No Time To Die: Production Diary

16556566586606612507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Risico007 wrote: »
    where is all this Steve Sodenbergh talk coming from?
    He's working with Craig in the upcoming Lucky Logan, and given Craig tends to have input into directors, it was discussed as a possibility in the event Mendes is really gone (I remain to be convinced).
  • jammy_bjammy_b UK
    Posts: 6
    Would rather have P&W's concepts and someone polish their dialogue than someone coming up with ideas like making Ralph Fienne's M a bad guy etc!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    jammy_b wrote: »
    Would rather have P&W's concepts and someone polish their dialogue than someone coming up with ideas like making Ralph Fienne's M a bad guy etc!

    Was that an idea the writers had at some point? I heard of Tanner being a traitor in an early draft of SP, but not that.

    I remember seeing that first trailer for SF, and the way they edited the shot where Bond shoots the fire extinguisher next to Mallory during the court house scene, made it look like he was possibly fighting Mallory, so I had some expectations that he wasn't all he appeared to be in the finished film - well, until I had it all spoiled before the film's release, anyway.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    jammy_b wrote: »
    Would rather have P&W's concepts and someone polish their dialogue than someone coming up with ideas like making Ralph Fienne's M a bad guy etc!

    Was that an idea the writers had at some point? I heard of Tanner being a traitor in an early draft of SP, but not that.

    I remember seeing that first trailer for SF, and the way they edited the shot where Bond shoots the fire extinguisher next to Mallory during the court house scene, made it look like he was possibly fighting Mallory, so I had some expectations that he wasn't all he appeared to be in the finished film - well, until I had it all spoiled before the film's release, anyway.
    If I'm not mistaken, one of Logan's drafts consisted of Fiennes' M being a traitor. Fiennes threatened to leave the project unless they changed it (for which I applaud him for).
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    I want Andrew Davies and Bill Kennedy to write the screenplay
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    It's good that he not only demanded that, but was also cast as M (and continues to play him). Smart decision on his part.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    If I recall correctly, the original announcement of Fiennes as Mallory for SF indicated that he was not all he seemed to be, suggesting there could be a twist to his character.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited March 2017 Posts: 40,372
    Perhaps that's why I had initially assumed he wasn't all he seemed to be, then. Been a good while, so can't recall the exact details. Either way, glad they didn't go with that. For every idea I hear they had that I go "Damn, it's a shame that didn't make the film" (wasn't there a foot chase between Bond and Silva on his island originally planned? That would've been good), there's one that I'm equally happy didn't make the finished product, such as Mallory being a bad guy.

    Now that I got that thought out, I'll stop derailing the thread.

    @QuantumOrganization, had to look up those names, are they the ones that have written the entire U.S. version of 'House of Cards'?
  • Posts: 11,119
    This beast of a thread has been going in circles for how many pages now?

    Wouldn't it be a good idea to add a page number in the topic title, once someone (the topic starter) adds an important news article? Then it's easy to search back. Especially for those who haven't been here for a while.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    This beast of a thread has been going in circles for how many pages now?

    Wouldn't it be a good idea to add a page number in the topic title, once someone (the topic starter) adds an important news article? Then it's easy to search back. Especially for those who haven't been here for a while.

    It's been stated many times that all news is constantly posted on Page 1. :)
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Perhaps that's why I had initially assumed he wasn't all he seemed to be, then. Been a good while, so can't recall the exact details. Either way, glad they didn't go with that. For every idea I hear they had that I go "Damn, it's a shame that didn't make the film" (wasn't there a foot chase between Bond and Silva on his island originally planned? That would've been good), there's one that I'm equally happy didn't make the finished product, such as Mallory being a bad guy.

    Now that I got that thought out, I'll stop derailing the thread.

    @QuantumOrganization, had to look up those names, are they the ones that have written the entire U.S. version of 'House of Cards'?
    Yes. I believe the former did the BBC version as well. I think the dialogue in both is witty and human. Something we haven't seen since 2006.
  • Posts: 154
    I think the plane is a red herring as far as the next film is concerned. Why buy something before you have a script or, most likely, a plot? If you were filming a WWII movie and bought a vintage plane before the scripting process, chances are, you'd be safe.

