No Time To Die: Production Diary

18848858878898902507

Comments

  • Posts: 386
    Will certainly take some wizardry to have DC doing something fresh next time round.

    Most of the dramatic meat is gone.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig SHOULD be preparing for two more films dealing with Blofeld and wrapping up his tenure.

    Whether this is what is actually going on behind the scenes is another matter. EON and Craig's inability to get their ducks lined up is pretty pathetic IMO.

    You get the sense that they're stuck in a quandary about what to do because obviously the DC era has a story arc which it would be strange to now diverge from. But how do they plan the end of the DC era if Dan isn't prepared to commit to 2 more films within a reasonable time span?

    The problem seems to be that EON lack a clear vision and this has necessitated Dan stepping into a producer role, which in turn has given him too much leverage and power.

    This is the hole we are stuck in because they just couldn't wait to shoot their Blofeld wad everywhere at the earliest possibility.

    What they should've done was say to Craig we need a three picture commitment and then gone:

    SP - Franz Oberhauser as SPECTRE number 2 and Blofeld merely alluded to or shown in shadow like the good old days. Basically TB.

    B25 - Set up the antagonism between Blofeld building to...

    B26 - Adaptation of YOLT and final showdown in the Garden of Death.

    If Craig wouldn't commit to that then just have made SP a standalone film and let him go and start the Blofeld arc with the new Bond.

    The key mistake they made is that they had a massively successful Bond they'd be mad to let go and they couldn't resist doing the whole Blofeld thing with him once they got the rights. The problem is he was approaching the end of his tenure so they decided (extremely misguidedly) to force as much of the Blofeld stuff as they could cram into one film in case he didn't come back.

    The annoying thing is if Mclory had died before QOS then you'd have to think we'd be in a far better place now. The Craig era could've been a 60s rivalling SPECTRE and Blofeld slow burn instead of SPECTRE tribute act Quantum being introduced only to be airbrushed out of history by the most hamfisted retrofitting ever.

    The guy was a pain in the arse even when it came to dying at the right time! In fact you could say SP and the shambolic narrative mess we're lumbered with now is Mclory's final revenge.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I can see why some people are saying that what's needed is a fresh start and a recast, but the problem is that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

    Therefore, even if they recast and do either a hard or soft reboot we can still expect to face the prospect of more muddled and directionless leadership from EON.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Why are people here still hoping for a reboot and a new actor with Bond 25? Did you not get the memo? The reboot is happening with Bond 26 (with Nolan and without the Broccolis).
  • Posts: 11,119
    Getafix wrote: »
    I can see why some people are saying that what's needed is a fresh start and a recast, but the problem is that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

    Therefore, even if they recast and do either a hard or soft reboot we can still expect to face the prospect of more muddled and directionless leadership from EON.

    I fully agree. Hence I think it's best to continue this....'Craig-timeline' and slowly fade out the narrative backgrounds and background histories of characters over the course of one or two Bond films. So that Craig's successor basically can be the new Bond in the very same Craig-timeline.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Getafix wrote: »
    I can see why some people are saying that what's needed is a fresh start and a recast, but the problem is that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

    Therefore, even if they recast and do either a hard or soft reboot we can still expect to face the prospect of more muddled and directionless leadership from EON.

    Bang on the money.

    Can you imagine any other company that did turnover in the hundreds of millions having a forward strategy of about 18 months-2 years?
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Sounds like how Her Majesty's Government is run.

    No vision or idea for what's going to happen next week, let alone ten years down the line.

    Sometimes I wish Babs was a bit more American in her approach. The cosy family business schpiel sounds all very appealing, but a bit more ruthless corporate target setting and go-getting would be welcome at times like this.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Why are people here still hoping for a reboot and a new actor with Bond 25? Did you not get the memo? The reboot is happening with Bond 26 (with Nolan and without the Broccolis).

    Those are some matter of fact statements for someone making patently false claims.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I'm pretty much of the view that they should recast and reboot it now. I've lost enthusiasm for this iteration and his storyline. There is a slim possibility that they could come up with something gritty and yet genuinely witty (like CR) but I'm increasingly doubtful. Quite frankly, it's time for a change.
    Why are people here still hoping for a reboot and a new actor with Bond 25? Did you not get the memo? The reboot is happening with Bond 26 (with Nolan and without the Broccolis).
    In my case, it's because I don't have the patience to wait potentially another 6 years before seeing a new approach. I'd rather we get it sooner, especially after this long 4 year wait.

