No Time To Die: Production Diary

16016026046066072563

Comments

  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    It seems he is American though, which is a no-go for EON.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Summer 2018.

    will be next summer yes why are you posting this random date though?

    Just a prediction nothing more - is that allowed?

    Any predictions are allowed all we can do at this point if there is no news
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    The helicopter unless an once in a lifetime opportunity seems so preproduction not early development. Like went props is going through the script and getting all the stuff acquired.

    Just seems early ...guess more happening.

    ....but how? Who's paying for it?

    Probably MGM is paying for it but who knows
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited February 2017 Posts: 4,116
    It seems he is American though, which is a no-go for EON.

    Not arguing but I don't believe that is true. Is true an American director has not been employed as of yet.



    Plenty of more than qualified American directors unless everyone wants Mendes back X_X
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    They have a thing about them being in the Commonwealth of Britain. Don't know if that's still in effect what with Marc Forster.
  • Posts: 2,559
    jake24 wrote: »
    What were those? Bond and Oberhausen playing poker? Masquerade Ball? Tanner's Suicide?
    Hell no. Those were all awful.

    What I was referring to was the additional elements of Blofeld's backstory, that I believe were in an earlier version of P+W's draft. It involved Franz joining a platoon in the French Foreign Legion called Les Spectres de St. Pierre sometime in the early 1990s. Among the platoon was Mr. White. While partaking in a battle in the Moroccan dessert, a major sandstorm occurs that ends with Oberhauser and White being left for dead by the rest of their platoon. Waltz assumed the name Ernst Stavro Blofeld and, together with Mr. White, formed a crime syndicate called "SPECTRE."

    Oh, that would have been much better. Why on earth did they change it? What the hell were they thinking?!

    In fact, I would love it in Bond 25 if Blofeld said that he made the whole foster brother angle up. :)
  • BennyBenny Classified Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 12,812
    Bounine wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    What were those? Bond and Oberhausen playing poker? Masquerade Ball? Tanner's Suicide?
    Hell no. Those were all awful.

    What I was referring to was the additional elements of Blofeld's backstory, that I believe were in an earlier version of P+W's draft. It involved Franz joining a platoon in the French Foreign Legion called Les Spectres de St. Pierre sometime in the early 1990s. Among the platoon was Mr. White. While partaking in a battle in the Moroccan dessert, a major sandstorm occurs that ends with Oberhauser and White being left for dead by the rest of their platoon. Waltz assumed the name Ernst Stavro Blofeld and, together with Mr. White, formed a crime syndicate called "SPECTRE."

    Oh, that would have been much better. Why on earth did they change it? What the hell were they thinking?!

    In fact, I would love it in Bond 25 if Blofeld said that he made the whole foster brother angle up. :)

    It would be great if they could take the foster brother angle out of the relationship between Bond and Blofeld, but sadly Bond has already gone along with it. And it also intertwines with Hans Oberhauser. Very weak storytelling. I have no idea why EON took this route, or why they thought it would be accepted.
    I'd rather hear slide whistles or Tarzan yells than this absurdity.
    The story angle as mentioned in the quote from @jake24 above, about Blofeld and White being part of the French foreign legion, and forming Spectre after an incident is far better. Truly baffling why they would take this out.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    They have a thing about them being in the Commonwealth of Britain. Don't know if that's still in effect what with Marc Forster.

    Britain should have grabbed Texas when they had the chance ...so the legendary rumor goes.

