No Time to Die production thread

15985996016036041208

Comments

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think from Bond 26 onwards, Eon should go back to Standalone, mission-based adventures to avoid another SP continuity problem....that they're now looking to correct in NTTD.

    What SP continuity problem?
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited January 2020 Posts: 4,247
    matt_u wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think from Bond 26 onwards, Eon should go back to Standalone, mission-based adventures to avoid another SP continuity problem....that they're now looking to correct in NTTD.

    What SP continuity problem?

    It made SF & possibly QoS lose their Standalone feel.....and all of a sudden, Le Chiffre, Greene & Silva are now SPECTRE agents....NTTD could do a better job, but in future....I don't think Eon would want to attempt such contrived characterization again. It simply tells Eon that Bond films are meant to be Standalone adventures, coz there's more freedom to create new characters without worrying how it affects the previous films.
  • Posts: 1,452
    matt_u wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think from Bond 26 onwards, Eon should go back to Standalone, mission-based adventures to avoid another SP continuity problem....that they're now looking to correct in NTTD.

    What SP continuity problem?

    Yes, I was about to ask the same question. The Craig Bonds have followed a clear direction and retained continuity through the stories and the characters - and also by casting the same actors to play the likes of Felix etc..

  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,018
    TR007 wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »

    The 007 Instagram account keeps posting different cuts of the original trailer, some with additional new footage. The latest shows Craig making out with a woman who I suspect may be Anna De Armas? It doesn't look like Lynch or Seydoux.

    Also who composed the music in the trailer we've seen?
    It’s Seydoux. The shot your mentioning is the same shot of them both kissing in Matera in the main trailer.

    I can be even more picky regarding that kiss: I'ts supposed to play out in the hotel room in Matera, but filmed on a soundstage at Pinewood.

    :P
  • Ben Whishaw indicates that he is 'done' playing Q after NTTD.....



    This is a bit of a travesty. Even if the series has to reboot after Craig goes - can't we keep Ben? I don't mind loosing Fiennes or Harris. But Whishaw has been the MVP of the recent films....he has revitalised Q.

    Dench survived the reboot and so should Whishaw.

    EPWXpiNWsAE7xVp?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
  • ColonelSun wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think from Bond 26 onwards, Eon should go back to Standalone, mission-based adventures to avoid another SP continuity problem....that they're now looking to correct in NTTD.

    What SP continuity problem?

    Yes, I was about to ask the same question. The Craig Bonds have followed a clear direction and retained continuity through the stories and the characters - and also by casting the same actors to play the likes of Felix etc..

    I think the argument can definitely be made that SP painted EON into a corner, narratively speaking. It opened some threads that would later require closing:

    -has Bond left the service?
    -is he still with Maddy?
    -Blofeld is alive and Bond's brother
    -MI6 is destroyed an heavily compromised
    -Blofeld was pulling the strings on Vesper, et al
    -etc etc

    Now, one could argue (I know I have) that lots of Bond movies have had open-ended endings. Nobody really seriously thought that Bond was leaving the service to marry any of the women he hid away with at the close of the previous movies (Christmas Jones? Is that you?)

    But SP played it so seriously and introduced a thread of continuity through all the other Craig films too. So it becomes harder to simply dismiss the events of SP.

    For the next actor, shooting standalone missions would definitely simplify things.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Honestly they should have let Spectre be and started over with this film new Bond everything but Barbara wants to marry Daniel.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited January 2020 Posts: 4,343
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think from Bond 26 onwards, Eon should go back to Standalone, mission-based adventures to avoid another SP continuity problem....that they're now looking to correct in NTTD.

    What SP continuity problem?

    It made SF & possibly QoS lose their Standalone feel.....and all of a sudden, Le Chiffre, Greene & Silva are now SPECTRE agents....NTTD could do a better job, but in future....I don't think Eon would want to attempt such contrived characterization again. It simply tells Eon that Bond films are meant to be Standalone adventures, coz there's more freedom to create new characters without worrying how it affects the previous films.

    Every x months there's this argument popping up inhere. Let's make it clear: SP doesn't mine the standalone status of the previous films. The only thing SP does is expand the background and the landscape in which CR, QoS and SF were set. SP is very clear about that, when Q says "they were all part of one organization, and Blofeld links them all", but being part of one organization doesn't automatically makes them SPECTRE agents. What they did was basically work for them. If you are a landscape designer who's been asked to work on a big project by an architectural studio, you're part of the team but you're not an architect of that studio. That's the point. But let's get a look...

