No Time To Die: Production Diary

16696706726746752585

Comments

  • Posts: 3,881
    Milovy wrote: »
    SF was supposed to be a return to Fleming, yet other than Bond's parents names being mentioned on a grave stone, there isn't one unused scene or character taken from any of the Fleming novels. Maibaum knew how to skilfully do this in the 80's, with LTK being a prime example. That film feels like it could have been written by Fleming. SF unfortunately doesn't, and neither does SP.
    Although SF doesn't borrow scenes directly from Fleming, it does borrow some elements from YOLT (Bond's washed up, sent on an "impossible" mission, and he appears to die) and TMWTGG (the William Tell game is similar to Bond shooting a decorative pineapple off a dancer's head). Patrice shooting someone through two panes of glass is also similar to one of Bond's first kills as described in CR.

    Yes, and even the interview with Bond by a doctor is reminiscent of the opening to TMWTGG.

    However, these are all fleeting moments, hints, suggestions and nods. None of it is taken directly from source, something which Cubby obviously pushed for himself in the 80's when he wanted to return to Fleming.

    I want to see entire scenes and chapters resurrected again, hot half-baked suggestions and nods, or a name on a tombstone, or EON's twisted take on Bond's childhood, changing and altering Fleming's creation to suit a movie.

    But most people on here are to some extent going to be fans of Fleming. Do the producers think general audiences know or care about Fleming? Do they see cinematic 007 as needing to be faithful to the books?
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 2,057
    vzok wrote: »
    Milovy wrote: »
    SF was supposed to be a return to Fleming, yet other than Bond's parents names being mentioned on a grave stone, there isn't one unused scene or character taken from any of the Fleming novels. Maibaum knew how to skilfully do this in the 80's, with LTK being a prime example. That film feels like it could have been written by Fleming. SF unfortunately doesn't, and neither does SP.
    Although SF doesn't borrow scenes directly from Fleming, it does borrow some elements from YOLT (Bond's washed up, sent on an "impossible" mission, and he appears to die) and TMWTGG (the William Tell game is similar to Bond shooting a decorative pineapple off a dancer's head). Patrice shooting someone through two panes of glass is also similar to one of Bond's first kills as described in CR.

    Yes, and even the interview with Bond by a doctor is reminiscent of the opening to TMWTGG.

    However, these are all fleeting moments, hints, suggestions and nods. None of it is taken directly from source, something which Cubby obviously pushed for himself in the 80's when he wanted to return to Fleming.

    I want to see entire scenes and chapters resurrected again, hot half-baked suggestions and nods, or a name on a tombstone, or EON's twisted take on Bond's childhood, changing and altering Fleming's creation to suit a movie.

    But most people on here are to some extent going to be fans of Fleming. Do the producers think general audiences know or care about Fleming? Do they see cinematic 007 as needing to be faithful to the books?

    Probably not, yet whenever EON do go back to the source, the results usually end up with the films becoming highly critically acclaimed. Probably because the novels were more plausible, and feature less plot holes.

    The least highly thought of actors by critics and fans alike are Moore and Brosnan, and it is no coincidence that their films are OTT, and feature very little of Fleming (Brosnan's don't contain one single scene).

    Moore's most critically acclaimed film is the one which uses entire scenes and short stories from Fleming - FYEO.

    I think we'll look back on Craig's tenure with CR being mostly highly thought of. Dalton's films are also highly thought of, as they too borrow entire scenes from Fleming.

    Two of the most highly acclaimed films in the entire franchise are OHMSS and FRWL - again both films are the closest adaptations of the novels. Likewise, the same can be said of GF, TB and Dr. No too.

    The bottom line is, whenever EON try to create something new themselves, it usually ends up being done by committee, with additional rewrites and additional writers - typically ending up with muddled, confused plots, unrealistic character development, pretentious dialogue, and messy, glaring plot holes that don't make any sense.

