No Time To Die: Production Diary

18958968989009012563

Comments

  • 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: 7,331
    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: 831
    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: 7,331
    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: 9,611
    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: 12,590
    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.

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 979
    Roadphill wrote: »
    There was nothing wrong with Waltz's performance. He just needed a little more screentime. He wasnt helped by millions of fans simultaneously rolling there eyes at his personal connection with Bond.

    That wasn't the actors fault, just ham fisted, melodramatic story telling by the production team. Unfortunately I think even Daniel Day Lewis and Orson Welles love child would have had trouble saving that "twist".

    Pardon? Blofeld a neurotic and jealous weeper with daddy issues and nothing wrong with it? Actually this is the Bond film about a spoiled brat "super" villain meeting a secret agent with mommy issues. In short, all I ever wanted to see in a Bond movie.

    Like I said, not the actors fault, poor writing and storytelling.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,331
    Something that occurred to recently is - if EON are selling up with the next film, why not just do it now? Sure they might make a pretty penny on B25, but a cashgrab is a very risky move when it could result in devaluing a franchise that you happen to be looking for a buyer for. Either they are super confident that the next film will add value to the franchise as a whole, or they don't care and want to end their run of Bond films how they want, and be damned if they get a lower price in a couple of years.

    Either that, or maybe this "one picture deal" is quietly a handover to the intended buyer.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 9,611
    Or they're not selling. I don't expect they are.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited August 2017 Posts: 979
    I think the best course of action would be a clean sweep, standalone mission. Throw in an offhand comment about Blofeld still being incarcerated and Bond leaving Madeline early, and lets forget the po faced nonsense we have had for the last 3 films.

    Please EON give us a good old fashioned Bond film.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited August 2017 Posts: 3,157
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    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.

    Have you read the debates here before the movie was released? A large number of people believed Max Denbigh was going to be Blofeld. Or M. Or Lucia Sciarra even. I had no issue then and have no issue now with a Jekyll and Hyde or Dracula twist, but you'd be surprised at the number of people who expected something else.

    Yeah, I remember those theories. People even thought that Andrew Scott actually delivered the "You came across me so many times yet you never saw me" line in the trailer, even though that line was dubbed by Waltz's voice actors in foreign versions of the trailer.

    Admittedly, when I walked into the theater back in 2015 I was not 100% sure that Waltz played Blofeld (though I expected it), but that's because I considered EON smarter and I thought they would surprise us. How wrong I was.

    I wonder why people expected to be surprised as if there absolutely HAS to be a twist they hadn't seen coming up. That's why I always considered it a Jekyll and Hyde twist.

    If they wanted no twist, then why didn't they announce that Waltz played Blofeld? Clearly, they wanted us to be surprised.
    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.

    I completely agree. That's one of SPECTRE's main issues.

    shamanimal wrote: »
    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.


    You mean the way Fleming did with Blofeld back in the '60s?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    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.

    Have you read the debates here before the movie was released? A large number of people believed Max Denbigh was going to be Blofeld. Or M. Or Lucia Sciarra even. I had no issue then and have no issue now with a Jekyll and Hyde or Dracula twist, but you'd be surprised at the number of people who expected something else.

    Yeah, I remember those theories. People even thought that Andrew Scott actually delivered the "You came across me so many times yet you never saw me" line in the trailer, even though that line was dubbed by Waltz's voice actors in foreign versions of the trailer.

    Admittedly, when I walked into the theater back in 2015 I was not 100% sure that Waltz played Blofeld (though I expected it), but that's because I considered EON smarter and I thought they would surprise us. How wrong I was.

    I wonder why people expected to be surprised as if there absolutely HAS to be a twist they hadn't seen coming up. That's why I always considered it a Jekyll and Hyde twist.

    If they wanted no twist, then why didn't they announce that Waltz played Blofeld? Clearly, they wanted us to be surprised.
    Which is rather hilarious when one thinks about it. The fact that they would think it would be a twist. Goes to show we really need a shake up over there because how anyone let this one out in this state (especially given how many people were involved and how much they were paid) is completely beyond my comprehension.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 9,611
    Much different than
    the death of Vesper being a twist.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited August 2017 Posts: 11,090
    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.

    Mendes really crippled the Craig era creatively. After CR this era was full of so much promise, heck even SF is largely forgivable and what it offered should have been left there as well as Mendes' contribution to the series. What were EoN thinking? They've been doing this long enough now and they know who the draw is and as great as Craig is l'm sorry but it's NOT him. Never has and never was. If Bond can survive Connery, Moore and Brosnan then Craig's overstated value placed upon by EoN just perplexes me.

