool Bond in Sp, and thats why it lacked drama snd suspense. It was a total going back to the old days thing. Didnt work. How about. „Cool“ mix of both? And yes, best done in CR.

    The script was the reason SP lacked drama and suspense.

    The main readon to me is, that they betrayed their own marketing concept of the Craig era, where Bond actually bleeds and feels pain. The super Bond, who gets out if a fight immaculate belongs to the past. Some fans call ot traditional. They shouldnt have tried going back to that. No script can make up for the nonsense of not bleeding etc.
    If you are referring to the torture scene, I´m all with you. But I don´t agree that such things belong to the past, it´s just that SP ticked a lot of boxes without ever getting the essence.

    He didnt bleed after the train figjt either and that certainly was how the old films were done. It was the big „new“ in CR that he looked acvording to the events. They should stick to that. Evetything else is laughable now.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    They obviously listened to the fanbase, who were suddenly desperate for more traditional elements. That eas a fault.

    Couldn't agree more. From nailing it and returning us to Fleming's world in CR after the cartoon excess of DAD they then jettisoned all that and went back to Roger style fights where not a drop of blood was spilled.

    Not to mention after laughing about gadgets just one film earlier then Q performing a volte face and giving Bond an exploding watch.

    Is it any wonder people question that they know what theyr're doing when they keep flip flopping like that?

    But then it has ever been thus, boom and bust. Once things get too ridiculous they go back to basics before slowly dialling it back up again before the next time they need to hit the reset button.
  • Posts: 6,601
    But people on this side always ask for them to listen to the hardcore fans. They did that with whatever result. But they did. In a way, SP was a Moore film with DC. Just stop there and continue, what you started @ Babs and Co.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Plus Moore and Brosnan were allowed to be sexy. They forgot all about that in the last two films. So that was a somewhat new invention, that is quite ridiculous.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    SP a Moore film with Craig? Not at all. SP was definitely not a Moore film or even a Brosnan film at that. It was a Daniel Craig film through and through, just woefully conceptualized and executed by all involved, in the scripting and in the acting.

    Mr. Craig decided, for whatever reason, to attempt some Mooreisms, which he also tried on occasion in SF ("Circle of Life") and failed to deliver them in an authentic manner consistent with his portrayal. Consequently, he came across affected and, for lack of a better word, fake.

    Moreover, he combined this poor attempt at insouciance with a certain nastiness unbecoming of Bond. Snarling his way through several scenes, most notably the M office briefing and Maddy intro.

    I'd say he was the opposite of 'cool' in SP. My personal definition of 'cool' for Bond is whether there are aspects of the portrayal that I would like to emulate. Elements which impress me enough that I would like to be him. There was sadly none of that in SP. In fact, there is very little of Bond in SP that impressed me at all. Not cool.

    The above reflects my personal views on the matter of course.
  • Posts: 11,425
    the return to the tired Brosnan format started with SF
  • Posts: 11,425
    the return to the tired Brosnan format started with SF. Craig already looks slightly bored with at all in 2012 IMO.
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    Germanlady wrote: »
    But people on this side always ask for them to listen to the hardcore fans. They did that with whatever result. But they did. In a way, SP was a Moore film with DC. Just stop there and continue, what you started @ Babs and Co.

