No Time To Die: Production Diary

15835845865885892563

Comments

  • Posts: 1,680
    Brosnans beach scene in Goldeneye worked better than some of the personal drama within the Craig films.

    In some ways the series has not captured the magic of Goldeneye since 95
  • ToTheRight wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Bond ever again. I'd sooner have Lee Tamahori posting absurd and poor CGI all over a ridiculously fun Bond film than have a character development emotional dilemma with cliches that Mendes directs.

    This! These attempts to add emotion and depth to Bond are tired and clichéd. They started even before Mendes; "I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me." I have no food left in my stomach. I've thrown it up.
    Arguably these attempts at emotional layering began with Dalton. Then it carried on with Brosnan (the infamous beach scene in GE and so on and so forth) and has now reached a fever pitch. A sign of the times? Perhaps.

    Cruise has shown with MI that one can take it back to basics (after an unwelcome emotional detour in MI3) and succeed. I for one hope that EON chooses to do the same.

    Personally I find more character depth from Roger Moore's Bond in Octopussy and AVTAK than in any of these later melodramatic attempts at character development. Subtlety is often more, IMO.

    Don't you mean subtlety is often Moore?

    *cue eyebrow raise*
  • Posts: 14,263
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Bond ever again. I'd sooner have Lee Tamahori posting absurd and poor CGI all over a ridiculously fun Bond film than have a character development emotional dilemma with cliches that Mendes directs.

    This! These attempts to add emotion and depth to Bond are tired and clichéd. They started even before Mendes; "I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me." I have no food left in my stomach. I've thrown it up.
    Arguably these attempts at emotional layering began with Dalton. Then it carried on with Brosnan (the infamous beach scene in GE and so on and so forth) and has now reached a fever pitch. A sign of the times? Perhaps.

    Cruise has shown with MI that one can take it back to basics (after an unwelcome emotional detour in MI3) and succeed. I for one hope that EON chooses to do the same.

    Personally I find more character depth from Roger Moore's Bond in Octopussy and AVTAK than in any of these later melodramatic attempts at character development. Subtlety is often more, IMO.

    Don't you mean subtlety is often Moore?

    *cue eyebrow raise*

    Yes!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The beach scene in GoldenEye was perfect at subtlety and balance. It's as emotional as Bond could get. The Mendes films drowned us with all these melodramatic stories frankly to tell you my enthusiasm for the film franchise hasn't been up and high this decade. I really wish we get the classicism of things back.
  • Posts: 14,263
    The beach scene works I believe because of it's simplicity. It's also fairly short and doesn't ram Bond's inner most feeling's down our throats. He's reflecting on his friendship with Alec and that he has to kill him......then he starts making out with Natalya and is back to his old self. Back to the James we know and love.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I rewatch CR every now and then (I love it, but it's a bit akin to OHMSS in that its a longer epic that I can't as easily rewatch as, say, GE or AVTAK or whichever), I watch QoS a good bit throughout a given year, and I haven't seen SF or SP in at least six months or so. Mendes killed so much enthusiasm for me with just two films. To think that it's now been almost a decade since I left a theater genuinely impressed and happy with a Bond installment is upsetting.

    Imagine how I was feeling back in 2002 after DAD!

    Last enjoyable Bond movie I'd seen at the cinema was TLD 15 years previously!

    By the time CR came along, which went someway towards redeeming the series for me, it was getting on for 20 years!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,651
    I watch CR at least 3 times a year. I love this film. The other night it struck me that for all of the accolades the Mendes' films get for their cinematography, just how gorgeous this film is.
    I've made a point of saying that that Craig has to be photographed carefully; for the most part Campbell knows how to shoot him. He's never looked better than he does in the sequence set in M's apartment. Bring Martin Campbell back for 25!
  • Posts: 11,425
    Shocking. Things were just getting going back then. I can understand you having issues with MR, although I think it starts strongly. However, the Glen era was a golden age IMO. Highly underrated. I'd happily sit and watch any of his five entries. Okay AVTAK is not the best, but still plenty to keep me entertained. The others are all good to excellent.
  • talos7 wrote: »
    I watch CR at least 3 times a year. I love this film. The other night it struck me that for all of the accolades the Mendes' films get for their cinematography, just how gorgeous this film is.
    I've made a point of saying that that Craig has to be photographed carefully; for the most part Campbell knows how to shoot him. He's never looked better than he does in the sequence set in M's apartment. Bring Martin Campbell back for 25!

