› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…18841885188718891890…2507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Resurrection wrote: »
    A Casino Royale type of film is the closest low key bond film we could get in 21st century. Frankly I would love to see FRWL type of film but I highly doubt that we are gonna get one. FRWL does have some good action sequences that could be relevant today as well - gypsy camp fight/ sniper scene with karim/train fight/boat chase. I agree that first 30 minutes of the film should be used for building some tension/Character/story for what's about to come.
    I'd say SF is actually the closest to a low key Bond film we've had lately. Apart from the PTS there are very few high octane action sequences in that film. The Tube chase and courtroom shootout aren't particularly audacious, and the Home Alone finale is quite simple in concept as well.

    In terms of slow build of tension that members are calling for, that was there in a big way in the Shanghai sequence where Bond arrives with the explicit aim to dispatch Patrice for Ronson after getting information on who he works for.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,826
    I find both CR and SF to be reasonably low key in the way the early Connery's were. The Parkour/crane sequence, the airport bit, and the sinking building, to me felt like obligatory action sequences just for the sake of having them. I don't think that's a bad thing, though.
    I think the crane sequence is one of the best action scenes in the Craig films. In this day and age the novel was never going to be done 100% faithfully.
    Otherwise it would play out as more of a suspense thriller or film noir as opposed to a Bond film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2018 Posts: 23,883
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I find both CR and SF to be reasonably low key in the way the early Connery's were. The Parkour/crane sequence, the airport bit, and the sinking building, to me felt like obligatory action sequences just for the sake of having them. I don't think that's a bad thing, though.
    I think the crane sequence is one of the best action scenes in the Craig films. In this day and age the novel was never going to be done 100% faithfully.
    Otherwise it would play out as more of a suspense thriller or film noir as opposed to a Bond film.
    I agree, but perhaps controversially think that SF incorporated the action into the story in a better fashion than CR. Upon subsequent viewings, I do sometimes get the 'obligatory' feeling when it comes to some of the action in CR (Venice in particular, but also Miami). I don't ever get that when I view SF. It all seems more organic to the narrative for me (except perhaps the Komodo fight).
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,826
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I find both CR and SF to be reasonably low key in the way the early Connery's were. The Parkour/crane sequence, the airport bit, and the sinking building, to me felt like obligatory action sequences just for the sake of having them. I don't think that's a bad thing, though.
    I think the crane sequence is one of the best action scenes in the Craig films. In this day and age the novel was never going to be done 100% faithfully.
    Otherwise it would play out as more of a suspense thriller or film noir as opposed to a Bond film.
    I agree, but perhaps controversially think that SF incorporated the action into the story in a better fashion than CR. Upon subsequent viewings, I do sometimes get the 'obligatory' feeling when it comes to some of the action in CR (Venice in particular, but also Miami). I don't ever get that when I view SF. It all seems more organic to the narrative for me (except perhaps the Komodo fight).

    I think the action in SF flows more smoothly and is more evenly spread out. Also the action sequences aren't overly long. I find the airport scene in CR a bit tiresome at times, whereas the public transit chase in SF is more fun for me.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited November 2018 Posts: 5,767
    Getafix wrote: »
    I think you misunderstand what I'm saying and perhaps slightly underestimate what audiences can tolerate. I am not saying the film shouldn't have action, just that it should build tension and atmosphere organically that then climaxes with big action. You can have an action scene early on that is more low key and tense - stuff happens but you don't necessarily front load your biggest action sequence in the first 10 minutes. Audiences actually enjoy this if it's done well.
    One Thing that never ceases to amaze me is that no matter what happens in the early Bond films, Action or no Action, the films Keep the pace up. Now as then, as Long as the filmmakers manage to Keep a similar pace, they can do anything they want.


    Getafix wrote: »
    DN is still the archetype for me. I love the way it builds from low key totally grounded espionage to a crazy villain with metal hands in an underground nuclear base.
    +1

  • Ottofuse8Ottofuse8
    Posts: 832
    Are people actually arguing that sf is “low-key”...
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited November 2018 Posts: 4,450
    Created/Directed by Cary Fukunaga



    Shaken but not stirred.. ?

    timthumb.php?src=https%3A%2F%2Fcreativescreenwriting.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2FThe-Alienist-The-Boy-on-the-Bridge-Recap-1-768x523.png&q=90&w=650&zc=1

    Also very funny is that also dear it to experiment with statue of liberty

    http://www.studentshow.com/gallery/61987865/THE-ALIENIST-Main-Title-Sequence



    c7ad7961987865.5a99b9bf7fa7b.jpg
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited November 2018 Posts: 4,343
    M_Balje wrote: »
    Created/Directed by Cary Fukunaga



    Uhm, no. In fact Fukunaga didn't direct any episode in this series and co-wrote just two...
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Alienist was huge disappointment, as someone who read the books over 20 years ago I'd waited for it be it a film or a TV series, if Netflix or HBO had done this it would have been much better but TNT. Not surprised it was a dud and neutered all the power of the book.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Getafix wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Not sure about that, at all. Mendes was not an action-oriented director and he made SP as big as they come.

