No Time to Die production thread (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)

13753763783803811032

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 6,034
    Denbigh wrote: »

    She’s quite reliable with this stuff. Known for having good sources.

    Fingers crossed!

    We'd be thinking teaser presumably? So about a minute long?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited September 2019 Posts: 2,565
    Denbigh wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Calling people idiots should have you banned.

    Calling people idiots after believing the grave Bond visits in Matera would've been Mrs. 6 minutes of screen-time Lucia's from SP puts a smile on my face.
    Denbigh wrote: »

    She’s quite reliable with this stuff.

    Hopefully her "source" is not this forum. XD
    Haha definitely not @matt_u

    She has good sources within the industry.

    Good! :D

    Just checked and both BoP and the Michael Bay trailers are now officially planned for tomorrow.
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »

    She’s quite reliable with this stuff. Known for having good sources.

    Fingers crossed!

    We'd be thinking teaser presumably? So about a minute long?

    I'd say 1:30.
  • Posts: 10,274
    Pretty exciting to likely have the first trailer this week! It’s been a long wait, so hopefully we get something special.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 2,565
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Pretty exciting to likely have the first trailer this week! It’s been a long wait, so hopefully we get something special.

    Frankly, in some moments has been quite an exhausting wait... :)
  • It was worth reading through five pages of angry bickering for the knowledge that we might have a new trailer this week. Bring it on!
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 94
    Saturday? I wonder... :-?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,374
    @CASINOROYALE Nothing is confirmed until EON provides us with definitive proof. Stop belittling members just because they aren't as quick to buy into things as you are, regardless of how likely or unlikely something is to be confirmed. This isn't the first time you have exhibited this kind of behavior.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 4,054
    My consistent following of Grace Randolph has finally paid off in some way! Looks like Denbigh was good for something ;)
  • So I’ve heard chattering from Dneg about rotoscoping work to remove stunt wires and an under vehicle cannon. I just hope that if it’s for the teaser they don’t give away too much. I’m really loving just how much they’ve been able to keep under wraps this time around. Spectre for me suffered from way too much narrative being spoilt by the trailers. I think we’re close guys. And in other related chat - why is everyone being so aggressively argumentative with each other - calm down and take up yoga! https://youtu.be/kAM-YW-6vdU
  • TuxedoTuxedo Europe
    edited September 2019 Posts: 214
    Sorry if this has already been posted. German N-TV says the German title will be „Keine Zeit zu sterben“ which is just the translation of NTTD. They quote Universal Pictures Germany‘s Facebook.
  • Posts: 1,263
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @mtm nothing is confirmed, flashback or not. If the trailers don't give it away, we'll have to wait till the film, or maybe someone will let something slip during a press junket, maybe Lea herself?

    Exactly: it is most certainly not "110% Malek and young Swann in the opening and it’s definitely confirmed."

    I feel like the idea of it being flashback came from when folks saw the photos of filming initially and then everything since has been adjusted to fit with that in a sort of confirmation bias. It seems less likely that he cannot age than it not being a flashback, no? Both are possible, but one is more likely than the other.

    I think the Norway scenes are simply just set 20 or so years in the past, the late '90's, just like the GE pre-title was 9 years before events in the rest of the film. Therefore Norway is not a flashback, just set earlier. And, because this is set in the past, that's why Norway starts the film, and then we catch up with post SP with Bond and Madeleine in Matera. Whether or not ALL of this is pre-title is yet to be revealed. If it is, it means we have a long, 20 min + pre-title (and we've heard rumours that the pre-title will be long.) After the titles, we are in the present where we find Bond living alone in Jamaica. To me, that makes logical and dramatic sense. The 2 pre-title sequences are both set in the past, one 20 + years ago, the second one 4-5 years back, and then after the titles, we are up to the present. Nice and clean.



    Yeah don't get me wrong I don't think all the pre titles need a big action scene (OP should have opened with the clown chase), but I think since there's going to be a timeskip between Matera and Jamaica, it makes sense to use the titles as a break. Open in Norway, then go to Matera, then titles. Sounds good to me.

    Scary thought: what if they use the gunbarrel as a break between Norway and Matera? So cold open in Norway, gunbarrel, Matera, titles, Jamaica. Obviously the GB should be at the start but I wouldn't put anything past them at this point, I can definitely see someone at EON thinking that'd be a good idea.

    I honestly believe Cary will take the straightest path (I know I would in his shoes, if I was ever so lucky), so GB, Norway, Matera (both set in the past), Titles, Jamaica in the here and now. Just good clean storytelling - no gimmicks that may confuse the storytelling for no good reason.

