No Time to Die production thread (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)

17727737757777781214

Comments

  • Posts: 564
    mtm wrote: »

    Funny how rarely we see Moneypenny in M's office. Off the top of my head I can think of From Russia With Love and GoldenEye and that's about it... any more?

    That's a very good point, @mtm And as I think about it, Moneypenny isn't even in M's office in GoldenEye - she's there in the "situation room" with the wall screens, but it's only Bond that we see in M's office (where she delivers the famous "sexist, misogynist dinosaur" quote). So I think we might be down to one scene in the whole series?
  • Posts: 4,346
    This interesting article written by Hollywood insiders suggests that MGM's fate hinges on getting the NTTD release right:
    https://theankler.com/p/the-nouvelle-plague

    I think we are in a very interesting time with this virus. It looks as though social distancing will be the norm and we will have to live with the virus once the reproduction level decreases. Does this mean theatres will only have 40% capacity? That means NTTD's box office will be severely dented.

    What will MGM decide? Piracy has been rampant during self-isolation. So a home release seems futile as it wouldn't cover costs. I think if there was ever a time for a streamer to acquire MGM it's now. We know that Apple and Netflix were talking to MGM prior to the pandemic:

  • Posts: 5,655
    Wow, Scooby gang, Q on the field with a portable Q-lab with Q-mugs for his Q-tea.

    :-B

    Sorry, not happy about this. Not one bit. But hey, there'll be plenty of other good stuff in the film, I suppose. I just think Moore's Bond isn't compatible with Craig's Bond. But if they want to make a mix-it-all last film, what can ya do, right?
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 280
    Why they can't just keep the MI6 regulars behind the desks instead of turning them into the Super-Friends, I'll never know.
  • Posts: 3,133
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Why they can't just keep the MI6 regulars behind the desks instead of turning them into the Super-Friends, I'll never know.

    Simple, the likes of Fiennes and Whishaw and Harris wouldn't sign on in the first place if they were just stuck behind desks for 5 mins (unless the payday for those 5 mins is really really really good)
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 3,845
    antovolk wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Why they can't just keep the MI6 regulars behind the desks instead of turning them into the Super-Friends, I'll never know.

    Simple, the likes of Fiennes and Whishaw and Harris wouldn't sign on in the first place if they were just stuck behind desks for 5 mins (unless the payday for those 5 mins is really really really good)

    True, makes me wonder why Grace Jones really left NTTD....maybe the pay wasn't that huge for the Cameo, even if she wanted more screentime.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,397
    mtm wrote: »

    Funny how rarely we see Moneypenny in M's office. Off the top of my head I can think of From Russia With Love and GoldenEye and that's about it... any more?

    That's a very good point, @mtm And as I think about it, Moneypenny isn't even in M's office in GoldenEye - she's there in the "situation room" with the wall screens, but it's only Bond that we see in M's office (where she delivers the famous "sexist, misogynist dinosaur" quote). So I think we might be down to one scene in the whole series?

    I'm pretty sure Bond finds Moneypenny in M's office in GoldenEye and they walk to the situation room from there, don't they?

    We see her going in Golden Gun (and maybe other ones) but I can't think of any other times we see her in there.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    Dench was a bigger star than all of them, yet she spent most of her films in a comparatively minor role.
  • Posts: 5,655
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Dench was a bigger star than all of them, yet she spent most of her films in a comparatively minor role.

    True. For most of the time, at least.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited April 2020 Posts: 3,845
    I think it was inevitable....once the Characters were Absent in CR & QoS, EON felt the need to give them more screentime, considering their absence. But I think why we notice their presence as being too much is, their presence doesn't add to much to the peril on Screen. Maybe if Moneypenny or Q had to visit a Huge Museum or a Tech-Building to receive something for Mi6, but unknown to them, an impostor is waiting for them....then Bond has to race against time to save them. Or maybe M has a Car chase for once & escapes nefarious agents on his way from an official meeting.

    The reason M, Q & Moneypenny worked from Connery-Brosnan was since they weren't adding much to the Plot, we only see them in the films' beginning....and the Bond is left alone & we have to worry for him, even if we know he always wins.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    Even in Spectre, I liked Q going out in the field ala LTK. It was the London finale where the overuse of the regulars was a real problem.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 3,845
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Even in Spectre, I liked Q going out in the field ala LTK. It was the London finale where the overuse of the regulars was a real problem.

    Yeah, I think that's because it wasn't done properly. I don't want any of them in the field, but if they must appear....the director should do it with a touch of class. Let's compare that to the tense finale in Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. It wasn't as action-packed as SP's finale....but that scene was gripping & concluded with the Glitzy Capture of Solomon Lane. Another Good Example, is how Joel Schumacher handled Commissioner Gordon & how Christopher Nolan Handled him....and Nolan's take was obviously Better.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,397
    I don't have a problem with supporting characters in Bond films at all.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,470
    I don't have a problem with it either, as long as it's done well, and it very simply wasn't done well in SP for me.

