No Time to Die production thread

15165175195215221208

Comments

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @mtm
    I have just merged your next double post. See last post on previous page. I must once again urge you to avoid double posting by making use of the edit button.

    Perhaps he just had a practice. ;)) :)>-
  • mtm wrote: »
    That does remind me of that bit in QoS which, although not actually a joke, just really didn’t work: when he jumps down on the baddie’s jeep and yells “you and I had a mutual friend!” before he shoots the guy. It was just so unnatural and weird to talk like that.

    That bit always makes me cringe.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    shamanimal wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    That does remind me of that bit in QoS which, although not actually a joke, just really didn’t work: when he jumps down on the baddie’s jeep and yells “you and I had a mutual friend!” before he shoots the guy. It was just so unnatural and weird to talk like that.

    That bit always makes me cringe.

    Yes but this is the NTTD thread. Which at times has reached a level of cringe beyond that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2019 Posts: 14,861
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @mtm
    I have just merged your next double post. See last post on previous page. I must once again urge you to avoid double posting by making use of the edit button.

    I didn’t see that, sorry. To be honest this forum is a bit of a nightmare on a phone with those enormous quotes and the phone’s software doesn’t seem to want to copy half the time on this forum- I just tried to copy shaminal’s post into this one but couldn’t. Do you mind if I ask why it’s important?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,971
    I have always said it, and some people didn't believe me, but we will never truly get back to a "balanced" Bond, where humour and charisma is a core element, until Craig is done with the role. Its clear that him and Barbara are focused on making a certain type of film, featuring a deeper psychological breakdown of the character. In short, they have tried to play to Craigs strengths, and when they do try a bit of comic relief more often than not it comes off as dated, like lifted straight from the 70's.

    What we need is not just to bring back the humour, but to revolutionize it so it makes sense in a modern context. Humour evolves over time, and sight gags which would've worked back in the day dpn't necessarily ellict the same reaction. But thats not to say that you can't still have a Bond film equally funny as it is dramatic and exhilirating.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    shamanimal wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    That does remind me of that bit in QoS which, although not actually a joke, just really didn’t work: when he jumps down on the baddie’s jeep and yells “you and I had a mutual friend!” before he shoots the guy. It was just so unnatural and weird to talk like that.

    That bit always makes me cringe.
    I have always said it, and some people didn't believe me, but we will never truly get back to a "balanced" Bond, where humour and charisma is a core element, until Craig is done with the role. Its clear that him and Barbara are focused on making a certain type of film, featuring a deeper psychological breakdown of the character. In short, they have tried to play to Craigs strengths, and when they do try a bit of comic relief more often than not it comes off as dated, like lifted straight from the 70's.

    That would be the Daniel Craig getting great reviews for his comic performance in Knives Out? :)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @mtm
    I have just merged your next double post. See last post on previous page. I must once again urge you to avoid double posting by making use of the edit button.

    I didn’t see that, sorry. To be honest this forum is a bit of a nightmare on a phone with those enormous quotes and the phone’s software doesn’t seem to want to copy half the time on this forum- I just tried to copy shaminal’s post into this one but couldn’t. Do you mind if I ask why it’s important?

    I understand that, @mtm. Don't worry, I share the same frustrations in regards to the phone situation.

    The reason why it's important is because--believe it or not--some folks just want to boost their post count at every opportunity. Like it's a status symbol or some such thing, I don't know. Double posting, triple posting, ..., it's a fast way thousands of posts. (Same with one-word posts or just posting YT or twitter links and nothing else.) We've had members before going like this:
    • New post: "I agree with you."
    • Double post: "No actually I don't."
    • Triple post: "Here's why."
    • ...

    It also makes discussions less organised and with many more "so-and-so commented in..." alerts in your mailbox, it can become annoying fast when one realises it's basically the same member doing all the posting.

