› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…730731733735736…2507

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Imagine if BBC decides to host another embarrassment like the elections of Bond actor candidates "replacing Daniel Craig."
  • EndCredit007EndCredit007 EGYPT
    Posts: 114
    12208441_961709370587644_8344628529091061180_n.jpg?oh=6f3ef5330e1d35f941b5aa06b3fc6acb&oe=5985DC0C
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    I love that.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    BBC are arsehole dinosaurs....
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    Took me a minute but that's the hole from the prison in TDKR right? Awesome.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    IMDB removed the B25 credit from Syncopy's page. So everyone calm down...
    Haha. No. Whoever put the B25 credit on Syncopy's page was either trolling or leaked an information that was not supposed to leak yet, so it's only natural imdb removed it. None of this changes the fact that it's highly unlikely Nolan WON'T direct either Bond 25 or Bond 26.

    Clearly, IMDb is a "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" operation. Somebody sends out what (I suspect) was the equivalent of a form letter (saying the staff believe the information is accurate) while another arm of IMDb strips out the Syncopy-Bond 25 connection on the site.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BBC are arsehole dinosaurs....

    They're not. The problem with BBC is that upper strata are assholes. 50% are very talented, 45% are jobsworths and 5% are absolute c...
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BBC are arsehole dinosaurs....
    Truer words were never spoken.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BBC are arsehole dinosaurs....
    Truer words were never spoken.

    You've worked for them?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Why the hate for the Beeb? Am I missing something.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BBC are arsehole dinosaurs....
    Truer words were never spoken.

    You've worked for them?
    Didn't know I had to.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BBC are arsehole dinosaurs....
    Truer words were never spoken.

    You've worked for them?
    Didn't know I had to.

    I'm not being belligerent, but it's a complex organisation and I always find it bizarre when people who know nothing about it want to put a metaphorical bullet in it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BBC are arsehole dinosaurs....
    Truer words were never spoken.

    You've worked for them?
    Didn't know I had to.

    I'm not being belligerent, but it's a complex organisation and I always find it bizarre when people who know nothing about it want to put a metaphorical bullet in it.
    It's the overall outlook and the things displayed on surface, I believe, that put people off. Much like how ABC is in the US. They always feel the need to indoctrinate everyone. I heard similar complaints from countless people for both of these media groups.
  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    Posts: 118
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Troy wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    I just don't get what people see in Hardy. Fantastic talent, but Bond?

    Why not? Got the charisma, physical presence, and a great actor so could adopt the necessary persona. Any moped-stealing Bond-baddie had better watch out

    He just doesn't have that thing about him. I've had this debate elsewhere recently, and the way I could explain it in my head is that all the Bonds we have look like they'd give a straight and fair fight, whereas Hardy seems like he'd go right for the bullocks. Our 6 Bonds feel like they'd play games for sport at nice casinos or game halls in fine suits, whereas Hardy looks like he'd frequent a dilapidated bar with a pool table in a rough part of London where he'd smashed glasses and stick anyone who bad mouthed him, all while wearing baddy jeans and a torn up jacket.

    He lacks that eloquence and sense of style that all the Bond actors have, with only Tim being an obvious weak link. Sean was the style icon, George had a playboy sense, Roger looked like a government aristocrat, Tim could rock the moody dark suits despite a lack of apparent style, Pierce looked born for suits in many capacities and Dan feels at home in anything they put him in, despite his thug reputation pre-Bond. When I see Hardy, I just don't find he'd pull any of that off. When I think of his wheelhouse, grungy roles come to mind where he's hairy, dirty, bloodied or feral. He's obviously a transformative actor, but I think he's far too rough to be smoothed out into a good Bond. Dan has the roughest looks of all the Bond actors, but he is able to command a certain posture of eloquence and style and his voice also signals a certain propriety and strong character. He makes it easy for you to take the leap and say, "Yes, this can be Bond." Hardy's Bond just seems like he'd be a potty mouth, with his rough accent always saying, "Piss off" or "Let's get knackered" while having a martini at a bar. To borrow a word from Anthony Horowitz, he's very street. More of a Liverpool hooligan than a Savile Row man of high character.

    Nothing wrong with that, as I love him in all kinds of roles. I just don't think Bond is one of those particular parts for his abilities and overall look.

    You're making assumptions before having seen him in the role of James Bond. I say give him a chance. I definitely think I would like Hardy more than Craig. With Craig you can just tell he doesn't really give a shit about the role, and he's very afraid to make a fool out of himself. He's holding back, in my opinion.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BBC are arsehole dinosaurs....
    Truer words were never spoken.

