No Time To Die: Production Diary

1181818191821182318242507

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,891

    talos7 wrote: »
    Had the Craig era been mapped out, and executed with a better sense of purpose and direction, a conclusion that mentions Dr No could have been poetic.

    Didn't they already do that?

    I mean Bond's last scene of CR is evocative of Bond's first scene in DN. You don't need anymore than that.

    It's the moment he becomes James Bond, essentially the character we met in DN.

    Also, the end of SF is pretty much a remake of DN and Bond's meeting with M. I even recall reading an interview with Mendes where he says that you could put on DN straight after the film's could play on loop from then on.

    Actually no they didn’t do it; had the dossier handed to Bond identified Dr. No, then it would have been done and would have been a good way to end Craig’s tenure. ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Surely this DN idea can't work, because in DN Bond has no idea who Blofeld is whereas in the Craig era they have a lengthy family history. Come on fellas.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    jake24 wrote: »
    The February 2020 DC flick is confirmed as Birds of Prey, and will release one week before Bond 25 on February 7.
    Screwed over by DC yet again...

    Not a problem.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,891
    bondjames wrote: »
    Surely this DN idea can't work, because in DN Bond has no idea who Blofeld is whereas in the Craig era they have a lengthy family history. Come on fellas.
    No it can’t, that ship has sailed.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    bondjames wrote: »
    Surely this DN idea can't work, because in DN Bond has no idea who Blofeld is whereas in the Craig era they have a lengthy family history. Come on fellas.

    They did ignore Bond having previously met Blofeld in OHMSS. But this Brofeld nonsense is a bigger hurdle to overcome.
  • Posts: 1,879
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I've never been able to make it even a a quarter way through any MISSION IMPOSSIBLE films. They all contain that generic, dull-witted, cornball dialogue and characterization. I didn't really care for the Bourne films either, but at least there is a sense that adults wrote the dialogue.

    I don't go to MI films for the dialogue. I agree it was horrid in the second.

    I too have never understood the Bourne love from back a decade or so ago. Some good action, but what a boring character and too much of the inner workings of his betrayers.

    I still recall a co-worker mentioning before I saw the first film how stupid he though the scene was where Bourne and a foe fall over a railing and he still is able to shoot another enemy point blank as he falls.


  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,813
    The Craig era is the first time that continuity has played any real role in an actors tenure. And I'm sad to say it hasn't really worked in my opinion.
    I'd prefer it if Bond 25 was a stand alone film, with no reference to Spectre or Vesper. It's been almost five years. The general audience has moved on, similarly how we all move don between QOS and SF.
    Leave the slapdash continuity out of Craig's final film.
  • Posts: 15,785
    Benny wrote: »
    The Craig era is the first time that continuity has played any real role in an actors tenure. And I'm sad to say it hasn't really worked in my opinion.
    I'd prefer it if Bond 25 was a stand alone film, with no reference to Spectre or Vesper. It's been almost five years. The general audience has moved on, similarly how we all move don between QOS and SF.
    Leave the slapdash continuity out of Craig's final film.

    I really don't care for the continuity that seemed shoehorned into the Craig era. I preferred the subtle references in the earlier films: Sylvia in FRWL, the mention of the attache case in GF, etc.
    Otherwise I far more enjoy the Bonds as stand alone films.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Benny wrote: »
    The Craig era is the first time that continuity has played any real role in an actors tenure. And I'm sad to say it hasn't really worked in my opinion.
    I'd prefer it if Bond 25 was a stand alone film, with no reference to Spectre or Vesper. It's been almost five years. The general audience has moved on, similarly how we all move don between QOS and SF.
    Leave the slapdash continuity out of Craig's final film.

    I think there’s a conflation of ideas going on re. this thread. It’s possible to have a B25 that ‘ends’ Craig’s tenure, but is not directly related to the previous films.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Yes, RC7, and I rather want that. Any subtle connection, okay.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255

    Birdleson wrote: »
    I've never been able to make it even a a quarter way through any MISSION IMPOSSIBLE films. They all contain that generic, dull-witted, cornball dialogue and characterization. I didn't really care for the Bourne films either, but at least there is a sense that adults wrote the dialogue.

    I agree. I think this is because the last three M:I films, in particular, manufacture the story: action scenes are designed, a “loose” story around them. So if you’re a film lover, whether of pulp, or high art, this will show through and through as paper-thin. And it will bore you.

    I call these films roller coasters. No doubt they are fun once. But two and three rides later and we have major diminished returns. By the time you get home, it’s impossible to discern one from the other!...

