No Time to Die production thread (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)

17717727747767771214

Comments

  • I think for a gap of this length we really should have gotten a new Bond. Doesn't make sense, they didn't bring Dalton back after the 6 year hiatus and he only did 2 movies until then. I think Craig we seem like old news by the time Bond 25 is finally released. It would have better to bring in someone new, and that would have brought much more interest and excitement.

    I think their may have been a feeling of unfinished business after the relative disappointment of Spectre. Craig wanted to go out on a high not on a whimper, and the producers were more than willing to facilitate this.
  • DeerAtTheGatesDeerAtTheGates Belgium
    edited April 2020 Posts: 524
    I think for a gap of this length we really should have gotten a new Bond. Doesn't make sense, they didn't bring Dalton back after the 6 year hiatus and he only did 2 movies until then. I think Craig we seem like old news by the time Bond 25 is finally released. It would have better to bring in someone new, and that would have brought much more interest and excitement.

    Sorry to pick your argument apart, but Dalton was offered to return, but he only wanted to make one film, something Cubby didn’t agree with. He wanted Dalton to return for 5, as Dalton only had done two at that point.

    And secondly, no one, truly no one could’ve predicted this giant gap when Craig signed on for a 5th. The producers were very happy to have Craig back for NTTD. If you want to argue that they should’ve brought in someone new, they should’ve done that before June 2017, which is when Craig signed on. The moment he signs on, they’re never, ever going to break the contract. And all the delays from that point onward were unexpected and had nothing to do with Craig. From that point onward, he was never going to go away.

    Thirdly, the film is finished. If it wasn’t, then they might’ve thrown it away if no alternative schedule could be found. But now? There’s no way they can ‘just’ say “We won’t release this film”.

    Fourthly, BB has admitted she has a hard time saying goodbye to Craig. She is definitely Not in the mood to find a replacement, and certainly not on such short notice. Eventually a new Bond has to emerge, but it will only be after Craig has had his final go-around as Bond, taken a victory lap, formally calls it quits, the producers tell the press they’ll start looking for a new Bond (a positive to EON doing other films: BB gets asked about Bond in between Bond films), actors have to audition, audition some more, and a new actor has been picked. That process is long and tedious.

    TL;DR: No way.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 498
    I think for a gap of this length we really should have gotten a new Bond. Doesn't make sense, they didn't bring Dalton back after the 6 year hiatus and he only did 2 movies until then. I think Craig we seem like old news by the time Bond 25 is finally released. It would have better to bring in someone new, and that would have brought much more interest and excitement.
    I don't think so. As opposed to Dalton, Craig was able to make his mark on the series and is far more popular than Dalton ever was. Unlike a hypothetical Bond 17 with Dalton, NTTD was not designed to relaunch the franchise but as a swan song to the Craig era. While the audience could have been uninterested in Goldeneye if it has been the last film with Dalton, its interest in going to see this film is simply motivated to see Craig one last time. This is a form of interest and excitement.
  • Posts: 553
    Sorry to pick your argument apart, but Dalton was offered to return, but he only wanted to make one film, something Cubby didn’t agree with. He wanted Dalton to return for 5, as Dalton only had done two at that point.

    Actually, you're both correct.

    Although Dalton told Broccoli that he only wanted to do one more, MGM/UA had no intention of hiring him for GE even if Broccoli had agreed to it. They wanted a new Bond.

  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,748
    I just pray we get to see this movie. I keep fearing they’re going to shelve it due to the potential villainous plot.
  • Posts: 478
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I just pray we get to see this movie. I keep fearing they’re going to shelve it due to the potential villainous plot.

    I pray we get to see it soon but there precisely zero chance of them "shelving" it and that makes no sense whatsoever. They've put what? $500mil into this thing? Absolutely zero chance they decide to forego earning any kind of return on that. That probably would mean the end of the franchise and the end of Eon.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 3,845
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I just pray we get to see this movie. I keep fearing they’re going to shelve it due to the potential villainous plot.

    I have that slight worry too....but when I remember it's JAMES BOND & cinephiles already know him as someone who saves the world, it tells me the film will still be released. I think if it were a new franchise, then they'll worry more. The World already loves the James Bond.
  • Posts: 478
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I just pray we get to see this movie. I keep fearing they’re going to shelve it due to the potential villainous plot.

    I have that slight worry too....but when I remember it's JAMES BOND & cinephiles already know him as someone who saves the world, it tells me the film will still be released. I think if it were a new franchise, then they'll worry more. The World already loves the James Bond.

    If this were in the early production days I could see it. But it's not. According to the director himself it's 100% finished. It's likely one of the most expensive films ever made already not to mention the massive marketing campaign that already took place. Absolutely no chance of them just throwing it in the memory hole.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 3,845
    ertert wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    I just pray we get to see this movie. I keep fearing they’re going to shelve it due to the potential villainous plot.