    Now, of course we understand that not everyone is a post count junkie (@mtm, we know you're not) or a spammer. Unfortunately, if we let too many double posts happen without any comment, there's not a lot we can do about someone who does border on spamming the place up with double, triple, ... posts everywhere. The rules must apply to all. Hence why we try to be fairly strict about this.

    It's different when the temporal distance between two consecutive posts is literally days or so.

    I hope you understand. Thanks in advance for appreciating the logic behind it all. :)
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The reason why it's important is because--believe it or not--some folks just want to boost their post count at every opportunity. Like it's a status symbol or some such thing, I don't know.
    Users do that? That's pathetic.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2019 Posts: 14,861
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @mtm
    I have just merged your next double post. See last post on previous page. I must once again urge you to avoid double posting by making use of the edit button.

    I didn’t see that, sorry. To be honest this forum is a bit of a nightmare on a phone with those enormous quotes and the phone’s software doesn’t seem to want to copy half the time on this forum- I just tried to copy shaminal’s post into this one but couldn’t. Do you mind if I ask why it’s important?

    I understand that, @mtm. Don't worry, I share the same frustrations in regards to the phone situation.

    The reason why it's important is because--believe it or not--some folks just want to boost their post count at every opportunity. Like it's a status symbol or some such thing, I don't know. Double posting, triple posting, ..., it's a fast way thousands of posts. (Same with one-word posts or just posting YT or twitter links and nothing else.) We've had members before going like this:
    • New post: "I agree with you."
    • Double post: "No actually I don't."
    • Triple post: "Here's why."
    • ...

    It also makes discussions less organised and with many more "so-and-so commented in..." alerts in your mailbox, it can become annoying fast when one realises it's basically the same member doing all the posting.

    Now, of course we understand that not everyone is a post count junkie (@mtm, we know you're not) or a spammer. Unfortunately, if we let too many double posts happen without any comment, there's not a lot we can do about someone who does border on spamming the place up with double, triple, ... posts everywhere. The rules must apply to all. Hence why we try to be fairly strict about this.

    It's different when the temporal distance between two consecutive posts is literally days or so.

    I hope you understand. Thanks in advance for appreciating the logic behind it all. :)

    Oh right okay; thanks for explaining. If anything I’d rather keep my post count low! I’ll try to avoid it but I fear the best way might be to not post at all (on a phone anyway as it’s so glitchy).
    I never look at the alerts thing at the top as they get set off by people just quoting, and as the quotes include the whole conversation that makes them a bit pointless.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    Walecs wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The reason why it's important is because--believe it or not--some folks just want to boost their post count at every opportunity. Like it's a status symbol or some such thing, I don't know.
    Users do that? That's pathetic.

    I believe this is a remnant from the days when a certain post count earned one a certain "rank". Some forums still apply that system today.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited December 2019 Posts: 5,834
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    If NTTD crosses the 1billion mark, Do we think the Next Bond will be casted sooner?
    No, I think they'll take as long as they need to cast James Bond. Characteristically they tend not to rush things and will take as long as they need, and when they have tried to get the films out quicker, it hasn't always worked out (Quantum of Solace, Spectre), concretely in my opinion proving that taking their time can heavily benefit the films (Casino Royale, Skyfall).

    It's interesting, and probably unsurprising, to note that the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig-era are the ones that were churned out quicker, so could we possibly see the "delay" of No Time to Die as a blessing in disguise?
    Look how quickly the other guys can make great Mission Impossible movies though. It shouldn't be impossible (ho ho).
    I mean I'm not really one to comment on this because I only really like MI: Fallout, not really a big fan of the previous entries, but even then I think the Mission Impossible and the James Bond films are very different products of the spy genre.

    To me the Mission Impossible is an action-packed blockbuster, whereas the James Bond franchise is a different kettle of fish, and while the James Bond franchise also includes action, it has more to think about than just what action set pieces do we want to see Tom Cruise in this time? And I'm sure the MI franchise would also have major delays if it suffered the same problems...There was even a five year gap between MI III (2006) and Ghost Protocol (2011)?