    I don't think that was the reason SP wasn't the success they hoped for. They maybe hinted at Moore sometimes, and I recognize the movie is a little more according to the 'formula'. But in the end the problem with SP, for me at least, is the plot.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Germanlady wrote: »
    But people on this side always ask for them to listen to the hardcore fans. They did that with whatever result. But they did. In a way, SP was a Moore film with DC. Just stop there and continue, what you started @ Babs and Co.
    I honestly don't think this site has any baring on how Eon approach their next Bond movie, past or present come to that. There's just not a large enough number of people here to draw any accurate consensus by it. Let's not forget that Craig himself was co-producer of SP, so the likelihood of any decisions to shift the tone slightly away from SF would have come from him as well as Mendes and the producers. Mendes was also on record as saying he didn't just want a repeat of SF, which might also have been another reason for the shift in tone. I honestly wouldn't suggest "hardcore fans" played any part in SP not meeting the same critical expectations as SF because some of us here (a small minority if I remember correctly) didn't particularly warm to SF. There's so many opposing opinions on this site, I'm not entirely sure how Eon could possibly draw any wise conclusion for them, unless they just listened to mine, of course.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @bondsum, there is indeed no one wiser than you on these matters. Regarding the tone, Craig is on record as saying he wanted to give it 'More Moore'. I believe it was in an interview he gave around the time of SP's release. He just should have realized that he doesn't have it in him, imho of course. Lesson learned, hopefully.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Thank you @bondjames. Your cheque is in the post.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 5,767
    Germanlady wrote: »
    They obviously listened to the fanbase, who were suddenly desperate for more traditional elements. That eas a fault.
    The problem was they ignored themselves, while at the same time pretending something like continuity. It would have been the easiest thing in the world, and quite logical too, after QoS to pick up from there and segue into more traditional territory without dropping the character elements established in CR and QoS.



    bondjames wrote: »
    @bondsum, there is indeed no one wiser than you on these matters. Regarding the tone, Craig is on record as saying he wanted to give it 'More Moore'. I believe it was in an interview he gave around the time of SP's release. He just should have realized that he doesn't have it in him, imho of course. Lesson learned, hopefully.
    Well, what got into him that confused him to such a degree? Craig portrayed Bond in a manner completely different from any actor before him, even Dalton seems like Connery/Laz/Moore/Brosnan in comparison. Yet Craig singlehandedly took total command of the role and made Bond a wide success again. So what on earth gave him the idea he needed to put more Moore into it?
  • Posts: 11,425
    foolish of Craig if that's indeed what he said.

    He should have realised that the reason Moore's humour worked so well was that it was tailored to him. The lack of a recurring screenwriter who 'gets' the actor doesn't help.

    The dodgy humour started in SF. Popping cuffs is apparently Craig's equivalent of Brosnan's tie straightening (because it was so cool and funny first time round).

    I don't know what Mendes saw in Craig's CR performance that made him want to totally change the character in SF and SP.
  • Posts: 11,425
    foolish of Craig if that's indeed what he said.

    He should have realised that the reason Moore's humour worked so well was that it was tailored to him. The lack of a recurring screenwriter who 'gets' the actor doesn't help.

    The dodgy humour started in SF. Popping cuffs is apparently Craig's equivalent of Brosnan's tie straightening (because it was so cool and funny first time round).

    I don't know what Mendes saw in Craig's CR performance that made him want to totally change the character in SF and SP.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    foolish of Craig if that's indeed what he said.

    He should have realised that the reason Moore's humour worked so well was that it was tailored to him. The lack of a recurring screenwriter who 'gets' the actor doesn't help.

    The dodgy humour started in SF. Popping cuffs is apparently Craig's equivalent of Brosnan's tie straightening (because it was so cool and funny first time round).

    I don't know what Mendes saw in Craig's CR performance that made him want to totally change the character in SF and SP.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @bondsum, there is indeed no one wiser than you on these matters. Regarding the tone, Craig is on record as saying he wanted to give it 'More Moore'. I believe it was in an interview he gave around the time of SP's release. He just should have realized that he doesn't have it in him, imho of course. Lesson learned, hopefully.
    Well, what got into him that confused him to such a degree? Craig portrayed Bond in a manner completely different from any actor before him, even Dalton seems like Connery/Laz/Moore/Brosnan in comparison. Yet Craig singlehandedly took total command of the role and made Bond a wide success again. So what on earth gave him the idea he needed to put more Moore into it?
    I agree with the both of you.

    Regarding his failed (imho) attempts at evoking Sir Rog in SP, to an extent I don't blame him. I think he was trying to chart the natural evolution of the cinematic character, from reboot impulsive thug to smoothie. Perhaps he thought he was going to be done after that, and so wanted to set it up for the next guy? Perhaps there was an element of hubris? Who knows? Bottom line is it didn't work, and he's a big part of the reason why (imho again). It's just not his forte, and hopefully he realizes this now.