    I have that slight worry too....but when I remember it's JAMES BOND & cinephiles already know him as someone who saves the world, it tells me the film will still be released. I think if it were a new franchise, then they'll worry more. The World already loves the James Bond.

    If this were in the early production days I could see it. But it's not. According to the director himself it's 100% finished. It's likely one of the most expensive films ever made already not to mention the massive marketing campaign that already took place. Absolutely no chance of them just throwing it in the memory hole.

    Yeah, true. if it were early days of Production....the script might have even had a rewrite.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 342
    About Dalton, the version I had heard is that, around 93-94, MGM had appointed John Calley as the head of United Artists. Calley was the one who argued against getting Dalton back, because of the hiatus, the so-so box office for TLD, and LTK flopping in the US. The Broccoli family stood by Dalton, but Calley was adamant that they couldn't take the risk for the franchise to have three disappointing results in a row, and he got the upper hand.

    The Broccolis, who were in very good terms with Dalton, allowed him to save face by making the announcement that he was leaving the part on his own. And, in 1996, Dalton was even a pallbearer at Cubby's funeral. That may also explain why they didn't care that much about Brosnan. It wasn't really his fault, it's just that he was the only time the studio forced them to pick a new actor (even if they had already picked him a decade earlier).

    Also, remember that if Dalton had stayed for one more film, Goldeneye may have not been directed by Martin Campbell, who didn't like his take on Bond.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    edited April 2020 Posts: 7,305
    I think for a gap of this length we really should have gotten a new Bond. Doesn't make sense, they didn't bring Dalton back after the 6 year hiatus and he only did 2 movies until then. I think Craig we seem like old news by the time Bond 25 is finally released. It would have better to bring in someone new, and that would have brought much more interest and excitement.

    And all the delays from that point onward were unexpected and had nothing to do with Craig. From that point onward, he was never going to go away.

    I could buy this more if the series hadn't gone almost thirty years between 1962 and 1989 with no gaps longer than 3 years inbetween. My point is if they wanted to give Craig another film and end on a high, then they should have set a 2018 release date and got straight on with it. It doesn't make sense to bring back an actor for one more film and then wait so long to even get the gears rolling.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I think for a gap of this length we really should have gotten a new Bond. Doesn't make sense, they didn't bring Dalton back after the 6 year hiatus and he only did 2 movies until then. I think Craig we seem like old news by the time Bond 25 is finally released. It would have better to bring in someone new, and that would have brought much more interest and excitement.

    And all the delays from that point onward were unexpected and had nothing to do with Craig. From that point onward, he was never going to go away.

    I could buy this more if the series hadn't gone almost thirty years between 1962 and 1989 with no gaps longer than 3 years inbetween. My point is if they wanted to give Craig another film and end on a high, then they should have set a 2018 release date and got straight on with it. It doesn't make sense to bring back an actor for one more film and then wait so long to even get the gears rolling.

    You can bitch about Craig all you like the fact is that another Bond is long off and yes the longer it goes on your beloved Aidan's chances are slipping away.

    Seriously your broken record is tiring, if I didn't know better I'd think you are enjoying the predicament of this film the unfortunate situation that we are in, somehow thinking that in some twisted way it will lead to Aidan Turner being cast as Bond.

    Sorry mate but the longer this goes on Turner will fall out of favour and become the new Clive Owen which he already is looking like anyway.
  • Posts: 292
    Hi guys. I need your help. I think I saw a picture of Moneypenny, Q (possibly) and Nomi entering M's office. Nomi was wearing the same reddish jacket she wears in the prison scene with Madeleine.
    My problem is I can't remember if it was in a trailer/tv spot or a production still. If someone could find it, it would be most appreciated.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited April 2020 Posts: 11,528
    It's from the NBA All-Star game TV spot, 22 seconds in.

    I1ZEpMm.jpg
  • Posts: 292
    Yes. It's this one. Thanks
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    QBranch wrote: »
    It's from the NBA All-Star game TV spot, 22 seconds in.

    I1ZEpMm.jpg

    Scooby gang is back in town.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited April 2020 Posts: 9,140
    Saved for another time.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 3,845
    I didn't see M, Q & Moneypenny in Safin's Lair....which means the 'Scooby Gang' will not be as prominent as they were in SP. But Moneypenny's choice of clothing in that pic, further confirms that they're indeed the 'Scooby Gang'.
  • Posts: 12,602
    I must say I'm really liking Ralph Fiennes' M look in this new film. He looks classic to me. Very old school as if he could have lived in Fleming's era. Look how tight is hair is tapered.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    giphy.webp
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,066
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I must say I'm really liking Ralph Fiennes' M look in this new film. He looks classic to me. Very old school as if he could have lived in Fleming's era. Look how tight is hair is tapered.

    I think Ralph Fiennes should stay for the next Bond. He’s fun, and not as overexposed as Judi Dench.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 4,412
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I must say I'm really liking Ralph Fiennes' M look in this new film. He looks classic to me. Very old school as if he could have lived in Fleming's era. Look how tight is hair is tapered.

