No Time to Die production thread (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)

1100410051007100910101213

Comments

  • Posts: 300
    Contraband wrote: »
    Have you guys seen this Heineken ad with Craig? Uploaded two weeks ago. Must be a pen-reference to Alan Cumming's character Boris Ivanovih Grishenko in GoldenEye? Although I don't understand the ad at all


    I think it's just him doing some crosswords and joking about the explosive pen from Goldeneye and quote by Q in Skyfall...
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 19,989
    Me too. I think Fiennes is a great M. He was destined to be a part of the family. At one point I felt he could've been Bond even.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 9,340
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    It would be nice if theaters did a SPECTRE/NTTD tandem showing for the sake of continuity. Plus, it wouldn’t be a bad idea in helping theaters earn a bit more change.

    Will not happen, because both movies have different distributors.
    Even when SF and SP both had SONY distribute it, there were no double features. Same with CR and QOS.

    And in the end the theatres are not allowed to decide by themselves.
    It looks like EON doesn't like Double-Fearures.
    Prior to the onset of the pandemic there were schedules for Craig Bond marathons of all 5 films.

  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,754
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    It would be nice if theaters did a SPECTRE/NTTD tandem showing for the sake of continuity. Plus, it wouldn’t be a bad idea in helping theaters earn a bit more change.

    Will not happen, because both movies have different distributors.
    Even when SF and SP both had SONY distribute it, there were no double features. Same with CR and QOS.

    And in the end the theatres are not allowed to decide by themselves.
    It looks like EON doesn't like Double-Fearures.
    Prior to the onset of the pandemic there were schedules for Craig Bond marathons of all 5 films.

    This is still listed on the Regal website. I hope they do this. I would pay a pretty penny to see a marathon in the theaters.
  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 522
    Contraband wrote: »
    Lee Morrison, stunt co-ordinator, spilled the beans about a Norway stunt:

    What was the most challenging motorcycle stunt scene?

    “Well for the Tiger, and remember these are stunt professionals, it was probably when we were riding them at high speeds and bouncing off the sides of cars during the Norway chase scene! It was amazing being able to ride behind and direct my lead stunt rider, constantly telling him to get in there, I want you alongside ‘Bond’, hitting the side of his door, cutting behind. There was a point where we jumped the Tiger over a car and under a helicopter. To have the confidence in a motorcycle to do all those things, on the move, while directing through an earpiece shows you how good that bike is.”


    https://www.triumphmotorcycles.com/triumph-world/james-bond-partnership

    Thanks Contraband. Those are some very tantalizing details about that chase scene. Everything I hear about it gets me more and more excited. Sounds like it will be very cinematic.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,327
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    It would be nice if theaters did a SPECTRE/NTTD tandem showing for the sake of continuity. Plus, it wouldn’t be a bad idea in helping theaters earn a bit more change.

    Will not happen, because both movies have different distributors.
    Even when SF and SP both had SONY distribute it, there were no double features. Same with CR and QOS.

    And in the end the theatres are not allowed to decide by themselves.
    It looks like EON doesn't like Double-Fearures.
    Prior to the onset of the pandemic there were schedules for Craig Bond marathons of all 5 films.

    This is still listed on the Regal website. I hope they do this. I would pay a pretty penny to see a marathon in the theaters.

    Yes. The one good thing about the delay to October is that I will be more likely to do it.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 9,340
    TripAces wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    It would be nice if theaters did a SPECTRE/NTTD tandem showing for the sake of continuity. Plus, it wouldn’t be a bad idea in helping theaters earn a bit more change.

    Will not happen, because both movies have different distributors.
    Even when SF and SP both had SONY distribute it, there were no double features. Same with CR and QOS.

    And in the end the theatres are not allowed to decide by themselves.
    It looks like EON doesn't like Double-Fearures.
    Prior to the onset of the pandemic there were schedules for Craig Bond marathons of all 5 films.

    This is still listed on the Regal website. I hope they do this. I would pay a pretty penny to see a marathon in the theaters.

    Yes. The one good thing about the delay to October is that I will be more likely to do it.
    I'm. All. In.

  • Posts: 2,516
    With Great Britain’s world class vaccine rollout, we shall be ready to see this baby by the summer.