    I appreciate the secrecy that has enveloped the film so far under Fukunaga's tenure.

    Exactly. Mendes was a totally leftfield choice for Bond. And as you say had no action credentials - which frankly showed.

    Cary is not being brought on board to direct a small movie - plus he has shown he can direct very good action. Genuine action that is not just explosions and car crashes but actually contributes to the narrative and character development.

    F. Scott Fitzgerald once said "action is character" and the early Bond films really took that to heart. We need to go back to that approach where the action is not just bolted on for the sake of a tedious set piece explosion, but is integral to the plot and telling us who Bond is.

    1. Mendes directed Jarhead (war drama) and Road to Perdition (crime drama) both had plenty of action.

    2. You are contradicting yourself. You criticize Mendes as not being an action director and then proceed to be critical of what action tends to be.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    I think there may be more to the Canada rumour than previously thought.

    Mike Johansen, a location manager based in Calgary, Alberta, has joined the B25 team as a location scout.

    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1411615/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr28

    The majority of his projects have shot at least partially in Canada, with his location work either taking place in Alberta or British Columbia.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,548
    I'm located in Toronto and have heard zip from production. However...-

    --if you're onto something @jake24 (and that's a good find), I'd guess were going to get a PTS in this great land, and/or an action sequence that may involve Fukunaga's sport of snow boarding? But so far as I can tell, no studios have been booked for B25.

    A PTS and/or action sequence in Alberta and BC, though, that's interesting and very possible/realistic.

  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    I’d be very happy seeing an Alberta location. Beautiful place.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,548
    peter wrote: »
    I'm located in Toronto and have heard zip from production. However...-

    --if you're onto something @jake24 (and that's a good find), I'd guess were going to get a PTS in this great land, and/or an action sequence that may involve Fukunaga's sport of snow boarding? But so far as I can tell, no studios have been booked for B25.

    A PTS and/or action sequence in Alberta and BC, though, that's interesting and very possible/realistic.

    And now @jake24 , you have me so excited, I've just put in an email to my agent to see what he knows (the agency I'm with has a helluva lot of our top Below Line peeps, so I'm guessing they'd have a strong sense if 007 is coming to town).

    Stand by...
  • dramaticscenesofQOSdramaticscenesofQOS
    Posts: 1,280
    If people want to complain about a long Bond movie, let them.


    Daniel Craig has played in only 4 so far and while by now he could have delivered his 6th or 7th film, he has been a driving force in Quality Assurance (QA) to make sure that his movies don't turn out to age poorly with time, while some of them age better with time (like Quantum of Solace).

    At the same rate, QoS was the shortest Bond movie, yet I think we all can agree that if it had more transition scenes, it would have helped audiences understand what is happening and to feel the emotions rather than to simply get cut-to-the-chase as is what happened: people didn't get to see Bond's immediate expression when Fields' corpse was found, for example. Despite this, the dramatic scenes were never enough and most of the movie spends a lot of time on action.

    In any case, it will help make up for the additional movies that were lost with time if they focus on making a very good movie that exemplifies realism (please, no lazy plot advancements which create holes like we saw in Skyfall) and connection to the previous films.

    Why wouldn't you want a three hour Bond movie if it delivers a coherence well-acted performances that are CHARACTER-DRIVEN as opposed to plot-driven? And if we're not getting Bond movies every 2 years, wouldn't you think it would make up for the fact that we were missing a film in between by having that longer run time?

    It all shall remind you of Bond's final line in QoS, when M was uncertain about him staying: "I never left" (drops Vesper's necklace in the snow, not because he doesn't love her but because it's a remnant of scumbag Yusef.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,548
    @jake24 , this is what I just got:

    (starts with me):

    "Thanks!

    Re: script: which script? I'm killing re-writes at the moment, so I have finished one on the SIEGE, and am currently killing something on what would work well with Netflix: WITCH-HUNTER.

    re: James Bond: to be clear, you've heard nothing about them coming to us, even to shoot an action sequence?? That seems to be the rumour swirling at the moment.

    P

    Peter Sheldrick


    Hey Peter,
    I don't know him (Mike Johansen)

    How is everything coming along with you?

    I have pitched your stuff to a few more production companies"

    (note: from me, Peter: and that's how it is with agents. If my guy guy doesn't know Johansen, then I begin to doubt the source, as in IMDBPro can have any member come in for a time and put info into any production... saying that, I would never count this out coz we know that CF's sport was snowboarding.... I call this at 40% potential/60% IMDB rumour )
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Man, I’m dying for some confirmed location(s) news.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,677
    Aren't we all? ;)
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Actually, dying for ANY kind of news haha.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Not sure about that, at all. Mendes was not an action-oriented director and he made SP as big as they come.

    I appreciate the secrecy that has enveloped the film so far under Fukunaga's tenure.

    Exactly. Mendes was a totally leftfield choice for Bond. And as you say had no action credentials - which frankly showed.