  • Posts: 6,601
    I dont believe, the General audience ever read a Fleming book or care about it too much, if they did. Its a sole fanboy thing. As for the films, they should put their focus onto pleasing the general audiences, they bring in the money. Bit certain rules should be applied, like Bond being white. Making him black is not bringing forward diversity. It's only ridiculous. A dead attempt to be oh so modern. There needs to be the girl, the cars, the action and some smirky dialogue. Plus gorgeous locations. IMO that's what everybody expects from Bond - in a certain, very bondish unique way.
  • Posts: 11,119
    To be very honest? I'm not very happy to hear that Neal Purvis & Robert Wade are being considered again by EON Productions (Gregg Wilson?) to pen the next Bond film. Not long ago both Bond veterans openly said they don't know how to move forward now the Bond fiction becomes reality in today's geopolitical world (Trump, Assange, etc).Well, at least they have openly shown that they feel exhausted creatively. Like they don't bother...
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    vzok wrote: »
    Milovy wrote: »
    SF was supposed to be a return to Fleming, yet other than Bond's parents names being mentioned on a grave stone, there isn't one unused scene or character taken from any of the Fleming novels. Maibaum knew how to skilfully do this in the 80's, with LTK being a prime example. That film feels like it could have been written by Fleming. SF unfortunately doesn't, and neither does SP.
    Although SF doesn't borrow scenes directly from Fleming, it does borrow some elements from YOLT (Bond's washed up, sent on an "impossible" mission, and he appears to die) and TMWTGG (the William Tell game is similar to Bond shooting a decorative pineapple off a dancer's head). Patrice shooting someone through two panes of glass is also similar to one of Bond's first kills as described in CR.

    Yes, and even the interview with Bond by a doctor is reminiscent of the opening to TMWTGG.

    However, these are all fleeting moments, hints, suggestions and nods. None of it is taken directly from source, something which Cubby obviously pushed for himself in the 80's when he wanted to return to Fleming.

    I want to see entire scenes and chapters resurrected again, hot half-baked suggestions and nods, or a name on a tombstone, or EON's twisted take on Bond's childhood, changing and altering Fleming's creation to suit a movie.

    But most people on here are to some extent going to be fans of Fleming. Do the producers think general audiences know or care about Fleming? Do they see cinematic 007 as needing to be faithful to the books?

    Probably not, yet whenever EON do go back to the source, the results usually end up with the films becoming highly critically acclaimed. Probably because the novels were more plausible, and feature less plot holes.

    The least highly thought of actors by critics and fans alike are Moore and Brosnan, and it is no coincidence that their films are OTT, and feature very little of Fleming (Brosnan's don't contain one single scene).

    Moore's most critically acclaimed film is the one which uses entire scenes and short stories from Fleming - FYEO.

    I think we'll look back on Craig's tenure with CR being mostly highly thought of. Dalton's films are also highly thought of, as they too borrow entire scenes from Fleming.

    Two of the most highly acclaimed films in the entire franchise are OHMSS and FRWL - again both films are the closest adaptations of the novels. Likewise, the same can be said of GF, TB and Dr. No too.

    The bottom line is, whenever EON try to create something new themselves, it usually ends up being done by committee, with additional rewrites and additional writers - typically ending up with muddled, confused plots, unrealistic character development, pretentious dialogue, and messy, glaring plot holes that don't make any sense.

    Some of those perceptions may hold true here, but in the public, I honestly don't think they care. They wouldn't know Fleming from a picture, and on the whole most wouldn't have gone near the books or even knew they existed outside of being aware of them through a trivia question they ran into once. I wish people cared, but they don't seem to care how faithful or not the films are, if they even know of the books at all.
    To be very honest? I'm not very happy to hear that Neal Purvis & Robert Wade are being considered again by EON Productions (Gregg Wilson?) to pen the next Bond film. Not long ago both Bond veterans openly said they don't know how to move forward now the Bond fiction becomes reality in today's geopolitical world (Trump, Assange, etc).Well, at least they have openly shown that they feel exhausted creatively. Like they don't bother...

