No Time To Die: Production Diary

18948958978999002563

Comments

  • Posts: 4,619
    I am thinking of writing an open letter to the writers...
    Good! Please ask them to resign.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    People are looking a bit too much into things and living in fantasies that are galaxies far away. Whatever you think will happen with 25 or 26, both will disappoint every group. They'll go with something simple and the least all of you are expecting.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,119
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Don't! You'll piss them off just enough to go ahead and do it!

    Well, and we can't be pissed off? I mean, no matter what will happen, if either Craig returns or another actor takes over; the 007 writers clearly have manoeuvered themselves in a ghastly difficult position. Better to piss them off, so they get the message. Just....just read the forum, and you know what I mean.

    I'm not in favour of asking them to resign, but hell they could use some fresh creative perspective from one of the Bond fans here.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,120
    Walecs wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    00Ralf wrote: »
    I can't see it being called Shatterhand, really. Shatterhand only means something to us, Bond-fans, and I'm sure EoN is/will be aware of potential marketing issues when deciding on the name. In German-speaking countries a title like that would only envoke "Winnetou and Old Shatterhand" associations and nothing more, as Karl May is a national treasure over here.

    I'm hoping for an enigmatic Fleming YOLT/LALD-style phrase-title, personally. I'm a bit tired of the single word S-titles.

    No idea what you're on about with the German thing but I can't really see it working either.

    If they cast Waltz then we all know Blofeld is back so to then use the name Shatterhand is totally redundant. It would be a bit stupid to have Bond wandering round Japan saying to himself 'Who on earth could this mysterious Dr Guntram Shatterhand be?' and all the audience shout back 'It's Blofeld mate because we've all seen Waltz's name on the poster.'
    You mean like when they called the last film Spectre, and then let Bond wonder through half of it trying to figure out what it was (even though he was told it was called Quantum by Green two films ago and should have realized this was the same operation when he ran into White again), only for its name to be revealed instead as 'Spectre' by Madeleine? I honestly wouldn't put anything past them.

    Also expecting us to be shocked when Oberhauser revealed he was Blofeld.

    Yes, that was rather embarrassing.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Where did all these rumours of Craig Bond being killed off come from? I doubt they'd be that stupid, even if they are planning to sell the franchise off post B25.

    Regarding Craig and Mendes having creating differences, that I can believe. I've always said that the press conference in December of 2014 announcing the title seemed very strange to me. I picked up a tense vibe there, particularly from Craig. He came strolling out at the end and seemed a little disengaged from everyone else. It was nothing that was said or not said mind you - just a feeling I got. It was at that point that I felt he was done with the franchise (this predated wrist slash by 11 months).

    I asked a question a few pages back about whether anyone had read any comments or objections by Craig specifically to anything in SP but didn't get a response. We know that Fiennes objected to being the mole in an early draft (from the leaks?), but don't have any information on what co-producer Craig objected to from what I am aware. All we know is that he wanted to commit suicide rather than play Bond again for some reason.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    edited August 2017 Posts: 7,341
    I was excited about the future of Bond after SP until it was announced that P+W have returned yet again. If Craig also returns I think that's prove enough that they are burying their heads in the sand until there's a new actor. Not exactly out of character for EON when these tenures have run on a bit. Ride the gravy train until it crashes, then pick up the pieces.

    SP was received mixed to negative, but not enough so that they felt the need to abandon it just yet.
  • I think the Craig era should have a definite ending to it and be its own self contained set of films ala Nolan's Batman. I'd argue that we already got the perfect ending with him retiring in SP but if they're insisting on doing another I think it can only end two ways

    1) Bond back at MI6, Blofeld dead and all that personal stuff behind him but realising he'll never have a normal life ala MR. If they go down that route I suppose they could just continue on from there (with a new actor) but I'd rather the events of his films were never directly referenced and they still go back to a looser continuity.

    2) Bond's refusal to walk away being his downfall and he goes out in a blaze of glory against Blofeld.

    I like the idea of the Craig era covering the whole career of this version of Bond so I'd actually prefer him to be killed off in that way to any other option. I don't think Fleming would have been opposed to the idea if he'd lived longer, he'd toyed with it before after all, and it's not like Bond would be dead forever. They could just do a soft reboot with a new actor/new continuity and carry on as normal. Although there is something tragic about the first one. I'm imagining something along the lines of the SF ending but instead of with pleasure, it's Bond just wearily confining himself to being a spy.