    I always love how the novel of OHMSS is full of flashbacks and all sorts of playing around with time as Fleming liked to do (especially at the opening of his novels) but the film dispenses with all that, but keeps the scenes in the same order! :) Much less fuss and it still works.

    It's much easier to play with time that way in a novel than it is in a film. Of course many films do use complex flashbacks and structure for dramatic purpose, but the Bond films have always unfolded with linear structures. I don't see Cary messing with that.

    I don't know what he'll do; I can't pretend to know his mind, but the OHMSS thing amuses me because the film shows that none of that flashiness was necessary! :)

    I've read the novel and Fleming's structure is great, but, as I say, the films have been linear, so I stand by my theory and firm belief Cary will follow clean and clear storytelling, following the linear structure of the past films, so GB, Norway, Matera (both set in different periods of the - fairly - recent past, then the Titles, and then Jamaica in the present. An ordered timeline which the audience can easily follow.

    Do you know the director personally?
    I'm sure it probably will be linear: I'm not actually claiming it won't be! :)

    No, but I have friends working with him right now who have highly rated his clarity and sure footed approach, and of course his previous productions speak for themselves in terms of his sharp, no-nonsense storytelling, even with True Detective, which did play with time, or Maniac which played with reality, there was still absolute clarity. And, for me, the clear way to tell the story is just how I've outlined in earlier posts.

    Sure, but without knowing what the story is we can't really know the best way to tell it! :)

    I'm saying this, we know Norway is at the start, we know Matera is next, and it is highly likely these two sequences are set in the past (Norway earlier, Matera just after SP) and Jamaica is, as we also know, set in the present, and so what I am saying, very clearly, is the sequences/scenes follow a linear structure, because we already know that is the case in terms of the clapperboards and scenes numbers we have seen. So, without even having to know the story, it's not too difficult to figure out the direction this is going in. I'm sure u agree.

    Well, no; we don't know. We just know they follow each other in the film.

    That's linear storytelling. And you have just agreed, "We just know they follow each other in the film." That is linear, even if Norway is not in the past (but I bet it is or else why the young Madeleine?), and Matera directly follows on with the DB5 as seen at the end of SP with Bond and Madeleine together, and then we jump to Jamaica and Bond alone, which we know is the present. Join the dots, my friend. It's not rocket science.

    Eh? I was saying 'no, we don't know for sure if those scenes are set in the past'; I'm not claiming they're out of order. I made an observation about OHMSS: I wasn't saying that had any relevance to this film at all. You seem to be determined to argue about this when I don't see there's anything to argue about: I agree that those scenes follow each other in roughly that order - I just said that.

    As to whether they're set years previously or not we don't know. There is no concrete proof that there is a young Madeleine, and with what appears to be a young blonde girl seen on set with Seydoux and Lynch, and Malek present in this 'flashback', it doesn't look certain at all. Please don't try to patronise me with 'rocket science'.

    I'm going to say the opening on the ice is a dream sequence. Look at how M.I Fallout opened. Prove me wrong :)

    A casting call for a young Madeleine. A girl is cast who, guess what, fits that casting description. And u say it's a dream sequence? When have we ever had a dream sequence in a Bond film? Are u serious? I'm not bothering to try to talk intelligently with u any more. Dream sequence?? I've simply presented the facts as we have seen them and I've joined the dots, which I am saying will be straight forward and linear in terms of the NTTD timeline. Clear storytelling. Logic. U, however, are saying it's all dream sequence??? U, my friend, are dreaming.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2019 Posts: 6,034
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @mtm nothing is confirmed, flashback or not. If the trailers don't give it away, we'll have to wait till the film, or maybe someone will let something slip during a press junket, maybe Lea herself?

    Exactly: it is most certainly not "110% Malek and young Swann in the opening and it’s definitely confirmed."

    I feel like the idea of it being flashback came from when folks saw the photos of filming initially and then everything since has been adjusted to fit with that in a sort of confirmation bias. It seems less likely that he cannot age than it not being a flashback, no? Both are possible, but one is more likely than the other.

    I think the Norway scenes are simply just set 20 or so years in the past, the late '90's, just like the GE pre-title was 9 years before events in the rest of the film. Therefore Norway is not a flashback, just set earlier. And, because this is set in the past, that's why Norway starts the film, and then we catch up with post SP with Bond and Madeleine in Matera. Whether or not ALL of this is pre-title is yet to be revealed. If it is, it means we have a long, 20 min + pre-title (and we've heard rumours that the pre-title will be long.) After the titles, we are in the present where we find Bond living alone in Jamaica. To me, that makes logical and dramatic sense. The 2 pre-title sequences are both set in the past, one 20 + years ago, the second one 4-5 years back, and then after the titles, we are up to the present. Nice and clean.



