The What if thread...M had been re-cast for CR 2006? page 60

1383941434461

Comments

  • Stark wrote: »
    This seems credible to me. Lots of good ideas, especially the ending with the Queen.
    Although I like a number of these narrative elements, it is still strange that this synopsis does not make any mention of the 350-foot rocket which was being built on the famous 007 stage. Such a construction couldn't be a secondary part of the plot and should probably have been mentioned. Thus, I wouldn't be surprised if this so called synopsis is fake.
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 177
    But I still hope Boyle will make a Bond film one day. Mark Tildesley, who loved the script, lobbied Barbara Broccoli to rehire him in the future.
  • Posts: 9,730
    The issue here is what do we want out of bond and who can best bring that and as much as Boyle doing bond has his fans like Nolan I sit back and wonder why
  • Posts: 15,785
    I finally got around to catching THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and I couldn't help but think of the lost Danny Boyle Bond during those scenes in which Christian Bale is imprisoned.
    I wonder if Boyle's B26 would have been compared unfavorably as another TDK trilogy ripoff?
    I can remember some suggesting SKYFALL being too influenced by TDK whereas the other Craig's were compared to Bourne.
    Regardless, had Boyle done his thing, I'd probably be watching my Blu-ray copy for the umpteenth time now instead of wondering when NTTD will be delayed yet again?
  • Posts: 1,545
    If that script synopsis is at all accurate then I am EXCEEDINGLY grateful that D Boyle did not film it, and I hope no one ever does ! A knighthood for a SECRET AGENT ? Preposterous ! The Queen should not even know any specifics of his existence, and CERTAINLY not of his identity ! Besides, as for recognition of his success at thwarting an evil plan -- He's. Doing. His. Job.

    At the time when Boyle was on the job, and it started to get out that he soon would not, I recall the rumor was that the writer with who he regularly worked and he proposed a script wherein Bond dies at the end. Perhaps they had "died" in mind as in the ending of the books for FR,WL and YOLT, but that level of detail -- or knowledge of the books -- was not divulged in the reports. Bond dying, I though, was a significant point of contention between the producers and Boyle. This is why I am surprised at the suggestions that Bond may die at the end of NTTD. This is also why -- I thought -- the terrific and funny revised Title Card shown above for "TTD" was prepared. In other words, had Boyle done the film and were the rumors accurate, then, indeed, it would have been his "TTD."
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 14,861
    Since62 wrote: »
    If that script synopsis is at all accurate then I am EXCEEDINGLY grateful that D Boyle did not film it, and I hope no one ever does ! A knighthood for a SECRET AGENT ? Preposterous ! The Queen should not even know any specifics of his existence, and CERTAINLY not of his identity ! Besides, as for recognition of his success at thwarting an evil plan -- He's. Doing. His. Job.

    No that would be fine, why on Earth would the Queen not be allowed to know the names of anyone working in the security services? I doubt she knows the specifics of half the people she gives honours to.
    The main issue would seem to be that it seems slightly out of character for this Bond to have accepted it, but without seeing how they approached it (if it's true at all) it's hard to know if they could have made that believable or not.
  • Posts: 1,545
    As for Bond not wanting such an award, it would apply not just THIS Bond, but any Bond, in any film, book or short story. Again -- he's just doing his job. No matter how spectacular the evil plot, or how difficult the assignment, it is his job to foil those evil plots. When Bond succeeds, he is not going "above and beyond." (Not even in TSWLM, which had the fun advertising tagline -- It's the BIGGEST. It's the BEST. It's Bond, And B-E-Y-O-N-D. -- at the top of the poster, above that fabulous artwork)

    Secondly -- He's a SECRET agent. A licensed killer, at that. M was rightfully upset that Bond blew this in CR, and a few times they played with it -- such as in DAF -- in some wink, wink self-referential humor, but it remains appropriate.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 14,861
    Since62 wrote: »
    As for Bond not wanting such an award, it would apply not just THIS Bond, but any Bond, in any film, book or short story.

    The Craig version is the one which would have actually been in it though, hence I mentioned him.
    And not any Bond, no: Niven’s version was happy to accept it! :)
    Since62 wrote: »
    Secondly -- He's a SECRET agent. A licensed killer, at that. M was rightfully upset that Bond blew this in CR, and a few times they played with it -- such as in DAF -- in some wink, wink self-referential humor, but it remains appropriate.

