No Time To Die: Production Diary

patb

@bondjames establishing Moneypenny and M right at the very end of a movie is perfect when DC is returning but makes little sense when the audience will never see them together again. Leaving the role of M open and Moneypenny to confrim her desk job leaves room for a new Bond to gell with a new M etc....(worked well in Goldeneye)

but these are small issues compared to the overall mess.

bondjames

patb wrote: »

@bondjames establishing Moneypenny and M right at the very end of a movie is perfect when DC is returning but makes little sense when the audience will never see them together again. Leaving the role of M open and Moneypenny to confrim her desk job leaves room for a new Bond to gell with a new M etc....(worked well in Goldeneye)

but these are small issues compared to the overall mess.

That's true @patb and I agree. Of course they didn't intend for it to be a closure film because by that time he had already signed his additional two film contract. So I agree that it's not entirely 'perfect', particularly since I'm not keen on the extended casting choices. However, it did set things up conceptually. So if a four year break had theoretically followed SF and they had started with a new Bond and an entirely new MI6 team (except perhaps Whishaw as Q) for B24, it would have still worked for audiences because at least the context of the 'old team' would have been re-established at the end of the film.

echo

007Blofeld wrote: »

echo wrote: »

007Blofeld wrote: »

It's a bit risky for EON to have him on with his allegations I wonder if they are hiding his name

Scientology smear.

@echo how we know that for sure though?

Haggis very publicly broke with the church. And the church goes after its ex-members with a vengeance. See the Leah Remini documentary as well.

Of course you never know what happens between people but if you look at Haggis' work from thirtysomething onward it is sensitive and humanistic (also Crash, Million Dollar Baby, probably the romantic parts of CR) and dare I say feminist. He doesn't fit the same profile as, say, a Spacey or Weinstein, who were known a*******.

Scientology is a very shady organization. Germany has been battling them for years, to cite one example.

Risico007

The issue I have with the Craig era is in all honesty they had a perfect villain in Mr. White having him be the head of Quantum and Craig’s 4th film being about the end of Quantum with Mr. White as the head (with the title The Death Collector) would of been perfect. Again the excitement of being able to use Spectre no one ever thought if they should. Cubby showed where Mclory can put Blofield and honestly apart from The Spy who Loved me there isn’t a film so far that Blofield and Spectre would of helped or made more interesting.

Again at the very least I wouldn’t of mind Spectre being used (as both the title of a film and of course as the villain) but save it for Bond #7. In 2008 many complained that if Craig went through all of the short story titles what would be left for Bond #7 I would argue using Spectre for Bond 24 feels the same way. What is left for Bond #7?

bondjames

Risico007 wrote: »

Again at the very least I wouldn’t of mind Spectre being used (as both the title of a film and of course as the villain) but save it for Bond #7. In 2008 many complained that if Craig went through all of the short story titles what would be left for Bond #7 I would argue using Spectre for Bond 24 feels the same way. What is left for Bond #7?

They don't appear to be playing the long game, at least from the outside looking in.

ToTheRight

fanbond123 wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

Univex wrote: »

Wasn't he the one who had Bond with a baby for QOS? Seriously, anyone remember that?

Remember when a couple of pages ago I predicted that in Bond 25 either Bond will have a child or Medaleine will be pregnant at the end of the film? Maybe it really is time to prepare for Bond becoming a father folks! :))

Yep, Paul Haggis initially wrote a draft of QOS that had Bond discover that Vesper had a child that was kidnapped by the organisation:

https://gawker.com/5075358/how-007-barely-avoided-a-paul-haggis-sired-bond-baby

Of course, Bond isn't the father of the kid - but Eon were against the idea of Bond trying to find the child only to abandon it. However, those who know their Fleming novels, will remember that in YOLT Bond fathers a child before leaving Japan. The mother doesn't get enough time to tell him.

The idea of Bond having a child isn't too scandalous. I agree that Madeline may have had a child by the time Bond 25 starts.

Introducing Bond's son will give Eon an excuse for a spin-off franchise!

Paul Haggis told Variety:

"Back in 2005 I was hired to rewrite Casino Royale. Bond was meant to be 28. Well, we've going one better. We're introducing Bryan Bond, James' son. He is 18 in his first adventure. I'm very excited by the project. We get to see Bryan on his first date, entering 00 agent school, passing his exams, even staying up late on the weekends."

Bryan Bond. I certainly hope he wasn't serious about that idea. Even the Jinx spin-off sounds a better to me.

AgentJamesBond007

ToTheRight wrote: »

fanbond123 wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

Univex wrote: »

Wasn't he the one who had Bond with a baby for QOS? Seriously, anyone remember that?