    This strikes me as something you'd experience in a college screenwriting seminar: You have a plane. Now write a story around it. Your finished assignment should include a spy, a girl (a pretty one, preferably) and at least one action set piece with said plane.
  • Posts: 676
    Can't say I'm surprised P&W are back. They have been reliable for EON. I don't have any big opinion about their return. They do seem to do their best work when there's a big gap between films (from DAD to CR, QoS to SF) and when they're adapting Fleming (again, CR for obvious reasons and SF for adapting elements of YOLT and TMWTGG).

    So I hope the gap between SP and the next film (which will probably be in 2018 or 2019) will give them time to produce something good, and hopefully EON realizes what made CR so good: the use of Fleming material.

    Then again, if the next film is a direct sequel to SP, I will struggle to be interested. Even if it features things like the "garden of death" and Irma Bunt - the most obvious route for a sequel, IMO.

    It might be worth noting that P&W have been working on a project with Nicolas Winding Refn, which has been described as inspired by Bond.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    I am not sure where the Mendes hate is coming from, here. Is it blame for SP? Well, remember, Mendes doesn't write the script, folks, and he was on record as being very unhappy with it three summers ago. As far as we might know, Mendes made chicken salad out of chicken $#!T on SP. It was a bad script. And he was pressed to get the film made. Had Mendes and Craig been given another six months, the script (especially the third act) might have been better polished. As is, SP still works on so many other levels, the ones Mendes had control of. The PTS is worth the price of admission alone. The Bond-Hinx fight is brilliant. The plane-car chase is photographed beautifully. The encounter with Mr. White is deliciously ominous.

    We could do A LOT worse than having Mendes return, with Craig.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited March 2017 Posts: 11,139
    We can also do a lot better. EoN need to get their finger out and start making bolder choices; which is why this P&W news does sod all for me. EoN are frustratingly all about their comfort zone, meanwhile other studios are taking risks which are paying off in many cases.

    On another note, the Bond Hinx fight is quite pedestrian to be honest.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 676
    The only thing with Mendes is that he pushes for some kind of drama, something that will interest him in the script. In SF this was M dying, in SP it was the foster brother stuff. I would like B25 to avoid this sort of thing. It was fine once in SF, but each Bond film doesn't need to centre around a gimmicky drama.

    If Mendes had wanted to do a traditional Bond film, purely focused on Bond's mission, with no special drama and no rogue Bond, he had the perfect opportunity with SP... and he didn't take it. I highly doubt he would be happy doing such a film, and I think fans have been wanting such a film for years now.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    doubleoego wrote: »
    We can also do a lot better. EoN need to get their finger out and start making bolder choices; which is why this P&W news does sod all for me. EoN are frustratingly all about their comfort zone, meanwhile other studios are taking risks which are paying off in many cases.

    On another note, the Bond Hinx fight is quite pedestrian to be honest.

    This team have been a lot more experimental than in the old days. In the old days it was the same rotating writers, the same people funneled with each director, best seen in the Moore era and Glen's whole approach. Why have new blood when you can just remake older, better films was the thought.

    I would count a reboot based on the first Bond novel that completely flips the script on anything that came before in the series, a sequel that strived to focus on Bond's grief without the Bond formula and a real world scheme, and yet another film that studied Bond's origins and his rise from the ashes were all far more risky and out of the comfort zone of the franchise team than anything Cubby would ever allow.

    With Cubby, you knew what you'd get. There'd be the same old office briefing, a car with gadgets, cringey quips, tons of near naked ladies, and on and on. This team, however, doesn't get that complacent. Things tie these movies together, but each one is a vastly different experience than the rest, and each stands as a unique package of four films because of it. CR, QoS, SF and SP all have unique visuals, unique moods and unique experiences with Bond at the center of them, where it's always a new adventure. I don't sense that variety in other eras outside of Connery's early work, and not to such a creative degree.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I personally would, and most definitely would, prefer Cubby's approach. Because for me, his tenure and formula of the Bond films were a lot more fun than it is now.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 24
    I swear to God, Purvis and Wade either have incriminating photographs of Barbara Broccoli or they sold their souls to the devil.

