No Time To Die: Production Diary

13303313333353362507

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Apart from the Jim Phelps twist, I also think it was rather alright.
  • Posts: 1,296
    This video is very inspiring to me, it has meant a lot to me. Did you see Mendes in his scarf?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    This video is very inspiring to me, it has meant a lot to me. Did you see Mendes in his scarf?

    I'm sure that surprises no one here.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 12,837
    I was glad they bought Q and Moneypenny back but to be honest, while Wishaw is brilliant and I hope they keep him as Q for as long as he can play the role (could definitely end up beating Desmond's record), I wouldn't care if we never saw anyone play Moneypenny again. I think she's sort of run her course now as a character. While with Maxwell and Connery, Bond and Brosnan, the scenes felt genuinely fun and playful, they've come to feel forced and artificial to me. And I did think it was due to a lack of chemistry between Craig and Harris but I'm starting to think it's just that the character is played out. At least with Q there's room for surprises (new gadgets). With Moneypenny she serves no real story purpose and you know exactly what to expect, every flirting scene just feels like going through the motions and I'd rather bypass that and get straight to M's briefing/the plot to be honest.

    As for Mendes, I'm a fan. SF was really good despite a few nagging issues and SP was amazing imo. It had pretty much everything I'd been asking for. What I don't get is why people are surprised at how we've ended up here. That to me is what the whole Craig era has been about. Showing rookie, Flemingesque Bond evolve into the cinematic Connery template, and putting that in a real world context, in terms of the plots and the effect that would have on a person (becoming desnsitised to killing as he was by SP). I thought it was brilliantly done. As soon as he said the introduction line at the end of CR I thought it was clear we'd end up here eventually.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    every flirting scene just feels like going through the motions and I'd rather bypass that and get straight to M's briefing/the plot to be honest.
    That's like pulling the trigger without the hammer making any movement. It's a dismemberment of a key element in the Bond formula.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    We got to see something new in SP, didn t we?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited August 2016 Posts: 40,372
    We got to see something new in SP, didn t we?

    Indeed: Bond talking to a CG mouse, which helps him proceed with his mission. There's a first!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I was thinking of Moneypenny with her boyfriend, and Bond being obviously jealous.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I was thinking of Moneypenny with her boyfriend, and Bond being obviously jealous.

    Really like that moment.
  • ChriscoopChriscoop North Yorkshire
    Posts: 281
    As it's been alluded too already the Blofeld lair explosion and Rome car chase were disproportionately expensive for the purpose they served, Blofeld's lair was barely used, let alone to good effect, and the biggest movie explosion ever was just there, with a line of "let's go home" hardly dramatic enough. The car chase could have been so much better and more tense, but was treated as a semi comedy sequence. For a decent car chase watch Ronin with de Niro, an excellent film with an exciting car chase, the Citroën 2cv chase in fyeo is more exciting and didn't have any supercars in it!
    From where I'm sat, the opening stunt in mi rn was far more talked about than either of SP s big 2. And how much do we reckon it costs to strap tom cruise to an airplane??
    Mendes has delivered so tremendous scenes in sf and SP, brought some truly wonderful cinematography, but unfortunately aspects important to a lot of fans have been found wanting. Bond occupies his own space in cinema, he shouldn't compete with Bourne and mi is just a light popcorn action film made in the shadow of Bond. IMHO both SF and SP would be improved with a proper soundtrack even though Newman did achieve some great tracks here and there, Newmans work just doesn't lift the scenes to excitement level. Mendes does get a lot of stick, not because he's a bad director but because we debate the things wrong with these films and unfortunately he has given Bond fans plenty of ammunition. He also was going to be taken to task by many (myself included) for taking a retrograde step in Bonds development. The lesson being, if your going to try make a classic bond with all of everyone's favourite Ingredients.... Do it right!
  • Posts: 676
    every flirting scene just feels like going through the motions and I'd rather bypass that and get straight to M's briefing/the plot to be honest.
    That's like pulling the trigger without the hammer making any movement. It's a dismemberment of a key element in the Bond formula.
    Did CR suffer for lack of Moneypenny?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Milovy wrote: »
    every flirting scene just feels like going through the motions and I'd rather bypass that and get straight to M's briefing/the plot to be honest.
    That's like pulling the trigger without the hammer making any movement. It's a dismemberment of a key element in the Bond formula.
    Did CR suffer for lack of Moneypenny?
    I don't mind it because it was Agent 007: Year One. But, if we really have to cut it off from the rest of the series, yes it would suffer. For me, it would. Big time.
  • I wouldn't mind seeing the back of Moneypenny either. Either she's a bit of totty for Bond to sexually harass every film, or they have to involve her in the plot through some sort of contrivance. Either way she's redundant.