    Different productions, different rules.

    What’s different? Buying some suits and a posh car? You think that takes three extra years? :)
    Quite a few things actually. Again, different production. Different rules.

    But none that you’re actually able to name when asked ;)
    Again, if one big action film can do it then another should be able to. Because you see some aesthetic differences onscreen does not mean they follow different rules behind the scenes. They all get made by people doing the same jobs.
    Here you go then @mtm :)

    ...they do all get made by people doing the same jobs, but not the same people, and not the same production companies.

    Plus the last two MI films have had the same director, and also there was a bigger gap between Ghost Protocol (2011), and Rogue Nation (2015) than between Skyfall (2012) and Spectre (2015)... meaning that a change of director can usually affect how long a film takes to be made and released... and even more so when a director quits/is fired and a new one has to be hired... There was even a five year gap between MI III (2006) and Ghost Protocol (2011)?

    ...again each film has their own set of problems so trying to compare the James Bond franchise and the MI franchise is pointless because each film has had its own set of issues, and a film will take as long as it needs to.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,494
    mtm wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    That does remind me of that bit in QoS which, although not actually a joke, just really didn’t work: when he jumps down on the baddie’s jeep and yells “you and I had a mutual friend!” before he shoots the guy. It was just so unnatural and weird to talk like that.

    That bit always makes me cringe.
    I have always said it, and some people didn't believe me, but we will never truly get back to a "balanced" Bond, where humour and charisma is a core element, until Craig is done with the role. Its clear that him and Barbara are focused on making a certain type of film, featuring a deeper psychological breakdown of the character. In short, they have tried to play to Craigs strengths, and when they do try a bit of comic relief more often than not it comes off as dated, like lifted straight from the 70's.

    That would be the Daniel Craig getting great reviews for his comic performance in Knives Out? :)

    And Logan Lucky.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 2,595
    mtm wrote: »
    Bounine wrote: »
    True and it may not be solely to do with the characters Maybe she drew inspiration from characters from Fleming’s books that featured in his novels
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I'd love for Christopher McQuarrie to direct the next film with a new actor. Imagine him and PW-B writing. Exciting.

    My main concern would be, how to keep Bond relevant in a world where M:I exists, and how to coexist successfully with M:I which IMO is doing better in the film world than Bond has been lately (Spectre vs. Rogue Nation and the follow up Fallout for example), than making Bond more like M:I and competing directly with it.
    They both need to have their own, unique places in the spy film world so they can both exist and be successful.

    Yeah, I think Bond needs his Gadgets back & his somewhat Sci-Fi elements back without making the plot weak. ....these were the things about bond that marvelled the world in the first place. Movies like GF started that all.

    But DAD ended that, I believe.

    Still, Bond can lighten up a bit without going back to the sky-is-the-limit '60s. It's all about finding the right balance.

    Exactly....not OTT, but the right balance....The Living Daylights had Dalton in serious mode.but the movie still had a few optional extras. And Timothy Dalton was even the one who started the gritty bond thing. Only he was jst ahead of his time.

    Craig can be light in conversations with other characters excluding M but he shouldn’t be cracking jokes during action scenes.

    That does remind me of that bit in QoS which, although not actually a joke, just really didn’t work: when he jumps down on the baddie’s jeep and yells “you and I had a mutual friend!” before he shoots the guy. It was just so unnatural and weird to talk like that.

    Yeah, true. They still feel like they have to hark back to the Connery and Moore installments. It doesn’t work with Craig. Anyway, I like seriousness in action and then Bond can be light hearted and funny in scenes containing conversations. They’d have their humor in their movies.

    I’ve always been about consistency. If they want to have humor everywhere then hire a Mooresque actor with films that revolve around comedy.

    Comedy in conversations however is natural. The Bond of the books is funny in the right places and he is not a comedian during the action.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,018
    Me have a question: Craig's stunt-double David R. Grant, is he the one that also jumps off the bridge in Gravina, Italy?