    I want the best for my favourite franchise, as do many here. I've enjoyed the Craig run, even though I dislike the last film immensely. More than anything, that film made me realize that every good thing must come to an end. Brosnan was dismissed a bit soon perhaps, but retrospectively the recasting was just the shot in the arm that the series needed. We're there again imho. Many sense it I feel, apart from the die hard Craigites.
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I'm willing to give Waltz the benefit of the doubt but his performance was one of the things that let SPECTRE down for me but if he and Sam were not seeing eye to eye on things that possibly played into it.

    That and the dreadful plot and script.

    Maybe if he gets a director that gels with him and they can nail a fully unmasked ESB, Waltz might blow us all away.

    I think if he does come back he'll feel he has something to prove considering he's admits he didn't get it right the first time.

    Guess we'll see but I say the smart money is on his return.

    I think the biggest problem for me with "SPECTRE" was that there was too little narrative explanation for certain action.

    I mean, suddenly Hinx was there during the SPECTRE-Meeting. Oberhauser/Blofeld should at least have said something like "Ladies & gentlemen? Please welcome my chiropractor Mr Hinx!". Simple line, and you then have a better explanation about the relationship between Hinx & Oberhauser/Blofeld.

    You know? Just a bit more 'exposition' as to why things happen in the film. Some more elaborate lines for the characters that explain certain actions.

    Another one: Blofeld's lair in the Moroccan crater. I think Sam Mendes should have looked a bit more extensively to "Dr. No". There should have been an extensive dinner sequence in his bungalow and then he should have been locked up. Hinx should have stayed alive and he could have done the torture sequence, while Blofeld was witnessing for a moment. Then he leaves...and....fill out the blanks

    "Ladies & gentlemen? Please welcome my chiropractor Mr Hinx!"
    Excellent line.
    The script was charmless.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm pretty much of the view that they should recast and reboot it now. I've lost enthusiasm for this iteration and his storyline. There is a slim possibility that they could come up with something gritty and yet genuinely witty (like CR) but I'm increasingly doubtful. Quite frankly, it's time for a change.
    Why are people here still hoping for a reboot and a new actor with Bond 25? Did you not get the memo? The reboot is happening with Bond 26 (with Nolan and without the Broccolis).
    In my case, it's because I don't have the patience to wait potentially another 6 years before seeing a new approach. I'd rather we get it sooner, especially after this long 4 year wait.

    I want the best for my favourite franchise, as do many here. I've enjoyed the Craig run, even though I dislike the last film immensely. More than anything, that film made me realize that every good thing must come to an end. Brosnan was dismissed a bit soon perhaps, but retrospectively the recasting was just the shot in the arm that the series needed. We're there again imho. Many sense it I feel, apart from the die hard Craigites.

    Yes, but without a serious creative rethink, then 'I want a change' just means replacing Craig. That is very likely to equal 'more of the same' with just a different actor in the role.

    Or are you satisfied going back to the inanities of the Brosnan era? Yes we got regular films but they were to all intents and purposes straight to DVD, bargain-bucket garbage.

    What is achieved if they just ditch Craig (and even the Scooby Gang) and bring in Fassbender or Aiden Turner, if Purvis and Wade are still churning out their cr*p?

    EON need to get a grip on the series and have a more strategic view of what they want to achieve. Critically they need to build a high quality writing team who will (if this is the route they continue to want to pursue) develop purposeful and engaging multi-picture story arcs. Even if they go back to stand alone movies with minimal nods to continuity (which would be my preference) they need better writers.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm pretty much of the view that they should recast and reboot it now. I've lost enthusiasm for this iteration and his storyline. There is a slim possibility that they could come up with something gritty and yet genuinely witty (like CR) but I'm increasingly doubtful. Quite frankly, it's time for a change.
    Why are people here still hoping for a reboot and a new actor with Bond 25? Did you not get the memo? The reboot is happening with Bond 26 (with Nolan and without the Broccolis).
    In my case, it's because I don't have the patience to wait potentially another 6 years before seeing a new approach. I'd rather we get it sooner, especially after this long 4 year wait.

    I want the best for my favourite franchise, as do many here. I've enjoyed the Craig run, even though I dislike the last film immensely. More than anything, that film made me realize that every good thing must come to an end. Brosnan was dismissed a bit soon perhaps, but retrospectively the recasting was just the shot in the arm that the series needed. We're there again imho. Many sense it I feel, apart from the die hard Craigites.