    The cinematography is one thing the filmmakers truly have been doing right in recent years. All four of Craig's films have boasted impressive cinematography, and if I may share a controversial opinion of my own: I prefer CR, QOS, and SF visually to SP. People go on about the editing of QOS—okay, okay—but just pause for a second and look at what a marvelously framed and colored film it is! Skyfall takes top honors for me, but Quantum runs a close second (with Casino Royale naturally a none too shabby third).
  • Posts: 4,325
    Getafix wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I rewatch CR every now and then (I love it, but it's a bit akin to OHMSS in that its a longer epic that I can't as easily rewatch as, say, GE or AVTAK or whichever), I watch QoS a good bit throughout a given year, and I haven't seen SF or SP in at least six months or so. Mendes killed so much enthusiasm for me with just two films. To think that it's now been almost a decade since I left a theater genuinely impressed and happy with a Bond installment is upsetting.

    Imagine how I was feeling back in 2002 after DAD!

    Last enjoyable Bond movie I'd seen at the cinema was TLD 15 years previously!

    By the time CR came along, which went someway towards redeeming the series for me, it was getting on for 20 years!

    Seriously, you didn't find LTK and GE enjoyable Bond films!?
  • Posts: 11,425
    I was too young to see LTK at the cinema, even though I'd seen TLD a couple of years prior. I wasn't actually completely enamoured of LTK first time I saw it but it's grown on me.

    Don't get me started on GE. Most disappointing cinematic Bond experience prior to SF.

    After GE I was expecting cr*p, and thats exactly what EON served up in regular dollops for the next decade. So while utterly underwhelmed by the proceeding Brosnan outings I cannot say I was disappointed - they merely lived up to what I was expecting.

    SF was disappointing for different reasons. I'd felt that with CR and QOS that EON had finally wised up and that Babs had hit her stride. Then SF came along and it felt like watching a director's extended cut of Austin Powers, just with all the jokes taken out.
  • I enjoyed the experience of SP at the cinema it was plain to me early on what type of film it was, when I watched QoS my reaction was that I felt I had watched a great film. Loved some retro elements to the QoS, the soundtrack and hard nature of the film got me hooked immediately.
  • Posts: 4,325
    Getafix wrote: »
    I was too young to see LTK at the cinema, even though I'd seen TLD a couple of years prior. I wasn't actually completely enamoured of LTK first time I saw it but it's grown on me.

    Don't get me started on GE. Most disappointing cinematic Bond experience prior to SF.

    After GE I was expecting cr*p, and thats exactly what EON served up in regular dollops for the next decade. So while utterly underwhelmed by the proceeding Brosnan outings I cannot say I was disappointed - they merely lived up to what I was expecting.

    SF was disappointing for different reasons. I'd felt that with CR and QOS that EON had finally wised up and that Babs had hit her stride. Then SF came along and it felt like watching a director's extended cut of Austin Powers, just with all the jokes taken out.

    It is interesting how we feel on watching a Bond for the first time - expectations has a lot to do with it. I mean I rank Moonraker very low but enjoyed it on first watch - I could take it on its own terms.

    Seen every Bond since TWINE in the cinema:

    TWINE - really enjoyed first viewing - first Bond in the cinema as an impressionable 13 year old
    DAD - worst first experience of a Bond film I've ever had - to the point where my enthusiasm for Bond would wane over the intervening years until CR came
    CR - Best first Bond experience ever!
    QoS - Very disappointing first experience - where was the characterisation?
    SF - Slighlty underwhelming first experience, overhyped, Berenice is a main Bond girl ... nope she's dead ...
    SP - Really enjoyed this on first viewing and made me want to watch all the other Bonds again.
  • jake24 wrote: »
    If @RC7 knows something we don't, chances are the source that he heard it from would prefer that he'd respect their privacy.