    //

    Also noticed that one other stuntman, David Newton, doubles for both Rami Malek & David Dencik

    Galxxqi.jpg
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    I'd love for Christopher McQuarrie to direct the next film with a new actor. Imagine him and PW-B writing. Exciting.

    I can't see McQuarrie working with PWB. This doesn't mean it would never happen, but McQuarrie seems to be too much of an "old boys network" sort of writer/director.

    On a separate note, it appears that MI just nabbed an actress I thought would make a great Bond girl: Pom Klementieff.

    pom-klementieff.jpg?quality=50&width=1800&ratio=16-9&resizeStyle=aspectfill&format=jpg
  • Posts: 11,425
    Denbigh wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    If NTTD crosses the 1billion mark, Do we think the Next Bond will be casted sooner?
    No, I think they'll take as long as they need to cast James Bond. Characteristically they tend not to rush things and will take as long as they need, and when they have tried to get the films out quicker, it hasn't always worked out (Quantum of Solace, Spectre), concretely in my opinion proving that taking their time can heavily benefit the films (Casino Royale, Skyfall).

    It's interesting, and probably unsurprising, to note that the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig-era are the ones that were churned out quicker, so could we possibly see the "delay" of No Time to Die as a blessing in disguise?

    I didn't realise SF had been churned out any quicker than the others.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Getafix wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    If NTTD crosses the 1billion mark, Do we think the Next Bond will be casted sooner?
    No, I think they'll take as long as they need to cast James Bond. Characteristically they tend not to rush things and will take as long as they need, and when they have tried to get the films out quicker, it hasn't always worked out (Quantum of Solace, Spectre), concretely in my opinion proving that taking their time can heavily benefit the films (Casino Royale, Skyfall).

    It's interesting, and probably unsurprising, to note that the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig-era are the ones that were churned out quicker, so could we possibly see the "delay" of No Time to Die as a blessing in disguise?

    I didn't realise SF had been churned out any quicker than the others.

    :)) :))

    Honestly I'd rather wait two years and have another QoS than wait 3 or 4 to have another entry like AVTAK, DAD, SF or SP.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    This is NTTD thread neither MI nor QOS/SF bashing or appreciating thread. Take it elsewhere if you could please.

    Damn, now I Know how great mods feel after warning someone :D
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2019 Posts: 14,861
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    If NTTD crosses the 1billion mark, Do we think the Next Bond will be casted sooner?
    No, I think they'll take as long as they need to cast James Bond. Characteristically they tend not to rush things and will take as long as they need, and when they have tried to get the films out quicker, it hasn't always worked out (Quantum of Solace, Spectre), concretely in my opinion proving that taking their time can heavily benefit the films (Casino Royale, Skyfall).

    It's interesting, and probably unsurprising, to note that the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig-era are the ones that were churned out quicker, so could we possibly see the "delay" of No Time to Die as a blessing in disguise?
    Look how quickly the other guys can make great Mission Impossible movies though. It shouldn't be impossible (ho ho).
    I mean I'm not really one to comment on this because I only really like MI: Fallout, not really a big fan of the previous entries, but even then I think the Mission Impossible and the James Bond films are very different products of the spy genre.

    To me the Mission Impossible is an action-packed blockbuster, whereas the James Bond franchise is a different kettle of fish, and while the James Bond franchise also includes action, it has more to think about than just what action set pieces do we want to see Tom Cruise in this time? And I'm sure the MI franchise would also have major delays if it suffered the same problems...There was even a five year gap between MI III (2006) and Ghost Protocol (2011)?

    Different productions, different rules.

    What’s different? Buying some suits and a posh car? You think that takes three extra years? :)
    Quite a few things actually. Again, different production. Different rules.

    But none that you’re actually able to name when asked ;)
    Again, if one big action film can do it then another should be able to. Because you see some aesthetic differences onscreen does not mean they follow different rules behind the scenes. They all get made by people doing the same jobs.
    Here you go then @mtm :)

    ...they do all get made by people doing the same jobs, but not the same people, and not the same production companies.