    You've worked for them?
    Didn't know I had to.

    I'm not being belligerent, but it's a complex organisation and I always find it bizarre when people who know nothing about it want to put a metaphorical bullet in it.
    It's the overall outlook and the things displayed on surface, I believe, that put people off. Much like how ABC is in the US. They always feel the need to indoctrinate everyone. I heard similar complaints from countless people for both of these media groups.

    BBC are pretty balanced. In terms of the content they make, it's been compromised of late, but when they get it right no one can touch them. When ABC have got Attenborough delivering definitive natural history get back to me.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited May 2017 Posts: 10,588
    .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Hardy and Craig are cut from the same cloth imho. I'd prefer someone a bit more aristocratic and naturally polished next time out.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BBC are arsehole dinosaurs....
    Truer words were never spoken.

    You've worked for them?
    Didn't know I had to.

    I'm not being belligerent, but it's a complex organisation and I always find it bizarre when people who know nothing about it want to put a metaphorical bullet in it.
    It's the overall outlook and the things displayed on surface, I believe, that put people off. Much like how ABC is in the US. They always feel the need to indoctrinate everyone. I heard similar complaints from countless people for both of these media groups.

    BBC are pretty balanced. In terms of the content they make, it's been compromised of late, but when they get it right no one can touch them. When ABC have got Attenborough delivering definitive natural history get back to me.
    Fair enough.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited May 2017 Posts: 10,588
    Gumbold wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Troy wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    I just don't get what people see in Hardy. Fantastic talent, but Bond?

    Why not? Got the charisma, physical presence, and a great actor so could adopt the necessary persona. Any moped-stealing Bond-baddie had better watch out

    He just doesn't have that thing about him. I've had this debate elsewhere recently, and the way I could explain it in my head is that all the Bonds we have look like they'd give a straight and fair fight, whereas Hardy seems like he'd go right for the bullocks. Our 6 Bonds feel like they'd play games for sport at nice casinos or game halls in fine suits, whereas Hardy looks like he'd frequent a dilapidated bar with a pool table in a rough part of London where he'd smashed glasses and stick anyone who bad mouthed him, all while wearing baddy jeans and a torn up jacket.

    He lacks that eloquence and sense of style that all the Bond actors have, with only Tim being an obvious weak link. Sean was the style icon, George had a playboy sense, Roger looked like a government aristocrat, Tim could rock the moody dark suits despite a lack of apparent style, Pierce looked born for suits in many capacities and Dan feels at home in anything they put him in, despite his thug reputation pre-Bond. When I see Hardy, I just don't find he'd pull any of that off. When I think of his wheelhouse, grungy roles come to mind where he's hairy, dirty, bloodied or feral. He's obviously a transformative actor, but I think he's far too rough to be smoothed out into a good Bond. Dan has the roughest looks of all the Bond actors, but he is able to command a certain posture of eloquence and style and his voice also signals a certain propriety and strong character. He makes it easy for you to take the leap and say, "Yes, this can be Bond." Hardy's Bond just seems like he'd be a potty mouth, with his rough accent always saying, "Piss off" or "Let's get knackered" while having a martini at a bar. To borrow a word from Anthony Horowitz, he's very street. More of a Liverpool hooligan than a Savile Row man of high character.

    Nothing wrong with that, as I love him in all kinds of roles. I just don't think Bond is one of those particular parts for his abilities and overall look.

    You're making assumptions before having seen him in the role of James Bond. I say give him a chance. I definitely think I would like Hardy more than Craig. With Craig you can just tell he doesn't really give a shit about the role, and he's very afraid to make a fool out of himself. He's holding back, in my opinion.
    16130213-3f39-4b49-aad1-33d6c151c39b_text.gif
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BBC are arsehole dinosaurs....
    Truer words were never spoken.

    You've worked for them?
    Didn't know I had to.

    I'm not being belligerent, but it's a complex organisation and I always find it bizarre when people who know nothing about it want to put a metaphorical bullet in it.
    It's the overall outlook and the things displayed on surface, I believe, that put people off. Much like how ABC is in the US. They always feel the need to indoctrinate everyone. I heard similar complaints from countless people for both of these media groups.

    BBC are pretty balanced. In terms of the content they make, it's been compromised of late, but when they get it right no one can touch them. When ABC have got Attenborough delivering definitive natural history get back to me.