    People in secret jobs do get honours; and even in the books: M had a knighthood in the Fleming novels.
  • DaltonFanDaltonFan California
    Posts: 69
    If Danny Boyle had of directed Bond 25 with Daniel Craig there would have been a big Bollywood-style song and dance number with all of the cast participating (you all know that you'd like to see that, admit it).
  • Posts: 14,799
    I think it would have been DAD part 2, with a director thinking he's bigger than Bond.
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    I think it would have been DAD part 2, with a director thinking he's bigger than Bond.
    That's a pretty odd comparison considering how much Lee Tamahori can be faulted with but certainly not for considering himself above the series since one of the biggest problems of DAD was this unsubtle succession of Easter Eggs until indigestion. I also don't see how Boyle would have fallen into this category. His take has been described as unconventional for sure, but this in no way demonstrates that he considered himself bigger than Bond.

    Personally, in hindsight, I increasingly regret Boyle's departure. Sure, it's difficult to judge an unmade movie we do not know much about, but, even if it would have been controversial within the fanbase, its release would have preceded the pandemic and would have allowed Eon to move quicker from the Craig era. The more time passes, the more Craig's shadow hangs over the series that will struggle, it seems to me, to escape it.
  • Posts: 121
    bondsum wrote: »
    What if Danny Boyle had directed Bond 25 with Daniel Craig?

    It would most certainly have met its release date of 25 October 2019 before the global pandemic and everybody would've seen it by now. 8-X

    Oh, the daddy of all what if questions! And the answer is that it probably would have been the most innovative Bond film since the 60s, and I believe we all agree innovation is good when it comes to a 60 year old franchise.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,254
    We got the more appropriate director to finish off the Craig era. I'm happy to wait and see what he brings to the table. Cary Fukanaga is a high IQ storyteller, from words on the page, to action on the screen. He's a firm believer in obstacles and stakes and backing heroes into impossible corners (all the components that were lacking in the last film where the actors (outside of Wishaw), couldn't fake their way out of the no-stakes script).
    We also know that some time after Spectre, Cary pursued Barbara. He wanted this job... On the flipside, Danny Boyle was quoted around Skyfall's release as saying something to the effect that he liked to watch Bond films, but he didn't want to make one....
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2020 Posts: 14,861
    Bear in mind we haven't seen NTTD yet so it's maybe a bit early to praise it! Don't forget how Sam Mendes seems to enemy no.1 around here nowadays despite being a proven excellent filmmaker; moreso than Fukunaga.
    I'm optimistic about NTTD but I can't be certain it will be perfect.

    I'd have liked to have seen a Boyle Bond, I'm curious to see how he'd have handled it.
  • Posts: 14,799
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think it would have been DAD part 2, with a director thinking he's bigger than Bond.
    That's a pretty odd comparison considering how much Lee Tamahori can be faulted with but certainly not for considering himself above the series since one of the biggest problems of DAD was this unsubtle succession of Easter Eggs until indigestion. I also don't see how Boyle would have fallen into this category. His take has been described as unconventional for sure, but this in no way demonstrates that he considered himself bigger than Bond.

    Personally, in hindsight, I increasingly regret Boyle's departure. Sure, it's difficult to judge an unmade movie we do not know much about, but, even if it would have been controversial within the fanbase, its release would have preceded the pandemic and would have allowed Eon to move quicker from the Craig era. The more time passes, the more Craig's shadow hangs over the series that will struggle, it seems to me, to escape it.

    They're different directors but Tamahori's attempt at making Bond more hip (lots of sci-fi elements, the weird bullet time in the gunbarrel sequence) was certainly unconventional. I always thought there was arrogance in the way Tamahori handled things and from what I gathered of Boyle, there was something of hubris in his approach. Too established, too much into his own things. NTTD might be a train wreck for all we know, but I trust its director far more than Boyle. I was happy when Boyle was named as director as it meant things were moving forward, but worried as well, for the reasons above. Still, I was ready to give him a chance. When he departed due to creative differences, I was disappointed as it meant further delays, but because of the reasons stated I was also relieved.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    I don't think a director doing what he thinks to be right is arrogance; you could easily say the same about Peter Hunt's weird flashy tendencies.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,254
    mtm wrote: »
    Bear in mind we haven't seen NTTD yet so it's maybe a bit early to praise it! Don't forget how Sam Mendes seems to enemy no.1 around here nowadays despite being a proven excellent filmmaker; moreso than Fukunaga.
    I'm optimistic about NTTD but I can't be certain it will be perfect.

    I'd have liked to have seen a Boyle Bond, I'm curious to see how he'd have handled it.

