No Time To Die Script - Alternative pitches/what would you change?

1246

Comments

  • edited May 2022 Posts: 4,541
    Within a McQuarrie youtube interview, he is asked about working with such a pashionate actor/producer as TC, he says they have had disagreements but TC has never overridden him. The closest they got was filming certain scenes according the TCs wishes and then pursuading him to have them cut once viewed in the cinema. Surely, its a huge red flag when actors make such basic demands regarding such crucial story lines and the producers/writers comply.
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 1,268
    Of course, it's worth hammering home that BB and MGW agreed to Craig's ideas and did so at this particular point in time. At risk of re-opening this discussion again, the idea of Bond being killed isn't necessarily that radical from a Producer's point of view. It's been done a few times recently with big franchise characters such as Wolverine, Tony Stark, characters in Star Wars etc. Logan and Avengers were particularly successful. They can always reboot the series with another actor so no biggie. I mean, it's possible they really liked this idea and would have incorporated (or considered doing so) for Craig's last film even if he hadn't have been a Producer/thought of it himself...

    Of course, what if this had been the case and Craig had pushed back saying that Bond shouldn't die and wouldn't do the film at all if this ending were in place? Would the whole idea of actors making demands be viewed as necessarily a negative thing for some people? Anyway, just a thought...
  • Posts: 4,541
    an idea is one thing, an ultimatum is another...we may never know the reality here.
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 1,268
    patb wrote: »
    an idea is one thing, an ultimatum is another...we may never know the reality here.

    It's very much a hypothetical as we know Craig went into this film with the idea that his Bond would be killed... again though, what if it'd been Broccoli's idea and Craig was the one against this (or at least doing so in the definitive way we got)?

    I guess what I'm trying to say is depending on one's view of the creative choice, the idea of an actor making demands, ultimatums and standing by certain artistic choices isn't always straightforwardly positive or negative. I'm sure there are examples of actors insisting on things which in hindsight made their movies better.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,086
    Yeah I'm not seeing the problem here; the star/exec producer wanted a thing, the producers also wanted that thing, so they did that thing. This is a bunch of people all agreeing about something.
    They don't just blindly go along with their star: they demonstrated this when they decided not to hire Brosnan again. Up until that point Brosnan had been the only star that Broccoli/Wilson had had whilst they were in top charge of the films- he had been a massive success, made the films properly popular again, but they decided that their concept was bigger than the star.

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 1,855
    To be fair, the interviews in Variety earlier in the year revealed that although Craig had raised the idea of Bond's death back in 2006, the answer from EON had been 'no' and it hadn't been mentioned again until BB tried to lure Craig back for NTTD. I wouldn't be surprised if it was BB who broached the idea this time, in the hope that it'd be enough to make Craig commit. That's speculation, though, obvs!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,086
    Venutius wrote: »
    To be fair, the interviews in Variety earlier in the year revealed that although Craig had raised the idea of Bond's death back in 2006, the answer from EON had been 'no' and it hadn't been mentioned again until BB tried to lure Craig back for NTTD.

    What interview was that? I thought they'd said that she wasn't averse to the idea back in 2006 (I feel like that's on the NTTD podcast too..?), but obviously they weren't going to kill him after just his first film :)
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited May 2022 Posts: 1,855
    Yes, both Dan and BB said that when Dan raised the idea of Bond dying in his last film, she immediately agreed to do it. But BB then said she had to go and tell MGW what she'd agreed to - and, according to Craig, the answer 'was no for a long time...I thought it was forgotten about, put it that way. I didn’t bring it back up again until this one.' Which, actually, sounds like Craig raised it, not Barbara. So much for speculation!

    https://variety.com/2021/film/news/no-time-to-die-ending-james-bond-death-daniel-craig-1235144941/
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 12,086
    Thanks, I missed that one. It doesn't sound like a massive twisting of the arm then (although I'm sure they'd never make it sound that way even if it were), but MGW: "I think we thought, all of us had thought, that that was the best way to end this whole thing"
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 521
    patb wrote: »
    Within a McQuarrie youtube interview, he is asked about working with such a pashionate actor/producer as TC, he says they have had disagreements but TC has never overridden him. The closest they got was filming certain scenes according the TCs wishes and then pursuading him to have them cut once viewed in the cinema. Surely, its a huge red flag when actors make such basic demands regarding such crucial story lines and the producers/writers comply.