    I suppose. I'm just tired of the 'I know something you don't know but I can't tell you, but I can tell you that I know it' thing. What's the point other than teasing?


  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Well, a scientist can't reveal you all his secrets and progress before the day comes he's finished with the invention. Eon can't tell you what are they doing now when they're only in development stages yet.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,026
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Bond ever again. I'd sooner have Lee Tamahori posting absurd and poor CGI all over a ridiculously fun Bond film than have a character development emotional dilemma with cliches that Mendes directs.

    This! These attempts to add emotion and depth to Bond are tired and clichéd. They started even before Mendes; "I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me." I have no food left in my stomach. I've thrown it up.
    Arguably these attempts at emotional layering began with Dalton. Then it carried on with Brosnan (the infamous beach scene in GE and so on and so forth) and has now reached a fever pitch. A sign of the times? Perhaps.

    Cruise has shown with MI that one can take it back to basics (after an unwelcome emotional detour in MI3) and succeed. I for one hope that EON chooses to do the same.

    I'd rather not have Bond be a robot. This isn't Westworld.
  • It’s intriguing that Eon are branching out so severely…

    Before 2014 they had only produced one film outside the Bond brand since the early 60’s. It’s great to see Broccoli using her vast clout to get other films off the ground – in fact, I’m surprised it’s taken her this long. She’s more of the most famous and revered film producers working, especially in the UK.

    I think she has some grander ambitions though, possibly towards the Oscars. Especially with, ‘Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool’. Annette Bening is considered massively overdue, and I imagine this film is totally geared towards getting her an Oscar. She missed out this year with ‘20th Century Women’, which was considered a large snub from the Academy.

    I’d put money on ‘Film Stars’ winning her the Oscar – if they campaign it correctly. In turn it will allow Barbara to be seen in a different light.

    I also find it curious, that Eon are investing so heavily in female directors. We’ve seen this with Corinna McFarlane and, now with Christina Choe.

    I’d put money on a female director tackling the next film (the only credible director rumour we have had thus far is Susanne Bier)

    Here are some interesting names that could deliver Bond 25:

    Kathryn Bigelow
    Ava DuVernay
    Patty Jenkins
    Andrea Arnold
    Lynne Ramsay
    Sam Taylor-Johnson
    Lexi Alexander
  • Posts: 11,425
    The trick is to not get bogged down in schmaltz while still having a central character you care about and is engaging. This is where the MI films fail IMO. Cruise the definition of Hollywood bland.

    I agree that the slide down the slippery slope we find ourselves near to the bottom of began with Dalton and LTK. It's one of the reasons I've always felt unsure about LTK. The 'going rogue' and personal revenge element never sat that well with me. Having said that LTK seems a solid conventional entry with hindsight, compared to what has come since.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    It's not about to label something-director to deliver a Bond film and it has never been that issue. All we need is a solid action film director who knows how to balance between every segment of the motion picture itself, be it action, the story, the little emotional play at hand, and onwards. Forcing a female director just because she's a female is nothing but a balderdash and the same mistake Eon made was hiring Sam Mendes, a drama director with no originality. They wanted drama specifically. Michael Apted did that better. What was Marc Forster's mistake? Just shake the camera in every intense scene like the Bourne films without understanding it. Just shake it. That's where Quantum of Solace didn't make sense, so where does that leave us? Casino Royale is the only good Bond film Craig ever did? Seems to me that way. Bond shouldn't try and replicate the cliches of symbolism. Fleming in his novels broke the template of the stories overall in certain branches. The Bond films should stick to what makes them successful and identifiable: an Action Spy Adventure Thriller with sense of escapism. No drama whatsoever. Terence Young got it, Martin Campbell got it, and Lewis Gilbert got it well in The Spy Who Loved Me. That's all you need to go for.