    Plus the last two MI films have had the same director, and also there was a bigger gap between Ghost Protocol (2011), and Rogue Nation (2015) than between Skyfall (2012) and Spectre (2015)... meaning that a change of director can usually affect how long a film takes to be made and released... and even more so when a director quits/is fired and a new one has to be hired... There was even a five year gap between MI III (2006) and Ghost Protocol (2011)?

    ...again each film has their own set of problems so trying to compare the James Bond franchise and the MI franchise is pointless because each film has had its own set of issues, and a film will take as long as it needs to.

    So nothing intrinsic to the nature of a Bond film that means it has to have four years between each one then? You’re just talking about specific issues which have slowed it down, and that’s what I’m saying. If MI can avoid these issues then Eon should be able to too if they worked it out. These aren’t ‘different rules’ as you put it, just anecdotal issues. :)
    TripAces wrote: »
    I'd love for Christopher McQuarrie to direct the next film with a new actor. Imagine him and PW-B writing. Exciting.

    I can't see McQuarrie working with PWB. This doesn't mean it would never happen, but McQuarrie seems to be too much of an "old boys network" sort of writer/director.

    I think it’s less that and more that he writes them himself!
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited December 2019 Posts: 5,834
    Getafix wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    If NTTD crosses the 1billion mark, Do we think the Next Bond will be casted sooner?
    No, I think they'll take as long as they need to cast James Bond. Characteristically they tend not to rush things and will take as long as they need, and when they have tried to get the films out quicker, it hasn't always worked out (Quantum of Solace, Spectre), concretely in my opinion proving that taking their time can heavily benefit the films (Casino Royale, Skyfall).

    It's interesting, and probably unsurprising, to note that the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig-era are the ones that were churned out quicker, so could we possibly see the "delay" of No Time to Die as a blessing in disguise?
    I didn't realise SF had been churned out any quicker than the others.
    ...@Walecs @Getafix , while entitled to your opinion, Skyfall is heralded by a lot of people a better film than Quantum of Solace, myself included, and considering the films critical and financial response, it is the better of the two, which again shows the benefit of more time. Either way, a longer gap between movies seems to benefit the franchise, so I expect No Time to Die will have also benefit from the gap...

    ...and yes @Resurrection, will try to keep on topic, just until I've addressed...

    ...@mtm, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the MI franchise hasn't avoided these issues? When it's had to change directors or has hit problems, it has taken longer to be released, so the MI franchise isn't perfect either, and I've already explained why the franchise are different, and why I believe the James Bond franchise takes more time, but here's a little more on that. In my opinion, the MI franchise is blockbuster action fluff that is just scripting action sequences together, and the James Bond requires more complex storytelling, as well as action. The action in James Bond doesn't dictate the story, making it harder to write.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    If NTTD crosses the 1billion mark, Do we think the Next Bond will be casted sooner?
    No, I think they'll take as long as they need to cast James Bond. Characteristically they tend not to rush things and will take as long as they need, and when they have tried to get the films out quicker, it hasn't always worked out (Quantum of Solace, Spectre), concretely in my opinion proving that taking their time can heavily benefit the films (Casino Royale, Skyfall).

    It's interesting, and probably unsurprising, to note that the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig-era are the ones that were churned out quicker, so could we possibly see the "delay" of No Time to Die as a blessing in disguise?
    I didn't realise SF had been churned out any quicker than the others.
    ...@Walecs @Getafix , while entitled to your opinion, Skyfall is heralded by a lot of people a better film than Quantum of Solace, myself included, and considering the films critical and financial response, it is the better of the two, which again shows the benefit of more time. Either way, a longer gap between movies seems to benefit the franchise, so I expect No Time to Die will have also benefit from the gap...