    I actually didn't really mean that as an argument.
  • BennyBenny Classified Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 12,812
    Going forward can the 'foster brother' angle be completely ignored? Can Bond25 jettison this mistake and treat it as if it never happened?
    As with Midichlorians in the Star Wars films, that kind of ruined the force for some fans, and were down played in future instalments, making a brief mention in SW Episode 3, can Bond also take a similar path.
    If it's simply not mentioned, would that be okay, or has the damage been done. Would a new actor be able to establish an alternate timeline if you will, leading to a Blofeld and Bond without any connection.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Benny wrote: »
    Going forward can the 'foster brother' angle be completely ignored? Can Bond25 jettison this mistake and treat it as if it never happened?
    As with Midichlorians in the Star Wars films, that kind of ruined the force for some fans, and were down played in future instalments, making a brief mention in SW Episode 3, can Bond also take a similar path.
    If it's simply not mentioned, would that be okay, or has the damage been done. Would a new actor be able to establish an alternate timeline if you will, leading to a Blofeld and Bond without any connection.

    Okay so far the only things that we know about bond 25 so far is
    They have purchased a helicopter for the film
    The distribution rights are up for grabs
    No actor is set
    No director is set
    The script is finished?????
    Realese date November 2018 unless they can't find an actor then it could be pushed back even further .

    Is their anything else rumors of facts??
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    boldfinger wrote: »
    "Conflicting schedules for MI6 crew" sounds not bad at all. It would be a good opportunity to dump them, hire some good but less-known actors and get back to a decent and meaningful home base for Bond, instead of having the office pros neglecting their posts and trying to imitate Bond.
    +1
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,651
    I was going to be gracious, as well as optimistic, and say yes, but as I thought of what to say I realized just how disappointing this incarnation of Blofeld is. The "foster brother" approach is not only far fetched, it's LAZY. How many movies have used a similar connection? Too many, that's how many. Bond should have had no connection to Blofeld other than their paths crossing as Bond unknowingly foiled the head of SPECTREs plans. I didn't mind the connecting of all of Craig's films, but it could have done with much more finesse. I'm not sure that I can shake this first impression,

    Also, as with Silva, there is a kooky quality to this Blofeld that diminishes his malevolent genius. He's just too silly. Is this Mendes' doing. If so it's another reason for him not to return.
  • talos7 wrote: »
    Also, as with Silva, there is a kooky quality to this Blofeld that diminishes his malevolent genius. He's just too silly. Is this Mendes' doing. If so it's another reason for him not to return.

    That's true. I'd actually never thought about that before. Silva and Waltz-feld are both diametrically opposite from Le Chiffre and Greene, who represented grounded, real-world threats. With all their giggling and snickering and mugging, Mendes's villains at the very least clash with the darker and ostensibly more dramatic trappings of their respective films.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Benny wrote: »
    Going forward can the 'foster brother' angle be completely ignored? Can Bond25 jettison this mistake and treat it as if it never happened?
    As with Midichlorians in the Star Wars films, that kind of ruined the force for some fans, and were down played in future instalments, making a brief mention in SW Episode 3, can Bond also take a similar path.
    If it's simply not mentioned, would that be okay, or has the damage been done. Would a new actor be able to establish an alternate timeline if you will, leading to a Blofeld and Bond without any connection.
    As far as I am concerned, they could ignore the last two films completely and I wouldn´t be bothered.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 2,559
    Yeah, to hell with Blofeld. Set Bond 25 after QOS and have the head of the organization as Tamil Rahani, the new head of Spectre from John Gardner's books. Oh wait, Eon would rather have so called writers scribe rubbish about foster brothers than use some of the great ideas from Gardner's books. On second thoughts, forget Spectre. Might get a little confusing if they're there. Have stand alone films.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    You mean, we should pretend the Mendes films never happened and pick up where Quantum of Solace left off?
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 2,559
    Actually, not quite. I think Skyfall is pretty good but not up there with CR. Make one or two more films with Craig set between QOS and SF, before Bond supposedly became too old in the latter. Bit of airbrushing and we're right as rain. By then, a new actor to play 007 will have been ushered in and even if they do use Blofeld, most likely played by another actor, general audiences will have most likely forgotten about the foster brother garbage and there certainly needn't be any reference to it. It'll all be fresh. The thing is, I do want Craig to return before the eventual new actor, but giving a performance more in the vein of his first two films.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    While I am in favour of abandoning the Mendes films in their entirely, I don't think I would want to go back in time... Well, not if SF will be part of the reboot canon. However, I would like to see what would've happened with Craig climbing his way up to truly deserving the 007 status he was given but never was trusted with in CR and QoS. But, I don't want that with another actor. I'd rather have the new actor set a new timeline and new continuity and leave the Craig era contained in its own.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 2,559
    Personally, I don't see any problem with going back in time seeing they rebooted the Bond films with Craig anyway. Each to their own though. :). Something different again with Craig who the general cinema goer has warmed too.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Oh not a problem at all. Even if they do go back in time, I still would watch and maybe even enjoy them a lot. :)
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 2,559
    As long as they are good stories with good acting and direction then I reckon they would be box office successes. Good stories and direction? That's the million dollar question. :)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,109
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Going forward can the 'foster brother' angle be completely ignored? Can Bond25 jettison this mistake and treat it as if it never happened?
    As with Midichlorians in the Star Wars films, that kind of ruined the force for some fans, and were down played in future instalments, making a brief mention in SW Episode 3, can Bond also take a similar path.
    If it's simply not mentioned, would that be okay, or has the damage been done. Would a new actor be able to establish an alternate timeline if you will, leading to a Blofeld and Bond without any connection.
    As far as I am concerned, they could ignore the last two films completely and I wouldn´t be bothered.