    Alas, don't go for P&W. They've been rehashing their storylines ever since 1999. There are actual writers out there who can deliver a Bond story on point with a script that's utmost satisfactory to any Bond fan. Try the Bond comics to see what I'm referring to.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's not about to label something-director to deliver a Bond film and it has never been that issue. All we need is a solid action film director who knows how to balance between every segment of the motion picture itself, be it action, the story, the little emotional play at hand, and onwards. Forcing a female director just because she's a female is nothing but a balderdash and the same mistake Eon made was hiring Sam Mendes, a drama director with no originality. They wanted drama specifically. Michael Apted did that better. What was Marc Forster's mistake? Just shake the camera in every intense scene like the Bourne films without understanding it. Just shake it. That's where Quantum of Solace didn't make sense, so where does that leave us? Casino Royale is the only good Bond film Craig ever did? Seems to me that way. Bond shouldn't try and replicate the cliches of symbolism. Fleming in his novels broke the template of the stories overall in certain branches. The Bond films should stick to what makes them successful and identifiable: an Action Spy Adventure Thriller with sense of escapism. No drama whatsoever. Terence Young got it, Martin Campbell got it, and Lewis Gilbert got it well in The Spy Who Loved Me. That's all you need to go for.

    Alas, don't go for P&W. They've been rehashing their storylines ever since 1999. There are actual writers out there who can deliver a Bond story on point with a script that's utmost satisfactory to any Bond fan. Try the Bond comics to see what I'm referring to.

    I think we need more than an action director. Young and Gilbert weren't action directors per se. The drama and thriller aspects are as important if not more so.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited February 2017 Posts: 1,756
    I know this most likely won't happen but I'd love to see a Bond film with FRWL amounts of action (aka very minimal and only to move the story when characters are stuck). Otherwise Bond is better off with thriller style action (stealing the lektor).
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's not about to label something-director to deliver a Bond film and it has never been that issue. All we need is a solid action film director who knows how to balance between every segment of the motion picture itself, be it action, the story, the little emotional play at hand, and onwards. Forcing a female director just because she's a female is nothing but a balderdash and the same mistake Eon made was hiring Sam Mendes, a drama director with no originality. They wanted drama specifically. Michael Apted did that better. What was Marc Forster's mistake? Just shake the camera in every intense scene like the Bourne films without understanding it. Just shake it. That's where Quantum of Solace didn't make sense, so where does that leave us? Casino Royale is the only good Bond film Craig ever did? Seems to me that way. Bond shouldn't try and replicate the cliches of symbolism. Fleming in his novels broke the template of the stories overall in certain branches. The Bond films should stick to what makes them successful and identifiable: an Action Spy Adventure Thriller with sense of escapism. No drama whatsoever. Terence Young got it, Martin Campbell got it, and Lewis Gilbert got it well in The Spy Who Loved Me. That's all you need to go for.

    Alas, don't go for P&W. They've been rehashing their storylines ever since 1999. There are actual writers out there who can deliver a Bond story on point with a script that's utmost satisfactory to any Bond fan. Try the Bond comics to see what I'm referring to.

    I think we need more than an action director. Young and Gilbert weren't action directors per se. The drama and thriller aspects are as important if not more so.
    They weren't, but they knew how to deliver it. Action wasn't an existing genre until the late 1970s and regarding the aspect of Bond being a man of action instead of just some two-bit spy, it's a sign to move with the times and portray him as the action man he is. No one will watch some boring storyline where two sides keep spying on one another with very minimal action. They'd want modern-day Goldfinger/Thunderball/The Spy Who Loved Me mashup. That's what the general audience expects from a James Bond film. And Fleming's stories, minus the sarcastic humour, had those all. I'm not saying let's make a John Wick out of Bond. That'll be laughable because Bond isn't up to that territory. But, someone like Martin Campbell or Roger Spottiswoode knew how to handle them. That's what Bond needs today. Not saying we also have to rely on Vic Armstrong's tricks where every five minutes something blows up, but the adrenaline has to bump every now and then. That's a Bond film by definition to me.