    I don't think actors having input in their films is the issue. The issue is specifically why BB and MGW pandered to Craig so much, starting with getting Lindy Hemming fired and spending all of the post-QOS films looking ridiculous in tiny suits and weird outfits like the corduroy suit and duster in NTTD. Did they really think that the franchise was hinged on the SIXTH actor to play the character and that they couldn't go on without him? The whole thing is bizarre.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 1,855
    The SF suit did look a bit Alexei Sayle at first, but became ubiquitous really quickly in the UK so the weirdness wore off and it soon looked normal over here. The corduroy suit and duster were pretty bizarre, though.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,768
    I think the biggest mistake in NTTD's production was letting it be known it was Daniel's last so far ahead of time.

    They should have revealed "the mission that changes everything" in one of the trailers, then before the premiere allow Craig to announce he's stepping down from the role, maybe in the Being James Bond documentary.

    Knowing for certain in was Craig's last since 2017 was a distraction if anything.
    Everybody rightly so was fixated on how the story will end rather than what the story would be, I'd be even include the producers in that as well
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,086
    I thought fans loved many of his looks from QoS onwards: the black Harrington, the enjoying death leather jacket, the Skyfall Barbour look etc. etc. Even his choices on the watches produced a couple of the best ever.
  • Posts: 4,541
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I think the biggest mistake in NTTD's production was letting it be known it was Daniel's last so far ahead of time.

    They should have revealed "the mission that changes everything" in one of the trailers, then before the premiere allow Craig to announce he's stepping down from the role, maybe in the Being James Bond documentary.

    Knowing for certain in was Craig's last since 2017 was a distraction if anything.
    Everybody rightly so was fixated on how the story will end rather than what the story would be, I'd be even include the producers in that as well

    100%
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Moderator
    Posts: 13,104
    With the exception of that lovely 3 piece suit at the end of CR, the Craig era suits look awful. Why spend so much on a suit, in order to look smart, just for the suit to look ill fitting.

    I have no issue with his casual wear though, he wore some nice pieces of casual clothing.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 38,241
    With the exception of that lovely 3 piece suit at the end of CR, the Craig era suits look awful. Why spend so much on a suit, in order to look smart, just for the suit to look ill fitting.

    I have no issue with his casual wear though, he wore some nice pieces of casual clothing.

    The worst example for me is the suit during the SP PTS. Craig looks like he's desperate to remove it so he can breathe. Not very practical for a spy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,086
    That one does look conspicuously tight, but the rest look good to me.
  • MI6HQMI6HQ Vauxhall Headquarters, London
    Posts: 1,889
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    With the exception of that lovely 3 piece suit at the end of CR, the Craig era suits look awful. Why spend so much on a suit, in order to look smart, just for the suit to look ill fitting.

    I have no issue with his casual wear though, he wore some nice pieces of casual clothing.

    The worst example for me is the suit during the SP PTS. Craig looks like he's desperate to remove it so he can breathe. Not very practical for a spy.

    But it's Craig himself who have insisted to have those tight suits.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 38,241
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    With the exception of that lovely 3 piece suit at the end of CR, the Craig era suits look awful. Why spend so much on a suit, in order to look smart, just for the suit to look ill fitting.

    I have no issue with his casual wear though, he wore some nice pieces of casual clothing.

    The worst example for me is the suit during the SP PTS. Craig looks like he's desperate to remove it so he can breathe. Not very practical for a spy.

    But it's Craig himself who have insisted to have those tight suits.

    Regardless, it doesn't change how goofy and ill-fitting the suit looks.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited May 2022 Posts: 521
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I think the biggest mistake in NTTD's production was letting it be known it was Daniel's last so far ahead of time.

    They should have revealed "the mission that changes everything" in one of the trailers, then before the premiere allow Craig to announce he's stepping down from the role, maybe in the Being James Bond documentary.

    Knowing for certain in was Craig's last since 2017 was a distraction if anything.
    Everybody rightly so was fixated on how the story will end rather than what the story would be, I'd be even include the producers in that as well
    Even if they hadn't announced it I think it would've been assumed to be his last. I certainly wouldn't have expected him to go beyond a 5th by 2018 or so, when he turned 50 and became the longest serving actor.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 1,855
    I remember some undercurrents of misgivings about the suit when SF was still in production and the response that it was 'right on trend'. I also remember thinking that Bond ought to be timeless, rather than right on trend - after all, safari suits were on trend once...
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 52
    Remember the Connery flms where they made Bond seemingly die at the beginning? NTTD is just doing it at the end. They made Bond seemingly die. I am sure they will have an explanation in the next movie how he survived.
  • MI6HQMI6HQ Vauxhall Headquarters, London
    edited May 2022 Posts: 1,889
    WhyBond wrote: »
    Remember the Connery flms where they made Bond seemingly die at the beginning? NTTD is just doing it at the end. They made Bond seemingly die. I am sure they will have an explanation in the next movie how he survived.