    :))
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 2,950
    Another Heineken ad with Craig. Fresh upload



  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I don't think we can judge Fiennes on SP being is first fully fledged film as M, though he was far from dull in SF as Mallory.

    He showed such promise there, made you think he'd be fantastic in SP yet like the cast he was shackled with a terrible script and plot.

    His dullness is down to what he was handed not him as an actor or the idea of him being M.

    Not Fiennes fault, I already get the vibe from the trailers he is much better, I think that will the case for everyone, just look at Waltz, already better and this is just the trailer.

    That being said and @peter and I discussed this earlier today and although I initially said I would like him back, he mentioned the self contained element and that for us DC fans we'd crave for his
    Bond again.

    So possibly best they clean house. @peter mentioned that they went with Dench again as DC was pretty much unknown and somewhat of a gamble.

    Although one that paid off in spades and totally re-established Bond (despite haters personal views) for the 21st century.

    That being said, I feel they'll want another fairly celebrated British thesp for the role, I think it is unlikely you'll see another M as confined to the desk as the wonderful Bernard Lee was for sometime or if at all.

    They can tackle a new era without making it personal and introducing Bond as more of a seasoned agent, it is just I think that M will be more than just the guy who sends Bond off on his missions and will feature more prominently.
  • Posts: 100
    The trouble with keeping the current regulars on, or recasting them with actors of equal stature, is that it means they'll have to keep finding ways of writing them into the main story, which is fine every so often but not every single time. They'd be better off casting dependable B-list actors who they can bring in for a short scene and occasionally more.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited February 6 Posts: 10,567
    Like others have mentioned, I think the biggest problem is the fact that the Craig era is a self-contained series of films, more so than any era that came before it. For that reason alone it would be a bit jarring to see Fiennes continue as M, let alone Harris and Whishaw in their respective roles. I would prefer an entirely new and reinvented cast for the next actor.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 9,340
    Well they could continue with Fiennes as a different M with a backstory named Barbara M-something would work.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,134
    Well they could continue with Fiennes as a different M with a backstory named Barbara M-something would work.

    Or maybe he could now be Sir Miles, as a new character in a reboot? It isn’t fair to Ralph Fiennes, if Judi Dench got the chance to come back, and that was only because of Martin Campbell.
  • Posts: 486
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
  • Posts: 601
    I just rewatched True Lies. Damn, what a movie. I feel like Killa Cam could make a Bond film in his sleep. It’s so effortlessly good.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 11,759
    A look at the cocktail menu from the El Nido bar in Cuba, as seen on the counter in the Fukunaga voice-over trailer & Cuban set crew group photo, check left side of the screenshot:

    50914117801_250e6517c3_o.jpg
    50913429713_116d8f5564_o.png
    50913383288_d67d4eaf0f_o.png
    50914203917_2c42131c46.jpg

    Inclusions of interest: Dry Martini, Mojito, and a couple of drinks that contain Tabasco.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited February 6 Posts: 10,567
    JamesStock wrote: »
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
    Let’s not act as if the current era worked exactly like the ones that came before it. There was no continuity between the Brosnan films other than the return of MI6 regulars (and the reappearance of Zukovsky). There is no continual arc and the films were entirely standalone. Like it or not, the Craig era is completely different in that regard. Hardly “insanity” when looking at the obvious IMO.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited February 6 Posts: 4,327
    QBranch wrote: »
    A look at the cocktail menu from the El Nido bar in Cuba, as seen on the counter in the Fukunaga voice-over trailer & Cuban set crew group photo, check left side of the screenshot:

    50914117801_250e6517c3_o.jpg
    50913429713_116d8f5564_o.png
    50913383288_d67d4eaf0f_o.png
    50914203917_2c42131c46.jpg

    Inclusions of interest: Dry Martini, Mojito, and a couple of drinks that contain Tabasco.

    I am still amazed at certain details: how many of these menus were printed...and how much of the fine print will ever be seen? I love it.

    And if you want one, it's going to cost a pretty penny: https://www.ebay.com/itm/No-Time-To-Die-Prop-Drinks-Menu-James-Bond-007-Rare/224333629792?hash=item343b538960:g:wdwAAOSw~tFgFUZU
  • Posts: 606
    jake24 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
    Let’s not act as if the current era worked exactly like the ones that came before it. There was no continuity between the Brosnan films other than the return of MI6 regulars (and the reappearance of Zukovsky). There is no continual arc and the films were entirely standalone. Like it or not, the Craig era is completely different in that regard. Hardly “insanity” when looking at the obvious IMO.

