No Time To Die: Production Diary

13293303323343352507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Milovy wrote: »
    As for explosions, action, etc... I think Bond films should feature a few fantastic stunts (e.g. bungee jump, Aston crash & flip), brutal fisticuffs (e.g. Bond vs. 006, Bond vs. Obanno, Shanghai fight), and the occasional inventive action set-piece (e.g. parkour, helicopter fight in SP). I wouldn't mind if they stopped demolishing a building in every single film's climax.
    Agreed. There was more talk and excitement for that opening jump in GE (still amazing after all these years) or the parkour in CR (still the best ever done on film imho) than anything that occured in SP outside of the tracking shot (and that wasn't even action). Who even remembers this useless explosion?
  • Posts: 7,653
    Birdleson wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    So we have to make do with the MI series for all the qualities the 007 franchise used to show. We get the next personal story with Craig and a huge waste of money on basically a sluggish snoozefest.

    Then I'm in trouble because the MI films that I have attempted to watch have left me cold. I haven't made it through any. Give me my least favorite Bond film over those.

    I have that similar experience ever since QoS with the mendes-Craig combo we lost everything that is great about the franchise. I cannot for the world say that I am excited for the next if it has Craig reprising.
    The recent MI movies has taken over everything the 007 franchise used to be fun, action, disbelieve of suspense and overall using the decor/settings to the maximum and making it look like you want to go there on vacation.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    So we have to make do with the MI series for all the qualities the 007 franchise used to show. We get the next personal story with Craig and a huge waste of money on basically a sluggish snoozefest.

    Then I'm in trouble because the MI films that I have attempted to watch have left me cold. I haven't made it through any. Give me my least favorite Bond film over those.

    I have that similar experience ever since QoS with the mendes-Craig combo we lost everything that is great about the franchise. I cannot for the world say that I am excited for the next if it has Craig reprising.
    The recent MI movies has taken over everything the 007 franchise used to be fun, action, disbelieve of suspense and overall using the decor/settings to the maximum and making it look like you want to go there on vacation.
    I have to agree, on the last two releases at least. Great fun and a throwback to the Cubby era Bond films.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    So we have to make do with the MI series for all the qualities the 007 franchise used to show. We get the next personal story with Craig and a huge waste of money on basically a sluggish snoozefest.

    Then I'm in trouble because the MI films that I have attempted to watch have left me cold. I haven't made it through any. Give me my least favorite Bond film over those.

    I have that similar experience ever since QoS with the mendes-Craig combo we lost everything that is great about the franchise. I cannot for the world say that I am excited for the next if it has Craig reprising.
    The recent MI movies has taken over everything the 007 franchise used to be fun, action, disbelieve of suspense and overall using the decor/settings to the maximum and making it look like you want to go there on vacation.
    I have to agree, on the last two releases at least. Great fun and a throwback to the Cubby era Bond films.

    I couldn't honestly tell you a thing about the last two MI films except in one the Kremlin blows up and Cruise hangs off the Burj Al Khalifa, in the other there's a dull PTS with him hanging off a plane (apparently for real but it looks like CGI) and quite a good motorbike chase and in both Simon Pegg is annoying.

    They entertaining while you are watching them but utterly forgettable.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,083
    I agree about 4 and 5, but for some reason mission impossible 3 is a very important film for me. The highlight of the franchise.
  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    The MI films of late have just embraced what they are, even down to the proud use of the MI theme, which always brings a smile to my face, when I watch back some old Bond films and hear the bond theme I think particularly spectre would have benefitted from its use. To be honest spectre would have benefitted from not having Newman at all.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2016 Posts: 9,117
    The MI films just seem to have taken over the popcorn entertainment mass appeal territory that the Brozza films aimed for; noisy action sequences and lame humour.