    I honestly think P&W made a very astute statement that extended beyond their own writing, and just gave a snapshot about how many writers, myself included, feel. Bond is perceived as larger than life and fantasy, an experience that can't enter reality, but crazy things like the political upheavals that happened last year make you wonder if life truly is strange than fiction.

    It's very hard to slip away into a fictional tale when you feel like you're in an alternate reality yourself. Bond films have always been a comfort because you think the villains can't reach us through the screen, but now cartoonish villains fill our own world in a fashion that feels like bizarre reality TV. It makes it hard to surprise or impress audiences, then, when what is on the screen is what they are blasted with on the news daily.
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 300
    I honestly think P&W made a very astute statement that extended beyond their own writing, and just gave a snapshot about how many writers, myself included, feel. Bond is perceived as larger than life and fantasy, an experience that can't enter reality, but crazy things like the political upheavals that happened last year make you wonder if life truly is strange than fiction.

    It's very hard to slip away into a fictional tale when you feel like you're in an alternate reality yourself. Bond films have always been a comfort because you think the villains can't reach us through the screen, but now cartoonish villains fill our own world in a fashion that feels like bizarre reality TV. It makes it hard to surprise or impress audiences, then, when what is on the screen is what they are blasted with on the news daily.

    Yeah, up until last year it was all one happy and peaceful world.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 2,057
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I dont believe, the General audience ever read a Fleming book or care about it too much, if they did. Its a sole fanboy thing. As for the films, they should put their focus onto pleasing the general audiences, they bring in the money. Bit certain rules should be applied, like Bond being white. Making him black is not bringing forward diversity. It's only ridiculous. A dead attempt to be oh so modern. There needs to be the girl, the cars, the action and some smirky dialogue. Plus gorgeous locations. IMO that's what everybody expects from Bond - in a certain, very bondish unique way.
    I agree with the rules, but even then when these rules are applied, it doesn't guarantee it will be a decent Bond film (look at the 4 Brosnan movies).

    Where I feel the films have been lacking ever since Babs has taken over are weak scripts, muddled storylines and plot holes. I think some of this could be remedied by going back to the Fleming novels, instead of re-imagining Fleming. They are the sole reason why this franchise exists in the first place, and why the films have stood the test of time.

    I just saw the making of TLD and Michael Wilson says on camera that they were looking at the possibility of exploring Bond's childhood, but Cubby was dead against the idea and told them to focus more on existing Fleming material instead.

    Cubby was 100% right. He probably wouldn't be too happy with what the producers and writers came up with in SF and particularly SP, having Bond and Blofeld being brothers.

  • edited March 2017 Posts: 2,057
    edit
  • gumboltgumbolt Now with in-office photocopier
    Posts: 151
    Wanting to go back to Fleming is appealing but we have to be careful to recognise that you cannot plan to capture lightning in a bottle. The acclaimed writer Sebastian Faulks tried to "write as Ian Fleming" with Devil May Care and it met with lukewarm reviews. I think that some of the Bond movies that have tried to go back to Fleming have not connected with the wider audience (OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK, TWINE) despite a few of those being well regarded by fans. I think CR is the only truly successful (critical, commercial and enduring popular appeal) Flemingesque film since the 1960s.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    vzok wrote: »
    Milovy wrote: »
    SF was supposed to be a return to Fleming, yet other than Bond's parents names being mentioned on a grave stone, there isn't one unused scene or character taken from any of the Fleming novels. Maibaum knew how to skilfully do this in the 80's, with LTK being a prime example. That film feels like it could have been written by Fleming. SF unfortunately doesn't, and neither does SP.
    Although SF doesn't borrow scenes directly from Fleming, it does borrow some elements from YOLT (Bond's washed up, sent on an "impossible" mission, and he appears to die) and TMWTGG (the William Tell game is similar to Bond shooting a decorative pineapple off a dancer's head). Patrice shooting someone through two panes of glass is also similar to one of Bond's first kills as described in CR.