    Plus, martinis, tuxedos, seductive girls and guns.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    talos7 wrote: »
    I watch CR at least 3 times a year. I love this film. The other night it struck me that for all of the accolades the Mendes' films get for their cinematography, just how gorgeous this film is.
    I've made a point of saying that that Craig has to be photographed carefully; for the most part Campbell knows how to shoot him. He's never looked better than he does in the sequence set in M's apartment. Bring Martin Campbell back for 25!

    The cinematography is one thing the filmmakers truly have been doing right in recent years. All four of Craig's films have boasted impressive cinematography, and if I may share a controversial opinion of my own: I prefer CR, QOS, and SF visually to SP. People go on about the editing of QOS—okay, okay—but just pause for a second and look at what a marvelously framed and colored film it is! Skyfall takes top honors for me, but Quantum runs a close second (with Casino Royale naturally a none too shabby third).

    I agree. And a weak area for the Glen films IMO.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    I think we need more than an action director. Young and Gilbert weren't action directors per se. The drama and thriller aspects are as important if not more so.
    They weren't, but they knew how to deliver it. Action wasn't an existing genre until the late 1970s and regarding the aspect of Bond being a man of action instead of just some two-bit spy, it's a sign to move with the times and portray him as the action man he is. No one will watch some boring storyline where two sides keep spying on one another with very minimal action. They'd want modern-day Goldfinger/Thunderball/The Spy Who Loved Me mashup. That's what the general audience expects from a James Bond film. And Fleming's stories, minus the sarcastic humour, had those all. I'm not saying let's make a John Wick out of Bond. That'll be laughable because Bond isn't up to that territory. But, someone like Martin Campbell or Roger Spottiswoode knew how to handle them. That's what Bond needs today. Not saying we also have to rely on Vic Armstrong's tricks where every five minutes something blows up, but the adrenaline has to bump every now and then. That's a Bond film by definition to me.

    Plus, martinis, tuxedos, seductive girls and guns.
    This is where SF proves to be an anomaly though. The action was quite minimal in that film, & instead we had tremendous atmosphere, style & characterizations. It worked, although it probably only could work as a one off (or once in a while).

    To some extent, I view SF similar to FRWL (before anyone has a go, I know they are different). There's something very unique & atypical about these two entries in the canon. They rely more on suspense over action & big sets. The entire China sequence (my favourite from the film) is just dripping with old school suspense & style.

    EDIT: As another example, there is far less action in GE than TND, and yet the former film is seen as superior in most people's eyes. So I think the trick is to have a decent blend of thriller style suspense moments combined with a few effective (rather than trite and predictable) set piece action sequences. The balance is the trick. Eye candy (whether it be location or babes) is another critical component.
    I’d put money on a female director tackling the next film (the only credible director rumour we have had thus far is Susanne Bier)
    I'd be open to Susanne Bier. I'm a believer in giving someone a chance to step up, and she has proven with The Night Manager that she can hit the right notes in the character dept.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Sorry but... there's nothing to praise Skyfall about. Not from my part at least. If anything, that film killed a lot of enthusiasm I had for the film franchise, and the three year recovery from it wasn't easy for me.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I dislike SF but have to acknowledge it was a hit with the general public
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Sorry but... there's nothing to praise Skyfall about. Not from my part at least. If anything, that film killed a lot of enthusiasm I had for the film franchise, and the three year recovery from it wasn't easy for me.
    I can appreciate this point of view. It seems to have split the fan community.

    I was using it to illustrate that the balance between action and low key suspense (as well as old school glamour vs. a modern flavour) is perhaps more important in a Bond film than other franchises.

    CR (less but seen as superior by most) vs. QoS, SF (less, but seen as superior by most) vs. SP, or GE (less, but seen as superior by most) vs. TND, etc. etc.