    I thought CR's Villiers was a perfectly acceptable update of the Moneypenny character. Moneypenny herself is loaded with too many expectations and tropes to be worth the bother. It's not like she did much in the books, I'd rather see Tanner's role beefed up.
  • Posts: 2,483
    I was thinking of Moneypenny with her boyfriend, and Bond being obviously jealous.

    It's not just these small moments, though. The entire tone of the film is different from all Bonds that went before it, but SP still manages to radiate the Bond feel. I've said before that if Kubrick had directed a Bond film it would resemble SP and I still maintain that assertion.

  • I was thinking of Moneypenny with her boyfriend, and Bond being obviously jealous.

    It's not just these small moments, though. The entire tone of the film is different from all Bonds that went before it, but SP still manages to radiate the Bond feel. I've said before that if Kubrick had directed a Bond film it would resemble SP and I still maintain that assertion.

    giphy.gif
  • Posts: 154
    I've been in the camp that DC should move on. However, some of the recent posts here have given me an idea -- going back to literary Bond (but with John Gardner rather than Ian Fleming ... bear with me a bit).

    "Nobody Lives Forever" has a plot that can (technically) continue the DC story and yet act as it's own standalone adventure. In the book, Bond's housekeeper, May, and Moneypenny are kidnapped. This is part of a plot to draw him out. A villain from the past has put out a contract on Bond -- ten million swiss francs for 007's head severed and delivered on a silver charger. So let's apply this to the DC saga. Bond is out on assignment and receives word that Madeline Swann has been killed. He returns from the field. Other people near Bond die (this happened in the book). Then Moneypenny is kidnapped. Bond discovers that a worldwide contract is on his head and must find out who's behind it. It will turn out, at the end, that it was Blofeld -- pulling the strings from behind bars. (They might even have Blofeld escape at the end so that he can return in a later film.)

    It's not the worst of ideas.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,686
    writer5150 wrote: »
    I've been in the camp that DC should move on. However, some of the recent posts here have given me an idea -- going back to literary Bond (but with John Gardner rather than Ian Fleming ... bear with me a bit).

    "Nobody Lives Forever" has a plot that can (technically) continue the DC story and yet act as it's own standalone adventure. In the book, Bond's housekeeper, May, and Moneypenny are kidnapped. This is part of a plot to draw him out. A villain from the past has put out a contract on Bond -- ten million swiss francs for 007's head severed and delivered on a silver charger. So let's apply this to the DC saga. Bond is out on assignment and receives word that Madeline Swann has been killed. He returns from the field. Other people near Bond die (this happened in the book). Then Moneypenny is kidnapped. Bond discovers that a worldwide contract is on his head and must find out who's behind it. It will turn out, at the end, that it was Blofeld -- pulling the strings from behind bars. (They might even have Blofeld escape at the end so that he can return in a later film.)

    It's not the worst of ideas.

    It's not the worst of ideas, but it is definitely one of the worst ideas. No more M getting kidnapped, MI6 getting blown up, or Moneypenny/Q getting kidnapped.
  • Posts: 322
    I wouldn't mind seeing the back of Moneypenny either. Either she's a bit of totty for Bond to sexually harass every film, or they have to involve her in the plot through some sort of contrivance. Either way she's redundant.

    If anything, I thought it was Moneypenny harassing Bond by trying to get him to go out on a date, and Bond forever having to make excuses

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    writer5150 wrote: »
    I've been in the camp that DC should move on. However, some of the recent posts here have given me an idea -- going back to literary Bond (but with John Gardner rather than Ian Fleming ... bear with me a bit).