    Yes, and even the interview with Bond by a doctor is reminiscent of the opening to TMWTGG.

    However, these are all fleeting moments, hints, suggestions and nods. None of it is taken directly from source, something which Cubby obviously pushed for himself in the 80's when he wanted to return to Fleming.

    I want to see entire scenes and chapters resurrected again, hot half-baked suggestions and nods, or a name on a tombstone, or EON's twisted take on Bond's childhood, changing and altering Fleming's creation to suit a movie.

    But most people on here are to some extent going to be fans of Fleming. Do the producers think general audiences know or care about Fleming? Do they see cinematic 007 as needing to be faithful to the books?

    Probably not, yet whenever EON do go back to the source, the results usually end up with the films becoming highly critically acclaimed. Probably because the novels were more plausible, and feature less plot holes.

    The least highly thought of actors by critics and fans alike are Moore and Brosnan, and it is no coincidence that their films are OTT, and feature very little of Fleming (Brosnan's don't contain one single scene).

    Moore's most critically acclaimed film is the one which uses entire scenes and short stories from Fleming - FYEO.

    I think we'll look back on Craig's tenure with CR being mostly highly thought of. Dalton's films are also highly thought of, as they too borrow entire scenes from Fleming.

    Two of the most highly acclaimed films in the entire franchise are OHMSS and FRWL - again both films are the closest adaptations of the novels. Likewise, the same can be said of GF, TB and Dr. No too.

    The bottom line is, whenever EON try to create something new themselves, it usually ends up being done by committee, with additional rewrites and additional writers - typically ending up with muddled, confused plots, unrealistic character development, pretentious dialogue, and messy, glaring plot holes that don't make any sense.

    You'd think after being in the business for so long EoN would understand this and adhere to Fleming as much as possible. What works well, works well and you can't go wrong with that. There's precedent for it. EoN are lucky they have more than enough material to adapt, manipulate and play with; there's little to no excuse, especially with 3 to 4 year gaps for failure at the script stage.
    That being said, EoN should also look at what these new Bond comics are doing with the character. Writing good Bond material clearly isn't impossible. EoN just need to put in the work and manage things better. A lot better.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,223
    I don't think Eon paid all that money for Blofeld and Spectre not to continue to use them. I can see them killing Blofeld in B25 but Spectre will be back.
  • gumboltgumbolt Now with in-office photocopier
    Posts: 151
    I just a wee shudder there as I recall that John Gardner's second Bond novel For Special Services featured Spectre led by the deceased Blofeld's daughter. Please, no....
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,012
    Waltz said some time ago in an interview with Zeit-Magazin Mann that he didn't nail the character and basically he and Mendes clashed over the portrayal of the character. Which isn't hard to see when you watch the trailer featuring two very different takes of the one speech blended together.

    If he does return in Bond 25. What I would really like to see is Waltz's own take on the character. I'm not saying his ideas were better or worse than Mendes in SP, but it would be nice to have some idea of who essentially de-menanced the character.

    And I imagine it bothers Waltz himself, that he didn't nail the character. It would be nice to see him nail it, he's got the skills he just needs to apply them in the right way (script willing).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I believe Waltz (ironically like Brosnan) is best when he's in a more exaggerated environment than Blofeld or Bond permit. Both characters are somewhat straight jacketed, and both actors need the freedom to improvise and almost hyperbolize their acting in order to be truly effective (imho). That is why neither was truly suited for the characters they played. Waltz as a Carver or Silva type villain on the other hand would be very effective.
    echo wrote: »
    I don't think Eon paid all that money for Blofeld and Spectre not to continue to use them. I can see them killing Blofeld in B25 but Spectre will be back.
    I'd rather never see this character or his organization ever again on film (it should have been left for dead with the Connery entries) but I believe you're correct. They have the rights to the nefarious entity which can be used to blame for being behind all the world's ills, and they'll use it.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 2,057
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I dont believe, the General audience ever read a Fleming book or care about it too much, if they did. Its a sole fanboy thing. As for the films, they should put their focus onto pleasing the general audiences, they bring in the money. Bit certain rules should be applied, like Bond being white. Making him black is not bringing forward diversity. It's only ridiculous. A dead attempt to be oh so modern. There needs to be the girl, the cars, the action and some smirky dialogue. Plus gorgeous locations. IMO that's what everybody expects from Bond - in a certain, very bondish unique way.
    I agree with the rules, but even then when these rules are applied, it doesn't guarantee it will be a decent Bond film (look at the 4 Brosnan movies).