    Yes, but without a serious creative rethink, if 'I want a change' just means replacing Craig then it is very likely to equal 'more of the same' with a different packet.

    What is achieved if they ditch Craig and bring in Fassbender or Aiden Turner, if Purvis and Wade are still churning out their cr*p?

    EON need to get a grip on the series again and have a more strategic view of what they want to achieve. Critically they need to build a high quality writing team who will (if this is the route they continue to want to pursue) develop purposeful and engaging multi-picture story arcs. Even if they go back to stand alone movies with minimal nods to continuity (which would be my preference) they need better writers.
    I agree. However, I think ditching Craig at this point will indeed give the series a fresh feeling, even if P&W are still in tow (they were there for the switchover from Brosnan to Craig after all).

    The series always undergoes a bit of a revitalization when there is a new actor, reboot or not. Sometimes that change may not impress everyone, but I'm still a believer in shaking it up from time to time. That's why this series has survived for so long.

    Of late they've tried to follow the direct continuity model that has been so popular with Marvel and the like. I've said it before and I'll say it again: that approach is more likely than not to constrain the franchise and potentially limit its useful life as a cinematic entity, especially when they drag the bloody story out over 15 odd years. So when I hear of rumours that EON is thinking of selling now, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. They're boxed in due to their own decisions.

    The trick with Bond has always been the ability to recast without causing too much strife or palaver. The sooner they do it, the sooner the public moves on from this 'timeline' story and the better.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited August 2017 Posts: 1,165
    Doubtful I'm the first to suggest this, but sounds like EON needs its own Kevin Feige.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Minion wrote: »
    Doubtful I'm the first to suggest this, but sounds like EON needs its own Kevin Feige.

    Not really. Feige isn't doing anything profoundly special. He just does his job very well, which is expected of any paid professional. EoN have been failing at doing their job effectively for long enough. They need to start giving a damn and start behaving like actual producers again.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 4,619
    Minion wrote: »
    EON needs its own Kevin Feige.
    Christopher Nolan
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 6,682
    I want Moonraker.

    Craigraker?

    Turnerraker?
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig SHOULD be preparing for two more films dealing with Blofeld and wrapping up his tenure.

    Whether this is what is actually going on behind the scenes is another matter. EON and Craig's inability to get their ducks lined up is pretty pathetic IMO.

    You get the sense that they're stuck in a quandary about what to do because obviously the DC era has a story arc which it would be strange to now diverge from. But how do they plan the end of the DC era if Dan isn't prepared to commit to 2 more films within a reasonable time span?

    The problem seems to be that EON lack a clear vision and this has necessitated Dan stepping into a producer role, which in turn has given him too much leverage and power.

    This is the hole we are stuck in because they just couldn't wait to shoot their Blofeld wad everywhere at the earliest possibility.

    What they should've done was say to Craig we need a three picture commitment and then gone:

    SP - Franz Oberhauser as SPECTRE number 2 and Blofeld merely alluded to or shown in shadow like the good old days. Basically TB.

    B25 - Set up the antagonism between Blofeld building to...

    B26 - Adaptation of YOLT and final showdown in the Garden of Death.

    If Craig wouldn't commit to that then just have made SP a standalone film and let him go and start the Blofeld arc with the new Bond.

    The key mistake they made is that they had a massively successful Bond they'd be mad to let go and they couldn't resist doing the whole Blofeld thing with him once they got the rights. The problem is he was approaching the end of his tenure so they decided (extremely misguidedly) to force as much of the Blofeld stuff as they could cram into one film in case he didn't come back.

    The annoying thing is if Mclory had died before QOS then you'd have to think we'd be in a far better place now. The Craig era could've been a 60s rivalling SPECTRE and Blofeld slow burn instead of SPECTRE tribute act Quantum being introduced only to be airbrushed out of history by the most hamfisted retrofitting ever.

    The guy was a pain in the arse even when it came to dying at the right time! In fact you could say SP and the shambolic narrative mess we're lumbered with now is Mclory's final revenge.

    Actually, McClory died in 2006.

    According to "The James Bond Archives" it was actually Mendes and/or Logan who insisted in having SPECTRE since, according to Logan, "Bond should always fight Blofeld". They talked to EON about this as the script was being written, and EON said they knew they would resolve the rights issues.