Remember when a couple of pages ago I predicted that in Bond 25 either Bond will have a child or Medaleine will be pregnant at the end of the film? Maybe it really is time to prepare for Bond becoming a father folks! :))

Yep, Paul Haggis initially wrote a draft of QOS that had Bond discover that Vesper had a child that was kidnapped by the organisation:

https://gawker.com/5075358/how-007-barely-avoided-a-paul-haggis-sired-bond-baby

Of course, Bond isn't the father of the kid - but Eon were against the idea of Bond trying to find the child only to abandon it. However, those who know their Fleming novels, will remember that in YOLT Bond fathers a child before leaving Japan. The mother doesn't get enough time to tell him.

The idea of Bond having a child isn't too scandalous. I agree that Madeline may have had a child by the time Bond 25 starts.

Introducing Bond's son will give Eon an excuse for a spin-off franchise!

Paul Haggis told Variety:

"Back in 2005 I was hired to rewrite Casino Royale. Bond was meant to be 28. Well, we've going one better. We're introducing Bryan Bond, James' son. He is 18 in his first adventure. I'm very excited by the project. We get to see Bryan on his first date, entering 00 agent school, passing his exams, even staying up late on the weekends."

Bryan Bond. I certainly hope he wasn't serious about that idea. Even the Jinx spin-off sounds a better to me.

Pretty sure the quote wasn't real.

matt_u

patb wrote: »

@bondjames How many Bond movies are discussed in terms of "it was good/great but it should have been made/released later" ? If the next Bond does not end and improve on the rooftop scene from SF ("hate to waste a view"), then (for me) , that is how the DC Bond era should have finished. Thoughtful, powerful, peaceful and iconic.

We still miss one piece of the puzzle. Just wait and see how it will finish in B25 before coming to such conclusions. ;)

bondjames wrote: »

It's a good scene @patb, no doubt - even if a bit 'Bat' (as was the ranch). I actually think the ending to SF in M's office was the perfect closure to the DC era. It was a great setup for a new man. I wonder if he ever regrets signing that two picture extension contract, because it pretty much tied him down and as he's said himself, he's pretty much done what he can with the character.

He also said that with SP he brought the character exactly where he wanted it to be after the first three movies heavily deconstructing the character. BTW I'm pretty sure that in 25 they'll give him a more interesting material to work with, from an actor standpoint. Just look at Fukunaga previous works. Then speaking about the closure of the DC era in Skyfall I respectfully disagree. I see SF as an ideal watershed in Craig's arc, a reflection on Bond focused on the notion of 007 - both the character and the franchise - being obsolete after 50 years running around, while SP is its right continuation, homaging such rich and valuable tradition. Now I just hope they'll go back to Fleming for one last great and fresher shot.

Back to 25, basically Fukunaga is polishing a script made by P&W (based on their first draft) which was already polished by Haggis since the end of November. (?) The main rebus is how much of Boyle's material and ideas are goin to be used in the final movie, IF they're even goin to use something...

BTW I don't see Haggis contribution to be officially credited by EoN and a lot of movies have ghost writers working on scripts.

barryt007

Might as well call him Basildon Bond and be done with it :

ClarkDevlin

So, the owner of the Blades replaces Bond? :D

bondjames

matt_u wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

It's a good scene @patb, no doubt - even if a bit 'Bat' (as was the ranch). I actually think the ending to SF in M's office was the perfect closure to the DC era. It was a great setup for a new man. I wonder if he ever regrets signing that two picture extension contract, because it pretty much tied him down and as he's said himself, he's pretty much done what he can with the character.

He also said that with SP he brought the character exactly where he wanted it to be after the first three movies heavily deconstructing the character. BTW I'm pretty sure that in 25 they'll give him a more interesting material to work with, from an actor standpoint. Just look at Fukunaga previous works. Then speaking about the closure of the DC era in Skyfall I respectfully disagree. I see SF as an ideal watershed in Craig's arc, a reflection on Bond focused on the notion of 007 - both the character and the franchise - being obsolete after 50 years running around, while SP is its right continuation, homaging such rich and valuable tradition.

I agree on the first part of your statement, but I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on the SP aspect, which I felt made a mockery of the franchise's storied past. Sad really, because I felt they'd set it up nicely with the earlier film.

matt_u wrote: »

Back to 25, basically Fukunaga is polishing a script made by P&W (based on their first draft) which was already polished by Haggis since the end of November.

This is what I think as well. He's working off the P&W script (with Haggis polish) and will make modifications as he goes.

matt_u wrote: »

The main rebus is how much of Boyle's material and ideas are goin to be used in the final movie, IF they're even goin to use something...

