No Time to Die production thread (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)

1100810091011101310141213

Comments

  • Posts: 582
    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: 11,492
    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: 10,540
    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: 4,272
    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: 568
    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: 6,030
    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: 6,030
    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: 10,540
    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: 4,305
    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: 1,195
    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: 568
    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: 6,030
    Deleted
  • Posts: 2,302
    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.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 7 Posts: 6,030
    And some simply would prefer a clean slate for a new incarnation.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 11,492
    TripAces wrote: »
    And if you want one, it's going to cost a pretty penny:
    Luckily, mine just cost me a regular penny. ;)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 4,305
    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.

    Good point. If the same trend continues, the current whitehall brigade will be in office for a good long time.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Kingdumb of Norway
    Posts: 41,526
    talos7 wrote: »
    Of course he can return; it’s a matter of preference as to if he does. Neither is “ insane”

    Perhaps both are.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 7 Posts: 8,300
    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.

    I can imagine only M remaining actually. Moneypenny I think is brilliant, but I can see them going for someone closer in age to the new Bond perhaps? Not that she looks old at all. And again I'd be more than happy to keep Whishaw, but he's a very successful actor and I could imagine him moving on, although that's not to say that he will.
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    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.

    Yes I think it's a different character- in CR she has a different dress sense, much more vampy than the Brosnan M dressed; and she's notably not an alcoholic like the previous M either! :D She's a bit less mumsy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 7 Posts: 8,300
    Contraband wrote: »
    Another Heineken ad with Craig. Fresh upload



    These ads are really badly directed. The joke just dies.
  • 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.
    Awe, I was going to say the same thing (not as well though)! 😆
    I like the fact that there's never been a completely fresh slate for the MI6 team and that there's always been at least one actor carrying over to a new Bond and providing a link to the past (albeit loosely in Judi Dench's case). There probably will be a new M, Moneypenny or Q (or all three) at some point in the next Bond actor's era but I'm perfectly happy with Fiennes, Harris and Whishaw carrying over before that happens. 🙂
  • I've just realised that if Naomie Harris carried over to the next Bond actor's era, she would be the first Moneypenny to do so since Lois Maxwell!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,300
    I think she's great. I'd happily watch her in her own film/show.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,457
    We should keep Rory Kinnear and dump the rest. Tanner is, of course, the true hero of the Craig era!
  • I feel like they’ll cast an older Q if (when) they get a younger Bond, since it was done as kind of an inversion of their traditional relationship.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 603
    We should keep Rory Kinnear and dump the rest. Tanner is, of course, the true hero of the Craig era!

    Get Tobias Menzies as M. We'll go crazy discussing whether this is a new character or Villiers got a thoroughly undeserved promotion.
  • Posts: 290
    Unpopular questions. Given the Super Bowl event, do you think they'll do something like for the past year or MGM has already too much money spent?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 4,305
    We should keep Rory Kinnear and dump the rest. Tanner is, of course, the true hero of the Craig era!

    I hope you’re joking!
  • Posts: 607
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Another Heineken ad with Craig. Fresh upload



    These ads are really badly directed. The joke just dies.

    Nay ! I think it is quite amusing. Bond/Craig getting older; needs glasses to read. Not pulling out a weapon, just reading glasses. Self-deprecating humor.
Sign In or Register to comment.