    I love Craig in the role but given what's transpired I'm ambivalent about his return and quite frankly I'm indifferent towards Bond's future until I see a Bond film that finally delivers on the hype after so long and makes the character and his world enticingly great again. I'm so bored with the disappointment and not just that but the disappointment after frequent lengthy gaps.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2017 Posts: 15,534
    bondjames wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    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.

    Have you read the debates here before the movie was released? A large number of people believed Max Denbigh was going to be Blofeld. Or M. Or Lucia Sciarra even. I had no issue then and have no issue now with a Jekyll and Hyde or Dracula twist, but you'd be surprised at the number of people who expected something else.

    Yeah, I remember those theories. People even thought that Andrew Scott actually delivered the "You came across me so many times yet you never saw me" line in the trailer, even though that line was dubbed by Waltz's voice actors in foreign versions of the trailer.

    Admittedly, when I walked into the theater back in 2015 I was not 100% sure that Waltz played Blofeld (though I expected it), but that's because I considered EON smarter and I thought they would surprise us. How wrong I was.

    I wonder why people expected to be surprised as if there absolutely HAS to be a twist they hadn't seen coming up. That's why I always considered it a Jekyll and Hyde twist.

    If they wanted no twist, then why didn't they announce that Waltz played Blofeld? Clearly, they wanted us to be surprised.
    Which is rather hilarious when one thinks about it. The fact that they would think it would be a twist. Goes to show we really need a shake up over there because how anyone let this one out in this state (especially given how many people were involved and how much they were paid) is completely beyond my comprehension.

    EON has also shown it's inability to hide a twist when there actually is one. The '006 is the villain' twist in GE, the 'Elektra is the villain' twist in TWINE and the 'Vesper dies at the end' of CR were all blatantly spoiled in the trailers for the respective films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    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.

    Have you read the debates here before the movie was released? A large number of people believed Max Denbigh was going to be Blofeld. Or M. Or Lucia Sciarra even. I had no issue then and have no issue now with a Jekyll and Hyde or Dracula twist, but you'd be surprised at the number of people who expected something else.

    Yeah, I remember those theories. People even thought that Andrew Scott actually delivered the "You came across me so many times yet you never saw me" line in the trailer, even though that line was dubbed by Waltz's voice actors in foreign versions of the trailer.

    Admittedly, when I walked into the theater back in 2015 I was not 100% sure that Waltz played Blofeld (though I expected it), but that's because I considered EON smarter and I thought they would surprise us. How wrong I was.

    I wonder why people expected to be surprised as if there absolutely HAS to be a twist they hadn't seen coming up. That's why I always considered it a Jekyll and Hyde twist.

    If they wanted no twist, then why didn't they announce that Waltz played Blofeld? Clearly, they wanted us to be surprised.
    Which is rather hilarious when one thinks about it. The fact that they would think it would be a twist. Goes to show we really need a shake up over there because how anyone let this one out in this state (especially given how many people were involved and how much they were paid) is completely beyond my comprehension.

    EON has also shown it's inability to hide a twist when there actually is one. The '006 is the villain' twist in GE, the 'Elektra is the villain' twist in TWINE and the 'Vesper dies at the end' of CR were all blatantly spoiled in the trailers for the respective films.
    All true, & it's very unfortunate. They were more unforgivable perhaps because those were at least meaningful twists (except Vesper because I knew about that having read the novel).

    This last one is just a laughable premise in itself. It was a 'headshake' moment to me and perhaps even more so to the average movie goer for whom the name means nothing. I can just see someone saying the following to their buddy:

    'So this guy who hates James so much due to some childhood spat has a secret name he took from his mother's side? Who cares? Did I miss something?'
  • Posts: 13,418
    @Walecs No idea and I don't think a twist was or is necessary in SP or a Bond film. But in any case it was obvious that Waltz would play Blofeld. Hence my Jekyll and Hyde analogy: the novella is written with that big twist yet now everybody knows it. The stepbrother angle notwithstanding (and they could have easily erased that bit changing nothing else of the film), it was obvious Blofeld was played by Waltz, just like 006 is truly Janus.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,119
    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.

    Perhaps Craig's four films aren't a perfect quadrilogy. But to me his films are more fun by watching all of them altogether. You can even see small references from CR in SF. When it comes to colors, production techniques, the acting, the more intense drama, the deeper themes of the films.......CR, QOS, SF and SP to me are actually a pretty good quadrilogy. And most likely...I have to update below collages again in 2019 ;-). In any case, Ian Fleming would have been proud of these four films, as they represent the same amount of continuity/chronology that his novels had:

    z9rxr60.jpg
    62uIs9V.jpg
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    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.

    Have you read the debates here before the movie was released? A large number of people believed Max Denbigh was going to be Blofeld. Or M. Or Lucia Sciarra even. I had no issue then and have no issue now with a Jekyll and Hyde or Dracula twist, but you'd be surprised at the number of people who expected something else.