    - LeChiffre was a banker who financed the world's terrorist organization, and SPECTRE is arguably the most relevant one. He worked for them, he failed, they killed him.
    - Greene was one of the most prominent members of Quantum, a division of the much larger organization, SPECTRE. In the books, Fleming described SPECTRE as an organization made of various top crime syndicates from all around the world - like Mafia etc etc - so Quantum being a SPECTRE subsidiary is perfectly in line with what Fleming envisioned.
    - Silva was a freelance terrorist hired by SPECTRE. He even says it in the film: "All to the best bidder". Blofeld used his anger towards M in order to destabilize the MI6 - paving the way to the bigger masterplan called 9 Eyes - giving him the resources to accomplish the mission. The fact Silva had a past with M(ommy) made him the perfect choice for the job since that way also Bond would've been hurt by his actions.

    What links all this characters is the ring, since they all obviously had connections with SPECTRE agents wearing it since they all worked for SPECTRE in different ways. The only real SPECTRE agent was Mr. White, since he's a senior member with a past with Blofeld and his termination is discussed in an official SPECTRE meeting. Hopefully those explanations will make u feel better about that continuity issue.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    matt_u wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think from Bond 26 onwards, Eon should go back to Standalone, mission-based adventures to avoid another SP continuity problem....that they're now looking to correct in NTTD.

    What SP continuity problem?

    It made SF & possibly QoS lose their Standalone feel.....and all of a sudden, Le Chiffre, Greene & Silva are now SPECTRE agents....NTTD could do a better job, but in future....I don't think Eon would want to attempt such contrived characterization again. It simply tells Eon that Bond films are meant to be Standalone adventures, coz there's more freedom to create new characters without worrying how it affects the previous films.

    Every x months there's this argument popping up inhere. Let's make it clear: SP doesn't mine the standalone status of the previous films. The only thing SP does is expand the background and the landscape in which CR, QoS and SF were set. SP is very clear about that, when Q says "they were all part of one organization, and Blofeld links them all", but being part of one organization doesn't automatically makes them SPECTRE agents. What they did was basically work for them. If you are a landscape designer who's been asked to work on a big project by an architectural studio, you're part of the team but you're not an architect of that studio. That's the point. But let's get a look...

    - LeChiffre was a banker who financed the world's terrorist organization, and SPECTRE is arguably the most relevant one. He worked for them, he failed, they killed him.
    - Greene was one of the most prominent members of Quantum, a division of the much larger organization, SPECTRE. In the books, Fleming described SPECTRE as an organization made of various top crime syndicates from all around the world - like Mafia etc etc - so Quantum being a SPECTRE subsidiary is perfectly in line with what Fleming envisioned.
    - Silva was a freelance terrorist hired by SPECTRE. He even says it in the film: "All to the best bidder". Blofeld used his anger towards M in order to destabilize the MI6 - paving the way to the bigger masterplan called 9 Eyes - giving him the resources to accomplish the mission. The fact Silva had a past with M(ommy) made him the perfect choice for the job since that way also Bond would've been hurt by his actions.

    What links all this characters is the ring, since they all obviously had connections with SPECTRE agents wearing it since they all worked for SPECTRE in different ways. The only real SPECTRE agent was Mr. White, since he's a senior member with a past with Blofeld and his termination is discussed in an official SPECTRE meeting. Hopefully those explanations will make u feel better about that continuity issue.

    +1. Excellent post, @matt_u
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    matt_u wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think from Bond 26 onwards, Eon should go back to Standalone, mission-based adventures to avoid another SP continuity problem....that they're now looking to correct in NTTD.

    What SP continuity problem?

    It made SF & possibly QoS lose their Standalone feel.....and all of a sudden, Le Chiffre, Greene & Silva are now SPECTRE agents....NTTD could do a better job, but in future....I don't think Eon would want to attempt such contrived characterization again. It simply tells Eon that Bond films are meant to be Standalone adventures, coz there's more freedom to create new characters without worrying how it affects the previous films.

