No Time To Die: Production Diary

1112811291131113311342507

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,423
    But, Craig's performance mainly had to do with the director himself handling the scenes, watching the expressions of each actor and whatever they performed, the lines they spoke, and whatnot, the whole film had its characters (along with their actors) sleepwalking to the end, with Mendes only caring about that big explosion to earn his credibility a Guinness World Record. All of them were under the portrait of "Let's get this over with, shall we?"

    The only character/actor who felt most alive in the film was actually Ben Whishaw as Q. Others just spoke their lines. The blame falls under the writers and more so the director.

    ...Lest we forget how disconnected both Bond and Hinx were during that supposed car chase. They were not least engaged.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @ClarkDevlin, I agree that the direction could have been better. However, SP was not Craig's first kick at the can. He has more experience being Bond than Mendes has directing Bond.

    He wanted to bring back the irony. Mendes and P&W obliged. Some loved his SP performance. It did nothing for me.

    So ultimately, perhaps I just don't find him credible trying to be that kind of Bond, due to the fact that it reminds me of the giants who came before, but in an inferior way. As an example, "I was just taking some overdue holiday" just didn't fly for me (his delivery more than the line. Moore would have nailed that line and done it with a smirk too so there's nothing wrong with the line. Moore would have nailed the intro scene with C too, with the same dialogue and a raised eyebrow to boot).
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 676
    Craig's Bond definitely has a sense of humour in CR and QoS, albeit very dry and biting. But he's not good at delivering jokes or "one-liners" like they gave him in SF and SP. I'd rather they gave him a dry sense of humour than ask him to spout puns or treat every situation with levity (that goes for the character as a whole, not just Craig's version).
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,425
    The really appropriate comparison for the last two films is not with Connery or Moore but with Brosnan.

    The humour in SF and SP definitely took the edge of Craig's interpretation. One of my main bugbears with SF was that it felt like they'd scrubbed DC's original interpretation and gone back to more of a Brosnan era Bond.

    Poor writing, lame jokes, limp and flabby direction. Mendes took us back to 1999 with SF.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 1,031
    Getafix wrote: »
    The really appropriate comparison for the last two films is not with Connery or Moore but with Brosnan.

    The humour in SF and SP definitely took the edge of Craig's interpretation. One of my main bugbears with SF was that it felt like they'd scrubbed DC's original interpretation and gone back to more of a Brosnan era Bond.

    Poor writing, lame jokes, limp and flabby direction. Mendes took us back to 1999 with SF.

    But is Mendes fully to blame for that? Craig has said all along that his intention has been to get Bond back on to more traditional ground claiming that with CR they couldn't do it because of Austin Powers. But that the intention has been to slowly get back there.

    With this is mind the trajectory for Bond 25 would suggest more of the 'trad' elements that made an appearance in Spectre.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    In SP, Craig was also in my opinion best in those (actually very strong) scenes at L'americain and with Mr. White. I'd add his Q scenes, too which worked very well for me plus the one with Moneypenny at his appartement. The rest was ... often strange.

    I found the sofa gag silly - the DB10 stuff ok and mildly funny ... but Craig just isn't Roger Moore ... but those scenes were written and directed as if he were. It's just not the James Bond Craig developed throughout 2006-2012. If I would have any say I would not go that route anymore.

    I am a huge fan of Craig's interpretation of the Character - but I hope they let him play to his strengths again. I found no relationship in SP believeable (not in the PTS, not with Belucci, not with Maddy). I am no director and cannot properly describe why those scenes did not work. I can only say seducing Solange, Fields or Severine were believeable for me - it just never felt awkward but in SP it did.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,505
    Yes, @SeanCraig, they really tried to force DC's Bond into a mold that doesn't suit him. He can't do one liners. He's the guy who swoops in and nonchalantly tells a hotel concierge that they're teachers on sabbatical and have just won the lottery-- dead pan and dry. That's his humour. And to me, it's far more sophisticated than the bad one-liners they gave him in SF and SP.

    I did like the style exhibited in the PTS in SP (probably the only time Mendes staging worked with everything else (music, costume, script), and I did love the scene with Bellucci, but the entire Maddy love interest was off-putting.

    I've mentioned this before, but apart from there being no real chemistry with DC and LS, the script really doesn't let their relationship organically grow within the story. It was a plot-beat that was done with a shrug-- well, I guess after the Hinx fight Bond nails her, 'cause... well, that's as good a spot as any... and, oh yeah, after he shags her, they'll be madly in love with each other 'cause.... well 'cause we want Bond to get the girl this time and ride off into the suns- I mean sunrise...
  • Posts: 1,162
    peter wrote: »
    Face it fellas, as much as you kick the shit out of Babs, Cubby made some seriously stupid decisions-- thank Dog that people walked him back off the ledge...