    How they keep returning to scrawl out, presumably in crayon, the same hackneyed, tired old regurgitated Bond plotlines is beyond me.

    The only decent Bond script in recent years was Casino Royale, and that was because of Paul Haggis - not these amateurs.

    Desk
  • Risico007 wrote: »
    where is all this Steve Sodenbergh talk coming from?

    Just banter in this thread. However, Soderbergh wrote an essay about his appreciation of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which demonstrates a good knowledge of 007.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    If I recall correctly, the original announcement of Fiennes as Mallory for SF indicated that he was not all he seemed to be, suggesting there could be a twist to his character.

    ...which turned out to be the case in the early SPECTRE drafts where M was a traitor. But Fiennes refused to come back if that would be the case. (Information via Sony hacks).
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I personally would, and most definitely would, prefer Cubby's approach. Because for me, his tenure and formula of the Bond films were a lot more fun than it is now.

    I just laugh when people say they want Bond to take risks again. We're currently in the most experimental phase of the series since OHMSS, it doesn't get riskier. There was no chance of this working before, and it came at just the right time. You still have people that call these films anti-Bond, while others are saying it's gotten complacent. I don't know what it is about these films that makes so many read them wrong, but there you have it.

    I respect Cubby's work at stages, but with that approach you don't truly let new ideas seep in. After the 60s, it's all a blur. How many more times must we endure the same Moneypenny meeting, the same gadget talk with the same notes, the same redone versions of Grant and other characters that were way better in their original releases. So many rehashes, rip-offs, retools. It thankfully never got to the point of, "you've seen one Bond film, you've seen them all," but it was so stale and going through all the motions. The 60s films are amazing, but how much longer is that teat going to be sapped from? It ran dry in the Moore and Brosnan eras, and Dalton and Craig where in the mix to refresh where they could, the former obviously not as successfully as the later in that time and place. The series needs recharge periods from the same old, and I'm happy to be witnessing one now. With Barbara still in command, I don't think we have to be worried about a reversion from it either.

    I respect the Craig era for finding new ways to tell stories, and not fitting everything into exposition at MI6, then something in the field, and on and on. You can't watch a Craig film and say, "Yep, here comes the office bit, then Q will be here." The stories are given time to actually breathe, and the franchise grew into having some of those elements return, but thankfully in a more restricted nature. Some seem to be quite dreary sorts, as I've had immense fun watching these films, especially throughout CR and SF, and the same with SP. There's fun moments, light moments, but you don't need to have Bond driving out of the ocean in a car, dropping a fish out his window to be entertaining, sacrificing dignity along with it. The Craig era has more natural humor, and humor that isn't tied to one-liners you can see coming a mile away. That is where the series needs to go farther towards, being more genuine and less artificial with everything as it once could be.

    But I don't need to see endless attempts to capture the 60s films in humor and structure again. That approach worked for that time and era, but we're well past it and experimentation has to occur to keep viable.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited March 2017 Posts: 4,548
    I personally would, and most definitely would, prefer Cubby's approach. Because for me, his tenure and formula of the Bond films were a lot more fun than it is now.

    But keep in mind: he mostly had Fleming's original material to work with.

    As for P&W, they would have started with a pitch/brainstorm session...it must have gone well enough to move forward.
  • Posts: 676
    Risico007 wrote: »
    where is all this Steve Sodenbergh talk coming from?