    I'd like to think Bond has grown out of that these days.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Let's be glad we didn't have any Martians appearing in the script. Had Disney bought the rights, we'd all be screwed big time. =))
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Chriscoop wrote: »
    The MI films of late have just embraced what they are, even down to the proud use of the MI theme, which always brings a smile to my face, when I watch back some old Bond films and hear the bond theme I think particularly spectre would have benefitted from its use. To be honest spectre would have benefitted from not having Newman at all.

    I'm not a huge fan of Newman, but he did make a few great tracks for the movie (e.g. Los muertos vivos estan; End Titles).
  • Milovy wrote: »
    I remember when Casino Royale was being produced, Martin Campbell claimed that the film would feature only one explosion - and that was a selling point. Now EON's trying to set the world record for biggest explosion ever. How quickly they lost the plot on their whole "reboot" idea. I mean, they cut Moneypenny and Q because those characters were part of a stale formula - and then they're back within 2 films and getting more screen time than ever before. Blah.

    As for explosions, action, etc... I think Bond films should feature a few fantastic stunts (e.g. bungee jump, Aston crash & flip), brutal fisticuffs (e.g. Bond vs. 006, Bond vs. Obanno, Shanghai fight), and the occasional inventive action set-piece (e.g. parkour, helicopter fight in SP). I wouldn't mind if they stopped demolishing a building in every single film's climax.

    I enjoy Spectre, but I have to agree with all of this. At times, SF and SP feel like they're trying to apologise for the reboot. We've got Q, Moneypenny, gadgets, the DB5, Blofeld, white cats, and comic relief extras. I wish EON had a little more conviction.
    The MI films just seem to have taken over the popcorn entertainment mass appeal territory that the Brozza films aimed for; noisy action sequences and lame humour.

    I'd like to think Bond has grown out of that these days.

    Exactly. I enjoy MI for what it is, but it's lightweight stuff and fills a spot in the market that Bond should avoid.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The MI films just seem to have taken over the popcorn entertainment mass appeal territory that the Brozza films aimed for; noisy action sequences and lame humour.

    I'd like to think Bond has grown out of that these days.

    Me too, but I often wonder if I'm just fooling myself and raising my own expectations.

    I think CR lured us into thinking we were in the midst of a new era of greatness.

    That seems to have faltered somewhat since then with none of the rest of the Craig era able to reach the heights of CR.
  • mcdonbb wrote: »
    joke

    Maybe we should have one Bond movie a decade. The anticipation will build and the movie will do great business. It will be an *event.*

    end joke.

    I'm old and I can't wait. :!! :-L

    Me, too.
  • Walecs wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I do think a big reason why Eon doesnt want to rush the next Bond film is because they want it to make a lot of money. Having Bond films come out so close to each other could hurt it in some way at the Box office. Other than FRWL every actors 2nd film as Bond always did worst than their first film.

    I think QoS did more money than CR.

    More money than Casino in the US-Canada, just a bit less worldwide.

  • Birdleson wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Christ, Mendes really gets bashed to death on these forums doesn't he?

    For this pointlessly expensive indulgence?



    Yes he does and rightly so.

    I think in his position I'd be too worried about what a state the script was in to be high on the euphoria of something that Derek Meddings could have executed just as well with miniatures for about £250.

    I've never seen that clip before. It makes the whole business that much more aggravating.

    What's more, remember how they're were bragging about how much they were spending on the Rome car chase. They let the Daily Mail in for a "behind the scenes" look.

    This was more than Mendes' ego (as large as that is). The whole crew seemed to be possessed by hubris.

    The thing is, that explosion doesn't look any bigger than a big CGI explosion. In 1965 (Thunderball) and 1967 (You Only Live Twice), BIGGEST BOND OF ALL meant something. You couldn't get it anywhere else.

    It's not 1965 anymore.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    No. Bond films were certainly special when I was growing up. It was an event that most everyone was excited about, not just a fan base.

    This.