    Personally, though, if a story featured supporting characters of the MI6 kind that were prominent, I'd rather they were 00's. Someone like Tanner doesn't exactly spike my interest level.

    In that sense, I'm excited to see what Nomi brings to the table.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited April 2020 Posts: 3,845
    Yeah, I trust Cary to use them properly. Nomi isn't M, Q or Moneypenny.....which is extra-exciting, coz we don't really know what to expect from her, even if we've seen multiple trailers.
    But I won't be surprised if the films of the 7th Bond doesn't have them featuring prominently...might be a return to how they were utilized in Bond's Golden Era.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,397
    I don't have a problem with it either, as long as it's done well, and it very simply wasn't done well in SP for me.

    Personally, though, if a story featured supporting characters of the MI6 kind that were prominent, I'd rather they were 00's. Someone like Tanner doesn't exactly spike my interest level.

    I don't see any problem with M having a similarly-placed enemy in the Government though. That makes sense to me. I get the feeling if Bernard Lee had gone toe-to-toe with some MI6 mole in the 70s everyone would be raving about it. It was hardly about Tanner, and I think I could say that several Bond supporting characters haven't caught my attention hugely either, but I'm not complaining about them. They do their job.
    I'm yet to see anyone describe why it was so bad.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,397
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Yeah, I trust Cary to use them properly.

    Can I ask why? What is it about him that inspires such confidence?
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 280
    To be honest, I feel like I'm either going to really love or really hate NTTD. It'd be nice to get some sort of plot leak in this long Quarantine period.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 6,470
    mtm wrote: »

    I don't see any problem with M having a similarly-placed enemy in the Government though. That makes sense to me. I get the feeling if Bernard Lee had gone toe-to-toe with some MI6 mole in the 70s everyone would be raving about it.

    Yes, it sounds good on paper. And I thought it could be something that a Bond film could do well in the future. Had Bernard Lee's M gone up against a similar antagonist and had it had been done well, the raving would be deserved. As would the raving about it had it been done well in SP.
    mtm wrote: »
    It was hardly about Tanner, and I think I could say that several Bond supporting characters haven't caught my attention hugely either, but I'm not complaining about them. They do their job.
    I'm yet to see anyone describe why it was so bad.

    No, it wasn't about Tanner. It wasn't about Moneypenny either. But they contribute little to nothing to this film in particular and certainly don't contribute anything to the finale in London. They're just kind of.....there. It was a shame for Harris especially as she had such a solid start in the previous film. Kinnear I'm admittedly biased against, as I've never really liked him in the part despite him being a decent actor.

    That being said, I still don't find it particularly awful, but it was certainly symptomatic of the half-baked writing/excess problems of SP that these characters were featured in this sequence despite the fact that they don't really do anything, save for Q and M. It's certainly not as offensive a creative choice as some of the other ones made in the film, but it's not one that could be described as being good either.

    Perhaps the criticism of the so-called "Scooby-Gang" is a bit overblown, but I can't disagree with it too strongly either. It probably seems more prominent than any other criticisms of supporting characters because Spectre is still the most recent film, and thus still the easiest target.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited April 2020 Posts: 3,845
    mtm wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Yeah, I trust Cary to use them properly.

    Can I ask why? What is it about him that inspires such confidence?

    Yeah, I think Coz he's the first Bond Writer-Director. And he must have watched SP deeply, to figure out what wasn't right. Plus, we've never had Two Badly-Reviewed Bond films in Tandem....especially if Bond has been off-screen for half-a-decade.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,397
    mtm wrote: »

    I don't see any problem with M having a similarly-placed enemy in the Government though. That makes sense to me. I get the feeling if Bernard Lee had gone toe-to-toe with some MI6 mole in the 70s everyone would be raving about it.

    Yes, it sounds good on paper. And I thought it could be something that a Bond film could do well in the future. Had Bernard Lee's M gone up against a similar antagonist and had it had been done well, the raving would be deserved. As would the raving about it had it been done well in SP.

    I'm just not seeing what's done so badly about it..?
    mtm wrote: »
    It was hardly about Tanner, and I think I could say that several Bond supporting characters haven't caught my attention hugely either, but I'm not complaining about them. They do their job.
    I'm yet to see anyone describe why it was so bad.

    No, it wasn't about Tanner. It wasn't about Moneypenny either. But they contribute little to nothing to this film in particular and certainly don't contribute anything to the finale in London. They're just kind of.....there. It was a shame for Harris especially as she had such a solid start in the previous film. Kinnear I'm admittedly biased against, as I've never really liked him in the part despite him being a decent actor.

    That being said, I still don't find it particularly awful, but it was certainly symptomatic of the half-baked writing/excess problems of SP that these characters were featured in this sequence despite the fact that they don't really do anything, save for Q and M.