    I think Ralph Fiennes should stay for the next Bond. He’s fun, and not as overexposed as Judi Dench.

    I agree. I think they should recast the rest of the whitehall brigade though. Especially Tanner.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,066
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I must say I'm really liking Ralph Fiennes' M look in this new film. He looks classic to me. Very old school as if he could have lived in Fleming's era. Look how tight is hair is tapered.

    I think Ralph Fiennes should stay for the next Bond. He’s fun, and not as overexposed as Judi Dench.

    I agree. I think they should recast the rest of the whitehall brigade though. Especially Tanner.

    I agree wholeheartedly, but I think we should keep Ben Whishaw as Q, and write more Bill Tanner scenes. He's one of James Bond's best friends, they should really show it. Same with Felix Leiter, outside LTK, of course.
  • MaxCasino wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I must say I'm really liking Ralph Fiennes' M look in this new film. He looks classic to me. Very old school as if he could have lived in Fleming's era. Look how tight is hair is tapered.

    I think Ralph Fiennes should stay for the next Bond. He’s fun, and not as overexposed as Judi Dench.

    I agree. I think they should recast the rest of the whitehall brigade though. Especially Tanner.

    I agree wholeheartedly, but I think we should keep Ben Whishaw as Q, and write more Bill Tanner scenes. He's one of James Bond's best friends, they should really show it. Same with Felix Leiter, outside LTK, of course.

    Rory Kinnear's Tanner doesn't come across as a friend of Bond's, Michael Kitchen's Tanner did, certainly in GoldenEye.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 4,412
    @MaxCasino @BonSimonLeBon_1 I agree with you both. I thought about keeping Whishaw on as Q but I really feel all these characters are closely related to Craig's Bond, and should all be replaced for that reason. Except Fiennes for whatever reason.

    Kitchen was the absolute best. They need to recast Tanner as someone who has some chemistry with the actor who plays Bond.
  • Posts: 784
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I must say I'm really liking Ralph Fiennes' M look in this new film. He looks classic to me. Very old school as if he could have lived in Fleming's era. Look how tight is hair is tapered.

    I think Ralph Fiennes should stay for the next Bond. He’s fun, and not as overexposed as Judi Dench.

    I agree. I think they should recast the rest of the whitehall brigade though. Especially Tanner.

    I agree wholeheartedly, but I think we should keep Ben Whishaw as Q, and write more Bill Tanner scenes. He's one of James Bond's best friends, they should really show it. Same with Felix Leiter, outside LTK, of course.

    Yeah, it's a shame. In the books Tanner's described as one of Bond's only "friends," and certainly his only one on the service.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    I might be in the minority but i want them to start fresh with completely new cast.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 2,941
    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


  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,397
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    Sorry to pick your argument apart, but Dalton was offered to return, but he only wanted to make one film, something Cubby didn’t agree with. He wanted Dalton to return for 5, as Dalton only had done two at that point.

    Actually, you're both correct.

    Although Dalton told Broccoli that he only wanted to do one more, MGM/UA had no intention of hiring him for GE even if Broccoli had agreed to it. They wanted a new Bond.

    That's always the version that rings truest to me. If you're relaunching the series you want a new Bond for the maximum amount of audience interest, even ignoring how much a perceived failure Dalton was. It's what Eon did with CR, after all.

    QBranch wrote: »
    It's from the NBA All-Star game TV spot, 22 seconds in.

    I1ZEpMm.jpg

    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?
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I must say I'm really liking Ralph Fiennes' M look in this new film. He looks classic to me. Very old school as if he could have lived in Fleming's era. Look how tight is hair is tapered.

    I think Ralph Fiennes should stay for the next Bond. He’s fun, and not as overexposed as Judi Dench.

    I agree. I think they should recast the rest of the whitehall brigade though. Especially Tanner.

    I agree wholeheartedly, but I think we should keep Ben Whishaw as Q, and write more Bill Tanner scenes. He's one of James Bond's best friends, they should really show it. Same with Felix Leiter, outside LTK, of course.

    Rory Kinnear's Tanner doesn't come across as a friend of Bond's, Michael Kitchen's Tanner did, certainly in GoldenEye.

    Although it did rankle with me that he called him 'Tanner' rather than 'Bill'.
    I remember being very pleasantly surprised to see Kitchen in it: I'd recently seen him in a production of King Lear and he gave the most delicious Edmund- it was a real thrill to see him pop up in Bond! I think Kitchen was playing him as Bond's friend but Brosnan wasn't, weirdly.
    I think the version of their relationship that Craig's Bond has rings true: he doesn't really have much time for chummy friendships and Kinnear's Tanner isn't his type of bloke anyway- he's a bit dorky. He's more likely to have a genuine friendship with Moneypenny as they actually have a bit of a more real connection than any version of Bond has had with 'Penny before. Maybe because she used to be a field agent. They're more on the same level.
Sign In or Register to comment.