    But that's not what you were talking about. You said
    the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig-era are the ones that were churned out quicker

    and the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig era are Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, since both had a lower box office than Skyfall and SPECTRE.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited December 2019 Posts: 5,834
    Walecs wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    If NTTD crosses the 1billion mark, Do we think the Next Bond will be casted sooner?
    No, I think they'll take as long as they need to cast James Bond. Characteristically they tend not to rush things and will take as long as they need, and when they have tried to get the films out quicker, it hasn't always worked out (Quantum of Solace, Spectre), concretely in my opinion proving that taking their time can heavily benefit the films (Casino Royale, Skyfall).

    It's interesting, and probably unsurprising, to note that the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig-era are the ones that were churned out quicker, so could we possibly see the "delay" of No Time to Die as a blessing in disguise?
    I didn't realise SF had been churned out any quicker than the others.
    ...@Walecs @Getafix , while entitled to your opinion, Skyfall is heralded by a lot of people a better film than Quantum of Solace, myself included, and considering the films critical and financial response, it is the better of the two, which again shows the benefit of more time. Either way, a longer gap between movies seems to benefit the franchise, so I expect No Time to Die will have also benefit from the gap...

    But that's not what you were talking about. You said
    the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig-era are the ones that were churned out quicker

    and the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig era are Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, since both had a lower box office than Skyfall and SPECTRE.
    ...which is I why mentioned Skyfall's critical and financial success and not Casino Royale's, because even though the film may not be the highest grossing it is definitely considered one of the more successful by fans and critics alike, meaning in my eyes the two most successful films in the franchise (Skyfall, Casino Royale) took the longest to make. I thought my original post spoke for itself...

    Anyway, trying to keep it more on topic, anyone else have any other theories on who David Dencik is playing? I know a lot of people think he's going to be the scientist.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Skyfall came at the right time and has little competition
  • Denbigh wrote: »
    In my opinion, the MI franchise is blockbuster action fluff that is just scripting action sequences together, and the James Bond requires more complex storytelling, as well as action. The action in James Bond doesn't dictate the story, making it harder to write.
    But movies taking longer is not really a matter of opinion, is it? I think saying "Bond is more sophisticated therefore takes longer" gets too much into the subjective realm (specially coming from a Bond fan), when the reality of why some movies take longer is determined by other real factors.

    I don't really feel taking more time means a better script. Sure, NTTD is coming out after a long gap, but it's not like it's taken that long because the story they're telling needed that time. There have been all sorts of different setbacks as @mtm put (for once I agree with him!). I mean, when Cary Fukunaga came in they had to accomodate whatever they had to work with to fit his vision.

    Not that I think Bond needs to follow M:I timetable to a T, as you well said different production companies different issues, on that I agree.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited December 2019 Posts: 5,834
    Denbigh wrote: »
    In my opinion, the MI franchise is blockbuster action fluff that is just scripting action sequences together, and the James Bond requires more complex storytelling, as well as action. The action in James Bond doesn't dictate the story, making it harder to write.
    But movies taking longer is not really a matter of opinion, is it? I think saying "Bond is more sophisticated therefore takes longer" gets too much into the subjective realm (specially coming from a Bond fan), when the reality of why some movies take longer is determined by other real factors.

    I don't really feel taking more time means a better script. Sure, NTTD is coming out after a long gap, but it's not like it's taken that long because the story they're telling needed that time. There have been all sorts of different setbacks as @mtm put (for once I agree with him!). I mean, when Cary Fukunaga came in they had to accomodate whatever they had to work with to fit his vision.

    Not that I think Bond needs to follow M:I timetable to a T, as you well said different production companies different issues, on that I agree.
    ...but it is a matter of opinion because not everyones going to agree with me but those are still my personal reasonings, and I didn't say that was the only reason for the films taking longer. I even used those other factors to explain even further why I thought comparing to the MI franchise was unfair and pointless... because both franchises have suffered the same issues.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Walecs wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    If NTTD crosses the 1billion mark, Do we think the Next Bond will be casted sooner?
    No, I think they'll take as long as they need to cast James Bond. Characteristically they tend not to rush things and will take as long as they need, and when they have tried to get the films out quicker, it hasn't always worked out (Quantum of Solace, Spectre), concretely in my opinion proving that taking their time can heavily benefit the films (Casino Royale, Skyfall).