    Yeah don't get me wrong I don't think all the pre titles need a big action scene (OP should have opened with the clown chase), but I think since there's going to be a timeskip between Matera and Jamaica, it makes sense to use the titles as a break. Open in Norway, then go to Matera, then titles. Sounds good to me.

    Scary thought: what if they use the gunbarrel as a break between Norway and Matera? So cold open in Norway, gunbarrel, Matera, titles, Jamaica. Obviously the GB should be at the start but I wouldn't put anything past them at this point, I can definitely see someone at EON thinking that'd be a good idea.

    I honestly believe Cary will take the straightest path (I know I would in his shoes, if I was ever so lucky), so GB, Norway, Matera (both set in the past), Titles, Jamaica in the here and now. Just good clean storytelling - no gimmicks that may confuse the storytelling for no good reason.

    I always love how the novel of OHMSS is full of flashbacks and all sorts of playing around with time as Fleming liked to do (especially at the opening of his novels) but the film dispenses with all that, but keeps the scenes in the same order! :) Much less fuss and it still works.

    It's much easier to play with time that way in a novel than it is in a film. Of course many films do use complex flashbacks and structure for dramatic purpose, but the Bond films have always unfolded with linear structures. I don't see Cary messing with that.

    I don't know what he'll do; I can't pretend to know his mind, but the OHMSS thing amuses me because the film shows that none of that flashiness was necessary! :)

    I've read the novel and Fleming's structure is great, but, as I say, the films have been linear, so I stand by my theory and firm belief Cary will follow clean and clear storytelling, following the linear structure of the past films, so GB, Norway, Matera (both set in different periods of the - fairly - recent past, then the Titles, and then Jamaica in the present. An ordered timeline which the audience can easily follow.

    Do you know the director personally?
    I'm sure it probably will be linear: I'm not actually claiming it won't be! :)

    No, but I have friends working with him right now who have highly rated his clarity and sure footed approach, and of course his previous productions speak for themselves in terms of his sharp, no-nonsense storytelling, even with True Detective, which did play with time, or Maniac which played with reality, there was still absolute clarity. And, for me, the clear way to tell the story is just how I've outlined in earlier posts.

    Sure, but without knowing what the story is we can't really know the best way to tell it! :)

    I'm saying this, we know Norway is at the start, we know Matera is next, and it is highly likely these two sequences are set in the past (Norway earlier, Matera just after SP) and Jamaica is, as we also know, set in the present, and so what I am saying, very clearly, is the sequences/scenes follow a linear structure, because we already know that is the case in terms of the clapperboards and scenes numbers we have seen. So, without even having to know the story, it's not too difficult to figure out the direction this is going in. I'm sure u agree.

    Well, no; we don't know. We just know they follow each other in the film.

    That's linear storytelling. And you have just agreed, "We just know they follow each other in the film." That is linear, even if Norway is not in the past (but I bet it is or else why the young Madeleine?), and Matera directly follows on with the DB5 as seen at the end of SP with Bond and Madeleine together, and then we jump to Jamaica and Bond alone, which we know is the present. Join the dots, my friend. It's not rocket science.

    Eh? I was saying 'no, we don't know for sure if those scenes are set in the past'; I'm not claiming they're out of order. I made an observation about OHMSS: I wasn't saying that had any relevance to this film at all. You seem to be determined to argue about this when I don't see there's anything to argue about: I agree that those scenes follow each other in roughly that order - I just said that.

    As to whether they're set years previously or not we don't know. There is no concrete proof that there is a young Madeleine, and with what appears to be a young blonde girl seen on set with Seydoux and Lynch, and Malek present in this 'flashback', it doesn't look certain at all. Please don't try to patronise me with 'rocket science'.

    I'm going to say the opening on the ice is a dream sequence. Look at how M.I Fallout opened. Prove me wrong :)

    A casting call for a young Madeleine.

    No there wasn't. There was a casting call for a girl as a young Seydoux, we don't know for which film.
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    A girl is cast who, guess what, fits that casting description. And u say it's a dream sequence? When have we ever had a dream sequence in a Bond film? Are u serious?