    EoN are experts at ignoring things that occurred in their films so it really shouldn't be a problem ignoring SF and especially SP.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,340
    Craig was playing an old Bond in 2012. He's too old now to play a young Bond.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,109
    Craig was playing an old Bond in 2012. He's too old now to play a young Bond.

    They shouldn't be focusing on Bond's age at all. Just get on with telling a story about a secret agent thwarting plans of the enemy. Simple.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    doubleoego wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Going forward can the 'foster brother' angle be completely ignored? Can Bond25 jettison this mistake and treat it as if it never happened?
    As with Midichlorians in the Star Wars films, that kind of ruined the force for some fans, and were down played in future instalments, making a brief mention in SW Episode 3, can Bond also take a similar path.
    If it's simply not mentioned, would that be okay, or has the damage been done. Would a new actor be able to establish an alternate timeline if you will, leading to a Blofeld and Bond without any connection.
    As far as I am concerned, they could ignore the last two films completely and I wouldn´t be bothered.

    EoN are experts at ignoring things that occurred in their films so it really shouldn't be a problem ignoring SF and especially SP.
    But, let's not forget that it's not the same EoN that was up until GoldenEye. Cubby's successors play the game rather differently and it's quite noticeable. I also don't think if they are to keep Craig or his Bond at least they're just going to ignore it. The general audience will spark outrage and heavy criticism over the jettisoning of arc elements from the chronology etc. I'm afraid that's how they think, now. 'They' being the audience. The age thing won't be forgotten. I could almost hear the angry complaints from them like how it's unrealistic for the "washed up spy" from Skyfall not having aged for one bit in 10 years (figure of speech) and is in better shape than ever et al. That's why I think a new timeline and new chronology is for the best.
  • Posts: 1,309
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Craig was playing an old Bond in 2012. He's too old now to play a young Bond.

    They shouldn't be focusing on Bond's age at all. Just get on with telling a story about a secret agent thwarting plans of the enemy. Simple.

    But they've done that many many times already. They did that with Brosnan and ran out of steam and ideas because they were essentially re-working the same ideas in the same way over and over again. That's why they shook things up with Craig and they have enjoyed enormous commercial and, mostly, critical success. They made the right decision to re-boot Bond and explore other aspects of the character and his world which they had not really focused so strongly on before.
  • Posts: 2,559
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Craig was playing an old Bond in 2012. He's too old now to play a young Bond.