    It's interesting, and probably unsurprising, to note that the two most unsuccessful films of the Craig-era are the ones that were churned out quicker, so could we possibly see the "delay" of No Time to Die as a blessing in disguise?

    I didn't realise SF had been churned out any quicker than the others.

    :)) :))

    Honestly I'd rather wait two years and have another QoS than wait 3 or 4 to have another entry like AVTAK, DAD, SF or SP.

    +1

    Except I quite like AVTAK.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Denbigh wrote: »

    Anyway, trying to keep it more on topic, anyone else have any other theories on who David Dencik is playing? I know a lot of people think he's going to be the scientist.

    I tend to think that, but I think it might be because his name reminds me of the scientist from GoldenEye 64 ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2019 Posts: 14,861
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ...@mtm, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the MI franchise hasn't avoided these issues? When it's had to change directors or has hit problems, it has taken longer to be released, so the MI franchise isn't perfect either

    Sure, but we've all seen how it's come into its stride since it started its 'second trilogy' if you will and is now in full swing: something Bond could and should have done with the Craig era, but ground to a halt.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    and I've already explained why the franchise are different,

    Not really..? You just said they have different directors as far as I can see...?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    In my opinion, the MI franchise is blockbuster action fluff that is just scripting action sequences together, and the James Bond requires more complex storytelling, as well as action.

    No it doesn't..? What's more complex about it? I'd say the storytelling for both is on the same level of complexity, with MI actually coming quite further ahead with at least the last film- the previous one also being superior to Spectre on a storytelling level, I'd say. There's some clever stuff going on there and the construction of them has been pretty perfect.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited December 2019 Posts: 1,165
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ...@mtm, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the MI franchise hasn't avoided these issues? When it's had to change directors or has hit problems, it has taken longer to be released, so the MI franchise isn't perfect either

    Sure, but we've all seen how it's come into its stride since it started its 'second trilogy' if you will and is now in full swing: something Bond could and should have done with the Craig era, but ground to a halt.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    and I've already explained why the franchise are different,

    Not really..? You just said they have different directors as far as I can see...?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    In my opinion, the MI franchise is blockbuster action fluff that is just scripting action sequences together, and the James Bond requires more complex storytelling, as well as action.

    No it doesn't..? What's more complex about it? I'd say the storytelling for both is on the same level of complexity, with MI actually coming quite further ahead with at least the last film- the previous one also being superior to Spectre on a storytelling level, I'd say. There's some clever stuff going on there and the construction of them has been pretty perfect.
    There's somewhat of a blandness that has affected the recent M:I films due to the lack of shaking up the director's chair, Fallout being the biggest victim of this. M:I 1 through 4 are all interesting thanks to the length of time between them and the different teams working on them, while RN through M:I8 I fear will have a legacy of being kinda... samey.

    I have no interest in ever rewatching Fallout due to how tired and obvious it was. Even with their flaws, I'd gladly take DC's tenure over that. It's more inline with the first four M:I films, which were all unique and interesting.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I couldn't give a stuff about Mission Impossible and Cruise's ego fest.

    MI will be gone soon enough when it becomes ludicrous for even real life loony tune Tom to be credible as Ethan Hunt, whereas Bond will have recast and be the one to watch as everyone will want to see how the new guy does.

    People making a mess of themselves over the MI films won't be something that has much more of shelf life left, also MI really can't survive without Cruise, I can't stand him personally but he is the hook here and trying to go on without him is unlikely.

    SPECTRE was a mess but NTTD I think will realise that MI 6 was very favourably received and did good business and will without copying it deliver something as thrilling and distinctly Bond like.

    Bond's personality always will see it leave all other action heroes in it's wake.
Sign In or Register to comment.