    When have we ever had a sequence with one of the leads as a child? Either way something which has never happened before would be happening: why is one more ridiculous than the other?
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I'm not bothering to try to talk intelligently with u any more. Dream sequence?? I've simply presented the facts as we have seen them and I've joined the dots, which I am saying will be straight forward and linear in terms of the NTTD timeline. Clear storytelling. Logic. U, however, are saying it's all dream sequence??? U, my friend, are dreaming.

    Join the dots: it's not rocket science. You say it's a young Madeleine, but we have Malek's character as he looks now apparently so a scene set twenty years ago doesn't seem to make sense. Nor the girl apparently being present when Seydoux is. Why did you leave those dots out? Why not join the dots so that it's a dream sequence?

    You see, I'm just pointing out how your interpretation isn't necessarily the only one, and indeed how your clear storytelling isn't as clear as it seems.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited September 2019 Posts: 4,055
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @mtm nothing is confirmed, flashback or not. If the trailers don't give it away, we'll have to wait till the film, or maybe someone will let something slip during a press junket, maybe Lea herself?

    Exactly: it is most certainly not "110% Malek and young Swann in the opening and it’s definitely confirmed."

    I feel like the idea of it being flashback came from when folks saw the photos of filming initially and then everything since has been adjusted to fit with that in a sort of confirmation bias. It seems less likely that he cannot age than it not being a flashback, no? Both are possible, but one is more likely than the other.

    I think the Norway scenes are simply just set 20 or so years in the past, the late '90's, just like the GE pre-title was 9 years before events in the rest of the film. Therefore Norway is not a flashback, just set earlier. And, because this is set in the past, that's why Norway starts the film, and then we catch up with post SP with Bond and Madeleine in Matera. Whether or not ALL of this is pre-title is yet to be revealed. If it is, it means we have a long, 20 min + pre-title (and we've heard rumours that the pre-title will be long.) After the titles, we are in the present where we find Bond living alone in Jamaica. To me, that makes logical and dramatic sense. The 2 pre-title sequences are both set in the past, one 20 + years ago, the second one 4-5 years back, and then after the titles, we are up to the present. Nice and clean.



    Yeah don't get me wrong I don't think all the pre titles need a big action scene (OP should have opened with the clown chase), but I think since there's going to be a timeskip between Matera and Jamaica, it makes sense to use the titles as a break. Open in Norway, then go to Matera, then titles. Sounds good to me.

    Scary thought: what if they use the gunbarrel as a break between Norway and Matera? So cold open in Norway, gunbarrel, Matera, titles, Jamaica. Obviously the GB should be at the start but I wouldn't put anything past them at this point, I can definitely see someone at EON thinking that'd be a good idea.

    I honestly believe Cary will take the straightest path (I know I would in his shoes, if I was ever so lucky), so GB, Norway, Matera (both set in the past), Titles, Jamaica in the here and now. Just good clean storytelling - no gimmicks that may confuse the storytelling for no good reason.

    I always love how the novel of OHMSS is full of flashbacks and all sorts of playing around with time as Fleming liked to do (especially at the opening of his novels) but the film dispenses with all that, but keeps the scenes in the same order! :) Much less fuss and it still works.

    It's much easier to play with time that way in a novel than it is in a film. Of course many films do use complex flashbacks and structure for dramatic purpose, but the Bond films have always unfolded with linear structures. I don't see Cary messing with that.

    I don't know what he'll do; I can't pretend to know his mind, but the OHMSS thing amuses me because the film shows that none of that flashiness was necessary! :)

    I've read the novel and Fleming's structure is great, but, as I say, the films have been linear, so I stand by my theory and firm belief Cary will follow clean and clear storytelling, following the linear structure of the past films, so GB, Norway, Matera (both set in different periods of the - fairly - recent past, then the Titles, and then Jamaica in the present. An ordered timeline which the audience can easily follow.

    Do you know the director personally?
    I'm sure it probably will be linear: I'm not actually claiming it won't be! :)

    No, but I have friends working with him right now who have highly rated his clarity and sure footed approach, and of course his previous productions speak for themselves in terms of his sharp, no-nonsense storytelling, even with True Detective, which did play with time, or Maniac which played with reality, there was still absolute clarity. And, for me, the clear way to tell the story is just how I've outlined in earlier posts.

    Sure, but without knowing what the story is we can't really know the best way to tell it! :)

    I'm saying this, we know Norway is at the start, we know Matera is next, and it is highly likely these two sequences are set in the past (Norway earlier, Matera just after SP) and Jamaica is, as we also know, set in the present, and so what I am saying, very clearly, is the sequences/scenes follow a linear structure, because we already know that is the case in terms of the clapperboards and scenes numbers we have seen. So, without even having to know the story, it's not too difficult to figure out the direction this is going in. I'm sure u agree.

