› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…12211222122412261227…2507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm presently watching SP. I believe the criticism is warranted. The dialogue in this film is bloody awful.

    "Of course...Mr. White!!"

    Never gonna let that one go.
    I was going to mention that beauty earlier after @mattjoes post of the 'grieving' line but didn't want to rub it in. It's really very pedestrian all round.

    "So James, why did you come?" "I came here to kill you" "And I thought you came here to die"

    "Women!!!!! Children!!!!!!"

    Oh dear. Hopefully Babs realizes sooner rather than later that it's time to clean shop and start fresh in the writing dept. I realize they are the loyal family types but sometimes you have to cut the deadwood.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    bondjames wrote: »
    @haserot, regarding control - wasn't that Cubby's approach too? That's how they ran things in the past. Tight. With a vision. Less artsy fartsy and more production line. The result we got reflected that. What we're getting now is a bit different, and the approach is different too, with far more actor/director control. I preferred the old way, but I suppose we won't see that again without a shift in 'control' (pun intended).

    i am not sure... the style in which they made the movies was keeping with the time - so it's not like they sacrificed art or anything for the sake production... i just think back then, there were far less directors who fancied themselves "auteurs" - there wasn't the independent movement like you see today.. plus, there was more of an emphasis on shooting in studios, which if you look at those early Bond movies - think about how much was filmed on a studio set vs how much was actually filmed on location... nowadays, there is a lot more location shooting - which always makes things tougher because of all the red tape you have to go through to clear shooting schedules with cities..
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @haserot, regarding control - wasn't that Cubby's approach too? That's how they ran things in the past. Tight. With a vision. Less artsy fartsy and more production line. The result we got reflected that. What we're getting now is a bit different, and the approach is different too, with far more actor/director control. I preferred the old way, but I suppose we won't see that again without a shift in 'control' (pun intended).

    i am not sure... the style in which they made the movies was keeping with the time - so it's not like they sacrificed art or anything for the sake production... i just think back then, there were far less directors who fancied themselves "auteurs" - there wasn't the independent movement like you see today.. plus, there was more of an emphasis on shooting in studios, which if you look at those early Bond movies - think about how much was filmed on a studio set vs how much was actually filmed on location... nowadays, there is a lot more location shooting - which always makes things tougher because of all the red tape you have to go through to clear shooting schedules with cities..
    Yes. you're probably right in that it was just a function of the time in which they were making the films. I still don't think Cubby would have allowed as much control to rest with the actor or director as Babs has given Craig and Mendes on the last two though. Regarding locations, yes perhaps there is more location shooting these days, but I have to say they made better use of the locations before. The films used to breathe and feel almost like travelogues. These days even when they visit somewhere interesting we don't really get to absorb the atmosphere of the location. I'm thinking Tangiers in SP in particular.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes. you're probably right in that it was just a function of the time in which they were making the films. I still don't think Cubby would have allowed as much control to rest with the actor or director as Babs has given Craig and Mendes on the last two though. Regarding locations, yes perhaps there is more location shooting these days, but I have to say they made better use of the locations before. The films used to breathe and feel almost like travelogues. These days even when they visit somewhere interesting we don't really get to absorb the atmosphere of the location. I'm thinking Tangiers in SP in particular.

    about Cubby and control... no he probably wouldn't have - but he did cater to Roger's more lighthearted sensibilities, and he and Rog had about as great of a working relationship as Babs/MGW have now with Craig.. so never say never...

    about locations, i completely agree.. i think they globetrot a little too much in the films now... they travel to about 5, 6 or 7 major locations now, and they all run together... and don't get me wrong, i don't mind multiple locations.. but look at QOS vs OP... i think moving forward, they should really explore limiting the major locations.. no more than 3 per film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    HASEROT wrote: »
    about locations, i completely agree.. i think they globetrot a little too much in the films now... they travel to about 5, 6 or 7 major locations now, and they all run together... and don't get me wrong, i don't mind multiple locations.. but look at QOS vs OP... i think moving forward, they should really explore limiting the major locations.. no more than 3 per film.
    I completely agree. Growing up I learned so much about other countries and cultures through the early Bond films. In fact, my interest in travel came from these films. It's something special when done well.
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    bondjames wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    about locations, i completely agree.. i think they globetrot a little too much in the films now... they travel to about 5, 6 or 7 major locations now, and they all run together... and don't get me wrong, i don't mind multiple locations.. but look at QOS vs OP... i think moving forward, they should really explore limiting the major locations.. no more than 3 per film.
    I completely agree. Growing up I learned so much about other countries and cultures through the early Bond films. In fact, my interest in travel came from these films. It's something special when done well.