    Every x months there's this argument popping up inhere. Let's make it clear: SP doesn't mine the standalone status of the previous films. The only thing SP does is expand the background and the landscape in which CR, QoS and SF were set. SP is very clear about that, when Q says "they were all part of one organization, and Blofeld links them all", but being part of one organization doesn't automatically makes them SPECTRE agents. What they did was basically work for them. If you are a landscape designer who's been asked to work on a big project by an architectural studio, you're part of the team but you're not an architect of that studio. That's the point. But let's get a look...

    - LeChiffre was a banker who financed the world's terrorist organization, and SPECTRE is arguably the most relevant one. He worked for them, he failed, they killed him.
    - Greene was one of the most prominent members of Quantum, a division of the much larger organization, SPECTRE. In the books, Fleming described SPECTRE as an organization made of various top crime syndicates from all around the world - like Mafia etc etc - so Quantum being a SPECTRE subsidiary is perfectly in line with what Fleming envisioned.
    - Silva was a freelance terrorist hired by SPECTRE. He even says it in the film: "All to the best bidder". Blofeld used his anger towards M in order to destabilize the MI6 - paving the way to the bigger masterplan called 9 Eyes - giving him the resources to accomplish the mission. The fact Silva had a past with M(ommy) made him the perfect choice for the job since that way also Bond would've been hurt by his actions.

    What links all this characters is the ring, since they all obviously had connections with SPECTRE agents wearing it since they all worked for SPECTRE in different ways. The only real SPECTRE agent was Mr. White, since he's a senior member with a past with Blofeld and his termination is discussed in an official SPECTRE meeting. Hopefully those explanations will make u feel better about that continuity issue.

    Yeah, i already know about all these...except am not a Bond fan. Let's be honest with ourselves, was the initial plan to make all first 3 of Craig's villians SPECTRE agents?...I don't think so...and part of me can't help but think the continuity thing came to a close.....once Craig told M 'I never left' in QoS. To be honest SF was looking like a standalone film....it was Mendes who brought back the continuity thing in SP. Another Director might have made his own version standalone, just like Mendes didn't pay attention to QoS at first, until he came back and decided to suddenly make Greene a SP agent. Maybe Fukunaga sees something we don't...that's why he's continuing with SP's storyline, while adding his own style. All am saying is, Bond 26 & Beyond should go back to standalone adventures....there's more fun & freedom to create with standalone films....I don't think anyone believed Vesper would still be mentioned in Craig's 5th Bond film....not saying it's bad...but it just gets to show how lengthy the continuity thing has being.
  • Posts: 832
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think from Bond 26 onwards, Eon should go back to Standalone, mission-based adventures to avoid another SP continuity problem....that they're now looking to correct in NTTD.

    What SP continuity problem?

    Yes, I was about to ask the same question. The Craig Bonds have followed a clear direction and retained continuity through the stories and the characters - and also by casting the same actors to play the likes of Felix etc..

    Don’t know about a clear direction. Think the problem with the continuity of the Craig era is despite narrative connections the films are tonally inconsistent and don’t feel similar enough to be part of the same continuity.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think from Bond 26 onwards, Eon should go back to Standalone, mission-based adventures to avoid another SP continuity problem....that they're now looking to correct in NTTD.

    What SP continuity problem?

    Yes, I was about to ask the same question. The Craig Bonds have followed a clear direction and retained continuity through the stories and the characters - and also by casting the same actors to play the likes of Felix etc..

    Don’t know about a clear direction. Think the problem with the continuity of the Craig era is despite narrative connections the films are tonally inconsistent and don’t feel similar enough to be part of the same continuity.

    +1
  • Posts: 1,452
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think from Bond 26 onwards, Eon should go back to Standalone, mission-based adventures to avoid another SP continuity problem....that they're now looking to correct in NTTD.

    What SP continuity problem?

    Yes, I was about to ask the same question. The Craig Bonds have followed a clear direction and retained continuity through the stories and the characters - and also by casting the same actors to play the likes of Felix etc..

    Don’t know about a clear direction. Think the problem with the continuity of the Craig era is despite narrative connections the films are tonally inconsistent and don’t feel similar enough to be part of the same continuity.