    @mtm, who was praising NTTD? Just curious.
  • Would Boyle have been a better choice for NTTD? Maybe yes, maybe no. His ideas sounded a bit radical for Bond. But we haven’t/never will see his result. Is Fukanaga a better choice? Well he’s someone more willing to work with EON. He has his own visual style, and I prefer the vibrant look that we’ve seen in NTTD compared to the look we’ve gotten in the 3 previous entries. My thing is this is Fukanaga’s first big blockbuster film, heck I thought this was a first film for a while, but I was wrong. He has a lot to prove, do I think he’ll succeed? The optimist in me says he’ll do fine. It’s not like Peter Hunt had any prior expierence, and I don’t think it’s possible for this era to go any lower than QOS and SP. On the other hand, I haven’t been too interested in NTTD. As I said I think the film looks beautiful, but I just get the sense that this era of Bond has dragged on too long now. For all my issues with SPECTRE, I thought it had a perfect ending; sending Craig’s Bond into the sunset, after all the crap he’s endured since CR. So as an audience member, I find myself wondering why continue this story? I’m reserving my judgments however.
  • As I said I think the film looks beautiful, but I just get the sense that this era of Bond has dragged on too long now. For all my issues with SPECTRE, I thought it had a perfect ending; sending Craig’s Bond into the sunset, after all the crap he’s endured since CR. So as an audience member, I find myself wondering why continue this story? I’m reserving my judgments however.

    Totally agree with this statement. While far from satisfying, Spectre wrapped up the Craig era story arc and no continuation was needed at all. To wait more than five years for a sequel that reopens an ended story is particularly annoying. I'm not even sure audiences are particularly waiting for a continuation after such hiatus. All the more so when this continuation will not even breathe new life into the series and that it will experience a new hiatus.

    As far as we know, Boyle wasn't planning to bring Seydoux nor Waltz back, adding to that the earlier release date, this version of Bond 25 would have had this quality on the one hand of ending the Craig era earlier, allowing Eon to think about the future from 2020, and on the other hand of not forcing the continuation of a concluded story. It would have been, in my eyes, certainly more pleasant than what we know about the NTTD story. If it was really that necessary to give an additional conclusion to Spectre that did not ask for it, to not wait five years would have been more consistent.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2020 Posts: 14,861
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bear in mind we haven't seen NTTD yet so it's maybe a bit early to praise it! Don't forget how Sam Mendes seems to enemy no.1 around here nowadays despite being a proven excellent filmmaker; moreso than Fukunaga.
    I'm optimistic about NTTD but I can't be certain it will be perfect.

    I'd have liked to have seen a Boyle Bond, I'm curious to see how he'd have handled it.

    @mtm, who was praising NTTD? Just curious.

    Someone was saying how good Fukunaga is. I'm just saying that Mendes is great too, arguably greater, and yet he's looked on with quite a bit of distain around here. Boyle also has turned out some very good films (some duff ones too of course), so I think it's hard to say one is automatically better than the other, and the proof will be in the pudding. I hope it's great, naturally.
    As I said I think the film looks beautiful, but I just get the sense that this era of Bond has dragged on too long now. For all my issues with SPECTRE, I thought it had a perfect ending; sending Craig’s Bond into the sunset, after all the crap he’s endured since CR. So as an audience member, I find myself wondering why continue this story? I’m reserving my judgments however.

    Totally agree with this statement. While far from satisfying, Spectre wrapped up the Craig era story arc and no continuation was needed at all. To wait more than five years for a sequel that reopens an ended story is particularly annoying. I'm not even sure audiences are particularly waiting for a continuation after such hiatus. All the more so when this continuation will not even breathe new life into the series and that it will experience a new hiatus.

    As far as we know, Boyle wasn't planning to bring Seydoux nor Waltz back, adding to that the earlier release date, this version of Bond 25 would have had this quality on the one hand of ending the Craig era earlier, allowing Eon to think about the future from 2020, and on the other hand of not forcing the continuation of a concluded story. It would have been, in my eyes, certainly more pleasant than what we know about the NTTD story. If it was really that necessary to give an additional conclusion to Spectre that did not ask for it, to not wait five years would have been more consistent.

    Yes, I can't disagree that it's a sequel that the story didn't seem to need, but then equally I think if there's another Bond film (and we all want that, surely! :) ) then it would have been hard not to bring Seydoux back. And to be honest I'm quite interested to see what happens with that plot.
    Waltz, yeah, they could have left him alone completely I agree; but maybe they've got a good idea regarding him, and it may well not be much more than a cameo anyway.
  • As I said I think the film looks beautiful, but I just get the sense that this era of Bond has dragged on too long now. For all my issues with SPECTRE, I thought it had a perfect ending; sending Craig’s Bond into the sunset, after all the crap he’s endured since CR. So as an audience member, I find myself wondering why continue this story? I’m reserving my judgments however.