    Long story short, it's all Mendes fault, and EON are to blame for pleasing Mendes and Logan.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited August 2017 Posts: 1,165
    Walecs wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig SHOULD be preparing for two more films dealing with Blofeld and wrapping up his tenure.

    Whether this is what is actually going on behind the scenes is another matter. EON and Craig's inability to get their ducks lined up is pretty pathetic IMO.

    You get the sense that they're stuck in a quandary about what to do because obviously the DC era has a story arc which it would be strange to now diverge from. But how do they plan the end of the DC era if Dan isn't prepared to commit to 2 more films within a reasonable time span?

    The problem seems to be that EON lack a clear vision and this has necessitated Dan stepping into a producer role, which in turn has given him too much leverage and power.

    This is the hole we are stuck in because they just couldn't wait to shoot their Blofeld wad everywhere at the earliest possibility.

    What they should've done was say to Craig we need a three picture commitment and then gone:

    SP - Franz Oberhauser as SPECTRE number 2 and Blofeld merely alluded to or shown in shadow like the good old days. Basically TB.

    B25 - Set up the antagonism between Blofeld building to...

    B26 - Adaptation of YOLT and final showdown in the Garden of Death.

    If Craig wouldn't commit to that then just have made SP a standalone film and let him go and start the Blofeld arc with the new Bond.

    The key mistake they made is that they had a massively successful Bond they'd be mad to let go and they couldn't resist doing the whole Blofeld thing with him once they got the rights. The problem is he was approaching the end of his tenure so they decided (extremely misguidedly) to force as much of the Blofeld stuff as they could cram into one film in case he didn't come back.

    The annoying thing is if Mclory had died before QOS then you'd have to think we'd be in a far better place now. The Craig era could've been a 60s rivalling SPECTRE and Blofeld slow burn instead of SPECTRE tribute act Quantum being introduced only to be airbrushed out of history by the most hamfisted retrofitting ever.

    The guy was a pain in the arse even when it came to dying at the right time! In fact you could say SP and the shambolic narrative mess we're lumbered with now is Mclory's final revenge.

    Actually, McClory died in 2006.

    According to "The James Bond Archives" it was actually Mendes and/or Logan who insisted in having SPECTRE since, according to Logan, "Bond should always fight Blofeld". They talked to EON about this as the script was being written, and EON said they knew they would resolve the rights issues.

    Long story short, it's all Mendes fault, and EON are to blame for pleasing Mendes and Logan.

    I know people give P&W a lot of flack, but the Blofeld as Bond's "foster brother" angle was all Mendes and Logan. The "cuckoo bird" was an intriguing concept to him.

    "Once we’d gone back to Bond’s childhood in Skyfall, I was fascinated to seek out all the other references to what happened next, and the truth is there are very, very few. He gets brought up by his aunt, and gets sent away during summers, or winters, I can’t remember which holiday it was in Fleming, to spend time with Hannes Oberhauser in the Austrian Alps. It says something very noncommittal like, he was a father figure to me at a time when I happened to need one. That’s it. That was the clue we had and that’s what we took. What if there was a natural child who had been pushed out, cuckoo in the nest by the blue-eyed good-looking talented skier and good climber, and he was a feeble little weakling, doing his homework upstairs. That figure felt like someone whose story I wanted to know."

    http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/18-things-know-spectre/
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 870
    If the choices are SP sequel (Spectre, Waltz, Blofeld and all) or Nolan directing, then I'd rather a third option.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Walecs wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig SHOULD be preparing for two more films dealing with Blofeld and wrapping up his tenure.

    Whether this is what is actually going on behind the scenes is another matter. EON and Craig's inability to get their ducks lined up is pretty pathetic IMO.

    You get the sense that they're stuck in a quandary about what to do because obviously the DC era has a story arc which it would be strange to now diverge from. But how do they plan the end of the DC era if Dan isn't prepared to commit to 2 more films within a reasonable time span?

    The problem seems to be that EON lack a clear vision and this has necessitated Dan stepping into a producer role, which in turn has given him too much leverage and power.

    This is the hole we are stuck in because they just couldn't wait to shoot their Blofeld wad everywhere at the earliest possibility.

    What they should've done was say to Craig we need a three picture commitment and then gone:

    SP - Franz Oberhauser as SPECTRE number 2 and Blofeld merely alluded to or shown in shadow like the good old days. Basically TB.

    B25 - Set up the antagonism between Blofeld building to...

    B26 - Adaptation of YOLT and final showdown in the Garden of Death.