    I doubt that they will explain it, they will just reboot it like in the classic films without explanation, it'll likely to be a "wipe the slate clean".
    To prove that it only happened in the Craig Era to close his arc and separate it from others, isolated.
    The only thing that I can think of as a solution to this, if they want to hit two birds at the same stone is to return to the classic continuity:
    A.) They can easily move on from the Craig Era, reboot and all, and leave the Craig's films as separate and isolated from the other Bond films.
    B.) That's the easiest way that they can avoid of explaining of how he survived from that ending, that film can easily show us that this new film was return to the classic continuity and returning back to where DAD left off.
    So no need for the audience to think how Bond survived or was he a codename, and instead think of it as what's written in A.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited May 2022 Posts: 38,241
    Yes, there's nothing to explain because he's dead in the Craig era. It'll be a new actor, a new era, a new take on the character, so hopefully an all new supporting cast too.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 52
    Craig might of had an idea to pay homage to Fleming. Fleming did kill off Bond and resurrected him in the next novel. It's just weird because we are used to seeing Bond get out alive every time only escaping death by an inch.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 38,241
    WhyBond wrote: »
    Craig might of had an idea to pay homage to Fleming. Fleming did kill off Bond and resurrected him in the next novel. It's just weird because we are used to seeing Bond get out alive every time only escaping death by an inch.

    Absolutely. That certainly helps make it as divisive as it is.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited May 2022 Posts: 4,247
    It's just that Jack Sparrow has already done it, maybe EON would have introduced Bond 7 firing his way out of a coffin, without referencing NTTD. Maybe the Coffin is a Gadget from Q or Maybe Bond hides inside it to do some serious spying.
  • Posts: 1,268
    I'm re-reading YOLT at the moment, and one thing I'll never understand is why the writers/producers of NTTD chose to adapt things like the Garden of Death, the Japanese setting of the villain's lair, the 'die Blofeld die' line, and arguably to a lesser extent Bond's death, and yet left out other things. There's some great stuff in Blofeld's monologue before his final showdown with Bond. ie.

    "Now, Mister Bond, take Operation Thunderball, as your government dubbed it. This project involved the holding to ransom of the Western World by the acquisition by me of two atomic weapons. Where lies the crime in this, except in the Erewhon of international politics? Rich boys are playing with rich toys. A poor boy comes along and takes them and offers them back for money. If the poor boy had been successful, what a valuable by-product might have resulted for the whole world! These were dangerous toys which, in the poor boy's hands, or let us say, to discard the allegory, in the hands of a Castro, could lead to the wanton extinction of mankind. By my action, I gave a dramatic example for all to see. If I had been successful and the money had been handed over, might not the threat of a recurrence of my attempt have led to serious disarmament talks, to an abandonment of these dangerous toys that might so easily get into the wrong hands? You follow my reasoning? Then this recent matter of the bacteriological warfare attack on England. My dear Mister Bond, England is a sick nation by any standards. By hastening the sickness to the brink of death, might not Britain have been forced out of her lethargy into the kind of community effort we witnessed during the war? Cruel to be kind, Mister Bond. Where lies the great crime there?"


    I know Craig and Malek had a lot of trouble with the dialogue during Safin/Bond's encounter and had to go off and make a lot of it up, but could this not have been used to some extent? Seems like Safin justifying his use of the nanobots, a dangerous weapon, against SPECTRE and perhaps even subsequently against the world with such logic would be more interesting, no?
  • Posts: 313
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm re-reading YOLT at the moment, and one thing I'll never understand is why the writers/producers of NTTD chose to adapt things like the Garden of Death, the Japanese setting of the villain's lair, the 'die Blofeld die' line, and arguably to a lesser extent Bond's death, and yet left out other things. There's some great stuff in Blofeld's monologue before his final showdown with Bond. ie.

    "Now, Mister Bond, take Operation Thunderball, as your government dubbed it. This project involved the holding to ransom of the Western World by the acquisition by me of two atomic weapons. Where lies the crime in this, except in the Erewhon of international politics? Rich boys are playing with rich toys. A poor boy comes along and takes them and offers them back for money. If the poor boy had been successful, what a valuable by-product might have resulted for the whole world! These were dangerous toys which, in the poor boy's hands, or let us say, to discard the allegory, in the hands of a Castro, could lead to the wanton extinction of mankind. By my action, I gave a dramatic example for all to see. If I had been successful and the money had been handed over, might not the threat of a recurrence of my attempt have led to serious disarmament talks, to an abandonment of these dangerous toys that might so easily get into the wrong hands? You follow my reasoning? Then this recent matter of the bacteriological warfare attack on England. My dear Mister Bond, England is a sick nation by any standards. By hastening the sickness to the brink of death, might not Britain have been forced out of her lethargy into the kind of community effort we witnessed during the war? Cruel to be kind, Mister Bond. Where lies the great crime there?"