    Totally agree with this statement. While far from satisfying, Spectre wrapped up the Craig era story arc and no continuation was needed at all. To wait more than five years for a sequel that reopens an ended story is particularly annoying. I'm not even sure audiences are particularly waiting for a continuation after such hiatus. All the more so when this continuation will not even breathe new life into the series and that it will experience a new hiatus.

    As far as we know, Boyle wasn't planning to bring Seydoux nor Waltz back, adding to that the earlier release date, this version of Bond 25 would have had this quality on the one hand of ending the Craig era earlier, allowing Eon to think about the future from 2020, and on the other hand of not forcing the continuation of a concluded story. It would have been, in my eyes, certainly more pleasant than what we know about the NTTD story. If it was really that necessary to give an additional conclusion to Spectre that did not ask for it, to not wait five years would have been more consistent.

    For me, I just get the impression that EON is having such a hard time letting the Craig era come to a close. It’s as if they’re scared to move on to their next era. It’s very similar to what happened with Roger Moore back in the mid 80’s. This wasn’t an issue when it came to moving on past Brosnan, they just kind of did behind his back. I just feel like they try their hardest to appease to Craig on so many levels, even going so far as to making him an executive producer, and at the end of the day, I just ask myself “Is it even worth it?” I don’t get any sense of enthusiasm from Craig in the role, and admittedly, his “wrist slitting” comments play a huge factor in that. Those were poor choices of words, and I find it ridiculous he’d say such a thing considering Roger Moore did 7 films back to back without making petty comments like that. I understand they’ve had a lot of successes with Craig in the role, and good on them, but people trash Moore for sticking around too long in the role, whereas I feel Craig gets an easy pass. I’m just getting such an overwhelming sense of fatigue with this era, and that’s really why I’m not interested in NTTD. I’ve gone on and on about the connected storytelling aspects of this era of Bond, and I’m afraid this film is going to fall into the traps SPECTRE fell into. These past 5 years could’ve been time planning the future of Bond, the next actors era, and it feels like they wasted it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the mainstream audience doesn’t have much interest in NTTD, because the mainstream appeal of Bond has always been the fact that you could duck in and out of films from each actor’s era, and not miss a beat. I imagine we as the hardcore fans don’t share this opinion, but mainstream audiences aren’t interested in connected storytelling unless it’s Marvel or Star Wars, and James Bond shouldn’t have jumped on the bandwagon of trends both those franchises have started. Arguably this was where Skyfall was successful the most, it didn’t need to tie into the previous films, but SPECTRE kind of ruined that appeal for me, and I’m afraid NTTD isn’t going to favor much better in my eyes.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2020 Posts: 14,861
    As I said I think the film looks beautiful, but I just get the sense that this era of Bond has dragged on too long now. For all my issues with SPECTRE, I thought it had a perfect ending; sending Craig’s Bond into the sunset, after all the crap he’s endured since CR. So as an audience member, I find myself wondering why continue this story? I’m reserving my judgments however.

    Totally agree with this statement. While far from satisfying, Spectre wrapped up the Craig era story arc and no continuation was needed at all. To wait more than five years for a sequel that reopens an ended story is particularly annoying. I'm not even sure audiences are particularly waiting for a continuation after such hiatus. All the more so when this continuation will not even breathe new life into the series and that it will experience a new hiatus.

    As far as we know, Boyle wasn't planning to bring Seydoux nor Waltz back, adding to that the earlier release date, this version of Bond 25 would have had this quality on the one hand of ending the Craig era earlier, allowing Eon to think about the future from 2020, and on the other hand of not forcing the continuation of a concluded story. It would have been, in my eyes, certainly more pleasant than what we know about the NTTD story. If it was really that necessary to give an additional conclusion to Spectre that did not ask for it, to not wait five years would have been more consistent.

    For me, I just get the impression that EON is having such a hard time letting the Craig era come to a close. It’s as if they’re scared to move on to their next era. It’s very similar to what happened with Roger Moore back in the mid 80’s. This wasn’t an issue when it came to moving on past Brosnan, they just kind of did behind his back. I just feel like they try their hardest to appease to Craig on so many levels, even going so far as to making him an executive producer, and at the end of the day, I just ask myself “Is it even worth it?” I don’t get any sense of enthusiasm from Craig in the role, and admittedly, his “wrist slitting” comments play a huge factor in that. Those were poor choices of words, and I find it ridiculous he’d say such a thing considering Roger Moore did 7 films back to back without making petty comments like that.