    No,they are NOT balanced...you havent seen news 24 ,which is so so biased always, or the soaps or whatever else they can use to influence people against Brexit and the Polish etc characters being phased in ...they think they can control people when most of the public (do a survey or poll) want them gone.

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    This is really a conversation for another thread.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 8,111
    Gumbold wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Troy wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    I just don't get what people see in Hardy. Fantastic talent, but Bond?

    Why not? Got the charisma, physical presence, and a great actor so could adopt the necessary persona. Any moped-stealing Bond-baddie had better watch out

    He just doesn't have that thing about him. I've had this debate elsewhere recently, and the way I could explain it in my head is that all the Bonds we have look like they'd give a straight and fair fight, whereas Hardy seems like he'd go right for the bullocks. Our 6 Bonds feel like they'd play games for sport at nice casinos or game halls in fine suits, whereas Hardy looks like he'd frequent a dilapidated bar with a pool table in a rough part of London where he'd smashed glasses and stick anyone who bad mouthed him, all while wearing baddy jeans and a torn up jacket.

    He lacks that eloquence and sense of style that all the Bond actors have, with only Tim being an obvious weak link. Sean was the style icon, George had a playboy sense, Roger looked like a government aristocrat, Tim could rock the moody dark suits despite a lack of apparent style, Pierce looked born for suits in many capacities and Dan feels at home in anything they put him in, despite his thug reputation pre-Bond. When I see Hardy, I just don't find he'd pull any of that off. When I think of his wheelhouse, grungy roles come to mind where he's hairy, dirty, bloodied or feral. He's obviously a transformative actor, but I think he's far too rough to be smoothed out into a good Bond. Dan has the roughest looks of all the Bond actors, but he is able to command a certain posture of eloquence and style and his voice also signals a certain propriety and strong character. He makes it easy for you to take the leap and say, "Yes, this can be Bond." Hardy's Bond just seems like he'd be a potty mouth, with his rough accent always saying, "Piss off" or "Let's get knackered" while having a martini at a bar. To borrow a word from Anthony Horowitz, he's very street. More of a Liverpool hooligan than a Savile Row man of high character.

    Nothing wrong with that, as I love him in all kinds of roles. I just don't think Bond is one of those particular parts for his abilities and overall look.

    You're making assumptions before having seen him in the role of James Bond. I say give him a chance. I definitely think I would like Hardy more than Craig. With Craig you can just tell he doesn't really give a shit about the role, and he's very afraid to make a fool out of himself. He's holding back, in my opinion.

    Makes sense to me. Craig has been cagey about the role from the beginning, looking for how he will leave from the moment he arrived. The notion he will return to Bond just because he is good friends with Barbara is ludicrous. It took them begging Mendes to return to make Craig happy to do SPECTRE, god knows what they'll have to promise to get him back for a fifth time.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Gumbold wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    Troy wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    I just don't get what people see in Hardy. Fantastic talent, but Bond?

    Why not? Got the charisma, physical presence, and a great actor so could adopt the necessary persona. Any moped-stealing Bond-baddie had better watch out

    He just doesn't have that thing about him. I've had this debate elsewhere recently, and the way I could explain it in my head is that all the Bonds we have look like they'd give a straight and fair fight, whereas Hardy seems like he'd go right for the bullocks. Our 6 Bonds feel like they'd play games for sport at nice casinos or game halls in fine suits, whereas Hardy looks like he'd frequent a dilapidated bar with a pool table in a rough part of London where he'd smashed glasses and stick anyone who bad mouthed him, all while wearing baddy jeans and a torn up jacket.

    He lacks that eloquence and sense of style that all the Bond actors have, with only Tim being an obvious weak link. Sean was the style icon, George had a playboy sense, Roger looked like a government aristocrat, Tim could rock the moody dark suits despite a lack of apparent style, Pierce looked born for suits in many capacities and Dan feels at home in anything they put him in, despite his thug reputation pre-Bond. When I see Hardy, I just don't find he'd pull any of that off. When I think of his wheelhouse, grungy roles come to mind where he's hairy, dirty, bloodied or feral. He's obviously a transformative actor, but I think he's far too rough to be smoothed out into a good Bond. Dan has the roughest looks of all the Bond actors, but he is able to command a certain posture of eloquence and style and his voice also signals a certain propriety and strong character. He makes it easy for you to take the leap and say, "Yes, this can be Bond." Hardy's Bond just seems like he'd be a potty mouth, with his rough accent always saying, "Piss off" or "Let's get knackered" while having a martini at a bar. To borrow a word from Anthony Horowitz, he's very street. More of a Liverpool hooligan than a Savile Row man of high character.

