› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…584585587589590…2507

Comments

  • bondsumbondsum
    edited February 2017 Posts: 3,333
    DELETE this please
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    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.
    I absolutely agree, and that's why Shanghai in SF was so refreshing. It really took me back to Bond at Hagia Sophia or Bond in Egypt in the classic FRWL & TSWLM. On his own in a highly stylish suspenseful setting with some kick 'a' music playing. Shanghai was new school modern (including Newman's score) but still very atmospheric in contrast to those other films' old school romantic flavour in those respective moments, and that was the impressive thing.
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The Craig era has attempted to modernize Bond to such an extent that he is no longer recognizable.
    I would argue that Bond was most unrecognizable & at his most generic in the late 90's, precisely because of an overemphasis on action and machine gunning. To be fair, the Craig era has brought back a lot of what makes Bond who he is, but it has layered on a little too much melodrama. They need to dial that back and make it less personal. Then we'd be good.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I was a lone voice on here in 2012 arguing that Mendes had screwed up what had been achieved with CR and QOS.

    I had @germanlady practically threatening to kill me for daring to suggest SF was riddled with yawning plot holes and just wasn't as good as the hype said it was.

    Now everyone is jumping on the 'Mendes' is crap bandwagon.

    I might start defending him!

    Irony is that I preferred SP to SF. Having said that I still thing Mendes has made consistently poor decisions. He squandered what was achieved with the reboot and took us back to Austin Powers territory. It's like he didn't understand what an opportunity he had.

    And before anyone chips in, for those who hate SP (I'm not one of them) all the warning signs were there with Skyfail

    I also thought Skyfall was overhyped and full of plot holes. However I still hold it to be a great Bond film - Goldfinger was long held up to be the 'gold standard' of the Bond films - but that has plot holes galore. In fact all 24 James Bond films have plot holes. Go watch them all again, carefully, and you'll see what I mean.

    Oh God no, you can't say that.

    The thing is all Bond films...I've got to get this right, I've been told enough times...have their own 'internal logic' and they make 'perfect sense if you apply that logic', or something.

    So, Skyfall makes no sense at all, whilst Moonraker makes perfect sense within it's own...erm...perimeters?

    Anyway, Skyfall is a great Bond film, and a couple of people telling me it isn't over and over and over again for more than 4 years and counting, will only make me love it more.

    All together


    SKYFALL
    SKYFALL
    RAH RAH RAH

    Anyone punching the air yet?
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited February 2017 Posts: 4,325
    bondsum wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin 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.

    Bullitt (1968) has action in it. All the war films in the 40s have action in them. Olivier's 1944 version of Henry V has action in it ...
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Action wasn't a defined genre in the early 70s, let alone the 60s. People referred to the action-packed flicks as "adventure" or "cop thriller" or "crime thriller". In fact, if anyone popularized the label name of the genre, it was Sylvester Stallone.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,113
    @bondjames This may be controversial, but I would argue that a generic, stereotypical amalgam Bond is less egregious than one where Bonds character and emotional state comes under such a spotlight as it does in the Craig films. There is simply no mystery, no hidden depths to the character anymore. With Craig everything was laid bare to begin with, so it became very tiresome to watch them work over the same ground for four films. They kinda sacrificed a lot for the sake of a really bold first entry, I guess.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @Mendes4Lyfe, I agree with your comments. CR has been as much a curse as a blessing. They had so much critical success with that film (the most since the 60's) that they've been obsessing over it since imho.

    I too agree that 'less is more' when it comes to Bond's character. I just love the old Connery and Moore flicks precisely because they don't go into Bond's inner psyche as much. However, it's still there, in the way the respective actors subtly (this is the key) deliver their portrayals. I think Moore allowed a little 'moore' of a peelback than tough man Connery (TSWLM with Anya and FYEO with Melina as well as at Tracy's grave in particular), but they were both very good.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    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!
    You mean Phil Meheux?

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,983
    Yes, Phil Meheux was the cinematographer, but he realized Campbell's vision, with, I'm sure, his own ideas.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,113
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe, I agree with your comments. CR has been as much a curse as a blessing. They had so much critical success with that film (the most since the 60's) that they've been obsessing over it since imho.