    I always worry when people don't get that joke. It's just something he said in half jest, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. He'd just spent a year or so getting in top shape and staying there (which Roger never did), with a creative role on a film, and filming long days, doing action scenes etc. - it's clearly a tiring process. And then there's the promo process. Yes he gets paid well and he clearly likes doing it otherwise he wouldn't, but I think we'd all fancy a bit of time off right after that.
    You're doing a lot of projecting onto him and his acting based on that one joke.

    And yes, the producers are keen to keep the guy who's been a massive hit in the role. I don't see that as being 'scared' of anything, they're just making the films for the people who like them.
    And the idea of moving on from Brosnan 'behind his back' and 'appeasing' Craig is just silly and overly emotive. Poor Pierce and horrid nasty Dan: it's all very simplistic characterisation of these people we don't know.

    I understand they’ve had a lot of successes with Craig in the role, and good on them, but people trash Moore for sticking around too long in the role, whereas I feel Craig gets an easy pass.

    Personally I don't mind either of them hanging on. I think I'd certainly say Craig is looking fitter than Roger did though.
    I imagine we as the hardcore fans don’t share this opinion, but mainstream audiences aren’t interested in connected storytelling unless it’s Marvel or Star Wars

    What are you basing that on?
  • Posts: 14,799
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't think a director doing what he thinks to be right is arrogance; you could easily say the same about Peter Hunt's weird flashy tendencies.

    Maybe arrogance is not the right word, but either way, when someone leaves a project for creative differences, it's always a relief to me. It does not mean the film will be any good, but it means there is one problem that could have been major that is now avoided.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,254
    Someone was saying how good Fukunaga is. I'm just saying that Mendes is great too, arguably greater, and yet he's looked on with quite a bit of distain around here.

    @mtm... I just want to be clear: you said someone was praising NTTD, but what you actually meant to say was someone was saying “how good Fukunaga is”. That could have been me, but not in comparison to Mendes specifically (I love Skyfall). I was saying that the last film lacked proper stakes, something that Fukunaga is very comfortable in dealing with, both as a writer and as a director.
    Personally I wouldn’t compare these two directors at all. Very different backgrounds- one came from the theatre, one came from the indie world of writing, directing and sometimes even shooting his films.
    Listening to both speak about their craft and art and how they approach it is also quite different; one likes to get down and dirty on the script level, placing protagonists in difficult situations and developing more and more obstacles as the plot moves forth; the other has input in the script, but let’s the writers go off and do their job....

    Would Boyle have done a good job?— from what I heard from ppl close to the production of B25, the script they submitted was a snore-fest that tried to “change the culture of Bond” (that was a direct quote; whatever that means, your guess is as good as mine), and; when they suggested a script doctor come on board to fix the issues with the script, Boyle balked. He didn’t want anyone touching his writer’s script.
    Boyle had been quoted as saying he didn’t want to do a Bond film, and I suppose the theoretical answer I would give to the question is: I think we dodged a bullet when he departed.
    As I said, the flip side is: before Boyle, Cary Fukunaga had approached Barbara about directing a Bond picture.
    Does that mean NTTD will be a flawless masterpiece? I wouldn’t even pretend to guess (my gut tells me we may, at least, be getting something edgier and more suspenseful than anything Spectre gave us (to reiterate, no knock against Mendes, I think that SF may be my number two at the moment. But Spectre was a mess from its inception. If the script is a dud, you can’t really hide the flaws, no matter who directed the film)....
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 2,010
    mtm wrote: »
    As I said I think the film looks beautiful, but I just get the sense that this era of Bond has dragged on too long now. For all my issues with SPECTRE, I thought it had a perfect ending; sending Craig’s Bond into the sunset, after all the crap he’s endured since CR. So as an audience member, I find myself wondering why continue this story? I’m reserving my judgments however.

    Totally agree with this statement. While far from satisfying, Spectre wrapped up the Craig era story arc and no continuation was needed at all. To wait more than five years for a sequel that reopens an ended story is particularly annoying. I'm not even sure audiences are particularly waiting for a continuation after such hiatus. All the more so when this continuation will not even breathe new life into the series and that it will experience a new hiatus.

    As far as we know, Boyle wasn't planning to bring Seydoux nor Waltz back, adding to that the earlier release date, this version of Bond 25 would have had this quality on the one hand of ending the Craig era earlier, allowing Eon to think about the future from 2020, and on the other hand of not forcing the continuation of a concluded story. It would have been, in my eyes, certainly more pleasant than what we know about the NTTD story. If it was really that necessary to give an additional conclusion to Spectre that did not ask for it, to not wait five years would have been more consistent.