    Nothing wrong with that, as I love him in all kinds of roles. I just don't think Bond is one of those particular parts for his abilities and overall look.

    You're making assumptions before having seen him in the role of James Bond. I say give him a chance. I definitely think I would like Hardy more than Craig. With Craig you can just tell he doesn't really give a shit about the role, and he's very afraid to make a fool out of himself. He's holding back, in my opinion.

    Makes sense to me. Craig has been cagey about the role from the beginning, looking for how he will leave from the moment he arrived. The notion he will return to Bond just because he is good friends with Barbara is ludicrous. It took them begging Mendes to return to make Craig happy to do SPECTRE, god knows what they'll have to promise get him back for a fifth time.
    16130213-3f39-4b49-aad1-33d6c151c39b_text.gif
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    It took them begging Mendes to return to make Craig happy to do SPECTRE, god knows what they'll have to promise get him back for a fifth time.
    You've answered it. Mendes. Wait for the announcement.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BBC are arsehole dinosaurs....
    Truer words were never spoken.

    You've worked for them?
    Didn't know I had to.

    I'm not being belligerent, but it's a complex organisation and I always find it bizarre when people who know nothing about it want to put a metaphorical bullet in it.
    It's the overall outlook and the things displayed on surface, I believe, that put people off. Much like how ABC is in the US. They always feel the need to indoctrinate everyone. I heard similar complaints from countless people for both of these media groups.

    BBC are pretty balanced. In terms of the content they make, it's been compromised of late, but when they get it right no one can touch them. When ABC have got Attenborough delivering definitive natural history get back to me.

    No,they are NOT balanced...you havent seen news 24 ,which is so so biased always, or the soaps or whatever else they can use to influence people against Brexit and the Polish etc characters being phased in ...they think they can control people when most of the public (do a survey or poll) want them gone.

    They attempt to be balanced but get it up the arse from both sides. Trust me, I know. It's nothing to do with control.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Liberal elites are a pain in the arse everywhere. Trust me. Nanny states aren't my cup of tea.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    jake24 wrote: »
    This is really a conversation for another thread.

    Fair point Jake....my lips are now sealed...back on to the most important topic...
  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    Posts: 118
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I actually think the 'story-arc' has damaged Dan's tenure as Bond now...if he just did stand-alone or ,like Connery,involved SPECTRE but in individual missions then he could easily have hit Moore's 7 films.

    It's come back to bite them,they took it too far..it should have stopped with CR-QOS....SF is fine as i see it as stand-alone,and i think it was made that way originally.

    SP has really taken the 'arc' too far,and people are now getting bored...Bond is NOT a soap-opera,he is a British agent who gives us something positive on the screen in the bad world we really live in.

    Could not agree with you more, Barry!
  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    Posts: 118
    jake24 wrote: »
    16130213-3f39-4b49-aad1-33d6c151c39b_text.gif
    Well I'm not the only one who thinks Daniel Craig looks uninspired in SF and Spectre. I think he was fine in Casino Royale, and extremely good in QOS. My theory is that he gave 100% of himself in Quantum, only to have the movie turn out to be a chaotic mess, rendering him completely uninspired for the follow-ups. Also, everything said about Tom Hardy could have been said about Daniel Craig before he got the part.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    edited May 2017 Posts: 6,601
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I also think B25 should be a new Bond in a stand-alone mission-based film.

    Time to stop any bloody story arcs,which it would be if Craig came back.
    CraigBond's story arc has been completed,it was a totally farewell ending...put Blofeld on ice and move on !!!!

    True. And despite how many Craig devotees insist there is still more story to tell, I think the audience was satisfied, or perhaps relieved that it ended the way it did. Better than some of the other tenures, they avoided the complete strikeout at the end. I repeat again, it could have ended much worse!

    Now is the time to think to the future.
    Fully agreed, but will Babs take the hint?

    Or will she stick with her proven thoroughbred? Will the distribution deal influence the decision? All likely imho.

    Get a room, you two.
    If I hadnt known bondjames for quite a while, I would think, its Mendes talking to his clone. All the time. I am starting to wait for bondjames approving answer every Time our puppy is barking.
Sign In or Register to comment.