    M:I is a Disney ride and nothing more (except for the third one!)
  • Remington wrote: »
    I'm surprised at the love for Madeleine. I couldn't stand her or Seydoux's performance for that matter. Also, I'm just being a prick here, but I didn't even find her attractive apart from during the dinner scene on the train. She's just too ordinary looking. The same could be said of Maryam d'Abo but I don't wanna speak against @barryt007 woman.

    At least Kara had chemistry with Dalton. More than I can say for Craig and Seydoux.
    Pretty much.
    +1

  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,382
    peter wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I've never been able to make it even a a quarter way through any MISSION IMPOSSIBLE films. They all contain that generic, dull-witted, cornball dialogue and characterization. I didn't really care for the Bourne films either, but at least there is a sense that adults wrote the dialogue.

    I agree. I think this is because the last three M:I films, in particular, manufacture the story: action scenes are designed, a “loose” story around them. So if you’re a film lover, whether of pulp, or high art, this will show through and through as paper-thin. And it will bore you.

    I call these films roller coasters. No doubt they are fun once. But two and three rides later and we have major diminished returns. By the time you get home, it’s impossible to discern one from the other!...

    M:I is a Disney ride and nothing more (except for the third one!)

    Yeah I pretty much agree. Outside of the first one, I very rarely return to the others. Im never really in the mood for them. I enjoy them, but they have never given me that return value that Bond has.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    Birdleson wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I've never been able to make it even a a quarter way through any MISSION IMPOSSIBLE films. They all contain that generic, dull-witted, cornball dialogue and characterization. I didn't really care for the Bourne films either, but at least there is a sense that adults wrote the dialogue.

    I agree. I think this is because the last three M:I films, in particular, manufacture the story: action scenes are designed, a “loose” story around them. So if you’re a film lover, whether of pulp, or high art, this will show through and through as paper-thin. And it will bore you.

    I call these films roller coasters. No doubt they are fun once. But two and three rides later and we have major diminished returns. By the time you get home, it’s impossible to discern one from the other!...

    M:I is a Disney ride and nothing more (except for the third one!)

    You got it, except even those first rides don't do a thing for me.

    It’s a matter of experience. You’ve watched every film from A thru Z. So a live action Looney Tunes cartoon will only hold your attention for so long. Usually when I see these films a second time, I’m lights out asleep.

    (It’s also in the hips)
  • Astonished by the dragging of the last M:I films here. I thought the last two were mostly great, certainly not fast food material. The movies are very well filmed, well staged, the ensemble has good rapport.

    Back on the Bond topic, I think it's time for the Craig era version of Anya Amasova / Wai Lin type of Bond girl.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    Astonished by the dragging of the last M:I films here. I thought the last two were mostly great, certainly not fast food material. The movies are very well filmed, well staged, the ensemble has good rapport.

    Back on the Bond topic, I think it's time for the Craig era version of Anya Amasova / Wai Lin type of Bond girl.

    Oh, not saying anything negative about the craft, but these films, to me, lack any genuine storytelling. It’s well documented that they design the setpieces, and then write a story around that.

    It truly is the movie version of a roller coaster. And that’s why they’re empty: ride one, no matter the new “twist”, you’ve ridden them all.

    IMHO after three (I despised two, but did like one), I’ve ridden the ride before. The last one WAS a great and dizzying ride. But once I got home, it started to meld with the last three rides.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Astonished by the dragging of the last M:I films here. I thought the last two were mostly great, certainly not fast food material. The movies are very well filmed, well staged, the ensemble has good rapport.

    Back on the Bond topic, I think it's time for the Craig era version of Anya Amasova / Wai Lin type of Bond girl.

    Quite. Sure, the set-pieces are the first things that are brain-stormed but I don't find the plotting as vanilla others posting here seem to. The variety of directors and styles ensure that alone. They're cracking action adventures, and exactly the kind of thing that I go to the cinema for.

    But, alas, this is not a Mission thread so I digress.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    Astonished by the dragging of the last M:I films here. I thought the last two were mostly great, certainly not fast food material. The movies are very well filmed, well staged, the ensemble has good rapport.

    Back on the Bond topic, I think it's time for the Craig era version of Anya Amasova / Wai Lin type of Bond girl.

    Quite. Sure, the set-pieces are the first things that are brain-stormed but I don't find the plotting as vanilla others posting here seem to. The variety of directors and styles ensure that alone. They're cracking action adventures, and exactly the kind of thing that I go to the cinema for.

    But, alas, this is not a Mission thread so I digress.