    For me, I just get the impression that EON is having such a hard time letting the Craig era come to a close. It’s as if they’re scared to move on to their next era. It’s very similar to what happened with Roger Moore back in the mid 80’s. This wasn’t an issue when it came to moving on past Brosnan, they just kind of did behind his back. I just feel like they try their hardest to appease to Craig on so many levels, even going so far as to making him an executive producer, and at the end of the day, I just ask myself “Is it even worth it?” I don’t get any sense of enthusiasm from Craig in the role, and admittedly, his “wrist slitting” comments play a huge factor in that. Those were poor choices of words, and I find it ridiculous he’d say such a thing considering Roger Moore did 7 films back to back without making petty comments like that.

    I always worry when people don't get that joke. It's just something he said in half jest, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. He'd just spent a year or so getting in top shape and staying there (which Roger never did), with a creative role on a film, and filming long days, doing action scenes etc. - it's clearly a tiring process. And then there's the promo process. Yes he gets paid well and he clearly likes doing it otherwise he wouldn't, but I think we'd all fancy a bit of time off right after that.
    You're doing a lot of projecting onto him and his acting based on that one joke.

    And yes, the producers are keen to keep the guy who's been a massive hit in the role. I don't see that as being 'scared' of anything, they're just making the films for the people who like them.
    And the idea of moving on from Brosnan 'behind his back' and 'appeasing' Craig is just silly and overly emotive. Poor Pierce and horrid nasty Dan: it's all very simplistic characterisation of these people we don't know.

    I understand they’ve had a lot of successes with Craig in the role, and good on them, but people trash Moore for sticking around too long in the role, whereas I feel Craig gets an easy pass.

    Personally I don't mind either of them hanging on. I think I'd certainly say Craig is looking fitter than Roger did though.
    I imagine we as the hardcore fans don’t share this opinion, but mainstream audiences aren’t interested in connected storytelling unless it’s Marvel or Star Wars

    What are you basing that on?


    If it meant to be a joke, then it was a poorly made joke. There’s no projecting onto him, if the guy truly felt that way, then he should’ve walked away. End of story. This role made him what he is today, and comments like that just come across as being made in poor taste, and ungrateful for the opportunities this role had presented to him. Doesn’t matter if he “had to be in top shape”, or “had creative duties”, a job is a job. He should’ve been more professional with his comments.

    It’s also inaccurate to say Roger never “got into shape” for any of his Bond films considering there is actual footage of Moore swimming, and lifting weights every morning to prepare for Live and Let Die.

    You don’t think Brosnan wasn’t a huge hit for EON at the time? Each one of his films managed to top the previous films box office, with the exception of TND because it came out the same time as Titanic, Brosnan was being praised as “The Best Bond since Connery” during his tenure, even if his films were crap for the most part. If you don’t think they didn’t plan Brosnan’s departure behind his back, then I’ve got news for you, that’s literally what they did. Brosnan was expected to do a 5th film before they pulled the brakes on his tenure. I’m not “over emoting” anything; you’re just taking everything I say out of context because you don’t agree.

    And what do I base my comments off of? Simple Logic perhaps? Knowledge of critical, audience, and box office reception? Every other Hollywood franchise that has jumped on the “Connected Storytelling” bandwagon has failed in that regard, it doesn’t take glasses to see that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2020 Posts: 14,861
    peter wrote: »
    Someone was saying how good Fukunaga is. I'm just saying that Mendes is great too, arguably greater, and yet he's looked on with quite a bit of distain around here.

    @mtm... I just want to be clear: you said someone was praising NTTD, but what you actually meant to say was someone was saying “how good Fukunaga is”. That could have been me, but not in comparison to Mendes specifically (I love Skyfall). I was saying that the last film lacked proper stakes, something that Fukunaga is very comfortable in dealing with, both as a writer and as a director.
    Personally I wouldn’t compare these two directors at all. Very different backgrounds- one came from the theatre, one came from the indie world of writing, directing and sometimes even shooting his films.
    Listening to both speak about their craft and art and how they approach it is also quite different; one likes to get down and dirty on the script level, placing protagonists in difficult situations and developing more and more obstacles as the plot moves forth; the other has input in the script, but let’s the writers go off and do their job....