    So the issue is that M and Q didn't go on their own? Why would they if Tanner and 'Penny were around? It seems odd to make complaints about the 'Scooby Gang' (ho-ho) being present and then to complain that the gang members didn't get enough to do.
    I totally agree that Moneypenny could have easily handled more plot, she's great, but that's not really a reason for not having her in it; that's a complaint that she wasn't in it enough.
    I'm just not understanding the nature of the objection.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,470
    I'm only hypothesising some of the other arguments that have been made about it. My own are that it's fine - not awful, not great either. I could do with less of them as I don't find them particularly interesting to watch, hence why I described it as inoffensive but not exactly good. If you feel different, that's cool.

    As I said, it's a criticism that's a bit overblown, but I also get it at the same time. They are featured more prominently than previous supporting characters were.

    I disagree that it's a complaint that she wasn't in it enough. She has plenty of screentime in SP for the type of character that she is, more screentime wouldn't have solved the issues for people, considering it would have likely just been more of the same under the circumstances. The stuff she did have just needed to be better written, as did the film as a whole.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,166
    Rory Kinnear picks another 'Penny Dreadful' and Bond. James Bond
    https://siouxcityjournal.com/entertainment/television/rory-kinnear-picks-another-penny-dreadful-and-bond-james-bond/article_7f4b6a92-5e1a-53a4-9fa5-5f462c490776.html

    Had the world not been thrust in the midst of a coronavirus pandemic, the 44-year-old might have been spending this month promoting “No Time To Die,” the latest James Bond film. Slated for April release, it was pushed to the fall when audiences are expected to be back in theaters.

    For Kinnear, an Olivier Award-winning stage actor, “No Time To Die” is his fourth Bond film. He plays Bill Tanner, the MI6 chief of staff.

    “Everyone is super-excited to see it,” he says. “The fact that there was so much flux around it before we went in to shoot it just added to that. It was amazing to see how calm and organized the whole process was.”

    Oscar winner Danny Boyle was scheduled to write and direct but left due to creative differences. He was replaced by Cary Joji Fukunaga.

    “If Danny had been the director, it would have been taken in a whole new direction,” Kinnear says. “I never got to see that version of the script. I don’t know if it would have been about the MI6 gang, so I feel always very lucky you get the call saying, ‘We’re having you back.’”

    Star Daniel Craig is perfect for the franchise, he says. “He proves very useful to the writers in terms of supporting the plot without having to necessarily show everything.”

    While Craig says this is his last Bond, Kinnear doesn’t think he’s bluffing. “I don’t see him coming back again. Also, he’s 51.”

    Could the veteran character actor get the part? “There’s always space at the top table,” he says with a smile. “(Craig) got in trouble for being blond. Imagine a bald actor being cast. I think the world would stop.”
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,397
    I'm only hypothesising some of the other arguments that have been made about it. My own are that it's fine - not awful, not great either. I could do with less of them as I don't find them particularly interesting to watch, hence why I described it as inoffensive but not exactly good. If you feel different, that's cool.

    As I said, it's a criticism that's a bit overblown, but I also get it at the same time. They are featured more prominently than previous supporting characters were.

    I disagree that it's a complaint that she wasn't in it enough. She has plenty of screentime in SP for the type of character that she is, more screentime wouldn't have solved the issues for people, considering it would have likely just been more of the same under the circumstances. The stuff she did have just needed to be better written, as did the film as a whole.

    I don't think Spectre was superb either and I get that she should have had better stuff to do, but again, that's not really the same as this 'Scooby Gang' complaint people have been trotting out. I thought M got some good material. The ending was good for him and I liked the restaurant scene. Q was handled pretty well too I'd say.

    Bear in mind this whole conversation has sprung up just because people reacted to a photograph of the MI6 team standing... in MI6. It's one of these automatic responses like 'I don't like Bond having any sort of personal involvement in the mission' which I'm not sure people are even thinking about any more because then they say how great it was when Bond's wife died in OHMSS or when Q went on the mission in LTK.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,470
    Well, people will always rightly or wrongly simply view characters like Moneypenny as a secretary. So I guess it's just a complaint that will always pop up. Many folk alway criticised Dench's M for being too involved, too. It's just going to be one of those things.

    And yeah, I liked Q and I liked Fiennes take on M as well so I've no problems there. I certainly think it's funny that it's a complaint that is rolled out when Spectre has far bigger problems than that.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,282
    Contraband wrote: »
    Speaking of Corona. Interview with Jeffrey Wright on CNN right now, he's raising money and helping people with food, etc, in New York. Interview might be available in a few hours or so.

    And D Craig is helping out


    Yes, saw this other day. Thank you for putting it in the thread!
  • Posts: 1,196
    Since we seem to the talking cast and characters I want to see...................May.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,066
    delfloria wrote: »
    Since we seem to the talking cast and characters I want to see...................May.

    Me as well. She would be a good way to difference Bond 7 from the others. Forever and a day, adaptation, perhaps?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 4,412
    It would be great to see May. And it would be great to see Bond living in a normal apartment again, a la LALD.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,397
    Bond lives in the 21st century though, who has a live-in maid? Apart from very rich people? I tend to think it would actually make him look incapable of looking after himself.
Sign In or Register to comment.