  • Posts: 1,548
    I personally love Spectre. Just hope Bond 25 is as enjoyable. We are in a golden age of Bond and should enjoy it while it lasts.
  • LeChiffre wrote: »
    I personally love Spectre. Just hope Bond 25 is as enjoyable. We are in a golden age of Bond and should enjoy it while it lasts.

    I liked the movie overall, but its ending sequence had problems. And the whole business about doing big explosions to be world records and car chases to say you spent $24 million is a little wacky.

  • Put another way....We know from the Sony hacks that the budget was a huge issue, a source of major tension. Would it have hurt the movie to spend, say, "only" $12 million on the car chase? Would it have hurt the movie for the explosion not to be a world record?

    The movie always was going to be expensive. But there was some out-of-control, ego-driven spending. It's as if the underlying assumption was, "We did a billion last time, we're a cinch for a billion-and-a-half."

    Even in this era of high movie ticket prices, a billion dollar box office isn't easy. It should *never* be an assumption that you're going to hit a billion. If there are ways to deliver the same story in a cheaper way that doesn't hurt the movie (and cutting the spending on the car chase and explosion certainly qualify), go for it.

    It's not like either sequence was the heights of artistic integrity. Sam Mendes was not Michaelango painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. "NO! Only the biggest explosion in the history of movies will do!"
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I'd appla
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    We are in a golden age of Bond

    Are we?

  • Posts: 15,803
    Die Another Day = considered bad

    Casino Royale = considered good

    Quantum of Solace = considered bad

    Skyfall = considered good

    SPECTRE = considered bad

    Bond 25 = considered good?

    The World Is Not Enough = considered indifferent
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Put another way....We know from the Sony hacks that the budget was a huge issue, a source of major tension. Would it have hurt the movie to spend, say, "only" $12 million on the car chase? Would it have hurt the movie for the explosion not to be a world record?

    The movie always was going to be expensive. But there was some out-of-control, ego-driven spending. It's as if the underlying assumption was, "We did a billion last time, we're a cinch for a billion-and-a-half."

    Even in this era of high movie ticket prices, a billion dollar box office isn't easy. It should *never* be an assumption that you're going to hit a billion. If there are ways to deliver the same story in a cheaper way that doesn't hurt the movie (and cutting the spending on the car chase and explosion certainly qualify), go for it.

    It's not like either sequence was the heights of artistic integrity. Sam Mendes was not Michaelango painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. "NO! Only the biggest explosion in the history of movies will do!"

    This.

    And all the time while they were thinking ever more outlandish ways to burn through money the script was left to rot in a corner.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    MI:RN was entertaining but I really wish I had not seen it before SP. I honestly don't believe SP deliberately copied MI:RN ...they were filmed if I remember correctly almost simultaneously but both films had way too many similar themes, images, and locations. For me I admit that did take a bit of the punch out of SP that might have left me with a tad better impression of SP.

    On the plus side as a Bond fan I am at least glad SP beat RN in the box office in NA.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    jake24 wrote: »
    Christ, Mendes really gets bashed to death on these forums doesn't he?

    @jake24, I like Mendes very much and have been one of his main supporters here, but it can't be denied by a clear-thinking mind that it was not at all wise to indulge in such cash burning sequences as he allowed in SP.

    Between the explosion and the Rome chase, SP's budget was far too high for no great reason at all, and that impacted the profit it made at the box office, despite reaching near a billion. You just don't get the feeling that the film should be as expensive as it was to make, and you don't see that money on the screen being used for things that truly matter in the grand scheme of things.

    I think that's why many, including myself, are calling for lower budget Bond films with more clever sequences than the old explosions and crashes that you see in everything now. Bond should, like the Mission Impossible films, feature sequences of action that are truly innovative and thrilling to watch with little money put into it, with real stunt men and women doing crazy work to bring us entertainment. I got more thrills watching Tom Cruise survive a simple underwater death trap in MI: Rogue Nation trying to get a drive than I did watching that explosion in SP, which I was praying was CGI when I watched it in theaters, knowing how costly it would be if it was real.