    And still it doesn't matter if Fiennes continues to play M in Bond 26.
    They can make a story-telling cut after NTTD, but still keep Fiennes, Harris and Wishaw.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,153
    jake24 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
    Let’s not act as if the current era worked exactly like the ones that came before it. There was no continuity between the Brosnan films other than the return of MI6 regulars (and the reappearance of Zukovsky). There is no continual arc and the films were entirely standalone. Like it or not, the Craig era is completely different in that regard. Hardly “insanity” when looking at the obvious IMO.

    Absolutely @jake24 ...
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    jake24 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
    Let’s not act as if the current era worked exactly like the ones that came before it. There was no continuity between the Brosnan films other than the return of MI6 regulars (and the reappearance of Zukovsky). There is no continual arc and the films were entirely standalone. Like it or not, the Craig era is completely different in that regard. Hardly “insanity” when looking at the obvious IMO.

    This is true but we don't know if next Era will have continual arc or not. Personally, i would like Fiennes to return.
  • jake24 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
    Let’s not act as if the current era worked exactly like the ones that came before it. There was no continuity between the Brosnan films other than the return of MI6 regulars (and the reappearance of Zukovsky). There is no continual arc and the films were entirely standalone. Like it or not, the Craig era is completely different in that regard. Hardly “insanity” when looking at the obvious IMO.

    The whole point is that if the Craig era is so different, then why use Dench? She was from the Brosnan era.

    Fiennes could also return from the Craig era to a new Bond era.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 6 Posts: 6,153
    Of course he can return; it’s a matter of preference as to if he does. Neither is “ insane”
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,567
    jake24 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
    Let’s not act as if the current era worked exactly like the ones that came before it. There was no continuity between the Brosnan films other than the return of MI6 regulars (and the reappearance of Zukovsky). There is no continual arc and the films were entirely standalone. Like it or not, the Craig era is completely different in that regard. Hardly “insanity” when looking at the obvious IMO.

    The whole point is that if the Craig era is so different, then why use Dench? She was from the Brosnan era.

    Fiennes could also return from the Craig era to a new Bond era.
    This is a very valid point. I’ve always loved Dench as M (she was the first M I was exposed to) but I won’t deny that having her come back for CR doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I like Fiennes as M but just can’t see EON keeping him on for the next actor since they’ve been so heavy on continuity for the last few films. Who knows though?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited February 6 Posts: 5,039
    jake24 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
    Let’s not act as if the current era worked exactly like the ones that came before it. There was no continuity between the Brosnan films other than the return of MI6 regulars (and the reappearance of Zukovsky). There is no continual arc and the films were entirely standalone. Like it or not, the Craig era is completely different in that regard. Hardly “insanity” when looking at the obvious IMO.

    The whole point is that if the Craig era is so different, then why use Dench? She was from the Brosnan era.

    Fiennes could also return from the Craig era to a new Bond era.
    This is a very valid point. I’ve always loved Dench as M (she was the first M I was exposed to) but I won’t deny that having her come back for CR doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I like Fiennes as M but just can’t see EON keeping him on for the next actor since they’ve been so heavy on continuity for the last few films. Who knows though?

    Doesn't make a lot of sense in what way? There is no continuity between any of the Bond films, until the Craig era. Dench portrayed a great M in some Bond films, why not let her continue to portray M well in some more Bond films?

    I understand that the Craig era is different in that the films are interconnected, but in the grand scheme of things these Bond films are all individual Bond stories, and I still say the same goes for Fiennes (and Harris) as it did for Dench; they portray their characters well, they're not inextricably linked to Daniel Craig in any way, why not let them continue to portray their characters?
  • Posts: 1,223
    I just rewatched True Lies. Damn, what a movie. I feel like Killa Cam could make a Bond film in his sleep. It’s so effortlessly good.