    It’s fine @CraigMooreOHMSS — many people on this forum also like the M:I films. And it naturally (or to some, unnaturally) enters the conversation vs Bond.

    Whether M:I improvise each script, or plan out the details, is a moot point: you like these films, and good for you, man! I’m a guy who is very in between on them—I usually enjoy one viewing and dislike other viewings (except for three! I can re-watch that one many times over since, personally, I find depth in this one— and I say that knowing I am in a minority! To me the third is the best, and it went downhill from their into comfortable mediocrity. And, again, I know that’s not a popular opinion).

    And you’re right, there are different aesthetic visions, but the same is true for Bond: Cambpell is different than Forster is different than Mendes is different than Fukunaga.

    And action is to one’s taste. But, yes M:I has pushed the action boundaries, successfully. And it needs to, to get box office. I’m not sure that Bond needs to break the action “sound barrier” anymore to get the box office. To be inventive and present (free run, rooftop chases, hand to hand with Slate, or a train fight and silhouette scrap with Patrice didn’t break the mold. But, it was all done well an emotionally fit the fabric of the story; it didn’t have to be a circus show to make us watch).
    Regardless, both the Bourne and Mission films have bored the Hell out of me, and/or offended my sensibilities.

    I can't stand Bourne. I used to enjoy the first one. it didn't date well. I don't think I watched the second one through. Skipped three. Watched Renner's one and wanted to shoot myself. Skipped the last Damon film...

    But I do love the BBC series Bodyguard!!
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    peter wrote: »
    Astonished by the dragging of the last M:I films here. I thought the last two were mostly great, certainly not fast food material. The movies are very well filmed, well staged, the ensemble has good rapport.

    Back on the Bond topic, I think it's time for the Craig era version of Anya Amasova / Wai Lin type of Bond girl.

    Quite. Sure, the set-pieces are the first things that are brain-stormed but I don't find the plotting as vanilla others posting here seem to. The variety of directors and styles ensure that alone. They're cracking action adventures, and exactly the kind of thing that I go to the cinema for.

    But, alas, this is not a Mission thread so I digress.

    It’s fine @CraigMooreOHMSS — many people on this forum also like the M:I films. And it naturally (or to some, unnaturally) enters the conversation vs Bond.

    Whether M:I improvise each script, or plan out the details, is a moot point: you like these films, and good for you, man! I’m a guy who is very in between on them—I usually enjoy one viewing and dislike other viewings (except for three! I can re-watch that one many times over since, personally, I find depth in this one— and I say that knowing I am in a minority! To me the third is the best, and it went downhill from their into comfortable mediocrity. And, again, I know that’s not a popular opinion).

    And you’re right, there are different aesthetic visions, but the same is true for Bond: Cambpell is different than Forster is different than Mendes is different than Fukunaga.

    And action is to one’s taste. But, yes M:I has pushed the action boundaries, successfully. And it needs to, to get box office. I’m not sure that Bond needs to break the action “sound barrier” anymore to get the box office. To be inventive and present (free run, rooftop chases, hand to hand with Slate, or a train fight and silhouette scrap with Patrice didn’t break the mold. But, it was all done well an emotionally fit the fabric of the story; it didn’t have to be a circus show to make us watch).
    Regardless, both the Bourne and Mission films have bored the Hell out of me, and/or offended my sensibilities.

    I can't stand Bourne. I used to enjoy the first one. it didn't date well. I don't think I watched the second one through. Skipped three. Watched Renner's one and wanted to shoot myself. Skipped the last Damon film...

    But I do love the BBC series Bodyguard!!

    What I don't like about Bourne is Matt Damon's comments towards Bond. He said that every situation has to be too serious. Also, let's not forget the one thing that Bond has in his lowest moments better than Bourne's best moments: charm and personality. Also, Bond has survived without without Sean Connery. Bourne has barely survived without Matt Damon. Score one for 007!
  • bondjames wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    The February 2020 DC flick is confirmed as Birds of Prey, and will release one week before Bond 25 on February 7.
    Screwed over by DC yet again...
    I think this is the new Harley Quinn flick. It's supposed to have Black Canary and Huntress in it too. Depending on casting and script, it could do reasonably big business stateside.

    That's correct. This is where Margot Robbie returns as Harley Quinn. There had been an "untitled DC Comics" movie in the Feb. 14, 2020 slot. So now, DC responds to the Bond 25 news (presumably) by moving up the movie one week and disclosing what it is.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Bond is by far a more interesting character than Bourne and Hunt but....for me, the first 3 Bourne films wipes it's backside with the most recent Bond films as does the last few MI films, especially Fallout.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Astonished by the dragging of the last M:I films here. I thought the last two were mostly great, certainly not fast food material. The movies are very well filmed, well staged, the ensemble has good rapport.