    That kind of stuff isn't what EON should be allowing, especially when it's so obvious that creating miniature builds of the Blofeld HQ was the way to go, as a cost effective venture any sensible person would choose over doing it for real. The only conclusion that can be drawn from EON and Mendes doing the explosion for real then is that they wanted the Guinness Record and publicity garnered from it, and to do it they wasted untold millions on a blink and you miss it moment that doesn't even feel real because we see it in every blockbuster out there these days. That's why we're disappointed.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    jake24 wrote: »
    Christ, Mendes really gets bashed to death on these forums doesn't he?

    @jake24, I like Mendes very much and have been one of his main supporters here, but it can't be denied by a clear-thinking mind that it was not at all wise to indulge in such cash burning sequences as he allowed in SP.

    Between the explosion and the Rome chase, SP's budget was far too high for no great reason at all, and that impacted the profit it made at the box office, despite reaching near a billion. You just don't get the feeling that the film should be as expensive as it was to make, and you don't see that money on the screen being used for things that truly matter in the grand scheme of things.

    I think that's why many, including myself, are calling for lower budget Bond films with more clever sequences than the old explosions and crashes that you see in everything now. Bond should, like the Mission Impossible films, feature sequences of action that are truly innovative and thrilling to watch with little money put into it, with real stunt men and women doing crazy work to bring us entertainment. I got more thrills watching Tom Cruise survive a simple underwater death trap in MI: Rogue Nation trying to get a drive than I did watching that explosion in SP, which I was praying was CGI when I watched it in theaters, knowing how costly it would be if it was real.

    That kind of stuff isn't what EON should be allowing, especially when it's so obvious that creating miniature builds of the Blofeld HQ was the way to go, as a cost effective venture any sensible person would choose over doing it for real. The only conclusion that can be drawn from EON and Mendes doing the explosion for real then is that they wanted the Guinness Record and publicity garnered from it, and to do it they wasted untold millions on a blink and you miss it moment that doesn't even feel real because we see it in every blockbuster out there these days. That's why we're disappointed.
    Agreed on all counts. There's not much more to say, really.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,459
    And we know from the Sony hacks that we are very lucky indeed we did not end up with Logan's earlier ideas, which were really terrible.

    I still enjoy Spectre, and I still like Mendes very much as a director. The negativity about both seems to be way, way overblown.

    Even so, I am all for a lower budget with the suggestions you made, @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7.
  • Posts: 1,680
    I think they tried to give all the fans a Craig film to like, which is why the tone is not consistent after CR.

    I think Oberhausers base explosion looked pretty good, we are all too quick to forget how bad miniatures look sometimes.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 3,236
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The MI films just seem to have taken over the popcorn entertainment mass appeal territory that the Brozza films aimed for; noisy action sequences and lame humour.

    I'd like to think Bond has grown out of that these days.

    Me too, but I often wonder if I'm just fooling myself and raising my own expectations.

    I think CR lured us into thinking we were in the midst of a new era of greatness.

    That seems to have faltered somewhat since then with none of the rest of the Craig era able to reach the heights of CR.

    If there's one thing the series has mastered, it's the disappointing follow-up. DAF after OHMSS, MR after TSWLM, TND after GE, QoS after CR, and now SP after SF. It's inevitable. They rescue the series and then nearly choke it all away.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I think they tried to give all the fans a Craig film to like, which is why the tone is not consistent after CR.

    I think Oberhausers base explosion looked pretty good, we are all too quick to forget how bad miniatures look sometimes.

    When done well, you shouldn't be able to tell. Look at the miniatures way back in 1995 for Goldeneye. Absolute genius, sets that were pieces of art.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Then again, that was Derek Meddings.
  • Actually I think the first mission impossible is rather good. It's not even an action movie. It's a thriller.
Sign In or Register to comment.