    I agree that SF is where this nonsense started. It seemed to work in that film, or at least that's what they must have thought after the runaway box office. So why not double down? Big mistake.

    What's sad, as you both correctly note, is that Craig had perfected his Bond in the very first film he made. Prior to getting his nuts crushed he was, for all intents and purposes, already a superior cinematic Bond interpretation. One that was very much his own. Not as suave as his most illustrious predecessors, but instantly credible, edgy and comfortable in his skin.

    He has to recapture that portrayal for his final outing. Otherwise, he should just pack up and go home, again imho.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,422
    Lines that are given to Craig are not to exceed, "That last hand, nearly killed me." Funny, appropriate for the moment and that's it. His best performance and one the best in the series is from when he meets Vesper on the train until after the ball busting sequence. The card game with his appearance can only rival Connery when we first see him in DN.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Lines that are given to Craig are not to exceed, "That last hand, nearly killed me." Funny, appropriate for the moment and that's it. His best performance and one the best in the series is from when he meets Vesper on the train until after the ball busting sequence. The card game with his appearance can only rival Connery when we first see him in DN.
    I completely agree. That section of the film is by far my favourite and he's a large part of it. Ironic perhaps, because it's the least action packed section for the most part. It's all in the nuanced performances by all actors.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    Getafix wrote: »
    foolish of Craig if that's indeed what he said.

    He should have realised that the reason Moore's humour worked so well was that it was tailored to him. The lack of a recurring screenwriter who 'gets' the actor doesn't help.

    The dodgy humour started in SF. Popping cuffs is apparently Craig's equivalent of Brosnan's tie straightening (because it was so cool and funny first time round).

    I don't know what Mendes saw in Craig's CR performance that made him want to totally change the character in SF and SP.

    I don't agree with that. I think Craig's major strength is that he actually has thought the character through.
    He gave his younger Bond a degree of arrogance and cockiness in CR which lead him to make mistakes, but get where he needed to be through sheer bloody mindedness.

    In QOS he's bitter and aloof because of Vesper. More accepting of death, certainly more casual about his own life.

    In SF it's definitely the same man, a few years later, seasoned for sure. Then he feels let down, abandoned by the one person he trusts above all others. He goes after Silva knowing this is his last chance. But his casual approach to life and his world weariness (00s have a short life expectancy - he knows that, he said that) is showing. How is this not the same man who sat on a train with Vesper, as a smug young 00?

    In SP his anger only now shows through in the fights. He controls his demons better, he's more relaxed, more self confident, but those demons are still there.

    Unlike Brosnan whose biggest weakness is that he played 4 slightly different versions of Bond, Craig nails the characters development over a number of years. Yes he is a tormented soul (as Bond was in the books), but that is the character in this time line. He has to see it through now. If anyone wants a fluffy Bond who gets his mission from M in scene 1 and jokes his way through the mission, shagging girls and toppling mega rich psychos then maybe you will be in luck next time.

    If that happens, no one will cheer louder than me, but Craig has been superb playing this tortured soul version of Bond.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondsum wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    But people on this side always ask for them to listen to the hardcore fans. They did that with whatever result. But they did. In a way, SP was a Moore film with DC. Just stop there and continue, what you started @ Babs and Co.
    I honestly don't think this site has any baring on how Eon approach their next Bond movie, past or present come to that. There's just not a large enough number of people here to draw any accurate consensus by it. Let's not forget that Craig himself was co-producer of SP, so the likelihood of any decisions to shift the tone slightly away from SF would have come from him as well as Mendes and the producers. Mendes was also on record as saying he didn't just want a repeat of SF, which might also have been another reason for the shift in tone. I honestly wouldn't suggest "hardcore fans" played any part in SP not meeting the same critical expectations as SF because some of us here (a small minority if I remember correctly) didn't particularly warm to SF. There's so many opposing opinions on this site, I'm not entirely sure how Eon could possibly draw any wise conclusion for them, unless they just listened to mine, of course.
    Exhibit A that nothing we say here has any bearing on EON’s thinking: The GB - a total shambles film after film for a decade now despite a landslide majority on here pleading for them to go back to the Brozza design and put it at the start of the film.
Sign In or Register to comment.