    "Nobody Lives Forever" has a plot that can (technically) continue the DC story and yet act as it's own standalone adventure. In the book, Bond's housekeeper, May, and Moneypenny are kidnapped. This is part of a plot to draw him out. A villain from the past has put out a contract on Bond -- ten million swiss francs for 007's head severed and delivered on a silver charger. So let's apply this to the DC saga. Bond is out on assignment and receives word that Madeline Swann has been killed. He returns from the field. Other people near Bond die (this happened in the book). Then Moneypenny is kidnapped. Bond discovers that a worldwide contract is on his head and must find out who's behind it. It will turn out, at the end, that it was Blofeld -- pulling the strings from behind bars. (They might even have Blofeld escape at the end so that he can return in a later film.)

    It's not the worst of ideas.

    It's not the worst of ideas, but it is definitely one of the worst ideas. No more M getting kidnapped, MI6 getting blown up, or Moneypenny/Q getting kidnapped.

    Its probably Gardner's best book and I'm not against it per se but I think we are all sick of having the plot revolve around MI6 staff so its a no I'm afraid.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 154
    Oh well. It was shot. DC is probably toast. Let's move on to a new Bond and leave the past behind. He put out one good movie that was actually one of the very best in the series. And then it's been downhill (yes, much as I first liked Skyfall, the leaps in logic are almost all that I see. And others apparently agree.)

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xmoIDKqfY44"; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 870
    They can ditch Q and Moneypenny completely AFAIC. The characters feel forced after Llewelyn and Maxwell.
    I thought CR's Villiers was a perfectly acceptable update of the Moneypenny character.

    Agreed.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Troy wrote: »
    I wouldn't mind seeing the back of Moneypenny either. Either she's a bit of totty for Bond to sexually harass every film, or they have to involve her in the plot through some sort of contrivance. Either way she's redundant.

    If anything, I thought it was Moneypenny harassing Bond by trying to get him to go out on a date, and Bond forever having to make excuses

    I always saw it as I think Lois Maxwell herself built it up inside her head along with Sean from DN on: They had dated once in the past, thought against continuing their relationship, and now just flirt rather playfully with each other to the entertainment of them both. They seem rather good friends, who can bust each other up without either taking any offense. I'm sure there's a mutual attraction on both sides, especially on Moneypenny's (it's Sean Connery after all), but both have decided that acting on those feelings isn't viable for them or their positions. Bond largely isn't the type to be pegged down to one gal, and Moneypenny knows Bond belongs to the world, is doing important work and understands and accepts his wide attraction to the female form and why he enjoys quick flings that don't overtly distract him as opposed to more serious relationships that would.

    This is the Connery and Moore dynamic with Maxwell I'm speaking of above, but I don't think this differs all that much with the other Bonds and their own Moneypennys, aside from Bliss' MP flirting with Dalton's Bond, which was like watching a little kid trying to fit a square shaped peg into a triangular opening; it just doesn't "fit." That Moneypenny killed her chances with Bond the second she brought up Barry Manilow, and rightfully so. *Shivers* I bet that just got Bond all hot and bothered...

    Continuing this discussion, I agree that the flirty stuff with Bond and MP in the Craig era has been hit or miss. I find their SF scenes together quite electric, especially during the casino sequence with Naomi filling out that dress very elegantly; it's a moment full of great repartee between them.

    In SP, however, it's much more hit and miss as I said. You've got the greatness of Bond's talk with her while she's having someone over to her flat ("It's called life, James. You should try it sometime"), but the lines Bond throws her way when they're in his apartment at the start, like the female intuition nonsense, feel forced and weirdly delivered, and I think they were both past the point of overt flirting post SF. I just want to see them as strong and loyal friends, and get MP depicted as a capable woman Bond can come to if he needs her, and vice versa. Of course, now that Bond is with Madeleine, if Bond 25 does star Craig, it'd feel awkward for their flirting to continue as he's already committed to a woman.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited August 2016 Posts: 10,586
    Troy wrote: »
    I wouldn't mind seeing the back of Moneypenny either. Either she's a bit of totty for Bond to sexually harass every film, or they have to involve her in the plot through some sort of contrivance. Either way she's redundant.