    I too agree that 'less is more' when it comes to Bond's character. I just love the old Connery and Moore flicks precisely because they don't go into Bond's inner psyche as much. However, it's still there, in the way the respective actors subtly (this is the key) deliver their portrayals. I think Moore allowed a little 'moore' of a peelback than tough man Connery (TSWLM with Anya and FYEO with Melina as well as at Tracy's grave in particular), but they were both very good.

    Connery was so subtle with it that many people don't think he ever showed emotion, always the cool figure, and yet his tenure is packed full of tiny moments of feeling. Even when he turns and says, "he's quite mad, you know", he manages to cloak the sincerity of his words with a kind of laconic offhandedness.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited February 2017 Posts: 4,325
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe, I agree with your comments. CR has been as much a curse as a blessing. They had so much critical success with that film (the most since the 60's) that they've been obsessing over it since imho.

    I too agree that 'less is more' when it comes to Bond's character. I just love the old Connery and Moore flicks precisely because they don't go into Bond's inner psyche as much. However, it's still there, in the way the respective actors subtly (this is the key) deliver their portrayals. I think Moore allowed a little 'moore' of a peelback than tough man Connery (TSWLM with Anya and FYEO with Melina as well as at Tracy's grave in particular), but they were both very good.

    Connery was so subtle with it that many people don't think he ever showed emotion, always the cool figure, and yet his tenure is packed full of tiny moments of feeling. Even when he turns and says, "he's quite mad, you know", he manages to cloak the sincerity of his words with a kind of laconic offhandedness.

    Always loved Connery's scene with Domino on the beach when he asks her to take the geiger counter on the Volante. The way he has to hide behind his shades is a touch of genius.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2017 Posts: 10,512
    octofinger wrote: »
    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?

    It was to quell the idea that 'nothing' is happening - something which seems to be stressing members out on a daily basis. If you know anything about how EON or general franchise production works this is a given (that it's constantly moving) - but what I'm saying is I can now guarantee that fact for anyone thinking there is no movement.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe, I agree with your comments. CR has been as much a curse as a blessing. They had so much critical success with that film (the most since the 60's) that they've been obsessing over it since imho.

    I too agree that 'less is more' when it comes to Bond's character. I just love the old Connery and Moore flicks precisely because they don't go into Bond's inner psyche as much. However, it's still there, in the way the respective actors subtly (this is the key) deliver their portrayals. I think Moore allowed a little 'moore' of a peelback than tough man Connery (TSWLM with Anya and FYEO with Melina as well as at Tracy's grave in particular), but they were both very good.

    Connery was so subtle with it that many people don't think he ever showed emotion, always the cool figure, and yet his tenure is packed full of tiny moments of feeling. Even when he turns and says, "he's quite mad, you know", he manages to cloak the sincerity of his words with a kind of laconic offhandedness.
    Indeed. Over the course of 6 and 7 films respectively, we learnt about the character of Bond through these tiny moments. There was a consistency there, although Connery was certainly tougher and Moore smoother. I found that with Dalton things began to get a bit obvious and less understated. As I said before, it is probably a sign of the times. Wearing one's emotions more prominently on one's sleeve is perhaps the way of the world now, and it also translates well across multiple foreign markets. Traditional British subtlety is out for now.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,778
    For me I don't want Mendes back because I can predict with accuracy the plot title music and characters without any question it essentially becomes a paint by number affair. Again I get what they are trying to do with he Craig era (similar to Connery in that the films share a loose connection and that this is a one man climbing and fighting this mysterious organization). and yes Bond 25 is likely going to be a revenge film but there is a difference between taking the diplolmatic elements of the novel You Only Live Twice with the franchise where it stands (Bond retired with Dr Swann blofeld arrested and a New preferably Female 007 coming in only to leave the role and have Bond return as 007) and a paint by number film Mendes will give where Swann dies in the pts and Bond is depressed and spends the film in marose grey surroundings wishing Dr Swann was alive and going out on revenge and becomeing 007 again for really no apparent reason (with skyfall soundtrakc played in the background with the theme song done by Michael Buble) the title of the Mendes film being Shatterhand.