    Each film has its own director (Mendes twice, obviously) and therefore each film has its own style to support/express the narrative etc., but that doesn't take away from the narrative treads, themes, and the characters (like Mr. White or Felix, Blofeld or Madeleine Swann, the shadow of Vepser) which link the Craig films and Bond's journey from novice Double O agent, who becomes deeply affected (damaged) by the loss of the woman he fell in love with (who also betrayed him), and onwards to his semi-retirement in NTTD.

    I think they always had this broadly mapped out, rather than firmly locked down. It could have ended with Bond driving away with Madeleine at the end of SP, but they knew they still had more to tell to truly wrap up Bond's (Craig's) journey.

  • Posts: 12,243
    Ben Whishaw indicates that he is 'done' playing Q after NTTD.....



    This is a bit of a travesty. Even if the series has to reboot after Craig goes - can't we keep Ben? I don't mind loosing Fiennes or Harris. But Whishaw has been the MVP of the recent films....he has revitalised Q.

    Dench survived the reboot and so should Whishaw.

    EPWXpiNWsAE7xVp?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

    Personally, I’d love for all 3 to remain - as long as they stay at MI6 for the most part like the older Bond films.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think from Bond 26 onwards, Eon should go back to Standalone, mission-based adventures to avoid another SP continuity problem....that they're now looking to correct in NTTD.

    What SP continuity problem?

    Yes, I was about to ask the same question. The Craig Bonds have followed a clear direction and retained continuity through the stories and the characters - and also by casting the same actors to play the likes of Felix etc..

    Don’t know about a clear direction. Think the problem with the continuity of the Craig era is despite narrative connections the films are tonally inconsistent and don’t feel similar enough to be part of the same continuity.

    Each film has its own director (Mendes twice, obviously) and therefore each film has its own style to support/express the narrative etc., but that doesn't take away from the narrative treads, themes, and the characters (like Mr. White or Felix, Blofeld or Madeleine Swann, the shadow of Vepser) which link the Craig films and Bond's journey from novice Double O agent, who becomes deeply affected (damaged) by the loss of the woman he fell in love with (who also betrayed him), and onwards to his semi-retirement in NTTD.

    I think they always had this broadly mapped out, rather than firmly locked down. It could have ended with Bond driving away with Madeleine at the end of SP, but they knew they still had more to tell to truly wrap up Bond's (Craig's) journey.

    Big +1.

    One of the most beautiful things about the Craig era is the fact that each film has his own personal identity, flavor and style. Just like the character of Bond evolves throughout the films. This notion, both from a visual and thematic standpoint, makes Craig's tenure the richer in terms of cinematic experience, in my opinion. Mendes directed two, but aesthetically SF and SP are pretty much different and from a concept standpoint the first stands as a film based on the notion on why Bond is still relevant in the modern world, while the sequel as a gloomy retro celebration, like it or not, of the legacy and the value of tradition inherent in the franchise.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited January 2020 Posts: 4,247
    Am sure if majority of Bond fans are asked, they would prefer a return to solid, espionage, standalone, mission-based thrillers....I don't know if anyone have noticed....but Craig's Bond doesn't do much Spying....I think a return to actual spying might be just what Bond 26 needs....coz I don't think majority of Bond fans would want the 7th Bond actor to have the same continuity-filled narrative like Craig's Bond....I like Craig's Bond...but I think it's time to go back to tradition.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    There is a lot of spying going on in the Craig films.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    He’ll be back.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    He’ll be back.

    Very much hope so - he's a gem and I could see him having a nice long tenure.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited January 2020 Posts: 4,247
    There is a lot of spying going on in the Craig films.

    I think if he's does a lot of spying, his missions won't be personal or about his past....maybe that's why we're yet to see Craig in full Naval uniform...maybe NTTD might surprise us, but I have little hope for that...since his movies are not mission-based and don't usually involve the military.
  • Posts: 3,160
    can't we keep Ben? I don't mind loosing Fiennes or Harris. But Whishaw has been the MVP of the recent films....he has revitalised Q.

    Yeah, thanks to him alone, Silva escaped in SF. And let's not forget all the great gadgets... like... eh, a watch, a car and a signature gun (!)?