    Back on the Bond topic, I think it's time for the Craig era version of Anya Amasova / Wai Lin type of Bond girl.

    Quite. Sure, the set-pieces are the first things that are brain-stormed but I don't find the plotting as vanilla others posting here seem to. The variety of directors and styles ensure that alone. They're cracking action adventures, and exactly the kind of thing that I go to the cinema for.

    But, alas, this is not a Mission thread so I digress.

    It’s fine @CraigMooreOHMSS — many people on this forum also like the M:I films. And it naturally (or to some, unnaturally) enters the conversation vs Bond.

    Whether M:I improvise each script, or plan out the details, is a moot point: you like these films, and good for you, man! I’m a guy who is very in between on them—I usually enjoy one viewing and dislike other viewings (except for three! I can re-watch that one many times over since, personally, I find depth in this one— and I say that knowing I am in a minority! To me the third is the best, and it went downhill from their into comfortable mediocrity. And, again, I know that’s not a popular opinion).

    And you’re right, there are different aesthetic visions, but the same is true for Bond: Cambpell is different than Forster is different than Mendes is different than Fukunaga.

    And action is to one’s taste. But, yes M:I has pushed the action boundaries, successfully. And it needs to, to get box office. I’m not sure that Bond needs to break the action “sound barrier” anymore to get the box office. To be inventive and present (free run, rooftop chases, hand to hand with Slate, or a train fight and silhouette scrap with Patrice didn’t break the mold. But, it was all done well an emotionally fit the fabric of the story; it didn’t have to be a circus show to make us watch).
    Regardless, both the Bourne and Mission films have bored the Hell out of me, and/or offended my sensibilities.

    I can't stand Bourne. I used to enjoy the first one. it didn't date well. I don't think I watched the second one through. Skipped three. Watched Renner's one and wanted to shoot myself. Skipped the last Damon film...

    But I do love the BBC series Bodyguard!!

    What I don't like about Bourne is Matt Damon's comments towards Bond. He said that every situation has to be too serious. Also, let's not forget the one thing that Bond has in his lowest moments better than Bourne's best moments: charm and personality. Also, Bond has survived without without Sean Connery. Bourne has barely survived without Matt Damon. Score one for 007!

    Agreed, @MaxCasino . Damon, an actor I usually like, got very elitist and snotty in his Bourne vs Bond interviews.

    Bond will always have more character, more reasons to come back and watch another adventure. Bourne only really lasted three films.

    I think the next Bourne re-boot will be as a very good series on television..
  • Posts: 15,785
    I saw FALLOUT 2 weeks ago and I barely remember it,TBH.
    At least this thread seems to have moved on from the Bond getting killed off rumor.

  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,813
    I’m sure I read that Bond 25 will be a return to the FRWL style ???
    This is only good news as far as I’m concerned. Having recently watched it, it’s a bloody good film.
    Of course EON have in the past claimed the next film will be more in the style of FRWL, but I hope they follow it through.
    Well defined characters, with good acting. Little things like Bond and Tania messing around aboard the train. Bonds disdain at being conned by the train conductor.
    Bond being something of a snob. A meal of some kind, with branded goods if need be. A game against the villain that Bond wins. There are so many little facets that we slowly lose along the way. I know the world has changed a lot, but I think the Terence Young directed films are some of the series best and gave Bond character traits that could easily be incorporated into Bond 25.
    I’m very hopeful.
  • Posts: 12,243
    A new Bond film in the vein of DN or FRWL would be amazing.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    If there is a touch of FRWL it will be updated and I think Cary will find a way to make it extremely visually compelling.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 2018 Posts: 7,971
    This kinda reminds me of how everyone put there faith into Rian Johnson to make a great Star Wars film "because he is a very talented director." Just because he's got talent, doesn't necessarily mean he will use it to make something that pleases Bond fans. He strikes me as the same type as Johnson, disruptive and uncompromising. That's maybe not the best thing, if the objective of Bond 25 is to "send Craig out on a high".
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,813
    We’ll see if that crystal ball is correct 02 2020.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Don't then always get the new Bond to screentest a scene from FRWL?
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 19,339
    I've only heard that on here from other members,nothing elsewhere.
    I hope I missed it somewhere as that's just what we need !!
Sign In or Register to comment.