    It was exactly the same for me. The cinematic Bond used to be a cultural icon, unfortunately that has changed. Don't know why they feel the need to have Bond hop from one place to another through the course of the film. If we get a good, engaging story, the general audience won't mind if Bond stays pretty much put. It's a pity they can't' make these films like they used to be able to. Oh man, what went wrong..?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Regarding locations, I do wish they stop focusing on London or England. We've had way too much of it in the last two films.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,265
    It worked much better in SF in context.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    FoxRox wrote: »
    It worked much better in SF in context.
    I agree. For SF, London was convenient because the story had to be set there for the main part. But, for Spectre, that London finale was completely unnecessary. They could've set the whole Nine Eyes HQ in China, or somewhere in Switzerland (where all the political summits and meetings mainly take place).
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I am at a cross roads
    I was thinking today, when I went into spectre, I was too close to the production and I knew too much, I had seen the trailer a hundred times and so nothing in the film suprised me. So I was thinking for bond 25, I should log off this website, never look at any bond news, and not watch the trailer.
    Then imagine how excited I will be when I go into the film not knowing anything, the cast, the locations, the action, is it a continuation of spectre. I would go in completely blind, I wouldn’t even know who the director was.

    Just something I was thinking about today, I don’t think I’ll be able to do it but I really want to.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    We've all been there, mate. We've all been there.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm presently watching SP. I believe the criticism is warranted. The dialogue in this film is bloody awful.

    0RX3zXt.png
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,265
    The one thing that was kind of neat about it is the fact that the finale is never really in London in the Bond films. But it was overused in SP. Its larger use works better in SF with the story elements.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,326
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    I am at a cross roads
    I was thinking today, when I went into spectre, I was too close to the production and I knew too much, I had seen the trailer a hundred times and so nothing in the film suprised me. So I was thinking for bond 25, I should log off this website, never look at any bond news, and not watch the trailer.
    Then imagine how excited I will be when I go into the film not knowing anything, the cast, the locations, the action, is it a continuation of spectre. I would go in completely blind, I wouldn’t even know who the director was.

    Just something I was thinking about today, I don’t think I’ll be able to do it but I really want to.

    I often try that with most films not just Bond, unfortunately with so many social media outlets, streaming services and TV it's near impossible to avoid everything.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2017 Posts: 15,423
    FoxRox wrote: »
    The one thing that was kind of neat about it is the fact that the finale is never really in London in the Bond films. But it was overused in SP. Its larger use works better in SF with the story elements.
    Exactly. SP's London finale was forced in a rather complicated story. They should've gone with the tradition and set the whole climactic finale at Blofeld's lair instead of spending quarter the budget to make a big world record explosion. SF had the plot key element that was M. So, the threat was domestic and internal. And besides it's a one-off. In the case of Nine Eyes, it never had to be in England. SP shouldn't have repeated that London material from SF.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Let alone the Moors for 18 minutes. =))
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,265
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    The one thing that was kind of neat about it is the fact that the finale is never really in London in the Bond films. But it was overused in SP. Its larger use works better in SF with the story elements.
    Exactly. SP's London finale was forced in a rather complicated story. They should've gone with the tradition and set the whole climactic finale at Blofeld's lair instead of spending quarter the budget to make a big world record explosion. SF had the plot key element that was M. So, the threat was domestic and internal. And besides it's a one-off. In the case of Nine Eyes, it never had to be in England. SP shouldn't have repeated that London material from SF.

    It's definitely one of many reasons why I find SF to be superior to SP. I'm not as harsh as most others here are on SP, but it definitely feels like a far inferior SF at many points. Too much is forced - the stuff in England, the love story, the connection with Blofeld and Bond, etc.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    Let alone the Moors for 18 minutes. =))
    Thomas Newman and Sam Mendes thought it was artistic. ;)
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    The one thing that was kind of neat about it is the fact that the finale is never really in London in the Bond films. But it was overused in SP. Its larger use works better in SF with the story elements.
    Exactly. SP's London finale was forced in a rather complicated story. They should've gone with the tradition and set the whole climactic finale at Blofeld's lair instead of spending quarter the budget to make a big world record explosion. SF had the plot key element that was M. So, the threat was domestic and internal. And besides it's a one-off. In the case of Nine Eyes, it never had to be in England. SP shouldn't have repeated that London material from SF.