    He absolutely did. But isn't that just the basic problem of the franchise? That he had no coherent artistic vision (and - since he was a merchant first and foremost- probably no talent in this regard either)and so does his daughter.
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    Don't even try Connery in TB or DAF. It will only result in failure imho. Connery could scale up and down the curve with considerable ease. Unbeatable.
    I personally don't agree with that. If the writing is genius and well-structured, and scenes competently directed on point to what the script wants to portray, then I believe it can be easily pulled off. Craig wasn't the problem, in my opinion. The writing and directing departments were. I believe Craig can competently deliver that TB Connery humour.

    I really don't think so. He simply lacks the range and bandwidth to do so.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,505
    I wouldn’t agree @noSolaceleft ; Cubby had plenty of talent as a producer. He and Harry kept the machine going, finding and hiring the talent to see their vision through, altering with the times (for better or worse, but being stagnant and stubborn, with no change, would have killed Bond decades ago); but after twenty plus years essentially running only one business (the James Bond business), Cubby was bound to come up with some terrible ideas.

    It’s the nature of the business, it’s the nature of being human and fallible (we can’t come up with great ideas and solutions 100% of the time).

    As for Babs, until you’ve run a successful film franchise for twenty plus years, with there no sign of it not continuing its successes, I think we can assume she’s a savvy film producer and businesswoman. You may not personally like the direction she’s taken, which is your right, but more people in this world flood to her product time and again (and she is just as guilty of poor choices as anyone else; trick is, like her Dad, she gets her product more right than wrong. SP was a misstep. Lets see how she responds— not having Waltz back is a strong indicator that she’s taking steps in improving on her last outing)
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    For those who suggest Blofeld might return but played by another actor (regarding the 'tradition' quote from Waltz): isn't it odd that they initially had an option with Waltz to return, only later to be told it isn't in the tradition to have one actor play Blofeld multiple times?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,505
    I would imagine that Blofeld will not be in B25 (unless they have a change of heart and bring back Waltz)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    For those who suggest Blofeld might return but played by another actor (regarding the 'tradition' quote from Waltz): isn't it odd that they initially had an option with Waltz to return, only later to be told it isn't in the tradition to have one actor play Blofeld multiple times?
    It is a bit strange, if that was what Waltz meant. The reporter finished the line if I'm not mistaken. He shouldn't have. He should have asked Waltz to clarify what he said (but he was trying to get as far away from there as possible).

    --
    RE: Babs: I'm sure she's a competent producer. I did much prefer the output during her father's time, but I can't honestly expect her to do things the same way. As I said previously, my biggest wish for B25 is that she take charge (like Dench M) and get everything in shape. Most importantly, keep her lead boy within his comfort zone. I don't want to see him trying to be what he is not again, and his 'high' comments have me just a little concerned about hubris and ego.
  • Posts: 1,453
    peter wrote: »
    I wouldn’t agree @noSolaceleft ; Cubby had plenty of talent as a producer. He and Harry kept the machine going, finding and hiring the talent to see their vision through, altering with the times (for better or worse, but being stagnant and stubborn, with no change, would have killed Bond decades ago); but after twenty plus years essentially running only one business (the James Bond business), Cubby was bound to come up with some terrible ideas.

    It’s the nature of the business, it’s the nature of being human and fallible (we can’t come up with great ideas and solutions 100% of the time).

    As for Babs, until you’ve run a successful film franchise for twenty plus years, with there no sign of it not continuing its successes, I think we can assume she’s a savvy film producer and businesswoman. You may not personally like the direction she’s taken, which is your right, but more people in this world flood to her product time and again (and she is just as guilty of poor choices as anyone else; trick is, like her Dad, she gets her product more right than wrong. SP was a misstep. Lets see how she responds— not having Waltz back is a strong indicator that she’s taking steps in improving on her last outing)

    100% agree with you. Having worked with both Cubby and Barbara way back on LTK, I can tell you everyone hugely respected them. To keep a franchise going for 55 years is simply astonishing and I think some fans on this forum underestimate what an achievement that is and what talent and, as you say, savvy it takes. I also agree that this news about Waltz indicates they are determined to improve on SP - although I must say I find a lot to enjoy and admire in that film - for me, they failed to give Blofeld a strong and dramatically exciting master-plan and as a result the last third (last act if u like) doesn't really have anywhere to go.
  • Posts: 9,771
    Actors lie all the time I will wait till a year and one month from now (which would likely be when we get the big press conference) to see who is will be the villain.