    Again I don't mind a Bond revenge film or a direct sequel to Spectre I do mind if it's paint by number and not the least bit interesting. I liked Licence to Kill and Quantum of Solace but I grant I am one of the few a film like the world is not enough where revenge is there but really just the subtext of the plot is likely what more people want.
  • GettlerGettler
    Posts: 315
    How do people feel about B25 opening with Swann already dead with an injured Bond lying in a state of disbelief and pain? Slowly the scene reveals they were shot down in the db5 and left for dead like at the end of OHMSS. Then a brief montage of events before we see M weighing his options about 007 and whatever is going on with Blofeld.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited February 2017 Posts: 1,756
    Gettler wrote: »
    How do people feel about B25 opening with Swann already dead with an injured Bond lying in a state of disbelief and pain? Slowly the scene reveals they were shot down in the db5 and left for dead like at the end of OHMSS. Then a brief montage of events before we see M weighing his options about 007 and whatever is going on with Blofeld.

  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,539
    An helicopter. That's all. http://thebondbulletin.com/bond-25-production-acquires-bell-helicopter-germany
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    That's good news.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,113
    That helicopter will probably be used to roll-out the new 007 in front of the press. ;)
  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    Ah, I see you beat me to it, @ggl007. I was just about to share this. Here's the full article:
    BOND 25: Production acquires Bell helicopter in Germany

    The road to the next Bond film seems like a long one with no news for months. Today we can at least reveal a small piece of evidence that something seems to be in motion regarding the 25th film in the franchise.

    The story first appeared five days ago and was now picked up by German BILD newspaper: The Bond production has acquired a helicopter from the aviation museum in the German city of Wernigerode, Saxony-Anhalt. Since every news report concerning Bond 25 so far needed to be treated with a pinch of salt, this was one to enquire more thoroughly.

    Passionate pilot and museum owner Clemens Aulich confirmed to the James Bond Club Germany that a request for a Bell UHD-1D helicopter had indeed been made by the James Bond production company, that an agreement had been reached and that the military aircraft will be flown to London Heathrow on 09 February. The helicopter is to be used specifically in the next Bond film said Aulich. German TV stations MDR and NDR will cover the story so further updates will become available soon.

    Clemens Aulich is no stranger to requests from film companies. In 2014 he recreated the cockpit of a U2 spy plane for use in Steven Spielberg’s cold war thriller „Bridge of Spies“ and also advised the director during filming. Three aircraft of his collection, a Transall, a Russian Antonov and a Zlin, are currently featured on screen in the German comedy film „Kundschafter des Friedens“ with Jürgen Prochnow and Michael Gwisdek.

    The question of how this fits into the timeline of production for the new James Bond film remains unanswered as there are no further insights on how far preparations have progressed. As of yet, there is no confirmation about the new distributor for Bond or if Daniel Craig will reprise his role as agent 007.

    I think that's very interesting. It seems EON's done more work than we all thought. I guess they must have at least a decent draft? Or they're exploring stunt ideas?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Interesting. Most interesting.

    Isn't this a rather dated machine though? Certainly no 'Tiger'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_UH-1_Iroquois
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Hmmm, this is strange.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Strange and interesting and needs to look into they must have something written if they would go and get that they don't just randomly go get one
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited February 2017 Posts: 3,126
    jake24 wrote: »
    That's good news.

    Production timeline worthy I would say
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Could it be Eon is sneakier than we anticipated?
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    Could it be Eon is sneakier than we anticipated?

    Maybe they are this does seem very sneaky they don't just go get a random helicopter from Germany for no reason
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    edited February 2017 Posts: 1,755
    Or like @Mendes4Lyfe said, maybe it's being used to roll out the next actor to play Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    At the risk of causing concern for some, we know that Mendes has a helicopter fixation.

    AgustaWestland in SF & both MBB & Aerospatiale in SP.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    echo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    BMW_with_missiles wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin 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.

    Thank you.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    Or like @Mendes4Lyfe said, maybe it's being used to roll out the next actor to play Bond.

    Even though i would like that idea, wouldn't they be using a british machine/manufacturer?
    This would be a very odd choice for a new Bond announcement
Sign In or Register to comment.