    As a remake of "the Man from U.N.C.L.E." Cameron didn't do a half bad job with the material.
  • Posts: 606
    jake24 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
    Let’s not act as if the current era worked exactly like the ones that came before it. There was no continuity between the Brosnan films other than the return of MI6 regulars (and the reappearance of Zukovsky). There is no continual arc and the films were entirely standalone. Like it or not, the Craig era is completely different in that regard. Hardly “insanity” when looking at the obvious IMO.

    The whole point is that if the Craig era is so different, then why use Dench? She was from the Brosnan era.

    Fiennes could also return from the Craig era to a new Bond era.
    This is a very valid point. I’ve always loved Dench as M (she was the first M I was exposed to) but I won’t deny that having her come back for CR doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I like Fiennes as M but just can’t see EON keeping him on for the next actor since they’ve been so heavy on continuity for the last few films. Who knows though?

    Doesn't make a lot of sense in what way? There is no continuity between any of the Bond films, until the Craig era. Dench portrayed a great M in some Bond films, why not let her continue to portray M well in some more Bond films?

    I understand that the Craig era is different in that the films are interconnected, but in the grand scheme of things these Bond films are all individual Bond stories, and I still say the same goes for Fiennes (and Harris) as it did for Dench; they portray their characters well, they're not inextricably linked to Daniel Craig in any way, why not let them continue to portray their characters?

    That's what many fans don't get in my opinion.

    The character of M in CR (played by Judi Dench) has not gone through any of the adventures the character M had in previous films.

    To make it even more clear: M (played by Judi Dench) in TWINE might not have experienced the GE-story.

    Every Bondfilm is a world of its own.
    There can be a link to a scene from a previous Bondfilm, but even when Bond visits Tracy's grave in FYEO, it doesn't mean, that Bond in FYEO had experienced the Tracy-story like Bond in OHMSS did.
    In the FYEO-universe-past the Tracy/Blofeld-story could have been a little different than in the OHMSS-universe.

    There is only one truth: and that's the truth, that the Bondfilm, that you watch, tells you.
    So in NTTD there could be a reference to Goldfinger. That would mean, that Bond solved the Goldfinger-case in the past. But that doesn't mean, that this was in 1964 or at any other specific date.

    So Fiennes can play M in Bond 26, and that would not mean, that it is a sequel to NTTD.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 7 Posts: 6,153
    Deleted
  • Posts: 2,516
    jake24 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    This feeling that Fiennes shouldn't continue being M because the Craig era should be self-contained is insanity. They literally carried Dench over from the Brosnan era and it was completely fine.

    In all reality, the contractual agreements matter more than the fanbase wanting to kick him out because they want a clean slate.
    Let’s not act as if the current era worked exactly like the ones that came before it. There was no continuity between the Brosnan films other than the return of MI6 regulars (and the reappearance of Zukovsky). There is no continual arc and the films were entirely standalone. Like it or not, the Craig era is completely different in that regard. Hardly “insanity” when looking at the obvious IMO.

    The whole point is that if the Craig era is so different, then why use Dench? She was from the Brosnan era.

    Fiennes could also return from the Craig era to a new Bond era.
    This is a very valid point. I’ve always loved Dench as M (she was the first M I was exposed to) but I won’t deny that having her come back for CR doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I like Fiennes as M but just can’t see EON keeping him on for the next actor since they’ve been so heavy on continuity for the last few films. Who knows though?

    Doesn't make a lot of sense in what way? There is no continuity between any of the Bond films, until the Craig era. Dench portrayed a great M in some Bond films, why not let her continue to portray M well in some more Bond films?

    I understand that the Craig era is different in that the films are interconnected, but in the grand scheme of things these Bond films are all individual Bond stories, and I still say the same goes for Fiennes (and Harris) as it did for Dench; they portray their characters well, they're not inextricably linked to Daniel Craig in any way, why not let them continue to portray their characters?

    The same M, Moneypenny and Q will remain after Craig's tenure, I'm fairly sure. This has been a trend going right back to the very beginning, regardless of who is playing Bond.

    The same team oversaw various Bonds throughout the entire franchise. The original M, MP and Q survived Connery, Lazenby and Moore. Q went even further, and survived Dalton and Brosnan, and M would have done too, had Bernard Lee not passed away. Instead the newer M survived Moore and Dalton.

    And of course the more modern M sat through both the Brosnan and Craig eras, regardless of the reboot.
Sign In or Register to comment.