    Well I think they'll be fairly to easy to compare (as Bond directors) because they'll have both directed Bond films! :)
    And writing the script still doesn't automatically make one better than the other - Fukunaga is the first writer/director ever on the Bond films, so if that was necessary for a good Bond film we wouldn't have had any good ones up until now! :)

    I'm optimistic too, but it's too early to say whether he was the right choice or not. I'm sure even he wouldn't mind us thinking that at the moment.
    peter wrote: »
    Does that mean NTTD will be a flawless masterpiece? I wouldn’t even pretend to guess (my gut tells me we may, at least, be getting something edgier and more suspenseful than anything Spectre gave us

    Well, just as long as no one is praising it before it's released then! ;)
  • Posts: 9,730
    the one thing I would of prefered about Boyle is i would have the 25th bond film in my house right now....
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2020 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    As I said I think the film looks beautiful, but I just get the sense that this era of Bond has dragged on too long now. For all my issues with SPECTRE, I thought it had a perfect ending; sending Craig’s Bond into the sunset, after all the crap he’s endured since CR. So as an audience member, I find myself wondering why continue this story? I’m reserving my judgments however.

    Totally agree with this statement. While far from satisfying, Spectre wrapped up the Craig era story arc and no continuation was needed at all. To wait more than five years for a sequel that reopens an ended story is particularly annoying. I'm not even sure audiences are particularly waiting for a continuation after such hiatus. All the more so when this continuation will not even breathe new life into the series and that it will experience a new hiatus.

    As far as we know, Boyle wasn't planning to bring Seydoux nor Waltz back, adding to that the earlier release date, this version of Bond 25 would have had this quality on the one hand of ending the Craig era earlier, allowing Eon to think about the future from 2020, and on the other hand of not forcing the continuation of a concluded story. It would have been, in my eyes, certainly more pleasant than what we know about the NTTD story. If it was really that necessary to give an additional conclusion to Spectre that did not ask for it, to not wait five years would have been more consistent.

    For me, I just get the impression that EON is having such a hard time letting the Craig era come to a close. It’s as if they’re scared to move on to their next era. It’s very similar to what happened with Roger Moore back in the mid 80’s. This wasn’t an issue when it came to moving on past Brosnan, they just kind of did behind his back. I just feel like they try their hardest to appease to Craig on so many levels, even going so far as to making him an executive producer, and at the end of the day, I just ask myself “Is it even worth it?” I don’t get any sense of enthusiasm from Craig in the role, and admittedly, his “wrist slitting” comments play a huge factor in that. Those were poor choices of words, and I find it ridiculous he’d say such a thing considering Roger Moore did 7 films back to back without making petty comments like that.

    I always worry when people don't get that joke. It's just something he said in half jest, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. He'd just spent a year or so getting in top shape and staying there (which Roger never did), with a creative role on a film, and filming long days, doing action scenes etc. - it's clearly a tiring process. And then there's the promo process. Yes he gets paid well and he clearly likes doing it otherwise he wouldn't, but I think we'd all fancy a bit of time off right after that.
    You're doing a lot of projecting onto him and his acting based on that one joke.

    And yes, the producers are keen to keep the guy who's been a massive hit in the role. I don't see that as being 'scared' of anything, they're just making the films for the people who like them.
    And the idea of moving on from Brosnan 'behind his back' and 'appeasing' Craig is just silly and overly emotive. Poor Pierce and horrid nasty Dan: it's all very simplistic characterisation of these people we don't know.

    I understand they’ve had a lot of successes with Craig in the role, and good on them, but people trash Moore for sticking around too long in the role, whereas I feel Craig gets an easy pass.

    Personally I don't mind either of them hanging on. I think I'd certainly say Craig is looking fitter than Roger did though.
    I imagine we as the hardcore fans don’t share this opinion, but mainstream audiences aren’t interested in connected storytelling unless it’s Marvel or Star Wars

    What are you basing that on?


    If it meant to be a joke, then it was a poorly made joke.

    Yes, it clearly was because of all the silly backlash. Do you really doubt it was a joke? You think he would literally have killed himself? I think surely you know it was a joke.
    But he meant that after a year of "sitting up at 6am on a Sunday and I’m bolt upright in bed thinking that I’ve got to go to work" he wanted to stop and leave it for a while.
    There’s no projecting onto him, if the guy truly felt that way, then he should’ve walked away. End of story. This role made him what he is today, and comments like that just come across as being made in poor taste, and ungrateful for the opportunities this role had presented to him. Doesn’t matter if he “had to be in top shape”, or “had creative duties”, a job is a job. He should’ve been more professional with his comments.