    They shouldn't be focusing on Bond's age at all. Just get on with telling a story about a secret agent thwarting plans of the enemy. Simple.

    Agreed. That's the way it always was. I'm all for character movement but one doesn't need to implement it by focusing on age and foster brothers. Jesus.
  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,181
    Benny wrote: »
    Going forward can the 'foster brother' angle be completely ignored? Can Bond25 jettison this mistake and treat it as if it never happened?
    As with Midichlorians in the Star Wars films, that kind of ruined the force for some fans, and were down played in future instalments, making a brief mention in SW Episode 3, can Bond also take a similar path.
    If it's simply not mentioned, would that be okay, or has the damage been done. Would a new actor be able to establish an alternate timeline if you will, leading to a Blofeld and Bond without any connection.
    Continuity was never a big thing in Bond films. And personally I don't think that's a bad thing. So yes, I do believe it's fairly easy for EON to ignore the foster brother angle and (at least partially) erase it from the audience's memory.
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Craig was playing an old Bond in 2012. He's too old now to play a young Bond.

    They shouldn't be focusing on Bond's age at all. Just get on with telling a story about a secret agent thwarting plans of the enemy. Simple.
    Precisely. Bond's age shouldn't matter at all to the story. For heaven's sake, Sir Rog was nearly 60 and not only there wasn't a single reference to that (unless you count the encounter with Loelia Ponsonby in OP, but even that seemed to refer to Moneypenny's age, not Bond's), but also his Bond did exactly what he would have done in his 40s.
  • Point of order: do we know for sure that the helicopter is to be used in Bond25 itself? I could still very much imagine that it's to be used for something tangential - promo stuff, shooting an ad, making an exhibit, etc. . .
  • Here’s some interesting food for thought whilst we wait for some news….

    While the Bond movies grows another coating of dust, many other big Hollywood franchises are dominating the news cycle. One film that is getting a lot of attention is the new Batman film. Interestingly enough, the hiring of Matt Reeves is a terrific decision. I’m actually a bit gutted his name wasn’t on the Bond shortlist (EON need to get a move on, or a lot of the great directors will get booked up).

    However, word came out that Ridley Scott is waiting in the wings to take over. It got me thinking that Scott could do a Bond film. Ridley’s films are so influenced by the script, he’s an executer and when the script is top-notch, he can deliver. In this sense, he isn’t dissimilar to the journeymen helmers who have long been associated to the Bond franchise. Plus his name has considerable clout. Maybe a Ridley Scott directed Bond film could be a good idea? Especially, for people who are fed up of auters coming in and trying to leave their stamp.

    He's made a considerable number of duds recently but The Martian was a return to form. Once again, if you get a great script together, there is no one better to execute it than Scott. (His brother, Tony, was also in the frae at one point to direct QOS). He also woul get a cast together that is arguably better than the ones Mendes did.

    on-set-prometheus-ridley-scott-image-2-1-1200x520.jpg
    http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1624450/could-ridley-scott-direct-ben-afflecks-solo-batman-movie

    Another story that interested me was the recent hiring of Coen brothers to rework the Scarface script. The Coens are known for their own idiosyncratic directorial films, but they are not above being guns for hire. They wrote the script for Angelina Jolie’s Unbroken and Spielberg’s Bridge of Spies, amongst others. I can’t imagine that they would write the script from scratch, but I can imagine them coming in and retooling an existing draft. Maybe get P&W to hammer out a script and then get the Coens to sprinkle their magic.

    Imagine Daniel Craig’s final Bond film being directed by Ridley Scott and written by the Coen Brothers? That’s the announcement we’re all waiting for.

    joel-ethan-coen-1200x520.jpeg
    http://theplaylist.net/coen-brothers-putting-pens-scarface-remake-20170210/

    Also, it’s worth mentioning that David Mackenzie is eyeing the Scarface remake. Another example of a brilliant director busying himself with another project. Eon need to hurry.
Sign In or Register to comment.