    I think one of Bond's critical success factors as a franchise is suspense. I was so happy they didn't try to 'out-Cruise' Tom (nobody can imho) with SF, because they would have failed. They tried with SP, and failed miserably imho.
  • Posts: 3,316
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's not about to label something-director to deliver a Bond film and it has never been
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    edited February 2017 Posts: 7,340
    When we say "back to basics" I think most of us mean that Bond should go back to being a spy in the field. He needs to be given his mission and sent out with nothing but his wits to work with. That means infiltrating via covert means, sneaking around, going undercover etc. Bond should only resort to confront the villains once time is running out and he has exhausted all other options, ie the latter half of the film. That way the tension ratchets up over the course of the 2 hours run time, ending with a explosion of action to top things off. Whenever Bond elects to go in guns blazing when he could simply scope out the place, or track the enemy from a distance, he looks less like a skilled operative applying his trade and more like a deranged madman with a Death Wish.

    How much action and "drama" was there in those first 3 films, the golden age of cinematic Bond? The answer - very little, and yet few would describe them as boring because they are tight, engaging thrill rides. Yes, I understand that audiences have evolved, but is giving people exactly what they expect to see really the stated goal of a creative industry? Perhaps from a monetary point of view, by in my opinion the films which resonate are those which surprise as well as satisfy.

    The Craig era has attempted to modernize Bond to such an extent that he is no longer recognizable. The films have become bloated and indulgent, and the remedy needs this time needs to come from looking back rather than trying to safeguard against the future. The whole of the western world is waking up and realizing that it kinda got carried away there for a second. The timing is ripe for Bond to declare that normal service has resumed.
  • Posts: 3,316
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's not about to label something-director to deliver a Bond film and it has never been that issue. All we need is a solid action film director who knows how to balance between every segment of the motion picture itself, be it action, the story, the little emotional play at hand, and onwards. Forcing a female director just because she's a female is nothing but a balderdash and the same mistake Eon made was hiring Sam Mendes, a drama director with no originality. They wanted drama specifically. Michael Apted did that better. What was Marc Forster's mistake? Just shake the camera in every intense scene like the Bourne films without understanding it. Just shake it. That's where Quantum of Solace didn't make sense, so where does that leave us? Casino Royale is the only good Bond film Craig ever did? Seems to me that way. Bond shouldn't try and replicate the cliches of symbolism. Fleming in his novels broke the template of the stories overall in certain branches. The Bond films should stick to what makes them successful and identifiable: an Action Spy Adventure Thriller with sense of escapism. No drama whatsoever. Terence Young got it, Martin Campbell got it, and Lewis Gilbert got it well in The Spy Who Loved Me. That's all you need to go for.

    Alas, don't go for P&W. They've been rehashing their storylines ever since 1999. There are actual writers out there who can deliver a Bond story on point with a script that's utmost satisfactory to any Bond fan. Try the Bond comics to see what I'm referring to.

    I think we need more than an action director. Young and Gilbert weren't action directors per se. The drama and thriller aspects are as important if not more so.
    They weren't, but they knew how to deliver it. Action wasn't an existing genre until the late 1970s and regarding the aspect of Bond being a man of action instead of just some two-bit spy.
    I'm not sure I agree with this. In fact, I don't agree at all. Action films were part of the early Seventies just as much as they were the late. Clint Eastwood was the king of the action movie, without the label of cop, western or war movie to blur the lines. Where Eagles Dare (1969) was more of an action movie than it was a war movie, and so were a few Steve McQueen pictures such as Bullit and The Getaway. Charlton Heston was also considered an action hero in the early Seventies. Out of curiosity, to which "late 70s" movies do you refer to when you say the Action Genre started? I don't necessarily disagree with you about modern cinemagoers lacking the brain cells to understand a well-developed plot without being interspersed with action every 6 minutes, but it would be nice for Bond to challenge the current malaise.
Sign In or Register to comment.