I'm not really bothered about the Boyle/Hodge material. We never really knew what the hook was, so there's nothing to miss imho.

patb

@matt_u Fair points (nobody can say the DC era has not given us much material to debate!). My own take is that SF is about Bond's own role within the organisation. It's his own situation that's focusssed on, his own doubts (re aging and the lack of trust placed in him by M). Q confirms that "every now and then, a trigger has to be pulled" (ie , the double O team are still required inc Bond) but Bond questions his own role within the mechamism "you know the rules of the game, you've been playing it long enough" "maybe too long"...plus all of the stuff in the re-training "there's no shame in saying you've lost a step", so IMHO, the themes re age, tiredness, redundacy, loss of faith are all personal to Bond. There was no question of Bond being obsolete. It was all a matter of his perception (and then redemption , of sorts)

If anything, it's SP that deals with the concept of obsolete in that Denbeigh is trying to close down the whole team (inc Bond) on the basis that the whole concept of the double O licence is passed it's sell by date. So age is an issue but its the age of the methods rather than a single man (Bond) but this is really lost on the whole SP mess. We will never say goodbye to Bond (hopefully) but we will say goodbye to DC so, for me, that's why the personal situation re Bond in SF would have been the best way to say farewell.

Pierce2Daniel

Interesting that Bond's son in the novels would be half Japanese and half Caucasian. Which is Fukunaga's ethnic mix:



Also, tonight is Thursday...so hopefully Baz is back at work after Xmas. It's been a month since he dropped the Seydoux scoop. Maybe he has something to say on Haggis or Rami Malek.

Also...remember it is the Golden Globes this weekend, so many agencies will want to keep their stars in people's minds ahead of the Oscar nominations. If Rami Malek is still in contention, word could drop soon as he is a favourite to win. Also, Rachel Weisz is nominated, which means Craig may attend.

ClarkDevlin

Bond's son, James Suzuki, also gets killed in the short story Blast from the Past.

TripAces

patb wrote: »

@matt_u Fair points (nobody can say the DC era has not given us much material to debate!). My own take is that SF is about Bond's own role within the organisation. It's his own situation that's focusssed on, his own doubts (re aging and the lack of trust placed in him by M). Q confirms that "every now and then, a trigger has to be pulled" (ie , the double O team are still required inc Bond) but Bond questions his own role within the mechamism "you know the rules of the game, you've been playing it long enough" "maybe too long"...plus all of the stuff in the re-training "there's no shame in saying you've lost a step", so IMHO, the themes re age, tiredness, redundacy, loss of faith are all personal to Bond. There was no question of Bond being obsolete. It was all a matter of his perception (and then redemption , of sorts)

If anything, it's SP that deals with the concept of obsolete in that Denbeigh is trying to close down the whole team (inc Bond) on the basis that the whole concept of the double O licence is passed it's sell by date. So age is an issue but its the age of the methods rather than a single man (Bond) but this is really lost on the whole SP mess. We will never say goodbye to Bond (hopefully) but we will say goodbye to DC so, for me, that's why the personal situation re Bond in SF would have been the best way to say farewell.

+1

Remington

Unless B25 turns out to be a classic, I still think this should have been the Craig era.

Casino Royale 2006
Quantum of Solace 2008
Risico 2010 (Standalone Quantum film, Bond in his prime, shorter runtime, more humor but still gritty as hell)
Skyfall 2012

DrClatterhand

I so wish this was a soft reboot with another actor in place. It all feels a little stale and messy. It's like EoN aren't really into it in a truly passionate way. This is such a bizarre era. I remember watching Casino Royale and being blown away. I couldn't wait for the next instalment. Then came the half-baked QOS, then the classic (if flawed) Skyfall, and then the insipid/inspired/tired SPECTRE. There needs to be a huge clear out of 'talent'. The rogue Bond shtick needs to be jettisoned for at least another era too.

TripAces

Haggis seems to be an odd person for the job. There is nothing in his background that would appear to jibe with CJF, so I am thinking it is EON who brought him in for polishing. But I'm not sure that matters.

There are two schools of thought on the multiple writers front. First, fans would be surprised how many writers come in on films for little polishing jobs. Some of them are ON SET because they work strictly with certain actors to polish lines. Julia Roberts used to have Ron Bass on set for this very purpose. In most of those instances, the writer receives no credits. So we don't know about them. The fact that a script is being worked on, by multiple writers. leading up to and during filming, is not unusual, and in the case of Jaws, it worked out very well.

However, there can also be a problem of "Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen." This happens if the original script is just too much of a mess to begin with; SP falls into this category.