    Or y'know. Leave SP as the end. Craig's Bond finally walks away from killing and drives off into the sunset in the DB5. And that's it. Then we get a soft reboot with a new actor, sparing us a boring revenge film or a tacked on unnecessary Bond comes back film that makes his character development in SP pointless.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 1,162
    I once read - probably on this very forum,since this is where I get my Bond info from -that he was asked about the "stepbrother" angle by an interviewer and he said, that it was kind of a spontaneous idea but just too good to not to be used, which tells us how able a executive producer he is.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Don't! You'll piss them off just enough to go ahead and do it!

    Well, and we can't be pissed off? I mean, no matter what will happen, if either Craig returns or another actor takes over; the 007 writers clearly have manoeuvered themselves in a ghastly difficult position. Better to piss them off, so they get the message. Just....just read the forum, and you know what I mean.

    I'm not in favour of asking them to resign, but hell they could use some fresh creative perspective from one of the Bond fans here.

    I certainly am in favour of asking them to resign. I realise that P&W weren't to blame for the turd Logan left them to polish (not that they polished it very well) but why would anyone think they are the people to salvage the Craig era given they have had more than a hand in bringing us to where we are now?

    Keeping them on is just fiddling while Rome burns whereas what's really needed is a thorough cleansing of the Augean stables.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I once read - probably on this very forum,since this is where I get my Bond info from -that he was asked about the "stepbrother" angle by an interviewer and he said, that it was kind of a spontaneous idea but just too good to not to be used, which tells us how able a executive producer he is.
    Thanks. I vaguely remember something to this effect but it's too hazy for me to be sure. I think he certainly was in favour of 'brother' and that is indeed somewhat concerning should his duties expand on B25.

    We criticize a lot of the other players (and laud Fiennes), but as co-producer Craig certainly had input into the process and I'm just curious to know if (at all) he put his foot down regarding some of the rubbish they came up with on that film.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    I once read - probably on this very forum,since this is where I get my Bond info from -that he was asked about the "stepbrother" angle by an interviewer and he said, that it was kind of a spontaneous idea but just too good to not to be used, which tells us how able a executive producer he is.
    Thanks. I vaguely remember something to this effect but it's too hazy for me to be sure. I think he certainly was in favour of 'brother' and that is indeed somewhat concerning should his duties expand on B25.

    We criticize a lot of the other players (and laud Fiennes), but as co-producer Craig certainly had input into the process and I'm just curious to know if (at all) he put his foot down regarding some of the rubbish they came up with on that film.

    Good point. If Fiennes putting his foot down was enough to shelve a script idea then surely the same would've been true if Dan had done the same?

    The fact that stepbrothergate got filmed means Craig must've been complicit and that alone should result in him being removed from any production decisions forthwith. If he's not happy with that then fine; let him go.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    I once read - probably on this very forum,since this is where I get my Bond info from -that he was asked about the "stepbrother" angle by an interviewer and he said, that it was kind of a spontaneous idea but just too good to not to be used, which tells us how able a executive producer he is.
    Thanks. I vaguely remember something to this effect but it's too hazy for me to be sure. I think he certainly was in favour of 'brother' and that is indeed somewhat concerning should his duties expand on B25.

    We criticize a lot of the other players (and laud Fiennes), but as co-producer Craig certainly had input into the process and I'm just curious to know if (at all) he put his foot down regarding some of the rubbish they came up with on that film.

    Good point. If Fiennes putting his foot down was enough to shelve a script idea then surely the same would've been true if Dan had done the same?

    The fact that stepbrothergate got filmed means Craig must've been complicit and that alone should result in him being removed from any production decisions forthwith. If he's not happy with that then fine; let him go.
    Well, Craig has always been down with the idea of Bond always confronting demons from his past and all, as evidenced by one of his interviews during Spectre, so I do think he wants Bond to go down that road. Something I personally think has become godawfully tiresome.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No. Just end the damned thing like any other old Bond film. Bond, with or without a temporary floozy, completes his mission. Ready for the next one. End Craig.

    Exactly. It doesn't need some lousy trick ending.

    And that's correct but, I just feel like we started the Craig movies when he becomes a double o and because of all the continuity and bs with spectre and blofeld, they will have to somewhat reboot with the next actor. it would be cool if Craigs bond character came full circle
    There is not the slightest trace of an arc in CR/QoS - SF - SP, except for the hammy retcon thing in SP. So there´s no direction where any "full circle" should come from.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,117
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No. Just end the damned thing like any other old Bond film. Bond, with or without a temporary floozy, completes his mission. Ready for the next one. End Craig.