    Well, no; we don't know. We just know they follow each other in the film.

    That's linear storytelling. And you have just agreed, "We just know they follow each other in the film." That is linear, even if Norway is not in the past (but I bet it is or else why the young Madeleine?), and Matera directly follows on with the DB5 as seen at the end of SP with Bond and Madeleine together, and then we jump to Jamaica and Bond alone, which we know is the present. Join the dots, my friend. It's not rocket science.

    Eh? I was saying 'no, we don't know for sure if those scenes are set in the past'; I'm not claiming they're out of order. I made an observation about OHMSS: I wasn't saying that had any relevance to this film at all. You seem to be determined to argue about this when I don't see there's anything to argue about: I agree that those scenes follow each other in roughly that order - I just said that.

    As to whether they're set years previously or not we don't know. There is no concrete proof that there is a young Madeleine, and with what appears to be a young blonde girl seen on set with Seydoux and Lynch, and Malek present in this 'flashback', it doesn't look certain at all. Please don't try to patronise me with 'rocket science'.

    I'm going to say the opening on the ice is a dream sequence. Look at how M.I Fallout opened. Prove me wrong :)

    A casting call for a young Madeleine. A girl is cast who, guess what, fits that casting description. And u say it's a dream sequence? When have we ever had a dream sequence in a Bond film? Are u serious? I'm not bothering to try to talk intelligently with u any more. Dream sequence?? I've simply presented the facts as we have seen them and I've joined the dots, which I am saying will be straight forward and linear in terms of the NTTD timeline. Clear storytelling. Logic. U, however, are saying it's all dream sequence??? U, my friend, are dreaming.

    I think you might be misinterpreting what he meant by "dream sequence." It could very well be a "memory/dream" that Madeliene has, and then she suddenly wakes from it, in bed, with Bond next to her. This sort of scene happens all the time, think of how La Bamba starts. What doesn't seem to fit is going into Madeleine's head, to start the film. This would be an odd choice.

    But it might not even be a dream sequence: it could be staged as Bond's "vision" of what occurred, especially if he is reading it in a report or journal of some sort. Remember the scene from TGWTDT: As Mikael is reading the police rport and highlights its findings, we go back to images of what occurred.

    But the problem is, the scene on the frozen lake is (from everything we have seen), the PTS.

    In order for that scene to work as a flashback or as Bond's "vision" of what occurred, it has to be set up. There is nothing I have seen so far that suggests there is much that occurs before that Norway scene.

    So it only works if after the gun barrel, we are at the house, with "1997" or something, right there on the screen. It could be a flashback, but not necessarily from Madeleine's point of view.

    Bottom line is, we know very little, and this is all just guesswork. This is suppsed to be fun. I am not sure why it causes friction and hurt feelings.

    The LaBamba dream sequence, awakening:


  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 6,034
    TripAces wrote: »
    Bottom line is, we know very little, and this is all just guesswork. This is suppsed to be fun. I am not sure why it causes friction and hurt feelings.

    Exactly: everyone is guessing based on a small number of facts and some half-known facts. There's nothing concrete here so I'm happy to be unsure about it.
  • Posts: 3,266
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @mtm nothing is confirmed, flashback or not. If the trailers don't give it away, we'll have to wait till the film, or maybe someone will let something slip during a press junket, maybe Lea herself?

    Exactly: it is most certainly not "110% Malek and young Swann in the opening and it’s definitely confirmed."

    I feel like the idea of it being flashback came from when folks saw the photos of filming initially and then everything since has been adjusted to fit with that in a sort of confirmation bias. It seems less likely that he cannot age than it not being a flashback, no? Both are possible, but one is more likely than the other.

    I think the Norway scenes are simply just set 20 or so years in the past, the late '90's, just like the GE pre-title was 9 years before events in the rest of the film. Therefore Norway is not a flashback, just set earlier. And, because this is set in the past, that's why Norway starts the film, and then we catch up with post SP with Bond and Madeleine in Matera. Whether or not ALL of this is pre-title is yet to be revealed. If it is, it means we have a long, 20 min + pre-title (and we've heard rumours that the pre-title will be long.) After the titles, we are in the present where we find Bond living alone in Jamaica. To me, that makes logical and dramatic sense. The 2 pre-title sequences are both set in the past, one 20 + years ago, the second one 4-5 years back, and then after the titles, we are up to the present. Nice and clean.