    If Craig wouldn't commit to that then just have made SP a standalone film and let him go and start the Blofeld arc with the new Bond.

    The key mistake they made is that they had a massively successful Bond they'd be mad to let go and they couldn't resist doing the whole Blofeld thing with him once they got the rights. The problem is he was approaching the end of his tenure so they decided (extremely misguidedly) to force as much of the Blofeld stuff as they could cram into one film in case he didn't come back.

    The annoying thing is if Mclory had died before QOS then you'd have to think we'd be in a far better place now. The Craig era could've been a 60s rivalling SPECTRE and Blofeld slow burn instead of SPECTRE tribute act Quantum being introduced only to be airbrushed out of history by the most hamfisted retrofitting ever.

    The guy was a pain in the arse even when it came to dying at the right time! In fact you could say SP and the shambolic narrative mess we're lumbered with now is Mclory's final revenge.

    Actually, McClory died in 2006.

    Fair point but they didn't get the rights till 2013.

    Actually that makes it all even more hamfisted. With Mclory gone in late 06 gone they must've fancied their chances of bagging the rights so why did they go ahead and create poor man's SPECTRE Quantum? Just bide your time. Mclory was mental and lived to remake TB no matter how much it cost him in legal costs. No way his estate would be bothered to do that if they could cash in and flog the rights.
    Walecs wrote: »
    According to "The James Bond Archives" it was actually Mendes and/or Logan who insisted in having SPECTRE since, according to Logan, "Bond should always fight Blofeld". They talked to EON about this as the script was being written, and EON said they knew they would resolve the rights issues.

    Long story short, it's all Mendes fault, and EON are to blame for pleasing Mendes and Logan.

    I hold EON almost entirely responsible.

    It was EON who were so desperate for Mendes they delayed production by a year and then let him do anything he wanted up to the point where he was almost literally setting fire to millions of dollars and then putting it out by pissing over Fleming's grave.

    It was EON who failed to supervise Logan properly and without Pascal and Fiennes putting their feet down Christ alone knows how much worse it could have been.

    It was EON who have final say on everything thus you can blame Mendes and Logan all you want but these things wouldn't be possible if EON didn't sign off on them.

    After the all time low of the series when EON failed to control their director and signed off on ridiculous decisions that should never have been allowed they seemed to have learned their lesson yet it's only taken them 3 successful films before complacency has set in and they've repeated exactly the same mistakes.
  • Posts: 11,425
    None of the above, hey?

    A classic Lib Dem!
  • //It was EON who were so desperate for Mendes **they delayed production by a year...***///

    Again -- no, no, no.

    Eon was NEVER going to do Bond 24 (eventually SPECTRE) in 2014. Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig in a joint interview said a Sony distribution executive who promised that didn't know what he was talking about. Broccoli, in a separate interview with the Los Angeles Times made a point of saying she was never going to hurry up production for a studio again.

    The links to both of these stories were posted in this thread more than once.

    Why does this myth persist?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,368
    //It was EON who were so desperate for Mendes **they delayed production by a year...***///

    Again -- no, no, no.

    Eon was NEVER going to do Bond 24 (eventually SPECTRE) in 2014. Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig in a joint interview said a Sony distribution executive who promised that didn't know what he was talking about. Broccoli, in a separate interview with the Los Angeles Times made a point of saying she was never going to hurry up production for a studio again.

    The links to both of these stories were posted in this thread more than once.

    Why does this myth persist?

    Thanks for clearing that up. To this day, I've still assumed we got a full year-long wait solely so they could wait for Mendes.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Minion wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig SHOULD be preparing for two more films dealing with Blofeld and wrapping up his tenure.

    Whether this is what is actually going on behind the scenes is another matter. EON and Craig's inability to get their ducks lined up is pretty pathetic IMO.

    You get the sense that they're stuck in a quandary about what to do because obviously the DC era has a story arc which it would be strange to now diverge from. But how do they plan the end of the DC era if Dan isn't prepared to commit to 2 more films within a reasonable time span?

    The problem seems to be that EON lack a clear vision and this has necessitated Dan stepping into a producer role, which in turn has given him too much leverage and power.

    This is the hole we are stuck in because they just couldn't wait to shoot their Blofeld wad everywhere at the earliest possibility.

    What they should've done was say to Craig we need a three picture commitment and then gone:

    SP - Franz Oberhauser as SPECTRE number 2 and Blofeld merely alluded to or shown in shadow like the good old days. Basically TB.