    Exactly. It doesn't need some lousy trick ending.

    And that's correct but, I just feel like we started the Craig movies when he becomes a double o and because of all the continuity and bs with spectre and blofeld, they will have to somewhat reboot with the next actor. it would be cool if Craigs bond character came full circle
    There is not the slightest trace of an arc in CR/QoS - SF - SP, except for the hammy retcon thing in SP. So there´s no direction where any "full circle" should come from.

    Indeed. The 'arc' was completed in QOS. But then they suddenly tried to tell us in extremely unconvincing terms that the whole thing was actually one big arc. If they had done it well with Blofeld explaining it all in detail over dinner then it might have been ok but I'm afraid merely 'Quantum, Greene, Silva it was all me James' was just lamentable.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,341
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No. Just end the damned thing like any other old Bond film. Bond, with or without a temporary floozy, completes his mission. Ready for the next one. End Craig.

    Exactly. It doesn't need some lousy trick ending.

    And that's correct but, I just feel like we started the Craig movies when he becomes a double o and because of all the continuity and bs with spectre and blofeld, they will have to somewhat reboot with the next actor. it would be cool if Craigs bond character came full circle
    There is not the slightest trace of an arc in CR/QoS - SF - SP, except for the hammy retcon thing in SP. So there´s no direction where any "full circle" should come from.

    Indeed. The 'arc' was completed in QOS. But then they suddenly tried to tell us in extremely unconvincing terms that the whole thing was actually one big arc. If they had done it well with Blofeld explaining it all in detail over dinner then it might have been ok but I'm afraid merely 'Quantum, Greene, Silva it was all me James' was just lamentable.

    No, the arc was completed in Casino Royale.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No. Just end the damned thing like any other old Bond film. Bond, with or without a temporary floozy, completes his mission. Ready for the next one. End Craig.

    Exactly. It doesn't need some lousy trick ending.

    And that's correct but, I just feel like we started the Craig movies when he becomes a double o and because of all the continuity and bs with spectre and blofeld, they will have to somewhat reboot with the next actor. it would be cool if Craigs bond character came full circle
    There is not the slightest trace of an arc in CR/QoS - SF - SP, except for the hammy retcon thing in SP. So there´s no direction where any "full circle" should come from.

    Indeed. The 'arc' was completed in QOS. But then they suddenly tried to tell us in extremely unconvincing terms that the whole thing was actually one big arc. If they had done it well with Blofeld explaining it all in detail over dinner then it might have been ok but I'm afraid merely 'Quantum, Greene, Silva it was all me James' was just lamentable.

    No, the arc was completed in Casino Royale.
    That was always my feeling too. It was completed with CR. Then they drew it out over the next film, forgot about it in the next one (apart from childhood Batcave), and then came back and really hit us over the head with it in the last outing.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No. Just end the damned thing like any other old Bond film. Bond, with or without a temporary floozy, completes his mission. Ready for the next one. End Craig.

    Exactly. It doesn't need some lousy trick ending.

    And that's correct but, I just feel like we started the Craig movies when he becomes a double o and because of all the continuity and bs with spectre and blofeld, they will have to somewhat reboot with the next actor. it would be cool if Craigs bond character came full circle
    There is not the slightest trace of an arc in CR/QoS - SF - SP, except for the hammy retcon thing in SP. So there´s no direction where any "full circle" should come from.

    Indeed. The 'arc' was completed in QOS. But then they suddenly tried to tell us in extremely unconvincing terms that the whole thing was actually one big arc. If they had done it well with Blofeld explaining it all in detail over dinner then it might have been ok but I'm afraid merely 'Quantum, Greene, Silva it was all me James' was just lamentable.

    No, the arc was completed in Casino Royale.
    That was always my feeling too. It was completed with CR. Then they drew it out over the next film, forgot about it in the next one (apart from childhood Batcave), and then came back and really hit us over the head with it in the last outing.

    At first I was quite excited about the return of Blofeld and SPECTRE. But I think they overused it too much. They should have re-introduced Blofeld in a slower, more dignified way.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No. Just end the damned thing like any other old Bond film. Bond, with or without a temporary floozy, completes his mission. Ready for the next one. End Craig.

    Exactly. It doesn't need some lousy trick ending.