    The joke was about making another film straight away: he was always happy to make more but it must be such an exhausting process for the individual whose everyone's attention is focused on for an entire year that they would understandably baulk at the idea of not having a break and doing another year straight of that. Surely that makes sense? The line was taken out of context and repeated as if he wasn't joking and was deadly serious: surely you've seen him in interviews? He has a very dry and quite blunt wit. Yes, that means he's not great at after-dinner speaking and isn't a natural raconteur like Roger was, but then neither was Connery.
    It’s also inaccurate to say Roger never “got into shape” for any of his Bond films considering there is actual footage of Moore swimming, and lifting weights every morning to prepare for Live and Let Die.

    Yes, definitely not for the cameras at all! :))
    Come on, are you really comparing the two?
    You don’t think Brosnan wasn’t a huge hit for EON at the time?

    I didn't say he wasn't.
    If you don’t think they didn’t plan Brosnan’s departure behind his back, then I’ve got news for you, that’s literally what they did. Brosnan was expected to do a 5th film before they pulled the brakes on his tenure. I’m not “over emoting” anything; you’re just taking everything I say out of context because you don’t agree.

    No, you're overemoting it. Characterising everything as if you know these people. Yes, Brosnan didn't know about it, that's a matter of record. That they were sneaking around 'behind his back' being awful and horrible to him because they secretly hated him and Babs had a poster of Daniel on her wall or whatever is silly: it was a business arrangement. Their relationship is professional: if they'd have decided to drop Craig too they'd have done it in exactly the same way. Thanks but no thanks, we've decided to move on. It's how movies work. It's how they moved on from Dalton too. And the next person through the door was Brosnan.
    And what do I base my comments off of? Simple Logic perhaps? Knowledge of critical, audience, and box office reception? Every other Hollywood franchise that has jumped on the “Connected Storytelling” bandwagon has failed in that regard, it doesn’t take glasses to see that.

    So no sequels have ever succeeded? I would have to say that's not really true.
  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 564
    peter wrote: »
    Someone was saying how good Fukunaga is. I'm just saying that Mendes is great too, arguably greater, and yet he's looked on with quite a bit of distain around here.

    @mtm... I just want to be clear: you said someone was praising NTTD, but what you actually meant to say was someone was saying “how good Fukunaga is”. That could have been me, but not in comparison to Mendes specifically (I love Skyfall). I was saying that the last film lacked proper stakes, something that Fukunaga is very comfortable in dealing with, both as a writer and as a director.
    Personally I wouldn’t compare these two directors at all. Very different backgrounds- one came from the theatre, one came from the indie world of writing, directing and sometimes even shooting his films.
    Listening to both speak about their craft and art and how they approach it is also quite different; one likes to get down and dirty on the script level, placing protagonists in difficult situations and developing more and more obstacles as the plot moves forth; the other has input in the script, but let’s the writers go off and do their job....

    Would Boyle have done a good job?— from what I heard from ppl close to the production of B25, the script they submitted was a snore-fest that tried to “change the culture of Bond” (that was a direct quote; whatever that means, your guess is as good as mine), and; when they suggested a script doctor come on board to fix the issues with the script, Boyle balked. He didn’t want anyone touching his writer’s script.
    Boyle had been quoted as saying he didn’t want to do a Bond film, and I suppose the theoretical answer I would give to the question is: I think we dodged a bullet when he departed.
    As I said, the flip side is: before Boyle, Cary Fukunaga had approached Barbara about directing a Bond picture.
    Does that mean NTTD will be a flawless masterpiece? I wouldn’t even pretend to guess (my gut tells me we may, at least, be getting something edgier and more suspenseful than anything Spectre gave us (to reiterate, no knock against Mendes, I think that SF may be my number two at the moment. But Spectre was a mess from its inception. If the script is a dud, you can’t really hide the flaws, no matter who directed the film)....

    As always I appreciate reading your thoughful posts Peter. Your inside information into the Boyle draft I find especially intriguing as his hiring initally had me very excited. I also like certain elements of the story which have leaked such as Bond being imprisoned and facing off against a Russian villain.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,254
    But @mtm, you seem to be saying that I think one director is better than another. I never said that (in fact I stated twice that SF is a top tier Bond film (and possibly my second favourite... ahead of (gasp), CR!)
    I also didn’t say that because Fukunaga had a helping hand in writing NTTD that it would be a better film (in fact, I didn’t mention Fukunaga as a writer on NTTD in my posts!).
    And I certainly haven’t praised a film I haven’t seen. Although I am optimistic we will get more suspense than the last film.
    I thought I had been clear on all of this. Oh well... hopefully this clears up things being attributed to me!
Sign In or Register to comment.