    personally if they will ignore the plot threads it wouldn't be the first time in fact Quantum of Solace is the only film that picks up right after the end of the last one in the Craig era instead of all the loose ends just being dropped

    to prove my point

    Quantum of Solace ends with Bond interrogating Yussef and is about to get the rest of Quantum and....
    Skyfall Picks up with some unrelated mission and no mention of Quantum
    Skyfall ends with the New M giving Bond a mission and saying there is plenty of work to be done..
    Spectre who knows what that mission was it certantly isn't mentioned

    So The Property of A Lady (or whatever Bond 25 is titled) doesn't pick up where Spectre ends it won't be the first time.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,505
    @ColonelSun, what an experience that must’ve been! I’d love to chat with you some time (off these threads) about the projects you’re presently working on. I assume you’re in London?... Wayne mark Godfrey seems to be killing it— have you pitched your projects to his company?
  • Posts: 11,119
    Does it hurt my feelings that -most likely- Christoph Waltz won't return? Since I am such a staunch defender of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and the Blofeld-character, and a defender of continuing the storyline that has been set in "SPECTRE"? Shall I be honest to you guys?

    Not in the slightest. I take the news for granted, and of we go again to November 8th of 2019 :-).
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited October 2017 Posts: 984
    Admittedly its a little trite, but there could be an easy explanation for a new actor as Blofeld, whilst writing out the 'foster brother' nonsense.

    Putting it simply, Waltz could have not been the real Blofeld from the start.

    Once Denbigh informed the rest of Spectre that Bond was on the case, the real Blofeld decided to use Oberhauser as a decoy, to mess with Bond's head and also to shield himself.

    Im not saying its a great idea, but it would probably work in the convoluted logic the Craig films seem to exist in.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Admittedly its a little trite, but there could be an easy explanation for a new actor as Blofeld, whilst writing out the 'foster brother' nonsense.

    Putting it simply, Waltz could have not been the real Blofeld from the start.

    Once Denbigh informed the rest of Spectre that Bond was on the case, the real Blofeld decided to use Oberhauser as a decoy, to mess with Bond's head and also to shield himself.

    Im not saying its a great idea, but it would probably work in the convoluted logic the Craig films seem to exist in.
    It's an interesting idea, but then why reveal oneself as Blofeld to begin with? This is what Oberhauser did during the torture scene and it was entirely unnecessary (if he wasn't him). Surely Bond was already crapping his pants enough knowing he was about to die at the hands of his old 'brother' who authored all his pain. The Blofeld revelation was entirely superfluous to Bond if Oberhauser really wasn't the 'big bad' of Spectre.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited October 2017 Posts: 1,984
    I'm not at all a defender of Waltz's Blofeld, but I'm not sure what to think of this news. On the one hand, I am regretful that he didn't get a chance to redeem his portrayal of the character, knowing what he has been able to do in the past with good material. If he can salvage Blofeld it'd be for the good of the entire franchise as well as the next movie.

    On the other hand, this cuts our losses and spares us the chance of further tear-inducing Blofeld backstory elements and points to Craig's Bond heading in the right direction again.
  • Posts: 1,453
    peter wrote: »
    @ColonelSun, what an experience that must’ve been! I’d love to chat with you some time (off these threads) about the projects you’re presently working on. I assume you’re in London?... Wayne mark Godfrey seems to be killing it— have you pitched your projects to his company?

    I'm London based. Just beginning casting on a feature film I've written and will direct next year and have an original TV series close to locking down. Not pitched to W M Godfrey. Have you?

    Back to Bond, I was in the cutting rooms when I was on LTK and still remain very close to the old team. It was a great experience - and I have a few interesting (and funny) tales which have never come to light. Message me and I'll tell you a story or two.

    Re: Bond 25, I am beginning to suspect Waltz has been re-cast.
  • Posts: 1,453
    peter wrote: »
    @ColonelSun, what an experience that must’ve been! I’d love to chat with you some time (off these threads) about the projects you’re presently working on. I assume you’re in London?... Wayne mark Godfrey seems to be killing it— have you pitched your projects to his company?

    Sorry, what am I saying - W M Godfrey is Fyzz. I was in their London offices re: a project last week.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I also agree that this news about Waltz indicates they are determined to improve on SP

    Yeah because it was all Waltz's fault.

    He wasn't great but he wasn't terrible either. But if EON think just recasting Blofeld will resolve everything then we are in very deep trouble.

    P&W already back and if Mendes said he was up for it I'd be surprised if he wasn't welcomed back with open arms but as long as we bin Waltz everything going to be fine? Really?

    A clean slate by recasting and getting, say, Nolan in to write and direct would suggest a determination to improve on SP.

    The current situation suggests they are just desperate to milk one more film out of Dan.
  • Posts: 1,031
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I also agree that this news about Waltz indicates they are determined to improve on SP

    Yeah because it was all Waltz's fault.