    And that's correct but, I just feel like we started the Craig movies when he becomes a double o and because of all the continuity and bs with spectre and blofeld, they will have to somewhat reboot with the next actor. it would be cool if Craigs bond character came full circle
    There is not the slightest trace of an arc in CR/QoS - SF - SP, except for the hammy retcon thing in SP. So there´s no direction where any "full circle" should come from.

    Indeed. The 'arc' was completed in QOS. But then they suddenly tried to tell us in extremely unconvincing terms that the whole thing was actually one big arc. If they had done it well with Blofeld explaining it all in detail over dinner then it might have been ok but I'm afraid merely 'Quantum, Greene, Silva it was all me James' was just lamentable.

    No, the arc was completed in Casino Royale.
    That was always my feeling too. It was completed with CR. Then they drew it out over the next film, forgot about it in the next one (apart from childhood Batcave), and then came back and really hit us over the head with it in the last outing.

    At first I was quite excited about the return of Blofeld and SPECTRE. But I think they overused it too much. They should have re-introduced Blofeld in a slower, more dignified way.
    Agreed, and like @TheWizardOfIce has previously suggested, perhaps waited for the next actor to roll the whole thing out with, given Craig only had a few more in him at best.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No. Just end the damned thing like any other old Bond film. Bond, with or without a temporary floozy, completes his mission. Ready for the next one. End Craig.

    Exactly. It doesn't need some lousy trick ending.

    And that's correct but, I just feel like we started the Craig movies when he becomes a double o and because of all the continuity and bs with spectre and blofeld, they will have to somewhat reboot with the next actor. it would be cool if Craigs bond character came full circle
    There is not the slightest trace of an arc in CR/QoS - SF - SP, except for the hammy retcon thing in SP. So there´s no direction where any "full circle" should come from.

    Indeed. The 'arc' was completed in QOS. But then they suddenly tried to tell us in extremely unconvincing terms that the whole thing was actually one big arc. If they had done it well with Blofeld explaining it all in detail over dinner then it might have been ok but I'm afraid merely 'Quantum, Greene, Silva it was all me James' was just lamentable.

    No, the arc was completed in Casino Royale.

    Well true. QOS should've just been business as usual despite the loose thread of Mr White.

    But at least QOS carrying on the arc was logical and made a bit of sense and compared to the hamfisted botch job we got in SP it was positively Shakespearean.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,341
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No. Just end the damned thing like any other old Bond film. Bond, with or without a temporary floozy, completes his mission. Ready for the next one. End Craig.

    Exactly. It doesn't need some lousy trick ending.

    And that's correct but, I just feel like we started the Craig movies when he becomes a double o and because of all the continuity and bs with spectre and blofeld, they will have to somewhat reboot with the next actor. it would be cool if Craigs bond character came full circle
    There is not the slightest trace of an arc in CR/QoS - SF - SP, except for the hammy retcon thing in SP. So there´s no direction where any "full circle" should come from.

    Indeed. The 'arc' was completed in QOS. But then they suddenly tried to tell us in extremely unconvincing terms that the whole thing was actually one big arc. If they had done it well with Blofeld explaining it all in detail over dinner then it might have been ok but I'm afraid merely 'Quantum, Greene, Silva it was all me James' was just lamentable.

    No, the arc was completed in Casino Royale.
    That was always my feeling too. It was completed with CR. Then they drew it out over the next film, forgot about it in the next one (apart from childhood Batcave), and then came back and really hit us over the head with it in the last outing.

    Which is what makes the current predicament so dire. Either drop everything and have a random standalone mission bolted onto the end of the Craig era, or continue trying to find a story to tell without undermining 3 films worth of baggage. Vesper seems like a distant memory now.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 623
    If they had done it well with Blofeld explaining it all in detail over dinner then it might have been ok but I'm afraid merely 'Quantum, Greene, Silva it was all me James' was just lamentable.

    I remember reading Devil May Care, and M says something like "this is the most dangerous villain we've come across James", and it's just left there to be supposed. And it's the same with Spectre. As you rightly point out, "it was all me" isn't enough. The viewer has no emotion invested in hating the villain. You just don't care.
    What was the Mission Impossible film where the villain shoots Tom Cruise's wife/lover at the start? Then the main movie is a flashback. Wow, that's a way to set up a villain.
  • Posts: 832
    shamanimal wrote: »
    If they had done it well with Blofeld explaining it all in detail over dinner then it might have been ok but I'm afraid merely 'Quantum, Greene, Silva it was all me James' was just lamentable.