    I know Craig and Malek had a lot of trouble with the dialogue during Safin/Bond's encounter and had to go off and make a lot of it up, but could this not have been used to some extent? Seems like Safin justifying his use of the nanobots, a dangerous weapon, against SPECTRE and perhaps even subsequently against the world with such logic would be more interesting, no?

    Would have been great to this speech adapted for their scene in the film. However, if we are suggesting changes to the script/plot, I would love to have seen Blofeld be the main villain and deliver this speech to Bond, but make references to his past schemes in the more recent films of Craig's run. Everything building toward this moment, it could have been the big showdown between these two arch enemies. Something we never really got before outside the novels. The finale between Safin and Bond would have felt more cathartic the moment he realizes the vial scratched his face if it was Blofeld wielding it instead.

    That being said, I still loved this movie from begining to end. Still liked Spectre too, despite its flaws and knowing it could have been better in some areas (e.g. the car chase in Rome).
  • Posts: 1,268
    Gettler wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm re-reading YOLT at the moment, and one thing I'll never understand is why the writers/producers of NTTD chose to adapt things like the Garden of Death, the Japanese setting of the villain's lair, the 'die Blofeld die' line, and arguably to a lesser extent Bond's death, and yet left out other things. There's some great stuff in Blofeld's monologue before his final showdown with Bond. ie.

    "Now, Mister Bond, take Operation Thunderball, as your government dubbed it. This project involved the holding to ransom of the Western World by the acquisition by me of two atomic weapons. Where lies the crime in this, except in the Erewhon of international politics? Rich boys are playing with rich toys. A poor boy comes along and takes them and offers them back for money. If the poor boy had been successful, what a valuable by-product might have resulted for the whole world! These were dangerous toys which, in the poor boy's hands, or let us say, to discard the allegory, in the hands of a Castro, could lead to the wanton extinction of mankind. By my action, I gave a dramatic example for all to see. If I had been successful and the money had been handed over, might not the threat of a recurrence of my attempt have led to serious disarmament talks, to an abandonment of these dangerous toys that might so easily get into the wrong hands? You follow my reasoning? Then this recent matter of the bacteriological warfare attack on England. My dear Mister Bond, England is a sick nation by any standards. By hastening the sickness to the brink of death, might not Britain have been forced out of her lethargy into the kind of community effort we witnessed during the war? Cruel to be kind, Mister Bond. Where lies the great crime there?"


    I know Craig and Malek had a lot of trouble with the dialogue during Safin/Bond's encounter and had to go off and make a lot of it up, but could this not have been used to some extent? Seems like Safin justifying his use of the nanobots, a dangerous weapon, against SPECTRE and perhaps even subsequently against the world with such logic would be more interesting, no?

    Would have been great to this speech adapted for their scene in the film. However, if we are suggesting changes to the script/plot, I would love to have seen Blofeld be the main villain and deliver this speech to Bond, but make references to his past schemes in the more recent films of Craig's run. Everything building toward this moment, it could have been the big showdown between these two arch enemies. Something we never really got before outside the novels. The finale between Safin and Bond would have felt more cathartic the moment he realizes the vial scratched his face if it was Blofeld wielding it instead.

    That being said, I still loved this movie from begining to end. Still liked Spectre too, despite its flaws and knowing it could have been better in some areas (e.g. the car chase in Rome).

    To be fair, as much as I think they messed up his character in the third act, I really like the idea of Safin. He's this ghost of a man - his body (perhaps mind too) damaged from the poison, stalking around this Japanese island surrounded by his family's plants, constantly motivated by revenge and nihilism... He's an interesting villain in theory. I just think he needed to justify his actions to Bond for him to be believable. The confrontation between him and Bond has all this stuff about people needing an invisible God, how him and Bond are the same (which is particularly baffling... I mean, if this had come from a villain like, say, Silva or Alec Travelyen, then I'd have understood... but Safin?) and it muddies the water. What is his motivation? Why does he suddenly love Madeline? Who knows.

    To be honest, I kind of wish Malek had played Blofeld in SP... would have been something a bit different (ditch the foster brother subplot I'd say though). NTTD would have been a different film perhaps, given the fact that Waltz was not warmly received as the character and even by his own account wasn't especially strong in the role.
Sign In or Register to comment.