    Where I feel the films have been lacking ever since Babs has taken over are weak scripts, muddled storylines and plot holes. I think some of this could be remedied by going back to the Fleming novels, and not trying to re-imagine Fleming. The books are the sole reason why this franchise exists in the first place, and why the films have stood the test of time.
    gumbolt wrote: »
    Wanting to go back to Fleming is appealing but we have to be careful to recognise that you cannot plan to capture lightning in a bottle. The acclaimed writer Sebastian Faulks tried to "write as Ian Fleming" with Devil May Care and it met with lukewarm reviews. I think that some of the Bond movies that have tried to go back to Fleming have not connected with the wider audience (OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK, TWINE) despite a few of those being well regarded by fans. I think CR is the only truly successful (critical, commercial and enduring popular appeal) Flemingesque film since the 1960s.

    You cannot explain the first 4 Bond films, that are very close to the novels, and all performed very well at the BO (particularly GF and TB).

    OHMSS's reception at the BO was probably more down to Lazenby as Bond.

    I think TLD performed well. LTK still baffles me to this day why it didn't do well, particularly in light of the current action movies trends at the time (Die Hard, Lethal Weapon). That film really set the blueprint for the Craig movies, not the Brosnan films. I guess it was ahead of its time as a Bond film.

    TWINE should not be on your list, because it doesn't contain one single line or scene from a Fleming novel.

    I'm not wanting the writers to `write as Fleming'. They clearly cannot do this, as has been evident ever since GE. I'm wanting the writers to properly adapt unused Fleming material, and not write as Fleming. Big difference.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Didn't P&W say Bond needed to go in a completely different direction during their February interview? Something about SP having closed out a certain way of doing things? That doesn't lend itself to a direct sequel. Rather, quite the contrary. Unless they have been given a new directive.
  • Posts: 2,057
    bondjames wrote: »
    Didn't P&W say Bond needed to go in a completely different direction during their February interview? Something about SP having closed out a certain way of doing things? That doesn't lend itself to a direct sequel. Rather, quite the contrary. Unless they have been given a new directive.

    Let's hope so, and let's hope this new direction is actually more an old direction - back to the Fleming novels!

  • Posts: 444
    It's not crazy continuity in comparison to Craig's usage of the Vesper arch or Quantum's development over time, but if I was tasked with making a Bond timeline that connected the films from 1962 to Brosnan's time in a logical and consumable fashion, I could do it in my sleep and argue it well.

    In AVTAK it's established they have microchip technology impervious to an EMP and yet in GE the use of an EMP weapon is a threat to Britain.

    A very geeky nitpicking point but one, of probably many, which could shoot down a suggestion there's the same timeline from 1962 to 2002.

    Although not a reboot I still regard the Brosnan Bond era as a different universe to that of Connery\Lazenby\Moore\Dalton one.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 2,057
    Cowley wrote: »
    It's not crazy continuity in comparison to Craig's usage of the Vesper arch or Quantum's development over time, but if I was tasked with making a Bond timeline that connected the films from 1962 to Brosnan's time in a logical and consumable fashion, I could do it in my sleep and argue it well.

    In AVTAK it's established they have microchip technology impervious to an EMP and yet in GE the use of an EMP weapon is a threat to Britain.

    A very geeky nitpicking point but one, of probably many, which could shoot down a suggestion there's the same timeline from 1962 to 2002.