    Cary is not being brought on board to direct a small movie - plus he has shown he can direct very good action. Genuine action that is not just explosions and car crashes but actually contributes to the narrative and character development.

    F. Scott Fitzgerald once said "action is character" and the early Bond films really took that to heart. We need to go back to that approach where the action is not just bolted on for the sake of a tedious set piece explosion, but is integral to the plot and telling us who Bond is.

    1. Mendes directed Jarhead (war drama) and Road to Perdition (crime drama) both had plenty of action.

    2. You are contradicting yourself. You criticize Mendes as not being an action director and then proceed to be critical of what action tends to be.

    I enjoy good action. I don't think Mendes did particularly good action.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Sorry, but Mendes can't direct action. That's a common knowledge.

    Perhaps he tried and kudos to him for that, but he just can't.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    Aren't action scenes mostly left to the second unit director or am I mistaken? Either way, Mended should definitely stick to dramas.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Normally yes but I think Mendes insisted on directing the action himself
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    He did, yes.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited November 2018 Posts: 2,541
    I just hope Cary insist on directing action himself he is quite good at it. Although I respect Sam Mendes directing action himself but he wasn't particularly good at it.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767

    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Not sure about that, at all. Mendes was not an action-oriented director and he made SP as big as they come.

    I appreciate the secrecy that has enveloped the film so far under Fukunaga's tenure.

    Exactly. Mendes was a totally leftfield choice for Bond. And as you say had no action credentials - which frankly showed.

    Cary is not being brought on board to direct a small movie - plus he has shown he can direct very good action. Genuine action that is not just explosions and car crashes but actually contributes to the narrative and character development.

    F. Scott Fitzgerald once said "action is character" and the early Bond films really took that to heart. We need to go back to that approach where the action is not just bolted on for the sake of a tedious set piece explosion, but is integral to the plot and telling us who Bond is.

    1. Mendes directed Jarhead (war drama) and Road to Perdition (crime drama) both had plenty of action.
    I´m wondering what your Definition of Action is. Or if you watched those two films at all.

  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Skyfall's action is surprisingly good. Really loved the fistfight, the finale, except for the PTS, which went on for far too long.

    Also, is it ever explained why Craig is wearing a suit during the whole thing? Seeing him in such a tight suit takes me out of the scene everytime.

    Keep the suits for casual use, stop trying to shoehorn them into action sequences. It doesn't work.
  • AgentM72AgentM72
    Posts: 820
    Very, very interested in this (albeit minor) Canadian development.

    My two cents: If you're bringing James Bond to Canada, Banff or Lake Louise (both Alberta) are two of the most screamingly obvious Bondian/glamorous location, especially for winter-set scenes.

    That being sad: those particularly mountainous spots can, and have, successfully stood in for many locations that aren't Canada, especially in recent years.

    Alberta's a versatile filming location. The original Chris Reeve Superman films are touchstones of mine, and virtually all the Smallville/midwest sequences set in both the first and third films were shot around Alberta. Calgary itself doubled for Metropolis in much of Superman III.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'll take suits over casualwear any day of the week. It's a gentleman's uniform. And Bond is a gentleman.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    boldfinger wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Not sure about that, at all. Mendes was not an action-oriented director and he made SP as big as they come.

    I appreciate the secrecy that has enveloped the film so far under Fukunaga's tenure.

    Exactly. Mendes was a totally leftfield choice for Bond. And as you say had no action credentials - which frankly showed.

    Cary is not being brought on board to direct a small movie - plus he has shown he can direct very good action. Genuine action that is not just explosions and car crashes but actually contributes to the narrative and character development.

    F. Scott Fitzgerald once said "action is character" and the early Bond films really took that to heart. We need to go back to that approach where the action is not just bolted on for the sake of a tedious set piece explosion, but is integral to the plot and telling us who Bond is.

    1. Mendes directed Jarhead (war drama) and Road to Perdition (crime drama) both had plenty of action.
    I´m wondering what your Definition of Action is. Or if you watched those two films at all.

    I watched both films and have, of course, watched all Bond films.

    I don't think that Bond has ever fit in with the traditional idea of an action film, anyway. QoS is the outlier, in this regard, and its why late great Roger Ebert said this:

    "OK, I'll say it. Never again. Don't ever let this happen again to James Bond. "Quantum of Solace" is his 22nd film and he will survive it, but for the 23rd it is necessary to go back to the drawing board and redesign from the ground up. Please understand: James Bond is not an action hero! He is too good for that. He is an attitude. Violence for him is an annoyance. He exists for the foreplay and the cigarette. "

    I agree to an extenet (though I actually liked QoS). If I want action for the sake of action, I have a lot of choices for that. Bond is different. I think Mendes did just fine in the action sequences he directed EXCEPT for the slow-moving, suspense-deprived car chase in SP.

    But I don't know how anyone could watch the PTS in both SF and SP, the Bond-Patrice Shanghai fight, and the Bond-Hinx train fight and believe Mendes can't direct an action sequence.
Sign In or Register to comment.