    Yeah don't get me wrong I don't think all the pre titles need a big action scene (OP should have opened with the clown chase), but I think since there's going to be a timeskip between Matera and Jamaica, it makes sense to use the titles as a break. Open in Norway, then go to Matera, then titles. Sounds good to me.

    Scary thought: what if they use the gunbarrel as a break between Norway and Matera? So cold open in Norway, gunbarrel, Matera, titles, Jamaica. Obviously the GB should be at the start but I wouldn't put anything past them at this point, I can definitely see someone at EON thinking that'd be a good idea.

    I honestly believe Cary will take the straightest path (I know I would in his shoes, if I was ever so lucky), so GB, Norway, Matera (both set in the past), Titles, Jamaica in the here and now. Just good clean storytelling - no gimmicks that may confuse the storytelling for no good reason.

    I always love how the novel of OHMSS is full of flashbacks and all sorts of playing around with time as Fleming liked to do (especially at the opening of his novels) but the film dispenses with all that, but keeps the scenes in the same order! :) Much less fuss and it still works.

    It's much easier to play with time that way in a novel than it is in a film. Of course many films do use complex flashbacks and structure for dramatic purpose, but the Bond films have always unfolded with linear structures. I don't see Cary messing with that.

    I don't know what he'll do; I can't pretend to know his mind, but the OHMSS thing amuses me because the film shows that none of that flashiness was necessary! :)

    I've read the novel and Fleming's structure is great, but, as I say, the films have been linear, so I stand by my theory and firm belief Cary will follow clean and clear storytelling, following the linear structure of the past films, so GB, Norway, Matera (both set in different periods of the - fairly - recent past, then the Titles, and then Jamaica in the present. An ordered timeline which the audience can easily follow.

    Do you know the director personally?
    I'm sure it probably will be linear: I'm not actually claiming it won't be! :)

    No, but I have friends working with him right now who have highly rated his clarity and sure footed approach, and of course his previous productions speak for themselves in terms of his sharp, no-nonsense storytelling, even with True Detective, which did play with time, or Maniac which played with reality, there was still absolute clarity. And, for me, the clear way to tell the story is just how I've outlined in earlier posts.

    Sure, but without knowing what the story is we can't really know the best way to tell it! :)

    I'm saying this, we know Norway is at the start, we know Matera is next, and it is highly likely these two sequences are set in the past (Norway earlier, Matera just after SP) and Jamaica is, as we also know, set in the present, and so what I am saying, very clearly, is the sequences/scenes follow a linear structure, because we already know that is the case in terms of the clapperboards and scenes numbers we have seen. So, without even having to know the story, it's not too difficult to figure out the direction this is going in. I'm sure u agree.

    Well, no; we don't know. We just know they follow each other in the film.

    That's linear storytelling. And you have just agreed, "We just know they follow each other in the film." That is linear, even if Norway is not in the past (but I bet it is or else why the young Madeleine?), and Matera directly follows on with the DB5 as seen at the end of SP with Bond and Madeleine together, and then we jump to Jamaica and Bond alone, which we know is the present. Join the dots, my friend. It's not rocket science.

    Eh? I was saying 'no, we don't know for sure if those scenes are set in the past'; I'm not claiming they're out of order. I made an observation about OHMSS: I wasn't saying that had any relevance to this film at all. You seem to be determined to argue about this when I don't see there's anything to argue about: I agree that those scenes follow each other in roughly that order - I just said that.

    As to whether they're set years previously or not we don't know. There is no concrete proof that there is a young Madeleine, and with what appears to be a young blonde girl seen on set with Seydoux and Lynch, and Malek present in this 'flashback', it doesn't look certain at all. Please don't try to patronise me with 'rocket science'.

    I'm going to say the opening on the ice is a dream sequence. Look at how M.I Fallout opened. Prove me wrong :)

    A casting call for a young Madeleine.

    No there wasn't. There was a casting call for a girl as a young Seydoux, we don't know for which film.
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    A girl is cast who, guess what, fits that casting description. And u say it's a dream sequence? When have we ever had a dream sequence in a Bond film? Are u serious?

    When have we ever had a sequence with one of the leads as a child? Either way something which has never happened before would be happening: why is one more ridiculous than the other?
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I'm not bothering to try to talk intelligently with u any more. Dream sequence?? I've simply presented the facts as we have seen them and I've joined the dots, which I am saying will be straight forward and linear in terms of the NTTD timeline. Clear storytelling. Logic. U, however, are saying it's all dream sequence??? U, my friend, are dreaming.