    I remember reading Devil May Care, and M says something like "this is the most dangerous villain we've come across James", and it's just left there to be supposed. And it's the same with Spectre. As you rightly point out, "it was all me" isn't enough. The viewer has no emotion invested in hating the villain. You just don't care.
    What was the Mission Impossible film where the villain shoots Tom Cruise's wife/lover at the start? Then the main movie is a flashback. Wow, that's a way to set up a villain.

    Mi3
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No. Just end the damned thing like any other old Bond film. Bond, with or without a temporary floozy, completes his mission. Ready for the next one. End Craig.

    Exactly. It doesn't need some lousy trick ending.

    And that's correct but, I just feel like we started the Craig movies when he becomes a double o and because of all the continuity and bs with spectre and blofeld, they will have to somewhat reboot with the next actor. it would be cool if Craigs bond character came full circle
    There is not the slightest trace of an arc in CR/QoS - SF - SP, except for the hammy retcon thing in SP. So there´s no direction where any "full circle" should come from.

    Indeed. The 'arc' was completed in QOS. But then they suddenly tried to tell us in extremely unconvincing terms that the whole thing was actually one big arc. If they had done it well with Blofeld explaining it all in detail over dinner then it might have been ok but I'm afraid merely 'Quantum, Greene, Silva it was all me James' was just lamentable.

    No, the arc was completed in Casino Royale.
    That was always my feeling too. It was completed with CR. Then they drew it out over the next film, forgot about it in the next one (apart from childhood Batcave), and then came back and really hit us over the head with it in the last outing.

    Which is what makes the current predicament so dire. Either drop everything and have a random standalone mission bolted onto the end of the Craig era, or continue trying to find a story to tell without undermining 3 films worth of baggage. Vesper seems like a distant memory now.

    Absolutely.

    Both options are far from ideal.

    You either get a standalone which would seem somewhat incongrouous given how they've decided that continuity is everything in the Craig era and the audience walks out scratching their heads thinking 'I wonder what happened to Blofeld?'

    Or you go down the hackneyed route of killing Maddy and Blofeld escaping.

    As you say correctly (and it's not often you get things spot on) a dire predicament (although not so dire Turner is any sort of solution).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,341
    For me it has already been spoiled slightly. The best P+W has ever delivered is good, not great. After 4 years of waiting is a 7/10 Bond film really something to get excited about? That's about as much as we can hope for with them writing the script. They aren't going to suddenly hand in a masterpeice at this late stage.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 10,945
    I've heard over time:
    The arc was finished with CASINO ROYALE.
    The arc was finished with QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
    The arc was finished with SKYFALL.
    The arc was finished with SPECTRE.
    So I'm seeing a pattern.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 12,723
    I've heard over time:
    The arc was finished with CASINO ROYALE.
    The arc was finished with QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
    The arc was finished with SKYFALL.
    The arc was finished with SPECTRE.
    So I'm seeing a pattern.

    I agree on all but Spectre. CR and QoS basically had the same ending: this is the Bond we know, we've just seen him become the man from the other films. Then in SF he starts off in his prime but straight away becomes a shadow of his former self, spends the whole film getting back to where he was until at the end we again get another "classic Bond is back" ending.

    SP had a different arc entirely. It wasn't about Bond becoming 007 (CR, QoS) or rebecoming 007 (SF), it was about him giving it up.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    I've heard over time:
    The arc was finished with CASINO ROYALE.
    The arc was finished with QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
    The arc was finished with SKYFALL.
    The arc was finished with SPECTRE.
    So I'm seeing a pattern.

    Bond 25 with Craig: 'Raiders of the Lost Arc'.
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    Should bond get rid of his ppk in the next films like Brozza did ?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    For me it has already been spoiled slightly. The best P+W has ever delivered is good, not great. After 4 years of waiting is a 7/10 Bond film really something to get excited about? That's about as much as we can hope for with them writing the script. They aren't going to suddenly hand in a masterpeice at this late stage.

    Spot on again. You're on a roll. Just don't mention Turner and you could be on for a hat trick.
  • //Vesper seems like a distant memory now.//

    She is a distant memory, certainly for general audiences.

    It would be as if Marvel today brought up a plot point involving Jeff Bridges' character (admittedly a villain rather than a sympathetic character) from the first Iron Man movie.

Sign In or Register to comment.