    He wasn't great but he wasn't terrible either. But if EON think just recasting Blofeld will resolve everything then we are in very deep trouble.

    P&W already back and if Mendes said he was up for it I'd be surprised if he wasn't welcomed back with open arms but as long as we bin Waltz everything going to be fine? Really?

    A clean slate by recasting and getting, say, Nolan in to write and direct would suggest a determination to improve on SP.

    The current situation suggests they are just desperate to milk one more film out of Dan.

    As Barry Norman would say, 'And why not?'
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I also agree that this news about Waltz indicates they are determined to improve on SP

    Yeah because it was all Waltz's fault.

    He wasn't great but he wasn't terrible either. But if EON think just recasting Blofeld will resolve everything then we are in very deep trouble.

    P&W already back and if Mendes said he was up for it I'd be surprised if he wasn't welcomed back with open arms but as long as we bin Waltz everything going to be fine? Really?

    A clean slate by recasting and getting, say, Nolan in to write and direct would suggest a determination to improve on SP.

    The current situation suggests they are just desperate to milk one more film out of Dan.
    +1. As I said though, the MGM fiasco may be precipitating this. They may have no choice, as a longer term strategic vision cannot be executed at this time. If they need a stub film to boost revenues, why not use Craig. It's not like he's all that busy right now anyway.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited October 2017 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I also agree that this news about Waltz indicates they are determined to improve on SP

    Yeah because it was all Waltz's fault.

    He wasn't great but he wasn't terrible either. But if EON think just recasting Blofeld will resolve everything then we are in very deep trouble.

    P&W already back and if Mendes said he was up for it I'd be surprised if he wasn't welcomed back with open arms but as long as we bin Waltz everything going to be fine? Really?

    A clean slate by recasting and getting, say, Nolan in to write and direct would suggest a determination to improve on SP.

    The current situation suggests they are just desperate to milk one more film out of Dan.
    +1. As I said though, the MGM fiasco may be precipitating this. They may have no choice, as a longer term strategic vision cannot be executed at this time. If they need a stub film to boost revenues, why not use Craig. It's not like he's all that busy right now anyway.

    Agreed. There's such a dearth of credible candidates for leading man's they would weaken their hand considerably if they let Craig go now.
    Dennison wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I also agree that this news about Waltz indicates they are determined to improve on SP

    Yeah because it was all Waltz's fault.

    He wasn't great but he wasn't terrible either. But if EON think just recasting Blofeld will resolve everything then we are in very deep trouble.

    P&W already back and if Mendes said he was up for it I'd be surprised if he wasn't welcomed back with open arms but as long as we bin Waltz everything going to be fine? Really?

    A clean slate by recasting and getting, say, Nolan in to write and direct would suggest a determination to improve on SP.

    The current situation suggests they are just desperate to milk one more film out of Dan.

    As Barry Norman would say, 'And why not?'

    Didn't he state that he never actually said that?
  • Posts: 1,453
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I also agree that this news about Waltz indicates they are determined to improve on SP

    Yeah because it was all Waltz's fault.

    He wasn't great but he wasn't terrible either. But if EON think just recasting Blofeld will resolve everything then we are in very deep trouble.

    P&W already back and if Mendes said he was up for it I'd be surprised if he wasn't welcomed back with open arms but as long as we bin Waltz everything going to be fine? Really?

    A clean slate by recasting and getting, say, Nolan in to write and direct would suggest a determination to improve on SP.

    The current situation suggests they are just desperate to milk one more film out of Dan.

    Yes, agree, it certainly wasn't Waltz's fault (the script didn't give him much to get to grips with), that's not really what I wanted to imply, but if he was difficult to work with etc., that might have contributed to Eon moving away from him. Even if Blofeld doesn't reappear in Bond 25, it's very likely he will return in a later film, and then he will most certainly be played by another actor. So, one way or another, Waltz has been dropped.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    I think Waltz is playing games again.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 4,619
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Re: Bond 25, I am beginning to suspect Waltz has been re-cast.
    I'm beginning to suspect Blofeld will never appear in a Bond film again. Blofeld is simply not a very interesting villain, and does not even have the name recognition many other main villains (such as Vader) in the movie world do. The only scenario in which I could see them using Blofeld again is a scenario where the director insist on using him.
  • Posts: 1,453
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Re: Bond 25, I am beginning to suspect Waltz has been re-cast.
    I'm beginning to suspect Blofeld will never appear in a Bond film again.

    They spent a long time trying to get the Blofeld/Spectre rights back. I'm certain they will return to that well at some point, if not in Bond 25.

Sign In or Register to comment.