    Join the dots: it's not rocket science. You say it's a young Madeleine, but we have Malek's character as he looks now apparently so a scene set twenty years ago doesn't seem to make sense. Nor the girl apparently being present when Seydoux is. Why did you leave those dots out? Why not join the dots so that it's a dream sequence?

    You see, I'm just pointing out how your interpretation isn't necessarily the only one, and indeed how your clear storytelling isn't as clear as it seems.

    I had a dream sequence in which Léa lay in my arms.
    ;)

    But indeed, we only have a basic premise and that's it. d
  • No surprise that posters who think they have this film figured out are being condescending to others.

    Anyway, hope it's true the trailer is coming this week so we can argue about something else! =))
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,647
    I feel like if it was, we would’ve had a poster by now. Unless they release the teaser & poster on the same day.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 5,200
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I feel like if it was, we would’ve had a poster by now. Unless they release the teaser & poster on the same day.

    Didn't they just do that to a great effect for The King's Man? And what a cool trailer/poster combo that was :)
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    Posts: 544
    Univex wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I feel like if it was, we would’ve had a poster by now. Unless they release the teaser & poster on the same day.

    Didn't they just do that to a great effect for The King's Man? And what a cool trailer/poster combo that was :)

    Poster should come some days earlier than the trailer. In fact, the poster post should say: "This is the NTTD teaser poster. The trailer will be ouy X day".
  • Posts: 2,869
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I feel like if it was, we would’ve had a poster by now. Unless they release the teaser & poster on the same day.

    Which they totally can. Or the day before.

    At this point with the amount of trailers that have been announced Bond still has the freedom to move the online launch to llke Saturday...totally wise decision. Theatrical though, as I said I'll be very surprised if it's not with Joker (plus don't forget Judy is out this week too in the UK and I'd imagine it will play huge here with the sort of core older audiences Bond has here) so they'll almost definitely want it on screens this weekend. All depends on how much the possibility of leaking bothers them... certainly didn't really seem to for the final SP trailer. That bootleg mostly stayed here and the other Bond forums. The fandom is far far less hyperactive than, say DC, or have the mega intense scrutiny from the general film community like Nolan.
  • Posts: 12,138
    Well I am off all week so bring it on baby!! Sadly I am decorating for most of it! Gotta take the rough with the smooth! :))
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 2,415
    Have you guys seen this one before? Inside 007-stage, and it's not from the explosion.

    MdEsrP6.jpg

  • Posts: 116
    Contraband wrote: »
    Have you guys seen this one before? Inside 007-stage, and it's not from the explosion.

    No. I haven't. Could be anything. Inside one of those temporary Cuba set structures or at one end of the 007 stage.
  • MalloryMallory Are you ready to get back to work?
    Posts: 1,095
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Well I am off all week so bring it on baby!! Sadly I am decorating for most of it! Gotta take the rough with the smooth! :))

    Same as me Rouge Agent, that and attending to the 007 collection as well.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 14,994
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Well I am off all week so bring it on baby!! Sadly I am decorating for most of it! Gotta take the rough with the smooth! :))

    Decorating with Norwich colours? :-D
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited September 2019 Posts: 4,054
    antovolk wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I feel like if it was, we would’ve had a poster by now. Unless they release the teaser & poster on the same day.

    Which they totally can. Or the day before.

    At this point with the amount of trailers that have been announced Bond still has the freedom to move the online launch to llke Saturday...totally wise decision. Theatrical though, as I said I'll be very surprised if it's not with Joker (plus don't forget Judy is out this week too in the UK and I'd imagine it will play huge here with the sort of core older audiences Bond has here) so they'll almost definitely want it on screens this weekend. All depends on how much the possibility of leaking bothers them... certainly didn't really seem to for the final SP trailer. That bootleg mostly stayed here and the other Bond forums. The fandom is far far less hyperactive than, say DC, or have the mega intense scrutiny from the general film community like Nolan.
    Another interesting info about cinema trailers from Grace Randolph. Again I know some people don't like her but she is kind of expert on these things as her job is to review these films and the trailers with a few connections dotted around.

    I'm quite the avid watcher of her stuff if you haven't guessed already and while I don't agree with her on everything, she has quite the unique approach to the typical film reviewers we expect. She not only reviews and reacts, but she breakdowns and also discusses the business and money behind the films that are out, which is highly commendable in my opinion :)

    Also, just to clarify she's replying to a tweet about Birds of Prey.... So if it is with Joker as some are saying, it would have to be tomorrow, which is probably very unlikely. The alternative is that the trailer is just released online first.