Regardless, I am still confident that the script we get for Bond 25 is going to be a good one.

peter

TripAces wrote: »

Haggis seems to be an odd person for the job. There is nothing in his background that would appear to jibe with CJF, so I am thinking it is EON who brought him in for polishing. But I'm not sure that matters.

There are two schools of thought on the multiple writers front. First, fans would be surprised how many writers come in on films for little polishing jobs. Some of them are ON SET because they work strictly with certain actors to polish lines. Julia Roberts used to have Ron Bass on set for this very purpose. In most of those instances, the writer receives no credits. So we don't know about them. The fact that a script is being worked on, by multiple writers. leading up to and during filming, is not unusual, and in the case of Jaws, it worked out very well.

However, there can also be a problem of "Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen." This happens if the original script is just too much of a mess to begin with; SP falls into this category.

Regardless, I am still confident that the script we get for Bond 25 is going to be a good one.

Bang on.

Escalus5

TripAces wrote: »

First, fans would be surprised how many writers come in on films for little polishing jobs. Some of them are ON SET because they work strictly with certain actors to polish lines. Julia Roberts used to have Ron Bass on set for this very purpose.

Oh, I know. Only in Hollywood will you see that level of crazy.

PanchitoPistoles

Filming begins in 60 days.

patb

@DrClatterhand Spot on. There is just no sign of passion/positivity. It's as of the next Bond movie is like pulling a tooth rather than a fantastic, collaborative experience.

Torgeirtrap

PanchitoPistoles wrote: »

Filming begins in 60 days.

Time goes by so fast! Guess we'll hear plenty of rumours and news going forward.

Tuck91

The film probably has a better and tighter script than SF & SP but i wouldnt be suprised if it still falls short a bit. too many visions and writers and the change up of directors will likely expose something to complain about.

Remington

Tuck91 wrote: »

The film probably has a better and tighter script than SF & SP but i wouldnt be suprised if it still falls short a bit. too many visions and writers and the change up of directors will likely expose something to complain about.

Unfortunate, this sums up my view as well.

TripAces

Remington wrote: »

Tuck91 wrote: »

The film probably has a better and tighter script than SF & SP but i wouldnt be suprised if it still falls short a bit. too many visions and writers and the change up of directors will likely expose something to complain about.

Unfortunate, this sums up my view as well.

I'm not sure enough of us fans appreciate just how damn difficult it is to write a Bond script. There isn't a whole lot of wiggle room. The writer can't just do "anything." There are certain tropes that have to be included, certain expectations the audience has. Yet, at the same time, these tropes have to be delivered in an original way. Despite the flak that SP takes, there are some really terrific moments in that script that deliver the goods and do so in a terrific way: "Bond...James Bond" is well-placed and well-delivered; and Bond's ordering of the martini at the clinic was well-conceived.

Tuck91

Spectre could've easily been better and should've came out in 2014. Wasn't worth a 3 year wait

shamanimal

TripAces wrote: »

Despite the flak that SP takes, there are some really terrific moments in that script that deliver the goods and do so in a terrific way: "Bond...James Bond" is well-placed and well-delivered; and Bond's ordering of the martini at the clinic was well-conceived.

All lovely stuff. But for most on this board Spectre is an embarrassing failure, whilst, say, Octopussy is 'classic Bond'.
I think most here must be on the economy tour.

DonnyDB5

TripAces wrote: »

Remington wrote: »

Tuck91 wrote: »

The film probably has a better and tighter script than SF & SP but i wouldnt be suprised if it still falls short a bit. too many visions and writers and the change up of directors will likely expose something to complain about.

Unfortunate, this sums up my view as well.

I'm not sure enough of us fans appreciate just how damn difficult it is to write a Bond script. There isn't a whole lot of wiggle room. The writer can't just do "anything." There are certain tropes that have to be included, certain expectations the audience has. Yet, at the same time, these tropes have to be delivered in an original way. Despite the flak that SP takes, there are some really terrific moments in that script that deliver the goods and do so in a terrific way: "Bond...James Bond" is well-placed and well-delivered; and Bond's ordering of the martini at the clinic was well-conceived.

Agreed. SP was by no means perfect, but it doesn’t deserve all the hate it has received.

M_Blaise

Revelator wrote: »

Haggis the writer is almost as bad as Haggis the dish. An hamhanded middlebrow screenwriter whose contributions to CR consisted of shoving in on-the-nose dialogue and the silly sinking-house climax. He was also the genius who wanted QoS to be about Bond finding the son he had with Vesper. I sincerely hope the rumor of his return is not true.

But haggis is delicious.