    Although not a reboot I still regard the Brosnan Bond era as a different universe to that of Connery\Lazenby\Moore\Dalton one.

    I agree. The Moore films still feel like a continuation of 60's Bond (particularly Bond visiting Tracy's grave in FYEO), and again in LTK Bond's wedding is mentioned.

    From what I recall, this is the last time Tracy is ever mentioned. I don't remember her being referenced again during Brosnan's era.

    The Bond era that began in 1962 ended in 1989 (along with many of the cast and crew).

    The Brosnan and Craig eras are both reboots, that get slightly confused in their timelines occasionally when the DB5 appears, not to mention Judi Dench as M.

    If CR is Bond at the start of his career, where does SF fit in with that timeline when M dies, and where does the Brosnan films fit in with that timeline?

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 5,712
    Cowley wrote: »
    It's not crazy continuity in comparison to Craig's usage of the Vesper arch or Quantum's development over time, but if I was tasked with making a Bond timeline that connected the films from 1962 to Brosnan's time in a logical and consumable fashion, I could do it in my sleep and argue it well.

    In AVTAK it's established they have microchip technology impervious to an EMP and yet in GE the use of an EMP weapon is a threat to Britain.

    A very geeky nitpicking point but one, of probably many, which could shoot down a suggestion there's the same timeline from 1962 to 2002.

    Although not a reboot I still regard the Brosnan Bond era as a different universe to that of Connery\Lazenby\Moore\Dalton one.

    Actually there is a school of thought that there are already 3 timelines based on the age of the actors, one being the films featuring Connery, Lazenby and Moore. The Bond of Dr.No is the same Bond as A View to a Kill
    Then you have the Films featuring Dalton and Brosnan; the Bond in Living Daylights is the same Bond in Die Another Day.
    Finally there is the Craig era. So the first re-boot is actually Dalton
    For me this really works

  • edited March 2017 Posts: 2,057
    talos7 wrote: »
    Cowley wrote: »
    It's not crazy continuity in comparison to Craig's usage of the Vesper arch or Quantum's development over time, but if I was tasked with making a Bond timeline that connected the films from 1962 to Brosnan's time in a logical and consumable fashion, I could do it in my sleep and argue it well.

    In AVTAK it's established they have microchip technology impervious to an EMP and yet in GE the use of an EMP weapon is a threat to Britain.

    A very geeky nitpicking point but one, of probably many, which could shoot down a suggestion there's the same timeline from 1962 to 2002.

    Although not a reboot I still regard the Brosnan Bond era as a different universe to that of Connery\Lazenby\Moore\Dalton one.

    Actually there is a school of thought that there are already 3 timelines based on the age of the actors, one being the films featuring Connery, Lazenby and Moore. The Bond of Dr.No is the same Bond as A View to a Kill
    Then you have the Films featuring Dalton and Brosnan; the Bond in Living Daylights is the same Bond in Die Another Day.
    Finally there is the Craig era. So the first re-boot is actually Dalton
    For me this really works

    How can this be when Bond being married is mention in LTK, not to mention a pissed off Bond in TLD looking to get fired and thanking M for it? This sounds like Bond at the end of his career, not at the beginning.

    Plus we have an older Felix Leiter in LTK - the same actor playing Leiter from LALD.

    We also have the same actor playing M from the Moore era, in the same office.

    Sorry, but your school of thought is way off.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    How can this be when Bond being married is mention in LTK, not to mention a pissed off Bond in TLD looking to get fired and thanking M for it? This sounds like Bond at the end of his career, not at the beginning.