  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 5,649
    😳
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 2,869
    Denbigh wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I feel like if it was, we would’ve had a poster by now. Unless they release the teaser & poster on the same day.

    Which they totally can. Or the day before.

    At this point with the amount of trailers that have been announced Bond still has the freedom to move the online launch to llke Saturday...totally wise decision. Theatrical though, as I said I'll be very surprised if it's not with Joker (plus don't forget Judy is out this week too in the UK and I'd imagine it will play huge here with the sort of core older audiences Bond has here) so they'll almost definitely want it on screens this weekend. All depends on how much the possibility of leaking bothers them... certainly didn't really seem to for the final SP trailer. That bootleg mostly stayed here and the other Bond forums. The fandom is far far less hyperactive than, say DC, or have the mega intense scrutiny from the general film community like Nolan.
    Another interesting info about cinema trailers from Grace Randolph. Again I know some people don't like her but she is kind of expert on these things as her job is to review these films and the trailers with a few connections dotted around.

    I'm quite the avid watcher of her stuff if you haven't guessed already and while I don't agree with her on everything, she has quite the unique approach to the typical film reviewers we expect. She not only reviews and reacts, but she breakdowns and also discusses the business and money behind the films that are out, which is highly commendable in my opinion :)

    Also, just to clarify she's replying to a tweet about Birds of Prey.... So if it is with Joker as some are saying, it would have to be tomorrow, which is probably very unlikely. The alternative is that the trailer is just released online first.


    And guess where a lot of her 'expert' stuff re: trailers comes from...

    And - as she says - 'typically'. It doesn't have to be tomorrow. Joker opens on Thursday night so to avoid any bootlegs they have until then to release online - that's really what's 'typical' rather than Monday/Tuesday as she says. For instance, also, Disney likes to get their trailer out ahead around 2 weeks on average before it hits cinemas, precisely to avoid that last-minute glut of stuff ahead of whatever film it's with theatrically.

    And as I said in regards to Bond, there likely isn't the same pressure that, say, Birds of Prey would have when it comes to bootleg recordings from cinemas. That's why that trailer is out tomorrow instead of, as the person who asked her says, New York Comic Con.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited September 2019 Posts: 4,054
    antovolk wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I feel like if it was, we would’ve had a poster by now. Unless they release the teaser & poster on the same day.

    Which they totally can. Or the day before.

    At this point with the amount of trailers that have been announced Bond still has the freedom to move the online launch to llke Saturday...totally wise decision. Theatrical though, as I said I'll be very surprised if it's not with Joker (plus don't forget Judy is out this week too in the UK and I'd imagine it will play huge here with the sort of core older audiences Bond has here) so they'll almost definitely want it on screens this weekend. All depends on how much the possibility of leaking bothers them... certainly didn't really seem to for the final SP trailer. That bootleg mostly stayed here and the other Bond forums. The fandom is far far less hyperactive than, say DC, or have the mega intense scrutiny from the general film community like Nolan.
    Another interesting info about cinema trailers from Grace Randolph. Again I know some people don't like her but she is kind of expert on these things as her job is to review these films and the trailers with a few connections dotted around.

    I'm quite the avid watcher of her stuff if you haven't guessed already and while I don't agree with her on everything, she has quite the unique approach to the typical film reviewers we expect. She not only reviews and reacts, but she breakdowns and also discusses the business and money behind the films that are out, which is highly commendable in my opinion :)

    Also, just to clarify she's replying to a tweet about Birds of Prey.... So if it is with Joker as some are saying, it would have to be tomorrow, which is probably very unlikely. The alternative is that the trailer is just released online first.


    And guess where a lot of her 'expert' stuff re: trailers comes from...

    And - as she says - 'typically'. It doesn't have to be tomorrow. Joker opens on Thursday night so to avoid any bootlegs they have until then to release online - that's really what's 'typical' rather than Monday/Tuesday as she says. For instance, also, Disney likes to get their trailer out ahead around 2 weeks on average before it hits cinemas, precisely to avoid that last-minute glut of stuff ahead of whatever film it's with theatrically.

    And as I said in regards to Bond, there likely isn't the same pressure that, say, Birds of Prey would have when it comes to bootleg recordings from cinemas.
    Oh of course, just thought it was an interesting thing to note as a possible reason why we may not get the trailer with Joker :) (P.S. I use the word 'expert' lightly haha)
  • Posts: 2,869
    Was the Skyfall teaser debut on BBC announced beforehand?
Sign In or Register to comment.