    B25 - Set up the antagonism between Blofeld building to...

    B26 - Adaptation of YOLT and final showdown in the Garden of Death.

    If Craig wouldn't commit to that then just have made SP a standalone film and let him go and start the Blofeld arc with the new Bond.

    The key mistake they made is that they had a massively successful Bond they'd be mad to let go and they couldn't resist doing the whole Blofeld thing with him once they got the rights. The problem is he was approaching the end of his tenure so they decided (extremely misguidedly) to force as much of the Blofeld stuff as they could cram into one film in case he didn't come back.

    The annoying thing is if Mclory had died before QOS then you'd have to think we'd be in a far better place now. The Craig era could've been a 60s rivalling SPECTRE and Blofeld slow burn instead of SPECTRE tribute act Quantum being introduced only to be airbrushed out of history by the most hamfisted retrofitting ever.

    The guy was a pain in the arse even when it came to dying at the right time! In fact you could say SP and the shambolic narrative mess we're lumbered with now is Mclory's final revenge.

    Actually, McClory died in 2006.

    According to "The James Bond Archives" it was actually Mendes and/or Logan who insisted in having SPECTRE since, according to Logan, "Bond should always fight Blofeld". They talked to EON about this as the script was being written, and EON said they knew they would resolve the rights issues.

    Long story short, it's all Mendes fault, and EON are to blame for pleasing Mendes and Logan.

    I know people give P&W a lot of flack, but the Blofeld as Bond's "foster brother" angle was all Mendes and Logan. The "cuckoo bird" was an intriguing concept to him.

    http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/18-things-know-spectre/

    You're right about that, and that's what my post implied.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited August 2017 Posts: 40,368
    So much for Mendes having a deep love and passion for the series! If that love translates to the creation of Bond and Blofeld being "foster brothers," then that's even more sad.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Walecs wrote: »
    You're right about that, and that's what my post implied.
    Exactly. I apologize if my post was unclear; I was adding on to what you were saying.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    So much for Mendes having a deep love and passion for the series! If that love translates to the creation of Bond and Blofeld being "foster brothers," then that's even more sad.

    Peoples affection for the series manifests itself in many ways. Mendes doesn't 'get' Bond IMO - at least his interpretation of the character doesn't resonate with me. SF amply demonstrated that to me. But that doesn't mean he has any less affection for the series and character than any of us.

    I do get the sense that Mendes did SP against his better judgement and that it was obviously not a pleasurable experience for him. May be by the end of SP his love for Bond was somewhat diminished.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,368
    He should've stopped himself from returning for SP. He said it himself, he ran out of ideas with SF - that was the first major red flag.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 870
    Minion wrote: »
    I know people give P&W a lot of flack, but the Blofeld as Bond's "foster brother" angle was all Mendes and Logan. The "cuckoo bird" was an intriguing concept to him.

    "Once we’d gone back to Bond’s childhood in Skyfall, I was fascinated to seek out all the other references to what happened next, and the truth is there are very, very few. He gets brought up by his aunt, and gets sent away during summers, or winters, I can’t remember which holiday it was in Fleming, to spend time with Hannes Oberhauser in the Austrian Alps. It says something very noncommittal like, he was a father figure to me at a time when I happened to need one. That’s it. That was the clue we had and that’s what we took. What if there was a natural child who had been pushed out, cuckoo in the nest by the blue-eyed good-looking talented skier and good climber, and he was a feeble little weakling, doing his homework upstairs. That figure felt like someone whose story I wanted to know."

    http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/18-things-know-spectre/

    One more passage from this Mendes' interview illustrates the importance of the family element in SP:

    Skyfall and Spectre are films about family.

    "For me the last movie [Skyfall] was about mothers. It was about two sons fighting over a mother, ultimately Silva and Bond, the chosen son and the rejected son fighting over Judi’s M. That was, in many ways, the family story of the movie, and then the fact that Bond had lost his own parents, his own mother and there was a gravestone and the first conversation about being an orphan with her, all of that was tied in. Here [Spectre], it’s all about fathers, it’s about her [Lea Seydoux's] father, it’s about his surrogate father, it’s about Christoph’s father, and that was a very deliberate decision."


  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Minion wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    You're right about that, and that's what my post implied.
    Exactly. I apologize if my post was unclear; I was adding on to what you were saying.

    No need to apologize, I'm glad we share the same point of view.
Sign In or Register to comment.