    If anything, I thought it was Moneypenny harassing Bond by trying to get him to go out on a date, and Bond forever having to make excuses

    I always saw it as I think Lois Maxwell herself built it up inside her head along with Sean from DN on: They had dated once in the past, thought against continuing their relationship, and now just flirt rather playfully with each other to the entertainment of them both. They seem rather good friends, who can bust each other up without either taking any offense. I'm sure there's a mutual attraction on both sides, especially on Moneypenny's (it's Sean Connery after all), but both have decided that acting on those feelings isn't viable for them or their positions. Bond largely isn't the type to be pegged down to one gal, and Moneypenny knows Bond belongs to the world, is doing important work and understands and accepts his wide attraction to the female form and why he enjoys quick flings that don't overtly distract him as opposed to more serious relationships that would.

    This is the Connery and Moore dynamic with Maxwell I'm speaking of above, but I don't think this differs all that much with the other Bonds and their own Moneypennys, aside from Bliss' MP flirting with Dalton's Bond, which was like watching a little kid trying to fit a square shaped peg into a triangular opening; it just doesn't "fit." That Moneypenny killed her chances with Bond the second she brought up Barry Manilow, and rightfully so. *Shivers* I bet that just got Bond all hot and bothered...

    Continuing this discussion, I agree that the flirty stuff with Bond and MP in the Craig era has been hit or miss. I find their SF scenes together quite electric, especially during the casino sequence with Naomi filling out that dress very elegantly; it's a moment full of great repartee between them.

    In SP, however, it's much more hit and miss as I said. You've got the greatness of Bond's talk with her while she's having someone over to her flat ("It's called life, James. You should try it sometime"), but the lines Bond throws her way when they're in his apartment at the start, like the female intuition nonsense, feel forced and weirdly delivered, and I think they were both past the point of overt flirting post SF. I just want to see them as strong and loyal friends, and get MP depicted as a capable woman Bond can come to if he needs her, and vice versa. Of course, now that Bond is with Madeleine, if Bond 25 does star Craig, it'd feel awkward for their flirting to continue as he's already committed to a woman.
    Since that was a reshoot, I wonder how this version differed from the original version (as seen in the teaser trailer). That one seemed to have less of a flippant approach. Regardless, the flirtation and overall relationship between Bond and Moneypenny is something that should be improved upon. I'm in the minority but I always thought they nailed that aspect between Samantha Bond's Moneypenny and Brosnan's Bond.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @jake24, this is the first time I'm hearing about SP reshoots. How much did they add in to the film? I wasn't following the production thread during that time, so this is all news to me.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    They reshot the Bond and Moneypenny meeting scene in Bond's Chelsea flat. Bond was originally supposed to be with in a robe and there were more lines for the characters to interact with... Not to mention, a woman's voice coming from Bond's bedroom which leads Moneypenny to leave.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    They reshot the Bond and Moneypenny meeting scene in Bond's Chelsea flat. Bond was originally supposed to be with in a robe and there were more lines for the characters to interact with... Not to mention, a woman's voice coming from Bond's bedroom which leads Moneypenny to leave.

    So that's why Bond's in that robe-looking thing later while looking at the case from Skyfall. Interesting.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    They reshot the Bond and Moneypenny meeting scene in Bond's Chelsea flat. Bond was originally supposed to be with in a robe and there were more lines for the characters to interact with... Not to mention, a woman's voice coming from Bond's bedroom which leads Moneypenny to leave.

    So that's why Bond's in that robe-looking thing later while looking at the case from Skyfall. Interesting.
    Indeed.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Very good points, @thelivingroyale. And yes, I felt that all of Craig's tenure had been leading to just such a film as Spectre.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,728
    Die Another Day = considered bad

    Casino Royale = considered good

    Quantum of Solace = considered bad

    Skyfall = considered good

    SPECTRE = considered bad

    Bond 25 = considered good?

    Hmmm...I think I see a pattern emerging. ;)
  • I think that Bond's phone call to Moneypenny during the car chase is probably the worst thing in Spectre. We're supposed to be engaged in an exciting, high-speed pursuit, and they cut away to a shot of Naomi Harris' fridge. What on Earth were they thinking? I cannot believe that made it through editing.
Sign In or Register to comment.