No Time To Die: Production Diary

19049059079099102585

Comments

  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,725
    Birdleson wrote: »
    And killing Bond off is beyond arrogant. Distastefully so. Fleming didn't end up doing it, Broccoli and Saltzman never did, Maubam didn't. Yet this or some future hotshot generation or studio thinks that they are so goddmaned special that they have artistic licence to do so; because they are the thing of the moment. No effing way.
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Killing off Bond is stupid. Period. One of the biggest points of his character is to be able to survive anything. I'd be pretty pissed off if they actually kill his character in the next film; I have a hard time imagining that being done tastefully.

    Agreed. So lets say craig returns for 2 more both revolving around ohmss and yolt how should Craigs now old bond character end his arc. Like spectre where he drives off into the sunset?
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 31,049
    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.
  • Posts: 186
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Bond will never die in the movies. That would hurt the franchise BIG TIME

    But if the rumors are true and EON might be selling the series than maybe it can happen

    Say what now? Where is this coming from?
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 2,991
    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.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,725
    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
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,305
    Birdleson wrote: »
    And killing Bond off is beyond arrogant. Distastefully so. Fleming didn't end up doing it, Broccoli and Saltzman never did, Maubam didn't. Yet this or some future hotshot generation or studio thinks that they are so goddmaned special that they have artistic licence to do so; because they are the thing of the moment. No effing way.

    Fleming, Broccoli Saltzman and Maubam never gave Bond and Blofeld the personal connection either. If you think its beyond possible, think again. I wouldn't put anything past the current team at the moment.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Killing of Bond is not the only way to create a proper ending for Bond's story.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,058
    Killing off Bond is just as stupid as the Codename Theory.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,305
    Killing of Bond is not the only way to create a proper ending for Bond's story.

    Of course not, but were talking about the Craig era here. We've already had M killed, Bond family home, and Bro-feld. What's to say they won't be that one step "bolder".
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,468
    To shake things up Bond will end B25 in bed with a lady.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,725
    Killing of Bond is not the only way to create a proper ending for Bond's story.

    Of course not, but were talking about the Craig era here. We've already had M killed, Bond family home, and Bro-feld. What's to say they won't be that one step "bolder".

    People said Trump and brexit would never happen. Weve entered an era of suprises
  • Posts: 1,114
    Remember there were rumblings on this board in the run up to Spectre that Bond would be killed off. There was a board member here who claimed they had inside info and that given the way Spectre ends it was going to make it 'impossible for Craig to return.'

    What ever came of that boardie? I doubt they're still here.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    The Sun claims that Daniel and Sam Mendes had creative differences

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/4179212/james-bond-daniel-craig-sam-mendes-role-change/amp/

    "A source." In other words: we made this all up, like everybody else has been doing.

    But it's at least a believable story. There were creative differences between Waltz and Mendes on set. And then there was that strange Charlie Rose interview where Craig almost appeared to be laying blame on Mendes, saying he just zoned out and put it all in Sam's hands, after which Mendes abruptly cuts in and changes course. Not saying there's any truth to the Sun's story. Just saying if there was it wouldn't be a shock.
    [/quote]


    I'm sure there's a bit of truth in this. The SP set was clearly not the happiest of places. The slashing wrists comment must relate to Craig having a bad time on set. And as we know Waltz has all but said he had serious creative differences with Mendes.

    The fact Mendes hasn't done a commentary on SP is also telling.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I confidently expect by the end of the day some shitty blog or tabloid rag, having lifted comments from here, will report:

    'James Bond to Die in New Film'

    Studio bosses plan to kill off James Bond in the next film in the series as Daniel Craig bows out of the role with a bang which will shock fans. A source on reputable Bond site 'MI6 Community' states the title will be 'Everything or Nothing (and Craig's Bond dies at the end).'

    Another source responded 'That's a neat idea. I suppose if the Craig era is it's own self contained story, there's no reason he can't die at the end of it.'

    EON, the producers of the Bond films have not commented officially but with what is almost certain to be Daniel Craig's final film as 007 they will want him to bow out in spectacular style.

    However the idea has proved to be controversial among the fan community and many have reacted negatively to these reports with one fan commenting 'Killing Bond off is beyond arrogant. Distastefully so. Fleming didn't end up doing it, Broccoli and Saltzman never did.'

    The Craig era has not been scared to shake things up though memorably killing off Judi Dench's M in box office smash Skyfall so could they really be planning for Bond to live and let die this time round?'


    Once this story gets posted then some mug will post a link to it here and this thread will go into a frenzy like a load of chavs fighting over Primark tat at the January sales.
  • Posts: 13,247
    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.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 31,049
    I'm certainly not saying it won't happen. I have no illusions about the ultimate ability of rationality to win through.
  • Posts: 11,119
    I am thinking of writing an open letter to the writers...
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 31,049
    Don't! You'll piss them off just enough to go ahead and do it!
  • 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: 11,090
    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 "I need a year off" Craig
    edited August 2017 Posts: 7,305
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.