    Just banter in this thread. However, Soderbergh wrote an essay about his appreciation of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which demonstrates a good knowledge of 007.
    He has also spoken with EON in the past about doing a Bond film.
    Desk wrote: »
    The only decent Bond script in recent years was Casino Royale, and that was because of Paul Haggis - not these amateurs.
    Haggis simply polished CR - he rewrote dialogue for a few scenes and added the sinking house. The rest was down to P&W. I would sooner credit Ian Fleming for the fact CR is the best film EON's produced in decades.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Haven't we all forgotten this is the same guy who said Bond 25 is very far away and hasn't been close to the franchise since 2014 I'm waiting for something official not rumors by a tabloid not buying BAZ
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Taking a 1950s story, and actually updating massive sections of it to fit modern concerns, show that P&W can deliver. CR isn't a faithful adaptation, it is inspired by the text and goes it's own way in fresh and interesting ways, with dozens of characters you never meet in the story, yet who are fully fleshed out and interesting in their own right. Endless unique scenes and subplots were also added, with only the premise of Bond facing a greedy man in a card game while being betrayed remains from the source and the bigger moments twisted up. It's a cunning script that is smart in how self-aware it is about what it is and what came before, and takes use of Fleming without being chained by it.

    It's hard to tell who just wrote what with any scriptwriting team, especially on the Bond films where so much rewriting and reimagining is done by streams of people. It's not as simple as it was when Maibaum was the franchise's script writing crutch. There's more voices in the room now, and the directors have a say too in forcing the writers into shaping what they or the producers want. It's easy for people to blame P&W for things here and there, for the same reason they do it to Barbara and Michael: they're the big names in the credits, so it's easy. But some don't realize that a good script can be taken apart and become what it never was in the director and producer's hands through committee and production notes. The writer is at the mercy of their creative superiors, so they write what they're told. There can be a greater freedom and voice for the writer, yes, but it's not uncommon for the writers to be slaves to another person's vision where they're creating something they don't want to see, but that they are hired to realize nonetheless.
  • Posts: 1,548
    As long as Daniel Craig is Bond I'm happy.
  • Desk wrote: »
    I swear to God, Purvis and Wade either have incriminating photographs of Barbara Broccoli or they sold their souls to the devil.

    How they keep returning to scrawl out, presumably in crayon, the same hackneyed, tired old regurgitated Bond plotlines is beyond me.

    The only decent Bond script in recent years was Casino Royale, and that was because of Paul Haggis - not these amateurs.

    Desk

    Or they're reliable and easy to work with and deliver scripts that reflect what the producers want. I will say though that that would be beyond impressive if they wrote their scripts in crayon because it is incredibly difficult to write in crayon. More power to them if that's how they roll.

    Also, the Bond team has notoriously been a family unit. They like to keep on the same people to work with. They're sort of like the Franz Sanchez of the film industry, but without all the cutting out of hearts and shark-feeding and everything. The more unusual thing is when a longtime member of the Bond family whom they're on good terms with is dropped for a newcomer, as with David Arnold.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    where is all this Steve Sodenbergh talk coming from?

    Just banter in this thread. However, Soderbergh wrote an essay about his appreciation of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which demonstrates a good knowledge of 007.

    Yes, Soderbergh's admiration for On Her Majesty's Secret Service is encouraging. Good to have a genuine Bond fan at the helms and his fondness for OHMSS sounds like a step in a better direction than Mendes's childhood fascination with L&LD. (Not judging L&LD or anything, but it sounds like Soderbergh has appraised and evaluated OHMSS as an adult and doesn't just remember munching popcorn to the movie as a tike.) However, I'm not terribly crazy about the Soderbergh films I've seen. I think I've liked Che, Pt. 1 the best from him, but I'm just not sure his style is suited for Bond.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Soderbergh wrote a few paragraphs where he said he liked OHMSS. I respect the guy, but let's not crown him king of the fandom just yet.
  • Soderbergh wrote a few paragraphs where he said he liked OHMSS. I respect the guy, but let's not crown him king of the fandom just yet.

    He also has an autographed picture of Lazenby as Bond in his house. Does he need any more credentials? ;)

    No one's crowning Soderbergh king of anything, but this is an excerpt from the beginning of his discourse:

    For me there’s no question that cinematically ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE is the best Bond film and the only one worth watching repeatedly for reasons other than pure entertainment (certainly it’s the only Bond film I look at and think: I’m stealing that shit).

    I wouldn't mind seeing that mentality in a future Bond director. But again, I don't know that Soderbergh really is the man for the job.
Sign In or Register to comment.