    Here's hoping for the return of the exploding pens!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    This idea that QOS was a standalone film is kind of nonsense, when it was not only picking up threads from CR but also intentionally leaving a few untied for future films to pick up. Only SF was promoted as a standalone film at the time of its release, and I agree that retconning Silva as an agent of SPECTRE was kind of unnecessary.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    I think leaving Silva out of it and just carrying on from QOS would have been fine. Silva just feels kind of shoehorned in there. Unnecessary retcon, in my opinion, but it doesn't ruin SPECTRE for me.
  • Posts: 5,767
    This idea that QOS was a standalone film is kind of nonsense, when it was not only picking up threads from CR but also intentionally leaving a few untied for future films to pick up. Only SF was promoted as a standalone film at the time of its release, and I agree that retconning Silva as an agent of SPECTRE was kind of unnecessary.
    I´d say retconning is no beag deal, if it isn´t just thrown in front of the audience´ feet from out of nowhere.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Ryan wrote: »
    I think leaving Silva out of it and just carrying on from QOS would have been fine. Silva just feels kind of shoehorned in there. Unnecessary retcon, in my opinion, but it doesn't ruin SPECTRE for me.

    And I get why it was done, not purely for the sake of making all of Craig's films tie together, but that it partially makes Blofeld responsible for M's death for giving Silva the means to go after her. If I would have made it neater, I'd acknowledge that Silva was more of a gun for hire than a full fledged member of SPECTRE. Blofeld saw that Silva had a huge grudge against the head of MI6, and decided he could be useful in his wanting to kill M.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited January 2020 Posts: 10,586
    Ryan wrote: »
    I think leaving Silva out of it and just carrying on from QOS would have been fine. Silva just feels kind of shoehorned in there. Unnecessary retcon, in my opinion, but it doesn't ruin SPECTRE for me.

    And I get why it was done, not purely for the sake of making all of Craig's films tie together, but that it partially makes Blofeld responsible for M's death for giving Silva the means to go after her. If I would have made it neater, I'd acknowledge that Silva was more of a gun for hire than a full fledged member of SPECTRE. Blofeld saw that Silva had a huge grudge against the head of MI6, and decided he could be useful in his wanting to kill M.
    It doesn't have to be as black and white as "Silva was a SPECTRE agent", due to the fact that it isn't even explained beyond a mention of his name. What you're saying could very well make sense.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    jake24 wrote: »
    Ryan wrote: »
    I think leaving Silva out of it and just carrying on from QOS would have been fine. Silva just feels kind of shoehorned in there. Unnecessary retcon, in my opinion, but it doesn't ruin SPECTRE for me.

    And I get why it was done, not purely for the sake of making all of Craig's films tie together, but that it partially makes Blofeld responsible for M's death for giving Silva the means to go after her. If I would have made it neater, I'd acknowledge that Silva was more of a gun for hire than a full fledged member of SPECTRE. Blofeld saw that Silva had a huge grudge against the head of MI6, and decided he could be useful in his wanting to kill M.
    It doesn't have to be as black and white as "Silva was a SPECTRE agent", due to the fact that it isn't even explained beyond a mention of his name. What you're saying could very well make sense.

    The very nature of Silva's character and his operation always had me convinced of what @MakeshiftPython said above, that's for sure. It makes sense in my head that SPECTRE simply set Silva on the right path, rather than him operating on their instruction. Mutual interests and all that. Though I agree, it's probably an unneccessary addition.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2020 Posts: 14,861
    RC7 wrote: »
    He’ll be back.

    Maybe, fingers crossed. Alternatively he is a very busy actor and I wonder if doing a Bond film knocks you out of circulation for a while for not very much in the way of (and perhaps quite repetitive) work- do you have to be available for reshoots/ADR etc? I don't know. There could be reasons why he may not want to do more.
    I''d be more than happy to see him back though: he made the 'young nerdy Q' idea play much better and less cliched than it reads on the page.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    It wouldn't surprise me too much if Whishaw leaves for good. Unlike Desmond Llewellyn, Ben is actually an actor with a very active career and in higher demand. I don't think he ever took the role of Q with the idea that he may play it all the way until his death. With Craig departing for good, Whishaw probably feels it's time for him to move on as well.

    Contrast that with Naomie Harris, who's actually interested in sticking around for awhile, citing Judi Dench as inspiration.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,890
    Please no. I love what this cast has done, but if the next Bond is a new incarnation and not a continuation of the Craig universe, an entirely new supporting cast is called for.
    Give the next fella a clean slate.
Sign In or Register to comment.