    It's definitely one of many reasons why I find SF to be superior to SP. I'm not as harsh as most others here are on SP, but it definitely feels like a far inferior SF at many points. Too much is forced - the stuff in England, the love story, the connection with Blofeld and Bond, etc.
    Agreed. I'll lay it out there as it is, SF is a better film than SP because it did know where it was going (but that didn't stop it from having an insensible story and a bunch of plot holes, anyone saying it didn't have plot holes is merely covering up for its trophy). SP was just a collection of homage scenes that were taken and the story was developed based on those scenes, which is why it falls flat both as a film and a Bond film. But, in spite of all that, I like SP better than SF by a wide margin.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,265
    I remembered you didn't care for SF. There are a fair amount of members who don't really like SF and rank it closer to the bottom. It was immediately one of my favorites and has stayed that way since its release; I think it's a perfect blend of honoring the past and also looking ahead. SP fell back on the tropes without really making things fresh or exciting. Everything felt too easy, whereas I always felt like things were a challenge for Craig in his first 3. That's a big reason why SP has fallen in my ranking a bit.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Back when SP was released, I thought it was the best thing ever in a while. But, that's mainly because we had Bond doing his thing again and ending up triumphant in the face of his wrongdoer. It tried to respect the films of old, but laid too much of that "respect" and homage it felt like an underling kissing the back end of the rear of a superior to get a (p)raise. When it comes to homage and anniversary films, I'll take DAD over the other ones.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,265
    I loved SP when I first saw it, like I did SF, but the more I watched it and thought about it recently the more I became disenchanted with it. I still would say I like it, but it's probably Craig's weakest and simply too safe. I think several scenes are very strong (PTS, SPECTRE meeting, Mr. White reunion, train fight to name some), but as a whole it's average in many areas. I still prefer it (and SF) over DAD. People will say DAD is more exciting or enjoyable, but that's still subjective, because it's neither to me over any of Craig's movies. It may have plenty of action and "excitement", but to me it's still a drag in most parts.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2017 Posts: 15,423
    I completely understand where you're coming from regarding DAD. I was watching Kingsman: The Golden Circle recently (purchased a digital version on iTunes) and I found many elements in it to be very cringeworthy while preferring it over my first viewing of the film. It flashed across my mind why people find DAD intolerable. But, viewing it from my perspective, it's the most comic-book-ish of the Bonds, the Ice Palace was as extravagant as the 1960s spy films/television series and EuroSpy movies that came which felt like a throw back. It was a YOLT/UNCLE/Avengers type of a Bond film that sung its chores and celebrated the franchise the way it was supposed to be for its time. But, let's be glad it didn't go as far to adapting to the casual cool of its time when pop culture was going down the hill. To me, DAD is a very colourful and enjoyable Bond film. Its watchability is quite high. I don't feel that excitement for the Craig films, save for QoS.

    Regarding SP, you're right on all fronts.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,326
    I remember saying to a mate after watching SF at the cinema for the first time... 'thats either the best or the worst Bond film I have seen'

    Years later SF is one of the best shot Bond films, though so much of the content I don't like.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    True. SF is one of the best looking films in the franchise. The cinematography is rather superb. One of the highlights of the film I actually love is the silhouette fistfight between Bond and Patrice.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,265
    There’s hardly any of SF I don’t like. I really like the story, the locations, Craig, Judi Dench, the villain, the title song/credits, etc. It all works for me pretty much. A lot of people aren’t as crazy about the story, villain, or whatever else, but I though it was all so good. And it does nearly everything better than its successor.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Back when SP was released, I thought it was the best thing ever in a while. But, that's mainly because we had Bond doing his thing again and ending up triumphant in the face of his wrongdoer. It tried to respect the films of old, but laid too much of that "respect" and homage it felt like an underling kissing the back end of the rear of a superior to get a (p)raise. When it comes to homage and anniversary films, I'll take DAD over the other ones.

    My thoughts exactly.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited December 2017 Posts: 732
    "Walecs“ wrote:
    My opinion is that OHMSS is the best Bond movie ever made, it doesn't mean I repeat that in every single post of mine. He's been saying that for two years already, if not more.
    Many things are said about this movie and some I am just not sure I really want or can believe. But what sounds absolutely believeable to me and you see and feel it when you watch the movie is that evey department upped their game because they could no longer rely on the star power of Connery. The film is really awesome in most areas that in the end the lead role could be played by a non-actor (who also did his very best and most of the time that‘s more than enough)
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    I remember saying to a mate after watching SF at the cinema for the first time... 'thats either the best or the worst Bond film I have seen'

    Years later SF is one of the best shot Bond films, though so much of the content I don't like.

    SF still remains one of my favorite Bond movies since I saw it in theater... i thought the direction was good - the cinematography was jaw dropping.. like @ClarkDevlin, one of my favorite moments is that fight between Bond and Patrice - plus the entire build up to it, with Bond stalking Patrice - the direction, music, cinematography and editing were on point, and it's one of my favorite Bond moments ever for that reason.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Agreed. That scene was rather good.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited December 2017 Posts: 5,767
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    We have had Jinx and Hinx, perhaps we will get Lynx or Minx from P&W next
    Who says it´s the writers at all who decide the character names? I find it pretty pretentious how some people here claim they know exactly which bit from the script is by whom.



    mattjoes wrote: »
    How can you talk like this? Can't you see I'm grieving?
    bondjames wrote: »
    "So James, why did you come?" "I came here to kill you" "And I thought you came here to die"
    I honestly don´t know what´s supposed to be wrong with those lines. Especially the one with Bellucci, I found Bond´s "No" very good.


    These two on the other hand:
    "Of course...Mr. White!!"
    "Women!!!!! Children!!!!!!"
    were offensively bad. But then again, the whole Mr White bit appears as if shoehorned in, and rather forcefully. Perhaps the part was planned before for another character, who really had a softer side and hadn´t done things like White had done with Vesper.
Sign In or Register to comment.