    Yeah, I remember those theories. People even thought that Andrew Scott actually delivered the "You came across me so many times yet you never saw me" line in the trailer, even though that line was dubbed by Waltz's voice actors in foreign versions of the trailer.

    Admittedly, when I walked into the theater back in 2015 I was not 100% sure that Waltz played Blofeld (though I expected it), but that's because I considered EON smarter and I thought they would surprise us. How wrong I was.

    I wonder why people expected to be surprised as if there absolutely HAS to be a twist they hadn't seen coming up. That's why I always considered it a Jekyll and Hyde twist.

    If they wanted no twist, then why didn't they announce that Waltz played Blofeld? Clearly, they wanted us to be surprised.
    Which is rather hilarious when one thinks about it. The fact that they would think it would be a twist. Goes to show we really need a shake up over there because how anyone let this one out in this state (especially given how many people were involved and how much they were paid) is completely beyond my comprehension.

    Let's not forget the cunning subterfuge of 'Naomie Harris is just playing a character called Eve. Definitely not Moneypenny'

    I imagine every time EON pull out one of these genius twists they dance around the office shouting 'Hahaha I fooled you' like Nick Nack in the fun house.

    Youve hired double Oscar winner Christoph Waltz so clearly he is the main villain and in a film called SPECTRE, unless you've got an uncredited cameo by Daniel Day Lewis or Brando up your sleeve, then he's obviously going to be playing Blofeld so why treat everyone like children by pretending he isn't?
    shamanimal wrote: »
    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.

    A new low for EON. When people are comparing the quality of your writing to the monumentally appalling Devil May Care it's time to realise you really would have been better off hiring a pair of the proverbial infinite monkeys who are trying to write the complete works of Shakespeare and let them have a prod at a typewriter for a few months. Couldn't have been a lot worse really.

  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,729
    If Eon was a competent company they would take attention to what the real fans want they could easily have anonymously put on this forum in 2013 that Blofeld could be a step brother, then seen how negitvaly it went over with the fans AND THEN NOT DO IT
  • Posts: 11,119
    If Eon was a competent company they would take attention to what the real fans want they could easily have anonymously put on this forum in 2013 that Blofeld could be a step brother, then seen how negitvaly it went over with the fans AND THEN NOT DO IT

    Well, with your criticism the Bond franchise would certainly sail into better territories no?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2017 Posts: 15,534
    bondjames wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    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.

    Have you read the debates here before the movie was released? A large number of people believed Max Denbigh was going to be Blofeld. Or M. Or Lucia Sciarra even. I had no issue then and have no issue now with a Jekyll and Hyde or Dracula twist, but you'd be surprised at the number of people who expected something else.

    Yeah, I remember those theories. People even thought that Andrew Scott actually delivered the "You came across me so many times yet you never saw me" line in the trailer, even though that line was dubbed by Waltz's voice actors in foreign versions of the trailer.

    Admittedly, when I walked into the theater back in 2015 I was not 100% sure that Waltz played Blofeld (though I expected it), but that's because I considered EON smarter and I thought they would surprise us. How wrong I was.

    I wonder why people expected to be surprised as if there absolutely HAS to be a twist they hadn't seen coming up. That's why I always considered it a Jekyll and Hyde twist.

    If they wanted no twist, then why didn't they announce that Waltz played Blofeld? Clearly, they wanted us to be surprised.
    Which is rather hilarious when one thinks about it. The fact that they would think it would be a twist. Goes to show we really need a shake up over there because how anyone let this one out in this state (especially given how many people were involved and how much they were paid) is completely beyond my comprehension.

    Let's not forget the cunning subterfuge of 'Naomie Harris is just playing a character called Eve. Definitely not Moneypenny'.

    That, hands down, is one of the most idiotic PR interview ever made by any cast/crew member involved in a Bond movie. Eve being Moneypenny or not was totally not important, but whatever ounce of surprise a few of us Bond fans could have had when she reveals her name in the last scene of SF was gone the moment Harris said 'I am not Moneypenny', as it was now obvious to everyone that Eve really was Moneypenny.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,571
    It had been rumoured shortly after she was cast that she was going to play Moneypenny.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2017 Posts: 15,534
    Rumoured, yes, but never confirmed. Anyone who didn't follow the SF production thread and had only seen that Harris interview would put 2 and 2 together and know she was going to be Moneypenny. It wasn't even integral to the plot in any way and someone involved in the film still spilled the beans. Likewise when Waltz denied time and time again he wasn't Blofeld was indirect confirmation that he was, and was a waste of time when the film he was the main villain in is called 'Spectre'.
Sign In or Register to comment.