    Plus we have an older Felix Leiter in LTK - the same actor playing Leiter from LALD.
    There was a rationalization based on the infamous and notorious codename theory that was put forward here once by a few adamant members. I won't sully the thread with it again.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited March 2017 Posts: 5,712
    Not at all, it is Bond in the prime of his career. As far as the being married, the character is still the same character and some of the same events occur in different timelines. Just because we didn't see it doesn't mean that Dalton's Bond had not been married.
    The tricky part of multiple timelines is that events can be the same and characters can be different.
    If you think about it, M in Brosnan's films is not the same M as in Craig's even though portrayed by the same actress. So even though she died in the Craig timeline, theoretically if they were to make a new Bond with Brosnan, Judy Dench could return as M because THAT M could very well be alive.
  • gumboltgumbolt Now with in-office photocopier
    Posts: 151
    I think that Bond is the same man from DN to DAD. But I think we are asked to accept "compressed time" to allow him to have all those experiences and to just suspend disbelief re the change of actors. I think I'm right to say that Robert Brown's M was a different man from Bernard Lee's, but I'm not sure about the three Moneypennys from DN to DAD. Certainly Caroline Bliss and Samantha Bond do not play her as newly in the job and its implied they have an established rapport with their Bonds. It would appear that Boothroyd from DN was played thereafter by Desmond Llewelyn and the character left the series with him, although his job title survived. So I think the code name theorists can only bang on about Bond and Moneypenny, but I don't buy the theory at all.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 5,712
    ..And my school of thought is not way off. Based on what they did with M, Hedison's Felix in Live and Let Die. does not have to be the same Felix as in LTK even if portrayed by the same actor.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Digitalia
    Posts: 40,101
    Do we really need all those other threads?
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 2,057
    talos7 wrote: »
    Not at all, it is Bond in the prime of his career. As far as the being married, the character is still the same character and some of the same events occur in different timelines. Just because we didn't see it doesn't mean that Dalton's Bond had not been married.
    The tricky part of multiple timelines is that events can be the same and characters can be different.
    If you think about it, M in Brosnan's films is not the same M as in Craig's even though portrayed by the same actress. So even though she died in the Craig timeline, theoretically if they were to make a new Bond with Brosnan, Judy Dench could return as M because THAT M could very well be alive.
    You can see it as you want, but I see the Brosnan Bond in a complete different era and timeline. Different M, different time.

    The Dalton Bond still belongs to the same timeline as the Connery/Laz/Moore era, and I think most people will think this too. Having the same supporting actors involved only strengthens this further. TLD also comes 2 years after AVTAK, and not 6 years later like GE did after LTK.

    It also helps having all the same production values attached to that same timeline (Barry/Binder/Maibaum, etc.)

    GE is a new era, a complete reboot, a different M, a huge gap between LTK and GE, different production team, and a very different time.

  • gumboltgumbolt Now with in-office photocopier
    Posts: 151
    What about Felix from TLD? Does that not establish the same pattern as before - same character, different actor? Bond recognises him by sight in a few movies, including TLD. So it must surely be the same character, merely different actor. For some strange reason - I wonder if the changes were producer's choice, dictated by circumstances or just something they didn't really give much thought to? It is pretty strange really, especially in the 60s and early 70s when he appeared often and in relative quick succession.
  • Posts: 2,057
    gumbolt wrote: »
    What about Felix from TLD? Does that not establish the same pattern as before - same character, different actor? Bond recognises him by sight in a few movies, including TLD. So it must surely be the same character, merely different actor. For some strange reason - I wonder if the changes were producer's choice, dictated by circumstances or just something they didn't really give much thought to? It is pretty strange really, especially in the 60s and early 70s when he appeared often and in relative quick succession.
    I find the Felix from TLD one of the weakest actors ever, and yes the change of actor from film to film is baffling.

    For me the definitive Leiter has to be the one from LALD and LTK.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 5,712
    Part of the confusion comes from EON keeping, or bring back, some of the same actors to play the same characters in different timelines, or using the same actor to play different characters. This was done most obviously with M. Craig's M is not Brosnan's M.
    And as far as Dalton being the same Bond as Moore's, So we have a Bond who's pushing 60 in one film, then 2 years later we have a vigorous, early/mid forties Bond taking part in a training exercise and it's far fetched to see this as a new beginning? I think not.
Sign In or Register to comment.